Japanese grand strategy

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Mogami
If the game can model the historic situation then I would allow Japanese players to try to defeat China. Import troops from other HQ and anything else because it will impact the war outside China and Japan taking a few more cities will not win them the war or free up troops. Offensives in China after 1940 were pointless. In 1944 Allied heavy bombers began flying from China. Now offensives again had a point and the Japanese made a massive all out effort that in the end failed.

IF the game could model the historic realities (the tweak you and Frang did might fill the bill), I would still have ONE big problem with the Japanese dragging in troops from all over the map. Those troops SHOULD be tied up garrisonning places all over the map. Everywhere but China the game seems to assume the Japanese were greeted by entire populations of "Quislings" all eager to serve as slave labor and be raped and killed for not bowing everytime a Japanese soldier walked by.

The IJA has too many "free" units available to be used anywhere the player wants. This problem will only be solved when he is forced to garrison at the historic levels.

[mogami]

Hi, While I agree that production should be effected by lack of garrisons I don't think it would present much of a problem (I garrison and availbilty of land units has never been a deciding factor in my planning an operation)
When I am the Allied player I welcome and invite the Japanese to occupy as many islands as far from Japan in as great a force as he wants.
Not only will ground combat in China not win the war for Japan but ground units in combat are a bad thing for Japan any where.
He will win the ealry battles and he wil go where Japan never dared with a force Japan never assemabled and he will learn why Japan did not dare and did not assemble such forces.
The map willl have many meatballs on locations Japan never visted. By late 1943 the map will look pretty acurate for 1943. But the map in 1944 will look like a map from 1945.
There is no rush. Time lost in 1942 will be regained in 1944 for exactly that reason.
However if in 1942 I move forward into Japans grasp I expect they will hurt me more then in actual war. That is up to the day I do what the Allies did. I defeat a major Japanese operation that has ventured too far.

Before I win a defensive battle as Allied player I feel I must remain on the defensive and thwart Japanese plans by having them yield nothing of lasting value. He can have the base. I will keep the aircraft the pilots the ships and the troops.

"I'll be back"

[Rossj]

I have always thought that it was the IJA who pushed for the war and the IJN with there greater appreciation of the military and industrial capability of the west who feared entering into it. Your description/opinion, though well written and perhaps backed up by scholarship is contrary to everything I have read on the topic.

[Rossj]

You are absolutely right! IMO regarding garrisons.

[mogami]

ORIGINAL: Rossj

I have always thought that it was the IJA who pushed for the war and the IJN with there greater appreciation of the military and industrial capability of the west who feared entering into it. Your description/opinion, though well written and perhaps backed up by scholarship is contrary to everything I have read on the topic.

Hi, I don't wish to be a smarty boots or anything but it is my experiance that the general perception almost never matches the historical reality.

The IJA was very opposed to entering war with European Nations and USA.
The IJN was aware of the USN building program and realized that by 1943 they would be outnumbered and that this same period would be after they had exhausted their prewar stocks of fuel and av gas.
If they were ever going to fight the USN there would be no better time then 1941-42.
Perhaps certain persons inside ther IJN knew the truth. But they did not decide to go or not go.
The Navy pushed the operations against the DEI and the Navy promised to protect it by the PH strike.
What the Navy did not have was
1. A plan for after the DEI
2. Troops to defend bases with.

I've often wondered what Japan or Germany might have been able to do if they had actually planned for the war before they began the war. Say what you might neither one was prepared for a war. Both seemed to operate under the impression that a few Campaigns against isolated enemy forces represented modern industrial warfare.
They must have slept through WWI. Oh they learned new tactics and developed new weapons but they went right back to plans that ended after a single campaign.

The IJA had nothing to gain from a war with the USA. The Army didn't use oil. The Army was protecting "markets" and the USA market was closed if Japan was at war.
But the Army could not last in China without the Navy.
After much bickering and failure to actualy define the war aims the Japanese expanded the war.
There was another route.
The Japanese could have had the French close the Burma Road. (Claim neutrality)
However this did not get the IJNAF aviation fuel. The section of the embargo that got the Japanese worried was the part forbiding the sale to Japan of 87 octane gasoline.
Without the KB the Japanese could not fight a war. So they started a war???[X(][X(]
(and then never got more then 40 percent of their prewar AV gas supply)

[Rossj]

well written and sensible as always mogami...my next comment is one of curiosity and not a challenge to what you have written: what are some good sources to read more of this...

[jwilkerson]

Eh - I might have to say "over simplification" ... for example when you say "Germany" who do you mean ? The German Officer Corps pretty much opposed the war ... the fall of 1939 almost saw a revolt ... the Hitlerites had plans for war ... but these plans envisioned war starting years later ... for example the "Z Plan" fleet which was planning on war in 1946 ...

