Matrix Games Forums

My try at Japan.
A, B, & C are the same as for the "AI for MWiF - Germany" thread.

D. GRAND STRATEGIES
The big picture for Japan is fairly simple :
1. Expand to accumulate the most RP & Oil (& Red factories in a lesser extend) to have the most BP possible. Japan has a lot of factories, and not enough resources to make them all produce. Japan also drastically lacks oil (building at least 1 Synth Oil is mandatory in the first couple of turns).
2. Built the most efficient army to ward off the Allies, to keep the most victory cities in the end.
If Japan does not expand, it will die.

D.I Historical
D.I.1 Pursue a war in China
D.I.2 Expand brutaly and rapidly across the Pacific to create the Basic co-prosperity sphere (The historical reachings)
D.I.3 Take advantage of any possible extra expansion. India, Arabic Countries, South Africa, Egypt, Australia

Variant : Nomohan then Historical
D.I.1 Pursue an early war with Russia hoping to grab resources and the Vladivostock Factory, then try pursue a war in China, hopefully managing to contain them and grabing resources.

D.II CW First
The advocates of this strategy say that it is good to deal the blow separately to the CW and to the USA for best maximum effect. However, the US Entry effect of the first blow may well push the USA to war much sooner than usual.
D.II.1 Pursue a war with China & or Russia
D.II.2 Declare War to the CW & grab as much of its dominions as it is possible.
D.II.3 Declare War to the USA, or wait for their attack, which should come soon after D.II.2 anyway.

Variant : Crush Winston
D.II.1 is ignored (defense mode) and D.II.2 is performed very early. China becomes a sideshow, and the global war begins much sooner.
In my opinion all strategies that lead to a longer war for Japan are not good for Japan.


E. INNER STRATEGIES

E.I War in China
E.I.1 Major Japanese Ojectives
These would be the ultimate objective to try to reach :
- Conquer Chungking.
- Destroy the Communists (doable in 39-40),
- Conquer Lan Chow.

E.I.2 Important Japanese Objectives
These would be the less megalomaniac objective :
- Secure the Resource in 0538 and a rail path to the sea to use it in a Japanese factory (very easy).
- Secure the Resource in Si-An and a rail path to the sea to use it in a Japanese factory (easy).
- Secure the Resource in 0531 and a rail path to the sea to use it in a Japanese factory (moderate difficulty).
- Secure the Resource in 0630 and a rail path to the sea to use it in a Japanese factory (very hard).
- Kill as many Chinese units as possible, always.
- Loose as few units as possible, especially in the early years (before 1942).

E.I.3 Garrisons
These are mostly anti partisan garrison, and should follow the general anti partisan behavior described in post 5 of thread AI for MWiF - Germany.
Garrison A : Shanghai, Canton (if fleet), Port Arthur, Harbin.
Garrison B : Canton but if the fleet is very big it should be Garrison A.
Garrison C : Chang-Sha with a MTN unit (or another 4-mover) to control the southeast mountains, the rest depends on where the frontlines are.
Emphasis should be put on 2 special things : Garrisons should be maintained to protect flipped planes, and to protect most ports.

E.I.4 Production
The production necessary for this war is a lot of troops, fast moving if possible, but not necessarily white print, ART units, some air units too including enough FTR to keep air superiority to deny enemy air and enough TAC factors to support Japaneses attacks and defend from Chinese ones.
Some Armor is not a bad idea (even if only a MECH DIV) because it can be used to fight at advantages in Clear & Forest hexes.
As much HQ as possible (3 minimum) are required too to maintain supply.


E.II Expansion to historic co-prosperity sphere
Basicaly this is the expansion to dominate the Bismarck Sea, Marianas, China Sea, South China Sea.
French Indo China and Siam should be controlled by Japan before the day they expand. Especially Siam, as a springboard to Malaya.

E.II.1 Mandatory places to conquer
- Philippines (should need an easy invasion on Philippines, followed by an assault of Manila).
- Singapore & Malaya (needs a fairly high involvement of troops from the land).
- Batavia & whole NEI (should need an easy invasion on Java, followed by an assault of Batavia).
- Honolulu if doable. The AIO for Japan should always consider an invasion of Honolulu and whether it is doable or not. It is very risky and may prevent the Japanese from achieving the other mandatory objectives.
- Rabaul.

