Matrix Games Forums

Just a thought, but if you add more units, what happens if Japan uses those units to go in a different direction? Even if you just increase number of units by breaking down the strength of existing units you increase the total number and thus provide more flexability to Japan.

Great! This is just the kind of exchange I've wanted for ages...
 
Someone said earlier that doubling the number of frontline hexes by making a euro-scale China requires a doubling of the number of corps/army units available for it on both sides. I heartily agree with this, as, it seems, do most people here. If so, then the question persists: do we retain the unlimited breakdown of Divisions as the primary method of acheiving this, or do we create a lot of new, larger units? 
 
What I'm sure nobody wants is an add-on MWiF 'module' feel to the changes, which is why IMHO Panzerjaeger Hortlund's "Orient In Flames" China-only counters haven't been met with much applause.
 
But are we missing an easy, quick fix solution because it seems too easy? Another recent entry on this thread supported my original assertion that there are, literally, 'missing millions' of combatants when looking at the WiFFE counters for China .. why not a MIL for every Chinese/Manchurian
/Korean city, new or otherwise? So why not another 3 or even 4 Puppet Gov't MIL for the Japanese? Why not a bunch of new Warlords and a few GAR DIV?
 
If the new units are - in terms of their str and movement - modestly proportioned, I'd be very suprised if they imbalanced the game .. yes, theoretically, many of them could leave China, but are we really that concerned about a 2-2 Peking turncoat Militia corps hitting Bondi Beach, or the 3-1 Yin Yong Yang Bandit Army rampaging through Moscow?
 
Stuffing units into gaps in the front line will be (and historically, should be) the cheif concern of both (all 3?) players in the Sino-Japanese conflict, so I don't think their presence will 'free-up' other units for operations elsewhere..

There aren't enough Chinese units!

There aren't enough Japanese units!

Does no one see any contradiction in those statements?

Hey, it's going to be different. China in WIF FE is completely different from every other theater in the war. That is true for CWIF and it will be true for MWIF.

If you are hoping for MWIF to recreate the strength density per frontline hex that WIF FE has in China, you are going to be bitterly disappointed. To do that would require a massive overhaul of all aspects of the game, worldwide. Indeed, I doubt that there is a single aspect of the game that would not be affected by a mere 50% increase in troop strength (combat factors) in China. So, should you get your wish and dozens of more units were added to the Chinese (who need them to cover all the extra hexes) and the Japanese (who need them to cover all the extra hexes) you would find that the USSR is easy for the Japanese to overwhelm, and so is the CW, and it is easy for the Japanese to improve how they defend every island in the Pacific. And so on around the globe with repercussions.

Try accepting the change that you have fewer units to defend a long front. How do you do that? Have you played Finland against the USSR in the Winter War? How about the Italians defending East Africa from the CW? How about the USSR defending against Germany in 1940? WIF FE has these situations come up and the game isn't a total rout or completely unplayable. It's just different from what you are used to have happen in China.

As for mimicing reality, Harry Rowland said that WIF players never stop attacking, so the way China plays out in WIF games is markedly different from history.

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

There aren't enough Chinese units!

There aren't enough Japanese units!

Does no one see any contradiction in those statements?

Hey, it's going to be different. China in WIF FE is completely different from every other theater in the war. That is true for CWIF and it will be true for MWIF.

If you are hoping for MWIF to recreate the strength density per frontline hex that WIF FE has in China, you are going to be bitterly disappointed. To do that would require a massive overhaul of all aspects of the game, worldwide. Indeed, I doubt that there is a single aspect of the game that would not be affected by a mere 50% increase in troop strength (combat factors) in China. So, should you get your wish and dozens of more units were added to the Chinese (who need them to cover all the extra hexes) and the Japanese (who need them to cover all the extra hexes) you would find that the USSR is easy for the Japanese to overwhelm, and so is the CW, and it is easy for the Japanese to improve how they defend every island in the Pacific. And so on around the globe with repercussions.

