Empire of The Sun Tag Team Game - Imperial Perspective

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Sid,

I restate a very simple thing... Before the game you said the IJA was the senior service and would prevail if deadlock occurred. Deadlock has occurred. I am IJA commander and am now calling on that seniority.

Your only choices now are to stand by what you told me pre-game or ignore it.

It did not occur to me IJA could be MORE than historically obstinate. It would never have dared call the Navy on a naval operation. Just as I will not dare to call you on a (blankety blankity) policy in china (which I regard bombing as)>
I even think strategic bombing in China is tantamount to cheating. IF it works we should not do it BECAUSE it works - since it really would not have done. [where is that "reason" you appeal to now it isn't agreeing with you?]


Sid, it comes down to one thing: You undertook, pre-game, that in these situations when compromise wasn't working the IJA was the senior service. I chose the IJA over the IJN precisely because I feel you have issues as regards your willingness to compromise.


What compromise? Give up control of naval operations in distant seas? Further - and here is the rub -
because you have an unstated - and (meaning this coldly and professionally) reckless- strategic concept -
you cannot be trusted in a naval op with naval assets - not even the merchants. I bet you would send CVEs to face an enemy fleet - (naval mumbling !!!) - not needing cover from Kiddo Butai in your mind. Not grasping the grave damage to the Empire losing the transports and CVEs implies. Again - a more reasoned approach - a logical strategy articulated for all to see - might engender some confidence (he could handle that). But - no - undefined strategy NOT in common with the other service - not one word about coording naval operations with other operating areas -
you creating a situation in which what compromise might be possible to be out of the question. Once again - you have - did you add them up ? 5/6 of the assets total - and I need to compromise. Worse - to compromise NAVAL COMMAND - on a dangerous flank in which enemy capital ships and carriers roam - one that can be managed - if at all only with my focused attention and help at timely moments. Vital forces cannot be risked on a whim - or risked uncovered in the proper naval sense of that term. Not even IJA forces can be so risked. Again - take it to the Imperial Palace - you yourself cannot possibly rationalize they will support you over the Naval General staff on a naval matter. They won't and you know it. I cannot demand - and I almost have to demand - you NOT do strategic bombing on a large scale anywhere - because it will prevent either of us having what we need. But that sort of thing you can decide to ignore = and force us to lose the war because you are so silly about it. But if you press this we need a new player. there is no team. You are not trying for a common strategy and you are not respecting naval priorities that are not mine - but universal.

Now that the issue has arisen and you won't compromise on Ceylon


Because of your attitude I cannot even consider it. I even tried - and you did not notice. If you have command over Ceylon and India ops, you will go at the wrong time - and say you overrule me - and lose ships- and the war probably. This is insane and if it must end - better end it now. If you get there over water - you need my agreement.
I actually DID agree to go to Ceylon. I now withdraw that agreement. You are using uncompromising language. You want compromise - then compromise. IF I am in control of distant naval operations THEN I can AGREE to them. If not - I do not. [Reminds me of the IJA submarine proposal - they would not even allow the navy to help with design! There is some controversy, but it appears most of these vessels sank - just sank - without being attacked! Three survived the war - all sunk in harbor.] Ceylon is - at best - a brilliant flank operation. It is not a core idea - and it is hardly the basis of a proper dispute between services. If you cannot focus on Imperial interests - well time to call the triumverate. [ Japan was ruled by three generals - the Army Chief of Staff - the Southern Area Command boss -
and one other. IF the cabinet went too banannas, these guys would pull the papers, fire most or all of the ministers,
and get someone else who was acceptable but also able to get along with the others in the cabinet.] One thing never attempted was to tell the navy about fighting enemy fleets in distant seas. After the way the Army said the Navy should have said - flat "we cannot beat these people" - wholly ignoring Adm Yamamotos words "what do they think? we would have to dictate peace terms in the White House" - meant to say "we can't beat those people."

Ceylon might be a JOINT strategy. But only IF you are not taking over the navy. In which case it isn't a team and you don't need me.



