Better strategy for the Japanese

Better strategy for the Japanese (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room

Message

PawnPower -> Better strategy for the Japanese (10/26/2009 2:31:19 PM)
Better strategy for the Japanese I thought War in the Pacific was about destroying the other sides AC, then invading and securing resources. If the other sides AC are destroyed then your ships can operate in safety, apart from sub threats. If the Japanese have lots of bases to defend while the allies have naval capacity this will just divert resources. The Japanese should be trying from the outset to destroy the American fleet, the AC top priority. Not diverting resources on lots of secondary targets. Dividing the Japanese fleet just weakens the fleet and reduces the odds for success. It looks from the full campaign scenarios that the Japanese are going after lots of secondary targets and dividing the fleet. Shouldn't Pearl Harbour have been more decisive for the Japanese. In particular there is no follow up, just hit Pearl and go home. Anyone else think Pearl could have been more decisive for the Japanese, particularly with a follow up plan? Possibly another scenario is needed in which the Japanese from the outset focus on the job of destroying the allies naval capacity. Lets face it the American production capacity far out strips the Japanese. The opening moves of the game are crucial for the Japanese and should not be squandered.

EUBanana -> RE: Better strategy for the Japanese (10/26/2009 2:38:18 PM)
Taking Pearl Harbor by invasion was done in a few old WITP games. Any damaged ships at Pearl are going to be toast in such an eventuality - in my own AAR, that would be every single USN battleship. I don't think it'd be as decisive in AE though as you could move off map to Cape Town if you wanted. Balboa -> Cape Town takes about 20 days for a warship. I would, personally, send a pretty hefty amount of materiel east rather than west.

herwin -> RE: Better strategy for the Japanese (10/26/2009 3:11:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PawnPower Better strategy for the Japanese I thought War in the Pacific was about destroying the other sides AC, then invading and securing resources. If the other sides AC are destroyed then your ships can operate in safety, apart from sub threats. If the Japanese have lots of bases to defend while the allies have naval capacity this will just divert resources. The Japanese should be trying from the outset to destroy the American fleet, the AC top priority. Not diverting resources on lots of secondary targets. Dividing the Japanese fleet just weakens the fleet and reduces the odds for success. It looks from the full campaign scenarios that the Japanese are going after lots of secondary targets and dividing the fleet. Shouldn't Pearl Harbour have been more decisive for the Japanese. In particular there is no follow up, just hit Pearl and go home. Anyone else think Pearl could have been more decisive for the Japanese, particularly with a follow up plan? Possibly another scenario is needed in which the Japanese from the outset focus on the job of destroying the allies naval capacity. Lets face it the American production capacity far out strips the Japanese. The opening moves of the game are crucial for the Japanese and should not be squandered. HISTORY Most of the theatre of operations was completely bare of strategic objectives. The only reason the Japanese occupied their strategic buffer--anything except China, Indonesia, the Philippines, and SE Asia--was to delay the Allies. And the only reason they occupied anything in the strategic buffer was to establish and maintain an airbase.

FatR -> RE: Better strategy for the Japanese (10/26/2009 3:29:38 PM)
quote: Anyone else think Pearl could have been more decisive for the Japanese, particularly with a follow up plan? How about "no"? In RL hanging around PH any longer than Nagumo did meant sacrificing precious planes against massive concentration of flak for little gain (save for a slim possibiity of another lucky BB magazine hit, and hope that the sub base won't be empty by the next attack, doing something appreciably worse than the damage already done was hardly possible, from the historical Japanese viewpoint), while risking a counterattack. With Japanese assets of the time successful neutralization of PH as a base was plainly not possible. If in this game PH has similar defences to RL (I've yet to try the grand campaign), the second raid will be plain folly, and after swiftly getting enough land-based aviation PH will become an impregnable fortress in which Allied CVs will always be able to hide from a decisive engagement. So in PBEM you must hope to lure them into battle or intercept them by luck.

