Happycat Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Two things have come up in a pbem I'm involved in: 1. Fortress hexes at Singapore. They're very pretty, but highly ineffective. I gather that they have no intrinsic defense value, unless a unit is parked on top of one? My opponent landed SNLF's on the fortress hexes, and of course you can predict what happened to Singapore. Since I hate playing games with house rules, if it can be avoided, I would be interested to hear people's opinions about whether the game should start with a couple of garrisons sitting on those hexes. 2. Amphibious landings are very bloody. I wonder if it's TOO bloody? 50% losses for an SNLF landing on Makin Island, for example, seems harsh. Comments? (Interestingly, the only losses the SNLF's took landing on the Singapore fort hexes was due to the DD parked in harbour, otherwise it would have been a cakewalk.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottsmm Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Happycat, Everybody has that strategy, and quite frankly there is absolutely nothing you can do to change it as after the first Japanese turn Singapore/Malaya has already surrendered. I don't think though you should begin to make Malaya an obstacle for Japan though, because a few garrisons’ there+ river+ fortresses/entrenchment values make Singapore impossible to take with normal means. I've tried this against the AI and it was mid 44' and they still couldn't break Malaya’s resistance. 2. Your right that's not fair, but it's a total chance when it comes to casualties. As you stated above there were no casualties for landing on the fortresses of Singapore so both are wrong in my opinion (chances are your opponent started the game a few times before he found a good first turn). That happens a lot here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill101 Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Everybody has that strategy, and quite frankly there is absolutely nothing you can do to change it as after the first Japanese turn Singapore/Malaya has already surrendered. That's interesting, can I take it that a way has been worked out to capture Singapore on the first turn? I'm sure it can be done, but the question is, how frequently is it happening? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happycat Posted February 10, 2009 Author Share Posted February 10, 2009 Happycat, Everybody has that strategy, and quite frankly there is absolutely nothing you can do to change it as after the first Japanese turn Singapore/Malaya has already surrendered. I don't think though you should begin to make Malaya an obstacle for Japan though, because a few garrisons’ there+ river+ fortresses/entrenchment values make Singapore impossible to take with normal means. I've tried this against the AI and it was mid 44' and they still couldn't break Malaya’s resistance. 2. Your right that's not fair, but it's a total chance when it comes to casualties. As you stated above there were no casualties for landing on the fortresses of Singapore so both are wrong in my opinion (chances are your opponent started the game a few times before he found a good first turn). That happens a lot here. Until encountering this strategy recently, it never occurred to me to land troops on the fortress hexes, as I thought the hexes had an intrinsic defense. Apparently not. When I play as Japan, I can take Malay out in three turns, which is not too shabby, and close to the historical reality. I do it by utilizing the historical strategy of cutting the peninsula off at Khota Bharu, and then moving south. Plastering the Singapore garrison with air is essential. Plus, it is important to not let the unit in Kuala Lumpur escape, if it winds up south of the river next to Singapore, then the conquest becomes more time consuming. As to your second point, I don't believe my opponent restarted. Certainly the file said "zero reloads". In any event, when I tested it myself, I got decent results on the first try. I lost a step to defensive fire from the DD in Singapore, and 2 steps on the fortress hex. That is quite bearable. But, this comes down to what people like in a war game. My sense is that most people don't mind whether it deviates from historical reality, so long as it provides a balanced contest that is fun. I, being an old fart, and a veteran of the old cardboad counter games like AH's Third Reich, World in Flames, Fire in the East, etc etc like my historical reality. Of course, the cardboard games imposed the reality with rules. With a computer game, while you can do that, I don't really like having to do that. It says to me that the game needs tweaking instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZGungHo Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 I agree with Happycat. I talked about this in another thread, the really important thing is that game FEELS realistic to the player, not that every little thing is realistic. It's the old John Hill school of design, which I think is the reality of wargaming. No game can be completely realistic, but they can have enough realism and reproduce the psychology and feeling of the era to pull you into the game. If that's done, then you've a winner on your hands! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happycat Posted February 10, 2009 Author Share Posted February 10, 2009 That's interesting, can I take it that a way has been worked out to capture Singapore on the first turn? I'm sure it can be done, but the question is, how frequently is it happening? Apparently a lot, and it's easy. Turn one, sink the Prince of Wales, damage the DD in port if you can, then send an amphib into the fort hex south of Singapore. Move that unit one hex west to the other fort hex, and then let it attack. Follow up with another amphib onto the now open fort hex south of Singapore, and attack again. Odds are this will destroy the defender in Singapore. Then, land an army unit in the hex north of Singapore, advance it into Singapore, bye bye Malaya. Gotta tell you, this may be effective, but it's unrealistic as can be. It's worse than that, because on subsequent turns, my opponent followed up with heavy attacks in China, and it is clear to me that almost all of his land based air (including naval tac) is in China. He killed the Chinese HQ near Changsha with airpower alone, again something which is very unrealistic imo. I am now adjusting my play style to meet this threat, but I don't really think there is much I can do. My opponent is also able to do things like run BB's up to the shoreline of Midway. My guess is that he was hoping to find my aircraft there and pound them to pieces. But, I had moved the air in anticipation of such a move. I am going to play the game out with