RE: Mogami's last attempt. (Full Version)

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



Message

mogami -> RE: Mogami's last attempt. (1/21/2005 10:28:26 AM)

Hi, I'm sorry. I didn't mean India and China are map edges and should not be targets for the Japanese.
I mean the Japanese should not target them because they are edges.

Can anyone see the difference?
If you plan on knocking out China and then withdrawing forces because the map edge protects you, you are doing wrong. If you plan on knocking out China and then garrisioning it your oK.

Taking China and India are fine. Leaving them empty when you are finished is exploiting.
I think leaving the Philippines empty is exploiting.
I think leaving malaya empty is exploiting



mogami -> RE: Mogami's last attempt. (1/21/2005 10:38:55 AM)

"I think the thing you and your remaining Mod ilk need to get over "

Hi, I think the thing you need to get over is that in the end the game will be what the designers want it to be.
I can't understand the hostile nature of some people when it comes to the Mods and designers trying to fix bugs and add features.
Also you misunderstand me completly. The game already works the way I want it to. I'm not complaining. Fix a few bugs and I'll be fine.
I don't address issues to change how you or anyone else plays the game or thinks.
I post so people understand why when they do things one way they get results.
Some feel China goes down too fast. I explaned why. China works fine for me and for the designers.
To make the game more realistic concerning China being an active front the Chinese OB needs to be modified. Thats all. Thats simple.
But the game works fine.


It is a game. Japan can win the game. It is not easy. For people wanting to use WITP as a means of showing how Japan could have won the war I have no answer.
Anyone who thinks Japan could have defeated all the countries it engage in WW2 after 50 years of history is not going to listen to any thing I say.
My own feeling is most games between egual skilled players will be over by mid 1944.
Maybe not over as far as there will still be turns left but the issue will not be in doubt. It will be the Allied player working to get his 2-1 ratio and he will make it before he runs out of turns.

It is interesting to me that in UV I was always the Allied player. In WITP my friends (?) have been making me Japanese.



AmiralLaurent -> RE: Mogami's last attempt. (1/21/2005 11:17:33 AM)

Why not reinforce the Chinese Army and include two China Commands ? One being able to operate against Japanese and one not being able to do this (restricted to Chinese held territory at start) ? The first command will be led by Stitwell and will be responsible for units both engaged on the Burma Road and on offensive operations in China... so it will have the choice to be commited on the Burma or the China side. The other Command will be led by Chang-Hai-Tcheck (oops, it's morning here, can't remember exactly) and will have the bulk of Chinese forces, most of wich were engaged in anticommunist operations or kept in reserves.

So launching offensive operations with Chinese units on a large scale will need to spend much PPs.

On the other hand, China will have enough troops to hold much of the land. And still some troops to advance if Japan retires troops. By the way, Japan also needs to spend PP to retire troops from China.

So Japan will still have the possibility to win in China.... if he sends here the troops that are usually sent to SRA or Pacific.



ChezDaJez -> RE: Mogami's last attempt. (1/21/2005 1:07:36 PM)

I can not speak for other players as I have only played against the AI.

I am now on my 4th game as the Jap versus the AI and am using the "very hard" setting to see if that changes anything. In my other games, I have been able to conquer China by Sep 42 each time. When I say conquer, I mean take every single city with just a few Chinese unit remenants left in the countryside and they dry up once their supply is gone. The one game I played as the Allies versus the AI, I was able to take and hold the rail line. The AI made little attempt beyond building fortresses to stop me. I have not played beyond the end of 1942 as the Japs because I have met the automatic victory conditions each time.

The problem is the way land combat is resolved. A retreating unit can take horrendous losses in China but the attacker basically only gets disrupted. Occasionally, they will loose some troops but not enough to affect anything. As soon as the fatigue and disruption wears off, they are combat ready again. It would be far more realistic if actual losses were incorporated for the attacker and the defender. That way, units would have to pull back for refit and replacements. This would cause land combat in China to slow down greatly enabling a more historical outcome.

