Japanese grand strategy

[AmiralLaurent]

As in any wargame, WITP is using the same mechanisms to simulate 50 men fighting 50 or 50 000 fighting 60 000 and that is the problem. But all wargames do that. In real life, each unit in the hex should attack an opposing unit and each fight should be resolved separately.

As for the 25% losses, I strongly guess it is depending of the ratio of the successfull attack. See Japanese pushed out from Changsha in one of my games after a 4 to 1 Chinese schock attack and they all lost 17-18 % of their TOE.

This is a major defeat for Japan but certainly not a major victory for China. Chinese still lack the supplies to recover their disrupted units or the engineers to destroy Japanese fortifications.

[moses]

17-18 % of TOE is a huge loss for a single days battle. Sure China will not roll through Japan but you do this to 7 or 8 Jap divisions and the offensive is over. So in that sence it is decisive. Now China will build up its troops in relative safty and in 5 or 6 months start to roll.

I'm not hung up on the 25% figure. 15% of a large force is a big loss when the winner takes no loses.

If your force had some chance of success at the start now at 15% less strength, lower morale, more fatigue etc. what chance do they have in the second battle.

Will see how the retreat tests come out.

[Nikademus]

This is true. I dont really have a problem with it. Abstraction at this scale is necessary. The "Trick" of course is to avoid situations where you get greater than 2-3:1 odds. Very few in my game because we are both careful. My opponent tried to do this in the PI with a counterattack (he likes his shock attacks) But the gambit failed [:-] [:D]

the Modified odds indicator tells you how badly the choice you made or how badly you were outmatched.

[WiTP_Dude]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: WiTP_Dude

The only problem is the railroad did exist. Removing it would be gamey.

Yes and so did capturing supplies from the enemy to use against them....but if the results produce ahistorical effects more than they produce historical ones....sometimes you have to go with the lesser evil.

I think the Japanese often attacked places with the goal of finding food to eat. Though obviously other supply stuff like oil and ammo wouldn't be there. So the amount of supply captured should be cut by a random percentage.

If the railroad in China is to be removed, so should the Indian one as it is reported this is causing problems too. Better yet, fix the railroad system so it works more like a railroad system instead of a fast road. Speed it up but put a limit on how much equipment can move per turn.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: WiTP_Dude

I think the Japanese often attacked places with the goal of finding food to eat. Though obviously other supply stuff like oil and ammo wouldn't be there. So the amount of supply captured should be cut by a random percentage.

Yes, they did....so did the Chinese armies. They were described as "locusts" in Louis Allen's Book on Burma, and was one reason why they were not exactly welcomed by the native populations when they moved in there. Such a rule would be required for the Chinese as well. Given that it would require more code, its not likely to happen.

If the railroad in China is to be removed, so should the Indian one as it is reported this is causing problems too. Better yet, fix the railroad system so it works more like a railroad system instead of a fast road. Speed it up but put a limit on how much equipment can move per turn.

Yes, coupled with the supply point bonanza one gains by capturing empty or lightly held city/bases, players appear to often be able to ignore lines of communication and supply and can run around the map. Affects both sides and large and small scales. Kid was able to drive me to distraction by landing small fragments in undefended rear areas. As long as he could take at least one base, he could keep running around in supply. India, its the same principle save on a larger scale.

I think having supply mostly destroyed when a base falls would fix part of the problem. As for rail....trickier. I dont know how the dev's would be able to institute a rail transport limit without ripping out the entire LCU framework in the process. In the end there arnt' really any "railroads" at all in the game...just terrain values that government movement rates.

[Feinder]

I think it's an intersting observation that a discussion on "Japanese Grand Strategy" has devolved into a a discussion about "Chinese Strategy".

Should it?
-F-

[tsimmonds]

I dont know how the dev's would be able to institute a rail transport limit without ripping out the entire LCU framework in the process.

