Suggestion replaced killed with lost

[Marty A]

You release all west coast units on map on dec 8 for no pps. just disband west coast hq. same with 4 air command [fighter and bomber]. move hq to san francisco and disband it. no need these hqs anyway. after disband units under them hq said unknown and can move on boat. japanese can do same.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: Marty A

You release all west coast units on map on dec 8 for no pps. just disband west coast hq. same with 4 air command [fighter and bomber]. move hq to san francisco and disband it. no need these hqs anyway. after disband units under them hq said unknown and can move on boat. japanese can do same.

always great if someone comes up with a way to exploit the game...

this post should be deleted... [8|]

[Marty A]

Yes delete post so devs not fix and those that know can do and those that do not know wonder. your think good let us do this not fix game.

[SuluSea]

ORIGINAL: Mistmatz





I dont think its fair to ask for historical correctness on one issue (using a Division at a specific date) and complain about another issue (spending the PP to replace leaders, esp Percival).

It's about tradeoffs and you chose the leader route. So please do not complain about other things you cannot do anymore because you spent your PPs.

I'd change the very same leaders of LCUs and air crews as I've already had if I were inclined to start a new game.

My complaint isn't with one division, my complaint is with the zeal the developers used to make the AI challenging completely throws the competitive balance in this game out of whack. I have hordes of Japanese planes flying over Port Moresby and it's only January 12. My few decent fighters in the SWPAC area to combat this historical laugher and attrit the Japanese airmen are hardcoded to be withdrawn or destroyed in the Phillipines, but the usual japanese player line will tell you it's about choices. [8|] Sure it is.

The competitive balance out of the box was unadulterated tojo fantasy, patch 1 made it worse.

ORIGINAL: Mistmatz

EDIT: Just checked in my GC game (even pre-patch save files) and found the 41st is under command of Pacific Fleet from the beginning and was initially located at Tacoma. (The latter IIRC)

If you start a game after the patch it's West Coast HQ. What do you think I changed them to a West Coast HQ myself? It's about the 41st Division but to a larger extent it's about the competitive balance or lack there of that this game has out of the box. Obviously you know the context of my earlier post implied that.

[SuluSea]

ORIGINAL: Marty A

You release all west coast units on map on dec 8 for no pps. just disband west coast hq. same with 4 air command [fighter and bomber]. move hq to san francisco and disband it. no need these hqs anyway. after disband units under them hq said unknown and can move on boat. japanese can do same.

Thanks for the suggestion, if I ever play the AI again That will be the first thing I do. Playing against a human opponent I don't think it would be fair to use tactics like that on him, especially when we have a houserule in place to pay PP to move forces across borders. They'll sit on the West coast till I can afford PPs, I already know given the head start the developers give the japanese player in the Southern Solomons and New Guinea the historical campaign for the Solomons and New Guinea and more than likely allied bastions such as the New Hebrides are a complete waste of Allied resources. They'll be bypassed prison camps some day.

[Marty A]

Yes i mean for ai game not e mail.

[Walloc]

Hi Ben,

ORIGINAL: bklooste
I believe you are correct in killing 15K in a week in mountain terrain is very difficult ( though it did happen in China between the Communist and Nationalist before the war). However i think its quite possible to kill 2-3000 capture 2000-3000 and have 9-11,000 flee and desert this is exactly what happened in the Philippines (on a smaller scale). There is an argument that the morale of some Chinese units is a bit too low but mass desertion was a massive problem and i think the engine models that nicely (again higher morale lower destroyed)

I purposely didnt use the word killed, but casulties. So to include captured, desertion and so on. If it had been a one time thing, sure it can happen. Problem is its not a one time thing. Its how the entire china theather plays out in all of the AARs i've read. So its not a one time occurance, but the general result.
The natur of "rough" terrain how ever we define it is that its much easier to make "roadblock"/chokepoints so on. Making time for most of units to escape, giving time for deserters/straglers to return to the units and so on.
I have no problem with the fact that it could happen. Its the fact that its a given it happens. There is no chance currently if the jap player is playing a bit wisely that it doesnt happen. The effect is as seen in all the AARs. Blitzkrieg China.

