Why Partisan Formula needs to be recoded... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945



Message

treespider -> Why Partisan Formula needs to be recoded... (3/29/2006 5:26:44 PM)

Currently in CHS at Yangku (Taiyuan)...

The Japanese have
Size 1 AF = Partisan Value (PV) 10
Industry 10 = PV 5
Resource 320 = PV 160
TOTAL PV =175

Per the manual the formula for determining garrison values to stop partisan activity is (Ind. + Res)/2 + (AF+PT)*10

Located in Yangku are 3 divisons and IIRC a brigade or regt. with Assault Values of 354, 365, 349 and 161 respectively, totalling 1229. To effectively garrison Yangku All the Japanese need to do is split one division thereby freeing up 2 2/3 divisions for offensive use or otherwise elsewhere.

Historically the area geographically West and South of Yangku (Taiyuan) (West of Yangku on the game map) was a hot bed of Chinese guerilla activity and the Japanese would not have been able to effectively garrison the area with 1/2-2/3 of a division.

As I've suggested before - if the formula were simply changed to:

(Ind+Res)*2 + (AF+PT)*20

the above example would require the Japanese to garrison Yangku with an AV of 680 effectively tying up 2 divisions

Suddenly the Japanese are faced with a conundrum that they currently do not have to face. How do I effectively garrison China and gather forces for an offensive. They would only free up the one divison + a regiment in the above instance.

Just looking at CHS, the bases from Shanghai to Ichang and North (east on the game map) currently are garrisoned with 10040 Assault points not counting units that start outside of bases. The required garrison as it stands now is c.2140 a difference of 7900 Assault points or 7900/350=22.5 divisions which can be freed to do other things.

By changing the formula the garrison value now becomes 7140 for a differnce of 2900 assault points or 2900/350=c.8 divisions which can be freed to do other things.

People wonder why China is broken? IMO this is why China is broken! The Japanese aren't tied down fighting partisans.

IMO This simple change to the formula would substantially change the way the China theater is fought and would much better represent the garrison difficulties faced by the Japanese IRL.



Nikademus -> RE: Why Partisan Formula needs to be recoded... (3/29/2006 5:31:13 PM)

The only problem with partisans, is that WitP does not represent 2ndline troops or police forces.




treespider -> RE: Why Partisan Formula needs to be recoded... (3/29/2006 5:36:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

The only problem with partisans, is that WitP does not represent 2ndline troops or police forces.




Nor do most of the histories I've read. It always seems to be the Japanese ID's doing the fighting. Launching punitive operations from the bases represented in our game ...then returning to those same bases...wash, rinse, repeat.

My point is in the game the Japanese are able to assemble a critical mass for the so-called blitzkrieg because they are not tied down.

they were only able to launch Ichi-Go at the end of the war after they brought forces in from the home islands and manchuria to garrison the rear.



Brady -> RE: Why Partisan Formula needs to be recoded... (3/29/2006 5:37:28 PM)


Or Vector Bombs.


But China is a mess.



Nikademus -> RE: Why Partisan Formula needs to be recoded... (3/29/2006 5:41:41 PM)

Yes, with the Nationalist government refusing to "come to the table" and with the Nationalist army refusing to stand and fight (unless it wanted too) there was little else for the Japanese army to do prior to their big 1944 offensive against the USAAF heavy bomber airfields. India would also require a "garrison" rule but has none.

How much "actual" partisan activity was there, outside of Mao's communists? There is a tendancy to equate China with Russia in that regards but i've not read of rampant chinese activity in this mode. I did read in Caputo that the Nationalists and the IJA had a more or less "unofficial" truce around the 1941 period. Hence the stalemate.




Nikademus -> RE: Why Partisan Formula needs to be recoded... (3/29/2006 5:44:50 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

My point is in the game the Japanese are able to assemble a critical mass for the so-called blitzkrieg because they are not tied down.

they were only able to launch Ichi-Go at the end of the war after they brought forces in from the home islands and manchuria to garrison the rear.



