Stacking China

[herwin]

The first time I played D-Day, about 50 years ago, my brother and I overlooked the stacking rules. We built enormous stacks of divisions and used them to hunt smaller stacks belonging to the enemy. In one of my current PBEMs, we're doing the same thing. I notice that both sides started out relatively spread out in China, but now we have a few of these enormous stacks. We've done the same thing elsewhere on the map--for example in Singapore, Mandalay, and Manila. What is supposed to discourage this tactic?

[Mike Solli]

Interesting.  I find the opposite happens in my games.  I tend to form a solid line of units (a la WWI) with major pushes in a couple of areas.  Important bases on the front line get a "lot" of troops for defense.  I've found that the only way to make headway in China is to surround and destroy units.  My major attacks are usually ~150k or so troops.  A major base on the front line is about 100k.

[Dixie]

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

Interesting.  I find the opposite happens in my games.  I tend to form a solid line of units (a la WWI) with major pushes in a couple of areas.  Important bases on the front line get a "lot" of troops for defense.  I've found that the only way to make headway in China is to surround and destroy units.  My major attacks are usually ~150k or so troops.  A major base on the front line is about 100k.

Hmm, interesting [:D] Free intel... [:'(]

If you've got huge stacks of units moving around CHina then you'll end up clogging all the roads with your troops and you'll have massive gaps in your front line where you can march an army through... Plus as Japan massive stacks of troops will mean partisan activity in most of your bases.

[Mike Solli]

You're assuming I'm telling the truth, Dixie. [;)] [:'(] [:D]

[Dixie]

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

You're assuming I'm telling the truth, Dixie. [;)] [:'(] [:D]

Everyone knows that officers of the rank of Lt or above cannot lie.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

Interesting.  I find the opposite happens in my games.  I tend to form a solid line of units (a la WWI) with major pushes in a couple of areas.  Important bases on the front line get a "lot" of troops for defense.  I've found that the only way to make headway in China is to surround and destroy units.  My major attacks are usually ~150k or so troops.  A major base on the front line is about 100k.

I find my opponent uses his big stacks to hoover up my line of units. He will hit a base with 3000-4000 AV in a stack (and so do I).

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: Dixie

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

Interesting.  I find the opposite happens in my games.  I tend to form a solid line of units (a la WWI) with major pushes in a couple of areas.  Important bases on the front line get a "lot" of troops for defense.  I've found that the only way to make headway in China is to surround and destroy units.  My major attacks are usually ~150k or so troops.  A major base on the front line is about 100k.

Hmm, interesting [:D] Free intel... [:'(]

If you've got huge stacks of units moving around CHina then you'll end up clogging all the roads with your troops and you'll have massive gaps in your front line where you can march an army through... Plus as Japan massive stacks of troops will mean partisan activity in most of your bases.

All you need to keep the partisan activity down is at most a division in garrison.

I've tried marching through the gaps, but he has these linebacker stacks that pop out from his key bases and knock out anything smaller than about nine divisions.

[Mike Solli]

ORIGINAL: Dixie

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

You're assuming I'm telling the truth, Dixie. [;)] [:'(] [:D]

Everyone knows that officers of the rank of Lt or above cannot lie.

Now I know I have you fooled Dixie. [:D]

[Mike Solli]

ORIGINAL: herwin

ORIGINAL: Dixie

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

Interesting.  I find the opposite happens in my games.  I tend to form a solid line of units (a la WWI) with major pushes in a couple of areas.  Important bases on the front line get a "lot" of troops for defense.  I've found that the only way to make headway in China is to surround and destroy units.  My major attacks are usually ~150k or so troops.  A major base on the front line is about 100k.

Hmm, interesting [:D] Free intel... [:'(]

If you've got huge stacks of units moving around CHina then you'll end up clogging all the roads with your troops and you'll have massive gaps in your front line where you can march an army through... Plus as Japan massive stacks of troops will mean partisan activity in most of your bases.

All you need to keep the partisan activity down is at most a division in garrison.

I've tried marching through the gaps, but he has these linebacker stacks that pop out from his key bases and knock out anything smaller than about nine divisions.

Which side are you playing, Harry? Also, a division here, a brigade there, soon your army is sapped of it's offensive power.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

ORIGINAL: herwin

ORIGINAL: Dixie




Hmm, interesting [:D] Free intel... [:'(]

If you've got huge stacks of units moving around CHina then you'll end up clogging all the roads with your troops and you'll have massive gaps in your front line where you can march an army through... Plus as Japan massive stacks of troops will mean partisan activity in most of your bases.

All you need to keep the partisan activity down is at most a division in garrison.

I've tried marching through the gaps, but he has these linebacker stacks that pop out from his key bases and knock out anything smaller than about nine divisions.

