RE: Modifications to MWiF China Map portion

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Modifications to MWiF China Map portion

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> RE: Modifications to MWiF China Map portion

Page: << < prev 7 8 [9] 10 11 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Modifications to MWiF China Map portion - 6/3/2006 6:43:15 PM

lomyrin

Posts: 3741
Joined: 12/21/2005
From: San Diego
Status: offline

Regarding flanking Chinese units reaching cities in the rear of the Japanese lines and geting into supply there the following turn, the Japanese will need additional HQ's in the rear in order to outrun these flanking Chinese units since Japan does not get supply from the rear cities they control. Japan does not have enough HQ's to cover both the rear and the front.

The placement of Nanning and another city in mountains with a resource between them will make it very hard for Japan to control and use that resource.

I like the looks of the new China map but I do believe it will change the game play for both China and Japan quite a lot. Whether that is historical or not is another question altogether.

I would not support rules changes from WiFFE as a further means of tweaking the China war play.

Lars

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 241

RE: Modifications to MWiF China Map portion - 6/3/2006 9:06:06 PM

Shannon V. OKeets

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

I have no problem with modifying the Chinese activity limits, with the following caveats:

1 - the change has to be proven to be necessary through play test

2 - all I have ever done when playing the Chinese is to either take a land action or pass. If we restrict the land action activity limits for the Chinese, that might be enough, without trying to come up with more elaborate solutions.

I think in terms of whether the front is Active or Quiet. This should be based on what has happened over at least the last 2 turns, perhaps more. For conditional checkpoints it could use whether Japan has: (a) attacked, (b) occupied a hex that previously was controlled by China, (c) increased the number of units in China, (d) other possibilities?.

There are some serious limitations that I will impose on these conditional statements. They need to be simple to calculate for both the players and the computer - nothing elaborate. They have a very real danger of becoming 'gamed' by the players. That is where the players adher to the technical requirements of the rule, but not the spirit. I see that most likely to happen when playing against the computer - both ways. The human will try to maximize within the restrictions and consider himself clever if he can "get away with something". On the other hand he will be extremely annoyed if the AIO does the same to him.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 242

RE: Modifications to MWiF China Map portion - 6/4/2006 12:33:49 PM

wosung

Posts: 692
Joined: 7/18/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

I have no problem with modifying the Chinese activity limits, with the following caveats:

1 - the change has to be proven to be necessary through play test

2 - all I have ever done when playing the Chinese is to either take a land action or pass. If we restrict the land action activity limits for the Chinese, that might be enough, without trying to come up with more elaborate solutions.

I think in terms of whether the front is Active or Quiet. This should be based on what has happened over at least the last 2 turns, perhaps more. For conditional checkpoints it could use whether Japan has: (a) attacked, (b) occupied a hex that previously was controlled by China, (c) increased the number of units in China, (d) other possibilities?.

whether Japan or Japanese controlled Warlords... (which in the end is the same).

And what about the impact of Japanese-Russian (Wallies) conflict? But in the end, as far I know Chinese stayed non-attacking even during Nomohan crisis and during Pacific war. Both were no reasons for unreasonable hasty activity.

There are some serious limitations that I will impose on these conditional statements. They need to be simple to calculate for both the players and the computer - nothing elaborate. They have a very real danger of becoming 'gamed' by the players. That is where the players adher to the technical requirements of the rule, but not the spirit. I see that most likely to happen when playing against the computer - both ways. The human will try to maximize within the restrictions and consider himself clever if he can "get away with something". On the other hand he will be extremely annoyed if the AIO does the same to him.

Dreaming about China rules... Maybe they will be considered for MWIF III

, so I really don't expect an an answer on this right here:

There could be a China exit pool (for scaring the Wallies and for make them provide Lend-lease) to simulate Chinese unreliability and Chinese-Japanese peace talks behind the curtain.

Intact Chinese military units should count for Chinese Victory points. (WW2 was to preserve units for Civil war).

For every Japanese counter, destroyed by the Communists, Comunist should get the eqivalent counter on production spiral. (using captured weapons).

The fine idea somebody posted here before: For every turn without Japanese offensive, the tension between Nationalist and Communist Chinese should rise. Clashes between them should be (are?!) possible.

Regards

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 243

RE: Modifications to MWiF China Map portion - 6/4/2006 2:07:58 PM

fuzzy_bunnyy

Posts: 27
Joined: 8/26/2005
Status: offline

What we need is DOD incorporated into MWIF, but thats a whole nother bag of problems and I for one will be perfectly satisfied with WIF on its own.

_____________________________

Member #3 of the EBEA
Comrade #4 of the e-Socialist Liberation Army

(in reply to wosung)

Post #: 244

RE: Modifications to MWiF China Map portion - 6/4/2006 4:41:36 PM

c92nichj

Posts: 440
Joined: 1/14/2005
Status: offline

quote:

The Japanese, one way or the other must have rear guard units, at least for anti partisan duties. If they don't, they will be doomed anyway because of Partisans. This is not new, WiF FE has this too. So I believe that a Japanese player guarding its rear areas has the ability to guard cities that are threatened to be reached by outflanking Chinese units. Moreover, the Japanese units are more mobile than the Chinese, and they would have no problem catching it up. Being out of supply, the raider has all chances of getting crushed rapidly.

