1941 needs balancing

WarPlan Pacific is an operational level wargame which covers all the nations at war in the Pacific theatre from December 1941 to 1945 on a massive game scale.

Moderator: AlvaroSousa

User avatar
Platoonist
Posts: 3042
Joined: Sun May 11, 2003 4:53 am
Location: Yoyodyne Propulsion Systems

RE: 1941 needs balancing

Post by Platoonist »

ORIGINAL: CrackingShow




I'll try to recreate that in my PBEM games as Allies, maybe I can do better with the British than they did historically and get into Indochina/Malaya to take the VPs.

Churchill very much wanted to seize either northern Sumatra or Malaya as a preliminary step to retaking Singapore. (Operation Culverin) The blow to British prestige brought about by the fall of Singapore was never far from his mind. However, due to the demands of the war in Europe, the British South East Asia command could never gather the prerequisite strength and resources for this operation, and the US wasn't willing to divert forces from its trans-Pacific drive to help them get their colony back.
Image
CrackingShow
Posts: 160
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2020 6:58 am

RE: 1941 needs balancing

Post by CrackingShow »

ORIGINAL: Platoonist

ORIGINAL: CrackingShow




I'll try to recreate that in my PBEM games as Allies, maybe I can do better with the British than they did historically and get into Indochina/Malaya to take the VPs.

Churchill very much wanted to seize either northern Sumatra or Malaya as a preliminary step to retaking Singapore. (Operation Culverin) The blow to British prestige brought about by the fall of Singapore was never far from his mind. However, due to the demands of the war in Europe, the British South East Asia command could never gather the prerequisite strength and resources for this operation, and the US wasn't willing to divert forces from its trans-Pacific drive to help them get their colony back.
Maybe the British should have been more selfish, and prioritised retaking the colonies before invading Italy. I know the UK contributed a lot to the invasion of Italy, and perhaps we should have gone after Malaya instead.
Numdydar
Posts: 3283
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:56 pm

RE: 1941 needs balancing

Post by Numdydar »

ORIGINAL: incbob


For those saying wait, what are you waiting for? What magical allied strategy is going to make the Japanese not be able to take everything I have said they can take? I challenge anyone to come up with an Allied Strategy that keeps the Japanese from taking the entire DEI, the Philippines, and at least half of the Solomon Islands by the end of December. Unless the Japanese player is bad, you are also going to lose the rest of the Solomon Islands, Port Moresby, and probably some South Pacific Islands prior to the end of January.



I totally agree with this.

Why are we waiting for changes that are desperately needed to bring this game into some semblance of reality?

The starting DATA (not moves) for Japan is ahistorical.

The capabilities of Japan's first move or two are also very ahistorical.

So I do not see why we should have to 'wait' for anything for things like this to be fixed. Since it is very easy to find the historical data to make the changes needed.

My theory is that, just like War in the Pacific, not that many people would want to play Japan if the game was set up correctly with the historical data and capabilities that Japan actually had. For the record, I do play Japan in WitP and I do 'go the distance' when I play head to head. My last pbem game lasted till around Feb '45.

But with the way the game is set up now, lots of people want to play Japan as obviously the Japanese leaders in the real war were all idiots since obviously they could had done much better. But if you do the research and the reading involved, you will find out that they did really well with their pre-war planning and the constraints they had to work under. A far cry from what this game shows them to be.
eskuche
Posts: 1155
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2018 2:29 am
Location: OH, USA

RE: 1941 needs balancing

Post by eskuche »

Unfortunately the supermarket sweep style aggression is a result of the longer timeline and abstractedness of the game. Any time any port or air division is ungarrisoned, for example, there can be immediate retribution with perfect scouting of army locales in very low recon. No planning required, as ports are automatically supplied too.

That is too ingrained into the game to “fix,” so I think some bones thrown to the Allies just to make the game non-solitaire for the first three months might be nice. Alternatively, we might see the 1942 start be standard.
kennonlightfoot
Posts: 1695
Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2006 7:51 pm
Contact:

RE: 1941 needs balancing

Post by kennonlightfoot »

In the game it is to easy to invade and at least cripple India. India is a power house if allowed to get enough production (from US and UK) to start building infantry and Air. It has an almost unlimited manpower pool. Taking it out early is a major achievement for Japan. But just crippling it for a while is also an achievement.

