Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erkki

quote:

ORIGINAL: CV 2
...

Green button.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

Before this devolves into the usual, must return, for just a moment, to the intent of the OP. Jonathan and Ramon have both commented on the apparent lack of AT for Chinese units. While I do agree Chinese units are quite thin in this respect, I must suggest ya'll take a look at Treespider v witpqs's AAR at http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2754161, where a bunch of Chinese units (ordinary Corps stuff) attack a Japanese stack with a bunch of Infantry and a pantload of Tank Regiments, and absolutely smoke them; 72% casualties (killed or disrupted, mostly killed) to vehicle units. Several other Combat Reports, at other places, show Tank/Vehicle devices incurring reasonable casualties.

Spidey and witpqs are playing Spidey's mod which is based on Babes. Really think that Babes data tweaks (in this area) represent a noticeable improvement in combat outcomes.

Ramon, Jonathan, take a vacation in the Balearics (and invite me along). When you come back, try out a Babes scenario. Ciao. J

• Make a bunch of industry centers in North America that must be repaired, so supply available from North America starts out low and ramps up over time.
  
• Changed certain production parameters so places like Palembang (and maybe all refineries?) produce squat for supply.
  
• Reduced the size of various airfields with an eye toward slowing things down.
  
• Made big changes to the Japanese economy with the aim of putting more historical stress on the Japanese merchant fleet. The idea being that those ships would be required to carry back to Japan much more stuff than has been seen in AARs so far.
  
• Added many bases and tiny "political" units in China to simply act as molasses to slow down advances.
  
• Increased garrison requirements in China for both sides.
  
• Added oil and resources at the Panama Canal which can be shipped to Australia to keep the civilian economy going.
  
• Along with a change in at least one of the Babes scenarios, various ships' cargo capacities are reduced so as to require more trips (or ships) to move the same amount of supply.
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: CV 2



All that would have to be done to prevent this is to not make HQs able to change commands. Pretty simple fix. Hell, that isnt even a code change, thats a database change. I remember everyone saying that changing 2nd air army and releasing almost all the Manchurian air units was "gamey" until Elf said that was the way he designed it. Well, same thing. I cant believe that after what? 4 years now from test to current no one has ever encountered this? You can safely assume it was. And since thats the way it is, then it was probably intended to be that way.

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

Before this devolves into the usual, must return, for just a moment, to the intent of the OP. Jonathan and Ramon have both commented on the apparent lack of AT for Chinese units. While I do agree Chinese units are quite thin in this respect, I must suggest ya'll take a look at Treespider v witpqs's AAR at http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2754161, where a bunch of Chinese units (ordinary Corps stuff) attack a Japanese stack with a bunch of Infantry and a pantload of Tank Regiments, and absolutely smoke them; 72% casualties (killed or disrupted, mostly killed) to vehicle units. Several other Combat Reports, at other places, show Tank/Vehicle devices incurring reasonable casualties.

Spidey and witpqs are playing Spidey's mod which is based on Babes. Really think that Babes data tweaks (in this area) represent a noticeable improvement in combat outcomes.

Ramon, Jonathan, take a vacation in the Balearics (and invite me along). When you come back, try out a Babes scenario. Ciao. J

Thanks for the referral!

You all know about Babes. What Treespider did in addition was (in no particular order):

• Make a bunch of industry centers in North America that must be repaired, so supply available from North America starts out low and ramps up over time.
  
• Changed certain production parameters so places like Palembang (and maybe all refineries?) produce squat for supply.
  
• Reduced the size of various airfields with an eye toward slowing things down.
  
• Made big changes to the Japanese economy with the aim of putting more historical stress on the Japanese merchant fleet. The idea being that those ships would be required to carry back to Japan much more stuff than has been seen in AARs so far.
  
• Added many bases and tiny "political" units in China to simply act as molasses to slow down advances.
  
• Increased garrison requirements in China for both sides.
  
• Added oil and resources at the Panama Canal which can be shipped to Australia to keep the civilian economy going.
  
• Along with a change in at least one of the Babes scenarios, various ships' cargo capacities are reduced so as to require more trips (or ships) to move the same amount of supply.
  

Some house rules are required to keep it real, such as the Allied player can not turn off industry or repairs to industry except in China. So, you've got to bring that fuel into Australia to keep industry going (and resources too).

