Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cannonfodder

Hey Joc, it's even worse. This might become the first PBEM that I know of that ends due to japanese autovictory. China is a big factor in this. So many squads lost and a couple of nice bases to build up for points.

I'm going to work on a new strategy this week because this is going nowhere...

quote:

ORIGINAL: zuluhour

A couple of questions, not a lot of detail required: How is your BB strength? Have you received the two older BBs yet? Are your carriers intact? Are you prepping for something in the SoPac-SwPac area?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cannonfodder

quote:

ORIGINAL: zuluhour

A couple of questions, not a lot of detail required: How is your BB strength? Have you received the two older BBs yet? Are your carriers intact? Are you prepping for something in the SoPac-SwPac area?

Hi Zulu, I agree with you that I just need a few successes to prevent autovictory and to secure the game going into 1943 now. What I mean with that is the China situation. It is a major source of VPs, especially if you consider destroying the Chinese LCUs (which Quixote does). Right now I'm about to pull everything into Chungking and create a mega stack that Quixote can only destroy by taking massive losses to concentrated infantry fire from my now 50+ experience corps... What is stopping me? The absolute crazyness... but Quixote would do so in the blink of an eye so I guess I just have to let go...

My fleet is mostly intact with a couple of cruisers lost and having all carriers and all battleships operational. I'm planning and prepping for operations in NoPac and SoPac. Obviously SoPac currently is a priority (due to VPs there) and a problem (due to fleet presence)..

Also, I want to keep the pressure on in India so I'm building forward bases to bring Ceylon within range and if at all possible Calcutta..

quote:

The allies need to grab the initiative to be able get out of this mess....

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

Keep your line in the South and do not simply retreat from bases, even out of supply. It's the most welcome sight imaginable for a Japanese player to see dug in Chinese units in full retreat before even being engaged. One bad attack in +3 territory and he'll be waiting over a month to start again.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

Keep your line in the South and do not simply retreat from bases, even out of supply. It's the most welcome sight imaginable for a Japanese player to see dug in Chinese units in full retreat before even being engaged. One bad attack in +3 territory and he'll be waiting over a month to start again.

The problem with China as the allies is that once out of supply that nice AV of troops sitting behind comfy forts suddenly is worth only a tenth. Do you stay knowing you will suffer an adjusted AV of perhaps a few 100 tops against fully supplied Japanese army of 5 divisions and a couple of Tanks you can´t hurt? Or do you withdraw hoping to at least get SOME supply into the units so you are not giving them away completely for free. Not always an easy choice. Personally I prefer to try and get at least some supply to them. Getting a 0.5 adjusted AV instead of a 0.1 is a big deal.

There is simply not enough supplies to sustain combat in China. Once the bombs start dropping and the combat start supply just skydives and the troops farthest from the Central plain will have a very hard time getting any kind of supply at all.

There are very few AARs where the allies have maintained control in China (I know of only 2?). And I´m guessing in those the Japanese commitment in China has been very low. If Japans wants China its just as sure grab as Luzon or Java. And I doubt its because all allied players suck in China.

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

For the defense do you really want to keep those troops if there is not enough supply?

Let them have the potential to slow the Japanese advance and if they're lost they become the Chungking garrison in a month. Absolutely no reason to move them back to Chungking. You never know the result of the attack without seeing it happen, and if wiped out you get free troops almost immediately to replace them. Even a winning attack by Japan will still cripple his troops and slow his pace dramatically, plus making him pay in supply and replacements for the losses.

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert
Torsten has continually had enough supply to stop moves against this area of Central China in the +3 territory, even having a (-) supply modifier. If you have 4k AV of Chinese dug in in +3 the Japanese need at least 3:1 raw AV advantage So (12k AV) if fully supplied to break through. The Japanese are rarely fully supplied in this area either. So with much less supply the Chinese still could hold. Chinese troops also build forts quickly and get up to +3 much faster than my Japanese units, and that really helps in the pre-battle arty phase in addition to the main attack.

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert
You're wrong about commitment. You have to commit a LOT to China if you want to take it, regardless of what the Allied player does or doesn't do. Don't downplay it until you've tried. That's probably why for the first years of AE there weren't so many all-ins for China. After rader-GJ especially it's a consideration for everyone. When I went in our game I used not only the IJAAF but the IJNAF as well. I used free divisions that could have gone to Ceylon, India proper or taken Perth when I actually had a real shot at it. I bought out ALL of the armor, many bases forces and engineers from Manchuria and a bunch of air groups, bought another bunch of air group upgrades to 2E, and spent hundreds of thousands in supply not to mention the amount of troop replacements, pilots and airframes.

