Matrix Games Forums

Space Program Manager Launch Contest Announced!Battle Academy 2 is out now on iPad!A closer look at rockets in Space Program ManagerDeal of the Week - Pride of NationsA new update for Piercing Fortress EuropaNew screenshots for War in the West!Pike & Shot is now available!Server Maintenance Battle Academy 2 gets updated!Deal of the Week: Advanced Tactics Gold
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

australian defeat

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room >> australian defeat Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
australian defeat - 3/20/2013 11:56:35 PM   
everton

 

Posts: 11
Joined: 6/22/2011
Status: offline

as a newbie, i read somewhere that the ai will not invade oz (not sure if this is true), however in a pbem what are the ramifications of the total loss of australia.......... does it affect australian troops in other areas such as burma, and replacements etc, can the game still be won by the allied player
Post #: 1
RE: australian defeat - 3/21/2013 12:09:52 AM   
Quixote


Posts: 748
Joined: 8/14/2008
From: Maryland
Status: offline
In a PBEM, the ramifications for losing all of Australia would probably be a Japanese auto-victory. If that doesn't happen, though - yes, the Allies could still win. The Aussies still on the map would continue to fight like normal and receive replacements like normal throughout this process. Additionally, you would get special reinforcement troops (and planes) if your Japanese opponent chooses to cross a certain line while invading Australia (or India or North America) that you would otherwise never receive during play. There are a few threads around detailing these additional units and exactly how you get them- if you're searching the forums, I seem to remember that Bullwinkle wrote/started a good one.

(in reply to everton)
Post #: 2
RE: australian defeat - 3/21/2013 12:36:29 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11244
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
In my Racing the Sunrise AAR I chronicle how I have taken Australia in my RA Game against Lew. Within it are the exact reinforcements that the Allied Player gains. Our VP score is roughly 4-1 right now but Lew is still soldiering on looking, with hope, to 1943.


_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/


(in reply to Quixote)
Post #: 3
RE: australian defeat - 3/21/2013 12:57:49 AM   
rockmedic109

 

Posts: 2020
Joined: 5/17/2005
From: Citrus Heights, CA
Status: offline
The AI will invade Australia in DaBabes Ironman. Something I discovered the hard way. I won't say where or with how much, however. That way if someone else gets blind-sided by the "unintelligent" AI, I can feel better about my generalship...or lack thereof.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 4
RE: australian defeat - 3/21/2013 1:54:01 AM   
crsutton


Posts: 7240
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline
A top player can take OZ vs maybe an inexperience Allied player. But it is not easy to do. There are lots of counters. Don't fear it too much. Unless of course, you are playing John in his own RA mod... If you get into an email game and feel like you are over matched or in trouble then just come to the forum and ask for advice. Plenty of it here fer sure....

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to rockmedic109)
Post #: 5
RE: australian defeat - 3/21/2013 2:40:20 AM   
topeverest

 

Posts: 2324
Joined: 10/17/2007
From: Houston, TX - USA
Status: offline
I never lost or took Oz in any stock scenario in PBEM. I've lost it in my current PBEM mod, against a much stronger empire though. It's a pretty big deal to be sure. If the game can still be 'won' by the allies, you will have to check back with me a bit. I can't say yet.

The logic awards allied Oz invasion reinforcements under certain conditions. There is some magic in not knowing what or how you get them. IMHO I wouldnt seek the answer out if you dont know it.

_____________________________

Andy M

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 6
RE: australian defeat - 3/21/2013 3:05:00 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11244
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Sutton is correct. If this is a real fear or concern ALWAYS pose your situation to the Forum. The number of quality people with this game is amazing.

_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/


(in reply to topeverest)
Post #: 7
RE: australian defeat - 3/21/2013 3:21:41 AM   
Quixote


Posts: 748
Joined: 8/14/2008
From: Maryland
Status: offline
By the way everton, welcome to the game! (I should have noticed this earlier - obviously patience is something you don't need much practice at since you joined the forums a year and a half ago and this is your first post! That kind of patience will serve you well in this game.) If you haven't already figured it out, the learning curve here can be steep (which is occasionally very frustrating) so if you have any more questions, by all means don't wait another year or so to ask them.

