Hawaii Defenses

Hawaii Defenses (Full Version)

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

Message

Alexander Seil -> Hawaii Defenses (8/7/2004 6:20:24 AM)
I'd really appreciate it if someone could post an OOB and a general description of the American defensive capability in Hawaii. I'm thinking about trying to go for it whenever I get the game. Seems to me as if it would effectively knock the United States out of the game, depriving them of their main staging base?

2ndACR -> RE: Hawaii Defenses (8/7/2004 6:27:47 AM)
You will be SOOORRRRYYYYY. Already been there done that against the AI. Lost 6 CA's, 4 CL's, 3 BB's, and about 20 DD's just to the guns and mines. Had untold numbers of AP's banged up. I took the place but 2 Divisions were chewed up doing it. Then you have to figure out how to supply the dang place. You have to pull too many troops away from the PI, Malaya, DEI area of ops to do it. If you wait and try to do it later, the allies got too much there. You have to do it right away or never. I probably could of managed to hold it for quite awhile against the AI, but against a human---doubt it.

von Murrin -> RE: Hawaii Defenses (8/7/2004 6:28:25 AM)
I don't have the OOB handy, but you'll be facing the equivalent of three divisions. This does not account for air and naval assets. You would likely need five divisions at the very least, as well as the entire IJN. If you go for Hawaii, it must be done early and with the knowledge that operations in the SRA will be crippled, as those divisions are needed for places like Luzon and Java. As well, the most you can accomplish would be to force the US back upon San Francisco, which is where their activity centers in the early war in the first place. None of this accounts for the long, hard supply line to be maintained. Just my two coppers, understand.[:)]

SunDevil_MatrixForum -> RE: Hawaii Defenses (8/7/2004 6:33:50 AM)
I could only think of one reply to this question, and it would be same as the US reclaimed the island (if it was even taken), which is "Thanks for stopping by, but don't let the door hit you in the butt on the way out." [:D] But that is why I like this game so much, you can try whatever you want. You can even post an AAR of your attempt on trying to take it. We already have a pretty funny AAR, where someone tried to invade America. I hope you get the game soon. Goodluck

Alexander Seil -> RE: Hawaii Defenses (8/7/2004 6:38:32 AM)
I'm thinking along the lines of staying completely defensive in China, pulling out as much as I can, and going in head first for Hawaii. I don't give a damn about the Philippines, Burma or the Allied island territories in the Pacific. The thing is, if you take Hawaii, the United States would have to take it back first before doing anything else (to any effect, at least) in the remainder of the theater. Given the fact that in the battle for Hawaii you would have to eliminate the abovementioned 3 divisions' worth of troops, innumerable ships and air squadrons, I'd say that taking PH comes near damn close to taking out the United States. After that I could move at my leisure , since whatever forces the United States gathers on the continent, they would barely be able to move them anywhere without getting pounded by long-range bombers and submarines...and that besides the fact that they would have to haul around with them a whole armada of oilers, since there's no refueling at PH no more... EDIT: Now if only interaction with Germany was modelled...I'd mail order an Amerika bomber for the occasion ;)

denisonh -> RE: Hawaii Defenses (8/7/2004 6:45:24 AM)
The problem is feeding the the Japanese industrial base. You need the NEI to provide oil. Going after Hawaii will slow siezure of the NEI and have production implications. quote: ORIGINAL: Alexander Seil I'm thinking along the lines of staying completely defensive in China, pulling out as much as I can, and going in head first for Hawaii. I don't give a damn about the Philippines, Burma or the Allied island territories in the Pacific. The thing is, if you take Hawaii, the United States would have to take it back first before doing anything else (to any effect, at least) in the remainder of the theater. Given the fact that in the battle for Hawaii you would have to eliminate the abovementioned 3 divisions' worth of troops, innumerable ships and air squadrons, I'd say that taking PH comes near damn close to taking out the United States. After that I could move at my leisure , since whatever forces the United States gathers on the continent, they would barely be able to move them anywhere without getting pounded by long-range bombers and submarines...and that besides the fact that they would have to haul around with them a whole armada of oilers, since there's no refueling at PH no more... EDIT: Now if only interaction with Germany was modelled...I'd mail order an Amerika bomber for the occasion ;)

