When talking about the hypothetical of "Could the IJA have taken all of China", then the response is that they could. In almost every instance, when the Japanese mounted an offensive against the Chinese, it resulted in success.
A more pertinent question is "Could the IJA have held all of China", to which the answer is generally negative. You could make the argument that if it was apparent that the KMT cause was broken then the warlords would have came to some accommodation with Japan and the RGC, but it's hard to justify considering how far the KMT were pushed without breaking.
The game gets China very wrong in several key areas, but within the scale of the game it's perfectly excusable. In truth, the Chinese theater of war is one I don't think any game has managed to portray with any real accuracy.
An Old Timer Steps Back to Measure Game Competitiveness
Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition
-
mind_messing
- Posts: 3394
- Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 11:59 am
RE: An Old Timer Steps Back to Measure Game Competitiveness
ORIGINAL: HansBolter
That Japan was capable of mounting an offensive in China in '44 has no bearing on the obvious observation that Japan did not have the logistical resources to succeed in conquering all of China.
Its an apples and oranges argument.
The Japanese NEVER had the logistical resources to conquer half of what the game allows them to conquer.
Please stop making fools of yourselves trying alter that fact of reality with spurious arguments.
As per Canoerebel's quest, the comment as been deleted.
RE: An Old Timer Steps Back to Measure Game Competitiveness
ORIGINAL: HansBolter
The Japanese NEVER had the logistical resources to conquer half of what the game allows them to conquer.
The game, or a lazy Allied opponent? [8|][8|][8|]
And please - IRL Japan conquered more than half of what the game allows them to conquer. Well more.
RE: An Old Timer Steps Back to Measure Game Competitiveness
ORIGINAL: Aurorus
ORIGINAL: obvert
ORIGINAL: Aurorus
If you want to play scenario 2 or some other modification that bolsters Japan, do not complain about Japan having enough supply to remain on the offensive on multiple fronts. That is the entire purpose of these mods, and I think that you are basing your opinions about the game on PBEM AARs for scenario 2 games and other mods that bolster Japan.
Well, I don't buy that the Japanese could have conquered all of China in the war in any situation. I've read a bit on it and the real issue with defending China wasn't just supply, but getting local 'warlords' to comply with Chaing's orders. If the Japanese started to take them on directly, they'd have a lot more incentive to fight back and use their resources to fend off the Japanese either directly or in a behind the lines guerrilla war.
The IJA would have a problem holding all of the conquered territory once it was taken, but more importantly China didn't have the necessary resources and oil the Japanese so badly needed. The areas they did hold could supply a lot of what China had to offer, so there wasn't much need early on to o farther forward. Later, when US forces were there, it was more important to try to the away airfields and Allied positions.
In game players have actually taken all of China and still had time to go forward, most famously in rader vs GreyJoy, where rader took all of china and then most of India. The gpace of a non-SL game allows this. Playing DBB it's much harder.
Rader vs. Greyjoy was scenario 2. I do not think stacking limits are nearly as important as most people think, but that is the subject for another discussion. Comparing scenario 2 games and scenario 1 games is comparing 2 things that are not alike.
I don't think stacking limits makes much difference in the overall balance. On the one hand, Japan can't stack anywhere near the quality within the same number. On the other, it does slow the Allies down a bit because they can't just land 5000AV on Guam, knowing that it will eventually overwhelm the defenders.
RE: An Old Timer Steps Back to Measure Game Competitiveness
ORIGINAL: Aurorus
ORIGINAL: HansBolter
That Japan was capable of mounting an offensive in China in '44 has no bearing on the obvious observation that Japan did not have the logistical resources to succeed in conquering all of China.
Its an apples and oranges argument.
The Japanese NEVER had the logistical resources to conquer half of what the game allows them to conquer.
Please stop making fools of yourselves trying alter that fact of reality with spurious arguments.
