Japanese Strategic Options: Late Bonus Phase

[Ian R]

ORIGINAL: RADM.Yamaguchi

if you want to destroy ships being built what would you target? City attack? Are there any building in Australia or New Zealand?

That doesn't happen. However, port attacks will target ships in the port (not in task forces), including those repairing damage.

If your ground forces occupy an arrival port where reinforcements appear, the ships are lost.

[dr.hal]

ORIGINAL: Ian R

If your ground forces occupy an arrival port where reinforcements appear, the ships are lost.

I thought the ships were lost if BUILDING there (such as in Singapore) but that if they "arrive" there then they would be deferred to arrive in a "national" port at a later date. Did I get that wrong?

[PaxMondo]

Taking the Calcutta area in '42 can generally net the IJ player at least 1,000,000 supply. Irrespective of all other aspects, that alone is a reason to take and hold it for 9 - 15 months. The trick is when to bail so that you don't get trapped as Calcutta is potentially even worse a death trap than SE Asia for the IJ.

That supply allows for air force expansion, but more importantly, can fund the missions that the expanded air force can fly.

OZ has a similar potential, but it is simply quite a bit more difficult and costly to do AND much farther out. You have to take Sydney/Melbourne area. Much more challenging than the Calcutta area.

Ceylon is more about denial than anything else and again is a potential trap. IJ has to abandon it before they are cut-off. It is SO hard to give up taken territory.

Edit:
I should add that in taking Calcutta, if done boldly early enough, you can trap and annihilate the Burma army in its entirety. it is simply a race to Darjeeling. If you win, the allied Burma army is trapped and can be extinguished with those permanent VP's recorded. Granted, those units in general aren't much, but they still count. Also, in '42 the Indian units are also just VP's to be harvested. And the more damage you do, just like against the CHI, the less you will see in the late war. Indian replacements are just not that great. (Not sure why that is though, always been a bit surprised by that).

[Scott_USN]

Interesting it seems winning as Japan as the war drags on is very very unlikely. Which is historically correct.

I have never finished a war, I usually just enjoy the first stages and then quit in the 43 era. Trying out Nasty for new experience. Japan is just way too much but awesome to play I suspect if you get the industry mastered.
.

[Encircled]

Least risk with tangible benefits is clearing out China.

I don't see an invasion of India or Australia succeeding against anyone (bar a very inexperienced allied player). Anyone else will start planning for the worst case scenario on Turn 1.

It about destroying allied LCUs, naval, merchant, air power so you have to get him to fight where he doesn't want to retreat.

That will depend on who you are playing!

IMHO nothing is worth holding on for in the face of determined Japanese attack in 1942 because I don't think you can hold it (bar what I've previously mentioned).

But once that amphib bonus has gone, the allies can defend a lot further forward and take a lot more risks.

[GetAssista]

Where Japan goes early after the usual perimeter is secured is determined by the possibility 1) to destroy Allied units, 2) to capture industrial centers for a prolonged period, and 3) to inflict strategic losses. Everything else does not matter much unless Allies are brazen enough to act early with sizeable forces somewhere where they can be isolated through 42. There were some AARs where Allies started their advance too early in the Pacific or even DEI, and presented Japan with the opportunity to harvest VPs both from the isolated units and from the rescue attempts.

This leaves 2 major theaters for large invasions: Eastern India (for Calcutta region industry) and Australia (for some strategic bombing). Both can provide some army VP harvest if Allies are careless with land war, but one should not count on that. The worst thing Allies can do at that time is to commit to trying to hold on to some important forward base like Calcutta, Colombo, or Townsville, or hold the line in Burma. Still, some players might take the risks, and you can punish them for that.

As for other areas they are either insignificant for the bigger picture (Aleutians, Pacific, southern India) or too late to capitalize on (Hawaii, Canada, Western India, WC). Sure, insignificant does not mean that Japan should not act. It should, with opportune forces. Taking empty islands in the Pacific is ok, taking Ceylon is ok, advancing along Aleutian chain is ok against weak resistance. Battling for an atoll against a dug in regiment is not ok (but it's a different story if there are a couple allied divisions there).


Edit: trying to clear out China goes without saying, but I believe Japan chances there are good enough with restricted forces on hand, no need to employ unrestricted ones. Patience and supply bombing are useful

[RangerJoe]

I think that one reason that Indian Army replacements are so low is that Indian Army units were also in North Afrika and then Italy. That does not include the political aspects either.

[obvert]

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

BOLD:
--CONQUEST OF INDIA: Early landings on West Coast and Ceylon, clearing British fleet completely out of the Indian Ocean. In the old days before off-map movement you could destroy the Royal Navy this way, though not possible now.

I think all of India is possible. You just have to commit fully and land in the right places. Land as close as possible and take Karachi first. Has it ever been done? I don't think so.

Someone will do it eventually. [:)]

--CONQUEST OF AUSTRALIA: NIIRC, a couple players got everything but Sydney and got stuck there

Again, worry about Sydney and Melbourne first and work backwards. You own the oceans. Sail down, land between them, maybe use a few smaller landings to cut coastal rail and paras to cut internal rail.

