The Good The Bad & The Indifferent
Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition
-
Canoerebel
- Posts: 21099
- Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2002 11:21 pm
- Location: Northwestern Georgia, USA
- Contact:
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent
One reason Tarawa was assigned high importance is that its airfield is key to short-legged aircraft reaching the theater from Oz and New Zealand.
"Rats set fire to Mr. Cooper’s store in Fort Valley. No damage done." Columbus (Ga) Enquirer-Sun, October 2, 1880.
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent
Consider use of the repair yards at Alameda, San Francisco, and Bremerton.Four Allied capital ships were damaged by single torp hits: CA Indianapolis is in the yards at Pearl and needs about 27 days to repair; BB South Dakota is too, and needs 90+ days. Washington will arrive in a few days and shouldn't need a great deal of time; BB Resolution suffered moderate damage and will probably require something on the order of SD's work.
Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/view/staffmonkeys/home
-
poodlebrain
- Posts: 392
- Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2012 4:14 pm
- Location: Comfy Chair in Baton Rouge
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent
My unsolicited assessment of the campaign in Sumatra.
The Japanese won the campaign, but what was the impact on the war, and more importantly the game? You conducted an operation in 1942 that allowed you to use the assets you had available in a most productive way. You were at a decided disadvantage in air and naval power, but you had an abundance of land power. You committed the land power in a maneuver that the Japanese could not ignore, and they had to devote most of their advantages in naval and air power to deal with Sumatra. This prevented them from using their air and naval power elsewhere while they marshalled the land power necessary to deal with your land forces.
You were able to cause irreplaceable losses to the Japanese air and naval power because you knew where the action would occur. Without Sumatra being the focal point the Japanese could have chosen the battlefields, and you would have had to guess where to deploy your meager, in comparison to Japan, air and naval forces. You would not have been able to mass any forces effectively, and you would likely not have been able to cause the same level of losses for the Japanese. And you were able to avoid battles that might have put your navy and air forces at greater risk of fighting against a numerically superior enemy in unfavorable geographic positions.
I don't know what you could have done differently that would have drawn the same level of Japanese response. The LCUs could have been used in CBI and/or Australia to shore up those theaters, but they would not have drawn anywhere near as large a Japanese response. They could not have been used effectively in the Pacific as your navy would not have been able to conduct the sustained operations necessary to advance against determined Japanese resistance. So alternative operations would have been much more limited in scale and scope.
As far as your losses in Sumatra the most costly was the loss of the British infantry division. All of the others can be replaced, or they were worth the gains from the campaign. The naval losses that matter are the BB and some of the support ships of limited quantity. The other lost land units will require you to be more economical in the upcoming battles, but they should be rebuilt by the time they are necessary, and you have the ability to employ them effectively.
In summary, I think your invasion of Sumatra was a game changing operation, and I think it was a positive for you. You were able to dictate the terms of the battle at a time in the game when you had no expectation of being able to do so. It allowed you to set the table for follow on operations that would not have been possible otherwise by forcing the Japanese to employ forces so you knew where they would not be able to intervene effectively. Thus you were offered some low hanging fruit which you were able to grab, and you will be able to build them into bases for future offensive operations if you desire. The front lines have pretty much stabilized, so any future offensives by either side will require major efforts, and you are better suited to conduct them than you would have been otherwise, and you will be much better suited to conduct them going forward.
And last, but certainly not least, your operation provided unprecedented entertainment to everyone lucky enough to follow your AAR, and I'd be willing to bet the same applies to those who have been following the Japanese side.
The Japanese won the campaign, but what was the impact on the war, and more importantly the game? You conducted an operation in 1942 that allowed you to use the assets you had available in a most productive way. You were at a decided disadvantage in air and naval power, but you had an abundance of land power. You committed the land power in a maneuver that the Japanese could not ignore, and they had to devote most of their advantages in naval and air power to deal with Sumatra. This prevented them from using their air and naval power elsewhere while they marshalled the land power necessary to deal with your land forces.
