-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
With initial slider settings and 75% civil spendings due dissent that is 12,7% of effective ic. That might even be less than what is saved by warlords paying lower saleries to their troops. It is somewhat unclear whether xian event is favourable for china. If it would for sure not trigger early, than the human player would annex CHC.
Do you know how much IC Nat.China spends on consumer goods at peace? 0 IC. Do you know how much IC Nat.China spends on consumer goods during wartime? 0 IC.
Granted, the difference is a decisive, but I would still believe that keeping Nat.China on wartime consumer goods untill december is a lesser bonus than granting them all of the warlords IC/manpower since march.
Granted, the difference is a decisive, but I would still believe that keeping Nat.China on wartime consumer goods untill december is a lesser bonus than granting them all of the warlords IC/manpower since march.
Why is that a problem? Make it stronger then rather than artificially letting it get away. It usually gets annexed by Japan anyway, or a human China would devour it regardless.
Annexing CHC would be a big mistake from the player's part. No Xi'an event; no significant buffer state against Japan if Shanxi falls; just 4IC gained but 30-40IC lost due to no warlords (and even 12.7IC lost just from making peace); a battered Chinese army - which would need upgrading and reinforcing before CHC can be properly attacked, something which is quite hard to do with 23IC (unless you're going to exploit the AI's stupidity and allow it to stretch it's forces thinly -but surely this can be prevented by some simple edits anyway).
It is an advantage, but it is somewhat dependend on the timescale one refers to. Clearly China offers much more resisteance if Japan is human from the beginning on.
Annexing CHC is quite possible before upgrading. After that the other warlords would need to follow in order to get their army. 12,7% of 22 effective ic is is little. If peace allows to reduce salieres more money is saved. I donnot deny that there are significant disadvantages, but in any case i cannot make out a decise advantage for any option. It might be different though in case japan attacks. But than unit front would trigger anyway.
I am all ears, how is that possible without baiting the AI out of it's provinces, all mountainous with 3 land forts each? Especially when Nat China forces start with 8-11% ESE on the CHC border, with just ~20% ESE after all the 15 dissent is reduced months later.
Hmm okay. Assuming Nat China is human and that the Xi'an event won't trigger until 12 December 1936, here are the pros and cons of annexing CHC beforehand:
Pros:
*+3IC, after it's fully repaired.
*Allows a reduction of military salaries (which, assuming the player keeps the starting army, is -$6.45/day [or ~2.58IC/day] if moved down to 0 military salaries - but then attrition will limit this benefit).
Cons:
*Took heavy losses capturing it - meaning more IC needed for reinforcements.
*The effective loss of 12 infantry and 3 mountaineer divisions, all with 60 EXP, which protects China's flank in the event of Shanxi falling. The additional loss of 350 manpower assuming the CHC AI builds more units.
*The loss of the Xi'an event, meaning the warlords have to be annexed via war, thereby losing all their units and generating dissent from the declaration anyway, or waiting until Japan declares war on China (so if Japan is also human, then he/she could wait until 1939 or whenever, ensuring the human China can do very little in the build up unless he/she invades the warlords).
* The loss of 12.7IC/day from making peace.
Last edited:
12.7% out of 22 ic is only 2.8 ic. Later it will be ~8% out of a higher effective ic.
How can those 15 divisions be obtained? The only way i can think of is to get them as exp forces and steal them, but for this CHC would need to agree to an alliance, which they will not. CHC must be annexed earlier or later. Later will be cheaper in terms of military losses, earlier will allow to use 2.53 base ic earlier. Over 720 days that would make a difference of over 2000 icd. On the orther hand real high losses might reduce money from unused manpower, but that will be less than 0.5 ic and decrease further because dead people donnot age and retire.
During peace however attrition will be lower anyway. But i donnot think peace is likely to be in chinas best interest anyway. All national territory but mongolia must be gained back soon. Mongolia follows during barbarossa.
Once alliances with shanxi and guangxi are created china has 93 Inf divisions at its disposal. That is 31 divisions per 5 in the three provinces of CHC. The 2 mountains can be attacked from 4 provinces, the hills can be attacked from 3 sides only. It should be obvious that CHI can take the 2 vp provinces at some ease, albeit losses might be significant. But even if all 93 divisions take 10% loss, than only 330 icd are required for reinforcements. I would be more worried about supply consumption. Also ESE is quite an issue, attacking from the desert provinces might not be the best of ideas or fighting losses might be topped by attrition loses.
It is probably best to assume that marco polo triggers normally. But even if not you should be aware that the warlords can be annexed by capturing all vps. Than all their manpower and all their military left will be property of the Republic of China as im case of inherit event or in spanish civil war. The the goal must be to take those provinces with minimal losses on both sides. Exploiting exp forces can do that with zero losses. But even if that is not done again losses would probably not mount to more than 10% per division which should be considered acceptable. Those losses will save more icd at maintance than reinforcing icd will be needed later. War finances war and some experience on leaders and divisions is nice to have, too.
