The Full Monty

[Mike Scholl]

.....if it is so easy to do in December of 1941, why weren't they
able to do it in January of '41? What worries me is a "slipped
through the cracks" situation like occurred in the old SPI board
game. Japanese players regularly used the "First turn Suprise"
Rules to launch major offensives in China. And after 5 years of
war, the idea of "suprising" the Chinese is silly. Just wondered
if something like that was at work here. I know the Chinese
weren't exactly first-rate (or even second-rate); but there were
a hell of a lot of them and after 5 years of trying the Japanese
were locked in a stalemated quagmire they couldn't win and
wouldn't get out of (sounds vaguely familiar).

So when I read that a Japanese Army thathas pulled men
and resources OUT of China to launch attacks elsewhere is now
suddenly able to advance where before it was unable to, I get
a bit worried that it may be an "unintended result" of rules
designed for a different purposes.

[Nikademus]

Mike,

I never said it was "easy", what i said was that the Japanese army was "capable" if it so desired. Big difference. More importantly still, i said "to what purpose?"

Unlike the Southern Advance, what would a limited/full scale offensive bring Japan in China? Capitulation? no. Valuable resources? no. Spent resource and further dispersion of their troops? Yes.

As to their not being "able" to do it. I've never read anywhere that they wern't. Again it comes down to a question of "why" and "for what purpose" If no concrete objective or goal is pervalient, and the empire decided to go with the "southern advance", i would logically expect the Japanese to sit tight in China while these other operations, including the subjegation of Burma (and it's lifeline to China) unfold in the hopes that they would 'solve' the China problem themselves.

Japan in Witp has finite resources and as Mogami's ambitious and agressive op plan shows, it can and will quickly drain Japan of resource and cause wear and tear. (in land terms this would be added fatigue, disruption and most importantly, dispersal.)

However the game allows the player to be as cautious or as agressive as they like. Its a bit early though to assume or fear perhaps is the better term, that just because his game has garnered some early sucesses that there might be holes in the game.

China was a quagmire, but it was a "Strategic" quagmire as Japan had gone into it on the misplaced notion that they could force the Chinese to capitulate to at least some degree (like with their bent on the US in years later) that would allow them to consolidate their gains. It didn't happen and despite their "victories" their armies remained on call, deeply placed on a continent with no end to the "war" in sight. This does not however translate into tactical impotence.

[mogami]

Hi, My China operations are mainly just clearing the transportation net. And wiping out scattered cut off Chinese.
I require myself to garrison every base and every front line hex.(so far the game does not) As a result there are not enough Japanese units to push too far. (I am still trying to muster enough force to move up the coast road from Canton to Hanoi but I do not yet have enough force to do so)

Also recall the first victory in China was against troops that had no retreat hex because the base behind them begins under Japanese control (should be Chinese) I should have waited for the AI to fix this by capturing the base (it did so the turn after the forward hex had been destroyed)

(I actually think that China would make a very interesting long scenario. Just use the maps of China and have reinforcement and supply arrive at ports for Japan and at rear China base (via flying the hump or Burma road) The game would move very fast.

[TIMJOT]

Originally posted by Mike Scholl

So when I read that a Japanese Army thathas pulled men
and resources OUT of China to launch attacks elsewhere is now
suddenly able to advance where before it was unable to, I get
a bit worried that it may be an "unintended result" of rules
designed for a different purposes.

Mike,

In the spring of 1944 the IJA launched the ICHIGO offensive and and succeeded in connecting occupied China with Indo-china and in the process conquer more territory than they had the preceding 4 years and totally defeating the American trained and equiped Z force to boot. This was done after significant amount of forces had been witdrawn to defend the NG, PI, Formosa, ect.....

The notion that the IJA was incabable of going on the offensive in China in 1941 is incorrect. The IJA did not , not because it couldnt but because ......

1) They realized that they were incabable of occupying the whole of China.

2) They had already captured what they sought.

3) That simply conquering more territory would not win the war and indeed only ascerbate the problem of secureing the territory they already had.

What they sought in 1941 was to force the Naitonalist to end to the war while keeping the territory they had already gained. They reasoned the only thing keeping the Nats in the war was Foriegn aid. So they decided to attack them obliquely by occupying Indo-china and Burma the only two conduits for aid at that time and reamain on the defensive on the Mainland.

There is absolutely no reason why Mogami shouldnt be able to go on the offensive and succeed in captureing territory in China in 1941-42 if he so wishes. Nor is it unrealistic if he as the overall commander feels it is in Japans best interest. Although personally I would expect its going to cause supply and logistic problems down the line.

