Islands of Destiny: RA 5.0 Japanese Side

Post descriptions of your brilliant victories and unfortunate defeats here.

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

User avatar
Bullwinkle58
Posts: 11297
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:47 pm

RE: September 1944

Post by Bullwinkle58 »

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

This is a good topic of discussion. There are a lot of people on this AAR. What do you think from the perspective of Allies or Japanese about possibilities in China?

crsutton is correct. The Burma Road is overrated; transport supply from Ledo is a lot of help. Chungking in Allied hands in 1944 is Very Bad for you.

Your "middle path" in China has "worked" because CR left you alone. That has now changed. 800-squad 1944 Chinese corps with allied tanks and arty are a fair bit as good as Soviets in numbers. And they only cost half VPs when they die.
The Moose
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24063
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

RE: September 1944

Post by Lowpe »

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

This is a good topic of discussion. There are a lot of people on this AAR. What do you think from the perspective of Allies or Japanese about possibilities in China?

crsutton is correct. The Burma Road is overrated; transport supply from Ledo is a lot of help. Chungking in Allied hands in 1944 is Very Bad for you.

Your "middle path" in China has "worked" because CR left you alone. That has now changed. 800-squad 1944 Chinese corps with allied tanks and arty are a fair bit as good as Soviets in numbers. And they only cost half VPs when they die.

+1

Plus, if China was conquered the logical spot for the free non garrison restricted Chinese troops are Paoshan, Hong Kong to Amoy to Wenchow. Odds are he never would have risked an invasion at Foochow.

Not to mention all those lovely victory points plus incredibly talented pilots.

Plus the magic highway would still be transporting some fuel and oil to the east. Well maybe not now...but you get my meaning.


User avatar
JohnDillworth
Posts: 3102
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 5:22 pm

RE: September 1944

Post by JohnDillworth »

As you say, you have to close the Burma road. The longer you keep it closed, the better. When supplies really start to flow , and the Chinese can upgrade to 1943 infantry in numbers it is most troublesome to the Empire
Today I come bearing an olive branch in one hand, and the freedom fighter's gun in the other. Do not let the olive branch fall from my hand. I repeat, do not let the olive branch fall from my hand. - Yasser Arafat Speech to UN General Assembly
User avatar
John 3rd
Posts: 17459
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 5:03 pm
Location: La Salle, Colorado

RE: September 1944

Post by John 3rd »

Yes--I am terrified of him going over to the general offensive. It is bound to happen but the longer he waits to pull that trigger then the better!
Image

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.
Aurorus
Posts: 1314
Joined: Mon May 26, 2014 5:08 pm

RE: September 1944

Post by Aurorus »

A few observations on China. The point about China serving as a bank of VPs is not quite correct in my opinion. In order to get VPs for army losses, squads must be destroyed, usually on a follow-up attack after they have been disabled. Most Chinese units start the game with a large number of disabled squads, which can be destroyed for VPs. However, to fully realize VPs from ground combat, enemy units must be attacked several times, which often means that they must be cut-off and destroyed. Destroyed Chinese units will then reappear at Chungking, which makes the Chungking siege an enormous supply drain... enormous. The question really should be posed in the following manner: can the supply used in China score and equal number or more VPs elsewhere by destroying more ¨permanent¨ allied assets such as U.S., Australian, and British figher planes, bombers, ships, and troops and taking more bases with higher VP value for the purposes of auto-victory?


The strategic consideration is this; which path toward Japan does the Japanese player want to encourage the allies to take. Taking a middle path in China would seem to encourage the allies to focus on the liberation of Burma and to stockpile large amounts of supply in India to ¨awaken¨ the Chinese army once Burma is liberated. Ironically, by avoiding some of the ground war, the strategy of a middle path in China makes the land war for the Asian continet far more important to the outcome of the game. My question is this; isn´t the path through Burma and across the Asian continent the slower path to Japan than that which focuses more on Centpac or the DEI? Secondly, does this ¨middle path¨ in China not encourage the allied player to overlook the DEI, allowing for a stronger late-game Japanese economy in the late war?

