Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Fools Rush In Where Angels Fear To Tread: Panjack (A) vs. Q-Ball (J)

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: Fools Rush In Where Angels Fear To Tread: Panjack (A) vs. Q-Ball (J) Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Fools Rush In Where Angels Fear To Tread: Panjack (... - 9/17/2014 12:12:34 AM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sangeli


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
I'm a navy guy. I think about water. A lot of posters here are land-rats or in love with the airplanes.

Heh. I'm definitely one of those land-rats. But I'd agree with almost of what you wrote despite our different perspectives. The one thing I will add further is don't stockpile a 100k+ of supply in a base if you lack adequate defense. The reason to stockpile supply is to ensure that if you are under siege that you don't collapse due to supply issues. But if you don't have adequate defenses there won't be a siege so it's a mute point. Seems obvious but many newbie AFBs get caught up in the mindset of just stockpiling supply where they might need it eventually and end up giving the Japanese a nice big gift to fuel their economy.


See, and I think supply is to rearm ships.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Sangeli)
Post #: 91
RE: Fools Rush In Where Angels Fear To Tread: Panjack (... - 9/17/2014 5:03:54 AM   
Panjack

 

Posts: 380
Joined: 7/12/2009
Status: offline
December 23, 1941
----------------------
Japanese sub I-164 got three xAKs at Port Blair, launching 7 torpedoes and getting 5 hits.

Allied subs launch 12 torpedoes total at an AO, a TK, an xAK, and a CM. They all missed.

Today the Japanese 110th Division and the 12th Army, two experienced units, joined the ground bombardment party near Paotow in China, where the long road through the desert to Lanchow starts. About 900 Japanese AV is now in that hex. Pretty clear Japan is headed to Lanchow. Chinese High Command have therefore given this enemy operation a official name, "the Lanchow Misadventure." Although they intended this name to express confidence that the Japanese effort to take the town is destined to fail, others thought the name would end up being used as shorthand for the Chinese bungling of the defense of that vital town.

Japanese tanks have been involved in some minor battles in China, but it is not entirely clear where they will end up being used. The presumption is that these tanks will spearhead a second Japanese offensive.

Palembang fell and the Japanese are now working their way down the Solomon Islands. B-17s dropped their first bombs in anger; unfortunately the evidence is that the airfield attack on Ambon merely angered a few birds flying through a rain forest many miles away where the bombs apparently hit, as not a single bomb landed on the target. More training is indicated.

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 92
RE: Fools Rush In Where Angels Fear To Tread: Panjack (... - 9/17/2014 6:34:52 AM   
Sangeli


Posts: 1132
Joined: 3/29/2012
From: San Francisco
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panjack
bout 900 Japanese AV is now in that hex. Pretty clear Japan is headed to Lanchow. Chinese High Command have therefore given this enemy operation a official name, "the Lanchow Misadventure." Although they intended this name to express confidence that the Japanese effort to take the town is destined to fail, others thought the name would end up being used as shorthand for the Chinese bungling of the defense of that vital town.

It could be a small OP just to clear the northern flank of the IJA then head south. If he starts actually marching down that road then I think you can assume that's where the army is going but again its not an urgent to determine this right this instant

Whats the rest of China look like? Mind posting a screenshot?

(in reply to Panjack)
Post #: 93
RE: Fools Rush In Where Angels Fear To Tread: Panjack (... - 9/17/2014 2:09:10 PM   
Panjack

 

Posts: 380
Joined: 7/12/2009
Status: offline
I'll get a screenshot up this evening.

(in reply to Sangeli)
Post #: 94
RE: Fools Rush In Where Angels Fear To Tread: Panjack (... - 9/17/2014 3:17:03 PM   
Panjack

 

Posts: 380
Joined: 7/12/2009
Status: offline
I figure things out by writing, even if some of what I write below is merely restating what others have written, and so...

I don't have the game in front of me, so this is just impressionistic: the RR from Paotow to Wuchang is Japan's greatest weapon. Japan can concentrate its forces at any number of places along that RR, and put China in the position of having to perhaps move reserves to shore up the attacked location and thereby weakening other points along the line, and then Japan can, if the first attack isn't to its satisfaction, move units to a new point along the line, possibly a newly weakened point, much more rapidly than China can (because of the RR).