[mogami]

"There is absolutely no reason why Mogami shouldnt be able to go on the offensive and succeed in captureing territory in China in 1941-42 if he so wishes. Nor is it unrealistic if he as the overall commander feels it is in Japans best interest. Although personally I would expect its going to cause supply and logistic problems down the line."

Hi, Actually I am trying to cure somewhat the supply and logistic problem that exist at start. There are Chinese astride the road net and I am clearing them out. Also several cities are only 1 hex away (they are on the front) By securing them early I gain airfields, better defensive positions, and a limited amount of new heavy industry/resource/oil. I am required by this new industry to send resource/oil to China to capitolize on it fully. (I send it to Hong Kong and Shanghai. By clearing the road net north it is able to move where needed. This produces more supply in China. (and saves having to transport as much from Japan. (However building this new and other existing industry eats large amounts of supply so there will be a period before the benifit is fully realized)

However I am no where near capturing all of China. (Nor do I desire to do so) If I could finsh the link between Canton and Hanoi I would be quite satisfied.

Then I can build my new forward airfields and project airpower deeper into China (targeting any Chinese supply build up)

My long range plans actually involve sending at least 3 new divisions to China when they are available and when I have the PP to change their HQ assignments. (1 new div for North/Central/South areas.)

(Korea also will get 1 new Div and Manchuria 3)

[mogami]

Hi attached is a map of the current positon in China.
The Yellow squares are the front.
The Green Squares are where Chines units were destroyed (or still remain) You will notice many of them are well to the rear of the front.

(I had to zip the file to make it fit.)

[mogami]

Here is starting postion. Notice that dispite the large area occupied.
Most of it was gained by coming from behind Chinese units.
(I followed roads and pushed Chinese ahead, cutting off others)

[TIMJOT]

Mogami

Looks like you are attempting an early variation on the ICHIGO offensive. Its a good idea and something I suspect in hindsite that the IJA would have attempted themselves had they known how effective the USN sub campaign was going to be.

[mogami]

Originally posted by TIMJOT
Mogami

Looks like you are attempting an early variation on the ICHIGO offensive. Its a good idea and something I suspect in hindsite that the IJA would have attempted themselves had they known how effective the USN sub campaign was going to be.

Hi, To me it is a no brainer. I look at map. I see Japan does not contol the transport net. I see China is not linked to Indo China via the coast. I see Chinese units in exposed positions. I see I can shorten my line by capturing bulges and adding more secure positions (cities) some of which contain industry/resource/oil.

[Genda]

Originally posted by Snigbert
Also, at PH some of the BBs that were sunk were later refloated and refit for battle. That wont be possible to represent in WitP either. It's a small thing but it would add too much programming/development to say 'what if we gave any ship sunk in a harbor a certain chance of being rebuilt?'.

Just a thought I had reading about certain BBs being hit by torps that were not in a position to be hit.

Is this true? Ships sunk in a port are gone from the game?
If so this is a real disappointment and not very realistic. There are many instances besides PH where capital ships were refloated, repaired and put back in service. Taranto comes to mind. If the port has intact repair facilities, the ships should have a chance at repair.

Genda

[madflava13]

Genda,
While I agree with you completely, I think it's more of a problem actually programming the game to know that a ship sunk in harbor is possibly salvageable (sp?) vs. one sunk at sea. If you read the interview that was just posted with Gary Grigsby and joel Billings, you'll see that they're focusing on making the AI act correctly now. I'd love to see ships being saved, but I suspect it's rather low on the to-do list at the moment...

[Mike Scholl]

Originally posted by Mogami
Hi, To me it is a no brainer. I look at map. I see Japan does not contol the transport net. I see China is not linked to Indo China via the coast. I see Chinese units in exposed positions. I see I can shorten my line by capturing bulges and adding more secure positions (cities) some of which contain industry/resource/oil.

Actually, Mogami, this is the very heart of the question I was
asking. Japan occupied Northern Indo-China in the Fall of 1940,
and the whole of it in the spring of 1941. All of the advantages
you cite must have been every bit as obvious to the historical
Japanese commanders. They had months of 1941 to clear up
this situation before losing men and resources to the start of
the Pacific War. Yet they didn't do it. WHY?

Either we have to assume that they were total idiots who
couldn't see their own hands in front of their faces...., or they
didn't do it because they couldn't do it at the time. Leaving out
the idiot arguement, it appears the men on the spot at that
time didn't think this could be accomplished with the forces
available. Yet in the game, with resources drawn away for all
the other targets of expansion in December, you found it was
possible to do so. This suggests to me that there might be a
problem with the game set-up as it stands now. Forget what
happened in 1944, that's another time and another issue. The
question is, was and should this be possible with the forces
available in December, 1941? Historically, the Japanese didn't
seem to think it could be done any time between May and Nov.,
or they certainly would have tried it for the very reasons you did
it. As you so rightly pointed out, "it's a no-brainer." So either
they had "no brains", or the game is failing to recognize some-
thing they found obvious. That's my question.

[Nikademus]

Thats a big assumption Mike, suggesting that because a force didn't do something that they couldn't, whether or not it looks like an "obivous" move to us wargamers. Examples abound of 'obvious moves' that many feel one side or another should do and didn't in hindsight. I'll not rehash what i said, because i think it's meaning is clear, only reinforce that in real life, armies tend to not preform major operations unless they have really need too.

Mogami didn't "need" to do what he did but as detail oriented freak (six hour setups!!!!!! hoo) with his eye always on the future, he saw a need to tidy up his map and unlike the real thing, being THE MAN in control of all theaters, governmental offices and ombudsman positions, he chose to conduct a limited china offensive from the get go.

I see his move as neither proving the historical commanders were morons, that they "couldn't", or that there's a problem with this aspect of the proto game engine.

[Nikademus]

Originally posted by Genda
Is this true? Ships sunk in a port are gone from the game?
If so this is a real disappointment and not very realistic. There are many instances besides PH where capital ships were refloated, repaired and put back in service. Taranto comes to mind. If the port has intact repair facilities, the ships should have a chance at repair.

Genda

Unfortunately this is one aspect that has to be sacrificed in favor of a model that has the ability to simulate port attacks at a variety of places.

While harbor salvage was not "unique", the massive salvage undertaking at Pearl Harbor was and it was not something that would be able to be done in a vast majority of places.

The British for example, based much of their battlefleet at the traditional anchorage of Scapa Flow, which had no dockyard facilities or shipyards but more importantly had some very deep areas in which a ship could become completely submerged (Royal Oak)

Taranto, the example you used, has one flaw.....of the three battleships torpedoed there, Littorio, Caio Duilio and Conte di Cavour, only the Cavour fully "sank" (the others beached, and remained partially afloat)

Cavour was refloated after tremendous effort but she never re-entered service and was still not recommissioned by the time of the capitulation so "in effect" her sinking was "permanent" by wargaming standards.

The US, and at Pearl Harbor specifically, was the only major combatant to bring fully sunken battleships back into service in time to contribute to the war, a unique, and expensive undertaking (when combined with the reconstructions of several of them)

The salvage of Oklahoma was arguably the most ambitous of all, rightening the hull first and then refloating it (but not acomplished till well into 1944.) Capszation of course further complicates any possibility of salvage, shallow water or not.

Warships that exploded like Arizona, again are not feesibly salavagable so how does an operational wargame make the comparison between a that and say a West Virginia, or a grounded Littorio still afoat at the stern? Another example would be Mutsu....exploded in harbor and sank in deep water. Not even a US company would touch that one.

I wouldn't worry too much about this issue. In test after test, most of the USN BB's do survive the historical attack (but with very heavy damage), my average "sinkings" which remove the ships averages 1-2 units for BB's

[TIMJOT]

Originally posted by Mike Scholl
Actually, Mogami, this is the very heart of the question I was
asking. Japan occupied Northern Indo-China in the Fall of 1940,
and the whole of it in the spring of 1941. All of the advantages
you cite must have been every bit as obvious to the historical
Japanese commanders. They had months of 1941 to clear up
this situation before losing men and resources to the start of
the Pacific War. Yet they didn't do it. WHY?

Either we have to assume that they were total idiots who
couldn't see their own hands in front of their faces...., or they
didn't do it because they couldn't do it at the time. Leaving out
the idiot arguement, it appears the men on the spot at that
time didn't think this could be accomplished with the forces
available. Yet in the game, with resources drawn away for all
the other targets of expansion in December, you found it was
possible to do so. This suggests to me that there might be a
problem with the game set-up as it stands now. Forget what
happened in 1944, that's another time and another issue. The
question is, was and should this be possible with the forces
available in December, 1941? Historically, the Japanese didn't
seem to think it could be done any time between May and Nov.,
or they certainly would have tried it for the very reasons you did
it. As you so rightly pointed out, "it's a no-brainer." So either
they had "no brains", or the game is failing to recognize some-
thing they found obvious. That's my question.

No Mike, you can not forget 1944, It demonstrates that they could do it even at a time when they had less resources and China had more.

As stated the reason they didnt in 1941 was because they thought they had little to gain for the effort. They decided that they could instead defeat China obliquely by cutting off foriegn aid comming through Indo-china and Burma.

