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

moses -> RE: Mogami's last attempt. (1/22/2005 6:29:03 PM)

quote:

In Dec 1941 China had 3.8 million men in 316 Divisions
WITP has 74 Corps and 9 Div. Based on strength of Corps they are 2 divisions.(157) So we need another 80 Corps on map.


So you are going to add 80 Corps!!! Holy cow!! The game will be completely broken. An beginning player with 80 more Chinese corps will roll over the most veteren JP player. You're going to destroy the game in order to avoid admitting that there is a problem with the model?

quote:

How about we remove 4 CV from the IJN?


Huh?? CV's?? in a discussion of Chian and Russia??--edit "Ok now I get it . you're saying not having the Chinese divisions is like Japan not having its carriers."

quote:

If you bring enough troops and supply you win.
When planning operations I plan to bring enough troops and supply to win.


Yeah ya do. Winning is great but in World War II you didn't get to do it without taking casualties. We are talking infantry combat here aren't we?? Odds are important but even with great odds the winners take losses. Supply is great but you still get killed. In the game you don't. Why not fix that instead of breaking the game in order to prevent players from doing things that you don't like.



Grotius -> RE: Mogami's last attempt. (1/22/2005 6:46:18 PM)

Mogami, it might be a good idea to include all those extra Chinese units -- but if so, many should be static or otherwise hampered, to simulate the effect of the unwillingness of Chinese leaders to fight, the infighting with warlords, the conflict with the Communists, etc.



Mr.Frag -> RE: Mogami's last attempt. (1/22/2005 6:58:11 PM)

quote:

but if so, many should be static or otherwise hampered, to simulate the effect of the unwillingness of Chinese leaders to fight, the infighting with warlords, the conflict with the Communists, etc.


Wy impose this kind of a limit when at the same time, Japan's forces have no blocks in place that forces them to act historically? Apples to apples instead of apples to oranges.



WiTP_Dude -> RE: Mogami's last attempt. (1/22/2005 7:15:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

quote:

but if so, many should be static or otherwise hampered, to simulate the effect of the unwillingness of Chinese leaders to fight, the infighting with warlords, the conflict with the Communists, etc.


Wy impose this kind of a limit when at the same time, Japan's forces have no blocks in place that forces them to act historically? Apples to apples instead of apples to oranges.


Ah, the garrison requirement?



mogami -> RE: Mogami's last attempt. (1/22/2005 7:20:05 PM)

Hi, WITP has 159 Soviet Tanks.
In reality there were 1700 of them (but no T34/KV types)(THe T-34/KV went west to kill Germans)
The 3 Tank Bde in WITP were in fact
3 Tank Div
2 Mech Div
There is an airborne Bde Missing.
Only half the Soviet Arty is there
only 1/3 the Soviet Combat Engineer Units are there (WITP has 2 Rgt there were 6 Rgt and 6 Bn of Combat Eng)
Of the 40 Div WITP calls almost half of them CD units. That is ok since they were static div
but at least 2 Inf Div and 1 Bde are missing.

But I think just adding the Arty, Eng amd missing tanks will solve the early attack on Soviet problem. (But I'd also like my airborne Bde and some transports)



Mr.Frag -> RE: Mogami's last attempt. (1/22/2005 7:20:58 PM)

quote:

Ah, the garrison requirement?


You are free to ignore it as Japan ... judging by the polls, at least 50% of folks do at some time or another ... Why should China be held to a different standard? [;)]

You are also free to pull troops out of Russia to cover these while using the high power Japanese boys.



moses -> RE: Mogami's last attempt. (1/22/2005 7:27:03 PM)

quote:

Wy impose this kind of a limit when at the same time, Japan's forces have no blocks in place that forces them to act historically? Apples to apples instead of apples to oranges.


I agree but if we keep adding Chinese forces they will soon crush Japan under the current model. Very quickly and at low cost.

You know we can argue all day about what could have happened historically in China. But the game only needs to produce reasonable outcomes. If it costs Japan 200,000 men and you need to ship in a million supplies to take China then what players will still try it? Probably those who think it will be fun to try which is great. But we won't have to worry about it screwing up the play balance because those units will be to beat up to do anything for a long time.

