Why are there no Chinese bases further than Sining?

Why are there no Chinese bases further than Sining? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945

Message

BossGnome -> Why are there no Chinese bases further than Sining? (1/20/2005 4:44:00 AM)
Weren't there any chinese bases further west in the country? As is, if you take the east end of the country, bye bye china, but in real life, china was much bigger, and japan barely scratched its surface. So why are there no bases further west?

mogami -> RE: Why are there no Chinese bases further than Sining? (1/20/2005 5:10:28 AM)
Hi, Because this is a game about "The War in the Pacific" and not "A Possible Version of a Great Land War in Asia" Game works great as a game about the Pacific War it does not do well as a game about a land war in Asia. China is required for several reasons. 1. The impact on Japans ability to fight the Pacific War with 1 hand tied behind it's back. 2. The coast of China is the supply route for material cominbg and going to the Home Islands and so the location of important Japanese bases. 3. The motive for the Japanese going to war against the Western Alliance. It is not intended to provide a solution to Japans problems. Had that solution been possible the Japanese would have pursued it and not involved the USA. Pry is going to have to redo the Chinese OB and new rules for Chinese supply invented. (They defend at 100 percent regardless of supply and they replace everything as required) Perhaps this will restore the historic situation. Stalemate in China. Japan unable to win military victory and so unable to force a diplomatic solution she decides to expand the war in order to 1. Secure resource required to maintain the Empire 2. Isolate China to where the Chinese will finally come to terms and agree to a settlement that leaves Japan in control of the markets she desires. The problems encountered in WITP with results in China and against Soviets and India are the product of a mindset among certain types of players who desire to transform the game into a Japanese Empire building game. Most of the strategy employed here involves using the map edges. WITP was not designed to resolved battles between forces of 100k+ troops per side but where 1 division fought an equal or smaller force with the out come dependant on other factors such as supply/air/naval support. This does not mean no large battles should be fought in China or elsewhere only that such battles should be the exceptions and not the norm. I agree that to a point a player is forced into massing more then historic force in order to get a positive result in a timely manner but these cases should occur in the Pacific/SRA where there exists flanks and rears and supply lines and not on the edges of the map where the map edge becomes a tactical advantage. Everyone is free to play as they wish but all should understand the intent of the designers and where this intent is not followed no protest concerning results should be made. If you want to play "Japan Conquers the World" You can do it. But don't expect the results to appear reasonable. All ratings are objective. Allied ratings for weapons and aircraft and skill in 1941 are set to allow the historic Japanese victories in the SRA. China is made the way is is to reflect both their capabilities and the inclination of her leaders. CHina was not about to fight all out against Japan if by waiting the Western Alliance would defeat the Japanese. Both parties in China were saving their strength for the coming Civil War. China was much stronger then her results in the war but suppose Japan had forced "unifaction" onto the Chinese? They would have hammered the Japanese. In WITP such unifying is considered not possible because the game is made to reflect "The War In the Pacific" and not "The Great Land War in Asia"

WiTP_Dude -> RE: Why are there no Chinese bases further than Sining? (1/20/2005 5:23:58 AM)
The WiTP website says China is covered by the game... can I get refund if this is now official Matrix policy?

mogami -> RE: Why are there no Chinese bases further than Sining? (1/20/2005 5:25:19 AM)
Hi, Why be contentious? China is in the game. China is in the game in the role she occupied during the Pacific War.

WiTP_Dude -> RE: Why are there no Chinese bases further than Sining? (1/20/2005 5:25:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BossGnome Weren't there any chinese bases further west in the country? As is, if you take the east end of the country, bye bye china, but in real life, china was much bigger, and japan barely scratched its surface. So why are there no bases further west? Most of the relevant bases are covered. I think the far western areas are pretty barren and this is why they haven't added much detail in the interior.

WiTP_Dude -> RE: Why are there no Chinese bases further than Sining? (1/20/2005 5:31:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mogami Hi, Why be contentious? China is in the game. China is in the game in the role she occupied during the Pacific War. Who is being contentious? I'm sure you know where the term "War in the Pacific" comes from. It doesn't mean just the fighting in the Pacific but not in Asia. It just refers to the conflict against Japan by several countries including the United States, Britain, China, Australia, ect.

