The China Problem

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: Miller

To give myself some credit (if I may) this battle is the end result of failed Chinese offensive in the south of the country.

Miller, can you tell us more about this failed Chinese offensive? I don't recall hearing much about it...

I'd like to know too since I'm his opponent.

I suppose he's talking about the little Chinese offensive in which they advanced a few units from the west through the jungle and took the vacant Nanning. This forced Miller to withdraw his troops from Liuchow. So the Chinese troops at Liuchow and Kweilin moved south one hex, tried on deliberate attack on the little Japanese stack in the forest, found that it wasn't going to work, and retreated back to Lichow and Kweilin. Then, when the Japanese advanced on Nanning, the Chinese withdrew those troops to Liuchow. The total cost of this "failed campaign" was nil.

Chickenboy, you can read more about this little campaign in my AAR, though it doesn't get much mention because there was very little to it.

The reason for the drastic results at Liuchow is that there were zero supplies there. There are zero supplies at every Chinese city except three. The reason for that is strategic bombing eliminated Chinese industry early in the game. I cannot offer any resistance except at the three cities that have a little supply.

Thanks, Canoerebel. I was hoping that Miller might have some additional comments from his POV about the impact of this failed offensive in the Chinese theatre, or at least on this battle. His perspective is something that I cannot discern from reading your AAR.

[Q-Ball]

Maybe alot of your problem Canoerebel is the strategic bombing of supplies. In both my games, one as Japan, the other as China, the Japanese have made gains, but after a few months those gains are limited, and tougher to get. But in both games we have a house rule against strategic bombing in China. As China I have local supply problems, but there is one base at least with a nice stockpile.

Both my games are pre-patch 2 and the increased garrison requirements; I suspect that will also be a break on Japanese expansion.

Dan probably did this, but for others are a few things as China you can do to improve your chances:

1. TRAIN units by having them at 100% prep in a home city. You can get most units up 10-15 points of experience this way. That helps.
2. Don't fight in clear terrain; abandon this and establish an MLR on better ground. In particular, the central plain between Sinyang and Loyang should be abandoned.
3. Use lots of small units to threaten the Japanese supply lines.

All that being said, Chinese replacements should be higher

[CapAndGown]

Without the house rule on strat bombing in China, higher replacement rates are not going to help since replacements need supply to be made.

[Canoerebel]

Yeah, supply is the killer.  I have a modest amount of supply at two of the bases that have been under siege - one under seige for the entire game and the other for many monts.  I've been able to hold those two bases and can continue to do so indefinately.
 
Most of my bases have zero supply and that's been the case since early '42 when strategic bombing wiped out most of my cities.  With very little industry left, much of the supply I have is coming from Ledo via air transport and that's not a great deal.  I have a little supply at Changsha, Changteh, Chungking and Chengtu - not much, but enough to defend those cities.  I can't really defend anything else.
 
A house rule against strategic bombing in China is a good idea.
 
 

[castor troy]

Miller obviously also has increased his ground combat skills from WITP to AE.... [;)][:D]

[Feinder]

I understand everyone's facination with having abyssmal supplies available to China.
But as was true in WitP, and evidently so in AE, the Catch-22 is that the replacement Chinese infantry squads cannot be created without supply.

Of course, there are 2 parts to creating squads.
1. Do I have more than my supply requirement to begin with. Without meeting the supply requirement for the hex, I'm fairly certain it will never draw replacement squads anyway. This is going to be a fundamental problem, because of the inherit lack of supply in China to begin with.
2. How much excess supply do I have, with which to create squads? And yet another issue. If you do have supply, you can't create very many because it sucks supply to create them. Maybe it takes 10x supply to create each infantry squad or whatever.

So would it be possible (an engine fix), to actually change the supply requirements to create Chinese squads? Lower their "needed" supplies. Also, you could draw new squads, while even at 70% supply? And the "cost" of new squads would be perhaps 4x supply per squad, instead of 10x supply per squad (or whatever it is).

