As I lined out, 3rd is an escort group and will dissolve into IJNR once transportation duties are done. It is not meant as a force for battles.
-
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
Indochina is a neutral paternal autocrat regime. Thailand, on the other hand, is ruled by social conservatives and is pro-Allies, although they appear to be unwilling to go to war ATM.
This is unrealistic unless we do all trade via U-boats, the route goes around Africa, past Gibraltar, then through the English Channel and finally to Königsberg, that any transport ship survives that journey is beyond any hope.
pt. 5 My experience with the blueprint for use in production is not good, its not last years tanks we get, its German tanks as they were 3+ years ago usually. But if the administration could shed light on which model the Germans were thinking of we might want to deal anyway.
pt. 6 I think we should accept the trade for rocket theory +1 for 600 rare + 500 gold, this should help our research.
Regarding Adm. Yamamoto's suggestion that we make a deal with the Soviets or even betray the Germans (before the soviets are defeated) is suicide, the Soviets wants back all land Russia ever owned (even if they might have some trouble convincing the US to part with Atlaska). So no deal with the commies.
*Where did you get that idea? AFAIK the game only uses the latest model - you cannot order the production of old tanks, for example. It might be possible that in your tests the units were simply outdated because the AI didn't research the proper techs. This is of course possible, because no nation can afford to have fully modern equipment in all tech tabs.
To General Surt:
I disagree. We should attack Indochina on our terms, when they'll still be relatively weak. Possibility that they can join our enemies must be prevented as at that time Indochina will be much stronger, share the border with China and threaten our gains at Malaya. Conquest of Malayan Peninsula will allow us to attack them from multiple directions.
To Admiral Yamamoto:
We can attack Indochina at our time of choosing, Admiral. Expanding our sphere of influence in Asia is in our best interests and the best way to do so is by making sure the minor nations will be relaying on us to protect them against the White Faces.
Trade with Germany is not in our interest as long as the British are in control of the Suez Canal and maintain ports in India. Perhaps we should consider that approach later on, to ensure steady supply of oil from the oil fields of Iraq as the IJN will require fuel to maintain their war with the Allies and to keep the Home Islands secure.
I disagree. We should attack Indochina on our terms, when they'll still be relatively weak. Possibility that they can join our enemies must be prevented as at that time Indochina will be much stronger, share the border with China and threaten our gains at Malaya. Conquest of Malayan Peninsula will allow us to attack them from multiple directions.
To Admiral Yamamoto:
We can attack Indochina at our time of choosing, Admiral. Expanding our sphere of influence in Asia is in our best interests and the best way to do so is by making sure the minor nations will be relaying on us to protect them against the White Faces.
Trade with Germany is not in our interest as long as the British are in control of the Suez Canal and maintain ports in India. Perhaps we should consider that approach later on, to ensure steady supply of oil from the oil fields of Iraq as the IJN will require fuel to maintain their war with the Allies and to keep the Home Islands secure.
Iraq, General? Iraq is under British control. The Administration does not doubt the bravery and skill of the Japanese soldiers, but it is highly unlikely that we will ever get as far as Iraq.
*Concerning the quirks of the supply system - this should not be your concern. I have the power of save-game editting and can do various infra tricks if necessary. Generally speaking, you are not expected to take things like that into account, as it makes no narrative sense and if sth breaks the game, then I can always change it, so...
*Concerning the quirks of the supply system - this should not be your concern. I have the power of save-game editting and can do various infra tricks if necessary. Generally speaking, you are not expected to take things like that into account, as it makes no narrative sense and if sth breaks the game, then I can always change it, so...
To imperial administration:
Any more information about the Axis successes and losses? It'd be important to know their losses too, because it would give us an idea what the Allies are able to ship away from Europe without concerns that their continental blockade might be compromissed.
Any more information about the Axis successes and losses? It'd be important to know their losses too, because it would give us an idea what the Allies are able to ship away from Europe without concerns that their continental blockade might be compromissed.