There are easier methods to address the "blitzkrieg" aspect. The Japanese needed additional forces for Ichi-Go because of the Chinese armies that might take advantage of the troop movements...not because of magical chinese partisans somehow rising up in each city. There's a difference between garrisoning strong points against enemy mainline forces and a "garrison" requirement against an abstraction (chinese partisans)



treespider -> RE: Why Partisan Formula needs to be recoded... (3/29/2006 6:11:40 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

Yes, with the Nationalist government refusing to "come to the table" and with the Nationalist army refusing to stand and fight (unless it wanted too) there was little else for the Japanese army to do prior to their big 1944 offensive against the USAAF heavy bomber airfields. India would also require a "garrison" rule but has none.


But the Japanese did do more than just sit on there hands between 1941 and 1944 - In 1942 the launched a "punitive" operation into the Chekiang-Kiangsi province, In the summer of 1943 they launch a "punitive' operation in Western Hupei province, In April of 1942 the Japanese launched a anti-guerilla op in Hopei-Chahar Area, In may 1943 the japanese conducted anti-guerilla ops in Shantung province, In Feb, 1943 the Japanese conducted anti guerilla activity in Northern Kiangsu province, In dec 1941 the japanese conducted anti guerilla activity in the "northern sector of the Peiping hankow railway" In June 1942 again in this same area, In April 1943 in the Tai-hang Shan region (north of Honan), Again in July of 43 in the same region. In Februray 1943 the area SE of Hankow in the Mienyang area was subjected to an anti-guerilla op. And so forth and so on.

quote:


How much "actual" partisan activity was there, outside of Mao's communists? There is a tendancy to equate China with Russia in that regards but i've not read of rampant chinese activity in this mode. I did read in Caputo that the Nationalists and the IJA had a more or less "unofficial" truce around the 1941 period. Hence the stalemate.

I'm not equating Chinese guerillas to Russian partisans. Thus why I think the garrison value handles chinese guerillas nicely but not to the extent that it should. The guerillas would move in tear up track be a nuisance and run away.



treespider -> RE: Why Partisan Formula needs to be recoded... (3/29/2006 6:16:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus


quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

My point is in the game the Japanese are able to assemble a critical mass for the so-called blitzkrieg because they are not tied down.

they were only able to launch Ichi-Go at the end of the war after they brought forces in from the home islands and manchuria to garrison the rear.



There are easier methods to address the "blitzkrieg" aspect. The Japanese needed additional forces for Ichi-Go because of the Chinese armies that might take advantage of the troop movements...not because of magical chinese partisans somehow rising up in each city. There's a difference between garrisoning strong points against enemy mainline forces and a "garrison" requirement against an abstraction (chinese partisans)



Yes but these Chinese armies that might take advantage of trrop movements were also the magical guerillas the garrisons were defending against. I can rattle off at least 10 Chinese corps that although listed as front-line units were nothing more than guerillas that would move into an area after the Japanese left and would operate in areas behind our games frontlines.



Nikademus -> RE: Why Partisan Formula needs to be recoded... (3/29/2006 6:21:56 PM)

I wasn't suggesting that the Japanse did nothing, however reprsenting partisan activity without also represting 2nd line formations is not a viable solution in my opinion, particuarily when its only being applied to one side.

"garrisoning" a strong point to protect against enemy 1st line forces should be adequate in this regards. The only "problem" i saw (and addressed) was that the rail movement system allowed the Japanese to move faster allowing them to concentrate and take an objective before Mogami's scenario could come into play (Chinese armies moving into areas vacated by the Japanese due to their own troop movements)




treespider -> RE: Why Partisan Formula needs to be recoded... (3/29/2006 6:35:11 PM)

quote:

, however reprsenting partisan activity without also represting 2nd line formations is not a viable solution in my opinion, particuarily when its only being applied to one side.


