Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: dtravel
And China doesn't need to take it. Changsa starts under Chinese control.

You are correct, I misspoke.

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

ORIGINAL: dtravel
And China doesn't need to take it. Changsa starts under Chinese control.

You are correct, I misspoke.

Must have ended up with a pretty funny looking wheel, putting a spoke in the wrong place like that. [:'(]

China holds Changsa at start.

Changsa is important because is is the center of the rail net so that possesion of this location gives China aattacking possibilities. If China simply sends about 20 Corps there on the first day it makes life very difficult for Japan.

With 15-20 Corps Changsa cannot be taken uless Japan sends virtually every available division wich means that the rest of your front is safe and Japan will spend all of January, and probably longer, to take this one city. By that time your out of play Corps will have reached useful locations and your other cities will be well dug in.

If Japan decides to attack elsewhere he will have to keep a significant force in the Changsa area or China will simply charge down the rail and take Nanchang. So Japan will not have enough force to do anything more then attack one city, probably Homan or Yenan.

Just mass at Changsa and dig in. 20 Corps is just great. Mass some Corps at Homan and Yenan as units become available. Japan can take the city he wants if he concentrates but your goal is to limit him to one city.



If you just give Changsa up without a fight then China is fairly hopeless. Giving Japan the ability to use that rail line before China's forces are coordinated and organized is a very bad mistake.


Really its not that hard to do just fine as China. If you just do as I advise most Japanese players will try to take several cities at once and you can crush them across the board. A more solid Japanese player can give you some problems but the odds of Japan pushing the Chinese off the map are pretty slim.

This was demonstrated to me recently, and i wasn't even planning on assaulting Changsa

ORIGINAL: moses

China holds Changsa at start.

Changsa is important because is is the center of the rail net so that possesion of this location gives China aattacking possibilities. If China simply sends about 20 Corps there on the first day it makes life very difficult for Japan.

With 15-20 Corps Changsa cannot be taken uless Japan sends virtually every available division wich means that the rest of your front is safe and Japan will spend all of January, and probably longer, to take this one city. By that time your out of play Corps will have reached useful locations and your other cities will be well dug in.

If Japan decides to attack elsewhere he will have to keep a significant force in the Changsa area or China will simply charge down the rail and take Nanchang. So Japan will not have enough force to do anything more then attack one city, probably Homan or Yenan.

Just mass at Changsa and dig in. 20 Corps is just great. Mass some Corps at Homan and Yenan as units become available. Japan can take the city he wants if he concentrates but your goal is to limit him to one city.



If you just give Changsa up without a fight then China is fairly hopeless. Giving Japan the ability to use that rail line before China's forces are coordinated and organized is a very bad mistake.


Really its not that hard to do just fine as China. If you just do as I advise most Japanese players will try to take several cities at once and you can crush them across the board. A more solid Japanese player can give you some problems but the odds of Japan pushing the Chinese off the map are pretty slim.

What you describe for the most part is the approach I have taken in China. I moved immediately to reinforce Changsa, in fact I thought about attacking Nanchang. As a result Changsa still belongs to China. In fact my defensive perimeter is an arc starting at Wuchow, through Kweilin, Hengchow and making a left turn at Changsa, then up the road to Chungking and Chengtu.

My contention is that yes, Changsa is important, but not the linchpen for China. After one month, Graycompany abandoned his seige of Changsa, keeping just enough troops there to keep my forces pinned down. I did eventually drive his forces from Changsa, but then wat? Graycompany moved on to besiege Homan and then Sian. That road is the crucial road in China. If the Japanese can take it they can split the armies of China and defeat them in detail at their will. Once that road is open there is little to stop them from marching on Chungking.

Meanwhile, by controlling the central area of China (Homan, Sian, Ichang) it is possible to flank Changsa and cut it off from additional supply and reinforcement any troops there also become isolated. Even if you don't take the city you can cut it off from Chungking.

All this is possible because Japan can attack the supplies of China. Every turn Graycompany bombards my troops, every turn he bombs my bases causing massive consumption of supplies. After just a couple of months it becomes almost impossible for Chinese troops to mount a sustained offensive. If you can never counter attack you will loose the war it is only a matter of time.

Japan can make things difficult with an emphasis on taking the North but it is not catostrophic.

He can attack Homan or he can attack Yenan.

Homan: You defend there with whatever you have in the area. If he masses enough force then he will eventually drive you out. So you pull this force out and retreat to the WEST of Sien. I don't defend Sien heavily because when it falls you're guys will probably move toward Langchow and be out of position.

You're main force stays west of Sien and continues to mass so that if he moves along the slow road to Lanchow you are ready to attack toward Sien at an opportune time cutting off his troops.

