Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Mogami's last attempt.

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: Mogami's last attempt. Page: <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Mogami's last attempt. - 1/23/2005 4:08:58 AM   
WiTP_Dude


Posts: 1434
Joined: 7/3/2004
Status: offline 		I think this argument is starting to run in circles so I have no comment.

(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 181
RE: Mogami's last attempt. - 1/23/2005 4:11:18 AM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Hi
We have several issues. Not all persons agree all the issues are issues or the basic cause.

I think the major problem is ease that a side can gain really good odds. When you have good odds in every battle and supply you are not going to lose troops. This is fine.
But an Army that is outnumbered 4 to 1 over all should not be able to get good (cheap) odds.

At the games start most of the Allied forces encountered by the Japanese are
1. Not ready
2. Not present in strength
3. Low on supply
4. Lacking support (air and naval)


The Allies should make their landings against Japanese force that are more prepared. (Or ALlied victories will be cheap and recovery fast)

But the game system is simple. Bring a vast herd (in supply) and you will win cheap battles. I don't think such herd building was feasable. China does not have the communication system Japan does behind the lines. China will take longer to mass troops and Japan should always be able to counter mass. Supply will prevent China from advancing or prolonged combat.
If they actually do fight. Japan will lose more troops then in the current games.


Soviets Navy in Far East 1941

22 destroyer and torpedo boats
135 motor torpedo boats
85 submarine
68 minesweeper
3 escort and patrol craft
50 armoured motor gunboats

I don't expect that these ships would do much against the Japanese however they would be quite welcome once they arrive at Dutch Harbor.

< Message edited by Mogami -- 1/22/2005 10:17:49 PM >

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 182
RE: Mogami's last attempt. - 1/23/2005 5:27:06 AM   
moses

 

Posts: 2252
Joined: 7/7/2002
Status: offline 		Ground combat at Chungking

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 322508 troops, 3392 guns, 46 vehicles

Defending force 299399 troops, 1603 guns, 70 vehicles

Japanese engineers reduce fortifications to 7

Japanese assault odds: 0 to 1 (fort level 7)


Japanese ground losses:
2356 casualties reported
Guns lost 87
Vehicles lost 6

Allied ground losses:
1049 casualties reported
Guns lost 28


Here is my most recent battle in Chungking. 2356 killed and 87 guns. There were a few other small actions and my troops were bombed a couple times as well but this is the bulk of it. I checked the VP loss report before and after. I lost 4 VP's which means 24 elements were lost!!! Less than 10% of the combat report losses translate into actual kills. This is for a force that was already starting to get a little ragged. Against a fresh force my losses would be less.

This issue applies to the whole map. It is not a China only issue.

(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 183
RE: Mogami's last attempt. - 1/23/2005 5:40:15 AM   
Tophat

 

Posts: 460
Joined: 8/6/2002
From: Cleveland,Ohio
Status: offline 		a less than helpful post removed.........nothin to see here,Mogami summed it up pretty.

< Message edited by Tophat -- 1/23/2005 3:59:18 AM >

(in reply to moses)
Post #: 184
RE: Mogami's last attempt. - 1/23/2005 5:42:36 AM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: moses

Ground combat at Chungking

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 322508 troops, 3392 guns, 46 vehicles

Defending force 299399 troops, 1603 guns, 70 vehicles

Japanese engineers reduce fortifications to 7

Japanese assault odds: 0 to 1 (fort level 7)


Japanese ground losses:
2356 casualties reported
Guns lost 87
Vehicles lost 6

Allied ground losses:
1049 casualties reported
Guns lost 28


Here is my most recent battle in Chungking. 2356 killed and 87 guns. There were a few other small actions and my troops were bombed a couple times as well but this is the bulk of it. I checked the VP loss report before and after. I lost 4 VP's which means 24 elements were lost!!! Less than 10% of the combat report losses translate into actual kills. This is for a force that was already starting to get a little ragged. Against a fresh force my losses would be less.

This issue applies to the whole map. It is not a China only issue.


The first time you do it, you get disabled and your fatigue and disruption shoots up.

The *next* time your losses are higher, fatigue again goes up, disruption again goes up.

The *next* time your losses go through the roof as your disruption is high (again more fatigue & disruption pile on)

This is the way the system is designed, to slow down combat ... you get one attack that is not devastating to either side ... then a nice spiraling escalation in abuse on both sides of the fence. The problem with the early OOB, the forces of China start *so* battered, they are not strong enough to cause this normal progression.

