Advice on playing UK

[Commander666]

Did Plan Blue factor in a possible FRG-Japan alliance?

No, but I think a FRG-Japan alliance is most unlikely.

But loading up as Japan is too gamey IMO, even if it is to check the naval ranges.

That's a harsh critique. I certainly did not open as Japan to check any naval ranges since the Japan AI will do whatever range it wants to anyway. Japan's AI sending DD-1s south of Australia (if it wants to) is very possible and not unexpected.

I opened as Japan to get a screenshot needed for the Plan Blue storyline. I certainly did not look over all of Japan's naval stacks but only picked a rather non-descript stack in one port that I broke up to give me the many arrows I wanted (and a further SS-1 on each wing to add a bit of depth to the display). Now if I had made notes on all of Japan's CVs I would agree with you. But as I didn't, and the various ships I did view in that stack are lost from my memory anyway, I will claim "necessary literary license" instead.

It really comes down to deciding on a predictable, safe and boring "Plan Yellow" attacking the Japanese in China; or an unpredictable, dangerous and exciting "Plan Blue" that will probably play itself out with battles over the treacherous depths of the mighty blue Pacific. It was a decision for storyline direction, greater drama, and reader interest.

That done, I needed something which will steer the future story, the decisions of the characters, and so what AoD battles might follow. I predict that Plan Blue will become crucial to relating to future installments. It may go a very long ways to explaining why such-and-such was not played by me, but such was.

There was also a more practical reason to deal with Plan Blue now. I find it hard to begin a new run to advance the game when a dozen unpublished screen shots are hanging around from earlier game run. It interrupts the freedom of creating a new installment that is spontaneous. Every once in a while - because of the 20 screen shot limit and how far a game might have been run combined with how one will edit and present full installments - there comes a need to synchronize "end of all screen shots" with "end of all completed installments" with "end of all earlier story ideas" only to gain the freedom of uncluttered fresh creative thinking.

At this moment there isn’t an hour played past last screen shot, nothing remaining to edit or think about, and no "hangers on" bothering me. I am as free as a loosened helium balloon floating on the wind to discover where the next game run takes things. Generally game runs might be next six months to so accumulate screen shots and learn the future that just occurred so it can go to efficient editing and fit "installment compartmentalization" or "chapters" which all support a story and - with characterization - then decide on next 6 month direction.

I suppose different authors have different ways and we are all limited by our own style. If that included opening as Japan once to make a desired screen shot for a plan which is paramount for the story that will detemine the tactical game decisions which will happen, it doesn't bother me.

 

[Autolykos]

The Soviets probably won't take Hainan anytime soon (unless the Japanese AI screws up badly), as they can't cross the strait with a Jap fleet in the Gulf of Tonkin (and their Pacific fleet can't hope to survive against the IJN). OTOH they moved fast enough that Japan didn't have much time to react, as demonstrated by the fact that they aren't dug in in Dalian or Korea (as they will when they have the chance, and are damn near impossible to get out again without overwhelming sea and air power).
Are there any events that make Mao join the Comintern when the Soviets take China? Anyway, the Soviets will be harder to kick out of China as you can't cut off their supply.

 

[Mr_B0narpte]

I wonder why the Soviet AI declared war then. Anyway, it is a great success for them! Not sure how it'll affect your plans. I'd assume Japan has virtually run out of manpower, and thus won't have many divisions to defend it's homeland. But with so many spies in it's country, you'll have a good idea of the size of it's army, and of it's navy which is already of help to you.

I don't understand why Japan's belligerence is decreasing when it's still at war with China. I assume it's because of the Soviet declaration of war, but to me that doesn't make sense. IMO Japan already gets a generous lack of belligerence through the Marco Polo event, same for Germany if it invades the Benelux countries.

 

[Pang Bingxun]

I wonder why the Soviet AI declared war then.

Soviet union has claims on some japanese provinces. Usually USSR waits till germany has attacked japan. But if there is no german-soviet war soviet union may declare war even earlier.

