Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Influence Wars - Japan 1936 HPP Interactive AAR - GAMEPLAY THREAD

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Status
Not open for further replies.
*Note to Admiral Baltasar
Admiral, the Imperial Administration believes that a modernised naval base in Guangzhou would be in our best interest not only because of the logistical reasons in China, but also because of the way it would improve the prospects for future expansion. Large naval bases will be needed if we are to confront the UK and the USA on the seas and project our power into Indochina, Burma, Dutch East Indies and beyond.
 
Not having seen the supply map I can only guess, if its already completely red in the south we have the option of taking the next nearest port to the east we haven't occupied yet, its a lvl-4 port.

Load up the marines, and land them in that port and all coastal provinces up to our current front for Canton II.

The North can handle it, and the situation will get better until we are 5 provinces from the coast (approx) as we clear the transport corridor from Shanghai, also we can't know which provinces to build in exactly before we have done so.
The most convenient road is over Nanjing, from Shanghai to Peking as the infra is good there already, the coastal infra is mud roads.
 
Last edited:
Surt said:
Yes all of them, on the map it looks like there are 4-5 provinces to Xiamen a level 4 port (not 5).
Click to expand...
This may help slightly on a local scale, i.e. in parts of 2nd Canton AG AOO. It won't help in the Guangzhou area and in the 1st Canton AG AOO. The ports controlled by us in this area are very small (except the one in Guangzhou).
 
Cybvep said:
*Note to Admiral Baltasar
Admiral, the Imperial Administration believes that a modernised naval base in Guangzhou would be in our best interest not only because of the logistical reasons in China, but also because of the way it would improve the prospects for future expansion. Large naval bases will be needed if we are to confront the UK and the USA on the seas and project our power into Indochina, Burma, Dutch East Indies and beyond.
Click to expand...

Also the HQ north will not advice building more in the south as they are wasted later, as the supplynet will be split by Guangxi, Yunnan and Tibet, hopefully Fugong province will go to Guangxi too so its a total split.
 
Cybvep said:
This may help slightly on a local scale, i.e. in parts of 2nd Canton AG AOO. It won't help in the Guangzhou area and in the 1st Canton AG AOO. The ports controlled by us in this area are very small (except the one in Guangzhou).
Click to expand...

Then we will have to withdraw a Homengun or move it to Guangxi to let them supply them.
 
Surt said:
Then we will have to withdraw a Homengun or move it to Guangxi to let them supply them.
Click to expand...
Yes, this might be possible in the 1st Canton AG, because we have the help of our "allies" there and the Chinese frontline is short. However, everywhere else we are being swarmed by the enemies.

so the HQ north will not advice building more in the south as they are wasted later, as the supplynet will be split by Guangxi, Yunnan and Tibet,
Click to expand...
Um... What? Currently we only have Guangxi in our alliance and are debating whether to create the Nanjing Regime in the future or to control China directly. Yunnan and Tibet are of no concern ATM, although if Yunnan joins the nationalists in their struggle against the Empire, we will have to conquer it (in that case Guangxi will take control of most of its territory).
 
We got ports enough to ship in supply 85, 2inf+art uses 2.5 so that should be enough for 32 div+some hq ex. transport cost, Xiamin gives another 25 supplies so my guess it the problem is temporary.

We got 4 Homengun of 8 div = 32 div + 5 mar = 37 a 2.5 supplies and 10HQ+1-2 ftr/tac a 0.5 supplies = 92.5+6.
I assume no more than 2 planes and ZERO ships have their base in the south.

So with 85+25(might be 5-15% less depending on the actual basing level) 110(-5-15%) vs. 98.5 we are on the limits here.

Fuel and supplies can be transported parallel to ports where the airports are so they don't strain the net as long as we keep the number very low.

So I guess we must withdraw a Homengun to Guangxi (or Japan if they are strained too), leaving 3 Homengun + 5 marines :(
 
Cybvep said:
Yes, this might be possible in the 1st Canton AG, because we have the help of our "allies" there and the Chinese frontline is short. However, everywhere else we are being swarmed by the enemies.
Click to expand...

As long as they are not 3:1 everywhere we will beat them!!!

Um... What? Currently we only have Guangxi in our alliance and are debating whether to create the Nanjing Regime in the future or to control China directly. Yunnan and Tibet are of no concern ATM, although if Yunnan joins the nationalists in their struggle against the Empire, we will have to conquer it (in that case Guangxi will take control of most of its territory).
Click to expand...

I'm anticipating long term plans :)
 
If the marine homengun is used to take a port adjactend to II. Canton AG, it'll mean an homengun less to supply in the I. Canton AG AOO already. That's 15 brigades of infantry less to feed. Though not much, this in itself is a relief for I. Canton AG.

Note to imperial clerk
We are aware of this, hence we reserved the right to have a word in the matters of port expansion.

Note to Gen. Surt and Gen. Cody
Suggest to station planes on Taiwan to support operations in the south-eastern front. This support will mean no interference of supply on mainland China. Please advise where you think the navy should help out with the Carrier Aircraft Groups.
 
Note to Gen. Surt and Gen. Cody
Suggest to station planes on Taiwan to support operations in the south-eastern front. This support will mean no interference of supply on mainland China.
Click to expand...
The Administration wants to remind you that at the moment there is only one medium bomber wing stationed there, so it should be possible to bring more aircraft from the north or move two reserve CAGs (which are currently stationed in Japan proper) there.
 
Baltasar said:
If the marine homengun is used to take a port adjactend to II. Canton AG, it'll mean an homengun less to supply in the I. Canton AG AOO already. That's 15 brigades of infantry less to feed. Though not much, this in itself is a relief for I. Canton AG.
Click to expand...

I thought so myself, but if you look at my calculations we got to move a whole Homengun anyway.
Note to imperial clerk
We are aware of this, hence we reserved the right to have a word in the matters of port expansion.

Note to Gen. Surt and Gen. Cody
Suggest to station planes on Taiwan to support operations in the south-eastern front. This support will mean no interference of supply on mainland China. Please advise where you think the navy should help out with the Carrier Aircraft Groups.
Click to expand...

Excellent suggestion, a heavy fighter in Taiwan can also cover all of south east China from Canton to Shanghai.
 
To the Imperial joint command from General Surt.

Fellow Generals, Admirals and Imperial Clerks,

We of Strike Force North are the opinion that we will not form either of he 2 suggested puppets, I know most of you thinks they want to form those but let me argue against any such actions.

1) By puppeting them we would get any surplus resource the might have, which would be mainly rare materials, but we would get none, zero, nada IC and their puny troops would be worthless relative to our ally.

2) By forming the puppets we will not be able to improve any infrastructure, and any that is under construction would not be finished.

3) We would still need to garrison their ports.

4) They will help us where we wont want them and overload the supply net there.

Advantages of not puppeting them are

1) we gain around 60IC, around 20-30IC will be lost to us due to partisans though, this means we would not be able to produce a BB, CV and H.Ftr extra which we will sorely need soon.

2) we can not improve the infrastructure to take the fight to the Soviets.

3) we would get any surplus resource we can lift out, less partisans (hence the MP build).

Where point 1 here is the killer.

Disadvantages of not puppeting them are

1) we would need more MP/Gar to police the territory, roughly 25 brigades.

Further our Guangxi ally should be able to help us in all other needs.
 
Surt said:
Adm. Baltasar,
Ofcourse else all this espionage would have been wasted.
Click to expand...

Gen. Surt,
I thought more along the lines of splitting up the enemy, dealing with them one after another. Guanxi could have provided lots of troops to RoC, not to mention that a unified China generally is something we do not want. If we keep them as Allies, they'll cause the very same problems you envision for Mangkuko and Nanjing-China with the very big drawback that Guanxi does have troops already and will position them in a place of their choosing. Worst of all, their resources will not benefit us, not directly and only if we're lucky in an indirect way. It's either lots of Allies or none. And even if we chose lots, I'd suggest to create a Nanjing China which does include Guanxi. No point in splitting up the resources into an unneccessary high number of countries.
 
*Technical note
Guys, you realise that the AI countries won't move their units to support fronts in player-controlled territory unless they are given objectives in enemy's/player's territory, right? Seriously, you can observe it in many cases. Check e.g. Bulgaria when playing Germany. They will not move their units unless the enemy is very near their borders or the player gives them objectives in enemy's/player's provinces.
 
Baltasar said:
Gen. Surt,
I thought more along the lines of splitting up the enemy, dealing with them one after another. Guanxi could have provided lots of troops to RoC, not to mention that a unified China generally is something we do not want. If we keep them as Allies, they'll cause the very same problems you envision for Mangkuko and Nanjing-China with the very big drawback that Guanxi does have troops already and will position them in a place of their choosing. Worst of all, their resources will not benefit us, not directly and only if we're lucky in an indirect way. It's either lots of Allies or none. And even if we chose lots, I'd suggest to create a Nanjing China which does include Guanxi. No point in splitting up the resources into an unneccessary high number of countries.
Click to expand...

I care much more about the IC than about the extra resources the Nanjing puppet would give. The differnce is huge, 30-40IC that we will miss in our greater power balance, pushing the time when we get there out in the future to about '43-44.

The Guangxi are much more useful they got troops, near a potential enemy and the rest of China will provide both resources and IC.

So the question is do you really want to miss out on those 30-40 IC for a questional useful resource, I foresee a resource gloat later especially in rares.
 
This does not answer why we would want to keep the Guanxi around. It's either have minors or not. You suggest not to have them, so why do you suppose Guanxi would be useful?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back