How many folks ignore China's Garrison Req?

[Tanaka]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

I've never been warm to it due to the lack of 2nd line troops being represented but in practice, I dont have a problem with the current garrison requirement as is. I'm strongly against any additional garrison requirements however and yes, I hardly think it's fair to saddle the Japanese army with garrison requirements in both Manchuria as well as China while the UK/Allied player is free to move any and all forces out of India, usually into Burma which is the #1 benefactor of hindsight in the game as far as area goes. Fair is fair after all and like i said....organzied revolt *actually* occured in India throughout 1942 as opposed to China.

The Manchuria garrison requirement I do have a concern with because first off.....I've never believed for one instant that the Russians would EVER open up a whole new major front without good cause while fighting for their lives against the German invader. Manchuko isn't that tempting a target and Stalin wasn't that stupid, otherwise the Allies would have gotten him to declare war on Japan much sooner. Didn't happen....Stalin played coy and didn't make a move until he was good and ready.....a point where such a declaration became more than moot...but actually turned into a concern for the US instead!

Japanese troop movements away from Soviet soil do not represent sufficient grounds to start a major ground war IMHO. In more practical game terms, Manchuria was historically the great "tap" for troopage as the war in the Pacific went sour. While the garrison require does go down as the war progresses I'm still leary of the Japanese player actually being able to tap the hundreds of thousands of troops she'll need to to throw into the US fodder machine as the war progresses. Historically the Japanese gutted almost entirely the Kwantung Army to get the required experienced troopage and equipment and systematically replaced the withdrawn soldiers with raw recruits and conscripts. The equipment wasn't replaced and some conscripts reputedly were armed with bamboo spears by 1945!!! No such mechanism is in place in WitP. That little factoid is often lost when August Storm is discussed. I've no doubt the Soviet offensive would have still triumphed in the end but part of the reason why they crushed the Japanese so quickly and decively was because they were not facing a battle hardened army but instead a shadow of a formally powerful army.

The question of the Japanese moving this army "too soon" and unbalancing the game was addressed with PP's. While the PP system doesn't work super great when it comes to the small fry....moving whole divisions does take serious pointage....with the exception of China and that point has been discussed. I'm not opposed to the land border being "closed" to Kwantung so that PP's must be paid first before moving to China.

more very good points...

"I'm not opposed to the land border being "closed" to Kwantung so that PP's must be paid first before moving to China."

...This is that HQ loophole that we were talking about before correct??? Yes Im sure once this is fixed the China garrison requirement problem will not be as much of a problem because you will not be able to move everything into China from Kwantung all at once.


Why dont they just fix this HQ loophole problem and be done with it?! It would solve so many of the japanese steamrolling problems that everyone complains about and reduce this garrison issue to not as big of a deal!

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Tanaka

Why dont they just fix this HQ loophole problem and be done with it?!

Perhaps it will. The WitP list is still long though. The work never ends [;)]

[mogami]

Hi, Players have been aware of the fact that units in Korea/Manchuria should not move to China without paying PP for several months. (and China units not go the other way without paying PP)
If they still do it then.....

[BlackVoid]

Nikademus made some very well presented observations.

However I do not agree with the PP payment. Even with PP payment, it is very easy for Japan to remove all the engineers, base forces and planes and move them someplace else. Combat troops require a LOT of PPs, so basically only combat troops are affected by this.
If Japan truly gutted these forces and moved the experienced troops out, then why should the player pay tremendous amounts of PP to move them?

The main cause of people wanting to use the Chinese army is hindsight. Every japanese player knows that the US will come with very strong forces (Japan in real life knew, but not as accurately). So japanese players understandably want to finish off this theatre either by conquering all of China or at least by inflicting enough damage on the Chinese so that they are basically out of the war.

If you restrict movement based on HQ attachment, then what will the japanese do if they win in China? They will have to sit there for the whole war? They certainly cannot pay the PPs to move all the divisions.

PPs restrict strategic choice too much already. Further restriction, will remove all land strategy from the game and people will only have strategic choices in the naval war. This would be fine, but then all the land aspects should be removed. It is STRATEGY game. So please DO NOT TAKE AWAY STRATEGIC CHOICE by imposing totally artificial limitations.

If Japan has it too easy in China, then it should be fixed some other way. I do not think this is the case, the biggest problem is that most allied players dont pay enough attention to this theatre.

As for garrison requirements: they are good enough IMHO.

[BlackVoid]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, Players have been aware of the fact that units in Korea/Manchuria should not move to China without paying PP for several months. (and China units not go the other way without paying PP)
If they still do it then.....

