LI & Supply: Now or Later?

[mind_messing]

It seems to be a trend emerging that Japan can win stunning battles at the front, but lose the war through supply.

So, from watching the development of late war production problems for Japan, I'm asking myself "What's the best solution to Japan's economic crunch in the late game?"

As far as I can see, there's quite a few "solutions" to an unsolvable problem.

Option A - Expand heavy industry



Positive: Most rewarding. Increases supply production and provides HI points for use.

Negative: Increases fuel consumption and makes the Japanese fuel crisis even more pressing once oil shipments are cut off. Makes a dent in supply stockplies.

Option B - Expand light industry

Positive: Uses excess resources that Japan will have, and can be expanded in areas outside the Home Islands (eg China, Java ect), cutting down supply shipments from the Home Islands.

Negative: Requires increased shipping to import resources, which in turn uses more fuel. Takes extremely long for the supply costs to be paid back. Costs significant investment of supplies in the early-war stage in order to be paid back.

Option C - Austerity

Positive: Cutting Merchant, Naval, Armaments and Vechile production, as well as air R&D and manufacturing would reduce supply consumption to an sustainable (for the purposes of the game) level. Removes the need for excess imports in the Home Islands.

Negative: Less ships and tanks in play, as well as fewer and later aircraft, which may lead to a quicker Japanese defeat.


For what it's worth, I suspect that LI expansion, combined with limited austerity measures might be the best way to sustain a late-war Japanese resistance as the Allies close in on the Home Islands.

I'm currently debating the value of plugging a half-million supply in to LI expansion in my current PBEM.

Feedback and discussion would be most welcome.

Disclaimer: This post and the options therein are based on no statisical analysis or detailed examination of the state of Japanese industry whatsoever, and should be treated as such.

[Symon]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing
As far as I can see, there's quite a few "solutions" to an unsolvable problem.

Feedback and discussion would be most welcome.

The problem actually is unsolvable. The game was designed to flow ok in the base condition. But then there’s all those switches you can throw that let you do wonderful things, but there’s no game mechanism that compensates infrastructure for your switches. You get “base” infrastructure but can spend it unmercifully.

There’s third-party programs, like Tracker, that can help “manage” the hole you are digging, but can’t help you get out of it. There’s also a gazillion of “switch on-off” fanbois out there that will swarm this thread with “you must, simply must” recommendations. Unfortunately, depending on the switches set, the recommendations are inconsistent and conflicting.

I see this as someone playing an organ. You pull out a stop and parts begin to sound better. But the poor bastard pumping it has to work a bit harder. You pull out all the stops and things sound magnificent, but the poor bastard pumping it is gonna have a coronary.

And that is the game concept. There is no “answer”. In other words, your guess is as good as mine and, if thoughtfully done, better than anyone else’s. Ciao. JWE

[mind_messing]

The problem actually is unsolvable. The game was designed to flow ok in the base condition. But then there’s all those switches you can throw that let you do wonderful things, but there’s no game mechanism that compensates infrastructure for your switches. You get “base” infrastructure but can spend it unmercifully.

I'm aware I'm trying to untie the Gordian Knot, but it's much the same as the rest of the game when you play as Japan.

What is the "base condition" exactly? No supplies used for expansion or combat? Supplies simply used for upkeep of Japan?

There’s third-party programs, like Tracker, that can help “manage” the hole you are digging, but can’t help you get out of it. There’s also a gazillion of “switch on-off” fanbois out there that will swarm this thread with “you must, simply must” recommendations. Unfortunately, depending on the switches set, the recommendations are inconsistent and conflicting.

The whole point of this thread is not to create a sustainable Japanese economy, but to establish the method which slows the degreation of the economy of Japan so that it enters the late game with enough force on the board to resist and enough economic strength to support it for till the end of 1945.

If the Japanese economy will collapse regardless of any actions taken on map, then that's quite a disapointment.

I see this as someone playing an organ. You pull out a stop and parts begin to sound better. But the poor bastard pumping it has to work a bit harder. You pull out all the stops and things sound magnificent, but the poor bastard pumping it is gonna have a coronary.

To use your image, I am looking for here is "What stops do I need that makes the organ sound as good as it can be, but that the guy on the bellows can sustain."

If that's impossible regardless, then it's impossible, and Japanese players may as well have fun smashing things in 1941 and 1942 before running the economy in to the dirt.

[Grfin Zeppelin]

Ah no, the Japanese economy must not collapse within the game time. It is however easy to crash and seriously hamper your war effort. I would stay away from LI if you dont exactly know what you are doing.

