Why are there no Chinese bases further than Sining?

[mogami]

Hi, I'll buy that. But this is not a game about "The Great Land War in Asia"

I keep going back to where I began. Japan got into the larger war because it could not win in China.
As long as China was getting outside help it would never stop fighting.

But at the same time the Chinese were content to let the Japanese stay where they were at because in the time it took to throw them out they would be gone (they would lose the Pacific War)

Japan reached down deep into the forces in Manchuria and China and withdrew all they could spare.
12 Div and 6 Bde

I'm not syaing Japan cannot win in the new OBB scenario. But to do so they will have to cut the supply lines into CHina and then widdle away at the Chinese for a long period to make minor gains. As they get PP they can send units to China (but watch the garrison requirments)
And if the Chinese get too friskythey can get spanked. They are not that good. There is just alarge number of them. They are imoblie because they are tied to their supply.

Also cities are not VP but losing troops is VP. The Chinese will score more points defeating Japanese who advance onto them then they will score advancing into dug in Japanese positions. (That first turn you move into the enemy hex is going to be bad for the side not dug in.)

[WiTP_Dude]

Do you what is the maximum assualt strength for a current Chinese Corps? I know it is well over 300 but not sure the exact number.

[Tophat]

This is interesting,I actually agree with moses in his concept of how the game should represent the war in China. It should be possible for japan to win a military victory there. I also agree with Mogami on putting other Units that aren't represented now onto the map. The problem is the units mogami wants to add: 1)were not 100% loyal or committed to the nationalist cause. 2)Were in many cases not willing to leave certain geographic areas and if they did the commanders/warlords were very unwilling to suffer casulties to "THEIR" own forces!!
The War in china wasn't simply the Japs vs the nationalists and the communits........it was the Japs.....vs Large nationalist faction...committed communist faction.......dozen plus warlord factions<all out for themselves> and the chinese people who wanted to be left alone!
Right,we can go round and round saying the japs lost,allies won see? Well when last i looked the communists were running China and frankly they looked like a dead horse around this time!

[Tanaka]

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

It's like I said before Mogami, we've had under-strength Chinese for so long, that people who enjoyed steamrollering them are unwilling to let that go. They're less interested in history and simply want the thrill of decimating China in 9 months to remain in the game. You'll never convince these guys, they don't WANT a tough fight in China.

They’ll simply keep making alarmist statements in hopes you decide not to modify things based purely on their speculative statements. I say go ahead and add the troops, I doubt China will be able to do squat against the Japanese due to their complete lack of sufficient engineers or modern artillery, but lets at least find out.

Then let some of these alarmists play test it as the Chinese and show us how the yellow steamroller can decimate the Japanese. They’ll soon start complaining about their inability to reduce Japanese forts and want more engineers. Not to mention the fact that all of China only starts with about 70k-80k of supply stockpiled and if they try to build forts and airfields in every base the supply begins to dwindle. So now they’ll want enough supply to build their B-17 bases and be able to launch massive offensives all at the same time. Sigh…

Sorry for the tongue in cheek sarcasm guys but common, China gets squashed flat in most any game where Japan is played competently. Adding the HISTORICAL troops won’t prevent successful Japanese moves, it’ll only make them harder and actually give the Chinese the possibility of a response which they utterly lack now.

Jim

Completely agree here! Nice post! Lets have a historical game guys!!!

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: Tophat

Did i mention <being respectful,i still wanna have that beer> that if you make all the chinese units fully mobile you throw historical right out the window!

ROTFLMAO, and what we have now is historical? [8|] Give me a break. The Japanese had MAJOR problems trying to get supplies to the font due to partisan activity in their rear areas. Almost all Japanese units in China were constantly engaged in Policing duties and most offensives rarely could muster more than a full division let alone the 6-8 divisions players can easily mass together now.

If Japans units are mobile then the allied units need to be as well. If you're going to fix the Chinese in place then fix the Japanese as well. The game fails to model the realities of the problems faced by the Japanese on the ground, so far too many units are available to attack. Couple this with half strength Chinese OOB and you get what we have now, a complete blowout that breaks the game.

