Matrix Games Forums

Giving China less than UNLIMITED action limits, as it effectively has today, could be a very elegant solution, very much in the spirit of WiF. Historically China never was capable of manouvering all their units all of the time, so forcing some restrictions on china would be very historical, and no different than wha any other power has to suffer either.

I support this.

ORIGINAL:  Yohan
How can you possibly say that? Just look at the number of hexes that have been added, to cover them with ZOCs would take a bunch of extra units. Add to that that the cities don't supply the Japanese and your ability to "run after" raiders without keeping extra HQs in the rear area won't work. Lots of extra costs for Japan to just maintain the status quo which will impact its ability to fight the USA and GB.

The big problem with using the European scale for China is that WIFFE is designed
for Asian scale map and the number of corps/armies are suited for this scale. When you
use the European scale a corps/army unit must defend a bigger area.  This can be helped
by splitting the corps/armies into divisions to cover extra area. Those divisions can prevent
holes in the front line etc.

But what about the rear areas. Divisions only have ZOC in the hex they are placed
into. But divisions not in enemy ZOC count against the garrison value for Japan for
preventing new partisans.

The biggest problem I see is that partisans can appear on the map more easily
because there are so many extra hexes the Japanese player needs to have in
rear ZOC to prevent them from appearing. And as long as division sized units
only have ZOC in the hex they occupy then it's almost impossible to have enough
garrison units to prevent the partisans from appearing close to important rail lines,
cities, resources etc.

But what if we for example alter the rule that division sized units not in enemy ZOC
DO have ZOC for partisan placement purposes (but ONLY for this purpose). This
means a division sized unit can prevent partisans from appearing in the hex and
all hexes around it.  So if the Japanese player break down some corps sized units
he can get enough division sized units to protect his vital areas from partisans.
I know this can have bad side effects for example for partisan appearance in other
parts of the map (like Europe, particularly Russia) so maybe we can give divisions
ZOC for partisan placement ONLY in China or maybe everywhere EXCEPT Europe.
I don't think it's a wargame's purpose to 100% recreate what happened in the REAL
war every time, meaning that the Japanese/Chinese war should almost always end
in stalemate. I think it should be possible for example for Japan to divert his resources
for land battle so he has a fair chance of destroying China, but it will be at a big cost
of letting USA become dominant in the Pacific and at the expense of conquests in
Indo-China, Borneo, New Guinea, Philippines etc.

WIFFE gives such possibilities in every part of the war. That is one of the excitements
of playing WIFFE. Can my plan succeed where the REAL generals failed (like capturing
Moscow and Leningrad)?

So the European scale in China opens up for more mobile warfare, but that is not
necessarily very dangerous. Because the opponent have chances to counter this
with his defense. It will require some other strategies than he was used to with WIFFE,
but I'm certain that good WIF players will find strategies that would work for both
China and Japan to keep a good balance between them.

What the playtesting of the new map should find out is if it's much harder for one side
to keep the balance than before, meaning that old WIFFE players could be in for a
nasty surprise if they use their old strategies. Then it could be a good idea to adjust
the rules a little bit. But these rule changes have to be MINOR and they must NOT
cause changes in the rules in other war theatres (like Europe). This is because
the rules are AS IS balanced in Europe and we have not changed the map scale
here.

I think using the European map scale for the entire world is great and it gives
us new challenges, particularly in China. But I also believe most WIF players will
find sound strategies so it will be fun to both attack and also defend. Remember
that the European map scale in China has been playtested a lot with CWIF. Now
the map will be altered a little (adding new cities etc.) so further playtesting is
required.

I think it's a good idea to wait pushing the alarm button about the changes have
ruined the play balance in China until AFTER the playtesting has taken place. There
is still time to make minor changes and still be able to use the European map scale
in China and have a balanced war.

If playtesting shows that the European scaled map in China will require a different
strategy for both Japan and China then it's possible to write about this in the
MWIF rule book (maybe under the player strategies chapter). Many wargames
have some basic strategies for each player listed in the rule book.

I think we should be VERY careful about adding new HQ's and corps sized units
just because we changed the map scale. It can influence the game at lot more than
intended. I. e. the Japanese player willl decide to NOT fight a lot in China and use the
extra HQ's and corps against Great Britain and later Australia. Then you have a
more powerful Japanese player than ever.

