Matrix Games Forums

I moved a couple of Phil. Infantry Divisions from Mandanao and I tried to move one from Legaspi ( the southern tip of the Manila island ) but it was sunk in three strikes from the 1st Air Bde, of the 44th Air Regmt Bmb group of the Jap air forces. I did a save game and advanced to the next turn so I could get a look at the Jap unit in question and I noticed that the Japs got rid of the Claude's and Zero's from the squadron somehow but kept the Sonia's and Lily's and the Betty and the replacement squadron. And ditched the rep. squadron NVL somehow. I'd like to find out how you can change aircraft types like that. Maybe with events?

Anyway there's still open port(s) at Port Moresby that I need to fill this turn. Also, I'd like a PBY and maybe a light bomber to be stationed there as well. I'll look into it.

This is the Chinese situation near Naning right now. My front lines are working so far but they won't hold for long. I'm hoping my partisan unit can cut the road to Hon Gay which will cut off supplies to the Jap units further north. Maybe I can overrun an airfield as well.

I decided to attack Guadalcanal and I'll at least get an ideal what I'm facing there. This is my second attack. In the first attack I managed to move the Jap engineer unit out of the port hex and get my units ashore. Now I'm hoping to gain Henderson Field.

Here's the intel I got from my probes.

Larry, I noticed that you were one of the original play testers for this scenario so keen to see the sea basing strategy play out in a showdown with the Kido Butai.

I conducted some additional research in the archives of the war department in order to determine the feasibility of the proposed sea basing concept during 1943-44. Presuming that the US Navy has a properly functioning torpedoes' (modeled in this scenario?) and senate appropriations for auxiliary ships and in particular submarine tenders resulted in the proper force structure to conduct "from the sea" force projection with expeditionary forces, then it is possible to use this alternate Indo-Pacific War Plan to defeat the Japanese war plan.

Summary of US Navy Auxiliary Ships and Submarine Tender Appropriations:
Construction of World War II submarine tenders for the Pacific was not authorized by a single memo, but through a series of legislative acts, planning directives, and specific Navy bureau orders. Key authorizing documents are found within the records of the National Archives and naval history organizations, and reflect the U.S. Navy's broader pre-war expansion.

Legislation authorizing naval expansion: The construction of submarine tenders, like other naval vessels, was primarily enabled by large-scale congressional legislation. The Two-Ocean Navy Act of 1940 (Vinson-Walsh Act): Enacted on July 19, 1940, this landmark legislation was the most significant authorization for U.S. naval procurement up to that time. It provided billions of dollars to increase the size of the Navy by 70%, authorizing dozens of submarines and hundreds of other combat and auxiliary ships. The conversion of auxiliary ships was also included.

Appropriations acts: Alongside the major naval acts, multiple supplemental appropriations bills were passed in the years leading up to the war to fund construction projects, including new building facilities and expansion of existing navy yards.

Naval planning directives: The details of construction were guided by the Navy's strategic planning, with documents from this period now held by the National Archives.

The Victory Program: In 1941, the Chief of Naval Operations directed the creation of the Navy's portion of the Joint Board Estimate of United States Over-All Production Requirements. Known as the "Victory Sea Plan," this directive laid out naval ship requirements, including the need for a larger auxiliary fleet to support forward operations.

Advanced base concepts: Planning documents from the Bureau of Yards and Docks in the early 1940s confirmed that tenders would be a central part of the Navy's advanced base strategy. This plan recognized that mobile repair and supply ships offered greater flexibility than fixed bases, a critical consideration for the vast distances of the Pacific theater.

Specific tender design and orders: The implementation of these directives fell to specialized Navy bureaus, which issued the design and construction orders.

Bureau of Construction and Repair: This bureau, which merged into the Bureau of Ships in 1940, was responsible for designing submarine tenders. The Fulton-class tenders, including the USS Sperry (AS-12), were designed in the late 1930s to service complex submarines. The construction of these ships began before Pearl Harbor, as part of the overall naval expansion.

