AAR: Strategic Balance

[Chiteng]

After playing several games with the new patch to completion.

My opinion is that the USN need not risk anything at all.
The LBA can win the game for him.

You can lose all 6 starting CV and still win easily.

The facts are that you cant really fight post 42 USA aircraft.
You will get shot down, you will lose everything. Nothing Japan
tries to do will matter.

Because Heavy Bombers are used against ships, no matter what you do, sooner or later the USA will get lucky. Its only a matter of time.

Because Surface combat does not allow Torp only night combat,
USN guns will rip you to peices.

The only advantage the Japs have is early commitment of BB.
That is negated somewhat by high fuel costs and high
system damage.

The end result is that with PBY transport and sub transport
the USA player does not need to risk expensive and hard to replace ships. He can build advanced airfield w/o them.
Possibly not as fast as he would like, but it can be done.

Once there is an airstrip, he can use bombers if he has to
to supply it.

I have seen 7 lousy B-17 shred 100 Zeros in Air To Air combat
and still make a bomb run. they were maxxed out morale Zeros
also. Zero Fatigue also.

So it looks like a drive on Nomea or Australia is the only way
to win. High risk and the USN has all the advantages of position.

But waiting gives you nothing.

In fact sending ships back to Japan keeps them from being sunk towards the end.

[Drex]

I assume you are including pbem play in your analysis. Perhaps the exceptional allied player could overcome the loss of all is fleet carriers but for the rest of us, UV doesn't boil down to just a superior bomber command.
the bomber groups are very susceptible to operational, fatigue and morale effects. I'm in that very situation right now and my opponent has 150 fighters at PM and Lunga each and my bombers aren't going to cut it without a comparable escort, plus he has divisions at each base. No, the Allied player can and should win but it is not all cut and dried. Of course , I'm not an exceptional player.

[Yamamoto]

Originally posted by Drex
No, the Allied player can and should win but it is not all cut and dried.

I have to disagree with that sentence. If a game is balanced then either side should win about 50% of the time if the players are of equal skill.

I haven't noticed any Allied super airforce in my games, but then I've never played into 1943.

Yamamoto

[Drex]

Originally posted by Yamamoto
I have to disagree with that sentence. If a game is balanced then either side should win about 50% of the time if the players are of equal skill.

I haven't noticed any Allied super airforce in my games, but then I've never played into 1943.

Yamamoto

I've read a lot of the threads in this forum and at no time have I noticed anyone saying UV is 50% balanced, just the contrary. the Japanese have the advantage before 1943 and the Allies after. I won't guess at percentages because its meaningless. What I am saying is that UV has been tweaked to the extent that either side can win if they have the savy and the imagination to overcome odds. The allies must somehow forestall the early Japanese onslaught and later the Japanese must withstand the overwhelming allied effort. For most of us, the outcome of the game is not a foregone conclusion- no matter which side you are on. For the expert players, they must seek out other expert players or wait for WitP.

[Chiteng]

Originally posted by Drex
I've read a lot of the threads in this forum and at no time have I noticed anyone saying UV is 50% balanced, just the contrary. the Japanese have the advantage before 1943 and the Allies after. I won't guess at percentages because its meaningless. What I am saying is that UV has been tweaked to the extent that either side can win if they have the savy and the imagination to overcome odds. The allies must somehow forestall the early Japanese onslaught and later the Japanese must withstand the overwhelming allied effort. For most of us, the outcome of the game is not a foregone conclusion- no matter which side you are on. For the expert players, they must seek out other expert players or wait for WitP.

Yamamoto already answered the question.

'I have never played into 1943'

Obviously he wins, or loses before that time.
You are forced to gamble everything on a quick win.

[Drex]

Originally posted by Chiteng
Yamamoto already answered the question.

'I have never played into 1943'

Obviously he wins, or loses before that time.
You are forced to gamble everything on a quick win.

But didn't Yamamoto tell his superiors that he could guarantee victory in the first 6 months but thereafter it was a gamble? Uv is still historical. If the Japanese player can win victories in 1942 that will extend the game. The allied player can and will lose if he can't contain the heavy Japanese onslaught. Yamamoto's post only says he hasn't been able to win those early Jpanese victories or if he is allied, lost some significant battles in 1942.

