Bombing of Chinese HI, Res, Oil?

[Nemo121]

I'd point out that it is eminently possible to take China in 6 months in the stock game without any strategic bombing campaign so perhaps the strategic bombing helped things but I doubt it was decisive.

[bilbow]

Bombing Chineese resources has always struck me as gamey because capturing them what what the Japanese were trying to do. I have generally been able to achieve my objectives in China without doing so. There is not enough supply in China anyway for the basing of significant numbers if Allied bombers, so in my games is becomes a non-issue.

[ADavidB]

ORIGINAL: Nomad

I am wondering what people think of a Japanese player bombing the chinese HI, Resources, and/or oil centers? Is it a gamey thing or is it not? It is just inspired playing? I am holding my opinion until after a few resposnses. Thank you for the input.

IMO - Sending 200 Japanese bombers escorted by 100 Zeros in early 1942 to turn Changsha, etc. into large craters is no more gamey than sending 200 B-24s escorted by 100 Corsairs to turn Mandalay, etc. into large craters in early 1943...

What it comes down to is that Players who want to game the system must remember not to whine when the system is gamed back at them later on...

Cheers -

Dave Baranyi

[Nomad]

ORIGINAL: 33Vyper

ORIGINAL: Nomad

ORIGINAL: 33Vyper

I do not think that it is gamey. It is either Chunking or Changsha (however the hell you spell it) had the highest number of individual air raids during WWII. I was watching some show on the rise of Mao and they had some historical footage of the city burning etc...

Bottom line is that no matter what Japan does they will loose .... so why Allied fanboy's get soo upset I will never know.

Does my post indicate that I am upset? [:(] Keep your crappy remarks to yourself in the future. I was and am asking for opinions about this aspect of the game. I will mark down that you think anything goes then and it is not gamey.

????

My crappy remarks???

I am puzzled why you took my comments personally as no offense was intended. This particular issue I do not consider gamey .... you will note I did not mention you personally or by your forum name in my reply. By all means mark me down as whatever you please.......since I could really rather care less.

There are quite a few things that I do find 'gamey'....but let us remember this is a game. I think that Matrix is working on a great deal of things and each release seems to be better and better. I am sorry that you seem to have taken offense to my reply...however I stand by it. I would suggest that before you go off and attack other forum members that you re-read the code associated with this forum.. you will find that there is nothing in my reply that warranted your insulting behaviour. However when you read your reply....I believe it is something that is deserving of sanction.[:-]

Read the highlighted part. I find that to be a crappy response. I am not 'upset' and I am not an Allied Fanboy. In fact, much of this discussion is because I am going to be starting a new PBEM game as the Japanese and I am trying to find out how others think of some the options.

[spence]

IMHO,  a Japanese advance in 1941-42 seeking victory over the same China that stymied that victory in 1937-41 pretty much on its own (for whatever reasons or however they did it) seems kinda gamey to begin with.  I don't know much about that theater but my guess is that the Japanese were having difficulty maintaining their supply lines in the hinterlands and making use of what they'd already conquered.  What experience I have in PBEM (leave it alone against the AI) suggests that massing troops and taking land by the Japanese is more easily done than it would have been IRL.  Bombing resources and HI just aggrevates that situation.  If China was a bit harder for either side to "get going" I wouldn't mind the tactic of bombing by the Japanese.  

[worr]

ORIGINAL: bilbow

Bombing Chineese resources has always struck me as gamey because capturing them what what the Japanese were trying to do.

Actually, they weren't trying to do this since they settled into an acceptable stalemate in China and concentrated their efforts elsewhere in the war.

[worr]

ORIGINAL: spence

China that stymied that victory in 1937-41

Do you believe China stymied that advance or the IJA simply decided to advance elsewhere?

[AirGriff]

Yeah, my impression is that the Japs held up because of international pressure before the war. Then, when they mixed it up with the Allies they were too busy to commit to China what they needed to take it. The IJA finally told the IJN to kiss off around the time the allies closed in on the PI and that's when the Chinese offensive began in China, which was apparently quite successful. By then, though, the noose had tightened.

That's tough to simulate in the game since the Japanese probably could have squashed China in '42, but they obviously couldn't do that and tear into the Pacific and SE Asia at the same time. What if you made some kind of house rule that says if the Japs go for China aggressively (which could include strategic bombing of China) they have to lay off either SOPAC or SEA? I don't know, the details would have to get kind of deep.

[Sneer]

both sides destroy industries too easily
there are many historical comments that industrial targets in in big cities were often not found
- due to heavy flak/clouds/smoke and other factors
in game if only bombers reach targets they almost always score few hits
allied in early 43 can level any place within 1 week time  - too easily / too fast
same for Japan but because of lack of heavy bombers too much lower extent
and back to question - it is not gamay to me as allied has even bigger possibility to play history-wise game and maul everything in range
air war in Burma - what war? - i haven't seen any long both -sides exhausting war in Burma in any AAR
always allied heavies mauling Japan  - 1 airfield out per week - only this - where are realism expecting allied fanboys ???

[erstad]

I typically play IJN, stock scenario.  My view is this:
-  I don't want to win the war by winning in China.  I'm not playing the game for the land combat.
-  However, I can't just let China be, barring some house rules.  It's way to easy to base Allied strat bombers in China, compared to real life.  Read about the difficulties the XX Bombers had in China, and compare it to the game. 
-  So, my goal in China is simple.  Try to keep it from ever being a large threat.  So, I'll try to kick some land butt in China to knock them back some, but I won't try to conquer all of China, or take Chungking, etc.  Likewise, I will strat bomb some of the Chinese resources, but it's not so I can take more of China, it's more to keep them starving as much as possible to keep large scale heavy operations out of China. 
 

[BrucePowers]

With your opponent's concurrence, I say give it a try and see what happens if you would like. This is one thing I like about this game, the variability.

[Nomad]

Actually, I have decided to just not start any more games. I am tired of asking for opinions and being labeled as something I am not.

[ADavidB]

"air war in Burma - what war? - i haven't seen any long both -sides exhausting war in Burma in any AAR
always allied heavies mauling Japan - 1 airfield out per week - only this - where are realism expecting allied fanboys ??? "

The thing about Burma is a simple matter of base numbers - the Allies have nearly 10 potential bases from which to pummel any Japanese advance into Burma. The Japanese have Rangoon and Mandalay.

There is a similar situation in PNG and the Bismarks - but in reverse. The Allies have PM and the Japanese have a half dozen potentially good air base from which they can pummel PM. (Many Japanese players ignore this and try to fight with only Rabaul against PM.)

Essentially, anywhere in the Game where one side can set up a half dozen level 4 or greater air bases within a few hexes of each other will be a death trap for the opposing side to try to move into. The thing about most players is that they don't bother setting up these "killing zones".

The answer to the Mandalay problem for the Japanese is an early invasion of the Bay of Bengal - grab those four bases and you've broken the Allied killing ground.

Dave Baranyi

[pauk]

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

I'd point out that it is eminently possible to take China in 6 months in the stock game without any strategic bombing campaign so perhaps the strategic bombing helped things but I doubt it was decisive.

hm.... i would say that China could be taken in 6 months if Allied opponent make big mistake.

Lot's of people forgot one fact: Allies can make lots of mistakes in the game but none is allowed in China[:-]

(if Allied player know how to play China than, IMHO, it is impossible to take China).

Same goes for Japanese player in the China (and all other theatres[:'(]). I've seen quite a lot AARs where Japanese were on strategical redeployment (read: steamrolled by Chinese) in 1942. I believe that Oleg shows that, General Hoepner against Hawker and the last but not the least String teaches me a lesson too in the China[:D]

[pauk]

ORIGINAL: ADavidB

ORIGINAL: Nomad

I am wondering what people think of a Japanese player bombing the chinese HI, Resources, and/or oil centers? Is it a gamey thing or is it not? It is just inspired playing? I am holding my opinion until after a few resposnses. Thank you for the input.

IMO - Sending 200 Japanese bombers escorted by 100 Zeros in early 1942 to turn Changsha, etc. into large craters is no more gamey than sending 200 B-24s escorted by 100 Corsairs to turn Mandalay, etc. into large craters in early 1943...

What it comes down to is that Players who want to game the system must remember not to whine when the system is gamed back at them later on...

Cheers -

Dave Baranyi

Greetings David, we shouldn't forget one thing: PDU!

PDU is candyland and have nothing to do with history (btw, Allies doesn't have to wait for 1943 to do it - they can do earlier). I would not be able to have 200 bombers for offensive in the China without PDU

So, i'm totally aware that i would be faced with situatins like you've described in your post, but i'm not going to restrict myself to historical play and when it comes to Allies to show me a stick (a big one[:D]) start to crying faul...

[Andy Mac]

My main issue with Bombing Chinese resources is the fact that with such a high supply consumption level it is to easy to starve out Chinese ground forces.
 
And to easy to supply Japanese forces in the hinterland.
 
I would almost prefer if they striped all railways out of China its just to easy to conquer.
 