EUBanana -> RE: Better strategy for the Japanese (10/26/2009 3:54:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FatR quote: Anyone else think Pearl could have been more decisive for the Japanese, particularly with a follow up plan? How about "no"? In RL hanging around PH any longer than Nagumo did meant sacrificing precious planes against massive concentration of flak for little gain (save for a slim possibiity of another lucky BB magazine hit, and hope that the sub base won't be empty by the next attack, doing something appreciably worse than the damage already done was hardly possible, from the historical Japanese viewpoint), while risking a counterattack. With Japanese assets of the time successful neutralization of PH as a base was plainly not possible. If in this game PH has similar defences to RL (I've yet to try the grand campaign), the second raid will be plain folly, and after swiftly getting enough land-based aviation PH will become an impregnable fortress in which Allied CVs will always be able to hide from a decisive engagement. So in PBEM you must hope to lure them into battle or intercept them by luck. Unfortunately AA is pretty gutless, I think multiple days of pounding are a good idea myself, practically a given in fact, until the number of damaged Jap a/c take the edge temporarily off the katana. As for Fortress Pearl, well, it's certainly true that the window of opportunity for any invasion is pretty much the first week or two of the war. Certainly in my own GC though the US airpower at Pearl was utterly trashed for at least a week, and remained fairly weak until the first West Coast squadrons show up, near the end of December.

PawnPower -> RE: Better strategy for the Japanese (10/26/2009 4:00:05 PM)
Surely destroying the machine shops and oil farms would have had an effect. At least buying the Japanese more time. I did not say invade Pearl Harbour but stop it from being used as a port. The Americans would have had to travel a lot further to get their naval units into the theatre of operation. As for land base coastal guns they should be bypassed. Same for land based aircraft.

EUBanana -> RE: Better strategy for the Japanese (10/26/2009 4:34:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PawnPower I did not say invade Pearl Harbour but stop it from being used as a port. Thats only going to happen if you occupy the place, though. The port facilities in AE will be fixed quickly, certainly no more than a month. More likely a week tops. You could possibly deny the use of the port by invading some other Hawaiian base hex than Pearl itself and then base Netties there so they are cut off. However Pearl starts out with a huge amount of supply, it's going to be self sufficient for a looooong time, and no other base in range is all that suitable. The likely outcome of that is the Japs get cut off, not the Allies. It really has to be an occupation if you're going that route. Bull by the horns. quote: The Americans would have had to travel a lot further to get their naval units into the theatre of operation. I imagine the Americans would build up at Christmas Island or Tahiti in place of Pearl though, neither of which are all that big a detour. It would have to be part of a sustained CENTPAC offensive to be worth the committment probably.

FatR -> RE: Better strategy for the Japanese (10/26/2009 4:39:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PawnPower Surely destroying the machine shops and oil farms would have had an effect. At least buying the Japanese more time. Yeah. Only they had no nukes to inflict sufficiently devastaging damage within their sharply limited amount of theoretically possible air attacks. Rabaul, a much weaker base to begin with, demanded a half-year of continuous air raids and supply shortages to knock out.

EUBanana -> RE: Better strategy for the Japanese (10/26/2009 4:57:38 PM)
I think you'd need five divisions to be sure to take Pearl, assuming you could get them ashore and supply them. That means you'd have to leave the PI, or some equally major objective, for at least 2 or 3 months, assuming everything went swimmmingly.

Barb -> RE: Better strategy for the Japanese (10/26/2009 9:53:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PawnPower Better strategy for the Japanese I thought War in the Pacific was about destroying the other sides AC, then invading and securing resources. If the other sides AC are destroyed then your ships can operate in safety, apart from sub threats. If the Japanese have lots of bases to defend while the allies have naval capacity this will just divert resources. The Japanese should be trying from the outset to destroy the American fleet, the AC top priority. Not diverting resources on lots of secondary targets. Dividing the Japanese fleet just weakens the fleet and reduces the odds for success. It looks from the full campaign scenarios that the Japanese are going after lots of secondary targets and dividing the fleet. Shouldn't Pearl Harbour have been more decisive for the Japanese. In particular there is no follow up, just hit Pearl and go home. Anyone else think Pearl could have been more decisive for the Japanese, particularly with a follow up plan? Possibly another scenario is needed in which the Japanese from the outset focus on the job of destroying the allies naval capacity. Lets face it the American production capacity far out strips the Japanese. The opening moves of the game are crucial for the Japanese and should not be squandered. You are writing about two oposite targets as top priority - and that is not good. You correctly pointed out that Aircraft is the most dangerous thing in the game, but then you are saying that ships are the most wanted [:D] You should focus on one thing only. As you said, when the area is full of enemy aircraft noone is going to send his ships to the area. So 1st priority for both sides is to have Air Superiority (or better Supermacy). True is that CVs are best at projecting air power for long distances, but the only thing that can defeat them decisively is also air power only :) So as Japan I would prioritize enemy aircraft over anything else! Subs could be pain in the ass, but they are not the war winning weapon...

