Looking for a TFH Japan detailled guide

[50shadesofgreen]

Yes. So even if we believe that the Japanese do send compensation supplies to Manchuko, and they almost immediately make their way back to the Japanese master depot, then Manchuko has not really been compensated at all.

The Empire is effectively living for free on the mainland.

Also worth looking at reloading the game as Manchuko and tell me what they are manufacturing? Now I have checked my campaign saves, they seem to be fully fixed on supplies even though they only needed 5 a Day! They were feeding my troops with little other spare capacity to do much. This didn't change until later in the game when I stepped out of their country and supply hub went to Quindou then Shanghai. Suddenly free, they built an army.

 

[Kovax]

To be more accurate, both Japan and Manchukuo were contributing supplies, and both were receiving supplies from that depot, but Manchukuo was paying far more than its fair share. It wasn't a case of Japan "living for free", but paying a pittance compared to what they actually used. If Manchukuo had built less supplies, Japan would have been forced to send more.

As I mentioned earlier, there's a supply tax for each province that the supplies travel, and that's NOT accurately taken into consideration, although I believe there's a small generic adjustment made for it. In places with short distances between the supply hubs and the front lines, it's probably adequate. In China, that adjustment is very likely nowhere near sufficient.

I haven't tested it, but having troops stationed overseas may not draw much more supply than in their own capital, as long as they're all gathered in one or two provinces close to the supply hub, and there's a port near the capital. When they're scattered in different directions at a distance from that hub, I believe that each province those supplies have to cross will add an extra transfer penalty, regardless of how much or how little supply is actually transferred. In China, that's a LOT of scatter AND distance from Hamhung to the Soviet border, the Mongolian border, the Chinese border, and the Shanxi border, which will only get worse as Japan drives deeper into China.

 

[50shadesofgreen]

The combined Japanese land forces on the continent (ie those supplied from Hamhung) at the 1936 scenario start show a supply need of 66 daily supply. With HQ changes and some Log Wiz commanders that I normally make, their supply need is reduced to 46 daily.

Run the game for some time and watch. With the 46 daily need the Empire sends one convoy of 22 supply to Hamhung to meet a temporary glitch in the smooth running on about 3rd Jan. After that NO MORE convoys are sent. Meanwhile Manchukuo puppet AI ups its game and produces enough supplies to meet the "need" at Hamhung. No more convoys are sent by the Empire. Manchukuo supplies all the mainland troops and enough extra to ensure a steady gain in Hamhung stockpile.

After one month the obedient puppet has churned out enough supplies to feed its own miniscule need (7 daily) and every Empire unit. The Empire war chest in Hamhung is risen by an extra 1000. The Empire only added that one batch of 22 to cover the momentary need hiccup.

That's the Empire Army not just living for free, but totally taking the proverbial.

Let the Empire supply need rise to 66 and start over again. The hamhung stockpile only rose 700 by end of month. The start glitch was worse and the Empire sent 600 supply spread over 7 convoys before it stopped again, once Manchukuo increased its supply production.

This time Japan only provided 600 out of the 2000 supply required (66 × 32 days). It got that back in the 700 raise in the Hamhung war chest.

It does look like the Empire troops are living for free.

To show the scale of the p-taking. It's the equivalent of moving the starting Japanese forces to Tokyo until Marco Polo and console-gifting yourself 25k to 36k of supplies.

 

[Palmerdale]

That just goes to show that supply is one of the weirdest and most abstracted part of the game. It strongly appears that the operational and logistical aspects, along with the political, diplomacy, and espionage systems were sacrificed for overall game play, making them all weak sisters to the more robust combat, intelligence, and production mechanics. Perhaps there's just a bit too much abstraction in HOI3 for its own good.

The abstraction of supply movement from province to province and convoys is rather brilliant in itself, but doesn't logically relate to the production. I guess that does actually reduce overall micromanagement by not having to build 'munitions, rations, and bandages' via the production system and distribute them, but sometimes the micromanagement is justified. The abstracted mechanisms help, especially with the complexity of the game, at the expense of limiting the way you can play.

 

[50shadesofgreen]

Most of it works very well, until you notice. It's still an amazing game and I don't mean to knock it by pointing out errors.

I wish there was still a chance of another version. Once last chance to fix the niggling issues.

On the plus side, before now Manchukuo has been a fairly pointless puppet. Now it has a use - supply factory!

 

[Vanslyke]

I was wandering if you would go for the Axis as soon as you can join them, or if you would want to wait a while to keep your threat to a lower level. What are the advantages disadvantages on that decision?