We all agree that the chinease troops was of poor quality. How ever that never made China a blitzkrieg theather. Obviously with that in mind. Either the chinease wasnt as "bad". Looking at casulty rates for either the some evidence to suggest that. At leased understod in a way that japs toke casulties too stopping their advance much faster than what we see currently in game. Or there are many factors that isnt shown in game that cause the jap advances to be much slower and costly than how it plays out in game atm, and causing "indirect" casulties. Since redoing the code to show those factors is out of the scope i presume.
U left with only 2 place u can adjust the current game IF u wana slow down the china theather and cause casulties. Alter the Chinease troops quality. Or alter how the ground combat routine works. Modifiers and so on.

I've heard ppl say well the jap could have done better and the current situasion is just showing the jap potential. Since that a purely subjective opinion i cant and wont argue with that. I and apparently im not the only 1, strongly disagree's with that. Frankly by looking at the way the historical campaign plays out IMO this arguement is pure wishfull thinking.
It alters the entire game cuz u cause alot of extra points from dead chinease troops and non dead(read disabled) jap troops. Eventually if the current pace in game continues it will also alter the game in the way u are able to eventually withdraw troops from China en mass.

As pointed out in above posts there are reasons within the current combat engine why we see the results we see and why the results becomes given. For example the fact u can drive 10 divisions through a mountain hex and have all cause casulties. That is the real problem. Sure if u had 30k troops semi surrounded or some other significant tactical/operational disadvantage could cause 15k casulties, underling casulties. Problem is u dont need that. U can currently make a head-on attack in mountain with 2 jap division causing 15k casulties, self taking a fraction of that and take 2000 sq/miles of mountain in 1 day of combat plus a few days to move into the hex. And keep on going from hex to hex with no stopping.
U can cause 200-800 casulties per day with a bit of bombing. Considering the time it takes to regain disabled squads, the whole. Troops arent killed but just disable argument doesnt hold water. Cuz ok in first combat the chinease troops are "just" disabled but in the next attack in the next hex a few days later they are "killed". Per default. This foster the current blitzkrieg state of the theather. Every thing just happens way to fast. Meaning causing casulties, be it destroyed or disabled squads.
No way to avoid this, no way to attain other results. Other than making ur own monster stacks.
The one thing that was trying to be avoided as i understand it.

If nothing else even a chinease corps IMO should be able to hold a mountain hex for a significant amount of time against a jap div. Quality is cancelled out in a large for example fortification, difficult terrain and the like. Obviosuly doesnt happen in game atm.

I would not describe any of those troops you mention as poor morale (Italian alpine units were also elite) ..they are irregular.

The italians had over 1m men under arms in the alpes and valleys during WWI. Only a fraction of those were alpine troops. U had 300.000 men route during a single campaign. Wouldnt call that high quality. Sure they lost many(so did the austrians) men and had many battles lost. Non the less the austrians/german never really made out of the alps. Only about 120km of italian alps. Thats 2 AE hexes defended for years. Battle after battle and recovering taking place within the same hex.

As a counter example the long march suffered massive casualties in some battles in very rough terrain or the PI troops at Lamon bay. It does depend somewhat on how rough the terrain is, the game models mountains as *3 i read in an AAR so obviously they are not that tough

But there were operational/tactical reasons for that. Being outflanked can ofc cancel out any terrain bonus.
Lamon Bay is an example on how operational reasons influence tactical combat.
U have an army being strategicly supprise.
U had the troops "defending" the area in the process of moving through the area, in what prolly in game amounts to strategic mode or move mode. Being in part on the way to Legaspi. U have no artillery present.
The defending troops are getting outflanked both tactically and operationally, negating the advantages of any terrain "bonus". If all of that had been present I wouldnt mind the result in question.
U dont need any of those factors of that to get the current results in China.

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/USA ... .html#map4
with more on the factors of Lamon Bay.