Barb -> RE: Better strategy for the Japanese (10/26/2009 10:05:17 PM)
question for all: What do you think is the allied single weakest point in AE? this should be Japanese "schwerpunkt"...

CMDRMCTOAST -> RE: Better strategy for the Japanese (10/26/2009 10:29:35 PM)
In 1 WITP PBEM I had a japanese player bomb pearl for 3 days, he circled around pearl trying to get to my carriers and when he went a few hexes south east towards san diego in hopes of getting my carrier from san diego I sank his replenishment force, bye the time he got to south west of midway chasing my carriers he was about out of fuel and I linked up my 3 carriers and engaged his, I sank 4 of his carriers to my 3 and damaged 2 others and never heard from him again..lol so be careful what ya wish for..

Q-Ball -> RE: Better strategy for the Japanese (10/26/2009 10:42:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Barb question for all: What do you think is the allied single weakest point in AE?�this should be Japanese "schwerpunkt"... It might be China.

Chickenboy -> RE: Better strategy for the Japanese (10/26/2009 10:48:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Barb question for all: What do you think is the allied single weakest point in AE?�this should be Japanese "schwerpunkt"... Burma. Definitely Burma.

Barb -> RE: Better strategy for the Japanese (10/26/2009 10:53:33 PM)
I was thinking economically [:D] TKs, AOs, AKs, APs, combat ships, Fighters, Bombers, engineers, manpower, pilots... ? :)

OldCanuck -> RE: Better strategy for the Japanese (10/26/2009 10:56:37 PM)
In my current campaign, the Japanese AI bombed Pearl for three days. First they sank seven BBs, then they went after my tankers and fuel, then they stirred the rubble. Even so, I am holding the Pearl-Noumea line, and have driven back attacks on Canton, Baker and Noumea. I think Yamamato's strategy is the right one for the IJN: force the US fleet to a decisive battle and sink their carriers. Unlike Midway, though, when the battle comes they have to win.

Q-Ball -> RE: Better strategy for the Japanese (10/26/2009 11:00:03 PM)
Economically? Carriers. Nothing else matters. And that won't matter much past late 1943.

PaxMondo -> RE: Better strategy for the Japanese (10/27/2009 5:07:16 AM)
Agreed, CV's. Anyone has to have them to project power. So, the allies cannot move until they have a CV advantage. And as Q-Ball says, by '44 they have that no matter what you do as IJN. They have so many Essex class coming coupled with all those F7F's and the B17's and the F4U's .... but reverse Midway and VJ day is delayed at least 1 year, maybe 2. In game terms, JAP wins.

Canoerebel -> RE: Better strategy for the Japanese (10/27/2009 5:39:21 AM)
From what I've seen to date in my game and in reading other AARs, the Allies' weakpoint is definately China. It's tough to defend Burma, but Burma isn't really that important; China is important, because if taken by the enemy it frees up a heck of alot of troops that can be used elsewhere.

Mike Scholl -> RE: Better strategy for the Japanese (10/27/2009 9:24:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PawnPower Lets face it the American production capacity far out strips the Japanese. The opening moves of the game are crucial for the Japanese and should not be squandered. Depends on if you are an historian, or a pure "gamer". The opening move is the biggest burst of "hindsight exploitation" that will ever take place in the course of play. Never again will either side be so exactly certain just what opposition they will face, where it will be, how ready it will be, how much it will be worth in combat, and exactly how to exploit the rules to achieve the most "bang for the buck". Historically the Japanese had only their estimates and their expectations to plan with. And they expected more opposition and losses EVERYWHERE in their opening moves. KNOWING you will achieve "total suprise" and exactly what opposition you will face and just how to use the game's mechanics to achieve maximum results is a huge advantage for the Japanese Player! Every lucky break the Japanese received historically (and some they didn't) are built in to the Game's opening. A perfect example of this is the "Manilla ploy". In real life, subs came and went all the time, and for safety reasons most of them in the Bay submerged during daylight hours. In the game the Japanese player KNOWS that they will be docked and vulnerable and that he can sink them in large numbers on the first turn if he wants to. In the game there really isn't anything to prevent the Japanese player from going "CV hunting" on the morning of the 7th. He knows exactly where the Lexington and Enterprise will be, and what their orders will be. If they are as important as some have suggested, why not "whack" them on day one? The only thing preventing it is the possible charge of being "gamey". In real life the Japanese didn't have anymore idea where the 3 US CV's were than Kimmel did of where Kido Butai was. And they certainly had no idea that US sub commanders were going to be saddled with faulty torpedoes. Or that every possible "tip-off" to what they were doing would be ignored. So I'd say it's mostly a matter of just how "gamey" you and your opponant want to be. Personally, I'd love to see a version of the game that allowed the Allies to "mix things up" a bit and leave the Japanese Player as unsure of what and where his opposition would be as the real Jap commanders were on that fateful morning. Just to see how "bold" the player would be without 100% hindsight?

