Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurorus

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna


1) Maintain same overall number of VPs available to each side, but: reduce the Japan VPs for various bases not in the "inner core" (Manchuria/Korea, E/NE China, Taiwan, Okinawa, Bonins) that Japan can expect to hold onto until at least the middle of 1945 in a "historically comparable performance" (or close to it) game - this means reducing Manila, Singapore, Rangoon, etc. They're the big ones and you need a big change. In exchange, you then increase the points of the "inner core" areas I just mentioned.

As such, I think that the VP values of Singapore, Bangkok, and Saigon should remain mostly unchanged (or even possibly increased for both players). It seems to make more sense, if we wish to use history as the guide, to reduce the VP value of Manila and Rangoon (for both sides), and reduce the value of bases such as Noumea, Luganville, Moresby, and Chungking for Japan to offset increases in the Home Islands.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Question:

Will all of the efforts to nerf VPs for Allied strategic bombing of Japan in late game to make Japan more competitive in the late game only result in a common strategy implementation of Japanese players exploiting VP gains by strategic bombing Australia early when the Allies have no effective countermeasure?

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter
Scenario:

Unscrupulous Japanese player mercilessly exploits VP gains strategic bombing Auatralia in '42 and then thumbs his nose up at his opponent going "na, na, na, na you'll never overcome this VP deficit because we nerfed your ability to harvest them through strategic bombing".

p.s. I have no vested interest here as I don't play PBEM and would never play a mod that nerfs the Allies to make playing Japan more enjoyable. I'm just acting as devil's advocate since I perceive you may find yourselves investing considerable time in gaming mods that may be headed off the rails.

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

quote:

I think we all agree that the Allies should have a number of viable routes to victory, including one similar to the historical model, which did rely heavily on strategic bombing and the atomic bomb.

The Japanese Player is already handed a solution to the historical stalemate in China which prompted the whole war in the first place: attack and the Chinese will fold up by mid 1943 or so.

The Japanese Player doesn't have to feed any of its workers. Apparently the grass recipes featured in the Tokyo Times were adequate nourishment to keep the wheels of war turning without interruption.

These advantages won't go away in the early part of the game or the late part of the game.

quote:

It took me until November 1943 to eliminate China, that's not exactly "mid 1943" and it requires more than simply attacking. It requires the commitment of forces that would otherwise be used elsewhere and a substantial supply commitment.

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

quote:

It took me until November 1943 to eliminate China, that's not exactly "mid 1943" and it requires more than simply attacking. It requires the commitment of forces that would otherwise be used elsewhere and a substantial supply commitment.

The idea that what the Japanese needed to do to conquer China was to start a new war against the US and UK (+Commonwealth) is ridiculous. If anything a conquest of China at all constitutes more proof that the Japanese are not bound by realistic supply constraints

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurorus

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

quote:

It took me until November 1943 to eliminate China, that's not exactly "mid 1943" and it requires more than simply attacking. It requires the commitment of forces that would otherwise be used elsewhere and a substantial supply commitment.

The idea that what the Japanese needed to do to conquer China was to start a new war against the US and UK (+Commonwealth) is ridiculous. If anything a conquest of China at all constitutes more proof that the Japanese are not bound by realistic supply constraints

Prior to Dec. 7th 1941, the Japanese were hoarding war materials, conquering Thailand and preparing 12 divisions for operations in the DEI, Luzon, and Malaysia. I doubt that you have ever played Japan and have no idea what you are saying. In scenario 1, Japan is absolutely limited by supply and significantly so. The supply use to conquer China is enormous and a full-scale offensive in China that lasts through 1943 nearly precludes any 2nd tier Japanese movements into India or Australia, unless the allied player is very careless and somehow allows Japan to capture enormous amounts of supply in India with a limited Indian offensive, which would be bad play by the allied player.

The game was carefully designed to allow the Japanese player sufficient flexibility to choose 1 2nd-tier attack and no more. This is based upon historical parameters. That many Japanese players choose China is a strategic decision, not a game-design flaw. In the actual war, Yamamoto proposed, in March 1942, 2nd-tier landings in Ceylon and CentPac, with the objective of capturing the Hawaiian islands. The High Command rejected his proposals as too bold and risky. The Midway operation was a reduced version of Yamamoto's original plan. Japan's 2nd tier offensive never occurred in the real war because of Midway and because Yamamoto's plan was rejected by an overly cautious Japanese High Command.

What is more, Japan did launch an offensive in China in 1944. The historical name of this operation was Ichi-go. By then, however, Chiang Kai Shek's army was in mcuh better condition than in 1942, having received training, equipment, and supplies from British and U.S. forces in India. So, the idea that Japan was so constrained by supply that they could not launch a Chinese offensive is counter-factual.

