Wake Island historical move
Hi Moore first turn historical and my 2nd move are to you let me know if you think I am ignorning anything. And remember you know I am coming. If you choose to play defensive game as IJN defend outer bases bu building AF and putting naval interdiction groups on them don't worry to much about pileing LCU's on them if the US gets there with a landing he has already defeated your naval and air units and the LCU is dead. Its the support the landings get that kill you not the LCU doing the landing the disruption does it.
Meaning if you put 5 inf div on a atoll the US will know how many you have from his preinvasion bombardments (do recon too!!) then he will send 5 Div or more on transports but with the added bombardment groups your troops will suffer massive disruption letting his landing troops kill you.
------------------
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a differant direction!
[
[This message has been edited by Mogami (edited October 07, 2000).]
Meaning if you put 5 inf div on a atoll the US will know how many you have from his preinvasion bombardments (do recon too!!) then he will send 5 Div or more on transports but with the added bombardment groups your troops will suffer massive disruption letting his landing troops kill you.
------------------
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a differant direction!
[
[This message has been edited by Mogami (edited October 07, 2000).]
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
When Japan, by mid-43 I keep my carriers back home and train the airgroups till their 95+. Then when the Kamikaze mission arrives I assign all the judy's and jills to that mission. I find this a much better alternative since Japan doesn't have a hope of even scratching USN carriers by that time. This, combined with Okhas I tend to get USN CV's,CVE,CVL's sinkings round 30-40, by wars end.
With Japan, you know you can't hope to win. You'll still lose the game, but as with the Kamikaze tactics, if you're gonna die, might as well take the enemy with you.
With Japan, you know you can't hope to win. You'll still lose the game, but as with the Kamikaze tactics, if you're gonna die, might as well take the enemy with you.
I still think that Operation PH is a very risky strategy for a PBEM. A more cautious strategy would be for the IJN to sit, wait, and train their forces so when the USN does come they will fight a much stronger force. By mid 1943 the USN will only equal the IJN in Carriers (plus the IJN will have 2 years time to train against fresh USN Essex's). If the IJN knows where the USN is going to strike (through recon), then they can assign the best LBA, all of their CV TF's and Surface combat TF's to deal with the Americans. It will probably be a very bloody encounter, and the Americans can replace their losses more easily than the Japanese, but, the time gained for the IJA is invaluable. The LCU's in the Marianas and the Philippines will have plenty of time to get fully artillery, experience up to at least 50, and entrenchments up to 9.
Jeremy
Jeremy
Training only helps the weaker side. Bringing
the 80's up to 90's is good but in the mean time US/Allied 40 $50's turn into 70's. If you concede you are the weaker side then you miss the whole point. On Dec 7, 1941 you are more powerfull then US/Allied Fleet's, air, ground. This is not a lasting condition it is a fleeting moment everyweek that goes by whether you suffer any lossess at all you grow weaker by comparision. No dug in immmovable force in history has won a war. The US/Allies will not win by digging in, they will win by attacking when their material condition permits. The IJN's mission must be to prevent that time from arriving. While the addition of the oil/resource bases is nessacary to fight the US, alone it will not win the war and all these bases are held by units IJN can kill whenever it wants. IJN has 4 turns before it's greatest advantage is gone forever. 1 turn must be spent on historical moves or PH strike is lost so there remain three turns the human IJN can use or throw away by inaction. There is risk involved, but if with all the advantage present some significant results can not be gained, how will they be attained when the enemy has time to prepare. 1 US CV is equipped with Buffalos exp in 60's other CV not trained, third CV in San Diego Cenpac PP pool 10 first turn and still low 3 turns later. PH has 2 div 2 Bn 2 eng and airunits that are small as result of PH strike. Midway has "windindicators" wake a small wildcat unit that should be dead unless it is moved to Midway on turn 2. There are not enough US air units to fill avaiable bases (need 14 for Midway/PH/Johnson Island also Palmyra must be looked to since IJN bases bettys and zeros on Canton Island on turn 3 The choice US player must make is comeout with what is on hand (Does US want to risk surface battle without Radar?)Or lose Johnson and or Midway before any LCU from West Coast has prayer of arriving there. IJN can not surprise US in carrier or surface battle after 1Jan42 because of radar. These are the reasons I use for saying if IJN is ever going to fight on own terms in CenPac is must be these 3 turns or never and never admits defeat although it will take 2 years before map starts to reflect it. The US does not need to ever step foot on PI to win game. It needs to fight its way to Saipan and Tinian then bomb the home Islands scoreing from 100 to 500 pts a turn killing civ it becomes mathamatical on how many turns before Japan surrenders. Since Japans multipler goes up every year the sooner US gets to those 2 Islands the sooner he will win game. US player can score plenty of points reoccupying empty islands. US aircraft/production rates make any static war of attrition in their favor. If IJN not sinking it US Navys build rate will allow them to build TF's in more places then IJN can match, it is true quality of IJN will inflict damage/lossess to US but each IJN ship lost is gone forever there will come a day when IJN too weak to sortee with any hope of victory. IJN must smash USN from start and be always hunting it to smash it again. If US wants time to train/build he must find it on West coast not in CenPac/South Pac/North Pac/SW Pac IJN must always be on the offensive destroying any US build up where ever it is being tried.