It should be noted what effects it has it to take events 90+91 in their historical choices or avoiding both events by annexing all 4 warlords by military means:
The events give -10% dissent, the integration events will add 20% dissent and a later DoW on CHC will cause further 4.44% dissent so that is +14.44% in total. Declaring war on 4 warlords instead will cause 4 times 4.44% dissent, which adds up to 17.76% dissent.
The events give +2 democratic, +2 interventionism, +2 freedom and +1 political left.
The events will kill 1 minister(-15% supply consumption, somewhat useful at low ese) and 2 leaders, one of them a good one.
The 4 DoWs will cause no belligerence. Crushing those insubordinate warlords within the borders of the Republic of China does not disturb international affairs.
I donnot see a decisive advantage for either case. Taking the events is simply less time effort for the human player.
Mr_BOnarpte wrote, "the effective loss" of 15 divisions.
I think he means if not annexing CHC it will have an army that nearly guarantees Japan can not attack through that territory. If Nationalist China eliminates CHC then China will have to thin down its front line because they then need to also defend the old CHC territory.
So, keeping CHC alive and well does provide Nationalist China with an "effective" increase of 15 divisions (and effectively a very considerable "no play frontline").
BTW, Japan doing a hook over the top is an excellent way to conquore Nationalist China earlier. But with CHC in the game that hook becomes decisively worse because of the horrible infra having to go on a signle province wide front thru Mengkukuo only. So, with CHC in the game Nationalist China's defense ability is very much increased because many more of the available forces can guard the coast while a very small segment can successfully guard against the "top hook".
Last edited:
Japan coming through those 10% Infra deserts does not seem like a wise strategy. That way China will have superior ESE. The 3 CHC provinces are easily defended by CHI aswell. They can be used as additional angles of (counter) attack. I also forgot to mentioned the biggest advantage of taking CHC: Higher tc. As base ic is increased from ~57 to ~60 effective ic and thus tc will be increased by ~5%. This will increase the effective power of the chinese military by more than those 5%. Later the resources of Yan'an may increase effective ic by 5 or more. Taking Tibet and Sinkiang is more profitable, though. In the beginning ic is all that counts. Later resources develop into bottlenecks.
You are quite wrong about that because it is an excellent strategy for Japan to greatly shorten the war. With the correct opening attack a few Manchukuo infantry can pass thru that low infra rather quickly and get over to the border with Tibet. Backed up with some following infantry they can set up a "northern line" that prevents China from deploying anything into Xibei San Ma. Whereas attacking China the normal way only from the east and landings on the coast results - if Japan is winning - in the Chinese army simply retreating further north to where the mountains are just as good. And a proper Chinese defense would see the Japanese player having to fight all the way to the last VC at Golmud to win the war. But with the "northern hook" a large portion of the possible battlefield is removed from play. The fact is that the "northern hook" is a key element of the strategy for Japan to gain a win in less than a year.
No, they are not because firstly CHI must thin down its whole line to provide units to defend such lengthened line (normally out of play because it is CHC territory). There is no advantage in China lengthening its defensive line, but only a proportional weakness as the line lengthens.
Only at the cost of putting units there to so weaken the rest of your line. It also gives the enemy extra angles of attack if they get any province we are discussing there. So it works just as well for the Japanese in reverse.
I don't think that is the "biggest advantage" but certainly is a bonus. I would say that the only logical reason for CHI to not end the war with CHC when possible by event is for an opportunity for the White Chinese to properly train its many offensive Mj. Generals with Skill 0 to gain 100 points so they can be promoted to Lt. Generals to so be able to lead most of the Chinese army with offense specialists come war with Japan. With that attack bonus China can actually succeed when counter attacking but more importantly, it can position appropriately versus starting training the unpromotable guys after Marco Polo… and then trying to combine units under the promoted leaders while in a war that seriously restricts movement options.
Note: China needs to get 100 exp for 2 Engineers, 1 Defense/Offense, 2 Offensive Specialists, 2 Logistics, and 1 Defense Engineer. I think by the time CHI gets those units in place with those leaders on and trained fighting CHC so the leaders can be promoted (to then be able to lead more than just one division later against Japan) the war with CHC will probably end by event. If all Mj. Generals got 100 skill then there seems zero reason to continue the war with CHC which will only result in obtaining a major negative strategic defense arrangement (because of longer front line and Japan then being able to attack thru that usually "no play territory") while getting the small bonuses Pang mentions.
