Matrix Games Forums

Dec 11, 1941 -- the Chinese come rolling out of the hills thick and hungry like fleas on a dog's blanket.

Ground combat at Ichang (83,48)
Allied Shock attack

Attacking force 52200 troops, 349 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 1693
Defending force 12245 troops, 104 guns, 42 vehicles, Assault Value = 431

Allied adjusted assault: 1154
Japanese adjusted defense: 208

Allied assault odds: 5 to 1 (fort level 3)

Allied forces CAPTURE Ichang !!!
********************************

34th Inf Div thrown out of Ichang behind level 3 forts.

I will say this with the foreknowledge of Dec 18th game play completed, my opponent is aggressive. Once I get above the fog of 'getting started' I hope to pick up clues and make him pay for that, but until then (and for the next few turns) my poor digital warriors will be paying the butcher's bill due to my inexperience.

I pull the 34th back all the way to Hankow to rebuild, gather some more troops and then some day in the near future, we will revisit Ichang.

Some better new for the Empire
Kudat is occupied by the Japanese
Japanese forces CAPTURE Miri !!!
Japanese forces CAPTURE Nauru Island !!!

Not much to cheer about yet.

In fact the battles around Davao start this turn and very few of them turn out very good for the Red Team.

Regarding the Pensacola "incident" I have a naive question as a new player: why is a 1-ship TF considered a gamey tactic? Historically there are plenty of examples of convoy raiders of just this sort. I understand that whatever rules you two have agreed upon should be followed, but what is the rationale for this particular rule?

Ichang is hard to keep safe early on without sending armor units there.

Japanese bombers are very susceptible to CAP Traps. If you are within range you can add some LR CAP.

Sweeps and bombing runs can come at different times...you will like that later in the game when 30 4es come in before the Thunderbolt sweep.[:)]

Your Betty and Nell pilots are really good, try to take pains to keep them safe early on. In fact that is true for a lot of your pilots.

ORIGINAL: jwolf

Regarding the Pensacola "incident" I have a naive question as a new player: why is a 1-ship TF considered a gamey tactic? Historically there are plenty of examples of convoy raiders of just this sort. I understand that whatever rules you two have agreed upon should be followed, but what is the rationale for this particular rule?

There has been a lot of discussions and many threads about the reduced detection levels, air units not launching on them and the abusive use of one ship task forces to absorb ops and weapons of an enemy task force which then suffers the counter-blow of an undamaged surface fleet.

I personally don't recall any incident when a heavy cruiser, by itself, went steaming into an invasion site alone, but there probably is one or two somewhere.

Instead of making some formula rule about port size/task force/etc -- I thought the simple rule about Offensive Tasks Force 3+ ships would be easiest to remember.

As a general comment about HRs:
Some much more experienced players state right up front -- little or no House Rules.
That is much more honorable than accepting and then ignoring them.

If you don't like a rule proposal, it would be best to argue alternative versions or argue against it entirely.

Future concerns:
This would be a much worse infraction in this game. I am working hard to follow the rules set on fuel/oil only shipped in AO/TKs. It requires a lot of trust that the opponent is doing the same. If I get 5 or more fuel explosions coming from torpedoing xAK, xAKLs, that do not have internal fuel bunkers, then I would be highly concerned my opponent was not following this important rule. After all the work on my side to try and follow this restriction, such an event would break the trust I have in continuing the game. It would not be 'fun' anymore. There would be no apology or penalty that could rectify that.

Your House Rules are yours to choose....I don't get the rationale for this one at all however!! The only concerns I have read about 1 ship TFs were in conjunction with odd-ball picket activities by boats versus ships. This instance doesn't fit within that complaint.

Soldier on!

Moving forward, looking on the positive - I have been taught some good lessons so far which will help me in future games.

ORIGINAL: Lowpe
Japanese bombers are very susceptible to CAP Traps. If you are within range you can add some LR CAP.
...
Your Betty and Nell pilots are really good, try to take pains to keep them safe early on. In fact that is true for a lot of your pilots.

The Betty/Nell loses have been steep so far:
in the not too distant future there have been 61 Betty's, 45 Zeros, 27 Nells, 16 Kates, 11 Vals lost to various forms of damage - most to air/flak, some ops.

Noob Question:
Information Screen: Leading Pilots - it only shows 1 WIA and 2 MIAs, but there have been many more loses than that.

Where exactly do I find that information?

ORIGINAL: pontiouspilot

Your House Rules are yours to choose....I don't get the rationale for this one at all however!! The only concerns I have read about 1 ship TFs were in conjunction with odd-ball picket activities by boats versus ships. This instance doesn't fit within that complaint.

