Why Partisan Formula needs to be recoded...

Gary Grigsby's strategic level wargame covering the entire War in the Pacific from 1941 to 1945 or beyond.

Moderators: Joel Billings, wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami

User avatar
ChezDaJez
Posts: 3293
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:08 am
Location: Chehalis, WA

RE: Why Partisan Formula needs to be recoded...

Post by ChezDaJez »

question out of curiosity however. Are people still "conqueroring" china with ease in 1.6?

Nope, not in my stock 1.6 PBEM. We are in Nov 42 and China is stalemated. Stalemated to the point that my opponent has withdrawn all of his Cinese airpower to India and Burma for his offensive there (which has also stalemated around Mandalay). I captured the cities on the rail line between Changsha and Canton early in the war but Wuhan remains in Chinese hands.

The balance of forces is such that if I concentrate a large enough contigent for an offensive, he counterattacks in another area with sufficient troops to make things dicey. This forces me to restore the staus quo by moving back some of the forces needed for the offensive. So, we stare across the barb wire and landmines giving each other the finger[:D].

That plus the shortage of supply for conducting large scale offensives makes it near impossible to be successful there and still defend Burma/SRA/SE Pac/Cent Pac. His heavies have laid waste to every major resource base except Java and Palembang (and Palembang is only at 30% production due to the massive damage it suffered when I captured it). Right now its getting pretty tough just to keep the home islands supplied with resources and oil.

Chez
Ret Navy AWCS (1972-1998)
VP-5, Jacksonville, Fl 1973-78
ASW Ops Center, Rota, Spain 1978-81
VP-40, Mt View, Ca 1981-87
Patrol Wing 10, Mt View, CA 1987-90
ASW Ops Center, Adak, Ak 1990-92
NRD Seattle 1992-96
VP-46, Whidbey Isl, Wa 1996-98
User avatar
denisonh
Posts: 2083
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Upstate SC

RE: Why Partisan Formula needs to be recoded...

Post by denisonh »

CHS may be somewhat better than the stock scenario, although as IJ in a PBEM in CHS I just took Changsa in early March 42 and am beginning my drive on Chungking.

Should be sieging Chungking in a month or two.

Still easy for the IJA to mass enough to beat up the Chinese quickly, although it is harder on all fronts like in the stock scenario.

"Life is tough, it's even tougher when you're stupid" -SGT John M. Stryker, USMC
el cid again
Posts: 16983
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm

RE: Why Partisan Formula needs to be recoded...

Post by el cid again »

As I've suggested before - if the formula were simply changed to:

(Ind+Res)*2 + (AF+PT)*20

the above example would require the Japanese to garrison Yangku with an AV of 680 effectively tying up 2 divisions

The problem is this applies to ALL of China, including places the Japanese were able to raise troops - actually vast numbers of them. Not every place was a "hotbed" of opposition. And it was SOP in China to trade with Japan in vital strategic materials - both Reds and ROC did so - and tolerated lots of others doing so. That is, "control" of a resource hex did not generally cut off Japan from those resources, historically. So there are things that are unbalanced against Japan in this system in China - not everything goes its way. It is HARD to get China right - and a naval oriented game was unlikely to be that sophisticated.
el cid again
Posts: 16983
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm

RE: Why Partisan Formula needs to be recoded...

Post by el cid again »

Nor do most of the histories I've read. It always seems to be the Japanese ID's doing the fighting. Launching punitive operations from the bases represented in our game ...then returning to those same bases...wash, rinse, repeat.

My point is in the game the Japanese are able to assemble a critical mass for the so-called blitzkrieg because they are not tied down.

If you want to increase garrison requirements, you then have to give Japan its REAL garrisons. It actually raised MILLIONS of troops in China alone. It also raised troops in other places - and some of those never left the field when the war ended. Japan adopted a policy of effectively arming some of these, with a view to "punishing" the colonial powers, and this policy succeeded in places like Indonesia, Indochina and Burma. In China the policy was broader - political as well as military. Japanese introduced real reforms (returning to Chinese administration things taken from them for a century or so) were never reversed except in Hong Kong. For a rather objective review of the troops not usually considered in all territories, see World War Two Nation by Nation.
el cid again
Posts: 16983
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm

RE: Why Partisan Formula needs to be recoded...

Post by el cid again »

Yes, with the Nationalist government refusing to "come to the table" and with the Nationalist army refusing to stand and fight (unless it wanted too) there was little else for the Japanese army to do prior to their big 1944 offensive against the USAAF heavy bomber airfields. India would also require a "garrison" rule but has none.

Au contrair, mon ami, it appears India would have been very self garrisoning. Bose was a legitimate Indian politician, and the impolitic imprisoning of virtually all legitimate Indian politicians (the entire Congress Party - at a time it INCLUDED Muslim politicians - spent the war in prison) meant the general population was predisposed to believe they were the legitimate leaders. So long as Japan would accept a neutral India garrison would not be required. And the odds are long the Allies would NOT accept a neutral India - in which case India would be an ACTIVE Axis power. No garrison then either.
el cid again
Posts: 16983
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm

RE: Why Partisan Formula needs to be recoded...

Post by el cid again »

I remain interested in stock version outcomes. If the movement system remains as is, i think that additional china units would be an adquate solution (if needed) but make them understrength in terms of firepower. (i.e. primarily squad based) Noone disputes that the Chinese had plenty of manpower. Theirs was a problem of provisioning them and keeping them organized.

There is a bigger problem getting Chinese troops to fight. Traditional Chinese troops were NOT predisposed to fight (you might get hurt - what is the point in that? you could not expect anyone to feed your family then). Chinese troops were not paid until the mid-1990s - Chinese taxes never paid for regular army units (just navy and air force units) - so they evolved a peculiar system of self supporting - they made their own food, uniforms and even weapons (something continued into the modern era Red Army, just now trying to shed some of this, and not very successfully).
User avatar
Nikademus
Posts: 22517
Joined: Sat May 27, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Alien spacecraft

RE: Why Partisan Formula needs to be recoded...

Post by Nikademus »

I wasn't referring to Japan. I was refferring to the British having to garrison India during it's period of upheaval in 42.

User avatar
treespider
Posts: 5781
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 7:34 am
Location: Edgewater, MD

RE: Why Partisan Formula needs to be recoded...

Post by treespider »

If you want to increase garrison requirements, you then have to give Japan its REAL garrisons.

Why?

This statement makes the assumption that the designer got the garrison requirement correct in the first place.

IRL the Japanese kept 1st line combat units in most if not all of the bases represented in the game, as well as along the transportation routes between those bases. Why?

The reason why ... was to defend against guerilla activity conducted by Chinese units. IMO the best way to simulate this is to increase the garrison requirement of the Japanese player as opposed to giving the Chinese more units... which they should be entitled to as well.

As an example lets look at the case of the Chinese 19th Corps and 23rd Corps. These units composed the 6th Army Group of the 2nd War Area. They operated in the area of southwest of Yangku (Taiyuan). They are listed as regular Chinese Army Corps in the Chinese OoB. However when you start to look at the activities of the 6th Army Group you realize that it was nothing more than guerilla activity.

So in game terms is it better to represent these 'Corps' as combat units on the map in a 60 mile hex somewhere near Yenan on the Japanese side of the river, or would it be better to gut their firepower or remove them altogether and raise the garrison requirement of the Japanese base at Yangku. I just use Yangku for an example, the same would apply to the New 4th Army which was Communist and would be located outside of Nanking and Shanghai. Or the Chinese 7th Corps which operated NE of Hankow. Or the Chinese 40th 'Corps' or 27th 'Corps' which operated north of Kaifeng in 1941.

