Matrix Games Forums

August, 1944

Playing against the computer as Allies with Random Computer Plan and Historical Computer Experience and Effectiveness. I have had some experience with Warplan: Europe and this is my first run-through in the Pacific.

Here are some of my observations and questions before I pull the plug and start over. I would be interested in any input.

I ran a modified Warplan Orange and captured the Marshalls early and then the Carolines and have just taken the Marianas. The Bonins are next. The Indians and Brits have run the Japanese out of Burma and Indochina and US troops have joined them. Singapore has been captured and we have a toe-hold on Sumatra.

I have not contested the Solomons and Rabaul remains a Japanese fortress and since my capture of Truk the bulk of the fleet is anchored there it seems but they have not been active and did not contest my latest landings in the Marianas. New Guinea has been a tough nut and there is a Japanese force on the Kokoda trail and at Lae. Have not been able to mount landings on the north coast due to heavy Japanese airpower from Rabaul.


Here is what I learned:

1) Build priority is transports first then landing craft then submarines(long-range) then supply oilers and some air transport then air units then Army corps. I could not believe how many transports I require. I have about 250 now and still struggle to move. I also burn through supply oilers at a fast clip. Air transport comes in handy when port supply runs out.

2) I keep a stack of 5 long-range subs at the confluence of the convoy routes from the Dutch Easst Indies after they converge above Borneo but have not put any elsewhere. I would like to know how effective they are but I figured this was the best place to try to strangle their oil imports. Would more stacks be better? Would another placement be better?

3) I have been building tactical (and 2-3 strategic) air groups. I thought about getting some air superiority units but thought the fair air-combat strength of the tactical groups might be good enough. Should I build pure air superiority groups too? I have built a bunch of US Army ground units but on my next pass I think I will limit them and build more air. Any more suggestions or recommendations about build priority and amount?

4) I am a bit confused about the utility of engineers building airfields. I have found I have plenty of ports to base air units at without the need to worry about building new ones. Should I be building beyond the ports to a significant degree?

5) The Japanese carrier groups are deadly early in the war. When invading I split my carriers into 2 groups of six and place them close to the invasions in fleet mode. I put 1-3 battleships in each invasion hex and do not group them with the carriers. Should I have mixed carrier fleets with BB and CA and DD units admixed or should I keep them pure? I know 6 carrier stacks make it easier to spot but I need the oomph. Should I spread them out more and should I keep them in fleet mode or raider mode? I have had acceptable losses so far with my method. I am not sure how to arrange things to get AAA advantages.

6) Most of my invasions have gone well but some have come up short. For bigger port-sized islands I use a full Army corps and Marine divisions for the smaller ones. I have had some that have failed. I realize it makes sense not to be able to re-embark landed units. Is there any way to remove stranded units off the beach like this? Or disband them?

7) I have some US Army corps in Indochina up at the Chinese border but they cannot enter China. Why not? There must be something I am missing.

8) Breaking down and combing land units has been a real pain. This aspect has actually consumed much of may efforts. I originally thought building 10 and 20-strength units might be a good compromise but now I just build 30-strength ones in order to keep the mico-management down. Any good tips?

I am really impressed with this game and game system. I struggle with the manual (I have reading challenges) and play on a more intuitive basis than I should but I understand I should be able to play this way. This is really strategy gaming the way it should be. I am hanging it out here some; please don't chop it off.

ORIGINAL: Duck Doc

3) I have been building tactical (and 2-3 strategic) air groups. I thought about getting some air superiority units but thought the fair air-combat strength of the tactical groups might be good enough. Should I build pure air superiority groups too? I have built a bunch of US Army ground units but on my next pass I think I will limit them and build more air. Any more suggestions or recommendations about build priority and amount?

I like to build escort fighters as they have great range late in the game and will wear out the enemy fighters. Otherwise your ground support bombers will get torn up without the extra cover. I liked the fighter-bomber spec but am disappointed with the range late in the game. They did well early. Since it costs an extra spec to research it slows others down - probably not worth it. I am trying to find another combination of advancements and unit types to simulate a good fighter-bomber like the F4U late in the war.