In this particular game, Canoerebel did not really ¨take the bate,¨in that he focused more on a southern path through the DEI and into the Phillipines. I suspect, however, that most allied players, under these conditions, would have made Burma their primary focus as early as possible.


User avatar
John 3rd
Posts: 17459
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 5:03 pm
Location: La Salle, Colorado

RE: September 1944

Post by John 3rd »

If I EVER played the Allies I am coming directly across the Central Pacific and GET TO THE HOME ISLANDS as soon as possible. I want my B17/B-24/B-29 plastering the economy by early-1944 if possible. THAT is how to win the war.

Dan appears to be moving into Formosa. GREAT! It will take weeks and he will use up precious troops/squads doing so. If I can get those Tankers home then my economy will go back to roaring through the rest of 1944. If the fuel gets through then I shall slightly expand my aircraft production, engine production, and stockpile my HI. As my Economics Minister states in the title of his AAR "its about the economy--stupid."
Image

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.
User avatar
Bullwinkle58
Posts: 11297
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:47 pm

RE: September 1944

Post by Bullwinkle58 »

ORIGINAL: Aurorus

A few observations on China. The point about China serving as a bank of VPs is not quite correct in my opinion. In order to get VPs for army losses, squads must be destroyed, usually on a follow-up attack after they have been disabled. Most Chinese units start the game with a large number of disabled squads, which can be destroyed for VPs. However, to fully realize VPs from ground combat, enemy units must be attacked several times, which often means that they must be cut-off and destroyed. Destroyed Chinese units will then reappear at Chungking, which makes the Chungking siege an enormous supply drain... enormous. The question really should be posed in the following manner: can the supply used in China score and equal number or more VPs elsewhere by destroying more ¨permanent¨ allied assets such as U.S., Australian, and British figher planes, bombers, ships, and troops and taking more bases with higher VP value for the purposes of auto-victory?


The strategic consideration is this; which path toward Japan does the Japanese player want to encourage the allies to take. Taking a middle path in China would seem to encourage the allies to focus on the liberation of Burma and to stockpile large amounts of supply in India to ¨awaken¨ the Chinese army once Burma is liberated. Ironically, by avoiding some of the ground war, the strategy of a middle path in China makes the land war for the Asian continet far more important to the outcome of the game. My question is this; isn´t the path through Burma and across the Asian continent the slower path to Japan than that which focuses more on Centpac or the DEI? Secondly, does this ¨middle path¨ in China not encourage the allied player to overlook the DEI, allowing for a stronger late-game Japanese economy in the late war?

In this particular game, Canoerebel did not really ¨take the bate,¨in that he focused more on a southern path through the DEI and into the Phillipines. I suspect, however, that most allied players, under these conditions, would have made Burma their primary focus as early as possible.

As an Allied player I don't fight in Burma for China's sake. I fight in Burma because some bases (Rangoon) are huge VP banks. And if Rangoon is successfully taken Burma is the stepping off point for a campaign to Indochina and Malaysia supported by LBA. The AFs on the Burmese and Malaysian coast, such as VP and Georgetown, are murder on carriers. Moving from the Irrawaddy Valley past Lashio and through the mountains onto the northern Chinese plain can be done, but at immense cost to the Allies. The better way into the good stuff in China is CR's away, or coming around the Indochina coast past Hanoi and the east.

Is taking China expensive for Japan? Can be, yes. The siege of Chungking can take 8-12 months. But your analysis ignores what Japan gets other than dead troop VPs. A lot of supply generation. I mean, a lot, if there is fuel. And a lot of HI. Changsha. Chungking is very large if undamaged. The "K" bases to the west are pretty stout in LI. A lot of Resources that flow to the coast. And as has been said it's a training ground for pilots.

