Modifications to MWiF China Map portion

[Froonp]

Here is the MWiF China map as it is today, that is without any modification. This is version 0.

[Froonp]

This is the China map as it is in the Modificated state. I call it version 4e.

[Hortlund]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

Well, Panzerjaeger, reading what you write, I wonder if you have really played the China Campaign in CWiF.
You count hexes, and units, but you seem not to look at the features on the map.
Have you noticed the plentiful abundance of railways going into the heart of China ? Sure, with such a vast number of choices of penetration, the Chinese really has to wonder where theJapanese will come from... Well sorry...

No, Im serious. You cant expect the Japanese player to only follow the railroads.
Japan starts the game with 3 HQs, it is not too hard to supply an outflanking move. Especially not now where your units wont be flipped for taking one step like on the old map.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund

ORIGINAL: Froonp
By the way, how do you manage to post 2 images in the same post ? [:D]

Ive hosted them on photobucket.com and then I direct link to that place. [8D]

Wow, great, thanks !
I though you had a way to cheat the forum software.

You just have to put a link to a picture, and check the "Embed picture in post" so that it works ?
Are you still limited by the 200 Kb limit then ?

[Hortlund]

no limits since you are not hosting the picture on this forum, but you are linking an image from photobucket.

[YohanTM2]

ORIGINAL: Manic Inertia

I disagree with you, Yohan..

I like WiF partly because it offers the opportunity to explore 'what if' scenarios and strategies. This means it needs to be as realistic as this scale allows, and as China was a historical stalemate, and it's generally acknowledged that it would've been difficult for either side in the Sino-Japanese war to avoid this, the rules should make it difficult (although obvoiusly not impossible) to do so.

Sure, sure, everyone wants a fun game, and charging units across deserts and mountains in a war of manouvre and bold flanking cavalry charges sounds just great, but guess what .. that was never going to happen in China in 39-45, at least beyond an incidental and very local level, so to be experiencing that in WiFFE, or MWiF, or CWiF, detracts from the historicity, and consequently the credibility, of an ostensibly historical wargame.

If you want to experience the China theatre as a much more dynamic - read ahistorical - conflict as possible, why not design 'Fascist Counterstrike Orientalis', or 'Tojo On Acid', or '3 Way Mayhem: Mao's Blitzkreig' etc etc.

I apprecaite your view but the goal of this project is to recreate WiF, not develop a new game. WiF is what this game is supposed to be, not a new game, unless I missed something in the press release.

[c92nichj]

What I am saying is that your approach to ZoC the possible appearing places of the PART is not good IMO. You must aim at reaching the garrison value to actually prevent them from forming up.

I have played Japan quite a few WIF games and pretty much using the ZOC approach during the initial years of the conflict. It have worked very well.
This is especially true if you kill china as after she is dead you can use your troops that is left over to kill off any partisans in the mountains, which during the first couple of years mostly have 0 to 1 in strength and wil not prove that much of an issue.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: c92nichj

What I am saying is that your approach to ZoC the possible appearing places of the PART is not good IMO. You must aim at reaching the garrison value to actually prevent them from forming up.

I have played Japan quite a few WIF games and pretty much using the ZOC approach during the initial years of the conflict. It have worked very well.
This is especially true if you kill china as after she is dead you can use your troops that is left over to kill off any partisans in the mountains, which during the first couple of years mostly have 0 to 1 in strength and wil not prove that much of an issue.

Well, I've never been in a WiF FE game where China get conquered.

[c92nichj]

The alternative is to create a MWIF where China is always knocked out of the war before the end of 1940. In China, you are asking a player to defend 30+ hexes with the same units that he used to defend 10 hexes (on the old map). And even when the Chinese defence line consisted of 10 hexes, the Chinese player often had a heck of a time trying to survive. Ive player China in wif and been defeated by late 1940 by a concentrated Japanese effort, so I know that its hard enough to do in the old map.

In my CWIF games it usually happend around mid '40 with the new map I believe it can be delayed until early '41.

[Froonp]

Well, in CWiF I had not played games where China got conquered neither.
But I may not have gone to maximal effort on the Japanese side. I was playng a "normal" Japan, a Japan who cares aout having to face the USA & the CW around SO41 / ND41.
On the other hand, I had experiences of believeing that the Chinese were dead, only to have Chinese CAV cutting my rail and my supply deep in China in the south and Partisans cutting the Rail to Sian in many places in the rea areas.

If the consensus is (playtest will demonstrate it or not) that China is easy to conquer (conquering in in early '41 is what I call easy), then I suggest that the US Entry cost for Chinese cities conquest be only lowered from 4 to 3 (and not lower). This can be a good way to remove the Japanese will to conquer China.

[c92nichj]

Allied strategy with new MWIF map.

'40 DoW Japan with USSR.

Nationalist Chinese : 15 Corps sized units + 1 divisions + 1 Gun
Communist Chinese : 4 Corps sized units.
USSR: 9 Corp sized units including reserves. + 1 Gun + 2 Div

Total: 28 Corps +2 gun + 3 div

Japanese in China proper : 10 Corps sized units + 2 divisions + 2 Guns.
Japanese in Manchuria / Korea : 7 Corps sized units.
Japanese in Japan : 4 Corps sized units + 1 division + 1 Guns.
Japanese in free setup : 1 Corps sized units + 1 division.

Total: 21 Corps + 4 Div + 3 Gun

The allies can just walk forward no need to attack as there will not be a continous frontline anyhow and sieze japaneese territory.

USSR production can be focussed on building units for the war with Japan, Garrision against Gemrany needs to be held throughout '40 but in '41 defend in the rear, like around Sverdlovsk, fall back to Tashkent/Chita if Germany looks to threatining. By '41 Japan should have been kicked of the mainland and defense against Germany can start again.

USSR will probably loose all the european map, but it doesn't really matter as japan will be so weak that they should be kicked out of the war soon after US enters the war.

Half of the victory points are on the asian map so as long as Germany and italy cannot take the whole of europe victory will fall to the allies.

How does this strategy sound workable?

[Shannon V. OKeets]

How about using optional rule #50: Compulsory USSR-Japanese Peace?

[Froonp]

Quick reminder :
Russian troops are restricted by the Foreign Troop Commitment rule for entering China, even the part controlled by Japan.

So expelling Japan from the mainland (I assume this means china) seems impossible to me by the sole Russians, before they become victims of the German steamroller.

This combined to the Compulsory USSR-Japan peace, plus the price in US Entry, makes me think there is not more a problem with MWiF map than with the WiF FE map.

In 1939-1940, the Russians can play havoc in Manchuria, even in WiF FE pacific scaled map.

[Hortlund]

Can we focus on the real problem here instead of talking about optional rules and fiddling with US entry so as to discourage the Japanese player from walking all over China.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund

Can we focus on the real problem here instead of talking about optional rules and fiddling with US entry so as to discourage the Japanese player from walking all over China.

But the argument put forth above is that China walks all over Japan, if the USSR lends a hand.

While others say Japan walks all over China - wiping out the Communists by driving all the way past Lanchow.

Both of these visions seem to me to depend on the the other side curling up in a fetal position and begging not to be hit too hard.

I believe their are opportunities for each side to do well or do poorly, depending on how well they play - and the ever present fear of the roll of the dice.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund

Can we focus on the real problem here instead of talking about optional rules and fiddling with US entry so as to discourage the Japanese player from walking all over China.

You're incredible Panzer ! Because you said that China & Japane needed 20+ extra units to have a good China War, then this means this is the "real problem" ????

Excuse me, but the US Entry is part of the problem, and the optional rules too, because they are here to model a factor that units cannot model, that is the WILL of both belligerent to not wage war one on the other.

Now, if you want to talk about the "real problem", this thread was about the modifications to be made to the China map, because the "Play balance in China" thread came up with modifying the china map by adding it cities was part of the solution.

So, Panzerjaeger-who-got-the real-problem-in-mind, have you got comments about the map and the cities added & geographical features shown in it ?

[Hortlund]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund

Can we focus on the real problem here instead of talking about optional rules and fiddling with US entry so as to discourage the Japanese player from walking all over China.

You're incredible Panzer ! Because you said that China & Japane needed 20+ extra units to have a good China War, then this means this is the "real problem" ????

Excuse me, but the US Entry is part of the problem, and the optional rules too, because they are here to model a factor that units cannot model, that is the WILL of both belligerent to not wage war one on the other.

Now, if you want to talk about the "real problem", this thread was about the modifications to be made to the China map, because the "Play balance in China" thread came up with modifying the china map by adding it cities was part of the solution.

So, Panzerjaeger-who-got-the real-problem-in-mind, have you got comments about the map and the cities added & geographical features shown in it ?

Uuh... [&:]

Apparently I have said something that upset you. Normally I would apologise for that, but this time I dont have the slightest idea what I have said that caused you to become upset.

I think I have stated my case pretty clearly in my posts in this thread. The proposed solutions I have seen (other than my proposed solution) are:

1) have divisions extend a zoc partisan-wise in China.
2) add Warlords
3) change US entry so that it becomes more dangerous for Japan to take Chinese cities.

And while all these three ideas have their merit, they do not solve the basic problem. And the basic problem is that when you change the map by increasing the number of hexes by orders of magnitude without adding more units to cover this terrain, that part of the map will become unplayable.

You have taken a portion of the map that in WiF was along the lines of 20x20 hexes, and made it 80x80 hexes (or whatever, you get the idea) and you expect the same units that fought over those 20x20 hexes to fight in the 80x80 area. CLEARLY you see the dramatic change in gameplay this will lead to. Now the problem is how do we fix this. The suggestions given so far by others in this thread does not fix this problem. The other suggestions are more along the line of stop-gap measures to just keep China from imploding in the first turn.

