RE: China Map

RE: China Map (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports

Message

khyberbill -> RE: China Map (11/19/2009 4:54:20 PM)
quote: Why did you not try an scatter some ants to threaten the supply lines? If the ants got killed they would return in Chungking and in the meantime Miller would have had to hunt them down. Actually, there is nothing to stop the death star from taking Chungking, so the troops aren't going to come back. I tried to threaten the supply lines early on and was slaughtered by the new pursuit mode. My foe would attack causing me to retreat and then the hot pursuit with an armored unit(s) really cleaned up.

khyberbill -> RE: Bitter Herbs (11/19/2009 4:56:00 PM)
quote: Well, I am beginning to think otherwise. While down to the last three northern most towns in Burma, I set all of their supply pulls to the highest levels in an attemt to move supply north to Myitkyina. Much to my surprise those three towns drained 200,000 supplies out of Indian over the mountains and into Burma in two days. And the Japanese can do this in China as well. It is quite easy to suck a lot of supply from the coast to the interior to support combat.

Canoerebel -> RE: China Syndrome (11/19/2009 4:58:18 PM)
I agree with the comment about the sub war in AE. I barely paid attention to sub warfare in WitP - it just didn't seem that important (probably due to my shortsightedness). But in AE I quickly had to change my ways - Japanese subs were killing me; so I employed lots of ASW and changed my supply convoy routes and began chewing up some Japanese subs; then my opponent modified his tactics in response to my modifications and the war changed again. Sub warfare seemed very realistic if perhaps (from my perspective) a bit too bloody. It is possible that the Glen-equipped subs make it too easy for the Japanese to sight and then home in on Allied transports. I love the patrol zones and "react" features for both submarines and ASW - very neat and realistic and it signficantly reduces the micromanagement of submarines.

khyberbill -> RE: Bitter Herbs (11/19/2009 5:02:48 PM)
quote: I think Miller and I were the first to take a PBEM this deep into 1942 My opponent, Don, and I are in Mid October 42 right now. As earlier posted, I have called a halt to the game to see what, if anything, Patch 2 implements in regards to China. Also, I am trying to work with Don to create some HR that levels the field a bit. I suspect their will be a limit on bombardment in China as well as AV in combat mode during an attack. My other foe, Zach, hasn't tried to see how many divisions he can get into a square yet in China. We are in late August 42 in that game and having a lot of fun in China, Burma and at the moment, a large battle in Katherine.

Smeulders -> RE: China Syndrome (11/19/2009 5:15:16 PM)
Too bad that you're quitting the game, but I can understand that you don't want to play on under these circumstances. I hope we'll be seeing a new AAR by you soon, either with patch improvements or some house rules to keep China reasonable.

Canoerebel -> RE: Bitter Herbs (11/19/2009 5:21:15 PM)
Okay, you're way ahead of us, Khyberbill. I heard somebody recommend an HR of one artillery unit per 600 AV, which sounds reasonable from what I was facing in the game - about 2,500 Japanese AV. But in your game, with 9,000 AV, that doesn't sound like it would work. Perhaps a combined limit of "active" AV in a hex plus the one unit per 600 active AV. I hate house rules, though! Hopefully these problems can be addressed by the developers.

EUBanana -> RE: China Syndrome (11/19/2009 5:32:33 PM)
No real houserules in my GC either, and the Chinese are being slaughtered by artillery around Sian/Loyang/Chengchow. The whole place will be smashed to powder in a couple more months. It is pretty silly. Not only the arty but the disproportionate losses in attacks. If the Japanese lose the kill ratio is still in his favour, if the Japanese win a battle you see 16,000 Chinese casualties for 500 Japs or something like that - hardly WW1 esque, "Whatever you do you lose a lot of men" attrition. Thats Wehrmacht vs Red Army in 1941 sort of killratios. I am sanguine because our game proceeds slowly and I hope the patch will fix this and be out soon. China will be very badly damaged but I can live with that, the Allies hold all the cards after 1942 after all. I think that in any game getting reinforcement fighters to China is important. You can do it fairly easy now, by having them travel from the East Coast to Cape Town and then be shipped over to the CBI. They don't need to be the mutts nuts, they'll be fighting Nates mostly, Mohawks will do.

