PP Points , time to make them work guys

[Cavalry Corp]

PP point are a good idea and in fact the work quite well

Problem is where they are needed most they do not . The Japs in China and Manchuko must be made to spend PP points to move between these sectors so Japs that fight in China are in China command and Japs that fight in Russia are Manchuko.

I am not in favour of handicapping the Japs but these issues need tackling in a proper patch . In my game as Japs I trashed China and in another game as the allies by Sept 42 I am almost defeated in China as allies , its impossible to win

I travel a lot to China for work and I must say the map is wrong. Movement is too easy and the terrain much more difficult than depicted . Supply moves around too easy and we could do with partisans popping up in un occupied hexes . In short a lot of work to do to make this aspect better .

At the moment we are down to house rules but I think this needs an official touch


Kind regards

Michael

[Mike Scholl]

I agree that they are a generally good idea..., but I hope that they can be used more effectively and selectively in any WITP II. They should be a way for the designers to at least define some historical limits on the players freedom of action. Might be an interesting way to differentiate between the goals, restrictions, and capabilities of the various Allied nations. A seperate "pool" for the Dutch, ANZAC's, British, and Americans with different costs and sources could prevent many ahistoric transfers. PP's certainly offer a number of possibilities....

[esteban]

Here's an idea that might help. Make it so that units are unable to draw replacements unless they are "in the theater" of their HQ. That way, you won't have as much transferring Central Pacific units to India, and Southern Area Army units to stack up on Wake and Kwajelain.

[Ron Saueracker]

Someone mentioned incorporating VPs into the PP stew. I've been thinking along these lines for years to loosely simulate political and operational repercussions of defeats, victories, morale at home and in the GHQs.

[AmiralLaurent]

As for China, I fully agree with your statement. Both sides should be better fortified, and prepared at 100% for their own positions, tu simulate the static warfare. And Chinese were used to destroy all railways and roads on a 60 mile band (exactly one hex in WITP) between their positions and Japanese one. The remaining rail were in a poor state. So in my own opinion, all rail in China should be shown as roads, and roads as trails, with the exception of frontline hexes where there should always be trails. Then the economic situation in China should be reviewed totally with some supply produced in most Chinese cities. By the way the only supply network that worked well in China was by boat along the big rivers, and that is not simulated in WITP.

For those interested, an USAAF study of Japanese supply in China and the effects of Allied air power is available on the web here: http://www.au.af.mil/au/afhra/wwwroot/n ... 916838.pdf

[Hipper]

I made the point a few days ago, just use VP's instead of PP's ... it introduces its own game ballance.

want to keep those british carriers .... will cost you is it realy worthwhile !!!

add a few divisions from the west coast, fine but it will cost you cant you hold out with what you have got !

reinforce the southwest pacific with units from China Fine but pay those points

It could be linked with a system in which you automaticly remove those points when you enter a certain area with Land units ie when they are disembarked from ship or cross a boundary

Could it be done !

[Ron Saueracker]

One would need to give HQs more teeth I think. Make them all more restricted in nature (if a unit is to operate outside of it's HQs area, Pps must be paid daily/monthly), include ships...etc.

[medicff]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

One would need to give HQs more teeth I think. Make them all more restricted in nature (if a unit is to operate outside of it's HQs area, Pps must be paid daily/monthly), include ships...etc.

I agree some restriction and ways to keep otherwise "required" units from being redeployed (political pressure - west coast; russian troops and the masses - manchuria). But don't we want to allow other possibilities to be explored other than the paths chosen by history. Allow centpac to sopac if one chooses to make that the main advance, etc.

[fairplay]

I am no friend of PP as they are implemented in the game. This is simply unrealistic. Imagine an allied landing in Normandie. After the sucessful landing allied forces halt all operations to collect PP to take Caen. After Caen they have to stop to prep for...For infantry it doesn´t make a difference which village they take, a village is a village. Same is preparation for defence. It takes only a few hours to build pillboxes lay mines draw wire etc. If you give a defender 4 hours or four days to prepare the defences that is a huge difference, between 4 days and 4 weeks that is only marginal.
For certain topics PP make sense. A HQ that is preparing for an offensive will get more supply and resources. Drawback would be that other HQs would get less resources.
Also preparation could/should be used to "qualify" units for certain kinds of combat: beach landings, jungle warfare, urban combat, mountain combat as examples. An infantry unit that is prepared for desert warfare will have a lot of trouble to fight in the jungle. Once that unit has qualified for jungle combat it doesn´t need PP for jungle hexes any more. Jungle is jungle, hot, humid, mosquitos, swamp, snakes, at lot of trees, no bars...

