China is crazy OP
- Thread starter AKAGIxxKAGA
- Start date
-
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.
Michael was good, it's a shame the Romanians haven't reinstated him as a king after the fall of the Communists. He's still alive, I'd very much like it if they at least gave him his crown back before he dies.
China is OP because they decided to not make a logistics model that separated roads and rails.
In Europe, all developed areas had both serviceable roads and railroads. So back in the development phase of HOI4, podcat decided we should just have one thing called infra that would be on a continuum from 0 to 10 with 0 being the middle of the Sahara and 10 being double tracked railroads running next to an autobahn.
It should be fine, right?
Except, infra makes a fatal error. It posits that, because all developed areas had rails, all areas with rails were developed.
This was not the case. Especially in Asia. Japan's war in China was confined to the rails because they couldn't supply their troops away from them. The road network in China wasn't good enough and Japan could only operate away from the rails for short periods. They couldn't just pour more troops into China to subdue it because they couldn't supply that many. This is part of why Japan went with the strategy of isolating China and waiting for it to weaken.
The way the game should actually simulate the war in China is to make it nearly impossible for Japan to move away from the main rail corridors without suffering near ruinous supply costs.
China also had a ton of trouble surviving without the industrialized East Coast but they should be able to weather the low infra, high attrition areas better because they won't be on occupied territory.
Unfortunately, because of a dumb decision in design, it's far too easy for Japan to roll through China. Since the terrain and logistics issues aren't present to slow the Japanese as historical, they have to artificially buff China since the whole job now falls on the Chinese army.
In Europe, all developed areas had both serviceable roads and railroads. So back in the development phase of HOI4, podcat decided we should just have one thing called infra that would be on a continuum from 0 to 10 with 0 being the middle of the Sahara and 10 being double tracked railroads running next to an autobahn.
It should be fine, right?
Except, infra makes a fatal error. It posits that, because all developed areas had rails, all areas with rails were developed.
This was not the case. Especially in Asia. Japan's war in China was confined to the rails because they couldn't supply their troops away from them. The road network in China wasn't good enough and Japan could only operate away from the rails for short periods. They couldn't just pour more troops into China to subdue it because they couldn't supply that many. This is part of why Japan went with the strategy of isolating China and waiting for it to weaken.
The way the game should actually simulate the war in China is to make it nearly impossible for Japan to move away from the main rail corridors without suffering near ruinous supply costs.
China also had a ton of trouble surviving without the industrialized East Coast but they should be able to weather the low infra, high attrition areas better because they won't be on occupied territory.
Unfortunately, because of a dumb decision in design, it's far too easy for Japan to roll through China. Since the terrain and logistics issues aren't present to slow the Japanese as historical, they have to artificially buff China since the whole job now falls on the Chinese army.
About Michael. No , thx. He was/is a traitor. Whats so good about him? He was 18 when he did the coup, and still has the highest soviet decoration for his treachery, and as same as his father he left Romanian with wagons full of gold and money.
On topic now, China need it the buff, dont forget they lose Beijing very fast... that 3 mil factorys.
On topic now, China need it the buff, dont forget they lose Beijing very fast... that 3 mil factorys.
They should just call that DLC "First to Fight". Would be thematic for both.
If infrastructure was simulated on the province level instead of the state level, depicting a long war in China would be easier.
That level of infrastructure detail would be just fine for a game that zoomed in on the war in China. What paradox has done with infrastructure works just fine for the global nature of the game.
There are mods like BlackIce that let you dive off into extreme detail on various aspects of the war. Paradox can't afford to do that with the base game because it'd be too big a learning curve for the average gamer. They won't make any money building a hardcore logistics simulation that will frustrate more players than those who find it enjoyable.
As simple as it is currently, I'd wager that most people playing HOI4 still don't understand how supply works really.
There are mods like BlackIce that let you dive off into extreme detail on various aspects of the war. Paradox can't afford to do that with the base game because it'd be too big a learning curve for the average gamer. They won't make any money building a hardcore logistics simulation that will frustrate more players than those who find it enjoyable.
As simple as it is currently, I'd wager that most people playing HOI4 still don't understand how supply works really.
Planned flooding events could create temporary infra wastelands that would provide a barrier to the Japanese seeking to press south from Beijing.
The suggestion for events associated with the retrenchment into the hinterlands and defense of key cities is a good one.
The suggestion for events associated with the retrenchment into the hinterlands and defense of key cities is a good one.
The current supply system is too big a learning curve because it makes no sense. It's simple, but opaque.
"Supply moves on rails" is a very, very easy heuristic to remember.
Also, Paradox's audience isn't "the average gamer," it's somewhat hardcore strategy gamers.
They should definately split transport infrastructure and industry infrastructure.
Transport infrastructure should be depicted on province level and should be a pain in the ass to improve it. It would represent railways, roads and canals used to easily move stuff from one place to another. Also it would mean existance of strategic locations like crossroads. Now you capture provinces, because they have VP on them, then you'd have to stick to your supply lines, secure important crossroads, try to cut enemy supply lines. It would mke a perfect sense if you would fortify and defend a location only because it is on the important crossroad and holding one town would stop the entire front's advance, because supplie can't be delivered, how coold would that be? Also think how much more interesting and impactful would partisans be if they would mostly target railroads causing supply issues!
Industry infrastructure on the other hand would stay on state level and would represent: electrification, local construction capability, availability of workforce etc. Industry Infrastructure would just show how much effort one needs to build factories/refineries in said state.
