The Good The Bad & The Indifferent

[Canoerebel]

At your request, Commander Cody.

[Canoerebel]

6/2/43

Operation Circus: A relatively quiet day, but the end of the quiet is near. The Allies took some vacant dot hexes today and continued to land troops and supply, commenced amphibious assault at Cold Bay, and prepared to land at vacant (but very desirable) Akutan. BBs will bombard Umnak tomorrow prior to the Allied assault, which probably won't succeed quite yet. Additional BBs will bombard Cold Bay, where the Allied amphibious troops won't be strong enough to attack for awhile yet. I don't think John can cobble together a counterattack using amphibious troops anytime soon. If he wants to counterattack (I'm not sure he would, but he's very aggressive) he'll try to use KB to take control of the theater until he can bring in troops. But that's not necessarily a great option for him, I think. Adak is too strongly held for him to mess with already, with more than 500 AV. By tomorrow it should have 100k supply. Dutch is also strongly held. I'd feel better if I had already wrapped up Umnak, but there's a chance it will fall in the next day or two. But if John focuses too much here, I'll slide south where even now three Allied divisions are inbound to position that will permit quick movement elsewhere.

Would I accept a KB vs. Death Star battle at this point? Yes, if it were to take place in the vicinity of Kodiak Island, where the Allies have four big airfields (three of them on what used to be dot bases). I just can't see John frothing at the lips that much, but it's remotely possible.

Lots of enemy bombers tested the leaky CAP from the USN CVs that covered shipping at Adaks, downing a host of Bettys and stuff. One Betty did score a torp hit on a merchantmen. It did only moderate damage.

I had a few good Forumites express questions as to whether or not John would react strongly to Circus. I felt that he would, knowing him as I do. I think I was right on.

Battle of Sumatra: I mistimed the insertion of my airforce, as another set of BBs came in and this time the bombardment was effective, tearing up the field and disabling a host of aircraft. No supply was hit, so it remains at 49k. I'll remove my aircraft to the extent that I can. John revealed that most of the KB is off in the Pacific, so I'm going to try to insert some supply. This is pretty much a lost cause, but I gotta try, right? So three intrepid bush-league carriers are sortying with meager fighters. APDs are en route along with xAKs. I hate adding fuel to the "Banzai! Fest" that's coming soon, but I just gotta try.

Pickets Ships: John is frothing about my use of picket ships. I haven't replied to him as he's now backed off and apologized. But I will explain it in a post later tonight or tomorrow in case any readers wonder about it. The use I'm making is minimally invasive and minimizes a much greater weakness that's just part and parcel of the game that few players think about. Picket ships are appropriate and fine. And I don't use them to soak off sorties and nothing of that sort has taken place. P.S. John has used picket ships in this very operation, I think. My TFs stumbled across two APDs far to the north of Marcus Island a week back, as I mentioned. There would be no other reason for APDs way out there. I didn't see anything wrong with it.

[Canoerebel]

AE, the Magic 24 Hour Movement Feature, and Picket Ships

There is a glaring flaw with AE that we all live with happily and seldom think about: Magic 24 Hour Movement. When orders are entered, we cannot countermand them for 24 hours even if something stunning becomes apparent one minute later. Our troops, planes, and ships have to continue on for those 24 hours even if doing so is the height of stupidity (or would be in real life) and would never happen (in real life).

Thus, I issue orders for a key transport TF to steam from Ceylon to Sabang. At the time the orders are issued, my patrols out of Sabang report the KB has been stationed near Padang for days. But John issues orders for KB to spring at Full Speed to the sea lanes between Ceylon and Sabang. At that rate, the carries can make 600 miles in a single day. And every single mile those ships are under surveillance of my patrol planes. But I can't issue orders to recall my ships for 24 hours. They just have to steam ahead to commit suicide.

None of us complain about that feature. It's just part of the game. But it is one of the game's greatest abstractions (or weaknesses). One way we can try to deal with that is to give orders to "fall back or retire if threats appear," but those are imprecise and seldom if ever model anything like what would happen in real life. But we just accept it, loving the game for what it is.

John used this very tactic in this game once, to launch the KB into the midst of the sea lanes between Ceylon and Sabang. I knew he might come, but I wasn't sure when or exactly where. So I had lots of ships in between - empties fleeing Sabang for Ceylon, ships inbound with troops, and my carriers stationed far enough back to avoid the Free 24 Hour Movement Abstraction. When John pounced, he then bitterly complained that I was the one abusing the game, because my scattered shipping "soaked off" some of his sorties and confused the mission selection. He was backed up in his accusations by some other Forumites, including one who just flat out said I was a liar (he later apologized).

