Matrix Games Forums

I haven't read a detailed contemporary study that indicates why the Allies avoided Darwin. Many of the reasons given in this thread may be valid - but at the same time I know the US chiefs were very aware of the Japanese oil problem and the submarine war was focused on making this a bigger problem for them. So if it is true that the Americans avoided DEI so as to not recapture colonies this would fly in the face of wanting to remove Japanese oil sources from the Japanese. Using subs only might not have been enough to do the trick. If direct occcupation is an option - one would think that would have to be considered. I'll start looking for some strategic discussions on this.

One guess is that Darwin is really a place that has to be supplied by ship. At least IRL.

Can an offensive against DEI be based out of Darwin ? In the game as it is now ? I think yes - though I'm still in the process of proving it. But once you have enough of a buffer ( Timor might be enough ) then convoy's from Perth can kick in and start bringing supply into the Broom ... Darwin area ... once this happens you're home free. The overland Darwin supply only has to bootstrap you into gaining enough of a buffer to start bringing in the convoy's.

Just a historical note - the railway to Darwin was completed in 2003 .

ORIGINAL: warrenup

Just a historical note - the railway to Darwin was completed in 2003 .

Gee I guess the Oziees have a one week a month work week and 3 weeks a month vacation time... for it to have taken this long to build a mere railway [:D][:D]

I'm into March '42 in my campaign on Andy's map, so I'm just getting into the time period where Timor and Darwin are becoming important.

The other day I ocunted the hexes to Darwin, and I believe that Whyalla is just close enough on the rail/road network to send supply to Darwin, but not close enough to get supply to Broome, Derby, and the Wyndham. I am testing by starting to ship a surplus of supply to Whyalla, and will see if that improves Darwin's supply situation.

Even so the allied player will have to send some supply TFs into the area, because of the three other bases. These TFs will be vulnerable to air attack, which I believe is why there was no major allied offensive based upon Darwin. They did run supplies overland, but I don't think they could have run enough overland to support a serious offensive.

You need Timor. If allies use Darwin as a major base, especially if too early, just hit it with KB or a large bombardment TF. Losing 100+ heavy bombers is no fun for Allies. [:D] Once it shut down you can kill all the bombers at leisure.

Its easy to draw all the supplies you want to north Austrailia. Whatever the supply requirements are, they just go there automatically. Heres how to test it quickly and easily:

Use the editor to move tons of units and aicraft there at the start. I think I moved 5 or 6 divisions and a couple hundred bombers there. On your first turn your supply will be way below your required level for all these divisions. A couple turn later you will be at your required supply level. Its easy.

I then brought transports up to Darwin and loaded supplies for offload to Timor. As you draw supplies your supply level drops of course. Then after you stop drawing suplies it goes back up to normal level. I saw nothing that would stop me from basing whatever I wanted in Darwin.

ORIGINAL: warrenup

Just a historical note - the railway to Darwin was completed in 2003 .

A little misleading. There was a railroad going into Darwin since at least the 1920s. Problem was that it ended a few hundred kilometers south of Darwin - with about 1000 km. between the connection at Alice Springs.

The gauge of the Darwin link also might have been different than the standard gauge - the article i found was a bit hazy on when things got switched over.

" Its easy to draw all the supplies you want to north Austrailia. Whatever the supply requirements are, they just go there automatically. Heres how to test it quickly and easily: "

You failed to notice that I mentioned that I am using Andrew Brown's map. He has removed the railroad racetrack that 2by3 has installed in western Australia. The only location on his map that is within WITP supply drawing range of any base in SE Oz is Darwin, and the base within range is Whyalla. Check out his map and you will see what I am talking about.

Bradfordkay:

Sorry.

Yes Andrew Browns map sounds excellent. I wish some of those changes wee incorporated into the stock scenario. Who knows maybe they will at some point.

ORIGINAL: BlackVoid

You need Timor. If allies use Darwin as a major base, especially if too early, just hit it with KB or a large bombardment TF. Losing 100+ heavy bombers is no fun for Allies. [:D] Once it shut down you can kill all the bombers at leisure.

That's junt fine. Exploit one game problem (super supply to Darwin) with another (super bomardment TFs sailing in the night to reduce Darwin to ashes). [:D]

I tried the KB strike against Darwin ... coupled with muliple bombardments by multiple BB task forces. The first set of attaks killed about 75 4E bombers and about the same number of fighters ... came back a few weeks later to try again ... and couldn't break through the multiple BB/CA protecting task forces and the 120+fighters ... the first attacks were in Feb 42 the second set were in Mar 42 ... so bottom line Darwin can attrite KB if a maximum effort regardless of cost is made by the Allied side.

