Naval Superiority: Worth building up airfields as Japan ? (Full Version)

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



Message

kaiser73 -> Naval Superiority: Worth building up airfields as Japan ? (3/14/2005 10:04:50 AM)

I was thinking this in my PBEM as Japan (currently attacking Noumea where 50k allied troops are trapped).

Basically, my opponent has an airfield to lvl 4 and surely he has many aircrafts he could send and use. However, given the fact i have Naval superiority, i have managed to close down the airfield and damage/destory aircrafts there through naval bombardments.

So basically, my naval superiority (and use of naval bombardements) basically made nearly impossible (or to the point to not be worth mentiong) for Allies to use their airpower.

Now, regardless of how it will go on in my PBEM, i suddenly got scared thinking that after '42 allies will be able to achieve naval superiority wherever they want. and so come the question:
since allies will be able to bombard at will any place they want to invade without Japan able to stop, why bothering with airpower? they will become damaged/destroyed and unable to operate after the first bombardment (problably at night).
Why developing airfields, filling with aircrafts, training pilots for a battle they will never be able to fight?

What i can do now in Noumea is nothing compared to what Allies will do to me later, and that means my airpower will be grounded for the whole invasion anyway.



pauk -> RE: Naval Superiority: Worth building up airfields as Japan ? (3/14/2005 10:29:24 AM)

greetings...

allies will build up those AF's anyway, since they have "monster" eng units they will do it in much shorter time than japanese.

So, if you don't expand AF's, allies will do it - in few day. I pretty much doubt that you can buy more than 2 weeks if you leave AF's at original size (0,1).

That's it - in general. You have to decide which base you will defend, those AF's worth expanding.



kaiser73 -> RE: Naval Superiority: Worth building up airfields as Japan ? (3/14/2005 12:19:43 PM)

no idea how much it takes. i think it should be around 3 weeks.

but still, 3 weeks for every invasion...it's not bad. gaining a 3 weeks break after any assault cause allies have to bring up airfields is nice i think.

btw, i am not talking about places where you can have 3-5 airfields supporting each other. hopefully allies won't bombard all of them.

but in all other cases, why developing what you won't be able to use?



Tristanjohn -> RE: Naval Superiority: Worth building up airfields as Japan ? (3/14/2005 1:02:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kaiser73

no idea how much it takes. i think it should be around 3 weeks.

but still, 3 weeks for every invasion...it's not bad. gaining a 3 weeks break after any assault cause allies have to bring up airfields is nice i think.

btw, i am not talking about places where you can have 3-5 airfields supporting each other. hopefully allies won't bombard all of them.

but in all other cases, why developing what you won't be able to use?


Of course you should not develop anything you won't need. That's just common sense.

As far as taking Noumea goes, and without seeing the game to know the particulars, I doubt any Japanese player has any business down around Noumea trying to close it or take it or whatever you please. What's the point to that? Just because one can? I think a smart Japanese player ought to try instead to consolidate his early gains throughout the SRA, establish some sort of ring of defense (a perimeter if you will) throughout the central Pacific, certainly get a toehold in the New Britain/Solomons area, and then try develop that, modest as it might seem. And even if one can develop it properly, all will need to be not only "defended" but kept supplied in a reasonable manner. In my opinion that's more than enough ambition for the Japanese side, much less trying to "surround" Noumea . . . as if it were some kind of latter-day Alamo?

A friend of mine is in a PBEM with a guy he's played with going all the way back to the release of PacWar. His strategy as the Japanese player is to rush down to New Zealand and take Auckland and whatnot, along with Noumea and Luganville and like that. This is his idea of a "perimeter defense," but of course it's only madness on a grandiose scale. [:D] He knows it can't possibly work, and when that ridiculously forward position falls, as it surely will, the momentum built up by the Allies will be crushing, with precious little left before them as they simply swoop down with a vengeance on the home islands.



AmiralLaurent -> RE: Naval Superiority: Worth building up airfields as Japan ? (3/14/2005 1:08:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kaiser73

btw, i am not talking about places where you can have 3-5 airfields supporting each other. hopefully allies won't bombard all of them.


