Lunacy or Shrewdness?

anarchyintheuk · Post by **anarchyintheuk** » Fri May 05, 2006 8:56 pm

India is a probably a better place to test the game model than Australia in any event (less effective enemy fleet, lower pilot replacement pools, higher base density, shorter range fighters, etc.)

Enjoying the aar, hope you keep it going. I'm interested to see how your ship production model works and how effective your mid-43 KB will be.

Nemo121 · Post by **Nemo121** » Fri May 05, 2006 11:06 pm

Pauk,

1. Not quite yet. Soon but not quite yet.

2. I don't intend to build up Lautem and Koepang to any great extent in order to fight air battles in order to gain aerial supremacy.
A. It would expend significant supplies
B. It would telegraph my intentions.
C. It would be conducting symmetrical warfare in which I matched my airpower against his. This is a losing proposition for me.

No, if I go for Northern Australia I'll stage out of Soerabaja and run straight down to whichever port /beach I have decided to land on. The only exception to the above would be building up Lautem and Koepang sufficiently to provide docking facilities for my battleline.

3 + 4. Aye well that's the plan behind threatening Pearl and taking New Zealand.

5. I disagree. I WANT him to commit to Northern Australia. If he does I will destroy his forces and will be able to force him into a "march, counter-march, disorder" situation. Of this I am confident. As to not going for Southern Australia in 1942. Why not? If New Zealand is taken and Australia cut off the Australian navy, on its own, will be insufficient to put much of a crimp in my plans for southern australia. New Zealand will be the fulcrum for the Australian theatre.

Rob,
Well as I said to Trey when we discussed this ( he is certain I'm going for knock-outs in India and China and, at the very least, the crippling of Australia and I don't see any point in denying this at this stage) I'd rather reach for the sun and fail then succesfully grab the branch 2 feet above me.

One way or another I am doomed to defeat but I don't want to follow the usual route to said defeat.

Anarchyintheuk,
Well Sid [:D] I'm interested to see how that works out too... It seems a reasonable gambit and one I hadn't seen anyone else trying so it appealed to me on both of those accounts. It may well end up in complete disaster with KB being defeated in detail before the new carriers make their way onto the scene. If I survive till they arrive then things should be interesting

And with that said... back to the AAR.

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 01/30/42

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASW attack at 66,44

Japanese Ships
PC Ch 29
PC Ch 12
PC Ch 11
PC Ch 10
PC Ch 6
PC Ch 4
PC Takunan Maru #5
PC Shonan Maru #17
PC Shonan Maru #2

Allied Ships
SS Gar, hits 5

I think I'm learning how to read these reports. Multiple hits but no report of heavy damage probably means sys damage in the 10 to 20 points range. It should send the sub back to port but not sink it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASW attack at 67,106

Japanese Ships
PG Choko Maru #2

Allied Ships
SS S-28

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Rangoon , at 29,34

Japanese aircraft
Ki-43-Ib Oscar x 28
Ki-49 Helen x 108

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-49 Helen: 1 destroyed, 5 damaged

Allied ground losses:
7 casualties reported

Port hits 10
Port fuel hits 2
Port supply hits 4

I've decided to start softening up Rangoon's port for the bombardment attacks I think will prove necessary.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Bulla , at 40,75

Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 6

No Allied losses

Resources hits 2

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Koepang , at 28,77

Allied aircraft
B-17C Fortress x 6

Allied aircraft losses
B-17C Fortress: 1 damaged

Japanese ground losses:
16 casualties reported
Guns lost 2

Runway hits 3

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on 1st Tank Regiment, at 37,26

Allied aircraft
Wellington III x 7

No Allied losses

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on 120th IJA Base Force, at 41,35

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 24

Allied aircraft
IL-4c x 4

No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
IL-4c: 1 destroyed, 2 damaged

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Hengchow

Japanese Bombardment attack

Attacking force 66142 troops, 805 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 1244

Defending force 63348 troops, 225 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 1211

Allied ground losses:
499 casualties reported

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at 44,30

Japanese Bombardment attack

Attacking force 99943 troops, 1107 guns, 8 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 1705

Defending force 59349 troops, 340 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 1494

Allied ground losses:
117 casualties reported

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at 45,35

Japanese Bombardment attack

Attacking force 51759 troops, 565 guns, 3 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 894

Defending force 87706 troops, 275 guns, 57 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 2213

Allied ground losses:
244 casualties reported
Guns lost 1

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Rangoon

Japanese Bombardment attack

Attacking force 47787 troops, 272 guns, 11 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 1198

Defending force 29026 troops, 241 guns, 275 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 645

Allied ground losses:
93 casualties reported
Guns lost 1

With the defenders now outnumbered almost 2:1 in AV and with good prep values it will be time to try a deliberate attack in a few days. If it looks like I can take Rangoon cheaply I will do so as it will aid the Indian and New Zealand operations and also mislead Trey as regards to my response to threats.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at 23,47

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 10436 troops, 183 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 55

Defending force 4101 troops, 0 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 3

Japanese max assault: 46 - adjusted assault: 22

Allied max defense: 1 - adjusted defense: 16

Japanese assault odds: 1 to 1

Allied ground losses:
78 casualties reported

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Kweiyang

Allied Bombardment attack

Attacking force 8267 troops, 69 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 469

Defending force 12132 troops, 70 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 267

Japanese ground losses:
2 casualties reported
Guns lost 1

An ABSOLUTELY CRAZY design decision is endangering the Kweiyang pocket... It seems that NO China Expeditionary Army troops can be AIRLIFTED to other bases in China. This is nuts. So long as the originating and ending bases are within their valid area of operations this should be allowed. I have 2 Brigades ready to fly into Kweiyang to ensure its survival which I now am unable to use because of this, frankly, stupid design decision. This means I have to keep my parachute regiments here to engage in "ordinary" operations and forego the "extraordinary" operations preparatory to the invasion of India. This is most disquieting and disruptive to my plans.

I see no rationale to preventing air transport of China Area Army formations within the China Area...

Nemo121 · Post by **Nemo121** » Sat May 06, 2006 7:18 am

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 01/31/42

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASW attack at 119,67

Japanese Ships
SS I-25, hits 4

Allied Ships
DD King
DD Brooks
DD Kilty
DD Crane
DD Kennison
DD Crosby
DD Dent

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASW attack at 117,64

Japanese Ships
SS RO-68

Allied Ships
DD Case
DD Ellet
DD Benham
DD Maury

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Air attack on Pearl Harbor , at 112,68

Japanese aircraft
G4M1 Betty x 6

Japanese aircraft losses
G4M1 Betty: 1 destroyed, 4 damaged

Aircraft Attacking:
5 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 16000 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASW attack at 96,61

Japanese Ships
PC Ch 24
PC Ch 21
PC Takunan Maru #10
PC Takuna Maru #6
PC Shonon Maru #11
PC Shonon Maru #10
PC Shonon Maru #3
PC Sonan Maru #6
PC Sonan Maru #5
PC Kyo Maru #7
PC Kyo Maru #6
PC Fumi Maru #3

Allied Ships
SS Dolphin, hits 6, on fire, heavy damage

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub attack at 117,64

Japanese Ships
SS RO-68, hits 7

Allied Ships
DD Ellet
DD Case
DD Benham
DD Maury

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASW attack at 54,39

Japanese Ships
PC Ch 32
PC Ch 18
PC Ch 17
PC Ch 16
PC Ch 15
PC Ch 14
PC Ch 13
PC Ch 3
PC Ch 2
PC Ch 1
PC Kyo Maru #13
PC Kyo Maru #12
PC Kyo Maru #11

Allied Ships
SS Sculpin, hits 4

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASW attack at 116,62

Japanese Ships
SS RO-67, hits 2

Allied Ships
DD McCall
DD Gridley
DD Craven
DD Mugford

As you can see major ASW warfare is going on around Pearl, in the DEI and Noumea. I estimate there are a minimum of 5 submarines within 300 miles of Noumea with a similar number operating in the DEI. Another 4 or so are blockading the Japan-Shanghai route and a couple more have taken up positions outside of Tokyo. On my part I am still maintaining roughly 20 submarines 300 to 400 miles west of Pearl Harbour.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Singapore , at 23,50

Japanese aircraft
Ki-43-Ib Oscar x 34
Ki-21 Sally x 330
Ki-49 Helen x 6
Ki-46-II Dinah x 7

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-21 Sally: 2 destroyed, 26 damaged
Ki-49 Helen: 1 damaged

Allied ground losses:
226 casualties reported
Guns lost 5

Port hits 17
Port fuel hits 2
Port supply hits 2

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Bulla , at 40,75

Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 7

No Allied losses
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Koepang , at 28,77

Allied aircraft
B-17C Fortress x 3

Allied aircraft losses
B-17C Fortress: 2 damaged

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASW attack at 116,62

Japanese Ships
SS RO-67

Allied Ships
DD Aylwin

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Hengchow

Japanese Bombardment attack

Attacking force 66396 troops, 812 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 1259

Defending force 62707 troops, 222 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 1226

Allied ground losses:
596 casualties reported

The gradual wearing down of Chinese forces in Hengchow continues. With my air raids preventing increases in fortification levels and burning Chinese supplies I expect to be able to either attack Hengchow in the next fortnight or leave only a minor blocking force and move the rest north to help the forces on the Changsha-Chungking road. I don't want to kill Chinese units only to have them respawn back in Chungking just as that city is about to fall.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at 44,30

Japanese Bombardment attack

Attacking force 100196 troops, 1119 guns, 8 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 1724

Defending force 59399 troops, 347 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 1494

Allied ground losses:
52 casualties reported

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at 45,35

Japanese Bombardment attack

Attacking force 52049 troops, 585 guns, 3 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 900

Defending force 87827 troops, 280 guns, 58 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 2224

Allied ground losses:
173 casualties reported
Guns lost 5

More bombardments just to keep burning Chinese supply. I know this is probably building their experience levels but their experience will be irrelevant if they are out of supply. That's the plan at least.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Rangoon

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 71345 troops, 554 guns, 29 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 1204

Defending force 29162 troops, 240 guns, 277 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 644

Japanese max assault: 1200 - adjusted assault: 1169

Allied max defense: 626 - adjusted defense: 720

Japanese assault odds: 1 to 1 (fort level 5)

Japanese Assault reduces fortifications to 4

Japanese ground losses:
2457 casualties reported
Guns lost 66
Vehicles lost 9

Allied ground losses:
195 casualties reported
Guns lost 7
Vehicles lost 1

I was surprised to see that Rangoon had managed to rebuild to Level 5 fortifications. Still, I seem to have a fairly significant AV advantage so I will push this so long as it is to my advantage.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at 23,47

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 10448 troops, 182 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 55

Defending force 4051 troops, 0 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 3

Japanese max assault: 45 - adjusted assault: 21

Allied max defense: 1 - adjusted defense: 16

Japanese assault odds: 1 to 1

Allied ground losses:
97 casualties reported

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Kweiyang

Allied Deliberate attack

Attacking force 15601 troops, 121 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 470

Defending force 11121 troops, 65 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 220

Allied max assault: 439 - adjusted assault: 82

Japanese max defense: 215 - adjusted defense: 241

Allied assault odds: 0 to 1 (fort level 0)

Japanese ground losses:
178 casualties reported
Guns lost 7

Allied ground losses:
546 casualties reported
Guns lost 12

The Chinese must be desperate to clear Kweiyang. In spite of the frankly stupid design decision which prevents me flying in China Area Army troops the paratroop, Naval Guard and NLF units are holding. In the meantime I have freed up a Brigade and a Tank Regiment for a dash to Kweiyang. With a little luck they might arrive in 8 to 9 days ( about the 7th or 8th of February) and shore up Kweiyang sufficiently for me to fly out more paratroops for participation in the Indian campaign.

