Why are there no Chinese bases further than Sining?

[moses]

I appears to me you want the combat system changed to produce more loss for the attacker. But you also still want the Japanese to be capable of outright defeat of China.

This is correct for the most part. Current system produces very low loses for the dominant army IN EVERY THEATER ON THE MAP. This is not a China only issue. But it does effect the Chinese, Russian, Burmese and Indian theaters to a greater extent than the pacific theater. It affects the pacific theater but since naval/air issues predominate the land aspect has a less adverse effect on the simulation.

As far as should China be able to be conquered I really don't know the history well enough to judge. What I do think is that proper functioning of this part of the game should not be dependent on player restraint. Its one thing if players game the system and use tricks of various types to do strange things. But when players do normal types of things, historically plausable outcomes should result. Not that things have to happen as they did historically, but they have to make some historical sence.

Certainly I should not be able to conquer China in 6 to 8 months while lossing 10,000 casualties and at the end of the campaign all my units are as fresh as daisies. It may be that Japan could have conquered Russia. People can disagree about this. But certainly it should be very bloody. At the end of the campaign assuming I win my units should at least be hurting bad. But I have demonstrated that I can defeat Russia almost bloodlessly and within 2 or 3 months. Certainly this is not right. Similarly Burma and India are badly scewed.

These problems all trace to the flawed ground combat model.

[mogami]

Hi, Part of the flawed ground combat model is the flawed Order of battle that allows one side (in this case Japan) to mass forces and get really outrageous odds.
No matter what what combat system is used 5 to 1 is going to win battles and suffer less loss then it inflicts.
I'm all for this. Where the attacker can get 5-1 let him win. I subscribe to the "more you use the less you lose" concept of war.
However in reality. In 1941 1942 the Japanese could not mass the required force in one location (either against Soviets or Chinese) to get the odds that produce cheap victory without losing battles in other locations.

The Japanese are out numbered 4-1 in China in 1941. There is nothing they can do about this.
If the entire army in manchuria and SAA are add the Japanese are still outnumbered by more then 2-1.

Japan had more force in China prior to 1941. The entire SAA OB is units drawn from China. The stalemate in China had occured when Japan was employing the maximum force they could muster.
Now the events after June 22 altered things somewhat. But the Soviets did not weaken the East before Japan attacked PH. In WITP these units are already gone.
The game is not about the German-Soviet War it is about the Japanese war in the Pacific. So any Japanese player who attacks the Soviets in the winter of 41-42 is exploiting the game.
Now here is an easy solution.
Put the units back in and leave them there. The war against Germany is not part of this game so who cares what happens there. The Japanese if tthey want to attack the Soviets have to attack the Army that was actually there.
If the Japanese wish to attack in China let them. But put the actual Chinese Army on the map.

In the present ground combat system odds of 2-1 or less produce reasonable results. It is allowing these really high odds from Japanese being able to mass that results in the slaughter for no cost.
I think the high odds attack results are fine but they are too easy to achive.
Places like Bataan or Singapore if the Japanese want to send the units and the supply and spend the time they can get them. In reality the Japanese would have had good odds at Bataan and finished sooner if they had not thought the campaign over when they captured Manila and transfered the best units out to prepare to invade Java.


(I just killed 200k Chinese in a game. But the battle lasted several months and they were surrounded by 100k Japanese with 150k Japanese in their hex. All bases are garrisioned
The battle was in the worst cityin China for the Chinese to defend (Hengchow) On the RR and easy to surround.)(Japan lost 50k+ men in the course of the months long battle)

[moses]

The game is not about the German-Soviet War it is about the Japanese war in the Pacific. So any Japanese player who attacks the Soviets in the winter of 41-42 is exploiting the game.

Why must we accept this?

Here's how to make russia work:

1.) For every 200 assault pts over 10,000 that japan brings to Russia add a 1% chance per turn of Russia getting an added division transfered over to Russia. (Have some reasonable max number like 10 divisions or so.)

2.) As soon as Russia gets to its max number of divisions it activates.