I am invoking the IJA's seniority. When the only issue which still remains open is a SINGLE BASE there is little point in renegotiation ( especially when I've compromised on Ki-36s, on-map training, the whole idea of invading India etc). What remains is for you to say whether you will stand by what you said pre-game OR if you will ignore it in an attempt to get your way.

That's the issue and I do not wish to be sidetracked into other issues until it is settled.



As to the balderdash below:

I see no sense that "the navy is outnumbered and needs to have flexability and concentration of force" either.

Hmm, I accept that you should get EVERY CV, CVL and CVE, EVERY BB, all but 4 CAs and all but 12 CLs and DDs and that is somehow a failure to understand that you need a large flexible navy you can concentrate at the decisive point? LOL! I ask for 16 ships, just counting CVs, CVLs, CVE and BBs you have pretty much double that number of ships... and many multiples of that combat power.  Thus you have flexibility and the ability to concentrate the vast majority of the IJN against any force you want.

[Monter_Trismegistos]

ORIGINAL: el cid again
Too bad it does not work that way. Japan is unified by rail - and so there is no separate supply. It is horrible - but also the way it works. Which is why we must get him not to waste supply points - because he really can. And also because we need his points on fighters - HIS fighters matter to me - wether he knows it or not.

Is it Japan connected with rail Korea/China etc? How????

OK - Naval thinkers are not local area oriented - but strategic oriented. And for me that means economically oriented. The POINT of taking the SRA is to get resources. That means resource centers undamaged by bombing, ships undamaged by subs, mines, air attacks. That means keep the enemy FAR from the resource areas as long as possible. Ceylon changes the focus of the game from attacking ships in the Bay of Bengal and resources and bases in Burma and Malaya to attacks on - Ceylon! Ceylon ALSO permits us to patrol the Indian Ocean - and probably cut off shipping to Australia in the Northern part of it. I am trying to make ships cargo to Australia take long routes - and be inefficient. Ultimately I want the enemy fighting over something we can lose - Ceylon - instead over what we want to keep - Burma/Malaya. As long as possible.

But you wont commit any naval assets - everything else Nemo has. So again why?

Actually - I will not be able to help all the time. IJN is fragile - and every time it gets hurt it takes time to rebuild to effective levels again. He better be able to send over planes from Japan and Korea and Manchuria. It is his flank - his strategic risk - and properly his choice how much to put there. There are also OFFENSIVE reasons- he wants to go there for other reasons- and giving him some things he wants is good politics. [If he notices - which is not always clear?

Which planes? Those which are not busy defending Manchuria from impressive Soviet Airforce? He has no spares there. But you have. Much closer.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Sid,


As to the balderdash below:

I see no sense that "the navy is outnumbered and needs to have flexability and concentration of force" either.

Hmm, I accept that you should get EVERY CV, CVL and CVE, EVERY BB, all but 4 CAs and all but 12 CLs and DDs and that is somehow a failure to understand that you need a large flexible navy you can concentrate at the decisive point? LOL! I ask for 16 ships, just counting CVs, CVLs, CVE and BBs you have pretty much double that number of ships... and many multiples of that combat power.  Thus you have flexibility and the ability to concentrate the vast majority of the IJN against any force you want.

What is balderdash is that I have asked for all these assets: I have agreed in principle to assign 40% of the battle force, a larger fraction of the cruiser destroyer force than you asked for, and half the long range air forces that start.
How you can misconstrue this into the above is beyond kin.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Monter_Trismegistos

Sid give him Ceylon! You have no bases near by to reinforce it when needed! Also you should give him those 4 oldest CAs - you won't need them (and you better not use them against US Cleveland/Brooklyn class cruisers) Aobas are really piece of crack. They are to obsolete to form a battleline.