Two points, then: First, what people have already alluded to, a move over the long desert trail to Lanchow represents Japan giving up this most powerful weapon, the ability to move quickly by making use of the RR as troops along that trail are far from the RR and far from their own reserves. In fact, from the point of view of China, the attack they might want to face is one through the desert to Lanchow. It seems the best defense for China in such an attack is to go after the lengthy and exposed lines of communication linking units attacking Lanchow and sources of supply far away. Indeed, a Japanese attack on Lanchow basically turns Japanese units into cousins of Chinese units: they will face a major concern about supply and will lack the benefits of mobility. And if these Japanese units give up the attack, it's a long walk back to the RR.

Second, China must use extreme economy in its use of ground units as moving many units to defend in one location weakens it elsewhere. While some Japanese attacks might require massive responses, say where a Japanese breakthrough is threatened at a key location, China must generally develop defensive strategies that make the optimal use of units that are close to the attack. True, sometimes units might have to be brought in from some distance, but the preferred Chinese solution is to throw as few units at a problem as possible. It seems the preferred solution is to get as much advanced notice of any Japanese offensive (by sending out trip-wire units and by closely reading the tea leaves, that is intel and combat reports) which would allow local reserves to have time to get where they need to be. The preferred defensive solution must also be premised, where possible, on going after Japanese communications. After all, a small unit sitting on the road supplying Japanese units, which helps degrade Japanese firepower, might be worth 3 times what it would be worth actually on the field of battle.

I'm just thinking out loud here just to see if any ideas I have, of a general perspective about China, hold water. I really know nothing about such matters. My goal is to find a strategy/set of tactics that allows China to hold out for one or two months longer than otherwise would be the case.

(in reply to Panjack)
Post #: 95
RE: Fools Rush In Where Angels Fear To Tread: Panjack (... - 9/17/2014 4:38:01 PM   
SqzMyLemon


Posts: 4239
Joined: 10/30/2009
From: Alberta, Canada
Status: offline
Having experience playing Japan in two games now, I've never had a problem taking Lanchow. The problem for China is not how to defend Lanchow, but more a matter of what are you willing to lose doing so. Lanchow usually is a target after Sian falls, or as you mention vulnerable to a long march by Japanese forces via the desert. The threat is once Lanchow falls, if your forces retreat west they are essentially out of the fight for good due to the lack of supply.

I think the key to defending China is not to focus on Japan's capability or make assumptions on how supply will limit the advance. Japan can advance easily in China and supply most times is not the limiting factor. Plan accordingly. China is all about delay and get into 3x defensive terrain as soon as possible, conserve your supply and just try to hang on as long as possible. Q-Ball has much game experience and if you follow many of the recent AAR's you can see what an experienced Japanese player can do in China, stacking limits or not.

_____________________________

Luck is the residue of design - John Milton

Don't mistake lack of talent for genius - Peter Steele (Type O Negative)

(in reply to Panjack)
Post #: 96
RE: Fools Rush In Where Angels Fear To Tread: Panjack (... - 9/17/2014 4:48:11 PM   
GreyJoy


Posts: 6750
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline
Also remember to send immediately some units to dig in the northern mountains, near Tienshui.
Don't forget to cover the western rivercrossing that leads to the road from Kunming to Kweiyang
Don't lose supplies building forts in the base-hexes. Instead use that very same supply to build forts in critical points out in the country (always +3 terrain)

(in reply to SqzMyLemon)
Post #: 97
RE: Fools Rush In Where Angels Fear To Tread: Panjack (... - 9/17/2014 11:24:51 PM   
Sangeli


Posts: 1132
Joined: 3/29/2012
From: San Francisco
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panjack

I figure things out by writing, even if some of what I write below is merely restating what others have written, and so...

I don't have the game in front of me, so this is just impressionistic: the RR from Paotow to Wuchang is Japan's greatest weapon. Japan can concentrate its forces at any number of places along that RR, and put China in the position of having to perhaps move reserves to shore up the attacked location and thereby weakening other points along the line, and then Japan can, if the first attack isn't to its satisfaction, move units to a new point along the line, possibly a newly weakened point, much more rapidly than China can (because of the RR).

