Hong Kong Fort Level

[Don Bowen]

In CHS we set the Fort Level of Hong Kong to 50 in an attempt to prevent it's (non-historical) first week fall. I'd be interested in comments from players on Hong Kong, how hard it is to take and when it falls.

The high fort setting was a test and changes may well be in order.

I've also heard at least one comment that Bataan should also get a high fortification number to prevent almost-immediate capitulation. Comments?? Any others??

[Lemurs!]

Can't take it. It is January 7th in my game against Joe and it is down to about a 30. So i might take it in early march.

I am using aprox. the historical force.

Mike

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: Lemurs!

Can't take it. It is January 7th in my game against Joe and it is down to about a 30. So i might take it in early march.

I am using aprox. the historical force.

Mike

Yeah, I heard that from Joe too. The problem may be that I test against the AI and I think that rascal gives itself unfair advantages.

I'm thinking maybe the "normal" maximum of 9.

Of course, the normal response to failure to take an objective is to relieve the commander!

[Bradley7735]

Here's my 2 cents.

I do think that a higher fort level at HK might be good. 50 is probably way too high when it's human vs human. I would suggest lowering it to 15 or maybe 20. 9 is ok as well, but I think you're on to somthing good with HK having more fort's than a normal base. I think the Japanese had to starve out the defenders before they could take the place. (not sure about that, though).

In regards to Bataan, I don't know. I'd be hesitant to make it more than 9. But, I think 9 might be historically correct. It'd make folks defend there instead of Manila.

[rockmedic109]

Against Japanese AI. It fell on Dec 22. For a game against the AI, I think it is good the way it is on the surface. I keep an AAR of my own so I can go back and figure out how many troops the Japanese lost {reported loss} during the seige, but I do not know how many were lost in the real campaign.

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: rockmedic109

Against Japanese AI. It fell on Dec 22. For a game against the AI, I think it is good the way it is on the surface. I keep an AAR of my own so I can go back and figure out how many troops the Japanese lost {reported loss} during the seige, but I do not know how many were lost in the real campaign.

That's exactly in line with my findings and there-in lies the rub. Should we set it for Head-to-Head or Human vs Japanese AI???

[Lemurs!]

Why don't we just clone the package with a few chsnges for agaibst AI?
Make one 155 & 165 or something?
I already have my 126 that i will release on Spooky's soon so one more will not hurt.

Mike

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: Lemurs!

Why don't we just clone the package with a few chsnges for agaibst AI?
Make one 155 & 165 or something?
I already have my 126 that i will release on Spooky's soon so one more will not hurt.

Mike

Not a bad idea but I'd like it to settle down somemore before we diverge. Hate that old double-maintenance thing. How about Head-to-Head for now, which would mean level 9. Also, any adjustments for Bataan or anywhere else??

[Halsey]

If the river defense routine gets fixed, a level 9 may be just fine for Hong Kong.
My gut feeling is that fort levels should not exceed the designed limitations of 9.

Just my opinion though.[;)]

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

ORIGINAL: Lemurs!

Why don't we just clone the package with a few chsnges for agaibst AI?
Make one 155 & 165 or something?
I already have my 126 that i will release on Spooky's soon so one more will not hurt.

Mike

Not a bad idea but I'd like it to settle down somemore before we diverge. Hate that old double-maintenance thing. How about Head-to-Head for now, which would mean level 9. Also, any adjustments for Bataan or anywhere else??

I also don't like the idea of more versions of CHS. I already maintain a separate version for use with the "non-extended" map. If we split again then I will need to maintain two versions, with four versions total. Let's make the fort a 9 for now. I still intend to test making HK an urbah hex to see what effect that will have...

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: Lemurs!

Can't take it. It is January 7th in my game against Joe and it is down to about a 30. So i might take it in early march.

I am using aprox. the historical force.

Mike

Mike(J) and Joe(A) are playing one CHS ... and

Joe(J) and TESTAROSSA(A) are playing another ...

In both we are first week of 1942 and HK not fallen ... furthermore in my game against TESTAROSSA he has chosen to be more agreesive and has inundated the Canton/HK area with CHinese units, dsirupting the supply of the HK occupied units ... I saw this also in my first stock game ... so there is a reason HK needs to fall early. If the Japanese had suspected that the Chinese could move major forces forward and "besiege" Canton/Kowloon, during the attack on HK they would've done things very differently in that area.

