RE: Play Balance in China (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames



Message

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Play Balance in China (2/13/2006 6:37:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Manic Inertia

Hi everyone.

I know this thread fell off the cart a long while back, but I'm particularly interested in the topic of corps/army sized units being present in MWiF that aren't in WiFFE.

Am I right in assuming that it's been decided that the chinese are going to have extra warlords and/or territorials? Only, I was thinking, if there's gonna be more chinese cities, why not introduce 'Garrison Militia' armies for the new cities instead?

They'd be Movement 1, so contributing to the historucal stalemate scenario, they'd have crap strengths being Militia units and would be cheap and quick for the chinese to churn out, without presenting much more than speed-bumps unless slowly dragged 'into line'.

Please shoot me if this sounds daft -



Several ideas were presented and kicked around back in July/August for creating a better play balance in China. Partially this was due to the change to the unified scale, but also WIF proper always had a bias towards the Japanese. Historically, the Japanese stopped pressing the attack in China. As Harry Rowland commented, "WIF players never stop attacking in China."

I am of the school of minimal changes from WIF FE. So, there will be some optional rules which will be tried out during beta testing to see how well they work. The Chinese Warlords will be available. A few additional cities wil be added to China to facilitate supply. And lastly, unlimited breakdown into divisions.

Every time a corps is broken down into divisions, the corps unit will be placed aside into a new pool of broken down corps. They will not be returned to the force pool and cannot be rebuilt. If divisions are reformed into corps, then the reformed corps will be randomly selected from the broken down corps pool. I figure I will also have to add something about for every 2 divisions that are destroyed in combat, 1 corps unit will be randomly selected from the broken down corps pool and returned to the force pool. There will be not restrictions on the number of corps that a player can break down into divisions, other than the number of corps available. This capability will only be available to the major powers and not to any of the minor countries. As to the specific division types available for broken down corps, the WIF FE counter mix of divisional units provided for breaking down corps will be extrapolated to an infinite number, maintaining the ratio of unit strengths and movement points.



c92nichj -> RE: Play Balance in China (2/13/2006 6:44:42 PM)

quote:

Several ideas were presented and kicked around back in July/August for creating a better play balance in China. Partially this was due to the change to the unified scale, but also WIF proper always had a bias towards the Japanese. Historically, the Japanese stopped pressing the attack in China. As Harry Rowland commented, "WIF players never stop attacking in China."


Problem with the unified map scale is not only that the japaneese are able to kill China, which will be a lot easier than with the current map, it is also that if Japan does not kill China, China will kick Japan out of China.



lomyrin -> RE: Play Balance in China (2/13/2006 7:38:35 PM)

Unlimited Division breakdowns, even with the originating Corps placed in an unavailable pool, as opposed to the breakdown requiring divisions to be available in the regular force pool to draw from, changes the game quite a bit.

There will be many additional Japanese invasions in the Pacific and there will be Cruisers delivering Divisons to some area where they will be recombined, obviating the need for a Transport.
In Europe there will be many more combats where a Division instead of a Corps will be the lost unit which will accentuate the power of the dominant Power at the time.

In China it will in my opinion make the Chinese defense even more difficult since Japan will gain extra mobility to run around, and cut off, Chinese supply lines. Since Japan is more powerful than China and can better afford to use fewer Corps than China can, it will benefit Japan more than China. Additional Chinese cities might help alleviate that to some extent.

My past CWiF experiences are that China is more defensible without the extra Divisions.

Lars



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Play Balance in China (2/13/2006 7:43:32 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: lomyrin

Unlimited Division breakdowns, even with the originating Corps placed in an unavailable pool, as opposed to the breakdown requiring divisions to be available in the regular force pool to draw from, changes the game quite a bit.

There will be many additional Japanese invasions in the Pacific and there will be Cruisers delivering Divisons to some area where they will be recombined, obviating the need for a Transport.
In Europe there will be many more combats where a Division instead of a Corps will be the lost unit which will accentuate the power of the dominant Power at the time.