They will. Allied BB are a minor nuisance compared to heavy bombers hordes. You will learn in 1943-44 that no airfield in range of Heavy bombers can be used for a long time and that airfields within range of Allied long range escort (P-38 and then P-47) can't be used at all.

It's useless to build AF more than size 4 for Japan. Much too expensive and these bases will still be closed by Allied strategic bombers in some days and then all planes based here will be doomed. A better idea to have many bases size 4 so you may use some of them.

As for isolated airfields in atolls, from 1943 I base only patrol planes there. Other units will fly in, do one mission and fly out. The best defence in this area is your CV. Once they are done for, you can only hope to resist in the air where you have several nearby bases.



Yamato hugger -> RE: Naval Superiority: Worth building up airfields as Japan ? (3/14/2005 1:54:14 PM)

quote:

As far as taking Noumea goes, and without seeing the game to know the particulars, I doubt any Japanese player has any business down around Noumea trying to close it or take it or whatever you please. What's the point to that? Just because one can? I think a smart Japanese player ought to try instead to consolidate his early gains throughout the SRA, establish some sort of ring of defense (a perimeter if you will) throughout the central Pacific, certainly get a toehold in the New Britain/Solomons area, and then try develop that, modest as it might seem. And even if one can develop it properly, all will need to be not only "defended" but kept supplied in a reasonable manner. In my opinion that's more than enough ambition for the Japanese side, much less trying to "surround" Noumea . . . as if it were some kind of latter-day Alamo?


If you can kill/capture 50k allied troops without risk to yourself, go for it. Every single time. After you have done the deed, load up and head north.

As for building up Jap airfields:
Like others have said, dont build what you dont need. I rarely build up Yap for example. Some isolated bases like Wake for example, I base recon planes at and little else. As you say, the bombardments are going to swoop in and lay waste to it anyway, but the Japs do have 1 advantage there. Mines. They are crazy loaded with MLs. As was posted in another thread, the combination of mines and coastal guns in a base can make it too much of a nightmare to bother with.



kaiser73 -> RE: Naval Superiority: Worth building up airfields as Japan ? (3/14/2005 3:42:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

quote:

ORIGINAL: kaiser73

no idea how much it takes. i think it should be around 3 weeks.

but still, 3 weeks for every invasion...it's not bad. gaining a 3 weeks break after any assault cause allies have to bring up airfields is nice i think.

btw, i am not talking about places where you can have 3-5 airfields supporting each other. hopefully allies won't bombard all of them.

but in all other cases, why developing what you won't be able to use?


Of course you should not develop anything you won't need. That's just common sense.

As far as taking Noumea goes, and without seeing the game to know the particulars, I doubt any Japanese player has any business down around Noumea trying to close it or take it or whatever you please. What's the point to that? Just because one can? I think a smart Japanese player ought to try instead to consolidate his early gains throughout the SRA, establish some sort of ring of defense (a perimeter if you will) throughout the central Pacific, certainly get a toehold in the New Britain/Solomons area, and then try develop that, modest as it might seem. And even if one can develop it properly, all will need to be not only "defended" but kept supplied in a reasonable manner. In my opinion that's more than enough ambition for the Japanese side, much less trying to "surround" Noumea . . . as if it were some kind of latter-day Alamo?.


There are 2 reasons for taking Noumea: one i can't say cause my PBEM opponet may reading this. The other is already in the first post...cause there are 50k allied soldiers there [:D]
Any operation which brings as a result destruction of enemy material is defensive. I help better my future defence by killing 50k allied troops now. i won't see them in the invasion fleet in 6 months that way [;)]



Feinder -> RE: Naval Superiority: Worth building up airfields as Japan ? (3/14/2005 3:50:52 PM)

Believe it or not, I actually agree with Yamato Hugger... :^)

But if you really can KILL all those guys, do the deed and leave. Not seeing your map, but I would think Noumea would be very difficult to defend as Japan. Just be careful not to get stuck down there. It's not a one-hex island that you can simply take. If you end up dumping a lot of guys there, and then end up having to supply them for month until/if it falls, it might not be worth the effort.