You are seem to just a keep another luxurious hotels for incompetent admirals (no offence Sid - this was historical opinion of IJA about Yamato class BBs)

Adm Yamamoto said

There are three great follies in military history:

1) The Pyramids of Egypt

2) The Great Wall of China

3) The battleship Musashi

I think he exaggerated. Slightly. But not much. The steel for such a ship was the same as for 150 escort ships or 1500 tanks or the frames for 15 factories. Not a good investment for the most vital of strategic resources. I might not even finish Musashi - and would not if they let me recycle the steel.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Monter_Trismegistos

Cid, can you tell me how are you going to screen your convoys against enemy surface attacks without your own surface forces?

What happened to my surface forces? Nemo take them?

Why do you want to waste so precious destroyers and CVEs for ASW?

I am a destroyer sailor. I don't think one can properly say this in English: a destroyer has only three possible jobs - and none more important than ASW. Waste is the wrong word - and a fast force cannot be escored by anything else - can't keep up. But mostly I prefer other vessels for ASW - and my secret weapon is airplanes. Lots of them. I want Nemo running air patrols when not doing anything else. Everybody - hunt subs for fun and profit - and IJN will pay you a reward for every one.


Why do you want to make your CAs into hotels for your admirals? Intact CAs won't change anything during capitulation talks in 1945.

I do not see CAs as hotels for admirals. Nor do I expect many to survive the war. I use warships - and risk results in their loss. I see CAs as mainly killers of small ships.

Biggest advantage Japan has is their naval force training. Why you want to waste another advantage IJN has?

What are you reading? I don't remember saying "waste" anything. I don't want to waste naval force training. I am a veteran of naval combat - and I can tell you this: it isn't a survival activity. In a war like this one, we will get more than we can handle, seek it or not.

Seem that you are aircraft fanboy. Why are you forgetting that aircraft can be easily outmaneuvered(sp?)?

By ships? I don't think so

I am very sad that aggressive Yamamoto was relieved of command, with ultraconservative Minelcidi Koga taken his place. Do you think that fleet in being will be a good tactic? Keep your forces when you are stronger - for what gains? Those surface TFs won't change anything later.

I am a maneuver theorist. I do not like a fleet in being. But the thing that matters is operational air power.
Ships are - in this era - specialists. There is a lot of art in mixing them well. But any focus other than air ops is not going to be decisive. There isn't going to be a WWII Jutland - and if there is it will be indecisive as Jutland was.
Guns don't win naval battles - unless they are lopsided. I pick on CAs with BBs - DDs with CAs - and THAT can work. But even that is not decisive enough for Japan. We must average 6 sinkings per loss - hard to do - impossible if we focus on surface battle. I also like subs - and they say I use them "like SSN.s" But even with the best torpedoes in the world Japan lacks the numbers to do more than mess up the enemy - force him to waste resources on patrol and escort - or sometimes get lucky and get a big score. Not enough to win. ONLY planes can win battles. Japan can win a war of great battles - not a war of attrition.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Monter_Trismegistos

ORIGINAL: el cid again
Too bad it does not work that way. Japan is unified by rail - and so there is no separate supply. It is horrible - but also the way it works. Which is why we must get him not to waste supply points - because he really can. And also because we need his points on fighters - HIS fighters matter to me - wether he knows it or not.

Is it Japan connected with rail Korea/China etc? How????

No. We cut it - and I won't say where. CHS and RHS cut the connection. But you miss the point. He can pull a supply point from any part of Japan - and AI will try to give it back to that point.

OK - Naval thinkers are not local area oriented - but strategic oriented. And for me that means economically oriented. The POINT of taking the SRA is to get resources. That means resource centers undamaged by bombing, ships undamaged by subs, mines, air attacks. That means keep the enemy FAR from the resource areas as long as possible. Ceylon changes the focus of the game from attacking ships in the Bay of Bengal and resources and bases in Burma and Malaya to attacks on - Ceylon! Ceylon ALSO permits us to patrol the Indian Ocean - and probably cut off shipping to Australia in the Northern part of it. I am trying to make ships cargo to Australia take long routes - and be inefficient. Ultimately I want the enemy fighting over something we can lose - Ceylon - instead over what we want to keep - Burma/Malaya. As long as possible.