In China it will in my opinion make the Chinese defense even more difficult since Japan will gain extra mobility to run around, and cut off, Chinese supply lines. Since Japan is more powerful than China and can better afford to use fewer Corps than China can, it will benefit Japan more than China. Additional Chinese cities might help alleviate that to some extent.

My past CWiF experiences are that China is more defensible without the extra Divisions.

Lars



All of this was discussed back in July/August. The purpose of beta testing it is to acquire hard experience rather than opinions. For example, the addition of the Chinese Warlords should help China defend against the extra Japanese divisions. But I do not want to get into this again/now. We'll beta test the optional rules and then review it all with a lot more information available on which to base our judgments.



Cheesehead -> RE: Play Balance in China (2/13/2006 7:52:50 PM)

quote:

Problem with the unified map scale is not only that the japaneese are able to kill China, which will be a lot easier than with the current map, it is also that if Japan does not kill China, China will kick Japan out of China.


I'm of the opinion that it is easy for Japan to kill China with the current WiFFE map on the 2X scale.



SamuraiProgrmmr -> RE: Play Balance in China (2/13/2006 7:57:08 PM)

I cannot speak from experience but I feel that something needs to be done to maintain play balance in light of the new scale on the pacific map.

For what it is worth, I feel that the solution outlined by Steve is reasonable.

The only things I would add are:

There may need to be a restriction on how many divisions are allowed on the 'European' Map. This will maintain the status quo from the original game.

There may need to be a restriction on how often divisions may be split and recombined to prevent a 'rules lawyer' move of repeatedly splitting and combining divisions to gain an extra combat factor or two from the random choice of units when such activity happens. For example, a player could take two crappy divisions, recombine them and then resplit the corps to get two 'better' divisions.

Keep up the good work, Steve!




c92nichj -> RE: Play Balance in China (2/13/2006 8:36:03 PM)

quote:

There may need to be a restriction on how often divisions may be split and recombined to prevent a 'rules lawyer' move of repeatedly splitting and combining divisions to gain an extra combat factor or two from the random choice of units when such activity happens. For example, a player could take two crappy divisions, recombine them and then resplit the corps to get two 'better' divisions.


This is not allowed as far as I know. The player always lose whn rounding in the reforming step.

When you break down a corps or army, you can select any divisions from your force pools but their total combat factors can’t exceed half (rounding up) those of the corps or army you break down. So if I break down a 7-3 inf I can get a 2-3 inf DIV and a 2-5 MOT

When you reform you choose the corps or army randomly from the force pools. Keep picking until you find one that has combat factors less than twice those of the 2 divisions.
So the 2-3 Inf Div and 2-5 Mot can only become a a unit with less than 8 in ((2+2)*2)strength, which is 7.

If you break down a 6-3 inf you would get a 1-3 inf div and a 2-5 Mot div if you reform them you can miximum get a unit of strenght 5 (less than 6 2*(1+3))



c92nichj -> RE: Play Balance in China (2/13/2006 8:42:19 PM)

quote:

Since Japan is more powerful than China and can better afford to use fewer Corps than China can, it will benefit Japan more than China.

I totally agree with this, my point was that if Japan does not go after China, China will quicker become more powerful than Japan and the rule will benefit China.
So the effect will be that this limits Japans options, as the risk/reward for going after chine versus ignoring her will be bigger.
My experience of CWIF is that the war in China will be less of a stalemate and more of a mobile warfare, which japan is unable to afford after the war with the Wallies start, so there is a big incentive to kill China prior to getting into a war with the Wallies.



Manic Inertia -> RE: Play Balance in China (2/14/2006 11:45:52 AM)

There's more than one way to slow the japs down and promote a stalemate without leaving WiFFE too far behind; what about having more than one partisan zone in China? Historically, vast portions of Occupied China were held by geurillas, and the japs had to fortify and garrison loads of towns and villages well back from the front, to protect supply lines..