Two points, then: First, what people have already alluded to, a move over the long desert trail to Lanchow represents Japan giving up this most powerful weapon, the ability to move quickly by making use of the RR as troops along that trail are far from the RR and far from their own reserves. In fact, from the point of view of China, the attack they might want to face is one through the desert to Lanchow. It seems the best defense for China in such an attack is to go after the lengthy and exposed lines of communication linking units attacking Lanchow and sources of supply far away. Indeed, a Japanese attack on Lanchow basically turns Japanese units into cousins of Chinese units: they will face a major concern about supply and will lack the benefits of mobility. And if these Japanese units give up the attack, it's a long walk back to the RR.

Second, China must use extreme economy in its use of ground units as moving many units to defend in one location weakens it elsewhere. While some Japanese attacks might require massive responses, say where a Japanese breakthrough is threatened at a key location, China must generally develop defensive strategies that make the optimal use of units that are close to the attack. True, sometimes units might have to be brought in from some distance, but the preferred Chinese solution is to throw as few units at a problem as possible. It seems the preferred solution is to get as much advanced notice of any Japanese offensive (by sending out trip-wire units and by closely reading the tea leaves, that is intel and combat reports) which would allow local reserves to have time to get where they need to be. The preferred defensive solution must also be premised, where possible, on going after Japanese communications. After all, a small unit sitting on the road supplying Japanese units, which helps degrade Japanese firepower, might be worth 3 times what it would be worth actually on the field of battle.

I'm just thinking out loud here just to see if any ideas I have, of a general perspective about China, hold water. I really know nothing about such matters. My goal is to find a strategy/set of tactics that allows China to hold out for one or two months longer than otherwise would be the case.

You are learning very quickly! Your insights on how detection, movement, and decision making interact are spot on! However, your ideas on the impact of supply lines don't really match up with reality in WitP. The game is very forgiving when it comes to LCU supply in large part due to experience in the Pacific theater but the result is that the Chinese experience is fairly different than from real life. In real life small Chinese units could certain disrupt Japanese supply lines which were prone to being overstretched, it's not really the case in this game. Only in very extreme situations will the Japanese struggle to get supply to front line units in China. Your ideas on supply are probably how it should be but the game just doesn't work that way.

(in reply to Panjack)
Post #: 98
RE: Fools Rush In Where Angels Fear To Tread: Panjack (... - 9/18/2014 3:11:54 AM   
Panjack

 

Posts: 380
Joined: 7/12/2009
Status: offline
Jury duty + work deadlines don't leave me much time to post today. I'll be back tomorrow!

(in reply to Sangeli)
Post #: 99
RE: Fools Rush In Where Angels Fear To Tread: Panjack (... - 9/18/2014 4:51:10 PM   
Panjack

 

Posts: 380
Joined: 7/12/2009
Status: offline
As requested, below is part of the planned defenses of part of China.

The yellow lines, with numbers, indicate where the current strong points are planned. For strong point #1 (ST1) I also indicated a bit more the details of how forces are, or will soon be, arrayed. The lowercase t indicates where a tripwire unit will sit. Having this unit will permit units behind it to be in rest mode until an attack occurs at t. Further an attack at t will reveal some information what is coming. And, of course, it will give an extra couple of day's advance notice before at attack on a strong hold, which can only help in defending the strong hold that will come under attack.

The lower case z, behind the lines, indicates where a unit will sit along a supply line. If a moderately strong Japanese units attacks the tripwire unit, then the unit will move into the mountains at the upper case Z. The function of this unit is to threaten the lines of communication of Japanese units if they break through at strong point #1. Notice that a unit at Z can move to cut off the lines of communication for two different Japanese advances. Although Q-Ball might be able to see this unit (who knows what recon he'll up in the mountains or behind the lines) getting rid of it might require him sending lots up units up into the mountains for what might be an expensive foray. So if he sees it, good. If he doesn't see it, better.

I plan similar sorts of defenses near the other strong points, 2-5.

The upper case X indicates where Japanese tanks have been attacking for a number of turns. They finally drove off the Chinese units that sat there. He's been heavily attacking by air the ground units located SW of the X in the town. This is dumped them out of Move into Combat, slowing them down. Every turn I need to put them back on Move. If I had to guess where these tanks might be headed, it would be to strong point 3.

The r's indicate planned locations for reserves. Unfortunately, the distance of strong points 1 and 5 require that I have some reserves be placed (and/or units to stop a breakthrough) where they are not too helpful to support other strong points. My plan is that these reserves might move forward to SP1 and SP5 it needed, or they might just hunker down there to provide a place for a retreat from a breakthrough at SP1 or SP5, or perhaps to march back toward some other place if needed. I have no idea if this plan makes any sense!