Drex -> RE: Why are there no Chinese bases further than Sining? (1/20/2005 5:34:24 AM)
The Chinese theater is a game unto itself. I wouldn't have cared if it was abstracted in the game but it does add another dimension.

RUPD3658 -> RE: Why are there no Chinese bases further than Sining? (1/20/2005 5:39:22 AM)
Simple house rule solves the whole issue: Both sides put the China theater under computer control and no units can be added or withdrawn from the theater. The computer will sleep and maintain the stalemate.

mogami -> RE: Why are there no Chinese bases further than Sining? (1/20/2005 5:51:42 AM)
Hi, If you want the war in China to be a major event then you need to make it accurate Take the 3rd Battle of Changsha for example. Dec 24 1941 to Jan 15 1942 The first major Japanese offensive in China after Pearl harbor. 4 Japanese divisions 120,000 men total advance to Changsha. They were met by and encircled by 300,000 Chinese. Unless WITP expands to recreate in it's entireity the situation and special circumstance of China then China should be left as is was. Unimportant as far as resolving the Pacific War. The Chinese OB would be pages long or we would have to make Chinese Armies with Assault values of 1200-1500 points each. Without some rule to limit them on the offensive they would roll over the Japanese. However Chinese leaders did not desire to crush the Japanese if it meant losing forces they were saving for later. They made offensive operations in response to Japanese attempts but did not try to force Japan out. Am I being clear here? The game convers China in regard to it's actual impact in the war. If Japanese players venture out looking for solutions then the Chinese need to have their actual and historic response capabilty added as well. In the end China will become a back water that plays no major part in deciding the outcome of the war. ()as designed) To do justise to the war or possible war in China we would need a map the size of the map currently covered by the game and a map scale of 5 miles per hex. The ground combat in WITP is designed for island and jungle warfare not on a front the size of China and not on the scale players employ. The emperour of Japan had prior to start of war fired the commander of the Manchurian Army and forbid it to take further action against the Soviets. ()Japanhad just lost over 50,000 men versus the Soviets) That Army was not a source for troops in China untill Allied bombers began using bases in China in 1944. Bases that curently the Japanese can secure in 1942 with little effort. (far less effort and more success then history justifies) But since in the end in has little impact on war no one cares if Japan does cheap in 42 what cost more in 44. But to try to enlarge it into Japan conquers China is something else. (Hint WITP is a game about air power) Personally I would love a game that only covered China and left the rest of the Pacific out. It would be a monster. By Dec 7 1941 Japan had inflicted over 2 million casulties on the Chinese. At a cost of 700,000 men. (400,00) dead. It isbecause of the cost already suffered that they expanded the war in the first place. Both the Chinese and Japanese knew that Japan could not get a settlement in China unless China was cut off from the outside. It appears only the Chinese realized Japan would lose the expanded war. In 1944 the Japanese empty the country to mass troops for a 4th try at Changsha. They mass 360,000 troops. After several months they take both Changsha and Henyang but in the process the Chinese retake much of the north. When Japan attempts to retake these areas they are encircled and lose most of the 360,000 troops. The point here is that after 1940 every Japanese offensive results in a defeat for the Japanese. If we change WITP to reflect reality then Allied players will drive the Japanese out in 1942. Transfer the Chinese to Burma and retake Malaya. Pay PP for Chinese units and load them on transports and land in PI in 1943. Unless both sides fight the Pacific War the Land War in Asia will dominate the game. (and to be fair, if the Chinese forget there is going to be a post Pacific War Civil War then the Chinese in PI is more plausable then the Japanese in India scenarios)

mogami -> Mogami's last attempt. (1/20/2005 7:31:56 AM)
Hi, OK I will try one last time to explain the game. The game is about the War in the Pacific. We all know how map edges can be exploited by one side or the other to advantage so to make the Pacific the center of the game map edges have to be placed outside the sphere of action. The world is larger then the map. The edge of the map is where items used in the game enter the game but they have to have a "safe" place to enter. It was thought during testing that certain truths were self evident and did not require a lot of rules and codes and explantion. The Pacific was the area to be contested and the map edges required limited regualtion. No matter how large an area the map covered unless it was the entire globe there would be a map edge. The Japanese are allowed access to troops deployed "on the edge" but they should access them for use in the Pacific. We thought this was easy to understand. If you shift the focus to a map edge you alter the game. Had that area been considered a viable area the map egde would have extended beyond it placing it in the center (or at least off the edge) These areas are easy to see. If in your planning you utilize a map edge to secure a flank you have moved out of the area intended for play. Because these "fringe" areas do not impact the result of the war in the Pacific they are not as detailed as the main areas. They have to exist so that in the area the war is fought in map edges are not a factor. If any part of a plan includes thoughts like "once I clear this area I free up forces to transfer and abandon the area I just aquired because no enemy forces can reach it" then it is clearly exploiting the map. Exploiting the map should not require the designers to say "don't do that" (at least that is what we thought when we were working on the game) We appear to have been wrong. We should have compiled a complete list of the obvious. Soviets included because of 1945 activity. Notice lack of Soviet ships and submarines and their being frozen. Manchuria garrision required. (It never occured to us someone would use these rules to exploit the Soviets by attacking them in 1941) China required because of impact on Japanese economy and proximtiy to Japanese shipping lanes and possible deployment of Allied aircraft. No intention of creating another massive front existed. Japanese forces in China were available for use outside China (after paying PP and meeting garrision requirements) India is the beginning (or end)( of a long logistical tail. (As is US West Coast) None of these areas are Central to Pacific War as far as locations for combat. They are fringe areas. Any effort that is more then a fringe effort directed against them is likely in the realm of exploiting them. My problem is this If I need to explain this then you won't understand.

WiTP_Dude -> RE: Mogami's last attempt. (1/20/2005 7:48:09 AM)
Points taken but page eight of the official WiTP manual (WiTP_Manual.pdf) states: "The War in the Pacific was a conflict of extreme sizes. The ocean itself covers more than a quarter of the planet�s surface (over 155 million square miles) and is larger than all the land masses combined. China and Southeast Asia totalled about five million square miles. Over much of this vast territory Japan ruled for several years, an amazing feat considering Japan is not even 150,000 square miles in size. Also, Japan�s 1941 population was just over 71 million people; by mid-1942, they ruled almost a quarter of a billion people." So even the official introduction includes China and Southeast as part of the War in the Pacific. I don't understand this idea that "Asia is abstracted, but it isn't". India, Burma, China, and the Soviet Union are either in the game or not. Why bother with including all these units in the game if they can't be used? Better to have an off-map area or something similar where Allied units can arrive safely.

mogami -> RE: Mogami's last attempt. (1/20/2005 8:25:42 AM)
Hi, I don't see where we go from including China to where not exploiting it's being included requires explanation. No matter where the "edge" is located there players who will use it to their advantage because it protects them from enemy response. China is in the game. There is plenty of play in China without exploiting it. To include China in a realistic manner that allowed China to become a decisive area of the war would require a whole new game. China was not a decisivie area of the war and only produces problems with the game when attempts to make it so are undertaken. If you want to do this then by all means go for it. I allow Japanese players complete freedom. I allow Allied players complete freedom. However the results are going to impact the other areas of the game beyond the historic ability and one side or the other is exploited. Simple fact about China Had China be under the control of a single person (like in WITP) and wanted to drive the Japanese out using only their own military force they would have been able to do so. What prevented this was politics and the knowledge that the Japanese were going to be defeated by the Allies IN THE PACIFIC. The Chinese reacted to Japanese offensives after 1940 and defeated everyone of them When Japan sat still the Chinese sat still because they were divided and waiting for the post war conflict. "Why have Chinese boys die fighting Japanese when US boys will die defeating Japan. Save the Chinese boys to kill other Chinese boys when it's over" was how China conducted the war after Japan involved the Western Alliance. Japan expanded the war because they could not defeat the Chinese by force. Now the problem in design remained that China had to be included. The Chinese were made to behave like they actually did (do nothing) The Japanese were allowed to be strong enough to achive the results they actually obtained in the war (sooner rather then later) No device was implemented for China being stronger because then you'd have a great Chinese offensive impacting the war. (If China can win alone the Pacific becomes of minor importance) China is a distraction. It is only a problem when the Japanese player makes it a major focus. Japan had 1 million men in China. They were stretched to the limit holding the cities and RR and collecting the rice every year. It was impossible for them to mass in one location. 1944 was an act of desparation that resulted in the complete loss of the Japanese Army in China. (After early success) ()This attempt even included units drawn from Manchuria against the objections of commanders there. This drain resulted in the Manchuria army lasting a total of 10 days against the Soviets. (750,000 Japanese were totally beaten in 10 days) The problem remains that if this needs to be explained then people will not understand. The game is about the pacific War. China had an impact on the war but was not where the focus of the war resolved. In WITP terms a player can meet the victory requirments and never operate in the Pacific. But he will be (and should be able to clearly see) that he is operating on the fringe and exploiting the intent if not the design of the game. Against a human it can be countered. The AI is hopeless against it. A game with a completly accurate OB would prevent it. (Japanese players would live in fear of waking up China or the Soviets)