I'm certain I omitted 27 things Treespider did, so maybe he'll chime in with anything critical I missed or more detail.

quote:


As the thread is about China: So far, China is working out quite well. The point was to make China much more of the stalemate that it was in real life and the changes are doing that. The availability of Japanese offensive power is reduced. Chinese offensive power is a bit less than it was (owing to higher garrison requirements), and the Chinese have a greater ability to harass the Imperial supply lines. We have not yet gotten to the point where the Chinese are supply-starved, as the Burma road only recently closed.

The Chinese still, however, lack much real offensive punch. The attack in question was a two-stage affair. First, the Imperial troops attacked what they probably thought was a smaller force than it actually was. It was in reality more than twice their size (and AV) and somewhat dug in. The attack went badly, blunting the IJA units and certainly burdening them with disruption. The second stage was that the Chinese shock attacked, purely opportunistically. The attack went well, definitely aided by the failed IJA attack the day before.

quote:


In China, use good defensive terrain. Concentrate enough troops. Don't get cut off. Use interior lines to redeploy as needed. Threaten and cut off the IJA's supply lines. Build forts. Counter enemy offensives with offensives in other areas that the IJA is compelled to address. Give your troops time for the at-start disabled squads to repair. Pay attention to your units' experience, morale, fatigue, and disruption. Except in really overwhelming numbers, Chinese units will not be good offensive units until their experience is in the mid-50s.

Hope this helps.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cantona2

As you are aware Ramon (Fletcher) and I have recently given up our game, played under the last official patch. Several issues have arisen that we feel need addressing or discussed.

1) Chinese OOB, Chinese AT values and relative weakness of Chinese Corps. China seems very, very weak in the field. Several encounters, after having made the best possible leadership changes and ensuring a decent force ratio, resulted in massive losses for China in the region of 80-85% vs 1 or 2% Japanese. If this happened once or twice then fair enough. I happened wih increasing frequency, sometimes even with fully supplied units in good defensive terrain.

Chinese AT values are laughable. One Cavalry Corps in wooded terrain could not dislodge a Japanese armoured regiment. I think I mentioned in my AAR that not even the vaunted early war Panzer Regiments could have done this. I accept that anti-tank gun capacity in Chinese TO&E's has to be low but why are AT values for squads so low? A dedicated aerial campaign in China backed by a few divisions and a lot of armour can blitz its way to Chungking.

This is not sour grapes as if I am out maneouvered in the field then so be it and no moaning but China seems to be the house of cards Hitler though Russia was going to be.

2) Coordination issues on both sides. Ramon explains it very well in his AAR section on the first counter attacks on the USMC toehold on Lunga. I had a very similar problem in my tentative counter in the Arakan. All supporting fields (most level 5 one or two 8+) had at least one RAAF Group HQ on them as well as X2 supplies, as well as a theatre air HQ at Dacca. First attack on Akyab, 150+ fighters (following established forum doctrine for escorts) did not show, neither did the sweeps (weather ok and so on as bombers took off from same bases), cue 40+ bombers shot down. End of bomber support for attack.

3) Dud rate is baffling. One merchant ship got hit by 9 duds in one sole attack, 14 in total in a chain of attacks from Milne Bay to Merauke via PM and HI. I get the hisorical dud question and love its in the game but it seemed in this game that the Dutch, British and S-Boat subs were also having an excessively high dud rate. Especially against military targets, I think 5 of his carriers were hit by duds (only the Kaga had an explosion). This issue also occured in my game vs Local Yokel in WITP vanilla days. We commented that MSW's and PG's were torpedo magnets but all other military targets swallowed dud after dud.

4) The invulnerabiliy of 4e's unescorted during daylight raids also raised some concerns. OK for the AFB (me) but very frustrating for the JFB (him). He'd lose more fighters than I bombers, thats including flak and ops losses. Sometimes 12 bombers vs 50 fighters and still he'd lose maybe two or three planes, the eggs dropped on the target and maybe one op loss on the way back.

5) Naval bombardments also seemed eschewed. The North Carolina managed to inflict 300+ casualties on the defenders of Lunga, but when the whole IJN battleline pummelled my marines I actually lost 2 squads (after FOW, confirmed by me when I run the turn). I would say that after the bombardment I was still at 90-92% fighting strength. This also after raids by KB and a lot of LBA (fort level never went beyond 3 do not know what level Ramon had when I landed). These same Marines then fought back two IJA attacks by three, according to Ramon elite and 100% prepped, divisons. By this point I had 20 supply on Lunga.

We both love the game but felt very strongly about these issues to sop playing. I am already used to playing without carriers so the Battle of the Solomons had no impact on our decision, as a matter of fact the game continued for a few weeks afer he defeat at sea. Ramon has stated that had I pounded Rangoon from Northern Oz, due to the ease the 4e's have in getting to the target, I would have cut off all supply to the Solomons.

