I was wondering if the victory point/scoring/restrictions decisions have been made yet. What I'm thinking of is all the various discussions that have occured on the Pacwar forum in regards to how to assign victory points, what is historically "acceptable", what kinds of restrictions should be assigned to represent political "realities" and so on.
For example, one strategy in Pacwar was to try to pull out as many troops as possible from the Phillipines and Malaya and move them back, say to the Dutch East Indies to slow down the Japanese acquisition of resources. This would have been very politically unacceptable to Washington and London in early 42, but it's great from the perspective of gaming strategy. Are there any restrictions on this along the line of reduced/restricted mobility of say, troops in the Phillipines or Malaya?
What about incremental victory points - e.g., if the Allies abandon the Phillipines in January 42 the Japanese get a lot more victory points than if they take it by force in June 42?
Also, are there restrictions against seriously non-historical events such as a Japanese invasion of Alaska/BC/the Pacific Northwest in early 42 instead of areas to the south?
Finally, will the Japanese player be able to try to conquer China? I know that is a "sore spot" with a lot of Pacwar players ( for varying and often opposite reasons ), but I would certainly like to see what the effect would be. ( The ability to prevent long range bombing from China would be worth some effort early on. )
Thanks -
Dave Baranyi
Scoring/Politics Decided Yet?
Moderators: Joel Billings, wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami
Well "Philipino" troops should absolutely not be able to redeploy anywhere but within the PI. Just like Chinese troops shouldnt be allowed to redeploy to say Australia for example. Perhaps some sort of garrison status is needed for some units, but I really think its a pretty moot point. Since based on UV I just dont think it will be possible for a player to do any unrealistic large scale redeployments early in the war. Unless your opponent is completely incompetant.
I would say large scale redeployments will be limited more by sealift capabilities and military needs than by any sort of artificial or political based imposition by the system.
"Money doesnt talk, it swears. Obscenities, who really cares?" -Bob Dylan
"Habit is the balast that chains a dog to it's vomit." -Samuel Becket
"He has weapons of mass destruction- the world's deadliest weapons- which pose a direct threat to the
"Habit is the balast that chains a dog to it's vomit." -Samuel Becket
"He has weapons of mass destruction- the world's deadliest weapons- which pose a direct threat to the
Regular Army Philippine troops, such as the Phillippine Scouts, should be redeployable, assuming the Jpn player lets the Allies get away with it. Otherwise I agree. However, the Jpn player should get no casualty VP for Allied forces that are, by virtue of hard-coding, not redeployable.Well "Philipino" troops should absolutely not be able to redeploy anywhere but within the PI. Just like Chinese troops shouldnt be allowed to redeploy to say Australia for example. Perhaps some sort of garrison status is needed for some units, but I really think its a pretty moot point. Since based on UV I just dont think it will be possible for a player to do any unrealistic large scale redeployments early in the war. Unless your opponent is completely incompetant.
Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.
Didn't we have this conversation already?
Didn't we have this conversation already?
Originally posted by Snigbert
I would say large scale redeployments will be limited more by sealift capabilities and military needs than by any sort of artificial or political based imposition by the system.
That was my point, However regardless of sealift limitations. I cant see any scale redeployment of Philipine Commonwealth troops outside of the Philipines or Chinese Nationist outside of the mainland as being acceptable historically. So certainly some sort of deployment contraints similar to the Australian militia in UV is in order. Although that system is good enough for the chinese it wouldnt work with the Philipino troops because they would have to be able to at least embark and disembark on ships within the their Islands. For that matter so would NEI troops. So Im guessing instead of embarkation restrictions you are going to need some kind of zone of control restrictions that include sea hexes.
Any hint how this is going to be handled or is it even being considered?
Regards
If's and But's
Hi, Now I do not intend on trying to move troops from PI or China.
(The Chinese are needed at home and it is nearly impossible to get the PI troops out. )
However, if in 1942 when it became apparent that PI was going to fall, if by some miracle transports had safely made it to Bataan, who thinks that Philipino troops would have refused to board?