Let the players have the WIFFE number of HQ's and corps. If changes are needed
then it should be to maybe the possibility for infinite break up of corps sized units
into divisions placed aside into a separate force pool and can NOT be rebuilt as
corps. They can only appear again on the map if divisions recombine into a corps.

Please ignore. I clicked by mistake quote instead of edit of my own message and created a duplicate. How can I delete my own messages?

Please ignore. I clicked by mistake quote instead of edit of my own message and created a duplicate. How can I delete my own messages?

As Japanese player, I would like it to have to make hard choices about force allocation between:

1. China and other theatres

2. While not going all-out in China, taking effective offensive actions there OR securing all rear areas. To do both at the same time should be made difficult at least.

ORIGINAL: Borger Borgersen

The big problem with using the European scale for China is that WIFFE is designed
for Asian scale map and the number of corps are suited for this scale. When you
use the European scale a corps unit must defend a bigger area.  This can be helped
by splitting the corps into divisions to cover extra area. Those divisions can prevent
holes in the front line etc.

[/b]
This is, however, not enough. A division has very low combat factors, and it would be too easy for the other player to simply mass Corps and overrun divisions.

The biggest problem I see is that partisans can appear on the map more easily
because there are so many extra hexes the Japanese player needs to have in
rear ZOC to prevent them from appearing. And as long as division sized units
only have ZOC in the hex they occupy then it's almost impossible to have enough
garrison units to prevent the partisans from appearing close to important rail lines,
cities, resources etc.

But this is not the biggest problem. The biggest problem is to have a stable frontline. To keep a stable frontline with the WIF OOB on the MWIF is not possible. That leaves us with two options, make the map smaller or add more units. The desicion to make the map like this is not going to change, which leaves us with alternative two, to add more units.

But what if we for example alter the rule that division sized units not in enemy ZOC
DO have ZOC for partisan placement purposes (but ONLY for this purpose). This
means a division sized unit can prevent partisans from appearing in the hex and
all hexes around it. So if the Japanese player break down some corps sized units
he can get enough division sized units to protect his vital areas from partisans.

You are solving the wrong problem. The big issue here is not "how will the Japanese prevent partisans" the issue is "how do we stabilize the Chinese front".

If the Japanese player breaks up his corps into divisions to prevent partisans, his divisions will be slaughtered by the Chinese corps. If the Chinese player breaks up his corps to have a frontline without holes, he will be overrun by the Japanese corps.

This might seem to cancel eachoter out. Since the Japanese player will want to break down into divisions to prevent partisans and the Chinese player will want to break down into divisions to keep a steady front. That is not what will happen however. Instead you will probably have a Japanese player who will mass his corps in one part of China and ignore the other parts of China and then move down the Chinese lines like a death star, annihilating all resistance.

So the European scale in China opens up for more mobile warfare, but that is not
necessarily very dangerous. Because the opponent have chances to counter this
with his defense. It will requre some other strategies than he was used to with WIFFE,
but I'm certain that good WIF players will find strategies that would work for both
China and Japan to keep a good balance between them.

It is very dangerous because not only do you open up China for mobile warfare, you also remove the ability to defend against mobile warfare. Imagine an Operation Barbarossa scenario where the USSR has 5 units defending the entire border against 30+ German units, and you get an idea what China will look like without additional units.

I think it's a good idea to wait pushing the alarm button about the changes have
ruined the play balance in China until AFTER the playtesting has taken place. There
is still time to make minor changes and still be able to use the European map scale
in China and have a balanced war.

That the playbalance in China has been altered by the map scale is the elephant in the room. We dont really need to wait for playtesting to see that, its right there in the open. What we must do now is figure out a way to re-balance China without unbalancing something else. I believe my idea about a restricted command for Japan manages that, but if you have alternatives you are more than welcome to present them.

I think we should be VERY careful about adding new HQ's and corps sized units
just because we changed the map scale. It can influence the game at lot more than
intended. I. e. the Japanese player decided to NOT fight a lot in China and uses the
extra HQ's and corps against Great Britain and later Australia. Then you have a
more powerful Japanese player than ever.

That will not happen if you restrict the new units to only be used in China.

The biggest problem I see is that partisans can appear on the map more easily
because there are so many extra hexes the Japanese player needs to have in
rear ZOC to prevent them from appearing. And as long as division sized units
only have ZOC in the hex they occupy then it's almost impossible to have enough
garrison units to prevent the partisans from appearing close to important rail lines,
cities, resources etc.

