Matrix Games Forums

Below are the honor rules I have agreed to with Helpless for our 1926 Campaign Game. I tried to have them make sense but I guess I am looking for some feedback from someone who maybe knows more about the area and time period. I am especially concerned about Australia and New Zealand. I am assuming they would be very twitchy about any Japanese aggression.

Any ideas for improvement would be appreciated.

Proposed Activation.
United States:

1. Start the game active and may operate without restriction within their own bases and in China.
2. Naval warships may use British bases and repair facilties in India, Singapore, and Hong Kong.
3. May use French bases in Indo-China and South Pacific.
4. May use Australian/New Zealand bases starting Jan 1923/1927

France:

1. French naval forces start the game as an active power - may use the same bases as the US.
2. French land forces must remain in Indo-China and Southpac unless Indo-China or Southpac is attacked by Japan. Then they may move without restriction.
3. French forces in Shang-Hai may be used to expel the Japanese garrison and move freely in China.

China:

1. Starts the game as an active power.
2. All Japanese Bases in China must be removed before any moves on Korea can be taken.
3. Chinese land and sea forces may only operate in China and Korea and the surrounding Sea Areas.

British/Commonwealth/Canada:

1. Starts the game as an inactive power.
2. British and Commonwealth cargo vessels may be used freely by the US player. Except they may not be used in amphibious attacks until activated.
3. British and Commonwealth Warships will not actively attack Japanese forces. They will defend their bases. Defense of their bases is defined as any Japanse forces within 2 hexes (except for Hong Kong and Shang Hai). However they can escort convoys between British/Commonwealth bases. ie. Singapore to Hong Kong etc. Submarines will stay in base or patrol the Indian Ocean.
4. British forces in Shang Hai can be used to expel the Japanese Garrison in Shang Hai.
5. British/Commonwealth land forces will remain in their bases until activated.
6. British naval forces will remain in their bases until activated. They may escort convoys between their bases.
7. British/Commonwealth will become active when:

a. Japan moves any additional forces into Shang Hai. (their garrison at the start does not count).
b. They attack any British/Commonwealth/Canadian Base (land or sea).
c. They sink two or more British warships (be careful of raiding British convoys)
d. Jan 1924/1928
e. Pearl Harbor falls
f. Australia/New Zealand enters the war.
f. Japanese score is 3 times the Allied Score. Not sure about this one we will modify if it does not seem right.

Australia/New Zealand:

1. Start the game as an inactive power.
2. Cargo vessels may be used freely by the US player. Except they may not be used in amphibious attacks until activated.
3. Australian/New Zealand Warships will not activately attack Japanese forces. They will escort convoys between their bases and defend their bases. (Any Japanese forces within 2 hexes may be attacked).
4. Australia/New Zealand become active when:

a. Jan 1924/1928
b. Pearl Harbor Falls
c. Britain enters the war.
d. Japan attacks any Australian or New Zealand bases (land or sea).
e. Japan sinks 1 or more Australian warship.
f. Japanese surface warships move into the Coral Sea.
e. Japanese score is 3 times the Allied score.

Dutch:

1. Starts the game as an inactive power.
2. US player may operate Dutch cargo vessels freely. Except they may not be used in amphibious attacks until activated.
3. Warships can escort convoys between Dutch bases.
4. Warships will not actively engage Japanese vessels unless they are within two hexes of a Dutch base.
5. The Dutch become active when:

a. Pearl Harbor falls
b. Japanese score is 4 times Allied score
c. Japanese attack any Dutch base (land or sea).
d. Japanese sink three or more warships.

Any attempt to be remotely "historical" for WPO ... should start with a "story line" about the causes of the war and how the war actually came to start. This should probably be a few paragraphs long anyway. And this would provide background for the kinds of things you talking about.