Like Dunkirk, you evac anyone and everyone. (Mac could have promised to return with the Philipino troops in the first wave)
It's not cause they wouldn't go else where. It was because they couldn't. (I'm sure there many Philipino nationals inside regular US Army units after PI fell. (persons who were outside the country when war began or those that managed to escape)
Just like you have Czech, Pole, Norwegian Etc units in ETO
I understand the desire of Japanese players to not want these units redeployed. I could never understand why in Pacwar they would not be given replacments.
My personal feelings on this are: Any unit can be moved any where. Exceptions would be units that are considered home (area) defense. They could only be moved if their home (area) was captured by the enemy.
But I don't think you will see many players try to move these units. (They are not that good, There is no transport for them (well actually there is transport, but I doubt players will risk it. The AP's in PI waters will likely run the first chance they get. Trying to move to a base and spending several days loading is almost suicidal)
(I do wish I could get the Marine Rgt out. I'd like to move it to New Cal)
(The Chinese are needed at home and it is nearly impossible to get the PI troops out. )
However, if in 1942 when it became apparent that PI was going to fall, if by some miracle transports had safely made it to Bataan, who thinks that Philipino troops would have refused to board?
Like Dunkirk, you evac anyone and everyone. (Mac could have promised to return with the Philipino troops in the first wave)
It's not cause they wouldn't go else where. It was because they couldn't. (I'm sure there many Philipino nationals inside regular US Army units after PI fell. (persons who were outside the country when war began or those that managed to escape)
Just like you have Czech, Pole, Norwegian Etc units in ETO
I understand the desire of Japanese players to not want these units redeployed. I could never understand why in Pacwar they would not be given replacments.
My personal feelings on this are: Any unit can be moved any where. Exceptions would be units that are considered home (area) defense. They could only be moved if their home (area) was captured by the enemy.
But I don't think you will see many players try to move these units. (They are not that good, There is no transport for them (well actually there is transport, but I doubt players will risk it. The AP's in PI waters will likely run the first chance they get. Trying to move to a base and spending several days loading is almost suicidal)
(I do wish I could get the Marine Rgt out. I'd like to move it to New Cal)
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
Originally posted by mdiehl
Regular Army Philippine troops, such as the Phillippine Scouts, should be redeployable, assuming the Jpn player lets the Allies get away with it. Otherwise I agree. However, the Jpn player should get no casualty VP for Allied forces that are, by virtue of hard-coding, not redeployable.
Yes I agree, the Philipine scouts were by definition US Troops, so they should be redeployable. I was speaking of Philipine Army troops. Not sure the same should be true for Dutch Army regulars in he NEI though. Other than perhaps specialized troops like the Dutch Marines and Commando units.
Re: If's and But's
Originally posted by Mogami
Hi, Now I do not intend on trying to move troops from PI or China.
(The Chinese are needed at home and it is nearly impossible to get the PI troops out. )
However, if in 1942 when it became apparent that PI was going to fall, if by some miracle transports had safely made it to Bataan, who thinks that Philipino troops would have refused to board?
Like Dunkirk, you evac anyone and everyone. (Mac could have promised to return with the Philipino troops in the first wave)
It's not cause they wouldn't go else where. It was because they couldn't. (I'm sure there many Philipino nationals inside regular US Army units after PI fell. (persons who were outside the country when war began or those that managed to escape)
Just like you have Czech, Pole, Norwegian Etc units in ETO
I understand the desire of Japanese players to not want these units redeployed. I could never understand why in Pacwar they would not be given replacments.
My personal feelings on this are: Any unit can be moved any where. Exceptions would be units that are considered home (area) defense. They could only be moved if their home (area) was captured by the enemy.
But I don't think you will see many players try to move these units. (They are not that good, There is no transport for them (well actually there is transport, but I doubt players will risk it. The AP's in PI waters will likely run the first chance they get. Trying to move to a base and spending several days loading is almost suicidal)
(I do wish I could get the Marine Rgt out. I'd like to move it to New Cal)
Mogami,
Although I understand your point and under the circumstances of Battaan I can see many takers for evacuation. I suspect though, many would opt to stay behind with there families and melt into the general population. However on the otherhand. Useing your example how many PA troops would comply if on the first day of the war MacArthur had ordered them to abandon there homelands to be redeployed to the NEI or Australia?
