Early war strategy for Allies

[Andy Mac]

One tip I would give you have a lot of throwaway ships (short range AMc's) etc at start - resist the temptation to use them to soak up Japanese fire - do not give Japanese surface ships more XP

[mike scholl 1]

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

In Malaya, if your playing a non-historical 1st turn, then you may be in trouble if your opponent has learned to conduct the Mersing Gambit successfully. I did so as Japan and took Singapore on 31 Dec 41.

The reality is that "the Mersing Gambit" is a flat out cheat! The Japanese forces that were diverted to land at Khoto Baru had a "cover story" because they could also be seen as heading for Singora in Thailand. To land at Mersing they would have had to give up any pretense by sailing down the Malayan coast for a day. A virtual "Declaration of War". Using the game's mechanics to do something historically unfeasible is just cheating...

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

One tip I would give you have a lot of throwaway ships (short range AMc's) etc at start - resist the temptation to use them to soak up Japanese fire - do not give Japanese surface ships more XP

I second this and I can't tell you how important the xAKL and x APL ship types are. The tendency is to throw these away as well, but the Allies don't build any more small ships and they are very useful right until the end.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: witpqs


That issue was addressed in a patch some time ago. I have only had one sub, damaged at that, run out of fuel on the way home in a long time.

Me too. It was one of the Dutch short-legs.

I usually run out of fish before fuel.

I don't know, but is it the case that early in the war, if the home base is taken, that the code doesn't re-check every turn to see if there is a new one in range? Manila falling is the best example.

Regardless, I don't have this problem. It is possible to design a patrol zone so far away from PH that it starts out "redded out." I believe the code will allow you to send the boat out on this if you insist. I don't know if it aborts when it should, or if it tries to complete one circuit of the patrol waypoints first. That might be the source of the OP's trouble.

Good point. When you change the home base of a sub at sea that has a Patrol defined, remember to clear the Destination (can be done with a button click on the patrol/routing screen if you like). If the sub on patrol still has the old port as destination then it might use that for fuel calculations and get messed up. I don't know that it does, but that sounds feasible.

[Mac Linehan]

Original:

Furthermore, let me suggest that a dozen subs is more than adequate to flood a combat zone and meaninfully interdict any single set of empire amphibious actions if you are in a protracted combat in one general location...say in mid 42. You can use your reinforcements for that effort.

Otherwise, get every available sub into either choke points or delivery / pickup zones and keep them there until exhausted, out of ammo, or severely damaged. You need to spend time on this part of the war each day and you have to plan about 7-14 days in advance. It is perhaps easyiest to allocate a number of subs to be in certain patrol areas and track the number of kills by area, resetting allocations periodically based on success and damage. To extend your effective patrol times is to mulitply your force effectiveness. With that in mind...Bases in the western Aleuts are very good sub bases against the HI if nothing else is near. Once you have the Marshalls or NG, these are great locations too, along with western Oz and any base near the western DEI

topeverest -

When positioning subs at choke points or designated sea zones, are you using Remain on Station, Patrol Zones - or a combination of both? I suspect you use overlapping or tight knit patrol zones.

Am putting your suggestions to good use. Thanks for the advice; all is appreciated.

I's after midnight, hope I am not missing something obvious.

Mac

[Mac Linehan]

ORIGINAL: crsutton

ORIGINAL: topeverest

Mac,

The sub war is best started immediately. Your challenge is to decide if you are going to use the bulk of them in fleet or merchant roles. Without being too specific, imho, lets say the allies have about 60 subs, all but a handful of which are deployable in the first days of the war. IMHO, The goal is to sink tonnage not disrupt invasions.

The Empire has to regulaly pull booty by sea in many places. As you reduce her capacity to move this, you are winning the war. Not pretty or sexy like CV or BB combat, but of paramount importance. Some areas are more important than others. IME, deploying every available sub at the beginning towards merhants will reap rewards through lower stockpiling and asset diversion. To simplify, there are two basic strategies you can deploy to - at the pickup and drop off locations or at the choke points. Furthermore, the longer the deployment path the more chance your short range subs cannot deploy once Manila is gone (which is a good reason to hold onto a major port as long as possible.) The best choke points might be Yellow and east china seas near the southern HI ports, in and around Formosa, Near Ominato, makassar straight / celebes sea, near singapore. This is not to say other areas might not be important in any particular game.

