CHS mod w/special map v.3b: Tristanjohn (Japan) vs. Ron Saueracker (Allies)

[Tristanjohn]

Ron and I have not finalized the details of toggles and whatnot yet. I'll update this report ASAP. The Japanese first turn should be completed by this evening.

[Ron Saueracker]

Whoohoo, and I get "Cindy" back from the shop tomorrow!

House rules I was thinking...

1) PH should be attacked. This is opening move of WITP and is the reason why there is such a generous move bonus for Japan. Not really sure what restrictions should be placed on either side beyond that for first turn but I like Mogami's concept of aircover as range limit for first turn targets.

2) Manila/Singapore is another...should/could the port be attacked? I'd say no considering the game allows widespread use of torpedo carrying bombers vs ports which were not conducive to torps (geography, defences). I argued for anti torpedo netting/booms/barrage balloons for ports (like fortifications) but obviously lost out there). If these ports can be attacked, Allied player should be able to form TFs...not right that exact info like starting locations of every unit be taken advantage of.

3) Combat TFs need a minimum size 6 port to refuel/rearm be set as home base. Exception is if naval base unit is present, then perhaps a smaller port size will do, perhaps 5. This is to deal with generic supply making naval ordinance as readily available as bum wad and the lack of ops point maximums at ports.

4) Night ops limitations for aircraft. I suggest that only manpower be targettable by strategic night bombing. Tactical targets on land be limited to Airfields and Ports and can be hit by night op specific units. Absolutely no ground attacks vs LCUs at night. No restriction vs naval TFs.

I'm going to take this further and allow only RAF bombers to attack at night (aside from specifically night ops units and B-29s) as daylight bombing was the USAAFs big thingy.

5) ASW: I suggest we don't allow this TF type until 44 as it further porks the already brutal ASW model. I'm willing to just make ASW TFs out of bounds because of this fact.

6) TF size. Because of the gang bang aspect of escorts vs subs, I think TFs should be kept reasonable and should not contain more that 8 escorts capable of ASW. By keeping the TF sizes down, it will also alleviate the lack of ops points for ports somewhat.

7) In conjunction with TF size/escort limit, I believe approximately 50% of subs should be in port at any given time (actually 1/3 on patrol, 1/3 in transit to/from patrol, 1/3 in port is ideal and what I do. This is needed to balance the #6 and reflect operational realities.

[Tristanjohn]

I like Mogami's first-turn restrictions as well--they make good sense. I'm also going to park AKs in a port for the duration ("How dare he resort to such ridiculous tactics!" scream the Axis fanboys ) just to see how this affects play balance.

Re escorts for transport TFs: I believe a more reasonable limitation for the Japanese player would be something on the order of four. ("There he goes again!" ) Now there might well have been exceptions to this somewhere in the war, so let's say if a TF is carrying very very valuable cargo we'll let it run up to six. As the Allied player in my PBEM I've found an escort of two or three flushdecks is more than sufficient to ward of all comers--I've wasted 18 Japanese boats through 12 May 1942 by doing just that. But if you want to have more escorts, be my guest. (It'll only stretch your resources that much further. [:)])

The general exception to the escort rule would be a TF escorted "in strength," i.e. something of extreme value, say, where you'd likely put some cruisers in there for real muscle--say, during an invasion, or even just for routine convoys where you suspect raiders might be about. In these cases, then, it would not be unusual to find an entire destroyer division tagging along. The point being that what we're after here is to reduce the worst effects of anti-submarine warfare which the crazy model inflicts on us, not to restrict players from reasonably protecting their assets. Common sense ought to prevail, always.

Agreed?

We'll make the rest of it up as we go along.

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

3) Combat TFs need a minimum size 6 port to refuel/rearm be set as home base. Exception is if naval base unit is present, then perhaps a smaller port size will do, perhaps 5. This is to deal with generic supply making naval ordinance as readily available as bum wad and the lack of ops point maximums at ports.

