Curiousity : IJN experts ?

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Curiousity : IJN experts ?

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

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room >> Curiousity : IJN experts ?

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Curiousity : IJN experts ? - 9/8/2017 1:36:24 PM

Macclan5

Posts: 1065
Joined: 3/24/2016
From: Toronto Canada
Status: offline

Hey friends.

Admittedly I have no experience with the Imperial OOB nor mechanics.

But curiosity is begging me to ask some questions as I hope to learn. No need to give away all your trade secrets - but is the concept of 'traditional wisdom' out the window ?

(These are PBEM games tactics obviously not vs the AI; and each Allied player will react differently)

Recently in a number of Allied AARs I see some very interesting developments. Not to call out 1 AAR in particular but it appears to be more common - unusual timelines - and unusual choice of invasion sites. Now obviously a "historical start" vs not will influence the direction.

Further experienced IJN players may be experimenting; but this seems to be more common than I ever understood. Perhaps this is 'auto victory' influenced and I don't understand the potential well enough ????

What I thought is conventional Japanese wisdom:

1) Pearl (if historical); maybe a 2nd day pot shot just for fun.
2) Heavily bomb / invade Philippines and Manila/Clark et al. The sub/ship damage has greater long lasting impact than a few Pearl USN BBs that spend years in drydock upgrades anyway
3) Mersing Gambit
4) Get Palembang early (March 42); then DEI, worry about grinding down Singapore latter.
5) Go heavy or all out in China
6) Select next target: i.e. one of (i) push thru Burma for the Indian gambit, (ii) push through Darwin for the Oz Gambit, (iii) push through Noumea for the Deep South Pacific gambit, (iv) push through Midway / Pearl / Victoria for the west coast gambit.

What new :

1) IJN Players leaving Luzon untouched

at least early. Can Luzon wait like Singapore ?

2) IJN Players leaving Guam / Wake untouched at least early ? Moving into their longer term "6" (above) targets without secure line of sea communications supply behind them.

3) Much less 'dedication' to the China Blitzkrieg than thought ? It was my impression that the all out China Blitz was critical to free up troops and gain supply resources you can suck out via the land bridge road ways to the Home Island ?

4) Obviously one reacts to the Allied moves but.. Keeping the KB intact sort of between the Banda and Bismark Sea.. or Kendari and Rabul. This allows the IJN to retain initiative in striking a stunning blow upon the Allies. Not sending the "big KB" to Western Oz, the Indian Ocean, and only to the Central Pacific as required ?

--

Anyway if any experts care to opine on 1, 2, 3, 4 of "whats new" I would welcome the insight.

< Message edited by Macclan5 -- 9/8/2017 1:37:14 PM >

_____________________________

A People that values its privileges above it's principles will soon loose both. Dwight D Eisenhower.

Post #: 1

RE: Curiousity : IJN experts ? - 9/8/2017 3:49:09 PM

Lokasenna

Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

1) Singapore can't wait like Luzon can wait. Singapore needs to fall in January, and certainly by February, or any IJN expansion is going to be severely stunted. Probably. If it's an ahistorical first turn with those LCUs being sent elsewhere, then I can see how a player might focus on something else entirely and the British forces in Malaysia aren't really enough to do much other than annoy Japan. However - it must be taken eventually, and delaying only lets the Allied player build forts/etc. So it's gotta fall earlier rather than later. Luzon is another matter entirely. It really can wait - the US doesn't have the capability to do much here. And assuming the rest of the SRA/DEI is taken (Borneo, Celebes, etc.) then it really is completely cut off.

2) This doesn't surprise me. Guam could be left for quite some time. Wake could be annoying in terms of Catalina search range from there, but nothing all that bad.

3) A "China Blitzkrieg" is actually an enormous investment of supplies and LCUs. It's a "spend money to make money" kind of thing when it comes to what you say: free up troops. Have to commit even more troops to free up the ones that are there now, and it takes time.

4) I don't really have a comment on this one.

(in reply to Macclan5)

Post #: 2

RE: Curiousity : IJN experts ? - 9/8/2017 4:23:30 PM

Macclan5

Posts: 1065
Joined: 3/24/2016
From: Toronto Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

1) Singapore can't wait like Luzon can wait. Singapore needs to fall in January, and certainly by February, or any IJN expansion is going to be severely stunted. Probably. If it's an ahistorical first turn with those LCUs being sent elsewhere, then I can see how a player might focus on something else entirely and the British forces in Malaysia aren't really enough to do much other than annoy Japan. However - it must be taken eventually, and delaying only lets the Allied player build forts/etc. So it's gotta fall earlier rather than later.

