Matrix Games Forums

Yeah, I lost the distinction between pre-war and postwar deployments. I agree that if the game correctly penalizes the Japanese player for reducing the China garrison and otherwise makes the logistical constraints severe, it ought to be do-able.

I can imagine how the China problem would be modeled. Tge IJA dedicated transports used to China are the only ones that can be used to move troops out of China (because the IJN and civilian/industrial uses refuse to make *theirs* available). Loading troops denies the use of these vessels for supply, as does suplying troops so-loaded, so the intrinsic readiness and morale of all IJA forces in China takes a hit every unit of game time during which these forces are tied up in the invasion of *whatever.*

Moreover, any Japanese occupied city with a reduced garrison should have a random chance of going completely out of supply, losing all supplies in-city, and cutting off the supply chain to any other Japanese occupied Chinese city further down the chain of land paths. Each time Japan loses a supply connection, the lost supplies go to the Kmt, increasing their readiness and experience, and reducing their activation cost. There should also be a random chance that an effective Chinese general is added to the Kmt force pool.

In the event that Japan loses a city to Kmt or Com attack, there should be a random chance that the CEF HQ leader suicides or is killed and replaced by a junior officer of lesser ability.

Bear in mind that the game includes a serious editor that will allow players to investigate some of the more bizzare start up options without detracting from the game proper.

I forgot to add one. Each time a Chinese city is isolated or lost, the civilian economy/war production of Japan should suffer from food cutbacks.

Originally posted by mdiehl
I think allowing the Japanese player to hang himself by reducing the Chinese garrison ought to be perfectly allowable. Reduction of garrisons should immediately result in increased partisan activity with the good chance that interior locations are isolated and lose readiness, above and beyond the higher readiness reduction rate that ought to be inherent in any unit stationed in China.

Of course, if one allows the Japanese player the manifestly ahistorical, silly, politically improbable, and militarily dangerous option of moving forces out of China, the Allies ought to have the option of moving Commonwealth, Dutch or US forces anywhere they want before the game starts, since those Japanese CEF forces can in theory be deployed against these areas.

Mdhiel

I agree that partisan activity should increase incrementally with reductions of garrisons in China. Just dont know if partisans are going to be in the game. I think moral, readiness, effieciency hits would surfice to mimick partisan activity adequately though.

I dont understand your reasoning that the allied player should be able to move his forces anywhere he wants before the game starts since we are talking about redeployments during the game.

That being said. Are we not overstating things a bit. Yes the Japanese player should face severe negative consequences from pulling out too many troops from China, but its not as though the Japanese where totally incapable of redeploying some forces from China.

Consider this, The Japanese managed to redeploy to the SW pacific in 42-43 the 6th, 36th,38th,41st and 51st divisions from the China theater. In 44-45 they where able to redeploy from China and Manchuria the 1st,8th,26th,10th and 19th divisions to the Philipines and Okinawa.

So yes it would be unrealistic and unhistorical to allow the Japanese player to redeploy a large amount of forces from China without consequences. It can also be said that it would be manifestly ahistorical, silly, politically improbable and militarily dangerous *not* to allow him to redeploy *some* of his forces from China.

Again logistics and shipping constraints, coupled with your opponent, should surfice to keep any redeployments within reason.

I agree that partisan activity should increase incrementally with reductions of garrisons in China. Just dont know if partisans are going to be in the game. I think moral, readiness, effieciency hits would surfice to mimick partisan activity adequately though.

Thanks. I thought it a swell way to mimic partisans rather than having partisan units per se. The isolation of an occupied city and loss of its inherent supply would reflect partisan activity including sabotage of storage and railroads. The gift to the Kmt would represent the enhanced prestige and support garnered among the occupied by the Nats.

I dont understand your reasoning that the allied player should be able to move his forces anywhere he wants before the game starts since we are talking about redeployments during the game.

Yeah, I missed it the first time. The only pre-7 December Allied relocation should be allowed if the Japanese player selects an alternate starting condition (date, or assigns Kido Butai to some other task than the historical attack on PH).

That being said. Are we not overstating things a bit. Yes the Japanese player should face severe negative consequences from pulling out too many troops from China, but its not as though the Japanese where totally incapable of redeploying some forces from China.

Well, your question is really two separate questions. I really honestly don't think I'm overstating the effects of Japanese redployment on Japanese control in occupied China in the least. Basically, according again to Empires in the Balance, the IJA CEF (China Exp Force) had its hands completely full controlling the cities that they occupied and the rail lines linking these cities, and organizing the collection of grain and other products and getting these products to the coast for shipment to Japan. So if you reduce garrison forces, you risk losing control of supply lines and cities, and you risk starving folks back home.