E.II.2 Free invasions
Those free invasions should be made by DIV on SCS if the places are undefended, at least to make the USA loose time when they come back. Even if it is only a few naval & land moves.
- Midway if not garrisoned. It is a valuable airbase for the US comeback.
- Dutch Harbor if not garrisoned (Objective).
- Pago Pago if not garrisoned (Objective).
- Wake Island if not garrisoned. It is a decent airbase for the US comeback.
- Columbo if not garrisoned (Objective).

E.II.3 Garrisons
These are exclusively anti-invasion garrisons, and should follow the general anti partisan behavior described post 5 in the "AI for MWiF - Germany" thread.
Garrison A : Truk, Singapore, Manila (for being an objective, for being an important multi Sea Area hex, and for often sheltering the fleet) (Manila is a pivot place in Japan's defense, and if the USA get the control of it, both the China Sea and the South China Sea will soon be lost

by Japan too, and everything will collapse -- China, the Oil, ect...)
Garrison B : Outer Ring : Kwajalein / Eniwetok, Rabaul, Batavia, Makassar, Menado. Inner Ring : Bonin Islands, Legaspi.
Garrison C : Generaly hexes that can provide airbases to the enemy and so should be held as long as possible to prevent them from gaining air superiority over important Sea Area which are Bismarck Sea, Marianas, China Sea, South China Sea. Oil hexes too, to protect from a raid invasion.

E.II.4 Production
The production linked to such a campaign is a lot of air units (long range FTR & NAVs), a lots of cheap but white print land units to garrison, lot of SUBs to cause as much disruption to enemy shipping as possible (here the submarine war is less waged to decrease the enemy's production than simply to oblige him to mind about a lot of sea areas with CPs for supply & protection for these CPs), and a good amount of CP to try to maintain supply.
To be able to defend this co-prosperity sphere, Japan needs to have a large & powerful navy, which it already have in 1939, but which should be reinforced by as much CV / CVL as possible before S/O 41 (all 5 & more movers in the construction & repair pool should be finished), as many Mogami Class CA as possible, and at least the Yamato if possible (the Musachi also why not, but she is very expensive).


E.III War with Russia
E.III.1 Goal
Try to conquer as much RP as possible before conquering Vladivostok to avoid seeing the Russian beg for peace prematuraly. The 3 between vladivostok & Blagovyeshchensk may be taken by the same army, and the 4th near Chita could be taken by another army. This would necessitate 2 HQ.

Trick : If this war is planned at setup, a unit could be setup in the extreme northern Manchuria to cut the rail line between Blagovyeshchensk and Chita.

E.III.2 Garrisons
The Japanese should garrison the new obtained frontier with as much troops as he wants, depending his envy / fear / need of battling USSR again in the future. Anyway, 3 years after chances are big that the Russian will come back and that he will be unstoppable.

E.III.3 Production
This is a land war which needs at least 2 HQ and enought troops to beat the Russian garrisons. Basicaly this is a '39 or '40 war so the units for it are already existing.


E.IV Extra Expansion

E.IV.1 North Borneo
This territory should be conquered, after the initial expansion but before the allies come back, so that they do not get easily new air bases in the South China Sea.

E.IV.2 Burma
Interests : Oil, cut the route off Lend Lease to China, opening the road to India.

E.IV.3 India
Interests : Resources, Victory hexes & red factories, loss of IND units if conquered.
Landing in Cocandia has advantagtes. Its a port with a lot of resources around. Calcutta is near, and could be attacked in conjunction with troops coming from Burma.

E.IV.4 Aden
Interests : Victory hex, springboard to the Red Sea & Egypt
Can be invaded if the CW is in the ropes, or if Japan is already very strong and has secured good bases in India.

E.IV.5 Madagascar
Interests : Victory hex.

E.IV.6 South Africa
Interests : Victory hex, disruption in the CW, loss of SA units if conquered.

E.IV.7 Australia
Interests : Resources, Victory hexes & red factories, loss of AUS units if conquered
Control of the Coral Sea may be necessary to achieve something in australia.
New Caledonia should also be taken for the resource (even if only to deny it to the allies).
The interest of conquering Australia is fairly low.

