Matrix Games Forums

Are any of these even possible with Witp?

1. Conquest of the India (Ceylon), giving India independence knocking the British out of the pacific and possible link up with Axis forces in Persia before Germany got kicked?

2. Conquest of Australia (Japan’s Army refused this because it was estimated to take 10 divisions.

3.Take and hold the Hawaiian Islands for a period of time.

There are no possible Japan victories

Just wait till the sleeping Bear awakes!

Seriously, the measure of Japan's victory will really be a function of doing better then history from a time and materials standpoint.

Various scenarios will have different goals, but the full one is about survival as long as possible. It is not about winning, apart from inflicting maximum losses on the Allies as you get buried

Well, I've now palyed my aar through to march and although I'm a genius I'm still about the same as history timeline wise. I'm ahead in some areas and behind in others.

Not strangely however I think beating the AI will be easier than keeping Raver off my back.

Depends on how you define "conquest" Often people term "conquest" of India or Oz as the whole country which would be a mean feat indeed. However one hardly needs to do that...only occupy key towns.

Certainly there are numerous locations in Oz and India that the Japanese could take. More power to them i say. The real question as always is, "to what gain", Only a few vital locations in these two countries have vital industries and resources worth fighting for, and for the most part those locations are heavily defended and/or far away.

In my vs. Allied AI playtest, i am currently eyeing the north coast of Oz for possible occupation.....iits quite vulnerable at war's start though of the four or five targets, only 1 is valuable (Darwin) but already it's defenses are growing. It would require at least either two full divisions or a division with generous support to take. Then i would have to garrison it. The other four bases are weakly defended and would be easy to take....but they have nothing of value, other than to say, HA HA! i'm occupying Aussie territory!!!!! Is it worth it? Worth enough to retard an advance into the Solomons? As more Aussie reinforcements arrive, they wont even need shipping, they can overland/rail it and cause problems. Meanwhile the US continues to build its forces and your left with an extended flank.

Its an interesting idea, but i think i may have been getting ahead of myself.....the Phillipine offensive is bogging down at Clark field as US troops concentrate via forced retreats. I had the 2nd Division sitting on the sidelines with Darwin as a future objective to build it's efficiency but now will probably have to send them to Manila. There's still the 38th Division i suppose. I just took Singapore but have to mop up commonwealth forces in central Malaya, and there's still Java to take.

Its quite a quandry......mainly i think that Japanese players will go for bases like these as 'psych' warfare tactics. My little dilemma highlights the issue of limited resources. Basically the sky's the limit, but there are conseqences if you get too ambitious.

Mr.Frag wrote:There are no possible Japan victories

Just wait till the sleeping Bear awakes!

Indeed! Just ask Luskan, who accidently "activated" the Soviets by sort of "accidently" occupying a Russian base.

whoopsie

Japan have new problem.

The problem with Australia was not that the IJA didn't have ten divisions, but that those ten divisions woudl have to come from theaters that the IJA had committed Japan's national survival (in their eyes) against. Something like a Nationalist-Communist Chinese collapse and a complete revision of IJA strategic focus (since 1905) on Siberia and Manchuria would have to happen in mid-1941 to give the Japanese the ten divisions needed to attempt a conquest of Australia. Remember that in 1942, there was nothing of value in northern Australia and the invasion force would either have to land directly on the south-western coast (if the shipping could be collected) or march overland. The overland march would be in the face of Australian militia, mostly WWI (Gallipoli/ANZAC Western Front) vets. By late 1942, Australia had even built three incomplete militia armored divisions with Lees, Grants, Stuarts and Matildas, certain better than anything the IJA could deploy. In any case, such an operation would have had to follow up a successful Operation MO (which historically was not a success) and would have to assume no US naval ops in the central Pacific (Doolittle Raid, carrier raids of Marshalls or even Home Islands) to rivet the attention of the IJN to its own strategic focus, the USN.
For Hawaii in late 1941 or early 1942, the IJA would have to commit at least four divisional equivalents to overcome the two or three divisional equivalents of US troops on Hawaii, along with control of the seas during the invasion and consolidation periods, say at least three months, to prevent a US counter-offensive. Again, where do the four divisions come from? Delay operations in SEA? Bypass the Philippines? Can the Combined Fleet maintain a sufficient prescence in Hawaiian waters for 3 months with its available tankers? What about air cover? Midway? And where does the shipping come from. BY Mid-1942, you're talking at least six division equivalents, all the carriers and Midway as a land based aviation base. In both cases, the IJN would have to crush the USN with very little loss to retain sufficient airpower to establish air superiority over the island. Think of this as a smaller version of the US invasion and conquest of Okinawa w/o the resources the US applied in early 1945.
The India option tantalizes, but it is based on a subjective call. Were enough Indians, especially of those castes, classes and religious or ethinic groups that had supported the Empire since 1858 and before, ready to swap the British for the Japanese? Remember that Churchill's offer of independence upon successful conclusion to the war helped reduce the power of the nationalists. There were also a number of Indian minority groups (Sikhs, Pathans, Moslems, etc) who were not prepared to live in a Hindu dominated nationalist state. Despite nationalist sentiment, India-Pakistan provided the majority of troops that fought in Burma, along with those sent to Persia, Syria, North Africa and Italy, een before the tentative offer of independence. Logistically, you have to question whether the IJA could have sustained an offensive through Burma into India, w/o a "strategic/operational pause" that would allow the Brits to reorganize and refit. Such an offensive, to be successful would draw resources from the NEI and SW Pacific. Add in the diversion of the majority of the IJN for at least 6 months from Apr 1942, with the USN still capable of raiding in the western Pacific.
In any case, each option was explored by IGHQ, and rejected or modified due to the inability of the IJA and IJN to agree on the strategic focus for Phase II operations. If the game provides reasonable strategic/operational outcomes and the powerful editor as advertised, then it will be interesting to try anyway, just to explore the outcomes. Imagine the impact on the SW Pacific campaign of an IJA invasion of Australia?