In WIFFE a rearguard of two militia with their ZOC's can cover the whole northern plain from partisan activities. The south is allready covered because the front is so close to the rear.
How can this be achieved with the new map?

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 245

RE: Modifications to MWiF China Map portion - 6/5/2006 12:44:14 AM

YohanTM2

Posts: 1143
Joined: 10/7/2002
From: Toronto
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp
I'm not saying that this "outflanking problem" will not arise, I'm just trying to make the point that the Japanese has the power to defend against this, and that he will not necessarily needs more units to do that compared to a WiF FE game. Anti Partisan units should be many, and some of them sufficiently quick to run on any new partisan activity. So they will be able to run after any menacing raider.

How can you possibly say that? Just look at the number of hexes that have been added, to cover them with ZOCs would take a bunch of extra units. Add to that that the cities don't supply the Japanese and your ability to "run after" raiders without keeping extra HQs in the rear area won't work. Lots of extra costs for Japan to just maintain the status quo which will impact its ability to fight the USA and GB.

Also, I don't agree with comments by a couple of others on special rules/action limits that will turn this portion of WiF into a phoney war. WiF is the standard for WWII strategy games because of the what if's...I really hope this will be playtested very heavily as I am growing quite concerned that the excellent efforts to make the map realistic are overwhelming the need for strong playability with lots of strategic options.

I'm starting to think the game should have been ported without the changes to the Asian map.

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 246

RE: Modifications to MWiF China Map portion - 6/5/2006 1:49:47 AM

Shannon V. OKeets

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yohan

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp
I'm not saying that this "outflanking problem" will not arise, I'm just trying to make the point that the Japanese has the power to defend against this, and that he will not necessarily needs more units to do that compared to a WiF FE game. Anti Partisan units should be many, and some of them sufficiently quick to run on any new partisan activity. So they will be able to run after any menacing raider.

How can you possibly say that? Just look at the number of hexes that have been added, to cover them with ZOCs would take a bunch of extra units. Add to that that the cities don't supply the Japanese and your ability to "run after" raiders without keeping extra HQs in the rear area won't work. Lots of extra costs for Japan to just maintain the status quo which will impact its ability to fight the USA and GB.

Also, I don't agree with comments by a couple of others on special rules/action limits that will turn this portion of WiF into a phoney war. WiF is the standard for WWII strategy games because of the what if's...I really hope this will be playtested very heavily as I am growing quite concerned that the excellent efforts to make the map realistic are overwhelming the need for strong playability with lots of strategic options.

I'm starting to think the game should have been ported without the changes to the Asian map.

That decision was made a long time ago and will not be undone.

Nothing is ever easy and problems need to be identified and addressed one at a time. If you start counting all the details that have to done to finish this product, you'll only become depressed at the sheer quantity.

I make sure to complete at least 2 or 3 things every day, keep focused on what is on the critical path, involve as many other people as possible to help out, and try to plan ahead so things are in place when something big shows up as the next item on the critical path. My defense against chaos is planning, systems, and organization. Not perfect, but it mitigates the confusion when tornadoes pass through.

As for play balance in China, it was the number one concern with going to the unified map. We kicked around a bunch of ideas back in August and are revisiting most of them again in the past couple of weeks. Nothing has been decided for certain yet. Let's get the next version of the map finished first. Then we'll play test it to see what happens, and go from there.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to YohanTM2)

Post #: 247

RE: Modifications to MWiF China Map portion - 6/5/2006 1:57:56 AM

Incy

Posts: 336
Joined: 10/25/2003
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yohan

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp
I'm not saying that this "outflanking problem" will not arise, I'm just trying to make the point that the Japanese has the power to defend against this, and that he will not necessarily needs more units to do that compared to a WiF FE game. Anti Partisan units should be many, and some of them sufficiently quick to run on any new partisan activity. So they will be able to run after any menacing raider.

How can you possibly say that? Just look at the number of hexes that have been added, to cover them with ZOCs would take a bunch of extra units. Add to that that the cities don't supply the Japanese and your ability to "run after" raiders without keeping extra HQs in the rear area won't work. Lots of extra costs for Japan to just maintain the status quo which will impact its ability to fight the USA and GB.

Also, I don't agree with comments by a couple of others on special rules/action limits that will turn this portion of WiF into a phoney war. WiF is the standard for WWII strategy games because of the what if's...I really hope this will be playtested very heavily as I am growing quite concerned that the excellent efforts to make the map realistic are overwhelming the need for strong playability with lots of strategic options.

I'm starting to think the game should have been ported without the changes to the Asian map.

I agree that there is a serious risk of an outflanking problem, but I also think the china game will be much more fun and enjoyable in it's current version (I've played cwif and WiFFE many times and CWiF China is definatly the most fun to play.