Try accepting the change that you have fewer units to defend a long front. How do you do that? Have you played Finland against the USSR in the Winter War? How about the Italians defending East Africa from the CW? How about the USSR defending against Germany in 1940? WIF FE has these situations come up and the game isn't a total rout or completely unplayable. It's just different from what you are used to have happen in China.

As for mimicing reality, Harry Rowland said that WIF players never stop attacking, so the way China plays out in WIF games is markedly different from history.

I very much agree with this position.

Lars

I have played a number of CWIF games and my experience in China is that the conflict is fun.
However it is totally different from the way it play in WIF, which is fine.

What I don't like with the way the new map is that it seriosly limits japan's options, if you don't kill or at least hurt China badly you are stuffed as you cannot hold your lines against a chineese counteroffensive.

I like to have the option with Japan to go after CW or Russia isntead of just CHina with the CWIF scale map I don't feel I have that option.

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

As for mimicing reality, Harry Rowland said that WIF players never stop attacking, so the way China plays out in WIF games is markedly different from history.

Yep, and that's why people love the game:

- it is fun!
- It prompts different strategies all the time
- Because it is NOT a boring recreation of WWII that suffers from the Third Reich syndrome of - do this move in this order to win
- That's why you will sell tons of copies and hopefully make tons of dough

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: c92nichj

The Japanese, one way or the other must have rear guard units, at least for anti partisan duties. If they don't, they will be doomed anyway because of Partisans. This is not new, WiF FE has this too. So I believe that a Japanese player guarding its rear areas has the ability to guard cities that are threatened to be reached by outflanking Chinese units. Moreover, the Japanese units are more mobile than the Chinese, and they would have no problem catching it up. Being out of supply, the raider has all chances of getting crushed rapidly.

In WIFFE a rearguard of two militia with their ZOC's can cover the whole northern plain from partisan activities. The south is allready covered because the front is so close to the rear.
How can this be achieved with the new map?

On this picture, the Japanese garrison value is 6.
That means that 1,4 Partisan unit will appear each time China is rolled for on the Partisan table. This is enormous.

Partisans can appear in northern China, in Tsi-Nan or eastwards, and move later to bother the Japanese. One of the usual Partisan strategy in China is also to accumulate lots of them, to help regular troops attacking. Moreover, playing with the Pacific scale ZoC wold mean that Partisans can appear almost anywhere on this picture.

This to say that, on this picture, your anti-partisan setup is absolutely minimal, and not at all at the levels I'm used to see. So, would it be on the normal WiF FE map or on the MWiF map, it is IMHO quite not efficient and open to huge partisan risks in both cases.

0,4 partisans appearing in nonvital areas of China cannor be called enormous, as this screen shot is from 1940 if they appear they are likely to be extremely weak and easy to kill, as the japaneese will be in supply from the coast.

I disagree with you, Yohan..
 
I like WiF partly because it offers the opportunity to explore 'what if' scenarios and strategies. This means it needs to be as realistic as this scale allows, and as China was a historical stalemate, and it's generally acknowledged that it would've been difficult for either side in the Sino-Japanese war to avoid this, the rules should make it difficult (although obvoiusly not impossible) to do so.
 
Sure, sure, everyone wants a fun game, and charging units across deserts and mountains in a war of manouvre and bold flanking cavalry charges sounds just great, but guess what .. that was never going to happen in China in 39-45, at least beyond an incidental and very local level, so to be experiencing that in WiFFE, or MWiF, or CWiF, detracts from the historicity, and consequently the credibility, of an ostensibly historical wargame.
 
If you want to experience the China theatre as a much more dynamic - read ahistorical - conflict as possible, why not design 'Fascist Counterstrike Orientalis', or 'Tojo On Acid', or '3 Way Mayhem: Mao's Blitzkreig' etc etc.

ORIGINAL: Manic Inertia

I disagree with you, Yohan..

I like WiF partly because it offers the opportunity to explore 'what if' scenarios and strategies. This means it needs to be as realistic as this scale allows, and as China was a historical stalemate, and it's generally acknowledged that it would've been difficult for either side in the Sino-Japanese war to avoid this, the rules should make it difficult (although obvoiusly not impossible) to do so.