Is it worth it? If industry is intact it might be, but that takes a lot of fuel/oil to run as well. If you can get the supply benefit and the Aussie Army permanent VPs might be worth it. Then just retire before the Allies can strike sometime in early 43.

One of the main goals would be to then Strat bomb industrial targets you don't want to use (resources moslty) before they're captured. A good deal of VP harvesting there.

--HAWAII: I have a game where my opponent is invading Hawaii; I would classify as BOLD

Not worth the cost unless part of a West Coast strategy. Better to just take Victoria and bomb Seattle or land at Astoria and wipe out the Portland shipyards.

It would be useful to take Lahaina or another nearby base and use it to interdict Pearl, possibly bomb the shipyards. Not PH though.

MEASURED (Going Around the Map)
--Easter India: Objective clearing out and maybe trapping units in Burma, score some Industry points
--Ceylon: Easy to take, hard to hold, but you can clean out some units this way

No VPs for destroyed industry here. I'd keep these as part of the same plan.

Useful if you can trap some of the Indian Army and use Calcutta and surrounding industry, plus Ledo oil. This is the safe plan.

--Western Australia: Perth is a major base, but has some challenges to taking
--Northern Australia/Darwin

Some VPs, and Perth can be useful. Especially if he tries to defend and you get those troops. VP harvest resources is the real goal though.

--Northeast Australia down to Brisbane (IIRC, one hex further triggers Aussie reinforcements)

Just land to the North at Townsville and bomb everything out. Then leave.

--Expansion toward Noumea, Fiji
--Expansion toward Canton, Christmas islands, Midway
--Aleutians

None of these are worth the effort and mainly the fuel/troops needed. Just tar babies.

[PaxMondo]

erik: "
None of these are worth the effort and mainly the fuel/troops needed. Just tar babies.
"

Brilliant way to express ….

[&o][&o][&o]

[GetAssista]

ORIGINAL: obvert
I think all of India is possible. You just have to commit fully and land in the right places. Land as close as possible and take Karachi first. Has it ever been done? I don't think so.

I agree, it is possible, but is it worth the huge commitment? Economically worth it, I mean ("doing it for the gigs" is another story). There is not that much industry, cornering and harvesting the starting Indian units would be quite a hassle due to local supply generation and land mass involved. And after that you have to deal with the long coastline that is is hardly defensible against CV-supported landing, unless you park KB there making you wide open anywhere else.

I recall Rader taking almost all of India from GreyJoy back then. Did not help him with the later war much, he chose to abandon India on his own, cause the heat turned up much closer to Japan.

Both Oz and India are more lucrative if you opponent makes a blunder and allows you to catch most of his divisions somewhere else instead of 4x terrain supply generating fortified cities. But can you really count on this with the RR network involved

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

... Indian replacements are just not that great. (Not sure why that is though, always been a bit surprised by that).

A couple of reasons.

1. The Indian army was entirely composed of volunteers. No conscription was in play.

2. Most of the Raj was in fact not directly controlled by Britain. The military forces of the princely territories were raised by their local rulers. Hence the direct British controlled recruiting area was much smaller than people assume it was.

Alfred

[spence]

What's your elegant solution to better represent the complex political and military situation in China at the time then?

IMHO the Chinese OOB provides them with far fewer heavy weapons than was the case historically.
In addition the Japanese are not compelled to put anywhere near as many resources into garrisoning those Chinese cities that they hold at start and are far too capable of amassing a maneuver force to conquer additional cities. Even if the Japanese are not capable of knocking China out of the war completely they can earn a bunch of VPs capturing cities and eliminating Chinese units.

Various modders have revamped the Chinese OOB. It seems that the focus of those Mods is to provide Japan with an ongoing stalemate in China that is nearly impossible to resolve and thus force the Japanese to seek victory fighting against the US, UK, etc.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: spence

What's your elegant solution to better represent the complex political and military situation in China at the time then?

IMHO the Chinese OOB provides them with far fewer heavy weapons than was the case historically.

Does this observation include Babes (such as the scenario 28 variants)?

In addition the Japanese are not compelled to put anywhere near as many resources into garrisoning those Chinese cities that they hold at start and are far too capable of amassing a maneuver force to conquer additional cities. Even if the Japanese are not capable of knocking China out of the war completely they can earn a bunch of VPs capturing cities and eliminating Chinese units.

Various modders have revamped the Chinese OOB. It seems that the focus of those Mods is to provide Japan with an ongoing stalemate in China that is nearly impossible to resolve and thus force the Japanese to seek victory fighting against the US, UK, etc.

Having experience with Babes scenario 28, I can say it is still a problem to hold China as the Allies.

[spence]

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

quote:

What's your elegant solution to better represent the complex political and military situation in China at the time then?



IMHO the Chinese OOB provides them with far fewer heavy weapons than was the case historically.

