Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Japanese Strategic Choices

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> The War Room >> Japanese Strategic Choices Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Japanese Strategic Choices - 7/24/2007 6:30:52 PM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline 		Once the SRA is cleared, the Japanese player has a large number of troops ready for action, and plenty of shipping to get them somewhere. With reinforcements and maybe a couple units from China, somewhere around 8 to 10 divisions. Prior to clearing the SRA, the Japanese Strategic priorities are obvious; clear Malaya, PI, Java, push out perimeter in SoPac to/past PM, Lunga, Tarawa, etc, and get established in Burma. After that, is when you really have a choice to make. I am curious, what do others think about or do in that 5/42 timeframe? Obviously alot of factors figure into it, assume both CV fleets are relatively intact.

Options:

1. INVADE CEYLON: Pros: Probably not well defended on the ground. Will keep RN in Bay of Bengal, and cut India/Oz supplies. Cons: Easy bombing target, easy to isolate later on.
2. INVADE INDIA: Pros: Potential Knock-out of UK Cons: Without Knock-out, a protracted land campaign; difficult to withdraw from if not successful. NOTE that in Big B, and a couple other mods, alot more troops in India than Stock.
3. INVADE N. OZ: Pros: Protects flank of SRA; N. Oz is "island". Eliminates 4E threat to southern SRA. Cons: Requires troop commitment to defend; not easy to springboard to other conquests
4. SoPAC Strategy: Pros: Slow down US counterattack later, by pushing out perimeter; lengthens US-Oz supply line. Getting NZ would sever that completely. Possible to capture many units. Cons: Difficult to defend large area; no resources, points are only for outermost islands.
5. CONCENTRATE IN BURMA: Pros: Safe, and neccessary Cons: Very conservative
6. SOMETHING ELSE

I am playing 2 games as Japan, and initially picked "3" and "4".
Would love to hear what others do
Post #: 1
RE: Japanese Strategic Choices - 7/24/2007 6:55:38 PM   
rogueusmc


Posts: 4583
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: Texas...what country are YOU from?
Status: offline 		If you got what you need, I'd dig in an d hold it.

_____________________________

There are only two kinds of people that understand Marines: Marines and the enemy. Everyone else has a second-hand opinion.

Gen. William Thornson, U.S. Army


(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 2
RE: Japanese Strategic Choices - 7/24/2007 7:05:16 PM   
Mike Solli


Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline 		I agree with rogueusmc.  Overexpanding is definitely counterproductive.  You have only so many troops to hold your perimeter, as well as your inner perimeter.  That doesn't mean that attacking targets of opportunity is a bad thing.  I wouldn't blunt my carrier air force on trying to pound an airfield just to deter the buildup of that airfield though.  US Seabees can repair any damage in no time at all.

(in reply to rogueusmc)
Post #: 3
RE: Japanese Strategic Choices - 7/25/2007 12:02:27 AM   
KDonovan


Posts: 1157
Joined: 9/25/2005
From: New Jersey
Status: offline
quote:

4. SoPAC Strategy: Pros: Slow down US counterattack later, by pushing out perimeter; lengthens US-Oz supply line. Getting NZ would sever that completely. Possible to capture many units. Cons: Difficult to defend large area; no resources, points are only for outermost islands.


i would choose this one....the american's are the ones the Japanese need to worry about in this game. So slowing down the american build up in Oz, and forcing the american navy to come out and play (while japanese still have the advantage), is the best option for japan

_____________________________


(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 4
RE: Japanese Strategic Choices - 7/25/2007 12:57:13 AM   
Yamato hugger

 

Posts: 5475
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline 		Depends on the tactical position. Remember Jap ships arent terribly good at staying afloat for long periods while burning / flooding, so get caught too far from a repair base and you risk a lot. Even a minor hit can be fatal at long ranges.

What is the allied vs Jap carrier situation? If you havent sunk any or lost any, then he is probably pretty close to your strength in carriers which gives him the advantage when his land based air can come in to play and yours cant. This should be a consideration when looking at the So Pac. If you have lost carriers this tips the balance more and more in the LBA favor even given equal carrier losses.

