Here come the Rebels! (Canoe v. Q-Ball)

[witpqs]

The 1,000 lb thing has been addressed mostly. I'll just round it off by saying it's level bombers (2E and 4E, don't know about light bombers) and it does (AFAIK) apply to naval as well as port missions. DB's and FB's are fine with 1,000 pounders.

[CapAndGown]

First, I just want to point out that Canoe was the one who asked for scenario #2, not #1. To then complain about unrealistic Japanese production abilities doesn't cut it since that is the point of scenario #2.

In scenario #1 the trade-offs the Mike points to certainly do exist. You cannot have it all as Japan, even if that is what it feels like from the AFB point of view. More planes = less ships or less fuel.

As to ASW, I have yet to see my ASW ships achieve any results. An occasional hit here and there, mostly in shallow water, but certainly nothing for the allied player to worry about. The air component, OTOH, has been very effective. I would say too effective at sinking, except that when I look at what dedicated ASW ships have achieved (which is close to nothing) it seems to balance out. Furthermore, a hit that sends a sub home but does not kill it seems to balance out the fact that subs spend much more time on patrol in AE than IRL. If you reduce the hit ratio for planes, you also need to do something about subs being out at sea 99% of the time.

[beppi]

ORIGINAL: cap_and_gown

First, I just want to point out that Canoe was the one who asked for scenario #2, not #1. To then complain about unrealistic Japanese production abilities doesn't cut it since that is the point of scenario #2.

In scenario #1 the trade-offs the Mike points to certainly do exist. You cannot have it all as Japan, even if that is what it feels like from the AFB point of view. More planes = less ships or less fuel.

As to ASW, I have yet to see my ASW ships achieve any results. An occasional hit here and there, mostly in shallow water, but certainly nothing for the allied player to worry about. The air component, OTOH, has been very effective. I would say too effective at sinking, except that when I look at what dedicated ASW ships have achieved (which is close to nothing) it seems to balance out. Furthermore, a hit that sends a sub home but does not kill it seems to balance out the fact that subs spend much more time on patrol in AE than IRL. If you reduce the hit ratio for planes, you also need to do something about subs being out at sea 99% of the time.

Wan´t the point of scen #2 to give Japan an economic boost first half of 42 and some more divisions / ships to build ? The overall supply production is the same as scen #1 ?

[witpqs]

I just looked at CR's post again, and I don't see any items that would differ from Scenario 1 to Scenario 2.

#4 is partly due to range of the planes in question, but greatly influenced by the bug that currently renders Allied attack bombers inoperable (they strafe only).

[Canoerebel]

Correct, I'm not complaining about the things associated with Scenario Two. As C&G notes, I requested this scenario.

What I'm trying to address is some of the other things that, working synergistically, skew things further than players would expect. At least that's my impression.

The Allies are in good shape in this game, so I'm not lashing out in a fit of pique.

P.S. Part I: That's good about the SBDs - somewhere I had gotten the impression that the 70 exp. rule applied to those pilots too. I'm glad it doesn't.

P.S. Part II: I debated over where to make my stand in India. I thought Bombay was a good anchor on my MLR, so decided to make it there. I think it was the right decision for a variety of reasons. The main one being that holding Bombay makes it very hard for Japan to get close enough to Karachi to shut it down by air, which would be a disaster for the Allies. Secondly, as a major urban hex, the Japanese army will impale itself when it tries it's first attack there. Thirdly, having a stout army in Bombay freezes a sizeable segment of Brad's army - he has to pin me down there (else I can move on his flank), which in turns pins him down. The overall effect has been even better than I had hoped.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

These are some of the things that make it very difficult for the Allies to compete historically in the air war. Am I overlooking any others?

That planes burn supplies and not fuel/av gas. Grounding a lot of planes was one goal of the submarine "tanker war" that heated up in mid-1944. When the game lets you make supplies directly from resources through LI, the Japanese never have to make those hard choices about where their oil goes--ships or planes.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: cap_and_gown

If you reduce the hit ratio for planes, you also need to do something about subs being out at sea 99% of the time.

True, but this is balanced by the weapon slot structure forcing 4 and 6 fish salvoes at targets which historically would have gotten 2. Subs spend more time at sea, but they also spend a lot more time transiting, and less on station.

[lojishen]

Canoerebel: "P.S. Part II: I debated over where to make my stand in India. I thought Bombay was a good anchor on my MLR, so decided to make it there. I think it was the right decision for a variety of reasons. The main one being that holding Bombay makes it very hard for Japan to get close enough to Karachi to shut it down by air, which would be a disaster for the Allies. Secondly, as a major urban hex, the Japanese army will impale itself when it tries it's first attack there. Thirdly, having a stout army in Bombay freezes a sizeable segment of Brad's army - he has to pin me down there (else I can move on his flank), which in turns pins him down. The overall effect has been even better than I had hoped."

