Suprise Attack on Vladivostik

[1EyedJacks]

I'm getting ready to play RHS-EOS.

I was trying to run a test of turn 1 Suprise attack. Most of the aircraft near Vladivostik have GP bombs and since there are no political points available I can't move anything in range and change the HQ...

Any way - I can't seem to attack Vladivostik on Turn 1. Am I doing something wrong or is it impossible to attack Russia on turn 1?

[el cid again]

Well

IF AI is in control, it loves to do early (not turn 1) attacks on Russia - usually getting creamed by Soviet air in the process - because it does so with carriers - often light carriers.

If YOU are in control, you certainly can send your carriers anywhere you want to - and I think you can get to Vladivostok with some of them.

Similarly, your very long range bombers - and you have some of these in Japan - can certainly do so. And so can your shorter ranged JAAF aircraft in Korea and Manchukuo. Also - there is NO political restriction on where aircraft in Northern Command or Kwangtung Army may transfer. For that matter, Southern Command air units can also transfer without restriction - and the long range ones can make it if you want them badly enough.

So what are you trying to do that they cannot do???

[1EyedJacks]

Hi el sid again,

I'm sending land-based LBs and TBs to attack the port against Vladivostik on turn 1 but they fail to attack.

I can see the planes on turn 2 and they are set correctly - they just failed to attack on T1. Some of these Japanese air units are Bettys/Nells from Tokyo.

[el cid again]

Well - that is not up to us. That is up to code. There are many "tests" used by code to determine how many planes fly - or if none fly at all?

I speculate you have too few supply points at Tokyo. I don't know what the issue is? But I know that air units in Manchukuo and Korea regularly attack the USSR if you are not careful.

[1EyedJacks]

I don't think it's supply points @ Tokyo... All I've done @ that base is assign Port Attacks for the Gnell & Betty air units.

@ Konan I moved 3 units of Ki-32 to that Base and they have been assigned to Port Attack @ Vlodivostik.

@ Chengkufeng I moved a unit of B4Y1 and 2 Ida DB units to do a similiar attack.

@ Muroran, Japan I moved 2 units of Ki-32, 1 unit of B4Y1 Jeans, and 3 units of Kates to that base to do a port attack @ Vladivostok.

@ Mutankiang I moved 2 units of Sonia, a unit of Sallys, and a unit of Claudes to port attack and provide escort...

No one attacks... Political points are at 150 for Japan on T1 - is that part of the problem? All I've done on the opening turn is the standard opening with reassignment changes of air units @ Tokao to Port attack Manilla and then moved air units about to Port attack Vladivostok.

My opening strike I want to go after all of those subs...

[el cid again]

No - the problem is not political points. These only relate to transfer between theaters.

And you do realize this sort of play is the reason Forum members opposed making a Soviet Active but not bellegerent scenario at all? It is wrong - stuff and nonsense - that Japan would want to do such a thing in 1941. Japan lacked the resources to engage on all fronts - and did not intend to do so until AFTER the critical SRA was conquered - when units shipped AWAY from Manchukuo and Japan could return. Japan wanted a much larger force in the area before engaging - see Nomanhan and the August Storm paper by the US Army.

This is one reason I have not tested this sort of operation: it should not be happening in any game period. I cannot believe code is smart enough to know that - but if it is - I am not going to seek a workaround.

As for going after subs - it is very wrong to tell the Soviets (as I do in the notes for players) that Soviet subs MUST be in port - and then you go after them. You should let them all go to sea - tell the Soviet player or set AI with instructions - if you want to attack the port (and / or the subs).

I feel like there is egg all over my face! I said players were smart enough to grasp the concept of Active Soviets but no war: you are proving me wrong. There is NO WAR in the North - UNLESS the Soviets start it - and I promise - Stalin won't - as weak as things are in 1941. The REASON for active Russians is economic and operational prudence - and also to make UNCERTAIN when the war in the North begins. [It certainly will begin - but when? It should not be up to Japan to decide - alone.] The primary RHS house rule is being violated here: "if a real world commander would not do it, don't you do it." Japan has decided to "strike South" - so why are you "striking North"????

Now if you are playing vs AI - a mistake as AI cannot control the Allies ever and AI cannot work with interior river systems which this scenario has - and AI thinks Soviet Subs are USN!!! Still - YOU can set the subs to manual control - and no objective - and stay in port. Or sail them to the USA. [Several subs did that during the war - or anyway went to the Atlantic via the US and Panama; further you do know Soviet merchants SHOULD BE sailing UNMOLESTED from the US to Soviet ports - and from places like Kamchatka to the main Soviet ports - right? NOT to allow that is a different kind of violation of the very reason the Soviets are active.]