Anyhow thanks for the time in reading this and do not take it as a 'I hate this game and I am leaving rant', rather as an 'we both love the game and want as much as possible to see it improved' post.

Cantona2

quote:

ORIGINAL: cantona2

As you are aware Ramon (Fletcher) and I have recently given up our game, played under the last official patch. Several issues have arisen that we feel need addressing or discussed.

1) Chinese OOB, Chinese AT values and relative weakness of Chinese Corps. China seems very, very weak in the field. Several encounters, after having made the best possible leadership changes and ensuring a decent force ratio, resulted in massive losses for China in the region of 80-85% vs 1 or 2% Japanese. If this happened once or twice then fair enough. I happened wih increasing frequency, sometimes even with fully supplied units in good defensive terrain.

Chinese AT values are laughable. One Cavalry Corps in wooded terrain could not dislodge a Japanese armoured regiment. I think I mentioned in my AAR that not even the vaunted early war Panzer Regiments could have done this. I accept that anti-tank gun capacity in Chinese TO&E's has to be low but why are AT values for squads so low? A dedicated aerial campaign in China backed by a few divisions and a lot of armour can blitz its way to Chungking.

This is not sour grapes as if I am out maneouvered in the field then so be it and no moaning but China seems to be the house of cards Hitler though Russia was going to be.

2) Coordination issues on both sides. Ramon explains it very well in his AAR section on the first counter attacks on the USMC toehold on Lunga. I had a very similar problem in my tentative counter in the Arakan. All supporting fields (most level 5 one or two 8+) had at least one RAAF Group HQ on them as well as X2 supplies, as well as a theatre air HQ at Dacca. First attack on Akyab, 150+ fighters (following established forum doctrine for escorts) did not show, neither did the sweeps (weather ok and so on as bombers took off from same bases), cue 40+ bombers shot down. End of bomber support for attack.

3) Dud rate is baffling. One merchant ship got hit by 9 duds in one sole attack, 14 in total in a chain of attacks from Milne Bay to Merauke via PM and HI. I get the hisorical dud question and love its in the game but it seemed in this game that the Dutch, British and S-Boat subs were also having an excessively high dud rate. Especially against military targets, I think 5 of his carriers were hit by duds (only the Kaga had an explosion). This issue also occured in my game vs Local Yokel in WITP vanilla days. We commented that MSW's and PG's were torpedo magnets but all other military targets swallowed dud after dud.

4) The invulnerabiliy of 4e's unescorted during daylight raids also raised some concerns. OK for the AFB (me) but very frustrating for the JFB (him). He'd lose more fighters than I bombers, thats including flak and ops losses. Sometimes 12 bombers vs 50 fighters and still he'd lose maybe two or three planes, the eggs dropped on the target and maybe one op loss on the way back.

5) Naval bombardments also seemed eschewed. The North Carolina managed to inflict 300+ casualties on the defenders of Lunga, but when the whole IJN battleline pummelled my marines I actually lost 2 squads (after FOW, confirmed by me when I run the turn). I would say that after the bombardment I was still at 90-92% fighting strength. This also after raids by KB and a lot of LBA (fort level never went beyond 3 do not know what level Ramon had when I landed). These same Marines then fought back two IJA attacks by three, according to Ramon elite and 100% prepped, divisons. By this point I had 20 supply on Lunga.

We both love the game but felt very strongly about these issues to sop playing. I am already used to playing without carriers so the Battle of the Solomons had no impact on our decision, as a matter of fact the game continued for a few weeks afer he defeat at sea. Ramon has stated that had I pounded Rangoon from Northern Oz, due to the ease the 4e's have in getting to the target, I would have cut off all supply to the Solomons.

Anyhow thanks for the time in reading this and do not take it as a 'I hate this game and I am leaving rant', rather as an 'we both love the game and want as much as possible to see it improved' post.

Cantona2

quote:

5) Naval bombardments also seemed eschewed. The North Carolina managed to inflict 300+ casualties on the defenders of Lunga, but when the whole IJN battleline pummelled my marines I actually lost 2 squads

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

5) Naval bombardments also seemed eschewed. The North Carolina managed to inflict 300+ casualties on the defenders of Lunga, but when the whole IJN battleline pummelled my marines I actually lost 2 squads

5) Naval bombardments also seemed eschewed. The North Carolina managed to inflict 300+ casualties on the defenders of Lunga, but when the whole IJN battleline pummelled my marines I actually lost 2 squads

I rationalize that to mean you called in fire on your own troops!

