Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants_MatrixForum

I'm currently playing BTS and recently undertook the PBEM game in which Portland, Oregon is captured in mid-Jan '42. One is based on DBB while the second is a stock game (Scen 1). John 3rd and I have done some tweaking in China by increasing garrison requirements for both sides. I've increased Chinese non-infantry devices by 50 to 100% along with increase supplies to help the Chinese.

However, China is in deep trouble in very early March '42. What changes have you done in this theater to make the war more static and a stalemate like it actually was?

There seems to be significant differences in what China has from stock to DBB.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants_MatrixForum

I'm currently playing BTS and recently undertook the PBEM game in which Portland, Oregon is captured in mid-Jan '42. One is based on DBB while the second is a stock game (Scen 1). John 3rd and I have done some tweaking in China by increasing garrison requirements for both sides. I've increased Chinese non-infantry devices by 50 to 100% along with increase supplies to help the Chinese.

However, China is in deep trouble in very early March '42. What changes have you done in this theater to make the war more static and a stalemate like it actually was?

There seems to be significant differences in what China has from stock to DBB.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants_MatrixForum

I'm currently playing BTS and recently undertook the PBEM game in which Portland, Oregon is captured in mid-Jan '42. One is based on DBB while the second is a stock game (Scen 1). John 3rd and I have done some tweaking in China by increasing garrison requirements for both sides. I've increased Chinese non-infantry devices by 50 to 100% along with increase supplies to help the Chinese.

However, China is in deep trouble in very early March '42. What changes have you done in this theater to make the war more static and a stalemate like it actually was?

There seems to be significant differences in what China has from stock to DBB.

quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob
If you want to see very detailed China "modding", check into El Cid's RHS mod..

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

Since I know next to nothing about programming I suspect that the system mechanics will not abide there being a functional difference between motorized support and (unmotorized) support. Both types of support appear to forward beans and bullets to the infantry, artillery, etc (combat) devices of a unit.

Neither the Japanese nor the Chinese Armies were motorized. Both armies were much like the armies of the First World War and relied on horses and mules to move their supplies once said supplies were unloaded or produced at the (rail) depot. The fact is that horses and mules require proper fodder to haul supplies and that in moving supplies they must carry their fodder with them. That fodder occupies a larger and larger proportion of their supply load the further from the rail depot the horse/mule has to move the "load". Even using the extensive rail network France for its sustenance the World War One British/Commonwealth Army shipped more tons of "horse fodder" into France than tons of ammunition. That is the reason the British/Commonwealth Armies motorized in between the First and Second World Wars (and realized an enormous savings in terms of shipping tonnage it could use to haul other things - although the same logic can be applied to carrying gasoline that can be applied to carrying oats the gas takes up a far smaller proportion of a trucks load than oats would).

In the game motorized supply is a liability: its only difference seems to be that it takes longer to offload in an amphibious assault than regular support. That difference has little effect on "island warfare" since supply lines tend to extend only a few hexes at most and usually extend only within the same hex. But in "continental warfare" such as in China (or Russia) the limitations of horse drawn supply rapidly come into focus.

Seemingly it would require a code change to effect a change such as this but limiting the movement of supply from a rail hex/navigable river (Japanese mostly) or production city (Chinese mostly) would go a long ways to fixing "The China Problem". Make the amount of supply a typical unit receives inversely proportional to the distance in hexes it moves from a rail hex/production city beyond one hex by temporarily disabling support devices within the unit for moving beyond one hex from the railroad. Thus the Japanese will be essentially limited to driving along railroads/navigable rivers since there are no railroads that extend into the Chinese interior. By the same token the Chinese would be limited in the same way from launching an offensive.

quote:

Sid's mod (RHS) includes those little known roads and navigable waterways in China...not modern, but from the war years.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob
If you want to see very detailed China "modding", check into El Cid's RHS mod..

+ 1

It's true that China is a mere sideshow but two facts are historically unalterable:

1) the Japanese could not defeat China (1944 blitz in the south à la Wehrmacht summer 1942, ok)
2) the Chinese could not kick the Japanese out in one million years

Stock steamrollers are a pure aberration = I guess to provide - er PBEM - more toys to fight the real juggernaut (the US).

Said this, on my RHS game, early 1943 2 million of [military] supplies in China ROFL Fort, installations construction, replacement and upgrades on. There's no need at all to risk the US transports sent by FDR to keep the little dragon alive lol

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

Since I know next to nothing about programming I suspect that the system mechanics will not abide there being a functional difference between motorized support and (unmotorized) support. Both types of support appear to forward beans and bullets to the infantry, artillery, etc (combat) devices of a unit.