5) The Japanese carrier groups are deadly early in the war. When invading I split my carriers into 2 groups of six and place them close to the invasions in fleet mode. I put 1-3 battleships in each invasion hex and do not group them with the carriers. Should I have mixed carrier fleets with BB and CA and DD units admixed or should I keep them pure? I know 6 carrier stacks make it easier to spot but I need the oomph. Should I spread them out more and should I keep them in fleet mode or raider mode? I have had acceptable losses so far with my method. I am not sure how to arrange things to get AAA advantages.

Interesting concept. I have had good luck stacking battleships with carriers. They are the second easiest to hit behind CVs so my hope is the BBs takes the damage rather than the carriers. Having four Strength points rather than three may help with their survival - not really sure how the critical hit thing works so that may not be the case. However it does protect your carriers from a surface battle - they will get wrecked on their own. I do use my mixed fleet for naval support to good advantage.

ORIGINAL: Duck Doc

Here is what I learned:

1) Build priority is transports first then landing craft then submarines(long-range) then supply oilers and some air transport then air units then Army corps. I could not believe how many transports I require. I have about 250 now and still struggle to move. I also burn through supply oilers at a fast clip. Air transport comes in handy when port supply runs out.

While I have not played the Allies all that much...most of your builds sound okay. Though you may want to have a few LCs early if you can. They are good to catch your opponent off balance.
For the US supply oilers are important...though big ports more so since you will have to repair naval air and ships as you well know.
I normally make a few corps when I run out of shipyards. You will need them.
I do use the Marines against large targets but two of them since they invade "better" than standard infantry.

2) I keep a stack of 5 long-range subs at the confluence of the convoy routes from the Dutch Easst Indies after they converge above Borneo but have not put any elsewhere. I would like to know how effective they are but I figured this was the best place to try to strangle their oil imports. Would more stacks be better? Would another placement be better?

Depends...it does not sound like the computer places air assets on those lines to sink the subs. They do get hit often in clear weather. Always stack them...
More is nice...but if they have no ships there and you have the naval advantage...your surface ships can sink 10+ per turn. BUT you have to know they can be safe or you do it lure our the last of the Japanese navy.

3) I have been building tactical (and 2-3 strategic) air groups. I thought about getting some air superiority units but thought the fair air-combat strength of the tactical groups might be good enough. Should I build pure air superiority groups too? I have built a bunch of US Army ground units but on my next pass I think I will limit them and build more air. Any more suggestions or recommendations about build priority and amount?

Seems that the Japanese fighters do NOT fair well against bombers. Not sure why it is so poor but if you are hitting them more than they you...bombers should be enough.
But having a few fighters around is nice. You can intercept their bombers as well as basically take their fighters out of the war.

4) I am a bit confused about the utility of engineers building airfields. I have found I have plenty of ports to base air units at without the need to worry about building new ones. Should I be building beyond the ports to a significant degree?

I have never built one of found need. I suspect I will one day.
I think in China if they had an airforce they could come in handy but outside that...extremely rare that you would build them.

5) The Japanese carrier groups are deadly early in the war. When invading I split my carriers into 2 groups of six and place them close to the invasions in fleet mode. I put 1-3 battleships in each invasion hex and do not group them with the carriers. Should I have mixed carrier fleets with BB and CA and DD units admixed or should I keep them pure? I know 6 carrier stacks make it easier to spot but I need the oomph. Should I spread them out more and should I keep them in fleet mode or raider mode? I have had acceptable losses so far with my method. I am not sure how to arrange things to get AAA advantages.

I always keep my carriers with battleships, CAs and DDs...for protection. You can use them in invasions also...air cover/support then get the surface assistance with invasions.
Of course you only do this when you have the advantage.
I would never leave a stack of 6 CVs with no escorts, especially if air can ever reach them.
As for fleet and raider...depends what you want them to do. IF you do not want them to engage enemies coming close then raider. Use raider almost always early in the war...later you are more powerful so you can go into fleet mode.
Issue is...if enemy CV's move in range of a surface only fleet...they will attempt to engage if in fleet mode and mostlikely get smashed.

6) Most of my invasions have gone well but some have come up short. For bigger port-sized islands I use a full Army corps and Marine divisions for the smaller ones. I have had some that have failed. I realize it makes sense not to be able to re-embark landed units. Is there any way to remove stranded units off the beach like this? Or disband them?

No way to escape...not way to disband. IF you have naval superiority just keep sending a sub or destroyer to keep them supplied each turn. That is the only way to keep them alive. NOW if you will never take the location OR it is deep in enemy territory then the unit will end up just slowly dying away.

