Slitherine

quote:

I am beginning to think that one of the flaws of stacking limits is that the Japanese can mass tanks in China (any other places early in the war) and pretty much blow through any stack of defending infantry. At least in stock the Chinese could over mass infantry as a response. But now if a hex has say, a 40,000 limit. Then the Japanese player can create a kill stack of tanks and using air support pretty much defeat any key position. I am seeing it in this game and to some extent in my game. What do you think Nic?

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

I am beginning to think that one of the flaws of stacking limits is that the Japanese can mass tanks in China (any other places early in the war) and pretty much blow through any stack of defending infantry. At least in stock the Chinese could over mass infantry as a response. But now if a hex has say, a 40,000 limit. Then the Japanese player can create a kill stack of tanks and using air support pretty much defeat any key position. I am seeing it in this game and to some extent in my game. What do you think Nic?

quote:

ORIGINAL: veji1

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

I am beginning to think that one of the flaws of stacking limits is that the Japanese can mass tanks in China (any other places early in the war) and pretty much blow through any stack of defending infantry. At least in stock the Chinese could over mass infantry as a response. But now if a hex has say, a 40,000 limit. Then the Japanese player can create a kill stack of tanks and using air support pretty much defeat any key position. I am seeing it in this game and to some extent in my game. What do you think Nic?

I think it proves to for every measure there is a counter measure : the Japanese, by massing tanks and arty can grind through the Chinese and eventually fracture the front to crush them. BUT and to me this is a big but, in this case it meant for greyjoy renouncing using his tanks anywhere else including India.

So with SL the Japanese can still crush the Chinese, but it should take them more time, burn more supply, and force them to leverage more out of their quality advantage (tanks, arty) than without SL. Still a net plus for me in terms of realism/game play.

And getting rid of the death stars is just so much nicer for the feel of the game.

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton
I am beginning to think that one of the flaws of stacking limits is that the Japanese can mass tanks in China (any other places early in the war) and pretty much blow through any stack of defending infantry. At least in stock the Chinese could over mass infantry as a response. But now if a hex has say, a 40,000 limit. Then the Japanese player can create a kill stack of tanks and using air support pretty much defeat any key position. I am seeing it in this game and to some extent in my game. What do you think Nic?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sangeli





I see these sort of sentiments reiterated time and time again but they are objectively false statements. As China with the SL you can get around 1000 AV into any hex with a 35k stacking limit. If you have well rested units with decent supply and morale which is certainly achievable, that 35k stack sitting in 3x terrain is going to be a brick wall in the face of a Japanese attack. Air support will have very limited effect in terrain and as Greyjoy mentioned tanks also have their issues. Japan cannot win the war if it continuously launching attacks with 1-2 assault odds in heavy terrain and a 1000 AV stack is going to hold up very nicely in those sorts of battles. China can be ground to death even against a good player if it doesn't have supply but that requires a long sustained effort and even then nothing is guaranteed. Chinese squad production and unit regeneration is tough to match.

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sangeli
I see these sort of sentiments reiterated time and time again but they are objectively false statements. As China with the SL you can get around 1000 AV into any hex with a 35k stacking limit. If you have well rested units with decent supply and morale which is certainly achievable, that 35k stack sitting in 3x terrain is going to be a brick wall in the face of a Japanese attack. Air support will have very limited effect in terrain and as Greyjoy mentioned tanks also have their issues. Japan cannot win the war if it continuously launching attacks with 1-2 assault odds in heavy terrain and a 1000 AV stack is going to hold up very nicely in those sorts of battles. China can be ground to death even against a good player if it doesn't have supply but that requires a long sustained effort and even then nothing is guaranteed. Chinese squad production and unit regeneration is tough to match.

