The Arsenal of Idiocracy - Cribtop (A) vs John 3rd (J) - BTS Mod

[Cribtop]

That is my lean. I was mostly curious what folks with more experience with the AV calculations thought might happen if he did go wild and take Tahiti, Pago Pago, Suva, etc.

I have slipped several SCTFs into the Noumea region from Oz (Asiatic Fleet survivors). They can make some noise, perhaps.

[zuluhour]

I wanted to chime in at work and forgot my password. I think any sortie by US Cvs should be done with at least one operational seaplane base to use as a pivot area, an egress or at least some early warning from a 45^ vector as escape is the most important victory. I assume an oiler is a day away at flank as well. As far as the VP for AV in SoPac, I believe he would need to invest New Zealand and eastern Australia with little loss. What I think will happen, John will slooooowly break KB down into smaller TFs where he feels no threat of LBA. Here lies the rub.....

Maybe a noob move can work...drop those guys off in the southeast Pacific, let them build some forts. Show him some tankers off Wake. See if intel picks up something moving north, make mad dash for Tahiti. Your a vet, don't do a Zulu and play with one carrier for two years!

pss. I never thought of moving SAGs and disbanding them at nowhere islands and atolls, playing blind chess as it were. I think I could have done great harm to Paul this (my) game with the solid seaplane bases I maintained.

[Cribtop]

It's a gamble if he finds you, but with the new map there are so many dots. It has allowed me to pop up out of nowhere a few times. One downside is you lose your TF commander.

[zuluhour]

Never thought of that, that should be patched. Should have to be a true base with support squads or HQ or something.

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: zuluhour

Never thought of that, that should be patched. Should have to be a true base with support squads or HQ or something.

Can't agree with that. There is a great picture of a US CA (Minneapolis?) with her bows blown off parked in the middle of nowhere to make temporary repairs. Ships can drop anchor nearly anywhere shallow enough. As Cribtop said, the trade-off is that they are sitting ducks if discovered.

[HansBolter]

I too don't see it as something that should be "fixed".

It adds a bit of cat and mouse suspense to the game.

If one always keeps one's bombers on NAV attack, juicy targets in ports get overlooked.

A possible solution is to set the bombers with a primary mission of Port Bombing without a target and NAV attack as secondary mission.

That way if your search planes discover ships disbanded in port the tactical AI MAY choose to bomb them.

The drawback is that you will only get an afternoon NAV attack without a morning one if there are no in port ships to target.

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: zuluhour

Never thought of that, that should be patched. Should have to be a true base with support squads or HQ or something.

Problem with this is that it is fundamentally contrary to the game design philosophy. Dot bases with sea access do provide an anchorage. This was the case in real life and AE would be unrealistic if "anchoring" (which in game terms = disbanded) were not allowed.

Besides there are other disadvantages associated with what Cribtop is doing. But like everything, a theoretical disadvantage has no impact if not exploited by the opponent. Cribtop is disbanding at ungarrisoned dot bases. His opponent could recon the dot bases with access to the sea and para drop on them. There would then be a serious risk of losing, due to auto scuttling, some of the disbanded Allied ships when the base changes hands. Or his opponent could send a naval bombardment TF to shoot up the sitting ducks.

As I always say, there is always a counter to every move. The strong players know that and adjust their play accordingly. The weak players just complain and demand that someone (= the devs) solve their problem. Cribtop is a strong enough player to understand the strength and weakness of his tactics.

Alfred

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

I too don't see it as something that should be "fixed".

It adds a bit of cat and mouse suspense to the game.

If one always keeps one's bombers on NAV attack, juicy targets in ports get overlooked.

A possible solution is to set the bombers with a primary mission of Port Bombing without a target and NAV attack as secondary mission.

That way if your search planes discover ships disbanded in port the tactical AI MAY choose to bomb them.

The drawback is that you will only get an afternoon NAV attack without a morning one if there are no in port ships to target.

IIRC Nav attack can only be done as a primary mission, but doing that with Port Attack as secondary should accomplish what you want quite well.

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

I too don't see it as something that should be "fixed".

It adds a bit of cat and mouse suspense to the game.

If one always keeps one's bombers on NAV attack, juicy targets in ports get overlooked.

A possible solution is to set the bombers with a primary mission of Port Bombing without a target and NAV attack as secondary mission.

That way if your search planes discover ships disbanded in port the tactical AI MAY choose to bomb them.

The drawback is that you will only get an afternoon NAV attack without a morning one if there are no in port ships to target.

IIRC Nav attack can only be done as a primary mission, but doing that with Port Attack as secondary should accomplish what you want quite well.

Thanks for the correction. I'm at work and not in front of the game. I was wondering after I posted if I made a mistake assuming that NAV search would uncover ships disbanded into port or if that can only be done with recon.

[Cribtop]

Yes, I wondered myself whether there was an issue with the tactic before I employed it as I try to stay somewhat on the realistic side. It was many of the actions around Guadalcanal that convinced me that it was kosher. To me the key is "can the tactic be countered?" The answer is certainly "yes." John could para drop, recon and search to reveal the ships and then nav/port, port attack or even bombard them. I am gambling he won't take the time to do so for every little dot. So far it's working pretty well.

[paullus99]

Given John's propensity to stack the deck entirely in the Japanese favor.....anything you can do to fight back is kosher in my book.

[Cribtop]

Indeed, Paullus. It is precisely the Japanese advantages in BTS that made we want to try the Allies. I'm an odd duck who wants the challenge!

Banzai! Err, Hooray! [:D]

From a long term perspective, I know I just need to weather the storm. John brings a lot of naval attacks, but the key bastions are fully defended now (Karachi/Bombay, Sydney/Melbourne, CONUS/Pearl Harbor), so we basically wait him out and then counter-attack.

PS - Owe you guys a real update but FYI the enemy CVLs finally moved away from Tahiti today. We will cautiously move to reinforce but without the USN CVs.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter
I'm at work and not in front of the game. I was wondering after I posted if I made a mistake assuming that NAV search would uncover ships disbanded into port or if that can only be done with recon.

I think it can, if I'm correctly remembering results of naval search in my game. But it's pretty clear that specific recon of the base is more effective at showing ships in port.

[zuluhour]

It's not the disbanding part it's the lose the TF leader.

ps As a matter of fact, some of the most interesting pictures I've uncovered reveal ships and barges with netting "hiding" from recon/air attack. It just does not seem right to lose the TF Co one has judiciously selected for the mission while on the mission.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: zuluhour

It's not the disbanding part it's the lose the TF leader.

ps As a matter of fact, some of the most interesting pictures I've uncovered reveal ships and barges with netting "hiding" from recon/air attack. It just does not seem right to lose the TF Co one has judiciously selected for the mission while on the mission.

I hate the way you have to pay for the CO over and over again if a TF is 'disbanded', even if you only are anchoring the TF but still have it administratively (in your mind) in existence and awaiting further action.

[ny59giants]

Given John's propensity to stack the deck entirely in the Japanese favor.....anything you can do to fight back is kosher in my book.

I've worked hand and hand with John in development of the three mods - RA, Treaty, and BTS (Between The Storms). RA is probably the one that could be considered more Japanese friendly as it is a 'what if' concerning the IJN. BTS takes the other two and merges them. Japan has an edge here, but not as much as historical as Cribtop can attest to.

[Cribtop]

I would concur. RA gives a lot of IJN toys and a few to the Allies. In BTS, the Allies get enough new toys that things are more interesting and more balanced.

[Bif1961]

If I may chime in on the question of the historic accuracy of disbanding naval surface forces in dot hexes to "hide them." Though the tactic doesn't seem to be as wide spread in WWII it was employed by WWI commerce raiders, either on solo missions, Emden in Afirca, or the German East Asian Cruiser Squandron, both used rivers or isolated anchorages, which would be dots in this game to affect minor repairs, meet with suply vessels and replenish water. Knowing a tactic was being employed generates a series of counter-measures to include coastwatchers, radio interecpting and increase use of search planes.

[zuluhour]

....update?

[Bif1961]

Must be a festivus break, with the airing of grievances and feats of stregnth.[:D]