The empire can and probably will deploy air and ship based asw assets to effectively close down at least one of these patrol zones, and smart players will vary their convoy paths as their losses mount in any one area. If you are playing against an enemy who uses the auto convoy system, you are likely to be more successful, since AC tends to use most direct paths unless otherwise ordered.

Furthermore, let me suggest that a dozen subs is more than adequate to flood a combat zone and meaninfully interdict any single set of empire amphibious actions if you are in a protracted combat in one general location...say in mid 42. You can use your reinforcements for that effort.

Otherwise, get every available sub into either choke points or delivery / pickup zones and keep them there until exhausted, out of ammo, or severely damaged. You need to spend time on this part of the war each day and you have to plan about 7-14 days in advance. It is perhaps easyiest to allocate a number of subs to be in certain patrol areas and track the number of kills by area, resetting allocations periodically based on success and damage. To extend your effective patrol times is to mulitply your force effectiveness. With that in mind...Bases in the western Aleuts are very good sub bases against the HI if nothing else is near. Once you have the Marshalls or NG, these are great locations too, along with western Oz and any base near the western DEI

lastly, do the upgrades, I maybe seeing things, but the radars seem to work wonders in the engagement rate.

By the end of 42 you will have approx 150 subs in your arsenal. That is enough to rip the heart out of the enemy's booty haul in 43, especially if you have a few forward bases to deploy from. Even if you can't advance on the surface, the subs will constrict the enemy economy so badly by mid 43 that you will have the war won before you realize it. remember, each 10% reduction in empire trasnport capacity is a corresponding (but delayed) reduction in their ability to make war and bring on new naval & air assets. Each naval and air asset you prevent from being built is one you never have to fight!!

Without betraying those who dont want to know...Ask yourself these questions to help you along. About how many empire total merhcant assets are available each year with what capacity? How many of those assets must be operating (what capcity) to fully employ the economy and from where do they run to/from? Therefore, how many ships do you need to sink to affect how much of the economy? How many subs do you need to deploy and how many sinkings per sub deployed do you need to get the effect you want by the date you want? track this and...well...there you go.

Its a very straightforward curve...for those who have decided to calculate it.


-----------

Dare I leave it there, I want to add but not talk about the fact that you want to integrate a surface raiding policy along with this.

Anyway, I hope this helps.

This will only work vs a very mediocre player. Competent Japanese play will make the Allies subs ineffective. They can and will sink ships but not in numbers to have a serious impact on the Japanese merchant force. I like to think that I am pretty good at the sub game but my opponent is pretty good too and has effectively neutered my Allied subs.

Also -

FatR

I'm closer to crsutton in my estimate of Allied sub effectiveness. When playing Allies, I paid a lot of attention to my subs, replacing inept commanders everywhere, building up Midway specifically for sub operations and so on. But after loss of DEI and Northern Australia (as effective bases), my results plummeted anyway, even though, AFAIK, my opponent trained his air ASW assets wrong in his game. There were two big issues (besides faulty torps):

1)Low time on patrol even when operating from Midway (and major damage often forced subs to return to Pearl). Subs spent more time enroute to patrol zones.

2)All obvious chokepoints will be choked by air patrols and ASW taskforces against a competent player, particularly when sub patrol zones are restricted by the factor #1. Even though auxilary subchasers and patrol boats have practically no hopes of sinking a USN sub in deep water, they can keep subs down and draw attacks to themselves, instead of convoys. By autumn of 1942, my subs were sinking more of these otherwise worthless pests than anything else. And with subs typically scoring single hits against them (due to launching torpedoes in pairs) and 80% dud rate, they weren't sinking many.

