Here come the Rebels! (Canoe v. Q-Ball)

[Bullwinkle58]

I just went and read a good portion of the two AARs (really more analyses of opening moves in two of three fronts in the East), and I'd say he's REALLY into WitE. If you're a ground combat guy there's just no comparison to AE. Moving from that level of detail to AE's ground model must be torture.

Maybe he'll "come back" to this one, but how much time does a guy with a job and kids have to game?

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

I honestly think Brad could have conquered India had he known how vulnerable it was. Of course, we were in uncharted waters, so neither of knew enough to really foresee what the possibilities and vulnerabilities truly were. But had Brad been just a bit more aggressive in closing on Karachi in May, June, or July 1942, I think I would have lost the battle and the war.

But your right, John. If Japan isn't going to conquer India, it had better not stick around too long. Brad did.

Yes, I am sure that some good Japanese players will eventually work out some decent AV plans-either in OZ or India. It can't be avoided as the knowledge base grows.

[Canoerebel]

Yes, I would be scared to death from this point forward to play Scenario Two against an experienced and aggressive Japanese player. Defending India or Australia against an all-out assault is going to be very difficult. The Allied player will almost certainly have to commit his carriers, which means a pretty substantial likelihood of a major carrier defeat. It's going to be tough going for the good guys.

[stuman]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel
I know! I need to beat up on Japan now that I finally have Brad in a tight spot, but I know his morale is pretty low at the moment.

Well, smooshing his LCUs in India will certainly negate his claim about inactivity!

You are in a position that makes me shudder as a JFB. You must CRUSH as many of those divisions as you possibly can. No retreat, no withdrawal, no evacuation of cadres to be reformed later in the war. Kill them. All of them.

Don't worry about Brad's response to stiff losses-that's beyond your control anyways. You've got to stay true to the game as it is now. That merits crushing your opponent, regardless of how he'll take it.

Just catching up on this AAR, and encountered this technical military word I have never seen before. I will go look it up.

[stuman]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: vettim89

ORIGINAL: stuman




Man, we are getting downright philosophical.

The important thing to agree on is that BBQ is far, far better in the South than anywhere else !

Well, BBQ is just food up North. Its a religion in the South

The Economist, of all magazines had a large article on it recently. They delicately sidestepped some of the provincial preferences espoused by the locals and objectively dealt with the subject at hand nicely.

I will ask this: can anyone beat North Carolina's hush puppies?

Well all I can say is that I have had a LOT of darn fine hush puppies all throughout the Delta ( the Delta that starts in the lobby of the Peabody Hotel and ends at the Gulf [:D] ). A lot of different styles, so I just don't know.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Yes, I would be scared to death from this point forward to play Scenario Two against an experienced and aggressive Japanese player. Defending India or Australia against an all-out assault is going to be very difficult. The Allied player will almost certainly have to commit his carriers, which means a pretty substantial likelihood of a major carrier defeat. It's going to be tough going for the good guys.

Alright, here's a philosophical question for 'ya, CR.

Would you find your defense against AV more possible (or probable) if you were guaranteed a foreknowledge of where your Scenario 2 IJ opponent would strike? A sort of pre-declaration by the IJ to help you hedge your bets?

You could argue that Allied codebreaking picked up on the pending storm months in advance and that your early moves were a (belated) response to that call to arms.

Just a thought...

[SuluSea]

Lots of troops getting routed, congrats on turning the tide CR.
 
Maybe it's just me but I'd rather have a Maryland crab cake than hush puppies, although I may not have tasted any very good ones yet.

[Canoerebel]

Oh yes, CB, that would be of immense help. Not only becuase it would help you prepare the target, but also because you could kind of ingore the non-target.

From a philosophic standpoint, would you take such a game as the IJ player, Chickenboy? How about the rest of you IJ players? (I'd be loathe to as an IJ player, but, boy, am I a chicken....)

Despite my misgiving about Scenario Two, though, I think I might be willing to take the Allies in a straight Scenario Two against a very good IJ player one more time, just to see if I could stave off auto-victory knowing what I know now. I'm not sure I could, but several days ago I found myself mulling over various defenses.

I think Q-Ball and many of you other regulars would have a better than 50/50 shot at auto victory - perhaps as high as 80/20 - if I were the Allied player. I think a more aggressive Allied player might stand a much better chance of avoiding AV. The one thing I would absolutely detest is the fact that the Allied player would almost certainly benefit from committing his carriers even if he lost the batlte in a big way (since even a lopsided victory is likely to be at less than the 4:1 ratio the Japanese player needs).

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Oh yes, CB, that would be of immense help. Not only becuase it would help you prepare the target, but also because you could kind of ingore the non-target.

From a philosophic standpoint, would you take such a game as the IJ player, Chickenboy? How about the rest of you IJ players? (I'd be loathe to as an IJ player, but, boy, am I a chicken....)

Despite my misgiving about Scenario Two, though, I think I might be willing to take the Allies in a straight Scenario Two against a very good IJ player one more time, just to see if I could stave off auto-victory knowing what I know now. I'm not sure I could, but several days ago I found myself mulling over various defenses.

I think Q-Ball and many of you other regulars would have a better than 50/50 shot at auto victory - perhaps as high as 80/20 - if I were the Allied player. I think a more aggressive Allied player might stand a much better chance of avoiding AV. The one thing I would absolutely detest is the fact that the Allied player would almost certainly benefit from committing his carriers even if he lost the batlte in a big way (since even a lopsided victory is likely to be at less than the 4:1 ratio the Japanese player needs).

Hi Dan,

While I'd be honored to be your opponent in a scratch game of Scenario 2 WiTP:AE (thank you for the philosophical suggestion), I must demur. Due to the exigencies of real life, and the fact that I'm embroiled in two other PBEMs now, I cannot commit now. I believe there are several 'regular' IJ players that are regular contributors here that would be better placed to assume these heady responsibilities. A certain half-frozen rubber-nosed swamp donkey springs to mind.

Consider this though...auto victory by a good IJ player in Scenario 2 isn't a given. Even without a slight delay in his approach and an uncharacteristic attention deficit disorder, it's still not a given that he would have 'auto-vicced' you in India.

Q-ball has postulated that auto-victory in Australia is a much more possible, maybe even probable outcome (compared to India). I agree. Such an all out effort is more likely to draw in American naval units in a defensive role, including carriers to prevent the fall of SE Australia.

So...you now have a pretty good defensive roadmap in your next Scenario 2 game. I say 80% chance the IJ directs full auto-vic efforts towards Australia, 20% IJ players still taking the (Indian) road less travelled.

As an aside, I am really looking forward to 1943-1944 as the IJ. I feel that Kamikazes have been underappreciated by the vast majority of IJ players out there and their capabilities only fleetingly addressed. The early IJ war is, oddly, less interesting for me than the defensive struggle of the later war. So I probably wouldn't take a game that I was pretty sure wouldn't be seen all the way through by both players or lose interest after auto-victory was off the table.

[Canoerebel]

Actually, I wasn't proposing a match as I can only handle one at a time. I was just wondering how you'd feel if you played IJ and had to announce your target ahead of time.

I agree that Oz is even more vulnerable than India in many ways. I've posted at length about this, though those posts are now lost amidst the morass devoted to Bullwinkle's women, barbecue, comic strips, and the Civil War. [:D]

With respect to India, if an IJ player were in the position that Q-Ball was in around May 1, I think a conquest of India would be a lock. But getting to that position wouldn't be guaranteed, especially if the Allied player put up a game fight.

[Canoerebel]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
I just went and read a good portion of the two AARs (really more analyses of opening moves in two of three fronts in the East), and I'd say he's REALLY into WitE. If you're a ground combat guy there's just no comparison to AE. Moving from that level of detail to AE's ground model must be torture.

Maybe he'll "come back" to this one, but how much time does a guy with a job and kids have to game?

You nailed it, Bullwinkle. It's pretty funny getting Brad's emails these days. Every third or fourth time he writes, "I admit WitE is taking up a little bit of my time..." Riiiiiiiight.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Actually, I wasn't proposing a match as I can only handle one at a time. I was just wondering how you'd feel if you played IJ and had to announce your target ahead of time.

Ah. So.

Well, if I was game for a 'let's test this out to see what can happen' sort of game, I might try it. For a 'we'll play 'till the bitter end' contest, that would be a significant 'give' to the opponent-such an early OPSEC loss.

However, in exchange for the balance of other goodies in scenario 2, it's an interesting discussion to have.

"If you are trying for an auto victory as IJ, I'll let you have the generous OOB in scenario 2, provided that you tell me which continent your major autovictory effort will be based on." The IJ player could either agree (and tell), not agree (and opt for scenario 1) or not agree and not try for auto-victory through 1942 land-rush tactics.

Since I'm (to misquote a certain ungulate poster) generally no hail Mary auto-viccer you could see where this would go...

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: paullus99

For Japan, her strategic objectives are really "all or nothing." Knowing that if you don't knock the allies out with AutoVictory, you're faced with a very long war indeed - which will require defense in-depth, mutually supporting airbases & an intact KB.

So, you'd be faced with potentially going full-bore into Hawaii, Australia or India - and putting valuable assets at risk (pilots, troops & the KB) and either winning the game outright (at which point your losses were worth it) or not winning, loosing valuable assets, and putting your defenses at risk.

That's a delicate balancing act.

Yes, but I really want to see the long campaign and play it out. It would be hollow for me to play as the Allies and have the game end in 1943 due to auto victory. I understand that as the game is, it is probably the only way to an actual "win" for the Japanese player but though does not appeal to me. The pursuit of AV can lead to some intense play but really skews the game. I think real solution is to find a way for the Japanese player to win by playing a good long campaign.

I don't think I need worry about AV in a normal game but if I agree to a scen #2

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Actually, I wasn't proposing a match as I can only handle one at a time. I was just wondering how you'd feel if you played IJ and had to announce your target ahead of time.

I agree that Oz is even more vulnerable than India in many ways. I've posted at length about this, though those posts are now lost amidst the morass devoted to Bullwinkle's women, barbecue, comic strips, and the Civil War. [:D]

With respect to India, if an IJ player were in the position that Q-Ball was in around May 1, I think a conquest of India would be a lock. But getting to that position wouldn't be guaranteed, especially if the Allied player put up a game fight.

The women are a long time ago. Only one now. But BBQ lives forever!!

I'm not sure about Oz. I've read the various analyses on it (don't recall which were in whcih AAR, but it doesn't matter much longer, probably), and I think Oz has its own set of pros and cons. One big pro is the two-axis approach offered by CT--Perth, as well as a more classic Allied response path acrosss the Pac. The transport networks are pretty different, and the auto-reinforcement/LOD mechanics/locations as well.

The biggest thing to wrap one's head around--and I confess I have to constantly stop and re-think which shoes I'm in when discussing this--is the utility of an Allied naval response. The Japanese clearly DON'T want one, for 1:4 VP reasons, and the Allies clearly SHOULD want one for the same reason. Except the Allies ALSO want to win it, so they have toys for 43-46. Threading that needle, in either Oz or India, is the key if the Japanese player really goes for it, which Q-Ball did not.

A question for the gallery though--if Ceylon is powerfuly attacked, is that enough for the Allied player to assume Oz is off the table? Which target(s) in Oz should convince an Allied defender that India is off the table? Can the Japanese in Scenario 2 take eastern India/Calcutta and have enough to also take Oz?

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

I believe there are several 'regular' IJ players that are regular contributors here that would be better placed to assume these heady responsibilities. A certain half-frozen rubber-nosed swamp donkey springs to mind.

Humph!! ASSUMING you mean moi with this moniker (and I'll have you know that my furnace works well, thankyouverymuch) I have to point out that I've never played the Japanese side. I plan to in my next AI game, but right now I'd be a babe in the woods.

I will say that if I did understand the Japanese, CR would get a strange game from me. I'm pretty random, and he isn't. I also am such a bad player that feints wouldn't work on me; I'd never notice the attempt. [:)]

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Yes, but I really want to see the long campaign and play it out. It would be hollow for me to play as the Allies and have the game end in 1943 due to auto victory. I understand that as the game is, it is probably the only way to an actual "win" for the Japanese player but though does not appeal to me. The pursuit of AV can lead to some intense play but really skews the game. I think real solution is to find a way for the Japanese player to win by playing a good long campaign.