Q-ball already hit a tripwire unit before strong point 5. I was thinking of having the strong point another hex back, but given the movement forward of Japan here it is probably best just to leave the units where they are so they don't get attacked while in the process of moving. The attack on the tripwire units was by the 13th division, which is a non-elite Japanese unit. As of now, therefore, I presume this movement toward SP5 is just a probe, but unfortunately because SP5 is so far from sources of help I might have to treat this movement at SP5 more seriously that I otherwise would. I'll pay attention to those tank units at X--hope I don't lose track of them--to see if they move toward ST5.

Feedback, criticisms, and even personal attacks based on my tentative defense plans will be appreciated. Of course, it is an open question as to whether I, in my inexperience, can really do much to delay Q-Ball's advance in China.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Panjack -- 9/19/2014 2:03:33 AM >

(in reply to Panjack)
Post #: 100
RE: Fools Rush In Where Angels Fear To Tread: Panjack (... - 9/18/2014 5:32:42 PM   
Sangeli


Posts: 1132
Joined: 3/29/2012
From: San Francisco
Status: offline
I don't see the markers on the map you posted.

(in reply to Panjack)
Post #: 101
RE: Fools Rush In Where Angels Fear To Tread: Panjack (... - 9/18/2014 5:42:03 PM   
Mike McCreery


Posts: 4216
Joined: 6/29/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sangeli

I don't see the markers on the map you posted.


You could have just told him the plan looked brilliant :P

I was waiting for him to notice... I do that too often myself LOL!!

_____________________________


(in reply to Sangeli)
Post #: 102
RE: Fools Rush In Where Angels Fear To Tread: Panjack (... - 9/18/2014 5:52:23 PM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 6057
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline
This China defence will fail badly for the reasons I have given previously in various AARs and threads.  And as always the advice will be dismissed, intentionally misinterpreted and selective straw men set up to discredit it.

  • No MLR can succeed in China
  • The wrong metric is always employed to assess the success/failure of Allied operations in China
  • Most players are always only comfortable repeating conventional wisdom and what has transpired previously

Except for sieges and the Western/Italian Fronts in WWI, land warfare is not static but based on maneouvre  So many players treat AE as an air warfare game they miss this essential point.  If they played AE as the real PTO was handled, they would realise it is a naval game and any naval man worth his salt knows that naval warfare is dynamic, not static.  The same applies to land warfare, especially at the continental level.

Alfred 

(in reply to Sangeli)
Post #: 103
RE: Fools Rush In Where Angels Fear To Tread: Panjack (... - 9/18/2014 5:56:14 PM   
Sangeli


Posts: 1132
Joined: 3/29/2012
From: San Francisco
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred
No MLR can succeed in China

What's MLR?

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 104
RE: Fools Rush In Where Angels Fear To Tread: Panjack (... - 9/18/2014 6:17:52 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 24785
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sangeli

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred
No MLR can succeed in China

What's MLR?

Main Line of Resistance.

_____________________________


(in reply to Sangeli)
Post #: 105
RE: Fools Rush In Where Angels Fear To Tread: Panjack (... - 9/18/2014 6:31:23 PM   
Sangeli


Posts: 1132
Joined: 3/29/2012
From: San Francisco
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred
This China defence will fail badly for the reasons I have given previously in various AARs and threads.  And as always the advice will be dismissed, intentionally misinterpreted and selective straw men set up to discredit it.

The search engine on the Matrix forum is awful so please reiterate your argument or post a link to a thread where you have discussed it. Frankly I've had great success with the tactics being outlined by Panjack but I am only one sample point.

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 106
RE: Fools Rush In Where Angels Fear To Tread: Panjack (... - 9/18/2014 6:52:47 PM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 14919
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sangeli

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred
This China defence will fail badly for the reasons I have given previously in various AARs and threads.  And as always the advice will be dismissed, intentionally misinterpreted and selective straw men set up to discredit it.

The search engine on the Matrix forum is awful so please reiterate your argument or post a link to a thread where you have discussed it. Frankly I've had great success with the tactics being outlined by Panjack but I am only one sample point.

