RE: Japanese 'winning' is ruining the game

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Japanese 'winning' is ruining the game

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] >> Warplan Pacific >> RE: Japanese 'winning' is ruining the game

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Japanese 'winning' is ruining the game - 6/15/2021 9:46:41 PM

stjeand

Posts: 1508
Joined: 1/10/2021
From: Aurora, NC
Status: offline

You can make it just be for Allies use...like the once in WarPlan Europe.

That would be the wisest choice.

The Japanese would never sail their fleet down to Australia to make a run towards the US...to much fuel used, same for India.

(in reply to kennonlightfoot)

Post #: 61

RE: Japanese 'winning' is ruining the game - 6/15/2021 11:10:19 PM

eskuche

Posts: 1094
Joined: 3/27/2018
From: OH, USA
Status: offline

Hiya, here for a few comments about our game specifically and about the greater balance:
1. I was able to get a lot going in Australia because, I believe, neither northern cities were ungarrisoned. Noumea fell turn 2-4.
2. Naval superiority was ensured when kennon attempted to lift the blockade off Fiji-ish area with the entire USN fleet sans repairing ships turn 3-4. I had a bad PH harbor attack, too, with ~15 total damage. I intercepted with the full KB with an oiler and managed I think ~15 damage or so. Kennon tried to push a DD off north of NZ convoy a few turns later, and KB returned with a COMINT on noumea (you were too close, so I got the bonus there). Note I used only 1-2 other oilers this game, usually as emergency due to bad planning. The gifted amount could probably be toned down a bit to force player commitment. I think you were too overzealous with them. I think Canberra managed to kill two BB by itself, so if you sat tight (hard to do), you probably would have had more say in the Australia invasion. I did publish before that KB can hide turn 1-2

so USN should steer clear until their location can be identified.
3. India, not shown, I cleared I believe 3 counters early on. I managed to push the Moulmein crossing turn 2 with air and I think naval. If Japan is that aggressive/lucky, India CANNOT afford to lose units. Units are lost with ZOC bypassing. Get around this by bringing either command army or forming a small corps early. Ungarrison ASAP, so you're not trailing a 2 OP unit. In our game, I pushed Calcutta off with a fleet and PT resupply and 3 armies and 2 ground attack air around March-May. However, it's not sustainable to Delhi on a shoestring, so the Ceylon approach is probably better.
4. I got Batavia turn 2. I landed 3 SNLF and actually claimed the city with a 4th division. This was not cheap but let me keep the entire fleet going continuously.
5. The army landing bug at Philippines really hurt my LC. I was almost out by February. However, I only actually bought 6 more LC over the entire course of the game. I had ~40 remaining after last turn landings in southern Australia.
6. China, not shown, had 3-5 armies pushing Changsha, two departing after it fell. 2 armies in the north. I kept an extremely sparse garrison but made sure no partisans were able to be formed. Extra units went to Australia.

(in reply to stjeand)

Post #: 62

RE: Japanese 'winning' is ruining the game - 6/16/2021 12:02:40 AM

eskuche

Posts: 1094
Joined: 3/27/2018
From: OH, USA
Status: offline

In terms of overall game balance, I think no loops is okay, assuming you garrison Australia appropriately and have navy intact. In my Allied games, I am spamming transports with whatever's not going into ship repair, because those two are the most likely to affect anything early on.
It can be important to balance reinforcing minor island USA forces to avoid them getting taken easily and keeping them low (including the west coast stuff) to use fewer transports in the first few months of getting stuff over the ocean.

The (now) two turn loops are a simple in-out that I think aren't really necessary and if anything add in an opportunity to game the system by fast runaway after using first op point to get interdicted. For US to Australia, I run almost directly SW from the coast, starting with units that are already closer to AUS, including Fiji & Co, Johnson, PH, and finally actual coast. Again, keeping replacements OFF on all US units makes this easier.

