Matrix Games Forums

Michael! Haven't talked in FOREVER! Must correct that ASAP. How 'bout I call tomorrow after church?

I'm off all day Sunday. Some of us have unused holiday time so I'm working only three days per week through the rest of the month. [;)]

...such a hard life one has...

Combat Report
June 6, 1942

Assets continue to flow up from Tulagi--Lunga to the Marshalls as we prepare to blast the American lodgement there.

North Pacific
Troops are now nearly all in position to take Dutch Harbor, Akutan, and Cold Bay. Right now we're only waiting for the 7th ID to arrive in Theatre.

This operation shall be similar to what Dan did (meaning a distraction), however, I am not leaving my troops to die on a hopeless mission nor will I simply scatter my ships KNOWING there shall be a counterstroke. YES: I am bitter over the BS of his Marshall's Landing. I shall go through the particulars of who is landing where on the next update.

Central Pacific
KB refuels and nails Makin and Tarawa with afternoon Kate strikes. With fuel they now move slightly NE making sure the seas are clear of Allied FLEEING SINGLE SHIP TF's (Very BITTER...).

During the night BB's Ise and Hyuga deliver a devastating bombardment to the troops on Tarawa. They inflict only 187 Casaulties but absolutely PLASTER the Port (goes from 0 to 97% Damage). This will serve to keep Fort building minimalized.

Bettys at Roi Namur shall begin AF attacks at both Makin and Tarawa tomorrow.

The 14th ID arrives at Nauru where it shall unload and then reload picking up more supplies for the Assault Landing at Tarawa. They shall be facing the 7th Marine Regiment and a TK Bn. YUMMY!

South Pacific
The troops shall enter Noumea tomorrow. Two ID and a Brigade are well into Luganville planning while another ID is planning a Makin Assault.

Australia
I took Cloncurry about a week ago by a TK Reg and it is now driving on Normanton. He just took Cloncurry back this turn. Want him somewhat distracted due to not having ANY useful troops up here other then two TK Reg and the 90th Inf Reg. Support Troops and an ID is on the way from China departing there in about a week.

The Force threatening Geraldton is nearly back to Carnavon where 50% of it shall be lifted and dropped off at Aussie Bases to garrison them. Will go through those specifics later.

Burma
Man Dan really missed the bus on re-taking Burma over the last month. He has buckets of troops in Regiment and Brigade strength in the jungle hexes along the Burma Border. He SHOULD have attacked. I have moved enough troops here to hold. Three ID will be departing China in a few days to provide some serious teeth to this region where I might try to hit several of these hexes to drive the troops back.

DEI
Imperial Guards is now fully unloaded at Port Blair. It will take a NUKE to take that base back.

Have ordered the (9th Air Fleet HQ, an Air Flotilla, and several Base Forces from China to Langsha, Padang, and Georgetown to provide serious air support for WHEN Dan comes this way. Plenty of Engineers are digging in along the western shore of Sumatra with a minimum of a Regiment/Brigade at each point.

China
Continuing to inflict serious losses on the Chinese. This turn saw victorious cleansings of hexes (83,52---79,56). The Japanese lose a 1,000 men and destroy over 5,000 Chinese. Troops moving in all directions shifting garrisons and getting things in order. Changteh is now on the target list as troops begin moving into the base hex.

Aircraft are pounding Kweilin and Changteh. AF's at both locations are 100% damaged. Hitting the troops there right now as well.

Naval Construction
Forgot to mention a little development: CV Hiyo, CVL Ryujo, CL Yahagi, and three modern DD joined the Fleet over the last week. They are all formed up, passing North Luzon, and heading to Oosthaven to join-up with Junyo and 3 CVE based there.

Single Ship TF - This is a gamey thing to do after the first month of the war, IMO. The AI will not launch air strikes against these targets. If they are formed as a result of combat by the AI, then its fine. But to do so knowing the AI will ignore them is another matter. I would ask Dan for a HR forbidding this. This would include picket TF, too.

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

Single Ship TF - This is a gamey thing to do after the first month of the war, IMO. The AI will not launch air strikes against these targets. If they are formed as a result of combat by the AI, then its fine. But to do so knowing the AI will ignore them is another matter. I would ask Dan for a HR forbidding this. This would include picket TF, too.

Bold part not true. See my AAR for evidence.

What obligation does either player have to place his own assets (emphasis on HIS OWN) in optimal structures to be destroyed? What CO would order his forces to form large, easily-attacked formations if he had the option not to? If the AI doesn't attack single-ship TFs as readily as multi-ship TFs, and I agree it does not although it sometimes does, how does that not reflect history as so many clamor for around here? Sending out one Kate with one Zero to get an xAK looks nice on a game map, but in real life you're risking losing two planes with pretty high certainty in a WWII AA environment. Merchants have AA. WWII air operations depended on mass attacks for penetration, much more so than today.

