The Good The Bad & The Indifferent

[Canoerebel]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

....As others have said your strike coordination was simply amazing, especially considering the weather. I wish I knew how that worked so I could copy it.

It's a new game. Move on from your very gracious note. Your strategic possibility menu just changed by a lot. Prep times are prep times, but you can think bigger again.

Well done.

1. Perhaps coordination was a function of detection levels and the fact that all Allied strike aircraft originated from three TFs - each with three CVs and a CVL. And each had very good captains and commanders. But, of course, I'm no technician. I didn't even realize the strikes were anything out of the ordinary.

2. It is a new game. Prior to this battle, my focus was on going about one step at a time to methodically overwhelm John at single points, step by step: Kwaj then Roi then Eniwetok...or Amchitka then Shemya then Attu.

That strategy had already begun to morph a bit as John has been working hard to overgarrison all of the islands in question. His strategy was effective at hindering a step-by-step plan, so I had already decided to bypass Kusaie and to hit Wake immediately.

But now I can move forward more confidently and in bigger steps. I'm giving thought to how exactly this should be done. First, it won't be instantaneous. My ships and aircraft need to replace losses and ammo. That probably means Pearl Harbor. So I have to go backward before I can go forwards. But first there's the invasion of Wake to attend to. While these things are going on, John is probably going to focus on filling in island defenses at places like Marcus, Iwo, etc.

One possibility is that I'll send my carriers on a raid into the Iwo/Philippines area to disrupt his movements and to send his ships fleeing to use fuel. This would be to disrupt his logistical efforts to attend to his defenses.

Or I might hit Ponape next. I have two divisions 100% prepped. The island is very strongly held and I don't have good prep on support troops (like combat engineers and artillery). Ponape might be a good target to focus on.

A lot of troops in Oz are prepping for the Admiralties, New Britain, and northern New Guinea. That's another good possibility, although political points to buy them out will be an issue.

At the moment, I think my preferred course of action is to move west as strongly as possible, either through CenPac or north coast of New Guinea to close on the Philippines and/or Okinawa.

But I will also give due diligence to other options? Kuriles? Unlikely. Timor? Possible. Java? Possible. Sumatra? Probably not but possible.

What about John? Surface raiders will become a huge threat (that will be where he gets his offensive enjoyment). I also expect trouble in Burma and China, where navies aren't a major factor.

[jwolf]

Kudos for a well planned and well fought battle in the CenPac. It's very interesting to read your analysis of whether and how much to pursue and continue after each day, very much the same agonizing decisions the real life commanders faced.

The moral of this battle is: don't stick your neck out if you don't know where the axe is. That would have applied to your side as well, but now you can afford rather more boldness than before. Not reckless, but bold. Congrats again.

[SqzMyLemon]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Glad to see you coming around to that way of thinking.

Obvert and a few others have expressed similar sentiments.

When I took this position some time ago in the face of a rash of JFBs throwing in the towel as soon as their day in the sun ended I was taken to task for it by a large contingent of regulars.

I bit my tongue and refrained from repeating that sentiment in the interest of board harmony.

Its very pleasing to see others coming around to the viewpoint that Japanese players owe a debt to the Allied players for agreeing to "take it on the chin" for as much as two years if not longer.

Obviously I whole heartedly agree.

Hans,

I've never dropped a PBEM as Japan, or Allies for that matter. I've come close, but always soldiered on. I don't recall advocating anyone to drop a game just because it didn't go their way. I'm currently playing my worst game ever as Japan and won't quit that one either. If John quits the game after this defeat, I think his reputation would be so tarnished that he'd have a hard time finding another opponent. He really does have to continue this game.

When I started to play this game 7 years ago, I felt Japan needed some perks to remain competitive, that was my rookie viewpoint of the game. The game is completely different than it was seven years ago after various updates and betas. The days of any advantage to Japan are long gone and various mods and updates have reduced or eliminated many of the once Japanese advantages, excepting this one of course. I've also matured as a player and never played a documented PBEM with anything other than a Scenario 1 OOB, but regardless of the changes to playing Japan over the last few years, I'd never quit the game because of a naval defeat.

[Canoerebel]

Just 2.5 months ago game time (July '43), the Allies still held Sabang and were in the midst of the Marshalls/Gilberts invasions. That seems like ages ago, but it wasn't. The long nightmare that was the Battle of Sumatra lasted six months (not including the initial two months, which were successful and held lots of promise). The Battle of Wake Island has soothed the memories of that nightmare.

[Panther Bait]

Seems like the KB going forward will be small enough that the US can operate in two separate Death Stars and still be reasonably confident of numerical supremacy. At this point, do you know if he even gets any more carrier replacements? Seems likely that he accelerated them as much as possible.

Add in the large amount of CVEs, and it should be possible to move to your schedule with much less sensitivity to where the Kaigun is.

Mike

[Canoerebel]

What's just happened can be traced directly to the Battle of Sumatra.

