The China Problem

[vettim89]

ORIGINAL: 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.

Oddly I both agree and disagree with you here. I agree that Japan could have conquered more of China if it so desired. If they poured all or most of its resources into the manland, they probably could have achieved much better results than they did. However, they still would have been in the same position that they found themselves in at the end of 1941: oil starved. They had to strike south to have any hope of sustaining their economy.

This is where I disagree with you. The problem that people are bringing up is that the game in its present format allows the Japanese player to do both simultaneously. You own argument says that If Japan had so desired they could have driven the Chinese back further BUT they didn't because they were devoting the necessary resources to ship building and the other things necessary for a long campaign in the Pacific. If you are correct than your assertion that the Japanese should be able to pound China to dust while conquering the Pacific is counterintuitive to your first statement.

Yes WiTP and WiTP-AE are great games to try out what if scenarios, but if the game allows a player to do things that were beyond the scope of either side's RL abilities then it fails to deliver a playable game. The Japanese should not be able to starve the Chinese to death with Strategic Bombing. It simply was not possible.

I have to agree that instead of Heavy and Light Industry in China, certain bases should instead be given organic supply values. As supplies represents both bullets and beans, it may be possible to affect the bullets part with bombing but not the beans part. The China problem has been part of WiTP from it's inception. I think a few HR's can at least alleviate some of the issues. As far as trade offs go, in my WiTP the no strategic bombing rule applied to both sides meaning the Allies could not launch B-29 attacks from China either. Seems a fair trade especially considering the problmes the USAAF had trying to do it in the RL war

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: vicberg

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.

you can´t be serious with this comment. This is not the command and conquer forum.[&:]

[vicberg]

ORIGINAL: vettim89

ORIGINAL: 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.

Oddly I both agree and disagree with you here. I agree that Japan could have conquered more of China if it so desired. If they poured all or most of its resources into the manland, they probably could have achieved much better results than they did. However, they still would have been in the same position that they found themselves in at the end of 1941: oil starved. They had to strike south to have any hope of sustaining their economy.

This is where I disagree with you. The problem that people are bringing up is that the game in its present format allows the Japanese player to do both simultaneously. You own argument says that If Japan had so desired they could have driven the Chinese back further BUT they didn't because they were devoting the necessary resources to ship building and the other things necessary for a long campaign in the Pacific. If you are correct than your assertion that the Japanese should be able to pound China to dust while conquering the Pacific is counterintuitive to your first statement.

Yes WiTP and WiTP-AE are great games to try out what if scenarios, but if the game allows a player to do things that were beyond the scope of either side's RL abilities then it fails to deliver a playable game. The Japanese should not be able to starve the Chinese to death with Strategic Bombing. It simply was not possible.

I have to agree that instead of Heavy and Light Industry in China, certain bases should instead be given organic supply values. As supplies represents both bullets and beans, it may be possible to affect the bullets part with bombing but not the beans part. The China problem has been part of WiTP from it's inception. I think a few HR's can at least alleviate some of the issues. As far as trade offs go, in my WiTP the no strategic bombing rule applied to both sides meaning the Allies could not launch B-29 attacks from China either. Seems a fair trade especially considering the problmes the USAAF had trying to do it in the RL war

Now I understand. Thank you. Japan didn't have the juice to do an all-out assault AND maintain everything else. It should be a choice with a cost.

[vicberg]

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: vicberg

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.

you can´t be serious with this comment. This is not the command and conquer forum.[&:]

LOL...nice response...actually I am serious. TBH, Japan had no chance. But game makers generally don't create one-sided games. So this would be the very first game I've ever encountered that didn't at least present a no-matter-how-farcical option for some type of political end to the war in Japanese favor.

[mike scholl 1]

ORIGINAL: vicberg

LOL...nice response...actually I am serious. TBH, Japan had no chance. But game makers generally don't create one-sided games. So this would be the very first game I've ever encountered that didn't at least present a no-matter-how-farcical option for some type of political end to the war in Japanese favor.