The main efforts in China now are occuring in the following locations:
1. Around Homan... Attempts to reduce the cut-off troops so I can maximise supply flow to operations in the Chungking/Chengtu areas.

2. Kweiyang. Every effort is being made by both sides to either reinforce or retake Kweiyang as quickly as possible. This shouldn't even be a race but the rather blatant flaw in game design outlined above is making it into one. Once Kweiyang falls I will push some forces to take Nanning whilst taking Kunming and the entire Chinese position will become untenable. Taking Chungking will take some hard fighting but I believe I can pay whatever the asking price is.

Elsewhere the main areas of operation are Rangoon, Pearl Harbour and Noumea. It'll be interesting to see if Trey tries to bring more reinforcements into Rangoon, tries to evacuate it or just lets it die in place... Pearl and Noumea are the sites of major ASW campaigns with heavy damage to submarines and convoys around both ports.

Rob Brennan UK · Post by **Rob Brennan UK** » Sat May 06, 2006 1:04 pm

" An ABSOLUTELY CRAZY design decision is endangering the Kweiyang pocket... It seems that NO China Expeditionary Army troops can be AIRLIFTED to other bases in China. This is nuts. So long as the originating and ending bases are within their valid area of operations this should be allowed. I have 2 Brigades ready to fly into Kweiyang to ensure its survival which I now am unable to use because of this, frankly, stupid design decision. This means I have to keep my parachute regiments here to engage in "ordinary" operations and forego the "extraordinary" operations preparatory to the invasion of India. This is most disquieting and disruptive to my plans."

Im sorry to say this has been discussed/whipped/flogged to death over the years. restricted command units cant airlift/load on ships. it is silly but i guess the code cant predict where you'll send it, although it would be nice if it could detect 2 similar bases and allow an airlift. sorry just cant be done. I think this is why the airborne troops in china are under differant hq's ..

I affect the allies just as bad in the DEI .. cant move the dutch off the pointless islands untill you change the hq to SW Pac or some such.. seems daft if your planning on moving it to soerbaja, but there you have it .. must work around this 'glich' .. might be worth checking if you hav any southern command troops in china . one div does start in canton . unless you've nabbed it already.

also the div based in hanoi game start is airliftable.

Nemo121 · Post by **Nemo121** » Sun May 07, 2006 3:48 am

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 02/01/42

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASW attack at 96,61

Japanese Ships
PC Ch 24
PC Ch 21
PC Takunan Maru #10
PC Takuna Maru #6
PC Shonon Maru #11
PC Shonon Maru #10
PC Shonon Maru #3
PC Sonan Maru #6
PC Sonan Maru #5
PC Kyo Maru #7
PC Kyo Maru #6

Allied Ships
SS Dolphin, hits 6, on fire, heavy damage

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Hengchow , at 45,37

Japanese aircraft
Ki-27 Nate x 75
Ki-30 Ann x 27
Ki-51 Sonia x 39
Ki-15 Babs x 10

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-51 Sonia: 1 damaged
Ki-15 Babs: 1 destroyed, 2 damaged

Allied ground losses:
10 casualties reported

Airbase hits 16
Airbase supply hits 10
Runway hits 83

A few more days of softening up and I'll begin deliberate attacking Hengchow. It is completely surrounded and I would like the opportunity to free the 100,000 men I have besieging it for operations on the Kweiyang/Kunming axis. Once that's done I'll have a few Chinese troops isolated around Yanning with the main body of their forces at Chungking and Chengtu. From then it will only be a matter of time before China falls... Time which will provide my ground units with excellent opportunities to improve their experience levels preparatory to the invasion of the Soviet Union near the end of the year.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Singapore , at 23,50

Japanese aircraft
Ki-43-Ib Oscar x 34
Ki-21 Sally x 320
Ki-49 Helen x 9
Ki-46-II Dinah x 8

Allied aircraft
no flights

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-21 Sally: 2 destroyed, 19 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
Blenheim IV: 4 destroyed
Buffalo I: 1 destroyed
Hudson I: 1 destroyed

Allied ground losses:
157 casualties reported
Guns lost 2

Airbase hits 7
Airbase supply hits 2
Runway hits 130

The loss rate of 1% per 100 sorties and 1 supply hit per 100 sorties continues. At this rate there should be absolutely no problem in capturing a completely out of supply Singapore after India falls. It shouldn't be necessary to maintain the current committment of bombers to Singapore during the invasion of India. If Rangoon looks like it will hold out for some time then bombers can be transferred to this area from Singapore in order to ensure it is out of supply after India falls and my Indian forces can take it and Singapore easily on their way to the drive-by of Northern Australia.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Bulla , at 40,75

Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 9

No Allied losses

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Koepang , at 28,77

Allied aircraft
B-17C Fortress x 2

Allied aircraft losses
B-17C Fortress: 1 damaged

It is interesting to note the difference the presence of a single AAA Regiment makes over a couple of weeks. Koepand has a AAA Regiment in attendance, Bulla does not.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF at 24,53

Allied aircraft
Blenheim I x 2

No Allied losses

Japanese Ships
AK Chikuzan Maru

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub attack at 120,68

Japanese Ships
SS I-10

Allied Ships
AK Cold Brook, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
PG Charleston
AP President Hayes
AVD McFarland

Allied ground losses:
38 casualties reported

It was noted that the troops which were rescued from the Cold Brook are from the 40th US Division. As far as I can tell this make a committment of 5 divisions to Pearl Harbour. This is excellent as what will determine whether or not Pearl falls is aerial interdiction of supply. If I can win the air battles around Pearl in August and September 1942 Pearl will fall no matter how many infantry are committed to its defence. That being said I am hoping for a massive committment of ground troops so that its capture wipes out as many divisions as possible and lessens America's ground power in the 1943 to mid-44 phases.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub attack near Colombo at 14,24

Japanese Ships
SS I-165, hits 4

Allied Ships
DD Pakenham
MSW Romney
PG Auricula
PG Freesia
MSW Rampur
DD Nestor

Heavily damaged the I-165 is creeping back to Malaysia.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub attack at 21,58

Japanese Ships
AP Izan Maru, Torpedo hits 1, on fire
PG Aso Maru

Allied Ships
SS KXVII

Japanese ground losses:
20 casualties reported

I can't remember for sure but I think this sub is basing out of Singapore and causing me no end of trouble. An ASW TF has been tasked with its destruction.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Hengchow

Japanese Bombardment attack

Attacking force 66699 troops, 822 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 1270

Defending force 61748 troops, 223 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 1227

Allied ground losses:
671 casualties reported

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at 44,30

Japanese Bombardment attack

Attacking force 100682 troops, 1123 guns, 8 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 1746

Defending force 59703 troops, 360 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 1497

Allied ground losses:
79 casualties reported

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at 45,35

Japanese Bombardment attack

Attacking force 52386 troops, 596 guns, 3 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 910

Defending force 87940 troops, 276 guns, 58 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 2252

Allied ground losses:
158 casualties reported
Guns lost 1

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at 43,33

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 6848 troops, 0 guns, 133 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 122

Defending force 11799 troops, 104 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 327

Japanese max assault: 102 - adjusted assault: 61

Allied max defense: 332 - adjusted defense: 511

Japanese assault odds: 0 to 1

Japanese ground losses:
127 casualties reported
Vehicles lost 2

Allied ground losses:
86 casualties reported
Guns lost 4

Oops! It would appear that the forces at 43,33 will not suffice to push their opposition backwards.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at 23,47

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 10436 troops, 183 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 55

Defending force 3961 troops, 0 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 3

Japanese max assault: 46 - adjusted assault: 38

Allied max defense: 1 - adjusted defense: 16

Japanese assault odds: 2 to 1

Japanese ground losses:
9 casualties reported

Allied ground losses:
42 casualties reported

At least the casualty rates in combat against these cut off units seem to be in my favour for once.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at 42,37

Allied Deliberate attack

Attacking force 15578 troops, 103 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 490

Defending force 6550 troops, 79 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 136

Allied max assault: 469 - adjusted assault: 67

Japanese max defense: 139 - adjusted defense: 93

Allied assault odds: 0 to 1

Japanese ground losses:
40 casualties reported
Guns lost 3

Allied ground losses:
716 casualties reported
Guns lost 23

It seems that roughly 2,000 Chinese troops per day are being killed or wounded. I cannot imagine that the current state of Chinese supplies can be sufficient to replace most of these losses, albeit that many of the losses are occuring in cut-off formations which cannot call on the supplies in the Chungking rump.

I will post a lessons learned section over the next couple of days when I get a chance to write something coherent. The most important points will be that the decision to concentrate on Singapore instead of Malaysia was a serious error. Singapore would have fallen significantly sooner than Manilla and at lesser cost and combined with the shorter travel time from Singapore to India ( versus Manila to India ) this change of emphasis would have enabled me to get into India a fortnight sooner.

