Matrix Games Forums

It is October 1942. I am the Japanese player in a PBEM game. I have not yet decided whether to go for an auto-victory, although now that I have sunk all 6 of the US carriers, I probably will. Until that happy event, however, I was planning a defense in depth designed to attrition the US navy as it tried to expand into the Solomons and/or New Guinea. I thought I would share my set up and solicit your own thoughts.

In the following comments the figure ??/?? means Port size/Airfield size

Rabaul is a fleet repair base, 9/9. When my destroyers, cruisers, subs, etc. reach a sys damage level of around 9, they go to Rabaul for repair where they are disbanded. Other than that, there is not much based at Rabaul except for some naval garrison troops to guard against sub borne raiders and some float planes for ASW work.

My major airbases are at Dobadura and Shortlands.

At Shorlands I have built the base up to 7/3, soon to be 7/4. As new squadrons of Nells arrive they will be based here in order to attack any surface fleets the Americans use to invade the Solomons. My carriers are also based here. From Shortlands they can quickly be sent to either Gili-Gili or Lunga to engage an invasion fleet. For a base force I am using the 4th Base force with 150 aviation support points.

The other big base force, the 8th, is based at Dobadura. In addition, I have the 60 aviation support base force that starts out at Kavieng, plus 2 of the smaller 40 point base forces. The base is current size 2/6. The engineers are working on expanding the airfield to size 7 and will continue to work on it. Currently, all my Betty squadrons are based at Dobadura plus 5 squadrons of Zeros.

I made Dobadura a big base because it is well protected from allied bombardment missions by being on the "lee" side of New Guinea.

Although my opponent has no doubt been aware of the size of the base there, he apparently had not realized the extent of my forces there. That is because I did not fly any missions out of this base until I had it built up to size 6 and had it stocked with almost 300 aircraft. The idea was to give the impression that the only missions being flown out of Dobadura where naval search. This impression was reenforced by the fact that I had moved in a Mavis squadron even before an airfield was built. Thus, he knew that I had float planes at Dobadura and had less reason to suspect that anything else, except for fighters, had been moved there once the airfield was built.

The inaugaration of Dobadura came with a massive naval attack on a bombardment force of his that had wandered too close to PM. He lost the North Carolina, a CA and some DDs because of that, plus several other cruisers were torpedoed. That initial strike was an unplanned start to my campaign, however, as it was in reaction to his moves. The true inaugaration happened last turn when a strike of 129 Betty's escorted by 54 zeros struck at the port at Cairns where his surface fleet had retired to undergo repairs. Many hits on his ships were reported and I don't think they will be docked there next turn.

The main job of Dobadura will be to defend against invasions of Port Moresby and/or New Guinea. Thus, the large number of Betty's. To defend Dobadura itself, I have some AAA and 5 squadrons of zeros. That should make his attacks against that base expensive (I hope).

The port there is only size 2 because I am using Buna as my main supply base. The port at Dobadura is only used for loading and unloading troops, not supplies.

Buna is currently size 3/1, soon to be size 3/2. Here I have a squadron of Mavis's for air search, a squadron of Jakes for ASW, a flight of Irvings for recon, and a squadron of Zeros to defend the base and any ships that dock there to deliver supplies.

Supplies delivered to Buna not only go to Dobadura, but to Port Moresby as well, over the Owen Stanleys. Port Moresby is size 4/5, but only because this was the state I captured it in. I do not have a base force there because I am not going to base any airplanes there--they are too vulnerable to bombardments and to airfield attacks and it is too hard to move units in and out of there with transports because of the air threat. Therefore, the few engineers I have there have been working on building fortifications. I do have several AAA and coastal defense gun units to defend the place as well as the 38th Division which has been there since Port Moreseby was captured.

Gili-Gili has my other division, the 2nd that was first used to capture Port Moresby, and then shuttled to Gili-Gili to capture that base. Currently Gili-Gili is size 3/2 and will grow to size 3/3. As with many of my other bases, building the airfield up to size 3 is not meant to allow more aircraft to base there, but to make the base bigger and so reduce the effects of malaria. The only aircraft I have based there are a squadron of zeros. There is only one base force there now, but I plan on moving in another when it becomes available so that I can have two squadrons of zeros there to defend the base.

