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

[Wirraway_Ace]

Messing with poor 1eyedjacks head again with the a thread subject title, "Re: Fight for Hawaii"?
 
 
 
 

[Nemo121]

Hordes of 4-engined bombers? Not with the Allied replacement rates in 1942.


FatR,
Well, if you go for it in December or January and the Allied fighters choose to fight you will just slaughter them. They won't have trained up enough by then... So, really, their ability to repopulate the airgroups is really rather more theoretical threat than real. Sure if they waited until April 42 and repopulated them all en masse in a single day after swapping in 70+ A2A Exp pilots then they might hold but, honestly, if you're facing an Allied opponent with the discipline to do that then you're already facing someone in the top 5% of this forum and are probably already borked. People here aren't good at thinking strategically and delaying such operations for months at a time.

So, if your opponent is able to do that then you probably have lots of other bigger problems on the map by April 42 and you're probably going to lose relatively early.


Harlock:
What about the USN and USMC squadrons? Without trained pilots a la April those planes are just more targets. Sure you'll take losses but not nearly as many as one might think. In any case even losing 1,000 planes over Oahu in 6 months is worth it if it delays the primary American strategic thrust by 12 months to 18 months. It isn't about doing this at no cost, it is about achieving a delay at a cost worth paying.



Wirraway Ace,
No, Harlock chose that title... I'm happy to let it stand for its misdirective effect but it wasn't something I started, just something I'm happy to add to the mix until someone comes along and changes the title.

[bklooste]

ORIGINAL: Capt. Harlock

Yes you dont need to shut down Oahu airfields , that is far too expensive . Just sweep and bomb it to oblivion if he has lots of aircraft their( using Salies/Helens)

The point being that you can't sweep and bomb to oblivion if your own airfields have been devastated by hordes of 4E's. (Which can be transferred directly from the west coast without having to be uncrated and assembled.)

One other thought: it isn't just the USAAF fighters that need to be dealt with. What about USN and USMC Wildcat squadrons?

That would be the best thing ... Multiple overlapping bases , a 4E vs fighters and then counter attack and hit them on the ground with Sallies from 4 bases.. The alternative is 4E bombers in Ponape flattening Truk or Sumatra flatenning Singapore / Borneo oil - tough choice that is . You wont be able to shut them all down ( and keep them that way) till 43 at least and if you park too many 4E there Japan can shut you down for a few days and bomb them on the ground ( in which case the AA losses are worth it). I think it very unwise for an allied player to expose 4E bombers on the ground they are too expensive.

The more the US put there the better as an attritional battle is in Japans favour in early 42 as it gives the allies less air frames for training. In fact the worst thing is if their is just fighters as you need to go to PH. If you can get CAP battles over your own airfields you get most of the pilots back and Japan does not lack for air frames.

[traskott]

The good side of read your AAR is that give plenty of ideas (and plenty of info for possible new enemies xD ).

The downside is that, after this, I should garrison Hawai NOW to avoid thinks like I have read in the last 10 post (I'm a bit scared [X(][X(] )

[Xxzard]

In addition to what Traskott said on the topic, I don't think I can play another game without strongly considering the tactic of reinforcement at Palembang with evacuated troops. Quite simply, it is the best, (most easily done, most defensible, and effective utilization of resources that would most likely otherwise be wasted) tactic for the Malaya and Dutch troops in the area. It is also the tactic I would fear the most from a Japanese perspective. Now, the addition of the reinforcement troops is optional, as they could be sent elsewhere, (I sent them to defend Burma in my AI game) but with the strategy as you decided it, it has worked out well.

On this thread in general, I had not read any of it up to this time, but I've read the whole of it in the last two days, and I must say I'm rather impressed with the level of thought put into the game and the AAR by you, Nemo. Excellent and useful thoughts with results to back them up. I would certainly recommend this thread to someone trying to move beyond the basics of the game and understand the greater strategy aspects of the game.

I would certainly enjoy seeing you take the reins of the Japanese side for a grand campaign, to take on the many challenges of their side firsthand.

Anyway, impressive game, good thinking, great job!

