Japanese comments for Sir Robin

[el cid again]

Shark - an experienced Japanese player - after a brief test - using the ultimate Japan Enhansed Scenario (the third generation of this - RHSEBO - with more on Japan's plate than anything except probably Empires Ablaze) had these comments:

Restart is fine.


I learned a few things playing an allied player that would actually defend and not turtle up in out of reach places. Taking too much in the opening turn is not advisable.

We did learn something. If the allied player will stand and fight an overconfident japanese player he can do a lot of damage. Your ships at PH got away because I chose to cover my transports and not agressively go after your units, which was the trade off.

[el cid again]

This comment from Chicken of the Sea - who is running two tests just now - one of them as Japan:


Here is my last turn of the year (destined to be first executed turn of 2009).

Your new campaign with Shark sounds like an interesting variant. I completely agree with Shark's comments on Sir Robin. The standard rules that people use for other mods let the Japanese player run amok with impunity in the opening. He knows the Allies won't react because they are not allowed to. In RHS, the Japanese player must think about proper operational aspects, air superiority, recon, LOC, SLOC, enemy reaction, supply tails, etc. The active defense you are throwing up always has the potential to do a lot of damage and will definitely make the Japanese player more cautious or pay the consequences.

[Nemo121]

Well, I don't think there's anything unique in RHS or CHS or EA which suddenly makes operational and strategic thought a priority. Surely it is necessary for ALL players on ALL sides at ALL times.
 
What would you say is present in RHS which makes operational thought a higher priority than in other mods? Maybe I've missed something in one of the updates.

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Well, I don't think there's anything unique in RHS or CHS or EA which suddenly makes operational and strategic thought a priority. Surely it is necessary for ALL players on ALL sides at ALL times.

What would you say is present in RHS which makes operational thought a higher priority than in other mods? Maybe I've missed something in one of the updates.

The problem is that so very few allied players will stand and fight, thus allowing the Japanese player to roll the map for the first 6-12 months of the game time.

Example: Typically, allied players will run to Singapore and Manila as fast as they can. Now while this might allow those bases to stand for a longer time than they historically did (which btw, I've found only helps add 2-4 weeks to the stand), it completely frees up the Japanese player to take on other ops because you've already contained yourself, the Japanese player does not have to force the issue.

Example: If the allied player withdraws all their aircraft to 'safe bases' then the japanese shipping lanes are not challenged. Couple that with ineffective allied submarines and the Japanese player has no need to escort convoys from the home islands to Saigon.

Example: Allied players will typically take no action with their carriers until mid '42 allowing the Japanese player the ability to run invasion ops without having to provide proper cover. Since the Japanese doesn't have to cover his invasions, he can take on more of them without worry.

Basically, all Sir Robin accomplishes is making life easier for the Japanese Player. Sir Robin tactics basically give the Japanese player all of the SRA for free. Even knowing I can't win it, I prefer not to Sir Robin when I do play as Allies. If I am to lose the troops anyway, I'd rather give my opponant as great a headache as I possibly can.

Now imagine you stand and fight and it takes the japanese player until early 1943 to secure the SRA. By then the allied armies are ready to stand and now the Japanese player isn't going to be able to run the map in other places. Just a thought.

[Capt. Harlock]

Now imagine you stand and fight and it takes the japanese player until early 1943 to secure the SRA. By then the allied armies are ready to stand and now the Japanese player isn't going to be able to run the map in other places.

And if the moon falls out of the sky, night binoculars are little good. A Japanese player who takes until early '43 to secure the SRA is not going to put up much resistance in the later game. First, because he's not very competent, and second, because his economy will be in lousy shape.

[Nemo121]

Or, of course, you could just forget all about defending and rip the Japanese player's jugular out with a view to retaking Java, the Pacific etc in 42.

I think the Sir Robin strategy is a flawed harbour which helps camouflage a plethora of errors in play - after all, anyone can attack successfully when they have overwhelming force available - but rather than just trying to defend better why not try to counter-attack and take the initiative/render the enemy's initiative irrelevant?

