Early HQ Leader exchange

[HvMoltke]

Hi again!

I was in early March with the IJ Army beginning to advance towards Rangoon, when I read in an AAR, that it would be a good idea to exchange Percival in Singers, when PPs are enough to do this.
Is it worth the 150 PPs? What is your opinion about that?
I went back in my 6th game to 1.1.42 Singers is still in British hands. Shall I try it or go on with March `42

[sstevens06]

I wouldn't replace Percival, unless you have a plan (and the forces) to hold Singers. I chose to keep him and sacrifice Singers (not Sir Robin-style). Diverted some British reinforcements and managed to hold on to Denpasar.

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: sstevens06

I wouldn't replace Percival, unless you have a plan (and the forces) to hold Singers. I chose to keep him and sacrifice Singers (not Sir Robin-style). Diverted some British reinforcements and managed to hold on to Denpasar.

But other players who decided to try and hold Singers raced as many troops as they could there, including the troops at sea at game start. They also pushed in supply, accepting the inevitable loss of the ships carrying it. They replaced Percival with someone more inspiring and skilled at land combat.

IIRC, in one case the Allies managed to hold Singers while the Japanese decided (after failing to take it) to try and leave it under siege and go ahead with their further plans. But Singers kept biting them in the butt and eventually The Allies got some supporting bases for Singers and kept it as a springboard for later offensives.
In another instance, the Japanese took the reinforced Singers but several months behind schedule. This set back their conquest schedule to a much smaller perimeter before the Allies started their comeback. So the greater losses to the Allies at Singers were offset by IJ losses in troops and position. Your playing style and tolerance for losses will decide whether you think such a gambit is worth it.

[ITAKLinus]

As far as I can see, it's difficoult to hold Singers against an equally competent Japanese player.

The main problem I see is that it makes the capture of Burma more complex, but it doesn't prevent the Japanese form taking the rest of DEI.


Changing Percival is quite bizarre from my perspective: you pay 150 precious PPs for just few better stats. I think it's much more efficient to free some other assets with those points rather than changing Percival.
Moreover, since we assume Singapore is holding, we should also assume that the situation over there is critical but not an emergency. Therefore, it's better to invest in stuff which are actually useful instead of a leader who is not going to see fight immediately.

[HvMoltke]

I`m in my 6th game BBlite Scenario 26 against the IJ AI. It is still try and error, reading AAR and War Room posts. By this I came across different ideas for the first months of AE War. I tried the Palembang Fortress, the Sardauker idea of retreat in Malaya up to the road towards Mersing. And also I tried a sort of Rangoon area Fortress.
So some ideas worked for me and some didn´t, Singers fell too early for example. After that the sealane was open to Moulmain and Rangoon, which I didn`t expect in such extremety.I had not expanded Port Blair`s airfield, and no subs in the Road of Malacca.
Okay, so I began to read again, and then I came to that idea to change the leader in Singer. It makes sense to me, because I realized in some battles in China, that the leaders make a huge difference.
My idea is, if you block the short way to Burma-India-Ceylon by holding Palembang and Singers you have more time to fortify Rangoon and in the end you might keep your front behind the river running from Moulmain to Paoshan.
Also I learned a lot about airlift, by which you do not use so many PPs for buying out Dutch units.
BBfanboy sounds more as if he can imagine a positive effect.
It would be great if more of the Pros log in and discuss my ideas

[ITAKLinus]

You play the AI, it's all another game then.

Everything can work against the AI but many stuff would be completely different against a human player, be aware of that. If your final goal is to play a campaign against a human player, the best way to learn strategies and operational set-ups is to actually do it against someone instead of the AI.

For example: you think you gain time in Singers changing Percival. And you spend your PPs and you change him. I, human player, skip the Philippines and rush to Singapore with everything. 150PPs wasted.

Same goes with Burma. You rush to defend it. I skip it and land in India bypassing the whole Burma trapping your hastily sent defenses.


These are just a couple of examples of why many things can go very differently in a PBEM and basing a strategy on trials against the AI makes you lose in flexibility and efficiency.


In most of the PBEM you won't be able to hold Singers. Same goes for Palembang.


Again, supposing an equally experienced Japanese player on the other side.




So, answering to your initial question regarding Percival, no it's not a good idea to pay those PPs. They are much better invested in purchasing some stuff from the Weast Coast using the Ist Amph Corps and its reduced PP cost for the allies.
Or whatever brings you some kind of unit which can be used to help allied situation.


Basically, focusing on what's good of your idea would have given you the false sensation that's actually a good idea. Instead, simply, it's not. There are very few times in which it's somehow reasonable to change percival but in general it's an inefficient move.
On average it's a waste of PPs and against a human player who has a little bit of experience as you do, you probably won't be able to hold Palembang, let alone Singers. If you meet a veteran, losing the whole India, for example, is not an unrealistic expectation. It's from mistakes we learn and I did many, that's why I'm so tranchant with Percival idea and the related expectations.


See an old AAR "The Power Of Inexperience" I think it's the name, written by GreyJoy. It gives a good insight about what happens to new allied players threw in a PBEM.

