The armchair strategists club of temptations – Hartwig (A) vs. Aztez (J), no Aztez

[Cap Mandrake]

To ensure that Japan will not remain a menace to world peace and to turn Japan into a peaceful nation beneficial to our policy according to the principles of the UN charter.

H.M;

Not to be a pedant, but is there even a UN Charter yet?

How about, "Breaking institutional and colonial barriers every day to to enhance the contentment of all peoples living within the Co-prosperity sphere"?

As for the grass..just spray the crap out of it with Roundup and then cover it all with lava rocks.

[modrow]

Nemo,

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Another nice way of thinking of strategy is as follows:

1. National Policy Objectives - set by political leaders.

2. Strategy seeks to achieve national policy objectives through the mobilisation of all aspects of the nation ( political, economic, psychological, military and religious/propaganda ).

3. Operations are the means by which we seek to achieve strategic objectives at that level above the tactical.

4. Tactics - What one does when within range of enemy direct fire weapons - or preparing for same.

this is quite close to what I am trying to use as orientation (which is not too surprising, because the scions of my recent strategic thinking trace back to literature seeds you planted). In a way including Bagration (I have the Belorussia 1944 book by Glantz in the "buy later" section of my Amazon cart, but shied away from buying it so far because I have the feeling I still don't fully understand his book relating to Kursk). As a side note, I think that yor profound understanding of the multi-dimensional aspects of strategy may be as important for your success in PBEM games as the strong operational planning stressed by Alfred. But that's just my view, based on very little statistics - so it may be completely wrong.

However, frankly I am confused about your assignment of destruction of economy or military to the field of national goal. I would have assigned these usually to the strategy to bring about the national goal. Destruction another state's military or industry per se does not change my nation's situation per se, the consequences achieved by said destruction may, so the destruction must serve a purpose.

Ok, this is the strategy discussion fragment of the day. More news on turn events in the next post.

Thanks for your interest

Hartwig

[CaptBeefheart]

Hartwig--Good to see an AAR based on the May '42 scenario. I'm not going to wade into this strategy discussion between the grandmasters. However, could you give us some idea of your starting dispositions? I'm specifically curious about SoPac and Burma.

Thanks,
CC

[Nemo121]

Only time for he quickest of replies.

What would you say the National Policybobjective underpinning the Allied position at the treaty of Versailles vs Germany was?

1. Economy - By burdening the economy with such huge reparations they hoped to limit German economic growth and surpluses such that they would outstrip it economically and be able to afford a better/larger army for the same GDP allocation. If Germany located more GDP then they'd enter the Reaganite Soviet spiral of ever-increasing %s of GDP being allocated and, eventually, further stifling economic growth leading to economic collapse and the inability to sustain the requisite military might. At Versailles they just asked for too much and pushed Germany too far into the doldrums, leading to unrest and Naziism.

2. The Versailles treaty certainly sought to destroy Germany's ability to maintain a functional military capable of the sorts of battles being doubt in 1918. Their miscalculation was that they didn't realise just how effectively Germany would use it's 100,000 to effectively preserve extremely high quality NCOs and NCO candidates, officers and potential mustangs, staff training and expertise and theoretical development - as well as tactical/technical development under dual-use maskirovka.

The Versaills Treaty wasn't strategy, it was the fulfilment of national policy objectives which basically boiled down to "never again" but pretty much created "inevitably next generTion" by mistake.

[modrow]

Nemo,

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Only time for he quickest of replies.

What would you say the National Policybobjective underpinning the Allied position at the treaty of Versailles vs Germany was?

Here lack of time too, only briefly.

The objective was to prove that fourteen equals zero.

What do I want to say with that remark (actually, I think it's a quote, but I cannot come up with the real source) ?

Read Wilson's 14 point plan and then compare to the actual events between, say, 1919 and 1921. Read Lloyd George's memorandum of March 1919 (which actually sort of predicts what happened) or consider John Maynard Keynes' actions when the negotiations were still on. You will recognize that the Allied did not have a national policy objective, but a set of competing objectives. In the end, the French strive to become the dominant power on the continent made the day - and the US did not sign the treaty.

