The Good The Bad & The Indifferent

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Creating situations in which there was high pressure on John to commit his navy was the way I accomplished that. When he declined to respond, though, I just proceeded with the plan.

Since January 1, 1944, John has only committed his navy three times. (The first time, Yamato and Mutsu blundered into range of Death Star; the second he lost ten DDs in the Philippines; the third, he committed KB and bombardment TFs far from Death Star.) Basically, in five months there have only been the highly valued clashes twice. But the objective of destroying his navy doesn't get in the way of pursuing other goals, like taking key bases, building infrastructure, destroying ground units, attending to logistics, and getting ready for the next big clash, whatever it happens to be and wherever it happens to take place.

Destroying the IJN was the highest priority but not the only one.

Yes, you take what you are given. Seizing chunks of strategic land is fine if he does not want to contest it. In the end it just restricts where and what his navy can do. I would say that at this time, getting a big advanced shipyard would be my priority, and Manila seems like the best option.

[obvert]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

+1

similar to the IJ player stating his goal is to annihilate the USN in '42 ... ok, but the USN has to agree to play for this strategy to work.

Not when you know your opponent as well as I know John. We've played so many times over 14 years that we know each other pretty well.

If I was playing somebody I didn't know well (meaning: anybody else), I wouldn't have known enough to utilize this specific strategy from the beginning of the game.

I've said all these things before, and laid them out in detail. But readers who pop in now and then may miss them and fail to understand the context in which things are said. And I write so much that I'm reluctant to keep repeating these things over and over because I'm already taxing the patience of many readers.

But those who do manage to keep up and read regularly know why I've done what I've done.

You can't set out to destroy the IJN because your opponent may not cooperate? You can if you play John III.

It's not that you can't. Every Allied payer can eventually destroy the IJN. If you get to late 44 it's pretty much inevitable.

The question is why worry about it at this point? You're so close to being able to bomb the HI, strike at the heart of the Empire. You've already significantly whittled down the Japanese Navy to the point it's barely a threat to the Death Star. You've routed the Burmese Army and should be able to start marching in China very soon.

Is it that you think if you destroy the IJN he'll quit? Is that the goal?

[Canoerebel]

You seem to have the impression that I spend all my time hunting Japanese combat ships. I can't think of the last time I specifically went hunting, but it was long before calendar year 1944.

But I did engage in a long series of operations from 1942 through the present designed to compel John to act rashly. I felt like that was the surest way to attrition the Japanese navy. And attritioning the Japanese navy was the surest way to victory.

I'm still concerned about the IJN because it's still a force to be reckoned with, especially considering the very long and narrow LOC I'm using. If John was still comfortable and his navy still large, I'd be facing repeated DD/CL raids that would make things much more risky. Therefore, I'd have to slow down a lot while protecting every convoy. But the state of the Japanese navy has made John reluctant to commit it in battle for the past five months. That's been very helpful.

[obvert]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

You seem to have the impression that I spend all my time hunting Japanese combat ships. I can't think of the last time I specifically went hunting, but it was long before calendar year 1944.

But I did engage in a long series of operations from 1942 through the present designed to compel John to act rashly. I felt like that was the surest way to attrition the Japanese navy. And attritioning the Japanese navy was the surest way to victory.

I'm still concerned about the IJN because it's still a force to be reckoned with, especially considering the very long and narrow LOC I'm using. If John was still comfortable and his navy still large, I'd be facing repeated DD/CL raids that would make things much more risky. Therefore, I'd have to slow down a lot while protecting every convoy. But the state of the Japanese navy has made John reluctant to commit it in battle for the past five months. That's been very helpful.

I don't think you're hunting the IJN tactically. That phrase or idea didn't appear in any of my posts. You're dodging the actual point intentionally and putting words in my mouth. [:)]

You say right here that you think "attritioning" the Japanese navy was the surest way to victory.

Since there are some other clear methods to Allied victory used by other player in the endgame including cutting off the oil and strat bombing the Japanese economy, as the Allies did during the war, I'm simply asking why is this the clearest way to victory?

Do you think he'll quit if you take out the remaining KB? Is that the goal?

[Canoerebel]

In 1942, attritioning the Japanese navy is the clearest and surest route to victory. Strategic bombing is a distant possibility and hurting the Japanese economy via fuel and supply is indefinite (you can post fifteen subs in the South China Sea, but whether they hit anything is uncertain and whether anything they hit is carrying anything or is otherwise important is also uncertain).

Damaging enemy ships has a clear and definable impact. Clearing enough of them makes the objectives of strategic bombing and interedicting the main Japanese LOC much more attainable.

That remains the case into 1943.

Every aspect of the game is easier when the Japanese navy is weakened or destroyed.

[Canoerebel]

5/21/44

Burma: It looks like the Japanese are pulling out of Moulmein. I understand why and it's the logical thing to do under the circumstances. Doing so, though, will help the Allies in the objective of attending to the security of Rangoon. To do that, I'll also need to take Tavoy and Raeheng while also (later) bombing Port Blair into submission.

John has a Mini KB SW of Rangoon.

Fun House: Troops are still loading at Talaud and need another day or two.