If Chungking industry is intact, stockpiling is ON, and there is a robust transport plane supply op over the Hump, 4E operations are possible from there in 1944-45. Swing a range arc from Chungking and compare to B-29 extended ranges.
The Moose
Aurorus
Posts: 1314
Joined: Mon May 26, 2014 5:08 pm

RE: September 1944

Post by Aurorus »

B-29 extended range is 35 hexes. There are many positions from which B-29s can threaten Japan in 1944 and 1945. If the allied player wishes to use vast numbers of transports (and lose many to operations) to keep his B-29 fleet flying at extended range unesorted over targets, rather than using these supplies to refurbish the Chinese army, I am willing to accept that. I would prefer it, in fact, to having the B-29 fleet easily supplied by sea at a place such as Clark Field while transports fly over the hump reinvigorating the Chinese army.

The question is not one of ignoring China. It is one of ¨going all-in¨ on China. It has become an axium that Japan must go ¨all-in in China,¨ and I question the logic of this assumption. A limited Chinese campaign will get some of the ¨low-hanging¨ fruit of extra supply generation in China without using vast quantities of supply in exchange for small, later-game gains in central China.

As you point out, trying to slog through the mountains into China is not a happy path for the allies. It is a grueling slow path with limited supply transport. This tends to support my case that the complete conquest of China and the complete destruction of the Chinese army is not an essential component to every Japanese plan for the war.

I do not see the value of an all-in campaign in China as a training ground for pilots. Fighter pilots will gain experience flying CAP over bases regardless of whether Japan is bombing China daily or not. LBA has limited use outside of China in the later game for Japan... so, in effect, by bombing China, mostly what one accomplishes is to train pilots for more bombing of China.
User avatar
Bullwinkle58
Posts: 11297
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:47 pm

RE: September 1944

Post by Bullwinkle58 »

ORIGINAL: Aurorus

B-29 extended range is 35 hexes. There are many positions from which B-29s can threaten Japan in 1944 and 1945. If the allied player wishes to use vast numbers of transports (and lose many to operations) to keep his B-29 fleet flying at extended range unesorted over targets, rather than using these supplies to refurbish the Chinese army, I am willing to accept that. I would prefer it, in fact, to having the B-29 fleet easily supplied by sea at a place such as Clark Field while transports fly over the hump reinvigorating the Chinese army.

The question is not one of ignoring China. It is one of ¨going all-in¨ on China. It has become an axium that Japan must go ¨all-in in China,¨ and I question the logic of this assumption. A limited Chinese campaign will get some of the ¨low-hanging¨ fruit of extra supply generation in China without using vast quantities of supply in exchange for small, later-game gains in central China.

As you point out, trying to slog through the mountains into China is not a happy path for the allies. It is a grueling slow path with limited supply transport. This tends to support my case that the complete conquest of China and the complete destruction of the Chinese army is not an essential component to every Japanese plan for the war.

I do not see the value of an all-in campaign in China as a training ground for pilots. Fighter pilots will gain experience flying CAP over bases regardless of whether Japan is bombing China daily or not. LBA has limited use outside of China in the later game for Japan... so, in effect, by bombing China, mostly what one accomplishes is to train pilots for more bombing of China.

If Chungking, Changsha, and the other supply generators (including those with free organic daily supply) are left in Allied hands, the transport effort over the Hump is much less important. A 4E campaign could be waged without them, although not an all-out campaign.

You posit using Clark instead. Is regaining Clark easy or cheap for the Allies? Hardly. And it's not an apples to apples question either. If I lose China and have a choice between getting it back for 4E purposes, or retaking Clark, I do the latter. Here we are discussing Japan letting me keep Chungking for free. Easier decision. In fact, if I have Chungking throughout I don't need to wait for 1944 for a 4E party. I can base B-24s there and run rampant over most of China's industry at night. No need for long-range escorts.

