Port Blair Significance

[Canoerebel]

Most players have a house rule preventing Japan from sending ships past Singapore until the fortress is under Japanse control.  That makes amphibious incursions into the Bay of Bengal in December 1941 and early 1942 problematic or impossible.

[crsutton]

The key is that if you wait to take it you have to be on guard to prevent the Allied from reinforcing it. So it is better to plan on taking it as soon as you can. but this of course can apply to about any key objective in the first few months of the war.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Icedawg

Spring of 42 is obviously way too late. I'm talking Dec 20-30 or so.

I don't know about humans, but the AI is programed to go for Port Blair like a dog at a T-bone. In my very first GC I fought an 18-month epic struggle to hold it, a fight which ended up with multi-divisons present on both sides, and many capital ships lost. I was still learning the logistics system, and I was surprised the AI wanted it that badly, but it did, so I gave it the fight. Now after a couple more wars I see better what everyone here is talking about.

By Dec. 20 in my current game (now at mid-January 1942) I had about 90AV at Port Blair stripped from Madras and Colombo, with more on the way from the CT convoy pre-loaded for Singers. I had one AA unit there, and one engineer unit digging like crazy. I'm strongly building Rangoon and Pegu as well, and have largely abandoned south Burma, but I will hold Port Blair. No question. If I were playing a human and he hadn't taken it by the date you name he would never take it, or if he did, never hold it past two months. I'd send USMC assault divisions through CT to get it back if I had to. It's that important.

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: Icedawg

A common move by Japanese players seems to be to take Port Blair relatively early on via paradrop. The main argument seems to be to deprive the Allies of a stepping stone base as they move squadrons from Burma/India to Malaya. However, the Allies should be able to just as easily use Tavoy for this purpose, rendering the taking of Port Blair meaningless. So, is there any other reason to take Port Blair early? ...

Wouldn't Betty's based at Blair make life hell for Allied shipping along the entire coast?

[Commander Stormwolf]

I want to hear of someone with success against port blair paratroopers

Does it require the Raiding regiment, and all 3 yokosuka SNLF?

How about prep points? Recommend ground attack first?

The garrison is tougher than it appears (starts with 50 prep points)

[Icedawg]

ORIGINAL: Commander Stormwolf


I want to hear of someone with success against port blair paratroopers

Does it require the Raiding regiment, and all 3 yokosuka SNLF?

How about prep points? Recommend ground attack first?

The garrison is tougher than it appears (starts with 50 prep points)

I've taken it against the AI with the Raiding Regiment and one of the Yokosuka SNLFs.

[Nikademus]

Taking Blair sooner than later is recommended. Its not as thorny an issue as Akyab but the prinicple is similar. Give a good Allied player enough time and you'll find a fortified nest in those places requiring major assets to displace. Its hard to pull off though when the Japan player has his hands full of trying to take Malaya and reduce Singapore. Then there's Sumatra and Java to plan for.

[Empire101]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

Taking Blair sooner than later is recommended. Its not as thorny an issue as Akyab but the prinicple is similar. Give a good Allied player enough time and you'll find a fortified nest in those places requiring major assets to displace. Its hard to pull off though when the Japan player has his hands full of trying to take Malaya and reduce Singapore. Then there's Sumatra and Java to plan for.

I agree.

Sooner rather than later enables the Japanese to shut off the straits between Sumatra and Malaya, and JoeD's post about Bettys ( and don't forget Nell's, my favourite LB torpedo bomber!![8D] ) make any Allied excursion North of Singers problematic.