Historically, offensives in China resulted in tens of thousands of casualties on both sides. One illplanned attack could and did result in the decimation of many a unit. Changsha is a particualrly good example as the Chinese fended off 3 attempts by the japanese to take and hold that city. Both armies were rendered combat ineffective due to heavy losses for a long time.

Chez



ChezDaJez -> RE: Mogami's last attempt. (1/21/2005 1:23:23 PM)

quote:

I just do see how Japan could defeat china, when they tried as hard as they could for a few years and could not do it.


That's just it. The Japanese never tried to defeat all of China. They took the portion they wanted and hung on to it. The issue is that they did have the capability IF they had devoted most of their combat power to it instead of starting a war with the US. The Chinese units prior to 12/7/41 were very poorly trained, equipped and led. They were able to gain some victories but only through overwhelming use of manpower, not firepower. They improved considerably after 1942 but still could not match the Japanese forces one on one.

Also, remember that China was a divided nation. In many ways, it was a 3-way war; the Nationalists fighting the communists and both fighting the Japs. If the Japanese had concentrated their efforts on one of either the Nationalists or the communists, I believe the other would not would not have protested too greatly.

Basically, the Japanese had the capability to defeat China but did not see the necessity for it.

Chez



Gen.Hoepner -> RE: Mogami's last attempt. (1/21/2005 1:29:22 PM)

Hi all,

playing a Pbem started with v.1,3 i've had very big losses in attacking in China.It's true that by the end of March 42 i've been able to free the railways, but, especially in Canton Area i lost something like 30,000 men during december 41. For some mistakes my opponent let his troops being sourronded and finally he lost 300,000 men. But these casualities may have been easily avoided with a bit more attention. Now that i'm trying to advance towards the middle of china i'm experiencing extreme difficulties. Most of my units are 30% or more understrenght and each of them have problems with supplies and support. I'm quite sure that with the variations made in the v.1,4 it will be tough even to conquer the railroads.



ChezDaJez -> RE: Mogami's last attempt. (1/21/2005 1:58:09 PM)

I am currently playing as the Japs vs the AI with V1.4 on the "Very Hard" setting to see what difference that makes. I've just started the scenario. Its 12/13/41 and Changsha has already fallen, Chinese troops are retreating from Nanking and the Canton area is free of the enemy. I do not intend to bring in any outside troops into China.

In all of my previous games, the only major effect I suffered in China was fatigue but I was still able to conquer China by Sep 42 each time.

I believe that this was possible because the Allied AI doesn't seem to anticipate my movements and allows me to cut them off time and again. Against a human player, I doubt that I would be able to do this anywhere near as effectively, probably not at all.

Chez



Tom Hunter -> RE: Mogami's last attempt. (1/21/2005 3:40:37 PM)

I am seeing a trend here that counter attacking is a key part of conducting a successful defense. My fight in China is going pretty well and I have launched an number of deliberate attacks as well as many bombardment attacks.

Are the China defenses that are folding up launching attacks or just playing defense?

Tom



moses -> RE: Mogami's last attempt. (1/21/2005 3:44:11 PM)

What is sad is that this game is so close to being perfect but there is one obvious glaring flaw that people are emotionally unwilling to accept even though it is easily fixed.

The problem is not that Japan is to strong for the allies or that the allies are to strong for Japan. It is simply that the ground combat model is grossly biased in favor of the attacker.

Some facts from my current game: I have lost 66 ground loss VP's which equates to 396 items destroyed in over 4 months heavy fighting. The vast majority of these losses occured when the occasional small unit of mine was retreated. For example an armored unit of mine was operating independantly on the Chinese flank and was bombed heavily and then retreated by a chinese force. This caused me to lose 20 or so of those 66 VP's. Three other retreats caused the bulk of the remaining 44 VP's. I really doubt that my main force divisions have taken more then a squad or two of losses apiece for the entire campaign. In any event the entire campaign has caused me the loss of around 4000 men.