[n01487477]

Nemo,
I couldn't agree more ...

I have always advocated such a policy, and even though you are giving me a taste of getting what I wish - which has turned out to be a bitter pill ... I hope other Allied players see such openings and decide that they can turn the tide in '42...makes for a much more interesting game IMO.

Now just have to get the AE or WITPII dev to look at strategic bombing and factory repairs/expansion ...

[Shark7]

The best way to look at it is like this: You know he is going to take those areas so why not make it as costly as possible? And turtling up inside 1 hex is not costly, the japanese player just has to starve you out then.

Maybe it's the mindset of a JFB, but I prefer to make my opponants fight for every inch of ground they gain.

[Nemo121]

umm, Shark, I don't think anyone here has proposed turtling up.
 
My viewpoint is why even concede that they will inevitably take this ground? Why not view it a far from inevitable and begin planning counter-offensives ASAP in early 42... I think you may have misread what Damian or I were saying.

[ChickenOfTheSea]

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Well, I don't think there's anything unique in RHS or CHS or EA which suddenly makes operational and strategic thought a priority. Surely it is necessary for ALL players on ALL sides at ALL times.

What would you say is present in RHS which makes operational thought a higher priority than in other mods? Maybe I've missed something in one of the updates.

Nemo,

I misspoke and you are right. I was referring specifically to my game against El Cid's team which was, of course, using RHS scenario EBO. In this game the Allies were unconstrained on turn 1 and are putting up an extremely aggressive defense. This is enabled by making many areas more defensible, an enhanced force Z at Singapore and an enhanced Dutch battlefleet and several Chinese offensives 100% prepped for their objectives.

My comments were more in reference to the common practice of allowing the Japanese to freely move in a hyper turn 1 while the Allies are essentially frozen in place, fully known to the Japanese. If this is followed up by the Allies going full Sir Robin, then the Japanese just race for their objectives without regard to operational principles. On the other hand, if the Allies reposition fleet and air units and have LCUs moving aggressively forward, then the Japanese have a lot more to think about in terms of operational planning and execution in the first few weeks. In principle this could be done with any mod that provides the Allies with the military resources and some leeway in the opening, coupled with an Allied player ready to put up a fight.

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

umm, Shark, I don't think anyone here has proposed turtling up.

My viewpoint is why even concede that they will inevitably take this ground? Why not view it a far from inevitable and begin planning counter-offensives ASAP in early 42... I think you may have misread what Damian or I were saying.

No, I did not misread what you wrote. Wasn't referring to that, was making observations of what I have personally seen. Some players will turtle, some won't.

And basically what I was saying is use the troops to buy time and make every Japanese victory hurt. If you tie up the Japanese troops with the forces already present, you make the early '42 counter-offensive possible.

If as the allies I can hold Johore Bahru for even a few days, it slows the conquest of Singapore and gives me that much more time to play havoc with the shipping lanes. If I fight and manage to hold keep the allies out of Clark Field even 1 or 2 days longer, then that is 1 or 2 more chances to sink ships or attack HI on Taiwan from that base. If I manage to hold on to Java even a day or two longer, once again, I can use bombers to attack the Oil and Resources that many more times.

We're getting to the same point, you are just seeing it in a more positive light than I do. I see it as a JFB...in the end I have to do exactly what I described above to prolong the war, my attitude being if I am going to lose them anyway, might as well go down fighting. In the case of the Allied player, you are looking to hold and create an opening, and maybe even save those troops with a counter-attack.

My current opponant decided to defend Java and based a lot of LR bombers there. Since we are playing Nik Mod, there is no way I can prevent them from reaching the target and I've lost around 70 escorts, AKs and APs from those bombers, (in fact I nearly lost Fuso to a very good torpedo attack; luck, 2 ARs and a HQ is what saved it) and he has prevented me from even trying to take Palembang due to knowing that as soon as I take it, he annihilates the oilfields. To counter that, I am using overwhelming force to take Java quickly. I'm not in bad shape yet, but had a couple of the bases I captured taken bad hits to their oilfields on capture, I would be.