E.IV.8 Arabian countries (Persia mainly)
Interests : Oil to reorg units, and denying Oil to the enemy.
Outside of a normal conquest plan, remember that Japan can simply align those countries if declared war upon by Russia for example, and send peacekeepers to defend the oil wells. Japan will need to be at war with the conqueror to stay there though.

Lovely. I am happy to have something on a strategic plan for Japan. As before, I will refrain from direct comments, but state that we differ in some areas (not very many) which gives me alternatives for the AIO to have in hand.

If anyone wants to comment on the production schedules for the various options Patrice has laid out, that would be nice too.

In several games I have played I have bypassed Manila early on, concentrating on Singapore/Rangoon and getting as far into the Pacific as possible - sometimes all the way to Pago Pago. It forces the Allies to make a LONG march all the way back, and the PI can be captured AFTER Singapore/Port Moresby, etc. This seems to work better overall, but I'm no expert.

ORIGINAL: SurrenderMonkey

In several games I have played I have bypassed Manila early on, concentrating on Singapore/Rangoon and getting as far into the Pacific as possible - sometimes all the way to Pago Pago. It forces the Allies to make a LONG march all the way back, and the PI can be captured AFTER Singapore/Port Moresby, etc. This seems to work better overall, but I'm no expert.

Alternative strategy noted.

In several games I have played I have bypassed Manila early on, concentrating on Singapore/Rangoon and getting as far into the Pacific as possible - sometimes all the way to Pago Pago. It forces the Allies to make a LONG march all the way back, and the PI can be captured AFTER Singapore/Port Moresby, etc. This seems to work better overall, but I'm no expert.

Going that far (Pago Pago, Port Moresby) isn't forcing the USA to make a long march all the way back. The allies have just to keep Pearl, and then open the road to Manila through Truk.
The USA can ignore the isolated Japanese garrisons who are not on its road, and mop them up in the last year of the game, when plenty of air power and more than usual super combined actions are available. I speak from experience.
Manila and the Philippines are critical to the Japanese, against a competent US player and playing Oil, which I assume are the normal conditions. When the US control Manila again, the Japanese are dead.

As Japan I always try to keep a couple of carriers active until the end of the game. This gives me the flexability to do a Port strike on any Allied amphibious force building up within range of the Home Islands. Even if my entire fleet dies in the attack it is worth the effort if I can sink/damage a few of his transports and prevent him from doing Operation Olympic/Coronet.

Conversely as the Allies I always seek out the IJN carriers first to prevent that strategy.

What Greyshaft wrote remided me of this.
As the Allies, my first target within the Japanese naval forces are the sea lift.
As the Japanese, my most precious ships are the sea lift.

This is the same regarding Italy.

Italy, or Japan, without sea lift, or with a disminished sea lift, is ready to be cooked.
In other words, they are like a wolf without teeth.

ORIGINAL: Froonp
...Italy, or Japan, without sea lift, or with a disminished sea lift, is ready to be cooked.
In other words, they are like a wolf without teeth.

Agreed for the first half of the game but for Italy in 43+ and Japan in late 44 & 45 I think it is the ability to interrupt the enemy preparations rather than the threat of a new amphibiousl blitzkrieg which is the more potent weapon. When the Allies are threatening to invade the Homeland I think it inadvisble to reduce the garrison by sending troops overseas. Of course if the Axis is doing better than history then this strategy must change accordingly.

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft

ORIGINAL: Froonp
...Italy, or Japan, without sea lift, or with a disminished sea lift, is ready to be cooked.
In other words, they are like a wolf without teeth.

Agreed for the first half of the game but for Italy in 43+ and Japan in late 44 & 45 I think it is the ability to interrupt the enemy preparations rather than the threat of a new amphibiousl blitzkrieg which is the more potent weapon. When the Allies are threatening to invade the Homeland I think it inadvisble to reduce the garrison by sending troops overseas. Of course if the Axis is doing better than history then this strategy must change accordingly.

Yes, this is what I meant by "ready to be cocked". When they are reduced to defending the homeland, I think that their end is near.

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft

ORIGINAL: Froonp
...Italy, or Japan, without sea lift, or with a disminished sea lift, is ready to be cooked.
In other words, they are like a wolf without teeth.

