CV Problems - The Loops

[kennonlightfoot]

Originally I was thinking that the Loops just favored the Japanese giving them long distance movement without penalties. But after some testing with restrictions on them they are badly needed by the US in the first year of the war. Right now the Japanese can easily dominate the South Pacific by taking all the bases there and stationing Naval Air to make US ships have to run a gauntlet to get to Australia. But on the other hand they are like warp speed for US which also needs to be addressed.

This could be handled a number of ways.

1. Block the Japanese from using them.

2. Make the take more turns. Moving by sea by straight line gets the US ships on the West Coast to Australia in at best 3 turns. To go more south ward requires four turns. This means the loop should take 4 turns.

3. The loops should also use fuel. Ships coming out the other end, at least on the US/Australia loop should come out needing refueling before they can do anything.

4. The India loop isn't needed unless it turns out the Japanese can easily take Southern Australia ports and block that route.

The cheap solution seems to be block the Japanese from using them, for the US side make the cost 4 turns and eliminate the India side loop. It would be nice to add a fuel cost (or maybe an Action Point cost) so they don't come out ready to fight.

[Toby42]

I thought that the loops were being eliminated?

[kennonlightfoot]

ORIGINAL: Toby42

I thought that the loops were being eliminated?

That is my understanding for update 3 too. But having tried it by house rules I have found total elimination will be a mistake. Which is why whenever possible we need to test rule changes if they can be tested with a house rule to see if they have unintended side effects. This one does. The Japanese can take Noumea and Fiji to easily right now which gives them air coverage of the main route over to Australia. By placing the main CV fleet in Fiji and subs out scouting they can wipe out any US fleet attempt to get to Australia unless they get lucky and have heavy rain.

Holding Fiji and Noumea is another problem. With those two bases land Air units can start wiping out US and UK merchants one at a time. If weather is clear they usually get one hit a turn. While the US can't easily rebuild the losses it hurts particularly during that first six months of the war when the only real thing the US can do is send production to UK, India and Australia. Building new merchants to replace the losses will take longer than that.

Probably need some volunteers to pick a rule or set of rules and test them using house rules where possible to see what they do and post them as a short AAR covering just the first year.

Then we still have the problem if these first year changes screw up the US/Japanese balance for 43-45.

[ncc1701e]

I don't think if this is a mistake to remove the loops. But, your points are indeed valid.

[eskuche]

I think you have a misconception that owning the islands stops anything from coming through from the US. AFAICT naval units exude no recon. A sub is no more likely then ten to find anything in the deep blue. In my game vs. Yuejin there is basically no intercepting of anything coming through from the US. Just don’t have convoys within 7 hexes of land.

The most owning the islands will do is sink maybe one convoy per turn per air group.

[kennonlightfoot]

ORIGINAL: eskuche

I think you have a misconception that owning the islands stops anything from coming through from the US. AFAICT naval units exude no recon. A sub is no more likely then ten to find anything in the deep blue. In my game vs. Yuejin there is basically no intercepting of anything coming through from the US. Just don’t have convoys within 7 hexes of land.

The most owning the islands will do is sink maybe one convoy per turn per air group.

They don't stop them. Just force them to take a longer path or risk being air attacked. But the air units also provide spotting. I don't know what the factors are that determine whether a transport fleet is spotted but if they are they will be sunk almost with a 100% chance if they aren't being covered by a major force. And, for the Japanese, this is the best outcome. Force the US to use its carriers as transport escorts making perfect targets for Japan's six CV fleet. Also, the side effect of slowing the movement of transports as they wait for escorts to be available.

The US can attempt to get around this by Island hopping the transported unit through land bases along the southern edge of the map but this even slows the troop movements more since the islands are spaced for this.

[eskuche]

At the risk of giving my normal routes away, I have had zero things being caught, and I've played 6 Allied games at this point. See the following. I have been interdicted successfully only ONE time outside of 7 hexes of islands, and that was in the Indian ocean.

[ncc1701e]

But the interdiction is only done at the end position of the enemy fleet move.

[kennonlightfoot]

It is hard to say how reliable those routes are. This could be just reflecting Japanese tactics being used. What would happen if the Japanese player placed subs at the 48 hex range? Things like that. It is hard to evaluate since for the Japanese player I don't know how good their intel is. How close can you come to a Japanese island that has an air unit and not be spotted?

Against the AI it sometimes looked like they were all knowing. But I have played Japanese against another player and it looked like at times the US ships were adjacent to my ports without being spotted.

