Australia / New Zealand and India

[stjeand]

Question for the players that are playing the game.


Should Australia / New Zealand and India be so easy for the Japanese to take?
Should the Japanese even be able to mount an attack into those locations?

Keep in mind...historically...and I know this is a simulation based on history not a historical simulation (quoting Alvaro)...the Japanese had no ability to invade India or Australia. They did not have the shipping and they did not have the troops.

Not totally sure how this will affect the game overall...but I know the fall of India is HUGE...
Australia not so much...and New Zealand...well it is a port but the Japanese can't hope to hold any or all that...
They don't have the manpower...and if they do that means they focused on that not naval / air which will make 43 more difficult for them for sure.


Also...IF the Japanese can not invade those places...does it become...boring for the Japanese?

[YueJin]

I think the possibility has to exist for Japanese naval invasions to Australia/India. It was a major concern for Allied commanders during the war and although it was never really considered seriously by the Japanese, especially after Midway in a game like this, players should have the opportunity to make an attempt if they want to.

The problem is more just how incredibly weak India and Australia are in the early stages of the war. Raising the Indian/Australian garrisons to 7-8/10 strength so they can be fully reinforced by turn 4 when the Japanese are generally beginning their main invasions would go a long way to helping solve the problem. The Garrisons at Nomea/Fiji should be similarly buffed so that they become a real point of contention rather than a 'gimme' on turns 2-3 for the Japanese. These were far more historically plausible objectives for the Japanese and should be a major battleground in the early stages of the war.

I'd also suggest putting more VP's on the map in general so the Japanese are incentivised to overstretch themselves. VP's at places like Darwin, Townsville, Honolulu, Midway, Dutch Harbour and Perth would make the game far more dynamic and interesting with the Japanese rewarded for launching many smaller offensives throughout 1942 instead of throwing everything at a stronger India/Australia as soon as possible. Add a couple to the Japanese mid areas as well so they're not forced into the Australia invasion for a chance of winning the game, Okinawa, Busan and Paramushiro-jima would be reasonable additions.

[stjeand]

Well the problem with more VPs is...the Japanese can't hold them long enough to "break even" with the Allies...if they US take them back quickly which should be easy as they are to far for the Japanese to hold...they can just sit and win.
Which we don't want. Sadly VPs in those locations can only be held for say a year or 18 months by the Japanese so the Allies will get the majority of points thus winning without having to do a whole lot.

Invasion wise
The Japanese IJN stated clearly they had no way to invade India and Australia.
They did not have the supply ships to do it...
They did not have the troops to do it...
Their supply lines were already stretched too far...add those locations and it was bound to snap.
In Warplan there is no easy way to simulate that.
Maybe in WP2 there will be some way to simulate with supply ships, build more to keep locations in supply and such.

Supply wise think about this:
Basically when the US have 180 LC and 6 corps they can just invade Japan and mostlikely capture a few cities. If they have naval superiority the Japanese can't do anything to affect supply.
We all know this should not be possible. The US said they could not do invade that far due to supply limitations.

[AlvaroSousa]

#1 It's a game not a historical simulation
#2 I am trying to figure out how to slow the game down some

I am playing a mirror match with Hadros that uses all the dirty tricks the better players use.
I am trying to play the long game for both sides.

Gives me a better feel for balance.

[Remington700]

ORIGINAL: stjeand

Question for the players that are playing the game.


Should Australia / New Zealand and India be so easy for the Japanese to take?
Should the Japanese even be able to mount an attack into those locations?

Keep in mind...historically...and I know this is a simulation based on history not a historical simulation (quoting Alvaro)...the Japanese had no ability to invade India or Australia. They did not have the shipping and they did not have the troops.

Not totally sure how this will affect the game overall...but I know the fall of India is HUGE...
Australia not so much...and New Zealand...well it is a port but the Japanese can't hope to hold any or all that...
They don't have the manpower...and if they do that means they focused on that not naval / air which will make 43 more difficult for them for sure.


Also...IF the Japanese can not invade those places...does it become...boring for the Japanese?

I can only speak to my hotseat game. When I started it I did not dream of invading India or Australia as I thought it impossible to pull off. Plus I still think historical (I know ...) and don't believe you can only look at this from a PTO perspective. Raiding is one thing,but invading India/Australia would effect the global war. "Europe First" would probably be looked at much differently with the loss of these countries. And greater resources would be applied to stop Japan's advancement - instead of Churchill and Marshall's "hold them in place" viewpoint.