Personally I dont think its worth the effort either, but I could see some players "gamming" the system, by pulling out all the PA troops from the PI and redeploying them throughout the NEI and SW Pacific slowing down a Japanese player advance beyond reason. Say what you want about their quality but there are a lot of them, 11 divisions if the oob is modeled correctly. Placing those divisions in locations like Borneo, Celebes, Sumatra, Java, New Guinea and the Solomons could certainly gum up the works.
All that being said. I dont think a competent Japanese player would have too much trouble peventing this, but it may take up significant amount of resources to do so, which in itself may make it worth an allied player to attempt it. So why deal with it at all. I just dont see why PA troops, which are for all practicle purposes militia, any different than Australian militia is now in UV. Its important to note that Im not talking about US units like the Marines, US Philipine Division and the Scouts, which should be free to redeploy at will.
Regards
Just MHO
Transports
Greetings. The NEI units are much easier to move then PI units.
(Although the bases you will move them to are also Dutch or ABDA bases)
A transport that tries to remain in PI long enough to load troops will almost certainly be attacked by Japanese air.
Also the units themselves will have to move to a port (several days march)
No significant amount of troops will be saved from PI. (It is possible to use the surface ships and fast transport some of them away.
This is not PacWar. Where you only need defend a few hexes.
Also the Japanese have a lot (I mean a lot) of units (LCU and Air)
It will be very important for the Allies to fight as long as possible in PI and Malaysia. (and Java)
Moving troops from PI to Timor might have worked in PacWar against the AI. However in WITP you will only speed up the arrival of long range Japanese air. The allies need to fight for every airfield. (even if they can't use it themselves they need to prevent the Japanese from using it)
Also (OK I am refering to 1 day turns) Supply and fuel in WITP
are not to be found in the massive amounts PacWar provided.
(It makes more sense to use the limited transports the allies have to move fuel and supply away from bases the Japanese are approaching then it does to move the troops (LOL)
(The Allies will be short of both them selves and can not afford to supply the enemy.)
Trust me.....(LOL) This moving of troops to strange locations so common in PacWar will not be as effective.
If you could (suppose) actually get a full sized unit out of PI and move it to Australia, So What? There are already plently of Australian units there so it will not be what prevents the Japanese from capturing Australia. So you send it to Port Moresby.
It will not be what prevents the Japanese from Capturing Port Moresby. (Like in UV, if the Japanese can get transports there they will capture the place (because they will send enough)
In Pacwar a unit on Timor or Ambon Island threw the AI out of whack, (It never stopped a human)
Still as Allies I will try to hold as far forward as possible (depends on air and naval forces available more then land units)
The air units in PI are expendable. The land units are expendable. The naval units are expendable. I would like to extract some form of payment in return. In testing I have wiped out 1 of the 3 Japanese Dec 7th landings. I expect to continue fighting in PI till at least the end of March 42 (longer is of course better) But the idea is to force the Japanese into using all the 14th Army and as much "other" troops as possible to prevent their use else where.
(Although the bases you will move them to are also Dutch or ABDA bases)
A transport that tries to remain in PI long enough to load troops will almost certainly be attacked by Japanese air.
Also the units themselves will have to move to a port (several days march)
No significant amount of troops will be saved from PI. (It is possible to use the surface ships and fast transport some of them away.
This is not PacWar. Where you only need defend a few hexes.
Also the Japanese have a lot (I mean a lot) of units (LCU and Air)
It will be very important for the Allies to fight as long as possible in PI and Malaysia. (and Java)
Moving troops from PI to Timor might have worked in PacWar against the AI. However in WITP you will only speed up the arrival of long range Japanese air. The allies need to fight for every airfield. (even if they can't use it themselves they need to prevent the Japanese from using it)
Also (OK I am refering to 1 day turns) Supply and fuel in WITP
are not to be found in the massive amounts PacWar provided.