Hans, you have no experience playing PBEMs; you have no experience playing Japan, especially in a scenario 1 game; you have no idea what you are talking about, and as I have told you, you are complaining about games played with a scenario 2 mod that is specifically designed to bolster Japan's logistics. But you do not listen or comprehend. Instead, you make ad hominem attacks, calling others, who do have experience with these types of things, fools.
If you do not like the game. If you think that it is riddled with design flaws, then I suggest that you leave, quit playing, and find some other activity that you do enjoy. I suspect, however, that the only thing that you enjoy is complaining and trying to be confrontational. Since that is the case, I will not indulge your perverse desires any longer.
I think he's wrong also, and hardheadedly refusing to open his mind to things that don't fit his opinions of what the game looks like, but we shouldn't be telling him to leave.
We should be telling him to stay. Even if he is wrong, he's at least forcing us to back up our arguments (not that we weren't already, but still). Do I think we've provided more than enough evidence? Sure. He's said that he's never going to play PBEM enough times that we all know where he's coming from and can read his comments accordingly, in that context.
I want him around and I want him to keep playing the game, however he wants to play it.
-
Canoerebel
- Posts: 21099
- Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2002 11:21 pm
- Location: Northwestern Georgia, USA
- Contact:
RE: An Old Timer Steps Back to Measure Game Competitiveness
I went to Aurorus privately awhile ago and asked him to delete his post. I hope he'll do so. I hope those that are quoting him will do the same.
"Rats set fire to Mr. Cooper’s store in Fort Valley. No damage done." Columbus (Ga) Enquirer-Sun, October 2, 1880.
RE: An Old Timer Steps Back to Measure Game Competitiveness
When talking about the hypothetical of "Could the IJA have taken all of China", then the response is that they could. In almost every instance, when the Japanese mounted an offensive against the Chinese, it resulted in success.
You left out the word TEMPORARY in front of success. In 1944, the Japanese managed to overrun a significant part of China and push the American airbases out of range of the Japanese homeland but they could not hold the land that they seized. They essentially conceded their lines of communication to the Chinese.
Therein lies the crux of the problem with the China Option. If they wanted to move "a can of beans" 100 miles overland they had to haul it on a cart that mostly contained fodder for the horse and escort it with a battalion of infantry to keep the partisans away.
RE: An Old Timer Steps Back to Measure Game Competitiveness
ORIGINAL: Lokasenna
I don't think stacking limits makes much difference in the overall balance. On the one hand, Japan can't stack anywhere near the quality within the same number. On the other, it does slow the Allies down a bit because they can't just land 5000AV on Guam, knowing that it will eventually overwhelm the defenders.
SL do affect the game differently at different times. In terms of balance this can mean that the IJA is slowed in taking some areas early if they can't commit overwhelming force. Certain spots in x3 can be real thorns if troops are allowed to dig in, and harder if those are low SL hexes where the Chinese can rotate troops out and in.
In my game vs GreyJoy he suffered some big setbacks in China after allowing Chinese troops to get to the best defensive terrain and build forts.
I'm not saying this isn't balanced by the slowing of the Allies later, but in terms of overall balance I think it works to extend the game, limit 2nd and 3rd tier Japanese expansion, and as you've said, slow some Allied invasion options in mid-to-late game by not allowing kitchen sink invasion drops on critical targets.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill
RE: An Old Timer Steps Back to Measure Game Competitiveness
ORIGINAL: spence
When talking about the hypothetical of "Could the IJA have taken all of China", then the response is that they could. In almost every instance, when the Japanese mounted an offensive against the Chinese, it resulted in success.
You left out the word TEMPORARY in front of success. In 1944, the Japanese managed to overrun a significant part of China and push the American airbases out of range of the Japanese homeland but they could not hold the land that they seized. They essentially conceded their lines of communication to the Chinese.
Therein lies the crux of the problem with the China Option. If they wanted to move "a can of beans" 100 miles overland they had to haul it on a cart that mostly contained fodder for the horse and escort it with a battalion of infantry to keep the partisans away.