Canoerebel -> RE: China Syndrome (11/19/2009 5:37:57 PM)
No, fighters won't help. I tried that. I put Hurricanes, AVG, and some P-48s in China. They are fairly low quality and got eaten alive by Oscars, but the real problem was their short legs. If you move them to a forward airbase to fight, the Japanese bomb the base out of existence. That means that all the damaged fighters can't repair (no supplies) or leave the field even if they do repair. So, a 16-plane Hurricane Squadon goes up onceand loses five aircraft in a-2-a. Six aircraft are damaged and can never repair or leave that forward airfield. So you move the remaining 5 aicraft back to Chungking or some safe base where you are lucky to have enough supplies to replace the lost aircraft. You can't keep that up long. It is impossible to employ fighters in China in '42 in any meaningful way.

Altaris -> RE: Bitter Herbs (11/19/2009 5:39:35 PM)
Sorry to see this AAR end, you're a great writer, Canoerebel, and as a relatively new player (only started this game after AE came out), I learned quite a bit from you. You have a real knack for conveying the flow of your thoughts, and in a very readable format. I understand your pain in China, I'm playing in a 2v2 PBEM with China under my command. It's only Dec 31st 1941 in that game, and Japan already kicked me out of Chengchow with horrendous casualties a few turns ago. Not real sure how I could've possibly mounted a more effective defense in the amount of time I had. I had roughly 1200 AV of troops and 3 forts in Chengchow, about half of which had just arrived. Japan brought over a roughly 1800 AV army, over the river, and his river shock attack alone dealt me 2500 casualties to his 1600 or so. Over the next two turns, he shock attacked me twice, the first sent my disruption through the roof, and I took about 6:1 casualties to his attack. The second completely slaughtered my defense, resulting in 10K+ casualties and sending the remaining fragments reeling back to Loyang. So even without a bit of bombardment, I got completely creamed, and this in the first 3 weeks of the game! I suspect anyone else would find this out too, Chengchow's not capable of standing to a concentrated Japanese attack if they come early. Which really means, there's no reason to bother defending Chengchow, Loyang, or Nanyang... it's just a giant death trap for Chinese troops. Now, I don't mind that I lost the city, but when I get completely vaporized in 3 days time, where all defensive bonuses are on my side except the 1.5:1 underdog ratio of AV, there's something completely borked up about the way its handled. I love the game for the most part, but the LCU portion is glaringly bad.

EUBanana -> RE: Bitter Herbs (11/19/2009 5:54:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Altaris I love the game for the most part, but the LCU portion is glaringly bad. Land combat is just crap and always has been in WITP. Actually in AE I think it's much better than it was. Hence why when people talk about a 'War in Europe' mod version I just go very cold. Imagine the Eastern Front using these rules. Talk about totally using the wrong engine for the theatre. I don't really mind in the Pacific, there are no real wars of maneuver anyway. WW1 style attrition is fine, its mostly about sea dominance. China is the exception. China is always a problem. The really glaring problem is that the Chinese are the side that always get worn out thanks to the supply rules! History is reversed.

Altaris -> RE: Bitter Herbs (11/19/2009 7:28:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EUBanana quote: ORIGINAL: Altaris I love the game for the most part, but the LCU portion is glaringly bad. Land combat is just crap and always has been in WITP. Actually in AE I think it's much better than it was. Hence why when people talk about a 'War in Europe' mod version I just go very cold. Imagine the Eastern Front using these rules. Talk about totally using the wrong engine for the theatre. I don't really mind in the Pacific, there are no real wars of maneuver anyway. WW1 style attrition is fine, its mostly about sea dominance. China is the exception. China is always a problem. The really glaring problem is that the Chinese are the side that always get worn out thanks to the supply rules! History is reversed. Heh, I'm a Comp. Science major, I tend to like modding games once I played them for a while. One of the first things I thought after playing this was, "How cool would a War in Europe mod be?" I know what you mean now though, this is totally the wrong game to try and mod that. Though Battle of Britain and Battle of the Med could have some possibility. But Barbarossa would just be a complete nightmare.