Alexander Seil -> RE: Hawaii Defenses (8/7/2004 6:51:30 AM)
If you go for the historical strategy (as 90% of all people seem to do), you sure do set yourself up for lots of oil - and lots of pain once the United States gets really going. The way I see it, Japan is "on the clock" -- you have six months of superiority that must be used to make sure that you win the war. If you got for DEI first, you set yourself up to be chewed up by the industrial might of the United States. You will sure have lots of oil -- for the remainder of your painful existence and before the Allies take it back. Hawaii is a gamble, but it's better than following a historical strategy. Why repeat something that historically led to a miserable failure in the long run??? Also, the Battle for Hawaii is a great chance to force a decisive battle between the USN and the IJN. If you win that gamble, you win BIG...a battle of Midway on Japanese terms (you'd be fighting close to land, early on and able to bring your battleships to bear on enemy fleets in close naval combat, rather than carrier action).

2ndACR -> RE: Hawaii Defenses (8/7/2004 6:55:30 AM)
Well, you can chock up pulling anything out of China. Costs too much at game start. You can take alot of the DEI with the smaller brigades and SNLF's in the region. But you will not take Singapore without the combat power you have to remove to take PH. Without taking Singapore, your biggest producers of oil/res are unavailable to you (even if you capture them). Without taking the PI you give the allied player or AI a major airbase right on your supply lines. Not to mention the cursed subs you will face. When you see how big the map is, you will understand that the allies can and will go where they please. It may be a longer route, but they can make it. You do not have near enough subs to blockade the area, and even if you did have, they are basically one shot charlies if the convoy is escorted. I strongly urge you too re-think the strategy. But I was told the same thing and I had to try it. But until you take PH, you will lose alot of ships trying to make it too port.

denisonh -> RE: Hawaii Defenses (8/7/2004 6:59:47 AM)
It will be hard to hold Hawaii and proceed with conquests in NEI. If you "write off" NEI, your production will grind to a halt. That means supplies, fuel, aircraft replacements, etc... Can you hold a forward base such as Hawaii without those things? And once the US retakes Hawaii, where will you be? Let us not forget a reasonable Allied player will consolidate his hold south and go on the offesive drawing fuel and supply from India. It will take time, and the Allies will have plenty. quote: ORIGINAL: Alexander Seil If you go for the historical strategy (as 90% of all people seem to do), you sure do set yourself up for lots of oil - and lots of pain once the United States gets really going. The way I see it, Japan is "on the clock" -- you have six months of superiority that must be used to make sure that you win the war. If you got for DEI first, you set yourself up to be chewed up by the industrial might of the United States. You will sure have lots of oil -- for the remainder of your painful existence and before the Allies take it back. Hawaii is a gamble, but it's better than following a historical strategy. Why repeat something that historically led to a miserable failure in the long run??? Also, the Battle for Hawaii is a great chance to force a decisive battle between the USN and the IJN. If you win that gamble, you win BIG...

Cmdrcain -> RE: Hawaii Defenses (8/7/2004 7:03:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alexander Seil I'm thinking along the lines of staying completely defensive in China, pulling out as much as I can, and going in head first for Hawaii. I don't give a damn about the Philippines, Burma or the Allied island territories in the Pacific. The thing is, if you take Hawaii, the United States would have to take it back first before doing anything else (to any effect, at least) in the remainder of the theater. Given the fact that in the battle for Hawaii you would have to eliminate the abovementioned 3 divisions' worth of troops, innumerable ships and air squadrons, I'd say that taking PH comes near damn close to taking out the United States. After that I could move at my leisure , since whatever forces the United States gathers on the continent, they would barely be able to move them anywhere without getting pounded by long-range bombers and submarines...and that besides the fact that they would have to haul around with them a whole armada of oilers, since there's no refueling at PH no more... EDIT: Now if only interaction with Germany was modelled...I'd mail order an Amerika bomber for the occasion ;) Ummm I have AK's and stuff routing to AUS and South Pacific without refuling at Pearl, nor do they need alot of oilers.. You would also have to Take out Johnson, Midway, all the Hawaii Islands and you would face fact that in meantime the USA/British could well be Bombing up Japan since Japan is within b17 bombing range and also I believe Wellingtons and perhaps some allied level bombers. Then you have to take DEI and Malaya but by then They could been reinforced also the Allied player could well use chinese units to push you back from China and IF your Chinese garrision assault points falls enough ohhh my USSR comes in as early as perhaps 1942! USSR bases are all within bombing range of Japan.. USA could well jump then b17, b25, b26, b24;s up through Alaska to USSR in fact thats whay Nome is there, it was a base in WW II solely for purpose of air transport to USSR. Without sufficent oil, etc Japans industry grinds to halt, and the bombings don't help either, PP's spent could move Australian forces out of AUS and hit Japan, all those Forces in Hawii area starve... you would have to pull out and USA would easy retake it... then move on..