Who's dreaming about Aus, I plan on moving in

Just after I conquer China and Russia and send the Brits back home, I'll be moving into Aus then diverting my attention to conquering the USA ... whats the big deal? :rolleyes:

Gotta have ambitions right? I'm sure there's a newbie who wants to make my dreams possible

Better stay away from Seattle Frag.....or else i may have to occupy Vancouver

:p

Nikademus wrote:Better stay away from Seattle Frag.....or else i may have to occupy Vancouver

:p

Ground combat at Seattle

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 136195 troops, 1296 guns, 420 vehicles

Defending force 38766 troops, 463 guns, 4 vehicles

Japanese engineers reduce fortifications to 4

Japanese assault odds: 4 to 1 (fort level 4)

Japanese Assault reduces fortifications to 4


Japanese ground losses:
Men lost 493
Guns lost 34
Vehicles lost 3

Allied ground losses:
Men lost 1161
Guns lost 61


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Seattle

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 135571 troops, 1260 guns, 418 vehicles

Defending force 37187 troops, 376 guns, 4 vehicles

Japanese engineers reduce fortifications to 3

Japanese assault odds: 8 to 1 (fort level 3)

Japanese forces CAPTURE Seattle base !!!


Japanese ground losses:
Men lost 263
Guns lost 5
Vehicles lost 1

Allied ground losses:
Men lost 1792
Guns lost 68
Vehicles lost 2


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr.Frag wrote:Ground combat at Seattle

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 136195 troops, 1296 guns, 420 vehicles

Defending force 38766 troops, 463 guns, 4 vehicles

Japanese engineers reduce fortifications to 4

Japanese assault odds: 4 to 1 (fort level 4)

Japanese Assault reduces fortifications to 4


Japanese ground losses:
Men lost 493
Guns lost 34
Vehicles lost 3

Allied ground losses:
Men lost 1161
Guns lost 61


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Seattle

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 135571 troops, 1260 guns, 418 vehicles

Defending force 37187 troops, 376 guns, 4 vehicles

Japanese engineers reduce fortifications to 3

Japanese assault odds: 8 to 1 (fort level 3)

Japanese forces CAPTURE Seattle base !!!


Japanese ground losses:
Men lost 263
Guns lost 5
Vehicles lost 1

Allied ground losses:
Men lost 1792
Guns lost 68
Vehicles lost 2


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is a joke to aggrivate NICKADEMOUS, right? You weren't REALLY able to
even forcefully manipulate such an occurance out of a "test" version of the
game..., were you? Please say it was. The real chances of such an event
should be right down there with "the earth stopped spinning on it's axis this
morning". If it's even possible to manipulate such an event, the whole design
is open to serious question.