About the Partisans, I do not agree with what you write here.
You need not to aim at ZoCing every hex in rear areas, but you should aim at reaching the Partisan number of China with your garrison, that is : 20.

Even in WiF FE Pacific Scaled map, you cannot ZoC every rear area hex, especially playing with the Pacific Map ZoC (which should be used everytime), which is here specially to simulate the fact that the hexes are so large, and the units cover not every surface of the WiF scaled hex.

I'd add to finish that the decision to have the Pacific map at the European scale was taken by Harry Rowland (ADG director, and designer of WiF and WiF FE) himself, and he confess that he would have liked the WiF FE game to also have had European scaled maps for all areas of the world, but it would take too much room to fit in a normal (even WiF FE scaled) game room.

So the game was not entirely designed for Pacific Scaled map, but there were special rules designed to make units designed for European Maps fit in Pacific Scaled Maps.

If Japan and China have Army sized units, it is not because the map is scaled differently, it is because the Chinese / Japanese Army sized unit is what is the most close to the European Corps sized unit in number of mens and material.
We have the same for Russian units who are organized in Armies which are equivallent to western Corps.

So the European scale in China opens up for more mobile warfare, but that is not
necessarily very dangerous.

Do not forget that the Chinese army is composed of lots of slow 1 or 2 MP units. Armies composed of that kind of units are not what I call mobile, especially in mountanous terrain.
The Nationalist Chinese usually defends in the mountains, and there its mobility is small. Only occasionnaly some fast units will be present, and the Japanese has all he needs to cope with them.

Let the players have the WIFFE number of HQ's and corps. If changes are needed
then it should be to maybe the possibility for infinite break up of corps sized units
into divisions placed aside into a separate force pool and can NOT be rebuilt as
corps. They can only appear again on the map if divisions recombine into a corps.

I'd like to add to this, so that it is not forgotten, that CWiF had the Corps Breakdown into Divisions unlimited, with the corps being able to be rebuilt, and it was very good.

Nasty effects described by some posters on these forums (such as the Germany -- or any other country -- taking advantage of this to build a huge army of Divisions for example) were never seen by me during my numerous CWiF playtest (not by my friends playtesters too), simply because when breaking down a coprs into divisions you still have to build the corps, and the global attack factors of the obtained divisions was half that of the corps, so you loosed combat power for the initial BP cost. The amount of BP available to Germany -- or any other country -- in MWiF is the same as the amount of BP available to them in WiF FE, so if extra BP were expended to re-build a big number of Corps because they were brokedown into Divisions, then something else will have less BP to be expended upon, be it the Navy or the Air Force, or anything else.

Now that this has been recalled, let me add that it was quite convinent as someone said here above, to be able to have 2 units (divisions) to physicaly guard 2 hexes when you only had 1 unit (corps) before.

If, as I tried to demonstrated here, there is no abuse possible with an abnormal number of Divisions being created this way, then I think it was not a such bad idea to have the real unlimited breakdonw into divisions, with the posibility of rebuilding the corps.
Remember, the BP stay the same, this is the crucial thing.

This said, the idea of forbidding the minor countries corps to be brokedown into divisions is great and should be kept, because minor countries units were not always paid for (being given for free when the country was aligned) and because it could be abused upon by Germany especially on the Russian front, to have free feeble losse takers.

ORIGINAL: Froonp
Nasty effects described by some posters on these forums

Well, that would be me.

I still see this as a problem, but since it has been decided to allow unlimited breakdown, there is not much to do about it. It does open up for exploits however. You break up the crappiest corps into divisions, and use these divisions as loss-takers. So, the Germans break up their 5-4 infantry corps into divisions and stack these divisions with their 12-6 panzer corps. Instead of having to take a 12-6 corps as a loss (ok, bad example since that unit is usually the very last one to be chosen as a loss) or a 7-4 infantry or 9-4 infantry, you lose a 1-4 division.

If you stack all your "big" stacks this way, you can ensure never to lose a high value unit in an attack since you will usually attack from 2 or 3 hexes, and that leaves 2-3 divisions to soak up the losses.

Germany is probably not the best example here though, we should probably look a bit closer on what this will do to the USSR...and the US in the Pacific.