In contrast China has lost 1827 VP's which equates to 21,924 items destoyed equating to losses of 219,240 men. So I'm killing Chinese at over a 50 to 1 kill ratio.

Thats because the Chinese are retreating and that is the only time that you take significant losses in this game. All the losses that appear in the combat reports are just disruptions and are quickly recovered.


Easy to fix: Just change a good chunk of these disruptions to kills. Balance it out by making retreats less deadly both in casualties and in morale loss. No the attacker takes greater losses and the defender takes less. Balance is restored.

Japan should be able to go pretty much where it wants in China. But now they have to accept that if they want to go to Chungking its going to cost them 100-200K losses.

This fixes China, as well as Burma and Russia. Japan can still win in these areas they just have to pay an historically accurate price.

Some other simple minor fixes that would help:
1.) Slow things down by allowing combat to be canciled a certain % of time in all non-atoll hexes. Easiest is just to have a % chance of combat occuring which is determined by the weather in the hex. Doesn't have to be much to give the defender a little extra breathing room to recover.

2.) Add some extra supply usage for the attacker in combat. Currently the unit supply requirment doubles when you are fighting but this is not very much and certainly not historical.



mogami -> RE: Mogami's last attempt. (1/21/2005 4:00:30 PM)

Hi, I think the best fix is to place the 3.8 million Chinese troops that existed in 1941 on the map.

Japan tried several major offensive operations in China after Dec 1941. All failed. the 1944 offensive captured 2 cities and lost the north of China. When Japan tried to retake the north they lost the Army that had won the southern battle.

Just make sure there are 316 or so Chinese combat units each with 12,000 men and you'll be close.

Then along with "receive replacements" add a toggle "recieve supply"

Where does the notion that Japan could go where ever it wanted in China come from? They had lost the Sept 1941 battle for Changsha they lost the Dec 1941 battle for Changsha. They made no major effort in China untill USAAF bombers weredeployed there and then only by massing force and drawing from Manchuria (they paid the PP) did the attack capture the airfields but the areas they drew troops from were captured by the Chinese (but contained no airfields used by USAAF)
Japan had not "went where it pleased" in China since 1939. Thats the entire reason they went into Indo China and then the SRA. If Japan could have "went where it pleased" there would have been no Pacific War.
China is the reason the IJA did not want to go to war. It was the IJN that required the SRA. That is why so few IJA units were alloted for the Pacific War. And why you find the IJN defending most of the bases.

I will conceed Japan had what it wanted in China by 1939. After that all they wanted was for the Chinese to agree to let them keep it. This the Chinese would not do and the Japanese were unable to force them into agreeing. So they tried to isolate China and ended up in a larger war. The Chinese knew the Japanese would lose the Pacific war and go away so they waited and prepared for the post Pacific War Civil War.
If you make CHina as it was as far as strength and then let it loose you'll be sorry if you are Japan.



tsimmonds -> RE: Mogami's last attempt. (1/21/2005 4:09:43 PM)

quote:

Per agreement with WITP_Dude I have moved one shipment per month of 49,000 supply to China for a total of 245,000 SP during the game.


@moses: Don't forget that in the Chinese cities controlled by Japan on 12/7/41 there are resouce centers that produce over 1000 supply points per turn; in the same cities are HI centers that produce a further 1000 supply points per turn. Another 1500 per turn in Hanoi, Saigon, and Bangkok. More than 5000 per turn in Manchuko. That's a further 250,000 supply per month available on the rail net in China. In my full map scenario 15 game I am having to pull supply out of China and ship it south.....



AmiralLaurent -> RE: Mogami's last attempt. (1/21/2005 4:37:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, I think the best fix is to place the 3.8 million Chinese troops that existed in 1941 on the map.

Just make sure there are 316 or so Chinese combat units each with 12,000 men and you'll be close.



I'm pretty sure this was a theorical OOB but reality was probably much worse.

