Divisions in the Pacific?

World in Flames is the computer version of Australian Design Group classic board game. World In Flames is a highly detailed game covering the both Europe and Pacific Theaters of Operations during World War II. If you want grand strategy this game is for you.

Moderator: Shannon V. OKeets

User avatar
blackcloud6
Posts: 607
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2002 4:46 am

Divisions in the Pacific?

Post by blackcloud6 »

I'm still learning this game and I started the Guadalcanal scenario this week. One thing jumped out at me was that the Japanese do not have nearly enough infantry units to cover their newly won empire in the Pacific. Does adding the Divisions optional make the Pacific war more realistic by have more troops to spread out? Doe adding the Division optional rule made the game more difficult or take much more time? How would it then affect fighting in the ETO once moving to a global scenario?
bo
Posts: 4175
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:52 pm

RE: Divisions in the Pacific?

Post by bo »

ORIGINAL: blackcloud6

I'm still learning this game and I started the Guadalcanal scenario this week. One thing jumped out at me was that the Japanese do not have nearly enough infantry units to cover their newly won empire in the Pacific. Does adding the Divisions optional make the Pacific war more realistic by have more troops to spread out? Doe adding the Division optional rule made the game more difficult or take much more time? How would it then affect fighting in the ETO once moving to a global scenario?

Hi blackcloud I am the Guadalcanal expert or so I think I am, others might disagree with that[:(]

I have beta tested Guadalcanal for about 2 years, it is a wonderful scenario for learning invasions, naval carrier battles etc. IMO I would not use fast start, only because you need a few optional rules to play Japan in all the scenarios not just Guadalcanal.

The most important optional rules are "carrier planes rule, Cruisers in flames, divisions and unlimited breakdown of units. It has been a long time since I used fast start [2 years] so I am trying to recall a few things I did not like, one of them is that the carriers turn into bombers and if the bomber gets damaged I think the carrier gets damaged to not sure of that, the carrier plane optional changes that, as you can have several air units on the carriers.

You are correct, Japan has a tough job ahead of them to man their far flung Pacific rim empire, outside of the carrier rule the other rules reflect their ability to handle this problem. The Cruiser rule allows you to first protect your valuable convoy system with extra cruisers and the other extra cruisers can be used to send Japanese divisions to the outer islands like Saipan, Tarawa, Kwajeline etc. when you have limited transports available.

It would be foolish IMO to send corps to those islands as they will be needed for fighting the war later on in the Philippines and on the main islands of Japan, you can also break down units at the end of a turn and send those units to the outer islands, or at the end of a turn in the production phase build Japanese marine and regular army divisions.

The problem with Guadalcanal is it has only five turns [10 months] so it would be difficult at best to use these units effectively, but in Global war and Day of infamy these rules IMO are a must.

Bo



bo
Posts: 4175
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:52 pm

RE: Divisions in the Pacific?

Post by bo »

blackcloud as I answer a post it is difficult right now with the edit feature not working, sometimes I will see something I left out but you cannot edit and you cant reedit it, sorry about that. When I mentioned defending the Philippines and the Main Islands of Japan in the above post I was referring to Global war and Day of Infamy not Guadalcanal.

Bo
User avatar
Dabrion
Posts: 740
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 10:26 am
Location: Northpole

RE: Divisions in the Pacific?

Post by Dabrion »

Divisions will likely be a push over for the green wave. You want white prints in the bases you want to keep/defend.
"If we come to a minefield, our infantry attacks exactly as it were not there." ~ Georgy Zhukov
bo
Posts: 4175
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:52 pm

RE: Divisions in the Pacific?

Post by bo »

ORIGINAL: Dabrion

Divisions will likely be a push over for the green wave. You want white prints in the bases you want to keep/defend.

True, but not in the Guadalcanal scenario which IMO is strictly a carrier battle scenario.

Bo
User avatar
blackcloud6
Posts: 607
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2002 4:46 am

RE: Divisions in the Pacific?

Post by blackcloud6 »

Thanks for the answers; these are good. I am playing with Cruisers and carrier Planes. Those two options seemed intuitive from the start but I did not understand Divisions. Next play through I will will use it.
brian brian
Posts: 3191
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 6:39 pm

RE: Divisions in the Pacific?

Post by brian brian »

There should be two options - using a small set of divisions for each Major Power, and using sort-of unlimited divisions for them. (The limit comes in from the amount of corps sized units you start with).

