Modifications to MWiF China Map portion

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: lomyrin
In the new China map proposal some rail hexes have been replaced with what looks like roads. Is that the intent, and if so :

The road was there from the start on the MWiF map.
It is supposed to be the burma Road. It can be closed / opened politicaly and physically (with troops)
I just made it brown to better see it.

How does that affect Unit tranportation, is it like a rail?

No.
No rail move possible on roads.

How does it affect Resource transportation?

Same as rail (13.6.1).

How does it affect suppply lines - can supply be traced over these hexes as if a rail line?

Yes (2.4.2). Same as Rail.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

Coastal China
Cities
- Anking (replaces Hofei) stays (2 YES out of 4)
- Paoting (was Baoding) stays (4 YES out of 4)
- Hofei (was Hefei) deleted (replaced by Anking)
- Nanchang stays (3 YES out of 4)
- Nanyang (replace Xiangfan) stays (4 YES out of 4)
- Suchow (Wosung wants to name it Hsuchow, but I have Suchow on WWII maps, Hsuchow is not present) stays (3 YES out of 4)
- Wuhan was moved (asked by Mzlin, Wosung, & seems correct on the real maps)
- Xiangfan deleted (replaced by Nanyang)
- Tsingkow (port) (was Xinhailian) stays (3 YES out of 4)

Map features
- New Mountains roughly from Wuhan to Sian. I added them to the maps so that everyone sees where they are. Waiting for forum members comments about these. Personnaly I don't know.
- New Lake west of Shanghai. I added them to the maps so that everyone sees where they are. Waiting for forum members comments about these. Personnaly I like it.
- New River along the railway Tientsin, Tsinan, Suchow (the imperial channel).

The last is not shown in the latest maps - correct?

[lomyrin]

I believe I did not coma across clearly enough about the road/rail lines.

Certainly the road west from Chang Sha is a road as it has been.

There are new lines: the curve SE Wuhan and the stretch in the new mountains NW of Wuhan as well as a few others.

Are they intended to be rails but not shown as rails due to editing capabilities?

Lars

[Shannon V. OKeets]

There were 3 new cities that received split votes (2 Yes, 2 No) and you kept them in. I suggest that that there be two variations on adding cities:

A - includes the 3 cities with split votes, and
B - excludes those 3 cities.

A gives the Chinese a stronger defensive position, while B is slightly weaker (though much stronger than in CWIF).

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: lomyrin
In the new China map proposal some rail hexes have been replaced with what looks like roads. Is that the intent, and if so :

The road was there from the start on the MWiF map.
It is supposed to be the burma Road. It can be closed / opened politicaly and physically (with troops)
I just made it brown to better see it.

How does that affect Unit tranportation, is it like a rail?

No.
No rail move possible on roads.

How does it affect Resource transportation?

Same as rail (13.6.1).

How does it affect suppply lines - can supply be traced over these hexes as if a rail line?

Yes (2.4.2). Same as Rail.

The difference between rail and road might be summed up as: "Road is like Rail except for movement purposes"?

If so, then Road might be a viable alternative to Rail for the sections of rail line that bother Wosung, who notes that rail lines didn't actually exist in some places where they are shown in CWIF/MWIF. Road would simplify supply logistics for both combatants, yet not enable dramatic troops movements from one end of China to the other via rail movement.

[Incy]

According to the map froon posted on this thread, Nanning was historically taken directly from the sea, without a land bridge to Hong Hong.
To do this in MWif a HQ is needed. I think there should be a port south/southeast of Nanning, to allow Japan to trace supply to Nanning without an HQ.

Incy

[Froonp]

The last is not shown in the latest maps - correct?

Correct. I did not place it on the map s it is easy to see where it should be from the description.
I'll add it if the gneral consensus is to add it.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

The last is not shown in the latest maps - correct?

Correct. I did not place it on the map s it is easy to see where it should be from the description.
I'll add it if the gneral consensus is to add it.

Canals, that are labeled canals, are rare in WIF FE: Panama, Suez, and Kiel are the only ones. Each of them was of major importance during the war.

Now there might be some canals that are shown as rivers in WIF FE (the Netherlands comes to mind as a possible place where that might occur). I do not know if that is true or not.

The real test for inclusion of the proposed canal (whether it be shown as a canal or a river) is how much of an obstacle it was to land combat. On that topic I am also blissfully ignorant. I merely note that that crierion is probably best for making the decision.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: lomyrin
I believe I did not coma across clearly enough about the road/rail lines.
Certainly the road west from Chang Sha is a road as it has been.

Yes it is.

