To Build or Not to Build...

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

To Build or Not to Build...

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> The War Room >> To Build or Not to Build...

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

To Build or Not to Build... - 6/25/2007 6:13:07 PM

Q-Ball

Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline

As the IJN, it seems you have some real choices to make in terms of how to construct your island bases, with an eye toward the future. Almost anything is buildable enough to accomodate Bettys, but clearly you don't have the resources to build everything. And, you probably don't want to, otherwise you are really helping the Allies during the counterattack by leaving good bases.

So, what should you focus on building? A good example is the Gilberts. If you turn Tarawa into a Size-4 with large fortifications, a good garrison, what do you do with Makin and Apanama?

*Leave them empty: Advantage, you can turn Tarawa into a tough nut, and you leave nothing for the Allies; if they land on Makin, for example, it will be a few turns before they can even base fighters. Disadvantage, the Allied strategy is clear: Bomb Tarawa with 4E's to shut it down, grab Makin, build it up to accomodate bombers, and keep bombing Tarawa, or take it.
*Build to size 3 or 4, garrison lightly: Advantage there is that it will be tougher to close Tarawa using 4E's, because Bettys can fly from the other bases, or fighters can fly cap from them. Problem is, Allies can quickly take them, and have a base ready to go right away, instead of having to build. (Though maybe that doesn't matter much since Allies have so many construction troops into '43).
*Build and hold them: I don't think it's realistic, "He who defends everything defends nothing", but an option I guess

I suppose the decision comes to whether its worth it to build extra airfields solely for aircraft, knowing they are gone as soon as the Allies can get ships there.

As a corollary to this, you have alot of choices in the Solomons in particular, and the Banda Sea as well, in terms of what you Build/Hold, and what you leave alone.

That was alot of questions, what do experienced players think?

Post #: 1

RE: To Build or Not to Build... - 6/25/2007 6:24:41 PM

fabertong

Posts: 4546
Joined: 2/25/2004
From: Bristol, England, U.K.
Status: offline

Hi Q-Ball........

It is an interesting dilemma.........

In my game with Speedy......I did option 1........Tarawa was a fortress and I left the other Islands undefended....the result was he bypassed Tarawa and landed on the other Islands....he SeaBees were then able to build, within days not weeks, usefull airfields.......then he bombed Tarawa for 5 months until supply ran out and Invaded to destroy my starving troops.....

A good Allied player will recon ....and adapt their plans according to your dispositions........so I'm not sure what the answer is......obviously if you defend all the bases ....the allies will just bring over whelming forces to bear(or is it bare).........

And yes you can't build everything.......I've tried that too.....

Not sure that helps........?

(in reply to Q-Ball)

Post #: 2

RE: To Build or Not to Build... - 6/25/2007 6:38:17 PM

Anthropoid

Posts: 3107
Joined: 2/22/2005
From: Secret Underground Lair
Status: offline

It seems to me that the only good "fortress" is (a) one that is quite a distance from any other one (so that fewer airplane types can hit it)? and (b) one that has a sufficiently high concentration of AA, ENGs, CDs and ASSault value that is costly to take it away. In thinking about this Tarawa example, as the Japanese player one has to ask oneself: what do you GET by occupying Tarawa at all? Do you really get anything?

What about taking it away from the Americans in order to force them to have to take it back (also causing it to get torn down a bit), but then evacuate it immediately carrying off any fuel and supply that is there back to Kwajalein?

It seems to me that the goal of the Japanese is to delay, slow-down, and obstruct the Americans in that part of the world, and this can be most effectively done by damaging or sinking as many ships and planes as possible, as well as by causing them to spend as much time as possible advancing toward the home islands?

(in reply to fabertong)

Post #: 3

RE: To Build or Not to Build... - 6/25/2007 6:44:41 PM

goodboyladdie

Posts: 3469
Joined: 11/18/2005
From: Rendlesham, Suffolk
Status: offline

Mutually supporting airfields is the way to go. It means that the Allied player has to commit his CVs to a long campaign to protect his invasion fleets and suppress multiple airfields. Any supply convoys also have to be covered or they are Betty fodder.

Each airfield needs to be well fortified and held by just enough strength to force the Allied player to commit reasonable forces to it's capture.

