Early China, allies strat

[jackyo123]

ive seen plenty of great aar's and tactics for handling the PI, DEI, India, Burma, etc.

But not too much on early moves in the China theater, when playing the allies

Can anyone offer some good strats? Whats the best place to form a defensive line, do the chinese troops who cant do a strategic move ever arrive to their bases a few hexes if you march them manually or does their low supply mean them will never make it? things like that.

thnx

[CMDRMCTOAST]

If japan wants china Japan gets china pure and simple, the best thing to do is tie them up as long as
possible, In WITP I slid forces to the left and tried hard to get behind IJN lines to
screw with supply lines and such, this new map makes it harder to move around a bit
especially if tryin to move from yennan to sian and sian to chunking..
also If ya can load the road from Rangoon to china with some troops to make japan fight hard to cut supply lines
to china, but it is merely a stalling campaign there..
Tie up forces werever you can for as long as you can If he cant destroy you there in the first 6 months of the war
He would be hard pressed to take india or russia in my opinion as he needs all his forces to bear..

[Canoerebel]

1. Chinese units in open terrain are toast. Move them. Now.

2. Chinese units even in decent terrain (like forest hexes) take tremendous losses. Move them unless you really need to guard/block/delay in a decent-terrain hex.

3. Chinese units near the coast can be cut-off and destroyed. I prefer to move them beginning turn one and get them back to my MLR. But it may also be useful to keep them behind Jap lines to threaten LOS and LOC. Choose your poison.

4. The only way the Chinese can stand is to get into base hexes and behind forts. The best chain of bases to form an MLR appears to be Nanning, Liuchow, Kweilin, Hengyang, Changsha, Chengtow, Nanyang, Chengchow, Loyang, Sian. If the Japs bust through Nanyang/Chengchow or Loyang, the Chinese MLR can be consolidated at Sian. If Changsha, Chengtow, Hengyang, or Kweilin fall, though, it appears that the Chinese will have to fall back and defend Chungking and Chengtu. Yikes!

5. Thus far I have been able to hold the MLR described above. In part this is due to big forts and in part because the Japanese have to be careful not to advance to far and get cut-off themselves. I *think* this line is tenable. At the very least I hope it will buy me enough time to allow Chinese troops and aircraft squadrons to train and to begin to bring in Western Allied aircraft squadrons.

6. Replace as many low quality Chinese leaders with better quality leaders.

[CMDRMCTOAST]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel



5. Thus far I have been able to hold the MLR described above. In part this is due to big forts and in part because the Japanese have to be careful not to advance to far and get cut-off themselves. I *think* this line is tenable. At the very least I hope it will buy me enough time to allow Chinese troops and aircraft squadrons to train and to begin to bring in Western Allied aircraft squadrons.

This is why the japanese need to destroy the chinese...[;)]

Dont want any strategic bombers in china or Russia..

[rockmedic109]

Can you get enough supply into China for an effective strategic bombing campaign?  I am not finding enough supplies to feed the chinese army, let alone the peasants and any bomber force.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: CMDRMCTOAST

If japan wants china, Japan gets china pure and simple...

So your basic position is that the game is hopelessly broken..., because Japan DID "want China", and tried for years to "get it" before turning to the Pacific? If they couldn't "get it" when they had nothing else to concentrate their efforts on..., then being able to "get it" while at war with America and the British Commonwealth is absurd!

China should simply be a quagmire eating the efforts of both sides for minimal return. Anything else is wrong..., and game-warpingly so. I wish all the ground units in China could simply be "locked in place" for the duration...

[USSAmerica]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: CMDRMCTOAST

If japan wants china, Japan gets china pure and simple...

So your basic position is that the game is hopelessly broken..., because Japan DID "want China", and tried for years to "get it" before turning to the Pacific? If they couldn't "get it" when they had nothing else to concentrate their efforts on..., then being able to "get it" while at war with America and the British Commonwealth is absurd!