Agreed for the first half of the game but for Italy in 43+ and Japan in late 44 & 45 I think it is the ability to interrupt the enemy preparations rather than the threat of a new amphibiousl blitzkrieg which is the more potent weapon. When the Allies are threatening to invade the Homeland I think it inadvisble to reduce the garrison by sending troops overseas. Of course if the Axis is doing better than history then this strategy must change accordingly.

Yes, this is what I meant by "ready to be cocked". When they are reduced to defending the homeland, I think that their end is near.

In the larger scheme of things, this makes me think of developing an offensive strategy as follows.

Once you have a numerical advantage against a major power, attack (to eliminate) his offensive capability.
At sea this is (in order) AMPH, TRS, and carriers.
On land this is Armor, Mech, HQs, and Para.
In the air this is ATR, tactical bombers, and strategic bombers.

Second, go after his production capability so he can't rebuild any of those unit types. At sea that is convoys; on land that is factories and resources; in the air that is strategic bombing.

Third, take ground to occupy his capital and cities with factories to bring about complete conquest. At sea this may mean taking a series of ports in preparation for invasion.

Players kind of do this automatically without giving it a whole lot of thought. They just know what needs to be done. For the AIO, all these steps have to be laid out in detail.

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Second, go after his production capability so he can't rebuild any of those unit types. At sea that is convoys; on land that is factories and resources; in the air that is strategic bombing.

I take it you then plan to make the AI look upon what will hurt the enemy the most, the loss of a resource or the loss of a factory, in the cases were the AI can take either but not both?

ORIGINAL: terje439

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Second, go after his production capability so he can't rebuild any of those unit types. At sea that is convoys; on land that is factories and resources; in the air that is strategic bombing.

I take it you then plan to make the AI look upon what will hurt the enemy the most, the loss of a resource or the loss of a factory, in the cases were the AI can take either but not both?

Such joy! These decisions are like choosing between blondes and redheads.

You have it right, of course. One other thing to consider is the utility of the factory or resource to us. Capturing a red factory when we need them, or a resource when we need them, has to be taken into consideration. When playing with oil, that too is a consideration. And finally there is always the possibility of the enemy retaking the hex. If we can take out a factory and destroy it, the recapture become moot.

I see the capture of production elements as a definite minus for the enemy and a possible plus for us. In some cases this applies to rail lines, sea areas, and ports.

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
In the larger scheme of things, this makes me think of developing an offensive strategy as follows.

Once you have a numerical advantage against a major power, attack (to eliminate) his offensive capability.
At sea this is (in order) AMPH, TRS, and carriers.
On land this is Armor, Mech, HQs, and Para.
In the air this is ATR, tactical bombers, and strategic bombers.

Second, go after his production capability so he can't rebuild any of those unit types. At sea that is convoys; on land that is factories and resources; in the air that is strategic bombing.

Third, take ground to occupy his capital and cities with factories to bring about complete conquest. At sea this may mean taking a series of ports in preparation for invasion.

Players kind of do this automatically without giving it a whole lot of thought. They just know what needs to be done. For the AIO, all these steps have to be laid out in detail.

...but always be on the lookout for the coup de main where the Capitol can be taken immediately. I realise this falls into the Department of the Bleeding Obvious but (like you said) the AI doesn't think like we do unless you tell it to.

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
In the larger scheme of things, this makes me think of developing an offensive strategy as follows.

Once you have a numerical advantage against a major power, attack (to eliminate) his offensive capability.
At sea this is (in order) AMPH, TRS, and carriers.
On land this is Armor, Mech, HQs, and Para.
In the air this is ATR, tactical bombers, and strategic bombers.

Second, go after his production capability so he can't rebuild any of those unit types. At sea that is convoys; on land that is factories and resources; in the air that is strategic bombing.

Third, take ground to occupy his capital and cities with factories to bring about complete conquest. At sea this may mean taking a series of ports in preparation for invasion.

Players kind of do this automatically without giving it a whole lot of thought. They just know what needs to be done. For the AIO, all these steps have to be laid out in detail.

...but always be on the lookout for the coup de main where the Capitol can be taken immediately. I realise this falls into the Department of the Bleeding Obvious but (like you said) the AI doesn't think like we do unless you tell it to.