Don't know what sort fantasy campaign you have played in China but with India invaded and no air bridge to China there is no such thing as well rested, high morale, well supplied Chinese units. There is literally no supply in China other than the 200-300 light supply manufactured in Chunking, Sian, Chentu and Kumming. Not enough to fully supply one very strong stack. With no supply Chinese units "do not" take replacements and you can't afford them anyway because they burn supply. And, morale and disruption is much slower to recover. It is impossible to build forts. Yes, units regenerate in Chungking but they come back with low morale and absolutely zero heavy weapons. Which makes them helpless. In fact, once Chungking is under siege the returning troops can be a liability as they help eat up what little supply there is. My opponent is very good at destroying the bulk of units and then isolating them so that they do not return to play, but frankly they come back so weak that I don't really think it matters. Against low morale, low supply units Japanese air support has a devastating effect in any terrain, as a very heavy bomber attack will majorly disrupt low supply units making them helpless for the follow up attack.

At this stage of the game, I consider a good defensive stack to have only 1/3 disrupted units (yes they count against stacking) with 50% supply. And, that can only be done if there are some quite sectors where the units have zero supply. Once Chinese ground units take a loss and retreat, they are pretty much our out of devices and even if they recover will be much weaker. Some AFB correct me if I am being objectively false here....

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sangeli

I am only arguing with the claim that the Japanese have the ability to take any key position irrespective of the state of the Chinese forces with stacking limits. Your original post implies that even under ideal defensive conditions that the Japanese can force the Chinese back from any hex with stacking limits in place. It was not qualified by any statement about the status of the Chinese forces; it was an absolute statement. Moreover, the focus on your post was centered on the effects of the stacking limit instead of the weaknesses of the Chinese. As a result, I still feel confident and saying it is objectively false to say that with stacking limits the Japanese can take pretty much any key position.

So really what I think you are trying to say is that if China is isolated from India then China is likely going to get crushed irrespective of the stacking limit. This is a very separate issue than what you brought up earlier. And I mostly agree on your analysis of China without supply.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sangeli

I am only arguing with the claim that the Japanese have the ability to take any key position irrespective of the state of the Chinese forces with stacking limits. Your original post implies that even under ideal defensive conditions that the Japanese can force the Chinese back from any hex with stacking limits in place. It was not qualified by any statement about the status of the Chinese forces; it was an absolute statement. Moreover, the focus on your post was centered on the effects of the stacking limit instead of the weaknesses of the Chinese. As a result, I still feel confident and saying it is objectively false to say that with stacking limits the Japanese can take pretty much any key position.

So really what I think you are trying to say is that if China is isolated from India then China is likely going to get crushed irrespective of the stacking limit. This is a very separate issue than what you brought up earlier. And I mostly agree on your analysis of China without supply.

It might be 1000 AV, but it's 1000 AV with an anti-armor rating of 5, and anti-soft of 12. And morale is largely a function of supply. Even if you're right theoretically crsutton's point is what matters in the game. Supply rules all. China ain't got some.

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton
I am beginning to think that one of the flaws of stacking limits is that the Japanese can mass tanks in China (any other places early in the war) and pretty much blow through any stack of defending infantry.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sangeli

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sangeli

I am only arguing with the claim that the Japanese have the ability to take any key position irrespective of the state of the Chinese forces with stacking limits. Your original post implies that even under ideal defensive conditions that the Japanese can force the Chinese back from any hex with stacking limits in place. It was not qualified by any statement about the status of the Chinese forces; it was an absolute statement. Moreover, the focus on your post was centered on the effects of the stacking limit instead of the weaknesses of the Chinese. As a result, I still feel confident and saying it is objectively false to say that with stacking limits the Japanese can take pretty much any key position.

So really what I think you are trying to say is that if China is isolated from India then China is likely going to get crushed irrespective of the stacking limit. This is a very separate issue than what you brought up earlier. And I mostly agree on your analysis of China without supply.

It might be 1000 AV, but it's 1000 AV with an anti-armor rating of 5, and anti-soft of 12. And morale is largely a function of supply. Even if you're right theoretically crsutton's point is what matters in the game. Supply rules all. China ain't got some.

Let's go back to crsutton's original post:

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton
I am beginning to think that one of the flaws of stacking limits is that the Japanese can mass tanks in China (any other places early in the war) and pretty much blow through any stack of defending infantry.