------------------
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a differant direction!
[This message has been edited by Mogami (edited October 07, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Mogami (edited October 07, 2000).]
the 80's up to 90's is good but in the mean time US/Allied 40 $50's turn into 70's. If you concede you are the weaker side then you miss the whole point. On Dec 7, 1941 you are more powerfull then US/Allied Fleet's, air, ground. This is not a lasting condition it is a fleeting moment everyweek that goes by whether you suffer any lossess at all you grow weaker by comparision. No dug in immmovable force in history has won a war. The US/Allies will not win by digging in, they will win by attacking when their material condition permits. The IJN's mission must be to prevent that time from arriving. While the addition of the oil/resource bases is nessacary to fight the US, alone it will not win the war and all these bases are held by units IJN can kill whenever it wants. IJN has 4 turns before it's greatest advantage is gone forever. 1 turn must be spent on historical moves or PH strike is lost so there remain three turns the human IJN can use or throw away by inaction. There is risk involved, but if with all the advantage present some significant results can not be gained, how will they be attained when the enemy has time to prepare. 1 US CV is equipped with Buffalos exp in 60's other CV not trained, third CV in San Diego Cenpac PP pool 10 first turn and still low 3 turns later. PH has 2 div 2 Bn 2 eng and airunits that are small as result of PH strike. Midway has "windindicators" wake a small wildcat unit that should be dead unless it is moved to Midway on turn 2. There are not enough US air units to fill avaiable bases (need 14 for Midway/PH/Johnson Island also Palmyra must be looked to since IJN bases bettys and zeros on Canton Island on turn 3 The choice US player must make is comeout with what is on hand (Does US want to risk surface battle without Radar?)Or lose Johnson and or Midway before any LCU from West Coast has prayer of arriving there. IJN can not surprise US in carrier or surface battle after 1Jan42 because of radar. These are the reasons I use for saying if IJN is ever going to fight on own terms in CenPac is must be these 3 turns or never and never admits defeat although it will take 2 years before map starts to reflect it. The US does not need to ever step foot on PI to win game. It needs to fight its way to Saipan and Tinian then bomb the home Islands scoreing from 100 to 500 pts a turn killing civ it becomes mathamatical on how many turns before Japan surrenders. Since Japans multipler goes up every year the sooner US gets to those 2 Islands the sooner he will win game. US player can score plenty of points reoccupying empty islands. US aircraft/production rates make any static war of attrition in their favor. If IJN not sinking it US Navys build rate will allow them to build TF's in more places then IJN can match, it is true quality of IJN will inflict damage/lossess to US but each IJN ship lost is gone forever there will come a day when IJN too weak to sortee with any hope of victory. IJN must smash USN from start and be always hunting it to smash it again. If US wants time to train/build he must find it on West coast not in CenPac/South Pac/North Pac/SW Pac IJN must always be on the offensive destroying any US build up where ever it is being tried.
------------------
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a differant direction!
[This message has been edited by Mogami (edited October 07, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Mogami (edited October 07, 2000).]
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
Well, the main reason that the Japanese were defeated was because of their loss at midway. They overextended their resources. Most IJN commanders state that postwar they should have remained on the defensive.
Sure, Midway, Johnston and the other outpost Islands can fall pretty easily, but, the USAAF is strong enough at Pearl Harbor, even after the attack, to throw up a stronger defence. The two Fighter Groups are overstrength, and the P-40 groups are high 60, low 70 experience as well. Place the B-17's on NI and they are powerful anti shipping units (did this in the Philippines and they are pretty deadly, especially against transports). There is a B-25 group, another A-20 group and two+ P-36 Groups on the west coast ready to be brought in.
