Japanese grand strategy

[moses]

TOPHAT.....As Moses points out, the problem is that the game IS broken right now.
The ground combat system and the deployment restrictions make it relatively easy
to do what should hardly be possible after a long and difficult effort....What's worse
is that it points up problems that are general to ground combat system everywhere.
Even if you institute a "gentleman's aggreement" to avoid these problems where
they are obvious (Russia and China) they are still out there warping combat results
across the rest of the map.

Well said except I won't say "broken" Except maybe in the strictest sence that every game is broken in that it does not exactly represent reality.

I have just pointed out situations where the game is producing outrageous results from normal play. They appear to be correctable and hopfully they will be.

[jwilkerson]

To me the "BROKEN" term should be reserved for games which will not / cannot be played because they are so flawed ... and since we are still playing .. I agree that I wouldn't use the "BROKEN" term ... that there are many problems yes ... that some of them will hopefully be corrected ... well that is one of the purposes of the forum ( I hope ).

[Andy Mac]

Hmmm in only one of my games have I take a real beating in China and as it is there are 600,000 IJA soldiers fighting 300,000 Chinese at Chungking which is the only base I control.

They have knocked the forts down to 1 from 9 and have been fighting for 4 or 5 months to finish me off and they CANNOT.

Every time they attack they take 20,000 - 50,000 casualties but supply and disruption are stopping them from even taking the hex despite having it completely surrounded.

I Placed 2 Marine corps Corsair/ 2 Spitfire Sqns and the 3 AVG Sqns (I dont let them take on replacements) on constant rotation over the air of Chungking to prevent air superiority falling I have about 100 Dakotas ferrying in supplies from Ledo

The bonus the Chinese get for defending in a city is enough to stop the Japanese doing much.

They know down forts they kill men the shoot down planes but the cannot take the city.

Its got to the stage that I actually fly out a chinese corps to India rebuild it and then fly it back in just make best use of supplies.

China aint that broke it is very hard for the IJA to finish off China if the Chinese are in Chungking prepped.

Andy

[moses]

If all you own is Chungking you have lost. You will eventually run out of supply. 100 Dakotas will not supply 300,000 Chinese. He should just bombard every turn and then just leave you alone to starve before mopping you up.

Plus you are defeated in the sence that he can move troops from China to India for example. He does not have to keep 20 Divisions in China. 10 will probably do.

The Chungking/Kwieyang fron is a very tough nut to crack. China can hold a long time behind this wall. But the very fact that you have to retreat to this line to survive demonstrates the problem.

It would be like an eastern front game where all the experienced players counsel that in order to survive you must pull back to the Urals.

[Andy Mac]

Oh I agree I screwed up to get there (I just wasnt paying enough attnetion to China as allies all I ever want is for it to be quiet so Ican concentrate on the war)

Andy

[mogami]

Hi, No it would be more like where they advised you to pull back behind the Dnepr.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

To me the "BROKEN" term should be reserved for games which will not / cannot be played because they are so flawed ... and since we are still playing .. I agree that I wouldn't use the "BROKEN" term ... that there are many problems yes ... that some of them will hopefully be corrected ... well that is one of the purposes of the forum ( I hope ).

I would say that "BROKEN" should be applied to any game that requires a "gentleman's
aggreement" NOT to exploit "loopholes" to be played with enjoyment. I would be
genuinly reluctant to play with a number of posters who have broadcast their "great
exploitations" to knock Russia or China out of the war in a couple of months. To be
a playable game, it should be playable by two strangers with relatively equal exper-
iance without a week of "negotiations".

[pasternakski]

I'm still imagining what it would be like to go off half cocked and re-invent the wheel.

I like the dual ideas of slowing down all types of movement and imposing tougher requirements for winning battles.

[33Vyper]

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

I'm still imagining what it would be like to go off half cocked and re-invent the wheel.

I like the dual ideas of slowing down all types of movement and imposing tougher requirements for winning battles.

I agree, slowing some things down, making it more difficult to win. Also part of the problem is that you can get several hundred thousand troops inland together and there is no special supply issues. Give me a break China's infrastructure was limited and shoddy inland. The Japanese should have to wait months to build up supplies enough for even a limited offensive inland.

[moses]

Hi, No it would be more like where they advised you to pull back behind the Dnepr.

Except that did the Chinese ever retreat to anything like the Chungking/Kwieyang front? My knowledge of this war is not that extensive but it seems that Japan's offensives late in the war were still in the vicinity of the games starting positions.

Pulling back to the Dnepr in a russian front game would at least make sence because historically the russians were driven beyond that point. This would be similar to advice to evacuate the SRA since you know Japan is going to take it anyway. It may or may not be good advice but at least it does not indicate a flaw in the game. As in WITP a russian front game would probably need some rules to restrict early evacuations. But a retreat to that point is at least logical.

