Another way to get Chinese slots

[timtom]

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen

Only heights > 3000m as mountains? In some places heights > 3000m would be inaccessible, while in other places not (just to give an example: Italy is quite mountaineous but the mountain ranges on the peninsula are mostly not very high; the Monte Cassino: 516m..., the Corno Grande as highest peak of the Gran Sasso d'Italia: 2,912m). Iwo Jima is mountain terrain in WITP but Mount Suribachi is 166m high.

I would agree. By this definition there's no mountains in Scandinavia or Britain, nor are the Appalachians a mountain range.

[Badnews]

"Blood War 43-46" with fully new Chinese OOB has done. [:D]
It is checking and testing by my friends now, and will relesed in few days.
[8D]

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen
Andrew,

concerning your map and China: Please make Yenen and surroundings mountain (or at least wood) hexes in your next map version. The Chinese Communists retreated ("The Long March") to this area because it was rather rugged/mountain terrain and easy to defend (originally against the KMT Army, of course). In your current map version it is a Clear hex and quite easy to take...

I assume you mean Yenan (which is called Yenen on the stock map)? OK, I will take a look at the area again. I usually only use mountains for truly mountainous areas (heights > 3000m), so I will probably add some forest - which has to be used for "rough" terrain - if it seems justified.

[Similar issue with the border hex between Manchuria and the Maritime Province near Vladivostok, this should be wood terrain; and the map is missing some rather impressive mountain ranges at the border between Outer Mongolia and Manchuria.]

K

OK. I will take a look. I know the area you mean between Greater Mongolia and Manchuria. Regarding the border hex near Vladivostok - do you mean the hex on the Manchuria side, the hexes on the Soviet side, or both?

Thanks,
Andrew

Yes, was talking about Yenan (many spellings possible). Only heights > 3000m as mountains? In some places heights > 3000m would be inaccessible, while in other places not (just to give an example: Italy is quite mountaineous but the mountain ranges on the peninsula are mostly not very high; the Monte Cassino: 516m..., the Corno Grande as highest peak of the Gran Sasso d'Italia: 2,912m). Iwo Jima is mountain terrain in WITP but Mount Suribachi is 166m high.

The border hexes are 63/32, 64/32, 65/32. Not sure about 64/31 because it contains a big city (Mutankiang)

I must concur with Kereguelen: what makes mountainous terrain mountainous is how rough it is, not how high it is.
By Alaska standards, few places have mountains at all. [The largest sheer rock cliff in the world is the Wickersham Wall on what we call Denali and what most people think of as Mt McKinley - nothing in the Hemalayas or Andes comes close.
But what matters for us is two different standards:

a) How much does the terrain inhibit movement?

b) How much does the terrain contribute to the defense?

By that standard, ANY terrain that is severe is "mountains" - just as Andrew (and presumably Matrix) uses "forest" to mean "lower mountains" or "less severely restricted than mountainous t errain").

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: treespider

-

awesome maps Treespider!

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: el cid again
I must concur with Kereguelen: what makes mountainous terrain mountainous is how rough it is, not how high it is.
By Alaska standards, few places have mountains at all. [The largest sheer rock cliff in the world is the Wickersham Wall on what we call Denali and what most people think of as Mt McKinley - nothing in the Hemalayas or Andes comes close.
But what matters for us is two different standards:

a) How much does the terrain inhibit movement?

b) How much does the terrain contribute to the defense?

By that standard, ANY terrain that is severe is "mountains" - just as Andrew (and presumably Matrix) uses "forest" to mean "lower mountains" or "less severely restricted than mountainous t errain").

I don't agree that all rugged terrain should be treated equally and have a x3 defence. I prefer to have a graduated scale - with a "rugged" terrain type which provides x2 (which I have to use forest for as there is no real "rugged" terrain type) and use "mountain" (x3) for truly difficult mountainous terrain.

I do not accept that the Appalachians are as difficult to operate in as the Himalaya.

Andrew

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: timtom
I would agree. By this definition there's no mountains in Scandinavia or Britain, nor are the Appalachians a mountain range.

My definition is not intended to specify what is a mountain - it is intended to provide a scale of difficulty in game terms. I don't think that the British and Scandanavian mountains are as difficult to move through as the Himalaya or the Tibetan plateau, and so should not incur the same movement penalties.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

ORIGINAL: el cid again
I must concur with Kereguelen: what makes mountainous terrain mountainous is how rough it is, not how high it is.
By Alaska standards, few places have mountains at all. [The largest sheer rock cliff in the world is the Wickersham Wall on what we call Denali and what most people think of as Mt McKinley - nothing in the Hemalayas or Andes comes close.
But what matters for us is two different standards:

a) How much does the terrain inhibit movement?

b) How much does the terrain contribute to the defense?