Which side are you playing, Harry? Also, a division here, a brigade there, soon your army is sapped of it's offensive power.

Japan

[Mike Solli]

CHS?  I've found that in CHS the Chinese numbers are huge.  I try to bomb them into the stone age.  In the threadwar, rtrapasso sent a monster force toward Shanghai.  He eventually retreated.  Not sure exactly why.  I think a lack of supplies had something to do with it.  A lack of supply coupled with bombing will make the largest force impotent.  I recommend trying to find a way to separate his forces from their supply.

[Feltan]

I have called this phenomenom the Battle of the China Deathstars.

In real life, there is no way the road/rail network could have logisticaly supported stacks of 10-15 division equivalents in most locations. Even today many locations in China could not support such a concentration -- you would simply have all the primitive roads with bumper to bumper traffic in perpetual gridlock.

Not sure if this is addressed in AE, but it could be fixed within the current supply framework; i.e., a given hex can only absord so much supply per day, etc.

Regards,
Feltan

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

CHS?  I've found that in CHS the Chinese numbers are huge.  I try to bomb them into the stone age.  In the threadwar, rtrapasso sent a monster force toward Shanghai.  He eventually retreated.  Not sure exactly why.  I think a lack of supplies had something to do with it.  A lack of supply coupled with bombing will make the largest force impotent.  I recommend trying to find a way to separate his forces from their supply.

RHS, but I suspect it's very similar to CHS in China.

Blocking supply is what I've been trying to do. Whenever I get a unit astride his supply route, he reacts like I've touched a raw nerve.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: Feltan

I have called this phenomenom the Battle of the China Deathstars.

In real life, there is no way the road/rail network could have logisticaly supported stacks of 10-15 division equivalents in most locations. Even today many locations in China could not support such a concentration -- you would simply have all the primitive roads with bumper to bumper traffic in perpetual gridlock.

Not sure if this is addressed in AE, but it could be fixed within the current supply framework; i.e., a given hex can only absord so much supply per day, etc.

Regards,
Feltan

Amen. It happens elsewhere.

About 30 years ago I designed an Italian Campaign game that took into account supply capacity in the stacking limits. It automatically channelised operations along good roads, railroads and navigable rivers. Yet another idea for the WitP II ground combat operations model.

[Big B]

ORIGINAL: herwin

The first time I played D-Day, about 50 years ago, my brother and I overlooked the stacking rules. We built enormous stacks of divisions and used them to hunt smaller stacks belonging to the enemy. In one of my current PBEMs, we're doing the same thing. I notice that both sides started out relatively spread out in China, but now we have a few of these enormous stacks. We've done the same thing elsewhere on the map--for example in Singapore, Mandalay, and Manila. What is supposed to discourage this tactic?

There is nothing to do about it IMHO. It is the natural course of events - concentrating force to overwhelm opposition, or to counter a concentrated force.
Feltan mentioned the supply net, and in WitP the supply net in China is LOUSY. But still, you'll be a fool not to oppose force with more force, UNLESS you have multiple routes open to cut off and isolate the enemy concentration....how many men concentrated at Stalingrad?

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: Big B

ORIGINAL: herwin

The first time I played D-Day, about 50 years ago, my brother and I overlooked the stacking rules. We built enormous stacks of divisions and used them to hunt smaller stacks belonging to the enemy. In one of my current PBEMs, we're doing the same thing. I notice that both sides started out relatively spread out in China, but now we have a few of these enormous stacks. We've done the same thing elsewhere on the map--for example in Singapore, Mandalay, and Manila. What is supposed to discourage this tactic?

There is nothing to do about it IMHO. It is the natural course of events - concentrating force to overwhelm opposition, or to counter a concentrated force.
Feltan mentioned the supply net, and in WitP the supply net in China is LOUSY. But still, you'll be a fool not to oppose force with more force, UNLESS you have multiple routes open to cut off and isolate the enemy concentration....how many men concentrated at Stalingrad?

About 300,000 were cut off, but a significant number were evacuated.

[Feltan]

ORIGINAL: Big B

...Feltan mentioned the supply net, and in WitP the supply net in China is LOUSY. But still, you'll be a fool not to oppose force with more force, UNLESS you have multiple routes open to cut off and isolate the enemy concentration....how many men concentrated at Stalingrad?

Perhaps I should have been more clear. You are correct, the supply net in China in WITP is lousy, but it is not lousy enough to prevent uber-stacking. The realistic way (as opposed to an artificial stacking limit) to model this is for the deathstar stacks to run out of supply due to the inability to transport that supply to areas of poor infrastructure, hence making their creation counter-productive.

Regards,
Feltan

[Big B]

Yes that is correct, model road-net to allow X-amount of supply daily, but I think (for all its faults) they have already done so in WitP.