Alexander Seil -> RE: Hawaii Defenses (8/7/2004 7:12:00 AM)
I do not intend to "write off" DEI - to the contrary, it would be target #1 (except the obligatory capture of PI after Hawaii, and of Singapore) after Hawaii. Hawaii would be long and painful -- but worth it in terms of air coverage. Secondary island bases could be captured to better cover the southern routes. Really, going "historical" is no less of a gamble than Hawaii. It's just that one way to defeat is longer and the other shorter...either way you have to have luck on your side to win.

denisonh -> RE: Hawaii Defenses (8/7/2004 7:16:15 AM)
I would be interested in that stategy against a human player. Doing so against the AI is marginal, as it proves little IMHO. The thing to keep in mind is that oil has to get to Japan, and the Phllipines are astride the route. It would be an interesting excersize, although I doubt that there is enough IJN to go around to achieve this. quote: ORIGINAL: Alexander Seil I do not intend to "write off" DEI - to the contrary, it would be target #1 (except the obligatory capture of PI after Hawaii, and of Singapore) after Hawaii. Hawaii would be long and painful -- but worth it in terms of air coverage. Secondary island bases could be captured to better cover the southern routes. Really, going "historical" is no less of a gamble than Hawaii. It's just that one way to defeat is longer and the other shorter...either way you have to have luck on your side to win.

Fallschirmjager -> RE: Hawaii Defenses (8/7/2004 7:17:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alexander Seil I do not intend to "write off" DEI - to the contrary, it would be target #1 (except the obligatory capture of PI after Hawaii, and of Singapore) after Hawaii. Hawaii would be long and painful -- but worth it in terms of air coverage. Secondary island bases could be captured to better cover the southern routes. Really, going "historical" is no less of a gamble than Hawaii. It's just that one way to defeat is longer and the other shorter...either way you have to have luck on your side to win. Whos ass are you going to pull all those troops out of? [:D] Japan is strecthed to the very limit taking the PI/DEI/Malay combo. You can pull a few assets out of China but that will come back to haunt you. You also need most of the IJN to take PH and those are needed to the combo above. The resources simply dont exist to try and take PH and achieve your other goals.

2ndACR -> RE: Hawaii Defenses (8/7/2004 7:22:48 AM)
Against a human, you are toast with this strategy IMO. They would be racking up strategic points out the butt from day 1. The IJN player has the forces available to conduct 35 invasions on turn 2-3. Most are not escorted or supported. But to pull 3-5 divisions away, there is no way it will work. You have to secure the DEI region ASAP. My forces and ships were so busted up that it was hopeless to continue. I was looking at about 6 mos recovery time in my estimation. KB's a/c were banged up, I had lost alot of planes and pilots. For what, and Island that i probably could not hold long term.

denisonh -> RE: Hawaii Defenses (8/7/2004 7:29:56 AM)
I should have said I would be interested in SEEING that strategy, particularly against me as the Allies.[:D] I do see how it would be interesting strategy against an Allied player who decides to move forces out of PH early under the assumption PH is safe. That is where it would potentially have a bigger payoff. It is a threat that the Allied player should take seriously. quote: ORIGINAL: 2ndACR Against a human, you are toast with this strategy IMO. They would be racking up strategic points out the butt from day 1. The IJN player has the forces available to conduct 35 invasions on turn 2-3. Most are not escorted or supported. But to pull 3-5 divisions away, there is no way it will work. You have to secure the DEI region ASAP. My forces and ships were so busted up that it was hopeless to continue. I was looking at about 6 mos recovery time in my estimation. KB's a/c were banged up, I had lost alot of planes and pilots. For what, and Island that i probably could not hold long term.

