IJN Tactics.......Objectives.

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

IJN Tactics.......Objectives.

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 >> IJN Tactics.......Objectives.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

IJN Tactics.......Objectives. - 4/28/2003 9:05:36 AM

Raverdave

Posts: 6520
Joined: 2/8/2002
From: Melb. Australia
Status: offline

Well I started the ball rolling in the "Allied Tactics" thread, so I might as well open up the other can of worms.....IJN Tactics [I]and[/I] objectives.
And so I will put forth my ideas starting from 8th December and assuming that the attack on PH was carried out.

1/ Redouble efforts in China to bring about victory...units from the "Russian" front to be used. (Is this allowable in the game?).
Conquest to be completed by the end of '43 at the latest.

2/ Continue thrusts into PI and Malay peninsula as per historical events. Hunt and destroy USN CV units.

3/ Move sooner into Aleutians (Jannary'42) with the capture of Dutch Harbour being the objective. (Are there cold weather rules for this part of the map?).

4/Make the capture of Burma the most westward thrust.

5/ Thrust into Australia, as far south as Sydney, the capture of the west coast (Perth) being dependant on the release of units from China.

6/ Conduct major submarine campaign along the west coast of the US, with the goal of isolating PH.

Thoughts?

_____________________________

Never argue with an idiot, he will only drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

Post #: 1

- 4/28/2003 9:17:28 AM

Snigbert

Posts: 2956
Joined: 1/27/2002
From: Worcester, MA. USA
Status: offline

[B]1/ Redouble efforts in China to bring about victory...units from the "Russian" front to be used. (Is this allowable in the game?).[/B]

At this point, yes.

[B]3/ Move sooner into Aleutians (Jannary'42) with the capture of Dutch Harbour being the objective. (Are there cold weather rules for this part of the map?).[/B]

At this point, yes.

_____________________________

"Money doesnt talk, it swears. Obscenities, who really cares?" -Bob Dylan

"Habit is the balast that chains a dog to it's vomit." -Samuel Becket

"He has weapons of mass destruction- the world's deadliest weapons- which pose a direct threat to the

(in reply to Raverdave)

Post #: 2

- 4/28/2003 9:43:25 AM

Raverdave

Posts: 6520
Joined: 2/8/2002
From: Melb. Australia
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Snigbert
[B][B]1/ Redouble efforts in China to bring about victory...units from the "Russian" front to be used. (Is this allowable in the game?).[/B]

At this point, yes.

[/B][/QUOTE]

Well then that is surely going to make for an interesting campaign! Remove 2/3rds of all units on the "Russian" front and crush China before the end of '43!:D

It is also going to cause the allied player a LOT of grief.

_____________________________

Never argue with an idiot, he will only drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

(in reply to Raverdave)

Post #: 3

- 4/28/2003 11:42:47 AM

madflava13

Posts: 1530
Joined: 2/7/2001
From: Alexandria, VA
Status: offline

Raverdave-
I disagree with two of your objectives.
One, why bother with the Aleutians? They're not capable of serving as an offensive launching point for US attacks on Japan, and I bet weather-related attrition takes a nasty toll on units. I say just ignore them completely.

Two, why bother invading Australia when you can just cut it off? There wasn't enough lift capacity in the Australian merchant marine to pose an invasion threat anywhere, and if no supplies are flowing, the air force isn't going to be much of a threat either... I say just establish bases farther east to cut off convoy routes with bomber units, use subs, etc. That way you don't tie up lots of troops in a protracted land campaign.

Just my $.02

_____________________________

"The Paraguayan Air Force's request for spraying subsidies was not as Paraguayan as it were..."

(in reply to Raverdave)

Post #: 4

- 4/28/2003 6:49:56 PM

Raverdave

Posts: 6520
Joined: 2/8/2002
From: Melb. Australia
Status: offline

The Aleutians is just a side show...........what ever forces you put there the allies will have to mount least double or even three times that amount to eject you. (During the war the campaign forced the US to deploy the US 7th Div to eject the Japanese) If the Allied player does not bite then fine, see what happens when you move on Kodiak Naval base. At some stage the Allied player is going to be forced to do something. Granted, we are yet to know how the weather is going to be modelled, but I think that it is a worth while target.