khyberbill -> RE: Bitter Herbs (11/19/2009 7:43:09 PM)
quote: I hate house rules, though! Hopefully these problems can be addressed by the developers. I hate house rules too. I cant remember them!!! I complained about this in early August and was laughed off and told by the developers that it was working as intended. At the time it got so bad that we finally decided that I wasn't playing too terribly and we re-started with some initial HR for China. There are several problems and one has to address all of them for the fix to be effective. Supply is also an issue. It is too easy to get lots of supply up front. This can of course, work in the Allies favor when it is time to try to push back in Burma. The trouble is by then, China is totally destroyed and lots of that 9000av can go to Burma or where ever. I have lost so much AV there that cant be replaced. I never would have thought that 200 squads a month was trivial!!! In a nutshell, it is too easy to supply too many troops so far from a major port in such a small area. I might add that we have run out of TP in Sian also. The loos are overflowing.

khyberbill -> RE: China Syndrome (11/19/2009 7:51:38 PM)
quote: I am sanguine because our game proceeds slowly and I hope the patch will fix this and be out soon. China will be very badly damaged but I can live with that, the Allies hold all the cards after 1942 after all. I think that in any game getting reinforcement fighters to China is important. You can do it fairly easy now, by having them travel from the East Coast to Cape Town and then be shipped over to the CBI. They don't need to be the mutts nuts, they'll be fighting Nates mostly, Mohawks will do. Please keep in mind that once your foe destroys your ability for offensive action in China, he has lots of AV that can be deployed elsewhere. In one two day turn he once destroyed over 400 infantry, basically a months worth of replacement destroyed per day. Not easy to build back up with those kind of losses. It is easier to send A/C to CBI. Interestingly enough, my foe has decided to rest his planes and they are rarely seen in CBI. Until I called a halt to the game I was pounding his forces daily in Burma from the air. No Nates seen but lots of Oscars which are more dangerous than Nates.

JeffroK -> RE: Bitter Herbs (11/19/2009 7:52:48 PM)
Any other thought on how to limit japan without totaly crippling them?

khyberbill -> RE: Bitter Herbs (11/19/2009 7:53:33 PM)
quote: Chengchow's not capable of standing to a concentrated Japanese attack if they come early Agreed, in one game, I lost Chengchow in a few weeks. I was surprised.

Altaris -> RE: Bitter Herbs (11/19/2009 8:21:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JeffK Any other thought on how to limit japan without totaly crippling them? I was tossing some ideas around in my head and here on the boards about limiting the number of units or total infantry that could assault in a hex on one day. The remainder would have to be in non-attack mode (reserve, defend, etc). Say something like, only 40,000 infantry can participate on attackers side on any given day. This would make it possible to cap off how much had to go into a base for defense, and make non-base hex have some actual purpose. Imagine having to actually fight a strategic battle to cut off a well fortified city, that sort of thing. That's how I interpreted the manual as describing long drawn-out land combat. There's nothing long or drawn-out about the current model. Right now, the full initiative lies in the hands of whomever attacks. One only attacks if they have overwhelming force for the most part, and in doing so, they take very few casualties while completely annihilating the defensive force. China's made worse due to the poor quality of their troops, but it happens in other theaters this way as well. The big problem with limiting amount of attackers is overcoming a massive defense in an isolated position (such as Bataan or Singapore). I certainly wouldn't want a limited attack force hitting the typical massive stacks in either of these areas, as the attacker would be the one taking horrendous losses. I'm sorta waiting for Patch 2 at this point, I wish we had some idea of what was being done to address this matter. I fear it's not much, since it's been so mum. I'm going to start doing some more test case scenarios after P2 comes out, and fleshing out ideas for HR again.