Mogami with all respect, just one question:
What should Japan do with all the troops in China if they win there? Or with the Kwantung army if they win against Russia?

[moses]

Based on my game with WITP_DUDE I don't think the PP point restriction is needed. To prevent soviet activation I have only been able to move one division in the first three months. I could move another now but have decided not to. As the game moves on I will be able to move more but by then the battle in China will have been won or lost. I don't think a few extra divisions arriving in July of 42 will make that much of a difference.

[mogami]

Hi, I don't know. I don't play WITP as a game where Japan is out to conquer the world. I play the Japanese with their historic mindset. I am going to get the SRA and then make the Allies try to take it away from me.
In order to allow the game to become Japan conquers the world we will need to add about 1billion more Chinese, The entire Soviet order of battle and another 1/3 of the earths surface to map.

I have considered what the probabke result of an early attack by Japan against the Soviets would have result in.

First in the winter on 1941-42 the Soviets counter attacked along the entire front against the Germans. They suffered badly and Stavka had been against the idea but Stalin insisted.
However suppose the Japanese had attacked in Dec 41?
Now the Soviets only attack in front of Moscow and Lennigrad (the two places their actual winter offensive worked rather well)
Instead of the other attacks however the troops move to the Far East and steam roll the Japanese.
The keep on going and enter China from the rear.
By the summer of 1942 the Japanese are out of China and China is a communist satellite of the Soviet Union.,

Because the Soviets have not suffered the terrible loss of the failed parts of the winter offensive they stop the German 1942 offensive cold and the war in Europe ends at least 6 months sooner.
In the mean time Soviet bombers begin bombing the Home Islands in 1942
Japan is now without Manchuria/Korea/China

I don't think it is fair for only 1 side to be allowed to explore options.

the game is not about setting up a Japanese world Empire. It is about the War in the PACIFIC. The other areas are important in how they effect that war.
I think it is gamey for Japanese players to try to win the Pacific War by fighting a land war in Asia (everyone knows you should avoid land wars in Asia)

But this is only my opinion and how I view and play the game.

I am the wrong person to ask how to act after you do what I don't think you should even try.

[AmiralLaurent]

I disagree with the above post of Mogami about the Soviet power. Far East Siberia was not at all important for USSR and I doubt any reinforcements will be sent this way with Germans some km away from Moscow. Probably will happen the same as in the Russian Civil War in 1918-1921, where Soviets let White Russian, Japanese and occidental powers occupy Siberia and only sent troops here once the main part of the country was secure.

So an attack on Soviet Siberia is possible as in this game. Except that the game is very bad to simulate land campaigns and the pain in the ... that it is to move logistics in a ground campain. In WITP they move at light speed while in real life (even now) shipping supplies is the fastest and cheapest way to move a great number of them. Land offensives are far too fast in this game, compared to reality. While the simulation is OK for an island war, where you will need much more time to prepare an offensive than to execute it, on the land mass, all you need is a port, a road between the port and your HQ location and then you can move units on the map as in any wargame with no logistic system. Why wouldn't people do this, if this is the easiest way to win ground without much management ?

Then the climate is also badly modelized. Winter climate in Siberia or moosoon time in Burma was not a good time at all to stage an offensive. Far more difficult than in this game.

As I have said before, it is a pity that rail and road may not be damaged or expanded as we can with ports, forts and airfields in this game.

Same thing for Russia and India in 1942... I don't see from where British reinforcements may come. From UK maybe, but they will take months to arrive.

[Nikademus]

Given what I've seen from AAR's involving India...I've thought of late that it might be better if on capturing a base/city that all enemy supply be destroyed. That way the conquerors have to ship in their own supply from their own logistics network. While not of itself completely accurate (The Japanese often made good use of the "spoils" of war) it would at least prevent the 'dash to the nearest city' and create a supply hub trick that seems to occur in the game and creates some interesting situations in places like India. It would also possibly have the effect of emphasising lines of communication more.

[BlackVoid]

We all know, that the japanese with the historical mindset lost the war.

One of the reasons was that their main land forces set idle in China. That was a big strategic mistake in my opininon. You dont go to war just to have your largest force sit there doing nothing (or very little).

Land combat should be fixed/tweaked instead of applying artificial limitations. We need stacking limits, stacking penalties, slower movement into enemy territory and a few more.
If needed add more Chinese (this will break China if land combat is not fixed first). Soviets should be allowed to move before activation. Right now, it is very gamey to take on Russia because they do not have a chance to set up.

