Bombing of Chinese HI, Res, Oil?

[spence]

I have read in quite a number of places that as a nation Japan was wearying of the war in China by 1941.  Though the IJA might daily report glorious victories over the Chinese, the amount of territory actually controlled was determined at any given moment by the locations of each Japanese soldier.  Doing a little research I came across the figure of 186,000 Japanese military dead lost in China between 1937-41.  Even with such a exaggerated sense of fatalism as Japan and its military possessed in the 1930s and 40s that is not an insignificant figure and would undoubtably at least double to reflect the seriously wounded in the total casualties. 
 
Japan sought ultimately to conquer China or at least make a peace with China which allowed it to maintain its hold on the resources and markets it had conquered there.  Much like Hitler turning to conquer Russia as an indirect way of bringing about a peace with the British the Japanese sought a quick and victorious war against the US/Allies so as to force China to make such a peace as they desired.
 
The present game allows the Japanese too much operational latitude for China.  By the time the game begins they'd already had 4 years to bomb Chinese industry and resources with the whole of their air forces and had neither forced the Chinese to the peace table nor strangled the ability of the Chinese to keep an "Army" in the field to oppose them.  That "Army" wasn't much of an Army but IMHO the HI, resources, and oil centers in the game are mostly abstractions to allow the Chinese units to function within the same supply system as every other nation's function. (that is without creating a more realistic but totally different supply system for the Chinese).   Thus "bombing China into submission" or "bombing them back in to the stone age" was not, realistically, an option for the Japanese.     
 

[Halsey]

A few months after the game came out, it was stated by Matrix designers that these were put in to give China some organic ability to survive.

Their answer to this attacking of China's resources and supply generation was this.
We didn't think they would be attacked. After all, that's not how we play.[:D]

Anyone else besides me remember this?[;)]
Matrix used this answer for a lot of this games miswired mechanics.

[33Vyper]

ORIGINAL: Halsey

A few months after the game came out, it was stated by Matrix designers that these were put in to give China some organic ability to survive.

Their answer to this attacking of China's resources and supply generation was this.
We didn't think they would be attacked. After all, that's not how we play.[:D]

Anyone else besides me remember this?[;)]
Matrix used this answer for a lot of this games miswired mechanics.

I do recall this.....I think the bottom line answer here is that there is not solution within the current model that will fix the problem. Each user must make a decision for themseleves as to how to deal with this matter....hence 'house rules'.

Find someone that agrees with your interpretation of how the war should be fought and play with them. I for one do not generally consider it gamey....however it would not preclude me from playing with someone who does.

To me gamey is staying around PH after turn one to sink every single ship at dock and to pound the hell out of the shipyards. Again....'house rule'.

Let's just face it...most of us know the pacific war inside and out...we know the ships their capabilities...the land and air units. Outside of forcing each side to make historical moves there is no way to ensure that the 'game' aspect will not show up.

Well that is just me 2 1/2 cents

[Halsey]

It's good to remember that this game is not an historical representation of the Pacific War.[;)]

Sometimes it's hard to remember this when you think you're getting gamed.

"Be excellent to each other".
This goes out the window when design flaws are interpreted as plausible, but not historic, strategies.

My 2 cents.[;)]

[erstad]

ORIGINAL: Halsey

A few months after the game came out, it was stated by Matrix designers that these were put in to give China some organic ability to survive.

Their answer to this attacking of China's resources and supply generation was this.
We didn't think they would be attacked. After all, that's not how we play.[:D]

Anyone else besides me remember this?[;)]
Matrix used this answer for a lot of this games miswired mechanics.

I wasn't active on the boards then, but this answer makes no sense to me.

A city can be set to generate supply, and several of the cities already do so. If your ony goal is to give China an edge (or more accurately blunt the Japanese edge), this would seem to be a better way to give China supply for several reasons:
- Can't bomb these supply generators
- If Japan captures them, they are supposed to stop producing.

[Halsey]

I didn't design the game.[:D]

This was the designer's fix.
They didn't envision players doing what was actually never done.
That was the premise behind quite a few of their design decisions.[;)]
 
This was all done to prop up the weak logistics portion of the game. 