I invite interested readers to look up Allied convoy tactics when hit by wolfpacks in the Atlantic. Yep. Scatter! Single-ship targetting. Lose a few to save the whole. Force the enemy to multiple decisions on force allocation; buy time to evade and escape.

What CR ACTUALLY did I will not comment on as I am reading both sides right now.

ORIGINAL: FatR

What I observed regarding coordination in the current beta:

1)AI will try to attack as many target TFs as possible in each phase, with little regard to their actual value. I predict that using trash TFs as bait will become a staple of carrier battles under this model.

2)Otherwise coordination works as it did in carrier raids.

3)LBA bomber units very rarely coordinate with each other during naval strikes. LBA fighter escort units only attach to one bomber unit flying from the same base, most likely picked randomly, and will never split to provide escort to several raids, unless that unit fragments. More than one fighter unit might attach to one bomber unit, no matter how many other bomber units are present. This makes chances of penetrating strong CAP with an LBA raid very slim - unless you can provide sweeps/LRCAP to batter it down, you can only hope for attrition. I think that setting fighters airgroups on naval attack at high altitudes, to whittle down CAP and draw it up and away from usual torpedo/LowN raiders should be considered instead of escorting, if you try to attack a well-protected fleet at open seas.

It feels like LBA rarely coordinate Period. With a capitol "P". Maybe even exclamation marks should be added...
I experienced escort issues as you've noticed also. My current fix is to have an extra air group of fighters set to escort. It screws up my rotations when I stand down and air group but this procedure seems to be working.

My frustration is sweeps. It feels like I get a sweep before my bombing run about 70% of the time. If I'm doing rinse-and-repeat missions (all air groups do the same thing to the same target for multiple days) then there should be some kind of a bonus to coordination (in my humble opinion).

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

Single Ship TF - This is a gamey thing to do after the first month of the war, IMO. The AI will not launch air strikes against these targets. If they are formed as a result of combat by the AI, then its fine. But to do so knowing the AI will ignore them is another matter. I would ask Dan for a HR forbidding this. This would include picket TF, too.

Bold part not true. See my AAR for evidence.

What obligation does either player have to place his own assets (emphasis on HIS OWN) in optimal structures to be destroyed? What CO would order his forces to form large, easily-attacked formations if he had the option not to? If the AI doesn't attack single-ship TFs as readily as multi-ship TFs, and I agree it does not although it sometimes does, how does that not reflect history as so many clamor for around here? Sending out one Kate with one Zero to get an xAK looks nice on a game map, but in real life you're risking losing two planes with pretty high certainty in a WWII AA environment. Merchants have AA. WWII air operations depended on mass attacks for penetration, much more so than today.

I invite interested readers to look up Allied convoy tactics when hit by wolfpacks in the Atlantic. Yep. Scatter! Single-ship targetting. Lose a few to save the whole. Force the enemy to multiple decisions on force allocation; buy time to evade and escape.

What CR ACTUALLY did I will not comment on as I am reading both sides right now.

I will add that in my experience the game-engine certainly DOES target single ship TFs.

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

Single Ship TF - This is a gamey thing to do after the first month of the war, IMO. The AI will not launch air strikes against these targets. If they are formed as a result of combat by the AI, then its fine. But to do so knowing the AI will ignore them is another matter. I would ask Dan for a HR forbidding this. This would include picket TF, too.

I've had several single ship pickets hit. I know it's a frustrating tactic at times, but would TFs of two ships be much different in this case? I think what is frustrating John is more that he has then to spread attacks thus limiting the number of ships that could be hit before they were out of range. (If I am wrong please correct me John).

In my game with Torsten he sent single ships to the PI and they made it all of the way to Bataan to land supply. I thought this unplausible, but I didn't want a rule against it as it isn't really that different than having two ships in a TF, and I can see places where having one ship in a TF makes sense. Didn't some combat ships operate as single ships quite often in the early war? Certainly merchant raiders did.

This ongoing discussion is a tough one. It seems more driven by the low DL than the single ship TF, as once the ships to Bataan arrived there my recon lit them up and the Vals took them out easily.

ORIGINAL: obvert

I've had several single ship pickets hit. I know it's a frustrating tactic at times, but would TFs of two ships be much different in this case? I think what is frustrating John is more that he has then to spread attacks thus limiting the number of ships that could be hit before they were out of range. (If I am wrong please correct me John).

Japan, of course, always has the OPTION to split the KB into six separate 1-carrier TFs and go in multiple directions to close range on many fleeing TFs.

Oh, wait. They NEVER do that. Hmm . . .