The whole point of the war in the pacific was because of Japans failed mission in China. A FAILED mission, not a massive offensive poised on the verge of conquering the entire country before the end of 1942.

You Japanese fan boys have to start thinking in terms of game balance here. No game will be played out beyond 1942 as it stands now because all of Asia gets rolled over in no time. House rules won't cut it, there has to be a reason to fight the pacific war other than mutual agreement by players. Fixing the Chinese OOB will go a long way to help balance the game, but The Russian and Indians need attention too. Not to mention the busted land combat routines.

Jim

[mogami]

Hi, I think modern wars are won or lost before they begin.
I think human beings often are unable to understand the events they are living through and make mistakes.
People do not always understand the FULL meaning of events. These misunderstandings remain and become history. Can anyone decide the truth of historical events? I don't know but I do know a certain amount of math is required. I know there are things that can off set math. Iron versus Bronze, Steel versus wicker, Bullets versus Dead Cats swung around the head on a short rope.

But.... when both sides are using the same gadgets numbers matter.
There are folks who hold that Germany could have defeated the Soviets. They are all over the place.
Ask one of them when the first Soviet counter attack wrecked the first German Panzer Div. The war was settled right then and there but it took a while for all involved to see it.
There are people who think the Southern Confederacy could have defeated the Northen States. They actually think RE Lee won battles that mattered. (Lee never destroyed a single enemy Army.... US Grant destroyed 3)

Wars stopped being decided by a single battle a very long time ago. If losng battles meant losing wars we would all refer to the great Carthagian Empire.


Modern Wars (by that I mean wars of production) are simple to understand the outcome.
The side with the most wins. No nation has ever lost it's "will" although it is often a target.
The mistake people make in saying Japan or Germany or the Confenderacy or Carthage might have won is they use the beginning of the war as a measure of what might have been. But if you use the starting point as proof they might have won you ignore that these countries at their apex could not defeat an enemy who had not yet mobilized.

Germany, Japan, The South, Carthage had all made their war preparations before the outbreak. It was in fact their belief that they could win "short" wars that led them to defeat. At a precise moment in time they counted their "assault" value and thought "I have more" They would all have been better off prior to the war to have built their war making potentional rather then war making machines. If they had asked "who can lose the most" they would have avoided the war.

Germany and Japan and the South and Carthage fought wars with what they could not afford to lose. They could not grow stronger because the structure to produce and maintain a larger force for a longer period did not exist.

So the real question is not could Germany or japan or the South or Carthage win a war but could they make single campaigns produce the total defeat of the enemy before that enemy gathered it's resources and counter attacked. (left out an o)

All these wars begin with the success of the side that lost in the end. But it was success directed against an inferiour force that produced no reduction in the abiltiy of the enemy to continue the war.
The humans alive at the time lived through the dark times and yes they often dispaired of victory. They saw the enemy at his high tide. But few of them saw beneath it all to what was to follow. What followed was not a result of the enemy becoming smarter or better. All forces in war become better. The winners become stronger.

When Rome lost 50k men in a single battle it appeared to many they had lost the war. The Carthagian figured that Rome would come and ask for peace. The next year when it was time to resume the fight the Romans fielded an army larger then the one they had lost the prior year.
Geography is often a target in war but never produces results. Taking a city but leaving the enemy intact is futile.
The germans took a lot of land and inflicted much damage to the Soviet Army. But the ratio was one the Soviets could and did absorb. The Germans never recovered from that first summer.
The Japanese never recovered from unexpected defeats in China. They tried a new approach that destroyed them. The South won it's way to defeat. (really what most people now refer to as Southern victories were in fact Northern Victories where the Northern Commander retreated ) And Carthage just plain wore its self out winning.
(And we have Karl XII, who won battles for over 10 years before he lost the war in a single day)
There are no examples of smaller forces defeating larger ones in battles where the smaller force did not have an edge. There are zero examples of a smaller force winning a war except where the smaller side was more advanced. (and few of these)

Japan was not more advanced. Germany was not more advanced, The South was not more advance and Carthage was not more advanced.
The Germans might have had Jets late in the war but they had horse drawn Arty all through the war. The south invented the submarine but it only sank one ship out of a fleet numbering over 600.