By that standard, ANY terrain that is severe is "mountains" - just as Andrew (and presumably Matrix) uses "forest" to mean "lower mountains" or "less severely restricted than mountainous t errain").

I don't agree that all rugged terrain should be treated equally and have a x3 defence. I prefer to have a graduated scale - with a "rugged" terrain type which provides x2 (which I have to use forest for as there is no real "rugged" terrain type) and use "mountain" (x3) for truly difficult mountainous terrain.

I do not accept that the Appalachians are as difficult to operate in as the Himalaya.

Andrew

It actually depends. There are places in Appalachia you are severely restricted by mountain, gorge, river, etc.
And there are places in the Himalayas you have broad flood plains and even developed lines of communications.
I regret to say this - because it implies lots of work - but there is no substitute for hex by hex consideration - at least along the main LOC.

I do not really disagree with Andrew as much as it might appear - I think some forms of "mountains" should appear as "forest" in our system. But having both studied Chinese geography and traveled in China, I believe it has a lot more terrain even he would classify as "mountain" than appears on the CHS map. In fact - I don't think RHS has enough mountains - but I have been too lazy to do more than put in the really really big ones.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

ORIGINAL: timtom
I would agree. By this definition there's no mountains in Scandinavia or Britain, nor are the Appalachians a mountain range.

My definition is not intended to specify what is a mountain - it is intended to provide a scale of difficulty in game terms. I don't think that the British and Scandanavian mountains are as difficult to move through as the Himalaya or the Tibetan plateau, and so should not incur the same movement penalties.

Certainly there are mountains in Scandanavia as forbidding as anything in Alaska (the most forbidding in the world) or the Himalaya (the second most forbidding). It isn't the height alone that is the issue.

[m10bob]

Nobody is going to convince me the Chu Poungs were not "mountains".
(Pardon the spelling)..

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: el cid again
Certainly there are mountains in Scandanavia as forbidding as anything in Alaska (the most forbidding in the world) or the Himalaya (the second most forbidding).

Certainly there are examples. But that there are examples of difficult terrain there is not the issue. The issue is how difficult the entire area is to traverse, on average, considering the scale of the game. Then you need to decide on where to draw the line in the scale of difficulty - from the Himalaya at one end of the scale to, say, the English Lake District at the other end of the scale.

It isn't the height alone that is the issue.

Indeed it isn't. I simply use altitude as a guide, as I have already stated.

[el cid again]

These hex areas - about 2600 square miles - are way too large. It must be a judgement call in many cases - and reasonable people can reasonably differ case to case. Norway is rugged not just because of mountain height, cliffs and glaciers - but also because of a lack of communications lines. The same is true in Alaska - we have actually fewer roads and rail lines than we did decades ago - we have lost about 85% of the rural population - and it is difficult to go most places except by air. By comparison China is (and was) much more developed - except where it wasn't. And the zones of "roughness" are not always 60 miles across - although in fact many are much wider than that. In some areas I have begun to use blocked hex sides to help define mountains which actually forbid crossing - and that solution might be a good one for parts of China. It is there only for a very few places now - i.e. the Yantze Gorge. I also used blocked hex sides by the mouth of the Yangtze - not because it is a gorge - but to channel movement the way it really is channeled. Here the river splits and forms a gigantic island - and there were no bridges below Nanking - and movement is severly channeled. It isn't an ideal solution - but it does help create a situation in which the island is hard to get at - the reason once it was a home for pirates (who were co opted into forming the Chinese navy in an earlier time).

[Badnews]

Here is the map[:D]

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: Badnews

Here is the map[:D]

Interesting map. What does the green colour represent?

Thanks,
Andrew

[Badnews]

The line is contour line.[:)]

[Badnews]

Smaller map.

[Badnews]

And this is the best map.[8D]

[el cid again]

There appear to be ROC 18 artillery "regiments" in CHS and RHS. We can combine these into 6 "groups" -
gaining 12 slots - and assign one each to ROC Command and ROC 1st War Area - both of which are in Chunking - where all 18 regiments are located. That would tend to tie 1/3 of the artillery to Chunking - unless the HQ move - and free up two more slots - for 14. Still no list of anything to fill them though...

Looks like calling an artillery group a brigade gives a player the ability to split the unit - retaining most of the flexability inherant in more units we started with - so assigning arty to an HQ does not seem so attractive.

