Shannon V. OKeets
Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline
|
I am moving the discussion of play balance in China to this, a separate thread, so all the comments would be easier to find. What follows is cull from the thread on Maps for MWIF.
-----------
The rules as written and all the play that the game has received has been on WiF maps. Changing the maps risks changing the game’s balance. In particular, the land war between China and Japan is closely balanced and the number of units per hex (or hexes per unit?) is crucial for supply determination.
-----------
Moreover, after having played 2 full 39-45 (even up to 46) campaigns on CWiF, I realized that it led to a different and interesting war in China. I don't know if it is a more realistic war, but it is lot more enjoyable. Railways are more important, lines can be turned sometime at risks, the behind zones are never safe too, there is movement, well, you must try it. It looks more like the Russian front (scaled down) and less like the 14-18 trench warfare that it looks with the pacific map. Moreover the unlimited corps breakdown option helps in the war in China.
-----------
Map scale needs to be like in WiF, and NOT the CWiF-approach. One thing that the similar-size-hexes did was create complete havoc in the pacific and in China. Like you mentioned, the entire Chinese front would have to be rebalanced, and with that you'd have to redo the entire japanese land oob, and that would mean implications for US and CW as well.
-----------
I realise that this does affect game balance somewhat, in that Africa and China now have more room for maneuver. But it always seemed ackward to me that ethiopia was a single (off-map) hex in the board game, and was equadistant from Egypt and Somalia.
...
IMO, the players will be able to develope strategies for China that aren't too un-historical. However, if the game, as it is beta tested by players, seems to unbalanced by the extra room in China, additional units (territorials? Warlords?) can be added as deemed necessary.
------------
In regards to China, for example. If, in deciding that a single scale world map (as in CWiF) is they way to go, and that this changes the dynamics of the Sino-Japanese war in an undesirable manner, than maybe adding "Warlords", land units who are assigned to a city, who cost little or nothing to build, who cannot leave China (or the city), who have no ZOC (but cancel Japanese ZOC in their hex) to act as speed bumps. Give the Japanese some warlords for Manchuria/Korea. Just pulling ideas out of the air. (Dons flame retardant suit.)
------------
On the other hand, I would be concerned about how the game is played in the PTO and balance issues.
------------
Any specifics about play balance in the PTO is of interest to me. There seem to be a few more sea areas in CWIF that include sections to complete the rest of the world. However, I haven't layed them out side by side and done a detailed comparison. Obviously all the important (for movement, combat, and logistics) sea areas were included in WiF. So, we seem to be only talking about land hexes. Your thought about how addng more land hexes in the PTO might affect play balance would be appreciated.
------------
Well, basically in WiF, the Chinese front becomes very static very fast, because there are alot of mountains and rivers, and (relatively) few hexes. That means that it is very easy to defend, and very hard to attack. The movement cost for the pacific/asia maps also ensure that most units can only take one step at a time, and sometimes not even that (i e they become flipped for moving a hex).
This is good, because in real life, the Chinese front was horribly static.
What happens if you double the number of hexes in China, is that you suddenly have room to manuever. It is also easier for the Japanese player to concentrate forces at one part of the front and overwhelm the Chinese player.
Japan spends 1939-1941 doing pretty much nothing but fighting in China. I dont see why a japanese player would not put his entire army in China, and by doing that knock China out of the war before 1941. This happens from time to time in the normal game too, mostly when the japanese player gets lucky with a couple of dice rolls. But it would happen more frequently if we "open up" China by making it European-scale, without adding more troops.
It is quite clear (to me at least) that if we double the size of the asian map, we will need to add units to prevent an overal "thinning" of the Chinese frontline. And here is where we will run into balancing problems, because suddenly we are adding troops to China and Japan. Ok, so we add a bunch of japanese units to balance China. But the Japanese player decides to go after the Soviets instead. Ok..what now...do we add Soviet units? Then what about Germany? Etc etc.
Not to mention that the Japanese - USSR situation presents similar concerns as Japan - China. It is not too uncommon to have a Jap-USSR war in the early game.
Bottom line is, if we change the map-scale, we will have to add troops to Japan/China/USSR. If we add troops to Japan/USSR, we will have to look at US/CW/Germany. Basically we will have to rebalance a huge chunk of the OOB, and for what reason really?
---------------
I disagree strongly with you on this one.
Have you ever played a complete 39-45 game using CWiF and its single scale maps ?
I have, twice, and I did not felt what you described. 2 games are not enormous neither, and I could be wrong, but I'm true with what I tell you.
No havoc in the Pacific, no loss of balance in China, no need to redo the japanese or chinese oob (because of unlimited corps breakdowns).
The Naval war in the Pacific is not more different (with maybe a few more islands, that should be deleted from the Computer game because it allow for more air bases than in WiF FE single scale).