3.) As soon as Japan reaches 10,000 AP in Russia the russian units can be moved within their borders.

Now Japan cannot mass forces without some russian reaction.

Now fix the ground combat system so that the battle that results in russia really works.

I just don't accept the view that a player who uses his forces in a normal logical way is exploiting the system.

Attacking Russia may not be smart either, historically or within the game, but it is, and was, a valid option. Plus its in the game so I can't fathem how you can make the above argument.

[BoerWar]

Gee Boer..., the way you put it the Axis must have won WWII. As I recall it, General Winter and Marshall Zhukov already had
the Germans falling back before December 7th. And the Japanese were no more prepared to wage offensive warfare in Siberia
in mid-winter than the Germans had been. You'll note that none of their earlier military attempts in this theatre were made in
the winter..., and they were still stomped flat.

You might want to go back a reread your history. Stalingrad occured in summer 1942. The forces Zhukov used to encircle Paulus came from the far east. Without the loss of Paulus's army group the Germans potentially knock the U.S.S.R. out of the war. At that point the war gets much tougher for the remaining allies and much easier for Japan. None of this is simulated in the game. These are facts, sorry if they are inconvenient. I didn''t say the Axis must have won it, I said they could have if they had worked together.

And "the Japanese didn't push very hard in China"? Wow! Makes you wonder what they had been doing there since 1937? Of
course these efforts had to weaken when they decided to take on the rest of the world in December 1941...., the Japanese Econ-
omy simply couldn't support that kind of effort. But one of the major reasons the Japanese cite for wanting to expand their war
was to cut the Chinese off from outside aide----which they blamed for their growing lack of success against China during 1940-41.
Chinese fighters did enjoy success against unescorted Japanese bombers during the Sino-Japanese War, which was one of the
reasons longer range was a design requirement for the Zero. And with the advent of a wider war, the Chinese airforce was left
facing Nates and Claudes---neither of which were outstanding. [\quote]

You make my point. The Zero was clearly superior to any Chinese fighter and the Nate / Oscar should be able to hold their own with the chinese fighters. I'm not seeing that in any of the pbem games I'm playing. Nates/Oscars have no chance in the game against anything other than Dutch Brewsters. That is with 99 morale and 65-80 training levels.

While I would agree that "carpet bombing" was not a feature of the Pacific Campaign's earlier years, I can't say I remember
there being anything like the hundreds of 4-engined "heavies" available at this time to conduct a "carpet bombing" effort either.
And how well any fighter does against any other has a lot to do with readiness, morale, training, and positional advantage.
Blanket statements that "this" should always beat "that" are meaningless out of context.

Once again you make my point. In the game WITP by Mar/ Apr 1942 the allies can have B-17's in sufficient numbers to conduct carpet bombing raids. My pbem opponent is able to hit Guadalcanal with 90+ B-17's and 40-50 B-24's while simulataneously hitting Port Morsby with 80-90 B-17's. This is game fact and historical fiction.

The point of my post was that there are alot of ahistorical situations in the game, why select the only one that works to the advantage of Japan for repair? As a game WITP is currently fairly well balanced. Keep fiddling and it will be pointless to play as Japan, it will be just as impossible to gain a points victory as it is to gain outright victory.

[moses]

Notice Groteus that the question is still not answered.

Here's how it works:

1.) Units that get retreated take very heavy losses. Everyone who has played for a while knows this. But these losses do not show up on the combat report.

2.) Loses in the combat report cause units to be disabled or killed. As far as I can tell at least 90% and quite possibly 100% of the losses reported are in the form of disabled units. I tend to think that the only kills are when a disabled unit gets hit again. So I'm guessing if you start with 100% good squads you will never take a loss. But thats a bit of speculation.

3.) Once over 50% of your units are disabled you will start taking actual kills.

So as the atacker you just need to watch your units and insure they don't go over 50% disabled. (pretty easy in most theaters). Also make sure you don't walk into an ambush and get retreated. If you follow these rules you will inflict 100-1 losses on your opponent.

