RE: Modifications to MWiF China Map portion (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames



Message

Froonp -> RE: Modifications to MWiF China Map portion (6/5/2006 4:12:18 PM)

quote:

It is very dangerous because not only do you open up China for mobile warfare, you also remove the ability to defend against mobile warfare. Imagine an Operation Barbarossa scenario where the USSR has 5 units defending the entire border against 30+ German units, and you get an idea what China will look like without additional units.

That's not at all the right picture IMHO.

For the 39-45 campaign, the different countries begin with :
- Nationalist Chinese : 15 Corps sized units + 1 divisions + 1 Gun
- Communist Chinese : 4 Corps sized units.

- Japanese in China proper : 10 Corps sized units + 2 divisions + 2 Guns.
- Japanese in Manchuria / Korea : 7 Corps sized units.
- Japanese in Japan : 4 Corps sized units + 1 division + 1 Guns.
- Japanese in free setup : 1 Corps sized units + 1 division.

So even if the Japanese used absolutely every troop they had against China, they would have 22 Corps sized units versus 19 Corps sized units.

Now, Manchuria and Korea also have a garrison need because of possible Partisan activity, and these amount to a need of 6 Corps sized units in garrison duties there. That leave 16 Corps sized units for Japan to overrun the Chinese 19 Corps sized units. And it will need a good number of Land Action impulses for all units outside China to reach the frontlines, the Chineses will have enough time to position themselves to defend against the upcoming threat.

I know that Japan produces more than China, but the Japanese force pool is not abundant in more land forces, so nowhere will there be a 30 to 5 unit ratio.

Again, let me say that I speak about a Chinese who defends in the mountains, not a Chinese who defends in the plains. My experience in WiF FE China playing was that it was far safer to defend in the mountains than in the plains. Only once did I see the Chinese defending in the plains and quite succeed, but the Japanese wasntt puching hard in China.



Froonp -> RE: Modifications to MWiF China Map portion (6/5/2006 4:22:13 PM)

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp
Nasty effects described by some posters on these forums

Well, that would be me.

That's possible, but I do not remember precisely, though I remember you were arguing against me.

quote:

If you stack all your "big" stacks this way, you can ensure never to lose a high value unit in an attack since you will usually attack from 2 or 3 hexes, and that leaves 2-3 divisions to soak up the losses.

This was already discussed in the thread about the balance in China, or the one about unlimited breadown, or is ti the same, I don't remember.

I agree with what you write (above), but I would like you to realize, or simply to hear that, it is already the same in WiF FE. I've already said that, but you seem not tu hear (humm... read ? [:)]). Playing with Divisions (which are quite numerous) and ART units (which are like DIV units) there are enough of them to have all important stacks either in attack or in defense to be covered by a third unit used as a loss taker.

So this is not new, and not different than in WiF FE.

Panzejaeger, I would like to repeat to you that the BP stay the same, so you can't have an abnormaly high number of divisions, without having less of something else. Don't you agree with that ?
So there is no abuse possible, just a new flexibility added to the game.



Hortlund -> RE: Modifications to MWiF China Map portion (6/5/2006 4:38:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp
This was already discussed in the thread about the balance in China, or the one about unlimited breadown, or is ti the same, I don't remember.
[:D] Yeah I know what you mean.

quote:


I agree with what you write (above), but I would like you to realize, or simply to hear that, it is already the same in WiF FE. I've already said that, but you seem not tu hear (humm... read ? [:)]). Playing with Divisions (which are quite numerous) and ART units (which are like DIV units) there are enough of them to have all important stacks either in attack or in defense to be covered by a third unit used as a loss taker.

Yeah, I know that you can soak up losses in WiF with divisions or arty, but the desicion to take a 4-2 art unit or a 7-4 inf unit as a loss is not really an easy desicion. There are divisions already in WiF, yes, but they are limited and you have to choose wisely where you want to use them. As Germany, do I want to use my divisions on the russian front to soak up losses, or do I want to use one or two to take out Iceland or do I want to use one in Africa or in Crete...etc etc. All these desicions are removed from the game now when you can have everything at once.