In referring to the IJA and the IJN ... it might even be necessary to cite individuals ... but in general .. during the 1930s ... both the Navy and the Army "hotheads" at the more junior levels ... agitated for war ... at the more senior level ... Tojo compared to Yammamoto ... Tojo had little appreciation for US strength ... a comment from his one trip "Not Impressed" ... contrasts with Yammamoto's concerns about Japan's ability to survive past the opening months of a war ... it is true that many IJA officers really wanted to win in China ... but the various "governments" that ruled Japan in the late thirties and early forties ... all seemed to reach consensus on the need for war with the Allies to avoid defeat in China ... the IJA was certainly a part of these deliberations ... and when the deliberations sometimes reached a point were compromise seemed likely ... the IJA officers would threaten the existence of the government ... hence the need to put Tojo in as PM ... to "control" the Army. This "control" ensured that the attack on the Allies actually happened. Had it not .. the Army realized the enevitability of admitting defeat in China ... which would have meant huge loss of face for the Army.

[mogami]

HI, When I say Germany I mean the people who did Germanys prewar planning and building. You know they guys who made Germany what is was. A nation with an Army set up to fight campaigns not a war. An airforce made to support the Amry on a tactical level and a Navy that was not ready to do anything.

The IJA was the goverment of Japan. The Army was all about China and Manchuria. The Amry needed the IJN and the IJN needed the DEI.

It was not a case of one group dragging the other off to a war. It was a case of 2 groups of thugs dividing up the booty. The IJN had nice white uniforms but they were not concerned with the welfare of populations outside of Japans and pretty much only worried that they be able to fight.
Like I said anyone who knew better was not in a position to be heard. (no one was listening. The Japanese at the time were caught up in race issues themselves bolstered by 10 years in China and Manchuria and Korea)

Anyways from April 2002

"The idea is to allow anything that is actually possible provided it does not prevoke bugs in play.
Examples: Should combat be premitted in China (at the expense of leaving bases ungarrisoned or splitting the units there to produce more. (splitting the Japanese LCU is the same as Japan raising that many new units and deploying them to China in 1-2 weeks)

weather effects in CBI
limits on TF composition (the all CV or BB/CA no DD TF)
British factories producing non British equipment (not AG flying non British AC)"

The debate back then was about exploiting PacWar.
When I began playing PAcWar in 1992 I was rather innocent about computer games and I didn't even know what a bug was. (I always thought it was my fault)

But I thought I was a master planner since I won PacWar all the time.
I was an advocate of taking PH and knocking the Crap out of China to provide troops.

Jermey Pritchard (Major Tom on Matrixboards) called me out on the issue (The PacWar forum is still full of old threads where I sound like a lunatic over China and Central Pacific)

So I began to study the history.
I came to Matrix forums over a Civil War game. I was not all that familair with the Pacific. (Oh I knew more then your average Bear but I was ignorant of a lot because what I knew was the "popular" history"

First I decided to understand why Japan fought the USA in WWII. It didn't make sense to me that they would fight at all.
China, You can't get away from China.

You have to find books that cover the entire war. WWII began in 1931. (or you could even say that it ran from 1912 to 1945 )

[Captain Cruft]

I haven't checked the whole thread to see if this has been mentioned before ...

IMHO a lot of the problems here are caused by the fact that Resources produce supply. As it is now, the rubber plantations, tin mines and whatnot in Malaya & the DEI act as ammunition/aviation fuel factories. What's worse, they convert over to Japanese ammunition/aviation fuel factories the instant the base is captured.

If ammo and aviation fuel had to be shipped out from the heavy industry in the Home Islands it would tend to make things more realistic.

What is really needed is two types of supply i.e. 1) survival materials and 2) war-making materials. The second type only being produced by Heavy Industry.

[moses]

Mike Scholl

MOSES..... Would you please be consistant.....Your first three "points" describe areas of the game which ARE broken; as well as some relatively useful ideas to "Fix" the problems you refer to.....Then in your 4th point, you say you don't think the game IS broken!.....If it isn't "broken", why does it need the "fixes?

I don't think I'm being inconsistant. I think there are problems that should be fixed. However I don't think the game is worhtless.

I've played hundreds of wargames and I don't know of a single one that I think could not have been improved. In every one I think I would have changed something if I had my way.

If I bought Matrix and those guys did whatever I asked I think a month after each patch I would find something else that could be better.

Wargames all fail to achieve realism. They are abstractions. I've been in operations centers and its nothing at all like playing a wargame.

I try to make suggestions that seem doable and hope at least to generate an honest debate.

The game is a fun game as is. Its still the best simualtion of this theater ever. I've gotten my monies worth. I hope they fix some things but its clearly not "broke" at least in my opinion.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: WiTP_Dude

The only problem is the railroad did exist. Removing it would be gamey.

