Shattered Vow

[Canoerebel]

11/07/43 to 11/09/43
 
Operation Fort Morris:  The Allied invasion of Ambon is going well and appears to have achieved complete surprise - no opposition by LBA nor combat ships.  The invasion ships encountered mines and shore guns.  Some light ships - primarily AM, SC, and a DD or two - suffered damage.  Overall, though, the landings are going great.  The defense consists of a Guards Division, CD unit, and two base forces - a total of maybe 500 AV.  The Allies already have 900+ AV ashore (all 75%+ prepped) after one day.
 
The next two-day turn should be more difficult.  Japanese LBA and combat ships should be more active.  I'll withdraw my BBs (since they don't do well in surface combat) and leave behind a good CA/CL force to provide cover.  LRCAP is provided by P-47 and P-38 from Boela.  I don't think there's much doubt about the outcome now.
 
Other Action in the DEI:  The Sorong TBFs scored at least three bomb hits against CL Oi near Pelelieu; Lautem SBDs badly damaged or sank four PB at Koepang.
 
Next DEI Targets:  Nearby bases that will be under Allied LBA umbrellas will be next - Koepang and Namlea in particular.  But neither will taken place for awhile.  Reinforcing the effort to take Manikwari is also likely, and that fairly soon.
 
Sudden Darwin Supply Change:  I think the recent patch changed the supply pipeline to Darwin.  I've had 400k supply there for more than a year.  Now I have 30k and Sydney has 2 million supply.  I'm scrambling to set up more cargo convoys from Sydney to Darwin, but for the next few weeks the supply situation is going to be tough at Darwin and the DEI bases.  This ratchets up the importance of Milne Bay, so that may be the next invasion.

[Canoerebel]

As for those latter comments about the purpose of the game, I don't agree.  I don't think the game should allow radical departures from historic OOB or capabilities (except where the players select a Scenario Two or Juan's mod, of course).

I think the purpose is to reasonably simulate the capabilities of both sides and then let the commanders select their strategies and vectors of attack and defense.

Neither side should have the ability to develop radically better ships or aircraft or pilots or artillery or subs or ASW.  Permitting such totally changes the game from a simulation to science fiction.

Sure, performance in the game should have an impact.  If the Japanese win some early carrier battles and preserve their pilots, then they should have better pilots later into the war.  But for the Japanese to be able to replace massive pilot and aircraft losses and remain equal to or better than the Allies late into '43 is...silly.

[wpurdom]

First, the Coral Sea/Midway comment is inapposite. Shattered Sword has shown conclusively through Japanese sources that the pilot loss at Midway was not that great - certainly the pilots that were lost were the ones lost through A-A combat, not very many were lost with the destruction of the ships. And this AAR has certainly has had comparable pilot losses to RL, though later in time.

I agree. Indeed, I am not sure why so many AFB's want the Japanese to suffer from the exact same problems as the Japanese did historically. What is the point of a wargame if not to try to correct what you perceive to be your historical counterpart's mistakes? Should the Japanese not be allowed to accelerate CVs because until Midway they were still married to the concept of decisive battle with ships of the line? What if my perception is that this was a mistake and I want to change things to focus on CVs? Should I not be allowed to influence how the war is fought? Why a wargame at all then?

I'm less concerned about the pilot training per se than knowing/suspecting the logistics are off with the Japanese air forces. The part I know is that based on Lundstrom's work, the Japanese have way more ability to maintain their aricraft on the front line than in real life. You just don't have them sidelining and abandoning hundred's of aircraft as took place in the Solomons through maintainence issue. Perhaps later I will find the time to cite the appropriate sections of Lundstrom's work.

The other issue I admit I haven't checked out is a logistical suspicion. This game flies planes on general supplies. This works fine in modelling the Allied side. But I know what did in the German training programs was a lack of avgas. I'm unsure how that worked in the Japanese economy, but I strongly suspect that, whether or not avgas was a constraint at the level of operations IRL, at levels of training done by AE players, avgas would have been a severe constraint.

In other words, if planes flew using rice and bullets as fuel (or perhaps potatoes and bullets for the Germans), I bet the Axis powers would have done a great deal more training than they did IRL.

