Play Balance in China

[Shannon V. OKeets]

Hmmm. There seems to be a lot more you still want to consider as possibilities for Play Balance in China.

Once I get a chance to read through the new postings and assimilate them, I'll try writing another summary of the discussion. We can then either continue the discussion or go through another round of voting.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

At one time someone asked what Harry Rowland thought about the issue of Play Balance in China. I asked him this week and he gave me permission to post his reply for your consideration.

HR> well from what I've heard, it usually revolves around firefights around
the railways. AFAICT that is a pretty good summation of what happened
historically. All the ops were along the railways for fairly obvious
logistical reasons more or less covered by the supply rules in WiF.

In regards to play balance, and from a design perspective, the China war is
a tough one. Historically when Japan did stuff in 1931, 1937 and 1939, it
was like a knife thru butter. Then Japan stopped doing stuff, until 1944,
when it was like a knife through butter again. I believe that is the
perceived bias in the CWIF campaign, but perhaps not ahistorical if Japan
hadn't stopped doing stuff (and WiFFers never do).

[Froonp]

And so ?
Do MWiF need a rule to prevent (or to discourage) the Japanese from "doing stuff" ?
Or maybe MWiF needs an incencitive for Japan to "do nothing" in China much of the time ?
Good suggestions were already done here (no red factories in Chinese controlled China for example).
I think extensive playtest will tell.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Froonp
And so ?
Do MWiF need a rule to prevent (or to discourage) the Japanese from "doing stuff" ?
Or maybe MWiF needs an incencitive for Japan to "do nothing" in China much of the time ?
Good suggestions were already done here (no red factories in Chinese controlled China for example).
I think extensive playtest will tell.

Harry Rowland reviewed the summary of our discussion on Play Balance in China and provided the comments given below. His opinion seems to match perfectly with the voting by forum members. Unless there is further discussion, I am going to go with the conclusions at the end of this post.

======= SJH summary of Forum member suggestions with HR comments =====
MWIF (Global Map with Unified Scale) Possibilities

(1) Change nothing and leave it the same as in CWIF
If you double the number of hexes in China, you suddenly have room to maneuver. It is easier for the Japanese player to concentrate forces at one part of the front and overwhelm the Chinese player.

HR> This could be the standard rule.

(2) Add Chinese warlords and/or territorials
Add "Warlords", land units who are assigned to a city, who cost little or nothing to build, who cannot leave China (or the city), who have no ZOC (but cancel Japanese ZOC in their hex) to act as speed bumps.

HR> Good idea. They existed and were a real impediment to untrammeled movement.

(3) Unlimited breakdowns of Corps into divisions

HR> I thought this was the standard rule. Good idea particularly with the proviso in the second paragraph below, and this proviso could be extended to all divisions.

There is no problem with the rules of unlimited breakdown, because you still have to have an eligible corp to breakdown in the place where you want the division. While the breaking down of a corps into divisions may be unlimited, corps themselves are limited, and you can only build so many per turn. So, if you breakdown all the corps (or most of them) to have numerous divisions,
you'll have less corps and be eaten by the Chinese who has a large army.

What if we had two kinds of divisions that mirrored those two kinds of division breakdowns? The second kind of breakdown would not cause the parent unit to go back to the force pool until both divisions were destroyed (or rather one parent unit per 2 divisions destroyed) and these divisions will not be allowed to stack in the same hex with other units. This will prevent abuse
of the allocating damage solely to divisions. We could even have a rule that says Type 2 divisions must remain within a certain number of hexes of each other.

(4) Add more Chinese cities

China needs more cities. Chinese cities are currently so far apart that the loss of a front-line city will often lead to complete collapse, because the units holding the city's flanks will suddenly be way out of supply with little hope of ever reaching supply again (they will normally need 2-3 moves to come within 4 hexes of the next city). With more cities should go a reduced US
entry cost for taking cities.

Adding more cities in China is one way to solve this issue. However that only helps the Chinese getting supply sources, something also needs to be done to stop the Chinese to push the Japanese into the sea during 1943-1944.

The cities appearing on the WiF FE maps are those cities exceeding 100 000 inhabitants in 1940 (this could be checked in the designers?? part of the rules, I don't remember where I read it). In China, where multiple cities would have appeared in a single hex due to scale, only one was left for map's clarity sake.

Even if cities give local supply (4 hexes) around them, what really makes them useful is to be connected to the railroad net. I'm convinced that the new cities added to the map will not be connected to the railroad network, and so this effect will be lessened. Let's just say that there will be less land without supply for the Chinese units in China.

