Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A)

[pauk]

ORIGINAL: rader

Yeah, the way I see it, I gotta use my army to stop his. If he wants to send in another 6000 AV, I will too. But if he dosen't, I've got to keep mine on alert for more invasions.

I'm curious how 12,000 AV vs. 12,000 AV would fare in the open. Probably really bloody on both sides [:D] He's going to have tank superiority, but I've got forts and will have lots of AT guns there.

Yes, you have to be on defensive. I recall in original WITP, my opponent tried invasion of Marians but we ended in situation like this one. He was even unable to supply his units propertly, so after i month ive tried with attack [:D]


gosh, that was such a bad idea. I didnt get even close to 1:1 and lost 2 dozens of thousands men. All that because a stupid design "soldiers can hold tones of supply in their pockets" (and there is no way to destroy it) - actually im pretty sure that is not changed in Allied Edition, right Castor Troy?

So all you have to do is keep blocking his troops, and do not overcrowd base - keep rotate divisions from rear and invaded base (im sure he will start with air attacks on your ground units there).

Use your subs for some minelaying there, send MTBs there.


It looks his armored units suffered a lot (quite a lot destroyed vech's , it will take a while until they regain strength i guess).


You have lvl 9 forts there, right?

[rader]

ORIGINAL: crsutton

If you contain. I don't see how he can keep supply coming without losing countless ships to your shore guns.

That's the idea... [:)]

[Saros]

Oh boy equal AV in 1944 and that is a LOT of tanks and TD's. I hope you have some good forts there.

763rd Tank Battalion
819th Towed Tank Destroyer Battalion
710th Tank Battalion
706th Tank Battalion
2nd USMC Tank Battalion
1st Cavalry (Spec) Cavalry Division
815th Towed Tank Destroyer Battalion
1st USMC Tank Battalion
Provisionl Tank Brigade
670th Tank Destroyer Battalion
3rd NZ Armoured Sqn
1st USMC Amphb Tank Battalion

Amusingly your AA guns will fire in the defense if you are pressed, you might get better mileage out of them than your 47mm AT's. I suspect a lot of the destroyed "AFV" were motorised support, at least for the ones in company with the infantry carriers.

[EUBanana]

ORIGINAL: pauk
gosh, that was such a bad idea. I didnt get even close to 1:1 and lost 2 dozens of thousands men. All that because a stupid design "soldiers can hold tones of supply in their pockets" (and there is no way to destroy it) - actually im pretty sure that is not changed in Allied Edition, right Castor Troy?

Applies for both sides. Winds me up no end that bypassed Japanese bases that have been cut off for months and sieged with heavy artillery always get at least one decent pop off.

On the other hand, a single deliberate attack removes all the supply in the soldiers pockets pretty much, so you only have to face the pain once.

[EUBanana]

Given what the shore guns did, I think he's in deep trouble unless he can achieve a proper breakout - at least capture the base. I suppose the alternative is a lot of suppression aimed at those shore guns, but in my experience its very hard to properly knock out coastal guns. And it looks like you got a LOT of coastal guns. As he's impatient and didn't break your aero industry, that'll make it all the harder for him I guess.

On the other hand, if he does capture the base, then the Japanese will be the ones in deep trouble... So yeah. Containment.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Most interesting thing to me is that when you were shooting at mixed TFs of xAP/xAK with APDs, AKs or LS types, the x ships almost always caught it bad while the landing quality ships fared well.

If you contain. I don't see how he can keep supply coming without losing countless ships to your shore guns.

That's my take too. Bleeeeed 'em. Also, those LSTs took a major pounding, losing a sizeable proportion of their number. That's fewer LSTs available for the repeat (and landing supply, etc.)

[ny59giants]

At this point in the game you cannot go with just comparing AV for each side. The Allies have a lot better soft assault values and anti-armor values for their units. Any counter attack that you think will be a victory for you just by comparing Assault Values will lead to a Japanese defeat.

[ny59giants]

At this point in the game you cannot go with just comparing AV for each side. The Allies have a lot better soft assault values and anti-armor values for their units. Any counter attack that you think will be a victory for you just by comparing Assault Values will lead to a Japanese defeat.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

At this point in the game you cannot go with just comparing AV for each side. The Allies have a lot better soft assault values and anti-armor values for their units. Any counter attack that you think will be a victory for you just by comparing Assault Values will lead to a Japanese defeat.

I don't think Rader is comparing AV to AV. Terrain and forts will be all-important in this fight, of course.

[crsutton]

In a way the game is historical in that there is a lesson here. The Allies probably could have rushed Japan perhaps ending the war early, but win or lose the political costs of the casualties and the potential for disaster made it a no go. We gamers do not have to worry about the political fallout of an operation like this.

Some say the in VP terms the game is not balanced. One reason, and cure is to make if much more expensive for the Allies to take heavy casualties late in the war. Losing an American division or carrier should cost twice as much as it would have in 1942-and a Commonwealth division three times-for obvious reasons. I would like to see a more historical game vs the fantasy match that we all love and play. One way is to make the commanders sitting at home in front of computers pay for excessive losses. GJ can lose this battle and still sit back in Hokkaido and potentially win the game. But to lose a battle such as this...Well, if he were Roosevelt, they would have dragged him outside and lynched him-wheelchair and all. (No disrespect to one of my favorite presidents).

[jeffk3510]

Rader-

I am curious how long it takes to watch these replays..[:D]

[SuluSea]

I know this is a scenario two game but seeing all those RN ships in the Pacific to go along with Indian units on mainland Japan makes me cringe. The allies already have incredible superiority at this stage without siphoning off units from theatres where they didn't operate historically. I felt the same way when I played the Allies so it isn't a JFB thing, best of luck in the coming operations.