Woodlark is the key to defending the western half of the Solomons. Here I have ASW, and search planes. I also have some squadrons of Rufes and Zeros to defend the base, as well as to escort a squadron of Vals whose job is to attack any allied forces invading Rossell or Gili-Gili. I also have a BB heavy surface TF set to react to any enemy invasions.

Behind the front line defenses of Gili-Gili, Port Moresby, Woodlark, Dobadura and Buna there are several back up bases. Kiriwina is a back up base that is currently 2/2 but eventually will be built to 3/3. Lae is currently not being used but is size 3/5, built to that size before Port Moresby was taken. I do not see Lae being an integral part of my defense because it would be hard to supply were the allies to establish a foot hold on New Guinea. Instead, I plan on building up Finschhafen to 3/3, or even 3/4, because it will be easier to supply, either with conventional transports or with fast transports. Finally, Hoskins is currently size 2/2. It achieved this size in my build up to the invasion of Port Moresby. Eventually, it will be built to 3/3. Hoskins makes a better base than Gasmata because it is invulnerable allied bombardment missions.

Behind the Bismarks barrier lie Wewak, which is worth a lot of points if built up, and is an entry point for JAAF units. The Admiralties can also provide a good port and a good airstrip, as can Kavieng, which is currently size 6/4.

In the Solomons, attention has focused on the defense of Lunga. That base itself is 3/5 and has two regiments based there. I also have 3 base forces there, soon to be 4 which will give me ~160 aviation points. I have not built this base up like Dobadura because I felt it was much more vulnerable, both from the sea and from the air. I used smaller base forces there to provide more engineers (each base force, whether it has 150 aviation points or just 40 has 30 engineers) to repair the runway quickly and in case I need to evacuate they will be easier to pick up. I have also concentrated on building the fortifications there rather that the port or airfield. The port is big enough to screen my ships from subs, and the airfield is big enough to cut down on malaria and hold a sizable number of planes. But I don't want to just hand the allies a large airadrome should they capture the place (this is why I have also not done anything to build up Port Moresby).

Another BB fleet is stationed at Lunga. At first this was done for point defense of Lunga itself. I wanted to intercept an bombardment TFs head that way. I stationed 3 squadrons (soon to be 4) of zeros there to provide defense for both the base and the BBs.

I have just occupied Irau as a forward defense of Lunga. Perhaps the allies can bypass it and go straight to Lunga, but my guess is they would prefer not to have this base sitting athwart their supply lines. The BB TF at Lunga, then, is in a pefect position to react to any allied moves, whether and invasion fleet or a bombardment TF, towards Irau.

Tulagi is also occupied, but I haven't done much with it except garrison it.

Behind Lunga sits Munda. This was where my fleet was orginally stationed before the accuracy of level bombers was changed to give warships a fighting chance. It was out of air range of allied bases, but my ships could reach Lunga in one move should the allies invade. Now, I have a reserve cruiser force there that can reenforce either the lower Solomons or New Guinea. Fighters can also be stationed here in case the situation at Lunga becomes too hot and the planes there need to be pulled out. It is currently 3/2 but will be built to 3/3.

The final base that will be built will be Buka. Like Munda, this will serve as a back stop to Shortlands.

As I said, I may go for the auto-victory now that my opponent has no carriers left. My original plans, however, were to severely damage him when he tried to move north, and then use that opportunity (assuming I was successful) to counter-attack towards Noumea.

Your thoughts and suggestions would be welcome.

For a picture, go to:
http://www.theblitz.org/game_action/images.php?id=51

I am preparing for a like defence against Raver - however I have been careful to put lots of troops into my "Crust defences", PM, GG, Lunga, Irau, Tulagi.

I will be building plenty of back up little bases, but I worry that with allied resources they are all too easy to take, and then house Corsairs close to my main bases.

Not building airfields isn't really a good option in my opinion - any allied player is going to have so many damned ENG units by '43 that he has more than he knows what to do with - even bulding every base in sight. Not building PM too big, or building Irau at all is as far as I will go with this - otherwise I intend to await Raver's first move and descend upon him like an avalanche (no more niggling supply line raids with 10 CVs and 6 BBs etc - I'm gonna get nasty!).

Which is pretty much what he plans to do to me if I try the autovictory (is almost '43 . . . ).

