Japanese grand strategy

[mogami]

Hi, I don't mind being quoted but I 'd rather I was quoted correctly.

Several items.

I have always said that the Soviets and Chinese in WITP were too easy.
When the "Hirohito" plan was first published my respose was
rather then start with China. Player should move troops to Manchuria and knock out Soviets first. Not because it was good strategy or realistic but because if your playing WITP to conquer the map that was the correct order to do it in.

I'm surprised Mike Scholl does not remember all this. We went through all this in April 2004.



"Hi, No I think they are looking to invade the Soviet far East and capture more oil and resource and heavy industry.

I'm not sure what they plan on doing in 1943. "

(april 26th 2004)

In response to post about why Japanese players would want to activate Soviets. At the time it was hoped the Soviet OB would discourage players from ativating but in testing we found they were paper tigers (I had four test games with Soviets active)
However it made a difference if Soviets were activated prior to Japanese attacks. If Soviets active before Japanese attacks they withstood them rather well. If Japan got in the first attack prior to activating Japan won.

Another from the early days

"Hi, The Soviets only have to defend their major ports and the Railroad. Find a point far enough back along the rail and dig in. The Japanese will run away from their supply while the Soviets build up. There is no reason to fear flanking moves out into that waste land. The Japanese are a foot Army they have to stick to supply routes because they cannot move fast. (They like the Germans still use a large portion of horse drawn supply and arty) The Soviets do not have to make any offensive all they have to do is sit tight.
There will be a point where the Japanese supply breaks down. As long as the Soviets retain the rail west they are secure.

Japan will have to build up from 700,000 troops to 1,500,000 by 1943 or they will lose everything. The extra build up will cause ripple supply effects every where Japan is in contact with an enemy. The added air attrition will do to the IJA what the Solomon campaign did to the IJN airforces.

When I first began planning Japanese early war strategy I did a very long study of Japan seizing the Soviet oil fields and major ports (for the heavy industry and resource)
I think it could be done within 6 months of the start of war. (Japan has to prepare by building airfields, stockpiles of supply, troop movements and waiting for fleet
The problem was this would place over 1/3 of Japans industry exposed to attack by land forces that could march (how ever slow) to the targets. I could not find a way of insuring enough force to oppose the Soviets and the Chinese and by adding the Soviets to the war so early US material arriving in Soviet bases. USN submarines could refuel rearm at Soviet ports. The Home Islands air defense would have to be tripled while at the same time increasing that in Manchuria and Korea.

The early going whould not be that difficult but by 1943 everything gained would be lost taking with it industry that otherwise would be immune to attack the entire war. (I don't care what happens in Korea in Aug 1945)

It is much safer to grab the SRA because once it is secure the battle zones are located far from the resource/oil/industry. Japan can afford to lose battles in the empty zones as long as they take time. Japan cannot afford to lose battles in the heart of her industry/resource areas. (at least not before mid 1945) "

(4/28/04) Note this was based on Soviets being active prior to Japanese attack. (In testing I always activated Soviets before crossing the border) Also I did not use units from China but did use units from SAA.

"Two Armies and two leggies. (Both Mao and Peanut have armies but they can be mixed and matched. The game is about war with Japan not Chinese Civil War. )"

(5 May 2004) In response to question about Chinese

"Forget Russia. Japan can gain little and lose much bringing them into the war. Just pray they stay out of the war. (The one thing the Soviets can not do is invade Japan.) If the Soviet Union enters the war in 1945, so what? (As long as USAAF bombers can not use USSR airfields it is no big deal)"

13 Mar 2004 (of course at this time I was still under the impression the Soviet Far East Fleet was to be included and that Japan would not have the "fisrt strike" capabilty they ended up with.)