Luzon is another matter entirely. It really can wait - the US doesn't have the capability to do much here. And assuming the rest of the SRA/DEI is taken (Borneo, Celebes, etc.) then it really is completely cut off.

Ahhh thanks...

Perhaps I misunderstood.

Singapore:

I thought the Mersing Gambit was to cut off British troops from "reaching Singapore" but really the actual conquest could be delayed.

i.e. despite the inherent supplies and industry you can patiently wait it the truncated garrison with poor leadership. It falls if cut off.

Luzon :

If I understand then the Luzon bombardment focus (air / naval) is really designed to nullify USN submarines (especially) that can be problematic in the latter war years. However if sufficiently cut off as indicated the actual occupation of Luzon can wait

_____________________________

A People that values its privileges above it's principles will soon loose both. Dwight D Eisenhower.

(in reply to Lokasenna)

Post #: 3

RE: Curiousity : IJN experts ? - 9/8/2017 5:16:54 PM

Grfin Zeppelin

Posts: 1515
Joined: 12/3/2007
From: Germany
Status: offline

The Mersing Gambit is to accelerate the fall of Singapore and to free the troops and have acess to it earlier.
Cuting of the troops means they are not in Singapore and so it falls faster.

< Message edited by Gr�fin Zeppelin -- 9/8/2017 5:23:36 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Macclan5)

Post #: 4

RE: Curiousity : IJN experts ? - 9/8/2017 6:06:37 PM

Bullwinkle58

Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Macclan5

If I understand then the Luzon bombardment focus (air / naval) is really designed to nullify USN submarines (especially) that can be problematic in the latter war years. However if sufficiently cut off as indicated the actual occupation of Luzon can wait

The subs themselves are meh. Most are old and withdraw. The Mk14 is useless and not a danger to IJN operations around the region in 1942. Over the war the Allies get circa 400 subs, so sinking a handful at Manila isn't a big deal. There's some VPs (the support ships at Manila provide more), but not a huge deal. There are more VPs available at Manila than at PH (probably), and the fuel cost and KB time away is much lower, so that argues for a Manila strike rather than PH. But hitting Manila's naval forces isn't a magic bullet.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Macclan5)

Post #: 5

RE: Curiousity : IJN experts ? - 9/8/2017 6:55:32 PM

Lowpe

Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline

It all depends upon what kind of game you want...and what scenario you are playing.

Relative playing experience also matters early on...

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)

Post #: 6

RE: Curiousity : IJN experts ? - 9/8/2017 8:14:00 PM

Lokasenna

Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: Macclan5

If I understand then the Luzon bombardment focus (air / naval) is really designed to nullify USN submarines (especially) that can be problematic in the latter war years. However if sufficiently cut off as indicated the actual occupation of Luzon can wait

The subs themselves are meh. Most are old and withdraw. The Mk14 is useless and not a danger to IJN operations around the region in 1942. Over the war the Allies get circa 400 subs, so sinking a handful at Manila isn't a big deal. There's some VPs (the support ships at Manila provide more), but not a huge deal. There are more VPs available at Manila than at PH (probably), and the fuel cost and KB time away is much lower, so that argues for a Manila strike rather than PH. But hitting Manila's naval forces isn't a magic bullet.

I disagree. I think I sunk 5 BBs in my recent start of a Japan game. That's way more VPs (~700-800) than is available in all of Manila harbor on December 7. Not committing a full KB strike to Pearl Harbor is mindboggling to me. Sunk BBs are sunk BBs.

Some of the subs can be useful. IIRC a few of them (Shark class?) can lay the big sub mines that you produce for the whole war. Extremely irritating that the other sub-laid mine that the Gato- and Balao- classes can lay is only produced during 1942 for stock scenarios, and the other mine that is laid by the subs that withdraw or only have a few remain on map is produced for the entire war.

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)

Post #: 7

RE: Curiousity : IJN experts ? - 9/8/2017 8:21:46 PM

Lowpe

Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline

+1 Lok.

Those slow battleships are nothing but torture at the endgame for Japan.