A simple solution might just be to increase the number of Chinese cities, and leave US entry rolls alone. Major Japanese advances would thus be a bit more difficult, and come at an increase in the likelihood of early US entry.

HR> Sounds good to me. Now that there are 4 Asian hexes to WiF's one, there probably should be more cities and ports on the Asian map.

(5) Restrict Chinese attacks
There should be an optional rule reflecting the Chinese reluctance to waste troops attacking the Japanese.

If Japan get's a bit on the ropes, it's also to easy for China to make Japan pay. One should definitely play with serious attack weakness or other similar options that would help allow Japan to "hold the line" even with a reduced troop level.

This is already in the rules to limit the Chinese being efficient : Tiny activity limits, Communists & Nationalists being divided (however I would appreciate something more being done in this area), Optional Rule for Attack Weakness, and Warlords being unable to go far from their city. This is the job of Japan to play well and not be thrown to the sea, and Japan has the power and the tools to resist. Some examples : Terrain, planes (lots, with good range), good troops (with lots of WP), plenty of HQ (at least 3).

HR> Chinese attack weakness currently more or less covers this (if you are in a Chinese massive superiority blowout position, why shouldn't or indeed wouldn't Chiang have gone for the throat while given the opportunity?).

(6) Add Japanese warlords
Give the Japan some warlords for Manchuria/Korea

HR> Don't care either way. Presumably only come into play with a war against Russia. Didn't notice much effect of them when Russia eventually did attack in 1945, altho they might have put up a bit of a better show if roused from their beds a couple of years earlier.

(7) Redo the Chinese and Japanese land orders of battle
If China gets more land forces then so should Japan and that has a ripple effect on the USSR, CW, and USA.

HR> Bad idea. Twiddling lots of rules to make one change is the gaming equivalent of sawing bits of the legs off the table one leg at a time trying to get the table straight. You end up with a table with no legs.

(8) Modified setup
China should get some limited reaction to the Japanese setup, (maybe a free pre-start land move), perhaps coupled with a similar Japanese "final adjustment".

HR> Why? To represent superior Chinese tactics, training and leadership?

How about putting this to a vote, to see whether we are anywhere near reaching a consensus?

HR> Do I get a vote?

Regards
Harry

====================== SJH summary ===============
Possibilities for MWIF
(1) Change nothing and leave it the same as in CWIF
(2) Add Chinese warlords and/or territorials
(3) Unlimited breakdowns of Corps into divisions
(4) Add more Chinese cities
(5) Restrict Chinese attacks
(6) Add Japanese warlords
(7) Redo the Chinese and Japanese land orders of battle
(8) Modified setup

======================= SJH conclusions ==============
Because I am a minimalist (I don’t want to change from WIF any more than necessary), I prefer to introduce these new options gradually and only when required. The numbers following each option are averages based on A = 4, B = 3 and so on.

Add to options and play test:
2 Chinese warlords and/or territorials (3.1)
4 More Chinese cities (2.9)
6 Japanese warlords (2.6)
3 Unlimited breakdowns of Corps into divisions (2.6)

If we are still unhappy with play balance in China, then add one at a time in the order listed
5 Restrict Chinese attacks (1.9)
7 Redo the Chinese and Japanese land orders of battle (1.8)
8 Modified setup (1.4)
====================================================

[c92nichj]

I like your conclusion provided the BP cost of the warlords is very low and that both China and Japan get access to them.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

The final task on this topic is to write the text for the optional rules.

Chinese Warlords and/or Territorials
Let's go with the existing Chinese Warlord optional rule to start with (#71 - 22.4.15 in RAW). It restricts their movement to within 2 hexes of their home city. Because of the modified scale, that would change to 4 hexes. Otherwise the new rule is identical to the existing one.

Japanese Warlords
This is actually covered in 22.4.15 when is says "the major power that controls their home city". Because it does NOT specify China, the rule appplies to Japan (and also the USSR should they become so ambitious).

Unlimited Breakdown of Corps into Divisions
Since Harry liked the idea so much, let's take the text written by one of the forum members (I never can remember things like who said what so I apologize for not giving individual credit).

"Breakdown does not cause the parent unit to go back to the force pool until both divisions are destroyed (or rather one parent unit is returned to the force pool for every 2 divisions destroyed). Two units from a broken down corps are NOT allowed to stack in the same hex. "

This is to help prevent the abuse of the allocating damage solely to divisions.

I have not added the bit about the divisions staying close to each other because it is so hard to keep track of from the players' point of view. The program could do it, but the player wouldn't necessarily be able to keep it straight (as in the case where they had 6 divisional units from 3 different corps, for example).

