Japan starts the game too weak

[dobeln]

"4) Many people have mentioned (and I agree) that conquering China isnt really worth the hassle in terms of supply, casualties, and occupation forces compared to the pay-off. Yet Japan basically went to war with WAllies to finance the war in China (and then Russia). So, to them at least, it was an important goal. Is there a reflection of that in the game? Maybe China could be worth bonus VPs for purposes of Auto-Victory? I'm just throwing out ideas because, IMO, the game should at least provide the players with the desire to do what the historical nations felt they had to do."

Well, "conquering China" was never a very realistic Japanese objective - they stuck to holding most of the coastline, while launching some spoiling offensives against the Chinese.

[Mr.Frag]

Do you see 'game reasons' for wanting to follow the historical path of pursuing the war in China and taking over the resource rich islands to finance it while throwing up a 'perimeter' to stall the Allies?

It's not really a game reason ... those *are* the goals of Japan.

The Southern Resource Area is required, even before the war start Japan was on the way out of power due to blockades imposed for their aggression against China. Without control of that area, Japan is virtually toothless, they have lots of toys, but no ability to keep them supplied and in a state of war.

Think of Japan as a collapsing empire. You know you are on the way out, but you see a chance to jump into the middle of someone elses war and do a land grab while people are looking the other way. Your goal really becomes throwing a wrench in the works and causing the Allied forces to be tied up so Germany can get ahead with their plans. The more you meddle, the tougher it becomes for the Allies to concentrate on reigning in Germany. Neither could go it alone, but perhaps by meddling in the affairs of others you will assist your partner in making headway that they could not do alone.

[Uncle_Joe]

No, I meant the island chains SE of the real resource areas. Historically, the Japanese wanted them to form a perimeter around the vital resource rich areas. In the game, those islands have no resource value. I'm wondering if they have strategic value.

They cant stop Subs (no Op Fire vs Subs unless on CAP which requires Supply each turn). Do they interdict movement of Supply? Even if they do interdict supply through them, the Allies can sit in the same space and nail the vital Japanese convoys with Air Groups. So, I'm wondering if there is a reason to go through the effort of taking the island groups and garrisoning and supplying them. It seems like an awful lot of expenditure of resources. Is there a pay-off? Do the Allies need to reduce and take them, or can they leave them to rot and still accomplish the collapse of Japan's convoys?

[osirus2626]

Here are some strategies that worked for me when I was Japan.....(normal difficulty and supply rules, +15 to japan supply...all else standard, except I turned off the end date. I want a fight to the finish!!). Obviously the +15 supply makes things a little easier, but my overall strategy is very supply use conservative.

1. Take out china early, send every ground, air, and sea troop you can muster. But ONLY take out china territories with resources or factories. Ignore the other teritories since they will only cost you to place garrisons in them.

2. As quickly as possible produce garrisons to protect china. You really dont need that many (about 6 should do for a while) and it saves lots of head aches in the long run.

3. Ignore the tempation of pearl harbor. It uses way too many supply points to get your fleet their. Wait for them to come to you. This obviously frees up your air power to be used against China.

4. Soon the USA fleet will be coming for you. Hopefully you will have time to build an extra sub or two. Subs absolutely kick butt. They can decimate USA shipping. At the begining of the game USA has no way to effectively kill them. Also, main reason subs are by far the best ship unit of Japan, is that they dont use ANY supply. If you get 6-8 subs in Pacific, it will be a veritable killing groud of US ships.

5. Dont attach USA until they declare war. You dont want to lose much needed resources you get from them.

6. A few turns after Germany invades Russia, attack Russia. If you have China subdued, you should have sufficient troops to slowly move into russia. Russia puts up minimal defense.

In summary, After a few games trying, I was able to 1. Destroy china early
2. Damage USA fleet enough that it became a stalemate in the pacific. I inflicted appox. 4/1 casualty rate picking off unguarded transports and small fleets using mostly subs.
3. Attack russia and push close to the Urals
4. After USA declared war, I was slowly able to take southeast asia. Production is now in the 25-30 range.
5. BUT I am still losing because Germany did not hold up to their end of the bargain!!!!

[Uncle_Joe]

Its hard to compare strategy ideas when folks arent playing under the same conditions. +15 Supply per turn is a pretty nice chunk for a resource-starved country like Japan.

It makes an interesting benchmark for what people might accomplish with a bit more supply though. Of course things vs the AI also have to be taken with a grain of salt, especially for the designers who have the unenviable task of trying to balance the game for both AI and MP games.

