Rather then China. Japan should go to war with the neutral Netherlands, and take the dutch east indies for the oil. Do it fast and a lot of the oil problems should be taken care of.
- 1
Japan - Should I bother with China?
- Thread starter BBBD316
- Start date
-
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.
That depends on how nice and plausible the game is. Having 1 million extra people by conquering a country that hates you isn´t going to be very motivational for said 1 million people. Good luck having them with good morale and not deserting.
Chinese infantry divisions made by imperial Japan with all organization and morale of a japanese division. Not really that likely is it? Putting machine guns and rifles in the hands of guys who hate you...
For reference check how many french joined the Wehrmacht. That should be a good indicator of what plauisble manpower addition should be.
IIRC the japanese government irl was rather more interested in grabbing the siberian resources and was willing to stick to negotiations with china.
It was the army that kept provoking one conflict after an other. Japanese WW2 military was kind of a mess really.
The army acted like a semi sovereign state that found asking for forgiveness a lot easier than asking for permission and generally ignored civilian authority whenever it wanted, and the navy was ridiculously ambitious in it's goals and was willing to straight up scam the government out of money to afford it's fancy toys.
Both branches also treated the other like a persona non grata, if they didn't outright sabotage one another, and routinely falsified reports, especially in the late war to make themselves look way better than they actually were.
The government was also kinda sorta halfheartedly trying to reduce the whole "rape and torture" thing they had going on in china and with POWs. But turns out if your soldiers are routinely violently mistreated and are told their enemies will torture them and then rape all their women... Well if they get their hands on those enemies they won't be gentle themselves.
It was the army that kept provoking one conflict after an other. Japanese WW2 military was kind of a mess really.
The army acted like a semi sovereign state that found asking for forgiveness a lot easier than asking for permission and generally ignored civilian authority whenever it wanted, and the navy was ridiculously ambitious in it's goals and was willing to straight up scam the government out of money to afford it's fancy toys.
Both branches also treated the other like a persona non grata, if they didn't outright sabotage one another, and routinely falsified reports, especially in the late war to make themselves look way better than they actually were.
The government was also kinda sorta halfheartedly trying to reduce the whole "rape and torture" thing they had going on in china and with POWs. But turns out if your soldiers are routinely violently mistreated and are told their enemies will torture them and then rape all their women... Well if they get their hands on those enemies they won't be gentle themselves.
- 1
In HOI3 you could take China out without having to deprive the navy. Pretty much the war was over in 1939 with plenty of time to prepare for USA.
On taking out China, depends on if its single player or multi player.
If multiplayer, you main goal is to force USA and UK to throw things at you rather than Germany. Ditto on war with Russia, everything aimed at you is not aimed at Germany.
Never seen Japan with a manpower issue.
- 1
In multiplayer games Japan is just hilariously easy to beat as the USA i find it. You can build up AA and Costal Forts on all islands, have tons of submarines, then just destroy all the convoys around japan when the war starts, it's difficult for Japan to build escorts and destroyers with ASW in the quantities needed to defend itself against a large submarine force. And if they do build tons of destroyers they won't have enough anything else to compete with the big fleets the US can build though.
I think it should be incredibly hard to beat the US in a naval battle, but in hoi3 they could doomstack hard, and easily invade mainland japan in 1941, or atleast completely cut off anything that relies on convoys. It seemed to me like that Japanese were never really able to seize a naval initiative in a player vs player game, in hoi3 provided the US player was competend.
I think it should be incredibly hard to beat the US in a naval battle, but in hoi3 they could doomstack hard, and easily invade mainland japan in 1941, or atleast completely cut off anything that relies on convoys. It seemed to me like that Japanese were never really able to seize a naval initiative in a player vs player game, in hoi3 provided the US player was competend.
- 1
Normally, I'm very pro China but on this case I have to give some numbers. The Chinese puppet forces under Japan were well over half a million. Pretty terrible as troops but there were a lot.
Also, since the Japanese plan was not direct control but rather a version of the ROC under the KMT that would follow Japan, I could see them getting over a million..
(If you accept the fantasy of Japan being able to conquer and consolidate China in the first place.)