There are new lines: the curve SE Wuhan and the stretch in the new mountains NW of Wuhan as well as a few others.
Are they intended to be rails but not shown as rails due to editing capabilities?

Yes they are. Black lines are rails I had to redrawn. I had to paste some background terrain (mountain / clear) and then redraw the rail on a layer above it. I started from a flat picture, with no layers.
I should have said before.

[Froonp]

The difference between rail and road might be summed up as: "Road is like Rail except for movement purposes"?

If so, then Road might be a viable alternative to Rail for the sections of rail line that bother Wosung, who notes that rail lines didn't actually exist in some places where they are shown in CWIF/MWIF. Road would simplify supply logistics for both combatants, yet not enable dramatic troops movements from one end of China to the other via rail movement.

This is all true.
Are there section of rail that are still bothering you Wosung, now that it is clear (hopefully) that :
- Brown line : are roads
- Black hand drawn lines : are rails drew by me
- Yellow tapeworms are : the original MWiF map rails

For me, the rails & roads are fine.
I would not add any, nor remove any.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

There were 3 new cities that received split votes (2 Yes, 2 No) and you kept them in. I suggest that that there be two variations on adding cities:

A - includes the 3 cities with split votes, and
B - excludes those 3 cities.

A gives the Chinese a stronger defensive position, while B is slightly weaker (though much stronger than in CWIF).

Well this is just a temporary map I believe.
I let the cities with splitted votes on the map just arbitrary, but hopefully there will be more than 4 votes later on, won't it ?

Anyway, I see what you are coming to. You would like 2 versions of the map. One with few cities added, one with more.

I belive we will be able to make those two maps. Ill just add a layer for the cities that are the lowest in the votes (but still more yes than no), and I'll hide / show that layer at will. But I will just wait to see if there are more opinions on the cities to add / not to add. The 4 of us is just too low.

[lomyrin]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

There were 3 new cities that received split votes (2 Yes, 2 No) and you kept them in. I suggest that that there be two variations on adding cities:

A - includes the 3 cities with split votes, and
B - excludes those 3 cities.

A gives the Chinese a stronger defensive position, while B is slightly weaker (though much stronger than in CWIF).

I would definitely prefer the 'B' alternative and can go along with that one even though it may cause difficulties with balance in the later game in the Pacific.

Hopefully there will be additional 'vote' entries as well.

Lars

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Incy

According to the map froon posted on this thread, Nanning was historically taken directly from the sea, without a land bridge to Hong Hong.
To do this in MWif a HQ is needed. I think there should be a port south/southeast of Nanning, to allow Japan to trace supply to Nanning without an HQ.

Incy

There are several more of these situations. In WIF FE Kunming, Kweiyang, Chengchow, and Changsa also could be attacked by the Japanese using ports for supply instead of HQs. That is not possible in the CWIF/MWIF maps with their different scaling.

Actually, Nanning can be attacked without an HQ if Hanoi is used as a supply source.

I have no solution at hand for remedying this difference. I simply note that it comes up almost everywhere for the interior Chinese cities.

[Froonp]

The real test for inclusion of the proposed canal (whether it be shown as a canal or a river) is how much of an obstacle it was to land combat. On that topic I am also blissfully ignorant. I merely note that that crierion is probably best for making the decision.

I can find this Canal on one of the WWII maps I have, it is labelled the "Grand Canal", but not on all the others (See post #47 for an example).
I believe it should not be represented.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: Incy

According to the map froon posted on this thread, Nanning was historically taken directly from the sea, without a land bridge to Hong Hong.
To do this in MWif a HQ is needed. I think there should be a port south/southeast of Nanning, to allow Japan to trace supply to Nanning without an HQ.

Incy

There's a port named Pakhoi down there (Wosung may have a better name for it), should I add it ?
I'm not bothered by the obbligation to have an HQ on the coast to open the supply to Nanning. Why would it be a problem ? This is a common feature with China in WiF FE.

There are several more of these situations. In WIF FE Kunming, Kweiyang, Chengchow, and Changsa also could be attacked by the Japanese using ports for supply instead of HQs. That is not possible in the CWIF/MWIF maps with their different scaling.

I believe you're wrong on most of these cities.
Units who would be able to attack Kweiyang, Changsha, Wuhan, or Chengchow would all be out of supply if only using ports.
I think that you forget that to trace supply through a port into the sea, you must count an extra hex, and then you're at 5 hexes, which exceeds the 4 you are allowed.

2.4.2
"Overseas supply paths
The sea portion of a supply path does not count against the maximum number of hexes permitted in the path. The port hex you trace the overseas supply path into does count against your 4 hex limit. However, it always counts as only 1 hex, regardless of what map it is on or what terrain it contains."

