C.O.R.E HOI - Far East (Japan-Nationalist China-ChiCom-Siam-Phillipines)

[MateDow]

Originally posted by EUIX
What if the infrasture of Hawaii got lowered to 0? That can cause rapid degradation of unit strength, along with that just include a trigger that has Japan declare war on US and give it some transports, marines and what not.

What is this going to accomplish other than make it impossible for the US to place troops in Hawaii as a garrison. I also don't agree with giving the Japanese troops for free. If the Japanese haven'g been able to build their own marines and transports, why should we give them some with events? If they don't have the tools for a Pacific war, then they shouldn't be forced into one. MDow

 

[McNaughton]

Just tweaking the AI build, I can get the Japanese to build Marines without any trouble. They had 3 divisions by 1939.

 

[McNaughton]

I have noticed some problems with Japan in the 1936 Scenario.

#1. They are given way too many divisions. The Central Pacific Islands were virtually ungarissoned in 1936, and only really started being beefed up in 1942-43. However, the Game gives Japan loads of infantry divisions scattered about the Islands. Also, they are given Cavalry divisions throughout Japan. They only had a few Cavalry formations, and these were in China. They did have 'cavalry regiments' attached to Divisions, but the term 'regiment' is misleading, they were actually reinforced reconiassance battalions.

#2. Even with all of these extra infantry divisions they still flop in China. I don't think it is Japanese weakness that nails them here, but Chinese strength. I have tested a modded scenario that has a proper 1936 OOB (removed the Cavalry and Infantry in the Central Pacific, plus added some historic units missing in China). I noticed that they get stumpped if they attack China in August 1937, BUT, when they go to war against China in 1936 (happens occasionally) they thrash China to bits.

The problem, that I see, is that China gets too many techs and units from 1936-1937, and has a MASSIVE and well equipped army by 1937. Their infantry divisions are only a few points below that of Japan, but they have significant numbers to offset this disparity. Japan can make initial attacks, but constantly flounders once they reach their manpower limitations, this is because China is too strong for them, as by 1937 there is a good chance that China will have as many regular Infantry Divisions as Japan does, but is also supplimented by loads of Militia formations.

 

[MateDow]

Chinese Problem

Maybe we could alter the Chinese AI so that it focuses more on militia than infantry? IRC, the Chinese army was very poor in quality, but HUGE. If we have the AI focus on militia, then it will more closely resemble history. If we set a ratio of 4:1 (80% militia) would that be too far out of line? The point is to have the Japanese push through these hordes of militia until the reach some mountain strongholds where they can hold on until the Allied 'cavalry' arrives. MDow

 

[EUIX]

Originally posted by MateDow
What is this going to accomplish other than make it impossible for the US to place troops in Hawaii as a garrison. I also don't agree with giving the Japanese troops for free. If the Japanese haven'g been able to build their own marines and transports, why should we give them some with events? If they don't have the tools for a Pacific war, then they shouldn't be forced into one. MDow

Afterwards you could raise the infrastructure back up this way you damage the units based on Hawaii if not kill some of them.

 

[JRaup]

Acyually, the biggest problem is Chinese dissent. It's too low. One of the great hinderances to the Chinese forces was corruption, and generally low morale (with some really bad leadership). In game, NatChi starts at 20% dissent. Which is about right. The problme is, they get a 10 point reduction when Japan declares war, and now that the AI actually can handle dissent better, NatChi is able to reduce its dissent to 0. NatChi should have to run its war at about 20-25% for the duration, and not just atthe start. With such a large amount of dissent, it will be that much harder for the chinese to mount offensive operations, and their defenses will eventually crumble. This IMO, is what needs to be tweaked.