There are statistical things in code - a range of outcomes - it takes a hundred runs to get a sense of the data spread. A FEW strange outcomes is fine - actually good simulatoin.

WITP-AE, WITE

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

5) Naval bombardments also seemed eschewed. The North Carolina managed to inflict 300+ casualties on the defenders of Lunga, but when the whole IJN battleline pummelled my marines I actually lost 2 squads

5) Naval bombardments also seemed eschewed. The North Carolina managed to inflict 300+ casualties on the defenders of Lunga, but when the whole IJN battleline pummelled my marines I actually lost 2 squads

I rationalize that to mean you called in fire on your own troops!

There are statistical things in code - a range of outcomes - it takes a hundred runs to get a sense of the data spread. A FEW strange outcomes is fine - actually good simulatoin.

quote:

el cid again

I rationalize that to mean you called in fire on your own troops!

There are statistical things in code - a range of outcomes - it takes a hundred runs to get a sense of the data spread. A FEW strange outcomes is fine - actually good simulatoin.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon

quote:

el cid again

I rationalize that to mean you called in fire on your own troops!

There are statistical things in code - a range of outcomes - it takes a hundred runs to get a sense of the data spread. A FEW strange outcomes is fine - actually good simulatoin.

In another PBEM I've got going, I've got Japanese forces ashore engaging Allied defenders at Luganville. In two separate bombardment attacks by BB's and CA's only my Japanese troops were hit. I lost just under 1000 casualties and massive disruption while my opponent suffered absolutely no losses. This should be an exception and not the rule. It seems for every one good bombardment result there are anywhere from 3-5 subpar ones. I've also encountered bombardments from Allied CL's and DD's that inflict more damage under similar circumstances than a force of Japanese BB's and CA's. I understand random results will occur, but bombardment seems off to me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: inqistor

It was simple trick in WITP. When you used DDs in your bombardment force, you would get FAR better results.
I almost always get quite acceptable results of bombardments, but I usually bombard at point-blank, and include DDs in most cases.

Anyway, it will be easy to check, what was difference in these TFs, as you can check, and compare configuration of ships, and their guns statistics.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CV 2

Well truth be told, I think the "best" house rule (from my personal viewpoint, I dont expect everyone to agree) is to allow the 5 Chinese divisions to enter Burma, require Japan to maintain a minimum garrison (like Manchuria) and leave it. Neither side does anything (except HK of course). In my opinion, the game engine doesnt handle this theater very well.

But like I said, just my opinion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

I'd agree 100%. Historically, the campaign there had been pretty much of a stalemate for more than a year. One of the big reasons the IJA supported the war with the Western Powers was in hopes of cutting off aid to China. In the game this front if far too active and fluid. Simply shutting it down is the quickest fix for what will be a major "balancing act" if/when the designers ever choose to tackle it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fletcher

inquistor

In my own experience with BB Yamato, and another 4 BBs with CAs and DDs bombarding at short (2.000 yards) against LCUs at Lunga, I got 2 disabled USMC squads... this was the last of my bombardment mission over enemy ... frustrated after another 4 similar missions, I thought that was better be docked at Truk.

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

I'd agree 100%. Historically, the campaign there had been pretty much of a stalemate for more than a year. One of the big reasons the IJA supported the war with the Western Powers was in hopes of cutting off aid to China. In the game this front if far too active and fluid. Simply shutting it down is the quickest fix for what will be a major "balancing act" if/when the designers ever choose to tackle it.

See Treespider's mod.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CV 2

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

I'd agree 100%. Historically, the campaign there had been pretty much of a stalemate for more than a year. One of the big reasons the IJA supported the war with the Western Powers was in hopes of cutting off aid to China. In the game this front if far too active and fluid. Simply shutting it down is the quickest fix for what will be a major "balancing act" if/when the designers ever choose to tackle it.

See Treespider's mod.

His mod isnt really going to solve anything. If the Jap player wants to find a way to unbalance things in China, they will find it, so the mod doesnt really solve it, it just makes it more difficult. And the problem is once its unbalanced, the Allied player has no way to put it back into balance. Again, the "best" house rule in China is to not use it at all.

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

quote:

ORIGINAL: CV 2

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

I'd agree 100%. Historically, the campaign there had been pretty much of a stalemate for more than a year. One of the big reasons the IJA supported the war with the Western Powers was in hopes of cutting off aid to China. In the game this front if far too active and fluid. Simply shutting it down is the quickest fix for what will be a major "balancing act" if/when the designers ever choose to tackle it.