Also, I have played the Marianas scenarios, and have set up the IJAAF to such a strong position in Japan that when the USAAF bombed they lost between 70-80% of their aircraft, with few fighters killed. The USAAF can only succeed to bomb Japan if they have P-51's, Okinawa or Iwo Jima. This means they can only truely succeed to bomb Japan until these planes arrive, or the islands are taken. Three IJAAF Sentai's equipped with Ki-45's and Ki-61's on each airbase will suffice. The Ki-45's are good B-29 killers. The Ki-61's are also good B-29 Killers, and if a Carrier TF came by they are good against light aircraft. The IJAAF pilots had experience levels between 60-70.
I am pretty sure that your strategy will work 90% of the time, but, it is as clockwork, then your proposed scenario for the destruction of Japan. They are two variations on how to win for Japan, and I think that they are both valid. They both have their risks, and benefits.
Maybe after the new OBC patch is out we should try both ways, eh?
Jeremy
Sure, Midway, Johnston and the other outpost Islands can fall pretty easily, but, the USAAF is strong enough at Pearl Harbor, even after the attack, to throw up a stronger defence. The two Fighter Groups are overstrength, and the P-40 groups are high 60, low 70 experience as well. Place the B-17's on NI and they are powerful anti shipping units (did this in the Philippines and they are pretty deadly, especially against transports). There is a B-25 group, another A-20 group and two+ P-36 Groups on the west coast ready to be brought in.
Also, I have played the Marianas scenarios, and have set up the IJAAF to such a strong position in Japan that when the USAAF bombed they lost between 70-80% of their aircraft, with few fighters killed. The USAAF can only succeed to bomb Japan if they have P-51's, Okinawa or Iwo Jima. This means they can only truely succeed to bomb Japan until these planes arrive, or the islands are taken. Three IJAAF Sentai's equipped with Ki-45's and Ki-61's on each airbase will suffice. The Ki-45's are good B-29 killers. The Ki-61's are also good B-29 Killers, and if a Carrier TF came by they are good against light aircraft. The IJAAF pilots had experience levels between 60-70.
I am pretty sure that your strategy will work 90% of the time, but, it is as clockwork, then your proposed scenario for the destruction of Japan. They are two variations on how to win for Japan, and I think that they are both valid. They both have their risks, and benefits.
Maybe after the new OBC patch is out we should try both ways, eh?
Jeremy
Hi I have 5 PBEM games going 3 as US 2 as Japan in 2 games Japan has suffered major disasters in CV battles early (I sank 4 IJN CV's 2nd week of Jan 42 I lost 3 IJN CV's on Turn 2!!!!! ambush got ambushed by Adm Brown)
However both IJN's can still fight along war but now with greatly diminished chances of forcing direction of war. As I stated before this is a very risky option but the reward of success is victory the price of failure is a long bloody defence. As time passes the odds of IJN suffering CV defeat increase not diminish so if you lose the early one against inferior numbers and quaility what hope is there of success against the more prepared, equipped, and trained US CV's. It now seems to me the CV TF has most success on reaction mission which would support your
line of reasoning (react TF rarely ambushed)
I may need to rethink my tactics but not my stratagy (place IJN CV's on react then send BB TF to trigger US CV movement) In other game as IJN I have suffered no defeat but have been unable thus far to coax US out to play will test new tactic here. Major Tom may I suggest 2 games one with each side?
------------------
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a differant direction!
[This message has been edited by Mogami (edited October 08, 2000).]
However both IJN's can still fight along war but now with greatly diminished chances of forcing direction of war. As I stated before this is a very risky option but the reward of success is victory the price of failure is a long bloody defence. As time passes the odds of IJN suffering CV defeat increase not diminish so if you lose the early one against inferior numbers and quaility what hope is there of success against the more prepared, equipped, and trained US CV's. It now seems to me the CV TF has most success on reaction mission which would support your
line of reasoning (react TF rarely ambushed)
I may need to rethink my tactics but not my stratagy (place IJN CV's on react then send BB TF to trigger US CV movement) In other game as IJN I have suffered no defeat but have been unable thus far to coax US out to play will test new tactic here. Major Tom may I suggest 2 games one with each side?
------------------
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a differant direction!
[This message has been edited by Mogami (edited October 08, 2000).]
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
Let me see if I can boild down the difference here: Mogami wants to win by taking territory (PH), and Major Tom wants to win by killing US units. Now, that's a drastic simplification, but it gets to the core. I'm not sure that I agree with Mogami's point that a later attack into CentPac is useless. At least in the old version, the AI put a huge emphasis on SoPac, so much so that they'd leave CentPac relatively bare of aircraft and carriers. Three SNLFs can kill an infantry division on an atoll, since the smallest advantage will result in a complete surrender. Now, I prefer to do this after killing some US carriers, but it is doable, at least under the old AI. I haven't tried it with the new version; I'd be interested to see if it still works.