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

ORIGINAL: BlackVoid

You need Timor. If allies use Darwin as a major base, especially if too early, just hit it with KB or a large bombardment TF. Losing 100+ heavy bombers is no fun for Allies. [:D] Once it shut down you can kill all the bombers at leisure.

That's junt fine. Exploit one game problem (super supply to Darwin) with another (super bomardment TFs sailing in the night to reduce Darwin to ashes). [:D]

Yeah...pisses me off.[:D] Andy's map will fix this super supply issue eventually once it's been tested enough but nothing will stop the use of BB TFs used successfully like strategic 4E bombers. Ridiculous. Perhaps it would be an idea to expand bases on major land masses so only the port facilities are on the shore and have a base adjacent to it inland where the majority of the airbases are. Would be easier if the devs drastically reduced bombardment effectiveness (to a less bombardment happy level, say by - 500%) and classified all the bases airfields as bombardment possible or not.

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

ORIGINAL: BlackVoid

You need Timor. If allies use Darwin as a major base, especially if too early, just hit it with KB or a large bombardment TF. Losing 100+ heavy bombers is no fun for Allies. [:D] Once it shut down you can kill all the bombers at leisure.

That's junt fine. Exploit one game problem (super supply to Darwin) with another (super bomardment TFs sailing in the night to reduce Darwin to ashes). [:D]

Well, I will not play anything else than Andrews map in the future. Stock map is very disappointing.

As for strategies:
1. It is a game.
2. Every strategy has to be based on the game system. Trying to base your strategy on real life examples works to an extent, but in the end you must do whatever works in the game.
3. Yes, there are problems with the game system, but these apply to both sides.
4 As for super bombardment TF - it should work against airfields. It would have worked in real life too, but Japan did not use it (2 BBs is not super TF), Allies killed japanese airpower already when they used major bombardment TFs. (Note: Many japenese officers were pissed that Japan did not use all available force against Guadalcanal. Instead they went in piecemeal and got slaughtered. )

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
Yeah...pisses me off.[:D] Andy's map will fix this super supply issue eventually once it's been tested enough but nothing will stop the use of BB TFs used successfully like strategic 4E bombers. Ridiculous. Perhaps it would be an idea to expand bases on major land masses so only the port facilities are on the shore and have a base adjacent to it inland where the majority of the airbases are. Would be easier if the devs drastically reduced bombardment effectiveness (to a less bombardment happy level, say by - 500%) and classified all the bases airfields as bombardment possible or not.

I really do not understand what is the problem with this. BB naval guns have a very long range. An airfield is a large target. 4E bombers are large targets. It is easy to hit with BBs.
Infantry casualties are another matter, but large amounts of big bombers at a frontline base is not a sound strategy, unless you can protect the base from enemy air and surface forces. If you cannot ensure the safety of the base you should not base large amounts of big bombers. Put there your own surface TF, protect with large amount of fighters + naval bombers and bombardment is not a threat anymore. But why do you complain if you loose forces that are not protected well???

ORIGINAL: BlackVoid

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

ORIGINAL: BlackVoid

You need Timor. If allies use Darwin as a major base, especially if too early, just hit it with KB or a large bombardment TF. Losing 100+ heavy bombers is no fun for Allies. [:D] Once it shut down you can kill all the bombers at leisure.

That's junt fine. Exploit one game problem (super supply to Darwin) with another (super bomardment TFs sailing in the night to reduce Darwin to ashes). [:D]

Well, I will not play anything else than Andrews map in the future. Stock map is very disappointing.

As for strategies:
1. It is a game.
2. Every strategy has to be based on the game system. Trying to base your strategy on real life examples works to an extent, but in the end you must do whatever works in the game.
3. Yes, there are problems with the game system, but these apply to both sides.
4 As for super bombardment TF - it should work against airfields. It would have worked in real life too, but Japan did not use it (2 BBs is not super TF), Allies killed japanese airpower already when they used major bombardment TFs. (Note: Many japenese officers were pissed that Japan did not use all available force against Guadalcanal. Instead they went in piecemeal and got slaughtered. )

What you say is correct. One must adapt or lose.