Now, there are still a couple of open questions.
(1) What do the divisions look like? Some are already in the counter mix but unlimited means that we would have to have an unlimited supply of divisions and I don't know what strengths they should have.
(2) Does this rule only apply to China and Japan? How about the USSR in Manchuria? How about the USA in the Pacific?

Harry's comment leads to believe this should apply everywhere, for all Major Powers. So that is what I am going to go with to answer question #2. However, that just makes question #1 that much more important.

To answer #1, I'll look at the current counter mix for broken down divisions and add more of them in the same proportions as the current mix. So, if there are five 1-4s, three 2-4s, and one 3-4, then the proportions will be 5/9ths, 3/9ths, and 1/9th for 1-4, 2-4, and 3-4 divisional units respectively.

More Chinese Cities
Surprisingly, I have an easy answer to this one. Harry is having Michael Fisher review the CWIF map to validate it. We can just have Michael add a few more cities under Harry's direction. Since they headed up the task of creating the current CWIF map ,they are the ideal people to make these changes and we don't have to give it another thought until it gets play tested.

Which bring me to my last point. These optional rules will have to be play tested. That should let us know whether they are up to the job of improving play balance in China. If they don't, then we'll revisit this issue.

I'm ready to code this up unless I hear very loud complaints.

[c92nichj]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Unlimited Breakdown of Corps into Divisions

"Breakdown does not cause the parent unit to go back to the force pool until both divisions are destroyed (or rather one parent unit is returned to the force pool for every 2 divisions destroyed). Two units from a broken down corps are NOT allowed to stack in the same hex. "

This raises some questions.
1) Can I still build divisions? How many? The ones from the original game?
2) Can I reform two divisions into a corp? Does it have to be the same corp as I broke down? Or can I combine a built one with a broken down one?
3) Can I still stack two built dicisions in the same stack?
4) Will this change how the game is played outside China? For example unlimited italian & German divisions invading flying to UK and then reforms to corps there?

Just some initial thoughts.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: c92nichj

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Unlimited Breakdown of Corps into Divisions
"Breakdown does not cause the parent unit to go back to the force pool until both divisions are destroyed (or rather one parent unit is returned to the force pool for every 2 divisions destroyed). Two units from a broken down corps are NOT allowed to stack in the same hex. "

This raises some questions.
1) Can I still build divisions? How many? The ones from the original game?
2) Can I reform two divisions into a corp? Does it have to be the same corp as I broke down? Or can I combine a built one with a broken down one?
3) Can I still stack two built dicisions in the same stack?
4) Will this change how the game is played outside China? For example unlimited italian & German divisions invading flying to UK and then reforms to corps there?

(1) Yes. ---. Yes.
(2) Yes. No. Yes.
(3) Yes, if they are different unit types (e.g., artillery with an infantry division). Yes. if they are not in an enemy ZOC (this is required for reforming units).
(4) Well, maybe.

For #3, I might not have covered all the possibilities. I know I am leaving the "rules loophole" that you can retreat out of enemy ZOC (USSR in Barbarossa) and then put 2 divisional units in a hex. But that doesn't bother me. There might be other stuff.

For #4, to invade using divisional units from destroyers requires control of the sea areas, so I don't see that making much difference. If the CW player has lost control of the sea areas around Great Britain, the idiot is going to lose the game big time anyway. Flying in a lot of divisional units via ATRs means you have to control the skys (difficult but doable) and you have to have a pretty big beachhead to have hexes out of enemy ZOCs for reforming. Again, if the German player is able to acheive those two things, then the divisional arrivals seems like small potatoes.

[Froonp]

"Breakdown does not cause the parent unit to go back to the force pool until both divisions are destroyed (or rather one parent unit is returned to the force pool for every 2 divisions destroyed). Two units from a broken down corps are NOT allowed to stack in the same hex. "

This is to help prevent the abuse of the allocating damage solely to divisions.

Usually, when you try to abuse of the allocating damage solely to divisions, you put one division per stack. I don't see how what you wrote prevent you from taking any divisions losses you want. If you wanted to prevent this abuse, you would force them to stay stacked.
I don't neither see why they would not stack in the same place because they are from the same corps.
Moreover, when you break down a corps, the divisions appear where the corps was standing, stacked.

Now, there are still a couple of open questions.
(1) What do the divisions look like? Some are already in the counter mix but unlimited means that we would have to have an unlimited supply of divisions and I don't know what strengths they should have.

What ???
Hey, but the rulebook is giving you the answer here. The divisions strengh is given by the rule.
From 22.4.1 :
"Each corps or army breaks down into 1 division of the same type and 1 INF or MOT division (your choice).
When you break down a corps or army, you can select any divisions from your force pools but their total combat factors can’t exceed half (rounding up) those of the corps or army you break down."