My only consolation is - if you let the Soviets be active AND bellegerent - the Allies can clean your clock. If human opposed, I would recommend that Stalin accept the proposal to run the offensive against Japan out of Siberia - with US air forces. I would even consider making a special pwhex file - so Nome is connected by rail line to the USA - because that was part of the concept. But the Soviets are way too strong for you to take on in the North - and air attacks would in any sane game world bring them down on you. Manchukuo is the heart of the empire - resources wise - and something Japan went to war to win - more than once. Why lose it all because of fear of subs that the Soviets should keep in port???

[Capt. Harlock]

The points about attacking the Soviet Union are sound, well expressed, and entirely beside the point. The code should execute smart or foolish moves with equal efficiency. If there is a bug in the code, it should at least be identifeied, and preferably squashed. How do we know how far the bug's effects reach if we don't know why it's happening?

[mlees]

I was thinking that he may have been using AF's that were too small (thus overstacked, and bombers not launching at full numbers, and failing escort checks), but Tokyo shouldn't be too small, right?

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Capt. Harlock

The points about attacking the Soviet Union are sound, well expressed, and entirely beside the point. The code should execute smart or foolish moves with equal efficiency. If there is a bug in the code, it should at least be identifeied, and preferably squashed. How do we know how far the bug's effects reach if we don't know why it's happening?

In this you are correct. However, I don't think there is a bug. Tokyo is overstressed - loading up task forces - and you probably have AI thinking it has too few supply points.

[1EyedJacks]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

No - the problem is not political points. These only relate to transfer between theaters.

And you do realize this sort of play is the reason Forum members opposed making a Soviet Active but not bellegerent scenario at all? It is wrong - stuff and nonsense - that Japan would want to do such a thing in 1941. Japan lacked the resources to engage on all fronts - and did not intend to do so until AFTER the critical SRA was conquered - when units shipped AWAY from Manchukuo and Japan could return. Japan wanted a much larger force in the area before engaging - see Nomanhan and the August Storm paper by the US Army.

This is one reason I have not tested this sort of operation: it should not be happening in any game period. I cannot believe code is smart enough to know that - but if it is - I am not going to seek a workaround.

As for going after subs - it is very wrong to tell the Soviets (as I do in the notes for players) that Soviet subs MUST be in port - and then you go after them. You should let them all go to sea - tell the Soviet player or set AI with instructions - if you want to attack the port (and / or the subs).

I feel like there is egg all over my face! I said players were smart enough to grasp the concept of Active Soviets but no war: you are proving me wrong. There is NO WAR in the North - UNLESS the Soviets start it - and I promise - Stalin won't - as weak as things are in 1941. The REASON for active Russians is economic and operational prudence - and also to make UNCERTAIN when the war in the North begins. [It certainly will begin - but when? It should not be up to Japan to decide - alone.] The primary RHS house rule is being violated here: "if a real world commander would not do it, don't you do it." Japan has decided to "strike South" - so why are you "striking North"????

Now if you are playing vs AI - a mistake as AI cannot control the Allies ever and AI cannot work with interior river systems which this scenario has - and AI thinks Soviet Subs are USN!!! Still - YOU can set the subs to manual control - and no objective - and stay in port. Or sail them to the USA. [Several subs did that during the war - or anyway went to the Atlantic via the US and Panama; further you do know Soviet merchants SHOULD BE sailing UNMOLESTED from the US to Soviet ports - and from places like Kamchatka to the main Soviet ports - right? NOT to allow that is a different kind of violation of the very reason the Soviets are active.]

My only consolation is - if you let the Soviets be active AND bellegerent - the Allies can clean your clock. If human opposed, I would recommend that Stalin accept the proposal to run the offensive against Japan out of Siberia - with US air forces. I would even consider making a special pwhex file - so Nome is connected by rail line to the USA - because that was part of the concept. But the Soviets are way too strong for you to take on in the North - and air attacks would in any sane game world bring them down on you. Manchukuo is the heart of the empire - resources wise - and something Japan went to war to win - more than once. Why lose it all because of fear of subs that the Soviets should keep in port???

Dude - sorry U popped a vein over this. I DON'T have to justify anything to you but...