Alfred does not usually detail what he thinks you should do - he plants the seed and lets you decide what to do differently.
On rare occasions when no one is guessing what he is implying, he will come right out and say it -as when he alerted AFBs that there are a lot of vulnerable bases worth a lot of VPs in Alaska/Northern Canada.
Alfred's last post that I saw on China was that all this obsessing with stacking, forts and MLRs was futile and we should think of different strategies instead. It is still up to us to decide how to go about it.

Alfred: I hope I have fairly described your approach and intentions. Please jump in if not so.

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to Sangeli)
Post #: 107
RE: Fools Rush In Where Angels Fear To Tread: Panjack (... - 9/19/2014 1:01:46 AM   
Panjack

 

Posts: 380
Joined: 7/12/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sangeli
I don't see the markers on the map you posted.


Oh, no! Tossed the image up rushing out the door for a day sitting in a jury pool at the local courthouse. I must have upload the wrong image (or the censors did their job).

Here is what I intended. I also replaced the image above.





Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Panjack -- 9/19/2014 2:04:15 AM >

(in reply to Sangeli)
Post #: 108
RE: Fools Rush In Where Angels Fear To Tread: Panjack (... - 9/19/2014 1:21:04 AM   
Panjack

 

Posts: 380
Joined: 7/12/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred
This China defence will fail badly for the reasons I have given previously in various AARs and threads.  And as always the advice will be dismissed, intentionally misinterpreted and selective straw men set up to discredit it.

  • No MLR can succeed in China
  • The wrong metric is always employed to assess the success/failure of Allied operations in China
  • Most players are always only comfortable repeating conventional wisdom and what has transpired previously

Except for sieges and the Western/Italian Fronts in WWI, land warfare is not static but based on maneouvre  So many players treat AE as an air warfare game they miss this essential point.  If they played AE as the real PTO was handled, they would realise it is a naval game and any naval man worth his salt knows that naval warfare is dynamic, not static.  The same applies to land warfare, especially at the continental level.

Alfred 

Hi Alfred,

I appreciate your criticism and perspective.

I've tried to build a defense in China what was NOT static, but perhaps it falls far short of what you think is necessarily. (I must admit, though, that just getting the Chinese units somewhere where they don't get immediately slaughtered has taxed my abilities!)

If you don't mind, could you provide a bit more on what your perspective is about how best to deal with China? I understand your general gist, but I'm not knowledgeable enough yet about the game to know the practical implications of your suggestion. I'd even greatly appreciate a simple link to another AAR.

I've ready learned much from what folks have generously offered in this AAR and, as a result, I have become a slightly better player. I look forward to any criticism you might offer that can help me become just a bit better player than I otherwise might be. I'm not opposed at all to any "tough love" you might be willing to administer!

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 109
RE: Fools Rush In Where Angels Fear To Tread: Panjack (... - 9/19/2014 1:42:43 AM   
Panjack

 

Posts: 380
Joined: 7/12/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy
...Alfred's last post that I saw on China was that all this obsessing with stacking, forts and MLRs was futile and we should think of different strategies instead. It is still up to us to decide how to go about it.

I presume what I'm doing in China is futile; I've come embrace the futility!

But perhaps that is just because I'm mired in the "conventional" wisdom. (Although, it must be said, sometimes the conventional wisdom is correct, and the result of meaningful practical experience. One can't just assume it is correct OR that it is necessarily wrong.) I do know, however, that my defenses in China are a LOT better now then they otherwise would have been because of the comments made by other people here.

Some hypothetical defense of China that dominates the current "best practice" might exist, but until we get a glimpse of this superior defense it had the same status as a unicorn. Now perhaps someone has this unicorn in his backyard, and I'm not demanding to see the unicorn. Maybe just a photo of unicorn droppings would be enough for others to know it is worth looking, in the own backyard, for their own hidden unicorn.

I wonder, though, if the constraints the Allied player faces in China don't admit to the discovery of anything much better than what some people now use. Donkeys might be best we can get, no matter how much we wish we had unicorns.

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 110
RE: Fools Rush In Where Angels Fear To Tread: Panjack (... - 9/19/2014 1:55:27 AM   
Panjack

 

Posts: 380
Joined: 7/12/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sangeli
...In real life small Chinese units could certain disrupt Japanese supply lines which were prone to being overstretched, it's not really the case in this game. Only in very extreme situations will the Japanese struggle to get supply to front line units in China. Your ideas on supply are probably how it should be but the game just doesn't work that way.