Chess is a GAME, Checkers is a GAME, Chutes and Ladders is a GAME. War in the Pacific is a "conflict simulation". And in the "conflict" being simulated, Japan had "zip", "ziltch", "nada chance in Hell" of "winning".

You CAN win a "game victory" by doing better than your historical counter-parts, but you should NEVER UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES be able to "win" the War in the Pacific. And if any "loophole" in the game's rules allow such a possibility, then the "loophole" needs to be closed by players who want a serious game. Beat up on the AI all you want..., but for PBEM play China should be what it was historically. A "money pit" for both sides, producing nothing but false hope and disappointment.

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: bklooste
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.

Actually Japan launched 3 huge attempts to take Changsha that all failed with heavy casualties. One in Sept. 39, another in Sept. 41, and the last in Dec. 41 as a spoiling attack to keep the Chinese from assisting the British at Hong Kong, so it is not commonly referred to as a battle for Changsha as the other two are. All three attacks numbered 100,000 or more attacking Japanese and all three were beaten.

By 1939, the Chinese had finally learned to fight and Japan was no longer enjoying victory after victory in China. In fact here’s the breakdown of the major actions that occurred between 1939 and 1941:

Hainan Island February 1939 Japanese victory
Battle of Nanchang March 1939 Japanese victory
Battle of Xiushui River March 1939 Japanese victory
Battle of Suixian-Zaoyang May 1939 Chinese Victory
Shantou June 1939 Japanese victory
Battle of Changsha (1939) September 1939 Chinese Victory
Battle of South Guangxi November 1939 Chinese Victory
Battle of Kunlun Pass December 1939 Chinese Victory
1939-40 Winter Offensive November 1939 Chinese Victory
Battle of Wuyuan March 1940 Chinese Victory
Battle of Zaoyang-Yichang May 1940 Chinese Victory
Hundred Regiments Offensive August 1940 Chinese Victory
Vietnam Expedition September 1940 Japanese victory
Central Hupei November 1940 Chinese Victory
Battle of South Henan January 1941 Chinese Victory
Western Hopei March 1941 Chinese Victory
Battle of Shanggao March 1941 Chinese Victory
Battle of South Shanxi May 1941 Japanese victory
Battle of Changsha (1941) September 1941 Chinese Victory
Battle of Changsha (1941) December 1941 Chinese Victory

Total Japanese victories: 6
Total Chinese victories: 14

Of note, these were all strictly Japan vs. China affairs, no allied help was involved in these conflicts so the notion that China couldn’t fight well without allied assistance is false.

By 1939, the war in China was no longer winnable for Japan. China lacked a modern army to go on the offensive to drive out the Japanese, but they had learned to fight and fight well on the defensive, and Japan was no longer willing to pay the huge price they were paying in all their failed engagements.

So by 1941, they had switched to a strategy of simply holding onto what they had, and they were having major difficulties simply doing that due to the fact they couldn’t keep their supply lines open all the time without massive troop commitments in the rear areas.

There’s a myth that China was utterly useless perpetrated by the western authors of the era that has crept down through history. China had problems there is no doubt, but they were nowhere near the total pushovers that the game portrays them as.

Jim

[oldman45]

Never knew that Jim, where did you get that info from?

[Barb]

Jim - I would say you had never read about inefficiency of Chinese Army. I wonder how China could survive the ordeal.
Conscription causing death of many men before they reached their assigned training units, corruption, internal strife, CKS always messing up with things, units facing comunists, inefficient officers, "black souls",  ...

Actually:
Battle of South Guangxi November 1939 Chinese Victory - this was because Japs no longer needed to hold the area, because they took Vietnam [;)]
1939-40 Winter Offensive November 1939 Chinese Victory -The only mission Chinese accopmlished was tying down number of Japanese units so they were unable to mass them for offensive operations against China.
Vietnam Expedition September 1940 Japanese victory - No chinese troops were present in the area
...

Why the Chinese were victorious in many operations?
1. They were unable to defend area by defence - Japanese offensive almost allways beated them and forced them to withdraw
2. They used large number of troops in flanking attack - what players barely do in witp-ae. Instead they are trying to win positional war without sufficient means
3. Japanese didnt commited large bodies of trops to local attacks - that is the opposite any japanese player would do in witp-ae.