7) I have some US Army corps in Indochina up at the Chinese border but they cannot enter China. Why not? There must be something I am missing.

Chinese do not cooperate with the Allies. Be careful as you capture territory...since neither side will supply the other and you can't move through.

8) Breaking down and combing land units has been a real pain. This aspect has actually consumed much of may efforts. I originally thought building 10 and 20-strength units might be a good compromise but now I just build 30-strength ones in order to keep the mico-management down. Any good tips?

You build what you can build...I don't seem to have an issue with this...early you can only transport divisions for the most part so you need them. Later you can transport larger units...but keep in mind it is one unit. Do you need to transport 1 corp to a location or 3 divisions to 3 locations?
Normally until 43 as the US / UK I was transferring divisions only...why?
Well when I have just 10 transports available...I can wait a turn then get 10 more...then wait a turn and get 10 more after that and then send a corp. But that is 2 lost turns. Rather drop off a division every turn then wait and drop of the corp. Might be too late.
Late in the war...personal preference I guess.

I am really impressed with this game and game system. I struggle with the manual (I have reading challenges) and play on a more intuitive basis than I should but I understand I should be able to play this way. This is really strategy gaming the way it should be. I am hanging it out here some; please don't chop it off.

Wait until you go up against a human and they play SO differently than the AI.
You will have to update almost everything you think you know.

Thanks Remington700 and stjeand.

I have not noticed excessive losses with tactical air groups alone but I will admix some air superiority and escort groups on my next playthrough. I plan to concentrate more on land-based airpower next time through and also have to work out the mechanics of strategic bombing.

Can you stack invading Marine divisions in the same hex?

I will combine surface assets with my carrier stacks. With my system, I have avoided catastrophic losses. I don't seek a confrontation with the Japanese but if they are surprised I seem to take acceptable losses and deal enough damage. I am about even in naval losses and sunk ships. They have sustained twice my air losses.

Building carrier groups before 1944 was not on my priority list at all. I will consider it. So much to build and so little time.

Would love to be able to disband stranded invading ground forces left on beaches. I would accept the loss. Would love to be able to partially disband units and have the disbanded assets go back into the building pool. In the island environment building up and breaking down units is cumbersome and has taken more of my time and effort than I expected but it is what it is.

Will abandon any thoughts about sending allies into China itself.

I agree completely about playing the AI vs a human. Aggressive Japanese moves into Burma and India and into Australia by a human would really throw a monkey wrench into Allied plans and timetables. The AI thrust into Burma was easy to parry and throwing them out of Indochina followed without much effort. What I did notice though is that invasions in the Solomons or New Guinea in the face of formidable land-based Japanese airpower of any strength are suicidal without a balance of opposing airpower. It really is a game of airpower.

Good stuff abnd thanks again,

Can you stack invading Marine divisions in the same hex?

No stacking of land or air units in game (you can have one air and one land). Only naval can stack to 20 units (unlimited but not necessarily in supply in Ports). Only way to increase strength of land unit in hex is to merge another unit into it until reach that max.

I put 1-3 battleships in each invasion hex and do not group them with the carriers. Should I have mixed carrier fleets with BB and CA and DD units admixed or should I keep them pure?

The surface ships provide your group with AA coverage. The larger ships have higher AA. This is particularly true of the two Japanese Large Warship Battleships. They have something like a 5 AA value. If you use the AA upgrade on one it will have a 9 value. Handy to keep in the stack with the CV's.

ORIGINAL: kennonlightfoot

I put 1-3 battleships in each invasion hex and do not group them with the carriers. Should I have mixed carrier fleets with BB and CA and DD units admixed or should I keep them pure?

The surface ships provide your group with AA coverage. The larger ships have higher AA. This is particularly true of the two Japanese Large Warship Battleships. They have something like a 5 AA value. If you use the AA upgrade on one it will have a 9 value. Handy to keep in the stack with the CV's.

Still trying to figure this one out...

Manual says +3...
BUT the advancement says 4x AA....

SO my Yamato...is it 6+3=9AA OR 6x4=24AA????

I am assuming the BB has to be targeted to get the extra AA fire to kick in - correct? I am still struggling with the decision to put the advancement on a carrier or BB. I prefer a BB but am not sure which is more effective.