But currently we have this situation. A normal (happens often but not always) outcome is that China falls within 6-12 months. If China goes for a total retreat strategy (a-historical from the get-go) they can last longer but will still be crushed in the long run as they will flat run out of supplies). Japan can execute this offensive for the loss of less than 10,000 men. (I have lost 426 elements-4,260 men so far and the end is in sight.) Clearly this is not acceptable.

I have proposed ways to fix this that are simple. Others can come up with other simple ideas to impose a cost to these large land offensives. But the worst way in my opinion to solve these problems is to just keep changing the starting conditions. This at best just transfers the problems to a latter time frame.



mogami -> RE: Mogami's last attempt. (1/22/2005 7:34:09 PM)

Hi, I want the historic forces. I now think the WITP OB is correct more or less as far as unit names and locations but the Corps are only 2 Div when they should be 4. That would get the strength pretty close to correct.

Then any changes to combat would effect both sides with Japan still having the advantage of better supply lines, more supply and air control. If the most common result is stalemate then I'd say the game had it right.
You need supply to attack so the Chinese could only attack if the Japanese came to them.

Of course we would then have a problem

Japan did not attack because it was too weak to win but the Chinese did not attack because they had no interest in attacking. They were waiting for the USA to beat Japan and after Japan left they were going to fight each other. So we need some command and control limits for China.

Something really interesting like
Split the Chinese into their factions and if Japan is not attacking The Japanese player controls Mao but if Japan attacks he loses control of Mao and the Allied player gets control

[X(]

Or both players commit PP points.



Mr.Frag -> RE: Mogami's last attempt. (1/22/2005 7:39:03 PM)

quote:

I have proposed ways to fix this that are simple.


You have basically proposed the old land combat system. There is a reason it was gutted, it didn't work. Please stop thinking you have proposed a functional solution, it is not. Been there, Done that. Ron who likes to complain can tell you all about the 20 minute dash down to Singapore due to sped up combat. Not to mention Hong Kong folding shop in one turn and PI being completely gone in '41.



mogami -> RE: Mogami's last attempt. (1/22/2005 7:41:34 PM)

Hi, I want to see Japan crush China for less then 10,000 men once the real Chinese Army is on map. Or Defeat Soviets if they have their actual 1700 tanks. (The Soviets still can't start the war before 1945 unless Japan lets them or starts it)



pry -> RE: Mogami's last attempt. (1/22/2005 8:20:19 PM)

Mog, check your PM... [:D]



mogami -> RE: Mogami's last attempt. (1/22/2005 8:58:59 PM)

Hi, Pry sent me a file where he increased the Chinese Corps from 2 to 4 div. I think it will solve many problems. It doubled the supply required (He added no extra supply)
Now the Japanese will have to risk Chinese attacks in locations where they strip troops to mass against any Chinese city but the Chinese still cannot get 2-1 against the Japanese by massing. (they would also have to weaken one point to attack another.
However the Chinese can now defend their cities by placing units outside them and if the Japanese enter a city to stop supply production they risk being counter attacked.

I like it.

I'll test it later since I need to run both sides. Against the AI the human always was winning before.

If nothing else both sides will need to set objective prior to attacking and wait for the units to get to 100. I don't think you want to make attacks with unready troops.



Tanaka -> RE: Mogami's last attempt. (1/22/2005 9:08:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, Pry sent me a file where he increased the Chinese Corps from 2 to 4 div. I think it will solve many problems. It doubled the supply required (He added no extra supply)
Now the Japanese will have to risk Chinese attacks in locations where they strip troops to mass against any Chinese city but the Chinese still cannot get 2-1 against the Japanese by massing. (they would also have to weaken one point to attack another.
However the Chinese can now defend their cities by placing units outside them and if the Japanese enter a city to stop supply production they risk being counter attacked.

I like it.

I'll test it later since I need to run both sides. Against the AI the human always was winning before.