That might cause additional issues however, because now you're drawing squads in a supply deficit anyway, thus increasing your supply deficit. You'd reach the threshold of 70% (or whatever), and eventually stop ddrawing squads. But drawing squads while at a supply deficit might not really help you.

And...

One consideratino in autovicotry in WitP (my expereince in AE is very limited), was the high VPs generated by the slaughter of Chinese squads. Yes, Chinese squads are cheaper in VPs. But you could generate a lot of VPs by slaughtering a lot of them (it's not like it was very difficult). So will makeing more chinese squads available, potentially make things easier for Japan (considering their lack of experience, lack of supplies, supply draw, and the VP value when dead).

Things to consider.
-F-

[Miller]

I apologise to Canoerebel with regards to my misreading of the situation in southern China. Furthermore I am well aware my strategic bombing of China has screwed the overall situation there.

I have offered a complete ceasefire on a couple of occasions to him but both times he turned it down. However this time I will, for good, cease any further offensive operations with land units in China. Dan does not want this, but that is the way it will be.......

[Canoerebel]

ORIGINAL: Miller
I apologise to Canoerebel with regards to my misreading of the situation in southern China. Furthermore I am well aware my strategic bombing of China has screwed the overall situation there.

Thanks! This is all I really wanted. I know how to defend China, but it's essentially impossible to do so given the current situation.

I have offered a complete ceasefire on a couple of occasions to him but both times he turned it down. However this time I will, for good, cease any further offensive operations with land units in China. Dan does not want this, but that is the way it will be.......

I really don't want a ceasfire - that's just as non-historic. I'd prefer a fair fight, but I'm not sure how possible it is at this point. About all you could do was concentrate on the cities that have some supply - Changsha, Changteh are about it in that area. But, honesly, just the acknowledgement that the game is borked in China due to circumstances we weren't aware of at the outset of the game is all I was really asking for. The assertion that my defeat at Liuchow was the result of a "failed offensive" chapped me, but that's now been addressed.

One further note: Here was the supply situation on my MLR - Liuchow 7 (yes, seven), Kweilin 20, Changsha, 15,958, Siangtin 20, and Shaoyang 0. Liuchow and Kweilin have been at 20 or less since early '42.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

ORIGINAL: Miller
I apologise to Canoerebel with regards to my misreading of the situation in southern China. Furthermore I am well aware my strategic bombing of China has screwed the overall situation there.

Thanks! This is all I really wanted. I know how to defend China, but it's essentially impossible to do so given the current situation.

I have offered a complete ceasefire on a couple of occasions to him but both times he turned it down. However this time I will, for good, cease any further offensive operations with land units in China. Dan does not want this, but that is the way it will be.......

I really don't want a ceasfire - that's just as non-historic. I'd prefer a fair fight, but I'm not sure how possible it is at this point. About all you could do was concentrate on the cities that have some supply - Changsha, Changteh are about it in that area. But, honesly, just the acknowledgement that the game is borked in China due to circumstances we weren't aware of at the outset of the game is all I was really asking for. The assertion that my defeat at Liuchow was the result of a "failed offensive" chapped me, but that's now been addressed.

One further note: Here was the supply situation on my MLR - Liuchow 7 (yes, seven), Kweilin 20, Changsha, 15,958, Siangtin 20, and Shaoyang 0. Liuchow and Kweilin have been at 20 or less since early '42.

take a port and Miller lets you move in 100.000 supplies unharmed [;)]

one more thing, you have turned OFF all repairs on industry, haven´t you? It´s set to repair by default (which is a fault in game design IMO) and if you don´t notice that at the beginning you will lose ten thousands of supplies over the first weeks. That´s what happened to me in China in my PBEM, I´m short 50-60.000 supplies due to this "feature". Industry starts damaged and is set to repair...

[Kwik E Mart]

Question1: if Japan had really wanted to, could they have destroyed Chinese industry the way the Japanese player can in AE? If so, why restrict Japan from strategic bombing?

