Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

 
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 >> Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
- 5/29/2003 2:44:58 AM   
Chiteng

 

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline 		Well after the wonderfull and revealing examples of B-17 strikes
against ships in UV.

If Matrix intends to allow that same ability in WitP.

I just saw 9 B-17 strike at 6k feet hit 57 Zeros, ignore them
and go in and get a hit. They lost NOTHING.
The strike was from Cairn and the Target Rabual.

So, if the B-17 is going to be allowed to be such a be-all and end-all.....

And if we actually get control of USA production.....

It is perfectly feasible to have an ALL B-17 strategy.

Why build expensive CV that might sink?
Just build lots and lots of bombers.

If 9 B-17 can get one hit..99 should get 9 hits.
9 hits can sink a CV.

In fact...since the Japs have no means to counter this weapon,
it is quite sensible.

Just bomb everything with mass B-17 raids and move in behind the destroyed targets.

Just convert to TOTAL B-17 production.

They sweep Subs, they destroy enemy bases, they sink enemy ships...they do everything except occupy land...so you still need
some infantry, but the enemy garrisons will be starving after
you sink all the enemy ships with your B-17s, so they should not put up that bug a fight.

_____________________________

“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 #: 31
- 5/29/2003 5:26:32 AM   
pasternakski


Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline 		I know where I'd like a B-17 to fly up...

_____________________________

Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.

(in reply to Raverdave)
Post #: 32
- 5/29/2003 5:31:58 AM   
Chiteng

 

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by pasternakski
[B]I know where I'd like a B-17 to fly up... [/B][/QUOTE]

Does Pasternaski even play the game? I suspect not.
Again he violates the rules of the forum.

_____________________________

“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 #: 33
- 5/29/2003 6:29:22 AM   
madflava13


Posts: 1530
Joined: 2/7/2001
From: Alexandria, VA
Status: offline 		Coming thru, demand satisfaction...
I accept your challenge sir. I choose pistols at sunrise...

Anyways, not to go crazy and get this back on topic, but can anyone tell me if its feasible/sensible/etc. to bypass Hong Kong and Singapore as the Japanese player? Besides the ports, what were the advantages of actually capturing these bases? I'm wondering because it seems there are enough ports and airfields in the area that a smaller force might be used to contain and cut off the Allied troops, allowing the heavy units to move on -- to Timor, Java, Borneo, NW Australia even...

Thoughts?

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Raverdave)
Post #: 34
- 5/29/2003 6:53:08 AM   
Drex

 

Posts: 2524
Joined: 9/13/2000
From: Chico,california
Status: offline 		Both Hong Kong and Singapore were well developed ports That the Japanese could use, Singapore was the more valuable for its location near the east Indies oilfields. But in addition, the British sustained a huge loss in prestige (not to mention men and material) when these two bastions fell. Even though the Brits knew Hong Kong could not be held, they still sent Canadian reinforcements in before the war started. Don't think the Canucks appreciated tthe sacrifice. I don't think the Japanese could ignore these bases.

(in reply to Raverdave)
Post #: 35
- 5/29/2003 7:09:05 AM   
TIMJOT

 

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline 		Singapore is critical, You leave that base and any good allied player will make you pay. Without it you will never be able develope and utilize the resourcse in NEI. Hong Kong probably can be safely bypassed and eventually starved out.

(in reply to Raverdave)
Post #: 36
- 5/29/2003 7:18:37 AM   
madflava13


Posts: 1530
Joined: 2/7/2001
From: Alexandria, VA
Status: offline 		Thats basically what I assumed as far as Singapore is concerned... I'm interested in the idea of skipping Hong Kong for a bit to take on bigger and better things though - then coming back later once the perimeter of the empire is secure (assuming there's anything left after starvation kicks in).

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Raverdave)
Post #: 37
THE THING ABOUT HONG KONG IS... - 5/29/2003 9:40:57 AM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline 		...it was taken by the Japanese troops already in the area
controlling Canton, etc. The troops were there, they marched
overland to the target, so there isn't really much of a commit-
ment on the Japanese side anyway. Won't gain you much to
not attack it, does gain you something to get it over with quickly.