(It makes more sense to use the limited transports the allies have to move fuel and supply away from bases the Japanese are approaching then it does to move the troops (LOL)
(The Allies will be short of both them selves and can not afford to supply the enemy.)
Trust me.....(LOL) This moving of troops to strange locations so common in PacWar will not be as effective.
If you could (suppose) actually get a full sized unit out of PI and move it to Australia, So What? There are already plently of Australian units there so it will not be what prevents the Japanese from capturing Australia. So you send it to Port Moresby.
It will not be what prevents the Japanese from Capturing Port Moresby. (Like in UV, if the Japanese can get transports there they will capture the place (because they will send enough)
In Pacwar a unit on Timor or Ambon Island threw the AI out of whack, (It never stopped a human)
Still as Allies I will try to hold as far forward as possible (depends on air and naval forces available more then land units)
The air units in PI are expendable. The land units are expendable. The naval units are expendable. I would like to extract some form of payment in return. In testing I have wiped out 1 of the 3 Japanese Dec 7th landings. I expect to continue fighting in PI till at least the end of March 42 (longer is of course better) But the idea is to force the Japanese into using all the 14th Army and as much "other" troops as possible to prevent their use else where.
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
I had forgotten the NEI units. Those should definitely be redeployable, as their only hope of delaying the Jpn player, if played well, is to concentrate them.
Evacuating the PI is SOP for me in PW because PW gives the Jpn player far too many transports and because PW grossly underrates the fighting quality of the regular army units in the PI and much of the USAAF. Falling back saves the Allies VP and gives them time to get readiness and EXP commensurate to the task.
Were it the case the the Jpn player does not have so many transports to invade every western pacific location in three turns, or were it the case that the PI units were so strong, and the PI so important strategically, that the Jpn feels he must take the PI and that it must be the top or second priority (with Malaya), then there would be some advantage for the Allied player to following the historical course of action with USAFFE units in the PI.
Evacuating the PI is SOP for me in PW because PW gives the Jpn player far too many transports and because PW grossly underrates the fighting quality of the regular army units in the PI and much of the USAAF. Falling back saves the Allies VP and gives them time to get readiness and EXP commensurate to the task.
Were it the case the the Jpn player does not have so many transports to invade every western pacific location in three turns, or were it the case that the PI units were so strong, and the PI so important strategically, that the Jpn feels he must take the PI and that it must be the top or second priority (with Malaya), then there would be some advantage for the Allied player to following the historical course of action with USAFFE units in the PI.
If indeed WitP accomplishes this, it will be a very good thing.But the idea is to force the Japanese into using all the 14th Army and as much "other" troops as possible to prevent their use else where.
Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.
Didn't we have this conversation already?
Didn't we have this conversation already?
Re: Transports
Originally posted by Mogami
Greetings. The NEI units are much easier to move then PI units.
(Although the bases you will move them to are also Dutch or ABDA bases)
A transport that tries to remain in PI long enough to load troops will almost certainly be attacked by Japanese air.
Also the units themselves will have to move to a port (several days march)
No significant amount of troops will be saved from PI. (It is possible to use the surface ships and fast transport some of them away.
This is not PacWar. Where you only need defend a few hexes.
Also the Japanese have a lot (I mean a lot) of units (LCU and Air)
It will be very important for the Allies to fight as long as possible in PI and Malaysia. (and Java)
Moving troops from PI to Timor might have worked in PacWar against the AI. However in WITP you will only speed up the arrival of long range Japanese air. The allies need to fight for every airfield. (even if they can't use it themselves they need to prevent the Japanese from using it)
Also (OK I am refering to 1 day turns) Supply and fuel in WITP
are not to be found in the massive amounts PacWar provided.
(It makes more sense to use the limited transports the allies have to move fuel and supply away from bases the Japanese are approaching then it does to move the troops (LOL)
(The Allies will be short of both them selves and can not afford to supply the enemy.)
Trust me.....(LOL) This moving of troops to strange locations so common in PacWar will not be as effective.
