Return of the Sheep! - JocMeister(A) vs. MrKane(J)

[JocMeister]

Forgot to attach this screen last night!

[JocMeister]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Hate to sound like a broken record, but I've been pointing out for years that allowing the bombing of unused airfields to destroy the supply of armies deployed in field created an easymode game for the Japanese player in China.

Many have tried to make China tougher to conquer, but have failed. I believe they will continue to fail until this mechanism is altered.

Unfortunately every time I bring it up I get lambasted by the entire community and shouted down by a flurry of "it has to be that way...stupid" responses.

From my perspective, nothing about destroying the supply of field armies by bombing unused airbases has ever made a lick of sense.

steps back down from soap box

Actually Tom has done next to no AF bombings. Instead he has gone after the troops in the priority:
Clear terrain
Moving
Strongholds

From my experience this might have been even more effective then bombing AF supply. He has caused on average around 1000 casualties per day. 1000 casualties x 150 days = 150.000 casualties from bombing alone. I hate to think how much supply getting all those disablements back have costs.

Then add the almost invulnerable armor which can attack and cause massive casualties despite horrible combat odds. But the biggest problem is lack of Chinese supply, or perhaps rather with the ease the Japanese can sustain combat, day after day without the slightest worry of supply problems. China is simply not balanced for that kind of scenario.

I know RA has started looking into the issues with China. Perhaps they can get it sorted. It will be really problematic to balance though. IMO I think it would be better to work on toning down the Japanese rather then giving the Chinese more. I think it could easily turn the Chinese into an insane powerhouse in 43-44.

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: JocMeister


I know RA has started looking into the issues with China. Perhaps they can get it sorted. It will be really problematic to balance though. IMO I think it would be better to work on toning down the Japanese rather then giving the Chinese more. I think it could easily turn the Chinese into an insane powerhouse in 43-44.

I agree. Against a less than astute Japanese player (the AI) the Chinese are already powerful enough to liberate most of the country in '42.

Would be nice to see the Japanese toned down, especially anywhere outside a base hex and the Chinese handicapped by warlord lack of loyalty to the central regime, and strained by the communist/nationalist tension.

[JocMeister]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

ORIGINAL: JocMeister


I know RA has started looking into the issues with China. Perhaps they can get it sorted. It will be really problematic to balance though. IMO I think it would be better to work on toning down the Japanese rather then giving the Chinese more. I think it could easily turn the Chinese into an insane powerhouse in 43-44.

I agree. Against a less than astute Japanese player (the AI) the Chinese are already powerful enough to liberate most of the country in '42.

Would be nice to see the Japanese toned down, especially anywhere outside a base hex and the Chinese handicapped by warlord lack of loyalty to the central regime, and strained by the communist/nationalist tension.

I think implementing substantial Garrison requirements on both sides could possible help to slow down the tempo and make it harder to steamroll stuff. If Sian and Lanchow (for example) had 1000 AV requirements each that would mean a lot less troops available for Chunking/Changsha after the almost required Sian/Lanchow start.

Then add a lot to the existing requirements and both sides will have less troops available which would mean less supply burnt. Obviously very hard to tune and balance but not impossible I think. [:)]

[obvert]

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

Actually Tom has done next to no AF bombings. Instead he has gone after the troops in the priority:
Clear terrain
Moving
Strongholds

From my experience this might have been even more effective then bombing AF supply. He has caused on average around 1000 casualties per day. 1000 casualties x 150 days = 150.000 casualties from bombing alone. I hate to think how much supply getting all those disablements back have costs.

Then add the almost invulnerable armor which can attack and cause massive casualties despite horrible combat odds. But the biggest problem is lack of Chinese supply, or perhaps rather with the ease the Japanese can sustain combat, day after day without the slightest worry of supply problems. China is simply not balanced for that kind of scenario.

I know RA has started looking into the issues with China. Perhaps they can get it sorted. It will be really problematic to balance though. IMO I think it would be better to work on toning down the Japanese rather then giving the Chinese more. I think it could easily turn the Chinese into an insane powerhouse in 43-44.

Apparently repairing disabled devices and squads does not cost supply. If a unit does not have supply it will not repair them, but they will repair at no cost if the unit is in good supply. If it's very low or out of supply altogether, squads and devices will become disabled.

I had thought there was a cost to repair these as well until just recently when someone steered me in the right direction.

