Empire of the Sun - DesertWolf101 (J) vs Andy Mac (A)

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: DesertWolf101

ORIGINAL: GetAssista

ORIGINAL: DesertWolf101
The Soviets counterattack one of my flanking forces near Chita - will the Japanese hold?

Wonder that Andy keeps attacking in situations that do not absolutely require it. It was his hex. This is a defensive war for him, he needs to occupy high ground (including flanks of key bases) and wait for you to get a bloody nose against tough terrain. I also get the impression that he neglects defensive fighting outside of bases, specifically positioning units in good terrain behind rivers and entrench.

Strategically it looks like he now has to run for the hills and abandon Ulan-Ude too, cause clear terrain Kyaktah is untenable under your coming air bombing from Ulan-Bator.

I can't speak for him but I suspect it may be a mixture of frustration and a desire to grab at a chance to give me a bloody nose and keep me from getting too brazen. I mean technically it could have succeeded, I think I got a decent roll there too. You would probably have to ask him in his AAR for a real answer though.

If I was Andy I would probably now head for the mountains around Irkutsk. If he can't stop me in a situation where he had the excellent terrain around Chita and with the disadvantaged Japanese position (logistics/airbases) around Ulan Bator then he should have an even harder time stopping me around Ulan Ude. But from what I have learned in playing him thus far I get the impression he fights hard wherever he can, so I doubt it.

That Soviet counter attack was not a mistake.

The real mistake has been (a) the abandonment of the forward positions and (b) the failure to launch attacks, if not on day 1 then certainly once it became clear where the schwerpunkt was heading.

The Soviets had substantial forces to attack from the Vladivostok, Khabarovsk, and Blagovehchenk sectors. Instead he has either attempted to run away or sit tight in a giant self imposed POW camp. Attacking would have accomplished all of the following:

(a) tested whether there were any weak spots in the Japanese line

(b) forced Japan to consume additional supply. As these attacked Japanese units are closer to Japanese supply depots than the advancing columns on Borzya/Chita and Ulan Bator, they would get first dibs on resupply. This is one way to have starved the advancing Japanese columns of supply and consequently weakened their combat effectiveness

(c) even if the Soviet attacks had not been successful initially and the Trans Siberian been cut (and not subsequently reopened) Soviet casualties would have reduced the number of mouths to feed in the POW camp

(d) provided Soviet forces to recapture the Trans Siberian which at the very least would have diverted forces from the schwerpunkt and thereby allowed more time for consolidating the Irkutsk/Chita line.

Instead Andy has lost considerable time by attempting to run away, then remaining in their festungs when the Trans Siberian was cut. They have contributed zilch to helping their comrades around Chita/Ulan Bator/Irkutsk. Now Andy finds combat occurring largely where he is substantially outnumbered whereas inferior Japanese forces are holding at bay strong Soviet Forces. Plus attempting to fight out of pockets were the terrain greatly assists the Japanese defense.

What Andy has attempted is a Sir Robin for the Soviets. The Sir Robin is not optimal strategy for the Western Allies; it is equally sub optimal for the Soviets.

That loss of the sturmovik factory is a huge strategic blow. It wouldn't have happened this early in the campaign had he attacked out of his forward positions.

Alfred

[DesertWolf101]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

ORIGINAL: DesertWolf101

ORIGINAL: GetAssista



Wonder that Andy keeps attacking in situations that do not absolutely require it. It was his hex. This is a defensive war for him, he needs to occupy high ground (including flanks of key bases) and wait for you to get a bloody nose against tough terrain. I also get the impression that he neglects defensive fighting outside of bases, specifically positioning units in good terrain behind rivers and entrench.

Strategically it looks like he now has to run for the hills and abandon Ulan-Ude too, cause clear terrain Kyaktah is untenable under your coming air bombing from Ulan-Bator.

I can't speak for him but I suspect it may be a mixture of frustration and a desire to grab at a chance to give me a bloody nose and keep me from getting too brazen. I mean technically it could have succeeded, I think I got a decent roll there too. You would probably have to ask him in his AAR for a real answer though.

If I was Andy I would probably now head for the mountains around Irkutsk. If he can't stop me in a situation where he had the excellent terrain around Chita and with the disadvantaged Japanese position (logistics/airbases) around Ulan Bator then he should have an even harder time stopping me around Ulan Ude. But from what I have learned in playing him thus far I get the impression he fights hard wherever he can, so I doubt it.