(in reply to Raverdave)
Post #: 38
- 5/29/2003 9:47:57 AM   
TIMJOT

 

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline 		Well, I believe only 1 IJA division was used to take HK, but Im sure players could find plenty of better things to do with that division if they so wished. Something like taking that pesky PM in Dec 41 might be in order. Not sure what the incentive would be to take HK. If there were to be ship capture in the game, that might be a good reason, but that is unlikely. In the end it might be a matter of expediencey. It probably will be faster to take HK and embark your troops there for other operations, rather than marching them overland to the nearest friendly port.

(in reply to Raverdave)
Post #: 39
- 5/29/2003 9:52:01 AM   
TIMJOT

 

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline 		Sorry Mike for steping on your post a bit, but yeah like you said it should be faster to simply take HK rather than march those IJA troops eslewhere.

(in reply to Raverdave)
Post #: 40
MY POINT WAS.... - 5/29/2003 9:53:51 AM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by TIMJOT
[B]Well, I believe only 1 IJA division was used to take HK, but Im sure players could find plenty of better things to do with that division if they so wished. Something like taking that pesky PM in Dec 41 might be in order. Not sure what the incentive would be to take HK. If there were to be ship capture in the game, that might be a good reason, but that is unlikely. In the end it might be a matter of expediencey. It probably will be faster to take HK and embark your troops there for other operations, rather than marching them overland to the nearest friendly port. [/B][/QUOTE]

...That this Division was already in the area for a reason---
it was garrisoning occupied Chinese territory, You might be able
to use an "RCT" from it elsewhere on December 7th---but the majority would be stuck there anyway.

(in reply to Raverdave)
Post #: 41
Re: MY POINT WAS.... - 5/29/2003 10:01:03 AM   
TIMJOT

 

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mike Scholl
[B]...That this Division was already in the area for a reason---
it was garrisoning occupied Chinese territory, You might be able
to use an "RCT" from it elsewhere on December 7th---but the majority would be stuck there anyway. [/B][/QUOTE]

Historically that division, I believe it was the 32nd IIRC, was sent immediately to NEI ( specifically Sumatra )after capturing HK, It was replaced by the 4th Division for garrison duty, but that division too was later sent to help out Homma when things bogged down in the PI. Not sure what replaced 4th division though, but the point is there should be enough lesser units available for garrison duty. In the end I agree if you want to use the 32nd Division for other operations your best bet is to capture HK as fast as possible.

(in reply to Raverdave)
Post #: 42
Re: Re: MY POINT WAS.... - 5/29/2003 10:03:26 AM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by TIMJOT
[B]Historically that division, I believe it was the 32nd IIRC, was sent immediately to NEI ( specifically Sumatra )after capturing HK, It was replaced by the 4th Division for garrison duty, but that division too was later sent to help out Homma when things bogged down in the PI. Not sure what replaced 4th division though, but the point is there should be enough lesser units available for garrison duty. In the end I agree if you want to use the 32nd Division for other operations your best bet is to capture HK as fast as possible. [/B][/QUOTE]

THANKS. I knew some one out there would have the actual facts
at hand.

(in reply to Raverdave)
Post #: 43
- 5/29/2003 12:00:06 PM   
madflava13


Posts: 1530
Joined: 2/7/2001
From: Alexandria, VA
Status: offline 		Thanks for the info guys... I must admit my knowledge of the early japanese movements and units is a little shaky. I appreciate having some people around who can set me straight.

Does anyone have a suggestion or two for a good book on the land combat in SE Asia/Malaysia? Info on who fought who where specifically. I know practically nothing about the Dutch units, for example.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Raverdave)
Post #: 44
Clarification please... - 5/29/2003 4:15:49 PM   
Apollo11


Posts: 24082
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline 		Hi all,

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chiteng
[B]


I just saw 9 B-17 strike at 6k feet hit 57 Zeros, ignore them
and go in and get a hit. They lost NOTHING.
The strike was from Cairn and the Target Rabual.


[/B][/QUOTE]

Cairns to Rabaul is too far away (Cooktown to Rabaul is as
well too far away).

If Allied player looses Port Moresy the Rabaul is temporarily safe.

Please clarify this...