The "low-hanging fruit" for Japan's supply is not easy to get either. Look where it is, look at the terrain. Even if Chungking is ignored--and it really can't be if China is to be shut down--the other major industrial cities are a fight for Japan through much of 1942.

But again, if the Allies are gifted China, or just northern China, there's little reason to slog past Lashio. With the resurrection rule and internal supply, plus some transported, China can backstab Japan all by itself in 1944-45. It can't win by itself, but it can bleed them. And the resurrection rule never expires.
The Moose
Aurorus
Posts: 1314
Joined: Mon May 26, 2014 5:08 pm

RE: September 1944

Post by Aurorus »

Well... maybe one day we will play a game against one another. I am sure that I would not let you ¨run rampant¨ over China with B-24s at night. They would be on the ground in the day-time and give me a target worth training bomber pilots for. The strat bombing goes both ways as well. If I were to strat bomb Chungking and Kumming... well.. that does change things a bit in terms of how much supply you would need to bring in to keep your CAP flying in the daytime to protect your bombers, which are flying at night.
adarbrauner
Posts: 1510
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 3:40 am
Location: Zichron Yaaqov, Israel; Before, Treviso, Italy

RE: September 1944

Post by adarbrauner »

The main reason I would not press for final solution of China is to spare divisions and air assets for other objectives, namely India and/or Australia. Then, for active and aggressive defense of the perimeter.

true though, that chinese cities are very good HI suppliers; and that I'd like to prevent the idea of a ramping Chinese army supported by allied air power later in the war;
User avatar
Bullwinkle58
Posts: 11297
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:47 pm

RE: September 1944

Post by Bullwinkle58 »

ORIGINAL: Aurorus

Well... maybe one day we will play a game against one another. I am sure that I would not let you ¨run rampant¨ over China with B-24s at night. They would be on the ground in the day-time and give me a target worth training bomber pilots for. The strat bombing goes both ways as well. If I were to strat bomb Chungking and Kumming... well.. that does change things a bit in terms of how much supply you would need to bring in to keep your CAP flying in the daytime to protect your bombers, which are flying at night.

China starts with some AA; I move it to Chungking in the first weeks. By 1943 I have good enough fighters to stand up to IJA 2Es for the most part.
The Moose
GetAssista
Posts: 2818
Joined: Sat Sep 19, 2009 6:13 am

RE: September 1944

Post by GetAssista »

I'd like to add a couple more points in favor of taking China:
1. Big sieges are IMO the best XP trainer for assaulting troops and artillery. Moreso when the defender is lacking in heavy arms. It will be hard to take CK, but your IDs will all be 90+ by the time you finish if you do it right.
2. Leaving behind Chinese bases invites deep bomber raids. Allies do not need a full-scale strat bombing campaign to make you twitch, just an occasional 4E port strike. Means sizeable CAP at all times minimum in HK & Shanghai with Chinese CK (and god forbid Changsha). Quite an investment, and you still can never feel safe
Aurorus
Posts: 1314
Joined: Mon May 26, 2014 5:08 pm

RE: September 1944

Post by Aurorus »

I guess that my point is this: the airwar in 1943 and 1944 is going to be fought mostly over Japanese air-space regardless of Japan`s approach in China. If the allies wish to concentrate their air assets in China using a dubious supply path and using supplies that would otherwise go to the Chinese army, this does not disuade me from pursuing a less aggressive path in China.
What would concern me more is that these same supplies would go the Chinese army instead.

Here we have a game where John has pursued a less aggressive path in China, and none of these horrible things that people say would happen to Japan have happened. John is fighting effectively, and he still has a chance to win this game. Though this is unlikely, fighting Canoerebel to a draw, on the scoresheet, is not out of the question. Would I pursue a less aggressive approach in China against an allied player who defends China poorly? No, but I certainly would consider a less aggressive approach in China against an allied player who maximizes the Chinese defense in 1942. In fact, I am taking a less aggressive approach in China in one of my games now, because my opponent did a good job retreating to defensive terrain and establishing a defense in depth. In this case, I believ that the supplies that would have been used in China are best used elsewhere. Mostly, I wish to keep sortieing aircraft in numbers throughout 1943 so as to contest air superiority across the map as vigorously as possible for as long as possible. That is the point.