Question2: in RL, how much of China's ability to "fight off" the Japanese can be atributed to their inherent supply making capacity versus supplies that were coming in from Russia and Burma?

Question3: Assuming in RL the Japanese had been successful in squashing Chinese industry, what changes (if any) would the Allies have made in their overall grand strategy in the Pacific Theatre? Try to open a port? Try to get more supplies over the "Hump"? Nothing?

[Canoerebel]

Good questions, Kwik, but the real problem is that one side has the unilateral power to depart from real life and achieve things far, far beyond what were historically achieved.

Through strategic bombing, the employment of troops from Manchuria, and the use of massed artillery, the Japanese have the power to blow holes through the Chinese and take most or all of the country.  The Chinese have no ability to counter this except via house rules.

This wasn't done in the real war for many reasons, some of which (inter-service rivalries, politics, etc.) that aren't modeled in the game.  Giving one side the power to depart from real life in ways that weren't done in the war and which the opposite side has no realistic way of countering doesn't make for a good game and doesn't in any way reflect the actual war.

[Kwik E Mart]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Good questions, Kwik, but the real problem is that one side has the unilateral power to depart from real life and achieve things far, far beyond what were historically achieved.

Through strategic bombing, the employment of troops from Manchuria, and the use of massed artillery, the Japanese have the power to blow holes through the Chinese and take most or all of the country.  The Chinese have no ability to counter this except via house rules.

This wasn't done in the real war for many reasons, some of which (inter-service rivalries, politics, etc.) that aren't modeled in the game.  Giving one side the power to depart from real life in ways that weren't done in the war and which the opposite side has no realistic way of countering doesn't make for a good game and doesn't in any way reflect the actual war.

I see your points, but the other side has the option to "depart from real life" also. There is nothing (that I'm aware of) that stops the Allies from launching a massive campaign against the Japanese in China from (for instance) India. Would this have happened in RL? Probably not...If China was on the verge of collapse would it have happened? Up to debate I suppose. It certainly would change the way the game plays in all the other parts of the map.

I guess I'm still not convinced that:
a) the Japanese could not have stopped Chinese industry if they really wanted (even with the many reasons you allude to) and,
b) that there is nothing the Allies can do to counter this strategy - although I will concede they would have to "depart from real life" to make it happen

As for interservice (and inter-Allied) rivalries, the Allies had their share of problems as well...MacArthur versus the Navy comes to mind, as well as the unwillingness of the US to back Churchill's desire to take back Singers much earlier...

In any case, interesting "what-if's"...

[Q-Ball]

I think the problem with simulating the bombing of Chinese industry is kind of like the US experience in Vietnam; there isn't alot of heavy industry to bomb. Chinese armaments were made in small workshops or imported. Part of supplies is really food, and you can't bomb that effectively.

The problem is that its far too easy to "starve" the Chinese with bombing vs. Real life. IRL, if it was that easy, the Japanese would have done it.

BTW, if the Chinese get that HR, players should give Japan a break somewhere, and a reasonable tradeoff is no strategic bombing of Oil by Allies until late 1943.

[Feinder]

You could solve the bombing problem by adding to bases additional inherit supply generation (or in lieu of resources).

-F-

[bklooste]

ORIGINAL: Kwik E Mart

Question1: if Japan had really wanted to, could they have destroyed Chinese industry the way the Japanese player can in AE? If so, why restrict Japan from strategic bombing?

Question2: in RL, how much of China's ability to "fight off" the Japanese can be atributed to their inherent supply making capacity versus supplies that were coming in from Russia and Burma?

Question3: Assuming in RL the Japanese had been successful in squashing Chinese industry, what changes (if any) would the Allies have made in their overall grand strategy in the Pacific Theatre? Try to open a port? Try to get more supplies over the "Hump"? Nothing?

