Matrix Games Forums

Slitherine is recruiting: Programmers requiredPandora: Eclipse of Nashira gets release dateCommunity impressions of To End All WarsAgeod's To End All Wars is now availableTo End All Wars is now available!Deal of the Week: Field of GloryTo End All Wars: Video, AAR and Interview!Ageod's To End All Wars: Video, AAR and Interview!To End All Wars: Artillery Battle Academy 2: Eastern Front - End of Early Access
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

AI for MWiF - Japan

 
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] >> World in Flames >> AI for MWiF - Japan Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
AI for MWiF - Japan - 11/12/2005 12:01:02 AM   
Froonp


Posts: 7898
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline
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.

Post #: 1
RE: AI for MWiF - Japan - 11/12/2005 3:16:35 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 18271
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 2
RE: AI for MWiF - Japan - 11/18/2005 2:20:39 AM   
SurrenderMonkey

 

Posts: 124
Joined: 10/5/2005
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

Wise Men Still Seek Him

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 3
RE: AI for MWiF - Japan - 11/18/2005 6:49:19 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 18271
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline
quote:

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.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to SurrenderMonkey)
Post #: 4
RE: AI for MWiF - Japan - 11/18/2005 12:07:45 PM   
Froonp


Posts: 7898
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline
quote:

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.

(in reply to SurrenderMonkey)
Post #: 5
RE: AI for MWiF - Japan - 11/18/2005 1:25:57 PM   
Greyshaft


Posts: 2234
Joined: 10/27/2003
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

/Greyshaft

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 6
RE: AI for MWiF - Japan - 11/18/2005 7:34:36 PM   
Froonp


Posts: 7898
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to Greyshaft)
Post #: 7
RE: AI for MWiF - Japan - 11/18/2005 10:20:12 PM   
Greyshaft


Posts: 2234
Joined: 10/27/2003
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

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.


_____________________________

/Greyshaft

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 8
RE: AI for MWiF - Japan - 11/19/2005 3:55:00 PM   
Froonp


Posts: 7898
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft


quote:

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 reply to Greyshaft)
Post #: 9
RE: AI for MWiF - Japan - 11/19/2005 6:33:42 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 18271
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp
quote:

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft


quote:

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.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 10
RE: AI for MWiF - Japan - 11/19/2005 6:42:51 PM   
terje439


Posts: 6128
Joined: 3/28/2004
Status: offline

quote:

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?

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 11
RE: AI for MWiF - Japan - 11/19/2005 7:21:24 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 18271
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: terje439

quote:

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.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to terje439)
Post #: 12
RE: AI for MWiF - Japan - 11/19/2005 9:25:17 PM   
Greyshaft


Posts: 2234
Joined: 10/27/2003
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

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.

_____________________________

/Greyshaft

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 13
RE: AI for MWiF - Japan - 11/19/2005 9:28:15 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 18271
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft
quote:

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.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Greyshaft)
Post #: 14
RE: AI for MWiF - Japan - 11/20/2005 12:15:13 AM   
Froonp


Posts: 7898
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline
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 :

quote:

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.

quote:

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.

quote:

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.

(in reply to terje439)
Post #: 15
RE: AI for MWiF - Japan - 11/20/2005 3:14:05 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 18271
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline
quote:

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 :

quote:

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.

quote:

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.

quote:

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.


_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 16
RE: AI for MWiF - Japan - 11/20/2005 12:35:33 PM   
Froonp


Posts: 7898
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 17
RE: AI for MWiF - Japan - 11/22/2005 1:57:27 PM   
SurrenderMonkey

 

Posts: 124
Joined: 10/5/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

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.


_____________________________

Wise Men Still Seek Him

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 18
RE: AI for MWiF - Japan - 6/9/2006 11:13:29 AM   
Neilster


Posts: 2247
Joined: 10/27/2003
From: Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
Status: offline
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

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 19
RE: AI for MWiF - Japan - 6/9/2006 8:47:53 PM   
trees trees

 

Posts: 125
Joined: 6/6/2006
From: Manistee, MI
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to Neilster)
Post #: 20
RE: AI for MWiF - Japan - 11/22/2006 7:42:15 AM   
Neilster


Posts: 2247
Joined: 10/27/2003
From: Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
Status: offline
Falling off the end of the list. Time to bump it for the new people.

