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: Scenario 17 ... for your comments

 
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 >> Scenario Design >> RE: Scenario 17 ... for your comments Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Scenario 17 ... for your comments - 2/12/2005 11:09:07 PM   
pry


Posts: 1410
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Overlooking Galveston Bay, Texas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: moses


Overall free base supply is slowly rising. Started with 83,258 and checked after 8 days and it was 87,258. So in the long run this may not be a problem. In the short run I have lots of units that I'm afraid to send to fight.

Everywhere else in the game you start out with each unit having enough supply to meet its monthly non-combat supply requirement. I'm not sure why these units shouldn't be balanced out in a similar way. Unless the goal is to prevent China from counterattacking early on.


The goal was not to make the Chinese OFFENSIVE at all, I simply wanted to make them strong enough to defend against the Japanese should they chose to launch an offensive and not be steamrolled like they were previously, according to your report it looks like it is working along the lines I wanted it to.

The Chinese supply situation should be at best rotten that is historical, supply in the pink at bases should be the norm... keeping the Chinese rather static in their deployments. You should be able to move units to defend other locations, they should arrive beat up from the trip then slowly start regaining strength but never (well at least until very late war) have enough to launch an all out offensive of their own.

Good work Moses I appreciate the feedback...

_____________________________


(in reply to moses)
Post #: 31
RE: Scenario 17 ... for your comments - 2/13/2005 9:07:17 PM   
moses

 

Posts: 2252
Joined: 7/7/2002
Status: offline 		Just realised that I screwed up and had Changsa and Wuchow repairing resourses the whole game. I'm at 29 Dec and I guess at this point I've burned around 30,000 sp unnecessarily. Still free base supply has risen to about 100,000 despite this. It was helped by about 13,000 sp that I captured at Kaifeng.

Yenan still holds against 8 div and 4 ind bdes. I sent 3 extra chinese corps to the north. In the central region my counterattack took Kaifeng but fell short (though very close at Hsinyung. I also counterattacked at the city south of changsa but could not make progress. Still it looks like the Japanense player must be very careful shifting additional troops north as the center may suffer a rout.

Supply is a problem everywhere but the north. I have 5 or 6 corps now with zero supply. The route to Sien is now weak as all troops there are very low on supply and still out of position following the counterattack.

The theater is very strange as corps move across the map at light speed. A Japanese player will have to be very careful in PBEM as sudden counteroffensives are always a threat.

(in reply to pry)
Post #: 32
RE: Scenario 17 ... for your comments - 2/17/2005 9:57:31 PM   
BraveHome


Posts: 523
Joined: 11/9/2004
From: Tulsa, OK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: moses

OK I started but didn't get much done (just JP first turn) as I had a lot of PBEM to do last night and wife required maintenance.


I'm hoping this significantly improved morale without prolonged down time....

(in reply to moses)
Post #: 33
RE: Scenario 17 ... for your comments - 3/31/2005 8:14:50 AM   
scout1


Posts: 2899
Joined: 8/24/2004
From: South Bend, In
Status: offline 		How of curiosity, what were the conclusions drawn from this exercise ?

(in reply to pry)
Post #: 34
RE: Scenario 17 ... for your comments - 3/31/2005 10:11:51 AM   
Sneer


Posts: 2654
Joined: 10/29/2003
Status: offline 		Taking political situation in china and fact that chinase factions were preserving forces to fight each other(politics) I vote for creating static inf units in major chinase bases. it will keep cities secure and rest of units will be manouverable. China will be easier to defend and its counterattacking abilities will not go as high as in scenario proposed.

(in reply to scout1)
Post #: 35
RE: Scenario 17 ... for your comments - 3/31/2005 3:59:18 PM   
moses

 

Posts: 2252
Joined: 7/7/2002
Status: offline 		Honestly I got bored with it. The problem with the scenario is that the constraining factor is supply. And supply problem cause movement bugs in the game. I had several instances of Chinese stacks being unable to move at all despite the fact that no enemy units were present in their hex or the destination hex. Keep in mind that I was trying to withdraw toward friendly cities.

The problems with ground combat have nothing to do with OOB, they have to do with a problems in how ground combat is modeled. Hopefully some of these problems are being fixed in 1.5. To reiterate the problems with large land forces.

1.) Movement is too fast.
2.) Combat between large forces is too fast.
3.) Supply movement is to easy and too fast.
4.) Combat is a winner take all system. (retreated force losses heavily while the attacker losses very little.)

We'll see what 1.5 brings.

(in reply to Sneer)
Post #: 36
RE: Scenario 17 ... for your comments - 5/15/2005 2:43:21 PM   
Qwerty

 

Posts: 15
Joined: 5/12/2005
Status: offline 		Is this scenario still available?

I've tried downloading it but it appears to be a broken link on my end...

(in reply to moses)
Post #: 37
RE: Scenario 17 ... for your comments - 5/15/2005 5:23:42 PM   
Halsey

 

Posts: 5069
Joined: 2/7/2004
Status: offline 		Out of publication. It was a test scenario only.

