China's stength compared to Japan in the new DLC

[Hjaldrgud]

Yes, Chiang Kai-shek in 1938.
I mean, heh, it's kinda adorable how different treads declaring China too strong and too weak in some time, and both sides declaring universal quantification. No offence.

None taken.

It is more of a complaint about the AI. The current balance is fine it seems. I just want mr Kai-Shek to tone down the fruitless full-scale counter-offences across the whole front that goes on 24/7/365. As soon as one of his divisions are exhausted he immediately throws them in again, making the sprite to do some hilarious "spasms" because of it constantly switches between firing at the Japanese, then chilling.

 

[aono]

first china emerged as a great power after that war and the civil war

China is most populous and third-size country in the world. It's kind of hard for them NOT to be a great power.

china was important for Japan (way more important than any particular area of south east asia)

No. China was important for some factions in Japanese army. Navy, for instance, counted China as a waste of resources, and prayed for Borneo and Indonesia. There was no anything that was important for every faction in Japanese leadership, maybe but Home Islands.
Just in case: every country had factionalism. But not every one built special carriers for army to support shore operations in hard deficit of steel and oil being in active ocean war.

 

[Luis Pocho]

No. China was important for some factions in Japanese army. Navy, for instance, counted China as a waste of resources, and prayed for Borneo and Indonesia. There was no anything that was important for every faction in Japanese leadership, maybe but Home Islands.
Just in case: every country had factionalism. But not every one built special carriers for army to support shore operations in hard deficit of steel and oil being in active ocean war.

yeah yeah the japanese "army factionalism made us lose" version of the war. This time that wont help us too much, maybe you are right or maybe "every country had factionalism. But not every one declared a war against China when the rest of the world told them not to"... we can argue wich faction had more power (i could say that pacific invasion were only to suply the invasion in china, so army was more important or you could say Japan first objective was USA so navy was more important) but thats not the point here...

the point is China was important for Japan, specially the first years. So a half victory was not enough, Japan (Japan in general, talking about factions in Japan will only end in a discussion about what a contry is) really did want that surrender, not only the coast, and to get it a total invasion was needed.

 

[aono]

(i could say that pacific invasion were only to suply the invasion in china, so army was more important or you could say Japan first objective was USA so navy was more important) but thats not the point here...

Not exactly. Japan navy major target was Indonesia and Borneo. US were a by-end - Japan naval leaders believed USA would defend Allies in Pacific, so preemptive strike was needed. And yes, Army declared that all that forces Navy would use in Pacific can be better used in China.
I mean, if China is really matter for you, you will fight China, not testing USSR, attacking Allies and USA at same time, don't you think?

Japan in general, talking about factions in Japan will only end in a discussion about what a contry is

I'm afraid it's inevitably with Imperial Japan. When Army and Navy sign agreement of cooperation for war, it's not something you see often. Usually it's a thing states do.

 

[Luis Pocho]

Not exactly. Japan navy major target was Indonesia and Borneo. US were a by-end - Japan naval leaders believed USA would defend Allies in Pacific, so preemptive strike was needed. And yes, Army declared that all that forces Navy would use in Pacific can be better used in China.
I mean, if China is really matter for you, you will fight China, not testing USSR, attacking Allies and USA at same time, don't you think?


I'm afraid it's inevitably with Imperial Japan. When Army and Navy sign agreement of cooperation for war, it's not something you see often. Usually it's a thing states do.

It doesnt matter which one was the main objective, the important point is that a half invaded china was not enough for Japan and a "political victory" was not posible. So Japan total occupation the china was a real objective but they couldnt archieve it in 8 years. After all they only attacked the isles AFTER the stalemate in China, wich doesnt demostrate that china was more important for japan than the whole pacific, but it does demostrate that the japanese army did serious attempts to take the rest of China but failed, the chinese coast wasnt the objective, whole china was.


The traditional version of Japan invading the pacific mainly to suply its stagnant armies in the continent after being punished with embargoes makes enough sense. Its not necesary to talk about factionalism (tho I admit its very interesting), its not like they were warlords or parties with their own army or that they were fighting separate wars.

 

[aono]

It doesnt matter which one was the main objective, the important point is that a half invaded china was not enough for Japan and a "political victory" was not posible. So Japan total occupation the china was a real objective but they couldnt archieve it in 8 years.

Why 8? Japan started conquering China in 1931, from Manchuria. That's because it wasn't actually "main goal of Japan", it was "it would be nice to have all China, but...". Then different factions add different "but".
And there was a party that believed "what but? nothing but here".

After all they only attacked the isles AFTER the stalemate in China, wich doesnt demostrate that china was more important for japan than the whole pacific,

Do you remember that in 1931-1940 conquering of European colonies in Pacific was unscientific fiction? Yes, Japan had two lines of expansion then - China or Soviet Union. They tried China and succeded. They tried Soviets (from 1935, by the way) and failed, so they don't push that line. Remember Battle of Lake Khasan - it's 1938; do you think Japanese did it to improve their position in China? Or Khalkhyn Gol?
After continental Europe fall and colonies became very vulnerable - then Japan attacked, not opposite way.

the chinese coast wasnt the objective, whole china was.

Chinese wasn't fans of giving all the coast to Japan. They just don't surrender.
Actually that's why Navy doesn't want to be involved (check their directive in 1937) - they understood that would mean fighting in the middle of China, and "why would we?".

Its not necesary to talk about factionalism (tho I admit its very interesting), its not like they were warlords or parties with their own army or that they were fighting separate wars.

But they were. They were exactly that. That's why IJN had it's own tanks (embargo, remember?), and IJA had it's own carriers (embargo, remember?). They were formally allied parties (it was written documents where Navy promise to help Army or vise versa, and they needed Emperor's sanction to achieve it, but they existed), but they were different parties who were fighting separate wars.

 

[Luis Pocho]

But they were. They were exactly that. That's why IJN had it's own tanks (embargo, remember?), and IJA had it's own carriers (embargo, remember?). They were formally allied parties (it was written documents where Navy promise to help Army or vise versa, and they needed Emperor's sanction to achieve it, but they existed), but they were different parties who were fighting separate wars.

did they ever fight each other? no; did they ever declared a war on their own? no; they even firmed to cooperate each other, so as much as we care in this discussion they had the same objectives, so it makes little sense to waste time talking about factionalism in japan. If you ask me the game shouldnt be about countries, it should be about parties, and the player should control a party and fight against both the internal enemies and the external ones, but talking about that doesnt help too much here.

Focus, FOCUS. I wasnt talking about factionalism, forget about it. I said, a political victory with only the ocupation of the coast makes no sense. Chinese were not happy with half his territory taken, and japanese were not happy with only the coast, so what political victory or semi truce are we talking about? you only need a japanese ai that can understand that at certain point not pushing the chinese front anymore and attacking other points is a good option

 

[istariwhite]

Well it seems very clear that japanese were trying to get political victory with coast occupied. Of course that didn't succeed as we all know, but that they definitely tried is the fact. Also, southern expansion is not because navy wanted to create supply route for kwantung - why would they? it was because japan(mainly navy) was starving for resources to keep its ships running after US embargoed them. of course US terms for lifting the embargo was that japan give up its continental holding, which nobody, not even navy wanted, so i guess china gets involved in that regard. But had that embargo not happened, japan would have still tried to win that political victory which was their strategy all along.

 

[istariwhite]

did they ever fight each other? no; did they ever declared a war on their own? no; they even firmed to cooperate each other, so as much as we care in this discussion they had the same objectives, so it makes little sense to waste time talking about factionalism in japan. If you ask me the game shouldnt be about countries, it should be about parties, and the player should control a party and fight against both the internal enemies and the external ones, but talking about that doesnt help too much here.

Focus, FOCUS. I wasnt talking about factionalism, forget about it. I said, a political victory with only the ocupation of the coast makes no sense. Chinese were not happy with half his territory taken, and japanese were not happy with only the coast, so what political victory or semi truce are we talking about? you only need a japanese ai that can understand that at certain point not pushing the chinese front anymore and attacking other points is a good option

Read through what you wrote, and it seems you sre confusing between what happened and what they thought back then. Now we all know that chiang and chinese populace would not surrender without inland occupied. But japanese military leaders clearly thought otherwise, which is shown from the fact that there has not been big scale invasion to inland china. What we know now is completely irrelevant when we are trying to understand certain japanese military decisions.

 

[aono]

Focus, FOCUS. I wasnt talking about factionalism, forget about it.

Please, I do understand you don't want to speak about factionalism, because it's not fit to your theory. But it's not mean it's not relevant.
That's exactly the problem - you're not talking about factionalism, and I'm trying to explain that it's not possible to talk about Japanese politics without functionalism. It's the same thing then speaking about European theatre without understanding that USSR and Great Britain is different countries, and things that would appearing for USSR can be not nice for GB.

I said, a political victory with only the ocupation of the coast makes no sense.

To whom? To the Emperor? To the Navy? To the diplomatic corps? To the army command? To the mystical defenders of Yamato? To Chinese? To the god of history?

But japanese military leaders clearly thought otherwise, which is shown from the fact that there has not been big scale invasion to inland china.

Don't forget that actually invasion that started in 1937 wasn't exactly planned and ordered by central command. It was kind of "accident", maybe planned by local army command, but AFAIK nobody really declare it was Tokyo plan. With Japan actually grabbed big parts of China this exact way, it's very convincing for me.
And actually Tokyo was ready to accept some concessions and leave it (until next accident), but Chiang decided that's enough.

 

[Luis Pocho]

That's exactly the problem - you're not talking about factionalism, and I'm trying to explain that it's not possible to talk about Japanese politics without functionalism. It's the same thing then speaking about European theatre without understanding that USSR and Great Britain is different countries, and things that would appearing for USSR can be not nice for GB.

now you are saying that army vs navy friction in japan was equal to USSR and Great Britain weird alliance? sory man, but its not the same, japanese army and IJN cant be though-out as independent countries

Japanese army prefering China is not the same as Italy attacking Greece on their own. IJN insistense in attacking borneo and indonesia was not equal to USSR asking for an invasion in France. They were not warlords, they were not separate puppets, they were not their own country, japan factionalism was just slightly more severe than other factionalisms. With so many shared objectives and that much cooperation (okey not full cooperation but its not like they just abandoned each other all the time) we dont really need to talk about factionalism in japan to understand why japan couldnt penetrate the chinese inland. we should better talk about lack of recourses, amy strength, change of objetives, external support, potential enemyes, japanese speculation about an inminent surrender (i dont like this one) are better topics for this. China was too much for Japan or Japan just didnt want to use more recourses in that front? the game should simulate an all-in Japan that can be stopped by chinese forces with bad equipment but high morale or a spreaded japanese army with too many fronts to be able to fully push weaker China?

Thats why I beg you, focus on the chinese front, the one that both japanese army and japanese navy wanted to win but failed.

 

[Sir Garnet]

Don't forget that actually invasion that started in 1937 wasn't exactly planned and ordered by central command. It was kind of "accident", maybe planned by local army command, but AFAIK nobody really declare it was Tokyo plan.

Yes, the China incident was a series of unfortunate accidents "Chicago-style."