You don't have to rip out anything, just add a new kind of LCU: trains.[;)] They can carry other LCUs. Have to load up and unload, just like AP. Have a capacity, just like AP. They move fast on railroads, while everything else moves slower, like on a regular road.

I know, I know. [:'(]

[Nikademus]

I'll put it on the list, right after Blimps.....[;)]

[moses]

Nikademus

I think having supply mostly destroyed when a base falls would fix part of the problem.

I agree. Its too easy to supply far-flung operations in the game without bothering to bring your own supply.

Supply represents many things in the game many of which are uncapturable such as replacements. Also players have only limited control over supply flow on land. So evacuation of supply overland is difficult to accomplish.

[Rossj]

Mogami i've read alot on the topic as well...even before playing pacwar or witp...and regardless of whether the war was inspired by IJA or IJN...

the bottomline is it was all because of china...so the game should be improved to better simulate this theater...

we've touched on japan's grand strategy throughout this thread...

china had to be isolated if IJA was to have a chance to win...
IJA occupation of indochina...
embargo...
war to neutralize u.s. fleet and seize sra...
burma to cutoff china...
finish china off (as best they could)...
unfortunately for japan they never completely cutoff china or were able to deploy sufficient resources to finish them off...

but just because they couldn't do it doesn't mean it couldn't be done...if they were more aggressive at changsa and made a 300,000 man assault in spring/summer 42 IJA may have broken the stalemate...

could they have pulled a one division from each of the following areas: sea, dei, pi, sopac, home islands, manchuria without jeopardizing their control of those areas...if it were possible then they would have suceeded at changsa and the opening chinese perimeter would have been pushed back several cities...of course your probalbe response is china still would have fought on and the u.s. would still overwhelm japan in 43 and beyond..

i suspect you're right.

[Tanaka]

I noticed China in Andrew Browns map mod is very different from that of the original game map. Has anyone that is using Andrew's map noticed improvement of these issues being discussed in the China Front in your game???

[mogami]

Hi, I'm not going to debate whether Japan could have taken Changsha (or any other Chinese forward city) before 1944.

I'm in favor of letting him try. As long as he pays PP for units from Manchuria and the Soviet OB and deployment is fixed so they activate if Manchuria garrison too low.
Add as long as Chinese OB reflect the fact they could respond to 300k Japanese with 300k (or more) Chinese then everything is fine by me.

I disagree with Japanese players who want to score the VP required to win the game in China. But they should be free to make the attempt. I don't know if the answer is lowering the VP award for bases in China or increasing the ones already owned by Japan. (This would make it risky to move defending units away to mass force else where.)

In short I don't think Japan could defeat China by force. I think Japan proved that.
You have to understand that Japan did make an all out effort from 1931 to 1941 the Japanese Army grew to a size that taxed the Japanese abilty to support it.

The Japanese economy could not support war production once the embargo went into place. Steel was the vital material in this and the SRA/China/Manchuria did not supply it.
Steel was imported from the USA. Japan went the entire war with more capacity to make steel then iron to turn into steel.
Expanding the war, taking all of China and the SRA would not change this.

Japan always intended on settling the war by diplomacy once she had secured the SRA. The SRA was to allow Japan to fight long enough to close the supply line to China and force the Chinese to come to terms.

Then with China settled Japan could offer a return of Indo China and SRA with agreements to trade for materials and a renewal of shipments from USA for steel prodution. The end result would be a Japan secure in her holdings in Manchuria/Korea/China with access under favorable terms to material from SRA and USA. Then Japanese building programs could keep parity with USN/RN.

Of course there was never any chance that such settlements would be agreed to by the Western Alliance and as a result no settlement with China. (The Chinese would have refused peace with Japan even if Japan had forced them into the Himalayas)

So the question to ask is "Is there any postive value to Japan expanding holdings in China post 1941?"
Since no material not already in Japans control will be obtained and since more territory required expanding the already over extended Japanese Army and economy there is no point. The only value is VP awarded by the WITP system. So I think these might require adjustment.
In my personl Scenario I am not awarding points for bases. (anywhere on map not just China)
My victory conditions are simple.
Japan wins the game by not surrendering and the Allies win the game by making Japan surrender. There is no draw except one agreed to by players.