ORIGINAL: obvert

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

Single Ship TF - This is a gamey thing to do after the first month of the war, IMO. The AI will not launch air strikes against these targets. If they are formed as a result of combat by the AI, then its fine. But to do so knowing the AI will ignore them is another matter. I would ask Dan for a HR forbidding this. This would include picket TF, too.

I've had several single ship pickets hit. I know it's a frustrating tactic at times, but would TFs of two ships be much different in this case? I think what is frustrating John is more that he has then to spread attacks thus limiting the number of ships that could be hit before they were out of range. (If I am wrong please correct me John).

In my game with Torsten he sent single ships to the PI and they made it all of the way to Bataan to land supply. I thought this unplausible, but I didn't want a rule against it as it isn't really that different than having two ships in a TF, and I can see places where having one ship in a TF makes sense. Didn't some combat ships operate as single ships quite often in the early war? Certainly merchant raiders did.

This ongoing discussion is a tough one. It seems more driven by the low DL than the single ship TF, as once the ships to Bataan arrived there my recon lit them up and the Vals took them out easily.

Detection Level is the key. The better the search, the better both the finding and the targeting.

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: obvert

I've had several single ship pickets hit. I know it's a frustrating tactic at times, but would TFs of two ships be much different in this case? I think what is frustrating John is more that he has then to spread attacks thus limiting the number of ships that could be hit before they were out of range. (If I am wrong please correct me John).

Japan, of course, always has the OPTION to split the KB into six separate 1-carrier TFs and go in multiple directions to close range on many fleeing TFs.

Oh, wait. They NEVER do that. Hmm . . .

This highlights exactly the strategic level of thinking in this case. Why risk those CVs going after transports when the damage is done, the troops are onshore.

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

Single Ship TF - This is a gamey thing to do after the first month of the war, IMO. The AI will not launch air strikes against these targets. If they are formed as a result of combat by the AI, then its fine. But to do so knowing the AI will ignore them is another matter. I would ask Dan for a HR forbidding this. This would include picket TF, too.

Bold part not true. See my AAR for evidence.

What obligation does either player have to place his own assets (emphasis on HIS OWN) in optimal structures to be destroyed? What CO would order his forces to form large, easily-attacked formations if he had the option not to? If the AI doesn't attack single-ship TFs as readily as multi-ship TFs, and I agree it does not although it sometimes does, how does that not reflect history as so many clamor for around here? Sending out one Kate with one Zero to get an xAK looks nice on a game map, but in real life you're risking losing two planes with pretty high certainty in a WWII AA environment. Merchants have AA. WWII air operations depended on mass attacks for penetration, much more so than today.

I invite interested readers to look up Allied convoy tactics when hit by wolfpacks in the Atlantic. Yep. Scatter! Single-ship targetting. Lose a few to save the whole. Force the enemy to multiple decisions on force allocation; buy time to evade and escape.

What CR ACTUALLY did I will not comment on as I am reading both sides right now.

I totally agree. I have had single ship TFs hit. I also use single ship TFs to try to avoid too much carnage, but I do try and not put them at high risk, but in war stuff happens.

ORIGINAL: obvert

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: obvert

I've had several single ship pickets hit. I know it's a frustrating tactic at times, but would TFs of two ships be much different in this case? I think what is frustrating John is more that he has then to spread attacks thus limiting the number of ships that could be hit before they were out of range. (If I am wrong please correct me John).

Japan, of course, always has the OPTION to split the KB into six separate 1-carrier TFs and go in multiple directions to close range on many fleeing TFs.

Oh, wait. They NEVER do that. Hmm . . .

This highlights exactly the strategic level of thinking in this case. Why risk those CVs going after transports when the damage is done, the troops are onshore.

Well, that's not exaclty the point I was making, but it's associated.

To make my point a different way, why don't we see the Japanese split the KB up into six 1-CV TFs BEFORE the landings happen? Six chances to spread out the search on six axes of approach and six chances for the code to generate a response before the troops are ashore. Six TFs for the Allies to target if they have carriers along, perhaps "wasting" a lot of their air wings in over-commitment of assets. But JFBs don't do that, even though they could. Why not? Because it's not an optimal force structure for their particular problem. Concentrated defense results in more than the sum of the parts. The risks between gain and loss aren't equal. Japan players have a right to do that of course; those are their ships. So I persoanlly find it rude when Japanese players claim they have some right to reach into the Allied OOB and demand a certain force structure just because it makes their lives easier.

Want to sink more Allied ships? Take more risks. The game allows it.

ORIGINAL: obvert

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: obvert

I've had several single ship pickets hit. I know it's a frustrating tactic at times, but would TFs of two ships be much different in this case? I think what is frustrating John is more that he has then to spread attacks thus limiting the number of ships that could be hit before they were out of range. (If I am wrong please correct me John).