The key to a successful sub campaign seems to be keeping/obtaining forward bases before 1943, so by the time your torpedoes partially heal, you can ensure sufficient variety of patrol zones. Just camping approaches to Home Island doesn't work too well.



crsutton, FatR -

Your points are well taken. Much of the success of a particular tactic or strategy depends on the viewpoint and experience level of the player involved. I do value the advice given to me earlier; as it gives me - the newbie - a starting point from which to launch. Experience and my (much more experienced) opponent will teach the method that works best for my style of play.

Always appreciate the comments and differing view points from other players; this forum is one of the factors that helps to make AE not only doable, but enhances and speeds the learning curve.

Good Evening, Gents -

Till tomorrow.

Mac

[GaryChildress]

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

In Malaya, if your playing a non-historical 1st turn, then you may be in trouble if your opponent has learned to conduct the Mersing Gambit successfully. I did so as Japan and took Singapore on 31 Dec 41.

The reality is that "the Mersing Gambit" is a flat out cheat! The Japanese forces that were diverted to land at Khoto Baru had a "cover story" because they could also be seen as heading for Singora in Thailand. To land at Mersing they would have had to give up any pretense by sailing down the Malayan coast for a day. A virtual "Declaration of War". Using the game's mechanics to do something historically unfeasible is just cheating...

A good point. However, would a "Mersing Gambit" be feasible, say on the 2nd or third day of the war?

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

In Malaya, if your playing a non-historical 1st turn, then you may be in trouble if your opponent has learned to conduct the Mersing Gambit successfully. I did so as Japan and took Singapore on 31 Dec 41.

The reality is that "the Mersing Gambit" is a flat out cheat! The Japanese forces that were diverted to land at Khoto Baru had a "cover story" because they could also be seen as heading for Singora in Thailand. To land at Mersing they would have had to give up any pretense by sailing down the Malayan coast for a day. A virtual "Declaration of War". Using the game's mechanics to do something historically unfeasible is just cheating...

I don't really disagree with Mike on this, but I'm not nearly so vehement.

Two reasons:

One, it doesn't really make that much difference in the game outcome. Yes, you lose Singers earlier. But with the new ability to re-build units after 60 days, I'm not that mussed about it. You're going to lose it anyway. I never consider it a MLR.

Two, to say it could never have happened is to say PH and Midway could never have happened. There is "friction" in war. Even if seen, could the Brits have gotten permission to do anything about it in time anyway? Maybe. Is it guaranteed they would be seen. Sorry, there are no such guarantess in life.

Again, I have already stated that I largely agree with Mike. But I don't have an HR against it, and if my opponent used it I would be fine.

Of course, I play mostly as IJ, so .... [8D]


Two, while I agree with Mike it would likely

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

In Malaya, if your playing a non-historical 1st turn, then you may be in trouble if your opponent has learned to conduct the Mersing Gambit successfully. I did so as Japan and took Singapore on 31 Dec 41.

The reality is that "the Mersing Gambit" is a flat out cheat! The Japanese forces that were diverted to land at Khoto Baru had a "cover story" because they could also be seen as heading for Singora in Thailand. To land at Mersing they would have had to give up any pretense by sailing down the Malayan coast for a day. A virtual "Declaration of War". Using the game's mechanics to do something historically unfeasible is just cheating...

A good point. However, would a "Mersing Gambit" be feasible, say on the 2nd or third day of the war?

Gary,

Anything is feasible, but even losing one day on the Mersing move is a lot. If the IJ goes this way, he is attempting to seal off Singers from reinforcement from the North. This allows him to defeat those units peicemeal, and Singers is that much weaker.

I've "sand tabled" the Mersing move several times, and for me the gamble is not worth it. Get the wrong rolls and you can lose some ships and units that can really throw a wrench into the IJ timetable.

