Matrix Games Forums

Currently in CHS at Yangku (Taiyuan)...

The Japanese have
Size 1 AF = Partisan Value (PV) 10
Industry 10 = PV 5
Resource 320 = PV 160
TOTAL PV =175

Per the manual the formula for determining garrison values to stop partisan activity is (Ind. + Res)/2 + (AF+PT)*10

Located in Yangku are 3 divisons and IIRC a brigade or regt. with Assault Values of 354, 365, 349 and 161 respectively, totalling 1229. To effectively garrison Yangku All the Japanese need to do is split one division thereby freeing up 2 2/3 divisions for offensive use or otherwise elsewhere.

Historically the area geographically West and South of Yangku (Taiyuan) (West of Yangku on the game map) was a hot bed of Chinese guerilla activity and the Japanese would not have been able to effectively garrison the area with 1/2-2/3 of a division.

As I've suggested before - if the formula were simply changed to:

(Ind+Res)*2 + (AF+PT)*20

the above example would require the Japanese to garrison Yangku with an AV of 680 effectively tying up 2 divisions

Suddenly the Japanese are faced with a conundrum that they currently do not have to face. How do I effectively garrison China and gather forces for an offensive. They would only free up the one divison + a regiment in the above instance.

Just looking at CHS, the bases from Shanghai to Ichang and North (east on the game map) currently are garrisoned with 10040 Assault points not counting units that start outside of bases. The required garrison as it stands now is c.2140 a difference of 7900 Assault points or 7900/350=22.5 divisions which can be freed to do other things.

By changing the formula the garrison value now becomes 7140 for a differnce of 2900 assault points or 2900/350=c.8 divisions which can be freed to do other things.

People wonder why China is broken? IMO this is why China is broken! The Japanese aren't tied down fighting partisans.

IMO This simple change to the formula would substantially change the way the China theater is fought and would much better represent the garrison difficulties faced by the Japanese IRL.

The only problem with partisans, is that WitP does not represent 2ndline troops or police forces.

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

The only problem with partisans, is that WitP does not represent 2ndline troops or police forces.

Nor do most of the histories I've read. It always seems to be the Japanese ID's doing the fighting. Launching punitive operations from the bases represented in our game ...then returning to those same bases...wash, rinse, repeat.

My point is in the game the Japanese are able to assemble a critical mass for the so-called blitzkrieg because they are not tied down.

they were only able to launch Ichi-Go at the end of the war after they brought forces in from the home islands and manchuria to garrison the rear.

Or Vector Bombs.


But China is a mess.

Yes, with the Nationalist government refusing to "come to the table" and with the Nationalist army refusing to stand and fight (unless it wanted too) there was little else for the Japanese army to do prior to their big 1944 offensive against the USAAF heavy bomber airfields. India would also require a "garrison" rule but has none.

How much "actual" partisan activity was there, outside of Mao's communists? There is a tendancy to equate China with Russia in that regards but i've not read of rampant chinese activity in this mode. I did read in Caputo that the Nationalists and the IJA had a more or less "unofficial" truce around the 1941 period. Hence the stalemate.

ORIGINAL: treespider

My point is in the game the Japanese are able to assemble a critical mass for the so-called blitzkrieg because they are not tied down.

they were only able to launch Ichi-Go at the end of the war after they brought forces in from the home islands and manchuria to garrison the rear.

There are easier methods to address the "blitzkrieg" aspect. The Japanese needed additional forces for Ichi-Go because of the Chinese armies that might take advantage of the troop movements...not because of magical chinese partisans somehow rising up in each city. There's a difference between garrisoning strong points against enemy mainline forces and a "garrison" requirement against an abstraction (chinese partisans)

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

Yes, with the Nationalist government refusing to "come to the table" and with the Nationalist army refusing to stand and fight (unless it wanted too) there was little else for the Japanese army to do prior to their big 1944 offensive against the USAAF heavy bomber airfields. India would also require a "garrison" rule but has none.

But the Japanese did do more than just sit on there hands between 1941 and 1944 - In 1942 the launched a "punitive" operation into the Chekiang-Kiangsi province, In the summer of 1943 they launch a "punitive' operation in Western Hupei province, In April of 1942 the Japanese launched a anti-guerilla op in Hopei-Chahar Area, In may 1943 the japanese conducted anti-guerilla ops in Shantung province, In Feb, 1943 the Japanese conducted anti guerilla activity in Northern Kiangsu province, In dec 1941 the japanese conducted anti guerilla activity in the "northern sector of the Peiping hankow railway" In June 1942 again in this same area, In April 1943 in the Tai-hang Shan region (north of Honan), Again in July of 43 in the same region. In Februray 1943 the area SE of Hankow in the Mienyang area was subjected to an anti-guerilla op. And so forth and so on.

How much "actual" partisan activity was there, outside of Mao's communists? There is a tendancy to equate China with Russia in that regards but i've not read of rampant chinese activity in this mode. I did read in Caputo that the Nationalists and the IJA had a more or less "unofficial" truce around the 1941 period. Hence the stalemate.

