Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sangeli

That's a serious bloody nose at Patna the Allies just took. Battles like that make the Indian fight worth your time as the Allies cannot replace those losses (although they get plenty of new units of course). The inevitable push on Burma will have 250 AV less than it would have otherwise.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

I see all those tank rgt in China and wonder if they would help you out more holding back the Allied in India. Once the Indian infantry gets their upgrades in early to mid-43, then they will get wiped out. But you have time to use them to great effect now. Same thoughts go through my head with all that Manchurian heavy artillery. The Allies don't have guns of that caliber while in China, the Allies have 75mm and maybe some 105mm.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yaab

This is interesting.

There is a cut-off point somewhere in repair time for aircraft. Basically, any aircraft with durability of 0-29 and service rating 1 will be repaired in one day! There is no durability 30/service rating 1 aircraft to check if the repair time jumps to two days, but durability >30 and service rating 1 gives you a 2 day repair time. I guess at this point your best fighter for continuous operations will be Tojo, followed by Oscar and Zeros.

The perfect fighter should have durability 29, service rating 1, armor 1 and as many CL weapons as possible.

Given the above, it is funny, how good Oscar IIb actually is - its only drawbacks is its low durability. I tested them in the Andaman scenario and I could keep continuous CAP with them for many days against waves of 4Es and I barely had the required aviation support at the base. I guess if you could double the aviation support for them, the turnover would be even faster.

Durability >30 and service rating 2 or 3 is a nightmare. This is why the Nicks, which look good on paper with their high durability and CL weapons, are such maintenance hogs.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

Seeing the number of American units in your combat report should make you feel good. Right now, I'm using a full division, either an American rgt or Aussie/NZ brigade, and multiple tank battalions with artillery and combat engineers for each invasion in the Pacific. Having to face them here is a good thing right now. There were 6 Americans in that attack, so there has to be more stread all over India. He will need to switch over to a more Pacific focused attack relatively soon, I would think.

quote:

China: very active. The Changsha basin is now isolated.No more fuel will arrive here to feed the HI.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

quote:

China: very active. The Changsha basin is now isolated.No more fuel will arrive here to feed the HI.

Maybe I'm in the minority here, but I prefer the northern approaches when attacking in China. IMO, it makes the Chinese supply situation worse to deny his HI access to fuel to generate supplies. It also gains Japan more fuel.

Central & South Pacific - Need to be aggressive here, but not foolish to get your licks in now vs Allied navy before it gets too big. Good luck here counselor!

quote:

ORIGINAL: veji1

It is crazy to think that more than any other, the defining event in this game so far, the one with the most consequences, has been the Sian debacle... Without it you would have taken care of China a lot more easily, have had troops to spare (tanks and arty) for more offensive operations in India, be more ready to defend your perimeter and started saving a lot more supply.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

quote:

ORIGINAL: veji1

It is crazy to think that more than any other, the defining event in this game so far, the one with the most consequences, has been the Sian debacle... Without it you would have taken care of China a lot more easily, have had troops to spare (tanks and arty) for more offensive operations in India, be more ready to defend your perimeter and started saving a lot more supply.

Is it a question or a statement?
If it's a statement, it's the word "crazy" that I don't understand in the context. Sian debacle (loss of nearly 50,000 men in two days), forced me to change the whole strategy in china, and so in India/oz.
For sure, if Sian had fallen in early 1942, China would be by now mostly under my control and I could have been able to use all those tanks in India or Oz.
Instead, I had to change the whole general plan and concentrate on an alternative strategy for China.
I have a great respect and fear of a strong China in late 1944 and I know that if I don't take care of it NOW, the great tiger is gonna bite me back right when the americans will be knocking at the very gates of Japan...

I know most of you think I'm wasting my resources into a minor theatre (got some PMs about that), while the real war is somewhere else, but I do believe that china, after Burma, is the second most important theatre of war. A place where Japan cannot efford to lose

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

quote:

ORIGINAL: veji1

It is crazy to think that more than any other, the defining event in this game so far, the one with the most consequences, has been the Sian debacle... Without it you would have taken care of China a lot more easily, have had troops to spare (tanks and arty) for more offensive operations in India, be more ready to defend your perimeter and started saving a lot more supply.

Is it a question or a statement?
If it's a statement, it's the word "crazy" that I don't understand in the context. Sian debacle (loss of nearly 50,000 men in two days), forced me to change the whole strategy in china, and so in India/oz.
For sure, if Sian had fallen in early 1942, China would be by now mostly under my control and I could have been able to use all those tanks in India or Oz.
Instead, I had to change the whole general plan and concentrate on an alternative strategy for China.
I have a great respect and fear of a strong China in late 1944 and I know that if I don't take care of it NOW, the great tiger is gonna bite me back right when the americans will be knocking at the very gates of Japan...

I know most of you think I'm wasting my resources into a minor theatre (got some PMs about that), while the real war is somewhere else, but I do believe that china, after Burma, is the second most important theatre of war. A place where Japan cannot efford to lose

quote:

ORIGINAL: veji1

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

quote:

ORIGINAL: veji1

It is crazy to think that more than any other, the defining event in this game so far, the one with the most consequences, has been the Sian debacle... Without it you would have taken care of China a lot more easily, have had troops to spare (tanks and arty) for more offensive operations in India, be more ready to defend your perimeter and started saving a lot more supply.

Is it a question or a statement?
If it's a statement, it's the word "crazy" that I don't understand in the context. Sian debacle (loss of nearly 50,000 men in two days), forced me to change the whole strategy in china, and so in India/oz.
For sure, if Sian had fallen in early 1942, China would be by now mostly under my control and I could have been able to use all those tanks in India or Oz.
Instead, I had to change the whole general plan and concentrate on an alternative strategy for China.
I have a great respect and fear of a strong China in late 1944 and I know that if I don't take care of it NOW, the great tiger is gonna bite me back right when the americans will be knocking at the very gates of Japan...

I know most of you think I'm wasting my resources into a minor theatre (got some PMs about that), while the real war is somewhere else, but I do believe that china, after Burma, is the second most important theatre of war. A place where Japan cannot efford to lose

Sorry mate, I didn't mean to sound aggressive or harsh. Crazay in that context meant "interesting, counterintuitive". What I meant is that in such a game we think what matters is the pacific, etc, but in your game the Sian debacle had a domino effect on your abilities and altered your strategy. I am not saying you haven't adapted nor criticizing your game, considering the problem it creates you are doing your best and it is very interesting to watch.

Really "crazy" wasn't criticism at all, sorry for misphrasing it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton


You are right here. China is the one attrition battle that the Japanese player must accept. There can be no dig in and wait strategy. You have to take Chungking and Langchow-no question about it. And if you can't defeat the Chinese it is best if you can push them far to the West. But the real key to China is holding Burma and India. You should be able to do that for a while. The Allies can do nothing offensively in China until the supply route is open. A bigger threat in my experience is Allied landings on the coast of China late in the war. This is very tough to defend against.