 

[McNaughton]

Originally posted by JRaup
Acyually, the biggest problem is Chinese dissent. It's too low. One of the great hinderances to the Chinese forces was corruption, and generally low morale (with some really bad leadership). In game, NatChi starts at 20% dissent. Which is about right. The problme is, they get a 10 point reduction when Japan declares war, and now that the AI actually can handle dissent better, NatChi is able to reduce its dissent to 0. NatChi should have to run its war at about 20-25% for the duration, and not just atthe start. With such a large amount of dissent, it will be that much harder for the chinese to mount offensive operations, and their defenses will eventually crumble. This IMO, is what needs to be tweaked.

I like this solution. Is there a way to tell if dissent goes below a certain number, to have a repeating event then triggered to raise it up a few points? This could keep dissent at a certain level.

 

[MateDow]

Originally posted by EUIX
Afterwards you could raise the infrastructure back up this way you damage the units based on Hawaii if not kill some of them.

Some of the problems that you will encounter will be...

How do you determine if the Japanese have any carriers to make an attack? At the moment there is no command for making a trigger of whether a certain type of unit (or whether naval units exist at all) is available to make an attack. I heard of many games where an agressive Chinese player has used submarines to decimate the Japanese fleet.

The AI (and a human player) will continue to reinforce the units that are present in Hawaii. This will just cause extra costs for supplies rather than than cause casualties from infrastructure. MDow

 

[JRaup]

Originally posted by McNaughton
I like this solution. Is there a way to tell if dissent goes below a certain number, to have a repeating event then triggered to raise it up a few points? This could keep dissent at a certain level.

I believe that trigger = dissent = x does work, or at least the engine recognizes it. It works similar to the garrison command. The probelm would be that x is the minimum dissent level for the event to trigger. But I think that will be a minor issue in this case. Any corruption event, in addition to the dissent hit, should also reduce stockpiles, especially supplies, oil, and rubber. That should also help reduce some Chinese builds, not that they can build all that much (in comparison).

 

[Steel]

Originally posted by McNaughton
I like this solution. Is there a way to tell if dissent goes below a certain number, to have a repeating event then triggered to raise it up a few points? This could keep dissent at a certain level.

Sure, NOT = { dissent = x } will check if it's below the trigger level. However, events don't repeat so you will need 144 events if you want a monthly check. Also this will completely rubbish the AI as it treats dissent reduction as high priority and will consistently waste it's IC on it (while a human player will just accept X dissent and set CG to maintain that).

 

[Steel]

Re: Chinese Problem

Originally posted by MateDow
Maybe we could alter the Chinese AI so that it focuses more on militia than infantry? IRC, the Chinese army was very poor in quality, but HUGE. If we have the AI focus on militia, then it will more closely resemble history. If we set a ratio of 4:1 (80% militia) would that be too far out of line? The point is to have the Japanese push through these hordes of militia until the reach some mountain strongholds where they can hold on until the Allied 'cavalry' arrives. MDow

China starts with a lot of militia but there is no way to force the AI into militia build (it's a "AI panic" mode that leads to militia build, there's no parameters for it). Certainly the events that grant troops could give militia instead and we could cut back on the techs they recieve, the main issue here is that we will make it even easier for a human-played Japan or USSR to take China in a few months. Better game for the AI, tough luck for human players...

 

[Ghost_dk]

I've played a couple of games lately as japan on 0.62 and i have to disagree on how easy it is to conquor china in a matter of months.

If you satisfy your CG and and save up about 5-10 supplies a day for the trade events. combine this with some industry upgrades to start using some of those huge stockpiles of resources that you get form just owning the initial provinces you will end up with about 80IC left for production and research. If you divide this in 50/50 you have about 40 for production of which 29 from the start are labelled for navy build. this way you can just about scrape together enough division to make a very slow progress in china once war breaks out in 37. this cannot be achieved however without removing allmost all garrison troops from the main japanese islands leaving it practically defenseless.

In my current game im in 1939 and have about 50 ivisions in china +10 mil to garrison provinced from communist rebelions and around 8-10 div. including militias on the japanese islands.

