Empire of The Sun Tag Team Game - Imperial Perspective

[Nemo121]

Ok well this is a thread concerning the upcoming AAR which EL Cid Again ( one of the originators of RHS) and I are going have against an Allied tag team ( 5 players at present).

Sid and I disagree quite markedly about what should and shouldn't be done, where the parameters of play should be etc etc and so we felt it would be interesting to carry that sort of disharmony into a PBEM game with one commanding the IJA and the other the IJN - mirroring historical reality as it were. Sid is going to command the IJN while I will command the Army. Since one of my main interests in AARs is figuring out the WHY behind the action Sid and I have agreed ( as much as we ever agree about anything at least) to hold ALL our game-related discussions here. This will probably result in a long thread with many posts but it should also clearly show the evolution of plans etc... which I hope will be interesting.


The first thing we have agreed to tackle will be plane upgrade paths and general plane upgrades. I'll number them so you can just agree/disagree to the numbered points in a follow-on post.


1. Dive bombers.
As far as I can see no divebomber chutai, sentai or daitai can upgrade to anything other than a divebomber. In essence this means that D3As upgrade only to D4 Judys. Ki-51 Sonias can only upgrade to Vals or Judys. In essence this means that we should upgrade the navy planes first and then upgrade all the army dive-bomber suadrons to the latest model navy divebomber. This will give us a large reserve of divebombers which can be used to replenish carrier airgroups after carrier battles.


2. Single-engined torpedo bombers.
All single-engined torpedo bomber squadrons are under IJN control so apart from upgrading to the most current type ( apart from training kokutai which can use the B4 Jean until it is used up) I see no real choices to make here EXCEPT for the choice of whether or not to upgrade to the B5N2-Q ASW variant... I would argue that this shouldn't be done as the B5N2-Qs range of 2 hexes for ASW work is abysmal ( maximum ASW range is half of effective range) and we would be far better served by using the squadrons as ready replacements for carrier torpedo-bomber losses - which are likely to be extremely heavy, especially once VT-fused shells enter the picture. In addition I think there are so many level-bomber squadrons out there that we could easily get the same number of ASW planes ( each having greater range and more depth charges) with a much smaller relative apportionment of the level bomber force. So, all in all it makes no sense to apportion a significant portion of a rare and valuable commodity ( planes which can swap into CV airgroups) when one can do the job better with a relatively smaller portion of a common and less valuable commodity ( a twin-engined bomber daitai).

P.s. Ki-49Q durability in RHS EOS is wrong. It is 10. It should be 20.


3. Twin-engined army bombers.
Until the Ki-49 appears on the scene in August 1942 all Army bombers are unarmoured with no clear winner in which is most useful.

The Ki-36 is actually a quite useful strategic bomber over China... resource hits are a function of number of bombs dropped and not their weight/destructive potential.
The Ki-48 auto-upgrades to the Ki-45 Nick, a useful plane, and is arguably on a par with the Ki-21 when attacking land targets by virtue of its 8 x 50 Kg bombs which guarantee significantly more hits per bomber sortie, although with less destruction per hit. Obviously, versus ships, the Ki-48 is much inferior as its bombs do not penetrate.
The Ki-21 Sally has excellent range and auto-upgrades to the Ki-67 in May 1944.

So, from the point of view of what to do with the production of Ki-36s ( 17 per month), Ki-48s ( 30 per month) and Ki-21s ( 30 per month) I suggest just leaving them be until September 42 at which time the Ki-36 can be changed to something else while the Ki-48 and 21 are turned off to await auto-upgrades.


Come August 1942 what should happen?
I would suggest leaving production as it is and waiting for the Me-264 to become available in September 1942. For a 40% increase in HI it carries 5.33 times more bombs to 3.66 times the range... It is simply a far, far better bomber than the Ki-49 and also significantly more efficient in terms of the amount of HI and supply utilised to drop a given weight of bombs on a given target. With similarly experienced crews 5 Me-264s will deliver the same weight of bombs to a target as 27 Ki-49s. In addition a greater % of the Me-264s will be able to penetrate CAP, survive FlAK damage and make it back to base. These are benefits which are obvious even within the normal range of the Ki-49 but beyond a range of 12 hexes the benefits are even greater as targets which the Ki-49 cannot even reach are now within range of devastating attacks. Range is a force multiplier and the Me-264 gives us that range.

