RE: WITP Strategy (Full Version)

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



Message

SaintEx -> RE: WITP Strategy (10/6/2004 7:02:23 PM)

What he said.

One little thing, though...if Macarthur had (and has, for those who still remember) few friends in Australia, it's also partly because he primarily relegated Australian troops to what he tended to call "mopping up" in New Guinea, and what the australians tended to call "three years of viscious fighting". My impression is that he never fully credited the Australians for the effort and for the sacrifices they made.



Halsey -> RE: WITP Strategy (10/6/2004 7:10:15 PM)

What did they say about the Americans? "Overpaid, oversexed, and over here!"
"Big Mac" rarely gave anyone credit for their accomplishments. After all it was "his" idea, wasn't it?[;)]



tanker4145 -> RE: WITP Strategy (10/6/2004 8:11:31 PM)

I agree with you Halsey that you can choose to win or play the game. For me, it's more enjoyable to play the game. I never considered making just one big thrust as the Allies. To me it's more fun to have multiple thrusts so that's what I'll do. The two thrusts may come together at points, but that depends. In general, I like to go to where the Japs are. I don't mean take on their well prepared bases directly. But rather work to isolate them and make them as good as dead to the Japanese by bypassing and cutting them off.

Putting all my eggs in one basket for one big push doens't seem to make sense either because then the Japanese can do the same. If instead they are being pushed in Burma, PNG/Solomon, and around Tarawa, then he has to split his forces as well. This way, hopefully, when I go to invade one of his bases, I may only face a carrier division and a handful of cruisers and battleships. Rather, if he can concetrate, then I could find my invasion facing a large number of carriers and battleships, and lady luck will play a much larger part in that.

As for history, even with hindsight, I think they Allies did a dang good job. Yes they had a lot of stuff, but it's still tough to order men to their possible deaths. They did a good job of fighting where they had to and bypassing what they didn't. It still impresses me to this day what they accomplished. The thing that really amazes me, is the Doolittle raid. Imagine how tough that decision was to make. Talk about steel cahoneys! No, it's not repeatable per se in the game, and I could care less about seeing it since I don't need to increase the Allies homefront morale like they did in real life.



SaintEx -> RE: WITP Strategy (10/7/2004 12:19:55 AM)

I've thought about that one. In AH's "Pacific War", the Hornet came equipped with a "Doolittle Raid" counter. If you managed to launch it against Tokyo then you got a few benefits, notably an increase in "initiative" (an important concept in that game) and a bettering of intelligence.

The Doolittle raid proved to be a boon to American intelligence efforts as the code traffic that followed it provided enormous input to the effort of cracking the Japanese codes. I suppose you could have some kind of rule that gives you a bunch of political points plus an amelioration in Allied sigint if you manage to launch a raid with at least mediums against Tokyo before '43. Of course, you'd have to allow a raid to take off from one place and land in another (or, more historically, just disappear). It would be kind of fun, though - although of course the fact that the Japanese player would know about the possibility would skew things.



Halsey -> RE: WITP Strategy (10/7/2004 12:38:33 AM)

Thanks, I think most gamers try to approach wargaming this way. If you want to pick a game just to win, you should probably look someplace else.

The bum rush strategy in wargaming works occasionally. A finesse strategy is more enjoyable to play. If you screw up you still have troops and equipment around to make another go at it.[:D] The bum rush player will usually quit the game after his forces get tromped. That's one of the hazards of putting your eggs in one basket.[:@]

Dolittle was an amazing man. I got to shake his hand at an Indy 500 race back in the early 60's when he was the Grand Marshall. It will always be a moment I will never forget.[:)]



DrewMatrix -> RE: WITP Strategy (10/7/2004 2:47:52 AM)

quote:

The bum rush player will usually quit the game after his forces get tromped.


That is why he is called a "bum" [:D]



dereck -> RE: WITP Strategy (10/7/2004 6:07:49 AM)

One thing to remember if you want to "think" realistic is that most military/naval leaders are by their very nature rather conservative.

This is not to say they won't exploit an opportunity or do something dashing, i.e. Doolittle's Raid. But overall they will tend to be consersative and not prone to taking chances if they don't have to. Unlike us, if they lose they could end up being dead or causing the loss of their troops.

For example, I remember reading somewhere, that in the Pacific the American planners had a simple formula of something like 3:1 when determining how many troops would be needed to invade an island/atoll. They also conducted bombardments to tilt the odds even further in their advantage (Iwo Jima had a 72-day air bombardment and a 3 day naval bombardment prior to the invasion).

Remember, the real generals and admirals realized that in war there was no second place.



Feinder -> RE: WITP Strategy (10/7/2004 4:37:45 PM)

I think part of the challenge to finding "appropriate" PBEM opponents, is to find somebody who is compatable with your style (I liked the analogy of "bum rush" vs. "conservative (realistic)" approach.