If you want to play scenario 2 or some other modification that bolsters Japan, do not complain about Japan having enough supply to remain on the offensive on multiple fronts. That is the entire purpose of these mods, and I think that you are basing your opinions about the game on PBEM AARs for scenario 2 games and other mods that bolster Japan.

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurorus



If you want to play scenario 2 or some other modification that bolsters Japan, do not complain about Japan having enough supply to remain on the offensive on multiple fronts. That is the entire purpose of these mods, and I think that you are basing your opinions about the game on PBEM AARs for scenario 2 games and other mods that bolster Japan.

Well, I don't buy that the Japanese could have conquered all of China in the war in any situation. I've read a bit on it and the real issue with defending China wasn't just supply, but getting local 'warlords' to comply with Chaing's orders. If the Japanese started to take them on directly, they'd have a lot more incentive to fight back and use their resources to fend off the Japanese either directly or in a behind the lines guerrilla war.

The IJA would have a problem holding all of the conquered territory once it was taken, but more importantly China didn't have the necessary resources and oil the Japanese so badly needed. The areas they did hold could supply a lot of what China had to offer, so there wasn't much need early on to o farther forward. Later, when US forces were there, it was more important to try to the away airfields and Allied positions.

In game players have actually taken all of China and still had time to go forward, most famously in rader vs GreyJoy, where rader took all of china and then most of India. The gpace of a non-SL game allows this. Playing DBB it's much harder.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

That Japan was capable of mounting an offensive in China in '44 has no bearing on the obvious observation that Japan did not have the logistical resources to succeed in conquering all of China.

Its an apples and oranges argument.

The Japanese NEVER had the logistical resources to conquer half of what the game allows them to conquer.

Please stop making fools of yourselves trying alter that fact of reality with spurious arguments.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

The Japanese NEVER had the logistical resources to conquer half of what the game allows them to conquer.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurorus

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurorus



If you want to play scenario 2 or some other modification that bolsters Japan, do not complain about Japan having enough supply to remain on the offensive on multiple fronts. That is the entire purpose of these mods, and I think that you are basing your opinions about the game on PBEM AARs for scenario 2 games and other mods that bolster Japan.

Well, I don't buy that the Japanese could have conquered all of China in the war in any situation. I've read a bit on it and the real issue with defending China wasn't just supply, but getting local 'warlords' to comply with Chaing's orders. If the Japanese started to take them on directly, they'd have a lot more incentive to fight back and use their resources to fend off the Japanese either directly or in a behind the lines guerrilla war.

The IJA would have a problem holding all of the conquered territory once it was taken, but more importantly China didn't have the necessary resources and oil the Japanese so badly needed. The areas they did hold could supply a lot of what China had to offer, so there wasn't much need early on to o farther forward. Later, when US forces were there, it was more important to try to the away airfields and Allied positions.

In game players have actually taken all of China and still had time to go forward, most famously in rader vs GreyJoy, where rader took all of china and then most of India. The gpace of a non-SL game allows this. Playing DBB it's much harder.

Rader vs. Greyjoy was scenario 2. I do not think stacking limits are nearly as important as most people think, but that is the subject for another discussion. Comparing scenario 2 games and scenario 1 games is comparing 2 things that are not alike.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurorus

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

That Japan was capable of mounting an offensive in China in '44 has no bearing on the obvious observation that Japan did not have the logistical resources to succeed in conquering all of China.

Its an apples and oranges argument.

The Japanese NEVER had the logistical resources to conquer half of what the game allows them to conquer.

Please stop making fools of yourselves trying alter that fact of reality with spurious arguments.

Hans, you have no experience playing PBEMs; you have no experience playing Japan, especially in a scenario 1 game; you have no idea what you are talking about, and as I have told you, you are complaining about games played with a scenario 2 mod that is specifically designed to bolster Japan's logistics. But you do not listen or comprehend. Instead, you make ad hominem attacks, calling others, who do have experience with these types of things, fools.

If you do not like the game. If you think that it is riddled with design flaws, then I suggest that you leave, quit playing, and find some other activity that you do enjoy. I suspect, however, that the only thing that you enjoy is complaining and trying to be confrontational. Since that is the case, I will not indulge your perverse desires any longer.

quote:

When talking about the hypothetical of "Could the IJA have taken all of China", then the response is that they could. In almost every instance, when the Japanese mounted an offensive against the Chinese, it resulted in success.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

I don't think stacking limits makes much difference in the overall balance. On the one hand, Japan can't stack anywhere near the quality within the same number. On the other, it does slow the Allies down a bit because they can't just land 5000AV on Guam, knowing that it will eventually overwhelm the defenders.

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

quote:

When talking about the hypothetical of "Could the IJA have taken all of China", then the response is that they could. In almost every instance, when the Japanese mounted an offensive against the Chinese, it resulted in success.

You left out the word TEMPORARY in front of success. In 1944, the Japanese managed to overrun a significant part of China and push the American airbases out of range of the Japanese homeland but they could not hold the land that they seized. They essentially conceded their lines of communication to the Chinese.