"QUOTE]Originally posted by mdiehl
IMO, if the JPN player wants to get involved in a *another* land war in Asia he ought to be allowed. IN that event, the USSR becomes a playable Allied faction, but with something akin to "stacking restrictions." [/QUOTE]


Hi, Trust me folks. Japan does not want a war with the Soviets.
(He can get it anytime he wants, just attack them)
There is nothing to be gained.

(Let sleeping dogs lie)

The Soviets are included. Leave them alone!!!! (The front is too large and there are too many Soviets. ) Consider them "window dressing" and then forget about them. You can not prepare for their entry into the war and you certainly do not want to provoke it. "

13 Mar 2004 (Just so anyone who thinks my position has changed since release. I was always saying that this front should not be active)



"We, the testers, have forwarded several ideas on how to handle the Soviets and the Communist Chinese. Right now it looks like they might be options (Historical, Non-Historical) that is selected at game set-up. However, this can change because we are a long way form coding that part of the game.

Rick"

KID on 17 Mar 2004 (Unfortunatley it was not taken care off in a clear easy to understand way)



"Hi, I hope WITP when complete produces a workable system for generating logical and historically feasible outcomes when the forces involved are not repeats of historic encounters. (I would hope when historic actions were set up the outcome was close to what occurred historically)
So no matter what the final system evolves into I will still fight the war following a plan I devise to take into account the game system.
I think the Japanese player (using hindsight) can do much better. The same is true for the Allied player. The game will begin to depart from history on day one and by day 1665 we should look back on a war that has produced it's own history.
The Japanese player will have to accept negative loss ratios in air to air. He can compensate to a degree be having a numerical advantage prior to opening combat. He has that advantage in the SRA so he only needs to insure he carries it with him where ever he goes.

I don't think we need to "balance" the game. I think we need to just make it accurate and let the players "balance" the game by their planning. The Japanese player has to highlight his strengths and hide his weakness.

It is very important to keep in mind the Japanese player is not trying to win the war. He is trying to win the game. He does that by not surrendering prior to Aug 15 1945. Even if the Allied player achieves the auto victory in Feb 1946 the best he can do is a draw. The Japanese player does not kill Allied material for their VP but to deprive the Allied player of their use. Japan does not care about VP. (except to avoid allied auto victory before Aug 1945)

The Allied player has to be a better resource manager compared to the Japanese. He needs to use assets over again. The Japanese player allots resources to defense knowing they will be gone when the battle is over. The only considerations for him are
Is this the "Great" battle I am waiting for? If not Do I really want (need) to fight here? How much do I want to extract as payment? How much can I afford to commit while still retaining the force I am preserving for the "Great" battle?

The war was rather one sided all things considered I expect the game to also be rather one sided. However that does not discourage me from wanting to play both sides. The great burden of victory has been lifted from the Japanese and placed squarely on the allied player. Japan only has to expand early (guaranteed unless Japanese are totally inept) and then be careful where they fight while setting up for one spectacular try at a tactical victory. The course of the war will still be interesting and fun to play. 1941-1943 the Allied player will in essence be trying to do exactly what the Japanese player is going to try from 1943-1946. Catch the enemy and administer a spanking from which the enemy cannot recover from without a prolonged period of rebuilding. The Allies hope to exploit this period by launching their own offensives and the Japanese hope to end the Allied re-conquest."

(24 Mar 2004) Does it sound like even then I was playing a Japan conquers the map game?





"Hi, I think you may be missing my point. Victory for the two players in WITP is different. The Allies have to force the enemy to surrender.
The Japanese have to force nothing. They have to avoid surrender.
The difference may seem petty but it is what in the end "balances" the game.
Forcing your enemy to surrender means you must be the active driving force in the contest. Avoiding surrender requires you only to be able to prolong the conflict past a certain preordained date.

It is this difference that makes the two sides styles interesting. The Allied player will try to avoid material loss because this impacts his getting the ratio for auto victory by making it harder. The Japanese player will wiegh the impact on auto victory before comitting to the defense of any point. As long as he gets a certain ratio in return for his investment he is fine. Because he gets a fairly high starting ratio during the first 6 months he has a lot of room later on.