Leo "Apollo11"

(in reply to Raverdave)
Post #: 45
Hong Kong - 5/29/2003 6:15:41 PM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Hi, Concerning Hong Kong. It is captured by the 38th Div of the 16th Army. I always send minesweepers and transports to Hong Kong on turn 1. After the div captures the base it loads onto the transports for movement south.

_____________________________






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

(in reply to Raverdave)
Post #: 46
Re: Clarification please... - 5/29/2003 6:47:17 PM   
Chiteng

 

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Apollo11
[B]Hi all,



Cairns to Rabaul is too far away (Cooktown to Rabaul is as
well too far away).

If Allied player looses Port Moresy the Rabaul is temporarily safe.

Please clarify this...


Leo "Apollo11" [/B][/QUOTE]

I was wrong it was Cooktown

_____________________________

“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 #: 47
Re: Hong Kong - 5/29/2003 7:14:36 PM   
TIMJOT

 

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mogami
[B]Hi, Concerning Hong Kong. It is captured by the 38th Div of the 16th Army. I always send minesweepers and transports to Hong Kong on turn 1. After the div captures the base it loads onto the transports for movement south. [/B][/QUOTE]

My bad, thanks for the clarification Mogami. I knew it was a 30 something division. Your strategy sounds spot on with the historical. Just for kicks how far is the nearest friendly port for the Japanese in the area?

(in reply to Raverdave)
Post #: 48
Re: Re: Hong Kong - 5/30/2003 12:02:28 AM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by TIMJOT
[B]My bad, thanks for the clarification Mogami. I knew it was a 30 something division. Your strategy sounds spot on with the historical. Just for kicks how far is the nearest friendly port for the Japanese in the area? [/B][/QUOTE]

Hi, The 38th begins in a port. But in the time it takes for transports to move there the 38th can capture HK and the transports simply move there instead.

_____________________________






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

(in reply to Raverdave)
Post #: 49
Re: Re: Re: Hong Kong - 5/30/2003 1:26:33 AM   
TIMJOT

 

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mogami
[B]Hi, The 38th begins in a port. But in the time it takes for transports to move there the 38th can capture HK and the transports simply move there instead. [/B][/QUOTE]

Hmm... If the 38th starts in a port then I guess a by-pass HK is a vialble option after all. I can see a player might not want to fatique his troops by attacking HK , but instead sends the division off somewhere he believes more important.

May I ask, how many days does it generally take you to capture HK in your Alpha testing?

Also as an aside. How does the 38th Division cross Kowloon bay to attack HK island? Do you need to embark it on barges? More to the point how does the came handle crossing bodies of water like Kowloon bay and Singapore straights that are within a hex?

Any insight is greatly apreciated

Thanks

(in reply to Raverdave)
Post #: 50
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hong Kong - 5/30/2003 8:52:10 AM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by TIMJOT
[B]Hmm... If the 38th starts in a port then I guess a by-pass HK is a vialble option after all. I can see a player might not want to fatique his troops by attacking HK , but instead sends the division off somewhere he believes more important.

May I ask, how many days does it generally take you to capture HK in your Alpha testing?

Also as an aside. How does the 38th Division cross Kowloon bay to attack HK island? Do you need to embark it on barges? More to the point how does the came handle crossing bodies of water like Kowloon bay and Singapore straights that are within a hex?

Any insight is greatly apreciated

Thanks [/B][/QUOTE]

Hi, I think the Japanese captured HK in 18? days (I think it surrendered on the 25th) In the game it only takes 3-4 days. (but this is alpha the unit may not be dug in (in the data base) That would slow things down (but I often send a few extra units. )
In the game the units just move (march) onto HK.

There are a few rules not yet in place (riverine movement is being studied)
In game terms I find it is just as quick to take HK (since there are not enough transports in port to move it.) So it can sit and do nothing or it can take HK. (and then board transports there.)

_____________________________






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

(in reply to Raverdave)
Post #: 51
- 5/30/2003 10:17:38 AM   
TIMJOT

 

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline 		Thanks for the info Mogami, it will be interesting to see what they come up with regards to riverine movement.

(in reply to Raverdave)
Post #: 52
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.875