That Soviet counter attack was not a mistake.

The real mistake has been (a) the abandonment of the forward positions and (b) the failure to launch attacks, if not on day 1 then certainly once it became clear where the schwerpunkt was heading.

The Soviets had substantial forces to attack from the Vladivostok, Khabarovsk, and Blagovehchenk sectors. Instead he has either attempted to run away or sit tight in a giant self imposed POW camp. Attacking would have accomplished all of the following:

(a) tested whether there were any weak spots in the Japanese line

(b) forced Japan to consume additional supply. As these attacked Japanese units are closer to Japanese supply depots than the advancing columns on Borzya/Chita and Ulan Bator, they would get first dibs on resupply. This is one way to have starved the advancing Japanese columns of supply and consequently weakened their combat effectiveness

(c) even if the Soviet attacks had not been successful initially and the Trans Siberian been cut (and not subsequently reopened) Soviet casualties would have reduced the number of mouths to feed in the POW camp

(d) provided Soviet forces to recapture the Trans Siberian which at the very least would have diverted forces from the schwerpunkt and thereby allowed more time for consolidating the Irkutsk/Chita line.

Instead Andy has lost considerable time by attempting to run away, then remaining in their festungs when the Trans Siberian was cut. They have contributed zilch to helping their comrades around Chita/Ulan Bator/Irkutsk. Now Andy finds combat occurring largely where he is substantially outnumbered whereas inferior Japanese forces are holding at bay strong Soviet Forces. Plus attempting to fight out of pockets were the terrain greatly assists the Japanese defense.

What Andy has attempted is a Sir Robin for the Soviets. The Sir Robin is not optimal strategy for the Western Allies; it is equally sub optimal for the Soviets.

That loss of the sturmovik factory is a huge strategic blow. It wouldn't have happened this early in the campaign had he attacked out of his forward positions.

Alfred

100%

This is a very good and concise description of where I think Andy went wrong thus far. Not that this campaign is over by any means, but we are certainly at a point in the campaign where some assessments can be made. I think you guys have picked this up by now but the core of my punch was towards the north. This punch would have been considerably affected had Andy launched operations from the Vladivostok area. Instead of diverting forces to reinforce my advance towards Chita for example, I would have had to send them to shore up my defenses around Vlad and prevent a breakthrough that towards my industry and supply. As it is my defense around Vlad mostly depends on fortifications, artillery, the air force, second line troops, but not very many first line Japanese divisions all things considered.

[DesertWolf101]

December 3-5, 1942

Chita is taken and the pursuit to the Kyaktah/Ulan-Ude line is in full swing.

[DesertWolf101]

The Great Vladivostok Disappearing Act

Meanwhile in the south, I have been keeping a close eye on the Vladivostok pocket and I have noticed something strange over the past several weeks.... Soviet units are disappearing! At first I thought it was probably something wrong with my intelligence picture but my recon flights are extensive and the DL on each base very high. Moreover, there is a clear and identifiable trend of the number of Soviet units in the pocket dropping - there is no fluctuation, it is a constant decrease over several weeks.

I naturally looked into this further and went back to the manual. My sneaking suspicion was it must be something to do with disbandment and sure enough from the manual with my underlining for emphasis: "Disband Unit: If located at a base with greater than 100,000 supplies or in a key base (Delhi, Auckland, Sydney, Vladivostok, San Francisco, Osaka or Tokyo), then the player may manually disband units which will return 100% of active devices to the pool and 50% of disabled devices. If in a key base this is free; if in a base with 100,000 supplies it will cost a portion of the units VP value. The player is given the option whether or not to have the unit disbanded rebuilt in 180 days as an administrative cadre."

Essentially, Andy can and is disbanding units that will teleport to the north and face me in about 6 months at essentially no VP cost or loss in devices.

This essentially means the following for me:
1) The pressure is on to reach my strategic goal in the north before these units come back into a massive army.
2) There will be no massive haul of VPs from the Vladivostok pocket as he can just disband before I take Vlad itself.
3) Similarly no significant loss of Soviet devices aside from 50% of the ones I manage to disable.
4) Supply will last longer in the pocket given the lower number of mouths (devices) to feed.
5) Raises the question of whether taking Vlad itself is even worth it in this situation given the significant losses I can expect to sustain in assaulting high forts even with less units there.

Thoughts?

[Ambassador]

ORIGINAL: DesertWolf101

The Great Vladivostok Disappearing Act

Meanwhile in the south, I have been keeping a close eye on the Vladivostok pocket and I have noticed something strange over the past several weeks.... Soviet units are disappearing! At first I thought it was probably something wrong with my intelligence picture but my recon flights are extensive and the DL on each base very high. Moreover, there is a clear and identifiable trend of the number of Soviet units in the pocket dropping - there is no fluctuation, it is a constant decrease over several weeks.

I naturally looked into this further and went back to the manual. My sneaking suspicion was it must be something to do with disbandment and sure enough from the manual with my underlining for emphasis: "Disband Unit: If located at a base with greater than 100,000 supplies or in a key base (Delhi, Auckland, Sydney, Vladivostok, San Francisco, Osaka or Tokyo), then the player may manually disband units which will return 100% of active devices to the pool and 50% of disabled devices. If in a key base this is free; if in a base with 100,000 supplies it will cost a portion of the units VP value. The player is given the option whether or not to have the unit disbanded rebuilt in 180 days as an administrative cadre."

Essentially, Andy can and is disbanding units that will teleport to the north and face me in about 6 months at essentially no VP cost or loss in devices.

This essentially means the following for me:
1) The pressure is on to reach my strategic goal in the north before these units come back into a massive army.
2) There will be no massive haul of VPs from the Vladivostok pocket as he can just disband before I take Vlad itself.
3) Similarly no significant loss of Soviet devices aside from 50% of the ones I manage to disable.
4) Supply will last longer in the pocket given the lower number of mouths (devices) to feed.
5) Raises the question of whether taking Vlad itself is even worth it in this situation given the significant losses I can expect to sustain in assaulting high forts even with less units there.

Thoughts?

That’s smart. While I agree with Alfred’s assessment, that Andy should have gone on the offense on the south when he saw you were only holding your positions while focusing on the north*, this move by Andy essentially voids your strategy of « siege and let wither » Vladivostok. Like I said earlier, the battles to conquer Vladivostok would be extremely bloody, so this is reason enough to keep a decent portion of forces there ; but with enough supplies he could have endured a year-long siege without assaults before he would have supply problems, if not two years, and before you could see the effects of the lack of supply.
Come to think of it, maybe he didn’t move as much supply in the pocket before the invasion.

You’re right that the big advantage of a Soviet invasion is amassing VP, and those essentially come from destroyed devices (and planes). You now face the choice of letting your future haul of VP disappear, or expend the supply and troops to conquer Vladivostok now. Maybe he’s trying to elicit that response of you.

This evacuation is a bit gamey though, given the unrealistic transfer of all those assets to an off-map base, IMHO, but it’s your game.



* another advantage of an offensive is that, if I’m not mistaken on the game engine’s particularities (I never tested that case), capturing a Manchurian or Korean base by the Soviets would allow the other Allies to base bombers (and other planes) from there, enabling a strategic bombing campaign, even if short lived until you bring reinforcements to reconquer it.

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: DesertWolf101

The Great Vladivostok Disappearing Act

Meanwhile in the south, I have been keeping a close eye on the Vladivostok pocket and I have noticed something strange over the past several weeks.... Soviet units are disappearing! At first I thought it was probably something wrong with my intelligence picture but my recon flights are extensive and the DL on each base very high. Moreover, there is a clear and identifiable trend of the number of Soviet units in the pocket dropping - there is no fluctuation, it is a constant decrease over several weeks.

I naturally looked into this further and went back to the manual. My sneaking suspicion was it must be something to do with disbandment and sure enough from the manual with my underlining for emphasis: "Disband Unit: If located at a base with greater than 100,000 supplies or in a key base (Delhi, Auckland, Sydney, Vladivostok, San Francisco, Osaka or Tokyo), then the player may manually disband units which will return 100% of active devices to the pool and 50% of disabled devices. If in a key base this is free; if in a base with 100,000 supplies it will cost a portion of the units VP value. The player is given the option whether or not to have the unit disbanded rebuilt in 180 days as an administrative cadre."

Essentially, Andy can and is disbanding units that will teleport to the north and face me in about 6 months at essentially no VP cost or loss in devices.