Now this is what allows the easy victories in all the land theaters.

My campaign in China has been fought in a orderly way with WITP_Dude defending well. I took many casualties in the combat report and from watching these reports you would think that my forces should be getting worn down. The problem is that almost none of my losses were real while China was taking massive losses from retreats which do not get reported in the combat reports.

Fix this problem and the Land theaters will play just fine. An aggressive attacker will be worn down as you would expect and while Japan may still achieve victory it will come with an appropriate price.

Something like:

1.) 50% of losses reportd in combat reports should be kills.
2.) reduce retreat losses to 10% of force from the current 25%.

[Kereguelen]

Hi,

the German attack on Stalingrad started on 9-2-42, the Russian counterattack on 11-19-42. Most Russian forces did not come from the Far East but from the STAVKA reserve and from forces that were already deployed there before (that is, forces that retreated from the German onslaught after Case Blue started). Completely different from the fresh formations from the Far East the Russians employed in the winter battles of 1941/42 ...

K

[mogami]

Hi, I am not saying that attacking China or the Soviets should not be allowed.

I am saying that currently the scenarios do not reflect the actual orders of battle for China and the Soviets so Japanee players are getting the wrong idea.

This has nothing to do with the combat system. If the combat system is totally redone the order of battle for China and the Soviets will still also need to be redone if players are interested in the actual situation in those two areas.

Currently they are unintended gifts to the Japanese. Even with a new combat system.


In Dec 1941 in WITP there are 20 Divisions and 5 Bde assigned to Soviet Far East Front.
In reality the Soviets never had fewer then 40 divisions in Far East Army and that is after they withdrew forces when they learned te Japanese were going South and there would be no war with Japan.

In 1945 prior to the Soviets attacking the Japanese they increased the Army to over 80 divisions.

[moses]

Its all about the combat system. With the current OOB China has quite enough units to stop Japan with a more adequate ground combat system. You have 72 Corps for heavens sake.

Just keep on adding Chinese units and this theater will truly be broken as the Chinese will use this flawed system to drive Japan out of Russia in early 43.

When I start that AAR are you going to tell me its gamey to use the Chinese forces to attack. Or are you going to create a rule that forbids Chinese units from crossing the russian border. Or perhaps create a bunch of Chinese units that are unable to leave specific cities.

Why is the solution to forbid players from doing things that were possible instead of just making the game work properly. Players should be able to invade India or Austrailia if they want. They game should just be designed so these operations entail a reasonable cost.



Interesting that in all of my ranting I still find no one who will directly defend the ground combat system.

[mogami]

Hi, Do you want the correct Japanese units in the game?

Well If I am going to fight in China I want the correct Chinese Army. Not what someone feels is enough. I want the Chinese Army to be the Chinese Army. I want the Soviet Army to be the Soviet Army.

If everything is correct there is no need to forbid anything.

Historic sizes of opposing Armies in Far East

1941 Japan 1,000,000 Soviets 750,000
1943 Japan 600,000 Soviets 750,000
1945 Japan 750,000 Soviets 1,500,000 (edited down)(oinly counting combat troops)


In Dec 1941 China had 3.8 million men in 316 Divisions
WITP has 74 Corps and 9 Div. Based on strength of Corps they are 2 divisions.(157) So we need another 80 Corps on map.

Since Japanese players want to see what a full offensive in China would result in I say lets find out.

How about we remove 4 CV from the IJN?

Near as I can find there were 58 Soviet Divisions in Far East at start of December. 18 were sent west once Soviets learned Japan would not attack.
In 1943 the Soviets sent the commanders in Far East to fight Germans and replaced them with officers who had been fighting Germans.
Arrangments were made in 1943 to Send 30 trains per day East if required.

[mogami]

ORIGINAL: moses

Its all about the combat system. With the current OOB China has quite enough units to stop Japan with a more adequate ground combat system. You have 72 Corps for heavens sake.

Just keep on adding Chinese units and this theater will truly be broken as the Chinese will use this flawed system to drive Japan out of Russia in early 43.