As to whether the Japanese were *capable* of redeploying. Sure they were. But at the cost of transport capacity that was vitally needed for other tasks, such as supplying the CEF and moving raw materials and food in the CEFs operational area back to Japan. With a net shortfall of something like 7 million tons of lift capacity the moment the war starts, *every* time the IJA player decides to move men or material further out he ought to be weighing the consequences of the trade-off and biting his nails.

Consider this, The Japanese managed to redeploy to the SW pacific in 42-43 the 6th, 36th,38th,41st and 51st divisions from the China theater. In 44-45 they where able to redeploy from China and Manchuria the 1st,8th,26th,10th and 19th divisions to the Philipines and Okinawa.

So yes it would be unrealistic and unhistorical to allow the Japanese player redeploy a large amount of forces from China without consequences. It would also be unrealistic and unhistorical not to allow him to redeploy *some* of his forces from China.

Agreed. Allow him to move whatever he wants but potentially pay a huge price for it.

Again logistics and shipping constraints, coupled with your opponent, should surfice to keep any redeployments within reason.

Agreed. Assuming the logistical model is properly handled.

Greetings. I don't think Japan suffered from a lack of ground combat units to the point where with drawal from China would have made a differance in say the the South Pacific.
The player in WITP will have plenty of units but will find keeping a large number of them supplied far from main supply bases quite a task. I do think if he wants to he should have access to the China/Manchuria units (say he wants to swap a green unit for a more experianced one). He will most likely still be adding to and not subtracting from China during the course of the game.

Originally posted by Mogami
Greetings. I don't think Japan suffered from a lack of ground combat units to the point where with drawal from China would have made a differance in say the the South Pacific.
The player in WITP will have plenty of units but will find keeping a large number of them supplied far from main supply bases quite a task. I do think if he wants to he should have access to the China/Manchuria units (say he wants to swap a green unit for a more experianced one). He will most likely still be adding to and not subtracting from China during the course of the game.

Hello Mogami

I agree that supply logistics as in UV will make difficult if not impossible for a player to withdraw too many troops from China. I cant agree however that a Japanese player will have plenty of units even if he isnt allowed to take them from China. From my rough count, Japan redeployed from China, some 12 divisions to the Pacific theater during the course of the war.Including the bulk of the IJA 17th and 18th Armies in the SW Pacific. Where are these units going to come from, if the Japanese player isnt allowed to withdraw them from China?

I'm tired of these "contribute slop 'til ya drop" threads.

They at least have the merits of content. If you don't like it, avoid it. No one's twisting your sorry arm to keep you here, and I will not miss you in the slightest if you leave forever.

So what do people think about the idea of redeploying some Chinese nationalist divisions to India? We know they were used in Burma, what's a few hundred miles more?

Originally posted by mdiehl
So what do people think about the idea of redeploying some Chinese nationalist divisions to India? We know they were used in Burma, what's a few hundred miles more?

Well considering those few hundred miles would be through either the jungles of Burma or the Himalaya Mnts. quite a bit more. That being said I dont see why not especially if you consider India being the nationalist main supply base is threatened. I dont think the Brits would have ever invited them though, considering FDR had to do considerable arm twisting to get the Brits to accept Nationalist help in Burma.

Of course any redeployments out of China should result in increased communist partisan activity with the corresponding hits on moral, readiness, ect... on nationalist forces. Also there probalby should be increased chances of warlords defecting with their armies; further decreasing nationalist strength.

While appreciating the irony of your reply, I'm not sure it follows that increased Com partisan activity affects the Nats any *more* than the IJA.

Which gives us an interesting idea for a game mech. Decreasing the IJA gives the Coms more partisans, the Nats more partisans, and decreases the morale/readiness of both the IJA and the Nats. Decreasing the Kmt does the same. In the event that Com partisans actually succeed in controlling cities, *neither* player gets the resources or VP.

Originally posted by mdiehl
So what do people think about the idea of redeploying some Chinese nationalist divisions to India? We know they were used in Burma, what's a few hundred miles more?

I think it would be a nice cool day in Hell before the British accepted a large number of Chinese troops in India and a really cold one before Chiang agreed to send many troops there. IRL I think there were some, but they were only there for training. Sending them to Burma was only accomplished because Vinegar Joe twisted Chiang's arm and because Chiang wanted the Burma Road reopened. Guomindang troops should really be limited to China and the surrounding area. China wasn't really an Allied power in the same sense as the USA, GB, Australia and so on, more a hanger-on waiting for the US to beat Japan.

I expect that transport problems, and the fact that the ROC Army should be extremely bad in nearly every case (there are going to be exceptions, Sun's troops in Burma were good fighters by any standard) will make moving them out of China a waste of time and energy. There must be better things to do with all the C-46s and C-47s you'd need.