This essentially means the following for me:
1) The pressure is on to reach my strategic goal in the north before these units come back into a massive army.
2) There will be no massive haul of VPs from the Vladivostok pocket as he can just disband before I take Vlad itself.
3) Similarly no significant loss of Soviet devices aside from 50% of the ones I manage to disable.
4) Supply will last longer in the pocket given the lower number of mouths (devices) to feed.
5) Raises the question of whether taking Vlad itself is even worth it in this situation given the significant losses I can expect to sustain in assaulting high forts even with less units there.

Thoughts?

Careful, you are verging on reaching some incorrect conclusions.[:)]

1. If you fully acquaint yourself with Andy Mac's posting history, you will see he has a fondness for the AE land disband system. I pointed this out some 11 years ago.

2. Patch #3 (dated 28 February 2010), Code Change #89, altered the land disbanding rules from those listed in the manual.

3. Read my posts in this thread;

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.a ... d&#3576038

for the current rules on LCU disbanding. NB the disbanding limitations outlined.

4. Disbanded Soviet LCUs will return at Vladivostok, not at some other Soviet base in the north. Unless of course if Vladivostok is captured by Japan before their scheduled return ...

Alfred

[DesertWolf101]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

ORIGINAL: DesertWolf101

The Great Vladivostok Disappearing Act

Meanwhile in the south, I have been keeping a close eye on the Vladivostok pocket and I have noticed something strange over the past several weeks.... Soviet units are disappearing! At first I thought it was probably something wrong with my intelligence picture but my recon flights are extensive and the DL on each base very high. Moreover, there is a clear and identifiable trend of the number of Soviet units in the pocket dropping - there is no fluctuation, it is a constant decrease over several weeks.

I naturally looked into this further and went back to the manual. My sneaking suspicion was it must be something to do with disbandment and sure enough from the manual with my underlining for emphasis: "Disband Unit: If located at a base with greater than 100,000 supplies or in a key base (Delhi, Auckland, Sydney, Vladivostok, San Francisco, Osaka or Tokyo), then the player may manually disband units which will return 100% of active devices to the pool and 50% of disabled devices. If in a key base this is free; if in a base with 100,000 supplies it will cost a portion of the units VP value. The player is given the option whether or not to have the unit disbanded rebuilt in 180 days as an administrative cadre."

Essentially, Andy can and is disbanding units that will teleport to the north and face me in about 6 months at essentially no VP cost or loss in devices.

This essentially means the following for me:
1) The pressure is on to reach my strategic goal in the north before these units come back into a massive army.
2) There will be no massive haul of VPs from the Vladivostok pocket as he can just disband before I take Vlad itself.
3) Similarly no significant loss of Soviet devices aside from 50% of the ones I manage to disable.
4) Supply will last longer in the pocket given the lower number of mouths (devices) to feed.
5) Raises the question of whether taking Vlad itself is even worth it in this situation given the significant losses I can expect to sustain in assaulting high forts even with less units there.

Thoughts?

Careful, you are verging on reaching some incorrect conclusions.[:)]

1. If you fully acquaint yourself with Andy Mac's posting history, you will see he has a fondness for the AE land disband system. I pointed this out some 11 years ago.

2. Patch #3 (dated 28 February 2010), Code Change #89, altered the land disbanding rules from those listed in the manual.

3. Read my posts in this thread;

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.a ... and�

for the current rules on LCU disbanding. NB the disbanding limitations outlined.

4. Disbanded Soviet LCUs will return at Vladivostok, not at some other Soviet base in the north. Unless of course if Vladivostok is captured by Japan before their scheduled return ...

Alfred

Thanks Alfred, I was hoping you would weigh in to check my details are right.

Could you shed some light on this? - I started a fresh game as the Allies and started to disband units at Vladivostok just to see what happens. The units come back about 180 days later at Krasnoyarsk in the far north and not in Vladivostok. Am I missing something?

[Alfred]

Disbanded LCUs are meant to return at the National Home Base. For the USSR, that is Vladivostok.

The problem is that anything involving the USSR never received the degree of vigorous testing which was undertaken for the rest of the game. This means that the potential always exists for a bug affecting only the Soviets but not affecting anyone else. For example, s.16.6 of the manual lists Krasnoyarsk and the Soviet Union as the primary and secondary bases but this should have been altered, IIRC without tracking down the relevant dev post. Certainly the code definitely has Vladivostok as the disbanding base, else as per the patch change I referred to, no LCU disbanding would be possible there at all. The disbanding base is meant to be the National Home Base as that would be consistent with other resurrection rules.

Alfred

EDIT:

There was a reason why I used the ellipsis in post #866[;)]

Read posts #91, #104 and #120 from michaelm75au in this thread:

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.a ... d&#2659910

#91 mused about it being the national base
#104 confirms Vladivostok is the Soviet LCU disbanding base
#120 confirms their return base

But just when you thought it was safe to venture out again, this thread

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.a ... l&#4003424

has important posts from michaelm75au which show the manual is somewhat out of date on this issue. In particular post #10 has the national bases (as at 30 November 2015) and Krasnoyarsk is not on the list.

[DesertWolf101]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

Disbanded LCUs are meant to return at the National Home Base. For the USSR, that is Vladivostok.

The problem is that anything involving the USSR never received the degree of vigorous testing which was undertaken for the rest of the game. This means that the potential always exists for a bug affecting only the Soviets but not affecting anyone else. For example, s.16.6 of the manual lists Krasnoyarsk and the Soviet Union as the primary and secondary bases but this should have been altered, IIRC without tracking down the relevant dev post. Certainly the code definitely has Vladivostok as the disbanding base, else as per the patch change I referred to, no LCU disbanding would be possible there at all. The disbanding base is meant to be the National Home Base as that would be consistent with other resurrection rules.

Alfred

EDIT:

There was a reason why I used the ellipsis in post #866[;)]

Read posts #91, #104 and #120 from michaelm75au in this thread:

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.a ... and�

#91 mused about it being the national base
#104 confirms Vladivostok is the Soviet LCU disbanding base
#120 confirms their return base

But just when you thought it was safe to venture out again, this thread

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.a ... nal�

has important posts from michaelm75au which show the manual is somewhat out of date on this issue. In particular post #10 has the national bases (as at 30 November 2015) and Krasnoyarsk is not on the list.

Thanks again Alfred. It appears to me that the patches were either not done for the Soviet Union as intended or it's some sort of bug issue like you mentioned. That's too bad, since now units disbanded in Vlad definitely show up in the north even if the intent was for that not to happen or alternatively the intent was to fix it. I guess I can chalk that up to my choice of doing operations in uncommonly frequented territory. More likely to encounter anomalies in this case. No matter, I will have to adapt to the new reality and adjust accordingly.

[DesertWolf101]

ORIGINAL: Ambassador

ORIGINAL: DesertWolf101

The Great Vladivostok Disappearing Act

Meanwhile in the south, I have been keeping a close eye on the Vladivostok pocket and I have noticed something strange over the past several weeks.... Soviet units are disappearing! At first I thought it was probably something wrong with my intelligence picture but my recon flights are extensive and the DL on each base very high. Moreover, there is a clear and identifiable trend of the number of Soviet units in the pocket dropping - there is no fluctuation, it is a constant decrease over several weeks.

I naturally looked into this further and went back to the manual. My sneaking suspicion was it must be something to do with disbandment and sure enough from the manual with my underlining for emphasis: "Disband Unit: If located at a base with greater than 100,000 supplies or in a key base (Delhi, Auckland, Sydney, Vladivostok, San Francisco, Osaka or Tokyo), then the player may manually disband units which will return 100% of active devices to the pool and 50% of disabled devices. If in a key base this is free; if in a base with 100,000 supplies it will cost a portion of the units VP value. The player is given the option whether or not to have the unit disbanded rebuilt in 180 days as an administrative cadre."

Essentially, Andy can and is disbanding units that will teleport to the north and face me in about 6 months at essentially no VP cost or loss in devices.

This essentially means the following for me:
1) The pressure is on to reach my strategic goal in the north before these units come back into a massive army.
2) There will be no massive haul of VPs from the Vladivostok pocket as he can just disband before I take Vlad itself.
3) Similarly no significant loss of Soviet devices aside from 50% of the ones I manage to disable.
4) Supply will last longer in the pocket given the lower number of mouths (devices) to feed.
5) Raises the question of whether taking Vlad itself is even worth it in this situation given the significant losses I can expect to sustain in assaulting high forts even with less units there.

Thoughts?

That’s smart. While I agree with Alfred’s assessment, that Andy should have gone on the offense on the south when he saw you were only holding your positions while focusing on the north*, this move by Andy essentially voids your strategy of « siege and let wither » Vladivostok. Like I said earlier, the battles to conquer Vladivostok would be extremely bloody, so this is reason enough to keep a decent portion of forces there ; but with enough supplies he could have endured a year-long siege without assaults before he would have supply problems, if not two years, and before you could see the effects of the lack of supply.
Come to think of it, maybe he didn’t move as much supply in the pocket before the invasion.

You’re right that the big advantage of a Soviet invasion is amassing VP, and those essentially come from destroyed devices (and planes). You now face the choice of letting your future haul of VP disappear, or expend the supply and troops to conquer Vladivostok now. Maybe he’s trying to elicit that response of you.

This evacuation is a bit gamey though, given the unrealistic transfer of all those assets to an off-map base, IMHO, but it’s your game.



* another advantage of an offensive is that, if I’m not mistaken on the game engine’s particularities (I never tested that case), capturing a Manchurian or Korean base by the Soviets would allow the other Allies to base bombers (and other planes) from there, enabling a strategic bombing campaign, even if short lived until you bring reinforcements to reconquer it.

I think it's a bit unrealistic to be sure too. But hey, it was my choice to invade the USSR. I'm not about to challenge Andy on his decision to do so. The question is what next - the more I think about this the more it appears to me that expending the resources to take Vlad is now largely pointless. His troops will essentially just vanish as soon as it appears that I am about to take the base. Maybe if I first starve him out and his disabled devices are high then at least half of those won't return. Still probably won't be worth it even then...

[GetAssista]

ORIGINAL: Ambassador
This evacuation is a bit gamey though, given the unrealistic transfer of all those assets to an off-map base, IMHO, but it’s your game.

Yup, I think this needs to be discussed with Andy.

Disbandment mechanics in the game implicitly assumes that it happens in the safe areas where material can be freely transferred to other newly forming units. Yeah, you can disband Philippines air groups in a sieged Clark and still get all the planes in the pools, but that's an occasional byproduct. However, doing disbandment Sir Robin on an industrial scale from a surrounded city is not really ok in my book. More so if the national base priority is bugged, like it seems in the Soviet case. Interesting that I don't recall this trick used before, even if there were some occasional games where national bases were sieged.

[DesertWolf101]

ORIGINAL: GetAssista

ORIGINAL: Ambassador
This evacuation is a bit gamey though, given the unrealistic transfer of all those assets to an off-map base, IMHO, but it’s your game.

Yup, I think this needs to be discussed with Andy.

Disbandment mechanics in the game implicitly assumes that it happens in the safe areas where material can be freely transferred to other newly forming units. Yeah, you can disband Philippines air groups in a sieged Clark and still get all the planes in the pools, but that's an occasional byproduct. However, doing disbandment Sir Robin on an industrial scale from a surrounded city is not really ok in my book. More so if the national base priority is bugged, like it seems in the Soviet case. Interesting that I don't recall this trick used before, even if there were some occasional games where national bases were sieged.

Tbh, at this point I don't really know what that would achieve. I am pretty certain he has already disbanded a whole lot of units. I think it's important, for the sake of future players/games, to raise knowledge about the ability to do this though and that's a big part of the reason to bring it up. A good thing to discuss with your opponent if you are looking at a potential invasion of the USSR scenario.

[Alfred]

I fail to see why there is any concern being expressed about disbanding Soviet LCUs.

1. We don't know with 100% certainty that Andy Mac is disbanding LCUs.

(a) There are Soviet units which are scheduled to be withdrawn before the normal scheduled Soviet activation date. Assuming the Japanese recon is 100% accurate in reporting unit numbers, is the reduction due to forced withdrawals?

(b) many Soviet divisions/artillery regiments are broken down into their sub components and are initially placed in different bases. These units can't be recombined before Soviet activation occurs but can after activation as they are then capable of moving to a common base. Hence, are the unit reductions due to amalgamating the sub components?

(c) what if some units are moving and their current location is not under constant Japanese recon?

2. For the sake of the argument, let's assume that Soviet units are being disbanded. Why would DesertWolf101 want to stop his opponent from committing this fundamental strategic mistake? After all one of the important military (and game playing too) rules is don't stop an opponent from making a mistake. These disbanded units are out of action for 6 months. They won't be available to either attack from their POW camps, which I've pointed out they should have done so already, nor be available to bolster the Soviet defenders facing the Japanese schwerpunkt. They don't even represent a force in being necessitating Japan to maintain an overwatch on them.