So we agree the issue is supply and not stacking limits?

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Not necessarily. The supply situation actually is spot on. If Japan had seized Ledo and pushed China hard the same thing would have happened. The issue is the relative immunity of tanks from the defensive efforts of infantry that do not have much of an anti armor value. You can just use a tank only force and even with 1-2 attacks you will eventually break a stack. However, if you were to mix any infantry with your tanks, your infantry will suffer. It is just a game mechanism. This works as well for Allied tanks later in the war. I have at times attacked Japanese infantry with tank regiments at 1-3 and 1-4 odds and not taken any casualties. I did some extensive testing many years ago and even if the defending hex has AT assets such at a unit or two of 37 mm AT guns, the tanks still don't take much of a hit. The game plan is to mass tank regiments without infantry in a single hex and then just pound your way through. Supported by massive air, the strongest Chinese stack will eventually crack. Under the old system without stacking limits you could at least pile up enough units to stop this. With stacking limits you really can not. This by no way means that I am not a fan of stacking limits. I was just pointing out in my post that if the one player uses this tactic then stacking limits actually hinder the other player rather than help them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: leehunt27@bloomberg.net

I like what I see in China Greyjoy and also what a fantastic 1-9 defense on Nauru! That's the best feeling as a Japanese player. Stopping an amphibious landing cold. Hope it gains a couple months... How is your land based airforce for the next Allied amphibious target?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sangeli


Let's go back to crsutton's original post:

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton
I am beginning to think that one of the flaws of stacking limits is that the Japanese can mass tanks in China (any other places early in the war) and pretty much blow through any stack of defending infantry.

So we agree the issue is supply and not stacking limits?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

In Asian continental warfare, where the game engine has always been weakest, I think SLs don't help and add a huge amount of complexity and clicking. More maneuver, swapping units in and out of defensive lines, etc. when the basic truth as above still exists--SLs remove capability from both sides at the same time in the same ratio. You end up working harder, but you end up in the same place in, say, China, over time. You work harder because SLs force, still because of the supply variable, much more swapping in and out, which in the engine is a lot of clicking and squinting. It looks like you're stretching out the inevitable, but you really aren't since the supply issue is consistent. It looks like you're making the campaign longer in part because many Japan players don't use their tanks as crsutton describes. But if they do the Chinese, SL or no-SL, are going to be a weak infantry balloon with no AT capability. They're going to break, rout, and take immense casualties with or without SLs.

Which is why in both of my PBEMs I've just cut out the middle-man in China. Run away, either out of the country or to Chungking. Cut out thousands of clicks. It's where you're going to end up anyway against a good player like Lokasenna. In our game it's February 1943, I have Chungking, it has Level 6 forts after about ten attacks, and half the Japanese army has been tied down there for a year. And my mouse finger is thankful.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

I disagree;

in modern warfare, you don't just put all hundred thousands troops in one hex and start advancing..

If you see this map from Desert Storm, and it is hard to argue there had been a more overwhelming "more guys, planes, tanks" in history.
You can see that the troops still spread out quite a bit. probably for good reasons, maybe it has to do with too many troops too little space for proper maneuvre.. but I am no military expert

To move all Chinese LCUs to Chungking and then have a 1 year siege against half the Japanese army looks a lot more medieval.
If that is the only tactic I have left to delay the inevitable conquest of China, then so be it... but it is not a good simulation of WW2

quote:

ORIGINAL: veji1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

In Asian continental warfare, where the game engine has always been weakest, I think SLs don't help and add a huge amount of complexity and clicking. More maneuver, swapping units in and out of defensive lines, etc. when the basic truth as above still exists--SLs remove capability from both sides at the same time in the same ratio. You end up working harder, but you end up in the same place in, say, China, over time. You work harder because SLs force, still because of the supply variable, much more swapping in and out, which in the engine is a lot of clicking and squinting. It looks like you're stretching out the inevitable, but you really aren't since the supply issue is consistent. It looks like you're making the campaign longer in part because many Japan players don't use their tanks as crsutton describes. But if they do the Chinese, SL or no-SL, are going to be a weak infantry balloon with no AT capability. They're going to break, rout, and take immense casualties with or without SLs.