I would suggest that the "2nd line units" are abstractly represented in that the base does not switch sides when vacated by combat troops, combined with the fact that the partisan effect is a gradual process that does not result in the complete degradation of a base in one day.

The Japanese maintained combat units in addition to the "2nd line" units in these "rear" areas and along transportation lines for a reason. My suggestion is that the the game as is, is not providing a sufficient enough reason.



Ron Saueracker -> RE: Why Partisan Formula needs to be recoded... (3/29/2006 6:37:01 PM)

I like the idea, and why not add it to India?



treespider -> RE: Why Partisan Formula needs to be recoded... (3/29/2006 6:38:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

I like the idea, and why not add it to India?



I don't have a problem with that. I was just talking about China. [;)]



Nikademus -> RE: Why Partisan Formula needs to be recoded... (3/29/2006 6:40:38 PM)

quote:

The Japanese maintained combat units in addition to the "2nd line" units in these "rear" areas and along transportation lines for a reason. My suggestion is that the the game as is, is not providing a sufficient enough reason.


If all of the units, 2nd line etc, are included in the OOB, then i'd say Partisan activity and "garrisoning" against it and for population control is warrented. Without them, it is not warrented.



treespider -> RE: Why Partisan Formula needs to be recoded... (3/29/2006 6:51:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

quote:

The Japanese maintained combat units in addition to the "2nd line" units in these "rear" areas and along transportation lines for a reason. My suggestion is that the the game as is, is not providing a sufficient enough reason.


If all of the units, 2nd line etc, are included in the OOB, then i'd say Partisan activity and "garrisoning" against it and for population control is warrented. Without them, it is not warrented.




I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree...[;)]




Nikademus -> RE: Why Partisan Formula needs to be recoded... (3/29/2006 6:55:13 PM)

Yep.

[sm=00000924.gif]


question out of curiosity however. Are people still "conqueroring" china with ease in 1.6?




treespider -> RE: Why Partisan Formula needs to be recoded... (3/29/2006 7:01:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

Yep.

[sm=00000924.gif]


question out of curiosity however. Are people still "conqueroring" china with ease in 1.6?





CHS 1.6? or Patch 1.6?



Nikademus -> RE: Why Partisan Formula needs to be recoded... (3/29/2006 7:10:05 PM)

stock 1.6


(I know it ain't happening in my mod [;)] )



Oznoyng -> RE: Why Partisan Formula needs to be recoded... (3/29/2006 7:18:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

quote:

The Japanese maintained combat units in addition to the "2nd line" units in these "rear" areas and along transportation lines for a reason. My suggestion is that the the game as is, is not providing a sufficient enough reason.


If all of the units, 2nd line etc, are included in the OOB, then i'd say Partisan activity and "garrisoning" against it and for population control is warrented. Without them, it is not warrented.


There is an additional concern for me. After a time in the stock scenario, an Allied Chinese offensive is possible. The higher the garrison requirement, the more you shift the balance of power in China to make it an Allied theatre rather than a stalemate. Doubling the garrison requirement in China removes a ton of IJA troops from frontline bases (2300 AP worth), simultaneously reducing the IJA offensive firepower and weakening the IJA defensive positions such that China can more easily attack. If you plan on doing this, you need to somehow account for the Nationalist/Communist tension and tie down Chinese troops as well.

Also, some OOB changes would need to be made to protect the Japanese player from immediate deterioration of the position in China. Since your suggestion would leave seven CEA cities in partisan acitivity at game start, China would degenerate for the IJ player until forces could be moved into place to beef up the garrisons. In some cases, those movements would take weeks to accomplish. In the weeks the movements took, the supply situation and condition of the bases would deteriorate.