Only one that bothers me is the port level 6 for re-arming ... not that I disagree with the concept ... but how do we enforce this one ? I think Chavez asked this before ... if I need gas .. and only have a level 3 port around ... and I'm a BB .. does that mean I just can't go in to the port and have to keep heading for a level 6 ? I guess that depends on whether or not I have ammo. If I have ammo I can go refuel if I do not have all ( most ? how much is most ) of my ammo ... then I have to keep looking for another port ... even if this means I run out of fuel .. which means I had to plan out where I was going to re-arm before I went a fired off my shots ... something like this is probably do-able ... but we might need more words to state the details.

I assume this only applies to CL/CA/BB fleets as DD only forces could re-arm using AE or AD ( I think - though I haven't put these units through extensive testing - mostly going by what the "book" says ... though I doubt the book is more than about 50% relevant )

[mogami]

Hi, Don't expect the 200 AK to influence events in 1941-1943 period. But if the Allied player manages to sink enough AK in that period movement of material in 1944/45 can be tricky. The reason I don't use these ships is they are in my mind being used the entire time. They are hauling the material the Japanese Home Islands require that do not reflect in WITP. If there was a way to actually show them being used I would do that however running ships between Japanese ports and Chinese/Korean ports on a routine schedule with nothing to load or unload can get a bit tiresome. But at least they would be exposed to submarine attack. In my personal opinion it is the lack of this traffic that reduces USN submarine success when compared to actual war. Instead USN submarines are encountering IJN TF and escorted merchants. Because there are no unescorted targets between China and Japan USN submarine's are lost more often.
This is interpeted as the ASW routines being inflated. I don't mean to expand my post to other areas but I think it is often overlooked. Submarines do not look to sink escorted ships in patroled areas covered by dedicted ASW aircraft. They prefer to lurk in safer places and pick off unescorted ships. They don't exist in WITP (in numbers enough to meet historic results)
Submarines deployed in areas as picketts or scouts should have a toggle where they would only report contacts and not try to engage. (or you could have them commit suicide if you wished)
But some of the numbers I've seen posted as results from history I question. However it remains that more then a third of Japans merchant ships were not available for military use. They were however available as targets. To actually simulate this Japan needs to have ships running from all Home Island ports to major ports in China and Korea. No more then 3 or 4 per TF and no escorts. At least 100 of the 200 AK should be at sea with the other 100 scattered about. Pick 5 ports and assign 40 AK to each. Have 10 of them in the Home Port 10 in Japanese ports and the other 20 at sea. As ships arrive at a location sned an equal number then in port to sea.

I would expect that this alone would produce loss to Allied submarines over the 46 months of the game. Note you would be required to move a AK from military duty to this duty as AK are lost. You must always have 200 AK assigned to this. For every 10 AK sunk or damaged you can assign 1 ASW ship.

[Halsey]

That's funny that you brought up the "search mode only" for subs.
I brought this up a long time ago, and was shot down in flames by MrFrag.[:D]

The retalitory remark was, what sub commander would not attempt an attack against a TF if he found one.
Well OK, how about one that had orders stating otherwise.[;)]

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

I like Mogami's first-turn restrictions as well--they make good sense. I'm also going to park AKs in a port for the duration ("How dare he resort to such ridiculous tactics!" scream the Axis fanboys ) just to see how this affects play balance.

Re escorts for transport TFs: I believe a more reasonable limitation for the Japanese player would be something on the order of four. ("There he goes again!" ) Now there might well have been exceptions to this somewhere in the war, so let's say if a TF is carrying very very valuable cargo we'll let it run up to six. As the Allied player in my PBEM I've found an escort of two or three flushdecks is more than sufficient to ward of all comers--I've wasted 18 Japanese boats through 12 May 1942 by doing just that. But if you want to have more escorts, be my guest. (It'll only stretch your resources that much further. [:)])

The general exception to the escort rule would be a TF escorted "in strength," i.e. something of extreme value, say, where you'd likely put some cruisers in there for real muscle--say, during an invasion, or even just for routine convoys where you suspect raiders might be about. In these cases, then, it would not be unusual to find an entire destroyer division tagging along. The point being that what we're after here is to reduce the worst effects of anti-submarine warfare which the crazy model inflicts on us, not to restrict players from reasonably protecting their assets. Common sense ought to prevail, always.

Agreed?

We'll make the rest of it up as we go along.

Sure. Always exceptions, I'm just generalizing somewhat.

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

3) Combat TFs need a minimum size 6 port to refuel/rearm be set as home base. Exception is if naval base unit is present, then perhaps a smaller port size will do, perhaps 5. This is to deal with generic supply making naval ordinance as readily available as bum wad and the lack of ops point maximums at ports.

Only one that bothers me is the port level 6 for re-arming ... not that I disagree with the concept ... but how do we enforce this one ? I think Chavez asked this before ... if I need gas .. and only have a level 3 port around ... and I'm a BB .. does that mean I just can't go in to the port and have to keep heading for a level 6 ? I guess that depends on whether or not I have ammo. If I have ammo I can go refuel if I do not have all ( most ? how much is most ) of my ammo ... then I have to keep looking for another port ... even if this means I run out of fuel .. which means I had to plan out where I was going to re-arm before I went a fired off my shots ... something like this is probably do-able ... but we might need more words to state the details.

You just did!

The only problem I see is whether a player will make that effort. If he won't, find another who will.

I assume this only applies to CL/CA/BB fleets as DD only forces could re-arm using AE or AD ( I think - though I haven't put these units through extensive testing - mostly going by what the "book" says ... though I doubt the book is more than about 50% relevant )

In some cases the manual is only about 50% understandable . . . or 50% detailed, whichever. Anyway, the AE resupplies any warship in need with "smallish" ammo (60 effect or less, non-mine, non-torpedo) in a 1-level port or better with the requisite supplies aboard. (I haven't tried this yet and the manual doesn't say, but I assume this means the AE still has to be in a Replenishment TF for this work even in a port). And come 1945 AE's serve the same function at sea.








[/quote]

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, Don't expect the 200 AK to influence events in 1941-1943 period. But if the Allied player manages to sink enough AK in that period movement of material in 1944/45 can be tricky. The reason I don't use these ships is they are in my mind being used the entire time. They are hauling the material the Japanese Home Islands require that do not reflect in WITP. If there was a way to actually show them being used I would do that however running ships between Japanese ports and Chinese/Korean ports on a routine schedule with nothing to load or unload can get a bit tiresome. But at least they would be exposed to submarine attack. In my personal opinion it is the lack of this traffic that reduces USN submarine success when compared to actual war. Instead USN submarines are encountering IJN TF and escorted merchants. Because there are no unescorted targets between China and Japan USN submarine's are lost more often.

I presume you meant to direct this response to me.

First of all I'm not sure what amount of shipping I should dock as the Japanese player given that the CHS OOB is said to restrict the amount afforded at start (as opposed to stock scenarios).

I understand your reason for doing this and I agree with that reason. Your point re unescorted TFs not being available for "shooting" is also valid. What I do not know is what percentage of Japanese shipping in the war was lost along the Japan-China routes. Do you know?

This is interpeted as the ASW routines being inflated. I don't mean to expand my post to other areas but I think it is often overlooked. Submarines do not look to sink escorted ships in patroled areas covered by dedicted ASW aircraft. They prefer to lurk in safer places and pick off unescorted ships. They don't exist in WITP (in numbers enough to meet historic results)

I can't comment on the ASW routines from the perspective of the Japanese since 1) I haven't played them yet and 2) in my game the Japanese can hardly find my subs in the first place--enemy ships just roll right on over my boats in ignorance (remember, in my PBEM US sub doctrine was toggled on). I do know that as of 12 May 1942 I've sunk 17 or 18 Japanese subs (mostly I-boats) without going out of my way to do so. I just run my regular convoys with two or three flushdecks in escort and these have served effectively as sub magnets. Once the I-boats approach my kill rate has been at least 50% thus far. And that's a bit high in anyone's book, Mogami. I really do think there's a problem with the ASW routines. [8D]

