No Strat Bombing in China

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

ORIGINAL: Ian R

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

I would add that some houserules are there to increase realism .... snip

So, what houserules do you suggest to increase realism on the following:

(a) impose the command fracture between the IJA and IJN on the IJ player?

(b) Restrict the IJ to historical aircraft production numbers?

(c) Impose the historical fracture between the IJ military and civil merchant marine operations that saw empty ships passing each other in the South China Sea with zero co-ordination between outgoing product and incoming resource movements?

(d) impose IJN submarine doctrine on the player - meaning not conducting a commerce raiding campaign?

(e) impose the historical IJ failure to train its pilots properly?

Should we impose a mandatory global edit in July 1943, to increase all IJ aircraft service ratings by 1, to properly reflect the shortage of rare metals needed to produce hardened alloys, the result of which was a marked degredation in reliability of Japanese aero-engines?

Last time I suggested the above you dismissed my post as showing "pro-allied bias" [;)]

Apples and oranges. I talk about HR to increase realism concerning exploits of existing game mechanics, you talk about increasing realism by adding things the makers of the game decided not to include as game mechanics at all. And since your list includes exclusively restraints to be imposed on the Japanese side and not a single one to be imposed on the Allied side, I maintain that your are showing a pro-Allied bias - unless you come up with a list of things to impose on the Allies for the sake of realism.

Apples have fructose, oranges have glucose. You can add them as well, that is how a person gets fruit salad.

But there can be similar ones for the Allies, can you think of them?

BTW, at almost every Allied invasion later on in the war, there were people who were at the beach ahead of the actual landings. Those were the Underwater Demolition Teams (UDT) who sometimes left welcoming messages for the US Naval Infantry (Marines) on the beach. Those UDTs were carried by subs or small boats. Some went way before the invasions just to pick up parts of the beaches as well.

[DesertWolf101]

ORIGINAL: USSAmerica

ORIGINAL: Ian R

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

I would add that some houserules are there to increase realism .... snip

So, what houserules do you suggest to increase realism on the following:

(a) impose the command fracture between the IJA and IJN on the IJ player?

(b) Restrict the IJ to historical aircraft production numbers?

(c) Impose the historical fracture between the IJ military and civil merchant marine operations that saw empty ships passing each other in the South China Sea with zero co-ordination between outgoing product and incoming resource movements?

(d) impose IJN submarine doctrine on the player - meaning not conducting a commerce raiding campaign?

(e) impose the historical IJ failure to train its pilots properly?

Should we impose a mandatory global edit in July 1943, to increase all IJ aircraft service ratings by 1, to properly reflect the shortage of rare metals needed to produce hardened alloys, the result of which was a marked degredation in reliability of Japanese aero-engines?

Last time I suggested the above you dismissed my post as showing "pro-allied bias" [;)]

I would suggest the following HR's in this case:

1. Anything that both players agree to and are happy to play with. No one else's opinions matter. If you want to play with HR's to implement all the above restrictions, by all means do so and enjoy it! (As long as you can find a like minded opponent who is also happy with the same HR's) Perhaps you could find an Allied opponent happy to play with these HR's while you play the Japanese side? [;)]

Very well said. In terms of fairness, my golden rule is to only suggest HRs I would be happy to play with as the other side. For instance if the above listed HRs are what one thinks a Japanese opponent should accept, then you have to be willing to play by those same rules as Japan. I think part of the problem is that too many players consistently take only one side and thus begin to think of these HRs in ways that would only advantage their preferred faction.

Ultimately however whatever HRs are decided upon is only the business of the two consenting adults playing the game.

[Ian R]

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

ORIGINAL: Ian R

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

I would add that some houserules are there to increase realism .... snip

So, what houserules do you suggest to increase realism on the following:

(a) impose the command fracture between the IJA and IJN on the IJ player?

(b) Restrict the IJ to historical aircraft production numbers?

(c) Impose the historical fracture between the IJ military and civil merchant marine operations that saw empty ships passing each other in the South China Sea with zero co-ordination between outgoing product and incoming resource movements?

