I too am a Japan specialist, but that means I know Japan's weaknesses well.
Japan has little infantry at first - one regiment in fact - plus some SNLF battalions and base defense forces (some of which are de facto regiments). It has no meaningful armor, and only the 2nd Division has a baby armor unit early. There is no medium arty at all. This is enough, given naval and air superiority, but the contest is decided by land units - which fight for bases.
The critical base is Gili Gili - and it is NOT a base at all to start. But it IS in Allied hands. Use that to your advantage. Fly troops in on PBYs. Gili-Gili matters a lot to Japan. If he is not very aggressive you can have it. If he is very aggressive you can make him pay to take it from you.
Port Moresby is ANYTHING but a lost cause. But holding it is not easy. Gili Gili is a big factor there. Make him fight hard for it and he will have too little to go for PM soon. Make him fight for Buna too - fly in troops and supplies. Build up Lea Lea next to Port MOresby so you have mutual supporting air bases and he has no free place to land and consolodate forces and supplies. PM can be the key to a New Guinea offensive. The Allies do not need carriers at all if they have enough bases on New Guinea. And PM is in good bomber range of Rabaul. You can make him pay for almost everything if you use it as an offensive base. So NEVER give up PM for free and try to hold it for your later offensives. The key to holding PM is attrition. And the attrition that matters is merchant ships!!!!! Kill them before they land, with troops on board, and you win twice. Kill them at any time, and they are not available for the next offensive. Make him fight several battles - Gili Gili - Buna - PM - in sequence, getting weaker all the time - and you may just do it!
Japan has few land based tactical bombers. It pretty well needs to commit the carriers to do a good job. If you combine carriers and land based air, you have a fighting chance to hurt his ships.
Good Opening Moves for US
Moderators: Joel Billings, Tankerace, siRkid
What would be considered a good time line for taking PM as Japan? in SC 17?
Has anyone successfully used Lae as a staging base? My only experience (granted only one so far in PBEM) thus far was for Aussie and PM based tac and heavy bombers to make the base unusuable in an amazingly short period of time owing to the ease right now in which airfields can be completely knocked out. Playing against a human is certainly night and day different from playing the AI which essentially just sits there waiting for you to make a move.
IIRC Mogami once suggested you needed to take at least several months to build up your power base at Rabaul before jumping in on New Gunieau Japan certainly starts off weak in both 17 and 19, a crucial hindsight factor known to the Allied player. I'm in late June now and havn't taken the plunge yet, though part of that was due to a crackpot diversionary tactic i tried at game start which cost me a CVL (thank god for 2.30's new sub routines)
but also due to lack of force levels as well.
Gett'in Beefy now though, but i had to wonder if i wasn't being too cautious in my planning giving that evil-dooer Cap and Gown more time to formulate mischief against the invincible Imperial will
Its truely awesome when a wargame can perfectly recreate that uncertainy in one's plans and overall strategy...complete with the fear of losing precious assets and losing that "window of opportunity"
Has anyone successfully used Lae as a staging base? My only experience (granted only one so far in PBEM) thus far was for Aussie and PM based tac and heavy bombers to make the base unusuable in an amazingly short period of time owing to the ease right now in which airfields can be completely knocked out. Playing against a human is certainly night and day different from playing the AI which essentially just sits there waiting for you to make a move.
IIRC Mogami once suggested you needed to take at least several months to build up your power base at Rabaul before jumping in on New Gunieau Japan certainly starts off weak in both 17 and 19, a crucial hindsight factor known to the Allied player. I'm in late June now and havn't taken the plunge yet, though part of that was due to a crackpot diversionary tactic i tried at game start which cost me a CVL (thank god for 2.30's new sub routines)
but also due to lack of force levels as well.Gett'in Beefy now though, but i had to wonder if i wasn't being too cautious in my planning giving that evil-dooer Cap and Gown more time to formulate mischief against the invincible Imperial will
Its truely awesome when a wargame can perfectly recreate that uncertainy in one's plans and overall strategy...complete with the fear of losing precious assets and losing that "window of opportunity"
Advice for IJN player.