Does this observation include Babes (such as the scenario 28 variants)?

quote:


In addition the Japanese are not compelled to put anywhere near as many resources into garrisoning those Chinese cities that they hold at start and are far too capable of amassing a maneuver force to conquer additional cities. Even if the Japanese are not capable of knocking China out of the war completely they can earn a bunch of VPs capturing cities and eliminating Chinese units.

Various modders have revamped the Chinese OOB. It seems that the focus of those Mods is to provide Japan with an ongoing stalemate in China that is nearly impossible to resolve and thus force the Japanese to seek victory fighting against the US, UK, etc.


Having experience with Babes scenario 28, I can say it is still a problem to hold China as the Allies.

_____________________________

I have no experience with the Big Babes or any of the extended map Babes but I have found that the Japanese can overrun most of China in Babes Lite (Scen 26?)(It could be that I am particularly bad at fighting the Japanese there). It seems that the Japanese can use their armor to greater advantage than historically racing into the Chinese rear filling their gas tanks from local resources (huh? are we talking about burning dirt). I have proposed changing the Japanese to a truly horse drawn army with a supply system that essentially limits the distance from a real rail-head that any Japanese unit can be supplied (not being truly computer-literate I don't know whether this is even possible within the game system).

In any case I have started a Big B Mod game but it's only in Feb 42 so I don't know if the Japanese will face a stalemate in China...it seems so so far. I can say that the Chinese have a very different OOB than in Babes or 'Vanilla AE'.

In addition the garrison requirements for both sides are in general doubled over 'Vanilla AE's' requirements so if the either side advances very far much more of their army is tied down in garrison duty.

[specie1]

[quote]

Not worth the cost unless part of a West Coast strategy. Better to just take Victoria and bomb Seattle or land at Astoria and wipe out the Portland shipyards.


[quote]

when you say land at astoria and wipe out the portland shipyards are you saying that you have to take portland to kill the ships in the yard? There's no way to bomb them?

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

... Indian replacements are just not that great. (Not sure why that is though, always been a bit surprised by that).

A couple of reasons.

1. The Indian army was entirely composed of volunteers. No conscription was in play.

2. Most of the Raj was in fact not directly controlled by Britain. The military forces of the princely territories were raised by their local rulers. Hence the direct British controlled recruiting area was much smaller than people assume it was.

Alfred

Ahh, I had forgotten about that "The military forces of the princely territories were raised by their local rulers."

[spence]

quote:



Not worth the cost unless part of a West Coast strategy. Better to just take Victoria and bomb Seattle or land at Astoria and wipe out the Portland shipyards.


quote:



when you say land at astoria and wipe out the portland shipyards are you saying that you have to take portland to kill the ships in the yard? There's no way to bomb them?

(in reply to obvert)

Taking Portland will wipe out all future production but bombing damage can be repaired so the ships that aren't built until 1943+ can still be built (not that much gets built in 1942).

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: spence

quote:



Not worth the cost unless part of a West Coast strategy. Better to just take Victoria and bomb Seattle or land at Astoria and wipe out the Portland shipyards.


quote:



when you say land at astoria and wipe out the portland shipyards are you saying that you have to take portland to kill the ships in the yard? There's no way to bomb them?

(in reply to obvert)

Taking Portland will wipe out all future production but bombing damage can be repaired so the ships that aren't built until 1943+ can still be built (not that much gets built in 1942).

I thought any ships not yet arrived were announced as destroyed as soon as the arrival base was captured by the enemy?

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: spence

What's your elegant solution to better represent the complex political and military situation in China at the time then?

IMHO the Chinese OOB provides them with far fewer heavy weapons than was the case historically.

Does this observation include Babes (such as the scenario 28 variants)?

In addition the Japanese are not compelled to put anywhere near as many resources into garrisoning those Chinese cities that they hold at start and are far too capable of amassing a maneuver force to conquer additional cities. Even if the Japanese are not capable of knocking China out of the war completely they can earn a bunch of VPs capturing cities and eliminating Chinese units.

Various modders have revamped the Chinese OOB. It seems that the focus of those Mods is to provide Japan with an ongoing stalemate in China that is nearly impossible to resolve and thus force the Japanese to seek victory fighting against the US, UK, etc.

Having experience with Babes scenario 28, I can say it is still a problem to hold China as the Allies.

Agreed, holding china as the allies is difficult, but possible. There were a couple of AAR's several years back that showed how to do it, both ended early, but the results were quite clear; CK would not fall in '42. Most players fail to recognize this for what it is: an allied victory. If the IJ goes for CK and fails to get it in '42, this translates into a huge amount of supply used; supply that will not be recouped. To be successful, IJ needs to take CK in '42 and as early as possible to minimize the supply usage. 6 months of daily bombing in CHI can easily burn 1M supply. That's what the allies want.

[GetAssista]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: spence
Taking Portland will wipe out all future production but bombing damage can be repaired so the ships that aren't built until 1943+ can still be built (not that much gets built in 1942).

I thought any ships not yet arrived were announced as destroyed as soon as the arrival base was captured by the enemy?

witpqs, yes. Clean sheet, no more ships from that base. They all appear in the VP section as destroyed with half VPs awarded