I think the key as the game ages and the forum gets smarter about possibilities is to really refine the pre-game dance. It's necessary to find a Japanese opponent who may try AV, but if he fails will not bail. Hard, but do-able I think. It just hasn't been a necessary thing until recently.

[ny59giants]

Since I'm in July '42 as Japan using scenario two and I have followed this PBEM game and both AARs, I have also had my thoughts about going for Australia vs India. With the shipping channel being so close to Karachi, you have trouble stopping the flow of troops to India. To do so means being more aggressive in your landings(between Bombay and Karachi) to try to isolate it and stem the flow of units. Brad did a good job, but wasn't quite aggressive enough to get the job done. His lesson will be passed on to someone else who may try to achieve it in another game.

I have thought about Australia as an alternative as it would be easier to isolate from receiving reinforcements. However, once the extra reinforcements are triggered and brought to India, how many units would be needed in Burma to keep those troops from surging through the jungle to get back to Rangoon by the end of '42?? I think you would have to seriously consider a quick invasion on both flanks of Sydney to isolate it and keep troops in. No landing at Cairns and a steady push down the coast along with a landing at Geraldton on the west coast will get it done. Dan has already that done to help by John and it didn't work.

[AcePylut]

Read my AAR Spilling Blood, and Panzer was in position by March 15th to sweep down the coast.  He said he didn't have the troops to do it though.  Draw a line from Brisbane, to alice Springs, to Perth... that's what I held.  I didn't have a lot of available AV, or wouldn't have if the sea line from CT-Perth was interdicted.

[Canoerebel]

Bullwinkle58
A question for the gallery though--if Ceylon is powerfuly attacked, is that enough for the Allied player to assume Oz is off the table? Which target(s) in Oz should convince an Allied defender that India is off the table? Can the Japanese in Scenario 2 take eastern India/Calcutta and have enough to also take Oz?

In this game with Q-Ball, the key wasn't the targets, it was the commitment of Japanese infantry divisions. Brad set up an elaborate deception that he was targeting Australia, but since I never saw any infantry divisions come ashore, I was very skeptical and began to suspect India was his target by early January 1942. So, to me, the key to identifying the true targets is to follow the infantry divisions.

AcePylut
Read my AAR Spilling Blood, and Panzer was in position by March 15th to sweep down the coast. He said he didn't have the troops to do it though. Draw a line from Brisbane, to alice Springs, to Perth... that's what I held. I didn't have a lot of available AV, or wouldn't have if the sea line from CT-Perth was interdicted.

Q-Ball committed somewhere between 15 and 17 IJA divisions to India, plus dozens of smaller units and support units. Turn such a force lose in Oz in early 1942, with the KB and combat TFs imposing a blockade, and I think Oz is toast. Now, it's true that India will be a problem as you move into mid '42. Maybe even earlier. The British will be a threat to invade in SEAC - Indonesia, Burma, and Sumatra will be likely targets - and Japan wouldn't be able to employ the KB until the land campaign was "a sure thing." (At some point, the massive Japanese army would be strong enough to fight without the support of the KB, and at that point the tether on the KB would be released).

But if an IJ player could conquer Australia by mid 1942 in exchange for some problems in Burma or Sumatra, I think he's in good shape.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

But if an IJ player could conquer Australia by mid 1942 in exchange for some problems in Burma or Sumatra, I think he's in good shape.

Can he do it by then, however? It seems to me he has to secure Java, Sumatra's oil, and at least the western DEI to secure his backdoor before going long into Oz. I haven't really studied it either, but it seems to me India is a 2-sided problem for the Japanese (west and south) while Oz is a 360 degree problem, with large sea distances involved on the southern coast. With two main avenues of approach for the Allies, I'd think Oz would be far easier to sneak reinforcements into than India.

There are lots of differences once the Japanese are ashore in force, from different levels of self-funding supply generation in Oz and India, internal road networks, weather (monsoons), the role of NZ or Tasmania as a stage for re-taking, much different yard capacities and balance (India favors the Japanese, especially after Ceylon falls), etc.

I'm still in Show Me mode on Oz being easier. I don't see a strategic hinge in Oz with the same oomph that Karachi has in India.