Yes. It looks like it will turn out really well. At the time, I wasn't so sure. If Q-Ball had moved a bit faster, perhaps he could have cut it off sooner, and before the last few batches of your reinforcements made it there. This might have given him a favorable enough match up to make it vulnerable. However, you were the ones with eyeballs on the map every turn, giving much better situational awareness than I did.

It certainly made exciting reading at the time: Will Canoerebel get enough troops and supply there in time? Does Q-Ball have the troops and momentum to cut if off? What about his reserves? It was maddening reading it, knowing I was days behind in RL and unable to comment before it was decided.

Perhaps with your better situational awareness, it didn't seem near as close. It sure was fun to read.

[vettim89]

First, this is a game afterall. As I pointed out in another thread, no JFB would want to play "Japan Gets It's Butt Kicked (Again) in the Pacific". So lets at least agree that to make this game fun for both sides, some allowances need to be made.

So I am less likely to complain about Japanese airframe production because as Mike pointed out, it comes at a price. One issue I think should be addressed is that HI comes too cheap for Japan. This is modable. I have read some of the production threads where Japan can run its economy on the Resources available in Japan, China, and Manchuko as long as they have the fuel flowing from the SRA. In RL, Japan needed the tin, rubber, and other resources from the SRA just as badly as they needed the oil. Also, I have read that the Japanese economy can run with all the LI turned off. Again, we have a problem here.

ASW in general is a problem. What makes it confounding is that early war ASW seems about right. Its only the late war E class and USN DE's that can kill at will. I play the Downfall scenario a lot. A TF with one or two E class escorts will almost always sink a USN sub with 25-35 hits. The ASW routine is completely messed up and ASW value being dependant on the number of mounts is a joke. I am working on some ideas to fix this but it will take a lot of work to do what I want.

Another problem is that the game lets both sides use Army bombers to conduct ASW. Both sides had serious interservice cooperation issues. This would just not have been done. I wish the game would be more selective in what aircraft are allowed to do ASW patrol for both sides. Why do you think the USN bought all those B-24 variants? So they could use that great airframe's LR capabilites for their use because the USAAF wasn't going to task them to NavSearch/ASW. Now there was some NavSearch by the USAAF early in the war but it ended as soon as the USN was up to speed. Perhaps that would be a good HR - neither side may use Army aircraft for NavSearch/ASW after say 1/43

JOMHO

edit: should not post first thing in the morning before the first cup of joe has kicked in

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: vettim89

First, this is a game afterall. As I pointed out in another thread, no JFB would want to play "Japan Gets It's Butt Kicked (Again) in the Pacific". So lets at least agree that to make this game fun for both sides, some allowances need to be made.

So I am less likely to complain about Japanese airframe production because as Mike pointed out, it comes at a price. One issue I think should be addressed is that HI comes too cheap for Japan. This is modable. I have read some of the production threads where Japan can run its economy on the Resources available in Japan, China, and Manchuko as long as they have the fuel flowing from the SRA. In RL, Japan needed the tin, rubber, and other resources from the SRA just as badly as they needed the oil. Also, I have also read that the Japanese economy can also run with all the LI turned off. Again, we have a problem here.

ASW in general is a problem. What makes it confounding is that early war ASW seems about right. Its only the late war E class and USN DE's that can kill at will. I play the Downfall scenario a lot. A TF with one or two E class escorts will almost always sink a USN sub with 25-35 hits. The ASW routine is completely messed up and ASW value being dependant on the number of mounts is a joke. I am working on some ideas to fix this but it will take a lot of work to do what I want.

Another problem is that the game lets both sides use Army bombers to conduct ASW. Both sides had serious interservice cooperation issues. This would just not have been done. I wish the game would be more selective in what aircraft are allowed to do ASW patrol for both sides. Why do you think the USN bought all those B-24 variants? So they could use that great airframes LR capabilites for their use because the USAAF wasn;t going to task them to NavSearch/ASW. Now there was some NavSearch by the USAAF early in the war but it ended as soon as the USN was up to speed. Perhaps that would be a good HR - neither side may use Army aircraft for NavSearch/ASW after say 1/43

JOMHO

I agree that early war seems OK. Japanese attack and hits on major warships is way too much but that may be a reflection of the Allied players using their ships a lot more often than historical and it is not the end of the world. Japanese ASW rarely does much damage and the Allied torpedoes return the favor.

