RE: To be or not to be. (Full Version)

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



Message

mogami -> RE: To be or not to be. (1/26/2005 12:37:27 AM)

Hi, Why does everyone think that taking Moscow equals a German victory in WWII. It is a victory requirment in wargames on the subject. Moscow had been taken before. It did not produce a Russian defeat in the war. It would have been a serious set back but in all likelyhood the Soviets would have retaken it in their winter offensive. (It gained the most ground around Moscow) Germany might have even lost more forces trying to hold it. There might not have been a Stalingrad because of the defeat of Germany when they were encirced at Moscow in 41-42. The Germans did not hurt the Soviet abilty to make war. The Soviets begin 1942 larger then they began 1941. The Germans do not.
THe Soviets had more tanks in 1942 then in 1941 and the 1942 tanks were better models.



Tophat -> RE: To be or not to be. (1/26/2005 12:43:53 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: WiTP_Dude

Lee had problems feeding his men and horses. So he couldn't stay in one place too long or his army would begin to starve and get smaller. See the Petersburg siege for an example of this. So during the summers of 1862 and 1863 he moves north to live off the land. He tries to win some battles but it doesn't work out.


He has to get in position to force the Federals to attack him,where he can win a battle...not throw himself at a superior position and think Elan will carry him through.



moses -> RE: To be or not to be. (1/26/2005 12:46:09 AM)

Had germany beat Russia the history books would all say it was inevitable. Had the union been crushed at Gettysburg it would seem obvious that such a large nation as the south could never be conquered. But who would have thought we could defeat the british in the revolution or lose to Vietnam? Nothing is inevitable. During the time period all these wars seemed in doubt except the last two where everyone knew who would win until they lost. They are only obviously lost in retrospect.

You can never prove these arguments.



Grotius -> RE: To be or not to be. (1/26/2005 12:48:24 AM)

I agree with everyone who says that things are too easy for Japan now. But one of my concerns about China as it is represented in the game is that it's presented as a single monolithic army under one person's control. I remember firing up WITP for the first time and being puzzled that I could have Mao and Chiang working in concert. It seems to me that if you expand the Chinese OOB, you also need to pay more attention to the political divisions among the Chinese. Should the Allied player be free to unite warlords, Nationalists, and Communists in one big happy front against the Japanese?

Yes, the game to some extent has to ignore politics to make it playable. I'm glad I don't have to listen to Nimitz and MacArthur bicker. But the Political Point system does impose some costs on me when, say, I want to withdraw units from ABDA command. Mogami, do you plan to use PPs to constrain the Allied Chinese player in some way?



mogami -> RE: To be or not to be. (1/26/2005 12:49:18 AM)

Hi, See we are back to thinking in terms of battles. Battles do not win wars. They just produce the natural result that the side that can lose battles and fight another is going to win the war. The Japanese lost 1 battle and they never won anything important after that because they could not again fight a battle as important as the one they lost. Had the USN lost Midway it would have fought another 2 or 3 just like it in 1943.

In WW2 the Japanese have to win 4 Midways before they could even start to think about winning the war. IN WITP the Japanese have to win 2 or 3 Midways before they can think about winning the game.
The answer is not in China. It is out there in the Pacific in 1942 and 1943 and 1944.
The Japanese player does not have to be good enough to win Midway. He has to be good enough to win Midway 3 times.


WITP made easy. Count up all the Japanese ships points. Add in all the aircraft Japan will produce. Add in every landunit Japan sends off the Home Islands. Total the VP value.
Japan has to score that many points to win. If Japan does that they cannot lose.



WiTP_Dude -> RE: To be or not to be. (1/26/2005 12:51:48 AM)

There are ways to calculate the chances of victory. Just to say that either side could win any war is too easy and not accurate.



Kereguelen -> RE: To be or not to be. (1/26/2005 12:55:15 AM)

Hi,

there're discussions about the possibility of a German victory over Russia since WW2 ended. But one should not forget that Germany never intended to defeat Russia only by military means. They hoped that the (communist) regime would collapse after the first battles were won (as the French regime collapsed in 1940, France could have continued the war in North Africa, the surrender was more a political decision). The collapse of the communists was not so unlikely in 1941 as they were hated by a large part of the populace then . But the German military commanders (or most of them) did not understand the intentions of Hitler...

Thus in the end the question if Germany could have defeated Russia is at best purely academic because the reason for Germany to attack the SU was (in the end) to annihilate and/or to enslave the people of Russia. Considering this, Russia never would have surrendered!

Just my opinion!

K



Tophat -> RE: To be or not to be. (1/26/2005 12:55:48 AM)

There you are....now we are back to how to more accuratly refect china in the "GAME" War in the pacific.

Lets all drop the because they can't win wherever arguement...........



Tophat -> RE: To be or not to be. (1/26/2005 12:59:16 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: moses

Oh please this is all silly. Had germany beat Russia the history books would all say it was inevitable. Had the union been crushed at Gettysburg it would seem obvious that such a large nation as the south could never be conquered. But who would have thought we could defeat the british in the revolution or lose to Vietnam? Nothing is inevitable. During the time period all these wars seemed in doubt except the last two where everyone knew who would win until they lost. They are only obviously lost in retrospect.

You can never prove these arguments.


Verygood......so how do you approach "balancing" WitP?



WiTP_Dude -> RE: To be or not to be. (1/26/2005 1:01:52 AM)

When Moscow was taken before, that was part of the strategy of the defenders at the time. This was not the case in 1941. If the Germans rip the head off in 1941, the Soviets would have been greatly weakened.



Grotius -> RE: To be or not to be. (1/26/2005 1:10:16 AM)

So Mogami, will your China be under one unified command? Any PP costs for having warlords, Communists and Nationalists work together?



Hornblower -> RE: To be or not to be. (1/26/2005 1:15:43 AM)

Some threads have a life of there own, and this is one of those. Not as good as the Zero/F4F on in uv however. My 2 cents for what its worth. Is a safe bet that the general concusses of the forum is that historically Japan had almost no chance to defeat the Soviets/Russians. I don’t think I am off base when I say that. The IJA was a light infantry army plane and simple, better suited to jungle fighting then in the open. Light tanks, reliance on Motors over artillery, etc. They had courage beyond belief, but not the TOE to stand toe to toe with the Russians on a large scale, in the open where the Russians could bring there tanks and artillery into play. I’m not saying they couldn’t win a battle or two, but over the long haul the Russians would come out on top. Anyone here reasonably think that on the 2nd Sendi Division could stop a Russian Guard division, and if it was armored forget about it.

Now let’s suppose what some are doing game wise happened 60 years ago. IJA goes after the Soviets, knocks them out for a bit- soviets wouldn’t have surrendered, they would wait till the Germans were a non-issue. Stalin, no lover of seeing his people live out a long life, would most certainly turn his attention on Japan when he could. But for the sake of argument let’s say that happens. Soviets retreat into the depths of Russia. IJA then swings down and gobbles up all of china- ok poof there gone. So its late 42 or early 43 and both are done. The IJA now rolls into India, because its freed up its two biggest armies, and kicks out the Brits.. Bye bye… So far so good right? Some gamers have managed to do this. Now while the vast bulk of your army is in the West who is keeping an eye on the Americans and Australians? What do you garrison Truk with? Guam? Rabaul? What means do you have to hold on the solomons? IJN has only so many troops. And you can’t send the IJA into battle with the Russians/Chinese/India without air cover. So the bulk of the IJAAF is with its troops in the west. And you have to ship supplies/ammo/etc to the IJA, that takes away shipping from the DEI to Japan route. So essentially you are leaving the IJN and the IJNAF the job of holding back the USN, USMC, USAAF, etc…

Also, you have to leave a fairly large force for when the Russians come back, you have to garrison China, you’ll need to leave a decent sized army in India should Churchill want it back. And you now have this immense supply line you have to keep open to India. Japan couldn’t protect it shipping in the DEI, a 3000 mile long run to India would have made the sub skippers drool. You only have so many ships. And you’ve left your center open to an attack in the east. Honestly, what would be left to keep the American’s and Australians from going up the Solomons and NG passed Rabaul and threatens the SRA?

Now game wise is a different story. A balance needs to be struck. The Japanese player should be able to try it, but not make it easy. Right now he can knock out the soviets and Chinese, and maybe even India and rack up a huge amount of points. He has put Japan in a poor position strategically (IMHO) and open to a counter attack by the US/OZ forces- BUT he has the points to pull off the auto-victory. So what I am trying to say is that the Japanese player should defiantly have the ability to try to do this, but it should in no way make it easy.