A long campaign will likely then ensue. Because he needs troops in the Changsa area and now around Sien, Japan doesn't have enough troops to accomplish much else. If he outplays the allies maybe the whole northern front can be taken. But more likely a stalemate ensues.

Even if all the north is taken you should surely have bought 6 months and with Changsa you should have plenty of supply. You're dug in to lebvel 9 everywhere and all you're troops are in position.

Intresting points Moses.
 
I think I better look up your AAR's about China up. [:)] (need to refresh my memory since you did have quite a few intresting battles and strategys there. These will come in handy soon in my PBEM vs Sardaukar)

ORIGINAL: Nemo121
I know you said US not Allies. On the other hand the forces available to the Allied player are NOT limited to US forces so picking a segment out simply isn't representative.

What I was saying was that half the CEF can hold the US forces while the rest combined with all the other Japanese land assets from all the other commands can easily over-run what the other allies have.

If Japan had freed up 1 million + troops by conquering all of China, I guarantee you the allies would have sent tons more land assets to the Pacific. But because that didn’t happen in history, the allies have no way to counter that in game.

ORIGINAL: Nemo121
As to an unencumbered CF "unbalancing" the game... No I disagree... It isn't an issue of balance IMO. It is an issue of player's getting a reasonable advantage for good play.

As I said above without the ability to counter such an advantage due to fixed OOB reinforcements, it unbalances the game. The US and it’s allies had plenty of forces they could have sent to the Pacific had such a thing occurred.

I won’t get into the aspect that Japan conquering China after 1941 is pure fantasy to begin with.

ORIGINAL: Nemo121
I mean if an Allied player gets to cut off the DEI from the Home Islands you don't see people running around saying that this "unbalances" the game and that the Japanese convoys should be given free passage.

Two different things entirely, all Japans capabilities are modeled in the game as far as production and manpower go, the allies capabilities are not. If capturing Chungking triggered a rush of new allied land combat forces diverted from Europe to enter British and US reinforcement tracks, I’d have no problem with a totally conquered China. But the historical capability that the allies had to do this isn’t modeled at all in the game, so in my opinion conquering China unbalances the game. The forces the allies could have mustered to counter that extra 1 million + men simply don’t exist in the game.

ORIGINAL: Nemo121
So could you explain why balance isn't, in your opinion, a valid argument to limit allied plane numbers but is a valid argument when seeking to limit the gains Japan will reap if it does well in China?

LOL, I’m arguing for historical accuracy in both topics. I don’t want Japan to be able to over-produce the way it does now. I want the Allies and Japan to get the air frames and other equipment items they historically had, no more no less.

I don’t want the possibility to conquer China to even exist as it wasn’t historically possible after 1941. Japan had already lost the war in China by then and going to war with the west was just a last desperate attempt by them to keep the war going as they couldn’t accept their defeat. By 1941 there was nothing Japan could have done to win in China any more, 5 years of failed attempt when facing the Chinese 1 on 1 could not possibly be enhanced by going xenophobic and attacking everyone else in sight.

But (a very big BUT) if the game is going to allow China to be conquered then the allies should be able to call in units from Europe as they would have needed to do if that had occurred in history. A freed up CEF means the allies will face multiple divisions at almost every single key base they assault and chances are very good they will lose LOTS of land combat forces in failed landing attempts.

Since the game fails to allow for reconstructing destroyed forces in a reasonable amount of time, the allies will simply not be able to win the game if China gets conquered. The fragment rebuilding system we have now is far too inadequate to replace lost divisions of allied forces in 1944 since it take 3-4 years to rebuild a divisions fragment. Germany rebuilt the entire shattered Normandy army from mid September 1944 by November of 1944. That’s a month and a half to rebuild an army let alone a regiment or division. The game needs a system like this for both sides.

So what it boils down to is if the allies lose China (something that seems to happen in 90%+ of the games) then the game is over since they don’t have the land OOB left to counter such a huge Japanese land army.

Jim

P.S. sorry it took so long to reply I don’t visit this area of the forum often.

ORIGINAL: ctangus
You may be right, but I still refuse to admit it. [:'(] I want to play the game in China & take my chances.

I felt the exact same way, but in my current PBEM game it is basically proven that China is not winnable for the allies. I fought my opponent to standstill early on at every location he tried to take. But around June of 42 things started to collapse as areas began to run out of supply.

Even with the Burma Road kept open till around August, my opponent simply bombarded every single stack he could by land and air every single turn. This kept supply consumption levels so high for my forces that by November 42 I was down to about 30k supplies in the entire country.

What he failed to take by force he took through starvation and one by one I was forced to evacuate forward bases do to no supply on hand. By the time I had given him everything on the rail line in the south and everything up to Yenen and Sian in the North, I was down to about 20k supplies left in country with about half my land units with zero on-hand supply.