I know that BP-wise you lose some when you break down a corps into divisions, but I am firmly convinced, that you will regain this lost value later when you have two divisions taken as losses instead of two 8-4 infantry corps. At certain key locations on the map, you can only attack a hex from two hexes, or even one hex in some extreme cases. In WiF, if the roll of the dice ends up badly at those locations you can be forced to take some really nasty losses. That will not happen now when you can use your divisions instead.

quote:


So this is not new, and not different than in WiF FE.

Panzejaeger, I would like to repeat to you that the BP stay the same, so you can't have an abnormaly high number of divisions, without having less of something else. Don't you agree with that ?
So there is no abuse possible, just a new flexibility added to the game.


I agree that the BP stays the same, and that will mean that you wont get anything for free. Having unlimited divisions will have other effects in the game however, stuff that you cant really put a BP-price tag on. As Japan for example, you can invade alot more places on your first impulse against the allies now. Before you were limited by your number of transports and your number of divisions. Now you are limited by your number of ships that can carry divisions.

I see loads of abuse possible, and as soon as the game hits the stores, Im going to play a game against you and show you what I mean[;)]



Froonp -> RE: Modifications to MWiF China Map portion (6/5/2006 4:45:33 PM)

About Japan having supply in rear areas, there is something the discussions of the last couple of days made me realize.
In WiF FE, obviously, all coastal hexes are in supply from the Sea.
But there are some hexes who are next to a port in WiF FE, hence in supply from the sea through that port in fair weather. some of the corresponding areas in modified MWiF China I posted a couple of days ago are not in supply from neighboring ports.

So I think that it is good for Japan to add the couple of Minor Port that were suggested before by the various posters.
So, I added to the map (but this can still be discussed) the following minor ports (Foochow like) :

- Amoy (2 hexes SW of Foochow)
- Chefoo (2 hexes NE of Tsingtao)
- Swatow (3 hexes E of Canton)
- Wenchow (2 hexes NE of Foochow)

That way Japan gets back an easy access to nearly any place of China (as in WiF FE) because of the ports, and also more in-supply areas around those ports (as in WiF FE).



Froonp -> RE: Modifications to MWiF China Map portion (6/5/2006 4:46:48 PM)

quote:

I see loads of abuse possible, and as soon as the game hits the stores, Im going to play a game against you and show you what I mean

Wow, I will have a lot of games to play, seeing all the people who try to make a point against me [:D]. Wonder if I will have enough time [&:].



Hortlund -> RE: Modifications to MWiF China Map portion (6/5/2006 4:55:06 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

That's not at all the right picture IMHO.

For the 39-45 campaign, the different countries begin with :
- Nationalist Chinese : 15 Corps sized units + 1 divisions + 1 Gun
- Communist Chinese : 4 Corps sized units.

- Japanese in China proper : 10 Corps sized units + 2 divisions + 2 Guns.
- Japanese in Manchuria / Korea : 7 Corps sized units.
- Japanese in Japan : 4 Corps sized units + 1 division + 1 Guns.
- Japanese in free setup : 1 Corps sized units + 1 division.

So even if the Japanese used absolutely every troop they had against China, they would have 22 Corps sized units versus 19 Corps sized units.

Now, Manchuria and Korea also have a garrison need because of possible Partisan activity, and these amount to a need of 6 Corps sized units in garrison duties there. That leave 16 Corps sized units for Japan to overrun the Chinese 19 Corps sized units. And it will need a good number of Land Action impulses for all units outside China to reach the frontlines, the Chineses will have enough time to position themselves to defend against the upcoming threat.

I know that Japan produces more than China, but the Japanese force pool is not abundant in more land forces, so nowhere will there be a 30 to 5 unit ratio.

Again, let me say that I speak about a Chinese who defends in the mountains, not a Chinese who defends in the plains. My experience in WiF FE China playing was that it was far safer to defend in the mountains than in the plains. Only once did I see the Chinese defending in the plains and quite succeed, but the Japanese wasntt puching hard in China.


Ok, lets try this scenario.

Japan sets up after China....right?

So, after the Chinese setup, Japan sets up its entire army in a small area of China. Lets say they focus everything in the south. Maybe they leave one or two corps at places like Shanghai to prevent the Chinese from taking too much.

The Japanese now have a very high superiority in a local part of the front. The Chinese forces are either spread out and hiding in mountains trying to hold a front, or they are stacked together at a few key locations trying to hold those locations. If they are spread out, the Japanese player can kill off 2-3 in his first turn attack, if they are stacked together, the Japanese player can penetrate far into the Chinese rear.