Soldier on!

I do appreciate the time you took to comment. You could have just said - heck with you (or something worse).

Please keep reading. Maybe you will influence or change my opinion of this particular rule over time. I try to be open minded, but that doesn't mean I am weak minded. [:D]

Here too I don't see the need for that HR. In places people have commented about the tactic of making a bunch of 1 ship TF to eat up the ops points of opposing TF, but that is different. Sending in a 1 ship TF on offense is not gamey. The reduced DL is IMO accurate. Single ship TF do get targeted, but (realistically IMO) are less likely to be seen, targeted, and intercepted (intercepted meaning the air strike finds them).

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Here too I don't see the need for that HR. In places people have commented about the tactic of making a bunch of 1 ship TF to eat up the ops points of opposing TF, but that is different. Sending in a 1 ship TF on offense is not gamey. The reduced DL is IMO accurate. Single ship TF do get targeted, but (realistically IMO) are less likely to be seen, targeted, and intercepted (intercepted meaning the air strike finds them).

Thanks for the comment. I do appreciate the feedback. There is still much for me to learn and taking an absolute attitude about every little thing can only lead to disagreements.

ORIGINAL: DanSez

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Here too I don't see the need for that HR. In places people have commented about the tactic of making a bunch of 1 ship TF to eat up the ops points of opposing TF, but that is different. Sending in a 1 ship TF on offense is not gamey. The reduced DL is IMO accurate. Single ship TF do get targeted, but (realistically IMO) are less likely to be seen, targeted, and intercepted (intercepted meaning the air strike finds them).

Thanks for the comment. I do appreciate the feedback. There is still much for me to learn and taking an absolute attitude about every little thing can only lead to disagreements.

As someone else noted, your HRs are for you and your opponent. The comments we make are just as you describe them - feedback. Don't let that screw up a game with your opponent!

Your HRs your game

Seems to really hamstring the allies early on though, as sometimes they are lucky to have three combat ships in one ocean.

ORIGINAL: DanSez

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Here too I don't see the need for that HR. In places people have commented about the tactic of making a bunch of 1 ship TF to eat up the ops points of opposing TF, but that is different. Sending in a 1 ship TF on offense is not gamey. The reduced DL is IMO accurate. Single ship TF do get targeted, but (realistically IMO) are less likely to be seen, targeted, and intercepted (intercepted meaning the air strike finds them).

Thanks for the comment. I do appreciate the feedback. There is still much for me to learn and taking an absolute attitude about every little thing can only lead to disagreements.

My two-cents; you can play any way you like. But this HR can ultimately cause really bad things to happen.

There is no such thing in the game as an "offensive surface TF." It's a surface TF or it isn't. If an enemy comes in range and the TF clears all the checks it shoots. So if you have a minimum number of ships that means you have to have that minimum for EVERY single surface TF you create, even for simple transits, runs back to a yard for upgrades, repairs, refuel/re-ammo, etc. There's no way to say "this is a simple transit TF."

So what happens if you have an injured BB in a forward port and only one escort for her? She has to sit there waiting to be re-attacked while you rustle up a third ship? What if there's no fuel for that? Or dozens of other things that could constrain your ability to get three-at-once? This can become very serious for Japan in the back half of the game. A lot of ships are going to be stranded at islands waiting for the second or third to get there, and those ships are going to be sunk.

I also agree with others who have said the 1-ship HR has never, to my knowledge, been applied to combat ships that can fight. It has been used to stop merchant picket ships used as ammo sponges only. I don't play with that HR; I think each player has the right to control his own assets. But yours will have unintended consequences as the war progresses that far exceed any benefit IMO.

I love using the Tone on deep, long raids. Of course, she is at great risk...from subs and planes and surface groups, but it sure is fun to pull off a deep raid and getaway!

I have used the Boise the same way as the Allies.

Now, in Downfall as the Allies, I have ships out the kazoo...and no need for single ship task forces where 10 fletchers will do just about anything that needs doing.[:D] But as Japan in Downfall...I could see sending out a lone CA on a deep, deep raid. Anything at that point to disrupt the Allied juggernaut.

ORIGINAL: witpqs
As someone else noted, your HRs are for you and your opponent. The comments we make are just as you describe them - feedback. Don't let that screw up a game with your opponent!

Well, I don't need much help screwing up at this point as I am pretty far down the learning curve. I keep letting my small invasion task forces run ahead of any cover.
More on that later -
thanks

ORIGINAL: Encircled

Your HRs your game

Seems to really hamstring the allies early on though, as sometimes they are lucky to have three combat ships in one ocean.