But by pulling back to Chungking/Kwieyang you are falling back to a line well beyond the hstorical limit of Japanese advance.

[mogami]

Hi, Yes but the Chinese did not face the crafty commanders we encounter as a matter of routine.
In this game the Allies have to defend Darwin and Pearl Harbor.

[X(]
Half the players like it that way
The other half avoid it simply by not doing it.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, Yes but the Chinese did not face the crafty commanders we encounter as a matter of routine.
In this game the Allies have to defend Darwin and Pearl Harbor.
[X(]
Half the players like it that way
The other half avoid it simply by not doing it.

NO..., the Chinese faced Japanese commanders who had to deal with reality in the
same manner they did. Nobody knew "the rules"; but they did know what would ac-
tually work in real life.

I thing in the real war the Allies DID defend Darwin and Hawaii, though in reality
only Darwin was probably in danger of Japanese action after 12/07/41. The Japs
in reality just decided they didn't have the troops or the shipping to fiddle around
in NW Australia.

The half that "like it that way" need to be dissappointed with a healthy dose of reality.
If they want to play "fast and loose" with history, let them stick to "PacWar". That
game is already a lost cause. Let those of us who would like to play an historical
simulation have WITP.

[moses]

A crafty strategy is really not required to take China. Simply mass your force in front of Changsa and start taking cities. The attack almost plays itself.

If players were conquering China through the use of gamey tactics then perhaps these things could be ignored. If only the best players could do it then we could just applaud their brilliance but remain confidant that the game was OK. But it is being done with normal tactics by very many players.

In my first game I had no thought of taking China and assumed that it would be impossible. But in trying to come up with a plan I decided to try and take Changsa. When Changsa fell quickly and with hardly a fight I moved on down the rail. Soon the whole rail line was mine again without much effort. And so my attack continued effortlessly. I never needed to stop for replacements and I never noticed any supply problems.

Now honestly I think its not all that bad. China is almost balanced with the changes in 1.4. I think a good player should now be able to stop Japan at or near the starting front most of the time. (I'd like to prove it but getting someone to play Japan in a China only game is not so easy) I don't think it will take all that much of a change to get things to where they should be.

[Rossj]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

A few points to ponder. What pushed the Japanese into the final decision to go to war
with the West? The US embargo on oil and other strategic materials. Why did the US
impose this embargo? Because the Japanese had occupied French Indo-China. And
why did the Japs sieze Indo-China? To cut the Chinese off from outside supply. And
why was this thought necessary? Because the IJA's war in China had steadily bogged
down since it's outbreak in 1937 to the point that further progress was proving almost
impossible by the end of 1940...., and the Chinese weren't showing any sign of being
ready to quit.

If the kind of progress players are able to make in the China War in the game was
really possible in history, then the whole basis of the wider war is pointless. Obviously
the game has a serious problem in this area..., or all Japanese Military and Political
leaders in 1941 were complete idiots. And while I will concede that they were insular
in outlook, with a tendency to overestimate their own capabilities and underestimate
those of potential opponanants, I can't buy into complete idiocy. They were the ones
that had been fighting the Chinese for 4 years. They obviously had a better grasp of
the reality of the China War than anyone not involved. If they knew they weren't
able to go any farther in China, then how can we argue otherwise? Unless we are
complete idiots....

The common thread to the events leading up to war is that Japan was doing all of this to break the stalemate in china...if the IJA had sent in several divisions from the home islands and southern area army after the sra was captured, maybe they could have marched on chunking by late '42. I don't think the IJA were idiots, but they never got a chance to redeploy troops from elsewhere for a grand offensive because the they lost the initiative in mid '42.

As a side note, I worked on a japanese defense project in the late 1970s and two of the officers, Capt Osaka and VAdm Aono had served in the imperial navy during the war...Aono remarked to me once that he flew zero's and with a grin said, "B-29, very difficult target."

[Nikademus]

Japan had a stalemate in China more due to logistics, the vast size of the country and most importantly, the Chinese army's ability to decline battle if it could vs any abiltiy to defeat the IJA in battle. (at least unless they had overwhelming numbers). I dont see this as much of a LCU problem as one of OOB. Where i do see a problem is in the logistics. The generic-ness of supply and the ability to capture both it, and cities that produce it via resource coupled with the nature of supply tracing on good roads or rail allows Japanese offensives deep into Chinese territory. Coupled with the rail net allows Japanese units to stay in fairly good shape logistically. I havn't had any issues so far in terms of supply.

Despite this, a good Allied player can make China a quagmire. Its being done with me (though admitedly, i'm not going all out to "knock China completely out of the war" and I believe Mogami in his game's is usually able to beat up his Japanese opponents who try the same. The general tendancy though on threads such as this are for those voices that say China is not a pushover in their games tend to get buried amids all the BROKEN complaints.