You were able to cause irreplaceable losses to the Japanese air and naval power because you knew where the action would occur. Without Sumatra being the focal point the Japanese could have chosen the battlefields, and you would have had to guess where to deploy your meager, in comparison to Japan, air and naval forces. You would not have been able to mass any forces effectively, and you would likely not have been able to cause the same level of losses for the Japanese. And you were able to avoid battles that might have put your navy and air forces at greater risk of fighting against a numerically superior enemy in unfavorable geographic positions.
I don't know what you could have done differently that would have drawn the same level of Japanese response. The LCUs could have been used in CBI and/or Australia to shore up those theaters, but they would not have drawn anywhere near as large a Japanese response. They could not have been used effectively in the Pacific as your navy would not have been able to conduct the sustained operations necessary to advance against determined Japanese resistance. So alternative operations would have been much more limited in scale and scope.
As far as your losses in Sumatra the most costly was the loss of the British infantry division. All of the others can be replaced, or they were worth the gains from the campaign. The naval losses that matter are the BB and some of the support ships of limited quantity. The other lost land units will require you to be more economical in the upcoming battles, but they should be rebuilt by the time they are necessary, and you have the ability to employ them effectively.
In summary, I think your invasion of Sumatra was a game changing operation, and I think it was a positive for you. You were able to dictate the terms of the battle at a time in the game when you had no expectation of being able to do so. It allowed you to set the table for follow on operations that would not have been possible otherwise by forcing the Japanese to employ forces so you knew where they would not be able to intervene effectively. Thus you were offered some low hanging fruit which you were able to grab, and you will be able to build them into bases for future offensive operations if you desire. The front lines have pretty much stabilized, so any future offensives by either side will require major efforts, and you are better suited to conduct them than you would have been otherwise, and you will be much better suited to conduct them going forward.
And last, but certainly not least, your operation provided unprecedented entertainment to everyone lucky enough to follow your AAR, and I'd be willing to bet the same applies to those who have been following the Japanese side.
Never trust a man who's ass is wider than his shoulders.
-
Canoerebel
- Posts: 21099
- Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2002 11:21 pm
- Location: Northwestern Georgia, USA
- Contact:
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent
I agree, Poodle. I've felt the same way, though unable to express it as well as you just did.
I look at how this game has developed and where the two sides stand, and I think the Allies are in great position and that this is the finest game that I've played.
Then I read negative comments from Forumites and scratch my head. Yaab says I've played sloppily. John Dillworth, a long-standing forum friend, tells me I seem to be be off my game. Alfred notes the great cost of the defeat in Sumatra and says I'm understimating it. These and others are valued members of the community and entitled to express their opinions. But I still say, "Huh?"
I think part of it may be that certain players read only occasionally or haphazardly or don't have encyclopedic knowledge of such an immense game. So Jeff posts yesteday that one of the problems with Sabang's defense was that there weren't any mines or ACMs. There were, of course, but he'd forgotten: 962 mines at one point protected by two ACM that ripped many a Japanese destroyer. Other players read of the fall of Sabang and the immense cost paid and think it was a mortal blow. And others are reading mainly from John's perspective, take note his excitement and achievements, and perhaps don't have a firm grasp on the overall picture.
John III is currently involved in three games against experienced players. He's taken on Herbie in a Scenario 1 match, meaning its a stock game in which Japan doesn't have any mod-bequeathed advantages. It's early in that game, but already Australia seems to be under siege with John pursuing his usual tactics of terror.
He's facing Michael (NYGiants) in a mod (Between the Storms, I think) that is a bit of a toned down version of Reluctant Admiral. Michael has far more knowledge of game mechanics and how to maximize forces and use HQs than I do. Due to the modifications, he has enhanced fighter pools. (I know he had three P38 squadrons operating in the Aleutians at one time to devastating effect, when I could barely cobble together one in my game due to the lower replacement rate. I was most envious of him.) In that game, John was his usual aggessive-self an conquered Hawaii (I think that's right) and most of SoPac. It's February '43 and Michael is preparing to begin his counterattack from over near map's edge. He's trailing my game by five months. He might way outperform me from this point forward. But he has alot of territory to reclaim.