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: oldman45

Never knew that Jim, where did you get that info from?

I’ve been reading a lot about the Chinese and the CBI in the past year or two (currently reading Slim’s book), but the list of the battles I posted above, I pulled off of wiki.

I know it’s not a great source, but simply Google the battle names for the individual histories, lots of other sites and data will come up other than wiki.

If you go to the second Sino-Japanese war page on wiki and scroll to the bottom, there is a list of most major engagements fought during the war. They put the victor’s flag next to each entry. From 31-early 39, almost every flag is Japanese. From early 39 till the war’s end, almost every flag is Chinese.

It’s a striking visual representation of when China’s army became proficient enough to stop the Japanese and the war in China became a lost cause for Japan. Here’s the link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Sino-Japanese_War

I recently finished re-reading The Stilwell Papers again. The second time through I picked up on a lot I missed in my first reading of the book. What I found absolutely amazing is his complaints about the racism that the British and US governments had when approaching the Chinese government, yet all through his writings he commonly refers to Chiang Kai-shek as “peanut”. LOL

It was a very different time in the 1940s.

Jim

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: Barb

Jim - I would say you had never read about inefficiency of Chinese Army. I

I am more than aware China had major problems during the war. But they did stop the Japanese cold by 1939 and they had learned to fight by then. Most of China’s problems came from the corruption in their system.

Stilwell writes about the troubles he had at Ramgarh with the high level Chinese officers who insisted troop payrolls be given to them instead of directly to the troops (Stilwell refused of course). It was common practice in China for officers to steal the payroll/medical supplies/rations, etc. thus desertions, disease and starvation were a problem in many military units in China.

But it was generally the politicos and non-professionals who did this. There was still a core of patriotic strong professional officers in the Chinese military who constantly battled against the corruption. Once Stilwell managed to filter out the trash from the units at Ramgarh, the troops trained there were just as good as any of their allied counterparts in theater and their performance proves it.

http://cbi-theater-5.home.comcast.net/~ ... mgarh.html

In China there were tough battle hardened units just like those in Ramgarh, they’re the ones who stopped Japan. But history only remembers the worst, mostly because western writers focused on the abuses to help justify their racism, which was predominate for most western peoples of that era.

Jim

[jackyo123]

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

ORIGINAL: vicberg

LOL...nice response...actually I am serious. TBH, Japan had no chance. But game makers generally don't create one-sided games. So this would be the very first game I've ever encountered that didn't at least present a no-matter-how-farcical option for some type of political end to the war in Japanese favor.

Chess is a GAME, Checkers is a GAME, Chutes and Ladders is a GAME. War in the Pacific is a "conflict simulation". And in the "conflict" being simulated, Japan had "zip", "ziltch", "nada chance in Hell" of "winning".

I would (and others have too) that a political solution that could have given Japan it's 'victory' might have been possible. I would agree that a 'military' victory was impossible for Japan. But a political victory might have been possible.

what might have triggered this?

a> If Germany successfully finished off the Soviet Union in 1942 - the US might have needed to curtail its Pac activities for several more years to face the German threat. This would have raised US casualties so severely on the continent that a strong Japanese peace move - especially if they also would turn against Germany - might have been successful.

b> If the Soviet Union never activates - or if the Soviet Union signed a separate peace with the Axis and begun supplying oil to japan. Might have been enough to drag the war into 46 and beyond, even with atomic bombs.

Both of these require mechanics 'outside' the game though. But there are other scenarios, 'in game', that might tilt it -

c> The Japanese had treated places like the Phillipines much better than they did historically - and granting them independence earlier. If this trend was followed in all the japanese occupied territories, and the americans were treated as 'invaders' by the populace instead of 'liberators', there might have been enough of a political backlash at home that a political solution might have resulted. Imagine the US invading the PI only to be cursed by the people? This might have raised enough of a hue and cry back home to shift attention to the Nazis and force a political solution in Japan.

There are probably other scenarios - all extremely unlikely, granted - that might have led to a political solution.