There is a lot of thought being given to playbalance and playability on this thread, as well as geography. Personally I'm trying to nudge the map in a direction where both sides have rear areas that have good supply and are easy to defend. (Where did the port in Hangchow go? And couldn't we move the eastern resource south rather than north, to keep it behind a defence line rather than in the big northern plain?)

Action limits is a core WiF game mechanism and has been used for China in the past, in WiF4 for instance. The problem at this front (starting about '42) is that Japan just can't spend many action limits in China, and thus becomes very vulnerable to manouvere/encirclement. It doesn't help that Japan has better and more mobile units when there's no action limits to use them. Also, Japan has very limited number of HQs and can't really cover all of China. Giving China less than UNLIMITED action limits, as it effectively has today, could be a very elegant solution, very much in the spirit of WiF. Historically China never was capable of manouvering all their units all of the time, so forcing some restrictions on china would be very historical, and no different than wha any other power has to suffer either.

In WiFFE he china problem is solved by china mostly having to flip every time it moves a unit (with a few exceptions). Add to that thet there are enough units around to form solid lines. That effectively slows down China to a crawl, except a few places where it has a few mobile units, or where it happens to move into easy terrain.
In MWiF every single unit can move again and again and again every impulse, and there'll always be some hole in the line it can exploit. Even if you force China to take combined actions, china will effectively have just as much opportunity in MWiF as in WiFFE, IMHO. The war will still be exciting (very much so I hope), but china won't be able to make massive manouvres at every part of the line every impulse of every turn! Instead it must pick and choose where it can make a few moves matter the most. That for me is real WiF.

(in reply to YohanTM2)

Post #: 248

RE: Modifications to MWiF China Map portion - 6/5/2006 2:43:31 AM

lomyrin

Posts: 3741
Joined: 12/21/2005
From: San Diego
Status: offline

A possible means to mitigate the Japanese supply problem and the resulting difficulty in maintaining control versus raiders behind the Japanese lines could be to allow a few selected cities to be made into secondary supply cities witha US entry cost associated with this appointment. A method like this was used in some earlier versions of WiF and or Leaders in Flames.

Lars

(in reply to Incy)

Post #: 249

RE: Modifications to MWiF China Map portion - 6/5/2006 4:27:49 AM

Shannon V. OKeets

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: lomyrin

A possible means to mitigate the Japanese supply problem and the resulting difficulty in maintaining control versus raiders behind the Japanese lines could be to allow a few selected cities to be made into secondary supply cities witha US entry cost associated with this appointment. A method like this was used in some earlier versions of WiF and or Leaders in Flames.

Lars

Nice. It is simple and leaves control of when and where it happens in the hands of the Japanese player. Probably a maximum limit would be needed.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to lomyrin)

Post #: 250

RE: Modifications to MWiF China Map portion - 6/5/2006 9:59:23 AM

Manic Inertia

Posts: 51
Joined: 2/7/2006
Status: offline

I still don't see why more units can't be created by;

- Converting Japanese army counters into 2 counters of the same total strength - one could be a corps and the other a DIV, or both could be corps sized ..

- Simply making up more crap strength MIL units for the chinese, one for each new city.

I'm led to understand that this is an unworkable idea, but will someone remind me why exactly?

The front is gonna contain twice as many hexes, but be fluffed out with STR 1 DIV units on both sides? That doesn't sound like a stable idea at all to me, and what makes everyone think that'll promote a historically credible stalemate or static scenario? The STR 1 inf class DIV counters are in the game for those rare occasions when splitting a unit is indicated, like air transport, or those tactical situations where 2 hexes must be occupied and only 1 unit is available..

Making excessive use of DIV counters in a corps/army scale game is bound to lead to highly unrealistic situations, isn't it? DIV to DIV combat, for example, can't be represented anything like as well at this scale, and in any case, a corps or army usually comprised more than 2 Divisions anyway, didn't it, so breaking it down into two is hardly satisfying..

I realise this hasn't been play tested, and perhaps it's too late for such alterations at this late stage, but the way I see it there were millions of troops involved in the Sino-japanese war, and the counters don't seem to reflect that convincingly, like they do on the ETO eastern front.

Despite this, if we're looking at more units, the Japanese made excellent use of what we could actualize as, say, fortification units (1-0 GAR DIV?), positioned strategically to protect supply lines. Additionally, the puppet armies that supported the Japanese in China included 100,000's of men, and are inadequately represented by the single 'Nanking' MIL counter..

And what about the 'Friction' markers? Is it too late to figure them into MWiF, if they aren't already? They at least seem to add to the weight of manpower that's lacking..

Just some half-baked rantings from a "f----ing idiot", but what the hell, I might as well stick me oar in...

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 251

RE: Modifications to MWiF China Map portion - 6/5/2006 10:47:51 AM

c92nichj

Posts: 440
Joined: 1/14/2005
Status: offline

A lot of good ideas however they are not WIFFE, but rather a new supplement.

To achieve anything near what you are suggesting a new module would be requireed as well as japaneese & Chineese production.

