Grand-Battleplan is mostly useless as an island-hopping Japan

[astec]

As you can see here, I found at that you can draw offensive lines from naval invasions! HOWEVER, the planning bonus DOES NOT increase NO MATTER how long you wait. The only case in which you get any bonus is when your troops border enemy provinces. Planning bonus should be decoupled from presence to enemy provinces as this severely harms naval invasion efforts (pretty much the only reason to use grand battle plan because in theory, the planning would have very effective boosts during invasion)

NOTE: This is against the AI, no doubt a skilled player would extensively fortify his islands and make it impossible to break through for landing without a prohibitively large invasion force (20+ divisions on one port)

These were against crappy 7-2s and I had 14/4 marines that still took 20-30 days to win (without flank attacks)


Accordingly, you should also be able to create offensive lines in fallback lines to allow counter attacks and defense in depth (so you may re-enact things like the soviet counter-attack in and around Stalingrad as well as the layered Battle of Kursk)

 

[Meglok]

I always switch out to Superior firepower as Japan. As you noted planning bonus is relatively unneeded vs the ai for invasions whereas the soft attack and defense bonus of SF is always working. You also tend to micro and rush in Asia to keep your troops to prevent the Russians, Chinese, and Allies from reinforcing before you can push west. You can still use the initial planning bonus but it is unwise to pause and rebuild it.

 

[dave1233]

You can build planning bonus on your border with your puppets while planning the naval invasions with other units, then swap the divisions around so the ones with planning bonus attack. You will lose some of the planine bonus moving from the border to the ports but you will at least have some of it

 

[Alex_brunius]

You can build planning bonus on your border with your puppets while planning the naval invasions with other units, then swap the divisions around so the ones with planning bonus attack. You will lose some of the planine bonus moving from the border to the ports but you will at least have some of it

That is an exploit/workaround though, it's making up for oversights with very creative use of game mechanics most certainly not intended to work that way.

It would make alot more sense if you could gain planning bonus for naval invasions instead though, and if they become too powerful/easy the base penalty could be raised instead.

I have to agree fully with that the doctrine doesn't fit for Japan at all, but would fit much better if you could gain planning for naval invasions too.

 

[Dalwin]

I think saying mostly useless is overstating the case, but the OP is right that some of Grand Battleplan is wasted during the island campaign.

Here are a couple of counterpoints to consider before making it standard play for Japan to switch to Superior Firepower. First even if your main focus is the island campaign instead of hitting Russia, the campaigns in China and the Raj are both important and do make good use of GB.

Second the consensus in earlier threads discussing Japanese strategy seemed mostly that land doctrine was a lower priority for Japan than for any other major. I know that I am likely to take only two or at most 3 land doctrine projects as Japan which makes losing one to a lane change a bigger sacrifice.

 

[astec]

I think saying mostly useless is overstating the case, but the OP is right that some of Grand Battleplan is wasted during the island campaign.

Here are a couple of counterpoints to consider before making it standard play for Japan to switch to Superior Firepower. First even if your main focus is the island campaign instead of hitting Russia, the campaigns in China and the Raj are both important and do make good use of GB.

Second the consensus in earlier threads discussing Japanese strategy seemed mostly that land doctrine was a lower priority for Japan than for any other major. I know that I am likely to take only two or at most 3 land doctrine projects as Japan which makes losing one to a lane change a bigger sacrifice.

Land doctrine as Japan is very much necessary if you want to have a shot at breaking through the Dacca line. You forfeit a major amount of planning bonus + army breakthrough if you neglect to finish the tree. Signal companies are a MUST if you go GB. It is still a shame that you can't create an effective defense in depth with layered battle lines because of how restrictive the "offensive lines" are.

 

[Dalwin]

Land doctrine as Japan is very much necessary if you want to have a shot at breaking through the Dacca line. You forfeit a major amount of planning bonus + army breakthrough if you neglect to finish the tree. Signal companies are a MUST if you go GB. It is still a shame that you can't create an effective defense in depth with layered battle lines because of how restrictive the "offensive lines" are.

With the new economic rules and the dire aluminum shortage faced by Japan, signal companies are a luxury they cannot afford. That aluminum should instead go to aircraft.