-F-



mogami -> RE: Naval Superiority: Worth building up airfields as Japan ? (3/14/2005 3:56:10 PM)

Hi, In 1 PBEM I am attempting to reduce Noumea. (In the others I am no where near Noumea ) because there are a lot of Allied troops there.
I will admit some miscalculation on my part. I thought I'd whack 25-30k Allied troops and get out however it turned out after I had landed that there were considerably more enemy troops there. (well over 100k)
I then proceeded to blunder away much of the material I sent to complete the operation. Now I have been there for a while and we trade blows quite often.
From my point of view Noumea is just as good a place as any to tie up the enemy. However it won't do to have too many Japanese lost as a result.
So my plan is simply to stay down there as long as I can. Who knows the situation might change. But I am busy up north preparing a line for when the battle at Noumea is over.
No matter how it turns out it will be 1943 by the time it is all over. So for me Noumea is the forward defense of the Japanese Empire. I want to draw as much enemy strength there as I can and hold it in place for as long as I can and inflict as much damage to it as I can. But it's not what I had planned.



kaiser73 -> RE: Naval Superiority: Worth building up airfields as Japan ? (3/14/2005 4:41:13 PM)

I never said i want to defend Noumea. I said i want to take it...for 50k reasons (+ another 1 i can't tell) [:D]

My PBEM is particular: an early CV battle made Allies losing their 3 CV (and me 1). I then sunk the English CV (don't remember the name) later on.

So in Noumea i have an uncontested naval superiority (it's early may '42).

I really hope my intel is right and i don't find 150k allied troops instead though.



Tristanjohn -> RE: Naval Superiority: Worth building up airfields as Japan ? (3/14/2005 4:46:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kaiser73

I never said i want to defend Noumea. I said i want to take it...for 50k reasons (+ another 1 i can't tell) [:D]

My PBEM is particular: an early CV battle made Allies losing their 3 CV (and me 1). I then sunk the English CV (don't remember the name) later on.

So in Noumea i have an uncontested naval superiority (it's early may '42).

I really hope my intel is right and i don't find 150k allied troops instead though.


I don't know, but my guess is if your intel told you there were 50k then there's probably twice that many. For sure you'd better count on there being that many and plan accordingly.



Tristanjohn -> RE: Naval Superiority: Worth building up airfields as Japan ? (3/14/2005 4:55:35 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, In 1 PBEM I am attempting to reduce Noumea. (In the others I am no where near Noumea ) because there are a lot of Allied troops there.
I will admit some miscalculation on my part. I thought I'd whack 25-30k Allied troops and get out however it turned out after I had landed that there were considerably more enemy troops there. (well over 100k)
I then proceeded to blunder away much of the material I sent to complete the operation. Now I have been there for a while and we trade blows quite often.
From my point of view Noumea is just as good a place as any to tie up the enemy. However it won't do to have too many Japanese lost as a result.
So my plan is simply to stay down there as long as I can. Who knows the situation might change. But I am busy up north preparing a line for when the battle at Noumea is over.
No matter how it turns out it will be 1943 by the time it is all over. So for me Noumea is the forward defense of the Japanese Empire. I want to draw as much enemy strength there as I can and hold it in place for as long as I can and inflict as much damage to it as I can. But it's not what I had planned.


I haven't played the Japanese but it seems to me it would be wisest to hold the Allies off as far forward as possible with minimal force, not maximum. Why give the Allies a chance to reduce your land forces (and possibly air and naval) substantially sooner than later?

I certainly agree with your strategy as the Allied player, though. Slow, sure and steady agrees with my style and temperament completely--not to mention the Allied reinforcement schedule.



mogami -> RE: Naval Superiority: Worth building up airfields as Japan ? (3/14/2005 5:02:26 PM)

Hi, My Japanese style is a lot like my Allied style. In that as Japan my early adventures are really serving the purpose the SRA serves for the Allies. Buying time to build a defense. My outer line is really just a phoney front that when the time comes is abandoned. That is why I don't try to capture bases I don't need but go for killing enemy forces. They have already built the base.
I'm pretty much a coward no matter what side I play. I believe "the more you use the less you lose" and run when I can't be the side with "more"



Tristanjohn -> RE: Naval Superiority: Worth building up airfields as Japan ? (3/14/2005 5:14:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, My Japanese style is a lot like my Allied style. In that as Japan my early adventures are really serving the purpose the SRA serves for the Allies. Buying time to build a defense. My outer line is really just a phoney front that when the time comes is abandoned. That is why I don't try to capture bases I don't need but go for killing enemy forces. They have already built the base.
I'm pretty much a coward no matter what side I play. I believe "the more you use the less you lose" and run when I can't be the side with "more"


I've watched Ron's defense in the SRA with you and I'm not sure if I agree with that or not. He has invested a lot of force there which might well have been used more effectively in a different space and time. On the other hand, he has "bought time" and severely damaged your ability to lift troops if nothing else.

