Better strategy for the Japanese

[PawnPower]

Better strategy for the Japanese

I thought War in the Pacific was about destroying the other sides AC, then invading and securing resources. If the other sides AC are destroyed then your ships can operate in safety, apart from sub threats.

If the Japanese have lots of bases to defend while the allies have naval capacity this will just divert resources.

The Japanese should be trying from the outset to destroy the American fleet, the AC top priority. Not diverting resources on lots of secondary targets. Dividing the Japanese fleet just weakens the fleet and reduces the odds for success.

It looks from the full campaign scenarios that the Japanese are going after lots of secondary targets and dividing the fleet.

Shouldn't Pearl Harbour have been more decisive for the Japanese. In particular there is no follow up, just hit Pearl and go home.

Anyone else think Pearl could have been more decisive for the Japanese, particularly with a follow up plan?

Possibly another scenario is needed in which the Japanese from the outset focus on the job of destroying the allies naval capacity.

Lets face it the American production capacity far out strips the Japanese. The opening moves of the game are crucial for the Japanese and should not be squandered.

[EUBanana]

Taking Pearl Harbor by invasion was done in a few old WITP games. Any damaged ships at Pearl are going to be toast in such an eventuality - in my own AAR, that would be every single USN battleship.

I don't think it'd be as decisive in AE though as you could move off map to Cape Town if you wanted. Balboa -> Cape Town takes about 20 days for a warship. I would, personally, send a pretty hefty amount of materiel east rather than west.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: PawnPower

Better strategy for the Japanese

I thought War in the Pacific was about destroying the other sides AC, then invading and securing resources. If the other sides AC are destroyed then your ships can operate in safety, apart from sub threats.

If the Japanese have lots of bases to defend while the allies have naval capacity this will just divert resources.

The Japanese should be trying from the outset to destroy the American fleet, the AC top priority. Not diverting resources on lots of secondary targets. Dividing the Japanese fleet just weakens the fleet and reduces the odds for success.

It looks from the full campaign scenarios that the Japanese are going after lots of secondary targets and dividing the fleet.

Shouldn't Pearl Harbour have been more decisive for the Japanese. In particular there is no follow up, just hit Pearl and go home.

Anyone else think Pearl could have been more decisive for the Japanese, particularly with a follow up plan?

Possibly another scenario is needed in which the Japanese from the outset focus on the job of destroying the allies naval capacity.

Lets face it the American production capacity far out strips the Japanese. The opening moves of the game are crucial for the Japanese and should not be squandered.

HISTORY

*Most* of the theatre of operations was completely bare of strategic objectives. The only reason the Japanese occupied their strategic buffer--anything except China, Indonesia, the Philippines, and SE Asia--was to delay the Allies. And the only reason they occupied *anything* in the strategic buffer was to establish and maintain an airbase.

[FatR]

Anyone else think Pearl could have been more decisive for the Japanese, particularly with a follow up plan?

How about "no"? In RL hanging around PH any longer than Nagumo did meant sacrificing precious planes against massive concentration of flak for little gain (save for a slim possibiity of another lucky BB magazine hit, and hope that the sub base won't be empty by the next attack, doing something appreciably worse than the damage already done was hardly possible, from the historical Japanese viewpoint), while risking a counterattack. With Japanese assets of the time successful neutralization of PH as a base was plainly not possible. If in this game PH has similar defences to RL (I've yet to try the grand campaign), the second raid will be plain folly, and after swiftly getting enough land-based aviation PH will become an impregnable fortress in which Allied CVs will always be able to hide from a decisive engagement. So in PBEM you must hope to lure them into battle or intercept them by luck.

[EUBanana]

ORIGINAL: FatR

Anyone else think Pearl could have been more decisive for the Japanese, particularly with a follow up plan?

How about "no"? In RL hanging around PH any longer than Nagumo did meant sacrificing precious planes against massive concentration of flak for little gain (save for a slim possibiity of another lucky BB magazine hit, and hope that the sub base won't be empty by the next attack, doing something appreciably worse than the damage already done was hardly possible, from the historical Japanese viewpoint), while risking a counterattack. With Japanese assets of the time successful neutralization of PH as a base was plainly not possible. If in this game PH has similar defences to RL (I've yet to try the grand campaign), the second raid will be plain folly, and after swiftly getting enough land-based aviation PH will become an impregnable fortress in which Allied CVs will always be able to hide from a decisive engagement. So in PBEM you must hope to lure them into battle or intercept them by luck.

Unfortunately AA is pretty gutless, I think multiple days of pounding are a good idea myself, practically a given in fact, until the number of damaged Jap a/c take the edge temporarily off the katana.

As for Fortress Pearl, well, it's certainly true that the window of opportunity for any invasion is pretty much the first week or two of the war. Certainly in my own GC though the US airpower at Pearl was utterly trashed for at least a week, and remained fairly weak until the first West Coast squadrons show up, near the end of December.

[PawnPower]

Surely destroying the machine shops and oil farms would have had an effect. At least buying the Japanese more time.

I did not say invade Pearl Harbour but stop it from being used as a port. The Americans would have had to travel a lot further to get their naval units into the theatre of operation.

As for land base coastal guns they should be bypassed. Same for land based aircraft.

[EUBanana]

ORIGINAL: PawnPower
I did not say invade Pearl Harbour but stop it from being used as a port.

Thats only going to happen if you occupy the place, though. The port facilities in AE will be fixed quickly, certainly no more than a month. More likely a week tops.

You could possibly deny the use of the port by invading some other Hawaiian base hex than Pearl itself and then base Netties there so they are cut off. However Pearl starts out with a huge amount of supply, it's going to be self sufficient for a looooong time, and no other base in range is all that suitable. The likely outcome of that is the Japs get cut off, not the Allies.

It really has to be an occupation if you're going that route. Bull by the horns.

The Americans would have had to travel a lot further to get their naval units into the theatre of operation.

I imagine the Americans would build up at Christmas Island or Tahiti in place of Pearl though, neither of which are all that big a detour. It would have to be part of a sustained CENTPAC offensive to be worth the committment probably.

[FatR]

ORIGINAL: PawnPower

Surely destroying the machine shops and oil farms would have had an effect. At least buying the Japanese more time.

Yeah. Only they had no nukes to inflict sufficiently devastaging damage within their sharply limited amount of theoretically possible air attacks. Rabaul, a much weaker base to begin with, demanded a half-year of continuous air raids and supply shortages to knock out.

[EUBanana]

I think you'd need five divisions to be sure to take Pearl, assuming you could get them ashore and supply them.

That means you'd have to leave the PI, or some equally major objective, for at least 2 or 3 months, assuming everything went swimmmingly.

[Barb]

ORIGINAL: PawnPower

Better strategy for the Japanese

I thought War in the Pacific was about destroying the other sides AC, then invading and securing resources. If the other sides AC are destroyed then your ships can operate in safety, apart from sub threats.

If the Japanese have lots of bases to defend while the allies have naval capacity this will just divert resources.

The Japanese should be trying from the outset to destroy the American fleet, the AC top priority. Not diverting resources on lots of secondary targets. Dividing the Japanese fleet just weakens the fleet and reduces the odds for success.

It looks from the full campaign scenarios that the Japanese are going after lots of secondary targets and dividing the fleet.

Shouldn't Pearl Harbour have been more decisive for the Japanese. In particular there is no follow up, just hit Pearl and go home.

Anyone else think Pearl could have been more decisive for the Japanese, particularly with a follow up plan?

Possibly another scenario is needed in which the Japanese from the outset focus on the job of destroying the allies naval capacity.

Lets face it the American production capacity far out strips the Japanese. The opening moves of the game are crucial for the Japanese and should not be squandered.

You are writing about two oposite targets as top priority - and that is not good. You correctly pointed out that Aircraft is the most dangerous thing in the game, but then you are saying that ships are the most wanted [:D]

You should focus on one thing only. As you said, when the area is full of enemy aircraft noone is going to send his ships to the area. So 1st priority for both sides is to have Air Superiority (or better Supermacy). True is that CVs are best at projecting air power for long distances, but the only thing that can defeat them decisively is also air power only

So as Japan I would prioritize enemy aircraft over anything else! Subs could be pain in the ass, but they are not the war winning weapon...