[Nemo121]

Hi Traskott, Xxzard,

I'm glad you found the AAR illuminating. That is my hope in continuing it. Well, that and to spark some interesting discussions.


As re: reinforcing Sumatra etc... Well I did send other troops to Burma overland from India so I didn't have to commit the non-restricted Allied divisions there. A while back I sent the Imperial Guards Division reeling back into Thailand and now have about 2,000 AV guarding Rangoon and its approaches. I can only do this because we agreed to allow land movement from restricted commands. Well, I advised Mike not to choose that option as I said I would be able to make it work more in my favour than he imagined. I think he thought I was playing mindgames and he really wanted those several thousand AV of IJA troops in China.

So far it has worked out better for me than him.


As Japan: Well, I'm not one of those who thinks that one needs different skills etc for Japan vs the Allies. It all comes down to just analysing the situation objectively and doing the basics well. Once you do that both sides are sides you can do eminently well with.


If you like this I would suggest reading up an old WiTP game which shows how one can turn a pretty bad situation ( I took over in mid-42 after the Allied position was pretty poor ) into a series of counter-attacks which all functioned to move things further. It also has a counterpart AAR by my opponent and I think he has probably posted a lot of "lessons learned" in there which would probably be interesting to read also.

URLs are Allied WiTP AAR ( Nemo )
and
Japanese AAR ( Damian )

Some of the tactics there aren't useful in AE as they have been coded out ( and are a bit unrealistic ) but within the confines of WiTP I think it is an example of fairly good play. I've also definitely made more mistakes in this PBEM as it is my first AE game - early on I lost a few ships I didn't need to as I was getting used to the air routines etc...

Anyways, comments welcome.... The WITP game I've linked to has stopped now so feel free to make any comments etc you wish here. FOW isn't an issue. I also must remember to ask Damian to give me permission to read his side so that I can post some reflections on his side of the AAR> I;m sure it will be interesting [8D]

[traskott]

Thanks for the link !! I'm currently reading it and looks like very interesting.

Do you have an AAR with u playing as Japanese (playing with EA would be superb. Thanks!).

[wpurdom]

India: No, not at all. At this point in time I think an invasion of India with the aim of capturing all of it ( I don't think there's all that much point going for India unless you are going to make a good effort at taking all of it ) makes use of his main strengths ( a strong IJA), minimises the impact of his current weaknesses ( his loss of 40% of his battleline ), solves the Burmese problem in its entirety rather rapidly and creates a medium-term solution for the destruction of China. I think it can do this without risking additional loss in China and can use manoeuvrist approaches along a subsidiary axis to neutralise southern Sumatra all while using this offensive to create the defensive perimeter Japan needs for defence in 1943.

I's guessing this is a reply to my comment:

I have to feel that you must be engaging in a little psyops with your readers in bringing up an Indian invasion,

You then proceed to analyze how you might feasibly roll up India during 1942. But that was not my point:

Sure, you might be able to roll up India, but what happens in the meantime?

It seems to me that what you already have done in the Marshalls as well as what Q-Ball did in the DEI against Cuttlefish, suggests that even in the first stage of your plan (taking the DEI outside Sumatra and NW Austrailia, there's several things that could be done on the other side of the Pacific to either distract from a S. India invasion or prepare to do some serious damage while KB was supporting the India invasion if you refused to respond to the first stage distraction. Nothing in your sketch of first thoughts on an operational plan answers for me how you would prevent offsetting damage at the other end of the Pacific.

PS - Alfred's approach appeared more reasonable to me.