3. Japan doesn't need 6 months to accomplish its northern objectives. Well before the resurrection of any disbanded Soviet LCUs, either Japan has captured the terrain it wants or the in situ Soviet forces have sufficed to fight the schwerpunkt to a standstill without the assistance of any resurrected LCUs.

4. Where is the HR which prevents the disbanding? What is the point of bringing it up when disbanding is actually in Japan's best interest anyway. Japan doesn't need the VPs gained from destroying Soviet devices, on 1 January 1943 it is going to smash the requirements for an Auto Victory and barring a complete mental meltdown by DesertWolf101, the VP lead is so great already, he is also going to smash the Auto Victory requirements for 1 January 1944 as well.


Overall I just don't see why the subject has to be raised with his opponent. Any Allied change is not going to benefit Japan. All it risks is antagonising his opponent. If disbanding is actually occurring then it is because his opponent believes he has no real alternative. Does DesertWorl101 really want to risk the possibility, no matter how small it might be, of having to find a third human to take over the Allied side.

As to GetAssistance's comment regarding not having seen disbanding in frontline bases on the frontline previously, well the answer is quite simple. Look at the other 4 Allied disbanding bases. If those disbanding bases were to find themselves on the actual frontlines, all that the Allied player would be achieving is depriving himself of those assets for 6 months before they resurrect themselves in exactly the same base they disbanded in. Assuming the bases (Sydney, Auckland, San Francisco) hadn't fallen in those 6 months precisely because they had lost the use of the disbanded LCUs. If the Allied player is fighting to save Sydney, San Francisco, things are really desperate and you can't afford the luxury of handicapping yourself by disbanding.

Alfred

[DesertWolf101]

I would certainly not say that it is a 100% certainty, but from what I have been tracking and keeping tabs on I feel very sure that he is doing so. Otherwise Alfred I am in complete agreement with the rest of the points. I will not be bringing it up with him. I do want it to be known that it is possible to do so though for the wider audience and hence why I thought I would bring it up.

[DesertWolf101]

December 7, 1942

And so here we are, a full game year has passed, and in fact this is the farthest date I have reached ever before by far. It just so happens that this date was also a momentous one for the war.

Naval Battle of Socotra

Over the last week I have been wrestling with the conundrum of the Karachi wormhole. Any convoys/task forces that enter through the wormhole will be virtually under the strong CAP (almost 300 fighters!) and naval defenses of Karachi before I can do anything about it. However, I figured there was enough distance in the hop around Socotra for me to strike out and inflict damage before Andy's convoys make it through. The issue of course was intelligence/recon, since if I get too close his naval search at Socotra would pick me up. So what I did was I kept the KB out of search range but within flank speed of the Socotra area and sent in my subs and leaned on radio intelligence for any scraps of intel that could point to significant Allied naval activity in the area. Last turn I got enough to decide to dash in and here are the results:

[DesertWolf101]

While there was moderate rain in the afternoon strike, this time the weather was not a disaster and both strikes went through and got good results. I think I caught Andy completely by surprise in this one.

I got confirmation on the two battleships, CV Hornet, and a light cruiser as sunk. I am almost certain CV Wasp won't make it through given what she got. Another British CA and a couple of CLs are likely sunk as well but not certain.

[DesertWolf101]

In the Russian front the ceaseless IJAAF bombing runs came through and allowed me to catch up with a good chunk of his former Ulan Bator army.

[DesertWolf101]

And here are the results from that battle. I think this will greatly assist me in pushing him back from his second defensive line and get me closer to my strategic objective.

[Lowpe]

I fought the Soviets early, and I suffered from many game anomalies. I won't ascribe them to bugs, but rather Soviet guerillas...but it really was quite disheartening.

Soviets do withdraw many divisions, and the timing is roughly correct as I recall.

[Alfred]

In the many years I have played, and seen others play, both classical WITP and AE, I regularly see that the concept of opportunity cost is not well understood. There is a large opportunity cost associated with voluntary disbanding o units. Much more commonly witnessed is the opportunity cost entailed with moving assets long distances. Often these transfers see the assets unavailable for operation for 12 weeks or more.

I just shake my head when I look at the opportunity cost, a cost which is not just limited to the two exemplars mentioned.

Alfred