[Chiteng]

Originally posted by Drex
But didn't Yamamoto tell his superiors that he could guarantee victory in the first 6 months but thereafter it was a gamble? Uv is still historical. If the Japanese player can win victories in 1942 that will extend the game. The allied player can and will lose if he can't contain the heavy Japanese onslaught. Yamamoto's post only says he hasn't been able to win those early Jpanese victories or if he is allied, lost some significant battles in 1942.

Your not listening... Since from other posts I know you HAVE played into 43, you know better. There is no stopping the
USN. Game over.

[Drex]

Chiteng, I think I know what what I am saying here. Yes I am playing as Allies and its July, 1943 and I am losing by 5000 pts. Obviously I haven't mastered the game, but until the rest of us have, this game is wide open as far as I'm concerned.

[Sonny]

Originally posted by Drex
................. Yes I am playing as Allies and its July, 1943 and I am losing by 5000 pts ....................

??? How can this be ??? Guess it could happen but if the Japanese are that far ahead why have they not gotten an automatic victory? What is the situation in your game - just interested.

[Mr.Frag]

The 1942 CV's on the Allied side are worth 2097 points, coupled with about 519 more for the aircraft assuming they were lost too far away from a base to transfer off. 5000 is not very tough to be in the hole by and still be firmly in control of everything south of Cooktown/Luganville.

Yamamoto was looking at the whole war, not just this little stretch of islands, so you need to apply his statements against WitP, not against our limited area of UV. We have unlimited fuel and supplies. He didn't have anything even remotely close to what was needed for more then 6 months.

While our Yamamoto tends to win in '42, it is because of the unlimited fuel. Without such, there would be no chance at all for an auto-victory.

This is something that will pan out in WitP with it's proper supply engine. Japan will be fighting a totally different war in WitP, with the objective of creating a massive supply net better then was done historically to delay the USA's ability to fight on even terms as long as possible. History will be truely going out the window there

[Drex]

Originally posted by Sonny
??? How can this be ??? Guess it could happen but if the Japanese are that far ahead why have they not gotten an automatic victory? What is the situation in your game - just interested.

In 1942 Soulblazer( as the Japanese) sank my 5 fleet carriers and sent the 6th one back to Pearl (where it still is). He captured PM, G-G and Lunga and advanced as far as Nevea, I was able to make a last ditch stand at Lunga and hurt his carriers and surface fleet pretty badly, halting his advance and forcing him to go on the defensive. His point total reflects how many of my ships he has sunk. Although I have replaced my surface fleet, I'll never have those fleet carriers back. I do have 9 CVs but they are CVEs and CVLs - Essex and Bunker Hill haven't arrived yet. Yes I could have surrendered way back, but I want to try to lessen the point gap and I wanted to use the planes and ships that only arrive at the end of the game. It is still fun. but more to the point, for average players - I don't mean to imply that Soulblazer is average but I am- the allies could still lose if the Japanese accumulate enough points in 1942. they do not have to go for an auto-victory.

[Mr.Frag]

Chiteng,

While I agree with some of what you say, the USA does need to work at the game to prevent a loss.

This entails use of airpower and submarines during the May-Nov 42 time period just to soften up Japan. It does not entail sitting back and doing nothing as you suggest and if this is what you have found, I suggest you find some better opponents to play.

The USA side has until Dec to get his affairs in order, making sure each of his bases from Cooktown/Luganville south into pristine shape with the non-combat engineers who power build. This has the added effect of reducing Malaria effects at Luganville, Efate and Cooktown to a minimum as these are not desired bases from the USA standpoint, causing headaches with troop & pilot rotations.

From this point on, the USA simply steps dot by dot (max building each as he goes) until at Truk.

People who rush without establishing a solid base of operations then power building forward are more likely to have to loose sleep over what is going on. As you step forward, you will notice an interlocking field of bases supporting each other with air power. While Japan can attempt to close one of these bases, the other bases are still functional and you still have your CV's to fill in the gaps without using them as front line support (which is where you loose them!).

This may sound simple, but it required a lot of thought and self control (sticking to the plans no matter how good something looks). It is not automatic. I do agree that the B17/24 are quite silly as they sit now. Any plane can be shot down. This mythical immunity that they have in UV is just wrong. This is probably why you feel that you can do absolutely nothing and win.