(in reply to Anthropoid)

Post #: 4

RE: To Build or Not to Build... - 6/25/2007 6:58:15 PM

Bobthehatchit

Posts: 1478
Joined: 4/27/2003
From: GREAT BRITAIN
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: goodboyladdie

Mutually supporting airfields is the way to go. It means that the Allied player has to commit his CVs to a long campaign to protect his invasion fleets and suppress multiple airfields. Any supply convoys also have to be covered or they are Betty fodder.

Each airfield needs to be well fortified and held by just enough strength to force the Allied player to commit reasonable forces to it's capture.

Later in the war you get a large number of SNLF units some with quite repectable AV, i find it very useful to deploy a number of these to the subsiduary bases with mines and naval base forse, or small CD unit if available means you can really slow down a invasion without commiting larger bodies of IJA troops to defend, or leaving the a base open for a cheap invasion.

_____________________________

"Look at yours before laughing at mine". Garfield 1984.

Wanted: ISDII Low millage in Imperial gray.

Just my 2 pence worth.
I might not be right.
Hell I am probaby wrong.
But thats my opinion for what its worth!

(in reply to goodboyladdie)

Post #: 5

RE: To Build or Not to Build... - 6/25/2007 7:01:45 PM

Q-Ball

Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline

Interesting replies. And Tarawa, of itself, is worthless; it's simply a barrier to the main objectives.

Taking a step back, there are only 2 strategic objectives the Allies have it seems, correct me if I am wrong.....

1. Stop Japan from shipping Resources/Oil to Japan.
2. Capture a size-7+ airfield within B-29 range of Japan, and be able to supply it.

That's pretty high-level, and of course there are supporting objectives to that, but that's basically it. Stop Japanese industry, and the war is over. If I am the Allies, anything that doesn't help me accomplish one of those two objectives is a waste of time.

Now, out there in the Pacific, there are no VP points, and no resources. Just islands. The only islands that matter strategically are the Carolines, and Iwo Jima group. So of course the objective is to slow them down to those primary objectives.

Back to Tarawa, it seems what would slow them the most is mutually supporting airbases. That would force them to bring CV support, rather than plaster Tarawa and sail in without CVs. The reason to have ONE be a fortress, is because the Allies will have to shut it down to clear supply lines to the Size-7 AF (probably the Carolines). You can't have Bettys in the rear picking off transports.

That means either:
a) A continuous bombing campaign, probably the entire game. Even if the Japs run out of supplies, single-ship TF's, AG's, or Subs can sneak a few in and cause havoc. To NOT invade Tarawa, as Allies, I would have to have B-26s or whatever bomb for the entire war.
b) Invasion. That means time and resources to clear Tarawa.

Maybe I am off, that's my thinking.

(in reply to goodboyladdie)

Post #: 6

RE: To Build or Not to Build... - 6/25/2007 7:04:37 PM

Q-Ball

Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline

Oh, and I guess it's an indication of how tough that question is, in that I got two completely different answers!

There is no fool-proof, the IJN is dead any way to slice it!

Wonder how it plays out in the Marianas, there you have mutually supporting airbases like it or not, since Maloelap and Wotje start build and garrisoned.

(in reply to Q-Ball)

Post #: 7

RE: To Build or Not to Build... - 6/25/2007 7:18:50 PM

Bobthehatchit

Posts: 1478
Joined: 4/27/2003
From: GREAT BRITAIN
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

Oh, and I guess it's an indication of how tough that question is, in that I got two completely different answers!

There is no fool-proof, the IJN is dead any way to slice it!

Wonder how it plays out in the Marianas, there you have mutually supporting airbases like it or not, since Maloelap and Wotje start build and garrisoned.

If you defend too far forward you risk getting cut off and bypassed, if you defend to lightly you allow the allies to Island hope with supporting bases, instead of making deep thrusts, main thing for the Japanies is keeping your fleet intact, and the quality of your airgroups up and keeping your economy running.

Thats all that really matters.

Its a hard balance.

Mutually supporting is the way to go, you then have to rely on recon to tell you where to concentrate your fleet units as air and land units won't stop a determined invasion alone.