But you wont commit any naval assets - everything else Nemo has. So again why?


No- if we go somewhere we ALWAYS commit naval assets. This whole argument may be because Nemo does not undeerstand that place imply assets to take, defend and feed. The argument probably is about control of those assets. I don't think he trusts me to take Ceylon. I don't trust him with the ships to try - much less feed it. He has no sense of "2 CV plus 1 CVL plus 5 BB backed by land based air are dangerous."

Actually - I will not be able to help all the time. IJN is fragile - and every time it gets hurt it takes time to rebuild to effective levels again. He better be able to send over planes from Japan and Korea and Manchuria. It is his flank - his strategic risk - and properly his choice how much to put there. There are also OFFENSIVE reasons- he wants to go there for other reasons- and giving him some things he wants is good politics. [If he notices - which is not always clear?

Which planes? Those which are not busy defending Manchuria from impressive Soviet Airforce? He has no spares there. But you have. Much closer.

You don't know that. IF I just won (or lost) a big battle I will be 100% down - and have NOTHING to send.
And odds are he has many squadrons not in the same state as mine are in. For one thing, a lot of naval air is in Japan - under his control.

[Monter_Trismegistos]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: Monter_Trismegistos
Cid, can you tell me how are you going to screen your convoys against enemy surface attacks without your own surface forces?

What happened to my surface forces? Nemo take them?

1) Carrier based air forces;
2) Land Based air forces;
3) Escort and transport forces;
4) Land units;
5) Submarines

Probably. Ask him to give them back to you and then please add them to your list.

I am a destroyer sailor. I don't think one can properly say this in English: a destroyer has only three possible jobs - and none more important than ASW. Waste is the wrong word - and a fast force cannot be escored by anything else - can't keep up.

Sooo we are in agreement. DDs aro for ASW with major combattants. So still I don't understand why if he would get a old CA squadron [if he actually will get it - that is problem of other nature] he shouldn't get also DDs for escort?

[Monter_Trismegistos]

ORIGINAL: el cid again
No. We cut it - and I won't say where. CHS and RHS cut the connection. But you miss the point. He can pull a supply point from any part of Japan [AND HERE YOU SHOULD INTERVENE, NOT LATER]- and AI will try to give it back to that point.

I am not proposing sharing HI bases: that supply in Osaka is yours and in Nagoya is his etc. I am proposing counting supply: that in Home Islands there is 1 million suply, and he is permitted to take only (more less) 50% (or any other number to make it fair) of that - the rest is yours. Definetely he would not be allowed to take 99% of that when you divided it 50/50.

[Nemo121]

Sid,

You reading lots of requests for fleets into my call for bases for my bombers is YOUR PROBLEM man. If I wanted those fleets I would have asked for them. You completely misunderstood the situation, didn't ask for clarification and have misrepresented my position on the basis of your misunderstanding.

I am not asking for ANY more ships than the CVEs, 2 BBs, 4 old CAs and 2 CLs and 10 DDs. If you want to give me more then fine, I'll accept them BUT asking for the eastern base in Ceylon does NOT mean I want to take over the role of defending the island from the Royal Navy and it does NOT mean I want to command fleets operating out of there. ALL it means is that I want to have a base so I can base the bombers I want and attack the targets I want when I want in support of other IJA actions against India.

I am perfectly happy to let the IJN defend Ceylon and command the fleets involved in same.



As to all of the rest...
It really boils down to one thing Sid. You made a pre-game agreement that in the presence of such an impasse the IJA would be the senior service. We have reached such an impasse and now when I have asserted that seniority you have ignored it.

Now, are you a man of your word or not? It is as simple as that. If you refuse to answer that simple question in a simple manner then I won't have any option but to walk.


I've compromised over not invading India because you didn't want it done, I've compromised over the use of the Ki-36 as a strategic bomber ( albeit short-ranged), I've compromised over the use of on-map training and I've compromised over the division of territories, giving you territory after territory you demanded.