In the end, a player who defends rather than doing the DEI Sir Robin is a headache to the Japanese player.

[el cid again]

Shark's comments are correct - but don't answer Nemo's question directly. They would apply equally to CHS or stock or EA.

What is different about RHS is the supply sinks make a stand on a point with one somewhat stronger. This was long considered to be a problem - and heroic efforts were done to insure it isn't an overwhelming problem. But while small sinks don't cause any delay at all, and medium ones cause 1-2 days of delay, large ones probably cost weeks - at least if enough enemy forces are present and supported. Manila and Singapore and a few other points are problematical because they have strong AA defenses and are not safely shelled by naval units. You pretty much have to come in by land - and you must either not support with air or you will take some casualties - a hobson's choice. This should be true for all versions of WITP - but RHS (and also AE) - have stronger defenses based on better research. A Sir Robin defense is not totally without technical foundation: a good defense WILL focus on defending exactly these same points. But it will do so as a fall back position. Falling back means that you don't lose supply generation as soon - so the overall supply for the defenders is greater. Both AE and RHS achieve this by slightly different means - but it remains - a delaying action is better strategy logistically. To which add a final RHS feature: the supply sinks tend to limit excessive local supply - so the player who ships supplies IN is rewarded. I not only ship them in - I fly them in - using air transports and flying boats.
RHS - and AE - introduced heavy air transports for both sides - stock and CHS lacked them entirely - and calls for them were said to be 'unnecessary.' Yet air transport was a major factor even in Chinese strategy - and certainly in both Japanese and non-Chinese Allied strategy. If it seems the Allies lack air transport at the start (eventually this changes dramatically) - there are air transport capable units - particularly for supplies (which bombers can lift) - and insuring your forward positions have supplies matters for effective defense. Since RHS in particular was reworked with a primary focus on logistics - it should have had some impact.

[JeffroK]

Playing with CHS only.

I think seeing it from the japanese side allows you to know of 'weak spots" or failed strategy. You also feel "frustrated" of a chance to destroy your enemy.

As the Allies, you see your totally ineffective Buffalo, Hawk75 or marginally effective P40E & Wildcats being unable to compete against the IJAAF & IJNAF. Therefore their likewise marginally effective Martins & Blenheims get wiped out of the skies with annoying monotony. I cant see how the very small numbers of B17 in the PI would do much damageto japanese infrastructure so use them to hit ground forces.

In reverse, Betty & Nell rules the seas and Zeke & Oscar the skies, Allied shipping moves at a threat to its life every turn.

So you think your best chance is to preserve your Air Forces, fall back to India, Darwin or Nth Queensland. Often your first thought is to get the P40E out of the PI (I often send mine to Chungking)

On the ground, there are so many places for the japanese hordes to land, which one do you defend? The Malay peninsula, PI & DEI have so many port bases that you cant defend them all. So you think that concentrating at one, or two, positions with your abysmally led, poorly experienced & low morale units will be best. Piecemeal, your forces will be smashed quickly, concentrated, you may last a bit longer.

(I dont recommend a wholesale evacuation by sea, undersea or air, IMHO you should be forced to defend Malaya, DEI & PI)

But this does not mean that you surrender the area without a fight. You need to find some strategic points to fight for, but always looking over your shoulder at being outflanked from the sea. Therefore Johore Bharu & Clark Field can put a speedhump into the japanese push, but these are only temporary positions in front of Singapore, Manila or Bataan. Always be on the lookout to smash an overextended japanese player, in the PI you have 2 Lt Tk Bns which could cause some havoc to a small force.

At sea, things are harder, as above, the Betty & Nell can make life near impossible for survival, but subs & minelayers must be used to their maximum.

One think to remember is that if KB is in the Central Pacific, it cant be in the DEI and if its in the DEI they aren't in the Central Pacific.