So for H against H we may need to back off a bit of the foritications. In my LEMURS game .. my HK units are getting very low on supply and I suspect the place will fall soon ... but it hasn't yet.

In my game against TESTAROSSA I've gotten 5:1 odds this last time ... so the walls may be cracking there as well ( but not cracked yet ) ...

We will let everyone know when HK falls in both games.

( Oh and in both games both Japanese players are using approximately historical forces ...

38 Div
19 Eng
20 Eng
3 Arty units
2 AT units
23 HQ

I think Mike tossed in the 19 Mx Bde thinking it would represent a Regiment of the 51st Div not represented in the game. However I did not do this because I thought that since 38 Div had 500+ squads that it was already in "SQAURE" TO&E and hence the "extra" regiment was already baked in. Regardless the forces being used are as historically accurate as the game allows at this point ...

)

[rockmedic109]

Personally, I'd prefer an AI game. Never played PBEM and with my schedule, I would only be able to send turns sporadically, so I will likely remain playing against the AI only.

I would like to see two versions {PBEM and AI} but I imagine it has to be a lot of work {ever realize that work is a four lettered word?}.

As of now {I am in late Jan 42} I find CHS to be magnificent. I worry about the Russian plane activation bug, but for now I am enjoying all of your wonderful efforts. Thank You.

[mac5732]

Hong Kong and bataan should be strong, however I don't know if the higher fort levels are right or not, still playing lst game with CHS, so will have to see.

The problem is the Japenese used specific forces against these areas, a human player in the game can always increase those forces which in turn reduces the time it would take to fall. Therefore, I don't think higher levels would be all that great as the Japenese player will just increase his forces for the attack. Have to think some more on this, as for bataan, possible increase the fort levels at Clark, Manilla and some of the other landing areas, not to much higher then they aleady are, but enough so that they don't fall within 1-3 days. maybe take some of the forces that start in Bataan and put them in Clark and/or Manilla with higher fort start level, make the japenese player take a little longer to take these area before moving on Bataan. But again, all the human player has to do is increase the amount of forces he uses to get higher odds. If you make the fort levels, to high, it may throw the game out of balance. My 2 cents

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: mac5732

... snip ...

I don't think higher levels would be all that great as the Japenese player will just increase his forces for the attack.

... snip ...

In theory this is correct - but in practice against a careful ... ecclectically aggressive Allied Player ... the Japanese player will find it difficult to increase forces during the opening attacks as more forces would be needed for many such situations and they simply do not exist. For example in China ... in both my current CHS games ... the Chinese and Japanese are both bobbing and weaving across the map ... and the Japanese need MORE troops in China and cannot spare anything ... 2+ divisions are needed for Burma especially if any chance of taking and holding Mytchina is to be had ... at least 3 Divisions are needed for Malaysia ... at least 2.5 for the PI just to "sit on" this place. This leaves the 2nd, 4th and the 21st free ... I typically commit one of these to the PI and another to the Amboina, Kendari, Balikpapan area campaign ... the 56th and 35th Bdes are also commited to Borneo/Summatra and Java ... the final division probably goes to Palembang ... point is in practice Japanese player could at best increase forces for a short time in one area but would lose time elsewhere ... allowing for more digging and reinforcements and possibly increasing losses and time required to secure all of SRA. And I guess I play the first 6 months ( as Japan ) with the mission of securing SRA as quickly as possible without exessive losses.

If the river thing is going to be fixed in 1.5.1 then I'm willing to wait and see if that fixes HK ( with a fort level of 9 ) ... this would permit us to remove the 50 level.

Oh Don/Andrew ... I think I missed to whole rationale for "map extensions" ... and maybe I'd vote that we don't need them ... this seems to add "busy work" for the Allied player ( mostly on the Brit side of the map ) ... moving supply from ME/Aden to Karachi/Bombay to achieve the same result that the stock game already gave us. Maybe we'd need to remove 100 AK and 20 TK from the Allied OB to "simulate" the back and forth. But the extension also allows opportuity for abuse of the Japanese player camps near the canal exists or even worse, enters the canals. I probably missed the debate on this - but can I get a 1-2 sentence summary ? Point would be to eliminate more multiple versions by dropping the extensions if possible.