That's one good gameplay reason to have more restrictive logistical system for navies specifically. Sustained operations by large forces far away from native sources of supply should be constrained by logistical limitations and these constraints should be removable only by significant industrial investment (i.e. a fleet train). US should be perfectly able to base couple of carriers, few BBs and screens to SW Pacific in '42, but it shouldn't be able to base the entire pre-war Battle Force there.
Last edited:
- 2
I guess the answer boils down to a couple of questions:
1) How much can Japan get out of a conquered China? How much manpower? What resources? IC? Dockyards or potential dockyards? Below a certain threshold, it may not even be worth it in the time frame, especially if you think that resources from other places would be more valuable.
2) Can you completely defeat China by 1939 or 1940? If not, should you really have a bleeding ulcer in the form of a continuing war in China while you face off against other powers?
3) Should conquering China be the sole goal of Japan? Would it make sense to turn the entire project of HOI4 for Japan into "How do I conquer all of China and remain a viable state with viable economy?" Or should Japan be trying to do other things?
4) Will Japan be able to trade with the Soviets to replace lost trade with the US like I do in HOI3?
1) How much can Japan get out of a conquered China? How much manpower? What resources? IC? Dockyards or potential dockyards? Below a certain threshold, it may not even be worth it in the time frame, especially if you think that resources from other places would be more valuable.
2) Can you completely defeat China by 1939 or 1940? If not, should you really have a bleeding ulcer in the form of a continuing war in China while you face off against other powers?
3) Should conquering China be the sole goal of Japan? Would it make sense to turn the entire project of HOI4 for Japan into "How do I conquer all of China and remain a viable state with viable economy?" Or should Japan be trying to do other things?
4) Will Japan be able to trade with the Soviets to replace lost trade with the US like I do in HOI3?
SE Pacific? You mean stationed in Panama?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southeast_Pacific_Area
As the US starts the war in possesion of Hawai´i, the Phillipines, Midway, Wake and Guam and historically had no problem moving the Pacific Fleet from San Diego to Hawai´i it should be perfectly able to use that Fleet there.
A typo. SW Pacific was meant. Specifically places like New Caledonia and New Hebrides. As far as central Pacific and Philippines go I have hard time beliving the shore establishments were strong enough west of Hawaii to sustain a major naval force. The Washington treaty had banned development of bases in these areas and by WW2 Philippines were considered expandable by the Navy anyway. USN was also operating on logistical shoestring early in the war, not because Europe First policy (Pacific was actually a relative priority early on, until defense could be established there) but because American logistics were in absolute sense not sufficiently prepared for the Pacific War.
Not that the Japanese were much if any better off (and if they were, that would have been due to proximity to source of supply). Apparently, the historical USN forces in SW Pacific in September 1942 would have burned fuel oil depots in Truk dry in 20 days - and Japanese had chronic shortage of tankers.
Last edited:
The Japanese actually started the war with the best Merchant marine outside of the Brits. They had put in a whole lot of subsidies in the 30's for shipbuilders to build fast ships that could do cool military things like run dark. Their fleet was very new, very fast and amply suited to their needs.
The problem was the Japanese totally squandered this because they put nothing into commerce defense or even a commerce strategy. They didn't even start running convoys until 1943-44. The Japanese had their ships all sunk by subs and they wouldn't defend against it or prioritize away from the Combined Fleet. So though they started in a very enviable position with modern ships and plenty of them, those very quickly sank and the Japanese didn't prioritize their replacement.
- 3
- 1
- 1
If Japan knows what their doing the US fleet is spotted and naval striked to death and engaged long before it threatens the coast of Japan. Of course this is easier if you got two players playing as Japan so one can set up ambushes at sea while the other Island hops and then invades India. Which happened in our games, we would have two players for Germany, USA and Japan so they could effectively fight on two fronts.
The micro management of fleets looks to be a thing of the past.
Last edited:
Well this gets back to something that I guess has always bugged me.
As the player we act as the all seeing all knowing power that has direct control over the forces at our command, cause rightly so you would be annoyed if the AI just messed with your toys, however generals, ministers, admirals and just about everyone else in the chain did what they thought best. Heck would France have fallen as it did with Rommel and Guderian didn't ignore orders and not let the France set up a new defensive line?