Hi Please do not make any comparisions with AI it loses no matter what side it plays. The choices are for against a human player. It is my contention in Human vrs Human games unless US player is a idiot he will win if he is allowed to set pace. Major Tom's position is to be as ready as possible to meet that move but allow it and then try to defeat it. I desire to have IJN prevent/delay US from being able to mount offensives. I do not wish a draw. Victory requires a 2to1 point advantage can Japan score 2to1 in a react/defensive posture? This is the question we have been debating.
------------------
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a differant direction!
------------------
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a differant direction!
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
Believe Mogami is right in his aggressive strategy. A strategy of defence is only putting off the inevitable. When you have the advantage in quality and numbers it makes sense to use it while you still have it. Mogami must have used this strategy to some success already. When did you reach the West Coast?
Col Saito: "Don't speak to me of rules! This is war! It is not a game of cricket!"
Hi Drex I never try to go to West Coast too far for inf to ride and then fight. I switch to South Pacific after Central. But even from start IJN is taking South Pacific bases I go in this order Kavieng, Rabual, Guadalcanal, Santa Cruz use 2 SNLF for Islands (14 transports) and 17th Army Brigades for New Britain (Rabaul.Gastmata,Cape Gloughster) put eng on Rabual, Shortland, Santa Cruz as fast as possible Send 4-6 CA/CL 8DD to screen since this is what allies have on hand in area only no good leaders unless they use Tom or Adm Willis watchout for Doorman showing up cause he kicks butt if he has the bigger TF.
Many points in China you must spend a few weeks moving unit to cut off retreats and then kill the LCU's and send 2 eng to main land to improve bases (bigger bases=more victory points)
------------------
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a differant direction!
Many points in China you must spend a few weeks moving unit to cut off retreats and then kill the LCU's and send 2 eng to main land to improve bases (bigger bases=more victory points)
------------------
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a differant direction!
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
A few strategies posted will not be compatible with certain PBEM rules though. Only Kwantung and CEA units are allowed to be in China, only 1 Regimental unit is allowed to garrison an Atoll, etc. This is one of the important things that people must determine before they start a PBEM.
I disagree that there is only one winnable strategy for the Allies, or the Japanese. You can have multiple possibilities of victory.
Hold on the defensive against the Americans and destroy the British with your Carrier force and highly trained divisions (5th, 33rd, 55th, 56th, 2nd Guards, 38th). Then use the CEA units to gradually crush the KMT Armies. The Chinese now have some airgroups, properly deployed can slow down a Japanese attack. Once their British flank is secured they can free up these 6 Divisions from garrison duty in the West (as most of them were just used for) for offensive operations/defensive positions in the East. Plus all of the IJAAF Sentai's can be sent over.
Another strategy for the Japanese is to secure New Caledonia/Fiji, cutting off the Australian LCU's from American support.
You could do the strike into the Central Pacific as well.
I disagree that there is only one winnable strategy for the Allies, or the Japanese. You can have multiple possibilities of victory.
Hold on the defensive against the Americans and destroy the British with your Carrier force and highly trained divisions (5th, 33rd, 55th, 56th, 2nd Guards, 38th). Then use the CEA units to gradually crush the KMT Armies. The Chinese now have some airgroups, properly deployed can slow down a Japanese attack. Once their British flank is secured they can free up these 6 Divisions from garrison duty in the West (as most of them were just used for) for offensive operations/defensive positions in the East. Plus all of the IJAAF Sentai's can be sent over.
Another strategy for the Japanese is to secure New Caledonia/Fiji, cutting off the Australian LCU's from American support.
You could do the strike into the Central Pacific as well.