_____________________________


(in reply to Qwerty)
Post #: 38
RE: Scenario 17 ... for your comments - 5/15/2005 8:22:28 PM   
pad152

 

Posts: 2871
Joined: 4/23/2000
Status: offline 		There are several issues in Witp China, and the only solution seems to be geared for PBM play.

Giving the AI more troops & supplies is useless if it can't do anything with them. The AI is completly brain dead in China, I've seen the AI move troop into a enemy base and never capture it! I don't expect much just some type of reaction from the AI.

Too many people here seem to think of Witp as a PBM game only.


(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 39
RE: Scenario 17 ... for your comments - 10/2/2006 6:11:35 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		Since the standard Chinese unit was a "field army" with only two divisions

and since a three division unit had a different name ("group army")

one wonders why do this?

I have made China a harder nut to crack by the simple expedient of making the
terrain more mountainous - it is very much not the way it looks on the stock map -
and paying some attention to the local economy - supplies won't move down long
trails in CHS and stock - but they do in RHS - and by some good luck with modifying
the CHS concept of a guerilla unit.

Making China tough is possible without making the pretty awful stock OB even
more awful.

(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 40
RE: Scenario 17 ... for your comments - 1/11/2008 2:43:38 AM   
trollelite

 

Posts: 444
Joined: 1/29/2006
Status: offline 		Chinese is already too strong in standard scenario. One chinese corps could easily rout a IJA division, if supply situation is good. Not even the boldest chinese general dared to claim this combat value of their army.

Only dozens of chinese divisions has nearly so much combat value as in game. Many others are no better than that infamous 208th division in chs.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 41
RE: Scenario 17 ... for your comments - 2/9/2008 11:38:57 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

All Chinese Corps have been increased to equal 3 divisions, I have made modest adjustments to supply levels and increased the Chinese daily supply points from 300 to 350 to help offset the stronger units. The purpose of this test scenario is to see if we can slow down operations in the Chinese theater.

Enhanced China Standard Scenario

Give it a try and provide your feedback.


Since the majority of Chinese Corps (or "Armies") were composed of two divisions -

this seems to be a move in the wrong direction.

One set of terminology used in this period was that of Field Army and Group Army: a Field Army had two divisions and was the traditional formation of the Chinese military institutions; a Group Army had three divisions and was a newer concept (not always applied - thus a "New Nth Army" might still have only two divisions).

There is some inconsistency in terminology and usage: it appears ROC went over to a formal Corps organization in the late 1930s. But the formal ROC organization only applied to a minority of Chinese troops - most of which were only ROC allied in some sense or orther -
but actually local or Provincial organizations - and sometimes none of the above. Also - the traditional usage seems to have remained in use even where it nominally was supposed to be in place - although possibly that varied from unit to unit.

(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 42
RE: Scenario 17 ... for your comments - 5/3/2008 9:10:09 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

All Chinese Corps have been increased to equal 3 divisions, I have made modest adjustments to supply levels and increased the Chinese daily supply points from 300 to 350 to help offset the stronger units. The purpose of this test scenario is to see if we can slow down operations in the Chinese theater.

Enhanced China Standard Scenario

Give it a try and provide your feedback.


One wonders why? The typical Chinese Corps - or Field Army - was composed of two divisions. If there were three divisions, it was usually called a Route Army. There were very few cases of this sort.

(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 43
RE: Scenario 17 ... for your comments - 5/3/2008 2:00:24 PM   
Nomad


Posts: 5905
Joined: 9/5/2001
From: West Yellowstone, Montana
Status: offline 		Just why do you two feel the need to drag up a 3 year old test senario and bash it? Talk about egos - yours are out of control.

_____________________________


(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 44
RE: Scenario 17 ... for your comments - 2/18/2009 9:29:06 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		You are making an assumption - in this case unwarranted. I was trying to be constructive and helpful - and stating a fact is in no sense bashing. I never waste my time being negative.

What has the age of the scenario got to do with anything: if it was not intended to draw comments it should not be posted.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 2/18/2009 9:33:32 AM >

(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 45
RE: Scenario 17 ... for your comments - 2/18/2009 12:53:24 PM   
Buck Beach

 

Posts: 1973
Joined: 6/25/2000
From: Upland,CA,USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

You are making an assumption - in this case unwarranted. I was trying to be constructive and helpful - and stating a fact is in no sense bashing. I never waste my time being negative.

What has the age of the scenario got to do with anything: if it was not intended to draw comments it should not be posted.


Sid, seems you are wasting your time responding to a post that is over 9 months old. The long nights (or whatever) must be getting to you up there. Are you in a hibernation mode? What's going on with your updates?

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 46
RE: Scenario 17 ... for your comments - 2/18/2009 7:45:49 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		I have a somewhat minor update to issue - mainly re aircraft and air units - for all scenarios - but significant for YPO - which is able to add a number of types of planes due to no 1945 planes being needed. It is a sort of demonstration of the aircraft possibilities for the strictly historical versions of RHS which may be possible in AE. It will release today or tomorrow.


(in reply to Buck Beach)
Post #: 47
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design >> RE: Scenario 17 ... for your comments Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
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

3.672