RE: Japanese land in OZ!! (Full Version)

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



Message

Lokasenna -> RE: Japanese land in OZ!! (9/12/2014 7:07:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

I really think that a lot of the LCU losses being reported from these other games is coming from the SRA. Those Dutch and British/Commonwealth units are worth a lot of VPs. Not to mention all the US Army/USMC stuff on Luzon.

EDIT:

I have a Computer Both Sides game going right now, it's up to 3/21/42. There are 5600 Allied LCU losses so far. As we all know, the AI doesn't do a whole lot in China, in either direction - whether it's Quiet China or not. Changsha, Kukong, Nanning, Amoy (!), Foochow, etc. remain unconquered. Only Chuhsien has fallen. Chengchow was auto-occupied, and Loyang remains in Chinese hands. So, not much in the way of Chinese casualties here.

What's fallen:
Hong Kong
Manila
Clark Field
All of Mindanao
90% of Borneo
The Celebes
Singapore

Bataan remains with 45K Allied troops.
Sumatra and Java haven't even been touched yet.

So at least 5,000 VPs just from Malaya, Borneo, and most of Luzon. There are a LOT more to be had in Java, and this doesn't include the 44th/45th Indian Brigades or the 18th British Division (I checked the destroyed LCUs).

I'd wager that ~8000 VPs from LCUs is in the SRA alone. Do I need to go back to game's start and count up all the devices? [:D]


I might be able to give an exact number on how much VPs China is worth. Hopefully before the weekend is up! [:)]

Wanna bet? [:D]



It's going to be slightly variable depending on replacements. I think the smart thing is to do it with no replacements. You can easily add up all the bases, which will also vary from game to game, depending on how high the Japan player built them up.

I'm already adding up device totals [;)]. Wouldn't be fair to bet with insider information!



JocMeister -> RE: Japanese land in OZ!! (9/12/2014 7:22:04 PM)

Replacements off. No counting respawns. No base expansion. [:)]

As you say the base VPs are easy to count. What I´m looking at are LCU losses.

We will see. I still think I´m closer to the truth. But then again many Chinese LCUs get killed off and cut off in the first few weeks. So in any normal game many LCUs will be killed off multiple times. But at least this will provide a good base line. [:)]



Lokasenna -> RE: Japanese land in OZ!! (9/12/2014 7:40:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

Replacements off. No counting respawns. No base expansion. [:)]

As you say the base VPs are easy to count. What I´m looking at are LCU losses.

We will see. I still think I´m closer to the truth. But then again many Chinese LCUs get killed off and cut off in the first few weeks. So in any normal game many LCUs will be killed off multiple times. But at least this will provide a good base line. [:)]


Just finished. See attached. I used Tracker and exported the LCU names to .CSV, and then I went through unit by unit and added up the total devices.

6763 VPs starting on the board for Chinese LCUs, not counting the AVG Ground Echelon which is in Burma.

See attached if you like. Obvious this total goes down, the more LCUs you save. It goes up the more that respawn at Chungking, but not by THAT much as only Rifle Squads, Cav Squads, and Support respawn with the unit and at 1/3 TOE.

You will need to change the file extension to .xlsx from .txt.



Lokasenna -> RE: Japanese land in OZ!! (9/12/2014 8:13:54 PM)

And here's a version where I've counted up all the Dutch LCUs, including the ones that come in within 3 months.

2569 VPs just for them. I told you there's a ton of LCU VPs in the SRA [;)]. The key thing is that the Chinese are only worth 1/12 each, while the Dutch, Brits, Aussies, and Indians are worth 1/3.

EDIT: This version of the file now includes -

Luzon
Mindanao
Philippine reinforcements
Malaysia

It totals up to 5903-5904 VPs just for those. That's the bulk of them. All that would be left to count is US reinforcements to Luzon (not as easy to separate via Tracker), and the British stuff on Borneo.

And then there's the Aussies, Indians, and Brits that are preset to travel to Singapore or Java... plus any reinforcements that arrive in Java/Malaysia themselves. I think there might be some other Commonwealth units that arrive there, but I didn't sort them out.



