Play Balance in China

[Caranorn]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

These computers are going to take so much of the fun out of playing the game; don't you agree?

Yes exactly what I was saying to my old fellow player Jérôme yesterday evening on the phone !!! We won't be able to laugh about each others too, and imitate Goering or Churchill giving orders !!! [:D]

Well you could play having skyppe or some other voice software running and still have much of the same old fun (I know most of the Cry Havoc gaming folk (most here won't know that game, though I'd expect Patrice as a frenchman to do...) play that way these days via vassal and skyppe).

Though obviously all the old dice thrown into the Potomac (or some other major river) after a convention as punishment for bad rolls stories will be lost forever.

And I'm sure we will still have rules lawerying, it will just end up here on the Matrix boards saying the game is stupid and doesn't even understand those rules;-)

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Caranorn
I think MWiF should not deviate from the existing rules on breaking down corps to divisions except the obvious addition of having an unlimited number of divisions (for break downs, not for separate building). A division in MWiF should work exactly the same way as in WiF (if Harry decides to add a rule for corps level losses in WiF it should obviously be applied to MWiF...). I think this is the reason for Harry's confusion when you brought up unlimited corps breakdowns as that had already been agreed on and that it was assumed to use exactly teh same rules as in WiF currently.

On my list of things to do is to write up the optional rule for "unlimited break down of corps/armies into divisions" for Play Balance in China. As my starting point I will take the standard optional rule for divisions (22.4.1). That has the line "If there are not enough divisions in your force pools to break down a corps or army, you can remove them from anywhere on the maps to make up the shortfall." This clearly makes the availability of divisions limited to those divisions provided in the counter mix.

I have other things I need to keep focused on at the present. Writing this optional rule can happen any time in the next month and it will have no effect on the overall schedule If someone wants to write it up and post it here for review by everyone, please be my guest. It should be written in the same style as the other optional rules in RAW.

[herwin]

I'll comment more later, but the war in China was a stalement for two reasons:
1. Japan had what she wanted, and
2. The Japanese Army was overstretched covering what they had.

[Greyshaft]

ORIGINAL: herwin
I'll comment more later, but the war in China was a stalement for two reasons:
1. Japan had what she wanted, and
2. The Japanese Army was overstretched covering what they had.

Phew! I'm glad we've got Herwin here to tell us these things.[;)]

[macgregor]

This clearly makes the availability of divisions limited to those divisions provided in the counter mix.

Yes but that's on the other scale, no? I've always felt that Japan at least should have unlimited breakdowns. Considering the massive size of the MWiF map (in China especially), and the fact you lose half your strength(and zoc) when you breakdown. I don't see why there should be any limitations on breakdowns. I thought the limitations were based on countersheet space. Am I missing something?

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: macgregor

This clearly makes the availability of divisions limited to those divisions provided in the counter mix.

Yes but that's on the other scale, no? I've always felt that Japan at least should have unlimited breakdowns. Considering the massive size of the MWiF map (in China especially), and the fact you lose half your strength(and zoc) when you breakdown. I don't see why there should be any limitations on breakdowns. I thought the limitations were based on countersheet space. Am I missing something?

The context of my statement was that I was stating what RAW says.

The overwhelming consensus of the forum group is there should be "unlimited breakdown". The devil is in the details though. Exactly what is meant by unlimited is not clear. One interpretation could be thousands of Japanese divisions - enough to cover every land hex in China and the South Pacific. The more reasonable interpretation is: as many corps/army units as the player builds can be broken down into divisions. Once a corps/army is broken down, then it is set aside (for possible reformation later - you know, in case it gets religion). This imposes a limit on the number of divsional units: the number of corps/army units times 2.

I still haven't gotten around to writing this up in the style of RAW. Actually, I would hope that what I write up is more precise than some of the rules in RAW.