Maybe poorly said, but to the Allies, running is often the best defense, but sometimes you have to stop and hit back to make the japanese a bit more thoughtful about their next moves.

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Playing with CHS only.

I think seeing it from the japanese side allows you to know of 'weak spots" or failed strategy. You also feel "frustrated" of a chance to destroy your enemy.

As the Allies, you see your totally ineffective Buffalo, Hawk75 or marginally effective P40E & Wildcats being unable to compete against the IJAAF & IJNAF. Therefore their likewise marginally effective Martins & Blenheims get wiped out of the skies with annoying monotony. I cant see how the very small numbers of B17 in the PI would do much damageto japanese infrastructure so use them to hit ground forces.

In reverse, Betty & Nell rules the seas and Zeke & Oscar the skies, Allied shipping moves at a threat to its life every turn.

So you think your best chance is to preserve your Air Forces, fall back to India, Darwin or Nth Queensland. Often your first thought is to get the P40E out of the PI (I often send mine to Chungking)

On the ground, there are so many places for the japanese hordes to land, which one do you defend? The Malay peninsula, PI & DEI have so many port bases that you cant defend them all. So you think that concentrating at one, or two, positions with your abysmally led, poorly experienced & low morale units will be best. Piecemeal, your forces will be smashed quickly, concentrated, you may last a bit longer.

(I dont recommend a wholesale evacuation by sea, undersea or air, IMHO you should be forced to defend Malaya, DEI & PI)

But this does not mean that you surrender the area without a fight. You need to find some strategic points to fight for, but always looking over your shoulder at being outflanked from the sea. Therefore Johore Bharu & Clark Field can put a speedhump into the japanese push, but these are only temporary positions in front of Singapore, Manila or Bataan. Always be on the lookout to smash an overextended japanese player, in the PI you have 2 Lt Tk Bns which could cause some havoc to a small force.

At sea, things are harder, as above, the Betty & Nell can make life near impossible for survival, but subs & minelayers must be used to their maximum.

One think to remember is that if KB is in the Central Pacific, it cant be in the DEI and if its in the DEI they aren't in the Central Pacific.

Maybe poorly said, but to the Allies, running is often the best defense, but sometimes you have to stop and hit back to make the japanese a bit more thoughtful about their next moves.

It's called picking your battles and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. The problem is when you keep running and never fight back. When you do that then by all means expect the Japanese player to run the map in 6-8 months, you can't just keep running and expect to counter-attack and all will be well. You have to create some opportunities along the way.

But I do want to emphasize that with CHS and Nik Mod it is possible to stand with your air forces, and the IJAAF and IJNAF are not going to swat every bomber out of the sky...quite the opposite, in 5 game months of play I have yet to shoot down an Allied 4E with fighters, and as far as losses go, we are about equal in losses to enemy action (though ops losses are horrible for me). It's worth checking out.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Shark's comments are correct - but don't answer Nemo's question directly. They would apply equally to CHS or stock or EA.

What is different about RHS is the supply sinks make a stand on a point with one somewhat stronger. This was long considered to be a problem - and heroic efforts were done to insure it isn't an overwhelming problem. But while small sinks don't cause any delay at all, and medium ones cause 1-2 days of delay, large ones probably cost weeks - at least if enough enemy forces are present and supported. Manila and Singapore and a few other points are problematical because they have strong AA defenses and are not safely shelled by naval units. You pretty much have to come in by land - and you must either not support with air or you will take some casualties - a hobson's choice. This should be true for all versions of WITP - but RHS (and also AE) - have stronger defenses based on better research. A Sir Robin defense is not totally without technical foundation: a good defense WILL focus on defending exactly these same points. But it will do so as a fall back position. Falling back means that you don't lose supply generation as soon - so the overall supply for the defenders is greater. Both AE and RHS achieve this by slightly different means - but it remains - a delaying action is better strategy logistically. To which add a final RHS feature: the supply sinks tend to limit excessive local supply - so the player who ships supplies IN is rewarded. I not only ship them in - I fly them in - using air transports and flying boats.
RHS - and AE - introduced heavy air transports for both sides - stock and CHS lacked them entirely - and calls for them were said to be 'unnecessary.' Yet air transport was a major factor even in Chinese strategy - and certainly in both Japanese and non-Chinese Allied strategy. If it seems the Allies lack air transport at the start (eventually this changes dramatically) - there are air transport capable units - particularly for supplies (which bombers can lift) - and insuring your forward positions have supplies matters for effective defense. Since RHS in particular was reworked with a primary focus on logistics - it should have had some impact.

