Another "Why the Japaneese tend to kick butt thread" (Full Version)

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



Message

Runsilentrundeep -> Another "Why the Japaneese tend to kick butt thread" (5/7/2005 7:25:35 PM)

Sharpen your swords gentlemen and prepare to skewer.

I read these posts a heck of a lot more than I post, and I have been looking into the issue of Japan and its supposed dominance in this game. I have mulled it over and have looked at various factors, this is not a fanboy thread or even a call to revamp a system. This is not off the cuff I assure you.

My two cents.

First the obvious, the player is the thing. Most people should be able to see in AARs the person who makes the least amount of mistakes wins. I have not seen an AAR over 2 days that does not involve mistakes, but then again so does any war. The person who also exploits a persons weakness with their strenghts should not be called gamey but good. A well fought war should never be fair. In a game of a war, don't mistake good tactics for cheating.

That being said there are some really legitimate issues out there, just trying to filter the wheat from the chaff.

I do think Japan has an edge. Of course hindsight is a big part of this, the Japanese player knows the clock is ticking and must land a knockout blow in the first 14 months. Also I think hindsight actually works against the Allied player, I have seen quite a few Allies abandon the early positions to save assets thus allowing the Japanese an easier time. What one forgets is that gives the Japanese the most valuable asset of all. time. Instead of figthing it out, most of the time the SRA is abandoned thus giving the Japanese a several month margin to work with.

Ok that being said I think the number one reason that the Japanese player has the edge is because this game is built for the side with the initiative. Since the initiative goes to the Japanese for the first year or so they have the advantage.

Why is it built toward the initiative? One day turns and perfect command control.

Perect command and control coupled with a 24 hour turn means that this game is a micromanager's dream. Once you know how you can run a much more efficient "hyper" campaign that simply did not exsist in the Pacific. Command and control is at a level that the Joint Chiefs NOW would be envious of. It simply speeds things up be being perfect in the realm of efficiency in order completion. The one day turn maginifes it, changes can be made each turn and units can turn strategic directions on a dime.

I can name a large amount of examples here are two. If the main intelligence directorate is in Tokyo, how long would it take to get information on P-40 tactics over the Island of Wake to Nate pilots in Rangoon? How long would it take to process information from one front to another. There is no lag in command decisions to change altitude or not Sweep when an airfield strike would do in the game, but in real life it would take weeks. Also how difficult would it be to make sure that the large stockpile of supplies in Singapore would be slated for the invasion of Perth? And would the local commander try and keep as much to supply his own men? This issue would be resolved but it would take time.

Now I know there were cases of genuine efficiency in war and some units did do amazing things in a limited amount of time, but this tends to be the exception and not the rule.

It would not solve all the problems in the world but using 2 or (gasp) even three day turns would slow down the process of the war and make the game a bit less efficient. Now I know what alot of you are thinking, no body would hit the same air field 3 days in a row or patrol the same hex for subs. And yes naval decisions tend to be made on a daily basis and "I want this game not PACWAR". I know that the micro managment aspect of this game is one of its sacred cows. But I do think that if you want one day turns and you have a good Japanese player, prepare to get you butt kicked or at least have them have a bigger advantage than they did historically.


Now I am not talking from on high, or am I married to any of these ideas, but I did think them out and I think they are worthy of some discussion.

Any feedback?



Bill Durrant -> RE: Another "Why the Japaneese tend to kick butt thread" (5/7/2005 7:38:06 PM)

I've just started a 3 day turn PBEM game for many of these reasons. I'm sure alot of things will happen that both me and my opponent will get frustrated at but to me that is part of the challenge



Tom Hunter -> RE: Another "Why the Japaneese tend to kick butt thread" (5/7/2005 8:01:46 PM)

I think your right about the importance of both the player and the command control. I am not sure that the game mechanics will allow you to mitigate this problem with multiple day turns but go ahead and try.

At a 50,000 foot level I do think that most of the solutions to problems with the game will simply result in a new set of problems, rather than a better game. Its impossible to change the facts that:

This is a game

We all know what really happened

And I strongly agree that Allied players who run away in the early war have no grounds to complain about a speedy Japanese advance or the way the Japanese use the initiative that the Allied player has so willingly handed to them. I plan to write more about this in my AAR with a focus on my game with Blackwatch later on today.



