Beaten, Battered, But Unbowed/ No Steve

[oaltinyay]

ps. does anyone know how to snapshot a game and turn it into a scenario file ? if possible ?

[Dili]

He is over extended.

Edit: you said Soviets are active, so what is happening in Kwantung?

[BBfanboy]

I know how to take a screen shot and save it as a picture, but I have no idea what you mean by saving as a scenario file.
You can upload a saved game turn for others to examine (but they need to have the same game version as you do and know the password for any PBEM save.

[rustysi]

3. If Soviets are active that means you have the best AFs in the game to bomb Japan even now , just channel all your heavies there and let him grind his way into siberia.

I haven't played as the Allies yet, but I don't think Allied forces can operate from Soviet territory, active or not. I'd check on this first. At any rate having the Soviets active has to complicate the Japanese position no matter what.

[tocaff]

To my understanding the Rodina is for the Soviets and that's it.

I'm not quitting, just groping for fresh ideas.

My subs need some forward bases from which to operate.

Bettys and Nells are covering fairly well for Steve so far.

I'll be hitting on a couple of fronts, but the loss of the 2 CVs leaves me in deep stuff having to face LBA when I go.

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: rustysi

3. If Soviets are active that means you have the best AFs in the game to bomb Japan even now , just channel all your heavies there and let him grind his way into siberia.

I haven't played as the Allies yet, but I don't think Allied forces can operate from Soviet territory, active or not. I'd check on this first. At any rate having the Soviets active has to complicate the Japanese position no matter what.

I have used Russian shipyards to repair US ships, but they do not refuel or rearm them. Just put some AOs and AEs there. Haven't tried air ops but putting an Allied BF with Allied aircraft should work ... except I am not sure they will get the supplies you unload for them.
That said, I have never heard of anyone mounting a bombing campaign from Russia that can hit significant industrial targets (save the LI, Oil and Resources on Sakhalin).

[rustysi]

ORIGINAL: tocaff

To my understanding the Rodina is for the Soviets and that's it.

I'm not quitting, just groping for fresh ideas.

My subs need some forward bases from which to operate.

Bettys and Nells are covering fairly well for Steve so far.

I'll be hitting on a couple of fronts, but the loss of the 2 CVs leaves me in deep stuff having to face LBA when I go.

Don't go too nuts. IMHO, Allied players tend to want to strike back before they are ready. This will allow the Japanese to defeat them in detail.

Remember strike where he isn't. Conserve 'til the Essex carriers start to roll in, and don't forget the F6F, comes mid/late '43 IIRC.

He's got to be greatly overextended with what he's taken. That is your ace in the hole. Your objective is to find where you can engage him on at least equal terms.

[PaxMondo]

So, I play IJ. He's done well. But as others note, your assets have not yet started to come in. That the allies will still 'win' the war is still almost a foregone conclusion even now ...

I would caution you to not let him hold India too long ... the HI/LI there is a great expansion to his economy. Every 6 months he holds it is many thousands more AC he will be able to build above the normal expectation (this includes the Burma oil which historically they got almost nothing from).

PS: I never play with AV and never look at it ...

[Dobey455]

ORIGINAL: tocaff

To my understanding the Rodina is for the Soviets and that's it.

I'm not quitting, just groping for fresh ideas.

My subs need some forward bases from which to operate.

Bettys and Nells are covering fairly well for Steve so far.

I'll be hitting on a couple of fronts, but the loss of the 2 CVs leaves me in deep stuff having to face LBA when I go.

Honestly, the impact of losing of 2 CV's by early '43 seems to have been more psychological than anything else, in that its clearly shaken you up a bit, or at least is playing on your mind.

I've lost count of then number of AAR's I've read in which the Allied player looses 2 or more CV's in the first few weeks of the war, let alone after 18 months.

I'm not arguing that he has obviously done very well overall, but purely in terms of carrier losses you aren't travelling badly at all.
In fact, to put it in perspective by Jan 1943 IRL the USN had lost twice that number of CV's (Lexington, Wasp, Yorktown and Hornet were all lost in 1942).