[Rossj]

i don't know about that, but i think that after it is tested that it should be included in an upgrade along with oob updates and supply fixes if warranted

[mogami]

Hi, I understand the need for a game to have victory points. I just don't think in a game between two humans they are needed.

In Chess the pieces have point values assigned in order to gauge the material ratio between the two players. Victory is not decided according to these totals however because the value of the peices cannot be calculated independant of the postion on the board.
A Queen about to be sacrificed in order to allow the sacrificing player to deliever mate is both priceless and valueless (It will provide no benifit to the player who captures it and loses the game as a result)

Since the value of any base, ship, land unit, or number of aircraft cannot be predicted before the game begins I don't accept the notion of giving a value to them. Prehaps if value could go up or down depending on operations then points would be OK but in the end I think the game should hinge on the willingness and ability of a player to continue to fight.

Japan should surrender when
1. It can no longer produce supply in quanity suffiecent to meet the basic requirements of her military forces.

This is very simple to see and understand. You could fight an entire war either to stop Japanese prodution or prolong it. Both sideswould know when the condition was met.
The value of everything else would be relative.
Of course I'd still keep track of lost material I just would not award points.

[moses]

Mogami:

So the question to ask is "Is there any postive value to Japan expanding holdings in China post 1941

The value is the freeing up of all those divisions to rampage about in Malaya and India. I'm talking about the game not real life.

I rarely worry about VP's either.

[Rossj]

i don't think there needs to be victory points at all...it's pretty obvious when one side has achieved victory in the campaign game...I'm with you on this...in fact, before the last patch I increased the VP value of west coast cities so the japanese couldn't achieve a decisive victory in 1/43 thus ending the game...I just want to take the game as far as I can and explore different strategies without achieving artificial results that lead to a game victory that was completely impossible in the real world.

[Captain Cruft]

There's no way the game mechanics will ever evolve enough to begin to cope with the large scale ground wars properly. House Rules are the only way to deal with it IMHO.

Has anyone ever tried to simulate the "Japanese Land Wars" properly? Either board game or computer I mean. I think it's a fascinating area, but I suppose you'd really have to cover 1868-1945 to give it justice

[Nikademus]

Drum roll please



Test subject. Yankee RCT regiment. (Defender LCU made to retreat vs. stronger foe)

Infantry squads - 200
Combat Eng squads - 20
81mm mort. - 20
4.2in mort. - 20
37AT - 20
75Pack How -20
Eng squads - 20
Support - 300

Exp = 70
Morale = 70
Leader = 70
Disruption/Fatigue = 0

Terrain. Jungle - Fort=0

Each test will involve changing one variable only. So any previous changed variable goes back to default unless otherwise noted.

X(Y) =Active/disabled device Z=destroyed device total



Test 1: Odds=2:1

133(27) 40
4(3) 13
14(5) 1
15(4) 1
11(7) 2
3(3) 14
6(1) 13
218(25) 57


Test 2: (change starting Fatigue to 50) Odds=39:1

120(39) 41
0(6) 14
14(5) 1
8(10) 2
7(9) 4
4(3) 13
6(1) 13
215(27) 58

Test 3: (change starting Fatigue to 99) Odds=6:1

141(21) 38
6(1) 13
16(3) 1
13(5) 2
15(4) 1
6(1) 13
4(3) 13
221(22) 57

Test 4: (change Morale to 20) Odds=5:1

140(22) 38
6(1) 13
16(3) 1
17(3) 0
16(4) 0
6(1) 13
3(5) 12
216(28) 56

Test 5: (change Exp to 20) Odds=95:1

84(36) 80
0(4) 16
7(6) 7
0(9) 11
7(8) 5
1(4) 15
4(2) 14
138(46) 116

Test 6: (repeat of 5 only attack with 1 enemy Div vs 2 (to test modified combat odds) Odds=5:1