In reference to the discussion, if the Japanese player pursues a passive defence, than all the US player has to do is wait until he is so strong he can't be beat. If you simply look at the figures, if neither side has engaged in any major action (and factoring in an average historical first turn with 4 US BBs sunk, and ignoring the Brirish Navy which seems to go in and out all the time) they will have-
Jan., 1942
USN: 4 CV, 0 CVL, 0 CVE, 4 BB, 0 BC (4 CV, 4 BB)
IJN: 6 CV, 4 CVL, 1 CVE, 7 BB, 4 BC (11 CV, 11 BB)
June, 1942
USN: 6 CV, 0 CVL, 0 CVE, 9 BB, 0 BC (6 CV, 9 BB)
IJN: 7 CV, 4 CVL, 2 CVE, 7 BB, 4 BC (13 CV, 11 BB)
Jan., 1943
USN: 6 CV, 0 CVL, 2 CVE, 13 BB, 0 BC (8 CV, 13 BB
IJN: 8 CV, 5 CVL, 3 CVE, 8 BB, 4 BC (16 CV, 12 BB)
June, 1943
USN: 8 CV, 3 CVL, 3 CVE, 13 BB, 0 BC (14 CV, 13 BB)
IJN: 8 CV, 5 CVL, 3 CVE, 8 BB, 4 BC (16 CV, 12 BB)
Jan., 1944
USN: 9 CV, 9 CVL, 10 CVE, 16 BB, 0 BC (28 CV, 16 BB)
IJN: 9 CV, 5 CVL, 5 CVE, 8 BB, 4 BC (19 CV, 12 BB)
June, 1944
USN: 12 CV, 9, CVL 15 CVE, 16, BB, 0 BC (36 CV, 16 BB)
IJN: 9 CV, 5 CVL, 5 CVE, 8 BB, 4 BC (19 CV, 12 BB)
Jan., 1945
USN: 16 CV, 9 CVL, 19 CVE, 18 BB, 2 BC (44 CV, 20 BB)
IJN: 11 CV, 5 CVL, 5 CVE, 8 BB, 4 BC (21 CV, 12 BB)
June, 1945
USN: 17 CV, 9 CVL, 21 CVE, 18 BB, 2 BC (47 CV, 20 BB)
IJN: 11 CV, 5 CVL, 5 CVE, 8 BB, 4 BC (21 CV, 12 BB)
From this list, it is obvious that if the War lasts untill 1944, the Japanese will be badly outnumbered, and the Japanese will have to avchive a 2-to-1 kill ratio on capital ships and carriers. Against even a mediocre opponent, this is very improbable. The Japanes must win by 1943, or not at all. Thus, an offensive strategy aimed at acpturing Pearl Harbor is probably the best and dedinately the most decisinve choice.
[This message has been edited by Nimits (edited October 08, 2000).]
Jan., 1942
USN: 4 CV, 0 CVL, 0 CVE, 4 BB, 0 BC (4 CV, 4 BB)
IJN: 6 CV, 4 CVL, 1 CVE, 7 BB, 4 BC (11 CV, 11 BB)
June, 1942
USN: 6 CV, 0 CVL, 0 CVE, 9 BB, 0 BC (6 CV, 9 BB)
IJN: 7 CV, 4 CVL, 2 CVE, 7 BB, 4 BC (13 CV, 11 BB)
Jan., 1943
USN: 6 CV, 0 CVL, 2 CVE, 13 BB, 0 BC (8 CV, 13 BB
IJN: 8 CV, 5 CVL, 3 CVE, 8 BB, 4 BC (16 CV, 12 BB)
June, 1943
USN: 8 CV, 3 CVL, 3 CVE, 13 BB, 0 BC (14 CV, 13 BB)
IJN: 8 CV, 5 CVL, 3 CVE, 8 BB, 4 BC (16 CV, 12 BB)
Jan., 1944
USN: 9 CV, 9 CVL, 10 CVE, 16 BB, 0 BC (28 CV, 16 BB)
IJN: 9 CV, 5 CVL, 5 CVE, 8 BB, 4 BC (19 CV, 12 BB)
June, 1944
USN: 12 CV, 9, CVL 15 CVE, 16, BB, 0 BC (36 CV, 16 BB)
IJN: 9 CV, 5 CVL, 5 CVE, 8 BB, 4 BC (19 CV, 12 BB)
Jan., 1945
USN: 16 CV, 9 CVL, 19 CVE, 18 BB, 2 BC (44 CV, 20 BB)
IJN: 11 CV, 5 CVL, 5 CVE, 8 BB, 4 BC (21 CV, 12 BB)
June, 1945
USN: 17 CV, 9 CVL, 21 CVE, 18 BB, 2 BC (47 CV, 20 BB)
IJN: 11 CV, 5 CVL, 5 CVE, 8 BB, 4 BC (21 CV, 12 BB)
From this list, it is obvious that if the War lasts untill 1944, the Japanese will be badly outnumbered, and the Japanese will have to avchive a 2-to-1 kill ratio on capital ships and carriers. Against even a mediocre opponent, this is very improbable. The Japanes must win by 1943, or not at all. Thus, an offensive strategy aimed at acpturing Pearl Harbor is probably the best and dedinately the most decisinve choice.
[This message has been edited by Nimits (edited October 08, 2000).]