[fuzzy_bunnyy]

hello, ive been reading these forums for a while, and often the statement has come up that there needs to be some motivation for Japan and china not to attack each other as was the historical case. If DoD 3 or something similar was implemented, I believe that would have the desired effect(in every DoD game ive played Japan seems to stop doing anything in china around 1938-39 and goes after the NEI/India/Australia). however, if that isn't something that is wanted then perhaps some sort of restriction on Japanese and Chinese land impulses? perhaps get rid of the unlimited action limits starting in 1938 and going until the US has taken some amount (3?) of Victory cities and/or major ports from Japan? or mabye have it end as soon as a unit based in China attacks or bombs in any way? that would seem to represent the historical trend of Japan not wanting to commit resources to China.

anyways, excuse my ramblings, i have to go to bed.

[sirgrognard]

Assuming CWiF scale for China and unlimited divisions (and I realize this is a fundamental rule change) a Chinese division should act like a partisan when out of supply range (HQ/city, etc.), i.e., they are always in supply and they do NOT change control of hexes. They can leave their home country, of course, but at that point would revert to regular major power land unit status. This would allow China to better defend its vast tracts on this scale without giving it undo aggressive powers.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: sirgrognard

Assuming CWiF scale for China and unlimited divisions (and I realize this is a fundamental rule change) a Chinese division should act like a partisan when out of supply range (HQ/city, etc.), i.e., they are always in supply and they do NOT change control of hexes. They can leave their home country, of course, but at that point would revert to regular major power land unit status. This would allow China to better defend its vast tracts on this scale without giving it undo aggressive powers.

I like this. What does everyone else think?

[c92nichj]

Its ok, but all changes made for playbalance in China seems to be to the chineese advantage, as I've been playing on that map the positions can quite easily be reversed so unles we want to limit the japaneese options to focus on China or loose it all. Some advantage should be given to a japaneese player on teh defensive.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: sirgrognard

Assuming CWiF scale for China and unlimited divisions (and I realize this is a fundamental rule change) a Chinese division should act like a partisan when out of supply range (HQ/city, etc.), i.e., they are always in supply and they do NOT change control of hexes. They can leave their home country, of course, but at that point would revert to regular major power land unit status. This would allow China to better defend its vast tracts on this scale without giving it undo aggressive powers.

So, when it is out of supply range, it is stil in supply, but cease to change the control of hexes it occupies ???

While the concept is interesting, I don't like the fact that the way that those divisions work is be different from the way the others divisions work.

And moreover, I think that if there's a problem with play balance, it is on the Japanese side, not the Chinese side. From the experience I got with CWiF, the Chinese had less trouble defending than the Japanese have trouble avoiding being surrounded, cut out of supply by Partisans & rapid chinese cavalry divisions, and thus rendered ineficients.

Well, playtest of MWiF will tell, but may I suggest that the first playtest of MWiF be with the rules already decided (using warlords, unlimited divisionnal breakdown, and a couple more chinese cities).

Best Regards

[Greyshaft]

ORIGINAL: sirgrognard

Assuming CWiF scale for China and unlimited divisions (and I realize this is a fundamental rule change) a Chinese division should act like a partisan when out of supply range (HQ/city, etc.), i.e., they are always in supply and they do NOT change control of hexes. They can leave their home country, of course, but at that point would revert to regular major power land unit status. This would allow China to better defend its vast tracts on this scale without giving it undo aggressive powers.

Just finished (re)reading "Japan's War" by EP Hoyt. Light on tactical detail but mega explanations on the political tides that swept Japan from Commodore Perry up till the end of the war. One of Hoyt's interesting observations was that conquering China was the original and primary war aim of the Japanese and their perception in 1943/44 was that if China could be completely conquered then the Americans would lose interest in the war and a negotiated peace could be achieved. Of course this opinion was a bit "off with the fairies" in light of Pearl Harbor etc but it was quite real to the Japanese High Command.