Other lessons learned would mainly centre around game mechanics. Use of the R key is essential. I have just discovered that several Base Forces ships at Ominato have been waiting on for several days cannot move to Ominato because they are on an island to the north of it. From the map I had assumed there was a railline for them to move to Ominato. This has cost my reinforcement drive in the north about a week's delay. Still, between the minelayers, the naval guard units, CD units and the additional bases I will open over the next fortnight I think the Aleutians will stay in Japanese hands for some time. However if Trey wants them I will use his attacks to attrit his forces.

Nemo121 · Post by **Nemo121** » Mon May 08, 2006 3:26 pm

Lessons Learned:

A. Strategic Situation:
1. The strategy of projecting "spokes" into and through the Allied-held areas surrounding Japan paid immense dividends. What was not taken in the initial rush can be taken in the fullness of time and the ability of the Allies to mount a cohesive defence within the area which it is logistically possible for the Japanese to "rush" and keep supplied has been removed. The Allied ability to move troops to threatened sectors has also been, largely, eliminated as the spokes have broken through the rim of the wheel ( representing the convoy routes).

2. The strategy of phasing my operations in China a la Bagration in order to draw the Allies out of position was succesful. It was risky and has been made much more so because of the game flaw forbidding the air transport of restricted area troops but it was worth it.

3. Paraborne operations have been shown to be extremely useful to aid in manoeuvrist solutions to operational/strategic issues. As a result I intend to utilise all 5 Regiments of paratroops in the invasions of India and Australia. The only caveat here is that great care must be taken with the timing of paraborne operations in order to avoid the dreaded "out-of-base cut-off heroes" game flaw when conducting paraborne operations. My new doctrine for use is to drop them either to force Allied units to retreat in a desired direction ( if enemy force destruction is not desired) OR to drop them to cut off the last escape route of besieged Allied units ( if enemy force destruction is desired).

4. It is absolutely possible to take India. It is also definitely possible to take all of New Zealand and most/all of Australia using just the Southern Area Army. The problem is that it appears to be impossible to take Pearl Harbour AND all of Australia using just the Southern Area Army by September 1942 so I will have to choose one or the other. At present I am leaning towards taking a portion of Australia and Pearl by September 1942 and, later, seeking to parlay that portion into total conquest.

5. Since reduction of the Soviet threat to the resources on the asian mainland in 1944 is not dependent upon the Southern Area Army there is a simple choice on December 7th 1941 as to whether or not one will seek to reduce the Chinese or the Soviets to impotence first. I chose the Chinese as most of the required units were already in place. From what I've read the conventional wisdom appears to be that if the Soviets are to be removed from the situation then this must be done as early as possible in order to avoid attacking them when they have limitless reserves from which to draw. I can understand that this is so if one is going to allow an attritionist battle to develop in the Soviet Union. I think, however, that a manoeuvrist solution centred mainly on dislocating and rendering irrelevant the enemy's reserves can be found. It is certainly necessary to defeat what he has on-map given the game deisgn but much can be done to limit the impact of reserves which seems to be the crucial issue here.

B. Production & Replacements:

1. From what I can see there is little point in switching from the Ki-21 to the Ki-49. I did so and from what I can see it just cost me about a month's worth of Sally production, all of the supplies required to switch from producing Ki-21s to producing about 100 Ki-49s per month AND the massive increase in Nakajima engine production required to feed this demand. My Nakajima engine production only began to exceed demand when my pool had fallen to a bare 5 engines. The cost in supplies and HI was a minimum of 350,000 and is one reason that my supply in the home islands has been at very low levels throughout most of January 1942.

2. Other airframe and engine production. I am attempting to fight the air war on the cheap. I am producing just over 104 Zeroes and 111 Oscar Is per month. This is the bare minimum required and several Claude groups in the Home Islands have still been unable to be converted to Zeroes. On ther other hand I do have more than full Zero complements on all my carriers and a Provisional Fighter Division comprising over 100 Zeroes available for rapid transfer to any strategically important points. It is currently staging into the Johnson area to cover any Allied strike there. To put that into perspective I am producing 140 bombers ( Bettys and Helens), 80 Vals and Kates, 50 Dinahs and over 120 transport planes per month. I think that this accurately reflects my priorities and plans. I don't intend to engage in any attritional conflicts requiring long-term expenditure of 200 to 300 fighters per month. I foresee short, targetted and extremely bloody battles in which a Fighter Division backed by 1 to 2 Bomber Divisions is tasked with destroying a particular enemy fighter or bomber force over the course of a few days. Losses will be heavy for those few days but since I would expect to identify few such targets per month I believe I can sustain this loss rate... In any case fighter airframe production is simply a draw on resources with no commensurate reward unless trained pilots are available to crew these fighters.

3. The expansion of naval shipyards is, I think, justifying itself in the fact that by the mid-February 1942 I have the ability to accelerate all but onw of my carriers more than Durability x 10 days away. I am even continuing to build Shinano. By end of September 43 every carrier on the list should have been produced. All CVEs have been succesfully accelerated. The combination of these two factors and a policy of not using these carriers until the decisive battle should ensure surprise. With surprise a massive annihilatory battle in mid to late 1943 could cripply the Allied ability to project airpower beyond the range of their LBA until early to mid-1945. That is what I am resting my hopes on.

4. The policy of maximising short-term combat power and running down armaments and vehicle production appears to be paying dividends as my armaments pool is only about 1600 and dropping. With that said I am expanding armaments production so that once another 5 restricted area divisions become available in mid-April I will be able to buy them out and have them available for operations in late-42 onwards. This simple expedient will give me 19 complete Southern Area Army divisions instead of the 12 Trey thinks I have and will allow me to engage in strategically decisive maskirovka operations designed to have Trey miscalculate the culmination point of my offensives.

C. Ground Combat:
1. The main flaw in ground combat lies in the "out-of-base cut-off" units combat model. It has pretty much FUBARed my plan to quickly move from Kweilin/Wuchow to Kweiyang and roll into the enemy's operational depth before units from Chungking can respond. My losses are heavy and will continue to remain high until these hold-outs are eliminated. I am tentatively assuming that this will take me the rest of February and am phasing future operations on the assumption that the hold-outs will only be removed by the beginning of March 1942. This is deeply disappointing but once the hold-outs are destroyed I will be able to march on Chungking. My plan is to have Chungking besieged before any of these units respawn such that the Chinese are unable to move them elsewhere. The battle for Chungking will be extremely difficult and bloody due to the fact that the need to remove the holdouts from my road and rail net in order to ensure sufficient supply for offensive operations against Chungking guarantees that they will be available for operations in Chungking at 1/3rd strength a mere thirty days later. Factor in the fourfold increase in combat power these units will have from defending in urban terrain and each of these units will actually have the combat power of 1.33 Chinese Corps.

The only good news is that learning this lesson in China will pay dividends in India and Australia and stop similar situations occurin in theatres where I don't have the luxury of time or numbers.

2. Apart from the "out-of-base cut-off heroes" problem the ground combat model is acceptable. I think that the shock attack when crossing rivers issue could be easily sorted as detailed below and that some hard-coded limits on pursuits might be useful but those aren't in the same league as the "out-of-base cut-off heroes" problem.

D. Aerial Combat:
1. P-40Es. Well it might as well be called "Oscar-bane" as it simply devastates Oscar formations. Entire Sentais of extremely experienced pilots are wiped out in just a couple of days of combat. This is magnified by the AVG's high experience levels. Fortunately it appears that a Zero Daitai is quite sufficient to deal with an equal number of P-40Es.

2. It would appear that for every 1 ton of bombs dropped by a level bomber committed to ground attack approximately 1 Allied casualty is suffered. 100 sorties seem to reliably produce 1 supply hit ( assuming normal levels of disruption from FlAK). It is impossible to determine effects of army level bomber strikes on shipping as results are simply too dependent on FlAK disruption and the sample size is extremely small.

3. For Bettys and Nells the rule of thumb seems to be 9 torpedo strikes per daitai when sent against uncapped merchants with the presence of a strong CAP (strong CAP being defined as CAP strong enough to get through to the bombers and shoot down/damage a small number of them) reducing that number by 2/3rd and the presence of strong FlAK also reducing it by 2/3rds. Effects are cumulative. So it seems that against an American CV TF a full-strength Betty/Nell Daitai can be counted on to secure 1 good torpedo hit against a high value target. This is my reason for tasking 7 Daitai to the Johnson area. Against LRCAPed merchants 7 Daitai escorted by up to 100 Zeroes should be sufficient to score 50 to 60 torpedo hits whilst against a fully functional carrier force the same Daitais should score 7 hits against high-value targets (CVs, BBs etc), enough to cripple 1 or 2 of these and allow the Japanese carriers in the area to move in and sweep up the cripples.

E. Naval Combat:

The sample size here is very small and my experience outside of this PBEM is extremely limited so all I can say is that small TFs appear to be at an enormous disadvantage in combat. There doesn't seem to be much opportunity for a single DD or small TF to slip in and launch a surprise attack.

Naval bombardments are appropriately devastating when sufficient CAs and BBs are committed to ensure coastal defences are overwhelmed. My policy of thoroughly bombarding all oil-containing bases with multiple battleline bombardments paid marked dividends insofar as oil production in the DEI was captured more than 90% intact. I would suggest that this should be standard for all players as oil production is so crucial to long-term success.

Game Model Issues:
1. Inability to air transport of restricted area units. Crazy, absolutely crazy. It is neither historical, logical or internally consistent and I'm surprised that after this many patches this hasn't been addressed.

2. It is, obviously, impossible to be conclusive as regards this but from my in-game observations and out-of-game reading of the forum AARs it seems that the game's combat model is a curious mix of Lanchester Law ( geometric progression) and linear progression when it comes to the effects of increasing disparities in combat capabilities. I think that strategically the Lanchester Law applies ( as it does to all real-world military endeavours) but I am beginning to suspect that the underlying operational and tactical model is more linearly progressive than I initially believed. It is, of course, impossible to say with any degree of certainty without perusing the relevant algorithms but tht is my sense of things. In addition the combat model seems to assume that almost all force components have the potential to engage against almost all enemy force components.

All combat models produce outlier results which players harp on about and harken back to whenever the issue of the combat model arises. What is striking is that these players habitually bring up outlier results without recognising that outliers are inherent in any statistical model... and reality... However if one looks at aerial combat one can see that in the vast majority of combats featuring large numbers of planes on both sides almost every fighter on each side has the potential to engage almost every other fighter on the other side ( +/- bombers being escorted). I would suggest that this does not correlate particularly well with reality. In WW2 aerial combat what happened when combat was joined was that multiple components of the fighter strength of one side would square off with components of the fighter strength of the other side ( or bombers depending on their tasking). The longer the fighter vs fighter combat lasted the more likely it was that when the fighter vs fighter combat ended ( through either shooting down of the opposing plane, withdrawal, bingo on fuel etc etc) the remaining fighters would be so out of position as to play no part in protecting or attacking the bombers for many minutes ( until they had climbed, dived and/or drawn level again).