Best thing an IJN player can do is have 3 or 4 of those really big divisions permanently loaded onto transports and fast transports at shortlands. As soon as the US makes an invasion move - the counter invasion is always very effective. Especially if it is at an autovictory base (instead of wherever Raver is invading) if you catch my drift. His CVs and lightnings and heavy duty surface ships will all be off invading Irau, and I'll let him have it, and take Townsville instead.

Why not go for auto-victory and put your opponent out of his , you misery? I'm playing Soulblazer now and have lost 5 carriers and somehow thwarted his attept at auto-victory but he so far ahead of me in points that it is doubtful i will catch him. Still I could pull something off but it is a slim chance. Even if you fail to capture Luganville/Efate/Noumea if yoou build your outside bases sufficiently you will outlast your opponent - depending on the point spread.

From my experience......

Unless you can afford to fight over any specific point on the map,
it is futile, to build up any area. I myself do NOT build up
Dobadura. The reason is ...if the United States gets six active
CV at any time in the game. they can go anywhere they wish
with total immunity to air attack.

Therefore, unless I have a substantive garrison at Dobadura,
he will simply sail up there and take it, no matter WHAT I do.
Therefore why make his job easier by building the base for him also?

As a general rule then, dont build up any base that you dont intend to fight tooth and nail to defend. Otherwise your just making his job easier.

Posted by Cappy

As I said, I may go for the auto-victory now that my opponent has no carriers left. My original plans, however, were to severely damage him when he tried to move north, and then use that opportunity (assuming I was successful) to counter-attack towards Noumea.

Your thoughts and suggestions would be welcome.

Every time I get into a position where I control (as the naughty Japs) NG and the Solomons against a weakened allied player in the second half of '42, I take the time to sit down and carefully map out a defensive plan.

I detail how the forward bases of NG, GG and Lunga will be held without airpower but with strong ground forces, AA, CD, entrenchments and dense minefields.

I then plan out in detail the various first and second line supporting bases - what is their role (supply, naval, air, all?), what do I need to move there. What a/c and how many will be operating from them.

Taking a calculator, I then work out how I will supply everything, especially the forward bases of PM and Lunga. Nos of transport ships are calculated. Convoy schedules are prepared. Which bases will be supplied by air, fast TF or barge?

Next, I identify the warships that will be used in the defensive plan. Where will they be based, what can they reach and what can reach them?

The final step then involves panicking, throwing the defensive plan out the window and striking all out for the nearest auto-victory location.

As far as offense being the best defence . . . it isn't true in this game.

However - if you can use your periods of dominance as the IJN to eradicate one element of the US player's forces, you don't need autovictory.

Eg. Sink enough transports and he is helpless.
Sink enough CVs and his transports are helpless.
Sink enough DDs and your subs are far more dangerous.
Sink enough BBs and CAs and he won't be able to protect his invasion fleets from surface raiders.

Get my drift?

Always remember that a simgle base can be put out of operation with the heavy bombers due to how they ignore cap/aa pretty much completely. You need overlapping bases to be able to support the base that is the current target and deny sea access to it while absorbing the abuse from his b-17/24 fleets.

Due to Japan's slow ENG buildup speed, small numbers of large bases will loose to USA insta-bases that pop up in a matter of 2-3 days with massive dumps of construction ENG units. The only way around this it to sink every transport they own. CV's do not win the game, transports do. CV's are a secondary threat. This obviously has little to do with reality, but we are playing UV, not reality

While you think you have a lot of AA there, You will notemy bug thread on AA being completely destroyed in 6 days of air bombardment and I had more units them you The rate of bomber losses didn't even exceed the replacement rates.

Unescorted heavy bombers shouldn't do as well as they do against CAP, and certainly AA should do better if they're only at 6000ft etc.

But those big babies are precious to the allied player. You can ambush them if you know where they are and what they want to bomb - and put them out of the game for a month at a time while they absorb very slow replacements and repair damaged planes.

The best use for IJN bombardment units is to catch heavy bombers on the ground and blast them to hell. Of course, Raver moved his before I got there, but they haven't been back since.

Another important tactic for the IJN is whether or not their subs are offensive or defensive. Offensive subs loose you a lot more subs, but can get those big rewards, while defensive subs can cash in on transports relatively easily - and drown troops while they're at it.

Originally posted by Drongo
Posted by Cappy


Every time I get into a position where I control (as the naughty Japs) NG and the Solomons against a weakened allied player in the second half of '42, I take the time to sit down and carefully map out a defensive plan.