Japanese players who insist on trying to destroy the allies and win military victory are going to be the ones that give the Allies the early auto victory. "

(25 Mar 2004)

"Greetings, We really want to fool with mother nature now don't we? The reason they go to war is China and Manchuria. If they had been willing to give up territory (and not want to occupy still more) there could have been a settlement possible. To allow Japanese players to withdraw from China would really be twisting history. (Yes I agree it might even make military sense, just that it would be akin to the CSA recruiting black soldiers in 1861)(Unthinkable) "

10-2-2002 (back before "Hi")

Greetings. I don't think Japan suffered from a lack of ground combat units to the point where with drawal from China would have made a differance in say the the South Pacific.
The player in WITP will have plenty of units but will find keeping a large number of them supplied far from main supply bases quite a task. I do think if he wants to he should have access to the China/Manchuria units (say he wants to swap a green unit for a more experianced one). He will most likely still be adding to and not subtracting from China during the course of the game.

10-9-2002 (on why China and Manchuria are in game)

"Hi, These are my results in recent (on going) test of Scenario 1 versus Allied AI
This is an Alpha test (I'm testing not playing) Please confine remarks or questions
to how the program works or interface don't get exicited about events you think are
not realistic. (The game needs to be tested in order to be tweeked and we really don't
require too much input concerning things we can see for our selves) My test is mainly
to run Japanese production.
I've edited a lot of the reports down to conserve space and time.


The plan is to conquer the NEI,PI,Malaysia as rapidly as possible while making progress
toward future action in South Pacific. In China I would like to secure the transport network
from Canton in the south to Yenen in the north. Eliminate all enemy units to the east of this
line. I have no plans to move beyond this secure border. 15th Army is to advance and capture
Rangoon and await reinforcment. (It will remain on the defensive after capturing Rangoon)
25th Army is to capture Singapore as soon as possible. 14th Army reduce PI while 16th Army
secures the remainder or NEI. "


7-12-2003 (The plan I have stuck to ever since)


"I actually think that China would make a very interesting long scenario. Just use the maps of China and have reinforcement and supply arrive at ports for Japan and at rear China base (via flying the hump or Burma road) The game would move very fast. "

7-15-2003

"Hi, Political points are used to change leaders and HQ of landunits. In Alpha version both players receive 50 per day. They are not really a show stopper.
China/Manchuria and Korea need the units deployed there. In China there is an active enemy. Korea and Manchura have Soviet units deployed on the border.
Much of Japans heavy industry and resource are located here. (I think the Japanese player will send more troops to these areas although I do think in some cases he will 'trade' units. (send in a new div and trasfer one of the veteran units south)

Still it would be unrealistic to just ignore facts and transfer the bulk of the Korean forces out without replacing them at the same time. (there is history and then there is fantasy)"

9-27-2003

[jwilkerson]

Tankerace ... just for clarity ... the context of these remarks was relative to the period covered by the game and immediately prior ( Japanese-Soviet border clashes in the thirties ).

[mogami]

Hi, From old debate on victory in game.


"Hi, I don't think we need to award points for bases.
The Japanese need to capture bases for the oil and resource. They need to capture other bases for the ports and airfields to protect the oil and resource bases.

What needs to be considered are surrender conditions.

When will Japan surrender (game ends)
When will China surrender (If China surrenders Japanese garrision commitments less then war needs)
When will Australia surrender (When they run out of beer)
When will USA surrender (It does not matter how impossible this condition is-Capture USA base (requires landing on West Coast and Marching accross USA))


It's my opinion both players will know who "won or lost" If you surrender you lose. (So allies have 4 possible surrenders to avoid) This gives the Japanese several grand strategy choices.