Again very helpful. Is the way it works in the game is that IF supply exists it will find a way to get where LCUs need it (regardless of what supply lines are cut)?

(in reply to Sangeli)
Post #: 111
RE: Fools Rush In Where Angels Fear To Tread: Panjack (... - 9/19/2014 2:11:16 AM   
Sangeli


Posts: 1132
Joined: 3/29/2012
From: San Francisco
Status: offline
Ok now I can evaluate your post
quote:

ORIGINAL: Panjack
The yellow lines, with numbers, indicate where the current strong points are planned. For strong point #1 (ST1) I also indicated a bit more the details of how forces are, or will soon be, arrayed. The lowercase t indicates where a tripwire unit will sit. Having this unit will permit units behind it to be in rest mode until an attack occurs at t. Further an attack at t will reveal some information what is coming. And, of course, it will give an extra couple of day's advance notice before at attack on a strong hold, which can only help in defending the strong hold that will come under attack.

The lower case z, behind the lines, indicates where a unit will sit along a supply line. If a moderately strong Japanese units attacks the tripwire unit, then the unit will move into the mountains at the upper case Z. The function of this unit is to threaten the lines of communication of Japanese units if they break through at strong point #1. Notice that a unit at Z can move to cut off the lines of communication for two different Japanese advances. Although Q-Ball might be able to see this unit (who knows what recon he'll up in the mountains or behind the lines) getting rid of it might require him sending lots up units up into the mountains for what might be an expensive foray. So if he sees it, good. If he doesn't see it, better.

Interesting idea but marching from z to Z is very time consuming and puts your units off the road network which should be avoided when possible. This is one of those times you can avoid it I think; a Japanese maneuver to bypass #1 will require moving across two hexes without the roads through bad terrain. Should the Japanese get strong units in Z it will take them no less than 15 days (3 miles per day in mountains) to get from Z to z. That is a lot of time for you to make adjustments to prepare for it. Meanwhile z itself is very defendable sitting in 2x terrain and behind a river.
quote:

ORIGINAL: Panjack
I plan similar sorts of defenses near the other strong points, 2-5.

It's worth noting that no two pieces of real estate have the same configuration of roads and terrain which can often mean vastly different approaches to an effective defensive strategy. Like #5 for example. The road from #5 to the next road junction is a long one entirely along 3x terrain. You can defend basically any point in this line. And in fact the further back your defenses are here the closer the line is to your reserves and the further the Japanese are from their rail roads.

Also, the best reserve positions are at road junctions where a unit can go in 3+ directions at decent speed. If that area doesn't have a good road junction then the next best option for placing reserves is usually right behind the front line. That also prevents the Japanese from just marching around your strong points and encircling them directly.

The last thing I'll say is GTFO of Loyang ASAP. No garrison? No problem! Or rather Japanese problem

(in reply to Panjack)
Post #: 112
RE: Fools Rush In Where Angels Fear To Tread: Panjack (... - 9/19/2014 2:56:31 AM   
Panjack

 

Posts: 380
Joined: 7/12/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sangeli
Interesting idea but marching from z to Z is very time consuming and puts your units off the road network which should be avoided when possible. This is one of those times you can avoid it I think; a Japanese maneuver to bypass #1 will require moving across two hexes without the roads through bad terrain. Should the Japanese get strong units in Z it will take them no less than 15 days (3 miles per day in mountains) to get from Z to z. That is a lot of time for you to make adjustments to prepare for it. Meanwhile z itself is very defendable sitting in 2x terrain and behind a river.

That makes sense.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sangeli
It's worth noting that no two pieces of real estate have the same configuration of roads and terrain which can often mean vastly different approaches to an effective defensive strategy. Like #5 for example. The road from #5 to the next road junction is a long one entirely along 3x terrain. You can defend basically any point in this line. And in fact the further back your defenses are here the closer the line is to your reserves and the further the Japanese are from their rail roads.

I was wondering if defending further back made sense. On the one hand, defending further back is ceding land to Japan, something I feel concerned about, but doing so creates a higher chance that defenses hold well. I'll try to move my defenses back.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sangeli
Also, the best reserve positions are at road junctions where a unit can go in 3+ directions at decent speed. If that area doesn't have a good road junction then the next best option for placing reserves is usually right behind the front line. That also prevents the Japanese from just marching around your strong points and encircling them directly.

I was thinking that was the case. I'll move up those units too far behind the lines but not in good places to move elsewhere if needed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sangeli
The last thing I'll say is GTFO of Loyang ASAP. No garrison? No problem! Or rather Japanese problem

Hey, I been trying to do that for a long time! Q-Ball keeps bombing my units and they seem to end up moving a mile a day because of that. I thought I'd defend briefly that dot base to the NW of Loyang, and some of these units ended up in Loyang, and I didn't move from the beginning the units that started in Loyang. Beginner mistake. Most every battle against the Japanese ends up really badly for the Chinese units. I think the losses are in the order of 10:1 in most cases, if not worse.

(in reply to Sangeli)
Post #: 113
RE: Fools Rush In Where Angels Fear To Tread: Panjack (... - 9/19/2014 3:03:05 AM   
Mike McCreery


Posts: 4216
Joined: 6/29/2013
Status: offline
I remember hearing something once attributed to Napoleon. Who knows if it was or not.

He once was reviewing a battle plan where the other general had the men lined up along the border. He asked the general if he was fighting a war or trying to catch poachers.

You appear to be spreading yourself thin. Also, territory has no value in this game. The only important things for China are the bases that generate supply for them. Get to those and fight to the death. Even if you lose you have a chance of the industry being damaged by the fighting. Ultimately that hurts Japan in the long run.

Your defense looks like mine. It didnt work... :P



_____________________________


(in reply to Panjack)
Post #: 114
RE: Fools Rush In Where Angels Fear To Tread: Panjack (... - 9/19/2014 3:05:59 AM   
Panjack

 

Posts: 380
Joined: 7/12/2009
Status: offline
Does it make sense to pull back two hexes from strong point #5 way back to behind where the river crosses the road?

(in reply to Panjack)
Post #: 115
RE: Fools Rush In Where Angels Fear To Tread: Panjack (... - 9/19/2014 6:16:09 AM   
Panjack

 

Posts: 380
Joined: 7/12/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Wargmr
...You appear to be spreading yourself thin. Also, territory has no value in this game. The only important things for China are the bases that generate supply for them. Get to those and fight to the death. Even if you lose you have a chance of the industry being damaged by the fighting. Ultimately that hurts Japan in the long run.

That's interesting. I will admit that my presumption has been that once a strong point falls a new defensible point can be developed maybe 4 hexes back...so I wanted some hexes back behind my strong points. Is it the case, then, that when a strong point falls it is hard to develop a new place to defend? To be honest, part of what has driven my thinking in China is a lack of confidence to pull back as far as possible. I can see the logic in doing that: reduce the length of my supply lines, lengthen those for Japan, increase the speed with which my LCUs could move from strong point to another, and reduce the speed with which Japan could move from one place of attack to another.

Given that my defense of China will end up failing, I guess trying something new...and perhaps failing in an innovative way...is worth trying. Has anyone done what I think you're suggesting?

Of the 5 strong points on my map, #1 and #5 can be easily pulled back, perhaps to where the river crosses the roads, and I see that making them stronger. It seems the problem will be with #2. I don't see how it can be pulled back. And it if can't be, then #3 and #4 also can't be pulled back. But, at least that's two improvements.

And, of course, I'm not sure about what to do with Changsha and the other areas of China in such an alternative plan.

I guess a more clear focus on the goals in China is needed: not territory but keeping the most Japanese troops there as long as possible and denying as much supply (and other good stuff) from Japan as long as possible.

< Message edited by Panjack -- 9/19/2014 7:22:03 AM >

(in reply to Mike McCreery)
Post #: 116
RE: Fools Rush In Where Angels Fear To Tread: Panjack (... - 9/19/2014 6:32:05 AM   
Panjack

 

Posts: 380
Joined: 7/12/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon
Having experience playing Japan in two games now, I've never had a problem taking Lanchow. The problem for China is not how to defend Lanchow, but more a matter of what are you willing to lose doing so. Lanchow usually is a target after Sian falls, or as you mention vulnerable to a long march by Japanese forces via the desert. The threat is once Lanchow falls, if your forces retreat west they are essentially out of the fight for good due to the lack of supply.