As for taking Australia.......at the very least Darwin should be taken to remove the Allied ability to base forces there and thus threaten PNG. (This is assuming that you have PNG) Once again, moving south will force the Allied player to respond.....I cannot see how an allied player [I]could[/I] let Australia fall. Playing UV it is simply not enough to "cut off" Aussie. No matter how much you isolate it the allied player can (and does) launch operations from there. Now in WiTP it is vital to try and [I]remove[/I] the base access...........have a look at what an ideal base Perth makes for an allied sub base into the Indian Ocean or even Broome for that matter. And the same applies to the east coast. Cutting off is just not a safe option in my view.

_____________________________

Never argue with an idiot, he will only drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

(in reply to Raverdave)

Post #: 5

- 4/28/2003 7:32:54 PM

Luskan

Posts: 1897
Joined: 7/11/2002
From: Down Under
Status: offline

So to sum up Raver's tactics: CHARGE!! :rolleyes:

Of course, any IJN player will know that cutting off australia is not enough. With all the food being grown there, weapons produced and lets not forget - 1st class combat units of all types (don't discount those bloody wirraways!).

However I would be more interested to see if I could take enough resources for my empire to survive while holding the perfect defensive line - after eradicating Midway, Pearl and fortifying myself into the crust of the south east asian co-prosperity sphere.

Would it work?

_____________________________

With dancing Bananas and Storm Troopers who needs BBs?

(in reply to Raverdave)

Post #: 6

- 4/28/2003 8:09:08 PM

Raverdave

Posts: 6520
Joined: 2/8/2002
From: Melb. Australia
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Luskan
[B]So to sum up Raver's tactics: CHARGE!! :rolleyes:

Of course, any IJN player will know that cutting off australia is not enough. With all the food being grown there, weapons produced and lets not forget - 1st class combat units of all types (don't discount those bloody wirraways!).

However I would be more interested to see if I could take enough resources for my empire to survive while holding the perfect defensive line - after eradicating Midway, Pearl and fortifying myself into the crust of the south east asian co-prosperity sphere.

Would it work? [/B][/QUOTE]

So you would take a swing at Pearl???????

_____________________________

Never argue with an idiot, he will only drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

(in reply to Raverdave)

Post #: 7

alaska history - 4/29/2003 1:34:41 AM

elcid

Posts: 226
Joined: 11/20/2002
From: Lakewood Washington
Status: offline

Someone does not know their Alaska history. The Aleutians are the SHORT ROAD to Tokyo!!! Indeed, the surrender instructions were broadcast from Adak, because the signal was much more reliable over the shorter distance. In fact, there was a plan dating BEFORE December 1941 to conduct an offensive via the Aleutians and Siberian Russia. The ALCAN highway was built in 5 months BEFORE PEARL HARBOR as merely the FIRST leg of the logistic line for this operation. The road was to terminate in Nome, Alaska where it would sea link to a point in Siberia for extension. Further, the North American side was to upgrade to a railroad. Extensive surveys were conducted by Reeve, among others, for Gen. Simon Bolevar Buckner. Many airfields were built and this route became the MOST IMPORTANT for ferry of aircraft to the USSR. However, Stalin would not consider offensive operations, and the ALCAN became only a supply line to defend Alaska.

While the Aleutians indeed became a "sideshow" - except to the Canadians who regarded them as vital - often they sent more help than the US when a request was made for reinforcements - they were the testing ground for tactics. There was a disaster when US and Canadian troops landed on opposite ends of a valley and advanced to contact - with each other!!! The idea of scouts was pioneered by the Eskimo Scouts and their use near in time to operations became standard operating procedure. This is only one example. The Northern approach was a concern for the Japanese and it is the real reason they occupied the Western Aleutians. They did not know that Cook Inlet was a valuable oil resource and they did not think in terms of bombing Boeing in Seattle (the biggest building in the world was the Boeing Renton Plant) which is in range from Anchorage, much less Kodiak. But the Aleutians could have been used offensively by either side.

