Salutations and solicitations.... 1EyedJacks (J) vs Nemo (A)

[ny59giants]

Subs - have a good chance to survive in deep ocean hexes, not so good in shallow ocean and/or base hexes. I think they made some minor adjustments with sub/ASW last patch. I try to set them to have a reaction range of only one or two hexes. If set too high, they may react into a base that has mines in it. [X(]

PT Boats - they have changed it so they will attack almost exclusively at night, which is what it should be.

CAP - some are now trying to set it from 40 to 60% with another 20 to 40% on rest.

Dutch O19 & O20 - What are you mining with these two subs??

Port size is now of extreme importance. Some of those nice big, fat Allied xAPs and APs sure can hold some troops and cargo. [:)] However, it is a b!tch to unload them at a port in which they cannot dock at since they are too big. In WITP, you looked at AF potential first, in AE you look at Port potential first. Another adjustment.

[Smeulders]

A bit late for the HK escape, but you could have loaded them in amphibious mode, less efficient use of space, but at least you don't have to wait a couple of days for them to pack up.

[Nemo121]

Smeulders,
Good tip. I'm going to use that a lot from now on when I'm transporting ships from CONUSA - excess capacity and they don't have to move when they reach an atoll.


I'll update the next turn tomorrow but while I'm waiting on the orders file from Mike I have a bit of a problem... I want to fly a couple of fighter squadrons out of the Phillipines but for some reason while the PBY squadrons and the float plane squadrons can be flown out the HQ allocation of the fighter groups is greyed out... I have 69 PPs so it may be that I'm still short of PPs for these fighter squadrons --- which is the only thing I can think of being the reason. I thought I'd ask here though as if I'm wrong then I'll need to change my allocation of fighter squadrons from the West Coast as I may never get enough PP to save these squadrons...


Mostly though the next update will show a daytime naval combat between a couple of DDs and a USN CA-led TF at the Phillipines in which I sink one of his DDs and then a second combat in which two IJN CAs clobber my CA and sink it. I managed to interrupt the landings in the northern Phillipines with my naval forays but IJA forces are now landing in Naga in the south of Luzon. FOrtunately for me I anticipated this and have some 500+ AV on the way down there to see if I can surprise the IJA landings and rock them back on their heels a bit.

In the Pacific the IJN continues to evade my surface action groups while my CVs spot enemy TFs within 180 miles and don't launch strikes---- for two days solid now... I am hoping it is just a run of bad luck but we'll have to see. Elsewhere the forces in Sumatra are increasing nicely with about 800 or so troops being flown into Sumatra from Java daily now and the first of the British and Indian forces due to begin unloading at Oosthaven in 4 days. Currently I have allocated 2 Indian Bdes and the 18th UK Division to Sumatra. I have just freed 254th Armoured Brigade and will be loading that for Sumatra also. Between that and one of the Dutch armoured units I am hoping to have quite a nice 200 AV or so armoured punch ready to counter-attack either landing site. I am trusting that that will come as quite a shock to Mike when he invades.

In other news apart from infantry I am mostly concentrating on flying in the troops of my far-flung base forces and slowly but surely am building up a decent level of aviation support. I'm even flying in the Dutch Air HQ in order to make sure the forces in Sumatra will have as many torpedoes as they can use ( important as I've been reading of the long-range torpedo success of PBYs and Do-24s and having 60 or so of them in Sumatra ought to provide me with quite a punch if Mike makes an ill-advised push into Sumatra without cover from KB.


The more I look at the situation the more I see the possibility of tieing KB down in this area into January 1942, giving my forces in the Pacific a greater freedom of action. Mini-KB just won't be enough and his land-based Zero units have taken serious losses ( about 40 to 50 of the initial 107 land-based Zeroes have been destroyed already and it is only 11th December).


The last thing I am toying with is trying to disband all those P38 squadrons so I can withdraw a USAAF squadron from the Phillipines and rebuild it with P-38s. I amn't certain of how to do that without disbanding those squadrons though and I'm trying to avoid that as I don't want to hit the training system that hard. Is there any other way around it without upgrading each P38 squadron with dozens of P40s etc I just don't have?


O19 and O20 are mining Palembang. Basically I'm throwing everything in there to see if I can't make it a bit of a bastion which buys time for Burma.... which buys time for India and so on and so forth while the USN takes advantage to pinprick the enemy to death in the Pacific.

[modrow]

Nemo,

a few more comments from an adequate and timid commander... (that's what you get when shopping for the wisdom of crowds [;)])

ORIGINAL: Nemo121
I'll update the next turn tomorrow but while I'm waiting on the orders file from Mike I have a bit of a problem... I want to fly a couple of fighter squadrons out of the Phillipines but for some reason while the PBY squadrons and the float plane squadrons can be flown out the HQ allocation of the fighter groups is greyed out... I have 69 PPs so it may be that I'm still short of PPs for these fighter squadrons --- which is the only thing I can think of being the reason. I thought I'd ask here though as if I'm wrong then I'll need to change my allocation of fighter squadrons from the West Coast as I may never get enough PP to save these squadrons...

AFAIK, those fighters are in the PI to die. They cannot be moved, and you can just choose how they die. That's what I was trying to allude to in my post #38 when talking about a different situation for restricted squadrons under c) - admittedly I should have used the term "permanently restricted squadrons". If the "attached to" field is not yellow, you won't be able to reassign the unit and move it. A number of units in the US are also permanently restricted...

managed to interrupt the landings in the northern Phillipines with my naval forays but IJA forces are now landing in Naga in the south of Luzon. FOrtunately for me I anticipated this and have some 500+ AV on the way down there to see if I can surprise the IJA landings and rock them back on their heels a bit.

In that case, watch for a landing in Atimonan, which could split your forces. It takes a while to get back from Naga, specifically in case you need to march in combat mode.

Bdes and the 18th UK Division to Sumatra. I have just freed 254th Armoured Brigade and will be loading that for Sumatra also. Between that and one of the Dutch armoured units I am hoping to have quite a nice 200 AV or so armoured punch ready to counter-attack either landing site. I am trusting that that will come as quite a shock to Mike when he invades.