In all fairness to "bum rushers" of WitP... Let's face it, nobody is going to ever finish a campaign game via PBEM. That being the case, an intense, all-or-nothing game can be exciting for both players, provided that suits both of their styles. If you know you're not going to finish, and you're really only planning on a month-long game or whatever, then why not play hard and agressive (beyond reason). Again, this intensity can make the game interesting in it's own right.

I'm a bit more of a conservative player (esp since I'm currently Allies in my own PBEM game). I'm in no rush to complete our game, and if we're still playing it after a year (and only in April of 42), then so be it. I want to see the clever tricks. I want to see the disasters. But I'm in no rush make them happen. My mindset is that, in real life, I have all the time I want to finish the game; and in game, I have all the time I want to finish the game (as Allies). If I was playing vs. an all-or-nothing person (who knows, maybe there's an invasion of Seattle on it's way, it's only 12-14-41), I'd probably roll my eyes. But then I'd be compelled to adapt my strategy or simply resign.

I think there's a point to both the intense-all-or-nothing game, and the conservative-realistic game. Both can be rewarding, depending on what you're looking for. And it can certainly be frustrating if the two expectations don't match.

Gawd. It sounds like I'm talking about relationships.

Then again, considering the length of WitP, maybe I am... :^P

-F-



Halsey -> RE: WITP Strategy (10/7/2004 5:25:39 PM)

I think that's a very good way to put it. Communicate with your opponent before starting a game of this length. See if your gamesmanship is compatable. If it's not try to find someone who approaches the game in the same light. Historical, semi-historical, and way out there by Pluto.[:D]



dereck -> RE: WITP Strategy (10/7/2004 6:09:10 PM)

I'm sure this belief will spark comments but I'll go ahead anyway ...

I firmly believe that no matter what strategy the Japanese employ - whether the "bum rush" or "conservative" strategy if the game turns into a long campaign the Allies will ultimately end up the winner.

I'm not sure the Japanese can achieve a clear knock-out victory over the Allies unless the Allied side tries to meet them head-on early in the game. The Japanese just lack the industrial infrastructure to sustain a prolonged offensive over so many fronts. Not being interested in playing the Japanese I admittedly lack potential strategies in this regard (and expect comments in this area).

About the best the Japanese can do is take advantage of the 6 month period when they control the initiative and expand and then consolidate their gains to force the Allied player to start taking territory back. As long as they don't make the historical mistakes that Yamamoto did in trying to EXPAND the defensive perimeter they should be able to force a protracted campaign by the Allies. Once the Japanese deviated from the original war plan they began to run into problems. The Port Moresby invasion ran into difficulties and was indefinitely postponed and abandoned even though the Japanese tactically won the Battle of the Coral Sea. Psychologically they just were not able to handle the setback which resulted in the strategic victory for the Americans. Then the Battle of Midway, which resulted from a knee-jerk Japanese response to the Doolittle raid, resulted in a major loss to their carrier air arm of their fleet.

As for the Allied player ... as long as they don't get sucked into a major fight during those first six months and can build up the men and material that will eventually arrive I don't think they can help but win.

I don't think the Japanese player can expect to militarily defeat the Allied player per se. I believe the Japanese measure of victory will be how long they can keep the Allied player from achieving a victory much like the actual Japanese expectations. Remember, Admiral Yamamoto himself didn't believe he could defeat the Americans outright. All he had expectations of was winning for the first 18 months and then making it so hard for the Americans to take back territory that they would negotiate for peace on terms favorable to the Japanese. Unfortunately for Yamamoto, Pearl Harbor angered America like nothing before or since and nothing but absolute victory would suffice for America.



BlackVoid -> RE: WITP Strategy (10/8/2004 3:31:14 PM)

No one knows for sure what would have happened if the japanese continue to win in 1942 (imagine 4 US CVs + midway islands lost at Midway).

The japanese can win on point - this simulates that they have broken american willingness to fight or simply just did very well.



mogami -> RE: WITP Strategy (10/9/2004 9:22:07 AM)

Hi, Each base may only contain so many airgroups. When you have more airgroups then space on airfields you need to find another place to employ them. Once you secure air control over an area you look for more bases.
The Allies simply because they require more space to deploy their forces will be operating on many fronts and lines of advance. 1 Single massive thrust actually limits the force the Allies can employ. That and I don't think it will score the required ratio of points.
The Allies can "burrow" their way to Japan along a single line of advance but I think it will proceed slower compared to cracking the Japanese defense at several points at once.
I wonder if the Japanese realize that only one offensive is coming do they have the required mass to block it? How many assault points can the Allies lift at one time?
The Japanese would need to be dug in level 5 with at least 1/2 this value.
Well thats my basic plan as Japan in all cases. (To understand where a major allied blow is going to land and then meet it with sufficant force to defeat it)



maybee -> RE: WITP Strategy (10/23/2004 12:55:54 AM)

My plan is gamey, whether it is too gamey is question left to the readers.

