Wild Sheep Chase - obvert (J) vs JocMeister (A)

[catwhoorg]

Agree with the Moose

Each allied squad, gun or piece of armour is 1/3 of a VP (except Chinese, Philipine and Soviet)
Each airframe is 1, or a heavy bomber is 2

In VP terms if you can fight at loss of less than 2:1 in squads etc, its a net gain for you.
(Japanese items are 1/6th of a VP)

[obvert]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: obvert

I suppose you're right. By all indications he doesn't really care about stuff at all. I wish there were some way of adding ramifications for massive Allied losses into the game, some kind of global morale lowering or some deduction of political points. Something that would make players have the same concern for the men that ran the machines.

<<cough, cough>> VPs? If you don't "play for them" the game design is skewed from the first day. If you mark Japanese winning as winning battles until the very last day you go around the game design too.

After the first few years of playing and seeing other games (and listening to experienced players such as yourself) I realized the importance of the VP system. I think what we intended was that we would not stop the game should AV be achieved by either player at any point. We both do check the VPs often and talk about them. I know I have pointed them out in my AAR over the past few years at certain points.

I certainly don't think a Japanese player wining battles will have any consequence on the outcome of the game balance and 'winning or losing' ultimately unless those battles are critical strategically. What I am hoping to do is chip away precisely to stay in the fight (both by VP totals and actual available fighting material) and get some strategic victories at certain points (which could be tactical losses by the VP numbers). Confused? I am too.

What I don't know about is the VP allocations for certain things. Japanese destroyers are valuable because of their size, their fighting ability and the resources required to produce them but also their rarity compared to Allied DDs. But should VPs reflect cultural attitudes about the machines that were in the war. Maybe the Allied stuff should be adjusted upward for concern for loss of life.

When the KB sank 60-70 Allied ships recently including 10-15k troops on board and all of the crews on them, it hardly caused Jocke to blink or slow his advance. I would think an event in 44 that equalled or exceeded Pearl Harbor in loss of life and equipment, even if it wasn't the most important equipment, would have sent ripples through the navy that would have stopped the war for a bit. Possibly even lost certain admirals their jobs, maybe had such an effect on public opinion that something completely different would have happened politically. Same for the strike against the Allied fleet hitting a bunch of CV, CVL, and CVE.

Jocke almost quit years ago because he thought I had 'won' the game already. I disagreed. At least we're still going!

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: obvert

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: obvert

I suppose you're right. By all indications he doesn't really care about stuff at all. I wish there were some way of adding ramifications for massive Allied losses into the game, some kind of global morale lowering or some deduction of political points. Something that would make players have the same concern for the men that ran the machines.

<<cough, cough>> VPs? If you don't "play for them" the game design is skewed from the first day. If you mark Japanese winning as winning battles until the very last day you go around the game design too.

After the first few years of playing and seeing other games (and listening to experienced players such as yourself) I realized the importance of the VP system. I think what we intended was that we would not stop the game should AV be achieved by either player at any point. We both do check the VPs often and talk about them. I know I have pointed them out in my AAR over the past few years at certain points.

I certainly don't think a Japanese player wining battles will have any consequence on the outcome of the game balance and 'winning or losing' ultimately unless those battles are critical strategically. What I am hoping to do is chip away precisely to stay in the fight (both by VP totals and actual available fighting material) and get some strategic victories at certain points (which could be tactical losses by the VP numbers). Confused? I am too.

What I don't know about is the VP allocations for certain things. Japanese destroyers are valuable because of their size, their fighting ability and the resources required to produce them but also their rarity compared to Allied DDs. But should VPs reflect cultural attitudes about the machines that were in the war. Maybe the Allied stuff should be adjusted upward for concern for loss of life.

When the KB sank 60-70 Allied ships recently including 10-15k troops on board and all of the crews on them, it hardly caused Jocke to blink or slow his advance. I would think an event in 44 that equalled or exceeded Pearl Harbor in loss of life and equipment, even if it wasn't the most important equipment, would have sent ripples through the navy that would have stopped the war for a bit. Possibly even lost certain admirals their jobs, maybe had such an effect on public opinion that something completely different would have happened politically. Same for the strike against the Allied fleet hitting a bunch of CV, CVL, and CVE.

Jocke almost quit years ago because he thought I had 'won' the game already. I disagreed. At least we're still going!

I you're interested you can review the terms I offered in my Opponents Wanted "white paper" on the subject of VPs, auto-vic, etc.

tm.asp?m=3185487

I tried to walk a line whereby auto-vic would be allowed and even encouraged, but the game needn't stop there.