Unless these factors could be modelled differently in different scenarios (say by a scenario where the service levels of Jap planes is higher), I don't know that I arguing that the changes should be made in the game engine. I'm quite aware that if the Japanese player's armed forces automatically comes to a sputtering halt by mid-1943 you're going to have trouble recruiting Japanese players who just have to sit and take it until the kamikazes come. But I strongly suspect that the making of Japanese air forces into durable tools with long lasting superiority in pilots and airframes is not a historical simulation, but a magical fantasy, like Lords of the Ring.

[veji1]

Well we get the usual debate. Even in AE the Japs are doomed to be defeated eventually, and rightfully so, but if we were to enact too efficiently the conditions of WWII, they would be obliterated by a good player by late 1943...

Clearly the Jap airforce is too powerful, but the game makes the allies too strong as well by letting them set a high tempo to their operations regardless of cost. IRL, the Allies decided that the pacific wasn't that a priority and that they had time on their side.. Had they had to rush to win it, they could have done it, but they took their time, ensuring slow methodical destruction of the japanese while minimising their costs...

Players that conquer the DEI fast but lose tens of thousands of soldiers and sailors doing so see it as a success, IRL it would have been a disaster...

The jap airforce is borked, but if we wanted a proper simulation we would have to have the allies pay some sort of PPs for each loss of capital ship or life resulting in an imposed slowdown in operation..

In the end we have to give the game some leeway. That said I would try to make Airframe production a bit harder to develop for japanese (ie reduce the odds factories can get repaired each turn for example) and slow down pilot training again.

[LoBaron]

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

It makes for a better game if you're looking for non-historic balance. If you want something that resembles WWII - in particular the marked superiority of Allied pilots and aircraft by mid or late '43 - you're out of luck.

Don't overlook IRL that JAP had lost Coral Sea and Midway - your game did not. I do not think it a stretch at all to think that JAP is still holding her own in '43 without those losses.

Just my opinion though ....

Very good point. If, in WWII, Japan had won those two engagements this could have led to the same "delayed" situation that you are experiencing now, Canorebel.
The advantage of having a highly mobile air superiority potential can change a lot from a grand strategic point of view.

[Canoerebel]

You're right about this delving into the "same old argument," but permit me to say one more thing.  Rather than giving either side "science fiction" advantages, the vanilla game should stick to historic OOB and capabilities.  The game will deviate from history due to the choices made by the players and the effect of luck.  The challenge should be for the Japanese and Allied players to do better than their sides did historically.   Points should be adjusted so that a Japanese player that does better than Japan did wins.  If that's the case the Japanese player doesn't toss in the towel in '43.  He remains energized and focused on the effort to slow the Allied onslaught as much as possible, even though the tides of war have turned.

[Canoerebel]

11/10/43 and 11/12/43
 
Ambon:  Japanese LBA sorties in big numbers against the Allied shipping at Ambon and puts two TT into CA Astoria and one TT into CLAA San Juan.  However, considering the number of aircraft that came in and the number that were splashed, these strikes were highly ineffective.  Shore guns chewed up more ships.  The initial Allied attack came off at 1:2, forts four, with the Japanese suffering 700 casualties and the Allies 600.  Hmmm, I had expected a little better.  My bombers haven't been doing much, so I'll have to increase the ante.  But unless Miller can reinforce the campaign should end in an Allied victory.  I believe most of the remaining ships can retire now.
 
Eastern New Guinea:  I think Miller may be evacuating Port Moresby (by land) and Milne Bay (by sea).  Suits me.  Four CVEs making the journey from Noumea to Darwin roughed up a handful of Japanese transports at Milne Bay.  The big U.S. Cavalry Division that will spearhead the Milne Bay landings will arrive at Townsville in just a few days.
 
Burma:  The RAF shut down Rangoon airfield and the Allies are positioning units on the two roads - one leading to Rangoon, one to Pegu.  If Miller thinks the Allies can take Pegu he might elect to evacuate Rangoon (because the fall of Pegu would isolated Rangoon and cut off his only land route of retreat).  I don't have enough to really force the issue at either base, but there's a chance that a simultaneous move en masse on both bases will appear so ominous that Miller will retreat.