JocMeister -> RE: Japanese land in OZ!! (9/13/2014 5:11:16 AM)

Damn, you beat me to it! [:D]

Will still run my test and see if our numbers add up. Can´t check the files now as I´m on my phone. But when you say "It totals up to 5903-5904 VPs just for those" do you mean WITH the SRA troops or excluding them?



Lokasenna -> RE: Japanese land in OZ!! (9/13/2014 7:01:19 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

Damn, you beat me to it! [:D]

Will still run my test and see if our numbers add up. Can´t check the files now as I´m on my phone. But when you say "It totals up to 5903-5904 VPs just for those" do you mean WITH the SRA troops or excluding them?


5900 for all of the SRA except: Brits on Borneo, American reinforcements in the PI, and any incoming reinforcements (such as 18th Brit ID, Indian Brigades, Aussie Brigades).



JocMeister -> RE: Japanese land in OZ!! (9/13/2014 8:06:32 AM)

I got 6912 Chinese LCU losses. Thats everything in China except some of the small BDEs in the far north. No respawns, no replacements.

Kind of interesting since it shows I lost almost the entire Chinese army 2 times in my second game...Not that strange though when you consider it. Respawns come back at 30/30 having only rifle squads. That makes them extremely fragile so I figure once you start using "respawns" on the front line losses will rise tremendously.

So that would mean my estimate of 15-20k VPs is actually pretty spot on. Going by Spiderys Base VPs (9500) + our Chinese LCU losses = almost 17k VPs. And that is if NO replacements or respawns are lost. And I think its safe to assume that at least some respawns will be used. Going by my second game I lost around 10k worth of Chinese LCU losses. If you add that its around 20k VPs for China...A huge number. And relatively easy to grab for a competent Japanese player. Most definitively a huge factor in any games being played for VPs.



Spidery -> RE: Japanese land in OZ!! (9/13/2014 9:24:50 AM)

Respawned units come back at 1/3 of TOE, since most of the Chinese corps start at 50% or less of strength the VP value the second time round is something like 50% of the first time - works out about 40 VP for each large Chinese Corps and 2 or 3 VP for HQ and Base forces.

How many VP does Japan directly lose taking China? Air losses from CAP traps and a few bad combat moves mean I guess it cost me about 1500-2000 VP but I expect with more competence this could be reduced to 1000 or so.

Indirectly, it does use a lot of supply, lots of PP if paying PP to cross boundaries, and keeps a fair number of fighters in China.



JocMeister -> RE: Japanese land in OZ!! (9/13/2014 10:48:25 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Spidery

Respawned units come back at 1/3 of TOE, since most of the Chinese corps start at 50% or less of strength the VP value the second time round is something like 50% of the first time - works out about 40 VP for each large Chinese Corps and 2 or 3 VP for HQ and Base forces.

How many VP does Japan directly lose taking China? Air losses from CAP traps and a few bad combat moves mean I guess it cost me about 1500-2000 VP but I expect with more competence this could be reduced to 1000 or so.

Indirectly, it does use a lot of supply, lots of PP if paying PP to cross boundaries, and keeps a fair number of fighters in China.


Tom lost 816 Japanese LCU losses in total. About 500 of those are from China. In turn around 200 of those were from shock attacking into Chungking to close the hex sides. So only around 300 VPs lost for Tom to regular combat in China.

Japan suffer very few actual losses in China. I would say something like 90-95% of Toms losses were disablements. These can quickly and easily be recovered. Obviously no VPs are awarded the Allied player for this. Overuse of heavy artillery and Tanks cause massive casualties to Chinese troops while almost none to the attacking Japanese troops.

I have nothing to back it up but I would estimate around 80% of the losses I took in China were to artillery. Interestingly enough Tom seemed to have opted to rely on artillery rather then aerial attacks in our game. Seemed to work well. He did use concentrated bombings at stubborn roadblocks but for the most part it was the heavy artillery doing all the work.