Japans surrender will be when her production falls below a certain value and an event triggers surrender. (A-bomb or capture of city (or cities) in Home Islands
Preventing or attaining these conditions will decide what bases need to be defended or taken without their having any point value. "

10-23-03 (China surrendered if supply was cut off and Chinese units ran out of supply)


Yike Auto victory IS my fault.

"Hi. Personally I think there should be a way for Japan to win the game. (Not the war) I don't think there is any set of circumstance where the US would have ended the war without the surrender of Japan. I like the "shorten the war" type conditions.
I like "Auto victory" (I would have auto victories for both Japanese and Allied players)
There would/will be much debate over what such conditions would actually be.

One would simply be the Japanese must secure the SRA by a certain date or lose.
One Japanese auto victory condition could be to assign "outer defensive ring" bases a certain point value and if Japan has a certain total past a certain date "Auto victory"

I don't want the game to come down to the US getting the bomb to win (I feel they had already met my victory conditions"

1-23-03

[mogami]

1 May 2003


"Hi, At some point after the game is released. There will be a Japanese player who counts the divisions in the Home Islands belonging to other commands (Northern Fleet, 14th, 15th, 16th, 25th Armies) And asks the question.
"Why send them where they belong. Why not move transports home and load them for a Central Pacific Operation right away.
Break 1 div down to Bde and use to capture Midway and Johnson while the other 5 move to Pearl Harbor. I can capture the South Pacific area at the same time with 2-3 Bde and a host of SNLF covered by 2 BB and a few cruiser CVL. I only need 2 BB and a few Crusiers for the SRA. leaving the bulk of the IJN to engage the USN at Pearl (hurt by 1 or 2 strikes from CV on Dec 7 and 8)

I think this will actually be the most common opening gambit for Japan since no where else can a large victory be possible so soon.
(You can grab the empty Islands without risk.)
The USN will have only the 3 CV (if the one on the West Coast can arrive before Japanese transports)(and the Japanese player can place many subs in between West coast and PH)

Does it matter if PI or Malaya or NEI require a few extra weeks to secure if PH is captured? "


1 May 2003

"Hi, For myself (only) I would not embark on any operation not dedicated to securing the SRA before such operations were in their final stages.

However. I bet right here and now. Some bright lad/lass in their very first PBEM game of WITP sends the units starting in the Home Islands straight for PH. The Japanese do have tankers and Oilers that on day one can begin sucking all the available fuel for use in this operation. What they use else where is not the issue.
I'll run concurrent tests. One for the No US DOW the other for the immediate assault on PH. I hope both fail. (because then I would have to conclude everyone on ether side in WW2 in the Pacific was wrong/blind/incompentant.

I recognize every Japanese player seeks to invent a war plan that can win the war.
However I don't think such plans are "attack as far as possible as soon as possible"
In my own planning I limit targets to those I have LBA cover. (meaning I have to capture and built a worthless Island before moving on to the important island. I'd never send a transport TF into area solely owned by enemy air. And I am not likely to send a TF into any area not under my control after the first month of the war"

[jwilkerson]

Japan taking the SRA within the first 6 months should be almost mandatory - I say almost because the Allies have more flexability than their historical counterparts to strip India and Australia and send massive reinforcements to the SRA during the first few months and given that possiblity the Japanese may need a little longer to finish the job. But finishing the job should be possible and should be the over-riding priority.

HOLDING the SRA for the longest possible time ... is the more difficult proposition. My assumption is that the game models the conversion of oil and resources into supply, fuel and airplanes closely enough, that if the Japanese are not bringing in sufficient oil and resources that the millitary will essentially shut down. Insufficient supply and fuel being the cause. Hence the absolutely requirement to keep to flow of oil and resources heading to Japan until the last possible moment again as an over-riding priority. Any adventurism which results in not maximizing the hold on the SRA would be contrary to the insterests of Japan.