(in reply to Manic Inertia)

Post #: 252

RE: Modifications to MWiF China Map portion - 6/5/2006 1:11:53 PM

Froonp

Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline

quote:

Regarding flanking Chinese units reaching cities in the rear of the Japanese lines and geting into supply there the following turn, the Japanese will need additional HQ's in the rear in order to outrun these flanking Chinese units since Japan does not get supply from the rear cities they control. Japan does not have enough HQ's to cover both the rear and the front.

Not necessarily.
The HQ wh supply the front lines can be far enough from the front lines to have both it and the rear units in supply.
Moreover, the raiding Chinese units do not move more than 5 hexes in an impulse, so a quick reacting Japanese can block it without having to go deep into the rear areas to be out of supply.
Moreover, there are lots of times when the Japanese do not need supply to the frontlines, when the Chinese have no disruptive power, so the supplying HQ ae free to move.

(in reply to lomyrin)

Post #: 253

RE: Modifications to MWiF China Map portion - 6/5/2006 1:13:35 PM

Froonp

Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline

quote:

For every Japanese counter, destroyed by the Communists, Comunist should get the eqivalent counter on production spiral. (using captured weapons).

Or better :
Japanese counter destroyed by the Communists, Communist should get an extra number of BP. Half or third the cost of the destroyed Japanese unit.

(in reply to wosung)

Post #: 254

RE: Modifications to MWiF China Map portion - 6/5/2006 1:21:11 PM

Froonp

Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: c92nichj

quote:

The Japanese, one way or the other must have rear guard units, at least for anti partisan duties. If they don't, they will be doomed anyway because of Partisans. This is not new, WiF FE has this too. So I believe that a Japanese player guarding its rear areas has the ability to guard cities that are threatened to be reached by outflanking Chinese units. Moreover, the Japanese units are more mobile than the Chinese, and they would have no problem catching it up. Being out of supply, the raider has all chances of getting crushed rapidly.

In WIFFE a rearguard of two militia with their ZOC's can cover the whole northern plain from partisan activities. The south is allready covered because the front is so close to the rear.
How can this be achieved with the new map?

On this picture, the Japanese garrison value is 6.
That means that 1,4 Partisan unit will appear each time China is rolled for on the Partisan table. This is enormous.

Partisans can appear in northern China, in Tsi-Nan or eastwards, and move later to bother the Japanese. One of the usual Partisan strategy in China is also to accumulate lots of them, to help regular troops attacking. Moreover, playing with the Pacific scale ZoC wold mean that Partisans can appear almost anywhere on this picture.

This to say that, on this picture, your anti-partisan setup is absolutely minimal, and not at all at the levels I'm used to see. So, would it be on the normal WiF FE map or on the MWiF map, it is IMHO quite not efficient and open to huge partisan risks in both cases.

(in reply to c92nichj)

Post #: 255

RE: Modifications to MWiF China Map portion - 6/5/2006 1:23:07 PM

Hortlund

Posts: 2884
Joined: 10/13/2000
Status: offline

The solution must be to add more units to both China and Japan.

At the same time we must avoid shifting the balance between US-Japan and USSR-Japan.

The best answer to the problem seems to be to add a "restricted command" for Japan. A small OOB with units that are only allowed to be used in China. They are set up in China and newly purchased units arrive in Chinese cities held by Japanese troops.

So, first we look at the ratio between combat factors and frontline distance in a normal WIF game. We will reach a conclusion along the lines of "in 1939, on average, the Japanese average 4 combat factors per frontline hex", "the chinese at the same time average 3 combat factors per frontline hex". Etc. Naturally there is room for fluctuation here, depending on the Japanese player and his committment in China, but nevertheless we will be able to get an average figure that shows us how big the restricted command should be. We will get a ballpark figure along the lines of "the restricted command should contain units with combat factors ranging from 40-90".

This tells us how large the new restricted command should be. We then add a new counter variation, say a red counter with a different color than the Japanese usually have. Like red background and blue unit symbol. Units belonging to the restricted command can only be used inside the chinese borders, they are never allowed to embark a ship or move outside the chinese borders unless china has surrendered.

We then add units to the Chinese and ChiCom forcepools in the same way, and we apply the same restrictions to the chinese units. They are never allowed to leave the chinese borders as long as there are japanese units in mainland china.

To avoid having a Japanese player swarm China in the early game, we must restrict the use of "normal" japanese units in China. This is achieved by having some of the "normal" japanese units in the OOB today transformed into restricted command units, and also by prohibiting normal and restricted command units to stack together, draw supplies from each others HQs and prohibiting them from attacking together. Also we could attach US-entry die rolls along the lines of "a US entry roll when a Japanese "normal" unit is landed in China".

_____________________________

The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to a close.
In its place we are entering a period of consequences..

(in reply to c92nichj)

Post #: 256

RE: Modifications to MWiF China Map portion - 6/5/2006 1:24:36 PM

Froonp

Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: lomyrin

A possible means to mitigate the Japanese supply problem and the resulting difficulty in maintaining control versus raiders behind the Japanese lines could be to allow a few selected cities to be made into secondary supply cities witha US entry cost associated with this appointment. A method like this was used in some earlier versions of WiF and or Leaders in Flames.