So, when you reach Canton for instance, you're at 4 hexes. Then you use the Oversea Supply Path to reach a home Primary supply source. The port in Japan you reach count as 1 hex (not 2). So you're not in supply.

Actually, Nanning can be attacked without an HQ if Hanoi is used as a supply source.

Only because Hanoi is a capital city, thus a secondary supply source.

I have no solution at hand for remedying this difference. I simply note that it comes up almost everywhere for the interior Chinese cities.

I think there need no solutions.

There are a couple of ports around Foochow, I can add them if you want.
Wenchow (to the north of Foochow), Amoy, Swatow (both to the south).I would agree with the former but not with both the laters, because they would change the supply status too much, east of Canton for the Japanese.

[wosung]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

On the other side: Without Yennan, it would be like Germany without Berlin

Was it that important ???
What did happen there ?
Why do you consider it to be the capital of Communist China ?



[/color]

And to repeat the question: Who's city is Lanchow in WIF setup Communist or National Chinese? Historically it should be National Chinese.

Lanchow is Communist at the game start.
Lanchow and Sian are both Communist at game start of the 1939-1945 campaign.

When Nationalists enter a Communist city, it becomes Nationalist, and when Communists enter a Nationalist city, it becomes Communist.
It just cease to be a supply source until next turn, as a city must have been held from the turn's start to be a supply source.

About Yennan:
Because it's exactly what Yennan (Yan'an) was: The capital of the biggest, most important CCP Base Area in WW2, the Shaan/Gan/Ning area (Shaansi, Gansu, Ningsia area). Mao Tse-tung and party central commitee resided there in the war (Zhou En-lai was in Chungking as liason-chef). Ammunition manufatories were located in Lanchow. Cadre universities were located there. The progressive intelligezia from whole China went there. The 1942 rectification campaigns took place there.

Yennan was overall centre of CCP - because it also was a marginal place, were no enemey had a real motivation to go, when there were other things to do. This was the result of the Long March, not a glorious propaganda tour through China, but a plain flight, escape.

About Lanchow:
After playing around with CWIF I thought so, that Lanchow is Communist at set-up.
Problem is: It seems to be wrong, according to most sources, it should be national Chinese.

1. John Keegan (ed.), Times Atlas of Second World War, p. 34-35, 144-145 (depends on edition)

2. I.C.B. Dear, The Oxford Companion to the Second World War, p. 218, map

say so.

3. And in Barbara Tuchman's book about Stillwell, there are hints about him sent for inspection of Soviet Russian war materiel to Lanchow by Roosevelt (Register: Entry "Lanchow" for the pages, because I've a non-English edition).

Lanchow was the chief entry "port" for Soviet Russian war material since 1938. Even SU fighter sqadrons were stationed there (googel it out). Tuchman doesn't state, Lanchow was Nationalist or Communits Chinese. But the point is: SU mainly supported the military speeking seemingly stronger National Chinese to engage Japanese, not the CCP. (Realpolitik instead of ideoloy).

These are the 3 WW2 Sources Harry Rowland would take to an lonley island.

I today even read an George Marshall to Roosevelt quotation online, about Lanchow being the only (farthest) place in North Western China, with Nationalist Chinese Influence (sorry can't find web adress). Apart from that there was a regional warlord around Lanchow, and yes they had a shorttime CCP uprising there in 1936.

Lanchow had for a time some importance as Sovietrussian - National Chinese lend lease "port". There were no big resources around. It was a marginal place.


So I think (and to repeat: that's just an opinion, I don't want to offend anybody) the Yennan and the Lanchow question are interrelated.

Plus infastructure and resources were low level in both places. Hence I voted for ommit completed railroad from Sian to Lanchow. And even the resource near Lanchow makes more of the place it was IRL.

And according to Oxford Companion, even Sian remained Nationalist Chinese during the war, p. 230.

These are the historical facts, as far I can see them. Again: Don't want to offend anybody nor sabotage your favorite strategy game.

Please all of you check this, use your own sources. And perhaps these points were discussed in some WIF forums before.

Possible bottom line:

No Ressource, no infrastructure in these 2 places = no incensitive for the Japanese to attack in the North West.

Regards

P.S.: OK with me to ommit Grand Channel. Perhaps it wasn't much of a hindrance.

[Neilster]

The real test for inclusion of the proposed canal (whether it be shown as a canal or a river) is how much of an obstacle it was to land combat. On that topic I am also blissfully ignorant. I merely note that that crierion is probably best for making the decision.

They're generally not very wide and with a few exceptions, IMHO, they weren't much of an obstacle to attackers.

With regard to the map changes, how will Chinese warlords affect all this? I've been reading a bit about them lately and they seem to have been extremely important.

Cheers, Neilster

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Neilster

The real test for inclusion of the proposed canal (whether it be shown as a canal or a river) is how much of an obstacle it was to land combat. On that topic I am also blissfully ignorant. I merely note that that crierion is probably best for making the decision.

They're generally not very wide and with a few exceptions, IMHO, they weren't much of an obstacle to attackers.

With regard to the map changes, how will Chinese warlords affect all this? I've been reading a bit about them lately and they seem to have been extremely important.

Cheers, Neilster

There is an optional rule for including Chinese Warlords - 22.4.15 in RAW - from Politics in Flames.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: Neilster

The real test for inclusion of the proposed canal (whether it be shown as a canal or a river) is how much of an obstacle it was to land combat. On that topic I am also blissfully ignorant. I merely note that that crierion is probably best for making the decision.

They're generally not very wide and with a few exceptions, IMHO, they weren't much of an obstacle to attackers.

With regard to the map changes, how will Chinese warlords affect all this? I've been reading a bit about them lately and they seem to have been extremely important.

Cheers, Neilster

There is an optional rule for including Chinese Warlords - 22.4.15 in RAW - from Politics in Flames.

Yes, and I seem to remember that it was also decided in the "Play Balance in China" thread to have more of them.
For the moment, we have the following warlords :
- Chengtu
- Chungking
- Kunming (T'ang Chi-yao faction)
- Lanchow (Kuo-mingchoung faction, under Feng-Youhsiang)
- Peking (Fengtien faction, under Chang-Tso-lin)
- Shanghai (Chihli faction, under Ch'uan-fang)

Could be added :
- Nanning (Kouang-Si faction)
- Changsha or Wuhan (Chihli faction, under Wu P'ei-fu)
- a second Warlord to Peking as this one seems to have a lot of territory under his rule (in 1928)
- a second Warlord to Lanchow as this one seems to have a lot of territory under his rule (in 1928)
- a second Warlord to Shanghai as this one seems to have a lot of territory under his rule (in 1928)


The Warlords factions and names in brackets are from the John Keegan (ed.), Times Atlas of Second World War, p. 33 (French edition). Wosunk surely has english names for this as he has the same book in English.
The Warlord I suggested are from the 1928 map page 33, so I'm not sure it is still current in 1939-45.

Moreover, the Warlord rule impose them not to go farther than 2 hexes from their home city.
With the scale change, I thing this should be changed from 2 to up to 4-6 hexes.

[Froonp]

About Yennan:
Because it's exactly what Yennan (Yan'an) was: The capital of the biggest, most important CCP Base Area in WW2, the Shaan/Gan/Ning area (Shaansi, Gansu, Ningsia area). Mao Tse-tung and party central commitee resided there in the war (Zhou En-lai was in Chungking as liason-chef). Ammunition manufatories were located in Lanchow. Cadre universities were located there. The progressive intelligezia from whole China went there. The 1942 rectification campaigns took place there.

Yennan was overall centre of CCP - because it also was a marginal place, were no enemey had a real motivation to go, when there were other things to do. This was the result of the Long March, not a glorious propaganda tour through China, but a plain flight, escape.

I'll add this to the map, anyway it is subjected to the forum members comments (and votes) and playtest.

About Lanchow:
After playing around with CWIF I thought so, that Lanchow is Communist at set-up.
Problem is: It seems to be wrong, according to most sources, it should be national Chinese.

Your sources are solid it seems.
But if we follow reality to closely here, we will find the Communist without cities.
As you said previously, this was not a problem for communist armies to be without cities, as they lived from the lands, but given the WiF FE rules, land units are tied by the supply rules to owning cities.
We could say : "okay, then the Communist units will behave like partisan units", that is, always be in supply. But this would be too much powerful !!! The communist armies could wander the japanese rear areas at will without any problem.
So we are stuck to the supply / city rule, and we need the communist to own cities. Lanchow & Sian (plus Tianshui & Yennan) are the less worse choices.
I remember in the past, the player could choose where the communist camp would be. So the Communist bases could be Kunming for instance. This was worse than now.

Possible bottom line:
No Ressource, no infrastructure in these 2 places = no incensitive for the Japanese to attack in the North West.

This is wise, but this would be a far departure from WiF FE.
Maybe the resource in Lanchow is here to simulate the USSR help ?
It this is true, we could make it more far away from Lanchow (say 2-3 hexes down the silk road), with only a road likning both.

I could also stop the rail at Tianshui and only have a road from there to Lan Chow.