Cheers, Neilster

(in reply to trees trees)
Post #: 21
RE: AI for MWiF - Japan - 4/19/2007 1:37:37 AM   
Froonp


Posts: 7898
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Neilster
Falling off the end of the list. Time to bump it for the new people.
Cheers, Neilster

Isn't it time to to bump this one too, for the new people, Neilster ?

(in reply to Neilster)
Post #: 22
RE: AI for MWiF - Japan - 4/19/2007 6:20:57 AM   
Neilster


Posts: 2247
Joined: 10/27/2003
From: Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
Status: offline
Yep.

Cheers, Neilster

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 23
RE: AI for MWiF - Japan - 4/19/2007 12:27:52 PM   
npilgaard

 

Posts: 165
Joined: 5/3/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SurrenderMonkey

And if Truk is held by a big WP 6-3 or 8-4 with a HQ and a supply unit


A supply unit + HQ is of course very nice, but since Trukk is bordering 3 sea areas it is usually quite hard to set out of supply (at least until US gets the upper hand in the Pacific), another nice option is to place an AA-gun (or AT) on Trukk, to avoid the US (or CW) ARM MAR doing a blitz-attack when invading (will then only need an 'R' result instead of clearing the hex of japanese units, to capture Trukk, thus needing only a '16'-result instead of a '20' iirc, and with less losses, and a higher chance of staying face up).
Also, a HQ on Trukk when the Allies start to really go for the invasion, will almost certainly mean the loss of that HQ, unless it can be moved out just in time.

Otoh, the HQ will not only allow for emergency supply, it can also reorg. flipped units (either land units having been groundstruck, or LBA (FTRs or NAVs) or maybe even aborted naval units).

quote:

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.


So first: if inferior: defend, try to avoid to many casualties or lose key areas, and build up forces.
When ready: fight to get the upper hand (or at least reach even strength), and reduce enemy offensive capabilities.

Usually the upper hand in the air (which will often help very much on gaining the upper hand on ground/sea) is gained by those who has the most FTRs, so it is often a decision on whether to go for:
- enemy FTRs to wear his air power down (long term goal, to achieve air superiority)
- enemy bombers, to remove immidiate threat (short term goal - bomber won't get through to do the current ground strike, port attack, and it won't be here to be worried about next turn)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
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.


As has been discussed in a previous posts in this thread, CVs are all-important in the Pacific.
I agree that if a nice AMPH or TRS target presents itself (especially if carrying a unit) then let it sink, but in order to achieve the numerical advantage/upper hand in the Pacific in the first place, it is the CVs wich are prime targets, imho.

A few considerations affecting this:

- playing with PiF (on a side note: we used to always do this in my group, and I assume that most other groups do as well. However, we got tired of the very time consuming impulses in the end-game and the problems of the Air-to-air combat system to handle large amounts of FTRs in a single battle (the AtoA system is based on absolute strength (difference in factors) and not on relative strength ('odds'), which means that eg. fighting on '+4' is just as nice when fighting at 7 vs 3 as it is when at 34 vs 30, which imho is bad for large air-battles, with roughly equal forces, but where one or two loses or aborts can mean that the entire battle is lost). So in the recent game we play without WiF, and it works very well indeed - it is nice with a change once in a while, so I would recommend that to players who always use PiF as standard).
Well, back on topic: If playing with PiF, CVs are somewhat less important, as the LBAs tend to dominate (as least in sea areas with many ports/FTRs).
If playing without PiF (and even more if playing without SiF): CVs are becoming much more important to get rid of, as an upper hand on CVs mean dominating the sea.

