Matrix Games Forums

In Version 3.1, some of the non-major-power Land Combat Units , such as the Indian and Dutch divisions, were made fairly capable. In Version 3.2, the pendulum has swung the other way, and I believe too far. This is because, as Mika has discovered, the actual effects of low experience are even worse than what is in the manual. Here is a table showing the chances of passing the combat checks on p. 35 of the manual:

LCU Exp 1st Check 2nd Check
10 3% 2%
15 8% 5%
20 13% 8%
30 30% 18%
40 53% 32%
50 83% 50%
55 100% 61%
60 100% 72%
70 100% 98%
71 100% 100%

Consider an LCU with an experience of 12 (and the Allies have several): it has a 95% chance of failing the first combat check, and a 97% chance of failing the second. In other words, it is worse than useless: it consumes valuable supply units and preparation points, and would merely give victory points to the other side in combat.

It is true that LCU's can now train up to higher levels. But what one hand giveth, the other taketh away: training takes two or three times longer in the later versions of Pacific War. What is more, experience levels for the Allied LCU's actually go down in the early turns as recruits join from the the replacement pools. I have seen one hapless Indian division drop to an experience rating of 8.

This means, among other things, that all of India is meat on the table for a competent Japanese commander. On Dec. 7, there is not one LCU in all of SEAC capable of even putting up a decent fight. (One Indian division with an experience of 40 arrives in a few turns, but it's clearly not enough.) Personally, I would gladly trade any of the starting divisions for the old 7th Gurkha regiment. But that unit was taken away and the experience distributed to other units during the Version 2.X upgrades. Now, however, that experience is gone. Here are my suggestions for correcting the situation:

1) Institute a House Rule that India cannot be completely conquered--the Japanese may not capture the last base, whichever it may happen to be.

2) Edit the Order of Battle to bring LCU's of countries with large populations (India and the Phillipines) up to full squad strength at the beginning of the game. (Artillery and AFV's should still be below TOE.)

I already posted a similar reply in the too few SEAC units.

I have done a lot of research on early Allied fighting in the Pacific, and most of the troops that fought during this time were very raw troops. Philippine forces were virtually useless. They crumbled at any determined Japanese attack until they were at the Bataan peninsula where terrain and disease caused the stalemate. Indian forces did not put up much of a fight in Burma/Malaya. There were instances where resistence was high (notably the 9th Division's defense of the 18th Division's assalt landing), however, most of the time they were pushed back.

You are wrong about the Allied SEAC units and their strength. The British get 1 good infantry Brigade in December 1941 (29th Infantry), 1 good infantry Division in December 1941 (18th Infantry), 1 good Armoured Brigade in January 1942 (7th Armoured), 1 good infantry Division in March 1942 (70th Infantry), 1 good infantry Division in May 1942 (2nd Infantry). The 18th Starts at experience 40 (but is at full strength and can build up to 60 experience fast), the 70th starts off at 50 experience. The 29th Brigade starts the game in Ceylon, and the 7th Armoured appears with high experience and a load of tanks.

Of course a determined and reinforced Japanese attack will break through to India, but also, if the Allies recieved reinforcements from the USA, they will easily overrun the Japanese forces in Burma/Siam/Malaya before 1942 is out. I cannot base unit experience/numbers on that of particular strategies. If the Japanese player sticks to their historic deployment, and so does the Allied player, then the region will be a stalemate. The Japanese would only have 4 Divisions to work with, against 5 Indian and 4 British Division/equivalents.

Also, in regards to the experience check, I believe that the game checks primarily the first unit in the attack/defense force. Since virtually all British units are located ahead of Indian divisions, having British units in with Indian units will make your defenses stronger.