Also, what would be your take on dealing about Soviet Union. Eventually i would like to help German, so what would be the best course of action to reduce the pressure the SU would put on them?

So far i really appreciate all the comments that all of you brought. I never realized that my little thread would bring so much of them, so i want to thank you for that.

Vanslyke.

 

[50shadesofgreen]

In my case a long war with China meant extending the time threat was gained anyway. Once I declared war on Thailand then USA was bound to join the Allies. It made no difference to me because I wanted the Phillipines, Guam and Wake taken when it suited me. I didn't want to get stabbed in the back later by the USA and find sub bases inside my lines and have to turn back again.

With that in mind I joined the Axis early, and raised French threat to make the Italians join to, to get the strategic effect (supplies and research).

Obviously if you need that US trade, or you want US in the Axis, then don't do what I did. Instead, short China war and follow Kovax's plan.

Being on good relations with Soviets helps trades. I courted mainland Asia trades as its easier to maintain once war starts and means no vulnerable convoys (Soviet, Turkey, Persia, Saudi.....). Once Germany declares war on Soviets I intend to be ready and hope to have annexed Persia. If they invade in 1941 I will slow advance north from Persia and same time amphib into the rear of Vladivostock after seeing if the Soviets reduce in those areas.

Right now it's a toss up as to whether to pump out more Carriers vs USA or start Armour vs Soviets.

I've been more aggressive towards the USA this time as they don't get involved much otherwise. TBH I took their islands in the east and have gone no further since, and seen little of them. They always have a large queue of carriers building. So I am expecting them in force sometime.

I'm wishing I had built more convoys sooner. I think I've sunk the last French and UK subs, but it took a toll. Did I mention earlier to cancel all risky trade convoys at war start?

 

[Kovax]

Joining the Axis early gives a research bonus, but you lose the bonuses in espionage, so that's not a clear "win", in my opinion, more like a fair tradeoff. The problem with joining a faction is that your Threat is magnified for members of opposing factions, meaning that they will see lower Neutrality due to Threat, reducing Consumer Demand, and leading to more IC available to build military units as a result. Other than the tech boost, I see joining the Axis early as a marginal idea at best, especially if the war with China drags out.

Raising Threat on the UK or France will bring Italy into the Axis ahead of schedule and significantly reduce Consumer Demand for all Axis (and Commintern) members, and to all non-democratic countries to a lesser degree, whether you're in the Axis or not. Since I've generally got spies in France either stealing technology or reducing Neutrality, I typically target the UK to raise Threat, and their naval and aircraft buildup amplifies that Threat.

Getting involved against the Soviets is a big question, which for me will depend on how things go in China/SE Asia/India. I can probably cut the main supply routes from Moscow to Vladivostok, and eliminate the Soviet divisions in the peninsula without too much trouble, but crossing all of that horrendous infrastructure to do much beyond that further to the east seems daunting....and then the Soviet tanks will likely show up in force.

Note about cancelling trade routes: the amount of dissent you get from having convoys sunk depends in large part on how many convoys you have running. The more convoys you have, the less an individual sinking affects your NU. Don't cancel TOO many convoy routes, only the ones most at risk and not very essential.

Incidentally, my Japan campaign (launched on July 2, 1937) is now into October, and so far I've taken out Shanxi, pushed south of it all the way from directly below ComChi to the coast (except for the Qingdao peninsula where the capital relocated to, and which was just cut off from the rest of the country). None of the warlords have joined yet. A second front was opened just below Shanghai, and the port seized, followed by a push inland which took the capital city of Nanjing, forcing the relocation to Qingdao. That southern enclave has now expanded to just about the limits of the manpower I was able to assign to it, and is now waiting either for 3 additional divisions to complete around the end of the month, or for the northern front to cross the 3 remaining provinces between them and link up. As long as I don't take Qingdao, it should make Shanghai the new supply depot, but I don't know for certain whether it will change it again once the new capital falls. The Chinese navy is either eliminated completely, or down to a single damaged sub. This feels less like a war, and more like an execution.

 

[50shadesofgreen]

Joining the Axis early gives a research bonus, but you lose the bonuses in espionage, so that's not a clear "win", in my opinion, more like a fair tradeoff. The problem with joining a faction is that your Threat is magnified for members of opposing factions, meaning that they will see lower Neutrality due to Threat, reducing Consumer Demand, and leading to more IC available to build military units as a result. Other than the tech boost, I see joining the Axis early as a marginal idea at best, especially if the war with China drags out.