Smeulders -> RE: Bitter Herbs (11/19/2009 8:44:01 PM)
Well, isolated places can't usually be resupplied so that's an advantage to the attacker, but you can of course get a big stockpile there first so it'll be a long siege. Another advantage for whoever is on the offence is that you can 'besiege' such a place with relatively few troops as your opponent can't launch big counterattacks either. I also think this can be a way to fight the big artillery stacks as well. If you don't have to worry about massive assaults, you can put more troops in reserve, lowering the effect of artillery.

EUBanana -> RE: China Syndrome (11/19/2009 9:14:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: khyberbill Please keep in mind that once your foe destroys your ability for offensive action in China, he has lots of AV that can be deployed elsewhere. I know, but the patch won't be too long in coming. By then I think Sian will be toast but I'll soldier on without Sian.

aztez -> RE: China Syndrome (11/19/2009 9:26:53 PM)
Sorry to see this one end. Hopefully you get back into PBEM later on. As for china. It is the single most frustrating thing and to be honest complete mess for the allies so really know how you feel about it. I'am experiencing the same problems and it has taken quite a lot of enjoyment out of the game. Sadly so... I need to discuss with my opponent what will happen once and if the country falls in even greater detail. Good luck though with your forthcoming games.

Chickenboy -> RE: China Syndrome (11/19/2009 10:33:51 PM)
Canoerebel, Enjoyed the AAR, as usual. Looking forward to your next one. You know you want it...c'mon. You can even have your first 'sample' PBEM for free. Not that anyone's pushing you or anything. [:D] As regards HRs, I agree with your approach. My experience is that HRs sometimes beget HRs which beget more HRs to deal with the other HRs. Then there will be exceptions to the HRs which will necessitate clarification and so forth. A big headache. Games are best left to communication between partners and willingness to change for the sake of the game. So, for these proposed HRs (x amount of artillery per hex, x amount of LCUs per hex), what's good for the goose has got to be good for the gander, right? Would I, as IJA, not require a similar commitment to observe these proposed HRs? For example, if IJA can't bomb Chinese cities from China, it's reasonable to request that Japanese cities cannot be bombed from China. If the plentiful IJA artillery cannot be used effectively in China due to HRs, then Allied artillery in all forms in China must face the same hobbling sacrifices. If you want to limit the number of IJA LCUs per stack, then the Chinese should be similarly limited. Result: no possibility of a Chinese late war offensive against dug in Japanese forces. Quid pro quo ad infinitum. I'm interested in your take on the unintended consequences of halting IJA offensives in China. Where will those Kwantung troops and / or artillery go then? Won't that make everywhere else (but not China) more difficult to advance? I wonder if, by leaving China alone, the IJA may be incrementally that much more overpowered elsewhere. I wonder if we'll have reports of unrealistic or ahistoric artillery concentrations or ahistoric infantry or armored presence in other areas because those same forces are not needed in a standoff in China. If there's absolutely nothing for me as IJA to gain by using my plentiful and very capable troops in China, I will use them elsewhere. As I mentioned in a PP, I can afford to 'buy' a regimental equivalent about every 8 days, a division every month or so. As allies, do you want to be trying to recapture Saipan, Guam or Tinian with an 'extra' 5 Japanese divisions on these islands PLUS additional multiple artillery units on each island in the Marianas? I can put a lot of Kwantung armored units (AND ARTILLERY) into the Phillipines too-they would be quite effective (and ahistoric) deterrents to any LCU landings. By not permitting the Chinese to absorb the fury of the Chinese and Kwantung IJA forces, these HRs are asking for these forces to be redeployed to the significant detriment of the allies. Watch out what you ask for, you may just get it. At least, them's my thoughts. What say you? What would your countermove be to these proposed HRs?