I fully agreed with the above post of moses. The fact that combat results in disrupted squads is OK, the fact that it rarely destroys some isn't... The KIA/other losses ratio during the war was 1/3 in combat ops so at least one on four disrupted squads in battle should be destroyed... well adding the heavily wounded and destroyed material I would say one on 3.

I just wonder if 2000 men lost = 200 squads of 10 men disrupted... in reality, it should be 50 or 70 squads destroyed and some hundreds of squads disrupted, having lost most of their strenght or some key men or weapons. I have often thought as men losses number to be total losses (KIA/WIA/POW) but in WITP it turns out that the winning side only lost WIA while the other side lost KIAs and POWs.

Then when an unit retreats, huge casualties are OK to me : wounded left behind, surrounded small units not receiving the retreat order and then surrendering or being slaugthered, heavy weapons scuttled as no means to retreat with them and so on.



mogami -> RE: Mogami's last attempt. (1/21/2005 4:40:53 PM)

Hi, No the 3.8 million is the actual number of men under arms. In order to make all the Chinese units full strength they would have required 6.2 million men.
China always had the men. It never had the equipment.



moses -> RE: Mogami's last attempt. (1/21/2005 4:44:43 PM)

OK add 3.8 million Chinese troops and you've just really broken the game. Now given the attacker advantage Chinese will roll over the Chinese without I might add taking any significant losses and end the game in 42. This doesn't solve the problem.


Now as to the idea that Japan can go where it pleases you destort my argument completely in order to avoid the real issue. Offensive ops are based on cost/benifit analysis. Japan was not willing to commit the resourses to defeat China as it would have required heavy sustained losses and a massive commitment of resourses.

I don't know what would have happened if Japan had decided to commit everything they had to the total defeat of China and I doubt that you have a crystal ball either. I do know that as late as 1944 the allies were greatly concerned about a Chinese collapse and that is reason enough in itself to believe that it was a real possibility.

Now back to the real issue. Japan does not have to make the choice because the offensive can be conducted for free!! They get it for free because the model is unbalanced in favor of the attacker and once you get the defender going backwards there is no way for him to recover.

Russia is the same way although at least you have to commit some extra divisions. Still my concern is not that it should be impossible to defeat Russia but simply that a few Japanese troops should actually get killed in the process.

Adding troops and other advantages to China, Russia, Burma, India does not solve the problem. It may well blunt the initial Japanese offensive but eventually one side or the other will gain the upper hand. Then the dominoes will quickly fall and whoever is on the defending side will be crushed.



mogami -> RE: Mogami's last attempt. (1/21/2005 4:55:54 PM)

Hi, The Chinese had the 3.8 million they are not imagined. But since they were not used they were left out. Now the Japanese in China can be used outside China as long as PP are paid and garrisions are met so they are included. But Japanese players use them to crush China. So to solve the Chinese need to be put back.
The Soviet OB is also light. No fleet. No supply, no movement. This army had just beaten Japan and Japan was not going to try again. That is why uinits left for Moscow. Soviets knew before PH they were not going to be attacked.
If Japanese players plan to attack Soviets the Soviets would have known and not withdrawn units.
The Soviet winter offensive of 1941-42 would have been smaller. This would have helped the Soviets because they lost many troops in wastefull attacks. The attacks in front of Moscow and Leningrad would still have occured and still worked. (number of Soviet troops would not have changed the weather and in the weather these attacks took place fewer Soviets defeated more Germans)

No matter how you slice it 70 million Japanese are not going to defeat the over 1 billion enemies they make. Not in a land war. Not ever in a land war. Their hope is the fact that China and Soviets don't have Navies to move forces with and they have the worlds great Navy penned up for 2 years.

They counted on those 2 years. when I am Japan I count on those 2 years. My Navy is equal to the enemy. My army is not and never will be.



moses -> RE: Mogami's last attempt. (1/21/2005 4:58:24 PM)

Reply to Irrelevant:

Yeah there is a lot of supply sloshing around in the vicinity of China. I dont think I have been drawing any from Russia since the area around the China border is pretty much evacuated. Some may have been moved in from Hanoi but I dont think much since I don't think there is a surplu in SE Asia. Remenber I still have the entire SRA force in SE Asia since we have not invaded the SRA as normal. Plus the russian forces are still in Russia.