I'd assume Japan has virtually run out of manpower, and thus won't have many divisions to defend it's homeland.

I assume you are wrong on this. AI Japan gets much manpower out of china. It will not beat soviet union, but it is not crucially low on manpower either. In theory japan could fortify Korea forever.

I don't understand why Japan's belligerence is decreasing when it's still at war with China.

Losing provinces means losing belligerence. Gaining provinces means gaining belligerence.

I assume it's because of the Soviet declaration of war, but to me that doesn't make sense.

That reduced belligerance by 10 or even 20.

IMO Japan already gets a generous lack of belligerence through the Marco Polo event, same for Germany if it invades the Benelux countries.

Germany gets no such advantage. Germany gets no belligerence for any Dow that that "follows" the joining of allies of the attacked country.

 

[Mr_B0narpte]

I assume you are wrong on this. AI Japan gets much manpower out of china. It will not beat soviet union, but it is not crucially low on manpower either. In theory japan could fortify Korea forever.

Japan has lost Korea. And Japan, I assume, has and will loose a lot of troops fighting the USSR.

Losing provinces means losing belligerence. Gaining provinces means gaining belligerence.

Not sure I agree with that logic. I guess the only thing should matter is whether or not you declared war with 'just cause' or not (i.e. following up on Guarantee's of Independence).

That reduced belligerance by 10 or even 20.

But why? Maybe I'm missing something but that doesn't make sense to me.

Germany gets no such advantage. Germany gets no belligerence for any Dow that that "follows" the joining of allies of the attacked country.

Those two sentences contradict each other. The advantage being the lack of belligerence, so the following sentence makes no sense.

 

[Autolykos]

Belligerence is somewhat mislabeled IMHO. It represents how dangerous, not how aggressive you look to others (at least that's more in line with its effects and how you earn/lose it).

 

[Adolphin]

God those european borders are ugly. You should seriously consider downloading SMEP

 

[lollibast]

Not sure I agree with that logic. I guess the only thing should matter is whether or not you declared war with 'just cause' or not (i.e. following up on Guarantee's of Independence).

Well, it does make a difference if one country just declares war and that's it or if that same country conquers huge tracts of land. There is a lot more (diplomatical) need to contain a conquering aggressor than a stalemated one. You lose belligerence when you release a puppet, why? Because you give up unlawfully held territory so there should be less justification to dow such a country.

 

[Pang Bingxun]

But why? Maybe I'm missing something but that doesn't make sense to me.

Japan can say those evil warmonggers attacked us, we need help to defend ourselves. It is similar with losing provinces. A soviet union 1942 looks far less dangerous than 1945.

Those two sentences contradict each other. The advantage being the lack of belligerence, so the following sentence makes no sense.

Japan actually loses belligerence via event. Germany does not.

 

[Mr_B0narpte]

Belligerence is somewhat mislabeled IMHO. It represents how dangerous, not how aggressive you look to others (at least that's more in line with its effects and how you earn/lose it).

I think I understand your distinction, but IMO belligerence should represent aggressiveness.

Well, it does make a difference if one country just declares war and that's it or if that same country conquers huge tracts of land. There is a lot more (diplomatical) need to contain a conquering aggressor than a stalemated one. You lose belligerence when you release a puppet, why? Because you give up unlawfully held territory so there should be less justification to dow such a country.

I guess I'm arguing for there to be more belligerence given to a country that declares war 'unjustifiably', and, perhaps, more belligerence given to that country over time.

Japan can say those evil warmonggers attacked us, we need help to defend ourselves. It is similar with losing provinces. A soviet union 1942 looks far less dangerous than 1945.

Are you saying internal Japan propaganda would affect how the international world views it?

Japan actually loses belligerence via event. Germany does not.