E.g. 50 F4F4 escorting 50 B26s are intercepted by 60 Tojos and 40 Tonys.
Instead of the current situation in which all Zeroes and Tonys would square off against all of the F4F4s before the survivors broke through to all take on the B26s in reality the Tojos would often be tasked with keeping the F4F4s engaged while the Tonys moved past and engaged the B26s closely so the fight would actually comprise:

a. 4 or 5 separate engagements in which groups of F4F4s ranging from 4 or 5 planes to 20+ planes would square off against the 60 Tojos ( also split into multiple separate groups)... With modification for leader air skill, radio communications and pilot experience one could model the ability for higher experience, better led and radio-equipped forces to be able to mass against smaller enemy fighter components and dispatch them quickly so even though the overall ratio was 50 F4F4s vs 60 Tojos if the Tojo drivers were much, much better you could end up with a situation in which 30 Tojos in 3 or 4 groups kept 30 F4F4s busy while the other 30 Tojos concentrated on intercepting the 10 F4F4s uncommitted. My point is that even though odds were 5:6 in reality history shows us that these sorts of fights quickly degenerated into a number of fairly even fights and a smaller number of fights which were really lop-sided and resulted in quick and easy victories for the side which had managed to concentrate on a small component of the enemy force whilst keeping the majority occupied in a relatively even and inconclusive fight.

b. The 10 F4F4s which didn't get sucked in to fighting the Tojos would then try to break up the Tony strike on the B26s and act not so much to shoot them down as to disrupt their runs on the bombers. As the 30 Tojos took care of the 10 F4F4s they had concentrated on a die roll could decide whether or not they looked to join up with other Tojo groups and continue hunting down the F4F4s sparring with the other Tojos or whether they went to protect the Tonys OR whether they went after the bombers themselves ( would be modified by leader aggression).

While any fix would, of course, increase complexity somewhat I think that the above would require the least number of new commands ( command 1: a toggle for fighters and fighter-bombers as to whether to conduct anti-fighter missions or anti-bomber missions, command 2: a toggle to come up when allocating fighters to escort bombers to allow one to choose between close escort ( aimed at attacking enemy fighters making runs on the bombers... would tend to concentrate on attacking Tonys in the above example) and distant escort ( aimed at engaging enemy fighters in the vicinity of the bomber formation... would tend to split between attacking Tojos and Tonys in the above example) and a change to the air combat model to allow airstrikes to break down into multiple packages each of which would be tracked, react and attacked independently ( in a manner rather different than the current system) for a rather large increase in historical resemblance in the air combat model.

Since the system above would obviously require a few wrinkles to be added to account for the larger strike packages being likely to be detected than the smaller strike packages it would also organically tend to allow small strike packages to "leak" through even the most intensive of CAP by sheer virtue of the fact that in the time taken to resolve the large package combats the small strike packages would tend to move out of interception range... it would also model the historical reality whereby some CAP commanders committed their entire fighter force to destroy the first small strike package they saw with the result that they were out of place to stop the much larger strike packages which followed... I can't help but feel that organically creating an increase in small-package-leakers almost irrespective of CAP size and competence by simply increasing the historical veracity and tactical richness of the air to air combat model is a far superior solution than any fudging of durability ratings and AAA and the consequent unanticipated ripple effect in other areas of the air combat model.

Well, that's more than enough for now...

Nemo121 · Post by **Nemo121** » Mon May 08, 2006 4:05 pm

I've included a picture of the summary screen as of 1st February 1942.

As you can see the score is pretty much 14500 to 5500 although that is meaningless as I don't intend to play to a score. if I were doing that I'd be expanding airbases in northwestern China and have an extra 3 to 4000 by the end of the year and damn the garrison cost. As I've said before I hope to play through until 1946.

The other main points would be the aircraft losses. Japanese losses to FlAK and operational causes have been very high. This is due to the fact that I'm on the offensive and that many of my planes ( especially transports) are operating off very small fields and over long ranges and thus suffering very heavy casualties. The majority of Allied losses have been on the ground although upwards of 100 P40Es have been destroyed in air to air combat. I interpret this as being a side-effect of my unwillingness to disperse my aerial assets since that lack of dispersal also allows Trey to concentrate the best Allied fighters and pilots ( available only in limited number) against my schwerpunkt.

On the shipping front the situation is as follows:

Allied losses:
3 BB, 1 CA, 4 CL, 23 DD 18 PT,4 PG
21 MSW, 5 ML, 6 DMS, 6 DM
15 SS ( I'm particularly happy about this as I put a fair bit of effort into my ASW effort)
22 AP
90 AK
7 TK
2 AO ( Neosho is also badly damaged)

Japanese losses:
2 CL ( Kashii and Sendai... So only 1 is a serious loss)
12 DD ( all but 2 lost to allied airpower)
1 APD ( lost to a sub)
5 SS ( all lost to airpower)
1 PT, 2 PG, 2 PC
3 MSW
4 ML ( all lost on the first day to the CD at Bataan before I realised they could attack any passing ships)
27 AP
6 AK
2 TK (both lost to a single submarine)

There are several CAs, a couple of CLs, about a dozen DDs and about 40 APs & AKs in port for repairs. In addition Trey's intensive ASW efforts around Pearl are bearing fruit and many of my submarines are being damage such that I'm having to thin my submarine cordon significantly.

Overall though I would say that shipping losses have been heavily in my favour with my losses in APs and AKs being easily replaceable in the coming months. I also did a count of shipping in the Indian region and it looks like there are another 200 or so ships there for the taking if I can close the route to the west of Ceylon during my invasion of India. Long-range strikes from Bettys and Nells should be able to do that.

mogami · Post by **mogami** » Mon May 08, 2006 4:07 pm

Hi, Good stuff except I think your trying to be a little too tricky here.

"4. The policy of maximising short-term combat power and running down armaments and vehicle production appears to be paying dividends as my armaments pool is only about 1600 and dropping. With that said I am expanding armaments production so that once another 5 restricted area divisions become available in mid-April I will be able to buy them out and have them available for operations in late-42 onwards. This simple expedient will give me 19 complete Southern Area Army divisions instead of the 12 Trey thinks I have and will allow me to engage in strategically decisive maskirovka operations designed to have Trey miscalculate the culmination point of my offensives. "

while you will be able to transfer these units cheaper you will also be unable to provide replacements to other units. If you want 5 Div added to SAA by Sept 42 just save PP and buy units full size with HIGHER training levels and use the 5 new under size units to replace them. I've never had problems having enough PP to transfer units from CEA/Kwantung.
What is much more important is getting the new Baseforce units built up as soon as you can. (I'm having a brain fart. Is it 50 PP per day or 100? In any case by Sept 42 you should have enough to buy several really good veteran units and these will be much more usefull. New units
1. Must be preped 100 percent in the hex they occupy in order to train. So they then must spend 3 months preping to the new objective. (In Sept 42 you will not want to fight in hexes where your units are not 100 percent prepped because the enemy will be 100 percent for defense)
2. New units require a lot of supply to build so you will have to first buy them in order to move them and then move them to a base such as Osaka or Tokyo (or move a lot of supply) And then transport them again to their Operational Area.

when you assign units a new objective there is a chance the Allied player will pick up this intell. The training objectives will not matter much

"305th Division prpeing for Osaka" is not a problem but "305th Division preping for Diamond harbor" might cause the enemy to look at his defense in and around Diamond Harbor. You can put a number of units that are not going to be involved and not subject to attack toward preping targets to pin down enemy units
"110th Div preping for Dutch Harbor" when it really is located in and will remain located in Mukden.

A unit can gain as many as 3 points per day (depending on leader/HQ/supply) So any enemy unit you track moving to a new location will be prepared in 30-90 days if it is not already working towards that particular hex. Once a unit is 100 percent it is more then 2x as strong compared to a unit with 0 prep.

Early in game Japanese Paratroops with 0 prep are droping on targets with 0 prep. After May 42 they will be dropping on targets with 100 prep. It will not take a very large combat force to destroy troop numbers that early in war had success. You'll likely have to prep all 5 units for a single target or they will not last long enough to prevent the enemy from retreating. (If you don't force a retreat the turn they drop they will be gone before you get another chance.) don't expect them to capture any hex that has a combat unit dug in and preped defending.

"The Allied ability to move troops to threatened sectors has also been, largely, eliminated as the spokes have broken through the rim of the wheel ( representing the convoy routes). "

We won't refer to this game but for "Lessons learned" bear in mind many players will not accept this because your spokes only work by exploiting the map edge. Plan for games where you may not move closer then 10 hexes to any map edge. (You can always capture any base farther then 10 hexes from a map edge and project air power from there)

Nemo121 · Post by **Nemo121** » Mon May 08, 2006 4:46 pm

Mogami,

Thanks for the advice... To be honest I'm not sure if your method or my planned one is better but, right now, I'm locked into this production cycle. By my estimations I will JUST have the PPs to purchase the next 5 divisions when they come online in 62 days if I don't release anything else ( about 600 PP per unit and with 50 PP earned per day I should have saved 3100 PPs). Unfortunately I will be buying some construction Bns and BFs for my holdings in the Pacific to help them build up their airfields, forts and ports so I will be a little short.

I do concede though that if my overall plan will fail completely and disastrously anywhere it is unlikely to be on the battlefield ( I think it is more likely that failure there will comprise of a series of small setbacks following on and building on eachother such that after some time my offensive potential is exhausted) and very likely to be on the production/logistics side of things. I'm still very much grappling with that and, to be honest, I very much need India over the next few months in order to increase my HI.

We won't refer to this game but for "Lessons learned" bear in mind many players will not accept this because your spokes only work by exploiting the map edge.

I would disagree. Preventing supply to Canton, Upolu and Fiji has nothing to do with map edges. It has to do with sandwiching them between Level 4 airfield-containing bases.

As to cutting Australia off from America. Well, only a partial blockade is possible until such time as New Zealand falls so I don't see that the spoke strategy is an exploit. There are benefits, disadvantages and counters so I think it is valid... Of course the main reason I;m going for New Zealand is so as to turn a partial blockade into a 100% certain blockade. From what you are saying though since some of the bases there are within 10 hexes of the map edge some people are going to call that gamey as well? [8|][8|][8|]

LOL! The more I read about what people find gamey the more it seems that anything the Japanese can do to grab a decisive advantage is termed as gamey. Honestly taken as a whole the several page long list of "gamey things Japanese players shouldn't do" pretty much comprises a list of almost every potentiality the Japanese player can enact to stave off the inevitable into 1946. No wonder so many Japanese players quit in 1943 when the lack of limitation on Allied capabilities comes fully home to roost.

I appreciate the way you phrased the point above in order to avoid making it an overt criticism and I will say that I'm more than happy to concede others viewpoints' differ to mine and they are happy playing the game with all sorts of limitations on Japanese and American capabilities ( which I think ends up hurting the Japanese far more a their capabilities are far less and extremely time-limited when compared to the Americans). I just think that if people wonder why so many Japanese players drop out in 1943 ( apart from the fact that some probably can't handle the thought of being pretty much guaranteed to lose pretty much every battle for the next two to three years) they need look no further than these limits on Japanese capabilities which act to pretty much guarantee a Japan which is too weak to meaningfully resist in 1943.

aztez · Post by **aztez** » Mon May 08, 2006 5:02 pm

It feels bad to think about allied side of things after following this AAR [:D][:D][8|][:D]

Rob Brennan UK · Post by **Rob Brennan UK** » Mon May 08, 2006 5:07 pm

Very interesting comments and I think your idea of having 2 seperate fighter commands for escort and bomber destroyers role is a very good one. but i have no idea if this if implementable <sp>. and doubt its on anyones 'to do' list.

Out of base combat is broken imo and needs to be adressed at some point, but as long as you know its there it is workable around.

Mog's comments on armament production is very pertinent and in any japanese game i expand armamnets quite a lot, same with tank production. yes the new units will cost a lot more but they will be immediately available rather than 3 months fixing up.

Your johnson is. plan looks sound and will be very interesting to see what happens here , hope he takes the bait.

I know you said earlier your not happy with the Nik mod varient but this does adress quite a lot of percieved flaws in air-air combat and imo is very very good. maybe you might want to look at it again? , the reduced shipping would severely hamper your initial rush, but thats kind of the point of it anyway.

Also extremely glad we seem to be over the gamey/not-gamey discussions/opinions .. phew

And as ever , good luck

Nemo121 · Post by **Nemo121** » Mon May 08, 2006 5:11 pm

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 02/02/42

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Air attack on Pearl Harbor , at 112,68

Japanese aircraft
G3M Nell x 4
G4M1 Betty x 32

Japanese aircraft losses
G4M1 Betty: 1 damaged

hmm, nothing significant achieved. I'll try these raids on and off for a while longer just to let Trey know I'm around. He seems very nervous about the whereabouts of KB and my torpedo-carrying LBA so that might keep him away from Johnson for a little while and give it time to build up its defences.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub attack at 118,65

Japanese Ships
SS I-172

Allied Ships
AK Peter Kerr, Torpedo hits 1
DD Flusser
DD Reid

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Hengchow , at 45,37

Japanese aircraft
Ki-27 Nate x 72
Ki-30 Ann x 27
Ki-51 Sonia x 34
Ki-15 Babs x 8

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-51 Sonia: 1 damaged
Ki-15 Babs: 2 damaged

Airbase hits 8
Airbase supply hits 6
Runway hits 71

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Rangoon , at 29,34

Japanese aircraft
Ki-43-Ib Oscar x 30
Ki-32 Mary x 8

Allied aircraft
P-40B Tomahawk x 13
P-40E Warhawk x 24

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-43-Ib Oscar: 16 destroyed
Ki-32 Mary: 6 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
P-40B Tomahawk: 2 destroyed, 1 damaged
P-40E Warhawk: 2 destroyed, 5 damaged

Airbase hits 1
Runway hits 2

I forgot to stand the Marys down so, unfortunately, I lost half an Oscar Sentai in a completely unnecessary raid. 1st Fighter Division is on its way and should soon take care of the 24th Fighter Group and American Volunteer Group. It looks like 7 or 8 APs/AKs and a few DDs have arrived at Rangoon. I had no warning of their arrival. I wonder if they are dropping troops off, picking troops up or just dropping in fresh supplies? It doesn't matter much, without the 1st Fighter Division I will be unable to challenge the fighter cover over these ships sufficiently to interfere with the Allied plans.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASW attack at 21,58

Japanese Ships
APD APD-46
APD APD-39
APD APD-38
APD APD-37
APD APD-36
APD APD-35
APD APD-34
APD APD-33
APD APD-31
APD APD-2
APD APD-1

Allied Ships
SS KXVII

K XVII is really having a good war. Not only does it wreak havoc on my forces but it also survives my premier ASW force without a scratch.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Hengchow

Japanese Bombardment attack

Attacking force 67070 troops, 830 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 1285

Defending force 60631 troops, 220 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 1230

Allied ground losses:
499 casualties reported

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at 44,30

Japanese Bombardment attack

Attacking force 101049 troops, 1128 guns, 8 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 1780

Defending force 60164 troops, 366 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 1498

Allied ground losses:
48 casualties reported
Guns lost 1

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at 45,35

Japanese Bombardment attack

Attacking force 52835 troops, 608 guns, 4 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 924

Defending force 87955 troops, 271 guns, 55 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 2269

Allied ground losses:
122 casualties reported
Guns lost 1

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at 45,50

Japanese Bombardment attack

Attacking force 2894 troops, 15 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 75

Defending force 3728 troops, 13 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 93

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at 23,47

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 10436 troops, 183 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 55

Defending force 3930 troops, 0 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 2

Japanese max assault: 46 - adjusted assault: 42

Allied max defense: 0 - adjusted defense: 13

Japanese assault odds: 3 to 1

Allied ground losses:
55 casualties reported

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at 43,33

Allied Deliberate attack

Attacking force 11714 troops, 101 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 324

Defending force 6610 troops, 0 guns, 129 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 107

Allied max assault: 313 - adjusted assault: 553

Japanese max defense: 71 - adjusted defense: 130

Allied assault odds: 4 to 1

Japanese ground losses:
116 casualties reported
Vehicles lost 3

Allied ground losses:
104 casualties reported
Guns lost 4

Defeated Japanese Units Retreating!

I got a little too close to Chungking for Trey's liking here so he launched a counter-attack which pushed the Tank Regiment in the mountains 60 miles south of Chungking back towards Hengchow. No problems, I've achieved my objective ( isolation of the forces just north of Hengchow) and will pull the tank regiment back to support the reduction of these forces.

Nemo121 · Post by **Nemo121** » Mon May 08, 2006 5:50 pm

Aztez,
[8D] Trey's time will come. I have 1 year to run rampant, 1 year to fight on somewhat even terms and 3 years of self-sacrificing but, ultimately, doomed desperation. Trey and I are playing for the long game and, to be honest, even if the game started with Japan capturing the entire map EXCEPT for CONUSA America by June 1942 America could still come back and defeat Japan by 1946. No matter how well I do I will, eventually, collapse and be reduced to defending the Home Islands with nothing but starving ground troops in the face of atomic bombs. I must admit I'm really looking forward to that.

Rob,
Well I have three seperate traps. Johnson, Palmyra and Amchitka. One is a CD/AAA-strong defence, one a mine-based defence and the other an infantry-based defence. At the moment each of these islands has a minimum of 200 AV in ground troops. By the end of the month I should have each up to 400 AV and begin the process of bringing my AAA and CD committment to the non-Johnson Islands up to Johnson Island levels.

I've never been on the receiving end of an invasion but with 5000 mines, 2 CDs, 4 AAA and 400 AV at each island I think they should be proof against 2 to 3 divisions of Allied troops. I can't be sure but I don't think the Allies have 3 divisions to spare for either of these targets without depleting the Pearl harbour garrison unacceptably. Amchitka would be the low-risk alternative for Trey since, as far as he knows, I have no infantry units there... I was careful to invade it with a Base Force, engineer unit and aviation regiment and relied ONLY on their integral infantry. I have had no sign tht Trey has spotted any of my minelayer or troop convoys as I've been slipping them in singly or in very small groups so he shouldn't have any clue that I have a division-equivalent at Amchitka.

In addition my Indian invasion fleets will leave Manilla around 14th February. I have slightly over 200 APs committed to this invasion and should land slightly more than 250,000 troops ( including 8 divisions, 4 Tank Regiments, 2 Engineer Regiments and enough AV support, engineers and AAA to turn any base I take into a veritable hornet's nest) at the beginning of March. The 2 weeks of rest in Manilla should see half of my divisions at full strength and the other half at 75%+ which should suffice. Prior to that KB will go on a raid to remind Trey that I'm around. I have a feeling he won't attack until he knows KB is in the Indian Ocean and we are both quite candidly discussing the invasion of India at this stage (there's no percentage in strategic deception at this stage. Operational and tactical deception continues.). So, I will try to hit his shipping with KB before I head west. My current plan is to hit his ASW forces... To that end I am slowly but surely moving my sub cordon east and farther from Pearl. By the 10th the sub cordon should be far enough from Pearl that my carriers can be within range of his ASW forces without, themselves, being in range of his LBA. Obviously if I see transports heading for Palmyra/Amchitka/Johnson ( or elsewhere... possibly another attempt to reinforce Canton... quite probably a suicidal endeavour as I have 4 or 5 SNLFs 11 days out. I think there's only a CD, AAA and engineers there and no infantry so that should be enough. I can't bombard the CDs into submission so I will take some painful shipping losses but that is acceptable given the psychological blow this will constitute.) KB will react to them instead.