And in this game? As we've noted before (but its worth stating again), John hasn't gone anywhere beyond the standard areas of conquest you'd expect in any Scenario 1 match. He hasn't invadaded India, Ceylon, the Perth region, the Line Islands, Hawaii, Midway, or the upper Aleutians. Why? He has the most enhanced OOB and fighter pool disparity possible, and he's playing a mod that he designed.
I think the answer is that while he's about as aggressive a player as there is, I was more aggressive than he was.
The Allies invaded the Middle Aluetians in the Spring of '42; Assam in the Summer of '42; the Gilberts in the Summer of '42; threatened to invade the Aluetians and then New Guinea in summer and fall of '42; and then invaded Sumatra in the Autumn of '42. Just when John was ready to expand beyond his deepest penetrations (the New Hebrides), he started reacting to Allied invasions. He's never stopped.
As a result of fighting fire with fire - of being aggressive against a most aggressive player - the Allies have incurred plenty of losses. But these losses were with a purpose and with good effect.
Lowpe (and perhaps Obvert?) make the good point that it can benefit a Japanese player (mainly from an economic standpoint deeper in the game) to play within a tighter perimeter. But this is not the case here. John has not chosen to play within a tighter perimeter. Instead, he's spent the entire game reacting and overreacting to Allied invasions here and there, hither and yon. I don't presume to know whether this has had a material effect on his future economy, but it's certainly not a case where he's sat back and efficiently attended to his defenses.
I knew Sumatra was a lost cause in January '43 unless I committed 100% to focus on its relief. I decided then to follow another course - to take advantage of John's preoccupation with Sumatra to strike elsewhere. By doing so, I knew I was consigning Sumatra to ultimate defeat. But I felt like the sum total would be of decisive benefit to the Allies. So when Sumatra finally fell - months after I most optimistically estimated - it was not the end of the world. By then, the Allies had already used its diversionary nature to very good effect.
I am aware of the costs (well, mostly I think) the Allies have paid to end up where they are. But I look at what they are and I am very, very pleased. The Allies are in fine position to take the war to Japan.
I am not saying that the game is over or that the Allies have won. There is hard fighting to come; fighting that may go against me and erode the excellent beginning. But I do say that Japan has danced to an Allied tune for more than a year, and the Allies are in as good a position as possible to keep playing the tune that the parties will be dancing to.
I look at how this game has developed and where the two sides stand, and I think the Allies are in great position and that this is the finest game that I've played.
Then I read negative comments from Forumites and scratch my head. Yaab says I've played sloppily. John Dillworth, a long-standing forum friend, tells me I seem to be be off my game. Alfred notes the great cost of the defeat in Sumatra and says I'm understimating it. These and others are valued members of the community and entitled to express their opinions. But I still say, "Huh?"
I think part of it may be that certain players read only occasionally or haphazardly or don't have encyclopedic knowledge of such an immense game. So Jeff posts yesteday that one of the problems with Sabang's defense was that there weren't any mines or ACMs. There were, of course, but he'd forgotten: 962 mines at one point protected by two ACM that ripped many a Japanese destroyer. Other players read of the fall of Sabang and the immense cost paid and think it was a mortal blow. And others are reading mainly from John's perspective, take note his excitement and achievements, and perhaps don't have a firm grasp on the overall picture.
John III is currently involved in three games against experienced players. He's taken on Herbie in a Scenario 1 match, meaning its a stock game in which Japan doesn't have any mod-bequeathed advantages. It's early in that game, but already Australia seems to be under siege with John pursuing his usual tactics of terror.
He's facing Michael (NYGiants) in a mod (Between the Storms, I think) that is a bit of a toned down version of Reluctant Admiral. Michael has far more knowledge of game mechanics and how to maximize forces and use HQs than I do. Due to the modifications, he has enhanced fighter pools. (I know he had three P38 squadrons operating in the Aleutians at one time to devastating effect, when I could barely cobble together one in my game due to the lower replacement rate. I was most envious of him.) In that game, John was his usual aggessive-self an conquered Hawaii (I think that's right) and most of SoPac. It's February '43 and Michael is preparing to begin his counterattack from over near map's edge. He's trailing my game by five months. He might way outperform me from this point forward. But he has alot of territory to reclaim.