Nice analysis Nimits. This agrees with Mogami's approach. However the strategy is only so good as the general. The greatness of this game is that mistakes can be made along the way so that limitless variation can occur. Even the defensive strategy will have a chance depending on the opponent. but between two opponents of equal standing and who know the game inside and out, I have to go with Mogami. Still it would be nice to pit Major Tom against Mogami to test the best strategy. The human factor would seemingly make for interesting outcomes.
Col Saito: "Don't speak to me of rules! This is war! It is not a game of cricket!"
Hi Major Tom do you mean eng can not be sent to China? No one is going to send LCU's other then eng they want to pull div out not put them in but CEA has a big base force that can not be moved it should be allowed to go to CEA mainland. Kicking the Brits butt is part of the program IJN need to score 60k points (there about) before they can even think of winning and it must be done without high lossess which of course is the rub since they must risk alot to be able to destroy this much. I am looking to 2.1 and our experemental games.
------------------
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a differant direction!
------------------
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a differant direction!
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
By 1943 the IJN and USN are on virtual parity, with the IJN having more CVL's and the USN having more CVE's. The odds in 1944 don't look that bad either (until you get to the end). By January 1945, if neither side lost a single capital ship (and it would depend when the USN lost one of theirs when the get a replacement) the total odds for the ships mentioned is around only 4:3 against the Japanese (CVE's aren't very good for offensive operations). These aren't impossible odds.
To further suppliment the early attack on the Central Pacific you might consider using better units than the 20th, 41st and 51st Divisions. Use these new divisions to replace better ones on garrison duty in Malaya, Netherland East Indies and the Philippines and grab the 16th, 5th, 2nd Guards and 48th Divisions for attacks on Pearl Harbor (plus they have more tanks). It is best to take over Pearl Harbor first as it has the best airbase and can nullify the other bases around it with LBA brought in.
I would hazard that putting Engineers in China would be against the 'rules'. The bases in China are already around 4 each (enough to handle every airgroup). Building up bases already claimed for the sole purpose of winning the game through a points loophole is kind of gamey as well.
Jeremy
To further suppliment the early attack on the Central Pacific you might consider using better units than the 20th, 41st and 51st Divisions. Use these new divisions to replace better ones on garrison duty in Malaya, Netherland East Indies and the Philippines and grab the 16th, 5th, 2nd Guards and 48th Divisions for attacks on Pearl Harbor (plus they have more tanks). It is best to take over Pearl Harbor first as it has the best airbase and can nullify the other bases around it with LBA brought in.
I would hazard that putting Engineers in China would be against the 'rules'. The bases in China are already around 4 each (enough to handle every airgroup). Building up bases already claimed for the sole purpose of winning the game through a points loophole is kind of gamey as well.
Jeremy
POINTS LOOPHOLE? why is IJN grabbing all these empty little Island for? Why is IJA in China? Building bases is the whole reason for this game/war you must improve the places you own. You make it sound like cheating to build a 4 into a 6 to station more AC there and speed up supply (port size matters!!!) The reason victory points are assigned to an area is to reflect it importance. Does IJN IJA have so many engineers that you think they would be spared just for victory points alone 1 CS and a little eng can capture an empty island every other week scoring many points that is "gamey" to me. They exsit to improve my bases which bases I put them should be my concern they would be scoring the same points improving whatever base I put them on.
------------------
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a differant direction!
------------------
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a differant direction!
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
Something that you must take into account is the total airgroups.
The IJN has a total capacity of 764 (69 planes per carrier) The US has 1,530 (90 planes per carrier).
For CVLs the IJN has 146 (29 planes per carrier). The USN has 297 (33 per carrier)
For CVEs, the IJN has 124 plane capacity (28 planes) the USN 590 (28 planes per carrier)
Total IJN Carrier air power is 1,043 (49 planes per carrier). USN carrier air power is 2,417 (51 planes per carrier)
It is obvious that the Japanese will be outnumbered in all carrier airpower categories at least 2-1. Though 17 to 11 odds do not sound so bad 2-1 is. Remeber, that many of the Japanese "Fleet Carriers" are little more than glorified CVLs, carrying only 40-50 planes (about the same as the British, I might add). The Jap carriers are not nearly as durable as the RN CVs, and even the US CVs have a slight durability advantage over the IJN carriers. This makes each USN CV worth more than 2 of its IJN counterparts.
As for the engineers, the Japanese do not really have enough engineers to dramatically effect the victory points, especially against a human oponent.
The IJN has a total capacity of 764 (69 planes per carrier) The US has 1,530 (90 planes per carrier).