Many of the reasons why the Malaya campaign played out like it did. Defending forces constandly outflanking having to pull back numerous time. Basicly being off balance and on the move constandly. Such factors significantly reduce how well troops perform. The Boyd Loop in pratice. Many times it isnt necesarrily the "quality" of troops that is the main reason on why campaigns play out as the do, but operational/strategic factors.

How would the Malaya campaign have played out of that hadnt been the case. Had we all seen the Indian/British/Malayan/Austrialian troops as supermen repelling the japanease invaders with 99 xp / 99 moral?

I've seen many games where u give xp and such factors purely based on the actual outcome of a battle or campaign. Instead of looking at is the other factors that created the situasion and outcome. The give X side superman quality to "force" the same historicy. Even if u play the side totally stupidly, then the X-man factor, trumphs any actual tactical/operational situasion.

Try look at India in game atm. A fast invasion is a sure thing. U fight mostly troops with 20-30 moral and xp. Im surprised we havent seen any fast India attempts yet. It very much seems like a sure fire thing. A perfect example of this IMHO.
Given the jap 100% intelligence and no constrains making things that would never been real options, into real options.

- no Alps on the map.

Ehh, no but the Himalayas. Same hex type in game as the hex in question. Thats not to say that the hex in question is of the same caliber as the Himalayas, but it does tell that same thing can happen even in the Himalayas.

I agree with you mountains are a bit too easy ( due to the logistical problems of using and supplying heavy weapons which i dont think is modeled ) but that doesn't affect say wooded hills which can be very rough terrain.

Anyway i think the model is quite good and better than a lot of games that model land combat. Maybe a small increase in morale for some Chinese units (+5) , better mountain modeling and change destroyed to lost.

Sorry Ben, but I disagree. No real surprise, ehh.[:D]
Im affraid, but I could be wrong that no "small" changes will fix this.
When X amount of troops can cause casulties amounting to near X opponents in just 1 day of combat. The end result is given. The casulty rate in "normal" battles with without any significant operational advance needs to drop by a factor of many times. 5-10 times OTOH in some cases. Some of that could be rectified by adjusting the quality of the chinease troops as it obviously plays a factor in the number of casulties. U can clearly cause 3000 casulties per day with pure bombardments. That amounts to 1 day of combat = near 1 year out of combat of disabled squads. Redicious when its done by 5 art btns and some divisional art.

Chinease troops didnt overall constadly run in such numbers or the campaign would have been over in 1937 removing any need for AE ever to have been made. [;)]


Kind regards,

Rasmus

[Knavey]

ORIGINAL: treespider

ORIGINAL: Shark7

A casualty is a casualty is a casualty.

Especially if its the Bismark [:-]

Sunk or Scuttled or simply Hiding?[8D]

What was the best BB in ...oh wait. Nevermind. [:D]

[stuman]

ORIGINAL: Marty A

You release all west coast units on map on dec 8 for no pps. just disband west coast hq. same with 4 air command [fighter and bomber]. move hq to san francisco and disband it. no need these hqs anyway. after disband units under them hq said unknown and can move on boat. japanese can do same.

Well I must admit that I have never thought about that. When you do they all become attached to "Unknown ". But without a HQ, won't they all start to slowy drift away to bars, brothels or maybe just wander away [:)]

[rattovolante]

ORIGINAL: Walloc

Hi Ben,

ORIGINAL: bklooste
I would not describe any of those troops you mention as poor morale (Italian alpine units were also elite) ..they are irregular.

The italians had over 1m men under arms in the alpes and valleys during WWI. Only a fraction of those were alpine troops. U had 300.000 men route during a single campaign. Wouldnt call that high quality. Sure they lost many(so did the austrians) men and had many battles lost. Non the less the austrians/german never really made out of the alps. Only about 120km of italian alps. Thats 2 AE hexes defended for years. Battle after battle and recovering taking place within the same hex.

I think you might be referring to different things through the same name of "mountain warfare". As far as I understand, Walloc considers all the WWI Italian front to be mountain warfare (or am I wrong?), but here in Italy the concept is applied in a quite strict sense (for example, WW2 Gustav and Gothic lines aren't considered to be mountain warfare - very rough terrain, but no freezing, altitude sickness, avalanches/rockslides, etc.).