Are you playing on Andys map or stock? If stock, what are you going to do in north Oz? He will walk up there and throw you right back out. Most you can hope for is a few months tops. On Andys map northern Oz is a realistic objective because of the difficulty trying to walk troops up there with little to no supplies.

Ceylon is a deathtrap. He can rotate planes in India pulling back when he doesnt want to fight and coming out when he does. You are letting him choose when to fight. You are also within spitting distance of his sub bases. You will pay hell trying to keep it supplied. You either go for India, or forget it. Ceylon itself isnt worth going after.

And you lose a lot of supplies trying to walk over the mountains into India.

Whats left?

(in reply to KDonovan)
Post #: 5
RE: Japanese Strategic Choices - 7/25/2007 1:56:20 AM   
bobogoboom


Posts: 3799
Joined: 2/13/2006
From: Dallas
Status: offline 		Ceylon and south pac can also become large pow camps if you are not carefull.

_____________________________

I feel like I'm Han Solo, and you're Chewie, and she's Ben Kenobi, and we're in that bar.
Member Texas Thread Mafia.

Sig art by rogueusmc

(in reply to Yamato hugger)
Post #: 6
RE: Japanese Strategic Choices - 7/25/2007 2:59:28 PM   
saj42


Posts: 1125
Joined: 4/19/2005
From: Somerset, England
Status: offline 		6. Something else

I've read in a couple of Japanese AARs of players that attack bases/islands in SWPAC and SOPAC just to eliminate Allied ground units and rack up points. The intention is not to defend these bases when the Allied steamroller starts moving.

_____________________________


Banner by rogueusmc

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 7
RE: Japanese Strategic Choices - 7/25/2007 11:23:05 PM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline 		HEMAJOR, DO NOT READ!

Well, OK, I'll give you a scenario right now.....

It's 7/5/42. I just finished clearing N. Oz, and about 10 Div. are there awaiting orders, shipping nearby. Only CV losses so far are Enterprise and Ryujo. I have Zuiho in the shop, everyone else is good to go. My opponent just dropped 2 divisions on Wake and took it, I suspect backup troops to follow shortly.

I'm not convinced Wake is really that important, just a handy seaplane base more than anything, but this strikes me as an opportunity to force a CV on CV action, and capture a whole bunch of units.

Thoughts? How much will I need to take on 1 USMC, and 25 Div?

(in reply to saj42)
Post #: 8
RE: Japanese Strategic Choices - 7/25/2007 11:55:58 PM   
herwin

 

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

HEMAJOR, DO NOT READ!

Well, OK, I'll give you a scenario right now.....

It's 7/5/42. I just finished clearing N. Oz, and about 10 Div. are there awaiting orders, shipping nearby. Only CV losses so far are Enterprise and Ryujo. I have Zuiho in the shop, everyone else is good to go. My opponent just dropped 2 divisions on Wake and took it, I suspect backup troops to follow shortly.

I'm not convinced Wake is really that important, just a handy seaplane base more than anything, but this strikes me as an opportunity to force a CV on CV action, and capture a whole bunch of units.

Thoughts? How much will I need to take on 1 USMC, and 25 Div?


That should have been overkill for Wake. In reality, you couldn't deploy more than a division to attack it or more than a regiment to defend it--anything more would have been excess to requirements. I'm sure the game counts rifles, but what I would do is hit it with a supported division. Even if there were two divisions dug in, no more than a regiment could defend, and the rest would have served as artillery targets. In game terms, bombard it for a couple of weeks to wipe out the supplies and then hit it with a supported division.

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 9
RE: Japanese Strategic Choices - 7/26/2007 7:20:47 AM   
dtravel


Posts: 4533
Joined: 7/7/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin


quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

HEMAJOR, DO NOT READ!

Well, OK, I'll give you a scenario right now.....

It's 7/5/42. I just finished clearing N. Oz, and about 10 Div. are there awaiting orders, shipping nearby. Only CV losses so far are Enterprise and Ryujo. I have Zuiho in the shop, everyone else is good to go. My opponent just dropped 2 divisions on Wake and took it, I suspect backup troops to follow shortly.

I'm not convinced Wake is really that important, just a handy seaplane base more than anything, but this strikes me as an opportunity to force a CV on CV action, and capture a whole bunch of units.