AdmiralLaurent is also right in that it does not make much difference if you move a few divisions to China from Kwantung area.
Also, no way the Russians would divert a lot of forces to Siberia when the germans are few kms away from Moscow. And we all know, that in the Stalingrad success troops transferred from Siberia made a big impact. A japanese offensive in the summer of 42 in real life could have allowed Germany to knock Russia out of the war.

And finally: why include India/Burma/China in the game if these areas are broken? What is the point of the game in these areas? As Japan you should restrain yourself, but if you do, then the allies will bomb the crap out of you from China/India (mainly because of their unlimited supply and heavy bombers - totally unlike reality).

[AmiralLaurent]

ORIGINAL: BlackVoid

We all know, that the japanese with the historical mindset lost the war.

One of the reasons was that their main land forces set idle in China. That was a big strategic mistake in my opininon. You dont go to war just to have your largest force sit there doing nothing (or very little).

Having them doing nothing is a mistake but they are not doing nothing, they are holding the line. Japanese were not in position to advance much (they tried to take Changsa three times and lost each time with heavy losses, before success in 1944). Chinese were neither able to advance until the Japanese bagan to retire troops from China to send them to the Pacific in 1944-45.

ORIGINAL: BlackVoid
Land combat should be fixed/tweaked instead of applying artificial limitations. We need stacking limits, stacking penalties, slower movement into enemy territory and a few more.

Exactly what I think.

ORIGINAL: BlackVoid
If needed add more Chinese (this will break China if land combat is not fixed first). Soviets should be allowed to move before activation. Right now, it is very gamey to take on Russia because they do not have a chance to set up.

AdmiralLaurent is also right in that it does not make much difference if you move a few divisions to China from Kwantung area.
Also, no way the Russians would divert a lot of forces to Siberia when the germans are few kms away from Moscow. And we all know, that in the Stalingrad success troops transferred from Siberia made a big impact. A japanese offensive in the summer of 42 in real life could have allowed Germany to knock Russia out of the war.

And finally: why include India/Burma/China in the game if these areas are broken? What is the point of the game in these areas? As Japan you should restrain yourself, but if you do, then the allies will bomb the crap out of you from China/India (mainly because of their unlimited supply and heavy bombers - totally unlike reality).

Adding more Chinese or more Soviet will only reverse things. We will see Chinese blitzkrieg rather than Japanese one.

Before the release of WITP my own view of the China front was that it was mainly a static frontline as neither side is strong enough to advance. But the Japanese may change this by bringing more troops or by taking troops away to use them on another place.

This is maybe now the case with v1.4, if the Japanese keeps garnisons in Chinese cities and didn't bring the Kwangtung Army in China. It's fine to me to bring troops from Kwangtung, if you pay PP. And no need to patch for this as people may agree (or not) for this rule, I don't see it much as a penalizing home rule.

My main problem with the land side of the game is the Tavoy-Mandalay advance in two weeks... with the same forces on both sides it took 4 months in real life.

[Nikademus]

I dont see stacking limits or penalties as a necessity nor do i see it as practical. First off....if one inserts a stacking limit, it would make certain situations potentially impossible to portray much less assault (Okinawa for example...a 1 hex location..the Japanese stuffed over 100,000 men in this location) How does one determine what the stacking limit should be? and how then does an assaulter gain numerical advantage then? How would a stacking penalty in terms assault value be determined. Again with Okinawa as an example...were these entrenched men at a disadvantage because they were all there?

Stacking IMO should be soley determined by player interaction. My current PBEM has been very educational in this regards. Drongo did alot of unit splitting and spread out his forces which in turn forced me, to a degree, to match his movements, otherwise risk being flanked or worse, having rogue units roam around my back areas cutting supply links and causing other such higgidy piggidy.

He tried similar tactics even in the far more enclosed areas of Burma, setting up a few "flankers" hoping to exploit the very tactic being argued here..the tendancy for players to stack all their firepower up front, at the "base" they want to take. To cover myself, i have had to use forces one might normally use in the above scenerio to protect my lines of communication. I'm still able to concentrate my forces of course and one might argue my strategy is too cautious but thats me.

If i get a chance tonight, i'll post a snapshot of the current situation in China to show an example. Its been an interesting experience so far on the mainland but also taxing on the mind! I also never realized just how many Chinese one could concentrate when they both brought forth the reserves and did some clever splitting of units. I dont blame Mogami for following the historical "live and let live" truce that Chiang and the Japanese army unoffically had for most of the period of the war with the US.