I detail how the forward bases of NG, GG and Lunga will be held without airpower but with strong ground forces, AA, CD, entrenchments and dense minefields.

I then plan out in detail the various first and second line supporting bases - what is their role (supply, naval, air, all?), what do I need to move there. What a/c and how many will be operating from them.

Taking a calculator, I then work out how I will supply everything, especially the forward bases of PM and Lunga. Nos of transport ships are calculated. Convoy schedules are prepared. Which bases will be supplied by air, fast TF or barge?

Next, I identify the warships that will be used in the defensive plan. Where will they be based, what can they reach and what can reach them?

The final step then involves panicking, throwing the defensive plan out the window and striking all out for the nearest auto-victory location.

a calulator?

hell, i just grab a beer. Thats my game plan

I use Tarot cards to make major decisions like that. Occasionally my magic 8 ball.

Calculators, schedules, base assignments, fleet assignments, holy mother your making my head spin. Its not that I don't understand your reasoning its just that I'm not anywhere close to this level of game play. Wish I was though.

Actually the question which first comes to mind for Cap is how did you manage to build up so many bases? As a Japanese player I never seem to have enough engineers and it takes sooo looong for them to build. I immediately rush any newly arriving engineer units into service and drive them to work ruthlessly without ever stopping but still the bases are never enough. Are there ways to optimize engineer productivety? Is it better to mass alot of engineers in one place or should they be spread around to work on many bases at the same time. Should they be worked continuously, or should they be rested after they reach a certain level of fatgue. Maybe I could pick up a few used buldozers? That might help.

I like the general structure of your plan. I like defense in depth and have been working on my own plan for developing such a defense of my own. So, this thread is of great interest to me. I believe that one must establish their defense first before attempting to extend themselves offensively. Although one should always be prepared to take advantage of the oppotunities that lady luck sends their way.

Originally posted by demonterico
Actually the question which first comes to mind for Cap is how did you manage to build up so many bases? As a Japanese player I never seem to have enough engineers and it takes sooo looong for them to build. I immediately rush any newly arriving engineer units into service and drive them to work ruthlessly without ever stopping but still the bases are never enough. Are there ways to optimize engineer productivety? Is it better to mass alot of engineers in one place or should they be spread around to work on many bases at the same time. Should they be worked continuously, or should they be rested after they reach a certain level of fatgue. Maybe I could pick up a few used buldozers? That might help.

For one thing, not everything is built to its projected eventual size yet.

Other tips for base construction as the japs:
Don't build fortifications with your ENG units unless you have no more bases you want to build.

The first thing you want to build is the airfield since it builds the fastest and seems to have the greatest influence in reducing the malaria effect. Once the airfield is built to size 2, or even simultaneously with building the airfield, depending on the SPS port size, start working on the port. Once you have got up to size 2/2 or 3/2 you can bring in a base force or two and have it continue working on the airfield and start work on fortifications. Meanwhile, the ENGs are probably in a sorry state and need to be sent back to Truk to recuperate.

If you are going to develop a base from scratch, use only fresh ENGs. Bring along either a HQ or an SNLF or two to provide support.

I would say the key is to reduce the malaria effect as quickly as possible by concentrating on just building the airfield. This will save your ENGs and your troops a lot of wear and tear.

Originally posted by Snigbert
I use Tarot cards to make major decisions like that. Occasionally my magic 8 ball.

I do too - maybe that is my problem.

Cap

I'm doing things pretty much the way you discribed. But still the building process goes on so painfully slow. I've got the 2 Eng Rgmts (with 32 ENG) from the south seas detachment at Woodlark along with HQ support. Building the airfield from 0 to 1 advanced at 15% a day. Now I'm almost to a 2 airfield but the build dropped from 15% a day to 3% a day. It will take a month to expand the airfield by one point. Now I realize this is a long game But the thought of expanding this airfield to a 3 scares me. I'm begining to wonder if it will be ready for the Viet Nam War.

IMO the Japanese need to build a string of mutually supporting bases which are capable of several things; 1) They can relieve the Jap carriers of the duty of defending the bases thereby increasing the carriers' survivability. 2) They will provide a platform from which to attack enemy fleets and in particular the enemies transports. And of course 3) They provide the bases needed to support the fleets, and aircraft. The more bases built the deeper the defense becomes, until at some point there are enough to bleed the allies dry. At least thats my theory. But now I find myself half way through June 42 and I'm discovering the limitations of Japanese construction. Definately putting a dent in my well layed plans. Maybe my timing is off, and I'm expecting too much to happen too fast?