The UK is very limited in what it can produce. I find it's victory conditions rather unconnected to it's ability.

Part of the problem with Japan being able to run wild is it has enough LC's to do it. It doesn't have to hold what it takes, just use it to keep the US occupied a while cleaning up the mess. The Allied lack of transports until about March means that the Allies have almost no means to react to Japanese attacks other than to watch.

Before messing with force levels first take a look at number of LC's and Transports to limit the first six months of the war.
Kennon
User avatar
AlvaroSousa
Posts: 12095
Joined: Mon Jul 29, 2013 7:13 pm
Contact:

RE: 1941 needs balancing

Post by AlvaroSousa »

If someone who dominates the while map with Japans wants to run the game till mid 1942 I would be happy to do it so I can see the challenges myself and get a better view.
Creator Kraken Studios
- WarPlan
- WarPlan Pacific

Designer Strategic Command
- Brute Force (mod) SC2
- Assault on Communism SC2
- Assault on Democracy SC2
- Map Image Importer SC3
eskuche
Posts: 1155
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2018 2:29 am
Location: OH, USA

RE: 1941 needs balancing

Post by eskuche »

ORIGINAL: AlvaroSousa

If someone who dominates the while map with Japans wants to run the game till mid 1942 I would be happy to do it so I can see the challenges myself and get a better view.
See my AAR. Will update tonight. I’d say about 70-80% optimized expansion on my first play through. Low strength landing IMHO needs to be revisited. I can island hop forever with 1 strength units. Maybe a minimum of 5 LC or 2x/3x LC/ strength up to max strength should be implemented.
sajm0n
Posts: 61
Joined: Tue May 02, 2017 12:26 pm

RE: 1941 needs balancing

Post by sajm0n »

ORIGINAL: eskuche

ORIGINAL: AlvaroSousa

If someone who dominates the while map with Japans wants to run the game till mid 1942 I would be happy to do it so I can see the challenges myself and get a better view.
See my AAR. Will update tonight. I’d say about 70-80% optimized expansion on my first play through. Low strength landing IMHO needs to be revisited. I can island hop forever with 1 strength units. Maybe a minimum of 5 LC or 2x/3x LC/ strength up to max strength should be implemented.
Sorry, but your opponent didnt give much resistance
eskuche
Posts: 1155
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2018 2:29 am
Location: OH, USA

RE: 1941 needs balancing

Post by eskuche »

ORIGINAL: sajm0n
Sorry, but your opponent didnt give much resistance
Not referring to India but more the ease with which IJN can paint the rest of the map.
User avatar
AlvaroSousa
Posts: 12095
Joined: Mon Jul 29, 2013 7:13 pm
Contact:

RE: 1941 needs balancing

Post by AlvaroSousa »

I am increasing the NEI and Phil forces to the point the A.I. can still take it but it takes longer
Creator Kraken Studios
- WarPlan
- WarPlan Pacific

Designer Strategic Command
- Brute Force (mod) SC2
- Assault on Communism SC2
- Assault on Democracy SC2
- Map Image Importer SC3
User avatar
incbob
Posts: 736
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2004 8:38 pm
Location: Columbia, Missouri

RE: 1941 needs balancing

Post by incbob »

I am completing my PBEMs I have started because I feel doing a PBEM is a commitment to the other person.
After that I am doing 1942 starts until either the 41 scenario is fixed, someone comes up with a good 41 mod, or I can get in and do a 41 mod.

I would note, that the 1942 starts in April the UK has 3 divisions and two size 10 air groups in India. This is completely impossible in the 41 scenario to do.
Also the US starts with two divisions already in Australia and I am not sure that is possible either.
User avatar
AlvaroSousa
Posts: 12095
Joined: Mon Jul 29, 2013 7:13 pm
Contact:

RE: 1941 needs balancing

Post by AlvaroSousa »

That is what history had them at.
Creator Kraken Studios
- WarPlan
- WarPlan Pacific

Designer Strategic Command
- Brute Force (mod) SC2
- Assault on Communism SC2
- Assault on Democracy SC2
- Map Image Importer SC3
Numdydar
Posts: 3283
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:56 pm