Can you be more specific, Admiral? The Axis did not provide us any additional information, so what you see is what we have ATM.
If that is the case, the Axis, most particularily the Kingdom of Italy, seem to have succeeded in basically wiping out the Soviet fleet as a threat. We should send a ship or sub and have a look at Soviet ports on our side of the world. I wouldn't too surprised if we found next to no Soviet vessels in the Pacific.
I was looking for information about Axis losses, preferably in total, and hopefully for total Allied losses, in total as well.
I was looking for information about Axis losses, preferably in total, and hopefully for total Allied losses, in total as well.
If you are referring to ship losses, then the newest ones can be added to the old ones. As far as other matters are concerned, the Axis powers did not send us any information about their casualties and vehicle losses.
*Adm. Yamamoto pushes back his chair from the war table and walks around it and the other members of the high command*
Some of us are infected with victory disease if they believe that we can march armies as far as Iraq, or deal with a combined Chinese, British, Indian and Burmese force by occupying Indochina. If we were to attempt to occupy Indochina, that will likely immediately cause their government to align with the Allies, and no doubt tip the Thai government into following suit given the new intelligence.
That would be suicide.
Our best course of action is to attempt to retain the neutrality of the Indochine peninsular such that they provide the required 'buffer state' to the Allies that allows us not to have to fight the Allies over land at a time when the question of China is still in the balance.
I am still hopeful that the war in China can be won, and will be won given enough time. However we cannot go opening up offensives and campaigns elsewhere while we are concentrating here. The Occupation of Malaya serves a different purpose in neutering the Royal Navy's strength in the Pacific, and giving us access to the iron and mineral deposits currently being shipped from south America. By bringing the supply lines closer to home, we have secured the strategical resources for the running of our industry in '43 and the rest of the war.
Any other offensive campaigns at this time will critically weaken Japans position and need to be rejected.
Of particular note, Indochina is a technological backward state with little industry, poor ports, low manpower and not particularly significant mineral reserves, it is a cultural melting pot that is only just able to hold itself together because it has thrown off the imperial shackles of France, and if we were to occupy it, it is going to be a partisan nightmare as well. There is absolutely no sane reason to occupy Indochina other than territorial warmongering, which is precisely the wrong image we want to convey about ourselves.
There are no benefits here. No strategic goals. Just a plain and simple blood-lust folly.
General Holy.Death, you take us into Indochina, and it will likely spell doom for the Chinese campaign. Don't.
General Surt, we have yet to contact the Soviets with a proposition, therefore there is no deal on the table to reject. The point is we offer a threat to the soviets, one that can be bargained down, or used to threaten, for our gain. We might as well use it if we can. I believe that Stalin may be more open to a détente rather than another Khalkhin Gol....and like the naval treaties we can always break our word at a later date.
It should be worth our while to drop a hint to the politburo in Moscow that Hitler is repeatedly asking for our entry into to the war against the soviets, so what does Stalin say to us to keep us bound to our non-aggression treaty? After all, the last thing we want is for Stalin to get the idea into his head that we are getting close to Hitler, then launching an attack of his own. Stalin directly threatens us, Germany doesn't threaten us at all. Keep your friends close, but enemies closer.
Which leads us to what does Nazi Germany offer us?
-We are offered war with the Soviets, Chinese, British Empire and Americans, all at the same time
-We are offered to waste transports or subs carrying valuable goods half way around the world, through hostile waters, with all likelihood them getting sunk en route for a few pieces of paper
-We are offered gold yes for trades, but is Japan in need of more gold? We have looted enough from the Imperial Chinese Palace anyway. Do we need more? No.
Has this high command lost its mind to consider these good deals?
The only good deal on the table is that we are offered naval information, but of course they want ours as well. Fair trade. We both need it. But closer ties with the Germans undermines our international credibility, and puts us at much greater risks to Stalin and the Soviets.