And in this game? As we've noted before (but its worth stating again), John hasn't gone anywhere beyond the standard areas of conquest you'd expect in any Scenario 1 match. He hasn't invadaded India, Ceylon, the Perth region, the Line Islands, Hawaii, Midway, or the upper Aleutians. Why? He has the most enhanced OOB and fighter pool disparity possible, and he's playing a mod that he designed.
I think the answer is that while he's about as aggressive a player as there is, I was more aggressive than he was.
The Allies invaded the Middle Aluetians in the Spring of '42; Assam in the Summer of '42; the Gilberts in the Summer of '42; threatened to invade the Aluetians and then New Guinea in summer and fall of '42; and then invaded Sumatra in the Autumn of '42. Just when John was ready to expand beyond his deepest penetrations (the New Hebrides), he started reacting to Allied invasions. He's never stopped.
As a result of fighting fire with fire - of being aggressive against a most aggressive player - the Allies have incurred plenty of losses. But these losses were with a purpose and with good effect.
Lowpe (and perhaps Obvert?) make the good point that it can benefit a Japanese player (mainly from an economic standpoint deeper in the game) to play within a tighter perimeter. But this is not the case here. John has not chosen to play within a tighter perimeter. Instead, he's spent the entire game reacting and overreacting to Allied invasions here and there, hither and yon. I don't presume to know whether this has had a material effect on his future economy, but it's certainly not a case where he's sat back and efficiently attended to his defenses.
I knew Sumatra was a lost cause in January '43 unless I committed 100% to focus on its relief. I decided then to follow another course - to take advantage of John's preoccupation with Sumatra to strike elsewhere. By doing so, I knew I was consigning Sumatra to ultimate defeat. But I felt like the sum total would be of decisive benefit to the Allies. So when Sumatra finally fell - months after I most optimistically estimated - it was not the end of the world. By then, the Allies had already used its diversionary nature to very good effect.
I am aware of the costs (well, mostly I think) the Allies have paid to end up where they are. But I look at what they are and I am very, very pleased. The Allies are in fine position to take the war to Japan.
I am not saying that the game is over or that the Allies have won. There is hard fighting to come; fighting that may go against me and erode the excellent beginning. But I do say that Japan has danced to an Allied tune for more than a year, and the Allies are in as good a position as possible to keep playing the tune that the parties will be dancing to.
"Rats set fire to Mr. Cooper’s store in Fort Valley. No damage done." Columbus (Ga) Enquirer-Sun, October 2, 1880.
-
Mike McCreery
- Posts: 4362
- Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2013 2:58 pm
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent
A mistake is not a mistake if not exploited by an opponent.
Your opponent is not a first rate Japanese player. His strength is in tactics, not strategy. Left to his own counsel, he will not properly exploit the Sabang victory.
But who knows what advice he is receiving in his thread and whether he will heed any sound advice which is offered.
The Sabang defeat has a major impact on Allied land capabilities. The correct exploitation of it is for Japan to engage in unrelenting continental land combat. It is why I drew attention to the various land options which Japan has available. There are useful bases which Japan can capture, not to mention the possibility of destroying more Allied units. But more than anything, merely engaging in land attrition benefits Japan. For it applies pressure at the weakness which the Allied forces now have viz the relative shortage of squads to sustain prolonged land combat.
Alfred
Your opponent is not a first rate Japanese player. His strength is in tactics, not strategy. Left to his own counsel, he will not properly exploit the Sabang victory.
But who knows what advice he is receiving in his thread and whether he will heed any sound advice which is offered.
The Sabang defeat has a major impact on Allied land capabilities. The correct exploitation of it is for Japan to engage in unrelenting continental land combat. It is why I drew attention to the various land options which Japan has available. There are useful bases which Japan can capture, not to mention the possibility of destroying more Allied units. But more than anything, merely engaging in land attrition benefits Japan. For it applies pressure at the weakness which the Allied forces now have viz the relative shortage of squads to sustain prolonged land combat.