The relevant portion:

"If auto-vic occurs in 1943, 1944, or before August 1945 the victor shall take his victory lap, pour champagne on his head, rub blue mud on his belly--whatever the local custom dictates. He may then AT HIS OPTION choose to continue the game until the end of the war in 1946. If he chooses the game can end with his victory. However, if he chooses to continue, when the final victory level is calculated he shall have added either one (1) or two (2) (negotiable) levels to his final victory condition. "

I did this to give the successful player the option to wield his accomplishment in such a way as to still see the late-war festivities after expending so much time and effort to get to the mid-war. But if he thought his opponent was truly beaten and wanted out he could go that way. Of course, his opponent could refuse to continue too, at which time the auto-vic side would drink a second bottle of bubbly, tell his opponent he was a wimp and a rank quitter, and do the secret victory dance on YouTube, at which time it would no longer be secret.

On Japan in the late-war they should of course try to win battles if possible, but the aim, under the macro design, is for them to delay. Delay, delay, delay. The Allies have to WIN; the Japanese have to only NOT LOSE. For Japan it's a more elegant dance, choosing to expend strength to hopefully achieve more VPs than the win costs their side. The Allies have to hurry, to smash, to just get there. Is that elegant? Maybe not. It's hard. But it's a different game. I respect those who can play both sides. The mindset is so different.

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: obvert

What I don't know about is the VP allocations for certain things. Japanese destroyers are valuable because of their size, their fighting ability and the resources required to produce them but also their rarity compared to Allied DDs. But should VPs reflect cultural attitudes about the machines that were in the war. Maybe the Allied stuff should be adjusted upward for concern for loss of life.

When the KB sank 60-70 Allied ships recently including 10-15k troops on board and all of the crews on them, it hardly caused Jocke to blink or slow his advance. I would think an event in 44 that equalled or exceeded Pearl Harbor in loss of life and equipment, even if it wasn't the most important equipment, would have sent ripples through the navy that would have stopped the war for a bit. Possibly even lost certain admirals their jobs, maybe had such an effect on public opinion that something completely different would have happened politically. Same for the strike against the Allied fleet hitting a bunch of CV, CVL, and CVE.

This door swing very heavily both ways though Obvert. Many Allied players wax philosophic (whine?) about the lack of a mechanism for a "political" response to the often outrageously ahistorical early rampaging by the Japanese. No matter if the Japanese are clearing the entire map of Allied units, the American commitment to the Pacific remains locked into the historical "Europe First" agenda.

Layering games with political consequences for battlefield results can add a rich level of political reality that moves the game further down the pike towards a simulation, but often seem overburdening to those who prefer "game" balance over "simulation" balance.

[obvert]

Exactly. We just said we'd like ti if we could commit to the other player continuing if the one getting the auto-vic wanted to go on. That is the intention of the 'No VPs' statement.

Now I'm sure Jocke is slathering at the mouth with each point closer he gets, and it's only about 1k difference now. Yikes! But I still feel good about my play. It's been a solid game for what is really for us both our first PBEM. It now looks to continue in that vein.

On Japan in the late-war they should of course try to win battles if possible, but the aim, under the macro design, is for them to delay. Delay, delay, delay. The Allies have to WIN; the Japanese have to only NOT LOSE. For Japan it's a more elegant dance, choosing to expend strength to hopefully achieve more VPs than the win costs their side. The Allies have to hurry, to smash, to just get there. Is that elegant? Maybe not. It's hard. But it's a different game. I respect those who can play both sides. The mindset is so different.

As for the late war this is it. Delay, but also squeeze every last drop out of the available resources to stay active longer. My aim isn't just to stay in the Japanese marginal victory area or even a draw, but to play longer and learn more, see more of the game, and if that means the Allies move into a marginal (or more decisive) victory, that's fine. I want to play well enough to keep him at a historical or worse timescale but also to keep things running and fighting as long as I can.

[witpqs]

as far as units out of supply being forced to retreat, that was fixed a couple of Betas ago.

[SqzMyLemon]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

as far as units out of supply being forced to retreat, that was fixed a couple of Betas ago.

For those that play only the official patches or don't want to interrupt the existing integrity of their ongoing games with untested betas, this doesn't apply and is still an issue. Just saying.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon

ORIGINAL: witpqs

as far as units out of supply being forced to retreat, that was fixed a couple of Betas ago.

For those that play only the official patches or don't want to interrupt the existing integrity of their ongoing games with untested betas, this doesn't apply and is still an issue. Just saying.

I was led to understand that it was introduced in a Beta, and fixed in a Beta. If you are still on the official patch... [&:]

[SqzMyLemon]

ORIGINAL: obvert

As for the late war this is it. Delay, but also squeeze every last drop out of the available resources to stay active longer. My aim isn't just to stay in the Japanese marginal victory area or even a draw, but to play longer and learn more, see more of the game, and if that means the Allies move into a marginal (or more decisive) victory, that's fine. I want to play well enough to keep him at a historical or worse timescale but also to keep things running and fighting as long as I can.

