Japanese grand strategy

[Bradley7735]

Hi Mogami,

I like your ideas, but there is something you should be aware of. Maybe it doesn't matter.

Mr Frag mentioned if you make the larger forces static, then they won't retreat with a lost battle. If the Japanese player made a successful attack, then these large base forces would surrender, giving the Japanese player more points than if they were to just retreat.

Anyway, something to consider.

bc

[Mr.Frag]

Mr Frag mentioned if you make the larger forces static, then they won't retreat with a lost battle. If the Japanese player made a successful attack, then these large base forces would surrender, giving the Japanese player more points than if they were to just retreat.

[:D]

Welcome to the fine art of tuning ... make 'em static and they surrender too fact, make 'em mobile and people will move them defeating your attempts to make 'em static ... It's always a tricky balancing act with this stuff.

The nice thing is a small touch of supply at each base which depowers Japan's ability to simply bomb one base and kill all base's supplies. Incentive to stay put ... you gotta eat [:D]

Other possibilities is to change the makeup of the units ... the incentive program ... put *static* support only units at the bases and lean out the regiments of support ... they can move, but the support stays behind ... Don't go too far from home boys ...

There's always some way of being creative, just have to see what works.

[Bibs]

One other thing to consider is the massive Russian reinforcements that could be brought to this front. In Spring 1942 the Russians tossed away an entire army attacking at Kharkov, an army that could easily have been employed in Asia if needed.

[Tophat]

actually,
Frag hit on a verygood idea....have the support Static!! This will simulate alot of the chinese being tied to certain home areas<personal kingdoms>and make it much less attractive or useful to move them.
Give the nationalist Chinese an extra HQ unit with a good support rating,Chiang,simulating the stranglehold he personally had over arms and munitions that he'd parcel out to "loyal" units. Yes the chinese can attack but there is a definate limit to what they can effectively support.
Also moses.....about your point that the attacker takes too few casulties in comparison to the defender:
Dec 11th 41' 11th Indian division routed by the 5th IJA div........japs take 27 dead and less than 200 wounded! The 11th Indian abandons most of its trucks,fieldguns,ammo stocks and other heavy weapons.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, I will be the mean old Japanese. Should I play historic or exploitive? (By historic I mean not move units between fronts without paying PP)

MOG.....Push the "loopholes" to the max!....You are trying to convince someone that
believes there is no problem.....Give him the full FanBoy "let's run over China like
history never existed" treatment.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, I know I am just an old stick in the mud but really.
If players would just forget about attacking the Soviets
Use PP to move units from Manchuria and China
Forget about trying to get easy VP from China (and VP bought with infantry rather then ships and ac are easy)
There would not be a problem

I'm splitting hairs I know but attacking China to improve your position is fine. Attacking China because you can wipe it out is bogus.
It was a seriuos error to make the OB where it was possible.

Since there is no possible response by Soviets I think the 1941 deployment of Soviets should just be as strong as the 1945 Soviet attack. They can't start the war. Japan has to.
A stronger OB to start with would reflect that a Japanese build up could not happen in the dark. The Soviets would have countered.
Just add 20 more Soviet infantry Divisions and 5 more Tank/Mech Div and be done with it.

It would restore both the intent of the design and what Japan would encounter if they tried to attack.
In China I'm now considering making rather large baseforce units for each city. Placing 1 static CD gun in them will prevent them from advancing. I'm sure the Chinese had enough guns of this type and if they didn't so what? They are emplaced guns. The size would be based on the size of the city.

It's not that you are a "Stick-in-the-Mud"---it's just that you have forgotten that there
are two types of players for these games...... One, your you and I, starts out trying to
do pretty much historical things in historical ways to see if we can improve on histor-
ical performance..... We might go in a different direction, or a different order, but we
spend our time playing around with the feasible and reasonable..... The second group
are "PLAYING A GAME". .... They are looking to WIN by whatever means the game al-
lows..., and will shove a Mack Truck through any loophole in the rules or set-up they
can find.

The only way two players from these two "opposite groups" can play together is if the
game is a very accurate historical simulation with very few (preferably no) loopholes
and a firm grasp of historical realities and capabilities..... Then one sides preoccupation
with "what was really possible" and the other's with "winning" meet on a level playing
field..... The "gamer" has a slight advantage because he doesn't care about what actually
happened and is willing to try the unexpected----while the "historian" gets a leg up be-
cause he knows why a lot of things weren't tried or won't work.