Lokasenna -> RE: Japanese land in OZ!! (9/13/2014 3:53:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

I got 6912 Chinese LCU losses. Thats everything in China except some of the small BDEs in the far north. No respawns, no replacements.

Kind of interesting since it shows I lost almost the entire Chinese army 2 times in my second game...Not that strange though when you consider it. Respawns come back at 30/30 having only rifle squads. That makes them extremely fragile so I figure once you start using "respawns" on the front line losses will rise tremendously.

So that would mean my estimate of 15-20k VPs is actually pretty spot on. Going by Spiderys Base VPs (9500) + our Chinese LCU losses = almost 17k VPs. And that is if NO replacements or respawns are lost. And I think its safe to assume that at least some respawns will be used. Going by my second game I lost around 10k worth of Chinese LCU losses. If you add that its around 20k VPs for China...A huge number. And relatively easy to grab for a competent Japanese player. Most definitively a huge factor in any games being played for VPs.


I don't understand how 6900 VPs, respawned at 1/3 of TOE and killed again, becomes 15-20K VPs. What are they teaching you in those Swedish math classes? [:'(] Kidding!

The base VPs... I exported the bases from Tracker into a CSV and had Excel add it up for me. If every Chinese base is built to maximum, it's 15822 VPs for Japan. [X(] There are lots of potential level 9 AFs that have *10 multipliers. 49 bases in total have *10 or higher for Japan, and all together they are worth 14810. 31 of those are potential level 9 AFs, and 3 of those 31 have ports as well.

I would say that this is a very large, almost un-counterable VP bank for Japan...except that in order to build all of those up, Japan needs to commit a lot of engineers for years. That would leave forts weaker elsewhere.



Crackaces -> RE: Japanese land in OZ!! (9/13/2014 4:18:54 PM)

quote:

I don't understand how 6900 VPs, respawned at 1/3 of TOE and killed again, becomes 15-20K VPs. What are they teaching you in those Swedish math classes? Kidding! The base VPs... I exported the bases from Tracker into a CSV and had Excel add it up for me. If every Chinese base is built to maximum, it's 15822 VPs for Japan. There are lots of potential level 9 AFs that have *10 multipliers. 49 bases in total have *10 or higher for Japan, and all together they are worth 14810. 31 of those are potential level 9 AFs, and 3 of those 31 have ports as well. I would say that this is a very large, almost un-counterable VP bank for Japan...except that in order to build all of those up, Japan needs to commit a lot of engineers for years. That would leave forts weaker elsewhere.



I do not believe these calculations are complete. I might ask the question -- how much supply has to be expended
to gain these VP's? Building up ports and airfields is not free and gets more expensive in terms of supply as
the AF progresses with AF 9's being very expensive in terms of supply.

Then there is the need to push supplies through the Chinese rail/road/trail network which requires additional supply.

One thing the late game AAR's I have observed and that is in this game supply becomes the ultimate throttle and eventually
the bane of the IJ.

I might propose that although there is some make up of supply factories for the IJ in the DBB .. that alternative makes the problem worse.

The other problem is that the allies cannot assume a "Midway" in 1942 and actually it is not going to happen in this game.
So the strategy might be let the IJ seek autovictory .. use up fuel and supply and then like spending ones 401K at age 45
when 65 comes there is nothing left in the bank and the IJ resigns ..




BBfanboy -> RE: Japanese land in OZ!! (9/13/2014 4:19:31 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna


quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

I got 6912 Chinese LCU losses. Thats everything in China except some of the small BDEs in the far north. No respawns, no replacements.

Kind of interesting since it shows I lost almost the entire Chinese army 2 times in my second game...Not that strange though when you consider it. Respawns come back at 30/30 having only rifle squads. That makes them extremely fragile so I figure once you start using "respawns" on the front line losses will rise tremendously.