The weather story is stuff and nonsense. Alaska weather is rough in Fairbanks, but that is 500 miles north of Anchorage. The Japan Current keeps the Aleutians ice free year around, and snow does not occur at all in the vast majority of years in the Aleutians or in the Panhandle. Anchorage weather is comparable to Seattle, except night is longer in December and day is longer in June. The Jungles of the south Pacific are much more hostile environments, especially if you teach your troops to drink enough water (a big issue in Alaska, believe it or not, but at least there IS water to drink in Alaska).

There is a series of books called the Forgotten War (4 in all) as well as the wierd Silent Siege III by Burt Webber. It is devoted to documenting Japanese attacks on North America, and is without peer re the baloon bombings. But it also mentions all attacks of all kinds (although it is not well written, and the author believes in strange things, including Japanese atomic bombs the size of a matchbox - for which he has an authentic Japanese source - but that does not make it true).

(in reply to Raverdave)

Post #: 8

China - 4/29/2003 1:43:49 AM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

Hi, Also don't count on the added troops steam rolling China. It's not simply a question of numbers. Supply will be very difficult.
While the Chinese are not that offensive they possess great defensive power. The China offensive could drain the replacement pools and supply levels without yielding any signifcant gains.

We'll see

(This is not PacWar. Both China and India are VERY large with many bases and restricted movement paths.)

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Raverdave)

Post #: 9

- 4/29/2003 4:32:42 AM

mdiehl

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline

I hope that Jpn is allowed to redploy the Manchurian army to settle the China question. I also hope that for each squad removed from Manchuria there is a random task check or whatever for having the Red army revv up and drive south.

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to Raverdave)

Post #: 10

Re: China - 4/29/2003 4:46:51 AM

Bulldog61

Posts: 1517
Joined: 7/23/2000
From: Aurora,CO
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mogami
[B]Hi, Also don't count on the added troops steam rolling China. It's not simply a question of numbers. Supply will be very difficult.
While the Chinese are not that offensive they possess great defensive power. The China offensive could drain the replacement pools and supply levels without yielding any signifcant gains.

We'll see

(This is not PacWar. Both China and India are VERY large with many bases and restricted movement paths.) [/B][/QUOTE]
I've been aggresively playing China, and if the Japanesse player is not careful they can loose several resource centers before the end of December 41. In fact playing very aggresively I've been able to pin the 38th Division to Canton in one game. Force Z also got thru to sink the Transports off Khota Baru in that game. These kind of things could really put a stopper in the drive for the southern resource area.

_____________________________

You can run but you'll die tired!

(in reply to Raverdave)

Post #: 11

Force Z - 4/29/2003 5:29:31 AM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

Hi, Where was the IJN surface escort TF?

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Raverdave)

Post #: 12

- 4/29/2003 7:42:58 AM

Bulldog61

Posts: 1517
Joined: 7/23/2000
From: Aurora,CO
Status: offline

There were only A few PC's with the transports. Maybe the big boys were scared off.

_____________________________

You can run but you'll die tired!

(in reply to Raverdave)

Post #: 13

- 4/29/2003 10:58:39 AM

Tanaka

Posts: 4378
Joined: 4/8/2003
From: USA
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by madflava13
[B]Raverdave-
I disagree with two of your objectives.
One, why bother with the Aleutians? They're not capable of serving as an offensive launching point for US attacks on Japan, and I bet weather-related attrition takes a nasty toll on units. I say just ignore them completely.

Two, why bother invading Australia when you can just cut it off? There wasn't enough lift capacity in the Australian merchant marine to pose an invasion threat anywhere, and if no supplies are flowing, the air force isn't going to be much of a threat either... I say just establish bases farther east to cut off convoy routes with bomber units, use subs, etc. That way you don't tie up lots of troops in a protracted land campaign.

