Islands of Destiny: RA 5.0 Japanese Side

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: Crackaces

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Oh gee...lookee lookee...[8|]

If you get closer to the Allies, you stand a good chance of having a number of your strikes diverted by Allied shipping before you can get at his carriers.  You know, a cynic would say this was an ideal opportunity for the Allies to attack land targets (which your opponent rarely does) with their fleet carriers as a pretext whilest getting 'behind' an arc of sortie soaking shipping.  Someone who was skeptical would say that this arc of shipping was intentional contrived to shield the carriers which just so happened to be behind it for the last three turns.

I assume that he won't have any compunction about moving the Allied carriers into battle after diluting your striking power accordingly? [8|]

There is one response to this strategy .. small DD forces or sacrifice AMC's that sweep forward and engage these cargo ships during the night with the CV's bearing in close behind. It is quite possible that the CV's absorb zero operations costs while the aux attack forces finish off the screen .. Also simply picking off the pickets might be a sport in itself [8D] Also, I thought Michael adjusted the propensity for air strikes to prefer CV's/BB's vs cargo ships ??

Oh, I understand the response you state, Crackaces. Those large clusters of perfectly positioned cargo ships could be dealt with by surface interdiction. In the meantime, some CV sorties get misdirected, scant torpedoes used up and so on. This continues for more than two combat phases and it's a decided advantage given up.

Are you thinking/implying that the convoys seen are there as soakers rather than actually carrying supply and/or troops to Sabang (or wherever)?

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Are you thinking/implying that the convoys seen are there as soakers rather than actually carrying supply and/or troops to Sabang (or wherever)?

The placement, numbers and presence in a screen before the carriers made this possibility cross my mind, yes. I believe he may offer plausible deniability, but I've my opinion.

[John 3rd]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Are you thinking/implying that the convoys seen are there as soakers rather than actually carrying supply and/or troops to Sabang (or wherever)?

The placement, numbers and presence in a screen before the carriers made this possibility cross my mind, yes. I believe he may offer plausible deniability, but I've my opinion.

...and I totally agree with it.

I am certain this is all here to draw away my sorties. How many DOZEN ships have I sunk that are sent closer to my airbases or on the flanks to draw off my ships or planes from the real targets?!! We'll see what happens this coming turn. Was shocked when I just got home to NOT FIND a turn waiting for me. If the ships shown here scatter and flee AWAY from my CVs then we know they were on legitimate business. If single, ones--twos--threes remain then that will say everything and I shall be PISSED. (personal comment that I hope I'm wrong about this)

If he is going for Port Blair then he will run into the heart of Japanese Air Power. I'll have 200 Betty/Nell in position tomorrow for the day after.

To be honest, the last thing I want is a CV Battle right now:
1. I've got Judy and Jill in full production right now and want to begin upgrading my Daitai.
2. There are 3 CVL within a days of being completed in Tokyo.
3. Need to fill out some of my Daitai.

All this being said, if he moves close enough I will fight. Have to. Pretty much that simple.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
If the ships shown here scatter and flee AWAY from my CVs then we know they were on legitimate business. If single, ones--twos--threes remain then that will say everything and I shall be PISSED. (personal comment that I hope I'm wrong about this)

Yes, I agree. That will be a useful test. Will they scatter? Will they scatter AWAY from your carriers or stay (scattered) in place? Someone that uses this may also argue for the benefits of scattering them in place and therefore-towards-your CVs.

[Miller]

I hope you have your CV a/c flying all at the same alt? Never piss about with altitude settings, I go with 10k feet for everything and it has served me well in the past. You want maximum Co-ordination to get as many planes through his CAP as possible.

[John 3rd]

Ditto to what Chickenman said.

After the discussion we had about this some months ago I have set all my Vals and Kates to 10,000Ft.

No turn for quite a while today. Shocked there wasn't one waiting when I got home from work yesterday. Work this morning and am then taking 50% of my staff over to Fort Collins for afternoon training. Will get to the turn after that.

[Crackaces]

ORIGINAL: Miller

I hope you have your CV a/c flying all at the same alt? Never piss about with altitude settings, I go with 10k feet for everything and it has served me well in the past. You want maximum Co-ordination to get as many planes through his CAP as possible.

Certainly 10,000 is within the bounds of TB/DB's climbing up for the DB attacks ... but what recent behavior leads you to such a strong statement of not stratifying CAP? Especially some CAP at 20,000 feet? Is this a particular odd behavior you have seen with an opponent or a series of observations? Certainly I have observed high level CAP miss low level targets; however, one tactic is to set some escorts at a high altitude and the CAP jockeys climbing up to meet the fighter escorts do not do as well --if not also miss the strike. The game is no simulation and thus I am interested if in fact just setting fighter CAP to 10K is really the ticket.

[Crackaces]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: Crackaces

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Oh gee...lookee lookee...[8|]

If you get closer to the Allies, you stand a good chance of having a number of your strikes diverted by Allied shipping before you can get at his carriers.  You know, a cynic would say this was an ideal opportunity for the Allies to attack land targets (which your opponent rarely does) with their fleet carriers as a pretext whilest getting 'behind' an arc of sortie soaking shipping.  Someone who was skeptical would say that this arc of shipping was intentional contrived to shield the carriers which just so happened to be behind it for the last three turns.

I assume that he won't have any compunction about moving the Allied carriers into battle after diluting your striking power accordingly? [8|]

There is one response to this strategy .. small DD forces or sacrifice AMC's that sweep forward and engage these cargo ships during the night with the CV's bearing in close behind. It is quite possible that the CV's absorb zero operations costs while the aux attack forces finish off the screen .. Also simply picking off the pickets might be a sport in itself [8D] Also, I thought Michael adjusted the propensity for air strikes to prefer CV's/BB's vs cargo ships ??

Oh, I understand the response you state, Crackaces. Those large clusters of perfectly positioned cargo ships could be dealt with by surface interdiction. In the meantime, some CV sorties get misdirected, scant torpedoes used up and so on. This continues for more than two combat phases and it's a decided advantage given up.

I think the real problem comes when we start thinking this game is a simulation of WWII rather than a complex chess game. For example, there is no historical reason for the IJ to have a one hex advantage in CV naval strike range. In fact, the allies struck at 8 hexes in the Battle of the Marians. But the developers decided to make the game more interesting by providing an advantage to the IJ. Just to add to the pile ... In real life US dive bombers at Midway followed DD screening forces to find the carriers. In the game, most likely a strike package of some strength would dump hell on earth of the DD's rather than locate and focus all firepower on the CV's. All this detail is abstracted in a die roll I guess ... and strike packages spent on "screening forces" is also a die roll in this game ... This argument goes on religiously in this forum depending upon where on the spectrum a particular person falls -- from this is the greatest WWII WitP simulation .. home rules can make this the greatest WWII WitP simulation .. all the way to my religious believe that no amount of home rules is going to make this anywhere close to a simulation. The really religious types that have attacked me personally I have blocked [;)]

I guess it is also important to find an opponent that is somewhat close to ones belief system on this spectrum.

[John 3rd]

I don't agree with some of your thoughts Crackaces:

1. The Japanese did have a range advantage and used it several times. It was the entire objective at the Marianas.
2. I rarely have seen any strike package (Allied or Japanese) NOT go for the closest target.
3. The additional problem here is the whole sortie and TT load topic. Had a full Daitai of Kates spotted a lone AK acting as a decoy while their MISSION was to attack the enemy's CVs, would they expend EVERY TT on that lonesome, useless target? NO!

This is why the possible tactic is so effective for an Allied OR Japanese player to use.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

I don't agree with some of your thoughts Crackaces:

1. The Japanese did have a range advantage and used it several times. It was the entire objective at the Marianas.
2. I rarely have seen any strike package (Allied or Japanese) NOT go for the closest target.
3. The additional problem here is the whole sortie and TT load topic. Had a full Daitai of Kates spotted a lone AK acting as a decoy while their MISSION was to attack the enemy's CVs, would they expend EVERY TT on that lonesome, useless target? NO!

This is why the possible tactic is so effective for an Allied OR Japanese player to use.

The 1-ship TF issue has come up in our game. My side of it is in my AAR; I don't know if Mike discussed it in his. CR also weighed in briefly on the topic after I termed using picket ships "crap." I think he took umbrage.

There are various arguments for and against using merchants as pickets. I find the historic argument about merchant crews being civilians true but unpersuasive in a no-HR game such as mine. But I still don't use them. I do use 1-ship TFs, which is a different issue than picket ships meant to draw off sorties. While it is true that the phase structure of the game prevents interim command involvement to change orders in mid-turn as search intel is received, it is also true that the other side of the issue is hamstrung by the attacking player not being able to order no attacks on picket ship merchants. The attacker can't order his pilots to attack nothing but carriers for example.

FWIW this is part of the e-mail I sent to Mike giving my own "rules" for when I use 1-ship TFs.

"My view is I use 1-ship TFs when it's tactically needed. This is a list, maybe not exhaustive, but most of the times I would do this.