Do you think this can still be done if Japan doesn't advance past a historical perimeter? Han's comment about ahistorical Japanese conquests makes sense, but I'm beginning to feel Japan is almost forced to if they want to delay the Allied advance sufficiently to have any chance of giving a competitive game till 45/46. The fact that it's this easy for the Allies to take out strongholds within weeks when these battles often raged for months historically is worrisome. If you don't have the territorial cushion to build up your rear defences to fort levels 7-9 in time it looks like it gets ugly for Japan and fast.

You mentioned sinking Jocke's CV's in 42 bought you a lot of time. What if other Allied players simply don't play ball and hoard their assets till 43 and bring the hammer, can Japan still prevail in any meaningful way? Just for example, in my current game with Jocke, I haven't seen an American 4E all game and we've reached Sept. 42. They haven't lost a single American CV or BB and only one CA. The Allies don't have to fight back at all if they choose to until they are simply a juggernaut. If Japan doesn't go outside of the historic perimeter to force the Allied player to fight and lose assets then they will simply face a tougher game from 43 on. At least that's how I see it.

[obvert]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

ORIGINAL: obvert

What I don't know about is the VP allocations for certain things. Japanese destroyers are valuable because of their size, their fighting ability and the resources required to produce them but also their rarity compared to Allied DDs. But should VPs reflect cultural attitudes about the machines that were in the war. Maybe the Allied stuff should be adjusted upward for concern for loss of life.

When the KB sank 60-70 Allied ships recently including 10-15k troops on board and all of the crews on them, it hardly caused Jocke to blink or slow his advance. I would think an event in 44 that equalled or exceeded Pearl Harbor in loss of life and equipment, even if it wasn't the most important equipment, would have sent ripples through the navy that would have stopped the war for a bit. Possibly even lost certain admirals their jobs, maybe had such an effect on public opinion that something completely different would have happened politically. Same for the strike against the Allied fleet hitting a bunch of CV, CVL, and CVE.

This door swing very heavily both ways though Obvert. Many Allied players wax philosophic (whine?) about the lack of a mechanism for a "political" response to the often outrageously ahistorical early rampaging by the Japanese. No matter if the Japanese are clearing the entire map of Allied units, the American commitment to the Pacific remains locked into the historical "Europe First" agenda.

Layering games with political consequences for battlefield results can add a rich level of political reality that moves the game further down the pike towards a simulation, but often seem overburdening to those who prefer "game" balance over "simulation" balance.

I suppose that's true. I was interested in that very 'historical' allocation of airframes and so made those lists to really compare what the Allies actually get through the war vs what a (controversially) mythically average Japanese player might make. I get that things would be different if they were different.

In this game if the Allies had had all of their CVs sunk in late 42, would they have kept fighting? Would they have fought harder and allocated more and different resources to the theatre? We just don't know. It would be great if there was more fluidity of some kind like that. But then of course the balance could go off in another way.

It's really a thought more about how I plan to play the Allied side, and that I would really hope to avoid extending my LOC without protecting the flanks. Basic military practice really that the Allies n game don't have to use because they have so much stuff. Then of course the Japanese side has more stuff too which makes it harder in the end to protect these advances. The beta really down-plays any offensive ability of LBA against CVs and even LR CAP supported advances though, so all of those extra planes I'm building aren't worth as much as they once were.

[GreyJoy]

As far as I can tell from my limited experience with SLs the japs can slow down the allies even with a 1942 historical perimeter. Sure you cannot stop them, but you can slow them down.
The key is to compose well enough your defensive garrisons.
You also have to accept the fact that the allies will bypass you many times... that's why it's important to chose very carefully where you want to defend and invest precious and rare resources... They can bypass you, sure, but they cannot allow an advance vector too narrow. In game, as in RL, flanks are always cardinals for a good offensive.
I know every game differs from the other ones, but some receipts are valid for every game.

Even in 1944 the allies cannot simply mass and advance. They need a lot of preparation, lots of mutual supporting bases and lots of logistic and it's not that easy to obtain that. And even the mighty allied DS cannot stand (if not backed up by the LBA) a combinated attack by thousands of planes. I've experienced that on my own skin and now, playing Japan, I've seen the other side of the coin.