WiTP_Dude -> RE: Mogami's last attempt. (1/20/2005 9:00:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mogami China is in the game. There is plenty of play in China without exploiting it. To include China in a realistic manner that allowed China to become a decisive area of the war would require a whole new game. China was not a decisivie area of the war and only produces problems with the game when attempts to make it so are undertaken. Why does Chungking award 2000 (or so) points to Japan if they capture it? Clearly the designer of scenario 15 does want this to be a decisive area. The same thing with India and the Soviet Union. Instead, why not award 0 points to Japan for capturing all these areas? Then it is doubtful the Japanese player will bother much with "exploiting" the border areas. quote: Simple fact about China Had China be under the control of a single person (like in WITP) and wanted to drive the Japanese out using only their own military force they would have been able to do so. What prevented this was politics and the knowledge that the Japanese were going to be defeated by the Allies IN THE PACIFIC. I contest the inclusion of this opinion as a fact. Even if the Chinese were all the same page they were still operating with antiquated equipment and tactics. So the Japanese still may have held the eastern areas. Let's not forget that the Chinese did cooperate, at times, in fighting the Japanese. Most of the time, however, you are right that they didn't have good cooperation among the factions. quote: "Why have Chinese boys die fighting Japanese when US boys will die defeating Japan. Save the Chinese boys to kill other Chinese boys when it's over" was how China conducted the war after Japan involved the Western Alliance. Yes, but the game fails to model this in any way. Hopefully the next remake of this conflict can do that. It will be complicated to design. quote: China is a distraction. It is only a problem when the Japanese player makes it a major focus. Japan had 1 million men in China. They were stretched to the limit holding the cities and RR and collecting the rice every year. It was impossible for them to mass in one location. This is why the garrision requirement is way too low. As it is almost the entire army can mass within days. quote: The problem remains that if this needs to be explained then people will not understand. The game is about the pacific War. China had an impact on the war but was not where the focus of the war resolved. In WITP terms a player can meet the victory requirments and never operate in the Pacific. But he will be (and should be able to clearly see) that he is operating on the fringe and exploiting the intent if not the design of the game. Again, if China isn't that important, it is up to the programmers and scenario designers to arrange it that way. They seem to want to have it both ways. They include the units, cities, and objective points so they can say they've designed a massive wargame covering everything from Karachi to Denver. When things go wrong, then they say a lot of this is just an abstraction and fringe material, the only thing that really matters is the Pacific.

mogami -> RE: Mogami's last attempt. (1/20/2005 9:17:01 AM)
Hi, Chunkings (and all bases) values are set to influence the AI. A base worth 2000 points to the enemy tells the AI it is the base to defend in China. Concentrating around Chunking also limits the Chinese offensive abilty unless the Japanese move there. Base values behind Japanese lines tell the Japanese AI where to defend (and limit Japanese offensive power) The AI will protect a base even when it is far from the enemy. Humans abandon entire regions. I agree in human versus human games there should be no VP awared for any base. A base in these games will earn VP by it's impact on the enemy.

AmiralLaurent -> RE: Mogami's last attempt. (1/20/2005 10:31:46 AM)
Hi, Mogami I fairly agree with your idea that Chinese Army was able to held his ground and repulsed much Japanese attacks with heavy losses. And that in the same way it was unable/unwilling to mount offensives. The fact is that the few Nationalists offensives were aimed at Communists armies rather than Japanese. I think that the new rules (100% prep) are a good step in this direction. All preparation of Chinese units being defensive. I will also raise all forts on the frontline to 9 (on both sides) as the front hasn't changed for a while.

WhoCares -> RE: Mogami's last attempt. (1/20/2005 10:58:08 AM)
Now I wonder why the AI has 23 units in the base on the trail to Burma but only ~80k troops in Chungking?! ~250k troops just started their march to bag the points for me now. Another question is how the japanese player shall ever reach a 4:1 score if he does not capture China, capture/kill the chinese troops, invade India, ... with the game as it is today. You might fight a war, but other people might try to win a game.

mogami -> RE: Mogami's last attempt. (1/20/2005 11:14:18 AM)
Hi, The Japanese player should have 2-1 just in taking the SRA. And then he should have at least 6 months before the game checks for AV (that no one pays any attention to) This is not counting enemy ships or aircraft destroyed. Just taking the SRA and destroying the LCU yeilds 2-1. Now the victory conditions are a simple ratio. You are not required to score 50k points and then add enough for 4-1. 24,000 points should be 4-1 unless the Japanese suffer high loss. Making up for high loss by going to Chunking or karachi because you can load transports with 4 division and sail there is not realisitc It is on;y possbile because that map edge prevents the Allies from doing anything about it. Same as the notion that the japanese would load 200,000 men on transports and sail for Pearl Harbor or strip China bare to mass 200,000 men to drive on Chunking. In reality winning more ground in China would require Japan to send more troops there rather then free any up for use else where. The only way Japan could free up troops while gaining ground in China is if they were killing the entire population (or herding it out into the wilds beyond the map edge) Of course then China would be worthless. No workforce, no rice, no markets. Here is how Japan gets the 4-1 ratio for autovictory. It defeats the Allies in the Pacific in 1942. There is no PFM victory in China. I'm talking about playing against the AI. Against a human (me me me) feel free to strip China or come to PH or Karachi. There is no PFM there either.

WhoCares -> RE: Mogami's last attempt. (1/20/2005 4:05:07 PM)
Well, I have currently a ~9400 AP garrison in Manchukuo, only one or two base forces, an Aviation regiment, two or three Mongolian Cav. Divs and the 1st Armored Div. moved to China (with paying PPs to switch HQ!). And most of its airgroups are still in Manchukuo. Additionally, I move in an additional Div. or two and some Arm. Rgt. (supposed to go to the PI, iirc) to China. All bases comply to their garrison requirements some significantly exceeding it (e.g. a brigade were only 10 APs are required). ~100k troops in Yenen, some reserves at Sian, Changsha and Kweiyang, ~120k attacking the city west of Kweiyang, ~60k will enter the base north of Chungking the next days. >300 planes based at Kweiyang to support the operations. In Burma I just finished to capture all bases connected by roads, I might go after Akyab in a couple of weeks, but I am not sure whether I should do it. I don't plan any operations beyond the trails neither are landings in India/Ceylon planned. At PNG I did not go south of Lae, neither will I go south of Guadalcanal, Tarawa, Baker Is. nor will I go after Midway or other bases so far east and I only have one base in the Aleutians. I can't do big offensive operations in the Pacific, as I lost six CVs (vs. four of his), so it is more like waiting for his moves and reacting to them, with some minor raids once in a while... We write late September '42 and the only serious battles are fought in China. Current score: >32k : >8.8k I don't see, how I could achieve a 4:1 in the Pacific. Every battle I fight, I would have to achieve a 4:1 victory plus additional points to make up the gap of ~4k points. For every ship I lose, I have to sink four of his of the same class. For every plane I lose, I have to destroy four of his. For every man I lose, I have to kill four of his. There are only two ways, where I can break these rules: 1. Capture enemy bases 2. Score strategic points In this situation and at this time in the game, I can't expect to make up the needed points except in China. And that's what I am doing. AI or human opponent is not the question. It's not that I gamed the AI by completely unrealistic moves (from the game perspective(!)). I pretty much played it as if I were playing a human opponent. And with the changes done in 1.4, I probably wouldn't be in the situation to go for Chungking at all. But as I worked hard to reach this point in China, it would be stupid to stop now and say 'I must not try to win this way because it was historically impossible.' I decided to go this way four or five month ago and now I have to stick with it. Anyway, more generally again, you can't expect to ever achieve a 4:1 when you restrict yourself in China, India and Russia. You know, for every CV lost you have to sink ~3.5 of his. Lose two CVs and there are not enough CVs to sink for you [:D] Or you keep your carriers well hidden, you can do the math with CAs: lose one CA and you have to sink two of his BBs... And last but not least: quote: ... before the game checks for AV (that no one pays any attention to) ... Well, I know of at least three active AARs where people launch various operation only because of AV.

mogami -> RE: Mogami's last attempt. (1/20/2005 4:52:58 PM)
Hi, Your not fooling me. It is not that you must go to China to win. (or are you saying that you admit you have lost the Pacific war but still want to weasel a victory from the game.) There are points in the Pacific just like in China only the game is designed to make you fight for them. Should the easy way be the correct way to win the game? Can you lose the battles with the USA and still win the game? If you think so we disagree. Chunking is worth how much? Noumea is worth how much? One objective actually is in the Pacific and will preserve the Empire the other is meaningless. (Of course you might lose the battle. Thats what the game is all about. If you can win and not fight the USA and win don't you think something is wrong with how you are winning?)

Nikademus -> RE: Mogami's last attempt. (1/20/2005 5:01:17 PM)
If China is played wisely and smartly as part of an overall Allied strategy, then it pretty much fullfills it's historical role as a sinkhole for Japanse land power. I see two sides to this argument. The desire by Japanese players to turn China into a "decisive theater" is already well known and documented, as our the "tricks" that are used to make this a [game] reality. But the other side of the coin is that Allied players also tend to think of China along the same lines (Its a decisive theater...the war can be decided here and now) That they have to "defeat" the Japanese army in the traditional manner (something i think was beyond their capability for most of the war) and/or defend everything. A better interpretation, and resultant strategy is to treat China as part of a greater whole, and if Allied, that whole is the eventual wearing down and defeat of China. I am advancing in my current PBEM game as Japan in China....but i've yet to get any kind of feel that i am "winning" anything decisive. Yes, I took Yennen....after a bloody fight and worn down units and now I face a choice of garrisoning it or moving those troops south. My opponent has the same option. If he goes with staying put and i move too much power to the south, I could lose the city. The fight in the south has been....interesting to say the least a real slogging match at some points, a thrust and feint in others. Now at the end of the "campaign, I've achieved most of my objectives (Chengsha and Henchow) but the bulk of the Chinese army escaped intact and remains a large menacing presence. Most of my units are fatigued, some depleated, all need rest. Overall i'd say my opponent is playing a good game as Allied/China with only a couple flubs contributing to Japanese "success" but overall i'd wouldn't rate my "victory" as all that much. China is not by any means knocked out and I cant just transport the army to "india" (and acheive......what?) I still face a war in the Pacific and will still scrounge for troops when the battles there really start to heat up. Where am i going with this? My opponent is playing China (i believe) with the right attitude. He's not stressing over lost cities or territory but rather focusing on preserviing his forces, buying time and making me work for every victory, all designed as part of an overall Allied strategy to hold down and wear out the Japanese and make them work for every victory. If China eventually "falls" (in game terms) it wont result in a Japanese victory, The US and commonwealth wont stop and come to the negoiating table and on the tactical scale, if the fight has been played well enough, those military forces that presided over the "victory" will not be in the shape needed to be used elsewhere quicky. WitP is all about choices of where and when to commit forces as part of an overall strategy and even with the "loopholes" and "tricks" that players always eventually find where any wargame is concerned (my favorite still remains the War in Russia.....panzer express trick supplied soley by air transport) I think that the game does a fairly good job of presenting this situation to the player. Burma, SRA, PI's and China, i'm facing hard choices on where to commit my limited forces. Some areas have suffered as a result....others are advancing. All are burning supply and reducing assault values. Sooner or later i'm going to have to settle down, retool and rethink my strategic objectives.