- how much is Japan 'stretched': if Japan has to protect sea areas from New Zealand to India () then its LBAs are stretched, and the CVs are the mobile forces that can engage the allies where they choose to attack. Thus CVs are very important for Japan.
However, if Japan is defending only the last 2-3 sea areas around Japan, China, Phillipines then LBA are becoming much more important, since large number of LBAs (especially if playing with PiF) can reach 1-2 contested sea areas where most of the fighting is done, and due to the usually limited number of allied ports available, and thus limited number of allied LBAs within range, combined with the +1 bonus per supporting FTR vs. lower bonus per supporting CVP, then in my experience, it is often the LBA which determines the outcome in the end game stages (at least when Japan is still fairly fit for fight at that time - and in our games it seems like she often is - probably to much focus from the alliedes side on Germany/Italy and to little on Japan, at least in '42/'43, I think - this aspect is also worth considering by the AI).

quote:

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 think this is closely linked to the overall strategy chosen and the linked production of units.
Fx: US may chose to go on Japan early, building lots of naval, air, MAR etc. or it can chose Europe first. In case of the latter, it can aim for a somewhat early invasion (maybe to retake Gibraltar or North Africa, and then Italy i '43), or maybe a more awaiting strategy, focusing fx on strat bombing.
If building a lot of strat-bombers (and CW doing similar) and then trying to take an air action every turn and having the strat bombers being reorg. by HQs in England, then it may have quite an effect on German production. (that will allow 3 waves - US first (with their nice AtoA-factors, maybe FTR escort), and then CW and US second wave). This is expensive to build all those strat bombers, but it will force Germany to place a lot of FTRs in Germany
Having only a few strat bombers can also force Germany to have FTR cover on factories, but it probably won't have significant effect on production.

So, imho it is difficult to switch from 'trying to eliminate offensive capability' to 'go after production capacity' full scale, if the production/overall strategy hasn't been directed at that in advance.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
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.


Often, the Allies are under time-pressure, so imho they have to go for the victory cities/conquest from rather early on, without having to much time to reduce enemy production capability first.
Fx. in the case of Japan, no need to try to wear down production (one exception: if playing with rule, and Japan is low on oil and has no/few synth, then cutting the oil can be very effective). Instead, go for donination of important sea areas and invasions heading for Japanese heart-area as soon as able.

Often different from an axis perspective. Germany may go for getting Russia all down, but that is both risky and difficult. Instead, reducing allied production and buying time are main objectives here.

Regards
Nikolaj

(in reply to Neilster)
Post #: 24
RE: AI for MWiF - Japan - 4/19/2007 2:46:40 PM   
Froonp


Posts: 7898
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline
quote:

Otoh, the HQ will not only allow for emergency supply, it can also reorg. flipped units (either land units having been groundstruck, or LBA (FTRs or NAVs) or maybe even aborted naval units).

Face down HQ are worth nothing, and it's been my experience that very very often the US disrupt everything before invading Truk, so the HQ is both worthless and wasted IMO here. He'd better flee before the things get serious, which they begin to be in 1943 with the arriving hordes of P-38 / P-61 / F6F and Carriers.

(in reply to npilgaard)
Post #: 25
RE: AI for MWiF - Japan - 6/17/2007 7:36:30 AM   
coregames


Posts: 469
Joined: 8/12/2004
Status: offline
One thing the AIO for Japan should avoid in an unwelcome war with the Russians (such as when the Germans are doing a '41 Sealion instead of Barbarossa, so the Russians have nothing better to do than fight the Japanese): don't let the communist Chinese take the southern resource in Manchuria, or it can be conquered without lapsing the war. Similarly, the Japanese shouldn't make it easy for the Chinese to take Pyong Yang (or even conquer Korea outright). In that situation, the USSR would love nothing better than to conquer both countries and keep the war going so that she can bomb the Japanese production and raid their shipping with subs as well.

< Message edited by coregames -- 6/21/2007 6:23:47 AM >


_____________________________

"The creative combination lays bare the presumption of a lie." -- Lasker

Keith Henderson

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 26
RE: AI for MWiF - Japan - 10/25/2007 11:07:47 PM   
dale1066


Posts: 107
Joined: 6/23/2007
Status: offline
Seeing as how the AI data for Japan is a little lite would it be worth getting discussions going on tactics for defending / attacking various pacific objectives or is it objectives in the pacific?   