If Allied player is using PM as a major airbase, I'd say take PM ASAP. As Mr. Frag said IJN player can shut PM down anytime using bombardment TF and CVs. IJN has enouhg troops and APs in Rabaul and Truk as early as May, 1942 to take PM. Lae can be used as a major airbase as it starts with level 4 airbfield. But supplying Lae is not easy, if Allied player has enouhg medium bombers in PM. It's important to take Gili Gili or at least deny Allied occupying Gili Gili if IJN player's trying to take PM early. Also Take Buna early and develop it into at least level 3 port for supplying PM after take it. Do not supply PM directly. Allied bombers from Australia will cream your ships.
If Allied player is abandoning PM, you can take time.
If Allied player is using PM as a major airbase, I'd say take PM ASAP. As Mr. Frag said IJN player can shut PM down anytime using bombardment TF and CVs. IJN has enouhg troops and APs in Rabaul and Truk as early as May, 1942 to take PM. Lae can be used as a major airbase as it starts with level 4 airbfield. But supplying Lae is not easy, if Allied player has enouhg medium bombers in PM. It's important to take Gili Gili or at least deny Allied occupying Gili Gili if IJN player's trying to take PM early. Also Take Buna early and develop it into at least level 3 port for supplying PM after take it. Do not supply PM directly. Allied bombers from Australia will cream your ships.
If Allied player is abandoning PM, you can take time.
"War is a series of catastrophes that results in a victory."
Georges Clemenceau
Georges Clemenceau
speaking of build-up. Thats another problem. Japan sorely lacks in this dept and it is well represented in the game. I have few ENG units, how can one be quick when one has so few support units needed to build up the infrastructure.
This is one thing i'd like adj for WitP.....the fact that it takes a dedicated ENG unit for an infantry presence to build any sort of fortificaitons. I do have both Buin and Gili Gili in my posession, but the lack of ENG's either force one to lengthen their build times or focus on one base and leave the others vulnerable to counter-attack. Lae is a good example. Already has 30 ENG units (before Malaria starts to impact) They were unable to keep up with the damage being caused by ridiculously small #'s of allied tac bombers. (lack of bulldozers hurt too) To counter one must send add'l ENG units that might be needed elsewhere. A quandry to be sure
It would be nice if an INF could build at least limited fort levels in the meantime, say a max of level 2 or 3 entrenchement without ENG aid
This is one thing i'd like adj for WitP.....the fact that it takes a dedicated ENG unit for an infantry presence to build any sort of fortificaitons. I do have both Buin and Gili Gili in my posession, but the lack of ENG's either force one to lengthen their build times or focus on one base and leave the others vulnerable to counter-attack. Lae is a good example. Already has 30 ENG units (before Malaria starts to impact) They were unable to keep up with the damage being caused by ridiculously small #'s of allied tac bombers. (lack of bulldozers hurt too) To counter one must send add'l ENG units that might be needed elsewhere. A quandry to be sure
It would be nice if an INF could build at least limited fort levels in the meantime, say a max of level 2 or 3 entrenchement without ENG aid
-
HawaiiFive-O
- Posts: 295
- Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2002 10:21 pm
- Location: USA
According to the manual, page 50, non-engineer units should be able to increase the fortification level.
"Although fortifications can be built by units without the help of engineers, the work will proceed very slowly."
In practice, I've never seen it. So maybe the manual is inaccurate. Or maybe it takes so long as to be pointless.
"Although fortifications can be built by units without the help of engineers, the work will proceed very slowly."
In practice, I've never seen it. So maybe the manual is inaccurate. Or maybe it takes so long as to be pointless.
Mr Frag,
Analysis is a tool to assist in the planning and execution of a campaign. Simple overwhelming advantages in numbers do not equate to success in combat.
To beat a dead horse, it is the application of those forces which makes the difference. Operational warfare is an art.
Planning and execution of the campaign is a function of logisitics, and that is where you are right on the money.
PM is an operational objective, and taking it is not a direct function of mathmatics, as the variability of combat makes the outcome far less certain than you portray. The variability in large part is a function of the actions of the commanders. Those actions have a strong relationship to achieving operational objectives.