The way to ensure dominace was twofold: a) try to cripple economic power + b) try to cripple military power of the direct rival Germany. The Versailles treaty was part of an implementation of that strategic approach, so maybe it could even be an action on an operational level in the inter-allied diplomacy theatre ?

As always, just my 2cts.

Hartwig

[modrow]

Commander Cody,

ORIGINAL: Commander Cody

Hartwig--Good to see an AAR based on the May '42 scenario. I'm not going to wade into this strategy discussion between the grandmasters. However, could you give us some idea of your starting dispositions? I'm specifically curious about SoPac and Burma.

Thanks,
CC

thanks for your question. Do feel free to wade into the discussion - I think the discussing grandmasters have a soft spot for people who really to improve their grasp on these questions.

When you talk about starting dispositions, I assume you relate to my first actions in the respective theatres. (I still plan to go down the ladder from national goals to operational and maybe tactical level and would like to discuss operational plans in the strategic framework)

I assume you are familiar with the May '42 scenario. Burma in the strict sense is already occupied at that point of time, so I guess you aim at the situation at the Burmese-Indian border. Key priority is a) swapping the actual garrisons (depleted units assigned to Burma command) against fresh troops and get them into a supply- and base-rich environment to bring them back to strength ASAP.

Re. SOPAC: distribution of Supplies and Fuel and improving the supporting base network. It does not make sense to maintain garrisons that will starve quickly, and the bases that start with some LCUs are too strongly separated for my taste.

In general, India and Australia have started the process of upgrading units to india 42 squads and CMF Inf squads. With careful planning, their LCU firepower can most likely be increased relatively quickly.

Last not least, working towards a reasonable distribution of shipping is important as well.

I hope this answers your question; if not feel free to ask for additional information.

Hartwig

[modrow]

I intended to log in to report about turn 4, which I have received but not yet processed. Well, looks like I drifted away in the previous posts, so you'll have to hold your breath a bit longer. Actually much longer, because I will probably be forced to fall back on my mobile internet access till Monday or so.

I apologize for the delay.

Hartwig

[modrow]

Cap'n,

ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake

H.M;

Not to be a pedant, but is there even a UN Charter yet?

To be or not to be, that is the question. But yup, you identified my back door to create a bit of flexibility just in case so I can claim I achieved the óbjectives even if things don't go well.

How about, "Breaking institutional and colonial barriers every day to to enhance the contentment of all peoples living within the Co-prosperity sphere"?

I like it, but don't you think that would be useful only if those people may vote for me afterwards? I mean, improving something for someone is nice, but improving something for my voters is much better.

As for the grass..just spray the crap out of it with Roundup and then cover it all with lava rocks.

I had a similar proposal, but it got vetoed by my wife. [8|]

Hartwig

[Nemo121]

Re: Versailles as an Operation... No, not according to any definition of Operational Art I've ever read.

The Soviets - who really first described Operational Art in the modern sense - talked about Operations linking Tactics to Strategy. I think you are getting mixed up by mislabelling the higher levels. If in doubt I find the best way to approach clarifying what level a thing is to be starting at either extreme and working your way down or up.


So, if we assume the initial hypothesis that preventing another World War by so militarily and economically crippling Germany was the national policy objective of France/UK ( not necessarily of the USA ) we can test it by asking the question of whether or not there was a higher level goal than that. If there was then perhaps THAT other goal is the national policy objective and the military and economic crippling was strategy. I find it difficult, though, to find a higher level goal than the utter generational crippling of a potential opponent militarily and economically.

[Cap Mandrake]

ORIGINAL: hartwig.modrow
I had a similar proposal, but it got vetoed by my wife. [8|]

Hartwig

Get rid of the civilian voice on the council of war. They always seem to lack fortitude. Next thing you know you will be having deep breathing exercises and spiritual readings before invasion planning meetings.

[Wirraway_Ace]

As Nemo’s construct emphasizes, national policy objectives drive military strategy. But these policy objectives ideally also define what it means to win. Did you win if you defeated your enemy, razed his cities and occupied his territory but lost 10% of your population in combat or burdened two generations with heavy debt?