It was obvious China was going to implode so I conceded total defeat and asked for a cease fire for one year to try and give China time to recover.

All this and I never lost a single major land battle except the few counter-attacks that I tried, all of which were miserable failures.

China is hosed if you have a competent Japanese opponent. I’ve got an AAR up if you want to see the pitiful decline of China.

Jim

I just disagree. I have never had supply problems in China after the first couple weeks.

Replacements: Everyone wants to use those 600 troops per month that China gets. It seems to be just common sence. But it is wrong!!! The starting Chinese army is a little too big and needs to trim down a bit. Smaller army uses less supply. No need to do anything drastic but for the first two or three months just allow normal combat losses to reduce the size of your army to a managable level.

So you're saving supply due to lower supply requirements and by not having to "buy" replacements with supply points. You're supply levels will steadily rise. When you feel comfortable with your stockpile then allow replacements for a while.


I just don't know. Maybe if the Japanese player sends a huge mass of bombers and zero's to China he can bomb China to oblivian. But in that non-historical situation I would just respond with equally non-historical deployments of hundreds of british and american fighters at Chungking, Chengtu and Kumming. I've tested this a bit and it makes for some nice turkey shoots once you get low experience zero's flying at long range into allied fighters.Its a best case scenario for the allied air force.

I played quite a few test games involving China and so I think I know it about as well as anyone. I was able to drive China out against WITP_Dude but that was under 1.3 or 1.4 and prior to many of the changes that were made to strengthen China. Even then It was Sept before he called it quits. Had we continued the mop-up would have gone well into 43. In my test game with the China only scenario I stoped my opponent cold and held all of my original cities. In my current PBEM I have lost Yenan. No routs are in sight.

I mean, OK, if Japan sends 200 betties and 200 zero's to China in Dec 41 and just bombs me relentlessly without regard to losses....well maybe I can be driven out. But I just don't see how I could be driven out of China by any Japanese player unless he tranfers large numbers of forces in which did not historically participate in the theater.

I tend to agree with Moses. I never understood Allies complaining about China. I consider myself very good player, and I've played IJN games with nasty tricks allowed (like using Kwantung Army units without paying PPs) and have NEVER taken more than 2, max 3 bases before being totally stopped by Chinese.

Changsha is usually the key, as Moses correctly notes. Allied player must, under no circumstances, give away Changsha for free. By piling up all available units there immediatelly Japanese are efectivelly stopped. They can take Yunan (in the North) and personally I can do that only by using some (unpaid) help by KA (if allowed by rules). Then, lengthy siege of Changsha follows, and city may eventually fall, but only after bloody battles, and by then all other Chinese bases should have forts at 8-9 making them nigh on unconquerable.

If Changsha is allowed to be taken easily, nasty things can happen, in as much as nasty things can, and will happen if Allies: let Burma be taken with all units destroyed, Malaya be taken with all units destroyed etc.

I played lunacy game vs Mog (me = Allies). Now Mog is Darth Vader of land combat + there was no restriction on Kwantung units, and he handed me some nasty defeats in China, but he was still very far from taking the Chinese heartland (including Chungking).

I must also add that any decent player, Japanese or Allied, should self restrict, and simply play the game as it's meant to be played - unless playing under "lunacy" rules. For me, when playing Japan, that means not ever attacking Russia not even thinking about it, and I would also never take Chungking even if I'd be in situation to take it (which based on my experience I cannot even imagine).
 
As Allied player I never transfer my air units to (and from) India over Soviet bases, I use the long and risky ship routes. I don't need house rules for that, but ultimately unless imposed by rules these are things one must decide for himself.
 
O. 

Could be I'm spoiled by AB's map. It definitely makes China easier with movement of troops & supply slower. Slow supply movement may occassionally hurt the Chinese on that map. But it slows down Japanese offensives as well. In general I'd say it hinders the aggressor more than the defender. (It's harder for the Chinese to go on the offensive as well.)

Was your opponent bombing resources too? Or just AFs & ground units? I'm surprised to hear that you had the Burma road open until August and still had such problems. (I've popped in on your AAR a time or two but will read it in more detail when I don't have a turn in the inbox.)

In my longest running PBEM (now Feb 43) I had a somewhat similar situation (lots of Japs bombing in China). Though my supply levels never got as low as yours. I wasn't thinking of supply levels but wanted to slow down the pilot training so went on a dedicated campaign to spread out my opponent's air forces. It's taken months, but the raids are now maybe 1/4 of what they once were. But maybe your opponent devoted more resources from the start to reducing China than mine did.

I'll still refuse to admit China is indefensible. But I was wrong back in 1987 so it's possible it could happen again. [;)]

ORIGINAL: moses
Maybe if the Japanese player sends a huge mass of bombers and zero's to China he can bomb China to oblivian.