So that would mean my estimate of 15-20k VPs is actually pretty spot on. Going by Spiderys Base VPs (9500) + our Chinese LCU losses = almost 17k VPs. And that is if NO replacements or respawns are lost. And I think its safe to assume that at least some respawns will be used. Going by my second game I lost around 10k worth of Chinese LCU losses. If you add that its around 20k VPs for China...A huge number. And relatively easy to grab for a competent Japanese player. Most definitively a huge factor in any games being played for VPs.


I don't understand how 6900 VPs, respawned at 1/3 of TOE and killed again, becomes 15-20K VPs. What are they teaching you in those Swedish math classes? [:'(] Kidding!

The base VPs... I exported the bases from Tracker into a CSV and had Excel add it up for me. If every Chinese base is built to maximum, it's 15822 VPs for Japan. [X(] There are lots of potential level 9 AFs that have *10 multipliers. 49 bases in total have *10 or higher for Japan, and all together they are worth 14810. 31 of those are potential level 9 AFs, and 3 of those 31 have ports as well.

I would say that this is a very large, almost un-counterable VP bank for Japan...except that in order to build all of those up, Japan needs to commit a lot of engineers for years. That would leave forts weaker elsewhere.

Doesn't base building take a lot of supply as well? Japan may get the VPs but weakens the home islands if it has to ship most of the supply to China.
I wonder if Japan can generate enough supply to build the aircraft and ships it wants plus feed IJ China's base-building program?



Crackaces -> RE: Japanese land in OZ!! (9/13/2014 4:22:32 PM)

quote:

Doesn't base building take a lot of supply as well? Japan may get the VPs but weakens the home islands if it has to ship most of the supply to China. I wonder if Japan can generate enough supply to build the aircraft and ships it wants plus feed IJ China's base-building program?


We posted the same conclusions simultaneously [8D]

No supply in Oct 1944 and the IJ resigns ...[;)]



JocMeister -> RE: Japanese land in OZ!! (9/13/2014 4:29:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna


quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

I got 6912 Chinese LCU losses. Thats everything in China except some of the small BDEs in the far north. No respawns, no replacements.

Kind of interesting since it shows I lost almost the entire Chinese army 2 times in my second game...Not that strange though when you consider it. Respawns come back at 30/30 having only rifle squads. That makes them extremely fragile so I figure once you start using "respawns" on the front line losses will rise tremendously.

So that would mean my estimate of 15-20k VPs is actually pretty spot on. Going by Spiderys Base VPs (9500) + our Chinese LCU losses = almost 17k VPs. And that is if NO replacements or respawns are lost. And I think its safe to assume that at least some respawns will be used. Going by my second game I lost around 10k worth of Chinese LCU losses. If you add that its around 20k VPs for China...A huge number. And relatively easy to grab for a competent Japanese player. Most definitively a huge factor in any games being played for VPs.


I don't understand how 6900 VPs, respawned at 1/3 of TOE and killed again, becomes 15-20K VPs. What are they teaching you in those Swedish math classes? [:'(] Kidding!

The base VPs... I exported the bases from Tracker into a CSV and had Excel add it up for me. If every Chinese base is built to maximum, it's 15822 VPs for Japan. [X(] There are lots of potential level 9 AFs that have *10 multipliers. 49 bases in total have *10 or higher for Japan, and all together they are worth 14810. 31 of those are potential level 9 AFs, and 3 of those 31 have ports as well.

I would say that this is a very large, almost un-counterable VP bank for Japan...except that in order to build all of those up, Japan needs to commit a lot of engineers for years. That would leave forts weaker elsewhere.


Don´t be mean! [:D]

Most Chinese units actually start the game below 30% TOE or there around! So another 3000 LCU losses are not very unlikely at all. Especially considering how extremely fragile those respawns will be. 30/30 and nothing but rifle squads...ouch!

16k base VPs. Jeezus! Are you sure? [X(]

But as you say. Investing that heavily in China and you might end up having B24s bombing the HI in mid 44...