To that end, hartwig.modrow, your current strategy looks more like a national policy objective without a clear definition of what success really looks like. You can imagine a number of different scenarios for the political situation in which you find yourself within the game as the leader of a multitude of nations, but your policy objective might be edited thus to help guide the development of military strategy:
“To ensure that Japan will not remain a menace to world peace and to turn Japan into a peaceful nation beneficial to our policy at the lowest cost in lives of our population. “

Alternatively, “To ensure that Japan will not remain a menace to world peace and to turn Japan into a peaceful nation beneficial to our policy as quickly as possible at any cost in order to preclude other Allied nations from having time to establish hegemony over any of Japan’s territories”

[modrow]

Gentlemen,

I have to apologize for my absence from our little club for the last few days. A cousin of my wife got married last weekend, so we were on the move and once again I could not log in.

The party was - interesting to say the least. Beautifully located in a small moated castle some 30 miles from Hannover, Germany. Lots of juicy insights into the mechanics of my wife's family, which I always enjoy. The father of the bride managed to make a fool of himself by philosophizing that each marriage was an expedition and he wished the new couple many expeditions, which remained remarkably unnoticed amongst many of the guests. A "black tie optional" dress code imposed on the guests which was boycotted full of joy by most of the bride's (my wife's cousin's) family and complied with full of joy by most of the grooms family and friends. Ah, so much fun in family festivities.

Anyway, I get carried away by sweet memories and deviate from both the game and our enjoyable discussions.

As a matter of fact, the game went on well synchronized - I sent the turn to aztez on Thursday before I started my travel to the marriage, he sent it back on Sunday evening after I had returned and I sent back the May 11 turn today. So there are two turns of two days each to comment on, which are still sort of slow but slowly begin to take shape.

First, some news on sub wars: Aztez positioned subs well on standard routes and managed to sink a TK and damage another one in the Indian Ocean on May 7th. In return, O19 sank an xAK on May 9th. Oh, and a RO sub sailed onto a mine at Chittagong [:D]

From the China theatre: On May 7, we took Paotow in China (Ichang was previously taken after the Japanese left the city). Also, there was action at 84,55 on May 7th and 8th in which the Chinese were not instantaneously wiped out in spite of being in the open:

Ground combat at 84,55

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 5550 troops, 38 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 192

Defending force 9808 troops, 97 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 316

Japanese adjusted assault: 140

Allied adjusted defense: 140

Japanese assault odds: 1 to 1

Combat modifiers
Defender: morale(-), experience(-)
Attacker:

Japanese ground losses:
617 casualties reported
Squads: 1 destroyed, 35 disabled
Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 18 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled


Allied ground losses:
198 casualties reported
Squads: 1 destroyed, 20 disabled
Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 21 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

And on day 2:

Ground combat at 84,55

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 5123 troops, 38 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 157

Defending force 9587 troops, 97 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 296

Japanese adjusted assault: 129

Allied adjusted defense: 100

Japanese assault odds: 1 to 1

Combat modifiers
Defender: morale(-), experience(-)
Attacker:

Japanese ground losses:
40 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 3 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 8 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Allied ground losses:
152 casualties reported
Squads: 2 destroyed, 25 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 35 disabled
Engineers: 1 destroyed, 1 disabled

For those who want to know - air support was used both days by my opponent, but more successfully on day 2.

On the next day, both sides sent their air force in, which was more successful for the Alliedm but no one attacked on the ground.

Other than that, I bombed Mytkina and bombarded Tarawa and Shortlands as psychological attacks to which aztez - correctly - did not respond. He, in return, dropped forces at Tulagi, which will fall next turn.

Ok, that's about all the action I can report for now. As it is getting late, I'll finish my drink and return tomorrow to pick up the interesting discussion on national goals and what may be derived from them. For now, thanks for your interest and good night.

Thank you for your interest.