vlcz -> RE: Better strategy for the Japanese (10/27/2009 9:42:21 AM)
quote: I'd love to see a version of the game that allowed the Allies to "mix things up" a bit and leave the Japanese Player as unsure of what and where his opposition would be as the real Jap commanders were on that fateful morning. A limited use of the editor by allied player could achieve those tweaks easily. Personally I would prefer a "random" allied initial deploy feature (an option as initial surprise) including alternative -changing each replay- initial positions of some air, land and navy units , specially CVs (even a low chance of them being at PH). And of course veriable % of surprise. This could give an interesting first turn presenting him some more the problems its historical counterpart had.

herwin -> RE: Better strategy for the Japanese (10/27/2009 11:26:05 AM)
HISTORY Oahu on 7 December 1941 was one of the strongest fortified positions in the world. A Japanese invasion was infeasible--which is why Short and Kimmel were fat, dumb, and happy when the IJN did hit it.

vlcz -> RE: Better strategy for the Japanese (10/27/2009 11:47:01 AM)
quote: HISTORY Oahu on 7 December 1941 was one of the strongest fortified positions in the world. A Japanese invasion was infeasible--which is why Short and Kimmel were fat, dumb, and happy when the IJN did hit it. HISTORY?!?![:-], kimmel could qualify as "fat" but Walt Short was quite a slim man [;)][:D] Walter-Short-General.jpg [image]local://upfiles/32663/C473E355EAE34A069DE62A49F28E56C8.jpg[/image]

EUBanana -> RE: Better strategy for the Japanese (10/27/2009 12:02:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Barb question for all: What do you think is the allied single weakest point in AE?�this should be Japanese "schwerpunkt"... In 1942 - fighter aircraft. In general - land combat units. Western Allied divisions are in short supply. They'll get the carriers back, 1st USMC Div would be gone forever. [:D]

PawnPower -> RE: Better strategy for the Japanese (10/27/2009 1:35:45 PM)
So the majority think Pearl is untouchable. Pity a few big ships could not get within range of Pearl Harbour. Couple of hundred or thousand shells landing on Pearl would have caused a lot of damage. The shells from the ships would have been a lot heavier than aircraft delivered bombs. Well, looking forward to pbem sometime next year.

EUBanana -> RE: Better strategy for the Japanese (10/27/2009 1:46:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PawnPower So the majority think Pearl is untouchable. Not untouchable, but it's about cost and benefit. The cost is high - five divisions, all the transport required, and the acceptance of the loss of a lot of naval aviators to the defences. Same as in WITP really. But I don't think the benefit is as great as it was in WITP, the map of the Pacific is larger, you got bases like Tahiti and such you can use instead, and if the worst comes to the worst, you can get to Australia by sailing east not west. quote: Pity a few big ships could not get within range of Pearl Harbour. There are a lot of very big CD guns at Pearl... I imagine the commanders of the likes of Singapore, Bataan and Oahu are thinking every day 'pity the Yamashiro isn't in range'. You don't want to fulfill their wishes. [;)]

Mike Scholl -> RE: Better strategy for the Japanese (10/27/2009 3:22:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PawnPower Pity a few big ships could not get within range of Pearl Harbour. Couple of hundred or thousand shells landing on Pearl would have caused a lot of damage. The shells from the ships would have been a lot heavier than aircraft delivered bombs. I don't know how many times I've seen opinions like this expressed on the forums. You folks have to stop and ask yourselves if this is so obvious to you, why were the admirals of the time so blind? Or were they? Perhaps they realized that Lord Nelson had been correct when he observed "No sailor but a fool attacks a fortress." I guess the historical admirals weren't fools.