Ron Saueracker -> RE: Why Partisan Formula needs to be recoded... (3/29/2006 7:21:32 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

stock 1.6


(I know it ain't happening in my mod [;)] )


China is pretty static in CHS 1.06 too. I wonder how long stock will remain the only official version?[;)]



Nikademus -> RE: Why Partisan Formula needs to be recoded... (3/29/2006 7:27:58 PM)

I agree generally with your points. I hold similar concerns. In my mod, the only partially negative feedback i've received in regards China comes from the Japan player (that they can't do enough while the Chinese 'can')

I remain interested in stock version outcomes. If the movement system remains as is, i think that additional china units would be an adquate solution (if needed) but make them understrength in terms of firepower. (i.e. primarily squad based) Noone disputes that the Chinese had plenty of manpower. Theirs was a problem of provisioning them and keeping them organized.



ChezDaJez -> RE: Why Partisan Formula needs to be recoded... (3/29/2006 7:35:29 PM)

quote:

question out of curiosity however. Are people still "conqueroring" china with ease in 1.6?


Nope, not in my stock 1.6 PBEM. We are in Nov 42 and China is stalemated. Stalemated to the point that my opponent has withdrawn all of his Cinese airpower to India and Burma for his offensive there (which has also stalemated around Mandalay). I captured the cities on the rail line between Changsha and Canton early in the war but Wuhan remains in Chinese hands.

The balance of forces is such that if I concentrate a large enough contigent for an offensive, he counterattacks in another area with sufficient troops to make things dicey. This forces me to restore the staus quo by moving back some of the forces needed for the offensive. So, we stare across the barb wire and landmines giving each other the finger[:D].

That plus the shortage of supply for conducting large scale offensives makes it near impossible to be successful there and still defend Burma/SRA/SE Pac/Cent Pac. His heavies have laid waste to every major resource base except Java and Palembang (and Palembang is only at 30% production due to the massive damage it suffered when I captured it). Right now its getting pretty tough just to keep the home islands supplied with resources and oil.

Chez



denisonh -> RE: Why Partisan Formula needs to be recoded... (3/29/2006 7:38:38 PM)

CHS may be somewhat better than the stock scenario, although as IJ in a PBEM in CHS I just took Changsa in early March 42 and am beginning my drive on Chungking.

Should be sieging Chungking in a month or two.

Still easy for the IJA to mass enough to beat up the Chinese quickly, although it is harder on all fronts like in the stock scenario.




el cid again -> RE: Why Partisan Formula needs to be recoded... (3/29/2006 7:40:26 PM)

quote:

As I've suggested before - if the formula were simply changed to:

(Ind+Res)*2 + (AF+PT)*20

the above example would require the Japanese to garrison Yangku with an AV of 680 effectively tying up 2 divisions


The problem is this applies to ALL of China, including places the Japanese were able to raise troops - actually vast numbers of them. Not every place was a "hotbed" of opposition. And it was SOP in China to trade with Japan in vital strategic materials - both Reds and ROC did so - and tolerated lots of others doing so. That is, "control" of a resource hex did not generally cut off Japan from those resources, historically. So there are things that are unbalanced against Japan in this system in China - not everything goes its way. It is HARD to get China right - and a naval oriented game was unlikely to be that sophisticated.



el cid again -> RE: Why Partisan Formula needs to be recoded... (3/29/2006 7:44:58 PM)

quote:

Nor do most of the histories I've read. It always seems to be the Japanese ID's doing the fighting. Launching punitive operations from the bases represented in our game ...then returning to those same bases...wash, rinse, repeat.

My point is in the game the Japanese are able to assemble a critical mass for the so-called blitzkrieg because they are not tied down.