Eg
quote:

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.
 

Not sure I agree about it being low  surely that depends on location of the Australian units ? if Singapore garrioned by aussie mil/terratorials and Australia weakly defended or empty could save a lot of work? what if the Australian units are the mainstay of western desert defence/offence?

BTW what does happen to terratorial units if you conquor their home country?







(in reply to coregames)
Post #: 27
RE: AI for MWiF - Japan - 10/25/2007 11:26:10 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 18271
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: dale1066

Seeing as how the AI data for Japan is a little lite would it be worth getting discussions going on tactics for defending / attacking various pacific objectives or is it objectives in the pacific?   

Eg
quote:

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.
 

Not sure I agree about it being low  surely that depends on location of the Australian units ? if Singapore garrioned by aussie mil/terratorials and Australia weakly defended or empty could save a lot of work? what if the Australian units are the mainstay of western desert defence/offence?

BTW what does happen to terratorial units if you conquor their home country?

If you want to. Here are the more important sections from Japan's strategic plan for the AIO (about 12 of the 15 pages).
==========================
1.1.1 Victory cities, vital hexes, and sea areas

Victory Cities - Defense
Homeland
∙ Tokyo

Asia
∙ Port Arthur
∙ Taibaku
∙ Shanghai

Pacific
∙ Kwajalein
∙ Batavia

Vital Hexes - Defense
∙ Makassar
∙ Menado
∙ Bonin Islands
∙ Air superiority over oil hexes, to protect from an invasion.

Vital Sea Areas - Defense
∙ Bismarck Sea (air superiority)
∙ Marianas (air superiority)
∙ China Sea (air superiority)
∙ South China Sea (air superiority)

Victory Cities - Offense
∙ Chungking,
∙ Lan Chow,
∙ Manila,
∙ Singapore,
∙ Honolulu,
∙ Rabaul,
∙ Dutch Harbor,
∙ Pago Pago,
∙ Columbo
∙ Truk [If using optional rule for Naval Supply Unit, Truk is less important. ]

Vital Hexes - Offense
∙ Legaspi
∙ Resource in 0538 and a rail path to a port
∙ Resource in Si-An and a rail path to a port
∙ Resource in 0531 and a rail path to a port
∙ Resource in 0630 and a rail path to a port
∙ Midway
∙ Wake Island

Vital Sea Areas - Offense

.
.
.
.
.


1.1.6 Master production plan (MC)

1.1.6.1 Resources and Convoys
Japanese held factories and resources as of Sep/Oct 1939:
∙ Japan’s home islands - 14 factories and 1 resource,
∙ Manchuria - 2 factories and 3 resources,
∙ Korea - 1 factory and 1 resource,
∙ Formosa - 1 resource,
∙ China - 2 red factories (Shanghai and Canton) and 4 resources (1 of which is in Hainan),
∙ Total of 17 factories and 9 resources.

Enemy held factories and resources as of Sep/Oct 1939:
∙ Indochina - 1 resource,
∙ Philippines - 1 resource,
∙ Malaya - 2 resources,
∙ NEI - 4 oil,
∙ China - 2 red factories and 7 resources,
∙ USSR - 1 red factory and 4 resources,
∙ Burma - 1 oil,
∙ India - 1 red factory and 4 resources,
∙ Australia - 1 red factory and 3 resources,
∙ New Caledonia - 1 resource,
∙ Persia - 3 oil,
∙ Saudi Arabia - 1 oil,
∙ South Africa - 3 resources.

1.1.6.2 Build Points and Trade Agreements
Japan receives:
∙ 2 resource points from the USA,
∙ 2 oil from the USA,
∙ 2 oil from NEI

Japan sends:
∙ 1 BP to the USA.