I have all coastal areas and am starting to make a litte ground inward in china. i have to go with a one province at a time attack strategy because i cant get a real upper hand without shifting around troops first.

The chinese have around 40 inf/cav divisions plus some 30 militials and the communists have 18 mixed divisions.

I remember how easy it used to be to beat the chinese in earlier games but the way the game is developing now is a little too hard. Ive only been able to do very little research and I have made almost no progress in doctrines except for one land doctrine. The rest have been used to beef up my infantry with a few artillery techs so i didnt constantly get beaten back in china and researching basic torpedo and fighter planes.
I have made no progress whatsoever in the naval tree's, no tank development, no rockets or nuclear research. not even gotten beyond the starting levels in infrantry techs. no electronics advances beyond the first computer tech, in industry ive researced 2 levels trying to get a +5% ic from the improved plastics but no applied techs yet.

All of this happened on the normal/normal basic core level to i wouldnt even dare to start a game on more difficult levels.

As it stands now Id say that Japan is either the hardest country to play(maybe only seconed by france but i havent played that one i a while)

in the current game all build in the future would have to go toward the upcomming war with the allies and when it starts ill probably be 2-4 levels of research behind the US and other allies in all fields so im preparing for a slaughterhouse once war breaks out, and god forbid if russia decides to go to war as well.

having played for over a year now i dont consider myself a noob so obviously something as changed. Maybe more then should.
IMO each major country should have at least a minimal chance of lasting out the war. The way it is now I see no way for that to happen for japan unless it is in a ai vs ai contest where the enemy makes mistakes too. I cant even phantom what would happen in a mp game.

Ghost_dk

 

[JRaup]

Originally posted by Steel
Sure, NOT = { dissent = x } will check if it's below the trigger level. However, events don't repeat so you will need 144 events if you want a monthly check. Also this will completely rubbish the AI as it treats dissent reduction as high priority and will consistently waste it's IC on it (while a human player will just accept X dissent and set CG to maintain that).

Then I think the trick will be to get dissent at just the right amount, and keep it there. And a monthly check will probably be unnecessary. A quarterly check should more than suffice. Using the NOT trigger for dissent, and ATWAR as well, and China should be unable to do mroe than defens against Japanese offensives. I'll explore some possibilities.

 

[Steel]

Originally posted by Ghost_dk
I've played a couple of games lately as japan on 0.62 and i have to disagree on how easy it is to conquor china in a matter of months.

I agre it's harder in 1.05c and C.O.R.E. v0.6x. There's a lot of reasons (change in Japanese government type, org loss due to movement, changes to the combat model etc) but all you need to do is build some tank divisions and support them with tac bombers. Armor leads the way, infantry holds the ground, encircle and destroy - there's nothing in the Chinese OOB that can stop you.

 

[Steel]

Originally posted by JRaup
Then I think the trick will be to get dissent at just the right amount, and keep it there. And a monthly check will probably be unnecessary. A quarterly check should more than suffice. Using the NOT trigger for dissent, and ATWAR as well, and China should be unable to do mroe than defens against Japanese offensives. I'll explore some possibilities.

Let us know how you get on. The Far East is IMHO the critical thing to get right for v0.63 and there's a lot of issues to look at:

- Chinese fighting efficiency. I think an event approach will be even more hated than the blockade events for Germany and I think it will exclusively screw the AI, but maybe you'll prove me wrong An alternate solution might be a "national doctrine" along the same lines as Bushido, Blitzkrieg and Great Patriotic War. Yet another alternative is INC file modifiers to reduce efficiency.

- Japanese politics. Vanilla HoI has them as fascist in 1937 which offers option to DOW USA early and saves them an amazing amount of IC (reduced CG spend), C.O.R.E. has them as democratic until 1941 in normal event progression. I feel the vanilla approach is completely wrong but clearly the C.O.R.E. approach has limited Japan somewhat (even with the IC, techs and units gained via events).