I've even put up with you essentially saying I have no clue what I'm doing, don't understand logistics etc etc over the course of several days without answering back since I didn't want a fight BUT now you are in breach of a pre-game agreement. Now you either conform to that agreement over this ONE base or I think one or other of us needs to leave the team. I'm sure Monter would be happy to take over from me. I'v had word from someone else who would be willing to take over if you walk.

[Nemo121]

The argument probably is about control of those assets.

 
How many times do I need to say "No, I don't care about controlling the naval assets defending Ceylon, you can have that control" before you get it?
 
I want 4 old CAs, 2 CLs and 10 DDs from February 42. That's it. Anything else you give me is a bonus that YOU gift me. I don't demand it and I certainly don't demand control of greater naval forces committed to the defence of ceylon or DEI etc etc.
 
I keep saying it but you don't seem to be able to accept it.

[6971grunt]

I think you two should settle your differences they way the Samuri would - with swords - the first one beheaded loses.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

The argument probably is about control of those assets.

How many times do I need to say "No, I don't care about controlling the naval assets defending Ceylon, you can have that control" before you get it?

I want 4 old CAs, 2 CLs and 10 DDs from February 42. That's it. Anything else you give me is a bonus that YOU gift me. I don't demand it and I certainly don't demand control of greater naval forces committed to the defence of ceylon or DEI etc etc.

I keep saying it but you don't seem to be able to accept it.

Well - maybe you are right? Maybe I don't think in terms of not committing appropriate forces to any operation.

But I don't think you are being honest about this. The only question is - do you know you are not being honest or are you fooling yourself?

Do you mean "I will never sail anything to Ceylon uncovered"? Do you mean "I will coordinate sailing to Ceylon with other naval operations so they can be covered properly?" I confess - I don't suspect you of thinking in such terms.
IF the answer to either question is no, then you are either de facto demanding naval covering forces - or recklessly risking ships and their contents to do what you want when you want to because you want to. Now below a certain size, this might actually be an option: sending some 1000 ton AK - whatever might be on board - is not something you ever need to even consult about - it is below the threshold of our attention. Sending tens of thousands of tons of shipping with any major military unit on board is different - it can never happen without due and proper cover - and we cannot afford to risk losing (never mind actually losing) such things. Those ships are valuable for MORE than the present mission - but for ALL possible future missions they won't perform if they don't exist.

So I will back up - go ahead and tell me that you never would even consider just sending such a force to Ceylon without telling me - to find out about it when Adm Cyongham engages it in battle. And in that case I will apologize for misreading your attitude entirely. Sounds to me like "I will go to Ceylon - or quit the game" - which I think I just read on another thread.

In my view you have ignored "the army needs the navy" - and the one place they need it is at sea! The "IJA is senior service" was in the CONTEXT of that principle. The army would never allow the impass we have to have occurred. Why are you? I am not fighting over Chita - which I have not heard much about either. You ever give any actual thought to Russia? Or is it that the Navy is not worthy of consulting - or even informing? Aside from you love to bomb non-military things - which I have tried to suggest is probably not valid and in any case inefficient - I have heard not much about it.

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: grunt6971

I think you two should settle your differences they way the Samuri would - with swords - the first one beheaded loses.

But no screenshots please - this is a respectable forum!
[:D]

[el cid again]

[quote]ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Sid,

You reading lots of requests for fleets into my call for bases for my bombers is YOUR PROBLEM man. If I wanted those fleets I would have asked for them. You completely misunderstood the situation, didn't ask for clarification and have misrepresented my position on the basis of your misunderstanding.

REPLY: You have said you wanted appropriate forces. Forgive me for - first of all - believing that means the historical ones associated with ops. Unless we redefine task forces - you get what the troops start loaded on - right?
In any case - I don't want you not to be able to function in a naval sense. If it is your area - you better not be operating in a naval desert. If you don't understand Naval ops - say so. Otherwise -asking for an area IS asking for the naval forces associated with it. It better be your problem too.