You counter this spiral with quality leaders, good supply, HQ bonuses, resting between attacks, etc.

(in reply to moses)
Post #: 185
RE: Mogami's last attempt. - 1/23/2005 5:47:43 AM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Hi, And your problem is? You lost 4 VP and the Chinese lost less.
If you were unable to even have a larger force your chance of winning would decrease.
Even with no Chinese forts you will need 2-1 odds to capture the base.
Against the correct Chinese OB you will not reach Chungking (at least not without massive Chinese blunders and even with them you won't reach it in 1942. )

This is an Operational Level game.

That means if you are able to bring the required force and supply you will win the battle.

That applies all across the map. Only inside the SRA early in the war can Japan be sure it has both the mass and supply to win.

The Allies when they come will bring the mass and supply.

From a game stand point only, the most important factors are: correct needs for mass and supply. The defender is going to suffer if the attacker does it right. The attacker is going to suffer where he miscalculates.
Where forces are even no movement will occur.

Here is how I see it.
There is a problem caused by 1 side being able to mass unrealistic forces.
Adjusting the combat system is not the solution because the problem will not exist when proper forces are in play.

In areas where this mass can be collected and brought to battle the results are correct (or close enough)

The above battle was just a skirmish. I see where the enemy reduces fort levels but then when I check no change has actually taken place. The above battle will never occur once the OB is fixed so I can't see using it myself as an example.

The only places where Japan can ever get those odds are isolate islands early in war and inside the SRA. The Japanese actually inflicted those type loses for that kind of price where they brought the mass.

The USAAF flying over Germany lost more men then the USMC and USN in the Pacific combined. It was not bloody compared to the loss the Japanese suffered.
THe really slow fighting was in places where the numbers were not overwhelming and where supply was an issue.

Prehaps the real problem is combat not requiring enough supply for the attacker how ever I see in my games that units with low supply do not achive the results the same units in the same condition but with surplus supply gain.
This too is fine. If Japan can send the required supply to China then even with the expanded OB Japan can win battles. It will just require more time to prepare the operations.

At Manila I was failing to advance because my units were low on supply. I brought in more troops and nothing improved. I withdrew several divisions and sent a major supply convoy and went from 0-1 odds to 6-1. (with the same units)

< Message edited by Mogami -- 1/22/2005 10:52:06 PM >

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to moses)
Post #: 186
RE: Mogami's last attempt. - 1/23/2005 5:48:45 AM   
moses

 

Posts: 2252
Joined: 7/7/2002
Status: offline 		One thing that bothers me is that its a lot of fun to play in China. The game is not that far from having it right. All that is needed is to make offensive actions against inferior forces somewhat costly as they were historically. In my game vs WITP-Dude were I to have actually lost a couple hundred squads I would not be sitting in Chungking right now. If China did not suffer quite so much from those devestating retreats it would have been even tougher for me to make progress. Finally if you did anything to slow my troops down just a little bit so his guys could catch there breath I think the game would be fully balanced.

China needs a little more supply. Not much maybe 300 more resourse pts somewhere. Then the game is perfect.

The attempts to instead upgun China worries me though because it does not solve the basic problem. What you will probably get is a brickwall in China behind which the Chinese will train their troops and gain morale. Then they will mass and Japan will be faced at some point with 40 double strength Chinese corps screeming down on some town. They retreat the local Japanese and the Japanese dominoes start to fall just as the Chinese do now.

(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 187
RE: Mogami's last attempt. - 1/23/2005 6:00:33 AM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Hi There are 2 issues that keep being confused as the same issue.

Issue 1
The OB for China and Soviets is incorrect.
I am not attempting to "balance" the game. The attempt to balance the game is what caused the problem in the first place.
Now because players don't want balance I am in favor or restoring historic accuracy.
Players are not interested in prewar politics or war politics only in capabilty.

Players think that offensive action in China was feasable. Since I think WITP is a great teaching/learning tool I think we need to find out. We can only find out by making China in WITP reflect China in 1941. Balance is no longer important. Where players wish a historic China all they have to do is leave it alone. The AI will not attack no matter what side it controls.
In PBEM a simple "leave China alone" rule works.

Japanese players who think they can win the game (war) by success in China are now completly free to try and will not be censured by me for trying. But they will face the actual situation and not one designed for the AI.