Usually I post John's email comments, as I know it adds to the readers' enjoyment of having an inside look. But I don't think I posted one comment he made a month or so back. He wrote (shortly after the Aleutians and then Marshalls/Gilberts operation wound down) that he knew I was coming somewhere in the late spring of '43, but he elected to focus on Sumatra to make sure it was taken care of. He had hoped that he'd have another month before I invaded anywhere, but I managed to catch him by surprise in NoPac (and then in CenPac). (He also wrote that he'd made a decision months back to begin withdrawing troops from the Marshalls, but I didn't find that particular statement credible - I felt like he was trying to use psy-ops to mislead as to why the Marshalls were only lightly defended).

So John's preoccupation with Sumatra, which undoubtedly was a vital campaign, allowed the Allies to achieve suprise and success in the Pacific. This, in turn, raised tension for John as he raced around reacting and building his defenses. In this highly energized atmosphere, he apparently exaggerated the importance of the Marshalls and Gilberts and felt like he had to defend there (or that it was a great place to offer battle).

One thing I posted a few weeks ago that was the truth but apparently not the whole truth was that John had gotten away with mistakes (like Mini KB's JEB Stuart ride through CenPac) but that wasn't a mistake if I didn't make him pay for it. That much is true - if we make a mistake but our opponent doesn't make us pay for it, then perhaps it isn't a mistake. But in some cases, as here, a player may draw bad conclusions from a mistake. In this case, I wonder if John didn't conclude that I wouldn't react to his carriers since I obstinantly stayed put in the Marshalls during his JEB Stuart ride and then during the opening moments of Steroid KBs raid past Johnston Island.

So sometimes a mistake is a mistake even when we don't pay for it.

And a final thought: what has just happened will seldom if ever be repeatable. John is a unique player (a legendary one since everybody knows of him and about him). But he does stuff that he shouldn't do. His TF composition can be very poor. But the biggest thing is going on joy rides lacking good information and detection. I've known the exact location of KB and most BBs for eight of the nine months since we resumed the game.

Very few experienced players would make mistakes like these. John is legendary - truly so (legendary not necessarily meaning "elite" or "great" or anything qualitative, but rather in relation to public awareness) - and due to his aggressiveness he can overwhelm players - even experienced players - early on. But that doesn't work very well when the enemy has grown as strong or stronger than his troops.

So what would I take from this game if I were to play some excellent IJN player? Well, I've gained alot of experience just managing assets and learning how features work. But the experience of playing John really isn't repeatable. So I'd have to gauge the opponent and figure out what would work best against them.

[Encircled]

You've played a blinder here with this one.

You've made him pay for some very sloppy play, and you've done that by picking the perfect moment to attack him.

[&o]

[jwolf]

One thing I posted a few weeks ago that was the truth but apparently not the whole truth was that John had gotten away with mistakes (like Mini KB's JEB Stuart ride through CenPac) but that wasn't a mistake if I didn't make him pay for it. That much is true - if we make a mistake but our opponent doesn't make us pay for it, then perhaps it isn't a mistake. But in some cases, as here, a player may draw bad conclusions from a mistake. In this case, I wonder if John didn't conclude that I wouldn't react to his carriers since I obstinately stayed put in the Marshalls during his JEB Stuart ride and then during the opening moments of Steroid KBs raid past Johnston Island.

This is an interesting idea: don't react to a mistake (at first), in the hope that the mistake will be repeated with larger stakes, as in this case.

[BBfanboy]

Canoerebel: I'd have to gauge the opponent and figure out what would work best against them.

Another point about Intel being the most important element of the game. In this case, Intel on your opponent's strengths and weaknesses. You are the most analytical player about your opponent since Nemo left the forums. A great strength to have!

[Canoerebel]

ywolf, yes, interesting idea. I wonder if the discipline involved in letting a player get away with mistakes would be awfully hard to maintain? In my case it wasn't an act of discipline - it was thinking that I had a more important mission to attend to.

Pantherbait, this does open up the seas to Allied aggression. I'll spend many hours thinking over possibilities. I doubt I'll create two Death Stars in the near term, though. I think I'd prefer to move en masse and overwhelm without fear of blundering into a combined KB/land-based attack that might prove too equal.

I think what I want to do is utilize existing prep (especially Wake and Ponape, maybe Eniwetok) to advantage. From there, I may go west to Truk or I may veer south to the Admiralties/New Britain/New Guinea. Either move poses a threat to cut off alot of Japanese troops - Kusaei, Rabaul, and Lunga have immense defenses; and even places like Noumea and Port Moresby are still defended.

I'll be island hopping. I don't see any need in the short term to look at New Caledonia, the Solomons, Tabituea, Kusaie, and probably Roi Namur. The Pacific is open, big islands are out there in isolated positions (Truk, Wolei, Iwo), so let's go west (or southwest along the New Guinea coast).

[Canoerebel]

By "cut off" enemy troops, I don't mean to suggest that John will allow troops to get cut off. 6th Division at Lunga isn't going to get cut off because I invade Ponape in three weeks or Manus in six weeks. He'll get most of his troops out of harm's way. But he'll have to use ships and fuel to do so. If he's retrieving troops from Lunga or Noumea or Kusaie while I'm working over Ponape or Truk or Wolei, that will be worthwhile.