Ground combat at Vancouver

American Very Deliberate attack

Attacking force 500 Rednecks, 1260 shotguns, 418 trucks and SUV vehicles

Defending force 1500 Boy Scout troops, 376 slingshots, 4 Yugos

American Rednecks reduce beer stocks to 0

American assault odds: 50 to 1 (fort level 0)

American forces CAPTURE Vancouver base !!!


American ground losses:
Rednecks lost 3 (severe hangovers)
Guns lost 17
Vehicles lost 12 SUV's

Canadian ground losses:
Men lost 1500
Guns lost 376
Vehicles lost 4
Keggers lost 52



Let the pillaging begin!

Mr.Frag wrote:There are no possible Japan victories

Just wait till the sleeping Bear awakes!

Seriously, the measure of Japan's victory will really be a function of doing better then history from a time and materials standpoint.

Various scenarios will have different goals, but the full one is about survival as long as possible. It is not about winning, apart from inflicting maximum losses on the Allies as you get buried

That sounds so pointless and downright painful. It's like playing chess without your queen and just seeing how many moves you can last before you lose. Then you can play again and see if you can last one more move than last time before you lose. I don't think you would find many people willing to do that.

It's the classic conundrum for game design. You can have a product that is realistic or one that amuses the Japanese player. A World At War (GMT games) went for the latter by ignoring all the logistical, shipping, industrial and transport limitations that the Japanese faced, and even added special rules to eliminate the need for talented logistics if Japan wants to occupy Hawaii. It's a game that may entertain the Axis player but does not in any way model the strategic concerns and limitations on the Japanese on this planet in WW2.

Since several Japanese fanboy anti-simulations are available, if WitP is engineered to be one of these it will just be another ho hum game in the middle of a pack of ho hum games. Why buy WitP when you've got "Pacific General" that lets you invade San Francisco?

That sounds so pointless and downright painful. It's like playing chess without your queen and just seeing how many moves you can last before you lose. Then you can play again and see if you can last one more move than last time before you lose. I don't think you would find many people willing to do that.

Understand flat out that Japan did pretty much everything they could have done historically wrong. Political fighting, too many commanders, disagreement about where and what to fight, etc.

You have the chance to play Japan without this hardship and prove that Japan could do better had it properly employed what it had.

You have the chance to play the Allies without making all the mistakes they made.

The conclusion of the game is based on victory points, not of whether Japan wins or loses the game. You can win on victory points yet loose the war.

Consider it more like a game where you have 1 rook but the other guy has 4 pawns and you can only manage to dance around them as they protect each other. Sooner or later, he will have at least 1 queen to deal with your rook but it is going to be a long time. The question is how many queens will he have?

mdiehl wrote:It's the classic conundrum for game design. You can have a product that is realistic or one that amuses the Japanese player. A World At War (GMT games) went for the latter by ignoring all the logistical, shipping, industrial and transport limitations that the Japanese faced, and even added special rules to eliminate the need for talented logistics if Japan wants to occupy Hawaii. It's a game that may entertain the Axis player but does not in any way model the strategic concerns and limitations on the Japanese on this planet in WW2.

Since several Japanese fanboy anti-simulations are available, if WitP is engineered to be one of these it will just be another ho hum game in the middle of a pack of ho hum games. Why buy WitP when you've got "Pacific General" that lets you invade San Francisco?

Thank you Mdiehl. You might also mention to Damien that if all he wants to
do is WIN then he should find himself an accurate sim of WWII and only play
the Russians. Very difficult for their opponants to defeat given even margin-
ally competent play---and in the end you get to "steamroller" the opposition
into dust.

"Winning" is not always about Conquest. Especially in a game/simulation, it's
about demonstrating skill and ingenuity in dealing with the hand you are dealt.
Especially when, in Bridge parlance, your opponants have all the trumps. If you
play a simulation of the War in the Pacific and "win" by conquering Indai and
Australia all you have proved is that the "simulation" SUCKS! If you play a
model that really reflects the realities, and manage to get a surface TF in among
the transports at Leyte Gulf and raise hell, then you have accomplished some-
thing! Those are "bragging rights" worth having.

Political Events (Triggers)

If the game doesn't model political events then there is no chance of any type of a Japanese victory. I'm not asking for political events but, without any then we are left with a war of attrition, which the Japanese are sure to lose.

Militarily the out come of the war was not in question, but who knows what would have happened politically if Japan had done any of the following; Invade Australia, Destroy the British Navy in India, or invaded the Hawaiian Islands. Any of these events would have caused such a shock and may have caused major political shifts in the region.