As we have been reminded the intelligence still points to the Soviets being as strong as they were at Khalkhin Gol and war in Manchuria would doom our Chinese campaign just as would an Indochine Campaign.
We are still on a tightrope commanders, one that must be tread with caution, not arrogance. Arrogance of a quick victory in China led to us being where we are today. Let us be smart for once and let us realise that we are fighting for our Japanese right to self-determination; for honour. Not for domination over others.
*Pauses for a while*
We still need a research plan. Non have been decided on. What we choose to research will strongly affect what operations can be conducted next year. Therefore I urge you to look again at my proposals.
*Sits down*
Some of us are infected with victory disease if they believe that we can march armies as far as Iraq, or deal with a combined Chinese, British, Indian and Burmese force by occupying Indochina. If we were to attempt to occupy Indochina, that will likely immediately cause their government to align with the Allies, and no doubt tip the Thai government into following suit given the new intelligence.
That would be suicide.
Our best course of action is to attempt to retain the neutrality of the Indochine peninsular such that they provide the required 'buffer state' to the Allies that allows us not to have to fight the Allies over land at a time when the question of China is still in the balance.
I am still hopeful that the war in China can be won, and will be won given enough time. However we cannot go opening up offensives and campaigns elsewhere while we are concentrating here. The Occupation of Malaya serves a different purpose in neutering the Royal Navy's strength in the Pacific, and giving us access to the iron and mineral deposits currently being shipped from south America. By bringing the supply lines closer to home, we have secured the strategical resources for the running of our industry in '43 and the rest of the war.
Any other offensive campaigns at this time will critically weaken Japans position and need to be rejected.
Of particular note, Indochina is a technological backward state with little industry, poor ports, low manpower and not particularly significant mineral reserves, it is a cultural melting pot that is only just able to hold itself together because it has thrown off the imperial shackles of France, and if we were to occupy it, it is going to be a partisan nightmare as well. There is absolutely no sane reason to occupy Indochina other than territorial warmongering, which is precisely the wrong image we want to convey about ourselves.
There are no benefits here. No strategic goals. Just a plain and simple blood-lust folly.
General Holy.Death, you take us into Indochina, and it will likely spell doom for the Chinese campaign. Don't.
General Surt, we have yet to contact the Soviets with a proposition, therefore there is no deal on the table to reject. The point is we offer a threat to the soviets, one that can be bargained down, or used to threaten, for our gain. We might as well use it if we can. I believe that Stalin may be more open to a détente rather than another Khalkhin Gol....and like the naval treaties we can always break our word at a later date.
It should be worth our while to drop a hint to the politburo in Moscow that Hitler is repeatedly asking for our entry into to the war against the soviets, so what does Stalin say to us to keep us bound to our non-aggression treaty? After all, the last thing we want is for Stalin to get the idea into his head that we are getting close to Hitler, then launching an attack of his own. Stalin directly threatens us, Germany doesn't threaten us at all. Keep your friends close, but enemies closer.
Which leads us to what does Nazi Germany offer us?
-We are offered war with the Soviets, Chinese, British Empire and Americans, all at the same time
-We are offered to waste transports or subs carrying valuable goods half way around the world, through hostile waters, with all likelihood them getting sunk en route for a few pieces of paper
-We are offered gold yes for trades, but is Japan in need of more gold? We have looted enough from the Imperial Chinese Palace anyway. Do we need more? No.
Has this high command lost its mind to consider these good deals?
The only good deal on the table is that we are offered naval information, but of course they want ours as well. Fair trade. We both need it. But closer ties with the Germans undermines our international credibility, and puts us at much greater risks to Stalin and the Soviets.
As we have been reminded the intelligence still points to the Soviets being as strong as they were at Khalkhin Gol and war in Manchuria would doom our Chinese campaign just as would an Indochine Campaign.