[Speedysteve]

My take is that it's gamey. It's an individual preference thing for sure but my theory is that it would be impossible for Japan to starve China TOTALLY. Far too many rice paddies to bomb[;)]
 
As such in my game bombing Chinese industry is a no no

[dtravel]

ORIGINAL: erstad

ORIGINAL: Halsey

A few months after the game came out, it was stated by Matrix designers that these were put in to give China some organic ability to survive.

Their answer to this attacking of China's resources and supply generation was this.
We didn't think they would be attacked. After all, that's not how we play.[:D]

Anyone else besides me remember this?[;)]
Matrix used this answer for a lot of this games miswired mechanics.

I wasn't active on the boards then, but this answer makes no sense to me.

A city can be set to generate supply, and several of the cities already do so. If your ony goal is to give China an edge (or more accurately blunt the Japanese edge), this would seem to be a better way to give China supply for several reasons:
- Can't bomb these supply generators
- If Japan captures them, they are supposed to stop producing.

My guess is that they didn't do that because they didn't add the code for non-HI supply sources until after they had "done" China and then didn't take the time to go back and re-do it.

[RUPD3658]

I bomb those cities that I need to to further the collapse of China. Simply bombing everything defeats the purpose of invading in the first place.

Changsha and Yenan I contest early with the intention of capturing as much intact as possible.

Lunchow and Sian I intend to take intact and thus leave alone.

Kunming and Wuhan are in the bombsights from day 1. This weakens the supply chain and allows the ablove listed cities to be taken easier.

Chungking and Chengtu get bombed once I am in range. Their 300/day organic supply make them impossible to totally neutralize.

I also use paratroops and an advance into Burma to cut the Burma road ASAP.

The Allied ability to turn the skies of Burma dark with 4E bombers supplies by limitless supply from Karachi balances this out.

As with all things in the game it is best to discuss upfront with your opponant what you plan on doing and if they are OK with it. True gameyness is planning on doing something that exploits the system without first asking your opponant if he is OK with it or asking for house rules that only help your side. In my game with KDonovan I agreed to not sail past Singapore until it was captured and that no units could enter/exit China without changing command. Without these I would have taken Malaya in 2 weeks and India shortly thereafter. I also agreed not to land in Karachi and cut off his reinforcements.

The fits I am giving him in Chaina he is paying me back elsewhere with mines (12 ships sunk by March 42), 4E bombers, and well timed surface actions. This what makes the game a challange and fun.

[Hoplosternum]

It also depends on what the IJ player is going to do if he captures China. He might just hold it for the points that just makes an allied win harder. But we don't really know how hard it is to get the points in the full game yet to see what effect this would have.

If however he is going to use those divisions to either overwhelm India or Russia afterwards then this is going to have a big impact on the game.

Is it worth a house rule? Probably not. But then I have not seen China wiped out in any of my games so far. I've got closest in my game as Japan [:)] I have not used this strategy and only one of my opponents has used it on me (and then he started very late).

It is pretty much unstoppable though. I usually keep all or most of the AVG in China. And I added some UK squadrons when one of my opponent started bombing my resources. But after the SRA is secured the Japanese can put a lot of bombers and fighters in to China. And he can hit you where you aint.

Once damaged you cannot afford any repair. He can just chip away and change bases to avoid the AVG (if he does not simply overwhelm it). The allies lack the air support to quickly transfer large numbers of fighters to the base under attack even if they can gather the numbers and quality of the Japanese attackers. Shorter allied ranges, even of the much vaunted P40B, means a LCAP strategy is largely ineffective.

If you think the fall of China is likely to be exploited then you might want to consider a house rule. China has supply problems even with the resorces, never mind without them.

[jeffs]

RUDP hit the nail on the head
 
As with all things in the game it is best to discuss upfront with your opponant what you plan on doing and if they are OK with it. True gameyness is planning on doing something that exploits the system without first asking your opponant if he is OK with it or asking for house rules that only help your side.
 
In a game this complicated, there will be rules that distort history/historical results. Some of these just mean that historically they were not done, but were possible...
 
Whether or not such things should be allowed really depends on the players. Things should be discussed within a framework and if players agree then it should be open. For example, in the AAR, one of the more extreme games is with Nemo. They have an extremely open game that Nemo exploited to the max. Many people were rather vociferous in their disapproval of such tactics. That said, his opponent said outright he is enjoying the game immensely and as he agreed to it, he has no problem with it. While I would not play a game with such rules, it is not my call. What 2 consenting adults do in the privacy of their own rooms and PCs is not my business!
 
That said, the problem is when a certain tactic that is ahistorical is done without the discussion....So discuss beforehand (it is harder for newbies as many do not understand various tactics). But it is gamey only if it really has not been discussed (let`s face it, sub invasions if not specifically ALLOWED are sleazy) ....
 
But if 2 people agree, I think that should end it....
 
As for me, I would think a deal where no HI destruction for no 4e bombers is a fair deal. But hey, that is just me....

[mogami]

Hi, While our newer forum members might think Matrix made after release excuses for China and game exploits those of us who have been around know better.
Long before game was released while testing I posted AAR and suggested limits (or house rules) that we were using as game deveolped and was tested.

From 7-25-2001 (3 years before game was released. ) addressing the problem of using a model for air/naval combat and small scale (relative)land combat to fight the massive battle resulting from attempting to fight in China.

"I know you can't make everyone happy. I wish that people would remember the game is called Pacific War not China War or 'The Great India Invasion game."

For more then a year before release AAR from game were posted on forums. None of them contained bombing of Chinese resource and when asked the answer was always "do not bomb Chinese resource centers if you wish to bomb Chinese supply bomb the airfields"

I think it would be better to have designed a game that players were unable to exploit. (I've never seen a game like that myself but it would be best to design them like that)

when some of these limitations were acknowledged before release one wise poster responded "Japanese players will be unable to restrain themselves"

Mike Scholl even pointed out that the exploits would become strategy.
They were both correct however before the game was released starting in late 2002 persons following development were made aware of the design intent and the results posted in AAR were always produced by testers who publicly tested the intent and not the exploits.

[Halsey]

[:D][:D][:D]

[Nikademus]

I think it would be better to have designed a game that players were unable to exploit. (I've never seen a game like that myself but it would be best to design them like that)

There is no such animal.

[mogami]

Hi, From 2003 (a year before release)
We're going to get hammered..., because a lot of players
WANT Japan to be a "super power" in 1941 so they can "win" the War

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

I think it would be better to have designed a game that players were unable to exploit. (I've never seen a game like that myself but it would be best to design them like that)

There is no such animal.

Chess? Checkers? a bit abstract for wargames, i'll admit...

[mogami]

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

I think it would be better to have designed a game that players were unable to exploit. (I've never seen a game like that myself but it would be best to design them like that)

There is no such animal.

Chess? Checkers? a bit abstract for wargames, i'll admit...

Hi, computer versions of Chess do have exploits. Mostly concerning the AI and closed positions that exist for many moves. They are refered to as "computer moves" ( A move a human employs against a computer that he would not use against another human)

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

ORIGINAL: Nikademus



There is no such animal.

Chess? Checkers? a bit abstract for wargames, i'll admit...

Hi, computer versions of Chess do have exploits. Mostly concerning the AI and closed positions that exist for many moves. They are refered to as "computer moves" ( A move a human employs against a computer that he would not use against another human)

Try it against Deep Blue... [:D]

i was thinking we were speaking of human vs. human play. Lots of exploits against the AI in this game, but they aren't really worth discussing.

EDIT: Interesting about the computer moves, though...

[mogami]

Hi, In "Blitz" games Deep Blue does very well even against top human Grand masters. In games where normal time controls (40 moves in 120 minutes) are used Kasparov has in fact used a number of "computer" moves and won. (He has never lost a game against Deep Blue in normal time control) A few of the games are quite amusing once Deep Blue gets confused.

There are exploits against humans as well but they are considered bad forum to employ.
a few examples

Fisher-Petrosian Bobby kept whisting the "col Bogie march" during Tigrans moves. Tigran countered by turning off his hearing aid and so Bobby resorted to kicking him under the table.

Alekine-Bogo Alekine provided free beer to Bogo

Morphy-Anderson Anderson refused to move a piece (in era before clocks and a main reason clocks were introduced into match play)(It made Morphy insane)

[Nikademus]

My all time favorite exploit still comes from War in Russia. A player realized he could supply a mostly empty or small Panzer corp soley by air transport and then have the corp go romping through the Soviet rear area lines using Panzer movement (even if the corp had no tanks) to cut vital rail lines forcing the collapse of entire fronts.

The only thing even more amusing was the massive debate it sparked due to some players claiming it wasn't a real exploit and was possible in RL.