[el cid again]

CHS & RHS slot 2236 (Chinese 17th Corps) will now be Shansi 17th Field Army in RHS
[Provincial troops will be rated 35/35 - as in this case - or even 30/30]

RHS slot 2231 (missing in CHS) will now be Shantung 3rd Route Army in RHS

RHS slot 2239 [CHS slot 2235} will now be ROCA 19th Group Army in RHS. It is relocated to 49,28 and
its leader is renamed as recommended above. A group army has 3 divisions = addressing squad count issue.

CHS and RHS slot 2238 - former 38th Division - eliminated (because it is folded into the 19th Group Army - which
grew from two to three divisions as recommended - and this is one of the component divisions)

CHS & RHS slot 2366 (former 9th Provisional Chinese Corps) will now be Shansi 15th Field Army.
This was a duplicated unit - or actually triplicated - with 2245 and 2368 - see below]

CGS & RGS slot 2347 (former Chinese 53rd Corps) will now be the Manchu 53rd Field Army in RHS.
For some reason this has a high rating of 55/50 - it is retained.

CHS & RHS slot 2345 (former Chinese 82nd Corps) will now be the Muslim 82nd Field Army in RHS.
This unit has the low morale you expect of non-central Chinese troops.

CHS & RHS slot 2327 (former Chinese 5th Cavalry corps) will now be the Muslim 5th Cavalry Corps.
This unit is about the size of a weak division or a strong brigade - and we were calling it "division" in RHS until now.
We are adopting the name "corps" not to indicate its size, but to indicate its proper name. [We did this with some Dutch units even smaller than this one] For some reason it has the best morale of any Chinese unit we have seen - 60/70 - and we left it alone - assuming Treespider did it. [EDIT: reduced to 50/60 like all other Chinese cavalry - which still seems too high]

CHS & RHS slot 2326 (former Chinese 2nd Cavalry Corps) will now be the "Miscelaneous Northern Faction" 2nd Cavalry Corps. It also had very high morale - we think too high - so we put it at 60/50. We added a similar 4th Cavalry Corps missing from all forms of WITP. And like the 5th Cavalry above - these units really are not corps sized. The 4th was put at Sinning - otherwise undefended except by an air base force.

Added a Hopei 3rd Cavalry Corps similar to the above at Paotao - having been driven from Hopei and Honan.

Added a Shansi 1st Cavalry Corps similar to the above at 50,29

CHS & RHS slot 2328 (former Chinese 6th Cavalry Corps) will now be the "Miscelaneous Northern Faction" 6th Cavalry Corps

Added a Szechwan 8th Cavalry Corps. It will be located at Chengtu.

[Comment: It appears a Chinese Cavalry "corps" is formally two "divisions" - each of which is composed of two "brigades" - themselves about = to a battalion in Western terms - that is - there are a number of troops.]

[el cid again]

CHS & RHS slot 2317 (former 59th Chinese Corps) will be the Hopei Provincial 59th Field Army in RHS.
It has exceptionally low ratings of 35/25.

CHS & RHS slot 2316 (former 55th Chinese Corps) will be the ROCA 55th Field Army. It had exceptionally
low ratings and these were raised to the 45/45 ROCA standard.

CHS & RHS slot 2269 (former 41st Chinese Corps) will be the Hunan 41st Field Army in RHS.
It has exceptionally low ratings of 30/20.

CHS & RHS slot 2283 (former 75th Chinese Corps) will be the Hunan Provincial 75th Field Army in RHS.
It has good ratings for a provincial army of 40/40.

CHS & RHS slot 2265 (former 1st Chinese Corps) will now be the ROCA 1st Group Army.
Group Army means it has three divisions vice the two divisions of a Field Army.

[el cid again]

CHS & RHS slot 2266 - the 22nd Chinese Corps in CHS and the Red 22nd Group Army - is renamed the
8/18th Route Army now. This unit remains where it was.

A SEPERATE Hunan 22nd Chinese Field Army is added to the OB at 48,32.

CHS & RHS slot 2240 - (the former 40th Chinese Corps) will now be the Miscelaneous Northern Faction 30th Field Army
in RHS. It has high ratings for a provincial unit of 40/40.

CHS & RHS slot 2241 (the former 42nd Chinese Corps) will now be the Miscelaneous Northern Faction 42nd Field Army.
It has typical morale for a provincial unit of 35/35.

CHS & RHS slot 2242 (the former 56th Chinese Corps) will now be the ROC Army 56th Field Army in RHS. Its ratings were raised to the 45/45 ROCA standard.

CHS & RHS clot 2246 (the former 32nd Chinese Corps) will now be the Hopei Provincial 32nd Field Army with
ratings of 40/40.