I like the focus on logistics, but I have problems (as the Japanese) with the supply sink units. They automatically provide x2 support to troops in the same hex, they make most base hexes untakeable by anything smaller than a brigade and they make urban hexes (x4 for terrain) untakeable by multi-corps armies. Of course, this is RHSRAO, 7.792, and things may have moved on from there. Singapore and Manila can hold out for months.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Playing with CHS only.

I think seeing it from the japanese side allows you to know of 'weak spots" or failed strategy. You also feel "frustrated" of a chance to destroy your enemy.

As the Allies, you see your totally ineffective Buffalo, Hawk75 or marginally effective P40E & Wildcats being unable to compete against the IJAAF & IJNAF. Therefore their likewise marginally effective Martins & Blenheims get wiped out of the skies with annoying monotony. I cant see how the very small numbers of B17 in the PI would do much damageto japanese infrastructure so use them to hit ground forces.

In reverse, Betty & Nell rules the seas and Zeke & Oscar the skies, Allied shipping moves at a threat to its life every turn.

So you think your best chance is to preserve your Air Forces, fall back to India, Darwin or Nth Queensland. Often your first thought is to get the P40E out of the PI (I often send mine to Chungking)

On the ground, there are so many places for the japanese hordes to land, which one do you defend? The Malay peninsula, PI & DEI have so many port bases that you cant defend them all. So you think that concentrating at one, or two, positions with your abysmally led, poorly experienced & low morale units will be best. Piecemeal, your forces will be smashed quickly, concentrated, you may last a bit longer.

(I dont recommend a wholesale evacuation by sea, undersea or air, IMHO you should be forced to defend Malaya, DEI & PI)

But this does not mean that you surrender the area without a fight. You need to find some strategic points to fight for, but always looking over your shoulder at being outflanked from the sea. Therefore Johore Bharu & Clark Field can put a speedhump into the japanese push, but these are only temporary positions in front of Singapore, Manila or Bataan. Always be on the lookout to smash an overextended japanese player, in the PI you have 2 Lt Tk Bns which could cause some havoc to a small force.

At sea, things are harder, as above, the Betty & Nell can make life near impossible for survival, but subs & minelayers must be used to their maximum.

One think to remember is that if KB is in the Central Pacific, it cant be in the DEI and if its in the DEI they aren't in the Central Pacific.

Maybe poorly said, but to the Allies, running is often the best defense, but sometimes you have to stop and hit back to make the japanese a bit more thoughtful about their next moves.

This evaluation - which is correct - also causes me to think of a different aspect of the subject. The hard work done on aircraft armament and performance in RHS (and by extension AE) does make a significant difference. The Buffalo is not useless - and at times the P-36 is as good or better. [You do need to learn to engage when you have high morale or to be tricky - giving your planes an altitide advantage.] Also - Allied bombers are significantly more powerful. First in lift terms - second in range terms - and third probably also in survivability terms. Apparently various things caused stock and CHS to "tone down" Allied bombers - and although we were unable to deal with the maximum load of heavy bombers (for technical reasons) - we were able to give them normal loads to actual normal ranges - the differencs being either significant or gigantic. The RHS / AE air combat system not only does away with uber CAP and uber bombing - it also makes air combat more like IRL - in which lots depends on numbers, morale, etc - and in which a skilled player on EITHER side can compete - even the poor Allies at the start of the war. If the foundation of RHS is logistical - no subject involved more work (or Forum input) than aircraft - and the result, if not perfect for technical reasons, was a great payoff. I got one email two days ago from a solitare player (who will be doing Test 13D shortly) to the effect "once you try RHS, you can't go back" - and he cited the many improvements in detail as "addictive." I am finding as an Allied player that I CAN do very well - because the planes ARE competative - if only marginally so - even in 1941.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Shark7

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Playing with CHS only.

