In AE what positives will there be for Japan?

[Cavalry Corp]

I am mainly a player fo the Jap side , I am looking forward to AE very much

However I am always reading about negatives to be applied to Japan. please do not go too far otherwise no one will want to play that side.
Regardless of what is done the allies have a couple of thing not modelled in the game and give them a tremendous advantage

Hindsight - this is a mountain the sze of Everest advantage

No threat that their political masters will replace them.

I think Japan must be made a flexible as possible , it was capable of more than it actually did in terms of ship building, pilot training, ASW etc.

Michael

[Andy Mac]

I am running out but I will answer this in 2 seconds

UBERCAP - ubercap hurts Japan more than the allies fixing this for late war is a massive change
Stacking levels on atolls for both sides - means no more 20 Div assaults on an island both sides will be reasonable
Penalties for ad hoc invasdions without prep higher.
Allied unit withdrawals - forces leave theatre
Unit disbandments also impact allied ORBAT more e.g. Aus Cav regts etc

need to go will answer more fully later

[Cavalry Corp]

OK but in fact the UBER cap thing has not really be seen in either of my games
I agree abou stacking levels for Islands but un realistic as it is that cuts both ways.

I assume stacking will be in terms of men rather than units ?


Enjoying some snow up there - it was snowing here in East Sussex but now its turned to rain .

Michael

[Cavalry Corp]

OK but in fact the UBER cap thing has not really be seen in either of my games
I agree about stacking levels for Islands is un realistic but it cuts both ways.

I assume stacking will be in terms of men rather than units ?


Enjoying some snow up there - it was snowing here in East Sussex but now its turned to rain .

Michael

[Andy Mac]

Rain not snow..

OK I am back let me try to clarify in two categories

Stronger Japan

In AE optional updrades and conversions of ships if pre defined in editor
Japanese LB Radar now arrives earlier and has several upgrades how thats going to fit into the air battle we do not know
UBERCAP is reduced favouring the defender which after 42 is the Japanese - with more leakers kamis should be able to operate at reasonable heights (HL Kamis act like bombers from 40,000 feet i.e. they cannot hit shit)
Midget Submarines
Post 8/45 builds for ships (we hope) - thus options for acceleration in late war.
Overstacking penalties that apply to both sides at the same level - attacker still needs to get 2:1 therefore it should favour defender (offset to some extent by de facto limit of 6 on forts in most atolls)
Some leaders stats increased e.g. Yamashita
Unit breakdowns allowing more flexibility of deployments
In general lower forts accross DEI (Stock used forts as a regulator of speed of advance)
Semi permanent minefields
Oscar now usefull


Weaker Allies
Allied units now withdraw out of theatre and start with inadequate TOE's (per history) - in stock they start stronger than they should be and end up weaker becauase units could not change TOE's
Cost of replacing initial numptie leaders higher thus more likely Percival will remain in Malaya
Supply usage for allied units up c 40% accross the board because of extra devices.
No crossing of CW aircraft i.e. seperate pools for NZ/Aus/Canadian Kittyhawks, Aus/Brit Spits
Most DEI units cannot be evacced and rebuilt or if they do they have a disband date so no evaccing 20 Dutch Base forces and using them to construct ahistoric AF's
Much lower supply in India/CW supply now arrives via a monthly convoy at Capetown and later Aden after the Med opens

In general India is going to be a lot less able to launch the traditional early 43 northern Burmese offensive but hopefully is also a tougher nut to crack defensively - its a fine balance to try and hit.

I could do the same for the allies as they get some benefits and the Japanese some weaknesses in the new game. But in all honesty I do not know where the balance of the changes will lie.

As I sit here now I think it will be more difficult for the Japanese to conquer all of India/Chian or Australia/NZ (I think NZ is going to become a much more attractive exploitation attack for the Japanese in PBEM - but thats a gut feel)

And in India/NZ and Australia there are drop dead lines that will trigger more reinforcements but equally so are they in Japan so an allied early attack on Sakkalin has risks as well.

A limited conquest of one of them may be possible (assuming two competent players) and a total conquest is still possible but the penalty for doing it will be more severe e.g. shipping diversions - anything is still possible but we hope the consequences are more reasnable - e.g. hitting India with 15 Divs in mid 42 may still be possible but their will be consequences.

