RE: Why Partisan Formula needs to be recoded...

RE: 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

Kereguelen -> RE: Why Partisan Formula needs to be recoded... (3/29/2006 8:55:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns 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. All true. Additionally one should say that the Independent Mixed Brigades and C-Type Divisions that are in the game were (historically) employed for those garrison duties. Vanilla WITP gives them too much firepower/offensive capability while they historically were (nearly) static formations. Thus the "police" formations Nik was speaking about are in the game...

Ron Saueracker -> RE: Why Partisan Formula needs to be recoded... (3/29/2006 9:35:17 PM)
quote: 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. Treespider I can't agree on the static unit suggestion given the land model. Static units are completely porked once they are forced to retreat. Some other way is necessary. I've found that simply keeping serious supply low is the perfect hindrance to any player wishing to dally with Chinese offensives.[;)]

timtom -> RE: Why Partisan Formula needs to be recoded... (3/29/2006 9:50:18 PM)
Like Ron I'm personally not really keen on the Chinese static units. However with the cat being out of the bag, how about effectuating Treespiders suggestion by making some of the Japanese units static? Use his formula or whatever the team can agree on to compute new garrison values, then freeze the required no. of LCU's, giving preference to such units as were actually tied down in garrison/anti-guerrilla ops RL.

treespider -> RE: Why Partisan Formula needs to be recoded... (3/29/2006 11:35:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: timtom Like Ron I'm personally not really keen on the Chinese static units. However with the cat being out of the bag, how about effectuating Treespiders suggestion by making some of the Japanese units static? Use his formula or whatever the team can agree on to compute new garrison values, then freeze the required no. of LCU's, giving preference to such units as were actually tied down in garrison/anti-guerrilla ops RL. There would be no need for the partisan value if you made the Japanese static. Wth the raised garrison value...it wouldn't stop the Japanese from moving... it would simply make attacking a little bit more expensive. My suggestion for the static Chinese would be to simulate the warlord armies..In addition the static units wouldn't be as vulnerable if more Japanese were tied up on garrison duty. Another option is to make the Chinese HQ's static with very short ranges. However before we tie down the Chinese, we need to tie down the Japanese without making them immobile. IMO the raised garrison values accomplish this.

Ideologue -> RE: Why Partisan Formula needs to be recoded... (3/29/2006 11:47:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nikademus stock 1.6 (I know it ain't happening in my mod [;)] ) Yes.

Rapunzel -> RE: Why Partisan Formula needs to be recoded... (3/30/2006 12:10:12 AM)
Well I am unsing nik´s mod and i am getting steamrolled by japan. It is 7/42 and 3/4 of my army are out of supplies. I could hold the frontline citys but he bypassed them and occupied several backyard bases (with paratroopers - tanks). He does not seem to have any supply probs doing so... .

spence -> RE: Why Partisan Formula needs to be recoded... (3/30/2006 12:56:33 AM)
quote: question out of curiosity however. Are people still "conqueroring" china with ease in 1.6? I'm using 1.795 in a PBEM. My Japanese opponent captured Changsha right off the bat (mid-Dec 41) and moved on Yenan fairly quickly and captured it around the end of Dec. There is still a large concentration of troops around Changsha. He has since apparently redeployed the Yenan force and has advanced to Homan with all or part of around 15 divisions (300,000 men +). He's gradually getting the upper hand in the battle for Homan I think. Another 100,000 men are attempting to advance on Wuchow but are bogged down outside Canton. Japanese bombers have pretty much devastated the resource centers at Chungking but supplies are not too bad though certainly no better than at the start of the game. The date is 3/15/42. Since this is as far as I've ever gotten in a PBEM I have no basis for good comparision. I do have another game (v1.77) that is at 1/3/42. In that one Yenan fell in late Dec. Changsha still holds. Near Homan the Chinese at first pushed back a weak force then captured Kaifeng briefly (I forgot to cancel their move into the city actually...issued orders to go to the base so that a bombing raid wouldn't stop them from advancing into the rail junction NW of Kaifeng...then just took the hex from the beat up unit that was there). The Japanese then trapped 3 corps in the city and wiped them out. So far they've not advanced into Homan but a large force is headed there. In the South a Chinese advance to Canton was eventually repulsed but kept the Japanese from massing against and taking Hong Kong until 1/3/42. Another Chinese attack took and continues to hold Nanning. There is certainly alot of mobile military operations going on in China in both games...don't really know the history that well there but it seems to be more active than what my general impression would have allowed.

bilbow -> RE: Why Partisan Formula needs to be recoded... (3/30/2006 1:48:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nikademus Yep. [sm=00000924.gif] question out of curiosity however. Are people still "conqueroring" china with ease in 1.6? China under 1.6 stock is defendable. An Allied player that pays some attention to this theatre can stop the Japs cold. Not all Allied players do pay attention, however.

Ron Saueracker -> RE: Why Partisan Formula needs to be recoded... (3/30/2006 2:08:57 AM)
In the CHS 1.06 PBEM I'm playing, not only is the front static, but Bill even instigated a partisan uprising for not having enough garrison troops in a base.

Jim D Burns -> RE: Why Partisan Formula needs to be recoded... (3/30/2006 5:10:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker I can't agree on the static unit suggestion given the land model. Static units are completely porked once they are forced to retreat. Some other way is necessary. I've found that simply keeping serious supply low is the perfect hindrance to any player wishing to dally with Chinese offensives.[;)] Yes lowered supply will slow an attacker, the problem is it also breaks huge parts of the game engine for that side. Things like replacements and rebuilding damaged squads REQUIRE in excess of 20k supplies on hand to even work. If you nerf supply you simply break the game for that side, another solution needs to be found. Jim

Ron Saueracker -> RE: Why Partisan Formula needs to be recoded... (3/30/2006 5:31:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns quote: ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker I can't agree on the static unit suggestion given the land model. Static units are completely porked once they are forced to retreat. Some other way is necessary. I've found that simply keeping serious supply low is the perfect hindrance to any player wishing to dally with Chinese offensives.[;)] Yes lowered supply will slow an attacker, the problem is it also breaks huge parts of the game engine for that side. Things like replacements and rebuilding damaged squads REQUIRE in excess of 20k supplies on hand to even work. If you nerf supply you simply break the game for that side, another solution needs to be found. Jim Supply was one of the major issues in China, and I'm just talking food staples like rice slop. An entire campaign around Changsha was fought over the rice harvest, not surprisingly it was called the Rice Campaign I believe. Reducing supply so that not enough is available to 100% satisfy all the LCUs is fine by me, as long as the situation is mutual. This requires that Japan does not have a massive surplus all over the place thanks too free supply at resource centres. Another issue is the retarded AI assistant Timmy. He won't release a dribble of supply out of a base until all units at the supply hub are flush with supply themselves, so inevitably, with no ability for the player to dictate supply distribution, any LCUs not at a base get thoroughy screwed.

Nikademus -> RE: Why Partisan Formula needs to be recoded... (3/30/2006 5:40:33 AM)
did you have any troops stationed at those rear area bases?

Jim D Burns -> RE: Why Partisan Formula needs to be recoded... (3/30/2006 5:56:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker Reducing supply so that not enough is available to 100% satisfy all the LCUs is fine by me, as long as the situation is mutual. The problem is in game terms it doesn't work. In my PBEM game it is Sept. 42 and I've fought my opponent to a standstill as China in every offensive he's launched. But due to a total lack of sufficient supply at any Chinese base (way less than 20k) my army has slowly withered away and is now collapsing. I was forced to voluntarily abandon Yenen and Sian to consolidate my northern combat power, and am now in the process of abandoning Changsa and the rail line southwest of there, simply because my combat formations are dying off and not replacing losses. Most of my Corps have between 100-200 squads left and never draw any replacements or repair any damage. I have at least 20 Corps with zero supply on hand even though they occupy bases on rail lines. I'd say I have less than 50% of the combat power I started the game with while Japan is much stronger because most of his units are at 99 experience now. I’ve played a very good allied game in China and haven’t lost a single major battle yet, but I can’t fight a broken game engine and that is now losing me the country of China. Low supply breaks the Chinese period, the parts of the game engine that fail to work due to low supply means China will die no matter what. Unless of course the Japanese don't pay attention to it and fail to keep offensive pressure on the Chinese combat units by continually bombarding and attacking non-stop as my opponent has. Just because reducing supply has the appearance of addressing a problem you want to fix, doesn’t mean it is the right course to take. China was intended to have unlimited manpower in the game (as it should), but in reality the replacement engine stops working for them about a month into the game as the initial stockpiles get used up and supply drops below 20k at its bases. The replacements never work after that and it’s simply a matter of time from there until China collapses. As I said before, another solution needs to be found and China needs MORE supply not less. Right now the game engine itself is broken for the Chinese. Jim

Ron Saueracker -> RE: Why Partisan Formula needs to be recoded... (3/30/2006 6:40:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nikademus did you have any troops stationed at those rear area bases? Is this for me Steve?

