Page 4 of 4
RE: China
Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2014 10:14 pm
by treespider
ORIGINAL: wdolson
ORIGINAL: treespider
Is my memory correct that those squad-type devices with an anti-soft of less than 11 still have an AV albeit at a 1 for 10 ratio?
So 10 squads with an anti-soft of 9 give you an AV of 1.
I don't have the code in front of me, but I believe squads with an anti-soft<10 are not counted for offensive AV calculations. They are counted on defense. The actual anti-soft and anti-armor numbers are used in the shooting against one another phase and a higher value gives a device more of a chance to inflict damage. In the assault phase, AV is just calculated by adding up devices with an anti-soft>9. So if you have 50 squads with an a-s value of 10, that is an AV of 50. If you have 50 squads with an a-s value of 20, it's still an AV of 50.
Bill
Thanks Bill. No worries. Now that I am home and had a chance to check there is a reference on page 196 of the manual that defending "support type squads" are counted as having an AV of 1/10th for odds calculations. I'll just run some tests later to figure it out...
RE: China
Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2014 10:47 am
by mind_messing
ORIGINAL: Symon
ORIGINAL: spence
The objective here appears to be to disable the proposition that Imperial Japan could simultaneously pursue victory in China and while attacking "everybody else" after failing to achieve victory in China ... blah, blah ...
The objective here is to make Chinese forces more grainy such that players can use them in the manner that Chaing did.
Frankly impossible within the context of WitP:AE.
Chaing knew he had a civil war to win once Japan was thrown out, and once the Americans entered the war, he was content to let them defeat Japan while he prepared for the clash with the Communists.
While I support a more historical OOB for the Chinese, and I think that making the government, regional and levy units distinct is a great idea, trying to make the Allies play China as Chaing did just won't work out. No competent Allied player will ever be as passive as the Chinese were in the real war, nor will they hold back from using the best equiped Chinese units on the front against the Japanese, rather than hoard them for the future civil war.
My suggestion is to focus on getting the OOB right, and forget about trying to force Chaing's unique strategic situation in to the game when the game has no capability or scope to handle it.
RE: China
Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2014 1:08 pm
by String
ORIGINAL: Symon
Then, of course, almost everybody will be short, and the only reinforcements are from levys, and only a very, very, few of them got any training.
Anyway, approaching a system.
Ciao. John
Do I understand correctly that if there are, say 3 types of chinese INF squads (elite, mediocre and poor) you are gonna get 550 poor, 40 mediocre and 10 elite replacements per month or something similar?
RE: China
Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2014 1:54 pm
by Symon
Suggest you ask someone else. They all seem to know better than I. Will not be posting on this subject any further.
RE: China
Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2014 6:31 pm
by castor troy
C'mon John. There was nothing going off track, why being upset?
RE: China
Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2014 10:30 pm
by wdolson
ORIGINAL: mind_messing
Frankly impossible within the context of WitP:AE.
Chaing knew he had a civil war to win once Japan was thrown out, and once the Americans entered the war, he was content to let them defeat Japan while he prepared for the clash with the Communists.
While I support a more historical OOB for the Chinese, and I think that making the government, regional and levy units distinct is a great idea, trying to make the Allies play China as Chaing did just won't work out. No competent Allied player will ever be as passive as the Chinese were in the real war, nor will they hold back from using the best equiped Chinese units on the front against the Japanese, rather than hoard them for the future civil war.
My suggestion is to focus on getting the OOB right, and forget about trying to force Chaing's unique strategic situation in to the game when the game has no capability or scope to handle it.
Mods are for these sorts of what ifs. Some people want to experiment with them, others don't.
There were many political situations that can't be accurately modeled within the game. ABDA had severe political problems that really hampered operations. As has been pointed out here, China was a political mess of byzantine proportions.
Bill
RE: China
Posted: Sat Apr 26, 2014 12:52 pm
by US87891
ORIGINAL: wdolson
ORIGINAL: mind_messing
Frankly impossible within the context of WitP:AE.