Thoughts? How much will I need to take on 1 USMC, and 25 Div?


That should have been overkill for Wake. In reality, you couldn't deploy more than a division to attack it or more than a regiment to defend it--anything more would have been excess to requirements. I'm sure the game counts rifles, but what I would do is hit it with a supported division. Even if there were two divisions dug in, no more than a regiment could defend, and the rest would have served as artillery targets. In game terms, bombard it for a couple of weeks to wipe out the supplies and then hit it with a supported division.

There are no stacking limits in this game. Sending one division to attack two defending divisions is suicide.

_____________________________

This game does not have a learning curve. It has a learning cliff.

"Bomb early, bomb often, bomb everything." - Niceguy

Any bugs I report are always straight stock games.


(in reply to herwin)
Post #: 10
RE: Japanese Strategic Choices - 7/26/2007 9:23:05 AM   
herwin

 

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline 		Not if the defending divisions are out of supply and have been chewed up by shore bombardment.

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to dtravel)
Post #: 11
RE: Japanese Strategic Choices - 7/26/2007 10:11:57 PM   
dtravel


Posts: 4533
Joined: 7/7/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

Not if the defending divisions are out of supply and have been chewed up by shore bombardment.

Which would require that you have an air-tight blockade of the island for long enough to know that all the supply stockpiles have been used up. I don't think a few weeks would be long enough.

*shrug* Judgement call.

_____________________________

This game does not have a learning curve. It has a learning cliff.

"Bomb early, bomb often, bomb everything." - Niceguy

Any bugs I report are always straight stock games.


(in reply to herwin)
Post #: 12
RE: Japanese Strategic Choices - 7/26/2007 11:04:56 PM   
herwin

 

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: dtravel


quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

Not if the defending divisions are out of supply and have been chewed up by shore bombardment.

Which would require that you have an air-tight blockade of the island for long enough to know that all the supply stockpiles have been used up. I don't think a few weeks would be long enough.

*shrug* Judgement call.


Shore bombardment is very efficient at destroying supply.

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to dtravel)
Post #: 13
RE: Japanese Strategic Choices - 7/27/2007 12:28:55 AM   
Yamato hugger

 

Posts: 5475
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline 		Still takes a while for the units to whittle down. Not to mention you can always FLY supply in from Midway if necessary.

(in reply to herwin)
Post #: 14
RE: Japanese Strategic Choices - 7/27/2007 11:23:54 AM   
herwin

 

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

Still takes a while for the units to whittle down. Not to mention you can always FLY supply in from Midway if necessary.


Quantity has a quality all of its own. I've had 5000+ supply wiped out by the Japanese in a single bombardment at Darwin.

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to Yamato hugger)
Post #: 15
RE: Japanese Strategic Choices - 7/27/2007 6:35:21 PM   
anarchyintheuk

 

Posts: 3921
Joined: 5/5/2004
From: Dallas
Status: offline 		Fortunately for the IJN there's nothing in the US LBA arsenal that can really hurt bombardment tfs.

(in reply to herwin)
Post #: 16
RE: Japanese Strategic Choices - 7/27/2007 7:07:18 PM   
rtrapasso


Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

Fortunately for the IJN there's nothing in the US LBA arsenal that can really hurt bombardment tfs.



After a while, they theoretically can get 2000 lb. AP (if you make a bunch of different "dice rolls").

(in reply to anarchyintheuk)
Post #: 17
RE: Japanese Strategic Choices - 7/27/2007 7:19:18 PM   
anarchyintheuk

 

Posts: 3921
Joined: 5/5/2004
From: Dallas
Status: offline 		He's still in 7/42. I should have been more clear.

(in reply to rtrapasso)
Post #: 18
RE: Japanese Strategic Choices - 7/27/2007 11:39:19 PM   
dtravel


Posts: 4533
Joined: 7/7/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso


quote:

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

Fortunately for the IJN there's nothing in the US LBA arsenal that can really hurt bombardment tfs.



After a while, they theoretically can get 2000 lb. AP (if you make a bunch of different "dice rolls").

And I think some of those die rolls are glitched. I see a lot more AP bombs/special munitions against transport TFs than I do against combat TFs. Its a pattern that emerges from observation over time, a single save game isn't going to show it. (In large part because, as you note, the chances of using them are so low to begin with.)