To me, the game is well balanced as it is right now

[obvert]

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon

ORIGINAL: obvert

As for the late war this is it. Delay, but also squeeze every last drop out of the available resources to stay active longer. My aim isn't just to stay in the Japanese marginal victory area or even a draw, but to play longer and learn more, see more of the game, and if that means the Allies move into a marginal (or more decisive) victory, that's fine. I want to play well enough to keep him at a historical or worse timescale but also to keep things running and fighting as long as I can.

Do you think this can still be done if Japan doesn't advance past a historical perimeter? Han's comment about ahistorical Japanese conquests makes sense, but I'm beginning to feel Japan is almost forced to if they want to delay the Allied advance sufficiently to have any chance of giving a competitive game till 45/46. The fact that it's this easy for the Allies to take out strongholds within weeks when these battles often raged for months historically is worrisome. If you don't have the territorial cushion to build up your rear defences to fort levels 7-9 in time it looks like it gets ugly for Japan and fast.

You mentioned sinking Jocke's CV's in 42 bought you a lot of time. What if other Allied players simply don't play ball and hoard their assets till 43 and bring the hammer, can Japan still prevail in any meaningful way? Just for example, in my current game with Jocke, I haven't seen an American 4E all game and we've reached Sept. 42. They haven't lost a single American CV or BB and only one CA. The Allies don't have to fight back at all if they choose to until they are simply a juggernaut. If Japan doesn't go outside of the historic perimeter to force the Allied player to fight and lose assets then they will simply face a tougher game from 43 on. At least that's how I see it.

Good questions. Seems to me the hardened defense also gives the Japanese player some advantages when the Allies finally do come calling. The advantages as I see them are:

1. You've not overextended to the point the Allies can exploit your LOC or attack strongly where you're not. If you've gone past historical how long can you stay forward and how do you retreat in the face of growing Allied strength? Some have done it, but the games I've seen where Japan over-extended early showed the Allies still doing well in 43 and moving forward. Then there is GJ-rader.

2. You haven't used as much fuel/oil. This is huge.

3. You have begun to build forts earlier and had a chance to really plan the defense rather than having many strong units out of position forward and then throwing something else in to plug gaps.

4. The Allies still might come before the Essexes arrive. If they do, you still have a strong KB advantage and can potentially knock the schedule back as they finally advance, hitting those ships that have been hiding all of the time in the shadows. If he's not fighting his units are also not gaining experience, he doesn't know your particular style, he doesn't have those aces the Allies can build up since their pilots last better than the Japanese.

I think of the GJ-Q_Ball game. GJ has been masterful at staying in form, not letting the Allies go forward without losing something critical, and delaying everywhere. His position is worse compared to mine at the same time in terms of territory, but his second tier defenses are stronger, where I had to let Jocke move through the soft middle to hit the other hard wall later. By then it wasn't so hard either. [;)]

5. The longer the Allies wait the greater the psychological pressure. This was huge for Jocke, and only abated real with the invasion of Mindanao. If they are waiting and the first operations are stymied, the need to do more quickly continues to grow more urgent. Bad decisions can be made in these conditions.

[Crackaces]

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

....
Even in 1944 the allies cannot simply mass and advance. They need a lot of preparation, lots of mutual supporting bases and lots of logistic and it's not that easy to obtain that. And even the mighty allied DS cannot stand (if not backed up by the LBA) a combinated attack by thousands of planes. I've experienced that on my own skin and now, playing Japan, I've seen the other side of the coin.

...

Unless of course you drop in on the Home Islands like operation "Really Hairy" ..

I think a couple of things are different about really hairy .. two day turns that allowed interesting redeployments and interesting air combat behaviors once a whole bunch of planes get caught in a fur ball .. However, I still think if the IJ do not properly defend Hokkaido .. the Allies can successfully occupy and build up bases to establish a foot hold out of the blue ...

[SqzMyLemon]

ORIGINAL: obvert

2. You haven't used as much fuel/oil. This is huge.

3. You have begun to build forts earlier and had a chance to really plan the defense rather than having many strong units out of position forward and then throwing something else in to plug gaps.

4. The Allies still might come before the Essexes arrive. If they do, you still have a strong KB advantage and can potentially knock the schedule back as they finally advance, hitting those ships that have been hiding all of the time in the shadows. If he's not fighting his units are also not gaining experience, he doesn't know your particular style, he doesn't have those aces the Allies can build up since their pilots last better than the Japanese.

These points are what I'm seeing as the greatest benefit to a conservative Japanese game plan.

I think much of my game philosophy has developed as a result of playing two Allied opponents that have been incredibly passive in 42. So I just don't see the need to go chasing them around wasting fuel and extending my position on a fool's errand. Granted Jocke did establish an early foothold in the Gilbert Islands and risked his CV's twice, so he hasn't been totally sitting back and just waiting.

I really am just a rookie with Japan. I just haven't experienced enough combat to adequately get a feel for what is in my best interest to pursue in terms of a viable strategy. I just don't have a feel for how aggressive I should play when the enemy simply melts away. I can only hope my current preparations are adequate for when the gloves do finally come off.

As GreyJoy mentions, every game is different, but some truths are universal. It really comes down to how the game plays out, unfortunately it can unravel very quickly if you haven't covered all the possibilities.

[obvert]

[font="Times New Roman"]14 October, 1944[/font]
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

[font="Microsoft Sans Serif"]PI:[/font] Put my own LR CAP on Davao and downed about 30 escorts for the bombing runs there. The Oscar IV has some punch, and even downed a few Corsairs for only 5 planes lost.

The Allies land at San Jose which should activate kamis. We'll see in a few days when he takes the base.

New thoughts on Luzon defenses. I think I have to move almost all troops back to the good territory near Manila and to the North. The Southern arm to Naga and Legaspi is simply to vulnerable. I'll leave a token force here, some air support and para-defense, and concentrate on the core of the island. I'm getting some new fighter groups soon and ALL will head down here. It will be a mutually supporting hive in about 2 weeks from Antimonan to Apparri. At least one fighter group will be allocated to each base and Manila and Clark will have strike planes as well as the core of the best planes, including the coming 90+ plane group of Franks arriving soon. Can't wait to get Frank Ir into that monster and try some sweeping.

[font="Microsoft Sans Serif"]S/SW PAC:[/font] Two cruiser TFs bombard Babeldaob, avoiding mines and not even being touched by return fore from the 'fortress' here. I've never seen cruiser bombardments do so well. This is the piece Jocke hasn't played during many months of using Babeldaob as a hub for troop transport. I've moved maybe 40-50k men and devices through the base by both air and sea from New Guinea and Mindanao over the past 6 months or so. Today though about 250+ planes lost!

I kept waiting for this to happen, or a big 4E campaign, and at last the base is wrecked and most of the planes here lost. I disbanded many losing the airframes, withdrawing the groups and they will return in two months. I left a few fighters here to see if he decides to keep bombing. I'd rather have him concentrate on the shell of this base than taking out another. There are still about 14k troops here that will likely be left to their fate.

Too bad mines are not effective. Not sure when a bombardment run has hit one fro either side in game. Works both ways, but now it's nearly impossible to hit an Allied base due to the 20-30 PT boats waiting with a Fletcher division at anything important.

[font="Microsoft Sans Serif"]S DEI: [/font] Lautem is crumbling with Japanese tanks being obliterated easily by their Allied counterparts. Help is still two days away, but it might not make it in time. Too bad, but I'll not reinforce though air transport here. His CAP is close and I really am more interested in delaying while other troops get back, but ultimately will relinquish these southerly bases now.

[font="Microsoft Sans Serif"]BURMA: [/font] Mergui is getting the squeeze. I tried to LR CAP but Mustangs cleared that easily and bombers still got through, then tanks go the better of the defenders. Still hanging, but not for long.

[font="Microsoft Sans Serif"]CENTRAL PACFIC:[/font] Guam defends well, as does Saipan, but every time a fort goes down which means the next one will be easier.

[font="Trebuchet MS"]--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR October 14, 44
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Night Naval bombardment of Babeldaob at 90,97

Japanese aircraft
no flights

Japanese aircraft losses
J2M3 Jack: 35 damaged
J2M3 Jack: 1 destroyed on ground
N1K2-J George: 90 damaged
N1K2-J George: 20 destroyed on ground
Ki-56 Thalia: 66 damaged
Ki-56 Thalia: 6 destroyed on ground
L2D2 Tabby: 40 damaged
L2D2 Tabby: 12 destroyed on ground
H8K2 Emily: 93 damaged
H8K2 Emily: 13 destroyed on ground
Ki-57-I Topsy: 9 damaged
Ki-57-I Topsy: 2 destroyed on ground
Ki-84a Frank: 31 damaged
Ki-84a Frank: 6 destroyed on ground
Ki-57-II Topsy: 1 damaged
Ki-57-II Topsy: 1 destroyed on ground

Allied Ships
CA Sleipner
CA Canberra II
CA Boston

Japanese ground losses:
136 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 25 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 10 disabled

Airbase hits 38
Airbase supply hits 7
Runway hits 91

OS2U-3 Kingfisher acting as spotter for CA Sleipner
CA Sleipner firing at Babeldaob

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Naval bombardment of Babeldaob at 90,97 - Coastal Guns Fire Back!