I thought I would bump this back up to the top since there is a good deal of discussion going on about Jap strategy.

I would note here that the key to this defense strategy is the surface fleet, not the carriers. The carriers may be defeated by superior allied AC, but I feel the surface fleet, now with 4 seperate TF's should, if not stop an allied invasion, at least damage it so badly that he will be forced to retreat. In this regard I am mostly in agreement with Mogami.

Where I differ from Mogami is in stationing troops and planes forward. Because my transports are soooo slow, and because I am worried about allied air power, I am stationing my troops at the bases that I want them to defend rather than having minimal defenses up front with a large reserve at Truk. I also do not like the fatigue hit that planes suffer when they transfer bases. This would keep them out of action for several days as they recover from the initial transfer from Truk, time that is vital for stopping and invasion.

Hi, I don't believe in piling up troops for defense. I use them to capture enemy bases. When that is no longer possible there is no need for them. Because if my surface fleet and LBA can not prevent a landing then the enemy will win. (They will always bring enough troops. If you pile up on Lunga and can not keep it open and supplied the allies can by pass it (They operate against New Guinea retake PM and all and then jump across to Munda or Shortlands. The more troops you base forward the more commited you are to fighting supply runs through (and attriting your surface fleet) Since you can't keep a base open once allied heavybombers move into range you have to use the fleet and when it fails begin the defense of the next base in line.

I much prefer to be able to send surface TF's against enemy landing on successive nights rather then place 100k troops on a base where they will run out of supply in less then a month.

(Lunga is a 300 point base? So when I lose it the score makes a 600 point swing. However if I lose no additinoal points (stranded troops and ac) And I extract payment in the form of surface ships and transports. (In the early going it is the allied crippled ships that have the farthest to travel home)

Gotta agree with Mogami on this. Use of your big troops for defence is the act of a already dead plan. Japan needs to use troops in offensive operations then get them out once done for R&R. The little INF units that draw very little supply can be used for staffing a base to prevent anything less then a Allied INF invasion fleet. You risk little (because you will always loose the base) yet expose the Allied shipping and INF units to your attacks time and time again.

Getting in a long drawn out battle over a location with the Allies is a loosing cause. You will never be on the Upside on troops and once embroiled, there is no way you can get these troops out of there without massive losses anyways. the Allied troops always outnumber Japan's troops. They just have more important bases to protect then you do. Once you overcommit to a location, they can strip bases to stall you until they win. Since the number of troops is pretty much fixed during the course of the game (variable may shift this by a few brigades one way or the other) you generally know exactly what can be committed.

Send in the right amount, take the base, then get out, leaving just enough behind to ensure that a combat ENG unit does not have the strength to recover the base. The means that a 4K+ INF unit now needs to attack. This means a MINIMUM of 2 TASTY TRANSPORTS are (a) coming to your subs (b) coming to your mines (c) coming to your navy (d) sailing past your bombers and parking for a few turns. Sink a transport and thats as much at 3000 troops lost! Sink a tranport and you may have taken out enough troops that the invasion to kick you out fails!. That means a second INF has to get on two MORE TASTY TRANSPORTS ... rinse and repeat at every single little base from Rabaul down to Noumea. Get the idea? By the time he walks back to Shortland, it is Dec 43 and he has lost because you delayed him by making each little dot a time waster. It only takes 1 DD 1 night to swipe a unmanned base. Take them ALL! Develop the ones worth the effort, but TAKE them all.

While I understand your logic, that is a countervailing argument here, and that is to *force* the allies into a major commitment to take a base. I do not want him to have to commit less than a division to take any base. In fact, I want him to commit *several* divisions! The more shipping he is forced to commit, the more targets for my airforce and my surface fleet and the more troops he is going to see drowned. In addition, should I be able to repel a major invasion then the allied player will be severely weakened, perhaps to the point where I can even try for an auto-victory.

