mogami
Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline
|
Hi, I don't mind being quoted but I 'd rather I was quoted correctly.
Several items.
I have always said that the Soviets and Chinese in WITP were too easy.
When the "Hirohito" plan was first published my respose was
rather then start with China. Player should move troops to Manchuria and knock out Soviets first. Not because it was good strategy or realistic but because if your playing WITP to conquer the map that was the correct order to do it in.
I'm surprised Mike Scholl does not remember all this. We went through all this in April 2004.
"Hi, No I think they are looking to invade the Soviet far East and capture more oil and resource and heavy industry.
I'm not sure what they plan on doing in 1943. "
(april 26th 2004)
In response to post about why Japanese players would want to activate Soviets. At the time it was hoped the Soviet OB would discourage players from ativating but in testing we found they were paper tigers (I had four test games with Soviets active)
However it made a difference if Soviets were activated prior to Japanese attacks. If Soviets active before Japanese attacks they withstood them rather well. If Japan got in the first attack prior to activating Japan won.
Another from the early days
"Hi, The Soviets only have to defend their major ports and the Railroad. Find a point far enough back along the rail and dig in. The Japanese will run away from their supply while the Soviets build up. There is no reason to fear flanking moves out into that waste land. The Japanese are a foot Army they have to stick to supply routes because they cannot move fast. (They like the Germans still use a large portion of horse drawn supply and arty) The Soviets do not have to make any offensive all they have to do is sit tight.
There will be a point where the Japanese supply breaks down. As long as the Soviets retain the rail west they are secure.
Japan will have to build up from 700,000 troops to 1,500,000 by 1943 or they will lose everything. The extra build up will cause ripple supply effects every where Japan is in contact with an enemy. The added air attrition will do to the IJA what the Solomon campaign did to the IJN airforces.
When I first began planning Japanese early war strategy I did a very long study of Japan seizing the Soviet oil fields and major ports (for the heavy industry and resource)
I think it could be done within 6 months of the start of war. (Japan has to prepare by building airfields, stockpiles of supply, troop movements and waiting for fleet
The problem was this would place over 1/3 of Japans industry exposed to attack by land forces that could march (how ever slow) to the targets. I could not find a way of insuring enough force to oppose the Soviets and the Chinese and by adding the Soviets to the war so early US material arriving in Soviet bases. USN submarines could refuel rearm at Soviet ports. The Home Islands air defense would have to be tripled while at the same time increasing that in Manchuria and Korea.
The early going whould not be that difficult but by 1943 everything gained would be lost taking with it industry that otherwise would be immune to attack the entire war. (I don't care what happens in Korea in Aug 1945)
It is much safer to grab the SRA because once it is secure the battle zones are located far from the resource/oil/industry. Japan can afford to lose battles in the empty zones as long as they take time. Japan cannot afford to lose battles in the heart of her industry/resource areas. (at least not before mid 1945) "
(4/28/04) Note this was based on Soviets being active prior to Japanese attack. (In testing I always activated Soviets before crossing the border) Also I did not use units from China but did use units from SAA.
"Two Armies and two leggies. (Both Mao and Peanut have armies but they can be mixed and matched. The game is about war with Japan not Chinese Civil War. )"
(5 May 2004) In response to question about Chinese
"Forget Russia. Japan can gain little and lose much bringing them into the war. Just pray they stay out of the war. (The one thing the Soviets can not do is invade Japan.) If the Soviet Union enters the war in 1945, so what? (As long as USAAF bombers can not use USSR airfields it is no big deal)"
13 Mar 2004 (of course at this time I was still under the impression the Soviet Far East Fleet was to be included and that Japan would not have the "fisrt strike" capabilty they ended up with.)
"QUOTE]Originally posted by mdiehl
[B]IMO, if the JPN player wants to get involved in a *another* land war in Asia he ought to be allowed. IN that event, the USSR becomes a playable Allied faction, but with something akin to "stacking restrictions." [/B][/QUOTE]
Hi, Trust me folks. Japan does not want a war with the Soviets.
(He can get it anytime he wants, just attack them)
There is nothing to be gained.
(Let sleeping dogs lie)
The Soviets are included. Leave them alone!!!! (The front is too large and there are too many Soviets. ) Consider them "window dressing" and then forget about them. You can not prepare for their entry into the war and you certainly do not want to provoke it. "
13 Mar 2004 (Just so anyone who thinks my position has changed since release. I was always saying that this front should not be active)
"We, the testers, have forwarded several ideas on how to handle the Soviets and the Communist Chinese. Right now it looks like they might be options (Historical, Non-Historical) that is selected at game set-up. However, this can change because we are a long way form coding that part of the game.
Rick"
KID on 17 Mar 2004 (Unfortunatley it was not taken care off in a clear easy to understand way)
"Hi, I hope WITP when complete produces a workable system for generating logical and historically feasible outcomes when the forces involved are not repeats of historic encounters. (I would hope when historic actions were set up the outcome was close to what occurred historically)
So no matter what the final system evolves into I will still fight the war following a plan I devise to take into account the game system.
I think the Japanese player (using hindsight) can do much better. The same is true for the Allied player. The game will begin to depart from history on day one and by day 1665 we should look back on a war that has produced it's own history.
The Japanese player will have to accept negative loss ratios in air to air. He can compensate to a degree be having a numerical advantage prior to opening combat. He has that advantage in the SRA so he only needs to insure he carries it with him where ever he goes.
