Can an Allied Player Win the Game?

[ADavidB]

Can the Allied player win WitP against a PBEM opponent? When I look at the AARs by WitP_Dude, Moses and Wobbly and others, I really begin to wonder. Certainly it doesn't appear that an Allied player can do anything at all to stop a determined Japanese attack on mainland Asia. WitP_Dude also demonstrated that it is possible for the Japanese to take the Central Pacific, again using the same techniques of locally applying overwhelming force and chopping up the Allied defenses piecemeal.

This begs the question; will the same approach work for the Japanese player against the West Coast of North America? Consider the general situation at the start of a campaign game:

- The Allies have no forces capable of presenting a credible threat anywhere in the Pacific or Asia. Russia forces can't be moved. Chinese forces are worthless in battle. Indian forces are worthless in battle. US forces are small and scattered.

- A strong strike at the US forces in Hawaii, combined with the KB sticking around for a couple of more days to further wipe out naval assets means that there are essentially no naval forces available to prevent the Japanese from moving wherever they want.

- Let us now suppose that the Japanese player commits the overwhelming bulk of his forces to a systematic invasion of Alaska in December 1941/January 1942 - supported by the KB and the Japanese battle fleet. The Japanese light carriers and CVEs can control the waters of the Far East. There are few troops in Alaska, so invasions there could carry the way quickly, leading to the invasions of the Canadian cities.

- Once Vancouver is taken and supplied, it can be used as a base for the KB and the battle fleet, who together with LBA can first reduce Seattle to rubble, then let the ground troops come in to mop up. Subsequently, Seattle can be used as a base for the KB and the battle fleet who can shuttle down to San Fran and systematically pound it to rubble while ground troops move south at their leisure.

- The early entry of additional forces in San Fran is essentially insignificant because of the mechanics of the ground-battle rules in the game. All the Japanese player has to do is commit sufficient forces and eventually he will take San Fran too. We've see that in the other AARs in China, Malaya and now Russia.

- BTW - have you noticed that it is possible to get to the "United States" base from Vancouver or Seattle without even going anywhere near San Fran? That means that a Japanese player can bring some armored units along for the invasion of Vancouver, and then send them off at rail speeds to capture "United States". If the Allied player splits his forces to try to protect "United States" then it just makes the Japanese assault on San Fran even easier.

My take is that a determined Japanese player can take the entire West Coast by the end of 1942 by ignoring the rest of the Pacific and Asia. There is little or no risk of interference by Allied forces in the Eastern Pacific, and many strategic bases in the Far East are undefended or defended by base forces at best, and thus can be taken by minor Japanese forces.

Many people have been saying; "Wait until 1943/1944/1945/1946", but I've got to believe that a determined Japanese player who seriously commits his best forces to major campaigns can take any theater that he wants in 1942. And if that theater happens to be the West Coast of North America, what does the Allied player do next? (And how will the game handle it?) From a purely "game" point of view, wouldn't a successful Japanese invasion of the US correspond effectively to a "win"?

So what can an Allied player do against this potential?

Dave Baranyi

[Titanwarrior89]

A lot you say could be true if the jap players gets all his assets(or the majority)of directed towards one maybe two major ojectives.

1. I a'm not for sure myself-in my first pbem game.

2. What does victory point hexes/bases have too play in this.

3. I would suppose that if he was too invaded, lets say the US. The US would have a hard time reqrouping too put up a good fight.[:'(]

[tsimmonds]

Before you get too excited about this project, I suggest that you consider two things:

• 8.3.2 Japanese Movement "If Japanese ground units move east of column 132 (inclusive), then all American and Canadian air and ground reinforcements will have their delay reduced by 180 days. Also, several US infantry divisions will become immediately available." This is not inconsequential.
• This has already been tried and documented. See the "Banana AAR"

[Farfarer61]

Ah, the code is cracked.