For CVLs the IJN has 146 (29 planes per carrier). The USN has 297 (33 per carrier)
For CVEs, the IJN has 124 plane capacity (28 planes) the USN 590 (28 planes per carrier)
Total IJN Carrier air power is 1,043 (49 planes per carrier). USN carrier air power is 2,417 (51 planes per carrier)
It is obvious that the Japanese will be outnumbered in all carrier airpower categories at least 2-1. Though 17 to 11 odds do not sound so bad 2-1 is. Remeber, that many of the Japanese "Fleet Carriers" are little more than glorified CVLs, carrying only 40-50 planes (about the same as the British, I might add). The Jap carriers are not nearly as durable as the RN CVs, and even the US CVs have a slight durability advantage over the IJN carriers. This makes each USN CV worth more than 2 of its IJN counterparts.
As for the engineers, the Japanese do not really have enough engineers to dramatically effect the victory points, especially against a human oponent.
Sorry, but the way you worded it sounded that the primary reason you would build up the bases in China is to make them worth more to get more points instead of building up bases for military uses. Frankly, for the relatively small amount of Japanese airgroups in China it doesn't seem worth beefing up the airgroups as it is not necessary. Maximum freedom should be allowed, we don't want to have to follow set routes, but, there are certain limits to stop things that weren't intended by the game designers.
Capturing islands in the Pacific is the goal of the game. Building up islands for defense or to further an attack is the goal of the game. Building up bases in rear areas (China/Kwantung), with no threat of attack, for the sole purpose of getting more points from them is not the goal of the game.
I don't believe that capturing undefended islands with only a token force is gamey. It was done many times when intelligence stated that there were little or no defenders. There is no comparison between building up bases in China for the sole purpose of winning though claiming territory.
It is NOT cheating if you make a port/airbase from 4 to 6 if you have any genuine desire to actually use it eventually for that purpose! Rear-guard bases (Philippines, Malaya, Indonesia) are important as they could be required as bases/ferry routes.
After conquering China, and even before conquering it, it would be absolutely pointless to have engineers building airbases from 4 to 6 at Chunking or Nanning. The only reason for this would be to increase the value of the territory, it doesn't have anything to do with the course of the war. You can't make a base important, when in the reality of the game it is totally unimportant. There are 5 Japanese bases on the direct frontier with Chinese bases, they are all of level 4. There are 16 Air Groups in the CEA area. You can fit EVERY IJAAF airgroup at frontier bases in China WITHOUT having to increase base size. There is no tactical reason to have engineers in China.
The reason they grab these little islands is that they need them. If they didn't secure them, then the allies would have all of these friendly bases throughout Japanese controlled territory. Unlike the Allies, the Japanese strategy is not compatible to island hopping techniques.
It isn't just your choice, it is yours AND your PBEM opponent's choice. I am sure that my opponent wouldn't be too happy about losing the game solely on the reason that I built up every base in China/Manchuria to 9, pushing the victory envelope over the edge. Building up THESE bases serve NO other purpose then to win the game through property points. The ratio of level 4 bases to airgroups in China/Manchuria does not warrant the need to build them up further.
The rule was NO units from the Pacific were allowed to be transferred to China. Engineers and SBF included. You and your opponent can choose collectively to use or not use any rules that have been posted. I think that sending Engineers to China is just as gamey as sending Pacific Divisions to China. The end result is to allow the Japanese to get undue victory points from a quiet zone. Pacific Divisions would speed up the fall of China beyond historical possibility. Sending Engineers to China will increase the value of already conquered bases more then the historical possibility. You can choose wether or not to use these options, but, their use has to be recognized as something not intended in the game. It is JUST as gamey as having multiple divisions defending an Atoll, sending CEA and Kwantung Airgroups to the Pacific, bombarding Singapore/Bataan with surface units, landing troops directly on Bataan/Singapore, etc... The rule works for the allies as well. No Pacific LCU's (even if they are Chinese), airgroups or Engineers allowed in Nationalist Chinese territory.
The Japanese can try and capture Chinese bases with units attached to CEA. The KMT can try to capture IJA bases with units attached to Nationalist China. You can choose to follow this in its entirety, or only partially.
I am done with these debates on strategies, as, they just seem to cause people to get inflamed.
Capturing islands in the Pacific is the goal of the game. Building up islands for defense or to further an attack is the goal of the game. Building up bases in rear areas (China/Kwantung), with no threat of attack, for the sole purpose of getting more points from them is not the goal of the game.
I don't believe that capturing undefended islands with only a token force is gamey. It was done many times when intelligence stated that there were little or no defenders. There is no comparison between building up bases in China for the sole purpose of winning though claiming territory.
