China needs the He-Umezu agreement to give Japan a chance

[Porkman]

In the ''Waking the Tiger'' strategic woes for the Japan AI" @BaronNoir mentioned how he defeated Japan fairly easily as China.

As strange as it is, Nationalist China have currently one of the narrowest ''front'' to defend. (Six provinces around Bejing, four if you do some strategic defensive). With some basic fortifications, the rather....uh...frail...KMT army can handle very well the initial japanese thrust.

While the maluses might make matters harder, it change nothing to the glaring japanese weaknesses : making a mockery of all campaigns of actual WW2, stationing a few INF battalions per harbor (all 13 of them) is far enough to defend China immense coastline, the Japanese AI being completely unable to storm those harbors if a player think to put a garrison in them.

This is very, very wrong.

China could not fortify Beijing or its environs for two reasons.

1) Chiang Kai Shek did not have strong control over most of the generals in the area. For example, Song Zheyuan, who commanded the troops that first fought Japan in 1937, had arisen as part of the Zhili clique, the warlord grouping who Chiang Kai Shek defeated in 1926. Most of the military forces and generals in the North were of questionable loyalty. The game should require lots of command points to actually bring them into the fold. (It seems like that's going to be the case with the decision system.)

2) The He-Umezu agreement

This agreement, signed in 1935, is represented in game by the little strip of Japanese land on the border of Manchukuo and China. This is the East Hebei autonomous council.

It was a Japanese puppet state that rebelled and was effectively part of Japan as the game shows.

What isn't shown or represented is that the agreement forbade any KMT political activity... including the stationing of additional troops, in the entirety of the province of Hebei.

This means that a Chinese player should not be able to build fortifications or move additional troops into the HOI4 states of Beijing and Hebei (State id's 608 and 614) without triggering a war with Japan.

Without this agreement, China is too easy to fortify and Japan will get stopped to early.

It should be in there with a Chinese option to break it and gain more control over northern troops via decisions and focuses, but without it, Japan is at an ahistoric disadvantage. When the war started, Chiang Kai Shek had to move troops into the North China plain to fight Japan. Chinese divisions are not very mobile and they didn't have time to set up proper defenses before making contact with the Japanese so they generally got eviscerated by the more mobile and better equipped Japanese troops.

 

[ChairmanMeow]

I strongly agree with this, Hebei territory should be a buffer area for the NRA, and the relationship between Chiang and Hebei authority was much weaker than the way presented in the game.

Also, communists only controlled a quater of Shanxi Shaanxi at the beginning of the game, not the entire province.

And also, there should be Guangdong-Guangxi Incident for Chiang and Gui Xi(Guangxi Clique), this historical event should be involved as it actually delayed the attack towards ChiCom.

Speaking of the typo, ROC NF tree has a Hanyan Hanyang waiting to be corrected. I'm definetly assured it is a typo.

 

[CrowCarlos]

In early versions of HOI3, regions around Beijing belongs to Shanxi.

He-Umezu agreement is a good idea. Hebei and surrounding area should be somehow demilitarized like Rheinland, allowing very limited troop to be involved in Beijing-Tianjin battle. Shanghai was also demilitarized then.

Also, plus for Hanyan typo problem and CPC control area problem mentioned in #2.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/He–Umezu_Agreement
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_28_Incident
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Beiping–Tianjin


According to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_battle_at_Beiping–Tianjin , only the 29th route army was is involved in the battle. Chiang's forces were not there.


……The major powers did not wish to see another January 28 Incident, which greatly disrupted foreign economic activities in Shanghai. On the other hand, Chinese citizens feverishly welcomed the presence of Chinese troops in the city. ……
In https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Shanghai , which shows that no regular troop existed in Shanghai until the battle.

 

[Dalwin]

The fact that some experienced player defeated Japan easily says nothing at all about game balance. It is simply another testament to the poor play of the AI.

You simply cannot effectively balance the game around single player because no matter what the balance between two nations, the one that gets the human player will have a huge advantage.

 

[Porkman]

In early versions of HOI3, regions around Beijing belongs to Shanxi.

He-Umezu agreement is a good idea. Hebei and surrounding area should be somehow demilitarized like Rheinland, allowing very limited troop to be involved in Beijing-Tianjin battle. Shanghai was also demilitarized then.

Also, plus for Hanyan typo problem and CPC control area problem mentioned in #2.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/He–Umezu_Agreement
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_28_Incident
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Beiping–Tianjin


According to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_battle_at_Beiping–Tianjin , only the 29th route army was is involved in the battle. Chiang's forces were not there.


……The major powers did not wish to see another January 28 Incident, which greatly disrupted foreign economic activities in Shanghai. On the other hand, Chinese citizens feverishly welcomed the presence of Chinese troops in the city. ……
In https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Shanghai , which shows that no regular troop existed in Shanghai until the battle.

Exactly, the 29th Route Army was an NRA force but it wasn't loyal to Chiang personally.