Alfred
-
Canoerebel
- Posts: 21099
- Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2002 11:21 pm
- Location: Northwestern Georgia, USA
- Contact:
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent
Yes, I see that. It's why I'm most concerned about a campaign to isolate Assam.
But I do think it's going to be hard for John to assert himself in this way at this point. The Allied army in India, while reduced, remains strong. Supply, fortifications, and air power are all strong.
John can make bulges in the line - deep penetrations - but I don't think he has the unilateral power to isolate and destroy major elements of the Allies army now. If he does so, I've made mistakes of my own.
The question for me is whether I should abandon Ramree and Akyab to consolidate my lines. Ramree has six forts and 150 AV and is an island with jungle terrain. I'm inclined to leave that force there to face John and draw him to a campaign that will take time. (One of the things I'm looking for is a chance to pound his infantry with my 4EB - I can only do so when he's in a base hex, due to our house rule.) But your thoughts do remind me that I have alot of support units at Ramree that aren't necessary to it's defense as a 150-AV Rourke's Drift. So I'll get them out.
I think I will maintain the strong garrisons at Akyab, Cox's and Chittagong. I'll monitor any overland campaign to isolate and detroy them. I don't worry about an enemy invasion unless John brings a stout KB force. And if he does that it helps the Allies elsehwere (I don't think John can risk a carrier clash against the new Death Star unless he has basically full KB).
A ground campaign in China makes alot of sense for John, so that's where I'm looking for him to move. But that situation isn't affected by Sumatra, other than the fact that John was preoccupied there gave the Chinese a year to build forts and solidfy their defensive line.
But I do think it's going to be hard for John to assert himself in this way at this point. The Allied army in India, while reduced, remains strong. Supply, fortifications, and air power are all strong.
John can make bulges in the line - deep penetrations - but I don't think he has the unilateral power to isolate and destroy major elements of the Allies army now. If he does so, I've made mistakes of my own.
The question for me is whether I should abandon Ramree and Akyab to consolidate my lines. Ramree has six forts and 150 AV and is an island with jungle terrain. I'm inclined to leave that force there to face John and draw him to a campaign that will take time. (One of the things I'm looking for is a chance to pound his infantry with my 4EB - I can only do so when he's in a base hex, due to our house rule.) But your thoughts do remind me that I have alot of support units at Ramree that aren't necessary to it's defense as a 150-AV Rourke's Drift. So I'll get them out.
I think I will maintain the strong garrisons at Akyab, Cox's and Chittagong. I'll monitor any overland campaign to isolate and detroy them. I don't worry about an enemy invasion unless John brings a stout KB force. And if he does that it helps the Allies elsehwere (I don't think John can risk a carrier clash against the new Death Star unless he has basically full KB).
A ground campaign in China makes alot of sense for John, so that's where I'm looking for him to move. But that situation isn't affected by Sumatra, other than the fact that John was preoccupied there gave the Chinese a year to build forts and solidfy their defensive line.
"Rats set fire to Mr. Cooper’s store in Fort Valley. No damage done." Columbus (Ga) Enquirer-Sun, October 2, 1880.
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent
ORIGINAL: poodlebrain
And last, but certainly not least, your operation provided unprecedented entertainment to everyone lucky enough to follow your AAR, and I'd be willing to bet the same applies to those who have been following the Japanese side.
Absolutely true! Ultimately, in one way or another, we're all trying to have fun -- it IS a game after all, one huge luxury we have over the original commanders. Kudos to both players for a great game and AAR.
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent
Your having fun. We're having fun. The rest is just details.
Press on [;)]
Press on [;)]
If it ain't broke, don't fix it!