Re. "punch": Watch for the AV adjustments that may hit you... Allied AV at the beginning of the game is an entity to be looked at in a different way than WitP. The lousy exp values and the not-so-good stats of the devices/squads do seem to have an effect (not sure how they are factored in exactly). E.g., 254th armored is a exp25 unit [8|] If the Indian brigades you talk about are from the 44th-46th batch, they are exp 20. [X(]

I assume you disbanded (or will disband) one or more of the other tank units in India at Delhi in order to get the TOC of 254th armored filled, if you chose to operate that way. If not, you may consider it.

Also, don't be disappointed by what those "tanks" will achieve. You will have more experience than me regarding the relevance of vehicle stats, but those improvised AFVs really don't have impressive stats.

The last thing I am toying with is trying to disband all those P38 squadrons so I can withdraw a USAAF squadron from the Phillipines and rebuild it with P-38s. I amn't certain of how to do that without disbanding those squadrons though and I'm trying to avoid that as I don't want to hit the training system that hard. Is there any other way around it without upgrading each P38 squadron with dozens of P40s etc I just don't have?

Well, the bad new is that I think it is not going to happen with a squadron from the Phillipines without disbanding/withdrawing.

The good news is that I think there is a way... I *think* it is mentioned in Andy Mac's AAR vs PzB .

Hartwig

[Nemo121]

Hartwig,

Interesting indeed. It looks like i might be having to send a couple of USAAF squadrons from CONUSA to India/DEI. Thanks for the input.

As far as the Indian Bdes and 254th go. Well I am banking on preparation points combined with terrain and the combat which always occurs while unloading to see them through the first assault. Once the survive the first assault then bombardment and survival should see them rapidly gain experience and improve. My hope is that preparation points combined with a few rounds of easy bombardment etc while the enemy unloads should see their Experience boosted into the 50s. Don't forget also that Palembang is a swamp, and is already well on its way to Level 2 fortifications. I expect significant defensive bonuses to help my troops there. It certainly won't hold the Japanese but in the final calculation the goal of this committment is not to survive and hold southern Sumatra, although that would be a bonus, the goal of this committment is to put enough troops and engineers into Palembang that ground combat will utterly destroy the Oilfields before the Japanese take them. Palembang is not being defended because of purely military considerations, it is being defended and defended in this way because that's the best way I have to destroy its economic strength. Logistics, logistics, logistics.... one other reason for defending it is that it, Oosterhaven and Benkoenen have a huge surplus of supplies ( Palembang produces about 1,000 tons of supply per day ) and that means my force in Southern Sumatra will be self-supporting in terms of supplies, an important consideration in terms of maximising the effectiveness of my sealift capabilities - already I am running AKLs into Rangoon with a view to building up the supplies in Burma and amd prepping my defensive line in-country. With a little luck I might be able to hold the Burma Road open, that's the goal in any case.

As re: 254th I'm busy sending units to Delhi for disbandment. No point having a paper formation in-theatre and Palembang easily has the supplies to allow rapid rebuilding of trashed units.

In other news I have had a look at the IJN situation around the Phillipines and am going to commit Boise and the few remaining USN DDs from the Phillipines to disrupt the landings at Naga... My goal is to disrupt the landings, then bear down on him with overwhelming land forces ( 600+ AV ) which will force him to return to the landing zones ( after sinking Boise and the USN DDs ) at which point I'm going to hammer him with Force Z and some of the Dutch surface combat groups. With just a little luck I am hopeful of getting Force Z into Manilla to get refuelled and then sprint it back to Soerabaja via southern Borneo. The Dutch SC TFs will be left to die in place while RN reinforcements arrive into the DEI area of operations from India. Ozzie DDs are tasked with bolstering the naval forces guarding Port Moresby.

I intend that all of this surface action will keep KB and mini-KB focussed on the DEI and give me the fortnight I need to enact my Pacific plans.

On the frustrating side of things my USN CVs continue to spot shipping in the area in between Canton and Kwajalein but refuse to launch on this shipping. Something's not right here but I can't figure it out, the ships have sorties left, the ships have ops points left etc.

[Andy Mac]

Just be really carefull with those armoured units they basically have trucks with MG's on tops instead of tanks -to allow the units to train up - they are good for maybe 1 fight

The A Team makes better AFV's than these guys have having said that when 7th Armoured Bde arrives it has a full complement of Stuarts

44th 45th and 46th Indian Bdes are units to be wary of they are Bdes NOT Bde Groups they have very limited supporting equipment

You really dont get the equipment to be filling them up early on.

India is really really short of deployable equipment at start.

The reality is you have 2 Divs in Malaya - weak
1 Div in Burma and the roundout Bdes for 17th Indian Div

you then get basically 6 deployable Indpt units before reinforcements arrive

44th 45th and 46th Inf Bde
98th 99th and 100th Bde Groups

the three Bdes Gps on ceylon are actually reasonable when compared to other forces available but stripping them from Ceylon is risky

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Smeulders,
Good tip. I'm going to use that a lot from now on when I'm transporting ships from CONUSA - excess capacity and they don't have to move when they reach an atoll.


I'll update the next turn tomorrow but while I'm waiting on the orders file from Mike I have a bit of a problem... I want to fly a couple of fighter squadrons out of the Phillipines but for some reason while the PBY squadrons and the float plane squadrons can be flown out the HQ allocation of the fighter groups is greyed out... I have 69 PPs so it may be that I'm still short of PPs for these fighter squadrons --- which is the only thing I can think of being the reason. I thought I'd ask here though as if I'm wrong then I'll need to change my allocation of fighter squadrons from the West Coast as I may never get enough PP to save these squadrons...


Mostly though the next update will show a daytime naval combat between a couple of DDs and a USN CA-led TF at the Phillipines in which I sink one of his DDs and then a second combat in which two IJN CAs clobber my CA and sink it. I managed to interrupt the landings in the northern Phillipines with my naval forays but IJA forces are now landing in Naga in the south of Luzon. FOrtunately for me I anticipated this and have some 500+ AV on the way down there to see if I can surprise the IJA landings and rock them back on their heels a bit.