The Battle of Shanghai was different since, even though Shanghai proper didn't have Chinese troops, the most loyal and well trained divisions were all in the lowere Yangtze delta and could be moved in fairly quickly. Which they were... and they were almost successful.

Shanghai needs to be simulated but it's next to impossible to do. The initial phase of the battle was 1300 Japanese marines vs. 20,000 Chinese troops who couldn't crack the Japanese fortifications or their tanks. All of this happening in a space of about 29 square kilometers.

 

[Porkman]

The fact that some experienced player defeated Japan easily says nothing at all about game balance. It is simply another testament to the poor play of the AI.

You simply cannot effectively balance the game around single player because no matter what the balance between two nations, the one that gets the human player will have a huge advantage.

Well, what if you're playing Nationalist Spain and neither Japan nor China are under human control?

Human always has the advantage... but even a human should face the same strategic situation that Chiang did in 1937 of not being able to fight Japan in the North effectively and wanting the fighting to happen in the South where they are strong.

 

[Meglok]

In the ''Waking the Tiger'' strategic woes for the Japan AI" @BaronNoir mentioned how he defeated Japan fairly easily as China.



This is very, very wrong.

China could not fortify Beijing or its environs for two reasons.

1) Chiang Kai Shek did not have strong control over most of the generals in the area. For example, Song Zheyuan, who commanded the troops that first fought Japan in 1937, had arisen as part of the Zhili clique, the warlord grouping who Chiang Kai Shek defeated in 1926. Most of the military forces and generals in the North were of questionable loyalty. The game should require lots of command points to actually bring them into the fold. (It seems like that's going to be the case with the decision system.)

2) The He-Umezu agreement

This agreement, signed in 1935, is represented in game by the little strip of Japanese land on the border of Manchukuo and China. This is the East Hebei autonomous council.

It was a Japanese puppet state that rebelled and was effectively part of Japan as the game shows.

What isn't shown or represented is that the agreement forbade any KMT political activity... including the stationing of additional troops, in the entirety of the province of Hebei.

This means that a Chinese player should not be able to build fortifications or move additional troops into the HOI4 states of Beijing and Hebei (State id's 608 and 614) without triggering a war with Japan.

Without this agreement, China is too easy to fortify and Japan will get stopped to early.

It should be in there with a Chinese option to break it and gain more control over northern troops via decisions and focuses, but without it, Japan is at an ahistoric disadvantage. When the war started, Chiang Kai Shek had to move troops into the North China plain to fight Japan. Chinese divisions are not very mobile and they didn't have time to set up proper defenses before making contact with the Japanese so they generally got eviscerated by the more mobile and better equipped Japanese troops.

The biggest issue in China as noted previously and by the developers is that there is no mechanism in the game for stalemate or attritional combat. Combat continues by each ai side as long as they meet the criteria in str and org to attack. The developers have only been able to artificially buff China to simulate history, any attempt to have the ai "stall" adversely affects other areas of the game.

And needless to say, under the current mechanics if Japan is stuck in China (easy to manage with LL and vols) there is no Pacific war and the US is free to dogpile into Europe. This is the issue in MP and if PDS ever fixes Pacific war mechanics will be the issue in SP. It certainly was in HOI3.

 

[Shaka of Carthage]

This means that a Chinese player should not be able to build fortifications or move additional troops into the HOI4 states of Beijing and Hebei (State id's 608 and 614) without triggering a war with Japan.

This would appear to be a critical point that should be in the game.

 

[Porkman]

The biggest issue in China as noted previously and by the developers is that there is no mechanism in the game for stalemate or attritional combat. Combat continues by each ai side as long as they meet the criteria in str and org to attack. The developers have only been able to artificially buff China to simulate history, any attempt to have the ai "stall" adversely affects other areas of the game.

And needless to say, under the current mechanics if Japan is stuck in China (easy to manage with LL and vols) there is no Pacific war and the US is free to dogpile into Europe. This is the issue in MP and if PDS ever fixes Pacific war mechanics will be the issue in SP. It certainly was in HOI3.

I am personally very unmoved by arguments that boil down to "The historical Axis bit off way more than they could chew so MP is unbalanced" type arguments.

I would like the mechanics for attrition and for infra that's not at the state level. China and most of the places that aren't Europe are broken because of State level infra and a lack of separation between roads and rails.

 

[Secret Master]

While I don't disagree with the idea, I'd like to point out that against a human Japan, it's much harder to win as China. The Nationalist army, even with Communist help, has too few guns and too much coastline to defend. Even if you dig in up north, the coast is so vulnerable to Japanese attack that the Chinese can't put enough divisions in all places to defend everything now.

(I'd also like to note for the record that the balance in China heavily depends on who is sending Lend-Lease and how well Japan intercepts it. The Soviets can send plenty, but if the Japanese player/AI ignores the ocean, then the US can send tons of equipment, too.)

And needless to say, under the current mechanics if Japan is stuck in China (easy to manage with LL and vols)

Am I the only one who wants an end to volunteers in 99% of situations in HOI4? Hell, even if the Soviet divisions do nothing in China, she can generate 5% WT just sending volunteers to China to sit around and absorb the local culture.