-
ny59giants
- Posts: 9902
- Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 12:02 pm
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent
John's "MO" for all the years I've known him has been naval, naval, and more naval. The three mods he developed with FatR and recently modified with me have been enhanced Japanese naval with some for the Allies. He loves the naval side of the war (he did his Master's thesis on the period between the Washington and London Treaties) and hates ground combat. No secret here. [:D] While many Japanese players have made conquest of China a priority, for John he uses it to buy out troops on the cheap to rebuild and deploy in the Pacific. He has gone only so far in our game and will pay a steep price in 44/45. Dan and I have been on the receiving end of too many "Banzai" laced emails concerning sinking of ships of all sizes. If not in an email, its all over his AARs. [X(] Dan and I will each need to defeat John at sea. If one thing I would say to Dan is to use your subs to deny John the fuel for his ships. Economics is not a strength of John's even after all my years of mentoring him. [8|]
[center]
[/center]
[/center]RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent
ORIGINAL: Lecivius
Your having fun. We're having fun. The rest is just details.
Press on [;)]
+1
And for those of us reading both AARs, it's double fun!
-
Canoerebel
- Posts: 21099
- Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2002 11:21 pm
- Location: Northwestern Georgia, USA
- Contact:
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent
For most of the war, Allied carriers have concentrated on Sumatra and on the sea lanes between the DEI and Japan. The Allies did pretty well in targeting tankers, despite dud torpedoes.
Now I've transitioned to a different phase in which I am am knowingly switching from economic to military targets. With Kaigun and KB focusing on NoPac and CenPac, I've moved many of my subs to these two locations, placing them between the Attu complex of bases and Japan, and between the Marshalls and Truk. Since Death Star is heading to one of those two locations in three weeks, and since I think John will counter with Steroid KB, I'm chosing to focus on the most direct way to defeat John III: attrition the Japanese navy.
Now I've transitioned to a different phase in which I am am knowingly switching from economic to military targets. With Kaigun and KB focusing on NoPac and CenPac, I've moved many of my subs to these two locations, placing them between the Attu complex of bases and Japan, and between the Marshalls and Truk. Since Death Star is heading to one of those two locations in three weeks, and since I think John will counter with Steroid KB, I'm chosing to focus on the most direct way to defeat John III: attrition the Japanese navy.
"Rats set fire to Mr. Cooper’s store in Fort Valley. No damage done." Columbus (Ga) Enquirer-Sun, October 2, 1880.
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent
So Jeff posts yesteday that one of the problems with Sabang's defense was that there weren't any mines or ACMs. There were, of course, but he'd forgotten: 962 mines at one point protected by two ACM that ripped many a Japanese destroyer.
I did not make this claim, at Sabang you failed "combined arms: in that CD guns protect ACM which protect mines. As soon as JIII sank your ACM your mines deteriorated and he then upped the bombardment. I was hoping you had learned from this and got CD & ACM in early and had minelayers on the way. This would make it harder to smash the airfields, destroy aircraft and place some of you bases in the same spiral as Sabang.
I'm in the group that dont think the Sumatra campaign rates as highly as others. I think your expansion into the Malay peninsula diverted enough of the force that may have been better spent in Sumatra, might be wrong. BUT I also think JIII hasnt played that well, he overcommitted his KB for far too long, a portion/miniKB should have covered Sabang while he used his numbers to take advantage of your commitment to Sumatra. While many consider a japanese defensive strategy why do this with such an expanded OOB which JIII designed for this mod. But good football matches are not always dashing & skillful, they can also be tough and full of mistakes and enthralling.
The AAR still gets my attention as I cant wait for JIII to get smashed, and picking an ACW similie, IMHO you are Grant in the East. Anywhere you choose you can invade where you choose, you have the numbers, JIII still has a powerful force and lay on some hurt but where you could afford to lose 4 CV, JIII cant, however a Cold Harbor might be a problem. I would like to see a WT Sherman creating diversion elsewhere on the map and you have to watch out for Hood.
I did not make this claim, at Sabang you failed "combined arms: in that CD guns protect ACM which protect mines. As soon as JIII sank your ACM your mines deteriorated and he then upped the bombardment. I was hoping you had learned from this and got CD & ACM in early and had minelayers on the way. This would make it harder to smash the airfields, destroy aircraft and place some of you bases in the same spiral as Sabang.
