Hairy Asian Experiences - GreyJoy (J) vs. Q-Ball (A)

[veji1]

pretty awesome, and also a great moral booster in difficult times.

[Chickenboy]

Very nicely done! Banzai! [&o]

[Cribtop]

Yee-Hah!

* That's Texan for Banzai!

[GreyJoy]

Thanks guys!

That's a total of 26 enemy's CVEs sunk listening to the intel report.
6 CVs (all americans) and 3 CVLs. Not bad at all.

So, let's make a summary:

Allied ships sunk:
6 CVs
3 CVLs
26 CVEs
15 BBs
36 CLs
3 CLAAs
18 CAs
+- 110 DDs
30 APA/APs
20 AKA/AKs
2 LSDs
80 SSs

plus, obviously, a big number of xAPs, xAKs, LSTs and some TKs,

Japanese ships sunk:

2 CVs
1 CVL
4 CVEs
4 BBs
7 CAs
12 CLs
100 DDs (ouch!)
31 SSs


For what concerns planes...

Allied: 14500
Japanese: 20600

[GreyJoy]

Now i'm a bit disappointed by my strategic decision not to build anymore CVs after 1943... the Shinano would have meant to have another Tahio with 72 planes...that would have helped me keep the KB's threat even longer.

Brad is a bit upset after the last turn. I can't blame him. I know how it feels when, as the allies, you get to 1944 just to find out that the Japs are far from being beaten and every step of advance requires a lot of allied blood spilled....

[PaxMondo]

I suspect he is more upset that he sent CVE's into harm's way. They are great as support to CV's, but are very brittle when sent alone. This is true on both sides.

[Cribtop]

Well, for all his clever play, which is quite good at the operational and tactical levels, IMHO Brad has made a strategic error in coming for you on a single axis. This has allowed you to commit your full strength to opposing that axis. He is very slowly bulling you aside, but imagine if he was putting pressure on you on two very separate fronts, with a strategic reserve ready to either open a third or, more probably, reinforce success once you commit your main force against one of his two efforts. That, IMHO, is how the Allied steamroller really gets moving.

[GreyJoy]

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

I suspect he is more upset that he sent CVE's into harm's way. They are great as support to CV's, but are very brittle when sent alone. This is true on both sides.

true, but when allied losses in terms of CV/CVEs become higher than usual, than you need to make some choices...and if you want to threaten more than one axis of advance you need to swallow the risk of having your CVEs facing the KB
In this case Brad's mistake, imho, was to advance with his CVEs when he didn't know where the KB was... i bet he thought the KB couldn't
attack again only after 4 days from the last attack.

[GreyJoy]

ORIGINAL: Cribtop

Well, for all his clever play, which is quite good at the operational and tactical levels, IMHO Brad has made a strategic error in coming for you on a single axis. This has allowed you to commit your full strength to opposing that axis. He is very slowly bulling you aside, but imagine if he was putting pressure on you on two very separate fronts, with a strategic reserve ready to either open a third or, more probably, reinforce success once you commit your main force against one of his two efforts. That, IMHO, is how the Allied steamroller really gets moving.

mmm...not that sure. in a scenario 2 environement, with stacking limits and DBB mod, the allies in 1944 cannot have a huge superiority in more than one axis of advance.
In my allied game against Mr.Kane i'm attacking on 3 different vectors (Sumatra, Timor and CENTPAC) and in neither of those vectors i have any real superiority that enables me to advance fast.
Brad forced me to committ everything i had...and made me suffer HUGE losses... but his losses where really higher than expected...
And also consider how Lady Luck has a major role in this game. In many cases Brad hasn't been lucky with his advance.

[Grfin Zeppelin]

So I finally catched up. Holy moly GreyJoy. First game with Japan and against Q-ball and you punched him a bloody nose several times. Well played and a very good read I must say.

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

ORIGINAL: Cribtop

Well, for all his clever play, which is quite good at the operational and tactical levels, IMHO Brad has made a strategic error in coming for you on a single axis. This has allowed you to commit your full strength to opposing that axis. He is very slowly bulling you aside, but imagine if he was putting pressure on you on two very separate fronts, with a strategic reserve ready to either open a third or, more probably, reinforce success once you commit your main force against one of his two efforts. That, IMHO, is how the Allied steamroller really gets moving.

mmm...not that sure. in a scenario 2 environement, with stacking limits and DBB mod, the allies in 1944 cannot have a huge superiority in more than one axis of advance.
In my allied game against Mr.Kane i'm attacking on 3 different vectors (Sumatra, Timor and CENTPAC) and in neither of those vectors i have any real superiority that enables me to advance fast.
Brad forced me to committ everything i had...and made me suffer HUGE losses... but his losses where really higher than expected...
And also consider how Lady Luck has a major role in this game. In many cases Brad hasn't been lucky with his advance.

Cribtop is correct. I don't follow your logic.

1. Japan has interior lines. The classic counter to that is simultaneous blows at widely diverging points, provided the blows is not a dissipation of resources.

2. And the point about stacking limits is ... ?[&:]
(a) If anything stacking limits favours multiple separated assaults as otherwise the attacker cannot fully use their assets in a single big push.
(b) Stacking limits really only apply to continental land campaigns. Who said anything that the multiple axes have to be only along continental landmass corridors

3. Again , having reduced the cargo capacity of ships impact adversely how on the Allies? In aggregate terms the Allies should have sufficient sealift. The reduced cargo limits slows down the tempo of operations in the early years but by 1944 the Allies are swimming in excess hulls.