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: fairplay

I am no friend of PP as they are implemented in the game. This is simply unrealistic. Imagine an allied landing in Normandie. After the sucessful landing allied forces halt all operations to collect PP to take Caen. After Caen they have to stop to prep for...For infantry it doesn´t make a difference which village they take, a village is a village. Same is preparation for defence. It takes only a few hours to build pillboxes lay mines draw wire etc. If you give a defender 4 hours or four days to prepare the defences that is a huge difference, between 4 days and 4 weeks that is only marginal.
For certain topics PP make sense. A HQ that is preparing for an offensive will get more supply and resources. Drawback would be that other HQs would get less resources.
Also preparation could/should be used to "qualify" units for certain kinds of combat: beach landings, jungle warfare, urban combat, mountain combat as examples. An infantry unit that is prepared for desert warfare will have a lot of trouble to fight in the jungle. Once that unit has qualified for jungle combat it doesn´t need PP for jungle hexes any more. Jungle is jungle, hot, humid, mosquitos, swamp, snakes, at lot of trees, no bars...

Talking Political Points as opposed to the Preperation Points. I know what you are saying though. Interesting...

[fairplay]

Political Points[X(][X(][X(] Shame on me , I missed that. I am talking about preparation points[:(]

[pauk]

greetings...

While your thoughts have sense, please be aware that game is moving too fast. So preparation points are needed (game moving too fast even with them).

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: AmiralLaurent

As for China, I fully agree with your statement. Both sides should be better fortified, and prepared at 100% for their own positions, tu simulate the static warfare. And Chinese were used to destroy all railways and roads on a 60 mile band (exactly one hex in WITP) between their positions and Japanese one. The remaining rail were in a poor state. So in my own opinion, all rail in China should be shown as roads, and roads as trails, with the exception of frontline hexes where there should always be trails. Then the economic situation in China should be reviewed totally with some supply produced in most Chinese cities. By the way the only supply network that worked well in China was by boat along the big rivers, and that is not simulated in WITP.

For those interested, an USAAF study of Japanese supply in China and the effects of Allied air power is available on the web here: http://www.au.af.mil/au/afhra/wwwroot/n ... 916838.pdf

Have you looked at CHS?

[AmiralLaurent]

ORIGINAL: treespider

Have you looked at CHS?

I tried two or three times to download it and always failed or freezed, and then I started two PBEM with vanilla map so gave up.
Anyway I think the current WITP engine is unable to do a good simulation of China in WWII. To do this it should have at least two kinds of supplies ("civilian" (food, clothes and so on) and "military"), the first one helping to keep units in good shape, the second necessary for battles, with China being able to produce the first to keep an army but having few of the second to launch offensive. Also the first will be produced by manpower centers, and be very hard to reduce, while the second will be produced by factories, that may be bombed more easily. And then we need ground borders that may not be crossed by several commands, and a Communist China Command and a Reserve Nationalist Command represenating the foces kept in reserve for the future civil war. Also almost each hex of road/rail in China should have a base on it, there is certainly more cities in each Chinese hex (except mountains) that they are in the whole of New Britain, where the game has 5 bases... That would force Japan to have many more units just on garrison duty, or have no supply path between big cities, and lose the supply and ressources generated on the small cities.

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: AmiralLaurent

ORIGINAL: treespider

Have you looked at CHS?

I tried two or three times to download it and always failed or freezed, and then I started two PBEM with vanilla map so gave up.
Anyway I think the current WITP engine is unable to do a good simulation of China in WWII. To do this it should have at least two kinds of supplies ("civilian" (food, clothes and so on) and "military"), the first one helping to keep units in good shape, the second necessary for battles, with China being able to produce the first to keep an army but having few of the second to launch offensive. Also the first will be produced by manpower centers, and be very hard to reduce, while the second will be produced by factories, that may be bombed more easily. And then we need ground borders that may not be crossed by several commands, and a Communist China Command and a Reserve Nationalist Command represenating the foces kept in reserve for the future civil war. Also almost each hex of road/rail in China should have a base on it, there is certainly more cities in each Chinese hex (except mountains) that they are in the whole of New Britain, where the game has 5 bases... That would force Japan to have many more units just on garrison duty, or have no supply path between big cities, and lose the supply and ressources generated on the small cities.

I could agree with almost everything you said. I was just trying to point out that CHS's China is a substantial improvement over stock. Primarily because of the changes implemented by AB's map...but we also converted much of the Chinese supply to a daily supply allotment at most of the bases so that it could not be bombed into the stone age.

[el cid again]

I travel a lot to China for work and I must say the map is wrong. Movement is too easy and the terrain much more difficult than depicted . Supply moves around too easy and we could do with partisans popping up in un occupied hexes . In short a lot of work to do to make this aspect better .