If nothing else both sides will need to set objective prior to attacking and wait for the units to get to 100. I don't think you want to make attacks with unready troops.


wow interesting! this sounds like it will solve a lot of problems and be historical too! [:)]



WiTP_Dude -> RE: Mogami's last attempt. (1/22/2005 9:13:04 PM)

What is your source for this OOB change? I'm confused because the original source must of been wrong.



Tanaka -> RE: Mogami's last attempt. (1/22/2005 9:19:30 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: pry

Mog, check your PM... [:D]


any plans on completing the soviet forces as well??? [:)][&o]



Tophat -> RE: Mogami's last attempt. (1/22/2005 10:02:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: WiTP_Dude

What is your source for this OOB change? I'm confused because the original source must of been wrong.


i'm curious as well...though from my readings,mainly a book on Gen. Stillwell,I do recall the chinese seemingly having alot of divisions<large brigades>of wildly varying quality.
Also the japanese had to devote signicant effort into protecting their supply lines from partisan activity,which is basically absent from WitP.
As for the Russians,they did leave a significant armoured force in the Far East to deter japan and mainly because the rolling stock to move Tanks vs Infantry was dramatic. Also the Tank models in the east were older etc.......gross numbers of tanks was not a Russian problem. Trained tankers,rolling stock to move them,at times fuel to propell them was a very significant problem.
As to the OOB depends alot on who you read and what you put credence in doesn't it? We have already found some problems with the U.S and NZ forces and we have good documentaion on them. Any China OOB is alot of guesswork. I do think there are alot of local warlord forces that are not represented at all who killed their share of japanese.



Rossj -> RE: Mogami's last attempt. (1/23/2005 12:02:21 AM)

I agree with you...the solution for china is not to limit a possible japaneses offensive, but to beefup the garrison requirements and if the IJA player fails to meet garrison requiremnts, then have some profound negative consequences...maybe nothing more than locking troops into garrison unless replaced by an appropriate number of troops. Similiarly, there should be garrison requirements through the conquered areas save indo-china and pacific islands...if the IJNs move into india the vast populations will have to be controlled and its going to take garrison troops to do it. Plus the western half of india could be off-limits to IJA troops thus allowing the Brits to mount a counter offensive...a similiar thing could be done in the soviet far east...



pry -> RE: Mogami's last attempt. (1/23/2005 12:32:36 AM)

Whoa.... Hold them horses there folks... [:-]

The files I sent Mogami are nothing more than a tool for him and I to test what would happen if the Chinese army was represented closer to its approximate (according to additional research) actual strength... and its effects to the game and balance. I did not add any additional supply so that the Chinese would be kept fairly static due to lack of supply and could not entertain *any offensive thoughts* at the same time.

If it helps to recreate the China stalemate great... but this is not an official change after we test this some and if it produces the desired results then sure we will ask if we can make the tweak to the official game files but for now it is simply a "What If" for testing and discussion purposes... Mogami will share the results of his tests with you all I would imagine.



moses -> RE: Mogami's last attempt. (1/23/2005 12:47:35 AM)

quote:

You have basically proposed the old land combat system. There is a reason it was gutted, it didn't work. Please stop thinking you have proposed a functional solution, it is not. Been there, Done that. Ron who likes to complain can tell you all about the 20 minute dash down to Singapore due to sped up combat. Not to mention Hong Kong folding shop in one turn and PI being completely gone in '41.


I've proposed a number of things but mostly I've presented a constant stream of facts which demonstrate a clear problem, which explains why land combat is skewed in every theater on the map.

I don't pretend to know every answer. But knowing what the problem is begins the process of solving it.

Am I wrong in the very specific critiques of the combat system that I have made in this thread? If so tell me. I am a quite reasonable person. Am I wrong in my view that the ability to conquer China with less than 10,000 casualties indicates a problem? Am I wrong to think that eliminating Russia in two months with very low losses indicates a problem? Am I wrong to think that the ability to invade an island against opposition and then within a week move on to the next island because you unit did not take a single casualty indicates a problem. Am I wrong to think a lightning race through Burma indicates a problem? Am I wrong to think the ease in which some players invade India indicates a problem? If yes on any of these let me know. Present a case. Use a fact.


The problem is that these operations are all conducted without cost. You can conduct them for very very low losses and not much more supply than it would cost to sit quietly. Which means that you have the resourses for any crazy operation you want. Its all free.


BTW I have not proposed speeding up combat. I have persistantly proposed slowing it down. You confuse higher kills with speed. What I have proposed slows combat by adjusting the ratio of kills in favor of the defender. Right now loss rates of 100 to 1 kills are the norm in ground combat when the defender is retreated. Adjusting this downward
slows the attacker. Reducing retreat losses obviously helps the defender. Other things I have proposed all slow the attacker slightly.

Anyway anyone look at my third paragraph above and tell me where I'm wrong.



moses -> RE: Mogami's last attempt. (1/23/2005 12:50:57 AM)

If you double the supply requirement without adding supply I think you are going to starve.



Tophat -> RE: Mogami's last attempt. (1/23/2005 1:46:42 AM)

Frag,
Cutting to the chase here is there anything currently planned that will tweak the land combat system to produce more casulties? Reduce moral? Increase & prolong disruption? Or in anyway address what moses has broughtup regarding the land combat system?
If the answer to the above is "no",then is there any point to raising this issue?



timtom -> RE: Mogami's last attempt. (1/23/2005 2:16:14 AM)

I haven't got WITP yet, and must confess that certain of the game's features (read: ground combat) is giving me second thoughts about buying it and sinking the better part of my available gaming time into it.

To my mind, the main weakness of UV - a game that I have enjoyed tremendeously - is the ground combat model. I gather that the WITP ground model is basically the same as in UV. Purely annecdotally, in my most recent game, I had eight regiments and three battalions wiped out on Lunga. It cost my opponent less than 23 VP's worth of destroyed troops, in the 13 days of gruelling combat it took him to achieve the dread 2:1 odds. However, over the week following the fall of Lunga, my air force destroyed the same number of Japanese troops (if VP is anything to go by) as the Marines had done at Lunga - but that's another story! Just before surrendering, the worst bashed up Marine regiment had a load cost of 4,118, or 213 down from full strength. Disruption, however, was total, and combat power nil.

I think it's great that troops degrade - and fast! - in combat, but it seems to me that because ground combat causes disruption rather than destruction, it creates a "winner takes it all" situation: Combat will disable many squads but destroy few until whoever is the stronger forces a 2:1 attack. Then the loser is utterly destroyed, and the winner is left with tired but otherwise hale troops.

Is the late-war Japanese strategy of bleeding the Americans possible in WITP? Will there be any Iwo Jima's?



Tophat -> RE: Mogami's last attempt. (1/23/2005 2:31:22 AM)

timtom,
I find the game alot of fun thats the bottom line. As regards the combat problems....personally attacking Russia I find rediculous in a game called War in the Pacific. Its there if you want to try something like that,but if you do make certain you're opponent knows that going in. In the vast majority of WitP games this ain't gonna happen.
In regards to China if the Japs want it bad enough and get no bad breaks seems moses has shown it can be done. Now does this translate to a broken combat system? Different countries,different forces<moral,#guns,#squads,experience>out there. Yea,I have had the bums rush and roll happen to me in China.....i've also kicked the crap out of Jap advances in the PI and Malaya. And as the japs i've been smacked,slowed in a drive for Singapore. There are alot of variables involved and we haven't thrown in airsupport or naval gunfire.
Buy the game.....its well worth it!!!!!!!!!!!!

p.s...... Make afew house rules......1) NO JAP INVASION OF RUSSIA
2) No Jap offensive in China proper till after the Fall of singapore.
3) Only transfer to other fronts if you pay the prestiege points to do so!

have FUN!



WiTP_Dude -> RE: Mogami's last attempt. (1/23/2005 2:41:30 AM)

I think it should be ok to invade Siberia but the scenario just needs to have a more realistic order of battle. Plus some winter combat effects would be nice but that's probably wishful thinking at this point.



moses -> RE: Mogami's last attempt. (1/23/2005 2:41:35 AM)

Timtom:

You're paragraph 3 sumerizes the problem very well.