We are still on a tightrope commanders, one that must be tread with caution, not arrogance. Arrogance of a quick victory in China led to us being where we are today. Let us be smart for once and let us realise that we are fighting for our Japanese right to self-determination; for honour. Not for domination over others.
*Pauses for a while*
We still need a research plan. Non have been decided on. What we choose to research will strongly affect what operations can be conducted next year. Therefore I urge you to look again at my proposals.
*Sits down*
Admiral, you should know better than that. Japan does not have long-range submarines and "milk cows". Germany, on the other hand, does. They want to risk their submarines in order to carry rare materials and blueprints, our risk will only involve the potential for wasting some amounts of rare materials, which we have more than enough ATM.
Message to imperial Administration:
This should in fact make negotiations easier for all involved as we won’t lose as much time while meeting representatives of each and every Axis member nation.
Attacking the Soviet Union is out of the question. We do not have the manpower necessary for such an operation. We can only reconsider this once National China has been beaten.
If the German representative is in doubt he can visit the sites of the battles, eg Saipan. Several US wrecks are visible below the waterline. In any case, the combat record of the combined Axis navies is less than impressive. We very much expect to have to deal with the Allied navies basically by ourselves.
The German representative should offer more details regarding the dangers for ships under sailing under Axis flag in the Indian or Atlantic ocean. While we would be willing to trade with them, we doubt that they are able to protect their cargos and have to avoid the supplies falling into enemy hands.
This admiral supports the suggestion to pay 600 tonnes of rare materials and 500 money units for blueprints. Regarding the additional front against the Soviets, I refer to point 2.
If we are willing to sell or trade our own knowledge to the Axis nations, would they be willing to buy them?*
Message to Gen. Surt and Gen. Holy:
Generals, could you please inform us whether or not you are interested in blueprints for German tanks or other items? We might need that particular information to plan our production budget as well.
*[OOC: If we were to sell blueprints, would that affect all Axis nations or just Germany? For example, if we were to sell light cruiser blueprints, would that affect Italy, being the major naval player of the Axis so far, as well?]
This should in fact make negotiations easier for all involved as we won’t lose as much time while meeting representatives of each and every Axis member nation.
Attacking the Soviet Union is out of the question. We do not have the manpower necessary for such an operation. We can only reconsider this once National China has been beaten.
If the German representative is in doubt he can visit the sites of the battles, eg Saipan. Several US wrecks are visible below the waterline. In any case, the combat record of the combined Axis navies is less than impressive. We very much expect to have to deal with the Allied navies basically by ourselves.
The German representative should offer more details regarding the dangers for ships under sailing under Axis flag in the Indian or Atlantic ocean. While we would be willing to trade with them, we doubt that they are able to protect their cargos and have to avoid the supplies falling into enemy hands.
This offer sounds reasonable. Could the administration tell us how many IC per day the production of one run of these specimen would take? Could we also get a rudimentary data sheet for these weapons?
This admiral supports the suggestion to pay 600 tonnes of rare materials and 500 money units for blueprints. Regarding the additional front against the Soviets, I refer to point 2.
If we are willing to sell or trade our own knowledge to the Axis nations, would they be willing to buy them?*
Message to Gen. Surt and Gen. Holy:
Generals, could you please inform us whether or not you are interested in blueprints for German tanks or other items? We might need that particular information to plan our production budget as well.
*[OOC: If we were to sell blueprints, would that affect all Axis nations or just Germany? For example, if we were to sell light cruiser blueprints, would that affect Italy, being the major naval player of the Axis so far, as well?]
The very idea of invading Indochina at this point is not sound. Militarily, we would gain yet more ground to cover without much of an economic benefit in return. Others have already pointed out the drawbacks of such an operation. Suffice to say that the navy as a whole does not support the notion of opening yet another front. Instead we suggest to establish as many trade deals with them as possible, so we can cut deals with South America. This would give us a resource source much nearer to where we can actually protect our convoys. It would also serve to create a buffer between the British and us. There are very little benefits
in fact, next to none in invading Indochina, at least not at this point. Circumstances might change, though.
