Allied Tactics

Raverdave · Post by **Raverdave** » Fri Apr 04, 2003 5:02 am

Well I have been thinking on this for sometime now. In UV I almost always play as the Allies, and the main tactic for the first 6 months is to trade space for time. I have only once been able to hold PM against the IJN and have had similar problems in GG. But I have had hugh success in simply falling back and sniping at the IJN rather than trying to hold ground.

Now this tactic in WiTP is going to be qustionable as there is a larger area in which to move and organize better lines of resistance from Burma to the PI across to the west coast of the US. Once again it is time that the allies are fighting for, but maybe unlike UV, there is not the same need to trade space for time?

Thoughts gentlemen?

Snigbert · Post by **Snigbert** » Fri Apr 04, 2003 5:21 am

The question is, how much territory you are willing to give up to the Japanese. The more they take the tougher it will be for them to hold onto. But you have to take back what they capture and it will be a longer road to Tokyo if you let them run wild.

Raverdave · Post by **Raverdave** » Fri Apr 04, 2003 5:31 am

Exactly, dose one try to hold the PI? Do you give up the Malay peninsula? Or do you try and hold it? Do you rush the USN CVs over early to try and force a "Midway" or hold back? Certainly Australia is the key in the south, and must be fought for tooth and nail, but I would even go as far as letting PNG fall (as I do in UV) and wait for the build up of equipment.

But what of Alaska? This is going to be an interesting area in the full campaign games.

byron13 · Post by **byron13** » Fri Apr 04, 2003 5:59 am

Traitor!! Not one foot of soon-to-be American soil in Alaska should be surrendered to the enemy. I'm ashamed you would even consider such a thing.

Raverdave · Post by **Raverdave** » Fri Apr 04, 2003 6:53 am

Originally posted by byron13
Traitor!! Not one foot of soon-to-be American soil in Alaska should be surrendered to the enemy. I'm ashamed you would even consider such a thing.

Being an Aussie I have much more pressing concerns in 1942:p
I would be more than happy to see Japan send troops and ships to Alaska.

Admiral DadMan · Post by **Admiral DadMan** » Fri Apr 04, 2003 9:40 am

Let the IJA just try an' take on the igloo livin', blubber wearin', hearty @ss crackers in polar bear country, see how far they get.

Sonny · Post by **Sonny** » Fri Apr 04, 2003 7:26 pm

Maybe victory points should be accumulated each turn for territory held. This would encourage the Allies (both in UV and WitP) to hold on to bases as long as is reasonable. It could also reflect the political situation/repercussions of losing bases. And certain point levels could trigger automatic victory just as the Japanese holding the victory bases in UV does now.

Knowing the eventual dominance of U.S. production as we do in the game, it is easy to trade territory for time. I don't believe that feeling was as strong in UV/WitP time as it is in the game.

madflava13 · Post by **madflava13** » Fri Apr 04, 2003 9:48 pm

I think as the Allies it is vital to fight as hard as possible to hold the PI and Malay Barrier --- Every week it is still in Allied hands is a weak that Japanese oil shipments are threatened. Even if Japan rushes past and seizes Borneo and Palembang, the Allied player can still rotate bomber groups in to nail convoys... Even if that's only done once every week or so, the Japanese player can't afford the tanker losses...
I don't think its worth risking the carriers, because their loss wouldn't be replaced until early 1943, but surface forces and air forces should be rushed to the region...

Snigbert · Post by **Snigbert** » Fri Apr 04, 2003 10:11 pm

I think you need to have a tenacious defense every inch of the way as the Allies. Anything you can do to slow them down will be made up for with the surplus of forces you will have later, and hopefully it will mean less territory to recapture.

mdiehl · Post by **mdiehl** » Fri Apr 04, 2003 10:46 pm

Exactly, dose one try to hold the PI? Do you give up the Malay peninsula? Or do you try and hold it? Do you rush the USN CVs over early to try and force a "Midway" or hold back? Certainly Australia is the key in the south, and must be fought for tooth and nail, but I would even go as far as letting PNG fall (as I do in UV) and wait for the build up of equipment.

But what of Alaska? This is going to be an interesting area in the full campaign games.

It really depends on the quality of the game research. If the game actually gives the Japanese the container capacity to invade, say, India, Australia, or Hawaii and sustain any troops there, or any major location in continental Alaska, then the game is flawed. The best defense against that sort of op is to get as much as possible out of the PI to defende these more strategically important areas. Likewise, if the game makes theat-start Allied forces so poor in quality as to ensure Japanese success in Malaya or the PI with a minimal commitment, it again makes sense to withdraw as much as possible for refit and upgrade in areas that are strategically more valuable and easier to defend.

Admiral DadMan · Post by **Admiral DadMan** » Fri Apr 04, 2003 11:00 pm

Originally posted by madflava13
I think as the Allies it is vital to fight as hard as possible to hold the PI and Malay Barrier --- Every week it is still in Allied hands is a week that Japanese oil shipments are threatened.

That's absolutely on the money - both historically and practically. As the Allied Player, you've got to be willing to invest time, resources, and manpower to slow Japan's advance, even though you know you'll likely lose. You're not just trading space for time, you're trading all those other things as well.