If you could (suppose) actually get a full sized unit out of PI and move it to Australia, So What? There are already plently of Australian units there so it will not be what prevents the Japanese from capturing Australia. So you send it to Port Moresby.
It will not be what prevents the Japanese from Capturing Port Moresby. (Like in UV, if the Japanese can get transports there they will capture the place (because they will send enough)
In Pacwar a unit on Timor or Ambon Island threw the AI out of whack, (It never stopped a human)
Still as Allies I will try to hold as far forward as possible (depends on air and naval forces available more then land units)
The air units in PI are expendable. The land units are expendable. The naval units are expendable. I would like to extract some form of payment in return. In testing I have wiped out 1 of the 3 Japanese Dec 7th landings. I expect to continue fighting in PI till at least the end of March 42 (longer is of course better) But the idea is to force the Japanese into using all the 14th Army and as much "other" troops as possible to prevent their use else where.
Mogami
I agree with your strategy. I also would attempt to hold on to the PI as long as possible and to hold the Malaya Barrier at all cost. Which BTW IMO should be very difficult but not entirely impossible if the oob is modeled correctly and the historical reinforcement schedule is represented.
It sounds like many of the problems in PacWar are being addressed in WitP. Like I said, I dont think it will be hard for most players to prevent this. However I still dont like the idea of the possibilty of Philipine and NEI troops on Guadacanal.
Regarding your Port Morsby example. I have to disagree. A Japanese landing is not a fait de compli in captureing PM. The more troops stationed there the more Japan will have to send. For example if in UV PM starts the campaign with Philipine or NEI Divisions already deployed there in addition to the historical Aussie reinforcement. It will be next to impossible to capture it with just the South Seas Detachment.
The Japanese may start with a lot of troops but they also have to cover and garrison a huge area in a short time. Historically the Japanese were stretched mighty thin and many of there early operations were shoe string affairs.
The fact that, if UV is any indication, quantity of troops far outwieghs quality in determining ground combat. Coupled with the fact the no mid sea interception rule, means that sea blocade is next to impossible. Which inturn means that an allied player should be able to withdraw more ships and troops than was historically possible. Then IMHO, you got a potential for things to get unrealistically boged down.
Speaking of the OOB. Mogami, in your most learned opinion. How do you think the OOB is shapeing up so far? I only ask because in Cap n Gowns recent AAR the amount of Zeros, Bettys and Nells available for Malaya and the Philipines seems over the top IMO.
Your thoughts are appreciated
Originally posted by mdiehl
I had forgotten the NEI units. Those should definitely be redeployable, as their only hope of delaying the Jpn player, if played well, is to concentrate them.
NEI troops should absolutely be able to redeploy anywhere withing the NEI. I just dont think they should be allowed to deploy to places like the Solomons, New Caladonia and Burma for example.
OOB
Hi, I have not checked the OOB too much yet (I am very busy with the map currently)
However these are the actual numbers of IJN aircraft on hand on 7 Dec 41 for use against PI and Malaysia
21st Koku Sentai
27 G4M1 Betty mdm bombers
36 GM32 Nell mdm bombers
24 H6K2 Mavis flying boats
22nd Koku Sentai
36 G3M2 Nell mdm bombers
36 G3M2 Nell mdm bombers
27 G4M1 Betty mdm bombers
6 C5M2s, 25 A6M2 Zeros, 12 A5M4 Claudes
23rd Koku Sentai
54 G4M1 Betty mdm bombers
6 C5M2s, 92 A6M2 Zeros, 12 A5M4 Claudes
6 C5M2s, 92 A6M2 Zeros, 12 A5M4 Claudes
In 1941, The Japanese Naval Air Fleet was some 1750 aircraft:
660 fighters
330 carrier-borne strike aircraft (Val and Kate)
240 medium bombers (G3Ms, G4Ms)
520 Flying boats and sea planes
I know the Thailand airforce has not been included yet.