Q1 Not really since most of these supplies ( for China) represet cottage industry things like bullets , boots , food.
Q2. They fought of the Japanese in one huge battle in Changsha ( in dec 41 i think) bringing in 3 times the troops as Japan and all their heavy arty and with some brilliant generalship they won. After that Japan decided the rest of the country was not worth taking and left it till the US put B29s there at which point they smashed the Chinese. Historically CHina only fought if they had 3* the troops for defence or 5 * the troops for attack. I think the Chinese generals are underated.
Q3. Not much they can do , probably encourage more guarilla warfare leading to large garisons which the game does model.

[bklooste]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Good questions, Kwik, but the real problem is that one side has the unilateral power to depart from real life and achieve things far, far beyond what were historically achieved.

Through strategic bombing, the employment of troops from Manchuria, and the use of massed artillery, the Japanese have the power to blow holes through the Chinese and take most or all of the country.  The Chinese have no ability to counter this except via house rules.

This wasn't done in the real war for many reasons, some of which (inter-service rivalries, politics, etc.) that aren't modeled in the game.  Giving one side the power to depart from real life in ways that weren't done in the war and which the opposite side has no realistic way of countering doesn't make for a good game and doesn't in any way reflect the actual war.

Inter service rivalry had nothing to do with it ( and there was just as much rivalry between the US services) . IMHO China would have fallen quite quickly in 42 if they fough the Japanese at CHangsha with the forces and suplies most people use. Japan just decided there was little to gain in CHina. In terms of Manhuria quite a number of troops there were taken to PI as needed.

[Altaris]

I'm playing 2 PBEM's at the moment, one as Allies, one as Japan. As the Allies, I've very much stalemated Japan with only slightly higher losses than my opponent. The issue with Chinese units isn't their base AV, it's the fact that AV gets adjusted down so much. Any time in this game (on either side) that an army is forced to retreat, it takes staggeringly high losses (which I think needs to be toned down a bit). If you can get into situations where the Chinese don't break and run, losses are very mild in comparison. So, the key is putting those Chinese troops in places where the Japanese can't easily gain a 3:1 or greater AV ratio over you. The best way to do this is to group your units together in big stacks on WR and MT terrains (or Wd/Rgh terrain if there's a base that you can build forts at). You don't have to hole up in your bases, put big stacks on key roads in good terrain (preferably with few roads for the Japanese to come in on) and you're golden. Those INF units will build forts in non-base hexes so long as they are kept in Combat mode and don't move at all, I've gotten up to 4 forts in February '42 on that mountain hex halfway between Sian and Loyang. The other big advantage to WR and MT hexes is that bombardments/air ground attacks do next to no damage. As a rule of thumb, I don't bother defending anything that's Clear terrain except Sian and Liuchow, and these are the first places to get lots of engineers for fort-building. On Clear terrain, it's just too easy for Japan to utterly rape your army by air/bombardment, and quickly get the 3:1 adjusted AV ratio to force your retreat and slaughter your forces.
Hell, I even had 3 units cut off from supply and completely surrounded in a WR hex for nearly 3 weeks against 3 of those Ind. Regiment Japanese units, and they dished out good damage during that time. I was completely flaberghasted to see Chinese units hold out so well against determined attack (and his attempts at Ground Bombardment very rarely did more than 1 disable squad of damage).
It's a weird way to approach it, but you have to think of ground combat in this game as a result of adjusted AV. So long as your defenders don't break and run, combats work in roughly the manner which one would intuitively think they would (roughly equal or higher attacker casualties). Honestly, I think the retreat aspect is waaaay too harsh on the defender than it should be, and this is where a lot of Allied players end up in a bad way in China.
Strangely enough, my game is drawing up on lines similar to historical reality. Japan is completely hosed up in a stale-mate around Changsha, and the 1st Army is bogged down trying to dislogde Communists from the MT hex between Sian and Loyang, and the WR hex SE of Yenan.
Oh, and under all circumstances should the "no industry bombing" be put in place for China. I think that's what really hosed up your game.