I think the key to defending China is not to focus on Japan's capability or make assumptions on how supply will limit the advance. Japan can advance easily in China and supply most times is not the limiting factor. Plan accordingly. China is all about delay and get into 3x defensive terrain as soon as possible, conserve your supply and just try to hang on as long as possible. Q-Ball has much game experience and if you follow many of the recent AAR's you can see what an experienced Japanese player can do in China, stacking limits or not.

Hi Sqz,

I still consider Milton, who you quote, as my favorite author.

I've got a bunch of units on 3x hexes, but sadly some have been cut off in the plains. Wargmr is suggesting pulling way back in some places, I think. What do you think about doing that?

Does it make sense to abandon Lanchow as soon as Sian is serious threatened? Does it make sense to not even try to defend Lanchow much (maybe only enough to make Japan destroy some of industry and refineries as it tries to take over the town)?

(in reply to SqzMyLemon)
Post #: 117
RE: Fools Rush In Where Angels Fear To Tread: Panjack (... - 9/19/2014 6:41:58 AM   
Panjack

 

Posts: 380
Joined: 7/12/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

Also remember to send immediately some units to dig in the northern mountains, near Tienshui.

Say the one hex above Tienshui? That's to protect from any Japanese units coming down from Lanchow?

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoyDon't forget to cover the western rivercrossing that leads to the road from Kunming to Kweiyang

I'm already have a unit moving to the hex two above Nanning. I see now that's not the best one to defend. Are you taking about the hex two to the left of Kweiyan and one down? I guess that's a better place because of the supply issue.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy
Don't lose supplies building forts in the base-hexes. Instead use that very same supply to build forts in critical points out in the country (always +3 terrain)

Why country-side forts instead of base hex forts?

(in reply to GreyJoy)
Post #: 118
RE: Fools Rush In Where Angels Fear To Tread: Panjack (... - 9/19/2014 7:31:08 AM   
Panjack

 

Posts: 380
Joined: 7/12/2009
Status: offline
Odd proposal for China: how about abandoning most of the cities the Allied player generally fights for. Pull back to only a few places, perhaps those marked below. Instead of defending a dozen places, defend only 4 or so places.

The key question is, however, can the Chinese army live off of what can be produced in the few cities still under its control?

What might be the point of the above? If this works out (!?), the Chinese army might have a chance of remaining a viable threat to Japan, and a growing threat over time. Perhaps the Chinese army, at least the units able to move into Burma for free and maybe units for which PP a paid to make this possible, can move into Burma in a strong way after some point.

Perhaps this might lead Japan to keep more units for a longer time in China and Burma and then when the Allies start of advance, a bunch of Japanese units might be stuck in China making Allied advances easier elsewhere. Indeed, maybe the Chinese armies, when trained and grown to full size, might march to take the cities they have more-or-less abandoned a year or two before. While Japan will benefits for a long time from the supply, resources, and oil that come from the cities the Chinese abandon, this might be more than counteracted by the fact the Chinese army might become an independent force that Japan must come to fear!

Lots of "perhapses" certainly above. But does the above make any sense at all? I don't know the math of feeding the Chinese army and so the above might be dumb. But it might be spectacularly dumb, and so interesting.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Panjack -- 9/19/2014 8:33:37 AM >

(in reply to Panjack)
Post #: 119
RE: Fools Rush In Where Angels Fear To Tread: Panjack (... - 9/19/2014 4:44:22 PM   
Sangeli


Posts: 1132
Joined: 3/29/2012
From: San Francisco
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Panjack
Odd proposal for China: how about abandoning most of the cities the Allied player generally fights for. Pull back to only a few places, perhaps those marked below. Instead of defending a dozen places, defend only 4 or so places

Don't do this off the bat. You need to see how the situation develops first. Just take a deep breath and see how the game develops and learn from that. Ultimately you have only one opponent and our experiences may not always be relevant to yours. China may be a breeze for you like it is for me against my long time opponent. Or it could be awful and you lose by the end of 1942. I don't know and you don't but you'll find out! If you really have this much time to worry about China you could always start another game to use up that time.

< Message edited by Sangeli -- 9/19/2014 5:46:14 PM >

(in reply to Panjack)
Post #: 120
Page:   <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: Fools Rush In Where Angels Fear To Tread: Panjack (A) vs. Q-Ball (J) Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   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

0.199