I looked at the game and the Russian coastal cities that have resources/oil available for Japan... There's 900 resources and 120 oil within easy access of Japan. Vladivostok has 40 plus subs and is within easy reach of Japan. I felt that if Russia had a sub base next-feaking-door then Japan would probably know about it thru their intelligence service. I don't think, as the Japanese player, that I would want to hit Russia with a fleet of subs in my back-waters. I was thinking that any land invasions in Russia would probably start out @ Vladivostok, Suchan, and Okha. It also seems to me that any sneak attack against Russia @ Vlodivostok would have a better chance of success than running out to Hawaii with several divisions of armed forces coupled with the majority of my carrier forces... My thoughts on this type of gambit were to hit Russia, China, and the DEI and form a closer defensive ring in the pacific to cut down on the logistical support...

This is a what-if scenario. It is the primary reason I was looking at EOS vs some of the other flavors of RHS. It also looks to me that Japan would hit Borneo ASAP; Borneo has lots of resources/oil there. Also, when I was formulating possible opening strategies you didn't have a new handbook out. I've been trying to understand and figure out all of the changes in EOS on-the-fly, so to speak.

I really like the map. I applaud you and all of the other people that worked on these scenerios for RHS. It's like a new game to me and the real intent of me trying to run a series of test turns against myself was to see how the production system had changed and to see how the armament changes in RHS worked from GP/Cluster munitions vs AP munitions and the air combat system.

I intend to play a PBEM game. I would not use the opening turn against Russia unless my opponent had full knowledge of my intentions. I play an upfront game - I don't cheat or try to do things that are taking advantage of a system.

I haven't really looked at all of the units available for Russia, America, the UK, China, or any of the other allies yet. I did look to see which nearby allied bases have the resources/oil that Japan will need. At this stage I'm just LOOKING at possibilities.

The new air-combat system is also something that looks like a great idea. I like the logic behind it. But I still want to test out a few air battles to see how it works and decide if it will change how I normally utilize my forces. I can already see some changes in tactics due to the change in ranges of the air and naval units. This game has already provided me with many-many hours of fun. RHS looks like it will address some of the mechanics that I haven't really come to appreciate in the stock version. And these scenerios were designed by fellow gamers to try to improve on what I feel is an already very good product.

Botton line sir, I saw the RHS mods and the version 7 map and and would like to try the EOS version. I haven't taken part in any of the discussions on this forum in regards to RHS and I admit that I'm pretty ignorant of all of the enhancements and changes in RHS.

I have, what I feel, are sound reasons for an alternative opening strategy and I was experimenting with the concept of an opening strike against Russia. I feel like you've just called me stupid with your "egg on your face" paragraph because I am thinking about trying something that is a little outside of the box. Your 1st paragraph is also very aggressive and negative towards me. It really wasn't my intent to hurt your feelings or step on your values. I know you don't know me or anything about me but I feel you could have found a better way of expressing your opinions towards me than in a public forum. I was just asking for reasons why the attack didn't work and thought that there might be a problem with RHS-EOS.

If U don't know the answer or are not interested in why an attack like this fails, that's cool - I won't press you. Again, I do applaud you on the work you've put in on RHS but I'm really bummed as to your response to questions I've raised and your boorish attitude towards me.

[JeffroK]

1 less in the Sid fan club.
 
You'll be getting down to my fan club size soon.

[el cid again]

Why might that be? Because I explain the basic design intent of a scenario (or in this case a set of them)?


Maybe I was wrong after all - and all those who said players could not handle active Russians were right - and I was wrong to try. Time will tell - I said. Is it telling?

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: 1EyedJacks

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Dude - sorry U popped a vein over this. I DON'T have to justify anything to you but...


REPLY: I don't get upset - was not upset - am not upset. However, I felt - and now feel confirmed - you don't grasp the essence of a Soviet active scenario. I wrote in case of that - but mainly to make clear to all other readers - that this isn't in bounds in a Soviet active scenario. If the reasoning isn't clear, than just play Russian passive scenarios and don't worry about the Russians.

I looked at the game and the Russian coastal cities that have resources/oil available for Japan... There's 900 resources and 120 oil within easy access of Japan. Vladivostok has 40 plus subs and is within easy reach of Japan. I felt that if Russia had a sub base next-feaking-door then Japan would probably know about it thru their intelligence service. I don't think, as the Japanese player, that I would want to hit Russia with a fleet of subs in my back-waters. I was thinking that any land invasions in Russia would probably start out @ Vladivostok, Suchan, and Okha. It also seems to me that any sneak attack against Russia @ Vlodivostok would have a better chance of success than running out to Hawaii with several divisions of armed forces coupled with the majority of my carrier forces... My thoughts on this type of gambit were to hit Russia, China, and the DEI and form a closer defensive ring in the pacific to cut down on the logistical support...