Issue 2
Is results of combat.
The better the attackers odds
The better his supply
The better his leadership,experiance,morale,prep

The fewer loss he will suffer in combat

The same is true for the defender.

This is intended.

If you can manage to gain great odds everywhere you go you will not suffer a great deal.

(and you are a really great operational level planner and manager of forces)

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to moses)
Post #: 188
RE: Mogami's last attempt. - 1/23/2005 6:09:39 AM   
moses

 

Posts: 2252
Joined: 7/7/2002
Status: offline 		Cool off Tophat. I'm just enjoying the debate and we're almost getting to the point where people will discuss the issue. People get sensitive about things and don't like when their baby is critiqued a bit but everyone wants the game to be better. We're all big boys and if I upset anybody to bad they can just give me the boot.

Its not an issue about China. China is just the freshest example of the ground combat problem. When they explain to me why I'm an idiot (which is quite possible) or just wrong I'll shut up. When I think they at least understand what I'm trying to point out I'll shut up. Eventually I'll just get tired of beating my head against the wall and then again I'll shut up.

Rest assured that I love the game otherwise I wouldn't spend so much time screwing around with it. You really can't call yourself a wargamer anymore if you don't own WITP.

(in reply to Tophat)
Post #: 189
RE: Mogami's last attempt. - 1/23/2005 6:16:57 AM   
Tophat

 

Posts: 460
Joined: 8/6/2002
From: Cleveland,Ohio
Status: offline 		If you'll note I had already removed the post in question.where after too much reading i was getting rather annoyed that WAr in the Pacific was being knocked for its ability to simulate...."LAND WAR IN ASIA"....sorry. And its not just you,seems alot of people have hopped on this idea and run with it.
We all knew going in that china was a problem and a gamey situation could develop....hence alot of "house rules" to try and get around this. The designers naive error,that "GAMERS" wouldn't seekout and exploit weakness to their advantage was shown clearly. Yes,they prevented Allied fanboys from routing the japs with China,but left the door wide for good Jap players to do the reverse.<note I gave you a compliment>

(in reply to moses)
Post #: 190
RE: Mogami's last attempt. - 1/23/2005 6:27:17 AM   
moses

 

Posts: 2252
Joined: 7/7/2002
Status: offline
quote:

Hi, And your problem is? You lost 4 VP and the Chinese lost less.


No maybe this is what you don't see. I'm complaining because I should have lost more. Its too easy for Japan to win in China. I think we both agree on this.

What I think I disagree with you on is the solution.

You seem to think the solution is a better OOB. Now I think OOB should be as accurate as possible but in this case it there are difficulties. When dealing with armies of vastly uneven quality it is very difficult to determine how strong to make these forces. I think you said 363 divisions or something close. I'm sure some of these were good divisions and I'm sure some weren't worth the food it took to keep then alive. What I'm saying is that especially in the case of the Chinese this is an especially subjective judgement. You really can't use WITP to prove anything about how a Japanese invasion would fare. it all depends on your judgement of the quality of the forces.

My view is that the problem in this theater as well as others is that the stronger army gets off to easy. Now I know that the stronger force is going to win but historically it also always takes casualties and uses lots of supply and these two things force the attacker to pay a price every time they fight. But in WITP this does not occur. The attacking side can fight long drawn out battles at almost no cost. This is what allows Japan to accomplish things like conquering Japan in 6 months or sweeping through Burma and India. Even in the SRA Japan is able to advance far faster than it could historically in large part because units are at full strength and ready to go days after heavy fighting that should have dibilitated the unit at least for weeks.

I truly believe that if the combat system is not modified a bit and you balance the initial situation in China by strengthining thier forces you really are going to have a problem 6 months down the line with a rampaging Chinese army.

(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 191
RE: Mogami's last attempt. - 1/23/2005 6:44:45 AM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Hi, My opinion is: Had China been a united country under a single leader, in control of a non corrupt system that followed orders they would have defeated Japan before 1941.

Now my opinion of the quality of Chinese forces is a result of their actual in war results.
After 1939 the Chinese won more battles then the Japanese. They massed larger forces and they defeated Japanese offensives. They defeated the Japanese even when the Japanese went all out.

With the correct OB WITP players will have 3 choices.

