Command Decisions: Yeomen vs. Samurai RA 6.4

[moore4807]

EXTRA EXTRA!!! Read all about it! Two Navy Clerk-Typists take on the Mighty Japanese Samurai!!! (John3rd)

Ok having gotten that out of the way, we're waiting for the bosun's whistle to embark on an expedition against John3rd in a unorthodox, 2-on-1, some holds barred, competition RA match that by all accounts should be blast!

First about the Yeomen - I'll let Larry tell you about himself, for me I'm a long time Steel Panthers WAW player who gradually expanded my way first into Uncommon Valor, then WitP (I wasn't active on those boards) and finally AE. When I was retired I found myself with more time inside than I knew what to do with, and to avoid the insanity (my wife feels I've failed this category) I took up this game online. Thanks to the forum's advice and live game experience over the last 3 years I have dramatically improved my game on both the Japanese and Allied sides.

Hopefully John 3rd will say a few kind words before the hostilities commence here, and ALL advice is willingly accepted and considered to beat back the Japanese hordes from the civilized world!

[witpqs]

Good luck, guys!

[larryfulkerson]

ORIGINAL: witpqs
Good luck, guys!

Thanks witpqs, we're going to need it. John3rd is one of the best players I've heard and maybe that's why he agreed to play two
opponents simultaneously. Jim and I are retired and can devote unGodly amounts of time at the computer and when I'm not working
on my moves for this game I'm working on moves for my other PBEM games. I'm playing two different sides in two different games of
TOAW's FITE and it's a blast. Which reminds me........Jim and I have been working out our communications and so on so we should
make a smoothly operating team. Yeah, right. At any rate it should be interesting. I'm going to put a lot of the 2-way comm traffic
here in the AAR so you guys can be in on the thinking as we think it. Any advice you guys are willing to offer will be greatly appreciated.
At least I won't be playing the Jap side this time. I'm a lousy Jap player......my economy tends to crash in '42. This time I'm going to
play all the non-American Allied units, LCU's, ships, and planes. So I'm going to have to get organized pretty early. My worst efforts
will probably happen in the China sector. I hate China. It's so complicated and there's the complication of the garrisons to maintain.
Plus there's the Dutch ships to handle in the Singkawang area early on. Plus all the logistics.

I'm thinking I'm going to have to move supplies and fuel from the off-map areas to OZ and India first and THEN draw from Pearl.
Jim and I are thinking of building up all the "middle" islands early.......those islands between Pearl and Brisbane that will come in
handy when moving supplies w/ the smaller ships. This is RA 6.4 and it's new to me so I'm already taking a look around just to get
a clue before we get some moves from John3rd.

One thing is for sure.......I'm going to learn a lot from this game.

[larryfulkerson]

John3rd has suggested the house rules he used in his last game. That's fine w/ me. Here's the House Rules we're going to use:


Regarding the use of 4EB:

Naval Attack from a minimum altitude of 10,000 Ft.
Strategic Bombing is allowed at any point after January 1, 1943.
B-29s may only be used for Airfield, port, and city bombing. No ground attack upon troops.



The use of One ship TF is allowed if the ships are warships or it is the first two weeks of December 1941 (the fleeing Thundering Herd).



We will use the pwhexe from JWE regarding the slowdown of road/trail movement.



LCU must be bought out to crossover a national border.



Aircraft Limitations (reflecting the Mod):
-No A6M3 on CVEs
-No A6M4 on any form of Carrier
-A7M Sam and B7A-D Grace cannot be operated from CVEs



Turn ONE

Only Port attacks may be made by Carrier-Based Aircraft. Manila and Singapore are allowed to have any fighters normally present at the base Dec 7th fly CAP at no more then 40%. This allows for the warning from Pearl Harbor to get to these Ports.
Allied Player may give orders to any unit in China and ships that are already formed in TF.



