China War too easy for Japan (and USSR too)

[jjdenver]

Hi,

I have stopped enjoying this one in multiplayer (and vs AI) because China is just too easy for Japan. Historically this is how far Japan got into China - not even to Kweiyang and Sian. I'll include a 1942 occupation and end of war occupation map.

4-situation-at-end-of-wwii_orig.png (214.79 KiB) Viewed 1381 times

japan high tide ww2 in china.JPG (246.22 KiB) Viewed 1381 times

I find that in basically all strategic level games, it's much too easy to take and hold and even completely knock out USSR & China both.

I posted this in a mod thread and it was suggested to post it here.

china problem in SC Pacific.JPG (56.88 KiB) Viewed 1381 times

Historically China had very difficult geography, minimal infrastructure (roads/railroads/bridges/etc), huge population. Japan could not take and hold all of China or even very much of China. However in all versions of SC it's basically de rigueur or I would say "normal" for Japan to take much more of China than they did historically and often knock out China or drive them to the Urumchi area. Based on historical context this is ridiculous.

In the same way it's kind of normal in SC for Germany to drive well past major Soviet milestone cities like Moscow, Rostov, and Stalingrad and easily supply huge armies in these remote locations. Historically the lack of infrastructure, fuel, motorized transports and rail inventory to support big armies at this distance as well as the severe weather, large population, and vicious partisan warfare and sabotage - all combined to make it very difficult for Germany to sustain armies this far into Russia. The game doesn't model the EXTREME friction effect of advancing this far into Russia and China.

I would love to see China made "stickier" and "more difficult" for Japan. The basic Japanese strategy should usually or always to to target some specific gains in China and hold those, not just to constantly attack and destroy Chinese units while driving to Chungking, Kunming and Lan Chow. That is ridiculous for Japan historically. I can think of so many ways to do this: create special terrain types for China that give more defensive bonuses, drastically increase partisan events, remove roads/railroads, random events to attrit Japanese units deep in China or near Sian, Kunming, Chungking, Lanchow, Kweiyang, etc, Japanese morale drop (and Chinese morale increase) if too many Japanese units are in China, and many other ideas.

And in other SC games I'd love to see some friction effect added. Perhaps further reduced supply deep into Russia or constant attrition of unit strength, or something like that. It's not necessary to "knock out" USSR & China for Axis to win. Instead Axis can do something like a reasonable advance, weaken China/Russia, then stop and dig in. This was much more manageable historically for the Axis powers.

Thanks

[BillRunacre]

Thanks for making this post.

One question I have in mind is that in Day of Infamy, there is only one victory objective in China, Chongqing, whereas to win Japan needs more.

Therefore, before making any changes, I am wondering if Japanese players who invest heavily in conquering China are assigning a disproportionate amount of their resources to this battle. Does this have a knock on effect elsewhere, e.g. less ships and planes to counter the US navy, or weaker offensives into India?

[jjdenver]

I'm sure there is some knock-on but the point is that it shouldn't be possible for Japan to do this in China. Even if Japan fully committed to this it wasn't possible (Japan had limited logistics, a population of 72 million vs about 625 million for China). And the advantage of freeing up almost the entire IJA and having an unassailable production base in China is very big.

[eriador08]

One question I have in mind is that in Day of Infamy, there is only one victory objective in China, Chongqing, whereas to win Japan needs more.

Therefore, before making any changes, I am wondering if Japanese players who invest heavily in conquering China are assigning a disproportionate amount of their resources to this battle. Does this have a knock on effect elsewhere, e.g. less ships and planes to counter the US navy, or weaker offensives into India?

I estimate, it is reasonable to expect a heavily invested Japan to reach Chongqing in time. But then I think about investments in HQs, Garrisons, concentrating airpower there, giving armies mobility ... That hurts for sure on other fronts and there is not much room to build up navy, research etc. So there is a drawback for sure.

You can punish China also with less investment there, but its must slower and i dont see China evacuate to Urumchi then.

I wonder how it should be possible to bring the US down to 60% moral at the same time, so a rather quick capturing of Chongqing wont end the war anyway.

I'm sure there is some knock-on but the point is that it shouldn't be possible for Japan to do this in China. Even if Japan fully committed to this it wasn't possible (Japan had limited logistics, a population of 72 million vs about 625 million for China). And the advantage of freeing up almost the entire IJN and having an unassailable production base in China is very big.