[Barb]

question for all: What do you think is the allied single weakest point in AE? this should be Japanese "schwerpunkt"...

[CMDRMCTOAST]

In 1 WITP PBEM I had a japanese player bomb pearl for 3 days, he circled around pearl trying to get to my carriers
and when he went a few hexes south east towards san diego in hopes of getting my carrier from san diego
I sank his replenishment force, bye the time he got to south west of midway chasing my carriers he was about out of fuel and I linked up my 3 carriers
and engaged his, I sank 4 of his carriers to my 3 and damaged 2 others and never heard from him again..lol
so be careful what ya wish for..

[Q-Ball]

ORIGINAL: Barb

question for all: What do you think is the allied single weakest point in AE? this should be Japanese "schwerpunkt"...

It might be China.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Barb

question for all: What do you think is the allied single weakest point in AE? this should be Japanese "schwerpunkt"...

Burma. Definitely Burma.

[Barb]

I was thinking economically [:D] TKs, AOs, AKs, APs, combat ships, Fighters, Bombers, engineers, manpower, pilots... ?

[OldCanuck]

In my current campaign, the Japanese AI bombed Pearl for three days. First they sank seven BBs, then they went after my tankers and fuel, then they stirred the rubble. Even so, I am holding the Pearl-Noumea line, and have driven back attacks on Canton, Baker and Noumea. I think Yamamato's strategy is the right one for the IJN: force the US fleet to a decisive battle and sink their carriers. Unlike Midway, though, when the battle comes they have to win.

[Q-Ball]

Economically? Carriers. Nothing else matters. And that won't matter much past late 1943.

[PaxMondo]

Agreed, CV's.  Anyone has to have them to project power.  So, the allies cannot move until they have a CV advantage.  And as Q-Ball says, by '44 they have that no matter what you do as IJN.  They have so many Essex class coming coupled with all those F7F's and the B17's and the F4U's .... but reverse Midway and VJ day is delayed at least 1 year, maybe 2.  In game terms, JAP wins.

[Canoerebel]

From what I've seen to date in my game and in reading other AARs, the Allies' weakpoint is definately China.

It's tough to defend Burma, but Burma isn't really that important; China is important, because if taken by the enemy it frees up a heck of alot of troops that can be used elsewhere.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: PawnPower
Lets face it the American production capacity far out strips the Japanese. The opening moves of the game are crucial for the Japanese and should not be squandered.

Depends on if you are an historian, or a pure "gamer". The opening move is the biggest burst of "hindsight exploitation" that will ever take place in the course of play. Never again will either side be so exactly certain just what opposition they will face, where it will be, how ready it will be, how much it will be worth in combat, and exactly how to exploit the rules to achieve the most "bang for the buck".

Historically the Japanese had only their estimates and their expectations to plan with. And they expected more opposition and losses EVERYWHERE in their opening moves. KNOWING you will achieve "total suprise" and exactly what opposition you will face and just how to use the game's mechanics to achieve maximum results is a huge advantage for the Japanese Player! Every lucky break the Japanese received historically (and some they didn't) are built in to the Game's opening.

A perfect example of this is the "Manilla ploy". In real life, subs came and went all the time, and for safety reasons most of them in the Bay submerged during daylight hours. In the game the Japanese player KNOWS that they will be docked and vulnerable and that he can sink them in large numbers on the first turn if he wants to.

In the game there really isn't anything to prevent the Japanese player from going "CV hunting" on the morning of the 7th. He knows exactly where the Lexington and Enterprise will be, and what their orders will be. If they are as important as some have suggested, why not "whack" them on day one? The only thing preventing it is the possible charge of being "gamey". In real life the Japanese didn't have anymore idea where the 3 US CV's were than Kimmel did of where Kido Butai was. And they certainly had no idea that US sub commanders were going to be saddled with faulty torpedoes. Or that every possible "tip-off" to what they were doing would be ignored.

So I'd say it's mostly a matter of just how "gamey" you and your opponant want to be. Personally, I'd love to see a version of the game that allowed the Allies to "mix things up" a bit and leave the Japanese Player as unsure of what and where his opposition would be as the real Jap commanders were on that fateful morning. Just to see how "bold" the player would be without 100% hindsight?