China too hard with 1.02, too easy with 1.08?

[Commander666]

But some initial builds have progress, the Graf Spee is the most common axample.

I realize that but we are discussing China - not Germany.

Any of the infra builds are worth it in the long run.

Everything built is usually "worth it" in some way. But what is totally unaffordable should hardly be built. CHI spending 4 IC on infra at start might be twice as much as it should. The proposal for possible infra at Chengdu is only for the player with a defeatist attitude. Frankly, it's a waste of IC for the human player who should never get pushed back to lose Nanjing in the first place. But if I was playing CHI in multi-plyer, then I would consider a reasonable alternative for forced capital relocation... and prepare for it early by maxing infra also at Chengdu.

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.

I totally disagree. I have had many battles that gave 100 exp to Mj. Generals. The trick is to not over power the enemy so the battle lasts exactly as long as player wants. Try using less units... and when 100 exp is gained... crush the enemy then by adding the other units that were waiting about.

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.

It all adds up to an "out of control situation" - something the human should never allow against the AI.

 

[Pang Bingxun]

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:

In 1936 the japanese army has only a third of the strenght it will have at marco polo. So in 1936 Japan is more unprepared than China.

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.

Those minor expenses are regained very fast. China needs all the ic it can get.

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,

In order to advance technologically base ic need to be raised first. The factorires, the resources and in priciple even the manpower from CHC, SIK and TIB are essential for that goal. Also it is essential for urgently needed tc. All other concerns are of secondary nature.

and spend all its current IC modernizing the army while it diplomatically strengthens the country thru (friendly) assimilation of the warlords.

If event 90 triggers as usually early in the game i advise for option 3 which will make all 4 warlords be inherited. The option to military annex the warlords is a hypothetical scenerio only and of little relevance as long as thing are as they imo should stay. If breaking the peace treaty with CHC is no option China should still annex TIB and SIK so it can modernize its army. Else upgrading will take significantly longer.

CHI spending 4 IC on infra at start might be twice as much as it should. The proposal for possible infra at Chengdu is only for the player with a defeatist attitude. Frankly, it's a waste of IC for the human player who should never get pushed back to lose Nanjing in the first place. But if I was playing CHI in multi-plyer, then I would consider a reasonable alternative for forced capital relocation... and prepare for it early by maxing infra also at Chengdu.

Forget Chendu, think of Chongqing. Once the war starts Chongqing will have more resources than any province in national territory of china and even if not a single province is lost it gains 8 factories. On plains this makes infra a no brainer.

I totally disagree. I have had many battles that gave 100 exp to Mj. Generals. The trick is to not over power the enemy so the battle lasts exactly as long as player wants. Try using less units... and when 100 exp is gained... crush the enemy then by adding the other units that were waiting about.

Instead of using few units attacking when one should not attack works fine for such exp farming, too. Than more leaders can be trained simultaneously.

It all adds up to an "out of control situation" - something the human should never allow against the AI.

It only gets out of control if one of the 4 warlords is not properly annexed by China in order to get their army. Once that is achieved it becomes somewhat easy. The tricky part is annexing the warlords. Getting them in and out of alliance as it suits China is the crucial thing. Once the first declaration of war is handed out to SIK, TIB, CHC or the 4 warlords all but TIB will try to attack CHI unless they are allied with CHI. This can save some DoWs, but in extreme it can become uncomfortable to put it mildly.

 

[Commander666]

Forget Chendu, think of Chongqing.

OK. Imeant where the capital gets relocated to... which I guess is Chongqing and not Chengdu.

It only gets out of control if one of the 4 warlords is not properly annexed by China in order to get their army. Once that is achieved it becomes somewhat easy. The tricky part is annexing the warlords. Getting them in and out of alliance as it suits China is the crucial thing. Once the first declaration of war is handed out to SIK, TIB, CHC or the 4 warlords all but TIB will try to attack CHI unless they are allied with CHI. This can save some DoWs, but in extreme it can become uncomfortable to put it mildly.

I'm finding this quite confusing because - firstly there are 5 warlords... and not just 4... I trust.

Properly annexed... improperly annexed. What do you mean?

Perhaps you can give a clear serial progression how it should be done relating to the starting position.

All I know is that Xibei San Ma is already in the alliance, is a puppet - but does that mean it is not a warlord anymore?

Guangxi Clique will join on day 2, Shanxi and Yunan probably soon after given a few tries, and Sinkiang needs relationship raised to probably get it into alliance.

I quite understand that creates a situation of CHI having 5 allies (not sure how many puppets or warlords that would be classified as) which is not as good as CHI having all those countries as CHI national provinces. And there definitely is concern that CHI also inherits those armies (or at least the major ones).

The first problem I don't understand is "What do you do about Xibie San Ma - a puppet that would be better turned into CHI national provinces while inheriting the army?

If playing any other country then AI CHI just annexes all immediately after start, right? I do appreciate that playing CHI it will need a bit more knowledge to end up with the most desirable situation - and certainly it is worth it given the higher IC, increased TC and other benefits if all is just CHI national provinces with those 5 warlord armies inherited, if possible.

As regards Tibet, well that is an extra consideration... probably worth it to max out CHI national provinces. But I fail to see how Xibei can do it without Tibet going to Xibei - or moving the Xibei army into N. China first so the conquored territory then goes to CHI. That may mean a bit of extra time, so whoever is closest starting from the right place can be used. Or will annexation of Tibet by Xibei cause Tibet to be taken automatically by CHI anyway as CHI does have those cores?

 

[Pang Bingxun]

I'm finding this quite confusing because - firstly there are 5 warlords... and not just 4... I trust.

It depend on the definition. I think of 4 warlords because China can only inherit manpower and army from CXB, CSX, CYN and CGX. So Sinkiang is not a warlord, neither is CHC. IRL was different and other definitions might exist, too. But for practical pusposes there only are the 4 warlords CXB, CSX, CYN and CGX

Properly annexed... improperly annexed. What do you mean?

If if all or at least most of the army is inherited it is properly annexed. If the army suffers too high losses or (using exp forces) is even inherited by japan it is not a proper annexation.

Perhaps you can give a clear serial progression how it should be done relating to the starting position.

All I know is that Xibei San Ma is already in the alliance, Guangxi Clique will join on day 2, Shanxi and Yunan probably soon after given a few tries, and Sinkiang needs relationship raised to probably get it into alliance.

Guangxi easily joins alliance. So does Shanxi. Yunnan might be less easily pursuaded, so it is a natural target to be attacked. What happens then is less clear. But getting the relative high ic warlords Shanxi and Guanxi annexed military fast seems prudent, even attacking both at once might be good idea. After that SIK and TIB need to be annexed, again parallel attacks seem appropriate. After nothing but CXB is left to annex it is to be banned from alliance aswell. This can only happen if not at war. If japan joined the war japan would need to be beaten first, so CXB would probably be inherited by the regular events.

All those troubles are saved if option 3 of event 90 is chosen. This will make the 4 warloards be inherited within 2 days, leaving only SIK and TIB for conquest.

If playing any other country then AI CHI just annexes all immediately after start, right?

Only if Japan is human and China is not human. Else it takes quite some time.

As regards Tibet, well that is an extra consideration... probably worth it to max out CHI national provinces. But I fail to see how Xibei can do it without Tibet going to Xibei - or moving the Xibei army into N. China first so the conquored territory then goes to CHI. That may mean a bit of extra time, so whoever is closest starting from the right place can be used. Or will annexation of Tibet by Xibei cause Tibet to be taken automatically by CHI anyway as CHI does have those cores?

Tibet would be annexed fine. But probably Yunnan needs to be taken out first.

 

[Commander666]

Your definition of what's a warlord is fine. I'm trying to understand this but you are not making easy in your below that states the 4 warlords but repeats CYN twice.

But for practical pusposes there only are the 4 warlords CXB, CYN, CYN and CGX

I also don't get the acronyms, so you might spelling out who these four countries are that you relate to above? Thanks!

If if all or at least most of the army is inherited it is properly annexed. If the army suffers too high losses or (using exp forces) is even inherited by japan it is not a proper annexation.

How can Japan inherit any of the Chinese warlords?

Guangxi easily joins alliance. So does Shanxi.

Did that. Upon joining the Dragon alliance, Shanxi promptly lost its captal to the superior Communist Chinese. So now we waiting for the Guangxi army to arrive to try again since the first attempt by only some Nationlists and Xibei troops did not succeed. In fact, I'm building an airbase just to insure this silly little war does not extend into winter! But I'm confident that with all of CHI, all of Xibei , and all of Shanxi re-orged; and most of the fresh Guangzi army we will prevail.

Yunnan might be less easily pursuaded, so it is a natural target to be attacked. What happens then is less clear.

I could have guessed the last part as it follows a distinct pattern of previous instructions.

But getting the relative high ic warlords Shanxi and Guanxi annexed military fast seems prudent, even attacking both at once might be good idea.

Hold on a minute! Right now those 2 are helping me beat the Communists. So after we succeed doing that, then you want me to attack BOTH of them alone? Well, I guess there is Xibei San Ma left who might help me succeed with this back stabbing instruction.

After that SIK and TIB need to be annexed, again parallel attacks seem appropriate.

OK, this part is understood since Sinkiang probably will not join anyway ... and so I may as well stop wasting more $ improving the relationship. And Tibet's a no-brainer to realize they must be attacked... or left alone. No chance of political manouvering with them.

After nothing but CXB is left to annex it is to be banned from alliance aswell. This can only happen if not at war.

So when only Xibei San Ma (CXB right?) is left, I stick it too? WOW! This is some diplomacy!

If japan joined the war japan would need to be beaten first, so CXB would probably be inherited by the regular events.

You have a great way of introducing hurdles. Well, hopefully Japan will not mind all the CHI changed alliances and just keep out of it until we get to arguing over that bridge.

All those troubles are saved if option 3 of event 90 is chosen. This will make the 4 warloards be inherited within 2 days, leaving only SIK and TIB for conquest.

Well this makes much more sense than any of the above. Why you not say so first? But are you referring to The Xi'an Incident Event?

Xi'an just happened and I did 1st choice ("Make promises") cause that seemed to indicate that more events are coming which might get warlords annexed. Also the -4.5% dissent reduction was nice. But as it also ended the war with CHC, I'll have to DOW the Communists again - which is 4.5 dissent... so it really was not any free present.

Or does event 90 come later; and I did right making promises in the recent event?

Only if Japan is human and China is not human. Else it takes quite some time.

This is a bit unclear. Everything about event 90 only happens if Japan is human? Well, it isn't... it's an AI. And I'm playing China.

So I might be a long time waiting for the warlords to be annexed, right? Tha's why there's the option to make simultaneous attacks on Guangzi and Shanxi; then simultaneous on Sinkiang and Tibet; finally kick Xibei out of alliance and DOW her too.

Of course, first I should restart the war with C. China... and always bear in mind that - sooner or later - the Japanese will get sick of me... and properly DOW me with Marco Polo.

Can't say I blame them.

Thanks, Pang!

Tibet would be annexed fine. But probably Yunnan needs to be taken out first.

Oh right... there's still Yunnan too! Why not do a triple whammy on Sinkiang, Tibet and Yunnan to save some time?

 

[Pang Bingxun]

I'm trying to understand this but you are not making easy in your below that states the 4 warlords but repeats CVN twice.

Damn typos.

I also don't get the acronyms, so you might spelling out who these four countries are that you relate to above? Thanks!

CSX = Shanxi
CXB = Xibei San Ma
CYN = Yunnan
CGX = Guangxi

Those four are invited into alliance by event.

How can Japan inherit any of the Chinese warlords?

It cannot. But it can inherit parts of their army if they grant them to Japan as exp forces. This is one good reason to cut off the warloards of from possibly receiving supplies from japan because that prevent exp forces.

In fact, I'm building an airbase just to insure this silly little war does not extend into winter!

That won't make a difference, at least not to to better. China has neither the planes nor the doctrines to utilize air power vs. land forces.

You have a great way of introducing hurdles. Well, hopefully Japan will not mind all the CHI changed alliances and just keep out of it until we get to arguing over that bridge.

But that event will not trigger once you attack Tibet.

Well this makes much more sense than any of the above. Why you not say so first?

Because i was implicitly asked to elucidate the military option.

But are you referring to The Xi'an Incident Event. Xi'an just happened and I did 1st choice ("Make promises") cause that seemed to indicate that more events are coming which might get warlords annexed.[...]Or does event 90 come later; and I did right making promises in the recent event?

Xian is event 90. If the first option is chosen, than event 91 will trigger in 1937 if Japan is at war against china. Event 91 will essentially do what option 3 of event 90 does, but sliders and dissent are slightly more favourable.

This is a bit unclear.

If Japan is human, than China AI inherits the warlords much faster in order to be better prepared against Japan. Under other circumstances other sequences of inheritation apply.

Oh right... there's still Yunnan too! Why not do a triple whammy on Sinkiang, Tibet and Yunnan to save some time?

Because of time. Doing a "triple whammy" against Yunnan, Shanxi and Guangxi might be some sort of option. One main problem is that you can only ban out of alliance if at peace. Taking out one warloard after the other would be optimal as regards fighting efficiency and regards diplomatic risks coming from Japan AI. Inheriting the big Warlords ASAP is somewhat crucial. Once this is done taking out TIB and SIK is easily achieved, but it will take quite some time to simply move the troops to those distant regions. One must to weight risks and chances carefully. The precise timeline is somewhat crucial.

One strategy can be to ban more than one warlord out of alliance, but only attack one. Then one waits till the not attacked warlords attacks you or till the attacked warlord is essentially beaten and your troops only need to move to the last vp left without further fighting.

Also it can be an option to ally with Sinkiang in order to not be at war with them and thus take out CSX, CGX and CYN in that order and than ban CXB out of alliance in order to annex it. The options are numerous. The backstabbing diplomacy preceeding the war vs. Japan might be the most interesting phase China needs to maneuver through. If you want early action, than China is your bet.

 

[Commander666]

Damn typos.
CSX = Shanxi
CXB = Xibei San Ma
CYN = Yunnan
CGX = Guangxi

Those four are invited into alliance by event.

Thank you for clarifying. But I personally find using all these acronyms very confusing, and I suspect our many viewers might feel same. Using CHI for N. China and CHC for C. China is OK, but perhaps it would be better to just write the various warlords as you do above.. It is only a little bit spelling more, eliminates typo errors and makes for easier following the thread.

That [using bombers] won't make a difference, at least not to to better. China has neither the planes nor the doctrines to utilize air power vs. land forces.

While I did under estimate the CHC resistance at Pingliang, had I had an air base I would have won because the single TAC China has could have rebased with no org loss using the INT for the rebasing. The battle was lost because the last 2 communist divisions managed to just hang in until 2 new reinforcements arrived. A single TAC would have changed that so I could have won. A single TAC does quite well if hitting only 2 divisions and ANY interdiction (as small as it may be) all reduces enemy org. And that litle difference of the last bit of org can result in winning or not.

BTW, my Mj. Generals all got nearly 200 exp gain each in the first attack.

Because i was implicitly asked to elucidate the military option.

I suppose you may have noticed that I am trying to poke fun at your military option for CHI versus the warlords. I don't know if you laughed reading my last post, but I was doubled up in stiches writing it. I hope the viewers who are increasing dramatically are enjoying another Commander-Pang debate forming.

FRANKLY, your "military option" against your puppet and alliance partners is incredible, to put it nicely. Literally you are attacking yourself!

THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT Nationalist China's best option is assimilation of all puppets/warlords so CHI gets the territories into her national provinces AND inherits ALL FIVE ARMIES (Xibei San Ma, Guangxi Clique, Shanxi, Yunnan and Sinkiang). This will increase the CHI army size by over 4x while adding needed cavalry. Annexation of the warlords must be the only focus for player of N. China as the complex back stabbing multi-DOWs is simply self weakening while incurring huge dissent, reinforcements, province repairs, and loss of supplies. Attacking and eliminating all 5 warlord armies is simply attacking yourself and radically reducing the total army size of a possible future UNFIED CHINA.



AS REGARDS CONQUERING C. China it is clear that - if it was multi-player - then N. China occupying that territory only extends the defensive line - so thinning the other defenses - while giving Japan player an excellent opportunity at a major northern flanking operation. However, we are discussing me - a human - playing against the Japan and Manchukuo AIs. As such I agree my annexing CHC will be best not just for the national provinces gained but actually for strategic positioning too. Unfortunately, the MAN and JAP AIs will never be able to co-ordinate a proper northern attack. Japan will never concentrate its air force as it won't even build the needed bases in the first place. And if they ever did take Yan'an because I thoroughly goofed, it is guaranteed that the limited AI intelligence will have his troops arrive in piecemeal fashion so I can beat them back. But if I hold the CHC provinces, I certainly can better my strategy to include my own "northern flanking operation" that should result in getting MAN annexed sooner than later.

AS REGARDS CONQUERING TIBET you state:

But that event will not trigger once you attack Tibet.

I trust you are referring to Marco Polo Bridge Incident. Doing ANYTHING that causes history to change radically is wrong unless player wishes a crazy game. Marco Polo is desirable to get a good game as N. China because it forces player to be ready on time, eliminates a DOW on Japan, and just makes for a better game I think because probably all else like Pearl Harbour event and more will occur as is meant to happen.

Therefore I cancel any plan to take Tibet early. Provided I succeed to unify the warlords under a 1-China flag, I already have substantial national province increase; and the little extra possible from Tibet is not worth screwing up history, IMO. Tibet can be taken later after I pushed the enemy out of Manchuria and Korea.

SO, MY INTEREST IN CONTINUING MY CONTRIBUTION HERE IS TO FIGURE OUT WHAT ARE THE PROPER ACTIONS for Nationalist China to succeed in unifying China. And the first important event we come to is Xi’an Incident (event 90).

Xian is event 90. If the first option is chosen, than event 91 will trigger in 1937 if Japan is at war against china. Event 91 will essentially do what option 3 of event 90 does, but sliders and dissent are slightly more favourable.

Well, I’m somewhat unclear what you mean here. The question is simple: “What is the proper choice with event 90 to best succeed assimilating all the warlords”. I imagine I will be at war with Japan in 1937, so then event 91 should fire… and that creates the Unified China? Have I got this right?

Actually, looking at event 90 choices below, it becomes a no-brainer. First choice eliminates 5 dissent while the other two add 10 dissent. I just got dissent reduced from 15 as you can see; and adding any is simply nuts. So the right choice to meet my goals must be the first one.



Unfortunately the 1st choice has 2 negatives:
1) China’s 2nd best leader is removed (but Chiang Kai-Chek’s rival probably goes later anyway).
2) The war with CHC ends. Now that was not my vision believing I can create better strategic positioning against MAN and JAP if I have that communist territory.
So I will need to DOW CHC and restart the war again – which gives me ~4.5% which will be OK.

THAT LEAVES THE FINAL QUESTION: “Is there anything about DOWing CHC again or annexing it that will affect the chances of getting the event for a Unified China?” If so, peace with CHC would be the proper option.

Because the focus (my focus) is only on a Unified China with the warlord armies assimilated. Currently Xibei is my puppet, Guangxi and Shanxi are allies, Yunnan will definitely join with a few more tries, and influence attempts on Sinkiang are successfully shifting its political sliders… so it should join too once relationship at 200.

Please advise in keeping with the stated goals, if you don’t mind.

Thanks.

 

[Pang Bingxun]

THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT Nationalist China's best option is assimilation of all puppets/warlords so CHI gets the territories into her national provinces AND inherits ALL FIVE ARMIES (Xibei San Ma, Guangxi Clique, Shanxi, Yunnan and Sinkiang).

There are only four warlords. You will inherit neither army nor manpower from Sinkiang.

This will increase the CHI army size by over 4x while adding needed cavalry.

You are exaggerating. The cavalry is not needed much, for reasons of tc efficiency i might even disband them together with militia. Also the army size is not quite increased as much as you suggest. But it still is a really big gain.

Annexation of the warlords must be the only focus for player of N. China

It is the first goal, true.

.... as the complex back stabbing multi-DOWs is simply self weakening while incurring huge dissent, reinforcements, province repairs, and loss of supplies. Attacking and eliminating all 5 warlord armies is simply attacking yourself and radically reducing the total army size of a possible future UNFIED CHINA.

Lets check this. If military conquest is succeeded fast it will make you gain more icd than reinforcements, repairs and supplies will cost you. This is not self weakening unless an other alternative allows to achieve early annexation. I also think we can agree that manpower is no issue for China. So the attacks grant some nice experince for leaders and divisions without significant manpowerloss. This only leaves dissent. Given that inheritation of warlords via event causes 5% dissent each the 4.44% per each war the warlords donnot declare themself seem rather cheap. So there is no true loss either.

I trust you are referring to Marco Polo Bridge Incident. Doing ANYTHING that causes history to change radically is wrong unless player wishes a crazy game. Marco Polo is desirable to get a good game as N. China because it forces player to be ready on time, eliminates a DOW on Japan, and just makes for a better game I think because probably all else like Pearl Harbour event and more will occur as is meant to happen.

Well the 4.44% dissent for Manchukuo seem rather cheap. And lets not forget that Tibet and Sinkiang might ally with Japan.

Japan will never concentrate its air force as it won't even build the needed bases in the first place.

Japan tends to use its airpower relatively well for an AI.

China’s 2nd best leader is removed (but Chiang Kai-Chek’s rival probably goes later anyway).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhang_Xueliang

This man got 100 years old. In AoD his death year however is 1946, which obviosly need to be changed for 1.09.

THAT LEAVES THE FINAL QUESTION: “Is there anything about DOWing CHC again or annexing it that will affect the chances of getting the event for a Unified China?” If so, peace with CHC would be the proper option.

Breaking the peace treaty will cause belligerance. Also the other warlords + sinkiang might turn against you if not allied with you already. As long as CHC or one of the warlords is allied with Japan Event 91 cannot trigger. To cut it short: You shall not declare war on CHC before the 4 warlords are inhertited. CHC is the least rewarding goal China can achieve before the war with japan.

I imagine I will be at war with Japan in 1937, so then event 91 should fire… and that creates the Unified China? Have I got this right?

I would think so. But it still waiting for the united front in mid 1937 might be an error.

Well, I’m somewhat unclear what you mean here. The question is simple: “What is the proper choice with event 90 to best succeed assimilating all the warlords”.

The first choice will set the united front flag. This will make any warlord be inherited once he joined your alliance. So it is rather favourable. And event 91 would make Yunnan join your alliance. Still i think forging the united front via event 90 is the best option. It will make you inherit the 4 warlords immediatly. This is payed by quite some dissent, but it also saves the 20% dissent the inheritation via Option 1 will cause later on. Using option 3 you can concentrate on TIB and SIK and later even CHC if that is what you desire. Leaving CHC till the 4 warlords and the 2 eastern parties SIK and TIB are annexed seems wise. Against CHC you need an efficient military with low dissent, high ESE and 1936 Standard. This you will not have before early to mid 1937. Also waiting till the peacy treaty expires in 1938 is quite an option.

 

[Commander666]

ADVISEMENT: This is a long post. I'm trying to catch up with where the game's at. As such I hope people enjoy it.

The cavalry is not needed much...

Actually cavalry are crucial for getting envelopments or just over running retreaters. It's the only thing that stops me from calling playing China "a nearly static game." However, I’m inclined to agree with you on this one considering we are discussing China which has very low TC. I actually kept my cavalry - and further - probably did the worst possible be adding AC to them. I’ve been played the 1st year of war now; and mostly did referring to the Supply Map Mode. I have discovered some very interesting things regarding China’s TC, the attempt to improve ESE with infra building from capital to outlet, and the effect of Offensive Supply which I’ll try to show later. In short, I would probably disband my cavalry but, as they are currently in forced retreat, I can’t get a handle on them!

Lets check this. If military conquest is succeeded fast it will make you gain more icd than reinforcements, repairs and supplies will cost you. This is not self weakening unless an other alternative allows to achieve early annexation. ...

and

Also the army size [of a Unified China] is not quite increased as much as you suggest. But it still is a really big gain. ...

With the above two you are almost contradicting yourself, I feel. One way you see that attacking the warlords to eliminate their armies is more IC gain than losses... so beneficial. The other way you claim eliminating the warlord armies is not self weakening compared to what the size of a total Unified Front might be. But you are astute enough to admit that a Unified Front comparatively "still is a really big gain". I don't know how you can write both sides of the equation to disagree with me. The fact is that the loss of the warlord armies includes 14 divisions of Xibei, 29 from Shanxi, and 32 from Guangxi. Yunnan I can’t see yet but guesstimate it might be 20. And Sinkiang probably doesn’t count.

N. China has 42 divisions. Compare that to about 137 divisions if all warlords are inherited. (I understand Sinkiang will not contribute anything). That amounts not to "a really big gain" but “a very huge gain” since it is a 326% increase. And the loss of that gain is far more important than anything else. Besides, with inheriting the warlords you also get the IC gain. So my point is, "The warlords must not be eliminated" because CHI simply does not have the IC (even with all provinces as national after defeating the warlords) to build an army big enough to stand against the Japanese. It needs those 95 free divisions inherited come Marco Polo.

I also think we can agree that manpower is no issue for China.

Agreed.

This only leaves dissent. Given that inheritation of warlords via event causes 5% dissent each the 4.44% per each war the warlords donnot declare themself seem rather cheap.

Firstly, there is rather little difference between getting 5% dissent to inherit a warlord; or 4.44% to attack and eliminate a warlord's army. As you can figure, the difference is exactly a minor 0.66% dissent.

The real difference is you gain - or lose - a couple dozen divisions with each DOW on the warlords you commit. Finally, if you go the inherit route, you actually get the benefit of owning those provinces much sooner than you can by concluding any war with the warlords. You should gain IC wise with inheritance after accounting for the slightly greater dissent because assimilating the warlords can occur much sooner than defeating them.

Well the 4.44% dissent for Manchukuo seem rather cheap.

Manchukuo has got nothing to do with this, I trust. She is part of Marco Polo and the war with Japan. Actually, discussing that DOW dissent, it doesn't exist if you go the normal route and let Japan DOW you, so thanks for pointing out how to save an additional 4.4%

And lets not forget that Tibet and Sinkiang might ally with Japan.

I think this is extremely unlikely unless you DOW either of them. Tibet has maximum isolationism, so she's not DOWing anybody (nor joining any war). Her only war will be if you DOW her.

Sinkiang is a different consideration as was earlier pointed out. But leave Tibet alone and Sinkiang is no risk... at least not until after Marco Polo I would think. Since a couple old Xibei divisions left in Golmud can stop anything Sinkiang AI might attempt, it is hardly more than an annoyance to send a couple more divisions way back there to take her out. Maybe that's when you will come around to appreciating cavalry, or I’ll learn just how useless CAV are in near zero deserts to surround the Sinkiang enemy.

Japan tends to use its airpower relatively well for an AI.

No AI uses airpower "relatively well". You can't use airpower well if you lack bases. As no AI ever builds bases, they all suffer from "poor concentration" with the exception of in Europe and UK where airbases reign like mushrooms. UPADATE: I’ve actually played the game far enough to answer this conclusively with screen shots and the history of the 1st year of war. You might be surprised what an accurate assessment of the Japanese air force reveals. Will try to post this later.

====================================

The below relates to Xi'an Incident event occurring, and player choosing option 1 so the war is ended.

Breaking the peace treaty will cause belligerence… … … Also the other warlords + sinkiang might turn against you if not allied with you already. As long as CHC or one of the warlords is allied with Japan Event 91 [Marco Polo Bridge Incident] cannot trigger.

Does belligerence really matter if on a collision course with Marco Polo? War's coming with Japan regardless of any CHI belligerence. It should not be avoided by deliberately doing other Dows in the hope that CHC or any warlord allies with Japan because that would be a disaster! You might have cancelled Event 91… and just got yourself an immediate war including enemy armies at your rear.
UPDATE: Following the normal events, CHI belligerence actually is zero when Marco Polo comes.

Also the other warlords + sinkiang might turn against you if not allied with you already.

That might be true. So back to my original idea - when the war with CHC ends, that's it. Forget about getting that territory and enjoy the ability to end wasteful reinforcement to finally get your IC building something.

To cut it short: You shall not declare war on CHC before the 4 warlords are inhertited. CHC is the least rewarding goal China can achieve before the war with japan.

This sounds like one of the 10 Commandments: "Thou shall not..."

But it still waiting for the united front in mid 1937 might be an error.

Totally agree. So why don’t we follow what happened in my game after I “made promises” with the Xi’an Incident event (first choice)?

The first choice will set the united front flag. This will make any warlord be inherited once he joined your alliance. So it is rather favourable. And event 91 would make Yunnan join your alliance. Still i think forging the united front via event 90 is the best option. It will make you inherit the 4 warlords immediatly. This is payed by quite some dissent, but it also saves the 20% dissent the inheritation via Option 1 will cause later on.

I completely agree. However, the only countries that were inherited were those I already had in my alliance – my puppet Xibei and my allies Sinkiang and Guangxi Clique. Very soon after those 3 were integrated (integration occurs after annexation) the relationship with Yunnan which was at +195% went to -200%. Sinkiang did not change but was still a long ways from any hope of joining.

I found the situation totally unacceptable. Why would Yunnan change in the extreme – not with annexing the other 3 but only after integrating them? Clearly, my game was set upon an undesirable path of having to DOW and eliminate Yunnan. This I did not want, and would not accept.

Frustrated, I reloaded, again went thru Xi’an Incident which gave me a week to get the last influence buy on Yunnan and get that relationship at max before integrating anyone occurred. With a few tries (and reloads) at +200% Yunnan eventually agreed to join the alliance. Now I was very happy (although Forum will probably bury my name for this admission). :blush:

Carrying on – immediately after Yunnan joined – the relationship with Sinkiang (at about +130) did not change but the chance of inviting into the alliance went from zero to a very pretty green 76%. Of course I clicked the button… and cracked a beer to celebrate having - by hook or crook - gotten all warlords into the alliance. :rofl:

I think the lesson here is that player of CHI should not delay influence attempts so both Yunnan and Sinkiang are at maximum long before Xi’an Incident to so permit many attempts to get them into the alliance (at least Yunnan which always did have over 20% chance once relationship was high). Done early there is probably time to repair relationship after failed invitation… and try again until it succeeds. Importantly, Yunnan must join alliance before first warlord is integrated or then Yunnan’s relationship nosedives. It actually seems the best time is in the few days between the first warlord who already joined your alliance getting annexed – but before you inherit his realm (integration). With annexation all is still OK, but with the next step – integration - Yunnan suddenly becomes hostile.

So, next in my game followed “integration of the warlords”. Fortunately, they didn’t happen all at same time (as each gives 5 dissent) but came one about every week permitting some dissent reduction before another 5 dissent got added on. Also, I think I was only charged 4 integrations for 20 dissent total; and greatly appreciated the game engine possibly under-charging me because 25 dissent – as it maybe should be – is a real IC killer. Perhaps there was no charge for (correction) Singkiang as I never got that army.




Anyway, having had the remaining dissent left over from the war with CHC removed due to peace – but loaded up with a new 20 dissent due to 4 warlord integrations – I struggled to keep my upgrading at 100% while moving army stacks to higher nearby infra as it seems the job might not complete on time. There are also some useless infra projects to cancel which were inherited.




Not all the above projects in red are useless. In fact any infra is good for China, but the question is “proper balance with other IC needs.





=================================

Using option 3 you can concentrate on TIB and SIK and later even CHC if that is what you desire. Leaving CHC till the 4 warlords and the 2 eastern parties SIK and TIB are annexed seems wise. Against CHC you need an efficient military with low dissent, high ESE and 1936 Standard. This you will not have before early to mid 1937. Also waiting till the peacy treaty expires in 1938 is quite an option.

But all of the above does not fit with CHI upgrading all the inherited divisions gotten from a possible all warlords integrated, and actually being ready for war – because that will come in June 1937 regarding that bridge dispute. There is no time to take Tibet without slowing IC priorities for war preparation with Japan. While 1938 may be an option for again attacking CHC, this is completely secondary to learning how well one’s CHI has survived against the Imperial Army come 1938. It may well be that retreating player of CHI will be eternally grateful that CHC still exists to create a major “no play area” for the advancing Hoheishidan.

To conclude post, let’s see what are the priorities which I made to prepare for Marco Polo event. Frankly, I am moving from an earlier position of great confidence having gotten the warlord armies (Sinkiang excepted as their lone division just evaporated) to a new position of extreme trepidation as I study China’s extremely poor general ESE.

Finally with all dissent eliminated, my hope has been to construct the maximum infra line from capital at Nanjing to the outlet at Shanghai because I know that will then result in good ESE being transferred to all of the coastline provinces – so greatly enhancing the unit’s abilities to defend at every place Japan might attempt to land. But I’m also very concerned about the low ESE at the Beiping front.
Numbers on the items are set for what will build before the expected war comes. The infra constructions prioritize the line to the Shanghai outlet, with next priority being improved provinces from the coast inland to Beiping and up to Kalgan.



I would do more infra if I had the IC – or accelerate some of the constructions. But I’m slightly messing up because – with better trading – my supply IC would be zero. There is confidence all units will complete upgrading in time.



QUESTION: Why I not getting the 4th research slot? I thought it came at 60 IC. This country is technologically like a sauropod. hmy:

============================================

I have 9 full stacks of INF. One is stationed around Hainan area, another near Hong Kong, another at the capital, and a fourth to cover the Qingdao coastal area. That leaves me 5 stacks (60 inf) and 5 CAV and a soon coming HQ to guard the front line which is 4 provinces wide. The CAV will act like a fast reserve (I was so glad have them but now am not sure thinking Pang might be right) and the HQ is for if I actually ever get to take the offensive.

Additionally, single militia are in all places to take the ORG hit for any leader changes on the stacks. Except the mountain coastline where it can be amphibed from Fuzhou to Shantou has at each beach province 3 Militia and a single INF who will soon be getting an ART brigade to hopefully remove my concern about an assault succeeding where there simply are no nearby reserves, and trying to eliminate any enemy beach head there would take much time considering its all mountains. The militia might also be useful to use for Scorched Earth if my plan falls into total disarray.

But the ESE is mostly NOT good (shown below). However, Hainan just recently went green. So I’m gonna keep building those infra constructions from capital to outlet best I can.





“While Japan and Manchukuo together seem to only have 115 divisions, that’s nearly double my frontline. And I quite know how they – with good ESE and bombers – can simply attack repeatedly until my units get -15 lack of supply… and so then fail. Bad ESE and lack of supply during combat is what I fear the most.”

Signed,

Field Marshall Chiang Kai-Shek
Nanjing
April 8th, 1937

 

[Pang Bingxun]

With the above two you are almost contradicting yourself, I feel. One way you see that attacking the warlords to eliminate their armies is more IC gain than losses... so beneficial. The other way you claim eliminating the warlord armies is not self weakening compared to what the size of a total Unified Front might be. But you are astute enough to admit that a Unified Front comparatively "still is a really big gain". I don't know how you can write both sides of the equation to disagree with me. The fact is that the loss of the warlord armies includes 14 divisions of Xibei, 29 from Shanxi, and 32 from Guangxi. Yunnan I can’t see yet but guesstimate it might be 20. And Sinkiang probably doesn’t count.

N. China has 42 divisions. Compare that to about 137 divisions if all warlords are inherited. (I understand Sinkiang will not contribute anything). That amounts not to "a really big gain" but “a very huge gain” since it is a 326% increase. And the loss of that gain is far more important than anything else. Besides, with inheriting the warlords you also get the IC gain. So my point is, "The warlords must not be eliminated" because CHI simply does not have the IC (even with all provinces as national after defeating the warlords) to build an army big enough to stand against the Japanese. It needs those 95 free divisions inherited come Marco Polo.

Naturally the goal of attacking the warlords is not to eliminate their armies but to inherit them. For that only the vps needs to be taken and annexation will make manpower and units switch allegiance to the one true leader of China. I did explain that a few times by now, didn't i?

Finally, if you go the inherit route, you actually get the benefit of owning those provinces much sooner than you can by concluding any war with the warlords. You should gain IC wise with inheritance after accounting for the slightly greater dissent because assimilating the warlords can occur much sooner than defeating them.

Well if inheritation occurs by early to mid 1936, than military inheritation is not needed. Than there would only be an advantage by saving some dissent. If war on Tib, SIK, CHC or the 4 warlords is declared, than the 4 warloards and SIK might declare war on China. Taking Guangxi, Shanxi and Xibei by event and taking Yunnan, Tibet and Sinkiang by force might save the DoW to Sinkiang. Usually military inheritation is not wise. It is plan B, not plan A.

Manchukuo has got nothing to do with this, I trust. She is part of Marco Polo and the war with Japan. Actually, discussing that DOW dissent, it doesn't exist if you go the normal route and let Japan DOW you, so thanks for pointing out how to save an additional 4.4%

That is just a point of view matter. Japan is part of the war vs. Manchukuo, but the war might be declared to Manchukuo. It is 4.44% dissent for the war against both together. So there is nothing different than you would expect on this matter. Manchukuo might just be the better reference as China gains much ic from manchukuo, which makes 4.44% dissent appear cheap.

I think this is extremely unlikely unless you DOW either of them. Tibet has maximum isolationism, so she's not DOWing anybody (nor joining any war). Her only war will be if you DOW her.

But the war vs. Tibet is needed anyway. Sinkiang might join the war vs. China and Japan might join the war vs. China, too. I have seen this quite some times.

Sinkiang is a different consideration as was earlier pointed out. But leave Tibet alone and Sinkiang is no risk... at least not until after Marco Polo I would think. Since a couple old Xibei divisions left in Golmud can stop anything Sinkiang AI might attempt, it is hardly more than an annoyance to send a couple more divisions way back there to take her out. Maybe that's when you will come around to appreciating cavalry, or I’ll learn just how useless CAV are in near zero deserts to surround the Sinkiang enemy.

In the terrain there cavalry might be slower than infantry. Taking Tibet and Sinkiang is needed to upgrade the army at a reasonable speed. Without them upgrading might well take long into 1938. That is not acceptable.

No AI uses airpower "relatively well".

If taking other AIs as a reference, than Japan AI uses it relativly well. It is a matter of definition.

As no AI ever builds bases,

This is very untrue. German AI starts with air bases in the building queue, japan AI will add air bases into building queue once there is enough ic free for such purposes. You might disagree about the priorities, but AI definitely does build air bases. Against China however they are not needed that much anyway. Dalian, Changde and Kaohsiung might suffice.

UPADATE: I’ve actually played the game far enough to answer this conclusively with screen shots and the history of the 1st year of war. You might be surprised what an accurate assessment of the Japanese air force reveals. Will try to post this later.

Given the amount of time i spend on the china scenario i doubt it will surprise me.

Does belligerence really matter if on a collision course with Marco Polo?

It does matter if China declares war on Japan/Manchukuo.

War's coming with Japan regardless of any CHI belligerence. It should not be avoided by deliberately doing other Dows in the hope that CHC or any warlord allies with Japan because that would be a disaster! You might have cancelled Event 91… and just got yourself an immediate war including enemy armies at your rear.

It would only delay event 91. Event 91 is only deactivated by choosing option 3 in event 90. The issue with belligerance is what happens after the war. Belligerence increases the costs of trading.

That might be true. So back to my original idea - when the war with CHC ends, that's it. Forget about getting that territory and enjoy the ability to end wasteful reinforcement to finally get your IC building something.

In order to build anything you need Sinkiang and Tibet ic first.

Importantly, Yunnan must join alliance before first warlord is integrated or then Yunnan’s relationship nosedives. It actually seems the best time is in the few days between the first warlord who already joined your alliance getting annexed – but before you inherit his realm (integration). With annexation all is still OK, but with the next step – integration - Yunnan suddenly becomes hostile.

So, next in my game followed “integration of the warlords”. Fortunately, they didn’t happen all at same time (as each gives 5 dissent) but came one about every week permitting some dissent reduction before another 5 dissent got added on. Also, I think I was only charged 4 integrations for 20 dissent total; and greatly appreciated the game engine possibly under-charging me because 25 dissent – as it maybe should be – is a real IC killer. Perhaps there was no charge for (correction) Singkiang as I never got that army.

There are 4 integration events, one for each warlord. Their sequence is designed to make dissent not overshoot to unreasonable high levels, so it was not just luck. The only thing those 4 events do is to punish china with 5% dissent each. So Yunnan behavoir has nothing to do with those 4 events. It is only coincidence.

But all of the above does not fit with CHI upgrading all the inherited divisions gotten from a possible all warlords integrated, and actually being ready for war – because that will come in June 1937 regarding that bridge dispute. There is no time to take Tibet without slowing IC priorities for war preparation with Japan.

The icd invested into Tibet is regained in ~60 days. So Tibet offers a net gain of near 1800 icd till when marco polo would trigger. That speeds up upgrading significantly. The same is true for Sinkiang, but the figures there are a bit smaller.

To conclude post, let’s see what are the priorities which I made to prepare for Marco Polo event. Frankly, I am moving from an earlier position of great confidence having gotten the warlord armies (Sinkiang excepted as their lone division just evaporated) to a new position of extreme trepidation as I study China’s extremely poor general ESE.

And this is at a tc load of 84 of 104 available. What if it changes to 200 out of perhaps even less than 100 available?

QUESTION: Why I not getting the 4th research slot? I thought it came at 60 IC.

At 60 base ic. If it were different central planning with the effective ic bonus would be overpowered.

...and a single INF who will soon be getting an ART brigade to hopefully remove my concern about an assault succeeding where there simply are no nearby reserves...

While Art is an excellent brigade for China i donnot think china should start producing any before late 1937. Upgrading existing troops instead increases fighting power much more. And it is instead. Even with taking Tibet and Sinkiang China can barely upgrade its starting 108 Inf to 1936 level before late 1937. Without this additional ic however upgrading will take much longer.

 

[Commander666]

Naturally the goal of attacking the warlords is not to eliminate their armies but to inherit them. For that only the vps needs to be taken and annexation will make manpower and units switch allegiance to the one true leader of China. I did explain that a few times by now, didn't i? .

Not as clearly as you have now. Anyway, I fail to see how you can conduct an attack but not eliminate some enemy divisions and just reach the last VC instead.

a) With Tibet you can, but its not included in this discussion of "annexing warlords".
b) Also with Sinkiang you can (just take the capital) but it doesn't count as it has nearly nil army anyway.
c) The one that matters is Yunnan with ~20 divisions (Guangxi and Shanxi join alliance easily so don't count). Yunnan's last VC is at the very end of its territory - Baoshan. So you will push all the Yunnan troops to the side (to save them being eliminated) while you go for Baoshan? I think the AI might have other ideas... and likely you will trap a lot of divisions in Baoshan (and eliminate them when you win the battle). The only alternative is to give them an escape path - meaning you must win at Baoshan (a mtn province the AI will try best to defend that being his last VC) with a single angle of attack. OK. (?)

Clearly, just getting all the warlords with no battles doing the right choice on Xian event is much, much better... and far faster.

But the war vs. Tibet is needed anyway. Sinkiang might join the war vs. China and Japan might join the war vs. China, too. I have seen this quite some times. .

I disagree it is needed. Getting Tibet is certainly desirable... but as I found it impossible time wise to do both Tibet and get all the integrated war lord armies upgraded to INF-36 before Marco Polo, I"ll just delay Tibet.

Taking Tibet and Sinkiang is needed to upgrade the army at a reasonable speed. Without them upgrading might well take long into 1938. That is not acceptable .

Absolutely that would not be acceptable. But Singkiang you get with the right Xian event choice. And diverting to take Tibet does not increase upgrading ability but curtails it because of IC diverted to reinforcements and province repair. And that is inspite of your accurrately figuring the gains after all is concluded.

The fact is that I easily upgraded ALL the integrated war lord and original Chinese infantry to 1936 standard and had that accomplished in mid-May 1937. Marco Polo fired July 2nd, 1937. That is a bit early for the event, historically the bridge dispute having occurred July 7th. But it being AoD, player should prepare for event possibly firing a month earlier (possibly June 7th). I still had 3 weeks to spare being ready mid-May; and that with with infra construction maxed out too. So Tibet is not needed to get the upgrading done before event 91 happens. Rather, diverting to conquore Tibet can certainly result in upgrading being late. Then (after all repairs/reinfoecements fixed) you finally get your small IC increase for Tibet. Meanwhile I've been upgrading at my max all along and meet the deadline easily.

Anyway, you and I radically disagree about when CHI should take Tibet. You think early, I think late (like after I have Manchuria and Korea). Let's leave it at that, OK?

This is very untrue. German AI starts with air bases in the building queue, japan AI will add air bases into building queue once there is enough ic free for such purposes. You might disagree about the priorities, but AI definitely does build air bases. Against China however they are not needed that much anyway. Dalian, Changde and Kaohsiung might suffice..

Aah, OK... that's good to know. I missed seeing the AI German build queque having airbases. In fact I've never seen it for any AI country. I thought what player sees at start is what AI has at start since all those infra builds you said many times are for the AI. Please explain.

Well, the Japan AI definitely will not need more airbases if he gets my China. He can just walk into the new ones I built already.


I'll be happy to reveal more about Japan's ABSOULUTELY TOTALLY INEPT airforce once this thread progresses further. And "no" I have never seen any AI blunder consistemtly and as seriously as the Japan Air Force does every time it bombs anything.

In order to build anything you need Sinkiang and Tibet ic first. ..

This can't be true because I don't have Tibet, but have upgraded everything - even CAV-II and built very much including heaps of infra, some intercepters, a line of airbases, 2 lines of ART, some AC, one HQ, a line of TPs, vast amounts of supplies; and research at 100% while sometimes have espionage at max. I think I have built quite a lot (without any Tibet). However, there does exist a serious question if - perhaps - much of my building will actually end up being the most collossal mistake I've ever made (?)

And this is at a tc load of 84 of 104 available. What if it changes to 200 out of perhaps even less than 100 available? ..

The screen shots get even uglier! :rofl:

While Art is an excellent brigade for China i donnot think china should start producing any before late 1937. Upgrading existing troops instead increases fighting power much more. And it is instead. Even with taking Tibet and Sinkiang China can barely upgrade its starting 108 Inf to 1936 level before late 1937. Without this additional ic however upgrading will take much longer.

I agree ART is the best brigade... and feel like a fool for having added AC to the CAV. And upgrading to 1936 definitely should occur before building brigades. But I already stated that upgrading (if not taking Tibet) is easily finished mid-May, 1937.

My plan for next or soon after post is to get into the screens I made to:
1) firstly do a short kind of mini-AAR for one session only as this will give readers a good feel for the combat style occurring. Thereafter combat style/attempts just repeat which is more succintly handled with a couple paragraphs to update after a year.

2) Definitely reveal the Japan air force tactics, and look at the IJN - the latter having been very impressive.

3) Mostly the screens focus on infra construction and raising overall ESE.

4) China's TC load is very interesting when battles begin.

5) And most surprising to me was the direct interconnections between Offensive Supply, TC and ESE.

So I hope there is much Pang will comment on; and we can all enjoy and share.

 

[Pang Bingxun]

Not as clearly as you have now. Anyway, I fail to see how you can conduct an attack but not eliminate some enemy divisions and just reach the last VC instead.

c) The one that matters is Yunnan with ~20 divisions (Guangxi and Shanxi join alliance easily so don't count). Yunnan's last VC is at the very end of its territory - Baoshan. So you will push all the Yunnan troops to the side (to save them being eliminated) while you go for Baoshan? I think the AI might have other ideas... and likely you will trap a lot of divisions in Baoshan (and eliminate them when you win the battle). The only alternative is to give them an escape path - meaning you must win at Baoshan (a mtn province the AI will try best to defend that being his last VC) with a single angle of attack. OK. (?)

In 1.09 you only need Kunming and Jinghong. Before that it was much more lossy. The mainproblem there is that without ic Yunnan has no supplies and without supplies their troops starve.

Clearly, just getting all the warlords with no battles doing the right choice on Xian event is much, much better... and far faster.

Clearly.

Absolutely that would not be acceptable. But Singkiang you get with the right Xian event choice.

Not in 1.09. There you need to get them into alliance first. The will soak up quite some money.

And diverting to take Tibet does not increase upgrading ability but curtails it because of IC diverted to reinforcements and province repair.

Adding the icd needed for all the Tibet related expenses adds up to less than 60 days of 5 ic, thus there is a huge net gain.

The fact is that I easily upgraded ALL the integrated war lord and original Chinese infantry to 1936 standard and had that accomplished in mid-May 1937.

Lets ssume your sliders start and stay at setting 10(maximum) hawk lobby, setting 9 free markets and setting 5 professional army. Than upgrading 108 Inf1936 will cost china 108 x 7 ic x 95 days x 0.64 x 0.64 x 0.95 x 0.95 x 1.05 x 1.05 x 0.9 x 0.5 x 1.0 x 1.0 = 13172 ic or nearly 25 ic over 540 days. At those favourable settings it is possible. At the initial slider settings it is 108 x 7 ic x 95 days x 0.68 x 0.68 x 0.95 x 0.95 x 1.15 x 1.15 x 0.9 x 0.5 x 1.0 x 1.0 = 17837 ic or 33 ic over 540 days. Ok, upgrading clearly is doable without Tibet. Still Tibet would offer a net gain of 5 ic over ~360 days adding up to ~1800 icd. That adds up to ~12 units(60%) of infra in plains or one and a half factory. If giving factories and Infra the priority they might deserve, than my statement would seem to stay true. Still you correctly point out that upgrading is not a bottleneck if given a high priority.

Rather, diverting to conquore Tibet can certainly result in upgrading being late.

I donnot think so. Tibet cannot be the cause of this as without Tibet there is plenty icd for the upgrading needed. Still i might choose to delay upgrading in favour of substantially higher ESE and only upgrade divisions with experience 20 or higher at first and probably not before 1937.

Aah, OK... that's good to know. I missed seeing the AI German build queque having airbases. In fact I've never seen it for any AI country. I thought what player sees at start is what AI has at start since all those infra builds you said many times are for the AI. Please explain.

With the exception of some historical builds like Graf Spee everything starting in the build queue is made for AI only. Those airfields builds are for AI only.

This can't be true because I don't have Tibet, but have upgraded everything - even CAV-II and built very much including heaps of infra, some intercepters, a line of airbases, 2 lines of ART, some AC, one HQ, a line of TPs, vast amounts of supplies; and research at 100% while sometimes have espionage at max. I think I have built quite a lot (without any Tibet). However, there does exist a serious question if - perhaps - much of my building will actually end up being the most collossal mistake I've ever made (?)

Well, everything you build causes tc load and essentially every upgrade increases tc load, too. So it might be an error. But at least upgrading does increase tc efficiency. The higher input of tc is compensated by a higher output of firepower.

and feel like a fool for having added AC to the CAV.

That is not such a dumb choice as it may seem to you right now.

5) And most surprising to me was the direct interconnections between Offensive Supply, TC and ESE.

That might be interessting. In extreme the tc load from OS can defeat itself resulting in a net gain of exactly zero. But OS would seem like a good idea for china. At mediocre ese near 50% OS reaches its peak. At ESE above 100% OS grants near no relevant advantage, at very low ESE the ratio of costs and gains can be rather unfavourrable, too. But at mediocre ESE OS might increase ESE to levels near 100%.

 

[Commander666]

OK, so there has been some slight confusion with me using 1.08 and you answering as per 1.09 No problem... we are past that.


REGARDING COMMANDER'S STATEMENT "direct connections between OS, TC and ESE"

That might be interessting. In extreme the tc load from OS can defeat itself resulting in a net gain of exactly zero. But OS would seem like a good idea for china. At mediocre ese near 50% OS reaches its peak. At ESE above 100% OS grants near no relevant advantage, at very low ESE the ratio of costs and gains can be rather unfavourrable, too. But at mediocre ESE OS might increase ESE to levels near 100%.

I found it fascinating, completely surprising and nearly unexplainable - except you doing a good job trying. You are almost hitting the nail on the head, I think, with "In extreme the tc load from OS can defeat itself".

Every situation will be different depending on the infra and ESE involved, the TC available and the load. The surprising fact is that taking on OS noticeably increases TC load playing this China. But it also becomes obvious - quite quickly - that without OS the Chinese stacks can not halt any major Japanese attack.

As I will try to show (when I can get around to it) this fact creates a serious judgment for player of China because there isn't enough needed supplies possible. But for the problem to be understood it needs also seeing what China is faced with (the weight of the Japanese attack), and appreciation of what China can do to improve ESE and raise base TC too. Finally, seeing how everything changes dramatically with battle is rather shocking to the newbie trying to save all he has invested in building China from just falling into the enemy's hands.

I do have some requirement for what screens are left after more editing so the remainder gets presented chronologically. Hence the screens regarding this fascinating topic of using OS for China's defense will come later. I'll try to get first installment (getting readers into the driver's seat) out in a few days.

 

[Pang Bingxun]

I found it fascinating, completely surprising and nearly unexplainable - except you doing a good job trying. You are almost hitting the nail on the head, I think, with "In extreme the tc load from OS can defeat itself".

Every situation will be different depending on the infra and ESE involved, the TC available and the load. The surprising fact is that taking on OS noticeably increases TC load playing this China.

OS increases ESE of the units by 50%, but it also increases the tc load caused by it by 50%. So during battle tc load might rise to 450% of the units tc load at rest without OS.

But it also becomes obvious - quite quickly - that without OS the Chinese stacks can not halt any major Japanese attack.

I am not so sure about this. Not using accelerated production and not using better sliders etc. china can build 7 units of infra in plains till the war starts. So then Infra will not be below 75% between Nanjing and Beiping. Including those 2 cities 14 ic would need to be spend on Infra there. That increases ESE at Beiping to near (0.75+0.05) x 1.05 = 84%. Then OS would not be needed if available tc suffices.

Including the 4 warlords, SIK and TIB CHI does start with 65 factories. Building 16 additional factories till mid 1937 will make CHI have 81 factories. At an average Infra of 70% and an average concentration bonus of 4% this makes China have 76.6584 base ic. With 1936 tools and the initial ministers this will be 92 effective ic. With 1936 logistics and the +10% tc from ministers this will give 167 available tc.

108 Inf1936 will cause a tc load of 86.4 during rest, 129.6 during movement and 259.2 during battle. With the -15% supply usage from the minister you should not have sacrificed at Xi'an incident it is only 73.44 at rest, 110.16 during moment and 220.32 durng battle. This type of minister china can not properly replace before 1938 is essential for chinas success. If supply usage is cut by 15%, then 85% ese will suffice to keep the units supply stockpile at 100%.

I must also point out that china can switch ideas to enterprise social politic. This gives 5% discount on factories, 10% discount on Infra and 10% bonus on industry research, potentially giving 1937 tools in time for the war. Having more than 80 base ic by the war seems rather reasonable.

 

[Pang Bingxun]

I would like to point out that for china it might be a good strategy to not use brigades before ~1939. For the tc of 2 Inf-Art china could have 3 Inf-none. As China quantity is the way to go, quality may or may not come later. Also Art is a disdvantage because of the slowdown from speed 4 to speed 3 before Inf1941. But speed might be needed to overrun the beaten japanese divisions in manchuria once they need to retreat there.

 

[Commander666]

I would like to point out that for china it might be a good strategy to not use brigades before ~1939. For the tc of 2 Inf-Art china could have 3 Inf-none. As China quantity is the way to go, quality may or may not come later. Also Art is a disdvantage because of the slowdown from speed 4 to speed 3 before Inf1941. But speed might be needed to overrun the beaten japanese divisions in manchuria once they need to retreat there.

I agree with you. I did build some ART putting one with each stack for every beach defense along the coast because I am so afraid of the Japanese landing anywhere.

Perhaps I need to get those planned screens up quickly so we can examine my many probable errors.

Like, I haven't built any INF at all yet, thinking 108 divisions of them was ample. Way wrong!

On the other hand, by spring 1938 I have not permanently lost any province. I still struggle along the original front line. But that may be part of my biggest blunder - not strategically withdrawing to better defensive ground while giving up all including the capital. If so, all I constructed in infra in what would become lost territory is just wasting my IC to give to the Japanese a much better situation than had I not improved anything.

But speed might be needed to overrun the beaten japanese divisions in manchuria once they need to retreat there.

It seems more likely that speed is needed to faster retreat my Chinese!

Frankly, after being assaulted by the Japan AI as it has done so strongly in the 1st year of war, I have no hopes of taking anything from him - unless I come up with a clever working plan to draw him in a ways so I can counter attack using many angles of attack, thoroughly weaken him, and so then advance (maybe... because his org regain rate is excellent).

PS: Your post #74 I would like to address later with reference to my screen shots.

 

[mcganyol]

a hq unit for china is invaluable...

 

[Pang Bingxun]

Like, I haven't built any INF at all yet, thinking 108 divisions of them was ample. Way wrong!

Properly utilizing the existing militia and Cav for static defence of the beaches might allow you to have sufficient Inf at the main front. Than both side could have similar ESE. Japan would have higher Org regain, but would have worse fighting modifiers because lack of supply. Japen would have stronger troops, but China would have more of them and could use them way better than Japan AI.

On the other hand, by spring 1938 I have not permanently lost any province. I still struggle along the original front line. But that may be part of my biggest blunder - not strategically withdrawing to better defensive ground while giving up all including the capital. If so, all I constructed in infra in what would become lost territory is just wasting my IC to give to the Japanese a much better situation than had I not improved anything.

Losing the valueable ic around Beiping does not seem like a good idea. You need all the tc and ese you can get. In a strange sense advancing into machuria helps with that because ic and thuse tc will climb up rapidly.

a hq unit for china is invaluable...

This is so very true.

 

[bosman]

In 1.09 playing as Japan i saw it having 1918 infantry. I don't remember if it was also in 1.08, but it's not good IMO. Also playing as Japan, China annexes warlords at the beginning which is definitely in its favour. The problem is, that AI controlled Japan can produce 3 lines of infantry brigaded with artillery and even some aircraft (not to mention upgrading) without canceling infra and navy, which is very hard with HP.

 

[Pang Bingxun]

CATCHING UP WITH CHIANG KAI-SHEK, part 1 of 2 (sorry, wouldn’t all fit in one piece)

I am sorry it did fit in one piece. Those monstrous postings are really not nice to read and more importantly to answer to. It would be better to split it into more postings. That way one can read one posting after the other and can answer to one part after the other. That is much more comfortable. You may be forced to make 6 Postings after the other without any asnwer in between, but it is still better this way. Staying to 1 monitor height of text or 3-5 monitor heights if including pictures seems like good rule of thumb what a posting should not exceed.