Exactly!
(OT: Didn't notice you're from Vancouver until just today! My mom grew up there and grandma lived there during my whole childhood. I was born and raised in Portland. Loved Fort Vancouver and the fireworks every 4th [:)])
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill
RE: An Old Timer Steps Back to Measure Game Competitiveness
ORIGINAL: Lokasenna
We should be telling him to stay. Even if he is wrong, he's at least forcing us to back up our arguments (not that we weren't already, but still). Do I think we've provided more than enough evidence? Sure. He's said that he's never going to play PBEM enough times that we all know where he's coming from and can read his comments accordingly, in that context.
I want him around and I want him to keep playing the game, however he wants to play it.
+1
Hans has been a member of the community for a long time and I hope this is a place where we embrace differences of opinion as Loka says, to help us better understand, frame and defend our own ideas. Dialogue is a positive, even when we don't see eye to eye on everything.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill
-
LargeSlowTarget
- Posts: 4970
- Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
RE: An Old Timer Steps Back to Measure Game Competitiveness
For once I agree with spence - note the day on the calendar [:D]
Japan could not conquer China IRL and the game does not reflect realities. Japan managed to hold "points and lines" i.e. population centers and communication lines over a certain area, but did not have the manpower to control the rural areas nor to expand effective control over more points and lines.
Now, there are JFBs who recognize this and exercise self-restraint. This JFBs actually made a mod which is designed to make it much harder for Japan to run rampant in China. This is why I get angry when AFBs claim "ALL" JFBs want to have every unhistorical advantage they can get. Bulls**t!
However, I'm playing a PBEM where no restrictions in China are in place (apart from a house rule limiting the number of tanks that can be stacked in a hex to prevent "Panzer Corps" style warfare). I do not exercise self-restraint and I try to conquer Chungking. Not for the VPs I don't care about, but to eliminate the dangers from Chinese hordes being supplied and revived through the Burma road my opponent will soon have opened. The danger that thousands of Chinese AV will - very un-historically - run rampant in China is one main reason JFBs try to - very un-historically - kick China out of the war. But that is not easy. Some good players do achieve it. Others less gifted not. I'm in October 1943, have Chungking surrounded and after a siege of several months with hundreds of bombers and lots of LCUs bought with PPs (which I could have sent to other theaters) bombarding the city daily, the surrounded Chinese are subsisting on the daily allocation of "cans of beans" (and ammo) which magically spawns each day in the city. They can even still fire flak, they have thrashed two deliberate ground attacks with very lopsided results. So I have little sympathy for AFB whining about "magic logistics" on the Japanese side allowing them to get to Chungking, when the Allied side profits from "magic logistics" as well. In short, both sides get their share of "über"-capabilities, and they may balance out.
I could agree on a game imposing self-restraint for Japan in China if the Allies have to impose self-restraint themselves for things the game allows but which were not possible IRL. In said PBEM, my opponent is using a large part of US assets in the CBI, including all available fleet carriers, at least one Marine Division and US Army ground units plus air groups in order to reconquer Burma, starting with the Andamans (captured by Marines). That would not have been possible IRL due to political reasons - the war aims for the US and the British in South_East Asia were fundamentally different and the USA did not want to help re-establish British colonialism. No way a large part of the US Navy and sizeable ground and air forces would have been allocated for operations in the Bay of Bengal to bring the British back in power in Burma!
And while we are at unhistorical advantages: The Japanese soldiers were more frugal and accepted hardships more readily than their Allied counterparts. Compare the conditions and space allotments per man on troops transports for example - or the quantity and quality of rations and "amenities". The typical combat ration of a Japanese soldier contained 2.2 lbs of food per man and day, the American allocation weighted over 6 lbs (only food - if counting all supplies per man the ratio is even more skewed). In game terms that means a US unit would need more supply points than a Japanese units of the same size and manpower. Yet in the game, a Japanese squad device and an Allied squad device both require 1 supply point per month. Don't think a US squad was one third the size of a Japanese squad. IOW the Allies should require more supply points per squad device than Japan. Huge impact on supply consumption and logistics, shipping space and availability - in short, HUGE advantage for the Allies in the game BY DESIGN. No AFB complaining about this I guess.
