Matrix Games Forums

Look, I understand Japan starts the game a bit weak and got grinded in China, but my God, this game easily has it that China could take the coast of Asia in this game, and heaven help you if you want to move Japanese ships towards Pearl Harbor, even if you wanted to attack with no bonus.

You suck up every single resource there is.


Question on attacking Pearl harbor, do you need to bring light fleets and battleships for bombardment? Or just carriers for the planes to attack ?

Once again I will patrol for Japanese strats.

I definately think that they are more supply-poor than they really were at the start of the war. CVs are a liability for them simply because they take too much supply to use. Up to 4 per Carrier??? Thats nuts. Thats 16 resources just to move the unescorted CV group to do battle. Adding any form of realistic escort and it can cost up to 25 resource just to get the CVs into battle. Thats just about HALF of Japan's total output of supplies on a regular turn. To get 4 planes into battle....definately not worth it.

Carriers should be more employable IMO (actually Fleets in general are awfully expensive in Supply). It kind of kills any reason to want to try and duplicate any of history's Carrier battles. Want to take the South Pacific? Better do it with something beside Carriers because even if you take 2-3 resource in Australia, the supplies you burnt doing it AND fixing the resources mean that it will be a LONG time before it pays off...probably just about the time you are losing it to that Allies (if not before).

IMO, the cost for 'extended movement' for ships should be reduced if the ship ends its movement in or adjacent to a friendly port. This makes places like Rabaul and Pearl Harbor important. As it is now, taking Rabaul seems to be a complete waste of resources.

Personally, I'd like to see some more wide-open strategies be available for Japan, but the complete lack of supplies and resources means that they pretty much have to rigidly follow one path or they are quickly far behind and likely to never catch back up.

Nearly everything I've read from other players (including the Devs) seems to confirm the fact that even in the Pacific, Carriers arent a good investment. I just think that feels incorrect for WW2.

Anyways, if you want to do the Pearl Harbor raid, there is no need to take anything but the Carriers. Make the attack and then duck back to safety, all in one turn. No need for escorts as you wont be hit back.

Overall, I've found this game to be fantastic. I think it might need a few minor tweaks here and there to allow for plausible historical and some ahistorical strategies to seem valid. I'm hoping that as people play more, they develop ways to enable Japan to have a little more freedom of action. Perhaps a 'real' Pearl Harbor attack might make it worthwhile in terms of resources expended, but I'm not counting on it.

Thank you Uncle Joe, I completly agree,
Japan is waaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyy too lmited in resources, either that or there fleet movement shouldn't cost as much as everyone elses, don't get me wrong, the game is fantastic, truly.

But even with a patch, it still might not be a good idea to attack Pearl harbor, in real life, they did some major damge, even with the patch I wonder if Jpan can even go 50% damage vs resources,and plane damge. And why can't the ships bombard?(battleships). the port?

Again, minor gripes in a great game but if Japan decides to go the Pearl harbor route(based on history, even a little bit), they shouldn't be handicapped to the extent that they are.

What is the most planes that they can take? honestly? Is it 4? Seems kind of light,(this is not including any planes that you build).

I may be wrong but I thought that carriers replaced battleships as the "go to" ship by the middle of WWII? But in this game, you may be better off with heavy fleets vs carriers overall because the stats(minus what you fix) are going to remain the same throughout the game.

Carriers in this game(for japan)= not worth the aggrevation and headache of resources spent. in WWII Japan crushed Pearl Harbor then hit heavy and fast accross the Pacific. in this game, you hit Pearl Harbor and prepare to take over the Pacific in a slow Molasis.[:(]

If possible, I would like a developer to answer or respond also, I am not saying you guys screwed up,(I am addicted to this game), but any way of bringing Japan up a tad in the patch? Let me know if you can. Also, if you feel you can argue any of my points about my observations you are more than free to have at it but I feel that they are rock solid(except for shore bombing ports,which I don't think you can do in this game anyways.