I will tell you why the US entry-hit is not a big factor. Because as Japan, I always know that I will have to face the US sooner or later. It doesnt really matter if I have to go to war against the US in early 1941 instead of late 1941 If I have conquered all of China. I'll gladly take that hit. Besides, when China is gone, the US entry is a matter of (short) time anyway, since the US will draw two chits per turn (if I remember correctly) after China falls.

The map, froonp, the map looks great. Do you want to talk about the map? I love the graphics, I love the layout. Personally I think it would be a good idea to add a couple of more cities, and maybe break up the mountains somewhat. But hey, thats just me.

THE MAP IS NOT THE PROBLEM. THE LACK OF UNITS INHABITING THE MAP IS THE PROBLEM.

Adding 5-10 warlords does not solve this problem. Letting divisions extend zoc's does not solve this problem. Changing US entry does not solve this problem.

And this is not a problem for China alone. This is a problem for Manchuria and Korea too.

Now, will you please tell me what exactly you have against the idea to add 15-20 territorials to Japan and China and Russia. Territorials that can only be used in China/Manchuria/Korea/SovietFarEast. Such a solution would solve the problem with the lack of units and at the same time it would not affect gameplay outside those areas.

I just dont understand what your problem with that is. I really dont.

[Froonp]

Well, it's true that you have upset me, I'm sorry to have lost my temper.

Now, will you please tell me what exactly you have against the idea to add 15-20 territorials to Japan and China and Russia. Territorials that can only be used in China/Manchuria/Korea/SovietFarEast. Such a solution would solve the problem with the lack of units and at the same time it would not affect gameplay outside those areas.

I just dont understand what your problem with that is. I really dont.

What I have "against" this idea, is that it is not part of the WiF FE rules & habits. There is no existing rule mechanic to tie down such a huge part of a Major Power military forces to a theater. This is not elegant, that is foreign to the WiF FE mechanics, and this is not historical. This is why I prefer the Warlord / MIL system, as it already exists in WiF FE and is pretty much elegant and historical. But it is just a matter of naming things, what I name Warlord you name units, where is the difference ????

Adding 5-10 warlords does not solve this problem. Letting divisions extend zoc's does not solve this problem. Changing US entry does not solve this problem.

First, let me point that I did not speak of changing US Entry (just to lower the us entry cost for conquering cities, because there are lots of new cities, but not lower too much).

Now, you say that those things that I quoted does not solve the problem, but maybe all of them (plus the Chinese attack weakness, the mandatory USSR/japan peace WiF FE optional rules) can help avoiding the problem.

And tell me, how can 5-10 warlords (units tied down to Chinese cities) not solve the problem, and 20+ new units tied down to China will solve it ? Is the resolution of the problem only a matter of 10 units ???

Playtest will tell if more units are needed, and if so, playtest will tell how many of them, and of which type.

But, for playtest to even begin in China, we all have to first agree to a starting point to how China will loook in MWiF. So, after some iteration, is the latest MWiF map presented here seems good to you all as a starting point for China war Playtest ????

Modifying the MWiF map is not an easy task (modifying if as a picture in my picture editor is far more simple), so the closest to the best version we come, the better.

[Froonp]

Woops, something that I missed in your post.
You wrote :

the idea to add 15-20 territorials to Japan and China and Russia

I agree that Territorials may also be part of the added units too. They are good too because they switch side on conquest, and are in supply from the Minor Country capital.
They are part of the WiF FE mechanics. I would agree to add some of them, but not 15-20 of them, as there are only 5-6 of them already existing in WiF FE.

So if units should be added to the game, I bet they will be Warlords, MIL & TERR.

[lomyrin]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund

Can we focus on the real problem here instead of talking about optional rules and fiddling with US entry so as to discourage the Japanese player from walking all over China.

But the argument put forth above is that China walks all over Japan, if the USSR lends a hand.

While others say Japan walks all over China - wiping out the Communists by driving all the way past Lanchow.

Both of these visions seem to me to depend on the the other side curling up in a fetal position and begging not to be hit too hard.

I believe their are opportunities for each side to do well or do poorly, depending on how well they play - and the ever present fear of the roll of the dice.

CWiF play with the same map as in the present version of MWiF has often shown a China that was conquered or lamed and a Japan that captured and used many resources at little cost resulting in a very strong Japan in the Pacific war.

With the proposed cities added in China, the land there is much more easily defended even though there will not be a contiguous front line but rather sectors where most of the fighting will take place, just as in the CWiF game. Japan will also have a more difficult time to get control of some of the China resources and they are likely to suffer more losses in their China fighting. This ought to result in a Japan that is a little less strong in the Pacific later in the game war. And all this without additional units for either side.

It is my feeling that Japan has been a bit too strong with a bit too many resources available to it in CWiF and so it may well be a beneficial side effect of a stronger China as proposed in this forum. Personally I think that China is getting a few too many new cities from a play balance viewpoint but the overall result may well be the desired one for a good game not just in China bau also in the rest of the war.

Lars