REPLY: Taking Vladivostok is nearly - or perhaps truly - impossible. It is a bear of a tough nut to crack. I grant that Japan may covet the resources of Amur Province (the region between Amur River and the Pacific). But - quoting Japanese Foreign Minister Togo - "I don't know what to do about Russia. Every night I go to sleep thinking about Russia. Every morning I wake up without an answer." The Japanese plan - requiring the FULL forces in Manchukuo (COUNTING those moved out for the Southern Operation) PLUS several more divisions and air elements - is marginal at best - and I recommend an op into Russia only with MORE than the 14 divisions they contemplated. Also I think Japan should wait for the Tank divisions to form up - meaning summer 1942 - before even thinking about this op. The subs are there for defense - and to help prevent a seaward flank attack from having an easy time. They are perfectly legitimate military forces in a country you have a treaty with. Even in 1945, Russia waited for the END of the deal and gave notice it would not renew it. That is real politics - even between fairly nasty regimes. A surprise invasion - at a time your normal forces are reduced significantly - is a sort of suicide pact - and would (if playing humans) be grounds to let the Allies use (and feed off) Soviet bases. Not in Japan's interests. I only regret AI probably isn't bright enough to do that.


This is a what-if scenario. It is the primary reason I was looking at EOS vs some of the other flavors of RHS. It also looks to me that Japan would hit Borneo ASAP; Borneo has lots of resources/oil there. Also, when I was formulating possible opening strategies you didn't have a new handbook out. I've been trying to understand and figure out all of the changes in EOS on-the-fly, so to speak.

REPLY: Your reasoning is sound. FYI the new handbook is out - although there is a bit of tecnical editing (spelling and grammer) to polish still. And trying to understand is a great way to begin. WITP is complex; RHS is more complex - by at least half again. Posting questions is also good policy. But you need to accept that the answers about scenario design intent and limitations are part of the learning process. It was never intended there be war with Russia in 1941 - and IF that were to be gamed - it would be necessary to do a scenario - so Japan could deploy for it. The reason it won't happen - is why it did not happen: even Strike North enthusiasts had no answer for the oil problem: there isn't enough in the North.

I really like the map. I applaud you and all of the other people that worked on these scenerios for RHS. It's like a new game to me and the real intent of me trying to run a series of test turns against myself was to see how the production system had changed and to see how the armament changes in RHS worked from GP/Cluster munitions vs AP munitions and the air combat system.

REPLY: Thanks - for everyone. However, know that many things you see we didn't do. Clusters were not our invention - we got them from CHS - which in turn got them from stock. I am not sure they were used - and surely we used them - but they were there. As were drop tanks - which you cannot see yet - but they are now implemented in RHS and they work.

I intend to play a PBEM game. I would not use the opening turn against Russia unless my opponent had full knowledge of my intentions. I play an upfront game - I don't cheat or try to do things that are taking advantage of a system.

REPLY: I am sure this is the case. There is a lot of honor among people who play games that require so much time commitment. I just wanted everyone reading to understand this sort of attack should not be considered. And I don't really worry about it - because it is self enforcing insofar as taking on Russia early must hurt Japan.

I haven't really looked at all of the units available for Russia, America, the UK, China, or any of the other allies yet. I did look to see which nearby allied bases have the resources/oil that Japan will need. At this stage I'm just LOOKING at possibilities.

The new air-combat system is also something that looks like a great idea. I like the logic behind it. But I still want to test out a few air battles to see how it works and decide if it will change how I normally utilize my forces. I can already see some changes in tactics due to the change in ranges of the air and naval units. This game has already provided me with many-many hours of fun. RHS looks like it will address some of the mechanics that I haven't really come to appreciate in the stock version. And these scenerios were designed by fellow gamers to try to improve on what I feel is an already very good product.

REPLY: Good evaluation. There is one thing we just figured out - aided by Dili - is naval searches. Range limit search aircraft so range in hexes = number of search aircraft divided by two (round up). You should either not set any % search for strike planes - or range limit them on the same principle. This will make detection of naval units far more realistic than code now allows - that is the chance they won't be seen. It ONLY works in a human vs human game - both sides must do it. But it offers the potential to work around the massively too effective search routines.

Botton line sir, I saw the RHS mods and the version 7 map and and would like to try the EOS version. I haven't taken part in any of the discussions on this forum in regards to RHS and I admit that I'm pretty ignorant of all of the enhancements and changes in RHS.