See Treespider's mod.

His mod isnt really going to solve anything. If the Jap player wants to find a way to unbalance things in China, they will find it, so the mod doesnt really solve it, it just makes it more difficult. And the problem is once its unbalanced, the Allied player has no way to put it back into balance. Again, the "best" house rule in China is to not use it at all.

So "what if" IRL the Kwantung Army general's weren't such horses asses and decided to shift a great deal of their assets to China in late 41 and 42, rather than planning for a Soviet offensive pipe dream? They finally did so in 44 and the result was Ichigo.

My mod address this political aspect to a degree by placing much of the Kwantung Army in a Restricted Status until late in the war. This coupled with House Rules prevents it from marching into China.

In addition the additional bases and garrison requirements suck away much of the initial Japanese offensive punch resulting in a stalemate until later in the war.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CV 2

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

quote:

ORIGINAL: CV 2

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

I'd agree 100%. Historically, the campaign there had been pretty much of a stalemate for more than a year. One of the big reasons the IJA supported the war with the Western Powers was in hopes of cutting off aid to China. In the game this front if far too active and fluid. Simply shutting it down is the quickest fix for what will be a major "balancing act" if/when the designers ever choose to tackle it.

See Treespider's mod.

His mod isnt really going to solve anything. If the Jap player wants to find a way to unbalance things in China, they will find it, so the mod doesnt really solve it, it just makes it more difficult. And the problem is once its unbalanced, the Allied player has no way to put it back into balance. Again, the "best" house rule in China is to not use it at all.

So "what if" IRL the Kwantung Army general's weren't such horses asses and decided to shift a great deal of their assets to China in late 41 and 42, rather than planning for a Soviet offensive pipe dream? They finally did so in 44 and the result was Ichigo.

My mod address this political aspect to a degree by placing much of the Kwantung Army in a Restricted Status until late in the war. This coupled with House Rules prevents it from marching into China.

In addition the additional bases and garrison requirements suck away much of the initial Japanese offensive punch resulting in a stalemate until later in the war.

Well thats exacly my point. Look at the - was it called "I Go"? Operation in 1944. When B-29s started to base in southern China, the Jap army swept through the entire area in a few months. Now anyone going to say that the Japs couldnt have done this in 1941 if they had wanted to? Of course they could have. They didnt because they didnt need it and the area wasnt under Changs control, so why bother?

quote:


And therein lies the problem with the game. And it isnt a problem that can be corrected easily. The Japs didnt do a lot of things in China that they certainly could have (and history is proof of it) had they wanted to. And the exact reason I have said from the beginning of the testing period way back when that China and Manchuria should be removed from the game outright.

The game just isnt designed to handle the political issues going on. The mess in China is a prime example. You have the Red Chinese, the Nationalists, and a few dozen warlords all with their own agendas and goals. The in-fighting within India is another case in point. The game is designed to be the "allies" vs the Japanese. But the real war wasnt that cut and died.

quote:

The Elf said in post #87
hmmm. I don't recall ever addressing this. If I did I don't know what I said, but based on this discussion I can say the following:

1. It seems gamey
2. I didn't have anything to do with the PP system
3. I don't believe that the intent was to free up untold riches of Air units for the price of one Air HQ.

quote:

The Elf said in Post #93


I may have said something. But given the facts in this thread I would have to assume that I was commenting on the feature as a whole WAD. Meaning that the intent was for restricted commands to be convertible to unrestricted etc. but I was likely unaware that all subordinate attached Ground units (gamey) would be freed up from manchuria. This seems a bit extreme and against the intent of the feature.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SuluSea

CV2 while searching for R&D questions I stubled onto Elfs post. It looks like you've already been corrected on this by Ian but you continue to sell it, dunno why?

Gamey question thread

quote:

The Elf said in post #87
hmmm. I don't recall ever addressing this. If I did I don't know what I said, but based on this discussion I can say the following:

1. It seems gamey
2. I didn't have anything to do with the PP system
3. I don't believe that the intent was to free up untold riches of Air units for the price of one Air HQ.

quote:

The Elf said in Post #93


I may have said something. But given the facts in this thread I would have to assume that I was commenting on the feature as a whole WAD. Meaning that the intent was for restricted commands to be convertible to unrestricted etc. but I was likely unaware that all subordinate attached Ground units (gamey) would be freed up from manchuria. This seems a bit extreme and against the intent of the feature.