A land bridge to SEA was not seen as essential, when it was assumed that the vast amount of resources from SEA could be more economically and more safely transported via the sea lanes.

When, the circumstances changed in 1944, specifically the USN sub offensive and USAAF Bomber bases on the mainland, the IJA showed what was possible if they had a mind to.

It wasnt a question of them being stupid, you might say they outsmarted themselves or they failed to see the future, but this notion that the IJA couldnt budge in China just because they didnt historically is false. They were simply exerciseing a strategy that Mogami has chosen not to.

[Mr.Frag]

I think you'll find quite clearly that the submarine threat to convoys was complete underestimated in all theaters. So was the effects of strategic bombing for that matter.

A lot of radical changes came into play during world war 2 which caused a complete change in warfare. The pre-war plans were based on the post world war 1 doctrine which just could not cope with these new weapons of war.

Since we clearly understand the impact of these weapons walking into the game, it dramatically alters how we play the game. You really can't go back in time unless you happen to be a wargamer newbie

[norsemanjs]

First of I basically agree from a simplicity standpoint that including raising sunken ships will complicate the programming and therefore should not be considered or at the very least a low priority.

I believe (and I know someone will correct me if I'm wrong) the US did raise 4 BB's and return them to service. California, West Virginia, Maryland and the beached Nevada. The Oklahoma was raised but lost under tow to the states where I believe she was to be scrapped.

That is certainly not an insignificant amount of capital shipping saved and they were usefully employed primarily as bombardment forces throughout the Pacific.

I believe it would not be impossible to implement raising these ships. From a logic standpoint:

Ship sunk. Is ship docked?

If no it is permanently lost.

If yes ... Is the port a level 9 port with dockyard?

If no it is permanently lost.

If yes... Is ship a capital ship?

If no it is permanently lost.

If yes... 40% chance it is permanently lost (or whatever % is best) 60% chance the ship is recoverable so give the ship 300% damage (or random number of damage % somewhere above 100%).

As I said at the top it is probably best left out because we all want this some time in the next year or so. And this would be seriously chrome and would only have any affect on the grand campaign scale.

[HMSWarspite]

Originally posted by Norseman
First of I basically agree from a simplicity standpoint that including raising sunken ships will complicate the programming and therefore should not be considered or at the very least a low priority.

I believe (and I know someone will correct me if I'm wrong) the US did raise 4 BB's and return them to service. California, West Virginia, Maryland and the beached Nevada. The Oklahoma was raised but lost under tow to the states where I believe she was to be scrapped.

That is certainly not an insignificant amount of capital shipping saved and they were usefully employed primarily as bombardment forces throughout the Pacific.

I believe it would not be impossible to implement raising these ships. From a logic standpoint:

Ship sunk. Is ship docked?

If no it is permanently lost.

If yes ... Is the port a level 9 port with dockyard?

If no it is permanently lost.

If yes... Is ship a capital ship?

If no it is permanently lost.

If yes... 40% chance it is permanently lost (or whatever % is best) 60% chance the ship is recoverable so give the ship 300% damage (or random number of damage % somewhere above 100%).

As I said at the top it is probably best left out because we all want this some time in the next year or so. And this would be seriously chrome and would only have any affect on the grand campaign scale.

I have always rationalised the PH ship repair saga in Pacwar as follows: the ones that were repaired in RL are the ones that suffer 99% damage, not 'quite' sunk, so any ships in port after the raid in the game with say 95%+ are actually on the bottom. If they are at sea in UV, they will almost certainly sink anyway, and in port (PH) will probably be saved. The extra coding for anything else would be a waste of time, and bound to create anomolies. What about ships sunk in shallow water...why can't I raise them?:)

[Joel Billings]

Originally posted by HMSWarspite
I have always rationalised the PH ship repair saga in Pacwar as follows: the ones that were repaired in RL are the ones that suffer 99% damage, not 'quite' sunk, so any ships in port after the raid in the game with say 95%+ are actually on the bottom. If they are at sea in UV, they will almost certainly sink anyway, and in port (PH) will probably be saved. The extra coding for anything else would be a waste of time, and bound to create anomolies. What about ships sunk in shallow water...why can't I raise them?:)

You are right on the money. Ports can keep ships that are 99% flooded from sinking, but a BB will take over a year to fix something with large system damage. It was intended that this represents ships that are sunk but can be raised from the bottom. No need to have a whole new routine for something that is basically covered.

[norsemanjs]

Sounds good. I've seen this happen while playing UV when a ship was hit hard in Noumea and then struck again in following days hard but never went past 99 damage. I hadn't realized this was done on purpose and was simply happy to see the ship had survived since it was my ship and I didn't loose any victory points.