In PacWar, there was the 1941-42 'left hook' manoeuvre Alaska-B.C.-Seattle -SF LA which pretty much did in the game.

Human players usually mopped up China, save for maybe one contested city.

First Ceylon, then India was standard.

Having said this, I was took Hokkaido in 1942 against a very good PBEM opponent, but I had to withdraw eventually.

[ADavidB]

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

Before you get too excited about this project, I suggest that you consider two things:

• 8.3.2 Japanese Movement "If Japanese ground units move east of column 132 (inclusive), then all American and Canadian air and ground reinforcements will have their delay reduced by 180 days. Also, several US infantry divisions will become immediately available." This is not inconsequential.
• This has already been tried and documented. See the "Banana AAR"

I remember that AAR - it was a direct attempt to invade San Fran. What I am postulating is a sequential invasion from the North, which translates to local supply centers, land-based invasion, land-based air attacks. and threats in many directions. And the AARs in China/Russia and Malaya have shown that what matters is how many troops you eventually put into play. If the Japanese player can move more troops into San Fran than the US player can summon, then the Japanese player will capture San Fran. Remember, not a lot in the way of reinforcements do show up in the first half of 1942.

The problem is two-fold. First off, the ground combat model is broken - it is too easy to capture cities. Second, the Japanese resource/fuel model is broken - the Japanese are never limited by supply.

Remember, we all doubted WitP_Dude's chances at taking Hawaii, then at taking China. The only place he failed was in New Zealand and that was the only place where he split his forces. And Dude lost a lot of forces from carelessness. Remember Mogami mentioning that he took Hawaii without losing any CVs? I bet that Mogami could take the West Coast by the end of 1942 if he really tried - and against a reasonably skilled PBEM oppenent too.

Dave Baranyi

[ADavidB]

ORIGINAL: Farfarer

Ah, the code is cracked.

In PacWar, there was the 1941-42 'left hook' manoeuvre Alaska-B.C.-Seattle -SF LA which pretty much did in the game.

Human players usually mopped up China, save for maybe one contested city.

First Ceylon, then India was standard.

Having said this, I was took Hokkaido in 1942 against a very good PBEM opponent, but I had to withdraw eventually.

You are right - the same things that were wrong with Pacwar are still wrong here, with the exception that at least in Pacwar the Japanese player had to get his Chinese forces enough preparation points, which took time and slowed down the advance in China. Never-the-less, by putting a couple of non-Chinese controlled divisions into the China campaign the Japanese player could still take most of it quickly.

Dave Baranyi

[hithere]

not to argue with the land combat problem, but i don't think that a land invasion from alaska/canada will work either. for 1, i don't believe you will bring enough supplies and the citys should not produce for the Japanese. for 2, a march that long will rack up Fatigue and dis organisation. for 3, in the first 6 months the US does get alot of troops. considering that B-17's, and everything else will be hammering the LCU's all the way down. the US has a big Warhawk unit that is in Seattle that will prob stop the Japanese attack if they use carriers.

In the meantime, Japan will lose alot of troops and supply ships too subs and what is left of the US navy can do surface raider attacks ala the bismarch/tripiz. not to mention, since they have paid attention to the other area's, the british will have a couple of big div to go on the offensive.

[Nikademus]

well i dont agree that the LCU model is "broken" I think a source of alot of player's problems are lack of preperation...as in "preperation points" It takes (naturally) alot of advance planning and more importantly, discipline to achieve it. What i mean by the latter is that you have to resist the temptation to dart your units all around the map in "fire brigade mode" reacting to your opponent's moves and instead, look to the bigger picture, even if that means losing a local battle or campaign somewhere else on the map. Just to give an example, i just held out a dutch base with nothing more than two weak inf battalions and several support units against a large Japanese mixed brigade with some engineer support for over two weeks in Sumatra. What allowed the daring Dutch to defy the odds (the japanese units had (before adjustments over 160 assault value vs <10 for the dutch) a large piece of it was that the dutch had 100 prep points each while the Japanese force had virtually none. This gave a huge combat bonus which combined with the terrain and 3 fort levels stymied the Japanese attacks.