The campaign objectives are more of a function of numbers, as time and number of operations smooth out the variability. The effect of variability on the "median outcome" is more prononounced on a smaller scale, such as operational vs Campaign/theater level.
You are again making many assumptions, particularly with regards to PM. How many PBEM games have you played as the IJN? Curious as to how successful you have been in keeping Lae operational.
Please relate experiences as the IJN in a PBEM as data points for a basis for this "walk in the park".
I have found ways to get PM's level of operations up to 200+ aircraft by the second week of May, and have been able to conduct my operations from there.
With the US carriers operating in the area, it complicates things further for the IJN.
Your detailing of the numbers is a testimony to your attention to detail, and illustrates the POTENTIAL for the IJN to take PM early.
potential, a. and n. Possible as opposed to actual; existing in posse or in a latent or undeveloped state, capable of coming into being or action; latent.
Analysis is a tool to assist in the planning and execution of a campaign. Simple overwhelming advantages in numbers do not equate to success in combat.
Mathematics is an exact science (also known as logistics in military games). Individual results may vary due to local effects, but correct operational planning allows for these varied results which removes them from the equation.
Application of these Mathematics (logistics) = player skill.
To beat a dead horse, it is the application of those forces which makes the difference. Operational warfare is an art.
Wars are won by logistics not individual tactics. If you need an object lesson, the Ardennes or poor Rommel (Africa) are great examples of fantastic tactics without logistics. They will achieve short term gains, but suffer long term losses.
Planning and execution of the campaign is a function of logisitics, and that is where you are right on the money.
PM is an operational objective, and taking it is not a direct function of mathmatics, as the variability of combat makes the outcome far less certain than you portray. The variability in large part is a function of the actions of the commanders. Those actions have a strong relationship to achieving operational objectives.
The campaign objectives are more of a function of numbers, as time and number of operations smooth out the variability. The effect of variability on the "median outcome" is more prononounced on a smaller scale, such as operational vs Campaign/theater level.
You are again making many assumptions, particularly with regards to PM. How many PBEM games have you played as the IJN? Curious as to how successful you have been in keeping Lae operational.
Please relate experiences as the IJN in a PBEM as data points for a basis for this "walk in the park".
I have found ways to get PM's level of operations up to 200+ aircraft by the second week of May, and have been able to conduct my operations from there.
With the US carriers operating in the area, it complicates things further for the IJN.
Your detailing of the numbers is a testimony to your attention to detail, and illustrates the POTENTIAL for the IJN to take PM early.
potential, a. and n. Possible as opposed to actual; existing in posse or in a latent or undeveloped state, capable of coming into being or action; latent.
"Life is tough, it's even tougher when you're stupid" -SGT John M. Stryker, USMC
speaking of build-up. Thats another problem. Japan sorely lacks in this dept and it is well represented in the game. I have few ENG units, how can one be quick when one has so few support units needed to build up the infrastructure.
That is one of the key things to understand when playing Japan.
Japan's engineers are better employed reducing fortifications during attacks then attempting to build bases in unsecured areas. They simply do not repair damage quickly enough to have any resource time left to actually build anything.
Once you understand the fact that combat odds are 2 to 1 + FORTIFICATION, you clearly understand what you need to use your engineers for (reducing fortifications). Sending troops into PM without this huge reduction means you must have 6 to 1 odds to capture the base.
Denisonh,
Committing base units to fast transport or air transport to bring PM's air capacity up quicker accomplishes very little except giving Japan more targets to destroy on the runways.
Everyone who has played this game knows just how simple it is to destroy an airfield to 100% levels through CV airpower. It is child's play. There is no defence (the 2.20 defence was to park your CV in PM but you can't do that in 2.30) against this fact. The game mechanics punish you for using LRCAP, flying a high number of aircraft with high fatigue incurred. This has an additional side effect. LRCAP from your CV's are NOT protecting your CV's and I am sure everyone has had the pleasure at least once of having their CV's sacked while they reacted out of the hex where their LRCAP was flying. You have 2 CV airgroups. Japan has 3 (4 if they swipe F1 from Rabaul). Aircraft being roughly equal at this starting phase, Japan will win a CV battle. Japan gets additional CV's released and can bring them into play shortly before USA gets their 2. This very short term advantage can have dramatic effects.