I think the gnarly roads map/pwhex changes might go a ways farther to fixing supply movement and garrison allotments in China, thus tying down and slowing the Japanese more the farther hey get into China. The part that needs fixing has to do with the disparity in logistical possibility for both sides. The game designers may not have considered that the Japanese would simply flood China with supply that moves a bit too freely down very good road and rail systems, but the gnarly road idea might slow this supply movement at least.

If there were more small Chinese dot bases (without airfields that could be bombed) with internal supply generation on the order of a total of around 200-300 supply a day, that would give the Chinese a chance to keep some supply in frontline corps but still without an early chance at offensive actions.

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: obvert


If there were more small Chinese dot bases (without airfields that could be bombed) with internal supply generation on the order of a total of around 200-300 supply a day, that would give the Chinese a chance to keep some supply in frontline corps but still without an early chance at offensive actions.

I like that idea.

I'm not sure though that garrison requirements would have all that great an impact.

I typically ignore garrison requirements with the Allies and accept a little damage at bases I'm not using anyway in order to prioritize having units at the front where I need them, both in India and China.

[JocMeister]

ORIGINAL: obvert

Apparently repairing disabled devices and squads does not cost supply. If a unit does not have supply it will not repair them, but they will repair at no cost if the unit is in good supply. If it's very low or out of supply altogether, squads and devices will become disabled.

I had thought there was a cost to repair these as well until just recently when someone steered me in the right direction.

I think the gnarly roads map/pwhex changes might go a ways farther to fixing supply movement and garrison allotments in China, thus tying down and slowing the Japanese more the farther hey get into China. The part that needs fixing has to do with the disparity in logistical possibility for both sides. The game designers may not have considered that the Japanese would simply flood China with supply that moves a bit too freely down very good road and rail systems, but the gnarly road idea might slow this supply movement at least.

If there were more small Chinese dot bases (without airfields that could be bombed) with internal supply generation on the order of a total of around 200-300 supply a day, that would give the Chinese a chance to keep some supply in frontline corps but still without an early chance at offensive actions.

AH, that is good to know! [X(] But that begs the question. What is burning ALL Chinese supply in just 3-6 months? Is it just the constant battle?

In general I would be very cautious about giving the Chinese more supply. That kind of stuff would be very hard to balance I think. For example extra supply could be used to start repairing industry that would in turn generate more supply and so on...

I think the best way to deal with it would be to balance down the Japanese ability to maintain such a massive tempo on several vectors. As I wrote to HB I think perhaps the best way would be to drastically increase the garrison requirements for both sides. Especially in occupied territory. If the Japanese had to leave behind say 2000 AV for Sian and Lanchow grabbing Chungking/Changsha would be harder to do. Probably requiring buying out troops from Manchuria.

Perhaps an overall increase of Garrison requirements for both sides to put less troops on the front would help too.

[DesertedFox]

I'll throw my 2 cents in here re China.

I recently returned to play witp_ae approx 6 months ago. Prior to that about 3 or 4 years
ago I had about 4 games that ended in my allied victory on or before Feb42 and a dual game against the same opponent, 1 as allies the other as Japan, these end in approx Aug 42. In all those games I had no issues defending in China.

I now have 2 games going playing Dababes, 1 as allies and 1 as japan and another just finished as allies. As the allies in China I am cruising, in my 1 game as japan I feel I have the better of the game so far, but it isn't reversible for my opponent.

Bottom line IMHO if the Chinese are getting rolled its bad play on the allied players part.....full stop...end of story.

Of course the one thing people don't want to hear is, your playing badly. Its much easier to blame the scenario, the data, the 'whatever', as long as the blame is shifted from oneself.

[JocMeister]

ORIGINAL: Deserted Fox
Bottom line IMHO if the Chinese are getting rolled its bad play on the allied players part.....full stop...end of story.

Of course the one thing people don't want to hear is, your playing badly. Its much easier to blame the scenario, the data, the 'whatever', as long as the blame is shifted from oneself.

Must be a lot of "bad players" on this forum then since about 80% of the AARs end with the Japanese steamrolling China. Many players whom play both sides and have a lot of experience still looses China as the allies. I guess the makers of RA is "playing badly" too since they tried to address the issue? Or Simon/JWE (one of the developers of AE) for that matter. Here is a link for your interest.

tm.asp?m=3591647

Ever considered that what the allies accomplish in China isn´t up to the allied player? Its hard to take you seriously when you make a comment like that after playing one allied DBB game where you are "cruising". From that one game (vs one opponent) you deduct that all allied players not "cruising" in China suck.