As for the Hook strategy. The instant any Japanese LCU touches the US mainland (not just SF) the LCU schedule gets a huge boost. Suddenly the Japanese "invasion" has alot more to deal with then before. If certain cities have been denuded completely of troops (an oft used player tactic) then yes, you might succeed in taking a city (temporaily) however if you've kept a few strong units back and put max preperation on them, then even a large attack will have problems. Here's another example....i have in Rangoon, a full INF div + two brigades defending vs no less than the entire Burma army (4 full strength IJA divisions) with 6 forts and 100 prep points however i am well entrenched and 2 delib attacks have so far failed to make a dent.

As for taking Alaska...well its kind of like taking "India" How will this affect the US ability to make war? Not much You could try some long range bombing but again, if the US cities have decent air defenses, no easy answer. Taking Alaska to me in WitP is little different from real life....it makes for a great thumb nosing move at the ALlied player but wont really buy the Japan player anything long term accept a long vulnerable supply line that needs to be fed.

WitP_Dude's AAR is a great example and lesson to Allied players not to get complacent about when and where to start planning their great counter-offensives and to instead, plan defensively for at least the first year and not take any target for granted....but it shouldn't be blown out of preportion as to ask the question....can the Allied player win. Just take a look at what it's cost dude materially to do what he did in ships and planes and pilots.....not to mention the failed gambit at Aukland which will cost nearly a 100000 troops. (a result you can expect with an invasion of the US mainland only faster)

[ADavidB]

ORIGINAL: hithere

not to argue with the land combat problem, but i don't think that a land invasion from alaska/canada will work either. for 1, i don't believe you will bring enough supplies and the citys should not produce for the Japanese. for 2, a march that long will rack up Fatigue and dis organisation. for 3, in the first 6 months the US does get alot of troops. considering that B-17's, and everything else will be hammering the LCU's all the way down. the US has a big Warhawk unit that is in Seattle that will prob stop the Japanese attack if they use carriers.

In the meantime, Japan will lose alot of troops and supply ships too subs and what is left of the US navy can do surface raider attacks ala the bismarch/tripiz. not to mention, since they have paid attention to the other area's, the british will have a couple of big div to go on the offensive.

Having the KB sitting off of Alaska will slow down any US raiding very quickly. As well, if you cover your landings with the Japanese surface fleet you will wipe out the few cruisers that the US can put together. The key is to send lots of supplies and fuel ahead of time to the Kuriles, then from there to the bases that you capture in Alaska. Grab a couple level 3 ports in Alaska and you can bring supplies in to your heart's content.

Again, having the BBs around helps greatly as far as reducing LBA response. Remember, another problem with the game is that fixed fortifications don't really stop bombardment fleets, particularly now that you can stand-off your DDs.

And I wouldn't march all my forces overland, just enough to keep the Allied player "honest", then transport the rest by sea - first from Alaska to Canada, then from Vancouver to Seattle, then onwards to San Fran. And what would you do as an Allied player if three or four Japanese armored divisions were happily taking the train from Vancouver to "United States"? you've only got a base force there, and even if you put in some planes, LBA is nearly useless against ground troops.

My point is that it is the fundamental weaknesses in the model that allow these sorts of scenarios to be possible. If it were as difficult to capture a city in a game as it was historically in WW II, then the Japanese wouldn't stand a chance at this sort of gambit. But as is, there is nothing north of San Fran that can hold back any sort of serious Japanese invasion prior to late spring 1942.

So, in addition to the poor design of ground combat and the overabundance of Japanese supply, the ability of the Japanese to bombard with effective impunity and the uselessness of aerial bombardment against ground troops means that the Allies have almost nothing available to stop any serious Japanese assault in the first six months of the war.