(in reply to topeverest)
Post #: 8
RE: australian defeat - 3/21/2013 5:17:03 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11244
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Well said Quixote!

_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/


(in reply to Quixote)
Post #: 9
RE: australian defeat - 3/21/2013 12:44:12 PM   
General Patton


Posts: 1298
Joined: 1/23/2010
From: Mass. USA. now in OHIO
Status: offline
Yeah, I was playing the game for awhile before I even joined the form. once I did it was a little easier to play the game by reading some of the forums. In perticulair, read the "for Newbees" post. A lot of very good info from very smart people. Welcome and Cheers

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 10
RE: australian defeat - 3/21/2013 9:19:16 PM   
everton

 

Posts: 11
Joined: 6/22/2011
Status: offline
thanks for the advice,

i did join the forum awhile ago but got sidetracked anyway i am totally obsessed by the game,it sort of sucks you in,

i asked the question about australia as i read it somewhere in a post here and was wondering wether the ai in the stock campaign as the japs does ever attempt to take australia, it would sort of alter the way you play the game in a big way if it were true



(in reply to General Patton)
Post #: 11
RE: australian defeat - 3/21/2013 9:29:15 PM   
General Patton


Posts: 1298
Joined: 1/23/2010
From: Mass. USA. now in OHIO
Status: offline
I dont think the AI will or can attack OZ. I've played the stock scenario 1 six or so times and it has bombed the hell out of Darwin a couple of times, but have yet to see it attack OZ. I am now playing the Ironman game. im at the end of dec 41 and other than a few ijn air units and the early taking of Rabaul, nothing out of the ordinary yet. But i hear it gets interesting. Have fun. its the name of the game.
Cheers

(in reply to everton)
Post #: 12
RE: australian defeat - 3/21/2013 10:02:13 PM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 6023
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/now in Israel
Status: offline
AI did attempt few invasions of Australia in my Allies vs. IJ AI game. Not doing to say where, but it was bit scary first.

_____________________________

"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von Bülov, 1870-


(in reply to General Patton)
Post #: 13
RE: australian defeat - 3/21/2013 11:18:04 PM   
DivePac88


Posts: 3115
Joined: 10/9/2008
From: Somewhere in the South Pacific.
Status: offline
Australia is always doable in an evenly matched Pbem campaign, by an experienced Japanese player. As the Allied player is; by in large, incapable of influencing the major events early in the game. If the Japanese player really wishes, then uses power-projection and force concentration correctly. He can realistically take any target on the map, but holding and supplying this position after six months is another question.

_____________________________


When you see the Southern Cross, For the first time
You understand now, Why you came this way

(in reply to Sardaukar)
Post #: 14
RE: australian defeat - 3/21/2013 11:20:14 PM   
everton

 

Posts: 11
Joined: 6/22/2011
Status: offline
glad to hear that i was kinda hopin the ai had that trick up its sleeve

guess i can cancel my plans to move anyone in oz who can hold a rifle to pt moresby then

(in reply to Sardaukar)
Post #: 15
RE: australian defeat - 3/22/2013 3:34:32 AM   
Blackhorse


Posts: 1926
Joined: 8/20/2000
From: Eastern US
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

If you get into an email game and feel like you are over matched or in trouble then just come to the forum and ask for advice. Plenty of it here fer sure....


Reminds me of a quote by Brooke or one of Churchill's top generals (that I'm paraphrasing from memory): "Each day he had a dozen new ideas. One of them was brilliant, and the rest were bulls--t. The trouble was, it was hard to tell which were which."

_____________________________

WitP-AE -- US LCU & AI Stuff

Oddball: Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?
Moriarty: Crap!

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 16
RE: australian defeat - 3/22/2013 5:40:21 AM   
Jim D Burns


Posts: 3183
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Salida, CA.
Status: offline
When pondering the ramifications of a Japanese capture of all of Australia in game, I personally think it's a strategic mistake for Japan to do so. The trick for Japan is to get the allies heavily invested in trying to defend Australia vs. a Japanese invasion so he keeps pumping assets into the place. A single cargo ship run to OZ might bring in 5000 supply. But if the allies give up on trying to supply the place, that same ship can make 3 or 4 times as many trips into the closer Pacific bases in the same time frame as the single run to OZ, building up supplies and fuel for campaigns much faster.