So virtually the entire Japanese Army is still in asia so sending 10% of Japans supply production to Asia is well within reason. Really supply is not the problem in the game that some make it out to be unless you burn lots of supply fiddleing with production. I always send 150K supply to both PI and Singapore and about what I'm sending now to China and I have never had any problem.

Now if you decide to totally revamp Japan's economy you can run into serious problems quick. But as long as you only change one or two things at a time you have tons of supply.



mogami -> RE: Mogami's last attempt. (1/21/2005 5:01:38 PM)

Hi, Air combat burns supply and reloading ship ammo burns supply. Building bases to use burns supply (lots of supply and you can't win down south without building bases)
I hardly touch production.



AmiralLaurent -> RE: Mogami's last attempt. (1/21/2005 5:02:38 PM)

Air combat in WITP is bloody. Planes get quickly disrupted or shot down, fatigue goes up. Basic result is that a given squadron may spend a week on operations before being rested or sent to the rear.

Same for ships, using them all the time will raise SYS damage and is much difficult because of the huge amount of fuels they need.

On the other hand, land units can fight for months and attack several times fortified targets at less than 1-to-1 ratio or suffer tens of day of bombardment without losing much of their efficiency.
Land warfare in WITP is like a board wargame. A land unit that wins a battle is most of the time intact while the loser is basically destroyed or now worthless. Attrition is too low to slow operations like it did in reality.

If WITP is for many players 'The Great Land War in Asia', it is because of the land combat model. It is the easiest place to manage and the easiest way to win points by destroying Allied troops and taking cities while own losses (at least in VP points) are minimal.
Why launch amphibious operations in the Pacific to take a worthless island when the loss of a laden troopship will cost you more VP points of troops than one month of offensive in China ?



mogami -> RE: Mogami's last attempt. (1/21/2005 5:04:51 PM)

Hi, I agree 100 percent. That is why we add the Chinese missing to the game. The land combat will cease because it will be futile and the war will return to the Pacific.

Land combat in the Pacific is simple. You bring the right number of troops and supply you win. The defender knows he will lose the land battle if you actually make the landings. So air and naval combat become much more important.



moses -> RE: Mogami's last attempt. (1/21/2005 5:06:50 PM)

Good lord, huge countries are defeated all the time by superior armies. You say China could not possibly be defeated but the allies were quite worried about this possibility at the time.

Again the issue is evaded and now the kicker is thats its all the players fault for "holy cow" trying to use the forces provided to defeat the enemy. Who would have thought that players would try and defeat the enemy!! Those B$&^#@$!!!



mogami -> RE: Mogami's last attempt. (1/21/2005 5:09:37 PM)

Hi, The Allies were worried Japan was going to land on West Coast so what? The Chinese never thought they were going to lose.

History has already written the result of Japans attempt to defeat China. They had tried for 10 years and failed. They expanded the war to include the USA because they could not win the LAND WAR. The whole Pacific war was an attempt to isolate China into submission.
Japan did make the full effort. It failed.

As for fault. I have accepted it. I've said I'm sorry. And the solution is if you want to try to defeat China go ahead. But lets use the real China not my sleeping China.



tsimmonds -> RE: Mogami's last attempt. (1/21/2005 5:11:13 PM)

quote:

I dont think I have been drawing any from Russia since the area around the China border is pretty much evacuated.

The thing is, the rail net will pull supply from wherever it is being produced to wherever it is getting burned, as long as it is connected by rail and is within--how many?--hexes (don't have my rules handy; it is a considerable distance, something like 25 hexes traced by rail). You pretty much have no control over this supply redistribution, and unless you are paying very close attention to the supply levels at the various production centers in Manchuko, you will not even notice that it is happening.



moses -> RE: Mogami's last attempt. (1/21/2005 5:18:55 PM)

Even if I accept you're view of the war in China over that of the allied commander's at the time, it still does not change the issue. Why not change the ground combat system so that it works?