The local commanders escalated things with the Chinese, so shouldn't I the player have to take action to reign them in? Should I just get to not press the NF for the war in China and just play on? I am not sure how you portray the difficulties that the Japanese had with the military acting on their own, but it would be interesting to see.
As the player we act as the all seeing all knowing power that has direct control over the forces at our command, cause rightly so you would be annoyed if the AI just messed with your toys, however generals, ministers, admirals and just about everyone else in the chain did what they thought best. Heck would France have fallen as it did with Rommel and Guderian didn't ignore orders and not let the France set up a new defensive line?
The local commanders escalated things with the Chinese, so shouldn't I the player have to take action to reign them in? Should I just get to not press the NF for the war in China and just play on? I am not sure how you portray the difficulties that the Japanese had with the military acting on their own, but it would be interesting to see.
China should provide potential for industry. Japan may be somewhat limited in how many reginos it can develop, and while China should not be an industrial juggernaut, it should be a new area to build factories in. There needs to be some kind of strategic reason for China to be a target for invasion, because unlike real life, the player isn't going to be "forced" to declare war when generals act of their own initiative.
It reminds me of
It reminds me of
- 2
I've mentioned this before.
In all honesty, the total political power wielded by players gives anyone playing Japan a huge advantage that historical Japan simply didn't have. Other countries have similar issues, but Japan is particularly indicative of just how powerful omnipotent political power is in the hands of a human player. Give me the political power, and I can overcome even Japan's oil shortages.
Personally, I wonder if a player's actions can be countered in some way be entrenched elites. Maybe a DLC of some kind?
- 2
You can do that once, then your CAGs need to repair, and that's when US moves in their second, third and fourth carrier groups.
From the WWW we see the factories you can build In an area is limited by its population, therefore if you want to build up further, you need Chinese labor..
It can be considered as pre emptive strike as well since if china manages to stabilize its politics, it can be a pain in the ass, simply consider allies building up forces in China, bringing their air forces there right under your nose.. It's a problem early or later..
!!!!!!! If politics of hoi4 let's you take Chinese government on your boat then everything would be just fine. !
Japan needs resources and needs them long before the US juggernaut interferes so it can build up enough to stand a chance, so waiting till 1941 for SU means a really weak/inexperienced Japan.. Though you can build specific land and air forces to support such invasion of Siberia it means a navy that is miserable and outdated.. That maybe can conquer SE Asia but has no chance against USA..
So you successfully invade Siberia, and SE Asia simultaneously.. US comes and you have navy to defend. You lose pacific at her quickly and soon find your capital is a burning ruin..
SO YES YOU SHOULD INVADE CHINA..
It can be considered as pre emptive strike as well since if china manages to stabilize its politics, it can be a pain in the ass, simply consider allies building up forces in China, bringing their air forces there right under your nose.. It's a problem early or later..
!!!!!!! If politics of hoi4 let's you take Chinese government on your boat then everything would be just fine. !
Japan needs resources and needs them long before the US juggernaut interferes so it can build up enough to stand a chance, so waiting till 1941 for SU means a really weak/inexperienced Japan.. Though you can build specific land and air forces to support such invasion of Siberia it means a navy that is miserable and outdated.. That maybe can conquer SE Asia but has no chance against USA..
So you successfully invade Siberia, and SE Asia simultaneously.. US comes and you have navy to defend. You lose pacific at her quickly and soon find your capital is a burning ruin..
SO YES YOU SHOULD INVADE CHINA..
- 3
The evolution in multi player in our games was, you had spare CAGS waiting, so you would cycle new ones in. Half strength beats depleted CAGs, also your submarine screen in neighboring sea zones warns you if any other fleets come into the battle zone. You engage their carrier fleet with a surface non carrier fleet while you naval strike safely in the adjacent zone. Done right you can generally take on mulltiple carrier fleets even though your replacement CAGS start the second engagement at half org. Knowing when to cycle the CAGs can be interesting if you are in pursuit of a retreating fleet. Heck I swapped out in a middle of a naval battle once that was evenly matched. The half strength CAGS gave me the upper hand at the cost of a few cycles without any air cover.
Last edited:
Much will depend on how manpower works. If I can some how get manpower from China then that is enough reason for me to invade but if I cannot then maybe some sort of option to puppet and at least get a large puppet force to use on the continent?