I think you ment the IJA? Anyway, you got a point there.
I wonder though, how this could be changed up a little, without breaking balance. At the same time i like the option to hit China hard and make some ground early on. In the current version there is a big potential for China to grow a massive force and offensive capabilities, if they dont get hammered all along.

[jjdenver]

ty for the reply. Play balance is easy, there are so many ways to handle that. Nerf China's offensive ability, it's production, it's unit cap, and many many other ways to do it. China should not be an offensive threat, just a sticky thorn without much nectar to take.

And yes I meant IJA just typo.

[jjdenver]

ty for the reply. Play balance is easy, there are so many ways to handle that. Nerf China's offensive ability, it's production, it's unit cap, and many many other ways to do it. China should not be an offensive threat, just a sticky thorn without much nectar to take.

Evacuate to Urumchi is maybe an extreme but Japan should not even be able to easily take Kweiyang and Sian - something which is almost ALWAYS going to happen the way the game is set up. And Japan shouldn't be able to just attack-attack-attack-attack-attack and kill chinese units every turn gaining ground constantly. The game in China is broken just the way the war in Russia is broken in other versions of SC, and China is also broken in those as well. It's a fundamentally flawed representation of history and the wars in China & Russia that should be corrected.

And yes I meant IJA just typo.

[Platoonist]

I think part of the issue is how supply is represented in the game. It's automatically generated by towns and cities and augmented by HQs. However, by 1941-43 the general supply arrangements of the Japanese in China had been reduced to those of an army of occupation, not one engaged in offensive operations. The vast majority of Japanese supplies and logistics were diverted to areas of active operations leaving Japanese forces in China with only enough ammo judged sufficient for one battle and relying on foraging and the occasional "rice offensive" for food. This is one of the primary reasons why the war in China bogged into a stalemate from 1941 until the Ichi-Go offensive of 1944. Even that offensive took exhaustive preparations. Japan's slender industrial base and overworked logistics meant it could only support a primary effort in a limited number of areas much like the Germans had to limit themselves mostly to invading southern Russia in 1942.

In the game there isn't much incentive to send HQs which provide much of the offensive and supply impetus of any force into the wider Pacific itself. On a one or two-hex Island they aren't a huge benefit since they take up space and are vulnerable in defense. I think part of the problem is that their influence and control stop at the water's edge. For instance, the Japanese 17th Army HQ in 1942 based in Rabaul was responsible for directing the Japanese offensive in New Guinea against Port Moresby and operations on Guadalcanal and throughout the Solomons as well. In the game such an HQ can only benefit units based on the four hexes that make up the island of New Britian. It seems like HQs should have some ability to use radio communication, so their control doesn't end at the shoreline.

So, as it stands it behooves a Japanese player to keep the bulk of their HQs in Asia as that is where they can control the most units and provide the greater supply boost. That makes China an obvious choice for an all-out offensive.

[jjdenver]

I think part of the issue is how supply is represented in the game. It's automatically generated by towns and cities and augmented by HQs. However, by 1941-43 the general supply arrangements of the Japanese in China had been reduced to those of an army of occupation, not one engaged in offensive operations. The vast majority of Japanese supplies and logistics were diverted to areas of active operations leaving Japanese forces in China with only enough ammo judged sufficient for one battle and relying on foraging and the occasional "rice offensive" for food. This is one of the primary reasons why the war in China bogged into a stalemate from 1941 until the Ichi-Go offensive of 1944. Even that offensive took exhaustive preparations. Japan's slender industrial base and overworked logistics meant it could only support a primary effort in a limited number of areas much like the Germans had to limit themselves mostly to invading southern Russia in 1942.

In the game there isn't much incentive to send HQs which provide much of the offensive and supply impetus of any force into the wider Pacific itself. On a one or two-hex Island they aren't a huge benefit since they take up space and are vulnerable in defense. I think part of the problem is that their influence and control stop at the water's edge. For instance, the Japanese 17th Army HQ in 1942 based in Rabaul was responsible for directing the Japanese offensive in New Guinea against Port Moresby and operations on Guadalcanal and throughout the Solomons as well. In the game such an HQ can only benefit units based on the four hexes that make up the island of New Britian. It seems like HQs should have some ability to use radio communication, so their control doesn't end at the shoreline.

So, as it stands it behooves a Japanese player to keep the bulk of their HQs in Asia as that is where they can control the most units and provide the greater supply boost. That makes China an obvious choice for an all-out offensive.

Great analysis. I agree.