If you give me 20 new Chinese divisions to play with I guarantee I will be driving Japan out of Russia by 1943. At the least I'll have Japan tied down in heavy fighting just to hold on. I'll do it with straightforward blunt attacks and without any gamey tactics. I'll accomplish this because the ground combat system does not reflect reality.



mogami -> RE: Mogami's last attempt. (1/21/2005 5:23:48 PM)

Hi, My view? I don't have a view I have history.

History
Sept 1941 Japanese attack Changsha lose over 40k troops retreat
Dec 1941 Japanese attack Chagsha lose over 40k troops retreat
Both times 300,000 Chinese troops were involved.

The leaders of these Chinese were not interested in driving the Japanese out of China but Changsha were where they were making their money and where they had been told to hold. (Failed Chinese leaders were often shot)

Find me a Japanese offensive after 1939 that captures a city in China and where as a result of gathering the required force Japan does not lose a city.


Try this. Edit the scenario and against the AI play the Chinese. But give them 1,000,000 supply in Chungking at start. And set the city to add 20k per day.
You'll see it is the supply that matters.



moses -> RE: Mogami's last attempt. (1/21/2005 5:32:52 PM)

You're view is apparently that China could not possibly have been defeated under any circumstance. The allied commanders at the time were quite concerned as late as 1944 that China would collapse. Maybe they were nuts, I really don't know.

What I do knbow for sure is that in the game China is usually defeated fairly quickly at very little cost to the Japanese. I am fairly sure that the main reason is the ground combat model which makes ground combat in every theatre "costless" for the attacker.

Tweeking specific theaters to try and balance thing out will only shift the problem to later in the game.

Make the Chinese and Russians strong enough to stop Japan early and you have created the force that will drive the Japaneses out of Asia very early in the game.



Andy Mac -> RE: Mogami's last attempt. (1/21/2005 6:04:58 PM)

The problem is not that the Japanese should never be able to make progress in China.

If a player pulls off a move that is perfection or brings in non historical troops or airforces or an allied player gets the chinese mauled in attacks progress is and should be possible. Whether possible should include total conuest of China I dont know.

The issue as I see it is that with the forces in theatre the Japanes can wipe out the Chinese relatively quickly by destroying the means of supply and concentrating forces. (only happened to me in 1 game out of 4 and even then I am still holding Chungking so I am not totally convinced of this one either)

From reading the thread I dont think anyone feels that the present situation is perfect.

Moses and others it appears to me want land combat tweaked

Mogami and others are saying the game is not broken but for balance purposes the game more or less only includes what I would term the offensive elements of the Chinese Army ignoring hundreds of thousands of troops under warlord or Communist control that for various reasons have been excluded.

I think that all points are fair I would like to see the combat model changed and I think the Chinese ORBAT is understrength although I share the views of many that if we increase the Chinese unit count or supply all that will happen is the Chinese march to the coast as players will use the unit count in an ahistorical way.

Can I suggest the following

1. I am not convinced that any change is yet needed as we have yet to see the full impact of the 1.4 change unless someone has PBEM ed china following the change.

2. I dont think the Land Combat routines will change now we just need to live with the current situation and make the best of it.

3. IF REQUIRED after testing one or two of the following be done.

a. 200 - 500 per turn free supply for the Chinese at Chungking to stop Japanes bombers totally wiping out Chinese supply capability (supply would be to reflect greater ability of Chinese to live off the land and is not supply as we know it everywhere else but is used a s a proxy to reflect the lack of dependance on supply and the fighting ability of the Chinese.

b. A large static garrison be placed at several key inteior bases.
i.e. North China Reserve Army/ Communist Reserve Army etc make them light on equipment but heavy on Infantry.

c. A general increase in Chinese starting fort levels.

d. Place more restrictions/ penalties if players dont maintain garrisone levels in bases

e. Increase garrison levels.

f. Decrease readiness and starting strength of Japanese forces.

Now all together the above are far far to much bt one or two of them would probably slow down combat in China without allowing the Chinese to invade the home islands IF it is still required after 1.4.

Anyway thats my tuppence worth.

Andy



Mr.Frag -> RE: Mogami's last attempt. (1/21/2005 6:22:05 PM)

A couple of those have already been done in 1.4 Andy ... So far, Nik & Drongo are the only ones who have posted in this thread about their results and it sounds a lot tougher going.

I know there is a fundimental conflict built into any game, that is the human desire to win, and no rule can ever really correct that tendency. Given a path that results in a win, 95% of folks will go down that path. The remaining 5% will argue that you shouldn't be able to win like that. It is very difficult to convince 95% with 5%.

Static units wouldn't work as they will basically just increase VP for troop losses and award Japan further for pursuing this path.

One thing that might shift things around a bit is the 30/30 rule changing to a 10/100 rule (units come back faster and at 100% strength - simulating other units). The problem is that if the units are just retreating, they are never actually lost so this rule doesn't actually come into play until it is too late.

I wonder what would happen if we simply made Chinese troops never retreat. You'd have to just keep hammering away at them until completely gone (then the replacement rule would kick in). That might slow down the pace of things...



moses -> RE: Mogami's last attempt. (1/21/2005 6:30:38 PM)

Reply to AndyMAC:
I agree with you on China. I don't want to debate with anyone about what might have happened in China. Personally I think its OK if China can be defeated as long as it requires a skillfully conducted hard campaign. As is it does not require great skill to defeat China in short order against an allied player who has not studied the theater in depth.

The question is how do you fix the problem:

Most of the mods seem to want to change the starting conditions and leave the model as is. It will be quite easy by doing this to stop Japan from accomplishing anything in China or Russia. You just keep adding Chinese and Russians.

I disagree with this approach for the following reason. At some point in the game the allied forces will go over to the offensive. It is reasonable to expect that at that time, the same model problems which make Japan unstoppable in 1942 in all land theaters will make the allies unstoppable once their offensive starts rolling later in the game. By adding more Chinese forces you not only stop Japan in 42 but shorten the time it will take for the allies to gain superiority and start their roll through Asia.

Making the few simple modle fixes that I have suggested, (or make some other similar fixes that have been suggested by others) would solve the problems once and forever. You can fix China, Russia, Burma, India, and the Pacific. You can fix 1942 as well as 1944.

In other words I don't believe that changing the starting conditions for a flawed ground combat model will solve any problem. At best it will shift the problem to a different time frame. Fixing the model is what fixes the problem.

BTW of course any model change will require testing but nothing earthshattering has been proposed. I see no reason why the changes I have propoosed would require any further testing then the changes in starting conditions apparently under consideration.



moses -> RE: Mogami's last attempt. (1/21/2005 6:53:27 PM)

I believe that even with 1.3 that China can hold if he knows how the game works. With 1.4, as I understand the changes, it will be much easier for China to turn the tables on Japan. But we will still have the same problem.

If Japan mannages to retreat China out of its three frontline cities then most of the new advantages will have lost and China will be in the same spot as before.

If China manages to use its new advantages to for example keep Changsa producing late 42 we will have the oposite situation.--An experienced, high morale, fully manned Chinese army backed by B-17's driving the Japanese out of north China at least. Note that if Changsa holds then China can actually shift forces as fast or faster than Japan. All China has to do is defeat one good Japanese stack and its off to the races.

I'll be starting another China only game this weekend with myself as China under 1.4 so we'll see.



Mr.Frag -> RE: Mogami's last attempt. (1/21/2005 7:00:36 PM)

quote:

for example keep Changsa producing late 42


Remember that to shut down production you don't actually have to take the location, you just have to move a unit into the location. Keeping these producing is a matter of keeping them clear of the enemy, not just retaining ownership.



Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.046875