[Luskan]

Have to agree with Chiteng about the USN heavy bomber air to air immunity. Ace zero pilots did better against them than the game represents. As it is, they are impervious to anythnig at any altitude above 6000 - under 6000 and at least flak can get them, but they never fly that low anyway.

On the other hand, I'm supposed to be an experienced player and i'm loosing Scn 17 vs the IJN by 3000 points and it is now 11/43. I'm out TROOPS believe it or not. Also short on everything else, and have lost 2 CVEs, and two extremely badly hammered CVs and a smashed CVL that were all in a 400+ aircraft air combat TF filled with hellcats and Corsairs on CAP.

The "grand offensive" I planned to sweep my opponent from the map got me Irau, Lunga, Russell, Munda, and PM. Tens of thousands of troops died when I originally lost PM, thousands died in the failed attempt to steal GG back early, thousands more died at Irau ina long protracted siege that cost me lots of ships too - as well as almost a whole division drowned before they could it the beach. Thousands drowned at Nevea and Gavigamana, and thousands died on the battlefront during the successful Lunga operation, and on the unsuccessful and subsequently successful Russell Islands debacle. I've got bombers and CVs, but no way to close the point gap before the end of the game.

It is possible for the IJN to win in the long run - just not as likely if the USN player does as Raver is doing to me in our game.

[joliverlay]

I am somewhat suprised at the notion that B17s are invincible. In my 4 current PBM games as the Allies I am constantly withdrawing B17 groups to deal with losses. I'm flying at 27,000 feet using unescorted raids againt P.M. The zeros are even turning back some of my raids. I don't think my kill ratio (B17 to Zero) in air-air combat could possibly be better than 2:1 if you count damaged aircraft lost in flight back to base. This hardly makes the groups invincible.

[Drongo]

Posted by Chiteng

There is no stopping the USN. Game over.

It seems a few players disagree with your statement.

I agree that, all else being equal, the allies do have a definite advantage after March '43. But things aren't always equal.

I've won scenario 17 as the Japanese twice in '43 without auto victory. Both USN opponents were experienced and both games completed their last few months of play under version 2.3 of UV.

One player offered to surrender in August '43 when he realised he couldn't catch up on points.

My other opponent, who had played safe and refused to fully contest the Japanese conquest of New Guinea and the Solomons, suffered a heavy defeat attempting to retake Port Moresby in May '43 and felt that he couldn't launch another offensive in time to threaten my VP lead.

In another PBEM (this time scen 15), I was in a very strong position in March of '43 and felt I had an excellent chance of going the distance. I ended up taking the auto victory but only because my esteemed allied opponent (that Raver bloke again) indicated that he would not be capable of launching any real offensive for some time (other than his heavy bomber attacks). That decision was only made to avoid a long period of boredom (and his annoying air attacks).

Allied airpower does become something that can't be directly stopped but you can make him pay for using it. You can also do a lot to minimise your exposure to it, one of which is careful deployments.

Both the '43 victories in scenario 17 were helped by 2 things. Firstly, I was lucky enough (in one of them) to sink a lot of the allied CVs early for little loss. Secondly, my opponents both expected me to go for the auto victory and acted defensively, leaving me free to consolidate. It also delayed their counter offensive.

In my opinion, to successfuly last the distance in '43 as the Japanese, you have to set yourself up in '42 with successful operations to take the locations you need, inflict as heavy damage as possible on the allies and then keep them off balance for as long as possible while you prepare your ground.

Of course, that leads to the obvious question....if you are doing that well in '42, why not turn it into an auto victory at the end of the year?

I'd think that it's possible to win in '43 as the Japanese without needing an auto victory. I just don't think it'd be anyone's prefered choice given what a rough year you have to get through when you compare it to the "fun" of fighting in '42.

[madflava13]

I think everyone who is complaining about the B-17s in UV should go buy a copy of "Samurai" by Saburo Sakai. Its an interesting read, but more importantly, he discusses how intimidated the Japanese pilots were by the B-17. They were not often shot down, and many Zeros were damaged trying - quite the opposite of what happened over Europe. I think this is modeled perfectly - yes, perfectly - in UV. I often get damaged B-17s in raids, but few shot down. This matches history. My biggest problem is keeping B-17s morale up and building up the units.