Lars

There is a rule in one Annual (in the LiF annual, was it the 1998 ?) that allow the Japanese to declare Nanking puppet government. Nanking becomes a secondary supply source, but the Partisan number in China increases. I believe it doubles. When this governement is declared, an extra Militia is available for built by the Japanese.

Same for Vladivostock for Japanese.

Same for Croatia for the German.

(in reply to lomyrin)

Post #: 257

RE: Modifications to MWiF China Map portion - 6/5/2006 1:26:21 PM

Hortlund

Posts: 2884
Joined: 10/13/2000
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yohan
I'm starting to think the game should have been ported without the changes to the Asian map.

This is not productive. The desicion has been made, and instead of arguing against the desicion, we need to focus on how to make the game work.

_____________________________

The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to a close.
In its place we are entering a period of consequences..

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 258

RE: Modifications to MWiF China Map portion - 6/5/2006 1:28:10 PM

Froonp

Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline

quote:

How can you possibly say that? Just look at the number of hexes that have been added, to cover them with ZOCs would take a bunch of extra units. Add to that that the cities don't supply the Japanese and your ability to "run after" raiders without keeping extra HQs in the rear area won't work. Lots of extra costs for Japan to just maintain the status quo which will impact its ability to fight the USA and GB.

I disagre that it will cost "Lots of extra costs for Japan", because a Japanese player who really cares to fight the Partisans in China on the WiF FE Pacific scaled map, already has to expend "Lots of extra costs", to have an HQ available to run after the Partisans for example, or simply to try to reach the 20 garrisons points needed to have no riskes of Partisans appearing.

(in reply to YohanTM2)

Post #: 259

RE: Modifications to MWiF China Map portion - 6/5/2006 1:28:54 PM

wosung

Posts: 692
Joined: 7/18/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: c92nichj

quote:

In WIFFE a rearguard of two militia with their ZOC's can cover the whole northern plain from partisan activities. The south is allready covered because the front is so close to the rear.
How can this be achieved with the new map?

Is only 20% of Japanese forces (or even less?!) for garrison duty in China historically warranted?

First, I think it's good that there's a discussion above geographical details.

About some questions in MWIF there are simply two basic point of views:
1. Is this wiffy?
2. Is this geographically, historically etc. accurate? (And most of WIF seems to be accurate anyway).

Sometimes WIFFE might be too abstract, sometimes sticking to accuracy might make a choiceless, boring game.

I think, forum's job is it to provide ideas for discussion and playtesting to get the best out of both worlds. Sometimes there are votes. And in the end Shannon will decide "for the customers".

While I'm not good at taking the wiffy point of view (for just playing arond a little bit with CWIF, even if I own WIF 4th ed.), I can add just some historical facts to the discussion.

Sorry if this is boring for some of you. And yes, I know, there are other facts and sources. Some of them even contradict each other:

Japanese and puppets in China proper
(that means without Manchuria, Formosa) in the the war ammounted to at utmost 1,7 Million men at best for fighting "Free China" and for policing 183 Million puppet subjects:

Japanese Troops:
1941: 620.000-770.000 (China Exped. Army HQ, North China Area Army HQ, 5 Army HQs, Mongolia Garrisson HQ, 21 Div, 1 Cav. Group Corps, 20 Brigades + Army Air). Peak of Japanese troop presence was at the beginning of 1940.

1943: 620.000 (25 Div. 1 armored Div., 11 mixed brigades, 1 Cavalary Brigade, 1 Flying Div.)

Puppet Troops:
1940: 180.000 local security troops, 41.000 Regulars.
1941 onwards: 450.000 militia, 450.000 Regulars.

Nationalist China:
Population 160 Million
1942: 12 War Areas, 3,81 Million Men, thereof frontline troops: 2,91 Million men (246 Div, 44 Brigades), rear area troops 900.000 (70 Div) + 30 Elite Divs under Chiang Kai-Shek's personal command. And 631 Mio. $ US lend-lease (March 1941-October 1945)

Communist China's border- and base areas
Population 54 Million
Red Army: 60-60.000 (1937) 500.000 (1941), 910.000 Regulars in 8th Route Army, New 4th Army, South China Anti Japanese Column, 2,5 Million guerillas (1945)

Chinese No-man's country
Population 43 Million

Costs of war for the Chinese:
25 Mio deads, 95 Mio. refugees.

Sources:
Andrew Mollow, The Armed Forces of WW2, London, 2001, p. 175, 192, 196.
I.C.B. Dear (ed.), Oxford Companion to WW2, Oxford 1995, p. 622.
Lincoln Li, The Japanese Army in Nother China, Tokyo 1995, p. 209-211.
Lincoln Li, Student Nationalism in China 1924-1949, New York 1994, p. 109.
John Hunter Boyle, China and Japan at war: The Politics of Collaboration, Stanford 1972, p. 315-316.
C'hi Hsi-sheng, The military dimension, 1942-1945, in Hsiung and Levine (ed.) China's bitter victory, p.179.
Gerhard L. Weinberg, A world at arms: A global History of World War 2, Cambridge 194, p. 894.