The Allied lines should fall if they are just full of Indian units, or Philippine units, or Dutch units. When they are backed by British/Australian/US units they fight a lot better (due to the way experience checks work as I mentioned above). As you said, given time, all Allied units can get up to pretty high experience through training. A higher training experience means that gaining military experience is easier as well. I have tested the game where the deployment was historic (i.e., the Japanese did not double their forces in India/Burma before attacking) and the region was a stalemate, until the British were able to counterattack in late 1942 and basically destroyed 2 of the 4 Japanese Divisions in the theatre. By 1943 most Indian Divisions were in the high 50's and high 60's, while British Divisions were in the 70's and 80's, while Japanese experience just declined.

However, when one side puts a finger on the scales the result will be in thier favour. The Japanese are GREAT for short, quick and bloody fights, but are destroyed by drawn out attrition battles. I am pretty sure that if the Japanese had doubled their force in mid 1942 that they would be in Calcutta without too much trouble. The only difficulty would be supplying their force.

Check my post again: my statement remains valid. On Dec. 7th (or Dec. 14 if the Historical first Move is used) there are no CW ground troops in any of the Burma-India-Ceylon bases. It is hard for me to believe that this is historical.

Now, about the 19th Infantry division: I'm afraid I can't call a division with 40 experience "good". If you'll check my table, it has a 47% chance (almost even) of failing the first combat check, reducing its efficiency to 1%, and a 68% chance (slightly better than two-thirds) of failing the second combat check, which reduces its efficiency to one-quarter. Nor can it train to 60 "fast": it takes an absolute minimum of four and a half months, and probably longer.

Bringing the 29th Inf. Brigade to the Indian mainland is problematic for two reasons: first, it leaves Ceylon feebly defended, and second, by the time it arrives, G4M's from Rangoon can often take a heavy toll of the transports.

Consider how rapidly the Japanese can advance: it is quite possible for Rangoon to fall by the end of the second turn, and if it doesn't fall by the third turn, the Japanese commander is doing something way wrong. This is NOT historical: the Japanese did not enter Rangoon until March 7, 1942. From there, the IJA can advance and block the vital 'Burma road", bottling up Stilwell's Chinese LCU's by mid-January. Historically, this did not happen until April 29. It might be a good idea to bring back the intermediate base between Rangoon and Bangkok: troops shouldn't be able to march there in a week.

Bottom line: what does it matter if the game is correctly balanced for the fighting in 1944 if all India is conquered by the middle of 1942?

Originally posted by Capt. Harlock
Check my post again: my statement remains valid. On Dec. 7th (or Dec. 14 if the Historical first Move is used) there are no CW ground troops in any of the Burma-India-Ceylon bases. It is hard for me to believe that this is historical.

Well, it may be hard to believe, but it is true. There were no all BRITISH formations in Burma-India-Ceylon in 1941. I forgot that I removed the 29th Brigade (was not in Ceylon, and was used only in Madagascar and later the Korean War). However, the 21st East African Brigade does show up on turn 17. Can you tell me of any all British formation that was in India at this time? None of my research has led me to this conclusion.

Originally posted by Capt. Harlock
Now, about the 19th Infantry division: I'm afraid I can't call a division with 40 experience "good". If you'll check my table, it has a 47% chance (almost even) of failing the first combat check, reducing its efficiency to 1%, and a 68% chance (slightly better than two-thirds) of failing the second combat check, which reduces its efficiency to one-quarter. Nor can it train to 60 "fast": it takes an absolute minimum of four and a half months, and probably longer.

If you look at any single action of an unsupported Indian Division in Burma-India from 1942-43, you will not find that they fared horribly. The 17th Infantry Division was pushed back constantly throughout the 1941-42 campaign. If it was not for the 7th Armoured Brigade, the entire Burma Force would be destroyed. 14th Infantry Division was practically destroyed in the late 1942 expedition. The Second Arakan offensive by both the 5th and 7th Indian Divisions, and supported by the 26th Indian and 81st West African Divisions had an extremely hard time against the single Japanese 55th Division. This was in December 1943.

It took TIME for Indian Divisions to come to full power. If they did start off at high experience, then all of these many divisions would easily steamroll the Japanese forces in Burma/Siam.

Originally posted by Capt. Harlock
Bringing the 29th Inf. Brigade to the Indian mainland is problematic for two reasons: first, it leaves Ceylon feebly defended, and second, by the time it arrives, G4M's from Rangoon can often take a heavy toll of the transports.

Consider how rapidly the Japanese can advance: it is quite possible for Rangoon to fall by the end of the second turn, and if it doesn't fall by the third turn, the Japanese commander is doing something way wrong. This is NOT historical: the Japanese did not enter Rangoon until March 7, 1942. From there, the IJA can advance and block the vital 'Burma road", bottling up Stilwell's Chinese LCU's by mid-January. Historically, this did not happen until April 29. It might be a good idea to bring back the intermediate base between Rangoon and Bangkok: troops shouldn't be able to march there in a week.

Bottom line: what does it matter if the game is correctly balanced for the fighting in 1944 if all India is conquered by the middle of 1942?

The Moulmein base caused more problems then it solved. It is gone for good. The reason that it is NOT historic is because the Japanese player starts their advance into Burma well before they historically did. Is this the games fault? No, it is the players who are able to expand faster then Japan normally would because of foreknowledge of exactly what the enemy has to counter, and awareness that you must quickly sieze whatever you can before your enemy gets strong.

I am not balancing the game for 1944, but for 1942. If I overpower Indian units, like you propose, then the Japanese player and AI will face punishing attacks as early as the middle of 1942, something that the British were incapable of. I CANNOT increase the Indian units based on a few strategies of one side. It will just result in further abuses by the other. The only way that the British were able to counter attack when they did was because the Japanese only did a concerted attack in 1944, when the Indian units were trained and equipped enough to defeat the Japanese on even terms. If I do this in 1942, then by 1944 they will be in Japan.

Basically, the British player MUST be very calculating with their deployment of troops and aircraft. They should defend level 9 territories (notably Imphal) and have their fleet set to interept whatever the IJN might throw at them (irregardless of losses).

It is more historic to limit Indian units tho realistically poor experience then to make them unrealistically strong to fend off an unrealistic attack by 7 full strength Japanese Divisions. Also, the RAF might not be large, but it is more then capable of attaining air superiority over the Indian ocean if they are up against an appropriate number of Japanese groups. Remember, a significant number of USAAC groups served in Burma as early as the middle of 1942. If you notice that the RAF is having trouble, ship over some USAAC groups in well escorted convoys.

The British get MORE then enough capable forces to boost the defenses of India/Burma. They get 2 Infantry Divisions 1 Infantry Brigade and an Armoured Brigade by March 1942. Indian forces on their own SHOULD fail checks, but backed by British forces, who have 50-60 experience (starting), they should, and do hold firm. If you are still experiencing trouble, then ship in Allied formations from other theatres, since the Japanese are draining forces used in other fronts, you can afford to drain your own.

Ceylon should be defended by the RAF and RN, not the British or Indian Army. If the Japanese want to wrestle Ceylon from your hands, the only way in stopping them is to send every single IND/CW LCU to Ceylon. HOWEVER, the use of minimal land forces (2-3 Divisions worth of Troops) along with the heavy use of RAF (2-3 Fighter and 1-2 Bomber and all the recon you have) as well as the RN (set the Pacific Fleet to be located at Calcutta, and have all of your TF's based there, with a reaction range just enough to reach Trincomalee/Colombo, you SHOULD be able to stop anything but the entire IJN Carrier force. Also, it will take numerous turns to secure Ceylon (even if the Allies have poor units), which gives the RN plenty of time to intercept IJN shipping and stop supplies (I have seen the AI beat the AI because they cut off Japanese supplies in Ceylon). Realistically, if the Japanese wanted Ceylon in April 1942, there was no way the British could have stopped them.

Use the RN to support operations in Burma (notably bomb Rangoon if you are getting nailed by the IJNAF or IJAAF from there). This will slow down supplies as well (as all supplies to Burma must go through Rangoon), and bombardment destroyes supplies. Instead of having the RAF bomb Japanese LCU's, have them bomb supply depots.