[Joel Billings]

Islands with air units will op fire at units that move past it. Not to mention the interdiction cost of the island itself. On the other hand, what happened historically can happen to Japan in that some islands can be ignored and cut off from resupply and become effectively wasted units.

There are reasons to take China, Australia, India (resources, captured factories, disruption to Allied efforts), but they must be weighed against the costs. In the end much depends on what your opponent lets you do. If he gives you a way to disrupt his efforts and it doesn't cost much, do it, as it will help you in the end. It's the cost/benefit analysis that is the heart of tactics in GGWaW. Overall, it is clear, Japan must gain resources so it can get it's production up to max as soon as possible after it goes to war with the WA, otherwise it will crumble. If it can do this without wasting too many supplies/units, it will be in a good position to be a real drain on Allied resources which should be going after Germany (units, supplies and research).

[Grotius]

Subs absolutely kick butt. They can decimate USA shipping. At the begining of the game USA has no way to effectively kill them.

Sure, but if the Germans are also using U-Boats aggressively, chances are the WA will upgrade their ASW anyway, and Japan's not gonna win a tech rase with the WA. Still, I'm thinking subs are a viable alternative for Japan. Sure beats my motionless fleet.

[Uncle_Joe]

But do islands with Air Units Op Fire on SUPPLIES that are moving past them.

In other words, If I take, say the Solomons as the Japanese. I put a Garrison, an Arty, and a Tac Air on it. It is cut off from supply.

Ok, now the Allies have a fleet west of the Solomons. They have a Transport in the same sea zone with the Solomons through which supplies need to move to get to the fleet.

Does the Air Unit Op-Fire as the supplies are moving (ie as the Strategic Movement is ticking down by 1 each time supply is drawn by the fleets...assume Auto Move supply).

If they only fire at moving UNITS, they seem to be a complete waste of effort. If they can truly interdict supply lines (not interdiction points, but actually hit the transport), then they need to be reduced and taken. That makes them useful as a 'perimeter'.

Thanks for any clarifications.

[Joel Billings]

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe

But do islands with Air Units Op Fire on SUPPLIES that are moving past them.

In other words, If I take, say the Solomons as the Japanese. I put a Garrison, an Arty, and a Tac Air on it. It is cut off from supply.

Ok, now the Allies have a fleet west of the Solomons. They have a Transport in the same sea zone with the Solomons through which supplies need to move to get to the fleet.

Does the Air Unit Op-Fire as the supplies are moving (ie as the Strategic Movement is ticking down by 1 each time supply is drawn by the fleets...assume Auto Move supply).

If they only fire at moving UNITS, they seem to be a complete waste of effort. If they can truly interdict supply lines (not interdiction points, but actually hit the transport), then they need to be reduced and taken. That makes them useful as a 'perimeter'.

Thanks for any clarifications.

Yes they attack things moving past on transports, but there is a known bug we will fix in the second patch that units are being attacked instead of the transport (and if the transport is hit, the unit is supposed to be hit). Also, although units seem to be hit by this Op fire, supplies seem not to be getting attacked. When this is fixed, supplies moving past will cause the transports to be sunk and the supplies destroyed (most likely since transports have such low defense ratings against planes).

Supplies moved by auto supply movement should be op fired at (with sufficient warning to cancel the move). This will all be a priority in the second patch (the first patch is in final install test and Gary has already begun work on the second patch).

[Grifman]

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe

Joel Billings:

Thanx for the input. Do you see any reason for Japan to want to pursue her historical goals of 1) conquering China and 2) spreading out into the South Pacific and going for Australia and the surrounding areas? I have yet to see a reason for wanting most of the islands, but that might just be unfamiliarity with some of the mechanics.




I guess basically what I am looking for is the means and/or reasons for the Japanese wanting to do what they historically wanted to do. Currently, most of the 'good' Japanese strategies seem to be to do the exact opposite of what Japan wanted to accomplish...ie, ignore China (for the most part) and avoid using the navy to engage the allies because it costs too much to use.

Maybe the real problem isn't with the game, but with Japan's historical strategy. They lost the war, after all, quit badly to a US that fought it with only half its power. Perhaps the reality is that the "traditional, historical" Japanese strategy is one doomed to failure - and you need to adjust that strategy if you want to win.

[abulbulian]

I don't have much more time then to say all the people that want rules/advantages in belief that Japan should have ruled the world(even pacific theater) during WWII, are NUTS![X(]. Japan had no intentions of even doing more than gaining some room and resources. They thought the Western allies didn't have the stomach for a long war and they were very wrong. Even top Japanese strategist, Yamamato being one, knew they had about 6 months until the US industrial might would crush them. Japan was a 3rd rate power in most respects except for a decent navy, although it lacked technological breakthroughs that the western allies gained throughout the war. Good radar being one of them. Had it not been for the individual Japanese solider's fanatic belief in fighting to the death for his emperor, Japan would have surrendered much sooner. Also, for those 'I need a stronger' Japan people, this game doesn't even represent one of the larger advantages the Allies had over Japan - MAGIC (or code breaking for those not familar with the term)!

I have the advantage of decades of reading and studying this period of time. I suggest others take some to learn more about this period and what each nation was capable of, before spewing this garbage about Japan is too weak. Last case an point, I can count the number of times Japan sent it's main fleet carriers into action on almost one hand. Reason being, it did take much fuel/oil, something Japan was still low on (DEI & Malaya did help) to send large battle groups out to sortie. I think with some of the fixes coming and maybe some minor GUI changes, this will be one of my best purchases of the year!

Remember, the Axis doesn't need to conquer the world to get a victory in this game. Causing delays in the allies advances mid-late game can be decisive.

BTW, does Gary ever sport any of his SSI t-shirts from back in the days?[:D]

As a fellow programmer, keep up the good work guys!

[Uncle_Joe]

You could try reading what is written before jumping on people for posting garbage... [8|]

I dont think anyone here is looking for a 'super-Japan'...I know I'm sure not. But simply the ability to use the historical tactics available efficiently would be fine. As of now, there is no real reason to want to spread out across the South Pacific and take the island chains. 'Island Hopping' seems unnecessary because you can just bypass the garrisoned islands and kill off Japanese transports with near impunity.

It sounds like a lot of the reasoning to follow what Japan tried to do are not going to pay off now because of a few bugs in the code. Once Op Fire is truly working vs Transports and Supplies and once the Pearl Harbor raid can actually cause some damage with minimal loss, I think it will probably be about right. As it is now, Japan is forced to face the entire might of whatever the US wants to send with little chance to wear them down in a series of battles for 'perimeter' islands. If those arent accomplishing anything, Japan is too vulnerable to US incursions. This is not asking for SUPER JAPAN, but only for the things that are already there to work as they did in the war.

I will agree that with the fixes and a few enhancements, this will be one my best purchases of the year too. I'm just amazed at how the whole game comes together so well. I have a few minor gripes with the game, but given the scale and scope, Grigsby et al have managed to put together something that is playable, fun, and still close enough to the history to really pull you in.

Joel:

Thanx for the heads up. I'm looking forward to the fixes!

[BlackVoid]

Japan falling behind in research is not entirely true.

Japan had the BEST torpedo of the war from start to finish.
Japan could research the Shinden - one of the best fighters of the war.
Japan had the fastest carriers in WW2 (though not the largest)
Biggest battleship
Flashless gunpowder (from the start)

I looked at the unit stats and Japan is only 1-2 points ahead in torpedo technology - at a time when the US did not really have a working torpedo!!! While Japan at this time already had the best torpedo of the war.
US warships could not even scuttle their own ships with their torps in 1942.

[celebrindal]

ORIGINAL: BlackVoid

Japan falling behind in research is not entirely true.

Japan had the BEST torpedo of the war from start to finish.
Japan could research the Shinden - one of the best fighters of the war.
Japan had the fastest carriers in WW2 (though not the largest)
Biggest battleship
Flashless gunpowder (from the start)

I looked at the unit stats and Japan is only 1-2 points ahead in torpedo technology - at a time when the US did not really have a working torpedo!!! While Japan at this time already had the best torpedo of the war.
US warships could not even scuttle their own ships with their torps in 1942.

I have to agree with the sub things. I don't know how many testimonies I've seen/heard or articles I've read about the crappy torps both the subs and the sea planes had at the start of the war for the U.S. I mean they fixed it right quick but really they had the suckiest stuff.

Also a second point regarding speed, the japenese cruisers were nasty, fast and fairly fuel efficent. If you've ever played a board game called world in flames you'll know what I mean, the cruisers easily out rank most pre-WW2 U.S. battleships.

[Graymane]

2 points ahead in sub is huge. If you've played the WA before, you realize that the default WA subs are totally worthless without at least 2-3 torp upgrades a min of 1 evasion upgrade.

[nirvana]

Well personally i dont much enjoy playing them, i seem to spend all my time controlling my supply rather than anything else, its not much fun to play, even the manual suggest not bothering to even move your sea units until america declares war, and even then you drain your supply faster than a beer on a hot day.

Im not a particulary good player, but i have serious fun playing games as Germany, WA, russia but when playing with Japan, the fun shoots right out of the window, i've tried to do pearl harbour several times to get crushed and effectivly lose the war instantly.

[Grifman]

ORIGINAL: BlackVoid

Japan falling behind in research is not entirely true.

Japan had the BEST torpedo of the war from start to finish.
Japan could research the Shinden - one of the best fighters of the war.
Japan had the fastest carriers in WW2 (though not the largest)
Biggest battleship
Flashless gunpowder (from the start)

I looked at the unit stats and Japan is only 1-2 points ahead in torpedo technology - at a time when the US did not really have a working torpedo!!! While Japan at this time already had the best torpedo of the war.
US warships could not even scuttle their own ships with their torps in 1942.

Notice most of the items you mention Japan had from the beginning - Yamato and Musashi were pre-war ships, same with most of Japan's carriers, their torpedos, flashless powder, etc.. Japan developed very little in the way of new technology during the war compared with the Allies or Germany. And what they developed they didn't have the technological/production base to produce in numbers that mattered.

[osirus2626]

After trys at a few different strategies, I definitely find taking out China is the best one. I send EVERY single available force at them. Once I figured out the strategy I was able to take out all chinese factories in less than 6 turns. After you take out china, you can put some serious pressure on Russia by invading them through Sinkiang (since sinkiang is where my stack of troups wipe out the last remains of the Chinese). If Russia diverts troops to stop your force, then they weaken themselves against Germany. If they ignore you, then you take out the eastern half of russia without much difficulty.

[osirus2626]

I just got a desisive victory with the strategy above. But I was damn close to failing. If the allies would have had one more year, they would have crushed me, since germany collapsed completely in early 1946. Luckily I had Japan at 32 production.

I guess my one complaint I have, is that the vitory seems rather hollow because I know if I gave the allies another couple years, they would have completely wiped me out.

[randell765]

Look,
The whole point why I brought this up is because Japan starts the game to weak. if you are going to respond negatively to what I say, at least have the decency to read the WHOLE article. No one is saying Japan was unstoppable, no one is saying that Japan should be like the Japan in Axis and Allies Revised game, no one argues that Japan wasn't lacking in resources, hence the taking of the islands.

What the complaint is is that Japan had a great, yes, thats right, I said great, navy. The US had a great one too, Japan caught them a bit unawares with Pearl Harbor. The battle of Midway could have gone either way with both fleets, luckily, USA suprised Japan and not the other way around, hence the total domination at Midway, Usa had one main thing that Japan didn't(besides reources), population. When the US lost good fighter pilots they could be replaced, when japan lost good fighter pilots, they couldn't be replaced as easily. hence having Kamikazee pilots midway through the war for Japan, while they still had decent pilots, the majority of good oness died/injured at Midway.

But all that is off the point. While Japan had major problems with China, their navy cruised the Pacific with impunity(before Pearl Harbor). Now, you can't move your navy without wasting tremendous supplies, and that, is not realistic to the time period. At the start of the war Japan had better or equal AC to the USA and probably better subs. I don't care that Japanese subs start 2 points higher than WA's. In my recollection, japan did not use their subs as efficiently or effectively as Germany and I cannot recall 1 major battle where their subs took out massive supplies or fleets.

What I care about is that, yes you use supplies to move ships and you use supplies to move land and air units, what about a compromise? japan had an underaverage army with practically outdated wepons(see:tanks) but they put all their time and money into the Sea and air. Why not reverse the situation for japan? Make land movement cost twice as much and sea movement half as much. I am sure the naysayers will find something wrong with this idea which I think has some type of merit. But this would be more realistic as to what actually happened in WWII, YES,YES, I know, it's not an exact copy of WWII, but it's pretty close and in addition to making it more realistic, I think it makes it more fun.

If I mention to you Japan WWII, what do you think of? Japans mighty, unstoppable army? No? How about Japans navy which terrized the Pacific Ocean and Islands, which is more accurate? which sounds more fun? Don't give us japans navy and say look at these nice toys, let them sit. Japan never, and I mean never(at least for the first half of WWII) skimped on their navy.

Under the current sysytem, you are better off taking out China(which, while hard, not as hard as attacking Pearl harbor) if you did a ratio of supplies vs result. But technically the reverse is true in this game. Look, I am not saying overhaul the game mechanics, I think everything else in the game is near perfect(with the patch). And Japan doesn't need more ships, they need movement capability in the Ocean. I stand by my opinion, I can't remember a naval battle that japan didn't show up for because they were out of oil or gasoline or any other resource. I don't know, mabey some of the people here can help me jog my memory on all the supposed ocean battles that were suppoesed to happen but Japan had to sit out until they finished pumping gas.[8|]