Australia Invaded - possible events
- Australia sues for peace (goes neutral) for removal of Japanese forces.
- British & US see Oz as a lost cause and limit support.
- All Allied forces are used to kick the Japanese out of Oz.
- Other Nations switch support for Japan, Japan gets resource centers with
out having to invade.

India Invaded – possible events
The Japanese destroy the British Naval forces in India and occupy the key naval and air bases.
- The British are out of the Pacific, Oz loses support from Britain.
- India is out of the war Japan gives India Independence. Remember the Indian Congress rejected the British offer for independence.
- India is out of the war (civil war breaks out in India).
- Japanese link up with Axis forces in Persia.
- Allied support for China becomes very very limited.


Hawaiian Islands Invaded – possible events

- Allows Japan to build up the rest of the pacific.
- Other Nations switch support for Japan, Japan gets resource centers with out having to invade.
- Allied support for China becomes very limited.
- Australia sues for peace.

I would love to see Norm Korger join the Matrix team and do the land combat and political events for the game, of course price would go up.

Almost no shock wave from any of these events. Japan invades Australia: Austrlai says "God I love this war" as Japan is tied up in a tar baby against superior troops with superior weapons benefitting from superior logistics and superior numbers. Hawaii, US says "God I love this War" as every Japanese ship heading into Pearl is cut to razorblades by US aircraft from dozens of airbases in the Hawaiian Islands. India? The UK says "God I love this war" as the entire Japanese army in China is relocated to India only to discover that they still can't make forward progress.

If I were writing the game the most likely outcome of efforts to invade these areas is decreased Japanese player control over production, troops, aircraft, supplies etc to reflect the likelihood that the AI knows more than the player. I call this the "War Cabinet Thinks You're a Dope" model.

pad152 wrote:Political Events (Triggers)

If the game doesn't model political events then there is no chance of any type of a Japanese victory. I'm not asking for political events but, without any then we are left with a war of attrition, which the Japanese are sure to lose.

Militarily the out come of the war was not in question, but who knows what would have happened politically if Japan had done any of the following; Invade Australia, Destroy the British Navy in India, or invaded the Hawaiian Islands. Any of these events would have caused such a shock and may have caused major political shifts in the region.


Australia Invaded - possible events
- Australia sues for peace (goes neutral) for removal of Japanese forces.
- British & US see Oz as a lost cause and limit support.
- All Allied forces are used to kick the Japanese out of Oz.
- Other Nations switch support for Japan, Japan gets resource centers with
out having to invade.

India Invaded – possible events
The Japanese destroy the British Naval forces in India and occupy the key naval and air bases.
- The British are out of the Pacific, Oz loses support from Britain.
- India is out of the war Japan gives India Independence. Remember the Indian Congress rejected the British offer for independence.
- India is out of the war (civil war breaks out in India).
- Japanese link up with Axis forces in Persia.
- Allied support for China becomes very very limited.


Hawaiian Islands Invaded – possible events

- Allows Japan to build up the rest of the pacific.
- Other Nations switch support for Japan, Japan gets resource centers with out having to invade.
- Allied support for China becomes very limited.
- Australia sues for peace.

I would love to see Norm Korger join the Matrix team and do the land combat and political events for the game, of course price would go up.

MDIEL sat on this pretty well...,but you might have a bit of a point if you factor
of TIME. Remember that Japan DID land in US territory in the Aluetians; and
they DID invade India at Imphal. None of what you postulate occurred. If you
wanted to make a case for something in this nature, why not add in Time?
If the Japanese get into Indai, and can STAY there for a year, then they start
getting some victory points and can possibly trigger a political problem of some
sort. Colonial Peoples aren't stupid---they aren't going to leap on the Japanese
bandwagon until they are SURE the wheels won't come off.

Landing in Australia might force the Commonwealth to send all ANZAC units
home---but a few Japs waving swords in the Northern Territories isn't going
to cause any massive shockwave. If they are STILL there after a year they
might become a political issue and be good for some "victory points", but that's
about it.

And they should get credit for things like the Aleutian landings if they are able
to survive for more than a year. The primary result of such operations in game
terms should be to force the Allies to DO SOMETHING about them in a reason-
able period of time. Like the US had to waste resources getting the Japs out
of the Aluetians. They were a political embarrassment, nothing more---but
Democracies are run by politicians, and politicians don't like to be embarressed.