Thinking outside the box and abusing the game system can and will lead to amazingly bad results in China.

And I do not share your belief in the partisan system and the idea that it will have a huge effect on the Japanese player. For example, if we leave the units as they are now and dont add new ones to fill out China, if I set up heavily in the north, and ignore the partisan threat in Manchuria, I can knock the ChiComs out of the war in a few impulses.

If I lose one or two hexes to partisans in Manchuria during that time, it is a price I am more than willing to pay.

My beef with China as it looks now is that it is too easy to abuse the map and the few units. I think a good solution to the problem is to add new units to Japan and China, like I suggested in my first post in this thread.



Froonp -> RE: Modifications to MWiF China Map portion (6/5/2006 5:27:24 PM)

quote:

So, after the Chinese setup, Japan sets up its entire army in a small area of China. Lets say they focus everything in the south. Maybe they leave one or two corps at places like Shanghai to prevent the Chinese from taking too much.

This is impossible, because the Japanese only control Canton at game start. That makes 2 Corps-sized units.
I agree that what I said was mainly nit picking, because you could have said something else rather than the "south" and you may have been more righ.
But not to the extend you are describing.
Because, Japan's "entire army" at game start, in China, is 10 Corps.
China have 19 (but see later for Cummunists Chinese).
It will take a long time for the Manchurian army to join with the rest of the Japanese army in China. At least a couple of turns.

quote:

The Japanese now have a very high superiority in a local part of the front. The Chinese forces are either spread out and hiding in mountains trying to hold a front, or they are stacked together at a few key locations trying to hold those locations. If they are spread out, the Japanese player can kill off 2-3 in his first turn attack, if they are stacked together, the Japanese player can penetrate far into the Chinese rear.

Wrong, because the Japanese will lack the supply. there are only 2 Railways (TWO) who "penetrate far in Chinese rear". Obviously the Chinese will be on the way to this penetration. One of these raiways (the Kweilin one) does not really penetrate. Lots of HQ will be needed to go into the Chinese deep, around Chungking.

quote:

And I do not share your belief in the partisan system and the idea that it will have a huge effect on the Japanese player. For example, if we leave the units as they are now and dont add new ones to fill out China, if I set up heavily in the north, and ignore the partisan threat in Manchuria, I can knock the ChiComs out of the war in a few impulses.

I'n not saying it have a "huge" effect, I'm saying it have an effect. Partisans left go gallore reduce dramatically the production of Japan, and destroying them can be made a pain.


But I agree wholeheartly with the latest of what you wrote, and it was my experience about half the time when playing CWiF, the annihilation of the ChiComs (as you named them).

Even if not "setting up heavily in the north", the Communist only have 4 corps at start, and it is a small number to resist the 10 Japanese corps. Even if 2 will be left in Canton, and 1-2 in Shanghai, that leave Japan with 7 corps (and some losse takers) to destroy the Communist Chinese.

This is the reason why some cities were added to the Communist China area, even though they were not enormous cities as those already present. Especially Tianshui and Ningsia (plus the Wosung beloved Yennan [;)]).

As I already said previously, I'm in favor of extra MIL units attached to some of these Communist Cities, such as Yennan for example. I believe this will be enough to resist the initial big threat of Communist chinese annihilation.

Then, as the game progresses, and as more Chinese Communist are being built, the risk decreased to become null, and to become a risk for the Japanese.



CBoehm -> RE: Modifications to MWiF China Map portion (6/5/2006 5:38:58 PM)

...I dont remember if this has been discussed before, but...

In our gaming group we have been experimenting with the idea of allowing the Chines to setup AFTER Japan ...which in our minds makes sence since the war is an ongoing (and somewhat stalemated to boot) affair where IMO it is hardly appropriate to allow Japan a kind of "double move" by setting up last and moving first...

Allowing China to setup after japan in our experience is a BIG boon to China from a defensive point of view...since it all but removes the freebie killing of Chinese units...



Froonp -> RE: Modifications to MWiF China Map portion (6/5/2006 5:51:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CBoehm

...I dont remember if this has been discussed before, but...

In our gaming group we have been experimenting with the idea of allowing the Chines to setup AFTER Japan ...which in our minds makes sence since the war is an ongoing (and somewhat stalemated to boot) affair where IMO it is hardly appropriate to allow Japan a kind of "double move" by setting up last and moving first...

