RE: Holding Rangoon ? (Full Version)

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



Message

Nemo121 -> RE: Holding Rangoon ? (12/17/2010 4:44:01 PM)

fcharton,

That post clarifies matters. I think the key difference would be that instead of asking "Where do I want to fight?" I would suggest one should ask "At what point can I stage a successful fight which minimises the enemy's economy?"

For me, that was Palembang. That's why i chose to fight there... initially it was a delaying action and then it transitioned into a proper defence.



As to Bullwinkle,
Well, you're welcome to your opinion. I make it a point not to play certain types of people and I've found that policy works well. No amount of taunting will change that policy.

Still, as I say, you are more than welcome to your own opinion.



Andy Mac -> RE: Holding Rangoon ? (12/17/2010 5:37:10 PM)

I guess the question for me would be why bother ? i.e. dont do it without an overall plan no real estate is worth holding for the sake of holding it only for what it can do for your wider plan or for frustrating your opponents



CV2 -> RE: Holding Rangoon ? (12/17/2010 6:07:00 PM)

As the Japanese, I take a lot of things that I have no intention of holding, just for the sake of denying them to the allied player for as long as possible. Darwin and New Caledonia come to mind. But the allies IMHO shouldnt throw away troops just for the sake of trying to be a road block in the "expansion period". The Japanese are going to do pretty much what they want to do until Apr/May 42. Trying to hold the line in a place where you can be cut off and destroyed just plays into the Japanese players hands.

India is very hard to cutoff and destroy allies forces because they can use the inland rail net to move lots of troops in a hurry, so this is the natural place for the allies to "hold the line" on this front. If the allies use these troops forward of this position where they can be by-passed you open up your rear as the Japanese can run amok with his many armored regiments using the Indian road net.

The east side of Australia is similar to India. Northern Oz (central and eastern) has a single pipeline and therefore is vulnerable. The central (Darwin et al) is hard for the allies to make progress against because of the supply situation. Eastern Oz not so much. The allies can muster forces in the south at will and drive them out. The plus side to this gambit as the Japanese is he will need 3 times the force you have to move you back. The down side is he will eventually do it and when its over he will have some VERY experienced troops to use later. Western Oz is a prison camp. Whatever goes there will sit there and wait for the allies to come and kill them all. In some cases I take this area just to treat it like New Caledonia: take it and leave. Maybe use it for a forward sub base and have CVL patrols out of the area.

The south, southeastern, and eastern Pacific depends entirely on carriers. With the stacking rules in AE, makes this slightly easier to hold than in WitP, but the additional bases make it easier to by-pass so both players need to be more fluid on this front. Take away the carriers and you surrender the initiative. Early war, this isnt a huge issue for the Japanese because they can defend a lot of real estate with Bettys but after the US gets that 5th carrier at least part of the KB needs to be in the area or the allies are going to start moving.

This is the key: the Hornet. Once the allies have this carrier they enter a period where they CAN fight back. This is the end of the "expansion period" for the Japanese. Not to say they cant still make progress, but it must be more deliberate and calculated. The allies trying to hold before this time anywhere other than the above is nothing short of foolhardy.



Ametysth -> RE: Holding Rangoon ? (12/17/2010 6:54:14 PM)

Let's say the point is not holding Burma/Rangoon, but create a furball that would suck Japanese resources from other fronts. If you move everything you can from Singapore-Sumatra-Java area and import naval units (up to and including Carriers) from US how many extra resources would IJ player have to commit to win that front? Enough to slow Japanese advances in SoPac/Australia? Enough to allow allied build a counter attack force to push into Solomons or Marshals in late 1942? Could be interesting play and one really gutsy gamble.



fcharton -> RE: Holding Rangoon ? (12/17/2010 8:03:54 PM)

If the goal is to bleed Japan white, Palembang is probably a better idea than Rangoon. The problem with Burma is that it does not produce supplies, and that there is only one way to reinforce / feed it, through Rangoon, by the sea. Southern Sumatra can be reinforced and supplied in several ports (from the other coast), and Palembang produces enough to feed its garrison for a while.