Room for improvement?.....of course.

1) Eliminate the supply bonanza bonus when capturing cities. A bit controversial this one. (ya think?) because the Japanese did on numerous occasion employ this as part of their strategy. They did it in Malaya and far fetched as it sounds it was a major component of their U-GO operation (The Imphal campaign) because of the horid logistical state of trying to cross the Burma/India border. Mutuguchi factored in that capturing major British supply dumps would fuel the Japanese offensive straight into India.

However because supply is so generic in the game and because LCU's store their own supply, i'm thinking destroying between 90 and 100% of all supply in a captured base might produce more realistic limitations on offensives (either side) It would certainly better simulate the all but impossible logistical situation in Northern Burma (there was a reason why it fell so quickly after Mandalay was captured by the Japanese and why it took the UK so long to return)

2.) Restructure the Inner Chinese road net. - change from modern "roads" to "trails".

Advantage - Japanese offensives into the interior of China will face logistical challenges that will blunt offensives and decreased movement which will slow pace down

Disadvantage - Works both ways though....such a move would probably all but gurantee the fall of outer China....but then again.....that happens now anyway [:'(] Would also make internal Chinese movement tough. Then again it would help compartentalize Chinese strength too.

3.) China corp generation.

China had numbers and space but had major equipment and logistical issues (as well as command issues). Training and morale were also generally horid. Mao resorted to Guerilla warfare....Chiang avoided combat, participated in an unofficial truce with the IJA and then later horded the few precious American trained and most importantly American EQUIPED divisions for emergencies which may or may not involve the Japanese. Several of these "new" Chinese LCU's beat off the crack Japanese 18th Inf Div in Burma in 44.....a suprise for both them and the Japanese who till then held the Chinese in contempt.

Back to 3) - An idea might be that for every Chinese city that "falls" China gets a recruitment bonus of X number of Chinese corps....these corps would be mostly squads and a few weapons, with generally poor exp and morale but massed together and stiffened with better units they would at least help quagmire future Japanese efforts and in cities their numbers would definately contribute given how the LCU model works. The "quagmire" strategy is a valid one....my PBEM opponent did a good job with it though in the end, i was able to prevail....it made things tricky though....lots of "units" all over the place...threatening flanks.....causing worries. Sneaky bastard.

In effect...the farther the Japanese go....the "Deeper" into it they get.

I am generally against any suggestions to increase supply because we all know what that will lead too.....(China offensives...land and/or air based) and the logistical situation was bad there....bad enough that the Burma road was needed, bad enough that Chiang constantly pressured for more and more aid (admitedly part of which was political)

Then again...all this may not be necessary. Some adjustments to the LCU model have been made....testing them now. Keep the faith. support your local Beta. Vote me for Prez. (hell if Arnold can get elected, anything is possible)

[moses]

Could these small units be somehow deployable behind the lines to unoccupied Japanese hexes?!!! Small gorilla units (AV10-20) that could be placed in Japans rear to keep him honest with garrison requirements and force him to have units fighting away from the front would be really cool and would make Japan's life hell. I don't know if airdrop makes sence or how it would be done.

Why tie it to captured cities? Just give China 10 of these little guys and when they get killed they come back 3 months later like other chinese units.

Like your item 1. Not sure about 2 mainly because like you said it guareentees the fall of the outer cities.

Sounds like you're on track.[:)]

[mogami]

Hi, Just having fun

This is a gorilla

Word History: Two traditions of exploration come together in the history of the word gorilla, which also illustrates how knowledge of the classics has influenced scientific terminology. Dr. Thomas S. Savage, an American missionary to western Africa, first scientifically described the gorilla in 1847, giving it the New Latin name Troglodytes gorilla. In doing so he was using his knowledge of Greek literature, in which there exists a fourth-century B.C. translation of a report written by Hanno, another visitor to western Africa. This Carthaginian navigator, who voyaged before 480 B.C., went as far as Sierra Leone in his explorations. In the Greek translation of his report he tells of seeing Gorillai, the name of which he allegedly learned from local informants and which he thought were members of a tribe of hairy women. In fact they were probably the same creatures that Thomas Savage described about 24 centuries later.

[mogami]

And this is a guerilla



It dates to the Napoleonic campaign in Spain (1808-1811). The earliest English usage cite is by the Duke of Wellington in 1809. The adjectival use dates from 1811.

In Spanish the word is a diminutive of guerra or war; so guerrilla is literally little war.

[WiTP_Dude]

It's possible gorillas could be trained to carry bombs. [:'(]

[moses]

[:-]I'm a mathmetacian not a spiller.[8|]