Will we have complete control over army units in China, Burma, India, etc?
Moderators: Joel Billings, wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami
Will we have complete control over army units in China, Burma, India, etc?
In other words, for example, can we choose to move lots of these units to the pacific theatre if we see fit??? And for that matter will we have complete control over all army and army air units just as we will naval and naval air units?
-
pasternakski
- Posts: 5567
- Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2002 7:42 pm
I am also very interested in how those theaters will be handled. As the Japanese commander in this game, I would love to be confronted with the extremely sensitive balancing of decisions that would go into determining my overall strategy.
I think that it is essential to include this element in order to enhance the pure "fun" of being Tojo (in real life, I doubt that being him was very much fun).
Not to mention the strategic challenges presented the Allied player.
I think that it is essential to include this element in order to enhance the pure "fun" of being Tojo (in real life, I doubt that being him was very much fun).
Not to mention the strategic challenges presented the Allied player.
Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.
-
EricLarsen
- Posts: 450
- Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2002 8:00 pm
- Location: Salinas, CA Raider Nation
No point to point
I also am hoping the other theaters will be done like UV, with hexes and roads and paths and such. I sure do not want to see a repeat of the Pac War use of point-to-point movement as that was just too abstract for land combat. I also hope that the movement point system isn't all screwed up like it was in Pac War where it costs a whole lot more to move those units than others not in the Chinese/Manchurian theater. Allow the players to make their own choices as to where and how these units are used and pay the consequences if they guess wrong.
Eric Larsen
Eric Larsen
If you look at the screen shots, it appears that Asian ground units will be set up the same way as UV units are...with roads, hex to hex movement, etc.
"Money doesnt talk, it swears. Obscenities, who really cares?" -Bob Dylan
"Habit is the balast that chains a dog to it's vomit." -Samuel Becket
"He has weapons of mass destruction- the world's deadliest weapons- which pose a direct threat to the
"Habit is the balast that chains a dog to it's vomit." -Samuel Becket
"He has weapons of mass destruction- the world's deadliest weapons- which pose a direct threat to the
-
EricLarsen
- Posts: 450
- Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2002 8:00 pm
- Location: Salinas, CA Raider Nation
Thanks for info
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Snigbert
If you look at the screen shots, it appears that Asian ground units will be set up the same way as UV units are...with roads, hex to hex movement, etc.
Snigbert,
Thanks for the info. The last time I saw WitP screenshots they didn't include the Asian theater, but that was a long time ago. I guess I'll have to mosey over to the website and check out the new stuff. It sure will be better to have fronts and lines rather than that point-to-point silliness from Pac War.
Eric Larsen
If you look at the screen shots, it appears that Asian ground units will be set up the same way as UV units are...with roads, hex to hex movement, etc.
Snigbert,
Thanks for the info. The last time I saw WitP screenshots they didn't include the Asian theater, but that was a long time ago. I guess I'll have to mosey over to the website and check out the new stuff. It sure will be better to have fronts and lines rather than that point-to-point silliness from Pac War.
Eric Larsen
-
Jeremy Pritchard
- Posts: 575
- Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2001 8:00 am
- Location: Ontario Canada
It is difficult to properly measure consequences in moving units, with the primary units being...
IJA China and Manchuria formations
AUS Militia formations
Realistically, you could not move Militia forces out of continental Australia in force until after an act in Parliament is passed, sometime in 1943. Even after that, these units were limited to Australian Territory (New Guinea, Soloman Islands, New Britain, etc...). Hopefully there will be a way to model this.
Also, realistically, the Japanese could probably have removed 1/2 of the Garrison of Manchuria and not have feared a Russian attack, but, they kept the forces there because they actually thought that Russia would attack at any moment.
China is also difficult to model. Realistically, you needed just about every formation that is in there in order to hold what you have. However, the game might be too large a scale to represent the need for each formation as a covering force against a possible Chinese counterattack.
My guess is that units will be limited to such theatres, and will have release dates where you can ship them to other theatres, as this is probably the simplest way in modeling this. It will be very difficult to come up with consequences that actually work, and are fair (they might be too heavy, or too light).