1. Leave China quiet no matter what side you control
2. Attack the Japanese and see what would have happened if China had been under the above leadership and control
3. Attack China and see what would have happened had Japan contiuned to try for military victory in China rather then isolation.

(The SRA was the source of Japanese material before the war. Only they were buying it. After they go into Indo China to cut off China the USA embargo is implaced. Among the Nations backing this embargo are the Netherlands. Japan can no longer buy oil. Thus the Pacific War begins. The Pacific War is an attempt to islolate China into submission because the Japanese Army is unable to defeat the Chinese after a full effort of 10 years. )

But the new OB in no way unbalances WITP unless the players decide that is the path they wish to examine. Such paths are perfectly valid and are still fun to follow unless of course your only concern is actually winning the game. This path (exploiting China for easy VP and an unlimited pool of units to redepoy) Should now prove more difficult.
In this I will be quite pleased. (I am Japan in 3x as many games as I am Allies)
China had caused WITP to go out of focus.

Land Combat is a by product of operational planning. Actual results are PFM except for who wins and who loses and why.

Land Combat in the Pacific is decided before it ever begins.

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to moses)
Post #: 192
RE: Mogami's last attempt. - 1/23/2005 6:51:14 AM   
WiTP_Dude


Posts: 1434
Joined: 7/3/2004
Status: offline 		OK, I am back.

Addressing some major points:

1. I don't think anyone here has an accurate Chinese OOB and TOE. Nonetheless by most estimates it is probably a lot bigger than what is currently in the game. The problem is that the Allied player will use this in an unhistoric manner. This is programmer/designer (Mr. Grigsby) issue. Given that this is a Pacific-centered game, 2by3 just didn't put that much time into thinking about China, India, and the USSR. Things like local warlords or India garrisons were never addressed. They just didn't factor these kind of issues into the game. Now it has to be handled through house rules or downsizing the Chinese OOB.

2. Attackers can really advance pretty quickly without operational pauses. Maybe some *pure* test can be done to check this out. Get a calculator and piece of paper and record actual combat losses, supply state, assualt numbers, ect. Sounds like a pretty boring chore but this will determine if the losses are way out of line with historical results.

3. Chinese supply is too low. How can Chinese units ever recover in time to stop an aggressive Japanese player? Trust me, I've been on both sides of this and an aggressive player can't be stopped. The Hump didn't get started until July 1942 but now the Allies have to make a major effort from day one to stay afloat. Most of those Chinese infantry squads replacements end up staying in the pool since there is not enough supply to make use of them.

4. Garrison requirements are probably too low. They are based on a purely arbituary formula that has little to do with reality. Again, 2by3 more or less said "close enough", this is WiTP not WiA.

5. The Soviets should be accurate and be given the correct equipment. Is there any reason why they shouldn't be? This is not an AI issue since they won't even be in the war until 1945 in that situation.

< Message edited by WiTP_Dude -- 1/22/2005 11:57:15 PM >

(in reply to WiTP_Dude)
Post #: 193
RE: Mogami's last attempt. - 1/23/2005 7:13:00 AM   
moses

 

Posts: 2252
Joined: 7/7/2002
Status: offline
quote:

With the correct OB WITP players will have 3 choices.

1. Leave China quiet no matter what side you control
2. Attack the Japanese and see what would have happened if China had been under the above leadership and control
3. Attack China and see what would have happened had Japan contiuned to try for military victory in China rather then isolation.


First the strength of the Chinese force is a subjective call. No one knows what the result of a different Japanese strategy would be.

Second given that noone knows what would have happened don't yoy think its sort of dumb to make a game and then change it so that successful outcomes are impossible.
I agree that China is too easy to defeat right now but why make it impossible.

quote:

But the new OB in no way unbalances WITP unless the players decide that is the path they wish to examine.


This statement is just incredible. Why not give China the a-bomb then. If the players exploit it its their fault. China will not have to "exploit" anything unless you think that attacking Japanese units is an exploit.

Attacking China is not an exploit, it is just players playing the game. They have divisions and they attack the enemies divisions!!! If when doing so they defeat the enemy this is not an exploit. This is called success.