Many empties have departed Death Star and are at various points in the DEI. The three xAP due for withdrawal are near Boela and making for Sydney at 20+ knots (the PP cost of the one due for withdrawal today is 20, so that's steep). Those three xAP should reach Sydney is ten days (two of them aren't due for withdrawal for 20 days). CA Sussex is also near Boela and should reach Sydney in less than 10 days. She's due to withdraw in three days.

All the inbound ships (reinforcements, oil, supply, support) have linked up with Death Star.

Allied 2EB and 4EB hit Roxas today for the first time. It seems that 2nd Amphibious Brigade is posted there. I'm not sure yet of the strength of that unit, but it's not going to stay strong in open terrain against Allie bombers at close range.

PBY Liberators at Legaspi hit several xAK at Ishigaki, near Formosa. There are four such squadrons at Legaspi, all with high NavB skills.

[modrow]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

In 1942, attritioning the Japanese navy is the clearest and surest route to victory. Strategic bombing is a distant possibility and hurting the Japanese economy via fuel and supply is indefinite (you can post fifteen subs in the South China Sea, but whether they hit anything is uncertain and whether anything they hit is carrying anything or is otherwise important is also uncertain).

Damaging enemy ships has a clear and definable impact. Clearing enough of them makes the objectives of strategic bombing and interedicting the main Japanese LOC much more attainable.

That remains the case into 1943.

Every aspect of the game is easier when the Japanese navy is weakened or destroyed.

Personally, I think -as you said- the key here is

a) your opponent in combination with
b) Nemo-esque thinking. Play the player as well as the game.

IMHO, b) is what shines through at many places of this AAR.

John LOVES his navy. You use this love against him. As you said, another player-another road to victory.

Just my 2cts.

Hartwig

edited for missing word

[Canoerebel]

Interesting SigInt on the day.

Damaged CV Lexington pulled into a port today. All of the aircraft squadrons were pulled off.

[Canoerebel]

The question I'm pondering: Why did John reveal Mini KB in the Andaman Sea?

[Lowpe]

Amphibious Units like the 2nd: think light brigade. I really like them.

PS: Is Japan letting those Chinese troops in the open pass unmolested....not bombing them?

[JohnDillworth]

Damaged CV Lexington pulled into a port today. All of the aircraft squadrons were pulled off.

nice work. A port capable of repair or a stop on the way? How much damage? I expect the Sumatra is done for the war.

[Canoerebel]

Screenshot of Lexington.

She's at Morotai. It's a long way through the Torres Strait and then back to Pearl Harbor, so she's out of the war for a long time. In fact, I may stand her down for awhile to allow some of the SYS and minor damage to diminish and until the sub threat clarifies on the route she'll be taking.

[Lowpe]

Silly attachment to a ship. Keep her in the war. Load her up with ASW planes, 90 of them. Giver her TF 48 points of ASW, and send her out there to sink subs. Just keep her on cruise speed.

Its only a few dents. Sheesh.[;)]

[BillBrown]

And a side note, I would not have RADM Fredrick Sherman in command of a CV, he should be in charge of an Air Combat TF.

[CaptBeefheart]

Didn't John build Manila to a 41 shipyard? If so, Lady Lex would fit nicely there. Also, have any of your ARDs made it to the front yet?

Cheers,
CC

[Canoerebel]

Yes, of course! Why didn't I think of that? That's a possibliity, and not longterm either. I'll be moving up the Luzon peninsula pretty soon, and it makes sense to keep some damaged ships nearby rather than risking a long trip home through sub-patrolled waters.

I have four ARDs on map now - three pretty far forward and the fourth just leaving San Francisco. One of the ARDs has repaired damage on CVE Manila Bay from 66 down to 52. Once the ship's speed is up to about 7 or 8 knots, I'll remove her from the ARD and send her to a shipyard.

[Canoerebel]

ORIGINAL: BillBrown
And a side note, I would not have RADM Fredrick Sherman in command of a CV, he should be in charge of an Air Combat TF.

Sherman was the TF commander and Lexington's captain, IIRC. Lexington hasn't reached a port big enough to dock. Therefore, I haven't been able to replace Sherman with another captain yet. But I do like highly qualified captains in command of seriously damaged capital ships until they are safely in port.

[jwolf]

Naive question about Moulmein: why are the Japanese withdrawing? They have good terrain and, I assume, a good fort there. As long as the retreat path to Rahaeng or Bangkok is protected, isn't Moulmein a good place to take a stand? They can't hold forever, but they could hold for a time -- maybe long enough to really slow down the Allies here.

[Canoerebel]

Yes, Moulmein is a good place to make a stand and is John's last really good chokoe point. Once it's lost, it opens the interior of Thailand (and Indochina) to the Allies.

I think John's army was so beat up that he knew that whatever fresh troops he has on hand don't stand a chance against the advancing Allied army combined with bombers flying from the new Allied airfields (he can't know how iffy the supply situation is there at the moment).

In Burma, John had 5 divisions, two (or more) mixed brigades, at least one RCT and several tank regiments battered badly. He must be thinking, "If that army can't stand up against Dan's army and airforce, how is what I have left going to?"

[MakeeLearn]

Will he make a stand and fight in and around Bangkok? That would seem to be the next center of a line of resistance along that axis of movement.