Japanese aircraft
no flights

Japanese aircraft losses
L2D2 Tabby: 20 damaged
L2D2 Tabby: 6 destroyed on ground
Ki-84a Frank: 32 damaged
Ki-84a Frank: 5 destroyed on ground
N1K2-J George: 95 damaged
N1K2-J George: 16 destroyed on ground
Ki-56 Thalia: 32 damaged
Ki-56 Thalia: 10 destroyed on ground
J2M3 Jack: 53 damaged
J2M3 Jack: 9 destroyed on ground
H8K2 Emily: 28 damaged
H8K2 Emily: 5 destroyed on ground
Ki-57-I Topsy: 3 damaged
Ki-57-I Topsy: 1 destroyed on ground
Ki-57-II Topsy: 5 damaged
Ki-57-II Topsy: 2 destroyed on ground

6 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.

Allied Ships
CA Wichita
CA Minneapolis
CA Chicago
CA Chester
CL Helena
CL St. Louis

Japanese ground losses:
179 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Non Combat: 5 destroyed, 22 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 7 disabled
Vehicles lost 2 (1 destroyed, 1 disabled)

Airbase hits 23
Airbase supply hits 10
Runway hits 32
Port hits 1

CA Wichita firing at Babeldaob
Babeldoap Naval Fortress firing at CA Chester

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Naval bombardment of Saipan at 108,93 - Coastal Guns Fire Back!

203 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.

Allied Ships
BB Queen Elizabeth, Shell hits 9
BB Mississippi, Shell hits 11
BB Idaho, Shell hits 11
BC Renown, Shell hits 3

Japanese ground losses:
46 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 10 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 10 (1 destroyed, 9 disabled)

Saipan Naval Fortress firing at BB Queen Elizabeth
BB Queen Elizabeth firing at Saipan Naval Fortress

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Davao , at 79,91

Weather in hex: Heavy cloud

Raid spotted at 37 NM, estimated altitude 16,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 10 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-43-IV Oscar x 22

Allied aircraft
B-25C Mitchell x 13
B-25D1 Mitchell x 45
B-25G Mitchell x 15
B-25H Mitchell x 17
B-25J1 Mitchell x 3
FM-2 Wildcat x 29
F4U-1A Corsair x 12
PBJ-1D Mitchell x 13

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-43-IV Oscar: 3 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
B-25D1 Mitchell: 1 damaged
FM-2 Wildcat: 10 destroyed
F4U-1A Corsair: 1 destroyed

Japanese ground losses:
12 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled

Airbase hits 18
Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 41

Aircraft Attacking:
13 x PBJ-1D Mitchell bombing from 12000 feet
Airfield Attack: 6 x 500 lb GP Bomb

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Babeldaob , at 90,97

Weather in hex: Heavy cloud

Raid spotted at 35 NM, estimated altitude 16,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 12 minutes

Japanese aircraft
no flights

Allied aircraft
B-24J Liberator x 7
B-17E Fortress x 3
B-24D Liberator x 9
B-24D1 Liberator x 11
B-24J Liberator x 34
PB4Y-1 Liberator x 30

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-56 Thalia: 2 destroyed on ground
J2M3 Jack: 3 destroyed on ground
N1K2-J George: 7 destroyed on ground
L2D2 Tabby: 1 destroyed on ground
H8K2 Emily: 2 destroyed on ground
Ki-57-II Topsy: 1 destroyed on ground
Ki-84a Frank: 5 destroyed on ground

Allied aircraft losses
B-24D Liberator: 1 damaged
B-24J Liberator: 1 damaged
PB4Y-1 Liberator: 1 damaged

Airbase hits 15
Airbase supply hits 2
Runway hits 37

Aircraft Attacking:
7 x PB4Y-1 Liberator bombing from 12000 feet
Airfield Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on Mergui , at 53,62

Weather in hex: Light cloud

Raid detected at 37 NM, estimated altitude 35,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 10 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-84a Frank x 32
Ki-100-I Tony x 16

Allied aircraft
P-51B Mustang x 18

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-84a Frank: 1 destroyed
Ki-100-I Tony: 4 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
P-51B Mustang: 1 destroyed

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

Ground combat at Guam (106,95)

Allied Deliberate attack

Attacking force 44652 troops, 849 guns, 1479 vehicles, Assault Value = 1900

Defending force 32199 troops, 486 guns, 267 vehicles, Assault Value = 866

Allied engineers reduce fortifications to 5

Allied adjusted assault: 748

Japanese adjusted defense: 4247

Allied assault odds: 1 to 5 (fort level 5)

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

Japanese ground losses:
2735 casualties reported
Squads: 16 destroyed, 214 disabled
Non Combat: 9 destroyed, 55 disabled
Engineers: 4 destroyed, 40 disabled
Guns lost 105 (15 destroyed, 90 disabled)
Vehicles lost 51 (14 destroyed, 37 disabled)
Units destroyed 1

Allied ground losses:
1209 casualties reported
Squads: 3 destroyed, 124 disabled
Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 88 disabled
Engineers: 1 destroyed, 78 disabled
Guns lost 73 (2 destroyed, 71 disabled)
Vehicles lost 208 (32 destroyed, 176 disabled)

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

Ground combat at Saipan (108,93)

Allied Deliberate attack

Attacking force 48344 troops, 1063 guns, 1046 vehicles, Assault Value = 1784

Defending force 29909 troops, 389 guns, 355 vehicles, Assault Value = 540

Allied engineers reduce fortifications to 3

Allied adjusted assault: 2456

Japanese adjusted defense: 1521

Allied assault odds: 1 to 1 (fort level 3)

Allied Assault reduces fortifications to 3

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

Japanese ground losses:
1937 casualties reported
Squads: 35 destroyed, 122 disabled
Non Combat: 3 destroyed, 63 disabled
Engineers: 2 destroyed, 32 disabled
Guns lost 96 (11 destroyed, 85 disabled)
Vehicles lost 21 (4 destroyed, 17 disabled)

Allied ground losses:
1326 casualties reported
Squads: 9 destroyed, 146 disabled
Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 40 disabled
Engineers: 4 destroyed, 20 disabled
Guns lost 33 (4 destroyed, 29 disabled)
Vehicles lost 43 (2 destroyed, 41 disabled)

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

Ground combat at Lautem (72,115)

Allied Deliberate attack

Attacking force 12215 troops, 140 guns, 425 vehicles, Assault Value = 606

Defending force 5305 troops, 45 guns, 88 vehicles, Assault Value = 153

Allied adjusted assault: 1110

Japanese adjusted defense: 503

Allied assault odds: 2 to 1 (fort level 3)

Allied Assault reduces fortifications to 2

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

Japanese ground losses:
163 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 11 disabled
Non Combat: 6 destroyed, 46 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 11 disabled
Vehicles lost 64 (47 destroyed, 17 disabled)

Allied ground losses:
41 casualties reported
Squads: 1 destroyed, 5 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 4 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

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

Ground combat at Mergui (53,62)

Allied Deliberate attack

Attacking force 1829 troops, 0 guns, 198 vehicles, Assault Value = 313

Defending force 7608 troops, 89 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 167

Allied adjusted assault: 82

Japanese adjusted defense: 317

Allied assault odds: 1 to 3 (fort level 4)

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), forts(+), disruption(-), fatigue(-)
Attacker:

Japanese ground losses:
288 casualties reported
Squads: 2 destroyed, 13 disabled
Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 4 disabled
Engineers: 2 destroyed, 8 disabled

Allied ground losses:
35 casualties reported
Squads: 1 destroyed, 12 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 5 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/font]

Reinforcements:

[font="Trebuchet MS"]E Ikuna arrives at Tokyo
E No.63 arrives at Tokyo
E No.64 arrives at Tokyo
E No.207 arrives at Tokyo
South. Phil. Ku U-1 arrives at Davao
Shokaku-3 arrives at Tokyo
82nd Sentai arrives at Tokyo
88th Sentai arrives at Osaka/Kyoto
106th Sentai arrives at Osaka/Kyoto
110th Sentai arrives at Ominato
9th RF Gun Battalion arrives at Tokyo

Aircraft Ki-83 advances R&D (5/45)[/font]

Losses: none

Ships Sunk:

[font="Trebuchet MS"]PT-340 is reported to have been sunk near Biak on Jun 23, 1944[/font]
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

[font="Trebuchet MS"]Kami time soon? It won't change much yet. I'll use them sparingly at first, but I might get the voluntary ramming both in the air and on naval strikes with conventional attacks now more often.

I may try a few Oscars but also a few 2E Peggys first. They have greater durability and good speed to get in and make a difference if they do hit something. Plus I have a lot of 2E groups not doing much right now.[/font]
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

[hmota]

Hi I noticed a really big amount of Jakes which you lost during campaign, at least from my opinion Is it normal to use them in this big numbers?

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

On Japan in the late-war they should of course try to win battles if possible, but the aim, under the macro design, is for them to delay. Delay, delay, delay. The Allies have to WIN; the Japanese have to only NOT LOSE. For Japan it's a more elegant dance, choosing to expend strength to hopefully achieve more VPs than the win costs their side. The Allies have to hurry, to smash, to just get there. Is that elegant? Maybe not. It's hard. But it's a different game. I respect those who can play both sides. The mindset is so different.

+1

Agree 100%. Many (most?) players overlook this.