With more chinese partisans, together with the LiF/PatiF rule about combing PART into INF or MIL, as well as the presence of 'chinese friction' markers, I think a stalemate would be very difficult to avoid, wouldn't it?



c92nichj -> RE: Play Balance in China (2/14/2006 12:09:50 PM)

quote:


With more chinese partisans, together with the LiF/PatiF rule about combing PART into INF or MIL, as well as the presence of 'chinese friction' markers, I think a stalemate would be very difficult to avoid, wouldn't it?

Problem is that if Japan get stopped, it is to easy for the Chineese to be the big threat and able to drive the japaneese into the sea. Something needs to be invented that discourages both parties to attack. But I believe that we should see the result of this during the play tests.



YohanTM2 -> RE: Play Balance in China (2/14/2006 3:47:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: c92nichj


quote:

Something needs to be invented that discourages both parties to attack


Um, hold the horses. This game is a simulation of WWII not a walk through. The Pacific war is an important theatre and I have seen many Japanese players lose the game by overcommiting in China and having nothing left for the US. I have also seen Japan win via this strategy.

The important point is play balance not over limiting options.



Larry Smith -> RE: Play Balance in China (2/14/2006 8:34:31 PM)

How about limiting the stacking in a hex. One less corps/army. If you think about it, the Pacific map was twice the scale of the European map. Yet this just means that the front per hex on the PacMap is twice as long, and hence should have had twice the stacking of the European hexes (not four times, as one might think if considering the increase in area). Yet, the stacking on the PacMap was the same as the European map. If you think about the logistical difficulties both sides had in the theatre, the limit makes sense.
Now, you've blown up the PacMap to the same scale as the European map, the stacking should decrease to keep in line with what was present before (ie: the PacMap had half the troop density along the front lines).
One could always allow the stacking of an extra corps (ie: to EurMap limits) in and around cities (just for whomever controls the city). The excuse could be thataround the city there are more and better roads, and the local civilian population has been partially conscripted for logistical support by whomever controls the city. Thus the Japanese player would have a hard time as he is limited to 1 corps and 1 div per hex, but the Chinese controlling, say, Changsha, could have up to two corps and a division in the city and the hexes around it. This forces the Japanese to carefully plan his assaults. As the cities would often interfere with rail transportation of resources, there'd be no point in investing the force to sieze and hold said resources if they cannot be transported. The Japanese would need armour to strip away the defenses around a city before assaulting it directly. Once ensconced in the city, the Chinese would (what with the stacking limit now applying to them, plus their weaker units) not likely be able to mount an offensive to retake the cities. Finnally, combine that with a 1 hex reduction in the supply range of units in the Pacific (and not tracing from a rail line or a city), and suddenly, Chingking is out of reach without investing a considerable force. Could you see the Japanese player, limited to 1+1 stacking trying to take Kunming, which would have 2+1. This would also help the ChiComs hold onto Sian.
If you can keep the relative stacking (per two hexes) the same, I believe it would help. More than 1 hex from a controlled city, both sides would be under the same limit, so the relative force per hex would remain the same. A final note, I'd suspend this limit for the US. They did have a superior logistics system. Also, should the US player take the time to liberate China, the Japanese would be mostly OOS.



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Play Balance in China (2/15/2006 4:44:52 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Larry Smith