(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 194
RE: Mogami's last attempt. - 1/23/2005 7:14:59 AM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Hi, From what I see. The Soviet OB's major error was thinking the Armor and Mech units were Bde and not Divisions. Also leaving 2or 3 of these out did not help.
(And I still want the airborne Bde just to really make the Japanese player stop and think......just leave a cuty in Japan with just a baseforce defending it )

China OB is tough. We know how many but not exactly where. I say just divide them up even. The Chinese player is stuck with his Corps being his main unit. (Everyone else gets to decide just how large a Corps is)

Now CHina does not have enough supply to create a lot of large forts in cities or large airfields but digging in to level 3 in a non city hex is cheap and not moving is cheap.
China will not be able to make an across the front offensive but should be able to keep enough supply for limited "reaction" forces.
Just dig in in front of and around supply cities to keep the Japanese off of them.
In the end China will have more supply then in current WITP but will also have a much increased supply demand.

< Message edited by Mogami -- 1/23/2005 12:15:17 AM >

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to WiTP_Dude)
Post #: 195
RE: Mogami's last attempt. - 1/23/2005 12:08:44 PM   
sveint


Posts: 3556
Joined: 1/19/2001
From: Glorious Europe
Status: offline 		I like ice cream.

_____________________________


(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 196
RE: Mogami's last attempt. - 1/23/2005 1:25:52 PM   
Jim D Burns


Posts: 4013
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Salida, CA.
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: moses

I agree that China is too easy to defeat right now but why make it impossible.



This statement smacks of Japanese fan boy hood. Let’s try to be fair to both sides when solving a problem. Japan fought China for 5 years before the games start date and FAILED to bring them to the peace table. Why on earth do you think it would be any easier after starting a world wide pacific war that drained massive recourses away from China?

We've all had a half strength China for so long, folks balk at the thought of depicting the true nature of the war in China, STALEMATE. By beefing up China, Japan is forced to put more thought into the theatre, but only a lazy Japanese player will suffer in China before 1944. If he spends considerable time focusing on the China theatre each turn he should not have any trouble there in my opinion. Ignore it and yes you might get slapped.

Japan has the eyes in the sky (recon) that allow him to keep track of Chinese redeployments and react in to them in a timely fashion. China has to react AFTER Japan has already committed forces to the attack due to their complete lack of recon assets. This alone gives Japan a huge edge, even with the beefed up Chinese. Then there is Japanese air dominance and the ability to bring in massive more airpower at will to support a large offensive when needed.

Japan can still do well in China, but things will slow down quite a bit in my opinion. I still think combat odds are way too low for victory. The 1st Marine division outnumbered Japan on Lunga by 3-1 or more for most of the fighting there, but it still took over 8 months to rebuild the shattered unit before it was committed to fighting in New Guinea.

Offensive operations during WWII were bloody affairs, and good planning, leadership, morale, etc. made no major difference to casualty rates. Casualties were horrendous for the attackers whether it was the 1st day of an offensive or the 30th. The fact most “Matrix” representatives on this board and beta testers defend the current combat system so vehemently dooms us to a broken combat system forever I’m afraid.

I think perhaps it’s a symptom of the fact most people involved in the games development seem to be naval enthusiast and lack real experience/interest in land combat history. It appears that land combat simply isn’t that important to them and they’d prefer not spending any development time on fixing the busted system. This is just my impressions after reading the many posts by those folks on this board. I can see no logical defense of the current system, yet they continue to say “there’s nothing wrong” and look to OOB changes to fix the problems we face.

Massive OOB changes are needed for sure, but land combat is still busted and needs a complete overhaul. I doubt we’ll get it though.

Jim

_____________________________


(in reply to moses)
Post #: 197
RE: Mogami's last attempt. - 1/23/2005 5:39:59 PM   
moses

 

Posts: 2252
Joined: 7/7/2002
Status: offline
quote:

I can see no logical defense of the current system, yet they continue to say “there’s nothing wrong” and look to OOB changes to fix the problems we face.

Massive OOB changes are needed for sure, but land combat is still busted and needs a complete overhaul. I doubt we’ll get it though.


Agree with this exactly except...

quote:

This statement smacks of Japanese fan boy hood.


Hey I'm been trying to make it harder on the Jap since the game came out!!!! I just play the Jap to show how screwed up the land combat is!! Next project is island combat!! Stay tuned.