Moving additional air support into PM when the base itself is bombed out of existance on turn 5 of the game (which you have absolutely no ability whatsoever to prevent!) accomplishes exactly what Japan wants. You have used your logistics arm to move resources for a *possible* Japan attack.
In none of this rather long thread have I ever said that PM is a goal of the Japan player. I am simply pointing out what exactly the forces involved are capable of doing.
You continue to debate the capabilities of the assets in the game by involving player skill factors.
I don't care about player skill. I care about precisely what a unit is capable of doing. I continue to point out to you that you are mixing skill into the discussion of an operational target that has nothing at all to do with the logistics of moving units around the map nor does it have any impact whatsoever as to the individual units capabilities.
For some reason you see this as me offering up a challenge to you. I am simply stating the facts that exist within the game we play. I didn't make up these facts, I have no emotion invested in proving these facts. This whole thread started as a Allied player asking what he should do in a PBEM game, to which I have responded with the factual data involved and how they *can* be used.
You are trying to bring tactics into the discussion. I am trying to avoid tactics except to show what can be done by a unit. Tactics are better left in the hands of the individual players. Logistics are the reality of the game. It does not change based on who is playing it and I have attempted to provide as detailed a description as one can draw from what is visible to us without looking at the formulas embedded in the code.
I am not trying to prove any strategy here, I simply seek to educate those who have not the time to get into the details.
Anyone can hit the I key and look at the arrival dates of all units and sum up the assault strengths and do the same for the other side and compair the values.
Anyone can look at the skills of pilots and air squadrons and test results of how they perform at the various skill levels.
The changes we are seeing in 2.30 (not me seeing, everyone seeing) is that land based bombing has been seriously reduced against naval units until pilot skills are improved. All Allied land based bombers that used to be used in 2.20 games (except for very few: B17/Hudson) have been reduced in effectiveness to a level where the 2.20 TACTICS of carpet bombing the planet as the Allies and mass naval sinkings with these same planes have been toned down dramatically.
These *tactics* have allowed the Allies to hold on to PM in previous versions because they denied Japan's ability to land troops without heavy losses. 2.30 Land based airpower changes the balance. Now the Allies are forced to commit Naval Airpower to attempt to defend PM because the land based bombers no longer have the stopping power of previous versions.
We can debate tactics till the cows come home ... logistics do not change. They are facts. A 1500 AK carries 1500 supply. It doesn't carry 1800 because you have more skill
Committing base units to fast transport or air transport to bring PM's air capacity up quicker accomplishes very little except giving Japan more targets to destroy on the runways.
Everyone who has played this game knows just how simple it is to destroy an airfield to 100% levels through CV airpower. It is child's play. There is no defence (the 2.20 defence was to park your CV in PM but you can't do that in 2.30) against this fact. The game mechanics punish you for using LRCAP, flying a high number of aircraft with high fatigue incurred. This has an additional side effect. LRCAP from your CV's are NOT protecting your CV's and I am sure everyone has had the pleasure at least once of having their CV's sacked while they reacted out of the hex where their LRCAP was flying. You have 2 CV airgroups. Japan has 3 (4 if they swipe F1 from Rabaul). Aircraft being roughly equal at this starting phase, Japan will win a CV battle. Japan gets additional CV's released and can bring them into play shortly before USA gets their 2. This very short term advantage can have dramatic effects.
Moving additional air support into PM when the base itself is bombed out of existance on turn 5 of the game (which you have absolutely no ability whatsoever to prevent!) accomplishes exactly what Japan wants. You have used your logistics arm to move resources for a *possible* Japan attack.
In none of this rather long thread have I ever said that PM is a goal of the Japan player. I am simply pointing out what exactly the forces involved are capable of doing.
You continue to debate the capabilities of the assets in the game by involving player skill factors.
