Yes, send troops to the northern front, where supply is so low he had to lower the divisions in the first place, and dont open new fronts to increase available supplies and distract china from the noterhn front
The game analysis of the World War Wednesday
- Thread starter Jeremy971
- 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.
When Daniel said "we're missing quite a lot," he then showed the logistics screen, which showed taht he still had an extra 3k infantry equipment, but then he deployed 3 divisions which had been in training and had full equipment. This caused 3 new divisions to start training and draining the equipment. So while he did have a small stockpile, as soon as he deployed his divisions and started training new divsions his stockpile would have been used up on those 3 new divisions in training.
But he thought China didn't have enough divisions in South and it's why he started his naval invasions.
A naval invasion next to Nanjing would have been more efficient. There are a lot of ports there and he needs city to solve his supplies issues.
A naval invasion next to Nanjing would have been more efficient. There are a lot of ports there and he needs city to solve his supplies issues.
(1) It is an interesting parallel that historically the Japanese formed a lot of independent brigades for both garrison and operational purposes. This was largely in order to stretch their manpower (they were averse to increasing manpower draw from the available classes and slow to do so until '43).
(2) Does anyone know if having "unarmed" (or underarmed) troops increases losses relatively, reduces morale, or just reduces damage output?
(3) Has anyone seen the strength or composition of the Chinese divisions? As discussed in detail in the thread linked below, the organizational counterpart to the Japanese division was the Chinese corps of 3 small divisions that doctrinally operated together, essentially like regiments in game terms. Accordingly, It seems logical to build a Chinese corps in the division template rather than have three times that number of small independently operating Chinese divisions each with its own template (which does give a lot more operational articulation than I understand most KMT units could manage). If the template is for the small Chinese divisions, then smaller Japanese divisions make even more sense so they can be more nimble (though multiplying the number of units on the map is a player burden.
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...al-organization-of-the-chinese-troops.907568/
(2) Does anyone know if having "unarmed" (or underarmed) troops increases losses relatively, reduces morale, or just reduces damage output?
(3) Has anyone seen the strength or composition of the Chinese divisions? As discussed in detail in the thread linked below, the organizational counterpart to the Japanese division was the Chinese corps of 3 small divisions that doctrinally operated together, essentially like regiments in game terms. Accordingly, It seems logical to build a Chinese corps in the division template rather than have three times that number of small independently operating Chinese divisions each with its own template (which does give a lot more operational articulation than I understand most KMT units could manage). If the template is for the small Chinese divisions, then smaller Japanese divisions make even more sense so they can be more nimble (though multiplying the number of units on the map is a player burden.
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...al-organization-of-the-chinese-troops.907568/