 

[astec]

With the new economic rules and the dire aluminum shortage faced by Japan, signal companies are a luxury they cannot afford. That aluminum should instead go to aircraft.

Placing 4 factories on support equipment at the start as well as deleting your divisions for the army train thing (or lend lease to ethiopia/spain) takes care of any shortage problems.

NOTE: I ONLY mount signal companies on my 40 width divisions (more economical). Signal companies are not needed for garrisons, only on offensive stuff.

I usually play with the pfu mod enabled (for multiplayer), this may have something to do with it.

 

[Kaosium]

I betcha it comes in handy in China though.

One way to do it is ensure your troops leave from a port on a border province, if it doesn't have a port you can build one.

Land doctrine as Japan is very much necessary if you want to have a shot at breaking through the Dacca line. You forfeit a major amount of planning bonus + army breakthrough if you neglect to finish the tree. Signal companies are a MUST if you go GB. It is still a shame that you can't create an effective defense in depth with layered battle lines because of how restrictive the "offensive lines" are.

You don't need signal companies playing Grand Battleplan though of course they will help, but the main advantage to GB is giving you that awesome first punch which can light up your enemy's whole line with big happy green balloons and you have your pick of where you want to exploit through to encircle and destroy their army; then when they get there being such a pain in the rear to dislodge if they get the chance to dig in. For Japan I'd think it would be very useful in China, which can also be used for ports on the front line so marines can charge up their planning bonus for amphibious assaults elsewhere.

You know which land doctrine I'm starting to think signal companies are a must for? Mobile Warfare. That's because with signal companies you recover planning bonus so fast you can almost consider it a permanent bonus feature of your troops. If your guys ever get run out of a hex after a long combat where planning bonus may have deteriorated to nothingness, as they sit in their new hex recovering organization they can pretty much restore their planning bonus at the same time!

 

[Dalwin]

I betcha it comes in handy in China though.

One way to do it is ensure your troops leave from a port on a border province, if it doesn't have a port you can build one.

Using that method to get planning bonus into amphibious operations is clearly not the design intent. That method is cheesy at best. We avoid doing that in our MP games because the group agrees that it is an exploit.

Ask yourself this question, "Does the method you are describing make any real world sense at all?" If the answer is no then the method proscribed is most likely cheese.

 

[Meglok]

I betcha it comes in handy in China though.

One way to do it is ensure your troops leave from a port on a border province, if it doesn't have a port you can build one.


You don't need signal companies playing Grand Battleplan though of course they will help, but the main advantage to GB is giving you that awesome first punch which can light up your enemy's whole line with big happy green balloons and you have your pick of where you want to exploit through to encircle and destroy their army; then when they get there being such a pain in the rear to dislodge if they get the chance to dig in. For Japan I'd think it would be very useful in China, which can also be used for ports on the front line so marines can charge up their planning bonus for amphibious assaults elsewhere.

Not as much as you would think in China. The Chinese usually will struggle to have enough rifles for their troops, no arty, no piercing, and no aircraft. If Japan is staying with the starting 12 battalion build it's infantry will be double the size of the Chinese divisions, with better firepower. You don't need the GB bonuses to blow thru them, especially if you invade around Quingdao or Shanghai. Heck, if you just put 1 battalion of 1934 Light tanks in 20 Inf Divisions the Chinese can't pierce and you cakewalk to Nanking.

As @ Dalwin noted, Japan 1.3.3 suffers from 2 issues, a lack or resources (esp aluminum and steel) and far more things to research than it has time for. You have to count where each resource goes to maximize it's benefit. Stuffing a lot of truck and aluminum sucking support companies into Japanese divisions means no planes and ships where you need them.

Naval tech and doctrines are a must for Japan. that research time has to come from somewhere and that somewhere is usually Land doctrines. This is another reason to go SF. You get +20% SA to every frontline battalion, +20% defense to all units, and 10 Org to all Leg Inf, plus 3 good combat tactics in the first 3 SF doctrines. Japan is making a LOT of leg infantry. GB gets you entrenchment bonus (not useful if you are attacking constantly), +30% max planning, +10% defense, and 10 Org to all Inf.

What I have found playing Japan is that the planning bonus tends to be a 1 shot item. You launch in sequence vs China, India, and Russia and then you try never to stop attacking so as to prevent your opponents from regrouping and reinforcing their lines to force you into static warfare. You are bum rushing them backwards, and the extra SA is more useful. Not saying you can't stack the regular PB before you attack, by all means do so. But GB doesn't help with invasions whereas SF does definitely help get ashore (and I refuse to manipulate bad coding to get PB).

 

[Kaosium]

Using that method to get planning bonus into amphibious operations is clearly not the design intent. That method is cheesy at best. We avoid doing that in our MP games because the group agrees that it is an exploit.

Then don't do it with that group. I disagree, with planning bonus available to front-line units that are part of a plan (whether you ever intend to use it at all) there's no reason to exclude Marines (or Paratroopers for that matter), you just have to ensure you have the proper facilities, notably an airport or naval base that's on a border. That's achievable for most if not all nations of any impact in the war. Perhaps your group feels morally and intellectually superior because they don't do it and want to micromanage the play of others, but it's also possible that says more about them than it does the ones they denigrate as 'cheesy'.

Ask yourself this question, "Does the method you are describing make any real world sense at all?" If the answer is no then the method proscribed is most likely cheese.

I come from a place where cheese (the food) is considered something of an art form and a staple of some portions of the economy, it's not considered a bad thing.

I can't help but wonder though, you've the opportunity to ask the developers whose minds you are attempting to read as to whether or not something works as intended, what was their response?

 

[Kaosium]

This is another reason to go SF.

There's many reasons for most nations to go SF, but that land doctrine has plenty of admirers on this forum from what I've seen, whereas GB doesn't seem to and I've played it enough I'm pretty familiar with it.

I refuse to manipulate bad coding to get PB

The designers have admitted to it being bad coding? Or is that an accusation?

What if it's just an oversight with such an easy work-around it's not worth bothering to recode it so that Marines do get planning bonus while they're planning?

 

[Zwirbaum]

You don't need to have border to get PB on your naval invasions, there is a way to get PB while being attached to naval invasions.

 

[Jamey]

Ask yourself this question, "Does the method you are describing make any real world sense at all?" If the answer is no then the method proscribed is most likely cheese.

I get where you're coming from, but I'd ask the corollary: "Does it make any sense that there is no planning bonus for naval invasions?" I'd argue that this is either a bug or something missed in design.

In SP, I've never even noticed that I didn't get the bonus, but I can understand why people would use something that is arguably an exploit to get it.

 

[Kaosium]

You don't need to have border to get PB on your naval invasions, there is a way to get PB while being attached to naval invasions.

Is that by drawing up plans from the invasion hex?

 

[astec]

Is that by drawing up plans from the invasion hex?

You have to make a front-line on your puppets and set an offensive there, then cancel it and set up an invasion plan (Bonus still deteriorates which makes it mostly useless for larger naval invasions)

 

[Kaosium]

You have to make a front-line on your puppets and set an offensive there, then cancel it and set up an invasion plan (Bonus still deteriorates which makes it mostly useless for larger naval invasions)

I thought he was saying there was a way to get planning bonus from the Naval invasion itself and I wondered if that was by drawing up a subsequent plan from the hex the naval invasion is attacking. A different method than the way you did it above.

I don't bother with either method personally, I just make sure I get the 1940 Landing craft at the bottom of the Navy tech screen and invade poorly defended ports, or beaches next to ports and then start building a port and fortifications.

 

[Meglok]

Is that by drawing up plans from the invasion hex?

No, what tends to happen if you do that is the invasion forces will reroute to your northern Japan-China land front if you are already on the beach. Tried that to see if it would work as soon as I had one division ashore. I had to catch all my marine divisions at sea as they headed north for Beijing and manually reroute them back south, plus cancel all of the now empty invasion orders. My 5 province landing turned into a one province dogpile into Shanghai.

 

[Meglok]

I don't bother with either method personally, I just make sure I get the 1940 Landing craft at the bottom of the Navy tech screen and invade poorly defended ports, or beaches next to ports and then start building a port and fortifications.

It is pretty unnecessary against the ai in general and against Chian even when played by a player. China is just so weak a well-run Japan will smoke them at even odds. China is usually bringing a knife to a gun fight.