Allowing China to setup after japan in our experience is a BIG boon to China from a defensive point of view...since it all but removes the freebie killing of Chinese units...

I agree ENTIRELY to this, and I support this.
Even if Harry Rowland made fun of it by asking if making China setup after Japan was to represent in the game China's superior manoeuvrability on the field (which is imaginary, it was a joke from him).

This is true that it is hard to understand why the Chinese Army would not know where is the Japanese army in China since 1937.

As a side note, this is also true for Poland setting up against Germany after Germany, and Germany having to ignore where the Polish units were when setting up. In an old version of WiF, Poland did setup before Germany, and it was correct.
I know this is not a big deal, but it hurts me to see the Poles being granted such an advantage.

PS : I now hate this Edit interface. I prefered the old one. It is too long to load.



Hortlund -> RE: Modifications to MWiF China Map portion (6/5/2006 6:28:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

China North (Communist) - in MWiF, After modifications

[image]local://upfiles/10447/99CAF3E233734BA1A260A371D319D164.jpg[/image]

DA BA DADABABBAA BABA BA BA BABA [Mission impossible music]

Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to hold this area, with 4 ChiCom armies against a potential force of 10+6 Japanese Corps. The enemy will have total air supremacy and will have artillery support.

This message will self destruct in 10 seconds.




Hortlund -> RE: Modifications to MWiF China Map portion (6/5/2006 6:43:25 PM)

I guess that what Im trying to say is that we need more units.

I understand the reluctance to add new units since it would be a departure from the original WIFf-game.

However, when we do the map this way we are already departing from WIF. I can understand the reasons behind the map choise, and now, after some time pondering on the consequences of the new map I must say that I agree with Steve, we should do it this way, and I think it is the best idea to have the same scale all over the world.

Having said that, we must remember that the NatChi, ChiCom and Japanese OOBs were made with the old map in mind.

We cannot use the same OOB for the new map as we had for the old map. It simply wont work. Nor should it really, the old OOB was for the old map. The new map requires a new OOB. The same arguments can be presented for Africa really, but lets leave that aside since major land battles in Africa are very rare.

But while we need to add units to China and Japan, we must not alter the balance between these nations and the other nations on the map. Which is why I think it is a good idea to add a restricted command to Japan. A group of units that can only be used in China.



Froonp -> RE: Modifications to MWiF China Map portion (6/5/2006 7:09:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund
DA BA DADABABBAA BABA BA BA BABA [Mission impossible music]

Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to hold this area, with 4 ChiCom armies against a potential force of 10+6 Japanese Corps. The enemy will have total air supremacy and will have artillery support.

This message will self destruct in 10 seconds.

If the entire Japanese setup forces are placed in front of the Communits, then the Nationalists can help the Communists to defend.
With the extra cities, the Communists have better chances resisting the Japanese by using delaying actions, and withdrawing to the next city when the Japs are too strong or menace outflanking.

This is reinforcing for me the need to have the Chinese setting up after the Japanese.



Froonp -> RE: Modifications to MWiF China Map portion (6/5/2006 7:16:29 PM)

This said (previous post) I agree that some extra Chinese & Japanese units should be created for MWiF :

- The extra Chinese units could be a couple of extra MIL, one for Yunnan, and one for another city, plus a couple of Warlords. The Yunnan MIL could be a Yunnan Warlord instead too.

- The extra Japanese units could be a couple of Warlords, plus a couple of units linked to the Puppet governement.

But I find the idea of Japanese restricted command in China that you propose not good for my taste. I do not like the special rule used here, and non existent in all the WiF world.

I'd prefer using mechanics already existing in WiF FE, and I find that Warlords are specially fitted to this problem.

Remember though that Warlords controlled by Japan still take their supply from Japan (as they are Japanese units, like Manchurian MIL & Korean MIL -- They are not like the Manchurian & Korean TERR that are Manchurian and Korean, not Japanese), so this won't be as good as it may seem.

Maybe the Warlord rule should be changed to say that the Warlord are always in supply by their mother city, as well as from their other (regular) Primary Supply sources.



CBoehm -> RE: Modifications to MWiF China Map portion (6/5/2006 7:25:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

I'd prefer using mechanics already existing in WiF FE, and I find that Warlords are specially fitted to this problem.