On the other hand the allied counter attacks from 43 onwards will also be harder to do I think we have slowed the game down a notch - but testing will need to confirm that.

Al lot of this is speculation for me until I get to see mid 42 test games - so watch this space

[Andy Mac]

ps the AI does better than me in taking Malaya it manages it damn quick compared to me - what that says about me as a player....

[wworld7]

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

ps the AI does better than me in taking Malaya it manages it damn quick compared to me - what that says about me as a player....

Obviously it says that you need more beer!

[Iridium]

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

ps the AI does better than me in taking Malaya it manages it damn quick compared to me - what that says about me as a player....

I'd say your either a few sips short of a full pint or Skynet is about to go online.

I for one welcome our new robot overlords.[:D]

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

ps the AI does better than me in taking Malaya it manages it damn quick compared to me - what that says about me as a player....

I think it says you are cautious and methodical. I have a tendancy to finally take Singapore right around the historical date myself, but then I can really run on DEI cause I end up with all the troops from Samah in Singapore. It's a trade off.

Well either that or perhaps flipperwasirish is right, you need more beer! [:D]

[Monter_Trismegistos]

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac
Most DEI units cannot be evacced and rebuilt or if they do they have a disband date so no evaccing 20 Dutch Base forces and using them to construct ahistoric AF's

Is this hardcoded, or can be reversed by using editor?

[Andy Mac]

Fully editable
 
There are some that have disband dates and some that dont but most do
 
At present he only Base Forces without a disband date are
 
1. Timor
2. Islands
3. Soerbaja
4. Batavia
5. Palembang
6. Teloektbekong
7. North Sumatra
8. Sorong and Ternate Detachments
 
But of those 3, 4, 5 and 6, are permantenly restricted - 1. 2. and 7. also get a new name in 43 if they survive (1st, 2nd and 3rd Dutch Base FOrces - original huh !!!)
 
So at max the allies can evac and rebuild some of 3 main and 2 detachment base forces and the 3 mains will draw on pools of equipment with no replacements so it will be hard to give them more than generic deivces e.g. support, av support, etc.
 
 
 

[Andy Mac]

Just to explain this a little more
 
The North Sumatra Base Force
 
Has detachments at Sabang, Langsa, Tandjoengbalaia, Bengkalis and Medan
 
Each of these fragments has a small part of the main base forces strength typically a few support a few Av support a Coy of Dutch Militia and a few 12.7's if they are lucky.
 
These are not big forces against a Japanese company or Bn they have no chance. 
 

[joey]

Boy the DEI non withdrawl, supply useage increased, and weaker starting units will certainly change the game a bit.
You mention that most DEI units can not be withdrawn. Will be know which ones can and which ones can not once the AE is released? From what you have said Burma/India will also be a different game. Please keep feeding us info/updates as you get it.

[Shark7]

Sounds like you are finding a good cure for 'steamroller syndrome'. Will be welcomed by most I'm sure.

[morganbj]

Some of these changes sound very good.  I hope they're included to make the simulation better, not to balance play.
 
My concern is, however, that ahistorical results will occur with a few of these changes.  Take the DEI unit disband date, for example.  Such a "rule" assumes an historical strategy by, in this case, Japan.  What if Japan sends many fewer troops to DEI to take a more leisurely approach at its conquest, while sending additional reinforcements to Malaya/India or China.  Would the DEI units still disband on schedule?  What if DEI was not invaded at all, say for a year and a half?
 
I know these are unlikely given the need for the resources in DEI, but it knowing that the DEI will lose units without Japan's intervention could, and will, cause all kinds of silly gamesmanship.  I know it's too late to make this happen, but I would prefer that such disbandments result from a critical loss threshold in terms of military units lost or objectives met or something similar.  Perhaps some kind of massive unit surrender when certain objectives are met.  Of course, random units should stay and fight, as some did.  It makes gamesmanship less effective and, in my opinion, it makes the game mirror the actual situation Japan faced.  (Or could have faced.)
 
AE sounds like a much improved simulation.  I eagerly await its arrival.   But as a simulation it should offer the full range of possibilites so that players can explore alternatives.  It would be disappointing to see that too many changes were included just to make it mirror actual events too closely.
 
