Bombing of Chinese HI, Res, Oil?

[anarchyintheuk]

That was their old dog imitation.

This applies to stock. I've not played any mods. I don't think it's gamey for the IJA to attack in China. How they go about may be considered gamey. The movement/stacking/supply rules allow you to strip your front, form an uberstack w/ limited or no flank protection and launch it down the Changsha railroad defeating all in front of it. Not something very plausible in rl. The only thing that slows this down is the ridiculous resolve of unsupplied Chinese defenders in open terrain (as opposed to how they fight supplied in a city). All of this applies to later Allied Burma offensive as well. The game just wasn't designed for continental warfare.

I guess if you consider the lcu movement rules as forked AND you take advantage of that (by launching a Changsha uberstack) or if you consider them reasonable and use them determines whether or not it's gamey. I think that made sense. [&:]

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

That was their old dog imitation.

You got it!!! We are just a coupla' ol' dogs...

[Halsey]

Conquering the exploitation of the game mechanics has been a major concern for most of us historical gamers.
I'm hoping that these can be shored up to prevent further abuse.
The new group working on this has been doing a stellar job.
This WILL take the game to a more historical level.

After this is accomplished then the alternate history fanboys can use the editor to create whatever alternative world they want.
Do the alternative history fanboys realize this?
It's a pretty simple concept.
The historical base can then be modified by the editor. See? Simple.[;)]

The bottom line is to simulate the historical aspects of the Pacific War first and foremost.
Then the modders can fabricate to their hearts desire.
All sides can then enjoy whatever type of game they want to play.
Be it historical, or alternative history.

woof woof![:D]

[Nomad]

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

That was their old dog imitation.

You got it!!! We are just a coupla' ol' dogs...

yep, really, really ol dog here. [:D]

[Bosun]

As an IJN player who has won auto-victories primarily by bombing Chinese supply and taking Chungking I don't think it is "gamey" It is one of the few ways for Japan to "win" the war. That's not historical, but if Japan has no chance for victory, why play?

[mogami]

ORIGINAL: Bosun

As an IJN player who has won auto-victories primarily by bombing Chinese supply and taking Chungking I don't think it is "gamey" It is one of the few ways for Japan to "win" the war. That's not historical, but if Japan has no chance for victory, why play?

Hi, I play as Japan to see what Japan had to deal with.
One of the oldest gaming problems is making games for players who only care about winning the game and players who only care about history.
Japan does not have to win a auto victory to win (I don't even like the auto system or points for bases) Japan wins by not surrendering.

The real proof WITP has problems is that it makes the Japan conquers the map strategy appear viable and in fact most often successful.

Moses the map edge I refer to is the south/east where Japanese TF can blockade movement simply because there is a map edge.

[esteban]

There's a lot of "gaminess" in WiTP.
 
Are we going to prevent the PoW and Repulse from splitting for Ceylon or Java on turn 2?  Never would have happened in RL, but it happens every game.
 
Are we going to prevent mass evacuations of the Malaya army during bad weather at the start of the game?  Again, never would have happened in RL, but it does happen ingame
 
Are we going to redo the India supply deliveries so that an Allied player cannot just turtle in Karachi and Bombay with unlimited supply if the Japanese successfully invade India? 
 
Are we going to prevent the Allies from bombing every resource and oil center within range of their 4E bombers during the game?
 
Are we going to prevent the Allies from hiding their carriers on the West Coast or somewhere until late 1942?
 
If we aren't going to combat those kinds of "gaminess", then lets not combat Japanese-favoring gaminess.
 
 
 
 

[Nomad]

deleted by user

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: esteban

There's a lot of "gaminess" in WiTP.

Are we going to prevent the PoW and Repulse from splitting for Ceylon or Java on turn 2?  Never would have happened in RL, but it happens every game.