(d) impose IJN submarine doctrine on the player - meaning not conducting a commerce raiding campaign?

(e) impose the historical IJ failure to train its pilots properly?

Should we impose a mandatory global edit in July 1943, to increase all IJ aircraft service ratings by 1, to properly reflect the shortage of rare metals needed to produce hardened alloys, the result of which was a marked degredation in reliability of Japanese aero-engines?

Last time I suggested the above you dismissed my post as showing "pro-allied bias" [;)]

Apples and oranges. I talk about HR to increase realism concerning exploits of existing game mechanics, you talk about increasing realism by adding things the makers of the game decided not to include as game mechanics at all. And since your list includes exclusively restraints to be imposed on the Japanese side and not a single one to be imposed on the Allied side, I maintain that your are showing a pro-Allied bias - unless you come up with a list of things to impose on the Allies for the sake of realism.

I don't have to. The allies already have (b) imposed on them, as well as historical ship arrivals with no ability to prioritise loss replacement, both of which are significant disadvantages compared to the IJ side.

My point is that WITP:AE is not actually historical, and has lots of biases to the IJ side built in provide some game balance. Whenever I see players demand house rules to, usually, shackle only the United Nations side, because they are claimed to be 'historical' - a claim that is often debatable, with the claim about bombing altitudes being a prime candidate for debate - it "makes I larf".

And you know that beach intelligence thing ... here's a bit of homework reading for you:

https://www.archives.gov/publications/p ... 015/winter › bakuhatai.pdf

[Ian R]

ORIGINAL: DesertWolf101

ORIGINAL: USSAmerica

ORIGINAL: Ian R




So, what houserules do you suggest to increase realism on the following:

(a) impose the command fracture between the IJA and IJN on the IJ player?

(b) Restrict the IJ to historical aircraft production numbers?

(c) Impose the historical fracture between the IJ military and civil merchant marine operations that saw empty ships passing each other in the South China Sea with zero co-ordination between outgoing product and incoming resource movements?

(d) impose IJN submarine doctrine on the player - meaning not conducting a commerce raiding campaign?

(e) impose the historical IJ failure to train its pilots properly?

Should we impose a mandatory global edit in July 1943, to increase all IJ aircraft service ratings by 1, to properly reflect the shortage of rare metals needed to produce hardened alloys, the result of which was a marked degredation in reliability of Japanese aero-engines?

Last time I suggested the above you dismissed my post as showing "pro-allied bias" [;)]

I would suggest the following HR's in this case:

1. Anything that both players agree to and are happy to play with. No one else's opinions matter. If you want to play with HR's to implement all the above restrictions, by all means do so and enjoy it! (As long as you can find a like minded opponent who is also happy with the same HR's) Perhaps you could find an Allied opponent happy to play with these HR's while you play the Japanese side? [;)]

Very well said. In terms of fairness, my golden rule is to only suggest HRs I would be happy to play with as the other side. For instance if the above listed HRs are what one thinks a Japanese opponent should accept, then you have to be willing to play by those same rules as Japan. I think part of the problem is that too many players consistently take only one side and thus begin to think of these HRs in ways that would only advantage their preferred faction.

Ultimately however whatever HRs are decided upon is only the business of the two consenting adults playing the game.

You're completely missing my point.

Edit: to add the word "completely".

[LargeSlowTarget]

I actually agree that AE is not history and that the Japanese side gets ahistorical advantages. But many fervent AFBs seem to have problems admitting that the Allied side gets ahistorical advantages as well. The assertion that house rules are only being demanded by JFBs is just propaganda. Plus you still are missing the point that the "realism" argument I have made for my examples above has nothing to do with JFBism or ahistorical advantages, but with game mechanism exploits. Is it realistic to run ships full speed- as soon as they go off-map? Is it realistic to have tank-only formations roaming around? Is it realistic to feed a paratroop units into battle piecemeal to block LOCs or movements in a 40-mile hex? Is it realistic to knowingly and willingly sacrifice a subload of troops to have them wiped-out to gain intel? The answer is always "no", no matter which side is doing it.

