THE WAR COLLEGE-Rio Bravo (A) v. El Lobo (J)

[Lecivius]

Ceylon is important, if for no other reason than it's shipyard. Bombay has one, but for him the next closest one is Singapore. I can understand not wanting to loose troops to it as it is a PIA to defend early on, but if he takes it on the cheap he is going to own this theater for a long time.

[Rio Bravo]

ORIGINAL: Lecivius

Ceylon is important, if for no other reason than it's shipyard. Bombay has one, but for him the next closest one is Singapore. I can understand not wanting to loose troops to it as it is a PIA to defend early on, but if he takes it on the cheap he is going to own this theater for a long time.

Lecivius-

How much would you invest in Ceylon?

I have left all the Ceylon Command troops in Ceylon (but that sure isn't much to fight with).

Thank you for your analysis and comments.

Best Regards,

-Terry

[Lecivius]

ORIGINAL: Rio Bravo

ORIGINAL: Lecivius

Ceylon is important, if for no other reason than it's shipyard. Bombay has one, but for him the next closest one is Singapore. I can understand not wanting to loose troops to it as it is a PIA to defend early on, but if he takes it on the cheap he is going to own this theater for a long time.

Lecivius-

How much would you invest in Ceylon?

I have left all the Ceylon Command troops in Ceylon (but that sure isn't much to fight with).

Thank you for your analysis and comments.

Best Regards,

-Terry

I read all the AAR's, and I am about to go read his (I have not at this point), so I will not comment further. But IMHO Ceylon is tactically, and even strategically on several levels, more important than everything south of Bombay.

[Rio Bravo]

ORIGINAL: Lecivius

ORIGINAL: Rio Bravo

ORIGINAL: Lecivius

Ceylon is important, if for no other reason than it's shipyard. Bombay has one, but for him the next closest one is Singapore. I can understand not wanting to loose troops to it as it is a PIA to defend early on, but if he takes it on the cheap he is going to own this theater for a long time.

Lecivius-

How much would you invest in Ceylon?

I have left all the Ceylon Command troops in Ceylon (but that sure isn't much to fight with).

Thank you for your analysis and comments.

Best Regards,

-Terry

I read all the AAR's, and I am about to go read his (I have not at this point), so I will not comment further. But IMHO Ceylon is tactically, and even strategically on several levels, more important than everything south of Bombay.

Lecivius-

Noted, appreciated, and scrambling through sticky paste notes to find some troops to boost up Ceylon!

Thank you.

Best Regards,

-Terry

[Rio Bravo]

[center]Combat Report[/center]
[center]for[/center]
[center]January 2, 1942[/center]


Japanese Sub Sinks Another Allied Transport:

Submarine attack near Newcastle at 94,166

Japanese Ships
SS I-5

Allied Ships
xAKL Shinai, Shell hits 2, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage

xAKL Shinai is sighted by SS I-5
SS I-5 attacking on the surface

Allies Bommbard Japanese at Batavia and Tarakan!

Ground combat at Batavia (49,98)

Allied Bombardment attack

Attacking force 6930 troops, 122 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 373

Defending force 4040 troops, 47 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 137

Japanese ground losses:
82 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 6 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled

Assaulting units:
2nd KNIL Regiment
1st Regt Cavalerie
1st KNIL Landstorm Battalion
1st KNIL Regiment
Batavia Coastal Gun Battalion
4th KNIL Landstorm Battalion
ML-KNIL
1 ML-KNIL Aviation
1st KNIL AA Battalion
Batavia Base Force

Defending units:
15th Guards Regiment

Ground combat at Tarakan (67,91)

Allied Bombardment attack

Attacking force 772 troops, 27 guns, 7 vehicles, Assault Value = 12

Defending force 3705 troops, 34 guns, 12 vehicles, Assault Value = 130

Assaulting units:
VII KNIL Battalion
Tarakan Coastal Gun Battalion
Tarakan Base Force

Defending units:
21st/A Division

Best Regards,

-Terry

[Rio Bravo]

[center]Combat Report[/center]
[center]for[/center]
[center]January 3, 1942[/center]

Japanese Subs Dent Three Allied Ships:

Submarine attack near Bowen at 97,146

Japanese Ships
SS I-174

Allied Ships
xAKL Silindoeng, Shell hits 19, Torpedo hits 2, heavy fires, heavy damage

Submarine attack near Brisbane at 97,162

Japanese Ships
SS I-166

Allied Ships
AG Gemma, Torpedo hits 1, heavy damage

Sub attack near Bundaberg at 98,154

Japanese Ships
SS I-172

Allied Ships
AG Albatros, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage

Allied Ships Hit Japanese Sub!

Sub attack near Burnie at 82,174

Japanese Ships
SS I-24, hits 3

Allied Ships
AM Latrobe
AM Lithgow

Allies Bombard Japanese at Batavia & Tarakan!

Ground combat at Batavia (49,98)

Allied Bombardment attack

Attacking force 6936 troops, 122 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 374

Defending force 3981 troops, 47 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 131

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

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

Assaulting units:
1st Regt Cavalerie
1st KNIL Landstorm Battalion
1st KNIL Regiment
2nd KNIL Regiment
Batavia Coastal Gun Battalion
4th KNIL Landstorm Battalion
1 ML-KNIL Aviation
1st KNIL AA Battalion
ML-KNIL
Batavia Base Force

Defending units:
15th Guards Regiment

Ground combat at Tarakan (67,91)

Allied Bombardment attack

Attacking force 780 troops, 27 guns, 7 vehicles, Assault Value = 13

Defending force 3705 troops, 34 guns, 12 vehicles, Assault Value = 130

Assaulting units:
VII KNIL Battalion
Tarakan Coastal Gun Battalion
Tarakan Base Force

Defending units:
21st/A Division

Best Regards,

-Terry

[Rio Bravo]

[center]Combat Report[/center]
[center]for[/center]
[center]January 4, 1942[/center]

Japanese Sub Puts Another Allied Transport on Fire with Heavy Damage Near Newcastle:

Submarine attack near Newcastle at 92,167

Japanese Ships
SS I-22

Allied Ships
xAKL Benkoelen, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage

Japanese Push Allies Back Near Malacca:

Ground combat at 50,80 (near Malacca)

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 3760 troops, 5 guns, 355 vehicles, Assault Value = 236

Defending force 1958 troops, 21 guns, 1 vehicles, Assault Value = 25

Japanese adjusted assault: 123

Allied adjusted defense: 13

Japanese assault odds: 9 to 1

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

Allied ground losses:
1223 casualties reported
Squads: 62 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 62 destroyed, 26 disabled
Engineers: 4 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 15 (10 destroyed, 5 disabled)
Vehicles lost 1 (1 destroyed, 0 disabled)
Units retreated 5

Defeated Allied Units Retreating!

Assaulting units:
14th Tank Regiment
5th Recon Regiment
4th Tank Regiment
48th Recon Regiment
7th Tank Regiment

Defending units:
22nd Australian Brigade
5/2nd Punjab Battalion
11 Battery/3 HAA
30 Battery/3 HAA
112th RAF Base Force

Allies Bombard Japanese Forces at Batavia and Tarakan Again!

Ground combat at Batavia (49,98)

Allied Bombardment attack

Attacking force 6918 troops, 122 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 374

Defending force 4001 troops, 47 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 133

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

Assaulting units:
2nd KNIL Regiment
Batavia Coastal Gun Battalion
1st KNIL Landstorm Battalion
1st Regt Cavalerie
1st KNIL Regiment
4th KNIL Landstorm Battalion
1st KNIL AA Battalion
ML-KNIL
1 ML-KNIL Aviation
Batavia Base Force

Defending units:
15th Guards Regiment

Ground combat at Tarakan (67,91)

Allied Bombardment attack

Attacking force 788 troops, 27 guns, 7 vehicles, Assault Value = 15

Defending force 3761 troops, 34 guns, 12 vehicles, Assault Value = 136

Assaulting units:
VII KNIL Battalion
Tarakan Coastal Gun Battalion
Tarakan Base Force

Defending units:
21st/A Division

Allies Hold Out at Tarakan Again!