I'm loving the game too -- but my initial impression of Japan is similar. I can't take one province in China, and I haven't moved a single capital ship. Sure, Japan should have a resource and supply shortage, but this seems a bit much.

stop building units ;p

What makes people think China should be a pushover for Japan? They had already been at war for quite some time and really not gotten anywhere. China should be a meat grinder with very little benefit. I think they have done a nice job of modelling that effect.

When I first started playing the game I too wondered if Japan was way to weak. However, I think they got it pretty right.

1) Trouble with China. Mr. Frag got it right. Remember China has been at war with Japan sicne close to the mid 1930s. Why should the player be able to do more in 1 or 2 years than the Japanese did in the whole war?

2) Ineffective carriers. I am not a developer, but based upon History I would say that maybe 2 or 3 of the initial carriers are actually representive of the strike force that attacked Pearl. So, if you are going for history take 2.

3) Also, stop producing as many units. I know when I play Japan I produce far more units than I should because I am attacking China.

In truth, Japan was a 4th or 5th rate power at best during WWII. Why then did they do so well? Simple, they caught the allies unprepared and they had the advantage of not being the main target of the allies. If the allies had actually concentrated on Japan the results would have been horrible for Japan and they woule have lost a lot quicker than they did.

Personally, I have no problem with the way the Chinese war works. If Japan wants to make a major commitment, they CAN win it seems.

No, my problem is with the more 'traditional' parts of the Pacific war. I currently just see no reason to need or want to use carriers in their historical roles. They really arent needed to support invasions (even Light Fleets seem to do a fine job). And they really arent needed for 'Air Cover' over your Transports as they wont do much vs Subs and that is the primary threat.

IMO, Carriers need to be more efficient to use. Any benefit they provide just isnt worth the suppy given Japan's limited ability to produce them. Also, even if you DO get their Air Groups into battle, Battleships often take them down which seems completely out of place. Battleships NEVER stood up to front line carriers, yet they can do so here with a few lucky rolls. At the very least, Carrier Air should easily trump other ships, so at least you are getting concrete benefit out of using them.

I know the game is an abstraction and that not every unit is going to be perfect. I fully understand that for a game at this scale. But in general, the thing keeping the Carriers from actually being usable is the Supply cost in doing so. Perhaps make 'Extended Movement' supply only kick in when moving more than half their total move? Anything to give incentive to use Carriers for invasion support or area denial.

Agree again
Can anyone here actually argue that a Battleship(fine,lets assume it's a fleet of them) can actually stand up against the air power of a carrier(again, if we assume the Battleship is a fleet then the ac is a fleet also)

But even if it was a fleet of Battleships vs the air power of 1 AC, THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN DESTROYED. Back in WWII you couldn't fight a naval battle against squadrons of FIGHTERS and SHIPS and expect to even have close results, hands down.

No one here is overly debating the power of china(ok, i feel they are a tad bit strong), but the amount of resources Japan expends on AC's considering how underpowered they are and the lopsided ratio of ac+planes atticking vs resources spent/lost ships and planes. Again, going bact to previous statement. If you go into a naval battle and the opponent has no air, and you have overwhelming air(hint:Pearl Harbor)
You should not do A LITTLE damage. You should dominate, mabey 1 casulty at most, possible 2. But the damge you give should be tremoundous.

Again, my 2 cents.

The only thing I really use my carriers (air) for is anti-submarine duty. Even at that, by the time I have the CV air crews trained up to snuff (read tech) the axis sub threat is nearly eliminated.

Artillery also should be more powerful IMO. Since at least the American Civil War, most battlefield casualties have been caused by arty, so perhaps some specialized units in that area would help also. Such as Japanese 90mm mortars. The Japs during WWII used their 90mm mortars to pound the H E double L out of the Americans during their storm landings against Jap held islands; which by the way are also way too easy to take IMO.

I must add however that for the most part, just as others here have stated, am really liking this game. Now waiting patiently for the American Civil War version.

Vin

Hopefully you can find some strategies in the War Room to help out. Japan can do quite well if it uses it's airforce in China and just takes the coast. Alternatively you can take all of China, but it takes a lot of units to keep it.

