Invading Johore/Mersing

[John III]

Hello Gang. I am about to start my first campaign game of WitP using the standard Sc 15. In invading Malaysia and going after Singapore, I am thinking about landing troops just above Singapore at Johore/Mersing.

My thoughts are that I could easily grab it from whatever force is currently there and then use those troops to block the door so no one can retreat down the peninsula into Singapore. Effectively, I could cut off the retreat of everything north of the position. Might this make the reduction of Singapore more quick and easy?

What are your thoughts?

[Mike Scholl]

As long as you are just interested in "playing a game" it's a profitable tactic. Just don't confuse it with
an historically possible event. A landing on the very Northeasternmost coast of Malaya by a force
that until the last minute could have been heading to Thailand is one thing. Even that force had been
tracked for several days by the Allies. But while very suspicious, it couldn't be proved to be a threat.
Start heading south along the Malayan coast and all bets are off. So is suprise and an unopposed
landing. To be even close to fair, if you are planning such a move you should go with the start that
allows the Allies to reack in the first turn.

[Gen.Hoepner]

Well, i would not go for mersing....the Z force can really ruin your day if it comes out .....If i was your allied opponent i'll be glad to have the chance of using my Z force to scrumble your eggs during the first big landing of the Malaya Campaign!

[mogami]

Hi, If you want to use this and get the response the Japanese would have met then
1. Plot movement of your TF no closer then 4 hexes from landing hex.
2. Allow Allies to plot movement on turn 1. (they won't know you are heading there when they plot orders but your TF's movement prior to outbreak of war would have them doing something. By the same token you can plot a transport TF 4 hexes from Mesing that on turn 2 returns to Saigon but on turn 1 draws Allied TF out and exposes them to air attack on turn 2.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, If you want to use this and get the response the Japanese would have met then
1. Plot movement of your TF no closer then 4 hexes from landing hex.
2. Allow Allies to plot movement on turn 1. (they won't know you are heading there when they plot orders but your TF's movement prior to outbreak of war would have them doing something. By the same token you can plot a transport TF 4 hexes from Mesing that on turn 2 returns to Saigon but on turn 1 draws Allied TF out and exposes them to air attack on turn 2.

Actually you would have to plot them to within 2 hexes, wouldn't you? 12 hours sailing and 12 hours of landing ops?
Otherwise I would agree with the outline you propose for game purposes. The biggest thing is that any chance of
suprise goes out the window once a Japanese troop convoy ventures south of Thailand because at that point their
intentions HAVE to be hostile. There aren't any other targets available.

[mogami]

Hi, A transport TF moves 2 hexes during most 12 hour phases (it sometimes will move 3 )
If you end turn 1 2 hexes out the TF will be unloaded before the AM air phase of turn 2.
However in order to reach 2 hexes on turn 1 the TF would have had to have been 6 to 8 hexes out the day before war began. Most Allied patrol planes have normal range of 9 hexes.
To prevent war starting a day early the TF would have to be at least 10 hexes out.
Since the farthest the slowest transport TF can move is 3 hexes per phase it could not be closer then 4 hexes when war begins. (Turns the TF moves 3 hexes it will move 3 hexes in both phases even though the most common distance will be 2 hexes per phase)

The Japanese player has to obey laws of nature in planning. Even though the game permits the extended move it should only be used where no contact with enemy is expected. The extended move does not occur in reality in the 12 or 24 hours prior to execution but represent all the movement from starting base to where TF would be when war starts. I plot most often landing TF 6 hexes out. However if the TF begins closer then 10 hexes I move it to 4 hexes out. (If the TF begins close enough to reach landing hex in 1 turn 1 allow a turn 1 landing such as troops moving from Saipan to Guam or to Batan Island. I allow turn 1 landings on Wake because a Japanese transport could approach to within 1 days movement and still be in international waters. For Wake I disgusie intent by forming several small TF that join in Wake hex with faster support ships moving in from beyond patrol range. But to base a plan on approaching major Allied base undetected and unopposed is somthing I will not do

[doktorblood]

I've never tried it .. but I think even the AI might sally forth with force Z to snuff your TF under the cover of darkness the whole way. I think most human foemen would.

Wait a couple of days for the British fell ships to flee first, then try it.

[Mike Scholl]

JOHN III The important thing to remember when dealing with the question you asked, (and many like in in a scenario 15 start),
is "could the Japanese have had any legitimate reason for sailing a troop convoy in this area and/or direction?". If not, Allied
Intelligence is going to pick up on it. It's one of the reasons historically they weren't able to attack Wake on the opening day
of the war. There was no earthly reason for a group of Japanese transports and warships to be sailing that way EXCEPT to attack
Wake.

If you just want to "play a game", and see how many weak points in the system you can find to drive a truck through, fine. Have
fun!. Because of problems with the design and it's implementation, if you want to try and re-play the War in the Pacific, then you
have to make a deal with yourself NOT to exploit the games loopholes and stupidities. Let them be the AI's advantage (that's why
most of them are there anyway). And if you are playing head to head, MAKE SURE you and your opponant decide IN ADVANCE what
you are going to consider "gamey" and what you want to allow

[Grotius]

The original poster didn't mention whether he's playing against the AI or a human. If the AI, what the heck, try anything for fun. If a human in PBEM, then you'll probably want to negotiate some house rules pretty carefully. Don't some of the Japanese landings in the "historical" first turn take place too early as it is?

Also, a question for Mogami. After all this time playing WITP and UV, I remain perplexed by movement speed. Like Mike Scholl, I assumed a transport with movement listed as 1/1 would travel two or at most three hexes in a turn. Precisely what does m/c mean? Max/cruise speed per phase, right? I guess I'll fire up "Coral Sea" and experiment with it.

[adsoul]

ORIGINAL: Grotius
Like Mike Scholl, I assumed a transport with movement listed as 1/1 would travel two or at most three hexes in a turn. Precisely what does m/c mean? Max/cruise speed per phase, right? I guess I'll fire up "Coral Sea" and experiment with it.

I have already tested movement speeds with Coral Sea. My knowledge is that #/# means Max/cruise speed as you have stated. BUT no TF will ever move more than 12 hexes A DAY. Also be careful with cruise speeds. Let's say your TF cruise speed is 1 but the slower ship has a cruise speed of 9 knt. The TF will finish to move 4 hexes a day (2 hexes per phase) 4 out of 5 days. I hope this can be useful.

[Grotius]

Thanks for your reply. Is there a precise formula for predicting how far a TF will move in a turn? Something like (speed divided by 6) = max hexes traveled per phase? If so, how does the game determine on which turn a TF goes the "extra" hex?

I did some experimenting in head-to-head mode (on scenario 6), and it was hard to nail down the precise pattern. E.g., a sub with speed 22 and m/c of 4/1 traveled only five hexes, in most cases; whereas a sub with speed 19 and m/c 3/2 traveled as much as seven hexes.

[mogami]

Hi, TF move at speeds of ships not hexes per phase. The #/# is just a general idea. Every few turns the TF will move an extra hex in both phases (TF move the same number of hexes in both phases of a turn) Maybe I have not been planning right I always assumed a 9 or 10kt TF moved 4 hexes per day on average. (2 per phase) and every few days 6 hexes (3 per phase) It has always worked out that a TF I placed 4 hexes from target began landings during night phase of day 3. I aways try to have landings begin at night so ships have 2 phases to unload before AM air phase. And will be unloaded before combat phase.

[John III]

Great to get all the comments!

Notes:
1. I am playing against a person and not AI.
2. Have attempted to stay away from 'gamey' opening moves but am tempted...one never knows.

As a military historian, it is fascinating getting a chance to play out the 'what ifs' or 'I could have done it better' motifs. My opponent and I agreed to allow invasions wherever but I have tried to limit myself. Tried to be somewhat realistic.

Do any of you honestly believe that the British would have opened fire and STARTED the Pacific War? As we know, they were tracking the approaching convoys but did nothing to stop them.

It was a tough call and command paraylsis during those opening days was frightful...

In many ways this scenario is a warm-up for the CHS which I REALLY look foreward to trying. All the discussion, banter, and serious commentary has been a huge delight to read in the CHS threads. With 1.5 coming out within the ten-twelve years...I mean soon...I wanted to get my feet wet and then start a REAL campaign with my esteemed opponent and, hopefully, start an AAR like what Dan and I are doing in UV.

[tsimmonds]

Mogami: I tend to micromanage my TFs in that I give many of them new DHs every turn (in lieu of waypoints you know). Is this costing me hexes? Would my TFs be able to move further if I set a DH far away and left it alone, than if I shepherded them along turn by turn towards the same ultimate destination?

[Halsey]

No wonder it takes you so GD long to make a move![:D] JHC!

[mogami]

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

Mogami: I tend to micromanage my TFs in that I give many of them new DHs every turn (in lieu of waypoints you know). Is this costing me hexes? Would my TFs be able to move further if I set a DH far away and left it alone, than if I shepherded them along turn by turn towards the same ultimate destination?