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon
Do you think this can still be done if Japan doesn't advance past a historical perimeter? Han's comment about ahistorical Japanese conquests makes sense, but I'm beginning to feel Japan is almost forced to if they want to delay the Allied advance sufficiently to have any chance of giving a competitive game till 45/46. The fact that it's this easy for the Allies to take out strongholds within weeks when these battles often raged for months historically is worrisome. If you don't have the territorial cushion to build up your rear defences to fort levels 7-9 in time it looks like it gets ugly for Japan and fast.

Expansion is the anthema for most IJ players ... they overexpand and expect to be able to hold that perimeter. You can't. The allies have no reason to conquer each holding, they can bypass and isolate very effectively. Expansion plays to the allies strength and leads to IJ destruction.

IJ can only defend a fairly small perimeter with her assets; call it about a 24 hex circle around wherever you park the KB. The KB is your reaction force. If you can't react within 2 turns, you lose. PzB is that reigning master of predicting and reacting. But even he didn't do it out in the hinterlands ... he did it within the DEI area call it a 35 - 40 hex range. Most players won't be that good, so stay within 24. Anything outside of that range is a write-off. Consider the value of those units and whether they would be better used within your perimeter. Once cut-off, they are lost and cannot serve you further.

The DEI has no value once the oil centers are gone, and those are lost to B-29's once you no longer control Pt Blair and Darwin; neither of which are likely to be held past mid-43. PI, Marianas, Kuriles, and China are your effective defensive zone. The rest? Opportunity to lose a lot of assets to no avail. Look at all the units you have in places outside of there and consider what defense you could establish with the smaller perimeter. How large of a reaction force can you create. Make the PI look like an invasion of the HI for the allies ... you should be able to force them to take a year there .... maybe more ? And they cannot bypass the PI like they can an atoll ... too potent.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon
Do you think this can still be done if Japan doesn't advance past a historical perimeter? Han's comment about ahistorical Japanese conquests makes sense, but I'm beginning to feel Japan is almost forced to if they want to delay the Allied advance sufficiently to have any chance of giving a competitive game till 45/46. The fact that it's this easy for the Allies to take out strongholds within weeks when these battles often raged for months historically is worrisome. If you don't have the territorial cushion to build up your rear defences to fort levels 7-9 in time it looks like it gets ugly for Japan and fast.

Expansion is the anthema for most IJ players ... they overexpand and expect to be able to hold that perimeter. You can't. The allies have no reason to conquer each holding, they can bypass and isolate very effectively. Expansion plays to the allies strength and leads to IJ destruction.

IJ can only defend a fairly small perimeter with her assets; call it about a 24 hex circle around wherever you park the KB. The KB is your reaction force. If you can't react within 2 turns, you lose. PzB is that reigning master of predicting and reacting. But even he didn't do it out in the hinterlands ... he did it within the DEI area call it a 35 - 40 hex range. Most players won't be that good, so stay within 24. Anything outside of that range is a write-off. Consider the value of those units and whether they would be better used within your perimeter. Once cut-off, they are lost and cannot serve you further.

The DEI has no value once the oil centers are gone, and those are lost to B-29's once you no longer control Pt Blair and Darwin; neither of which are likely to be held past mid-43. PI, Marianas, Kuriles, and China are your effective defensive zone. The rest? Opportunity to lose a lot of assets to no avail. Look at all the units you have in places outside of there and consider what defense you could establish with the smaller perimeter. How large of a reaction force can you create. Make the PI look like an invasion of the HI for the allies ... you should be able to force them to take a year there .... maybe more ? And they cannot bypass the PI like they can an atoll ... too potent.

This is one area where the much-maligned AI does a better job than many human Japan players. It's a good reason Japanese PBEM players ought to run a quick 3-day GC as the Allies. To see what the inner ring looks like when it's stacked. The AI makes Iwo Jima at least historic hard. In one AI GC I played I won before I ever took Iwo. It was insanely defended. Okinawa can be as well. The AI doesn't go running off to India or Oz. It builds and it fortifies. And at the end it makes a human opponent face thousands and thousands of kamis.

[SqzMyLemon]

Good points Pax and Bullwinkle. I think that so many players, myself included, are ingrained to feel you have to be doing something when you read other AAR's and see those Indian, and Australian operations occurring and the losses being inflicted on the Allies. Myself, I always feel conflicted. You want to strike out and inflict losses while you can, but you also know that it's still a losing proposition and in some cases even speeds up the collapse of your Empire. It takes a lot of discipline to stay focused and play defensively.

In my current game, I'm trying to stick to my original plan. A smaller perimeter that can pack more of a punch and be mutually supporting. As much as I want to go after the Allies, my gut tells me it's just the wrong thing to do if you want to last into late 45.