Maybe the Warlord rule should be changed to say that the Warlord are always in supply by their mother city, as well as from their other (regular) Primary Supply sources.


From my gaming experience it is obvious to me that if a front is large relative to the number of corps on both sides this is HUGELY to the advantage of the attacker ...therefor I agree that both Japan AND China desperately needs a boost to their OOB in order to ever achieve anykind of stalemante front in China (ei. stalemate = strong reasons to stay on the defensive rather than go offensive) ...and here I completely agree that adding in a good number of warlords could help solve the problem by adding extra units to the OOB within the current WIFFE rules... as a small addition I would then suggest that warlords suffer from "chinese attack weakness" regardless of who controls them! (would help the defense a bit)



mlees -> RE: Modifications to MWiF China Map portion (6/5/2006 7:31:02 PM)

If there are not enough Japanese units to garrison the rear areas after rescaling the China map, should the Partisan number be adjusted downwards slightly?

(Making the required garrison values slightly easier for Japan to achieve, that is.) One of the problems mentioned so far is that Japan does not have enough units to respond to outflanking manuevers by the Chinese regular units, and also responding to partisan appearing in the back field.

How do the Warlords units "count" in terms of this garrison calculation? Should additional warlord units be created so that the Japanese can have a couple for rear area duties?

As warlords can not leave beyond a hex or so from their "home" city, you dont have to worry about them being used in India/Australia. Also, I think warlords draw supply from their "home" city, so they are difficult to be placed out of supply, and dont require precious HQ supply paths.



wosung -> RE: Modifications to MWiF China Map portion (6/5/2006 7:42:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund
DA BA DADABABBAA BABA BA BA BABA [Mission impossible music]

Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to hold this area, with 4 ChiCom armies against a potential force of 10+6 Japanese Corps. The enemy will have total air supremacy and will have artillery support.

This message will self destruct in 10 seconds.

If the entire Japanese setup forces are placed in front of the Communits, then the Nationalists can help the Communists to defend.
With the extra cities, the Communists have better chances resisting the Japanese by using delaying actions, and withdrawing to the next city when the Japs are too strong or menace outflanking.

This is reinforcing for me the need to have the Chinese setting up after the Japanese.


On the newest versions of Patrice's China map there are additional cities in the north, with potential milita. This would add to Chinese defence.

If Chinese set up after Japan and if National Chinese are allowed to set up in some of the Northern cities (Sian, Lanchow, which would be historical), perhaps this and the warlords (1-2 counters for this 2 places for Warlord Yen Hsi-shan) would add to Chinese defences in the North: There would be at least 5-6 instead of 4 Chinese Units up there. Plus Yennan militia. Plus 1-2 Nationalist units diverted to the North, depending on Japanese setup.

Another possibility would be to remove the factory and ressources in North West China (which would be historical). Now does Japan still concentrate on destroying the Chinese Communists? Or does it go for the richer South Chinese hinterland?

And as a question: are the Chinese Communists destroyable in WIFE once and for all? What happens if they loose all the cities? Do they still have partisans? And what happens about Chinese Communist production if these manage to (re)conquer a city?

Regards



Froonp -> RE: Modifications to MWiF China Map portion (6/5/2006 8:03:15 PM)

quote:

as a small addition I would then suggest that warlords suffer from "chinese attack weakness" regardless of who controls them! (would help the defense a bit)

This is a great idea !!!



Froonp -> RE: Modifications to MWiF China Map portion (6/5/2006 8:09:57 PM)

quote:

How do the Warlords units "count" in terms of this garrison calculation?

They count as any other unit.

quote:

Should additional warlord units be created so that the Japanese can have a couple for rear area duties?

Yes IMO, and a list of the suceptible new warlord counters was discussed previously on that thread.

quote:

As warlords can not leave beyond a hex or so from their "home" city, you dont have to worry about them being used in India/Australia.

It is 2 hexes in WiF FE, but I suggest this is changed to 4 or 6 hexes, as the Pacific scaled WiF hex is about 6 MWiF hexes.

quote:

Also, I think warlords draw supply from their "home" city, so they are difficult to be placed out of supply, and dont require precious HQ supply paths.

This is wrong by RAW7.
But should be changed if we want them to be more efficient, to help restoring the balance.