No I don't think any of these could have won the war they fought. They might win a game.
A game that does not require them to endure a war but allows them to win the game by winning a few battles. But all a battle is to me is when my forces provided by my production system do a little math.

[Tophat]

Yes the japanese had partisan problems...somewhere in this tome of a thread i even mention that! Also the Chinese were heavily factionalized with nationalist,communist and a plethora of warlords. Yes they fought the japanese,but also when not fighting or not supporting eachother they were anything but co-operative. Corruption was rife with the nationalists,warlords were bought or bribed with arms,money,political positions etc......

Fixing the chinese OOB without taking what composes the Chinese Army is nothing but Allied fanboyism......play balance my foot.
Do not throwup the "Japanese didn't advance in China because they couldn't arguement",,,its old. The japanese never really understood or took the time to learn about the chinese and their internal divisions. Also committing mass atrocity did nothing to prove to any chinese leader that there was a political solution to japan's aggression. Japanese arrogance in discounting Chinese combat ability got the japanese into several devestating predicaments. What happens when an arrogant man is slapped down hard? He then makes an excuse for his defeat,so did the japanese. I'm sure a plethora of "ntelligent" staff officers said we can't possibly advance and win militarily in china.....lets go get into a much larger war and we'll cutoff the chinese supplies!

alot of these new chinese formations are not going to move or perform verywell.

[WiTP_Dude]

Yes, Germany came close to defeating the Soviet Union. They made many mistakes and still came close to Moscow. Had they done things differently, who can really say what would have happened. The victory of the USSR was not an automatic.

The South however never came close to defeating the North on the battlefield. They invaded the North a couple of times but were pushed back with high losses. But if Lincoln lost the 1864 election, the South would probably have gotten some kind of deal. They get their own country with slaves if they wanted.

Japan can't defeat the United States in a long war. They have too many disadvantages when going up against them.

[Tophat]

Interesting,
The south goes over to defensive Warfare and never suffers the gettysburg losses...they adopt Longstreets defensive warplan. What happens here....losses,more union losses.
Remember draft riots are going to occur in the North....what does the south have to do? Kill yankees in droves and offer a political solution to the North. Will it work? not sure,does it have a chance....yes.

Looking at the situation,Japan,China,Germany,then saying: Aha! Thats the inevitable way things would have workedout! History proves it so! This just begs the question of the events that led to that conclusion.

[WiTP_Dude]

Lee had problems feeding his men and horses. So he couldn't stay in one place too long or his army would begin to starve and get smaller. See the Petersburg siege for an example of this. So during the summers of 1862 and 1863 he moves north to live off the land. He tries to win some battles but it doesn't work out.

[mogami]

Hi, Why does everyone think that taking Moscow equals a German victory in WWII. It is a victory requirment in wargames on the subject. Moscow had been taken before. It did not produce a Russian defeat in the war. It would have been a serious set back but in all likelyhood the Soviets would have retaken it in their winter offensive. (It gained the most ground around Moscow) Germany might have even lost more forces trying to hold it. There might not have been a Stalingrad because of the defeat of Germany when they were encirced at Moscow in 41-42. The Germans did not hurt the Soviet abilty to make war. The Soviets begin 1942 larger then they began 1941. The Germans do not.
THe Soviets had more tanks in 1942 then in 1941 and the 1942 tanks were better models.

[Tophat]

ORIGINAL: WiTP_Dude

Lee had problems feeding his men and horses. So he couldn't stay in one place too long or his army would begin to starve and get smaller. See the Petersburg siege for an example of this. So during the summers of 1862 and 1863 he moves north to live off the land. He tries to win some battles but it doesn't work out.