This left me dumbfounded and disappointed. I hadn't done what they had accused me of doing and, in fact, it was John who was taking advantage of the game mechanics (though I didn't complain about that as it's just part of the game).

So I routinely employ picket ships to minimize the dangers of the Free 24 Hour Movement Feature. I use these judiciously and effectively. I pull them out of the way when they'd done their job. And not once have they "soaked off sorties." I just pull them out of the way, because I want to save them because they are valuable and have done their job.

Some players (including John, as he reiterated in an email tonight) contend that it's "okay" to use military vessels as pickets but not merchants. I disagree and think that works a disadvantage on the other player. It's usually easier to kill an xAK than a YMS, and they are more valuable to boot. So that's a false distinction, in my book. But whenever possible I do use military vessels just to appease the sensibilities of those who haven't thought this through.

The game involves lots of abstractions. Given all features of the game, it is reasonable to use assets judiciously to protect more valuable assets. The military would do the same thing in the real war. The military didn't have to do what I do simply because they (at least the Allies) nearly always knew where the KB was (or where it wasn't, which was usually sufficient). But the military did use DDs and other vessels to screen carriers. Since the military didn't have to deal with a 24 Hour Free Movement Feature, however, it didn't have to send picket vessels out 250 or 500 miles. It could turn around when danger appeared. It didn't have to wait until tomorrow.

In the real war the Allies did crazy things like leave civilians on remote islands for months at a time to report on enemy troop movements, or send frogmen in to enemy beaches before invasions, or risk submarines to rescue downed airmen within range of enemy artillery, etc. The military isn't stupid. It does what it has to do at the least expense and risk possible. That's what we're doing with picket ships.

What this boils down to is that some players want to be able to send carriers vast distances without risk of detection until they can attack an unprepared opponent who didn't act prudently to protect his assets.

And this is a game!

[Mike McCreery]

I managed to avoid being catty in his AAR.

He has a scenario that he designed and is agreeably weighted toward the Japanese. He had you agree to some insane HR about no strategic bombing for which I cannot possibly conceive of a real life reason for.

My argument would be that you do not control 'merchant shipping' What is controlled in the game is ships that have been comandeered by the military for military use. What is included in the game is by no means the total shipping that was occuring during the war. There was plenty of private shipping that is not modeled in the game. I contend that all the ships in the game are crewed by the military for military uses.

John has some good qualities but he is a bad winner and a bad loser...

[CaptBeefheart]

Thanks for the big picture. As they say, such a thing can be worth a thousand words. Also, regarding the big maskirovka, I think forumites expect that kind of thing. I've seen some comments in some AARs which are dangerously close to opsec breaches (no doubt unintentional, of course).

On the picket ships, I agree that the game doesn't give the Allies nearly enough intel on the KB compared to history. Against the AI, I find it helps to send subs in the general area where I'm wary of a KB incursion. When they start picking up DLs of 10, you know the beast is nearby. Of course, all a human IJ player has to do is to keep his Vals and Kates on deck.

Cheers,
CC

[BBfanboy]

John also overlooks the fact that Japan can convert enormous numbers of small xAKLs into PBs, AMcs and other throwaway "military vessels" while the allies are much more limited in this. So the argument to use as pickets 'military types only' is stacked in Japan's favour.

And, you were not just using the small fry as pickets, you used them as part of the mental game to keep him guessing about which vector had the invasion TFs. You also used them carefully as intelligence gathering - to find the holes in his search coverage. Any of these justify their use without even considering the picket trip-wire.

[Encircled]

Picket ships are fine.

If its lots and lots of single MTBS to soak up sorties and ops points then no, but it isn't.

[Encircled]

Sorry CR, you were right, you should have waited before sending in the aircaft.

[JohnDillworth]

I managed to avoid being catty in his AAR.

He has a scenario that he designed and is agreeably weighted toward the Japanese. He had you agree to some insane HR about no strategic bombing for which I cannot possibly conceive of a real life reason for.

yeah, that was kind of my take. This scenario was made for a Japanese fan boy. Dan was supposed to get extra fighters if I recall, but that didn't work out in the mod so almost all the advantages are to the Japanese. Hey Dan, if he gives 1,000 fighters or so will you stop using pickets and call it even?

