Matrix Games Forums

I don't see the markers on the map you posted.

ORIGINAL: Sangeli

I don't see the markers on the map you posted.

You could have just told him the plan looked brilliant

I was waiting for him to notice... I do that too often myself LOL!!

This China defence will fail badly for the reasons I have given previously in various AARs and threads.  And as always the advice will be dismissed, intentionally misinterpreted and selective straw men set up to discredit it.
 

• No MLR can succeed in China
• The wrong metric is always employed to assess the success/failure of Allied operations in China
• Most players are always only comfortable repeating conventional wisdom and what has transpired previously

Except for sieges and the Western/Italian Fronts in WWI, land warfare is not static but based on maneouvre  So many players treat AE as an air warfare game they miss this essential point.  If they played AE as the real PTO was handled, they would realise it is a naval game and any naval man worth his salt knows that naval warfare is dynamic, not static.  The same applies to land warfare, especially at the continental level.
 
Alfred 

ORIGINAL: Alfred
No MLR can succeed in China

What's MLR?

ORIGINAL: Sangeli

ORIGINAL: Alfred
No MLR can succeed in China

What's MLR?

Main Line of Resistance.

ORIGINAL: Alfred
This China defence will fail badly for the reasons I have given previously in various AARs and threads.  And as always the advice will be dismissed, intentionally misinterpreted and selective straw men set up to discredit it.

The search engine on the Matrix forum is awful so please reiterate your argument or post a link to a thread where you have discussed it. Frankly I've had great success with the tactics being outlined by Panjack but I am only one sample point.

ORIGINAL: Sangeli

ORIGINAL: Alfred
This China defence will fail badly for the reasons I have given previously in various AARs and threads.  And as always the advice will be dismissed, intentionally misinterpreted and selective straw men set up to discredit it.

The search engine on the Matrix forum is awful so please reiterate your argument or post a link to a thread where you have discussed it. Frankly I've had great success with the tactics being outlined by Panjack but I am only one sample point.

Alfred does not usually detail what he thinks you should do - he plants the seed and lets you decide what to do differently.
On rare occasions when no one is guessing what he is implying, he will come right out and say it -as when he alerted AFBs that there are a lot of vulnerable bases worth a lot of VPs in Alaska/Northern Canada.
Alfred's last post that I saw on China was that all this obsessing with stacking, forts and MLRs was futile and we should think of different strategies instead. It is still up to us to decide how to go about it.

Alfred: I hope I have fairly described your approach and intentions. Please jump in if not so.

ORIGINAL: Sangeli
I don't see the markers on the map you posted.

Oh, no! Tossed the image up rushing out the door for a day sitting in a jury pool at the local courthouse. I must have upload the wrong image (or the censors did their job).

Here is what I intended. I also replaced the image above.

ORIGINAL: Alfred
This China defence will fail badly for the reasons I have given previously in various AARs and threads.  And as always the advice will be dismissed, intentionally misinterpreted and selective straw men set up to discredit it.

• No MLR can succeed in China
• The wrong metric is always employed to assess the success/failure of Allied operations in China
• Most players are always only comfortable repeating conventional wisdom and what has transpired previously

Except for sieges and the Western/Italian Fronts in WWI, land warfare is not static but based on maneouvre  So many players treat AE as an air warfare game they miss this essential point.  If they played AE as the real PTO was handled, they would realise it is a naval game and any naval man worth his salt knows that naval warfare is dynamic, not static.  The same applies to land warfare, especially at the continental level.

Alfred 

Hi Alfred,

I appreciate your criticism and perspective.

I've tried to build a defense in China what was NOT static, but perhaps it falls far short of what you think is necessarily. (I must admit, though, that just getting the Chinese units somewhere where they don't get immediately slaughtered has taxed my abilities!)

If you don't mind, could you provide a bit more on what your perspective is about how best to deal with China? I understand your general gist, but I'm not knowledgeable enough yet about the game to know the practical implications of your suggestion. I'd even greatly appreciate a simple link to another AAR.