Yes and so did capturing supplies from the enemy to use against them....but if the results produce ahistorical effects more than they produce historical ones....sometimes you have to go with the lesser evil.

The Japanese army holds the advantage in a straight up fight (unless overwhelmed by superior numbers) but the situation in China can be akined to the war in Russia by virtue of the vast size of the land coupled by a large (if largely ill trained and equipped) and elusive army that fights only where it chooses and can be in a position to exploit gaps in the enemy's "line" or zones of control should they be weakened in order to bolster another front.

The current rail net appears (from what players are saying) to allow the Japan player to get away with this "redeployment" to quickly acheive an objective, then either re-establish or repeat the trick somewhere else hundreds of miles away, all before the Allied player can react.

This solution sounds better to me because simply increasing Chinese troop levels creates additional challenges (supply.....increase? if so...how much, will this cause other ahistorical issues such as supporting too many bombers or chinese offensives etc.) I've already waxed poetic on the garrison issue. Without representing the 2nd line and security troops, and without an equivilient garrison requirement for the Allies in India, i dont see such steps as necessary or fair.

Restrict the ability of the Japanese to "shuttle about" in China in a state of low fatigue may resolve most of the complaints.

[moses]

The problem with rail and roads is not speed but capacity. You may move a division 60 miles down the road and attack the next day (not really it normally takes longer) but moving 10 divisions down even several roads and launching attacks takes a bit of time. So changing some of those rails to road may be OK.

The real problem though is what happens when those divisions get to Changsa. Lets say I have 20 Chinese Corps in Changsa. If Japan enters the hex with 8 Divisions. I immediately shock attack and drive them from the hex. Decisive victory which takes a campaign lasting all of one day. Say Japan enters with 16 Divisions. Now my shock attack will not be successful while Japan will be able to get one to one attacks and in short order retreat my large force. Decisive victory to Japan.

Now I'm sure there is a certain force level at which the two forces are balanced and they end up fighting a long term battle. But this seems to be a very narrow window when you are in clear terrain. Most battles in clear terrain seem to end decisively very quickly.

This kind of highly decisive combat may well make sence with smaller units as are fighting for example in Malaysia and PI. But battles between Armies just do not resolve themselves that quickly. Nor are they generally so decisive, (the defenders 10 divisions all retreat with heavy loss-attacker takes no losses.)

One solution might be to have an odds modifier for large battles. Something like if the defender has more then 1000 AV then you need higher odds to force a retreat. If you have 2000 AV then you need even higher odds. This has the advantage of having no impact on most of the other theaters. In the SRA you won't see 1000 AV in a hex that often.

A change like this would make combat a little more stable in the large land theaters.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: moses

The real problem though is what happens when those divisions get to Changsa. Lets say I have 20 Chinese Corps in Changsa. If Japan enters the hex with 8 Divisions. I immediately shock attack and drive them from the hex. Decisive victory which takes a campaign lasting all of one day. Say Japan enters with 16 Divisions. Now my shock attack will not be successful while Japan will be able to get one to one attacks and in short order retreat my large force. Decisive victory to Japan.
.

lol....if only it were that simple [;)]

[moses]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: moses

The real problem though is what happens when those divisions get to Changsa. Lets say I have 20 Chinese Corps in Changsa. If Japan enters the hex with 8 Divisions. I immediately shock attack and drive them from the hex. Decisive victory which takes a campaign lasting all of one day. Say Japan enters with 16 Divisions. Now my shock attack will not be successful while Japan will be able to get one to one attacks and in short order retreat my large force. Decisive victory to Japan.
.

lol....if only it were that simple [;)]

I'm pretty sure its that simple in the clear terrain such as in Changsa. Now in woods and urban terrain its a different matter. But in Changsa the initial Japanese attempt to take it is either going to succeed or fail decisively in a very short period of time. Do you doubt this?

Now like I said I'm sure that it is possible to get the forces balanced out so that niether side can get the required odds for victory via shock attack. But that seems to be a very narrow window. I'll have to test it out. Perhaps I'm wrong as I have not fully tested this.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: moses

I'm pretty sure its that simple in the clear terrain such as in Changsa. Now in woods and urban terrain its a different matter. But in Changsa the initial Japanese attempt to take it is either going to succeed or fail decisively in a very short period of time. Do you doubt this?

I dont doubt that if forces are arn't disjointed the Japanese will have the edge in clear terrain, theirs is generally the superior force in terms of firepower, exp and morale. As long as fatigue and disruption are not severe i would expect them to force a retreat quickly but it will hardly be "decisive". I see no problem with this. Clear hexes in wargames always favor such a force described.

Now like I said I'm sure that it is possible to get the forces balanced out so that niether side can get the required odds for victory via shock attack. But that seems to be a very narrow window. I'll have to test it out. Perhaps I'm wrong as I have not fully tested this.

