That's why Nat. China is banned in almost every MP I've seen. Otherwise, the side with China is almost guaranteed to win.
-
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.
Yeah I'm tempted to recommend banning it in an upcoming game of mine - although we're going to use a mod which has made the AI infinitely more effective compared to the vanilla AI. No human USA can beat the AI USA in terms of industrialisation on this mod... Which makes me wonder if a human or AI China would be better for the Axis, same for a human/AI France (with a human USA and human UK MCing them respectively ofc)
By the time China has 10 tech slots it is much more backwards on the tech scale than at the start of the game in 1936. I suppose with focussing on infantry, Art, landdoctrines, interceptors plus doctrines and the industry tech china might be only slightly backwards on those key areas. But what about the navy? Without a powerful ally supplying both blueprints and naval power china is a dragon that cannot swim. How should china defend itself against the USA?
Japan gets +17 ic from unused manpower, too. China is slightly better at recuriting troops and muchbetteer at upgrading them. Japan however has advantages at maintaning them.
By the time china is short on resources it is short on money, too.
Lets assume china manages to increase ic to 180 base ic and 234 effective ic. At techlevel 1943 Inf-Art will consume 1.57 supplies at rest, 2.355 during movement and 4.71 during battle. Lets assume it is twice of 1.57 on average, than one division will costs 0.5233 ic for supplies and the usual 0.27 ic on the money side. With the usual 5600 manpower for mp pool and military together 100 ic(75ic after research) would be left for anything but only feeding 240 Inf-Art which creates a tc load of 753.6 with having 234x1.5x1.2x1.15 = 484.38 available.
If China manages to obtain such levels of ic it surely is an important power factor, also due to tc from the new HoS in 1943. But it will not be more dangerous than USA, soviet union or germany in 1941. The ability to reinforce its troops near ad infinitum might be unique, but it will not withstand some strong speerheads the 3 superpower might muster.
I am not sure whether i should be surprised by this. China is a powerfactor somewhere between UK and italy. Switching it from one side to the other has quite some effect. But China has much more weight if it can use bluepints and if its tc strong allies are allowed to utilize chinese troops as expeditionary corps. So i would conclude that banning Nat. Chi from joining an alliance with any (other) major might be sufficient.
I said China is over-powered, not omnipotent. I'm sure any USA, human or AI, would struggle against a China that controls mainland Asia, if not other continents too.
In other words China is equal, if not superior to, Japan in regards to building a land army. This is neither realistic nor supportive of a balanced game if Japan is to pose a threat to the USA and UK too.
By the time it's short on money it should have stockpiled enough resources anyway, especially if it follows your proposal of not militarising until 1937/38 (if at all).
Any China with 240 inf-art would trump any Japan, or at least make Hirohito's state easy pickings for the USA (or even UK).
Again, I said China is overpowered, not omnipotent. I'd bloody well hope China cannot surpass the USA, USSR or Germany ever, let alone in 1941! IRL Communist China did not get the atom bomb (i.e. Become a superpower of sorts) until 1964- and that was with the extensive help of the Soviets alongside the lives of approximately 38 million people. IMO China should more appropriately be compared with Brazil or Canada, maybe even Italy.
I think I agree with you there- seeing a mass of Allied troops in China would also be prevented by this. Regarding expeditionary forces, we banned them outright- otherwise Hungarian/Romanian/Bulgarian troops etc would eventually have the same org and morale as German troops (same for Allied minors too ofc).
That is not precisely true. China starts with a much bigger army than Japan starts, so in the short run it is superior. Also in the long run china would be superior if it manages to build up ic properly. But between 1936 and the late 1940is there is a point where japan can be clearly superior. In 1939, 1940, 1941 and probably even 1942 and 1943 Japan would be clearly superior by numbers, quality and ese each. It is a bit like germany and soviet union.
True, but for this Japan would need to leave china alone in the first place and would need to abandon manchukou and it its own provinces to chinese claims in 1936, else China has hardly a chance to increase ic to such levels. Any early war diminishes chinas chances of urgently needed development.
By 1942 or 1943 China may pass the 180 base ic, somewhen shortly before 1950 it may pass 500 effective ic.
The Republic of China(today also known as Nat. Chi) had expert educated in germany. Those elites excaped the mainland to Taiwan, where they set a rapid economic development into motion. Both the second sino-japanese war and the following chinese civil war were huge drawbacks for chinese development.