Hartwig

[Alfred]

Hmn, some young devil, I estimate aged about 57 years old, just woke me up from my slumber. He had the gall to ask out aloud for the sommelier. No manners, doesn't he realise that one merely raises one's eyebrow to attract the attention of the staff.

Anyway, a few words whilst the sommelier is fetching the bottle.

One needs to be aware that real world strategy and game strategy is not the same thing. the same definition for one will not be adequate for the other. Partly this because a geopolitical/military game is always an abstraction of the real world. In a game, one simply does not have available all the tools (tactics) available in real life. The pressures of the real world are also not present in a game.

The bottom line is that in a game, there really is only one ultimate objective, and that is to win. In a game, you don't have to win 100% of every encounter to achieve the only valid objective. In a home and away football cup tie, in the second match of the tie, the away team may have the advantage of knowing they will progress to the next round even if they lose the away match provided they score an away goal.

Now hartwig is determining an appropriate strategy for this specific AE match. His initial thought was to borrow from real geopolitical/military world praxis. My simpler definition is tailored for playing a game. To introduce into a game the idea of national goals is not IMHO, all that useful. In the real world, remember there we have the full box of ideas to work with, national goals need not be about winning at all. Finland in 1939 knew it would lose, but that if it resisted it might lose less than if it just caved in to Soviet demands. Nations which are confronted with internal revolts know that what matters ultimately is reconciling the disaffected population to the state. Coalition leaders are often faced with the situation that maintaining either the coalition together or their leadership is far more important than "winning".

Ah, I see the sommelier approaching with that 1996 Pol Roger.

Alfred

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

One needs to be aware that real world strategy and game strategy is not the same thing. Alfred

+1

Thank you.

[Cap Mandrake]

The father of the bride managed to make a fool of himself by philosophizing that each marriage was an expedition and he wished the new couple many expeditions, which remained remarkably unnoticed amongst many of the guests.

[:D] Maybe he just watched too many specials on Shackleton and got carried away. It does seem he was advising his daughter to sleep around.

[Wirraway_Ace]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

One needs to be aware that real world strategy and game strategy is not the same thing. the same definition for one will not be adequate for the other. Partly this because a geopolitical/military game is always an abstraction of the real world. In a game, one simply does not have available all the tools (tactics) available in real life. The pressures of the real world are also not present in a game.

The bottom line is that in a game, there really is only one ultimate objective, and that is to win. In a game, you don't have to win 100% of every encounter to achieve the only valid objective. In a home and away football cup tie, in the second match of the tie, the away team may have the advantage of knowing they will progress to the next round even if they lose the away match provided they score an away goal.

Now hartwig is determining an appropriate strategy for this specific AE match. His initial thought was to borrow from real geopolitical/military world praxis. My simpler definition is tailored for playing a game. To introduce into a game the idea of national goals is not IMHO, all that useful. In the real world, remember there we have the full box of ideas to work with, national goals need not be about winning at all. Finland in 1939 knew it would lose, but that if it resisted it might lose less than if it just caved in to Soviet demands. Nations which are confronted with internal revolts know that what matters ultimately is reconciling the disaffected population to the state. Coalition leaders are often faced with the situation that maintaining either the coalition together or their leadership is far more important than "winning".

Alfred

To me, this is a matter of taste. When playing the Allies, except against a very experienced opponent in Scenario 2, I find I need to borrow from real geopolitics of the time to make it truly interesting. Winning as the Allies is inevitable with competent play. It is how you win that makes it interesting.

[modrow]

Gentlemen,

It’s about time I add some comments to the many interesting posts that have been added to this thread in the last few days.

First, @ Nemo121 re. Versailles as national goal: I really tried to reconciliate my point of view with what you say, but fail. There are several reasons for that. First of all, IMHO there was not really a joint national goal between the UK and France (if you want to read an extreme presentation, have a look at Neal Ferguson’s “The Pity of war”), thus the treaty is a result of an attempt to realize competing national goals of several nations by the respective nation’s representatives. The French wanted supremacy on the continent (there is a continuous line at least since Bonaparte, which was continued by Napoleon IIIrd, that is characterized by hostility against the other major powers, (Russia in the Crimean war, then Franco-Austrian war, then Prussia, where Napoleon III blundered). After the setback of 1871, the basic concept was still hostility against the major power – then Germany, with a bit of fear of German power added.