WiTP_Dude -> RE: Hawaii Defenses (8/7/2004 7:33:40 AM)
I don't think this strategy will work in the long run. You are giving the Allies too much time to setup their defenses in the Philippinnes, Malay, and the Dutch East Indies. By the time you get around to seriously invading in March or so the defenders will be very difficult to dislodge.

Cmdrcain -> RE: Hawaii Defenses (8/7/2004 7:33:57 AM)
Against an Human player be suicide.. I for one would be using all the Pearl DM's to lay Mines all around Pearl, Japans player couldn't attack Pearl in strength right off so the allied human would have time to layy many mine fields not just at pearl but all around. Plus you would have to Beat the Allied player sending Units from West Coast, fact is day one you need get those troops, ships, supplies, etc moving out from west coast. Any hint the human Japan players going for Hawaii would result in fortifying it, don't forget B17's can fly from west coast to Hawaii... b17's able to be used as search planes would spot japanese. US subs in and around Japan could take a toll, the Mines, any ships at pearl and the airbases... I just think it would at best be a thing that the japanese player would just make it longer but in end you couldn't hold vs the Allied player, Hawaii is not necessary for US player to build up ships, planes, land units and at a point hawaii would be retaken To hold Hawaii area would take a good bit of units better used elsewhere, divisions of troops and many planes and ships to hold hawaii means less to attack malaya, DEI and PI.. All those troops up at Karachi and rest of India could be moved into Malaya and make it hard or impossiable to take and long as Allied player holds Singapoer it sits on any route for Japan to move oil if Japan manages to take any of DEI. If the Human japan attacks Hawaii and the PI I'd mine Hawaii and make it cost and I'd move all I can out of PI into Malaya and DEI, Karachi etc troops into rangoon and Burma, Chinese units pushing on the japan held Chinese ports.. Computer or Human, it is a waste of units, btw any know if attacking/taking Hawaii triggers a faster USA build up? If it does, then you take hawaii and USA gets its land, sea and air units alot faster, sooner and you might face essex carriers and fast BB's alot sooner coming out of west coast headed for Hawaii etc..

Alexander Seil -> RE: Hawaii Defenses (8/7/2004 7:34:02 AM)
The question is whether taking Hawaii set the US back, say, 12 months and you only six. Still gives you six months of initiative overall, but later in the year. The campaign for DEI may last for a year, or even two, but if you can hold the United States at bay for that time (by forcing their fleet to commit to a decisive battle near Pearl Harbor), you would end up in the same position you'd regularly be in middle 1942, but in 1943/4.

2ndACR -> RE: Hawaii Defenses (8/7/2004 7:34:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: denisonh I should have said I would be interested in SEEING that strategy, particularly against me as the Allies.[:D] I do see how it would be interesting strategy against an Allied player who decides to move forces out of PH early under the assumption PH is safe. That is where it would potentially have a bigger payoff. It is a threat that the Allied player should take seriously. quote: ORIGINAL: 2ndACR Against a human, you are toast with this strategy IMO. They would be racking up strategic points out the butt from day 1. The IJN player has the forces available to conduct 35 invasions on turn 2-3. Most are not escorted or supported. But to pull 3-5 divisions away, there is no way it will work. You have to secure the DEI region ASAP. My forces and ships were so busted up that it was hopeless to continue. I was looking at about 6 mos recovery time in my estimation. KB's a/c were banged up, I had lost alot of planes and pilots. For what, and Island that i probably could not hold long term. I take it you mean the "rapid expansion" type of play? Against the AI, it works like a charm. Humans tend to screw up the works. The IJN can conduct about 14 invasions supported against a human. But you ain't going to see a PH attack from me on turn 1. Maybe turn 400 or so if then.