[stormbringer3]

I played my 1st game as Japan, and I went all in on China. I took the Philippines and the DEI and that was all that I conquered in that area of the game. The AI never took any of my small islands in the Pacific. Later in the game I took Calcutta and that gave me a Supreme Victory. I played on Intermediate. I agree that China needs to be adjusted otherwise an all in strategy on China will probably guarantee a Japanese victory.

[Platoonist]

To tell you the truth I don't envy any designer who endeavors to simulate the part of the war between Japan and China between 1941 and 45. It was such a furball of factionalism, opportunism, corruption, bad logistics, civilian apathy and graft I don't see how it could ever be appealing as a stand-alone commercial wargame. In that period the armies of the Nationalists, Warlords and Communists were seen primarily as instruments of political control. That meant you sent your most loyal and well equipped units to fight other Chinese factions. You sent your bottom of the barrel divisions (which made up the vast bulk of Chinese armies) to hold the line against the Japanese. As far as Chiang was concerned it was up to the USA to win the war. He just wanted to wait until it was over to fight Mao.

You could even make the argument that the Japanese should be receiving some MPPs from China as corrupt Chinese officers and local merchants often traded resources like minerals, oil, rice and lend lease goods across quiet sections of the stalemated battle lines. Something which gave American officals serving in China absolute fits.

[MoongazerSlitherineSSL]

I think there are a couple of options that can incentivize Japan player to focus their attention elsewhere:
1. Force Japan to keep Kwantung Army in Manchuria by changing the hex requisites to prevent Soviet mobilisation from "unit" to "army or corps", same as it is done with Chinese warlords in the north.
2. Change the supply, generated by occupied Chinese cities to max 5 or even 3. Then make a decision, which allows Japan to activate them to full strength somewhere later into the war by paying a hefty sum of MPPs, representing the shift of the focus from navy to army.
3. Drop the strength of Japanese HQ in China to 5 or lower. If Japan wants to push there - they will to spend additional time and resources.

Of course I am not talking about implementing all of them, it would be crippling. Just trying to think where changes could be made. Also I am against any buffs to China since it can completely shift the balance to the other way.

[Nginear]

It is a hard thing to model. The war was mostly stalemate until 44-45, when Japan added the extra resources and equipment (600k troops, 1000 artillery). Most of the Japanese major campaigns captured large parts, they just eventually ran out of steam.

To historically model this, you have to have a technologically under equipped Chinese army, and an exhausted and battered Japanese army. The game can do this by putting Japanese troops at 6-8 strength. Plus if you look at the objectives of why Japan launched the 44-45 campaign (Ichi-Go), it was to connect a railroad from Thailand to Korea so they could bypass the submarine attacks on shipping.....something else the game will reward you with if Korea is an alternate capital (it will raise the captured territory to 8 instead of 5). BUT we have to have a China that can be overrun with increased mpp input, but not allow China the ability to launch a massive counter campaign (something which I have repeatedly experienced - if you ignore them they come back enough to defeat you).

Sooooo.....that's a lot of historical analysis and rambling lol. The game could model it a bit better, but the engine does have annoying limitations such as major powers can only send one convoy at a time (the US cannot support China and Australia at the same time, which did happen).

[jjdenver]

These are all good ideas and thank you for the posts. Just to put it into context:
Japan 72 million
China 650 million
China had 9x the population

today:
Ukraine 38 million
Russia 145 million
Russia has 3.7x the population

Can you even imagine Ukraine driving to the Urals and controlling the major parts of Russia with their small pop?
Now imagine 3x the pop difference? Japanese just run out of steam if they try to control and push into the interior of China. There are a lot of ideas on the forum about how to make this a more static and sticky theatre which is how it should be modeled. I'm certainly not arguing China needs more "oomph" because we don't want a Chinese steamroller in 43-45 just like we don't want a Japanese steamroller from 39-43. Both sides should find it difficult to gain and hold ground.

[Shellshock]

In general, I think it's fair to say that the Sino-Japanese war is extremely difficult to get "right" with any game engine. That is no fault of the developers, but more a function of the extreme difficulty of modeling the complicated political and economic factors of the conflict. Difficulties that most game players probably wouldn't have much patience or fun with.

