Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

Normally, I won't attack again until fatigue is 30 and disruption less than 10. Not always possible.

I would personally give it a few days. Keep up the bombardments, and keep the runway damaged. Then of the day of attack switch all the runway attacks to ground attack to raise disruption. If the runways are damaged now, I would think about allocating a portion to bombing the ground troops.

Do you have minewseepers standing bye?

I will watch the fatigue and disruption levels but don't want to wait too long. I keep up the bombardments and bombing and after a week of recovery, the forts always seem to be back up to 2. I really don't have any idea how the Allies are pulling this off.

I have a sub in the Singer hex, two to three others patroling close by and now have some DDs.
Nell are on search. Apparently I am doing something wrong.

Singer's airfields are currently 32% damage.
Bataan in comparison are at 100% damage.
I have more and heavier bombers flying over Singers:
1 Helen, 3 Sally and 1 Sonia over Singers at 18-20K
1 Sally, 1 Lily, 1 Ida and 1 Sonia are doing the work over Bataan flying at 17K.
Is altitude THAT much of a determinate factor?

Mine Sweepers:
I have a 2 DMS in Mersing and 4 DMS in George Town. A few more in the Java ports.
I've had some success with the Ansyu PBs doing mind sweeping.

Oh, and thank you for the suggestion on switching to some port bombing at Singers. I put Sonia on the job the last turn:

TA DA....
Morning Air attack on Singapore , at 50,84

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid detected at 39 NM, estimated altitude 22,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 13 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-51 Sonia x 18

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-51 Sonia: 2 damaged

Allied Ships
ML No. 388, Bomb hits 1, and is sunk
ML No. 362, Bomb hits 1, and is sunk
PC Formalhaut, Bomb hits 3, heavy fires
ML No. 375, Bomb hits 1, and is sunk
ML No. 389, Bomb hits 1, and is sunk
ML No. 373, Bomb hits 1, and is sunk

Port hits 5


a side note - the mouse over tool says that port damage is 0%, so if that is correct the 5 port hits from the Sonia either didn't happen or the Singer Engineers fixed it at the end of the turn.

Thanks for the suggestion.

I assume he has a lot of engineers at Singer; that they could fix the port damage in one turn is not surprising at all. I think this just reinforces that you need constant bombing of the port and/or airfield to keep the engineers busy with those so they don't rebuild the fort. And you may have just a short window for that last attack before he gets the fort back in place. All this is just my spectator's opinion, of course; I don't have to live with the results! [;)]

ORIGINAL: jwolf

I assume he has a lot of engineers at Singer; that they could fix the port damage in one turn is not surprising at all. I think this just reinforces that you need constant bombing of the port and/or airfield to keep the engineers busy with those so they don't rebuild the fort. And you may have just a short window for that last attack before he gets the fort back in place. All this is just my spectator's opinion, of course; I don't have to live with the results! [;)]

Not true.[;)] The ports are repaired last, so if there is runway + runway services damage the port damage is there. Often times a more accurate report lags one day if DL is kept up.

I am sure the port isn't heavily damaged, but I bet it is damaged.

Pretty good results from so high up! Sonia does drop lots of little bombs and makes hits!

04 June, 1942 - other notes while waiting for Allied Turn

Generally we have been good at keeping a turn a day rate going with occasional double turn flips.

But while waiting I thought I would add a couple of notes:

Air Frame R&D note for this turn:
Aircraft G4M3a Betty advances R&D 5/44

and this sweet little note:
DD Ishikaze - Ship about to start building.
One of the Shimakaze Class actually entering the shipyards for production. I am hoping to have some fun with these boys.

I got a cryptic electronic message from Allied High Command about setting up a trap.
Disinformation or a slip of OpSec?

So I did not post here for a couple of days to see what resolves. - catching up to the 8 June turn

5 June, 1942

Bataan: DA
Ground combat at Bataan (78,77)
Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 51560 troops, 585 guns, 225 vehicles, Assault Value = 1421
Defending force 48930 troops, 675 guns, 651 vehicles, Assault Value = 1189

Japanese adjusted assault: 7 [X(]
Allied adjusted defense: 413

Japanese assault odds: 1 to 59 (fort level 1)

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), leaders(+), fatigue(-), experience(-)
supply(-)
Attacker:

Japanese ground losses:
349 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 6 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 8 disabled
Engineers: 2 destroyed, 60 disabled

Allied ground losses:
188 casualties reported
Squads: 8 destroyed, 9 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Not bad given the odds...

Batavia: Bombardment
Ground combat at Batavia (49,98)
Japanese Bombardment attack

Attacking force 915 troops, 70 guns, 61 vehicles, Assault Value = 934
Defending force 21131 troops, 254 guns, 80 vehicles, Assault Value = 425

Japanese ground losses:
Guns lost 1 (1 destroyed, 0 disabled)
Vehicles lost 3 (1 destroyed, 2 disabled)

Allied ground losses:
14 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled


Singapore: Bombardment
Ground combat at Singapore (50,84)
Japanese Bombardment attack

Attacking force 1480 troops, 157 guns, 41 vehicles, Assault Value = 1569
Defending force 38226 troops, 533 guns, 352 vehicles, Assault Value = 416

Allied ground losses:
92 casualties reported
Squads: 13 destroyed, 1 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Engineers: 1 destroyed, 0 disabled

Solomon Sea: -- looking for a 'trap'
Given the situation in the map below, my thoughts were that his carriers were tailing the cargo ships and wanted to counter strike me going after a cheap kill.

KB, 4 of the Carriers were empty of torpedoes, so I decided to run into Rabaul and restock.

6 June, 1942

Bataan: Bombardment
Ground combat at Bataan (78,77)
Japanese Bombardment attack

Attacking force 49809 troops, 579 guns, 209 vehicles, Assault Value = 1438
Defending force 48660 troops, 667 guns, 646 vehicles, Assault Value = 1170

Allied ground losses:
6 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Vehicles lost 5 (5 destroyed, 0 disabled)

Batavia: Bombardment
Ground combat at Batavia (49,98)
Japanese Bombardment attack

Attacking force 891 troops, 70 guns, 61 vehicles, Assault Value = 955
Defending force 21233 troops, 255 guns, 80 vehicles, Assault Value = 435

(no losses - Allied forts at level 3)

Singapore: DA
Ground combat at Singapore (50,84)
Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 61084 troops, 784 guns, 522 vehicles, Assault Value = 1646
Defending force 38255 troops, 530 guns, 352 vehicles, Assault Value = 421

Japanese adjusted assault: 1001
Allied adjusted defense: 1265

Japanese assault odds: 1 to 2 (fort level 0)

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), leaders(+), supply(-)
Attacker:

Japanese ground losses:
1364 casualties reported
Squads: 3 destroyed, 123 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 22 disabled
Engineers: 4 destroyed, 16 disabled
Guns lost 7 (1 destroyed, 6 disabled)
Vehicles lost 12 (1 destroyed, 11 disabled)

Allied ground losses:
1077 casualties reported
Squads: 89 destroyed, 33 disabled
Non Combat: 14 destroyed, 137 disabled
Engineers: 5 destroyed, 14 disabled
Guns lost 29 (8 destroyed, 21 disabled)

(at least the forts were not rebuilt)

Solomon Sea: Looking for the 'trap'
I was hoping to find that 'trailing carrier group'.

so I jog down toward the Woodlark Islands with the partially restocked KB

7 June, 1942

Bataan: Bombardment
Ground combat at Bataan (78,77)
Japanese Bombardment attack

Attacking force 50149 troops, 581 guns, 209 vehicles, Assault Value = 1472
Defending force 48483 troops, 657 guns, 637 vehicles, Assault Value = 1157

Allied ground losses:
45 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 8 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled

Batavia: Ground combat at Batavia (49,98)

Japanese Bombardment attack

Attacking force 28389 troops, 359 guns, 124 vehicles, Assault Value = 971

Defending force 21298 troops, 255 guns, 80 vehicles, Assault Value = 444

Japanese ground losses:
30 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 1 destroyed, 0 disabled

Allied ground losses:
6 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Batavia: Bombardment
Ground combat at Batavia (49,98)
Japanese Bombardment attack

Attacking force 28389 troops, 359 guns, 124 vehicles, Assault Value = 971
Defending force 21298 troops, 255 guns, 80 vehicles, Assault Value = 444

Japanese ground losses:
30 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 1 destroyed, 0 disabled

Allied ground losses:
6 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Singapore: Bombardment:
Ground combat at Singapore (50,84)
Japanese Bombardment attack

Attacking force 1485 troops, 157 guns, 41 vehicles, Assault Value = 1571
Defending force 36947 troops, 518 guns, 352 vehicles, Assault Value = 384

Allied ground losses:
132 casualties reported
Squads: 17 destroyed, 4 disabled
Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 1 disabled
Engineers: 1 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 3 (2 destroyed, 1 disabled)
Vehicles lost 1 (1 destroyed, 0 disabled)

Solomon Seas: Looking for those carriers
The strike did not find the Allied Carriers. I guessed wrong.
But I did squash the cargo taskforce.

Morning Air attack on TF, near Port Moresby at 98,130
Weather in hex: Overcast

Raid detected at 117 NM, estimated altitude 13,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 49 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 46
B5N2 Kate x 54
D3A1 Val x 22

Allied aircraft
P-39D Airacobra x 12
P-40E Warhawk x 42

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 3 destroyed
B5N2 Kate: 6 destroyed, 4 damaged
D3A1 Val: 1 destroyed, 1 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
P-39D Airacobra: 1 destroyed
P-40E Warhawk: 2 destroyed

Allied Ships
xAK Talune, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
xAK Cycle, Bomb hits 1, Torpedo hits 4, and is sunk
xAK Chios, Bomb hits 6, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
xAK Rona, Bomb hits 21, and is sunk
xAK Salamaua, Bomb hits 2, Torpedo hits 3, and is sunk
xAK Mangola, Bomb hits 4, heavy fires, heavy damage

8 June, 1942 - Solomon Sea

Current situation - orders in the Allies email box.

Allied Carriers retreated to the West as I moved South.
I don't think they want a confrontation outside an umbrella of their own air power, so I decide to shift a little East and try to pick off that lingering Allied task force, but not move far enough so that the Allied BB TF in Lunga will draw the KB close to that airbase.

And I am sending Betties (sorry, typo in the graphic below G4M1) escorted down the pipe with range limited to 12. If those ships stick around one more turn, I am going to sink'em all.

Then the KB will pull back to Rabaul to restock.

Early Aug, 1942 --

I have learned a few lessons that a hope to recap in the next set of post to close out this first attempt at an AAR.
Not that the game is nearing it's end. But that the initial series of 'what the heck is going on' has settled down into a dull grind against an opponent who likes to amass most of his ships and planes in one section and beat the enemy down.

Not a bad game tactic.
I dislike it and think it loses a lot of potential for interesting small skirmishes across the map.
Boring, really - just build up a super stack and move it a few squares ahead, kill everything in range, reload, repeat, advance...

And that is the FIRST lesson I want to address:
To find a good opponent requires examining a number of qualities
1. Will they flip a turn in (expected) time frame.
Some folks want to do multiple turns a day. Those lucky individuals must either be financially independent or supported (as no need to have a job), have a very tolerant work environment (few extra hours/resources demands) or be a multi-tasking genius.
Some folks want to do a turn a day. That seems to be the best pace for me (a micro-manager who likes to tweak the economy each couple of turns).
Others are ok with a 3-5 turns a week pace.

In any of the above, that makes a campaign game commitment at least 2+ years for the fast players and 5+ years for those who play the slowest. That is a lot of time to dedicate and brings me to the next point:

2. Try to find an opponent who shares a common view of how the game 'should be played'
House rules covers part of this but there are more areas to cover.
I've been reading multiple AARs and opinion post about 'historic' this and 'unrealistic' that. In the end, this is a pretty good simulation of the complexity of moving forces and logistics across the vast Pacific Theater with a few odd 'rounding errors' that can either be mollified with settings, house rules or understandings about game play.

To me, an avowed JFB, there is less historical offense in allowing some Sentai of fighters to be Ki-43-IIb when that model is available than seeing the 18th Brit Infantry Division in Palembang. I am sure there are AFBs who might argue the obverse and that is why a healthy discussion before jumping off the cliff into a multi-year game commitment might be wise.

I am not stressing my version of what is 'right' is any better than one who disagrees with me. I am saying for the MUTUAL SATISFACTION of two game players enthusiastically dedicated to one project might require some discussion and compromise at times to keep both players engaged.

In this game, I questioned the rational of amassing all US/Aussie/Brit ships of significance in one small area and the response was 'it is a common tactic of the game'. No discussion, no compromise, no offer to even consider an alternate way of playing. I recognize the use of Death Stars and Super Fleets are used by many players. I can see that as a results of an embarrassment of riches the Allies have in '45 -- but in '42/'43??? Really?

Against a more experienced opponent, I am sure this tactic can be defeated. There are lessons to be learned here, and that is the best that can be said.

Przemico is a good guy. He is great about returning files. We have some discussion about other than game stuff. When my job gets in the way, there are no negative replies when I miss out on a daily turn. He will be a fun and aggressive opponent for whomever get to play him next.

But we do not share a common vision of how the game 'should be played'.
Fortunately for me, my inexperience will help accelerate the Japanese collapse and the game will be over, honorably, sometime in late 43/early 44. That is STILL 14-18 months of real life time at the pace we are playing.

This begs a question I am still trying to figure out:
How do you find an opponent, well matched in experience and expectations, that you can enjoy a 4 year long epic struggle against?

I tried the method of 'growing with your opponent'. Another great guy who did not share a vision of how the game should be played. We marched up thru a number of smaller scenarios and then decided to launch a 'test campaign game' -- wasn't even the real thing yet and we hit a massive subterranean rock on his side of the perception. He thought that the KB must go back to base (Osaka/Tokyo/Hiroshima) and dock after the Pearl Harbor attack or else.

At least we found our boundaries out this early and hopefully he gets an agreement with someone else and continues to play the game.

I was seriously 'itching' to get a Big Game started and Przemico graciously accepted some of my initial settings and request (only later to ignore at least one of them) -- but anyway, there was little real discussion until we were already launched into the campaign.

I can see it is difficult to find a good match.

The next option I am going to pursue, which includes this AAR and these final posts, is to try and draw someone into a longer discussion about a future campaign game. You might also be looking for a first opponent or in the middle of your first full campaign. I am interested in knowing what your ideal are just as much as how I see things.

This is one of my earliest failures - not asking or examining Przemico's point of view on this subtle but crucial aspect of game satisfaction.

I am going to be committed to the current as I don't want a reputation as a whiner, a quitter or an unrealistic malcontent. Overall this is a positive attempt to point out a not much discussed consequence of such a long term and demanding game format. The deepest lesson from the First Time.

I would like to discuss either in emails or maybe within the end of this tale about what makes a good game experience and matching those expectations of how 'it should be played'.

Other topics to follow in the next few days:

Economic Lessons
R&D Lessons
Game Tactics Lessons.
Time/Game Management Lessons.

So --- work is calling at the moment, but over the next week or two I hope to get above points covered as well as continue the comments about finding a good match. Any advice on how to make those connections are appreciated.

Got a quiet few minutes ... lets post up some Economic News/Notes:

Here is the famous WitPAE Chart. So far I haven't crashed the economy. My 'go slow' approach has at least averted the worst of the possible catastrophes, and being Scenario 2 helps a lot too....

(unless otherwise noted - these are notes about 1 Aug, 1942 time frame)

My 'go slow' approach also included a lot of tinkering each turn walking up R&D, production and trying to make sure there was enough supplies to repair the factories as I went along.
The first week I basically turned everything off, cranked up the Supply Required and waited for the AI to spread some wealth out and then I started building stuff.

One aspect of the building I didn't take into consideration was how fast I needed to increase two things:
Current Air frame Production

and Vehicles.
I will deal with the Air frames issue and the disaster it caused later but first, the 'easy' one.

VEHICLES:
Lowpe relayed some wisdom earlier about recommended levels of Vehicle production.
This is, of course, after I realized I wasn't doing enough...[&:]

For amusement and education, here is a spreadsheet of what happened.
By Game Turn, first I show my Vehicle stockpile numbers. Orange notes bumps downward where I should have already had more production online.

V-Factories are the Total of Factories (Repaired and Repairing)
broken out by City.

One major limitation was not blowing up reserve supplies in cities where R&D factories may repair. I didn't want to miss a lucky tick repair if I drove the supply level below 10k. You can see I gently walked up the cities with R&D factories but the Korean city of Keijo, I put the gas on when it became critical.

The final line FUTURE, is my current projection of where I should be for the Next Game. This will hopefully smooth out the wild swings downward in stocks, and even build up reserves for the late war years. The problem now is that I have to 'over produce' ie: go over the ideal level of 250 factories, to make up for the time when I was under producing. This is a waste of supply and one I need to consider to become a better player.

ORIGINAL: DanSez


Early Aug, 1942 --

I have learned a few lessons that a hope to recap in the next set of post to close out this first attempt at an AAR.
Not that the game is nearing it's end. But that the initial series of 'what the heck is going on' has settled down into a dull grind against an opponent who likes to amass most of his ships and planes in one section and beat the enemy down.

Not a bad game tactic.
I dislike it and think it loses a lot of potential for interesting small skirmishes across the map.
Boring, really - just build up a super stack and move it a few squares ahead, kill everything in range, reload, repeat, advance...

Sort of like the Allied advance was historically?

To be quite fair, your opponent is playing the Allies "correctly": bring overwhelming air, naval and ground assets to bear on a single point, take said point, and then use it as a base to push on to the next point.

Penny-packeting his forces all across the map invites defeat in detail. It may make for a less boring game; one where there are dozens of minor skirmishes all over the map, but it's bad strategy.

In this game, I questioned the rational of amassing all US/Aussie/Brit ships of significance in one small area and the response was 'it is a common tactic of the game'. No discussion, no compromise, no offer to even consider an alternate way of playing. I recognize the use of Death Stars and Super Fleets are used by many players. I can see that as a results of an embarrassment of riches the Allies have in '45 -- but in '42/'43??? Really?

I'm not really sure what the solution to this "problem" would be. A house rule would cover it, but it would be ridiculously restrictive.

Forbid the British and American fleets from coordinated actions? Limit the number of capital ships allowed in each theater?

The Allies focusing all their major assets on one or two theaters may overwhelm those theaters, but that leaves other theaters uncovered.

This begs a question I am still trying to figure out:
How do you find an opponent, well matched in experience and expectations, that you can enjoy a 4 year long epic struggle against?

With difficulty.

Your discussion of who people choose as an opponent ie. opponent style is cogent. It will shape the enjoyment a person gets out of the game. Everybody should read it if embarking on a Grand Campaign. To date I have been very lucky and my games have been very gentlemanly and non-serious. I have one opponent (who I think has sadly lost his hard drive) who utilized the death star mode of play. While I find it somewhat annoying from an historical perspective I am damm glad he did so. I always knew where his dangerous units were and made sure I was elsewhere. I also believe he lost a ton of efficiency by doing so...call it lowest common denominator effect. While I couldn't hurt his main units (1942) I caused a hell of a lot of damage where he wasn't.

ORIGINAL: mind_messing
I'm not really sure what the solution to this "problem" would be. A house rule would cover it, but it would be ridiculously restrictive.

Forbid the British and American fleets from coordinated actions? Limit the number of capital ships allowed in each theater?

The Allies focusing all their major assets on one or two theaters may overwhelm those theaters, but that leaves other theaters uncovered.

Nothing as restrictive as ships per theater, but more along the lines of:

the British being in Malaysia and India
the US in NorPac, CenPac and SouPac
and the Aussies in Austalia SouPac

I did not mean to imply that my opponent was playing incorrectly.

From a game perspective, maybe it makes more sense vs. the actual conflict where decision makers had to consider the political effects of leaving vast populations without some minimum cover of land, air and sea power.
At least the Western Democratic ones were under this pressure. Aussies and UK had stong disagreements about defending Malaysia.

I do not mean to come across as too complaining or critical.

Thanks for taking the time to comment.

ORIGINAL: pontiouspilot

... While I find it somewhat annoying from an historical perspective I am damm glad he did so. I always knew where his dangerous units were and made sure I was elsewhere. I also believe he lost a ton of efficiency by doing so...call it lowest common denominator effect. While I couldn't hurt his main units (1942) I caused a hell of a lot of damage where he wasn't.

That is a good point I need to consider thru '43.
I just got 3 Shimakaze DDs and a 4th one will arrive in port next turn. I should have some fun raiding instead of throwing them away in the defense of Shortlands/Rabaul.

Back to the Economy:

I haven't gotten a feel yet for what levels I should aim for in stockpiling Supplies, Oil, Fuel or Resources and given the facts on the ground, I don't think I need to worry about it all that much anyways. The War will be over:
1. Most ships destroyed
2. Home Island Industry wrecked
3. Invasion forces off shore

before I run out of supplies.
Still, the student side of me wants to learn as much as I can. There are lots of good advice scattered in some AARs, Mike Sollie and Chickenboy AARs come to mind first but there are others.

I have tried to park as much of the fleet as possible, when I can to save fuel.
IIRC, Alfred made another comment that sticks in my mind about how much fuel submarine patrols consume over time.

In this game, I have been shoving extra supplies into China to support offensive actions so you can see from this chart, the only thing I have managed to increase, are Resources.

Now my late acquisition of the DEI has delayed setting up fuel runs, plus the confusion how/what areas to clear out in Central/Southern China to help facilitate the 'Magic Highway' has lead to a basic flat line in the Oil reserves, though it is now starting to trend upward.

ORIGINAL: DanSez

ORIGINAL: mind_messing
I'm not really sure what the solution to this "problem" would be. A house rule would cover it, but it would be ridiculously restrictive.