If you want the big fight to be on the continent, then Calcutta or other Indian cities are better ideas, since they can be reinforced overland.

Francois



Grfin Zeppelin -> RE: Holding Rangoon ? (12/20/2010 2:26:40 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: fcharton

If the goal is to bleed Japan white, Palembang is probably a better idea than Rangoon. The problem with Burma is that it does not produce supplies, and that there is only one way to reinforce / feed it, through Rangoon, by the sea. Southern Sumatra can be reinforced and supplied in several ports (from the other coast), and Palembang produces enough to feed its garrison for a while.

If you want the big fight to be on the continent, then Calcutta or other Indian cities are better ideas, since they can be reinforced overland.

Francois

I am two patches behind in my thinking but Burma gets its own supplies the refineries yield some and it has some minuscule light industries.
Anyway, Burma needs comitment to be held and if one simply wants to draw the line somewhere Rangoon is a bad choice, for both sides in the end.



Grfin Zeppelin -> RE: Holding Rangoon ? (12/20/2010 2:33:28 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: fcharton

If the goal is to bleed Japan white, Palembang is probably a better idea than Rangoon.




Without doubt Japan needs Palembang sooner or later. But Palembang aint Allies wonderland to victory. If the Allies commit there Japan can go in full scale and have its deceicive battle or do something else for awile and finish the job later. Japan needs the oil and not a holiday island and the oil is going nowhere.

Sorry for the doublepost, its late.



fcharton -> RE: Holding Rangoon ? (12/20/2010 10:12:06 AM)

Hi Gräfin Zeppelin,

You are right that Burma does have industry (mostly refineries in Rangoon to produce fuel AND supplies). However, the oil is in Magwe: cut the communications from there, and Rangoon starves.

Palembang, on the other hand, produces most of the oil it refines (900 Oil, for over 1000 refinery capacity). In a siege situation, troops in Palembang have 900 supplies a day to "eat" from, this means attrition won't really work on them (or very very slowly, so slowly that it becomes a problem for Japan). In fact, if Japan decides to leave Palembang (presumably isolating it first), and come back later, this will allow the garrison to fortify, making them even more difficult to dislodge.

In other words, if the allies choose to reinforce Palembang, and Japan wants the place, Japan should better rush. It is not a place you can bypass, and wait until the garrison runs out of bullets. If the Allies concentrated there too fast, Japan might as well snub the place. It is a lot of oil, sure, but it the cost to take it is too high, and you find the place hopelessly broken after you conquer it... But then, you end up with a supplied enemy pocket in the centre of the DEI, not something to look forward to.

Of course, holding Palembang won't win the war as the allies. This must fit into a general plan. Bleeding Japan white through a long attrition battle is one such plan, and if this is your plan, as the allies, I would suggest Palembang fits the (butcher's) bill better than Rangoon.

Francois



CV2 -> RE: Holding Rangoon ? (12/20/2010 12:27:19 PM)

Actually running away to India or Oz to fight another day fits the bill better than having the troops destroyed [;)]



FatR -> RE: Holding Rangoon ? (12/20/2010 12:30:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121
Overall I think Japanese players are very methodical and make very small advances most of the time.

True that.



Misconduct -> RE: Holding Rangoon ? (12/20/2010 12:56:50 PM)

I noticed as a Japanese player, its far wiser to take Townville (based on fact nearby bases produce over 200 resources) and Northern Oz (Wellington produces quite a bit of light industry)
So far I have linked these two via Noumea for supply and resources.

Rangoon can supply itself, but I really have a tough time trying to supply Mandalay, not sure why when its on a rail link but can anyone answer?



fcharton -> RE: Holding Rangoon ? (12/20/2010 1:04:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CV2
Actually running away to India or Oz to fight another day fits the bill better than having the troops destroyed [;)]


It fits a different bill.