Hi, I don't know. At most it would be costing you 2 hexes every couply of days. (1 hex per phase)
I do the same thing. Like herding cats (the TF always get away from my control)

[Grotius]

I deliberately refrain from changing a TFs destination hex too often in the hopes that I *do* pick up that extra hex per phase. But it still takes me two hours to do a move. I have no idea how you play more than one PBEM at a time, Mogami. [:'(]

I did a few more tests, and you're right, TFs with speed 10 averaged about 4 hexes a day -- presumably two per phase. (It's harder to track how many they travel per phase, since you have to watch during the combat replay.) I watched 4 TFs with speed 14; three moved 4 hexes, and one moved 5.

What puzzles me most is submarines -- good thing their movement speed is rarely of concern to me. I have subs at speed 22 moving only 4 or 5 hexes, while one at speed 19 moved 7, and another at speed 14 moved 7 too. Maybe some subs are busy doing submarine stuff: checking for contacts, avoiding aircraft, secretly playing Silent Hunter III instead of moving, who knows.

[ChezDaJez]

Do any of you honestly believe that the British would have opened fire and STARTED the Pacific War? As we know, they were tracking the approaching convoys but did nothing to stop them.

I doubt the Brits would have attacked first but they certainly should have taken all proper precautions once it became clear that this wasn't a pleasure cruise they were observing. I believe they did shadow the transports but were reluctant to take any offensive action. As it was, they didn't hardly do anything before the landings actually started and by then it was too late. My opinion is that they didn't want to "provoke" the Japanese by putting their forces on a war footing. They were hoping for all the time they could get.

The Japanese did ensure that their troops movements could be easily explained if spotted. If you look at what locations were actually invaded on the first day, there are only 2: Khota Bharu and Guam. The Khota Bharu invasion force could be explained as heading for Songkia. Guam was very close to Saipan and any TF headed there only needed a few hours to get to Guam. The rest were attacked from the air and most invaded 2 days later as in the PI. Even the invasion of Wake wasn't attempted until 2 days later. A troop TF headed for Wake would have been very hard to explain to the Americans had it been sighted before the war started.

When you look at the historical record, it's very surprising that more preparations and precautions weren't taken throughout the Pacific. Allied forces in the PI, Guam, Pearl Harbor, Malaya and others acted as though they were all mentally unprepared for war. Wake seem to be the only place that took any action to preare themselves. I can understand not being physically prepared due to equipment or supply shortages and what not but the Allies expected war to start at any time. It wasn't like they had no clue.

Chez

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: John III


As a military historian, it is fascinating getting a chance to play out the 'what ifs' or 'I could have done it better' motifs. My opponent and I agreed to allow invasions wherever but I have tried to limit myself. Tried to be somewhat realistic.

Do any of you honestly believe that the British would have opened fire and STARTED the Pacific War? As we know, they were tracking the approaching convoys but did nothing to stop them.

It was a tough call and command paraylsis during those opening days was frightful...

The British were willing to voilate Norwegian Neutrality in pursuing the Altmark, and were
on there way to invade Norway when the Germans beat them to the punch. Once the
Japanese Troop Convoy starts heading down the Malay Coast it has basically declared
war---there is no place else it can be headed except Allied Territory. And it's a two day
trip to get to Mersing, more than enough time for the RN to intercept. Maybe they just
start shooting, maybe they radio the Japanese to turn around or be fired on. But to say
that they sit on their hands for two days and allow this to happen is to grasp at some
pretty big straws.

This is especially true as the Japanese are probably also showing up on reccon reports
heading for several other Allied targets. Had Kido Butai been spotted by a sub heading
for Hawaii, do you doubt that the Army Air Corps and the Navy would have reacted?
If you note the actual Historic Landings by date and time, you will find that none of them
were at sea and "tipping their destinations" until the war started. The Khota Baru Force
was headed in the direction of the Thai Coast until the last few hours...in fact the main
landings WERE made in Thailand.

[John III]

ChezDaJez is right on the money.

The thing I like to think about is when Kimmel and Short 'guessed' that an attack was immenent and went on full alert ONE WEEK prior to the attack. Doubt if we would have struck at the Japanese but they sure-as-hell would have had a 'hot' reception at Pearl if they had chosen to launch!

Does anyone buy the British conspiracy theory that Churchill let things happen along the Malay Coast so the US would be drawn in?

I doubt if British Gen. Percival would have done a damned thing until the shooting started. Command paralysis!

How about the same thing in the Philippines? The air boys wanted to strike at Formosa and old Dugout Doug refused...doubt if we could have done it anyway but it sure scared the Hell out of the Japanese whose first strike was grounded in fog that day!