China is all about time and territory. The longer it takes to fall the more the Japanese player will suffer the consequences.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

For the defense do you really want to keep those troops if there is not enough supply?

Let them have the potential to slow the Japanese advance and if they're lost they become the Chungking garrison in a month. Absolutely no reason to move them back to Chungking. You never know the result of the attack without seeing it happen, and if wiped out you get free troops almost immediately to replace them. Even a winning attack by Japan will still cripple his troops and slow his pace dramatically, plus making him pay in supply and replacements for the losses.

The problem with this is that you are giving away VPs. The Chinese troops constitute a huge amount of VPs. And take into account they can actually be destroyed more than once... dangerous game. And the troops arrive with zero supply so they still have to draw a full amount. So unless you manage to actually stop an attack once in a while the only thing you have done is to give away VPs and lost more supply.

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

You're still missing the main point. It's a massive commitment to take all of China, and it should take a long time. Look at crsutton and viberpol. Not AARed but it's mentioned enough if feel like I read through the battles. It took until later 43, and by then the Allied were already moving back. Dan Nichols had a fantastic defense going until he disappeared. If it falls quickly the VPs will be lost anyway when he takes all lot Chungking and Chengtu. The point is if it takes longer it's costing Japan more VPs as well (and Japanese troops cost more than Chinese) plus a lot of industrial output, supply and other stuff. it doesn't cost VPs to hold the rivers as long as you can. It costs VPs to lose China, but the ratio is less if you hold it longer as the Japanese will obviously lose more if the battles are fought and occasionally take a chunk out.

Unless you know the Japanese side you can't really grasp what all of this means, and most players aren't even familiar with the late game, so they might not know what the implications are of using that stuff. I am starting, but only starting to learn.

It doesn't matter if Torsten is low on supply or not. The point is he is staying put where he has to. His troops are still holding even though they might collapse any moment. Bombing helps little in +3 terrain. I just never know the actual situation, so I can't make decisions based on that. Those rivers are death to an attack. I've crossed a two and that shut the entire operation down for a month or two, even though I got a 1:1 in both major crossings.

By the way, many players are going for India. Not China. West Coast? Really?

The reasons for China are mostly about AV or not AV, although it can be a big part of an AV try as well. Overextension or not. But if you want to have a more set defense and not over-reach, it makes a lot of sense to get ALL of China and then use those troops along the coast and in the mountains. Tough to break that. And the biggest reason of all; it doesn't cost fuel but in fact gains oil centers and production if you can get the whole thing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

You're still missing the main point. It's a massive commitment to take all of China, and it should take a long time. Look at crsutton and viberpol. Not AARed but it's mentioned enough if feel like I read through the battles. It took until later 43, and by then the Allied were already moving back. Dan Nichols had a fantastic defense going until he disappeared. If it falls quickly the VPs will be lost anyway when he takes all lot Chungking and Chengtu. The point is if it takes longer it's costing Japan more VPs as well (and Japanese troops cost more than Chinese) plus a lot of industrial output, supply and other stuff. it doesn't cost VPs to hold the rivers as long as you can. It costs VPs to lose China, but the ratio is less if you hold it longer as the Japanese will obviously lose more if the battles are fought and occasionally take a chunk out.

Unless you know the Japanese side you can't really grasp what all of this means, and most players aren't even familiar with the late game, so they might not know what the implications are of using that stuff. I am starting, but only starting to learn.

It doesn't matter if Torsten is low on supply or not. The point is he is staying put where he has to. His troops are still holding even though they might collapse any moment. Bombing helps little in +3 terrain. I just never know the actual situation, so I can't make decisions based on that. Those rivers are death to an attack. I've crossed a two and that shut the entire operation down for a month or two, even though I got a 1:1 in both major crossings.

By the way, many players are going for India. Not China. West Coast? Really?

The reasons for China are mostly about AV or not AV, although it can be a big part of an AV try as well. Overextension or not. But if you want to have a more set defense and not over-reach, it makes a lot of sense to get ALL of China and then use those troops along the coast and in the mountains. Tough to break that. And the biggest reason of all; it doesn't cost fuel but in fact gains oil centers and production if you can get the whole thing.

quote:

Well, I think we can agree to disagree here. Yes its a commitment. But so is everything. Its a big commitment compared to doing nothing. But why do nothing when you can get China? Obviously the gains are well worth it or no one would do it. Right?