This is my first go around with WitP so I'm basically playing it by ear. But it's fundamentally the same map and mechanics as PacWar, and plays roughly the same (replete with all those quaint Japanese early-war bonuses Gary's so fond of [:D]), so I suppose in the end I'll be able to muddle through somehow as the Allied player. But who knows?



mogami -> RE: Naval Superiority: Worth building up airfields as Japan ? (3/14/2005 5:23:48 PM)

Hi, Well I never talk about the best horse while the race is still being run. However if Ron transported units from New Zealand to Java and then loses them the fact I lost some transport will be unimportant because I now do not need to transport units to New Zealand to kill troops (the only reason I would go there)

Everything in that game is fine with me. My Central Pacific bases are reaching their desired status without interference and without loss to my CV or surface forces outside a few DD and CL.

Most of Rons defense is smoke and my being slow. I don't like to get into sustained air campaigns with the Nate being my primary fighter. The IJN airforce is my strike arm and I don't like using it in static battles.

I have yet to play a PBEM game where my progress was not somewhat painful for me. But thats because I am prone to bungling the actual execution of my plans. I would be done with Java had I not forgot to assign CAP (the groups were in place) and if my surface TF has not received order to cover a TF in the Home Islands the night before a minor Allied TF encountered the transports. That is not the games fault it is my fault and because I've had to deal with it in every game I've ever played I developed a knack for both getting myself into jams and then getting myself out of them.



Tristanjohn -> RE: Naval Superiority: Worth building up airfields as Japan ? (3/14/2005 5:32:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, Well I never talk about the best horse while the race is still being run. However if Ron transported units from New Zealand to Java and then loses them the fact I lost some transport will be unimportant because I now do not need to transport units to New Zealand to kill troops (the only reason I would go there)


This is the same point I made (and which you apparently misunderstood) with regard to an Allied advance: it is best to go where the Japanese are and kill them--a sort of "self-greasing" skid to the home islands. Of course that's not to say it will be easy in actuality, but that's my fundamental purpose as the Allied player. (The details I leave to the gods. [:)])



mogami -> RE: Naval Superiority: Worth building up airfields as Japan ? (3/14/2005 5:37:29 PM)

Hi, I understood ok. It is good (for both sides)to go where the enemy is and kill him. Just don't in the process end up dead yourself.
My point was Ron moved forces to Java that make Java a harder battle. However if they are lost then somewhere a battle will not be required to be fought or he will need a unit and not have it because it died on Java helping to sink transports.
Because there are fewer defenders at this future battle. I will require fewer transports.



kaiser73 -> RE: Naval Superiority: Worth building up airfields as Japan ? (3/14/2005 5:41:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

quote:

ORIGINAL: kaiser73

I never said i want to defend Noumea. I said i want to take it...for 50k reasons (+ another 1 i can't tell) [:D]

My PBEM is particular: an early CV battle made Allies losing their 3 CV (and me 1). I then sunk the English CV (don't remember the name) later on.

So in Noumea i have an uncontested naval superiority (it's early may '42).

I really hope my intel is right and i don't find 150k allied troops instead though.


I don't know, but my guess is if your intel told you there were 50k then there's probably twice that many. For sure you'd better count on there being that many and plan accordingly.


I have a huge naval superiority, i can withdraw if things go wrong without much losses. Don't forget the first part of this topic, through bombardements i can close the airfield most of time.