Ground combat at Tarakan (67,91)

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 3761 troops, 34 guns, 12 vehicles, Assault Value = 136

Defending force 1592 troops, 44 guns, 7 vehicles, Assault Value = 15

Japanese adjusted assault: 56

Allied adjusted defense: 37

Japanese assault odds: 1 to 1 (fort level 0)

Japanese Assault reduces fortifications to 0

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

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

Allied ground losses:
10 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Assaulting units:
21st/A Division

Defending units:
VII KNIL Battalion
Tarakan Coastal Gun Battalion
Tarakan Base Force

Best Regards,

-Terry

[Bullwinkle58]

One or two tips on subs, then you're on your own. [:)]

The code has always seemed to hyper-target unescorted merchants. It LOVES tankers sailing alone. In AI games it almost seems magical how subs can find tankers six hexes away if they are alone. But I digress. Even one escort of any kind will increase your odds of not being attacked and attack success odds. The code way, way over-targets escorts versus the real war. In my observations, and I'm sure there are randoms, 40-50% of the time as Allies your sub will shoot at the escort and not the merchant. Escorts tend to have high(er) maneuver ratings in the DB and thus are missed more than slow, fat merchants.

As Allies you don't have enough escorts for awhile. You have to use what you have that can carry a DC. AMs, KVs, DMSes, even YPs in a pinch. Sometimes you may have to go to an Escort TF to get odd types to join; this is OK on a homeward leg when not carrying cargo.

Lone merchants also get surface gun attacked a lot more. Which saves torpedoes for Japan which saves transit time and wasted fuel to reload. In my Sept 1943 PBEM game I think there have been fewer than 5 surface gun attacks by either side. In my AI games the AI runs Japan merchants alone a lot and you can up your sub success rate in 1942 that way when the dud rate is a back-breaker. One escort of any kind and there is virtually no chance of a gun attack.

Early, when the Mk14 dud rate is massive, consider using more subs for mining, and a limited number for re-supply. The latter are pretty wasteful, delivering I think 32 supply per trip. Not enough to keep Bataan in business, but enough to maybe delay the Japanese on a Dutch island a few days. Getting rid of the amphib bonus changes the game markedly. Japan has to be racing under it. Anything that delays is a win for you.

Sub mining is a bit of an art form. You have to look at decay rates so some are left by the time they get there, but also guess right on their base target pattern. Nothing worse than to invest 100 mines in an island and have them bypass it for six weeks, You watch your field fall apart and can do nothing. Mines are pretty precious during the amphib bonus. But timing is key.

[Rio Bravo]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

One or two tips on subs, then you're on your own. [:)]

The code has always seemed to hyper-target unescorted merchants. It LOVES tankers sailing alone. In AI games it almost seems magical how subs can find tankers six hexes away if they are alone. But I digress. Even one escort of any kind will increase your odds of not being attacked and attack success odds. The code way, way over-targets escorts versus the real war. In my observations, and I'm sure there are randoms, 40-50% of the time as Allies your sub will shoot at the escort and not the merchant. Escorts tend to have high(er) maneuver ratings in the DB and thus are missed more than slow, fat merchants.

As Allies you don't have enough escorts for awhile. You have to use what you have that can carry a DC. AMs, KVs, DMSes, even YPs in a pinch. Sometimes you may have to go to an Escort TF to get odd types to join; this is OK on a homeward leg when not carrying cargo.

Lone merchants also get surface gun attacked a lot more. Which saves torpedoes for Japan which saves transit time and wasted fuel to reload. In my Sept 1943 PBEM game I think there have been fewer than 5 surface gun attacks by either side. In my AI games the AI runs Japan merchants alone a lot and you can up your sub success rate in 1942 that way when the dud rate is a back-breaker. One escort of any kind and there is virtually no chance of a gun attack.

Early, when the Mk14 dud rate is massive, consider using more subs for mining, and a limited number for re-supply. The latter are pretty wasteful, delivering I think 32 supply per trip. Not enough to keep Bataan in business, but enough to maybe delay the Japanese on a Dutch island a few days. Getting rid of the amphib bonus changes the game markedly. Japan has to be racing under it. Anything that delays is a win for you.

Sub mining is a bit of an art form. You have to look at decay rates so some are left by the time they get there, but also guess right on their base target pattern. Nothing worse than to invest 100 mines in an island and have them bypass it for six weeks, You watch your field fall apart and can do nothing. Mines are pretty precious during the amphib bonus. But timing is key.

Welcome to my AAR Bullwinkle-

I agree and have noticed that escorting a logistical convoy makes a big difference in the effectiveness of Japanese subs. My problem, as I suspect is the problem for most allied players early on, is one can't wait for escorts when steaming away from Malaya, the Philippines and DEI.

Interesting comments you made regarding sub surface actions. That I will keep in mind.

I recall in the war with Germany, the German sub packs, wolf packs, were quite effective, especially when roaming as a group of four. In your opinion would that be good for the allies against japan...groups of four allied subs...hunting?

Best Regards,

-Terry

[Bullwinkle58]

Sorry, one more.

In April you get to decide which upgrade path to take for Argonaut, Nautilus, and Narwhal. SST or keep them around as up-gunned mining specialists. (The ship-killer mines come later, in late 1942 I think.)

I think they have much more value as SSTs. They make all of the para-capable LCUs sub-transportable. I use the Aussie Kangas a lot, as well as the Marine Raiders of the USMC (not para-capable, but great fighters once ashore.) They are useful for taking dot bases for later development, or unoccupied bases you can then land bigger forces on without prep time. Their supply capacity is also about triple an SS.

[Lowpe]

There are two monster Dutch sub laying machines...I seem to recall.

put mines in choke points, or in front of CD guns, or in bases the IJN wants to bombard or Japanese bases where cripples might go to after a fight.

Nasty.

Save your 13 knot Yank subs...you can turn them into SSTs which are a lot of fun.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

There are two monster Dutch sub laying machines...I seem to recall.

put mines in choke points, or in front of CD guns, or in bases the IJN wants to bombard or Japanese bases where cripples might go to after a fight.

Nasty.

Save your 13 knot Yank subs...you can turn them into SSTs which are a lot of fun.

I think you're referring to the Dutch O-boats.

Problem with choke points is decay rate. It's a trade off. I've put mines a few times in deep water when I thought the odds were worth it. But they go poof pretty fast. Shallow water is slower, but still faster than a harbor. Mines don't hit in&out bombardment missions much. They do mess up landings with bombardment as a piece.

[BBfanboy]

Don't forget that APDs are capable ASW ships and can be used to haul stuff while escorting a convoy.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

Don't forget that APDs are capable ASW ships and can be used to haul stuff while escorting a convoy.

I tend to use them in ASW TFs at first as they're better than anything you have except the very few RN DDs that often die near Singers. Later they're Fast Transport guys until I get LST/LCI.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Rio Bravo


I recall in the war with Germany, the German sub packs, wolf packs, were quite effective, especially when roaming as a group of four. In your opinion would that be good for the allies against japan...groups of four allied subs...hunting?

Best Regards,

-Terry

I missed this one yesterday.

A lot of discussion of this topic early in the game's life. One good thread:

tm.asp?m=2889330&mpage=1&key=multiple&#2891349

In particular Don Bowen's post. He wrote/developed/altered much or all of the naval code in the game as part of the Henderson Field team:

"There are several general issues with single/multiple sub TFs.

Chance to find the enemy - each TF has a chance, without regard to number of subs in the TF. So 3 TFs with one sub are more likely to encounter the enemy than one TF with three subs.

Which sub attacks - Only one sub from each TF will attack. In a single sub TF there is no option. In a multiple sub TF the "best" sub will be selected. This is based on damage, ammo, (and fuel?) Basically the least damaged with the most ammo. I think fuel is also considered in the spirit of "one more attack before I have to run home to refuel". Once that single sub attacks, the engagement is over. There is no code to support multiple attacks.

Multiple attacks - There is, however, a chance that the same sub TF will re-contact the same enemy TF. If that happens a different sub from a "wolf pack" might be chosen to attack. This could look like coordinated attacks in the combat report but it is really just a series of attacks.

Detection - I do not know is multiple subs increases the chance of detection of the "wolfpack", but I suspect so. I don't think there is special-circumstance code either way, so whatever the general detection code does... In most circumstances, more ships in the the TF means higher chances of detection.

For the record - I never run wolfpacks. I prefer "line" patrol zones - two points fairly close together so the sub bounces back and forth in the targeted area. Multiple sub TFs can be placed in the same area, with patrol lines crossing. "

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: Rio Bravo


I recall in the war with Germany, the German sub packs, wolf packs, were quite effective, especially when roaming as a group of four. In your opinion would that be good for the allies against japan...groups of four allied subs...hunting?

Best Regards,

-Terry

I missed this one yesterday.

A lot of discussion of this topic early in the game's life. One good thread:

tm.asp?m=2889330&mpage=1&key=multiple�

In particular Don Bowen's post. He wrote/developed/altered much or all of the naval code in the game as part of the Henderson Field team:

"There are several general issues with single/multiple sub TFs.

Chance to find the enemy - each TF has a chance, without regard to number of subs in the TF. So 3 TFs with one sub are more likely to encounter the enemy than one TF with three subs.