My point is that IF it were a perfect simulation, and of course it never could be, then things like this would not be necessary.  Rules (programmed or house) should exist only to make it more closely mirror the situation, not the historical strategies employed.  Otherwise, knowing that Iwo Jima fell in early 1945, why not just have a rule that says Japan has to evacuate it by May, 1945, no matter where the Allies are at that time.  Sounds silly doesn't it.  This is not a perfect parallel to what I'm concerned, but it's not that much further down the same road.
 
To all the AE developers:  Keep the simulation as pure as possible.  Err on the side of recreating conditions, not history.
 
End of sermon.
 
 

[Andy Mac]

The disband dates are end of 42/early 43 and focus on base forces etc combat units dont disband they just have limited replacements.

And for example units on java tend not to have disband dates they are just location restricted i.e. no matter how many PP's you spend they cannot move off of Java.

Gamesmanship is always possible we cannot build a game without some holes for folks to drive through.

We are to late to do what you suggest although we did look at how hard it would be early in the process - it was a real swine to code and would have meant a lot of hardcoded slots in the database something we are trying to minimise.

Re the philosophy we are trying to model conditions however especially at start replicating the politicla mess and unpreparedness of the allies is both a condition and an output and for the purposes of the game I felt it was better to be more rather than less restrictive on the Dutch and Malayan troops.

But its simple if you dont like the choices we make I figure it will take about 10 minutes to change.

I could do all the Dutch in about 5 !!!

Andy

ORIGINAL: bjmorgan

Some of these changes sound very good.  I hope they're included to make the simulation better, not to balance play.

My concern is, however, that ahistorical results will occur with a few of these changes.  Take the DEI unit disband date, for example.  Such a "rule" assumes an historical strategy by, in this case, Japan.  What if Japan sends many fewer troops to DEI to take a more leisurely approach at its conquest, while sending additional reinforcements to Malaya/India or China.  Would the DEI units still disband on schedule?  What if DEI was not invaded at all, say for a year and a half?

I know these are unlikely given the need for the resources in DEI, but it knowing that the DEI will lose units without Japan's intervention could, and will, cause all kinds of silly gamesmanship.  I know it's too late to make this happen, but I would prefer that such disbandments result from a critical loss threshold in terms of military units lost or objectives met or something similar.  Perhaps some kind of massive unit surrender when certain objectives are met.  Of course, random units should stay and fight, as some did.  It makes gamesmanship less effective and, in my opinion, it makes the game mirror the actual situation Japan faced.  (Or could have faced.)

AE sounds like a much improved simulation.  I eagerly await its arrival.   But as a simulation it should offer the full range of possibilites so that players can explore alternatives.  It would be disappointing to see that too many changes were included just to make it mirror actual events too closely.

My point is that IF it were a perfect simulation, and of course it never could be, then things like this would not be necessary.  Rules (programmed or house) should exist only to make it more closely mirror the situation, not the historical strategies employed.  Otherwise, knowing that Iwo Jima fell in early 1945, why not just have a rule that says Japan has to evacuate it by May, 1945, no matter where the Allies are at that time.  Sounds silly doesn't it.  This is not a perfect parallel to what I'm concerned, but it's not that much further down the same road.

To all the AE developers:  Keep the simulation as pure as possible.  Err on the side of recreating conditions, not history.

End of sermon.

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: bjmorgan

Some of these changes sound very good.  I hope they're included to make the simulation better, not to balance play.

My concern is, however, that ahistorical results will occur with a few of these changes.  Take the DEI unit disband date, for example.  Such a "rule" assumes an historical strategy by, in this case, Japan.  What if Japan sends many fewer troops to DEI to take a more leisurely approach at its conquest, while sending additional reinforcements to Malaya/India or China.  Would the DEI units still disband on schedule?  What if DEI was not invaded at all, say for a year and a half?

I know these are unlikely given the need for the resources in DEI, but it knowing that the DEI will lose units without Japan's intervention could, and will, cause all kinds of silly gamesmanship.  I know it's too late to make this happen, but I would prefer that such disbandments result from a critical loss threshold in terms of military units lost or objectives met or something similar.  Perhaps some kind of massive unit surrender when certain objectives are met.  Of course, random units should stay and fight, as some did.  It makes gamesmanship less effective and, in my opinion, it makes the game mirror the actual situation Japan faced.  (Or could have faced.)