China should simply be a quagmire eating the efforts of both sides for minimal return. Anything else is wrong..., and game-warpingly so. I wish all the ground units in China could simply be "locked in place" for the duration...

No, his position is not "that the game is hopelessly broken." That is YOUR position that you repeat every chance you get. The game's situation in China makes it more challenging than if the Allied player didn't have to worry about anything in China. If you don't want the challenge of defending China, there is now a "quiet China" option. Give it a try, you might like it. [:)]

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: USS America

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: CMDRMCTOAST

If japan wants china, Japan gets china pure and simple...

So your basic position is that the game is hopelessly broken..., because Japan DID "want China", and tried for years to "get it" before turning to the Pacific? If they couldn't "get it" when they had nothing else to concentrate their efforts on..., then being able to "get it" while at war with America and the British Commonwealth is absurd!

China should simply be a quagmire eating the efforts of both sides for minimal return. Anything else is wrong..., and game-warpingly so. I wish all the ground units in China could simply be "locked in place" for the duration...

No, his position is not "that the game is hopelessly broken." That is YOUR position that you repeat every chance you get. The game's situation in China makes it more challenging than if the Allied player didn't have to worry about anything in China. If you don't want the challenge of defending China, there is now a "quiet China" option. Give it a try, you might like it. [:)]

His position is that Japan CAN conquer China while at the same time taking on the Western Powers. My position is that if Japan couldn't conquer China when she had nothing else "one her plate", she damned well shouldn't be able to do it after starting the "War in the Pacific". That's called common sense..., and I repeat it every time I see someone supporting Japanese conquest of China as a strategy. Because in reality, it was impossible; and the game shouldn't make it possible!

[khyberbill]

No, his position is not "that the game is hopelessly broken." That is YOUR position that you repeat every chance you get. The game's situation in China makes it more challenging than if the Allied player didn't have to worry about anything in China. If you don't want the challenge of defending China, there is now a "quiet China" option. Give it a try, you might like it.

My opponents dont seem to like the quiet China option!!!

[CMDRMCTOAST]

My position is use the forces that I have available to me to take china, then Russia and storm india..
Taking china and still keeping the correct forces in manchuria has been done numerous times and I
still believe it is doable now, All depends on how you do it..[;)]
I cant help it if japan couldnt do it with the forces at there disposal and I can with the forces at my disposal.
I sure don't want russia and china in tact while allied forces decimate me in the pacific as they always will
come mid 1944 on.
Surge as far into India and australia as possible and make the allied player work for his endgame becouse we all
know what that is regardless of what we do..

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl


His position is that Japan CAN conquer China while at the same time taking on the Western Powers. My position is that if Japan couldn't conquer China when she had nothing else "one her plate", she damned well shouldn't be able to do it after starting the "War in the Pacific". That's called common sense..., and I repeat it every time I see someone supporting Japanese conquest of China as a strategy. Because in reality, it was impossible; and the game shouldn't make it possible!

removed after thought ...

[stuman]

What I am a bit unclear on from a historical perspective is whether Jap. could not conquer more of China than it did, or chose not to conquer more.

[CMDRMCTOAST]

I think the japanese were needing natural resources badly and becouse of the war in Europe
they had to move on the D.E.I resources rather rapidly as we were putting lots of pressure on them
becouse of there war in china and there timeline was running out before we would be at full scale war
with them as soon as Europe was taken care of..
so they diverted to the pacific war plan before continuing there war in china wich was mired down.
Had they pushed all there divisions and crack troops into china they may have had different results
but Russia and the U.S would have gone after them at some point in time anyway and they knew this.

[vlcz]

My position is that if Japan couldn't conquer China when she had nothing else "one her plate", she damned well shouldn't be able to do it after starting the "War in the Pacific".

As Stuman has noted this is very unclear. In fact reading along available information conquest sems very plausible, posibilities were only limited by the need of mantaining strong reserve forces to prevent intervention , mainly by russian forces, as we are simulating/playind the actual war we are responsible of doing a main thrust here or maintain that reserves.