Just my $.02 [/B][/QUOTE]

Another important reason for the occupation of the aleutions is that they are about the only airbases available from which to scout and attack ships in the northern pacific. This is the same corridor that the japs used to sneak through and bomb pearl harbor. With these airbases in control this area will no longer be a threat for ships to sneak through whether allied or japanese and if they try you will have airpower to harass and maybe stop them. If you are Japan then taking the aleutians gives you more protection of the home islands and if you are the allies it gives you more protection of midway, pearl and the west coast. I think all of this is very important to the pacific war strategies and will definitely be one of my goals as Japan. Plus I do believe the aleutians puts parts of the home islands at least in the north in allied heavy bomber range.

And like raverdave said it will take little for Japan to take it early on but will take lots for the allies to retake it and will make the allied player have to divert much men, material, shipping, and airpower to do so. All of which they could be using where you really dont want them to later.

_____________________________

(in reply to Raverdave)

Post #: 14

Re: alaska history - 4/29/2003 7:27:39 PM

Raverdave

Posts: 6520
Joined: 2/8/2002
From: Melb. Australia
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by elcid
[B]

The weather story is stuff and nonsense. Alaska weather is rough in Fairbanks, but that is 500 miles north of Anchorage. The Japan Current keeps the Aleutians ice free year around, and snow does not occur at all in the vast majority of years in the Aleutians or in the Panhandle. Anchorage weather is comparable to Seattle, except night is longer in December and day is longer in June. [/B][/QUOTE]

Hmmm....I think that the greatest problem posed by the weather was the fog, rather than the snow. IIRC (And not having lived at that end of the world thankgod!) from what I have read it was the thick fog banks that held the most danger for aircraft, if indeed that could even get off the ground!

_____________________________

Never argue with an idiot, he will only drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

(in reply to Raverdave)

Post #: 15

- 4/30/2003 4:21:10 AM

Tanaka

Posts: 4378
Joined: 4/8/2003
From: USA
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Raverdave
[B]So you would take a swing at Pearl??????? [/B][/QUOTE]

I will definitely take a swing at pearl. I believe it is a must if the Japanese want to have any chance at winning this game.

_____________________________

(in reply to Raverdave)

Post #: 16

PH - 4/30/2003 4:33:41 AM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

Hi, Fans of PacWar (where PH was regularly captured) are going to need to study the Central Pacific very carefully.

While I'm not saying PH cannot be captured (if US player moves assets away) I don't think the Japanese have a chance if they wait longer then 3 months. There are too many bases.

The US player should make a point of building at least a level 1 base on all the islands. (level 3 are best if island can not support larger. This allows 150 ac to base there. 50 fighters and 100 carrier type bombers) PacWar had no Coast Arty or mines.

I believe Midway and Johnson Island can be taken (if carrier/surface battles won)

For Pearl you need to first find 4 divisions not needed else where.
Then you need to close 6-8 airfields prior to arrival of transports.
Subs and mines and surface TF's have to be dealt with.

It's not something you can just say

"I'll take a swing at" It means other operations can not occur. It means a great amount of risk. It does not guarentee victory. (It would be a major blow to USN) But it would depend on the cost.
(Taking PH but losing the IJN would shorten the war. The USN subs would simply swarm the area and supply would be very hard to move.

(It's under carefull study in my HQ. So far it does not look promising but often impossible problems are solved)

Currently I'm using the 'threat' of such an operation as a means of getting carrier battle with USN. (Hmmm sounds familair)

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Raverdave)

Post #: 17

- 4/30/2003 6:25:38 AM

Chiteng

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline

I would say that there are no strategic materials to be gained
in the Phillipines.

Neutralize them and move on. You can take it later.

Unless the game FORCES you to take it, by putting some
non-existant resource in that that you simply MUST have.