We very early on banned volunteers from everything except the SCW in our MP game, and I know other groups do it as well.

 

[Shaka of Carthage]

Am I the only one who wants an end to volunteers in 99% of situations in HOI4? Hell, even if the Soviet divisions do nothing in China, she can generate 5% WT just sending volunteers to China to sit around and absorb the local culture.

I like the idea of sending volunteers, mainly because I want the XP gain. But I have come to appreciate the problem with it raising WT.

Maybe we should eliminate volunteers ability to raise WT?

 

[Secret Master]

I like the idea of sending volunteers, mainly because I want the XP gain.

I like the concept, but when the Soviets can send 10 entire freaking divisions to China, it's a bit ridiculous. It's even sillier when the US sends multiple divisions as volunteers.

The only reason I tolerate Japanese volunteers in the SCW is that Japan can't be in a war and send volunteers at the same time. She can either play SCW or invade China, but if SCW is still going on when she runs Macro Polo, the war takes precedence.

 

[Shaka of Carthage]

The only reason I tolerate Japanese volunteers in the SCW is that Japan can't be in a war and send volunteers at the same time. She can either play SCW or invade China, but if SCW is still going on when she runs Macro Polo, the war takes precedence.

Interesting. In another thread, someone was talking about how the US was initially boring. So based on above, maybe one of the answers should have been to send American volunteers to the SCW. Though maybe there are not enough US divisions in play for that to happen.

So how about reducing the number of volunteers that could be sent and reducing/eliminating the effect on WT?

 

[Secret Master]

So based on above, maybe one of the answers should have been to send American volunteers to the SCW.

I don't think the US can do that due to WT and other rules. The SCW usually happens before the US reaches the threshold for certain NFs and actions become available.

 

[Meglok]

I would like the mechanics for attrition and for infra that's not at the state level. China and most of the places that aren't Europe are broken because of State level infra and a lack of separation between roads and rails.

And I would like peace on earth and to win the Reader's Digest sweepstakes $5000/week payout but that ain't happening either. Revising all the mechanics you suggest would mean recreating an entirely new game, not going to happen in HOI4.

Am I the only one who wants an end to volunteers in 99% of situations in HOI4? Hell, even if the Soviet divisions do nothing in China, she can generate 5% WT just sending volunteers to China to sit around and absorb the local culture.

Nope, I am right there waving a banner on the ramparts with you. Volunteers should be strictly limited in numbers and situations, mainly the SCW and Finland, assuming you are playing anything remotely historical. The bonuses of sending volunteers are far too powerful.

I like the idea of sending volunteers, mainly because I want the XP gain. But I have come to appreciate the problem with it raising WT.

If you want xp send equipment. That was done by many actors on the stage, far more than sending actual combatants. Farming xp via volunteers is just so gamey from a historical aspect, not to mention the oh so many ways to to abuse the WT system and the ai volunteers allow.

 

[astec]

The fact that some experienced player defeated Japan easily says nothing at all about game balance. It is simply another testament to the poor play of the AI.

You simply cannot effectively balance the game around single player because no matter what the balance between two nations, the one that gets the human player will have a huge advantage.

And during MP when it is player vs player...?

This does not change the fact that China has gained a great buff against Japan which could derail the progression of more historical MP campaigns.

 

[Porkman]

And I would like peace on earth and to win the Reader's Digest sweepstakes $5000/week payout but that ain't happening either. Revising all the mechanics you suggest would mean recreating an entirely new game, not going to happen in HOI4.

There was a time when the game was in development (as in Hoi3 had just been released) where me and several others were pushing for all of this.

We were pushing for it because we knew that it was very important for the fighting in Asia and the SU.

 

[Dalwin]

And during MP when it is player vs player...?

This does not change the fact that China has gained a great buff against Japan which could derail the progression of more historical MP campaigns.

How can you even say they have gained a great buff? You have not played the new content and neither have I. The little bit that has been shown in the DD or in WWW is not enough to make that judgment.

I could just as easily and as validly claim that China is nerfed with the new content by being taken off of the OP generic tree.

So unless you are claiming to be a beta tester in the middle of violating your NDA, lets keep in mind that you are only hypothesizing and not assume a level of validity and finality that such hypothesis does not warrant.

 

[Adamgerd]

In early versions of HOI3, regions around Beijing belongs to Shanxi.

He-Umezu agreement is a good idea. Hebei and surrounding area should be somehow demilitarized like Rheinland, allowing very limited troop to be involved in Beijing-Tianjin battle. Shanghai was also demilitarized then.

Yeah. While we're at demilitarized zones, if they do a Turkish focus tree, they should have European turkey as demilitarized

 

[Uladh88]

In multiplayer with a good Japan v a good China the China player will most likely lose even with 50000/100000 lend leased guns from soviets and even using pfu mod that gives China a 60% defense buff to its troops so even with a Chinese focus tree I still expect china to !ose most games