From RAW7 aug 04 :
"22.4.15 : Chinese Warlords (PoliF option 71)
(...)
Warlord units are treated like any other unit for all purposes except that no unit may move nor advance after combat more than 2 hexes from its home city. They can attack from that 2nd hex to a hex where they could not move to, but could not advance after combat.
(...)"

emphasis is mine.



mlees -> RE: Modifications to MWiF China Map portion (6/5/2006 8:27:43 PM)

quote:

It is 2 hexes in WiF FE, but I suggest this is changed to 4 or 6 hexes, as the Pacific scaled WiF hex is about 6 MWiF hexes.


6 hexes?? Yikes! that seems more mobile to me than they should be. They should be hanging around their home city, not conquering half of China!

I thought the Pacific scale was 2 to 1 in WiF. (6 to 1 was offmap boxes, like Ethiopia...)



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Modifications to MWiF China Map portion (6/5/2006 8:51:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mlees

quote:

It is 2 hexes in WiF FE, but I suggest this is changed to 4 or 6 hexes, as the Pacific scaled WiF hex is about 6 MWiF hexes.


6 hexes?? Yikes! that seems more mobile to me than they should be. They should be hanging around their home city, not conquering half of China!

I thought the Pacific scale was 2 to 1 in WiF. (6 to 1 was offmap boxes, like Ethiopia...)

The scale change is somewhere between 2:1 and 3:1. When both the width and height are changed, the increase in number of hexes is much more. patrice reported a growth from 70 hexes for China to 460 (if I remember correctly). That works out to 2.56:1 for those of you mathematically inclined.

So, a range of 4 or 5 from the Warlords home city would be comparable.



Hortlund -> RE: Modifications to MWiF China Map portion (6/5/2006 9:01:17 PM)

Adding warlords does not solve the problem however.



Froonp -> RE: Modifications to MWiF China Map portion (6/5/2006 9:32:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund
Adding warlords does not solve the problem however.

Why ?
You want more units.
Warlords are units, who are already specificaly tied to China.
Why is this not enough ?



CBoehm -> RE: Modifications to MWiF China Map portion (6/5/2006 9:33:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund

Adding warlords does not solve the problem however.


No I guess you are right ...with a new scale both USSR, JAP and China ...and probably India/Australia too ...will need quite a boost simply to be able to hold anykind of line (or garrison islands)... but how this should be done without influencing playbalance too much?! Perhaps adding extra crap TER, GAR and Warlords as appropriate...

With respect to India and Australia I have always held the belief that these should really have some units classified as "JP reserve" units ...perhaps with some forcepool additions labelled "JP" (only avaible when at war vs. JP) - and perhaps only eligebla to leave their homecountry 2 years after their "entry to forcepool date" - that way Australia and India could have HQs avaiable but unable to leave their homenation incase of JP invasion in 42!
(comeon if JP invaded India or Australia they SHOULD be able to build a HQ no?) ...alternatively allow condition-/cost-free advance building by one year of Indian/Australian units if invaded by enemy units!



Hortlund -> RE: Modifications to MWiF China Map portion (6/5/2006 10:15:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund
Adding warlords does not solve the problem however.

Why ?
You want more units.
Warlords are units, who are already specificaly tied to China.
Why is this not enough ?


Because you have not added enough cities to make the warlords make any real difference. The solution to the new china map is not to add 10-15 warlords.

Adding these warlords might be one part of the solution though, but we need to look at more changes. Adding territorials might be another part of the solution, but that too will not be enough.

I think I outlined the basic idea in my first post in this thread. I really think we should start with looking at the density of combat factors per hex in the old map. And we need to use that as a base to get some sort of idea on how much we need in the new map. My gut tells me that we are talking about alot of new units for NatChi, ChiCom and Japan to be used in China only.

But we need to look at Manchuria aswell.

And we probably need to look at the Pacific, or at least some key areas in it. Now I dont have access to the pac map as it will look in MWIF, but let me just say that IF (and this is a big if) some areas are changed so that what used to be one-hex islands now are two-hex islands, then what we have done is create a whole new way to invade and sieze these islands, since you suddenly wont have to invade on top of the enemy unit in the one-hex island, but instead you can invade next to him and then attack him via normal ground combat the next turn.