In the Pacific the IJN continues to evade my surface action groups while my CVs spot enemy TFs within 180 miles and don't launch strikes---- for two days solid now... I am hoping it is just a run of bad luck but we'll have to see. Elsewhere the forces in Sumatra are increasing nicely with about 800 or so troops being flown into Sumatra from Java daily now and the first of the British and Indian forces due to begin unloading at Oosthaven in 4 days. Currently I have allocated 2 Indian Bdes and the 18th UK Division to Sumatra. I have just freed 254th Armoured Brigade and will be loading that for Sumatra also. Between that and one of the Dutch armoured units I am hoping to have quite a nice 200 AV or so armoured punch ready to counter-attack either landing site. I am trusting that that will come as quite a shock to Mike when he invades.

In other news apart from infantry I am mostly concentrating on flying in the troops of my far-flung base forces and slowly but surely am building up a decent level of aviation support. I'm even flying in the Dutch Air HQ in order to make sure the forces in Sumatra will have as many torpedoes as they can use ( important as I've been reading of the long-range torpedo success of PBYs and Do-24s and having 60 or so of them in Sumatra ought to provide me with quite a punch if Mike makes an ill-advised push into Sumatra without cover from KB.


The more I look at the situation the more I see the possibility of tieing KB down in this area into January 1942, giving my forces in the Pacific a greater freedom of action. Mini-KB just won't be enough and his land-based Zero units have taken serious losses ( about 40 to 50 of the initial 107 land-based Zeroes have been destroyed already and it is only 11th December).


The last thing I am toying with is trying to disband all those P38 squadrons so I can withdraw a USAAF squadron from the Phillipines and rebuild it with P-38s. I amn't certain of how to do that without disbanding those squadrons though and I'm trying to avoid that as I don't want to hit the training system that hard. Is there any other way around it without upgrading each P38 squadron with dozens of P40s etc I just don't have?


O19 and O20 are mining Palembang. Basically I'm throwing everything in there to see if I can't make it a bit of a bastion which buys time for Burma.... which buys time for India and so on and so forth while the USN takes advantage to pinprick the enemy to death in the Pacific.

[modrow]

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac
The A Team makes better AFV's than these guys

I was lucky I was not drinking anything when reading this, or my laptop would have been at risk. EXCELLENT way to make that point. [:D]

Hartwig

[Nemo121]

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Dec 14, 41

1 week in and a bad day for the Allies. I miscalculated where Mike would risk KB... it appears he was very much willing to swan around close inshore to Borneo and so he managed to attack a refuelling SC TF in a port in southern Borneo.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submarine attack near Bandjermasin at 62,102

Japanese Ships
SS I-156

Allied Ships
xAK Governor Wright, Torpedo hits 3, on fire, heavy damage


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat, near Catanduanes at 82,81, Range 6,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
CL Nagara, Shell hits 1
DD Yukikaze
DD Tokitsukaze
DD Yamakaze
DD Kawakaze
DD Umikaze
DD Suzukaze
DD Shiokaze

Allied Ships
DD Peary
DD Pillsbury, Shell hits 1, on fire
DD Pope

Some very desultory combat. It should use their ammo up though and tomorrow a TF of damaged USN ships centred on Boise will hit this landing zone.


Sub attack near Cam Ranh Bay at 65,74

Japanese Ships
xAK Kinkasan Maru, Torpedo hits 1, on fire
TB Kasasagi
xAKL Anbo Maru
xAKL Kembu Maru
APD Aoi

Allied Ships
SS Salmon

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submarine attack near Tawau at 69,91

Japanese Ships
SS I-154

Allied Ships
xAKL Halldor, Shell hits 7, heavy fires, heavy damage


Allied ground losses:
7 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 3 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 4 (0 destroyed, 4 disabled)
Vehicles lost 3 (0 destroyed, 3 disabled)


xAKL Halldor is sighted by SS I-154
SS I-154 attacking on the surface
SS I-154 low on gun ammo, Kawasaki R. breaks off surface engagement and submerges

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Naga at 81,81

Weather in hex: Overcast

Raid spotted at 48 NM, estimated altitude 11,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 34 minutes


Allied aircraft
Walrus II x 5


Allied aircraft losses
Walrus II: 2 damaged

Japanese Ships
CL Nagara
DD Yamakaze



Aircraft Attacking:
5 x Walrus II bombing from 6000 feet
Naval Attack: 2 x 250 lb GP Bomb



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Naga at 81,81

Weather in hex: Overcast

Raid spotted at 35 NM, estimated altitude 9,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 18 minutes


Allied aircraft
SOC-1 Seagull x 7


Allied aircraft losses
SOC-1 Seagull: 1 damaged

Japanese Ships
CL Nagara
xAK Shozan Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire



Aircraft Attacking:
3 x SOC-1 Seagull bombing from 6000 feet
Naval Attack: 2 x 250 lb GP Bomb
4 x SOC-1 Seagull bombing from 6000 feet
Naval Attack: 2 x 250 lb SAP Bomb



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Naga at 81,81

Weather in hex: Overcast

Raid spotted at 29 NM, estimated altitude 11,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 14 minutes


Allied aircraft
SOC-1 Seagull x 5


Allied aircraft losses
SOC-1 Seagull: 2 damaged

Japanese Ships
xAK Minryo Maru, Bomb hits 2, heavy fires, heavy damage



Aircraft Attacking:
5 x SOC-1 Seagull bombing from 6000 feet
Naval Attack: 2 x 250 lb GP Bomb

Heavy smoke from fires obscuring xAK Minryo Maru


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Naga at 81,81

Weather in hex: Overcast

Raid spotted at 30 NM, estimated altitude 10,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 8 minutes


Allied aircraft
B-17D Fortress x 6


Allied aircraft losses
B-17D Fortress: 3 damaged

Japanese Ships
CL Nagara
DD Kawakaze

I love the floatplanes. When there aren't any CAP around they get hits and they are largely immune to enemy airfield attacks. They make a great "stay behind" component.