Without using these tactics my game has been a lot of fun to play. I don't find it slow at all. Because of the different weather patterns you either have something going on in China or in the Pacific all the time. Playing the long game adds a ton to the overall complexity. Japan has to strike fast and get as much as they can. All while impeding the Allied convoys. Then they must fight a delaying action. The Allies struggle to survive then suddenly feel like they are mopping up Japan in the late game. However based on points they are behind. I am still learning the game and have been making a ton of mistakes. And I realize things are different with good players going head to head. But I feel the game is in a good place when India and Australia are not the focus of combat.

[stjeand]

Al,

I am not complaining...just asking other plays their thoughts.

There are definitely 2 thoughts about the game here.
One if to keep in fun for both sides as long as you can. If the Japanese basically just expand then sit...well that is not that much fun.
The other is if they expand to much they cause the opposite effect.

But again thank you very much for the game.


As far as ways to slow down the Japanese...

1) Phasing in the LCs 20 per turn works really well. The Japanese have to plan each attack rather than ungarrison everything turn 1...invade everywhere turns 2 and 3. It also keeps the chances for mass invasions of India and Australia down. Could even phase in some transports like the US / UK get...They still need 100 to 120 but then phase in more over 1942.
2) Keeping the Japanese from taking the DEI turn 1 is important too...I can still do it with 80+%. Why is it important...the DEI is the gateway to India and Australia. Make that take 4 or 5 turns and that slows them. I think I buffed up the DEI in Batvia to an 8/10 and made Palembang and Surabaya surrender locations. BUT had to give the Japanese more oil to cover their lost resources.
3) Lastly if you slow down the Japanese you have to slow down the US...Can't have them able to drop 6 corps in Japan in 43 /44 without having taken a single island on their way.

Just some suggestions.

[AlvaroSousa]

Did you test the latest version? You shouldn't be able to take the NEI turn 1. Very low chance.

I have been thinking of removing ports on the map. I did this originally. Many ports just didn't have the capacity to have this scale. This will narrow down battles a little more.

Phasing in LCs can work. I just have to fit them with the A.I. so they don't get messed up.

In my game the Japanese are invading everywhere.

I was thinking of removing ports at these locations.....

7,54
37,42
34,51
In Celebes to West Papua keeping two ports only not the 4 that are there between X58 and X70.... I keep 58,36 and 70,40
Remove ports 87,24 and 90,20

The big issue is the A.I. It just isn't flexible enough early on to adapt to tricky things.
I could also bring in garrisons if say Australia gets invaded or Southern India. National rally and emergency troops.

Considering all this.

I thought about limitations on invasion ranges but that still leads to the same result just more tedious.

The best scalable solution I thought of today is supply transport use based on units not ports.
Not 1 transport per port but 1 transport per 10 strength of unit.

So even if you bring a huge force into Australia will Japan have enough transports to fully supply them?
It also forces the Allies to build more transports for supply as they bring in more units.

It slows down the game on both sides.

[stjeand]

ORIGINAL: AlvaroSousa
Did you test the latest version? You shouldn't be able to take the NEI turn 1. Very low chance.

Yes I did...I can still take it 3 or 4 out of 5 times. BUT it requires a lot.
2 Marines, one division and every surface ship that can reach it.
The thing is...why would you not try? Even failing means you get it the next turn worse case.

I have been thinking of removing ports on the map. I did this originally. Many ports just didn't have the capacity to have this scale. This will narrow down battles a little more.

Phasing in LCs can work. I just have to fit them with the A.I. so they don't get messed up.

In my game the Japanese are invading everywhere.

I was thinking of removing ports at these locations.....

7,54
37,42
34,51
In Celebes to West Papua keeping two ports only not the 4 that are there between X58 and X70.... I keep 58,36 and 70,40
Remove ports 87,24 and 90,20

The big issue is the A.I. It just isn't flexible enough early on to adapt to tricky things.
I could also bring in garrisons if say Australia gets invaded or Southern India. National rally and emergency troops.

Considering all this.

I thought about limitations on invasion ranges but that still leads to the same result just more tedious.

The best scalable solution I thought of today is supply transport use based on units not ports.
Not 1 transport per port but 1 transport per 10 strength of unit.

So even if you bring a huge force into Australia will Japan have enough transports to fully supply them?
It also forces the Allies to build more transports for supply as they bring in more units.