Regards

(in reply to c92nichj)

Post #: 260

RE: Modifications to MWiF China Map portion - 6/5/2006 1:34:45 PM

Froonp

Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline

quote:

Giving China less than UNLIMITED action limits, as it effectively has today, could be a very elegant solution, very much in the spirit of WiF. Historically China never was capable of manouvering all their units all of the time, so forcing some restrictions on china would be very historical, and no different than wha any other power has to suffer either.

I support this.

(in reply to Incy)

Post #: 261

RE: Modifications to MWiF China Map portion - 6/5/2006 1:51:58 PM

Peter Stauffenberg

Posts: 403
Joined: 2/24/2006
From: Oslo, Norway
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yohan
How can you possibly say that? Just look at the number of hexes that have been added, to cover them with ZOCs would take a bunch of extra units. Add to that that the cities don't supply the Japanese and your ability to "run after" raiders without keeping extra HQs in the rear area won't work. Lots of extra costs for Japan to just maintain the status quo which will impact its ability to fight the USA and GB.

The big problem with using the European scale for China is that WIFFE is designed
for Asian scale map and the number of corps/armies are suited for this scale. When you
use the European scale a corps/army unit must defend a bigger area. This can be helped
by splitting the corps/armies into divisions to cover extra area. Those divisions can prevent
holes in the front line etc.

But what about the rear areas. Divisions only have ZOC in the hex they are placed
into. But divisions not in enemy ZOC count against the garrison value for Japan for
preventing new partisans.

The biggest problem I see is that partisans can appear on the map more easily
because there are so many extra hexes the Japanese player needs to have in
rear ZOC to prevent them from appearing. And as long as division sized units
only have ZOC in the hex they occupy then it's almost impossible to have enough
garrison units to prevent the partisans from appearing close to important rail lines,
cities, resources etc.

But what if we for example alter the rule that division sized units not in enemy ZOC
DO have ZOC for partisan placement purposes (but ONLY for this purpose). This
means a division sized unit can prevent partisans from appearing in the hex and
all hexes around it. So if the Japanese player break down some corps sized units
he can get enough division sized units to protect his vital areas from partisans.
I know this can have bad side effects for example for partisan appearance in other
parts of the map (like Europe, particularly Russia) so maybe we can give divisions
ZOC for partisan placement ONLY in China or maybe everywhere EXCEPT Europe.
I don't think it's a wargame's purpose to 100% recreate what happened in the REAL
war every time, meaning that the Japanese/Chinese war should almost always end
in stalemate. I think it should be possible for example for Japan to divert his resources
for land battle so he has a fair chance of destroying China, but it will be at a big cost
of letting USA become dominant in the Pacific and at the expense of conquests in
Indo-China, Borneo, New Guinea, Philippines etc.

WIFFE gives such possibilities in every part of the war. That is one of the excitements
of playing WIFFE. Can my plan succeed where the REAL generals failed (like capturing
Moscow and Leningrad)?

So the European scale in China opens up for more mobile warfare, but that is not
necessarily very dangerous. Because the opponent have chances to counter this
with his defense. It will require some other strategies than he was used to with WIFFE,
but I'm certain that good WIF players will find strategies that would work for both
China and Japan to keep a good balance between them.

What the playtesting of the new map should find out is if it's much harder for one side
to keep the balance than before, meaning that old WIFFE players could be in for a
nasty surprise if they use their old strategies. Then it could be a good idea to adjust
the rules a little bit. But these rule changes have to be MINOR and they must NOT
cause changes in the rules in other war theatres (like Europe). This is because
the rules are AS IS balanced in Europe and we have not changed the map scale
here.

I think using the European map scale for the entire world is great and it gives
us new challenges, particularly in China. But I also believe most WIF players will
find sound strategies so it will be fun to both attack and also defend. Remember
that the European map scale in China has been playtested a lot with CWIF. Now
the map will be altered a little (adding new cities etc.) so further playtesting is
required.

I think it's a good idea to wait pushing the alarm button about the changes have
ruined the play balance in China until AFTER the playtesting has taken place. There
is still time to make minor changes and still be able to use the European map scale
in China and have a balanced war.

If playtesting shows that the European scaled map in China will require a different
strategy for both Japan and China then it's possible to write about this in the
MWIF rule book (maybe under the player strategies chapter). Many wargames
have some basic strategies for each player listed in the rule book.

I think we should be VERY careful about adding new HQ's and corps sized units
just because we changed the map scale. It can influence the game at lot more than
intended. I. e. the Japanese player willl decide to NOT fight a lot in China and use the
extra HQ's and corps against Great Britain and later Australia. Then you have a
more powerful Japanese player than ever.

Let the players have the WIFFE number of HQ's and corps. If changes are needed
then it should be to maybe the possibility for infinite break up of corps sized units
into divisions placed aside into a separate force pool and can NOT be rebuilt as
corps. They can only appear again on the map if divisions recombine into a corps.