Mid 1943 see my Allied subs score about one sinking per patrol and that is in a very target rich enviroment. May not be too off base historically either considering the poor torpedoes. Japanese ASW is starting to scare me but as of yet not too bad.

My ASW is getting very good with about 40 subs sunk by mid 1943. This is not so out of whack as Allied ASW was getting very good by then and Japanese subs were very easy to sink. I would expect that except for scouting and troop transport that Japanese subs would be all but toothless in 44-45. No surprise here.

[Canoerebel]

Now back to the game, where I just received a most thought-provoking - actually mystifying - piece of SigInt:  2nd Division is at Truk.
 
2nd Division originally participated in the invasion of India and at one time was posted at Diamond Harbor.  You may recall that months ago I recieved a piece of SigInt that part of the division was aboard a Maru bound for Truk.  I took this as a sign that Brad wasn't committing all his efforts to India (else why would he be drawing down his forces?)  Others noted that it might be part of an elaborate ruse, offering plausible scenarios under which Brad might "orchestrate" such a SigInt report.  So that left me uncertain as to whether to put any stock in the report.  Adding to my uncertainty was that I didn't get any sightings of the division anywhere (especially in India) thereafter....until today.
 
I had been afraid that 2nd Division might make up the core of an amphibious invasion force of perhaps three to five divisions that might land at Surat or the base across the bight.
 
All this leaves me totally puzzled - I know that Brad has at least 15 divisions committed to India.  So he has made a fullscale commitment and effort...but actually weakened his forces by at least one division.  The absence of 2nd could be a critical subtraction.
 
Also, if he wanted a division in CenPac, why not just send one of those he was buying from China?  IE, why buy a division in China, ship it all the way to India, while also shipping one from India all the way back past China to Truk?
 
If this was part of some elaborate ruse to confuse, it obviously worked to an extent.
 
Finally, 2nd Division has now been at Truk for at least a few months.  It's either serving as a counterinvasion reserve or is in a position to hit some Allied outpost like Midway, Baker Island, or even Suva.

[gladiatt]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel


Also, if he wanted a division in CenPac, why not just send one of those he was buying from China?  IE, why buy a division in China, ship it all the way to India, while also shipping one from India all the way back past China to Truk?

I think i had read in an old AAR on Witp forum (maybe one of John3rd) some kind of things like that :
training in combat units, then drawing them out of harm ways, to garrison pacific island with high value-highly trained units, and sending to front the "greens" units who still need training.
Could be an explanation ?

[beppi]

If he sends just a fragment of the Unit to Truk, does that trigger a SIGINT message that the division is in Truk or could the SIGIN be a false warning ? As you say the offensive in India has quite stopped and he drained a real lot of units there and weakened everything else. Possible he starts to reinforce some other positions.

[vettim89]

ORIGINAL: beppi

If he sends just a fragment of the Unit to Truk, does that trigger a SIGINT message that the division is in Truk or could the SIGIN be a false warning ? As you say the offensive in India has quite stopped and he drained a real lot of units there and weakened everything else. Possible he starts to reinforce some other positions.

That was my thought exactly. If he used one small AP the parent unit would load onto it while leaving 2nd Division/1 at the port of embarkation. It could easily be that 90% or more of the unit is still in India with the small "parent" fragment at Truk. Clever ruse if he did it

[Smeulders]

ORIGINAL: vettim89

ORIGINAL: beppi

If he sends just a fragment of the Unit to Truk, does that trigger a SIGINT message that the division is in Truk or could the SIGIN be a false warning ? As you say the offensive in India has quite stopped and he drained a real lot of units there and weakened everything else. Possible he starts to reinforce some other positions.

That was my thought exactly. If he used one small AP the parent unit would load onto it while leaving 2nd Division/1 at the port of embarkation. It could easily be that 90% or more of the unit is still in India with the small "parent" fragment at Truk. Clever ruse if he did it

Wouldn't the parent unit remain in India and the /1 unit be in Truk ?

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: beppi

If he sends just a fragment of the Unit to Truk, does that trigger a SIGINT message that the division is in Truk or could the SIGIN be a false warning ? As you say the offensive in India has quite stopped and he drained a real lot of units there and weakened everything else. Possible he starts to reinforce some other positions.

No, then the sigint message would say something like 2/2nd division is located at Truk. Usually the fragment is identified not the whole unit.