Sure, sure, everyone wants a fun game, and charging units across deserts and mountains in a war of manouvre and bold flanking cavalry charges sounds just great, but guess what .. that was never going to happen in China in 39-45, at least beyond an incidental and very local level, so to be experiencing that in WiFFE, or MWiF, or CWiF, detracts from the historicity, and consequently the credibility, of an ostensibly historical wargame.

If you want to experience the China theatre as a much more dynamic - read ahistorical - conflict as possible, why not design 'Fascist Counterstrike Orientalis', or 'Tojo On Acid', or '3 Way Mayhem: Mao's Blitzkreig' etc etc.

No cavalry in China either. Japan is lucky if they get several units that can move 4. China doesn't even get that. Attempts at sweeping maneuvers with 3-2s and 5-3s become more like shuffling on down the line or oozing through.

(...) This means it needs to be as realistic as this scale allows, and as China was a historical stalemate, and it's generally acknowledged that it would've been difficult for either side in the Sino-Japanese war to avoid this (...).

I disagree with you Manic Inertia.
It was a stalemale, not because it would have been difficult for either side, just because none of the 3 sides had a will to attack the enemy.
I think this is the direction to take if we want to have something believable. Sure, a couple of units should be added to prevent the immediate annihilation of the Communists, but the Army of each belligerent should not be doubled in size.

There are factors which prevent Japan from having the will to conquer china :
- There is quite nothing to win, as the extra resources gained are for some of them not railable at home. Attacking Russia can be seen as more advantageous.
- There is a steep cost to conquer each Chinese city in terms of US Entry. Each city is 0,4 turns that the USA will be at war sooner. Conquer 10 cities, and the USA will be ready for war 4 turns earlier (because of 4 extra chits drawn).

The factors preventing China from having the will to attack Japan are imbedded in the counters in the way of the Chinese Attack Weakness.

Only the communist have not factor, but they are not numerous, and only near the end of the game do they go rampage, helped by zillions of partisans accumulated other the turns, and kept safe in remote northern deserts, and it is pretty much historical because Communist China rampaged China at the end of WWII.

0,4 partisans appearing in nonvital areas of China cannor be called enormous, as this screen shot is from 1940 if they appear they are likely to be extremely weak and easy to kill, as the japaneese will be in supply from the coast.

It is 1,4, not 0,4 (each time China is rolled for), and it is a lot (this averages to 0,42 partisans a turn because China is rolled for 30% of the time), because they can appear in the northern Gobi desert, which is controlled at start by the Japanese. They can accumulate here for turns, and seriously outflank the Japanese then. If you follow that covering strategy up to the war with the Americans, you'll have 14x0,42 (5,88) extra partisans units on your back. that is 6 units, and those 6 units can be a pain to deal with at a time where you have other things to do.

What I am saying is that your approach to ZoC the possible appearing places of the PART is not good IMO. You must aim at reaching the garrison value to actually prevent them from forming up.

Moreover, you have 6 garrison value if you do not use your planes, which won't be true, so in reality you have 4 on that picture.
That makes 6,72 PART accumulated in 14 turns from SO39 to ND41.

ORIGINAL: CBoehm

I completely agree!! - the mechanics of WIF simply means that if a front is expanded from 5 to 10 (or even just 6-7 hexes) and both sides have 10 corps then what was before a stable (somewhat Puppet Troops weren't used for frontline duties.stalemated front) now is an extremely unstable front just waiting to be cracked...

Sino-Japanese warhad it's own "mechanics":

Frontline in China proper was over 2000 km long, direct line. IRL maybe nearly 3000 km.

There were at utmost about 30 Japanese Divisions in China (including Brigades).

Puppet Troops weren't used for frontline duties.

There were about 300-350 Chinese Nationalist and Communist frontline Divisions

That means statistically:

about 66-100 km frontline per Japanese Division (about 20.000 men)
about 5,7 - 10 km frontline per Chinese Division (6.000-10.000 men)

So where would be a continuous full-manned frontline in China?