_____________________________

(in reply to Q-Ball)

Post #: 8

RE: To Build or Not to Build... - 6/26/2007 12:50:19 AM

Anthropoid

Posts: 3107
Joined: 2/22/2005
From: Secret Underground Lair
Status: offline

Here is an interesting question, and maybe it just my simpleminded understanding of the game that leads me to ask it at all. Why occupy Tarawa instead of Johnston Island? Have not played WiTP for probably a year or more, but been playing WPO recently as Japanese against AI. Therefore my sense of ranges is no doubt totally off. Most bombers in the 1920s only have ranges of 1, 2 max. Are there lots of bombers that can hit Johnston from Pearl? I kinda doubt it (geeze this is making me want to reinstall WiTP

). If not, then consider that: (a) Tarawa is not really that much more built up than Johnston at game start (at least in WPO, again maybe I'm way off for WiTP). Whereas Tarawa has several little islands all around it which allows allies to use the bypass and siege approach, Johnston is out there by itself. With enough ENG, I'm betting you can get Johnston up to a Port, Fort, and AF all equal to 3 fairly quick. From there, you could base proper sub raids on Pearl, maybe even major naval raids. Any Japanese fanboy ever tried a quick grab of Johnston?

(in reply to Bobthehatchit)

Post #: 9

RE: To Build or Not to Build... - 6/26/2007 12:58:20 AM

goodboyladdie

Posts: 3469
Joined: 11/18/2005
From: Rendlesham, Suffolk
Status: offline

Because it is isolated and too close to PH. I would love a Nip to commit forces there because all of my bombers would get loads of practice and I could run bombardment tfs to it every night and would always be safely back under my LRCAP by dawn...

_____________________________

Art by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to Anthropoid)

Post #: 10

RE: To Build or Not to Build... - 6/26/2007 1:12:17 AM

goodboyladdie

Posts: 3469
Joined: 11/18/2005
From: Rendlesham, Suffolk
Status: offline

Canton Island is another matter. It can be supported from Baker Island and is out of B-17 range of Palmyra. It is also far enough away from PH to make the Allies have to worry about getting home if damaged. Only VLR aircraft can use the Line Islands to transit quickly to Australia if you take it. It also adds weeks of journey time to shipping between CONUS and Oz as tfs have to stay out of Betty range. It is not an atoll though, so you will need lots of infantry to keep it and sea supply can be choked by US subs.

_____________________________

Art by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to Q-Ball)

Post #: 11

RE: To Build or Not to Build... - 6/26/2007 6:07:46 AM

Anthropoid

Posts: 3107
Joined: 2/22/2005
From: Secret Underground Lair
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: goodboyladdie

Because it is isolated and too close to PH. I would love a Nip to commit forces there because all of my bombers would get loads of practice and I could run bombardment tfs to it every night and would always be safely back under my LRCAP by dawn...

You're right it is isolated. You'd need to already have Midway in hand (or in the mail) in order for it to be a viable strategy.

Ah yes, but with a BIG CD unit and some nice friendly AA, it _perhaps(?)_ could still be a real thorn in the side?

Again, I'm thinking of late 1920s ranges and stuff, so I may be totally off. It would be fun to give it a whirl against the AI, just to see if it has any promise at all.

I reckon if you landed about 50K AP worth of Infantry and Arty, early enough in the game, you could take Johnston the next turn. If the second wave TF was about 125 to 150K AP worth of ENG (1 Base Force, 1 or 2 ENG Regt, so you get maybe 150 enginneers), AA (at least one heavy unit, and maybe also a light unit), and two to three CD units you could turn Johnston into a real pain the the butt for the allies?

(in reply to goodboyladdie)

Post #: 12

RE: To Build or Not to Build... - 6/26/2007 8:06:11 PM

Yamato hugger

Posts: 5475
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline

Personally as the Japs I dont build up anything out there. I occupy them, park shore guns on it, dig in, and if the allies want it, they can have it - but Im going to get a few hits in doing it. If you over garrison it, he will just go around it making it a self contained PoW camp.

(in reply to Anthropoid)

Post #: 13

RE: To Build or Not to Build... - 6/26/2007 11:17:43 PM

Anthropoid

Posts: 3107
Joined: 2/22/2005
From: Secret Underground Lair
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

Personally as the Japs I dont build up anything out there. I occupy them, park shore guns on it, dig in, and if the allies want it, they can have it - but Im going to get a few hits in doing it. If you over garrison it, he will just go around it making it a self contained PoW camp.

Meaning you'll build the fort, but not the port or AFB?

(in reply to Yamato hugger)

Post #: 14

RE: To Build or Not to Build... - 6/28/2007 12:19:49 AM

Yamato hugger

Posts: 5475
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline

Correct. Im not going to waste my supplies building bases for the allies. If I cant defend it using CVs, then it cant be defended IMHO.

(in reply to Anthropoid)

Post #: 15

Page: [1]

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> The War Room >> To Build or Not to Build...

Page: [1]