Its kind of fascinating though. China has always been considered more or less a side show. But when you look at it its loads and loads of VPs. All within easy reach of the HI. And looking at my game with Tom not much is needed but China and that crucial denial of Noumea for the allies.

I wonder if at least Noumea should be looked at. Having an allied x50 multiplier is HUGE. I wonder if it would be better to spread those x50s out to multiple locations instead. Feels kind of odd that Noumea alone is worth more then Gilberts and Marshalls combined. It encourage force projection in a quite unrealistic way.

Then there is the question of China and the balance there...I´ve would have loved to look at Toms setup. I´ve asked him twice if he would share his PW but no response so I guess I won´t be able to check it out. [:(]



Lokasenna -> RE: Japanese land in OZ!! (9/13/2014 5:17:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna


quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

I got 6912 Chinese LCU losses. Thats everything in China except some of the small BDEs in the far north. No respawns, no replacements.

Kind of interesting since it shows I lost almost the entire Chinese army 2 times in my second game...Not that strange though when you consider it. Respawns come back at 30/30 having only rifle squads. That makes them extremely fragile so I figure once you start using "respawns" on the front line losses will rise tremendously.

So that would mean my estimate of 15-20k VPs is actually pretty spot on. Going by Spiderys Base VPs (9500) + our Chinese LCU losses = almost 17k VPs. And that is if NO replacements or respawns are lost. And I think its safe to assume that at least some respawns will be used. Going by my second game I lost around 10k worth of Chinese LCU losses. If you add that its around 20k VPs for China...A huge number. And relatively easy to grab for a competent Japanese player. Most definitively a huge factor in any games being played for VPs.


I don't understand how 6900 VPs, respawned at 1/3 of TOE and killed again, becomes 15-20K VPs. What are they teaching you in those Swedish math classes? [:'(] Kidding!

The base VPs... I exported the bases from Tracker into a CSV and had Excel add it up for me. If every Chinese base is built to maximum, it's 15822 VPs for Japan. [X(] There are lots of potential level 9 AFs that have *10 multipliers. 49 bases in total have *10 or higher for Japan, and all together they are worth 14810. 31 of those are potential level 9 AFs, and 3 of those 31 have ports as well.

I would say that this is a very large, almost un-counterable VP bank for Japan...except that in order to build all of those up, Japan needs to commit a lot of engineers for years. That would leave forts weaker elsewhere.


Don´t be mean! [:D]

Most Chinese units actually start the game below 30% TOE or there around! So another 3000 LCU losses are not very unlikely at all. Especially considering how extremely fragile those respawns will be. 30/30 and nothing but rifle squads...ouch!

16k base VPs. Jeezus! Are you sure? [X(]

But as you say. Investing that heavily in China and you might end up having B24s bombing the HI in mid 44...

Its kind of fascinating though. China has always been considered more or less a side show. But when you look at it its loads and loads of VPs. All within easy reach of the HI. And looking at my game with Tom not much is needed but China and that crucial denial of Noumea for the allies.

I wonder if at least Noumea should be looked at. Having an allied x50 multiplier is HUGE. I wonder if it would be better to spread those x50s out to multiple locations instead. Feels kind of odd that Noumea alone is worth more then Gilberts and Marshalls combined. It encourage force projection in a quite unrealistic way.

Then there is the question of China and the balance there...I´ve would have loved to look at Toms setup. I´ve asked him twice if he would share his PW but no response so I guess I won´t be able to check it out. [:(]


I think the average Chinese LCU TOE size is probably around 50%...some are about 2/3 TOE, but as I was typing many of the devices numbers in, I noticed that they were around half of their total potential squad sizes.

I am positive about the base VP total. Keep in mind, however, that there's lots of walking between these bases and lots of levels to be built up. Costs a lot in time, engineers, and supply. I would never do it as Japan. It's just not worth the investment. Certain choice bases, sure. Mostly in the Changsha/Chungking area as you're going to build some of those up anyway and making a short detour to get another couple hundred VPs isn't that bad.