[paullus99]

So, John - who has designed this mod (originally) as a magic win button for the IJN is complaining about single ship pickets?

Sorry, but cry me a river.

[obvert]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

AE, the Magic 24 Hour Movement Feature, and Picket Ships

What this boils down to is that some players want to be able to send carriers vast distances without risk of detection until they can attack an unprepared opponent who didn't act prudently to protect his assets.

And this is a game!

I have a slightly different take on this.

In the period of the war there was a free movement period; night. Very little could be spotted regularly or with effective enough intelligence at night to mean that you'd absolutely know if you were about to be ambushed come morning. CVs sent out morning patrols as early as possible to try to locate the enemy after the night free movement period. The ones who located the other first could then get a free shot in theoretically. So you had a 12 hour + some free movement back then, until those patrols found you again.

Radar helped mitigate this somewhat, but it didn't eliminate the ability to disappear at night by sailing out of range or to appear by sailing into range.

So I think this is a different issue entirely and not related to the 24 hour move rule.

I also think there is no reason to be upset about pickets if you're an experienced player and know what to expect entering a game. John knows you use them and always have, and that they're most likely harder to hit than 2+ ship pickets due to game mechanics. So if it was a big deal (when there are a lot of big deal changes from stock in this scenario as well, as others have pointed out) it should have been negotiated early on.

Now it's a moot point. He should do his best do smash the pesky bastards, which his OOB should make somewhat easier, and get on with it. If he thought they were a problem in terms of avoiding detection he should have eliminated them before moving ships into the area, and that's what I told him as well.

[Bullwinkle58]

I have to jump on the (early morning) bandwagon with a comment I don't think has been made here or there regarding pickets.

Regardless of how you feel about them, John knew there were pickets in his path to react north. He encountered some with APDs. Yet he feels as if he should have freedom to drive major combat TFs right through the area and howl in protest. He controls his courses. He can route through areas he KNOWS are clean. Why doesn't he? It takes longer. A straight line is better to react through. Fine. His choice. But to maintain that pickets "prevented" a secure transit is ludicrous.

[Canoerebel]

There was a time (I can't recall whether WitP or AE) when the code had trouble handling single-ship TFs. At that time, I modified my use of picket ships to avoid abusing the code. But that was long ago addressed. My experience is that the code well handles strikes vs. single-ship TFs, including fast ships like DDs. John has wiped out scores of single-ship TFs in the game already - DD on patrol, YMSs on picket duty or feeling his perimeter to create the appearance of active Allied interest in a theater, and xAKs or AKLs carrying supply to forward bases or retiring empty after completing these missions.

If I thought there was a problem with game mechanics handling ships the way I'm doing, I'd modify my protocols. But I don't see it.

[Canoerebel]

In a series of emails last night, John said (in words to this effect) that this was my first notice that KB was anywhere in this vicinity, that he had carefully orchestrated its withdrawal from Sumatra, and that this had spoiled everything for him.

I'm thinking, "Huh?" Just the turn before, my Coronodos out of Midway spotted carriers west of Midway and those carriers launched a sortie against an Allied picket ship. (My post followed, something to this effect, "That means KB is coming since John wouldn't send Mini KB to face Death Star.)

Prior to that that turn, the next best notice I'd had was the sinking of the AO and the sighting of that big replenishment convoy north of Truk 10 days or so back. And, prior to that, I'd already commented a month ago on the apparent absence of KB from Sumatra and, in its place, a Mini KB that included Zuiho, which was torpedoed and damaged.

But the main thing was I just knew John would send KB to handle the sudden threat. And even if I hadn't know, I'd have had to assume he would since I'd have so many valuable assets (600+ merchants and combat ships and carriers) out in Indian country.

Thus far (and subject to radical change soon) the Allies have lost three ships in this operation - a PC, an AM, and AKL. A fourth, an xAK, was torpedoed by Bettys yesterday. I think John has lost roughly eight or ten small ships (the best of which were the two APD). He has lost perhaps 150 aircraft thus far. But we're just getting started. The heavies may swing into action soon.

[Encircled]

So his gripe is that you should have been totally surprised that your biggest amphibious invasion of the war would attract the KB?

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhttttttttttttt.

Letting us JFBs down with that I'm afraid.

[Bif1961]

With the opponent I have been playing with for several games, we understand that situations like these are best addressed in HRs and if there had been a previous bone of contention it should have been worked out before starting a new game. However, The use of pickets by the Allies were normally limited to combat vessels with radar as pickets against massive kamakazi attacks. The use of allied pickets as displayed in this contest is practically suicide missions for the crews and would be against the national norms. If the allies were losing and an invasion of their home land was a threat then norms change and use of these pickets would probably been used, but that is not the case here. The Japanese mindset was far different and with some soul searching they allowed suicide attacks as policy, when the tides of war turned against them. What the game engine allows isn't always what a real nation would ask it's service members to do, especially at this point of the war, where we see basic equality is forces.

[Panther Bait]

I think John had already pictured in his mind that he had outwitted you and was going to swoop in to clean house with the KB. The picket ship, which we all know he dislikes, was the final straw that told him the cat was out of the bag, and he reacted poorly, like usual.

Anyway, enough of the distraction, I am waiting for the main event.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

In a series of emails last night, John said (in words to this effect) that this was my first notice that KB was anywhere in this vicinity, that he had carefully orchestrated its withdrawal from Sumatra, and that this had spoiled everything for him.

I'm thinking, "Huh?" Just the turn before, my Coronodos out of Midway spotted carriers west of Midway and those carriers launched a sortie against an Allied picket ship. (My post followed, something to this effect, "That means KB is coming since John wouldn't send Mini KB to face Death Star.)

Prior to that that turn, the next best notice I'd had was the sinking of the AO and the sighting of that big replenishment convoy north of Truk 10 days or so back. And, prior to that, I'd already commented a month ago on the apparent absence of KB from Sumatra and, in its place, a Mini KB that included Zuiho, which was torpedoed and damaged.

But the main thing was I just knew John would send KB to handle the sudden threat. And even if I hadn't know, I'd have had to assume he would since I'd have so many valuable assets (600+ merchants and combat ships and carriers) out in Indian country.

Thus far (and subject to radical change soon) the Allies have lost three ships in this operation - a PC, an AM, and AKL. A fourth, an xAK, was torpedoed by Bettys yesterday. I think John has lost roughly eight or ten small ships (the best of which were the two APD). He has lost perhaps 150 aircraft thus far. But we're just getting started. The heavies may swing into action soon.

I hope you replied to John with most of your points.

What does he think, that on turn 1 you should be shocked if Pearl Harbor is attacked?

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

There was a time (I can't recall whether WitP or AE) when the code had trouble handling single-ship TFs. At that time, I modified my use of picket ships to avoid abusing the code. But that was long ago addressed. My experience is that the code well handles strikes vs. single-ship TFs, including fast ships like DDs. John has wiped out scores of single-ship TFs in the game already - DD on patrol, YMSs on picket duty or feeling his perimeter to create the appearance of active Allied interest in a theater, and xAKs or AKLs carrying supply to forward bases or retiring empty after completing these missions.

If I thought there was a problem with game mechanics handling ships the way I'm doing, I'd modify my protocols. But I don't see it.

I agree. It's so long established that single-ship TFs can be attacked I don't bother responding any more. It may be true that a 2-ship is attacked more frequently than a 1-, or that a 3- more than a 2-, but I have no idea if it's linear. It is the fact that 1-shipers ARE attacked. It's also the fact that 1-shipers are better dealt with by surface TFs than long-range air. Japan players don't want to use surface as it costs fuel, and air only rice. But patrols from, say, Marcus I. would severely press any 1-ship pickets in the Great Blue between the Aleutians and PH or the Marshalls/Gilberts. The aforementioned APDs are an example of the utility of this. They just aren't free.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Bif1961

With the opponent I have been playing with for several games, we understand that situations like these are best addressed in HRs and if there had been a previous bone of contention it should have been worked out before starting a new game. However, The use of pickets by the Allies were normally limited to combat vessels with radar as pickets against massive kamakazi attacks. The use of allied pickets as displayed in this contest is practically suicide missions for the crews and would be against the national norms. If the allies were losing and an invasion of their home land was a threat then norms change and use of these pickets would probably been used, but that is not the case here. The Japanese mindset was far different and with some soul searching they allowed suicide attacks as policy, when the tides of war turned against them. What the game engine allows isn't always what a real nation would ask it's service members to do, especially at this point of the war, where we see basic equality is forces.

This is a nice thought. Can you show me the history book where Japan held Dutch Harbor in 1943?