Odd China question (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room



Message


vettim89 -> Odd China question (2/13/2012 10:58:10 PM)

So I was looking at my map in my PBEM the other day and noted that both sides tend to cluster their units in or around bases. It made me think that there is no way in RL they would have done this. There would have been a "Front" of some sort with units strung out acrossed it to protect flanks. You would never say for exampl the IJA holding all the Central China bases (Hankow, Nanyang, Sinyang, Loyang, etc with units only in the bases. DO NOT GET ME WRONG: I am not criticisizing my opponent in any way here. Its just how its done in AE and WitP prior to now.

Has any one ever considered making a HR or played with a HR that there needs to be a continuous line of units between all the bases. Would make for a much different and perhaps more interesting China. It just occured to me how we play the game is so much different than in RL

A map as an example:



[image]local://upfiles/25806/A7FAA19B3FDA4628BC501D35C08315FB.jpg[/image]




CapnGreasy -> RE: Odd China question (2/14/2012 12:24:58 AM)

Well to tell it from my JFB perspective;
Cities = points= resources. Supplies stockpile in cities.

I do like to try and keep the major roads clear to transport units by rail where needed. Can only go into strategic mode in a city.

It takes forever to move over open country. The game does not give points for territory held as far as I know, just bases/cities. Though units do build forts in any hex they stay in long enough it seems.

I think we do only have an odd one or two hex gap in most of our lines. Except where the roads are not as developed.

After thinking about it I look at it like holding medieval forts or castles. Units seem more protected and supplied in them and you can always project power outward.

Actually the same is true for all the island hexes. Not good to leave a TF out in the ocean too long. Just my 2 cents.




wdolson -> RE: Odd China question (2/14/2012 12:36:16 AM)

According to what I have read about the conflict, the Chinese did have a number of units that were roaming the countryside, but the Japanese tended to keep to their strong points.

There is a philosophy in modern warfare that to have a successful occupation, you need 20 troops per 1000 population.  Almost every successful occupation of the last 100 years has been at that level or higher and most that fell below that threshold were troubled if not outright failures.  Japan was a much smaller country trying to occupy a more populous one.  China was undeveloped technologically, so it was easy to conquer territory.  But Japan didn't have the boots on the ground to hold the territory they captured.  So all Japan could do was fortify the cities they captured as well as resource centers and leave the rest of the countryside to the partisans.

Bill




AcePylut -> RE: Odd China question (2/14/2012 4:26:31 AM)

If this is PBEM, let the IJA go where the stack wants, and slide in your multitude of LCU's behind it, cutting off supply lines. It can work.




JeffK -> RE: Odd China question (2/14/2012 6:30:18 AM)

Land war in WITPAE seems more representative of the Napoleonic era than WW2, especially on the larger areas such as China, India, Australia and to a lesser extent in Burma & Indochina.

You manouvre stacks on very limited frontages mostly down lines of communication, no sweeping left or right hooks etc.





castor troy -> RE: Odd China question (2/14/2012 7:13:59 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vettim89

So I was looking at my map in my PBEM the other day and noted that both sides tend to cluster their units in or around bases. It made me think that there is no way in RL they would have done this. There would have been a "Front" of some sort with units strung out acrossed it to protect flanks. You would never say for exampl the IJA holding all the Central China bases (Hankow, Nanyang, Sinyang, Loyang, etc with units only in the bases. DO NOT GET ME WRONG: I am not criticisizing my opponent in any way here. Its just how its done in AE and WitP prior to now.

Has any one ever considered making a HR or played with a HR that there needs to be a continuous line of units between all the bases. Would make for a much different and perhaps more interesting China. It just occured to me how we play the game is so much different than in RL

A map as an example:



[image]local://upfiles/25806/A7FAA19B3FDA4628BC501D35C08315FB.jpg[/image]



the game as it is isn't really meant to be fought outside of bases IMO. I think everyone uses a combination of defending outside bases and lots of troops in bases but a continuous front is pretty hard to play I guess.




Shark7 -> RE: Odd China question (2/14/2012 7:49:34 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy


quote:

ORIGINAL: vettim89

So I was looking at my map in my PBEM the other day and noted that both sides tend to cluster their units in or around bases. It made me think that there is no way in RL they would have done this. There would have been a "Front" of some sort with units strung out acrossed it to protect flanks. You would never say for exampl the IJA holding all the Central China bases (Hankow, Nanyang, Sinyang, Loyang, etc with units only in the bases. DO NOT GET ME WRONG: I am not criticisizing my opponent in any way here. Its just how its done in AE and WitP prior to now.