Given some emerging possibilities of using NW Australian as a base for a counter-offensive against the SRA in 1943 ... holding the SRA through even the end of 1943 may be problematic for the Japanese player. Hence this becomes the primary strategic concern. Even if the Americans take Eastern NG and the Solomons and New Britain and New Ireland by the end of 1943... that has no direct impact on Japan's ability to bring the oil and resources home for the SRA. But an Allied campaign based out of the Darwin to Broome area which first gains LBA air superiority and then takes Timor, and then Kendari and then walks west toward Java ... taking Balikpapan and Palembang ... has won the war effectively for the Allies because the SRA has been lost.

Hence talking and holding the SRA for the longest possible timeframe would seem to be the basis for Japanese (military - player) victory.

[moses]

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

IMHO discussions of Japanese Grand Strategy in WITP should focus on how to take and defend the SRA for the longest possible time.

Original: Moquia
Hear, hear.

Of course in the end holding the SRA is critical. But the other theaters are important as well. Some reasons.

India: It is important that an invasion of India is possible. Otherwise the allied player can transfer large number of air and ground units from India down to Burma or even to other theaters in a way that they would not have done historically. If the allies abandon India in this way then and only then should a Japanese invasion in this area have a fair chance of success.

In Austrailia and to a lessor extent PH and the west coast a similar logic applies. Invasions in these areas should not be considered aberations or examples of gamey play. They should be considered normal options which require the allied player to maintain a proper defence at all times.

The problem arises when these operations are able to be successfully conducted against a defence which has not been compromised.

[Mike Scholl]

MOG.....I agree with most of what you've said above, but the one key point just won't seem to go away.....As the game stands right now the Japanese can use the "loopholes in the rules" to achieve a victory in a totally rediculous manner against the Soviets.....As much as you push the idea that reasonable people don't do such things, not all of WITP players are reasonable when it comes to a chance to "win".....That's just life.....If a quirk in the combat program allows you to have 10,000 troops attack 100,000 with the rest of your force bombarding and get a result where you kill 2000 defenders while losing 150 attackers---then there are going to be a ton of such attacks in games.

"Gentlemen's agreements" are all well and good.., but the game needs some basic changes to make the wilder and wierder "cheats"
impossible.....You can't close every loophole in a game this size, but the bigger ones need some more proactive "fixes" than another call to "use the editor"......Oh, and actually, I'd forgotten about out "discussion" of the subject last year....My Altzheimers must be acting up again.

[moses]

Reply to Mike Scholl:

I really don't think the use of the term "loophole in the rules" may be the best term to discuss the problems with the combat model. Take China for example.

Most players when they loaded up the game had no thought of conquering China. When I played my first game against the AI I gave little thought to the theater. In a totally overwhelmed state of mind I looked at my forces and decided that maybe I could take Changsa. I spent most of my time trying to figure out all the other things going on in the game. My point being that not only was I not looking for loopholes, I wasn't even half trying in this theater.

So after massing 7 or 8 divisions at Changsa I took the city almost instantly. Surprised, I just decided to continue down the rail line and was able to continue the offensive with ease. Only then did the possibility that China might actually be conquerable enter my mind. Now this was against the AI but the same thing occurs when playing against actual players.

So I really don't think the problems in China and other theaters are a problem with players using loopholes in the rules.

It is a problem of players doing normal things and having unjustifiable success.

[Charles2222]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, From old debate on victory in game.


"Hi, I don't think we need to award points for bases.
The Japanese need to capture bases for the oil and resource. They need to capture other bases for the ports and airfields to protect the oil and resource bases.

What needs to be considered are surrender conditions.

When will Japan surrender (game ends)
When will China surrender (If China surrenders Japanese garrision commitments less then war needs)
When will Australia surrender (When they run out of beer)
When will USA surrender (It does not matter how impossible this condition is-Capture USA base (requires landing on West Coast and Marching accross USA))


It's my opinion both players will know who "won or lost" If you surrender you lose. (So allies have 4 possible surrenders to avoid) This gives the Japanese several grand strategy choices.