It slows down the game on both sides.

Yes the AI will be an issue...that is why I have not bothered trying my scenario against the AI. Not sure it would handle it well...
I suppose you could make a another scenario that is not really set for the AI but more PBEM.
The AI does not go heavy invasion into India or Australia like a player will so players don't worry about that.

What I did to slow down the Japanese in India was...

Phase in all LCs.
Phased in some transports.

DEI can NOT fall until late Jan / early Feb. It is just not possible with the weather and units available and what the Axis has to do to fight there.

I then took Chittagong and said it is suppressed unless either side holds both Calcutta and Rangoon.
This changes supply in that area for both sides. The Japanese run out right next to Calcutta...and the Allies run out right out at Rangoon. Burma supply lines were notoriously horrible.

I kind of left Australia for the moment...to many ports to take and hold was a pain.

New Calendonia and Fiji are way to easy to take...and they never fell historically. I made them supply sources so that they just don't get so easily cut and if the Japanese want them they have to go in hard.
NZ is WAY to easy...need to have some port suppression like Australia...so added that in along with New Caledonia has to fall.

Lastly forced the US to island hop. Them just invading the Philippines in 43 when they have superior naval access is just wrong. They had to open a supply route there with islands in between as staging supply sources.

Lastly changed CV stacking to 4...this is more a test to see if there can be a few interesting battles prior to late 43.
Would love for there to be a way that surface ships could have more use but sending them alone anywhere early as the Allies is suicide...and later as the Japanese is the same.
Would be nice to have a few battles though rather than the massive stacks moving around.
Not sure changing to 4CVs will do that but the Japanese will now have three stacks...and the US one to start.

But I guess we will see.


I do like your idea regarding the transports. That is something that I was hoping to have happen, whether it be MS or transports, so that makes is important to build and keep them around, if you want supply.
But the US already build transports...what they don't build is MS...Same with the UK.
Having more transports is great for them...does not really help the Japanese as they already have enough for pretty much the game.

Transports though are very difficult to sink...I rarely ever hit any. Not sure if blockades should have a chance to sink them as well as a chance the supplies get through? Low either way but would be nice.



Thanks for the update.

[AlvaroSousa]

I discussed this with one of my WW2 consultants that is in my credits. Really brilliant person. He came up with a solution which is practical and easy. It was the same idea I was going except he reversed how to apply it which will save me a MOUNTAIN of scripting and probably remove some.

He has read so many books on WW2 military history he could teach it at the Phd Level in college.

So the solution is based on realism and logistics. A fleet at the end of it's move will suffer effectiveness attrition if it doesn't have X bases within Y range. If it didn't move it will suffer effectiveness loss at the end of it's turn as well based on the same principles.

I just have to work out the #s. This will force a slower pace to the game.

[Professor Chaos]

Alvaro, if you implement that you could increase the numbers for the US over time, to reflect the development of at-sea replenishment.

[AlvaroSousa]

It's a representation of damage repair, logistics, ammo, and distance to these facilities. I learn new stuff every day. My expert friend explained me all this stuff. Basically if a fleet gets into a fight it is out of ammo by the end of it. I asked well what about merchant raiders by the Germans?

Merchant raiders were specifically designed for long distances and dont use much ammo to kill MMs.

It will probably be every 10 hexes like supply. You get full value within 10, half 11-20, quarter 21-30, zero 30+. Likely you will need 30 port sizes to be at full strength....

I might just take it off the battle itself. Not sure how to do it.

I had a way more complex system I was going to use with a similar premise. But I was already finding loopholes in it. His solution was elegant and simple with not much added work.

[Remington700]

I like this a lot.

Will oilers be able to offset the effectiveness loss? Or does this solve the use of oilers to stay at sea for months in enemy waters problem?

[kennonlightfoot]

Eventually the US had so many ships that they could keep their carrier forces at sea and rotated only the ships that needed repairs back to bases. In late 1944 they developed the ability though ammo ships to resupply ammo like they were already doing oil.

[stjeand]

Well resupplying is one thing...rest is another. Sailors can't just stay at sea for a year and not be exhausted.
I suspect the US rotated sailors in and out but then you would have to deal with an experience issue which would be complex.

I would think as the US expands and takes bases in the Pacific it will be less and less of a efficiency loss. Added to that they will have to build transports/MS for supplies.