Also, a treaty is a legal act, whereas a goal is a concept or an idea. Consequently, the treaty may serve as a tool or an attempt to realize a given national goal, but not as the goal per se. The outcome may be quite different, as history showed – in effect, Versailles was not beneficial for the French national goals, thus it cannot serve as the national goal, but is an attempt to realize that goal as part of executing a dual strategy of destruction of both military and economic power. Last not least it is this executional aspect of a peace treaty that causes my qualms to assign it to either national goal or strategy. It is a real world implementation we are facing, a battlefield on which the guns of diplomacy are blazing.

Next, @ Wirraway_ace’s suggestion to define the conditions under which the realization of a given aim is desirable or not as part of the national goal: I agree that such a definition is helpful for the development (actually I would rather say the selection) of a military strategy, but I would not interpret it as part of the goal but rather as a definition of the price you have to pay if you want to achieve the goal in a given way. The problem is that by adding this aspect to the national goal, you will rule out alternatives by definition, whereas I think all possibilities should be considered and then the one with the lowest “price” that still serves the purpose can be chosen.

Alfred, as usual, comes up with an analysis that really identifies the core of the problem. Borrowing from the real world practice may in fact not be the best approach. There is, however, the inherent problem that “winning” may mean a lot of things and is, as Alfred mentions correctly, not just limited to a single aspect, like winning a military encounter. As he illustrated adroitly, losing a military encounter can lead to a “win”-situation in real life.

But, as Wirraway ace commented correctly, what means “winning” in a game like this? I did win my short WitP match against Nemo121 that I picked up after 2nd ACR was unable to continue. He wiped the floor (or the map) with me, but I think I learned something, thus I did win. Even a lot, so it was a legendary victory. In contrast, I think he did not learn much from playing against me, so he definitely lost.

Wirraway ace wins if he uses an aspect of geopolitics of the time to add some difficulty. Thus, perhaps in a game like this the personal goal replaces the national goal and determines the strategy. Which would also explain why I did not feel as much of a problem to derive my strategy from the “national goal” I postulated: In reality, this chosen national goal may be a reflection of my personal goal, which in turn allows to work with it.

Thanks for every input posted so far to foster to this stimulating discussion and your interest. I really do like our club even if occasionally, like tonight, there would have been action to report from the PBEM game, which now has to wait till next time I find a couple of minutes to drop in at the club.

Hartwig

[modrow]

Gentlemen,

As this is still the “After action report” section, I would like to share a bit of the action. The last days I had commented on was May7/8, today I sent back the turn that will uncover the events on May 17/18 1942, so there is a bit of action to report in spite of the fact that we are still both mostly preparing our operations.


Sub wars:

Both of us start have more and more subs arrive at locations where we expect enemy shipping:

May 09:
Japanese Ships
xAK Maya Maru, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
Allied Ships
SS O19

May 11:
Japanese Ships
SS I-28
Allied Ships
xAK Mormacland, Shell hits 1, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage

May 12:Japanese Ships
SS I-28
Allied Ships
xAK San Angelo, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage

May 13:
Japanese Ships
TK Nisshin Maru #2
PB Keiko Maru
PB Kyo Maru #8
PB Kiso Maru

Allied Ships
SS Pike

SS Pike launches 4 torpedoes at TK Nisshin Maru #2

May 14:
Japanese Ships
SS I-22

Allied Ships
xAK Maetsuycker

SS I-22 launches 2 torpedoes at xAK Maetsuycker

Japanese Ships
xAK Hokkai Maru, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
PB Sento Maru

Allied Ships
SS S-37, hits 5

May 15.
Japanese Ships
CM Hatsutaka

Allied Ships
SS Pike

SS Pike launches 4 torpedoes at CM Hatsutaka

Japanese Ships
SS I-30

Allied Ships
xAK George Livanos

xAK George Livanos is sighted by SS I-30
SS I-30 launches 2 torpedoes

Japanese Ships
SS I-172

Allied Ships
xAK Admiral Williams, Torpedo hits 1, heavy damage

xAK Admiral Williams is sighted by SS I-172
SS I-172 launches 2 torpedoes

Japanese Ships
SS I-30

Allied Ships
xAK George Livanos, Shell hits 1, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage

May 16:

Japanese Ships
SS I-171, hits 4

Allied Ships
DD Monaghan

Japanese Ships
PB Saiko Maru
xAP Huso Maru
PB Santos Maru

Allied Ships
SS O21

SS O21 launches 2 torpedoes at PB Saiko Maru


China:

Here, the major events are Japanese attempts to take the heroically defended Chuhsien:

May 13:

Ground combat at Chuhsien (88,56)

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 22659 troops, 192 guns, 73 vehicles, Assault Value = 811

Defending force 17948 troops, 81 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 595

Japanese engineers reduce fortifications to 0

Japanese adjusted assault: 386

Allied adjusted defense: 721

Japanese assault odds: 1 to 2 (fort level 0)

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), preparation(-), experience(-)
Attacker:

Japanese ground losses:
1110 casualties reported [:D]
Squads: 2 destroyed, 47 disabled
Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 35 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 5 disabled


Allied ground losses:
262 casualties reported
Squads: 1 destroyed, 54 disabled
Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 34 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled


Assaulting units:
2nd Ind.Mixed Regiment
17th Division
22nd/A Division
22nd/B Division

Defending units:
88th Chinese Corps
100th Chinese Corps
3rd War Area
25th Group Army
14th Chinese Base Force

May 15:

Ground combat at Chuhsien (88,56)

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 21706 troops, 192 guns, 73 vehicles, Assault Value = 737

Defending force 17502 troops, 81 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 553

Japanese adjusted assault: 510

Allied adjusted defense: 697

Japanese assault odds: 1 to 2 (fort level 1)

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), leaders(+), preparation(-), experience(-)
Attacker:

Japanese ground losses:
2763 casualties reported [:D][:D]
Squads: 4 destroyed, 173 disabled
Non Combat: 2 destroyed, 136 disabled
Engineers: 1 destroyed, 10 disabled
Vehicles lost 5 (1 destroyed, 4 disabled)


Allied ground losses:
184 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 25 disabled
Non Combat: 3 destroyed, 10 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled


Assaulting units:
22nd/A Division
2nd Ind.Mixed Regiment
17th Division
22nd/B Division

Defending units:
88th Chinese Corps
100th Chinese Corps
3rd War Area
25th Group Army
14th Chinese Base Force


Southern pacific:

As expected, Tulagi was taken by the Japanese (2nd JNAF AF unit) – but at a price. I had two guesses free, the second one was right…

May 11, 1942:
Night Time Surface Combat, near Tulagi

Japanese Ships
PB Keijo Maru, Shell hits 15, and is sunk
PB Takunan Maru #5, Shell hits 2, and is sunk
xAK Eizan Maru, Shell hits 36, and is sunk
xAK Kotobuki Maru #5, Shell hits 6, and is sunk

Allied Ships
CA Canberra
DD Whipple

Also, my opponent started to sweep PM. Because that did not suit my purpose, I had unescorted Marauders attacking Lae two turns in a row, which promptly switched the Zero’s attention to LRCAP over that base in the second turn (at a cost of 4 Marauders, which I was willing to pay) .

Ok, these are the bits of info on the action that I consider to be worth reporting. If there are any questions, just ask.

As always, thanks for your interest

Hartwig

[Ketza]

Japanese Ships
PB Keijo Maru, Shell hits 15, and is sunk
PB Takunan Maru #5, Shell hits 2, and is sunk
xAK Eizan Maru, Shell hits 36, and is sunk
xAK Kotobuki Maru #5, Shell hits 6, and is sunk

Allied Ships
CA Canberra
DD Whipple

You and those little TFs cause people to get headaches.