If you want to increase garrison requirements, you then have to give Japan its REAL garrisons. It actually raised MILLIONS of troops in China alone. It also raised troops in other places - and some of those never left the field when the war ended. Japan adopted a policy of effectively arming some of these, with a view to "punishing" the colonial powers, and this policy succeeded in places like Indonesia, Indochina and Burma. In China the policy was broader - political as well as military. Japanese introduced real reforms (returning to Chinese administration things taken from them for a century or so) were never reversed except in Hong Kong. For a rather objective review of the troops not usually considered in all territories, see World War Two Nation by Nation.



el cid again -> RE: Why Partisan Formula needs to be recoded... (3/29/2006 7:48:26 PM)

quote:

Yes, with the Nationalist government refusing to "come to the table" and with the Nationalist army refusing to stand and fight (unless it wanted too) there was little else for the Japanese army to do prior to their big 1944 offensive against the USAAF heavy bomber airfields. India would also require a "garrison" rule but has none.


Au contrair, mon ami, it appears India would have been very self garrisoning. Bose was a legitimate Indian politician, and the impolitic imprisoning of virtually all legitimate Indian politicians (the entire Congress Party - at a time it INCLUDED Muslim politicians - spent the war in prison) meant the general population was predisposed to believe they were the legitimate leaders. So long as Japan would accept a neutral India garrison would not be required. And the odds are long the Allies would NOT accept a neutral India - in which case India would be an ACTIVE Axis power. No garrison then either.



el cid again -> RE: Why Partisan Formula needs to be recoded... (3/29/2006 7:53:13 PM)

quote:

I remain interested in stock version outcomes. If the movement system remains as is, i think that additional china units would be an adquate solution (if needed) but make them understrength in terms of firepower. (i.e. primarily squad based) Noone disputes that the Chinese had plenty of manpower. Theirs was a problem of provisioning them and keeping them organized.


There is a bigger problem getting Chinese troops to fight. Traditional Chinese troops were NOT predisposed to fight (you might get hurt - what is the point in that? you could not expect anyone to feed your family then). Chinese troops were not paid until the mid-1990s - Chinese taxes never paid for regular army units (just navy and air force units) - so they evolved a peculiar system of self supporting - they made their own food, uniforms and even weapons (something continued into the modern era Red Army, just now trying to shed some of this, and not very successfully).



Nikademus -> RE: Why Partisan Formula needs to be recoded... (3/29/2006 7:53:22 PM)

I wasn't referring to Japan. I was refferring to the British having to garrison India during it's period of upheaval in 42.




treespider -> RE: Why Partisan Formula needs to be recoded... (3/29/2006 8:37:27 PM)

quote:

If you want to increase garrison requirements, you then have to give Japan its REAL garrisons.


Why?

This statement makes the assumption that the designer got the garrison requirement correct in the first place.

IRL the Japanese kept 1st line combat units in most if not all of the bases represented in the game, as well as along the transportation routes between those bases. Why?

The reason why ... was to defend against guerilla activity conducted by Chinese units. IMO the best way to simulate this is to increase the garrison requirement of the Japanese player as opposed to giving the Chinese more units... which they should be entitled to as well.

As an example lets look at the case of the Chinese 19th Corps and 23rd Corps. These units composed the 6th Army Group of the 2nd War Area. They operated in the area of southwest of Yangku (Taiyuan). They are listed as regular Chinese Army Corps in the Chinese OoB. However when you start to look at the activities of the 6th Army Group you realize that it was nothing more than guerilla activity.

So in game terms is it better to represent these 'Corps' as combat units on the map in a 60 mile hex somewhere near Yenan on the Japanese side of the river, or would it be better to gut their firepower or remove them altogether and raise the garrison requirement of the Japanese base at Yangku. I just use Yangku for an example, the same would apply to the New 4th Army which was Communist and would be located outside of Nanking and Shanghai. Or the Chinese 7th Corps which operated NE of Hankow. Or the Chinese 40th 'Corps' or 27th 'Corps' which operated north of Kaifeng in 1941.

Were the Chinese guerillas anything like the Russian partisans no ... however they did conduct low intensity nuisance raids throughout China ripping up tracks harassing the Japanese but usually never standing up for a direct confrontation and were active enough to require the Japanese to maintain combat formations throughout all of occupied China and provoked anti-guerilla operations by the Japanese throughout the war.