denisonh -> RE: Hawaii Defenses (8/7/2004 7:47:59 AM)
An active human opponent can make life difficult. No doubt that a PH first strategy would cost the IJN in other areas. Even an IJN player who gets over enamoured with hanging around PH and/or invading Midway gives the Allied player a little more freedom to oppose IJN actions in the NEI. THis can result in an excessive loss/damage to shipping, and delay of getting oil to Japan. quote: ORIGINAL: 2ndACR quote: ORIGINAL: denisonh I should have said I would be interested in SEEING that strategy, particularly against me as the Allies.[:D] I do see how it would be interesting strategy against an Allied player who decides to move forces out of PH early under the assumption PH is safe. That is where it would potentially have a bigger payoff. It is a threat that the Allied player should take seriously. quote: ORIGINAL: 2ndACR Against a human, you are toast with this strategy IMO. They would be racking up strategic points out the butt from day 1. The IJN player has the forces available to conduct 35 invasions on turn 2-3. Most are not escorted or supported. But to pull 3-5 divisions away, there is no way it will work. You have to secure the DEI region ASAP. My forces and ships were so busted up that it was hopeless to continue. I was looking at about 6 mos recovery time in my estimation. KB's a/c were banged up, I had lost alot of planes and pilots. For what, and Island that i probably could not hold long term. I take it you mean the "rapid expansion" type of play? Against the AI, it works like a charm. Humans tend to screw up the works. The IJN can conduct about 14 invasions supported against a human. But you ain't going to see a PH attack from me on turn 1. Maybe turn 400 or so if then.

Cmdrcain -> RE: Hawaii Defenses (8/7/2004 7:48:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alexander Seil The question is whether taking Hawaii set the US back, say, 12 months and you only six. Still gives you six months of initiative overall, but later in the year. The campaign for DEI may last for a year, or even two, but if you can hold the United States at bay for that time (by forcing their fleet to commit to a decisive battle near Pearl Harbor), you would end up in the same position you'd regularly be in middle 1942, but in 1943/4. The AI probably could be confounded, but a Human... I as allied would build up on west coast, I'd also move what could way south out of range of Pearl, you could not really take Hawii, fortify it and Johnson, Midway, Palmyra and other south Islands, if you don't fortify all those south islands a human US player could slip units down there, build up south of Hawaii and in meantime use India, Malaya, DEI, PI , Chinese units to press you. Once you move vs PI, DEI, Malaya you would have to move your main fleet over there, plus you would be incapable of maintaining strength in hawaii, unless you are willing to leave many divisions there weakening your ability to attack elsewhere.. you move units out of china at risk of triggering early USSR entry.. By 1942 USA will have Four Main CV's with more coming, USa would have a shorter attack line and Hawii would come under attack, if you move stuff in to reinforce you then get counter attacked in PI, DEI, Malaya, Burma, China.. Also with SW pac in Australia I believe that certain Land/air units appear there, if so then theres some buidup in AUS.. Using PP's to move AUs units to SW Pac or SO Pac command, then kwajalen, truk, etc could come under attack.. You cannot overlook the British/AUS units coming in its not simply USA you need worry about, theres also China too.. [:D][:D] I think I could make you sorry for trying to take Hawaii

Alexander Seil -> RE: Hawaii Defenses (8/7/2004 7:59:40 AM)
No plan survives first contact with the enemy, and that applies to your plans as much as it does to mine. I may as well take you up on your bragging when I get the game, hehe [:D]

von Murrin -> RE: Hawaii Defenses (8/7/2004 8:02:58 AM)
I'd actually love to see you try, and see how the game develops. All the lot of us are really saying is that your resources are stretched very thin as it is. Adding an objective that isn't on the historical "kill list" requires a massive draw from other vital operations. I'm of the opinion that the game does a fantastic job of setting up the historical limitations and opportunities of both sides, and in so doing it also reveals just how brilliant the Japanese war plan really was. They used almost exactly what they needed where they needed it. You've a tough planning period ahead of you, and don't expect to get it right the first few times. Have fun with your plan; I'd love to see how it turns out. (Blatant hint for an AAR) ;)

denisonh -> RE: Hawaii Defenses (8/7/2004 8:11:21 AM)
Sounds like a good AAR: CmdrCain vs Alexander Seil. Look forward to it[:D]

