Moderators: wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami
ORIGINAL: Rob Brennan UK
Canton is imo the most valuable base in the south pacific . full stop.. just ask my recent opponents [;)].. and my older ones too ( littlejoe springs to mind ) .. i lost 4CV's re taking this place before .. and i didnt regret it after the initial angst died off [:D]
[/center]ORIGINAL: ny59giants
If you lose Canton, then it is long detour around to the South Pacific and to NZ/Oz from Pearl. [:(][:(]
I'm only one month into both my PBEM's and am focused on building up my islands - Canton, Pago Pago, and Suva while my opponents focus on SRA/DEI. I read a few AAR's about the "East Pacific Strategy" and don't want to be another victim of it. [&o] [&o]
ORIGINAL: Sardaukar
You should be able to have some decent counter-attacks going on within couple of months. And if you can take back Noumea, point balance will be adjusted better. Trouble is to be able to deal with IJ LBA and CVs...
[/center]ORIGINAL: ny59giants
Since you will have to depend largely on CV for air support to re-take Canton, I would wait until after the 10/42 upgrade is complete and you have more AA on your ships. Plus, you should have a few P-38's to throw at him by then. [:D]
The longer it is quite, the better off you are. [&o]
ORIGINAL: Kapten Q
Hi aztez, I am also involved in a PBEM using 3day turn cycle. Whats your thoughts on that so far. One thing I have realized is that you can not see incoming raids from enemy TF before they actually hit. Makes you think twice before moving any shiping betwen bases in hot areas. I also think it slows down the speed of advance a bit, must say erstad moves with the speed of lightning compared to me!
Q
ORIGINAL: Kapten Q
Yes great fun actually, allthogh I am playing against a PBEM rookie so he is taking quite a beating at the moment. I am playing the sons of Nipon. Every other turn we discuss game fetures and tactics. He will probably thrash me in -43[:(]. We also use niks mod 5 so the chinese are not so easely subdued with level 9 forts everywhere.
Q
ORIGINAL: Sardaukar
I think next CHS version is having considerable improvements in China too...and terrain changes in AB map. That should make it lot difficult to wage blitzkrieg there. And I like CHS/AB map, it makes North Oz more historical, for example.
ORIGINAL: Nemo121
20 ships? LOL! I lost that many in just one week when I was conducting the amphibious invasion of India.
He really is into force conservation. You can use this against him.
ORIGINAL: Nemo121
What you are seeing is an extreme application of the Lanchester Laws. Which basically boils down to saying that the ratio of effective combat power between two combatants is equal to the ratio of the square of the sum of their individual unit combat strengths... It also says that losses are inflicted and suffered in direct proportion to the ratio of EFFECTIVE combat power...
E.g. I have 50 tanks facing an enemy equipped with 100 tanks of exactly the same make. With each tank having an effective combat power of 1 some people would look at the above situation and say that the weaker side will be annihilated while the stronger side will lose 50 or close to 50 tanks ( a kind of attritional 1 : 1 exchange ratio). The Lanchester laws would hold that the ratio of effective combat power ( all other things being equal) is 50 squared : 100 squared = 2500 :10,000 or 1:4
So, a side which brings greater combat power to the party will be able to:
a) inflict greater losses per unit time on the enemy ( thus hurting him more before he gets the chance to flee)
b) suffer far less loss to itself for a given amount of damage done to the enemy.
In the example above if 50 of our tanks met 50 of the enemy you would expect both sides to totally destroy eachother. If, however, 100 of our tanks met 50 of the enemy one would expect the entire enemy force to be destroyed but OUR LOSSES to be reduced to 12-13 tanks ( this assumes perfect morale and no-one running away etc). )...
So to achieve a result in which he has lost only 20 ships he must be massing his forces on a massive scale vs one target at a time... He thus can capture the target more quickly once combat commences and can do so at a square root of the losses he would otherwise expect.
How can you use this?
Simple:
1. to achieve such mass he must be robbing other areas blind and this gives you the opportunity to strike back there with small forces and with a fairly good chance of getting a fairly even balance of forces.
2. you can use the fact that to achieve this mass he must be foregoing operations in parallel in order to engage in operations in series to pick a place he is aiming towards 2 or 3 months from now, forego defending intermediate areas and throw everything into defending this 2nd or 3rd phase target.
3. If he is massing in order to minimise losses then that hints at a sensitivity to losses. Hit him where he is weak and cause loss and his reaction may well be to strip the main force to bolster subsidiary fronts. A CL-led DD TF is as lost to him from being stationed in Northern Japan to prevent raids against the Aleutians ( the threat of which is presented by a couple of US CAs, DDs etc) as it is if you lost triple that force in suicidal combat against his main force and destroyed the CL-led DD TF there. He loses the use of that DD flotilla in supporting his main strikes and you have, through a bit of fancy footwork, managed to achieve this loss at no cost to yourself.
4. Psychologically if he is risk-averse and casualty-sensitive you should try to mislead him into committing his main force against a target where you CAN hurt him. Admittedly you may not be able to hurt his carriers at this stage and you may not even be able to hold the atoll or island you are defending but, what's to say that you can't hurt his ground forces? His one force component you can, as the Americans, meet on relatively even ground in the first few months of 1942.
So, what would I do if I were you. I'd identify his next series of targets and evacuate them ( unless you feel sure he won't be hitting them for another month and a half or so). I'd bring all of the ground units committed to these targets and concentrate them in 1 or 2 fortress islands you've identified as his phase 2 targets. I'd then ramp up the forts and just keep pouring RCTs and divisions in. Also throw in a lot of AAA and DP guns. Pinprick him with surface TF and carrier raids in non-essential areas he is not patrolling heavily. You aren't looking to inflict losses, just draw off flotillas from the main effort.
If you can't stand against KB then when he launches the phase 2 assault against one of your island fortresses ( which should, if you are the Americans in early 42, be a leve 7 to 9 fort with a minimum of 3 divisions and masses of artillery with 100% prep + minefields so thick he can disembark a mile offshore and walk his men to shore without them getting their feet wet) don't even try to fight his surface fleet and KB with your own forces. Cede control of the seas and sky in the area to him... Your goal should be shattering his ground combat formations on the island fortress. Without ground combat troops his massive surface fleet cannot create a succesful invasion all by itself... and launch aggressive carrier and surface strikes against his holdings elsewhere. E.g. If he were to invade, let's say, Palmyra why not send your surface fleet and CVs to raid his supply lines in between Japan and Truk with bombardments in the Aleutians? Yes, LBA is an issue but that's why you have carrier fighters and the risk is far less than going up against the combined strength of KB. You won't achieve much but, perhaps, you will draw KB away from Palmyra and disrupt his resupply.
Even if none of these is achieved you will lose less than in trying to go toe to toe with the Japanese fleet AND only his ground troops can take Palmyra away from you anyway. Put enough boots on the ground and no matter what he lands he will be left with shattered combat formations unsuitable for further offensive operations by the time the battle for the island fortress is over. Refuse to fight where he is strong but IF he brings the fight to you try to concentrate on fighting his weakest force component ( ground troops) and render his strengths irrelevant.
That's be my advice in any case. I think much of the discussion of what to defend which has previously occurred is strategically invalid. I think you need to focus more on strengths and weaknesses and engaging his strengths in an asymmetric manner while engaging his weaknesses in symmetric manners. Avoiding fleet combat whilst accepting infantry vs infantry combat on a fortified atoll meets those requirements.