Japans surrender will be when her production falls below a certain value and an event triggers surrender. (A-bomb or capture of city (or cities) in Home Islands
Preventing or attaining these conditions will decide what bases need to be defended or taken without their having any point value. "

10-23-03 (China surrendered if supply was cut off and Chinese units ran out of supply)


Yike Auto victory IS my fault.

"Hi. Personally I think there should be a way for Japan to win the game. (Not the war) I don't think there is any set of circumstance where the US would have ended the war without the surrender of Japan. I like the "shorten the war" type conditions.
I like "Auto victory" (I would have auto victories for both Japanese and Allied players)
There would/will be much debate over what such conditions would actually be.

One would simply be the Japanese must secure the SRA by a certain date or lose.
One Japanese auto victory condition could be to assign "outer defensive ring" bases a certain point value and if Japan has a certain total past a certain date "Auto victory"

I don't want the game to come down to the US getting the bomb to win (I feel they had already met my victory conditions"

1-23-03

That's not a very historic outlook. Consider that the A-bomb combined with the USSR attacking caused the JA surrender.

On top of that JA would surrender if some of the home islands were taken? And to think there was the real possibility that they still would have fought on and certainly planned for that.

[Mr.Frag]

"Hi. Personally I think there should be a way for Japan to win the game. (Not the war) I don't think there is any set of circumstance where the US would have ended the war without the surrender of Japan. I like the "shorten the war" type conditions.

Pretty simple in PBEM, you just simply agree up front that should Japan capture any bases in the Hawaii chain or further east and hold onto them for 2 months of game time or any bases Oz south of Townsville and hold them for 2 months of game time, Japan wins.

The reason Japan wins is not because they won the war, they win because *YOU*, the Allied Commander have been fired for your inability to command. [;)]

It is quit obvious to us that there is no way Japan can win the war, but it is also quite obvious that the commander of the Pacific theater would have his head handed to him and be replaced if this level of embarrassment was caused by his command.

Simple.

[mogami]

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

[That's not a very historic outlook. Consider that the A-bomb combined with the USSR attacking caused the JA surrender.

On top of that JA would surrender if some of the home islands were taken? And to think there was the real possibility that they still would have fought on and certainly planned for that.

Hi, Did you read the post? It says "there will be a lot of debate" in deciding victory conditions. My vote was then and remains for Japanese victory being how well they do. Not victory points. I've always wanted Japan to be made to surrender.
Just what conditions whould have to be met are open to debate.
I;ve been in favor of
1. Japan out of supply (this means production is halted)
2. Japan is being bombed by heavy bombers using normal loads
3. Cities in Japan have been occupied (no matter what number was agreed on I always included requiring Tokyo to be one of the cities)

I also said on more then one occasion that a Allied propsal to allow Japan to retain the Emperor would help Japan surrender.
(If Allies were required to met 3 conditions this proposal would subsitute as meeting 1)

I still don't like VP for bases and in my conduct of war as Japan I don't pay attention to VP for bases. (I don't capture a base for it's VP but only for how much enemy forces I can destroy from using it)

Anyway it was 2 years ago.

[Moquia]

ORIGINAL: moses

India: It is important that an invasion of India is possible. Otherwise the allied player can transfer large number of air and ground units from India down to Burma or even to other theaters in a way that they would not have done historically. If the allies abandon India in this way then and only then should a Japanese invasion in this area have a fair chance of success.

I would like to see some sort of garrison requirement for India, historically the British fought many uprisings during WW2. This would keep the allied player from emptying the subcontinent.

[Charles2222]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

[That's not a very historic outlook. Consider that the A-bomb combined with the USSR attacking caused the JA surrender.

On top of that JA would surrender if some of the home islands were taken? And to think there was the real possibility that they still would have fought on and certainly planned for that.