Has any one ever considered making a HR or played with a HR that there needs to be a continuous line of units between all the bases. Would make for a much different and perhaps more interesting China. It just occured to me how we play the game is so much different than in RL

A map as an example:



[image]local://upfiles/25806/A7FAA19B3FDA4628BC501D35C08315FB.jpg[/image]



the game as it is isn't really meant to be fought outside of bases IMO. I think everyone uses a combination of defending outside bases and lots of troops in bases but a continuous front is pretty hard to play I guess.


You hit it squarely.

If you look at the games Chess and Go you can see the differences in the strategies. In Go, the obejct of the game is to surround your opponents stones and control as much of the board as possible. In Chess, the object is to capture the opponents king and protect your own king. WiTP land combat is most definately a Chess strategy, of stacking your units in one location to 'protect the king'. In the real war, it was the fact that the Japanese could not be everywhere at once, while the Chinese more or less could control all the areas where the IJA could not be that caused the quagmire. The Japanese could not take areas that could be cut off from supply, the Chinese had the support of the locals.




LoBaron -> RE: Odd China question (2/14/2012 8:52:52 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7


quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy


quote:

ORIGINAL: vettim89

So I was looking at my map in my PBEM the other day and noted that both sides tend to cluster their units in or around bases. It made me think that there is no way in RL they would have done this. There would have been a "Front" of some sort with units strung out acrossed it to protect flanks. You would never say for exampl the IJA holding all the Central China bases (Hankow, Nanyang, Sinyang, Loyang, etc with units only in the bases. DO NOT GET ME WRONG: I am not criticisizing my opponent in any way here. Its just how its done in AE and WitP prior to now.

Has any one ever considered making a HR or played with a HR that there needs to be a continuous line of units between all the bases. Would make for a much different and perhaps more interesting China. It just occured to me how we play the game is so much different than in RL

A map as an example:



[image]local://upfiles/25806/A7FAA19B3FDA4628BC501D35C08315FB.jpg[/image]



the game as it is isn't really meant to be fought outside of bases IMO. I think everyone uses a combination of defending outside bases and lots of troops in bases but a continuous front is pretty hard to play I guess.


You hit it squarely.

If you look at the games Chess and Go you can see the differences in the strategies. In Go, the obejct of the game is to surround your opponents stones and control as much of the board as possible. In Chess, the object is to capture the opponents king and protect your own king. WiTP land combat is most definately a Chess strategy, of stacking your units in one location to 'protect the king'. In the real war, it was the fact that the Japanese could not be everywhere at once, while the Chinese more or less could control all the areas where the IJA could not be that caused the quagmire. The Japanese could not take areas that could be cut off from supply, the Chinese had the support of the locals.


While I agree that a continous front is out of question, in our PBEM the war in China is fought
in the countryside for long now.
Chinese troops are covering roads or rough hexes to prevent IJA advance into central China, while
the Japanese try to avoid those force concentrations or counterblock them.
The last battle IN a Chinese city was about half a year to 9 months ago.

Protecting cities in the city hex only doesn´t make much sense, as a sieged base does not generate
supplies. You have to stop them before this happens.

It obviousely depends on where the frontline is situated as well - in contrast to vettims situation Changsha
is in Japanese hands - but it actually makes much sense to fight outside cities in China, as long as
you do not operate armies in open country hexes without air superiority and tank/AT components.
The side that concentrates force to city hexes only and neglects the rest loses, if the opponent knows
how to benefit from it.




Shark7 -> RE: Odd China question (2/15/2012 2:43:10 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7


quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy


quote:

ORIGINAL: vettim89

So I was looking at my map in my PBEM the other day and noted that both sides tend to cluster their units in or around bases. It made me think that there is no way in RL they would have done this. There would have been a "Front" of some sort with units strung out acrossed it to protect flanks. You would never say for exampl the IJA holding all the Central China bases (Hankow, Nanyang, Sinyang, Loyang, etc with units only in the bases. DO NOT GET ME WRONG: I am not criticisizing my opponent in any way here. Its just how its done in AE and WitP prior to now.

Has any one ever considered making a HR or played with a HR that there needs to be a continuous line of units between all the bases. Would make for a much different and perhaps more interesting China. It just occured to me how we play the game is so much different than in RL

A map as an example:



[image]local://upfiles/25806/A7FAA19B3FDA4628BC501D35C08315FB.jpg[/image]



the game as it is isn't really meant to be fought outside of bases IMO. I think everyone uses a combination of defending outside bases and lots of troops in bases but a continuous front is pretty hard to play I guess.


You hit it squarely.