(in reply to Jim D Burns)
Post #: 198
RE: Why are there no Chinese bases further than Sining? - 1/24/2005 5:50:23 PM   
Djordje

 

Posts: 537
Joined: 9/12/2004
Status: offline 		I don't attack China to get some points and win by AV, point are useless to me. I play this game because it is fun, and attack China because every allied player will deploy B-17 bombers in Chunking area in early 1942 and in few months destroy every HI, resource and oil in whole China, Hanoi and Taiwan. When this happens I will be forced to send supplies into the China instead to the other theaters, and all that will result in the game ending by Japans defeat by the end of 1943 at best.

In order to prevent this I will either have to send lots of airpower to China to surpress those airfields or I will have to occupy those Chinese bases. I have to send 4 or 5 Zero Daitais to counter AVG, and almost all land based bombers (Sallys and Helens) to keep all the Chinese airfields damaged enough so that they cannot launch bombing missions. Add to this lots of Nates and Oscars to defend all the industry and resources across China and Taiwan...
So in total i ties up almost all army fighters and bombers, and about half of the Zero squadrons (since I have to reserve some for training new pilots by disbanding units and waiting 90 days for them to reapear). I am not sure, but in reality I don't think that Zeros fought in China theatre in 1941.

This is the reason why I (and probably other people too) attack China, since I am forced to bring so much airpower into the theater, at least I am going to use it. With so much air assets tied in China I wouldn't stand a chance in the long run in the other theaters.

Since Allies are able to bring strategic bombers in China in early 1942 Japan has to have some possibility to counter this, without stripping other theaters from valuable air assets, in the first place Zero squadrons.

If you make China invulnerable to attacks but still able to support strategic bombers in early 1942 that is one more thing that will make Japanese player feel defenseless, as with Allied subs after 1.1.1943, 4E bombers that are main ship killers in 1942, autosupply routine problems in Japanese home islands, pilot training on map, respawning of allied ships all the way till the end of 1944 without any limit, so you can sink 9 US CVs and all 9 CVs will return... There are few other issues, list is quite long, and since it looks that free factory autoconversions will go into history too that will require several millions supplies more for Japan to repair factories, supplies that Japan doesn't have in the first place...

You have to be careful, world of WITP might soon run out of Japanese players.

(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 199
RE: Why are there no Chinese bases further than Sining? - 1/24/2005 6:08:50 PM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Hi, To carry normal loads B-17 require a size 6 airfield. They consume a lot of supply.
I'd just prefer to let the Allies use B-17 in China rather then have him use them against Kendari.

I want everyone to understand something very important. I am not suggesting we add anything to the Chinese or Soviets to make them stronger. I only want to add what was left out to begin with. If it did not exist in 1941 it will not be on the map in any scenario I design. If it was present it will be on the map.

< Message edited by Mogami -- 1/24/2005 11:10:46 AM >

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Djordje)
Post #: 200
RE: Why are there no Chinese bases further than Sining? - 1/24/2005 6:12:00 PM   
moses

 

Posts: 2252
Joined: 7/7/2002
Status: offline 		Also China is not so defenceless as some think. Right now you have 72 Corps vs 20 or so JP divisons. At the start a lot of the Chinese divisions are not where you would like them and have poor morale and experience. Over time however both of these problems correct themselves and this theater becomes much more balanced.

The key is to survive the initial Japanese onslaught which is difficult unless you practically have a PHD in WITP with a major in Land operations. But even in 1.3 it is possible for China to defend if he knows what to do. I would never play WITP_Dude again in China even in version 1.3. (Actually I might but I would expect to make nowhere near the progress that I have in our current game.) I would think playing him under version 1.4 would be a daunting challange.

A doubling of the Chinese Corps strength, as some have proposed, would make it virtually impossible for Japan to do anything, even very limited offensive as were historically possible. China can sit behind a rock solid defence and build experience and morale. Then once forts are all up to 9 and experience and morale are where you want them you mass 40 corps at a single point and just drive Japan out.

I really don't think it will be possible for Japan to hold the line against China much into 1943. But even if they do stop the Chinese onslaught you still have the problem of the allies supporting a mass bomber campaign from China.

Just my opinion.

(in reply to Djordje)
Post #: 201
RE: Why are there no Chinese bases further than Sining? - 1/24/2005 6:16:37 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		Moses this is probably what would have happened if Politics hadnt got in the way of the Chinese so thats fair enough.

Problem is Allied players will abuse this new strength to actually attack when they should not.....

Andy

(in reply to moses)
Post #: 202
RE: Why are there no Chinese bases further than Sining? - 1/24/2005 6:24:24 PM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Hi, Can you provide me with just 1 example of successfull Japanese offensive before 1944 directed at a Chinese held city that succeeded in taking the objective?