(p.s. I believe that Japanese to Allied supoply ratio is out of whack as well but its just more apparent in China)

[jeffs]

I think a lot of it comes down to what kind of game people want to play.
Basically, how much time do people want to put into China. I have 2 games going of which one there is an outright ceasefire.  Also the Japanese player has said no attack on Russia.
 
I am not saying it is right, just that it should be discussed. For example, a fair comprimise might be no Japan attacks on cities in return for no US 4e bombers attacks from China.
 
But it is hard to say something is overly gamey if you have not discussed it.
 
For example, if you have PDU, but do not allow 2E to 4E, much of the issue is resolved. Of course it probably does mean B-25J hell at shorter ranges.
 
Clearly the stock game favors Japan in China, while CHS/Nik neutralize the advantage to a certain degree.
 
ADavid brings up a great point...Anytime one side has a 1 or 2 bases opposed by a batch of bases, they are cruising for a bruising.

[ADavidB]

ORIGINAL: pauk

ORIGINAL: ADavidB

ORIGINAL: Nomad

I am wondering what people think of a Japanese player bombing the chinese HI, Resources, and/or oil centers? Is it a gamey thing or is it not? It is just inspired playing? I am holding my opinion until after a few resposnses. Thank you for the input.

IMO - Sending 200 Japanese bombers escorted by 100 Zeros in early 1942 to turn Changsha, etc. into large craters is no more gamey than sending 200 B-24s escorted by 100 Corsairs to turn Mandalay, etc. into large craters in early 1943...

What it comes down to is that Players who want to game the system must remember not to whine when the system is gamed back at them later on...

Cheers -

Dave Baranyi

Greetings David, we shouldn't forget one thing: PDU!

PDU is candyland and have nothing to do with history (btw, Allies doesn't have to wait for 1943 to do it - they can do earlier). I would not be able to have 200 bombers for offensive in the China without PDU

So, i'm totally aware that i would be faced with situatins like you've described in your post, but i'm not going to restrict myself to historical play and when it comes to Allies to show me a stick (a big one[:D]) start to crying faul...

Both sides have the capability to bring together 200+ bombers in early 1942 in a stock game without PDU; and that's without using naval air. The advantage that the Japanese side has in early 1942 is that they have Zeros with good pilots available to escort their LBA.

The Allied player only has P-40Bs in limited numbers during the same time frame to provide long range escort. (Don't bring up Buffalos or the other garbage planes that the Brits and Dutch have - they are worthless.) In theory, an Allied player could fly all P-40Bs together in early 1942 and come up with something between 75 and 100 of them in one place, but with a replacement rate of 10 per month they can't be used for any extended period of time in combat without being depleted. What's the replacement rate per month of Zeros during the first half of 1942? It's probably something like ten times that of the P-40Bs. And without escorts bombers are quite vulnerable in the post-v1.50 versions of the game.

What PDU does is to allow the Japanese player to bring very large quantities of much better fighters into play much earlier in the Game. Sure, the Allied player gets to replace more garbage bombers with better bombers, but the Allied player still doesn't get better long range fighters until late 1942 and doesn't get really dangerous mid-range fighters until early 1943. So unless the Japanese player is silly enough to get involved in a situation where there is a local advantage in total number of air bases in the Allied player's favor, even with PDU an Allied player is at a disadvantage until early 1943.

So, in the end, is it "gamey" to use the resources that you have on hand to destroy the enemy's ability to fight? In my opinion, no, and that holds for both sides. Do I believe that some of the conditions and set-ups in the Game are poorly thought out and badly implemented? Yes, particularly in terms of land combat and rail movement.

Take care -

Dave Baranyi

[Sneer]

only one question to you
how many games proved Japan behaving better than RL in AAR in 44 and 45
there are few of them to check but how many games managed to keep marianes in 44 ( it would be an example for me as well as keeping Singapore in late 44)
how many times end of 43 Japan ends retreating to indochina
i still think that majority of games faces allies behaving better than RL - they usually grab more in 44 and 45 than in RL - so why do we discuss it?

[Nomad]

ORIGINAL: Sneer

only one question to you
how many games proved Japan behaving better than RL in AAR in 44 and 45
there are few of them to check but how many games managed to keep marianes in 44 ( it would be an example for me as well as keeping Singapore in late 44)
how many times end of 43 Japan ends retreating to indochina
i still think that majority of games faces allies behaving better than RL - they usually grab more in 44 and 45 than in RL - so why do we discuss it?

You're right, why do we discuss anything? We should all just keep quiet and play the game. [&:]