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 02/03/42

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASW attack at 118,68

Japanese Ships
SS I-10

Allied Ships
DD Blue
DD Bagley
DD Russell
DD Hughes
DD Sims

I've been checking this out and I think I can create a situation where 2 to 3 ASW TFs comprising 5+ destroyers each are in position for a surprise attack by KB in about 2 weeks time. Losing a dozen DDs would really piss Trey off [:D] and more importantly introduce doubt into his ASW planning.... is the next sub cordon I create the threat it seems or is it just bait for the real threat. Guess wrong and he either loses transports he could have saved OR destroyers he could use later.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Air attack on Pearl Harbor , at 112,68

Japanese aircraft
G3M Nell x 4
G4M1 Betty x 23

Japanese aircraft losses
G4M1 Betty: 1 damaged

Again very little achieved.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASW attack at 60,137

Japanese Ships
SS I-155

Allied Ships
PG Yarra

Well, he knows I'm sniffing around New Zealand now.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub attack at 118,67

Japanese Ships
SS I-174, hits 1

Allied Ships
AK Timber Rush
AK Jeff Davis
DD Preston
DD Cushing

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub attack at 112,61

Japanese Ships
SS RO-68, hits 4

Allied Ships
AP Hugh L. Scott, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
DMS Hopkins
DMS Southard
DD Tucker
DD Mahan
CA New Orleans

These hits do not endanger either of these submarines. Hugh L Scott will, however, almost certainly sink.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Hengchow , at 45,37

Japanese aircraft
Ki-27 Nate x 26
Ki-30 Ann x 9
Ki-51 Sonia x 11
Ki-15 Babs x 8

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-51 Sonia: 1 damaged
Ki-15 Babs: 1 destroyed, 4 damaged

Airbase hits 3
Airbase supply hits 2
Runway hits 8

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Rangoon , at 29,34

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 23
Ki-43-Ib Oscar x 40

Allied aircraft
P-40B Tomahawk x 16
P-40E Warhawk x 28

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 4 destroyed
Ki-43-Ib Oscar: 23 destroyed
Ki-27 Nate: 1 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
P-40B Tomahawk: 5 destroyed, 6 damaged
P-40E Warhawk: 8 destroyed, 12 damaged

The first Zero Daitai arrived and I decided to see if the old Prussian tactic of stiffening unreliable allies by interspersing their lines with small Prussian units would work. It didn't. The Oscars engaged first, lost half their number in return for about 3 Allied planes and then the Zeroes came in, lost 4 and destroyed 8. So, 1st Fighter Division will have to engage en masse and not be split up to stiffen 11th and 12th Fighter Divisions ( Oscar-equipped units).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Kuala , at 20,43

Japanese aircraft
Ki-21 Sally x 304
Ki-49 Helen x 18

No Japanese losses

Allied ground losses:
26 casualties reported

Airbase hits 20
Airbase supply hits 10
Runway hits 118

I had a report of some Allied aircraft staging out of Kuala so I hit it with my Singaporean bomber force. Mucho damage was dealt but no planes destroyed on the ground. Perhaps my report was in error. Tomorrow normal service will be resumed over Singapore.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Yokosuka 3rd SNLF, at 41,35

Allied aircraft
I-153c x 2
IL-4c x 3
SB-2c x 6

Allied aircraft losses
IL-4c: 1 damaged
SB-2c: 1 destroyed, 1 damaged

Japanese ground losses:
18 casualties reported

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on 1st Tank Regiment, at 37,26

Allied aircraft
Wellington III x 9

No Allied losses

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASW attack near Noumea at 68,113

Japanese Ships
DD Yugumo

Allied Ships
SS S-18

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASW attack at 117,63

Japanese Ships
SS RO-60, hits 5, on fire

Allied Ships
DD Gridley
DD Craven
DD Mugford

RO-60 is in trouble. I m sending it to Midway but it is 50/50 whether it makes it. Once it reaches Midway it will be tended by the 4 AS and 2 x AR I have there and should recover quickly enough.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub attack at 118,68

Japanese Ships
SS I-10

Allied Ships
AK Sage Brush

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Hengchow

Japanese Bombardment attack

Attacking force 67269 troops, 832 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 1300

Defending force 59969 troops, 216 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 1238

Allied ground losses:
678 casualties reported
Guns lost 1

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at 44,30

Japanese Bombardment attack

Attacking force 101197 troops, 1135 guns, 9 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 1798

Defending force 60105 troops, 370 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 1508

Allied ground losses:
15 casualties reported
Guns lost 1

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at 45,35

Japanese Bombardment attack

Attacking force 53062 troops, 618 guns, 4 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 932

Defending force 88052 troops, 275 guns, 54 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 2277

Allied ground losses:
131 casualties reported
Guns lost 1

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at 43,35

Japanese Shock attack

Attacking force 11607 troops, 168 guns, 149 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 266

Defending force 2280 troops, 0 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 0

Japanese max assault: 314 - adjusted assault: 314

Allied max defense: 0 - adjusted defense: 3

Japanese assault odds: 104 to 1

Allied ground losses:
130 casualties reported

Defeated Allied Units Retreating!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at 47,32

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 12883 troops, 162 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 251

Defending force 2980 troops, 0 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 0

Japanese max assault: 249 - adjusted assault: 249

Allied max defense: 0 - adjusted defense: 11

Japanese assault odds: 22 to 1

Allied ground losses:
13 casualties reported

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at 48,30

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 102734 troops, 1075 guns, 10 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 1970

Defending force 25385 troops, 113 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 604

Japanese max assault: 1927 - adjusted assault: 1433

Allied max defense: 598 - adjusted defense: 161

Japanese assault odds: 8 to 1

Japanese ground losses:
1123 casualties reported
Guns lost 30

Allied ground losses:
336 casualties reported
Guns lost 11

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at 45,50

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 2890 troops, 14 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 75

Defending force 3708 troops, 13 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 93

Japanese max assault: 74 - adjusted assault: 29

Allied max defense: 83 - adjusted defense: 46

Japanese assault odds: 0 to 1

Japanese ground losses:
72 casualties reported
Guns lost 1

Allied ground losses:
7 casualties reported

As you can see, after a bit of a pause due to encirclements required on the southern front the action in China is hotting up again. I am going to try to remove all the Allied holdouts by the end of February so that I can concentrate on Chungking etc.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Rangoon

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 59231 troops, 471 guns, 19 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 1083

Defending force 29683 troops, 241 guns, 286 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 647

Japanese max assault: 1024 - adjusted assault: 1431

Allied max defense: 668 - adjusted defense: 689

Japanese assault odds: 2 to 1 (fort level 4)

Japanese Assault reduces fortifications to 3

Japanese ground losses:
1103 casualties reported
Guns lost 35
Vehicles lost 3

Allied ground losses:
468 casualties reported
Guns lost 17
Vehicles lost 1

2:1 odds. Excellent! With a bit of luck Rangoon could fall soon.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at 23,47

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 10456 troops, 183 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 55

Defending force 3930 troops, 0 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 2

Japanese max assault: 46 - adjusted assault: 46

Allied max defense: 0 - adjusted defense: 16

Japanese assault odds: 2 to 1

Allied ground losses:
52 casualties reported

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Kweiyang

Allied Deliberate attack

Attacking force 22443 troops, 123 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 1069

Defending force 11396 troops, 65 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 243

Allied max assault: 517 - adjusted assault: 125

Japanese max defense: 235 - adjusted defense: 225

Allied assault odds: 0 to 1 (fort level 0)

Japanese ground losses:
228 casualties reported
Guns lost 7

Allied ground losses:
163 casualties reported
Guns lost 8

The Chinese are making every effort to retake Kweiyang. According to my recon they will soon have upwards of 100,000 troops there and my troops ( which cannot be air-reinforced) require reinforcement. I am therefore withdrawing a tank regiment and an infantry Brigade from the fighting north of Hengchow and sending them to Kweiyang as quickly as possible. They will have to fight to get there but they are desperately needed. If Kweiyang falls I'll be stuck between revitalised Chinese forces and stubborn holdouts and my ability to retrieve the situation without retreating a little ( thus releasing the holdouts and letting them add their strength to Chinese forces) will be limited.

Nemo121 · Post by **Nemo121** » Mon May 08, 2006 6:15 pm

Just realised I'd forgotten to post any production data from 1st February.

As you can see the main news here is a major expansion in naval shipyards and Nakajima engines. Elsewhere modest expansions in armaments and vehicles continue to work their way through the system.

Nemo121 · Post by **Nemo121** » Mon May 08, 2006 8:12 pm

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 02/04/42

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Air attack on Pearl Harbor , at 112,68

Japanese aircraft
G3M Nell x 6
G4M1 Betty x 22

Allied aircraft
P-39D Airacobra x 10

Japanese aircraft losses
G3M Nell: 1 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
P-39D Airacobra: 2 damaged

Still no results. Time to discontinue this experiment.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASW attack at 66,113

Japanese Ships
PC Showa Maru #5
PC Showa Maru #3
PC Shonon Maru #15
PC Nichi Maru #1
PC Gamitsu Maru #1
PG Saiko Maru
PG Kantori Maru
PG Fukui Maru
MSW Tama Maru #3
MSW Shonan Maru #8
MSW Wa 19

Allied Ships
SS S-41, hits 9, on fire, heavy damage

And there goes S-41. It isn't confirmed as sunk but with 9 solid hits, including a couple of contact detonations, heavy damage and fire on board I can't really see it getting all the way to the nearest Allied base.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Hengchow , at 45,37

Japanese aircraft
Ki-27 Nate x 75
Ki-30 Ann x 27
Ki-51 Sonia x 36
Ki-15 Babs x 5

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-27 Nate: 1 damaged

Allied ground losses:
13 casualties reported

Airbase hits 9
Airbase supply hits 5
Runway hits 71

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Singapore , at 23,50

Japanese aircraft
Ki-21 Sally x 318
Ki-49 Helen x 21
Ki-46-II Dinah x 7

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-21 Sally: 3 destroyed, 23 damaged
Ki-49 Helen: 1 damaged

Allied ground losses:
283 casualties reported
Guns lost 4

Port hits 21
Port fuel hits 3
Port supply hits 4

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on 120th IJA Base Force, at 41,35

Allied aircraft
I-153c x 11
IL-4c x 4
SB-2c x 6

Allied aircraft losses
IL-4c: 1 damaged
SB-2c: 1 damaged

Japanese ground losses:
37 casualties reported
Guns lost 1

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub attack at 54,40

Japanese Ships
PC Ch 18
PC Ch 32
PC Ch 17
PC Ch 16
PC Ch 15
PC Ch 14
PC Ch 13
PC Ch 3
PC Ch 2
PC Ch 1
PC Kyo Maru #13
PC Kyo Maru #12
PC Kyo Maru #11

Allied Ships
SS Saury

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASW attack at 118,68

Japanese Ships
SS I-10

Allied Ships
DD Blue
DD Bagley
DD Russell
DD Hughes
DD Sims

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Hengchow

Japanese Bombardment attack

Attacking force 67520 troops, 843 guns, 1 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 1311

Defending force 58960 troops, 209 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 1239

Allied ground losses:
670 casualties reported
Guns lost 1

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at 45,35

Japanese Bombardment attack

Attacking force 53386 troops, 629 guns, 4 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 943