Ron Saueracker -> RE: Why Partisan Formula needs to be recoded... (3/30/2006 6:42:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns quote: ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker Reducing supply so that not enough is available to 100% satisfy all the LCUs is fine by me, as long as the situation is mutual. The problem is in game terms it doesn't work. In my PBEM game it is Sept. 42 and I've fought my opponent to a standstill as China in every offensive he's launched. But due to a total lack of sufficient supply at any Chinese base (way less than 20k) my army has slowly withered away and is now collapsing. I was forced to voluntarily abandon Yenen and Sian to consolidate my northern combat power, and am now in the process of abandoning Changsa and the rail line southwest of there, simply because my combat formations are dying off and not replacing losses. Most of my Corps have between 100-200 squads left and never draw any replacements or repair any damage. I have at least 20 Corps with zero supply on hand even though they occupy bases on rail lines. I'd say I have less than 50% of the combat power I started the game with while Japan is much stronger because most of his units are at 99 experience now. I’ve played a very good allied game in China and haven’t lost a single major battle yet, but I can’t fight a broken game engine and that is now losing me the country of China. Low supply breaks the Chinese period, the parts of the game engine that fail to work due to low supply means China will die no matter what. Unless of course the Japanese don't pay attention to it and fail to keep offensive pressure on the Chinese combat units by continually bombarding and attacking non-stop as my opponent has. Just because reducing supply has the appearance of addressing a problem you want to fix, doesn’t mean it is the right course to take. China was intended to have unlimited manpower in the game (as it should), but in reality the replacement engine stops working for them about a month into the game as the initial stockpiles get used up and supply drops below 20k at its bases. The replacements never work after that and it’s simply a matter of time from there until China collapses. As I said before, another solution needs to be found and China needs MORE supply not less. Right now the game engine itself is broken for the Chinese. Jim Is this the CHS you are playing Jim?

Nikademus -> RE: Why Partisan Formula needs to be recoded... (3/30/2006 6:44:46 AM)
nope.

Jim D Burns -> RE: Why Partisan Formula needs to be recoded... (3/30/2006 1:52:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker Is this the CHS you are playing Jim? Nope, stock ver 1.06 start patched up to the current beta now. But I looked at CHS very closely when I started a game with Treespider a while back that he bailed on after a few turns and the supply for the Chinese was still far too low. Is anyone out there involved in a CHS game after June of 42 that has seen a stalemated front other than Japan occupying (but not capturing) Changsa, Yenen and Wuchow? If so do any of your bases have over 20k supply on hand? How about your individual combat units, do you have many with zero supply? Are your squads withering away? Remember only the supply above that 20k is available for use, so if they have 20137 or something they are still screwed. The game engine needs abundant supply to work properly when it come to replacements or damage repair. Heck even if you manage to keep a base well above 20k supply, it can take a year to rebuild a shattered division (say only 1/3rd of original strength left), so China would need abundant supply every turn for the game to work properly, getting a base to 20k once in a blue moon isn’t going to help them, they need sustained replacement draws to be able to slowly regenerate their losses. Jim

treespider -> RE: Why Partisan Formula needs to be recoded... (3/30/2006 2:18:32 PM)
quote: But I looked at CHS very closely when I started a game with Treespider a while back that he bailed on after a few turns and the supply for the Chinese was still far too low. You know why I bailed. Hopefully 1.8 will fix those problems ...till then No Mas.

Kereguelen -> RE: Why Partisan Formula needs to be recoded... (3/30/2006 2:33:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns Remember only the supply above that 20k is available for use, so if they have 20137 or something they are still screwed. The game engine needs abundant supply to work properly when it come to replacements or damage repair. Heck even if you manage to keep a base well above 20k supply, it can take a year to rebuild a shattered division (say only 1/3rd of original strength left), so China would need abundant supply every turn for the game to work properly, getting a base to 20k once in a blue moon isn’t going to help them, they need sustained replacement draws to be able to slowly regenerate their losses. Jim Hi, it's not supply over 20k for ground units but it's supply over base supply requirements x2 (15.3. of the rules). At least if the rules are correct in this regard. K

treespider -> RE: Why Partisan Formula needs to be recoded... (3/30/2006 2:44:46 PM)
quote: China under 1.6 stock is defendable. An Allied player that pays some attention to this theatre can stop the Japs cold. Not all Allied players do pay attention, however. It's not a question of stopping the Japanese cold... the scenario needs to be designed such that it is unattractive to the Japanese to attack in the first place, except to restore the status quo ...and then for them to not want to attack until the situation becomes untenable vis a vis Allied us of airfields in China. However IMO you are not going to be able to create the "feel" of China until you give the Japanese some disincentive to not want to attack. One of the problems with Stock was the ability to cut off Chinese Supply via bombing and the co-occupation of Chinese bases stopping supply production. CHS sought to introduce a "disincentive" by converting supply production in China to a daily supply allotment which cannot be cut off unless a base is captured. To achieve that "feel" and create the disincentive to attack by the Japanese my solution (which would not require a massive rewriting of the game code) is to change a divisor into a multiplier and a 10 to a 20. After that change is accomplished then scenario designers can go in and tweak: 1. Supply levels 2. Firepower of Chinese troops. 3. Static status of some Chinese units, HQ's and/or corps in certain bases. (Even given the current game engine... if they retreat out of their base consider it a continuation of the struggle in the base. IRL many of these "corps" would just melt into the local populace and linger in the area which is also represented by the newly acquired guerillas at the recently captured base.) 4. Map changes. Many of which have already been done in some of the mods.

Rob Brennan UK -> RE: Why Partisan Formula needs to be recoded... (3/30/2006 5:05:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rapunzel Well I am unsing nik´s mod and i am getting steamrolled by japan. It is 7/42 and 3/4 of my army are out of supplies. I could hold the frontline citys but he bypassed them and occupied several backyard bases (with paratroopers - tanks). He does not seem to have any supply probs doing so... . I think nik was asking you rapunzel ? I you failed to garrison rear bases with one corps at least your inviting trouble like this ( paras anyway). i dont understand the tanks one though ? surely you saw these coming along from somewhere ? pls enlightlen us ..

Speedysteve -> RE: Why Partisan Formula needs to be recoded... (3/30/2006 5:07:59 PM)
Hi Rob, Probably the Japanese secret weapons - flying tanks.........[;)]

Nikademus -> RE: Why Partisan Formula needs to be recoded... (3/30/2006 5:17:30 PM)
Speaking of which, when are you launching your China attack Speedo? I'm waiting for you. Come to Butthead....... huh huh huh huh huh huh huh huh [:'(]

Speedysteve -> RE: Why Partisan Formula needs to be recoded... (3/30/2006 5:19:02 PM)
China? Africa right, next to Denmark? No attacking there. I'm busy attacking nowhere

Nikademus -> RE: Why Partisan Formula needs to be recoded... (3/30/2006 5:23:02 PM)
chicken...bwak bwak bwak bwak. [:D]

Speedysteve -> RE: Why Partisan Formula needs to be recoded... (3/30/2006 5:29:55 PM)
[;)] Coming from the guy who ran away with his CV's....girlie Nik...girlie Nik.....girlie Nik

Ron Saueracker -> RE: Why Partisan Formula needs to be recoded... (3/30/2006 5:38:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: treespider quote: China under 1.6 stock is defendable. An Allied player that pays some attention to this theatre can stop the Japs cold. Not all Allied players do pay attention, however. It's not a question of stopping the Japanese cold... the scenario needs to be designed such that it is unattractive to the Japanese to attack in the first place, except to restore the status quo ...and then for them to not want to attack until the situation becomes untenable vis a vis Allied us of airfields in China. However IMO you are not going to be able to create the "feel" of China until you give the Japanese some disincentive to not want to attack. One of the problems with Stock was the ability to cut off Chinese Supply via bombing and the co-occupation of Chinese bases stopping supply production. CHS sought to introduce a "disincentive" by converting supply production in China to a daily supply allotment which cannot be cut off unless a base is captured. To achieve that "feel" and create the disincentive to attack by the Japanese my solution (which would not require a massive rewriting of the game code) is to change a divisor into a multiplier and a 10 to a 20. After that change is accomplished then scenario designers can go in and tweak: 1. Supply levels 2. Firepower of Chinese troops. 3. Static status of some Chinese units, HQ's and/or corps in certain bases. (Even given the current game engine... if they retreat out of their base consider it a continuation of the struggle in the base. IRL many of these "corps" would just melt into the local populace and linger in the area which is also represented by the newly acquired guerillas at the recently captured base.) 4. Map changes. Many of which have already been done in some of the mods. I'm obviously ignorant of programming but this idea seems simple enough. Why not stick the code change in and test it out? ...I'm sure the testing won't go on as this thread is potentially capable of.[;)]

Speedysteve -> RE: Why Partisan Formula needs to be recoded... (3/30/2006 5:43:44 PM)
Girlie Nik.......girlie Nik........girlie Nik[:'(]

Nikademus -> RE: Why Partisan Formula needs to be recoded... (3/30/2006 5:45:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Speedy [;)] Coming from the guy who ran away with his CV's....girlie Nik...girlie Nik.....girlie Nik Like the Burger King commercial says.... "big bwak'in Chicken......you are big....and you are Chicken" [:'(]

Speedysteve -> RE: Why Partisan Formula needs to be recoded... (3/30/2006 5:50:42 PM)
Come back to Kendari and we'll see who is the chicken and who's the famer with the shotgun [;)]

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.828125