90(36) 74
3(2) 15
16(2) 2
15(2) 3
17(2) 1
6(1) 13
2(4) 14
223(21) 56


Change Terrain to Clear hex non-base

Test 7: (default as per Test 1) Odds=5:1

139(22) 39
15(3) 2
15(4) 1
18(2) 0
18(2) 0
14(4) 2
15(3) 2
225(19) 56


Test 8: (Change exp to 20) Odds=7:1

99(26) 75
9(6) 5
17(3) 0
20 0
20 0
15(2) 3
14(3) 3
150(37) 113

Test 9: (reduce starting supply to 0) Odds= 7:1

149(14) 37
15(2) 3
20 0
19(1) 0
19(1) 0
15(2) 3
15(2) 3
225(18) 57

Test 10 (Change exp to 99, Fatigue to 50) Odds=6:1

139(22) 39
12(5) 3
13(6) 1
16(3) 1
16(3) 1
10(7) 3
14(4) 2
222(21) 57

Test 11 (change Leader to 20 (overall/inspiration/land/admin/aggressive)) Odds = 31:1

124(34) 42
6(10) 4
13(6) 1
11(7) 2
11(7) 2
9(8) 3
13(5) 2
220(24) 56


Conclusion

1.Variables that do not influence squad/gun loss: (1st retreat at least)

Leader
Morale
Fatigue
Disruption
Terrain*
Supply state

*- gun disablement/loss seems influenced a bit, but not squads

2. Variables that do influence squad/gun loss:

EXPERIENCE

3. Modified odds results do NOT indicate degree of shatter of LCU

4. Listed casualties of the retreating unit reflect only the actual battle losses/disablements, not those caused by retreat. (i.e. you cant go by them to see how badly messed up your retreater is)



These little tests seem to prove a little pet theory i had had as to why China gets the rub. The common factor that stood out to me right away was that the Chinese units generally have low experience and morale.....i figured one or the other was a primary cause of permament losses and these tests would seem to vindicate that. It makes sense in a way as the less experienced a unit, the more likely it would be to disintigrate if it got forced back on it's haunches (one might consider the "lost" squads in China's case to be deserters more than actual casualties as this often "did" happen when a Chinese unit was hit hard and forced into flight by the Japanese)

Better experienced units retain more cohesiveness after being forced out of a hex (as well as fighting better...there was a reason why Test 10 had to have the defender at 50% fatigue (it was kicking ass))

[moses]

Nikademus:

4. Listed casualties of the retreating unit reflect only the actual battle losses/disablements, not those caused by retreat. (i.e. you cant go by them to see how badly messed up your retreater is)

So they lose even more than what you list here? Is that correct? You're already showing 20% losses in every cases. So you saying that the test results you list are before any losses to retreat? Actual losses are even higher??

[moses]

Thanks for running these tests.[:)]

The facts are now undeniable. This part of the combat system is clearly a problem.

Let me summerize: An infantry unit starting with Zero disabled squads, zero fatigue, and zero disruption with good experience, morale and leadership. (How often do you get this good situation as the defender?)
Even in this best case the retreater takes about 20% killed troops.

Let me fill in a key gap that Nikademus did not mention. (correct me if I'm wrong) Attackers took zero kills. (I don't have Nikademus's results on this but I'll bet anything that if they lost anything if was like one squad and I doubt they even lost one.)

In an actual sitiuation you have disabled squads at the start and so defender will take even higher kills than the 20% in the tests.

Also interesting: Supply, fatigue, morale apparently do not matter.

So the problem I've been harping on does exist. Retreat equals death. The defenders take massive losses, the attacker takes none. So once the attacker gets the first retreat he just keeps rolling over the remnants of whatever the defender has left.

So the question now is how to fix it.