The bottom line is that a static Japanese defence will always fail. The only way to stay competitive is to maintain some initiative to counterpunch. In this instance the only real means to counterpunch is via the KB. It can only be at one place at a time. Hence multiple simultaneous Allied axes is the correct Allied response.

Alfred

[CaptBeefheart]

Well played, GreyJoy, and good to see this AAR fired up again. It's pretty unhealthy to be serving on an Allied CVE about now.

Cheers,
CC

[obvert]

Great work my friend! You continue to show there is danger yet for the Allies. The psychological hit should be just as effective as the tactical one.

I o have to agree with Alfred, and as we've spoken about before, the Japanese can never be strong everywhere. I wonder how those CVEs would have done supporting a landing at Saipan last turn instead of a supply drop at Roti! [X(][:D]

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

I suspect he is more upset that he sent CVE's into harm's way. They are great as support to CV's, but are very brittle when sent alone. This is true on both sides.

Yes and no corsairs and virtually no hellcats. You just can not expect to deal with 2nd generation fighters using wildcats and P40s. Just a poor tactical decision. Some call it gamey but I do not hesitate to put some corsairs on my Jeeps. Not when faced with the numbers Japan can produce. Nice work GJ.

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

ORIGINAL: Cribtop

Well, for all his clever play, which is quite good at the operational and tactical levels, IMHO Brad has made a strategic error in coming for you on a single axis. This has allowed you to commit your full strength to opposing that axis. He is very slowly bulling you aside, but imagine if he was putting pressure on you on two very separate fronts, with a strategic reserve ready to either open a third or, more probably, reinforce success once you commit your main force against one of his two efforts. That, IMHO, is how the Allied steamroller really gets moving.

mmm...not that sure. in a scenario 2 environement, with stacking limits and DBB mod, the allies in 1944 cannot have a huge superiority in more than one axis of advance.
In my allied game against Mr.Kane i'm attacking on 3 different vectors (Sumatra, Timor and CENTPAC) and in neither of those vectors i have any real superiority that enables me to advance fast.
Brad forced me to committ everything i had...and made me suffer HUGE losses... but his losses where really higher than expected...
And also consider how Lady Luck has a major role in this game. In many cases Brad hasn't been lucky with his advance.

Cribtop is correct. I don't follow your logic.

1. Japan has interior lines. The classic counter to that is simultaneous blows at widely diverging points, provided the blows is not a dissipation of resources.

2. And the point about stacking limits is ... ?[&:]
(a) If anything stacking limits favours multiple separated assaults as otherwise the attacker cannot fully use their assets in a single big push.
(b) Stacking limits really only apply to continental land campaigns. Who said anything that the multiple axes have to be only along continental landmass corridors

3. Again , having reduced the cargo capacity of ships impact adversely how on the Allies? In aggregate terms the Allies should have sufficient sealift. The reduced cargo limits slows down the tempo of operations in the early years but by 1944 the Allies are swimming in excess hulls.

The bottom line is that a static Japanese defence will always fail. The only way to stay competitive is to maintain some initiative to counterpunch. In this instance the only real means to counterpunch is via the KB. It can only be at one place at a time. Hence multiple simultaneous Allied axes is the correct Allied response.

Alfred

Yes, one hundred percent agree. "If they can't skin, they can at least hold a foot." (US Grant talking about using multiple offensives on the Confederacy).

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: crsutton

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

I suspect he is more upset that he sent CVE's into harm's way. They are great as support to CV's, but are very brittle when sent alone. This is true on both sides.

Yes and no corsairs and virtually no hellcats. You just can not expect to deal with 2nd generation fighters using wildcats and P40s. Just a poor tactical decision. Some call it gamey but I do not hesitate to put some corsairs on my Jeeps. Not when faced with the numbers Japan can produce. Nice work GJ.

So, you have to think he is low in ac pools not to have replaced them ... and then again, sending them into harm's way with 2nd team ac ...

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

The bottom line is that a static Japanese defence will always fail. The only way to stay competitive is to maintain some initiative to counterpunch. Alfred

Which is what PzB proved to be a master of ... and was highly effective in.

[ny59giants]

My young Jedi knight has learned well. [&o]

When I saw so many FM-1 & 2 in the Combat Repay, I knew Brad was in trouble. I have all my CVEs with Hellcats while my most highly experienced CVs get the new Corsairs. Like I do from the start, the American carrier fleet is about survivability. They get those 18 plane Marine fighter groups and my carriers get the best food and fuel in the fleet.[;)]

[guytipton41]

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

My young Jedi knight has learned well. [&o]

When I saw so many FM-1 & 2 in the Combat Repay, I knew Brad was in trouble. I have all my CVEs with Hellcats while my most highly experienced CVs get the new Corsairs. Like I do from the start, the American carrier fleet is about survivability. They get those 18 plane Marine fighter groups and my carriers get the best food and fuel in the fleet.[;)]

Hi NY,

Does it make a difference if the Corsairs are on the little flattops as opposed to the big ones? Does the SR make a difference?

Cheers,
Guy

[Sangeli]

Multiple axis or single axis advance, the only thing that really matters for the Allies is to bring in the CV fleet if the Japanese bring the KB. If the KB is able to land strikes against CVEs the Allies NEED to get strikes in with their CVs against the KB. There really aren't two ways around it because CVEs will ALWAYS lose against the KB. Your opponents mistake wasn't the number of axes he was advancing on it's that he let his guard down and let his CVs stray when the KB was still in the area. It is VERY easy and VERY dangerous for AFBs to assume that the KB went home after a day or two of heavy losses - I've made that mistake before as well as many others. Good job hitting him when he didn't expect it.