So how does this affect play balance in China? To reflect the reality of my previous paragraph I think the Japanese in MWiF need a strong game reason to launch periodic offensives in China. Occupying potential B-29 bases is one but mopping up these "partisan" divisions is another good one. It doesn't accurately reflect the Japanese thinking of the time but the result is the same... that Japanese cannot ignore China. So at the end of this long ramble I vote yes to SirGrognard's idea.

As Froonp says... should be optional

[wosung]

Maybe "conquering China" is too imprecise. IJA knew, that it couldn't conquere China in the sense of conquering the land. IJA couldnt even control the land, it occupied. (see: Lincoln Li, The Japanese Army in Nothern China)
It was more about breaking the political will of the Chinese governments, esp Central Government, by producing chaos and removing their means of waging war. (The same with Germany and Russia).
Gamewise this would mean for the Japanese Player: If I conquere X Cities and y hexes and have z political negotiations with Chinese political figures (opposing KMT Fractions, warlords) then there might be the chance that "the entire house of cards will fall apart" (to paraphrase German saying about Russia).
For the Chinese side: James C. Hsiung and Steven I. Levine ed.: China's bitter victory: The war with Japan, 1937-1945.
Regards

[Greyshaft]

I agree. The game should give the Japanese a hope of winning if they just try "hard enough" without the need to occupy all of China. After all, that was their perception of reality and it was the motivation for their strategy. How can you induce a Japanese player to mimic history unless they have the opportunity to 'win' by following the same historic stategy.

[wosung]

Thought about the China Problem:

historically, I think, chances for additional regional puppet regimes (like North China Political Council, or Wang Jingweis "National Gouvernment") would have been higher, than total Chinese breakdown. But nobody could anticipate when/if puppets or breakdown would have occur.

Japan: The Japanese were quite embarrassed that the occupation of national Chinese capital Nanjing 1937 didn't end the "China incident". After 1938 they reorientated their international (and domestic) politics, "waged" a Sitzkrieg in China and tried to maximise their profit from 1939ff world crisis, until 1944 mainland Asia offensives.

China: After Pearl Habor Jiang Kaisheks National Government knew, that they didn't have to initiate any military offensives to (let the US) win the war. The two most important national chinese war aimes were: just survive and getting as much US lendlease as possible. Even successfull battles against IJA weren't important for them. What mattered weas stock-piling US artillery (big guns yielded lots of prestige in China) for the real (civil) war.

USA: feared chinese breakdown, because they contemplated using Chinese airfields and manpower against Japan, (until 43/44)

how to translate this for wif?
-link Japanese occupied chinese cities to pro-japanese but powerless warlord-armies.
-perhaps some sort of event driven "china exit pool"? Only Chinese player knows actual breakdown status and tries to manipulate US for lend lease (the amount of lend lease could even be linked to Chinese victory points). Japan hopes for breakdown. US fears it (or not).
Triggers/pool-mechanics could be: Japanese controlled chinese cities/warlords, US lendlease for China, US-Japanese war. But I know: It's complicated, non-wiffy&heresy.[:)]

Regards

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: wosung
Thought about the China Problem:

historically, I think, chances for additional regional puppet regimes (like North China Political Council, or Wang Jingweis "National Gouvernment") would have been higher, than total Chinese breakdown. But nobody could anticipate when/if puppets or breakdown would have occur.

Japan: The Japanese were quite embarrassed that the occupation of national Chinese capital Nanjing 1937 didn't end the "China incident". After 1938 they reorientated their international (and domestic) politics, "waged" a Sitzkrieg in China and tried to maximise their profit from 1939ff world crisis, until 1944 mainland Asia offensives.

China: After Pearl Habor Jiang Kaisheks National Government knew, that they didn't have to initiate any military offensives to (let the US) win the war. The two most important national chinese war aimes were: just survive and getting as much US lendlease as possible. Even successfull battles against IJA weren't important for them. What mattered weas stock-piling US artillery (big guns yielded lots of prestige in China) for the real (civil) war.

