Shannon V. OKeets
Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Froonp
And so ?
Do MWiF need a rule to prevent (or to discourage) the Japanese from "doing stuff" ?
Or maybe MWiF needs an incencitive for Japan to "do nothing" in China much of the time ?
Good suggestions were already done here (no red factories in Chinese controlled China for example).
I think extensive playtest will tell.
Harry Rowland reviewed the summary of our discussion on Play Balance in China and provided the comments given below. His opinion seems to match perfectly with the voting by forum members. Unless there is further discussion, I am going to go with the conclusions at the end of this post.
======= SJH summary of Forum member suggestions with HR comments =====
MWIF (Global Map with Unified Scale) Possibilities
(1) Change nothing and leave it the same as in CWIF
If you double the number of hexes in China, you suddenly have room to maneuver. It is easier for the Japanese player to concentrate forces at one part of the front and overwhelm the Chinese player.
HR> This could be the standard rule.
(2) Add Chinese warlords and/or territorials
Add "Warlords", land units who are assigned to a city, who cost little or nothing to build, who cannot leave China (or the city), who have no ZOC (but cancel Japanese ZOC in their hex) to act as speed bumps.
HR> Good idea. They existed and were a real impediment to untrammeled movement.
(3) Unlimited breakdowns of Corps into divisions
HR> I thought this was the standard rule. Good idea particularly with the proviso in the second paragraph below, and this proviso could be extended to all divisions.
There is no problem with the rules of unlimited breakdown, because you still have to have an eligible corp to breakdown in the place where you want the division. While the breaking down of a corps into divisions may be unlimited, corps themselves are limited, and you can only build so many per turn. So, if you breakdown all the corps (or most of them) to have numerous divisions,
you'll have less corps and be eaten by the Chinese who has a large army.
What if we had two kinds of divisions that mirrored those two kinds of division breakdowns? The second kind of breakdown would not cause the parent unit to go back to the force pool until both divisions were destroyed (or rather one parent unit per 2 divisions destroyed) and these divisions will not be allowed to stack in the same hex with other units. This will prevent abuse
of the allocating damage solely to divisions. We could even have a rule that says Type 2 divisions must remain within a certain number of hexes of each other.
(4) Add more Chinese cities
China needs more cities. Chinese cities are currently so far apart that the loss of a front-line city will often lead to complete collapse, because the units holding the city's flanks will suddenly be way out of supply with little hope of ever reaching supply again (they will normally need 2-3 moves to come within 4 hexes of the next city). With more cities should go a reduced US
entry cost for taking cities.
Adding more cities in China is one way to solve this issue. However that only helps the Chinese getting supply sources, something also needs to be done to stop the Chinese to push the Japanese into the sea during 1943-1944.
The cities appearing on the WiF FE maps are those cities exceeding 100 000 inhabitants in 1940 (this could be checked in the designers?? part of the rules, I don't remember where I read it). In China, where multiple cities would have appeared in a single hex due to scale, only one was left for map's clarity sake.
Even if cities give local supply (4 hexes) around them, what really makes them useful is to be connected to the railroad net. I'm convinced that the new cities added to the map will not be connected to the railroad network, and so this effect will be lessened. Let's just say that there will be less land without supply for the Chinese units in China.
A simple solution might just be to increase the number of Chinese cities, and leave US entry rolls alone. Major Japanese advances would thus be a bit more difficult, and come at an increase in the likelihood of early US entry.
HR> Sounds good to me. Now that there are 4 Asian hexes to WiF's one, there probably should be more cities and ports on the Asian map.
(5) Restrict Chinese attacks
There should be an optional rule reflecting the Chinese reluctance to waste troops attacking the Japanese.
If Japan get's a bit on the ropes, it's also to easy for China to make Japan pay. One should definitely play with serious attack weakness or other similar options that would help allow Japan to "hold the line" even with a reduced troop level.
This is already in the rules to limit the Chinese being efficient : Tiny activity limits, Communists & Nationalists being divided (however I would appreciate something more being done in this area), Optional Rule for Attack Weakness, and Warlords being unable to go far from their city. This is the job of Japan to play well and not be thrown to the sea, and Japan has the power and the tools to resist. Some examples : Terrain, planes (lots, with good range), good troops (with lots of WP), plenty of HQ (at least 3).
HR> Chinese attack weakness currently more or less covers this (if you are in a Chinese massive superiority blowout position, why shouldn't or indeed wouldn't Chiang have gone for the throat while given the opportunity?).
(6) Add Japanese warlords
Give the Japan some warlords for Manchuria/Korea
HR> Don't care either way. Presumably only come into play with a war against Russia. Didn't notice much effect of them when Russia eventually did attack in 1945, altho they might have put up a bit of a better show if roused from their beds a couple of years earlier.
(7) Redo the Chinese and Japanese land orders of battle
If China gets more land forces then so should Japan and that has a ripple effect on the USSR, CW, and USA.
HR> Bad idea. Twiddling lots of rules to make one change is the gaming equivalent of sawing bits of the legs off the table one leg at a time trying to get the table straight. You end up with a table with no legs.
(8) Modified setup
China should get some limited reaction to the Japanese setup, (maybe a free pre-start land move), perhaps coupled with a similar Japanese "final adjustment".
HR> Why? To represent superior Chinese tactics, training and leadership?
How about putting this to a vote, to see whether we are anywhere near reaching a consensus?
HR> Do I get a vote?
Regards
Harry
====================== SJH summary ===============
Possibilities for MWIF
(1) Change nothing and leave it the same as in CWIF
(2) Add Chinese warlords and/or territorials
(3) Unlimited breakdowns of Corps into divisions
(4) Add more Chinese cities
(5) Restrict Chinese attacks
(6) Add Japanese warlords
(7) Redo the Chinese and Japanese land orders of battle
(8) Modified setup
======================= SJH conclusions ==============
Because I am a minimalist (I don’t want to change from WIF any more than necessary), I prefer to introduce these new options gradually and only when required. The numbers following each option are averages based on A = 4, B = 3 and so on.
Add to options and play test:
2 Chinese warlords and/or territorials (3.1)
4 More Chinese cities (2.9)
6 Japanese warlords (2.6)
3 Unlimited breakdowns of Corps into divisions (2.6)
If we are still unhappy with play balance in China, then add one at a time in the order listed
5 Restrict Chinese attacks (1.9)
7 Redo the Chinese and Japanese land orders of battle (1.8)
8 Modified setup (1.4)
====================================================
_____________________________
Steve
Perfection is an elusive goal.
|
Printable Version
RE: Play Balance in China - 
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