Once it comes along I plan to convert any Japanese Army Bomber Daitai/Chutai not currently flying Bettys or Nells to the Me-264. To put it into perspective building 115 Me-264s per month ( which seems like a massive investment of HI) consumes in one 30 day month only a bit over 10,500 HI. This is the exact same HI cost as is taken up in that month by a single Taiho class CV. Or to put it another way, if Japan were to suspend the CVs and BBs in its shipbuilding programme and begin building 4-engined bombers on Day 1 it could produce 830 Me-264s per month for the same cost per month as the halted BBs and CVs/CVLs. Not that I'm suggesting we do that, just illustrating that while efficiency is an argument the Me-264s really aren't that inefficient especially since 115 Me-264s are likely to cause more grief in one month than a single CV.


Other than that the auto-upgrades take care of the rest. The Bettys upgrade to G7Ms or P1Y1 Frances while the Ki-21 upgrades to the Ki-67 Peggy. All have their places... The only thing I think is non-negotiable is producing a large force of Me-264s. The cost is of such a force is not that high when one looks at the cost of other things in the economy.

E.g. At game's start the CV Taiho is 820 days from completion. With a durability of 115 this will cost 282,900 HI ( or the equivalent of 23.4 days of Japan's entire industrial output). For the same HI cost over the same time one could build 3143 Me-264s... I happen to be of the opinion that 3,143 Me-264s will help the war effort more than a single Taiho class CV .



4. Recon Planes.
Upgrade to the latest available. Simple, no real choices to make here.



5. Transports.
A mix of Tabbys ( good range with high payload) and Liz ( 40% more cost than a Tina but over four times the payload) seems to be the right mix here. Fortunately this seems to cover every squadron I've looked at in RHS.


6.Floatplanes etc.
Float fighters - just go with the best available at the time. The Pete is almost utterly useless and just serves to get pilots killed IMO. I beach them and save the pilots for Rufes.
Float Planes. Either the Jake or Alf. I think that the extra range and larger number of ( albeit smaller) bombs makes the Alf the better plane but it is your choice as it is a purely navy plane.
Patrol Planes... Just go with the most modern. A nice big fleet of transport Mavises would be nice. They are worth their weight in gold IMO.



7. Fighters.
Now it gets a bit contentious. From previous discussions I think we are both agreed on the need to build up a sizable pool of Ki-43 IIs and A6M2 before they auto-upgrade, the first to act as Kamikazes, the latter to at as long-range escorts so as to allow bombers to launch in 1943/44 etc.

I see the IJA upgrade path as being Me-109 to Ki-44II to Ki-44 III. Why on earth they "upgrade" the Ki-44 III to a substantially inferior plane in February 45 ( A7M2 - slower, less manoeuvrable, smaller rate of climb and lower overall ceiling) is beyond me. Same thing happens with the Jack. It is faster and more manoeuvrable than the George and yet gets "upgraded" to it without the player having any say. Seems silly to me.

Your upgrade path is fixed with the A6M2 going to the A6M5 and then the A6M7 as far as carrier-based planes go... Obviously the Ki-44 III is far superior so should be used instead of any of those planes.


I do note one amusing error in the mod which should be fixed. After the Ki-44 III and A6M2 upgrade to the A7M2 ( an inferior plane to the Ki-44 III) there doesn't appear to be a carrier-usable plane in production on the Japanese side... Perhaps you should just forget about the Ki-44 III auto-upgrading at all. That would make most sense and result in a reasonable plane being able to operate from Japanese CVs.

[ny59giants]

How is production going to be run??
If a shipyard is to be expanded who decides??
What about the movement of supplies/resources/oil??

Nemo,
Since you are IJA, do you have to request of Cid the shipping needed to invade India and the follow up of supplies and such??

[Nemo121]

Sid,
 
FWIW I propose that the best way to divide things up is obviously to split things by theatre, bargain for the forces required and then each run an individual theatre. This should minimise the amount of friction ( using the Clausewitzian meaning of the word) which could occur... and would occur if we were reliant on the other making exactly the right orders for co-located units.
 
As I am commanding the IJA my priorities will be DEI, India, Phillipines, China, Soviet Union and Australia in that order. I know you will quibble with those priorities, especially putting India first, but I think neutralising this front is crucial to long-term success. I see your job in the IJN as the following:
 
1. Seize the Aleutians at all costs. It is the best route into Japan in-game.
2. Seize PH and other important Pacific holdings so as to create a north-south line from the Aleutians, through Hawaii to Palmyra/Washington etc.
3. Isolate Australia by taking Rabaul, Fiji, Port Moresby, New Zealand.
 