I've ready learned much from what folks have generously offered in this AAR and, as a result, I have become a slightly better player. I look forward to any criticism you might offer that can help me become just a bit better player than I otherwise might be. I'm not opposed at all to any "tough love" you might be willing to administer!

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy
...Alfred's last post that I saw on China was that all this obsessing with stacking, forts and MLRs was futile and we should think of different strategies instead. It is still up to us to decide how to go about it.

I presume what I'm doing in China is futile; I've come embrace the futility!

But perhaps that is just because I'm mired in the "conventional" wisdom. (Although, it must be said, sometimes the conventional wisdom is correct, and the result of meaningful practical experience. One can't just assume it is correct OR that it is necessarily wrong.) I do know, however, that my defenses in China are a LOT better now then they otherwise would have been because of the comments made by other people here.

Some hypothetical defense of China that dominates the current "best practice" might exist, but until we get a glimpse of this superior defense it had the same status as a unicorn. Now perhaps someone has this unicorn in his backyard, and I'm not demanding to see the unicorn. Maybe just a photo of unicorn droppings would be enough for others to know it is worth looking, in the own backyard, for their own hidden unicorn.

I wonder, though, if the constraints the Allied player faces in China don't admit to the discovery of anything much better than what some people now use. Donkeys might be best we can get, no matter how much we wish we had unicorns.

ORIGINAL: Sangeli
...In real life small Chinese units could certain disrupt Japanese supply lines which were prone to being overstretched, it's not really the case in this game. Only in very extreme situations will the Japanese struggle to get supply to front line units in China. Your ideas on supply are probably how it should be but the game just doesn't work that way.

Again very helpful. Is the way it works in the game is that IF supply exists it will find a way to get where LCUs need it (regardless of what supply lines are cut)?

Ok now I can evaluate your post

ORIGINAL: Panjack
The yellow lines, with numbers, indicate where the current strong points are planned. For strong point #1 (ST1) I also indicated a bit more the details of how forces are, or will soon be, arrayed. The lowercase t indicates where a tripwire unit will sit. Having this unit will permit units behind it to be in rest mode until an attack occurs at t. Further an attack at t will reveal some information what is coming. And, of course, it will give an extra couple of day's advance notice before at attack on a strong hold, which can only help in defending the strong hold that will come under attack.

The lower case z, behind the lines, indicates where a unit will sit along a supply line. If a moderately strong Japanese units attacks the tripwire unit, then the unit will move into the mountains at the upper case Z. The function of this unit is to threaten the lines of communication of Japanese units if they break through at strong point #1. Notice that a unit at Z can move to cut off the lines of communication for two different Japanese advances. Although Q-Ball might be able to see this unit (who knows what recon he'll up in the mountains or behind the lines) getting rid of it might require him sending lots up units up into the mountains for what might be an expensive foray. So if he sees it, good. If he doesn't see it, better.

Interesting idea but marching from z to Z is very time consuming and puts your units off the road network which should be avoided when possible. This is one of those times you can avoid it I think; a Japanese maneuver to bypass #1 will require moving across two hexes without the roads through bad terrain. Should the Japanese get strong units in Z it will take them no less than 15 days (3 miles per day in mountains) to get from Z to z. That is a lot of time for you to make adjustments to prepare for it. Meanwhile z itself is very defendable sitting in 2x terrain and behind a river.

ORIGINAL: Panjack
I plan similar sorts of defenses near the other strong points, 2-5.

It's worth noting that no two pieces of real estate have the same configuration of roads and terrain which can often mean vastly different approaches to an effective defensive strategy. Like #5 for example. The road from #5 to the next road junction is a long one entirely along 3x terrain. You can defend basically any point in this line. And in fact the further back your defenses are here the closer the line is to your reserves and the further the Japanese are from their rail roads.

Also, the best reserve positions are at road junctions where a unit can go in 3+ directions at decent speed. If that area doesn't have a good road junction then the next best option for placing reserves is usually right behind the front line. That also prevents the Japanese from just marching around your strong points and encircling them directly.