Players who regularly play the allies are probably not familiar with the supply and fuel constraints that Japan begins to feel after the first 4 months of the war. Sending 100K supply to China from Honshu and Korea each month is an enormous drain on the Japanese economy and does create supply shortages in other frontline areas, especially if Japan wants to build a supply reserve on the Home Islands. Japan can contest for air supremacy throughout 1943 and fight vigorously in China, but no supplies will remain in reserve and the Japanese economy will burn out in late 1943 against a human opponent. Even in Ironman AI games, achieving auto-victory over the AI on Jan. 1 1944 usually leaves the Japanese economy at near empty, and the AI will shovel the player VPs, unlike most human opponents.
User avatar
John 3rd
Posts: 17459
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 5:03 pm
Location: La Salle, Colorado

RE: September 1944

Post by John 3rd »

September 2, 1944

Good discussion as always guys. Think this kind of thing is REALLY important for new and middling players to get the diverse views on a subject like this.

This turn goes fairly well.

GOOD: Vinh falls to a 6-1 assault. The Infantry Divisions head both north and south. Want to totally disrupt the offensive happening there. Bring roughly half of the 116th to Haiphong to strengthen it and bring in 9,000 supply. Will try an attack out of there within a few days.

BAD: Taichu falls to a 94-1 attack by the Allies. Good. Dan is now enticed into continuing the assault here. We want that. It will be bloody for the Japanese but should occupy the Allies for a few weeks. On the BRIGHT side, I will have a bunch of units to buy back for Homeland defense.

TK-6 joins together and moves east. No resistance. Need two days and then we're good.

With the competing CV TFs at sea, it is NOT safe to be an Air Search pilot these days.



Image
Attachments
090244.jpg
090244.jpg (732.18 KiB) Viewed 69 times
Image

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.
User avatar
MakeeLearn
Posts: 4274
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 1:01 pm

RE: September 1944

Post by MakeeLearn »

John 3rd

With the competing CV TFs at sea, it is NOT safe to be an Air Search pilot these days.


For night search, are you using any of the radar float planes yet?






adarbrauner
Posts: 1510
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 3:40 am
Location: Zichron Yaaqov, Israel; Before, Treviso, Italy

RE: September 1944

Post by adarbrauner »

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

September 2, 1944


GOOD: Vinh falls to a 6-1 assault. The Infantry Divisions head both north and south. Want to totally disrupt the offensive happening there. Bring roughly half of the 116th to Haiphong to strengthen it and bring in 9,000 supply. Will try an attack out of there within a few days.

BAD: Taichu falls to a 94-1 attack by the Allies. Good. Dan is now enticed into continuing the assault here. We want that. It will be bloody for the Japanese but should occupy the Allies for a few weeks. On the BRIGHT side, I will have a bunch of units to buy back for Homeland defense.


After the fall of Formosa, how shall your main defnsive line look like in South Western Asia (indochina, etc)?
User avatar
crsutton
Posts: 9590
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2002 8:56 pm
Location: Maryland

RE: September 1944

Post by crsutton »

ORIGINAL: Aurorus

A few observations on China. The point about China serving as a bank of VPs is not quite correct in my opinion. In order to get VPs for army losses, squads must be destroyed, usually on a follow-up attack after they have been disabled. Most Chinese units start the game with a large number of disabled squads, which can be destroyed for VPs. However, to fully realize VPs from ground combat, enemy units must be attacked several times, which often means that they must be cut-off and destroyed. Destroyed Chinese units will then reappear at Chungking, which makes the Chungking siege an enormous supply drain... enormous. The question really should be posed in the following manner: can the supply used in China score and equal number or more VPs elsewhere by destroying more ¨permanent¨ allied assets such as U.S., Australian, and British figher planes, bombers, ships, and troops and taking more bases with higher VP value for the purposes of auto-victory?