Yes, its called choosing your terrain [;)] (having time to dig in helps too

[moses]

Even if I exagerate a bit the point that these large combats are too quick and decisive in clear terrain is hard to deny. Simple example.

Japan has 12 Infantry Divisions sitting one hex from Changsa. China defends with 8 corps fortified to level 3. How long should it take to drive them out. In the game I'm guessing three days. 2 to move and one for the shock attack. Japanese decisive victory--losses zero.

IRL: Probably takes at least a week just to get your troops in attacking positions. After that it takes some work to drive out 8 Corps no matter how poor the quality. You can't just charge and take the whole defensive structure at once. Hard to say how long it should take to drive them 60 miles. If they fight a delay--6 weeks?? If they try to hold at all costs--1 or 2 weeks if all goes well? In each case the attacker takes lots of casualties.

I'm just making up numbers here but I can't think of any historical examples where a movement to contact between infantry armies of such size was resolved as rapidly as in the game. Even in a set piece battle when does such a large force practically disolve after a day of fighting. I guess it could happen but doesn't seem likely.

[Nikademus]

The Japanese were very mobile for an infantry army and it didn't take much to rout out the Chinese unless they were veteran and had good leaders (hard to come by during the period) The favored tactic was flanking which often produced an unnerving effect on their opponents who tended to always keep an eye on the back door. Late war advances in firepower, training and air supply negated much of this to the Japanese's suprise and displeasure.

I think a assumption your making though is that any retreat caused is a "rout", unless there is alot of fatigue, that would not be the case. I've done some pushing, and got pushed a couple times in my current game in China....I cant speak for the Chinese but i know my forces (after the retreat) were not in bad shape, they were simply forced to redeploy elsewhere. (course 110,000 Chinese then escaped but what can ya do? [;)] )

[moses]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus


I dont doubt that if forces are arn't disjointed the Japanese will have the edge in clear terrain, theirs is generally the superior force in terms of firepower, exp and morale. As long as fatigue and disruption are not severe i would expect them to force a retreat quickly but it will hardly be "decisive". I see no problem with this. Clear hexes in wargames always favor such a force described.

Havn't tested much of this and I'm not positive but I want to get the point across so at least you know what I'm getting at.

This decisivness works both ways. Try attacking in China against someone who knows the system. Your 4 divisions move into a hex with 7 chinese corps. Shock attack and back you go with heavy losses. One day and your divisions are smashed.

Hardly decisive???!!! If one side retreats with 25 % losses--supply, morale, fatigue all in the red. Attacker takes no losses. If that is not a decisive victory I don't know what is.

I'm just pointing out that the theater is inherently unstable. IRL infantry forces which are equaly matched don't make much progress. In the game a few initial battles can radically change the balance allowing once side to roll forward almost unopposed. Again take Changsa.

I send 24 corps there and I will crush anything short of 12 divisions and the Japanese will be hard press to continue any type of offensive. Essentially games over for Japan in China. If Japan concentrates 16 Divisions my shock attack will fail and Japan will get the odds to drive me out in 2 or 3 attacks. We have a totally opposite result. Now the greater part of my army is disabled and Japan will roll on virtually unopposed.

Now some will say that I should not concentrate but that misses my point. A very small change in the number of Japanese divisions produces a complete and rapid change in outcome. 13? divisions or less-decisive victory to China. 15? Divisions or more-decisive victory to Japan. 14 divisions?--Now maybe we fight for a while.

Thats what I mean by being unstable. Its going to be difficult to change the starting conditions so that the end result produces occasional stalemates as occured historically. Generally the initial battles will be so decisive and so fast that one side or the other will achieve overwhelming superiority.

A change which dampens the decisivness of large battles seems to me more logical than a change to the movement speed of units. As I said I may be wrong as I am pulling the above numbers from the air. This is just how it seems to me at the moment.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: moses


Havn't tested much of this and I'm not positive but I want to get the point across so at least you know what I'm getting at.

This decisivness works both ways. Try attacking in China against someone who knows the system. Your 4 divisions move into a hex with 7 chinese corps. Shock attack and back you go with heavy losses. One day and your divisions are smashed.

I understand what your saying, but i'm not seeing that. (and i am playing someone who very much knows what he is doing. (to my misfortune)) I've pushed him out of some hexes and have been pushed myself. My divisions have not been "smashed" nor have they lost 25% of their OOB. This is probably due to the fact that my troops are not exhausted. (neither are his)

Thats what "I" mean by "hardly decisive" The simple act of being pushed out of a hex is not a blanket all decisive outcome so far from what i've seen. I still have to do the retreat test but got sidetracked by a 1.5 issue. I have tested non retreats though. So far the defender holds all the cards unless he's being bombarded.

[moses]

Ok then.

I think non-retreats have always been fine. I'll be quiet so you can do the retreat tests.