[Anachro]

In my current PBEM, I lost Lexington, Enterprise, and Yorktown in Jan 1942. Admittedly, I also caused the Japanese player to lose Hiryu, Soryu, Shokaku, Ryujo, and Taiyo, but painful nonetheless.

I've come to the conclusion that such losses for the Japanese player are, in the short-term, strategical minimal (if he doesn't lose the more than 2-3 carriers), as the Japanese player can simply speed up his production of Junyo, Hiyo, and the CVLs and maintain CV superiority throughout 1942. After Wasp, an American player does not get new CV until Essex in mid 1943. This is partially offset by the fact that American carriers can general carry more plaes and have room for additional fighter protection. However, come the introduction of the Essexes in number in mid-1943, along with the prevention of further carrier losses, the Japanese player will really begin to miss his lost carriers. Thus, its probably worth it if you can trade carrier for carrier in '42.

Even if you lose your carriers and he loses none, you should still be back to parity by the end of 1943 if not sooner. Given you've only lost two, it should be sooner for you. My ambush of the KB happened in January 1942 with 3 CVs versus his 6 and the initial encounter saw me lose 1 carrier for 2 of his outright with the additional losses happening later. What I am trying to say is that, given the right opportunity, planning, and luck, you can still inflict good damage and use your carriers strategically versus the KB until the introduction of the Essex class.



So don't give up!

[Leandros]

ORIGINAL: Anachro

In my current PBEM, I lost Lexington, Enterprise, and Yorktown in Jan 1942. Admittedly, I also caused the Japanese player to lose Hiryu, Soryu, Shokaku, Ryujo, and Taiyo, but painful nonetheless.

I've come to the conclusion that such losses for the Japanese player are, in the short-term, strategical minimal (if he doesn't lose the more than 2-3 carriers), as the Japanese player can simply speed up his production of Junyo, Hiyo, and the CVLs and maintain CV superiority throughout 1942. After Wasp, an American player does not get new CV until Essex in mid 1943. This is partially offset by the fact that American carriers can general carry more plaes and have room for additional fighter protection. However, come the introduction of the Essexes in number in mid-1943, along with the prevention of further carrier losses, the Japanese player will really begin to miss his lost carriers. Thus, its probably worth it if you can trade carrier for carrier in '42.

Even if you lose your carriers and he loses none, you should still be back to parity by the end of 1943 if not sooner. Given you've only lost two, it should be sooner for you. My ambush of the KB happened in January 1942 with 3 CVs versus his 6 and the initial encounter saw me lose 1 carrier for 2 of his outright with the additional losses happening later. What I am trying to say is that, given the right opportunity, planning, and luck, you can still inflict good damage and use your carriers strategically versus the KB until the introduction of the Essex class.


So don't give up!

Not to forget the USN CVE's. In Feb '43 I have 8 of them. I find them quite handy.

Fred

[Anachro]

Yes, I didn't mentioned them because I haven't quite worked out the optimal use or various uses of CVEs. Convoy escort, invasion escort/cap defense, air transport, Carrier TF additional CAP? Your thoughts?

[Leandros]

As the end approaches they grow to be as powerful as the regular Japanese ones - due to their diminishing carrier air units. Two CVE's almost equal one large USN carrier, too. Not so speedy but quite practical for the protection of the old battle wagons. Protection for recent forced landings before fighter support is properly established.

Fred

[rustysi]

Yes, what Leandros said. Keep in mind though what CVE jokingly stood for, Combustible, Vulnerable, Expendable. They are by no stretch of the imagination 'Fleet Carriers', or replacements thereof.