There had to be Schwerpunkte. Some parts of the frontline were really badly guarded.

Control of the Hinterland was even worse. You can do the math with 900.000 puppet rearguards and about 2 Million square-kilometers of Japanese occupied terrain:

That would be 1 reareguard per 2,2 square-kilometers.

Nationalist China even established it's own schools behind the Japanese lines.

I wouldn't like to play a MWIF without historical setting, without historical capabilities and probabilities. For gaming I don't like pure fiction.

Regards

ORIGINAL: Froonp

There are factors which prevent Japan from having the will to conquer china :
- There is quite nothing to win, as the extra resources gained are for some of them not railable at home. Attacking Russia can be seen as more advantageous.
- There is a steep cost to conquer each Chinese city in terms of US Entry. Each city is 0,4 turns that the USA will be at war sooner. Conquer 10 cities, and the USA will be ready for war 4 turns earlier (because of 4 extra chits drawn).

We have to make sure that alterations of the China map and adding extra MIL
units for China and Japan won't make it too tempting for Japan to attack Russia.

You say that with the new map it's quite nothing to win in China for Japan. That
means a smart Japanese player would be more inclined to go for Russia than in
regular WIFFE (where he had at least some chance to gain something in the war
against China).

So if you beef uf Japand and China a little then you will alter the risks of a possible
Russo-Japanese war. If you change the map in Manchuria with extra cities then
you have to look at the map in Eastern Russia too. If you add militia units in
Manchuria (for Japan) you must do the same for Russia or you shift the balance.

But if you do too much with Russia then it will have implications for the European
war too. Because Russia can send some of his far-east troops to Europe to fend
off Hitler's armies trying to capture Moscow and Leningrad.

My point of saying this is that we can NOT only look at Japan and China when
altering the map in China. We have to look at the whole picture and see if the
balance is altered in nearby areas (and even further with regards to Russia).

The Japanese should be encouraged to keep some presence in China to keep
his already captured resources and also a chance to grab a few others. Then
he will not early in the war have enough units to make a surprise attack
on Russia without seriously risking loss of entire China. So the China map
should be in a way that it would be POSSIBLE (but difficult) for Japan to make a
major offensive in China and succeed. If it's impossible because of too little
mobility and too little gain (resources etc.) then a smart Japanese player would
calculate what is the minimum of forces he needs to keep China and use the
extra units elsewhere (India, Russia etc.).

Of course, a Japanese player could go for India or Russia without fighting a lot
in China, but then it will because he CHOOSES to do so at the expense of
possible gains in China. It should not be because he MUST do so because it's
futile to make any offensives in China because of the European scaled map with
new cities, relocated resources etc.

I think it's dangerous to alter the location of the resources on the map too
much to e. g. make them easier or more difficult for the Japanese player to grab.
If the extra resources he can grab are too far away it will discourage the
Japanese player from even trying. If they are too close to the initial 1939
border then it's too easy to grab them and after this success the Japanese
player can go on the defensive just to kill an occasional Chinese unit to
prevent him from growing too quickly.

There is no right or wrong about which new cities to add, which new terrain
to add, where to relocate the resources etc. A good way is to make a good
initial guess and then PLAYTEST and playtest again. Make some minor
modifications after feedback from the playtesters. And so on. Eventually
you will have a situation in the far-east that is fun for ALL players (China,
Japan, USA, CW and Russia) without altering the delicate balance in Europe
that already exists.

I'm therefore sceptical to adding new combat units for each side. If new
units should be added then it should be GAR or MIL units. And you then have
to make sure you add for ALL countries on the WIFFE Asian scaled map,
not only China and Japan. That includes Russia in the far-east, USA in Philippines,
CW in Australia, India and Malaya etc. But this is quite risky for play balance
so I think if this is the way we want to go then we should make a vote for
each unit just like we did for each extra city in China. Just to poll the views
of everyone participating in this thread.