Essentially I see the navy job as being to keep the Americans far away and prevent them from bringing their strength to bear in Australia... I know about the shipping channels but they can be overcome by the Japanese simply by taking Exmouth at 11,86. I think this is a good argument for these shipping channels terminating "behind" Australia so that they cannot be reached by Japanese bombers unless these bombers are on the southern coast of Australia. If you are worried about the length of transit not being correct just put in a few doglegs and that should sort it out. Unfortunately the obvious counter to the shipping channel ending at 1,95 is to take Exmouth.
 
 
You know my preferred operations in the opening phase of hostilities:
 
1. Amphibious landing at Johore Bahr on Day 2... with a division at Singora to prevent the Brits getting away northward. Tavoy captured by parachute assault in order to set up a fighter and torpedo-bomber base to prevent easy escape of PoW and/or the evacuation of troops from Rangoon/Burma.
 
Airborne assaults on Sabang and Andaman island with a view to setting up Andaman as a patrol boat base and building Sabang to Level 4 ASAP in order to base Bettys out of ( these cover up to hex 11,22 about 180 miles north of Ceylon) in order to provide cover for any invasion of Ceylon.
 
 
2. Bypassing Manilla but establishing major bomber bases at Cagayan, Kendari, Amboina and Balikpapan in order to catch any ships which try to escape. Army bombers will render Manilla and Clarke useless as a base for Allied operations. Phillipines can be mopped up by a follow-on wave of 4 divisions taken from the Home Islands over the next couple of weeks.
 
 
3. Fast transports make for Merang and Palembang to prevent Dutch forces heading north. The supply sink at Palembang makes it impossible to take this quickly. The best way to take a supply sink seems to be to base a force at it so that no resources/supply are produced and the Allied forces at the supply sink starve. Then, 1 to 2 months later you bring a couple of divisions in, shock attack and take the supply sink. You know I disagree with this as realistic modelling but leaving aside that issue this strategem will work.
 
 
4. Once Sabang is built up Japanese forces load up again and head for Ceylon, taking it under Betty cover. Once Ceylon is taken the Bettys can cover up to just north of Bombay giving Japanese naval forces the ability to move in great safety.

5. Japanese forces take Pangim and then begin working inland. With Pangim taken the naval route from Aden is well within Betty and Nell range and the Allied ability to run troops and supplies into India will be greatly reduced.
 
It is a quite conservative approach but is graduated, operates under a land-based air umbrella and does the job of isolating India from further reinforcements which is essential if it is to be taken quickly and easily.
 
With control of the sea the Allies will simply be unable to cover every invasion point and as the landing at Pangim sucks them in it will be possible to land elsewhere and exploit deeply with armoured operational manoeuvre groups. It'll all be very Soviet .
 
 
6. In the meantime the forces which had taken Amboina, Kendari, Balikpapan, Cagayan,  Kuching etc can re-embark and begin the process of taking Java. They should be more than sufficient to the task... especially with Nells and Bettys to cut off reinforcements.
 
 
China:
I will simply clean out the partisans from behind the lines, make a slight strategic withdrawal from Ichang and bomb their resources. Combined with the pressure on India this should bring about a Chinese collapse. They may be quite frisky for the first few months but after about 3 months ( I've done the calculations based on some tests) I think Chinese resistance will collapse and we can push them back. It will be costly to repair the resources etc BUT bombing them will make the job of taking China so much easier that I think it is worth it.

[Nemo121]

ny59giants,

Pretty much all of those things are going to be up for discussion. As far as moving troops goes once the initial phase of invasions ( DEI and India) is over I expect the Army to be able to meet its invasion needs from its own pool of ships. Whenever the ships aren't invading something they will be moving resources but we have to discuss the details.
 
As far as the industrial side of things goes... that is another topic up for discussion. At present I think we're just at a 50/50 split with shipyards counting towards the navy 50% and armaments counting towards the army 50% and airplane production being assumed to split 50/50.
 
I will be writing a proposal for the industrial side of things tomorrow.

[el cid again]

[quote]ORIGINAL: Nemo121


1. Dive bombers.
As far as I can see no divebomber chutai, sentai or daitai can upgrade to anything other than a divebomber. In essence this means that D3As upgrade only to D4 Judys. Ki-51 Sonias can only upgrade to Vals or Judys. In essence this means that we should upgrade the navy planes first and then upgrade all the army dive-bomber suadrons to the latest model navy divebomber. This will give us a large reserve of divebombers which can be used to replenish carrier airgroups after carrier battles.