The new maps makes the war in China more like the war in Russia, with less mobile forces, less railines, less HQs, less cities, less planes and worse terrain. Armies hang around the rare railines and around their rare HQs, and try to extend on its wings to envelop the enemy, who does the same and try to take advantage of any weakening of the centers. On rare occasion a cavalry runs on the rear areas and has to be dealt with, but it is very soon oos and easy meal.
After having played the Pacific theater the "single scale" way, it is a pain in the butt to play it again the "Pacific scale" way.
----------------
Would this be only the land units or would we have to change some of the air units as well (I assume the naval units are ok as is)? Obviously the Japanese and Chinese units would need to be looked at closely but does the need for changes extend to the US, CW, and USSR?
...
The Chinese theater of operations in WiF has so few units that one or two combat results can tip the balance of power dramatically in one turn. Roll right and win. Roll wrong and lose. Expanding the number of hexes in China and increasing the number of units on both sides should make it less of an all or nothing on each combat result. There are house rules that I have read that impose severe restrictions on the Chinese theater simply to prevent any dramatic result in China. I don't agree with those house rules but I am very sympathetic as to why they were created. What I would like is for the China to play the same way Europe does: better decisions lead to better results but probability plays a crucial role. It is only over time and after hundreds of decisions that the better player is determined.
----------------
This is what I felt while playing single scale CWiF, and having much more fun in China than with WiF FE.
---------------
Don't forget about the unlimited division breakdown too. This sole option solves it all if it was needed. Even if the war in China evolves to a division sized war, no worries, it is the same for both sides.
---------------
Eh...what? Surely we are not having an unlimited division breakdown in MWiF? That would be a really bad idea.
---------------
This is not what happens.
The railines and the cities are so scarce in China, and the HQ so few, that you cannot use all that room that the single scale gives you. The mountain terrain stays mountain too, and the weather stay the same, and you are often disrupted while moving.
If the Japanese masses his army on one area in China, the Chinese has the time to see him massing his army, and only have to mass his in front of the japanese one. There are hundreds, or thousands, of undefended "frontline" miles on the single scale map War in China, but it does not need to be defended, because there is no attacker.
Attackers are constrained by the railines, mountains, and few HQ, they cannot use all the room. Moreover, the Japanese army is a lot less mobile than the German army.
Only the Communist situation is quite tricky at game start (as it can be in WiF FE is the Communist does bad setup), but it is not desperate at all, givent the fact that with the single scale map, the japanese start much far away from them. The Japanese army in Manchuria for example is 1-2 full turn away from the action in China with thee new maps.
---------------
This option already exists in CWiF, and it is quite good. There is no problem with it. It adds flexibility, allowing you to break down Hungarians Corps for example if needed.
The rule is that you can breakdown corps in divisions regardless of what divisions are left in the force pool, but you can only buy WiF FE divisions. The divisions you buy are limited.
---------------
Now, as for the divisions. WiF is designed to be corps/armies. If you allow a player to break down his entire army into divisions it becomes unplayable. Sure, no one in his right mind would do that because you would lose alot of combat power. BUT, a Japanese player might want to do something like that for his first turn attacks in the pacific. And guess, what, it would be bad... In WiF you are forced to decide where to use your divisions, and those divisions can become precious indeed, good as they are, to soak up losses, or invade out of supply places etc.
---------------
Good. Please, thrash out the issue of divisions for MWIF. I have no opinion either way and hope you can find a resolution everyone agrees on. Is a compromise possible? We already have hundreds of specific rules relating to individual countries and special units, a few more can't hurt (too much).
I suggest that you focus on benefits and limitations of different solutions (pros and cons). Avoiding personal attacks will help the discussion. The best solution would have all the benefits and none of the limitations.
---------------
But nevertheless, I found the unlimited divisions quite handy in CWiF. Corps breakdown is used the same way it is used in WiF FE, and breaking down large number of units in one's army never was an option. I fail to see the interest of doing so. Anyway, it had no downsides that's the reason why I liked it, let me just explain you why I liked it.
About the Japanese super (War) impulse and their limitation to the existing divisions, there is no problem with the rules of unlimited breakdown, because you still had to have an eligible corp to breakdown in the place where you want the division, so playing with this option needed planning as well as playing without.
Moreover, if we look at WiF's evolutions, division sized units did not exist at first, and when they appeared they never stopped being more & more numerous. I think it is a sign that tell they are useful, and the designer always add more.
Moreover, they are no game breaker, because even if you are good at breaking down corps to always have divisions to absorb the losses, you stilll have less corps on the map. In my mind, division breakdown need not to be unlimited to be a problem with soaking losses, it is already a problem without unlimited divisions breakdown.