He has to get in position to force the Federals to attack him,where he can win a battle...not throw himself at a superior position and think Elan will carry him through.

[moses]

Had germany beat Russia the history books would all say it was inevitable. Had the union been crushed at Gettysburg it would seem obvious that such a large nation as the south could never be conquered. But who would have thought we could defeat the british in the revolution or lose to Vietnam? Nothing is inevitable. During the time period all these wars seemed in doubt except the last two where everyone knew who would win until they lost. They are only obviously lost in retrospect.

You can never prove these arguments.

[Grotius]

I agree with everyone who says that things are too easy for Japan now. But one of my concerns about China as it is represented in the game is that it's presented as a single monolithic army under one person's control. I remember firing up WITP for the first time and being puzzled that I could have Mao and Chiang working in concert. It seems to me that if you expand the Chinese OOB, you also need to pay more attention to the political divisions among the Chinese. Should the Allied player be free to unite warlords, Nationalists, and Communists in one big happy front against the Japanese?

Yes, the game to some extent has to ignore politics to make it playable. I'm glad I don't have to listen to Nimitz and MacArthur bicker. But the Political Point system does impose some costs on me when, say, I want to withdraw units from ABDA command. Mogami, do you plan to use PPs to constrain the Allied Chinese player in some way?

[mogami]

Hi, See we are back to thinking in terms of battles. Battles do not win wars. They just produce the natural result that the side that can lose battles and fight another is going to win the war. The Japanese lost 1 battle and they never won anything important after that because they could not again fight a battle as important as the one they lost. Had the USN lost Midway it would have fought another 2 or 3 just like it in 1943.

In WW2 the Japanese have to win 4 Midways before they could even start to think about winning the war. IN WITP the Japanese have to win 2 or 3 Midways before they can think about winning the game.
The answer is not in China. It is out there in the Pacific in 1942 and 1943 and 1944.
The Japanese player does not have to be good enough to win Midway. He has to be good enough to win Midway 3 times.


WITP made easy. Count up all the Japanese ships points. Add in all the aircraft Japan will produce. Add in every landunit Japan sends off the Home Islands. Total the VP value.
Japan has to score that many points to win. If Japan does that they cannot lose.

[WiTP_Dude]

There are ways to calculate the chances of victory. Just to say that either side could win any war is too easy and not accurate.

[Kereguelen]

Hi,

there're discussions about the possibility of a German victory over Russia since WW2 ended. But one should not forget that Germany never intended to defeat Russia only by military means. They hoped that the (communist) regime would collapse after the first battles were won (as the French regime collapsed in 1940, France could have continued the war in North Africa, the surrender was more a political decision). The collapse of the communists was not so unlikely in 1941 as they were hated by a large part of the populace then . But the German military commanders (or most of them) did not understand the intentions of Hitler...

Thus in the end the question if Germany could have defeated Russia is at best purely academic because the reason for Germany to attack the SU was (in the end) to annihilate and/or to enslave the people of Russia. Considering this, Russia never would have surrendered!

Just my opinion!

K

[Tophat]

There you are....now we are back to how to more accuratly refect china in the "GAME" War in the pacific.

Lets all drop the because they can't win wherever arguement...........

[Tophat]

ORIGINAL: moses

Oh please this is all silly. Had germany beat Russia the history books would all say it was inevitable. Had the union been crushed at Gettysburg it would seem obvious that such a large nation as the south could never be conquered. But who would have thought we could defeat the british in the revolution or lose to Vietnam? Nothing is inevitable. During the time period all these wars seemed in doubt except the last two where everyone knew who would win until they lost. They are only obviously lost in retrospect.

You can never prove these arguments.

Verygood......so how do you approach "balancing" WitP?

[WiTP_Dude]

When Moscow was taken before, that was part of the strategy of the defenders at the time. This was not the case in 1941. If the Germans rip the head off in 1941, the Soviets would have been greatly weakened.