_____________________________

This game does not have a learning curve. It has a learning cliff.

"Bomb early, bomb often, bomb everything." - Niceguy

Any bugs I report are always straight stock games.


(in reply to rtrapasso)
Post #: 19
RE: Japanese Strategic Choices - 7/28/2007 12:17:39 AM   
Yamato hugger

 

Posts: 5475
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

Still takes a while for the units to whittle down. Not to mention you can always FLY supply in from Midway if necessary.


Quantity has a quality all of its own. I've had 5000+ supply wiped out by the Japanese in a single bombardment at Darwin.


And? Doesnt take 5000 supply to keep a combat unit up to strength. What ever a few squadrons of transports can bring in will keep it going for that day. You can wipe out all the supplies on a base daily, and it can still be in full supply. At least for the ground units. Repairing the bases and entrenching is another matter.

(in reply to herwin)
Post #: 20
RE: Japanese Strategic Choices - 7/28/2007 11:28:50 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Coming back to the original question, I like taking NW Aussieland.  Keeps the 4EB away from the DEI and gives you a solid flank.  An additional thrust due south is nice to islolate Australia in taking New Zealand.  YES--I know the agruements both pro and con but it DOES slow down the American build-up, forces diversion of troops and supplies, as well as keeps the Aussie troops home defending their homeland.

My .02...

_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to Yamato hugger)
Post #: 21
RE: Japanese Strategic Choices - 7/28/2007 5:36:03 PM   
Yamato hugger

 

Posts: 5475
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline 		The bad part of it is that it forces the allies to deploy to the west and north of Oz so when the counter attack does finally come, everything is aimed right at the SRA instead of the So Pac..

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 22
RE: Japanese Strategic Choices - 7/30/2007 12:16:31 AM   
String


Posts: 2661
Joined: 10/7/2003
From: Estonia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger


quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

Still takes a while for the units to whittle down. Not to mention you can always FLY supply in from Midway if necessary.


Quantity has a quality all of its own. I've had 5000+ supply wiped out by the Japanese in a single bombardment at Darwin.


And? Doesnt take 5000 supply to keep a combat unit up to strength. What ever a few squadrons of transports can bring in will keep it going for that day. You can wipe out all the supplies on a base daily, and it can still be in full supply. At least for the ground units. Repairing the bases and entrenching is another matter.


You need 1000 Dakotas to bring in 5000 supply a day via air transport. If you wipe out all supply at a base the units will be undersupplied or out of supply after the first combat round.

(in reply to Yamato hugger)
Post #: 23
RE: Japanese Strategic Choices - 7/30/2007 1:00:21 AM   
rogueusmc


Posts: 4583
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: Texas...what country are YOU from?
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

The bad part of it is that it forces the allies to deploy to the west and north of Oz so when the counter attack does finally come, everything is aimed right at the SRA instead of the So Pac..

Which is why they went into the Solomons in RL...to create a 'buffer zone'

_____________________________

There are only two kinds of people that understand Marines: Marines and the enemy. Everyone else has a second-hand opinion.

Gen. William Thornson, U.S. Army


(in reply to Yamato hugger)
Post #: 24
RE: Japanese Strategic Choices - 7/30/2007 1:19:34 AM   
Yamato hugger

 

Posts: 5475
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: String

You need 1000 Dakotas to bring in 5000 supply a day via air transport. If you wipe out all supply at a base the units will be undersupplied or out of supply after the first combat round.


Heh, ok and? You dont need 5000 supply a day to keep a division "fully supplied". Even if you are conducting offensive operations, 1000 a day is enough, and defensively (which if you are flying supply in by air because you are getting pounded, I have to assume you arent conducting offensive operations) 200 will do it. A C-47 (Dakota / Tabby) carries 10,000 capicity. Now frankly I never cared enough to figure out the load out cost of what a supply point costs in air transport, but I find it hard to believe that 1 supply point is 2000 air transport points. Even giving it 1000 points to a supply point, it would take about 20 planes to "fully supply" a division for defensive ops for a day. Thats uh -- about 1 16 plane squadron, or 2 12 plane squadrons, right?