I am thinking that China probably needs a rebalance. I think Bullwinkle might be on the right tack with higher garrison requirements (for both sides?), but I think a "double whammy" of higher garrison requirements as well as some tweaking of base VPs might "fix" China and make it more of a choice rather than a no-brainer. Namely, reduce the number of bases worth *10, probably reduce the multiplier on Chungking to 150 from 200, maybe drop Chengtu to 75...

I've also thought Kunming is undervalued on VPs at only *25. Lanchow/Sining could be looked at also.

I agree with you on Noumea. Koumac is almost as good of a base. Perhaps *10 for Koumac, *40 for Noumea [;)]. That makes it harder to build up your VPs, though...so keep that in mind.



Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Japanese land in OZ!! (9/13/2014 5:27:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

I am thinking that China probably needs a rebalance. I think Bullwinkle might be on the right tack with higher garrison requirements (for both sides?), but I think a "double whammy" of higher garrison requirements as well as some tweaking of base VPs might "fix" China and make it more of a choice rather than a no-brainer. Namely, reduce the number of bases worth *10, probably reduce the multiplier on Chungking to 150 from 200, maybe drop Chengtu to 75...

I've also thought Kunming is undervalued on VPs at only *25. Lanchow/Sining could be looked at also.

I agree with you on Noumea. Koumac is almost as good of a base. Perhaps *10 for Koumac, *40 for Noumea [;)]. That makes it harder to build up your VPs, though...so keep that in mind.


Given China in stock was laid down what? six or seven years ago before anyone had wrung out the game, I think it was fine then. It's not now. People have learned and AARs are forever.

I do think garrisons would help a lot, but I would weight them more to the western side of China where I believe the Red Army was more active. Some increases for the Chinese side too to make a full-scale bug-out for Chungking hurt. In exchange, I'd give most every city-base (not dots necessarily) some little bit of organic supply. If that's supposed to essentially represent food and clothes every city and countryside could do that without industry.

And yes, rebalancing the VPs to make Chungking less of a golden chest of VPs would make things less predictable.

I don't really have a dog in the Noumea fight. Change it, leave it alone, I don't care. It's an island. If Japan takes it they're going to lose it. Early, late, doesn't matter. If they want to build me a nice AF, fine. (This means you, Loka![:)]) It's only a matter of when. China is a whole different kind of problem. You can walk there from most of the map.



Lokasenna -> RE: Japanese land in OZ!! (9/13/2014 5:37:35 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

I am thinking that China probably needs a rebalance. I think Bullwinkle might be on the right tack with higher garrison requirements (for both sides?), but I think a "double whammy" of higher garrison requirements as well as some tweaking of base VPs might "fix" China and make it more of a choice rather than a no-brainer. Namely, reduce the number of bases worth *10, probably reduce the multiplier on Chungking to 150 from 200, maybe drop Chengtu to 75...

I've also thought Kunming is undervalued on VPs at only *25. Lanchow/Sining could be looked at also.

I agree with you on Noumea. Koumac is almost as good of a base. Perhaps *10 for Koumac, *40 for Noumea [;)]. That makes it harder to build up your VPs, though...so keep that in mind.


Given China in stock was laid down what? six or seven years ago before anyone had wrung out the game, I think it was fine then. It's not now. People have learned and AARs are forever.

I do think garrisons would help a lot, but I would weight them more to the western side of China where I believe the Red Army was more active. Some increases for the Chinese side too to make a full-scale bug-out for Chungking hurt. In exchange, I'd give most every city-base (not dots necessarily) some little bit of organic supply. If that's supposed to essentially represent food and clothes every city and countryside could do that without industry.

And yes, rebalancing the VPs to make Chungking less of a golden chest of VPs would make things less predictable.

I don't really have a dog in the Noumea fight. Change it, leave it alone, I don't care. It's an island. If Japan takes it they're going to lose it. Early, late, doesn't matter. If they want to build me a nice AF, fine. (This means you, Loka![:)]) It's only a matter of when. China is a whole different kind of problem. You can walk there from most of the map.


