Japan Rush on India, the real war

Axis & Allies Revised by Avalon Hill. Released in 2004.
Axis & Allies is a classic game of war, economics, and global strategy. Victory goes not only to the team that conquers its opponents on the field of battle, but also to the individual player who seizes the most enemy territory.
User avatar
elbowsanchez
Posts: 1324
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 1:45 am
Location: Western Boogerland
Contact:

Post by elbowsanchez » Fri Nov 14, 2008 12:41 pm

yeah, but the attitude of taking a crap on the floor and rubbing someones nose in it is just rude, not "woman stuff like making flower embroidery or other needlework."

Dont talk about your own game of Axis & Allies that your creating in Larry's forum in such a way that provokes negative. At least Il offers some tact in this area, how little it may be.
-The evil Bert & friend

User avatar
adlertag
Posts: 1445
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2004 3:28 pm
Location: norway

Re: Japan Rush on India, the real war

Post by adlertag » Fri Nov 14, 2008 4:28 pm

timerover51 wrote: The next time you casually send your Japanese forces charging into India from French Indo-China or Burma, just remember that in the real war, your forces never would have managed it.
I guess that was exactely what Percival said about Singapore too. :D

Luckily Yamashita had a different opinion. :lol:

User avatar
Builder_Chris
Posts: 487
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 8:57 am
Location: Englewood, Colorado

Post by Builder_Chris » Thu Dec 18, 2008 6:16 pm

timerover51,

I can and often do appreciate the historical notes :shock: and "commentary" :roll: that you bring to so many of your posts, but most of them give me the impression that you are more than a "history buff" that enjoys playing a game that is a "broad-brush simulation of what was a very complicated human drama" and something more of a "History Scholar" that is disgruntled :evil: over the 50 million things that did not get designed into the game that recreated every little detail (no matter how little that detail would affect the game mechanics or how much that detail would bog down the game play of such a "large scale" game).

Although I have not played it, I often think that you would be better suited to playing games like “Third Reich" or "Great Pacific War". From what I understand, these games are all about "recreating" ever little detail of every little detail of every little detail of every little, little detail…of every historic little detail.

http://www.avalanchepress.com/line_3R_GPW.php

Maybe you should check it out?

As far as the topic of this discussion; I don’t see how it is such an easy thing for the Japanese to just walk into India. The game is well balanced that the Japanese still need to set up a “logistics” trail to win the war…like everyone else in the game does too. (But than again, I am learning that I am not that strong of a Japanese player…yet.)
Construimus, Batuimus -- "We Build, We Fight.".....we party all night!

timerover51
Posts: 366
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 10:31 am

Post by timerover51 » Sun Dec 21, 2008 7:37 am

Builder_Chris wrote:timerover51,

I can and often do appreciate the historical notes :shock: and "commentary" :roll: that you bring to so many of your posts, but most of them give me the impression that you are more than a "history buff" that enjoys playing a game that is a "broad-brush simulation of what was a very complicated human drama" and something more of a "History Scholar" that is disgruntled :evil: over the 50 million things that did not get designed into the game that recreated every little detail (no matter how little that detail would affect the game mechanics or how much that detail would bog down the game play of such a "large scale" game).

Although I have not played it, I often think that you would be better suited to playing games like “Third Reich" or "Great Pacific War". From what I understand, these games are all about "recreating" ever little detail of every little detail of every little detail of every little, little detail…of every historic little detail.

http://www.avalanchepress.com/line_3R_GPW.php

Maybe you should check it out?

As far as the topic of this discussion; I don’t see how it is such an easy thing for the Japanese to just walk into India. The game is well balanced that the Japanese still need to set up a “logistics” trail to win the war…like everyone else in the game does too. (But than again, I am learning that I am not that strong of a Japanese player…yet.)
I served in the Army as a supply officer, and I have continued to study logistics in all of its various forms since my medical retirement, as I have had the time to do so. I have books covering everything from the logistics of the Macedonian Army of Alexander the Great to supplying the Gulf War. The game mechanics ignoring of the logistics issue makes for some strategies that would be utter fantasy in the actual war, such as a Japanese advance on India from Burma, or a Japanese advance on Moscow from Manchuria through Siberia, truly bizarre.