So to sum it all up, B-17s in the Pacific were nearly invincible, but had specific limitations. This is historical. Don't believe me? Buy the book and read it from Japan's top ace.

[Drongo]

Posted by joliverlay

I am somewhat suprised at the notion that B17s are invincible. In my 4 current PBM games as the Allies I am constantly withdrawing B17 groups to deal with losses. I'm flying at 27,000 feet using unescorted raids againt P.M. The zeros are even turning back some of my raids. I don't think my kill ratio (B17 to Zero) in air-air combat could possibly be better than 2:1 if you count damaged aircraft lost in flight back to base. This hardly makes the groups invincible.

My experience is that very few B17s will be actually shot down during UV combat but rather will tend to be operational losses after the fact. On the other hand, I rarely see them shoot down hordes of zeros either (under the current version).

If your raids are being turned back it normally means that their being worked too hard or have a crap leader (the squadron leader not the player :p ). Being shot up doesn't seem to have much impact on heavy bomber squadrons if their starting morale is good.

[Nikademus]

I never saw the problem of the heavy bombers as lack of kills, because they were hard to bring down historically. The problem is their JDAM like accuracy. While not nearly as bad against moving TF's with 2.30.....their ability to hit TF's in a port (along with medium bombers) is at times nothing short of astounding when compared to the driblets that usually attack. (avg # per raid 6)

Such consistant pinpoint accuracy belies the 1% to-hit record compiled by B-17's during the Guadalcanal campaign. Its especially strange to witness when compared side by side with dive bomber attacks which usually tend to score less despite the more accurate delivery method.

While i'd expect to see few kills, it would be nice if the damage inflicted impacted this uber-accuracy more often as well.......because as Drongo related, a unit with good morale will rarely break off even in the face of determined attack by fighters.

I've not seen any recurrance of the pseudo-fighter effect at least.

My biggest hangup with the level bombers however originate with the medium bombers. The .50cal armed versions (B-25/26) seem to behave like heavy bombers in terms of invulnerability in the face of heavy attack, even unescorted. Fighters refuse to close with them as well leading to few kills forcing players to rely on morale failure to save their bases from the pounding. Players dont have to really wait for long ranged escort fighters in UV.

[Chiteng]

Well I am in one game right now as the IJN:

All six starting USN CV are sunk.
I have taken PM Lunga and GG

I can barely supply PM. It takes total commitment
of resources to get a convoy to the port.

What happends then is that after my CV leave, some strike
with some kind of bombers, it really doesnt matter what they are,
will get thru my cap and blow up the supply.

One would think that they would learn how to disperse.

There is no chance whatever of me event trying to attack anything. it is 2/2/43 He is VERY well entrenched at Luganville.
Invading Australia is a pipe dream.

My elite pilots are being killed off one by one.
ONLY my CV pilots are in the same shape as when the game started. The Junyo and all the CVL had to be withdrawn
after sinking the 6 USN CV. The Kaga finally got her damage
down to below 11% I am hoping an all out strike
with everything I have will sink the Essex when she arrives
but I am certain I will lose 80% of my pilots.

I have chased off most of his subs by simply using my CV as
sub sweepers.

The land based Vals cant even seem to sink DD.
The flak shreds them.

So basicly I have the Pearl Strikeforce and the Hiyo and that is it.
I do have lots of Zeros however, so in numbers my airforce
is at strength.

[Drex]

Originally posted by joliverlay
I am somewhat suprised at the notion that B17s are invincible. In my 4 current PBM games as the Allies I am constantly withdrawing B17 groups to deal with losses. I'm flying at 27,000 feet using unescorted raids againt P.M. The zeros are even turning back some of my raids. I don't think my kill ratio (B17 to Zero) in air-air combat could possibly be better than 2:1 if you count damaged aircraft lost in flight back to base. This hardly makes the groups invincible.

My problem with my bomber groups is fatigue and morale. I find that I have to stand them down after every run to keep them above 50% and also keep them at 6000' or above. This also forces me to stagger my raids so I can get day after day attacks. While this works, it reduces the size of the air raids. And yes my bombers are also damaged and shot down which again reflects in a plummeting morale.