Ass a background to the post I am about to write next I want to visualize the situation for everyone.

Here are the avaliable forces (thank you Froonp) :

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.


Here is the old map:


Here is the new map:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

There aren't enough Chinese units!

There aren't enough Japanese units!

Does no one see any contradiction in those statements?

I dont see a contradiction in those statements because I dont think there is a contradiction. Imagine an OOB where Germany has 3 units, and Russia has 3 units. In such a situation, it would be perfectly valid to say that there are not enough German units, and there are not enough Russian units. And these two statements does not cancel eachother out.

Hey, it's going to be different. China in WIF FE is completely different from every other theater in the war. That is true for CWIF and it will be true for MWIF.

If you are planning to multiply the number of hexes by orders of magnitude without adding more units, then yes, its going to be different.

The problem is that when you add hexes and not units on the scale we see in China now, is that you change the nature of the game completely. With the changes you are doing now you are turning China into something very new, very different and very surreal.

Look at the two images I posted. A Chinese player will be forced with a number of very ankward alternatives and choises. First he must decide whether to defend Chunking or in the South. Because he definitively cannot do both. Now lets assume that he tries to defend a normal line. He sets up in the mountains and he tries to defend Si-An, Chunking and Nanning with resource. That gives him a defensive line consisting of ~20 hexes long.

On top of that we add the ChiComs with their 4 corps and the defense of Lan Chow (~8 hexes).

So, in effect you are asking a player to defend a line consisting of ~30 hexes with 19 units. That in itself is a tall order. But we have to remember that to reach this line in the first place, China will have had to abandon everything east of their mountainline. So, the Japanese get everything east of the mountains for free. (If you want we can attempt to defend the resource south of Chansa too and extend our Chinese defensive line with ~10 hexes.)

So, to defend the 30 hexes with the 19 units, the player will have been forced to abandon both industry and resources...his BPs will suffer on turn 1.

Ok, over to the Japanese side.
Here we have 10 Corps setting up in China and 5 in Manchuria. Suppose he decides to roll down the Chinese line from north to south. He sets up 2-3 Corps to cover the land in the south, and the rest goes up north. Here he gets a local superiority of 12-13 Corps against 4 ChiComs.

But there is more. Japan starts with 3 trp and one amp. That means he can lift 4 corps from Japan to China on turn 1. These he can either reinforce the south, or add to the devastating superiority in the north. Lets assume that he just use these to reinfoce the south.

The fate of ChiCom is pretty clear. With these changes, they just die. They cant hold, it is impossible. If we add warlords they get what...2-3 more units? That does not change anything.

And after the fall of ChiCom, NatChi now must defend a line 21 hexes long. But to have the frontline being only 21 hexes, he must abandon everything except the mountainline protecting Chungking and down to Nanning. The Japanese player can decide to attack from the north or the south, or both. He has the HQs to do that. The Chinese player however can forget everything about attacking he has one HQ, and his units will run out of their supply lines fast.

If you are hoping for MWIF to recreate the strength density per frontline hex that WIF FE has in China, you are going to be bitterly disappointed. To do that would require a massive overhaul of all aspects of the game, worldwide.

No, like I have suggested, if you add forces that can only be used in China, Manchuria, Korea, then you have not changed anything outside those places. To add a bunch of territorials that can only be used in Manchuria, Korea, China is not exactly something thar requires a massive overhaul of anything. You would not even have to change the rules. And what exactly would the principal difference be between adding a handful of territorials and adding a handful of warlords?

Indeed, I doubt that there is a single aspect of the game that would not be affected by a mere 50% increase in troop strength (combat factors) in China. So, should you get your wish and dozens of more units were added to the Chinese (who need them to cover all the extra hexes) and the Japanese (who need them to cover all the extra hexes) you would find that the USSR is easy for the Japanese to overwhelm, and so is the CW, and it is easy for the Japanese to improve how they defend every island in the Pacific. And so on around the globe with repercussions.

No. You must have missunderstood my suggestion. If we add 20 units to China that can only be used in China and 20 units to Japan that can only be used in China, that wont have any repercussions anywhere but in China.