I think there may have been some Bauxite somewhere, but I dont recall anything else that the Phil produced.
HOI claims that the Phil had coal.

You must take Balikppan (Borneo) as fast as possible.
Historicly the Dutch blew the fields. But the Oil could be used by the fleet w/o refining. That is a critical edge.

After or during this, drive on Palembang. The Dutch, should fight.
If not, chase them away. The Brits will prolly try and evacuate
Singapore Fleet assets(I would), I see no way to stop that if they
simply RUN at the DOW.

I would drive on Rangoon with everything I could spare.
After taking Rangoon you 'should' be able to use fleet oilers
to supply the airfields.

The USN only has two CV and he will be way to paranoid to
risk losing them.

I would strike PH with Kido Butai and attack the oilers
rather than the BB. A BB w/o fuel is fairly useless. Same
for a CV. Destroying Oil storage facilities would make PH useless
as a base for quite a while. But his pretty BB would be untouched.
If the CV are in PH then abort all plans and sink them ASAP.

Oilers or I should say 'fleet support assets' are NOT that easy to
build, and if you can destroy them, you negate the USN ability to react.

If the game actually mirrors such features. Mogami has an edge since we have NO IDEA what the game actually features.

_____________________________

�It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.�

Voltaire

'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'

French Priest

"Statistic

(in reply to Raverdave)

Post #: 18

USN CV - 4/30/2003 6:40:45 AM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

Hi, The USN has 3 CV at start. 2 at sea west of PH one in San Diego.

Neutralize Philippines and capture later will work. However until the place is captured it will require constat Neutralizing.
(Japan bombs the airfields. USAAF grounded. But if you stop bombing airfields repair and then USAAF fly's. It might not be much but it does reach places I'd rather not have bombed. (My fleet anchorage at Pescadores, Formosa, Oil fields.)
PI will never be as easy as right at the start. Mac (or whoever is in command) can keep recruiting and training and digging in.
Supply will be an issue.

Rangoon can be supplied. It is after leaving Rangoon heading north into India supply gets hard.

Destroying the oil storage at PH would have the same effect as sinking the BB. They are not going anywhere. However Tanker/Oilers moving from West Coast solve the problem (but tie down ships while new storage constructed) The CV could use the BB as fuel sources while waiting the 2-3 weeks for fuel.

I don't actually have any kind of edge since there is no one to exercise it against. Once the game is released everyone will have just as much as i do. (And I've spent the development period posting my analysis

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Raverdave)

Post #: 19

Re: USN CV - 4/30/2003 6:47:47 AM

Chiteng

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mogami
[B]Hi, The USN has 3 CV at start. 2 at sea west of PH one in San Diego.

Neutralize Philippines and capture later will work. However until the place is captured it will require constat Neutralizing.
(Japan bombs the airfields. USAAF grounded. But if you stop bombing airfields repair and then USAAF fly's. It might not be much but it does reach places I'd rather not have bombed. (My fleet anchorage at Pescadores, Formosa, Oil fields.)
PI will never be as easy as right at the start. Mac (or whoever is in command) can keep recruiting and training and digging in.
Supply will be an issue.

Rangoon can be supplied. It is after leaving Rangoon heading north into India supply gets hard.

Destroying the oil storage at PH would have the same effect as sinking the BB. They are not going anywhere. However Tanker/Oilers moving from West Coast solve the problem (but tie down ships while new storage constructed) The CV could use the BB as fuel sources while waiting the 2-3 weeks for fuel.

I don't actually have any kind of edge since there is no one to exercise it against. Once the game is released everyone will have just as much as i do. (And I've spent the development period posting my analysis [/B][/QUOTE]

Well if the 'fleet support assets' are that easily repl;aced
then go for the BB.
Three weeks is nothing.
Using BB as fuel sources means you are tied to the speed of the
BB. BB make nice targets for subs.

To make an Oil Storage tank isnt that hard, so I guess that game system forces a conventional attack.