WhoCares -> RE: Mogami's last attempt. (1/20/2005 5:36:15 PM)
At this point in the game Noumea is no option for me. As Nikodemus just suggested, China is a source of VPs like any other theater as well. I have two choices: sit back and see whether I can win 3:1 in '44 or or try to get my points where I see a realistic chance to do so. It is not like I have won because I get those points in China. But I force my enemy to come out and play on my terms to avoid my early victory while he is not yet prepared to do so.

Mr.Frag -> RE: Mogami's last attempt. (1/20/2005 5:48:00 PM)
quote: I have two choices: sit back and see whether I can win 3:1 in '44 or or try to get my points where I see a realistic chance to do so. It is not like I have won because I get those points in China. But I force my enemy to come out and play on my terms to avoid my early victory while he is not yet prepared to do so. The point Mogami is making is that going for China to win is a loophole in the game, it is not realistic as China could have thrown millions more troops into the fray had it been a real issue. This is the same reason I popped up the poll about Japan players keeping required levels of troops in these cities. If you are playing like your goal is to wipe China & India off the map to get the VP for a Jan 1, 43 auto victory, you are exploiting the weakness in the game (not real history). Obviously it's your game to play with as you see fit, just don't expect China and India to be able to fight back.

moses -> RE: Mogami's last attempt. (1/20/2005 6:05:09 PM)
I can't see why anyone thinks it is illigitimate to try to win in China. Their are no "edge" effects in China. The entire theater is on map, I really can't see what you are talking about. Most people who win in China are not doing anything gamey at all. They just attack in a straightforward and logical way and unless the allied player has studied the combat system and the Chinese theater in detail he will be crushed. In my game vs WITP_Dude I don't recall either of us doing anything even remotely gamey. I have not tranfered in any large force from other theaters. I pretty much just plowed ahead against a very experienced player and now after close to 5 months the end is in sight for the Chinese. But the ground combat system is very difficult in general to understand and a very good understanding is required in order to defend China. Just in the last week I have tested and discovered rules governing unit movement around ZOC's which are not in the manual and which I have never seen discussed on the boards. (at least I think I now know these rules--My real concern is will they change with the next patch) But how many players want to spend time studying the system to find its hidden secrets. There are problems with the ground combat system which should not be dismissed by simply saying that the theaters in which they occur are just not relavant.

Nikademus -> RE: Mogami's last attempt. (1/20/2005 6:12:13 PM)
I dont even see it as that. The reality of China wasn't a matter of military battles. In most any straight up fights, unless the Chinese could bring in massive numbers and operate them in a cohesive manner, the Japanese army held the edge in terms of training and in equipment and would win the day. The Chengsha example to me only proves a reality i've already seen in the game....a well led China that masses troops and coordinates it's actions can sting the Japanese army and inflict a defeat on it. I've already suffered a couple. The Chinese army was largely a peasant army, ill equpped, ill trained and often badly led in the field. But China as a country is vast and most Chinese armies of the time lived off the land becuase they were largely men with uniforms and small arms. Few major arty peices, sophisticated weaponry much less vehicles or tanks. However given the vastness of the Chinese landscape, the Japanese army could not bring the Chinese army to decisive battle unless the latter chose too. Often, even if caught, a Chinese army could litterally "melt away" into the landscape as disgruntled/demoralized etc etc///soldiers simply thew away uniforms and weapons and went back to their villages. That was the major source of the "stalemate" Japan couldn't win a decisive victory or bring the Chinese government to the negotiating table, thus the Japanese army had to stay in China and stay mobilized. As to whether nor not the Chinese could have brought in "Millions more men" i cant say with certainy though i doubt such a thing could have been done quickly nor without training and weapons would this "army" have been of much use. (hence the importance of supply sources such as the Burma road) There was a light at the end of the tunnel however....some Chinese divisions were reorganzied along American lines, retrained and most importantly, re-equipped. These "new" Chinese formations, when properly supplied and employing proper tactics eventually proved more than a match for even veteran Japanese formations that were used to surrounding, outflanking and demoralizing/breaking up their Chinese opponents. What they found instead to their heavy cost were hard fighting Chinese units that would not panic if flanked/sourrounded but would instead form a box for maximum firepower and make Japanese probes and assaults pay in blood. These Chinese learned that they could meet the Japanese enemy on the field and beat them without having to posses overwhelming numbers. The game falls short in portraying the logistical reality of China because, like Burma, China has unique attributes and the game must use a general system that covers the entire war. Thus Chinese "cities" and "supply routes" hold even greater importance because the game treats them as traditional based supply centers and hubs and Japanese players can exploit this. There is no provision for Chinese armies to be diserpsed and then rebuilt. (A suggestion i had a long time ago was that there be a "regeneration routine" added for China that has lost Chinese units be reformed and rebuilt in a rear area.....largely squads and maybe a few heavy weapons with middling exp) Similar in concept to the Hanoi VM divisions that get formed should China "Invade" Indo-China) I liked this idea better than supply bonuses and increases because such things might result in an overpowered China that actually can attempt to drive Japan from the mainland. Sounds implausible but as i'm finding out the hard way....China has ALOT more units than i had at first contemplated when i launched on my current strategy. [EDIT] My dasterdly, sneaky and all around poop headed Austrialo-Chinese-Kangeroo opponent has reminded me that the provision for Chinese rebuilding was instituted but at 30% of TOE 30 days after destruction. damn i'm good....even if i dont remember what i did..... [:'(]