The last thing I'll say is GTFO of Loyang ASAP. No garrison? No problem! Or rather Japanese problem [:D]

ORIGINAL: Sangeli
Interesting idea but marching from z to Z is very time consuming and puts your units off the road network which should be avoided when possible. This is one of those times you can avoid it I think; a Japanese maneuver to bypass #1 will require moving across two hexes without the roads through bad terrain. Should the Japanese get strong units in Z it will take them no less than 15 days (3 miles per day in mountains) to get from Z to z. That is a lot of time for you to make adjustments to prepare for it. Meanwhile z itself is very defendable sitting in 2x terrain and behind a river.

That makes sense.

ORIGINAL: Sangeli
It's worth noting that no two pieces of real estate have the same configuration of roads and terrain which can often mean vastly different approaches to an effective defensive strategy. Like #5 for example. The road from #5 to the next road junction is a long one entirely along 3x terrain. You can defend basically any point in this line. And in fact the further back your defenses are here the closer the line is to your reserves and the further the Japanese are from their rail roads.

I was wondering if defending further back made sense. On the one hand, defending further back is ceding land to Japan, something I feel concerned about, but doing so creates a higher chance that defenses hold well. I'll try to move my defenses back.

ORIGINAL: Sangeli
Also, the best reserve positions are at road junctions where a unit can go in 3+ directions at decent speed. If that area doesn't have a good road junction then the next best option for placing reserves is usually right behind the front line. That also prevents the Japanese from just marching around your strong points and encircling them directly.

I was thinking that was the case. I'll move up those units too far behind the lines but not in good places to move elsewhere if needed.

ORIGINAL: Sangeli
The last thing I'll say is GTFO of Loyang ASAP. No garrison? No problem! Or rather Japanese problem [:D]

Hey, I been trying to do that for a long time! Q-Ball keeps bombing my units and they seem to end up moving a mile a day because of that. I thought I'd defend briefly that dot base to the NW of Loyang, and some of these units ended up in Loyang, and I didn't move from the beginning the units that started in Loyang. Beginner mistake. Most every battle against the Japanese ends up really badly for the Chinese units. I think the losses are in the order of 10:1 in most cases, if not worse.

I remember hearing something once attributed to Napoleon. Who knows if it was or not.

He once was reviewing a battle plan where the other general had the men lined up along the border. He asked the general if he was fighting a war or trying to catch poachers.

You appear to be spreading yourself thin. Also, territory has no value in this game. The only important things for China are the bases that generate supply for them. Get to those and fight to the death. Even if you lose you have a chance of the industry being damaged by the fighting. Ultimately that hurts Japan in the long run.

Your defense looks like mine. It didnt work...

Does it make sense to pull back two hexes from strong point #5 way back to behind where the river crosses the road?

ORIGINAL: Wargmr
...You appear to be spreading yourself thin. Also, territory has no value in this game. The only important things for China are the bases that generate supply for them. Get to those and fight to the death. Even if you lose you have a chance of the industry being damaged by the fighting. Ultimately that hurts Japan in the long run.

That's interesting. I will admit that my presumption has been that once a strong point falls a new defensible point can be developed maybe 4 hexes back...so I wanted some hexes back behind my strong points. Is it the case, then, that when a strong point falls it is hard to develop a new place to defend? To be honest, part of what has driven my thinking in China is a lack of confidence to pull back as far as possible. I can see the logic in doing that: reduce the length of my supply lines, lengthen those for Japan, increase the speed with which my LCUs could move from strong point to another, and reduce the speed with which Japan could move from one place of attack to another.

Given that my defense of China will end up failing, I guess trying something new...and perhaps failing in an innovative way...is worth trying. Has anyone done what I think you're suggesting?

Of the 5 strong points on my map, #1 and #5 can be easily pulled back, perhaps to where the river crosses the roads, and I see that making them stronger. It seems the problem will be with #2. I don't see how it can be pulled back. And it if can't be, then #3 and #4 also can't be pulled back. But, at least that's two improvements.