Japan, of course, always has the OPTION to split the KB into six separate 1-carrier TFs and go in multiple directions to close range on many fleeing TFs.

Oh, wait. They NEVER do that. Hmm . . .

This highlights exactly the strategic level of thinking in this case. Why risk those CVs going after transports when the damage is done, the troops are onshore.

Plus the solution to the enemy breaking up into small TF's is quite straightforward .. SAG's with a reaction level set to '6' .. Inadvertently I ran into an invasion TF that scattered ..My multiple Clevland class SAG's followed the little one ship TF's quite nicely bouncing from one TF to the next .. reacting further and further .. [8D] The soluiton is not to use CV's but to use small SAG's ...

Both of these 'solutions' invite risk and bring in the strategic problem; Japan can't make-up losses of fleet assets easily (or at all in some cases, like the CAs), therefore might be best off using them for strategic goals primarily.

So I persoanlly find it rude when Japanese players claim they have some right to reach into the Allied OOB and demand a certain force structure just because it makes their lives easier.

Want to sink more Allied ships? Take more risks. The game allows it.

I agree. Also, there will be a time later (or soon even) in game when the Japanese player may have good reason to use a similar strategy.

I think the problem I have with this is the sheer planning to stage a snatch-and-grab KNOWING where the Fleet is and THEN running away--abandoning the troops--in 20-30 TF. If you are going to take the risk then TAKE THE RISK! Those troops, whether intentionally or not, have been sent on a suicide mission. The shipping? Well it boils me to see the scatter technique used in this manner. YES: Convoys did scatter with horrific results usually occurring afterwards. Concur with Michael about it being gamey after the 1st month or so...

ORIGINAL: obvert

Both of these 'solutions' invite risk and bring in the strategic problem; Japan can't make-up losses of fleet assets easily (or at all in some cases, like the CAs), therefore might be best off using them for strategic goals primarily.

I agree, but that sidesteps the original issue about single-ship TFs. The point is there are solutions other than HRs which handcuff good tactics. Two mentioned, and there are others depending on location, era, and OOB remaining. Mines, subs, shuttled LBA, etc. Too many players, when they can't figure out how to play better, shout for HRs.

As for making up ships, the Alies get what they get, they get all they get, no more, no less. Japan knows this. The Allied player does not know what Japan will get within bands. The planning task for Japan is far easier. Asymmetric to be sure, but an easier planning job. OTOH, Japan doesn't have to win to win. Just survive.

So I persoanlly find it rude when Japanese players claim they have some right to reach into the Allied OOB and demand a certain force structure just because it makes their lives easier.

Want to sink more Allied ships? Take more risks. The game allows it.

I agree. Also, there will be a time later (or soon even) in game when the Japanese player may have good reason to use a similar strategy.

Absolutley. If I were fuel-limited I'd be humming, looking at the sky, and walking away whenever someone proposed banning single-ship TFs.

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

I think the problem I have with this is the sheer planning to stage a snatch-and-grab KNOWING where the Fleet is and THEN running away--abandoning the troops--in 20-30 TF. If you are going to take the risk then TAKE THE RISK! Those troops, whether intentionally or not, have been sent on a suicide mission. The shipping? Well it boils me to see the scatter technique used in this manner. YES: Convoys did scatter with horrific results usually occurring afterwards. Concur with Michael about it being gamey after the 1st month or so...

I don't like it when people come into my AAR and get snarky, so I won't. I'll just suggest that CR, who is an honorable man and does not cheat, only knows what you give him. If he knew the location of the KB (did he?) it was because you let him know. I'll also suggest that the troops are his, the ships are his. High-risk operations were undertaken many times in WWII, by both sides. I'd ask you for cases where convoy scattering was "horrific", or at least more than would have been the case if the ships had stayed in column so U-boat ladder-combing torpedoes could do multiple re-attacks.

This highlights exactly the strategic level of thinking in this case. Why risk those CVs going after transports when the damage is done, the troops are onshore.

This point seems to keep getting lost...are those empty, retiring allied merchant ships really worth sending the KB after? If not then what should the KB be doing?

ORIGINAL: desicat

This highlights exactly the strategic level of thinking in this case. Why risk those CVs going after transports when the damage is done, the troops are onshore.

This point seems to keep getting lost...are those empty, retiring allied merchant ships really worth sending the KB after? If not then what should the KB be doing?

That's a different question than whether the KB should have to go after twenty one-ship, or one 20-ship, or ten 2-ship TFs. John is demanding a universal solution of banning single-ship TFs. That is a completely different issue than the one you raise. Yours is interesting as well, but it's not the same.