The notion of negotiations with the Soviets is obscene. Their society, their political system, their whole nation are an affront to the Emperor himself. We shall not soil ourselves by talking to these barbarians. Suggesting that we might make deals with them against the Axis while we hope that the Axis tie up as many Allied forces as possible, is outright offensive. Leaking diplomatic communication is out of the question as well. How much good would it do us of the world would know us to be unreliable to such an extend? No honor lies these ways.
Furthermore, I strongly suggest to buy as many samples from their technologies as is useful to us. What technologies we can buy, we do not have to develop ourselves. This would save us a lot of time and would give us practical experience in constructing and running more advanced equipment, provided that we can afford the cost. Even if we find that the German equipment is not compatible with our own, I suspect that we could learn a lot from it.
Thanks to the USA joining the Allies, we are at war with many countries already, our northern border with the Soviets being the only exception. Stalin is busy in Europe and we shouldnt attract undue attention by movements of any kind (including diplomatics) on our common border. Germany does offer us technology exchange on the basis that we are already helping them against the Allies, if only by being where we are and forcing the Allies to address us. If we do engage in trade with them we do so for the technological knowledge, not for resources or money.
The notion of negotiations with the Soviets is obscene. Their society, their political system, their whole nation are an affront to the Emperor himself. We shall not soil ourselves by talking to these barbarians. Suggesting that we might make deals with them against the Axis while we hope that the Axis tie up as many Allied forces as possible, is outright offensive. Leaking diplomatic communication is out of the question as well. How much good would it do us of the world would know us to be unreliable to such an extend? No honor lies these ways.
Furthermore, I strongly suggest to buy as many samples from their technologies as is useful to us. What technologies we can buy, we do not have to develop ourselves. This would save us a lot of time and would give us practical experience in constructing and running more advanced equipment, provided that we can afford the cost. Even if we find that the German equipment is not compatible with our own, I suspect that we could learn a lot from it.
Thanks to the USA joining the Allies, we are at war with many countries already, our northern border with the Soviets being the only exception. Stalin is busy in Europe and we shouldnt attract undue attention by movements of any kind (including diplomatics) on our common border. Germany does offer us technology exchange on the basis that we are already helping them against the Allies, if only by being where we are and forcing the Allies to address us. If we do engage in trade with them we do so for the technological knowledge, not for resources or money.
The Germans are very vague when describing their naval capabilities. The Administration believes that war on several fronts and fuel shortages prevent them from expanding their shipbuilding industry.
We only have some rough estimates - submarines would cost around 7,5 IC and would take around a year to complete, bombers would take several months, but their cost would be closer to 15 IC. In case of tanks it depends on the type, but they are not cheap, either.
The Germans are careful about disclosing details about their weapon types, but they assure us that their tanks, bombers and submarines are superior to the ones we can field and our engineers believe that the Germans may be right, because we have not invested heavily into these weapon types. The German tanks supposedly have very good firepower and are believed to be quite reliable. In case of bombers it should be mentioned that the German bombers were designed with the assumption that they would protected by escort fighters (which restricts their range a bit, but gives them superior protection from the attacks of enemy's aircraft), so we would have to produce them, too, although the cost of escort fighters would be already included in the base cost.
The Germans also mentioned that several new designs should be finished in early 1943.
The Ambassador mentioned something about artillery. The Germans believe that Japanese artillery is superior to their own designs and they would be willing to accept several Japanese specialists. However, they would have to be moved to Germany by submarine.
*This is not how it works. I would increase the practical/theory value, but I wouldn't give the Axis any techs for free.