For the japs, the key idea is to contain but not engage Allias troops in Burma, PI, and Malay. Invade resourceful bases in DEI, but left the rest contained, again not engage. By doing this, the japs can swing the bulk of the southern army to India asap, hoping to take out Karachi and Bomdbay, thus cutting Allias supply and reinforcement.

I don't bother about PI that much. It's not that resourceful, but resistance is considerable. Better let it run out of supply and starve. Leave most of china untouched, relocate Kwantang army and china exp army wisely, so to allow the china exp army to finish off Malay, and hopefully Burman, under the assumption that the Allias in that region are under-supplied.

Then clean a safe pathway to DEI resources, and transport the southern army to OZ. Where to go from there is too far in the future that I cannot see. OZ is defended by 1500+ assault strength. If the jap's southern army and 4th fleet can overcome at least the Melborne-Sydney line, the reward is decisive.

I suspect that it can be done within the first 6 months, assuming part of KB moves early to the OZ coast to block USN reinforcement from the west coast.

Love to say more, but it's still not a very well formed opinion. comments welcomed.



ltfightr -> RE: WITP Strategy (10/23/2004 5:03:54 AM)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"My plan is gamey, whether it is too gamey is question left to the readers.

For the japs, the key idea is to contain but not engage Allias troops in Burma, PI, and Malay. Invade resourceful bases in DEI, but left the rest contained, again not engage. By doing this, the japs can swing the bulk of the southern army to India asap, hoping to take out Karachi and Bomdbay, thus cutting Allias supply and reinforcement.

I don't bother about PI that much. It's not that resourceful, but resistance is considerable. Better let it run out of supply and starve. Leave most of china untouched, relocate Kwantang army and china exp army wisely, so to allow the china exp army to finish off Malay, and hopefully Burman, under the assumption that the Allias in that region are under-supplied.

Then clean a safe pathway to DEI resources, and transport the southern army to OZ. Where to go from there is too far in the future that I cannot see. OZ is defended by 1500+ assault strength. If the jap's southern army and 4th fleet can overcome at least the Melborne-Sydney line, the reward is decisive.

I suspect that it can be done within the first 6 months, assuming part of KB moves early to the OZ coast to block USN reinforcement from the west coast. "


Playing the AI this might work In PBEM a human will make you pay dearly for bypassing the PI see the AAR thread on the "hirito Plan"



moses -> RE: WITP Strategy (10/23/2004 4:56:14 PM)

In reply to maybee.
I don't think its gamey at all to invade as you suggest as long as it is done starting with your forces in plausable Dec 8 positions. I have considered plans to invade OZ or India at some point and wouldn't be the least upset if my opponent attempted an invasion of PH, Numea, etc. In fact it would probably be rather fun. I may even someday try to take PH. If only I had time for 6 or 7 PBEM's.

My only concern is when players use the first turn rules to put forces where they could not plausably have been on Dec 8. For example Numea can be taken by any JP player who wants it early in the game. But to show up at Numea with a fully fueled invasion force during the first four or five turns of the game is just too much for me.

I plan on keeping all non-historic invasion forces within four hexes of Jp bases on turn one. After that I consider all invasion sites to be fair game.



maybee -> RE: WITP Strategy (10/24/2004 12:49:21 AM)

To Itfightr,
did a search on 'hirito plan', came up empty handed. May be you are right, but I still think [8|] the IJ can do enough to neutraliza PI without invading Clarkfield, Manila, and, Bataam.

To moses, on the first turn move
To make it reasonable, IJ invasion force (from Truk) cannot advance beyond Rabul. If they can sneak attack PH historically, they should able to sneak attack Rabul on the first turn.
The limit on the west is Singapore.

More importantly, as a practical matter, you cannot discuss the range limit with the opponent. Tactically, you want and desperate in need of a surprise attack. An predetermined surprise is oxymoron.

A common error to me is that Allied players precive what Jap players can do or cannot do, when really it is determined by the desire and risk calculation of jap players. Even in reality, one don't have perfect intel about its opponent.

IMO, either play be default first turn, or free movements for both.

After all, I'm hoping to win the war !game! once and for all. [:'(]

Ok, for those history channel fans, I'm not planning for a debate. [;)]



pasternakski -> RE: WITP Strategy (10/24/2004 1:34:42 AM)

Try "Hirohito."



dtravel -> RE: WITP Strategy (10/24/2004 8:26:35 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

Try "Hirohito."


Link to discussion of "Hirohito Plan".



sveint -> RE: WITP Strategy (10/24/2004 9:27:42 AM)

I started this discussion because the "Hirihito plan" is completely irrealistic. (check the AAR, Allies will win in 1943)

I'm working on a strategy myself, but unlike the above I -do- need surprise (which plan works without it? - none). I'll be using it in 2 upcoming PBEM games that will start once 1.3 is out. Both games will have AARs.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.53125