I don't care about player skill. I care about precisely what a unit is capable of doing. I continue to point out to you that you are mixing skill into the discussion of an operational target that has nothing at all to do with the logistics of moving units around the map nor does it have any impact whatsoever as to the individual units capabilities.
For some reason you see this as me offering up a challenge to you. I am simply stating the facts that exist within the game we play. I didn't make up these facts, I have no emotion invested in proving these facts. This whole thread started as a Allied player asking what he should do in a PBEM game, to which I have responded with the factual data involved and how they *can* be used.
You are trying to bring tactics into the discussion. I am trying to avoid tactics except to show what can be done by a unit. Tactics are better left in the hands of the individual players. Logistics are the reality of the game. It does not change based on who is playing it and I have attempted to provide as detailed a description as one can draw from what is visible to us without looking at the formulas embedded in the code.
I am not trying to prove any strategy here, I simply seek to educate those who have not the time to get into the details.
Anyone can hit the I key and look at the arrival dates of all units and sum up the assault strengths and do the same for the other side and compair the values.
Anyone can look at the skills of pilots and air squadrons and test results of how they perform at the various skill levels.
The changes we are seeing in 2.30 (not me seeing, everyone seeing) is that land based bombing has been seriously reduced against naval units until pilot skills are improved. All Allied land based bombers that used to be used in 2.20 games (except for very few: B17/Hudson) have been reduced in effectiveness to a level where the 2.20 TACTICS of carpet bombing the planet as the Allies and mass naval sinkings with these same planes have been toned down dramatically.
These *tactics* have allowed the Allies to hold on to PM in previous versions because they denied Japan's ability to land troops without heavy losses. 2.30 Land based airpower changes the balance. Now the Allies are forced to commit Naval Airpower to attempt to defend PM because the land based bombers no longer have the stopping power of previous versions.
We can debate tactics till the cows come home ... logistics do not change. They are facts. A 1500 AK carries 1500 supply. It doesn't carry 1800 because you have more skill
I guess i did not notice, i take it multiple ENG units will reduce fortifications at a greater rate during an assault? I do have a couple combat ENG units reserved for my future assault but was also trying to think of the 'greater picture' after the (hopefully) successful conclusion of my PM campaign.
For that i want to explore how well Japan might do were she not to be overextended and if her bases were properly prepared and supported. Right now the outer bases are almost more liability than asset, even Lae with it's big airfield (too **** easy to knock out......need to hire more laborers to fill in the potholes )
For that i want to explore how well Japan might do were she not to be overextended and if her bases were properly prepared and supported. Right now the outer bases are almost more liability than asset, even Lae with it's big airfield (too **** easy to knock out......need to hire more laborers to fill in the potholes )
-
CapAndGown
- Posts: 3078
- Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2001 10:00 am
- Location: Virginia, USA
The reduction in fortification is directly related to the odds of the attack.
a 1 - 1 will reduce it 1
a 2 - 1 will reduce it 2
a 3 - 1 will reduce it 3
etc...
This ONLY applies to combat engineers (the ones that have infantry squads attached). They have to take part in the attack to gain this result.
I've never actually tested move vs less engineers, but you do raise an interesting question. Do more help? I'll have to try that one out when I get home.
The manual seems to imply that one would do ... why ship stuff you don't have too eh?
a 1 - 1 will reduce it 1
a 2 - 1 will reduce it 2
a 3 - 1 will reduce it 3
etc...
This ONLY applies to combat engineers (the ones that have infantry squads attached). They have to take part in the attack to gain this result.
I've never actually tested move vs less engineers, but you do raise an interesting question. Do more help? I'll have to try that one out when I get home.
The manual seems to imply that one would do ... why ship stuff you don't have too eh?
Originally posted by denisonh
You are again making many assumptions, particularly with regards to PM. How many PBEM games have you played as the IJN? Curious as to how successful you have been in keeping Lae operational.
Please relate experiences as the IJN in a PBEM as data points for a basis for this "walk in the park".