Defending force 88247 troops, 273 guns, 53 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 2286

Allied ground losses:
373 casualties reported
Guns lost 1

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at 47,32

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 12909 troops, 163 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 252

Defending force 2960 troops, 0 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 0

Japanese max assault: 252 - adjusted assault: 252

Allied max defense: 0 - adjusted defense: 11

Japanese assault odds: 22 to 1

This is an attack on an allied unit just north-east of Ichang. Unfortunately in the combat summary screen no enemy unit actually shows up an I amn't inflicting any casualties... I am beginning to wonder if this could be a bug.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at 42,37

Japanese Bombardment attack

Attacking force 27742 troops, 328 guns, 7 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 593

Defending force 26669 troops, 83 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 412

Allied ground losses:
13 casualties reported

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at 45,31

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 19923 troops, 236 guns, 6 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 435

Defending force 14214 troops, 37 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 431

Japanese max assault: 435 - adjusted assault: 83

Allied max defense: 398 - adjusted defense: 24

Japanese assault odds: 3 to 1

Japanese ground losses:
54 casualties reported
Guns lost 4

Allied ground losses:
21 casualties reported
Guns lost 1

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at 48,30

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 101685 troops, 1046 guns, 10 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 1919

Defending force 24181 troops, 94 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 585

Japanese max assault: 1821 - adjusted assault: 1169

Allied max defense: 576 - adjusted defense: 162

Japanese assault odds: 7 to 1

Japanese ground losses:
981 casualties reported
Guns lost 20

Allied ground losses:
637 casualties reported
Guns lost 3

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at 42,35

Japanese Shock attack

Attacking force 2196 troops, 6 guns, 148 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 81

Defending force 8362 troops, 23 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 133

Japanese max assault: 140 - adjusted assault: 120

Allied max defense: 127 - adjusted defense: 8

Japanese assault odds: 15 to 1

Japanese ground losses:
25 casualties reported
Guns lost 1
Vehicles lost 2

Allied ground losses:
95 casualties reported

Defeated Allied Units Retreating!
This shows the advance of a Tank Regiment and Infantry Brigade along the road to Kweiyang. This is quite a tense race to reinforce Kweiyang before the dozen or so Chinese Corps I can see on the way arrive and drive my troops out.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at 45,50

Japanese Bombardment attack

Attacking force 2842 troops, 13 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 69

Defending force 3644 troops, 11 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 92

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Rangoon

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 58024 troops, 421 guns, 13 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 1027

Defending force 29054 troops, 225 guns, 285 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 629

Japanese max assault: 728 - adjusted assault: 243

Allied max defense: 654 - adjusted defense: 1030

Japanese assault odds: 0 to 1 (fort level 4)

Japanese ground losses:
1399 casualties reported
Guns lost 28
Vehicles lost 2

Allied ground losses:
302 casualties reported
Guns lost 17

Now THIS I don't get. Yesterday I got 2:1 odds here with a combat power of about 1500 vs 600something Allied combat power. Today the Allies can muster 1030 AV and my forces muster only 243... I find it difficult to imagine where the 80%+ reduction in my combat power from one day to the next came from. There were no ground attacks, supply shortages or support shortages. The ground combat model gains another layer of confusion with which to guard its secrets.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at 23,47

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 10436 troops, 183 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 55

Defending force 3930 troops, 0 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 2

Japanese max assault: 45 - adjusted assault: 84

Allied max defense: 0 - adjusted defense: 16

Japanese assault odds: 5 to 1

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Kweiyang

Allied Deliberate attack

Attacking force 34213 troops, 209 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 1267

Defending force 11534 troops, 57 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 231

Allied max assault: 556 - adjusted assault: 143

Japanese max defense: 226 - adjusted defense: 245

Allied assault odds: 0 to 1 (fort level 0)

Japanese ground losses:
390 casualties reported
Guns lost 7

Allied ground losses:
355 casualties reported
Guns lost 17

While the odds favour me a 1:1 exchange ratio vastly favours the Chinese as they outnumber me by over 3:1. Thankfully the Tank Regiment and Infantry Brigade are making good progress. I think that they should make it with a couple of days to spare. It will, however, be very close. In spite of this I have been removing two parachute regiments from Kweiyang in order to begin preparing them for operations in the Indian theatre. It is a serious risk but it is necessary if Akyab is to be taken and built up in order to continue the maskirovka of landings in the Dacca/Diamond Harbour region.

Below you can see a picture of the ground combat at 47,32. It is either a bug that no enemy unit is showing up or a sign that the enemy unit in the hex is a HQ.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at 50,25

Japanese Bombardment attack

Attacking force 6371 troops, 73 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 142

Defending force 30210 troops, 239 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 952

mogami · Post by **mogami** » Mon May 08, 2006 8:49 pm

Hi, Sorry if I pharsed it in correctly but I did not mean to imply that any base not within 10 hexes of a map edge was an exploit. I was not thinking of canton Island.

No matter how large the map was NZ would be desirable for Japan to cut off Oz from supply but the problem remains because of the short map the Allied player can be cut off from reaching NZ/OZ when in reality he would just go wider around to reach them.

I'm not trying to be critical only point out that a "Good" Japanese plan would have to work if the map used in WITP was a complete globe of the earth.
Allied supply in WITP must either come down the east map edge from USA or down from India where again it can be interdicted from Java (and on some maps they have added bases west of Java making it even more difficult for Allies.) I'm not opposed to adding such bases but they should also add enough map that would allow movement beyond Japanese air range. (as opposed to forcing the Allied player to enter air range or forego movement that in reality would remain possible)

The main problem I have with the "Conquest" plans used in WITP is they are all aided by map edges. Japan has no miliatry or bases off map but the Allies from Soviets over past India have bases that would have been used to defend areas Japan attacks.
It is the games fault. It was not designed to fight a "world" war but for the Pacific.
even China is not modeled for the massive land combat that often occurs.
(I think it is a case of "If you allow it it will happen" ) Before the game was released I was pointing out that while it was possible it was not desireable. In order to prevent it there would be more rules along the lines of no paradrops or movement by restricted units.

But in any event. I'm not worried in the least how you play the game. I am under the impression you are interested in improving Japanese conduct of war but are not interested in exploiting the game. If that is not the case then just ignore me where we differ. when I play Japan I am only interested in what might have actually been possible.
I might even have to forgo a little of what might actually have been if it has any increase in effectivness because of the games limitations. (If the map was the entire globe I would attempt to move into India because the map hurts the Allied defense I don't) (If the map was the entire globe I might invade NZ. Because it is not I don't) I have to assume anything that hinders the Allied defense and is built into the game would prevent Japan from conducting those operations.

when you get to your post game we can re examine some of these issues.

Once apon a time I was a wild and wooley Japanese offensive player. (read my early posts in the old Matrix Project Pac war forum) I became over time more interested in what was possible between 1941-1945 then what I could do in the game.

A House Rule is not something for balance it is an attempt to redress where the game parts from what was possible.

I've reviewed your mine rule and think you might be over reacting. You can't mine a hex other then a port hex. So the fact that these missions may not be intercepted is negated by the fact that they cannot be used where you can't fly cap and you always know exactly when a hex was mined. (If you could intercept but missions could mine any hex you'd be worse off then the present condition)

In any event I'm only posting because I think you (not your other readers) are interested in what Japan could really do. (compared to what the game either because it had to allow a few loop holes to make the rest work or simply oversights because the designers did not foresee how "big" Japanese players would start to plan once they learned the game.

If your interested in a game to take Japan to the limit of what they might have been able to do then several major "Game" conditions must be addressed.
1. The Soviets do not have a complete OOB (they don't even have a single naval unit deployed whenthere was actually a large sub force right there in Japanese waters should the two nations come to blows.) This isnot to say Japan could not have won a war against the Soviets only that using WITP you will not get an accurate result. Before starting a game where Japan plans this as part of an actual war plan the Soviet OOB would have to be edited.

Nemo121 · Post by **Nemo121** » Mon May 08, 2006 10:08 pm

Mogami,

Thanks for the feedback. Yeah I agree that there's a lot to be done if one wants to have the historical limits on Japanese expansionism apply. I suppose where the philosophical differences lie is that I would be a believer in the superior solution arising through lower-level modelling ingame such that things which were historically very difficult organically become very difficult as opposed to some sort of deus ex machina rule which simply limits x, y or z... I abhor such a rule being imposed from outside of the game conditions ( excepting those necessary to stop bug exploits) and tend to dislike them being imposed within the game conditions as I think they remove an awful lot of a player's ability to push the envelope a little. A good example of the end result of a well-intentioned but poorly implemented absolute rule would be the inability to move China Area Army units by air.

Another example would be India...
Instead of a house rule not to take Karachi or invade India or whatever I prefer a solution which involves improving the game model to such an extent that all of the reasons we all know of which would make it impossible for Japan to directly govern a "conquered India" would come into play should a Japanese player attempt to do this. Of course any smart Japanese player would simply take India and then make it a nominally independent protectorate from which he would purchase raw materials and goods whilst encouraging Bose etc in the building up of a national Indian Army. That combination would make it very difficult for the British to launch an invasion. Kinda bad press to invade India in order to fight the Japanese only to end up fighting a National Indian Army which can claim at least a little legitimacy as representative of a nominally independent India (something akin to a commonwealth situation).

The more direct control the Japanese player would have over India the less legitimacy the Nationalist regime would have and thus the more force Britain could bring to bear ( and the more force the Japanese player would have to station in India to counter it). So the Japanese player could choose whether to prevent there being a western front in India at the expense of a loss in production and control over same or opt to have direct control over production etc but have a fairly awesome garrison requirement ( aided by the recruitment of Quislings).

Obviously some allowance would have to be made for British troops transferring to CONUSA or Australia or staging out of Africa or the Middle East for an invasion of Thailand/ Sumatra etc.

So, you see, my preference is to model the lower-level ramifications and options and then let the higher-level consequences/boundaries grow organically out of them. I think it is a superior approach to imposing rigid higher-level boundaries which do not accurately reflect what can happen at the edges of the envelope. I do admit that's purely a matter of preference though and not entirely relevant to the situation in which we find ourselves ( a game which, while excellent, is unlikely to get a major overhaul of its lower-level modelling such that higher order ramifications, choices and boundaries develop organically...