[Ian R]

Let it go mate. If we ever commissioned an objective analysis of what the exe allows the IJ side to do compared to the historical realty...

Best if you just let it go. The IJ aide has lots of non historical advantages the UN side is denied. Don't open Pandora's box.

[RangerJoe]

I agree about not using units to get Intel when they are on suicide missions for the Allies but the Japanese did suicide missions - including transport planes full of troops destroying as many aircraft, equipment, and supplies as well as killing ground personnel.

[Ian R]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

I agree about not using units to get Intel when they are on suicide missions for the Allies but the Japanese did suicide missions - including transport planes full of troops destroying as many aircraft, equipment, and supplies as well as killing ground personnel.

No no mate. Get with the program. WE can't ban that because the IJ did it 3 times or something in the entire war. On the other hand the allies sending in sub launched recon swimmer teams to multiple beaches... no WE will ban that because it's allegedly "ahistorical".

[Ian R]

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget
... the Allied side gets ahistorical advantages as well.

Ok, rounds out. What are they then? A dot point summary will do to start.

[mind_messing]

HR's by and large are a crutch for bad play.

For every action, there is a response.

ORIGINAL: Ian R

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget
... the Allied side gets ahistorical advantages as well.

Ok, rounds out. What are they then? A dot point summary will do to start.

Complete and seamless co-operation between troops, planes and ships of multiple different nations and absolutely no requirement to adhere to the political landscape of the Allied powers or the command and control arrangements and tensions.

Massive simplification of supply considerations for Allied units with limited interchangeable equipment.

Zero consequence for loss of units that play key roles in other off-map theatres.

[LargeSlowTarget]

ORIGINAL: Ian R

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

I agree about not using units to get Intel when they are on suicide missions for the Allies but the Japanese did suicide missions - including transport planes full of troops destroying as many aircraft, equipment, and supplies as well as killing ground personnel.

No no mate. Get with the program. WE can't ban that because the IJ did it 3 times or something in the entire war. On the other hand the allies sending in sub launched recon swimmer teams to multiple beaches... no WE will ban that because it's allegedly "ahistorical".

Get real.

The job of UDT recon was to check obstacles and conditions of enemy-held beaches and to come back alive if possible to deliver a report, not to seek certain death in order to magically provide a complete list of the enemy garrison present.

The game does not even model these kind of operations and level of detail - so all the above is just hot air.

[LargeSlowTarget]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

Complete and seamless co-operation between troops, planes and ships of multiple different nations and absolutely no requirement to adhere to the political landscape of the Allied powers or the command and control arrangements and tensions.

Massive simplification of supply considerations for Allied units with limited interchangeable equipment.

Zero consequence for loss of units that play key roles in other off-map theatres.

1945-level supply and fuel production available from Dec 7th, 1941.

Allies can squander numerous assets without fear for political repercussions the heavy losses would cause in a democracy.

No USN submarine torpedo shortage.

No withdrawal of certain assets sent to the ETO IRL.

Many ship available way earlier than IRL (some ships even become available in the game the day their keel has been laid IRL).

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

Complete and seamless co-operation between troops, planes and ships of multiple different nations and absolutely no requirement to adhere to the political landscape of the Allied powers or the command and control arrangements and tensions.

Massive simplification of supply considerations for Allied units with limited interchangeable equipment.

Zero consequence for loss of units that play key roles in other off-map theatres.

1945-level supply and fuel production available from Dec 7th, 1941.
Some of this has been changed in a mod but then again, the Allies can not increase the size of their production facilities. That can also be modded simply by giving them CD convoys for such things which they do get.

Allies can squander numerous assets without fear for political repercussions the heavy losses would cause in a democracy.
This could be modded as well simply by reducing the replacements which would make it harder to rebuild units.

No USN submarine torpedo shortage.
All of the supplies are simplified, would you want to have to ship all of the individual heavy BB shells as well? There is also a limit to how many rounds the guns can fire before they need to be relined, this is also not in the game. This can also be affected by the types of rounds and how much propellant is used as well.

No withdrawal of certain assets sent to the ETO IRL.
This can be modded as well. But the Japanese captured vessels which also does not come into play. I know that a lot of the USN 4 pipers left the theatre but that is not in the game.

Many ship available way earlier than IRL (some ships even become available in the game the day their keel has been laid IRL).
Again, mod this. The Yamato was available earlier than in the game as well, this could also be changed giving the Japanese a large boost to their shipbuilding efforts.

Except for the torpedoes and such supplies, everything else can be modified.

The Australian AMs were built and launched in Sydney yet they show up elsewhere, this should be changed as well so the are not "destroyed while building" if a base other than Sydney is captured.

If you can get a list of ships when they were actually available for service for the PTO and when they were withdrawn, then please do so. Even better if you can cite reliable sources then someone can modify a scenario for this.

[LargeSlowTarget]

No USN submarine torpedo shortage.
All of the supplies are simplified, would you want to have to ship all of the individual heavy BB shells as well? There is also a limit to how many rounds the guns can fire before they need to be relined, this is also not in the game. This can also be affected by the types of rounds and how much propellant is used as well.

The game does not model wear and tear on guns and their relining or replacing and it surely does not use different types of shells and quantities of propellant. Even if it did, the issue would impact both sides, so why do you bring it up in a discussion on allegedly one-sided advantages given to the Japanese players?

The Australian AMs were built and launched in Sydney yet they show up elsewhere, this should be changed as well so the are not "destroyed while building" if a base other than Sydney is captured.

The Australian Bathurst class AMs have not been build exclusively in Sydney - quote from Wikipedia: "The lead shipyard was Cockatoo Docks & Engineering Company in Sydney, which laid down the first ship, HMAS Bathurst, in February 1940, and produced a further seven vessels.The other seven shipyards involved were Walkers Limited in Maryborough, Queensland (7 ships), Evans Deakin & Company in Brisbane (11 ships), Mort's Dock & Engineering Company in Sydney (14 ships), Poole & Steel in Sydney (7 ships), State Dockyard at Newcastle, New South Wales (1 ship), HMA Naval Dockyard at Williamstown, Victoria (8 ships), and BHP at Whyalla, South Australia (4 ships)."

If you can get a list of ships when they were actually available for service for the PTO and when they were withdrawn, then please do so. Even better if you can cite reliable sources then someone can modify a scenario for this.

I haven't made a list, I compared and modified the dates if necessary directly in the editor; Sources were mainly DANFS and if necessary other ship histories that came up in Google searches. The sources do not always gives exact dates and or locations in the AE sense i.e. where and when a vessel is entering the map, so guesstimates must be made working backwards / forward from available dates and locations. To give you just the most extreme example I have found - the Balao class submarine USS Ling enters the game on December 15, 1943 - in fact she was commissioned only on June 8th 1945 and never made a war patrol! Yes, there are mods which try to address some of the issues if possible, my own happens to be among them.

[Ian R]

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

ORIGINAL: Ian R

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

I agree about not using units to get Intel when they are on suicide missions for the Allies but the Japanese did suicide missions - including transport planes full of troops destroying as many aircraft, equipment, and supplies as well as killing ground personnel.

No no mate. Get with the program. WE can't ban that because the IJ did it 3 times or something in the entire war. On the other hand the allies sending in sub launched recon swimmer teams to multiple beaches... no WE will ban that because it's allegedly "ahistorical".

Get real.

The job of UDT recon was to check obstacles and conditions of enemy-held beaches and to come back alive if possible to deliver a report, not to seek certain death in order to magically provide a complete list of the enemy garrison present.

The game does not even model these kind of operations and level of detail - so all the above is just hot air.

You didn't actually read the document I linked, did you?

[Ian R]

Edit - my detailed responses are the red ones underneath Ranger Joe's.

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget


1945-level supply and fuel production available from Dec 7th, 1941.
Some of this has been changed in a mod but then again, the Allies can not increase the size of their production facilities. That can also be modded simply by giving them CD convoys for such things which they do get.

US war production/spending/orders peaked in July 1943, not 1945.In any event the constraint on logistics is moving it forward, rather than producing it, so averaging out arrivals of stuff (including before and after July 1943) does not produce a non historical advantage.

Allies can squander numerous assets without fear for political repercussions the heavy losses would cause in a democracy.
This could be modded as well simply by reducing the replacements which would make it harder to rebuild units.

Except that it costs them lots of victory points, and both Centpac (Palaus) and SWPAC (liberating the entire PI, Borneo 1945, even Biak in 44) did indeed engage in unnecessary operations that squandered assets, so this claim is not accepted as "historical". In fact, politics required Washington to overlook the squandering of assets in at least one stated instance.

No USN submarine torpedo shortage.
All of the supplies are simplified, would you want to have to ship all of the individual heavy BB shells as well? There is also a limit to how many rounds the guns can fire before they need to be relined, this is also not in the game. This can also be affected by the types of rounds and how much propellant is used as well.


What Ranger Joe says, but if you want to try and model that (did the designers allow for it in the dud rate anyway?), could we also include modelling the effect of putting barely processed Borneo crude in IJN ship bunkers? How far do you want to go?

No withdrawal of certain assets sent to the ETO IRL.
This can be modded as well. But the Japanese captured vessels which also does not come into play. I know that a lot of the USN 4 pipers left the theatre but that is not in the game.

That is a scenario designer activity; what do you mean by "certain assets" anyway? The allied withdrawal lists are long and hundreds of things withdraw. If something was overlooked, that can be edited in.

Many ship available way earlier than IRL (some ships even become available in the game the day their keel has been laid IRL).
Again, mod this. The Yamato was available earlier than in the game as well, this could also be changed giving the Japanese a large boost to their shipbuilding efforts.


On the other hand, the game goes to 1946 (or later), yet USN ship arrivals in theatre fall short of what was actually available in the last year of the war. I did a lot of research on this for my mod. There are considerable numbers of CA, CL, and Sumner/Gearing DDs MIA. If you are referring to arrivals of xAK liberties, or the like, are there others that turn up later than historical entry to the PTO? Does the IJ player have to give back militarised merchant hulls to the (invisible) civil administration after the initial military expansion, to haul food to the HI? Should there be a rule that unless the IJ players haul resources to the HI that are expended on a "food pool", manpower points will be damaged/eliminated? Like I said, it's a Pandora's box and maybe you should leave the lid shut.

Except for the torpedoes and such supplies, everything else can be modified.

The Australian AMs were built and launched in Sydney yet they show up elsewhere, this should be changed as well so the are not "destroyed while building" if a base other than Sydney is captured.

Already done in my mod, please feel free to copy the info - which came from more traditional sources than wiki.

If you can get a list of ships when they were actually available for service for the PTO and when they were withdrawn, then please do so. Even better if you can cite reliable sources then someone can modify a scenario for this.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

No USN submarine torpedo shortage.
All of the supplies are simplified, would you want to have to ship all of the individual heavy BB shells as well? There is also a limit to how many rounds the guns can fire before they need to be relined, this is also not in the game. This can also be affected by the types of rounds and how much propellant is used as well.

The game does not model wear and tear on guns and their relining or replacing and it surely does not use different types of shells and quantities of propellant. Even if it did, the issue would impact both sides, so why do you bring it up in a discussion on allegedly one-sided advantages given to the Japanese players?

The Australian AMs were built and launched in Sydney yet they show up elsewhere, this should be changed as well so the are not "destroyed while building" if a base other than Sydney is captured.