Therein lies the crux of the problem with the China Option. If they wanted to move "a can of beans" 100 miles overland they had to haul it on a cart that mostly contained fodder for the horse and escort it with a battalion of infantry to keep the partisans away.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna


We should be telling him to stay. Even if he is wrong, he's at least forcing us to back up our arguments (not that we weren't already, but still). Do I think we've provided more than enough evidence? Sure. He's said that he's never going to play PBEM enough times that we all know where he's coming from and can read his comments accordingly, in that context.

I want him around and I want him to keep playing the game, however he wants to play it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurorus

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

That Japan was capable of mounting an offensive in China in '44 has no bearing on the obvious observation that Japan did not have the logistical resources to succeed in conquering all of China.

Its an apples and oranges argument.

The Japanese NEVER had the logistical resources to conquer half of what the game allows them to conquer.

Please stop making fools of yourselves trying alter that fact of reality with spurious arguments.

Hans, you have no experience playing PBEMs; you have no experience playing Japan, especially in a scenario 1 game; you have no idea what you are talking about, and as I have told you, you are complaining about games played with a scenario 2 mod that is specifically designed to bolster Japan's logistics. But you do not listen or comprehend. Instead, you make ad hominem attacks, calling others, who do have experience with these types of things, fools.

If you do not like the game. If you think that it is riddled with design flaws, then I suggest that you leave, quit playing, and find some other activity that you do enjoy. I suspect, however, that the only thing that you enjoy is complaining and trying to be confrontational. Since that is the case, I will not indulge your perverse desires any longer.

I think he's wrong also, and hardheadedly refusing to open his mind to things that don't fit his opinions of what the game looks like, but we shouldn't be telling him to leave.

We should be telling him to stay. Even if he is wrong, he's at least forcing us to back up our arguments (not that we weren't already, but still). Do I think we've provided more than enough evidence? Sure. He's said that he's never going to play PBEM enough times that we all know where he's coming from and can read his comments accordingly, in that context.

I want him around and I want him to keep playing the game, however he wants to play it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurorus

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

That Japan was capable of mounting an offensive in China in '44 has no bearing on the obvious observation that Japan did not have the logistical resources to succeed in conquering all of China.

Its an apples and oranges argument.

The Japanese NEVER had the logistical resources to conquer half of what the game allows them to conquer.

Please stop making fools of yourselves trying alter that fact of reality with spurious arguments.

Hans, you have no experience playing PBEMs; you have no experience playing Japan, especially in a scenario 1 game; you have no idea what you are talking about, and as I have told you, you are complaining about games played with a scenario 2 mod that is specifically designed to bolster Japan's logistics. But you do not listen or comprehend. Instead, you make ad hominem attacks, calling others, who do have experience with these types of things, fools.

If you do not like the game. If you think that it is riddled with design flaws, then I suggest that you leave, quit playing, and find some other activity that you do enjoy. I suspect, however, that the only thing that you enjoy is complaining and trying to be confrontational. Since that is the case, I will not indulge your perverse desires any longer.

I think he's wrong also, and hardheadedly refusing to open his mind to things that don't fit his opinions of what the game looks like, but we shouldn't be telling him to leave.

We should be telling him to stay. Even if he is wrong, he's at least forcing us to back up our arguments (not that we weren't already, but still). Do I think we've provided more than enough evidence? Sure. He's said that he's never going to play PBEM enough times that we all know where he's coming from and can read his comments accordingly, in that context.

I want him around and I want him to keep playing the game, however he wants to play it.

The attempt to ostracize me won't succeed. Good! That 'suggestion' was wrong on many levels, as Lokasenna pointed out. I've weathered far worse treatment from Symon, who got himself permanently banned for his attacks against me.
Guess I just seem to bring out the worst in people.

And btw, the whole 'you're never going to play pbem so please just go away' completely sums up what I have tried to point out about the pbem bias on this forum.
Only speaks for that person in his moment of emotional lashing out.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

I went to Aurorus privately awhile ago and asked him to delete his post. I hope he'll do so. I hope those that are quoting him will do the same.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

And btw, the whole 'you're never going to play pbem so please just go away' completely sums up what I have tried to point out about the pbem bias on this forum.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lecivius

I don't think AFB's want to "claim "ALL" JFBs want to have every unhistorical advantage they can get. ". At least I don't. I just point out my opinion that in this game the Japanese get advantages they never received 'historically', and the allies get limited more than they did 'historically'.

All in all, it's a game. A darned good one, too. Treat it as such, and we all get along

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

I went to Aurorus privately awhile ago and asked him to delete his post. I hope he'll do so. I hope those that are quoting him will do the same.

I'm not a fan of sweeping things under the rug. Transparency and documentation are good things because everybody has the same knowledge.