- Resource glut for Japan. A combination of North China resources, effective conversion, no world market blockades and low Japanese IC levels leads to Japan having no reason for expansion. Increasing starting IC might be an option but it's not historical AFAIK.

- Chinese tech & unit gain via events. Maybe this needs to be scaled back, but think back a few versions and recall the constant complaints about Japan (AI) annexing China in 1938. So far I've not seen any solution which consistently gives a stalemate in China while allowing for a historical Pacific War.

- Japanese front against ComChi. As long as they are at war the Japanese AI will strive to build a powerful front against ComChi which screws Japanese efforts against NatChi. There's no AI parameters for setting different max front strength against different countries and passivity does not appear to stop the front from building up.


BTW, regarding Japanese Pacific garrisons, until v0.62 these were represented as strength 25 infantry units. This is of course rubbish since they can instantly be reinforced to strength 100. Equally it's not good to remove them because Japan's unit count will be so low that they cannot possibly garrison the islands, Japan itself and fight a war in China. A human player will always withdraw the garrisons as they are better used in China, so perhaps we should have 0 garrison priorities in the Pacific for Japan until the South strategy AI kicks in.


McNaughton, post your OOB changes on the Integration page of the wiki please.

 

[JRaup]

- Chinese fighting efficiency. I think an event approach will be even more hated than the blockade events for Germany and I think it will exclusively screw the AI, but maybe you'll prove me wrong An alternate solution might be a "national doctrine" along the same lines as Bushido, Blitzkrieg and Great Patriotic War. Yet another alternative is INC file modifiers to reduce efficiency.

A doctrine may actually work. I'll have to actually look at what can and cannot be done with a tech, but this may hold some possibilities.

I was looking at dissent for several reasons. 1. The general apathy of the population. China was notorious for being unable to rouse the population to a cause. Sun Yat sen came the closest since the Qing dynasty first took hold. Chaing encountered this iin his campaigns against the warlords, communists, and the Japanese. Mao had the same problems, just that he gathered more support than Chiang (and had better lieutenants). 2. Corruption was endemic in China. The foreign economic spheres protected European and Jpaanese interests, and provided a great many criminal opportunities for Chinese "entrepeneurs." The corruption was so bad, and so systemic, that it existed, and was the norm in most of China, from top to bottom. The general populace saw this, knew this, and just carried on as usual. "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss." 3. The Chinese army had a devil of a time keeping troops in the field. Desertion rates were astounding (nearing 20% in 1943), and this greatly reduced the effectiveness of Chinese troops. As with all things, there were exceptions.

Before I begin fooling with dissent, the national tech option has possibilities (I hadn't thought of going that route). Also, is it possible to lower the starting ORG for just Chinese troops? Say, to 5% for miltia (notoriously unreliable), and 10-15% for regular INF? That way, even with the tech bonuses, the Chinese should still be behind the Japanese.

- Resource glut for Japan. A combination of North China resources, effective conversion, no world market blockades and low Japanese IC levels leads to Japan having no reason for expansion. Increasing starting IC might be an option but it's not historical AFAIK.

I proposed this before, but what about events for things like the creation of the North China development company? An investiture of resources to "improve" IC and INFRA in North China and Manchuria. I believe we can get three events from these companies (at least I only remember three being created), and could give some boosts to the Japanese. These would all be pre-41 as well.

Chinese tech & unit gain via events. Maybe this needs to be scaled back, but think back a few versions and recall the constant complaints about Japan (AI) annexing China in 1938. So far I've not seen any solution which consistently gives a stalemate in China while allowing for a historical Pacific War.

I think that the Chinese don't get enough from these events. If you look at the investments made by "civilian" companies from Germany (and Italy), not only in terms of practical support and training, but in terms of manufacturing capabilities, and infrastructure improvements, and these evenst are actually under powered! While I don;t suggest any additional land techs (except maybe an art'y or two), I do think that investments such as those made by Siemens should be represented (primarily naval building). But, I'm not dead set on that.