WhoCares -> RE: Mogami's last attempt. (1/20/2005 6:34:01 PM)
I didn't start the game with the intention to wipe out China or India. That would be like start a game of chess and planning to end it with a base line mate. I started and put my efforts according what I saw fit. And I did it according to the rules, fulfilling garrison requirements and paying PPs for the few units I took from Kwangtung Army. See, I am abroaching October '42 - others sacked China, Russia, India and Hawaii in about the same time [&o]

Zeta16 -> RE: Mogami's last attempt. (1/20/2005 6:46:51 PM)
I have a question of all Japanese players. It seems most are just playing the game for an auto victory. So what happens if you do no get the auto victory? I here everyone talk about getting the auto victory. I rarely here people talk about the struggle it was for the Japanese to last as long as they did. That is why people should play as the Japanese not to get a magical point number. As Mogami said it is War in The Pacific. If people are going to play with a auto victory in mind, why not have a 12/7/41 to 1/1/43 game where this could happen. I just have a feeling that a lot of players who play for the auto victory are going to be so let down if they do not get a auto victory that they will not want to play past 1/1/43.

Nikademus -> RE: Mogami's last attempt. (1/20/2005 6:50:54 PM)
Personally I dont play for the auto victory because i tend to prefer cautious play that preserves my forces. The only way to get the auto-victory....if at all (and i'm not sure it's possible without generous help from the Allied player) is to go pell mell sort like with WitP_Dude's blitz campaign but besides being incredibly entertaining it also showed the trap of such a strategy in that those spectacular gains cost alot of points making the score much more even. I'm not even sure why i bothered launching an offensive in China now that i think of it...other than to have something to do I guess. Given how hard i'm having to work for it now i'm kind of regretting it. [:'(]

Mr.Frag -> RE: Mogami's last attempt. (1/20/2005 6:58:38 PM)
How many folks are talking about the 1.4 version of the scenario where China has been bulked out to not be quite a pushover? The joys of scenario design, you can't tune them until people play them and you see whats wrong.

Nikademus -> RE: Mogami's last attempt. (1/20/2005 7:04:47 PM)
me ME ME ME ME ME ME Yennen was a tough fight. However i did win in the end. Should be hearing from Drongo any day now ready to negotiate peace in China. any day now...... you'll see.....

WhoCares -> RE: Mogami's last attempt. (1/20/2005 7:08:00 PM)
I would play a game starting in 7/1/42, 1/1/43 or 1/1/44 if I would just concentrate on the defensive war. And for someone who is playing such a game the very first time, it it far more enjoying and satisfying to see his troops advance on all fronts than seeing his attacks of 100+ bombers being shot down for a single 250kg bomb bouncing of a BB [8\|] Edit: My game started in August, so 1.4 came a little late. I might start a new one with 1.5 and once this one has reach '43 (not so easy to throw away five month' work without a decisive victory reached [;)])

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

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.890625