[WiTP_Dude]

There were a lot of casualties at Okinawa, perhaps because of stacking limits.

[Nikademus]

I'd say there were alot of casualties at Okinawa because the Japanese changed tactics, dug deep and continued to suprise the US in how many of them could survive to fight back even under the most intense air and sea bombardments.

[BlackVoid]

By limit I really only meant different penalties.

Especially movement rate should be affected by the number of units in the hex. The more units moving, the slower the movement and greater the disruption effect.

[Nikademus]

I remain leary of such changes but then again the reason for such is that i neither think the land combat model broken or that combat occurs too fast. This is not to mean i'm saying the model is perfect but i do think it is one of the least understood aspects of the game. I dont entirely understand it and i've done alot of testing on it!

Going by my PBEM and playing someone who knows what they are doing, i'm not experiencing any great "rapidity" for example. As a bit of an experiment, I opted not to land the additional troops that usually accelerate the PI capture and instead settled down for a proper seige while using those uncommitted troops to launch stage II of the SRA conquest. As of mid/late January, Japanese forces are still 60 miles out from Singapore, and The Americans hold Clark, Bataan and 1 base north of those two. In Burma my forces are at Mandalay (which is still in Allied hands) I have little doubt what the result would be if i were to attack now at Clark. (ouch) and i'm sure Singapore may make me regret splitting my attentions between Malaya and Burma.

Java remains unoccupied as does Sumatra. (for the moment)

As for "penalties", Given that its only possible to attack inside one hex I dont think such penalties are prudent because attacking is already costly enough unless one has overwhelming numbers or other such edges.

To make for a comparison. One can look at War in Russia. That game has stacking limits but its also a single occupancy hex based system. To use the 8-bit game as an example (since i played hundreds of games on that version) You could only stack a maximum of two corps/armies per hex Thus, the only way to gain a numerical advantage was to stack 2 corp/army units in each adjacent hexes. The most common situation, produced by the hex based shape was a 3 hex attacking 1 hex situation resulting in a maximum of 6 corps/armies attacking 2 corps/armies

Such a situation is not possible in WitP because it is a co-occupancy hex system. All fighting occurs within the 60 mile hex with no support possible from adjacent forces in adjacent hexes. As such, i cant see the logic of having the former example not have any "penalties" (when those 6 corp/armies can produce rivalable numbers of men and equipment) while the co-occupancy system must because it looks "funny" that so many troops are fighting from within the 1 hex

Are extremes possible? of course...havn't seen a wargame yet where it wasn't but such extreme/bizzare examples are largely controllable by the players themselves.

[AmiralLaurent]

A stacking limit should be a good idea as you won't see six Allied divisions attack on the Kokoda Trail for example. Or 80000 men holding Tarawa... they won't find enough space to fight (total land aera is 12 square miles, that is 7000 men by square miles). Each bomb dropped on the island should hit tens of men.

In a AAR you can find on this site, they were at one one more than 150 000 + Japanese & Allied troops on Tarawa.

Then in UV, firepower, support (both fire support by ships and planes and supply support) and troop/leadership quality are more important than sheer numbers.

My own opinion is it would be a good idea to have each hex given a maximum ASS value, listing the max number of squads that may be used on the frontline. Then this value will be modified by all the usual modifiers so even with both sides exceeding the limit, so having the whole frontline manned, the side with the best weapons, supplies, troops and leaders will still win. So we will see more of the attrition battles that were Iwo Jima, Okinawa, Munda, Buna and so on. As squads get disbaled on both sides, the side with the most troops will still be able to reach the max ASS value while the other will slowly decrease.

[moses]

Oh think of the debates here. How many men can be put on a 5 square mile island? Hmmm, a mile squared is a little over 3 million square yards. At 5 square yards per man thats around 600,000 men per square mile. Of course you can always dig tunnels as well.

What about a place like guadelcanal (sp??). Lots of area but how much is really useable. How much is of significance as only the area around the airfield is of importance no matter how many troops are placed in other parts of the island.

Who will make all the decisions for every base location on the map and who really wants to defend these decisions after the inevitable disagreements.

[AmiralLaurent]

ORIGINAL: moses

Who will make all the decisions for every base location on the map and who really wants to defend these decisions after the inevitable disagreements.

Same people that decide the size of airfields, port, ressources, industry and so on...

[moses]

The point is that as soon as they decide that the stacking limit for location Y is X squads you will immediately have posts as to why that decision is incredibly stupid and it should be Z squads. Or perhaps X squads is OK until a certain fortification level is reached, etc.