quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Hate to sound like a broken record, but I've been pointing out for years that allowing the bombing of unused airfields to destroy the supply of armies deployed in field created an easymode game for the Japanese player in China.

Many have tried to make China tougher to conquer, but have failed. I believe they will continue to fail until this mechanism is altered.

Unfortunately every time I bring it up I get lambasted by the entire community and shouted down by a flurry of "it has to be that way...stupid" responses.

From my perspective, nothing about destroying the supply of field armies by bombing unused airbases has ever made a lick of sense.

steps back down from soap box

quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister


I know RA has started looking into the issues with China. Perhaps they can get it sorted. It will be really problematic to balance though. IMO I think it would be better to work on toning down the Japanese rather then giving the Chinese more. I think it could easily turn the Chinese into an insane powerhouse in 43-44.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister


I know RA has started looking into the issues with China. Perhaps they can get it sorted. It will be really problematic to balance though. IMO I think it would be better to work on toning down the Japanese rather then giving the Chinese more. I think it could easily turn the Chinese into an insane powerhouse in 43-44.

I agree. Against a less than astute Japanese player (the AI) the Chinese are already powerful enough to liberate most of the country in '42.

Would be nice to see the Japanese toned down, especially anywhere outside a base hex and the Chinese handicapped by warlord lack of loyalty to the central regime, and strained by the communist/nationalist tension.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

Actually Tom has done next to no AF bombings. Instead he has gone after the troops in the priority:
Clear terrain
Moving
Strongholds

From my experience this might have been even more effective then bombing AF supply. He has caused on average around 1000 casualties per day. 1000 casualties x 150 days = 150.000 casualties from bombing alone. I hate to think how much supply getting all those disablements back have costs.

Then add the almost invulnerable armor which can attack and cause massive casualties despite horrible combat odds. But the biggest problem is lack of Chinese supply, or perhaps rather with the ease the Japanese can sustain combat, day after day without the slightest worry of supply problems. China is simply not balanced for that kind of scenario.

I know RA has started looking into the issues with China. Perhaps they can get it sorted. It will be really problematic to balance though. IMO I think it would be better to work on toning down the Japanese rather then giving the Chinese more. I think it could easily turn the Chinese into an insane powerhouse in 43-44.

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert


If there were more small Chinese dot bases (without airfields that could be bombed) with internal supply generation on the order of a total of around 200-300 supply a day, that would give the Chinese a chance to keep some supply in frontline corps but still without an early chance at offensive actions.

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

Apparently repairing disabled devices and squads does not cost supply. If a unit does not have supply it will not repair them, but they will repair at no cost if the unit is in good supply. If it's very low or out of supply altogether, squads and devices will become disabled.

I had thought there was a cost to repair these as well until just recently when someone steered me in the right direction.

I think the gnarly roads map/pwhex changes might go a ways farther to fixing supply movement and garrison allotments in China, thus tying down and slowing the Japanese more the farther hey get into China. The part that needs fixing has to do with the disparity in logistical possibility for both sides. The game designers may not have considered that the Japanese would simply flood China with supply that moves a bit too freely down very good road and rail systems, but the gnarly road idea might slow this supply movement at least.

If there were more small Chinese dot bases (without airfields that could be bombed) with internal supply generation on the order of a total of around 200-300 supply a day, that would give the Chinese a chance to keep some supply in frontline corps but still without an early chance at offensive actions.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deserted Fox
Bottom line IMHO if the Chinese are getting rolled its bad play on the allied players part.....full stop...end of story.

Of course the one thing people don't want to hear is, your playing badly. Its much easier to blame the scenario, the data, the 'whatever', as long as the blame is shifted from oneself.

quote:

I typically ignore garrison requirements with the Allies and accept a little damage at bases I'm not using anyway in order to prioritize having units at the front where I need them, both in India and China.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Spidery

quote:

I typically ignore garrison requirements with the Allies and accept a little damage at bases I'm not using anyway in order to prioritize having units at the front where I need them, both in India and China.

Risky if you are worried by AV. The VP loss seems to come off your total so effectively counts the same as giving the Japanese 4 VP for AV purposes. For the long game the VP loss is pretty irrelevant.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

Apparently repairing disabled devices and squads does not cost supply. If a unit does not have supply it will not repair them, but they will repair at no cost if the unit is in good supply. If it's very low or out of supply altogether, squads and devices will become disabled.

I had thought there was a cost to repair these as well until just recently when someone steered me in the right direction.

I think the gnarly roads map/pwhex changes might go a ways farther to fixing supply movement and garrison allotments in China, thus tying down and slowing the Japanese more the farther hey get into China. The part that needs fixing has to do with the disparity in logistical possibility for both sides. The game designers may not have considered that the Japanese would simply flood China with supply that moves a bit too freely down very good road and rail systems, but the gnarly road idea might slow this supply movement at least.

If there were more small Chinese dot bases (without airfields that could be bombed) with internal supply generation on the order of a total of around 200-300 supply a day, that would give the Chinese a chance to keep some supply in frontline corps but still without an early chance at offensive actions.

AH, that is good to know! [X(] But that begs the question. What is burning ALL Chinese supply in just 3-6 months? Is it just the constant battle?

In general I would be very cautious about giving the Chinese more supply. That kind of stuff would be very hard to balance I think. For example extra supply could be used to start repairing industry that would in turn generate more supply and so on...

I think the best way to deal with it would be to balance down the Japanese ability to maintain such a massive tempo on several vectors. As I wrote to HB I think perhaps the best way would be to drastically increase the garrison requirements for both sides. Especially in occupied territory. If the Japanese had to leave behind say 2000 AV for Sian and Lanchow grabbing Chungking/Changsha would be harder to do. Probably requiring buying out troops from Manchuria.

