German Biased?

[Charles22]

troopie said:
No, it's biased toward nations that have a lot of info available in English. There's a lot of material about the British, American and German armies in English, so those tend to get the attention. There is, I am sure, a lot of info about the Japanese Army out there. But it's in Japanese, which most wargamers don't understand. There's a huge number of books on the Great Patriotic War in Russian, most of which have never been translated into English.

If the game is biased, it's biased toward the USA, the only country to have two orbats. Don't flame me, I know why.

troopie

On the other hand, the Japanese are one of the least interesting nations by far in terms of a total inadequacy with tanks and anti-tank capabilities.

Even the Italians could often field a decent medium tank at various times.

You also don't see that many French-oriented battles, but they did have some of the best tanks in the world for a while, but then they didn't fight very long either. I don't know about WinSPWW2, but most games I see have more USSR scenarios than the French and Japanese combined.

The USSR has the glamor of being a large nation with a lot of times having the best in some unit or other, while all the Japanese have that is different, or better, is the regard towards their often fanaticism in battle.

The best the WWII Japanese had to offer, their ships, isn't in this game of course.

For myself, I don't know if I will ever play a Japanese campaign (though I have started a few), just because the tank/anti-tank capability is so dreadful. I at least want a reasonable chance to destroy the enemy tanks without having to throw a suicidal man with a mine strapped on to achieve it.

[PatG]

Charles22 said:
<snip>
On the other hand, the Japanese are one of the least interesting nations by far in terms of a total inadequacy with tanks and anti-tank capabilities.

Even the Italians could often field a decent medium tank at various times.

<snip>

For myself, I don't know if I will ever play a Japanese campaign (though I have started a few), just because the tank/anti-tank capability is so dreadful. I at least want a reasonable chance to destroy the enemy tanks without having to throw a suicidal man with a mine strapped on to achieve it.

But for someone like me who is tired of The Battle of The Monster Tanks, the Japanese are an extremely interesting infantry force.

Gotta love this game - something for everyone.

But then this morning I shot up some Nationalist Chinese Marmon Harringtons mini tanks with a 37mm infantry gun (you know - the French one with the pathetic APCR round) so I'm feeling pretty happy with my Gunjin.

[Charles22]

PatG said:

But for someone like me who is tired of The Battle of The Monster Tanks, the Japanese are an extremely interesting infantry force.

Gotta love this game - something for everyone.

But then this morning I shot up some Nationalist Chinese Marmon Harringtons mini tanks with a 37mm infantry gun (you know - the French one with the pathetic APCR round) so I'm feeling pretty happy with my Gunjin.

Well yes, there's always some nation wimpy enough to provide a fight for any of the major combatants. I was thiniing of course about how wimpy their anti-tank capability was against GB or the US. China don't even count in my book. I might someday start a Republic China campaign and hope I see a lot of commies to attack, but, alas, i would probably get bull-dozed by Japan in virtually every battle. I wonder if the commies have a greater chance of fighting Japan than the Republic Chinese?

[PatG]

Charles22 said:
<snip>I wonder if the commies have a greater chance of fighting Japan than the Republic Chinese?

Look up the 8th route army. As for the rest of the wimpy Chinese, even after 15 years of warfare, only 4 of which involved the Americans and Allies, Japan never conquered China.

[Charles22]

PatG said:

Look up the 8th route army. As for the rest of the wimpy Chinese, even after 15 years of warfare, only 4 of which involved the Americans and Allies, Japan never conquered China.

I meant wimpy in terms of their equipment and ratings in WinSPWW2. Surely you will agree that their in-game army is much weaker than the in-game armies for GB and the USA for example?

[PatG]

Charles22 said:
<snip>
I meant wimpy in terms of their equipment and ratings in WinSPWW2. Surely you will agree that their in-game army is much weaker than the in-game armies for GB and the USA for example?

Fair enough about the equipment and ratings.

As for comparison of any in-game army against another, I have to disagree - with some caveats.

Above the tactical level, the game operates on the basis of "all other things being equal" - this ensures the player enjoys the game. We see this in the points ratios and the fully topped up formations and amount of rare kit we can purchase (though some attempts have been made to compensate e.g. Japanese home defense tank units). While Chinese equipment is not nearly as good as that of some other armies, you can buy a lot of it. As Uncle Joe said: "Quantity has a quality of it's own". The numbers for quality trade-off can fail (spectacularly in SPMBT with M1 vs T72) but these failures can often be resolved through thoughtful force selection and tactics.

What we don't see is the ability of American or British mechanized forces to punch through CCP lines and push deep into their rear areas nor do we see the effects of local villagers supporting CCP forces through information, logistics and guerilla support.

My second caveat would be about terrain. Chinese vs US over open ground is one thing, in close terrain it could be quite different. As I mentioned in a PM, I ran tests showing that in close terrain, Japanese infantry without specialized AT can hold their own against American combined arms or tank forces.

The game starts with all other things being equal, our job as commanders is to make sure they don't stay that way.

[Charles22]

Well sure, but I'm playing primarily from the German POV no matter what side I play and the Chinese are WAY bad in that department. Heck, what infantry isn't good in jungles against AFV's? I gave Japan that concession by mention of the ol' satchel charges on the the back routine (but I don't believe in fighting that way - suicide). It's just that I don't really consider that warfare, and really confined quarters where the Chinese or Japanese might hold their own against tanks or combined arms, though it does happen in warfare, is just a bore to me, because any ol' schmo can do it. Of course the worst thing is that there never is such thing as the advancing unit getting next to the defender undetected, such that the attacker might attack first for a change. No, the defender has to have multiple 'targets' thrown against it in the same turn, such that it runs out of shots, then that 6th or 7th target has a chance to 'start' attacking the defender (I realize the attacker 'can' shoot after the defender attacks him, should he rally and have shots left himself). I realize that's a part of the system that can't be helped, but you can see plainly how the Japanese, and worse yet the Chinese are very inadequate at stopping medium AFV's beyond range 1. Seems there ought to be times where the attacker gets the first crack, even if he is an AFV (though much less likely) or the first infantry going in. Maybe a 100 experienced commando should be able to move and attack before a 45 experienced Chinese infantry notices him at times?