Hello.
I am of the opinion that much of the research teams, lack of events and commanders of the two Chinese countries builds upon little more than feelings in terms of "heh, I think this will fit" and little thought has been put into it. Or simply; it wasn't an are of main focus.
The chinese and especially cpc doctrine commanders are horribly bad. They are worse than those of say Bulgaria and Brazil for no reason at all.
The chinese may have lacked the large industries and research institutes of Japan but they did not beat Japan using 18th century tactics. On the contrary, the war against Japan and later the civil war layed the ground work for future guerilla warfare and was studied by many revolutionaries and military universities around the world and later helped the Chinese in regular combat in Korea.
The best Chinese general research team is of Wu (6). A person I know very little off. While the likes of Chaing, Mao and their main marshals lay in the area of 2-3 skill. Further more Deng Xiaoping is for some reason the best China has on industrial/agricultural development, something that seems to suggest a bias towards his economic policies of the 70's with very little knowledge of him in general. Chiang and his government were the first to truly begin some form of industrilization of China and helped free the peasants from serfdom which lead to an increase in production but they lack any good teams in this regard. Deng on the other hand had very little to do with developing industry, even in the 70's and especially not in the 30's and 40's.
In general there is a lack of events or new, better research teams for China.
A complete lack of events for CPC and an even worse outlook than in DD-A for its eventual seizure of land and victory due to the way the political map has been recolored and even the 1942 scenario disregards its military acquisitions which at least by now could have been artificially suggested and lets its most modern division be 3 1931 Mountain Divisions.
The commanders in the army are also of very low skill, even the majors.
Mao as a political leader is also deeply negatively biased towards some sort of corrupt kleptocrat instead of adding at least a few positive aspects like added militia/infantry production or something at all.
That he had any luck with attracting alliances of "dictatorial" nature is untrue. If dictatorial is supposed to suggest the USSR or even Nat-China then that is obviously wrong as he didn't manage to or want to keep either of them allied for long. In fact, he ended up coming closer to America than the USSR.
I am of the opinion that much of the research teams, lack of events and commanders of the two Chinese countries builds upon little more than feelings in terms of "heh, I think this will fit" and little thought has been put into it. Or simply; it wasn't an are of main focus.
The chinese and especially cpc doctrine commanders are horribly bad. They are worse than those of say Bulgaria and Brazil for no reason at all.
The chinese may have lacked the large industries and research institutes of Japan but they did not beat Japan using 18th century tactics. On the contrary, the war against Japan and later the civil war layed the ground work for future guerilla warfare and was studied by many revolutionaries and military universities around the world and later helped the Chinese in regular combat in Korea.
The best Chinese general research team is of Wu (6). A person I know very little off. While the likes of Chaing, Mao and their main marshals lay in the area of 2-3 skill. Further more Deng Xiaoping is for some reason the best China has on industrial/agricultural development, something that seems to suggest a bias towards his economic policies of the 70's with very little knowledge of him in general. Chiang and his government were the first to truly begin some form of industrilization of China and helped free the peasants from serfdom which lead to an increase in production but they lack any good teams in this regard. Deng on the other hand had very little to do with developing industry, even in the 70's and especially not in the 30's and 40's.
In general there is a lack of events or new, better research teams for China.
A complete lack of events for CPC and an even worse outlook than in DD-A for its eventual seizure of land and victory due to the way the political map has been recolored and even the 1942 scenario disregards its military acquisitions which at least by now could have been artificially suggested and lets its most modern division be 3 1931 Mountain Divisions.
The commanders in the army are also of very low skill, even the majors.
Mao as a political leader is also deeply negatively biased towards some sort of corrupt kleptocrat instead of adding at least a few positive aspects like added militia/infantry production or something at all.
That he had any luck with attracting alliances of "dictatorial" nature is untrue. If dictatorial is supposed to suggest the USSR or even Nat-China then that is obviously wrong as he didn't manage to or want to keep either of them allied for long. In fact, he ended up coming closer to America than the USSR.