Hi, Did you read the post? It says "there will be a lot of debate" in deciding victory conditions. My vote was then and remains for Japanese victory being how well they do. Not victory points. I've always wanted Japan to be made to surrender.
Just what conditions whould have to be met are open to debate.
I;ve been in favor of
1. Japan out of supply (this means production is halted)
2. Japan is being bombed by heavy bombers using normal loads
3. Cities in Japan have been occupied (no matter what number was agreed on I always included requiring Tokyo to be one of the cities)

I also said on more then one occasion that a Allied propsal to allow Japan to retain the Emperor would help Japan surrender.
(If Allies were required to met 3 conditions this proposal would subsitute as meeting 1)

I still don't like VP for bases and in my conduct of war as Japan I don't pay attention to VP for bases. (I don't capture a base for it's VP but only for how much enemy forces I can destroy from using it)

Anyway it was 2 years ago.

I now see that the A-bomb reference seems more to be speaking to the dislike of an A-bomb drop forcing JA surrender, instead of a simple not wanting to use the A-bomb and then wanting the forced surrender to come after taking certain home island city(s).

I think VP's for hexes has it's place, but it's a different type of game to play as opposed to the militaristic style some of us like.

[mogami]

Hi, I don't think I used to be this crabby. I'll try to be nice.
I just feel like Sisyphus sometimes.

[jwilkerson]

Amen to the India garrison ... though again ... full representation of the India strategy on the British side ... requires virtually global input ... and for the Japanese the ability to invade or threaten Madagasscar and the Horn of Africa would be needed. Also prior to India garrison requirement someone needs to check to make sure all Indian Army units are actually represented.

[Mike Scholl]

Don't feel bad, MOG.....One of your "sharp" replys is still pretty mild and considerate
compared to some of FRAG's.....Sometimes I think you guys are playing "good cop/
bad cop" with us all.

[Milman]

I would like to see some sort of garrison requirement for India, historically the British fought many uprisings during WW2. This would keep the allied player from emptying the subcontinent.

But then we must have all militia unit on map and that will be a complete chaos in india .

[Rossj]

I don't believe the map has to be extended to allow for a IJA land war option...put karachi off limits and have it be the default supply, reinforcement staging area...do the same with northwestern russia...lots of people think the japanese couldn't pull off the conquest of china I think that is debatable...those same people think the conquest of india and or the soviet far east is more absurd...perhaps they're right...all i know is that I conquered all of china, met the chinese garrison requirements, have an additional 10 division involved in mop up operations...conquered all of india which has no garrison requirements, but I have 5+ division equivalents there and still have enough to stage 10 divisions to invade austrillia and 40+ (1,000,000 plus troops) to invade russia. So if these force levels are based on historical IJA capacity, I think my conquest and occupation are valid...what is lacking is a better oob and official garrison requirements...

[mogami]

Hi, In PBEM or versus AI? Against the AI there is nothing that could be done that would prevent Japanese players from doing just what they do now. It might take longer but the end result would be the same.
I'm only interested in what can be done (and not prevented) by Japanese players against human opponents.

I'm pretty sure no Japanese player will ever take China or India from me. Of course I can't do anything about current Soviet deployments. But if the Japanese player activates them prior to getting his free attacks then the Soviets will hold as well.

Everyone understands that the Soviet OB is incomplete? The Soviet fleet is missing.

[Tanaka]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, In PBEM or versus AI? Against the AI there is nothing that could be done that would prevent Japanese players from doing just what they do now. It might take longer but the end result would be the same.
I'm only interested in what can be done (and not prevented) by Japanese players against human opponents.

I'm pretty sure no Japanese player will ever take China or India from me. Of course I can't do anything about current Soviet deployments. But if the Japanese player activates them prior to getting his free attacks then the Soviets will hold as well.

Everyone understands that the Soviet OB is incomplete? The Soviet fleet is missing.

yes so when will it be completed??? [;)]