-phewww long post. This should count as 3 or 4 posts…



Tophat -> RE: To be or not to be. (1/26/2005 1:16:36 AM)

Mogami,
My main problem with putting all "historical" chinese forces in the OOb to "FIX" or "balance" china is that:

1) These formations were in some cases so different,nationalist Unit vs warlords gang,that they are apples and oranges.
2) The level of strength you have arrived at 755 seems far,far too high to me........
3) The increased supply levels of chinese forces.

I really don't have as much of a problem with your additions to the soviet OOB,they are infact a real Army with a table of organization and command structure.

Yes china needs to be "fixed".....no I don't believe the historical wisdom the japs could never win in china. All the japs want is an agreement so they retain some possessions and can withdrawl from the rest. The right chinese warlord is a dead nationalist and communist leader away from being topdog,foe an hour atleast.
The disagreement is having all the chinese units mobile and at 75% strength.........what kind of moral and experience will you give them?



WiTP_Dude -> RE: To be or not to be. (1/26/2005 1:23:39 AM)

Good points. It should be very difficult for Japan to defeat China. With two players of equal skills, the Chinese should almost always win. However if the Japanese player implements a good strategy and the Chinese player makes some big mistakes, then Japan should have some success.



Andy Mac -> RE: To be or not to be. (1/26/2005 1:27:32 AM)

For game balance Can I suggest a few fixes just to make this debate go away.

The consensus seems to be that China is under powered at the moment which I agree given that Land Combat mechanics/ three seperate china nations i.e. one two or three different china nations and the map are unlikely to change what can we practically do to make it harder to conquer without making it possible to steamroll Japanese at the same time making it possible to still achieve something.

So I am suggesting mods to the game setup and probably saying sod reality/history just to try and make the most likely outcome stalemate.

1. Chungking get 500 - 750 free supply per day to reflect the rice harvest and ability of China to exist at lower supply levels than other armies.

2. All or some Chinese Army Corps get a 3rd Division added (50% Increase in Infantry Strength no additional heavy weapons all troops disrupted at start)

3. Chungking and all hexes surrounding Chungking get a static garrison force of 4 - 5 Corps forces are infantry only with support and are immobile.

so 7 forces of 5 Corps c 35 new static corps that can only move after they have been retreated in combat

4. All fort levels for both sides are increased 2 levels



WiTP_Dude -> RE: To be or not to be. (1/26/2005 1:28:08 AM)

So you are saying the current strength of a flushed out Chinese Corps is 375 assualt points? That is what, 75% the strength of a flushed out Japanese division? Sounds exactly as Orbat has defined it when factoring in troop and equipment quality. Mogami wants to add forces that didn't exist within the regular KMT army.



moses -> RE: To be or not to be. (1/26/2005 1:38:36 AM)

quote:

Good points. It should be very difficult for Japan to defeat China. With two players of equal skills, the Chinese should almost always win. However if the Japanese player implements a good strategy and the Chinese player makes some big mistakes, then Japan should have some success


Agreed. Now back to the original problem. The problem will not in my opinion be fixed by OOB changes.

The problem is that the game system gives an overwhelming edge to the superior force. This applies to Japan in the early going and will apply to the allies later on. In each case it causes unrealistic results to occur.

Historically attacking was not the cakewalk it is in the game. By bringing massive force to bear you could insure victory but you had to take your lumps. In the game the superior side can advance at a relentless pace with very few casalties. There is no point in fighting a delaying action in the game in any theater. Your smaller units will just get annihilated at no loss to the enemy. This is what makes China, Burma and India attractive places in which to attack. An invasion of for example Changsa could be attempted IRL and might even succeed but for certain the attacking force even in avictory would be in no shape for further offensive action. The Chinese would then have a chance to regroup, counterattack etc. In the game Japan can often take Changsa for no casualties at all. The defending Chinese are retreated and lose a quarter of their troops and what little morale they have left. It takes months to get the Chinese units back in decent shape while the Japanese defenders now sit on the rail line at 100% strength.

Changing the OOB may well be able to stop the Japanese but the same game problems will still be there when the allies become superior. Then it will be the allies who can attack without casualties. And by making the allies stronger in the beginning you move forward the date at which they will achieve this superior position.

