Bombing of Chinese HI, Res, Oil?

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: jumper

Hi Pauk,
I doubt you will find any..[:)]
masochism fans probably aren´t visiting this forum [:D][:D][:D][:'(]
above conditions suppose a sick-brain on jap side[;)]

If such a mod was made (and it can not be made, since it requires extensive recoding and would be an entirely different game) - it would also require vastly different victory conditions.

You could have time specific conditions: i.e. - capturing objective X before such and such a date gets you Y victory points. This way, you would be judged by historical comparisons.

Actually, the more i look at this game, the more i doubt it is possible to have a historically accurate simulation that is also fun, just based on the nature of the beast. There was a fairly narrow period of time where the forces were balanced. Before or after that period it was a pain for one side or the other.

Maybe the suggestion that you play two simultaneous games - one as Allies, one as Japan and compare point totals would work - but that would mean twice as much time to devote the game than we currently use (at least if you are playing one game at a time...)

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: pauk



oh, yeah, and the game would be over in early 1943....

if someone make such mod i would play it to prove this. I will be Allied player, of course. Any takers (for the third time?)
[:'(]

You are saying - what? That if the game only allowed historically available options, that Japan would be conquered by early 1943? [&:]

[Nemo121]

No, what he is saying that the list above is a list of changes completely biased in favour of maximising Allied capabilities and minimising Japanese capabilities and as such would result in a game Japan loses in 43.
 
If this were a call for unbiased changes then in the same breath as calling for changes to radar in Allied search planes I would imagine the player would have called for changes to Japanese radar modelling ( database has broken said radars). I couldn't care less what changes benefit either side so long as the capabilities of BOTH sides move closer to historical reality but this ceaseless barrage of calls for biased changes ( by both sides of the argument) will tend to lead to less realistic modelling of relative capabilties than currently exists.
 
Again, people seem to progress blithely unaware that the calls they are calling for are not applied as per logic to both sides but just tend to favour the side they prefer to play. Of course pointing these things out on this forum seems to be have the same effect as it had for Pandora.

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

No, what he is saying that the list above is a list of changes completely biased in favour of maximising Allied capabilities and minimising Japanese capabilities and as such would result in a game Japan loses in 43.

If this were a call for unbiased changes then in the same breath as calling for changes to radar in Allied search planes I would imagine the player would have called for changes to Japanese radar modelling ( database has broken said radars). I couldn't care less what changes benefit either side so long as the capabilities of BOTH sides move closer to historical reality but this ceaseless barrage of calls for biased changes ( by both sides of the argument) will tend to lead to less realistic modelling of relative capabilties than currently exists.

Again, people seem to progress blithely unaware that the calls they are calling for are not applied as per logic to both sides but just tend to favour the side they prefer to play. Of course pointing these things out on this forum seems to be have the same effect as it had for Pandora.

That is NOT what was said at all. Reread the post.

The list presented included the list of demands for removing Allied advantages. This included:

... to prevent the PoW and Repulse from splitting for Ceylon or Java on turn 2

... prevent mass evacuations of the Malaya army during bad weather at the start of the game

... redo the India supply deliveries so that an Allied player cannot just turtle in Karachi and Bombay with unlimited supply if the Japanese successfully invade India

... prevent the Allies from bombing every resource and oil center within range of their 4E bombers during the game

.. prevent the Allies from hiding their carriers on the West Coast or somewhere until late 1942

As i said, the point of these changes is for the game to allow historically available options. How is that
favoring one side or another, unless, of course, you WANT to bias the game in a particular way???

AFAIK, the radar problem has been addressed in some of the mods (CHS?), as are SOME of the missing ships (but there are not enough slots in the game to allow completely addressing that problem - this would require extensive game code modification, not just a mod);


i am speaking of putting in conditions that would accurately (as possible) model actual historical conditions - including 500 kg bombs for the Japanese (and limited to historical availabilty), radar for both sides as historically present, whatever planes, ships, guns, tanks or other weapons which were historically available in whatever amounts were historically available. This of course is a very tall order.

So where is the bias of making a historically accurate model?

I would ask "What other problems should be addressed?" however, that is opening a huge can of worms that has been argued a zillion times on this forum already.