Runsilentrundeep -> RE: Another "Why the Japaneese tend to kick butt thread" (5/7/2005 8:06:39 PM)

Which is a good point, all solutions tend to have more problems.

[;)]
I do not think that adding more days per turn is a solution as much as it is a choice.

And I think the Allied player simply must be aggressive (not stupid but active) in the early game.



Jim D Burns -> RE: Another "Why the Japaneese tend to kick butt thread" (5/7/2005 9:02:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Runsilentrundeep

And I think the Allied player simply must be aggressive (not stupid but active) in the early game.


Well in my PBEM game I did run away (sort of), but that was merely to consolidate my forces for a determined stand. Fighting aggresively along the Malay Peninsula simply speeds up your demise there. The allied player (using hindsight I know) should pull everything back towards Singapore and fight in the base just northwest of the Singapore base. Otherwise he'll be outmaneuvered (by naval landings) and destroyed much faster. I have almost 800 assault points there now in a level 5 (soon to be 6) fort, and the Japanese have no choice but to frontally assault. And because I pulled back all my forces are fresh, so it'll be a long siege (I hope).

The DEI simply cannot hold, so fight or run it makes no difference there. Once the Japanese have the Singapore airfield the DEI are doomed, so it's really a matter of choice. I doubt a determined stand could hold up the Japanese for more than an extra week or two, and you'd have to bring in outside help just to achieve that small feat. And because it's an island everything you commit to the DEI will be lost with no chance of rescue. So being aggressive there will only end up causing far more difficulties in the long run due to all the extra lost assets.

The best an allied player can hope for in the SRA is to raid some of the oil sites if your opponent makes the mistake of capturing them with your air power (or a fast bombardment group) still intact in the region.

Now I am not advocating that the allied player try to pull combat forces out of these areas, just that he try to preserve his fighting power until all or most of his available forces can be brought to bear at the same time. Sure pull out some small base forces, there are far more of these in the region than needed, but use your combat troops to hold as long as possible.

Jim



Grotius -> RE: Another "Why the Japaneese tend to kick butt thread" (5/7/2005 10:07:43 PM)

Thanks for a thoughtful post. Our unrealistic omniscience is unquestionably a major factor in our ahistorical efficiency when we're on the attack. It's common to pin this efficiency on game mechanics, and certainly some of them contribute to that: we may load supply too fast, or move oil too quicly. But you're right that in any turn-based wargame, we enjoy far more control than the historical actors did. I don't have to listen to MacArthur squabble with Nimitz. I can magically choreograph every operation from Saigon to Wake Island.

Still, I think WITP already makes a decent effort at compensating for our admittedly unrealistic level of omniscience. One obvious example is the behavior of our bombers: sometimes they don't fly, or sometimes they attack the wrong Task Force. Insofar as their insubordination is occasionaly ahistorical, it is nonetheless a reasonable effort to compensate for our omniscience. Yes, two- or three-day turns would too, but obviously a game has to find a compromise between too much omniscience (ahistorical) and too little (less to do for the player).

The "Highway to the Reich" series of games makes a valiant effort at undermining our omniscience further; in that game, you have no choice but to give orders and wait a while to see how they play out. There's "order lag" built into the game, which is a great feature. But such a system doesn't work for PBEM play, and while it might work for TCP/IP, that raises scheduling problems. So again, there's a tradeoff between realism and playability. HTTR's movie-like approach is for many players less satisfying than the slideshow-like approach of turn-based games.



freeboy -> RE: Another "Why the Japaneese tend to kick butt thread" (5/8/2005 12:40:55 AM)

Interesting you see a Jap tilt, I see jsut the opisate in that if the allied player gets to 1942 Aug, without loseing his shirt he should be reaonable good shape to start his "stand and fight" and then on to "conquer the world" modes. If the Japs are not allowed to attack Russia.. and must pay points to activate Manchurian garrison crossing the border, two very reasonably ho rules, taking out India is not an easy "
given...