The Japanese did manage to steamroll the Chinese in the 1944 Ichi-Go offensive. The only real offensive effort the Japanese undertook in China during the part of the war with the Allies. Its major stated purpose was the capture the airfields in southern China the B-29s were using to bomb Japan. Prior to that, the Japanese were stalled, partly due to stiffer Chinese resistance, partly due to the need to send divisions and supplies to conquer the Southern Resource Area, partly because the last thing they wanted to do was capture even more guerilla-infested countryside where they never had much control.

It is also difficult to model Chinese issues, specifically the lack of Kuomintang central control at times over generals, other Chinese cliques and animosity between the KMT and Communists. The average Chinese soldiers were underfed, poorly led and under-equipped and Chiang knew it which is why he was reluctant to initiate action. Most of his best trained troops had already been lost in the fighting since 1937.

One thing that stands out as missing is the critical issue of oil. Japan partly went to war over the oil embargo imposed by the US and the western allies as it would have eventually shut down any hope of future army operations in China. It seems if you simply gave Japan all the armies, tanks, bombers and MPPs she's using to invade the Philippines, Malaya, the DEI and Burma and with no outside drains on her resources, she could steamroll China just the same as she currently does. Then what was the point of involving the US, Great Britain, and the Netherlands in a world war?

[Tanaka]

Interesting post. There are a lot of different factors going on here. Player vs player or player vs AI. Player skill level etc... I have seen many posts saying China is too strong vs other players. Or that AI China is too strong. Yes very hard to balance...

You see the same discussions in WITPAE forums. But should not Japan do better in China if they commit more than they did historically? Should games not allow this?

Maybe some speed bumps are warranted but I would not take away strategic choice...

The counter to this is an all in China is very risky as you are weakening other fronts. Same would have happened in real history had Japan gone all in China. More successes but weaker everywhere else...Seems like the game models this well...

What does is matter if Japan conquers more of China than historically if the Allies are going to come steamrolling your weak flanks anyway?

BigJohn Sep 10 @ 6:42am 
    
Once the US gets a superior Navy they will destroy Japans Navy if they engage and start the advance towards Japan.

I'm playing a very good Axis player who has pushed me with 5 cities of Delhi and took Chongqing. I still have three Chinese HQS and a defensive positions at every city he will approach. I wiped out most of his Navy and am taking island after island. He ghosted me 4/5 days ago lets see if he continues. )

Just look where a Japanese player is struggling in China:

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 7&t=404950

Some other examples:

"Majpalmer Jul 27 @ 7:38pm 
    
The Chinese were a pain. At the end I was withdrawing from China. The same was true in Burma. The British had retaken Burma, Thailand, and were deep into Indochina. The Soviets were tough."

AlbertN wrote: ↑Fri Aug 16, 2024 11:55 am
I am one of the players that believe China is too rich.
Japan should be able to hold ground against China and 'do well' without a China focused strategy.
By doing well I mean grabbing some land and Changsha like.
A China focused strategy should obliterate China and it is a matter of neglecting Pacific or other fronts.

China should simply have 1 attack less per unit. Or at least ground units.
That should make more difficult some offensive or attacks.

by havoc1371 » Fri Jul 19, 2024 6:33 pm
I found it to be biased towards the Allies in my game against another play tester (I was the Allies) and my opponent was one of my regular opponents in World at War and no slouch. While it alleviates the advantage of Allies preparing for the "surprise" attack, it also leaves Japan under prepared to carry it out. China is a mess for the Japanese. At no time playing the Allies did I feel any stress about being able to eventually win. I won't be buying it just because its not unique or interesting enough to make me want to play it vice WatW. Just my two cents.

Drakken Jul 28 @ 9:56am 
    
Might also want to take a look at TheHistoricalGamer's current game against the Intermediate AI as the Allies, too. Especially this episode:

YouTube™ Video: Strategic Command WWII: War in the Pacific | Naval Armageddon! | Part 8 
Views: 2,096

AI definitely needs a bit of a overhaul. Japan has twice the land forces THG has, yet they are getting trounced in China and are do not use that numerical advantage in Malaya.

[Umeu]

Interesting post. There are a lot of different factors going on here. Player vs player or player vs AI. Player skill level etc... I have seen many posts saying China is too strong vs other players. Or that AI China is too strong. Yes very hard to balance...

You see the same discussions in WITPAE forums. But should not Japan do better in China if they commit more than they did historically? Should games not allow this?

Maybe some speed bumps are warranted but I would not take away strategic choice...

The counter to this is an all in China is very risky as you are weakening other fronts. Same would have happened in real history had Japan gone all in China. More successes but weaker everywhere else...Seems like the game models this well...