Morning Air attack on TF, near Tarakan at 67,91

Weather in hex: Light rain

Raid detected at 80 NM, estimated altitude 10,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 30 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 25
B5N2 Kate x 78
D3A1 Val x 42



Japanese aircraft losses
B5N2 Kate: 1 destroyed, 4 damaged
D3A1 Val: 4 damaged

Allied Ships
DD Witte de With
CL Java, Bomb hits 3, on fire, heavy damage
DD Banckert
CL De Ruyter, Bomb hits 1, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
DD Piet Hein
CL Tromp, Bomb hits 4, heavy fires, heavy damage
CL Durban, Torpedo hits 1
DD Van Ghent
DD Kortenaer
DD Van Nes

OUCH, KB is massive overkill for the DEI region. I think that once my Force Z intervention is done I may withdraw my naval forces from the area until things quieten down a bit. KB can just smash through anything I can put out there too easily.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ground combat at Hong Kong (77,61)

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 21228 troops, 321 guns, 218 vehicles, Assault Value = 628

Defending force 4222 troops, 115 guns, 48 vehicles, Assault Value = 107

Japanese engineers reduce fortifications to 1

Japanese adjusted assault: 215

Allied adjusted defense: 129

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

Japanese Assault reduces fortifications to 1

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), leaders(-), morale(-), experience(-)
Attacker:

Japanese ground losses:
163 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 6 disabled
Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 16 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Vehicles lost 2 (0 destroyed, 2 disabled)


Allied ground losses:
487 casualties reported
Squads: 13 destroyed, 3 disabled
Non Combat: 24 destroyed, 34 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Vehicles lost 2 (0 destroyed, 2 disabled)


Assaulting units:
66th Infantry Regiment
19th Ind. Engineer Regiment
38th Division
20th Ind. Engineer Regiment
10th Ind. Mountain Gun Regiment
3rd Ind.Hvy.Art. Battalion
2nd Mortar Battalion
2nd RF Gun Battalion
2nd Ind.Hvy.Art. Battalion
5th RF Gun Battalion
1st Hvy.Artillery Regiment
20th Ind. Mtn Gun Battalion

Defending units:
Rifles of Canada Battalion
Hong Kong Fortress
Kowloon Brigade
102nd RN Base Force

Hong Kong should fall tomorrow.

In other news aerial losses today again showed more Zeroes shot down over Manilla than P40s. So far in-game I've managed to down more Zeroes in A2A combat with P40Bs and Es than I've lost P40Es and Bs. I'm actually beginning to wonder just what everyone else is doing that they find the Zeroes so tough... I set the altitude for the least manoeuvre differential and then rely on a lot of diving attacks on Zeroes to even up the odds. In the current day's raids I would say that over half of the A2A attacks commenced with my fighters diving down on a Zero from above. Only about a third of those attacks ended in a kill or damage but even a little damage can result in a crash on the long journey back to Formosa from Manilla. For the last 3 days I've shot down more Zeroes than I lost and, overall, shot down more planes in A2A combat than I lost in A2A combat. I'm sure there's a little FOW here but with over 70 Zeroes downed in just 7 days the FOW isn't the main factor here.

Minimise the manoeuvre differential and maximise your bounce potential, rely on the late-arriving planes to be your "low-flying meat flight" and watch the bounces roll in. Sure it means passing up some passes in a bomber intercept but far better to pass up some passes and have 20 planes in the air to attack the bombers than maximise your number of passes but only have 5 airworthy planes cause the Zeroes shot the others down.

Fortifications are coming along nicely. Singers is Level 1 and Mersing is now a Level 2 fort. I plan to hold him at Mersing for as long as possible whilst flying and shipping troops out of Singers as my PP allow me to buy them out.


Andy,
Aye, I agree with you those extempore armoured designs are almost worthless. With that said quantity has a quality all of its own and with a few easy fights to begin with while hunkered down behind significant fortications I think their experience could grow sufficiently to actually become competent combat units.

I know a lot of this is bucking the conventional wisdom but the conventional wisdom is usually just a good way to play in roughly the same manner as everyone else and fall into the same pitfalls as they did as everyone's too busy playing follow the leader to examine the ground ahead. In any case, if it fails it'll be interesting and create an even more strategically interesting situation in which India will appear wide open.... This will have the effect of having Mike be drawn more towards the invasion of India ( as many of its defenders are committed to Sumatra and thus the defences in India are weakened even further below what they usually are ) and away from the invasion of Australia. So, really, even the failure of the defence is calculated to psychologically draw him towards the greater strategic choice I want him to make --- invade Burma and then invade India ---- as opposed to diverting troops into Oz and the Pacific.

[modrow]

Nemo,

ORIGINAL: Nemo121
1 week in and a bad day for the Allies. I miscalculated where Mike would risk KB... it appears he was very much willing to swan around close inshore to Borneo and so he managed to attack a refuelling SC TF in a port in southern Borneo. [/b]

Perhaps you miscalculated because your estimate of the risk involved was too high. To me, the "risk" of putting KB to where you describe seems to be much less risky in AE than it used to be in WitP, where even Martins scored a hit every now and then and the dutch planes that were classified as torpedo bombers there were deadly - at least as long as you don't run into some imaginative tactical approach (like a concentrated and well escorted combined Vildebeest and PBY Catilina attack using torpedos, not sure whether one could orchestrate something like that).

Fortifications are coming along nicely. Singers is Level 1 and Mersing is now a Level 2 fort. I plan to hold him at Mersing for as long as possible whilst flying and shipping troops out of Singers as my PP allow me to buy them out.

Just don't extrapolate using too small an increase in effort needed to get from Lvl n to lvl n+1 with growing n. When I started building forts, my initial thougth was "Hey, that is fast !" My impression is that level 1 is reached quicker than in WitP, level 2 also probably quicker than it used to. But to get from 3 to 4, e.g., takes quite some time now, even with a decent number of engineers + engineering vehicles.

I know a lot of this is bucking the conventional wisdom but the conventional wisdom is usually just a good way to play in roughly the same manner as everyone else and fall into the same pitfalls as they did as everyone's too busy playing follow the leader to examine the ground ahead.

Aye, one of the reasons why this AAR is a must-read. It's always good to probe into what is off the main stream. I guess I'll still continue to offer advice along conventional lines, because perhaps you are using conventional knowledge from WitP to devise your strategy.

