Allied Losses

[rev rico]

ORIGINAL: zace

ORIGINAL: rev rico

ORIGINAL: zace

What is the vp situation?

40,159 to 19,360

How is this not higher???

Can you break it down by air/base/land/sea points?

from Intell screen

AIR
Allied 5570
Jap 6457

BASE
Allied 6012
Jap 7314

LAND
Allied 16040
Jap 1738

SEA
Allied 10079
Jap 5510

Again FOW is in effect.

[rev rico]

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Looks like an uneven match. No experienced Allied player would play this aggressive.

He's played a little longer than me.
Why wouldn't he be aggressive since the Allies have so much replacements that losses almost don't matter?
It's Jan '43 and I "feel" like I'm on the defensive. I get pounded by 4E bombers and P38s everywhere I go.

Maybe if ships cost more VPs for the Allies....

[obvert]

Even though this game's losses are staggering, and almost unbelievable, the Allies lost a fair number of ships. (About half of these totals for major warships at least. See an approximate list below) It was the steady accumulation of strategic and material victories that kept up public opinion. Everyone knows the name of a tiny atoll at the bum end of the Hawaiian Island chain for a reason. People who couldn't find Berlin on a map know the name and general whereabouts of a little damp bump in S Pacific called Guadalcanal.

These advances and victories were were brought home quickly and played for effect toward the American populace. As they should have been, because the war was necessary and meaningful, and in the long run may have saved lives considering Japanese actions against civilian populations.

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

Good site for naval battle info

http://combinedfleet.com/battles/


Allied ships in Pacific lost in 1942 (roughly)

TOTALS

4 CV
1 CVL
6 BB
1 BC
9 CA
1 CLAA
3 CL
17 DD

Pearl

5 BB
3 DD

Force Z

1 BB
1 BC

Java Sea

2 CA
3 CL
3 DD

Indian Ocean

1 CVL
2 CA
2 DD

Coral Sea

1 CV
1 DD

Midway

1 CV
1 DD

Solomons

1 CV
5 CA
1 CLAA
9 DD

Random events

1 CV
5 DD

3 AO
10 AP

[LoBaron]

ORIGINAL: rev rico

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Looks like an uneven match. No experienced Allied player would play this aggressive.

He's played a little longer than me.
Why wouldn't he be aggressive since the Allies have so much replacements that losses almost don't matter?
It's Jan '43 and I "feel" like I'm on the defensive. I get pounded by 4E bombers and P38s everywhere I go.

Maybe if ships cost more VPs for the Allies....

With this kill/loss ratios you should have an absolute superiority in capital ships well into ´45.
He will not be able to protect a single landing against night engagements which practically guts
his ability to wage offensive warfare.

Consolidate your gains, this could be the first game for win in points without autovictory.
He can own the air as he likes but the war is won with ground troops, and it looks he will
massively handicapped to move them over sea or support those present.

[LoBaron]

Ok, make that ´44 maybe. [;)]

But still, the success in progress of an Allied player is to a large part based on the preparations
he is able to finish in the early year(s).
With such a superiority you can reduce every supply/reinforce/buildup operation in the next
couple of months in the pacafic, and at least threaten any operation originating from CW/India.

And this will limit his options for waging offensive war when he is finally back to
strenght while you can concentrate your defenses on the reduced ammount of potential attack routes
he is still able to take.

[obvert]

With this kill/loss ratios you should have an absolute superiority in capital ships well into ´45.
He will not be able to protect a single landing against night engagements which practically guts
his ability to wage offensive warfare.

Consolidate your gains, this could be the first game for win in points without autovictory.
He can own the air as he likes but the war is won with ground troops, and it looks he will
massively handicapped to move them over sea or support those present.

LoBaron

Are there any good examples you veterans know of for Auto Victory at the end of 43 with a 3 to 1 in VPs for the Japanese?

This seems in line for that goal if the Japanese now push forward (wherever they please with that dominance on the seas).

How about sitting a few CV or Surface TFs with CS scouts in front of the off map bases and just wait for the juicy convoys to appear?

[LoBaron]

Not many in AE, if any.
 
I would not rely on off map entry camping. It works sometimes, but you expose your fleets far
away from safe harbors, and guzzle up loads of fuel. Both is not something a Japanese player should do out
of a habit.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: JeffK

I support Brian 800000000000's ideas, I assumed at least that the American peoples were a bit tougher than implied by many.

Just as well its the Brits and the Commonwealth that had to put up with Norway, France, Dunkirk, Greece, Crete & various Nth African Ventures before 7/12/41 then the defeats in Malaya, Singapore & Burma.

I find it hard to believe the stories of Americans being war weary by the time of Iwo Jima, and you guys imply it started at Tarawa!!

The American public was no more immune to bad news than other nations. Otherwise there would have been no suppression of real life disasters that occured. Such massive losses in the game are beyond the pale to what was lost in war so to say that the US public (were they told the complete truth) would just shrug it off and say "remember Pearl Harbor" don't strike me as realistic any more than to say, if the war continued into 1947 that the attitudes would be exactly the same.

