China's stength compared to Japan in the new DLC

[Abadon777]

I think the problem is how supply system works in the game. Supply is by the state so it doesn't matter if you are in the coast or 300km inland as long as you are in the same state. It is actually beneficial to expand inland to other states as fast as you can to even the supply load to multiple states.

It's only one part of the problem that also ties in with no need for convoys to supply armies abroad. The fact that navies and air forces need no supplies makes it easier to keep an army on the move attacking without ever having to stop to regain supplies. Most armies or division in peace live off the land in HOI4, they rarely need supplies or replacements since they can live off the state they are in. When China goes to war with Japan very few convoys are used sometimes only one ship to supply a entire army fighting.

 

[Moishe Greenblatt]

To anyone worried about China being too weak just remember that Japan has the same negative modifiers against China that China has against Japan but, China can get rid of all those modifiers with just two focuses which you can rush at the start of the game where Japan has to do many focuses AND raise world tension by 15% AND be at war with the USA which the Axis-friendly countries never ever want to do until they are ready to start WW2. So if anything, China got a massive buff in the war against Japan. Yeah now we will see people playing the Chinese warlord countries. In order for those countries to be playable for humans, China can't just annex them automatically so if the Chinese warlords want to defeat the Japanese then they will have to work together and coordinate with each other. Also in the stream the PRC actually fought against China. Also, none of the AI Chinese countries got any lend lease nor did they get Soviet tank volunteers.

This is more of a general problem that the AI is just really weak rather than China's relative power being weaker to Japan's relative power compared to the current version of HoI. I think that in multiplayer if every warlord or most of the warlords are human players, and they all decide to join the Chinese United Front, then their relative power against Japan will be far greater in the new DLC than it currently is.

China is not getting weaker against Japan. China is getting stronger against Japan.

 

[Sighfer]

none of the AI Chinese countries got any lend lease nor did they get Soviet tank volunteers.

Rest in pepperonis, China, because they aren't getting any, unless the devs figured out a way to combine Barbarossa and the Great Purge to simulate how disorganized the Red Army was to lose all that equipment, instead of just starting the game with all that equipment already lost, and research available being nerfed. I want my 5.7 million Army personnel by 1941. Gib 20 thousand tanks, 7 thousand aircraft, and loadsa rifles.

 

[Ironside121]

Many China mods have more brutal penalties to the Chinese industry and army. I wouldn't worry too much about it. It's something that will probably disappear later on- to represent the Chinese losing ground early in the war, but then holding out for the rest.

 

[Robosoldier1]

Relative to Vanilla both seem....adequate. Japan defiantly comes off as stronger but remains railroaded in the decisions it can make with the focus tree available. Considering much of the initial early choices deal with addressing the negative traits the national spirit invokes in its industrial capability as well as the requirement to go down the event chain of the tree in order to initiate the China war. Although the new political event choice system seems to alleviate the perception of streamlined choice within the focus tree. I do feel that developing the Manchurians will be a prominent strategy within multiplayer. Developing them early in order to make them take the initial brunt of the china war while the Japanese focus on quick strategic tactics that include motorized, tanks, planes and marines. I do find china on the weaker side since you are required to form the united front through a focus instead of an event. But I suppose we will see. I do think the whole being able to go on total mobilization through a focus for Japan seems a bit too much, unless they tweaked total mobilization in some way that big of a benefit seems a bit too good.

 

[FOARP]

Agree. What are the conditions that force the Soviets into a "white peace" with Finland? Can something like that be employed by Japan against China?

HOI3 TFH had an event that would fire like this for China called “Seize the coast”. Once Japan took enough ground a peace could be concluded whereby they’d annex the coastal provinces and some of the more valuable ones in the interior.

A lot of people didn’t like this since it resulted in full peace between China and Japan and I agree that isn’t great. I still think it’s better than Japan annexing China outright after 2 years of fighting though.

 

[grandad1982]

HOI3 TFH had an event that would fire like this for China called “Seize the coast”. Once Japan took enough ground a peace could be concluded whereby they’d annex the coastal provinces and some of the more valuable ones in the interior.

A lot of people didn’t like this since it resulted in full peace between China and Japan and I agree that isn’t great. I still think it’s better than Japan annexing China outright after 2 years of fighting though.

You could have it so that instead of full peace it goes to a border war situation.

 

[Shaka of Carthage]

You could have it so that instead of full peace it goes to a border war situation.

Yes, that is what I was thinking.

 

[Synicus]

The USA oil embargo was in response to 'Demand French Indochina' and could have been 'ignored' similar to sanctions, it was the seizing of oil trade assets that lead Japan to spend late 1941 in war planning and prep. Conquering the Dutch East Indies, Philippines, British Malaya and numerous islands does not sound like Japan was unable too continue the war against China due to lack of resources.
Several other factors at play; A need for new resources, war priority, tactical priority, difficult terrain vs. spoils of war, Army/Navy feud, Tojo, the treaty of Portsmouth, under estimating China resistance, racism, and so on...
Operation Ichigo staged in 1941 or earlier would of been the beginning of the end for China.

 

[Limith]

I totally agree with your suggestions. It would be nice if we actually got a rework on the war system altogether , as wars are too binary . All of them are either you lost everything or you won everything.There should be a reason for the player not to conquer the whole China as well, just as there was in the reality. In-game, you just put all your troops on the border and charge the enemy with everything you got -- something that in real life wouldn't be practical, as there were also troops on the border to demoralize bordering countries of thinking of a surprise attack.
Many things have and hopefully will be changed, but now,as a compromise, I'd suggest not making the war we're speaking about this one-sided.

The reason historically was Japan was already hard pressed logistics wise occupying the territories they controlled in China. Japan never deployed more men to China due to logistics and economics. The IJA had to blackmail the banks in Japan to fund the war in the first place. There was no benefit to occupying the countryside at all, especially when by war end 500,000 communist militia were in the countryside of territory they already controlled (which formed the backbone of the Communist CRA in the civil war). Another reason for the early war blitz by Japan was due to Chinese surprise at Japanese weaponry (eg light tanks which weren't seen before). Front line troops were literally run over by Japanese tanks with no counter. Once allied lend-lease weapons arrived and the Chinese side got used to fighting tanks things weren't so lopsided.

 

[stl3l9n]

Now we saw them playing China, and they also did terribly in that - they really need to balance this.

 

[123e55]

I have to say I cringed so bad at this new stream. I have no words.

 

[KalypsoKirin]

I think it's pretty obvious that you're not supposed to win at first, you need to push through army reforms before you can do anything other than hold the line.
Not to mention, they attacked Sinkiang right before the war, like idiots, and wound up fighting on two fronts instead of holding off on that for later.

 

[stl3l9n]

I know but it's the ai, and the fact that Japan gets flat debuffs at the start and then you can reduce them makes no sense at all - it should be the other way around (if they want to keep the stupid flat debuff). I can see this really screwing up multiplayer games cause if Japan conquers China, they become insanly powerfull.

 

[KalypsoKirin]

I know but it's the ai, and the fact that Japan gets flat debuffs at the start and then you can reduce them makes no sense at all - it should be the other way around (if they want to keep the stupid flat debuff). I can see this really screwing up multiplayer games cause if Japan conquers China, they become insanly powerfull.

Reducing them lets the USA get into the war a little earlier, and China can reduce theirs by more, at the cost of army EXP
And no numbers, at all, are final.

 

[stl3l9n]

Yeah, but it still makes no sense at all - China should only go up while Japan should slowely go down (in army capability) except when they go to war with the US, at which point they should be able to take out China (but the new Chinese governement gets no manpower and random infastructure damage). It wouldn't be too hard to do any of that, and Paradox has a month to get this right.

 

[KalypsoKirin]

Yeah, but it still makes no sense at all - China should only go up while Japan should slowely go down (in army capability) except when they go to war with the US, at which point they should be able to take out China (but the new Chinese governement gets no manpower and random infastructure damage). It wouldn't be too hard to do any of that, and Paradox has a month to get this right.

Something tells me that since they were confident enough to announce a date, they're on to the final phases of QA testing. Pure bugfixes and balances.
Not to mention, no release will be final, you can expect tweaks once this stuff has a million [STRIKE]testers[/STRIKE] players.

 

[123e55]

If this is what an AI japan does against a PLAYER with non historical focus ( so they dont take the optimal focuses) , imagine what a mediocre japanese vs china multiplayer would look like. Certain defeat for China , for sure.
+marines

 

[Thrac]

I suppose in future MP ther will be Japan& Manchukuo vs Nat. China , Com. China & Clique. And to be honest from what i v seen in the streems i think it will balance, with the condition that the 3 Chinese Countrys work together, if they don’t they die.

Keep in mind that in the last stream Daniel should’ve picked the 3d Research Slot( you can get it in 2 focuses now) and he should’ve picked the United Front not the Subdued the Warlords. Plus don’t forget that in a MP you can get LL from Soviet/ Allys and Air volunteers ( new feature), and now all the Chinese Warlords can switch instantly to Partially Mobilization.(25% War Support needed)

I believe things will be balanced, if not from the start, it will be in a future pach.

 

[Abadon777]

I think it's pretty obvious that you're not supposed to win at first, you need to push through army reforms before you can do anything other than hold the line.
Not to mention, they attacked Sinkiang right before the war, like idiots, and wound up fighting on two fronts instead of holding off on that for later.

As Daniel admitted it was a mistake that cost him help from the Soviets and don't forget he is one of the best players but the A.I should also get some credit for not screwing up when it has all the advantages. In a single player game its good to know that the game can give you a challenge and in a multiplayers game don't make the same mistakes Daniel did!!!