IJA China and Manchuria formations
AUS Militia formations
Realistically, you could not move Militia forces out of continental Australia in force until after an act in Parliament is passed, sometime in 1943. Even after that, these units were limited to Australian Territory (New Guinea, Soloman Islands, New Britain, etc...). Hopefully there will be a way to model this.
Also, realistically, the Japanese could probably have removed 1/2 of the Garrison of Manchuria and not have feared a Russian attack, but, they kept the forces there because they actually thought that Russia would attack at any moment.
China is also difficult to model. Realistically, you needed just about every formation that is in there in order to hold what you have. However, the game might be too large a scale to represent the need for each formation as a covering force against a possible Chinese counterattack.
My guess is that units will be limited to such theatres, and will have release dates where you can ship them to other theatres, as this is probably the simplest way in modeling this. It will be very difficult to come up with consequences that actually work, and are fair (they might be too heavy, or too light).
I would agree there should be a certain minmum garrison requirement in places like China,India,Japan,and Australia. Other than that I dont see the need to make any other units static. As long as there are consequences. For example the victory points at stake in China and India should be high enough that if a player foolishly withdraws too many troops than the other player could simply swoop in and fill the vacum, gaining enough points to make it impossible for the other player to win. That should be enough to keep players honest.
I agree...we should have no units that are forced to be static (with the possible exception of the Australian militia mentioned above). If a player is too dumb to garrison important areas, then he has to live with the consequences. Darwin's law of military command 
"Money doesnt talk, it swears. Obscenities, who really cares?" -Bob Dylan
"Habit is the balast that chains a dog to it's vomit." -Samuel Becket
"He has weapons of mass destruction- the world's deadliest weapons- which pose a direct threat to the
"Habit is the balast that chains a dog to it's vomit." -Samuel Becket
"He has weapons of mass destruction- the world's deadliest weapons- which pose a direct threat to the
gasp
Originally posted by showboat1
In the case of the Kwantung and Chinese Expeditionary Forces, you could "shorten the lines" and remove units by choosing to give up territory that you felt was not needed.
Greetings, We really want to fool with mother nature now don't we? The reason they go to war is China and Manchuria. If they had been willing to give up territory (and not want to occupy still more) there could have been a settlement possible. To allow Japanese players to withdraw from China would really be twisting history. (Yes I agree it might even make military sense, just that it would be akin to the CSA recruiting black soldiers in 1861)(Unthinkable)
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
Re: gasp
Except the shortening the lines or a limited withdrawal is not giving up territory... it is giving up territory for now in the hopes that a victory will allow you to return.Originally posted by Mogami
Greetings, We really want to fool with mother nature now don't we? The reason they go to war is China and Manchuria. If they had been willing to give up territory (and not want to occupy still more) there could have been a settlement possible. To allow Japanese players to withdraw from China would really be twisting history. (Yes I agree it might even make military sense, just that it would be akin to the CSA recruiting black soldiers in 1861)(Unthinkable)
I believe that the condition on the scrap iron and oil embargos was that Japan had to withdraw entirely from China before the the embargo would be lifted. Surrendering some territory now in the hopes that you can keep it in the peace is different.
That being said, the IJA needed everything it had in Manchuria and China to either control the population, stop the CCA and the Nationalists, and deter the expected Soviet invasion.
-
Jeremy Pritchard
- Posts: 575
- Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2001 8:00 am
- Location: Ontario Canada
I can see that this will lead to abuse, as simple formulas will be devised to figure out what exactly you can afford to lose in order to gain extra formations, strong enough to do an unrealistic mass offensive. It is not necessarily holding the line, the IJA was barely able to hold the line as it was, and it actually was a pretty small line. The IJA basically controlled the cities, and if lucky the rail road connections between the cities. Should someone feel that the line should be shortened, it would require giving up substantial territory, as should a rail line be abandoned, so too must the city connected to it, and should this city be abandoned, it might leave another one vulnerable requiring more defense to keep it under IJA control, and so on...
Shortening the line would require giving up valuable, and hard fought for territory. It would also result in the Chinese being a much more powerful foe, as they would regain access to some of their larger population base in the occopied cities, as well as the local industries. It would also give the allies some VERY good potential frontline bases in these newly liberated cities, as their airfields are not only very good, but would be very close to the Japanese Home Islands. Indeed, the Japanese had to intensify actions in China purely because of Allied bombers based there.
Should Japan realistically shorten the line, the fighting in China would absolutely intensify, requiring more resources being diverted to this theatre of war. Some might want to take this risk, but the immediate effects would be more devestating then the potential benefits of gaining a few extra divisions. Indeed, if this is to be implemented, the risks of removing units will be so high as to guarantee that the negatives outweigh the positives.
Shortening the line would require giving up valuable, and hard fought for territory. It would also result in the Chinese being a much more powerful foe, as they would regain access to some of their larger population base in the occopied cities, as well as the local industries. It would also give the allies some VERY good potential frontline bases in these newly liberated cities, as their airfields are not only very good, but would be very close to the Japanese Home Islands. Indeed, the Japanese had to intensify actions in China purely because of Allied bombers based there.
Should Japan realistically shorten the line, the fighting in China would absolutely intensify, requiring more resources being diverted to this theatre of war. Some might want to take this risk, but the immediate effects would be more devestating then the potential benefits of gaining a few extra divisions. Indeed, if this is to be implemented, the risks of removing units will be so high as to guarantee that the negatives outweigh the positives.
I really dont see the problem. Its simple if a Japanese player is fool enough to move a large amount of his forces out of China, then the allied player unless he is equally a fool is going to attack and take all those resources and bases. Your opponent is the check and balance. It can only see it being abused if the game does not model what was at stake in china correctly.
-
Jeremy Pritchard
- Posts: 575
- Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2001 8:00 am
- Location: Ontario Canada
Why have it then?Originally posted by TIMJOT
I really dont see the problem. Its simple if a Japanese player is fool enough to move a large amount of his forces out of China, then the allied player unless he is equally a fool is going to attack and take all those resources and bases. Your opponent is the check and balance. It can only see it being abused if the game does not model what was at stake in china correctly.
If doing anything other then historic withdrawls of forces will result in a foolish person being defeated?
Why not just have historic withdrawls that most people would do anyway if there was an option?
Why do it to suit foolish people?
Doesn't seem like a good reason to implement this system.
Because, you should be able to withdraw some forces or at least rotate them. Its not as though redeploying 1 or 2 divisions would cause the whole front to come tumbling down. For instance the Kwantung Army was kept up to offensive levels throughout much of the war, not so much becuase they feared a Russain attack was imeninent (certainly not in 42) but because the IJA high command was reluctant to give up the idea of going on the offensive there. Certainly some of Kwantung Armies reserves could have been redeployed if the IJA had the mindset to do so.
To answer your question why? Because as a player I would like the ability to shift empahsis from front to front. For example If I playing as the Japanese wish to try to invade india as a backdoor way to resolve the china deadlock. Then I should be able to redeploy a few china divisions for this task even if it means losing ground in china in the short term, becase hopefully if successful it would mean ultimately winning china in the long run.
In chess we call it the art of sacrifice.
Abuse to me means unrealistic wholesale redeployments. This type of abuse is easily checked by your opponent.
To answer your question why? Because as a player I would like the ability to shift empahsis from front to front. For example If I playing as the Japanese wish to try to invade india as a backdoor way to resolve the china deadlock. Then I should be able to redeploy a few china divisions for this task even if it means losing ground in china in the short term, becase hopefully if successful it would mean ultimately winning china in the long run.
In chess we call it the art of sacrifice.
Abuse to me means unrealistic wholesale redeployments. This type of abuse is easily checked by your opponent.
Because 'The Man' shouldn't be regulating what I do with *my* units!