Mike Scholl -> RE: Another "Why the Japaneese tend to kick butt thread" (5/8/2005 3:36:32 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: freeboy

Interesting you see a Jap tilt, I see jsut the opisate in that if the allied player gets to 1942 Aug, without loseing his shirt he should be reaonable good shape to start his "stand and fight" and then on to "conquer the world" modes. If the Japs are not allowed to attack Russia.. and must pay points to activate Manchurian garrison crossing the border, two very reasonably ho rules, taking out India is not an easy "
given...


FREEBOY You think the Allies have a "game tilt" built into WITP IF they survive the first year? That "tilt" is called historical reality! They are taking on two of the three major Allied powers, plus China; and doing it with an economy approximately equal to General Motors. Yamamoto reccognized that he "could run wild in the Pacific for 6 months to a year---but after that could guarantee nothing." This was a realistic assessment.

ALL pre-war Japanese planning had a goal of siezing a perimeter and holding it until the Allies got tired and negotiated. This at least showed a realistic apprasial of Japan's capability---though it was wildly optimistic regarding Allied response. You folks seem to believe that Japan should have equal economic capacity to it's foes, and unlimited expansion capabilities. This might be "fun" for Japanese players..., but it has nothing to do with the Second World War in the Pacific Theatre.



mogami -> RE: Another "Why the Japaneese tend to kick butt thread" (5/8/2005 3:53:45 AM)

Hi, I wish there was a way to compare Japanese results when Allied player does the Sir Robin and when he does not.
I really can't see Japan even having troops free for invading India before June (If Japan is done in SRA in May it will take at least a month to get troops refitted and objectives set for next operation) The Sir Robin does very little harm to Japanese transport fleet.
A fight to the finish in SRA should damage if not sink at least 100 Japanese transports.
Japanese air power should be tied down and unable to help in China are begin preping Burma or moving to South/Central Pacific. Of course if Allied air power leaves Japanese air power will follow.
I guess I need to play a few more Allied PBEM games to get a better grasp. While my current games as Allies go from one crisis to the next I have so far (knock on wood) been able to get just enough where it is needed when it is needed.




Tom Hunter -> RE: Another "Why the Japaneese tend to kick butt thread" (5/8/2005 4:03:36 AM)

In support of Mogami's point I am not playing a Fabian game and there are already 74 Japanese ships on the bottom of the Ocean on January 1941. The losses are approximately as follows:

10% CLs
25% DDs
10% SS
20% PC, PG
35% AP, AK

In addition there are a lot of damaged APs with one or two bomb hits, and just about every turn I see those delightful little "Vunerable Maru sinks" messages. Obviously the Japanese have tons of punch left but they are taking some attrition and this constrains thier ability to act.




Blackwatch_it -> RE: Another "Why the Japaneese tend to kick butt thread" (5/8/2005 4:44:17 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tom Hunter

In support of Mogami's point I am not playing a Fabian game and there are already 74 Japanese ships on the bottom of the Ocean on January 1941. The losses are approximately as follows:

10% CLs
25% DDs
10% SS
20% PC, PG
35% AP, AK

In addition there are a lot of damaged APs with one or two bomb hits, and just about every turn I see those delightful little "Vunerable Maru sinks" messages. Obviously the Japanese have tons of punch left but they are taking some attrition and this constrains thier ability to act.


True Tom is quite aggressive and his planes from DEI (and CVs) managed to sink 78 ships, most of them transports and escorts. I would like to have more units to go for all the bases that in need to capture in DEI and SoPac, never had fantasies about India so far.



mogami -> RE: Another "Why the Japaneese tend to kick butt thread" (5/8/2005 4:53:03 AM)