[veji1]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

You're right about this delving into the "same old argument," but permit me to say one more thing.  Rather than giving either side "science fiction" advantages, the vanilla game should stick to historic OOB and capabilities.  The game will deviate from history due to the choices made by the players and the effect of luck.  The challenge should be for the Japanese and Allied players to do better than their sides did historically.   Points should be adjusted so that a Japanese player that does better than Japan did wins.  If that's the case the Japanese player doesn't toss in the towel in '43.  He remains energized and focused on the effort to slow the Allied onslaught as much as possible, even though the tides of war have turned.

The problem with pure historical OOB is that an allied player will press on so much harder than irl because he knows he can, and doesn't mind that much about the losses... If you stick to purely historical forces the allies will force Japan to commit to a decisive battle or series of battles in early 1943 knowing that they cannot get up after that, and than it's done..

[AcePylut]

We have the option of playing the "pure historical scenario".

It's scenario one, with PDU off, and reinforcements set to "no variable".
 
That's the "game" that needs to be played, to compare WITP AE to history.  As long as we engage in fantasies, like Scenario 2, PDU on, reinforcements variable... the comparison is no longer valid.
 
WE can't say AE is "borked" compared to history when using a non-historical scenario as our basis of comparison.

[Nemo121]

I don't believe we can draw any meaningful conclusions about the A2A model and Japanese sustainability from a game in which the Allied player is choosing not to conduct optimised training while his Japanese opponent is undoubtedly doing his very best to optimise training.

It'd be like saying a marathon training regime is brilliant because a marathon runner who followed it beat a couch potato when running a marathon.


Maybe the Japanese are overpowered and excessively sustainable in Scenario 2.... but we can't tell that from a game in which we are comparing one player who trains and another who, frankly, doesn't train his forces sufficiently. That's your choice Canoerebel and that's fine but it also means we can't use your game to tell anything other than the fact that a player who doesn't optimise training will end up with poorer pilots than a player who does.... big surprise!!!

[AcePylut]

ORIGINAL: veji1

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

You're right about this delving into the "same old argument," but permit me to say one more thing.  Rather than giving either side "science fiction" advantages, the vanilla game should stick to historic OOB and capabilities.  The game will deviate from history due to the choices made by the players and the effect of luck.  The challenge should be for the Japanese and Allied players to do better than their sides did historically.   Points should be adjusted so that a Japanese player that does better than Japan did wins.  If that's the case the Japanese player doesn't toss in the towel in '43.  He remains energized and focused on the effort to slow the Allied onslaught as much as possible, even though the tides of war have turned.

The problem with pure historical OOB is that an allied player will press on so much harder than irl because he knows he can, and doesn't mind that much about the losses... If you stick to purely historical forces the allies will force Japan to commit to a decisive battle or series of battles in early 1943 knowing that they cannot get up after that, and than it's done..

Exactly! This works both ways, however. Witness the Japanese pushing that much harder - ala "Take PM in late December, because you can" because they exactly how many troops are necessary to invade PM in Dec 41, ETC.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: AcePylut

We have the option of playing the "pure historical scenario".

It's scenario one, with PDU off, and reinforcements set to "no variable".

I disagree with this part. The commanders had great freedom in the use of their airframes. If the various situations were different, they would have made some different choices. For example, if circumstances made P-40's overly scarce, one or more squadrons would have upgraded to P-39's instead of upgrading to P-40's. Locking the players in via PDU Off places an UNhistorical restriction on them.

[wpurdom]

I don't believe we can draw any meaningful conclusions about the A2A model and Japanese sustainability from a game in which the Allied player is choosing not to conduct optimised training while his Japanese opponent is undoubtedly doing his very best to optimise training.

It'd be like saying a marathon training regime is brilliant because a marathon runner who followed it beat a couch potato when running a marathon.


Maybe the Japanese are overpowered and excessively sustainable in Scenario 2.... but we can't tell that from a game in which we are comparing one player who trains and another who, frankly, doesn't train his forces sufficiently. That's your choice Canoerebel and that's fine but it also means we can't use your game to tell anything other than the fact that a player who doesn't optimise training will end up with poorer pilots than a player who does.... big surprise!!!

A very reasonable point about hasty conclusions on balance.

Nevertheless, to be able to turn around and replace the pilot losses sustained in the Battle of Darwin in 3.5 months with comparable pilots (along with a constant IJA pilot drain) seems way off. I think we know enough to make some conclusions about Japanese air force sustainability. Apparently, it's easy enough that Chickenboy was able to anticipate it based on other AAR's.

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

As for those latter comments about the purpose of the game, I don't agree.  I don't think the game should allow radical departures from historic OOB or capabilities (except where the players select a Scenario Two or Juan's mod, of course).

I think the purpose is to reasonably simulate the capabilities of both sides and then let the commanders select their strategies and vectors of attack and defense.

Neither side should have the ability to develop radically better ships or aircraft or pilots or artillery or subs or ASW.  Permitting such totally changes the game from a simulation to science fiction.

Sure, performance in the game should have an impact.  If the Japanese win some early carrier battles and preserve their pilots, then they should have better pilots later into the war.  But for the Japanese to be able to replace massive pilot and aircraft losses and remain equal to or better than the Allies late into '43 is...silly.

Agreed. I want a historical simulation that reflects the realities and limitations faced by both sides in the Pacific. I want both sides to have options but forget the fantasy stuff. Any inbalances can always be corrected by adjusting VPs.

[jrlans]

The thing is, it is quite possible to be training replacements from 12/8/41 and just throwing them in to the reserve pool. If you assume 4 months per green pilot to train to 70 how many possible replacements pilots can be trained in 2 years. I would say more than enough to cover the losses of a major battle perhaps even two.
The only "solution" i see to this is to increase op losses from training. At least make the Japanese economy feel some of the cruch of pilot training. As it is now i can train a full batch of pilots for maybe a plane.

[Nemo121]

wpurdom, sure we can say the Japanese pilot base is sustainable IF they commit a large majority of their forces to training on-map.... In reality if Japan had really done this / been allowed to do this by a single axis advance then they might have achieved the same results.

You can't fight Japan along a single axis. To do so is to court this sort of outcome. You may have a primary axis of resistance but it must be supported by judiciously applied attrition etc along other axes.

[AcePylut]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: AcePylut

We have the option of playing the "pure historical scenario".

It's scenario one, with PDU off, and reinforcements set to "no variable".

I disagree with this part. The commanders had great freedom in the use of their airframes. If the various situations were different, they would have made some different choices. For example, if circumstances made P-40's overly scarce, one or more squadrons would have upgraded to P-39's instead of upgrading to P-40's. Locking the players in via PDU Off places an UNhistorical restriction on them.

Flip side: Prevents 200 Zeros/Oscars/Tojo's and no Tony's. Just like "you" can't say "oh damn, lost all my DD's and it's 1942, well oh well, I'll just click on this button and make another 100 of them", you shouldn't be able to -- in a match comparing AE to history -- be able to do it with aircraft WITP. Leave it off, pay more attention to "your" assets. If "you" put your P40's in the front line until you use up all airframes in existance, that's "your" problem created by "your" choice to run your P40's into the ground.

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Just sent this email to Miller:

"Scenario Two means that the Japanese are at least equal in power to the Allies in late '43 (and how far into '44 I don't know).  In ships, in aircraft, in pilot quality, and in ground troops the Japanese can match or exceed the Allies.  That makes for a balanced game, but it doesn't bear any resemblance to World War II."

Yep, as I said before, I am glad to watch your game taking place so far ahead of mine. I am playing scen 2 with one day turns and only have made it to 8/42. But you have shown that I should be playing for a 1946 win. I don't think my air will dominate in 1943, so will plan to be a bit more methodical. Thanks for taking the bullet for all the rest of us.......[;)]

[Canoerebel]

I am doing my best to accurately report the game - the good, the bad, the ugly.  I know my frustrations with certain aspects have been noted.  My hope is that this helps players see what's coming (as crsutton kindly says) and helps present to the developers situations that may need looking at. 
 
But I don't know if I've done a very good job of conveying how enthralled I am by the game - not ony AE, but the terrific fight that Miller is putting up.  Despite bumps and bruises and woes of various sorts, this game is a BLAST!

[wpurdom]

Bravo.
 
That's why I'm a little leery of forcing the IJ player into historic constraints without a lot of careful thought - the game might become a drudge, rather than a blast after mid-1943.