The consequences to the allied player if Australia is lost (other than VPs lost) is exactly zero. In fact it frees the allies of the burden of defending and supplying the place. And allows them to concentrate all their assets into a Central Pacific and Burma push at the exact time when Japan is now spread out across a vast southern continent.

So if going to Australia as Japan your goal should be to keep the balance of power on that continent on a knifes edge to goad your opponent into bringing in more and more stuff. The longer the allies stay invested in a fight for Australia the longer Japan's perimeter will stay safe from serious attack. Kill off Australia and the allies will simply bypass the south and head straight towards the Marianas.

Jim


< Message edited by Jim D Burns -- 3/22/2013 5:41:34 AM >


_____________________________



(in reply to everton)
Post #: 17
RE: australian defeat - 3/22/2013 6:14:37 AM   
JeffK


Posts: 5197
Joined: 1/26/2005
From: Back in the Office, Can I get my tin hut back!
Status: offline
It is a balance, and it could be that the JFB spends more resources in keeping OZ alive than he would in taking the place?

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to Jim D Burns)
Post #: 18
RE: australian defeat - 3/22/2013 7:27:04 AM   
Jim D Burns


Posts: 3183
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Salida, CA.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

It is a balance, and it could be that the JFB spends more resources in keeping OZ alive than he would in taking the place?


Right but Oz is an end point to Japan's expansion for the most part and will see allied counter-attacks begin either during or right after the campaign there, so you have to ask yourself why are you going there if not to help your defense timelines? Taking all of OZ is probably doable if you commit to it, but by the time you're finished the allies should be poised to start making their first serious strikes into Japanese territory and you'll have a lot of stuff out of position in an area the allies will no longer even care about.

If you can get the allies to bring a ton of stuff into OZ to try and stop a perceived Japanese conquest, all that stuff won't be sitting out in the Pacific just waiting to load onto ships to head into the Marshall's. Instead its committed to fighting Japan in OZ and until they push you out they are not likely to shift a large enough force to the Pacific to make early strikes into your outer perimeter probable.

But if the allies see OZ is a lost cause early on with no real chance to save it, all the stuff normally sent to the SW Pacific, South Pacific and Australia commands will more than likely just head to Pearl to get ready to strike west instead. From a strategic point of view I think it is far better for Japan to spend time and resources on a huge grinding attrition fight in OZ than on a dangerous island hopping campaign in the Pacific.

The timing of when to pack up and leave OZ comes into play of course as you don't want the eventual initiative shift to the allies to overwhelm you before you can leave the place. But keeping the main allied effort in 42 and 43 focused on a huge fight in OZ is to me a victory for the Japanese cause. It can easily set back allied timelines by six months to a year if they commit a lot of extra stuff to the fight there that normally would see service in SEAC or Pacific commands.

Jim


_____________________________



(in reply to JeffK)
Post #: 19
RE: australian defeat - 3/22/2013 8:40:59 AM   
castor troy


Posts: 12272
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

When pondering the ramifications of a Japanese capture of all of Australia in game, I personally think it's a strategic mistake for Japan to do so. The trick for Japan is to get the allies heavily invested in trying to defend Australia vs. a Japanese invasion so he keeps pumping assets into the place. A single cargo ship run to OZ might bring in 5000 supply. But if the allies give up on trying to supply the place, that same ship can make 3 or 4 times as many trips into the closer Pacific bases in the same time frame as the single run to OZ, building up supplies and fuel for campaigns much faster.

The consequences to the allied player if Australia is lost (other than VPs lost) is exactly zero. In fact it frees the allies of the burden of defending and supplying the place. And allows them to concentrate all their assets into a Central Pacific and Burma push at the exact time when Japan is now spread out across a vast southern continent.

So if going to Australia as Japan your goal should be to keep the balance of power on that continent on a knifes edge to goad your opponent into bringing in more and more stuff. The longer the allies stay invested in a fight for Australia the longer Japan's perimeter will stay safe from serious attack. Kill off Australia and the allies will simply bypass the south and head straight towards the Marianas.

Jim




The main advantage is destroying Allied units IMO! Supply? It doesn't matter where I send my freighters with supply, there are so many of them around, it doesn't matter if they go to CENTPAC or Australia, India or will just stay in port.