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson
Oh Don/Andrew ... I think I missed to whole rationale for "map extensions" ... and maybe I'd vote that we don't need them ... this seems to add "busy work" for the Allied player ( mostly on the Brit side of the map ) ... moving supply from ME/Aden to Karachi/Bombay to achieve the same result that the stock game already gave us. Maybe we'd need to remove 100 AK and 20 TK from the Allied OB to "simulate" the back and forth. But the extension also allows opportuity for abuse of the Japanese player camps near the canal exists or even worse, enters the canals. I probably missed the debate on this - but can I get a 1-2 sentence summary ? Point would be to eliminate more multiple versions by dropping the extensions if possible.

Way back at the start of the collaboration on CHS, I mentioned that it was possible to add the "extensions" to the map. Others were enthusiastic - more than me in fact - so I decided to make a map version including Panama and Aden. Their value is as follows:

Panama: Not much justification for adding it besides that it is the location for some naval reinforcements; provides a small amount of supply; provides (possibly) a safer passage for Allied ships moving to/from the South Pacific; and provides a "stretch" goal for Japanese players to attack.

Aden (Middle East): This area represents "off map" British/CW areas and capabilities in the Middle East and Africa, including ship repair, supply generation, reinforcements, and a "fall back" location should India be conquered. I originally planned on making the "Middle East" base invulnerable to attack by manipulating the map data, but I could not get it to work, so there is a recommended house rule that it is not supposed to be directly attacked.

So there is not a huge amount of justification for them, although I do think it is good for the British to have a fallback position for India.

As for the "canals": if these do get abused by Japanese players, by concentrating naval assets in them, then one thing I intend to do is to make the "canal" hexes shallow water, which will help vs Japanese subs. Or another house rule could be used to prohibit such activity.

I am not necessarily a huge fan of the map extensions myself, even though they were fun to make from a technical viewpoint. There are others who are not at all interested in them. I have created a second version of CHS specifically to cater to thouse who do not wish to use them. It is not hard for me to maintain this version, now that I have my script set up for it, so I think we can continue with these two versions. Choice is good if it can be provided relatively easily.

I would happily play CHS with or without the "extended" map.

[Halsey]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson


Oh Don/Andrew ... I think I missed to whole rationale for "map extensions" ... and maybe I'd vote that we don't need them ... this seems to add "busy work" for the Allied player ( mostly on the Brit side of the map ) ... moving supply from ME/Aden to Karachi/Bombay to achieve the same result that the stock game already gave us. Maybe we'd need to remove 100 AK and 20 TK from the Allied OB to "simulate" the back and forth. But the extension also allows opportuity for abuse of the Japanese player camps near the canal exists or even worse, enters the canals. I probably missed the debate on this - but can I get a 1-2 sentence summary ? Point would be to eliminate more multiple versions by dropping the extensions if possible.

This is exactly what I thought when this idea was originated. A lot more work, and a potential for major abuse. As JW stated it's already integrated into the basic game.

Only Karachi needs to be "bullet proofed".[;)]

Currently my fellow PBEM warriors are using the AB map without the extension.

AB's map is great. Don't make any hard changes to it that can't be modified in future
modded scenarios. Keeping track of more than one map is too much of a headache.

Modders should change base stats at the scenario data level.

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

... snip ...

As for the "canals": if these do get abused by Japanese players, by concentrating naval assets in them, then one thing I intend to do is to make the "canal" hexes shallow water, which will help vs Japanese subs. Or another house rule could be used to prohibit such activity.

... snip ...

Well if it is easy to maintain both then I certainly don't mind the choice ... as to codifying house rules to reduce abuse ... if one says that Japanese player can't camp next to extension restricted hexes ( for example ) then this provides a "safe" psuedo canal for the allies down the outer edge of the restricted hexes running south from San Diego to the Society Islands ... and without this, then the Japanese can camp adjacent to restricted hexes and have high odds of being on the primary shipping lanes ... so this needs some thought. It is not being abused in either of my current games, hence I haven't put a lot of thought into it ... but I see the potential.