Were the Chinese guerillas anything like the Russian partisans no ... however they did conduct low intensity nuisance raids throughout China ripping up tracks harassing the Japanese but usually never standing up for a direct confrontation and were active enough to require the Japanese to maintain combat formations throughout all of occupied China and provoked anti-guerilla operations by the Japanese throughout the war.

IMO the best way to simulate this given our current code and a simple fix to it is to raise the garrison limit. Couple it with a cut in Chinese firepower, the elimination of some of the Chinese Corps, the making static of other Chinese corps ... and I think it will go a long way toward providing the feel of China that is not currently provided.


Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910
User avatar
Jim D Burns
Posts: 4001
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2002 6:00 pm
Location: Salida, CA.

RE: Why Partisan Formula needs to be recoded...

Post by Jim D Burns »

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

Yes, with the Nationalist government refusing to "come to the table" and with the Nationalist army refusing to stand and fight (unless it wanted too) there was little else for the Japanese army to do prior to their big 1944 offensive against the USAAF heavy bomber airfields. India would also require a "garrison" rule but has none.

How much "actual" partisan activity was there, outside of Mao's communists? There is a tendancy to equate China with Russia in that regards but i've not read of rampant chinese activity in this mode. I did read in Caputo that the Nationalists and the IJA had a more or less "unofficial" truce around the 1941 period. Hence the stalemate.


China was a vast country and the war fought there between Japan and China prior to Dec. 41 was vastly different than that fought between Russia and Germany. There were no special police units created in VAST quantities by Japan to occupy rear areas, because they never actually conquered those rear areas to begin with so there was no pressing need for them.

There was no sweeping front that swept through the country conquering every little village and hamlet, instead Japan attacked along transportation routes on a very narrow front and was forced to occupy the entire line because everything else in the primitive hinterlands remained under Chinese control (except when punitive offensives were launched, but Japan always withdrew back to the transportation lines after).

Front line troops were required to garrison the entire railway network because Japan lacked sufficient troops to occupy the vast interior areas of China. Just because some guy colored in vast areas of the country with red ink on some map and said it was occupied doesn’t mean a few police troops could have had a hope in hell of controlling those areas.

The best way to represent what Japans occupation looked like would be to draw red lines over the rail and main road network and leave the rest uncontrolled. That would be a realistic representation of what the situation in China was on Dec. 1941. Japan was forced to keep 80% of the combat formations in China guarding the rear areas, because China had active large scale combat formations available to sweep in and cut any part of the line if Japan let its guard down.

I’ve read accounts where entire Chinese combat divisions would melt away into the local populace as a Japanese offensive swept through their area. They would then reform after the Japanese passed through and reap havoc in the rear and simply melt away again whenever the Japanese returned to hunt for the unit.

Technologically the Japanese army was far superior to Chinas army, but China had millions more men under arms and unlimited replacements available to replace the horrendous losses taken whenever the two armies would clash in stand up fights. Japan spent five years learning they couldn’t defeat China in a land war. Anyone who thinks the current land situation in the game is even remotely close to justified from an historical point of view is simply delusional.

I think the best solution in China would be to give the Chinese their historical armies, and then allow them to draw unlimited supplies from ANY Chinese hex not occupied by a Japanese combat unit. Take away all but a few engineer squads so they have no hope of assaulting defended Japanese bases with forts, and then you’ll see a more realistic game in China. Japan will be forced to defend every rail and road hex with combat troops (as they had to do historically) and China will have lots of offensively weak but large combat formations roaming the primitive countryside.

The better more modern equipped offensive Chinese formations (perhaps 70-100 of the almost 400 total divisions China fielded) would be fixed in the larger Chinese controlled bases, and only become available for use in late 44 or if the Japanese attack them first.

Jim
User avatar
treespider
Posts: 5781
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 7:34 am
Location: Edgewater, MD

RE: Why Partisan Formula needs to be recoded...