[Mike Solli]

ORIGINAL: vettim89

Another problem is that the game lets both sides use Army bombers to conduct ASW. Both sides had serious interservice cooperation issues. This would just not have been done. I wish the game would be more selective in what aircraft are allowed to do ASW patrol for both sides. Why do you think the USN bought all those B-24 variants? So they could use that great airframes LR capabilites for their use because the USAAF wasn;t going to task them to NavSearch/ASW. Now there was some NavSearch by the USAAF early in the war but it ended as soon as the USN was up to speed. Perhaps that would be a good HR - neither side may use Army aircraft for NavSearch/ASW after say 1/43
JOMHO

I think that's a great idea!

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

ORIGINAL: vettim89

Another problem is that the game lets both sides use Army bombers to conduct ASW. Both sides had serious interservice cooperation issues. This would just not have been done. I wish the game would be more selective in what aircraft are allowed to do ASW patrol for both sides. Why do you think the USN bought all those B-24 variants? So they could use that great airframes LR capabilites for their use because the USAAF wasn;t going to task them to NavSearch/ASW. Now there was some NavSearch by the USAAF early in the war but it ended as soon as the USN was up to speed. Perhaps that would be a good HR - neither side may use Army aircraft for NavSearch/ASW after say 1/43
JOMHO

I think that's a great idea!

No can do. There are examples replete in AE of USAAF / USNAF (and IJNAF/IJAAF) cooperation in some sense, whether shared recon, ASW, ASuW, escort, CAP, deployment, homogenous standing mission orders, etc. that did not exist IRL. Unless it is your intent to unravel these activities and have the services act as the separate structures they truly were, there's no sense in singling out the ASW mission.

[Capt. Harlock]

What does rankle, even as a JFB, is that I seriously doubt USN subs shot at DDs or PBs when tankers or merchies were present.

I find it believable later in the war. Submariners who had lost friends to the Japanese escort ships were often looking for payback. Also, IIRC the official targeting priorities changed during the war as there were fewer large merchants and tankers. CENTPAC decided that destroying escorts left the convoy more vulnerable to mop-up attacks.

[vaned74]

Just a thought - I think we need to remember that most of the people playing AE are history buffs who have read or studied the various Pacific campaigns in some depth. What this means is that these folks are less likely to make the same mistakes as the sides made historically. So, that said, when I consider the Pacific War on a strategic level, I can readily think of any number of huge mistakes in strategy and industrial production that Japan made. On the Allied side, the mistakes I come up with are more on the operational-strategic or tactical side - and quite honestly, relatively few.

For instance on Japan's side, some thoughts - knowing history,

1) what good Japanese player is going to route his merchants and tankers independently or in unescorted convoys?
2) what good Japanese player is going to neglect building up an escort fleet early?
3) what good Japanese player is going to neglect air-ASW until 1944?
4) what good Japanese player is going to not try and optimize port capacities, attempt to position repair assets along convoy routes to save damaged ships, etc?
5) what good Japanese player is going to decide to build a plethora of types of aircraft and not concentrate on streamlining production to a small set of mass produced proven airframes (proven in 20/20 hindsight...this applies to both sides - we have the straight mvr, cannon acc, numbers, etc all published for us)?
6) what good Japanese player is going to neglect pilot training early in the war?
7) what good Japanese player is going to split his carrier forces when fighting the Allied main forces? most keep KB concentrated in mass, and even build that mass, throughout the entire existence of it
8) what good Japanese player is going to decide to not start preparing his interior lines of defense early in the game, knowing that at some point they will be attacked?
9) what good Japanese player is not going to sock away fuel, resources, oil for a rainy day late in the game?
10) what good Japanese player is going to waste, as Mike correctly points out is the key, critical HI on projects like the CV Shinano, amounting to 10% of the entire 1941-1946 naval production of Japan in the game?

I think hindsight almost always favors the side that lost and made the most strategic mistakes in a war game. In this case, it was clearly Japan. So, one can expect that in the game, Japan will do far better than it ever did historically. We need to be careful to factor that in when we consider if the game model itself is right or wrong in its execution. It could be that the industry production of Japan is quite right, the ASW capabilities are quite right, etc. It could just be that Japanese players know what mistakes were historically made and hence avoid those.

By the same token, several mistakes the Allies made historically are oft not repeated in the game - ie, Mac doesn't forget to move supplies to Bataan for the inevitable retreat to it; Force Z doesn't sail north typically, good players seldom risk their precious early war Allied CVs in single carrier TFs, etc. These are more tactical or at best operational strategic as compared to Japan's mistakes which are on an entirely different scale.

Just some thoughts.

Canoerebel - keep up the great AAR! I always enjoy reading yours. Sorry for the digression.