_____________________________

(in reply to Raverdave)

Post #: 20

Re: PH - 5/1/2003 4:25:36 AM

Tanaka

Posts: 4378
Joined: 4/8/2003
From: USA
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mogami
[B]Hi, Fans of PacWar (where PH was regularly captured) are going to need to study the Central Pacific very carefully.

While I'm not saying PH cannot be captured (if US player moves assets away) I don't think the Japanese have a chance if they wait longer then 3 months. There are too many bases.

The US player should make a point of building at least a level 1 base on all the islands. (level 3 are best if island can not support larger. This allows 150 ac to base there. 50 fighters and 100 carrier type bombers) PacWar had no Coast Arty or mines.

I believe Midway and Johnson Island can be taken (if carrier/surface battles won)

For Pearl you need to first find 4 divisions not needed else where.
Then you need to close 6-8 airfields prior to arrival of transports.
Subs and mines and surface TF's have to be dealt with.

It's not something you can just say

"I'll take a swing at" It means other operations can not occur. It means a great amount of risk. It does not guarentee victory. (It would be a major blow to USN) But it would depend on the cost.
(Taking PH but losing the IJN would shorten the war. The USN subs would simply swarm the area and supply would be very hard to move.

(It's under carefull study in my HQ. So far it does not look promising but often impossible problems are solved)

Currently I'm using the 'threat' of such an operation as a means of getting carrier battle with USN. (Hmmm sounds familair) [/B][/QUOTE]

Well when i say take a swing at i dont mean you have to capture hawaii but at least put out of commission for a long long while in a mass attack much larger than the pearl harbor attack. And yes this would definitely have to be done within in the first three months or so. And yes it would definitely take resources from other areas. Something that might be possible would be a coordinated attack on hawaii and maybe on the way back hit other areas in coordination with other forces. Of course this would all take a major commitment and be rather complicated. (hehe Yamamoto would like this plan) Just some thoughts anyway I would definitely have to play the game and work this out for a while. But I would think something like this would be possible. And yes would be a major risk. But thats what Japan has to do to win the war is take major risks.

_____________________________

(in reply to Raverdave)

Post #: 21

What the PI has that Japan must have - 5/1/2003 5:05:12 AM

mdiehl

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline

Food.

Rice, specifically.

By 1939, Japan's civilian economy was on its way into the toilet. They were importing food by the megaton from anywhere they could get it. PI was a much better area for rice farming than Korea and close enough to the Home Islands to save a little on shipping and other infrastructure overhead costs.

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to Raverdave)

Post #: 22

Re: What the PI has that Japan must have - 5/1/2003 5:12:07 AM

Chiteng

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by mdiehl
[B]Food.

Rice, specifically.

By 1939, Japan's civilian economy was on its way into the toilet. They were importing food by the megaton from anywhere they could get it. PI was a much better area for rice farming than Korea and close enough to the Home Islands to save a little on shipping and other infrastructure overhead costs. [/B][/QUOTE]

Ok I can agree somewhat with that, however..food is not normally
part of the war economy.

_____________________________

(in reply to Raverdave)

Post #: 23

Two questions - 5/4/2003 2:19:52 AM

DeadpanDevilDog

Posts: 12
Joined: 10/22/2002
From: Fort Belvoir, VA
Status: offline

Anyone can answer these:

1. How much easier would it be to take Port Moresby in January or February of 1942, versus May or later?
2. Could the Japanese gain anything strategically vital by occupying Ceylon, or would it just be a case of overextension?

(in reply to Raverdave)

Post #: 24

Re: Two questions - 5/4/2003 2:37:44 AM

Chiteng

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline

(in reply to Raverdave)

Post #: 25

Re: Two questions - 5/5/2003 10:24:54 AM

TIMJOT

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by DeadpanDevilDog
[B]Anyone can answer these:

1. How much easier would it be to take Port Moresby in January or February of 1942, versus May or later?
2. Could the Japanese gain anything strategically vital by occupying Ceylon, or would it just be a case of overextension? [/B][/QUOTE]

1. In Jan-Feb. PM could be had with a small SNLF detachement. Not sure how long they could hold it though, without substantial build up.

