India or Australia/NZ? (Full Version)

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



Message

MineSweeper -> India or Australia/NZ? (6/8/2007 2:49:20 AM)

The Japanese do have an option of committing forces to take one of these two areas (if they can destroy the allied CV units and clean up China early....which one would be the best option.....

My thoughts..... (India Option)

Destroy China - free up huge amounts of Japanese troops and A/C to use against India(PP points paid of course).
Knock Britian out of the war with an India victory.
Small naval presence needed (after destroying the Royal Navy CVs and BBs)

My Thoughts....(Australia Option)

Destroy large amounts of allied shipping (if the US CVs have been destroyed early)
Keep allied LBA out of the South Pacific with an Australia/NZ knock out.
The US player would have to stage a long distance attack strategy with regard to losing his forward bases.

But both options would use up alot of fuel and supplies......if the Japanese player has done well(taking Burma, New Caladonia/Suva/Pago Pago and kicking Chinese butt) in the first 6 months, these two options would present themselves.....(maybe both at one time)[:)]

Just throwing this out......

Major Con would be shipping with regard to the Australia option.

Major Con would be a tough land fight against the Britian/India regarding the India option.



Yamato hugger -> RE: India or Australia/NZ? (6/8/2007 3:01:45 AM)

Well if you can "destroy China", does it really matter?



MineSweeper -> RE: India or Australia/NZ? (6/8/2007 3:21:10 AM)

Why do say that.....



RUPD3658 -> RE: India or Australia/NZ? (6/8/2007 5:57:26 AM)

Check "The Battle for New Jersey" AAR. I took out India without using CEF units and reduced China to the Chungking pocket by the end of 42.

In retrospect, I am thinking that OZ may have been a better option as I could have score a ton of stategic bombing points on the cities there before taking them. I also would have split the Allied fronts in two making the 43 Allied offensive much more difficult to pull off.

Idealy, take both. [:D]



MineSweeper -> RE: India or Australia/NZ? (6/8/2007 6:17:31 AM)

Thanks, I will check that AAR....[:)]



niceguy2005 -> RE: India or Australia/NZ? (6/8/2007 6:20:57 PM)

This is a tough call to make. I think I would go for Australia/NZ.

1. India isn't always as easy a target as some people think. If the Allied player plays it right, keeps his forces together and is willing to commit some extra naval and air forces to the IO then it can be a tough nut to crack. In my game with Graycompany I was lucky enough to move some extra fighter and bomber units from the PI into India, instead of Oz. That was enough to blunt his offensive in India and hold out.

2. As RUPD pointed out completely splitting the allied line of communication can really slow the counter offensive down. Once Oz/NZ are taken the Japanese can focus on bottling up, or perhaps even invading India.

As a side note I would love to see an Invasion of New Zealand. It would make an interesting AAR.



aztez -> RE: India or Australia/NZ? (6/8/2007 6:28:21 PM)

Definately India.

If you knock out british than you really don't have to worry about Burma front, etc. Also British troops are not restricted command so your opponent don't have use his PP.

As for Australia... well a lot of his troops are tied down to Oz and he really wohn't have enough PP to use them anyway. Also If you for Oz than there no guarantees that he simply doesn't cut your frontline to half via CenPac assault. Thus leaving your troops to rotten in Oz and making the whole continent a large POW camp.

Just my 2 cents.



Q-Ball -> RE: India or Australia/NZ? (6/8/2007 6:43:38 PM)

I have been playing Big-B's mod (well, this week not due to work, but I have a couple minutes), and in THAT Mod, both China and India are much tougher nuts to crack.

In India, all those Indian divisions start close to full-strength, rather than Brigade strength, and there are regional brigades added.

In China, there are alot more Chinese, though many are Static

As a result, in that one Australia looks like a more enticing option by far



moses -> RE: India or Australia/NZ? (6/8/2007 7:39:09 PM)

Has there ever been a single human vs. human AAR in which all of Oz was taken? Or even most of it?

Austrailia has quite a few divisions and against a serious attempt the allies could shift in 3 or 4 more from US or India. (Hard to blockade the whole coast). Even if Japan commited 10 divisions I could see The allies digging into their last couple cities and holding firm.