How about limiting the stacking in a hex. One less corps/army. If you think about it, the Pacific map was twice the scale of the European map. Yet this just means that the front per hex on the PacMap is twice as long, and hence should have had twice the stacking of the European hexes (not four times, as one might think if considering the increase in area). Yet, the stacking on the PacMap was the same as the European map. If you think about the logistical difficulties both sides had in the theatre, the limit makes sense.
Now, you've blown up the PacMap to the same scale as the European map, the stacking should decrease to keep in line with what was present before (ie: the PacMap had half the troop density along the front lines).
One could always allow the stacking of an extra corps (ie: to EurMap limits) in and around cities (just for whomever controls the city). The excuse could be thataround the city there are more and better roads, and the local civilian population has been partially conscripted for logistical support by whomever controls the city. Thus the Japanese player would have a hard time as he is limited to 1 corps and 1 div per hex, but the Chinese controlling, say, Changsha, could have up to two corps and a division in the city and the hexes around it. This forces the Japanese to carefully plan his assaults. As the cities would often interfere with rail transportation of resources, there'd be no point in investing the force to sieze and hold said resources if they cannot be transported. The Japanese would need armour to strip away the defenses around a city before assaulting it directly. Once ensconced in the city, the Chinese would (what with the stacking limit now applying to them, plus their weaker units) not likely be able to mount an offensive to retake the cities. Finnally, combine that with a 1 hex reduction in the supply range of units in the Pacific (and not tracing from a rail line or a city), and suddenly, Chingking is out of reach without investing a considerable force. Could you see the Japanese player, limited to 1+1 stacking trying to take Kunming, which would have 2+1. This would also help the ChiComs hold onto Sian.
If you can keep the relative stacking (per two hexes) the same, I believe it would help. More than 1 hex from a controlled city, both sides would be under the same limit, so the relative force per hex would remain the same. A final note, I'd suspend this limit for the US. They did have a superior logistics system. Also, should the US player take the time to liberate China, the Japanese would be mostly OOS.


Larry,

There are a lot of things taken into considerationwhen creating a game. You have mentioned several of them in this post. There are dozens more (integrated artillery, officer training, volunteers/drafted soldiers versus career soldiers, ...). I do not know what ADG took into consideration when they created WIF. At this point, I am not in a position to revisit all of their decisions in regard to stacking limits. Rather, my task is to implement the WIF FE. In doing so, I have agreed with (and strongly support) the decision made back in 1996 to have one map with a unified scale. In accordance with that decision, I am also simply applying the WIF FE stacking limits for the European map to the rest of the world.

As you can see from your own analysis of what should be considered when designing stacking limits, it neither simple nor straightforward. To undertake a revision to this fundamental element of the game design is "out of task" for my job description.



cinsulan -> RE: Play Balance in China (2/15/2006 7:04:34 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL:
How about limiting the stacking in a hex. One less corps/army. If you think about it, the Pacific map was twice the scale of the European map.


Which is why, I assume, most of the JAP and CHN units are larger in size e.g. Army vs Corps.



Manic Inertia -> RE: Play Balance in China (2/17/2006 11:59:22 AM)

I've played a coule of hex based games over the years where the stacking limit varies according to terrain ..

I always wondered why some hexes didn't have a one corps restriction in them in WiF .. I mean, can you picture 160,000 troops setting up in and around Rekjavik, or a chunk of Baffin Island or the roadless mountains of outer Pigsbumistan?



buckyzoom -> RE: Play Balance in China (2/17/2006 5:32:34 PM)

I like the idea of play testing Steve's implementation and making recommendations from there.



Froonp -> RE: Play Balance in China (2/24/2006 11:16:20 PM)

quote:

Which is why, I assume, most of the JAP and CHN units are larger in size e.g. Army vs Corps.

I'm not sure it is true for Japanese or Chinese units, but I know that for Russian units for examples, the term "Army" used to designate WiF Russian units is just a term, and designated an assembly of mens & material equivallent to an US of CW Corps.
What I mean is that an USSR Army is somehow equal to an US Corps.

I think (or suppose) that it is the same for Japanese & Chinese armies, and I think that this is not related to the scale of the Asian / Pacific map.

Cheers !

Patrice



Caranorn -> RE: Play Balance in China (2/25/2006 2:41:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

Which is why, I assume, most of the JAP and CHN units are larger in size e.g. Army vs Corps.