What does is matter if Japan conquers more of China than historically if the Allies are going to come steamrolling your weak flanks anyway?

BigJohn Sep 10 @ 6:42am 
    
Once the US gets a superior Navy they will destroy Japans Navy if they engage and start the advance towards Japan.

I'm playing a very good Axis player who has pushed me with 5 cities of Delhi and took Chongqing. I still have three Chinese HQS and a defensive positions at every city he will approach. I wiped out most of his Navy and am taking island after island. He ghosted me 4/5 days ago lets see if he continues. )

Just look where a Japanese player is struggling in China:

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 7&t=404950

Some other examples:

"Majpalmer Jul 27 @ 7:38pm 
    
The Chinese were a pain. At the end I was withdrawing from China. The same was true in Burma. The British had retaken Burma, Thailand, and were deep into Indochina. The Soviets were tough."

AlbertN wrote: ↑Fri Aug 16, 2024 11:55 am
I am one of the players that believe China is too rich.
Japan should be able to hold ground against China and 'do well' without a China focused strategy.
By doing well I mean grabbing some land and Changsha like.
A China focused strategy should obliterate China and it is a matter of neglecting Pacific or other fronts.

China should simply have 1 attack less per unit. Or at least ground units.
That should make more difficult some offensive or attacks.

by havoc1371 » Fri Jul 19, 2024 6:33 pm
I found it to be biased towards the Allies in my game against another play tester (I was the Allies) and my opponent was one of my regular opponents in World at War and no slouch. While it alleviates the advantage of Allies preparing for the "surprise" attack, it also leaves Japan under prepared to carry it out. China is a mess for the Japanese. At no time playing the Allies did I feel any stress about being able to eventually win. I won't be buying it just because its not unique or interesting enough to make me want to play it vice WatW. Just my two cents.

Drakken Jul 28 @ 9:56am 
    
Might also want to take a look at TheHistoricalGamer's current game against the Intermediate AI as the Allies, too. Especially this episode:

YouTube™ Video: Strategic Command WWII: War in the Pacific | Naval Armageddon! | Part 8 
Views: 2,096

AI definitely needs a bit of a overhaul. Japan has twice the land forces THG has, yet they are getting trounced in China and are do not use that numerical advantage in Malaya.

only played as Japan so far so would have to try from the allied side, but my first impression from MP games is that Japan doesn't have a problem with China at all, and they don't need to "All-In China" to defend against China for sure, and the can probably push China back all the way to Chongking without committing many extra troops. All you need to do is swap the armies and tanks in Manchuria out with garrisons, and then bring the tanks to the push on Chongking for extra mobility through the mountains. China can't really do much vs an organized Japanese push, this is basically still the same as in WaW, except that the map is bigger and the terrain more difficult so the Japanese advance is not as dramatic. In WaW you can take Chongking almost every time in 1941. In WitP, it will take you until 43, but considering the different starting points, the delay is realistically only like 6 months or so.

Players who struggle with China as Japan are probably not using combined arms tactics (you need bombers & artillery otherwise yes, you will struggle).

That said, the game is probably still favored towards allies. The removal of Long Range Amphibious transports, and the comparative lack of tech (Japan's tech is much worse compared to what it would be in 1941 in a WaW game, though the same is true for the US) favors the allies more than Japan, because USA just has so much income and can't be threatened by Japan anymore. So realistically, Japan can't really invade Australia or Hawaii (as it was historically), this leaves China and India, and China is by far the easier target.

I think the only Victory condition Japan can realistically achieve vs a solid allied player is the minor victory. It should probably be possible to keep Japan's morale above 15% or also keep keep Tokyo, Osaka & Chongking. The other victory conditions seem quite impossible vs a good player.

[Tanaka]

Interesting post. There are a lot of different factors going on here. Player vs player or player vs AI. Player skill level etc... I have seen many posts saying China is too strong vs other players. Or that AI China is too strong. Yes very hard to balance...

You see the same discussions in WITPAE forums. But should not Japan do better in China if they commit more than they did historically? Should games not allow this?

Maybe some speed bumps are warranted but I would not take away strategic choice...

The counter to this is an all in China is very risky as you are weakening other fronts. Same would have happened in real history had Japan gone all in China. More successes but weaker everywhere else...Seems like the game models this well...

What does is matter if Japan conquers more of China than historically if the Allies are going to come steamrolling your weak flanks anyway?