PresterJohn001 -> RE: China Syndrome (11/19/2009 11:08:01 PM)
I play Japanese in a couple of GC's, and would if i had the time love to take on the allies as i think China is defensible. Just not the bases in the middle of open terrain. If the chinese build a big stack the japanese will build a bigger one, so don't force the all or nothing battles. Terrain and threatening the japanese supplies is the key. There is a lot good defensive terrain, that is slow to move through, use it to slow the Japanese down and spread them out. I'm sure that some aspects need tweaking but i think tweaks will aid the Japanese as much as hinder them especially as the war goes on and the power swings to the allies. So i think before you can say its broken you need to look at different ways to defend china and also the long term effects. I also suspect that Japanese players may want to just neutralise the China front so they don't have to worry about the chinese attacking in 42/43 when they'd rather be mixing it with fleets. Just some thoughts. Anyway i enjoyed the AAR and thank you for taking the time to write it!

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Bitter Herbs (11/20/2009 12:14:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crsutton No, you cannot compare AI games to email games. In my practice game against the AI my Allied subs were sinking 20-30 ships a month in early 1942. I thought the sub game was broken. In my two email games against experienced IJN opponents, this is not the case. They know how to defend against subs and the action is much more historical. In fact I would say the sub game is the best part of AE. I agree the sub game is the best part. I've not had 20-30 a month, but about half that, with more since the autumn of 42. But given that the attack code is the same in either case, and given that the AI escorts many/most convoys, what's the difference? Dedicated ASW groups? Fine, I'd welcome them. THey eat up fuel, they take away escorts from expansion invasion tfs, and every time they attack me--and I live--I get experience. The isue isn't human versus AI ASW. The issue is that the Japanese ASW ships (code) can't pour piss out of a boot, and airborne ASW attacks are virtually non-existant.

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: China Syndrome (11/20/2009 12:59:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chickenboy If there's absolutely nothing for me as IJA to gain by using my plentiful and very capable troops in China, I will use them elsewhere. As I mentioned in a PP, I can afford to 'buy' a regimental equivalent about every 8 days, a division every month or so. As allies, do you want to be trying to recapture Saipan, Guam or Tinian with an 'extra' 5 Japanese divisions on these islands PLUS additional multiple artillery units on each island in the Marianas? I can put a lot of Kwantung armored units (AND ARTILLERY) into the Phillipines too-they would be quite effective (and ahistoric) deterrents to any LCU landings. What say you? What would your countermove be to these proposed HRs? I'm not Canoerebel, and I don't play PBEM, but I have a few thoughts. I think you're asking the right questions. The engine is what it is. Stipulate that the Japanese can steamroll China quickly. Unless that gets an auto-victory, so what? India can be held at Chitagong, IMO. By the time the Japanese player secures the DEI and resources, and guts China, the Chitagong--Imphal line can be held. If the Japanese player tries to shift massive AV to that line, he overextends supply lines, and Allied air power takes huge surges forward in the summer of 1942. So, he moves those divisions to islands? As an Allied player, I say, let him. I then won't won't go there. I'm not on any historical "rails." This is a war "game", not a simulator. WHO CARES if something is "ahistorical"? If the engine allows it, do it. FDR and Churchill did what they did because of events on the ground, not because they had a rule book. China DIDN'T fall, the Japanese DIDN'T move 3 million men out into the wastes of the Pacific, thus leaving a strategic vacuum in central Asia. If a human player does that, make him pay for it. Adjust. Inovate. Overcome. Do things you CAN, and don't worry if they WERE done that way. The central, macro truth is that the Japanese player, in RL and AE, has solid internal lines of communicaiton. The Allies had and have strategic mobility, based on numbers, CVs, and better intel. I don't think AE players as a whole have adjusted to the power of off-map movement yet. The goal of the game and the war is to get into strategic bombing range of the HI with sufficient forces to take out industry. Do that, and in RL and VP terms it's literally game over. Why does everyone think you must do this East to West, island-hopping, slogging through the PI? The Allies have a "cone of silence", a strategic triangle of Madras--Colombo--Kirachi that the Japanese player can only very dimly see into, at great expense in subs. The Allied player can safely move any and all quantities of men and materiel from off-map through this triangle, and onto the main rail networks at Madras and Karachi. (Here I'm speaking of January 1943 onward.) Strategic movement is massively powerful to the player with armored spearheads that can grab the next rail station and surge infanty forward without fatigue, very quickly. By early 1943 Allied LBA and fighters can hold their own in northern Burma and Indochina. So, move most of the US Army into China via India/Burma. (There are small gaps in the rail network near Imphal, and between Chitagong and Prome, but they can be forced-marched in two weeks or less each, especially the one at Imphal. Then it's straight southwest into Burma.) Use the USMC to hold the line in the Pacific. Use (and lose if need be) your carrier battlegroups on deep strike missions to isolate those 3 million men on the rocks they were sent to. Focus on the Japanese merchant marine, not the navy. Drive east across coastal China, use your subs to blockade the coast so he can't rush rock-sitting soldiers BACK to the China they left. Neutralize Hainan and Formosa by air or amphib landing, short-legged across the straits. Take bomber bases near Shanghai and proceed to bomb the crap out of the HI. Would it work? Maybe. Ahistoric? Yes, but who cares again? It's a GAME. Try stuff out. It's supposed to be fun. So many folks here (and I'm not speaking to anyone in particular, let alone Canoerebel, whose AAR this just seems to fit into) are almost OCD over their games, the rules, "fairness", history, etc. If China is lemons, make lemonade. Don't want to go east as above? Fine. Use the might of the combined USA and Commonwealth to drive on Singapore in late 1943--again, from India through off-map tactics--and bomb the oil centers into paste, clean up with the subs. Might work. Be fun to watch someone try. Anyway. No intent to hijack. I was just thinking about this stuff last night after I read that this game had ceased. I'm sure that the nitpickers can find a million things that could wrong with the above. Maybe so, but OTOH, history doesn't build statues of nitpickers. "L'audace, l'audace, toujours l'audace!" [:)][:D] and so forth.