One reason I do resist major deus ex machina type limitations on Japanese potential which do not arise within the game model is that while Japan may run riot for a year the Americans will run riot for far longer and, without entering too much into the fanboy fray, I must state that I do not see house rules which hobble the Americans in 43, 44, 45 and 46 as much as many of the house rules hobble the Japanese in 41, 42 and 43. I think that this may simply be because so few games make it into the period after mid-43 rather than any overt attempt to unfairly advantage the Americans. Be that as it may the point still stands that, IMO, the common house rules hobble the Japanese in early year more than they hobble the Americans in later years. Given two imperfect solutions ( house rules vs no house rules except no clear bug exploits) I will always tend to go with the more stock option ( personal preference). This is also why I won't play NikMod... It may be an improvement over stock but it is also demonstrably imperfect and Nikademus has never failed but to react in an adversarial manner when I have raised the issues which persuaded me to stop using it. His reaction isn't a problem except insofar as it augers poorly for future fixes to said issues. So, again, given two imperfect solutions ( stock vs NikMod in its current conception) I'll go for stock every time and figure that over the course of the game it will unfairly advantage and disadvantage both players differently but in ways which, overall, balance out.

In-game we're a few days ahead and all I can say is that a LOT of Allied wives are going to be having a very sad Saint Valentine's Day. There was quite a lot of slaughter of Allied troops all over the map.... and a rather disastrous action for Japanese troops which cost me the guts of a division.

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 02/05/42

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASW attack at 118,68

Japanese Ships
SS I-19, hits 4

Allied Ships
DD Blue
DD Bagley
DD Russell
DD Hughes
DD Sims

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub attack at 30,47

Japanese Ships
BB Kongo
CA Furutaka
CA Nachi
CA Mikuma

Allied Ships
SS KXIII

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub attack at 67,106

Japanese Ships
AK Tien Lee, Torpedo hits 2, on fire
AK Taga Maru
PG Nagata Maru

Allied Ships
SS S-28

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Hengchow , at 45,37

Japanese aircraft
Ki-27 Nate x 73
Ki-30 Ann x 27
Ki-51 Sonia x 39
Ki-15 Babs x 5

No Japanese losses

Airbase hits 3
Airbase supply hits 2
Runway hits 38

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Singapore , at 23,50

Japanese aircraft
Ki-21 Sally x 317
Ki-49 Helen x 21
Ki-46-II Dinah x 7

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-21 Sally: 3 destroyed, 3 damaged
Ki-49 Helen: 3 damaged

Allied ground losses:
95 casualties reported
Guns lost 1

Port hits 11
Port fuel hits 3
Port supply hits 1

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on 1st Tank Regiment, at 37,26

Allied aircraft
Wellington III x 9

No Allied losses

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on 120th IJA Base Force, at 41,35

Allied aircraft
I-153c x 11
IL-4c x 7
SB-2c x 6

Allied aircraft losses
IL-4c: 3 damaged
SB-2c: 3 damaged

Japanese ground losses:
27 casualties reported
Guns lost 1

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF at 28,48

Allied aircraft
Blenheim IV x 2

Allied aircraft losses
Blenheim IV: 2 damaged

Japanese Ships
BB Fuso

Time to more concentratedly bomb the airfield at Singapore again.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub attack at 67,106

Japanese Ships
AK Tsuneshima Maru, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
PG Nagata Maru

Allied Ships
SS S-28

S-28 is having a very good day.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub attack at 30,47

Japanese Ships
DD Shirayuki
DD Hatsushima
DD Sagiri
DD Hatsuharu
DD Asagiri
DD Ayanami
DD Uranami
DD Hatsuyuki
DD Isonami
DD Inazuma
DD Wakaba
DD Nenohi

Allied Ships
SS KXIII

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASW attack at 30,47

Japanese Ships
DD Hatsushima
DD Sagiri
DD Hatsuharu
DD Asagiri
DD Ayanami
DD Uranami
DD Hatsuyuki
DD Shirayuki
DD Isonami
DD Inazuma
DD Wakaba
DD Nenohi

Allied Ships
SS KXIII, hits 3

Finally K-XIII begins to get its comeuppance.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Hengchow

Japanese Bombardment attack

Attacking force 67820 troops, 851 guns, 1 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 1326

Defending force 58129 troops, 208 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 1239

Allied ground losses:
707 casualties reported

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at 44,30

Japanese Bombardment attack

Attacking force 102016 troops, 1155 guns, 9 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 1841

Defending force 60706 troops, 380 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 1540

Allied ground losses:
35 casualties reported

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at 45,35

Japanese Bombardment attack

Attacking force 53622 troops, 638 guns, 4 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 950

Defending force 87934 troops, 267 guns, 53 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 2285

Allied ground losses:
382 casualties reported
Guns lost 6

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at 47,32

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 12973 troops, 164 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 252

Defending force 2940 troops, 0 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 0

Japanese max assault: 252 - adjusted assault: 252

Allied max defense: 0 - adjusted defense: 9

Japanese assault odds: 28 to 1

Allied ground losses:
23 casualties reported

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at 42,37

Japanese Bombardment attack

Attacking force 27757 troops, 326 guns, 7 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 1082

Defending force 26702 troops, 82 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 417

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at 45,31

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 19909 troops, 231 guns, 6 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 435

Defending force 14174 troops, 36 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 430

Japanese max assault: 435 - adjusted assault: 309

Allied max defense: 403 - adjusted defense: 29

Japanese assault odds: 10 to 1

Japanese ground losses:
123 casualties reported
Guns lost 1

Allied ground losses:
33 casualties reported
Guns lost 1

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at 48,30

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 101033 troops, 1027 guns, 10 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 1876

Defending force 22993 troops, 88 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 567

Japanese max assault: 1756 - adjusted assault: 1273

Allied max defense: 560 - adjusted defense: 63

Japanese assault odds: 20 to 1

Japanese ground losses:
581 casualties reported
Guns lost 9

Allied ground losses:
1763 casualties reported
Guns lost 2

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Homan

Japanese Bombardment attack

Attacking force 33138 troops, 389 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 647

Defending force 18893 troops, 113 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 526

Allied ground losses:
27 casualties reported
Guns lost 2

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at 42,36

Japanese Shock attack

Attacking force 2169 troops, 5 guns, 146 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 79

Defending force 8893 troops, 30 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 195

Japanese max assault: 136 - adjusted assault: 120

Allied max defense: 183 - adjusted defense: 17

Japanese assault odds: 7 to 1

Japanese ground losses:
44 casualties reported
Vehicles lost 4

Allied ground losses:
109 casualties reported
Guns lost 6

Defeated Allied Units Retreating!

This is the last push on the way to Kweiyang. Tomorrow or the next day the first land reinforcements for Kweiyang will arrive.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at 45,50

Japanese Bombardment attack

Attacking force 2888 troops, 14 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 72

Defending force 3604 troops, 11 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 92

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at 23,47

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 10436 troops, 183 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 55

Defending force 3981 troops, 0 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 3

Japanese max assault: 46 - adjusted assault: 90

Allied max defense: 1 - adjusted defense: 16

Japanese assault odds: 5 to 1

Allied ground losses:
18 casualties reported

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Kweiyang

Allied Deliberate attack

Attacking force 41184 troops, 229 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 1228

Defending force 11133 troops, 48 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 210

Allied max assault: 547 - adjusted assault: 44

Japanese max defense: 206 - adjusted defense: 125

Allied assault odds: 0 to 1 (fort level 0)

Japanese ground losses:
235 casualties reported
Guns lost 2

Allied ground losses:
278 casualties reported
Guns lost 12

Another Chinese Corps joins the battle. It is quite interesting how the Chinese sense of desperation to retake Kweiyang comes across in-game. Absolutely everything they have which isn't either surrounded or committed to the defence of Chungking is making for Kweiyang. This suits me perfectly. I'll let it all gather in Kweiyang, push them out and then pursue them to destruction.

I'm going to post pictures showing the forces at each of the crucial points in China over the next few posts. Below you can see the situation at Hengchow where 12 Chinese Corps-equivalents, 2 BFs and 5 HQs are surrounded and about to be seriously assaulted by 3 Japanese Division-equivalents and 2 engineer regiments. The only reason my forces are able to contemplate the assault is because the forces at Hengchow appear to finally have run out of supply. They have Level 3 forts so that should take about 8 days to reduce.

Nemo121 · Post by **Nemo121** » Mon May 08, 2006 10:29 pm

Below you can see the situation north of Hengchow. 13 Chinese Corps-equivalents are facing up to two and a half Japanese divisions. That's an economy of force I'm quite proud of. It was touch and go until I cut these 13 Corps off from supply but since then the two and a half Japanese divisions have held them easily.

Nemo121 · Post by **Nemo121** » Mon May 08, 2006 10:54 pm

This photo shows the situation outside Homan. While only 5 Corps show up on-screen it would appear there are at least 4 or 5 HQs also trapped in this area. The forces arrayed against them are overwhelming so it should only be a matter of time before the Homan road is clear.

Nemo121 · Post by **Nemo121** » Mon May 08, 2006 10:59 pm

And finally the situation at Kweiyang... This is a real economy of force battle.

Despite the fact that the Chinese have been able to bring 7 well-supplied Corps into action against my forces at Kweiyang I have been able to withdraw 1 Parachute Regiment entirely and over 90% of two others. These units are going to pagan and from there will take Akyab and other targets of opportunity.

Once the Infantry brigade and Tank regiment arrive the other two Parachute Regiments at Kweiyang will also pull out and make for Pagan. I would like to get an additional division to Kweiyang just to be certain it can hold before I pull these paratroops out and once one becomes available I will send it ( and possibly another tank regiment) to bolster Kweiyang.

Lunacy or Shrewdness?

RE: Lunacy or Shrewdness?

RE: Lunacy or Shrewdness?

RE: Lunacy or Shrewdness?

RE: Lunacy or Shrewdness?

RE: Lunacy or Shrewdness?

RE: Lunacy or Shrewdness?

RE: Lunacy or Shrewdness?

RE: Lunacy or Shrewdness?

RE: Lunacy or Shrewdness?

RE: Lunacy or Shrewdness?

RE: Lunacy or Shrewdness?

RE: Lunacy or Shrewdness?

RE: Lunacy or Shrewdness?

RE: Lunacy or Shrewdness?

RE: Lunacy or Shrewdness?

RE: Lunacy or Shrewdness?

RE: Lunacy or Shrewdness?

RE: Lunacy or Shrewdness?

RE: Lunacy or Shrewdness?

RE: Lunacy or Shrewdness?