AE sounds like a much improved simulation.  I eagerly await its arrival.   But as a simulation it should offer the full range of possibilites so that players can explore alternatives.  It would be disappointing to see that too many changes were included just to make it mirror actual events too closely.

My point is that IF it were a perfect simulation, and of course it never could be, then things like this would not be necessary.  Rules (programmed or house) should exist only to make it more closely mirror the situation, not the historical strategies employed.  Otherwise, knowing that Iwo Jima fell in early 1945, why not just have a rule that says Japan has to evacuate it by May, 1945, no matter where the Allies are at that time.  Sounds silly doesn't it.  This is not a perfect parallel to what I'm concerned, but it's not that much further down the same road.

To all the AE developers:  Keep the simulation as pure as possible.  Err on the side of recreating conditions, not history.

End of sermon.

The only perfect simulation is reality itself - and that is not repeatable. They fought the war - it is done. So to attempt to recreate these events will always involve trade-offs. Time, Resource, scope, those are the three variables. Our goal is to attempt to be better than stock in some areas, perfect in done, and equal in those areas where we are not better.

[morganbj]

Of course nothing is as real as reality.   I'm not assuming that a few bits in a slicone chip ever could be.  I would just like to avoid the trap so often seen in games, where real conditions are thrown out the window for the sake of, "Well, they didn't do it, so we won't allow it."  As the Japanese player, I should be forced to invade DEI for the resources (as WITP does), not because I would otherwise lose points somewhere (other games on the market use this exclusively.  WITP's approach is quite a bit better here.).  And equally so, I should lose DEI units because of the onslaught of Japanese troops, not because they were historically gone after a certain date.  That's all I'm suggesting.
 
FOF (and the up-coming COGEE) have a "will to fight" feature.  When one side takes horrendous losses, or the battle begins to drag on and on, one side (or both) can lose the will to fight and rout off the field.  This brings the game a little closer to reality in that knowing this possible, both sides a must take more realistic actions during the battle.  Something like this could be useful in WITP as well.  After so many units are lost, or so many objectives are given up, one side loses the will to fight.
 
Here's a brainstorm that's rolling around my otherwise empty head.  (And I know this solution can not happen as it would require too much code to be rewritten at this late date, but it helps to show you what I'm talking about.)  Have a "die roll" (a random number generated) every turn for a county to just give up.  The roll would be based on the percent of geographical points lost, perhaps as a percentage of all points held, or in the native country, or whatever.  Maybe modified by combat losses.  The more lost, the greater the chance of capitulation.  Each county would have their own threshold.  For Japan, greater loss would be required for capitulation than some other countries.  This would reflect the national desire to resist the enemy at every turn.  For DEI, surrender would be much more likely with fewer losses.  I don't know, maybe around 50% it really has a chance to give up.  So, it would be possible for DEI to give up after losing a few objectives, but not very likely.  As more and more objectives were given up, the liklihood of surrender goes up.  Finally, when surrender occurs, each unit undergoes a check of some kind.  Some go home (are disbanded), some fight on (remain in place).  Maybe, at this point, those fighting on can be evaccuated elsewhere, not restricted by a rule, but by how much logistical support the allied player is willing to allocate to the evaccuation.
 
I know this is a pipe dream -- too late, maybe too complicated, but I think it's better than reading in these forums in a few months something like this.  "I was kicking Japanese all around the block!  I sank four Japanese carriers as they approached (whatever)!   Their troops were bogged down in Borneo.  Then, all my DEI troops disappeared.  What gives!!??"
 
 
 
 

[morganbj]

... and keep in mind that WITP is so dang good, I'd just like to see it get better.  I've spent countless hours with it, and have learned much about the period, despite being a student of military history for more than 50 years.  (Yes, 60 is just around the corner.)  Some complain about the logistics tedium, but that is what the Second World War was all about.  Humping food and ammo had just as much to do with winning as anything else.  That's the best part of the game.  Sure, it's fun bombing carriers out of existence, but getting all the resources there to pull it off makes the victory even sweeter!

[Andy Mac]

[:D][:D] you guessed write we are in code freeze so not allowed more features
 
p..s as I said a few times COMBAT units dont disband only base forces and HQ's
 
Units that use unique squads dont disband e.g. Dutch Inf Squads - units that use generic, engineer, support etc squads as their primary function tend to have disband dates - but if you dont like it it will take all of 5 minutes to change