I don't think we need to "balance" the game. I think we need to just make it accurate and let the players "balance" the game by their planning. The Japanese player has to highlight his strengths and hide his weakness.
It is very important to keep in mind the Japanese player is not trying to win the war. He is trying to win the game. He does that by not surrendering prior to Aug 15 1945. Even if the Allied player achieves the auto victory in Feb 1946 the best he can do is a draw. The Japanese player does not kill Allied material for their VP but to deprive the Allied player of their use. Japan does not care about VP. (except to avoid allied auto victory before Aug 1945)
The Allied player has to be a better resource manager compared to the Japanese. He needs to use assets over again. The Japanese player allots resources to defense knowing they will be gone when the battle is over. The only considerations for him are
Is this the "Great" battle I am waiting for? If not Do I really want (need) to fight here? How much do I want to extract as payment? How much can I afford to commit while still retaining the force I am preserving for the "Great" battle?
The war was rather one sided all things considered I expect the game to also be rather one sided. However that does not discourage me from wanting to play both sides. The great burden of victory has been lifted from the Japanese and placed squarely on the allied player. Japan only has to expand early (guaranteed unless Japanese are totally inept) and then be careful where they fight while setting up for one spectacular try at a tactical victory. The course of the war will still be interesting and fun to play. 1941-1943 the Allied player will in essence be trying to do exactly what the Japanese player is going to try from 1943-1946. Catch the enemy and administer a spanking from which the enemy cannot recover from without a prolonged period of rebuilding. The Allies hope to exploit this period by launching their own offensives and the Japanese hope to end the Allied re-conquest."
(24 Mar 2004) Does it sound like even then I was playing a Japan conquers the map game?
"Hi, I think you may be missing my point. Victory for the two players in WITP is different. The Allies have to force the enemy to surrender.
The Japanese have to force nothing. They have to avoid surrender.
The difference may seem petty but it is what in the end "balances" the game.
Forcing your enemy to surrender means you must be the active driving force in the contest. Avoiding surrender requires you only to be able to prolong the conflict past a certain preordained date.
It is this difference that makes the two sides styles interesting. The Allied player will try to avoid material loss because this impacts his getting the ratio for auto victory by making it harder. The Japanese player will wiegh the impact on auto victory before comitting to the defense of any point. As long as he gets a certain ratio in return for his investment he is fine. Because he gets a fairly high starting ratio during the first 6 months he has a lot of room later on.
Japanese players who insist on trying to destroy the allies and win military victory are going to be the ones that give the Allies the early auto victory. "
(25 Mar 2004)
"Greetings, We really want to fool with mother nature now don't we? The reason they go to war is China and Manchuria. If they had been willing to give up territory (and not want to occupy still more) there could have been a settlement possible. To allow Japanese players to withdraw from China would really be twisting history. (Yes I agree it might even make military sense, just that it would be akin to the CSA recruiting black soldiers in 1861)(Unthinkable) "
10-2-2002 (back before "Hi")
Greetings. I don't think Japan suffered from a lack of ground combat units to the point where with drawal from China would have made a differance in say the the South Pacific.
The player in WITP will have plenty of units but will find keeping a large number of them supplied far from main supply bases quite a task. I do think if he wants to he should have access to the China/Manchuria units (say he wants to swap a green unit for a more experianced one). He will most likely still be adding to and not subtracting from China during the course of the game.
10-9-2002 (on why China and Manchuria are in game)
"Hi, These are my results in recent (on going) test of Scenario 1 versus Allied AI
This is an Alpha test (I'm testing not playing) Please confine remarks or questions
to how the program works or interface don't get exicited about events you think are
not realistic. (The game needs to be tested in order to be tweeked and we really don't
require too much input concerning things we can see for our selves) My test is mainly
to run Japanese production.
I've edited a lot of the reports down to conserve space and time.
The plan is to conquer the NEI,PI,Malaysia as rapidly as possible while making progress
toward future action in South Pacific. In China I would like to secure the transport network
from Canton in the south to Yenen in the north. Eliminate all enemy units to the east of this
line. I have no plans to move beyond this secure border. 15th Army is to advance and capture
Rangoon and await reinforcment. (It will remain on the defensive after capturing Rangoon)
25th Army is to capture Singapore as soon as possible. 14th Army reduce PI while 16th Army
secures the remainder or NEI. "
7-12-2003 (The plan I have stuck to ever since)
"I actually think that China would make a very interesting long scenario. Just use the maps of China and have reinforcement and supply arrive at ports for Japan and at rear China base (via flying the hump or Burma road) The game would move very fast. "
7-15-2003
"Hi, Political points are used to change leaders and HQ of landunits. In Alpha version both players receive 50 per day. They are not really a show stopper.
China/Manchuria and Korea need the units deployed there. In China there is an active enemy. Korea and Manchura have Soviet units deployed on the border.
Much of Japans heavy industry and resource are located here. (I think the Japanese player will send more troops to these areas although I do think in some cases he will 'trade' units. (send in a new div and trasfer one of the veteran units south)
Still it would be unrealistic to just ignore facts and transfer the bulk of the Korean forces out without replacing them at the same time. (there is history and then there is fantasy)"
9-27-2003
< Message edited by Mogami -- 1/30/2005 11:05:42 AM >
_____________________________
 I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
|
Printable Version
RE: Japanese grand strategy - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread