Wish for a new scenario Non Historic start but with limits.

[UncleBuck]

To simulate teh Allied suprise and paralization after Dec. 7th, I played 3 day turn for turn one. I did this versus teh AI, but it could be well suited for a PBEM as well. This gives the JP player a chance to be a bit more creative, but with a limit. You coudl send your troops toward other objectives but they woudl be finding aware enemies on day 4 but still unprepared.

UB

[mogami]

What kind of air cover? Specifically, how does the Japanese invasion of Wake fit you definition? How about the Gilbert Islands

Hi, Both Wake and the Gilberts are within LBA range. In fact the Japanese thought LBA had rendered Wake defenseless. (The first time in the Pacific War where air units over estimated their effectivness and a landing force/TF paid for it) Without the supposed damage inflicted by the airgroups the TF commander whould have stayed out of range and conducted a shore bombardment. But as the Japanese intended on using the base they didn't want to inflict excessive damage to it either.

[DrewMatrix]

Wake Island was

first time in the Pacific War where air units over estimated their effectivness

Gee, so that took what, 4 days? Well, they didn't overestimate themselves right from the very start, then <G>

[Thayne]

Caliacan Mexico:

Perhaps a poor choice of words on my part, but the 'tipping off' I am not talking about is not that Japan plans to attack eventually, but when and where those attacks would fall.

The type of situation that I see being provolked by the deployments some Japanese units use are those of the type, "You will be attacked tomorrow morning at dawn, be ready." Or, possibly, an announcement to Japan on, say, December 5th, "You will turn your ships around, or we will consider this an act of war." As long as there was plausible deniability in what the Japanese were planning, the Allies could not use this maneuver. As soon as plausible deniability goes out the window, soldiers are called to their gun stations and prepare to take action.

I would argue that the Japanese would not be able to make any opening move that is inconsistent with plausible deniability.

Furthermore, I believe that the Japanese player has a certainty of success that the Japanese military in the war could never have. The Japanese player is playing a game where he is familiar with the likely outcome of any particular attack on any particular region. The Japanese military did not have any such luxury.

Another relevant factor to consider was the objective of the Japanese military. Ultimately, it was not to conquer territory. Its purpose was to demoralize the allies to the point that they would negotiate a settlement. The actual target, then, was not to secure the oil fields and resource centers. The target was to defeat significant numbers of British and American soldiers in the field.

In other words, the Japanese government did not enter into the conflict with the mindset, "Let's see if we can survive until August, 1945 -- and we will declare ourselves victorious if we do not surrender until October'. They had a strategy for winning the war. This could not be done by taking territory. It could only be done by destroying the American and British will to fight.

[mogami]

Hi, I think the extended move on turn 1 should be removed and instead the TF placed where they were on Dec 6th. I'd allow new TF created by Japanese making non historic turn 1 to load and make a normal move.

[Mike Scholl]

THAYNE You have hit the nail precisly on the head! The "unrestricted" multi-turn
move available to the Japanese as a start option is open to all kinds of absurd
exploitation. Mogami's has a simple but workable "fix" suggested right after your
post that should be looked at seriously.

[moses]

Never should have stirred this pot then left for two days. A couple points:

1. All I ever suggested was an option or possible house rule.

2. I'll stop arguing that the Jp player cant attack across the board on turn 1. Frankly I can't understand the opposing argument.

3. I like being able to modify my first move because it allows me to do things like improving my Wake invasion and getting my ASW forces into better position. I basically have used the same landings as in the historical first turn and am still four days ahead of the historical scheduale on day 1. But I would prefer Mogamis suggestion in the post above of having a true historical scenario. Also his suggested house rule is quite acceptable.

[myros]

Personaly Im looking forward to the 'day after' scenario. I wouldnt want the standard scen 15 changed though as its creates a lot of flexability to do things differently .. which is very much needed to keep the re-playability factor up.

The new scenario pretty much solve the issue - use it if you want a more historical start. Use an open anything goes 15 for a wilder game, or use 15 with house rules for a balance of the 2.

No real problem there IMO.

Myros

[2ndACR]

Transfer some Nells to Palau and Kendari is under air cover. Along with most of the region. Just about all of the DEI is and the PI are under Japanese aircover from Nells and Betties. From Palau, Saigon, Tinian that pretty much covers my entire "rapid advane" area. I like that rule.