Perhaps this is your main weakness in this game as opposed to one you pick up without knowing its predecessor. Some examples for my assumption:

You relate to "risking KB" - but air to surface threat seems significantly reduced. You mention long sieges, allowing to build exp - so far, I have the impression that the even the classical long sieges from WitP, like Singapore and Manila, just don't happen any more.

You discussed stuffing the possible ports of entry with CD guns - there's a thread about a PH invasion which may indicate that these will not always work as you would wish them to.

You stress the success that you shot down more planes A2A than you lost, which for WitP standards would be an incredibly good result, but even without being able to field superior numbers of P40 at any point of time in the PI (outcome of historical start with surprise on) and refined gameplay re. a2a, you can get about 1.5:1 against you in AE - much better rates than WitP. Even if you atrite his Zeros now, you atrite your P40ies as well, and your replacement rates are much lower than what he can build quite soon.

This will have the effect of having Mike be drawn more towards the invasion of India ( as many of its defenders are committed to Sumatra and thus the defences in India are weakened even further below what they usually are ) and away from the invasion of Australia. So, really, even the failure of the defence is calculated to psychologically draw him towards the greater strategic choice I want him to make --- invade Burma and then invade India ---- as opposed to diverting troops into Oz and the Pacific.

This may be another example of conventional WitP wisdom as basis for your evaluation: a) it takes some time and a serious number of troops before Burma is conquered (which may no longer be correct) and b) it's India or Oz - I believe that a quick early strike against North Australia (Darwin) and Burma (both of which is possible with quite limited assets now) may allow you to do both.

So by all means, explore new strategies and approaches, buck the conventional wisdom. But do take a look at the stats, numbers and the performance statistics the AARs offer as basis for devising your new approaches rather than base them on WitP experience. It's a very different game, and if was intended to put brakes on Japanese expansion, I am not sure whether that has been achieved.

As always, just my thougths - I'll be glad if I'm wrong.

Hartwig

[Nemo121]

because perhaps you are using conventional knowledge from WitP to devise your strategy

Please keep offering the advice but I think you misappreciate the situation. In WiTP I mostly did what I would have done in RL with a few nods to code issues in-game. In AE I will do what I would order in RL also. I know this mightn't be the conventional view of my play but I would argue that people don't see things as those things are but as those people would like them to be.... and that means people bring their pre-conceptions of that person to bear on even the most minor of analysis of another person's actions. Many make the mistake of thinking that I don't like HRs to mean that I'm gaming the system whereas I would argue that in Real Life many operations which were conventionally crazy were carried out when people found previously unappreciated technical characteristics gave them previously unexpected tactical opportunities. In Soviet doctrinal parlance which differentiates between extraordinary and ordinary operations/tactics/capabilities etc I would argue that many things are extraordinary only until someone has done them a few times, achieved success and then gets copied by all around. In that fashion the extraordinary becomes the ordinary ( in a doctrinal sense ). Paratroops and the whole area of air-mobility are excellent examples of this.


As re: "risking KB"... I only referred to it in the sense of risking torpedo attack by subs... I don't think KB is really at any risk from my air farce.

Long sieges... It only takes 2 or 3 attacks for a unit to go from 20 to 50 Exp from what I've seen... Given that troops will be unloading and being attacked by surface combat task forces I anticipate there being little difficulty in having 1 to 2 deliberate attacks plus significant bombardment attacks before the IJA is fully unloaded. That's the timeframe I'm thinking of, not more than a week, probably only 4 days ( added to the effects of preparation of course )... So, I meant by having the opportunity to gain experience was very different than "a long siege".

CD guns.... Aye, it definitely seems that CD guns can be beaten by a horde of PBs. This is, of course, extremely gamey and in an ordinary game would be extremely bad sportsmanship. In this game however two things apply:
1. I'll do what I would have done in RL without reference to the engine ( strategically - operationally this is less so ) and
2. I fully expect and hope Mike will take advantage of these gamey opportunities.

Why? I will observe the game and determine what is simply unexpected and beyond the expectations of the developers and what is a gamey exploitation of a poor combat model. What is beyond their expectation is good play and won't be something I will work towards elimination in my mod. What is gamey exploitation of poor code will be eliminated. Already I am running tests on amphibious invasions which don't face multiple 6 inch guns but, instead, face much larger numbers of 4 and 5 inch guns such that far more of the tiny escorts and AKs etc are hit. Obviously the best solution would be for the coders to stratify CD guns such that below 6 inches they would hit PBs etc etc etc, above 5 inches to 9 inches they would aim at DDs, CLs etc while 9 inches and above would hit CAs and BBs whilst ignoring most everything else.Only if no targets in that tonnage range were in view would the guns "downgrade" to lesser targets.

That would nicely solve the problem especially if one allowed for "opting out" of the vs-military vessels code so that from time to time a particular gun could just target merchies - e.g. If no BBs then the 16 inch guns which would normally downgrade to hitting CAs or CLs might just decide to hit the merchies and cause an absolute bloodbath. That's nice and unpredictable, believable and would work better than the current system. We'll see if the NIHS allows such a solution to be considered.


Attrition of P40s... Well those P40s CANNOT be transferred out of the PHillipines... another example of the developers constraining the way in which players can play the game. "If you have PP you can buy any unit and move it to any other location... except for a couple of dozen units we have decided we won't allow you to move because they didn't move in real life... but other units which also didn't move in real life CAN move." A horribly inconsistent thought process which leads to that most destructive of in-game situations of internally inconsistent in-game behaviour... which studies have shown destroys immersion. In any case the basic point is that if I COULD fly those P40s out I would have and wouldn't be fighting here.... You don't see my Buffaloes dogfighting the Zeroes any more do you? Unfortunately due to the developers deciding to constrain me so I can only use those fighters in the Phillipines in the way THEY want me to use them I don't have the option of transferring them out. As such my only option in the Phillipines is whether I let them die on the ground or in the air. Since they can kill more Zeroes in the air than on the ground I commit them to the aerial fight. If I had freedom of action I would withdraw them to Sumatra BUT I DON'T. Something I obviously find annoying and a sign of a disappointing inconsistency in development decision-making as well as a reminder that there's still quite an element of "We've made this wonderfully open game system which allows you to try a multitude of different things but because most of the development team play the game in such and such a way we're going to put things in the code to prevent you taking advantage of the open game system and, instead, force you to hew to our less imaginative, creative and interesting style of play."