I'm not equating Chinese guerillas to Russian partisans. Thus why I think the garrison value handles chinese guerillas nicely but not to the extent that it should. The guerillas would move in tear up track be a nuisance and run away.

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: treespider

My point is in the game the Japanese are able to assemble a critical mass for the so-called blitzkrieg because they are not tied down.

they were only able to launch Ichi-Go at the end of the war after they brought forces in from the home islands and manchuria to garrison the rear.

There are easier methods to address the "blitzkrieg" aspect. The Japanese needed additional forces for Ichi-Go because of the Chinese armies that might take advantage of the troop movements...not because of magical chinese partisans somehow rising up in each city. There's a difference between garrisoning strong points against enemy mainline forces and a "garrison" requirement against an abstraction (chinese partisans)

Yes but these Chinese armies that might take advantage of trrop movements were also the magical guerillas the garrisons were defending against. I can rattle off at least 10 Chinese corps that although listed as front-line units were nothing more than guerillas that would move into an area after the Japanese left and would operate in areas behind our games frontlines.

I wasn't suggesting that the Japanse did nothing, however reprsenting partisan activity without also represting 2nd line formations is not a viable solution in my opinion, particuarily when its only being applied to one side.

"garrisoning" a strong point to protect against enemy 1st line forces should be adequate in this regards. The only "problem" i saw (and addressed) was that the rail movement system allowed the Japanese to move faster allowing them to concentrate and take an objective before Mogami's scenario could come into play (Chinese armies moving into areas vacated by the Japanese due to their own troop movements)

, however reprsenting partisan activity without also represting 2nd line formations is not a viable solution in my opinion, particuarily when its only being applied to one side.

I would suggest that the "2nd line units" are abstractly represented in that the base does not switch sides when vacated by combat troops, combined with the fact that the partisan effect is a gradual process that does not result in the complete degradation of a base in one day.

The Japanese maintained combat units in addition to the "2nd line" units in these "rear" areas and along transportation lines for a reason. My suggestion is that the the game as is, is not providing a sufficient enough reason.

I like the idea, and why not add it to India?

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

I like the idea, and why not add it to India?

I don't have a problem with that. I was just talking about China. [;)]

The Japanese maintained combat units in addition to the "2nd line" units in these "rear" areas and along transportation lines for a reason. My suggestion is that the the game as is, is not providing a sufficient enough reason.

If all of the units, 2nd line etc, are included in the OOB, then i'd say Partisan activity and "garrisoning" against it and for population control is warrented. Without them, it is not warrented.

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

The Japanese maintained combat units in addition to the "2nd line" units in these "rear" areas and along transportation lines for a reason. My suggestion is that the the game as is, is not providing a sufficient enough reason.

If all of the units, 2nd line etc, are included in the OOB, then i'd say Partisan activity and "garrisoning" against it and for population control is warrented. Without them, it is not warrented.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree...[;)]

Yep.




question out of curiosity however. Are people still "conqueroring" china with ease in 1.6?

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

Yep.




question out of curiosity however. Are people still "conqueroring" china with ease in 1.6?

CHS 1.6? or Patch 1.6?

stock 1.6


(I know it ain't happening in my mod [;)] )

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

The Japanese maintained combat units in addition to the "2nd line" units in these "rear" areas and along transportation lines for a reason. My suggestion is that the the game as is, is not providing a sufficient enough reason.

If all of the units, 2nd line etc, are included in the OOB, then i'd say Partisan activity and "garrisoning" against it and for population control is warrented. Without them, it is not warrented.

There is an additional concern for me. After a time in the stock scenario, an Allied Chinese offensive is possible. The higher the garrison requirement, the more you shift the balance of power in China to make it an Allied theatre rather than a stalemate. Doubling the garrison requirement in China removes a ton of IJA troops from frontline bases (2300 AP worth), simultaneously reducing the IJA offensive firepower and weakening the IJA defensive positions such that China can more easily attack. If you plan on doing this, you need to somehow account for the Nationalist/Communist tension and tie down Chinese troops as well.

Also, some OOB changes would need to be made to protect the Japanese player from immediate deterioration of the position in China. Since your suggestion would leave seven CEA cities in partisan acitivity at game start, China would degenerate for the IJ player until forces could be moved into place to beef up the garrisons. In some cases, those movements would take weeks to accomplish. In the weeks the movements took, the supply situation and condition of the bases would deteriorate.

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

stock 1.6


(I know it ain't happening in my mod [;)] )

China is pretty static in CHS 1.06 too. I wonder how long stock will remain the only official version?[;)]

I agree generally with your points. I hold similar concerns. In my mod, the only partially negative feedback i've received in regards China comes from the Japan player (that they can't do enough while the Chinese 'can')

I remain interested in stock version outcomes. If the movement system remains as is, i think that additional china units would be an adquate solution (if needed) but make them understrength in terms of firepower. (i.e. primarily squad based) Noone disputes that the Chinese had plenty of manpower. Theirs was a problem of provisioning them and keeping them organized.