Page 24 of 39

RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision?

Posted: Sun Oct 16, 2011 7:25 pm
by Andy Mac
AI does better with all in one base type forces they are slightly more vulnerable to air attack and disrtuption but are easier for the AI to use
 
If you are going to do something like that best bet is to run and AI v AI game out to mid 43 see where the AI puts naval gauard units over write existing Naval Guard Units with your new combined units
 
Defence of CENTPAC and garrison units are mostly controlled by AI script 110 for support units and 115 - 121 for support units
 
45 does the same for Truk, North NG and Pelelius

RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision?

Posted: Sun Oct 16, 2011 7:30 pm
by MateDow
ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Matedow: I love your outside of the box thinking but this is not a practical suggestion. If someone wants to try and take out PH with an invasion then that is their choice. I've tried it in my current game and might be willing to try it again, however, I don't think players should be forced into it.

I recommend not taking PH, that is suicide with the CD units. [;)]

Take Kauai and Hawaii and then siege PH. Without supplies it becomes rather like Truk became; a base without function.

RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision?

Posted: Sun Oct 16, 2011 9:30 pm
by mike scholl 1
ORIGINAL: MateDow

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Matedow: I love your outside of the box thinking but this is not a practical suggestion. If someone wants to try and take out PH with an invasion then that is their choice. I've tried it in my current game and might be willing to try it again, however, I don't think players should be forced into it.

I recommend not taking PH, that is suicide with the CD units. [;)]

Take Kauai and Hawaii and then siege PH. Without supplies it becomes rather like Truk became; a base without function.


Haven't you got that reversed? Neither of those two islands have large facilities, and KB can't sit off Hawaii forever..., so any forces the Japanese landed would be simply "hung out to dry" far from logistical support. And you haven't subdued the well-warned garrison of Oahu unless you sacrificed half of KB's aircrews and planes to do it. Attacking Hawaii is simply a cracked-brain pipe dream from any realistic point of view...

RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision?

Posted: Mon Oct 17, 2011 3:11 am
by John 3rd
I've learned this lesson. If you try to take Hawaii you must grab Lihue, Kona, Hilo, and LaHaina AT THE SAME TIME, build fast, and then reduce PH. It is difficult and costly. Have only learned this through the school of hard knocks with current campaign.

RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision?

Posted: Mon Oct 17, 2011 7:23 am
by mike scholl 1
ORIGINAL: John 3rd

I've learned this lesson. If you try to take Hawaii you must grab Lihue, Kona, Hilo, and LaHaina AT THE SAME TIME, build fast, and then reduce PH. It is difficult and costly. Have only learned this through the school of hard knocks with current campaign.

And I'll bet it wasn't done with the US recieving two days to prepare for your arrival and no "surprise" bennies to your opening attacks.

RE: The IJA Army

Posted: Mon Oct 17, 2011 6:50 pm
by FatR
Sorry, MateDow, what you are proposing is not feasible. Neither IRL, nor in the game. Not to say that a successful invasion of Hawaii was/is categorically impossible (I've seen an AAR on a German forum where it succeeded, the invasion in my own Scen 70 game can be deemed a partial success), but odds just are very much stacked against Japanese, and the possibility of success basically hinges on throwing the enemy leadership so far out of the loop that it commits several more huge mistakes, after allowing surprise strike on Pearl, which by itself went improbably well for Japanese (no one on their side expected the RL outcome - and the biggest flaw of most early Hawaii invasion plans is taking it for a given).

RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision?

Posted: Mon Oct 17, 2011 6:54 pm
by FatR
ORIGINAL: John 3rd

I have always felt that Mods were mostly designed for PBEM. The AI can only do so much. What do you think on that?
I'm on the fence, personally. Can anyone of the potentially interested players comment on this?

RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision?

Posted: Mon Oct 17, 2011 9:02 pm
by John 3rd
This is a very pertinent question AND consideration to be discussed.

JWE: How hard would it be to create a ...dex for (say) January 1, 1943, January 1, 1944, and January 1, 1945? Players would agree to update their games on these dates to reflect and modify changes in the Map.

RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision?

Posted: Mon Oct 17, 2011 9:14 pm
by DOCUP
I would like to try this in PBEM.

RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision?

Posted: Mon Oct 17, 2011 9:19 pm
by John 3rd
Lew and I intend to try it as well. I'll be Japanese (SURPRISE) and he'll be Allies.

RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision?

Posted: Mon Oct 17, 2011 10:00 pm
by DOCUP
Guess I will need to find me an Evil Opponent[8|]

RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision?

Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2011 1:38 am
by AdmNelson
ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Lew and I intend to try it as well. I'll be Japanese (SURPRISE) and he'll be Allies.
Surprise to who

RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision?

Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2011 5:09 am
by tophat21
i only play against the ai....never played a pbem....as for the china being started 2 years later the new starting positions for japan i think will depend on how many more transports
and trained troops they will have at july 7th 1939....these 2 factors will determine how many landings on the coast
and where the extra landings can happen...if i can help in anyway just ask

RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision?

Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2011 10:03 am
by JWE
ORIGINAL: John 3rd
This is a very pertinent question AND consideration to be discussed.

JWE: How hard would it be to create a ...dex for (say) January 1, 1943, January 1, 1944, and January 1, 1945? Players would agree to update their games on these dates to reflect and modify changes in the Map.
It's not hard at all. Just make sure you have a complete changelog and keep the different pwhexe separate [;)]

RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision?

Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2011 10:23 am
by kfsgo
ORIGINAL: tophat21

i only play against the ai....never played a pbem....as for the china being started 2 years later the new starting positions for japan i think will depend on how many more transports
and trained troops they will have at july 7th 1939....these 2 factors will determine how many landings on the coast
and where the extra landings can happen...if i can help in anyway just ask

It's difficult to judge exactly how far the Japanese can get on a two year timescale; the performance of the Chinese forces was unspectacular, but the Chinese were in the middle of a "centralised" industrial expansion when the Japanese invasion occurred - the timing of it seems to have displaced a lot of brand new facilities - aircraft (re)assembly plants, steel mills, armament works etc, which were mostly being put up around Wuhan and ended up evacuated into Szechwan and rebuilt on a significantly smaller scale. The expectation on the part of the Chinese appears to have been that the war would actually begin in 1936, and the 'move industry into the interior' plans started around 1933 - Japanese pressure has been ongoing for a while, so it's not as if they're going to spend two years sitting around doing nothing, it's just tricky to figure out precisely what they'd do. There are a lot of offhanded references in the lit I'm going through to stuff, but it's tricky to follow up as there are only so many hours in the day and I need most of them for other things at the moment! I should have a broad outline by next week, though.

IJN Troops

Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2011 10:42 pm
by John 3rd
Michael and I had a good chat yesterday and a couple of interesting ideas occurred due to the conversation. We were speaking about the IJN Troops and came up with an interesting proposal. Since the Navy and Army didn't trust each other and the Navy is now planning to fight an attritional war, the Infantry units of the Kaigun are completely overhauled. Here is the proposal:

1. SNLF Units are deployed at the start of the war as normal. As we have discussed, those units are then withdrawn to make room for the creation of Atoll Defence Forces. There will be two types of these units:

a. The first is based off of the SNLF Coy and is a Battalion-Sized unit of about 1,000 men. There would be Inf, Mortars, MG, a few Combat Engineers, and a few CD guns (thinking 2 5" and 4 smaller DP guns).

b. A regimental-sized unit of about 4,000+ men that would pack some serious punch. Imagine two SNLF, combat engineers, about 20 CD guns of differing sizes, and support.

The SNLF would all need to be withdrawn by the end of 1942 and the new units become available starting just a few months later. If my counting is correct we would be looking at roughly 4-6 smaller ADU and 6-8 larger ADU. In terms of manpower costs the only additions would come in the area of Combat engineers and the men to many the CD Guns.

2. Naval Guard units are totally revamped so they are able to form-up into larger OFFENSIVE Brigades. In this are we would totally disolve the traditional Naval Guard units and replace them with a Brigade that is broken into 3 pieces at the start of the war. Imagine 1st Naval Guard Brigade-A/-B/-C. The original Naval Guard units will be thrown out and replaced with an all-new TOE containing a heavy amount of Inf, MG, Mortars, 75MM Howitzers, and support. The components would be about 1,500-2,000 men with the Brigade filling out at about 6,000 men. Manpower and Industrial additions will come in the Mortar and MG areas. Try to imagine these as Shock Units to be used in the early campaign to grab bases and combined later for a viable reaction force to Allied assaults.

Figure the IJN starts with 3-4 of these units in Dec 1941 and then gain a couple more during 1942. Will simply go through the old Naval Guard units and do the math of 3-to-1.

RE: IJN Troops

Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2011 8:16 am
by mike scholl 1
ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Michael and I had a good chat yesterday and a couple of interesting ideas occurred due to the conversation. We were speaking about the IJN Troops and came up with an interesting proposal. Since the Navy and Army didn't trust each other and the Navy is now planning to fight an attritional war, the Infantry units of the Kaigun are completely overhauled. Here is the proposal:


While this is interesting and feasable, there is one potential down-side to the IJN enlarging it's own "army". The IJA will be even more annoyed than it already was by the additional threat to it's traditional role, and will refuse to co-operate with the Navy AT ALL! Small "landing forces" and "guard units" are one thing..., but fully fledged "Combat Brigades" are a direct challange to an already recalcatent Army and could lead to direct confrontation.

RE: IJN Troops

Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2011 10:46 am
by FatR
I agree, this infringes too much on the Army's territory. A less politically volatile decision might be forming less garrizon units and more south seas garrizons on the Army side, with latter having better armament and providing greater flexibility in deployment, but probably lacking ability to convert to divisions later (as some of the garrizon units can). As about atoll defense units, maybe keep the infantry contingent slightly smaller than in their base SNLF, but add heavier weapons?

RE: IJN Troops

Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2011 11:00 am
by Terminus
Besides, where are the extra men coming from?

RE: IJN Troops

Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2011 12:01 pm
by John 3rd
ORIGINAL: Terminus

Besides, where are the extra men coming from?

Was manpower ever a true Japanese problem? Seemed to me they were able to raise the troops without issue they just couldn't keep up with leadership. I might be wrong here but I haven't read much describing a manpower issue.