Couldn´t be that:
A: Your opponent doesn´t have any interest in China?
B: Your opponent is inexperienced?
C: You opponent lack your outstanding brilliance?

If I were you I would take a more humble approach to things then throwing out "bad players". Especially when basing it on one single game you have played.... [8|]

[Lowpe]

Fighting in China for some JFBs is about as much fun as going to the dentist. [:D]

[Mundy]

I've been whipped badly in China before. [:(]

I had given up too many cities, and from there supply fell through the basement.

Ed-

[Spidery]

I typically ignore garrison requirements with the Allies and accept a little damage at bases I'm not using anyway in order to prioritize having units at the front where I need them, both in India and China.

Risky if you are worried by AV. The VP loss seems to come off your total so effectively counts the same as giving the Japanese 4 VP for AV purposes. For the long game the VP loss is pretty irrelevant.

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: Spidery

I typically ignore garrison requirements with the Allies and accept a little damage at bases I'm not using anyway in order to prioritize having units at the front where I need them, both in India and China.

Risky if you are worried by AV. The VP loss seems to come off your total so effectively counts the same as giving the Japanese 4 VP for AV purposes. For the long game the VP loss is pretty irrelevant.

Yea, its one VP per base attack in addition to the damage. It ranges from about 2-3 per turn to as much as 5-6 per turn, but it has never worried me as I have to play scenarios with an outrageously over powered Japanese side for the Japanese to ever even get ahead of me in VPs.

In scen 1 or 2 games the Japanese never even pull ahead of the Allies in VPs. In Ironman, Ironman Nasty and Nasty Nasty games the Japanese side starts out ahead of the Allied side in VPs.

We should probably table this discussion tho and let the AAR get back on track.

[obvert]

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

ORIGINAL: obvert

Apparently repairing disabled devices and squads does not cost supply. If a unit does not have supply it will not repair them, but they will repair at no cost if the unit is in good supply. If it's very low or out of supply altogether, squads and devices will become disabled.

I had thought there was a cost to repair these as well until just recently when someone steered me in the right direction.

I think the gnarly roads map/pwhex changes might go a ways farther to fixing supply movement and garrison allotments in China, thus tying down and slowing the Japanese more the farther hey get into China. The part that needs fixing has to do with the disparity in logistical possibility for both sides. The game designers may not have considered that the Japanese would simply flood China with supply that moves a bit too freely down very good road and rail systems, but the gnarly road idea might slow this supply movement at least.

If there were more small Chinese dot bases (without airfields that could be bombed) with internal supply generation on the order of a total of around 200-300 supply a day, that would give the Chinese a chance to keep some supply in frontline corps but still without an early chance at offensive actions.

AH, that is good to know! [X(] But that begs the question. What is burning ALL Chinese supply in just 3-6 months? Is it just the constant battle?

In general I would be very cautious about giving the Chinese more supply. That kind of stuff would be very hard to balance I think. For example extra supply could be used to start repairing industry that would in turn generate more supply and so on...

I think the best way to deal with it would be to balance down the Japanese ability to maintain such a massive tempo on several vectors. As I wrote to HB I think perhaps the best way would be to drastically increase the garrison requirements for both sides. Especially in occupied territory. If the Japanese had to leave behind say 2000 AV for Sian and Lanchow grabbing Chungking/Changsha would be harder to do. Probably requiring buying out troops from Manchuria.

Perhaps an overall increase of Garrison requirements for both sides to put less troops on the front would help too.

Repairing industry isn't going to affect the outcome in China. For LI it would take 1,000 days to make up the initial cost of repairing each factory. That puts you in a surplus by mid-44 if you do it immediately. With HI it is half the time, but it's limited by the fuel used to run it, which is already short and flows poorly in China.

Those kinds of garrison requirements seem a step too far. I'd advocate for smaller increases over more bases in the area the Japanese actually did occupy, and in line with what they actually kept in some of those locations, plus maybe some for each other newly added dot base that is captured. So effectively as the Japanese move forward their garrison requirements get more difficult to manage while keeping up a broadly based offensive. This would be more in line with a realistic situation, but wouldn't sequester 20-25% of the total Chinese Expeditionary Army in the far NW of the country where it's strategically useless.

