India and Bombay

[incbob]

Just found out you must protect Bombay at all cost.

If Japan can take Bombay, irregardless of anything else, they completely cut off India from the Allies.

[incbob]

So here is what you do as Japan.

1) Buy Supply Oilers turn 1.
2) Move Kido Butai so it can be in the Bay of Bengal with op points to operate.
3) Start moving an Army and a Corp (or two) towards the Bay of Bengal.
4) Once Ready use your force to invade and take Bombay.
.........a) Use your fleet for fleet supply if needed.
.........b) Even if the Allies gather their fleet you still outgun them. This also leaves the rest of the Pacific completely open to all you want to do.


With Bombay taken India is completely cut off from the Allies and has no means of getting anything from either the UK or the US. Reinforcing a single division to max cost 7 PP. India only starts with 45 PP so it can only reinforce 6 divisions. Eventually it will fall.

If you combine this move with invading Australia you can really limit the Allies.



No I did not come up with this, my enemy taught me.

[kennonlightfoot]

India needs a full strength army size unit in Bombay to hold it against any serious Japanese attempt to take it.

Historically Japan didn't attempt to take India because they were afraid it would become like China, manpower and resource pit. But the game rewards the Japanese player since they can knock India and all the problems it creates out of the game.

I just took Delhi. It will be interesting to see what this causes.

[YueJin]

India should fall every game if the Japanese player invades Bombay on turn 4. The Allies have no transports to even attempt to help, India's production is crippled with no convoy aid and the port can't be held even if you garrison it with the I corps since the Japanese just cut both rail lines and take it, not to mention how quickly Calcutta also falls in that case.

[incbob]

I posted a question in the main forum, but because I have been studying this. I can get Kido Butai, full strength, an full supply at Bombay on Turn 5.

Even if the Allies come with their full navy Japan should win, but it could cost Japan dearly.
They take Bombay, India is at 30 PP's, and unable to stop Japan from marching in.

Is the loss of India a death knell for the Allies? How many CVs can Japan afford to lose?


Mind you, this even disregards the fact that in this "WW2 game" the critical battle is happening at Bombay in February 1942

[kennonlightfoot]

As long as Japan keeps all six of its CV's together they are un-killable by the US navy in 42. Midway isn't going to happen.

India has the ability to raise huge armies of almost unlimited manpower. Knocking it out of the game in 42 is a major blow to the Allied side. It won't win them the war at sea but it will do wonders for their Asia land campaign.

Assuming I ever can get the convoy system to work, since the US has to pump Production points into India.

[ago1000]

A solution might be to have an off map port of Karachi as an endpoint of the Indian convoy route and attach it by rail to India. If Bombay falls, resources still flow. You could make it so Karachi could never be captured. Have an event too, similar to the US, if Bombay falls, India gets some infantry.
+1 Kennonlightfoot - it logistics is huge. Without India, Allies will not be able to recover.

If you want to see how it plays out I will upload it to my video mods posts.

[stjeand]

First off...

IF the Allies player is not putting a garrison in Bombay...shame on them. They should lose India and the game.
Second...I welcome the Japanese fleet being in India. That means I know where they are and the US fleet can set sail in the Pacific and and free reign for multiple turns and hamper the Japanese there.
If the Japanese decide to only send their CVLs...that is even better. The US can be there in 2 turns and sink all of them easily....crippling the Japanese early.


Basically the US and UK must flood India with PP...
That way India can repair some units and build a few.



BUT I think some things will be changing in the near future.

The Japanese will get less transports and LC to start. The AI will be given them behind the scenes so that they are able to complete.
Then the Japanese can be given more transports and LC over time slowly allowing them to expand.
If they only have 20LC to start the game...YES they could instead of attacking any islands head for India, though not sure that would be the wisest decision but that would be their choice.
But even giving the Japanese LC over time they could just accumulate them and then do the same thing.

Player choice.


The 1942 scenario follows what the Japanese did historically.
ANY armchair general would change that in a heartbeat as it was definately NOT the best choices, just the easiest for them as well as perhaps the only ones possible in their eyes.

[incbob]

ORIGINAL: stjeand
Second...I welcome the Japanese fleet being in India. That means I know where they are and the US fleet can set sail in the Pacific and and free reign for multiple turns and hamper the Japanese there.

Hamper them how? By the end of turn 2 Japan should have all of its historical invasions done. Yes, you can stop the invasion of Australia. You can maybe bomb some Japanese units and airfields if you are brave enough to put your carriers in the way of LBA. But no, the Allied Fleet cannot "hamper" the Japanese.

Also, if you do decide to leave the Allied fleet in the Pacific then the Invasion of India is a forgone conclusion.

ORIGINAL: stjeand
Basically the US and UK must flood India with PP...
That way India can repair some units and build a few.

#1 India cannot build units in time to stave off the invasion or even really help.
#2 If the UK and US are sending all their PP to India what is Australia and NZ doing?

ORIGINAL: stjeand
The 1942 scenario follows what the Japanese did historically.
ANY armchair general would change that in a heartbeat as it was definately NOT the best choices, just the easiest for them as well as perhaps the only ones possible in their eyes.

On what do you base the idea that the Japanese military in late 41 and early 42 failed so badly? Do you have a work that you can cite? Do you have someone in the military or a military historian that agrees with you that the Japanese military were incompentant?

Also, the 1942 scenario starts April 26. It has the Allies having units that are in places they could not get to by April 26 and it has many units that would be impossible for the allies to build.

Play hotseat. See what happens when the Japanese and Allied fleets meet in India. You can watch Pacific Carrier Guy's video on Youtube and see yourself.