(in reply to Lokasenna)

Post #: 8

RE: Curiousity : IJN experts ? - 9/8/2017 10:23:21 PM

Bullwinkle58

Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: Macclan5

If I understand then the Luzon bombardment focus (air / naval) is really designed to nullify USN submarines (especially) that can be problematic in the latter war years. However if sufficiently cut off as indicated the actual occupation of Luzon can wait

The subs themselves are meh. Most are old and withdraw. The Mk14 is useless and not a danger to IJN operations around the region in 1942. Over the war the Allies get circa 400 subs, so sinking a handful at Manila isn't a big deal. There's some VPs (the support ships at Manila provide more), but not a huge deal. There are more VPs available at Manila than at PH (probably), and the fuel cost and KB time away is much lower, so that argues for a Manila strike rather than PH. But hitting Manila's naval forces isn't a magic bullet.

I disagree. I think I sunk 5 BBs in my recent start of a Japan game. That's way more VPs (~700-800) than is available in all of Manila harbor on December 7. Not committing a full KB strike to Pearl Harbor is mindboggling to me. Sunk BBs are sunk BBs.

Some of the subs can be useful. IIRC a few of them (Shark class?) can lay the big sub mines that you produce for the whole war. Extremely irritating that the other sub-laid mine that the Gato- and Balao- classes can lay is only produced during 1942 for stock scenarios, and the other mine that is laid by the subs that withdraw or only have a few remain on map is produced for the entire war.

That's why I said probably. Five sunk is way above average. If five were guaranteed then sure, PH every time. I've never had more than two in four PBEM games. But I've never had second day strikes that I recall either. If you can get the big xAPs, the sub tenders, Langley, etc. Manila is a fair bag if you add 5-7 subs. Maybe not even two BBs, but you get the KB in theater right away to hunt the Great Fleeing.

I mostly drop sub-laid mines after mid/late 1942. I convert the SSTs, so those big ones go away, and the others carry so few per trip I'd rather have them patrolling once the torpedoes heal and radar upgrades are done. Allied mines are pretty nerfed compared to RL for sure though.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Lokasenna)

Post #: 9

RE: Curiousity : IJN experts ? - 9/8/2017 10:40:56 PM

Encircled

Posts: 2024
Joined: 12/30/2010
From: Northern England
Status: offline

Don't forget that a PH strike on the airfield as well cripples/destroys a lot of the US Catalinas as well.

Makes a massive difference to the Allied search capacity.

_____________________________

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)

Post #: 10

RE: Curiousity : IJN experts ? - 9/8/2017 11:22:45 PM

Aurorus

Posts: 1314
Joined: 5/26/2014
Status: offline

The Japanese player should plan their first turn with a long-term strategy in mind for the first 6 months of the war. With regard to Luzon, the Japanese player can 1) Go big and try to take it out immediately. 2) Completely ignore it for a time. 3) land 2 divisions, capture a number of important bases (especially the size 3 port at Batangas) and build an airfield to support future action there. This will tie up 2 division for several months, however, and anything less than 2 full division can thrown off the island by the allies. Completely ignoring Luzon, however, does require a certain commitment to maintaining a perimeter that includes assets capable of striking any resupply convoys that try to sneak by the Marianas.

Unlike Luzon, Malaysia cannot be ignored. It threatens the DEI especially Palembang and hinders naval support for operations in Burma.

With regard to the Pearl Strike, in my opinion, a strike without any follow up should only be conducted if the IJN player is committed to an early CentPac and SocPac campaign with the objective of taking Midway, Wake, Johnston, and New Caledonia etc... . Otherwise, it is probably best to try to follow up. Otherwise, KB is out of position to support the major Japanese operations for the entire month of December and the gain is marginal: one or maybe 2 sunk BBs. Mod and game version are also something to take into account for the Pearl Strike. With the new Beta, (I think it is the new Beta which makes the change), strikes on Pearl do not automatically coordinate in the first weeks of the war. This complicates a Pearl strike. Also, in DBB, aircraft torpedos do not always penetrate BB armor, further reducing the utility of the Pearl strike. Basically, between the new Beta and DBB, almost every incentive to strike Pearl has been removed because achieving anything that resembles historical results is nigh impossible in a one-time strike and follow-up strikes are complicated greatly.

