Tokyo Rose was a Hussy! Chez (J) vs. Canoe (A)

[Canoerebel]

You guys are right.  The stakes here are much higher than they would first appear, and argue for two totally different approaches:
 
(1) Attack the enemy carriers - sink them, even losing two or three on my part, effectively ends the game.  (The game can drag out, even for years, but not in any meaningful way).
 
(2)  On the other hand, the Allies have to be able to defend Sumatra using every asset available.  I am much better off not risking my carriers if there is any chance that I could come out on the losing end of a carrier battle.  IE, the defense of Sumatra is my highest priority, so I shouldn't risk weakening my assets.
 
 

[Nemo121]

CR,

I was just making a joke relating to crsutton's post with a little recursive self-reference. I like dichotomy and so juxtaposing "I'm just here for giggles" with the spectre of post-irony led to a dichotomy.... Was the "I'm just here for giggles" part of the post-ironic commentary or not? Or was the "i'm here for giggles" a true representation that that's all the current level of the forum can maintain? So it was just a fun little blend of dichotomy, obfuscation and, perhaps, a reference to the post-modernist belief that the objective is not and that there should be a focus on content over form and that we see things not as they are but as we are. That was the last little sub-joke --- since I knew different people would bring their agendas and draw very different interpretations - which is why I left it purposely vague, in order to foster such interpretation.

There was also a bit of a reference to the whole. "We read because we care" being a very "modern" thing to say and my intentionally mixing up "modern" and "modernism" as a sort of farce.

Anyways, it was just a joke and a little phrase-play which made me chuckle. Nothing important. I was just in a playful mood.


As to the 2 CVs. When a man habitually makes moves which expose his forces to piecemeal defeat and he continues this pattern it is most likely it is a continuation of a pattern of inappropriate orientation and not part of some brilliant plan. I think it is what it is. And what it is is more of the same thing we've been seeing for months.

As to trading CVs:
At the moment you are close enough to the point in time when you get significant reinforcements that a trade ( 2 for 2 ) actually favours you:
E.g. Let's say you have 6 vs 6 now and in 3 months you get 3 more carriers making it 6 vs 10 ( 1 : 1.66 ratio in your favour ).
If you lose 2 and he loses 2 you go to 4 vs 4 now ( 1:1 odds, no functional change ) and in 3 months you get 3 more moving it to 4 vs 7 = 1: 1.75 in your favour.

So, swapping CVs now actually hastens the point at which the force correlation widens.... Albeit at the cost of running multiple CV-supported operations concurrently - which you shouldn't be doing right now.

lastly, you have the ability to open a couple of lethal fronts without support from CV air ( Malaysia and Borneo ). I've invaded up from Oz into the Phillipines without ANY carrier support previously. There's no reason why you cannot do the same using LBA cover.

[GreyJoy]

ORIGINAL: paullus99

.......... because at this point, an even exchange (2 for 2) just about ends the game, regardless of what he may have following.

...i know how my words will sound...and i'm sorry to say so...but, with all due respect to your opponent, i've been thinking about this for months now...
My (bad) thought is that he has realized many months ago that he had already lost the game after the first battles and your Festung Palembang...he's a sportman and a gentleman so he didn't qui nor he gave any sign of that...but simply he has done everything he could (always masquerading it behind the constant gaming) to speed up and accelerate the "losing process" so he could end this tragedy as fast as possible.
If it'd be so, there wouldn't be anthing bad...it's like when the tennis player has lost 0-6, 0-6 the first 2 sets and he's at 1-5 in the third...he doesn't quit...he doesn't pretend to be injured or something else...he simply plays to accelerate the process...responding with "winners" (that often are unforced errors) to every single ball the oppenent sends above the net...

I ask in advance sorry for this thinking...sorry to Chez and to CR to...

[Nemo121]

Just for the record. I don't think Chez has set out to lose. Its simply a function of the play, not a function of a deeper process.

[paullus99]

CR - you should be able to position yourself to do both - again, get into a good position to strike, if it looks like that's all he's got (and if he uses those carriers to support his amphibious operation, he'll be looking in the wrong direction when your carriers hit him).

And if you need to back away, you'll be in a position to do that too.

[Canoerebel]

the situation

[Canoerebel]

The makeup of the IJN CV TF and the course to be taken by the Allied CV TFs.

[Miller]

Go for the throat. Those 2 CVs possess approx 80 strike a/c vs you're 200 plus, no contest. The only thing that could even the odds is a massed Netty strike from the northern Java bases, but I bet that will be highly unlikely.

[witpqs]

Summing it all up with words from history:

"ATTACK REPEAT ATTACK"

[Canoerebel]

Another oddity about this situation:  The Japanese carriers didn't launch any strikes, though Allied shipping was within range, nor do any of my TFs show detection levels.  (I didn't pay attention to the weather, but at these ranges it would be likely that something would fly at some point during the turn.)  It's almost as if these carriers were steaming "dark" into unknown waters.  Very odd indeed.

[Cribtop]

Go git him, Dan. And don't have the numerous transport TFs run far unless they're carrying troops. They will serve to divide his strikes up piecemeal and increase the odds you get a better than 1:1 exchange.

PS - I am really flabbergasted by this move by your opponent.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Another oddity about this situation:  The Japanese carriers didn't launch any strikes, though Allied shipping was within range, nor do any of my TFs show detection levels.  (I didn't pay attention to the weather, but at these ranges it would be likely that something would fly at some point during the turn.)  It's almost as if these carriers were steaming "dark" into unknown waters.  Very odd indeed.

That fits with my suspicion - a CAP trap. But it's worth the air frames and pilots to smash the carriers.

[Cribtop]

CAP trap is possible, but even with all Zeros on those flat tops how much can he put up? He may have been steaming with the 1942 equivalent of sailing without radiating in the hopes of avoiding detection.

Dan, what about turning that picket ship East to see if anyone is following up the 2 CVs you've spotted?

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Cribtop

CAP trap is possible, but even with all Zeros on those flat tops how much can he put up? He may have been steaming with the 1942 equivalent of sailing without radiating in the hopes of avoiding detection.

Dan, what about turning that picket ship East to see if anyone is following up the 2 CVs you've spotted?

I was thinking supplemented by LRCAP from land. Even still I say - kill those carriers!

[Canoerebel]

The orders have been issued.  I actually tweaked the carrier TF routes to end up two hexes due east (that's game map, or due north in real life) from the hex shown on the map several posts above.  I spent alot of time with orders for the turn.  Just some of the things done:  (a)  the patrol aircraft for one cruiser were set to night search (I think moonlight will be about 50%); (b) moved a PBY squadron from Oosthaven to Christmas Island; increased range for the Oosthaven bombers and fighters to six; (c) set all but one 4EB squadron at Oost to naval search at normal range; (d) all carriers set to follow an ASW TF with "do not react" orders; and (e) I steered the vast majority of the civilian ships in the area away to avoid "flooding the zone" (I don't want to use small-fry bait to draw massed attacks).
 
So...I wonder which way Steve steered his carriers?  The turn is sent, so perhaps we'll find out tonight....though that's not a defnite as Steve is wrapped up with a huge project at work that is keeping him tied up about 16 hours a day.

[princep01]

Sneaky LYB. Traveling with no more than same hex ASW and maybe seaplanes performing searches. But, he got spotted, so I think he'll run away. My thought is that the TF was trying to slip by undetected and do mischief in your supply route to the Palembang security zone. But, I don't think he'll hang around now. I hope I'm wrong and you get a shot at zapping those clowns. Good luck.

[JeffroK]

Too late(for my comment), I was wondering if your Cocos Is airforce might be able to launch a strike and see what CAP is there, 200 Zekes and its a trap.
 
I also though it might be a "Battle of the Pips" gone south, its either a cunning plan or Baldrik is running the IJN.

[obvert]

Can't wait to see how this plays out. Again, you must be in a quandry between making the best play and hoping to continue this game. If you get to those with your five CVs, you're sending them both down without a loss, I think. (You have a ton of good CAP at this point and you'll have the detection advantage as well, plus the UK CVs are tough as nails).

Did you have any reaction set on your CVs?

[paullus99]

In the scope of the current game, there could be a number of reasons for sending out a KB Carrier Division in that location (though IMHO none of them are worth the risk):

1) Could be attempting to assertain the status of shipping between Indian/Australia & Sumatra - and pick off a few convoys
2) Invasion support (Christmas Is. or Cocos)
3) CAP trap (but I would believe this would only be used if Chaz wasn't expecting carriers, only LBA)
4) Pure shipping raid (again, not worth the risk if Allied carriers may be in the area)


At this point, Chaz should be expecting, with any operations in the DEI, that CR will be present in force - with probably the entire Allied contingent of carriers. Just like Allied players need to assertain the whereabouts of the KB before embarking on major operations early in the game, the reverse is true here as well. CR has shown that he will concentrate his forces and has been able to spring more than a few ambushes against piece-meal Japanese operations - and if Chaz isn't taking that into account (and this current foray seems to confirm that thinking) then this may just turn into another of a long string of Japanese disasters.

He is gambling with the one asset in Scenario #2 that he doesn't have a "bottomless" supply of at the moment - his surface and carrier forces. Of course, early losses obviously left a hole in his OOB to provide carrier support in multiple locations (in force) with the loss of the original Mini-KB, but that should not have prevented him in moving with authority along serious objective lines to secure the resources and positions he would need to react to the anticipated allied counter-moves (starting in 1943). His continued moves (at a glacial pace) in the DEI show the danger of allowed the Allied player the opportunity to regain a measure of balance and resource allocation that can make places like Sumatra, Jave & Timor allied fortresses & extremely costly for the Japanese to reduce (both in time & resources).

And don't even get me started on China - CR has done a masterful job of concentrating exactly when his opponent fragmented, allowing for the mauling of more than a few key Japanese divisions - while Chaz should still have plenty of troops in China, they certainly won't be going on the offensive anytime soon & most certainly won't be pulled out to support operations elsewhere - a true quagmire if you ever saw one.

CR has dislocated Chaz's entire position, in Burma (where the allies will be dug in on a much more advantageous line than they should be), in the Pacific, where CR already has forward positions in NORPAC, CENPAC & a quagmire in SOPAC that Chaz continues to reinforce in dribs & drabs without the ability to finish the fight (and to be honest, with positions as they are his supply lines are too long and vulnerable even in the best of times), and of course with Fortress Sumatra still in his backyard.

Now, can he still make a game of it? I believe he can - but it will be difficult and require a degree of focus and resource re-allocation that he seems to have been unable to achieve up to this point.

[Canoerebel]

Thanks for all the comments, gents.
 
No turn from Chez last night due to working late.  As always, he was good to send an email.  So I'll have to wait until tonight.