Intel is another category that needs to be explored. Very little info in manual on how having air and sea units near by effect spotting. It would be really nice if you could get the map to show spotting probability based on position of units. I know it shows the level for the hex but that never changes even if a ship is adjacent so I know there are other effects. Also, not sure if the US player gets the benefit of "coast watchers" and partisans like the did in the war.

[eskuche]

Pretty sure Alvaro is keeping it under wraps to prevent min-maxing. I've posted elsewhere that non-beach hexes exude high-high-medium-medium-low-low recon in terms of hexes away. It may stack. I have seen no contribution from air, alhtough there is a 10% spotting advancement.

And sure, the Japanese player is free to use their only 4 subs to try to interdict in an ocean. If I see this ever happening, I will simply bring a half US fleet and let it get interdicted. As it should be, it is a needle in a haystack problem and most likely not worth it. I keep subs on supply/blockade duty.

[kennonlightfoot]

ORIGINAL: ncc1701e

But the interdiction is only done at the end position of the enemy fleet move.

I have found the Japanese (really both sides) have tremendous reach if they can spot a naval stack. They can move up to 48 hexes targeting one of the hexes within 3 hexes of the enemy fleet. This will usually trigger the enemy to interdict the Japanese fleet and get themselves wiped out in the process.

The only time I have successfully used the US early four carrier fleet was when my Japanese opponent formed two carrier fleets to support taking Noumea. Since I new each had only 3 to my 4, I moved the US fleet within 3 hexes of the nearest one triggering the interdiction by the Japanese. That resulted in my sinking two of their carriers with no loses. Oddly, at least in my view, I still had one action point so I did a normal air attack against the now one carrier fleet. Did even kill an AA gun. Of course in the Japanese turn they struck back with their other CV fleet plus land air and sank two of my CV's.

I would have consider that a good trade since the US gets replacements and the Japanese only a few new CV's. But I didn't stop the Japanese from taking Australia and the rest of the South Pacific. And now my 2 CV fleet plus a UK CVL wasn't strong enough to do anything but watch.

[ncc1701e]

ORIGINAL: kennonlightfoot

ORIGINAL: ncc1701e

But the interdiction is only done at the end position of the enemy fleet move.

I have found the Japanese (really both sides) have tremendous reach if they can spot a naval stack. They can move up to 48 hexes targeting one of the hexes within 3 hexes of the enemy fleet. This will usually trigger the enemy to interdict the Japanese fleet and get themselves wiped out in the process.

The interdiction works only if your naval stack is in fleet mode. Put it in raider mode and no interdiction will be done.

[ggeilman]

I have to agree, eliminating the loops is a mistake. I am not worried about what the Japanese can do with it, but it would hamper the US far too much to lose it.

[kennonlightfoot]

ORIGINAL: ggeilman

I have to agree, eliminating the loops is a mistake. I am not worried about what the Japanese can do with it, but it would hamper the US far too much to lose it.

If some tactic or change limits the Japanese from being able to use it. But right now by Mar 1st the Japanese can take control of all the key Islands in the South Pacific and start overrunning Australia. The US needs the loop to get units to Australia. But because of Japanese concentration near by on the Australian end, they can use it to raid the West Coast and Hawaii.

So the loops is needed by the US but is going to make things worse for the US if it doesn't exclude the Japanese. I still going some testing to see what problems are created.

[kennonlightfoot]

The interdiction works only if your naval stack is in fleet mode. Put it in raider mode and no interdiction will be done

True but whether that is a problem for the Japanese I am still trying to test.

But I am still not sure why the US would want to use the routes pictured in eskuche screen shot. They are moving toward where the Japanese might spot them. I don't know why transports would use these routes.

But bringing up raider mode did remind me of the tactic that never worked all that well in Europe but it looks like a game changer in Pacific.

By end of February I am not seeing any reason the Japanese can't take all the South Pacific Islands except the two minor ones to the east of Fuji. Fuji being the key one with its large port facilities. With air bases on Fuji and Noumea the Japanese can use Fuji as a base of operations for its main CV fleet.

With that they can "raid" the South Pacific Convoy lane and force the US to shut down all production shipping. They even might be able to force the US fleet to fight or lose Australia. I made to strikes at the convoy route with 6 CV's and took out over 30 Merchants. If the US can't find a counter tactic they will either have to stop all convoys or watch there Merchant navy disappear.

The second tactic I see but still trying to figure out how to test, is to throw out a sub and destroyer screen south of Fuji to see if I can spot transport trying to get through even in raider mode (raider mode is kind of gamey for ships that aren't actually raiding, more like silent running).

The third tactic after the US gives up trying to get convoys through is to move the six CV's over to Australia and use its air power to destroy all the shipping there.