Altaris -> RE: China Syndrome (11/20/2009 3:53:55 AM)
Anyone who's arguing that China isn't hopelessly broken has not played as the Chinese, and had a very capable defense, or the best that could be mustered, completely wiped out with horrendously lop-sided casualties and no ability to react in the slightest bit. The post about scattering the Chinese is also ridiculous... if my 2000 AV army is smashed in a matter of days, how is dropping it down to 1000 AV and scattering the remaining 1000 into isolated pockets going to make it any better? Sure, it might succeed in cutting Japanese supplies for a couple of days (or, at best, a week or two) but then those units just get picked apart when the Japanese move forces back to clear the path... and the main Japanese army can just continue to the main target. Also, once you get past the first line of Chinese bases, there are very few roads to move along, so it's not like the Chinese have loads of paths with which to get behind enemy lines. But really, at the heart of it, the main problem is that it's just not fun to play under these circumstances. There's no "strategy" involved in the Japanese moving 5-8K AV stacks around, and 1 by 1 picking off completely helpless Chinese defenders. Hell, I don't mind losing battles, but it takes all the fun out of the game if losing at one base wipes me out so bad that I can no longer feasibly defend any rear bases. I have a better chance of sticking 3000 AV in the first forward base than staggering 1000 AV at the 1st base, 1000 at the 2nd base, and 1000 at the 3rd base. But if the Japanese bring 8K AV to bear, it doesn't really matter, my 3K will be completely wrecked in one assault, or my individual 3 1K AV forces will be wrecked in a gradual succession. So what's the point even bothering? And yes, I do believe this exact problem will occur against Japan later in the war. Any HR to protect Chinese would have to be recipricol for the Japanese. Don't know what that HR should be, but there definitely needs to be something.

