AAR: Strategic Balance

[Mr.Frag]

Japan has 4 different types of Engineer units.

Non-Combat units:

Base Forces - all have 30 engineers

Combat units:

Pioneers - all have 45 engineers (these are your best builders, never risk on assaults)
Construction - all have 30 engineers (these double duty as assault & builders)
Attached - all have 16 engineers (use these guys during assaults with their parent INF units)

All of these units can increase port/airfield/fortification values. The rate they accomplish this task is directly related to how many engineers there are doing the work. Fortification values are slightly different in that all units will over time assist in increasing this value although they are nowhere near as fast as dedicated engineers. As engineers in the individual unit become disabled, the work being done slows down proportionally. 8 out of 16 engineers disabled, 50% work output.

In comparison the Allies have an additional type of engineer unit in the Non-Combat catagory which is outfitted with vehicles (each vehicle does the same work as 5 engineers). Each of these units by itself generally equals about 130 Japan engineers.

If you are trying to build few mega bases as Japan by clumping your ENG units, you are playing as the Allies. Japan's strength is specifically in the sheer number of smaller INF units that can be dumped all over the place to provide target saturation to the Allied player. Build many smaller bases everywhere. That is your strength.

The #1 weakness the Allied side has is the small number of large INF units. The Allied side can not be in many places at once due to not having small units. Building large bases plays exactly into this weakness turning it into a strength. Since they do not have any small INF units to contest each and every little dot on the map, they have to consistant mount large landings everytime they attempt to move forward. This exposes their Navy and exposes the troops (while still embarked) to large losses, while Japan is running around dropping small amounts of supply to smaller units by air and barge and sub as required.

The Allied side has immense power but it is difficult to deploy quickly. They must plod forward base by base. This takes time and is costly. The more bases you can throw up as roadblocks, the longer it takes to advance. The size of the base needs to be just large enough to be useful to you. As Mogami posted, a nice size 3 port every couple of bases so you have somewhere to bail out your ships and repair floatation damage.

Due to your tiny base units, you will be unlikely to have more then a squadron per base. Spread things out, negate the Allied Airpower by NOT concentrating your forces into a single basket. An airbase stacked with 250 planes is nothing more the a gift to the Allies. 4 bases with 1 squadron each is far more effective then 1 base with 4 squadrons. It takes 4 times the effort to put out of action, takes 4 times the effort to suppress, risks exposed forces from 3 of the 4 when attempting to subdue, provides a bailout location etc. Lots of benefits, use them!

[Chiteng]

Originally posted by Mr.Frag
Japan has 4 different types of Engineer units.

Non-Combat units:

Base Forces - all have 30 engineers

Combat units:

Pioneers - all have 45 engineers (these are your best builders, never risk on assaults)
Construction - all have 30 engineers (these double duty as assault & builders)
Attached - all have 16 engineers (use these guys during assaults with their parent INF units)

All of these units can increase port/airfield/fortification values. The rate they accomplish this task is directly related to how many engineers there are doing the work. Fortification values are slightly different in that all units will over time assist in increasing this value although they are nowhere near as fast as dedicated engineers. As engineers in the individual unit become disabled, the work being done slows down proportionally. 8 out of 16 engineers disabled, 50% work output.

In comparison the Allies have an additional type of engineer unit in the Non-Combat catagory which is outfitted with vehicles (each vehicle does the same work as 5 engineers). Each of these units by itself generally equals about 130 Japan engineers.

If you are trying to build few mega bases as Japan by clumping your ENG units, you are playing as the Allies. Japan's strength is specifically in the sheer number of smaller INF units that can be dumped all over the place to provide target saturation to the Allied player. Build many smaller bases everywhere. That is your strength.

The #1 weakness the Allied side has is the small number of large INF units. The Allied side can not be in many places at once due to not having small units. Building large bases plays exactly into this weakness turning it into a strength. Since they do not have any small INF units to contest each and every little dot on the map, they have to consistant mount large landings everytime they attempt to move forward. This exposes their Navy and exposes the troops (while still embarked) to large losses, while Japan is running around dropping small amounts of supply to smaller units by air and barge and sub as required.