Totally agree and you've confirmed points i already made but we have different games in mind. If you're planning to use spies to manipulate USA and others out of the war and perhaps not war with the west until later then that espionage bonus becomes important.

I'm actively planning to fight the bigger war early. I could defeat China as soon as possible and spend 1938 to December 1941 in a game of slow build up, diplomacy, clever trades and spy use. I could wait until France has been knocked out of the war by Germany, and get free Indochina and avoid battling the French fleet altogether. I could idly watch while the Germans and Italians take out UK fleet elements, while I just build. I could decide to remain peaceful and not to use my aircraft carriers until Pearl Harbor and use that time to accumulate massive resource stockpiles.

Now, I'm fully aware that raising my threat on the world is preparing myself for a whole hoard of enemies in the near future. I'm fully aware that raising my threat will mean facing beefed up opponents due to their lowered CG need. I'm hoping to have a continuous war, with lots of enemies and continuous fresh challenges. With this strategy that espionage bonus is not that important.

I'm having that 10 % research bonus plus 5% extra supplies and extra war please.

 

[Kovax]

As Spock put it "There is more than one way to remove the integument from a feline...", so either way could work. The nice thing about the game is that you're not forced to follow one and only one avenue to success, while anything else fails. I generally try not to give "do this" advice, but present reasons for doing, as well as NOT doing, and sometimes provide alternatives, hopefully so other players can make informed decisions, but ultimately it's THEIR decision. When people come back with other approaches, or "details" I hadn't thought about, but could be VERY important, then it's a potential learning experience for both parties.

Actually, I'm expecting to pursue some "middle ground" in my campaign. War with the Allies will likely happen fairly shortly after Germany goes postal (possibly when or even before Italy gets involved), but I'm waiting to see what happens with the Soviets, and hoping to keep the US out of it until later. Meanwhile, I'm using espionage to smooth Germany's and Italy's roads a bit, while not making things any harder for them than necessary with excessive Threat, since we're working toward common goals.

 

[50shadesofgreen]

Note about cancelling trade routes: the amount of dissent you get from having convoys sunk depends in large part on how many convoys you have running. The more convoys you have, the less an individual sinking affects your NU. Don't cancel TOO many convoy routes, only the ones most at risk and not very essential.

This is something I was not aware of. How does the relationship with regard to NU work? Is it something like having double the number of convoys running means the NU hit would be halved? I'm not so worried by the NU loss as I am about the dissent hit ( although I don't get that in FTM. Is this a TFH change?)

 

[j_k_k]

This is something I was not aware of. How does the relationship with regard to NU work? Is it something like having double the number of convoys running means the NU hit would be halved? I'm not so worried by the NU loss as I am about the dissent hit ( although I don't get that in FTM. Is this a TFH change?)

I play unmodded TFH and have never experienced dissent hits from sunk convoys. I don't think there are any. I would definitely have noticed.

Convoy losses do ding your NU slightly, but I'm not knowledgeable about the relationship between number of convoys and the NU hits.

 

[Kovax]

Sorry, meant NU, not dissent. Coffee shortage this morning. The severity of NU hits is determined by the percentage of your convoys sunk within a period of time, as displayed on your Politics screen. The UK barely loses any NU per sinking, thanks to its large number of convoy routes, while a small country with one or two routes using half a dozen total convoys will take a more severe hit.

 

[j_k_k]

Sounds stupid perhaps but how do you Build that Corps HQ level.
It is a few years ago that i played HOI4 and just started to play again today.
I stumbled on this topic becourse i wanted to give Japan a go.

Thanks in advance

Very simple. First, detach divisions from armies. Then pick a loose division and hit the Create HQ button, which will create a corps-level HQ. Attach to it whatever other divisions you want to be subordinate to it; I use four, five is max, some use three. Assign it a commander, ideally with proper traits, then attach it to an army HQ. The idea is that each level contributes a benefit to its subordinate units, so it is best in most cases to create the full hierarchy of divisions/corps/army/army group/theatre. Otherwise the senior HQs default in effect to the next level.

If you have a fairly isolated unit for which it makes no sense to create a corps and attach into hierarchy (units also have to be within range in order to benefit from the leadership), my practice is just attach it directly to the theatre. That's what I do with all my garrisons. I want to be able to grab whole armies or army groups and send them someplace, and I don't want that to bring along anyone who's supposed to stay back and protect resources, IC, ports, etc. I usually attach air and naval units to the army group level; they don't count against the limit.

