Feasibility of eary Australia Invasion

Feasibility of eary Australia Invasion (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945

Message

Accipiter -> Feasibility of eary Australia Invasion (3/15/2006 2:09:56 PM)
I am considering a completely new strategy in my next game in which as the Japs, I attack eastern Australia as soon as possible, with specific landings in Brisbane and hopefully then moving towards Sydney. I haven't ever had a game last more than a few weeks due to severe bug (was run 1.795 patch) and haven't ever got to try out this strategy. At the beginning, the number of Australian troops are low in number and if I can get there before any substancial allied re-inforcement arrivfe , I should be able to capture a large number of resource, HI, and even some repair shipyards to support further operations. This would mean of course, having to sacrifice in another area. But it might be worth it. Any chance that an operation like this might succeed. If I can capture the important areas of Australia relatively early, that should then free up those units for defending the Pacific afterwards before the Allies start to roll in '43. Question would mostly be where to sacrifice initial operations. Any thoughts?

mogami -> RE: Feasibility of eary Australia Invasion (3/15/2006 2:50:34 PM)
Hi, I think your out of your mind. You dont need more resources then you get from SRA. (and there are a lot more units in Oz then you think. It would take the entire SAA to have 2-1)

KDonovan -> RE: Feasibility of eary Australia Invasion (3/15/2006 2:57:11 PM)
i wouldn't do it. In my PBEM game, my oppenent landed over 100,000 troops at Darwin (about 4 Div's) and couldn't take it against a defending force of 30,000 troops (1 Div, 2 Bde). Couldn't imagine how much forces it would require to take the whole continent. But if you are still bent on trying it, i would suggest doing it on CHS, so your oppenant can't fly around the railroad of Australia, which wasn't there in real life.

veji1 -> RE: Feasibility of eary Australia Invasion (3/15/2006 3:11:58 PM)
you get 6 months of oil and supply at the start, so you might just grab the whole SAA, KB, and go to OZ via Truk, Rabaul, PM... This would mean not attacking malaya at all, and try to just render PI the less annoying possible by landing here and ther and basically just smash Clark and avoid reinforcements getting in... You probably could conquer south-eastern OZ this way, then go to the DEI via Timor and New guinea... You would probably manage to get Java, eastern DEI, and Borneo after a bloody fight.. But attacking Malaya in mid 1942 after they had time to prep would be almost impossible, and still you would be very vulnerable in the pacific with such a big area to protect... I mean what is the point in taking OZ if you don't grab New caledonia and NZ to be able to defend it... but then that woul mean losing time before attacking DEI... Honnestly you would probably end up in mid-late 1942 with no oil left, an exposed under belly and a big useless desert island under your boot... But it might be fun to try to pull it out though.. I'd read an AAR on that for sure..

Sneer -> RE: Feasibility of eary Australia Invasion (3/15/2006 3:27:42 PM)
return/risk factor for such operation is far too low for me - even if I'm capable of fast finishing PI and DEI + malaya I don't see it

el cid again -> RE: Feasibility of eary Australia Invasion (3/15/2006 5:44:38 PM)
In more complex games, I like to RAID Australia - to sieze RR rolling stock (engines) and machine tools from factories - but NEVER to stay. The only exception is Darwin - more or less an island - I like to own it so it cannot be used to bomb Java - and because I can predict where they will attack! I LOVE to fight battles over places I don't really need and can afford to lose, where there is total certainty they will attack, and I won't be surprised. Delays real Allied offensives a year or so.

mogami -> RE: Feasibility of eary Australia Invasion (3/15/2006 6:16:39 PM)
Hi, Landing in forward over extended locations might be a pain for Allied player but it will also train his units before he has to go out and begin retaking other bases. everything you lose fighting pointless battles makes the real battles later more difficult. where can the Allied player train his airgroups if Japan stays away from large close easy to supply Allied airfields? The only reason I would attack any Allied base was to kill the enemy forces deployed there. (And then I would pick up my units and move back into better areas for defense)

Ron Saueracker -> RE: Feasibility of eary Australia Invasion (3/15/2006 6:17:52 PM)
Only in the game can this even be considered...like the India or North America invasions. Utter hosh posh!

Speedysteve -> RE: Feasibility of eary Australia Invasion (3/15/2006 6:20:00 PM)
Ron if you ever had anything positive to say i'd almost offer to buy you a pint

fabertong -> RE: Feasibility of eary Australia Invasion (3/15/2006 6:21:09 PM)
The gauntlet is thrown down.

Mike Solli -> RE: Feasibility of eary Australia Invasion (3/15/2006 6:22:56 PM)
I recently invaded Darwin in my game in May 42. The reason I did it was because he had most of his B-17s stationed there. I started by bringing some BBs and CAs to pay a visit and destroyed many on the ground (100 or so comes to mind). Then I got the idea to invade to possibly destroy some of the units and capture some of the pilots sitting around playing pinochle. I did take it with little loss. Not sure if I'll stay or leave, but I do know that it slowed his air offensive to the soft underbelly of the SRA for awhile. To me it's all time. The longer I can delay the Allied player's offensives, the better. I haven't seen a B-17 lately. Let's not talk about LB-30s, Wellingtons and B-25/26s. But none are in that area.[:D]

Ron Saueracker -> RE: Feasibility of eary Australia Invasion (3/15/2006 6:23:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Speedy Ron if you ever had anything positive to say i'd almost offer to buy you a pint Not a big lager fan. Pint of Bitter?[:D] quote: Only in the game can this even be considered...like the India or North America invasions. Utter hosh posh! Mr. (-) Anyway, what is negative about the above? If anything it is neutral because it is true?[8D]

Speedysteve -> RE: Feasibility of eary Australia Invasion (3/15/2006 6:24:23 PM)
LOL. 'That's the spirit son'. Think of the positive's[:D]

Speedysteve -> RE: Feasibility of eary Australia Invasion (3/15/2006 6:25:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker quote: ORIGINAL: Speedy Ron if you ever had anything positive to say i'd almost offer to buy you a pint Not a big lager fan. Pint of Bitter?[:D] Could be arranged. Please note in my original post I said 'ALMOST offer' [;)]

Ron Saueracker -> RE: Feasibility of eary Australia Invasion (3/15/2006 6:26:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Speedy quote: ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker quote: ORIGINAL: Speedy Ron if you ever had anything positive to say i'd almost offer to buy you a pint Not a big lager fan. Pint of Bitter?[:D] Could be arranged. Please note in my original post I said 'ALMOST offer' [;)] I saw that![:D]

Ron Saueracker -> RE: Feasibility of eary Australia Invasion (3/15/2006 6:27:08 PM)
Hey, when I get to Greece you can blow a few bucks and take a 3 day package deal to the island and we can both get pranged![:D]

Terminus -> RE: Feasibility of eary Australia Invasion (3/15/2006 6:28:05 PM)
With his female attachment? Not bloody likely, considering her nationality...

Ron Saueracker -> RE: Feasibility of eary Australia Invasion (3/15/2006 6:29:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Terminus With his female attachment? Not bloody likely, considering her nationality... He is re-attached? Hey, Zakynthos is one of the few places the Turks did not manage to invade so I don't think anyone gives a hoot except maybe footie!

Nikademus -> RE: Feasibility of eary Australia Invasion (3/15/2006 6:30:56 PM)
Invading Northern Oz is certainly feasible...but i've never seen much value in it other than providing an additional buffer for the SRA. I don't like over-extending my forces when I play as Japan. Like Mogami said, just makes it easier for the Allied player to train and gives them an easier target to start marching back from whence they came.

Terminus -> RE: Feasibility of eary Australia Invasion (3/15/2006 6:36:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker quote: ORIGINAL: Terminus With his female attachment? Not bloody likely, considering her nationality... He is re-attached? Hey, Zakynthos is one of the few places the Turks did not manage to invade so I don't think anyone gives a hoot except maybe footie! It's in the bones, man. Just like all good hatreds, it's in the bones...

Mike Solli -> RE: Feasibility of eary Australia Invasion (3/15/2006 6:37:17 PM)
I agree Nik. I'd much rather have that nasty Allied player try invading my position rather than have to support my postion by ship while he marches to attack me.

Terminus -> RE: Feasibility of eary Australia Invasion (3/15/2006 6:39:22 PM)
Absolutely. Invading Oz is an overextension of an already catastrophically overextended Japanese military.

Speedysteve -> RE: Feasibility of eary Australia Invasion (3/15/2006 6:43:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Terminus With his female attachment? Not bloody likely, considering her nationality... LOL. Her Brother trains every day for the possibility of an 'altercation' with a Greek........

niceguy2005 -> RE: Feasibility of eary Australia Invasion (3/15/2006 6:49:20 PM)
Maybe I missed this in your original post, but is this a PBEM game or against the AI. I'm thinking you are playing the AI, if so I say sure, go for it. All comments above are correct. In my game against the AI, I am going for complete map domination, which means I must beat OZ at some point. You are right that it is easier to do it early, but if you do this, I think you're going to have to get to Sydney and southern OZ very quickly to cut off the reinforcements. In my game I am going for PI, Malaya, Borneo, Sulawesi and the Solomons in Phase I. Phase II will have to be Burma, the rest of the DEI and either OZ or India, and I am thinking OZ, before the US can reinforce it much. The problem with going for OZ too early is logistics and resources. You will sooner or later need the resources from DEI and if you haven't secured those you will be in trouble. Also, you will have a very long supply line from Japan that you will have to protect, not to mention the massive amounts of fuel you will use to move an army large enough to take OZ. By the way, if this is a PBEM game, it is pure suicide to go for the eastern shore of OZ.

Rob Brennan UK -> RE: Feasibility of eary Australia Invasion (3/15/2006 7:14:50 PM)
Dont forget the resources in OZ will help produse supply in australia that wont need to be shipped. some in cairns and townsville which would be nice. However vs a player .. NOT A HOPE IN HE$$..