[vicberg]

I'm afraid that I'm just not understanding the arguments against using Japanese assets against China.

1) The China Supply System isn't historically accurate. Neither is the combat system where units retreat 40 miles in one day regardless of terrain and sometimes through the troops they are fighting against, often taking days for the pursuing army to catch up (even with pursuit). We accept the retreat rules in this game, though it isn't accurate. But we don't accept strategic bombing because the supply isn't accurate? Huh? The game is an abstraction, at all levels. Using the argument that China isn't historically accurate means that we shouldn't play this game at all because there's a LOT about this game that isn't accurate.
2) The Japanese didn't do it. So what? War simulations aren't created so that history has to be repeated time and time again. They are created to see what YOU would do rather than what actually happened. I don't have to split the KB before a strategic battle and watch it get destroyed just because it was done historically.
3) The Allies couldn't respond. They couldn't. They might divert fighters and bombers into China and they might divert troops, but these options are available within the game.
4) Japan didn't have the supply historically. The game has an abstracted supply system. If the japanese can conquer China within this system, then it's allowable. If the supply system isn't accurate, then see point #1 and not play the game. Can't have it both ways.

Anyone with two eyes can see that a Japanese conquest of China actually levels the field a bit with the Allies, especially since it's a VP based game. Theret should be a ahistorical ability for Japan to force a political end to the war prior to 46...thatt's called game balance and something that's very missing in this game.

Everything I read says that Japanese have fun in the beginning and lose at the end. So it makes NO sense to me why there are house rules limiting Japanese ability to fight in China, unless it's just accepted that the Japanese player has fun and then the Allied player has fun and the Japanese are supposed to lose. It's a real head scratcher.

[mike scholl 1]

ORIGINAL: vicberg

I'm afraid that I'm just not understanding the arguments against using Japanese assets against China.

Anyone with two eyes can see that a Japanese conquest of China actually levels the field a bit with the Allies, especially since it's a VP based game. There should be a ahistorical ability for Japan to force a political end to the war prior to 46...that's called game balance and something that's very missing in this game.

Except that it's total BS. Japan had been at war with China since 1937. Exclusively..., with no distractions and nothing else to draw away supply, support, or attention. Yet the last two years of that war before December of 1941 were basically a stalemate. IF winning the war in China was so easy, why did they fail to do so?

Because they lacked the ability, the manpower, and the resources. If the game makes any other outcome possible, then the game is in error. Which is not unreasonable, as the game is called "The War in the Pacific", not "The War in China". The "house rules" you decry are simply a means by which sensible players put the emphasis of the game back where it belongs..., in the Pacific.

[vicberg]

I'll drop this thread because I see where this is going.

Japan stopped in China not because of a stalemate but because their anemic economy couldn't sustain an all-out land war and maintain their ship and aircraft building program at the same time. When they achieved a sufficent resource level, they stopped.

Why didn't Japan continue the assaults in China after 41? Even with the DEI resources, their economy still couldn't maintain everything. Japan chose ships and air over a Chinese conquest. It was a choice. Hindsight is always perfect and they made the wrong choice in my opinion, but that's what wargames are all about. It's also a choice in this game that a lot of players on this forum completely dismiss because "it didn't happen", which is missing the point of wargaming.

Try an all-out assault in China using Manchuko Garrison (and this is prior to the beta release using double supplies for attacking with artillery). The supplies disappear within a month. To maintain a land war in China requires a commitment...expanding light factories, reducing or shutting off ship and/or aircraft production to conserve resources. It's a choice and it has a cost. Does this choice mean a faster US conquest of the Pacific? Would it lead to faster strategic bombing of the home islands with less aircraft or ships to defend the Pacific? Would the Allies be able to regain India and parts of China, especially after Germany's fall? If someone could post that they've tried this option and it completely unbalances the game, Japan wins the game every time, then I can understand the limits. But right now, the game is balanced almost completely in the Allied favor and everyone simply accepts that. Strange thinking after 30+ years of playing wargames.