[Macclan5]

ORIGINAL: HvMoltke

I`m in my 6th game BBlite Scenario 26 against the IJ AI. It is still try and error, reading AAR and War Room posts. By this I came across different ideas for the first months of AE War. I tried the Palembang Fortress, the Sardauker idea of retreat in Malaya up to the road towards Mersing. And also I tried a sort of Rangoon area Fortress.
So some ideas worked for me and some didn´t, Singers fell too early for example. After that the sealane was open to Moulmain and Rangoon, which I didn`t expect in such extremety.I had not expanded Port Blair`s airfield, and no subs in the Road of Malacca.
Okay, so I began to read again, and then I came to that idea to change the leader in Singer. It makes sense to me, because I realized in some battles in China, that the leaders make a huge difference.
My idea is, if you block the short way to Burma-India-Ceylon by holding Palembang and Singers you have more time to fortify Rangoon and in the end you might keep your front behind the river running from Moulmain to Paoshan.
Also I learned a lot about airlift, by which you do not use so many PPs for buying out Dutch units.
BBfanboy sounds more as if he can imagine a positive effect.
It would be great if more of the Pros log in and discuss my ideas

I am no Pro... mostly a 'still learning' rookie plus.

However I do not think I - or even some of the experienced players such as the very knowledgeable BBFanboy / Sardauker - can offer you perfect answers - in all situations - either.

I think you are doing it exactly correctly.

Experiment. Continue to experiment !

Against another player in PBEM it is incredibly challenging (so I believe) because another human can think in a non linear fashion. You likely cannot hold many or any of locations cited.

Against the AI - which 'thinks in a linear fashion' - it can still be challenging in my opinion depending upon the 'random aggressiveness script' chosen. It can still be very difficult to hold some locations because the Allied Player

1) Lacks the political points to buy out "all" great units until
2) The units are not all upgraded in TOE
3) Supply and scattered shipping to get sufficient supply to upgrade all spots takes time

Perhaps you can hold Rangoon - but not Singapore - nor Fortress Palembang ? Or the other way around.

Perhaps you can hold on to all three verses the AI - but at what cost in shipping / air frames / troops ?

Defining your objectives clearly helps.

Did you want to invade the home islands / Okinawa by 1943 ? 3:1 points by December 7 1943 ?

--

I played one of my earlier start games with full intention to defend south east asia. Especially the aforementioned Singapore and Rangoon.

I followed all the advice often offered - diverting those early British forces there - marching down the coast to defend - running supply in at a significant but not overwhelming cost of shipping.

...And the script I was playing landed forces in Dutch Harbor / Port Moresby / eventually Townsville North East Australia .... random choice I suppose. Nothing I did wrong - nothing I could not reverse in time - but all those Dutch / British / Aussie ships reinforcing supply and troops to Singers and Rangoon - were not available to reinforce New Guinea - which I traditionally do as early as possible.

So warm regards - cheers - don't worry enjoy the ride - keep experimenting [8D]

[bomccarthy]

I think Macclan hits on a good point - you don't want to use up too many PPs early in the game. Keep in mind that you will need a lot of PPs to buy out US inf divisions for your offensives in late summer '42 (ex: the 41st Div needs to be bought out if you want to approximate the historical US strategy). I just found that delaying the capture of Singapore a few weeks until mid-March upsets the Japanese AI strategy for the DEI and Burma - without replacing Percival or even sending reinforcements to Singapore. This was good, since I also got an AI script that began attempting invasions of Noumea and Pt Moresby in Feb-Mar '42.

Although I started playing AE in 2011, I've only just started my second campaign; I played my first game through Apr '46 (stopping with a non-ending siege of Tokyo, which had amassed more than 1 million defenders backed by 2M+ supply). During the 4+ years of real time it took for that first campaign, I found the lessons learned about organizing invasions were much more valuable than those about organizing perfect early war defenses; plus, they likely transfer better to games against human opponents.

The Allies get some fantastic tools, including AGCs, myriad landing ships that unload very quickly but are much slower than the APAs and AKAs, bombardment landing craft, replenishment squadrons on CVEs, AEs and AKEs with different capacities for rearming capital ships; but it takes some time to understand all of their capabilities and how to best organize the different TFs that will be needed to invade and then capture a single island. And then there is the puzzle of sustaining bases within B-29 range of Japan, followed by bases for the 8th AF (Okinawa? Korea?).

In short, while finding the perfect early war strategy may be enticing, acquiring a thorough knowledge of Allied offensive tools and capabilities can be much more rewarding.

[HvMoltke]

Thanx for all the good and different advice.
So what I read out is, after playing the first few months again and again and optimizing the defence, I should go on and try to learn whats comming in the next months, like invasion and airwar.
Thanx a lot again.
I`ll be back with new questions for sure. Please help me also with the next problems.

[rustysi]

Is it worth the 150 PPs? What is your opinion about that?

As a JFB I encourage the allies to waste all the PP they wish. Less ID's they will be able to 'buy' out to oppose me.

So the greater losses to the Allies at Singers were offset by IJ losses in troops and position.

IMHO Japan can overcome the allied reinforced Singers and still do it in a timely fashion.