Why do you think I've mostly left Noumea's facilities alone? [:)] If you want them, you have to build it. I'm not doing it for you!



Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Japanese land in OZ!! (9/13/2014 5:46:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna


Why do you think I've mostly left Noumea's facilities alone? [:)] If you want them, you have to build it. I'm not doing it for you!


4-5 Seabee REGIMENTS should do nicely! [:)]



Spidery -> RE: Japanese land in OZ!! (9/13/2014 6:11:51 PM)

quote:

Doesn't base building take a lot of supply as well? Japan may get the VPs but weakens the home islands if it has to ship most of the supply to China.
I wonder if Japan can generate enough supply to build the aircraft and ships it wants plus feed IJ China's base-building program?


Could reasonably expect to capture 400 LI in China and 160 oil. In stock that produces 2000 supply per day. It takes 7000 supply to take a base from size 0 to size 7 if SRS is 7. So captured industry in China can fund the expansion of all the size 10+ bases to their SRS value within 6 months. Probably won't have the engineers to do this though.



Lokasenna -> RE: Japanese land in OZ!! (9/13/2014 6:47:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Spidery

quote:

Doesn't base building take a lot of supply as well? Japan may get the VPs but weakens the home islands if it has to ship most of the supply to China.
I wonder if Japan can generate enough supply to build the aircraft and ships it wants plus feed IJ China's base-building program?


Could reasonably expect to capture 400 LI in China and 160 oil. In stock that produces 2000 supply per day. It takes 7000 supply to take a base from size 0 to size 7 if SRS is 7. So captured industry in China can fund the expansion of all the size 10+ bases to their SRS value within 6 months. Probably won't have the engineers to do this though.


Yeah, I think the engineers is the problem. There just aren't that many to go around. Many people buy them out from Fusan once Fusan's port is completed. I still send some to China, but not a lot. It isn't until late '42 that you begin to get Const Co units as reinforcements, and still not very many.

Sure, you can have LCUs and their organic engineers build your bases, and you'll have JNAF and JAAF units to help, but... still not enough engineers.



Crackaces -> RE: Japanese land in OZ!! (9/13/2014 6:55:27 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Spidery

quote:

Doesn't base building take a lot of supply as well? Japan may get the VPs but weakens the home islands if it has to ship most of the supply to China.
I wonder if Japan can generate enough supply to build the aircraft and ships it wants plus feed IJ China's base-building program?


Could reasonably expect to capture 400 LI in China and 160 oil. In stock that produces 2000 supply per day. It takes 7000 supply to take a base from size 0 to size 7 if SRS is 7. So captured industry in China can fund the expansion of all the size 10+ bases to their SRS value within 6 months. Probably won't have the engineers to do this though.


Thus the problem .. the DBB is the genre today .. also one needs fuel for those LI to produce. Another insidious problem for the IJ that does not catch up till later ...



topeverest -> RE: Japanese land in OZ!! (9/14/2014 2:47:44 AM)

good comments here. Enterprising JFB's have figured out this VP auto victory solution to the game. I don't think there is anything wrong with that on its face.

Our mod plays with far fewer VP's in China and larger garrison requirements. This has the impact of deterring a VP play while still allowing the empire to attempt to conquer the allied power.

IMHO - Let me suggest if you don't like the possibility of empire auto victory heavily influenced by China VP's to agree to reduce all Chinese cities to 0 (or 1) including the major cities. You also can add 50 to 100 garrison to the sizable Chinese cities to reflect historical garrison requirements.

I want to be clear that I support VP's and empire auto victory as a philosophy, but the empire needs to earn those China VP's elsewhere. Let me suggest the offset is to increase the VP's for places like NZ, OZ, Fiji, Hawaii, and Alaska. This will transfer the locations Empire will need to acquire to win auto victory.



JocMeister -> RE: Japanese land in OZ!! (9/14/2014 6:54:45 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: topeverest

good comments here. Enterprising JFB's have figured out this VP auto victory solution to the game. I don't think there is anything wrong with that on its face.