If you look at the games Chess and Go you can see the differences in the strategies. In Go, the obejct of the game is to surround your opponents stones and control as much of the board as possible. In Chess, the object is to capture the opponents king and protect your own king. WiTP land combat is most definately a Chess strategy, of stacking your units in one location to 'protect the king'. In the real war, it was the fact that the Japanese could not be everywhere at once, while the Chinese more or less could control all the areas where the IJA could not be that caused the quagmire. The Japanese could not take areas that could be cut off from supply, the Chinese had the support of the locals.


While I agree that a continous front is out of question, in our PBEM the war in China is fought
in the countryside for long now.
Chinese troops are covering roads or rough hexes to prevent IJA advance into central China, while
the Japanese try to avoid those force concentrations or counterblock them.
The last battle IN a Chinese city was about half a year to 9 months ago.

Protecting cities in the city hex only doesn´t make much sense, as a sieged base does not generate
supplies. You have to stop them before this happens.

It obviousely depends on where the frontline is situated as well - in contrast to vettims situation Changsha
is in Japanese hands - but it actually makes much sense to fight outside cities in China, as long as
you do not operate armies in open country hexes without air superiority and tank/AT components.
The side that concentrates force to city hexes only and neglects the rest loses, if the opponent knows
how to benefit from it.


It depends on what you are doing. Defending is probably better inside the cities, particularly the ones with port access. I have a choice that way, guard the roads to keep the supply lines open or simply unload ships at the port to keep it supplied. This actually works in China where the Allies have little hope of sinking the supply ships early war. The CAF is not up to the task. Once Japan starts losing air superiority, then this becomes a problem obviously.




nashvillen -> RE: Odd China question (2/15/2012 3:15:41 AM)

I use my infantry/artillery to take the cities and keep the armor out to protect the LOC. It has worked so far. I have only a few Chinese units left in China in the middle of 1943 and am driving on to Burma with the rest.




aphrochine -> RE: Odd China question (2/16/2012 6:30:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7


quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy


quote:

ORIGINAL: vettim89

So I was looking at my map in my PBEM the other day and noted that both sides tend to cluster their units in or around bases. It made me think that there is no way in RL they would have done this. There would have been a "Front" of some sort with units strung out acrossed it to protect flanks. You would never say for exampl the IJA holding all the Central China bases (Hankow, Nanyang, Sinyang, Loyang, etc with units only in the bases. DO NOT GET ME WRONG: I am not criticisizing my opponent in any way here. Its just how its done in AE and WitP prior to now.

Has any one ever considered making a HR or played with a HR that there needs to be a continuous line of units between all the bases. Would make for a much different and perhaps more interesting China. It just occured to me how we play the game is so much different than in RL

A map as an example:



[image]local://upfiles/25806/A7FAA19B3FDA4628BC501D35C08315FB.jpg[/image]



the game as it is isn't really meant to be fought outside of bases IMO. I think everyone uses a combination of defending outside bases and lots of troops in bases but a continuous front is pretty hard to play I guess.


You hit it squarely.

If you look at the games Chess and Go you can see the differences in the strategies. In Go, the obejct of the game is to surround your opponents stones and control as much of the board as possible. In Chess, the object is to capture the opponents king and protect your own king. WiTP land combat is most definately a Chess strategy, of stacking your units in one location to 'protect the king'. In the real war, it was the fact that the Japanese could not be everywhere at once, while the Chinese more or less could control all the areas where the IJA could not be that caused the quagmire. The Japanese could not take areas that could be cut off from supply, the Chinese had the support of the locals.


While I agree that a continous front is out of question, in our PBEM the war in China is fought
in the countryside for long now.
Chinese troops are covering roads or rough hexes to prevent IJA advance into central China, while
the Japanese try to avoid those force concentrations or counterblock them.
The last battle IN a Chinese city was about half a year to 9 months ago.

Protecting cities in the city hex only doesn´t make much sense, as a sieged base does not generate
supplies. You have to stop them before this happens.

It obviousely depends on where the frontline is situated as well - in contrast to vettims situation Changsha
is in Japanese hands - but it actually makes much sense to fight outside cities in China, as long as
you do not operate armies in open country hexes without air superiority and tank/AT components.
The side that concentrates force to city hexes only and neglects the rest loses, if the opponent knows
how to benefit from it.


This is pretty much how my China game is going. As China I try to keep picket forces and control roads and trail intersections to deny free movement by the IJA. Hex control can also be the difference between life and death so there is big advantage for being in the hex before that hex becomes important and contested. For this reason I try to push out and create a line and control as much space as possible. I guess this is historical for the chinese. However, for the IJA (for scen 2 especially) it's not a bad idea to push out single or double divisions, since the Chinese lack any real offensive power without overwhelming numbers. I know this could have helped my opponent in the current game where I managed to take enough countryside to threaten Nanking. [:D]




Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.734375E-02