< Message edited by Borger Borgersen -- 6/5/2006 2:14:54 PM >

(in reply to YohanTM2)

Post #: 262

RE: Modifications to MWiF China Map portion - 6/5/2006 2:02:34 PM

Peter Stauffenberg

Posts: 403
Joined: 2/24/2006
From: Oslo, Norway
Status: offline

Please ignore. I clicked by mistake quote instead of edit of my own message and created a duplicate. How can I delete my own messages?

< Message edited by Borger Borgersen -- 6/5/2006 2:10:06 PM >

(in reply to Peter Stauffenberg)

Post #: 263

RE: Modifications to MWiF China Map portion - 6/5/2006 2:04:39 PM

Peter Stauffenberg

Posts: 403
Joined: 2/24/2006
From: Oslo, Norway
Status: offline

(in reply to Peter Stauffenberg)

Post #: 264

RE: Modifications to MWiF China Map portion - 6/5/2006 2:15:47 PM

wosung

Posts: 692
Joined: 7/18/2005
Status: offline

As Japanese player, I would like it to have to make hard choices about force allocation between:

1. China and other theatres

2. While not going all-out in China, taking effective offensive actions there OR securing all rear areas. To do both at the same time should be made difficult at least.

(in reply to Peter Stauffenberg)

Post #: 265

RE: Modifications to MWiF China Map portion - 6/5/2006 2:24:05 PM

Hortlund

Posts: 2884
Joined: 10/13/2000
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Borger Borgersen

The big problem with using the European scale for China is that WIFFE is designed
for Asian scale map and the number of corps are suited for this scale. When you
use the European scale a corps unit must defend a bigger area.� This can be helped
by splitting the corps into divisions to cover extra area. Those divisions can prevent
holes in the front line etc.

This is, however, not enough. A division has very low combat factors, and it would be too easy for the other player to simply mass Corps and overrun divisions.

quote:

The biggest problem I see is that partisans can appear on the map more easily
because there are so many extra hexes the Japanese player needs to have in
rear ZOC to prevent them from appearing. And as long as division sized units
only have ZOC in the hex they occupy then it's almost impossible to have enough
garrison units to prevent the partisans from appearing close to important rail lines,
cities, resources etc.

But this is not the biggest problem. The biggest problem is to have a stable frontline. To keep a stable frontline with the WIF OOB on the MWIF is not possible. That leaves us with two options, make the map smaller or add more units. The desicion to make the map like this is not going to change, which leaves us with alternative two, to add more units.

quote:

But what if we for example alter the rule that division sized units not in enemy ZOC
DO have ZOC for partisan placement purposes (but ONLY for this purpose). This
means a division sized unit can prevent partisans from appearing in the hex and
all hexes around it. So if the Japanese player break down some corps sized units
he can get enough division sized units to protect his vital areas from partisans.

You are solving the wrong problem. The big issue here is not "how will the Japanese prevent partisans" the issue is "how do we stabilize the Chinese front".

If the Japanese player breaks up his corps into divisions to prevent partisans, his divisions will be slaughtered by the Chinese corps. If the Chinese player breaks up his corps to have a frontline without holes, he will be overrun by the Japanese corps.

This might seem to cancel eachoter out. Since the Japanese player will want to break down into divisions to prevent partisans and the Chinese player will want to break down into divisions to keep a steady front. That is not what will happen however. Instead you will probably have a Japanese player who will mass his corps in one part of China and ignore the other parts of China and then move down the Chinese lines like a death star, annihilating all resistance.

quote:

So the European scale in China opens up for more mobile warfare, but that is not
necessarily very dangerous. Because the opponent have chances to counter this
with his defense. It will requre some other strategies than he was used to with WIFFE,
but I'm certain that good WIF players will find strategies that would work for both
China and Japan to keep a good balance between them.

It is very dangerous because not only do you open up China for mobile warfare, you also remove the ability to defend against mobile warfare. Imagine an Operation Barbarossa scenario where the USSR has 5 units defending the entire border against 30+ German units, and you get an idea what China will look like without additional units.

quote:

I think it's a good idea to wait pushing the alarm button about the changes have
ruined the play balance in China until AFTER the playtesting has taken place. There
is still time to make minor changes and still be able to use the European map scale
in China and have a balanced war.

That the playbalance in China has been altered by the map scale is the elephant in the room. We dont really need to wait for playtesting to see that, its right there in the open. What we must do now is figure out a way to re-balance China without unbalancing something else. I believe my idea about a restricted command for Japan manages that, but if you have alternatives you are more than welcome to present them.

quote:

I think we should be VERY careful about adding new HQ's and corps sized units
just because we changed the map scale. It can influence the game at lot more than
intended. I. e. the Japanese player decided to NOT fight a lot in China and uses the
extra HQ's and corps against Great Britain and later Australia. Then you have a
more powerful Japanese player than ever.

That will not happen if you restrict the new units to only be used in China.

_____________________________

The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to a close.
In its place we are entering a period of consequences..