In 42 a Japanese player shouldn't look at where the Allied player is weak to overrun empty territory, he should aim at targets where the enemy is actually "strong", but not strong enough to defeat an attack. Why am I saying this? Because in my ongoing PBEM against Cuttlefish, we are in 7/43, the Allied have taken everything back except CENTPAC, Luzon and Formosa, Chinese hordes are running amoc and by early 44 I can attempt to land on Japan. The Japanese have lost nearly 7000 pts for ground losses already and are facing 30,000 Chinese av, 10,000 Commonwealth av and 10,000 US av that are preparing for Japanese targets and are taking them out one by one.

So the Japanese are facing roughly 50,000 Allied av in mid 43. All I have lost during the Japanese storm early on was the stuff in the SRA (minus 1000 Dutch av that never surrendered on Java). 50,000 Allied av was more than I expected, granted, 30,000 Chinese av included but have you ever seen a fully supplied, fully prepped Chinese Army of 15,000 av attack the Japanese? It's like an avalanche, so the Chinese are definately worth it. Destroying a couple of thousand Commonwealth/US av during the course of 42 would really mean something though. The Chinese need supply, they get supply from Burma, lose Burma, "activate" the Chinese. Hold Burma and you don't face the 30,000 Chinese av on the offensive. So by saying this, I would aim at destroying Commonwealth units in India as those are the key for Burma. Australia is the key to the SRA, but as the Japanese you probably can only lock one door, not two. My logic would be to keep the Commonwealth Army from taking Burma, stall the Chinese by doing so and bringing Japanese units from China to either North Australia or the Southern SRA to defend the fast track into the SRA. You can't defend Australia as the Japanese, the Allied can land a couple of thousand av anywhere in Australia in early 43, a strong defense in Northern Australia would be the better option then IMO.

I think the most important thing to do in 42 early 43 (as long as the Japanese offensive runs) is to destroy Allied ground troops. Taking empty terrain if the Japanese don't kill Allied troops would pretty much mean nothing to me as an Allied player.


< Message edited by castor troy -- 3/22/2013 8:50:34 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Jim D Burns)
Post #: 20
RE: australian defeat - 3/22/2013 2:42:33 PM   
Jim D Burns


Posts: 3183
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Salida, CA.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy
Taking empty terrain if the Japanese don't kill Allied troops would pretty much mean nothing to me as an Allied player.


That's why I said goad him into defending it by making him feel he can win. A sharp fast huge offensive into OZ will see the allied player simply give up on defending it. Sure Japan destroys everything there, but most of that is fixed stuff the allies never use anyway. If the allies see a chance to win in OZ, they will more than likely bring forces in from wherever they can to try and win the fight. And while they are doing that they are not attacking other areas with that stuff.

If you've come to OZ as the Japanese, then by 43 you should be making plans to leave if not already in the process of leaving. I do think it's feasible to fight a delaying withdraw up the east coast if you plan it well that will let you stay till perhaps April 43, but by then full evacuation should be underway. I'd only plan to stay at Darwin longer than that.

As to your game you are making a lot of strategic decisions in your post based on a very strong and favorable allied position. That is simply not typical for 95%+ of the games out there. It would be a mistake to base Japanese strategy on a game that is that successful as it might lead you to far over-estimate true allied capabilities and thus limit yourself too much.

Jim

_____________________________



(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 21
RE: australian defeat - 3/22/2013 4:11:43 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 12272
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns


quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy
Taking empty terrain if the Japanese don't kill Allied troops would pretty much mean nothing to me as an Allied player.


That's why I said goad him into defending it by making him feel he can win. A sharp fast huge offensive into OZ will see the allied player simply give up on defending it. Sure Japan destroys everything there, but most of that is fixed stuff the allies never use anyway. If the allies see a chance to win in OZ, they will more than likely bring forces in from wherever they can to try and win the fight. And while they are doing that they are not attacking other areas with that stuff.

If you've come to OZ as the Japanese, then by 43 you should be making plans to leave if not already in the process of leaving. I do think it's feasible to fight a delaying withdraw up the east coast if you plan it well that will let you stay till perhaps April 43, but by then full evacuation should be underway. I'd only plan to stay at Darwin longer than that.