This generates the following BPs:
∙ 1939: production multiple = .75, 13 RP => 13 PP => 10 BP => 9 BP.
∙ 1940 and 1941: production multiple = 1, 13 RP => 13 PP => 13 BP => 12 BP.
∙ 1942: production multiple = 1.25, 13 RP => 13 PP => 17 BP => 16 BP.
∙ 1943+: production multiple = 1.5, 13 RP => 13 PP => 20 BP => 19 BP.

This assumes that the trade agreements stay in effect, which will not happen. Conversely, Japan should get the Indochina resource once Vichy is declared and if Japan can capture 3 resources from China, that will combine to offset the loss of resources from the USA and yield a gain since Japan will not have to send a BP to the USA.

Japan should seriously consider saving oil points early in the war (if that optional rule is in effect), since oil will be in scarce supply once war is declared against the USA and CW.

Japan’s 17 factories should be adequate through 1940 and if a lot of resources are coming in, then Japan is likely to have captured one or more of the 5 red factories that are within striking range to use the additional resources. Only if Japan is doing exceptionally well early should building new factories be considered.

1.1.6.3 Force Pool, Lend-Lease, and Building Ahead



1.1.6.4 Production Priorities
Land
∙ Build a lot of cheap but elite land units for garrison duty.

Naval
To defend its envisioned co-prosperity sphere, Japan needs a large and powerful navy, which it has in 1939, but which should be made even stronger with new naval units.

∙ Many submarines to disrupt enemy shipping (this submarine war isn’t waged to decrease the enemy's production but simply to oblige him to defend the many sea areas that contain convoys.
∙ Carriers built to arrive before Sep/Oct 1941 (all 5+ movers in the construction and repair pool should be finished).
∙ As many Mogami Class CA units as possible.
∙ The BB Yamato, if possible (and the BB Musachi, but that’s expensive).

Air
∙ Many air units (long range FTRs and NAVs).

Special
∙ Build a synthetic oil plant ASAP (preferably in 1939).

An aggressive war against China changes the production emphasis to:
∙ Many infantry type units, fast moving if possible, but not necessarily elite.
∙ ART units.
∙ As many HQs as possible (3 minimum) to maintain supply.
∙ Some Armor (even if only a MECH DIV) because it can be used advantageously in Clear and Forest hexes.
∙ Some more air units, including enough FTR to keep air superiority over China.
∙ Enough TAC factors to support Japanese attacks and defend against Chinese attacks.

War against the USSR requires:
∙ At least 2 HQ.
∙ Enough infantry type units to eliminate the USSR garrisons.
∙ Basically this is a 1939 or 1940 war so the units for it already exist and just need to be deployed to the USSR front line.

.
.
.
.
.
Strategic Plans
Germany sets the pace and orientation of the Axis, so, in general, Japan must comply with Germany's choices. Japan’s overall strategic objectives are to:
∙ Expand to accumulate the most resources & oil (and red factories to a lesser extent). Japan has a lot of factories, and not enough resources to keep them all in use. Japan also drastically lacks oil, so building at least 1 Synthetic Oil early is mandatory. If Japan does not expand, it will die.

∙ Build the most effective army, navy, and air force to ward off the Allies.

∙ Keep as many victory cities as possible.

∙ Strategic plans that lead to a longer war in the Pacific are probably not good for Japan.

Strategic Plan #1- Historical

∙ Establish a neutrality pact with the USSR.

∙ Attack China.

∙ Expand rapidly across the Pacific to create the historical co-prosperity sphere.

∙ Additional expansion: India, Mideast, Madagascar, South Africa, Egypt, Australia, New Zealand, Honolulu, America Samoa.

Strategic Plan #2 - Early DOW USSR

∙ DOW the USSR early aiming to capture resources and the Vladivostok Factory.

∙ Then attack China, to contain them and capture resources.

∙ Expand rapidly across the Pacific to create the historical co-prosperity sphere.

∙ Additional expansion: India, Mideast, Madagascar, South Africa, Egypt, Australia, New Zealand, Honolulu, America Samoa.