The intent wasn't to limit movement between friendly bases, but to limit the suicidal single ship task forces used to eat up other task force ops.

There are probably better ways to address it.
Welcome and thanks for your comment.

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
My two-cents; you can play any way you like. But this HR can ultimately cause really bad things to happen.

There is no such thing in the game as an "offensive surface TF." It's a surface TF or it isn't. If an enemy comes in range and the TF clears all the checks it shoots. So if you have a minimum number of ships that means you have to have that minimum for EVERY single surface TF you create, even for simple transits, runs back to a yard for upgrades, repairs, refuel/re-ammo, etc. There's no way to say "this is a simple transit TF."

So what happens if you have an injured BB in a forward port and only one escort for her? She has to sit there waiting to be re-attacked while you rustle up a third ship? What if there's no fuel for that? Or dozens of other things that could constrain your ability to get three-at-once? This can become very serious for Japan in the back half of the game. A lot of ships are going to be stranded at islands waiting for the second or third to get there, and those ships are going to be sunk.

I also agree with others who have said the 1-ship HR has never, to my knowledge, been applied to combat ships that can fight. It has been used to stop merchant picket ships used as ammo sponges only. I don't play with that HR; I think each player has the right to control his own assets. But yours will have unintended consequences as the war progresses that far exceed any benefit IMO.

Task Forces going to a friendly port would not impacted by the rule.

I initiated further discussion with the Allied Commander and have reached an understanding not to use single ship picket task forces. Your opinion is at least worth 5cents... [;)]

Thanks very much taking time to respond.

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

I love using the Tone on deep, long raids. Of course, she is at great risk...from subs and planes and surface groups, but it sure is fun to pull off a deep raid and getaway!

I have used the Boise the same way as the Allies.

Now, in Downfall as the Allies, I have ships out the kazoo...and no need for single ship task forces where 10 fletchers will do just about anything that needs doing.[:D] But as Japan in Downfall...I could see sending out a lone CA on a deep, deep raid. Anything at that point to disrupt the Allied juggernaut.

Yes I think I recall the story of one raid out past Ceylon.
Was that a single ship or a pair/three?

In this game, I would like to get a division of Shimikaze with Tone as a powerful, fast counter puncher in the battles of the Marianas/ Phillipines Sea.

If I am reading Tracker correctly, I will have 7 of them by end of Jan 43.

Thanks for your council.

Dec 11, 1941 (cont)

A serious problem in my planning and game management is exposed thru much of December.
I allow my small invasion fleets to outrun their coverage forces or wander into an encounter with an enemy fast task force.

1st Battle of Davao (and not the last...)
Day Time Surface Combat, near Dadjangas at 79,93, Range 22,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
xAK Teiryu Maru, Shell hits 6
xAK Macassar Maru, Shell hits 21, and is sunk
xAK Nittai Maru, Shell hits 18, heavy fires, heavy damage
xAK Shinsei Maru, Shell hits 17, heavy fires, heavy damage
xAKL Kosho Maru, Shell hits 7, heavy fires, heavy damage
PB Hakata Maru #2, Shell hits 11, and is sunk

Allied Ships
CA Houston
CL Marblehead
CL Boise
DD Barker
DD Bulmer
DD Paul Jones
DD Parrott, Shell hits 1, on fire
DD Stewart

Japanese ground losses:
796 casualties reported
Squads: 26 destroyed, 34 disabled
Non Combat: 35 destroyed, 39 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 7 (2 destroyed, 5 disabled)

******************
Night Time Surface Combat, near Davao at 79,91, Range 11,000 Yards
Allied Ships Reported to be Approaching!
Japanese TF suspends unloading operations and begins to get underway

Japanese Ships
CM Itsukushima
xAK Tenryu Maru, Shell hits 1
xAK Taifuku Maru, Shell hits 1
xAP Hakone Maru

Allied Ships
CA Houston, Shell hits 1
CL Marblehead
CL Boise
DD Barker
DD Bulmer
DD Paul Jones
DD Parrott
DD Stewart

I thought the Japanese Ruled the Night...

Needless to say, this was unexpected...
Closest support was the CVE Taiyo with a cobbled together gaggle of Kates and Claudes which didn't participate in this day's activities.

I would blame the local commander but the repeated errors (to come) of such small landing forces getting eaten up puts the blame firmly on the wrinkled brow of high command.