< Message edited by Yamato hugger -- 7/30/2007 1:22:51 AM >

(in reply to String)
Post #: 25
RE: Japanese Strategic Choices - 7/30/2007 3:07:20 AM   
Cpt Sherwood

 

Posts: 837
Joined: 12/1/2005
From: A Very Nice Place in the USA
Status: offline 		I believe that a supply point is 1 US ton or 2000 pounds. A C-47, with a 10,000 max load, can carry 5 supply points. A 48 plan transport group carries 240 supply. About enough to keep a Division fighting some.

(in reply to Yamato hugger)
Post #: 26
RE: Japanese Strategic Choices - 7/30/2007 11:07:23 AM   
String


Posts: 2661
Joined: 10/7/2003
From: Estonia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

quote:

ORIGINAL: String

You need 1000 Dakotas to bring in 5000 supply a day via air transport. If you wipe out all supply at a base the units will be undersupplied or out of supply after the first combat round.


Heh, ok and? You dont need 5000 supply a day to keep a division "fully supplied". Even if you are conducting offensive operations, 1000 a day is enough, and defensively (which if you are flying supply in by air because you are getting pounded, I have to assume you arent conducting offensive operations) 200 will do it. A C-47 (Dakota / Tabby) carries 10,000 capicity. Now frankly I never cared enough to figure out the load out cost of what a supply point costs in air transport, but I find it hard to believe that 1 supply point is 2000 air transport points. Even giving it 1000 points to a supply point, it would take about 20 planes to "fully supply" a division for defensive ops for a day. Thats uh -- about 1 16 plane squadron, or 2 12 plane squadrons, right?


One supply point is 2000 air capacity. The same as a support squad iirc.

(in reply to Yamato hugger)
Post #: 27
RE: Japanese Strategic Choices - 8/22/2007 12:30:34 AM   
High Command

 

Posts: 38
Joined: 3/2/2006
Status: offline 		Hm

I would say, Do something that makes the Allied Player thinks that you are focusing on something other then the US..  then Strike the US very hard very fast by invading Australia.. New Zeland.. 

Build up the Islands, and make them so heavely defended with air, mines and the whole nine yards, so its "not worth" the effort for him to evan try...
Of course, maintain Pressure on the UK on the same time.. maby lunch a early war invation of India or something..  This should draw his attantion away from your real intended target...





_____________________________

ACCOUNT TO BE DELEATED

(in reply to String)
Post #: 28
RE: Japanese Strategic Choices - 8/22/2007 3:20:41 AM   
Knavey

 

Posts: 3052
Joined: 9/12/2002
From: Valrico, Florida
Status: offline 		Bah...forget all of the previous advice.  ATTACK RUSSIA!  There won't be a dull moment for months after that!

_____________________________

x-Nuc twidget
CVN-71
USN 87-93
"Going slow in the fast direction"

(in reply to High Command)
Post #: 29
RE: Japanese Strategic Choices - 8/22/2007 11:45:08 AM   
VSWG


Posts: 3432
Joined: 5/31/2006
From: Germany
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Tallyho!

6. Something else

I've read in a couple of Japanese AARs of players that attack bases/islands in SWPAC and SOPAC just to eliminate Allied ground units and rack up points. The intention is not to defend these bases when the Allied steamroller starts moving.

Seconded - but with a twist. Expand into SoPac and defend your outer perimeter only lightly. Don't contest the first Allied invasion, neither the second. But then try to guess the third base he's going to invade, and turn it into a fortress with KB in support. If you're lucky, your opponent got used to easy SoPac invasions at that time, and doesn't come in strength. Try to turn this into a quagmire for him. But even then you shouldn't try to win this battle, just stall him as long as possible. So be sure to have an exit strategy. Read pauk's AAR and look for out for the battle for Mili ('Milipoli') - that's what I'm talking about.

quote:

Bah...forget all of the previous advice. ATTACK RUSSIA! There won't be a dull moment for months after that!

LOL! True... So many Japanese players have talked about conquering Russia and said it would be possible, or even easy. Yet I have to see a single AAR in which Russia was successfully attacked...

_____________________________


(in reply to saj42)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> The War Room >> Japanese Strategic Choices Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.266