SETTINGS:



Newest Beta

Realism
Fog of War + ON
Advanced Weather Effects = ON or OFF - Your choice
Allied Damage Control = ON
Player Def. Upgrades = ON
Historical First Turn = OFF
December 7th surprise = ON
Reliable USN Torpedoes = OFF ( sob )
Realistic R&D = ON
No Unit Withdrawals = OFF
Reinforcements - Fixed both sides

Game Options
Combat Reports = ON
Auto Sub Ops = OFF
Set All Facilities to expand at start = OFF
Automatic Upgrade ships and air groups = OFF
Accept air and Ground Replacements = OFF
Turn Cycle = 1

Preferences
Show Combat Animations = ON
Show Combat Summaries = ON
Show Clouds = ON

[larryfulkerson]

Here's where the Jap carriers are at the start of the game: I'm guessing that they would be in the rough ballpark area's depilcted now.

EDIT: I don't have any idea what John3rd is going to do w/ his carriers now but if it was an anti-AI game TF 3 would head off to Davao
and TF 10 would pound Gwam and TF 1 and 18 would head toward Midway to deliver an airborne blow or two.

[larryfulkerson]

Here's a list of the Australian planes. A lot of them are Hudson's on search. About 4 squadrons are helping out at Singapore and
there's some between Darwin and Java but most of them are in the Rabaul -> Brisbane area. That's my impression. I'm going to go
through them all one at a time and see if they need to be redeployed somewhere else. Then the British, then the Dutch, etc.

[moore4807]

Larry (& Allies)

I believe this is where John shows his domination early - he takes full advantage of the Japanese landing bonus and locks down the D.E.I. first to fuel his conquests. He has had a tendency in past AAR's to make his major thrust right after that. , then he's a big Australia fan from what I remember... (any opinions folks Chime Right In!)

I noticed since 6.3 the USN gets clobbered pretty effectively at Pearl, So I'm figuring the slow BB's are sunk or in the shipyard for 1-2 years there.

The first priority for CONUS to organize US AK's to S.F. and get supplies rolling to Pago Pago to build up that base along with Christmas Is. it needs to be built up also for ASW airbase and refueling TF's going back to CONUS.
I generally use L.A. for the TK/AO fuel distribution point since there are plenty of Naval Airbases nearby I can fly ASW from.

Training, Training, Training... I plan to disband the HQ Squadrons from the get go to help consolidate the main BG's/FG's. Groups with exp of 40-50 will get 50% of work/30% training/ 20% rest. Groups with less exp or Training Groups will be at 80% training at zero range.

The second priority is to salvage as much as I can from Manila (primarily SS) even though we all do the Thundering Herd out of there, 80% or better ends up in Davy Jones locker anyway. I'm thinking I might as well go offensive with the subs and try to interdict a TF or two in the southern Phillipines or maybe go near Saigon for the second wave of Malaysia invasion troops. That area is Larry's turf so I'd want to know what he's doing first before I committed those subs. Also I am a big proponent of using the subs to lay mines at ports since the TT's are for crap til 1943/44.

The third priority is to get the AP's into S.F. and under escort to start moving the engineers to Pago Pago and Christmas Is. The thought is if I move 30K of supply a month and 40K of fuel at a minimum, Larry can ferry with his ships FROM Pago Pago to Australia, keeping them operating and fueled early on.

[larryfulkerson]

I was looking at all the non-USN subs and discovered an Allied sub base at Noumea. That's good to know. The next thing I need to do
is relocate the sub base somewhere closer to the action. Pago Pago or somewhere.

[witpqs]

Regarding the use of 4EB:

Naval Attack from a minimum altitude of 10,000 Ft.
Strategic Bombing is allowed at any point after January 1, 1943.
B-29s may only be used for Airfield, port, and city bombing. No ground attack upon troops.



The use of One ship TF is allowed if the ships are warships or it is the first two weeks of December 1941 (the fleeing Thundering Herd).

I don't like any of these. Best of luck with them!