It's called picking your battles and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. The problem is when you keep running and never fight back. When you do that then by all means expect the Japanese player to run the map in 6-8 months, you can't just keep running and expect to counter-attack and all will be well. You have to create some opportunities along the way.

But I do want to emphasize that with CHS and Nik Mod it is possible to stand with your air forces, and the IJAAF and IJNAF are not going to swat every bomber out of the sky...quite the opposite, in 5 game months of play I have yet to shoot down an Allied 4E with fighters, and as far as losses go, we are about equal in losses to enemy action (though ops losses are horrible for me). It's worth checking out.

Here again things are different in RHS (and AE). While it is true at times it seems (as we used to say in UV days) "the best fighter is a B-17" - more often the B-17s and B-24s take losses and/or casualties - and sometimes they abort the mission instead of pressing the attack - even when opposed by small numbers of fighters or machines that barely are fighters. It is normal - in the first month of the war - to have a Pete which actually shoots down a B-17 - and if you watch carefully - you will see a Pete damage one every few raids. The Pete is close to the worst figher in the game - not quite - the Allies have some turkeys of their own - but in the right circumstances - if you learn to set them about 1000 feet above enemy bomber altitude - they will score. In RHS it is both more common to penetrate with bombers - and more common for bombers to take some losses to even marginal CAP. Truly strong air defense requires you build fighter defenses in layers (meaning altitude layers) - and suppliment it with AAA - and even so it isn't guaranteed you can stop all the bombers. What you can do is make them pay, and that is pretty much true regardless of what you have to oppose them with. It is far more important to get the altitude setting right than to engage with a super fighter: IF you get the altitude right, the worst fighters matter (assuming morale of 60 plus); if you do NOT get it right, you may not get a shot at all, otherwise just a shot or two before the dreaded "end of air combat" ...

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: herwin

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Shark's comments are correct - but don't answer Nemo's question directly. They would apply equally to CHS or stock or EA.

What is different about RHS is the supply sinks make a stand on a point with one somewhat stronger. This was long considered to be a problem - and heroic efforts were done to insure it isn't an overwhelming problem. But while small sinks don't cause any delay at all, and medium ones cause 1-2 days of delay, large ones probably cost weeks - at least if enough enemy forces are present and supported. Manila and Singapore and a few other points are problematical because they have strong AA defenses and are not safely shelled by naval units. You pretty much have to come in by land - and you must either not support with air or you will take some casualties - a hobson's choice. This should be true for all versions of WITP - but RHS (and also AE) - have stronger defenses based on better research. A Sir Robin defense is not totally without technical foundation: a good defense WILL focus on defending exactly these same points. But it will do so as a fall back position. Falling back means that you don't lose supply generation as soon - so the overall supply for the defenders is greater. Both AE and RHS achieve this by slightly different means - but it remains - a delaying action is better strategy logistically. To which add a final RHS feature: the supply sinks tend to limit excessive local supply - so the player who ships supplies IN is rewarded. I not only ship them in - I fly them in - using air transports and flying boats.
RHS - and AE - introduced heavy air transports for both sides - stock and CHS lacked them entirely - and calls for them were said to be 'unnecessary.' Yet air transport was a major factor even in Chinese strategy - and certainly in both Japanese and non-Chinese Allied strategy. If it seems the Allies lack air transport at the start (eventually this changes dramatically) - there are air transport capable units - particularly for supplies (which bombers can lift) - and insuring your forward positions have supplies matters for effective defense. Since RHS in particular was reworked with a primary focus on logistics - it should have had some impact.