[obvert]

ORIGINAL: Deserted Fox

I'll throw my 2 cents in here re China.

I recently returned to play witp_ae approx 6 months ago. Prior to that about 3 or 4 years
ago I had about 4 games that ended in my allied victory on or before Feb42 and a dual game against the same opponent, 1 as allies the other as Japan, these end in approx Aug 42. In all those games I had no issues defending in China.

I now have 2 games going playing Dababes, 1 as allies and 1 as japan and another just finished as allies. As the allies in China I am cruising, in my 1 game as japan I feel I have the better of the game so far, but it isn't reversible for my opponent.

Bottom line IMHO if the Chinese are getting rolled its bad play on the allied players part.....full stop...end of story.

Of course the one thing people don't want to hear is, your playing badly. Its much easier to blame the scenario, the data, the 'whatever', as long as the blame is shifted from oneself.

This is ridiculously condescending and arrogant first of all. Some of the most highly regarded players on the forum have not been able to hold China against a focused and skilled opponent who prioritizes China over other theaters. This last portion is important. If China is a priority, then something else on the map is not, and a lot of troops and resources are diverted away from areas where the Allies will eventually have a chance to use this opportunity.

Secondly, you don't give enough information to treat this post seriously. What does 'cruising' mean to you and how is that manifested in game? How did you effect such an early positive result in China? What opposition did you face and how did you defeat it? How did you deal with the problems discussed here of lack of supply, heavy Japanese bombing of troops, and the lack of anything to battle japanese armor?

[offenseman]

If one wanted to slow a Japanese advance through use of garrison requirements it might be useful to use garrisons of 125 AV in some bases that start the game in Allied control, and either more of them the further west receive a garrison requirement or the garrisons get larger like 200 AV in the west. 115, 125, and 200 being key as split divisions can be met by the 115 standard and the two IJA rgt sizes by 125 and 200. Losing a lot of split divisions and rgts would slow any advance and make it harder to guard flanks.

[offenseman]

ORIGINAL: obvert

ORIGINAL: Deserted Fox

I'll throw my 2 cents in here re China.

I recently returned to play witp_ae approx 6 months ago. Prior to that about 3 or 4 years
ago I had about 4 games that ended in my allied victory on or before Feb42 and a dual game against the same opponent, 1 as allies the other as Japan, these end in approx Aug 42. In all those games I had no issues defending in China.

I now have 2 games going playing Dababes, 1 as allies and 1 as japan and another just finished as allies. As the allies in China I am cruising, in my 1 game as japan I feel I have the better of the game so far, but it isn't reversible for my opponent.

Bottom line IMHO if the Chinese are getting rolled its bad play on the allied players part.....full stop...end of story.

Of course the one thing people don't want to hear is, your playing badly. Its much easier to blame the scenario, the data, the 'whatever', as long as the blame is shifted from oneself.

This is ridiculously condescending and arrogant first of all. Some of the most highly regarded players on the forum have not been able to hold China against a focused and skilled opponent who prioritizes China over other theaters. This last portion is important. If China is a priority, then something else on the map is not, and a lot of troops and resources are diverted away from areas where the Allies will eventually have a chance to use this opportunity.

Secondly, you don't give enough information to treat this post seriously. What does 'cruising' mean to you and how is that manifested in game? How did you effect such an early positive result in China? What opposition did you face and how did you defeat it? How did you deal with the problems discussed here of lack of supply, heavy Japanese bombing of troops, and the lack of anything to battle japanese armor?

+1 and not even going to comment on it past this one.

[Cribtop]

If gnarly roads help we'll find out soon as the Between the Storms game Michael and I are starting uses it. I hope it helps in China, India, and from my perspective, in Burma.

[offenseman]

ORIGINAL: Cribtop

If gnarly roads help we'll find out soon as the Between the Storms game Michael and I are starting uses it. I hope it helps in China, India, and from my perspective, in Burma.

Doing an AAR? I'll follow that. Speaking of Burma, I have always felt the supply flows much too well through the jungle.

[Encircled]

"Bad Play on the allies part"

Hmmmm, think you might be owing all those allied players who get steam rollered in China an apology.

Good hit on those AMCs!