News from the Sub Wars:
***********************
ASW attack near Aparri at 82,73

Japanese Ships
DMS W-15, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage

Allied Ships
SS S-40

My DMS ships seem to leap in the path of any passing torpedo.[:(]
***********************
Sub attack near Dadjangas at 80,94

Japanese Ships
xAK Teiryu Maru, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
Allied Ships
SS KXVI

***********************
Sub attack near Ketapang at 54,95

Japanese Ships
SS I-166, hits 1
Allied Ships
CL Java, Torpedo hits 1, heavy damage
DD Van Ghent
DD Piet Hein
DD Kortenaer

***********************
ASW attack near Miri at 64,87

Japanese Ships
TB Kasasagi
APD Aoi
DD Michishio
PB Sozan Maru

Allied Ships
SS KXV, hits 5

Spank that Bad Boy...

***********************
ASW attack near Soc Trang at 60,74

Japanese Ships
PB Eiko Maru
Allied Ships
SS Pickerel, hits 1

***********************

Dec 12, 1941

Let's get the Good New at the top of the news cast:

Camiguin is occupied by the Japanese
Japanese forces CAPTURE Davao !!!
Japanese forces CAPTURE Guam !!!
Japanese forces CAPTURE Kavieng !!!
Japanese forces CAPTURE Hollandia !!!
Japanese forces CAPTURE Brunei !!!
Japanese forces CAPTURE Aitape !!!

The sweet sultry sound of Tokyo Rose addresses the game world when Guam falls.

************************
In not so good news, in air action off the coast of Luzon, the vaunted P-35A reigns terror over an anphibious task force.

Morning Air attack on TF, near Atimonan at 80,79

Weather in hex: Thunderstorms

Raid spotted at 14 NM, estimated altitude 12,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 3 minutes

Allied aircraft
P-35A x 21

No Allied losses

Japanese Ships
xAKL Totai Maru, Shell hits 4, Bomb hits 6, heavy fires, heavy damage
xAKL Fukkai Maru, Shell hits 1, Bomb hits 1, on fire
xAKL Kofuku Maru, Shell hits 2, Bomb hits 4, heavy fires, heavy damage
xAKL Tainichi Maru, Bomb hits 4, heavy fires, heavy damage

Aircraft Attacking:
21 x P-35A bombing from 100 feet
Naval Attack: 2 x 100 lb GP Bomb

**********************
Fortunately [8|] those were only carrying supplies, the troops had already landed.
**********************

You can tell you are not having a good day when a freakn' Blenheim hits a ship.

Morning Air attack on TF, near Kuching at 58,88

Weather in hex: Heavy cloud (Apparently not heavy enough)

Raid spotted at 19 NM, estimated altitude 5,000 feet. .... hummm, low level attack. Isn't the Blenheim a 4 engine bomber?
Estimated time to target is 6 minutes

Allied aircraft
Blenheim IV x 5

Allied aircraft losses
Blenheim IV: 4 damaged
Blenheim IV: 1 destroyed by flak

Japanese Ships
CA Kumano, on fire

Aircraft Attacking:
4 x Blenheim IV bombing from 1000 feet *
Naval Attack: 1 x 250 lb SAP Bomb

Dec 12, 1941

Sub Wars Report:
******************
ASW attack near Aparri at 83,72

Japanese Ships
DD Matsukaze

Allied Ships
SS S-41, hits 2
******************
Sub attack near Aparri at 82,73

Japanese Ships
xAK Karachi Maru, Torpedo hits 1
Allied Ships
SS S-40

******************
ASW attack near Bandjermasin at 61,102

Japanese Ships
SS I-153, hits 4 - I'm just getting all the die rolls.[&:]

Allied Ships
DD Express
DD Electra

******************
Sub attack near Hengchun at 83,67

Japanese Ships
xAK Yuzan Maru, Torpedo hits 1, heavy damage

Allied Ships
SS Saury

******************
Sub attack near Kona at 176,121

Japanese Ships
SS I-169

Allied Ships
xAK Laida, Torpedo hits 1, heavy damage
DD Helm

******************
Sub attack near Singora at 51,72

Japanese Ships
xAK Ryujo Maru, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage

Allied Ships
SS KXVII, hits 10, heavy damage

Now many stakes does it take to kill this vampire?

******************

The Allies were running some mine laying ops and they got caught in the daylight:
Day Time Surface Combat, near Kuching at 58,88, Range 20,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
CA Mogami
CA Mikuma
CA Suzuya
CA Kumano
DD Maikaze
DD Nowaki
DD Arashi
DD Hagikaze

Allied Ships
CM Rigel, Shell hits 4, and is sunk
PC Tydeman, Shell hits 7, and is sunk

But small compensation for the other losses of the day.