I agree with Bullwinkle about the subs at Manila and have absolutely no idea why any Japanese player would obsess over a handful of subs. I think it is far better from both a strategic and VP perspective to go for TFZ and try to sink TKs in the DEI. If the allies face any limitations, it is from fuel. The more the Japanese player can limit the westward movement of fuel from the U.S., the better.

As to China, I think that many Japanese players err in using too much supply and other assets in China. A Japanse player should have objectives in China and design a plan to support these objectives. Taking the whole of China is optional, in my opinion, and probably not the best use of limited supply and assets from a strategic perspective as well as a VP perspective. Chinese units are worth a quarter of the VPs of other allied units. Chinese bases, other than Chungking, are not major VP centers for either side, and Chungking requires a vast commitment. From a strategic perspective, the allies have access to unlimited supply everywhere on the map, except China. If the allies want to make a major effort to start a Chinese offensive in the late-game, that is OK by me.

(in reply to Macclan5)

Post #: 11

RE: Curiousity : IJN experts ? - 9/8/2017 11:58:25 PM

Numdydar

Posts: 3211
Joined: 2/13/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Macclan5

What new :

1) IJN Players leaving Luzon untouched at least early. Can Luzon wait like Singapore ?

2) IJN Players leaving Guam / Wake untouched at least early ? Moving into their longer term "6" (above) targets without secure line of sea communications supply behind them.

3) Much less 'dedication' to the China Blitzkrieg than thought ? It was my impression that the all out China Blitz was critical to free up troops and gain supply resources you can suck out via the land bridge road ways to the Home Island ?

4) Obviously one reacts to the Allied moves but.. Keeping the KB intact sort of between the Banda and Bismark Sea.. or Kendari and Rabul. This allows the IJN to retain initiative in striking a stunning blow upon the Allies. Not sending the "big KB" to Western Oz, the Indian Ocean, and only to the Central Pacific as required ?

These comments ONLY apply to Stock Scenario's. Both with a Dec 7 start date.

1. I do reallocate some troops from the PI invasion if a non-historical start is an option for me. I will tend to use these troops in a Borneo invasion. Especially to support the southern part of the island. Building up the airfields there really help in taking Singapore and points south.

But I do not care about the subs at Manila as it is pretty easy to defend against them.

2. I do take Guam in the initial push. Mainly because having a US flag on my map screen in that location really bothers me

I do wait with Wake until later though

3. China is a must for me. It is just too easy for Japan to overrun the entire country and get an AV in '43. Plus it is a lot of fun for Japan

But since I ignore AVs as Japan the AV does not matter much to me other than a sense of pride of getting one

4. Ah the KB. So many targets so much time getting there lol. I may or may not do a second day at Pearl.
One time I actually sailed them over to Burma to help out with the fighting there. I'll never do that again

Gain was too low for the losses received.

It just depends on what area I want to concentrate on. SoPac, CenPac, DEI, etc. It also matters where my CV pilots will take the fewest losses in regard to what is gained. As keeping quality up is one of the most important thing a JFB can do. As once lost you will have a very hard time getting it back up. If at all.

CenPac is the most conservative as you have good supply lines and can support the 2nd expansion phase very easily. All the rest requires trade offs with time and space once the Allies figure out where the KB is, then it gives them much greater freedom elsewhere. As noted earlier, it all depends on what you as the Japanese player want to accomplish. Besides just avoiding a Midway disaster

< Message edited by Numdydar -- 9/8/2017 11:59:22 PM >

(in reply to Macclan5)

Post #: 12

RE: Curiousity : IJN experts ? - 9/11/2017 2:37:57 PM

Chickenboy

Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

Macclan5,

Interesting observations.

I don't claim to be an 'expert' at playing the IJN, but have had some success over the years. Here's my take.

Luzon is an important stepping stone. I can't fathom leaving such a bulwark untouched until months later. Playing as Allies against the AI-with a typical robust Luzon Japanese effort-I can hold Luzon indefinitely provided that I get supplies to them. Once the PA (Philippine Army) forces work off their disruption and their squads replenish sufficiently, they can be a formidable force. Particularly if given a chance to entrench in favorable terrain (e.g., Clark, Bataan, Manila). That could be opening up a real Pandora's box for the Japanese player in the long term.

There are lots of ways to play the Philippines as a Japanese player. In my non-historical PBEM starts, I traditionally keep KB in the Philippines area to whack Manila. Along with the LBA from Formosa, I can neutralize the American AF on Luzon and also neutralize any shipping in the Northern and Central Philippines. In my most recent PBEM, I sank 25 submarines and the usual other ships on Luzon in the first two turns. Yeah, that's right. All of the subs.

Blasting Luzon on the first turn and then at least investing it quickly has a few benefits. With the diminished Allied resistance in the waters of the PI and Eastern DEI, it permits very rapid exploitation of these areas and further accelerates the time table for landings on Sumatra and Java. By taking all of the Allied naval assets in this area, particularly the subs, KB can operate more securely in the waters to support these efforts. With their paucity of 'eyes and ears' in theatre, the Allies are blind to the great calamity about to befall them. Resistance becomes futile and crumbles quickly. The capable British capital ships Repulse and POW (and Boise and Houston) usually get out rather than attempt any heroics.

Because of the time frame involved, I offer the Allied player to change his TF orders for POW and Repulse before turn one. If the Allied player forswears using the 'fortress Palembang' gambit (in stock scenarios, refineries there produce large amounts of supply that can be used to feed a sizeable army), then I forswear landing on Java with a division and a half on turn one too.

I don't understand why any Japanese player would think about leaving China alone. Although perhaps ahistoric, in the game the Japanese have a very capable force present on day one. If playing with rules about using PPs for reassigning restricted units outside of their restricted zones (and I do), the Japanese forces in China would be otherwise dawdling and wasting time. Why? Use them to harvest large numbers of Chinese units-particularly on the central plains. Many thousands of VPs can be had by liquidating Chinese units. The best time to do this is in 1942-before the Burma road and supply can be reestablished by the Allies. Post-1943 voluminous Allied supply into an unbowed China will be a significant problems for the Japanese. Deal with China quickly to avoid this.

Guam is essentially undefended early in the game. It doesn't make any sense to leave *any* Allied forces there atop your main LOS to Truk. A small SNLF unit can be tasked with this conquest. I have 'repurposed' the regiment+ that was originally ordered there onto more fruitful early war endeavors.

Wake is a tougher nut, so I can understanding waiting a bit for a more concerted effort. But it shouldn't be in Allied hands at the expiration of the amphibious bonus. If there's much delay, it should be roped off and observed closely. Efforts to either evacuate or reinforce should be met opportunistically.

The greatest downside that I see with the 'Manila first' KB effort is, as Encircled said, the intact Catalinas. This enhances the Allied search effort and reduces the ability to surprise the Allies with the IJN in the American Pacific areas.

_____________________________

(in reply to Macclan5)

Post #: 13

RE: Curiousity : IJN experts ? - 9/11/2017 3:39:10 PM

Macclan5

Posts: 1065
Joined: 3/24/2016
From: Toronto Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurorus

Mod and game version are also something to take into account for the Pearl Strike.....

Basically, between the new Beta and DBB, almost every incentive to strike Pearl has been removed because achieving anything that resembles historical results is nigh impossible in a one-time strike and follow-up strikes are complicated greatly.

Very informative and interesting thank you; indeed I did not think of this nor apply this to my question in general.

My questions were founded in the "reading Allied AAR' reviews as opposed to reading the Japanese AAR.

This indeed could be something I completely missed in my summary of 'conventional wisdom' having only experience in the GC verses AI.

_____________________________

A People that values its privileges above it's principles will soon loose both. Dwight D Eisenhower.

(in reply to Aurorus)

Post #: 14

RE: Curiousity : IJN experts ? - 9/11/2017 3:42:01 PM

Macclan5

Posts: 1065
Joined: 3/24/2016
From: Toronto Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurorus

As to China, I think that many Japanese players err in using too much supply and other assets in China. A Japanse player should have objectives in China and design a plan to support these objectives. Taking the whole of China is optional, in my opinion, and probably not the best use of limited supply and assets from a strategic perspective as well as a VP perspective. Chinese units are worth a quarter of the VPs of other allied units. Chinese bases, other than Chungking, are not major VP centers for either side, and Chungking requires a vast commitment. From a strategic perspective, the allies have access to unlimited supply everywhere on the map, except China. If the allies want to make a major effort to start a Chinese offensive in the late-game, that is OK by me.

I read your 'thesis' on this recently in a AAR -Quisling : An AFB does Japan.

No offense intended.