To Admiral Yamamoto:
I must say I am surprised by your outburst. I don't intend to start a war with Indochina before we'll make sure that we can end it very quickly. In two to three months we should have more data and update our intelligence about situation in the region before making any moves. Within three to six months we should be able to end Operation Papurumonki and reconsider our strategic situation once more. It's possible that we'll have to delay this even further, but I must remind you that we have to secure Thailand and Indochina in order to establish our dominance in the region. In struggle one such as ours there can be no neutral countries in our neighborhood when the Hammer falls.
To Admiral Baltasar:
German tanks could be useful in North Africa or against the U.S.R.R. but by the time we get there - if we will be able - they'll probably become too outdated to be of any strategic value. We can consider, however, making just a few panzer divisions against the Chinese to break through their lines and create the holes for our men to fill and attack.
I must say I am surprised by your outburst. I don't intend to start a war with Indochina before we'll make sure that we can end it very quickly. In two to three months we should have more data and update our intelligence about situation in the region before making any moves. Within three to six months we should be able to end Operation Papurumonki and reconsider our strategic situation once more. It's possible that we'll have to delay this even further, but I must remind you that we have to secure Thailand and Indochina in order to establish our dominance in the region. In struggle one such as ours there can be no neutral countries in our neighborhood when the Hammer falls.
To Admiral Baltasar:
German tanks could be useful in North Africa or against the U.S.R.R. but by the time we get there - if we will be able - they'll probably become too outdated to be of any strategic value. We can consider, however, making just a few panzer divisions against the Chinese to break through their lines and create the holes for our men to fill and attack.
Sending our men is not what we would want to do, since we want to have them continuing their research efforts when possible and feasible.
[OOC: That's actually what I meant; would a tech trade affect all Axis members or just Germany? Do other Axis nations have a word in here or can we only talk to German as the group leader?]
As you say yourself, this does not have to happen anytime soon. Currently we have our hands full and both countries are more useful as neutral buffer states
I suggested the aquisition so we can learn from their designs and have a sample unit we can train our men on. I did not suggest to produce them en masse as our mainstay choice of AFV. Whatever the army chooses to do, you have to come to an agreement among yourselves. The navy can't decide for you.
The Administration requires a clarification from the Army regarding armour development. Tanks and and tank destroyers are expensive and their construction time is long, which means that if the Army plans to develop armoured and mechanised forces in order to counter the Soviet and Allied threat, we need to start investing more heavily in them or we will never field good quality vehicles in adequate numbers.
The Administration would like to point out that we are poorly suited to confront either the Soviet or Allied tanks, especially in open terrain. Experience gained during Soviet-Japanese Border War tells us that armour can give the enemy a big advantage over us - our infantry actually outperformed the Soviet soldiers, but lacked means to counter enemy's tanks effectively. The Army should find ways of dealing with this threat. Assuming perfect force concentration, ATM we have two outdated armoured divisions, many armoured cars which are of questionable value against tanks, 3 light bomber air wings, 8 AT brigades, 1 TD brigade and modern man-portable AT weapons. This may be enough to confront the enemy's armoured units when our infantry is in entrenched positions, but it will be hard to gain the initiative in places where the enemy employs large number of tanks against us.
The Administration would like to point out that we are poorly suited to confront either the Soviet or Allied tanks, especially in open terrain. Experience gained during Soviet-Japanese Border War tells us that armour can give the enemy a big advantage over us - our infantry actually outperformed the Soviet soldiers, but lacked means to counter enemy's tanks effectively. The Army should find ways of dealing with this threat. Assuming perfect force concentration, ATM we have two outdated armoured divisions, many armoured cars which are of questionable value against tanks, 3 light bomber air wings, 8 AT brigades, 1 TD brigade and modern man-portable AT weapons. This may be enough to confront the enemy's armoured units when our infantry is in entrenched positions, but it will be hard to gain the initiative in places where the enemy employs large number of tanks against us.
*Germany would benefit the most, Italy and Spain would get smaller benefits and Axis minors would only benefit indirectly from this, because the HPP minor country AI is building units with faction's leader tech levels in order to simulate production licences.
Last edited:
- Status