Nikademus -> RE: Feasibility of eary Australia Invasion (3/15/2006 7:24:13 PM)
Has anyone ever taken Eastern/Southeastern Oz in a non AI game?

mogami -> RE: Feasibility of eary Australia Invasion (3/15/2006 7:29:38 PM)
Hi, Speaking from experiance I think WITP poves it's is Posh Psoh to try to invade the USA. (Harder then it looks) Speaking from experiance I think WITP proves any Japanese plan that omits getting the SRA as quickly (and cheaply) as possible is fatal to Japan in the long term. While I suck as a player I do a pretty good job planning the early months for Japan. (it's after May 1942 that kills me) I stink as an Allied player because I don't react to these wild Japanese adventures early in game and I pretty much lose interest as Allies if the Japanese play for auto victory in 43 (I say OK have fun lets get it over) I don't deny players have the right to play in this manner it just holds no interest for me. I like WITP when the Japanese player is attempting to conduct the Japanese war plan and does not screw up the system. Japan is supposed to take the SRA and then defend it to the end. Japan takes places on the map to aid in prolonging the defense. I posted before how I think the Japanese should behave. (I know thepoor Japanese player has to accept at the start that he will likely lose the game. He has to be the type that likes difficult defense not rapid exploit of the system and knowledge of Allied deployments) My next set of PBEM games will be one where I find a third party who is good (and fast) with the editor and both sides before turn 1 do a free deployment. (units would have to remain in their HQ areas) This way the Japanese player would really have to plan how he conducted the war because he would not know before hand where the Allied units were located. (He would have to write out turn 1 orders before he received the file and send his turn 1 to the moderator who would confirm it matched so even if he peeked at Allied deployments it would not effect his turn 1) Both sides would have a number of PP to use to change HQ of units. But Dutch would have to remain in DEI and Chinese in China and so on. (Would love to see expression on sneaky Japanese players face when he teleports units to Noumea on turn 1 and finds 3 Allied divisions there. )

niceguy2005 -> RE: Feasibility of eary Australia Invasion (3/15/2006 7:41:25 PM)
Mogami, this sounds fascinating. I'd love to hear how this works for you. On the other hand, would it really be fair to let the allied player muck with their deployment much. First turn surprise is on of the few things the Japanese player really has going for him. I could see all kinds of aggresive defensive deployments, which would be a typical.

mogami -> RE: Feasibility of eary Australia Invasion (3/15/2006 8:27:22 PM)
Hi, Agressive forward defense would work against Japanese who did shoddy planning. The Japanese would retain their real advantages but would have to do without the advantage gained from the turn 1 teleport (I'd let the Japanese do this if he was willing to take the risk) And he would not be able to do this kind of planning "Lets see whats on Mu-Mu Atoll, only one baseforce with a value of 20 So I send the 333rd Special Naval Landing force value of 60. Over here on Gimmie-Gimmie is a size 3 airfield I can build to size 5 and it's empty so I'll send this little Naval Guard on 1 transport and this baseforce on another, I can cut off enemy ships trying to leave SRA by dropping 50 paratroop on this empty airfield and flying in support and a Betty Daitai, He has 50 fighters here so I'll assign 2 Daitai as escorts blah blah blah" Instead of this kind of planning "I need this base to provide air control but it is not currently inside my air range so I can't just teleport there because I don't know what might be waiting so I have to capture this base here and build an airfield. It's inside my air range so I can cover my movement there. Now I might have to send a Brigade or more so I'll need transports and fuel and escorts to stage while I conduct a few recon flights to get an idea of the oppositon. " Free deployment would pretty much take China and Soviets out of picture because instead of being scattered all about and in bad postions there would exist a real defensive line. I want the game WITP to be played in the Pacific. (I hate playing "The Great Land war in China while KB mucks about")

el cid again -> RE: Feasibility of eary Australia Invasion (3/15/2006 8:40:13 PM)
quote: Only in the game can this even be considered...like the India or North America invasions. Utter hosh posh! IJA agreed with respect to invading Australia. It estimated 10 divisions would be required - and could think of no way to justify that many. IJN had an advocate of this move AFTER the death of Adm Yamamoto - (it is in the diary of his former chief of staff who replaced him - Adm Ugaki). They ended up planning to cut off Australia - and siezing valuable minerals - at New Calidonia - and Fiji. However, an invasion of India was entirely feasible, accoring to revisionist European and Indian scholarship. Japan needed to permit the Indian National Army form up as divisions, but the idea was certainly popular enough to implement. There was considerable trouble when Indians met, and numbers were executed. The entire Indian National Congress spent the war in prison - its demands for a commitment to independence as a condition of supporting the war being regarded as treason. Yet independence came anyway - the move was foolish. The Atlas of Revolutions claims it took 160 battalions to garrison India. There was a major famine in India - and the decision NOT to send food (shipping was "too valuable for the war effort" to save mere Indians) killed any chance Britain had of retaining the colony. This decision meant that vast numbers of Indians would have taken any option. Japan did grant independence to a small bit of liberated India (the Nicobar Islands), but it did not permit either of two Indian National Armies to fully stand to.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.53125