I'm not sure it is true for Japanese or Chinese units, but I know that for Russian units for examples, the term "Army" used to designate WiF Russian units is just a term, and designated an assembly of mens & material equivallent to an US of CW Corps.
What I mean is that an USSR Army is somehow equal to an US Corps.

I think (or suppose) that it is the same for Japanese & Chinese armies, and I think that this is not related to the scale of the Asian / Pacific map.

Cheers !

Patrice


Actually I have to disagree. Soemwhere in the WiF documentation you will find how many divisions are supposed to be represented by each country's corps/army units. From memory (it's been a while since I took a look at this and I'm not sure where to look now), German coprs represent 3-4 divisions for most of the war. US British corps likewise. Soviet Armies represent more divisions (though one could argue that Soviet Divisions after 1941 were smaller then their western counterparts). Japanese and Chinese even more.

P.S.: I last looked at that data when I proposed a new campaign setup for Germany to counter the unrealistic France First strategy (100% of the German mobile forces were deployed east, a large percentage of infantry forces likewise...). I also looked at alternative Commonwealth and Soviet orders of battles at somepoint for which I must have used the Wif corps/army to real division ratios.



Manic Inertia -> RE: Play Balance in China (2/25/2006 3:31:18 PM)

I've gotta go with Froonp on this one: I don't know anything about the number of russian men in an Army, but I do know a bit about the Sino-Japanese War .. many of the formations designated as armies in China by the Japanese contained as few as 2 Divisions: for the Japanese Military Command at least, the term 'army' was more about administration and designated area than about the number of actual men in boots.



Caranorn -> RE: Play Balance in China (2/25/2006 7:03:40 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Manic Inertia

I've gotta go with Froonp on this one: I don't know anything about the number of russian men in an Army, but I do know a bit about the Sino-Japanese War .. many of the formations designated as armies in China by the Japanese contained as few as 2 Divisions: for the Japanese Military Command at least, the term 'army' was more about administration and designated area than about the number of actual men in boots.


But the question is what it represents in WiF. The different countries' corps/armies represent a varrying number of historical divisions.



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Play Balance in China (2/25/2006 7:55:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Caranorn

quote:

ORIGINAL: Manic Inertia

I've gotta go with Froonp on this one: I don't know anything about the number of russian men in an Army, but I do know a bit about the Sino-Japanese War .. many of the formations designated as armies in China by the Japanese contained as few as 2 Divisions: for the Japanese Military Command at least, the term 'army' was more about administration and designated area than about the number of actual men in boots.


But the question is what it represents in WiF. The different countries' corps/armies represent a varrying number of historical divisions.


Divisions are not all equal either. For example, Germany kept a lot of KaupfGroup (sp?) that were nowhere near their original full strength.



Mziln -> RE: Play Balance in China (2/26/2006 12:19:08 AM)

Kampfgroup

quote:

1.2 Scale

Units

A land unit represents an army or corps (optional division units represent smaller units, see 22.4.1 Divisions (AsA/MiF/PoliF option 2) and 22.4.2Artillery (AsA option 3)).


quote:

22.4.1 Divisions (AsA/MiF/PoliF option 2)

Asia Aflame, Mech in Flames and Politics in Flames include divisions. Treat any brigade size unit as a division.



Manic Inertia -> RE: Play Balance in China (2/26/2006 12:12:58 PM)

Yes, but Kampfgruppen were only formed towards the end, and even then only out of necessity, when there wasn't time or resources to reconstitute depleted or shattered divisions: the wehrmacht was more 'modular' than other armies, making it relatively easy for them to just cobble together these 'special' formations from the various remaining coherent battalions and regiments.



Hortlund -> RE: Play Balance in China (2/27/2006 3:26:15 PM)

A kampfgruppe is nothing but an ad hoc group put together for a specific task. They existed all througout the war. Think of it as a task force. It was quite common to break up a pz division for example and put a pz batallion together with a mot inf regt and a SP arty bat to form a fast-moving penetrating unit. For examples of this, look at how the pz divisions were used during Barbarossa.