Hi, Suppose we begin as Japan with the intent of invading India and taking karachi and as a result knocking the Commonwealth and China out of the war. This will allow us unlimited manpower to fight USA and Australia with.
Before we can move to India we need to take Singapore. We don't need to take all of PI just neutralize the airfields (Clark/Manila/) we will take Legaspi and Jolo and Davao with minor forces. For India we will need assault transports enough to lift troops that can secure a major port and airfield.
At start we have 12 Divisions (several have prior commitments such as 21st at Hanoi and 38th at Hong Kong. The 21st really only need to move to Haipong and wait transport unless the Chinese move towards Nanning or Hanoi (a move I think the Chinese should avoid. No lasting benifit can result and Chinese troops are needed in other places. Still the Japanese cannot ignore the possbility of early Chinese movements along the Canton-Nanning-Hanoi rail line.
So there are 10 Divisions. 3 Are in Indo China and the most natural choice for their early employment is against Malaya. They march down from the north. These 3 divisions will be among those made available for India after fall of Singapore.
Now there are 7 Divisions left. 3 are in Home Islands. 2 at Taan 1 at Pescadores and 1 at Ammani Islands near Japan. The Taan and Pescadore units begin partially loaded onto transports and can pretty much move where ever Japan decides. The other 4 will be behind the others but are free to go where ever. Suppose we allot 2 to Philippines. These units will not likely be on hand to move to India. They will likely be tied down in PI untill such time as other forces come to tip the balance so this is the first crossroads the Japanese player must face.
Does he move to India minus forces still engaged in SRA? He has to secure Java (at least Soerabaja and Batavia. (at least another division)
There are 6 Bde along with the 12 Divisons. At least 1 should be sent to South Pacific or no progress can be made there. 1 Has to defend lower SRA (Kendari) Now another crossroads. Do we take Rangoon first? Rangoon would be very usefull for providing aircover and control of Bay of Bengal. Rangoon will require at least a Division. As I don't believe the Allies should commit forces to defending Rangoon (I fight at Singapore but run from Rangoon)
Historically 15th Army was composed of units transfered from 25th Army after it captured Singapore but in WITP the Japanese player is not prevented from simply forming 15th Army from some or all of the Divisions already mentioned in Indo China. However a unit sent towards Rangoon will not be able to help take Singapore or for later movement to India.
I think the count stands at 2 Div in PI 1 in Java leaving 9 for Singapore and Rangoon with 1 Bde Kendari and 1 Bde sent to Truk area. leaving 4 for Singapore and Rangoon.

Of course the SRA will remain exposed if Japan tries to send 9 Divisions and 4 Bde to India but we will risk that and just plan on taking the entire SRA after India.

So the question now is how long for Singapore and collecting transports to move all the units. Baseforce and other support units will be required. KB will be required. A lot is hanging on the USN remaining docile and Allied air being withrawn or wiped out in SRA.
Japan can't wipe out Allied air in SRA without taking the airfields used to move in and out. So Japan has to take Timor or Allied air will just move in and out.
As long as Allied air remains in SRA Japan has to continue to deploy fighters for CAP and bombers to suppress. As any Japanese player can tell you there is not a whole lot of disposable air (A6M2/Betty/Nell) to cover all the commitments. The ALlied player has a lot to say about the future use of Japanese air. If the Allied player removes the surface threat from SRA Japan does not have to save groups for Naval Strike. If the Allied player removes the air as well Japan has only ASW efforts to support. Ground support can be provided by airgroups not likely to be any use in India or South Pacifc. If the Allied player removes ground troops then smaller Japanese formations can mop up while our 9 divisions and 4 Bde move on India.
Another thing Japanese players can tell you is Japan does not have a lot of fuel. Make them have to provide surface ships to escort every TF. (This simple thing matters for more then I can explain) Japan can capture fuel enough but it will take a while to get it where needed. This is really hard if Singapore is still in enemy hands and have air deployed. (Same for Java)
OK lets jump ahead. We have Singapore. Now do we just load up and sail? DO we need to wait and see if KB can clear the way. Where do we land?