BigJohn Sep 10 @ 6:42am 
    
Once the US gets a superior Navy they will destroy Japans Navy if they engage and start the advance towards Japan.

I'm playing a very good Axis player who has pushed me with 5 cities of Delhi and took Chongqing. I still have three Chinese HQS and a defensive positions at every city he will approach. I wiped out most of his Navy and am taking island after island. He ghosted me 4/5 days ago lets see if he continues. )

Just look where a Japanese player is struggling in China:

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 7&t=404950

Some other examples:

"Majpalmer Jul 27 @ 7:38pm 
    
The Chinese were a pain. At the end I was withdrawing from China. The same was true in Burma. The British had retaken Burma, Thailand, and were deep into Indochina. The Soviets were tough."

AlbertN wrote: ↑Fri Aug 16, 2024 11:55 am
I am one of the players that believe China is too rich.
Japan should be able to hold ground against China and 'do well' without a China focused strategy.
By doing well I mean grabbing some land and Changsha like.
A China focused strategy should obliterate China and it is a matter of neglecting Pacific or other fronts.

China should simply have 1 attack less per unit. Or at least ground units.
That should make more difficult some offensive or attacks.

by havoc1371 » Fri Jul 19, 2024 6:33 pm
I found it to be biased towards the Allies in my game against another play tester (I was the Allies) and my opponent was one of my regular opponents in World at War and no slouch. While it alleviates the advantage of Allies preparing for the "surprise" attack, it also leaves Japan under prepared to carry it out. China is a mess for the Japanese. At no time playing the Allies did I feel any stress about being able to eventually win. I won't be buying it just because its not unique or interesting enough to make me want to play it vice WatW. Just my two cents.

Drakken Jul 28 @ 9:56am 
    
Might also want to take a look at TheHistoricalGamer's current game against the Intermediate AI as the Allies, too. Especially this episode:

YouTube™ Video: Strategic Command WWII: War in the Pacific | Naval Armageddon! | Part 8 
Views: 2,096

AI definitely needs a bit of a overhaul. Japan has twice the land forces THG has, yet they are getting trounced in China and are do not use that numerical advantage in Malaya.

only played as Japan so far so would have to try from the allied side, but my first impression from MP games is that Japan doesn't have a problem with China at all, and they don't need to "All-In China" to defend against China for sure, and the can probably push China back all the way to Chongking without committing many extra troops. All you need to do is swap the armies and tanks in Manchuria out with garrisons, and then bring the tanks to the push on Chongking for extra mobility through the mountains. China can't really do much vs an organized Japanese push, this is basically still the same as in WaW, except that the map is bigger and the terrain more difficult so the Japanese advance is not as dramatic. In WaW you can take Chongking almost every time in 1941. In WitP, it will take you until 43, but considering the different starting points, the delay is realistically only like 6 months or so.

Players who struggle with China as Japan are probably not using combined arms tactics (you need bombers & artillery otherwise yes, you will struggle).

That said, the game is probably still favored towards allies. The removal of Long Range Amphibious transports, and the comparative lack of tech (Japan's tech is much worse compared to what it would be in 1941 in a WaW game, though the same is true for the US) favors the allies more than Japan, because USA just has so much income and can't be threatened by Japan anymore. So realistically, Japan can't really invade Australia or Hawaii (as it was historically), this leaves China and India, and China is by far the easier target.

I think the only Victory condition Japan can realistically achieve vs a solid allied player is the minor victory. It should probably be possible to keep Japan's morale above 15% or also keep keep Tokyo, Osaka & Chongking. The other victory conditions seem quite impossible vs a good player.

Agreed a lot of it is skill level. And then you see more posts like this:

Waldemar von Rappelstein Oct 18 @ 12:26pm
    
Need Advice on Defeating China in the Japanese Grand Campaign
Hi,

I played and completed the Japanese Grand Campaign and managed to achieve a minor victory. I had enormous difficulties fighting China; I managed to occupy Changsha up to Hechi, but I can't advance. The terrain is very mountainous, and it prevents me from moving forward, resulting in a terrible war of attrition. What do you recommend to defeat China? How can I reach the capital? Perhaps the mistake was that I should have launched the incursion from the north, from Manchuria? Which upgrades are useful against China?
Thanks for the advice.

[darbygray]

My question is how do you get the Brits to break back across the Burma Road to help rescue the Chinese, when you have a Japan-side player selling it all in conquering China?

I'm doing an PBEM game and can't break through with the Brits to help the Chinese.