IMO the best way to simulate this given our current code and a simple fix to it is to raise the garrison limit. Couple it with a cut in Chinese firepower, the elimination of some of the Chinese Corps, the making static of other Chinese corps ... and I think it will go a long way toward providing the feel of China that is not currently provided.





Jim D Burns -> RE: Why Partisan Formula needs to be recoded... (3/29/2006 8:40:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

Yes, with the Nationalist government refusing to "come to the table" and with the Nationalist army refusing to stand and fight (unless it wanted too) there was little else for the Japanese army to do prior to their big 1944 offensive against the USAAF heavy bomber airfields. India would also require a "garrison" rule but has none.

How much "actual" partisan activity was there, outside of Mao's communists? There is a tendancy to equate China with Russia in that regards but i've not read of rampant chinese activity in this mode. I did read in Caputo that the Nationalists and the IJA had a more or less "unofficial" truce around the 1941 period. Hence the stalemate.




China was a vast country and the war fought there between Japan and China prior to Dec. 41 was vastly different than that fought between Russia and Germany. There were no special police units created in VAST quantities by Japan to occupy rear areas, because they never actually conquered those rear areas to begin with so there was no pressing need for them.

There was no sweeping front that swept through the country conquering every little village and hamlet, instead Japan attacked along transportation routes on a very narrow front and was forced to occupy the entire line because everything else in the primitive hinterlands remained under Chinese control (except when punitive offensives were launched, but Japan always withdrew back to the transportation lines after).

Front line troops were required to garrison the entire railway network because Japan lacked sufficient troops to occupy the vast interior areas of China. Just because some guy colored in vast areas of the country with red ink on some map and said it was occupied doesn’t mean a few police troops could have had a hope in hell of controlling those areas.

The best way to represent what Japans occupation looked like would be to draw red lines over the rail and main road network and leave the rest uncontrolled. That would be a realistic representation of what the situation in China was on Dec. 1941. Japan was forced to keep 80% of the combat formations in China guarding the rear areas, because China had active large scale combat formations available to sweep in and cut any part of the line if Japan let its guard down.

I’ve read accounts where entire Chinese combat divisions would melt away into the local populace as a Japanese offensive swept through their area. They would then reform after the Japanese passed through and reap havoc in the rear and simply melt away again whenever the Japanese returned to hunt for the unit.

Technologically the Japanese army was far superior to Chinas army, but China had millions more men under arms and unlimited replacements available to replace the horrendous losses taken whenever the two armies would clash in stand up fights. Japan spent five years learning they couldn’t defeat China in a land war. Anyone who thinks the current land situation in the game is even remotely close to justified from an historical point of view is simply delusional.

I think the best solution in China would be to give the Chinese their historical armies, and then allow them to draw unlimited supplies from ANY Chinese hex not occupied by a Japanese combat unit. Take away all but a few engineer squads so they have no hope of assaulting defended Japanese bases with forts, and then you’ll see a more realistic game in China. Japan will be forced to defend every rail and road hex with combat troops (as they had to do historically) and China will have lots of offensively weak but large combat formations roaming the primitive countryside.

The better more modern equipped offensive Chinese formations (perhaps 70-100 of the almost 400 total divisions China fielded) would be fixed in the larger Chinese controlled bases, and only become available for use in late 44 or if the Japanese attack them first.

Jim



treespider -> RE: Why Partisan Formula needs to be recoded... (3/29/2006 8:43:59 PM)

quote:

The best way to represent what Japans occupation looked like would be to draw red lines over the rail and main road network and leave the rest uncontrolled. That would be a realistic representation of what the situation in China was on Dec. 1941. Japan was forced to keep 80% of the combat formations in China guarding the rear areas, because China had active large scale combat formations available to sweep in and cut any part of the line if Japan let its guard down.


Here is what Jim is talking about...

[image]local://upfiles/15342/0DD17577C9434599B955189F7D25E886.jpg[/image]



Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.75