The 1944 offensive required the weaking of the Manchuria garrison. (The Soviets began movement of troops as soon as the Japanese began transfer but they did not attack untill 1945( but in WITP terms the Japanese still had the required garrison)
They then succeeded in taking the city of Changsha. But this was the 4th try since 1941

It required 3 years and a massive reinforcement to do what Japanese players in WITP do in 2 weeks. (The Japanese used 360,000 troops to take Changsha. Their offensive then stalled)

As I've pointed out before The AI will play the same.
2 humans can decide before they start how they want to treat the game.
If you want to beat up the AI either side it's your choice.
If you want historic behaviour in China versus the AI it's your choice.

If you don't like a scenario edit it to what you like.

There never has been any valid reason for anyone to post a complaint about OOB issues.
Just make them the way you want.

It is nice to post where the OOB is incorrect or something but to complain? In a game that requires 1000 hours to play I think if there was something I disagreed with I'd spend 1 or 2 hours making it conform to my idea.

(not directed at anyone personally)

< Message edited by Mogami -- 1/24/2005 11:33:36 AM >

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 203
RE: Why are there no Chinese bases further than Sining? - 1/24/2005 6:42:33 PM   
moses

 

Posts: 2252
Joined: 7/7/2002
Status: offline 		No, I'm not an expert on the war. The fact that they did launch a limited offensive in 44 and that some allied leaders thought China might collapse at various points does indicate some offensive capability.

But I'm not arguing with you that the game is too easy for Japan between to equally experience opponents. IT IS CLEARLY TO EASY FOR JAPAN TO MAKE EARLY PROGRESS. I'm not yelling here I just want to be clear that I AGREE WITH YOU ON THIS POINT.

The game clearly does not simulate the stalemate that existed for much of the war.

Where I may differ is in my view that it is not inconcievable to me that Japan could have made progress had they done things differently.

Is it possible that a great plan combined with an infusion of resourses and a willingness to take lots of losses might have allowed a successful offensive? I don't know the answer and I don't think it is really knowable although everyone can have their opinion. From a game perspective however I think that its better if both sides have some chance to do better than history.

I think greatly increasing the OOB strength of China will not give you the static equilibrium that you desire. It will in my opinion give you a stalemate in early 42 followed by a chinese romp through asia sometime in late 42/early 43.

(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 204
RE: Why are there no Chinese bases further than Sining? - 1/24/2005 6:49:31 PM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Hi, It will give you whatever you agree to.
If you say before you begin to keep quiet it will keep quiet. If you say free for all it will be a free for all.
Vinager Joe is the wrong person to use for Allied beliefs.
But then the Allies were so worried about China versus the Japanese they asked for 40 Chinese divisions to move to India. (in 1941 and they kept on asking)

Japan can still go on the offensive. But now they will have to be making a major effort.
They better prepare their units before they begin because in my mod the Chinese will be prepared and dug in (for defenese) The Japanese will also be prepared (for defense)
But I'll make the 4 Japanese Div that attacked Changsha in Dec 1941 100 percent ready to do that.

< Message edited by Mogami -- 1/24/2005 11:53:01 AM >

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to moses)
Post #: 205
RE: Why are there no Chinese bases further than Sining? - 1/24/2005 7:06:01 PM   
moses

 

Posts: 2252
Joined: 7/7/2002
Status: offline 		There will be no Japanese offensive. Give me double strength 4 division corps in China and the best player will not be able to take a single city of mine. You can add half the SRA divisions to Chian and it will make no diference. If he tries an offensive he will be crushed like a bug.

4 months later my troops will be rolling.---- I know ---I'm just gaming the system. I should know better than to use my divisions to take cities and stuff.

This is just a mod your doing ,correct?

< Message edited by moses -- 1/24/2005 11:14:47 AM >

(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 206
RE: Why are there no Chinese bases further than Sining? - 1/24/2005 7:43:34 PM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Hi, You do know you are not required to use any files you don't like. You can edit them yourself.

In the beginning WITP was a game about the Pacific War.

China had to be included for many reasons. It was a storehouse of Japanese combat strength
A supply source
And located between major areas of importance in Pacific War.
Japanese forces in China were included because they might be drawn apon for service elsewhere.