REPLY: Aside from some players preferring it this way, it is the game code default assumption. However, I have some ability to influence this: you DO have Ki-51 Sentai able to upgrade to the Kate - for example. Once they do - if they do - they can never go back to dive bomber units again. MOST of your Ki-51s will upgrade to the D3 or D4. Similarly, your Ki-36 is technically a bomber - and not all units have the same upgrade path. Picking the Ki-36 upgrade paths carefully you may end up with recon planes, horizontal bombers, torpedo bombers or dive bombers.

[el cid again]

[quote]ORIGINAL: Nemo121

2. Single-engined torpedo bombers.
All single-engined torpedo bomber squadrons are under IJN control so apart from upgrading to the most current type ( apart from training kokutai which can use the B4 Jean until it is used up) I see no real choices to make here EXCEPT for the choice of whether or not to upgrade to the B5N2-Q ASW variant... I would argue that this shouldn't be done as the B5N2-Qs range of 2 hexes for ASW work is abysmal ( maximum ASW range is half of effective range) and we would be far better served by using the squadrons as ready replacements for carrier torpedo-bomber losses - which are likely to be extremely heavy, especially once VT-fused shells enter the picture. In addition I think there are so many level-bomber squadrons out there that we could easily get the same number of ASW planes ( each having greater range and more depth charges) with a much smaller relative apportionment of the level bomber force. So, all in all it makes no sense to apportion a significant portion of a rare and valuable commodity ( planes which can swap into CV airgroups) when one can do the job better with a relatively smaller portion of a common and less valuable commodity ( a twin-engined bomber daitai).

P.s. Ki-49Q durability in RHS EOS is wrong. It is 10. It should be 20.

Some of your Army Sentai in EOS will upgrade to Kate. I recommend it. Then stay on that upgrade path to ever better levels of torpedo bombers. The Army may be able to be one level below the navy in General - but having a find land based strike unit may be useful here or there - so it isn't out of bounds to ask to upgrade early.

The Ki-49Q has a durability of 20 in x.17 - which I am trying to complete. Darned Russian's - all screwed up - and all I can do is move in the right direction. Still - I do what I can. Seems no one gave them air support squads related to their units!

IRL the Kate was obsolete and a fine adaption to ASW. In WITP we don't get to convert planes - which is a mistake (I allow in when I design a game). So you are right - here we upgrade Kates to better torpedo bombers. We do have Ki-49 Q and the G4 Q for that purpose. These are almost identical - radar - MAD - same normal loadout - but one is more durable and better armed and the other has more range.

[el cid again]

[quote]ORIGINAL: Nemo121

3. Twin-engined army bombers.
Until the Ki-49 appears on the scene in August 1942 all Army bombers are unarmoured with no clear winner in which is most useful.

The Ki-36 is actually a quite useful strategic bomber over China... resource hits are a function of number of bombs dropped and not their weight/destructive potential.
The Ki-48 auto-upgrades to the Ki-45 Nick, a useful plane, and is arguably on a par with the Ki-21 when attacking land targets by virtue of its 8 x 50 Kg bombs which guarantee significantly more hits per bomber sortie, although with less destruction per hit. Obviously, versus ships, the Ki-48 is much inferior as its bombs do not penetrate.
The Ki-21 Sally has excellent range and auto-upgrades to the Ki-67 in May 1944.

So, from the point of view of what to do with the production of Ki-36s ( 17 per month), Ki-48s ( 30 per month) and Ki-21s ( 30 per month) I suggest just leaving them be until September 42 at which time the Ki-36 can be changed to something else while the Ki-48 and 21 are turned off to await auto-upgrades.


First - there are enough Ki-49s to put a few into IMMEDIATE service by upgrading. In particular, they make fine recon planes (in detachments of 3) and a squadron of 12 is well worth having for certian missions.

Second - the Ki-36 is junk. Kill it by upgrading ASAP. It is a remarkable plane - you can replace it with Ki-51s and get into the dive bomber path, with Ki-30/32s and get into the horizontal bomber path, or with recon planes. All of which are more useful - and more survivable - than the Ki-36 itself. I don't ever retain it even for the strange rear area Korean Command and Central Command units.

Third: Ki-51 has too small a bomb load. Replace ASAP - either with a Kate or a Val. It may be possible to go other ways (if you change a plane in a unit, a different set of options opens up - and code picks it - it is not always the same - so watch).