Dave Baranyi

[Titanwarrior89]

I agree with you Nikaemus. I did one invasion of saipan with out preping for it and I paid big time. But in the game I am currently in I spend two days real time moving the planned invasion on saipan. The troops involved were at 100% I started the units planning at least 3 or 4 months ahead(don't remember for how many months) but when they hit the beaches-they where ready too fight.

It was a whole different ball game then. There is some problems with the ground combat but overall if you think ahead it works. I think some players get Ant-zeee and move way before their ready and pay for it in combat readiness. Then they think the system is broke.[:'(]

[ADavidB]

Nik -

I don't disagree with most of what you are saying - but remember, preparation points are a rare commodity amongst the Allies forces in the first few months of the war. And equally, setting some Japanese divisions with targets of Seattle, "United States" and San Fran on the first day of the game will make a big difference in March 1942 when those units are knocking on the door.

And my point is the only reason for taking Alaska is if you do intend to seriously invade the US. Alaska provides staging bases and repair depots for further invasions.

Can it be done? I'm concerned that it can. This really changes the Allied strategy. Now instead of moving the first line of defense to the Hawaian Islands you now have to keep a sizable force back on the mainland just in case of the "Left Hook" gambit. (Imagine if you moved most of the ground troops to Hawaii, then had to try to rush them back to the mainland in the face of the KB happily cruising around, probably in two groups, with supplies and fuel just a couple of days away in Alaska...scary thought - eh?)

In the end, my point is that if ground fighting were more typical of what occured in WW II, instead of being modelled after modern Middle East wars (minus the guerilla warfare), fixed land based guns had some real effect against BBs, and the Japanese supply situation was realistically modelled, then the opportunity for a "Left Hook" gambit would be much less.

Until then, any Japanese player who choses to ignore the historical plan can probably seriously threaten the Allied player's ability to win. Is this good or bad? I don't know. It's probably "good" from a pure game-playing p.o.v., but it certainly upsets my sense of historical veracity.

Could I win using this strategy as the Japanese player? Probably not, because I'm not that good a player in general, and I don't know the Japanese side well enough. But I bet there are plenty of experienced Japanese player out there who could (and may well will) use this strategy successfully to far exceed the historic successes of the Japanese.

Dave Baranyi

[moses]

I believe Japan can take any land mass it desires early in the game with the possible exception of the West coast. The key problem with taking the west coast is that you can't get a good foothold. All the cities are well defended such that if you try to land there your landing force gets creamed. If you land in Alaska there are too many good mountain defensive locations where the allies will block your path. The second problem is that only the 12 southern area divisions are available at the start of the game and I don't know that even with all 12 that it will be enough.
The only chance would seem to be to land everything in between the cities at a non-defended location and then march to a city from there. If one city can be taken this way then the whole coast will probably fall. Supplies will not be a problem as Japan has plenty of ships and supplies in the early going. The only thing I'm not sure about is how supply works when you don't own a base hex. This is of course a very risky plan for Japan and if it fails the game is over.

[Ron Saueracker]

Of course the Allied player can win the game via PBEM. I've only played as Allies and was doing well vs very determined Japanese players in each instance.

Is there a secret? Yes! Don't play as if it is a game...conserve. Don't sell the farm for something to do. Fall back fighting (LCUs, LBA and small surface combat TFs) until Japan reaches rough historical parity with historical conquests...should take about 4-6 months. Don't commit your CVs in early 42 unless Japan over extends and is therefore in a vulnerable position (the CV engagement would occur in your territory and if you are any good, you will have a few land bases with LBA support for your CVs). If you lose those CVs you are screwed.

[ADavidB]

Ron -

What would you do if you were faced with an invasion of Alaska in Dec 41 and 6 to 8 Japanese divisions hitting the two BC bases in January 42, with 4 more in waiting to hit Seattle? Would you send ground troops up north and risk an attack on a weakened San Fran, or try to slow down the Japanese assault with what is up there in the Pacific Northwest?