In this light, what you propose makes some sense. Of course, if the Japanese
can actually sieze any SIGNIFICANT areas, the value will already be there in
denying them to the Allies. But if the Game model is decent, that should be a
very difficult thing to do unless the Allied Player is a total idiot.

Sorry mdiehl

Go read history, Japan over ran every major power in the region with little lost in the early part of the war. Real or not people (including the leaders) were in real fear of being invaded (US West coast, Oz, New Zeeland). Just one successful Japanese landing in Australia or Hawaiian would have had major effects and may have changed the how the pacific war played out. If just one of the major powers Britain, or Oz sued for peace with Japan the other major players may have done the same. I don't think even the US would have gone it alone in the Pacific without shifting it's war effort to the pacific.

If Japan had destroyed the British Eastern Fleet, they may have completely eliminated Britain as a major player in the pacific that would have affected India, China and the rest of the region.

I'm not pro Japanese or against, but in a wargame, I want to try to change history not repeat it. Without modeling political events to some extent, what we are left with is a war of attrition?

Let's say you and I are playing a PBM game, and I as the Japanese player invade and take one of the northern cities of Oz. You know I can't completely take over the land of Oz, so you completely ignore this invasion that would be completely non historical!!!!!!!!!!!!.

You know, when someone waves me off with a "Go read history" the rest of folks on these forums know to duck. It's like chumming the water when you're surrounded by tiger sharks and all you're wearing is your kapok jacket.

"Ran the major powers..." excuse me... WHAT major powers? The outnumbered, unsupported way the hell out on the end of the logistical rope Phillippines? The laughable Hong Kong garrison? The oh so dangerous native constabularies that comprised the bulk of NEI defenses? Frankly, given Japan's central position, long preparations for war, and extreme numerical superiority in the area, it would have been the embarressment of all the ages if the Japanese had not run through the Southern Resource Area like sh1t through a goose.

Despite all that, not one power considered, not even remotely, sending backdoor feelers over to the Japanese to see whether or not they could be contained diplomatically. Just because the Allies feared invasions enough to be prepared for the event does not mean that having the Japanese ashore in strength in any of those areas would have changed anyone's mind. Indeed, most military experts absolutely positively knew Japan was screwed from the get go. They would have welcomed having, say, 10 divisions wading ashore in Darwin because it would have made the Japanese that much easier to kill (rather than, for example, having to slog it out in New Guinea).

If Japan had destroyed Eastern fleet. If pigs flew. If cats cohabited with dogs. Whatever. These were largely unattainable because the very margins of which you speak, India, Australia, the Hawaiian Islands are so far removed from the center of Japanese logistics and supply that the early war advantage they enjoyed in the NEI/PI would have been completely reversed. Taking Hawaii (and here we're only talking really about taking Oahu, not all of the Hawaiian islands) would have required several divisions, all of the Japanese navy's transport fleet (to maintain these guys over the distance) and the permanent on-station maintenance of six fleet CVs. Frankly, the ONLY plausible outcome of that effort is that the Japanese lose six CVs by March 1942, several divisions to starvation in Hawaii, and four times the merchant fleet losses that they saw in the entire year of 1942. Pretty much the same for Ceylon/India or any operation in the really populated areas of eastern Australia.

Let's say you and I are playing a PBM game, and I as the Japanese player invade and take one of the northern cities of Oz. You know I can't completely take over the land of Oz, so you completely ignore this invasion that would be completely non historical!!!!!!!!!!!!.

Invading OZ would be completely non-historical I agree. Ignoring such an invasion would not be non-historical based on any evidence that you can muster. Good strategic sense would probably dictate that the invading forces be isolated and allowed to die on the vine until a convenient moment came to round them all up and capture them. In the meantime, if the sim is any good, I'd make you pay a hefty merchant tax for supporting these guys: half of all the merchants you send to supply your guys in Australia are turned over to Davy Jones. After a little while you, like the real Japanese, would realize that operations way beyond your logistical grasp are a strategic blunder of enormous magnitude and you'd be looking for ways to get out alive. Basically what happened at Guadalcanal except your losses, if you reached as far as Australia, Ceylon, or Hawaii, would be a hundred times greater.

Without modeling political events to some extent, what we are left with is a war of attrition?

Like I said. The best political "model" of such efforts would be that the Japanese player is removed from command and replaced by the AI .... and maybe jolts of electricity directed through the keyboard into the Japanese player's fingers if such a thing were possible.