What we dont need here, is a short-sighted temporary fix, were we just add a bunch of warlords or militia and hope for the best. We need to approach the problem with another viewpoint. Just adding warlords or cities or by making special rules for divisions with zoc's etc....all those things might be a part of the solution, but we need to look at this from a broader perspective.



CBoehm -> RE: Modifications to MWiF China Map portion (6/5/2006 11:10:11 PM)

I completely agree!! - the mechanics of WIF simply means that if a front is expanded from 5 to 10 (or even just 6-7 hexes) and both sides have 10 corps then what was before a stable (somewhat stalemated front) now is an extremely unstable front just waiting to be cracked...



YohanTM2 -> RE: Modifications to MWiF China Map portion (6/5/2006 11:39:50 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

This said (previous post) I agree that some extra Chinese & Japanese units should be created for MWiF :

- The extra Chinese units could be a couple of extra MIL, one for Yunnan, and one for another city, plus a couple of Warlords. The Yunnan MIL could be a Yunnan Warlord instead too.

- The extra Japanese units could be a couple of Warlords, plus a couple of units linked to the Puppet governement.

But I find the idea of Japanese restricted command in China that you propose not good for my taste. I do not like the special rule used here, and non existent in all the WiF world.

I'd prefer using mechanics already existing in WiF FE, and I find that Warlords are specially fitted to this problem.

Remember though that Warlords controlled by Japan still take their supply from Japan (as they are Japanese units, like Manchurian MIL & Korean MIL -- They are not like the Manchurian & Korean TERR that are Manchurian and Korean, not Japanese), so this won't be as good as it may seem.

Maybe the Warlord rule should be changed to say that the Warlord are always in supply by their mother city, as well as from their other (regular) Primary Supply sources.


I am glad to see you are onside with the extra units. As you know I think the work you are doing is excellent on the map. I think something has to be done to handle this extra terrian and also don't want to see special rules or worse, a formerly very interesting part of the game balance come unglued.



YohanTM2 -> RE: Modifications to MWiF China Map portion (6/5/2006 11:43:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: CBoehm
...therefor I agree that both Japan AND China desperately needs a boost to their OOB in order to ever achieve anykind of stalemante front in China (ei. stalemate = strong reasons to stay on the defensive rather than go offensive)


why would you want this to be the default? The goal is to move the map to the European game scale, not take a great part of WiF FE and ruin it. Lots of options and decisions for both sides should be the norm.



YohanTM2 -> RE: Modifications to MWiF China Map portion (6/5/2006 11:47:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund

And we probably need to look at the Pacific, or at least some key areas in it. Now I dont have access to the pac map as it will look in MWIF, but let me just say that IF (and this is a big if) some areas are changed so that what used to be one-hex islands now are two-hex islands, then what we have done is create a whole new way to invade and sieze these islands, since you suddenly wont have to invade on top of the enemy unit in the one-hex island, but instead you can invade next to him and then attack him via normal ground combat the next turn.


Very good point



lomyrin -> RE: Modifications to MWiF China Map portion (6/6/2006 12:08:46 AM)

Regarding the entire Pacific map and it's multitude of Islands that did not exist in WiFFE, they did exist in CWiF exactly as they do in MWiF. Having played a number of CWiF games, both past and present, I have no problems whatsoever with the Pacific map and its land areas. It is much more exciting and fun to use than the WiFFE map.

My concern lies with the changes in China and their potential to change the flow of the Pacific War.

Lars



CBoehm -> RE: Modifications to MWiF China Map portion (6/6/2006 12:59:13 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yohan


quote:

ORIGINAL: CBoehm
...therefor I agree that both Japan AND China desperately needs a boost to their OOB in order to ever achieve anykind of stalemante front in China (ei. stalemate = strong reasons to stay on the defensive rather than go offensive)


why would you want this to be the default? The goal is to move the map to the European game scale, not take a great part of WiF FE and ruin it. Lots of options and decisions for both sides should be the norm.



I do not think stalemate should ALWAYS be the case ...but it should definately be a realistic outcome of the whole situation...I do not believe in forcing players hands too much to achieve history but I do strongly believe that any rules/setup should be made so that there is atleast an ingame logic in what was done historically ...so that it "the historical" course of events will make sence from a game point of view...and thus be seen in some if not the majority of games...



Page: <<   < prev  8 9 [10] 11 12   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.828125