Allied Player vs Japan AI

[freeboy]

be playing on Easy level against the AI

[8|]

Can someone explain the refference to levels? I was unaware of any standard play modification to make game easier/harder [:D]

[Nikademus]

Difficulty levels affect AI game play only and except for the "very hard" setting, only affect AI supply levels and replacement as such...no longer the combat formula ('cept for "very hard level")

[freeboy]

thanks nic.. this is good news for the lets have some fun against the ai crowd..

[Jaypea]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Oh, the pain! The Horror!

New strategy: Frag hides in England!

The Anti-Frag fix notes: [X(]

"Weakened and eliminated some forts in Burma. Reduced Mandalay airfield. Delayed arrival of 6 Indian Engineer units."

You guys better hope to hell I don't win the next one or you'll be playing on Easy level against the AI to have a chance! [X(]

I hope your not serious in these changes.[:-] Its not like you overcame the Japanese with the historical division that got mauled (the 17th Indian and the 1st Burma). With all the forces you had a hand, stopping the Japanese should have happened.

[Mr.Frag]

I hope your not serious in these changes. Its not like you overcame the Japanese with the historical division that got mauled (the 17th Indian and the 1st Burma). With all the forces you had a hand, stopping the Japanese should have happened.

I am serious.

The forces I had should never have been possible to amass in such good shape. Because of a target selection glitch which has also been fixed (we hope), I should have been bombed out of there.

One of my old UV tactics was to bomb your airfield to cause damage *then* bomb your port to cause damage. Because the port repairs would keep your engineers busy, they would not have time to repair the airfield.

Because so many of my engineers were idle, the fortification went up to 9 rather quickly. That should not have happened.

Japan had enough troops there to kick me out but not with a size 9 fortification boost and full supplies. Just as I sapped their strength, they should have been able to sap my strength. Ground units under constant air harrassment fight at about 50% of their normal effectiveness.

The starting airfield size has been cut in half and the starting fortifications have been set to 0 instead of 3. This makes it more *historical* as the Brits were certainly not in a "dug in" shape.

I'm not saying I can't pull it off again as I most certainly will try it, but it will be a much tougher fight this time.

[daniel123]

if you have a air sq. in a base when it is captured is the air sq. wiped out or does it try to fly to a near by air base. i figure any damaged air craft will be destoryed.

[Jaypea]

I understand what you are saying but I wonder what is possible from the other side of the game. Its my viewpoint that (especially in Burma) the Japanese took all the risks and made all the bold moves with their troops. They "played" almost the perfect game. Whereas the British made all the mistakes and fought the battles making bad decisions (they played a very poor game). With this in mind, my perspective is that the Japanese with the historical forces should do no better than history. This means that the AI pushes the Allies back to Imphal no earlier than mid-May. This is against the historical british forces (17th Indian Div, 1st Burma Div, 7th Armored Brigade and the 38th Chinese Div - which joined later). So in fact in your game, with all the additional forces that you had, you should have done better than that. Assuming you were fighting the historical japanese forces (which I believe you were). That make sense? Thats my perspective. So by placing such great forces in Mandalay, it makes sense that you held. Of course its never a sure thing but it also shouldn't be an automatic loss (just because the japanese lost historically).

BTW - I am reading General Slim's account of the burma campaign right now. Such an excellent account of that theatre. I can't put it down[:D]

JP

[Mr.Frag]

Wiped out ... ships in port attempt to bail, but it is presumed the aircraft were destroyed as the base was overrun.

[Grotius]

Those fixes sound reasonable to me, but it's hard to know without having played the game.

One question: I assume it's still possible for the British to strip India bare to defend Burma? No political-point penalty for doing so? I just think the Brits should pay some political price for yanking troops from Indian when Ghandi is leading an active resistance to British rule in Britain's most important colony.

[daniel123]

thanks. were your aircraft based in Mandalay or a air base in the rear?

[Mr.Frag]

thanks. were your aircraft based in Mandalay or a air base in the rear?

The hurricanes and p-40's were all flying from Mandalay. Everything else was coming from India.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Grotius

Those fixes sound reasonable to me, but it's hard to know without having played the game.

One question: I assume it's still possible for the British to strip India bare to defend Burma? No political-point penalty for doing so? I just think the Brits should pay some political price for yanking troops from Indian when Ghandi is leading an active resistance to British rule in Britain's most important colony.

Currently there is no "garrison" requirement in India as with Manchuria so no....the player is free to strip India bare for Burma or other areas. I do understand that the UK had to deal with periods of civil unrest for half the war and it did influence their ability to go back on the offensive.

In compensation though.....a smart Allied player would be wise to garrison his eastern Indian cities and Columbo. The Japanese player might be tempted to make some easy grabs otherwise.

[daniel123]

that was a chancy move. if the base fell all those air sq. gone. do wiped out air units return? how long? all nationalities?

[Mr.Frag]

One question: I assume it's still possible for the British to strip India bare to defend Burma? No political-point penalty for doing so? I just think the Brits should pay some political price for yanking troops from Indian when Ghandi is leading an active resistance to British rule in Britain's most important colony.

No political cost, none needed. Should you strip India and loose, the Brits are literally removed from the game. Giving the production capacity of India to Japan will really make it almost impossible for the USA to come in and save the day.

Once Japan broke a single Division through (which can be split into 3rds), using the rail they can spread out and snag resources so fast your head will spin.