HOWEVER, what I have said about China also applies in Manchuria and in Korea.

Try accepting the change that you have fewer units to defend a long front. How do you do that? Have you played Finland against the USSR in the Winter War? How about the Italians defending East Africa from the CW? How about the USSR defending against Germany in 1940? WIF FE has these situations come up and the game isn't a total rout or completely unplayable. It's just different from what you are used to have happen in China.

Yes, I have played Finland trying to defend against the USSR, and I have played Italy trying to defend East Africa.

But to be honest, any Italian player that tries to hold East Africa against the UK is just suicidal since it is as good as impossible to keep the units in East Africa supplied. To be honest, the first thing you do as Italy is to withdraw from East Africa.

And to be honest, defending Finland against the USSR has got nothing whatsoever to do with the China situation, since the Finnish defence usually consists of massing all your units in 2-3 key hexes.

You are creating a situation in China which makes China impossible to defend. To defend a line that is not plausible to hold, China has to abandon some of its industry and resources. So China will lose BPs leading to fewer units still, while the Japanese player can focus on China and simply swarm the Chinese defences.

As for mimicing reality, Harry Rowland said that WIF players never stop attacking, so the way China plays out in WIF games is markedly different from history.

Look, I know that you want to change as little as possible in the game. And I respect that. But you have made the desicion to change the map in a very big way. I respect that desicion and I am quite convinced that it is a good idea. But you must acknowledge the fact that the OOB was designed with the old map in mind. And when you change the map you will have to change the OOB aswell.

The alternative is to create a MWIF where China is always knocked out of the war before the end of 1940. In China, you are asking a player to defend 30+ hexes with the same units that he used to defend 10 hexes (on the old map). And even when the Chinese defence line consisted of 10 hexes, the Chinese player often had a heck of a time trying to survive. Ive player China in wif and been defeated by late 1940 by a concentrated Japanese effort, so I know that its hard enough to do in the old map.

And note here that these are all "game arguments" and not "history arguments".

Here is the new map:

Hey, this is not fair, this is not the latest, this is the very first one I posted.

The latest is in page 8 of the forum I believe, and I appreciate that you use this instead of the one you posted.

You could also post the MWiF China map as it is now, that is, without modifications, it would show all, the WiF FE one, the MWiF now, and the MWiF with the modifications.

By the way, how do you manage to post 2 images in the same post ? [:D]

Look at the two images I posted. A Chinese player will be forced with a number of very ankward alternatives and choises. First he must decide whether to defend Chunking or in the South. Because he definitively cannot do both. Now lets assume that he tries to defend a normal line. He sets up in the mountains and he tries to defend Si-An, Chunking and Nanning with resource. That gives him a defensive line consisting of ~20 hexes long.

On top of that we add the ChiComs with their 4 corps and the defense of Lan Chow (~8 hexes).

So, in effect you are asking a player to defend a line consisting of ~30 hexes with 19 units. That in itself is a tall order. But we have to remember that to reach this line in the first place, China will have had to abandon everything east of their mountainline. So, the Japanese get everything east of the mountains for free. (If you want we can attempt to defend the resource south of Chansa too and extend our Chinese defensive line with ~10 hexes.)

Well, Panzerjaeger, reading what you write, I wonder if you have really played the China Campaign in CWiF.
You count hexes, and units, but you seem not to look at the features on the map.
Have you noticed the plentiful abundance of railways going into the heart of China ? Sure, with such a vast number of choices of penetration, the Chinese really has to wonder where theJapanese will come from... Well sorry...

Well, pun set aside, as I said previously, there is a problem with the Communist Chinese, but let us see during the playtest if the problem is that critical with the new map, without any new unit. Then, we will add a few units and we will see again.

ORIGINAL: Froonp

By the way, how do you manage to post 2 images in the same post ? [:D]

Ive hosted them on photobucket.com and then I direct link to that place. [8D]

To sum up the China maps, here is the WiF FE China Map