Japan was strong enough to maintain it's position in China and even improve it.

China was included as well but it was not made strong enough to bother the Japanese and it was thought they were able to hold enough to make China contribute to over all war without becoming the focus of the war.

Now the size of Chinese units was and remains a matter of designer balance. There is not data to support Chinese TOE for every Chinese unit compared to data for Japanese.
China will always reflect the designer of the scenario.

As far as I can tell the current scenario 15 is off by around 50 percent.
But it still does not make China a monster. The Chinese are tied to their supply sources
Before the japanese could take these away with ease.
Now the Chinese can defend them. They can defend them in hexes outside the city. This means the Chinese will be much harder to surround. And the japanese cannot stop supply production just by moving into the hex. The Chinese can throw all but major efforts out.

However a city that can support 1000 AV for example will fall if 2000 AV move there unless outside supply is on hand (because this 2000AV force would end up fighting like 500AV when it ran out of supply)

If the Japanese move a lot of supply close enough to where the Chinese can reach it and then do not defend it then I suppose the Chinese could make a larger offensive.

SInce both sides will start dug in and preped for the hex they are located in the battles will favour the defender and only spending time to prepare an attack will help off set this.

The Japanese can still move faster.
The Chinese will consume supply faster. This is only offset if they retian their supply cities.
If they move away from them and allow the Japanese to take them the loss to them will be larger then before. If they could not support the old OB they willbe in twice the trouble if they lose their cities now. (unless the scenario designers adds supply)

< Message edited by Mogami -- 1/24/2005 12:45:43 PM >

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to moses)
Post #: 207
RE: Why are there no Chinese bases further than Sining? - 1/24/2005 8:11:56 PM   
DrewMatrix


Posts: 1429
Joined: 7/15/2004
Status: offline
quote:

By beefing up China, Japan is forced to put more thought into the theatre,


In the game if you beef up China to about the numbers they had historically the Allied player will actually try to use those units. In Real Life the Chinese would fight defensively if pushed but were very reluctant to take the offensive, and certainly wouldn't help each other out (ie the Chinese should not be viewed as "one side" let alone the same side as the allies.

I presume The Management limited the Chinese OB just so the Allies would not launch a huge, coordinated offensive with all the Chinese working in concert with the SEAC Brit/Indians.

How about:

Lots more Chinese in the OB (up to the histgoric levels). That would make it harder for the Japanese to role up the Chinese.

But you have two different sets of VPs: The Allies lose the low (or even lower) numbers of VPs for troops killed by Japanese attacks but much larger numbers of VPs (maybe the same as US troops) if they lose a battle on offense than on defense? That would make "Mao" and "Chiang" willing to hold on defense, but make them husband their troops, not taking the offensive so they can use the troops against each other later.

The problem is you hardly ever lose troops on offense, though.

< Message edited by Beezle -- 1/24/2005 6:12:18 PM >

_____________________________


Beezle - Rapidly running out of altitude, airspeed and ideas.

(in reply to moses)
Post #: 208
RE: Why are there no Chinese bases further than Sining? - 1/24/2005 8:27:10 PM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline
quote:

Give me double strength 4 division corps in China and the best player will not be able to take a single city of mine.


Strength matters not without supply. China will be very hard pressed to do much as they are supply limited. Japan is not supply limited so they can choose the point of attack. That is *still* a very powerful advantage. Couple to that the fact that Japan has eyes in the skys and China doesn't and it still has the makings of some rude shocks.

(in reply to moses)
Post #: 209
RE: Why are there no Chinese bases further than Sining? - 1/24/2005 8:32:59 PM   
moses

 

Posts: 2252
Joined: 7/7/2002
Status: offline 		Plus the scary thing is its not only about VP's although that is important. Even without the VP's the ability to free up large japanese forces in China to go elsewhere is tempting.

quote:

The problem is you hardly ever lose troops on offense, though.


And thats the problem. Increase the attackers casualties just a bit and decrease the defender's just a bit. Just a little bit somehow. I think China would do OK with the changes already in place with 1.4.

But thats just my opinion.

Its not that easy in China. Dude is giving me a good fight. Had I just lost some troops in all those battles my offensive would have been long stalled.

< Message edited by moses -- 1/24/2005 12:33:23 PM >

(in reply to DrewMatrix)
Post #: 210
Page:   <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: Mogami's last attempt. Page: <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.984