It is very dangerous because not only do you open up China for mobile warfare, you also remove the ability to defend against mobile warfare. Imagine an Operation Barbarossa scenario where the USSR has 5 units defending the entire border against 30+ German units, and you get an idea what China will look like without additional units.

That's not at all the right picture IMHO.

For the 39-45 campaign, the different countries begin with :
- Nationalist Chinese : 15 Corps sized units + 1 divisions + 1 Gun
- Communist Chinese : 4 Corps sized units.

- Japanese in China proper : 10 Corps sized units + 2 divisions + 2 Guns.
- Japanese in Manchuria / Korea : 7 Corps sized units.
- Japanese in Japan : 4 Corps sized units + 1 division + 1 Guns.
- Japanese in free setup : 1 Corps sized units + 1 division.

So even if the Japanese used absolutely every troop they had against China, they would have 22 Corps sized units versus 19 Corps sized units.

Now, Manchuria and Korea also have a garrison need because of possible Partisan activity, and these amount to a need of 6 Corps sized units in garrison duties there. That leave 16 Corps sized units for Japan to overrun the Chinese 19 Corps sized units. And it will need a good number of Land Action impulses for all units outside China to reach the frontlines, the Chineses will have enough time to position themselves to defend against the upcoming threat.

I know that Japan produces more than China, but the Japanese force pool is not abundant in more land forces, so nowhere will there be a 30 to 5 unit ratio.

Again, let me say that I speak about a Chinese who defends in the mountains, not a Chinese who defends in the plains. My experience in WiF FE China playing was that it was far safer to defend in the mountains than in the plains. Only once did I see the Chinese defending in the plains and quite succeed, but the Japanese wasntt puching hard in China.

ORIGINAL: Froonp
Nasty effects described by some posters on these forums

Well, that would be me.

That's possible, but I do not remember precisely, though I remember you were arguing against me.

If you stack all your "big" stacks this way, you can ensure never to lose a high value unit in an attack since you will usually attack from 2 or 3 hexes, and that leaves 2-3 divisions to soak up the losses.

This was already discussed in the thread about the balance in China, or the one about unlimited breadown, or is ti the same, I don't remember.

I agree with what you write (above), but I would like you to realize, or simply to hear that, it is already the same in WiF FE. I've already said that, but you seem not tu hear (humm... read ? [:)]). Playing with Divisions (which are quite numerous) and ART units (which are like DIV units) there are enough of them to have all important stacks either in attack or in defense to be covered by a third unit used as a loss taker.

So this is not new, and not different than in WiF FE.

Panzejaeger, I would like to repeat to you that the BP stay the same, so you can't have an abnormaly high number of divisions, without having less of something else. Don't you agree with that ?
So there is no abuse possible, just a new flexibility added to the game.

ORIGINAL: Froonp
This was already discussed in the thread about the balance in China, or the one about unlimited breadown, or is ti the same, I don't remember.

[:D] Yeah I know what you mean.

I agree with what you write (above), but I would like you to realize, or simply to hear that, it is already the same in WiF FE. I've already said that, but you seem not tu hear (humm... read ? [:)]). Playing with Divisions (which are quite numerous) and ART units (which are like DIV units) there are enough of them to have all important stacks either in attack or in defense to be covered by a third unit used as a loss taker.

Yeah, I know that you can soak up losses in WiF with divisions or arty, but the desicion to take a 4-2 art unit or a 7-4 inf unit as a loss is not really an easy desicion. There are divisions already in WiF, yes, but they are limited and you have to choose wisely where you want to use them. As Germany, do I want to use my divisions on the russian front to soak up losses, or do I want to use one or two to take out Iceland or do I want to use one in Africa or in Crete...etc etc. All these desicions are removed from the game now when you can have everything at once.

I know that BP-wise you lose some when you break down a corps into divisions, but I am firmly convinced, that you will regain this lost value later when you have two divisions taken as losses instead of two 8-4 infantry corps. At certain key locations on the map, you can only attack a hex from two hexes, or even one hex in some extreme cases. In WiF, if the roll of the dice ends up badly at those locations you can be forced to take some really nasty losses. That will not happen now when you can use your divisions instead.

So this is not new, and not different than in WiF FE.

Panzejaeger, I would like to repeat to you that the BP stay the same, so you can't have an abnormaly high number of divisions, without having less of something else. Don't you agree with that ?
So there is no abuse possible, just a new flexibility added to the game.