[Nemo121]

There is no bias in making a historically accurate model, however, none of the posts above addresses anything close to all of the things which need to be addressed in order to correct the flaws which favour and hinder the two sides unrealistically.  Fair enough one can't address all those issues in any single post but I amn't attempting to point to a single post and say "this is biased" or not... I'm pointing to a general mode of discourse and argument going on here. So, general points not specific.
 
I think you may have misread who I meant "he" to be. I was using it to refer to Pauk.
 
 

[Sneer]

i have experiance from mod Iron storm 2 made by Alikchi
with improved fighting capabilities of allied side - in terms of land units on malaya and airgroups based there
i found myself stalled after few initial weeks and my forecast was to see end of Japan somewhere within 43 as since the beginning there was attrition fight and no decisive advantage from agressor sid and niumber of supplies and eqyipment was lower
some of you try to discuss such game change to take Japan early advantage off - it is wrong

[Andy Mac]

Aye IS is a little overpowering for allies.

OK my take on this.

Dont get to hung up on the Japanese ned to support the civilian economy lets not forget theCW requirement to support India which had a major famine that needed to be supplied. CW transport fleet is far to flexible and available for amphib ops. So I dont get to excited on this one.

Force Z I never waste it but nor am I afraid to use it. I typically keep em around until Japanese have whole DEI covered by Bettiesor they are at 30% sys

Evaccing Singapore to stand in Java is not a bad tactic. Evaccing Singapore to run to India is a bad mistake for the allies.

4E if the allied player uses restraint it shouldnt be an issue (i.e phase out LB30's as soon as B24D's available, Forts used for LR naval search, no 64 BG in 4E etc.)

[pauk]

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

ORIGINAL: pauk



oh, yeah, and the game would be over in early 1943....

if someone make such mod i would play it to prove this. I will be Allied player, of course. Any takers (for the third time?)
[:'(]

You are saying - what? That if the game only allowed historically available options, that Japan would be conquered by early 1943? [&:]

I'm saying that limiting Japs to the historical options, while leaving Allied untouched would ensure Allied victory in the 1943. That is not mean that Japan would be conquered by 1943 - that would mean that Japan capability to defend would be, with your propositions, totaly wrecked. And the game would be lost.

How? i don't have time and good will to analyze all your inputs/whished changes but i will discuss about few:

- Double the size of the Chinese Army (actually had 240 or so division, not the 100 or so in the game, and of course remove ability of Japan to destroy all supplies by bombing.
- Remove ability to train pilots up above 50 by bombing empty bases.
- Remove ability of Japan to outproduce Allies in aircraft.

Ok, here what would be happend with China (i'm playing the Allies)

- sending 15-20 divisions to guard Burma road - you have to agree that, in that case, is impossible to take Mandalay.
- after a few months in the game i would threat Rangoon and not sure what Japan could do about that.
- send all transports to supply Burma. Even a bombers will done fine job - so how many supply i could transport to China daily? 500, 1000 or 2000?
- meanwhile, i would rescued BF fragments from PI.... after a few months i would be able to send more than enough air support to China....by that time my bombers (i didn't notice that you are against infamous training bomber with supply missions, only for fighters[;)], which, interstingly limits only Japs (i'm for changes too) have more than decent exp...

and whoohohohohoho... air campaign in the China can start. Hey, it will be fun, i can promise you.... 200, 300, 500 bombers would totally destroy Japanese ability to defend, even HI can be attacked...

Lets say that Japanese player decide to defend in China.... ok, he assign 300, 400 fighters but sooner or latter he will lost them.... and their replacements in 20-30 exp can not do anything...

So, i've destroyed Japs in China, I'm holding Mandalay, and Japanese AF is destroyed in late 1942. My carriers enters the game... game over.

YOu don't believe me? Let's try it. I'm the Allies.

[pauk]

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

That is NOT what was said at all. Reread the post.

Yes, that is exactly what i've said.

EDIT: i should read all posts first!

[jeffs]

I think several points to be made...
 
I agree with this arguement whole-heartedly.
>The focus is obviously on the Japanese early war superiority as that is what is seen by most players. But it is historic capabilities that are wanted. Few of the historic capability players like the early mass 4E abilities and numbers.