[Brady]

Some excerpts from some old posts of mine on the Topic of China:
...........

To Sumerise the Initial situation in China, that being the time frame from 1937 to just priour to the rest of the world getting to play ball with Japan in Dec. of 1941 the following points should be considered.

Priour to 1937 the Chinese had more or less given into Japanese preshures on various points and granted them conshions.

This policy had become increasingly unpopular in China, and by 1937 the KMT (Under Chaing Kai-Scheck), had decided to resist the next wave of Japanese advances. The dishion to Fight the Japanese was a very political one for Chaing, he felt he would gain no mater what.

If the Fighting went good, and he was able to delay the Japanese he would gain prestige and increase his power base and political standing, he felt that if Japan were made to suffer enough they would loose the will to continue and negoticate for a posation that was favoable to the KMT goals, and this would help him with the CCP (Pinkos).

If the Situation were to go bad, he felt that the Anglo/Americans would intervine/ come to their rescue and preshur Japan through sactions and politicaly to stop what they were doing and in the end this would more or less still work to the KMTs advantage.

Howeaver things did not go well in 1937-


Iris Chang in her Extronadary book , The Rape Of Nanking details the mass surenders of the Chinese froces, after they had slowed the Japanese at Shanghi they had eschinaly broke before Nanking, their leaders leaving them to their fate, and these were some of the best the Chinese had at the time.

p. 43

" I thought how could they become prisonears, with the kind of force they had-More than two batalions- and without even trying to show any resistance. Thier must of been a considerable number of oficers for this many troops, but not a single one remained, all of them having sliped away and escpaed, I thought. Although we had two companys, and those seven thousnad prisoners had already been disarmed, our troops could have been annihalated had they decided to rise up and revolt... Azuma Shiro, Japanese solider"

This of course was the tip of the ice berge, Chaing Kai Sheck had ordered the withdrawl from Nanking in the face of Japanese preshure (p.74/75). And Ultimately led to the loss of tens of thousnads of lives, such was the stae of confushion after this order had been isued that Chinese troops had actualy in some cases opened fire on their comarads to keep them from fleaing in the face of the enemy, those forces that were disengaging had been orderd to do so, the other forces were not told to bug out as their leaders had ran away.

So what all this boils down to is that despite the fact that the Chinese could on ocashion fight well and slow the Japanese in the end they almost always had to give way, and Despite this disaster the hope of Chaing that the US or England would intervien came to naught, the US did send Money and eveualatily the AVG but largely the situation was bad enogh by 1940....

"The Japanese had suxcessfully acheaved each of tehir objectives, inflecting huge amounts of suffering on the chinese peoples(1938)." page 9 Chinas Bitter Victory.

Also in the Chapter Chinas War Time Deplomacy (China's Bitter Victory), their are details of the Atempts at negoations The KMT was pursuing with Japan regarding conshions, the KMT was seaking peace with the Japanese, offering up a varity of posable peace terms, and the Japaense were not interested enough to make a deal.

In the End proiur to Dec. 1941 things were not looking to good for the Chinese, as the Japanese were more or less able to do what they plaesed milatarly in China.

................

Changasa is over rated defeat wise for the Japanese, it was their pouch to screw, and they did so, p 158 sights some widely inflated cashuality figures for the Japanese, it was not that big a defeat, and in the grand sceam of things pales, if you stack this up along with all the other battles the Japaense still get an "A" for being able to do what they wanted, if they chose to do so.

1st Battle of Changsha Aug. - Oct. 1939

2nd Battle of Changsha Sept. - Oct. 1941

3rd Battle of Changsha Late Dec. 1941 - Jan. 1942

Found Some interesting figures for the wartime Battles of Changasa:

Japanese Losses- (Taki)

2nd Battle - 1,670 killed, 5,184 wounded

3rd Battle - 1,591 killed, 4,412 wounded

Captured Japanese Equipment (Hsu Long-hsuen and Chang Ming-kai, History of The Sino-Japanese War (1937-1945) )

2nd Battle - "1347 rifles, 38 machineguns, 6 feild guns, 9 infantry guns,871 mules and horses, 8 armoured cars, and 269 men captured. "

3rd Battle - "4 regimental commanders killed or wounded, 139 soldiers captured together with 1138 rifles and carbines, 115 machineguns, 11 guns, 26 pistols, 20 grenade launchers, 9 radios, and large quantities of military supplies.