As long as the designers are thinking GAME, the edge is all towards the "loophole law-
yers" who will do the absurd to win while pointing out that "the game's rules allow it".
If they have really created a SIMULATION, then it's pretty equal and everyone can
enjoy it.....(With the possible exception of PAC WAR fanatics who actually confused that
effort with historical realities).....It's the reason why I always press for as much reality
as can be factored in---it makes it more fun for everyone.

[Rossj]

I think you hit the nail on the head...regardless of whether you're playing a simulation or a game, you want the most realism as possible when playing this type of game. There's been a lot of posts suggesting the japanese couldn't conquer china and I'm not sure that's true...if there hadn't been an embargo against japan, she would have kept arming units and grab more of china until there was nothing important left...I think her strategy was to gain the resource areas, establish a defense perimeter and continue there war against china...what if they hadn't lost at midway, and played the defense perimeter strategy they had originally planned...they would have turned their full might to finsh the conquest of southern china...maybe I'm right and maybe not, regardless the oob for china and russia should be accurate...THE WEST BOARD EDGE SHOULD BE OFF LIMITS TO ALLOW FOR ALLIED REINFORCEMENTS AND STAGING...AND GARRISON REQUIREMNTS SHOULD BE EXPANDED TO OTHER REGIONS.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Mr Frag mentioned if you make the larger forces static, then they won't retreat with a lost battle. If the Japanese player made a successful attack, then these large base forces would surrender, giving the Japanese player more points than if they were to just retreat.

[:D]

Welcome to the fine art of tuning ... make 'em static and they surrender too fact, make 'em mobile and people will move them defeating your attempts to make 'em static ... It's always a tricky balancing act with this stuff.

The nice thing is a small touch of supply at each base which depowers Japan's ability to simply bomb one base and kill all base's supplies. Incentive to stay put ... you gotta eat [:D]

Other possibilities is to change the makeup of the units ... the incentive program ... put *static* support only units at the bases and lean out the regiments of support ... they can move, but the support stays behind ... Don't go too far from home boys ...

There's always some way of being creative, just have to see what works.

FRAG.....What about making "static" Armies for each Chinese city that "convert" if
forced to retreat into a couple of "active" corps? Give them a basic assult strength
of maybe 500----and if forced to retreat they become a couple of "average" corps
of perhaps 125 each, but mobile. That would give each Chinese city a solid garricon,
and in the event of it's fall, would provide reinforcing units for the next city in line.
The farther the Japanese push, the tougher it gets as they would have to lose forces
to garrison requirements while the next objective gained strength. Just a thought.

[jwilkerson]

Dumb question.

Why, in a thread called "Japanese Grand Strategy" are we talking about an attack on Russia and the game balance in China.

The game (S15 or S16) starts with the premise that Japan has decided to go to war for the historical reasons. Everything (more or less ) prior to Dec 7/8 is "set in stone". The Japanese have opted to "Go South". A few hotheads advocated to "Go North" but they were suppressed even by the Army. The war in China is stalemated. Essentaially, to avoid admitting defeat in China, Japan must gain the resources denied by ABCD. This drives the declaration of war. This predetermines that SRA is the prime strategic objective. Thus essentailly the first six months of the WITP game ( whether S15 or S16 ) are about Japan securing SRA. Failure here means game over. Success here means the Japanese have a decision to make.

1. Go East.
2. Go South.
3. Go West.


1. East being against the Americans/USN.
2. South being against Australia.
3. West being against India.

The game will run into difficulty with option 3 as there is not enough map, nor representation of Indian politics nor British reaction to a major attack on India. Thus in game terms #1 and #2 are the options. I'd suspect a thread on "Japanese Grand Strategy" to be focused on these options.

Why aren't we talking about them ?

Securing the SRA permits Japan to remain an independent empire and not admit defeat in China. But the SRA MUST BE HELD. Failiure to focus on securing and holding the SRA for the longest possible time, undermines "Japanese Grand Strategy". Once war has been declared, a subsequent attack on the Soviet Union would be utmost folly - acquiring a new enemy when Japan is already woefully under-resourced did not make sense to the IRL Japanese - why does it warrant our attention ? The Japanese "Strategy" was to fight a limited war against USA ( and allies ) and hope that by fighting a tenacious defense, we would tire of the war and settle. Their model was the war against Tzarist Russia which they fought and won during 1904-6. Unfortunately this time, USA had the will and the means to fight through to total victory. The historical Japanese knew enough not to press their luck with an attack on SU ...

Securing the best defensible zone and gaining tactical delaying victories against the allies will gain the best / longest lasting defense of the SRA ... not adventures in Russian or major resource spending in China. Holding in these areas and maximizing the effort in hold the SRA should be the basis of Japanese Grand Strategy !

[mogami]

Hi, Because Japanese strategy in WITP in many cases is not about securing the SRA but securing an Auto Victory in 1943

[jwilkerson]

That's funny !!!
[:D]

[AmiralLaurent]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

Dumb question.

Why, in a thread called "Japanese Grand Strategy" are we talking about an attack on Russia and the game balance in China.

The game (S15 or S16) starts with the premise that Japan has decided to go to war for the historical reasons. Everything (more or less ) prior to Dec 7/8 is "set in stone". The Japanese have opted to "Go South". A few hotheads advocated to "Go North" but they were suppressed even by the Army. The war in China is stalemated. Essentaially, to avoid admitting defeat in China, Japan must gain the resources denied by ABCD. This drives the declaration of war. This predetermines that SRA is the prime strategic objective. Thus essentailly the first six months of the WITP game ( whether S15 or S16 ) are about Japan securing SRA. Failure here means game over. Success here means the Japanese have a decision to make.

1. Go East.
2. Go South.
3. Go West.

1. East being against the Americans/USN.
2. South being against Australia.
3. West being against India.

Because the easiest way for Japan to win the GAME now is to crush Soviets, then China... or China first, then Soviet. And then redeploy troops to India. By the way, this is against AI, I don't think much PBEM use this strategy, as most use home rules.

I disagree that USSR would have sent many reinforcements east in 1942, they had something else to do and Siberia was not at all important for them. But they were stronger than what is shown in the game. And land offensives were slower and more difficult than what is done in the game.

As for the strategy, I think the first goal of the Japanese is to seize ressources and then the bases to defend them. Then he has the following choices:
_ invade India.
_ invade Australia.
_ advance in Pacific (Noumea, Suva and so on).
_ invade Pearl Harbor.... just in case half a dozen div appear on Lunga in spring 1942 means that PH is almost empty.
_ take back forces from South Aera to crush China.
_ tabe back forces from South Aera to crush USSR.
_ wait the Allied assault and crush it if it is too early.

Historical strategy was the last, even before Midway.

[jwilkerson]

I repeat, this is funny !
[:D]

[moses]

Also moses.....about your point that the attacker takes too few casulties in comparison to the defender:
Dec 11th 41' 11th Indian division routed by the 5th IJA div........japs take 27 dead and less than 200 wounded! The 11th Indian abandons most of its trucks,fieldguns,ammo stocks and other heavy weapons.

Is this the best you can do. There are isolated examples for everything but even in this example the Japanese player should lose 22 squads in the game. Or at the very least 4or 5 squads if you only count very serious wounds and kills. In the game you will normally lose not a single man.

[moses]

MOG.....Push the "loopholes" to the max!....You are trying to convince someone that
believes there is no problem.....Give him the full FanBoy "let's run over China like
history never existed" treatment.

Unbilievable. How can you possibly read my posts and think I don't believe there is a problem.

[moses]

Reply to MIKE SCHOLL:

The success players have had invading China, India, Russia, Pearl Harbor, and the ease and speed in which Burma and the SRA can be conquered using standard tactics suggests to me that there is a problem.
And since the list above includes everything but Austrailia(which I'm sure can also be conquered fairly easily under the current model--Just no one ever gets far enough in the game to do it) and the West coast the problems effects the whole game.

Now some want to write off the ease with which the attacker succeeds as gamey play. But it is not gamey to attack the enemy. It is perfectly reasonable for Japan to try and take the SRA as fast as he can. But even without the first turn exploits is is easy to do it far ahead of scheduale. This suggests that there is a problem.

It is not unreasonable for Japan to attack in China. What is wrong is that his attack succeed so easily and doesn't even cause him significant casualties.

It should be a stupid idea for Japan to invade russia. But it can be done without doing anything gamey. And you don't even take casualties.

It should be very difficult to invade India. The supply problem should be almost unsolvable here. And yet it turns out to be not even difficult.

Can Pearl Harbor be taken. It should be awful tough to take and even tougher to supply but turns out--Not that hard.

Note none of these things require gamey play. They all result from unbalances in the game system which favor the attacker. These unbalances favor the Japanese during the first year and will favor the allies from then on. They result in non-historical results in practically every AAR that you look at.

I don't think the game requires massive changes. I think its a great game. But I think changes are required to a few of the games systems.
Anyway thats my view and why I post about China/Russia theater.

I'm not trying to make it easy for Japan. I am asking to make it HARDER and more realistic.

[AmiralLaurent]

Agree. Land attack is just too easy. Naval and air (except night bombing) is OK so most of the Pacific side is OK too.

Single patch to slow things down on big land aeras: limit the supply moved by automatic land move to + 1000/day per location. Or maybe 2000. Modified by the road/railway network of the target hex (maybe 2000 per rail hex, 1000 per road hex, 250 per trail hex). Anyway there won't be those 50000 tons of supplies following this group of 15 Div. If you need 20000 supplies to support an HQ, moving an HQ will so take 20 days. Seems not so unrealistic to me. Ships will fasten the processus as they may bring 20000 supplies to any port. But ships are and were the fastest way to bring supplies at any place.

Another side effect would be to oblige players to use other Japanese ports than Osaka. Or having some local shipping to bring supplies to Osaka. Something also realistic.

Seems to me that this could be a minor patch, just a limit to include to one function maybe.

Why not include a setting choice at start : Realistic Land Logistics on/off. With this limitation not applying to the poor AI.

I would also like to see the combat to really kill a little more units on both sides. And retreats kill a little less. But only a little less. Being forced to retreat is really costly in RL too. Right now, retreating before being forced to do so is a nonsense as the attacked will not be slowed one day as supplies will arrive immediatly, restore his damaged units and he will roll on the next target along the road. If he had to wait for supplies to come, then retreating would made sense.

[moses]

Thank you. At least someone understands the direction I'm coming from.

Here are some simple changes: I know nothings simple but here's something to argue about anyway.

1.) At the end of any deliberate or shock attack, 5% of disabled attackers are killed. No effect on the defender. Now the attacker will have someone killed and it will not be so smart to attack when large numbers of your troops are disabled(i.e. you have to rest on occasion or pay a price)

2.) Reduce the retreat lossed to 10% vs current 25%. Defender gets creamed anyway the massive retreat penalty makes it very difficult to fight a delaying action.

3.) When a base is captured 90% of enemy supplies are destroyed. (Your opponent burned the supply dump, its been looted, you don't know where it is, bullits don't fit in your guns etc.)

4.) When you take a base all production facilities are shut down and you have to pay 5000-10000 SP to get them going again.

With 3 and 4 you cannot fund your operations off enemy supply as is so easy. Take Kendari and boom you have 40,000 supplies just sitting there ready to let you keep your offensive going. Plus you have to pay to get the factories going again. Now its not so easy to invade India. You can't just capture one resourse center with 30,000 stored supply sitting on the ground and go from there. Plus now that you have a few squads getting killed to actually need supply for replacements.

5.) Remove the ships from the OOB that Japan needed for commercial traffic. I think Mogami says he keeps like 1,000,000 capacity out of play??

Alll these things will slow the attacker and prevent Japan from doing things so easily. Japan may still be able to take China, Russia, India, Pearl Harbor etc. but he will pay a heavy price.

There now someone call me a Jap fanboy again.[:@][:D]

These changes will also slow the allies realistically when they start their offensives later in the game.

[Tophat]

ORIGINAL: moses

Also moses.....about your point that the attacker takes too few casulties in comparison to the defender:
Dec 11th 41' 11th Indian division routed by the 5th IJA div........japs take 27 dead and less than 200 wounded! The 11th Indian abandons most of its trucks,fieldguns,ammo stocks and other heavy weapons.

Is this the best you can do. There are isolated examples for everything but even in this example the Japanese player should lose 22 squads in the game. Or at the very least 4or 5 squads if you only count very serious wounds and kills. In the game you will normally lose not a single man.

No its not the best I can do.....and it wasn't an "isolated incident" this pattern was repeated throughout the Malaya campaign.
I used this incident as you called it because it:
A) Was on a divisional level.
B) Happened Early when the Jap boogiemen hysteria hadn't caught on yet...........
C) Is an incident that happens in a theater directly related to the discussion.
D) Hands you a historic "REAL WORLD" example as opposed to supposition.
Lightenup professor...........[&o]
****Note...I don't disagree that the japs/attacker should take losses............jeez!

[moses]

Jwilkerson:

The reason we are not discussing Austrailia and attacking towards the Americans(your option 1&2) is that few have goten far enough into the game to test the strategies.

Based on my understanding of the game mechanics I'm pretty sure that austrailia can be conquered by Japan. All you have to do is dump 10 of the SAA divisions in North austrailia and march them down the rail in a single mass. Dump 100K supply in Darwin and with the resourse production there plus the supplies you capture when you take the northern bases and your supply problems are non-existant.

The problem is the conquest can't start until after the SRA is secured and the SAA divisions are available. Therefore it is hard to set up a test of this option and until someone proves that it works all the old hands will swear up and down that it is impossible.