What I do when I create AP TF's in the Indian Ocean, is to pack them full with Merchants and any spare destroyer/cruiser possible. More ships means more flak and more targets. Even though AP's are high on the attack range, you will not find that they concentrate on them fully when your TF is large. Also, usually I evacuate the NEIAF to India/Burma, as the addition of 2 fighter, 2 bomber and 1 recon group make all the difference in that theatre. They free up regions of action and inaction so the RAF is not quite so strained.

The bottom line is that the British cannot afford to be frugal with anything that they posess. The loss of too many troops/ships/aircraft can be devestating. Also, the improper deployment of units can result in destruction as well. Putting everything you have at the front can result in easy defeat. Stagger your units, have them not only build up in men and equipment (you will find that very soon you have a full establishment of men, artillery and tanks in all of your divisions) but they will be entrenched fairly well. Have 1 good British Division/Equivalent at the Front Lines, have 1 Division/Equivalent on Ceylon, have 1 Division/Equivalent in reserve (Calcutta). Constantly harass the Japanese line of supply. Their fighter and bomber aircraft will gradually be whittled down by the durable and heavily armed Hurricanes.

Japs can take India if they want

(in my PBEM game I've did everything to stop them, but the first thing that my clever opponent did was to capture the Cocos Island, cutting India off from Australia)

the price for Japanese player is that he cannot simultaneously wage full scale war in Pacific,

as I remember from oldest versions of the game, India never fell to Japanese AI, being also the base for quick march through China (now impossible) or Saigon - to Formosa Straits.

Allied "sentiment" for those solutions is understandable ...

Since only Northern India is represented, I believe that the Japanese are fully capable of invading and conquering all of the territory in Pac War if they are determined enough and spend sufficient resources on it. Would they be able to take all of India? I doubt it. But they would be in a position that they would not have to fear a major British assault for a long time.

Realistically, in 3.2, the Japanese don't get much for taking out India. All that they get are the VP's for destroyed British and Indian Divisions, and what they lose (against a competent PBEM opponent) is probably the Marshall Islands. There is no way that they can keep up a sustained attack against India and keep the US (even in early 1942) off their backs.

British factories are no longer located in any accessible base, so invading India will not destroy any factories. What it does is speed up the Pacific War, giving the initiative to the US as your focus is (it has to be) 100% against the British. This will allow the US to determine where and when the next major Pacific Battle will be, and will probably take place on former Japanese territory. The Japanese have very few military units in which to defend their outlying bases early in the war. They rely on their fleet and air force to keep the US forces at bay. If the fleet and air force are busy at the other end of the Ocean, then the US has no worries and should exploit the situation, even if they do lose India (which is not a crippling defeat if they can start bombing Japan by 1943).

I have found that the best tactic for the Japanese player is to sit and hold at Bangkok. This is the best base to defend, due to location and as a major transportation hub. All that you need are 6 Divisions and a few IJAAF groups to hold the British at bay until 1943, when you should start sending in some of the new formations that start appearing.

Now there I must respectfully disagree. Thar's gold in them thar bases. The potential harvest in both Control Points and Kill Points is large. Remember that it's not only LCU's that can be killed, but lots of shipping at both Calcutta and Colombo, if the Japanese player assigns a few air squadrons to the area. G4M's work nicely as always--in V. 3.2 I have noticed a maddening tendency for the British ships to sink after a single torpedo hit. And a squadron of dive or torpedo bombers based in Dacca can wreak havoc.

A second point: why bother to hold Bangkok with six divisions when you can eradicate SEAC and need no divisions? Well, maybe one or two to block the "Burma Road".

Finally, check the resource and oil points: why let the Allies have them when they could be working for the Japanese? Especially, the oil points at Rangoon are highly valuable. Or rather, they were, until V. 3.2 made the Japanese virtually energy-independent. But that problem is major enough to require a thread all its own...