[larryfulkerson]

I'm thinking I might as well go offensive with the subs and try to interdict a TF or two in the southern Phillipines or maybe go near Saigon for the second wave of Malaysia invasion troops. That area is Larry's turf so I'd want to know what he's doing first before I committed those subs.

I'm thinking I'll get more performance out of the Dutch subs in the Singapore area than we will w/ the USN subs because of the torpedo reliability problemo. So I'm going to see can I block the ports along the Malaya coast and the north coast near Miri. Between Singkawang and Miri especially. I'm hoping to be able to lay mines w/ the subs also so as to keep John guessing. And minesweeping.

[moore4807]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Regarding the use of 4EB:

Naval Attack from a minimum altitude of 10,000 Ft.
Strategic Bombing is allowed at any point after January 1, 1943.
B-29s may only be used for Airfield, port, and city bombing. No ground attack upon troops.



The use of One ship TF is allowed if the ships are warships or it is the first two weeks of December 1941 (the fleeing Thundering Herd).

I don't like any of these. Best of luck with them!

I almost never go below 15K on the 4E's anyway... The others? I have never strat bombed anything in my entire AE career... It was certainly doctrine of the USAAF, just had more fun pounding the troops to rubble instead of the cities. The B-29 rule will cause me to change my tactics. [8D]

[larryfulkerson]

I took a look around the map to see where to move the Noumea sub base to and there's no good places yet. I'll have to see about
building a new base w/ engineers and the passage of about 6 weeks or so. Maybe at Tulagi or Shortlands ( Buin ). At any rate, it
turns out that Pago Pago has a sub base as well. That's good to know.

[larryfulkerson]

ORIGINAL: moore4807
I have never strat bombed anything in my entire AE career... It was certainly doctrine of the USAAF, just had more fun pounding the troops to rubble instead of the cities. The B-29 rule will cause me to change my tactics. [8D]

One time I strat bombed Darwin from the nearest island north of there ( I don't remember the name offhand ) w/ about two dozen
Betty's and got 1 hit on the Resource Center there. Or something similar. It was a long time ago.

[moore4807]

I just deleted the save folder (minus the placeholder) in my RA game file. This means I have less of a chance to screw up sending files [:-]

Witpqs - you've been around the block a few times here, whats your thoughts?

[witpqs]

Some players are (IMO) almost religious about the 4E naval attack altitude thing. From what I see, pilot skill training takes care of things. When you add in two other factors - code patches improved the functioning of flak, and babes (which RA is based on) recalibrated all flak - there is no reason to have altitude restrictions on 4E. When you go low with 4E against hard targets you will pay a price. If you are willing to pay that price you might get hits to make it worth it in your eyes. Some targets are soft - merchants with almost no AA. 4E should not be allowed to go low against them?

The B-29 restrictions make no sense at all. It should be up to you how you use them. Discussions on the forum have shown that IRL 4EB were used against ground troops including at low altitude. The effects were devastating.

The Japanese 2EB are devastating against ground troops in game everywhere for the first third to half of the campaign, and in China for the entire game. Meaning they only become less effective when and where sufficient defense against them is present. Allied 2EB are only as effective under the same conditions, namely when sufficient defense is not available. 2EB as attack bombers get ripped apart by flak in the game (see my AAR).

I notice that there are no such restrictions on other 4EB against ground troops, only B29, so it could be worse. Still, in my view totally unjustified. If you want to use B29 to bomb troops (from any altitude), that should be up to you.

And, I assume the HR means no port mining by B29. there should be no restrictions on that. BTW, a recent patch fixed issues with air mining missions being intercepted by CAP. If you are at or near the current Beta, they can be intercepted. Players have shown the intercept messages in AARs.

Strat bombing - it's part of the game. Even early on. Be advised that if you dump this HR then you will suffer greatly in China. But part of this game is eating sandwiches made from questionable substances, and making your opponent do the same! [:D]

The single ship TF thing is just trying to micromanage a player who might try to game the system by flooding the area near enemy CV with single ships so as to soak off sorties. But it's a failure as a rule and unjustly stops you from using single ship TF in situations where it is warranted. For example, instead of 20 single ship TF you could use 10 two-ship TF to game the system. Where does the rule end? It's silly. Just play fair. I use single ship TF here and there (supply little islands and such), and totally reserve the tactic to scatter a TF if I feel need to. Obviously running away from the PI/DEI early on is big one, but I think that could occur at other times and places too, not just during the first two weeks.

This one is controversial. I will not mention it again, only here to provide perspective. An example of a large CV raid going after a small or single-ship TF in your opponent's previous game was never sent to Michael for bug analysis in spite of a couple of suggestions to do so. So is it really about perceived gaming of the system, or about imposing one's view of operations on one's opponent?

These are my opinions on these specific HR. All that matters is your opinions and your opponent's opinions. Make agreements that you are comfortable with. Be flexible if things don't work out the way you anticipated. Have fun with the game and don't get too hung up on technical details working a certain way. Just learn how they work and then work with that the way that you work with the law of gravity every day (can't change that, can you?!). [8D]

[ny59giants]

I know John very well, probably better than any other player. We often talk weekly and sometimes more. He knows I'll be in both AAR, but will not break "Op Security." I'll be here to offer some suggesting on things you could do that are more behind the scene stuff rather than 'defend here' or 'attack there.'

I would not disband some of your early war bomber air group HQ units with 5 planes in them. I'm using those that get withdrawn/disbanded in mid-42 as ASW platforms. Train them up in ASW after their moral goes to 99. Then, either NavS or LowN to attack subs.

The reduced cargo capacity takes some time to get use to. I use xAKs which have speed of 14 or greater that have both a cargo and liquid capacity to carry fuel. That is your early war bottle neck that needs to be addressed. Some of your shipping in Burma and India can convert to xAPs, I do so in the safety of Cape Town and then they mainly go to USA. Drop me a PM and I'll forward some of my info I've gathered over the years.

John is 'obsessed' about sinking shipping of all sizes and types. Use that to your advantage. [;)]

Good luck!![:)]

[moore4807]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Some players are (IMO) almost religious about the 4E naval attack altitude thing. From what I see, pilot skill training takes care of things. When you add in two other factors - code patches improved the functioning of flak, and babes (which RA is based on) recalibrated all flak - there is no reason to have altitude restrictions on 4E. When you go low with 4E against hard targets you will pay a price. If you are willing to pay that price you might get hits to make it worth it in your eyes. Some targets are soft - merchants with almost no AA. 4E should not be allowed to go low against them?

The B-29 restrictions make no sense at all. It should be up to you how you use them. Discussions on the forum have shown that IRL 4EB were used against ground troops including at low altitude. The effects were devastating.

The Japanese 2EB are devastating against ground troops in game everywhere for the first third to half of the campaign, and in China for the entire game. Meaning they only become less effective when and where sufficient defense against them is present. Allied 2EB are only as effective under the same conditions, namely when sufficient defense is not available. 2EB as attack bombers get ripped apart by flak in the game (see my AAR).

I notice that there are no such restrictions on other 4EB against ground troops, only B29, so it could be worse. Still, in my view totally unjustified. If you want to use B29 to bomb troops (from any altitude), that should be up to you.

And, I assume the HR means no port mining by B29. there should be no restrictions on that. BTW, a recent patch fixed issues with air mining missions being intercepted by CAP. If you are at or near the current Beta, they can be intercepted. Players have shown the intercept messages in AARs.

Strat bombing - it's part of the game. Even early on. Be advised that if you dump this HR then you will suffer greatly in China. But part of this game is eating sandwiches made from questionable substances, and making your opponent do the same! [:D]

The single ship TF thing is just trying to micromanage a player who might try to game the system by flooding the area near enemy CV with single ships so as to soak off sorties. But it's a failure as a rule and unjustly stops you from using single ship TF in situations where it is warranted. For example, instead of 20 single ship TF you could use 10 two-ship TF to game the system. Where does the rule end? It's silly. Just play fair. I use single ship TF here and there (supply little islands and such), and totally reserve the tactic to scatter a TF if I feel need to. Obviously running away from the PI/DEI early on is big one, but I think that could occur at other times and places too, not just during the first two weeks.

