WWII Pacific side -- What happened to history?

its no doubt that Chiang represents China in that period.But without the temporary unit of Comunist and KMT,japan will achieve more success in China easily.KMT has the most advanced weapon and productivity(still poor compared with japan)in china.Comunist was spreaded in villages(including those occupied by japan)and do everything to damage the supply of japan and sometimes annihilate small squads.its wrong to ignore either but due to the limit of the game engine,the true history cant be performed prescisely,thats understandable
 
People this is civ not replay history:everything you knew and nothing you didn't Jeez I mean the fact that America can fight Rome and the celts with the carthiginians at their side and founding Islam in London is no problem but a leader a name and plane models ruin the historical accuracy for you expect the game to be loosely based in history but not be a perfect record with every detail down to the color of Hirihito's shirt being perfect play it enjoy it or leave it.
 
As someone who studied Chinese history 1911 to 1976, from a variety of sources (if you think Wikipedia is a source for serious academic study then you're not serious about studying - it's informative, but Wiki is useful only if you know it's limits), I'm actually very happy with Dale's decision-making. I think within the scope of what he had to work with, he's made sound choices, representative of the "best fit". More importantly I think he's done a good job balancing between historical purism and gameplay.

For the record, I'd like to see any evidence that Jiang Jieshi (Let's not mix Wade-Giles and Pinyin up, people) did anything in the war period other than put up a token resistance. Almost all credible evidence points to Jiang sitting on an ever growing stockpile of US supplies during the war and doing comparatively nothing with them - something that played against him when CCP Cadres were able to exert considerable influence over regional leaders after Japan's defeat.

Those who would imply that Jiang was *the* leader of China and exercised some semblance of control over regional leaders and warlords during the war would need to explain how the CCP managed to subvert that supposed powerbase in under 12 months after the Japanese surrender, and would also need to explain how someone can be said to exercise effective Command and Control in an immense Area of Operations when he can't even speak the same language as the warlords who are apparently flying his colours. Jiang Jieshi was not the leader of China. He was the leader of the Guomindang. BIG Difference there kiddies.

Again, Dale, top effort. Have only been able to take a cursory look to this point, but mate, splendid job as always....

...Well done, that man. :goodjob:
 
As someone who studied Chinese history 1911 to 1976, from a variety of sources (if you think Wikipedia is a source for serious academic study then you're not serious about studying - it's informative, but Wiki is useful only if you know it's limits), I'm actually very happy with Dale's decision-making. I think within the scope of what he had to work with, he's made sound choices, representative of the "best fit". More importantly I think he's done a good job balancing between historical purism and gameplay.

For the record, I'd like to see any evidence that Jiang Jieshi (Let's not mix Wade-Giles and Pinyin up, people) did anything in the war period other than put up a token resistance. Almost all credible evidence points to Jiang sitting on an ever growing stockpile of US supplies during the war and doing comparatively nothing with them - something that played against him when CCP Cadres were able to exert considerable influence over regional leaders after Japan's defeat.

Those who would imply that Jiang was *the* leader of China and exercised some semblance of control over regional leaders and warlords during the war would need to explain how the CCP managed to subvert that supposed powerbase in under 12 months after the Japanese surrender, and would also need to explain how someone can be said to exercise effective Command and Control in an immense Area of Operations when he can't even speak the same language as the warlords who are apparently flying his colours. Jiang Jieshi was not the leader of China. He was the leader of the Guomindang. BIG Difference there kiddies.

Again, Dale, top effort. Have only been able to take a cursory look to this point, but mate, splendid job as always....

...Well done, that man. :goodjob:

lets go back to the game,if the leader is Mao.wont you feel ridiculous when you see he controled so many cities including Nanjing?Also Mao didnt have much time and chance to negotiate with those world leaders except Stalin.All the people who have learnt something about this war will quikly point out that the game want to show KMT's fight against Japan.I certainly know Jiang made many unforgivable silly decisions,but most respectful genenrals and soildiers of KMT is unbending and brave.
 
Don't you think this arguement is now pointless? :lol:

KMT has been in for weeks now.
 
Top Bottom