As for the bombardment TFs working against airfields: after awhile the Allies had it down to a science and the heaviest and most accurate bombardment wouldn't have fazed them much. The Japanese, with less equipment and less expertise (in the greater sense) kept their airfields open, too, before it all began to collapse on them.

Also, all "airfields" are not the same. There's a big difference between a complex of airstrips, such as those around Rabaul, and a site where, initially, only one fighter strip (or barely above that) was available (e.g., at Lunga early on). I see bombardment TFs in the game shutting anything down, regardless of "size," not to mention the ridiculous casualties they cause. Also, even the Allies have to a certain degree, some problems repairing this damage immediately, when, of course, in real life the Allies were able to keep just about everything open all the time, or at least have the fields "up and running" in a short time.

It's no biggie. But, bombardment TFs are openly and flagrantly abused in the game. Just because this abuse is open for both sides to exploit hardly makes it more palatable for the serious player.

Would be easier if the devs drastically reduced bombardment effectiveness (to a less bombardment happy level, say by - 500%) and classified all the bases airfields as bombardment possible or not.

I recently posted a similar item in the "wish list" thread, but I'd add three levels of bombardability -- high, medium, and low vulnerability. But OK, I could live with your two levels. Just anything to avoid treating every airfield in the world as if it resembled Henderson Field. I'm not sure I see a need to cut the damage to vulnerable airfields as much as you suggest, though.

Is there any faint ray of hope that this might see the light of day? It's possibly my #1 gripe about the game. If not, is there anything modders could do about? Perhaps add a map notation or some other "eye candy" that indicates that a base is not vulnerable to bombardment, and encourage players to respect such bases as a house rule?

ORIGINAL: BlackVoid

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
Yeah...pisses me off.[:D] Andy's map will fix this super supply issue eventually once it's been tested enough but nothing will stop the use of BB TFs used successfully like strategic 4E bombers. Ridiculous. Perhaps it would be an idea to expand bases on major land masses so only the port facilities are on the shore and have a base adjacent to it inland where the majority of the airbases are. Would be easier if the devs drastically reduced bombardment effectiveness (to a less bombardment happy level, say by - 500%) and classified all the bases airfields as bombardment possible or not.

I really do not understand what is the problem with this. BB naval guns have a very long range. An airfield is a large target. 4E bombers are large targets. It is easy to hit with BBs.
Infantry casualties are another matter, but large amounts of big bombers at a frontline base is not a sound strategy, unless you can protect the base from enemy air and surface forces. If you cannot ensure the safety of the base you should not base large amounts of big bombers. Put there your own surface TF, protect with large amount of fighters + naval bombers and bombardment is not a threat anymore. But why do you complain if you loose forces that are not protected well???

Whose to say the airfields are not scattered all over the hex, some as far as sixty miles inland? And the ships are not going to park on the beach, they are well out to sea. Spotters, or lack thereof, limited bombardment time, poor intel, revetments, 60 miles with which to deploy troops, what have you would all affect the results. If night bombers could not hit squat, why assume the TFs can? Kongo and Haruna did well vs Henderson field as they has special shells, incredible intel and the use of the Yamato's gunnery officer on the ground calling adjust. This would not happen at Darwin or most other places along a coastline at this scale...not everything is a Henderson Field which lies on a plain off the coast or an atoll where one could fire a baseball from one end to the other.

One has to ask why this was not a common occurence in the actual period covered if it was so possible as it is in the game. Japanese lack of fuel and need to save the battleships for the decicive battle? Japan did lack for fuel historically (Yamato spent most of her time at Truk serving as a fuel barge because the other warships were short of it) yet not in the game, yet another reason why rationalizing this strategy is stretching the realities of the situation to the extreme. Access to unlimited ammo stocks in the game is also BS, which coupled with the unlimited fuel issue and the lack of any restriction to port size for rearming capital ships leads to players using bombardment TFs like bombers. Complete BS.

There is just so much wrong with this it's glaring.

So map modders: any interest in adding a little icon to bases whose airfields are vulnerable to bombardment? E.g., Lunga could have a little + in the upper-right hand corner of the hex, kinda like the mine symbol in the upper-left-hand corner; Port Moresby might not. Then we could establish a simple house rule -- you can only bombard a + base.

Of course, someone would have to take a stab at declaring which bases were vulnerable to shutdown by bombardment and which were less so.