RE: 1941 needs balancing

Post by Numdydar »

Yes. But if you cannot get to the same point with similar troops, then that means the '41 start is really messed up for the Allies.
generalfdog
Posts: 608
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2020 4:41 pm

RE: 1941 needs balancing

Post by generalfdog »

I had this complaint myself at first and I still think Japan can roll through their initial objectives a little fast, but as a whole after playing a few games i think vs a descent human player you will find Japan has quit the challenge and if you push to much to fast you will get over extended and it is a problem
generalfdog
Posts: 608
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2020 4:41 pm

RE: 1941 needs balancing

Post by generalfdog »

Incbob. first off i don't think the scenarios are supposted to be completely repeatable, from any start point, that is part of the fun they give you a different game then you would have got yourself, but why can't you buy an air unit for India?
User avatar
Meteor2
Posts: 433
Joined: Mon Jul 20, 2009 6:58 pm
Location: Germany

RE: 1941 needs balancing

Post by Meteor2 »

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

Yes. But if you cannot get to the same point with similar troops, then that means the '41 start is really messed up for the Allies.

The situation in the 42 scenario must be able to reach from the 41 start positions. If the 42 positions are more or less historical (good) and we can not get to them from the 41 positions, then I am not really happy with the 41 settings.
User avatar
AllenK
Posts: 7267
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2014 1:17 pm
Location: England

RE: 1941 needs balancing

Post by AllenK »

ORIGINAL: Meteor2

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

Yes. But if you cannot get to the same point with similar troops, then that means the '41 start is really messed up for the Allies.

The situation in the 42 scenario must be able to reach from the 41 start positions. If the 42 positions are more or less historical (good) and we can not get to them from the 41 positions, then I am not really happy with the 41 settings.

I agree. If 42 start is historically accurate then it shows what the Allies could achieve despite their earlier unpreparedness. 41 start should allow Allies to be in a similar position when they get to the equivalent point in the game. Albeit the actual positioning might be different due to what the Japanese player has done.
generalfdog
Posts: 608
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2020 4:41 pm

RE: 1941 needs balancing

Post by generalfdog »

I think it is fine the way it is but I thought of 3 things that might shut a few of us up who think the 41 start has Japan going to quick and would add some historical flavor . #1 give DEI another city that has to be captured before they surrender and put a division there. #2 give Singapore a full British corp and make a river line between Singapore and mainland Malaya. #3 make Bataan peninsula a fortress and put US headquarters MacArthur there. Thoughts?
User avatar
stjeand
Posts: 2678
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2021 1:14 pm
Location: Aurora, NC

RE: 1941 needs balancing

Post by stjeand »

Well I think the Allies can be in that position but it depends on what the Japanese focus on and if they do the historical moves.
I an say that from what I have seen most don't...they focus elsewhere.

If they focus in India they will push back India and easily get to Calcutta. But the UK will arrive right around that time and there "You shall not pass"
If they focus in Australia then they can invade and fight there. But the US will arrive and smash any Japanese units...they just don't have enough to hold what the US can bring to bear.
If they focus in China they can push them back and the Chinese have to put up a falling back, dig in process. Only the Communists can fight.


NOW if they focus on all three...it depends on the defense.

I have only played 3 games so far against players...and one as Axis...

And it has not gone well for any of them.
Mistakes have been made on both sides...more so on theirs I believe. BUT this is how you learn


I feel that Allies are not hitting and running as they could but that is just a guess.

I love invading the oil locations...supply lines along the Indian coast...

Maybe the Allies did not build any LC?
BUILD THEM...

You can wreak havoc behind the Japanese lines if they are not garrisoning and moving all their units to the front lines.
DaShox
Posts: 45
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2003 7:00 am

RE: 1941 needs balancing

Post by DaShox »

For PBEM games, it might be interesting to have the option of some randomization of when forces/transports become available.

I am finding that those who are veteran of the game have a Japanese "playbook". They know what the allies can and can't do - and they are on a mad-rush to get it all done within the window.

Also, when a country surrenders, I think forces there should be able to fight on and the terriortory has to be cleared.
Post Reply

Return to “Warplan Pacific”