Dave Baranyi

[2ndACR]

ORIGINAL: ADavidB

Ron -

What would you do if you were faced with an invasion of Alaska in Dec 41 and 6 to 8 Japanese divisions hitting the two BC bases in January 42, with 4 more in waiting to hit Seattle? Would you send ground troops up north and risk an attack on a weakened San Fran, or try to slow down the Japanese assault with what is up there in the Pacific Northwest?

Dave Baranyi

The only way the Japanese can land that many forces is to delay attacking the DEI, Malaya and the PI. I would place 2 Divisions in a blocking position while prepping and building forts. An invasion of SF would immediatly give me oogles of troops for it's defense.
Not to mention all the a/c I would get from this invasion.

Saigon area would be mine, because I would immediatly go on the offensive the moment all those divisions showed up in Alaska.

All of these tactics have huge tradeoffs that have to be made some where else. B17's would be raiding every where from day 1. My CV forces would be seeking his vulnerable transport TF's and supply convoys. I would almost welcome a PBEM player to make some of these major blunders IMO.

[moses]

The west coast issue is a bit of a red herring. The real worry is can Japan be prevented from taking all of Russia, China and India. I'm beginning to think that the answer is no. I've demonstrated that Russia can be defeated by mid-January and it looks like the mop-up operation will be complete by mid-march or so with many forces released to China and the SRA prior to that. Then with all those forces released from russia, china and then India should fall with relative ease.

To the objection that the SRA must be given greater priority I have to disagree. I only used 5 SRA divisions to take russia which leaves 7. Essentially it means that I just don't invade the PI until march or April. I still can take Singapore and parts of Burma. With the independent brigades and small units I can still take Borneo and Kendari. Once Singapore falls(which should happen on scheduale) I use those forces for Java/Palenbang. I might even take the southern PI as that doesn't take much force. Air Forces from the PI might be a pain but in the early period of Jap air supremacy they can be supressed and destroyed on the ground.

I will have plenty of oil/resources. This is really not an issue as I have a big stockpile to start with and will get oil from borno and russia to help stretch my supplies. Plus I wont be that much behind the historical scheduale anyway.

The US player can really do nothing to exploit the strategy. As long as I have my navy what is he going to invade.

I don't see the flaw in this plan. I was a skeptic at first but now that it is clear that Russia can be taken down with ease, I don't see what the allied player can do about it.

[Halsey]

It looks like the developers missed this little fact.

The Russians should get the same 180 day increase in reinforcements if invaded. The same as the US.[;)]

[dtravel]

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR
All of these tactics have huge tradeoffs that have to be made some where else. B17's would be raiding every where from day 1. My CV forces would be seeking his vulnerable transport TF's and supply convoys. I would almost welcome a PBEM player to make some of these major blunders IMO.

Hirohito is looking for PBEM opponents. [;)]

[BoerWar]

It looks like the developers missed this little fact.

The Russians should get the same 180 day increase in reinforcements if invaded. The same as the US.

Where exactly would those reinforcements come from? As I recall German troops were just discovering that winter coats would have been handy 10 miles from Moscow in Jan 1942. There were no reinforcements, in fact Zhuikov and several divisions had just headed west.

[Philwd]

I'm not sure a 180 day reinforcement increase for the Russians is very realistic. All their forces are at Moscow. In fact I'm fairly certain that IRL Japan could have really done this after the Siberians were moved. The only thing holding them back was thier fear from the previous drubbing Zhukov gave them. That's what is missing.

Since the Sorge ring gave the Russians intelligence on Japan almost equal to Ultra maybe the Allies should be able to redeploy forces once any Jap unit is discovered to be prepping for a Russian objective. Or maybe just as well no Jap unit CAN prep to reflect the IJA fear of Russia. Lack of preparation points may slow the IJA down enough to allow Russia to hold.

Just a couple of thoughts.

Quark