I have, what I feel, are sound reasons for an alternative opening strategy and I was experimenting with the concept of an opening strike against Russia. I feel like you've just called me stupid with your "egg on your face" paragraph because I am thinking about trying something that is a little outside of the box. Your 1st paragraph is also very aggressive and negative towards me. It really wasn't my intent to hurt your feelings or step on your values. I know you don't know me or anything about me but I feel you could have found a better way of expressing your opinions towards me than in a public forum. I was just asking for reasons why the attack didn't work and thought that there might be a problem with RHS-EOS.

If U don't know the answer or are not interested in why an attack like this fails, that's cool - I won't press you. Again, I do applaud you on the work you've put in on RHS but I'm really bummed as to your response to questions I've raised and your boorish attitude towards me.

REPLY: Note that I said there was egg on my face - not yours! Note that I was warned players would do stuff like this. And that I assumed you didn't understand the scenario design intent. More to the point - this is in public - I wanted readers to understand the design intent. You have a licence to the game. The mod is free. You can do whatever you want - and I really cannot control it - nor is doing something for fun "wrong" either. I don't know what a boorish attitude is - I literally don't know what that might mean - so I have no opinion about wether or not it might be true? But my goal was to promote understanding - in a general as well as a technical sense - and I don't blame you for what I don't think you understood.

In fact, Japan can attack Vladivostok in any form of WITP any time it wants to. Doing this in a normal game - or even in RHS passive scenarios - won't permit subs to be attacked - because there are no subs to attack. The ONLY way to give Russia subs to defend with WHEN AND IF Japan attacks is to have an active scenario with human control of the Allies. This because of wierd code - which was written assuming there never would be Russian subs. A big problem with the normal WITP - and with RHS Russian passive scenarios - is that an attack like this does NOT release the Russians to fight! [You MUST enter a certain hex with a ground unit - or there is no activation of the Russians. So you can invade, air attack, sink everything at sea, bombard with battleships, name it - stay out of that hex and the Russians are still passive and frozen. I wanted to fix that - to let the Russians move units around - control construction - move resources, oil and supplies to places offshore. So we made the Russians active - and gave them subs - for use AFTER the war begins with Russia. It is all pretty technical - and this "solution" is only reasonable if players are willing to be reasonable about what is acceptable - about what Stalin might have done (with Germans at the gates of Moscow - nothing at all) - and what Japan might have done (with the force it believed necessary stripped to facilitate Strike South - nothing at all).
Japan probably should invade Russia in late 1942 or early 1943 - different subject. Waiting longer means the Russians will be too strong. Going sooner means there is no chance of enough forces to win. But you can use the game to sort out that kind of thing. And going too soon or too late certainly are ways to find out.

[goodboyladdie]

Hi Cid

You do have a habit of talking down to people when they enter into a conversation late. Your actions prove that it is not intentional, as you have always managed this project in a completely open manner. I have had a similar experience to Mike's in the past and it is not a nice feeling. You have too many in depth posts for anyone to ever catch up with where your thought processes are from scratch! I am Mike's opponent-in-waiting and I can hardly wait to start with this amazing "new" game. By way of reassurance that we share your values, Mike and I are defining our house rules and Russia is basically being treated exactly as you intended.

Thanks very much for all of your hard work.

Best regards

Carl

[el cid again]

Thank you. I shall try to use more qualifying language.

[Historiker]

I have, what I feel, are sound reasons for an alternative opening strategy and I was experimenting with the concept of an opening strike against Russia. I feel like you've just called me stupid with your "egg on your face" paragraph because I am thinking about trying something that is a little outside of the box. Your 1st paragraph is also very aggressive and negative towards me. It really wasn't my intent to hurt your feelings or step on your values. I know you don't know me or anything about me but I feel you could have found a better way of expressing your opinions towards me than in a public forum. I was just asking for reasons why the attack didn't work and thought that there might be a problem with RHS-EOS.

THat's quite usual when arguing with Sid. Without any intention to insult him, but it seems that's just his way...
I can't count how often I felt rudly insulted by him...

But I still respect his work which is really amazing!

[el cid again]

For which I apologize. I am very narrowly focused - some say like a German technician at work - and only think about what ever I am focused on at any given moment. But I value your suggestions - and although you came along AFTER I had closed development - I did reopen it for you - with respect to aircraft - resulting in the addition of the Ju-88s (two of them).

[Historiker]

I know - and as I said often enough: I admire your work - but I don't have to admire your way of conversation [;)]