Matrix Games Forums

Having played almost exclusive the Japanese side, I can say that relaying on Nell´s and Betties without
fighter cover to do much damage on allied shipping against an experienced allied player will be a costly endavour.

You will see too many go down in flames and the rest crashing on landing, and no matter what traing program you have going
you do not have enough Naval pilots.

Both sides have nice tools.
Allied 4E bombers and tanks makes me run for cover - like in my present game

ORIGINAL: wdolson

In the end nothing Japan could have done would have changed the outcome. Picking a fight with the US in the 1940s was insane, no matter what your military might. The US had a large, fairly well educated population, was on a continent that could not be attacked, and had 50% of the industrial capacity of the planet.

The best case scenario was the US would get discouraged and quit. As long as the US still had the will to fight, the end was inevitable.

Bill

Slight correction(even if GDP does not strictly equal to industrial output): USA had over 40% of the GDP of the warring countries from 1943 onwards. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_ ... War_II#GDP

Although I guess US was the most efficient in turning available GDP into actual products, and always had the food, fuel and logistical capabilities to use them too.

I think there would have been a peace sooner or later had US lost a good part of its Navy's capital ships and had UK fallen/made peace with the Germans. For a decade or so, before a second round, against Japan at least.


edit2: for the topic itself: I demand the historical G4M2 available from mid-43, should have a torpedo-delivery range increased by about 20%... [:D][:D]

I have already had a thread on game aerial torpedo performance in-game vs. historical. I can go back & find it if needed, but the consensus was game wise aerial torpedoes are FAR more effective that ever was historical. I am not intruding on the submarine portion here, just mentioning it as Netties & Betties are recently mentioned.

ORIGINAL: Lecivius

I have already had a thread on game aerial torpedo performance in-game vs. historical. I can go back & find it if needed, but the consensus was game wise aerial torpedoes are FAR more effective that ever was historical. I am not intruding on the submarine portion here, just mentioning it as Netties & Betties are recently mentioned.

Maybe so...but I would venture that part of the "problem" isn't necessarily the machine and torpedo per say, perhaps the search function and the ability to locate targets at distance are the "real" culprits.

ORIGINAL: treespider
...perhaps the search function and the ability to locate targets at distance are the "real" culprits.

That's a good point. I'm pretty sure in game air search is much better, on both sides, than historical. If so, I would guess this was done for playability reasons with which I would sympathize completely.

ORIGINAL: treespider

ORIGINAL: Lecivius

I have already had a thread on game aerial torpedo performance in-game vs. historical. I can go back & find it if needed, but the consensus was game wise aerial torpedoes are FAR more effective that ever was historical. I am not intruding on the submarine portion here, just mentioning it as Netties & Betties are recently mentioned.

Maybe so...but I would venture that part of the "problem" isn't necessarily the machine and torpedo per say, perhaps the search function and the ability to locate targets at distance are the "real" culprits.

I have no problem with how things work with this regard. It is, after all and as Symon says [:D] , a game. I just was adding information to the discussion [8D]

ORIGINAL: wdolson

In the end nothing Japan could have done would have changed the outcome. Picking a fight with the US in the 1940s was insane, no matter what your military might. The US had a large, fairly well educated population, was on a continent that could not be attacked, and had 50% of the industrial capacity of the planet.

The best case scenario was the US would get discouraged and quit. As long as the US still had the will to fight, the end was inevitable.

Bill

What's even worse is that Japan embarked on the war while still bogged down in China.

Not that the troops freed from China would have made a great deal of difference in the long run, but it would undoubtedly have drawn the war out for a longer period of time.

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

What's even worse is that Japan embarked on the war while still bogged down in China.

I'm a new player, very little experience, but this aspect of the game -- that is, the China theater -- is what bothers me the most. Historically it's just as you say, but in game far from being "bogged down" the Japanese can completely conquer China (!!!) which outcome is utterly preposterous. But I've read of this in several AARs and in my own game (as Allies) I don't see any evidence that I can avoid it, though admittedly it does take the Japanese a while to do it.

ORIGINAL: jwolf

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

What's even worse is that Japan embarked on the war while still bogged down in China.

I'm a new player, very little experience, but this aspect of the game -- that is, the China theater -- is what bothers me the most. Historically it's just as you say, but in game far from being "bogged down" the Japanese can completely conquer China (!!!) which outcome is utterly preposterous. But I've read of this in several AARs and in my own game (as Allies) I don't see any evidence that I can avoid it, though admittedly it does take the Japanese a while to do it.

It's a hard theater to model, in any game I've seen. On the plus side (for WITP-AE), at least you can't conquer china in 1937 like Hearts of Iron... And I liked HOI, but that was a big drawback with how the Pacific side would play out. AFter playing WITP, I can't see going back, at least for the Pacific theater.

ORIGINAL: jwolf

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

What's even worse is that Japan embarked on the war while still bogged down in China.

I'm a new player, very little experience, but this aspect of the game -- that is, the China theater -- is what bothers me the most. Historically it's just as you say, but in game far from being "bogged down" the Japanese can completely conquer China (!!!) which outcome is utterly preposterous. But I've read of this in several AARs and in my own game (as Allies) I don't see any evidence that I can avoid it, though admittedly it does take the Japanese a while to do it.

I haven't played yet as the Allies, but I think I can see ways that China can be saved or if not made too costly. I think the Allied player must use the axiom of he who defends everything defends nothing. Now I know that any production center that China 'gives up' is gonna cost 'em. But lets face it some are just not defensible, like those near the northeast (don't recall their names). So if you're trying to defend these while the hexes right behind you are jungle/rough and you lose well that's on you. IOW China has no chance to defend other than in the best defensive terrain. I think the exception may be Changsha. There's large forces there at start and maybe you can build up fortresses, which BTW China can't do everywhere. This location will also help protect those production sites behind it.

Another thing I might try is infiltration. I looks to me that Japan will have a hard time keeping a 'solid' front. If you take small rebuilt units push them through the lines and cut some supply paths... Looks like it'll take time, but may work. Even if it makes Japan keep a few forces behind the scenes it'll help.

Also you need help from your allies and if you don't get as much supply there as soon as possible its over. Now again I haven't played as the Allies, but when I do I intend to get the 'aluminum trail' up and running ASAP.

One thing I can tell you is China is a huge supply sink for Japan while she's conducting ops there. I feel it at the 'front'. Japan IMHO must at some time go to the defensive in China or put the rest of the Empire in peril. My intent in my games will be to leave China impotent as IRL, not to conquer the whole thing. From what I've read here Japan does anything else at her own peril. For if she leaves China alone she will eventually rise and crush Japan, at least within her borders.

Of course YMMV. Who knows I may fell otherwise when I'm on the other end too.

Thanks for the feedback. As I said, I personally have very little experience, so if I lose China that says nothing about the game. But I've seen it frequently enough in AARs, with some experienced Allied players, that it's pretty clear that outcome is not at all unusual. Granted also the point that this theater is difficult to model and just doesn't fit what works in other areas.

You can overrun China as Japan in any stock game as long as Japan is willing to make the effort. Japan does not need any additional LCUs to do it either. In other words you do not need any LCUs shipped into China from the outside. Plus once you actually capture some industrial sites, supply starts being generated locally for Japan which helps [:)].

So the only commitment Japan needs to make is to keep shipping supplies to China over the course of time to do this. I found that this did not really hurt operations elsewhere since the supply needs outside of the Asian land mass drop to almost nothing after Japan's expansion phase. Of course if you want to continue 'adventures' outside the historical expansion boundaries, then yes ops in China would have an impact.

But the reality is 'so what'. Japan will still lose. It will take longer since Japan now has more VPs to overcome but that is about it.

In game terms, Japan can get an Automatic Victory in '43 by doing this. But does anyone here think the Allies would have given up and gone home because Japan conquered China? So even if Japan gets an AV in '43, I would suggest to keep playing on as the game will allow you do that to reflect the reality of what really would have occurred. After all it is not like Japan could use China as a 'jumping board' to other areas under Allied control. Which is why the Allies would have kept going even if China had been completely overrun.

As a Japanese player, you can pat yourself on the back and say, 'Look at what I did' but losing is still in your future if you keep playing on [:(]

ORIGINAL: jwolf

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

What's even worse is that Japan embarked on the war while still bogged down in China.

I'm a new player, very little experience, but this aspect of the game -- that is, the China theater -- is what bothers me the most. Historically it's just as you say, but in game far from being "bogged down" the Japanese can completely conquer China (!!!) which outcome is utterly preposterous. But I've read of this in several AARs and in my own game (as Allies) I don't see any evidence that I can avoid it, though admittedly it does take the Japanese a while to do it.

Holding China as the Allies is by no means impossible, it just requires a pretty significant commitment from the Allies to ensure that China remains a viable battleground, along with a sprinkling of good play and a pinch of luck.

The biggest mistake I've seen is the number of people who don't start flying supplies into China on Dec 8th. Waiting for the US transport squadrons is a waste of a long time, and China needs every supply unit to fill out all those battered corps. The Chinese troops may not be much to look at, but with supply and good terrain they can perform well enough to bog the Japanese down.

The second biggest mistake I've seen is that, as a general rule, the Allies go on the defensive from the start in China. This leaves Japan free to shore up it's early war weak points. A limited offensive with expendable units around Canton or Wenchow in the early months of the war can throw Japan onto the back foot and tie down units that would be better committed elsewhere. While going on the offensive with the Chinese can be risky, you may lose more by not doing anything.

ORIGINAL: mind_messing



Holding China as the Allies is by no means impossible, it just requires a pretty significant commitment from the Allies to ensure that China remains a viable battleground, along with a sprinkling of good play and a pinch of luck.

I tend to agree with you. Numdydar is correct that IJ is certainly capable of taking China with the forces at hand, but the allies can hold. It is definitely not fait acompli that the IJ takes china.

The balance is in the play of both sides.

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

The balance is in the play of both sides.

Exactly. One has to believe that both sides were given things to make this enjoyable for both sides, and challenging for both sides. I may not like this, you may not like that. But it is a game, not a sim.

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: jwolf

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

What's even worse is that Japan embarked on the war while still bogged down in China.

I'm a new player, very little experience, but this aspect of the game -- that is, the China theater -- is what bothers me the most. Historically it's just as you say, but in game far from being "bogged down" the Japanese can completely conquer China (!!!) which outcome is utterly preposterous. But I've read of this in several AARs and in my own game (as Allies) I don't see any evidence that I can avoid it, though admittedly it does take the Japanese a while to do it.

The second biggest mistake I've seen is that, as a general rule, the Allies go on the defensive from the start in China. This leaves Japan free to shore up it's early war weak points. A limited offensive with expendable units around Canton or Wenchow in the early months of the war can throw Japan onto the back foot and tie down units that would be better committed elsewhere. While going on the offensive with the Chinese can be risky, you may lose more by not doing anything.

China can definitively take Wenchow at the start. Plus they will tend to keep it for a long time as the terrain around there is terrible for an offense to recapture it as Japan.

So there are things that can be done with China to slow things down for Japan. However Japan can pretty much overcome anything the Chinese can do as long as Japan is willing to make the effort. But after overrunning China in one game and agreeing not to in a PBEM game, I have found it really does not make that much difference if Japan does or does not conquer China. Once Japan gets a land route opened to Indochina through China, that's pretty much where Japan can stop. Anything past that point is just icing [:)]

Not that the troops freed from China would have made a great deal of difference in the long run, but it would undoubtedly have drawn the war out for a longer period of time.

+1. Exactly what a JFB earns for taking down China. Nothing "out of order" with this. The effect of a JFB victory in China adds a mobile reserve of IJA divisions roughly equal to the number of divisions a JFB receives as reinforcements in the Home Islands (thus basically doubling his mobile reserve of IJA divisions mid to late campaign). Also factor into this (1) PP needed to transfer divisions out of the China Army, (2) transport shipping capacity and fuel used in re-deploying divisions from China, (3) time involved in moving divisions from China to their destination theatre plus how much time a JFB has available to do this, (4) the JFB's decision process on where these divisions need to go.

In my PBEM vs Pillager, four of the 6 IJA divisions I'm facing in Buna are transfers from China. The other two IJA divisions in Buna shipped out of the Home Islands. My intel data gleaned from Sigint and other reports is merely a clue as to what awaits Allied ground offensives and amphibious operations into the Marianas and points farther west along the north coast of New Guinea. The end result of my PBEM campaign vs Pillager will likely illustrate very well effects of additional IJA forces available after a fall of China. Additional IJA garrisons in the Pacific theatres are probably a greater headache than Pillager's large and still intact KB. Lots of Japanese carriers require lots of fuel, planes and trained pilots limiting the usefulness of a large KB. On the other hand, IJA divisions (wherever they come from) require considerably less "maintenance" beyond a modest level of supply once they've been moved into place. More IJA "bodies" to claw through using the same pool of Allied ground forces. Not to mention a British ground offensive into Burma from India will likely be "gummed up" in similar fashion by IJA reinforcements from China. Provides a few interesting Allied strategic dilemmas.

Bottom line is this... I have to play against what's in front of me with what I have on hand to work with in a rather tight PBEM campaign that can still go either way. I'll reserve any comments for the post-campaign discussion.

China can definitively take Wenchow at the start. Plus they will tend to keep it for a long time as the terrain around there is terrible for an offense to recapture it as Japan.

'Tho I agree that the allies should not be passive-defensive in China, the allies control Wenchow (89,58) at game start.

Ok made me look damn it [:)]

How about China taking Inching at the start of the game [:)]

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

How about China taking Inching at the start of the game [:)]

Ichang should be do-able, methinks. [:)]