Which is why in both of my PBEMs I've just cut out the middle-man in China. Run away, either out of the country or to Chungking. Cut out thousands of clicks. It's where you're going to end up anyway against a good player like Lokasenna. In our game it's February 1943, I have Chungking, it has Level 6 forts after about ten attacks, and half the Japanese army has been tied down there for a year. And my mouse finger is thankful.

Fair enough, SL make the game in China a lot more complicated, but they do still make it better in the sense that it feels and looks somewhat more like what a wargame should look like : no more arcade style deathstars just rolling forward, more plodding, more front stretching then pummeling of the weakest point. It makes it more of a grind, which from an entertainment value doesn't sound great, but feels more historical to me. I mean stretching out the ennemy so that you weaken their line and then crush through, isn't that was war has always been about, weather tactically or later in WWI or WWII setting operationally ?

The heart of the matter is that whether you put SL or not, the defeat of the Chinese (either wiped out or reduced to Chungking) is inevitable if the japanese player commits to it. SLs make the commitment required bigger in terms of focus, play time, quality of troops. It creates some form of a trade off. Better than before imo.

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

As time progresses and the Allies take control of the sea and air, Japanese LCUs become less important. It is a naval game and that is how the Allies win in the end.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

As time progresses and the Allies take control of the sea and air, Japanese LCUs become less important. It is a naval game and that is how the Allies win in the end.

Very true. With some help from 4es.

Not many AARed games with SLs have gotten to the late-war. Almost all of the discussion of SLs has been over China, with a little on India and Burma. I'm interested in seeing how they affect Sumatra and Java. Especially Java, with its excellent RR net.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

I disagree;

in modern warfare, you don't just put all hundred thousands troops in one hex and start advancing..

If you see this map from Desert Storm, and it is hard to argue there had been a more overwhelming "more guys, planes, tanks" in history.
You can see that the troops still spread out quite a bit. probably for good reasons, maybe it has to do with too many troops too little space for proper maneuvre.. but I am no military expert

To move all Chinese LCUs to Chungking and then have a 1 year siege against half the Japanese army looks a lot more medieval.
If that is the only tactic I have left to delay the inevitable conquest of China, then so be it... but it is not a good simulation of WW2

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrKane
Well actually I am right now fighting on Java Sep 1943, one IJA Division is sitting a cross 40 miles and is blocking my 9 US Division advances towards Batavia due to SL 30K and hex modifier 3x :) I have to fight it 1 Division vs 1 Division or go around. It does not look very realistic warfare model for me ;) It is the same sorry like for China with one difference defenders are well supplied, so it make almost impossible to take hex. As I remember GreyJoy meet the same problem, during our last game, in exactly the tame spot. He could not take hex and he organized amphibious operation behind my lines. Summarizing, with SL every well supplied hex with woods, hills, jungle become Monte Casino for attacker.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrKane

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

As time progresses and the Allies take control of the sea and air, Japanese LCUs become less important. It is a naval game and that is how the Allies win in the end.

Very true. With some help from 4es.

Not many AARed games with SLs have gotten to the late-war. Almost all of the discussion of SLs has been over China, with a little on India and Burma. I'm interested in seeing how they affect Sumatra and Java. Especially Java, with its excellent RR net.

Well actually I am right now fighting on Java Sep 1943, one IJA Division is sitting a cross 40 miles and is blocking my 9 US Division advances towards Batavia due to SL 30K and hex modifier 3x :) I have to fight it 1 Division vs 1 Division or go around. It does not look very realistic warfare model for me ;) It is the same sorry like for China with one difference defenders are well supplied, so it make almost impossible to take hex. As I remember GreyJoy meet the same problem, during our last game, in exactly the tame spot. He could not take hex and he organized amphibious operation behind my lines. Summarizing, with SL every well supplied hex with woods, hills, jungle become Monte Casino for attacker.