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: Gräfin Zeppelin

Ah no, the Japanese economy must not collapse within the game time. It is however easy to crash and seriously hamper your war effort. I would stay away from LI if you dont exactly know what you are doing.

Yes, I'm aware of that.

If you've any insights on the value of LI, they'd be welcomed.

[Alfred]

At the risk of putting words into Symon's mouth, the point I believe he is making with "base condition" is that AE is designed to replicate as closely as possible the historical capabilities of the participants.  However, because it is a commercial wargame, certain "switches" can be chosen by the player to augment some of the historical capabilities.
 
In simple terms, the Japanese economy did historically implode whereas the Allied economies (principally the American) did not.  Any attempt to produce a wargame which attempts to replicate the historical capabilities cannot avoid reproducing the Japanese economic implosion.  That implosion can be "managed" better than the historical outcome by the "switches" employed and by player operational decisions.  But this better management essentially is only postponing the implosion.  Extend the empire further than the historical performance, in the short term you will gain additional economic resources but then you will lack the commensurate additional units to defend the extended territory.
 
To gain that additional territory, the Japanese player will inevitably produce more "toys" which in the short term assists his combat power.  But as PaxMondo points out, there is essentially only a "fixed" number of airframes which can be produced.  Build more Tojos to augment the early combat prowess and achieve the extended territory, the fewer third and fourth generation fighters which otherwise could be built.
 
Anyone who demands AE be historically "realistic" has no valid grounds to become disappointed at the eventual Japanese economic implosion.  That was the historical outcome.  How that implosion comes about and what it's ramifications are, is something which can be managed by the player.  Don't expand territorially as much as Japan did historically (because a lot of that expansion was not a good ROI), don't expand the Japanese economy beyond it's historical capabilities, don't engage in military operations just for the sake of "blowing things up", don't accelerate ship production; all these are things which due to the simplified and abstracted AE logistics, will assist Japan in managing and delaying the economic implosion.  That is the "base condition".  But probably less than 1% of Japanese players would ever do these things because they are not "sexy" nor "fun".  Instead they vociferously demand to be able to play Japan with an Allied (read American) mindset in terms of logistics.
 
Alfred

[SqzMyLemon]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

But probably less than 1% of Japanese players would ever do these things because they are not "sexy" nor "fun".

I think I fall within this 1% or damn close.

[LoBaron]

ORIGINAL: Alfred
Anyone who demands AE be historically "realistic" has no valid grounds to become disappointed at the eventual Japanese economic implosion.  That was the historical outcome.  How that implosion comes about and what it's ramifications are, is something which can be managed by the player.  Don't expand territorially as much as Japan did historically (because a lot of that expansion was not a good ROI), don't expand the Japanese economy beyond it's historical capabilities, don't engage in military operations just for the sake of "blowing things up", don't accelerate ship production; all these are things which due to the simplified and abstracted AE logistics, will assist Japan in managing and delaying the economic implosion.  That is the "base condition".  But probably less than 1% of Japanese players would ever do these things because they are not "sexy" nor "fun".  Instead they vociferously demand to be able to play Japan with an Allied (read American) mindset in terms of logistics.

In addition to what Alfred said: reduce your a/c misison frequecy when applicable, be selective when adding reinforcements to non-full strenght units (LCA/air), be selective where and to what size you build bases and forts. Per event this might seem insignificant, but over the months it accumulates.

[obvert]

Since the more authoritative voices above have clearly and precisely stated the problems involved in the system of playing Japan, from a meta-perspective, perhapsI can add in some particulars I've learnt from my small data point of one game played until May 45 (so far).

I'll respond by point.

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

Option A - Expand heavy industry



Positive: Most rewarding. Increases supply production and provides HI points for use.

Negative: Increases fuel consumption and makes the Japanese fuel crisis even more pressing once oil shipments are cut off. Makes a dent in supply stockplies.

The only place I'd expand HI is Java, Malaya and SE Asia. So Soerabaja, Batavia, Singers, Georgetown, Bangkok and Saigon. Probably Bangkok and Saigon are more risky as they're closer to bombing range.

The increase in HI here would hopefully somewhat offset supply use used to increase LI globally. It would also preclude the need to ship fuel from or extra supply to the area. This saves some fuel.

Option B - Expand light industry

Positive: Uses excess resources that Japan will have, and can be expanded in areas outside the Home Islands (eg China, Java ect), cutting down supply shipments from the Home Islands.

Negative: Requires increased shipping to import resources, which in turn uses more fuel. Takes extremely long for the supply costs to be paid back. Costs significant investment of supplies in the early-war stage in order to be paid back.

