Islands of Destiny: RA 5.0 Japanese Side

[John 3rd]

WEIRD seeing your name pop up on the Thread!

So when are you sending the turn? St Patties Day or Memorial Day??!!

Am driving out to Kansas again for the weekend.

[Canoerebel]

The turn is in your court. Send it as soon as you can. I'll flip it and maybe we do another next hour.

You leaving today for Kansas or tomorrow? Whole family is going, right? You guys have fun. Don't discuss the Kansas City Chiefs en route. Focus on fun things, like how easily Japanese DDs sink.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

A reader in my forum asked the same question yesterday, so that must've been a question of interest in your AAR?

The numbers: Allies lost 152 destroyers and 64 submarines.

American losses in WWII (including Atlantic / Med losses) were 52 submarines, 6 DE and 59 DDs. I pared through the DE and DD losses to omit those due to accident or German / Italian action.

So, CR lost significantly more submarines than IRL and roughly three times the number of escort vessels (DE/DD) lost IRL. Staggering losses.

[Canoerebel]

The 152 destroyers included US, British, Dutch. I don't know how many American DDs I lost. Ditto for subs - the total included RN subs.

The losses didn't seem staggering from my vantage point. They contributed to John's VP total, which meant something to me, but I was flush with subs throughout the war and flush with DDs at all times except at the height of the Sumatra campaign, say late '42 and first month or two of '43.

[Chickenboy]

I understand. You were able, in spite of staggering other worldly losses, to carry your offensives forth throughout the game. The Allied OOB surfeit enabled your feeling of being 'flush' with bountiful replacements. That's my vantage point.

[Canoerebel]

Huh? "Staggering other worldly losses"?

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Huh? "Staggering other worldly losses"?

Yes. Losing about thrice the historical number of DDs / DEs is a staggering number.

[Canoerebel]

You cited American losses. The numbers I gave included RN, Dutch and the one French DD. I don't know exactly how many the USN lost but it wasn't 3x.

But it was for a good cause. The enemy naval OOB was beefed up considerably - more CV, BB, CB, CA, CL, DD. The Allies engaged them heavily early in the game in the Bay of Bengal and in SoPac, when the odds were much different than later in the war. Both sides fought hard and lost lots of ships.

But the casualty numbers weren't skewed in some way that suggest losses were "staggering" or "other worldly."

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

You cited American losses. The numbers I gave included RN, Dutch and the one French DD. I don't know exactly how many the USN lost but it wasn't 3x.

But it was for a good cause. The enemy naval OOB was beefed up considerably - more CV, BB, CB, CA, CL, DD. The Allies engaged them heavily early in the game in the Bay of Bengal and in SoPac, when the odds were much different than later in the war. Both sides fought hard and lost lots of ships.

But the casualty numbers weren't skewed in some way that suggest losses were "staggering" or "other worldly."

Your subjective impression of 'staggering' losses differs from my own. I contend that they were staggering losses-based upon historical American losses. I understand why you suffered those losses and the 'good cause' altar upon which they were sacrificed. But parsimonious refutation of my rough estimation doesn't change my subjective impression or mind about the losses you suffered.

Now if I'm significantly wrong about the ratio of historical American DD/DE losses compared to those numbers you cited, then I'll change my mind about the subjective 'impact' of such losses. But if you lost-for argument sake-twice the number of American DDs lost in the war, you may want to let that register.

Just as you are due accolades for losing far fewer fleet CVs / escort CVEs in this game than historical, you may want to consider why / how you lost so very many more DDs / DEs than historical. Speaking for myself, such a curious distinction may merit introspection about stylistic gameplay tendencies.

On a related note: when will you and John 'open up' an AAR about 'lessons learned' from this game? Such an AAR-neither in the Japanese AAR nor the Allied AAR may be a useful discussion thread for forumites.

[Canoerebel]

This is a game that (usually) bears a fleeting resemblance to the real war, so I'd be more interested in comparing my losses to those suffered by other Allied players. Drawing comparisons may not be easy, since there are so many variables: relative experience and skill levels of opponents, victory levels, when and how ships were lost, etc. But if I lost materially more assets and John materially less than in other roughly comparable games, I'd take notice of that.

I'm not due accolades for losing less carriers.

John mentioned opening a joint AAR. I'll be glad to join in if he chooses to do so. But it would likewise be fine to do it here, I suppose.

[durnedwolf]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

You cited American losses. The numbers I gave included RN, Dutch and the one French DD. I don't know exactly how many the USN lost but it wasn't 3x.

But it was for a good cause. The enemy naval OOB was beefed up considerably - more CV, BB, CB, CA, CL, DD. The Allies engaged them heavily early in the game in the Bay of Bengal and in SoPac, when the odds were much different than later in the war. Both sides fought hard and lost lots of ships.

But the casualty numbers weren't skewed in some way that suggest losses were "staggering" or "other worldly."

Your subjective impression of 'staggering' losses differs from my own. I contend that they were staggering losses-based upon historical American losses. I understand why you suffered those losses and the 'good cause' altar upon which they were sacrificed. But parsimonious refutation of my rough estimation doesn't change my subjective impression or mind about the losses you suffered.

Now if I'm significantly wrong about the ratio of historical American DD/DE losses compared to those numbers you cited, then I'll change my mind about the subjective 'impact' of such losses. But if you lost-for argument sake-twice the number of American DDs lost in the war, you may want to let that register.

Just as you are due accolades for losing far fewer fleet CVs / escort CVEs in this game than historical, you may want to consider why / how you lost so very many more DDs / DEs than historical. Speaking for myself, such a curious distinction may merit introspection about stylistic gameplay tendencies.

On a related note: when will you and John 'open up' an AAR about 'lessons learned' from this game? Such an AAR-neither in the Japanese AAR nor the Allied AAR may be a useful discussion thread for forumites.

I think what Canoerebel is trying to point out is that this was not a historically accurate mod. And then hindsight, the non-historical modifications, plus the enhanced abilities on the side of Japanese production (that are included in WiTP so that it is a "game" that can be enjoyed from both sides), I contend, make it impractical to make comparisons between the game just finished and the historical outcome from WWII.

[John 3rd]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

The turn is in your court. Send it as soon as you can. I'll flip it and maybe we do another next hour.

You leaving today for Kansas or tomorrow? Whole family is going, right? You guys have fun. Don't discuss the Kansas City Chiefs en route. Focus on fun things, like how easily Japanese DDs sink.

Funny!

Plans changed. I'm headed out today by myself. My sister and I are moving Mom down to Wichita so she can be more comfortable in Beth's House. The Docs think we have maybe 2-3 months. The Family and I are coming right back in two weeks when she has had a chance to settle in.

[Chickenboy]

I think it's interesting to compare history with the game and draw some comparatives for discussion. Your mileage may vary.

On my back-of-the-envelope historical calculations, the Lexington, Yorktown and Hornet were lost due to enemy carrier air attack. Wasp and the CVEs lost were due to naval gunfire, kamikaze strikes or submarines. Princeton was from LBA attack.

In this conflict, with a considerably improved IJN OOB, you lost one fleet carrier and a handful of CVEs. I think that's noteworthy. So the analyst in me asks "why"?

After the shellacking that John took off of Guam, he was very conservative with his carrier forces. By 'conservative' I mean in terms of seeking out 'the great final battle' that the IJN historically sought in the war. You mostly contented yourself to allow your carriers to escort troop and supply shipments into the theater. Neither side sought a late-war carrier battle and the casualty list shows that.

John was also very conservative in his use of kamikazes against your fleet. I don't think you lost *any* CV/CVL/CVE due to kamikaze attack. That shows up in the casualty figures as well. A reader can parse the 'ships sunk' list to get a feel for the flavor of the naval aspect of this conflict.

By his count, John ended the war with 15 CVs. Again the casualty list highlights this ahistorical anomaly. Clearly the Japanese player did not expend his fleet carriers in an apocalyptic end-of-days throwdown with the Allied fleet. Why? Reasons are replete, but the casualty list is telling about how the game progressed.

So by the same extension, *why* did you have such a large number of destroyers per se lost compared to historical? I think the answer is telling.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: durnedwolf

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

You cited American losses. The numbers I gave included RN, Dutch and the one French DD. I don't know exactly how many the USN lost but it wasn't 3x.

But it was for a good cause. The enemy naval OOB was beefed up considerably - more CV, BB, CB, CA, CL, DD. The Allies engaged them heavily early in the game in the Bay of Bengal and in SoPac, when the odds were much different than later in the war. Both sides fought hard and lost lots of ships.

But the casualty numbers weren't skewed in some way that suggest losses were "staggering" or "other worldly."

Your subjective impression of 'staggering' losses differs from my own. I contend that they were staggering losses-based upon historical American losses. I understand why you suffered those losses and the 'good cause' altar upon which they were sacrificed. But parsimonious refutation of my rough estimation doesn't change my subjective impression or mind about the losses you suffered.

Now if I'm significantly wrong about the ratio of historical American DD/DE losses compared to those numbers you cited, then I'll change my mind about the subjective 'impact' of such losses. But if you lost-for argument sake-twice the number of American DDs lost in the war, you may want to let that register.

Just as you are due accolades for losing far fewer fleet CVs / escort CVEs in this game than historical, you may want to consider why / how you lost so very many more DDs / DEs than historical. Speaking for myself, such a curious distinction may merit introspection about stylistic gameplay tendencies.

On a related note: when will you and John 'open up' an AAR about 'lessons learned' from this game? Such an AAR-neither in the Japanese AAR nor the Allied AAR may be a useful discussion thread for forumites.

I think what Canoerebel is trying to point out is that this was not a historically accurate mod. And then hindsight, the non-historical modifications, plus the enhanced abilities on the side of Japanese production (that are included in WiTP so that it is a "game" that can be enjoyed from both sides), I contend, make it impractical to make comparisons between the game just finished and the historical outcome from WWII.

Aye. I hear that. So the contention that this isn't a historical mod (with increased Japanese abilities) may have some bearing on the very large number of Allied destroyers sunk compared to historical.

But why would an increased Japanese OOB capability then result in fewer carrier losses than historical?

There's a glaring and incongruous discrepancy between these ships' losses that cannot be explained by the mod or the OOB. Gameplay and execution within the game are the likeliest departures from the expected in this case.

[Canoerebel]

Bear in mind that how I employed DDs and their resulting losses seemed reasonable to me rather than "unworldly." The main factor in DD losses, at least from 1944 onward, is that I often committed destroyer=heavy TFs against stronger enemy TFs. A good example is the recent clash at Fusan, in which I sent in two TFs: (1) CB, CA, DDs and (2) two CLs and DDs against opposition that turned out to be: (1) 2 BBs and DDs and (2) Five CAs and DDs. My ships were outgunned. In that particular case I didn't lose any DDs (or maybe one) but it illustrated the fact that I usually committed smaller, faster combat ships when going into hostile waters facing unknown but possibly heavy opposition. Quite often, I committed CL/DD TFs or DD TFs in such circumstances. Some of these were scouting missions - I wasn't sure what was out there and what might happen and didn't want to risk BBs in enemy waters. I preferred to have the BBs escorting Death Star or anchoring TFs that were protecting key ports like Gunzan, Shanghai, Taichu and Manila. So John usually only faced BB opposition when he sent combat TFs into my major port hexes.

[Chickenboy]

Yes. That makes sense. That would explain your unworldly destroyer losses as well.

How many BBs / CAs did you lose?

ETA: Edited to insert word 'unworldly', as it is clearly perturbing you. [:'(] While John is travelling I'm the self-appointed Allied Fanboy troll in this AAR.

[Canoerebel]

Here are the BB losses.

This list is interesting because it illustrates the Allied strategy from mid '42 onwards: take the high ground and force the enemy to attack.

California and Indiana were lost in the Sumatra campaign (Indiana took down an enemy BB with her).

Nevada was lost during the Great Naval Battle of Wake Island, giving chase to the battered KB.

West Virginia was lost at Gunzan and helped take down Musashi.

CB Alaska was used offensively and helped take down Kongo.

No cheap losses there, I think.

[Canoerebel]

Allied CA losses. In addition to these, Frobisher was lost too (the list didn't have room to include her).

Note how heavy the losses were in the Sumatra campaign (11/42 through about 3/43).

I think I lost only one CA in 1944 or 1945 - Boston at Gunzan, where she helped take down Musashi.

[Chickenboy]

Being unfamiliar with the RA mod of this game, what sorts of benefits were imparted to Allied OOB, if any?

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Allied CA losses.

Because of your H/K CL/DD groups deployment (per your previous post), were your CL losses as marked as were your DD losses?