Remember, IJ is on a tight schedule. Interfere with that, and the IJ player can lose a lot of momentum that is tough to regain. The IJ MUST take chances, there isn't any other way to victory. But you have to carefully manage those risks. Look at PzB's AAR. He is simply a master at it. I wish I was half as good. Them maybe the AI wouldn't be kickin' my butt all the time. [:D]

[topeverest]

I am fresh off defending Mersing on Turn 1 agasint a skilled opponent. I agree you certainly can lose it by dec 31; however, in my case, my opponent only accelerated the loss of Zingers by about 2 weeks (Feb 5) - at the cost of plenty of merchants and a few smaller warships. I had some luck, and I did my best to hold as long as possible with the existing Malaya force while also denying Sumatra and Java.

I also agree that T1 mersing, while just as impossible to pull off as Pearl Harbor, could have happened in that theoretical AE universe. It is not unreasonable at all compared to many of the waht-ifs we take for granted in the game. I'll say this...it certainly takes away one of the allied crutches! As a usual allied player, I can understand the desire to hold Zingers, it is an easy, and typcially effective perimiter anchor defense point against many potential empire strategies when properly enforced and played. The time bought there can be vital later in the empire expansion phase. But, it will fall. It always falls. The more agile empire dedicated players are armed and ready to counter everything you can throw at them nar the start in the DEI. It is an allied question of assets lost and time gained.

[Blackhorse]

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

In Malaya, if your playing a non-historical 1st turn, then you may be in trouble if your opponent has learned to conduct the Mersing Gambit successfully. I did so as Japan and took Singapore on 31 Dec 41.

The reality is that "the Mersing Gambit" is a flat out cheat! The Japanese forces that were diverted to land at Khoto Baru had a "cover story" because they could also be seen as heading for Singora in Thailand. To land at Mersing they would have had to give up any pretense by sailing down the Malayan coast for a day. A virtual "Declaration of War". Using the game's mechanics to do something historically unfeasible is just cheating...

I don't really disagree with Mike on this, but I'm not nearly so vehement.

Two reasons:

One, it doesn't really make that much difference in the game outcome. Yes, you lose Singers earlier. But with the new ability to re-build units after 60 days, I'm not that mussed about it. You're going to lose it anyway. I never consider it a MLR.

Two, to say it could never have happened is to say PH and Midway could never have happened. There is "friction" in war. Even if seen, could the Brits have gotten permission to do anything about it in time anyway? Maybe. Is it guaranteed they would be seen. Sorry, there are no such guarantess in life.

Again, I have already stated that I largely agree with Mike. But I don't have an HR against it, and if my opponent used it I would be fine.

Of course, I play mostly as IJ, so .... [8D]


Two, while I agree with Mike it would likely

A Japanese fleet sailing south towards Mersing in commercially well-travelled waters would have been seen. Heck, the Japanese fleets in the Gulf of Siam were being intermittently tracked by patrol aircraft, one of which was shot down on the 5th or the 6th, IIRC.

There is a legitimate way to imitate a Day 1 Mersing Gambit in AE: Turn surprise off, and allow the Allied player to give orders to all his forces (or all his Commonwealth and Dutch forces) on the first turn. The Japanese can still load up on capital ships and shoot their way into Mersing, but the trade-off is the loss of the element of surprise.

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: topeverest

... I also agree that T1 mersing, while just as impossible to pull off as Pearl Harbor, could have happened in that theoretical AE universe. It is not unreasonable at all compared to many of the waht-ifs we take for granted in the game...

Some of us recognise the "what ifs" for the sheer fantasy land many of them are. We just don't make a big issue because we're not forced to play them or understand that AE is fundamentally a game, not a class room simulator. I am however often amused at the sheer mental gymnastics and lack of historical political and economic understanding often displayed by advocates in attempting to justfy that their "what if" really, really, really..... could have happened with only the most minor and achievable of changes.

Blackhorse is quite correct. Not too many proponents of "what ifs" are willing to forego the other historical advantages which only exist if the exact historical path is replicated.

Alfred

[topeverest]

Agreed Alfred, we play in fantasy land called AE - a good fantasy, but still a fantasy.

Purly in game terms some Allied players might be upset because on average Mersing T1 gambit will reduce the allied hold on Singapore and accelerate empire actions in the area. You might be in the camp that no more empire advantages are needed or that histoical justification is pretty darn thin.