As to your game you are making a lot of strategic decisions in your post based on a very strong and favorable allied position. That is simply not typical for 95%+ of the games out there. It would be a mistake to base Japanese strategy on a game that is that successful as it might lead you to far over-estimate true allied capabilities and thus limit yourself too much.

Jim



oh, it's not my first AE full campaign, let alone WITP. And all (those where the IJ commander hasn't vanished) went the same line plus minus 6 months (compared to the PBEM I've mentioned plus 6 months of course). There are very few strategic decisions in the end and due to the map always being the same, you don't get so many choices, there are just a couple of big arrows on the map pointing towards Japan, no matter how the fight goes.

_____________________________


(in reply to Jim D Burns)
Post #: 22
RE: australian defeat - 3/22/2013 9:38:43 PM   
everton

 

Posts: 11
Joined: 6/22/2011
Status: offline
actually i was thinkin histrorically , if australia gets invaded before nov 42 would not Torch be cancelled and all the us assetts assigned be diverted to the pacific, it was after all a world war, within the game should not invading australia imo reflect this reality, invade oz and risk the US goin 'pacfic first'

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 23
RE: australian defeat - 3/24/2013 4:56:45 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11244
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Castor---HI Sir!--is spot-on with his comments about destroying LCUs. Want to keep those replacement pools dry as a bone!


_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/


(in reply to everton)
Post #: 24
RE: australian defeat - 3/24/2013 7:29:19 AM   
Jim D Burns


Posts: 3183
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Salida, CA.
Status: offline
Heh... the notion that Japan could kill off enough allied troops to prevent the allies from being able to form new formations to replace them as a viable "strategy" for fighting WWII in the Pacific...

Sometimes this game leaves me in stunned silence.

All the while Japan's replacements are virtually unlimited in game.

Jim


_____________________________



(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 25
RE: australian defeat - 3/24/2013 4:42:32 PM   
Crackaces


Posts: 2621
Joined: 7/9/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

Heh... the notion that Japan could kill off enough allied troops to prevent the allies from being able to form new formations to replace them as a viable "strategy" for fighting WWII in the Pacific...

Sometimes this game leaves me in stunned silence.

All the while Japan's replacements are virtually unlimited in game.

Jim



The strategy of exhausting Allied pools takes Scenario #2, where the IJ become fully enriched prewar with supplies and materials and decide on world conquest. Also the world decide not only to reduce BB's but to create home rules like no 4E attacks below 10,000 feet, no use of 4E's for ground attacks in the open etc. severely reducing options so teh IJ can use thier 2E's with great effectiveness in China without likewise Allied effectiveness. Without such rules IJ units in the open with zero aircover become targets the IJ cannot replace Getting Allied armor vs. IJA in open hexes becomes a real killing field. One other thing, the game has changed over the past few Beta's where as I guess before supply did not move North from Alice Springs but I can say definitely it does now. That changes the game.

I am not comparing history with such constraints ...

_____________________________

Patients and providers of healthcare win with interprofessional practice http://ipep.arizona.edu/blog

(in reply to Jim D Burns)
Post #: 26
RE: australian defeat - 3/24/2013 4:48:25 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 8626
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

It is a balance, and it could be that the JFB spends more resources in keeping OZ alive than he would in taking the place?


I don't think many Japanese players who invade Oz have closely looked at the garrison requirements for holding the thing. They get all het up over Darwin and Katherine, Perth and Geraldton. Big deal. They never add up the LCUs required to take and hold Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane.

Allied players are also usually like that dog in "Up" whenever a Japanese boot touches sacred Australian soil.

"Squirrel!!!"

If Oz is part of an auto-vic strategy, fine. It can be used for that. But without an auto-vic strategy it's like that old joke I keep trotting out about the dog that chased cars. What does he do with it once he catches it?

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to JeffK)
Post #: 27
RE: australian defeat - 3/25/2013 4:29:13 AM   
topeverest

 

Posts: 2324
Joined: 10/17/2007
From: Houston, TX - USA
Status: offline
I think there is a strong argument for partial empire investment in Oz, as has been stated above and before. Allied launching northwest from Darwin certainly is one of the great early strategic threats to the empire. I also agree that assuming they are taken, the risks of continuning to hold major portions of Oz (excluding NW) into 1943 are great. In 43, the empire has the best chance for meaningful victory in the counterpulse at the point of allied invasion. Continental war against massed 4E and 2E is not a recipie for success, especially when the IJN can no longer realistically protect a withdrawl for Oz.