The ideal place to increase LI would be Manchuria/China, as there are extra resources in the area requiring no shipping. Plus these have a better chance of reaching supply positive if those areas last longer. For the latter reason the smaller bases in the Home Islands (only LI, little manpower, no HI, few other infrastructure targets) would be ideal as well for an LI increase. The shipping from nearby sources and 'return convoy' resource shipping can still keep resource shipping fuel costs in the normal range.

Option C - Austerity

Positive: Cutting Merchant, Naval, Armaments and Vechile production, as well as air R&D and manufacturing would reduce supply consumption to an sustainable (for the purposes of the game) level. Removes the need for excess imports in the Home Islands.

Negative: Less ships and tanks in play, as well as fewer and later aircraft, which may lead to a quicker Japanese defeat.

Firstly, don't turn off Armaments or Vehicles at any time in game for any reason. You will need them all. (Thank you Pax) [:)]

You can monitor Naval/Merchant points and not overbuild, but the major costs is the fuel those ships would use rather than the HI costs. In May 45 I'm fine for HI and could last until endgame in 46 at the current pace. Still making some Naval ships as well. If you want to save turn off Musashi and Shinano (except in Scenarios where it's a Taiho class).

Streamlining airframe manufacture and not overbuilding or inefficiently building R n D/airframe factories will save a lot of supply. Not as much as other concerns though.[;)]

My future austerity measure would involve the creation of defensive positions. The Allies can overwhelm all but the most built up spots and can bypass the fortresses with speed by the time they advance for real. Why build every base to max airfield and level 6 forts?

It takes a LOT of supply to build over normal airfield/port size for a base and level 4 forts cost much less than level 6. Anything over level 6 is astronomically expensive. Your supply will be out when the 4Es hit the base for a week before landing anyway, and the naval bombardments will take away whatever they miss. (With over 20k in each of the Marianas, they were down to 2-3k after the landings and first attack on land. The level 6 forts maybe gave me an extra week in some of those, but the fields were useless against Allied naval power).

Pick spots, build some forts (some to level 6, many to level 4), think of an active, counter-strking defense. (see PzB, Greyjoy, rader). Don't build many fields above level 3-4.

Also, beware your supply lines. Don't operate huge armies in the middle of a jungle off road for long periods. Lots of supply lost. See Burma.

As LoBaron added above, beware over-using bombing missions especially. It does add up. The replacement costs are also steep over time. Chose wisely. maybe use more 1E planes than 2E, don't change type too often, and don't ALWAYS accept battle with the Allied sweeps/bombing missions. Pick spots and hit hard.

For what it's worth, I suspect that LI expansion, combined with limited austerity measures might be the best way to sustain a late-war Japanese resistance as the Allies close in on the Home Islands.

I'm currently debating the value of plugging a half-million supply in to LI expansion in my current PBEM.

Feedback and discussion would be most welcome.

Disclaimer: This post and the options therein are based on no statisical analysis or detailed examination of the state of Japanese industry whatsoever, and should be treated as such.

You may get the return on LI in very selective locations, but only if you can still make it to the end. You still have to supply your expansion and solidify it in late 42. It'll be tough, but look at Mike Solli for some actual calculations on how this could work.

Planning is the key to a better situation for Japan in the end. You will still be shattered and the economy will still grind to a jerking halt. It may though be a more fun play with a bit more to play with in the end.

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

At the risk of putting words into Symon's mouth, the point I believe he is making with "base condition" is that AE is designed to replicate as closely as possible the historical capabilities of the participants.  However, because it is a commercial wargame, certain "switches" can be chosen by the player to augment some of the historical capabilities.

In simple terms, the Japanese economy did historically implode whereas the Allied economies (principally the American) did not.  Any attempt to produce a wargame which attempts to replicate the historical capabilities cannot avoid reproducing the Japanese economic implosion.  That implosion can be "managed" better than the historical outcome by the "switches" employed and by player operational decisions.  But this better management essentially is only postponing the implosion.  Extend the empire further than the historical performance, in the short term you will gain additional economic resources but then you will lack the commensurate additional units to defend the extended territory.

To gain that additional territory, the Japanese player will inevitably produce more "toys" which in the short term assists his combat power.  But as PaxMondo points out, there is essentially only a "fixed" number of airframes which can be produced.  Build more Tojos to augment the early combat prowess and achieve the extended territory, the fewer third and fourth generation fighters which otherwise could be built.

