Reluctant Admiral Feedback

[John 3rd]

Monsoon Group goes the way of CHAFF. Can we still keep Atlantis and Thor???
[:'(]

Semi-Serious about that...

[John 3rd]

Before I forget it, what about BK's comment about boosting late-war Zero speed?


Stanislav/Michael:

Did you notice several things I added in the ship que for Japan?

a. The Agano's I shifted to a more uniform production rate. Thanks to that other Thread about Japanese warship construction rates, I figured that a little less then two years is appropriate. This led to several slight changes for deployments.

b. Created an Agano-Kai that has slightly enhansed AA armament. There are four of them but they aren't available until early-44 and mid-45. Odds are they never see the light of day but they are interesting. The idea came from the site where I learned the construction rates.

c. I left Ibuki AND added a sister ship. This reflects the two CAs started in 1942 but then languished before conversion. They arrive slightly earlier then Ibuki's original date but would add a pair of CVLs to the inventory. They will have organic air groups.

Thought I had to share that so these don't slip into the Mod without discussion.

[FatR]

I took a quickest look at that. You forgot to rename the class.

The preliminary problem I have with even more CLs is the fact, that in reality they would have suffered from the same fate as most of the planned ships from post-Midway RL building program, i.e., never built due to lack of materials/manpower/everything. In AE, well, you halt some subs, which are of limited use in 1943 and later anyway, and you build them. I'm not utterly opposed to the idea of more warships in the queue, but how about at least shifting the availability by 6-8 months back (more delay for later ships), to emulate economic difficulties above and beyond shipyard availability, that will plague Japan late in the war? This will actually make players to think, whether they even want more capital ships in 1945.
EDIT: They also carry way too many 25mm guns. I don't think you can ram more than 6x3 per side in a light cruiser, simply out of space considerations, and that's already stretches it.

To be totally honest, though, I don't think that Japan will actually lay down any non-carrier capital ships after the beginning of the war. Upgrading additional old CLs to CLAAs is more plausible. If you agree with the proposal about reduction in power to Japanese ASW, in the vein of DaBabes, as outlined above in the thread, we can look for possible improvements in the land of small warships (without breaking the game even harder, that is).

No problem with the modified queue for Aganos.

[FatR]

Also, I didn't forgot about our argument regarding early-game Allied OOB additions. Will return to it when I have enough time for a long answer.

[DuckofTindalos]

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Monsoon Group goes the way of CHAFF. Can we still keep Atlantis and Thor???
[:'(]

Semi-Serious about that...

Well, Atlantis was sunk at the end of November 1941, so there seems little point. If you want Thor, then she entered the Indian Ocean in May of 1942, which means that the Jap player will also have to pay for her.

If you must have a second raider, then the Michel is the one you want.

[John 3rd]

Could it be the Atlantis II with two 20" Guns? [:D]

OK. That idea also goes the way of the Dodo...

[DuckofTindalos]

Any more dreams you need crushed?[;)]

[John 3rd]

You sound like my EX-Wife Terminus!

[gajdacs zsolt]

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

I've been sitting here at home with no turn, the boys home due to no school (it is -8* currently), have been thinking about all we've talked about with the Mod in the last few days. Think I would like to take the time to settle our opening positions for the Fleet. This is what I think we've decided with a few recommendations added:

1. Kido Butai--The 6 CV opening in their normal position except they are in two Warp Speed TF, are at full air complement, have all four BC, and additional Screening Vessels.

2. The 3 CVL (Ryujo, Shoho, and Zuiho) will start at Saipan (think of them as the Tactical Reserve) with screening ships and NO WARP SPEED movement. The Japanese Player can send them into the DEI or SE towards Truk/Rabaul if they want. This placement allows for the Allied player to get a few days to run for their lives before more carrier power arrives. The aircraft here are all upgraded to modern planes.

3. The oldest pair of BB (Fuso/Yamashiro) in the Japanese Fleet are detached from the Battleline, due to the all the BCs moving to the KB, begin at Cam Rahn Bay to provide heavy protection for Invasion Convoys should Force Z make an appearance.

4. Strategic Reserve--At Hiroshima sits the four remaining BBs and two CVEs (Taiyo and Hosho). These CVLs will start with air groups aboard BUT the fighters are Claudes and need upgrading. They are released for duty as soon as word of Pearl Harbor's success is announced.

5. Combined Fleet HQ sits at Saipan in a forward deployment position at its newly expanded base.

6. There will only be a couple of I-Boats deployed in the IO/Bay of Bengal.


This is a synthesis of what we have spoken on. It certainly SHOULD make the opening a bit less horrific for the Allied Player. How does it sound?

I know I'm a bit late here, and not really part of the developement discussion, but while reading this a few things struck my mind:

Why would the japanese put 3 CVLs under the nose of the americans at Guam? Why would Combined Fleet have their HQ at such a place when they have Truk and Badeldaob?

Also, for what reason would they put more ships (especially BCs) to the PH strike fleet? I seem to remember that they tried to keep the number of ships to the minimum as the more ships disappear from Japan the more likely it is the the americans figure out something. (From what I read so far about PH I got the impression that the japanese were quite 'paranoid' about the whole thing.)

Thanks!

EDIT: Or can you point me towards where was this discussed? It's possible that I missed it. (I'm really curious about the rationale for these. Thanks!)

[FatR]

So, about hindering Japan early...

The thing is, by the very nature of AE, operations in the game tend to unfold very rapidly, compared to RL, and you can't really buy as much time as in RL by trading territory for it. There are three main contributing factors to that:

1)Easy logistics. The RL complexity is reduced to providing fuel and supplies, only supplies to bases that aren't supposed to support fleet operations. And supply equation is such, that players often don't need to bother with secure naval lines of communication in the short term. Both sides also have sealifting capacity well in excess of their needs. Allies, in particular, have rather limited economic needs, and this gives them vast reserves of shipping that can be freely sacrificed to fuel military operations.

I'm not sure if anything can be done with this aspect of the game. A blanket reduction in ship cargo capacity will make feeding military operations in distant theatres more challenging, but also will impact Japanese economics rather hard. Now, I don't mind this aspect of the game to be more challenging, as in the game Japanese happen to have a significant surplus of merchants, instead of their RL constant shortage, but such profound changes are very hard to balance. I'm also not sure if other people really care about playing Transport Tycoon of the Pacific (I know you don't John, and often find micromanaging small convoys annoying myself).

2)Easy base building. Not even talking of extra perks Japanese get here in RA, in Scen 2 I made Tulagi into an airbase capable of launching attack missions (size 2) in about a month, without even a major commitment of construction units. Well, we all know how long it took Japanese to construct an operational airfield there in RL. Of course, this works even better for Allies. They can drop a bunch of troops in dot hexes and turn them into an airfield cluster of doom in a week or two - moves like this are more limited by amphibious capability than base-building one. Constructing an airfied capable of operating unlimited number of aircraft might take only about a month later in the game. This "Instant Base - Just Add Supplies" capability makes offensive operations faster and vastly reduces dependency on existing bases, allowing offensives also to be bolder. It is probably the main factor that makes deeply unrealistic Japanese moves, like early assault on Hawaii or moving into Southern Pacific with Rabaul as the closest forward base quite viable. It's also one of the main factors that allows the classic war-winning Allied gambit of jumping into a currently weakly-developed but strategically important region in force (like Cuttlefish was defeated by Q-Ball; I avoided this fate in my Ocean of Blood game only by destroying Allied carrier fleet).

In certain situations, this can make the game harder for Allies - if they fail to push back until about second half of 1943, they are likely to face the Japanese perimeter that looks like Atlantikwall and Maginot Line combined. But I believe such situation to be just a sympthom of deeper failings on the Allied player's part.

If it is possible to adjust the speed at which engineers work, I don't know how to do this. So, the only way of fixing the situation seems to be going through TOEs and cutting the number of construction troops at least in half for both sides (for Japanese - from their increased number in Scen 70, to keep the intended bonus).

3)Players' greater risk tolerance, loss tolerance and willingness to outright sacrifice troops, ships and planes, compared to RL planners. Affects the Japanese side too, as many players do not mind expending assets that will be useless late in the war anyway, but mostly impacts how the Allies are willing to act, compared to RL.
Nothing really can be done about this aspect, except outsmarting and punishing one's opponent for his aggressiveness[:)].


As a consequence of all this, Japan in AE generally cannot be satisfied with the historical conquests, even with a few additions to complete the defensive perimeter, like Port Moresby. At the very least, the Japanese player must take Northern Australia, to safeguard Eastern DEI, that has a ton of dot bases and therefore is extremely vulnerable to an early, or even not-so-early Allied counterattack. Ideally, he should strike farther, to destroy Allied assets and disrupt their buildup whenever possible, and strike early, before the amphibious bonus will run out, and every Allied base of note will require a month of fighting to seize. Southern Pacific seems to be a rather popular direction for such assault, although after trying this direction for myself I'm not liking it very much. This requires bold advance and swift destruction of Allied forces in Malaya and DEI.
Conversely, a major slowdown in Phase 1 (reaching the historical perimeter) usually spells total disaster for Japanese. Again, see even my own example in Ocean of Blood AAR, Cuttlefish vs. Q-Ball and Aussies vs. Amis examples, heck, even Nemo121's game as an extreme example of what might happens when the Japanese player commits particularly grievous mistakes during the initial expansion phase.

And unless something is done to offset above-mentioned factors (those we can do anything about), I'm quite strongly opposed to make the initial DEI conquest harder. Yes, I know, in RL it was far from almost-sure thing it is in AE. But our goal with RA is to faciliate long-lasting campaigns that remain interesting as long as possible, and in the current metagame introducing small immediate bonuses for Allies at the start can give them an advantage snowballing in importance as the game goes on, and possibly shortening it by a year or two. In particular, significant reinforcement of Palembang, the base any Allied player who feels like hurting the enemy to the best of his ability, should already be reinforcing from Day 1, in hopes of causing severe damage to oil and refineries on capture, is likely to be very harmful for the Japanese in the long term.

[Herrbear]

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Thank You John and Terminus.

Topics:

1. Monsoon Group--Toss this idea out. I don't want Japan to have to spend the points for the U-Boats. I now understand the Developer's issues and decisions. Makes a bunch more sense now.

Stanislav--Do you concur with this?

2. As to the Taiho idea toss that too. Was only a whisper of an idea.

3. Don't see the point of converting those new BC or providing the option for a lousy 40 planes.

I don't believe that you will have to pay for the U-boats or any ship if you have the ship existing at the beginning of the scenario placed in a task force that is delayed to a later date.

[DuckofTindalos]

The Japanese can't have delayed task forces.

[John 3rd]

ORIGINAL: Zsolo007

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

I've been sitting here at home with no turn, the boys home due to no school (it is -8* currently), have been thinking about all we've talked about with the Mod in the last few days. Think I would like to take the time to settle our opening positions for the Fleet. This is what I think we've decided with a few recommendations added:

1. Kido Butai--The 6 CV opening in their normal position except they are in two Warp Speed TF, are at full air complement, have all four BC, and additional Screening Vessels.

2. The 3 CVL (Ryujo, Shoho, and Zuiho) will start at Saipan (think of them as the Tactical Reserve) with screening ships and NO WARP SPEED movement. The Japanese Player can send them into the DEI or SE towards Truk/Rabaul if they want. This placement allows for the Allied player to get a few days to run for their lives before more carrier power arrives. The aircraft here are all upgraded to modern planes.

3. The oldest pair of BB (Fuso/Yamashiro) in the Japanese Fleet are detached from the Battleline, due to the all the BCs moving to the KB, begin at Cam Rahn Bay to provide heavy protection for Invasion Convoys should Force Z make an appearance.

4. Strategic Reserve--At Hiroshima sits the four remaining BBs and two CVEs (Taiyo and Hosho). These CVLs will start with air groups aboard BUT the fighters are Claudes and need upgrading. They are released for duty as soon as word of Pearl Harbor's success is announced.

5. Combined Fleet HQ sits at Saipan in a forward deployment position at its newly expanded base.

6. There will only be a couple of I-Boats deployed in the IO/Bay of Bengal.


This is a synthesis of what we have spoken on. It certainly SHOULD make the opening a bit less horrific for the Allied Player. How does it sound?

I know I'm a bit late here, and not really part of the developement discussion, but while reading this a few things struck my mind:

Why would the japanese put 3 CVLs under the nose of the americans at Guam? Why would Combined Fleet have their HQ at such a place when they have Truk and Badeldaob?

Also, for what reason would they put more ships (especially BCs) to the PH strike fleet? I seem to remember that they tried to keep the number of ships to the minimum as the more ships disappear from Japan the more likely it is the the americans figure out something. (From what I read so far about PH I got the impression that the japanese were quite 'paranoid' about the whole thing.)

Thanks!

EDIT: Or can you point me towards where was this discussed? It's possible that I missed it. (I'm really curious about the rationale for these. Thanks!)

Zsolo--It is great to ask and make serious questions here.

1. I concur that Truk is a better location for the CVLs and it would make them a lot farther from the DEI initially. We essentially build-up Saipan some at game start to reflect the greater preparation for an ocean war. Remember though that the American had little to no idea what the Japanese had at Saipan prior to Dec 7th.

2. The BCs in the KB TFs is far easier to touch on. Those fast BC make great escorts for the 6 CV. The two new Kawachis are even better but they don't arrive for quite a while. The old BBs are just too slow to CV Ops so BatDiv3 gets pulled into Carrier duty.

This is also why the BC's first upgrade brings them a much heavier AA armament. They convert to those 3.9" guns and become a much stronger escort.

[ny59giants]

Since I am helping John with his economy again [8|], I have looked at his re-size options after the current 1 July 42 automatic re-sizing of his heavy carriers air groups and also in my own game using scenario 2 game. There is a part of me that wants to get rid of the auto re-sizing in July 42 and come up with an at start composition that would still leave a player with one future re-size that they can do at their own time.

4 of 6 CVs within KB have a torpedo load of 54 (Soryu and Hiryu have 48). What is the best option?? Have the TB (Kates) be able to go on 2 (27 planes) or 3 (18 planes) full loads of torpedoes on a strike?? Currently, Shokaku and Zuikaku go from 27 to 18 planes with the July 42 re-sizing.

Details below:
CV Akagi (81 capacity) - 54 TT - 27Z, 24V, 27K and in July to 30Z, 30V, 20K
CV Kaga (72 capacity) - 54 TT - 24Z, 27V, 27K and in July to 27Z, 27V, 18K
CV Soryu (63 capacity) - 48 TT - 21Z, 21V, 21K and in July to 23Z, 21V, 15K
CV Hiryu (71 capacity) - 48 TT - 27Z, 21V, 24K and in July to 26Z, 26V, 24K
CV Shokaku (72 capacity) - 54 TT - 24Z, 27V, 27K and in July to 27Z, 27V, 18K
CV Zuikaku (72 capacity) - 54 TT - 24Z, 27V, 18K and in July to 27Z, 27V, 18K

CVL Ryujo (48 capacity) - 36 TT - 29Z, 18K
CVL Zuiho (30 capacity) - 24 TT - 21Z, 9K
CVL Shoho (30 capacity) - 24 TT - 21Z, 9K

CVE Hosho (20 capacity) - 12 TT - 12Z, 6K


early war reinforcements:
CV Junyo (58 capacity) - 24 TT - 18Z, 15V, 9K
CVL Nisshin (30 capacity) - 27 TT - 23Z, 11K
CV Hiyo (58 capacity) - 24 TT - 18Z, 15V, 9K
CVL Ryuho (31 capacity) - 24 TT - 21Z, 9K


mid-war CV: Shokak-Kai Class (78 capacity) 54 TT - 30Z, 24V, 24K

What would you do with the Japanese air groups??

Economic Minister Benoit

[FatR]

About carriers, I would strongly prefer to remove all forced resizing and give both players the ability to choose whatever combinations they prefer from the beginning. The starting composition should be left alone, mostly because of PH strike.

As about optimal resize composition, if one is to be included, I would prefer this (assuming no overstack by default) for early war:

Akagi (81,54T): 27F,27DB,27TB
Kaga, Shokaku, Zuikaku (72,54T): 18F,27DB,27TB
Hiryu (71,48T): 20F,27DB,24TB
Soryu (63,48T): 18F,21DB,24TB

For main KB I'm putting emphazis on bombers because without radar warning the extra fighters on CAP might be of rather limited use against a full carrier strike, and Zero superiority ensures that anything smaller will be dealt with. This should be changed by the player once Japanese ships start to get radards.

Ryujo (48,36T): 30F,18TB
Zuiho, Shoho (30,24T): 18F,12TB
Hosho (20,12T): 14F,6TB
Junyo, Hiyo (58,24T):30F,16DB,12TB
Nisshin (30,27T):16F,14TB

More fighters on those, because they are likely to operate as separate Mini-KB early and will need to deal with Allied LBA when covering invasions and so on.

As you see, I prefer the number of TBs to be 1/2 of the number of torps. This will allow to launch two fully torpedo-armed strikes on the day of the carrier battle, and, because of near-inevitable losses before the second strike, will leave something for mopping-up on the next day.

[FatR]

Also, John, do you have any comments about my two previous big posts?

[John 3rd]

Hi Stanislav. I haven't had a chance to seriously go through them and comment yet. Sorry about that. My 'weekend' (Tues-Wed) had bitter cold here and no school. Having the 7 and 4-year olds home made for lots of fun and little Mod time.

Will look at the entries and provide a detailed commentary, perhaps, tonight.

What do people think of Michael's comments regarding Air Group Size? I, personally, hate the auto-resize within the scenarios. Is this something that can be turned off for the Japanese? Would love to if we can...

[FatR]

Mandatory resizing can be removed through the Air Groups screen in the editor.

[FatR]

One possible idea of a relatively-affordable alternative to your CLAAs, John, based on RL modifications of Isuzu late in the war: introduce a CLAA conversion for Nagara-class cruisers, available sometime in first half of 1943. Armament along the lines of 6x127/40 (twin gun mounts from ships that converted to 100/65), 4x76/60 (prepared for new and modified Aganos that were cancelled due to economic situation), 46x25mm (11 x3 + 13 x1).

[John 3rd]

OK. Am going to try to get some time to go through your emails Stanislav.

Let me respond to the two recent Posts:

1. GREAT! I say we get rid of mandatory re-sizing for the Mod. This could also open the door for the subject Michael brought up of what balance do the Japanese CVs START the war with? Could be a fun subject to explore some more. Concur with both you and Michael that the CVs should have a two strike load capacity of Torps.

2. Your idea regarding the conversion of the old CLs to CLAAs really strikes me as an excellent idea. Returning to the 'what the Gun Club gets vs what the Carrier guys get' brings an interesting thought.

Currently the Gun Club gets 6 Improved Agano's, so wouldn't it be logical that, once the war starts, the old CLs are brought in SOONER then later for a conversion to something more useful? We could settle on a new design upgrade from the CLs and then begin to allow it at the end of 42. It could be done by class with oldest being first (Tenryu-Class) and then more forward...

Thoughts...