But well, there are other advantages the Japanese side has BY DESIGN. They may even out balance-wise, but I guess most players would prefer realistic constraints for both sides instead of a number of advantages / disadvantages that may or may not even-out in the long. But no game will be perfect, and AE does a pretty good job and the Devs deserve a "Well done" despite the gripes JFBs and AFBs alike voice here.
Japan could not conquer China IRL and the game does not reflect realities. Japan managed to hold "points and lines" i.e. population centers and communication lines over a certain area, but did not have the manpower to control the rural areas nor to expand effective control over more points and lines.
Now, there are JFBs who recognize this and exercise self-restraint. This JFBs actually made a mod which is designed to make it much harder for Japan to run rampant in China. This is why I get angry when AFBs claim "ALL" JFBs want to have every unhistorical advantage they can get. Bulls**t!
However, I'm playing a PBEM where no restrictions in China are in place (apart from a house rule limiting the number of tanks that can be stacked in a hex to prevent "Panzer Corps" style warfare). I do not exercise self-restraint and I try to conquer Chungking. Not for the VPs I don't care about, but to eliminate the dangers from Chinese hordes being supplied and revived through the Burma road my opponent will soon have opened. The danger that thousands of Chinese AV will - very un-historically - run rampant in China is one main reason JFBs try to - very un-historically - kick China out of the war. But that is not easy. Some good players do achieve it. Others less gifted not. I'm in October 1943, have Chungking surrounded and after a siege of several months with hundreds of bombers and lots of LCUs bought with PPs (which I could have sent to other theaters) bombarding the city daily, the surrounded Chinese are subsisting on the daily allocation of "cans of beans" (and ammo) which magically spawns each day in the city. They can even still fire flak, they have thrashed two deliberate ground attacks with very lopsided results. So I have little sympathy for AFB whining about "magic logistics" on the Japanese side allowing them to get to Chungking, when the Allied side profits from "magic logistics" as well. In short, both sides get their share of "über"-capabilities, and they may balance out.
I could agree on a game imposing self-restraint for Japan in China if the Allies have to impose self-restraint themselves for things the game allows but which were not possible IRL. In said PBEM, my opponent is using a large part of US assets in the CBI, including all available fleet carriers, at least one Marine Division and US Army ground units plus air groups in order to reconquer Burma, starting with the Andamans (captured by Marines). That would not have been possible IRL due to political reasons - the war aims for the US and the British in South_East Asia were fundamentally different and the USA did not want to help re-establish British colonialism. No way a large part of the US Navy and sizeable ground and air forces would have been allocated for operations in the Bay of Bengal to bring the British back in power in Burma!
And while we are at unhistorical advantages: The Japanese soldiers were more frugal and accepted hardships more readily than their Allied counterparts. Compare the conditions and space allotments per man on troops transports for example - or the quantity and quality of rations and "amenities". The typical combat ration of a Japanese soldier contained 2.2 lbs of food per man and day, the American allocation weighted over 6 lbs (only food - if counting all supplies per man the ratio is even more skewed). In game terms that means a US unit would need more supply points than a Japanese units of the same size and manpower. Yet in the game, a Japanese squad device and an Allied squad device both require 1 supply point per month. Don't think a US squad was one third the size of a Japanese squad. IOW the Allies should require more supply points per squad device than Japan. Huge impact on supply consumption and logistics, shipping space and availability - in short, HUGE advantage for the Allies in the game BY DESIGN. No AFB complaining about this I guess.