Indeed, I think it looses something ridiculous like 50 belligerence. This doesn't make sense to me. Why should it have a 'free' declaration of war when IRL the international community condemned it? Yes, IRL no country went to war with Japan over it, but it certainly made it look more dangerous and aggressive worldwide. The same applies to Germany when it declares war on the Benelux countries, IMO, it by far doesn't get the belligerence it should receive.

 

[Pang Bingxun]

I guess I'm arguing for there to be more belligerence given to a country that declares war 'unjustifiably', and, perhaps, more belligerence given to that country over time.

DoW only gives belligerence if it is not justifiable by GoI or joining of alliance.

Are you saying internal Japan propaganda would affect how the international world views it?

No, internal propaganda would affect dissent. It is external propagna if the term propaganda applies here.

Indeed, I think it looses something ridiculous like 50 belligerence.

It is 25.

This doesn't make sense to me. Why should it have a 'free' declaration of war when IRL the international community condemned it?

Both sites wanted the war. A gameplay reason is that Japan gains a much better position 6-12 month later due to research and production.

The same applies to Germany when it declares war on the Benelux countries, IMO, it by far doesn't get the belligerence it should receive.

It gains belligerance by gaining territory. But Vichy is more important for that.

 

[Mr_B0narpte]

DoW only gives belligerence if it is not justifiable by GoI or joining of alliance.

How much belligerence does Germany get from declaring war on the Benelux countries?

No, internal propaganda would affect dissent. It is external propagna if the term propaganda applies here.

If external propaganda doesn't apply then I don't understand your original point (that Japan would've portrayed itself as the victim and thus it's belligerence should decrease).

It is 25.

Ah ok, well IMO it should reduced to 10, perhaps even 0.

Both sites wanted the war. A gameplay reason is that Japan gains a much better position 6-12 month later due to research and production.

It doesn't matter if both sides wanted war, the only thing that should matter is who started the war. In specific regards to AoD, Japan clearly starts the war and thus should receive a high amount of belligerence.

It gains belligerance by gaining territory. But Vichy is more important for that.

IMO who initiated the war should be a more important factor then it currently is, but not more important then the amount of territory it has.

 

[Autolykos]

It doesn't matter if both sides wanted war, the only thing that should matter is who started the war. In specific regards to AoD, Japan clearly starts the war and thus should receive a high amount of belligerence.

In AoD, you always have one side DoW the other, who was just SOCMOB, while the real situation there was far less clear cut; it was basically small skirmishes that, over about a decade, escalated into a full-blown war. The game draws the line at Marco Polo Bridge, which is reasonable, but it could be argued for earlier or later incidents, started by one side or the other, or even Japan and China starting at war, but with sitzkrieg-like AI settings that get switched to more aggressive later.
Basically, AoD does the best it can to reflect this situation by having one side DoW at about the time the war gets hot, but reduce the belligerence it gets for this.

 

[Pang Bingxun]

How much belligerence does Germany get from declaring war on the Benelux countries?

10 each if they donnot join the allies before the DoW causes the joining of alliance. It is a bit tricky.

If external propaganda doesn't apply then I don't understand your original point (that Japan would've portrayed itself as the victim and thus it's belligerence should decrease).

"If the term (propaganda) applies" was my statement. It is language, not logic.

IMO who initiated the war should be a more important factor then it currently is, but not more important then the amount of territory it has.

If belligerence describes the threat emenating from the country the current solution is not that bad.

 

[Mr_B0narpte]

In AoD, you always have one side DoW the other, who was just SOCMOB, while the real situation there was far less clear cut; it was basically small skirmishes that, over about a decade, escalated into a full-blown war. The game draws the line at Marco Polo Bridge, which is reasonable, but it could be argued for earlier or later incidents, started by one side or the other, or even Japan and China starting at war, but with sitzkrieg-like AI settings that get switched to more aggressive later.
Basically, AoD does the best it can to reflect this situation by having one side DoW at about the time the war gets hot, but reduce the belligerence it gets for this.

Of course it's more complex IRL compared to AoD's portrayal of it. Maybe I'm being over-simplistic here but looking at the bigger picture, Japan was invading China not vice-versa (I mean in terms of their national territory).