IMHO the game simulation about china is far from perfect, wich is comprensible as it is not the main scope of it , but in no way seems totally broken.

Stating "Japan couldn't conquer China when she had nothing else on her plate" is alike saying URSS had no militar capabilities to conquest Afganistan or US could not cope with Vietnam. Both of them could have done quite easily in an open war , but none of them could have it done in a limited scenary.

[USSAmerica]

I am eager to see several games progress into late '42 and '43 when Japan has spent an enormous amount of supplies on the offensive in China.  I have a suspicion that putting so much focus on China will slow down the Japanese advance elsewhere in the Pacific, and make her weaker when the Allies come calling.  

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: CMDRMCTOAST

My position is use the forces that I have available to me to take china, then Russia and storm India.. Taking china and still keeping the correct forces in Manchuria has been done numerous times and I still believe it is doable now, All depends on how you do it..[;)] I cant help it if japan couldn't do it with the forces at there disposal and I can with the forces at my disposal.

Spoken like a true gamer. "The game gave me these tools and rules to work with, and I'm gonna use them to the max!" Nothing wrong with you or your attitude if you find an opponent of the same spirit.

My point has always been that the game has given you tools, rules, and abilities your historic counter-parts never had..., which allow you to do what they had no chance of doing. This just spoils the game experience for other people (like me) who want to deal with the problems the historic leaders had to deal with. For us, having either side "win" in China is an anethma..., we want the War in the Pacific decided in the Pacific, not in China.

One of the problems with SPI's WITP as well as 2by3's version was that the ground combat system was the "weak link". Designed to deal with atolls, islands, and small limited campaigns..., it falls apart on the mainland of Asia and turns a "sideshow" of limited importance into the "main event". The AE team made efforts to improve this..., but the Japanese "artillery offensive" still seems to be an available truck to drive through a soft spot in the rules.

I'm NOT saying YOU are wrong; I'm saying that a game system that allows you to be right is flawed..., and needs fixing. Just as one that allowed the US to leap the entire Pacific and land in Tokyo in 1944 would be wrong.

[Canoerebel]

I understand what you're saying here, Mike, but there's got to be some kind of balance between history and playability. If the developers trend too far toward history, the game just becomes a re-run of the actual war. I don't mind there being some latitude in China to depart from history - preferably so that either side, through a randome bit of luck but mainly through good/clever strategy, might get the upper hand and exceed the performance of their real-life counterparts. But we don't want the game so unbalanced that it's just ridiculous.

The developers have quite a job dealing with such a complex game and getting things optimally balanced. No doubt they'll tweak things as the need arises.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

I understand what you're saying here, Mike, but there's got to be some kind of balance between history and playability. If the developers trend too far toward history, the game just becomes a re-run of the actual war. I don't mind there being some latitude in China to depart from history - preferably so that either side, through a random bit of luck but mainly through good/clever strategy, might get the upper hand and exceed the performance of their real-life counterparts. But we don't want the game so unbalanced that it's just ridiculous. And I think the two of us would get along just fine discussing this over a few beers (which makes me regret leaving Georgia 7 years ago and missing the chance to do so). The real question is where to draw the line between "good/clever strategy" and exploiting a game weakness. I also find the whole "Aleutians Strategy" to be an exploit. The idea of mounting anything but an annoyance in that miserable and hostile environment just doesn't "ring true".

The developers have quite a job dealing with such a complex game and getting things optimally balanced. No doubt they'll tweak things as the need arises. I hope you are right. But even on the AE team there are disagreements over China.

[stuman]

Thanks to this thread I now forsee a bunch of my time over the next several months being spent studying the China front. I must admit that of the dozens and dozens of books I have read over the years regarding WW2 I have read not one was about China specifically..

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: stuman

Thanks to this thread I now forsee a bunch of my time over the next several months being spent studying the China front. I must admit that of the dozens and dozens of books I have read over the years regarding WW2 I have read not one was about China specifically..

I hear ya' stuman. I was thinking that myself...I don't have any good books on the Second World War in China.