[Flicker]

Congratulations on a solid victory.

John's mini KB Jeb Stuart run might not be thought of as a mistake had it happened a week earlier when the sea lanes were full of shipping. Good idea, bad timing. However, IMO using CVEs as front line ships was a mistake.

Also, maybe the steroid KB can now be renamed; having that name seemed to give that fleet mystical properties - just as mini KB was vulnerable because it had a less powerful, diminutive name. Hmm, how does bald or shrunken testicles KB sound? Still muscular, just not as fearsome.

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

....As others have said your strike coordination was simply amazing, especially considering the weather. I wish I knew how that worked so I could copy it.

It's a new game. Move on from your very gracious note. Your strategic possibility menu just changed by a lot. Prep times are prep times, but you can think bigger again.

Well done.

1. Perhaps coordination was a function of detection levels and the fact that all Allied strike aircraft originated from three TFs - each with three CVs and a CVL. And each had very good captains and commanders. But, of course, I'm no technician. I didn't even realize the strikes were anything out of the ordinary.

DL was very important. However, the key is that your carriers only had one key target within range. On large carrier (CVE) TF and no other distractions. The other carriers were out of your seven hex strike range so were not an option. I mentioned in John's AAR that if his CVEs had not reacted or his main force was within seven hexes of you the outcome would have probably been more balanced. I think he was is a fairly poor tactical position and then the fortunes of war made a tight situation catastrophic.

I think this reinforces my point made earlier that the time for him to seriously seek a carrier fight was a few months ago. Time was frittering away all of his advantages.

And, though there has been so much debate on its merits, I think that it is now pretty clear that you sacrificed a queen in Sumatra in order to get a checkmate in the Pacific.

[Mike McCreery]

The game has changed.

Figure out what your final approach to the HI will be so that you can plan accordingly moving backwards from there.

I have no idea how well John has Shikuka defended but my ability to sail past the barrier Kurile islands and do a direct assault and capture that base was instrumental in an early win against NJP in my last game.

My best advice would be to go strong and go deep.

[Canoerebel]

ORIGINAL: Flicker
Also, maybe the steroid KB can now be renamed...how does bald or shrunken testicles KB sound? Still muscular, just not as fearsome.

I refer your question to crsutton. I believe he had a dream about this very thing last night.

[Canoerebel]

ORIGINAL: Wargmr
The game has changed...My best advice would be to go strong and go deep.

Hmm. Good prodding, Wargmr. My notions of "going deep" have been "New Guinea" or "Truk." The thought of striking Shokaku or Okinawa or the Philippines immediately hadn't occurred to me. (Of those, Shokaku would be best because of it's "proximity" to Midway or the Aluetians.)

There may be reasons I shouldn't go that far yet, but it would be a good idea to evaluate every possibility before making final decisions. Thanks for the suggestion.

[jwolf]

My notions of "going deep" have been "New Guinea" or "Truk."

Not exactly true -- originally the Aleutian strike was supposed to be deeper, to the big northern Japanese island (Hokkaido?) but you wisely pulled it back to the Aleutians.

I would imagine the Japanese in your game still have an immense number of fighter and strike aircraft, and in most of their empire those units can be moved around rather quickly and flexibly. All that is to say that targets at or close to Asia are likely to be difficult, though in the open Pacific your forces should (??) be supreme.

[Canoerebel]

ORIGINAL: crsutton
And, though there has been so much debate on its merits, I think that it is now pretty clear that you sacrificed a queen in Sumatra in order to get a checkmate in the Pacific.

Exactly!

By the way Ross, I was thinking of you this morning. During my waking moments, I might add.

Did you know that early in this game (sometime back in 1942, which would have been in 2013), you predicted that the Allies would win the war before the end of 1943? I came across this prediction months ago when I was reading back through the AAR after questions came up about House Rules (John wanted to know if we had a restriction versus night bombing.) I think there was another player that offered a similar prediction, but yours was memorably naked...I mean straightforward.

When the invasion of Sumatra achieved total surprise, I thougth your prediction (and the other player's) would come true. Then, when hopes grew dim in Sumatra, I doubted the end could come in '43. Then, when Hokkaido was wide open, my hopes rekindled. Then, when the Allies had to settle in for a more conventional war by focusing on islands, hopes dimmed again.

[poodlebrain]

How short a time ago was it in the game when John was strutting about like a peacock in the aftermath of the Battle of Sumatra? It is an awfully short turnaround for him to now be in despair. You played on despite a massive defeat. It would be disturbing if he does not.

Speaking of the Battle of Sumatra, just think of the impact it has on your ability to capitalize on your recent victory. All those lost ground units will limit your ability to move forward. You might want to remind John in one of your emails with a woe is me type complaint to boost his morale.

Psychological warfare in a PBEM game is something I hadn't really considered before now. The more I learn about this game the more there is to like.

[Lowpe]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Did you know that early in this game (sometime back in 1942, which would have been in 2013), you predicted that the Allies would win the war before the end of 1943?

You haven't won the war. Japan still has an excellent chance to get a draw especially if you continue thinking like that and get sloppy.[:-]

The most dangerous animal is a wounded one.