This one is controversial. I will not mention it again, only here to provide perspective. An example of a large CV raid going after a small or single-ship TF in your opponent's previous game was never sent to Michael for bug analysis in spite of a couple of suggestions to do so. So is it really about perceived gaming of the system, or about imposing one's view of operations on one's opponent?

These are my opinions on these specific HR. All that matters is your opinions and your opponent's opinions. Make agreements that you are comfortable with. Be flexible if things don't work out the way you anticipated. Have fun with the game and don't get too hung up on technical details working a certain way. Just learn how they work and then work with that the way that you work with the law of gravity every day (can't change that, can you?!). [8D]

I have no problem with your points - as a matter of fact you bring up some good reasonings. My problem is apathy - I'm here to play, not argue! Your opinion is valid and I respect your right to say it. I look at it as food for thought, not the Hammer striking the anvil on "I'm right"

I'm agreeable to most house rules and actually thought John3rd should have had the option of unhistorical R&D, because he's taking on two of us! He was a gentleman and declined <shakes head> Thats where I see class and dignity that I admire about him.

Ref to the previous game and the "soaking" I didnt necessarily see those TF's as soaking, I thought CR was shuttling in as much supply as he could before John3rd put the noose over his neck in Malaysia. I even suggested to John3rd that he put PB's out there in a TF as they would do damage to the AK's and served the same "soaking" purpose as the AKL's did, if that was CR's purpose... The game broke down before anything could happen.

There is a "is this gamey?" post in the main forum, I saw several things in there that vs. the AI are perfectly acceptable because the A.I. does them first. I'm really not upset if my opponent plays to win, it's simply like you said "Play Fair" - if you wouldn't want it done to you don't do it to them!

Thanks for sharing and please continue to visit and comment - it is appreciated by me.

[moore4807]

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

I know John very well, probably better than any other player. We often talk weekly and sometimes more. He knows I'll be in both AAR, but will not break "Op Security." I'll be here to offer some suggesting on things you could do that are more behind the scene stuff rather than 'defend here' or 'attack there.'

I would not disband some of your early war bomber air group HQ units with 5 planes in them. I'm using those that get withdrawn/disbanded in mid-42 as ASW platforms. Train them up in ASW after their moral goes to 99. Then, either NavS or LowN to attack subs.

The reduced cargo capacity takes some time to get use to. I use xAKs which have speed of 14 or greater that have both a cargo and liquid capacity to carry fuel. That is your early war bottle neck that needs to be addressed. Some of your shipping in Burma and India can convert to xAPs, I do so in the safety of Cape Town and then they mainly go to USA. Drop me a PM and I'll forward some of my info I've gathered over the years.

John is 'obsessed' about sinking shipping of all sizes and types. Use that to your advantage. [;)]

Good luck!![:)]

Thanks NY59Giants!

I have to laugh at the ASW bomber comment... because I told John that was where I'm a B*st*rd about it... In my game against Larry when I was the Allies, EVERY bomb carrying fighter group on the West Coast was placed on Naval ops at 1000ft and 80% LRCAP/20% rest and the search planes were pointing out at least 3-4 subs in the beginning of the war along the coast... by one year in Larry had 2/3rds of his sub fleet laid up for repairs or sunk. I think my all time best was 16 hits by P-40's outside of Los Angeles by 3 squadrons on one sub... obviously it sank. I asked him if he wanted to make a HR about it and he never answered, so I figured I would just dial it back to emergencies only.

PM to follow...

[ny59giants]

Two mega-PMs sent. [:D]

[moore4807]

Got em, I actually had 4 already - pathetic I know but just shows how much I have to learn [;)]

I just remembered to send them to Larry. What I could only do if I had a functioning brain [:D]