Strategic Plan #3 - CW First, USA Second

The advocates of this strategy say it’s good to attack the CW separately and later the USA. The idea is that by focusing all of Japan’s offensive power on one enemy at a time, more can be accomplished (especially if 2 surprise impulses can be achieved). However, the US Entry effect of the first DOW may well push the USA to war much sooner than usual.

∙ Attack China and/or the USSR

∙ DOW on the CW and capture as many of its possessions as possible.

∙ DOW on the USA, or wait for their attack, which should come soon.

Strategic Plan #4 - Crush the CW

∙ Establish a neutrality pact with the USSR.

∙ Defend in China. China becomes a sideshow, and the Pacific war begins much sooner.

∙ DOW on the CW early and capture as many of its possessions as possible.


Strategic Plan Components

Attack China
Major Japanese Objective
∙ Destroy the Communists in 1939-1940

Important Japanese Objectives
∙ Kill as many Chinese units as possible.
∙ Lose as few units as possible, especially before 1942.
Garrisons (mostly anti-partisan)
∙ China
∙ Korea
∙ Manchuria
∙ Indochina
∙ Other occupied countries that might produce partisans.

Attack the USSR


Expand to historic co-prosperity sphere
Control before DOW on CW and/or USA
∙ Indochina
∙ Siam (for attacking Malaya)

Dominate sea areas
∙ Bismarck Sea
∙ Marianas
∙ China Sea
∙ South China Sea

Mandatory conquests
∙ 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
∙ NEI (should need an easy invasion on Java, followed by an assault of Batavia).
∙ Rabaul

Possible other conquests
∙ Honolulu if possible. It is very risky and may prevent the Japanese from achieving the other mandatory objectives.

Garrisons (these are either anti-invasion and/or partisan garrisons)
Crucial
∙ Truk
∙ Singapore
∙ Manila (an objective and important multi-sea area port for the fleet; a pivotal part of Japan's defense, and if the Allies control it, both the China Sea and the South China Sea will soon be lost and everything will collapse)

Important - Outer Ring
∙ Kwajalein / Eniwetok
∙ Rabaul
∙ Batavia
∙ Makassar
∙ Menado

Important - Inner Ring
∙ Bonin Islands
∙ Legaspi

Normal
∙ Oil hexes (to protect from invasion)
Hexes that can serve as enemy airbases which should be held to prevent the enemy from gaining air superiority over:
∙ Bismarck Sea
∙ Marianas
∙ China Sea
∙ South China Sea

Additional Expansion
Objective #1 - North Borneo
Should be conquered after the initial expansion and before the Allies return, so that they do not easily acquire air bases for controlling the South China Sea.

Objective #2 - Burma
Interests: Oil, cut the Burma Road and lend lease to China, enable land attack into India.

Objective #3 - India
Interests: Resources, Victory hexes and red factories, loss of IND units if conquered.
Landing in Cocandia has advantages. It’s a port with many of resources nearby. Calcutta is near, and could be attacked jointly with troops coming from Burma.

Objective #4 - Aden
Interests: Victory hex, enables control of the Red Sea and land attacks into Egypt.
Can be invaded if the CW is in trouble, or if Japan is very strong and has secured good bases in India.

Objective #5 - Madagascar
Interests: Victory hex.

Objective #6 - South Africa
Interests: Victory hex, disruption in the CW, loss of SA units if conquered.

Objective #7 - Australia
Interests: Resources, Victory hexes and red factories, loss of AUS units if conquered. However, the interest in conquering Australia is fairly low. Control of the Coral Sea may be necessary to achieve success in Australia.


Objective #8 - New Caledonia
Interests: Resource (even if only to deny it to the Allies).

Objective #9 - Mideast countries (Persia mainly)
Interests: Oil to reorganize units, and deny Oil to the enemy.
Outside of a normal conquest plan, Japan can simply align countries if declared war upon by the USSR for example, and send peacekeepers to defend the oil wells. Japan will need to be at war with the conqueror to stay there though.

Objective #10 - New Zealand
Interests: loss of NZ units if conquered. However, the interest in conquering New Zealand is very low.

Other Objectives
Those free invasions should be made by DIV on SCS if the places are undefended (to make the USA lose time when they return).∙ 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).

Garrison Types ∙ Defensive Garrisons prevent or hamper invasions and/or paradrops with their presence or ZOC. A hex is a defensive garrison hex only if it is threatened by enemy units.
∙ Anti-partisans Garrisons prevent or hamper partisans from appearing with their presence or ZOC. Locations that are appropriate for anti-partisan garrison are: resource hexes, red factory hexes, and key railroad hubs.

Garrison Ranking∙ Crucial: capitals, objective hexes, ports where an important fleet is based.
∙ Important: key hexes (e.g., Gibraltar, Malta, Copenhagen), multi-sea area ports (e.g., Manila, Canton, Menado, Makassar, Rabaul).
∙ Normal: Invadable and/or paradropable coastal hexes (Venice for example) and anti- partisan hexes.
∙ Less Important: invadable hexes and/or paradropable coastal hexes and anti- partisan hexes, that are already covered by a friendly ZOC, or with low chances of being chosen by the enemy for invasion and/or paradrop.

Garrisoning Guidelines
∙ Give the least protection to the place where you would want the enemy to attack. Choose where the enemy will land by creating a weak spot in your defenses.
∙ Always garrison Crucial hexes. Rare exceptions may happen, for example when the garrison must move to kill a partisan or for another reason, but as soon as possible the hex should be garrisoned again.
∙ Garrison Important hexes as soon as possible with 1 unit. Add a second unit once most of the important garrison hexes have 1 unit, assuming more units are available.
∙ Garrison Normal hexes with 0 units, and 1 unit once Important hexes begin to get garrisoned by 2 units.
∙ If possible, the placement of a defensive garrison should enable it to also serve as an anti-partisan garrison.
∙ Defensive garrisons should be kept in supply.
∙ Anti-partisan garrisons are not necessarily in supply. An HQ can come (via rail move) if there is a partisan surge.

Japanese Garrisons
Crucial
∙ Shanghai
∙ Canton (if fleet)
∙ Port Arthur
∙ Harbin

Important
∙ Canton but if the fleet stationed here is big it becomes Crucial

Normal
∙ Changsha with a MTN unit (or another 4-mover) to control the southeast mountains
∙ The rest depend on where the frontlines are.
∙ Emphasis is on: protecting flipped planes and most ports.

.
.
.
.
Priorities for targets
For Japan in late 1944 and 1945 the more potent weapon is the ability to interrupt the enemy preparations rather than the threat of a new amphibious blitzkrieg. When the Allies are threatening to invade, it is bad to reduce the garrison by sending troops overseas.

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

As the Japanese, my most precious ships are the sea lift units.

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, attack the enemy’s production capability so he can't rebuild 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.

Consider the utility of the factory or resource for both sides. 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 destroy a factory, its recapture becomes moot.

Carriers, even with a whole battle fleet achieve nothing, if they do enable invasions involving TRS & AMPH. Comparing Carriers to Fighters, the latter achieve air superiority, allowing the bombers and ATRs to do their job (which is to help the ground forces take territory). Carriers gain air superiority (and hence sea superiority) to allow TRS and AMPH (and other sealift) to do their job (which is to help the ground forces take territory). Offensive capability is the ability to seize ground, and carriers seize nothing. Attrition is available in land, air, and at sea; to fight just to inflict casualties, with no territorial objective.
Carriers as an offensive force at sea can control sea areas. The AMPH and TRS units are clearly for invasions. 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 land based 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.

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 CW 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 USA naval units. As the USA whittles the Japanese carriers down to few and then none, the USA increases its range of options on where to attack and how often.

Attrition is 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.

Carrier (and long ranged land based aircraft) 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.

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. Always be on the lookout for the coup de main where the Capitol can be taken immediately.