10 each if they donnot join the allies before the DoW causes the joining of alliance. It is a bit tricky.

So Germany gets no belligerence at all if the Benelux do join the Allies? If yes, where is the logic in that?

If belligerence describes the threat emenating from the country the current solution is not that bad.

I'm not saying it's very bad, but I am saying it does need improving.

 

[Pang Bingxun]

Of course it's more complex IRL compared to AoD's portrayal of it. Maybe I'm being over-simplistic here but looking at the bigger picture, Japan was invading China not vice-versa (I mean in terms of their national territory).

And therefore Japan gains belligerence. But this happens because Japan gains terriroty. Make it the other way around and China gains belligerence.

So Germany gets no belligerence at all if the Benelux do join the Allies? If yes, where is the logic in that?

German has already gained belligerence by the DoW on allies. BeNeLux joining allies does not increase the threat emenating from germany. If BeNeLux is lost to germany, than its belligerence will increase.

 

[Pang Bingxun]

That's quite a theory!

I have seen this on many occasions. So many of them that i did not notice that Japan did not manage do defend korea here. Defending the north border of korea is rather easy due to geografical reasons.

 

[Commander666]

I have seen this on many occasions. So many of them that i did not notice that Japan did not manage do defend korea here. Defending the north border of korea is rather easy due to geografical reasons.

So is stopping Partisans in Guangzhou. I could forgive a human player with "locked divisions" but it is just silly that Japan AI has garrisons all over the Pacific and Partisans in China. And the main reason Japan AI fails in China is than Mengchukuo never attacks, and Manchukuo never helps. Sorry about the mis-spellings. As a human I think China very hard nut to crack if I can't use my allies effectively. I don't blame Japan for not defending Korea... it needed the divisions to win in China. The real AI game problem is ineffective co-ordination between the 3 countries combined with gross waste in the Pacific.

Yes, the geography is good there, but Japan does need everything to quickly beat the Chinese. It needs to make a reasonable gamble regarding leaving Korea open. But it is a wasted gamble if all of MAN and all of MEN just sit there doing nothing (not even sliding over to protect Korea. And it is compounded by dozens of useless GAR scattered over the Pacific (with not even a decent defense of Truk).

I think you'll find Plan Blue as it unfolds rather revealing also. But got to go. Flying to Thailand tomorrow for R+R. There for 5 days. Should find time to put up next instalment then.

Greatly appreciate all who left comments recently. You literally saved this ARR as I had decided to just drop it.

 

[Autolykos]

What is SOCMOB?

SOCMOB = Standing On Corner, Minding Own Business. It's a surprisingly dangerous thing to do (and one of the chief causes for ending up in hospital with gunshot wounds), since more often than not Some Guy (or occasionally That Crazy Bitch) will attack you.

On Topic: I think the belligerence mechanics are mostly fine, even though they used the wrong word. It's actual threat and not belligerence that influences other countries' actions. For example, North Korea is belligerent as hell, but nobody takes them serious, so no democracy can justify declaring war on them.

 

[Mr_B0narpte]

Well, what an interesting debate. It's a good thing it happened because I was getting very discouraged about continuing the story - even though screen shots are done for next four installments which will provide some answers and insights to a few of the items mentioned in your debate. At least as far as this particular game is concerned. So, your debate has given me "renewed purpose". Now I need to only find the time to do that although it is not difficult as there are no long "Commander-Winston discussions"... only the war. Sorry, I meant "only the wars" Plural.

Next installment is called "THE USA GOES TO WAR". Next one "THE ALLIES FINALLY GO TO WAR". Next one "OKINAWA". Fourth one probably "Attacking the home islands". There are some interesting sea battles, unexpected DOWs, some strange AoD mechanics regarding Allied paratroopers, a lot of ships get sunk, a lot of men die - especially the Japanese.

I eagerly await your updates!

But of course real life comes first, enjoy your time in Thailand.