I like the focus on logistics, but I have problems (as the Japanese) with the supply sink units. They automatically provide x2 support to troops in the same hex, they make most base hexes untakeable by anything smaller than a brigade and they make urban hexes (x4 for terrain) untakeable by multi-corps armies. Of course, this is RHSRAO, 7.792, and things may have moved on from there. Singapore and Manila can hold out for months.

While there have been changes since 7.7 (we are at 7.9 now) - these are pretty much focused on order of battle matters. There was a final layer of logistical changes - mainly focused on spreading out the largest of supply sinks - but this was limited by slot limits - and the truly gigantic ones at places like Asanol India remain. I did however move some sinks off site - notably in California - so invasions of the principle cities (e.g. San Francisco) would not be impacted by them.

Note however that a major city which is not willing to surrender SHOULD take a long time to capture. Consider the case of Manila - defended by only a brigade sized force of Naval infantry - becoming the most destroyed city in theater (and second only to Warsaw in any theater). If defended like gamers do it - with a corps or two of many units - Manila should take months to capture. [Historically Admiral Dewey had no way to take the city; he cut a deal with Gen Aguinaldo - a deal which later was dishonored - after the Spanish were defeated and the Philippine Army had demobilized and the US had control of the port. Not that Dewey did the dishonoring, or apprived of it.]

It isn't popular among supply sink critics to say so - but their tendency to PREVENT smaller than "brigade sized" units to take over major infrastructures undamged is as important as their eating of excess supply. In PTO civil engineers damaged infrastructure at many points - sometimes to an extent we are unable to achieve (we never see more than about 50 per cent damage to an assault). Sinks also permit infrastructure to be built without sending an engineer unit there ("contractors" as it were) - and early in the war this matters - and really is possible in a major infrastructure hex as well. When we no longer have the problem of excess supply from resource centers, sinks will remain to perform this (and sometimes other) functions (in RHS of course). [A minor secondary function is static support of civil air units which were used for military purposes, including the Empire Flying Boat hubs in India and Australia, the Pan Am Clipper hubs of USAAF and USN, the Pan Am civil air transport unit at Asanol India, a ROC airline, DNKKK (All Japan Airlines) flying boat and air transport hubs (which were para military even in peacetime), and in RHS the larger air transports of Mansyu. Probably unknown to most players, Mansyu is a very interesting chapter in aviation history well known to buffs of the period. It was not just an airline but an aircraft designer and manufacturer, and one not in the Home Islands.]

[herwin]

Please describe the operations that should be used to capture Manila and Singapore. Unfortunately, I lack experience with the game system and so tend to use the task organisations I would have used in reality. Spending seven years as the chief systems engineer of a command and control system for corps-level amphibious operations can have that effect.

By the way, I just acquired a copy of Military Modelling for Decision Making, 3rd edition, Wayne P. Hughes, Jr., ed., 1997. Starting on page 50, there is an essay by Hughes "On Model Stricture, or Stifling Thought", where he criticises the way complicated opaque models inhibit imagination and creativity. "Too much detail for the sake of realism is confusing and self-defeating." He then gives a number of examples of systems that had to be abandoned because they "contain coding mysteries that produce counterintuitive, unexplained results."

[Nemo121]

*chuckle* If a supply sink ONLY meant that one had to use a Bde to capture even small targets and a division + for larger targets then no-one would have problems with it.

What I have a problem with is multi-army assaults ( I'm talking 8+ divisions ) faltering on the rock of a Regiment + thousands upon thousand of civilian labourers. It is completely ahistoric and alters the dynamics of the game farther from reality than is optimal.

YMMV etc but really some people object to supply sinks for reasons other than the fact that they prevent speedy Japanese bulldozer victories.

Re: that Hughes book. Is that available from Amazon etc or just from a specialty publisher? If so could you give me a URL for them. I'd be interested in it. ( I searched amazon but didn't find it ).