USA: feared chinese breakdown, because they contemplated using Chinese airfields and manpower against Japan, (until 43/44)

how to translate this for wif?
-link Japanese occupied chinese cities to pro-japanese but powerless warlord-armies.
-perhaps some sort of event driven "china exit pool"? Only Chinese player knows actual breakdown status and tries to manipulate US for lend lease (the amount of lend lease could even be linked to Chinese victory points). Japan hopes for breakdown. US fears it (or not).
Triggers/pool-mechanics could be: Japanese controlled chinese cities/warlords, US lendlease for China, US-Japanese war. But I know: It's complicated, non-wiffy&heresy.[:)]

Regards

Personally, I always like a little heresy with my breakfast in the morning. It helps keep me alert.

Though your ideas are good ones, I will be placing them in the list of things we might do if the play testing exposes problems with play balance in China. For the first pass, I will stick with the quasi-consensus we developed last month. I still need to write up the final version but that is not on developing MWIF's critical path at the moment.

[Hortlund]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

The overwhelming consensus of the forum group is there should be "unlimited breakdown".

No, definitively not. I might be a minority here, but I'll (try to) make up for that with the power of compelling arguments [;)]

Its rather unfortunate that work is eating up too much time right now, otherwise I'd be a lot more vocal in this forum than I am at the moment. Anyway, I'll try to spend more time in here now.

Unlimited breakdown is a really bad idea because it changes play balance and game dynamics. Like I said before, what will happen is that you simply stack one division per stack, and suddenly your "real" corps are invunerable. With limited breakdown, you cant have divisions all over the place, and thus you are forced to take corps as losses sometimes, or at least you are forced to make difficult choises from time to time (do I lose the pz div or the 9-4 corps...hmm) Do I invade that island or do I invade that island...hmmm..etc etc.

With the worst possible combat result being 2 units loss (or is it 3?), then you can easily satisfy that with two 1-4 divisions, and have your 9-4 corps AND your 2-5 pz div remain on the map.

Unlimited divisions will also mean that the japanese player can conquer pretty much the entire pacific on turn 1 of his suprise-war-impluse. It will also lead to lots of more or less gamey tactics. Suddenly I dont have to have a crappy 4-3 corps, I can break it down to two 1-3 divisions and either use them to absorb losses in the east, or I can use them to invade places I'd never have wanted to go after otherwise.

I want to turn around this question and ask WHY do you want unlimited breakdown? What does it add to the game that is not already there? If the sole reason for unlimited breakdown is to help Japan and China in the China theater, then other means should be explored first, before we do a huge change that alters lots of the dynamics of the game.

I have yet to read a good argument on why we should have unlimited breakdown, and I think we should ask that question first, before we make a change that will change the dynamics of land combat completely.

[Froonp]

I want to turn around this question and ask WHY do you want unlimited breakdown? What does it add to the game that is not already there? If the sole reason for unlimited breakdown is to help Japan and China in the China theater, then other means should be explored first, before we do a huge change that alters lots of the dynamics of the game.

If the paper game had allowed for things to be infinite, DIV break down would have been. Harry Rowland the designer of WiF FE is in favor of that. Same for map's scale.

Moreover, with the provisio stated for MWiF, that is that corps broke down cannot be rebuilt, abuse is impossible. If you break down too many corps to have many divisions, you will lack corps. This renders moot your argument that using unlimited breakdown the Japanese will conquer all the pacific during the suprise impulse. If they do so, they will have no more army to hold agains the Chinese, the Russians, and to firmly hold the strategical islands and objectives.

Moreover, your argument that with unlimited breakdown 2 corps will always be accompanied by a DIV (to take the losse) is moot because it is already the case in WiF FE, using DIVs and ARTs.

Anyway, nothing will prevent you from turning the option off when you'll play.

Cheers !

Patrice

[Hortlund]

ORIGINAL: Froonp
If the paper game had allowed for things to be infinite, DIV break down would have been. Harry Rowland the designer of WiF FE is in favor of that. Same for map's scale.

That is not a really good answer to the "why" question though.

Moreover, with the provisio stated for MWiF, that is that corps broke down cannot be rebuilt, abuse is impossible. If you break down too many corps to have many divisions, you will lack corps.

Nor is this.

This renders moot your argument that using unlimited breakdown the Japanese will conquer all the pacific during the suprise impulse. If they do so, they will have no more army to hold agains the Chinese, the Russians, and to firmly hold the strategical islands and objectives.

Or this...

Moreover, your argument that with unlimited breakdown 2 corps will always be accompanied by a DIV (to take the losse) is moot because it is already the case in WiF FE, using DIVs and ARTs.

In Wif, you are often forced to make hard choises between losing an 8-4 corps, or a 3-4 ART or 2-5 PZ or a 2-4 ENG or whatever. With a gazillion of 1-4 inf divisions, those choises are removed. And the choise between losing an ART or ENG or a corps is often not a very easy one to make. The choise between losing a corps or an infantry division is a no-brainer.

Anyway, nothing will prevent you from turning the option off when you'll play.

Quite true, but that is not really a great answer to the why-question either now is it? [;)]


Seriously, that why question needs a good answer before we move in and poke around in the inner play-balance mechanics. Adding unlimited divisions will change combat results-balance.

I dont see why the "corps breakdown cannot be rebuilt"-idea would change any of this. I'll just break down my crappiest corps into divisions, and use these divisions as cannon fodder. I believe the idea was to not allow rebuilding of the corps until both divisions are dead, and I would not have any problem waiting for them both to die. If the idea is to never allow rebuilding of corps that has been broken down, one has to ask if that thought has been thought through...since it will lead to the force pool of a nation constantly getting smaller. Is that desirable? Maybe...but I fail to see the logic behind such a rule.

Nor do I see any logic behind a rule that would allow unlimited breakdown of corps, but not unlimited building of stand-alone divisions. The only motivation seems to be as a stop-gap to prevent a player from breaking down too many corps into divisions...which returns us to "why do we want unlimited breakdown in the first place"-question.

I dont know if the optional rule manpower is included in MWIF btw... Do you know if its in?

As for the Japanese player going wild in turn 1. It seems pretty simple to break up 5-6 corps into 10-12 divisions, load these divisions on destroyers and invade everywhere. Then, the next turn bring them back to Japan and recombine them. Or is the idea that no corps that has been split up is allowed to recombine ever?

[Froonp]

You're right, I did not provide whys for the unlimited division breakdown (which is not unlimited if it is limited by the corps oob). I did not because it seemed evident for me that MWiF intended to be what paper WiF never could be because of room's contraints, and number of counters limits. These are the words of the designer himself, I'm not inventing them.
The division breakdown is not limited in WiF neither, but the div counters are. In MWIF why keep limitations of the paper game ???

As for the Japanese player going wild in turn 1. It seems pretty simple to break up 5-6 corps into 10-12 divisions, load these divisions on destroyers and invade everywhere. Then, the next turn bring them back to Japan and recombine them. Or is the idea that no corps that has been split up is allowed to recombine ever?

Humm... So you leave those 10-12 spots defenseless ??? What's the need to conquer them if you leave them to the enemy to reconquer them back as easily as you took them ? (the USA's capacity in invading isolated spots in the Pacific is big, even with "limited" WiF - 3 spots per combined impulses).
Next, the "everywhere" where you invade may well be useless spots in the Pacific. The half dozen or so strategical places Japan needs to invade on her first impulse with DIVs only (Guam, Wake, Midway(*), Pago Pago(*), Dutch Harbor(*), Rabaul - (*) are impossible to take using divisions only against a competent USA player) are easily invadable using the regular paper WiF, adding more divisions do not create more interesting places to invade.

Well, anyway I think that playtest may clear this a bit so that we won't be in the "if" and "maybes" anymore, and we will have a better view of the implications of this rule.
I hope you'll use it in playtest, at least to try to understand why it is good, and why it is not a game breaker.

Patrice