The strategic consideration is this; which path toward Japan does the Japanese player want to encourage the allies to take. Taking a middle path in China would seem to encourage the allies to focus on the liberation of Burma and to stockpile large amounts of supply in India to ¨awaken¨ the Chinese army once Burma is liberated. Ironically, by avoiding some of the ground war, the strategy of a middle path in China makes the land war for the Asian continet far more important to the outcome of the game. My question is this; isn´t the path through Burma and across the Asian continent the slower path to Japan than that which focuses more on Centpac or the DEI? Secondly, does this ¨middle path¨ in China not encourage the allied player to overlook the DEI, allowing for a stronger late-game Japanese economy in the late war?

In this particular game, Canoerebel did not really ¨take the bate,¨in that he focused more on a southern path through the DEI and into the Phillipines. I suspect, however, that most allied players, under these conditions, would have made Burma their primary focus as early as possible.



Well, I have yet to see a Japanese campaign come to anything when the Japanese player did not take China out. The problem is for Japan is that Burma will eventually fall to the Allies and once the road into China is open then supply flows amazingly well into the interior. (should not but it does) Then the issue is not necessarily land combat but big Allies airbases that can support operations against Chinese, Korean and eventually Japanese industry. North China is not so important to take, but to have any chance for an endgame the Japanese player must push through to the west-preferably all the way to Burma. Then when time comes to evacuate Burma, a solid defense can be put up in the mountains of Western China. That is what would then make it unattractive for the Allies to fight into China.

Leave Central China in Allied hands and I can pretty much guarantee you will see an eventual invasion of the Chinese mainland and a rapid collapse of Japan on the mainland.

As for diverting strength, the Allies have strength to spare. I always seek an active front in India, Burma, China and SE Asia for two reasons. It is a constant major resource burn on Japan, and the best way to train up Allied troops to expert levels is by constant fighting. By the end of my last campaign, my Indian troops were all crack units. Not necessarily full TOE but kickass nonetheless. [;)]
I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg
User avatar
crsutton
Posts: 9590
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2002 8:56 pm
Location: Maryland

RE: September 1944

Post by crsutton »

Oh yeah, another reason....fighting in SE Asia can be done for them most part without carrier support. If the Allies screw up and suffer a major carrier loss in 42-43 and do not have fighting going on in SE asia, then the Allies player is in a good position to lose. That is, a battle of attrition in the East will at least keep a foot door while rebuilding in the Pacific. You always hope for the best, but must plan for the worst.
I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg
User avatar
Bullwinkle58
Posts: 11297
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:47 pm

RE: September 1944

Post by Bullwinkle58 »

ORIGINAL: Aurorus

I guess that my point is this: the airwar in 1943 and 1944 is going to be fought mostly over Japanese air-space regardless of Japan`s approach in China. If the allies wish to concentrate their air assets in China using a dubious supply path and using supplies that would otherwise go to the Chinese army, this does not disuade me from pursuing a less aggressive path in China.
What would concern me more is that these same supplies would go the Chinese army instead.

Well, let's not go overboard on the points being made. I wouldn't ever concentrate my air effort in China. But if Chungking were handed to me I'd use it, sure. I would probably shuttle 4Es in from Ledo for hit-and-run strikes, but I'd put decent CAP at CK to deter fishing. B-29s from Ledo can reach HK, which makes Japan base significant fighter volume there, but they can't go to Shanghai, or any of the good Manchurian aircraft industry targets.

When looking at this game one also has to heavily factor in the HRs on strat bombing and especially night bombing. They have given John a safety blanket. A no-HR game with an Allied northern China would be a whole different proposition.

But overall this discussion shows once again how many ways there are to play the game. Weighing costs and benefits.
The Moose
Post Reply

Return to “After Action Reports”