Glad to see you still at it [;)]

[modrow]

Gentlemen,

While waiting for the next turn, I want to return to the presentation of my strategic approach but more briefly than I intended originally. Feel free to ask if you want me to post some more details.

Without wanting to stir up the appropriateness of national goals from real life debate again, for me the national goal described implied right from the start the need to invade (and thus was able to serve me as a basis for the development of a strategic approach). IMHO reeducation of a population is the only effective way to change the way of thinking of a nation and break a long-time military tradition, and the only way to achieve thorough reeducation is occupation. In lieu of possibilities to negotiate a peace including an occupation in game, the only way to occupy appears to be an invasion (note that I hinted at that in the original national goal post already), which in turn means that the Japanese war machine must be disabled.

As Alfred pointed out previously, in general this may be done in an indirect way via destruction of the economical capacities needed to support the forces or in a direct way based on destruction of the forces itself. However, my interpretation of the data presented via pictures from WitP Tracker in a previous post is that in this scenario the first may be more difficult than usual, whereas the second may be more easy than usual.

I think that the Japanese economy may be more resilient in this scenario than in the standard GC game. Usually, they have an oil and resource, supply and fuel nest egg that is invested to acquire the DEI in a damaged state, which then supports further operations and allows Japan to build up a storage for the bad times to come. Now, they have said nest egg and the DEI in an undamaged state.

In addition, I believe that the notably increased HI surplus in the May 42 campaign may allow for accumulation of a store of HI points as well, especially as for some time to come HI usage will not be as high as it would be in a GC1 game at this point of time due to the fact that expansions of HI consuming assets has not really occurred so far. Consequently, I assume that in 1944/1945 the reserve of HI points, oil and resources will be higher in this scenario than in the standard game, making the effective reduction of Japan’s industrial capacities more difficult.

At the same time, I believe that at least some of the facts that may lead to a more resilient economic situation simultaneously lead to a situation in which Japan can absorb losses worse. The availability of vehicle and armament points is reduced, production numbers of planes are lower than in most GC1 campaigns at this point of time, and the advancement of the arrival of plane types by concerted R&D activities will be much less significant. This caused me to ask myself whether a strategy based on destruction of the enemy armed forces in combat may be more promising.

Now there is one thing I have to admit as a weakness of mine in front of the entire club membership: I have no illusions about my ability to implement actions on the map. I do not believe that my AE-skills are sufficient to make me a good player at this point of time. Therefore, I believe that I need to run a simple approach with little finesse required, which I am most likely to manage to implement. Outmaneuvering the enemy in such a way that he ends up with most of his assets at the wrong end of the map or that I can be sure I will be able to destroy him peacemeal may be beyond what I can realize.

But I believe that attrition is a much more basic (though much less elegant) approach. I can let the enemy gain victories as long as I make sure that they are phyrric. Will my experience be sufficient to make sure I extract a high price from the enemy? Well, the game will show it. I hope so.

Of course, the additional requirement is that there are the tools available to implement a direct destruction strategy implemented by staging operations which will atrite the enemy from a point of time close to the beginning of the game. At first, I actually did have some doubts about that. As stated previously, a problem of many Allied units at the start of the May 42 scenario is the fact that upgrades have not happened and experience has not been improved.

As an additional condition, the “counter-attrition” experienced by the Allied troops should preferably affect units whose replacement rates are sufficiently high to be able to bring them back to strength in a reasonable time scale, however if such units have too low experience and outdated equipment it is unlikely that they will be able to deal sufficient damage to the enemy to achieve the desired effect. It is quite instructive to analyze how equipment influences the losses dealt - to me, it looks like it really really does, so do take a look at the statistics of the devices of different units and do optimize your upgrades.

There are, however, a number of units available scattered over the map that qualify for that purpose. They will be concentrated as the previously mentioned imperial shock army and put to use. Therefore I guess I can manage to start the desired process of attrition relatively early in the game after all.

Ok, that’s a rough sketch of the strategic approach I plan to follow. Feel free to rip it apart, I can only learn from that!

As always, thanks for your interest

Hartwig