"Money doesnt talk, it swears. Obscenities, who really cares?" -Bob Dylan
"Habit is the balast that chains a dog to it's vomit." -Samuel Becket
"He has weapons of mass destruction- the world's deadliest weapons- which pose a direct threat to the
"Habit is the balast that chains a dog to it's vomit." -Samuel Becket
"He has weapons of mass destruction- the world's deadliest weapons- which pose a direct threat to the
-
Hoplosternum
- Posts: 663
- Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2002 8:39 pm
- Location: Romford, England
How much of a problem do people think having total control of Japanese troop movement will cause? As long as there are some penalties for losing ground in China (either VPs and/or a lower level of supplies) and there is some kind of garrison rule for Manchuria (with simillar VP and/or supply penalties if it is lost) I am not sure there will be that many abuses.
Firstly the Japanese sealift capacity is pretty much going to be at full stretch just to conduct it's historical attacks. Even if they want to use say another 10 Divisions how are they going to transport them and how easy is it going to be to keep these extras fully supplied? Presumably the AI and certainly any human Allied opponent is going to focus on the Japanese supply lines very early and keep hitting them. The Japanese did not really lose in the Pacific due to lack of troops but rather the ability to deploy them to the necessary areas and supply them once the balance at sea and in the air changed.
Also many of the Japanese army units that were used in the Pacific and certainly those in Burma/Malaya were Elite formations. Many of those in China and Manchuria are going to be much poorer quality. Filling up Borneo, Truk, The Marshalls etc. with division after division of low grade infantry is not going to be a huge plus for the Japanese player. It will just be a logistical nightmare and once the Allies have command of the sea most will be left to wither on the vine as the US bombards them then island hops past them.
Garison rules for Manchuria need not even kick in until later in the war. As long as there is a big penalty for losing Manchuria later a Japanese player who denudes this area is going to have all his transports tied up just trying to return it's formations there before the deadlines.
If you really restrict the Japanese troop movements in China and Manchuria then you stop any realistic attempt by the Japanese player to go for India or Australia as they just won't have the troops without abandoning the Pacific islands. I doubt either plan would have worked in real life or be especially good in the game either. But with no credible threat against them the Allied player will start his own abuses like not garisoning these back areas...
Firstly the Japanese sealift capacity is pretty much going to be at full stretch just to conduct it's historical attacks. Even if they want to use say another 10 Divisions how are they going to transport them and how easy is it going to be to keep these extras fully supplied? Presumably the AI and certainly any human Allied opponent is going to focus on the Japanese supply lines very early and keep hitting them. The Japanese did not really lose in the Pacific due to lack of troops but rather the ability to deploy them to the necessary areas and supply them once the balance at sea and in the air changed.
Also many of the Japanese army units that were used in the Pacific and certainly those in Burma/Malaya were Elite formations. Many of those in China and Manchuria are going to be much poorer quality. Filling up Borneo, Truk, The Marshalls etc. with division after division of low grade infantry is not going to be a huge plus for the Japanese player. It will just be a logistical nightmare and once the Allies have command of the sea most will be left to wither on the vine as the US bombards them then island hops past them.
Garison rules for Manchuria need not even kick in until later in the war. As long as there is a big penalty for losing Manchuria later a Japanese player who denudes this area is going to have all his transports tied up just trying to return it's formations there before the deadlines.
If you really restrict the Japanese troop movements in China and Manchuria then you stop any realistic attempt by the Japanese player to go for India or Australia as they just won't have the troops without abandoning the Pacific islands. I doubt either plan would have worked in real life or be especially good in the game either. But with no credible threat against them the Allied player will start his own abuses like not garisoning these back areas...
-
Supervisor
- Posts: 5160
- Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2004 12:00 am
Good opinions all. Some thought might be given to another possibility. While the wholesale withdrawal may have severe limitations, the ability to simply press on and achieve victory in China & press on into Inda etc. could add a very enjoyable land combat element to what is otherwise a massive sea & air game.
Seems to me that allowing control of all Japanese units would not only be fun and make the game a complete game but would actually give the Japanese player a chance in winning the war. Do we all want to be such history nuts that the U.S. has to win every single time? Give the Japs a fighting chance and the ability to plan accordingly. If you really think they can just throw the entire army in China into the Pacific without enormous costs then you are really fooling yourself. It is all a give and take situation.