In this classic time and distance problem that is AE, there is no easy empire force allocation answer, but IMHO, Oz divestment needs to be planned if any meaningful subset of forces is to be saved.

_____________________________

Andy M

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 28
RE: australian defeat - 3/25/2013 4:45:27 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11244
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

It is a balance, and it could be that the JFB spends more resources in keeping OZ alive than he would in taking the place?


I don't think many Japanese players who invade Oz have closely looked at the garrison requirements for holding the thing. They get all het up over Darwin and Katherine, Perth and Geraldton. Big deal. They never add up the LCUs required to take and hold Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane.

Allied players are also usually like that dog in "Up" whenever a Japanese boot touches sacred Australian soil.

"Squirrel!!!"

If Oz is part of an auto-vic strategy, fine. It can be used for that. But without an auto-vic strategy it's like that old joke I keep trotting out about the dog that chased cars. What does he do with it once he catches it?


Great note Bullwinkle. I have about 5 Inf Div worth of Garrison Requirements right now. While using Brigades and Regiments helps, I figure keeping Aussieland pacified will require 3 full strength ID plus the smaller fry. This is just to fulfill requirements. Doesn't say anything about trying to defend even just a portion of the place.



_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/


(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 29
RE: australian defeat - 3/25/2013 1:33:54 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 8626
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: topeverest

I think there is a strong argument for partial empire investment in Oz, as has been stated above and before. Allied launching northwest from Darwin certainly is one of the great early strategic threats to the empire. I also agree that assuming they are taken, the risks of continuning to hold major portions of Oz (excluding NW) into 1943 are great. In 43, the empire has the best chance for meaningful victory in the counterpulse at the point of allied invasion. Continental war against massed 4E and 2E is not a recipie for success, especially when the IJN can no longer realistically protect a withdrawl for Oz.

In this classic time and distance problem that is AE, there is no easy empire force allocation answer, but IMHO, Oz divestment needs to be planned if any meaningful subset of forces is to be saved.


I've always been unpersuaded of Darwin's value. In the old days when supplies flowed there freely there was an argument. Now that supply does not everything in Darwin has to be shipped anyway. As easy to tell the ships to continnue on to their invasion objectives without the interim stop.

That presupposes that I think the DEI is a proper place for the Allies to bash their heads. I don't, necessarily. It plays to all of Japan's in-game advantages in LBA. It's a bog. But if Darwin can be taken by Japan, fine. It's at the end of a long road. The Allies have other means to isolate it and starve it without use of ground troops better used elsewhere.

Your point about the risks of Japan holding major portions only into 1943 make my point again. Why take it if there is no way to hold it, if auto-victory is not achieved? Areas of Oz often taken by Japan are essentially worthless to the Allied player, either economically or strategically. The NW corner is a good example. What does Japan DO with that, except use up strength holding and supplying it? Unless Perth is a supply hub linked to CT, why does the Allied player care if Japan holds it? Even to the end of the war? It's a backwater to the essential Allied objective of closing on Japanese centers of gravity and burning them down.

Japanese players who take western or northern Oz knowing they will be ejected in 1943 compound the mistake. What's the point? The Allies do not have to engage there; they simply don't. Most do, for emotional reasons, but it's not mandatory. Certainly they don't have to until they can engage on their terms, with modern armor and very good 4Es. Why do Japanese players hang their chins out in 1942 and beg to have them broken? Because it's "fun"? Fun to kill understrength Allied LCUs and run rampant for a year, feeling powerful and mighty? Yep. No other reason. That combat power could be far better employed on the Japanese defensive perimeter when the Allies come to call in 1944. But since most Japanese players have never seen 1944 they don't realize that.

To my Allied friends let me just say: A Japanese attack does not necessarily deserve a response.

< Message edited by Bullwinkle58 -- 3/25/2013 1:47:05 PM >


_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to topeverest)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room >> australian defeat Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.109