I always thought that when playing with divisions, you should be playing with a rule saying that losses need to be corps sized, and a divisions should be worth half of a corps here too. Anyway, this is not (yet) in RAW. But I digress.
----------------
Secondly the war in Chine is dramatically different, it is very fluent and the supply problem are huge, the japaneese player have an edge early and when on the attack but so do China later in the game when Japoan had t6o focus on the allies.(one of the three games Japan conquered chine, one the chineese drove the japaneese back into the sea and one game ended prematurely but the chineese was in bad shape)
Some thing that slows the attacker down would be desirable. We didn't see an early war between Japan and Russia, so I'm not sure how that would play out.
----------------
It is not unlimited divisions, it is unlimited breakdown of corps into divisions. The difference is important, very important. If you can built unlimited divisions, you could have abuses that you don't have if you just can use unlimited breakdown.
Buildable divisions were still limited to the WiF FE countermix.
----------------
The problem with unlimited divisions is that most players would have one division per stack, and then these divisions would absorb combat losses. Suddenly you have a bunch of corps that are immune to damage. Or you'd have many many divisions in the pacific invading out of supply places, the Jap turn one is but one example of this. Basically the game is not designed to be a division-level game, nor is it designed to have too many divisions swarming around. It becomes too easy to game the combat system that way.
Back to China. I see your point that you would prefer to code the entire map in one scale. That brings up two related issues.
1) How will you give the player the ability to get an overview? This is where CWiF failed miserably, and where MWiF must succeed. In the real world, you simply stand beside the map, looking at it, and you get an instant overview. This is very important, to be able to get this overview in MWiF, because much of what makes WiF so great, is being able to hover over the map like that and ponder your moves.
2) Does this include the Americas, Africa, Scandinavia?
Got sidetracked..China.
I see your point about wanting to make the map similar. I believe it will lead to huge problems in asia. I am not really sure yet what to suggest, Im gonna need to think about it a while.
-------------------
Remember that while the breaking down of corps into divisions may be limited, corps themselves are not limited, and you can't built an unlimited number in a certain lapse of time.
So if you breakdown all the corps (or most of them) to have numerous divisions, you'll have less corps and be eaten by the Chinese who has a large army.
This said having played the option.
-------------------
Everyone knows that the China war will need a detailed review for balancing purposes if we use a unified scale and part of that review will be examining how unlimited divisional breakdown affects the game. I don’t see an alternative to coding it. The option might be pulled out before the game ships but you can’t test it without coding it. Game balance might be tweaked by changing the number of divisions available to Japan but lets not start THAT religious war right now.
-------------------
Scale preferably the one introudced in CWiF. Having a single scale has many advantages and the China issue (which is real as became clear in CWiF's beta tests) can be fixed by rebalancing and possibly reconsidering the use of armies in the Chinese and Japanese OOB's (that is a possible new land OOB for Asian countries).
-------------------
I find this argument of China very entertaining. I showed a group of guys I played WIF6 with in Chicago, that Japan could, on a regular basis, take most of China by the end of 1941. The idea of a stalemate in China is a myth. In fact without special rules Japan should own most, if not all, of China by the beginning of 1942. I showed these guys my techinique and last I heard, I am no longer in Chicago, they were merrily bashing others that thought China could hold off Japan.
The concept of unlimited corps breakdown to divisions is amusing. I would not mind seeing this as an option. I think it is better to limit corps breakdowns as otherwise the divisions become to powerful. I do disagree with the guy that says Japanese divisions are incorrect in the opening stages of the Japanese attacks in the Pacific. In fact many of the landings were not even division size. This has always been one of the drawbacks in the Pacific campaigns of WIF. The Japanese should have the SNLF divisions available as well as marines and infantry. This would make the Pacific campaigns more doable.
-------------------
Agree 100%, and would add the same for divisions and other counter limitations in the WiF. Unlimited breakdown can give lots of extra units, but who is going to want to keep throwing away combat factors simply to get more units?
-------------------
I favour me too the CWif map and unlimited breakdown, however I think that on the defence to have two weaker units instead of a stronger one can be a big advantage, because often for the attacker the gain of a better attack rapport don't compensate the difficulty to dislodge two unit from a hex instead of one.
A question: the corp unit after breakdown can be produced again before all of its divisions are eliminated or not?
-------------------
Yes it can be rebuilt.
-------------------
It was static in real life because the Japanese decided to stop attacking c. 1938. When they had motivation to do so again in 1944 (when US long range bombers started using forward bases in China), suddenly they made ground, at a time when Japanese forces were reeling all over the Pacific no less.