Shipyard contracts: Following these directives, contracts were awarded to shipyards. For example, the keel for the Sperry was laid at the Mare Island Navy Yard in February 1941, following the pre-war authorizations for new construction.

dtashji wrote: Wed Sep 03, 2025 12:28 am Larry, I noticed that you were one of the original play testers for this scenario so [ I'm ] keen to see the sea basing strategy play out in a showdown with the Kido Butai.
Yes sir I was. As I recall Thomas Harvey ( [thomasharvey080@gmail.com] the original creative genius of this scenario ) and I went back and forth via emails with bug fixes and / or new rules, etc. I don't remember how long it took but something close to a year seems to come to mind. But Thomas was patient and knew what to do to fix it, always. He was truly a pleasure to work for/with.

I conducted some additional research in the archives of the war department in order to determine the feasibility of the proposed sea basing concept during 1943-44. Presuming that the US Navy has a properly functioning torpedoes' (modeled in this scenario?) and senate appropriations for auxiliary ships and in particular submarine tenders resulted in the proper force structure to conduct "from the sea" force projection with expeditionary forces, then it is possible to use this alternate Indo-Pacific War Plan to defeat the Japanese war plan.
Do you mean to say that I need to look into the US NAVY force structure and possibly make additional changes, if needed, to fill out the fleet with those resources needed, additional tender-style ships especially, AB,AD,AVL,AR,AS,etc. Not that I mind making such changes. I will need a little guidance is all. And I admit freely that you've already forgotten more than I'll ever know about all this stuff. I'll look into the US NAVY force structure and give you a full report. Also, I'll look into the modeling of the torpedoes ( whether they are fully functional or degraded from the start )

Summary of US Navy Auxiliary Ships and Submarine Tender Appropriations:
Construction of World War II submarine tenders for the Pacific was not authorized by a single memo, but through a series of legislative acts, planning directives, and specific Navy bureau orders. Key authorizing documents are found within the records of the National Archives and naval history organizations, and reflect the U.S. Navy's broader pre-war expansion.

Legislation authorizing naval expansion: The construction of submarine tenders, like other naval vessels, was primarily enabled by large-scale congressional legislation. The Two-Ocean Navy Act of 1940 (Vinson-Walsh Act): Enacted on July 19, 1940, this landmark legislation was the most significant authorization for U.S. naval procurement up to that time. It provided billions of dollars to increase the size of the Navy by 70%, authorizing dozens of submarines and hundreds of other combat and auxiliary ships. The conversion of auxiliary ships was also included.

Appropriations acts: Alongside the major naval acts, multiple supplemental appropriations bills were passed in the years leading up to the war to fund construction projects, including new building facilities and expansion of existing navy yards.

Naval planning directives: The details of construction were guided by the Navy's strategic planning, with documents from this period now held by the National Archives.

The Victory Program: In 1941, the Chief of Naval Operations directed the creation of the Navy's portion of the Joint Board Estimate of United States Over-All Production Requirements. Known as the "Victory Sea Plan," this directive laid out naval ship requirements, including the need for a larger auxiliary fleet to support forward operations.

Advanced base concepts: Planning documents from the Bureau of Yards and Docks in the early 1940s confirmed that tenders would be a central part of the Navy's advanced base strategy. This plan recognized that mobile repair and supply ships offered greater flexibility than fixed bases, a critical consideration for the vast distances of the Pacific theater.

Specific tender design and orders: The implementation of these directives fell to specialized Navy bureaus, which issued the design and construction orders.

Bureau of Construction and Repair: This bureau, which merged into the Bureau of Ships in 1940, was responsible for designing submarine tenders. The Fulton-class tenders, including the USS Sperry (AS-12), were designed in the late 1930s to service complex submarines. The construction of these ships began before Pearl Harbor, as part of the overall naval expansion.