Chaing knew he had a civil war to win once Japan was thrown out, and once the Americans entered the war, he was content to let them defeat Japan while he prepared for the clash with the Communists.
While I support a more historical OOB for the Chinese, and I think that making the government, regional and levy units distinct is a great idea, trying to make the Allies play China as Chaing did just won't work out. No competent Allied player will ever be as passive as the Chinese were in the real war, nor will they hold back from using the best equiped Chinese units on the front against the Japanese, rather than hoard them for the future civil war.
My suggestion is to focus on getting the OOB right, and forget about trying to force Chaing's unique strategic situation in to the game when the game has no capability or scope to handle it.
Mods are for these sorts of what ifs. Some people want to experiment with them, others don't.
There were many political situations that can't be accurately modeled within the game. ABDA had severe political problems that really hampered operations. As has been pointed out here, China was a political mess of byzantine proportions.
Bill
I don’t agree with John’s decision to go dark with this addendum.
It is not a what if scenario. It is a step towards a more realistic appraisal of the Chinese OOB and its internal organizational and equipment structure.
The unit structure and composition itself will imply the uses of the several different unit types.
This is an area we have been concerned with at A&M and fully support John’s efforts on our behalf.
Matt
RE: China
Posted: Sat Apr 26, 2014 1:11 pm
by treespider
I guess he got all cantankerous because some of us presumed to discuss our takes on the China syndrome in his thread. For that, I guess I should apologize.
For my part I am looking forward to his take on China as I am in the process (slow as it might be) of working toward the same goal of a grainier representation of the Chinese OOB. I depart from the DBB system by adding in other elements to restrict the freedom of action on both sides.
RE: China
Posted: Sat Apr 26, 2014 1:41 pm
by US87891
ORIGINAL: treespider
I guess he got all cantankerous because some of us presumed to discuss our takes on the China syndrome in his thread. For that, I guess I should apologize.
For my part I am looking forward to his take on China as I am in the process (slow as it might be) of working toward the same goal of a grainier representation of the Chinese OOB. I depart from the DBB system by adding in other elements to restrict the freedom of action on both sides.
You are not a problem. John respects your research. Some of the students have used URLs, sent from John, as a source on the China-Defense forum and in papers.
Matt
RE: China
Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2014 10:50 am
by mind_messing
ORIGINAL: Symon
Suggest you ask someone else. They all seem to know better than I. Will not be posting on this subject any further.
[8|]
RE: China
Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2014 5:42 pm
by Symon
[;)]
RE: China
Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2014 7:48 pm
by mind_messing
ORIGINAL: Symon
[;)]
You do realize that discussion on a topic is not, by default, a bad thing...don't you?
RE: China
Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2014 5:34 am
by LoBaron
John, I like the idea.
I also - a long time ago - toyed with the idea of splitting China into a large central region and warlord areas, very similar to what Mike suggested. Combine that with your well thought out OOB changes, split them into temp restricted commands for each area, and this could lead to an very static China with a simple classic "pay PP for crossing borders" HR.
The supply demand and the border crossing HR puts the brakes on any Allied offensive capability (without crippling the PP pool that is), while the increased total OOB keeps the IJA from overrunning China.
I imagine the result could be too high cost for waging war on a grand scale in this TOO, for both sides, and as a result stabilize the area in PBEM.
RE: China
Posted: Thu May 01, 2014 4:17 pm
by Mac Linehan
John, Gents -
I have always wanted to make China a more interesting and active Theatre. Am too inept as a scenario designer - I will leave the details and concepts to the Big Boys.
I have absolute faith that the Babes Team will deliver (they always have) - and it will be good.
Treespider your input always knowledgeable and valued; Matt - great to see you back on the forum!
Deeply appreciate the very active discourse on this thread, am, as always, learning much.
Mac