- Japanese front against ComChi. As long as they are at war the Japanese AI will strive to build a powerful front against ComChi which screws Japanese efforts against NatChi. There's no AI parameters for setting different max front strength against different countries and passivity does not appear to stop the front from building up.

-->Dang commies screwing everything up as usual. What about restarting the Civil War a bit early? Often times, the KMT were more interested in fighting Mao than they were the japanese. The truce between chiang and Mao looked good on paper, but in the field was a different story. Should we experiment with a three way war in china?

On a semi-related note, why is Sinkiang a spearate nation? It was semi-autonomous, and under KMT influence. Does it really deserve nation status in HoI terms? I can see it as a liberate option, but have issues as a starting nation.

Also, I want to review the Xian Incident, as there are several things that can be expanded on, that jsut aren't currently covered. But, I'll work on that when I get to the Burma Road stuff.

 

[Steel]

v0.63 vs v0.7

Let's separate what's suitable for v0.63 vs what's suitable for v0.7. As far as possible I'd like to focus this discussion on v0.63 for now.

v0.63
- INC file modifiers to efficiency, OOBs, tech and stockpiles
- INC file modifiers to provincial resources, infra and IC
- tweaks to existing events
- tweaks to AI files

v0.7
- adding new techs such as a national doctrine
- adding new events
- adding/removing entire nations (!)


On your other points:

IMHO Sinkiang is suitable as an independent nation in the same way as Tannu Tuva, it provides a little extra depth to the game. It provides a training ground for Chinese forces after the Xian incident and eliminates the need for China to garrison those areas once the Sino-Japanese war starts. It's also another dissent hit for an imperialistic Soviet Union I'm not sure there's any benefit in making it part of NatChi.

Oh and yes, a tech can provide a nation-specific org reduction. Look at the Italian techs for some examples. Just remember that the low infra levels in the Far East means that reduced org makes it impossible to carry out offensive operations due to org loss while moving, but the AI does not fully understand this and a human player can exploit this advantage.

Regarding the three-way war, one of the key changes in v0.6 was that NatChi now has MA through ComChi. This allows them to escape encirclement in the early battles where they traditionally lost half their army in every C.O.R.E. game. I'd rather not remove it again.

 

[JRaup]

Let's separate what's suitable for v0.63 vs what's suitable for v0.7. As far as possible I'd like to focus this discussion on v0.63 for now.

v0.63
- INC file modifiers to efficiency, OOBs, tech and stockpiles
- INC file modifiers to provincial resources, infra and IC
- tweaks to existing events
- tweaks to AI files

v0.7
- adding new techs such as a national doctrine
- adding new events
- adding/removing entire nations (!)

Fully agreed. I don't have a "quick fix," so I was planning on for v0.7. I want to test what ever changes thoroughly before putting something in. As a quickie for 0.63, I suggest upping the starting NatChi dissent to 25 or 30%, and/or reducing the dissent lowering from teh war events to 5%. Maybe increase starting Japanese INF org by 5 points as well. One advantage I have seen the Chinese get over the Japanese is in ORG level, usually by 10 points.

IMHO Sinkiang is suitable as an independent nation in the same way as Tannu Tuva, it provides a little extra depth to the game. It provides a training ground for Chinese forces after the Xian incident and eliminates the need for China to garrison those areas once the Sino-Japanese war starts. It's also another dissent hit for an imperialistic Soviet Union I'm not sure there's any benefit in making it part of NatChi.

OK, I can live with that. More of a curiosity on my part. How about making sinkiang a puppet of Natchi in the National Unity event? right now, Sinkiang is fairly useless, except to take up space, and reduce NatChi garrison requirements. Just a thought.