As for actual war weariness...... That started to occur around the time of Olympic as documented in Frank's book on the potential invasion of Japan. The nation was anxious to be done with the affair and the US military was worried about the potential negative effect that massive casualties from invading the mainland of an enemy that stubbornly refuses to give in might cause. A major bloodletting here could have it was speculated strenthened a movement to end the war on less than absolute terms. Obviously when the nuclear option became viable.....it was taken with few reservations when faced with the casualty projections.

[crsutton]

Any thougth that the Allies would submit to Japanese dominance of Asia is just foolish nonsense. There is no way in hell that these two opposing cultures could co-exsist in the Pacific. Nothing short of total defeat such as that inflicted on Japan in 1945 would have resolved the vast differences between these incompatible cultures- and there is no way that Japan could inflict total defeat on the US-or for that matter seriously impact the US's vastly superior industrial base.

OK, so lets assume that the worst happened and the US suffered a series of massive defeats in the Pacific in 1942. Lets say, so bad that the US actually had to negotiate a cease fire. How long do you think that cease fire would have lasted n light of the racial hatred and fear these reverses would have generated? Do you think that with the Japanese political system in place that relied on subjugation and terror that we would just "make nice" with them and start buying Toyotas? Do you actually think America would just bury it's head and accept the status quo? I just can't see this happening in any sort of scenario.

Come on, get real here. Can anyone say "Mr A bomb"?

[Nikademus]

I think all can agree that had WWII not ended the way it did.....WWIII probably would have followed, just as II followed I.

There are some historians that opinion that the Absolute Surrender policy was misquided and cost lives on both sides but I've always been of the personal view that without that total defeat, we would only have been postponing things for a rematch. The post-war rebuilding era was crucial to the way the world is today. Bitter enemies became staunch allies and new challenges were faced....sometimes met....sometimes not met so well. But at least we havn't blown up the planet yet. [:)]

[Canoerebel]

How is it remotely possible that Japan could win the war even if it got stupendously lucky and sank all the American carriers and battleships and a host of transports? The staggering losses following closely upon Pearl Harbor would have just further steeled the resolve of the American public, military, and politicians.

Meanwhile, Japan has 10 battleships, 18 cruisers, six carriers, and a complete inability to land an invasion force on any distant beach that has the slightest level of defense. So, even with a temporarily neutered United States, Japan isn't going anywhere.

And by 1943 the "fully aroused democracy" has flexed its muscles even more than it did in the real war, so Japan gets clobbered anyway.

[Nikademus]

even the US can't build an infinite number of major warships within a set timeframe. I'm still wondering what the OT's opponent was doing to lose so many major warships. Its enough to gut several navies put together.

[obvert]

I would not rely on off map entry camping. It works sometimes, but you expose your fleets far
away from safe harbors, and guzzle up loads of fuel. Both is not something a Japanese player should do out
of a habit.

With this kind of naval disparity, does the IJN have to worry about fuel? (I haven't played much on the dark side, so I may be off base).

The best way to kill troops is when they're on ships, right?

If CVs/CVLs (and long-legged air ) were in Perth, Diego Garcia, Socotra, and S Pacific, (about half of total, while others, 2 CV and 2 CVL perhaps, stayed in KB and pursued offensive operations), and small CL/DD and CS/DD TFs combined with air were searching the waters, wouldn't you hamstring the only strength left to the Allies (amount of supply, troops, air, etc)? At least for 6 months until the Essex CVs arrived?

[LoBaron]

I assumed that your question was if this is a viable strategy in general.

In the specific situation of the OPs PBEM it is clearly an option, but with this supremacy
there are better strategies available. LBA does not protect you at night, mines only protect
you against bombardement TFs in combination with surface assets to kill minesweepers, the list goes
on and on.
In a three dimensional battlefield this Allied player is robbed of a whole dimension and this cannot
be replaced by other assets.

The Japanese side can play aggressive without covering the map edges. There are abvious spots where his opponents
fleets need to move to if he wants them to make an impact (either with military vessels or with transports carrying troops).
In that situation these bases are the main targets and the ships with these bases as destination.

As Nik is, I am at loss how such a desaster could happen. Its about the weirdest situation in a PBEM I have seen up to
now.

[crsutton]

Yes, I agree. I think one of the most amazing non events of this past century is that WWIII did not take place between the West and the Soviet Bloc. But without total victory over the Axis, or God forbid, the reverse, I can's see how the conflict could have ended with any long standing peace.

[JeffroK]

Changed surrender criteria?

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/PTO/Objective.html

[mike scholl 1]

ORIGINAL: JeffK

I support Brian 800000000000's ideas, I assumed at least that the American peoples were a bit tougher than implied by many.

But JFB's want Japanese stereotypes of Westerners to be right, no matter how nonsensical and prejudiced they might be.

[Stuffedlogon]

[/quote]

Looks like an uneven match. No experienced Allied player would play this aggressive.
[/quote]


Well........I consider myself to be experienced but in current PBEM I decided to try and see if I could speed up the war by landing in the DEI.....I have now experienced similar losses to the original poster of this thread. If nothing it has made for a fun game for my opponent who shall remain nameless less his head gets to big.

Raverdave elects to withhold his name.

[The Gnome]

This smells suspiciously like another post about lopsided allied losses....

[bradfordkay]

meh...   There's people out there who don't care about digital losses. They're happy playing an aggressive game, and I'm sure that their opponents are happy as well...