Neither the Japanese nor the Chinese Armies were motorized. Both armies were much like the armies of the First World War and relied on horses and mules to move their supplies once said supplies were unloaded or produced at the (rail) depot. The fact is that horses and mules require proper fodder to haul supplies and that in moving supplies they must carry their fodder with them. That fodder occupies a larger and larger proportion of their supply load the further from the rail depot the horse/mule has to move the "load". Even using the extensive rail network France for its sustenance the World War One British/Commonwealth Army shipped more tons of "horse fodder" into France than tons of ammunition. That is the reason the British/Commonwealth Armies motorized in between the First and Second World Wars (and realized an enormous savings in terms of shipping tonnage it could use to haul other things - although the same logic can be applied to carrying gasoline that can be applied to carrying oats the gas takes up a far smaller proportion of a trucks load than oats would).

In the game motorized supply is a liability: its only difference seems to be that it takes longer to offload in an amphibious assault than regular support. That difference has little effect on "island warfare" since supply lines tend to extend only a few hexes at most and usually extend only within the same hex. But in "continental warfare" such as in China (or Russia) the limitations of horse drawn supply rapidly come into focus.

Seemingly it would require a code change to effect a change such as this but limiting the movement of supply from a rail hex/navigable river (Japanese mostly) or production city (Chinese mostly) would go a long ways to fixing "The China Problem". Make the amount of supply a typical unit receives inversely proportional to the distance in hexes it moves from a rail hex/production city beyond one hex by temporarily disabling support devices within the unit for moving beyond one hex from the railroad. Thus the Japanese will be essentially limited to driving along railroads/navigable rivers since there are no railroads that extend into the Chinese interior. By the same token the Chinese would be limited in the same way from launching an offensive.

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

Since I know next to nothing about programming I suspect that the system mechanics will not abide there being a functional difference between motorized support and (unmotorized) support. Both types of support appear to forward beans and bullets to the infantry, artillery, etc (combat) devices of a unit.

Neither the Japanese nor the Chinese Armies were motorized. Both armies were much like the armies of the First World War and relied on horses and mules to move their supplies once said supplies were unloaded or produced at the (rail) depot. The fact is that horses and mules require proper fodder to haul supplies and that in moving supplies they must carry their fodder with them. That fodder occupies a larger and larger proportion of their supply load the further from the rail depot the horse/mule has to move the "load". Even using the extensive rail network France for its sustenance the World War One British/Commonwealth Army shipped more tons of "horse fodder" into France than tons of ammunition. That is the reason the British/Commonwealth Armies motorized in between the First and Second World Wars (and realized an enormous savings in terms of shipping tonnage it could use to haul other things - although the same logic can be applied to carrying gasoline that can be applied to carrying oats the gas takes up a far smaller proportion of a trucks load than oats would).

In the game motorized supply is a liability: its only difference seems to be that it takes longer to offload in an amphibious assault than regular support. That difference has little effect on "island warfare" since supply lines tend to extend only a few hexes at most and usually extend only within the same hex. But in "continental warfare" such as in China (or Russia) the limitations of horse drawn supply rapidly come into focus.

Seemingly it would require a code change to effect a change such as this but limiting the movement of supply from a rail hex/navigable river (Japanese mostly) or production city (Chinese mostly) would go a long ways to fixing "The China Problem". Make the amount of supply a typical unit receives inversely proportional to the distance in hexes it moves from a rail hex/production city beyond one hex by temporarily disabling support devices within the unit for moving beyond one hex from the railroad. Thus the Japanese will be essentially limited to driving along railroads/navigable rivers since there are no railroads that extend into the Chinese interior. By the same token the Chinese would be limited in the same way from launching an offensive.

quote:

mot support also represent horses, mules or heavier beasts since they weight quite a bit.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants_MatrixForum
What changes have you done in this theater to make the war more static and a stalemate like it actually was?

There seems to be significant differences in what China has from stock to DBB.

quote:

ORIGINAL: US87891


(...)

Support was conceptualized into two main types: intrinsic and extrinsic. Intrinsic support is that contained within a unit (LCU) itself. This was reduced to the region of 20% to 40% of required levels, depending on respective national norms. This means that LCUs are unable to sustain long term activity, especially in remote regions. Chinese units are clearly at the bottom of the scale, but the Japanese are not very much better off. Their operational norms required support to be concentrated at higher echelons (division HQ or higher), while the “operational” units made do with approximately 25-28% of requirements. The extrinsic support devices (squads) are found in HQ units and/or QM/Sup/Ord/Med LCUs. They provide the “extra” support required by operational units to remain healthy, but according to AE algorithms only “share” functionality at bases. One can see how drastically this effects operations and how much planning (and preparation and time) is required to undertake a major advance, such as Ichi Go.

These are the high points.