(in reply to Peter Stauffenberg)

Post #: 266

RE: Modifications to MWiF China Map portion - 6/5/2006 3:35:07 PM

Froonp

Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline

quote:

The biggest problem I see is that partisans can appear on the map more easily
because there are so many extra hexes the Japanese player needs to have in
rear ZOC to prevent them from appearing. And as long as division sized units
only have ZOC in the hex they occupy then it's almost impossible to have enough
garrison units to prevent the partisans from appearing close to important rail lines,
cities, resources etc.

About the Partisans, I do not agree with what you write here.
You need not to aim at ZoCing every hex in rear areas, but you should aim at reaching the Partisan number of China with your garrison, that is : 20.

Even in WiF FE Pacific Scaled map, you cannot ZoC every rear area hex, especially playing with the Pacific Map ZoC (which should be used everytime), which is here specially to simulate the fact that the hexes are so large, and the units cover not every surface of the WiF scaled hex.

I'd add to finish that the decision to have the Pacific map at the European scale was taken by Harry Rowland (ADG director, and designer of WiF and WiF FE) himself, and he confess that he would have liked the WiF FE game to also have had European scaled maps for all areas of the world, but it would take too much room to fit in a normal (even WiF FE scaled) game room.

So the game was not entirely designed for Pacific Scaled map, but there were special rules designed to make units designed for European Maps fit in Pacific Scaled Maps.

If Japan and China have Army sized units, it is not because the map is scaled differently, it is because the Chinese / Japanese Army sized unit is what is the most close to the European Corps sized unit in number of mens and material.
We have the same for Russian units who are organized in Armies which are equivallent to western Corps.

(in reply to Peter Stauffenberg)

Post #: 267

RE: Modifications to MWiF China Map portion - 6/5/2006 3:42:20 PM

Froonp

Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline

quote:

So the European scale in China opens up for more mobile warfare, but that is not
necessarily very dangerous.

Do not forget that the Chinese army is composed of lots of slow 1 or 2 MP units. Armies composed of that kind of units are not what I call mobile, especially in mountanous terrain.
The Nationalist Chinese usually defends in the mountains, and there its mobility is small. Only occasionnaly some fast units will be present, and the Japanese has all he needs to cope with them.

(in reply to Peter Stauffenberg)

Post #: 268

RE: Modifications to MWiF China Map portion - 6/5/2006 3:56:26 PM

Froonp

Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline

quote:

Let the players have the WIFFE number of HQ's and corps. If changes are needed
then it should be to maybe the possibility for infinite break up of corps sized units
into divisions placed aside into a separate force pool and can NOT be rebuilt as
corps. They can only appear again on the map if divisions recombine into a corps.

I'd like to add to this, so that it is not forgotten, that CWiF had the Corps Breakdown into Divisions unlimited, with the corps being able to be rebuilt, and it was very good.

Nasty effects described by some posters on these forums (such as the Germany -- or any other country -- taking advantage of this to build a huge army of Divisions for example) were never seen by me during my numerous CWiF playtest (not by my friends playtesters too), simply because when breaking down a coprs into divisions you still have to build the corps, and the global attack factors of the obtained divisions was half that of the corps, so you loosed combat power for the initial BP cost. The amount of BP available to Germany -- or any other country -- in MWiF is the same as the amount of BP available to them in WiF FE, so if extra BP were expended to re-build a big number of Corps because they were brokedown into Divisions, then something else will have less BP to be expended upon, be it the Navy or the Air Force, or anything else.

Now that this has been recalled, let me add that it was quite convinent as someone said here above, to be able to have 2 units (divisions) to physicaly guard 2 hexes when you only had 1 unit (corps) before.

If, as I tried to demonstrated here, there is no abuse possible with an abnormal number of Divisions being created this way, then I think it was not a such bad idea to have the real unlimited breakdonw into divisions, with the posibility of rebuilding the corps.
Remember, the BP stay the same, this is the crucial thing.

This said, the idea of forbidding the minor countries corps to be brokedown into divisions is great and should be kept, because minor countries units were not always paid for (being given for free when the country was aligned) and because it could be abused upon by Germany especially on the Russian front, to have free feeble losse takers.

(in reply to Peter Stauffenberg)

Post #: 269

RE: Modifications to MWiF China Map portion - 6/5/2006 4:11:33 PM

Hortlund

Posts: 2884
Joined: 10/13/2000
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp
Nasty effects described by some posters on these forums

Well, that would be me.

I still see this as a problem, but since it has been decided to allow unlimited breakdown, there is not much to do about it. It does open up for exploits however. You break up the crappiest corps into divisions, and use these divisions as loss-takers. So, the Germans break up their 5-4 infantry corps into divisions and stack these divisions with their 12-6 panzer corps. Instead of having to take a 12-6 corps as a loss (ok, bad example since that unit is usually the very last one to be chosen as a loss) or a 7-4 infantry or 9-4 infantry, you lose a 1-4 division.

If you stack all your "big" stacks this way, you can ensure never to lose a high value unit in an attack since you will usually attack from 2 or 3 hexes, and that leaves 2-3 divisions to soak up the losses.

Germany is probably not the best example here though, we should probably look a bit closer on what this will do to the USSR...and the US in the Pacific.

_____________________________

The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to a close.
In its place we are entering a period of consequences..

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 270