I'm in the group that dont think the Sumatra campaign rates as highly as others. I think your expansion into the Malay peninsula diverted enough of the force that may have been better spent in Sumatra, might be wrong. BUT I also think JIII hasnt played that well, he overcommitted his KB for far too long, a portion/miniKB should have covered Sabang while he used his numbers to take advantage of your commitment to Sumatra. While many consider a japanese defensive strategy why do this with such an expanded OOB which JIII designed for this mod. But good football matches are not always dashing & skillful, they can also be tough and full of mistakes and enthralling.
The AAR still gets my attention as I cant wait for JIII to get smashed, and picking an ACW similie, IMHO you are Grant in the East. Anywhere you choose you can invade where you choose, you have the numbers, JIII still has a powerful force and lay on some hurt but where you could afford to lose 4 CV, JIII cant, however a Cold Harbor might be a problem. I would like to see a WT Sherman creating diversion elsewhere on the map and you have to watch out for Hood.
Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum
-
Grfin Zeppelin
- Posts: 1514
- Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2007 2:22 pm
- Location: Germany
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent
I am rather firm about the Japanese economy and logistics and in all of Johns actions I usually see the price tag.Add to that 1 million (thats alot for Japan) less supplies at the start and a player who isnt good in handling the economy...ORIGINAL: ny59giants
If one thing I would say to Dan is to use your subs to deny John the fuel for his ships. Economics is not a strength of John's even after all my years of mentoring him. [8|]
I smell desaster in 1944 for Japan. Maybe earlier if he is really sloppy.
-
Bullwinkle58
- Posts: 11297
- Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:47 pm
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent
ORIGINAL: JeffK
So Jeff posts yesteday that one of the problems with Sabang's defense was that there weren't any mines or ACMs. There were, of course, but he'd forgotten: 962 mines at one point protected by two ACM that ripped many a Japanese destroyer.
I did not make this claim, at Sabang you failed "combined arms: in that CD guns protect ACM which protect mines. As soon as JIII sank your ACM your mines deteriorated and he then upped the bombardment. I was hoping you had learned from this and got CD & ACM in early and had minelayers on the way. This would make it harder to smash the airfields, destroy aircraft and place some of you bases in the same spiral as Sabang.
The conditions and relevant factors in the Marshalls/Gilberts is wholly different than Sabang. The LCU investment in Sabang made any and all defense reasonable.
First, the Allies do not have hot & cold running non-static CD units in mid-1943. And a Wotje doesn't rate one regardless.
Second, mines are very ineffectual against bombardments on atolls. They help against landings, some. Usually the struck ship gets in to unload, but is stuck due to damage, or sinks over several days. Is John going to re-invade all of these recent takings? CR should be so lucky.
Third, bombardments against atolls are most effective in destroying planes. At Forts 3 or above human casualties from naval bombardment is not that big a factor. LCU device disablement, AF and port damage, sure. But nothing life-threatening. To buy that John has to send multiple bombardment missions through the subs, at cost in fuel, supplies, and opportunity lost elsewhere. CR should therefore not stick a lot of planes on these islands. Other than that he should watch, and plan elsewhere. This sub-region is a done deal.
The Moose
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent
CD units would have done little or nothing against naval bombardments at Sabang. What they might have done is destroy mine sweepers clearing mines at Sabang, but only if naval bombardments had not rendered them ineffective first. Sabang is clear terrain, and CD units would have been hammered by those naval bombardments just like all the other units were.
That was a big and long campaign. Each of us would have done this or that - or this and that - differently. That's not to say we would have done better. It's testimony to the tremendous variety built into this game.
That was a big and long campaign. Each of us would have done this or that - or this and that - differently. That's not to say we would have done better. It's testimony to the tremendous variety built into this game.
Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/view/staffmonkeys/home
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent
The key question, is Sam.[X(]
Sam? Sam? And, maybe, Frank. Yes, Frank. Where are you?
I am not sure what the souped up A6's are like, but we want Sam.
Sam? Sam? And, maybe, Frank. Yes, Frank. Where are you?