I think a better way (theoretically) would be to model unit frontage. But a hex is 60 mile wide (40 in AE)- that's a 'hellova-lot' of divisions/battalions that can be squeezed into the front line for an assault. On a Stalingrad scale, that may allow 1,000,000 men per side to participate (counting rear echelon troops)?[&:](if I am correct - they squeezed that many men, in less frontage, for the Meuse-Argonne assault?)

I don't think there is an easy answer.

Practically speaking, I think the best approach is to actually 'improve' the existing road-net so that encircling is a more viable option (more rapid)?

Tell me L-T, what do you think?

ORIGINAL: Feltan

ORIGINAL: Big B

...Feltan mentioned the supply net, and in WitP the supply net in China is LOUSY. But still, you'll be a fool not to oppose force with more force, UNLESS you have multiple routes open to cut off and isolate the enemy concentration....how many men concentrated at Stalingrad?

Perhaps I should have been more clear. You are correct, the supply net in China in WITP is lousy, but it is not lousy enough to prevent uber-stacking. The realistic way (as opposed to an artificial stacking limit) to model this is for the deathstar stacks to run out of supply due to the inability to transport that supply to areas of poor infrastructure, hence making their creation counter-productive.

Regards,
Feltan

[Feltan]

ORIGINAL: Big B

Yes that is correct, model road-net to allow X-amount of supply daily, but I think (for all its faults) they have already done so in WitP.

I think a better way (theoretically) would be to model unit frontage. But a hex is 60 mile wide (40 in AE)- that's a 'hellova-lot' of divisions/battalions that can be squeezed into the front line for an assault. On a Stalingrad scale, that may allow 1,000,000 men per side to participate (counting rear echelon troops)?[&:](if I am correct - they squeezed that many men, in less frontage, for the Meuse-Argonne assault?)

I don't think there is an easy answer.

Practically speaking, I think the best approach is to actually 'improve' the existing road-net so that encircling is a more viable option (more rapid)?

Tell me L-T, what do you think?

I agree there isn't an easy answer.

While encircling is highly desired, it wasn't characteristic of warfare in China in WWII. This was more of set piece warfare, assaults against fortified positions, and a battle for bases, much more than one would see in Europe. There were certainly exceptions; however, your average big battle was one side assaulting a city and the other side defending. And, then, there was a lot of sitting around and looking at each other in between battles; the "front" was static for much of the war.

I guess my overall gripe is that in WITP, the battle for China doesn't have the right feel.

The Nationalists were more concerned with preserving their strength for future battles with the Communists after the Allies defeated Japan, and protecting the warlord's commercial interests. Fighting the Japanese was really a secondary consideration.

The Japanese could go virtually anywhere they wanted, to a point. Logistics, and protecting supply routes were their main impediments. And, for the Japanese, logistics was an impediment to begin with.

I have to stick with my earlier comment. The supply situation in China is not lousy enough as currently modelled.

While any wargamer worth his salt wants to blitz and envelop all the way to Chungking, that doesn't reflect the nature of combat in China in WWII.

Regards,
Feltan

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: Feltan

I agree there isn't an easy answer.

While encircling is highly desired, it wasn't characteristic of warfare in China in WWII. This was more of set piece warfare, assaults against fortified positions, and a battle for bases, much more than one would see in Europe. There were certainly exceptions; however, your average big battle was one side assaulting a city and the other side defending. And, then, there was a lot of sitting around and looking at each other in between battles; the "front" was static for much of the war.

I guess my overall gripe is that in WITP, the battle for China doesn't have the right feel.

The Nationalists were more concerned with preserving their strength for future battles with the Communists after the Allies defeated Japan, and protecting the warlord's commercial interests. Fighting the Japanese was really a secondary consideration.

The Japanese could go virtually anywhere they wanted, to a point. Logistics, and protecting supply routes were their main impediments. And, for the Japanese, logistics was an impediment to begin with.

I have to stick with my earlier comment. The supply situation in China is not lousy enough as currently modelled.

While any wargamer worth his salt wants to blitz and envelop all the way to Chungking, that doesn't reflect the nature of combat in China in WWII.

Regards,
Feltan

Yes, this is the first time I've fought in China, and--as always--I base my style and tactics on history and my professional experience, not the game as designed. The 'feel' of the Chinese campaign is very wrong. Ditto for Malaya, Burma, and the Philippines, just not as obviously. Japanese doctrine was outstanding, relying 'on local surprise and infiltration tactics to defeat their numerically superior enemy'. Defensively tenacious. Very poor at frontal or set-piece attacks due to co-ordination problems (from the comments on Burma II by OCS/Multi-Man Publishing). Figuring out how to get that flavour on a 40-mile hex scale is challenging.