Or you could be entirely OK with it...

This is a game with many what if options that players can choose from, and I like that flexibility.

I am pretty sure that if you have a defined opinion / style, you probably wont be swayed by others' arguments.

[Sardaukar]

Using "Mersing Gambit", IJ player can potentially take Singapore lot earlier. This will free lot of IJA forces to be used in DEI and Burma, potentially making those also fall quicker than was historical. So it's be bit foolish Allied PBEM player who'd agree to such "what-if-scenario" without having something to compensate him. And even ability to give orders to CW and DEI forces on Turn 1 is not going to be enough to compansate potential early fall of Singapore.

[Lanconic]

It depends on what kind of player you are:

Pugnacious? Then fight. I have played BOTH ways.
By 1943 I would say there is little difference except that the old CV will show up as New Essex
maybe if your lucky, some CA also.

The truth is that it is VERY easy for the Japs to over-stretch. Even the most cautious player does it.

Who cares if your fighting over Akyab or Dacca?

The point is that the Jap player will take MORE losses the more he expands.
You cant avoid it.

After losing 33% of the Imperial fleet, he pretty much is relegated to simply reacting.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Lanconic

It depends on what kind of player you are:

Pugnacious? Then fight. I have played BOTH ways.
By 1943 I would say there is little difference except that the old CV will show up as New Essex
maybe if your lucky, some CA also.

The truth is that it is VERY easy for the Japs to over-stretch. Even the most cautious player does it.

Who cares if your fighting over Akyab or Dacca?

The point is that the Jap player will take MORE losses the more he expands.
You cant avoid it.

After losing 33% of the Imperial fleet, he pretty much is relegated to simply reacting.

Not in AE.

[Lanconic]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: Lanconic

It depends on what kind of player you are:

Pugnacious? Then fight. I have played BOTH ways.
By 1943 I would say there is little difference except that the old CV will show up as New Essex
maybe if your lucky, some CA also.

The truth is that it is VERY easy for the Japs to over-stretch. Even the most cautious player does it.

Who cares if your fighting over Akyab or Dacca?

The point is that the Jap player will take MORE losses the more he expands.
You cant avoid it.

After losing 33% of the Imperial fleet, he pretty much is relegated to simply reacting.

Not in AE.

I am holding the printed manual:
Page 255

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Lanconic

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: Lanconic

It depends on what kind of player you are:

Pugnacious? Then fight. I have played BOTH ways.
By 1943 I would say there is little difference except that the old CV will show up as New Essex
maybe if your lucky, some CA also.

The truth is that it is VERY easy for the Japs to over-stretch. Even the most cautious player does it.

Who cares if your fighting over Akyab or Dacca?

The point is that the Jap player will take MORE losses the more he expands.
You cant avoid it.

After losing 33% of the Imperial fleet, he pretty much is relegated to simply reacting.

Not in AE.

I am holding the printed manual:
Page 255

Which states:

Replacement ships are generated if the option is selected for the scenario...

And the stock scenarios do not have that option enabled. You can mod it in if you wish.

[Smeulders]

ORIGINAL: Lanconic

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: Lanconic

It depends on what kind of player you are:

Pugnacious? Then fight. I have played BOTH ways.
By 1943 I would say there is little difference except that the old CV will show up as New Essex
maybe if your lucky, some CA also.

The truth is that it is VERY easy for the Japs to over-stretch. Even the most cautious player does it.

Who cares if your fighting over Akyab or Dacca?

The point is that the Jap player will take MORE losses the more he expands.
You cant avoid it.

After losing 33% of the Imperial fleet, he pretty much is relegated to simply reacting.

Not in AE.

I am holding the printed manual:
Page 255

The manual is not gospel truth, it was not always properly updated during the development of the game, so there are inaccuracies and ommisions.

[topeverest]

IIRC, Sc 1 the allies get the 6 intial CV's and the four that were sunk as essex classes. Without respawn on, I dont think the other two will be replaced.