Plus if your playing any type of historical start your not going to have 10 divisions to spare until March. (You have to take PI, Singapore, Java).

It just looks really hard.



Nikademus -> RE: India or Australia/NZ? (6/8/2007 7:59:14 PM)

unless the Allied player is moving those divisions, I don't see it being done.....



niceguy2005 -> RE: India or Australia/NZ? (6/8/2007 8:35:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: moses

Has there ever been a single human vs. human AAR in which all of Oz was taken? Or even most of it?

Austrailia has quite a few divisions and against a serious attempt the allies could shift in 3 or 4 more from US or India. (Hard to blockade the whole coast). Even if Japan commited 10 divisions I could see The allies digging into their last couple cities and holding firm.

Plus if your playing any type of historical start your not going to have 10 divisions to spare until March. (You have to take PI, Singapore, Java).

It just looks really hard.

Check out Dark Side of the Moon AAR by RaverDave. I haven't checked it in a while, but he was having a very tough time in Australia.

I disagree that the Allies don't have enough political points to do much with the Oz Divisions. They don't have enough to do much in the first 6 months of the war, but that isnt the problem. The problem for Japan is to get through 43 in tact enough to still defend well in 44. I have converted a significant number of Australia, New Zealand units to southwest pac and still have 4300 points in the bank it is now Feb 43.




moses -> RE: India or Australia/NZ? (6/8/2007 8:54:18 PM)

I took a look. I guess anything is possible with a little help from your opponent.[:D][:D]

It appears that the allied player here aggressivly deployed his forces forward and got burnt bad.

I had a similar situation in my last game with John III. I hadn't planned on taking India until I saw all the troops he was pouring into Burma. So I landed in India and the whole thing was an empty shell.



RUPD3658 -> RE: India or Australia/NZ? (6/8/2007 9:03:25 PM)

The only way I see it being done is "Hirohito style" where the PI is bypassed and outlying bases like Neoumea and Timor are secured early to cut Oz off.



anarchyintheuk -> RE: India or Australia/NZ? (6/8/2007 9:57:38 PM)

Depends on what mod that you're playing. If stock, no question. It should be India. Benefits include: mapboard-edge defense, destruction or removal of several thousand ac, approx. 20+ divs, and the RN from the allied orbat, if you're playing for vps, a staggering amount of those, continental sized training areas, almost complete removal of allied lba as an offensive threat and the joy inherent in expanding the co-prosperity sphere.




niceguy2005 -> RE: India or Australia/NZ? (6/8/2007 10:13:51 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: moses

I took a look. I guess anything is possible with a little help from your opponent.[:D][:D]

It appears that the allied player here aggressivly deployed his forces forward and got burnt bad.

I had a similar situation in my last game with John III. I hadn't planned on taking India until I saw all the troops he was pouring into Burma. So I landed in India and the whole thing was an empty shell.

No doubt everything is contingent on the skill of the player, but also on the decisions made. As an allied player you have to bet on where Japan will strike, reinforce there and then do what you can to hedge your bets.

In my game with Graycompany I bet that he wouldn't make a major invasion of Australia and won that bet, he went for India instead. So it was part luck. However, I also hedged my bets by spreading my defenses out in the pacific. At no time was Karachi, Colombo, Sydney, Aukland left defensless. Front line bases were speed bumps, not fortresses. This had the intended affect. By the time he finished off places like Sumatra and Java India was strong enough to put up a strong front along the Gangees while still putting at least a brigade of troops at all other invasion points.

Australias ground forces initially are stronger than India. The troops are better quality and the country is mobilized. I don't think a brute force frontal assualt on Australia would go well, but Australia doesn't have enough troops to defend the entire country either. Japan has to find Australia soft spot and strike early. Most allied players will put too many troops at Port Morseby and will pick southern oz clean to do it.

If it were me my "dream plan" would probably call for simultaneous invasions at Darwin and Adelaide, cutting off any forces to the west of both landings. This gives Japan the ability to drive on Melbourne and Sydney from Adelaide



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.625