Considering how long the game has been in existence, and the fact that presently you have 4 different versions available, Revised, Pacific, Europe, and Anniversary, one would think that somewhere in there, a simple set of logistics rules, and some terrain modifiers or difficult borders areas would have been worked in. You have the start of a logistic rule in Guadalcanal with the introduction of supply tokens for building airfields and various other uses. That could have been expanded on to require supply tokens to be present in the area in order for units to be able to attack. The Attack Expansion game system uses Oil Production Certificates to simulate logistics to an extent, as each action taken costs you Oil, with each succeeding action being more and more expensive. As you already have IPC, something like that called Logistic Costs Points could have been added. For every sea zone or land area you are distance from your Industrial Center, you pay a logistic cost. The greater the distance, the greater the cost. In the case of Axis units in Africa, it could be as simple as requiring a transport to be present in the Mediterranean on the turn preceding an attack.

In Revised and Pacific, you have areas such as the Sahara Desert and the Himalayan Mountains that are impassable to units. I fail to see why if that is being done, why certain border areas, such as the French-Italian border, the border between Burma and India, the Caucasus Mountain area, the French-Spanish border, all be given distinctive marking indicating that major problems exist in attacking across these borders, with attacker penalties and/or defender bonuses.

Even if some type of logistics rules are not included in the regular game rules, some form of optional rule using them could have been included. Probably the players most effected would be the Japanese and the US player, as they have to deal with lots of sea movement, but that is what happened in the actual war. American production capacity could be greatly increased, but much of the increase would go to supporting overseas expeditions.

Basically, I am saying that it would not be difficult to add either some form of logistics rules and/or some form of terrain /border modifier to the game.

As for the disgruntled history scholar comment, I am a retired US Army officer, a military historian, a logistics expert, and a defense consultant. All that makes me take to heart the dictum that "amateurs discuss tactics, professionals discuss logistics." The Japanese were pretty much amateurs, and not very good ones at that, when it came to logistics in WW2, and after reading some of the staff studies done by the Germans with respect to the Russian Campaign, to say nothing of Operation Sea Lion, and the Mediterranean Theater, I have my doubts about the German General Staff. Definitely have doubts about them when it comes to anything to do with the sea.

User avatar
Larry
Posts: 3090
Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2004 9:44 am

Post by Larry » Sun Dec 21, 2008 12:36 pm

Comments noted. Axis & Allies Supplies (The Deluxe S-4 game). Some aspects of running a national army must be considered as a bit too detailed and unwarranted in a game of this type. Supplies, although presented in Axis & Allies Battle of the Bulge, which you failed to mention, will not be a feature in my global level games. I think that in my broad brush approach to strategic aspects of a global game I have to draw the line somewhere. Providing or dealing with IPCs is as far as I want to go in this area. As for individual mismanagement or extremely efficient manipulation of supply pipe lines by individual powers now rest in the hands of the players themselves not in the historic doctrines of these said powers. As interesting and as important as supply issues can be in running an army (to some), they must be delegated to the long list of other important factors that are not specifically called out in this game. Why not write page after page of rules that deal with moral, intelligence gathering, armor thickness of tanks, individual fighter ranges and payload capacity? The details of where one could go with this game are unlimited in their possibilities. I would invite you to incorporate, in your own house rules, any seemingly overlooked aspects of running a national army in terms of this game system. Let it go… I realize that you are not addressing your comments to me directly but in this case to Builder_Chris. Nonetheless, I think I (we) got your point about 3 months ago. Thanks but no thanks.

robdunbar69
Posts: 59
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2010 5:37 pm
Location: GnVille IL. usa

Re: Japan Rush on India, the real war

Post by robdunbar69 » Sat Dec 04, 2010 11:38 pm

K after viewing these2 pages being an ex-supply off.explains alot im an ex ground ponder,(enlisted in my defence) micro-manage was every sup. off.issues im just surprised he didnt want to factor in the loss of time filling out forms(in triplicate)at suppy
Use it up,or wear it out,make it do,or do without

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests