WitP mod v903 Ngineer(Japan) vs. Feinder(Allies)

[Feinder]

March 29th, 1943

Admin Stuff

Research, Production, Losses, and Economy

Research - Since USA Industry completed/expended a chit last turn, I re-invested 300sp back to Industry. I also put 3rd chits into Aerial and Naval Warfare. I want to max those out, and I think I'm going to need every ounce/bonus to Morale in the coming year or three (more on that later).

Production - I've started sending 10mpp/turn from Oz to India. At first, I was testing to convoy line to see if he had anything camping it (would pose a thread to my Oz/Kiwi troops convoy). Now, I was lazy and forgot to turn it off, but India is grateful for the +10mpp, so I'll just leave it on. Built replacement Indian Inf-Div and a Chinese Inf-Corps.

Losses - Holy crap. NO LOSSES THIS TURN! Winner!

Economy - No significant changes in income. US and China both lost 2, but Japan lost 6, so a net +2 gap for Allies. We'll take it.

[Feinder]

March 29th, 1943

National Morale and Strategic Map

National Morale - Ok. So I'm tracking it in detail now. Should be interesting (and likely depressing) to see how it reflects in the coming months. Remember the bit about "no losses this turn!" (and thus no NM loss due to destroyed units). Remember that while reviewing the NM attachment. Note that the NM of USA goes down by -560pts this turn. How much of that was SP-damage losses (does it take NM hit for damaging a unit?), I don't know. But I would have said I had a "good" turn given that the US (re)captured a base in the Solomons and didn't lose any units. I can see that the US loses National Morale every turn for Batavia(-15), Singapore(-15), Manila(-15), and Guam(-15). But that's "only" -60/turn. I don't how we arrived at -560. That's like losing a fully upgraded Fleet Carrier. Anyway, that's the point of keeping records like this, so that we can see what/how things are being affected. If USA NM decreases at -560/turn, the US will surrender to Japan on March 10th, 1950. This is only the 2nd turn that I've kept detailed NM numbers, so a single turn-over-turn comparison is NOT valid. It is amusing tho.

Strategic Map - nothing "strategic" to report. Just posting it here, since I can only put 4 attachments per post.

[Elessar2]

So to answer your question Elessar2 (spelled correctly!), no the militia units have not triggered yet (I checked the scripts and they're marked for 1 hex).

That may be due to my continued misinterpretation of the relevant scripts. I for the longest time was under the impression that the range of hexes that will trigger the scripts means any enemy unit within said range. IIRC the devs however told me I was incorrect in my assumption, and that it means something different than a simple range at all, and may not trigger unless the enemy units are within said minimum, not maximum, or something (as you can tell, it remains confusing to me, used to a WYSIWYG kind of system). I'll have to go and check both the relevant thread here (if I can find it again) as well as examples from other scenarios, incl. the ones I adapted from the vanilla 1939 one.

At this point I am almost tempted to just nuke the entire concept of NM, but I would lose the counterbalance to the Yamato cancellation script, for example. I would have sworn that I reset them all to Jan 1 1943 as previously discussed. Aarrgghh.

[Feinder]

National Morale - As OCB said, for kills (I don't think you stop that anyway). But in general; because of the potentially significant effect it can have (esp over time) on combat effectiveness (or lack thereof), I wouldn't miss it.

An event like the 3x DM vs. 4x CV -> Frankly, the current NM gains for Japan would in no way deter me from taking the 4x CV option (I'm shocked that he took 3x DM actually). With current objectives, Japan's early gains will more than make up for the early NM loss due to taking the 4x CV option.

The Allies are not going to stop Japan from taking Sing, Guam, Batavia, Wake, Manila, Guad, even PM, they just CAN'T stop Japan. Japan is compelled to go after all of those, simply because they are convoy's MPPs (and as lightly defended, easy to roll). The real value is in the MPPs they generate. Japan would acquire NM bonus thru the destruction of units defending of those places (but should also be mindful of it's losses).


And, "I would have sworn that I reset them all to (begin) Jan 1 1943 as previously discussed." - Yes, you did!

[Feinder]

April 16th, 1943

India

IJA attacks at Chittagong, were repulsed with heavy casualties. The town and it's stalwart defenders mark 6 months of continuous attacks, and heroic defense.

Near Cuttack, IJA forces have been bolstered by a squadron of Fighters, which are probing inward, engaging the battered remnants of the RAIF. I pulled back my fighters and tac-bmbrs as far as Deli at this point. They've only got 2-4 SPs each, are basically combat-ineffective, and I don't want him to kill them. Meanwhile, additional ground forces come ashore and strike towards the two mines (as predicted previously). He captured one, and backed off, his only real objective to destroy it. He moved up on the more northern one, but bumped by Ind-Div nearby. I'm hoping he doesn't have enough movement to simply move past my Inf-Div and onto the mines. I need a turn or so, to get somebody on them.

Meanwhile, in the south of India, heavy attacks on his Inf-Corps were very successful. As shown, he's down to only 2sp. I attempted to bombard the port (to keep him there) was low probability and not successful. I'm expecting him to evac them this coming turn. It's probably in his best interest to hold Trivandium for an additional turn or two as well, as it will keep my 3x Inf-Corps tied town pushing him out of the south.

I've also got another Kiwi Inf-Div, 2 USA Inf-Div, and a Canadian Inf-Corps should arrive in a turn or 2.

[Feinder]

April 16th, 1943

China

He concentrated attacks again, along the join of the Comm-Chi and Nat-Chi lines. Supported by LBA, he wiped out a Chinese Inf-Div.

In center more attacks near Hangkow, but largely unproductive.

Also, some attacks from his Inf-Corps at the (now disabled) Mines in the far West. Also unproductive.

I used the turn to rebuild units, and pull a Chinese replacement Inf-Div.

[Feinder]

April 16th, 1943

Solomons

He's getting more aggressive, launching multiple strikes against my bases/fighters in the Southern Solomons. He's got several squadrons of LBA, supported by 3x CVs and 2x CVLs. Like me, he's taken a few turns repair/replace, and now back at it. With many air-attacks, he destroyed one of my Fighter squadrons, and mauled the other at Guadalcanal. As you can see, he's also blockaded the port with Subs.

For me, my CVs have finally repair/replaced as well. I've gathered a partial fleet off Esprito Santo with CVL and some DDs, as I expect the initial threat will be his subs. He'll try to lure me with his CV/CVL/fleet under his LBA umbrella and do the port-strike-port thing again. He's got fleet units here, so I'd like to engage them. But I need to come up with a strategy that doesn't play into his port-strike-port tactics. I dunno. We'll see. I also pulled 2x Fighter squadrons from North Oz, and replaced the two killed/mauled in Solomons.

My subs have retreated back towards Pearl Harbor and West Coast. In hindsight, I should have just kept them at Oz, but my ports were full at the time, and that didn't click.

I ran some missions over Port Moresby, to keep the town/port suppressed. He's moved up a AAA unit there. That'll make that more difficult obviously. But it'll also make it easier to kill with Marines.

[Feinder]

April 16th, 1943

Admin Stuff

Research, Production, Losses, and Economy

Research - I put two chits into ASW. His subs are certainly annoying that it warrants getting ASW to 2. I also got EoT notices that UK-Spy(2), US-Amphib(2), and US-Production(4) completed. So yay. Also, with Fighters at 84%, I'm looking fwd to having them go to Fighter(3) soon. It means re-upgrading my CVs again. It'll be a thought whether to upgrade my CVs to Fighter(3), before re-engaging him. I would make sense tho, given the strength of the LBA in theater, and every point will help.

Production - Bought a Chinese and Australian Inf-Corps (each).

Losses - Chinese Inf-Div and US Fighters.

Economy - He gained 5pts from "something" and the Indian mines took a hit. So he closed the gap by 9pts. We're still keeping him under 370 though.

[Feinder]

April 16th, 1943

National Morale and Strategic Map

National Morale - US NatMorale went down by 960. Probably half of that is fighter losses in Solomons. China and India also taking hits. Noting that, while I didn't actually kill anything, he lost just over 800nm, probably mostly due to ground losses in India (and some air-sps in Solomons).

Strategic Map - Updated with current assets. I've got strike-thrus on several of my LBA units, as they are down to 2-4 steps are are thus ineffective (and need to be protected so as not get them killed).

[Feinder]

I will comment on starting USN Nav-Atk at 0, vs. IJN at 2.

Yes, absolutely try to simulate the advanced torpedo and night tactics advantage that Japan held early war. That's an excellent case for IJN to have Nav-Atk(2). I'm not disputing IJN Nav-Atk(2) in the slightest.

I would provide feed-back that, USN Nav-Atk(0) is a bit debilitating by comparison, and should consider starting it at "1".

Nav-Atk impacts many aspects, besides surface-to-surface combat...

1. With USN Nav-Atk(0), it's bombardment is 40% chance of doing damage to an enemy. The increased bombardment chance from vanilla is a GOOD thing. But with IJN Nav-Atk(2), it means Japan has a 60% of damaging Allied units, and given early IJN dominance, there is a LOT of bombarding going on (well always going on). Many, many step losses to bombardments. IJN is 50% more effective than USN at causing SP loss, until USN gains that point in Nav-Atk. With a Nav-Atk(1), the USN is able to bombard successfully at 50%, thus reducing the effectiveness gap to 20%. I'm not saying to reduce the bombardment percentage. But by increasing starting USN Nav-Atk to 1, the relative effectiveness is more accurate.

2. Nav-Atk is also the effectiveness of CV-strikes vs. Naval. US(0) vs. Japan(2) is a huge advantage in any Carrier (or surface) battle. You're really just asking for suicide by trying to engage most IJN naval assets with USN Nav-Atk(0) vs. IJN Nav-Atk(2).

3. This basically means you NEED to have USN-Nav-Atk(1) + Radar(2) for some level of parity. If prioritized this takes about 9 months to a year.

4. The real MPP cost of not starting at Nav-Atk(1), also means
a. Spending the MPPs (and likely multi-chitting) to prioritize the upgrade.
b. The cost to upgrade from 0 to 1 (or any other step), is substantial. The cost to upgrade a step in Nav-Atk is (DD-8, CL-10, CA-12, BB-15, BC-17, CV-18). To upgrade of a fleet of 6x CV, 4x BC, 8x BB, 8x CA, 8x CL, 8x DD = 560 MPP per step. And that does NOT include the cost of future builds.

5. I submit that, at Nav-Atk 0, USN surface and carriers are largely combat ineffective, bordering on simply targets, unless/until Nav-Atk(1) and Radar(2) can be achieved. While I do think that Nav-Atk(2) correctly simulates IJN leading tactics and some weapon systems, I feel that Nav-Atk(1) more closely represents the USN early-war naval capabilities. IJN(2) vs. USN(1) would still provide Japan with significant early-war advantage, until USN technology (NavAtk and Radar) can catch up (in a more realistic time-frame of about 9 months). If an across-the board Nav-Atk(1) is unpalatable, you could provide the technology, and start the naval assets at 0, and force the MPP expenditure to upgrade.

We're still playing thru, but this is my respectfully submitted feedback for you to think on.

[BillRunacre]

So to answer your question Elessar2 (spelled correctly!), no the militia units have not triggered yet (I checked the scripts and they're marked for 1 hex).

That may be due to my continued misinterpretation of the relevant scripts. I for the longest time was under the impression that the range of hexes that will trigger the scripts means any enemy unit within said range. IIRC the devs however told me I was incorrect in my assumption, and that it means something different than a simple range at all, and may not trigger unless the enemy units are within said minimum, not maximum, or something (as you can tell, it remains confusing to me, used to a WYSIWYG kind of system). I'll have to go and check both the relevant thread here (if I can find it again) as well as examples from other scenarios, incl. the ones I adapted from the vanilla 1939 one.

At this point I am almost tempted to just nuke the entire concept of NM, but I would lose the counterbalance to the Yamato cancellation script, for example. I would have sworn that I reset them all to Jan 1 1943 as previously discussed. Aarrgghh.

If you have any questions about how the triggers work with condition positions feel free to fire them my way.

[Beriand]

At this point I am almost tempted to just nuke the entire concept of NM, but I would lose the counterbalance to the Yamato cancellation script, for example. I would have sworn that I reset them all to Jan 1 1943 as previously discussed. Aarrgghh.

I'm quite sure you can set NM to (at least) 999k. Then, combat losses in almost any campaign change very little. Scripts triggered by dates or critical locations can +/- control NM impact on morale of units. NM losses from occupation can be set to 0 or whatever desired. Similarly, I think victory conditions can be set to trigger at some % of NM, say 91% or 76%? Then you can steer things without much of combat being affected, with sufficiently high base NM and an educated guess of predicted MPP losses, but less sure about that.

Also, NM does not seem to change that much. Unless you have a fight of <75% against >110%, then yeah, it is bad, but mostly only then.

[Elessar2]

After some discussion with OCB, I'll just take pains to help minimize the chance that the US drops below 75% (or the Japanese rise above 110%, maybe on that last one, don't want to punish success).

[Elessar2]

This AAR on hold?

[Feinder]

Nope. Just busy.

[Feinder]

Ok. 3 turns of updates forthcoming... Just sent back June 9th, 1943. Need a biologic first tho. Then will get started on updates. I'm glad y'all are anxious/excited for updates tho.

[Feinder]

May 4th, 1943

India

As expected, he evacuated the IJA Inf-Corps that was under siege. Would have been nice to lock him in, and kill him, but I can't suppress his ports at this points (with minimal navy, and no workable bombers). But, that's one down, one to go. We'll have to keep our Oz/Kiwi units away from the coast as long as possible, because otherwise, he's just going to pound the snot out of them with BB/BC/DN and CVs.

Speaking of which... He hit an India Inf-Div on the southern flank of his coastal incursion. LBA from Burma, CV/CVL bombers, then coup-de-gras with his Inf-Corps. Gone.

My Coastal Guns at by Calcutta continue to hold. Well that's good. And my Indian Inf-Div at Chittagong also hold. Better.

Also, 2 USA Inf-Div and Canadian Inf-Corps arrive. No HQ for them, but any Allied troops in India are welcome (including a squadron of RCAF fighters as well).

[Feinder]

May 4th, 1943

China

He was quiet in China. After this game is done, I'm going to ask why he didn't stay focused on Yenen. He had it as an open city (with me moving in troops, but would have been 0-entrench). Anyway. Quiet China, is Good China.

I counter-attacked in center, and Comm-Chi counter-attacked as well. Damaged two IJA Inf-Divs. Again, always a bride's maid... No kills. But, it's something.

[Feinder]

May 4th, 1943

Coral Sea

Skirmishes with LBA over Solomons and New Guinea. I've pulled by CVs east for upgrades, and potential operations against Northern Solomons (he tends to come past Ontong Java Island).

He's keeping quite a bit of both LBA and Naval assets in the area (about 3 fighters, 2 Med-Bmbrs, 3x CV, 2x CVL).

He kept a pair of subs trying to blockade the port at Guadalcanal, but I chased on off, and even managed to sink it when it took shelter in the southern port. I'll take the point, even if it wasn't pretty. Our house rule is that, he can't land more troops at Tulagi. He'll get the benefits of the Intel from being adjacent. Can't do anything about that. I've got Paratroopers next turn, so I'll ship them to nearby, and try to drop them on Tulagi.

The next "real" operation though, will be Port Moresby, because it damages National Morale over time.

[Feinder]

May 4th, 1943

South Pacific

Well this was interesting. This guy (IJN sub) popped up near Canton Island. I was shuttling some DDs and bumped into him. I've shifted the Mari-Bbr to assist. But these locations are end-of-turn.