US did not have the mass of 4E until much later...What it did have was masses of 2E LBA which were devastating..But at the same time had distance issues.
Though playing Nikmod certainly seems to make production more realistic (I get 16 B-17s and 5 LB-30s in the early going, so I will not be massing 4E for quite some time)..I agree, an IJN attack getting snuffed by 200 B-17s in Mar, 42 is bogus.
 
There is also a point to be made that only for a short period was there real balance (and that is what made UV so good as it hit the sweet spot). So if the game is realistic, the Japan rocks for 6 months to a year, then a year of parity and then allied dominance.  Clearly, as we all have to go through 1942, we all know where the system is gamed to help the Japanese visa vie historical results....What is not so clear is where the game overstates allied capabilities..Whether that is due to Japan fanboys whining (no, the war was not a 50-50 gamble by Japan, more like a 10%-90%) or real issues (too many 4Es? too flexible doctrine on 4E) probably needs more study. One must remember that once we get to 1944 Japan basically could do nothing but use bases to hopefully attrit away Marine strength and kamikazes to attrit the navy...Basically the US was so dominant that is potentially all they could do. So whining that the US just romps in 1944 while rather unpleasant and boring was rather true...And while Japan can romp for a while in 1942 it was vulnerable and in the game it does seem less vulnerable..
 
That said, some things need to be redone to get it more realistic (plane production numbers...Go nikmod.).
 
Also affecting the outcome is how flexible an open is allowed. For example, in Nemo`s game (and I am not criticizing it, just pointing its effect on game probabilities) where there was a totally wide open almost anything goes open, the Japanese now have a huge opening to do make new strategic initiatives (and Nemo has shown that with a vengenance)...The question of whether or not to permit should remain between the two gamers. How open a first move clearly effects the probabilities and also first year stategy (I am a semi-newbie, with games with historical openings...In that spirit, i am keeping Dutch troops and Malaya troops there as long as possible (I am withdrawing some base/engineering units from PI and malaya) and most if not all will die there...That said in an ahistorical open I just might spend more time running.....Certainly would be much more defensive in Cent Pac)...
 
I think if the game is balanced right and one plays with a historical opening, the Japanese, on average, should do slightly better than historical on average..Bascially some really stupid mistakes could be corrected. Also Japan knows intel is being scooped.
A. Chance of a Midway much lower..You know your intel is being snooped..Maybe you go for Midway but you are going with a CS.
But with that, the realization that often you do not have the element of surprise.
B. The biggest might be ASW...Instead of the inept small convoys Japan had, a real convoy system with air cover from early on....That should be huge.
C. Unlike the Japanese high command, you are not gunning for the 1 shot mega-battle. This is a war of attrition and must be fought as such. Many think yamamoto hesitated to amass ships during the Guadalcanal fight for exactly this reason.
D. A better realization that the US will rock later on so probably even more vicious defenses in the Gilberts, Marshalls and Carolines..Once they get to the
Marianas it is B-29 hell.

[Sneer]

this game keeps it own balance even not 100% historically correct
but with any changes made to stall Jap advance I see Pauk's vision too and I will start playing allies - not that fun but no frustration too

[Andy Mac]

I just wish they made it so 4E bombers operating from China needs lvl 7 AF to even fly or 4 x normal supplies or summit that take Japanese worries about the theatre out of the picture.

As an Allied player I dont want to play in China so I would happily ban all USAAF and RAF bombers out of China just to allow me to concentrate on the other theatres. (My personal favourite is actually SEAC and the battle for Burma although the game I took over against PZB is opening my eyes to the possibility of the other theatres)

[mogami]

Hi, In order to fly normal range missions with normal bomb loads with all ready AC flying a Chinese airfield already needs to be a size 5 for B-17 and a size 7 for B-29 and have an air HQ assigned to the same HQ the airgroups are assigned to within range and level bombers require 2x required supply to fly offensive missions.

The number of bombers that can fly out of China is limited compared to flying out of Siapan/Tinian. The major difference here is Saipan/Tinian is extended range (they can't even fly city attack over Home Island unless airfields are proper size) while in China they can fly normal range with extended range loads and op loss and fatigue from undersize airfields. (They still must have 2x supply)

Saipan with no LCU other then support airfield not overloaded but with full numbers of B-29 is in the red supply wise when it has 200,000 present. (B-29 missions really eat a lot of supply)

[BrucePowers]

I personally like the historical opening. I can see making some changes to it (such as KB to Phillipines then a lot of shipping dies player choice). I have decided to learn this game as Allies. I have several carriers at the start of the game. I will not hide them in Pearl or the west coast. First what's the fun in that. Second there is no way the citizenry would put up with it.
The game does need to be playable and fun for all players. House rules and the various mods out there allow us to make most (not all) of the changes needed to play an enjoyable game. All of that being said I think President Lincoln said it best, " You can't please all of the people all of the time".

I also like these discussions. I find them informitive and fun. Debate is good for the mind.

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: pauk

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

ORIGINAL: pauk



oh, yeah, and the game would be over in early 1943....

if someone make such mod i would play it to prove this. I will be Allied player, of course. Any takers (for the third time?)
[:'(]

You are saying - what? That if the game only allowed historically available options, that Japan would be conquered by early 1943? [&:]

I'm saying that limiting Japs to the historical options, while leaving Allied untouched would ensure Allied victory in the 1943. That is not mean that Japan would be conquered by 1943 - that would mean that Japan capability to defend would be, with your propositions, totaly wrecked. And the game would be lost.

How? i don't have time and good will to analyze all your inputs/whished changes but i will discuss about few:

- Double the size of the Chinese Army (actually had 240 or so division, not the 100 or so in the game, and of course remove ability of Japan to destroy all supplies by bombing.
- Remove ability to train pilots up above 50 by bombing empty bases.
- Remove ability of Japan to outproduce Allies in aircraft.

Ok, here what would be happend with China (i'm playing the Allies)

- sending 15-20 divisions to guard Burma road - you have to agree that, in that case, is impossible to take Mandalay.
- after a few months in the game i would threat Rangoon and not sure what Japan could do about that.
- send all transports to supply Burma. Even a bombers will done fine job - so how many supply i could transport to China daily? 500, 1000 or 2000?
- meanwhile, i would rescued BF fragments from PI.... after a few months i would be able to send more than enough air support to China....by that time my bombers (i didn't notice that you are against infamous training bomber with supply missions, only for fighters[;)], which, interstingly limits only Japs (i'm for changes too) have more than decent exp...

and whoohohohohoho... air campaign in the China can start. Hey, it will be fun, i can promise you.... 200, 300, 500 bombers would totally destroy Japanese ability to defend, even HI can be attacked...

Lets say that Japanese player decide to defend in China.... ok, he assign 300, 400 fighters but sooner or latter he will lost them.... and their replacements in 20-30 exp can not do anything...

So, i've destroyed Japs in China, I'm holding Mandalay, and Japanese AF is destroyed in late 1942. My carriers enters the game... game over.

YOu don't believe me? Let's try it. I'm the Allies.

Again - this would give the ALLIES abilities that they did not have: i.e. the Chinese did not really have the ability to move large formations around. So just doubling the size wouldn't fix it - you would have to limit Chinese mobility in some way. i am shooting for a "historical abilities" model. And the proposal was not to just limit ahistorical Japanese play, but to limit BOTH the Allies and Japanese ahistorical options.

As the game stands now, yes, doubling the size of the Chinese Army would give the ALLIES an advantage, but what i (and at least a few others) would like is to have the game respect historical realities. You can't really do that in WITP as it is now, i think. Possibly some minor code mods could be done to fix the problem, but i doubt it.

This would require a different game engine - one where the logistics model (and relative lack of Chinese logistics) is reflected, so that although they have a big army, they can't really move it around.

One possible "easy" fix is to have penalties for not carrying out historical missions. In the case of the PoW and Repulse: they were there to prevent Japanese invasions, so if the Allied players boogies with Force Z and doesn't oppose the IJN, perhaps there should be a VP and PP penalty. Of course, i'm betting people would also figure out a way to get around this... [:'(]

[Halsey]

When it comes to rule interpretations, I have to go with what the game designers stated.
The strategic facilities were meant to bolster the weak supply AI for China, and were not intended to be legitimate targets
This was their intention, so I have to go with it.[;)]

In future mods the Chinese LCU's that aren't included in the original package should be made static, if the Chinese Army is to be truly represented.
With the current patch, these units will only become non-static if they are forced to retreat.
So it would be up to the Japanese to decide if these units would become active ground armies by attacking their position and defeating them.
Until that happens, these units remain static and defensive in nature.