1. When the supply need at the other end doesn't justify more ships. I accept the risk of sub attack, which in the code is significantly higher with a one merchant TF than a one merchant and any escort. In some cases I might do this in a forward area, especially early war, to save fuel. Same comments about risks.

2. When I have a larger TF and I need to unload at the fastest possible rate in a smaller port. I will break away one ship, put it at the pier to unload, and leave the rest out in the harbor unloading as best they can away from the pier. In some cases the pier space might be big enough for two or three 1-ship TFs to unload. I do that so the smallest can finish and be ready to undock at the start of the next turn, rather than leave two, or three, ships with a little left on-board each. Also, I may put a 1-ship TF at the pier because it's damaged or burning and I want to get the max off before it sinks.

3) When fleeing the first week areas such as the PI. It was every man for himself and no escorts available.

4) Any combatant can go in 1-ship TFs with no restrictions.

5) When transiting new ships, empty, to a new homeport.

In this game I have done all five of these things. I have not used 1-ship TFs as ammo sponges or the well-known "picket ship." In one case I used 1-ship TFs (three I think) as a screen for incoming combat ships, BUT each was going to a port where they would pick up something valuable (a 2-day load period) and go back to someplace which needed the valuable thing. Their route helped complicate the targeting picture, yes, but that wasn't why I did it. As it turned out it didn't matter."

[Crackaces]

1. The Japanese did have a range advantage and used it several times. It was the entire objective at the Marianas.
2. I rarely have seen any strike package (Allied or Japanese) NOT go for the closest target.
3. The additional problem here is the whole sortie and TT load topic. Had a full Daitai of Kates spotted a lone AK acting as a decoy while their MISSION was to attack the enemy's CVs, would they expend EVERY TT on that lonesome, useless target? NO!

The initial distance for the afternoon strike was 335~ miles or 7.2 hexes .. in the 1.5 hour flight the fleeing IJ CV made this distance apprx 350~ miles or 7.6 hexes. The late return makes planes fall into the ocean as they cannot find their home CV's.. so then should morning allied raids be 8 hexes and afternoon 7 .. etc etc etc .. What happens when the Allies get aircraft that can fly 10 hexes?

I cannot comment on 2 or 3 ...

No need to answer my rhetorical question ... I will go back into lurk mode ...

[JohnDillworth]

not so sure if any , all or some of these are picket ships. Considering , the location and situation (the whole entire war is concentrated here) I think you might have a big combination of; supply task forces, single ship supply runs in the hope som get through, lurking valuable convoys waiting for a break in the KB's vigilance, combat patrols, recon patrols damages ships coming and going, and perhaps some picket ships. The large majority of both sides combat ships are in the area plus a good collection of extras and auxiliaries of all types. The only thing I am surprised at is that the opponents have not blundered into a massive surface encounter. Larger point is with all the stuff afloat sooner or later a whole strike package is going to find something like the USS Neosho to expend all it's ordinance on.

[Chickenboy]

John's opponent has a well-elucidated perspective on the use of picket ships. It's quite reasonable. He uses them (or professes to use them) sparingly, as he believes that large scale use of them as a technique for soaking off sorties (or ammo from an SCTF) is not to his taste. Whether he uses only 'military' vessels versus xAKLs or xAKs is also a matter of his personal taste and is also a shade of gray.

I suspect that John is familiar with this predisposition of Dan's to use this in game technique and they've discussed it before. So the 'religious', 'simulation versus chess game' arguments (yawn!) need not come into this discussion-John and Dan are pretty much 'on the same page' about the way they see the game with a few shades of gray, Crackaces.

If Dan were intentionally interdigitating large TFs or clusters of TFs between carriers before a fight, this would be contrary to his espoused position on the matter. Throwing up xAK or xAKL singletons in a chain from point X to point Y would be in keeping with his avowed opinion, use and historical deployment. Or at least this was the case in several previous CR games.

Hence my request to John III to please provide the entire text of the next few turns. So we can see detail about the size of merchant TFs attacked, by what expending what sort of ammunition. It'd be interesting to see if these TFs are acting as something more than a tripwire and instead acting as a de facto sortie / ammunition sponge.

[Miller]

ORIGINAL: Crackaces

ORIGINAL: Miller

I hope you have your CV a/c flying all at the same alt? Never piss about with altitude settings, I go with 10k feet for everything and it has served me well in the past. You want maximum Co-ordination to get as many planes through his CAP as possible.