Oh and yes, a tech can provide a nation-specific org reduction. Look at the Italian techs for some examples. Just remember that the low infra levels in the Far East means that reduced org makes it impossible to carry out offensive operations due to org loss while moving, but the AI does not fully understand this and a human player can exploit this advantage.

Ahh, I see the point there about the ocmbination of low org and infra. Maybe as part of the HARD CORE package for Japan, China could get some aditional boosts? Hard to say really until I fool around with it. But having NatChi nearly unable to mount offensive operations (until late war period), seems to me rather accurate. But, avoiding a serious player exploit is also a factor.

Regarding the three-way war, one of the key changes in v0.6 was that NatChi now has MA through ComChi. This allows them to escape encirclement in the early battles where they traditionally lost half their army in every C.O.R.E. game. I'd rather not remove it again.

The thing about this is, NatChi almost never has to use that MA. The Japanese have a regular tendency to frive westwards, and not south as they should. Thus, NatChi has plenty of time to withdraw in fairly good order. Couple this with the inevitable Japanese offensive against the communists, and NatChi can pretty much sit back and enjoy the show. We may need to reduce the number of starting ComChi units, and tweak their builds, so that Japan doesn't build up 20-30 divisions around them on a consistent basis.

What's the old adage? "Never get involved in a land war in Asia?" Maybe we should say "Never get involved in trying to recreate a land war in Asia".

 

[Steel]

I like the idea of puppetting SIK in the Unity event, it will give CHI some resource relief. Do we need a de-puppetting for the resumption of the Chinese civil war?


About the military access, prior to v0.6 there was a very common situation where Chinese forces were pushed back from Beijing and the coast towards the ComChi provinces, then cut off and eliminated at no cost to the Japanese. I really don't want that to happen... I have no problem with encirclement battles but it's just too easy for Japan when the ComChi border provides half the encirclement for free.


I agree that reducing ComChi unit count is a good idea, but short of scripting their builds (like the naval startup builds) I think we'll struggle. They seem to start in panic mode which leads to massive militia builds. Another thing we could look at is reducing infrastructure levels, along with forts and flak this will provide some protection for the ComChi forces without requiring numeric strength.

Maybe we should say "Never get involved in trying to recreate a land war in Asia".

Well, after eight months of working on it I think I've made a little progress. Just give me another 10 million men, 1 million tanks and 1 million aircraft and victory will be certain!

 

[JRaup]

I like the idea of puppetting SIK in the Unity event, it will give CHI some resource relief. Do we need a de-puppetting for the resumption of the Chinese civil war?

IMO, no. Sinkiang sided with the KMT, and wasn't "broght into the fold," until a ComChi offensive in 1947/8. So, keeping Sinkiang a puppet should be fine.

About the military access, prior to v0.6 there was a very common situation where Chinese forces were pushed back from Beijing and the coast towards the ComChi provinces, then cut off and eliminated at no cost to the Japanese. I really don't want that to happen... I have no problem with encirclement battles but it's just too easy for Japan when the ComChi border provides half the encirclement for free.

I do recall that, and it usually led to NatChi being annexed by 1939. Yet another Hobsons Choice. Super. I just love these kinds of situations...

I agree that reducing ComChi unit count is a good idea, but short of scripting their builds (like the naval startup builds) I think we'll struggle. They seem to start in panic mode which leads to massive militia builds. Another thing we could look at is reducing infrastructure levels, along with forts and flak this will provide some protection for the ComChi forces without requiring numeric strength.

Well, they were in panic mode historically. But they were reliant upon Moscow for direction (as evidenced by their delayed reaction to the Xian incident). What if change all their starting units to militia then? Same numebr of units, but at a greatly reduced capability. Would the emphasis change to regular infantry, or remain only militia? we might also want to look at giving Japan an infantry doctrine or two. Just another option to consider.

Well, after eight months of working on it I think I've made a little progress. Just give me another 10 million men, 1 million tanks and 1 million aircraft and victory will be certain!

:rofl: