Effective defense

[Nikademus]

The threat to India and being outflanked, along with the supply issues was the primary reason why the British didn't choose to attempt to defend Akyab during early 42. Ironically, it became their first objective after the great retreat.

As far as the game is concerned....the threat to India is one very good reason not to overcommit in Burma. Keep a good reserve in the Pearl of the Empire.

[moses]

Well if Japan wants maximum effort KB and 12 Divisions plus lots of supply then you are likely toast. But this is hard to do.

A strong defence in the SRA will soak up some Japanese Divisions. Usually at least two in Burma. The PI Divisions may not be able to get to India until March and you need one or two divisions at least to take Java. So if you want 10 Divisions you're probably waiting until April. (I am assuming as always that you have a historical turn one and that the allies don't simply run away).

By that time you should have considerable air power in India. So all of KB is needed to make a landing. You should be able to make a fight of it. Plus KB is a long way from key bases in the Pacific.

Important to remove most supply and fuel from bases in India. if they want to bring 10 divisions make them bring 200,000 supply as well. Don't just let them pick it up at your base. As soon as they take a location bomb the tar out of it to soak up supply and keep his air units out.

A couple of the little bases to the west can be lightly defended. Priority to Karachi and the city south, Madras and area of Diamond Harbor.

There's risk to Japan in March/April. Have you sent a US division to India. An Austrailian? Where are the US carriers?? Which base do you land at? Pick the one with heavy arty and CD's and Japan could get hurt bad.

Yes a maximum effort has a good chance but if you as allies start planning your defence from Dec 7 you have a chance I think. And even if you fail you force Japan to commit everything to achieve this one goal.[:)]

[Nikademus]

Also, be sure to keep those two ARMmored brigades in India too.....once at full combat power they can be devastating in clear hex terrain.

If the Japan player is using 12 divisions to attack India....he wont have much to defend the Pacific with. (opportunities!)

[niceguy2005]

I agree that Akyab is hard to defend, but it is important. I have now played games where I defended it and abondoned it. If Japan gets troops in there and builds up the AF, along with Mandalay and Rangoon, the RAF will have a rough time of it. That's why I say defend it, but not too strong. In other words defend it with what you can afford to loose.

Trust me, if India comes at you with 4-6 div on amphib assualt, they will make a beach head and take whatever they want within a limited area of the beachhead. I think the best strategy the allies have in that case is:
1. Have already prepared second line of defense.
2. Have some heavily fortified positions as a first line of defense with enough supplies for a siege.

By August 42 India will have more than enough troops to defend itself form 6 or 8 divisions. The goal should be blunting the invasion long enough to get to that point.

[Nikademus]

I'll usually defend it...but only with units retreating from Burma. I don't reinforce Burma I fight with what's there.

[moses]

Maybe bunches of those CD and arty units on the west coast should head to India right at the start.

I mean really what good are they on Canton Island and such. If Japan invades these he wins anyway.

7 or 8 good gun units might have some nice targets win 6 divisions show up on the Indian coast. I just love to see it when 2000 coastal artillery fire on a big group of AP/AK's[:)]

[Nikademus]

I suppose thats an option but wouldn't do it personally. I tend to play very theater-centric meaning that the UK has their sphere's of influence and so does the US. Perhaps its also a little joint chiefs leaking onto my thinking too but India i don't see as vital my strategy for driving on Japan. Like i said, if the Japan player commits such a massive army (12+ divisions!) to India, i'll be taking advantage of the vacuum it creates elsewhere.

[Feinder]

I think playing playing "theater centric" is great, as long as Japan does it too. That's a BIG if. I wouldn't expect Japan to abide by it (I don't even know where the delimeter for Souther Area Army is). But abandoning the mentality of "send NoPac units to NoPac, and CentPac units to CentPac" has proven crucial for me as an Allied player. The command to which units are assigned, is only important to me if they're assigned to a restricted command. In which case, they sit on the dock awaiting PP expendature. But otherwise, I sent them where they are needed. I assume that Japan is doing the same thing. If he's got some guys in CamRah assigned to Burma Army, and others assigned to Southern Area, I -know- he's just dumping whatever guys he needs on transports, and sending them to where he needs them. If an Allied player doesn't respond in kind (ignoring initial HQ assignements), he's going to get killed.

That's not to say I wouldn't like to play where HQ assignments were strictly enforced. Might be really cool. But at present, it's just a matter of shipping what I need, where I need it, regardless of it's assigned HQ.

-F-

[Nikademus]

I'm willing to divert LCU's assigned to Central or North Pacfic to Sopac or SWpac if the need arrises. I'll end up changing them as PP's become available of course...but I doubt i'd ever send west coast units or other big LCU's current there to India. Mac just wouldn't approve. [:D]

[Feinder]

I'll end up changing them as PP's become available of course...

Yeah, I intend to convert my LCUs to their appropriate commands "as PP's become available"... Which should be sometime in Octber of 1943 . In my August 42 game, I still don't have enough PPs, just to do the crucial stuff.

but I doubt i'd ever send west coast units or other big LCU's current there to India.

I convert the HQs and the Eng Rgts. Allies seem to be very short on support (I can't speak for Japan tho. It seems plenty in my Campaign '45, but I don't know about Campaign 42). And you can never have enough engineers (there are 3 Rgts on West Coast). But frankly, I've never had occasion to send LCUs from the West Coast to India.

The Art Rgts are bit expensive (and you have a fair amount anyways). The Inf divs - I'd love to convert some, but the PPs usually get spent before I've save up enough to convert a whole division.

-F-

[moses]

I would send them long way by ship. It may be non-historical but no more so then a 10 Division Japanese Invasion of Japan. And it only effects Japan if he invades India. So Japan has perfectly good counter-strategies to me sending those guys there. i.e. my East Pacific islands are weak. He can decide to send his main push elsewhere.

It just gives Japan something to worry about as the Indian offensive can no longer be regarded as a slam dunk.

It will be nice when Japan lands at Madras and finds an Austrailian division and 4 big artillery/CD units.[:D][:D]

[Nikademus]

i don't know why its called unhistorical. The Japanese considered it, but rejected it which isn't the same as "they couldn't do it" While the Army was primarily playing the "veto card" i think their decision was a wise one as attacking India would only have been beneficial to japan if germany had carried through with her link-up suggestion. As a player, i'm happy to have my opponent commit 12 divisions to India.....i'll be either shoring up my Pacific bases or advancing while he's doing it.

[niceguy2005]

ORIGINAL: moses

Maybe bunches of those CD and arty units on the west coast should head to India right at the start.

I mean really what good are they on Canton Island and such. If Japan invades these he wins anyway.

7 or 8 good gun units might have some nice targets win 6 divisions show up on the Indian coast. I just love to see it when 2000 coastal artillery fire on a big group of AP/AK's[:)]

Well, they don't always do the damage you think they will. My opponent has done an outstanding job of neutralizing my guns before his forces even hit the beach with bombardment and port attack. Most of the Indian guns and ART were disabled when he landed. Big CD units may fair better, but I doubt its worth the PP. I would much rather spend it on bringining in US RCT or other Commonwealth units to slow down his troops inland where his naval guns can't get at me.

[Feinder]

One of these days, I'm going to remember to post my "political point cost table". Quite useful. Each type of weapon has a PP cost (took me a while, but I eventually got it). Just like planes are 4 each, each item in an LCU has a cost. Support is something like .5. A squad is maybe 1 or 2, I think. AAA is .5. But "guns" are actually the most expensive, I think they're 2 - 4 points each. Which means that the CD/Art units are, proportionately, the most expenisve to convert.

What I did to figure it out, was to have a unit with 100 of a device, and figured the cost convert it per device. But the table is at home, I don't know the actual conversion costs for each device off the top of my head.

-F-

[moses]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

i don't know why its called unhistorical. The Japanese considered it, but rejected it which isn't the same as "they couldn't do it" While the Army was primarily playing the "veto card" i think their decision was a wise one as attacking India would only have been beneficial to japan if germany had carried through with her link-up suggestion. As a player, i'm happy to have my opponent commit 12 divisions to India.....i'll be either shoring up my Pacific bases or advancing while he's doing it.

Unhistorical because it didn't happen.[:D][:D]

I have no problem with anyone attacking India. I won't complain at all. But I do want to impliment a counter-strategy.

I worry about trying to counter in the Pacific because really Japan does not need divisions there as long as KB has 12 carriers against 4 or 5 US. Now if 8 of those carriers are off the Indian coast then we're in business. So I need enough in India to require him to fully commit everything to that theater.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: moses


I worry about trying to counter in the Pacific because really Japan does not need divisions there as long as KB has 12 carriers against 4 or 5 US. Now if 8 of those carriers are off the Indian coast then we're in business. So I need enough in India to require him to fully commit everything to that theater.

Here you have a good point. Particularily in Stock, a concentrated KB is pretty much unbeatable which makes a purely naval thrust a dicey affair. However a careful advance with LBA in support could tip the balance. I'm not advocating "go immed for Truk" when i talk about exploiting the IJA full committment into the I/O but more along the lines of solidifying and building up my forward bases and/or carefully advancing under LBA cover and and naval cover to exploit the troop shortage as much as possible. If the Japan player is truely that committed to India, he will need naval support....if not KB then at least surface forces (i'd think Baby KB would be a minimum...at least until LBA can be established)

Stock also provides large numbers of 2E and 4E bombers for the Allied side.....even KB would have to give pause at a CV/LBA one two punch of that kind.

[niceguy2005]

My opponent has done it. From a WiTP standpoint it is very possible for Japan. He committed at least 6 Div to India/Burma, plus heavy air support and KB. Going strictly by the rules if he Blitzs India and takes Karachi/Bombay then not with standing a MAJOR allied invasion, he can hold off all UK reinforcements for months to years and free up a lot of those resources for a defense of the pacific. I would call this strategically smart. He would turn a 3 front war into a 2 front war. He is beating me in China also.

Of course, the blitz HAS to succeed for it to work at all.

As to historical, I thought the point of WiTP is to leave these kinds of major tactical decisions to the player. The only issue I have is that major commands must stay together to be realistic. If Japan wants to send the 8th Army to Burma so be it, be most of the 8th army should be there then. Same for the allies. Although, I would argue that NorPac is different. It appears that this command was more of an after thought and likely would have been smaller if Japan made little or no move toward Alaska.

[Nikademus]

as always, the players should discuss what type of game they want before and set any rules/conditions. Attacking karachi....i can see both arguments. As for a house rule....i'm not sure. The threat to Bombay and karachi means that they should be defended and the other side of the coin is that often Allied players will strip Western India to send all their airpower and troops to Eastern india to attack Burma as early as mid 42 which "historically" was all but impossible after the retreat there combined with the unrest in India.

I recently taught one of my PBEM oppoents the value of garrisoning rear area bases.....blasted Karachi shipping something good.

[niceguy2005]

Agreed, I have kept a garrison in Karachi. The house rule is only intended to compensate for the fact that the world as WiTP knows it ends at Karachi, not to discourage attack. In fact, the rule I hope was carefully balanced to encourage the Japanese to at least consider it an option.

[John 3rd]

In my game against Moses, he has done VERY well in slowing my initial attack as he detailed earlier.

The game I have going against Wolfpack is VERY different. He has retreated and fallen back EVERYWHERE. I have taken SO MUCH territory with little loss, that I am now contemplating missions far beyond what one might normally do. Of course, I am horribly over-extended, but I am now picking fights where I can KILL lots of troops and/or ships. Check my AAR: John II vs. Wolfpack.

I don't think this strategy works. As the Allies, I would fight every step of the way. Got to keep the CVs intact but FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT! Any losses you inflict CANNOT be made up and you will get IMMENSE reinforcements...

My 02.