Certainly 10,000 is within the bounds of TB/DB's climbing up for the DB attacks ... but what recent behavior leads you to such a strong statement of not stratifying CAP? Especially some CAP at 20,000 feet? Is this a particular odd behavior you have seen with an opponent or a series of observations? Certainly I have observed high level CAP miss low level targets; however, one tactic is to set some escorts at a high altitude and the CAP jockeys climbing up to meet the fighter escorts do not do as well --if not also miss the strike. The game is no simulation and thus I am interested if in fact just setting fighter CAP to 10K is really the ticket.

I think 10k is the "Ticket". If your opponent sets his DB to 15k, his escorts to 20k and his TB to 5k then just watch them all go in in dribs and drabs and get murdered. A fighter can climb or dive 10k feet in a matter of minutes. Even if the escorts have the initial height advantage they will die in droves due to the game design of escorts being little more than bullet magnets to get the bombers through.

[John 3rd]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

John's opponent has a well-elucidated perspective on the use of picket ships. It's quite reasonable. He uses them (or professes to use them) sparingly, as he believes that large scale use of them as a technique for soaking off sorties (or ammo from an SCTF) is not to his taste. Whether he uses only 'military' vessels versus xAKLs or xAKs is also a matter of his personal taste and is also a shade of gray.

I suspect that John is familiar with this predisposition of Dan's to use this in game technique and they've discussed it before. So the 'religious', 'simulation versus chess game' arguments (yawn!) need not come into this discussion-John and Dan are pretty much 'on the same page' about the way they see the game with a few shades of gray, Crackaces.

If Dan were intentionally interdigitating large TFs or clusters of TFs between carriers before a fight, this would be contrary to his espoused position on the matter. Throwing up xAK or xAKL singletons in a chain from point X to point Y would be in keeping with his avowed opinion, use and historical deployment. Or at least this was the case in several previous CR games.

Hence my request to John III to please provide the entire text of the next few turns. So we can see detail about the size of merchant TFs attacked, by what expending what sort of ammunition. It'd be interesting to see if these TFs are acting as something more than a tripwire and instead acting as a de facto sortie / ammunition sponge.

I've NEVER copied entire Combat Reports for an AAR. Consider it against my AAR Religion but will break that for you Sir.

Dan's style of play has changed SOOOOOOO much that I have been quite impressed at the degree of the change. The ONLY thing I can trust is that he will come with the full kitchen sink. In this case EVERY ALLIED CV ON THE MAP! Truly gamey but that is his style. The use of these 'pickets' is new compared to his old game vs me.

[Miller]

How is using all his available CVs gamey?

[John 3rd]

This is a personal thing with me but combining the Brits and the Americans drives me NUTS. Yes: It was done once during 1942-1943 but it was not successful. The way I try to see it in 1942 is like what was done in 1945 where the Brits were in their own Task Group doing their own thing.

The game is all about mass. During the war the Japanese worked by CV Division and the Americans went by single CV TF working together. There was the constant struggle between the advantages of concentration and the dangers of it. You don't see that in AE, for the most part, you see the vast majority of Allied players immediately mass ALL their CVs together into a 1942 version of 1944 was IRL. This topic has been discussed, argued upon, and debate since WitP days and there is no real solution/answer. My .02...

Dan spent the entire day yesterday sitting on the turn and it didn't get here until fairly late last night. Wasn't feeling all night so didn't tackle it when I had gotten home. Feeling better but I open this morning and have to go straight to work now. Am off at 2pm and will come home and get the turn in. FULL Combat Report to follow at that time.

Sorry for the delay but life does rear its ugly head from time to time.

[zuluhour]

I tried to operate US CVs in single TFs but was destroyed by Terry twice for it. My current solution is two CVs which seems better. I do think you have an opportunity to defeat Dan in detail now. Listen to Chickenboy though, he speaks volumes. Think aggressive, not rash. There is a thin line and I do feel an ahistorical situation has presented itself with which you may have to counter with tactics foreign to the times yourself.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

This is a personal thing with me but combining the Brits and the Americans drives me NUTS. Yes: It was done once during 1942-1943 but it was not successful. The way I try to see it in 1942 is like what was done in 1945 where the Brits were in their own Task Group doing their own thing.

I understand your issue, but I respectfully disagree about the gaminess of this, John.

[John 3rd]

Awwwww...you don't have to respectfully ANYTHING Chickenman. I respect the heck out of you. Not an issue to disagree on a topic. The REAL problem I have are people who take it/make it personal!

Finally home and running turn...

Stupid Question: How does one paste the ENTIRE Combat Report into the AAR? Do I simply copy the whole thing and then paste it into an AAR entry. I have--literally--NEVER done this before.