Transport infrastructure should be depicted on province level and should be a pain in the ass to improve it. It would represent railways, roads and canals used to easily move stuff from one place to another. Also it would mean existance of strategic locations like crossroads. Now you capture provinces, because they have VP on them, then you'd have to stick to your supply lines, secure important crossroads, try to cut enemy supply lines. It would mke a perfect sense if you would fortify and defend a location only because it is on the important crossroad and holding one town would stop the entire front's advance, because supplie can't be delivered, how coold would that be? Also think how much more interesting and impactful would partisans be if they would mostly target railroads causing supply issues!
Industry infrastructure on the other hand would stay on state level and would represent: electrification, local construction capability, availability of workforce etc. Industry Infrastructure would just show how much effort one needs to build factories/refineries in said state.
maybe they could have
so industry infrastructure is like the state classifications (urban, rural, etc)
Well, starting infrastruture could be corelated with state class. But it should be upgradable, you can construct new powerplants, train future workers and engineers that will be needed, provide construction materials and experts. All in preparation for constructing new industry buildings in the state.
maybe one day we can have a "railways" system. Also a simple system with fewer levels (Just to make a difference in cargo and train speed) but crazy expensive.
Waging war on states with rails would be much more easy compared to places without it.
It would help to control the flow of the war and where would be better to strike and defend.
Almost the whole world had rails in key states, but countrys like india, CHina, Brazil etc have a very hard terrain for those.
this way you could "cripple" a country but not really capitulate it without a great cost in equipment and men. Specially the big countrys.
Waging war on states with rails would be much more easy compared to places without it.
It would help to control the flow of the war and where would be better to strike and defend.
Almost the whole world had rails in key states, but countrys like india, CHina, Brazil etc have a very hard terrain for those.
this way you could "cripple" a country but not really capitulate it without a great cost in equipment and men. Specially the big countrys.
Giving China factories it didn't have isn't the solution.
In real life, without Lend Lease and British aid through the Burma Road, China would've fallen. In less than 5% of any MP game do the British and American players give China any aid. That's why China get smoked so quick.
In real life, without Lend Lease and British aid through the Burma Road, China would've fallen. In less than 5% of any MP game do the British and American players give China any aid. That's why China get smoked so quick.
Well, the british talent Burma Road has almost no impact and costs 70 days as other focuses. It's just not worth it.
On the other hand if it was an event allowing for lend-lease and starting it, then it would be much better. Hell, if UK is controlled by AI it could be just that China would keep getting rifles, but UK would not lose any. This way China has no fictional factories, but gets guns when it is attacked by Japan and when Uk wants to help.
On the other hand if it was an event allowing for lend-lease and starting it, then it would be much better. Hell, if UK is controlled by AI it could be just that China would keep getting rifles, but UK would not lose any. This way China has no fictional factories, but gets guns when it is attacked by Japan and when Uk wants to help.
There would need to be an event for Britain that generates a news report to prompt players for aid and the Burma Road etc. Other countries might respond to it as well (e.g., Commonwealth).
It's obvious that the whole region is just a placeholder for a future DLC, I said this before the game was released and was rather surprised I got so much push back. It was one of THE major theaters of the war and it beggars belief that they would leave the ROC and PRC without their own NF's.
If they want to look at how to balance China, this national focus mod does a pretty good job of giving China a lot of debuffs at the start. In particular, it debuffs China's industry, as historically, China really wasn't strong in industry, while it's ludicrously OP in the base game.
China has more factories than most European nations now. But the fact is China can't produce enough infantry Eq. during the WW2.
If you want to slow down the war, the best way is to add a debuff idea to Japan, like "Complicated Strategy"; "Friction between the IJA and IJN forces", and remove it when Japan declare war to the US.
View attachment 275943
View attachment 275938
View attachment 275937 View attachment 275939
I'm not a native English speaker, sorry for my bad English.
The way I see it thats actually a buff for Japan. Japan can still easily rush China and seize it fast, once managed that as soon as November '36. However, your point is valid. In a historical context probably even Romania had significally more industry than China in '36.
I'm still not seeing any value in adding a second layer of infrastructure to the game to unnecessarily complicate it that the single infrastructure doesn't already handle. If your province has like 3 infrastructure, it's got little to no rails in it. If it's got 10 infrastructure, it'd be considered heavily railroaded. Every divisions mobility, normal/attack/strategic redeploy is impacted by the infrastructure level of a state. The supply level and flow is impacted by the infrastructure of the states in the supply region. Perhaps supply regions should be decreased to state size instead of the multi-state entities they are now? I just don't see mechanically what adding a railroad layer does for the game that can't already be handled with the tools that currently exist.
They could accomplish this now by simply tweaking the existing knobs in the game. VPs already do serve as points of control for improving your supply situation, but it could be made more important. If they decreased the importance of supply throughput from neighboring regions, and increased the importance of supply from VPs, then it'd make capturing VPs critically important for gaining the upper hand in any particular supply region. Fortifying major cities and holding them would guarantee you always have a significant supply advantage over the attacker in a region. Some regions would be really hard to attack from certain directions, because the VPs are mostly on the other side of the region, and you'll fight through the region consistently at a supply disadvantage until you take that city. Some regions would be very easy to attack, because the VP would be right on the border next to where you're going to attack from, so the defender can't afford to give an inch in those regions or risk being driven much further back.
Last edited: