Island defense tips for Japan

[kevini100]

Hey all,

I was wonder what others opinions are on how to properly defend a Japanese held Island. You know CD guns, AA guns. Does expanding the base size help the defender? Does more CD guns help? I imagine mines and fortifications. It would seem like Japan had plenty of time to properly fortify some of their holdings. What units would be useless for Island defense?

Kevin

[ChezDaJez]

Forts, forts and more forts! The allies have enough LCUs post-1942 to take any island they put their mind to. The trick is to make it expensive for the allied player to invade. You're playing a delaying game here with island and atolls. Atolls have an advantage in that an invading force has to shock attack the turn it lands so if the allied player invades piecemeal it can hurt him. 200-300 assualt points behind strong forts is enough to stave off rapid defeat but in the the end, if he wants it bad enough, it will be his regardless. Don't commit division size forces to outlaying island defence, use your NLFs and SNLFs for that. Commit divisions only to those areas that are vital to Japan's survival. That means the SRA and any bases within heavy bomber range of Japan.

Keep your islands well supplied with sufficient airpower on nearby airfields to help. If you are in range of his heavies, the gig is up as you won't be able to stop them from tearing up the defences. If you still have strong naval forces, especially carriers, you can try to interdict his supply lines to the target but if he has planned it right, you could be the one getting hurt.

Just my thoughts.

Chez

[Mike Solli]

I have to agree with Chez. Forts are wonderful force multipliers. Don't forget the many naval guard units you get. When they arrive, have them sit in Japan with accept replacements on until they fill out. At full strength, they have an assault value (AV) of ~105. Do the same with the many base forces you get too. At full (infantry) strength, they have an AV of 39. Never put a base force out on an island alone without (at least) it's organic infantry. If they don't have any infantry, an SS raiding force will take them out.

My goal is to get every important base up to fort level 9. The outer bases get 1-2 naval guard units and a base force. If it's particularly important, a crack SNLF/NLF is added. Keep your construction units busy. They are the key. They have a lot of engineers and take only 3k worth of APs to move.

[tsimmonds]

Don't build up the ports/airbases any more than you really need to. You are just doing the allied player's work for him. There is hardly anyplace you need more than a 3 port/4 airbase, and most places you don't even need that.

[Terminus]

What they said.

Your task as the defending Japanese player is two-fold. The outer defensive ring of islands should not have their base facilities expanded at all, only forts. The inner ring needs several large bases (Truk and Saipan are obvious candidates) but other than that, delay and attrit as much as you can. Don't commit large ground units to any of the bases in the outer ring, but fortify the hell out of the main bases in the inner.

Where you really have to fight is in the Triangle of Death(tm): the Philippines, Formosa and the Volcano Islands. If he secures that area, your line to the SRA is cut, and your industry will starve. Make sure he doesn't get there until really late in the game.

[kevini100]

It seems like the power of the US is totally overwleming. I would think they should be able to cake walk over anything Japan can throw at them after a certain point in the war. I mean how many CV and CVL's and CVE's does the US have with plenty of ground troops and landing craft plus all the land based heavy bombers. I've seen this stuff in action in UV and you just kick the crap out of Japan.

K

[Terminus]

You will get the crap beaten out of you here as well. The only variables are how long it's going to take, and how many losses you're going to inflict on him.

[ChezDaJez]

Don't build up the ports/airbases any more than you really need to. You are just doing the allied player's work for him. There is hardly anyplace you need more than a 3 port/4 airbase, and most places you don't even need that.

Agreed. I do build some level 4 airfields for my Bettys but I pick and choose those carefully. Others I build to level 2 for fighters and Kates but I seldom build up a port. I may build one just for a place to hide some ships or to recover some flot damage but most don't need any port at all. No sense giving a free gift.

Chez

[kevini100]

Please refresh my rules memory why a level 3 port. That's what you need to dock??

[bradfordkay]

That's what you need to disband a TF.

[medicff]

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

Don't build up the ports/airbases any more than you really need to. You are just doing the allied player's work for him. There is hardly anyplace you need more than a 3 port/4 airbase, and most places you don't even need that.

Agreed. I do build some level 4 airfields for my Bettys but I pick and choose those carefully. Others I build to level 2 for fighters and Kates but I seldom build up a port. I may build one just for a place to hide some ships or to recover some flot damage but most don't need any port at all. No sense giving a free gift.

Chez

Answer "Seabees" Lots and lots [:D][:D][:D]

[String]

I disagree about NOT building up. If you have the time and resources, build up everyithing you can (with forts first ofcourse). This will give you an enormous defensive felxibility advantage, and the allies can max out the base with their hordes of seebees within a week anyway.

[Sneer]

size of base allows to store more stockpiles
with horde of eng units an allied side it doesn't matter if your facility is level 2 or 3

[ChezDaJez]

I disagree about NOT building up. If you have the time and resources, build up everyithing you can (with forts first ofcourse). This will give you an enormous defensive felxibility advantage, and the allies can max out the base with their hordes of seebees within a week anyway.

Valid points from you and Sneer.

However, the way I look at it is if the Allied player requires a week or more to build the base up to be useable, then that is a week that I'm free from his heavies and a week that his carriers may have to continue supporting the supply TFs. Whihc in turn gives the Japanese player an opportunity to score a blow or two.

Chez

[Sneer]

if you put 300 AP on Island you need 10-15k supplies otherwise you will have to run transports every second week - also bombardments will destroy half of that - i'm pesimistic
you need to have 2/2 or 2/3 base to keep comfortable

[BlackVoid]

Mine EVERY base you have excessively.
Important bases should have CD units.
In crucial areas, have many size 4 AFs around, he won't be able to shut all down and you can counterattack from these bases with long-range naval bombers (Betties).