him, because I am really curious to see where this goes. As things unfold, I will post some of my observations and then you and Hubert can decide whether this is the game that you intended to create. Don't get me wrong, I think it's a great game, and it will be on my hard drive for a very long time. But I will probably have to either mod it to a more "historical" feel, or consider house rules. That will work for me, and one or two of my old friends from the "cardboard days" who I play games like SCPT with. But, unless I'm missing something, I would guess that implementing a mod or house rules will really cut down on my pool of potential opponents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happycat Posted February 10, 2009 Author Share Posted February 10, 2009 I agree with Happycat. I talked about this in another thread, the really important thing is that game FEELS realistic to the player, not that every little thing is realistic. It's the old John Hill school of design, which I think is the reality of wargaming. No game can be completely realistic, but they can have enough realism and reproduce the psychology and feeling of the era to pull you into the game. If that's done, then you've a winner on your hands! Nice to meet a fellow historical reality fan NOTE TO BILL101---a further thought, which I should have tied in with the ahistorical concentration of air power in China. The Japanese simply did not have the ability (logistically) to do this. Plus, the IJN would have only grudgingly, and for the briefest of times, allowed their tactical air units to support the actions of their Army rivals. Inter-service cooperation was not a hallmark of Imperial Japan. As well, the Japanese did not have the oil and other resources to allow the Kido Butai to bounce around the Pacific the way it does in the game. I'm guessing here, but this is probably one of the things AZGungHo is talking about too. You probably really have two markets here---one which is looking for a good game, winnable by either player, with little in the way of historical restrictions imposed from above. The other, looking for a good game, winnable by either player, with a historical "feel" to it, that imposes the real world restrictions faced by each side, but with enough scope to allow players to explore alternate strategies (alternate, that is, but nevertheless still subject to the real constraints faced by the sides, such as a lack of oil for the IJN). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blashy Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Did you consider how much 2-3 amphibious units represent in terms of actual troops in game terms? Did Japan send THAT many troops fighting in Singapore? If not and if it had then Singapore would have probably fallen much faster. I always take out Singapore and DEI in one turn, I use a massive armada the likes of which Japan never did, but if it had... many of these countries would have fallen much faster. Remember Japan did a very poor job pretty much everywhere since they spread out so much, while players will tend to do focused attacks. Any decent player should always succeed in taking out China, but Japan did not historically, is that unhistorical? Remember that people will probably play Japan MUCH better than how they historically conducted their war in WW2 which IMO was terrible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stitch Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Ah yes, this thread brings up 2 issues that are not historical (so you purists need not grab your guns) and yet presents a huge (detrimental) challenge to the Japanese. Japan starts the game heavily dependant on amphibious landings. I have had up to a 60% casualty rate on these early (read: fresh undamaged troop) landings, and more often than not, taken hits than had a clean landing. In the beginning, Japan can not afford these severe random acts of violence in time nor MPPs. It is really too whimsical for one random "die roll" to push back an invasion for weeks. I would like to see the instances and severity of these casualties, especially when not next to enemy units, reduced...it really does not make the game fun. Speaking of whimsicality, issue 2 is relating to the weather. Why are ground combat results *so* affected by them, and why is it so oppresive. I don't bother attacking cities on frozen ground, just to give 10% damage from each unit is tiring indeed. No air launches in rain, I understand, sort of. Weather is just included in the game to slow down the attacker, hey I get it. But to have randomly determined *theater-wide* inclement weather at any given time that affects 10 days or more, is again, not fun. While there does seem to be a propensity for bad weather at certain times at certain locales, I've had continuous rainy turns in China from April through September (8 turns) and December and January in India (just in time for frozen ground in China) for a few outrageous examples. I play with the weather off, but I would like to implement more historical effects like the monsoons in Burma, and Japan snows in the winter. It's just way overboard as it is now, so I don't even bother. Again, not all things determined by a random roll is a good thing to make a game "fresh". Just a thought, perhaps if weather was square-based as opposed to theater-based? Don't even get me started on the randomness of tech...It seems that while this game wants to portray historical accuracies via scripts and OoBs, it gets stymied by the random events that are included to make each game different, and many of these events are to the detriment of Japan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timskorn Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Everyone's threshold for how historical a game needs to be in order to be "acceptable" is different, but I imagine you'll always be able to find opponents even with house rules or mod changes. As long as it's fun, of course. Doesn't matter how historical and realistic it is if nobody else finds it fun to play! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happycat Posted February 10, 2009 Author Share Posted February 10, 2009 Everyone's threshold for how historical a game needs to be in order to be "acceptable" is different, but I imagine you'll always be able to find opponents even with house rules or mod changes. As long as it's fun, of course. Doesn't matter how historical and realistic it is if nobody else finds it fun to play! Good point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abukede Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Happycat... you are giving away all of my secrets!!! Thank you for educating the community on how Japan can run wild. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abukede Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Oh and Happy? Next game we play I will show you how to counter my moves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happycat Posted February 10, 2009 Author Share Posted February 10, 2009 Oh and Happy? Next game we play I will show you how to counter my moves. Who knows? I may demonstrate how to counter them in THIS game Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abukede Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 I can't wait for you to try. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happycat Posted February 10, 2009 Author Share Posted February 10, 2009 Did you consider how much 2-3 amphibious units represent in terms of actual troops in game terms? Did Japan send THAT many troops fighting in Singapore? If not and if it had then Singapore would have probably fallen much faster. I always take out Singapore and DEI in one turn, I use a massive armada the likes of which Japan never did, but if it had... many of these countries would have fallen much faster. Remember Japan did a very poor job pretty much everywhere since they spread out so much, while players will tend to do focused attacks. Any decent player should always succeed in taking out China, but Japan did not historically, is that unhistorical? Remember that people will probably play Japan MUCH better than how they historically conducted their war in WW2 which IMO was terrible. Japan's performance in the first few months of war was quite impressive in my opinion. They took Malaya in just over two months, against a numerically superior British army (although about half of it was non-European troops). When you say that you take out Singapore and DEI in one turn, I assume it's not the FIRST turn. I guess I would be interested in what you do with the 25th Army and the SNLF's on turn one. Most of Malaya did fall "that fast". Singapore held out until mid February. The 25th Army, consisting of three divisions, supported by some additional artillery and a tank brigade, was what western armies of the time would consider a corps. It was a very good one, with one division being highly experienced (China), one not so experienced but very efficient, and one that was quite green (Imperial Guards). So I think that Hubert's initial layout is quite accurate. I have no problem with players making focused, and different attacks than those which occurred historically. My problem is with lack of realism. The Japanese attacked Singapore overland from the north specifically because the fortresses to the south of the city were too formidable. If a player wants to try that, great---but the fortresses should make that a more expensive proposition. When I see two SNLF's come ashore suffering only 20% casualties, on top of fortress tiles that represent the most formidable fixed defenses in the Far East at that time, I think it's safe to say that reality has been suspended. I think that my opponent's strategy is a brilliant one, and it will probably win the game for him. I also think it will be an interesting game for both of us. But, it really isn't going to be instructive as to how Japan could have done better, because the game setup is allowing things that could never have happened. (specifically, focusing almost all Japanese airpower in China, and landing in the face of very strong fortifications). I hasten to add, this is a criticism of one aspect of the game, not the entire game. And it is certainly NOT a criticism of how my opponent is playing the game. His strategy appears to me to be very well thought out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abukede Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 I dont think that the fall of Singapore so early in the game is a "game winner." Hell you can even lose china and make a comeback. I've done it in 1 game already. The power of the US is weak early on and requires the US player to really think, plan and take risks... in later turns the US becomes a power house that if deployed right can not only push japan back but starve her as well. A key aspect in the game for the Allies is "how" you deploy GB and Austrailia alongside the US to contain and delay Japan till the US can become the tipping point. A mistake not to be made is giving up early because Japan rushes across the map. Strategy for the Allies in early game should be to slow and contain Japan without taking catastrophic carrier or fleet losses. Early Mid game should see a cessation of expansion for Japan as the reality and fear of where the allies will strike require a redeployment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happycat Posted February 10, 2009 Author Share Posted February 10, 2009 I dont think that the fall of Singapore so early in the game is a "game winner." Hell you can even lose china and make a comeback. I've done it in 1 game already. The power of the US is weak early on and requires the US player to really think, plan and take risks... in later turns the US becomes a power house that if deployed right can not only push japan back but starve her as well. A key aspect in the game for the Allies is "how" you deploy GB and Austrailia alongside the US to contain and delay Japan till the US can become the tipping point. A mistake not to be made is giving up early because Japan rushes across the map. Strategy for the Allies in early game should be to slow and contain Japan without taking catastrophic carrier or fleet losses. Early Mid game should see a cessation of expansion for Japan as the reality and fear of where the allies will strike require a redeployment. Absolutely! And I especially agree that the American player needs to pay attention to what Abukede says about starving Japan. The challenge for me, at the moment is how quickly to fade back in China. I can contest every city and road intersection, but I can also run out of people really fast doing that, too. Abukede is being very aggressive with his air units in China, and has done some rude things to the Chinese production. Even more telling was his destruction of a Chinese HQ, again by air power. Notwithstanding that this game is departing from the history track, big-time, it is shaping up to be one of the most interesting I have played. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaMonkey Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Pretty easy taking out the Chinese. Just concentrate those Jap Bombers, HQ supported, and take out all the supporting supply points, working the Chinese HQs over with TAC and Fighters. Focussing the air makes it a simple function of degenerating the Chinese as they slowly fall back. Interdiction is the name of the game, without supply, even the strongest enemy units fall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts