Influence Wars - Japan 1936 HPP Interactive AAR - COMMENT THREAD

I wonder what that event would be and what we can do to help triggering it. Things look somewhat bleak currently.

Exactly I concur with Cybvep here, once the Americans jumped in the game there wasn't any way that we can 'make them loose' other than by a bit of RP, and forming somekind of coherent strategy towards a lasting stalemate, that in the long run with niether power gaining ground could end with a form of conditional armistice.

Us being the reactionaries here, does give us a bonus to that, because although the game is designed to antagonise us, niether Britian or America were 'thrust into' our war, they joined it on their own terms, and if it doesn't go 'their way' sooner or later, its not worth continuing. Much the same way that Japan during the Manchurian border skirmishes finding things weren't going their way let it be.



Now I must admit on one front I did call for a slow cautious Aleutians campaign, but then I didn't give it that much though, Adm. Baltersars plans looked good on paper. What was done there, is done. Still, at least it was aborted when it was. I think this gives good evidhense that the sheer number of US CVLs is putting too many CAGs in the air for us to match with our carrier fleets. They must have had at least 1:1 air parity, if not pushing 3:2 or a higher ratio against us for our CAGs to have become as depleted as they are.


The worst thing, is that the possition I have tried to stear us to, is still the strongest we could be in, meaning unless we go for a major gamble at something, the best I can see is 'business as usual'.

I mean we could enact the contingancy plan at 'any time' in the near future, however it is a gamble, while it would work 'well' I think, its not a longterm plan that could be kept up for years.

What I'm instead getting a feel for is to take the Malay Peninsular and Singapore in the medium term, and that be the 'general limit' to futher expansion, to deal with metal issues etc. and to reduce the number of high level ports the Americans or Brits can base to. Being as it is 'cut off' if we can put a decent sized force there it will be hard to retake. In the long term, we have to sort the convoy war out. At least we can stop the South American trading once we have Malaya, which will aid us. The British DOW essentially wounds us like a whale with a harpoon, we are bleeding IC into the sea for every pacific asset. But that single harpoon won't kill us.

We would need several, like the Soviets, like China going bad, like a serious naval invaison or fleet loss.

In may ways this is because the AI is crap, however even human players aren't always 'quick to move' in the pacific, because like it or not, Japan can infantry spam to hell. Indeed we still could with mountains of millita if for no other reason than to plug China, homeland Japan, Korea, Manchura etc. with divisions to slow down any offensive. However given we are not fighting humans, we probs don't/shouldn't do this. Still, Japan like Russia can play the 1,000 brigade army of doom should she want to...

Now I must admit on one front I did call for a slow cautious Aleutians campaign, but then I didn't give it that much though, Adm. Baltersars plans looked good on paper.

Click to expand...

It seems it was down to logistics. Didn't think much about it, as we had been warned about logistics before and I thought that if things got awry, another meeting would be called for.

The worst thing, is that the possition I have tried to stear us to, is still the strongest we could be in, meaning unless we go for a major gamble at something, the best I can see is 'business as usual'.

Click to expand...

Frankly, we don't have much choice. Most of our ships are damaged, many CAGs are not combat worthy. We can but assemble what we have and try to defend until the other ships are servicable again. Even then we need more AI blunders we can capitalize on.

In may ways this is because the AI is crap, however even human players aren't always 'quick to move' in the pacific, because like it or not, Japan can infantry spam to hell. Indeed we still could with mountains of millita if for no other reason than to plug China, homeland Japan, Korea, Manchura etc. with divisions to slow down any offensive. However given we are not fighting humans, we probs don't/shouldn't do this. Still, Japan like Russia can play the 1,000 brigade army of doom should she want to...

Click to expand...

I am more worried about the naval situation. The RN is basically unharmed and can concentrate a decent force against us. The US outproduce us by a fair margin... We either need more ships or more planes. Seeing that the next BB will be finished shortly before the game ends, it doesn't seem worth continuing it.

I think its only fair that you load up the US at the end date and see how far they are off having nukes if they prioritised it from that moment if they do not already have them. Then that is offset by whatever position we are in at the end of the game. Afterall if we are bound by game mechanics, then so should they .

The RN doesn't worry me, massively... what does worry me is the level of merchant shipping we have to maintain, since now our PDP is broken its vulnerable everywhere, until we can push to the boundaries in the contingency plan. This means we are going to have to bleed IC in merchant shipping costs until the end of the war. I expect that a good 6IC or 10IC is going to have to be spent continually on this until the end of the game from now on. On the plus side, if we opt for a 'build more than they sink' strategy, then we can be less worried about the convoy side of things, particularly if we go for Malaya and Singapore.

The Indies will require a load of extra troops (and I would prefer actual infantry troops, or a few bagfulls of militia for this because it does end up 'whack-a-partisan', and in HPP I've often seen the Aussies, Zacs and Brits land around those areas. The downer as always is that period between having large scale control and only having part of it.

Either we can go for the 'contingency' as is, and aim for an early capture, or try and do it step by step. Given the AI limitations the latter is still fairly 'safe' but it also means that we run the risk of more naval actions in unfavourable waters. However a 'go for it early' approach, runs the risk of over stretching ourselves and loosing merchant shipping hand over fist. Hence although compromises are generally a bad decision, I'm more leaning towards a small scale take over in Malaya to solve the metals problem, then leave the rest to a position of security. Afterall, the Japanese faired poorly in the South Pacific later in the war because they were spread so thin in part, lack of supply was also a major factor.

