For balance reasons it would be best if CHI starts with all warloards inherited no matter if human or AI. An ununited China might be somewhat historical, but for the AoD engine its is no good solution.
-
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.
Why don't we give China control over Tibet & Sinkiang too if it is apparently so weak...
Maybe also over the USA and USSR, and the german leaders and techteams aswell? 
As always it is a matter of degree. Also it should be noted that the effects of early inheritation are somewhat more ambiguous than you are eager to admit. The positive effect is that the ic is united to serve one pool of tech teams. The negative effect is about money. Salaries and civil expenses at peace drain the united china of money. Seeing it this way it would be preferable to not inherit the warlords early.
As always it is a matter of degree. Also it should be noted that the effects of early inheritation are somewhat more ambiguous than you are eager to admit. The positive effect is that the ic is united to serve one pool of tech teams. The negative effect is about money. Salaries and civil expenses at peace drain the united china of money. Seeing it this way it would be preferable to not inherit the warlords early.
That's a difference in values. For me, I'm less concerned with "balance" and I enjoy HOI games for being able to play in a historical setting.
well china was well balanced back in HoI2. the concept of unused manpower is giving $ is nice but in extreme cases like china it led to serious problems.
china can research land units and doctrines nearly as fast as japan and they can allocate the same IC (or even more) on land units as Japan... their starting army is equal too (china's is even stronger if inherits warlords). in a former MP i was able to kick the Japs out of manchuria with ease. The only thing China badly needs for an effective attack is a HQ unit. Of course Japan can use it's air superiority... but at the end imo the solution is not to weaken china but increasing Japan base IC to 120 in the 36 scenario. That would help them being able to research and produce land and naval units from 38...
They are very weak compared to USA anyway [to be honest IMO they never have a fighting chance against usa if the PH is postponed to historical date]
also the new research system in AoD (10tech teams instead of 5) punishes Italy and Japan to the extremes, they lag behind in technology much more than they did in HoI2 (or irl).
china can research land units and doctrines nearly as fast as japan and they can allocate the same IC (or even more) on land units as Japan... their starting army is equal too (china's is even stronger if inherits warlords). in a former MP i was able to kick the Japs out of manchuria with ease. The only thing China badly needs for an effective attack is a HQ unit. Of course Japan can use it's air superiority... but at the end imo the solution is not to weaken china but increasing Japan base IC to 120 in the 36 scenario. That would help them being able to research and produce land and naval units from 38...
They are very weak compared to USA anyway [to be honest IMO they never have a fighting chance against usa if the PH is postponed to historical date]
also the new research system in AoD (10tech teams instead of 5) punishes Italy and Japan to the extremes, they lag behind in technology much more than they did in HoI2 (or irl).
I can agree, that this makes China overpowered for human Japan and i don't really understand, why it's so. In fact this particular event (or events) is decisive for making China almost unbeatable. Just restore old manner and introduce manpower transfer, then there should left not much tweaks to do.
I came to think of it, why is China so far towards free market policy? Is it even remotely realistic? Was China, in all its disorder and under Chiang Kai-sheks authority so liberal in its economic policy?
What is the reasoning behind its starting slider position? Its even paternal autocrat and shouldnt be that far in free market.
What would be a more sensible and historical slider setup for China?
If its free market/central planning slider was more aligned in the center, it would bring some of the requested balance to the situation I guess, as a central position would be worse than having near full free market bonuses.
What is the reasoning behind its starting slider position? Its even paternal autocrat and shouldnt be that far in free market.
What would be a more sensible and historical slider setup for China?
If its free market/central planning slider was more aligned in the center, it would bring some of the requested balance to the situation I guess, as a central position would be worse than having near full free market bonuses.
I'm not sure if moving it towards central planning would strengthen or weaken China. It's military salary costs are current at +20%, with sliders in the middle, this would drop to -5%. It would also mean money from CG drops from +16% to -4%. Additionally, the central slider would give +5% IC and -4% civil expensive. One missed bonus from free market would be upgrades: China currently gets -20% for upgrades, the central slider would give +5%.
If I get this right, 150 infantry divisions cost $33 daily with no modifiers.
That means China's current sliders convert this $33 into $39.6. The central slider would change this to $31.35 - a difference of $8.25.
But there's also the issue of less $ per IC, but I don't know how to calculate that so I'll stick with the $2 for every IC.
This means the $39.6 translates into 19.8IC, and the $31.35 to 15.675IC - a difference of 4.125IC every day.
Over two years, that's 2970ICD saved.
If I get this right, 150 infantry divisions cost $33 daily with no modifiers.
That means China's current sliders convert this $33 into $39.6. The central slider would change this to $31.35 - a difference of $8.25.
But there's also the issue of less $ per IC, but I don't know how to calculate that so I'll stick with the $2 for every IC.
This means the $39.6 translates into 19.8IC, and the $31.35 to 15.675IC - a difference of 4.125IC every day.
Over two years, that's 2970ICD saved.
But China would also be alot slower to upgrade and build its army, let alone the infrastructure and IC it so desperately needs. China doesent really have to worry about money and expenses anyway so the penalties from free markets increased expenses is somewhat irrelevant.
Agreed, I think the free market bonus is best for China overall.
I should note, using the 1.09 changes 32, in my current single-player run as Italy, the Sino-Japanese war is stalemated in Shanxi and its 26 February 1940. Japan has lost 567,996 men, while China has lost 'just' 624,090. It seems even the AI v. AI war is unbalanced.
When I say Shanxi, I somewhat exaggerate, Japan only has advanced as far as Taiyuan-Handan-Yucheng-Yantai.
Please, please give China at least have one IC run, obviously in Chongqing. It is 2 IC off another tech team slot (78/58).
I should note, using the 1.09 changes 32, in my current single-player run as Italy, the Sino-Japanese war is stalemated in Shanxi and its 26 February 1940. Japan has lost 567,996 men, while China has lost 'just' 624,090. It seems even the AI v. AI war is unbalanced.
When I say Shanxi, I somewhat exaggerate, Japan only has advanced as far as Taiyuan-Handan-Yucheng-Yantai.
Please, please give China at least have one IC run, obviously in Chongqing. It is 2 IC off another tech team slot (78/58).