I’ve played more than 10 games PBEM where I’ve been able to take Port Moresby by the 15th of May. That's not a credit to my skill or a commet on my opponents' skill, it's just something the Japanese can do early on in the war. It's not hard. Only once did I fail and that was because of the uber-bombers which don’t exist anymore.
Super. The more aircraft I can catch on the ground the better. I recently played a PBEM game where I took PM on the 14th of May, having kept it closed since about the 9th or so, and destroyed 180+ planes on the ground.
I have found ways to get PM's level of operations up to 200+ aircraft by the second week of May, and have been able to conduct my operations from there. [/I]
The Japanese player doesn’t need Lae if he is willing to wait and start his air attacks on PM just as the invasion TF sails. It’s not worth the fatigue to do attacks before then. Just use your bombers for recon and naval attack until the lat minute. Your bombardment group will be the one to close down PM anyway— the planes just help keep it suppressed.
Yamamoto
Mr Frag,
I think that what you have laid down in terms of IJN capability is very appropriate in giving the Allied player some idea of what problems he confronts.
I also believe that the IJN player can take PM, assuming that he doen't shoot himself in the foot (with USN player help, of course).
My main exception is attaching the phrase "walk in the park". I think that giving the impression that it is foregone conclusion PM will fall is too strong of an assumption. My point is that the USN player can make it a difficult proposition for the IJN.
I also beleive player skill has a great deal in effecting the outcome. If it didn't why play? A player can hurt himself badly, and effectively cripple his capability to sustain the offensive (lose 2 IJN CVs without damaging a USN carrier for example). In those cases, the nature of the early conflict can change.
Not every IJN player will exersize the prudence or forethought to ensure that the invasion of PM is a success. It is no different for the USN player. That is the variability to which I have referenced. Player skill is paramount to effectively mount an operation of the nature of taking PM in May.
Maybe I haven't been playing the right IJN players, and have missed the lesson that Yamamoto has given to a multitude of others.
I think that what you have laid down in terms of IJN capability is very appropriate in giving the Allied player some idea of what problems he confronts.
I also believe that the IJN player can take PM, assuming that he doen't shoot himself in the foot (with USN player help, of course).
My main exception is attaching the phrase "walk in the park". I think that giving the impression that it is foregone conclusion PM will fall is too strong of an assumption. My point is that the USN player can make it a difficult proposition for the IJN.
I also beleive player skill has a great deal in effecting the outcome. If it didn't why play? A player can hurt himself badly, and effectively cripple his capability to sustain the offensive (lose 2 IJN CVs without damaging a USN carrier for example). In those cases, the nature of the early conflict can change.
Not every IJN player will exersize the prudence or forethought to ensure that the invasion of PM is a success. It is no different for the USN player. That is the variability to which I have referenced. Player skill is paramount to effectively mount an operation of the nature of taking PM in May.
Maybe I haven't been playing the right IJN players, and have missed the lesson that Yamamoto has given to a multitude of others.
"Life is tough, it's even tougher when you're stupid" -SGT John M. Stryker, USMC
I get a kick out of all these "'m gonna close Lae"comments that always seem to pop up in discussions.
It takes exactly 2 turns of the game to have every single AA unit Japan owns moved to Lae by fast transport. Go right ahead and paste Lae with your entire air force, the gunners love the practice!
I suggest you try this one yourself instead of listening to me. You will find your ability to close Lae non-existant on the 3rd turn of the game even without putting ANY cap there.
Closing Lae against the AI is easy. Closing it against someone who knows you are going to try and close it is a COMPLETELY different story.
It takes exactly 2 turns of the game to have every single AA unit Japan owns moved to Lae by fast transport. Go right ahead and paste Lae with your entire air force, the gunners love the practice!
I suggest you try this one yourself instead of listening to me. You will find your ability to close Lae non-existant on the 3rd turn of the game even without putting ANY cap there.
Closing Lae against the AI is easy. Closing it against someone who knows you are going to try and close it is a COMPLETELY different story.
Originally posted by Mr.Frag
I get a kick out of all these "'m gonna close Lae"comments that always seem to pop up in discussions.