Observation Sqdn # 32 - 9 Vought V-93
Bomber Sqdn # 50 - 6 Martin 139W
Observation Sqdn # 34 (Udorn), 9 Vought V-93s
Pursuit Sqdn # 50 (Nakhon Panom), 9 Curtiss Hawk III
Phibun Songkram Sqdn # 1 (Don Muang - Bangkok), 12 Mitsubishi Ki.30 Ann
Phibun Songkram Sqdn # 2 (Don Muang - Bangkok), 12 Mitsubishi Ki.30 Ann
Pursuit Sqdn # 60 (Don Muang - Bangkok), 11 Curtiss Hawk 75N
Observation Sqdn # 44, 9 Vought V-93s
Pursuit Sqdn # 71, 9 Curtiss Hawk III
Pursuit Sqdn # 72, 9 Curtiss Hawk III
Pursuit Sqdn # 73 (Sisaket), 9 Curtiss Hawk III
Pursuit Sqdn # 80 (Prachinburi), 9 Curtiss Hawk II
Attack Sqdn # 35 (Prachinburi), 9 Vought V-93
After Thailand became a Japanese puppet state the Japanese added
9 Ki.30 light bombers
15 Ki.21 medium bombers
30 Ki.43-Ia Hayabusa fighters
However these are the actual numbers of IJN aircraft on hand on 7 Dec 41 for use against PI and Malaysia
21st Koku Sentai
27 G4M1 Betty mdm bombers
36 GM32 Nell mdm bombers
24 H6K2 Mavis flying boats
22nd Koku Sentai
36 G3M2 Nell mdm bombers
36 G3M2 Nell mdm bombers
27 G4M1 Betty mdm bombers
6 C5M2s, 25 A6M2 Zeros, 12 A5M4 Claudes
23rd Koku Sentai
54 G4M1 Betty mdm bombers
6 C5M2s, 92 A6M2 Zeros, 12 A5M4 Claudes
6 C5M2s, 92 A6M2 Zeros, 12 A5M4 Claudes
In 1941, The Japanese Naval Air Fleet was some 1750 aircraft:
660 fighters
330 carrier-borne strike aircraft (Val and Kate)
240 medium bombers (G3Ms, G4Ms)
520 Flying boats and sea planes
I know the Thailand airforce has not been included yet.
Observation Sqdn # 32 - 9 Vought V-93
Bomber Sqdn # 50 - 6 Martin 139W
Observation Sqdn # 34 (Udorn), 9 Vought V-93s
Pursuit Sqdn # 50 (Nakhon Panom), 9 Curtiss Hawk III
Phibun Songkram Sqdn # 1 (Don Muang - Bangkok), 12 Mitsubishi Ki.30 Ann
Phibun Songkram Sqdn # 2 (Don Muang - Bangkok), 12 Mitsubishi Ki.30 Ann
Pursuit Sqdn # 60 (Don Muang - Bangkok), 11 Curtiss Hawk 75N
Observation Sqdn # 44, 9 Vought V-93s
Pursuit Sqdn # 71, 9 Curtiss Hawk III
Pursuit Sqdn # 72, 9 Curtiss Hawk III
Pursuit Sqdn # 73 (Sisaket), 9 Curtiss Hawk III
Pursuit Sqdn # 80 (Prachinburi), 9 Curtiss Hawk II
Attack Sqdn # 35 (Prachinburi), 9 Vought V-93
After Thailand became a Japanese puppet state the Japanese added
9 Ki.30 light bombers
15 Ki.21 medium bombers
30 Ki.43-Ia Hayabusa fighters
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
-
Mike Scholl
- Posts: 6187
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 1:17 am
- Location: Kansas City, MO
To MOGAMI
Sounds as if you have a good source at hand. Does it also
have some reference to the Japanese Servicability Rate for the
war years? Obviously it would have been pretty good on Dec.
7th (probably above 95%)---but during the war I know they had
a lot of trouble keeping planes in the air on a consistant basis.
Which probably accounts for their tactical emphasis on "big
efforts" rather than grinding daily attrition. Does your source
have any numbers on this?
have some reference to the Japanese Servicability Rate for the
war years? Obviously it would have been pretty good on Dec.
7th (probably above 95%)---but during the war I know they had
a lot of trouble keeping planes in the air on a consistant basis.