But well, there are other advantages the Japanese side has BY DESIGN. They may even out balance-wise, but I guess most players would prefer realistic constraints for both sides instead of a number of advantages / disadvantages that may or may not even-out in the long. But no game will be perfect, and AE does a pretty good job and the Devs deserve a "Well done" despite the gripes JFBs and AFBs alike voice here.
-
HansBolter
- Posts: 7457
- Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 12:30 pm
- Location: United States
RE: An Old Timer Steps Back to Measure Game Competitiveness
ORIGINAL: Lokasenna
ORIGINAL: Aurorus
ORIGINAL: HansBolter
That Japan was capable of mounting an offensive in China in '44 has no bearing on the obvious observation that Japan did not have the logistical resources to succeed in conquering all of China.
Its an apples and oranges argument.
The Japanese NEVER had the logistical resources to conquer half of what the game allows them to conquer.
Please stop making fools of yourselves trying alter that fact of reality with spurious arguments.
Hans, you have no experience playing PBEMs; you have no experience playing Japan, especially in a scenario 1 game; you have no idea what you are talking about, and as I have told you, you are complaining about games played with a scenario 2 mod that is specifically designed to bolster Japan's logistics. But you do not listen or comprehend. Instead, you make ad hominem attacks, calling others, who do have experience with these types of things, fools.
If you do not like the game. If you think that it is riddled with design flaws, then I suggest that you leave, quit playing, and find some other activity that you do enjoy. I suspect, however, that the only thing that you enjoy is complaining and trying to be confrontational. Since that is the case, I will not indulge your perverse desires any longer.
I think he's wrong also, and hardheadedly refusing to open his mind to things that don't fit his opinions of what the game looks like, but we shouldn't be telling him to leave.
We should be telling him to stay. Even if he is wrong, he's at least forcing us to back up our arguments (not that we weren't already, but still). Do I think we've provided more than enough evidence? Sure. He's said that he's never going to play PBEM enough times that we all know where he's coming from and can read his comments accordingly, in that context.
I want him around and I want him to keep playing the game, however he wants to play it.
The attempt to ostracize me won't succeed. I've weathered far worse treatment from Symon, who got himself permanently banned for his attacks against me.
Guess I just seem to bring out the worst in people.
And btw, the whole 'you're never going to play pbem so please just go away' completely sums up what I have tried to point out about the pbem bias on this forum.
Hans
RE: An Old Timer Steps Back to Measure Game Competitiveness
+1 (stay civil)rise above the current trend of black and white.
RE: An Old Timer Steps Back to Measure Game Competitiveness
ORIGINAL: HansBolter
ORIGINAL: Lokasenna
ORIGINAL: Aurorus
Hans, you have no experience playing PBEMs; you have no experience playing Japan, especially in a scenario 1 game; you have no idea what you are talking about, and as I have told you, you are complaining about games played with a scenario 2 mod that is specifically designed to bolster Japan's logistics. But you do not listen or comprehend. Instead, you make ad hominem attacks, calling others, who do have experience with these types of things, fools.
If you do not like the game. If you think that it is riddled with design flaws, then I suggest that you leave, quit playing, and find some other activity that you do enjoy. I suspect, however, that the only thing that you enjoy is complaining and trying to be confrontational. Since that is the case, I will not indulge your perverse desires any longer.
I think he's wrong also, and hardheadedly refusing to open his mind to things that don't fit his opinions of what the game looks like, but we shouldn't be telling him to leave.
We should be telling him to stay. Even if he is wrong, he's at least forcing us to back up our arguments (not that we weren't already, but still). Do I think we've provided more than enough evidence? Sure. He's said that he's never going to play PBEM enough times that we all know where he's coming from and can read his comments accordingly, in that context.
I want him around and I want him to keep playing the game, however he wants to play it.
The attempt to ostracize me won't succeed. Good! That 'suggestion' was wrong on many levels, as Lokasenna pointed out. I've weathered far worse treatment from Symon, who got himself permanently banned for his attacks against me.
Guess I just seem to bring out the worst in people.