When I start that AAR are you going to tell me its gamey to use the Chinese forces to attack. Or are you going to create a rule that forbids Chinese units from crossing the russian border. Or perhaps create a bunch of Chinese units that are unable to leave specific cities.

Why is the solution to forbid players from doing things that were possible instead of just making the game work properly. Players should be able to invade India or Austrailia if they want. They game should just be designed so these operations entail a reasonable cost.



Interesting that in all of my ranting I still find no one who will directly defend the ground combat system.

Hi, I don't think I posted a complaint about the combat system.
If you bring enough troops and supply you win.
When planning operations I plan to bring enough troops and supply to win.

When you start an AAR about China making a massive offensive in 1941 we all say
"Good thing for Japan it was impossible in actual war. "

Rather then the current comment about Japan

"Your only facing half the Chinese Army"

I think the current OB for China is pretty close as far as number of Corps but they are all 2 Division Corps and should be 4 Division Corps. That would make them alomst as strong as a Japanese Division at full strength but with much lower experiance and worse leaders.


Have to divide it up so 246 div are Front line and 70 div are rear area

1st War Area Wei Li-huang
40th Corps Pang Ping-hsun
76th Corps Li Tieh-chun
2nd Army Group Sun Lien-chung
30th Corps Tien Lien-chung
42nd Corps Feng An-pang
58th Corps Liu Ju-ming
3rd Army Group Sun Tung-hsuan (concurrent)
12th Corps Sun Tung-hsuan

2nd War Area Yen Hsi-shan
1st Temporrary Division Pen Yu-Pin
2nd Temporary Division Chin Hsien-chang
71st Division Kuo Tsung-fen
66th Division Tu Chun-yi
9th Corps Kuo Chi-chiao
4th Army Group Sun Wei-ju
38th Corps Chao Shou-shan
47th Corps Li Chia-yu
96th Corps Li Hsing-chung
5th Army Group Tseng Wan-chung (concurrent)
3rd Corps Tseng Wan-chung
15th Corps Liu Mao-en
17th Corps Kao Kuei-tse
6th Army Group Yang Ai-yuan
19th Corps Wang Ching-kuo
61st Corps Chen Chang-chieh
1st Cavalry Corps Chao Cheng-shou
7th Army Group Fu Zso-yi (concurrent)
1st New Corps Teng Pao-shan
22nd Corps Kao Shuang-cheng
35th Corps Fu Zso-yi
Manchuria Advanced Corps Ma Chan-shan
14th Army Group Wei Li-huang (concurrent)
14th Corps Chen Tieh
93rd Corps Liu Kan
98th Corps Wu Shih-min
18th Army Group

3rd War Area Ku Chu-tung
4th New Corps Yeh Hsun-chi
10th Army Group Liu Chien-hsu
28th Corps Tao Kuang
91st Corps Hsuan Tieh-wu
23rd Army Group Tang Shih-tsun
21st Corps Chen Wan-jen
50th Corps Kuo Hsun-chi
25th Army Group Chen Yi
100th Corps Chen Chi
28th New Division Wang Chi-hsiang
32rd Army Group Shangkuan Yun-hsiang
25th Corps Wang Ching-chiu
29th Corps Chen An-pao
67th Division Mo Yu-shuo

4th War Area Chang Fa-kuei
9th Army Group Wu Chi-wei
4th Corps Ou Chen
65th Corps Li Chen-chiu
12th Army Group Yu Han-mou
62nd Corps Chang Ta
63rd Corps Chang Jui-kuei
66th Corps Yeh Shao
83rd Corps (not filled)
16th Army Group Hsia Wei (concurrent)
46th Corps Hsia Wei
64th Corps Teng Lung-kuang