Use the Japanese MAR corps if necessary to take a garrisoned Wake; or else Nimitz, the SeaBees, and the Hellcats will be based there soon, and supporting an attack on the Bonins. And the Bonins can control Japan’s fate. In 1943-1944 keep MAR reserves to counterattack islands, especially ones like the Bonins on sea-boundaries.

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

Japan had previously been beating China to a pulp so that by the end of 1940 China was down to just the Communist city in the north and the Nationalist city in the south-western mountains both of which were threatened. At the same time the Allies were quite hard pressed on USE vs. Japan, especially with a big tension problem since their entry was low and they had either rolled high and not gotten a chit or pulled a 1 or 0 to go into the tension pool. By end of 1940 the USA had about 16 total entry vs. Japan and no more options to pick to try to gain tension. Before Sep/Oct 1940 we thought China could hold out until a USSR "surprise" offensive could come crushing down on Japan in 1941.

Japan attacked in Jul/Aug on a 10% global "fine" impulse; blasted through 4 CW corps in Malaya and grabbed a bunch of islands in the east Pacific while landing in NEI. During Sep/Oct 1941 Japan took out NEI. But still made no incursion into the Indian Ocean, where due to the Wallies considering this theater the crucial one in the "Pacific war" (to prevent Japan and Germany from linking up). Current defenses in the Indian Ocean from east to west consists of Burma (INF +2 MIL +2 TERR), India (MOT + MECH + 2 TERR + MIL + GAR), Ceylon (MIL), "double minor port" (Bel TERR), "Triple minor port" (INF), Aden (wp INF + TERR), Somalia conquered from IT (zip), Madagascar (MIL putting ZOC on both ports!), "double minor port in Portuguese Africa(?) (TERR) and South Africa (MIL, MECH, TERR).

Possessing the Suez Canal Zone allows the EuroAxis to support and be supported by Japan. This can be done either by stationing a part of the Japan carrier fleet in Aden where it has the option of joining the battle for the Mediterranean, or shift a part of the Italian fleet to Singapore to reinforce the Japanese anti-submarine war. It can be very helpful for Japan to be able to start a turn with a land or combined, knowing that the Italian fleet will help protect Japanese convoy lines. Likewise if Japan is hard pressed Italy can build convoy points to reduce the burden on Japan of building those.

When CW attacks Portugal, a good Japanese player will defend the Portuguese colony in south Africa. The double minor port there is an awesome staging point for a later super-combined surprise attack on the CW. Japan should consider attacking Portugal to grab this very area. Perhaps even Portugal itself and the Azores if CW is being a bit too timid. All it takes is for Japan to sail a 5-range SCS into Italian east Africa, rebase a couple of convoys there in the next impulse 2 and reorganize them with two 4-range transports. Voila, Japan can attack the African colonial holdings of Portugal on turn 1. With more time to prepare Japan can even make a gambit to grab Portugal itself with 2 DIVs + shore bombardment + carrier support, or just the Azores, from bases in Libya.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to dale1066)
Post #: 28
RE: AI for MWiF - Japan - 10/25/2007 11:53:22 PM   
Froonp


Posts: 7898
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: dale1066
BTW what does happen to terratorial units if you conquor their home country?

Switch sides.
Removed from original force pool, added to conqueror force pool, who can then build them.

When I wrote that the interest of conquering Australia was low, it was in comparizon to the rest.
Australia is easily cut of from supply, so will be easily taken back by the allies, so I would only target it if I already had conquered the other better objectives. Especially India, who hurts the CW the most, and give a lot more reward. India also opens up the way to Arabia, Suez, lots of juicer objectives. Australia opens the way to.... nothing...

(in reply to dale1066)
Post #: 29
RE: AI for MWiF - Japan - 10/26/2007 12:17:34 AM   
composer99


Posts: 2181
Joined: 6/6/2005
From: Ottawa, Canada
Status: online
Mind, Australia & NZ are pretty good forward bases for the US fleet until it gets Rabaul or Truk, especially as they are primary supply sources for the Americans.

_____________________________

~ Composer99

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> AI for MWiF - Japan Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   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

0.244