Forbid the British and American fleets from coordinated actions? Limit the number of capital ships allowed in each theater?

The Allies focusing all their major assets on one or two theaters may overwhelm those theaters, but that leaves other theaters uncovered.

Nothing as restrictive as ships per theater, but more along the lines of:

the British being in Malaysia and India
the US in NorPac, CenPac and SouPac
and the Aussies in Austalia SouPac

I did not mean to imply that my opponent was playing incorrectly.

From a game perspective, maybe it makes more sense vs. the actual conflict where decision makers had to consider the political effects of leaving vast populations without some minimum cover of land, air and sea power.
At least the Western Democratic ones were under this pressure. Aussies and UK had stong disagreements about defending Malaysia.

I do not mean to come across as too complaining or critical.

Thanks for taking the time to comment.

The problem with that is that you're quite unfairly pinning down Allied ships unless you accordingly limit Japanese fleet deployments.

Otherwise you'd have the IJN free to bring its full might to bear against the British in the Indian Ocean safe in the knowledge that it wouldn't face any USN ships. This happened historically with the Indian Ocean raid, but it's a bit too far in my opinion to force your opponent to make mistakes in his deployments irrespective of how historically accurate they are.

Don't worry about being too complaining or critical; everyone gets to a point where they realize that this is a game and not a simulation. The game simply doesn't model the political effects of leaving wide areas of coastline undefended by sea power.

Economy (cont)

Speaking of the 'Magic Highway'. Oil started disappearing from Port Arthur and not quiet sure where all of it went.
Maybe it is still flowing in some AI back abacus calculation. Some oil has shown up in Fusan. Hopefully the path is engrained now so that when I start dumping at Hong Kong, it will walk itself all the way to Fusan.

(graphic -- see the Oil starts disappearing. Resources are still stockpiled though)

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

The problem with that is that you're quite unfairly pinning down Allied ships unless you accordingly limit Japanese fleet deployments.

Otherwise you'd have the IJN free to bring its full might to bear against the British in the Indian Ocean safe in the knowledge that it wouldn't face any USN ships. This happened historically with the Indian Ocean raid, but it's a bit too far in my opinion to force your opponent to make mistakes in his deployments irrespective of how historically accurate they are.

You have little knowledge of how I deployed my fleets.

The KB was 4-5 Carriers, mostly set to protect/expand the Solomon Islands
Creation of a Mini-KB (Kaga and CVLs for DEI and North Aussie work)

What I faced was 5-6 Allied carriers, every battleship they owned and all the land based air from Pearl to Perth concentrated in one area.

As soon as I saw this occurring, I should have either
Concentrated every ship not in repair as a counter
or go raiding in another completely undefended sector.

I have a BB group sitting in Georgetown looking for some action (there is none). I have the Mini-KB now leading an unopposed invasion of the Aussie towns West of Darwin.

In the meantime, Yamato just sunk 2 old US BBs and put a couple of US carriers in the yard for a year. I have lost the BBs Hiei and CVs Zuikaku and Hiryu. Southlands has just been amphib assaulted by 2 US divisions.

Do you really think the folks in Australia would be cheered by the news that the US is taking Southlands when Darwin is under threat of invasion?

But that is again, projecting too much 'historic' on a very complex game.

If you are interested,
My strategies would not include waltzing over India, or raiding the West Coast. Taking Midway would be about as far East as I would go and the (now) Bangladesh area of India the farthest West.

If I were to peg my mind-set, it would be similar to the Hive type game I read an AAR many years back:
1. follow a reasonable level of Japanese expansion and then
2. play a game of counter-punching to delay the inevitable victory.
That, to me, would be a great game to play and hopefully I will find the right opponent who sees the potential of this.

Please don't overlook that in this game, I offer the increased complication of limiting oil and fuel transports to TKs and AOs to help create the atmosphere of the sub war/ASW efforts to strangle the economy. I would continue to offer that option in my future 'ideal' contest.

I am willing to negotiate. I am offering limits on the Japanese side. It isn't an all or nothing discussion.

But that is again, projecting too much 'historic' on a very complex game.

I think that is at the core of your issues here. The game departs from history right on the first turn. By the time you reach mid '42 chances are there's very little that resembles how things looked on that date historically.

Combined with that, you've both sides operating with hindsight knowledge of the respective mistakes of their historical predecessors. I doubt you're likely to neglect ASW or your pilot training program, and I doubt your opponent is in any hurry to disperse his carriers in pairs all over the map.