Matrix Games Forums

You wouldnt add all of those IMO there should be 1 force for every base in southern India INCLUDING the existing 10 base forces if an allied player chooses to concentrate and leave bases uncovered thats his lookout.
 
I would leave Northern India alone as I think the NW Frontier Forces have all been added so again if an allied player leaves them unguarded its his lookout.
 
In all honesty on balance I would make them 18 squads and 18 support as they training quality was really mixed as the best of the state forces were creamed off into Indian Army Divs that are already represented.
 
They were really used as police forces more than anything else

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

You wouldnt add all of those IMO there should be 1 force for every base in southern India INCLUDING the existing 10 base forces if an allied player chooses to concentrate and leave bases uncovered thats his lookout.

I would leave Northern India alone as I think the NW Frontier Forces have all been added so again if an allied player leaves them unguarded its his lookout.

In all honesty on balance I would make them 18 squads and 18 support as they training quality was really mixed as the best of the state forces were creamed off into Indian Army Divs that are already represented.

They were really used as police forces more than anything else

I think what's called for may be new squads in the device section...
Like I said, it will take some thinking to figure out the best way to implement a change like that, that's why I haven't touched it before.

EDIT: Probably small static defense units or some such for the base locations....

there were about 40 - 50,000 Indian Troops in Burma that went over to the Japanese I think I am not sure if they are in CHS.
 
Apart from that I am not really knowledgeable about Jap ORBAT

An alternative would be to just ignore these forces and split the 10 existing Indian Army base forces into 30 units 1/3 of the size and spread them out

ORIGINAL: Big B

EDIT: While we are at it - I want to ask the experts out there - are there major Japanese forces missing from the unit list?

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

there were about 40 - 50,000 Indian Troops in Burma that went over to the Japanese I think I am not sure if they are in CHS.

Apart from that I am not really knowledgeable about Jap ORBAT

Then they would have to be added to the OOB if any Indian troops are added..

I don't necessarily view using para fragments to take undefended bases as gamey anymore than landing a frgament by submarine to take an undefended base.

I also don't view Andy's tactic as gamey. In fact, I kind of like it. Gives me some ideas for when Andy comes a calling in our game.

Personally, I think all bases should have some form of small security detachment built in with maybe a defensive AV of 3 or so. We aren't able to effectively place a company of security troops using on map troop formations so having them built in would be a way to go.

While I don't like the way El Cid has implemented "supply sinks" in RHS (If I understand their purpose correctly it is to model a civillian populace), the general idea may be doable for modeling security troops.

The allied player does have a dilemma when it comes to India and Burma. Defend aggressively in Burma and leave yourself open in the rear or retreat and defend in India leaving Burma to be easily captured. But that was the RL dilemma the Brits faced.

Chez

It's really simple.
 
There are simple rules about defending India as Allies.
 
Players who follow them will defend India.
 
Players who don't, and commit many many mistakes, will lose India, as they will perhaps lose the game. Then, some of them will come to this board to bitch and whine, and blame the game for not giving them 30 billion additional units to make for their shortcomings.
 
I will not list those simple rules here, for simple reason that I play couple games right now and don't want to give my opponents free advice [;)]
 
Now having said that, India in WW2 was political problem, not the military one. India perhaps had more people than Japan and UK, combined, and whoever wins their "hearts and minds" would control India. My personal belief is that, had Japanese landed there in force in early 42 (not in Kohima in 44 with mentally ill man as commander) some local personality would appear, to lead India to much wanted independence. They would probably detest Japanese, but whoever thinks Indians would not use the opportunity to get rid of the British yoke needs to read more history. In game terms best solution would be to remove huge part of India from the map altogether - otherwise, I think it's a fair game for all. 
 
Oleg

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

An alternative would be to just ignore these forces and split the 10 existing Indian Army base forces into 30 units 1/3 of the size and spread them out

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

I don't necessarily view using para fragments to take undefended bases as gamey anymore than landing a frgament by submarine to take an undefended base.

I also don't view Andy's tactic as gamey. In fact, I kind of like it. Gives me some ideas for when Andy comes a calling in our game.

Personally, I think all bases should have some form of small security detachment built in with maybe a defensive AV of 3 or so. We aren't able to effectively place a company of security troops using on map troop formations so having them built in would be a way to go.