It takes exactly 2 turns of the game to have every single AA unit Japan owns moved to Lae by fast transport. Go right ahead and paste Lae with your entire air force, the gunners love the practice!
I suggest you try this one yourself instead of listening to me. You will find your ability to close Lae non-existant on the 3rd turn of the game even without putting ANY cap there.
Closing Lae against the AI is easy. Closing it against someone who knows you are going to try and close it is a COMPLETELY different story.
I have done it in all 10 PBEM games I have played as the Allies. AA gunners still have to get supplies, and without supplies, they don't operate very well.
Like I said, maybe I have not been playing the right opponents, and have been lulled into a false sense of security.
"Life is tough, it's even tougher when you're stupid" -SGT John M. Stryker, USMC
Not every IJN player will exersize the prudence or forethought to ensure that the invasion of PM is a success. It is no different for the USN player. That is the variability to which I have referenced. Player skill is paramount to effectively mount an operation of the nature of taking PM in May.
That says it all. Both sides can make silly mistakes, play too agressively, etc.
Prior to turn 75, the Allied player absolutely must operate under the principals of extreme restraint because a single wrong move at this stage of the game can very well end the game.
Turn 75 add 3.5 regiments at Noumea. Turn 85 & 90 add 8 regiments at Brisbane. The pressure has been completely lifted off the Allied player now.
Originally posted by Mr.Frag
That says it all. Both sides can make silly mistakes, play too agressively, etc.
Prior to turn 75, the Allied player absolutely must operate under the principals of extreme restraint because a single wrong move at this stage of the game can very well end the game.
Turn 75 add 3.5 regiments at Noumea. Turn 85 & 90 add 8 regiments at Brisbane. The pressure has been completely lifted off the Allied player now.
Or play too conservatively.......
"Life is tough, it's even tougher when you're stupid" -SGT John M. Stryker, USMC
-
HawaiiFive-O
- Posts: 295
- Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2002 10:21 pm
- Location: USA
Mr. Frag, I take it you don't play with Variable or Very Variable reinforcements, do you?
Luck of the draw can often dictate if an early PM operation is possible, if you play Variable.
Not arguing either way, just pointing out that hard and fast statements of the Allies get X on such and such date and the IJN get Y on such and such have little bearing when dates can slip +15/-15 with Variable, +60/-60 with Very Variable.
Personally, this fogginess is essential to my enjoyment of the game, and I wouldn't play it any other way.
Luck of the draw can often dictate if an early PM operation is possible, if you play Variable.
Not arguing either way, just pointing out that hard and fast statements of the Allies get X on such and such date and the IJN get Y on such and such have little bearing when dates can slip +15/-15 with Variable, +60/-60 with Very Variable.
Personally, this fogginess is essential to my enjoyment of the game, and I wouldn't play it any other way.
I have done it in all 10 PBEM games I have played as the Allies. AA gunners still have to get supplies, and without supplies, they don't operate very well.
Seriously, give it a try. You will be shocked completely as you will have lost your entire airforce trying to close Lae. Try different heights, whatever you want. Give it a try in a H2H game against yourself. You will find that the amount of supplies at Lae is more then enough for you to seriously maul your bombers. The AA guns will become disrupted before the base runs out of supplies.
33 bombers gone for Lae in 6 days of bombardment to temporarly close it. This is with B-25D/B-26B/Havoc/Hudson/B-17E all committed to closing it presuming no attacks on PM at all (which will reduce the damage to Lae & increase losses to Allied bombers. The Hudsons & B-17E are flying out of Cooktown)
Replacement rate/losses:
Hudson 10 lost 4
B-25D 20 lost 8
B-26B 10 lost 15
Havoc 10 lost 5
B-17E 0 lost 6
(includes the 11 operational losses, they are NOT from transfers).
Fatigue was allowed to completely clear before starting bombing just to make it completely unbiased. In reality, this is NEVER going to happen this well. This is with NO cap at all on Lae, letting you come throw yourself on the AA guns free of charge.
I was actually surprised that they did this good, but these are highly unrealistic tests with everything in the Allies favour.