Be careful what you wish for. Look at the rules for notional units defending against invasions; enemy controlled hexes aren't technically empty. A corps of Marines won't have much trouble landing on an empty enemy hex, but smaller forces will have to take their chances on the combat table.

I think in China the unlimited divisions will give each side more flexibility than they had historically. And in Europe, having 3 units in every hex could bog down the game with the best unit in every defending hex returning to the fray the next turn, and somewhat lower attacker casualties. Even without unlimited divisions, some people play with a simple House Rule that the first loss in every combat must be a corps sized unit, to help keep the counter density a little lower. I haven't found out yet. Or, lower casualties all around could give the players more chance to use Offensive Chits and break up static lines that way. I don't know.

One could make a case that only the Germans and the Americans (probably the British too I guess) had an officer corps with the skill set to field small independent units. The Japanese, for example, were still sorting out whether to use 4 unit or 3 unit ("triangular") sub-formations.
User avatar
Courtenay
Posts: 4371
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 4:34 pm

RE: Divisions in the Pacific?

Post by Courtenay »

ORIGINAL: blackcloud6

Thanks for the answers; these are good. I am playing with Cruisers and carrier Planes. Those two options seemed intuitive from the start but I did not understand Divisions. Next play through I will will use it.
The Japanese need divisions and SCS invasions. They do not need unlimited breakdown. I would always play with divisions and SCS invasions. If it were up to me, I would never use unlimited breakdown; if it were not up to me, I would try to convince any other players not to play with that rule.
I thought I knew how to play this game....
bo
Posts: 4175
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:52 pm

RE: Divisions in the Pacific?

Post by bo »

ORIGINAL: Courtenay

ORIGINAL: blackcloud6

Thanks for the answers; these are good. I am playing with Cruisers and carrier Planes. Those two options seemed intuitive from the start but I did not understand Divisions. Next play through I will will use it.
The Japanese need divisions and SCS invasions. They do not need unlimited breakdown. I would always play with divisions and SCS invasions. If it were up to me, I would never use unlimited breakdown; if it were not up to me, I would try to convince any other players not to play with that rule.

The reason I mentioned unlimited breakdown in the Guadalcanal scenario was because the divisions that have been broken down from corps can be used after the first turn and sent to the outer perimeter islands instead of building them from scratch which could take infantry 2 turns and marine units 3 turns, and boom the scenario is over.

You can play with the rule in the game but you are not forced to use it so I am confused as to why you say don't put it in the game, and could you please explain to me why you would not use it in a game.

Bo
User avatar
Grotius
Posts: 5842
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2002 5:34 pm
Location: The Imperial Palace.

RE: Divisions in the Pacific?

Post by Grotius »

I've been using the optional rule for unlimited breakdowns in my Global War game, but I have not yet broken down any unit. I hadn't realized the optional rule was somewhat controversial, but now I understand why. Do house rules sometimes limit its use, besides insisting that the first loss be a corps-level loss?
Image
User avatar
Centuur
Posts: 9013
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2011 12:03 pm
Location: Hoorn (NED).

RE: Divisions in the Pacific?

Post by Centuur »

ORIGINAL: Grotius

I've been using the optional rule for unlimited breakdowns in my Global War game, but I have not yet broken down any unit. I hadn't realized the optional rule was somewhat controversial, but now I understand why. Do house rules sometimes limit its use, besides insisting that the first loss be a corps-level loss?

You can't have that rule in the boardgame, since there aren't any counters available (apart from the divisions which are already in the game). That having said, if you look especially at the Japanese from historical point of view, they did put a lot of small divisions on islands. So the unlimited breakdown rule is historically correct. Problem is only that we don't know how this new optional rule influences game play...
Peter
brian brian
Posts: 3191
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 6:39 pm

RE: Divisions in the Pacific?

Post by brian brian »

Actually the units fighting on islands in the Pacific for the Japanese were generally smaller than divisions. The SNLF units were regiment to battalion size, depending on how those terms are defined in a given army. You do need the division size counters in the game for that however. I think the game as-is, with a half dozen divisions for most powers and a few more for the bigger land powers (and notional units to oppose invasions and paradrops), gets it right.

Unlimited divisions is OK too (an MWiF only construct), though I think you could raise a question about how much command & control & logistic capabilities China and Japan really had inside China, compared to what WiF players will do. But overall, the brake put on using divisions by MWiF - requiring that a corps/army sized unit be left in the Breakdown Pool, should keep things OK. There are only so many land units to be broken down, and the price of doing so is a loss of combat power.