About this time I feel I should point something out. If the Japanese are massing this much force to go to India the Allied player could load all the on map US units onto transports and sail to North Japan. By the time the Japanese became aware of what was going on the Allies would have a port and airfield in Home Islands. There would be massive battles to follow but I'm not sure the Japanese could ever kick them out. (I am thinking at least 3 Army and 1 Marine Division with all the support and engineers to maintain 400 aircraft) Before the Japanese could get back Home the Allied would have all of Northern Japan. And several 100k supply I only mention this at this point to show the kind of risk the Japanese player takes in going to India and the kind of danger he is in from the very start. Japanese players who think subs at Manila are more a threat forget just how exposed Japanese Home Islands are IF the Allies can cross the Central Pacific.
Japan cannot commit 100 percent of her forces for any adventure. The worst possible thing Japan can do is commit everything. What has been happening is Japanese players are bluffing Allied players into hopeless defense in India or China. If the Allied players simply called the bluff and went straight to Japan future Japanese players would be more worried about defending the Home Islands rather then invading India.
Japanese players take note. You don't have 12 Divisions and 6 Bde for unlimited use. You must use them to secure the SRA and (AND) your DEFENSE. You can't let the IJN even be damaged to where it can't prevent a sudden enemy movement towards Marcus or Northern Japan. Once the enemy lands you will have a difficult time getting them back out.
Allied players stop being punching bags. If the Japanese come to India in force and you see you can't stop them. Load everything on ship take as much supply and fuel as you can and move to Australia. At the same time Load the entire American forces onto ships and go to Northern Japan. (or any other Japanese held area you like)

The Japanese will have to give India back. (after they pull out Allies go back and retake)
But the Japanese will have lost the war.

OK now that we've covered that what does it mean to our invasion of India? Well for one thing it means we had better put troops back into Japans reserve. instead of 9 Div and 4 Bde we will not have much over 6 Divisons. A very strong force in 1941 and pre June 1942. Here is where we need to check the time. If it is past or near May forget India.

OK this is getting us no where. You should see by now India is not a valid target for Japan unless the Allies make it one. The Japanese don't have anything like 200k troops to commit to any area outside China unless the enemy just sits there.



freeboy -> RE: Another "Why the Japaneese tend to kick butt thread" (5/8/2005 5:01:40 AM)

quote:

FREEBOY You think the Allies have a "game tilt" built into WITP IF they survive the first year? That "tilt" is called historical reality
from Mike...

My statement was in response to those saying the game favored the Japanese. Mike, please re-read my post.. I am not stating the game play should not TILT in the allied favor, I am saying that , for two equal players it should tilt that way.. for the very reasons that you bring up, and that it does tilt that way. Thanks for re reading my post.. I aam simply stating that .. The allies will, under most games unless facing some crushing defeats win... more troops, more and better planes/****ps etc..
thanks



Zeta16 -> RE: Another "Why the Japaneese tend to kick butt thread" (5/8/2005 6:03:06 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: freeboy

quote:

FREEBOY You think the Allies have a "game tilt" built into WITP IF they survive the first year? That "tilt" is called historical reality
from Mike...

My statement was in response to those saying the game favored the Japanese. Mike, please re-read my post.. I am not stating the game play should not TILT in the allied favor, I am saying that , for two equal players it should tilt that way.. for the very reasons that you bring up, and that it does tilt that way. Thanks for re reading my post.. I aam simply stating that .. The allies will, under most games unless facing some crushing defeats win... more troops, more and better planes/****ps etc..
thanks



Here is my take. I have no clue but I think I have gotten the farthest along as any Japanes player, if not tell me. If you play unhistoric you can do a lot, so what what does this have to do. I do not play games this way. If you play with in reason the allies will crush you a lot faster than in real life, not thing you can so about it. They will form 30 carrier task forces and roam the open seas. They will move 100 units inn force where ever they want, does any care no. They care about Japan moving to fast which will lead to there fall even quicker. The allies move even faster in this game than in real life, the allied fan boys need to face this when they take bitch about the Japanese movement. I feel I have palyed a pretty ggod game and even ask frreeboy, but he is killing me at the moment. Kami's don'yt work if the allies have huge task forces and B29's kill air fields. So what allied fan boys don't care. All they care about is a few week betties in early 42.



bradfordkay -> RE: Another "Why the Japaneese tend to kick butt thread" (5/8/2005 6:37:48 AM)

Zeta, some of these "allied fanboys" were complaining about a high level of air operations during early '42 knowing that later in the war things will be much worse in the other direction. Please don't read motives into other people's posts. The reason you have seen so many comments on early war Betty operations is that most of us have only seen the early war operations in the game so far.



Zeta16 -> RE: Another "Why the Japaneese tend to kick butt thread" (5/8/2005 6:53:25 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

Zeta, some of these "allied fanboys" were complaining about a high level of air operations during early '42 knowing that later in the war things will be much worse in the other direction. Please don't read motives into other people's posts. The reason you have seen so many comments on early war Betty operations is that most of us have only seen the early war operations in the game so far.