Those are poor comparisons. A less poor one would be USA in 1836 with less natural resources but much more population. It urgently needs development and what china can become if given the chance can be seen today. China by its population alone is a natural superpower. Japan and the western powers were somewhat lucky to challenge china when it was unusually weak.
China might be overpowered but not somuch IMO. In 1.08 Japan builds significant amount of infantry, mostly with artillery and focuses most of its army on chinese front, so it's hard to stop them in first stage.
For me playing as China vs AI Japan is quite balanced. Playing as Japan vs China AI is a bit too hard.
For me playing as China vs AI Japan is quite balanced. Playing as Japan vs China AI is a bit too hard.
In other words China can be unbeatable indefinitely.
I do not doubt Japan can, at least at some point, overtake China. But it would be at the cost of building up an air force and/or navy.
Ever since your comments that imply there is a perfect game balance between Japan and China, I've been itching to play AoD and see if I can convince you otherwise, this comment just fuels my urge! Obviously I'll have to use vanilla 1.08 with the latest 1.09 edits, but what would be required for me to show that China is overpowered? A defeat of AI Japan in mainland Asia in 1937/38? I'll do my best to avoid exploiting the AI's stupidity and the general game mechanics. I could even play as the AI, by not disbanding any units and keeping military spending at 100 if that helped.
And subsequently Mao was a massive drawback for China's development. Anyway, I don't mean to belittle the achievements of the Nationalists, bit Taiwan is a much smaller place then mainland China. Plus I think the main point here is what China was like in 1936, which as Urko said, was economically undeveloped by quite some margin (anyone knowledgeable on China, please correct me if I've succumbed to Orientalism).
It was weak due to it having a virtually non existent industry. 60IC (well 100+IC including its gigantic manpower pool) is not representative of China's reality. I was comparing China to Canada in terms of economic and military strength.
Or in other words: China is beated rather easily unless some rather specific circumstances apply.
I only made a rough estimate of the math, but it shows that Japan would have more than 100 k icd to invest in navy and airforce before historical Pearl Harbour. Initially airforce and navy would be neglected, but once the army is built 150 ic are freed for other purposes.
Disbanding the army is quite fair, as japan i would do the same. I donnot doubt you could build up a much stronger china than IRL because IRL was full of errors in judgement. I do however not know precisely how good a human player would do. How about you start a china campaign 1936 with vanilla 1.09 set 26 but with the one modification than event 20 will not trigger. Simply seeing that 20 is somewhere in sleepevent = { ... 20 ... } at the relativ bottom of the savegame should do that. Than build up ic, Infra and army as you see best for a war against a human japan to start at Danzig. Except not joining an alliance with or declaring war on anything but the legitimate targets Tibet, CHC, SIK and the warlords i see no need for special restrictions.
In 1936 the industry was in develepment. A few industrial centres were constructed or under construction, so that later china could build up its industry by its own:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-G...il_1941#Germany_and_Chinese_industrialization
Interesting read about the Sino-German co-operation, thanks for sharing the information.
And now, from personal experience, I can completely agree with Leonaru. China is far too easy with 1.08 (well the proposed 1.09). In terms of previous experience, I had not played China beyond July 1937 before doing this test.
I played as China using the 1.09 changes 26 using the 1936 scenario on singleplayer. As I was playing the Japan AI I deliberately limited myself, keeping military salaries (and everything else) at 100% spending; not disbanding any units. I (painfully) prevented my forces from over-running or encircling major Japanese and Manchu forces, as the AI (or auto retreat) was quite pathetic. The only war I had before Marco Polo was the historical one with Com China (which ended via the Xi'an event) - I soon after inherited all the warlords bar Sinkiang. Not even knowing what the triggers were, I triggered the 'Fading of the Sun' event by May 26 1938 after Marco Polo triggered on 2 July 1937. Without these voluntary limitations I believe I could've defeated Japan by late-1937/early-1938.
Positives from it: It was good to see the Japanese attack three coastal provinces at once. My forces in the area were soon on the retreat, with 3 divisions over-run and I had to send forces from the northern front down south to deal with the threat. I had an enjoyable central China campaign, lasting from 30 July to 6 December 1937. The typical negative was that the AI over-extended its attack without the proper reinforcements, critically exposing itself to counter-attack. I could've easily encircled its forces and ended the campaign 1-2 months earlier but did not.