While I don't like the way El Cid has implemented "supply sinks" in RHS (If I understand their purpose correctly it is to model a civillian populace), the general idea may be doable for modeling security troops.

The allied player does have a dilemma when it comes to India and Burma. Defend aggressively in Burma and leave yourself open in the rear or retreat and defend in India leaving Burma to be easily captured. But that was the RL dilemma the Brits faced.

Chez

Much to think about.

And I agree, Airborne Troops landing in the enemy rear, taking undefended locations is good tactics, not gamey. I think the only issue is simply "were they really undefended?"

B

ORIGINAL: Big B

And I agree, Airborne Troops landing in the enemy rear, taking undefended locations is good tactics, not gamey. I think the only issue is simply "were they really undefended?"

One of only two rules I insist on in my games is that any landing (including paradrops) may be attempted only with one full unit (however small). This prevents gamey submarine invasions, and micro paradrops.

Oleg

ORIGINAL: Halsey

The major design flaw is the non-activation of ground forces when a major nation is invaded.
The US invasion activation rule should have been applied to ALL the major nations not already at war with each other.

You mean, like when British try to escape from Malaya en masse over Thai isthmus IJN player should get Thai army to use wherever he wants? I agree, especially since this manouver seems to be in repertoire of most of my Allied opponents [:D]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

ORIGINAL: Big B

And I agree, Airborne Troops landing in the enemy rear, taking undefended locations is good tactics, not gamey. I think the only issue is simply "were they really undefended?"

One of only two rules I insist on in my games is that any landing (including paradrops) may be attempted only with one full unit (however small). This prevents gamey submarine invasions, and micro paradrops.

Oleg

Obviously this issue is larger than I previously thought about - throwing in all the island locations.
I suppose the unit scale in WitP is too large to account for all the security platoons and companies that were deployed by everyone.

Hmm...

ORIGINAL: Terminus

ORIGINAL: pauk

Perhaps i'm stupid

No "perhaps" about it...[:'(]

I wont say anything, because you will loose your nerves and start typing in Danish, Great Dane[:'(]

Hop i havnen...[:'(]

ORIGINAL:

Using the Mavis transports to airdrop fragments behind those garrisons is a bit gamey; luring an overconfident Allied opponent into Burma and then landing "21[X(][X(][X(][X(] units" in India is simply good strategy.

Oh, Bull Roar! Dropping six or seven squads of paras into a city is REALLY going to capture it. Try it in real life, what you get is six or seven squads of either dead troops or prisoners in the local hoosegow! Gamey doesn't even begin to describe this tactic. It's infantile.

Hi, Err you don't need to garrison every base in India. You have tanks.  Just deploy an entire tank unit in central postion and then squash para drops.  Keep AA and fighters in important bases.
 
Burma does not need that much. If Japanese try to move through there they will take forever to crawl forward.
Guard your supply ports in India. Once the Japanese commit their forces to seaborne invasion move your central reserve directly into contact and force them into seige warfare.  Keep a moble force to threaten Japanese supply if he moves off coast.
 
In Burma only 1 thing is important. That you maintain a connection with China (You keep a base that is in range for air transport) Use the Chinese units that begin assigned to SEAC for this.

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, Err you don't need to garrison every base in India. You have tanks. Just deploy an entire tank unit in central postion and then squash para drops. Keep AA and fighters in important bases.

Burma does not need that much. If Japanese try to move through there they will take forever to crawl forward.
Guard your supply ports in India. Once the Japanese commit their forces to seaborne invasion move your central reserve directly into contact and force them into seige warfare. Keep a moble force to threaten Japanese supply if he moves off coast.

In Burma only 1 thing is important. That you maintain a connection with China (You keep a base that is in range for air transport) Use the Chinese units that begin assigned to SEAC for this.

Yes, that is all true. But I think the question was "aren't there signifigant troops in India that are missing from the OOB in the first place"? which would prevent a half dozen squads from capturing a city because you moved the airbase ground support personnel elsewhere...

B

ORIGINAL: Przemcio231

Well nice suggestion but why did the designers screw it up[:D]

Because the game was released before it was finished.

That works Mogami as long as you are content to lose any forts in a city because of random paras

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Hop i havnen...[:'(]

Pauk har vel næppe en for hånden der i Zagreb [:'(]

Så kan han hoppe i floden i stedet for...