(in reply to eskuche)

Post #: 63

RE: Japanese 'winning' is ruining the game - 6/16/2021 2:02:45 PM

kennonlightfoot

Posts: 1530
Joined: 8/15/2006
Status: offline

Australia is a problem since it doesn't have enough force to both defend all the ports and have garrisons large enough to stop an invasion. There are 8 ports plus the capital, Canberra, that have to be defended. Even then it leaves two SE ports, Port Augusta and Adelaide, undefended. If all the units are broken down into divisions they have just enough to garrison these 8 ports. But four of those ports will have 1-5 units in them which are easily killed by a single marine landing. The Japanese will never have any problem taking one of the northern ports on the East side early in the game and using it to expand southward. I had hoped to delay that southward movement long enough for the US to arrive. But as noted earlier the US takes until June to have any effect on the battle.

My Naval handling was primarily meant to see if the US navy could do anything to slow or stop the loss of the islands. I mostly proved they couldn't. If they can't oppose the Japanese navy then they basically don't exist in terms of affecting the overrunning of the South Pacific and Australia.

I actually had some initial success with them when I used them for a surprise attack against the Japanese navy supporting taking Noumea. One of the few times the US knew the Japanese Carrier positions. And, knew they had split their fleet into two hexes of 3 CV's each and separated enough I could attack one by itself. The initial move cause a reaction resulting in the Japanese losing two CV's. But then the US luck ran out. Their air attack with the remain activation point resulted in nothing. If I had sunk the other CV it would have been a game changer. Then my luck turned even worse when their remaining fleet sunk two of my carriers. Very odd extremes.

(in reply to eskuche)

Post #: 64

RE: Japanese 'winning' is ruining the game - 6/16/2021 2:36:18 PM

eskuche

Posts: 1094
Joined: 3/27/2018
From: OH, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: kennonlightfoot

Australia is a problem since it doesn't have enough force to both defend all the ports and have garrisons large enough to stop an invasion. There are 8 ports plus the capital, Canberra, that have to be defended. Even then it leaves two SE ports, Port Augusta and Adelaide, undefended. If all the units are broken down into divisions they have just enough to garrison these 8 ports. But four of those ports will have 1-5 units in them which are easily killed by a single marine landing. The Japanese will never have any problem taking one of the northern ports on the East side early in the game and using it to expand southward. I had hoped to delay that southward movement long enough for the US to arrive. But as noted earlier the US takes until June to have any effect on the battle.

My Naval handling was primarily meant to see if the US navy could do anything to slow or stop the loss of the islands. I mostly proved they couldn't. If they can't oppose the Japanese navy then they basically don't exist in terms of affecting the overrunning of the South Pacific and Australia.

I actually had some initial success with them when I used them for a surprise attack against the Japanese navy supporting taking Noumea. One of the few times the US knew the Japanese Carrier positions. And, knew they had split their fleet into two hexes of 3 CV's each and separated enough I could attack one by itself. The initial move cause a reaction resulting in the Japanese losing two CV's. But then the US luck ran out. Their air attack with the remain activation point resulted in nothing. If I had sunk the other CV it would have been a game changer. Then my luck turned even worse when their remaining fleet sunk two of my carriers. Very odd extremes.

Ah, right, I forgot all about the CV interdiction. You baited with three individual sub stacks blockading. I knew you would follow up with an interdiction, so I didn't plan that quite well. Noumea wasn't actually in danger, so I didn't need to relieve the blockade.

I agree that the US should never take a head-on fight unless for some reason KB is split early on. I have been poking and blocking one-hex islands with my navy and only going to big blockade plays when KB + friends are, say, in India. I actually raided Rabaul against Yuejin, using a comint, when I had low int on a fleet there but saw 36 ships at Ceylon.

Also, the thing with port defense is that the attacker has no idea which are the 1-5 strength stacks. If you fail your attack, your unit is stranded. Thus, you either need to guarantee overwhelming force or check with an expendable low strength unit, neither of which is a great option. Using the hopping and reinforcement-blocking method I mentioned, I have 2-3 USA units in INDIA by mid-June.

(in reply to kennonlightfoot)

Post #: 65