As far as India is concerned, there were plenty of troops in India throughout the war, but most of them weren't trained or equipped to a high standard. They were a lot better trained and equipped than the average Chinese division though. And supplying troops on the Burma-India border where the fighting was should be more of a limiting factor than troop numbers anyway. I don't think the railway to Dimapur was very much use until 1944. If I remember right, it was only really improved because the US Army upgraded it. And since we might be able to build railways in WitP this could be simulated. Hurrah ! Hurrah !

Cheers,

Angus

Originally posted by mdiehl
While appreciating the irony of your reply, I'm not sure it follows that increased Com partisan activity affects the Nats any *more* than the IJA.

Which gives us an interesting idea for a game mech. Decreasing the IJA gives the Coms more partisans, the Nats more partisans, and decreases the morale/readiness of both the IJA and the Nats. Decreasing the Kmt does the same. In the event that Com partisans actually succeed in controlling cities, *neither* player gets the resources or VP.

My reasoning being, that while the Nats and Coms supposedly where operating under a truce while fighting the common enemy. They in fact spent most the war jokeying for position for the enevitable showdown. Thats why uncle Chaing was so reluctant to use his troops and all those nice supplies he was recieving from Uncle Sam. Had he sent substantial forces out of China while Uncle Tojo keeps his forces relatively the same. Then its reasonably certain that Uncle Mao would have taken advantage of the Nats weakened position. Directing more of his resources against the Nats and less against the Japs.

Keep in mind the the Nationalist Army was less a national army as it was a polyglot of competing warlords held together by the common enemies of Japan and the Coms. Chaing excercised controll mainly because he was conduit of allied aid. Except for a relatively small loyal core. The Nationalist army's loyalty was bought and paid for by US aid. All this sounds way to complicated to program though.

Certainly the allied player should face severe penalties for redeploying too many troops from China or you might end up with chinese troops in New Guinea.

Certainly the allied player should face severe penalties for redeploying too many troops from China or you might end up with chinese troops in New Guinea.

Yick. Agreed. I was thinking along the lines of what might happen had the Chinese armies that defended in N. Burma instead retreated into India, or deployed to India to free up India Army troops there.

Originally posted by mdiehl


Yick. Agreed. I was thinking along the lines of what might happen had the Chinese armies that defended in N. Burma instead retreated into India, or deployed to India to free up India Army troops there.

Yeah, that might be a good move strategically, but tactically you might be better off leaving those forces in north Burma, where they can threaten the Japanese flank while still being readily availabe for use in China if needed.

Just wondering, was it feasible to airlift a large number of troops over th hump? Wouldnt the high altitude be a problem?

Actually, didn't the CBI air forces fly thousands of Chinese troops into India where they were equipped and trained by US officers and Non-coms and then marched back into Burma. The "Yoke Force" wasn't it? It was Stillwell's idea and he felt it was the only way to avoid the Nationalists' corruption that was ruining their army.

please excuse me if someone pointed this out already, but I didn't feel like reading four pages of posts.

They did, and large amounts of supplies moved by air over the hump as well. But, IIRC, "Yoke Force" was roughly regimental in size. But it's outside of anything I've read for a while so it may have been a larger formation that I'm remembering incorrectly.

Originally posted by mdiehl
They did, and large amounts of supplies moved by air over the hump as well. But, IIRC, "Yoke Force" was roughly regimental in size. But it's outside of anything I've read for a while so it may have been a larger formation that I'm remembering incorrectly.

Yeah, we all know a lot of supplies and *some* troops were transported. My only question was it feasible to transport large quanties of troops. Owing to the fact that flying over the humps altititude would most likely require oxygen to be supplied to each individual soldier on board the aircraft. Wouldnt this be probmatic at least and down right dangerous at most?

Here's three of the best words in science or history. "I don't know." Yoke force and Galahad were both transported over the hump by air, but these were not very large units, IIRC. I don't know how high one *must* fly to cross the hump. If the maximum altitude crossed is 16000-18000 feet, it's "doable" w/o oxy. Since the duratino of exposure to thin air is brief (not like climbing Everest, for example), I doubt that pulmonary edema was a significant risk.

Originally posted by mdiehl
Here's three of the best words in science or history. "I don't know." Yoke force and Galahad were both transported over the hump by air, but these were not very large units, IIRC. I don't know how high one *must* fly to cross the hump. If the maximum altitude crossed is 16000-18000 feet, it's "doable" w/o oxy. Since the duratino of exposure to thin air is brief (not like climbing Everest, for example), I doubt that pulmonary edema was a significant risk.

Yeah, I dont know either. I do know the aircrews flying the hump used oxy, but I dont know if it was a neccessity or a precaution. I would guess an altitude in the 20,000s . I think the so called "death zone" is 27,000 ft.