Do I think 1:1 over the Phillipines is a good deal? NO, but the design team hasn't given me any other option. I have to stand and die so I'm dying in the most costly fashion possible even though strategically doing so is utter idiocy. Unfortunately the design team haven't given me any option OTHER than idiocy at this stage. It is most frustrating, but will be fixed in an AE variant. I can see many opportunities to open up the game system where the design team has intentionally chosen to close it down and limit its possibilities.


Burma? Who mentioned Burma? He should be able to stroll through Burma and, to be honest, he'd be an idiot to land there. Why land in Burma and waste time and troops and effort when you can just amphibiously invade India proper? All of this emphasis on invading Burma in other AARs puzzles me. It is, largely, wasted effort, a diversion of resources from the pursuit of the enemy centre of gravity and a subsidiary theatre which will, inevitably fall once the south-eastern Indian territories are taken. Why waste time and effort on fighting for something only to then invade South-eastern India when bypassing it and invading south-eastern India will hand Burma to you on a plate when the enemy's supplies run out? It is non-sensical, but something everyone is doing. They should bypass it. That realisation was one reason I abandoned the Burma defence and, instead, am investing in Sumatra.

[timtom]

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Attrition of P40s... Well those P40s CANNOT be transferred out of the PHillipines... another example of the developers constraining the way in which players can play the game. "If you have PP you can buy any unit and move it to any other location... except for a couple of dozen units we have decided we won't allow you to move because they didn't move in real life... but other units which also didn't move in real life CAN move." A horribly inconsistent thought process which leads to that most destructive of in-game situations of internally inconsistent in-game behaviour... which studies have shown destroys immersion. In any case the basic point is that if I COULD fly those P40s out I would have and wouldn't be fighting here.... You don't see my Buffaloes dogfighting the Zeroes any more do you? Unfortunately due to the developers deciding to constrain me so I can only use those fighters in the Phillipines in the way THEY want me to use them I don't have the option of transferring them out. As such my only option in the Phillipines is whether I let them die on the ground or in the air. Since they can kill more Zeroes in the air than on the ground I commit them to the aerial fight. If I had freedom of action I would withdraw them to Sumatra BUT I DON'T. Something I obviously find annoying and a sign of a disappointing inconsistency in development decision-making as well as a reminder that there's still quite an element of "We've made this wonderfully open game system which allows you to try a multitude of different things but because most of the development team play the game in such and such a way we're going to put things in the code to prevent you taking advantage of the open game system and, instead, force you to hew to our less imaginative, creative and interesting style of play."

Do I think 1:1 over the Phillipines is a good deal? NO, but the design team hasn't given me any other option. I have to stand and die so I'm dying in the most costly fashion possible even though strategically doing so is utter idiocy. Unfortunately the design team haven't given me any option OTHER than idiocy at this stage. It is most frustrating, but will be fixed in an AE variant. I can see many opportunities to open up the game system where the design team has intentionally chosen to close it down and limit its possibilities.

The reasoning behind this setup is linked to the five provisional PS' and their relationship to the PS' in the PI's. Briefly put they were formed from evacuee pilots from the PI PS' and pilots and a/c fresh from the US with the intention of reinforcing the PI's in similar fashion to the way pilots of the planeless 27th BG were flown to Oz with the intent of ferrying A-24's back to the PI's. IMO it's a reasonable assumption that had the PI PS' been pulled out, the provos wouldn't have been formed. Hence the player receives the provos in return for PI PS' being perm restricted. Besides a historical OOB being thought of as an end in itself, the provos are useful in that it is a tool towards bumping up P-40E replacement numbers in early '42 as was the case historically. Think of it as an not entirely happy quid pro quo compromise. Anyone is obviously at liberty to disagree with this line of thinking, but, IMO, it isn't entirely one of "idiocy".

[Nemo121]

timtom,

Firstly, thanks for the reply.

Secondly, aye you caught me at a moment of particularly high frustration with some of the design decisions in-game which are preventing me from doing the quite obvious and reasonable strategically prudent things. I apologise for the use of the word idiocy. I do think still that its a sub-optimal choice though.

Thirdly, surely the better option would have been to scrap the provisional squadron since those are based on history having turned out a certain way ( which it won't since the game never follows historical patterns ) and, instead, made the original squadrons unrestricted. That way the player wouldn't be locked into playing the Phillipines aerial battle out in such a highly restricted manner. Another sub-type of the P40E only available on a time-limited basis could take care of the need to bump P40E numbers during January etc 1942.

I personally think that would have given you the P40 numbers whilst allowing the player the freedom of decision and would have bolstered the "open" nature of the game.


Idiocy was, I admit, a poor choice of term although I wish to be clear that it wasn't aimed at any particular team member, merely at the design decision which has led me into a situation of not being able to redeploy my squadrons as the strategic situation dictates. OTOH I do still feel that limiting the player's freedom in this way wasn't necessary as limiting historical units in order to allow the creation of provisional units which arose only because of the historical timeline ( which won't be followed in any PBEM ) is the sub-optimal choice.

I am, however, interested in other situations where this occurred and what the design reasons behind this might have been as I'm sure other situations might be much less clearcut than the Phillipine situation and I'm interested in learning when these permanent restrictions were used so that I can utilise them appropriately in my mod - which I'm hoping to knock out beginning the end of the month.

[modrow]

Nemo,

Please keep offering the advice but I think you misappreciate the situation.

I will, no encouraging needed. Also, it may well be I misappreciate the situation, always a good chance for that [:D]. Further, it may occur that I point to what you are aware of but decide not to disclose.

In WiTP I mostly did what I would have done in RL with a few nods to code issues in-game. In AE I will do what I would order in RL also. I know this mightn't be the conventional view of my play but I would argue that people don't see things as those things are but as those people would like them to be.... and that means people bring their pre-conceptions of that person to bear on even the most minor of analysis of another person's actions.

Agreed. Some of your previous statements just looked to me like you are interpreting things as you would like them to be, possibly based on pre-conceptions inherited from WitP. If that is not the case, all the better.

Burma? Who mentioned Burma?

No idea...

post 16

1. Palembang - He must take it, he must try to take it without damaging it and both of these things mean this will form a focus of his attention whilst being safe from resource bombing. In short it'll delay his offensive further north into Burma and India

post 43

Basically I'm throwing everything in there to see if I can't make it a bit of a bastion which buys time for Burma.... which buys time for India and so on and so forth while the USN takes advantage to pinprick the enemy to death in the Pacific.

post 45

already I am running AKLs into Rangoon with a view to building up the supplies in Burma and amd prepping my defensive line in-country. With a little luck I might be able to hold the Burma Road open, that's the goal in any case

now:

They should bypass it. That realisation was one reason I abandoned the Burma defence and, instead, am investing in Sumatra.

The main message I intended to send is that a) if Japan wants Burma, they can walk there starting on day 1 with limited assets and take it without the need to severely restrict the remaining ops (relating to the statement of post 16 - it does not necessarily buy time) and b) that there is no need for a sequence of operations Sumatra-Burma-India. Your most recent post indicates you are aware of that possibility, so I can stop harping on it.

Hartwig

[Nemo121]

News of the day for 16th December...

The AVG manages better than 1:! over Singapore while the P40s manage about 1:1 over Manilla. I spotted IJN BBs 120 miles west of Manilla yesterday and moved Force Z ( Yes, PoW and Repulse ) into that hex overnight in order to trigger naval combat today. Unfortunately while Force Z lurked at sea all day ( and was apparently unspotted ) I have been unable to bring any enemy SC TFs into action. I will decide whether to refuel and retreat tomorrow or send Force Z into the waters south of Formosa tomorrow... I will probably pull back, make sure I'm spotted and cause Mike to begin bolstering his rear area security.

In the meantime I'm continuing to pull more Base Forces from the outlying Dutch bases to support the flying boats I have moved into Sumatra as:
a) transport to fly the Dutch troops from Java into Sumatra.
b) extempore torpedo bombers when the invasion TFs finally do close.

Once I have enough aviation support I can begin flying combat Bns and Regiments in. At present I am flying in about 350 men per day into Sumatra but once all of the disabled flying boats and transports are repaired I would hope to increase that to 500 men per day. In one month I should be able to evacuate most of what is needed from Java.

[Nemo121]

*chuckle* Burma, ok, I guess I did then didn't I [8D] .... Aye, Burma figured in my early thinking but then as I looked at it I realised that it really wasn't something I wanted to defend in its entirety. I am investing a few Indian troops and quite a few Chinese troops into fortifying two key bases in the Burmese interior and protecting the China Road but, really, I've decided to ignore Burma for the main part. If he wants it he can ( and will ) have it.

Why the Chinese troops? Well, supplying them in Burma removes their supply drain from China and actually improves the combat effectiveness within China itself whilst cheaply increasing the amount of combat power in Burma. I will be posting them in the jungle in a base, with the potential to increase their combat potential by 900% due to forts and terrain. In the meantime the Burmese, British and Commonwealth will hold a base in a clear area behind a river which cannot easily be bypassed.

Initially I thought Burma could focus as a stopping point on the way to India but the more I looked at it the more I realised that Burma was utterly unnecessary for the invasion of India and, as such, I changed my thinking of its importance. If it could provide me with a point to stop Mike in his tracks short of India it was important. I decided it didn't offer the opportunity to stop him in its tracks and combined with its lack of trails into India it meant I could really leave it to its own devices.

I AM running AKLs into Rangoon but that's mostly to help ensure the defenders have supplies and also to suck supplies from Burma into China. In addition the AKLs aren't doing anything else so doing something useful is good and by running supplies into Rangoon I might make Mike think he needs to invade Burma as I am ferrying loads of troops in etc... It mightn't work but it is better than nothing.

[Andy Mac]

Don't underestimate the new re arming consequences

Landing in India without Rangoon to rearm and resortie you carriers and SAG's is a major PITA.

Without NGS you cannot guarantee getting that vital early port.

Its the logistics of hitting India without Rangoon at least that would worry me - having to funnel every ship back to Singapore to rearm and refuel would be tough especially as I would instantly mine the Malacca strait and send every sub I have there if I was your opponent.

I put a lot of effort into protectign Chittagong, DH and Madras for that reason they are the ports you would need almost immediately for that strategy to work

[Nemo121]

Andy, What about Ceylon?

I think if I were Japanese I'd be looking at Ceylon and seeing:

1. An excellent port.
2. The ability to disrupt the Royal Navy from its main base in the area.
3. The opportunity of using the bulk of the island to screen my landings ( in the east ) from enemy SC TFs ( they'd have to go around which means only the lighter, faster ones could make it in one day - indirectly this would preclude BBs from hitting my invasion beaches )
4. An unsinkable aircraft carrier.
5. A nice, large jumping off point with lots of opportunity for landing supplies, troops etc.


Why? Well because I wouldn't be looking to land in south-eastern India. If I were going for India I'd try to land somewhere south of Karachi, perhaps near Bombay. I know it would trigger reinforcements of multiple divisions but those divisions are in Aden and with IJN CVs in the area and Betties basing out of Ceylon and Bombay I would be confident I could prevent the landing of those reinforcements.

India's a case where you have to gamble big to win big because gambling small to win small ( taking south-eastern India ) just creates a situation where the British will grind you down endlessly throughout 1942 and 43 and when the Americans hit you in 43 you'll find yourself with a ground down air force and weak LCUs as you are having to send lots of devices to replace the continual drip of losses in south-eastern India.

That's my take anyways... Of course Mike is unlikely to want to gamble as big but I'm sure Ceylon could meet those needs - unless I'm missing something ( which is entirely possible, I'm in a big learning curve here ).

[Andy Mac]

Ceylon is a good target but its also a hard one if you dont get Colombo quickly

The three Indian Bdes on Ceylon are decent and typically its heavily reinforced assuming you do a Mersing end run and take Singapore by latest early jan its a race if the allies get a second or third Div there I suspect its to hard

The biggest issue I have with an India strategy is the speed of movement in stock you could blitzrieg India along the rail lines - its a LOT harder to do it in AE there are so many roads and railways so while you might be able to keep India isolated for a while I suspect its almost impossible to over run especially as the garrison requirements for the japanese can suck up whole Divisons so you are steadily getting weaker as you go the more you conquer the more you need to hold

[Nemo121]

Well, I ran Force Z up to a hex 120 miles west of Manilla but despite there being IJN BBs in the area the day before I didn't get any surface combat. I combined this with a little AK run into Singapore in order to pull out some Air HQs.