On the Chinese side, the Nationalists and Communists were at least as wary of each other as of the Japanese. If Japan was not attacking them, they would not recklessly expose themselves to potential loss to the other faction just to push the Japanese back a bit. Chiang, for example, knew well by 1942 that Japan was just a visitor (ie, the US would win the war) and that the Communists were his real foes. That's why he requested LL and then used those forces against Japan as little as possible.
The Chinese theater was static because neither side wanted to attack, not because terrain out-and-out forbid offensives. In WiF, the maps do inhibit offensives, but that's sheer logistics: ADG could not reasonably print Euro-scale maps of the entire world.
--------------------
So maybe MWiF would need additional rules to give the historic result ? Because as far as I could see in CWiF, the war in China was far from static !!!
I know that ADG had issued an optional rule for WiF FE with friction markers to hamper the Japanese in China, maybe this optional rule could exist in MWiF ?
Maybe there should also be an optional rule reflecting the Chinese reluctance to waste troops attacking the Japanese ?
At the risk of rambling, I'd suggest that the question be asked to the WiF FE designer who has the right level of knowledge of WiF FE and of History, and who could come up with a solution.
--------------------
I think that adding something to the defense of key hexes/cities, maybe something like the current warlords.
--------------------
I agree that it may change the dynamic of Asia, so I will propose this idea... Pick holes it it at will
It seems that there are two kinds of division breaking.... (1) the kind that came in the original rules and (2) the kind that is suggested to alleviate some of the possible problems on the asian map.
What if we had two kinds of divisions that mirrored those two kinds of division breaking?
The second kind of division would not cause the parent unit to go back to the force pool until both divisions were destroyed (or rather one parent unit per 2 divisions destroyed) and these divisions will not be allowed to stack in the same hex with other units. This will prevent abuse of the damage allocation when it is necessary to spread a corps over more than one hex.
We could even have a rule that says type 2 divisions must remain within a certain number of hexes.
I have been labeled a purist in the past and am leery of creating new rules out of thin air, but there really are two good sides to the map scale / unlimited divisions argument and it may need some thoughts.
---------------------
I like it, with some reservations. I could code it. It might be a little hard to explain to new players.
Let's put it on the list of possible ways to make sure the war in China doesn't become silly. There have been several suggestions made to prevent that and I believe we probably will have to play test them to see which to use. Of course, any of these changes that we put into MWIF will be options. I would also really like to keep the number of changes to an absolute minimum with as minor an effect as possible. You see, in my own way, I am a purist too.
---------------------
Having played many CWiF PBEM games:
-I really like unified scale and unlimited divisions
-for unlimited divisions to not cause disruptions to cor game mechanisms, however, I suggest two (house) rules:
1.Minor countries shouldn't be able to break down units, or else there are multiple exploits available
2.Some sort of corps-first loss rule should be played. I have a presonal favorite, basically that a DIV satisfies only half a loss, plus extra losses are half-losses.
If you use the two(or similar) rules above, unlimited DIV's basically become exactly what they were ment to be, an important tool to fill the low-density parts of the maps. Yes, Japan has more div's for it's supercombined, but there are also mor islands to take.
As for the china campaign, it is MUCH more fun in CWiF than in normal WiF. It's very high-mobility, knife-edge stuff. Both sides have horrible supply, and both sides can (and should) send DIV raiders behind enemy lines. Both sides are attacking and defending at the same time. The balance is still quite good, and more units do not really need to be added. One problem, however, is that the situation is not very stable, a small advantage to one side can easily magnify to a blowout victory.
I do have a few suggestions:
-China needs more cities. Chineese cities are currently so far apart that the loss of a front-line city will often lead to complete collapse, because the units holding the city's flanks will suddently be way OOS with little hope of ever reaching supply again (they will normally need 2-3 moves to come within 4 hexes of the next city). With more cities should go a reduced USE cost for taking cities.
-The setup rules are to advantageous for japan. China effectively has no internal lines, and are less mobile than Japan. Once they set up their defence, they're basically stuck in place. Japan can way to easily super-concentrate their forces against whatever weak spot there is in the chinese setup. This wasn't a huge issue in static WiFFE, but in mobile CWiF it can be disastrous. I suggest China should get some limited reaction to the japanese setup, (maybe a free pre-start land action??), perhaps coupled with a similar japanese "final adjustment")
-general balance is good, but if japan for whatever reson get's a bit on the ropes, it's also to easy for china to make japan pay. One should definately play with serious attack weakness or other similar options that would help allow japan to "hold the line" even with a reduced troop level.
btw, partisans work very nicely in CWiF, especially in china!!
---------------------
If a major re-balancing is done of China, this could be part of it. But a simple solution might just be to increase the number of Chinese cities, and leave USE rolls alone. Major Japanese advances would thus be a bit more difficult, and come at an increase in Entry.
---------------------
|
Printable Version
Play Balance in China - 
). 
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