Strickly speaking beligerant warhips had time limits about how long they could remain in nuetral ports and many nuetrals enforced these time limits . some did not. A famous case is the Graf Spee, she went into Montevideo and was subjected to a 72 hour rule and the skipper decided to scuttle because the British had convinced him that he faced superior force if he left port.

So, just because it might be useful from a game perspective for the Americans to be able to use neutral ports - it might not be the case - but again the story line could try to address this as well - for example a pre-existing Japanese British treaty might be important enough for the British that they would not allow US/French ships into their ports except in accordance with international convention. A case in point would be the Russo-Japanese War. The British did not support the Russian fleet's transit to the Pacific. The Germans however did support the Russians. In the event - the Japanese benefited from having the Russian fleet show up to be destroyed but that might not have been a predicted outcome !

Besides trying to be "historical" ( and I put the term in quotes because obviously none of this ever happened so we are really talking about "plausible alternative history" at best ) another approach is just to make up rules that you would like to see from purely a game balance perspective and jjust skip any attempt to be "plausible". This probably much easier because you can then skip worrying about the details of the treaties and the actual situations in each country during this period ( historically ).

I'm still mesing around with the AI understanding the logistical and tactical realities of the game - but while my preference is to write a story line and proceed that way - in order to get into my first campaign, I might just propose that my opponent and I just agree to whatever house rules and switch settings we are comfortable with - and skip the "story line" part. That is skip trying to pay lip service to "plausible alternative history". But each player has to make this decision for themselves.

If "plausible alternative history" is to be skipped, then making up house rules to create some type of "play balance" is appropriate - but the player pair in question would then need to negotiate around their common vision of why they are playing - what are their personal victory conditions - do the VP in the game matter or not - and what do they want to "trade" in exchange for the items they feel strongly that they would like to have. It is unlikely that one player pair would agree to the identical set of house rules as another player pair. For example, I have 3 WITP PBEM games going now - and all three have different sets of house rules. But actually this doesn't cause too much of a problem - I'm usually a little more strict on myself than the rules we've agreed to anyway.

My 2 cents ...

Thanks for the feedback. I think we are in the mode of comfortable with the house rules without the background story yet.

My thoughts on how things activate were based on these principles.

1.) Japan is initially fighting the war with the US.
2.) The British Empire (including Australia/New Zealand) is concerned about this naked aggression and willing to lend some logistical support. Looking at the bases, US forces will probably not be basing or launching attacks out of inactive British Empire bases. They would probably refuel there and move on. Or cripples would be send to the repair yards.
3.) Cargo ships of all nationalities would be hired to support Allied forces. Japan would declare a war zone area and raid that shipping.

I have told Helpless that non-active powers would only escort convoys between their own bases. He should be able to steer clear of these convoys with his raiders and not activate a power. This is not entirely fair. For example a massive British supply effort into Hong Kong will invariably help Allied forces in China. So the Japanese need to decide if they try to interdict these convoys and risk activating the British Empire or letting them go. Sinking cargo ships will not activate a power only surface warships.

4.) Australia/New Zealand are more concerned with the Japanese than the British. This is their back yard so to speak. But they are more worried about upsetting the Japanese and provoking an attack. So initially their bases are not available to the US.

5.) The Dutch are just trying to keep their heads down.

6.) There is a bias of "colonial" powers vs. the upstart Japanese. So while neutral countries in a European war would tend respect that neutrality, in the Pacific it is a different story. Everybody but the Japanese hope they do not succeed.

I was thinking about similar "historical" background and Mike's proposal seems to fit my imagination of possible political situation during that period. IMHO, these rules gives to Japanese player some flexibility during first years of fight. But at the end she will fight everyone and this brings less chance of "sit-and-wait" situation.

The only thing which make me curious is China - it might be the main battlefield in WPO, cause from the start it has biggest active ground forces.

P.S. Mike, I'm almost done. There is still some minor things left. Had busy day at work, hope to send it to you soon. I feel it's gonna be learn and try game.. [:)]

Agreed looking forward to it. I will try to get it back to you today. I think I pretty much know what I want to do. The advantage of being on the defense.

I agree with you about China. It will keep you honest because you will have to commit a portion of your land forces to protecting Korea or expanding into Manchuria. Unless I am wrong that was in the long-range plans for Japan anyway.

Of course landings on the coast of China or the threat of them anyway, will keep China honest as well. Besides until Port Arthur falls China will not be able to advance into Korea.

China - it might be the main battlefield in WPO

In my "playing around" against the AI to date ( as the Allies in scenario 1 ) .. I immediately sent Chinese into Korea and found it empty !!! Even in pseudo-plausible-alternate-history I would prefer that the Japanese garrison Korea with the two divisions that formed the historical garrison ( the 19th and 20th ). The Korean armed resistance was active in the early twenties ( based in CHina ) and would've certainly been more active had the 2 garrison divisions departed. I believe the 2 divisions however have been allocated to the PI invasion by the scenario, hence a house rule I would add would be that they should be replaced immediately ( from the Home Islands ) by 2 other divisions or else the Chinese may enter Korea immediately ( simulating the Korean Independence Army arising !

But a part from that certainly loading Chinamen on British APs and taking them to the PI or landing them on Formosa would be exciting events though your house rules may be intended to prevent those things from happening. But yes anyway the Chinese can get at the Japanese will be a huge drain on the Japanese and probably result in ultimate defeat for the Japanese ( I cleared the mainland pretty quickly even though the AI sent 2 Divisions into Tsingtao - they died along with the Bde that started there ).

If your intent is to fight a Naval War over the PI between the Americans and the Japanese and allow the Japanese the option to escalate with other powers in the hopes of gaining more conquests - then these hosue rules will probably do that trick !

Well the house rules certainly prevent the Chinese from being sent to PI to reinforce there. They are only concerned with Mainland China. The Japanese could decide to abandon Korea and let it go, but probably would not in real life. I think the rule to force a successful attack on Port Arthur before moving into Korea should allow the Japanese time to get their house in order. Not sure if there are Japanese forces in Korea now. I know Port Arthur is garrisoned. Again we are going to see how it develops. We may need to establish a minimum garrison of Chinese units in China or something like that. After all I do not think that China was a unified country at this time. It was essentially a bunch of warlords and I doubt any Chinese general would have full access to all these troops. Any thoughts on this?

I think I'll move one of those divisions back to Korea (probably the 20th). It is one of those things in beta we tested, we were focused mainly on the principle war, it never occured to us players would actively take an offensive in China to Korea. I figured as much in PBEM (hence players reinforcing it), but not against the AI (remember, an AI is still an AI). So, I'll see if I can't find two formations to replace those divisions, and tell them to go on the attack in China. Will have to wait until I get home though, or maybe tomorrow (stupid live chat [:D]).

That or I could nerf the Chinese army (which Brady was wanting me to do all along [;)])

There some chinese LCUs which belong to SEA HQ. Seems to be WITP leftover.

IMHO, the China solution could be increasing number of LCUs, but make them more static as it was done in CHS.

P.S. Mike, turn sent. [:)]

If your going for a more historical situation i would think that making China LCUs stronger or more numerous but static would be the right thing to do. This way of Japan, who was agressive in the region anyway, wants to start an invasion they have the chance to do it, make some headway and probably bog down, also with Chinease cities not worth many VPs it would make the Japanese player think twice about risk vrs reward. Just my 2 cents[:D]

I like that also. I am thinking on limiting the number of Chinese units that can go on the "offensive" to something like 20%. That way I can move them around to protect and develop bases and have limited units for an attack on Korea to keep Japan honest.

Here is proposed modification to the rules.