[freeboy]

Maybe the focus of ij forces should be india rather than solomons in 42?
Could we attack with chinese based units into burma? as the jap player of course

[Von Rom]

ORIGINAL: Jaypea

Although others may disagree, I don't expect to "repeat" history. In my opinion, every turn after historical turn #1 you have a chance to either beat or be beaten by history[:D]. If I hold Mandalay (ahistorically) it doesn't mean the game is broken! It means that I made better choices and took more risks than the British Generals who did not have the advantage of foresight. In my games, I plan on beating history every time I play. If I don't or if I can't because the AI has been overly compensated, then this game would be no fun for me. I found MR Frags strategy to fortify Mandalay, at the expense of India, PI and Singapore EXACTLY the type of moves that I plan to do when I play. If this doesn't allow me to do better than history then I will not be happy with the game. All of you history types know that things could have been very different if individuals had made different choices at different times in history. I want to be able to make the "better" choices and enjoy the success that accompanies that choice.

But again thats just me[:'(]

heheh

I always chuckle when I read things like this [:)]

Why?

WiTP is intended to be a wargame in the classic sense of the word. It is also being designed by some of the best game designers in the business. Most players who have given input into this game have stressed over and over again that they want it to be historical.

Yes, Mr. Frag is to be commended for carrying out the actions he did. It was a great job he did in Burma.

However, let us not forget a few facts about the historical situation in Burma (most of which the player is not faced with):

1) The Allies had a split command: British, Burmese, Americans, and Chinese.

2) India, PI and other theatres (who had commanders) would never have allowed all their forces to be stripped from their theatres to be used in Burma. Imagine MacArthur giving the thumbs-up to losing 3 valuable fighter squadrons from PI to Burma while he fought a desperate defence. . . [8|]

3) The Japanese 15th Army in Burma was highly experienced and trained, and was battle-hardened from years of fighting. It also had a single command structure. For the most part, the Allied forces were inexperienced and suffered from a split command structure. To put this in perspective: In Burma the Japanese lost 8,000 soldiers, while the Allies lost close to 100,000 troops. . .

4) Heavy monsoons and poor supply severely hampered the Allies in Burma.

5) The British had to contend with possible revolts in India, while the Burmese Army had to contend with possible revolts in Burma. Because of this, both the British and Burmese had to station troops throughout those two countries.

http://www.rothwell.force9.co.uk/burmaweb/japinvade.htm

Because the player is not faced with many of these obstacles, and because WiTP may not be able to simulate some of them, then other routes need to be taken in order to simulate a similar situation.

What some here see as Brilliant play by Mr. Frag (in many ways it was) was also made possible by the AI's inability to manage its air groups properly and to organize flanking maneuvers to cut his supplies. Even Mr. Frag acknowledges that the AI routine for air groups WAS BROKEN. He mentioned that had the AI been managing its air groups properly, then Mandalay would have been bombed, thus reducing his supply, and thus forcing his retreat. . .

So in fact the AI (in managing air groups) in Burma WAS broken. This in turn produced highly unrealistic and ahistorical results.

It is one thing to hold on, or even delay the Japanese, in Burma. But the 59 Allied fighters in Burma had destroyed 800+ Japanese planes because they had gained a ridiculous amount of experience in so short a time. In addition those Japanese pilots were listed as having low experience, which also caused huge numbers to be killed.

This huge loss in Japanese planes would have had an impact elsewhere in the game.

Remember, this is not UV, but WiTP, which will last SIX years. Do you really want to snuff out the Japanese AI in the first year of the war through highly questionable tactics and ahistorical results? If so, then I would suggest that people play HoI instead.

If players wish to play ahistorical outcomes, then why not have the ability to use carriers at Pearl Harbour and strike the Japanese before they attack PH?

Hindsight is perfect.

But the reality of the early months in the Pacific War was that the Allies were ill-prepared, ill-trained, and ill-led. The Japanese easily swept all before them up until mid- to late- 1942.

It took time for the Allies to bounce back.

In my opinion this is what WiTP is all about.

Once Japan has secured its foothold everywhere, then it's up to the player to build his forces and fight back. After all, the player will have FIVE years to do it, with the HUGE industrial base of the USA.

I personally feel that we should be doing everything we can to give the AI every edge possible. Do we really want to hamstring it in the first few months of a SIX year game?

[Mr.Frag]

Could we attack with chinese based units into burma? as the jap player of course

Yep, just got to buy them their freedom with PP points.

One little naughty trick when playing the Allies. Expand the hell out of China even if you have no use for the expansion. Each level of expansion increases the garrison level that Japan must maintain to keep the base from destroying itself.

The same holds true in reverse. As Japan, be very careful expanding anything in China because it increases the number of troops you will have tied up.

[Jaypea]

Now watch the developers go and change that rule. [:D]

[Mr.Frag]

Now watch the developers go and change that rule.

Don't need to, it does exactly what it is designed to do. Represent China well. Japan had enough troops in China, but they had to contain uprisings. Each new base you add to your holdings means more troops tied up baby sitting the hex.

[freeboy]

the way I understand the hq rules are the units are assigned to a hq, and some are restricted.. cannot a restriced hq in china mount an offensive towards burma.. or are they all in north or northeatern china? I was thinking about using the forces attacking the coastal cities, swingind down the coast and into buma