Therefore I think balance should be achieved using modifications to the combat model as the primary tool.



WiTP_Dude -> RE: To be or not to be. (1/26/2005 1:43:39 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: moses

quote:

Good points. It should be very difficult for Japan to defeat China. With two players of equal skills, the Chinese should almost always win. However if the Japanese player implements a good strategy and the Chinese player makes some big mistakes, then Japan should have some success


Agreed.


Also "the Chinese should almost always win" really means "won't lose", not they will push the Japanese out of Asia.



WiTP_Dude -> RE: To be or not to be. (1/26/2005 2:33:35 AM)

The Chinese lack of combat engineers are going to be a problem when trying to reduce fortifications. I don't think a China with additional non-KMT divisions will be able to take forts down very quickly at all.



Tophat -> RE: To be or not to be. (1/26/2005 2:37:57 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: WiTP_Dude

The Chinese lack of combat engineers are going to be a problem when trying to reduce fortifications. I don't think a China with additional non-KMT divisions will be able to take forts down very quickly at all.


Good..they most certainly shouldn't be able to!

moses....I really don't think the powers that be will change the land combat system...granted you just want to see more disruption equate to killed for the attacker. I also agree with you that would be the way to go...have the attacker experience some real losses for his efforts!



moses -> RE: To be or not to be. (1/26/2005 3:26:07 AM)

quote:

The Chinese lack of combat engineers are going to be a problem when trying to reduce fortifications. I don't think a China with additional non-KMT divisions will be able to take forts down very quickly at all.


Most of Japanese held China is clear terrain so it won't be like what we are experienceing in Chungking. Plus in all that clear terrain Japan won't just be able to defend in the cities or they will be cut off. Also the Chinese will be able to accept massive losses in the initial attacks

You've seen what the Chinese shock attack can do especially in clear terrain. You add a division to each of those corps and I will be on the offensive by April. Add two divisions to each of those 72 Chinese corps and you can forget about it.

Plus you're attempting a small bomber operation in our game and your supply base consists of two cities and your airlift!! Think what is possible if you held all your starting bases plus we're talking about added resource centers.



moses -> RE: To be or not to be. (1/26/2005 3:41:03 AM)

quote:

moses....I really don't think the powers that be will change the land combat system...granted you just want to see more disruption equate to killed for the attacker. I also agree with you that would be the way to go...have the attacker experience some real losses for his efforts!


Why not. They're going to have to look at ground combat again anyway in light of the problems with small unit attacks outlined in the Changsa AAR thread. It can't be that difficult to do something simple like increase attacker losses by 25%.

One myth is that this is just about China. But think about the Pacific theater and why it is that Japanese players can so far exceed the historical timeline. I'm not talking about the first move issues. Even with an historical start you can take the SRA far faster than was possible in reality. Plus you don't really even need all your troops to do it. Why is that? I'll tell you.

The reason is you take almost no losses. There is no penalty for a poorly supported operation. As long as you get the troops ashore you're going to be fine. You will eventually beat down the isolated allied force and at the end of the day you will take no ground losses. (Ground units can be destoyed at sea of course). You've got a few disabled elements for sure but these recover quickly and off goes your unit to a new battle. IRL I have to make sure that my force is not only stronger then the enemy, but strong enough to complete the operation quickly and with minimum loss. In the game it doesn't matter. You're not going to get anyone killed anyway.

The allies will benifit from the same effect later on. Land on Iwo Jima. Fight for a three weeks. Ohh Zero men killed? Off to the next island.

Perhaps I exagerate. You will take a loss here and there but the effect I describe is real.

So why not make a few adjustments to balance the thing out.



Mr.Frag -> RE: To be or not to be. (1/26/2005 3:43:15 AM)

moses, I don't think you clearly understand the relationship between combat effectiveness and supply. Not enough supply means up to 75% reduction in combat effect. ie: 3 poorly supplied divisions have the same strength as 1 supplied division.

Due to the poor supply situation in China, Japan will be able to counter any China agression by bringing in 1-2 turns worth of air power targeting base hexes to deplete the supply link. Bases will not give up supply as long as they need it which means any unit *not* in a base hex will be cut off and dropped to 25% strength following this little air blitz.

As you can well imagine, having a combat assault value of 3000 in a hex against 1500 Japanese strength to suddenly have it go to 750 in the middle of your attack is going to leave a big pile of bodies.

Your only option to move forward is to completely abandon bases behind you to drop the supply holdback to zero. For obvious reasons, leaving a base open for the grabbing of Japanese Paratroopers is rather silly.



moses -> RE: To be or not to be. (1/26/2005 4:00:37 AM)

Mr Frag:

Thank you for addressing the combat system.

The supply situation in China appears to be less precarious than I thought prior to my current game with WITTP-Dude. He is still fighting with only 300 resourse pts producing and an air lifline which can't be sending more than 3 or 4 hundred SP per day and has enough to operate B17's. So If china holds Changsa which is likely with an upgunned force structure, then I think there is no supply problem. With the increased force structure that Mogami is talking about there will be a greater supply requirement but he is talking about adding resourses so again it does not appear to be a problem. So I don't think supply will be a problem.

Now when a base has say a supply requirement of 20,000 I have seen many times that it has dropped below this very rapidly. Often the supply levels fluctuate back and forth quite dramatically for reasons that are not always clear. But I assume it is because they are sending supply to outside units which causes their supply to drop into the orange level. So I am of the impression that supply will still be transfered at least until the base goes into the red. Is this what your refering to?

Now units hold about 1 months supply. So even a unit which is cut off does not suffer the 25% reduction until that is out. Or is the effect phased in? When I fight cut off units they seem to fight at full effectiveness until supply is out at which pt they rapidly collapse. I think I remember you discussing this before.



Kereguelen -> RE: To be or not to be. (1/26/2005 10:47:17 AM)

Some data about Chinese troop strenghts (from various sources) thrown in for good measure:

In 1945 the Chinese Nationalists (KMT and their allies) had 3700000 soldiers, 1600000 rifles (that means one rifle for every third soldier!) and 6000 guns and mortars. The Chinese Communists had 320000 soldiers, 160000 rifles and 700 guns and mortars.

According to a somewhat sketchy Orbat about the Chinese forces in Burma there were 3 armies with 9 divisions (the divisions that are subject to SEAC in the game). 5th Army (LTG Tu Yu-ming) with 22nd, 96th, 200th Divisions and as army troops 1 cavalry regiment, 1 artillery regiment, 1 engineer regiment, 1 armoured regiment, 1 motor regiment (no unit designations in the Orbat for these), 6th Army (LTG Kan Li-chu) with 40th, 55th, 93rd divisions with 1 engineer battalion and the 1st Bn/13th Artillery Regiment as army troops, 66th Army (LTG Chang Chen) with 28th, 29th, 38th Divisions and the 1st Bn/18th Artillery Regiment. Each division had three regiments of about battalion size without any divisional support units (it's not clear if there was included any artillery in the regimental organization, maybe some mortars and light guns?). A Chinese division equaled (infantry strenght) a British brigade and an Army/Corps maybe a division. Maybe the artillery battalions at Army level were of the somewhat heavier class (105mm howitzers or something like this). It seems that the Chinese here had not very much artillery, but the troops shown here had come to Burma via the Burma Road...

Interesting in other aspects is a map about the situation in China that can be found online (http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/brochures/chinoff/p05(map).jpg) that gives some information about the Chinese troop strenghts in October, 1944. The map lists Chinese troop strenghts in the various War Areas. By roughly dividing the troop strenghts there through the number of armies present it seems that Chinese armies had indeed very variable strenghts (between 7000 and 20000 soldiers).

And I think that the terms Army and Corps were not used in a standartised mannner which sometimes adds to the confusion about Chinese strenghts.

K



Al_Anger -> RE: Why are there no Chinese bases further than Sining? (1/26/2005 6:02:07 PM)

quote:

(Hint WITP is a game about air power)


Air War In The Pacific. Sounds more like it.[:)]



moses -> RE: Why are there no Chinese bases further than Sining? (1/26/2005 6:14:40 PM)

Ground war in the Pacific.[;)]

Ships and planes are just ground force transporters. A battleship is just a boat that carries artilleryman. A fighter is just a winged machine gunner. A carrier is a winged machine gun transporter. A torpedo is an engineering device used to dig artilleryman out of their boats.



Ron Saueracker -> RE: Mogami's last attempt. (2/28/2005 11:05:19 AM)

bump



Page: <<   < prev  6 7 8 9 [10]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.4375