Submarines deployed in areas as picketts or scouts should have a toggle where they would only report contacts and not try to engage. (or you could have them commit suicide if you wished) But some of the numbers I've seen posted as results from history I question. However it remains that more then a third of Japans merchant ships were not available for military use. They were however available as targets. To actually simulate this Japan needs to have ships running from all Home Island ports to major ports in China and Korea. No more then 3 or 4 per TF and no escorts. At least 100 of the 200 AK should be at sea with the other 100 scattered about. Pick 5 ports and assign 40 AK to each. Have 10 of them in the Home Port 10 in Japanese ports and the other 20 at sea. As ships arrive at a location sned an equal number then in port to sea.

I would expect that this alone would produce loss to Allied submarines over the 46 months of the game. Note you would be required to move a AK from military duty to this duty as AK are lost. You must always have 200 AK assigned to this. For every 10 AK sunk or damaged you can assign 1 ASW ship.

I'll go to the trouble and try that, just for test purposes, though again, with the reduced tonnage to Japan already reflected in the CHS OOB then 200 AKs may not represent the ideal number to so idly dispose of. If you could offer your opinion on that specific I'd be appreciative.

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Halsey

That's funny that you brought up the "search mode only" for subs.
I brought this up a long time ago, and was shot down in flames by MrFrag.[:D]

The retalitory remark was, what sub commander would not attempt an attack against a TF if he found one.
Well OK, how about one that had orders stating otherwise.[;)]

Consider the source and . . . move on. [8D]

[Tristanjohn]

Okay, we're ready to go at last. Here are the game settings.

Realism Options

Sub doctrines Off
FOW On
Weather On
Allied d/c On
Historical 1st turn Off
Vary setup Off
7 Dec. surprise On
Reinforcements Fixed

Game Options
Combat reports On
Auto sub OPs OFF
TF move radius On
Plane move radius On
Set all facillities to Off
expand at start
Auto upgrade air On
groups
Accept air and ground On
replacements
Turn cycle 1

Good luck to everyone involved. (andespeciallygoodlucktome...headded)

[mogami]

Hi, Good luck to all. Go forward in the name of science.

(TJ: Treat Ron like a little girl and ^%$#$ slap him for 365 turns. )

[Ron Saueracker]

Guess I'd better get the Map Mod loaded. Uggghh. Manual is hurting my brain.[:D]

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, Good luck to all. Go forward in the name of science.

(TJ: Treat Ron like a little girl and ^%$#$ slap him for 365 turns. )

Well, for 180 turns (and in the name of science) I fully intend to. [:D]

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, Good luck to all. Go forward in the name of science.

(TJ: Treat Ron like a little girl and ^%$#$ slap him for 365 turns. )

[:D]

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Guess I'd better get the Map Mod loaded. Uggghh. Manual is hurting my brain.[:D]

No hurry. I've barely gotten Palau sorted out! (I think someone needs to sit down and give the initial displacement of Japanese assets a little more thought. [8D])

[Ron Saueracker]

I'm ready to rock! Had a smoke and Andrews Map Mod files worked flawlessly. Cigarettes rock in moderation![;)]

[Tristanjohn]

Okay, we're ready. Are you ready, Ron? [:D]

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

Okay, we're ready. Are you ready, Ron? [:D]

Yep, but coke bottle bespectacled opponent must have sent the turn to the wrong recipient. I have not received his turn yet.[;)] Perhaps his poor eyesight is making this map difficult to read! It won't help you as your stupid Nagumo guy will forget to load torps on the Kates and use only 800 kg jobs and the pilots will hit Utah and PT boats.

[Ron Saueracker]

Your attack will suck, you fish head soup eating, little man, you!