But when I ever say some thing about allies late in the war I here silence. Why I have no clue?



kaiser73 -> RE: Another "Why the Japaneese tend to kick butt thread" (5/8/2005 11:28:44 AM)

The "japan has an edge" thread comes always from people playing few months.

no side is boosted more than the other compared to RL. it's just that the game runs fatser than RL.

So:
Japan in 6-8 months can get far beyond what historicaly did
Allies can get back what they lost far faster than in RL

the same problems that are making Japan so boosted in forst 8 months will be useful for Allies for the rest of the war.
Regarding India, i can't add anything: if japan moves his whole army to india, i would invade homeislands with all i got on west coast.



mogami -> Japanese advantage (5/8/2005 8:37:04 PM)

Hi, The Japanese have a few real advantages at start.
1. They are ready for war
2. The area where the battle is to be fought is under their air control and they can expand control early and without much effort (Take Davao, Kendari, Jolo etc)
3. They have numerical advantage in SRA

They also have a major advantage in many games that only exists in the minds of the players. (Japanese who ignore their weakness expose themselves to disaster if the Allied player is of the right mentality)
When the Allied player is afraid of them and as a result develops a bunker mentality, think only of their own weakness and do not look to exploit Japanese weakness. They actually increase their danger and the length of time they suffer defeats.
The Japanese have moved the bulk of their forces into the SRA. If you simply allow the Japanese to get away with this you pay for it in India and China and else where.
Make the Japanese provide for the defense of their inactive fronts and they will have less to commit to offensive operations.

There are places where without too much effort or commitment of units the Allied player can force the Japanese to deploy more to prevent . A single RCT can threaten Japanese bases in North or Central Pacific. The Japanese will need to commit airgroups to prevent.
And then still not commit enough if Allied CV are in support. Only Torpedo planes really discourage the USN. Aircraft with range of 4 or less are in as much danger as they offer.
4 or 5 USN CV supporting an operation will prevail over all but a substantional Japanese air deployment. The Allied player does not have to actually ever undertake an operation but he has to convince the Japanese player he is not afrid to if the Japanese player does not take precautions.



moses -> RE: Japanese advantage (5/8/2005 9:17:53 PM)

An attack on northern Japan in 42 is not really in the cards as long as Japan has KB intact. Sure Japan may have its carriers far away in India but they can move from India to Japan much faster and more easily then can the allied fleet taking the long way around. Assuming the Japanese player has his subs screening the home islands he should have several days in advance to react.

Oh in the game you might get a bunch of divisions ashore and they may then be difficult to dislodge BUT isn't this another proof of the weakness of the ground model??

Imagine if IRL 3 US divisions had been landed with total surprise in any significant populated area of Japan. The US fleet then departs (Maintaining air superiority and supply to the force is historical nonsence). Most likely by the time the allies got done unloading over the beach they would have already been bottled up by whatever local militias they could scrape up. It wouldn't take much as allied forces would be without significant transport (3 divisions worth of transport over the beach isn't going to happen unless you've got lots of time), and with no air or naval support. As soon as a single good japanese formation arrived (even a brigade) the allied force would be doomed.

In the game of course you can land, conquer 3000 square miles of territory on the first day and then use these supplies to support your force over the coming months. In the next couple turns you rail your forces to adjacent hexes and conquer these as well. In this way an invasion of Japan really could fatally hurt Japan.

Totally unrealistic.



mogami -> RE: Japanese advantage (5/8/2005 9:26:53 PM)

Hi, Well I disagree. KB cannot get from Indian Ocean to Northern Japanese waters in time to be of any use and by then ALlied land based air would be in control.
Miltia units do not spring up over night. The mechanism for mobilizing, equiping and then transporting takes time. 3 or 4 Allied divisions outnumber the Japanese in Home Islands at start.
But all this misses the real point. If the Japanese do not provide for their own defense they are more exposed then the Allies. What prevents Allied attempts in the Central Pacific is the fear of KB being just out of sight. If KB's location is known and the count of Japanese formations allows the Allied player to clearly see that the Japanese are commited then if they remain on the defensive they deserve whatever the Japanese do.
What am I the only Japanese player who moves combat formations to Northen Japan early in war? Is it just me that deploys air assets to Central Pacific and keeps ships ready against Allied adventures?



wernerpruckner -> RE: Japanese advantage (5/8/2005 9:34:18 PM)

>What am I the only Japanese player who moves combat formations to Northen Japan early in war? Is it just me that deploys air assets to Central Pacific and keeps ships ready against Allied adventures?<

I think too many Allied players suffer from the "KB-is-almighty-in- the-first-two-years"-syndrom

I tend to be a bit too aggressive as long as I have enough forces [sm=duel.gif]



moses -> RE: Japanese advantage (5/8/2005 9:49:41 PM)

Again the ability to get land based air up in running in Japan within a few days or even weeks is fantasy.

We are talking about an allied force which sneaks in and can spend only a few days dumping whatever troops and supplies it can over the beach before it has to leave. It has to leave quickly not only because the Japanese carriers are soon to arrive. It has to because it will not be able to sustain a long-term defence against the land based air that it will face and the fleet is not logistically supportable off the coast of Japan in 42.

You don't need much to slow 3 divisions dumped up on the beach in this manner. With no air support. little transport , and no intell, a few low quality battalions will slow allied movement to a crawl.

Come on be serious. Dropping three divisions in Japan like this IRL would be a crime. They would all be in captivity within three weeks.



wernerpruckner -> RE: Japanese advantage (5/8/2005 9:55:15 PM)

If in a PBEM the Japanese player is stupid enough to leave Japan defenceless then he deserves it !!!! just a little thinking outside the box !!



mogami -> RE: Japanese advantage (5/8/2005 10:02:07 PM)

Hi, I don't think you understand me. If the Japanese have 200k troops heading for India and KB is there in support then Japan is wide open.
Nates and Sonia's against P-40 and B-25. The ALlies can send as many aircraft as most Japanese will have in Home Islands. There is no doubt Japan will begin recalling groups but that will be after the landings. The Allies will need to build the airfields but they can have 50 fighters up the turn after they take the airfield. A very mild Allied approach would be to conduct landings at Toyohara and Wakkani. Toyohara can't be reached with out embarking on transports and Wakkani can provide base for march on Sapporo. If Sapporo is captured it's turn out the lights for Japan. They will never retake it. They would have to be able to disengage 6 divisions, transport all the way back to Japan and then march to battle. Sapporo can build to a size 9 airfield (with a size 7 next hex) Wakkani 9 and Toyohara 7 (thats 1600 aircraft without overloading)
The only thing that prevents this in normal games is the fear of KB and Japanese who provide for defesne from turn 1. Japan can't crap a defense overnight to make up for it if they have not provided it from turn 1.



moses -> RE: Japanese advantage (5/8/2005 10:04:54 PM)

I understand your point that the defence to an invasion of India is to attack elsewhere.

I also agree with you (I think?) that an invasion of India or China is not a sure thing. It is possible to mount a successful defence I believe.

But the problem in these theaters( and now with an invasion of Japan as in your example) is the speed with which decisive results can be achieved and the ease with which they can be supplied.

This allows decisive results to occur with greater frequency then you would expect.

Chance of a successful US invasion of Japan in 42. Absolutly zero.
Chance of complete destruction of Chinese Army by early 43. Zero.
Chance of conquering all of India in 42. Again zero unless the Indian population revolts and supports your invasion. (pretty unlikely).

In the game these are all achievable goals. Not that they are guaranted to work but they can be achieved a fair percentage of the time and do not even require the hurculian efforts that you might expect would be needed to execute such operations.



mogami -> RE: Japanese advantage (5/8/2005 10:12:21 PM)