Once the surprise rule is fixed, you'll see that for the cost of 16 supplies, your attack will damage or destroy 3-4 fleets (about 50% of the time you will lose no planes and will hit 4 fleets, and about 50% of the time you will have one plane damaged and hit 3 fleets). So your average cost is about 4 production points for the attack. The US will suffer on average around 18 production points worth of damage to their fleets. With the current bug, the attack is worthless.

Japan is not going to take over the world, and it will be unable to do more than token research until 1943, but Japan can reach production of 24+ and be a decent partner with Germany. You must be careful with what fleet units you move as it does use up supplies, but proper use of the Japanese fleet (including carriers) can inflict a lot of losses on the WA player. Most testers did find Japan the hardest to play, but I think that's because they expect to do things that were really beyond the capability of Japan.

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

What makes people think China should be a pushover for Japan?

Maybe they played WITP.......[:D]

Against the IA you can routinely take most of China with 10 or so losses (perhaps 4 planes steps and 6 infantry steps overall). It will asks for many supplies, but on the other hand you take out a big thorn in your side. I think its worth it, as anyway you would need many infantries to take at bay the Chinese.

"Most testers did find Japan the hardest to play, but I think that's because they expect to do things that were really beyond the capability of Japan."

You can blame the Uber-Japan of A&A for that.

...

But even with a patch, it still might not be a good idea to attack Pearl harbor, in real life, they did some major damge, even with the patch I wonder if Jpan can even go 50% damage vs resources,and plane damge. And why can't the ships bombard?(battleships). the port?

...

Carriers in this game(for japan)= not worth the aggrevation and headache of resources spent. in WWII Japan crushed Pearl Harbor then hit heavy and fast accross the Pacific. in this game, you hit Pearl Harbor and prepare to take over the Pacific in a slow Molasis.[:(]

When all was said and done, Japan sunk 3 BB (WV, Oklahoma, Arizona) out of fleet of 90+ ships (8 BB with no CV in port) and failed in by far the most critical mission of destroying the dry docks and shore facilities (something that would have been SERIOUS for the US). They damaged 18 more including all the rest of the BB, some that took a year or more to get back in service.

When the suprise rules work, I think the results will be about right. The only thing that I've noticed is that air evade is not too good on Japanese aircraft. If they took no damage at all during PH, it would be more accurate in my mind. I do like the idea that was mentioned about using fewer supplies or no extended movement if you end up in the same zone as a port. I would also like the ability to destroy ports to make them somewhat useful in the Pacific.

With the 'surprise attack' rule working, I'm thinking that the Japanese will suffer few if any casualties in the attack. Therefore, its probably just an expenditure of Supply rather than a risk of losing aircraft.

But I think the cost will be 20, not 16 (16 gets the 4 CVs there, but it will take 4 MORE to even launch the attack with the Air Groups).

20 Supplies to launch a single Air Raid? That is where I think the problem is. Japan doesnt have to be 'strong' (certainly not at uber A&A level), but they should be able to use their Carrier without trashing the econ. Using the BBs is even more out of the question which again, I think is silly for the early war.

Just from a few quick calculations, if Japans builds NOTHING, repairs NOTHING, and researchs NOTHING, they can build enough supplies in one turn to operate their fleet effectively. That seems a little harsh. If Japan wants to lauch CAP over a few island bases, that is an additional 5+ per turn just to do so.

Ports should definately reduces supply expenditures or else the cost should go down a tad (at the very least, the Supply for the CVs should supply the Air Group for free). Maybe certain Regions should generate free supplies per turn? That way they are getting more, but dont have the option of getting more units or research. Some of the Dutch East Indies area would be perfect for that and would still be available to be cut off by submarine activity of the loss of the islands. Maybe make certain ports (Pearl, Rabaul, Honshu, Kyoto, etc) all generate 5 Supplies per turn automatically? Again, this gives the capability to use the fleets, and encourages the Japanese to take the Ports that they should ignore in the game now.

Thoughts?