[ADavidB]

ORIGINAL: kevini100

It seems like the power of the US is totally overwleming. I would think they should be able to cake walk over anything Japan can throw at them after a certain point in the war. I mean how many CV and CVL's and CVE's does the US have with plenty of ground troops and landing craft plus all the land based heavy bombers. I've seen this stuff in action in UV and you just kick the crap out of Japan.

K

We're still waiting to see how true this is in an actual PBEM campaign game. There have been few reported games starting in 1943 or 1944 for anyone to see how well the Game system works in a later historic start. The 1941/42 Game campaigns change things so dramatically that by the time an Allied player gets to mid-1943 and can start to seriously think of coming back the situation is nothing at all like historical.

So while it seems that "everyone" has been assuming that the Japanese have "no chance" from mid-1943 onwards, we have had so many suprises in this game that I wouldn't be very surprised again to find that play is much more "balanced" than anyone expects. The various strategies suggested to you in the other posts will be very helpful to you for defense in a long PBEM campaign, particularly if you also use the 1941/42 strategies to build up Japanese air strength that most Japanese players use.

Never-the-less, unless the game is totally buggered-up beyond what anyone thinks, I would still expect a 1943 or 1944 start (as opposed to a 1941/42 start) would be a lot less enjoyable for a Japanese player than the typical 1941 start, simply because you wouldn't have 12 to 18 months of having everything "your way". (Which is why you don't see Japanese players asking for 1943 or 1944 starts.[;)])

Good luck -

Dave Baranyi

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: ADavidB

ORIGINAL: kevini100

It seems like the power of the US is totally overwleming. I would think they should be able to cake walk over anything Japan can throw at them after a certain point in the war. I mean how many CV and CVL's and CVE's does the US have with plenty of ground troops and landing craft plus all the land based heavy bombers. I've seen this stuff in action in UV and you just kick the crap out of Japan.

K

We're still waiting to see how true this is in an actual PBEM campaign game. There have been few reported games starting in 1943 or 1944 for anyone to see how well the Game system works in a later historic start. The 1941/42 Game campaigns change things so dramatically that by the time an Allied player gets to mid-1943 and can start to seriously think of coming back the situation is nothing at all like historical.

So while it seems that "everyone" has been assuming that the Japanese have "no chance" from mid-1943 onwards, we have had so many suprises in this game that I wouldn't be very surprised again to find that play is much more "balanced" than anyone expects. The various strategies suggested to you in the other posts will be very helpful to you for defense in a long PBEM campaign, particularly if you also use the 1941/42 strategies to build up Japanese air strength that most Japanese players use.

Never-the-less, unless the game is totally buggered-up beyond what anyone thinks, I would still expect a 1943 or 1944 start (as opposed to a 1941/42 start) would be a lot less enjoyable for a Japanese player than the typical 1941 start, simply because you wouldn't have 12 to 18 months of having everything "your way". (Which is why you don't see Japanese players asking for 1943 or 1944 starts.[;)])

Good luck -

Dave Baranyi

Losing the four Essex class CVs (and all other historically renamed vessels) from the pipeline because of the respawn feature only effs up the Allied chances further. Man the reasoning behind it is so fundamentally flawed. I could see it if it renamed a ship in the pipeline as was historically the case but to actually remove them is out there and you pnly get them if you lose CVs.!!!???

[kevini100]

ORIGINAL: ADavidB

ORIGINAL: kevini100

It seems like the power of the US is totally overwleming. I would think they should be able to cake walk over anything Japan can throw at them after a certain point in the war. I mean how many CV and CVL's and CVE's does the US have with plenty of ground troops and landing craft plus all the land based heavy bombers. I've seen this stuff in action in UV and you just kick the crap out of Japan.

K

We're still waiting to see how true this is in an actual PBEM campaign game. There have been few reported games starting in 1943 or 1944 for anyone to see how well the Game system works in a later historic start. The 1941/42 Game campaigns change things so dramatically that by the time an Allied player gets to mid-1943 and can start to seriously think of coming back the situation is nothing at all like historical.

So while it seems that "everyone" has been assuming that the Japanese have "no chance" from mid-1943 onwards, we have had so many suprises in this game that I wouldn't be very surprised again to find that play is much more "balanced" than anyone expects. The various strategies suggested to you in the other posts will be very helpful to you for defense in a long PBEM campaign, particularly if you also use the 1941/42 strategies to build up Japanese air strength that most Japanese players use.

Never-the-less, unless the game is totally buggered-up beyond what anyone thinks, I would still expect a 1943 or 1944 start (as opposed to a 1941/42 start) would be a lot less enjoyable for a Japanese player than the typical 1941 start, simply because you wouldn't have 12 to 18 months of having everything "your way". (Which is why you don't see Japanese players asking for 1943 or 1944 starts.[;)])

Good luck -

Dave Baranyi

I wouldn't want to start in 43 or 44 since surely you can do better then they did by then. Certanly in terms of pilot quality. I've looked at these and Japanese pilots are mostly very poor by these time. Surely a human player could do better. Just like the Germans they should have many new pilots but also a few very very experience pilots like the German aces that had so many kills who survived the war.

K

[ADavidB]

I wouldn't want to start in 43 or 44 since surely you can do better then they did by then. Certanly in terms of pilot quality. I've look at these and Japanese pilots are mostly very poor by these time. Sure a human player could do better. Just like the Germans they should have many new pilots but also a few very very experience pilots like the German aces that had so many kills who survived the war.

I guess that my point is that it appears that most Japanese players would rather enjoy the time period of the Game when they can have the most fun, rather than spend 18 or 24 months of "misery" as Allied players have to do in a 1941 start... [;)]

Thanks -

Dave Baranyi