Originally posted by cap_and_gown
While I understand your logic, that is a countervailing argument here, and that is to *force* the allies into a major commitment to take a base. I do not want him to have to commit less than a division to take any base. In fact, I want him to commit *several* divisions! The more shipping he is forced to commit, the more targets for my airforce and my surface fleet and the more troops he is going to see drowned. In addition, should I be able to repel a major invasion then the allied player will be severely weakened, perhaps to the point where I can even try for an auto-victory.

Hi, If the allies come with less then a division I will recapture the base. (and then send my troops back to Truk) It takes 8-10 days to move from Truk to Lunga (keeping all the tranport TF's together so they all arrive the same night. I unload in 2 days (arrive at night begin unloading, 1 day another night gone next morning) In the interm I will drive away allied surface fleets.
(I've bungled this counter attack once and been succesfull 3-4 times-but the bungled attempt was me trying to move 80k troops to attack 30k Marines. Had there been a div or less I think it would have worked)
But then again less then a division might not even capture the base. It should be a level 9 and I can Fast Transport troops in.
(The same method I use for defending PM as Allies. If the Japanese try to steal that base I fast Transport/Air transport troops in. (It really works if they leave the escape hex. Then even if you lose PM you can evac the troops back to Townsville)

Posted by Cap_and_gown

While I understand your logic, that is a countervailing argument here, and that is to *force* the allies into a major commitment to take a base. I do not want him to have to commit less than a division to take any base. In fact, I want him to commit *several* divisions! The more shipping he is forced to commit, the more targets for my airforce and my surface fleet and the more troops he is going to see drowned. In addition, should I be able to repel a major invasion then the allied player will be severely weakened, perhaps to the point where I can even try for an auto-victory.

I would agree with Cappy on this one. I've tried various defence strategies as the Japanese and I tend to favour the divisional (or at least big brigade) defence backed by 3-4 CD units (which double as AA) for the defence of those forward bases that could give the allies an operational toe hold in an area (if captured).

When I tried the minimal defence (like a single SNLF unit), I was often embarressed by a large Fast Transport TF zipping up over night in conjunction with some fast MSWs and a surface combat TF. Completely by-passed my supporting airpower and stormed the base the next turn.

Although I wouldn't place more than a division forward, the more you have, the more he has to commit to avoid being temporarily stalemated (which would put him "under your guns" for longer). I make the point that not every situation will need the same commitment but you do have plenty of troops as the Japs, they're not terribly expensive in VPs if lost and supplying a division at minimal levels is not that hard.

Posted by Mogami

Hi, If the allies come with less then a division I will recapture the base. (and then send my troops back to Truk) It takes 8-10 days to move from Truk to Lunga (keeping all the tranport TF's together so they all arrive the same night. I unload in 2 days (arrive at night begin unloading, 1 day another night gone next morning) In the interm I will drive away allied surface fleets.

When doing long term planning for '43 survival as the Japanese, I always assume worst case where the allies will come for me when they have the initiative and overwhelming forces. Your convoy attempt would be annihilated in those circumstances.

If I have the strength to protect a convoy sitting in a contested harbour in broad daylight, I would be wondering why I haven't already defeated his invasion with that same strength. Which begs the question, why risk letting him take a base in the first place by having a minimal defence and then have to recapture it?

I know Truk is a malaria- free zone but 8-10 days to counter invade?

One other thing to note (that I'm sure won't find much agreement). My key defence bases (PM, Lunga, etc) are always well built up (even to the max where possible) for the simple reason that it ups the survivability of the defending troops in the lead up to the enemy's actual invasion. The better condition they are in, the better they fight, the longer the enemy will be engaged.

IMO (and as already mentioned by someone else earlier), the massive amount of engineers that the allies can deploy when needed makes keeping your defensive troops in sub-standard accomodation almost pointless. Example, the Japanese hold Lunga and keep it as something like Port 1, Airbase 2, Fort 4. If the allies capture the place, they can turn it into a Port 2, Airbase 4, Fort 5 within a few days with the use of 2-3 EAB units. Within 2 weeks, everything would be maxed out (except maybe the Fort level which takes a bit longer). Not much of a gain.

On my understanding, had the Japanese defenders been in a good base for the duration, they would have suffered less from attrition, taken less casualties from the pre-invasion attacks and defended better against the landing.

The real way to cause maximum delay to an allied attempt to have a large, operational base that was just captured is to hit it with bombardment TFs and night air strikes while it still has the 100% damage levels from being captured. Otherwise, engineers will just quickly do their stuff, regardless of how small the base was.