.............

In judging the military preformance of the Chinese Army one immediately confronts a paradox. Chinese forces lost every major confrontation on the battlefield, yet they won the war. To understand this paradox fully, the gaze must be shifted from the military to the diplomatic battlefields.

Williamson - China's Bitter Victory

..............

One the whole I think were of like mind regarding the preformance of the Chinese and Japanese army when facing each other, while the Chinese did win some small localised battles, one the whole they were not able to realy stop the Japanese from doing anyhting they wanted to do, the Japanese still get an "A" our haggling is over wheather they get a "A-" or and "A+".

What stoped the Japanese was the logisitics or the Japanese themslefs not the Chinese Defense, this is true in the 1937- to 1941 time frame and true in the 42 to 45 time frame as well.

p 165.

"The damage inflicted upon China by operation Ichi-go cannot be overemphasized"
The peragatiove always was with the Japanese."





................

[crsutton]

I got no problem with these results as the Chinese army was pretty pitiful in battle and a retreating army usually meant a broken army. The game is designed to reflect this and Chinese units are not supposed to be rebuilt with replacments but by regenerating the unit in Chunking.

However, this does not work as designed because I can't get rid of my fragment divisions. I have about 12 Chinese units that are down to nothing but a few squads or in many cases have just a few mortars. Yet they are Chinese units on the map and cannot be disbanded. If attacked by the Japanese they do not disintergrate but just retreat without hardly any losses. It is annoying and a good Japanese player can "game" the system by not ever surrounding and completely eliminating Chinese units but to keep attacking and draining down Chinese strength by allowing all Chinese units to live. I even tried to suicide these units with shock attacks but they automatically retreat if you try to march them into a Japanese position.

This is a major problem that needs to be corrected. If it is done then the major losses in battle will not matter as there will be a fresh supply of regenerated troops coming back to Chunking and China will work as designed.

The game needs to be changed so that these fragment units will disintergrate in battle rather then endlessly retreat away from massive odds attacks.

[PresterJohn001]

I think crsutton is right. As a (Japanese) player i've actively tried to kill the Chinese fragments but short of surrounding them which is a pain to achieve, its very difficult. They just keep on retreating. Maybe a self destruct option for all units, lose unit as if destroyed in combat.

[Kull]

ORIGINAL: PresterJohn

I think crsutton is right. As a (Japanese) player i've actively tried to kill the Chinese fragments but short of surrounding them which is a pain to achieve, its very difficult. They just keep on retreating. Maybe a self destruct option for all units, lose unit as if destroyed in combat.

I agree this is a problem IF the game design assumes that Chinese replacements are intended to come from "regenerated units". If not, then people might be missing out on the true purpose of these units - defacto "guerilla forces". Can you kill anything with them? No way. Can you move them around behind enemy lines, planting them atop the Japanese railways and supply lines? Absolutely. And since they're almost impossible to kill you can drive your opponent absolutely bonkers with them.

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: Kull

ORIGINAL: PresterJohn

I think crsutton is right. As a (Japanese) player i've actively tried to kill the Chinese fragments but short of surrounding them which is a pain to achieve, its very difficult. They just keep on retreating. Maybe a self destruct option for all units, lose unit as if destroyed in combat.

I agree this is a problem IF the game design assumes that Chinese replacements are intended to come from "regenerated units". If not, then people might be missing out on the true purpose of these units - defacto "guerilla forces". Can you kill anything with them? No way. Can you move them around behind enemy lines, planting them atop the Japanese railways and supply lines? Absolutely. And since they're almost impossible to kill you can drive your opponent absolutely bonkers with them.

Actually, I think I would prefer the whole units right now......

Your plan worked fine early in the game but a good Japanese player is going to clean up the mess in time and then form a solid line that you cannot move around. I no longer have enough in his rear to impede supply. And he knows where every unit is.