[Rising-Sun]

Don't worry, you will have ton of reforcement, stay back and try defend Pearl. Sometime in early 1944, you should have good amount naval forces. Make sure you have good pilots too, so there will be a lot of rotation if you want to succeed. All you need to do is place those subs near major ports and stay out of shallow waters if possible. Don't worry about Truk or any islands down there, use your carriers around the Mariana Islands. If you can take Guam and Saipan, get the airfields build up, so you can put heavy bombers on it and start hitting Japan's Industrial targets.

Surprise to see Soviets are active, did they do much?

Once you taken out most of Steve's carriers, you wont have to worry too much of harassment. So keep of track of what have been sunk and figure out the balance of power on those carriers.

[geofflambert]

Torps are terrible at this point? The US aerial torpedoes had none of the problems of the submarine torpedoes. What are you referring to?

[geofflambert]

I suppose it is easy to get confused on this. The torpedoes used on US submarines had a 50% dud rate. This was not the case with US aerial torpedoes or the torpedoes used by destroyers. I'm not sure about the PT boat torps but doubt that they had the flaw either.

[Anachro]

Geo,

Thanks for the info as I thought the game treated all American torps the same. However, at the time my more overriding concern was the terrible Devastator and its small range, especially vis a vis the much more reliable Dauntless. Not to mention the striking power of a 1000 lb bomb versus japanese cvs. Thus, I wanted to devote as many Dauntlesses as I could to strike and so I put more TBDs on search.

[Leandros]

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

I suppose it is easy to get confused on this. The torpedoes used on US submarines had a 50% dud rate. This was not the case with US aerial torpedoes or the torpedoes used by destroyers. I'm not sure about the PT boat torps but doubt that they had the flaw either.

They may not have had the same specific problems related to the submarine service - that of running too deep or
magnetic fuzes not working properly - but there were others related to the PT, destroyer and air service. Anyway,
torpedoes are very complicated machines and more exposed to human technical errors than, say, a bomb. Regular
maintenance is very important. For the PT's, an unfriendly environment, for the air-launched, an unfriendly
environment as well as temperature complications. Strangely enough, all nations had problems with their torpedoes,
except the Japanese. They simply took the problems more seriously. As an example, the US and Germans problems were
almost identical but remedies were often obstructed by inter-branch rivalry.

Morrison describes how a USN sub commander tried to tell the naval technical leadership in Cavite, the Philippines,
what was wrong with the torpedoes but was not taken seriously. He had, together with his torpedo officer, found out
through practical tests what was wrong. He was correct about it. His name was Dempsey. He advised the destroyer
people to make the same tests he had but I believe there was little reaction.

The German Navy court-martialled several technical officers after the Norwegian campaign because they had refused
to take notice of earlier reports of the (lack of) practical torpedo results reported by their sub commanders.

The British launched more than a dozen torpedoes (some on an own cruiser) in the hunt for Bismarck with one hit,
and that only marginally. So, I think we can agree that torpedo attacks are not supposed to be easy, counting
in the human factor, too. In that respect I find the game relatively realistic even if can be frustrating the
constant Japanese successes with torpedoes. But, the Japanese were well trained, often attacked in large numbers
(Repulse and Prince of Wales being a good example), but I have found in my present game (feb. '43)that they are
much less efficient. Of course, the allied AA and fighter defense have improved, too.

Fred

[RogerJNeilson]

One of my games is in November 1944 and I am close to removing the last remnants in the Philippines, have taken most Sumatra, all the meaningful stuff in China and have not yet bothered with the island hopping central pacific stuff beyond Kusaie. He has had little oil for a good 9 months and I have yet to commit a CV force in action anywhere.

CVs are only important if you want to play the island hopping route and you make them important. I haven't seen any of his carriers for over a year and have frequently downed fighters and bombers form various carriers flying off land bases - the deduction is he has no fuel or appetite for a carrier battle any more.

There are more ways to win this than the historical approach. Japan does not have the capacity to defend everywhere well and once you punch a hole in the defensive wall their lack of resources and engineers means most areas are not well defended.

BTW the red bases still on the map are mostly 'dead stones' in Go parlance.

Roger