The fourth tactic to test is can I sit outside the entry loop and interdict the US as they come through. And, would that type of combat favor the Japanese or US?

The thing that worries me is Japanese winning tactics seem to be popping up everywhere but not Allied ones. Maybe this won't matter and in 43/44 the Allies will wipe the Japanese navy from the sea, but I don't think so. And, it will hurt the game if the first year is seen as to lopsided.

[eskuche]

Ships do not spot.
Recon is only within 6 hexes of an island.

I've these things multiple times already.

The locations in my screenshot are outside spotting range.

[YueJin]

I think the game will run ok with no loops. The main difference is that the US will need to build around 50 more transports in the early war, not too big a deal and it takes two extra turns for US units to reinforce Australia and a couple more to get troops to India. If the starting garrisons are buffed up in strength there as I've suggested I don't think there'll be much of a problem with India or Aus being too easy to take.

As for US winning strategies I'd say from my experience the Allies will absolutely win the game 100% of the time unless Japan knocks out India or gets a decisive carrier battle before mid 1943. With wise expenditure of PP the US can outnumber the Japanese carriers 2-1 by mid 1943 allowing for island hopping to begin. Burma is completely indefensible once there's 6 Indian corps+5 US/UK ones marching down, Rangoon is blockaded and landings cut off supply, once that falls, Bangkok/Saigon/Hanoi quickly follow. The speed at which you can roll up the entire Pacific theatre once you have a naval advantage is staggering.

[Remington700]

ORIGINAL: kennonlightfoot

I have found total elimination will be a mistake.

ORIGINAL: ggeilman

I have to agree, eliminating the loops is a mistake. I am not worried about what the Japanese can do with it, but it would hamper the US far too much to lose it.

I too agree this would be a mistake. The loop mechanic does more than provide safe, alternative routes that can be taken outside of the playing area.

IMO the game is brilliant in the way it handles the abstract of time. Turns are two weeks but actions range from hours, days or the full time period. For example, a large naval battle happens very quickly but can easily take two or three turns to resolve. This does not represent six weeks of battle; it represents six weeks later looking back at three days of battle.

Travel is the same way. You have the ability to use the loop to cover the large distance from the West Coast to Australia at more of an operational level. Or you can micro your travel representing a tactical approach, dealing with a lot of little things along the way.

I like the way this works. And IMO think it would be a mistake to remove this elegant abstraction of time and your choice to make operational vs. tactical decisions.

[eskuche]

ORIGINAL: YueJin

I think the game will run ok with no loops. The main difference is that the US will need to build around 50 more transports in the early war, not too big a deal and it takes two extra turns for US units to reinforce Australia and a couple more to get troops to India. If the starting garrisons are buffed up in strength there as I've suggested I don't think there'll be much of a problem with India or Aus being too easy to take.

As for US winning strategies I'd say from my experience the Allies will absolutely win the game 100% of the time unless Japan knocks out India or gets a decisive carrier battle before mid 1943. With wise expenditure of PP the US can outnumber the Japanese carriers 2-1 by mid 1943 allowing for island hopping to begin. Burma is completely indefensible once there's 6 Indian corps+5 US/UK ones marching down, Rangoon is blockaded and landings cut off supply, once that falls, Bangkok/Saigon/Hanoi quickly follow. The speed at which you can roll up the entire Pacific theatre once you have a naval advantage is staggering.

Our current game seems to suggest that LBA is playing a larger role than this would imply. It is a slightly anomaly with a late DEI surrender, though.

[kennonlightfoot]

ORIGINAL: eskuche

Ships do not spot.
Recon is only within 6 hexes of an island.

I've these things multiple times already.

The locations in my screenshot are outside spotting range.

Ships/Subs intercept which will also trigger spotting with a range of 5 hexes.
Air units have a 10 hex range. I am not sure this is only for land based or not.
By selecting overlapping positions on islands with subs and DD's filling in the open areas you can build a pretty good net for catching enemy fleets and transports. And, unlike convoy camping subs are a bit more effective in sinking transports they interdict.

US can avoid the worst of this by not moving in 48 hex jumps so the Japanese screen has more depth. But once they are within the last jump, less than 48 hexes from Australia, they will be near many enemy controlled islands and narrower access areas that the Japanese have to have sea coverage in.

Then there is COMINT which we don't really know how works. It is very effective, at least in 42, at telling the US where Japanese ships are at sea. I don't know if the Japanese ever get better at this type spotting or not.

Hopefully I will get to a point in my AAR to test whether the US can tread the needle to Australia without having to have capital ship escorts.