More war is hardly "profitable" for China when its starting IC is not even enough to cover reinforcements, upgrading and constructing only the recommended infra improvement at the capital. Can't Sinkiang be gotten into the Dragon alliance to add a couple divisions instead of killing them? And Tibet... well China was wise IRL to leave that alone until much later in the last century... and it isn't really different as regards the game. Why on earth would you chose additional provincial repair expense to acquire a low grade territory when China doesn't have the IC to build the infra and landforts it needs closer to its capital?
Last edited:
Attacking through 10% Infra is something i will never call excellent, it is simply madness. It might work against a China AI that did not acquire CHC territory. But once China has acquired that territory it can attack using higher ESE, thus elimataing the main advantage japan has over China.
The time lost by fighting CHC must be minimized as fighting CHC will cause higher losses and much higher supply consumption than fighting TIB or SIK. Certainly waiting till 1937 would be madness. I think that those few zero skill leaders are hardly relevant. In 1936 CHI has 21 leaders with skill 0 and specialties of varying value. 2 of them are general already, that leaves 19 who need skill for promotion to general, out of which 11 need skill for promotion to Lt. General.
In 1936 china is left without(with) those zero skill leaders with the following amounts of potential generals:
1(1) Winterspecialist
2(3) offensive and defensive
10(15) defensive
8(9) trickster
1(2) Engineer
1(1) offensive and fortress buster
6(9) offensive
1(1) defensive and LW
11(17) LW
3(3) command
2(3) fortress buster
It is not worth to delay the annexation of CHC for this. There are better targets for training such as TIB or SIK. But even there it is likely better to not delay acquiring those factories. But since their troops cannot be inherited like in case of the 4 warlords, fighting after their capital has been captured might be an option.
Any gain of national territory would be profitable. Annexing CHC, TIB and SIK increases effective ic by ~13 from from ~78 to ~91. So ESE will be increased by ~16,67%. Since org loss during movement and supply consumption during movement and rest stay unchanged fighting power will increase by something in the magnitude of 30%, but that is hard to figure out precisely.
It can be gotten into alliance. This will make them be inherited once the united front flag is set by one of 3 possible events. But if neither CHC nor JAP nor SOV will trigger any of these 3 events, than the flag will not be set. Certainly the additonal tc is more valueable than a few divisions from SIK. The icd gained by earlier annexation might even make up for those few division themselves. 180 days times 4 ic make 720 icd. For that CHI might build near 3 Inf1936 divisions or upgrade 5 old divisions to 1936 level.
Quite different to IRL Tibet increases ic significantly. At starting slider settings repairing the 5 factories in Lhasa will consume less than 250 icd, which will be regained in 50 days. Seems like a rather smart investment.
Generally you have good answers for the case supporting CHI to annex CHC, SIK and TIB early. However, as regards the bit I quoted above, surprisingly strategy that is "madness" can work very well - even against a human player.
But I admit - if CHI occupied the old CHC territory then the "top hook" can not succeed. Rather you provide Japan with an opportunity to just do a "major top flanking manouver" thru old CHC. If Japan can win in the central mountains where the ESE is relatively low, why will they not win so much more easily in the CHC mountains when next to good ESE? Also, it's the one place other than Sinkiang where Japan can concentrate ALL its bombers.
A small cluster of mountain provinces is so minor compared to the vast expanse of the central mountains. But left as CHC teritory, it is effectively impentrable to the Japanese advance. And for sure the "northern hook" over CHC can easily be blocked by any human a bit smarter than the AI. So - with CHC intact CHI has a much stronger defense - which you would give up for the immediate gain of a few IC. I think that extra IC traded for lengthened frontline might be your downfall defending against a human Japan. But taking SKI anf TIB does sort of make sense how you explained it.
How fuinny it would be though, if it was June 1937.. and a portion of the CHI army is still returning from distant Tibet after not winning there quite as quickly as hoped. :rofl:
Well in DD i had the army back one year before that so in ~august 1936 the army was updated to declare war on Japan long before winter would slow down progress. AoD made things much more difficult for CHI, but relocating the divisions back to the Japan front would probably not be the major concern.
Yah, probably not. The major concern I see is actually the dissent reduction regarding the two DOWs because aren't you supposed to also be building all those start infra constructions? Then there's the not so small matter of upgrading the current army. Naturally higher IC from the conquest of three neighbours will help, but you are also gaining a lot of extra negatives - more reinforcement, province repairs, dissent reduction and reduced supply stockpile.
Of course gaining skill for some leaders to be able to promote them will not be one of your problems as you will have ample opportunity to train all of them.
However, attacking your known future enemy a year earlier than events allow is kind of aggressive game play. If player of Poland does likewise he can annex Germany in spring 1939.
The infra is for AI. Unless there is progress made already i would expect humans to delete all projects from the initial building queue. The dissent however is major concern as it affects fighting itself and ese. Dissent is really severe.