The Australian Bathurst class AMs have not been build exclusively in Sydney - quote from Wikipedia: "The lead shipyard was Cockatoo Docks & Engineering Company in Sydney, which laid down the first ship, HMAS Bathurst, in February 1940, and produced a further seven vessels.The other seven shipyards involved were Walkers Limited in Maryborough, Queensland (7 ships), Evans Deakin & Company in Brisbane (11 ships), Mort's Dock & Engineering Company in Sydney (14 ships), Poole & Steel in Sydney (7 ships), State Dockyard at Newcastle, New South Wales (1 ship), HMA Naval Dockyard at Williamstown, Victoria (8 ships), and BHP at Whyalla, South Australia (4 ships)."

If you can get a list of ships when they were actually available for service for the PTO and when they were withdrawn, then please do so. Even better if you can cite reliable sources then someone can modify a scenario for this.

I haven't made a list, I compared and modified the dates if necessary directly in the editor; Sources were mainly DANFS and if necessary other ship histories that came up in Google searches. The sources do not always gives exact dates and or locations in the AE sense i.e. where and when a vessel is entering the map, so guesstimates must be made working backwards / forward from available dates and locations. To give you just the most extreme example I have found - the Balao class submarine USS Ling enters the game on December 15, 1943 - in fact she was commissioned only on June 8th 1945 and never made a war patrol! Yes, there are mods which try to address some of the issues if possible, my own happens to be among them.

Without opening the game, I know that there was at least one ship that shows up in Derby on the North Coast, I did not know that the ship was built there but there is not much to that base. So actually making a list of the ships with the source, then adding in any comments would be useful to someone making a mod to correct any such errors would be useful, may make it easier for some people to do so, and would thus encourage more work on the other vessels if many such corrections were known. Something like a "team effort" to get this accomplished. I do believe that Babes did try to correct some things as well.

[Yaab]

Regarding start bombing in China. You can choose the middle way. Bomb Manpower(terror bombing) and Heavy Industry( real-life Chinese arsenals - Chungking had several). If you wipe out all HI in China, Chiinese supply production is reduced by 1/3. The Chinese can still continue fighting having untouched LI.

[RangerJoe]

Bombing manpower can destroy/damage industry.

[LargeSlowTarget]

ORIGINAL: Ian R
You didn't actually read the document I linked, did you?

Of course I did read it, and thanks for posting it. It's the sad story about a sub-launched UDT team sent to Yap to recon reef and beach conditions for a possible amphib invasion. Unfortunately it lost three men MIA presumed captured by the Japanese and main part of the story is about the differing accounts concerning their mysterious fate. Interesting tidbit about two of the UDT men being originally from the "Maritime Unit" of the OSS "...trained to conduct other intelligence missions besides beach reconnaissance....". You surely know that besides beach recon and sabotage of shipping and port installations, the MU's "other intelligence missions" consisted of clandestine ferrying missions to infiltrate men, arms, ammo, radios and supplies to resistance groups and to exfiltrate downed Allied airmen. But these kind of operations aren't modeled in AE - maybe except the abstraction of the occasional downed pilot "having been found" and I have found nothing about resistance groups on Yap, an island under Japanese control since 1914. And if the article talked about suicide missions to magically obtain a list of enemy units present by dumping a sub-load of sacrificial cannon-fodder on the target base, I must have missed it.

Regarding your comments about Pandora's box and how far I want to go: I didn't ask for tracking individual BB shells and barrel wear, a "food pool" or what else has come up here. Go back to my initial post where I simply proposed house rules to increase realism concerning existing game mechanics which can be exploited. It was you who charged-in with a list of ahistorical advantages given to the Japanese side which are not being modelled by the game mechanics. To counter your biased list, mind_messing and I provided examples of ahistorical advantages given to the Allied side. Well, you may continue to contest that both sides get their share of ahistorical advantages, but as you observed yourself, it's a game and it is not 100% historical for both sides. If you have no problem with exploiting game mechanics, it's your choice and that's fine with me. My choice is not to exploit them and I impose HRs on myself, including ships not going full-speed off-map, no scattered paradrops and no suicide submarine invasions. Finally, I congratulate you on your ability to use more traditional sources than wiki and I will punish myself for having copied/pasted a good-enough summary from wiki out of convenience and laziness instead of assembling and retyping information from more traditional sources myself - no dessert for me this supper.