I am not asking for ANY more ships than the CVEs, 2 BBs, 4 old CAs and 2 CLs and 10 DDs. If you want to give me more then fine, I'll accept them BUT asking for the eastern base in Ceylon does NOT mean I want to take over the role of defending the island from the Royal Navy and it does NOT mean I want to command fleets operating out of there. ALL it means is that I want to have a base so I can base the bombers I want and attack the targets I want when I want in support of other IJA actions against India.

I am perfectly happy to let the IJN defend Ceylon and command the fleets involved in same.

REPLY: Never read that into your language. Something about "I want control" or "I want command" of Ceylon got in the way. As I said long ago - on the telephone - we can do this. Not a problem.

[el cid again]

Assuming for once all can proceed as it should,

let me propose a mechanism for economic control.

Since AI mixes up all resources, supplies, etc by location/territory - it isn't really practical to separate them.
The main IJA logistic port is Hiroshima. It is in the SAME hex as Kure - the main IJN naval base. Major IJA units and facilities are in Tokyo - so is the Yokosuka Naval base - the only one equal to Kure in size. Who owns a supply point in Kure or Tokyo? Impossible to say - and a unit will consume them regardless of who owns them.

We can divide ownership of certain things - e.g. units. But locations? We can divide CONTROL - but not ownership.
If I am at Saigon you are the host - you control Saigon - but I am still feeding on supplies and fuel there. Or am I?
This needs to be decided.

Since AI runs territories as a whole - to the extent they have roads etc connecting places - possibly you should control all the mainland of Asia - which accidentally feeds most of your units from places you control. You will find that managing construction (i.e. turning it off except when needed) benefits your supply availablity - for use - loading - or for expansion of economic enterprises. Off the mainland - it depends on whose location or island it is? Or on agreement. If you want me to manage economics in the Home Islands - I will. Wether or not I do - we need to figure out HOW to make them productive - and running deficits in supplies is EASY there. Same for the mainland - some points may export supplies - many export resources - and how does this feed the convoy system? No point in a convoy to a place that can never load it. Better still to bring this and take that back. Or even a triangle route - this on that leg - that on this leg - maybe empty on the third leg but better still some other thing on the third leg.

Division of ships might be based on type? But there are three categories - IJA military transport - IJN military transport and civil transport. These may start out something like 4-3-3 - but the theory was that numbers were to transfer to the civil function - so it would end up with the lion's share. Not enough really transferred. In our context I think civil means "moving resources and oil on the inbound leg, supplies and fuel on the outbound leg" to the main empire. Military means "moving units and operational supplies for them." Then there is the matter of escorts. Naval units have DDs. But Grand Escort Command has DEs and PCs - and probably lots of junk. It may be we want to escort military cargos when not in a special operational TF? It may be we "buy and sell" or "trade" ships. Putting 10,000 tons of tanker into one part of a convoy system gives you 10,000 tons of credit (or tanker credit) in your account. That account may be settled at a point that creates and/or repairs ships. Or it may be the tanker is still yours - but it is part of the escort TF until it comes back? Opinions?

[TheElf]

Cid, Nemo:
Aren't you two on the same team? Great AAR by the way....

[Nemo121]

Sid,
 
I'm not going to get into the specifics of exactly what sails where when. That's a detail point.

There is a GENERAL point wherein you need to realise that part of a team game means being able to disagree with what someone is doing but still letting them do it ... and then either being able to say "I told you so" OR being pleasantly surprised when their plan works.
 
At present we are at a place where you need to either accept a general principle that others can do things you disagree with OR you need to ask for another player who will agree with everything you say and conform completely to your operational plan. After all of this hassle I really amn't interested in hassling over endless details at every turn. I think you need to just accept, in general, that we divide theatres geographically as we were doing and then let the other person conduct their operations as they see fit.
 