Perhaps an overall increase of Garrison requirements for both sides to put less troops on the front would help too.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deserted Fox

I'll throw my 2 cents in here re China.

I recently returned to play witp_ae approx 6 months ago. Prior to that about 3 or 4 years
ago I had about 4 games that ended in my allied victory on or before Feb42 and a dual game against the same opponent, 1 as allies the other as Japan, these end in approx Aug 42. In all those games I had no issues defending in China.

I now have 2 games going playing Dababes, 1 as allies and 1 as japan and another just finished as allies. As the allies in China I am cruising, in my 1 game as japan I feel I have the better of the game so far, but it isn't reversible for my opponent.

Bottom line IMHO if the Chinese are getting rolled its bad play on the allied players part.....full stop...end of story.

Of course the one thing people don't want to hear is, your playing badly. Its much easier to blame the scenario, the data, the 'whatever', as long as the blame is shifted from oneself.

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deserted Fox

I'll throw my 2 cents in here re China.

I recently returned to play witp_ae approx 6 months ago. Prior to that about 3 or 4 years
ago I had about 4 games that ended in my allied victory on or before Feb42 and a dual game against the same opponent, 1 as allies the other as Japan, these end in approx Aug 42. In all those games I had no issues defending in China.

I now have 2 games going playing Dababes, 1 as allies and 1 as japan and another just finished as allies. As the allies in China I am cruising, in my 1 game as japan I feel I have the better of the game so far, but it isn't reversible for my opponent.

Bottom line IMHO if the Chinese are getting rolled its bad play on the allied players part.....full stop...end of story.

Of course the one thing people don't want to hear is, your playing badly. Its much easier to blame the scenario, the data, the 'whatever', as long as the blame is shifted from oneself.

This is ridiculously condescending and arrogant first of all. Some of the most highly regarded players on the forum have not been able to hold China against a focused and skilled opponent who prioritizes China over other theaters. This last portion is important. If China is a priority, then something else on the map is not, and a lot of troops and resources are diverted away from areas where the Allies will eventually have a chance to use this opportunity.

Secondly, you don't give enough information to treat this post seriously. What does 'cruising' mean to you and how is that manifested in game? How did you effect such an early positive result in China? What opposition did you face and how did you defeat it? How did you deal with the problems discussed here of lack of supply, heavy Japanese bombing of troops, and the lack of anything to battle japanese armor?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cribtop

If gnarly roads help we'll find out soon as the Between the Storms game Michael and I are starting uses it. I hope it helps in China, India, and from my perspective, in Burma.

quote:

"Bad Play on the allies part"

quote:

ORIGINAL: offenseman

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cribtop

If gnarly roads help we'll find out soon as the Between the Storms game Michael and I are starting uses it. I hope it helps in China, India, and from my perspective, in Burma.

Doing an AAR? I'll follow that. Speaking of Burma, I have always felt the supply flows much too well through the jungle.

quote:

If I were you I would take a more humble approach to things then throwing out "bad players". Especially when basing it on one single game you have played....

quote:

Secondly, you don't give enough information to treat this post seriously. What does 'cruising' mean to you and how is that manifested in game? How did you effect such an early positive result in China? What opposition did you face and how did you defeat it? How did you deal with the problems discussed here of lack of supply, heavy Japanese bombing of troops, and the lack of anything to battle japanese armor?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deserted Fox
I believe it would be a waste of time given the responses above.

Obviously it can't be defended against a good opponent and all my opponents were/are complete retards.

quote:

Morning Air attack on Sydney , at 90,167

Weather in hex: Moderate rain

Raid spotted at 40 NM, estimated altitude 18,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 15 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 99
G3M2 Nell x 81

Allied aircraft
Hurricane IIb Trop x 15
Kittyhawk IA x 16
P-39D Airacobra x 143

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 2 destroyed
G3M2 Nell: 11 destroyed, 9 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
P-39D Airacobra: 1 destroyed

quote:

Morning Air attack on Sydney , at 90,167

Weather in hex: Moderate rain

Raid spotted at 32 NM, estimated altitude 19,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 10 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 45

Allied aircraft
Hurricane IIb Trop x 15
Kittyhawk IA x 16
P-39D Airacobra x 130

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 2 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
P-39D Airacobra: 2 destroyed

quote:

4th/A Division is planning for an attack on Perth.

quote:

ORIGINAL: princep01

Obviously it can't be defended against a good opponent and all my opponents were/are complete retards.

Yes, that would appear to be the case.

quote:

Ground combat at 81,41 (near Ankang)

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 27343 troops, 367 guns, 223 vehicles, Assault Value = 1191

Defending force 25495 troops, 70 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 311

Japanese adjusted assault: 500

Allied adjusted defense: 181

Japanese assault odds: 2 to 1

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), fatigue(-), experience(-), supply(-)
Attacker:

Japanese ground losses:
824 casualties reported
Squads: 17 destroyed, 46 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 9 disabled
Guns lost 12 (2 destroyed, 10 disabled)

Allied ground losses:
8659 casualties reported
Squads: 312 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 384 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 3 destroyed, 1 disabled
Guns lost 5 (3 destroyed, 2 disabled)
Units retreated 11

quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

Logistics...Logistics...Logistics... [:D]

Like I've told you before, use those xAKs with dual capacity to carry fuel. You have enough xAKs to carry supplies. You MUST micro-manage your transports. Set them to "Do Not Refuel" for the most part in eastern and south Pacific. I use "Minimal Refuel" when they need to get back from NZ/OZ to USA. Most of mine get home with almost dry fuel tanks.

OK, lecture over! [;)]