6971grunt
Posts: 427
Joined: 3/31/2005 From: Ya sure, you betcha Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: niceguy2005 quote:
ORIGINAL: irrelevant quote:
Additionally, would the Japs be willing to invest what would be necessary to re-take the island, given their other military objectives. Oh, yeah. If there is stuff to kill, IJA will be there. There is always some nasty LCU or other that can be shaken lose from somewhere. Hell, chances are, there's one already saddled up waiting to go. Agreed, the Japs can take anything they want anytime they want early in the war, for the most part. Don't forget that the Japanese start the game with about 50 divisions. That's 50. That doesn't even count the BDEs, Nav Guard, NLF and SNLF forces. About 20 or so of those Div are in China and some, I don't know how many are in Manchuria. So if Japan wants to attack Marcus Is. it will take it. The fact that he has not yet taken Wake is probably not a sign of a lack of resources. It smells like a trap to me. Remember that Japan wins by forcing you into a decisive battle early in the war. If the Allied player is fighting a delaying action in Southeast Asia, the fact that there is potential for losses by the invasion of Marcus Island should be of little concern since the allied player is willing to take losses to gain time. I am still of the opinion that Marcus Island is viable and could be held - the USA has plenty of Divisions, etc., to spare [Hawaii alone has several] and more to come. The Jap is just speading out and may lose stragetic focus by rounding up units from other theaters [i.e., trying to root-out PA Divisions with SNLFs ain't that easy]. However, I understand those who feel that such is just "hanging meat out for the lion". To get back to the original question as to the unusual, japanese opening - A good friend of mine, nicknamed "The Weasel", has argued that the Japanese player should ignore Pearl Harbor and concentrate the KB on the British Navy [although not a novel idea. After running several hypotheticals, it appears to me that he may have a point but I'm not sure how that would effect the "end-game". I have seen that a strike at Pearl may have limited and sometimes frustrating results for the Jap. Furthermore, it appears that the KB hanging around to conduct a second strike at Pearl has very little productive value [i.e., additional ship damage seems de minimis]. I wonder if others have seen like results? If this is true, the Jap may be better off "playing" with the Royal Navy then turning of the pre-WWI USN Battleships.
_____________________________
"Over?! It's not over until we say it's over. Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?!" John Blutarsky from the Movie "Animal House"
|