Given we have had quesdo-historical conditions in this game, we know some mistakes not to repeat. After all, my goal is to try and end the game in a position that would be favourable to Japan actually surviving the war partly intact with its co-prosperity sphere* in the epilogue, rather than us going for some kind of rapid expansion, that will just be just 'crushed' in the epilogue.

Alternatively, perhaps Cybvep should at the end of the Japanese game start a new AAR for a new set of players from the American perspective carrying on the game, with the difficulty reversed, then have those players rush to conquer Japan as we leave it before nuclear weapons are developed, and see how well that goes...

*Contemplates how quickly the IJN will end up on the pacific bed under AI control*



*i.e. to gain a conditional armistace, rather than conditional surrender or unconditional one.

Right now, we'll have to
a) reform the fleet
b) retrieve the marines stuck out on Kiska Island
c) potentially knock out Malaya / Singapor (three SNLF divisions on Taiwan)
d) contemplate operations against DEI


@ Cybvep: What land forces do we have on Hawaii? Two Gar divisions?

May be just for key locations (eg Guam, Truk, Hawaii, Guam)? No need to get too far into details.

Cybvep said:

[...] composed of 3 regiments instead of 2.

Click to expand...

Surely you mean brigades? ;-)

If i might drop by and thank guys for the story material. I am reading this with such excitement its like a movie.

- Japanese Marine stuck at Kiska Island

Cybvep said:

Thanks, pal. Don't worry, rescue is coming.

Click to expand...

Last time I checked, Yamamoto and me were commanding the navy...

Just in case others are interested in some more numbers:


Axis naval losses (without Empire of Japan)
German Reich
- 1 Battleship (KMS Schlesien)
- 4 Light Cruisers
- 5 Destroyer Flottillas
- 5 Transport Flottillas
- 9 Submarine Flottillas

Kingdom of Italy
- 1 Battleship (RM Conte di Cavour)
- 4 Heavy Cruisers
- 6 Light Cruisers
- 12 Destroyer Flottillas
- 6 Transport Flottillas
- 1 Submarine Flottilla

Spanish State
- 1 Battleship (Jaime I)
- 1 Light Cruiser
- 1 Destroyer Flottilla
- 2 Transport Flottilas

Axis total losses
- 3 BB
- 4 CA
- 11 CL
- 18 DD
- 13 TP
- 10 SS


Allied naval losses (without United States of America)
France
- 2 Heavy Cruiser
- 1 Light Cruiser
- 5 Transport Flottillas

New Zealand
- 3 Transport Flottillas

United Kingdom
- 9 Heavy Cruiser
- 8 Light Cruiser
- 5 Destroyer Flottillas
- 6 Transport Flottillas

Soviet Union
- 2 Battleships (Oktyabrskaya Revolutsiya – ex Gangut, lead ship of her class and Marat – ex Petropavlovsk)
- 2 Light Cruisers
- 11 Destroyer Flottillas
- 12 Transport Flottilas
- 8 Submarine Flottilas

Allied total losses (including Soviet Union, without USA)
- 2 BB
- 11 CA
- 11 CL
- 16 DD
- 26 TP
- 8 SS



From the look of things, one might assume that the Soviets have lost their Black Seas fleet and taken losses to their Baltic Fleet. If Germany manages to capture Leningrad I expect those losses to increase a bit.
The UK have managed to keep their capitals save while losing a number of cruisers. They’ll be Japans prime opponent if / once USA do fold.
Spains navy hasn’t done much but we do not know how many units survived their civil war.

Germany lost a number of submarines and the WWI vintage battleship, but has come off lightly so far. Seeing SS flotillas numbered 41. Indicates that they do have about two and a half dozen more submarines out there, which hopefully will cause some damage to the UK economy or even damage / sink some of their ships.

Italy has suffered a lot of escort losses and I expect their capitals to die as a result of this by ’44, unless they invest quite a bit in their air and sea doctrines and build some new ships.

The Swedish managed to contribute to the Allied (naval) effort and have so far avoided losing any ships. Considering that the Baltic Sea is a place where you can hardly hide, this is rather remarkable.

I’m surprised not to see losses inflicted or suffered by Romania. AFAIK they do start with a few units which should not stand a chance against the Soviet Black Sea Fleet, thus I expected them to have been destroyed. Now that the Black Seas Fleet seems to be all but destroyed, Romania could surprise everyone with naval landings in the Caucasus and wherenot.



This being said, from the loss reports we do know that the enemies of Japan do have these vessels:

- 10 Battleships (most of them UK)
- 1 Battlecruiser (HMS Hood)
- 4 Fleet aircraft carriers (1 UK, 3 USA)
- 12 Escort aircraft carriers (2 UK, 10 USA)
- 6 Heavy Cruisers (5 UK, 1 Sweden, the HMS Äran)
- 8 Light Cruisers (7 UK, 1 USA)
- 18 Destroyer Flottillas
- 10 Submarine Flottillas

This of course does not mean that the enemy does have only these vessels, but these are vessels have been spotted or are attributed with sinking one or more vessels and who have not been sunk in turn.