Un-expected negative: Italy did not annex Ethiopia until 21 February 1937.
And now, from personal experience, I can completely agree with Leonaru. China is far too easy with 1.08 (well the proposed 1.09). In terms of previous experience, I had not played China beyond July 1937 before doing this test.
I played as China using the 1.09 changes 26 using the 1936 scenario on singleplayer. As I was playing the Japan AI I deliberately limited myself, keeping military salaries (and everything else) at 100% spending; not disbanding any units. I (painfully) prevented my forces from over-running or encircling major Japanese and Manchu forces, as the AI (or auto retreat) was quite pathetic. The only war I had before Marco Polo was the historical one with Com China (which ended via the Xi'an event) - I soon after inherited all the warlords bar Sinkiang. Not even knowing what the triggers were, I triggered the 'Fading of the Sun' event by May 26 1938 after Marco Polo triggered on 2 July 1937. Without these voluntary limitations I believe I could've defeated Japan by late-1937/early-1938.
Positives from it: It was good to see the Japanese attack three coastal provinces at once. My forces in the area were soon on the retreat, with 3 divisions over-run and I had to send forces from the northern front down south to deal with the threat. I had an enjoyable central China campaign, lasting from 30 July to 6 December 1937. The typical negative was that the AI over-extended its attack without the proper reinforcements, critically exposing itself to counter-attack. I could've easily encircled its forces and ended the campaign 1-2 months earlier but did not.
Un-expected negative: Italy did not annex Ethiopia until 21 February 1937.
Hmmm, if I can find an interested player I'll do a test run of delaying Marco Polo until Sep 1939 with me as China and him/her as Japan (yes I have encountered a female who plays AoD!) Heck... if you're up for a game Pang, I'll play you!
Last edited:
IMO a human player shouldn't get access to the warlord annexations events, as they mean a massive boost. Not only do they increase resources and IC significantly, they also put all warlord troops under Nat. Chinese control, which means they can be upgraded and reinforced properly (something the warlords don't do half the time).
The same happened in my last two Nat. China games!
I think I agree - so long as the human Nat China is able to ally with all the warlords (without annexing them) instead. Perhaps delaying the Xi'an incident event until the historical date of 12 December 1936 (for human Nat China's only) would suffice (either with or without the warlords being annexed, whatever is best for game balance).
Strange, perhaps Mussolini was perplexed at seeing China gradually over-take Italy's industry (as I had done in my game by late-1937).
So far this does not surprise me. Late 1937 should be possible for sure. In DD it was rather possible to trigger fading sun in late 1936. The crucial thing back then was to annex all warlords in the proper sequence in order to inherit their troops with minimal loss of strenght. Since repairing of Infra was no issue having 60 to 108 full strenght Inf divisions at 1936 standard and with 55+ org by mid 1936. That and cheap offensive supplies allowed to annihilate the japanese much more easily than now. Compared to that china is too hard now. An experienced human player beating AI at medium settings however says rather little in any case.
MP is nothing for me. I might however play a similar sp campaign as japan(but taking the marco pole event with the peace option) in order to merge the two savegames into one which could be used as starting point for a mp campaign. The saves should be of july the first 1939. Delaying the attack till Danzig is only proper if japan joins axis early and i would like to leave 10-30 days for preparations of the attack itself.
The strategy to inherit the wardlords via war would still work. And it saves 20-25% dissent minus the 4.44% per war declared by CHI itself. So my guess is that it mainly increases infra repair costs a lot. It would also increase supply consumption, but that would not seem to be a bottleneck as long as those can be imported cheaply.
What would surprise you?
Ok, but I'm sorry to say I don't understand what you're saying. Do you prefer SP?
I'm up for that. I'll play as China until 1 July 1939 on sp and then, hopefully, I can show you how overpowered China really is. Umm, Japan joining the Axis in Jan 1936 might be a bit too much, but I'm happy to see if China can still handle such a Japan. Feel free to leave the Axis before Danzig so you can focus all your efforts on China. I promise not to join the Allies, but assume it's okay for me to annex CHC, TIB and SIK whenever I want. Can I ask for two rules: No bombing my capital once it has less then 50% infra due to the unrealistic effect I has on supplying my entire army and no running on 0 supplies (I'm happy with you sending your army to Manchuria so that Manchu industry covers your supply cost though).
If i knew it would hardly be a surprise. But i hate surprises anyway.
Well, yes. More precisely i donnot consider mp an option for me. So just to be clear: I have no intention to ever join a mp campaign.
Since i believe Japan is much stronger by mid 1939 i will not join axis prior to Danzig.
Sure. I would be more worried about you joining axis in 1936 as is quite possible and sensible for china.
I will not run on zero supplies. The bombing rule seems too strong for my taste, especially reducing ic to zero might be important, but since i will not join the war anyway it is of no relevance for me.
Haha, good point!If i knew it would hardly be a surprise. But i hate surprises anyway.
Oh, ok, you made yourself very clear. Out of curiosity, may I ask why?
Oh, sorry I mis-read. Since you're not going to play past 1 July 1939 I think I'll find someone who'll play Japan from 1936 onwards as they'll probably want to develop their own strategy. But I'll make sure the rules we have in place will be used.
Doing things at my choice of time and my choice of speed is rather important for me. mp is too much of a comprimise. In sp i use a seemingly erratic combination of pause and (near) max speed. Also i donnot like to lose which i would expect to be more likely in mp.
Sure, that is fine with me. Imo it is crucial for the japan player to take advantage of superior tc and ese. This is done by using big numbers in war stily that in the beginning seems like a war of attrition. The proper comprimise of a too small army and too small manpower reserves would likely be crucial. But is suppose other strategies could work, too.
Hmm, well the 9 people I currently play with are content playing at very slow since it's war time, with people still pausing in between. When at peace we normally play at below normal speed as AoD doesn't seem to handle online play very well (an area where DH beats AoD hands down, but I still prefer AoD online due to the superior game mechanics).
Aha, well for me that is half the fun! Winning all the time can get boring, especially against a retarded opponent (i.e. any AI). Well feel free to join our new game as Nat China, I'm sure you won't lose - if only because of your extremely efficient mathematical brain ensuring China's potential is taken to the max!
AFAIK Japan did not need to have big numbers when fighting China. The current circumstance forces Japan to defeat China before attacking the western Allies, otherwise such an attack would be even more suicidal then it was IRL. Currently, thanks to the increased Allied peace-time IC, the USA can match Japan militarily by 1940. If editing China is out of the question, I would propose giving Japan more base IC and the resources to handle it, perhaps just 20IC - while also making the USA's base IC to 350 to reflect it's colossal industrial strength, while making it's peace-time IC modifier 28% (i.e. an effective IC of ~100, rather than the current 142).
Well feel free to join our new game as Nat China, I'm sure you won't lose - if only because of your extremely efficient mathematical brain ensuring China's potential is taken to the max!
I suppose if i disband any single unit in order to increase Infra ASAP, than i would not lose a single battle. :rofl:
IRL Japan did attack in 1937 and not in 1939. In 1937 China only had 6 1936 Standard Infantry division. In AoD China is much more aggresive at upgrading and reinforcing its existing units. Still IRL figures reached 5600 k soldiers for China and 5000 k soldiers for Japan, from which 900 k were collaborators. IRL Japan had no harsh manpower shortage in terms of manpower available for fighting but both sides were reluctant to wage offensives due to high expected costs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Sino-Japanese_War#Full_scale_invasion_of_China
Somehow i grow confident that the current state of AoD in the china theatre is an acceptable approximation of what happened IRL. Changing it in any direction would cause more harm to general balance than preventing such harm.
Haha, well perhaps that's the most logical strategy, an Axis China can be even more devastating!
Maybe you're right in single-player AoD but I donnot think so for multi-player. But we've been tweaking the game to our liking already anyway - trying to maximise the AI's production and research potential, it can do so much more then it does on vanilla! It's free research and brigade building, plus no retooling can make the AI extremely hard to beat in terms of production.
A related question, why does Xi'an event fire so early in the first place? Its historical date is December 12, but the event can trigger since March and usually does relatively soon.
Changing the event to its historical date, and thus delaying the possible semi-unification of China would possibly help the current situation by favouring the Japanese, since having a unified China so early in the game is unrealistic and unbalancing.
Changing the event to its historical date, and thus delaying the possible semi-unification of China would possibly help the current situation by favouring the Japanese, since having a unified China so early in the game is unrealistic and unbalancing.