2. Ceylon's Capture makes the Bay of Bengal a Japanese lake. Not sure what good that does you unless you intend to invade northern India.

(in reply to Raverdave)

Post #: 26

BASIC PROBLEM... - 5/17/2003 6:58:54 AM

Mike Scholl

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

Raverdave's first suggestion, that of finishing of China, is
a problem. The Japanese HAD been trying to "finish off China"
since 1937! With NO other major commitments such as they
have in 1942. Any system which makes it possible for them
to do so once the War in the Pacific has actually started is
inherantly flawed. This was a MAJOR problem with the old SPI
game..., and will hopefully be avoided in this new effort.

China is simply TOO big, and there are TOO many Chinese.
The more you try to occupy, the greater the need for garrisoning,
and the fewer troops you have at the front. Bringing in another
few Divisions from the Russian Front is not going to change this
basic fact. For a nation of 90,000,000 to try to conquer a nation
of 500,000,000 at the same time it deals with fighting the world's
greatest industrial power on a 10,000 mile front and the world's
largest Colonial Power on another 1000 mile front is simply not
a rational or realistic goal.

We worry about the game being accurate interms of how far
cn a given aircraft type fly with a given bomb load, or how much
supply a certain unit requires to function fully. Let's also make
sure that the major strategic questions are dealt with accurately
as well.

(in reply to Raverdave)

Post #: 27

Re: BASIC PROBLEM... - 5/17/2003 9:30:07 AM

TIMJOT

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mike Scholl
[B]Raverdave's first suggestion, that of finishing of China, is
a problem. The Japanese HAD been trying to "finish off China"
since 1937! With NO other major commitments such as they
have in 1942. Any system which makes it possible for them
to do so once the War in the Pacific has actually started is
inherantly flawed. This was a MAJOR problem with the old SPI
game..., and will hopefully be avoided in this new effort.

China is simply TOO big, and there are TOO many Chinese.
The more you try to occupy, the greater the need for garrisoning,
and the fewer troops you have at the front. Bringing in another
few Divisions from the Russian Front is not going to change this
basic fact. For a nation of 90,000,000 to try to conquer a nation
of 500,000,000 at the same time it deals with fighting the world's
greatest industrial power on a 10,000 mile front and the world's
largest Colonial Power on another 1000 mile front is simply not
a rational or realistic goal.

We worry about the game being accurate interms of how far
cn a given aircraft type fly with a given bomb load, or how much
supply a certain unit requires to function fully. Let's also make
sure that the major strategic questions are dealt with accurately
as well. [/B][/QUOTE]

I think their might be way of solving the China problem, if not finishing her off, so to speak. That would be to invade northern India with some of those Kwantung army divisions. Now before everyone jumps on me that India was not realistically conquerable historically. Im not advocateing conquering India. I am suggesting occupying northeast india. Bangledesh specifically, which would along with the capture of the Burma road would effectively cut off India from outside supply. With the occupation of NE India "Hump" flights would be impossible. Although in gross tonnage these flights might seem insignificant, they were extremely important in maintaining the politcal control of the KMT over China. It was only through the controll and distribution of these supplies of these supplies that Chang Kai Shek was able to excert controll of the various warlords that comprised the real power in china. Take away his source of power and the KMT falls like a deck of cards. Then the IJA might have been able to broker individual deals with the warloards playing one of the other. Resulting possibly into a status quo arrangement, with Japan maintaining control of the coastal regions and individual warlord proxy states maintaining control and automony in the interior.

Now in game terms, China should only have a minimum indigenous supply available. To prevent the degrading of these units. A certain minumum supply from outside sources would be required to maintain supply, readiness, morale, ect... for Nationalist forces. This would model the importance of keeping the burma road and hump supply routes open. A player neglecting China would risk loseing it.