The cardboard game continues to add divisions to your force pool choices; there are a lot of new ones on the Khaki in Flames counter sheet.
User avatar
paulderynck
Posts: 8356
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2007 5:27 pm
Location: Canada

RE: Divisions in the Pacific?

Post by paulderynck »

ORIGINAL: Centuur

ORIGINAL: Grotius

I've been using the optional rule for unlimited breakdowns in my Global War game, but I have not yet broken down any unit. I hadn't realized the optional rule was somewhat controversial, but now I understand why. Do house rules sometimes limit its use, besides insisting that the first loss be a corps-level loss?

You can't have that rule in the boardgame, since there aren't any counters available (apart from the divisions which are already in the game). That having said, if you look especially at the Japanese from historical point of view, they did put a lot of small divisions on islands. So the unlimited breakdown rule is historically correct. Problem is only that we don't know how this new optional rule influences game play...
True and unlimited breakdown is kind of a house rule. It was added in MWiF.
Paul
User avatar
paulderynck
Posts: 8356
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2007 5:27 pm
Location: Canada

RE: Divisions in the Pacific?

Post by paulderynck »

Unlimited bereakdown helps Japan for islands since you can invade a bunch and install their garrisons all at once with an O-chit during a surprise impulse. But with China, although helpful in unit density against similar breakdowns by China, once the US is in the war, Japan runs into action limit trouble (kind of the inverse of the German action limit problem with subs).
Paul
bo
Posts: 4175
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:52 pm

RE: Divisions in the Pacific?

Post by bo »

ORIGINAL: Grotius

I've been using the optional rule for unlimited breakdowns in my Global War game, but I have not yet broken down any unit. I hadn't realized the optional rule was somewhat controversial, but now I understand why. Do house rules sometimes limit its use, besides insisting that the first loss be a corps-level loss?

You say now you understand why, could you please explain the why? This is not the board game this is the computer game, putting the rule in means nothing if you are not forced to use it, Yo guys it's OPTIONAL put it in but don't you dare use it[:D] I think it is a very good rule to be able to send small forces [divisions or broken down corps]in different directions to capture hexes that corps and armies don't have to do and waste their valuable moves.

If you are in constant contact with the enemy and need all the fire power you can muster well then of course I would not break them down.

Bo
User avatar
paulderynck
Posts: 8356
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2007 5:27 pm
Location: Canada

RE: Divisions in the Pacific?

Post by paulderynck »

Nobody is saying don't use it. The assertion is that it will impact play balance. That's a concern with any new rule that hasn't been playtested by people very experienced with the game's mechanics and who can (and will) work every angle possible. But even if general opinion prevails that it favors one side or the other it's still useful when bargaining for the options that will be played or to balance the scales between experienced and inexperienced players.
Paul
User avatar
Grotius
Posts: 5842
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2002 5:34 pm
Location: The Imperial Palace.

RE: Divisions in the Pacific?

Post by Grotius »

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

... Japan runs into action limit trouble (kind of the inverse of the German action limit problem with subs).

I don't want to derail this interesting thread, but I've been meaning to ask: what does the action limit represent? I think it's a pretty cool game mechanic, but I'm curious whether it can be rationalized in historical terms. After all, Germany did manage to fight on land and at sea at the same time. I'm guessing it reflects logistical concerns. Germany couldn't send supplies everywhere.
Image
User avatar
paulderynck
Posts: 8356
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2007 5:27 pm
Location: Canada

RE: Divisions in the Pacific?

Post by paulderynck »

The best WiFZen is logistics and high level command focus, but ultimately it's a novel game mechanic that's one of the key ingredients in what makes so many players enamored with WiF. It's constantly forcing you to make choices.
Paul
User avatar
Grotius
Posts: 5842
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2002 5:34 pm
Location: The Imperial Palace.

RE: Divisions in the Pacific?

Post by Grotius »

Works for me. As Sid Meier once said, a good game involves a series of interesting decisions. WIF abounds in interesting decisions, and the action choice is one good example.
Image
User avatar
rkr1958
Posts: 27449
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 10:23 am

RE: Divisions in the Pacific?

Post by rkr1958 »

ORIGINAL: Centuur

That having said, if you look especially at the Japanese from historical point of view, they did put a lot of small divisions on islands.
Isn't that what the notional(s) represent?
Ronnie
Post Reply

Return to “World in Flames”