Most of the large battles took place on the Karst plateau (or even on plains), and weren't that different from the western front. But WWI mountain warfare involved unique and quite extreme aspects like fighting over a glacier, or tunneling, mining and blowing up entire mountain peaks. The only war coming near it was Kashmir, and it still didn't reach its extremes.

In other words, apart from the obvious fact that with 46-miles hexes you simply can't model it (as almost every mountain peak is a key location), you would need very specific game mechanics to be able to capture its feeling. How much preparation and preparation do you need to blow up a mountain?
So, I do not think WWI mountain war is a good example for benchmarking AE's China.



BTW, both sides employed regular line infantry troops as well as specialist mountain troops (alpini & kaiserjaegers + mountain artillery etc.), this because there weren't enough mountain troops to cover the whole mountain front, and losses couldn't be replaced easily. But morale in the WWI Italian army was relatively high, the main problems were officers and doctrine (in other words, same situation as in the western front)

PS: Just out of curiosity, how does AE define the terrain of the battle of Mukden during the Russo-Japanese war in 1905, rough/wooded?

[Walloc]

ORIGINAL: rattovolante


I think you might be referring to different things through the same name of "mountain warfare". As far as I understand, Walloc considers all the WWI Italian front to be mountain warfare (or am I wrong?), but here in Italy the concept is applied in a quite strict sense (for example, WW2 Gustav and Gothic lines aren't considered to be mountain warfare - very rough terrain, but no freezing, altitude sickness, avalanches/rockslides, etc.).

Im talking about the mountain hexes S and W of Yenen.
Mountains with white tops. Suggesting snow and heights. Only other places on map there are depicted as such terrain in the game is the real Himalayas, Rocky Mountains, Alaskan mountain ranges and in Siberia. Seemly suggesting this is really mountains. By the nature of it not the Himalaya's, but apparently still signficant mountains. Ofc not the entire hex needs to be peaks, but a portion of it. Fighting would mostly be confined to passes, plateau's and possibly valleys. Non the less in all likelyhood confined battle space, where smaller forces are able to hold back larger formations. There would prolly be alot of snow. Especially in dec/jan. Making it all the more difficult to excercise blitzkrieg.

Stuff like the Stanley range is shown as this what i would assume to be similar terrain type, just of the jungle type. Similar with the "highland"(lower part of himalaya range near Kumming.
I mean with all the difficulty of the fighting in Stanleys i wouldnt suggest that it be easier in "mountain" type terrain. Certainly not "blitzkrieg" warfare terrain where combat/winning/losing is a matter of 1 day affairs. I would consider the "trekking" over the Stanleys as very close if not mountain warfare. Combat takes place in very narrow battle spaces. U cant outflank and so on, tacticly.
So my definition might be a bit off, but what else should we call it?

Most of the large battles took place on the Karst plateau (or even on plains), and weren't that different from the western front.
But WWI mountain warfare involved unique and quite extreme aspects like fighting over a glacier, or tunneling, mining and blowing up entire mountain peaks. The only war coming near it was Kashmir, and it still didn't reach its extremes.

Absoultly but the fact that main stay of the fighting is confined makes it all the easier to defend. U cant "utilize" the entire hex to attack, so its easier to defend. Ofc all the fighting near Trieste wasnt of that nature. Im talking about the same fighting as u. The real mountain fighting up high, but also the fact alot that Alpine fighting was channeled into the Karst plateau and passes/valleys. Confined battles spaces.

So no, by mountain warfare i dont only mean in the strickly 3000m+ stuff, but the fact that mountain area's makes for confined battle spaces that by the nature of it easier to defend. Harder if possible at all to outflank making it harder to attack.

The WWII Gothic/Gustave line certainly wasnt of this nature. As u say, more like fortified rough terrain.

In other words, apart from the obvious fact that with 46-miles hexes you simply can't model it (as almost every mountain peak is a key location), you would need very specific game mechanics to be able to capture its feeling. How much preparation and preparation do you need to blow up a mountain?
So, I do not think WWI mountain war is a good example for benchmarking AE's China.

