SqzMyLemon
Posts: 4239
Joined: 10/30/2009 From: Alberta, Canada Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: crsutton quote:
ORIGINAL: PaxMondo Echoing all the thoughts and concerns here, it seems that the IJ player needs to extend either to OZ or India, after having secured china first; particularly in scenario 2. Going for Karachi or Sydney has a high probability to force the allied player into action. If not, the HI and resource gains in India make it a very good take. Taking OZ makes the allied re-conquest that much longer as he hasn't a solid staging point for the DEI. This mean holding DEI longer and extracting that much more fuel. Either way, if the allied player allows either to ocurr, the IJ has a good chance to be still standing in '46 with the allied player just too far away to be able to close. Backing up, means that the conquest tempo needs to be SO fast and steady all they way through '42. Implying a fairly detailed plan of units to commit, timing, PP buyouts, etc. My point being: I'm not yet that good to do that! But, I do see the need .... PS: glad to see you back. Keep the updates coming. And trust me. in another 100 turns or so, the action will start to heat up. You are right. Having experienced scen #2 first hand vs a good opponent. I would say that emasculating China is a must and can't really be prevented. Once secure, the Japanese player just gets so many extra cards to play. However, it has to go hand in hand with an aggressive and relentless expansion. The Japanese should never stop pushing until the Allies can push back, (and in scen #2 that should not happen until mid 1943) but most of the significant gains should be in hand by August 1942. And the Japanese player should not be overly concerned about losses in ships and aircraft. Caution just kills the Japanese. Likewise, considering the flood of Japanese aircraft and the power of KB, I think the best Allied play in scen #2 is to preserve and hide your carriers. An intact and lurking Allied carrier force eventually limits the Japanese player to one major offensive at a time-making it easier to manage. I completely agree with the fact that the onus is on Japan to force the issue IF the Allied player doesn't contest. Don't forget this is scenario 1 with PDU off though. That really limits the flexibility of a Japanese deeper thrust in my opinion. It can still be done, but you simply don't have the manpower or aircraft to defend the rest of your gains adequately, leaving you vulnerable to an early Allied counter from an experienced player. In this case neither of us was experienced so that argument is moot in any case. As Pax said, I know that it will take just such an operation against Australia, Hawaii or India if faced with similar Allied tactics again to force the issue in the next game. Unfortunately, that takes planning right from day one and I wasn't experienced enough to recognize that in this matchup, nor how to really take advantage of it anyway. Really my issue is this. If an Allied player decides to simply not engage, they can do so...all game if they so choose. I just have a problem with expecting a Japanese player to have to throw everything into an operation that's sole purpose is to try and entice the Allied player to fight, possibly to the detriment of an overall sustainable strategy. Let me put it this way, if the onus is on Japan to bring the Allies to battle, the Allies should have the onus to defend to the best of their ability as well, not simply run away until mid 1943. Anyway, this has been brought up before and discussed earlier in this AAR, moving on. Everybody has their own game experiences that shape their opinion. Mine has been shaped in accordance with my opponents lack of martial spirit and aversion to putting any of his forces at risk. I applaud his ability to stick to his strategy, but it's obvious (at least to me) that it's not a very enjoyable one to play against. That being said, it's almost January 43 and the Allies are actually moving forward now. There's an opportunity here for action and I'm going to take full advantage of it. I'm not overly concerned about losing ships at this stage, but I'm not going to recklessly dash in either, as some would suggest, just for action's sake. I stick to the plan. The Allies have finally stuck their head out from under their shell, it's up to me to do something about it. I recognize that and am currently about to try and chop it off. Thanks for the feedback. It wasn't my intention to rehash all of this. I just thought it was interesting discovering how my opponent is looking at the game and how I felt it is contributing to my overall disatisfaction with the experience to date. As I said, I'm no longer interested in winning or losing, but how can I improve and apply the great advice and suggestions from more experienced players to this particular PBEM.
< Message edited by SqzMyLemon -- 10/13/2011 5:54:43 PM >
_____________________________
Luck is the residue of design - John Milton Don't mistake lack of talent for genius - Peter Steele (Type O Negative)
|