You are right, the Japanese will pay 20, not 16, so my analysis should say it will cost Japan on average 5 production points to do PH instead of 4. We stand by the limits we have placed on fleet movement and Japan. It forces the player to decide between a land heavy strategy or a naval heavy strategy as Japan cannot do both. With proper play, Japan can build some units and enough supplies to be able to expand and increase it's production to 20-25 where it will be able to build enough supplies to use the fleet quite a bit. Japan will only be able to do limited R&D and will likely find itself falling behind the curve as the war goes on (as they did historically). Part of what we did was due to the way countries used (or didn't use) fleets. They just didn't use them like wargamers do. There was a lot of downtime for ships, and a strong desire not to lose them. Part of this is accounted for by our supply rules. It is abstract but we think it works given the strategic scope of this game.

I find japan the most enjoyable to play. in fact I'd say they're a bit too powerful, but I haven't played against a human with them yet.

I feel that the low resources really simulates the initial historic reasons for japans expansion, the need for more resources.

I think that the japan strat people use needs to be completely different than how all the other countries play. every unit is precious and losing a single unit to any attack is a waste of resources. planning attacks carefully, I've been able to take coastal china and the east indies islands with probably a grand total 2 units damaged, none lost. thus not having to create a single unit because of this conservative approach. on top of this, saving on extanded movement is improtant also. you can do a 4th turn peral harbor attack by simply moving your carriers one space per turn. I can't imagine anyone wanting to attack before turn 3 anyway, so one extra turn can't hamper anyones plan that much in order to save 12 supply points.

the allies and even germany can squander supply and units, but japan requires a softer touch.

You can do the 1 space per turn 'creep' to Pearl, but you need to have a Transport in each sea zone along the way or else you will be unable to continue, attack, or withdraw. That means you'll need (I believe) at least 3 more Transports to make it go. Not a bad solution, but needing to set up Pearl Harbor 9 months in advance seems kinda out there too.

Joel Billings:

Thanx for the input. Do you see any reason for Japan to want to pursue her historical goals of 1) conquering China and 2) spreading out into the South Pacific and going for Australia and the surrounding areas? I have yet to see a reason for wanting most of the islands, but that might just be unfamiliarity with some of the mechanics.

A few questions that might help clarify the Pacific War a bit:

1) If you have Aircraft stationed on an island, will they Op-fire at supplies moving through the island's zone or only ships? If they dont fire on supply movement, they arent accomplishing much.

2) Do unsupplied units still Op Fire? I know it doesnt consume supply, but will it fire if supply is not available?

3) What good do the Ports do other than as a slightly safer place to hide ships? Is there reason for Japan to want Rabaul? Would placing a Factory there help make it a place where Japanese 'repairs' would go and be able to stay closer to the front?

4) Many people have mentioned (and I agree) that conquering China isnt really worth the hassle in terms of supply, casualties, and occupation forces compared to the pay-off. Yet Japan basically went to war with WAllies to finance the war in China (and then Russia). So, to them at least, it was an important goal. Is there a reflection of that in the game? Maybe China could be worth bonus VPs for purposes of Auto-Victory? I'm just throwing out ideas because, IMO, the game should at least provide the players with the desire to do what the historical nations felt they had to do. The war against China ran deeper than just WW2 and the desire in Japan to conquer it had been around for hundreds of years. Yet players of the game will immediately dismiss it because (ignoring the cultural bias) its not a sound strategy.

I guess basically what I am looking for is the means and/or reasons for the Japanese wanting to do what they historically wanted to do. Currently, most of the 'good' Japanese strategies seem to be to do the exact opposite of what Japan wanted to accomplish...ie, ignore China (for the most part) and avoid using the navy to engage the allies because it costs too much to use.

They appear to basically want to follow a rigid path of buildup, take over the easily taken Resource centers near Singapore (and surrounding area) and then hole up and wait. Alternatively, they should abandon most of the true 'Pacific Strategies' and instead go for a timed double attack on Russia.

Do you see 'game reasons' for wanting to follow the historical path of pursuing the war in China and taking over the resource rich islands to finance it while throwing up a 'perimeter' to stall the Allies?

Thanx for the discussion. I'm hoping to glean some further info on the nuts and bolts of 'island combat' as well as see if there are alternative strats for Japan to want to pursue.

Is there a way to edit the supply costs for extended movement for mods?