Sharkosaurus rex -> RE: China Syndrome (11/20/2009 11:41:44 AM)
Thanks Canoerebel for all your time and in sights. I have followed your AAR for a long time. I don't like to type into other people's AAR as I don't want to break their line of thought etc even though this one was a little free-lance. Sorry to hear that the China Syndrome has forced an early end to the war. It's tough to fight off the Jap bombardments and extremely annoying when they ask, "what's up doc?" when ever you mention the continuous artillery bombardment are cheesy and fictional. You don't want house rules so that the game can move fluidly and players can explore different options, but sometimes things are very obviously favouring one side and you don't want to complain and try continue even though it's killing you. I'm not taking a shot at your opponent as he is trying to maximise his advantages, but sometimes it can go too far without him realising. I'm playing as the Allies in my campaign game and it is around mid March 42. We don't have any house rules except no bombing of Chinese cities. My Jap opponent is using continuous bombardments as well if occasional shock attacks. When a unit gets down to 15% strength I normally move back to the next hex to rest and recover fatigue and distruption. So when the attacked hex is shock attacked and my units retreat- at least there is some fresh-ish units there to help as the other units rest before Japs advance. Also at the start of the game the only theatre that I had "take replacement" on was China for about 10-12 turns so to make sure they got all the support and engineers and weapons. And then turned on the Malaya and PI next. And India and USA last. Even at 1600 a month those support troops run out quick anf\d I thought China shouldn't have any competition for the start.

Walloc -> RE: Bitter Herbs (11/20/2009 12:16:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 I agree the sub game is the best part. I've not had 20-30 a month, but about half that, with more since the autumn of 42. But given that the attack code is the same in either case, and given that the AI escorts many/most convoys, what's the difference? Dedicated ASW groups? Fine, I'd welcome them. No, if u have any smarts as a human player to can more or less avoid attacks on ur resource convoys. Question of moving smartly. U cant kill a ship if u dont get the chance to attack. Thats how its very different than playing the AI. The AI just and u could possibly say historicly so sails around any where with it ships. A smart human player can in large avoid that by taking routes, that subs dont get a chance to attack. If u compliment that with "large" convoys the actual possibilties for an attack can be made very slim. Stressing this is for resource convoys. Kind regards, Rasmus