I agree that the BP stays the same, and that will mean that you wont get anything for free. Having unlimited divisions will have other effects in the game however, stuff that you cant really put a BP-price tag on. As Japan for example, you can invade alot more places on your first impulse against the allies now. Before you were limited by your number of transports and your number of divisions. Now you are limited by your number of ships that can carry divisions.

I see loads of abuse possible, and as soon as the game hits the stores, Im going to play a game against you and show you what I mean[;)]

About Japan having supply in rear areas, there is something the discussions of the last couple of days made me realize.
In WiF FE, obviously, all coastal hexes are in supply from the Sea.
But there are some hexes who are next to a port in WiF FE, hence in supply from the sea through that port in fair weather. some of the corresponding areas in modified MWiF China I posted a couple of days ago are not in supply from neighboring ports.

So I think that it is good for Japan to add the couple of Minor Port that were suggested before by the various posters.
So, I added to the map (but this can still be discussed) the following minor ports (Foochow like) :

- Amoy (2 hexes SW of Foochow)
- Chefoo (2 hexes NE of Tsingtao)
- Swatow (3 hexes E of Canton)
- Wenchow (2 hexes NE of Foochow)

That way Japan gets back an easy access to nearly any place of China (as in WiF FE) because of the ports, and also more in-supply areas around those ports (as in WiF FE).

I see loads of abuse possible, and as soon as the game hits the stores, Im going to play a game against you and show you what I mean

Wow, I will have a lot of games to play, seeing all the people who try to make a point against me [:D]. Wonder if I will have enough time [&:].

ORIGINAL: Froonp

That's not at all the right picture IMHO.

For the 39-45 campaign, the different countries begin with :
- Nationalist Chinese : 15 Corps sized units + 1 divisions + 1 Gun
- Communist Chinese : 4 Corps sized units.

- Japanese in China proper : 10 Corps sized units + 2 divisions + 2 Guns.
- Japanese in Manchuria / Korea : 7 Corps sized units.
- Japanese in Japan : 4 Corps sized units + 1 division + 1 Guns.
- Japanese in free setup : 1 Corps sized units + 1 division.

So even if the Japanese used absolutely every troop they had against China, they would have 22 Corps sized units versus 19 Corps sized units.

Now, Manchuria and Korea also have a garrison need because of possible Partisan activity, and these amount to a need of 6 Corps sized units in garrison duties there. That leave 16 Corps sized units for Japan to overrun the Chinese 19 Corps sized units. And it will need a good number of Land Action impulses for all units outside China to reach the frontlines, the Chineses will have enough time to position themselves to defend against the upcoming threat.

I know that Japan produces more than China, but the Japanese force pool is not abundant in more land forces, so nowhere will there be a 30 to 5 unit ratio.

Again, let me say that I speak about a Chinese who defends in the mountains, not a Chinese who defends in the plains. My experience in WiF FE China playing was that it was far safer to defend in the mountains than in the plains. Only once did I see the Chinese defending in the plains and quite succeed, but the Japanese wasntt puching hard in China.

Ok, lets try this scenario.

Japan sets up after China....right?

So, after the Chinese setup, Japan sets up its entire army in a small area of China. Lets say they focus everything in the south. Maybe they leave one or two corps at places like Shanghai to prevent the Chinese from taking too much.

The Japanese now have a very high superiority in a local part of the front. The Chinese forces are either spread out and hiding in mountains trying to hold a front, or they are stacked together at a few key locations trying to hold those locations. If they are spread out, the Japanese player can kill off 2-3 in his first turn attack, if they are stacked together, the Japanese player can penetrate far into the Chinese rear.

Thinking outside the box and abusing the game system can and will lead to amazingly bad results in China.

And I do not share your belief in the partisan system and the idea that it will have a huge effect on the Japanese player. For example, if we leave the units as they are now and dont add new ones to fill out China, if I set up heavily in the north, and ignore the partisan threat in Manchuria, I can knock the ChiComs out of the war in a few impulses.

If I lose one or two hexes to partisans in Manchuria during that time, it is a price I am more than willing to pay.

My beef with China as it looks now is that it is too easy to abuse the map and the few units. I think a good solution to the problem is to add new units to Japan and China, like I suggested in my first post in this thread.

So, after the Chinese setup, Japan sets up its entire army in a small area of China. Lets say they focus everything in the south. Maybe they leave one or two corps at places like Shanghai to prevent the Chinese from taking too much.