I am not sure what the souped up A6's are like, but we want Sam.
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent
ORIGINAL: witpqs
CD units would have done little or nothing against naval bombardments at Sabang. What they might have done is destroy mine sweepers clearing mines at Sabang, but only if naval bombardments had not rendered them ineffective first. Sabang is clear terrain, and CD units would have been hammered by those naval bombardments just like all the other units were.
That was a big and long campaign. Each of us would have done this or that - or this and that - differently. That's not to say we would have done better. It's testimony to the tremendous variety built into this game.
I am just grateful there wasn't midget subs at Sabang. Allied midget subs.[X(] The British had a few, and they probably would have saved Sabang, just like how ridiculously effective Japanese midget subs are.
Just saying, I think the Allies got a raw deal with no midget subs.[:)]
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent
ORIGINAL: Alfred
A mistake is not a mistake if not exploited by an opponent.
Your opponent is not a first rate Japanese player. His strength is in tactics, not strategy. Left to his own counsel, he will not properly exploit the Sabang victory.
But who knows what advice he is receiving in his thread and whether he will heed any sound advice which is offered.
The Sabang defeat has a major impact on Allied land capabilities. The correct exploitation of it is for Japan to engage in unrelenting continental land combat. It is why I drew attention to the various land options which Japan has available. There are useful bases which Japan can capture, not to mention the possibility of destroying more Allied units. But more than anything, merely engaging in land attrition benefits Japan. For it applies pressure at the weakness which the Allied forces now have viz the relative shortage of squads to sustain prolonged land combat.
Alfred
+1
I'm traveling so I've gotten into this late.
I agree with Alfred here (except that I think big land combat now would also continue to strain the economy).
Earlier my interest in commenting here was to give perspective about the possibilities of a pumped-up Japanese side well managed after the finish of the Sumatra campaign. This is not about how you've played Dan, which is balls-out aggressive, or what John's usual tendencies are. That is far too speculative.
You know his history but my point is that you've led him away from his tendencies to over-extend, to employ endless CV ambushes, to counter-invade anything and everything. You've led him to a point where if he reflects a bit on his position, he would realize he is winning this war handily in objective terms. Not spin terms. Not "I know him" terms. I'm talking VPs, available forces, possibilities.
Your aggressiveness may save you in the game, and of course it's only him you're playing so you pay the game differently, expecting that he will pay as you expect. We do play the player, but this can get dangerous.
There is still an objective measure of a game. The Japanese are winning this one right now. So go to it! Exploit his mistakes! [:)]
ORIGINAL: Gräfin Zeppelin
I am rather firm about the Japanese economy and logistics and in all of Johns actions I usually see the price tag. Add to that 1 million (thats alot for Japan) less supplies at the start and a player who isnt good in handling the economy...ORIGINAL: ny59giants
If one thing I would say to Dan is to use your subs to deny John the fuel for his ships. Economics is not a strength of John's even after all my years of mentoring him. [8|]
I smell desaster in 1944 for Japan. Maybe earlier if he is really sloppy.
+1
I also agree with this. But you can't rely on it. You can continue to help the economy down the slippery slope. [;)]
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent
In my game I keep checking land unit arrivals for Attack Force Z with Gibson, Mel as CO. No joy. [:(]ORIGINAL: Lowpe
ORIGINAL: witpqs
CD units would have done little or nothing against naval bombardments at Sabang. What they might have done is destroy mine sweepers clearing mines at Sabang, but only if naval bombardments had not rendered them ineffective first. Sabang is clear terrain, and CD units would have been hammered by those naval bombardments just like all the other units were.
That was a big and long campaign. Each of us would have done this or that - or this and that - differently. That's not to say we would have done better. It's testimony to the tremendous variety built into this game.
I am just grateful there wasn't midget subs at Sabang. Allied midget subs.[X(] The British had a few, and they probably would have saved Sabang, just like how ridiculously effective Japanese midget subs are.
Just saying, I think the Allies got a raw deal with no midget subs.[:)]
Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/view/staffmonkeys/home