BTW, vice versa the Japanese player should be required to maintian a certain troop and supply level in China also or a Japanese player would risk loseing it.

(in reply to Raverdave)

Post #: 28

Re: alaska history - 5/17/2003 10:43:39 PM

Drex

Posts: 2524
Joined: 9/13/2000
From: Chico,california
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by elcid
[B]Someone does not know their Alaska history. The Aleutians are the SHORT ROAD to Tokyo!!! Indeed, the surrender instructions were broadcast from Adak, because the signal was much more reliable over the shorter distance. In fact, there was a plan dating BEFORE December 1941 to conduct an offensive via the Aleutians and Siberian Russia. The ALCAN highway was built in 5 months BEFORE PEARL HARBOR as merely the FIRST leg of the logistic line for this operation. The road was to terminate in Nome, Alaska where it would sea link to a point in Siberia for extension. Further, the North American side was to upgrade to a railroad. Extensive surveys were conducted by Reeve, among others, for Gen. Simon Bolevar Buckner. Many airfields were built and this route became the MOST IMPORTANT for ferry of aircraft to the USSR. However, Stalin would not consider offensive operations, and the ALCAN became only a supply line to defend Alaska.

While the Aleutians indeed became a "sideshow" - except to the Canadians who regarded them as vital - often they sent more help than the US when a request was made for reinforcements - they were the testing ground for tactics. There was a disaster when US and Canadian troops landed on opposite ends of a valley and advanced to contact - with each other!!! The idea of scouts was pioneered by the Eskimo Scouts and their use near in time to operations became standard operating procedure. This is only one example. The Northern approach was a concern for the Japanese and it is the real reason they occupied the Western Aleutians. They did not know that Cook Inlet was a valuable oil resource and they did not think in terms of bombing Boeing in Seattle (the biggest building in the world was the Boeing Renton Plant) which is in range from Anchorage, much less Kodiak. But the Aleutians could have been used offensively by either side.

The weather story is stuff and nonsense. Alaska weather is rough in Fairbanks, but that is 500 miles north of Anchorage. The Japan Current keeps the Aleutians ice free year around, and snow does not occur at all in the vast majority of years in the Aleutians or in the Panhandle. Anchorage weather is comparable to Seattle, except night is longer in December and day is longer in June. The Jungles of the south Pacific are much more hostile environments, especially if you teach your troops to drink enough water (a big issue in Alaska, believe it or not, but at least there IS water to drink in Alaska).

There is a series of books called the Forgotten War (4 in all) as well as the wierd Silent Siege III by Burt Webber. It is devoted to documenting Japanese attacks on North America, and is without peer re the baloon bombings. But it also mentions all attacks of all kinds (although it is not well written, and the author believes in strange things, including Japanese atomic bombs the size of a matchbox - for which he has an authentic Japanese source - but that does not make it true). [/B][/QUOTE] I thought poor visibility was a problem both for ships and planes in this area due to extensive fog banks.

(in reply to Raverdave)

Post #: 29

Re: China - 5/17/2003 10:57:42 PM

Drex

Posts: 2524
Joined: 9/13/2000
From: Chico,california
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mogami
[B]Hi, Also don't count on the added troops steam rolling China. It's not simply a question of numbers. Supply will be very difficult.
While the Chinese are not that offensive they possess great defensive power. The China offensive could drain the replacement pools and supply levels without yielding any signifcant gains.

We'll see

(This is not PacWar. Both China and India are VERY large with many bases and restricted movement paths.) [/B][/QUOTE] I remember a discussion between you and Jeremy Pritchard in the PacWar forum about the use of China-based Japanese troops in other theaters. You were vehemently for it and it looks like WitP has followed your lead on this. But didn't Japan based it divisions in China not only to defeat Chiang Kai-Shek but also to deter Russian incursions into Mongolia,etc?

(in reply to Raverdave)

Post #: 30

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

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

Page: [1] 2 next > >>