Yes. Tactical opportunities come in two flavors: what we can do to the enemy and what he can do to us. These both should be checked every impulse before the action type is chosen.

I think I understood what you meant here, but I do not agree fully with the Carrier's role you listed below, and I would have liked to add something in the second point :

In the larger scheme of things, this makes me think of developing an offensive strategy as follows.

Once you have a numerical advantage against a major power, attack (to eliminate) his offensive capability.
At sea this is (in order) AMPH, TRS, and carriers.

Carriers alone (I mean CV with a whole battle fleet) for instance achieve nothing, if they are not the vector upon which the TRS & AMPH will be thrown.
I would compare Carriers at sea to FTRs in the Air. FTRs in the air achieve air superiority, allowing the bombers & ATRs to do their job (wich is to help the ground forces take territory).
CV at Sea are like FTRs in the Air, they gain air superiority (and hence help gaining sea superiority) to allow the TRS & AMPH (and any other sealift) to do their Job (wich is to help the ground forces take territory).

The offensive capability is the capability of seizing new ground, and carriers seize nothing.

On land this is Armor, Mech, HQs, and Para.
In the air this is ATR, tactical bombers, and strategic bombers.

Second, go after his production capability so he can't rebuild any of those unit types. At sea that is convoys; on land that is factories and resources; in the air that is strategic bombing.

In the air this is also free fighting, I mean those Rodeo missions the RAF flew in 1941, which were, fly over Europe only to fight the Luftwaffe fighters, with some bombers to use as a decoy, but not really to bomb anything (I would not tell this to the poor bomber's crewmembers anyway).
Well, this is simply called Attrition, and this is available in land, air and at sea too. To fight just to inflict casualties, with no territorial objective.

Third, take ground to occupy his capital and cities with factories to bring about complete conquest. At sea this may mean taking a series of ports in preparation for invasion.

Players kind of do this automatically without giving it a whole lot of thought. They just know what needs to be done. For the AIO, all these steps have to be laid out in detail.

ORIGINAL: Froonp
I think I understood what you meant here, but I do not agree fully with the Carrier's role you listed below, and I would have liked to add something in the second point :

In the larger scheme of things, this makes me think of developing an offensive strategy as follows.

Once you have a numerical advantage against a major power, attack (to eliminate) his offensive capability.
At sea this is (in order) AMPH, TRS, and carriers.

Carriers alone (I mean CV with a whole battle fleet) for instance achieve nothing, if they are not the vector upon which the TRS & AMPH will be thrown.
I would compare Carriers at sea to FTRs in the Air. FTRs in the air achieve air superiority, allowing the bombers & ATRs to do their job (wich is to help the ground forces take territory).
CV at Sea are like FTRs in the Air, they gain air superiority (and hence help gaining sea superiority) to allow the TRS & AMPH (and any other sealift) to do their Job (wich is to help the ground forces take territory).

The offensive capability is the capability of seizing new ground, and carriers seize nothing.

On land this is Armor, Mech, HQs, and Para.
In the air this is ATR, tactical bombers, and strategic bombers.

Second, go after his production capability so he can't rebuild any of those unit types. At sea that is convoys; on land that is factories and resources; in the air that is strategic bombing.

In the air this is also free fighting, I mean those Rodeo missions the RAF flew in 1941, which were, fly over Europe only to fight the Luftwaffe fighters, with some bombers to use as a decoy, but not really to bomb anything (I would not tell this to the poor bomber's crewmembers anyway).
Well, this is simply called Attrition, and this is available in land, air and at sea too. To fight just to inflict casualties, with no territorial objective.

Third, take ground to occupy his capital and cities with factories to bring about complete conquest. At sea this may mean taking a series of ports in preparation for invasion.

Players kind of do this automatically without giving it a whole lot of thought. They just know what needs to be done. For the AIO, all these steps have to be laid out in detail.