Are we going to prevent mass evacuations of the Malaya army during bad weather at the start of the game?  Again, never would have happened in RL, but it does happen ingame

Are we going to redo the India supply deliveries so that an Allied player cannot just turtle in Karachi and Bombay with unlimited supply if the Japanese successfully invade India? 

Are we going to prevent the Allies from bombing every resource and oil center within range of their 4E bombers during the game?

Are we going to prevent the Allies from hiding their carriers on the West Coast or somewhere until late 1942?

If we aren't going to combat those kinds of "gaminess", then lets not combat Japanese-favoring gaminess.

First off - in many games, your complaints are not valid. Many Allied players feel compelled to use force Z in the early parts of the war as it was used. Many Allied players do not withdraw carriers to West Coast. Etc.

But, OK - if we are going to UNGAME the game:

- Reduce IJN shipping by 50% (to remove AKs APs that didn't exist put in for the AI).
- Put in requirements for supporting the Japanese Home Islands for civilian economy.
- Put in requirements for garissoning everything (by either side)
- Put in 1 year delay to switch over Japanese assembly lines as it historically happened.
- Remove ability for IJN to bombard more than once or twice per year to reflect actual IJN abilities (due to lack of ammo, gun tubes, doctrine, etc.)
- Remove ability to bombard areas that were actually far inland (either side).
- Double the size of the Chinese Army (actually had 240 or so division, not the 100 or so in the game, and of course remove ability of Japan to destroy all supplies by bombing.
- Put in actual SIGINT. The reason the Allied player keeps his carriers on the West Coast is because they have no idea where the KB will show up, unlike real life.
- Put radar in Allied search planes, and give them ability to actually attack at night without having a sub in the hex.
- Remove ability to train pilots up above 50 by bombing empty bases.
- Remove ability of Japan to outproduce Allies in aircraft.
- Put in all the ships that the Allies had that are not in the game (numerous!)

If this is done, i think Allied players would be more than happy to comply with the other "requests".

[esteban]

ORIGINAL: Nomad

So you are saying that the Japanese can do what they want but you want the Allies to follow the real life script? [&:]

I am saying that those people who argue that the Japanese should not destroy chinese resources and oil "because in RL that was what they were after" should be prepared to not depart so radically from RL when it suits them.

In my current PBEM game (sadly only have time for one) the PoW and Repulse abandoned Malaya on Dec. 8. Most all of the Malaya army HQs and base forces were evacuated by my opponent during a week or so of rain and thunderstorms in late Dec. 1941. I don't get mad about that, I just get even. In my case, I have pummelled every Chinese resource and oil center to stop the Chinese army in its tracks and prevent China from being turned into a B-17/B-24 base for use against Formosa, Manchuria, Korea and my own Chinese industrial and resource centers.

[esteban]

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

ORIGINAL: esteban

There's a lot of "gaminess" in WiTP.

Are we going to prevent the PoW and Repulse from splitting for Ceylon or Java on turn 2?  Never would have happened in RL, but it happens every game.

Are we going to prevent mass evacuations of the Malaya army during bad weather at the start of the game?  Again, never would have happened in RL, but it does happen ingame

Are we going to redo the India supply deliveries so that an Allied player cannot just turtle in Karachi and Bombay with unlimited supply if the Japanese successfully invade India? 

Are we going to prevent the Allies from bombing every resource and oil center within range of their 4E bombers during the game?

Are we going to prevent the Allies from hiding their carriers on the West Coast or somewhere until late 1942?

If we aren't going to combat those kinds of "gaminess", then lets not combat Japanese-favoring gaminess.

First off - in many games, your complaints are not valid. Many Allied players feel compelled to use force Z in the early parts of the war as it was used. Many Allied players do not withdraw carriers to West Coast. Etc.