And btw, the whole 'you're never going to play pbem so please just go away' completely sums up what I have tried to point out about the pbem bias on this forum.
Only speaks for that person in his moment of emotional lashing out.
Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/view/staffmonkeys/home
RE: An Old Timer Steps Back to Measure Game Competitiveness
I don't think AFB's want to "claim "ALL" JFBs want to have every unhistorical advantage they can get. ". At least I don't. I just point out my opinion that in this game the Japanese get advantages they never received 'historically', and the allies get limited more than they did 'historically'.
All in all, it's a game. A darned good one, too. Treat it as such, and we all get along [;)]
All in all, it's a game. A darned good one, too. Treat it as such, and we all get along [;)]
If it ain't broke, don't fix it!
RE: An Old Timer Steps Back to Measure Game Competitiveness
ORIGINAL: Canoerebel
I went to Aurorus privately awhile ago and asked him to delete his post. I hope he'll do so. I hope those that are quoting him will do the same.
I'm not a fan of sweeping things under the rug. Transparency and documentation are good things because everybody has the same knowledge.
RE: An Old Timer Steps Back to Measure Game Competitiveness
ORIGINAL: HansBolter
And btw, the whole 'you're never going to play pbem so please just go away' completely sums up what I have tried to point out about the pbem bias on this forum.
There are plenty of AI players. There are several AI AARs in that subforum as well. Most of the common posters here play PBEM, but in terms of raw population of active posters I think it is much more evenly split.
RE: An Old Timer Steps Back to Measure Game Competitiveness
ORIGINAL: Lecivius
I don't think AFB's want to "claim "ALL" JFBs want to have every unhistorical advantage they can get. ". At least I don't. I just point out my opinion that in this game the Japanese get advantages they never received 'historically', and the allies get limited more than they did 'historically'.
All in all, it's a game. A darned good one, too. Treat it as such, and we all get along [;)]
They don't, but whenever any topic on game balance comes up, a few folks come out of the woodwork to say something to that effect.
RE: An Old Timer Steps Back to Measure Game Competitiveness
Been following this thread and here is my 2 cents.
As Lecivius said, "All in all, it's a game. A darned good one, too." Let's enjoy this game and thank the Gods of War for creating it. The nice think about this game is the individual has the power to adjust, change, add or subtract anything they want, within reason. As a AFB I don't complain about balance. The reason being is that any advantages that the JFB's get will be canceled out in time anyway. My 2 cents....GP
As Lecivius said, "All in all, it's a game. A darned good one, too." Let's enjoy this game and thank the Gods of War for creating it. The nice think about this game is the individual has the power to adjust, change, add or subtract anything they want, within reason. As a AFB I don't complain about balance. The reason being is that any advantages that the JFB's get will be canceled out in time anyway. My 2 cents....GP
IntelUltra7 16cores, 32gb ram, NvidiaGeForceRTX 2050
DW2-Alpha/Beta Tester
WIS Manual Team Lead & Beta Support Team
"Do everything you ask of those you command" Gen. George S. Patton
WiS Discord channel coming soon....
DW2-Alpha/Beta Tester
WIS Manual Team Lead & Beta Support Team
"Do everything you ask of those you command" Gen. George S. Patton
WiS Discord channel coming soon....
RE: An Old Timer Steps Back to Measure Game Competitiveness
ORIGINAL: Lokasenna
ORIGINAL: Canoerebel
I went to Aurorus privately awhile ago and asked him to delete his post. I hope he'll do so. I hope those that are quoting him will do the same.
I'm not a fan of sweeping things under the rug. Transparency and documentation are good things because everybody has the same knowledge.
My understanding of Canoerebel's polite request was that he felt that the debate had deteriorated from a fact-based discussion into vitriol, and he felt that vitriol would prevent some from participating in the conversation. He did not promote the idea that we "hide things," rather I think that he wants to promote as large and open a discussion as possible. I have difficulty objecting strongly to his reason in this instance.