Which probably accounts for their tactical emphasis on "big
efforts" rather than grinding daily attrition. Does your source
have any numbers on this?
Aircraft Maintenance
Hi, Currently I have no data on daily aircraft numbers.
In WITP (like UV) it is a product of airfield size, support and supply.
The large pre war bases should not have a problem maintaining their groups in regard to normal flying. They should also be adequate for repairing battle damaged (compared to smaller less well supported airfields the airgroups will move to)
It is still way to early to make a comment on actual results.
But rest assured any abnormalities will be commented on and addressed.
In WITP (like UV) it is a product of airfield size, support and supply.
The large pre war bases should not have a problem maintaining their groups in regard to normal flying. They should also be adequate for repairing battle damaged (compared to smaller less well supported airfields the airgroups will move to)
It is still way to early to make a comment on actual results.
But rest assured any abnormalities will be commented on and addressed.
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
what is this about Chinese troops???
News Flash: Chinese Troops DID deploy outside of China, historically. Gen. Stillwell established they even could fight and win, if motivated. Since patriotism did not make context in the cultural context, his system was to pay them, something that did not ordinarily happen in the western meaning of the term! The very first time he tried this was in Burma, not China! He just said "if you take that village by noon, I will pay you xyz" - which they proceeded to to. See Barbara Tuchman's Stillwell and the American Experience in China.
Chinese troops could go to Burma because it was connected by land, and the Chinese administration was willing to send them because Northern Burma was a vital line of supply for China, practically the only one availabe at many times. Chinese troops also could, in some circumstances, enter Manchukuo or Liaoning, both of which are different countries, but both of which were regarded as Chinese historically speaking. And then there is Outer Mongolia, which Chinese thought of as Chinese, and Tibet, which is similar, and even some parts of Asiatic Russia, which is also similar. I am not sure how Russia is to be handled, but if it is losing the war, and if it has few forces in the far east, Chinese troops historically might have entered the country. It is the military situation re Japan and Russia that will limit this being realistic, not deployment restrictions, which, if present, are in error.
Chinese troops could go to Burma because it was connected by land, and the Chinese administration was willing to send them because Northern Burma was a vital line of supply for China, practically the only one availabe at many times. Chinese troops also could, in some circumstances, enter Manchukuo or Liaoning, both of which are different countries, but both of which were regarded as Chinese historically speaking. And then there is Outer Mongolia, which Chinese thought of as Chinese, and Tibet, which is similar, and even some parts of Asiatic Russia, which is also similar. I am not sure how Russia is to be handled, but if it is losing the war, and if it has few forces in the far east, Chinese troops historically might have entered the country. It is the military situation re Japan and Russia that will limit this being realistic, not deployment restrictions, which, if present, are in error.
Chinese units
hi, I don't think anyone questions Chinese units going any place they can march to. It was more concerning loading them on transports and moving them out of theatre.
I think this should be possible (but I doubt it should actually be considered productive by the Allied player. He needs more units in China not fewer.)
I think this should be possible (but I doubt it should actually be considered productive by the Allied player. He needs more units in China not fewer.)
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
Re: what is this about Chinese troops???
Originally posted by elcid
News Flash: Chinese Troops DID deploy outside of China, historically.
Uh...NEWS FLASH. It was said that Chinese troops should not be allowed to be redeployed outside the MAINLAND. As in the ASIAN CONTINENT.
Re: Chinese units
Originally posted by Mogami
hi, I don't think anyone questions Chinese units going any place they can march to. It was more concerning loading them on transports and moving them out of theatre.
I think this should be possible (but I doubt it should actually be considered productive by the Allied player. He needs more units in China not fewer.)
More true, given the Exp ratings of many of the units. A dubious trade taking out much needed manpower in china for questionable gains.
It would be interesting to have a mechanism whereby Chinese troops could be withdrawn to India, trained and equipped up to much higher effectiveness and EXP levels, and returned to China. The Allied player would not withdraw trrops wholesale, but more likely start cycling divisions through to increase the overall competence of the Kmt units.
Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.
Didn't we have this conversation already?
Didn't we have this conversation already?