And, of course, I'm not sure about what to do with Changsha and the other areas of China in such an alternative plan.

I guess a more clear focus on the goals in China is needed: not territory but keeping the most Japanese troops there as long as possible and denying as much supply (and other good stuff) from Japan as long as possible.

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon
Having experience playing Japan in two games now, I've never had a problem taking Lanchow. The problem for China is not how to defend Lanchow, but more a matter of what are you willing to lose doing so. Lanchow usually is a target after Sian falls, or as you mention vulnerable to a long march by Japanese forces via the desert. The threat is once Lanchow falls, if your forces retreat west they are essentially out of the fight for good due to the lack of supply.

I think the key to defending China is not to focus on Japan's capability or make assumptions on how supply will limit the advance. Japan can advance easily in China and supply most times is not the limiting factor. Plan accordingly. China is all about delay and get into 3x defensive terrain as soon as possible, conserve your supply and just try to hang on as long as possible. Q-Ball has much game experience and if you follow many of the recent AAR's you can see what an experienced Japanese player can do in China, stacking limits or not.

Hi Sqz,

I still consider Milton, who you quote, as my favorite author.

I've got a bunch of units on 3x hexes, but sadly some have been cut off in the plains. Wargmr is suggesting pulling way back in some places, I think. What do you think about doing that?

Does it make sense to abandon Lanchow as soon as Sian is serious threatened? Does it make sense to not even try to defend Lanchow much (maybe only enough to make Japan destroy some of industry and refineries as it tries to take over the town)?

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

Also remember to send immediately some units to dig in the northern mountains, near Tienshui.

Say the one hex above Tienshui? That's to protect from any Japanese units coming down from Lanchow?

ORIGINAL: GreyJoyDon't forget to cover the western rivercrossing that leads to the road from Kunming to Kweiyang

I'm already have a unit moving to the hex two above Nanning. I see now that's not the best one to defend. Are you taking about the hex two to the left of Kweiyan and one down? I guess that's a better place because of the supply issue.

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy
Don't lose supplies building forts in the base-hexes. Instead use that very same supply to build forts in critical points out in the country (always +3 terrain)

Why country-side forts instead of base hex forts?

Odd proposal for China: how about abandoning most of the cities the Allied player generally fights for. Pull back to only a few places, perhaps those marked below. Instead of defending a dozen places, defend only 4 or so places.

The key question is, however, can the Chinese army live off of what can be produced in the few cities still under its control?

What might be the point of the above? If this works out (!?), the Chinese army might have a chance of remaining a viable threat to Japan, and a growing threat over time. Perhaps the Chinese army, at least the units able to move into Burma for free and maybe units for which PP a paid to make this possible, can move into Burma in a strong way after some point.

Perhaps this might lead Japan to keep more units for a longer time in China and Burma and then when the Allies start of advance, a bunch of Japanese units might be stuck in China making Allied advances easier elsewhere. Indeed, maybe the Chinese armies, when trained and grown to full size, might march to take the cities they have more-or-less abandoned a year or two before. While Japan will benefits for a long time from the supply, resources, and oil that come from the cities the Chinese abandon, this might be more than counteracted by the fact the Chinese army might become an independent force that Japan must come to fear!

Lots of "perhapses" certainly above. But does the above make any sense at all? I don't know the math of feeding the Chinese army and so the above might be dumb. But it might be spectacularly dumb, and so interesting.

ORIGINAL: Panjack
Odd proposal for China: how about abandoning most of the cities the Allied player generally fights for. Pull back to only a few places, perhaps those marked below. Instead of defending a dozen places, defend only 4 or so places

Don't do this off the bat. You need to see how the situation develops first. Just take a deep breath and see how the game develops and learn from that. Ultimately you have only one opponent and our experiences may not always be relevant to yours. China may be a breeze for you like it is for me against my long time opponent. Or it could be awful and you lose by the end of 1942. I don't know and you don't but you'll find out! If you really have this much time to worry about China you could always start another game to use up that time.