Iwo Jima will go just as you expect. The allied divisions land and fight what appears to be a bloody battle. Eventually (hopefully) they wear down the Japanese units and they are defeated. So far so good until you check out the allied force. A bunch of disabled units but otherwize very close to full strength. The allies dump some supply there, make sure they have proper support in place and boom you have a full strength ready to go unit.



WiTP_Dude -> RE: Mogami's last attempt. (1/23/2005 2:46:38 AM)

You will probably be a little disappointed with the ground combat in this game. The other parts though work a lot better, like air combat and logistics. If you just basically want to play around in the Pacific with boats you should be fine. If you want a realistic simulation of Japan making a big push somewhere in Asia, you'll see that the ground combat system is lacking.



Tophat -> RE: Mogami's last attempt. (1/23/2005 2:53:33 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: WiTP_Dude

You will probably be a little disappointed with the ground combat in this game. The other parts though work a lot better, like air combat and logistics. If you just basically want to play around in the Pacific with boats you should be fine. If you want a realistic simulation of Japan making a big push somewhere in Asia, you'll see that the ground combat system is lacking.


Play around in the pacific with boats? Firstoff the game is called War in the pacific not Banzi Barbarosa. Secondly I don't seem to findit the foregone conclusion sadly lacking simulation you seem to imply.



WiTP_Dude -> RE: Mogami's last attempt. (1/23/2005 3:00:49 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tophat

Play around in the pacific with boats? Firstoff the game is called War in the pacific not Banzi Barbarosa. Secondly I don't seem to findit the foregone conclusion sadly lacking simulation you seem to imply.


No, the ground combat system, especially when it comes to large land warfare situations, is lacking. In your experience, how has ground combat worked in Asia for you? As for the "playing around in the Pacific with boats", this is obviously a badly done attempt at humor. [:)]



Tophat -> RE: Mogami's last attempt. (1/23/2005 3:25:38 AM)

No problem,I just thought you might be getting more than abit disheartened by locking on to the China problem and what I honestly do consider the Russian exploit. Where are all the russian tanks? Where is all the artillery? Not to mention NKVD formations and Militia they could easily draft. The NKVD dfats people and you have a mass of field fortifications erected. And my big bugaboo that could help alot with any combat rush tactics....and that is "WEATHER EFFECTS"!!!!
In china i'll grant you the japs can just do the bums rush and roll the chinese back. Chinese have inferior units,#guns,morale,then take away their supply and it magnifies. We'll have to see what the 100 prepoints brings to the equation. The fact that you really don't need to worry about partisans cutting jap supplylines is also a problem. I also think the chinese should startout well entenched in all cities they occuppy and get a moral benefit for defending in them as well.
Now in Malaya i've been rebuffed as the japs in my drive to Singapore. I have also had Dutch units holdout longer than they have had any right to. I have halted the Japs on land in the PI!

Do I want more "lasting" casulties to attacking formations.........short answer YES.
Do I think there are more supply,moral,experience and disruption variables in the land combat formula than you and moses are painting in a China example? yes
Do I find the game entertaining and absorbing ....... YES
Do I want more people to buy it? YES



Mr.Frag -> RE: Mogami's last attempt. (1/23/2005 3:53:13 AM)

quote:

Now in Malaya i've been rebuffed as the japs in my drive to Singapore. I have also had Dutch units holdout longer than they have had any right to. I have halted the Japs on land in the PI!


Thats kinda the whole point, the system works quite nicely as it sits ... some folks are wrapped up in the 1.0 OOB which has an extremely wimped China to prevent the majority of Allied players (which is what most people who buy the game want to play) from kicking Japan out in '41 against the AI.

Troop grade in China is so poor that unless the Japanese player is hopeless, they will clean house as it was not meant to be a focal point of the game. Nor was Russia. Some folks want to change that and make it the focal point as a path to victory. 1.4 toughened the troops up, but they are still nowhere near historical values. Looks like 1.5 will just make it harder once again then Japanese folks will be complaining about China & Russia invading Japan in '42 [:D]



Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.71875