[traskott]

I think invasion of India has some disvantages:

a) Only two viable ways: Ceylan or via Chittagong/Diamond Harbour area.

b) It puts the KB at the "border" of the map: Plenty of room to the allied to take counter offensive maneouvers: Alelutianas, Marshalls, even Solomons or Shortlands in order to supress Rabaul or Truk (altought this last one is a very limited choice, from an strategic point of view).

c) A careful allied which don't put more than 17th and Burmese Division at Burma will have more than enough AV to repel the assault: There are LOTs of armoured units at India and they hurts to the japanese troops which have relative low AT capacity.

d) If trigger the addicional reinforcements, it can turn the tide around...they are SIX divisions...A evil minded player can use them to a maximum effect...

just my two cents

[Nemo121]

traskott,
I have several where I played as Japan but I'm not sure they'd be much use as, in my experience,

a) a lot of people get stuck in reading "Japanese AARs" to learn "Japanese tricks" and "Allied AARs" to learn "allied tricks". I strongly disagree with this approach as I believe that it leads to people focussing on learning side-specific "tricks" as opposed to just learning good strategic thinking.

b) I think a lot of the AARs where Japan is successful end up being AARs in which the success is due to an Allied Sir Robin or just put down to Japanese materiel superiority. I think that this limits the utility of such early-war Japanese AARs as most of the proper lessons aren't drawn from them.


Basically though strategy is strategy is strategy. I don't think Japan differs from the US except insofar as it has different national policy objectives and that necessitates different strategic goals. The process of strategic analysis ( which is the important thing you can learn from an AAR ) remains the same though IMO.


wpurdom,
Well, there are counters to everything. I was asked though what I'd do if I were to take over from 1EyedJacks today though. From 7th December I'd do things very differently but given his current dispositions I outlind a plan I thought would work. Any assessment needs to bear that context in mind.

I would suggest though that there is benefit to doing so much carnage to an opponent that that opponent is no longer psychically capable of mounting an offensive elsewhere even if physically capable of doing so. It would be a very rare player who would find India invaded and actually put a in a meaningful and successful attack in the Pacific... The key there is "successful" since a Pacific counter is such a blindingly obvious play that anyone playing me who tries it would find themselves sucked into multi-axially ambushes etc.

I would be quite happy to see an opponent decide that the lack of KB meant he could attack in the Pacific. I'd prepare for it and attrit it/allow it if allowing his assault to succeed furthered my strategic goal by drawing additional Allied forces into action in areas distant from PH. Such minor preparations of allowing an opponent's use of the initiative to impale themselves are simply things I assume to always occur though so I wasn't bothering to write them out. That may have made it unclear.

I think this current AAR is a pretty good example of allowing one's opponent the initiative but making that initiative almost meaningless in terms of actually determining the shape of the fight to come. I would be fairly confident that I could use any actions by the Allies in the Pacific to my advantage to lure the Allies into the force disposition I desired in order to boost the chances of success of the Hawaiian operations to follow.

As to Alfred's approach being more "reasonable". I doubt that Alfred's approach actually differs from mine all that much in-game. However, you are obviously welcome to your opinion if you see differences of a magnitude I have overlooked.


Traskott,
Disadvantages:

b - Well, that's only a disadvantage if you don't believe you can "use" Allied offensive actions and fit them to your purposes to further your strategic plans... I make great use of allowing an opponent the initiative but guiding him ( through various means ) to use that initiative to both:
1. Impale himself operationally on my defences and
2. Stringing together acceptances and declinations of combat where he uses his initiative in order to draw his forces out of position/attrit his forces such that his offensive actually helps "shape" the battlefield for my own strategic plans.

So, what does it matter if he attacks if he attacks where you want him to, loses more than you and ends up with forces out of position/unavailable for a much more strategically decisive battle a short time later? People are too focussed on holding ground, scaring off offensives etc etc.


c - If I were to go for India 2 or 8 divisions wouldn't make a huge difference I assure you. I wouldn't go for India unless I was sure I had enough for the job. One can certainly choose to disagree with that but that's my judgement and even though it may go against the conventional wisdom I'd argue that my judgement with respect to relative force correlations etc has been shown to be reasonably good. Again, you may, of course, disagree. As to armoured units.... I find that ground attacking air is a very good counter to armoured units. Certainly my armoured units in the Phillipines were reduced to half-strength by just 5 or 6 days

d - And a more evil-minded player will make sure not to trigger them until it is too late for them to be of any significant benefit.

Well, we won't know until someone tries it.