crsutton -> RE: China Syndrome (11/20/2009 4:42:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Altaris Anyone who's arguing that China isn't hopelessly broken has not played as the Chinese, and had a very capable defense, or the best that could be mustered, completely wiped out with horrendously lop-sided casualties and no ability to react in the slightest bit. The post about scattering the Chinese is also ridiculous... if my 2000 AV army is smashed in a matter of days, how is dropping it down to 1000 AV and scattering the remaining 1000 into isolated pockets going to make it any better? Sure, it might succeed in cutting Japanese supplies for a couple of days (or, at best, a week or two) but then those units just get picked apart when the Japanese move forces back to clear the path... and the main Japanese army can just continue to the main target. Also, once you get past the first line of Chinese bases, there are very few roads to move along, so it's not like the Chinese have loads of paths with which to get behind enemy lines. But really, at the heart of it, the main problem is that it's just not fun to play under these circumstances. There's no "strategy" involved in the Japanese moving 5-8K AV stacks around, and 1 by 1 picking off completely helpless Chinese defenders. Hell, I don't mind losing battles, but it takes all the fun out of the game if losing at one base wipes me out so bad that I can no longer feasibly defend any rear bases. I have a better chance of sticking 3000 AV in the first forward base than staggering 1000 AV at the 1st base, 1000 at the 2nd base, and 1000 at the 3rd base. But if the Japanese bring 8K AV to bear, it doesn't really matter, my 3K will be completely wrecked in one assault, or my individual 3 1K AV forces will be wrecked in a gradual succession. So what's the point even bothering? And yes, I do believe this exact problem will occur against Japan later in the war. Any HR to protect Chinese would have to be recipricol for the Japanese. Don't know what that HR should be, but there definitely needs to be something. In my game as the Allies, I had sucessfully swamped my opponent's rear areas. His attacking force at Siam was cut off from supply for about three weeks and his forces in Ichang for at least two. I had also cut off his forces attacking Changsha. I thought it was brilliant. Well, he just stood firm in all of his spots. Any attempt to attack or bombard by my Chinese forces was replused with massive losses. He seemed to have little problems moving and bombarding while his supply lines were cut. And really had no trouble moving back to smash my units in his rear as most to them were very low or out of supply as well. Long story short, Excellent Japanese units with low suppy will still smash the hell out of crappy Chinese units with low supply. The other real problem is that once he clears a path to his isolated units, he can use the massive "suck supply" option to pull thousands of supply to his forces in one turn so that if I recut his supply lines in a few days, any of his out of supply stacks will have mountains of supply. I have no problem with the crappy Chinese units. They should be useless on offense and very brittle. I think the real issue with the China fight is supply. Three quick solutions that might have a dramatic effect. 1. Allow cut off Chinese units to always have at least a trickle of supply. Chinese soldiers were pretty good at adapting and living off the land. 2. Just eliminate the button that allows you to change your supply flow in a city. This dang thing just allows for some incredible exploits. ( I myself pulled 200k of supply out of India over virtually impassible terrain into Burma in two days!) Just get rid of it! Now! 3. Really restrict the flow of supplies to Japanese units that are fighting into the interior of China. I mean "really restrict" the flow. If Japan take Siam, good for them! They should be able to take it. However, the monster stack should have to sit in Siam for a month or two building up supply before they can on on the offensive again. You do these three things and I doubt that you have to make one change to the combat model in China. It should work fine. Well, except for that dang artillery thing.[:@]

khyberbill -> RE: Bitter Herbs (11/20/2009 6:10:23 PM)
quote: I also think this can be a way to fight the big artillery stacks as well. If you don't have to worry about massive assaults, you can put more troops in reserve, lowering the effect of artillery. I have seen a reduction in casualties. However, when your opponent attacks, a number of units are switched from reserve to combat. This started, I believe, in Patch 1, which of course made things worse in China. As the game currently works enough of your troops are put into combat mode to be 25% of the attackers AV. So, instead of 10,000 casualites, we see (in my last turn of me PBEM) 9000 casualties. This included 137 infantry squads destroyed. That is about 19 days of replacement. In smaller battles, I saw much fewer casualties, but 400-800 per turn are not uncommon.

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Bitter Herbs (11/20/2009 10:04:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Walloc quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 I agree the sub game is the best part. I've not had 20-30 a month, but about half that, with more since the autumn of 42. But given that the attack code is the same in either case, and given that the AI escorts many/most convoys, what's the difference? Dedicated ASW groups? Fine, I'd welcome them. No, if u have any smarts as a human player to can more or less avoid attacks on ur resource convoys. Question of moving smartly. U cant kill a ship if u dont get the chance to attack. Thats how its very different than playing the AI. The AI just and u could possibly say historicly so sails around any where with it ships. A smart human player can in large avoid that by taking routes, that subs dont get a chance to attack. If u compliment that with "large" convoys the actual possibilties for an attack can be made very slim. Stressing this is for resource convoys. Kind regards, Rasmus Realizing English is probably not your first language, I'm still not exactly sure of the points you're making. Exactly WHERE are USN subs in a position "that subs dont' get a chance to attack"?

crsutton -> RE: Bitter Herbs (11/21/2009 2:51:17 AM)
I see his point. It is that a smart human player will use few larger convoys to reduce the number of attacks. This is what the Allies discovered in the North Altlantic, that even one very large convoy with poor escort was at much less risk that a bunch of smaller convoys as it limited the actual number of times that subs was in position to attack. Historically, the Japanese did not use large convoys but in the game, a wise player will run large convoys and break them up as they get to their destinations.

Page: << < prev 12 13 [14] 15 16 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.609375