Anyone who demands AE be historically "realistic" has no valid grounds to become disappointed at the eventual Japanese economic implosion.  That was the historical outcome.  How that implosion comes about and what it's ramifications are, is something which can be managed by the player.  Don't expand territorially as much as Japan did historically (because a lot of that expansion was not a good ROI), don't expand the Japanese economy beyond it's historical capabilities, don't engage in military operations just for the sake of "blowing things up", don't accelerate ship production; all these are things which due to the simplified and abstracted AE logistics, will assist Japan in managing and delaying the economic implosion.  That is the "base condition". 

Alfred

Thankfully I'm one of the "gameplay trumps realism" crowd. Thankfully there are plenty of mods out there that enjoy making the Japanese economic situation even more unstable.

An interesting perspective, but I feel that playing Japan runs the risk of winning the war on the frontline but losing it in the supply stockpiles, or saving the supply stockpiles but failing to hold the frontline far enough forward.

But probably less than 1% of Japanese players would ever do these things because they are not "sexy" nor "fun". Instead they vociferously demand to be able to play Japan with an Allied (read American) mindset in terms of logistics.

I can sympathize with that viewpoint. I endure rather than enjoy the economic aspect of the game, though I understand its importance. The "AV or bust" mentality hasn't appealed to me, but it would if the resources to facilitiate a effective late-game weren't outright canceled by the effort expended to acquire them (read India).

ORIGINAL: obvert


Planning is the key to a better situation for Japan in the end. You will still be shattered and the economy will still grind to a jerking halt. It may though be a more fun play with a bit more to play with in the end.

That's exactly what I was looking for. I'll take some time to digest it later. Amusingly, we've a case of the same results being drawn for different reasons regarding AF construction.

The supply use for construction and air operations is something that I've never really considered. My mentality is that Japan if it's there, it should be used, but I'll bow to your experiance.

What I have seem emerging is the hopelessness of the strategy of building up and digging in. I'll need to think about this somewhat!

[Lecivius]

ORIGINAL: Symon

I see this as someone playing an organ. You pull out a stop and parts begin to sound better. But the poor bastard pumping it has to work a bit harder. You pull out all the stops and things sound magnificent, but the poor bastard pumping it is gonna have a coronary.

This made me laugh...a lot [:D]

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing


Thankfully I'm one of the "gameplay trumps realism" crowd. Thankfully there are plenty of mods out there that enjoy making the Japanese economic situation even more unstable.

An interesting perspective, but I feel that playing Japan runs the risk of winning the war on the frontline but losing it in the supply stockpiles, or saving the supply stockpiles but failing to hold the frontline far enough forward...


... I endure rather than enjoy the economic aspect of the game, though I understand its importance. The "AV or bust" mentality hasn't appealed to me, but it would if the resources to facilitiate a effective late-game weren't outright canceled by the effort expended to acquire them (read India)...


... What I have seem emerging is the hopelessness of the strategy of building up and digging in. I'll need to think about this somewhat!

Japan will experience an economic implosion. As it should because that is historically accurate. But it does not follow that the Japanese player is doomed to lose the game.

Japan has two ways of winning in AE. One is by achieving an auto victory which can occur at any time after 1 January 1943. I see too many Japanese players who recklessly throw everything to achieve an auto victory on 1 January 1943 and failing to do so then they reap the consequences of their poor play. They forget that unless their opponent plays very badly, a later auto victory which builds on thoughtful play throughout 1942, is the road to take. A very good example of properly approaching an auto victory is found in Cribtop's recent AAR where a Japanese auto victory on 1 January 1944 was assured (provided he did not lose his head waiting) and an auto victory in the last quarter of 1943 was very much on the cards.

The other approach to achieve a Japanese victory is to prevent the Allied player from achieving either an auto victory or a decisive victory at the end of the scenario. AE's victory conditions are very much shaped by the historical outcome which equates to the game's auto/decisive victory conditions. A Japanese player who prevents the Allied player from achieving that outcome, has in fact performed much better than Japan did historically and therefore can consider to have won their race.

As to the strategy of digging in, at least in terms of how most interpret that strategy, they simply get it wrong. The correct approach has always been for Japan to employ an active, not passive defence. Again a very good discussion on how to conduct an active defence is found in Cribtop's AAR. The fact is that the simplified and abstracted logistics model, combined with certain "switches" which greatly augment Japan's historical at start asymmetrical advantages and initiative, a good Japanese player can keep the initiative until he achieves victory.