Of course gaining skill for some leaders to be able to promote them will not be one of your problems as you will have ample opportunity to train all of them.
Donnot be tricked by appearance. The battles itself tend to be won rather fast. The main issue is not org loss due battle but org loss due to weather, movement, leader change and redeployment once available. One 9 divisions army is sufficient to annex Tibet, the same is true for Sinkiang. But that army is not free to change leaders as this is heavily penalized at very low ESE. Using LW leaders might be required.
And it is rather impossible in AoD. Reducing 15 initial dissent plus six times 4.44% dissent will require 380 days at initial settings. Switching ideas to frustated expansionist could help, but costs another 6% dissent. Dissent is a major concern.
Another major concern is upgrading. At 60 ic spent on upgrading it takes 270 days to upgrade 108 inf divisions to model 1936. But before effective ic climbs to 60 probably 270 days have to pass. So attacking before marco polo would trigger the war anyway is little of an option.
Something else to be mentioned is that Marco polo will not trigger if Tibet is attacked by China(See ai_chi_spheres.txt). So china must be the aggressor.
I didn't check but suspect none have any progress on them. But I would definitely do the Nanjing infra build; and Chengdu if there is any fear that capital will be forced to relocate. The rest player can not afford, and probably are not worth it.
Well, China needs to change some leaders. There is time to regain org. But if not, there are tricks do doing this like the guy that gets the ORG hit for leader change stays at home while rest of combined stack goes with the new leader - so starting the actual stack with no org loss.
But I was thinking about the Mj. Generals with skill zero who will have to be the unit that goes once it takes that low level leader. Fortunately, Mj. Generals gain 100 exp extremely fast. It can happen with a single lengthy battle. So maybe they will need to trudge to Tibet or Sinkiang on lessened org just so they can return as a useful Lt. General.
True; and therein lie 2 good reasons to not DOW Tibet or Sinkiang.
True, and therein lies either a good reason to attack Tibet and Sinkiang (for higher base IC) or a third reason to not do so (can't fund any upgrading at 100% as is).
OK, that's important. So I should not call you an "aggressive player". You were just "forced to do it". :rofl:
Tibet is doable with around six Xibei San Ma divisions. However - at least against the AI - I highly recommend not to attack Sinkiang. It tends to ally with (AI) Japan in that case, giving Japan a free DOW.
None of them have progress at the start of the campaign. But some initial builds have progress, the Graf Spee is the most common axample. Also inheriting the warlords gives you some projekts with progress. Any of the infra builds are worth it in the long run. In the short run only Chongqing and Nanjing tend to be worth it in terms of icd. If increasing ESE at the front is deemed important the number of needed infra build increases dramatically.
Most leaders with high max skill start with more than skill 0. Leaders with low max skill however gain exp somewhat slowly. Given that the battles are won relatively fast and that exp gaining only happens if the 7 days after changing leaders have passed it is somewhat uncomfortable to use GMs. But if skill reaches 1 it is probably best to promote them twice. China kinda has the numbers to utilize generals with cammand limit 9.
Using their tc might even grant higher ESE.
True, but that is also a free DoW for China, isn't it? And at least AI Japan should be somewhat stoppable. Proper timing is crutical, though. And winter might be coming.
This is a key piece of knowledge. Considering player of China is taking Sinkiang only to increase IC and so would do it early, it could be a colossal backfire catching N. China completely unprepared. Instead of worrying about getting divisions back from Tibet maybe the more valid concern would be getting Chinese divsions back from the Taklimakan Desert when Japan suddenly attacks - assuming maybe the Chinese army got lost because they were led by too many Mj. Generals seeking experince!. :rofl:
I think Pang's mention of CHI taking Xibei (and including Sinkiang possibly also) instead of getting both of them into the dragon alliance just adds up to bad strategy. I would say the same for prosecuting the war against CHC one day longer than events will end it. That leaves only CHI taking Tibet for what - IMO - is also rather questionable as it involves expenses for the pursuit of greater IC when - at start - CHI is in such a poor situation IC wise anyway.
Countries that have the IC to go to war (like Germany, Japan and Italy) can easily go to war. But with the possible exception of Italy it is never to gain greater IC. Rather it is for strategic positioning (Germany) or needed resources (Japan). CHI needs neither having ample $ to get resources, and already sitting in an excellent strategic location.
China should advance technologically to raise IC, and spend all its current IC modernizing the army while it diplomatically strengthens the country thru (friendly) assimilation of the warlords. As regards the unfortunate current war with its northern neighbour, it is an opportunity for training some leaders, and should be ended with that asap thereby leaving CHC intact as a major component of the total CHI defensive strategy. At least that's how I see it.
Last edited: