1936 Nationalist China on hard is brutal - any tips?

  • 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.
That's certainly true for active upgrades in which you pour IC.
But are you sure that this is also the case for passive upgrades?


Correct for active upgrades but I think it doesn't apply to passive upgrades. That's the reason why it is usually not a good idea to try to upgrade a 1916 infantry to a 1936 infantry via passive upgrades. My understanding is that it would take a minium of 10 years (or 30 years if the unit is only at 1/3 strength), 2 years for each single upgrade. Better to do the early fast and cheap upgrades by spending IC via the upgrade slider and the last, usually rather expensive upgrade, via passive upgrade. A cheesy workaround, though, is to passively cross-upgrade the oldest unit types eg 1916 inf to 1935 mountain (or MOT) which is counted as only 1 upgrade (and an horribly overpowered feature).

But all above are not 100% sure statements. I have never really bothered to test and check it by writing down the times.
What we are quite sure about after discussing it here, what certainly applies to passive upgrades:
# strength of the unit is a factor (see above posts)
# and each 1% reinforcement raises also upgrades by 0.5% (see misc.txt line and I have also checked it)
And my guess and feeling is that everything else is fixed around the 720 days for passive upgrades.
What you said is correct, all the modifiers and unit cost affects the active upgrades, while the passive upgrades is only affected by current strength, which is the only parameter that modifies the 720 number. I tested this in my game, putting 0 ICs into upgrades, and pretty much most of my units gets passive upgraded all at the same time.

So yes the best strategy is to prioritize active upgrade all your units to about 1 or 2 generations older than the latest, then switch to passive upgrades. The best use of passive upgrades is to mass upgrade to different unit types, because those are always too expensive to active upgrade. This is why this is so OP for countries like China who has a ton of militia and infantry and not much else. I tried using this, and after the few years I converted to a ton of MEC, MOT, CAV, MAR, MTN units, you can easily have a more advanced army than the likes of USA or Germany.

I do wish there are better controls for upgrades though, it's very tedious when you have a ton of units. And it can be so much micromanagement, it's too much work to minimize and direct the ICs to upgrade only the desired units.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Turns out fighting the Soviets, even at their full strength after them conquering all of Germany, is relatively easy. The AI just isn't equipped to fight a 2 front war, and can't deal with the vast distances between provinces in Siberia. Even with their army strength outnumbering mine 2-to-1, with over 500 ICs and 3x mine, and outnumbering all the Allies put together, I still won relatively quickly. Japan was much harder in comparison. I think this shows the weakness of their manpower doctrine as well.

So I'm trying a new challenge: try to conquer the Japanese home islands as China and get revenge on them, but now I'm thinking it might be impossible to do conventionally. Building a fleet from scratch to take on Japan took a long time, but I can manage that, the problem is the amphibious assault. All of Japan's 160+ divisions are on their home islands, each beach is defended by 20 divisions, even maxing out tech, using marines with amphibious tanks, and achieving naval and air superiority, it just seems impossible for the maxed 7 divisions to win out against 20. I'm starting to think the only way is to get nukes and nuke those units, but that will take a very long time. Maybe a huge amount of air support might help? But that will also take quite a long time as well.
 
each beach is defended by 20 divisions, even maxing out tech, using marines with amphibious tanks, and achieving naval and air superiority, it just seems impossible for the maxed 7 divisions to win out against 20.
I certainly haven't done it against very intimidating 20 defending divisions but this is a splendid possibility to use really ALL the tools you have at your command:
# the proper tactic is to circle your amphibious troops: when your assault group is down on morale, it breaks off and the next group takes over
# using offensive supply would be advisable
# support by the biggest badest shore gunning you can muster helps a bit
# as will ground support from air 24/7
# sometimes paratroops might be an option, not so much to drop them into certain death on the 20-troops-region but because they are not necessarily dependent on beach regions and might be able to capture a coastal region as bridge head
# very often I lack the tech to produce them and use my beloved mountain units with engineer brigade but in this case marines and/or amphibious tanks would be splendid to have

If your Chinese airforce is capable of doing so, a probably necessary preparation before even starting an amphibious assualt vs 20 defending troops:
# logistical strikes against the target region to bring its infrastructure down to zero %. This gives the defending force a hefty combat malus and lowers their morale regain to near zero (the AI will circle its troops as well, though... I don't think intentionally but rather an accidental result of the usual AI-reshuffle of troops)
# if neccessary, installation strikes vs AA might be approbiate before

Did I forget anything from the "tools of trade" (except nukes)?
 
Last edited:
I certainly haven't done it against very intimidating 20 defending divisions but this is a splendid possibility to use really ALL the tools you have at your command:
# the proper tactic is to circle your amphibious troops: when your assault group is down on morale, it breaks off and the next group takes over
# using offensive supply would be advisable
# support by the biggest badest shore gunning you can muster helps a bit
# as will ground support from air 24/7
# sometimes paratroops might be an option, not so much to drop them into certain death on the 20-troops-region but because they are not necessarily dependent on beach regions and might be able to capture a coastal region as bridge head
# very often I lack the tech to produce them and use my beloved mountain units with engineer brigade but in this case marines and/or amphibious tanks would be splendid to have

If your Chinese airforce is capable of doing so, a probably necessary preparation before even starting an amphibious assualt vs 20 defending troops:
# logistical strikes against the target region to bring its infrastructure down to zero %. This gives the defending force a hefty combat malus and lowers their morale regain to near zero (the AI will circle its troops as well, though... I don't think intentionally but rather an accidental result of the usual AI-reshuffle of troops)
# if neccessary, installation strikes vs AA might be approbiate before

Did I forget anything from the "tools of trade" (except nukes)?
What you said just gave me a good idea. When I was thinking about paratroopers earlier, I thought it'll be a big investment in time and ICs to research and build enough of them plus transports to beat at least 20 divisions, even more if I attempt to drop on the main island. But I just realize I don't need to fight with them, all I need is for them to take a major port and defend long enough for me to transport and land as many troops as possible. Kyushu is perfect for this, because I can use my navy to block off the strait, Nagasaki has a port and the AI left it undefended, and there's only the adjacent Kagoshima with a beach to contend with. Kagoshima does have 20 divisions, a few airborne divisions will probably still be suicide, but there's where the marines come in. A simultaneous amphibious assault on Kagoshima, even though they can't beat those 20 divisions, they just need to occupy them long enough for me to transport enough troops. Once I secure a beachhead, it'll be over for Japan, as I can overwhelm them with my superior numbers and units. I think this might work, gonna try it tonight along with the other suggestions you made.

And funny enough, I'm at the point where I do have all the tools available. Joining the Allies prior gave me blueprints for everything, and having the full 7 teams meant I basically can research everything. I even have the latest marines and amphibious tanks, some early airborne tech, and a lot of the air and naval techs as well. I'll get nukes eventually too, that does take a while though.
 
paratroopers [...] Kyushu is perfect for this, because I can use my navy to block off the strait, Nagasaki has a port and the AI left it undefended, and there's only the adjacent Kagoshima with a beach to contend with. Kagoshima does have 20 divisions, a few airborne divisions will probably still be suicide, but there's where the marines come in. A simultaneous amphibious assault on Kagoshima, even though they can't beat those 20 divisions, they just need to occupy them long enough for me to transport enough troops.
Well, actually you don't even need a proper naval base, any region with a simple small port symbol will do to ferry troops to it with transports. And if your transports wait in the sea region in front of it, sailing time from an adjascent sea region into port or naval base is around 4h, so that's only a very short time your paras need to survive. Against 20 enemy divisions possibly attacking right at once it might be necessary to send more than 1 para nevertheless.
Often enough a naval base even complicates things: conquest of a region kicks out any ships within its port... so they will show up also approx. 4h afterwards, right in the sea zone where your transports are. So you better order them NOT to flee or break off from battles but instead it is a good idea to keep them in a fleet separate from your war ships with orders to move into port. Even if outcoming enemy ships and your intraveling transports overlap and a sea battle gets initiated, within a very short time the transports will leave (not flee) the battle because they are properly leaving the seazone towards the port while your war ships can fight it out (or not).

because I can use my navy to block off the strait
Which, if you had it done already since quite some time, would had also cut off any supplies if you manage to sink enough of the convoys which then are sent. Done for long enough time, troops without suppyl not only get a hefty battle malus but also diminish in strength until they are easy picking.
True, btw, also for any other Japanese isles.
This tactic is especially strong vs isles connected by straits. Normally they would get their supplies NOT by convoys but via land. Which means they have no supply depot like on a normal isle from which they can sustain themselves if the strait is blocked. Once the strait is blocked and incoming convoys sunk, those troops start to starve from day 1.
Standard supply depot size the AI strifes to build up is for 7 days (standard DH full, misc.txt). Usually I change it to 31 days to lower the micro a bit.

Another hint:
You might want to repeat that while fighting your way thru Japan. It is quite important to encircle or overrun and completly take out the troops. Otherwise they will retreat, retreat, retreat... until you face an overwhelming number of enemy units shown on the map as a beautiful fearsome skyscraper formation of enemy units.
 
Last edited:
Well, actually you don't even need a proper naval base, any region with a simple small port symbol will do to ferry troops to it with transports. And if your transports wait in the sea region in front of it, sailing time from an adjascent sea region into port or naval base is around 4h, so that's only a very short time your paras need to survive. Against 20 enemy divisions possibly attacking right at once it might be necessary to send more than 1 para nevertheless.
Does the port size matter for sea transport mission vs rebase? I thought I recall not being able to transport troops to a small port province in a previous game, but maybe I recalled wrong. I never figured out what was the difference between big and small port symbols. If the small ports work too, maybe I could try this on Hokkaido instead, since there were no beaches there, it's completely undefended.

Which, if you had it done already since quite some time, would had also cut off any supplies if you manage to sink enough of the convoys which then are sent. Done for long enough time, troops without suppyl not only get a hefty battle malus but also diminish in strength until they are easy picking.
True, btw, also for any other Japanese isles.
This tactic is especially strong vs isles connected by straits. Normally they would get their supplies NOT by convoys but via land. Which means they have no supply depot like on a normal isle from which they can sustain themselves if the strait is blocked. Once the strait is blocked and incoming convoys sunk, those troops start to starve from day 1.
Standard supply depot size the AI strifes to build up is for 7 days (standard DH full, misc.txt). Usually I change it to 31 days to lower the micro a bit.
Good idea. I'm not too familiar with convoys, how many ships would be needed to not allow any convoys to get thru? I recall in a previous situation where I encircled a large pocket of Soviet divisions in Belgium with a port, somehow they managed to convoy in a ton of supplies and oil. I wasn't in command of the navies, my allies at the time (US and UK) had total control of the seas, but maybe their AI didn't park their ships in the right spots.
Another hint:
You might want to repeat that while fighting your way thru Japan. It is quite important to encircle or overrun and completly take out the troops. Otherwise they will retreat, retreat, retreat... until you face an overwhelming number of enemy units shown on the map as a beautiful fearsome skyscraper formation of enemy units.
True. I was thinking that once I secured Kyushu, I'll unblock the strait and bait them onto the island, then shut it behind them and attack and destroy their units that crossed. Maybe taking advantage of the dumb AI too much hah.
 
Does the port size matter for sea transport mission vs rebase? I never figured out what was the difference between big and small port symbols.
You can rebase only to proper naval bases.
Small port symbols are like there is a fisher port or perhaps even a big harbour but no proper naval base where your warships get repairs, munition etc.
If there is a port or naval base symbol you can sail right into port with your transports and unload your troops (if the regions is yours).
If there is a beach you can make an amphibious landing.
If there is none, the landregion is inaccessable for ships.

how many ships would be needed to not allow any convoys to get thru?
Not predictable, dependent on too many things: number of convoys and escorts(!), tech and expertise to evade (for convoys), tech and expertise to spot & hunt (convoy hunter), number of ships and sheer luck. It's kind of a mini game within naval warfare. Even with its own convoy attack values. For general convoy hunting I prefer to use packs of 3-6 subs. For specific convoy hunting, like in your case, well, I use my biggest shore bombardement fleet available.

In general:
Supply happens at the midnight tick
You need a certain minimum number of convoys (dependent on the distance) to make a successful supply trip. The AI is in the habit to use the minimum number of convoys plus 1. Which means, each day you manage to sink more than 1 convoy you probably have caused a supply failure for the region they were heading for. Next day the AI will retry, if possible change routes and add escorts.

Which means, btw, a smart human should send plenty of extra convoys and lots of escorts (sometimes the need arises to switch from automatic to manual convoy management), so even when 1 or 4 convoys get sunk, the supply trip itself was still successful.

Ships do NOT hunt convoys on their own, they need a mission. But it is possible to make convoy hunting a side mission (click the box).
A very good and helpful trick: Order your fleet to shore bombard (with this you fix the fleet to 1 sea region) and also click the box for convoy hunting.

By the way: Keep in mind, as soon as you land on Japan, the same applies to you, your own troops will need supplies from convoys. I guess, China was busily building convoys and escorts lately?
 
Last edited:
You can rebase only to proper naval bases.
Small port symbols are like there is a fisher port or perhaps even a big harbour but no proper naval base where your warships get repairs, munition etc.
If there is a port or naval base symbol you can sail right into port with your transports and unload your troops (if the regions is yours).
If there is a beach you can make an amphibious landing.
If there is none, the landregion is inaccessable for ships.


Not predictable, dependent on too many things: number of convoys and escorts(!), tech and expertise to evade (for convoys), tech and expertise to spot & hunt (convoy hunter), number of ships and sheer luck. It's kind of a mini game within naval warfare. Even with its own convoy attack values. For general convoy hunting I prefer to use packs of 3-6 subs. For specific convoy hunting, like in your case, well, I use my biggest shore bombardement fleet available.

In general:
Supply happens at the midnight tick
You need a certain minimum number of convoys (dependent on the distance) to make a successful supply trip. The AI is in the habit to use the minimum number of convoys plus 1. Which means, each day you manage to sink more than 1 convoy you probably have caused a supply failure for the region they were heading for. Next day the AI will retry, if possible change routes and add escorts.

Which means, btw, a smart human should send plenty of extra convoys and lots of escorts (sometimes the need arises to switch from automatic to manual convoy management), so even when 1 or 4 convoys get sunk, the supply trip itself was still successful.

Ships do NOT hunt convoys on their own, they need a mission. But it is possible to make convoy hunting a side mission (click the box).
A very good and helpful trick: Order your fleet to shore bombard (with this you fix the fleet to 1 sea region) and also click the box for convoy hunting.

By the way: Keep in mind, as soon as you land on Japan, the same applies to you, your own troops will need supplies from convoys. I guess, China was busily building convoys and escorts lately?
I couldn't stop the convoys from supplying them, seems like I'll need to commit a lot of ships to it to shut them out, ships I couldn't spare. But it didn't matter in the end. The strategy worked beautifully, I landed 60 divisions onto Nagasaki, took multiple trips, but Busan is very close. I then proceed to wipe out their trapped 20 divisions in Kagoshima. With Kyushu as a beachhead, it's just a matter of time before I take out Japan, although the terrain is pretty difficult, they do still have 140 divisions on the main island. I now realize how crucial paratroopers are in the game.

Most of my fleet couldn't help with this D day operation since they had to engage the massive Japanese fleet, but I managed to bottle them up in Tokyo bay, it's like shooting fish in a barrel, a matter of time before I wipe out their fleet too. Sweet revenge for wiping out my baby fleet in the first war.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I couldn't stop the convoys from supplying them

Well, that happens...

You can see how big their depot is, btw:
depot.png


Using shore bombardement together with checked "attack enemy convoys" remains good standard practice for approbiate regions, though. Easy way to diminish the enemies' convoy and escort numbers.

attack-convoys.png


The strategy worked beautifully, I landed 60 divisions onto Nagasaki,
Splendid.

With Kyushu as a beachhead, it's just a matter of time before I take out Japan
Probably it will become still a difficult enough undertaking. Or rather a challenge to successfully take out enough divisions thru smart encirclement via paras, landings and overrun tacttics, so their ever retreating troops won't become too big in numbers. Interesting challenge (IMHO much mroe interesting than throwing around nukes).
 
Probably it will become still a difficult enough undertaking. Or rather a challenge to successfully take out enough divisions thru smart encirclement via paras, landings and overrun tacttics, so their ever retreating troops won't become too big in numbers. Interesting challenge (IMHO much mroe interesting than throwing around nukes).
That part turned out to be easy. The adjacent Matsuyama is a one province island separated only by straits, so just by closing the strait and attacking it, I wiped out 50 of their divisions. The AI wasn't smart enough to not send so many troops into a province with no escape. After that our numbers are much closer, but the 69 divisions that I sent are all elite mountain, marines, mechanized and tanks, all fully brigaded, so they stood no chance. I didn't even have to take Tokyo in the end, once I advanced to Nagoya, they surrendered to be my puppet.

And that brings my game to an end. It's 1951 and I'm already the 2nd strongest after the USA, not much to do now. Playing China was a fun challenge.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Well done.

Playing China was a fun challenge.
Certainly.
When I played China I especially focused on the colonial powers , UK and France. First diminishing their fleets and then, hehe, seldomly I felt such a pleasure as when my Chinese troops conquered Paris... right before the Nazis started to cross the border. Definetly an unusual WW2 outcome. Even today I must laugh when I imagine the faces of Manstein and Rundstedt.
 
Well done.


Certainly.
When I played China I especially focused on the colonial powers , UK and France. First diminishing their fleets and then, hehe, seldomly I felt such a pleasure as when my Chinese troops conquered Paris... right before the Nazis started to cross the border. Definetly an unusual WW2 outcome. Even today I must laugh when I imagine the faces of Manstein and Rundstedt.
Lol you stole Hitler's thunder. Me I reenacted the mongol invasion, said Hi to Stalin in Moscow before I sent him to the gulags. The UK would be tough though, since it takes so long to research and build a fleet big enough to take on any major naval power. It took me until 1950 before I felt my fleet was strong enough to tackle Japan, although I didn't fully prioritize naval. I guess you took them out before the US joins the war?

I also did a fun side-game, where I peaced out the Soviets as China, and then took command of solely the Indian troops to help the Allies defend France from the full Soviet onslaught. That was an amusing situation, Chinese transports and a HQ commanding Indian troops to save France and the West. And the Soviets ran out of oil and then recovered by importing mass amounts of oil from Japan was amusing too.
 
It took me until 1950 before I felt my fleet was strong enough to tackle Japan, although I didn't fully prioritize naval. I guess you took them out before the US joins the war?
First, my game started in 1933 which is much easier than 1936. While China is at war right away you nevertheless gain a few precious years of peace inbetween which are so important to build up and prepare for later when worldwar erupts around the globe.
In the 1937 war with Japan my plan was to weaken and diminish the Japanese army and navy to an extent that they wouldn't dare to challenge the US and european colonial powers in Asia/Pacific. No Pearl Harbour = no entry of US into WWII... so I hoped. And that worked out. Eh... at least I think so, I just realize that it may be that I did not play upto the date of Pearl Harbour (but stopped after Chinese troops had freed Scotland from the English yoke).

UK and France plus 12 more countries (Commonwealth incl. British Raj) declared war on China in 1939 because "we" wanted back Hongkong. China was on its own, well, allied with Siam and freed Korea (no division of Korea in this time line).
What followed was a study into the effectiveness of light carriers/DDs to escort trooptransports as much as to serve as combat fleets and heavy submarines as general purpose hunters (not only the cheapest possible fleet but as it turned out also one of the most deadly). The Chinese navy basically sank the Royal AND the French navy with 15 CVL/DD and around 24-30 HSubs within a year. It was as surprising as glorious (and regrettably also showing the DH navy algorithms of the computer players being in a poor state).
 
Last edited:
First, my game started in 1933 which is much easier than 1936. While China is at war right away you nevertheless gain a few precious years of peace inbetween which are so important to build up and prepare for later when worldwar erupts around the globe.
In the 1937 war with Japan my plan was to weaken and diminish the Japanese army and navy to an extent that they wouldn't dare to challenge the US and european colonial powers in Asia/Pacific. No Pearl Harbour = no entry of US into WWII... so I hoped. And that worked out. Eh... at least I think so, I just realize that it may be that I did not play upto the date of Pearl Harbour (but stopped after Chinese troops had freed Scotland from the English yoke).

UK and France plus 12 more countries (Commonwealth incl. British Raj) declared war on China in 1939 because "we" wanted back Hongkong. China was on its own, well, allied with Siam and freed Korea (no division of Korea in this time line).
What followed was a study into the effectiveness of light carriers/DDs to escort trooptransports as much as to serve as combat fleets and heavy submarines as general purpose hunters (not only the cheapest possible fleet but as it turned out also one of the most deadly). The Chinese navy basically sank the Royal AND the French navy with 15 CVL/DD and around 24-30 HSubs within a year. It was as surprising as glorious (and regrettably also showing the DH navy algorithms of the computer players being in a poor state).
Yeah having more time to prepare makes it much easier, although I'm still surprised you made it in time to take out Japan and research and build a fleet to take out the Allies before Germany gets to them. That's impressive.

Also light carriers wow, I guess they're stronger than I thought. I was paranoid and built a fleet of 12 regular carriers before I took on Japan, and I still had a few losses. Nice thread btw, I'll have to read it when I have time. Looks like you found the most time efficient way to build up a fleet from scratch.

I found in DH that the US always declares war on Germany eventually if they weren't annexed by the Soviets yet, Pearl harbour wasn't needed. And they always join the Allies immediately after because of inherent mechanics. That's why I never attacked the Allies, because that meant I had to fight the US as well, and since they are a major alliance the only way to win is to fully take out all their VPs, seems tedious. Taking out the Soviets was already tedious with all their VPs, but at least I didn't have to do it via naval.
 
Yeah having more time to prepare makes it much easier, although I'm still surprised you made it in time to take out Japan and research and build a fleet to take out the Allies before Germany gets to them. That's impressive.
I am rather impressed by your ability to play through until 1951. Never achieved that even once.
And Japan I "took out" mainly on land, continental land... until the most southern point of Korea but did not scratch Japan itself. Too early for even my China started in 1933. The 2 additional years of preparation until 1939 I found really crucial, still a bit on the edge to fight the whole of the Commonwealth plus France... but doable. China, given a bit of time and development, is a colossus (and always was for most of mankind's history). Well, a few years ago that would had been debatable but nowadays I am just stating the obvious reality. But nothing hammered that point into my brain than playing China in DH, switching to a Chinese perspective for that time, reading up on it... there aren't (m)any games which can achieve something like this, at least not for me.

Also light carriers wow, I guess they're stronger than I thought. I was paranoid and built a fleet of 12 regular carriers before I took on Japan, and I still had a few losses.
CVLs are rather weak but that really doesn't matter when they achieve to keep the distance and outrange the enemy. I hadn't fully grasped what that means before trying to write it down as a guide. Range not power is the absoulte most important thing in naval warfare... well, besides, of course, to ensure that your positioning ensures that you, indeed, fight your battles at your range and not at the enemies' prefered range.
This way, if I remember correctly, I lost 1 CVL vs Japan and the UK managed to sink another one. I also lost a few DDs and a few more HSubs. But in general losses were astronomically assymetral. As I said, a test of effectiveness of CVLs (range) and HSubs (cheap cost while able to sink anything) as much as a sad testament to how bad DH is in naval warfare.

Later China becomes a true giant and the cost doesn't really matter but a superb ship (CV) too late is still a ship too late, So I went for CVLs. Concerning costs 3 CVLs are also definetly better to have for escorting transporters than 1.5 CVs which, because they are so expensive, long to build and strong, look wasted for escort tasks, a task nevertheless utterly important to be properly done. I can sink a BB with any HSub but escorting my precious trooptransports can be only done well by carriers.

I found in DH that the US always declares war on Germany eventually if they weren't annexed by the Soviets yet, Pearl harbour wasn't needed.
Then I was lucky or more probable too lazy to really duke it out to the bitter end. But after having conquered most of the Commonwealth, France and with lots of troops on the British isle, it felt only tedious (and boring) to continue. And Germany, although China "stole" France (and freed most of North Africa), did not declare war on China. That would had been definetly a reason to continue.
About the US: Only once I bothered to attack and conquere the US. Might be I was too early for the US-warmachine to get properly started but that one time was ridiculously easy. (I am not really complaining nor bragging, the most interesting gaming time is when you are still figuring out the mechanics of the game. Once you have understood those, it's a human brain (finetuned for war. selfextermination and pattern recognition) against some scripted events or algorithm. To call that uneven odds would be a grand understatement. While multi-player, on the other hand, is much too hectic for me too find joy in it. At least I am sure that the other players won't appreciate my love of just looking at the map for an eternity and thinking and... pausing the game meanwhile.)
 
Last edited:
I am rather impressed by your ability to play through until 1951. Never achieved that even once.
And Japan I "took out" mainly on land, continental land... until the most southern point of Korea but did not scratch Japan itself. Too early for even my China started in 1933. The 2 additional years of preparation until 1939 I found really crucial, still a bit on the edge to fight the whole of the Commonwealth plus France... but doable. China, given a bit of time and development, is a colossus (and always was for most of mankind's history). Well, a few years ago that would had been debatable but nowadays I am just stating the obvious reality. But nothing hammered that point into my brain than playing China in DH, switching to a Chinese perspective for that time, reading up on it... there aren't (m)any games which can achieve something like this, at least not for me.
It's a rare moment, I wouldn't have played that long if there wasn't a new challenge I can take on within a couple years or so. I rarely play the whole time period in paradox games, it usually gets boring once you get too powerful.

China is certainly a powerhouse, not a surprise given its size and population. It's like if Europe unite into one country, there wouldn't be much competition. It's the reason why I rarely play China in paradox games, they are just too OP. China in HOI WW2 era was a unique challenge and a rare moment in history, that's why I wanted to try it. It was fun to bring them back into dominance. And yeah I found it interesting too to look up the various generals and events in history while you're playing, I learned more about Chinese WW2 history after this game.

CVLs are rather weak but that really doesn't matter when they achieve to keep the distance and outrange the enemy. I hadn't fully grasped what that means before trying to write it down as a guide. Range not power is the absoulte most important thing in naval warfare... well, besides, of course, to ensure that your positioning ensures that you, indeed, fight your battles at your range and not at the enemies' prefered range.
This way, if I remember correctly, I lost 1 CVL vs Japan and the UK managed to sink another one. I also lost a few DDs and a few more HSubs. But in general losses were astronomically assymetral. As I said, a test of effectiveness of CVLs (range) and HSubs (cheap cost while able to sink anything) as much as a sad testament to how bad DH is in naval warfare.

Later China becomes a true giant and the cost doesn't really matter but a superb ship (CV) too late is still a ship too late, So I went for CVLs. Concerning costs 3 CVLs are also definetly better to have for escorting transporters than 1.5 CVs which, because they are so expensive, long to build and strong, look wasted for escort tasks, a task nevertheless utterly important to be properly done. I can sink a BB with any HSub but escorting my precious trooptransports can be only done well by carriers.
That's interesting. I only started diving into the naval mechanics once I tried tackling Japan, by then it was late game so I focused on CVs. Seems like CVLs and subs dominate the early game then until countries get enough CVs to make them irrelevant.

The more I play DH, the more I notice the flaws in the combat system and other mechanics. Although I understand it's not easy to balance all the pieces and mechanics in the game. Every time I play a paradox game enough, I feel the itch to mod it myself to improve it, I got to that point in DH now.

Then I was lucky or more probable too lazy to really duke it out to the bitter end. But after having conquered most of the Commonwealth, France and with lots of troops on the British isle, it felt only tedious (and boring) to continue. And Germany, although China "stole" France (and freed most of North Africa), did not declare war on China. That would had been definetly a reason to continue.
About the US: Only once I bothered to attack and conquere the US. Might be I was too early for the US-warmachine to get properly started but that one time was ridiculously easy. (I am not really complaining nor bragging, the most interesting gaming time is when you are still figuring out the mechanics of the game. Once you have understood those, it's a human brain (finetuned for war. selfextermination and pattern recognition) against some scripted events or algorithm. To call that uneven odds would be a grand understatement. While multi-player, on the other hand, is much too hectic for me too find joy in it. At least I am sure that the other players won't appreciate my love of just looking at the map for an eternity and thinking and... pausing the game meanwhile.)
From what I gather, invading the US isn't too hard in the early years before they join the war, because they don't build much units. But once they do, they become a powerhouse. In my game, by 1951 they are a monster, a massive naval and air fleet, and they built 350+ divisions and climbing, and they have nukes. Fighting them would be very rough, I didn't bother to.

And yeah other than figuring out mechanics, the most fun in paradox games is to face overwhelming odds and try to overcome them. The AI just can't deal with our human tactics if we are comparable in strength. In the WW2 setting that's a bit of a shame, because the major players are often too powerful to play as once you know how everything works.