Matrix Games Forums

I just read John's post (War Room) about Burma. Apparently the situation there is really bothering him (per his comment about having to edit his initial post because it turned into "a rant.") He's made a big point that the Allies have 75 units in Burma. But he has far more than that - I count 52 I can see, which doesn't include whatever he has at Schwebo, Meiktila, Rangoon, Prome, Pegu and other "interior" places. Moreover, half my units are at Akyab and Ramree Island, being almost totally supplied by sea. As for air and combat missions, both sides have equal capabilities, so there's no one-sided advantage being abused by either side. As for this not being historical, that's probably true. But the same can be said with many things done in many places all over the map. I submit that perhaps the most lopsided nonhistorical occurrence in this game has been John's continuous and massive use of 2EB in China to pulverize Chinese troops. The Allies have no effective way to counter in China, since bases are at zero supply and thus can't support fighters. (That was one of the reasons I chose the Burma First strategy - to open up a front where I could fight relatively effectively). It's quite possible that in the real war pulverization of China would have prompted the Allies to increase fighter commitments to China; and besides, it probably wasn't possible for Japan to completely suppress airfields like it is in the game.

10/9/42

Bay of Bengal: Quiet once again. Pensacola made it to Colombo (I would have given her 20% odds when she departed Akyab weeks ago). Damage at Ramree nearly totally repaired.

Burma: 7th Indian Div. gets pushed back by a Japanese shock attack, suffering very high losses. (The 2EB flew with good effect against enemy units in this hex, but a day late and a dollar short.) 7th Indian is combat ineffective for the next few months. The two Australian divisions are moving about trying to escape the hex with the "phantom hexside movement restrictions). John's reinforcing in the south, but I'm still looking for opportunities down this way. I don't know how much he has left to fight with and I think there's a chance for a move that might further mess up his defensive line.

Pacific: Japanese units are coming in at Terapo and lots of shipping all over the area. John is moving fast to reinforce.

RE: AMCs, not sure raiding is the best use. Chickenboy got a nice result, and I've seen that, but they can also be sunk.

Greyjoy raided alot early-on, and sank a bunch of tankers once IIRC. Once spotted though, they are easy to hunt down, and he started losing them to DBs or a cruiser TF that was stalking one. He then stopped.

I prefer using the AMCs as basically APs with guns. They are the only militarized APs that Japan gets, so I would use them that way.

They can also be used in fast transports, unlike regular APs or AKs

Agreed, Q. They are also good in the "Aggie Oiler" role as their large fuel tanks facilitate topping off warships at sea.

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

RE: AMCs, not sure raiding is the best use. Chickenboy got a nice result, and I've seen that, but they can also be sunk.

Greyjoy raided alot early-on, and sank a bunch of tankers once IIRC. Once spotted though, they are easy to hunt down, and he started losing them to DBs or a cruiser TF that was stalking one. He then stopped.

I prefer using the AMCs as basically APs with guns. They are the only militarized APs that Japan gets, so I would use them that way.

They can also be used in fast transports, unlike regular APs or AKs

Yes, Brad's right imho. AMCs are usefull as raiders only if the allies are fool enough (as i was at my first attempt) not to escort their convoys with anything... but even an old DD in a big TF can easily deal with the AMCs... better to use them for fast transports...now i learnt my lessons.
The best raiders are the japanese CLs. Use a big xAK as a refueler and send a single CL to raid deep in allied routes....mind you: this works only in early 1942 when the allies are very short of escorts... when 1943 rolls in, Japan has more important duties for its combat ships

10/10/42

Bay of Bengal: Serious enemy attention to Ramree Island today does modest damage (AA is performing well, helping to dampen the affect of the enemy bombing raids). No enemy incursions by comat vessel. Boise is a day or two out of Colombo.

Burma: A new IJA division shock attacks and pushes back a weakened (by aerial bombardment) UK brigade in an open hex. This gives John a hex in the rea of my forward army (the one with 41st USA Div.). One Australian div. has moved forward and will now cut back to make for the hex just taken by the enemy. The other Oz div. is moving directly (the hexside that was "closed" is now magically "open." Temporarily, the Allied advance has stalled, a victim of weird and very damaging hexside restrictions, low supply, massed bombing raids, and fresh IJ troops. All that to say this: Things are great in Burma!

Pacific: More SigInt of troops inbound to Horn Island (I look forward to reading John's AAR one day to see when and how I tipped him off - or he puzzled it out. The Allies will keep up the activity for another five to seven days and then go "dark" for about two weeks in hopes that I can throw John off the scent. I think there are a couple of good "quiet and dark holes" west of the New Zealand islands where my invasion armadas can hide. I'm thinking D-Day in roughly 25 to 30 days. Nearly all troops are ashore now. The biggest challenge will be getting them efficiently loaded at Hobart. I have 1500 AV there, so it will take quite a bit of time.

Can't use several ports and merge?

I'm using several on Tasmania - Hobart and Queenstown - but loading will still be complicated and rather slow due to port size compared to volume to be loaded. It'll get done, but some troops may be loading so early that they'll have some disruption to deal with. On the other hand, the Allies are bringing so much that disruption may not be a huge issue.

the Allies are bringing so much that disruption may not be a huge issue.

Not the worst problem, good luck sir. Reading both sides again proves to be most enjoyable, especially with two solid opposing story lines.

'm using several on Tasmania - Hobart and Queenstown - but loading will still be complicated and rather slow due to port size compared to volume to be loaded. It'll get done, but some troops may be loading so early that they'll have some disruption to deal with. On the other hand, the Allies are bringing so much that disruption may not be a huge issue.

Why not just put them on the mainland at this point? Since you are currently lost the element of surprise you might want to consider loading at Melbourne. You can put all the troops in Australia and scatter them around the interior to prevent detection. Then you have your choice of ports to do the invasion load out from. Heck, if it all goes sideways you can load at Perth for points north

Originally, the plan was to use Tasmanian ports in lieu of the big Oz ports in order to minimize the risk of detection. As detection began to build, I diverted the later arriving TFs to places like Sydney and Port Kembla, which didn't seem to have the enemy sub patrols that were focusing on New Zealand and Melbourne.

So, I do have troops ashore on the mainland and will use those bases, but Tasmania still has a heckuva lot.

Think hard about what may have tipped him off. If you can't come up with anything other than the recent sub sightings of carrier a/c (which happened after first "Horn Island" division SigInt), I would personally up the mental odds that John is considering an invasion of NE Oz. He just doesn't seem like the kind of player to move that many men in response to the thought "things are too quiet, that's where Dan is heading." I could be wrong, but this doesn't add up. Use a LOT of pickets to avoid sailing into KB escorting an invasion. In fact, IMHO the Junyo encounter provides some evidence that John is gathering the disparate wings of KB for an offensive move.

Dan,

I can say with all sincerity that the behavior of readers (and posters) in John's AAR has been beyond reproach to this point in time. At no point has anyone posted a spoiler there that may have piqued his interest or challenged OPSEC. I've been very impressed with how well readers and posters in both AARs have maintained secrecy in his AAR. [:)]

One problem is that posting to the other's AAR isn't the only way to break OPSEC. The last time FatR broke OPSEC on the forum he did it via PM--- which wouldn't be visible to people.

I'm not saying anyone has or hasn't done that. I'm just pointing out that looking at what has been said in the AAR doesn't actually cover all the bases as far as OPSEC breaches go.

Not sure if y'all are commenting on my post, but just to be clear, I wasn't suggesting that an OpSec breach was the cause of John's moves. I think there is a chance that he has coincidentally decided on a spoiling invasion of NE Oz just as CR considers a northward move to NG. The alternative, that John has decided on a major defensive commitment here, doesn't ring true with me only because it doesn't seem like John's style, not because I think someone tipped him off.

In other words, I rate the odds of him lucking into a defensive Op in the correct AO lower than the odds of him lucking into an offensive Op in the correct AO. The implication of the latter is the significant risk that the full KB will be present just in the right time and space to put the hurt on Dan's invasion forces, so I'm suggesting Dan take extra steps to guard against that possibility. The extra steps will cost him little to nothing if I'm wrong, but could save him and/or even create opportunities if I'm right.

Cribtop,

No worries, mate. I wasn't suggesting that at all. Just wanted to assure CR that has absolutely not been an issue that I can detect.

Cool, Poultry Lad. Just making sure. I'm really pleased everyone is doing the right thing!

OpSec hasn't been of any concern at all. I know John has puzzled this out on his own, both from experience and the little things that can tip off an experienced and/or cagey opponent. I'm looking forward to reading his AAR one day to find out how it all shook out. In the meantime, I'll continue to post in detail because I enjoy doing so and because I'm not worried about OpSec.

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

[
Burma: Today was as bad as yesterday was good. Japanese bombers worked over the Allied army despite CAP, which performed decently but was too small. The Allied shock attack came off at 1:7, cause minor destruction to both armies, but disabled 250 squads for the Allies. So this army is out of commission for awhile. To make things much worse, two Aussie divisions are two hexes NE. Although I solely possess all three hexes, the Aussie refuse to move SW. For reasons unknown the hexside is closed. This means the Aussies have to march back through at least two jungle hexes. This may make it impossible to do anything substantive for weeks to come. All is not lost, though. More reinforcements are coming and the main purpose of Burma is to efficiently fight the Japanese on sea, in the air and on the ground.

.

I have this happen on occasion. Try this. Target the Aussie divisions to move one hex beyond the hex that they won't go to. Usually this will work and they will accept the new target and then once they have accepted another target-go back and then try to re-target them to the no go hex. Usually, they accept the targeting the second time around. Works for me almost all the time.

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

I just read John's post (War Room) about Burma. Apparently the situation there is really bothering him (per his comment about having to edit his initial post because it turned into "a rant.") He's made a big point that the Allies have 75 units in Burma. But he has far more than that - I count 52 I can see, which doesn't include whatever he has at Schwebo, Meiktila, Rangoon, Prome, Pegu and other "interior" places. Moreover, half my units are at Akyab and Ramree Island, being almost totally supplied by sea. As for air and combat missions, both sides have equal capabilities, so there's no one-sided advantage being abused by either side. As for this not being historical, that's probably true. But the same can be said with many things done in many places all over the map. I submit that perhaps the most lopsided nonhistorical occurrence in this game has been John's continuous and massive use of 2EB in China to pulverize Chinese troops. The Allies have no effective way to counter in China, since bases are at zero supply and thus can't support fighters. (That was one of the reasons I chose the Burma First strategy - to open up a front where I could fight relatively effectively). It's quite possible that in the real war pulverization of China would have prompted the Allies to increase fighter commitments to China; and besides, it probably wasn't possible for Japan to completely suppress airfields like it is in the game.

I basically choose the same tactic and I think many Allied players do. I expect bad things to happen in China and I start sending Allied units to India from turn one in the game as a counter. I got no problem with this and would make not apology. He has a crap load of good infantry and aircraft in this scenario. If he is concerned about your build up there then John can either send more resources or hit you some other place as a counter. The Allied could have made the choice to make a full commitment to Burma. They did not but they could have. So why not you.