Our mod plays with far fewer VP's in China and larger garrison requirements. This has the impact of deterring a VP play while still allowing the empire to attempt to conquer the allied power.

IMHO - Let me suggest if you don't like the possibility of empire auto victory heavily influenced by China VP's to agree to reduce all Chinese cities to 0 (or 1) including the major cities. You also can add 50 to 100 garrison to the sizable Chinese cities to reflect historical garrison requirements.

I want to be clear that I support VP's and empire auto victory as a philosophy, but the empire needs to earn those China VP's elsewhere. Let me suggest the offset is to increase the VP's for places like NZ, OZ, Fiji, Hawaii, and Alaska. This will transfer the locations Empire will need to acquire to win auto victory.


A good idea. But a big undertaking and quite hard to get the right balance. Not sure I dare to try! [:)]



JocMeister -> RE: Japanese land in OZ!! (9/14/2014 7:10:24 AM)

Speaking of which...starting to think about my next game. I´ll for sure revise some of my HRs. One I will blatantly steal from Cribtop: No strat bombing before 1/43. [:D] Also will add a sliding scale to the max ALT. My intention with the HR was to remove the dive bonus. But I didn´t consider the max altitude of early fighters which was well below our HRed max altitude. So the dive bonus was still present.

But I wonder about China. What could/should be changed here. I´m very worried about doing "too much" here and turn the Chinese into a power house in 44-45. I´m thinking a very small increase in supply for the Chinese + gnarly roads PWHEX file (is that available for the extended map?). Possibly mirroring the changes in Treaty Mod.

I´m also thinking perhaps a HR that doesn´t allow Manchurian armor/arty in China? Or a limitation on how many tanks/arty that can be stacked in a Chinese hex? To harsh? To intrusive? Or simply a HR that start a 3 month cease fire in China to allow the Chinese to get into better positions and dig in. The Chinese starting positions are very disadvantageous.

My goal would be to bring some "fun" into China. I still think the Japanese in the hands of a competent Japanese player should be able to make gains here. But not overrun the entire continent in a couple of months as we have seen lately in many AARs. I just want to make it a bit tougher and try and do something about supply running out in 3 months dooming the Chinese. Move the oil from Lanchow to Chungking?

Ideas? Opinions?



obvert -> RE: Japanese land in OZ!! (9/14/2014 7:33:13 AM)

The gnarly roads will do a lot to help in China. Offensives don't work as well if the supply flow is limited and sporadic.

Increasingly higher garrison requirements for the Japanese as they move deeper into China might also help slow the advance after a certain point without having any affect on the later war Chinese Army.



Cribtop -> RE: Japanese land in OZ!! (9/14/2014 1:56:37 PM)

Gnarly roads is available on extended map. Michael and I are using it in our game.



JocMeister -> RE: Japanese land in OZ!! (9/14/2014 5:40:57 PM)

Erik, do you and GJ use it?

Cribtop, I know its very early in your game. But have you noticed any effects from this?



obvert -> RE: Japanese land in OZ!! (9/14/2014 8:00:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

Erik, do you and GJ use it?

Cribtop, I know its very early in your game. But have you noticed any effects from this?


We don't use it, but I've read about the details of it and it just seems it'll really slow everything down in China, especially since the very smart guys that made it had that as their primary intention. One of the reasons supply runs well off-road is that there are such good rail/road systems close to the off road areas of China. If it has to travel 2-3 hexes it's not so hard to make stuff move regularly. If it's 6-10 hexes from good transport, then it'll be much tougher to draw. Also, movement will simply be slower.



Jorge_Stanbury -> RE: Japanese land in OZ!! (9/14/2014 8:06:49 PM)

Is it compatible with DBB?

thanks



obvert -> RE: Japanese land in OZ!! (9/14/2014 8:27:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

Is it compatible with DBB?

thanks


I would hope so since it was created by them! [:D]

Symon made the Gnarly Roads.



Page: <<   < prev  47 48 49 [50] 51   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.0625