[mogami]

Hi Palau is a size 3 airfield. Nells there only go out 15 hexes. (not 21)
I move from Palau to Davao (I use the TF at Palau target Legaspi) Covered by the CVL. Then once support and groups move to Davao is in aircover. Or I just wait for the other CVL from Japan and send TF direct to Kendari on turn 2.

I'm in favour of rapid advance by Japanese in SRA. I'm just tryng to avoid "transporter pyshcosis" from teleporting so many task force on turn 1.

[2ndACR]

I know that, just being a smart a**. Why not use the Brigade at Palau for Davao on turn 1? They are at 100% with Davao as it's objective.

As to Kendari, my CVL usually escorts my invasion force backed by a CA surface group. They do too much damage to the runways, so my Bombardment group is a CL and some DD's. Invasion force arrives turn 2.

I figure with Davao and Kendari captured, the Allies shipping can only run south if they are brave. Also I send a support group to Kendari at the same time. They take some losses, but I have found it well worth the risk. If I play with high Vary sometimes I get lucky and have a couple more support groups for Kendari, Davao, Ambonia. With all three in IJN hands the naval forces in the DEI and PI are doomed when combined with the now 3 CVL/CVE fleet going duck hunting.

[ltfightr]

I like Mogami's Idea about task forces on day one.

I still think a limit on the number of allied Tf Should be place on the first month or so.

[Culiacan Mexico]

ORIGINAL: Thayne
Furthermore, I believe that the Japanese player has a certainty of success that the Japanese military in the war could never have. The Japanese player is playing a game where he is familiar with the likely outcome of any particular attack on any particular region. The Japanese military did not have any such luxury.

Both the Japanese and the Allied players have more information than was available historically, but that does not mean the leaders on both sides didn’t have decent Intel. The Japanese had gathered intelligence on every major base in the DEI pre-war; and in so doing had a fairly good idea of both the size and quality of the opponents they faced at the outset of the war.

ORIGINAL: Thayne
Another relevant factor to consider was the objective of the Japanese military. Ultimately, it was not to conquer territory. Its purpose was to demoralize the allies to the point that they would negotiate a settlement. The actual target, then, was not to secure the oil fields and resource centers. The target was to defeat significant numbers of British and American soldiers in the field.

In other words, the Japanese government did not enter into the conflict with the mindset, "Let's see if we can survive until August, 1945 -- and we will declare ourselves victorious if we do not surrender until October'. They had a strategy for winning the war. This could not be done by taking territory. It could only be done by destroying the American and British will to fight.

I agree the Japanese mindset defined their strategy, yet playing the game I have little interest in follow the same pattern the worked so poorly historically. In the game (and mostly likely in reality), there is no way the British or Americans simply give up; therefore Japanese defeat is inevitable. All I can do is plan on putting up a stronger defense than was done historically; and with that in mind we come back to economics.

Malaya and the Philippines will fall eventually once they are cut off from there supplies and artillery can be brought up, so speed is not a priority here, while the economic centers in this region are a different matter. Everyday one of these centers stays in Allied hands is like throwing away ships, planes, and equipment: the Japanese player losses more each day in lost opportunity than he does in actual combat losses. Therefore, my strategic plans call for the economic centers in the DEI to be the prime objective and to that end my forces will attack aggressively… turn one advantage or not.

Campaign goal: the conquest of every economic center in the DEI (excluding Batavia), by the end of December. Assets assigned to this are my small carriers, the entire surface fleet, and every Nell, Betty, and Zero group.

[mogami]

Hi, I agument that existing TF with the Davao Brigade and a baseforce. I don't bombard at all since I want that airfield flying missions in 2 days (I don't set mission on day I transfer)

[Thayne]

ORIGINAL: Culiacan Mexico

I agree the Japanese mindset defined their strategy, yet playing the game I have little interest in follow the same pattern the worked so poorly historically.

Please note, there is a significant difference between saying that "I wish to play a game of type X" and "Everybody ought to wish to play a game of type X". I do not think that the point of this discussion was to insist on such a proposal.

Rather, some people are into playing a war game, while others are into playing a war simulation. Those of us who are interested in simulation think that the '30 bases in 30 hours' attack strategy falls too far outside of the scope of possibility. The Japanese could have adopted it, but it would require a mindset of knowing that the war was lost and in 4 or 5 years they will be surrendering to the allies, before the first bomb is dropped. That is not a mind set that sets well with the simulation gamer.

This is a wargaming strategy, not a simulation gaming strategy.

[mogami]

Hi, If the Japanese player limits his landings to those contained in the historical turn 1. (he can even modify them or change target as long as new target is closer to base of TF origin and within aircover) Or movement between his own bases. I don't mind the extended movement. I have no problem about him sending a TF from Osaka to Kwajalean. I also allow him to move his submarines anywhere he wants. It's really only loading a TF with troops and having them sail deep into enemy areas where they would have been tracked for several days and then allowing them to conduct landings and attacks with no ALlied reaction movement that cause me to roll my eyes.

This is pure exploitation not planning.

[Culiacan Mexico]

ORIGINAL: moses
2. I'll stop arguing that the Jp player cant attack across the board on turn 1. Frankly I can't understand the opposing argument.

[&:] Yet me see here…

I have stated that Kendari is a prime target in my plans because of its strategic location, combined with a large airfield, plus it can supply Japan with over 3% of the nation’s resource requirements. The invasion forces are from those that were historically assigned to the invasion of the Southern Philippines (which I cancelled); and this force is supported by a surface combat fleet and cover by aircraft from a Carrier Task Force.

ORIGINAL: moses
As for the Kandari example. Your 1200 NM from Palau your nearest base. You have no air cover. You are well inside the Dutch air envelope. Your moving through narrow straights in close proximity to allied air bases making detection almost certain. Significant Dutch navel forces are capable of intercept. You have no recon. No military commander would try it at least without a very large force.

1. Air Cover is provided by my carriers.

2. Dutch air power is very limited and this was known to the Japanese at the time.

3. As shown by historic documents, Japanese movements were already detected and no direct action was taken historically by the British and Americans… why would the Dutch.

4. The invasion force is supported by a surface fleet superior to anything the Dutch can send, and once again neither the British nor the Americans directly confronted a Japanese invasion force before the war started… why would the Dutch?

5. The Japanese pre-war conducted extensive recon of all bases in this area and had a good working knowledge of both the units available and the qualities.

6. The force being assigned to the invasion of Kendari consists of Land Forces, a Surface Combat Fleet, and a Carrier Task Force. Not only are they a large force, but the most powerful one in that entire region.

[mogami]

Looks ok to me as long as you also allow the Allied player to give orders to his EXISTING TF on turn 1.

[Culiacan Mexico]

ORIGINAL: Thayne

ORIGINAL: Culiacan Mexico
I agree the Japanese mindset defined their strategy, yet playing the game I have little interest in follow the same pattern the worked so poorly historically.

Please note, there is a significant difference between saying that "I wish to play a game of type X" and "Everybody ought to wish to play a game of type X". I do not think that the point of this discussion was to insist on such a proposal.

Rather, some people are into playing a war game, while others are into playing a war simulation. Those of us who are interested in simulation think that the '30 bases in 30 hours' attack strategy falls too far outside of the scope of possibility. The Japanese could have adopted it, but it would require a mindset of knowing that the war was lost and in 4 or 5 years they will be surrendering to the allies, before the first bomb is dropped. That is not a mind set that sets well with the simulation gamer.

This is a wargaming strategy, not a simulation gaming strategy.

Everyone who plays this game knows too much, and it affects your play. I guess. I mean there may be some Japanese players who follow the Japanese pattern of providing little protection to their merchant fleet and watch it be destroyed by the American submarine fleet. Some Japanese players might follow the historical pattern of feeding reinforcements piecemeal into the South West Pacific (Guadalcanal) when the American counterattacks. Etc. Every player has the right to choose… that is good.

Regarding '30 bases in 30 hours', I have never agued for such ability. I have pointed out that canceling operations and then reassigning those assets to other targets is a legitimate strategy. I have also explained why these targets are give preference and shown they can be reasonably supported with Carrier and Surface Combat Fleets.

[2ndACR]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Looks ok to me as long as you also allow the Allied player to give orders to his EXISTING TF on turn 1.

I offered that option to moses except I said he could sortie the entire Dutch navy to oppose me at Kendari and KB would go to PH. He was informed that the fleet would arrive turn 2. What better intel could he have. I just wanted to prove that the IJN had the capabilities to take Kendari on the 8-9 Dec 41 if they had so chosen. There was basically nothing that could be done to prevent it IMO.