It is NOT cheating if you make a port/airbase from 4 to 6 if you have any genuine desire to actually use it eventually for that purpose! Rear-guard bases (Philippines, Malaya, Indonesia) are important as they could be required as bases/ferry routes.
After conquering China, and even before conquering it, it would be absolutely pointless to have engineers building airbases from 4 to 6 at Chunking or Nanning. The only reason for this would be to increase the value of the territory, it doesn't have anything to do with the course of the war. You can't make a base important, when in the reality of the game it is totally unimportant. There are 5 Japanese bases on the direct frontier with Chinese bases, they are all of level 4. There are 16 Air Groups in the CEA area. You can fit EVERY IJAAF airgroup at frontier bases in China WITHOUT having to increase base size. There is no tactical reason to have engineers in China.
The reason they grab these little islands is that they need them. If they didn't secure them, then the allies would have all of these friendly bases throughout Japanese controlled territory. Unlike the Allies, the Japanese strategy is not compatible to island hopping techniques.
It isn't just your choice, it is yours AND your PBEM opponent's choice. I am sure that my opponent wouldn't be too happy about losing the game solely on the reason that I built up every base in China/Manchuria to 9, pushing the victory envelope over the edge. Building up THESE bases serve NO other purpose then to win the game through property points. The ratio of level 4 bases to airgroups in China/Manchuria does not warrant the need to build them up further.
The rule was NO units from the Pacific were allowed to be transferred to China. Engineers and SBF included. You and your opponent can choose collectively to use or not use any rules that have been posted. I think that sending Engineers to China is just as gamey as sending Pacific Divisions to China. The end result is to allow the Japanese to get undue victory points from a quiet zone. Pacific Divisions would speed up the fall of China beyond historical possibility. Sending Engineers to China will increase the value of already conquered bases more then the historical possibility. You can choose wether or not to use these options, but, their use has to be recognized as something not intended in the game. It is JUST as gamey as having multiple divisions defending an Atoll, sending CEA and Kwantung Airgroups to the Pacific, bombarding Singapore/Bataan with surface units, landing troops directly on Bataan/Singapore, etc... The rule works for the allies as well. No Pacific LCU's (even if they are Chinese), airgroups or Engineers allowed in Nationalist Chinese territory.
The Japanese can try and capture Chinese bases with units attached to CEA. The KMT can try to capture IJA bases with units attached to Nationalist China. You can choose to follow this in its entirety, or only partially.
I am done with these debates on strategies, as, they just seem to cause people to get inflamed.
Actually the Japanese do have a lot of engineers. They have 10 Engineer units, and a multitude of SBF units. The SBF are like weak engineers, but, they still increase port and air facilities. They have around 20+ units that can increase ports/airbases. They can spare one or two units to roam around china/kwantung building uneeded airbases.
Facts and figures do not win games. Numerically the stakes are against Japan, if you look at basic numbers. BUT, if this game revolved solely around numbers and facts 90% of those playing would get bored of the thing very quickly. The greatest thing about PacWar is that NO strategy is perfect and guarantees victory or defeat. The Japanese might be outnumbered, but, one or two lucky victories could result in the Japanese invading California in 1944! Smart positioning of even small forces can result in victory.
According to your logic of numbers the US had no chance of victory at Midway. The IJN outnumbered the USN severely, yet, still lost. Creativity and spontinuity can defeat logical determination more times then not.
If the US can get a Midway in 1942, then why can't the Japanese get an equivalent in 1944?
History just worked out the way it did, the USN won at Midway, and the IJN lost at the Marianas. Success at the Marianas would be almost as powerful for the IJN as success at Midway was for the USN.
Jeremy
Facts and figures do not win games. Numerically the stakes are against Japan, if you look at basic numbers. BUT, if this game revolved solely around numbers and facts 90% of those playing would get bored of the thing very quickly. The greatest thing about PacWar is that NO strategy is perfect and guarantees victory or defeat. The Japanese might be outnumbered, but, one or two lucky victories could result in the Japanese invading California in 1944! Smart positioning of even small forces can result in victory.
According to your logic of numbers the US had no chance of victory at Midway. The IJN outnumbered the USN severely, yet, still lost. Creativity and spontinuity can defeat logical determination more times then not.
If the US can get a Midway in 1942, then why can't the Japanese get an equivalent in 1944?
History just worked out the way it did, the USN won at Midway, and the IJN lost at the Marianas. Success at the Marianas would be almost as powerful for the IJN as success at Midway was for the USN.
Jeremy