But, OK - if we are going to UNGAME the game:

- Reduce IJN shipping by 50% (to remove AKs APs that didn't exist put in for the AI).
- Put in requirements for supporting the Japanese Home Islands for civilian economy.
- Put in requirements for garissoning everything (by either side)
- Put in 1 year delay to switch over Japanese assembly lines as it historically happened.
- Remove ability for IJN to bombard more than once or twice per year to reflect actual IJN abilities (due to lack of ammo, gun tubes, doctrine, etc.)
- Remove ability to bombard areas that were actually far inland (either side).
- Double the size of the Chinese Army (actually had 240 or so division, not the 100 or so in the game, and of course remove ability of Japan to destroy all supplies by bombing.
- Put in actual SIGINT. The reason the Allied player keeps his carriers on the West Coast is because they have no idea where the KB will show up, unlike real life.
- Put radar in Allied search planes, and give them ability to actually attack at night without having a sub in the hex.
- Remove ability to train pilots up above 50 by bombing empty bases.
- Remove ability of Japan to outproduce Allies in aircraft.
- Put in all the ships that the Allies had that are not in the game (numerous!)

If this is done, i think Allied players would be more than happy to comply with the other "requests".

I agree with a lot of what you say here. But a few points.

The costs to the Allied player to support the populations of India, China, Australia or the U.S. are identical to those paid by the Japanese player.

In building new industry, the Japanese player does pay a manpower cost, and each manpower center does consume resources, and manpower centers cannot be "turned off" like factories or shipyards that you are not using. So it could be argued that the Japanese player does pay to keep his manpower up for industrial and civilian purposes.

By my count, the Chinese army at the start of the game contains about 80 corps and 15-20 individual divisions. Break that down and you get a number right around the 240 divisions you mentioned.

[rtrapasso]

agree with a lot of what you say here. But a few points.

The costs to the Allied player to support the populations of India, China, Australia or the U.S. are identical to those paid by the Japanese player.

In building new industry, the Japanese player does pay a manpower cost, and each manpower center does consume resources, and manpower centers cannot be "turned off" like factories or shipyards that you are not using. So it could be argued that the Japanese player does pay to keep his manpower up for industrial and civilian purposes.

By my count, the Chinese army at the start of the game contains about 80 corps and 15-20 individual divisions. Break that down and you get a number right around the 240 divisions you mentioned.

As far as population costs - the amount of imports to any place should be what was historically needed - whether it is Allied or Axis. A LARGE chunk of Japanese shipping was used to support the civilian needs, not just the amount for manpower in the game. (iirc, it was something like 25-50% of shipping was needed, but i'd have to look up the numbers.)

As for the Chinese, the way their units are organized is different that other Allied units. Some one did an analysis of this and concluded about 1/2 of its army was missing in WITP, but perhaps they are wrong. i had gone on their conclusions, but have not done the analysis myself.

EDIT: i should add one more item: invading troops should not be able to use railroads as if they owned them (as happens in many games). There should be some mechanism to simulate need for rolling stock. Several solutions have been proposed, but none have been adopted for the game.

[Nemo121]

The real proof WITP has problems is that it makes the Japan conquers the map strategy appear viable and in fact most often successful

 
Can you provide one example in which a Japanese player has actually managed this? Note, CONUSA is a part of the map... I would consider it unconquerable.
 
All of the "Japan is too strong early on" stuff needs to be assessed with cognisance of the fact that the Allies will run riot for far longer later in the game in at least as unrealistic a manner. I am saddened that this objective reality is, all too often, left out of such discussions.

[Halsey]

I've witnessed the "Empire Earth" strategy a couple of times.[;)]
Excluding the West Coast attack, which activates the US, as it should.
The other major powers, excluding China, should've had this rule hardcoded as well.

The entire eastern Pacific can be conquered in a month, with the bonus warp movement.
Usually players opt for the early India invasion, because they can take Karachi, and deny reinforcements from appearing. The Japanese usually bypass Burma in this gambit.
Usually only sending enough forces to threaten the area.