Seeing what happened to Mogami, maybe i made the some mistake. but i can bring in reinforcements to get the job done (hopefully). I don't want to keep fighting there for 4 months though. That's surely something i disagree with Mogami. I am after enemy material as much as possible as well, but i do attack only if i can beat the opponent with overwhelming odds. if things don't go like i planned, i retreat.



kaiser73 -> RE: Naval Superiority: Worth building up airfields as Japan ? (3/14/2005 5:47:13 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, Well I never talk about the best horse while the race is still being run. However if Ron transported units from New Zealand to Java and then loses them the fact I lost some transport will be unimportant because I now do not need to transport units to New Zealand to kill troops (the only reason I would go there)


This is the same point I made (and which you apparently misunderstood) with regard to an Allied advance: it is best to go where the Japanese are and kill them--a sort of "self-greasing" skid to the home islands. Of course that's not to say it will be easy in actuality, but that's my fundamental purpose as the Allied player. (The details I leave to the gods. [:)])


I disagree. For Japan surely that's the way to do in the first 6 months (or as long as you can). what you kill in the first 6 months won't attack you later on.

However, as Allies it is different. Allies have overwhelming navy and air superiority. Meaning you can isolate japanese troops, make impossible for Japan to get troops back without attacking. ANd your main objective to win is to get to Mariannes.

SO you don't really need to go where Japan has units. You need to make sure Japan won't be able to move those units. If you achieve that, you can even ignore those units and attack where you want (Mariannes and resource centars).



EUBanana -> RE: Naval Superiority: Worth building up airfields as Japan ? (4/1/2005 3:17:02 AM)


quote:

I have yet to play a PBEM game where my progress was not somewhat painful for me. But thats because I am prone to bungling the actual execution of my plans. I would be done with Java had I not forgot to assign CAP (the groups were in place)


I feel better now reading that, as I do the same thing. [:D]



Tristanjohn -> RE: Naval Superiority: Worth building up airfields as Japan ? (4/1/2005 8:52:32 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kaiser73

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, Well I never talk about the best horse while the race is still being run. However if Ron transported units from New Zealand to Java and then loses them the fact I lost some transport will be unimportant because I now do not need to transport units to New Zealand to kill troops (the only reason I would go there)


This is the same point I made (and which you apparently misunderstood) with regard to an Allied advance: it is best to go where the Japanese are and kill them--a sort of "self-greasing" skid to the home islands. Of course that's not to say it will be easy in actuality, but that's my fundamental purpose as the Allied player. (The details I leave to the gods. [:)])


I disagree. For Japan surely that's the way to do in the first 6 months (or as long as you can). what you kill in the first 6 months won't attack you later on.

However, as Allies it is different. Allies have overwhelming navy and air superiority. Meaning you can isolate japanese troops, make impossible for Japan to get troops back without attacking. ANd your main objective to win is to get to Mariannes.

SO you don't really need to go where Japan has units. You need to make sure Japan won't be able to move those units. If you achieve that, you can even ignore those units and attack where you want (Mariannes and resource centars).


I didn't mean to go after each and every Japanese base. Each game presents different situations, and those need to be evaluated accordingly. Bit primarily the job of the Allies is to win the war as fast as possible, and "where the Japanese are" along the logical paths to Tokyo will normally be where you'll find the Allies. Right?




AmiralLaurent -> RE: Naval Superiority: Worth building up airfields as Japan ? (4/1/2005 12:32:22 PM)


Allied can really use bases as fortress. Singapore in our 3 vs 3 game is playing such a role. A powerful airbase that decimated every air attack targetting it and from wich Allied heavy and medium bombers are blasting almost every target in range. CD defenses are strong enough to not close it by bombardment.

It's possible to do the same in Pacific. Japan can't do island hopping because he hasn't bombers able to close big air bases. BB can do that but will use a lot of fuel and may be damaged/sunk by subs and mines.

The good Japanese tactic is to launch fast attacks. Bombing the runway to close it and damage as much planes as possible, continue to pound it during several days and land enough troops to take it and capture the damaged planes before they can go away. But the real target of Japan are not planes but ressources/oil first and then troops. The Allied will never lack planes and rarely pilots but destroying ground units is scoring many points and may slow the Allied later.

On the other hand, the Allied main targets are the Japanese airforce and navy. Allied will score points by bombing Japan faster than they will by chasing Japanese troops in jungle. And to advance they need to have aerial and naval superiority in an area and then can land at any place with a airfield size of 1 and then build very fast a base from wich heavy bombers will close all Japanese bases in the area.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2