Post by treespider »

The best way to represent what Japans occupation looked like would be to draw red lines over the rail and main road network and leave the rest uncontrolled. That would be a realistic representation of what the situation in China was on Dec. 1941. Japan was forced to keep 80% of the combat formations in China guarding the rear areas, because China had active large scale combat formations available to sweep in and cut any part of the line if Japan let its guard down.

Here is what Jim is talking about...

Image
Attachments
1941China.jpg
1941China.jpg (106.03 KiB) Viewed 315 times
Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910
User avatar
Kereguelen
Posts: 1474
Joined: Wed May 12, 2004 9:08 pm

RE: Why Partisan Formula needs to be recoded...

Post by Kereguelen »

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

China was a vast country and the war fought there between Japan and China prior to Dec. 41 was vastly different than that fought between Russia and Germany. There were no special police units created in VAST quantities by Japan to occupy rear areas, because they never actually conquered those rear areas to begin with so there was no pressing need for them.

There was no sweeping front that swept through the country conquering every little village and hamlet, instead Japan attacked along transportation routes on a very narrow front and was forced to occupy the entire line because everything else in the primitive hinterlands remained under Chinese control (except when punitive offensives were launched, but Japan always withdrew back to the transportation lines after).

Front line troops were required to garrison the entire railway network because Japan lacked sufficient troops to occupy the vast interior areas of China. Just because some guy colored in vast areas of the country with red ink on some map and said it was occupied doesn’t mean a few police troops could have had a hope in hell of controlling those areas.

All true. Additionally one should say that the Independent Mixed Brigades and C-Type Divisions that are in the game were (historically) employed for those garrison duties. Vanilla WITP gives them too much firepower/offensive capability while they historically were (nearly) static formations. Thus the "police" formations Nik was speaking about are in the game...
User avatar
Ron Saueracker
Posts: 10967
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece

RE: Why Partisan Formula needs to be recoded...

Post by Ron Saueracker »

IMO the best way to simulate this given our current code and a simple fix to it is to raise the garrison limit. Couple it with a cut in Chinese firepower, the elimination of some of the Chinese Corps, the making static of other Chinese corps ... and I think it will go a long way toward providing the feel of China that is not currently provided.
Treespider

I can't agree on the static unit suggestion given the land model. Static units are completely porked once they are forced to retreat. Some other way is necessary. I've found that simply keeping serious supply low is the perfect hindrance to any player wishing to dally with Chinese offensives.[;)]
Image

Image

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan
User avatar
timtom
Posts: 1500
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 9:23 pm
Location: Aarhus, Denmark

RE: Why Partisan Formula needs to be recoded...

Post by timtom »

Like Ron I'm personally not really keen on the Chinese static units.

However with the cat being out of the bag, how about effectuating Treespiders suggestion by making some of the Japanese units static? Use his formula or whatever the team can agree on to compute new garrison values, then freeze the required no. of LCU's, giving preference to such units as were actually tied down in garrison/anti-guerrilla ops RL.

Where's the Any key?

Image
User avatar
treespider
Posts: 5781
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 7:34 am
Location: Edgewater, MD

RE: Why Partisan Formula needs to be recoded...

Post by treespider »

ORIGINAL: timtom

Like Ron I'm personally not really keen on the Chinese static units.

However with the cat being out of the bag, how about effectuating Treespiders suggestion by making some of the Japanese units static? Use his formula or whatever the team can agree on to compute new garrison values, then freeze the required no. of LCU's, giving preference to such units as were actually tied down in garrison/anti-guerrilla ops RL.


There would be no need for the partisan value if you made the Japanese static. Wth the raised garrison value...it wouldn't stop the Japanese from moving... it would simply make attacking a little bit more expensive.

My suggestion for the static Chinese would be to simulate the warlord armies..In addition the static units wouldn't be as vulnerable if more Japanese were tied up on garrison duty. Another option is to make the Chinese HQ's static with very short ranges. However before we tie down the Chinese, we need to tie down the Japanese without making them immobile. IMO the raised garrison values accomplish this.


Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910
Ideologue
Posts: 47
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 1:33 am

RE: Why Partisan Formula needs to be recoded...

Post by Ideologue »

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

stock 1.6


(I know it ain't happening in my mod [;)] )

Yes.
User avatar
Rapunzel
Posts: 141
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 1:53 pm
Location: Germany

RE: Why Partisan Formula needs to be recoded...

Post by Rapunzel »

Well I am unsing nik´s mod and i am getting steamrolled by japan. It is 7/42 and 3/4 of my army are out of supplies. I could hold the frontline citys but he bypassed them and occupied several backyard bases (with paratroopers - tanks). He does not seem to have any supply probs doing so... .
spence
Posts: 5421
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2003 6:56 am
Location: Vancouver, Washington

RE: Why Partisan Formula needs to be recoded...

Post by spence »

question out of curiosity however. Are people still "conqueroring" china with ease in 1.6?


I'm using 1.795 in a PBEM. My Japanese opponent captured Changsha right off the bat (mid-Dec 41) and moved on Yenan fairly quickly and captured it around the end of Dec. There is still a large concentration of troops around Changsha. He has since apparently redeployed the Yenan force and has advanced to Homan with all or part of around 15 divisions (300,000 men +). He's gradually getting the upper hand in the battle for Homan I think. Another 100,000 men are attempting to advance on Wuchow but are bogged down outside Canton. Japanese bombers have pretty much devastated the resource centers at Chungking but supplies are not too bad though certainly no better than at the start of the game. The date is 3/15/42.

Since this is as far as I've ever gotten in a PBEM I have no basis for good comparision.

I do have another game (v1.77) that is at 1/3/42. In that one Yenan fell in late Dec. Changsha still holds. Near Homan the Chinese at first pushed back a weak force then captured Kaifeng briefly (I forgot to cancel their move into the city actually...issued orders to go to the base so that a bombing raid wouldn't stop them from advancing into the rail junction NW of Kaifeng...then just took the hex from the beat up unit that was there). The Japanese then trapped 3 corps in the city and wiped them out. So far they've not advanced into Homan but a large force is headed there. In the South a Chinese advance to Canton was eventually repulsed but kept the Japanese from massing against and taking Hong Kong until 1/3/42. Another Chinese attack took and continues to hold Nanning.

There is certainly alot of mobile military operations going on in China in both games...don't really know the history that well there but it seems to be more active than what my general impression would have allowed.
User avatar
bilbow
Posts: 740
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2002 6:26 am
Location: Concord NH

RE: Why Partisan Formula needs to be recoded...

Post by bilbow »

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

Yep.




question out of curiosity however. Are people still "conqueroring" china with ease in 1.6?


China under 1.6 stock is defendable. An Allied player that pays some attention to this theatre can stop the Japs cold. Not all Allied players do pay attention, however.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile- hoping it will eat him last
- Winston Churchill
User avatar
Ron Saueracker
Posts: 10967
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece

RE: Why Partisan Formula needs to be recoded...

Post by Ron Saueracker »

In the CHS 1.06 PBEM I'm playing, not only is the front static, but Bill even instigated a partisan uprising for not having enough garrison troops in a base.
Image

Image

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan
User avatar
Jim D Burns
Posts: 4001
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2002 6:00 pm
Location: Salida, CA.

RE: Why Partisan Formula needs to be recoded...

Post by Jim D Burns »

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
I can't agree on the static unit suggestion given the land model. Static units are completely porked once they are forced to retreat. Some other way is necessary. I've found that simply keeping serious supply low is the perfect hindrance to any player wishing to dally with Chinese offensives.[;)]

Yes lowered supply will slow an attacker, the problem is it also breaks huge parts of the game engine for that side. Things like replacements and rebuilding damaged squads REQUIRE in excess of 20k supplies on hand to even work. If you nerf supply you simply break the game for that side, another solution needs to be found.

Jim
Post Reply

Return to “War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945”