I don't have any confidence that you will be able to step back and relinquish control if, even now, you are wanting this level of say in IJA operations. That is why I am now interested in discussing the generalities and the general principle and not going into every tiny little detail. I don't have the time or inclination to defend every little decision and hear about how clueless I am about x, y and/or z whenever I do something you disagree with.
 
With that in mind it is worrying that you would argue that the IJA's assertion of seniority somehow does not count in this situation because you don't think that they would have asserted it that way in 1941. I am asserting it in-game. That's what matters.
 
Anyways, you need to stop trying to negotiate every damned detail of everything and just step back, give up control over every little detail and let the other person do things you don't agree with OR we need to figure out which of us will leave the team. It really is that simple and,to be honest, I've held off negotiating every other tiny little detail because life is too short to be negotiating every detail in such minute detail.
 
It is meant to be a game man. Loosen the grip of the reins a bit more and you'll enjoy it a lot more ( I certainly will).
 
 

[Nemo121]

One thing I will say... apart from the ships required to transport troops and supplies to and from Sumatra and western Ceylon and the Aleutians the army is quite willing to give its shipping to the civil fleet in order to facilitate the transport of supplies and resources etc.
 
I am NOT interested in the details of how you run those routes. They fall under the protection of the GEC - which is your command- and thus the details are yours to command. If you ask for my opinion I'll offer it but I don't butt in where I'm not wanted --- you could learn from this.
 
So, I think that by the 3rd or 4th month of 42 you should have the vast majority of the army ships and should be able to use them as part of the civil fleet. I'm not interested in the details. It is your command. What I ask for is the same level of autonomy in running IJA matters - and I'm not getting it.
 
 
The Elf,
I don't think we will be for long... It is a pity but it seems that such widely divergent views cannot be accomodated within a team... so long as the principle of seniority ( which allows particularly contentious issues to be settled by diktat... and a diktat which one doesn't agree with but allows one to move on is almost always better than continued internicine warfare) is not adhered to...

[wworld7]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

ORIGINAL: grunt6971

I think you two should settle your differences they way the Samuri would - with swords - the first one beheaded loses.

But no screenshots please - this is a respectable forum!
[:D]

I must have missed this, exactly WHEN did that happen?

Flipper

[el cid again]

OK - I think this may work out. However, as a combined arms theorist I don't believe in a command - nevermind an island command - devoid of naval resources. Except for the trick part about getting to Ceylon, all I really want is a chance to ambush an enemy attempt to retake it - or any nearby place. Same for the other flank (Aleutians/Kurils).
If you can be trusted with the one that protects the homeland - you can be trusted with the other. But in BOTH cases you will ALWAYS control minimum naval assets, including (for each):

a Patrol Squadron - unless you have ultra long range recon dedicated to that mission (flying boats)

a submarine division

possibly a patrol unit (e.g. PT boats) or other surface combat element for immediate local application

and Escort Command will maintain in every area appropriate local ASW aircraft and escort ships

In the Southern Area you inherit at least two major amphibious task groups, at least one major surface combat task group (BBs), at least one minor carrier task group (CVLs), at least one medium surface task group (CAs) and probably enough ships to form another organic to the amphibs - and several follow on transport/amphib TFs. To these must be added a major naval air unit (22nd Air Flotilla) unless we come up with a way YOU can have enough Zeros and Nells not to need it - and a submarine squadron (more than one division).

I expect you to micromanage the submarines to provide some defensive cover - I do offensive sub ops - so the enemy will always feel he is in danger of sub attack if he approaches our coasts - and to keep patrol elements on patrol - so you can call for help if trouble is sighted. If a major naval threat appears - and if I am able to come in force - we will decide what that means at the time. If not - I will send you some long range planes to back up your ops. If you focus on the flanks - Northern Command and Burma to Ceylon - and I focus on the center in the seaward direction while you focus on the center in the landward direction - it may work out that I can shift to cover a flank.

Economically I will run the convoys to insure every territory gets oil/resources or supplies/fuel - as required - and you will run the mainland - at least - minimizing construction so there is maximum supplies for export to operations.