China:

1. Starts the game as an active power.
2. All Japanese Bases in China must be removed before any moves on Korea can be taken.
3. Chinese land and sea forces may only operate in China, Manchuria and Korea and the surrounding Sea Areas.
4. Chinese units operating in Korea must be assigned to a different HQ ie. SE Asia or Southwest etc. Only 15% of Chinese infantry/cavalry units can be assigned to non-Chinese Military HQ. No more than 2 HQ units can be assigned to Non-Chinese Military HQ

There are 81 or so Chinese Infantry units (9 start the game as Southeast Asia). So a max of 12 infantry/cavalry divsions/corps could be assigned to Non-Chinese Military and available for operations in Korea or against Port Arthur.

In other words to go on the offensive the Chinese units would have to be assigned to Non-Chinese HQ.

Chinese units assigned to the Chinese Military could attack within China to retake a base that started the game as a Chinese base.

This give China some units to threaten Port Arthur and eventually Korea. But significantly limits the Allied player from making Korea into a major part of the game. I would think the Japanese player would be able to stay on the defensive at Port Arthur and screen China out of Korea all together.

More and more complicated but still workable I think.

What about Manchuria? Besides that it has chinese flag there no LCUs [;)]...

ORIGINAL: Mike Carroll


There are 81 or so Chinese Infantry units (9 start the game as Southeast Asia).

For comparison in scen 8, Japan has initially 21 Div + 15 Bde under non-restricted HQ's (SAA, SEF 4thFleet). Even they are somehow better that Chinese Military, there is no big difference between their experience as in WITP. All this makes Chinese invasion close to impossible. Main task would be to keep already owned teritories. Which is ok for me, it is "Dreadnought in The Pacific" after all...[8D]

Chinese forces will move into defensive positions in Manchuria. Basically the Chinese Army will defend and build up bases. The limited number of units will be available for offensive action against Port Arthur then eventually Korea.

This will prevent a major land war in China but keep you honest there I think - unless that is what you want[:D]

[&:] Interesting , if you kick Japs out from Port Arthur, will Soviets be activated?

ORIGINAL: Helpless

What about Manchuria? Besides that it has chinese flag there no LCUs [;)]...

This is one of the things we had to work with within the WitP engine. Make it CHinese (so as not to trigger Soviet Activation), but no LCUs. However, as land combat is slower, a large thrust into Manchuria leaves a nice flank for the CHinese to hit.

I could nerf the Chinese army

This was actually my first thought - though I think my suggestion to you was "freeze them like Soviets" .. of course that requires greater than zero lines of code .. but shouldn't be extremely difficult. Only reason to even have them from your design intent ( if I interpret correctly ) is as a possible target for Japan. And having them wandering around first doesn't fit into that - but in any "plausible alternate history" scenario having a meaningful Korean garrison for the Japanese deserves some consideration ( as you indicate ).

What I could do is this:

1. Remove All Chinese SEAsia Units (I left them in as sort of a British trained Chinese units, as most are so far inland they wont come on line for a while)
2. Remove about 20% of all remaining Chinese units.
3. Add large static guns to half of remaining Chinese units.

Or, rather than adding static units, make a large part of Chinese units start as reinforcements about 6 months in, allowing Japan 6 months to play hell, and then it gets into a slugging match. This would be neat, as it makes a Japanese player think about where to commit, as there is an invasion window he must hit.

After all I do not think that China was a unified country at this time. It was essentially a bunch of warlords and I doubt any Chinese general would have full access to all these troops. Any thoughts on this?

True ... but focusing on this to the exclusion of the realities of the Japanese need to provide effective military opposition to the Korean Independence Army ... is selective ... so if we drill into one ... we must drill into the other. I do see a vacuum in Korea getting filled ... and if in the game that is by China - at least it gets the point across.

But all the major powers in the game had "political" issues IRL - and the engine isn't really designed to deal with that - so these either have to be handled by the scenario designer - or by house rules. And over on WITP forum - I have many times seen players ( in their AARs ) remark that if the engine or the house rules don't prevent it - then I can do it !

So if we don't want Chinamen running amuck ( or Indians or whomever ) then either the scenario or the house rules must limit.