Japanese grand strategy

[Rossj]

Interesting test...

so short of an even bigger and more complexed game, how can the various points made in this thread improve the land combat simulation wrt china?

This is my score card so far...

Improved China OOB, ditto russia
Better morale for some chinese units (?)
Revised supply system (captured supply, food vs Avgas/ammo)
Revised rail movement system
Broaden/more realistic garrison requirements
Improved map
Reduced/reallocated VP for chinese cities
A few protcols as to when russia can be invaded

there may be others and some of these will have a more profound effect than others

I suspect many don't care about this or they feel that self imposed player restrictions take care of the problem. I think if some of these upgrades improve the realism of the simulation they should be incorporated. The issue isn't whether the IJA had written china off, we already know what the result of japan's original grand strategy was...The issue is can a player try something that might alter the outcome in a way that is feasible as opposed to gamey.

[Nikademus]

Refresher on the orig test parameters and the results of Test 1:

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 12: (change LCU to 50% disabled) Odds = 22:1

64(91) 45
0(5) 15
9(9) 2
6(10) 4
6(10) 4
2(2) 16
3(4) 13
111(122) 67



Test 13: (same as test 12 only reduce starting supply to zero) Odds = 10:1

68(87) 45
2(4) 14
4(10) 6
4(11) 5
6(9) 5
0(5) 15
2(3) 15
113(120) 67


Seems that disablements are NOT automatically destroyed if an LCU is forced to retreat nor do they increase the permanent loss when a unit retreats (least the first time)

[Feinder]

Sorry, but what was wrong with stacking limits? This thread is now 16 pages long, and it's easy to loose stuff.

I think I saw the argument that if you made the limit 4 Divs/Corps they Japanese could just put 4 Divs on every island, and they Allies would never win, because they couldn't invade anything with more than 4 Divs...

a. If there's 4 Divs on an island, you're right, I won't invade anything. Allied LBA can just pound the crap out of them, and bypass them all together. Hm, that's exactly what the Allies historically did at Truk.
b. If there's 4 Divs on an island, and you really wanted to invade the thing, pound, bombard, surround, choke, kill, destory, strangle. 4 Divs need a lot of supplies. If you cut it off and strangle it like you're supposed to, the Divs will be a many negative modifiers for disruption, low supply, low moral, fatigue, etc. If you land with 4 large Divs fully prepped and fresh, things are better.

Other stacking limitation idea B:
Why not just say a maximum (unadjusted) assault strength, using the maximum assault strength in the OB. Using the max assault strength in the OB, assures that the units won't "grow" beyond the stacking limitation when they pull replacements. Using the unadjusted assault strenght, still allows the attacker of an island to overwhelm the defenders, because the defenders -adjusted- assualt strenght will be lowered from supply, moral, fatigue, etc.

Other stacking limitation idea C:
Or you could have "steps", wich roughly equate regiments (like when you divide a unit).
Brigade = 2 steps
Div = 3 steps
Corps = 3 steps
HQs = 2 steps
Base forces, Eng units, Def Btns, SLNF = 1 step
You could have a max of say 12 steps or whatever.

-F-

[moses]

Here's a simple example of the problem. Consider Guadelcanal (sp?).

It's a big island. I dont remember exactly but something like 50 miles long, 10 miles wide? How many troops can go there now. 2000 men per square mile is not very crowded. So thats 1,000,000 men? So 40 divisions can go there? Not likely. Maybe we should just consider some area in the vicinity of Henderson field. So what should this area be?

On the atolls you have a problem just as difficult because the number of troops that can be placed there is a function of the "useable" area of the atol and the level of fortification. This usable area is going to be a debatable topic for each specific island.

Plus how in the world do you determine what the attacker can bring since at the battles start he controls 0% of the atoll.

[rtrapasso]

It's a big island. I dont remember exactly but something like 50 miles long, 10 miles wide?

Guadalcanal is 90 x 25 miles - or something like 2000+ sq miles so we could put 4,000,000 men at 2000/sq mile!! At 15,000 men/div (not including aux. units) we could fit about 267 divisions there (is the Wehrmacht available?)[:D]

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso
we could fit about 267 divisions there (is the Wehrmacht available?)[:D]

Slated for 1.6 [;)]