[Wirraway_Ace]

ORIGINAL: Nemo121


Basically though strategy is strategy is strategy. I don't think Japan differs from the US except insofar as it has different national policy objectives and that necessitates different strategic goals. The process of strategic analysis ( which is the important thing you can learn from an AAR ) remains the same though IMO.

While the process of strategic analysis is the same, the answers that come out of the process for Japan seem very limited.

I hope you do a Japanese sided AAR. It will be very interesting to see what you come up with. My own answers are not completely satisifying.

[traskott]

@Wirraway: I think Japan has more answers that the allies. Although he is more limited (ie:can not allow lost or not conquer DEI), the flexibility it's "player-chose" production has, give him, plus the inner lines and a proper use of KB, more satisfactory answers that you and I can find.

@Nemo121:
-(With all respect) I don't think you can guide the allied offensive to your own terms. [;)]. More probably, suffer the offensive, and react with some carefully planned measures which make the allied took a decision beneficial for you (ie:Stop when there was plenty of room to advance).

-India has a lot of room to the allied to defend, and supplies are a trouble. A decisive force means lots of supplies and India is very very far...

Sidequestion: For your AARs, looks like you "play" a lot with the mind, words, and so... How will u face a player that only say "here is the turn"? 



 




 

[bklooste]

@Wirraway: I think Japan has more answers that the allies. Although he is more limited (ie:can not allow lost or not conquer DEI), the flexibility it's "player-chose" production has, give him, ....

Few people note the changes this production can have on strategy in most AARs they burn through the HI ( which can be used in 43) and just start churning out Zeros and Tojos replacing all the Daitai who mostly sit around training why the allied player also sits back and trains. Particularly since the allied player is very limited in 42. Also a few players have tried to be very conservative on HI but they havent tied this into a plan.

Valid options are save HI , or start attritioning the allies but whatever you do it needs to be centre stage of your plan.

Ben











[/quote]

[traskott]

there are a lot of valid strategies. I think the key is mantain your initial idea clear in your mind, and stay focus (or so, sorry, my english is a bit poor)

[Nemo121]

Well then, why don't we look at scenario 2 and put together a strategic plan till the end of 1942 with emphasis on forces committed and why and the phasing of ops as well as, ideally, logistical underpinnings.

Can be as conservative or risky as we like but the key will be that it hangs together. Anything posted can be critiqued by anyone as the point will be to firm up the strategy and correct holes in the initial strategy.


Assumptions:
Allied and Japanese units can move across borders without paying PP ( goes for India and Manchukuo units ).
Nowhere is off limits except Capetown, Aden ( and the one beside Aden I can't remember ) and Port Stanley. I've always been of the view that Panama should be doable.
No other restrictions on either side.

[Alfred]

But Panama IS off limits, notwithstanding your own view. That is how the game engine is. Leaving Panama out of your call to arms is in keeping with the choices confronting you and your opponent at the start of this game.

Alfred

[Nemo121]

No, it is off-map, that's not the same as off-limits. In-game one can invade CONUSA but not Panama? There's no logical basis for that distinction. If one can invade CONUSA then Panama should be fair game as well. It is not more logistically impossible and in the real war the USA did garrison it and Japan did attack ( two conditions which also apply to CONUSA, OZ and Ceylon/India but which don't apply to Capetown, Port Stanley or Aden.

As such I don't think including Panama wi the Aden/Capetown bunch is warranted. It far more easily fits into the Oz, Ceylon, CONUSA bunch. As to the game engine not allowing it. As far as I am aware the shipping channels can be used by IJN TFs just as easily as Allied TFs so I don't see the game engine as making such movement impossible.

[Alfred]

No, you are mistaken here Nemo. According to the developers, off map locations are off limits to Japanese forces. Have a look at the Tech sub forum where one of the recent threads deals with a Japanese fragment appearing at Abadan and the inability of either side launching an attack.

Alfred

[Nemo121]

Ah, beaten by the conventionality of coders. Ah well, mox nix. [8D]

So, panama's off limits then, strange design choice.

[Alfred]

Just went back to double check. Don Bowen was most emphatic in a post of his dated 29 June 2010 that Japanese units are not permitted to move off map.

Our's is not to reason why
But to do and die

Alfred