Venividivici10044 -> RE: Better strategy for the Japanese (10/27/2009 4:45:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl quote: ORIGINAL: PawnPower Lets face it the American production capacity far out strips the Japanese. The opening moves of the game are crucial for the Japanese and should not be squandered. Depends on if you are an historian, or a pure "gamer". The opening move is the biggest burst of "hindsight exploitation" that will ever take place in the course of play. Never again will either side be so exactly certain just what opposition they will face, where it will be, how ready it will be, how much it will be worth in combat, and exactly how to exploit the rules to achieve the most "bang for the buck". Historically the Japanese had only their estimates and their expectations to plan with. And they expected more opposition and losses EVERYWHERE in their opening moves. KNOWING you will achieve "total suprise" and exactly what opposition you will face and just how to use the game's mechanics to achieve maximum results is a huge advantage for the Japanese Player! Every lucky break the Japanese received historically (and some they didn't) are built in to the Game's opening. A perfect example of this is the "Manilla ploy". In real life, subs came and went all the time, and for safety reasons most of them in the Bay submerged during daylight hours. In the game the Japanese player KNOWS that they will be docked and vulnerable and that he can sink them in large numbers on the first turn if he wants to. In the game there really isn't anything to prevent the Japanese player from going "CV hunting" on the morning of the 7th. He knows exactly where the Lexington and Enterprise will be, and what their orders will be. If they are as important as some have suggested, why not "whack" them on day one? The only thing preventing it is the possible charge of being "gamey". In real life the Japanese didn't have anymore idea where the 3 US CV's were than Kimmel did of where Kido Butai was. And they certainly had no idea that US sub commanders were going to be saddled with faulty torpedoes. Or that every possible "tip-off" to what they were doing would be ignored. So I'd say it's mostly a matter of just how "gamey" you and your opponant want to be. Personally, I'd love to see a version of the game that allowed the Allies to "mix things up" a bit and leave the Japanese Player as unsure of what and where his opposition would be as the real Jap commanders were on that fateful morning. Just to see how "bold" the player would be without 100% hindsight? I have to agree with Mike on this issue. The game by default attempts to provide a historic first turn, but after that point alternative history ensues. I do not find any excitement knowing the location of the American CV force at the start or the fact that I can potentially wipe out the submarine force in the Philippines that has been conveniently been left docked on the surface waiting to be sunk. It reminds me of a story I heard about an Indian tribe escorting hunters out to a field with penned in elk; the hunter could choose the animal to kill and then shoot it. Exciting...You decide. I'd find the game much more exciting NOT knowing where that carrier force is located and the fact that I'm going to have to watch my shipping a whole lot more closely knowing that subs could be lurking. So...if you prefer shooting your elk in a fenced enclosure, you'll get much the same thrill by sending forces to wipe out the carrier and sub forces. Such a scenario may be fun against the computer AI, but I'd expect more from a PBEM opponent.

Q-Ball -> RE: Better strategy for the Japanese (10/27/2009 5:55:11 PM)
Going after the USN CVs turn one is gamey, and a good PBEM opponent won't do that. Other than that, while I don't disagree that foreknowledge gives the Japanese some advantages, this cuts both ways. There are many ways in which Allied foreknowledge helps them, even early. One example is that you know what to expect in Malaya, and you probably won't send the 18th UK Division there to die. Etc. We could put a list together a mile long where both sides benefit. It's just not possible to play this game like RL in this regard, we know too much.

castor troy -> RE: Better strategy for the Japanese (10/27/2009 6:20:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Q-Ball Going after the USN CVs turn one is gamey, and a good PBEM opponent won't do that. Other than that, while I don't disagree that foreknowledge gives the Japanese some advantages, this cuts both ways. There are many ways in which Allied foreknowledge helps them, even early. One example is that you know what to expect in Malaya, and you probably won't send the 18th UK Division there to die. Etc. We could put a list together a mile long where both sides benefit. It's just not possible to play this game like RL in this regard, we know too much. I never understood why the Allied player should let the Japanese player catch his carriers on turn one. How does that work if the Allied player sets his carriers to a different location. Set them to move somewhere full speed and in WITP you will find them 12 hexes away from the position the Japanese player knows. I would just love to see KB trying to go after one of my carrier TFs instead of bombing PH. In this case the IJN wouldn�t get a carrier and wouldn�t get my BBs...

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

4.828125