Manic Inertia -> RE: Play Balance in China (2/28/2006 7:57:36 AM)

I stand corrected - the information I've got on the subject of kampfgruppe is obviously rather dodgy.

Also, could I please ask you to reconsider making that xenophobic sounding remark about Japanese in future entries? I have several japanese acquaintances, including an ex-girlfreind, and I can assure you it's in slightly poor taste and entirely inaccurate.



wfzimmerman -> RE: Play Balance in China (2/28/2006 5:06:53 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund

A kampfgruppe is nothing but an ad hoc group put together for a specific task. They existed all througout the war. Think of it as a task force. It was quite common to break up a pz division for example and put a pz batallion together with a mot inf regt and a SP arty bat to form a fast-moving penetrating unit. For examples of this, look at how the pz divisions were used during Barbarossa.




The other issue about kampfgruppen which was not raised in this discussion (unless I missed it in my scanthru) was step attrition, e.g. in SPI's War in Europe an "eliminated" or exchange combat result reduced a 6-5 INF div to a 1-5 KG. WIF has no step attrition counters. The "shattered" result is WIF's form of step attrition. Kampfgruppen are removed from the game entirely for a month, which makes sense given WIF's corps-level scale.



wosung -> RE: Play Balance in China (2/28/2006 6:03:29 PM)

The abstraction of attrition through removing whole corps-sized units for as long as nearly 3 months and the similar abstracted production system are the only aspect I just don't like in wif. No production numbers and loss numbers of tanks & aircraft.

It may be a necessary simplification for a board game, but not for a pc-game. In wif weak combat formations are substituted with zocs or with nothing. It's a sort of boardgame-Zen.

Especially air combat, which was highly attritional in ww2, doesn't feel right in wif. Also wif ground combat is quite abstract. (Think of the massive number of completely understrength divisions on both sides on the East front at the end of the war).

But that won't change because of all the implications for the game system.

Beside from that: this is a highly inspirating & entertaining forum.

regards

wosung




Cheesehead -> RE: Play Balance in China (2/28/2006 8:02:01 PM)

quote:

The abstraction of attrition through removing whole corps-sized units for as long as nearly 3 months and the similar abstracted production system are the only aspect I just don't like in wif. No production numbers and loss numbers of tanks & aircraft.

It may be a necessary simplification for a board game, but not for a pc-game. In wif weak combat formations are substituted with zocs or with nothing. It's a sort of boardgame-Zen.

Especially air combat, which was highly attritional in ww2, doesn't feel right in wif. Also wif ground combat is quite abstract. (Think of the massive number of completely understrength divisions on both sides on the East front at the end of the war).


Sounds like Hearts of Iron 2 is the game for you. HoI2 represents the details of production and incremental wear and tear of units and organization throughout the course of a units history...But WiF is a better game!



wosung -> RE: Play Balance in China (3/1/2006 10:42:10 AM)

nope: HOI is RT and therefore unplayable, esp. the air war. But basically you just cannot simulate six years of world wide conflict in real time mode - or at least can't do it without lots of AI for players help, simulating staff work, rules of engagement etc.

But even the 15? years old Gary Grisgby classics "War in Russia" "Second Front" and "Pacific war" do have more detailed production and wear and tear.

Problem is, how to add historical detail without make ww2 grand strategy unplayable (like the new Grigsby, War in the pacific)

And in the end for years now wif cwif and mwif seems to be the only worthwile efforts to simulate six years of world wide conflict.

Regards

wosung




Hortlund -> RE: Play Balance in China (3/1/2006 11:12:51 AM)

HoI and HoI2 are not real time, they are continuous time.

You can pause whenever you want, for as long as you want, and do whatever you want.

Your comments about the production model and wear and tear on units tells me that you have never really played and/or understood how HoI works.



Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.78125