Originally posted by madflava13
Even if Japan rushes past and seizes Borneo and Palembang, the Allied player can still rotate bomber groups in to nail convoys... Even if that's only done once every week or so, the Japanese player can't afford the tanker losses...

But that's just it - Allied bomber groups were so ineffective that due to inexperience, infereior equipment, and command/communication breakdown, they were constantly on the defensive. The first 5 months of the war were rumblin' stumblin' bumblin', and plain ol lack of numbers.

Originally posted by madflava13
I don't think its worth risking the carriers, because their loss wouldn't be replaced until early 1943...

That's right on target.

Until the Battle Line was wrecked in the Pearl Harbor Attack, US doctrine was still to use CV's as a scouting force operating in support of the Battle Line, with no idea to use them as the spearhead of the main striking force in Plan Orange.

After the attack, the carriers would only be put in harm's way for the CenPac/SoPac/SWPac area. They were too weak and unwieldly at this point of the war to face the IJN straight up.

Originally posted by madflava13
...but surface forces and air forces should be rushed to the region...

With nothing bigger than about a dozen CA's available, the US would have been foolish to send them to the Phillipines like lambs to the slaughter. Of the 8 Battleships assigned to CinCPac, only 3 were operational on 8 Dec 41. Only one Fast BB (Washington) was in commission and battle ready, but she was in the Atlantic.

madflava13 · Post by **madflava13** » Fri Apr 04, 2003 11:21 pm

AdmiralDadMan -
So you're saying I got something right for once?! hehe...
My point about surface forces assumed that there were some available besides the poorly coordinated ADBA units... If WitP allows variable results at Pearl Harbor, the allied player may have something to work with. Otherwise, I agree completely with you.

On a side note, I wonder what sort of events would have to occur to trigger a transfer of naval units from the Atlantic (buncha BBs like the New York and Texas were on convoy duty the bulk of the war)... I don't know that this sort of thing is even modeled in WitP, but I'm just thinking out loud here...

Admiral DadMan · Post by **Admiral DadMan** » Sat Apr 05, 2003 12:01 am

Originally posted by madflava13
...On a side note, I wonder what sort of events would have to occur to trigger a transfer of naval units from the Atlantic (buncha BBs like the New York and Texas were on convoy duty the bulk of the war)... I don't know that this sort of thing is even modeled in WitP, but I'm just thinking out loud here...

Total catastrophe?

madflava13 · Post by **madflava13** » Sat Apr 05, 2003 1:15 am

But if Pearl Harbor wasn't a total catastrophe, what would be? I guess losing the carriers too... But I think the US was pretty close to total catastrophe historically.

panda124c · Post by **panda124c** » Sat Apr 05, 2003 1:26 am

Originally posted by madflava13
AdmiralDadMan -
So you're saying I got something right for once?! hehe...
My point about surface forces assumed that there were some available besides the poorly coordinated ADBA units... If WitP allows variable results at Pearl Harbor, the allied player may have something to work with. Otherwise, I agree completely with you.

On a side note, I wonder what sort of events would have to occur to trigger a transfer of naval units from the Atlantic (buncha BBs like the New York and Texas were on convoy duty the bulk of the war)... I don't know that this sort of thing is even modeled in WitP, but I'm just thinking out loud here...

What about the other side of the coin, what if things were going badly in the Atlantic, would this trigger less resources for the Pacific?????
Remember the Pacific was a 'holding' action until Germany was defeated.
The fact that the Allies went on the offensive while commiting the majority of their resources to the European theater, can only be atribuited to Japan be very overextended.
It will be interesting to see how WitP handles the effects of other theaters on the Pacific.

mdiehl · Post by **mdiehl** » Sat Apr 05, 2003 1:59 am

If things are going badly in the Atlantic, the US commits all its resources to taking Japan down first and then takes down Germany.

derwho · Post by **derwho** » Sat Apr 05, 2003 2:17 am

If things are going badly in the Atlantic, the US commits all its resources to taking Japan down first and then takes down Germany.

Would this actually have been a possibility in light of commitments to allies?

Admiral DadMan · Post by **Admiral DadMan** » Sat Apr 05, 2003 2:29 am

Originally posted by mdiehl
If things are going badly in the Atlantic, the US commits all its resources to taking Japan down first and then takes down Germany.

What about the "Beat Germany First" decision of the C.C.S.?

mdiehl · Post by **mdiehl** » Sat Apr 05, 2003 3:08 am

AdmDman -

The discussion is alt-history. If it's impractical to beat Germany first while Japan attempts to increase production or consolidate gains, Japan goes first. The decision you mention of the C.C.S. is the decision made under the historical circumstances.

Would this actually have been a possibility in light of commitments to allies?

Yes.

Mr.Frag · Post by **Mr.Frag** » Sat Apr 05, 2003 4:19 am

Hmm, thats certainly amusing, so the USA lets Germany invade the UK and take the islands, lets Russia fall to Germany, but help out and makes sure the Aussies don't get scratched???

The only way at all you can even think down this path is to pretend that the USA enters into the war much earlier and Germany collapses much quicker, freeing up more stuff to send West instead of East.

Lets for fun, say the USA stays out of the war until Jan '44, having dealt with the Japan issue instead. Logically, this being the case, would the USA have geared up for full wartime production or would they have not taken Japan seriously and only tossed the odd bit here and there at the threat?