This was a nice test to see which way Mike would move. KB was around Kuching and could move east to engage Force Z or west to kill the AKs. He chose to kill the AKs--- although I did manage to pull the Air HQ I wanted out of Singapore ). This is an interesting learning point about Mike. He is cautious, slow in his movements, doesn't extend out from under his air umbrella - I think that his inability to extend his air umbrella in the Pacific is one reason I am seeing such laggardly progress there- and doesn't seem to be willing to engage in parallel operations with thin margins of error. Instead he engages in massive operations which utterly outmass the enemy. The corollary to this is that he's willing to engage in split operations - landing in three places in Malaysia and in three separate landing sites in the Phillipines. If he invades Sumatra I can expect him to land at Oosthaven and Palembang simultaneously.


In other news the first Brigades are landing in Sumatra and combined with my airlift I now have about 600 AV in Sumatra, due to rise rapidly with the arrival of another division+ of British troops. Digging in is going well with Level 2 forts at Oosthaven and Palembang and a few Australian units are also arriving ( Gull Bn etc ) which have high experience and should prove useful.

Unfortunately I also spent 200+ PP buying at a CD unit with 16 x 6 inch guns. This should utterly devastate any mid-sized landing in Sumatra but I hear the CD gun code is flawed so I'm trying to find out a suitable HR to overcome this.

Force Z is moving south back to Soerabaja to refuel while additional CLs, CAs and DDs arrive in the area. Rabaul has its own SC TF assigned and the USN CVs are recombining at PH. I've finished reinforcing Wake which now has engineers and additional ground combat troops. With a little luck I may get time to build Wake up into a significant roadblock while the main effort goes into preserving Midway in the longer term.

If I can keep Mike so utterly focussed on northern Borneo - keeping KB there etc - then within a week's time I will commit the USN proper ( CVs and BBs ) to action in a, hopefully, surprising and rather disruptive manner. I'm still deciding how deep to go but I think that the more he shows an utter focus on the northern Borneo region the more likely it is I'll decide to make a rather deep raid as I needn't fear his CVs.

[timtom]

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

timtom,

Firstly, thanks for the reply.

You're welcome.

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Secondly, aye you caught me at a moment of particularly high frustration with some of the design decisions in-game which are preventing me from doing the quite obvious and reasonable strategically prudent things. I apologise for the use of the word idiocy. I do think still that its a sub-optimal choice though.

No offense taken. You're in good company - AndyMac's been bugging me about this one too lately

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Thirdly, surely the better option would have been to scrap the provisional squadron since those are based on history having turned out a certain way ( which it won't since the game never follows historical patterns ) and, instead, made the original squadrons unrestricted. That way the player wouldn't be locked into playing the Phillipines aerial battle out in such a highly restricted manner. Another sub-type of the P40E only available on a time-limited basis could take care of the need to bump P40E numbers during January etc 1942.

I personally think that would have given you the P40 numbers whilst allowing the player the freedom of decision and would have bolstered the "open" nature of the game.

Idiocy was, I admit, a poor choice of term although I wish to be clear that it wasn't aimed at any particular team member, merely at the design decision which has led me into a situation of not being able to redeploy my squadrons as the strategic situation dictates. OTOH I do still feel that limiting the player's freedom in this way wasn't necessary as limiting historical units in order to allow the creation of provisional units which arose only because of the historical timeline ( which won't be followed in any PBEM ) is the sub-optimal choice.

In fact many if not most of the early arrivals were P-40E-1's (the US designation for the Kittyhawk IA), built under British contract. For our purposes the 'E-1 is identical to the vanilla 'E. You could further tie the upgrade path into 75, 76, and 77 Sqn RAAF in place of the IA - 5th AF and the RAAF initially pooled their P-40's, although this apparently in practise meant that the Ozzies would be get the US hand-me-downs.

Patch 2 offers an alternative approach in that a/c can be included in the convoy reinforcement system. This is relatively new to me and a ground team function to boot, so in truth I'm not sure about the finer details. The potential is obvious however, though i honesty just the thought of redoing the RR's makes me feel fatigued.

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

I am, however, interested in other situations where this occurred and what the design reasons behind this might have been as I'm sure other situations might be much less clearcut than the Phillipine situation and I'm interested in learning when these permanent restrictions were used so that I can utilise them appropriately in my mod - which I'm hoping to knock out beginning the end of the month.

Well, the origin brief was to pace the game in general and debloodify A2A in particular. on the OOB side of things one way of attacking this is by looking at force levels. The implementation of forced withdrawal helps alleviate the ballooning force levels vs history we have in WitP. Another way is to tie down certain units through permanent restrictions as a sort of ad hoc garrison requirement. Most of the perm res units fall under this category. Basically this applies to units which never left their home country. Fx the Yokusuka Kokutai functioned as an aircraft- and tactics trial unit while doubling as imperial bodyguard until being transferred to regular combat duty summer of '44, nonwithstanding that it had deployed a detachment of its G4M Hikotai to Palau briefly during early '44 (IIRC). Other than that and a foray to Iwo Jima it never deployed outside Japan AFAIK. IMO having it perm res'd allows us to have it present from the beginning while simultaniously respecting its rather special role up until '44. Etc.

The Dutch are a bit different. Now it seems unlikely to me that they'd have Sir Robin'd the DEI and IMO we shouldn't make a virtue of the fact that we don't really do politics in AE, but the reason is really that the two Dutch services are meant to be one-shot forces - however I can't currently do this the right way round by cutting off the supply of pilots. Hence the ham-fist approach. The other major exception is the US Air Transport Command units deployed to India to a very specific job (supply China) complement of POTUS, although restricting these probably will have little practical impact since the HQ isn't restricted.

But if you want a scn more pleasing to Lord Khorne, by all means do away with the restrictions