VI66_slith -> RE: Hawaii Defenses (8/7/2004 8:17:40 AM)
I'd like to see the AAR also, but vs. a human opponent. There is only so much to go around, as has already been stated. Suicide for the Japanese war machine is my guess as to the outcome. [img]http://smilies.sofrayt.com/%5E/u/karate.gif[/img] [img]http://smilies.sofrayt.com/%5E/e/moderator.gif[/img]

Alexander Seil -> RE: Hawaii Defenses (8/7/2004 8:28:21 AM)
Indeed, I've been thinking of starting up PBEM gaming very soon after getting the game, only using AI for practice. I'm also thinking of a possibility of invading Alaska and Canada via the Aleutians...[:D]

von Murrin -> RE: Hawaii Defenses (8/7/2004 8:35:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alexander Seil Indeed, I've been thinking of starting up PBEM gaming very soon after getting the game, only using AI for practice. I'm also thinking of a possibility of invading Alaska and Canada via the Aleutians...[:D] Now that is a distinct possibility that requires far fewer troops and other vital war stuffs. Just don't cross the certain point specified in the manual or you will be sent home with "Made in USA" stamped on your ass.[:D]

esteban -> RE: Hawaii Defenses (8/7/2004 9:01:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: von Murrin quote: ORIGINAL: Alexander Seil Indeed, I've been thinking of starting up PBEM gaming very soon after getting the game, only using AI for practice. I'm also thinking of a possibility of invading Alaska and Canada via the Aleutians...[:D] Now that is a distinct possibility that requires far fewer troops and other vital war stuffs. Just don't cross the certain point specified in the manual or you will be sent home with "Made in USA" stamped on your ass.[:D] Not to put to fine a point on it, but I think Von Murrin meant "Raped in the USA [;)] Losing the Hawaiian Islands is a nuisance to the Allies, but not more. You can still route convoys from the West Coast to Australia. The Allies can base their carriers out of Sydney or Brisbane, just as easily as they could out of Pearl. You are so far from the Japanese fleet bases that unless you park Kido Butai in Pearl, you will never be able to intercept an Allied landing force trying to retake the Islands. Your supply lines to Pearl can be raided with relative ease by the Allies. PH starts the game with a very significant garrison. 2 good quality American infantry divisions, some marines, 1-2 HQs, a couple large base forces, and a lot of very nasty high-caliber coastal artillery. I would say hit Pearl if the Allies draw down the garrison significantly, but otherwise the forces you would use on Pearl can take several bases between Australia and the West Coast that are at least as important. The reality is that, as in real life, you need the SRA. You have about 6 and 1/2 months of oil and resources that you start with. While you can secure Borneo, the Celebes, Amboina and the Southern Phillipines without the forces you would need to divert to Pearl, you would not be able to take Luzon, Malaya or Java. You could probably capture Sumatra, but you couldnt withdraw the oil and resources without getting attacked from Singapore and Java. If you let Luzon linger on, the Allies have a forward submarine and air base to use against your communications with the SRA. If they get aggressive, the Allies can also bomb your industry and resources in Formosa and Southern China from Luzon. If you let the Allies build up in the SRA, or even Burma, you are in for a world of hurt later on. The Allies can keep the Burma Road supply line to China open, and bomb your industry/resources in Indochina. That plus the bases in SRA and the ahistorical railway running to North Oz will mean that you will never get out of the production hole.

Mike Scholl -> RE: Hawaii Defenses (8/7/2004 10:32:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alexander Seil I'd really appreciate it if someone could post an OOB and a general description of the American defensive capability in Hawaii. I'm thinking about trying to go for it whenever I get the game. Seems to me as if it would effectively knock the United States out of the game, depriving them of their main staging base? Alexander. It's pretty obvious that you want to try this strategy, so why don't you just do it? That's what the game is for. You'll probably get your head handed to you..., but at least you will have tried it. Maybe later on you can try it against a PBEM opponant (I wouldn't do it now as virtually any opponant would know what you are going to try and prepare for it). The concensus of opinion is against you..., but what the he11--- you can't do worst than get stomped, and that's the historical result anyway.

von Murrin -> RE: Hawaii Defenses (8/7/2004 10:53:41 AM)
He doesn't have the game yet and is trying to get advance planning info.[:)]

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.6171875