[rader]

ORIGINAL: jeffk3510

Rader-

I am curious how long it takes to watch these replays..[:D]

About an hour if I watch it in detail.

We're having problems with disapearing leaders, game on hiatus [:@]

[Schlemiel]

I'm not sure I exactly agree, SuluSea, especially in the context of this game. With the incredible advances Japan made, the historical theatres don't really apply. Indian units wouldn't have been able to even operate in Indian until a few months ago (given the conquest), so any existing units would have been free to deploy most anywhere (see Free French forces to some degree). It certainly seems plausible that the people of India might want some revenge after a few years of Japanese occupation. Of course historical Indian unit replacements wouldn't have been possible on the scale they are in this game, since even with a large number of volunteers (who might have been able to cross the border into Pakistan in this game), the areas and equipment to train them would be sorely lacking, but that's a different issue and probably impossible to handle in the engine. As for allied superiority without those units, I"m not sure. Certainly US units are qualitatively superior in this game, but given the need to protect slocs and such, I doubt they would be even remotely able to tackle an invasion of this magnitude. I'd have to count for sure, but I doubt at this point in 44 there are more than 25 deployable divisions of US troops (though I haven't actually checked). Naval and air superiority and land unit quality does not translate to land superiority in and of itself, especially in scenario 2. Even marginal superiority within the context of game mechanics is just not enough for amphibious invasions. Rader just needs to be able to resist attack to turn the beachhead into a prison camp, and presumably has many more divisions theoretically available (if they could be warped back to the home islands).

Basically what I"m saying is that such cooperation is obviously ahistorical, but against the Japan that exists in this universe I can see it as plausible. An opponent that was dangerous enough to conquer and still have access to much of the resources of se Asia needs to be dealt with rather ruthlessly.

I'll be fascinated to see the outcome, as I've far too little experience actually playing this stage (as opposed
to checking the reinforcements list when playing against the ai) to have a good sense of who will win.

[beppi]

As i regular post in GreyJoys thread i do not want to comment anything about the ongoing game. Just some general thoughts from me:

I had some big WW1 style battles in my ongoing games as allieds against the japanese troops in 1944 with 12k AV against around 7k AV as the biggest one. In general the combat power of allied units late war is
much bigger than the japanese but especially in very big battles it is not a battle of combat power it is more a battle of "squad recovery". Even allied attacks tend to often suffer 1000nds of disables squads and i gets more and more a question which side recovery more squads in a battle.

If you get a solid 1,5 : 1 in unadjusted AVs as Japanese in defense you should be able to cause quite big number of disabled squads whenever the allieds attack. Combine that with the large calibre artilery units which i hate quite a lot as ally and it could be possible to not even defend a beachhead instead after some battles (so after a month or more) to even turn the tide and push the allies back. I would not commit any premature offensive actions. If you rotate your defending units you should be able to keep quite a good defensive force in battle. And always try to prevent a push out of the hex at all cost. Saw 3000+ destroyed squads on a reateat once.

In addition the allies get only around 80 army and 80 marines squads each month. So if you can cause a 1000 or so dead us squads you are on a very good way. They get some additional british/quite a lot indian/and australian ones but these squads are not much stronger in combat power than the japanese ones even the 1944 version.

With good prepping the allies can get around 1 to 1,2 unadjusted AV as adjusted AV when properl prepared so always take that into consideration when you plan your reserves and your defendig forces. Supply should not be a real problem as you fight on the main land with good supply routes. And do not forget the allied paras which the allies have quite a lot latewar.

[rader]

ORIGINAL: beppi

As i regular post in GreyJoys thread i do not want to comment anything about the ongoing game. Just some general thoughts from me:

I had some big WW1 style battles in my ongoing games as allieds against the japanese troops in 1944 with 12k AV against around 7k AV as the biggest one. In general the combat power of allied units late war is
much bigger than the japanese but especially in very big battles it is not a battle of combat power it is more a battle of "squad recovery". Even allied attacks tend to often suffer 1000nds of disables squads and i gets more and more a question which side recovery more squads in a battle.

If you get a solid 1,5 : 1 in unadjusted AVs as Japanese in defense you should be able to cause quite big number of disabled squads whenever the allieds attack. Combine that with the large calibre artilery units which i hate quite a lot as ally and it could be possible to not even defend a beachhead instead after some battles (so after a month or more) to even turn the tide and push the allies back. I would not commit any premature offensive actions. If you rotate your defending units you should be able to keep quite a good defensive force in battle. And always try to prevent a push out of the hex at all cost. Saw 3000+ destroyed squads on a reateat once.

In addition the allies get only around 80 army and 80 marines squads each month. So if you can cause a 1000 or so dead us squads you are on a very good way. They get some additional british/quite a lot indian/and australian ones but these squads are not much stronger in combat power than the japanese ones even the 1944 version.

With good prepping the allies can get around 1 to 1,2 unadjusted AV as adjusted AV when properl prepared so always take that into consideration when you plan your reserves and your defendig forces. Supply should not be a real problem as you fight on the main land with good supply routes. And do not forget the allied paras which the allies have quite a lot latewar.

Interesting to note all this, thanks beppi. I hadn't realized that allied replacements were quite so low as that, but Greyjoy also has hardly taken any army losses so far so he must have a big pool.

If I can hold the beach, I've got a chance to win or at least last into late 1945/early 1946. Otherwise, I am very, very screwed.

[Skyland]

You can also send and rotate your low experience units in order for them to gain some combat exp points.

[rader]

Yes, I think rotating units in and out of combat is a great idea...

[desicat]

The world wonders....what is Rader pondering?

[Schlemiel]

an invasion of los angeles at this stage will surely catch him by surprise