China can be a tough nut to crack if the Allied player keeps his wits.[;)]
With AB's map mod, China is even tougher.
Someone once stated.[;)]
Anyone can be a genius in ground combat with the standard map.
Four lane highways run to all places, all over this map.

With the setup of the campaign, it's a question of speed. For both sides.
Early on, the Japanese can easily take all of their historical objectives.
Then can rapidly consume anything it wishes till around 1/43.
The tide then reverses, and the Allied player gets to do the same in return.

[Hoplosternum]

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

The real proof WITP has problems is that it makes the Japan conquers the map strategy appear viable and in fact most often successful

Can you provide one example in which a Japanese player has actually managed this? Note, CONUSA is a part of the map... I would consider it unconquerable.

All of the "Japan is too strong early on" stuff needs to be assessed with cognisance of the fact that the Allies will run riot for far longer later in the game in at least as unrealistic a manner. I am saddened that this objective reality is, all too often, left out of such discussions.

Nemo these sort of statements make the historical crowd mad [:D]

They don't want either side to have unhistoric abilities. I dare say that the game does not reflect the historic problems (logistic, political as well as military) the allies faced from '43 onwards and hence a competent allied player probably can go much quicker than his historical counterparts managed. When more games advance in to this period then I expect there will be calls to limit this. Maybe some late war house rules or code changes will be demanded. The focus is obviously on the Japanese early war superiority as that is what is seen by most players. But it is historic capabilities that are wanted. Few of the historic capability players like the early mass 4E abilities and numbers.

I would also point out that the "Japan is too strong early on" argument works on another level too. It makes for a dull game. If the allies cannot resist the Japanese then this encourages a Sir Robin type defence that is dull for both sides. It also really kills the game for a more cautious Japanese player. If the Japanese player is NOT trying to conquer China, India and Oz he may not see much meaningful action until '43 when the Essexs, Jeep Carriers, Corsairs and Lightnings are likely to sweep away the Japanese in short order.

I think most of us when we started out playing WitP imagined fighting Guadalcanal type battles and Midway type ambushes with traps within traps. Just seeing if we could do them better [:)] While the "Japan is too strong early on" phenomena is not the only reason this does not occur, it is a large part of it. A game where one side beats up the other for a long time with no reply then the rolls are reversed may work in a short game but not for one that lasts as long as this.

[pauk]

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

ORIGINAL: esteban

There's a lot of "gaminess" in WiTP.

Are we going to prevent the PoW and Repulse from splitting for Ceylon or Java on turn 2?  Never would have happened in RL, but it happens every game.

Are we going to prevent mass evacuations of the Malaya army during bad weather at the start of the game?  Again, never would have happened in RL, but it does happen ingame

Are we going to redo the India supply deliveries so that an Allied player cannot just turtle in Karachi and Bombay with unlimited supply if the Japanese successfully invade India? 

Are we going to prevent the Allies from bombing every resource and oil center within range of their 4E bombers during the game?

Are we going to prevent the Allies from hiding their carriers on the West Coast or somewhere until late 1942?

If we aren't going to combat those kinds of "gaminess", then lets not combat Japanese-favoring gaminess.

First off - in many games, your complaints are not valid. Many Allied players feel compelled to use force Z in the early parts of the war as it was used. Many Allied players do not withdraw carriers to West Coast. Etc.

But, OK - if we are going to UNGAME the game:

- Reduce IJN shipping by 50% (to remove AKs APs that didn't exist put in for the AI).
- Put in requirements for supporting the Japanese Home Islands for civilian economy.
- Put in requirements for garissoning everything (by either side)
- Put in 1 year delay to switch over Japanese assembly lines as it historically happened.
- Remove ability for IJN to bombard more than once or twice per year to reflect actual IJN abilities (due to lack of ammo, gun tubes, doctrine, etc.)
- Remove ability to bombard areas that were actually far inland (either side).
- Double the size of the Chinese Army (actually had 240 or so division, not the 100 or so in the game, and of course remove ability of Japan to destroy all supplies by bombing.
- Put in actual SIGINT. The reason the Allied player keeps his carriers on the West Coast is because they have no idea where the KB will show up, unlike real life.
- Put radar in Allied search planes, and give them ability to actually attack at night without having a sub in the hex.
- Remove ability to train pilots up above 50 by bombing empty bases.
- Remove ability of Japan to outproduce Allies in aircraft.
- Put in all the ships that the Allies had that are not in the game (numerous!)