You've completely missed the point. 1 Japanese bomber can increase the supply consumption of an ENTIRE stack of units. It's happened in my game which is a stock 1.06 start. I didn't lose in a military sense. I was starved to death, literally, by the increased consumption cause by bombardments. Not massive earth shattering bombardments either.

You can argue theory all day, in my game it is PROVEN that China will starve to death because it has, not because I think it will.

Jim

I understand that when you bomb a stack the monthly supply consumption increases. So what. You still have plenty if you just hold down your replacements a bit, don't get too many large retreats, and don't lose all your front line cities.

But what can you possibly mean by Theory!!!!???? I doubt many people have more practical experience in China then I do. In my last test game I was happily stockpiling supply with no difficulties whatsoever. In my current game I have plenty of supply. The game before that my China had practically driven Japan out of the country and I had invaded Indochina!!!!

I'm not arguing theory at all. It is not inevitable that supply will even be an issue. Although certainly it is possible that you may starve based upon how your particular campaign unfolds.

BTW in August of 2004!!!! I started a thread in which I argued essentially the same thing you are. "Easy way to Defeat China". I just checked and its still there. So when all I had was "theory" (and just a little experience) I basically agreed with your current position.

ORIGINAL: moses
So when all I had was "theory" (and just a little experience) I basically agreed with your current position.

Ok I'll say this one more time. I held Japan off to a standstill in the land war early on. The only thing he did then was attack my supply and China then ran OUT of supply. This is not my opinion this is fact. I can't say it any clearer than that.

Against a competent Japanese opponent who attacks your supply, China doesn't have a chance.

By December of 1942 I had less than 25,000 total supplies in the entire country. About 20 or so Corps and many HQ’s had zero on hand supply. About one third of my force was at 1/3rd of original strength.

It’s all in the AAR, read it here:

tm.asp?m=1123796

Jim

P.S. This is not a position, this is a FACT.

ORIGINAL: ctangus

Could be I'm spoiled by AB's map. It definitely makes China easier with movement of troops & supply slower. Slow supply movement may occassionally hurt the Chinese on that map. But it slows down Japanese offensives as well. In general I'd say it hinders the aggressor more than the defender. (It's harder for the Chinese to go on the offensive as well.)

AB's map is fantastic, especially so with regard to China. It is a much more serious game with his map.

I'll still refuse to admit China is indefensible. But I was wrong back in 1987 so it's possible it could happen again. [;)]

So please tell us about 1987[:)]

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

ORIGINAL: ctangus

Could be I'm spoiled by AB's map. It definitely makes China easier with movement of troops & supply slower. Slow supply movement may occassionally hurt the Chinese on that map. But it slows down Japanese offensives as well. In general I'd say it hinders the aggressor more than the defender. (It's harder for the Chinese to go on the offensive as well.)

AB's map is fantastic, especially so with regard to China. It is a much more serious game with his map.

Definitely agreed.

I'll still refuse to admit China is indefensible. But I was wrong back in 1987 so it's possible it could happen again. [;)]

So please tell us about 1987[:)]

[/quote]

I plead the 5th. [:'(]

Aahhh, yer no fun[:'(][;)]

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

ORIGINAL: moses
So when all I had was "theory" (and just a little experience) I basically agreed with your current position.

Ok I'll say this one more time. I held Japan off to a standstill in the land war early on. The only thing he did then was attack my supply and China then ran OUT of supply. This is not my opinion this is fact. I can't say it any clearer than that.

Against a competent Japanese opponent who attacks your supply, China doesn't have a chance.

By December of 1942 I had less than 25,000 total supplies in the entire country. About 20 or so Corps and many HQ’s had zero on hand supply. About one third of my force was at 1/3rd of original strength.

It’s all in the AAR, read it here:

tm.asp?m=1123796

Jim

P.S. This is not a position, this is a FACT.

The fact is that You ran out of supply. The fact is that in all my games I have plenty. But you're global assertions that China can't be held are not facts they are you're opinion.

From what I've seen from my games and from testing the theater is that China can and does hold out with equally matched players. The only exception is if Japan wants to bring in tons of outside aircraft and run a full scale strategic bombing campaign. If Japan is willing to divert all these planes and pay the price in aircraft and pilots he may be able to reduce China's supply below critical levels. Even then China should be able to prolong resisitance well into 43.

But even strategic bombing seems more difficult with 1.8. I'm not sure even this will work anymore. Without a large non-historical strategic bombing campaign China should have plenty of supply.

Anyway load up the China mod. I think Jwilkerson has it. I'd send it too you but I could barley figure out how to recieve it much less send a download.

I'll stop you cold. Or any competent Jap you want to send me.

.