A 3 strengh corps break down in 2 x 1 strengh divisions (who could reform) as a 3 strengh or less corps.
A 4 strengh corps break down in 2 x 1 strengh divisions (who could reform) as a 3 strengh or less corps.
A 5 strengh corps break down in a 1 strengh division and a 2 strengh division (who could reform) as a 5 strengh or less corps.
A 6 strengh corps break down in a 1 strengh division and a 2 strengh division (who could reform) as a 5 strengh or less corps.
A 7 strengh corps break down in a 2 x 2 strengh divisions (who could reform) as a 7 strengh or less corps.
A 8 strengh corps break down in a 2 x 2 strengh divisions (who could reform) as a 7 strengh or less corps.
A 9 strengh corps break down in a 2 strengh division and a 3 strengh division (who could reform) as a 9 strengh or less corps.
A 10 strengh corps break down in a 2 strengh division and a 3 strengh division (who could reform) as a 9 strengh or less corps.
A 11 strengh corps break down in a 2 x 3 strengh division (who could reform) as a 11 strengh or less corps.
A 12 strengh corps break down in a 2 x 3 strengh division (who could reform) as a 11 strengh or less corps.

As you can see, when you reform divisions, either you lose combat factors, either you get the same corps (small chances, see below). Moreover, the reforming takes place at the end of the production step, if they are not in an enemy ZOC so small chances of reforming divisions just after having invaded the enemy (be it England or North Africa) (to reply to c92nichj).

I might also add that the reformed corps is chosen randomly in the force pool, so there are small chances of not loosing strengh when reforming to a corps.

(2) Does this rule only apply to China and Japan? How about the USSR in Manchuria? How about the USA in the Pacific?

This rule should apply to everyone, including the Minor Countries.

If you include the provisio that the broken down corps cannot be rebuilt until the divisions are destroyed, there is no abuse you can make.

[Froonp]

Surprisingly, I have an easy answer to this one. Harry is having Michael Fisher review the CWIF map to validate it. We can just have Michael add a few more cities under Harry's direction. Since they headed up the task of creating the current CWIF map ,they are the ideal people to make these changes and we don't have to give it another thought until it gets play tested.

Great !
This is exactly what I hoped for ! [:D]
By the way ? Who is Michael Fisher ? Is he the guy who did the present CWiF map ?

[Greyshaft]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Flying in a lot of divisional units via ATRs means you have to control the skys (difficult but doable) and you have to have a pretty big beachhead to have hexes out of enemy ZOCs for reforming. Again, if the German player is able to acheive those two things, then the divisional arrivals seems like small potatoes.

Flying in suicide divisions to embarass the opposition could lead to unpredicatable consequences

* Germans v. Paris (but I guess if the French leave Paris unguarded they deserve to lose it)
* Russians v. capital of Axis minors
* any ungarrisoned hex with flipped air units
* etc.

Maybe the key is to give the divisions the ability to slow enemy units down rather than having the power to "take" a location. So the Germans need to drop a para corp on Paris to take the city but the value of the division is to take a hex adjacent to Paris to prevent the French reaching the city for a counter-attack.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Froonp
By the way ? Who is Michael Fisher ? Is he the guy who did the present CWiF map ?

Chris said that 10 to 15 people worked on the CWIF map under the direction of Harry. When I asked Harry how I could validate that the map was correct he said that Michael Fisher had been the main person and the he (Harry) would ask him (Michael) to take a look at it. That is the total sum of my knowledge on the topic.

After Michael has checked out the current CWIF map, I still want to compare it to the paper version hex by hex. I did that for Ireland and Great Britain and found a couple of differences. Scandanavia is massively different, which is when I stopped checking and asked Chris how it was created.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft
Flying in suicide divisions to embarass the opposition could lead to unpredicatable consequences

* Germans v. Paris (but I guess if the French leave Paris unguarded they deserve to lose it)
* Russians v. capital of Axis minors
* any ungarrisoned hex with flipped air units
* etc.

Maybe the key is to give the divisions the ability to slow enemy units down rather than having the power to "take" a location. So the Germans need to drop a para corp on Paris to take the city but the value of the division is to take a hex adjacent to Paris to prevent the French reaching the city for a counter-attack.

I need to do a better job of writing up the rules for unlimited divisional breakdown. I should have know that was required given the amount of 'spiritied' discussion it had gotten before. What I'll do over the weekend is try to make the text for the rule as complete as possible (trying to thwart the inevitable rules lawyers). Did I mention that rules lawyers tend to appear at the precise poiint in the game that a player is starting to lose? When faced with a hopeless (or even depressing) position in a game, my opponents tend to start reading the rules with tremendous interest and dilligence, looking for something that we haven't been playing 'correctly'. Oh well, old scars.

[Greyshaft]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Did I mention that rules lawyers tend to appear at the precise poiint in the game that a player is starting to lose?

Which brings to mind the infamous R5 rules war (think it was R5... maybe it wasn't so infamous if I can't remember it correctly[:D])

Two people playing WiF both with their own copy of the game and loudly correctly each other from the Rules manual and almost coming to blows until they put the manuals side by side and discovered that there had been a change to a rule slipstreamed into the rules manual at some point by Harry & Co. Trouble was, there was no point release indicated on their rules manual so they didn't know which was the "corrected" version. [:D]

If only I could remember the actual rule...

Good story anyway.

[Froonp]

After Michael has checked out the current CWIF map, I still want to compare it to the paper version hex by hex. I did that for Ireland and Great Britain and found a couple of differences. Scandanavia is massively different, which is when I stopped checking and asked Chris how it was created.

By the way, while you are writing about this, I remember that there is a MAJOR map difference on the European portion of the CWiF Map. There is an extra town, Hindenbourg iirc, which is southeast of Breslau.
I find this a very heavy departure from WiF FE. An extra German city in this area increases by 50% the number of reinforcement places for the eastern front, especially planes. I do not like this. I would like to be sure it is the original designers' will (Harry's) to add an extra German city here.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

After Michael has checked out the current CWIF map, I still want to compare it to the paper version hex by hex. I did that for Ireland and Great Britain and found a couple of differences. Scandanavia is massively different, which is when I stopped checking and asked Chris how it was created.

By the way, while you are writing about this, I remember that there is a MAJOR map difference on the European portion of the CWiF Map. There is an extra town, Hindenbourg iirc, which is southeast of Breslau.
I find this a very heavy departure from WiF FE. An extra German city in this area increases by 50% the number of reinforcement places for the eastern front, especially planes. I do not like this. I would like to be sure it is the original designers' will (Harry's) to add an extra German city here.

Ah, be careful. I have long since thought that I would ask for volunteers to do the comparison between the paper and computer map versions. And also volunteeers to check the unit manifests (paper versus computer). This is the kind of thing I usually do myself (I am very weird in many ways) but I keep coming around to the conclusion that I HAVE to delegate as many tasks as I can.

Any differences found could then be passed along to Harry for final disposition.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft
.
.
.
Good story anyway.

Does a die that lands on the floor count? If only one of the dice lands on the floor, does the second one also get rerolled or does it stay exactly as it is and only the one that landed on the floor get rerolled? How about a die that lands on a chair? If I cover the dice with my hand before anyone sees them, can I cancel the attack? What is the penalty for accidentally dragging your shirt sleeve across the entire Russian front? And what do you do with the Italian air unit you just found on the floor but you are sure was suppose to arrive as a reinforcement 6 months ago? These computers are going to take so much of the fun out of playing the game; don't you agree?

[Froonp]

Ah, be careful. I have long since thought that I would ask for volunteers to do the comparison between the paper and computer map versions. And also volunteeers to check the unit manifests (paper versus computer). This is the kind of thing I usually do myself (I am very weird in many ways) but I keep coming around to the conclusion that I HAVE to delegate as many tasks as I can.

Any differences found could then be passed along to Harry for final disposition.

Counter checking was done in october 98 by me and Bob Andriola. I'll send you the report in a PM so that you see the work. Should be checked again, especially for the units that changed in the countersheets since october 98, but I have the list of changes (I am an expert in lists of changes to WiF FE since its release in 1996 [:D]). I think I have copies of all the countersheets ever published.
The map was also checked, but less closely as I remember. Any person spotting a problem reported it back to Chris, who reported it back to Harry, who decided.
As far as I remember, the Hindenbourg city was left undecided.

[Froonp]

These computers are going to take so much of the fun out of playing the game; don't you agree?

Yes exactly what I was saying to my old fellow player Jérôme yesterday evening on the phone !!! We won't be able to laugh about each others too, and imitate Goering or Churchill giving orders !!! [:D]

[Caranorn]

I think MWiF should not deviate from the existing rules on breaking down corps to divisions except the obvious addition of having an unlimited number of divisions (for break downs, not for separate building). A division in MWiF should work exactly the same way as in WiF (if Harry decides to add a rule for corps level losses in WiF it should obviously be applied to MWiF...). I think this is the reason for Harry's confusion when you brought up unlimited corps breakdowns as that had already been agreed on and that it was assumed to use exactly teh same rules as in WiF currently.