The Allied side has immense power but it is difficult to deploy quickly. They must plod forward base by base. This takes time and is costly. The more bases you can throw up as roadblocks, the longer it takes to advance. The size of the base needs to be just large enough to be useful to you. As Mogami posted, a nice size 3 port every couple of bases so you have somewhere to bail out your ships and repair floatation damage.

Due to your tiny base units, you will be unlikely to have more then a squadron per base. Spread things out, negate the Allied Airpower by NOT concentrating your forces into a single basket. An airbase stacked with 250 planes is nothing more the a gift to the Allies. 4 bases with 1 squadron each is far more effective then 1 base with 4 squadrons. It takes 4 times the effort to put out of action, takes 4 times the effort to suppress, risks exposed forces from 3 of the 4 when attempting to subdue, provides a bailout location etc. Lots of benefits, use them!

I have to disagree on one point.

He can put everything on CAP and simply shoot down all incomming strikes. He doesnt need to knock out all your bases.
That is what 'I' do. Because your right, supressing 4 bases is silly.
It will take forever.

[Veer]

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

Well... did the Japs have a 50% victory chance at the start of the campaign?

The biggest problem is the deafult bomber altitude set to 6,000 feet. Set it to 15,000 and MB will be much less effective, but still do the odd amount of damage. Once that's done, the game is balanced.

[Mr.Frag]

He can put everything on CAP and simply shoot down all incomming strikes. He doesnt need to knock out all your bases.

I'm not sure I follow you. The Allied player has no choice but to bring the war to you. He can't put everything on CAP and wait for you to strike, again based on the troop mix, he can select at best 6 bases to defend in strength. These ones you'll never scratch, but there is nothing stopping you from taking every single other base on the map. Each time he attempts to contest one of these trivial bases, his troops at the 6 real bases are diminished. If he plays too agressively, you'll end up with a nice auto-victory as one of the key 6 bases that he must control falls due to having been stripped for troops.

There is a fine line in the timeframe where the power shifts to the Allied side at which point they must make up for lost turf. They can no longer sit back and play defense. The question really becomes a function of judging this point in time accurately, as it will never be the same in any two games as all losses must be factored into this. For each INF unit the Allied lose via capture or loss at sea, this point in time moves later into the game. Since they are so large, they are very easy to keep track of via recon. There are only 12 unit for the first couple of months. At 2 per base, you'll see clearly why attempting to hold more then 6 bases is silly.

[Chiteng]

Originally posted by Mr.Frag
I'm not sure I follow you. The Allied player has no choice but to bring the war to you. He can't put everything on CAP and wait for you to strike, again based on the troop mix, he can select at best 6 bases to defend in strength. These ones you'll never scratch, but there is nothing stopping you from taking every single other base on the map. Each time he attempts to contest one of these trivial bases, his troops at the 6 real bases are diminished. If he plays too agressively, you'll end up with a nice auto-victory as one of the key 6 bases that he must control falls due to having been stripped for troops.

There is a fine line in the timeframe where the power shifts to the Allied side at which point they must make up for lost turf. They can no longer sit back and play defense. The question really becomes a function of judging this point in time accurately, as it will never be the same in any two games as all losses must be factored into this. For each INF unit the Allied lose via capture or loss at sea, this point in time moves later into the game. Since they are so large, they are very easy to keep track of via recon. There are only 12 unit for the first couple of months. At 2 per base, you'll see clearly why attempting to hold more then 6 bases is silly.

I am saying that if the USN can brush off all your strikes
who cares what happens to your airbases?
It wont matter.

[mogami]

Originally posted by Chiteng
I am saying that if the USN can brush off all your strikes
who cares what happens to your airbases?
It wont matter.

Hi, First Japan does not waste aircraft trying to bomb anything except enemy transport TF's. You don't try to bomb cities. (You put everything on training 0 percent. Only after you spot incoming enemy transport TF's do you switch to naval attack. The forward airbases will provide escort.

If you've squandered your pilots then the results will be less then if they are fresh and well trained (I have not yet had a problem maintaining numbers. But I have seen pilot skill become an issue. (But since there is not enough air support I find there are always hundreds of aircraft up at Truk training and I just rotate the groups during the battle periods
example:
Allied player decides it is time to invade Lunga. Shortlands airfield is a size 4 with 2 fighter groups set to escort. Rabaul has 8 Betty/Nell Groups. Place 4 on Naval attack After day one attack Rabaul groups reduced in size and morale and fatigue high. Combine groups (by disbanding) Put this new combined group on training 0 percent and when aircraft repaired to size of unit return it to Truk. After addressing day one units. Change the 4 groups that did not fly to Naval attack. Move 4 more Betty Groups down from Truk (leave on rest)
The allied CAP will wear out before you run out of bombers. (And you still score a few hits from time to time)
In lieu of Betty/Nell groups at Rabaul Sally can fly from Shortlands or Val/Kate from Lunga. (It's not important) What is important is Japan attacks everyday. (With fresh airgroups)

[Chiteng]

Originally posted by Mogami
Hi, First Japan does not waste aircraft trying to bomb anything except enemy transport TF's. You don't try to bomb cities. (You put everything on training 0 percent. Only after you spot incoming enemy transport TF's do you switch to naval attack. The forward airbases will provide escort.

If you've squandered your pilots then the results will be less then if they are fresh and well trained (I have not yet had a problem maintaining numbers. But I have seen pilot skill become an issue. (But since there is not enough air support I find there are always hundreds of aircraft up at Truk training and I just rotate the groups during the battle periods
example:
Allied player decides it is time to invade Lunga. Shortlands airfield is a size 4 with 2 fighter groups set to escort. Rabaul has 8 Betty/Nell Groups. Place 4 on Naval attack After day one attack Rabaul groups reduced in size and morale and fatigue high. Combine groups (by disbanding) Put this new combined group on training 0 percent and when aircraft repaired to size of unit return it to Truk. After addressing day one units. Change the 4 groups that did not fly to Naval attack. Move 4 more Betty Groups down from Truk (leave on rest)
The allied CAP will wear out before you run out of bombers. (And you still score a few hits from time to time)
In lieu of Betty/Nell groups at Rabaul Sally can fly from Shortlands or Val/Kate from Lunga. (It's not important) What is important is Japan attacks everyday. (With fresh airgroups)

I have done that. The USN also has flak.
As the USN I have yet to ever run out of planes first.
It takes a strike from Kido Butai, in whatever form is left
to tilt the scales.

[mogami]

Hi, I know Japan can win because I have lost as the Allies.
I don't think it is any where near 50-50 but it is possible.
Several things will change in WITP. If the USN loses those first 6 CV then I have a hard time believing the USN will be able to move ships to forward areas (In UV they just show up at Noumea-In WITP they will have to make the transit) Also Japan will not be tied to any theatre and after the USN CV are lost can change targets. (I mean Japan can actually isolate an area before operations)
I do concur Japan has to preserve her carriers and anything short of trading 3USN for 1 IJN is a disaster.
In UV if Japan has operating carriers while the USN has none. US operations directed at Japanese bases are very risky. (The US has to make the slow crawl by building size 4 airfields before next move.)
As long as Japan has carriers and the US does not, I don't even bother moving many airgroups south from Truk.

[Chiteng]

Mogami,

You overlook a simple expedience.

The USN player is easily able to simply rotate airgroups
off his CV. He doesnt need to ship them back to Nomea.
He can send the depleted groups to Luganville
and rotate new Fighters in.

In fact he is way better able to play the rotation game than the
Japs.

In fact at times you can simply ground the SBD and TBF and stock up on fighters.

It all depends on what your doing. Protecting the transports? Or
Hunting Jap ships?

[mogami]

Originally posted by Chiteng
Mogami,

You overlook a simple expedience.

The USN player is easily able to simply rotate airgroups
off his CV. He doesnt need to ship them back to Nomea.
He can send the depleted groups to Luganville
and rotate new Fighters in.

In fact he is way better able to play the rotation game than the
Japs.

In fact at times you can simply ground the SBD and TBF and stock up on fighters.

It all depends on what your doing. Protecting the transports? Or
Hunting Jap ships?

Hi, It is hard to rotate groups while fighting (the new groups arrive tired and need 2-3 days rest)

[Oleg Mastruko]

Originally posted by Mogami
Hi, I know Japan can win because I have lost as the Allies.

Mogami, have you ever lost as Allies except in the "famous" game vs. Arto on AAR board?

I have never seen USN lose in a "fair" game, and am interested in such cases being reported and examined. These are the outcomes I've seen in my PBEM games:

1. My *fair* victory as USN. (Fair, because IJN surrendered in a clearly lost situation.)

2. My *unfair* victory as USN. (Unfair, meaning IJN player simply stopped responding and disapperaed, although the campaign wasn't "resolved" in my opinion - I call this a "victory" anyway, though it's not something to boast about.)

3. My *fair* defeat as IJN. I lost, nothing to say.

4. My *unfair* victory as IJN - mening USN player surrendered, quit, or disappeared but the campaign wasn't "resolved" in my opinion.

I have yet to see IJN win in a "fair" fight, except in Arto vs. Mogami game (that was a strange game by any standards anyway)

O.

[Mr.Frag]

Oleg, that is really a question that will not bear much in the way of valid responses until more 2.30 started games go through the meat grinder and produce results.

Yamamoto wins all the time from what I have seen, while you might write that off as faults of the Allied player, he does it consistantly to everyone so it appears quite possible now.

Judging by the high level of complaints posted as far as early USN CV actions since 2.30 and the obvious changes to medium bombers as far as hitting moving targets and the dramatic changes in submarine operations, I would expect to see a dramatic shift from pre 2.30 games to post 2.30 games in win/loss records.

In my eyes, with the current game 2.30, scenario 17 is fairly balanced between skilled players. Pre 2.30 games, scenario 19 was the normal game if you wanted a balanced game.

Where this may shoot out the window is the variable options.

Without this standard start which is obviously historical, the game makes absolutely no sense.

Logically, if Japan did not have the troops to threaten the Allies, then the Allies would not have shifted the troops into the theater in the first place.

This is the weak point in the variable option rule. People were getting killed in Europe. If there was no need for the troops here, they would have been shipped there to fight.

I'd really like to see a stock 17 game under straight rules after all the changes, but there does not appear to be one running right now.

[Chiteng]

Originally posted by Mr.Frag
Oleg, that is really a question that will not bear much in the way of valid responses until more 2.30 started games go through the meat grinder and produce results.

Yamamoto wins all the time from what I have seen, while you might write that off as faults of the Allied player, he does it consistantly to everyone so it appears quite possible now.

Judging by the high level of complaints posted as far as early USN CV actions since 2.30 and the obvious changes to medium bombers as far as hitting moving targets and the dramatic changes in submarine operations, I would expect to see a dramatic shift from pre 2.30 games to post 2.30 games in win/loss records.

In my eyes, with the current game 2.30, scenario 17 is fairly balanced between skilled players. Pre 2.30 games, scenario 19 was the normal game if you wanted a balanced game.

Where this may shoot out the window is the variable options.

Without this standard start which is obviously historical, the game makes absolutely no sense.

Logically, if Japan did not have the troops to threaten the Allies, then the Allies would not have shifted the troops into the theater in the first place.

This is the weak point in the variable option rule. People were getting killed in Europe. If there was no need for the troops here, they would have been shipped there to fight.

I'd really like to see a stock 17 game under straight rules after all the changes, but there does not appear to be one running right now.

***************************************************

I'd really like to see a stock 17 game under straight rules after all the changes, but there does not appear to be one running right now.
**************************************************

That is exactly what Denisonh and I were playing.
That game is still going on.

[AmiralLaurent]

My view of variable reinforcements is that planners in Japan and USA no reacted to events on the theater but on a perceived, potential threat in the future.

So it's possible that only one side send troops to the theater for some time.

And so each game will be different.