Shipyard contracts: Following these directives, contracts were awarded to shipyards. For example, the keel for the Sperry was laid at the Mare Island Navy Yard in February 1941, following the pre-war authorizations for new construction.

Thank you for your info. It explains a lot. I'll get right back to you with a report on the US NAVY the way the scenario has it designed right now. Then it can be determined if changes are needed. Ok?

I used the TOAW editor to output a *.GAM file for the scenario and deleted about 22 Megs of <Map> data which is good for nothing we need here. That made it small enough to strip out the <Force="1"> Japs units to a separate file. then strip out all the Allied Ground Units to a separate file. Then I stripped out all the Allied Naval ships of whatever class and saved that to a file. I inspected all the events and failed to find the replacement of ships that have a specific value for AT or AP that might have modeled the switch to a better Allied torpedo. Then I studied the file with the ships and decided that there are probably enough already but I defer to your mastery of the subject. I've zipped up the file and have posted it here below for anybody to peruse it as you wish.

I found two groups of CV's with their aircraft on both the west side and the east side of the Phillipines ( Manila ). I have no idea why Elmer would park them there. It serves no purpose I can think of. I feel better with attacking Guadalcanal now that I know where the Jap CV's are. At least some of them.

Here's what Port Moresby look like right now.

A gaggle of Jap ships sailed within range of my big guns and threatened to interrupt my actions ashore so I employed my bigger guns to engage the Jap ships and it turns out that I managed to sink a Yugumo-Kagero Class DD and 6x Momi-Watatake Class DE's with no losses to my side. I'll take it.

As a part of my Guadalcanal attack my big long range gunships attacked a stack of Jap ships just to get rid of them and without a loss I sank something like 10 Jap DD's. I'll take that.

I used my ships to attack the Jap armour unit in the Northernmost hex on the island and without losses I got a handful of various units but at least I got a recon of the unit.

I got a good recon readout on the Northernmost engineer unit as well, without any losses.

The units weren't made visible but I did get a run down on the contents of the hex at Tulagi. There's more strength present than I was counting on.

I lost a handful of various units but totally evaporated at least one Jap unit and I'm ready to move further north to continue clearing the entire island.

My VC (Viet Minh) partisans captured Bangkok and Saigon. This has to effect the Jap supply lines. I expect a response from the Japs and as a matter of fact they do have some units nearby to respond.

This is part of the southern coast of China and since the ground shock is equal ( 100 ) for both sides my losses are a lot less than before and now I can almost hold my own on the front lines except for a few places that are weak right now. I'll have to give up some places and hold in others.

I moved a Chinese fighter aircraft to Timor island just to see what I could see there. Nothing so far. I'll move it to Darwin if it survives the turn.

I'm fortunate that all the Phill. troops didn't go away when the Phill. nation collapsed but the proficiency ( 2% ) means the unit is almost useless as it applies to defensive ( and / or offensive ) ops. There is no quick and easy way to increase proficiency besides combat so I should probably advance it to the front lines and when the enemy unit is almost gone I can attack it, hopefully kill it, thereby increasing the unit's proficiency a little bit. That's the theory. I really need some arty for this and the DD present doesn't have guns that will reach that far. There are some aircraft present that I can employ provided I have some fighters to CAP.

I don't know of a way to split off the Gladiator's into a squadron of their own like you can in WITP-AE so the defense and offense strengths listed have factored in the values of the Gladiators and therefore are lower for the unit as a whole. If it weren't for that it would be a much better performing unit overall. I'm running the unit at a minimum losses setting to save the Gladiators as much as possible. Although, as they disappear, and they will since I'm building them for one more turn, then the production line will be shut down for the rest of the game, and I have only 11 more of this magnificent airframe left in inventory, having lost 2 so far.

As for the P-40(late) aircraft: I have 110 on hand, I'm building 12 per turn, there's 308 assigned and I've lost 50 so far. I'll be building them until T192 ( what turn is that? ), but the P-51B gets here in T80 and the P-51D comes in T132 so all is not lost.