This is impossible, because the Japanese only control Canton at game start. That makes 2 Corps-sized units.
I agree that what I said was mainly nit picking, because you could have said something else rather than the "south" and you may have been more righ.
But not to the extend you are describing.
Because, Japan's "entire army" at game start, in China, is 10 Corps.
China have 19 (but see later for Cummunists Chinese).
It will take a long time for the Manchurian army to join with the rest of the Japanese army in China. At least a couple of turns.

The Japanese now have a very high superiority in a local part of the front. The Chinese forces are either spread out and hiding in mountains trying to hold a front, or they are stacked together at a few key locations trying to hold those locations. If they are spread out, the Japanese player can kill off 2-3 in his first turn attack, if they are stacked together, the Japanese player can penetrate far into the Chinese rear.

Wrong, because the Japanese will lack the supply. there are only 2 Railways (TWO) who "penetrate far in Chinese rear". Obviously the Chinese will be on the way to this penetration. One of these raiways (the Kweilin one) does not really penetrate. Lots of HQ will be needed to go into the Chinese deep, around Chungking.

And I do not share your belief in the partisan system and the idea that it will have a huge effect on the Japanese player. For example, if we leave the units as they are now and dont add new ones to fill out China, if I set up heavily in the north, and ignore the partisan threat in Manchuria, I can knock the ChiComs out of the war in a few impulses.

I'n not saying it have a "huge" effect, I'm saying it have an effect. Partisans left go gallore reduce dramatically the production of Japan, and destroying them can be made a pain.


But I agree wholeheartly with the latest of what you wrote, and it was my experience about half the time when playing CWiF, the annihilation of the ChiComs (as you named them).

Even if not "setting up heavily in the north", the Communist only have 4 corps at start, and it is a small number to resist the 10 Japanese corps. Even if 2 will be left in Canton, and 1-2 in Shanghai, that leave Japan with 7 corps (and some losse takers) to destroy the Communist Chinese.

This is the reason why some cities were added to the Communist China area, even though they were not enormous cities as those already present. Especially Tianshui and Ningsia (plus the Wosung beloved Yennan [;)]).

As I already said previously, I'm in favor of extra MIL units attached to some of these Communist Cities, such as Yennan for example. I believe this will be enough to resist the initial big threat of Communist chinese annihilation.

Then, as the game progresses, and as more Chinese Communist are being built, the risk decreased to become null, and to become a risk for the Japanese.

...I dont remember if this has been discussed before, but...

In our gaming group we have been experimenting with the idea of allowing the Chines to setup AFTER Japan ...which in our minds makes sence since the war is an ongoing (and somewhat stalemated to boot) affair where IMO it is hardly appropriate to allow Japan a kind of "double move" by setting up last and moving first...

Allowing China to setup after japan in our experience is a BIG boon to China from a defensive point of view...since it all but removes the freebie killing of Chinese units...

ORIGINAL: CBoehm

...I dont remember if this has been discussed before, but...

In our gaming group we have been experimenting with the idea of allowing the Chines to setup AFTER Japan ...which in our minds makes sence since the war is an ongoing (and somewhat stalemated to boot) affair where IMO it is hardly appropriate to allow Japan a kind of "double move" by setting up last and moving first...

Allowing China to setup after japan in our experience is a BIG boon to China from a defensive point of view...since it all but removes the freebie killing of Chinese units...

I agree ENTIRELY to this, and I support this.
Even if Harry Rowland made fun of it by asking if making China setup after Japan was to represent in the game China's superior manoeuvrability on the field (which is imaginary, it was a joke from him).

This is true that it is hard to understand why the Chinese Army would not know where is the Japanese army in China since 1937.

As a side note, this is also true for Poland setting up against Germany after Germany, and Germany having to ignore where the Polish units were when setting up. In an old version of WiF, Poland did setup before Germany, and it was correct.
I know this is not a big deal, but it hurts me to see the Poles being granted such an advantage.
 
PS : I now hate this Edit interface. I prefered the old one. It is too long to load.

ORIGINAL: Froonp

China North (Communist) - in MWiF, After modifications

DA BA DADABABBAA BABA BA BA BABA [Mission impossible music]

Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to hold this area, with 4 ChiCom armies against a potential force of 10+6 Japanese Corps. The enemy will have total air supremacy and will have artillery support.

This message will self destruct in 10 seconds.