5th War Area Li Tsung-jen
Hinan-Hupei-Anhwei Border Command
Area Guerilla C-in-C Liao Lei
7th Corps Chang Kan
48th Corps Chang Yi-shun
11th Army Group Li Pin-hsien
84th Corps Chin Lien-fang
39th Corps Liu Ho-ting
22nd Army Group Wang Tsan-hsu
44th Corps Liao Chen
29th Army Group Wang Tsan-hsu
44th Corps Liao Chen
33rd Army Group Chang Tse-chung (concurrent)
55th Corps Tsao Fu-lin
59th Corps Chang Tse-chung
77th Corps Feng Chih-an

8th War Area Chu Shao-liang
2nd New Corps Lu Ta-chang
80th Corps Kung Ling-hsun
82nd Corps Ma Pu-fang
191st Division Yang Teh-liang
2nd Cavalry Corps Ho Chu-kuo
5th Cavalry Corps Ma Pu-chung
6th Cavalry Corps Men Ping-yueh
17th Army Group Ma Hung-pin (concurrent)
81st Corps Ma Hung-pin
168th Division Ma Hung-kuei

9th War Area Hsueh Yueh (acting)
74th Corps Wang Yao-wu
Border Area Guerilla C-in-C Fan Sung-pu
8th Corps Li Yu-tang
73rd Corps Peng Wei-jen
1st Army Group Lung Yun
58th Corps Sung Tu
3rd New Corps Chang Chung
60th Corps An En-pu
19th Army Group Lo Cho-ying
79th Corps Hsia Chu-chung
49th Corps Liu Tuo-chuan
70th Corps Li Chueh
78th Corps Hsua Shou-hsun
20th Army Group Shang Chen
53rd Corps Chuo Fu-cheng
54th Corps Huo Kuei-chang
87th Corps Liu Ying-ku
27th Army Group Yang Sen
20th Corps Yang Han-yu
30th Army Group wang Ling-chi
72nd Corps Han Chuan-pu

10th War Area Chiang Ting-wen (concurrent)
16th Corps Tung Chao
34th Army Group Chiang Ting-wen
27th Corps Fan Han-chieh
90th Corps Li Wen

Shantung-Kiangsu War Area Yu Hsueh-chung (concurrent)
51st Corps Yu Hsueh-chung
57th Corps Miao Cheng-liu
89th Corps Han Teh-chin
Guerilla C-in-C Shen Hung-ieh

Hopei-Chahar War Area Lu Chung-lin
New 5th Corps Sun Kuei-yuan
69th Corps Shih Yu-suan
99th Corps Chu Huai-ping
Hopei Militia Chang Yin-wu

[moses]

In Dec 1941 China had 3.8 million men in 316 Divisions
WITP has 74 Corps and 9 Div. Based on strength of Corps they are 2 divisions.(157) So we need another 80 Corps on map.

So you are going to add 80 Corps!!! Holy cow!! The game will be completely broken. An beginning player with 80 more Chinese corps will roll over the most veteren JP player. You're going to destroy the game in order to avoid admitting that there is a problem with the model?

How about we remove 4 CV from the IJN?

Huh?? CV's?? in a discussion of Chian and Russia??--edit "Ok now I get it . you're saying not having the Chinese divisions is like Japan not having its carriers."

If you bring enough troops and supply you win.
When planning operations I plan to bring enough troops and supply to win.

Yeah ya do. Winning is great but in World War II you didn't get to do it without taking casualties. We are talking infantry combat here aren't we?? Odds are important but even with great odds the winners take losses. Supply is great but you still get killed. In the game you don't. Why not fix that instead of breaking the game in order to prevent players from doing things that you don't like.

[Grotius]

Mogami, it might be a good idea to include all those extra Chinese units -- but if so, many should be static or otherwise hampered, to simulate the effect of the unwillingness of Chinese leaders to fight, the infighting with warlords, the conflict with the Communists, etc.

[Mr.Frag]

but if so, many should be static or otherwise hampered, to simulate the effect of the unwillingness of Chinese leaders to fight, the infighting with warlords, the conflict with the Communists, etc.

Wy impose this kind of a limit when at the same time, Japan's forces have no blocks in place that forces them to act historically? Apples to apples instead of apples to oranges.