If this is done, i think Allied players would be more than happy to comply with the other "requests".

oh, yeah, and the game would be over in early 1943....

if someone make such mod i would play it to prove this. I will be Allied player, of course. Any takers (for the third time?)
[:'(]

[jumper]

Hi Pauk,
I doubt you will find any..[:)]
masochism fans probably aren´t visiting this forum [:D][:D][:D][:'(]
above conditions suppose a sick-brain on jap side[;)]

[Nikademus]

Nice post H.

[marovici]

I have read that Allies-Japan balance of force changes later, but I have rarely seen it play out in the AARs.  Usually it is a Japaneses player that goes invades everything, everywhere, India, China, Australia, Russia, Moon and then suddenly that AAR disapears (granted PzB is still going on, and maybe another one or two).  So if we do not get to see the kick me now, kick you later super strong and super nice allies, perhaps we could have less fantasy with Japan and statements "yes but allies are very strong later on".

[Nemo121]

Hoplosternum,
 
I agree with you. My point with respect to the "japan is too strong" argument we often see is that those espousing it VERY rarely espouse the same self-evidently obvious truth when it applies to the Allies.
 
If you look back at some older posts of mine I've always said that I believed the game mechanics made the impossible possible for both sides at different times and that those who argued for the curbing of one side's advantage at one time without arguing for curbing of the other side's advantages at other times were doing the game a disservice.
 
Limit everything for everyone at all times to what was historically POSSIBLE ( and not what was actually done) and I'll support that effort fully. Those who argue for this have my full support but the argument for realistic limits on the capabilities of BOTH sides is rarely ever made by anyone on this forum. Instead allied players argue to nerf the Japanese and Japanese players argue to nerf the Allies. That's no way to improve the game, skew the game entirely to the advantage of the side you are playing? Sure. Improve it? Hell no.
 
 
As to my question re: conquering the total map. I think you picked it up wrong... it was intended to show that hyperbole is not a useful contribution to a discussion. Mogami stated that the Japanese "conquer the map strategy" is most often succesful... I asked the question to highlight that, as far as I am aware, there is NO example of the entire map being conquered by the Japanese player and, therefore, so long as CONUSA remains American the Allies will, almost invariably, win in any game which doesn't end with japanese autovictory on 1st January 1943 or 1st Jamuary 1944.  I thought about using the word hyperbole in my original post to make my intention clear but I decided to ommit it in order to avoid being inflammatory.
 
 
So, my twin points in this discussion were:
1. Unfounded hyperbolic assertion is often used as a substitute for objective analysis on this forum and is no substitute for it.
 
2. IMO ( and it is only my opinion) anyone who argues for modifying one side's "advantages" but not the others should be viewed as an extremely suspect source for said changes. Divorce emotion from the discussion of what should and shouldn't be changed and, instead, analyse what is, compare it to what was ( AND what could have been... the difference between intentions and capabilities ) and then argue for the changes required to make what is conform more closely to what could have been for BOTH SIDES AT ALL TIMES.
 
That's what I've always argued for. I couldn't care less about "winning" or "losing". It is about playing skillfully and if one can do that then satisfaction will follow irrespective of whether some game mechanic adjudges one to have "won" or "lost".
 
I think it is interesting that even during this discussion people have chosen to interpret my post as being "japanese whining" instead of an attempt to point out that when people ask for one side's capabilities to be reduced they almost never ask for the other side's capabilities to also be reduced. In short, bias.