Only a defeat of these units by the Japanese, would free these units up for offensive operations.

[mogami]

Hi, The Japamese were also unable to mass large numbers of troops (compared to WITP)
In June 1944  the Japanese deployed 360,000 troops (not including air or sea support) to invade Changsha for the fourth time (the first being in 1939). The Operation involved more Japanese troops than any other campaign in the Sino-Japanese war. (more Japanese then in any Operation of Pacific War as well)

The Chinese meanwhile massed over 500,000 troops and ambushed a Japanese Operation in the north almost completly wiping it out.  That was 500,000 Chinese on the outer fringes of Allied supply conducting a successfull offensive Operation.

After 1937 the Japanese were always outnumbered in battles in China. They managed to win battles along the coast due to IJN support. After 1940 they failed in attempts in interiour before the great mass attack of 1944. In the Sept 1941 Changsha battles there were over 400,000 Chinese defending. (They moved in from outside provinces and surrounded the Japanese nealy wiping out the Dash Forward Parachute Div and several Infantry Div and Bde before the Japanese broke out of the pocket and retreated.



No one is suggesting the Japanese may not bomb Chinese supply. Only that they are doing it in a unintended manner. Bomb the airfields and you destroy supply.

[BrucePowers]

I like what Halsey and Mogami said. It makes sense to me.

[jeffs]

I think China as a whole is virtually impossible to make realistic. Much of it is due to politics...
 
A. For a variety of reasons (much of it the previous losses) the IJN was not interested in conquering China. The Ichigo offensive was in response to US strategic bombing from China. So if one wants to recreate that historically I guess you start with a ceasefire that is ended by Chinese allowing US LBA bombing.
 
B. For many Chinese units the supply issue was not a general supply issue. The supply existed. However, Chang Kai Shek would not send it to a warlord/general he thought not loyal enough.
 
C. Massive corruption in the Chinese army often lead to some very pervous situations..If a recruit died, the unit commander would still get his rations/pay. So many commanders were not sad to see many recruits starve to death.
 
D. In regards to C, the US, in late 1944 (reacting to Ichigo) directly handled outfitting (and feeding) something like 36 divisions. So the physical ability of these troops was much better. If I remember correctly they did fairly well against Japan in 1945.
 
E. Chinese generals were often (not always) more interested in protecting their properties/priveledges than fighting (when you are a general and can be relieved you fight, if you are a warlord and survive by having an army of thugs putting up the good fight can lead to your loss of thugs). Where the Chinese faught seriously. For example (quoting Spector`s Eagle vs Sun) "At Changsha, the Chinese 4th army abandoned the city without a fight.....Heng Yang was a different story. There, determined troop under Major General Fong Hsien-Chueh, skillfully supported by Chennault`s flyers, held the Japanese at bay for over six weeks."
 
F. The effectiveness of the communist armies is probably underrated (at least compared to the other Chinese units.
 
G. This probably much better under CHS, but Ichigo was stopped for 2 reasons.
1. Objectives (stopping US strategic bombing) had been accomplished.
2. Supply lines were stretched and it was winter..The IJA had no interest in learning how to be nailed like the Germans at Moscow...
 
I guess what I am saying is China was such a can of contradiction. The Japanese army took very nasty losses in the late 30s.....Yet in 1944 did very well...That said, in 1944 they destroyed very little of the Chinese armies (because they ran away...That said, they were not destroyed...And by 1945, the Chinese armies were becoming more effective (I think the commies took Nanning....)....
 
So what is my point? Not sure myself other than taking over all of China should not be Japan`s game given right....And in the stock game it does seem way too easy. Add that HI destruction to destroy supply and it seems a bit too bogus.
 
That said it would be possible to believe that it should be possible..Just that it would be very bloody, very time consuming and also should have guerillas.

[BrucePowers]

I have always found China to be confusing (in a WitP sense). It will probably be the last part of this game I will figure out. But that is okay, I plan on playing this game for quite a while.