[WiTP_Dude]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

but if so, many should be static or otherwise hampered, to simulate the effect of the unwillingness of Chinese leaders to fight, the infighting with warlords, the conflict with the Communists, etc.

Wy impose this kind of a limit when at the same time, Japan's forces have no blocks in place that forces them to act historically? Apples to apples instead of apples to oranges.

Ah, the garrison requirement?

[mogami]

Hi, WITP has 159 Soviet Tanks.
In reality there were 1700 of them (but no T34/KV types)(THe T-34/KV went west to kill Germans)
The 3 Tank Bde in WITP were in fact
3 Tank Div
2 Mech Div
There is an airborne Bde Missing.
Only half the Soviet Arty is there
only 1/3 the Soviet Combat Engineer Units are there (WITP has 2 Rgt there were 6 Rgt and 6 Bn of Combat Eng)
Of the 40 Div WITP calls almost half of them CD units. That is ok since they were static div
but at least 2 Inf Div and 1 Bde are missing.

But I think just adding the Arty, Eng amd missing tanks will solve the early attack on Soviet problem. (But I'd also like my airborne Bde and some transports)

[Mr.Frag]

Ah, the garrison requirement?

You are free to ignore it as Japan ... judging by the polls, at least 50% of folks do at some time or another ... Why should China be held to a different standard? [;)]

You are also free to pull troops out of Russia to cover these while using the high power Japanese boys.

[moses]

Wy impose this kind of a limit when at the same time, Japan's forces have no blocks in place that forces them to act historically? Apples to apples instead of apples to oranges.

I agree but if we keep adding Chinese forces they will soon crush Japan under the current model. Very quickly and at low cost.

You know we can argue all day about what could have happened historically in China. But the game only needs to produce reasonable outcomes. If it costs Japan 200,000 men and you need to ship in a million supplies to take China then what players will still try it? Probably those who think it will be fun to try which is great. But we won't have to worry about it screwing up the play balance because those units will be to beat up to do anything for a long time.

But currently we have this situation. A normal (happens often but not always) outcome is that China falls within 6-12 months. If China goes for a total retreat strategy (a-historical from the get-go) they can last longer but will still be crushed in the long run as they will flat run out of supplies). Japan can execute this offensive for the loss of less than 10,000 men. (I have lost 426 elements-4,260 men so far and the end is in sight.) Clearly this is not acceptable.

I have proposed ways to fix this that are simple. Others can come up with other simple ideas to impose a cost to these large land offensives. But the worst way in my opinion to solve these problems is to just keep changing the starting conditions. This at best just transfers the problems to a latter time frame.

[mogami]

Hi, I want the historic forces. I now think the WITP OB is correct more or less as far as unit names and locations but the Corps are only 2 Div when they should be 4. That would get the strength pretty close to correct.

Then any changes to combat would effect both sides with Japan still having the advantage of better supply lines, more supply and air control. If the most common result is stalemate then I'd say the game had it right.
You need supply to attack so the Chinese could only attack if the Japanese came to them.

Of course we would then have a problem

Japan did not attack because it was too weak to win but the Chinese did not attack because they had no interest in attacking. They were waiting for the USA to beat Japan and after Japan left they were going to fight each other. So we need some command and control limits for China.

Something really interesting like
Split the Chinese into their factions and if Japan is not attacking The Japanese player controls Mao but if Japan attacks he loses control of Mao and the Allied player gets control

[X(]

Or both players commit PP points.

[Mr.Frag]

I have proposed ways to fix this that are simple.

You have basically proposed the old land combat system. There is a reason it was gutted, it didn't work. Please stop thinking you have proposed a functional solution, it is not. Been there, Done that. Ron who likes to complain can tell you all about the 20 minute dash down to Singapore due to sped up combat. Not to mention Hong Kong folding shop in one turn and PI being completely gone in '41.

[mogami]

Hi, I want to see Japan crush China for less then 10,000 men once the real Chinese Army is on map. Or Defeat Soviets if they have their actual 1700 tanks. (The Soviets still can't start the war before 1945 unless Japan lets them or starts it)