Which sub attacks - Only one sub from each TF will attack. In a single sub TF there is no option. In a multiple sub TF the "best" sub will be selected. This is based on damage, ammo, (and fuel?) Basically the least damaged with the most ammo. I think fuel is also considered in the spirit of "one more attack before I have to run home to refuel". Once that single sub attacks, the engagement is over. There is no code to support multiple attacks.

Multiple attacks - There is, however, a chance that the same sub TF will re-contact the same enemy TF. If that happens a different sub from a "wolf pack" might be chosen to attack. This could look like coordinated attacks in the combat report but it is really just a series of attacks.

Detection - I do not know is multiple subs increases the chance of detection of the "wolfpack", but I suspect so. I don't think there is special-circumstance code either way, so whatever the general detection code does... In most circumstances, more ships in the the TF means higher chances of detection.

For the record - I never run wolfpacks. I prefer "line" patrol zones - two points fairly close together so the sub bounces back and forth in the targeted area. Multiple sub TFs can be placed in the same area, with patrol lines crossing. "

I remember that. I don't how this experience I'm about to relate plays into - were there code changes since Don's post or is it just how things show up in the combat report - but for what it's worth... in my AAR I show where in a single 'combat' as shown in the replay animations and in the combat report, one of my opponent's subs sank 3x AO (three fleet oilers) at once. If I can find the AAR post I will put a link here.

[witpqs]

Here, at post 1985
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2966329&mpage=67&key=

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub attack near Iwo-jima at 109,78

Japanese Ships
SS I-54, hits 16, on fire, heavy damage

Allied Ships
DE Engstrom
AO Mascoma, Torpedo hits 1, heavy fires, heavy damage
AO Cahaba, Torpedo hits 1, heavy fires, heavy damage
AO Monongahela
AO Tappahanock, Shell hits 1, Torpedo hits 1, heavy fires, heavy damage

SS I-54 launches 2 torpedoes at DE Engstrom
I-54 diving deep ....
DE Engstrom fails to find sub, continues to search...
DE Engstrom fails to find sub, continues to search...
DE Engstrom fails to find sub, continues to search...
DE Engstrom attacking submerged sub ....
SS I-54 forced to surface!
AO Mascoma firing on surfaced sub ....
AO Cahaba firing on surfaced sub ....
AO Monongahela firing on surfaced sub ....
AO Tappahanock firing on surfaced sub ....
AO Mascoma firing on surfaced sub ....
AO Cahaba firing on surfaced sub ....
AO Monongahela firing on surfaced sub ....
AO Tappahanock firing on surfaced sub ....
AO Mascoma firing on surfaced sub ....
AO Cahaba firing on surfaced sub ....
AO Monongahela firing on surfaced sub ....
AO Tappahanock firing on surfaced sub ....
AO Mascoma firing on surfaced sub ....
AO Cahaba firing on surfaced sub ....
AO Monongahela firing on surfaced sub ....
AO Tappahanock firing on surfaced sub ....
AO Mascoma firing on surfaced sub ....
AO Cahaba firing on surfaced sub ....
AO Monongahela firing on surfaced sub ....
AO Tappahanock firing on surfaced sub ....
AO Mascoma firing on surfaced sub ....
AO Cahaba firing on surfaced sub ....
AO Monongahela firing on surfaced sub ....
AO Tappahanock firing on surfaced sub ....
AO Mascoma firing on surfaced sub ....
AO Cahaba firing on surfaced sub ....
AO Monongahela firing on surfaced sub ....
AO Tappahanock firing on surfaced sub ....
Sub slips beneath the waves


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

[Bullwinkle58]

I think when a sub is forced to surface from damage and enters the "desperation phase attacks" just before it usually sinks, that all bets are off. IOW it goes to a different sub-routine (or method) in the code.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

I think when a sub is forced to surface from damage and enters the "desperation phase attacks" just before it usually sinks, that all bets are off. IOW it goes to a different sub-routine (or method) in the code.

Then from now on all my escorts will be ordered to attack subs 'just a little'! [:D]

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

I think when a sub is forced to surface from damage and enters the "desperation phase attacks" just before it usually sinks, that all bets are off. IOW it goes to a different sub-routine (or method) in the code.

Then from now on all my escorts will be ordered to attack subs 'just a little'! [:D]

Riiiiiight! [:)]

FWIW I've never seen a desperation phase total like you show. Anyone would be fine losing a sub for that bag.