As the Allies, if you defend Palembang (or other places in 1942), you consider that it is worth having troops destroyed, so long they take a lot of enemies with them, deny early access to needed resources (like oil), and delay or derail japanese expansion plans. The strategic reasoning behind this is that, in the long run, you'll replace lost troops and equipment better and faster than Japan, and that anything lost early in the game takes a while to be replaced anyway, thus reducing Japanese strength during the most important moments of the war (late 42 and early 43). The psychological background is that Japan, in the early game, tends to be proud of its strength, might get dragged into an inefficient slugfest, and will be quite shattered if resistance proves successful.

Evacuation strategies follow a different logic. Just like you say, the idea is not to delay or resist, but run...

This said. Be aware that the first goal of a japanese player in the early game is to guess what strategy the allies will follow. If you know they are evacuating, then your early game goal is to sink as many of the troop transports as you can. You have the resources for that, they can't do it very fast (because AP do not all start in the right places, because they tend to be slow, and because you don't have all the PP to do it at once). If you manage that, you get the best of both worlds : they get destroyed, and they don't fight...

But again, unless you think total evacuation is the only option for the allies (despite many AAR proving the contrary), we are comparing different things here.

Francois







CV2 -> RE: Holding Rangoon ? (12/20/2010 2:19:41 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Misconduct

I noticed as a Japanese player, its far wiser to take Townville (based on fact nearby bases produce over 200 resources) and Northern Oz (Wellington produces quite a bit of light industry)
So far I have linked these two via Noumea for supply and resources.

Rangoon can supply itself, but I really have a tough time trying to supply Mandalay, not sure why when its on a rail link but can anyone answer?


You dont need resources from anyplace other than Korea. Shipping them from Oz or Kiwi is a waste of oil, unless the ships are heading there anyways and if so, it is a waste of time to load them. The only "resources" on the map worth taking is oil and even at that, you dont need a lot more than what you get from Korea there also. At least to drive your industry. If you move a lot of ships around then you will need fuel for that but at least you wont have to send it back to Japan first.



n01487477 -> RE: Holding Rangoon ? (12/20/2010 3:05:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CV2


quote:

ORIGINAL: Misconduct

I noticed as a Japanese player, its far wiser to take Townville (based on fact nearby bases produce over 200 resources) and Northern Oz (Wellington produces quite a bit of light industry)
So far I have linked these two via Noumea for supply and resources.

Rangoon can supply itself, but I really have a tough time trying to supply Mandalay, not sure why when its on a rail link but can anyone answer?

You dont need resources from anyplace other than Korea.

Well if you mean post patch then you may be sort of correct in the aspect of resource pooling. But given Japan has a shortfall of 79K/day res and korea has a surplus of 4.6k, Manchuria 15.9K, china 4.4k per day then your statement is misleading. Japanese players must import from Hokkaido and Sakhalin to just about break even. At the outbreak Japan loses -2500 resources globally (a trifle I know) ... but given your sweeping statement ...
quote:


Shipping them from Oz or Kiwi is a waste of oil, unless the ships are heading there anyways and if so, it is a waste of time to load them.

A waste of fuel I think you mean and the rest of the sentence is illogical.
quote:


The only "resources" on the map worth taking is oil and even at that, you dont need a lot more than what you get from Korea there also. At least to drive your industry.

Actually Oil is of a secondary concern to fuel. In AE HI uses fuel not oil. There have been threads looking at both - and I would put it to you that while Oil is going to be a problem later - actually it's fuel you're transporting. Yes you capture oil - cause it has a refinery (ala Palembang)

Hmmm ... Korea has 5 Oil ctrs - produces 50 Oil a day... that's enough for 5 supply points and 45 fuel (if refined) and thereby with sufficient resources enough fuel to run 22 HI (round down) producing 44 HI points & another 44 supplies --- that'll buy you about 1 single engine fighter. And before you argue Manchuria has enough ... it has about 38 days of surplus to run the Oil refineries of Japan at the onset of hostilities.
quote:


If you move a lot of ships around then you will need fuel for that but at least you wont have to send it back to Japan first.

I think you need to review the new economy ...



[image]local://upfiles/19798/26211BDF07C64911BBAB45936B891E3C.jpg[/image]



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.890625