No, but if the hex is really a mountain hex. Be it Himalaya's, Rockies or what ever. U can model the fact these places are easy to defend and hard to attack. Not 1 day affairs.
Even rough terrain should be hard to take. The WWII italian campaigns showed that.

Hope it clears it up,

Rasmus

[erstad]

ORIGINAL: SuluSea

ORIGINAL: erstad

41st didn't ship out until March of 1942. You can actually release the 41st in January in AE. So AE allows it in-theater earlier than historical.

Oh I can release it in January? You mean if I don't spend 150 PPs to change out Percival or change any other of the crappy leaders that the LCUs/ air units come with out of the box which would help the imperial steam roller on its way. Sounds like great advice . [8|] .

Um, historically Percival stayed in command until the surrender. I guess I don't see why people spend their PPs doing unhistorical things like switching out Percival or evacuating ABDA units or whatever and then complain that the game doesn't allow them to move the 41st when it historically did. The way I see it, the PPs give people a choice.

Tell me how many units that operated in South Pac or SWPAC in 1942 are restricted to the home islands awaiting a lions share of PPs to move out.

Honestly, I haven't studied the Allied OOB in detail so I don't have any idea. If you don't have enough PPs to move the historical units if that's all you spend PPs on, I would agree that seems wrong.

[rattovolante]

So my definition might be a bit off, but what else should we call it?

It's not off, just different. What I wished to point out was that in at least part of the literature on WWI italian front, you'll see a very strict definition of mountain warfare, which isn't very appropriate for WitP.

ORIGINAL: Walloc
Hope it clears it up,

Rasmus

Sure, actually I agree with you for the most part - only my limited experience shows that mountain terrain does help somewhat. In my PBEM I have been pushing with surprising ease on most of the Chinese front - except exactly in the mountain hexes near Yenan. I think I could break through, but I found less expensive supply-wise to try to outflank him. I think he'll either retreat or end up out of supply and encircled.

Anyway, I think the 40-nm hex scale forces a lot of approximation in land combat, and I'm not sure how this could be handled. I doubt a mountain 40-nm hex means "completely filled with mountains", except maybe the unpassable hexes in Tibet. So I guess the idea is that the troops are assumed to "always" be able to cross the hex through a valley or something (like they are assumed to "always" find a trail while moving). But this doesn't work very well with mountain passes I guess.

Maybe rather than (or in addition to) giving a multiplier to the defender's AV, terrain should limit the number of troops that the larger side (attacker or defender) can bring to battle?
Or maybe place a 0(0) dot base on some key mountain hexes (like the ones on the Taiyuan-Sian railway line) with some starting fortification levels (and the defender can try to block the pass by building more)? Call it "so-and-so pass" or something.

Just random ideas, of course...

[SuluSea]

ORIGINAL: erstad


Um, historically Percival stayed in command until the surrender. I guess I don't see why people spend their PPs doing unhistorical things like switching out Percival or evacuating ABDA units or whatever and then complain that the game doesn't allow them to move the 41st when it historically did. The way I see it, the PPs give people a choice.

The developers gave Percival the leadership quailities of a lethargic cook, changing him out to a competent leader may give the Singapore troops a few more days before it's over run. Given the end results of patch 1 I wouldn't doubt that Percival is hard coded in patch 2. As it stand I'm working within the system to do what I can to slow down the steam roller.

As far as evacuating ABDA troops I've spent ZERO PPs evacuating units from the DEI, ZERO PPs evacuating units from the Phillipines other than B-17s & ZERO PPs evacuating units from Malaya. I look to get units into the fight in conditions that favor the defender, not out of it. The game restricts the allies too much early while giving the japanese entirely too much leeway much too soon including the ridiculous 4 month unload bonus, which helps pave the way for battles that never occured deep in the South Pacific in traditionally Allied bastions. The game needs fixing.

I purchased this game because I thought it would simulate the actual conditions , not pure tojo fantasy, not a game that handcuffs one side and gives non-historic bonuses to the other. This game still has a chance if corrections are willing to be made.