Supply is overrated. Or more correctly, the lack of supply is unnecessarily feared. This is due to the simplified abstracted logistics model. In AE a division which has zero supply still fights at 25% of its theoretical combat power. In real life, such a unit, without water, puts up zero resistance. In AE a unit with zero supply is only in trouble if it is called upon to do prolonged fighting or is confronted by an overwhelming enemy force. In AE Japan will always be able to produce more supply than it was able to historically. The ability to fly planes consuming only rice instead of avgas, means there is always the potential of flying air missions.

The issue really is not the production of supply per se but the distribution of supply to where it is really needed. What usually happens is that Japanese players tend to look at their supply distribution network and priorities only when it is too late. Not too many Japanese players consider how much supply will be subsequently needed, and how to get it there, before embarking on their operations. Cost benefit analyses do not figure prominently in their planning.

Alfred

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

... Cost benefit analyses do not figure prominently in their planning.

Alfred

Brace o' schooners here mate!




Cheers!

[crsutton]

Have to agree with you guys. I wanted to play Japan but now realize that my organizational skills really would prohibit it. Playing the Allies is a challenge but rarely is supply or fuel an issue. This allows for a certain degree of slackerism which suits me fine. I really do appreciate good Japanese players. Quite frankly, the best players in the game play the Japanese. It almost has to be that way.

[Cribtop]

Alfred, my sincere thanks for the kind words. Attention all newbs - if Alfred says you should do something, listen up. He knows whereof he speaks.

As for the OP, strategic expansion of HI and LI in China, Manchuria, Java and Malaysia served me very well. In a Scenario 1 game I slightly increased HI in the Home Islands and a few select China bases. I upped HI in Malaysia and LI in Java to absorb overproduction of RS. This reduced shipping costs to the Empire's periphery.

However, I adopted a win early plan and reduced ARM and VEH production once it appeared that auto victory was in the cards. The implications of this in 1945 would have been dire, but I did not believe my game would reach '45. Still, per Obvert and PaxMondo, this was a gamble that would not have paid off if the game had continued.

[obvert]

ORIGINAL: Cribtop

Alfred, my sincere thanks for the kind words. Attention all newbs - if Alfred says you should do something, listen up. He knows whereof he speaks.

As for the OP, strategic expansion of HI and LI in China, Manchuria, Java and Malaysia served me very well. In a Scenario 1 game I slightly increased HI in the Home Islands and a few select China bases. I upped HI in Malaysia and LI in Java to absorb overproduction of RS. This reduced shipping costs to the Empire's periphery.

However, I adopted a win early plan and reduced ARM and VEH production once it appeared that auto victory was in the cards. The implications of this in 1945 would have been dire, but I did not believe my game would reach '45. Still, per Obvert and PaxMondo, this was a gamble that would not have paid off if the game had continued.

Your counter-punching defensive strategy is rightly mentioned here, and is a definite must read for Japanese players. A good plan, lots of guts and good technique to pull it off!

[Cribtop]

Thanks, Obvert!

PS - I said I expanded LI in Java, but technically I repaired it. All but 3 points of LI in Batavia were destroyed when the city fell, so it was quite an investment. Whether it broke even mathematically wasn't my primary concern - I wanted Java to be self-supporting when the Allies came knocking as I expected a thrust into the DEI.

[rustysi]

But as PaxMondo points out, there is essentially only a "fixed" number of airframes which can be produced. Build more Tojos to augment the early combat prowess and achieve the extended territory, the fewer third and fourth generation fighters which otherwise could be built.

With this I absolutely agree, but there is another side to this coin. I've seen the production numbers that have been posted here, I have had those same numbers since I can't remember when (nice to get another source). Now break them down a bit more and you will find some wiggle room. Japan produced just over 5900 Ki-43 (5919 Oscars). She only produced 1225 Ki-44 (Tojo"s) during the war. These are pretty much the only two IJA fighters I would wish to produce early war. I believe the Tojo to be the better plane. The key being its speed (IMHO), but its fire power is greater too. It also has a good climb rate IIRC (though don't recall if better than Oscar). That being said, how about skewing those numbers a bit? The key is to figure out by how much it can be done without costing the economy too much. Damn, I love this game.[:D]

I've really wondered, as I'm sure many have, what kind of tweeking can be accomplished without breaking the bank. I'm experimenting. Mind_messing your posits intrigue.[&o]

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: rustysi

But as PaxMondo points out, there is essentially only a "fixed" number of airframes which can be produced. Build more Tojos to augment the early combat prowess and achieve the extended territory, the fewer third and fourth generation fighters which otherwise could be built.

I've really wondered, as I'm sure many have, what kind of tweeking can be accomplished without breaking the bank. I'm experimenting. Mind_messing your posits intrigue.[&o]

I do try.