[stjeand]

First off...Japan can NOT invade Australia, India and New Zealand in the first 3 months of the war and have any shot at winning.
They do have forces to try but not enough to sustain the battle. They will have to remove all their garrisons to keep pushing
Once they do that...they are in trouble as a smart Allies player will start invading all their oil ports.

1) I can have 7 Divisions in the deployment queue arriving 1 per turn starting in mid Feb.
Can the Japanese fight inland against that?
2) The Japanese can't attack all 3 locations or they will be spread far to thin. Australia alone has 13 ports that you have to take and hold connected by rail. If you don't in March they will be invaded by the US. And to get them to surrender is a lot of work. As for New Zealand...they are as useful as Burma...they can't build many units so are just relegated to being garrison units.




I never said the Japanese failed. Is that what you read then I am sorry you misread it.
I said they did not make the best choices is all. Taking all the islands was that useful?
They needed to focus on the bigger places but at the time perhaps did not know what those were so did not prioritize them as they should have.
Oil alone was a huge issue and I suspect they would have changed their plans had they known what we know. Perhaps they would have had to delay the attack on Pearl so that they could have reroute some of their forces. Perhaps not even bother attacking Pearl since it had little effect overall and focus those carrier against the DEI with landing craft.
BUT they did not know that the carriers were not there, they did not know that the age of the battleship was over...but we know.



My point is...

Because this game lets you do something does not mean it is what you should do or is the wise thing to do.

Can the Japanese invade India? Yes they can...should they? If they think they can win by May yes. If not then probably not because when the US start hitting Rabul and Truk and the Japanese navy is 3 turns away they are in trouble.
Can the Japanese invade Aus? Yes they can...should they? Again if they think they can win by April yes...If not then no.

The Japanese will be fighting on too many fronts and that will cost them in the end unless luck falls their way.

India, China, Australia and the Pacific.

They don't have the forces or the production to do them all for more than 5 maybe 6 months.

So you better win by April 42...because by then the US and UK have 6 CVs that are better than their counterparts.


You have pointed out many times look at the 42 scenario. I have...instead of attacking India and Australia the Japanese fortified all their holdings.
If instead you go invade everywhere...you will more than likely lose faster and the map will look different.

I am able to produce more Indian troops than that scenario has...less Australian though but to me...Australia is not an easy place to take and hold. Just to many ports that the Japanese have to take.
Personally I focus my PP on India since the Japanese can get there with there land forces.


Once game that cost me most of Australia...BUT it being so big as soon as the US showed up...they took it all back. And the entire East coast of Aus was in Japanese hands, all for Port Augusta and Adelaide. US troops stormed in and smashed the worn out Japanese troops that had not stopped fighting for 4 months.

[eskuche]

I’m unsure if there’s any point to extending to AUS and NZ any way. If there were sudden death conditions it might be defensible but otherwise why bother. The extra 15 prod a turn would be far exceeded by the losses and like you said it’s an all or nothing, at least when embarking from a blockaded port gets fixed

[incbob]

The only reason I can think of to invade Australia, other than the VP, is that if you can succeed you can cut UK and India off from aid from the US by having your air units near the convoy route.

[incbob]

Realize I did not respond to Stjeand.

#1 The fact that we are discussing this shows that the 41 scenario is from some fantasy world. I bought this as a WW2 game. I should have been told about the elves and dwarvesl.

I never said Japan could invade India, Australia, and everywhere. They can do one really well and have difficutly elsewhere.

ORIGINAL: stjeand
1) I can have 7 Divisions in the deployment queue arriving 1 per turn starting in mid Feb.
Can the Japanese fight inland against that?

.

What nation? Where? Remember I am invading in force India February 1st or 15th. I think I can get to Australia in force on January 21st. The only nation that starts the game with enough PP on turn 1 is the US.
== Fine you get a division in the US on the February 15th Turn and any turn after that you want it. They cannot move until March 29th. They arrive at a port in Australia April 12th or India April 26th. That is assuming I do not sink them with my control of the sea.
== UK can get a division on turn 2 arriving March 1st, but cannot reach India or Australia till April 26th.
== India can only get their first division April 26th. They are also going to need 30+ PPs per turn if they do not reinforce anything. They will need 50+ PPs per turn after I take Malaysia.
== Australia is worse than India. Their first division does not come till April 26th and they need around 70 PPs per turrn assuming they do not reinforce anything.

So yes, by spending all the US and UK PP you can have India getting divisions a couple of months after I have invaded.

ORIGINAL: stjeand
Once game that cost me most of Australia...BUT it being so big as soon as the US showed up...they took it all back. And the entire East coast of Aus was in Japanese hands, all for Port Augusta and Adelaide. US troops stormed in and smashed the worn out Japanese troops that had not stopped fighting for 4 months.

.

#1 India is a much better and easier target then Australia.
#2 I invade, uncontested, Australia and can take 2 size 20 ports. I know I can do this February 1st at the latest. That is 6 divisions and an air group getting supply with NO problems.
#3 When the US troops arrive in force they are going to smash through the Japanese wherever they are. That is as it should be. The point here, and why I would invade either India or Australia, is that your fighting in Australia. Not the middle of the Pacific. Not the Solomons. Not the DEI where my oii is at. It is a delaying tactic.

Now, how do the VP work out. I don't know. Honestly I do not care. If this is the game, then I made a mistake buying it because I wanted a WW2 game.

[kennonlightfoot]

I can think of two reasons for messing with with Australia after taking India and other strategically important spots.
1. There are only four ports in the South Pacific capable of repairing ship units. Two, Sydney and Melbourne, are in Australia. Denying these bases to the US will limit them to operating out of Fiji until they take Rabaul.
2. It may force the US to commit their CV's early to try to help defend them before they are taken.