Hi, Disgruntled Japanese civilians are no threat to US invasion in WITP and they were not in WWII. If Japan does not move combat formations north then the area remains exposed. If Japan upgrades all the Claudes in Home Islands and sends them to China or Burma or Rabaul then there are no escorts for the bombers that also are not there.
In actual war Japan had a defense in Home Islands and after Doolittle they increased several fold. If the Japanese player does not take these precautions then his only defense is the meekness of Allied players.
The ALlies do not have to take the hard road from Solomons up to Saipan unless the Japanese make all other options impossible or more costly. They are not inhertly more costly or less feasable at start. Japan has no defense in Central or South Pacific or at Home. It is only in this context that the PH strike can be fully understood. If Japan makes the Allies think a invasion is heading for PH then Home Islands are safe. If Japan broadcasts to entire world that all their combat formations are busy and KB is away and no airgroups worth doodley are in Japan why would USA bother with anything other then getting war over with. I said northern Japan but the landings could just as well take place directly on Tokyo. (would cost more)
The same fear that makes Allied players send divisions to Pearl and airgroups to San Fransisco apply to Japan. What they don't protect remains exposed. In all these "Japan runs rampant" threads the common theme is "Japan does this and Japan does that" with their entire military force. What I want to know is what stops the Allies from just going and getting war finished by taking Home Islands Those islands in Central pacific are supposed to have garrisons and airgroups to prevent this. Japan does not have enough troops to defend Central Pacific and send 200k to India.



moses -> RE: Japanese advantage (5/8/2005 10:22:55 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, I don't think you understand me. If the Japanese have 200k troops heading for India and KB is there in support then Japan is wide open.
Nates and Sonia's against P-40 and B-25. The ALlies can send as many aircraft as most Japanese will have in Home Islands. There is no doubt Japan will begin recalling groups but that will be after the landings. The Allies will need to build the airfields but they can have 50 fighters up the turn after they take the airfield. A very mild Allied approach would be to conduct landings at Toyohara and Wakkani. Toyohara can't be reached with out embarking on transports and Wakkani can provide base for march on Sapporo. If Sapporo is captured it's turn out the lights for Japan. They will never retake it. They would have to be able to disengage 6 divisions, transport all the way back to Japan and then march to battle. Sapporo can build to a size 9 airfield (with a size 7 next hex) Wakkani 9 and Toyohara 7 (thats 1600 aircraft without overloading)
The only thing that prevents this in normal games is the fear of KB and Japanese who provide for defesne from turn 1. Japan can't crap a defense overnight to make up for it if they have not provided it from turn 1.



Oh I understand and as far as the game goes I have no doubt that your plan might work.
I'm just saying that IRL it would be a joke.

It will take days just to offload the troops and a few supplies much less all the reqiurments to run airbases. Its just not as easy to conquer 3000 square miles of territory as the game makes it seem.

So you drive inland and maybe you get lucky and capture an airbase with a nice load of fuel. You send some p-40's in (they fly in from where?) and maybe they fly a day or two until they run out of ammo and spare parts. So what.

Eventually you're carriers have to leave station and KB will arrive. What you now have are 60,000 american troops awaiting surrender. Oh they may fight there way into a city and damage a few factories but even that is not so easy. (Look how long we fought in Faluja against what would charitably be called militia) You don't even need a full Japanese division. You just bottle them up and wait for them to fall apart under the weight of air and naval bombardment and lack of supply



moses -> RE: Japanese advantage (5/8/2005 10:28:31 PM)

Now if Japan is really stripping all his air assets from the home island then sending your carriers to Japan and bombing the snot out of his factories is a fair option and histoically just punishment. Shore bombardment of his cities is also a good idea and again historically justified punishment for Japan's stupidity.


Landing a bunch of troops and conquering large tracts of Japan is only possible because of a game system that allows you to do these things far too rapidly. Its completely fair because Japan is taking advantage of the same things in India. But it would just be nice if things were slowed down in all land theaters so that operations proceded within plausable bounds.



Jim D Burns -> RE: Japanese advantage (5/8/2005 10:56:37 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: moses

Again the ability to get land based air up in running in Japan within a few days or even weeks is fantasy.



I agree, any air unit that rebases in this game should have all its aircraft set to damaged. If you've established a good airbase with lots of air support on hand, the unit will be up and running in days. If not then it'll take weeks. This would be much more realistic then what we have now where units fly non-stop at a just captured airfield with minimal support.

Jim



Grotius -> RE: Japanese advantage (5/8/2005 11:31:51 PM)

Mogami - So what forces do you use to protect the north? Do you just relocate some of the Home Defense Forces, or do you assign infantry from some other HQ?



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.78125