It is and was very informative as well.

_____________________________

A People that values its privileges above it's principles will soon loose both. Dwight D Eisenhower.

(in reply to Aurorus)

Post #: 15

RE: Curiousity : IJN experts ? - 9/11/2017 3:52:44 PM

Macclan5

Posts: 1065
Joined: 3/24/2016
From: Toronto Canada
Status: offline

I thank all contributors.

Clearly there is often more than one correct opinion as often is...and context is important.

i.e. what game version, what long term strategy is entertained.

--

As I move through my second GC as an Allied Player (updated AI) I am finding some many dozens of deficiencies on my first play through. Imagine

Its amazing how inexperienced I was; but equally its fascinating to note I did do many things right and the learning curve of this game is 'entertainment in and of itself'. There is always something I hadn't considered. The pace is obviously much quicker as well.

--

I intend / entertain learning the Japanese side (vs AI and PDU Off); this advice will be invaluable.

...and then eventually a trial PBEM game through 2018... another opportunity to learn and experiment and have fun.

_____________________________

A People that values its privileges above it's principles will soon loose both. Dwight D Eisenhower.

(in reply to Macclan5)

Post #: 16

RE: Curiousity : IJN experts ? - 9/11/2017 11:33:33 PM

Aurorus

Posts: 1314
Joined: 5/26/2014
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Macclan5

I thank all contributors.

Clearly there is often more than one correct opinion as often is...and context is important.

i.e. what game version, what long term strategy is entertained.

--

As I move through my second GC as an Allied Player (updated AI) I am finding some many dozens of deficiencies on my first play through. Imagine

Its amazing how inexperienced I was; but equally its fascinating to note I did do many things right and the learning curve of this game is 'entertainment in and of itself'. There is always something I hadn't considered. The pace is obviously much quicker as well.

--

I intend / entertain learning the Japanese side (vs AI and PDU Off); this advice will be invaluable.

...and then eventually a trial PBEM game through 2018... another opportunity to learn and experiment and have fun.

Playing Japan against a human player is much different than againt the AI for many reasons. Against the AI, as Japan, you must use an orthodox strategy and not make moves outside the timeline of the AI script or your will "break" the AI. Against a human player, you have more freedom.

One thing that you want to keep in mind as Japan is that you can conquer Malaysia, the DEI, Luzon, Burma, China (up to Chungking), and the Coral Sea area in many different ways. The speed of the conquest is not always the most important thing. If you intend to conduct operations anywhere beyond this zone, however, the condition of your ground forces, your supply and fuel use must be taken into account. By June, U.S. units have begun to deploy in some force to regions outside the traditional conquest zone and you need full-strength units moving in force to make any further advances.

If you burn out your army with large numbers of squads disabled while taking Luzon, the DEI, Burma, etc... the pace of your overall advance will slow greatly. For example, if you take Luzon in a month, but have 3 divisions with 150 disabled squads, you will need, under optimum circumstances, 4-6 weeks before these units are ready for another campaign. If you take Luzon in 6 weeks, but have only 50 disabled squads in the divisions, these units can be ready for further action almost immediately. The object of the conquest phase is not simply to advance as quickly as possible on the initial objectives. It is also to maximize allied losses while minimizing Japanese losses. Spending months recovering your forces from your initial moves will allow the U.S. units to move into key positions outside the initial conquest zone, fortify, and make further gains very difficult.

Also supply is a concern. Long sieges, such as an extended artillery dual at Manilla or Clark, for example, that continues for a month, use up a large amount of supply. If this practice is again used at Rangoon and at Chungking, for example, and elsewhere, additional conquests become problematic because supply will never build up to level sufficient to hold off a push by the allies in 43 and 44. As Japan, come in force, take the objective and move on. Try not to become involved in long siege battles.

Playing for auto-victory is a gamble (especially in PDU:off, where you cannot simply overwhelm the allied air force with 2nd generation fighters). I think Alfred understand the situation best when he suggests that it is best to play for auto-victory on Jan. 1, 1944. With this goal in mind, the gamble is minimized, because Japan must still stockpile supply to hold off an allied push in late 1943. Since I wish to win an auto-victory and play beyond to make a respectable defense of Japan, I use a hybrid approach in my games: trying to win but also trying not to burn out the Japanese economy in the process.

(in reply to Macclan5)

Post #: 17