Well, what I was thinking of when I wrote about carriers being an offensive force at sea is control of sea areas. The AMPH and TRS units are clearly for invasions. I included the carriers in the same list to address controlling sea areas. If a major power does not have carriers, then attacking enemy naval units at sea is limited to what can be achieved using land based naval air and submarines. The influence of battleships and other surface naval units on controlling sea areas is almost non-existent when air power is present in a sea area. And it is hard to maintain a lot of naval air units positioned such that they control multiple sea areas. But given carriers with a decent range, 2 or 3 carriers can dominate a half a dozen sea areas without ever leaving port - their mere presence is threatening. Submarines can be an offensive threat, but they need to be present in fairly large numbers. 1 or 2 submarine units can usually be defended against without too much anguish.

Though carriers can't take or occupy land hexes, their ability to threaten and/or directly control sea areas makes them an offensive threat. They can cut communication lines putting units out of supply and preventing reinforcements. For example, let's assume that Germany has invaded Britain and is making good progress against the mishmash of land units Britain has put together to defend the homeland. If the Commonwealth has carriers, then they can be used to isolate the German units and let the British counterattack rather ruthlessly. Without carriers, the Germans have a real good chance of maintaining air superiority over the necessary sea areas and keeping units in supply and reinforced by sea. This all ties back to an earlier post on this topic which was that destroying the Japanese carriers should be a high priority because it eliminates their offensive capability.

Along a similar vein, as the USA player I often try to build two carrier based task forces that are comparable to what the Japanese can put to sea. I then use one of the carrier task forces to support invasions and the second remains in port to 'shadow' the Japanese fleet. If the Japanese put to sea, the second USA task force engages them. I can accept slightly poorer odds since attrition of naval units is much harder on the Japanese. The Japanese carriers are an offensive capability in that they can initiate naval engagements and destroy my (USA) naval units. As I whittle the Japanese carriers down to few and then none, I increase my range of options on where to attack and how often.

I think I would place attrition as a separate, fourth priority. Though at times it will be much more important. For instance, when the other, higher priorities can not be achieved because there are simply too many enemy units in the way.

You're right.

What you wrote also made me think that this description fills what Mzlin listed as "Force projection " in the "The value of hexes and sea areas" thread, and that you were not sure of being separate from the rest.

CV (and long ranged LBA) can be classified in this Force Projection category. This is an ability that we can also find at land with PARA, MAR and in a lesser extend outflanking units (lesser extend because they are limited by their movement points, the terrain and enemy presence & ZoC), who can all project a force in the enemy territory with the aim of cutting supply thus rending the attack on the main objective be easier.

ORIGINAL: Froonp

In several games I have played I have bypassed Manila early on, concentrating on Singapore/Rangoon and getting as far into the Pacific as possible - sometimes all the way to Pago Pago. It forces the Allies to make a LONG march all the way back, and the PI can be captured AFTER Singapore/Port Moresby, etc. This seems to work better overall, but I'm no expert.

Going that far (Pago Pago, Port Moresby) isn't forcing the USA to make a long march all the way back. The allies have just to keep Pearl, and then open the road to Manila through Truk.
The USA can ignore the isolated Japanese garrisons who are not on its road, and mop them up in the last year of the game, when plenty of air power and more than usual super combined actions are available. I speak from experience.
Manila and the Philippines are critical to the Japanese, against a competent US player and playing Oil, which I assume are the normal conditions. When the US control Manila again, the Japanese are dead.

I agree that Manila and the Philippines are critical - I just disagree about WHEN they are critical. And if Truk is held by a big WP 6-3 or 8-4 with a HQ and a supply unit, and the IJN carriers are around, the USA isn't going through Truk on a shortcut to Manila before '43.

Like I said, I'm no expert, but it seems to me that the trick with the IJN is to keep the threat of massed carriers intact as long as possible so that the USA is off balance. The USA can't afford (because of time restrictions) a major naval defeat in 1942.

Bump. I didn't want this to fall off the end of the thread list and it might be handy to make it more visible for newcomers to read.

Cheers, Neilster

Use your MAR corps if you have to, taking a garrisoned Wake; or Nimitz, the SeaBees, and the Hellcats based there could soon be supporting an attack on the Bonins. And the Bonins can control your fate. (In 43-44 keep MAR reserves to counterattack islands, especially ones like the Bonins on sea-boundaries. You can counterattack from a different sea zone. Optionals control the tactics here again).

If the US has Naval Supply Unit optional, Truk is not as important.

A major Japanese strategic decision can be whether to go for Pearl Harbor. There are pluses and minuses.