I am a serious China analyst and writer. I was married there. And it is quite true that China is astonishingly mountinous. It is also true that infrastructures during WWII were not at their best - many were damaged (although others were built). The map scale makes it hard to not oversimplify China. But we could do better. I have added two towns because they matter as air bases/supply links. I want to add the Yangze as a navigable river - it is to Ocean ships all the way to Wuhan (Hankow).
Always was. But THESE changes make log easier - and in fact on China threads Allied players say there are not enough supplies or ways to deliver them - I lifted two (of four) added points from one of those threads.

I have problems saying CCP and KMT get along well. I think CCP should report to Soviet HQ rather than KMT. Or to itself - an independent command.

I have read that no one ever conquers China in WITP - that you simply cannot take Chunking if it is defended. Is this correct?

There is a consensus in Japanese military literature - contemporary and post war - that IJA COULD HAVE won in China. The late war offensive sweeping B-29 bases indicates to me this consensus is right. The big reasons Japan would have a hard time are corruption in IJA itself, and a different kind of curruption in the Zaibatsu. But Tojo was sent to Manchukuo to lead the Kempetai to bring rebel generals to heel - and he did. He is just the guy to sweep the decks of personal profiteers - something he never was even tempted to do himself (his only vice was smoking). WWII in this theater is about Japan subjugating China - to structurally make it impossible seems wrong to me. But making it hard?
Just right.

[el cid again]

Anyway I think the current WITP engine is unable to do a good simulation of China in WWII.

In a different sense than you mean, you are right. The land combat system is flawed. It can be fixed. Same hex combat can work well - but it needs a structure limiting where you can go - or you will "walk through" an enemy frong - no matter how strong it is!

[el cid again]

It takes only a few hours to build pillboxes lay mines draw wire etc.

According to the Dupuy model, which correctly predicts the outcomes of land battles over two centuries, it takes days to maximize the defense, not hours. There are lots of reasons for that. And if you have lots of money to spend, you can build still stronger defenses - we call them fortifictions - over months and years.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: el cid again
There is a consensus in Japanese military literature - contemporary and post war - that IJA COULD HAVE won in China. The late war offensive sweeping B-29 bases indicates to me this consensus is right. The big reasons Japan would have a hard time are corruption in IJA itself, and a different kind of curruption in the Zaibatsu. But Tojo was sent to Manchukuo to lead the Kempetai to bring rebel generals to heel - and he did. He is just the guy to sweep the decks of personal profiteers - something he never was even tempted to do himself (his only vice was smoking). WWII in this theater is about Japan subjugating China - to structurally make it impossible seems wrong to me. But making it hard?
Just right.

I'm glad you emphasized JAPANESE military literature in this claim, because it's pretty hard to swallow in any other context. Basically, IF THEY COULD..., WHY DIDN'T THEY? From 1937 to Dec of 1941 they didn't have any other distractions. Yet they still bogged down and wound up grasping at straws as "If only we could cut the Burma Road..., then the Chinese would give up." The 1944 offensive proves nothing..., they couldn't hold the ground once they'd occupied it, and Chang knew it. By then he could see the Japanese were doomed.., so why waste assets fighting them? He was already plotting (as were Mao's boys) the war which would come after the War.

Isn't Japanese military literature the source of some other interesting facts? Like the Nanking Massacre never happened? Or that the IJA's "comfort women" were all volunteers? Take anything they say with a BIG grain of salt.

[rroberson]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: el cid again
There is a consensus in Japanese military literature - contemporary and post war - that IJA COULD HAVE won in China. The late war offensive sweeping B-29 bases indicates to me this consensus is right. The big reasons Japan would have a hard time are corruption in IJA itself, and a different kind of curruption in the Zaibatsu. But Tojo was sent to Manchukuo to lead the Kempetai to bring rebel generals to heel - and he did. He is just the guy to sweep the decks of personal profiteers - something he never was even tempted to do himself (his only vice was smoking). WWII in this theater is about Japan subjugating China - to structurally make it impossible seems wrong to me. But making it hard?
Just right.

I'm glad you emphasized JAPANESE military literature in this claim, because it's pretty hard to swallow in any other context. Basically, IF THEY COULD..., WHY DIDN'T THEY? From 1937 to Dec of 1941 they didn't have any other distractions. Yet they still bogged down and wound up grasping at straws as "If only we could cut the Burma Road..., then the Chinese would give up." The 1944 offensive proves nothing..., they couldn't hold the ground once they'd occupied it, and Chang knew it. By then he could see the Japanese were doomed.., so why waste assets fighting them? He was already plotting (as were Mao's boys) the war which would come after the War.

Isn't Japanese military literature the source of some other interesting facts? Like the Nanking Massacre never happened? Or that the IJA's "comfort women" were all volunteers? Take anything they say with a BIG grain of salt.

Yea, stuff like this never happened... http://www.cofepow.org.uk/pages/asia_hongkong2.htm

It is why I generally take Japanese military literature of the period for what it is...