 

[Kovax]

Very simple. First, detach divisions from armies. Then pick a loose division and hit the Create HQ button, which will create a corps-level HQ. Attach to it whatever other divisions you want to be subordinate to it; I use four, five is max, some use three. Assign it a commander, ideally with proper traits, then attach it to an army HQ. The idea is that each level contributes a benefit to its subordinate units, so it is best in most cases to create the full hierarchy of divisions/corps/army/army group/theatre. Otherwise the senior HQs default in effect to the next level.

If you have a fairly isolated unit for which it makes no sense to create a corps and attach into hierarchy (units also have to be within range in order to benefit from the leadership), my practice is just attach it directly to the theatre. That's what I do with all my garrisons. I want to be able to grab whole armies or army groups and send them someplace, and I don't want that to bring along anyone who's supposed to stay back and protect resources, IC, ports, etc. I usually attach air and naval units to the army group level; they don't count against the limit.

No need to detach the division. There's a button on the division display window to create a HQ if there isn't a HQ already, and it will be automatically connected both to the division and the Army, AG, or Theater which the division was formerly attached to.

Good point about moving entire Corps or Armies, where you can select a HQ and click the green bar just above the individual divisions to "select all", which includes the HQ and ALL of its subordinate units.

 

[Corugi]

After reading this I decided to give Japan a shot. Anything to make the pain of Army Group Palestine go away...

I have already played Japan with a 1936 start on normal setting a couple of times before. So I thought I would up the ante by choosing the Dec 41 start on very hard difficulty. I recommend trying it sometime, its quite fun. Interesting situation. There are a number of obstacles to immediately overcome, slowly, along with all the problems of inheriting a conflict already underway.

The most glaring examples are the horrible quagmire Japan finds itself in China. Its a mess, in terms of the ramshackle way the Japanese army is organized, the way it is deployed, and the supply situation, which has a severe case of third degree badness. Then there is the incredibly under strength Singapore invasion force. Then the slow crawl across the Philippines. Not to mention the appalling low stockpile of basically everything except energy. I have played through to April 42 now and am down to zero oil and one day's supply of fuel. This despite taking all the SE Asian oilfields. It will be interesting to see how badly this impacts me since I have never run out of fuel before.

Assuming the general starting situation is a rough approximation to historical fact the Japanese must have absolutely mad to undertake the attack. Trying to achieve so many disparate goals over such a large theater, more or less simultaneously. Especially considering how they were so bogged down in China at the time. The fact they manged to get away with achieving so much for so long is a testimony to their fighting prowess, their good luck, and the woeful Allied position. But for a military class which prided itself on the adoption of Sun Tsu's principles of warfare they sure knew how to ignore them.

 

[Vanslyke]

After reading this I decided to give Japan a shot. Anything to make the pain of Army Group Palestine go away...

I have already played Japan with a 1936 start on normal setting a couple of times before. So I thought I would up the ante by choosing the Dec 41 start on very hard difficulty. I recommend trying it sometime, its quite fun. Interesting situation. There are a number of obstacles to immediately overcome, slowly, along with all the problems of inheriting a conflict already underway.

The most glaring examples are the horrible quagmire Japan finds itself in China. Its a mess, in terms of the ramshackle way the Japanese army is organized, the way it is deployed, and the supply situation, which has a severe case of third degree badness. Then there is the incredibly under strength Singapore invasion force. Then the slow crawl across the Philippines. Not to mention the appalling low stockpile of basically everything except energy. I have played through to April 42 now and am down to zero oil and one day's supply of fuel. This despite taking all the SE Asian oilfields. It will be interesting to see how badly this impacts me since I have never run out of fuel before.

Assuming the general starting situation is a rough approximation to historical fact the Japanese must have absolutely mad to undertake the attack. Trying to achieve so many disparate goals over such a large theater, more or less simultaneously. Especially considering how they were so bogged down in China at the time. The fact they manged to get away with achieving so much for so long is a testimony to their fighting prowess, their good luck, and the woeful Allied position. But for a military class which prided itself on the adoption of Sun Tsu's principles of warfare they sure knew how to ignore them.

I agree to your statement. Personnally, i never started a game on anything but the 1936 start. Just trying to figure out all the ramification, the units, and supply would take quite a while to sort out. On top of that, i imagine that the enemy would not stay with its arms crossed while i take the time to untangle the mess i would be in.
I believe that Japan should have tried to improve the situation in China before striking the USA. Yamamoto was a goud strategist, in my opinion. The gamble he did could have work if the carriers would have been in port. Also, the battle of Midway could have gone the other way around with a little bit of luck. Things could have been very different in the end. We will never know...

 

[Kovax]

Yamamoto was a goud strategist, in my opinion. The gamble he did could have work if the carriers would have been in port. Also, the battle of Midway could have gone the other way around with a little bit of luck. Things could have been very different in the end. We will never know...

Yamamoto was a good enough strategist to know that attacking the US under the situation as it stood was a bad idea. He was not the one to make the decision, however, and had to do the best he could with a long-odds plan, which did not pan out for various reasons beyond his control. The enemy rarely does what you want or expect him to do, which was PART of why he argued against the whole idea. Even if it had worked, it's very questionable whether it would have led to the US making any concessions in peace negotiations; it would merely have bought more time until the inevitable naval buildup and eventual defeat of Japan, rather than the US joining the Allies a few months or a year later and then utilizing the existing assets AND new ones at a time and place of its own choosing.

My current Japan campaign finished taking China in mid-January of 1938, and is now consolidating its position and spreading GAR divisions to the various VP cities and major ports, in preparation for operations against the Allies in another year and a half. The game engine initially retained the Hamhung port as the supply hub when I linked up the Shanghai pocket with the main thrust from the north, and did not move it when I occupied Qingdao about a week later, but suddenly relocated the hub to Shanghai without any notification roughly a couple of weeks after that (I wondered why my troops in Korea were suddenly suffering a supply shortage).

 

[Corugi]

...spreading GAR divisions to the various VP cities and major ports...

I have never quite understood the point of GAR divisions. I just build a few 2 brigade CAV divisions and station them in a rather haphazard and lazy manner as an occupation force under local Theater command. For example, in an annexed China I would probably use three CAV. Nothing else. Is there something here I am missing? Let me explain my reasoning.

I find CAV more than enough to deal to partisans, their mobility and low supply draw is advantageous. In the event of an enemy invasion GAR divisions are doomed anyway, unless one sends a substantial regular infantry reinforcement. Once a GAR division is defeated in battle its over for them as their speed is so slow. They get overun and wiped. Meanwhile CAV can maintain contact yet withdraw in time to avoid overrun, sneaking in around flanks to retake provinces if the enemy begins to leave gaps.

With respect to Japanese strategy an essential part of their reasoning was the impending fuel shortage they faced after the US oil embargo. I wonder why then they just didn't attack the UK and Dutch holdings and leave the US alone. Obviously they felt that an attack on the UK and its allies would likely bring about an American entry into the war ( although I think that is still highly debatable, considering the isolationist stance of the American public ). But considering that their aggression was a high risk, high stakes, undertaking in the first place, coupled with the pre-war realization that they would be holding a defensive perimeter in the hope of negotiating a peace, you would think they would have been as equally willing to gamble on the US not joining the war if they restricted their attacks to the Allies alone.

I am aware that they felt scoring a decisive victory against the US navy at Pearl would be advantageous to them negotiating a peace deal later, but I am astonished at the flimsiness and unfounded optimism of thinking in that plan. Surely they would have been aware that the US Pacific fleet comprised less than half of the US navy, so even if they had caught and sunk the carriers at Pearl it hardly comprises a knock out blow. As such one would think that they would have had to plan for defending a grossly over extended defensive perimeter anyway, which is then a huge argument in favor of only attacking the Allies and not the US, as a much more favorable risk. Yet I have not yet found anything in the literature to indicate that they ever considered this as an alternative strategy, which I think is odd.

 

[Corugi]

I agree to your statement. Personnally, i never started a game on anything but the 1936 start. Just trying to figure out all the ramification, the units, and supply would take quite a while to sort out. On top of that, i imagine that the enemy would not stay with its arms crossed while i take the time to untangle the mess i would be in.
I believe that Japan should have tried to improve the situation in China before striking the USA. Yamamoto was a goud strategist, in my opinion. The gamble he did could have work if the carriers would have been in port. Also, the battle of Midway could have gone the other way around with a little bit of luck. Things could have been very different in the end. We will never know...

You are certainly right, its hell trying to sort out the mess in the 1941 start, especially when the enemy just won't leave you alone.
The inconsiderate BASTARDS!
Actually that's part of why I enjoy it. Trying to fix things on the fly, dealing with situations with what you have on hand rather than what you would like to have available. I do recommend you try it sometime, and some of the other late start scenarios, its quite a different experience than a 1936 start.

The Japanese did have a degree of "luck" on their side. initially at least. A good example of this is the US Mark 14 torpedo. There is an interesting utube video about that which I saw either here on or another forum, lets see if I can dig it up... Here it is.

This guy does some great vids on naval matters.