Fourth: The Ki-32/30 is too small a bomb load. Upgrade to Ki-48/21 ASAP. Or directly to a naval bomber if available.

Fifth: Retain Ki-48 only because it is better than a Ki-32/30. As soon as possible replace it with Ki-21.

Sixth: Ki-21 is your workhorse. Not because it is great - but because it is better than anything else around until the Ki--49 or to the extent you get Navy bombers. So always upgrade to it until you can finally get all Ki-21 or better in the fleet. THEN replace the Ki-21s with better.

Seventh: Note I expect to transfer a few G3 and G4 to Army service IMMEDIATELY. Case by case discussion. Also a few Kates and Vals. Also some recon planes and Zeros.

[el cid again]

[quote]ORIGINAL: Nemo121


So, from the point of view of what to do with the production of Ki-36s ( 17 per month), Ki-48s ( 30 per month) and Ki-21s ( 30 per month) I suggest just leaving them be until September 42 at which time the Ki-36 can be changed to something else while the Ki-48 and 21 are turned off to await auto-upgrades.


If I only knew how to swear properly in Japanese!

OK - first principles:

New production is limited. Number of machines produced determines the rate at which units can upgrade. It is NEVER smart to focus on 4 Engine planes (even if doing the US economy) at a time you have lots of obsolescent planes to upgrade in field units. You want to produce Ki-48 and Ki-21 as replacements for units that have not upgraded as long as you must - or those units literally go to zero; You want to produce Ki-49 to upgrade Ki-32/30, Ki-48 and Ki-21 units to BECAUSE you get a lot more planes a lot faster. The idea is this: the sooner you get rid of 100% of Ki-36, Ki-51, Ki-32/30, Ki-48 and Ki-21 (in that order), the better off you are. ANYTHING that promotes that is good; ANYTHING that delays that - even one month - is bad.

For special missions, a limited number of fancy planes may be justified. But I cannot wait for the Me-264 for the Army to have long range planes. I will transfer to recon units some long range bombers - and probably selected bomber units as well. I will also transfer some Zeros - on an ongoing basis - so that the Army can perform some long range escort. Once the Recon Judy is out - it is amazing for a 1E plane - outranging the outstanding Ki-46 2E of the Army - I will transfer them over as well. And because a Recon Kate is better than a Ki-15 - to the extent you have not upgraded Ki-15s to Ki-46s I will outfit those units with Recon Kates.

Now the Me is a wonderful plane. And I regard it mainly as an Army plane. Even so- a few Navy units can upgrade to use it - and I will want to have some for them. But the Me has two hidden costs you may not be considering.

1) It costs you 4 times as much as a 1 Engine plane;

2) IT operates at such great ranges that, combined with higher attrition rates for Japanese planes in general, it is very likely to result in a severe loss rate. I note that since we extended plane ranges statistics say Japan is losing the operational attrition ratio much worse than before. Flying FEWER planes to MORE range can only exaserbate this issue: the ONLY mitigator is to range restrict the planes - which I don't think is your operational mould. Too much focus on ultra long range planes with 4 engines is going to be a net loser for Japan. Better to let 2 Engine planes do the mission if they can - and for two reasons: you get twice as many - it is harder to lose two planes than one. I am particularly concerned about keeping less effective planes in service so you can have a single super plane: real forces are teams - and no one plane is the answer - ever.

[el cid again]

[quote]ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Once it comes along I plan to convert any Japanese Army Bomber Daitai/Chutai not currently flying Bettys or Nells to the Me-264. To put it into perspective building 115 Me-264s per month ( which seems like a massive investment of HI) consumes in one 30 day month only a bit over 10,500 HI. This is the exact same HI cost as is taken up in that month by a single Taiho class CV. Or to put it another way, if Japan were to suspend the CVs and BBs in its shipbuilding programme and begin building 4-engined bombers on Day 1 it could produce 830 Me-264s per month for the same cost per month as the halted BBs and CVs/CVLs. Not that I'm suggesting we do that, just illustrating that while efficiency is an argument the Me-264s really aren't that inefficient especially since 115 Me-264s are likely to cause more grief in one month than a single CV.

REPLY: You do like statistics! Are you aware that a nominal building capacity of 115 planes per months will NEVER (not once in a game) give you 115 planes in a single month? Are you aware that such a program would require 460 engines per month? There is no possibility of affording such an engine production for a unique engine (which I like - because it probably would be a unique engine). Japan needs - by late 1942 - well over a thousand engines per month of the Ishkawajima type - and large numbers of Hitachi and Nakajima engines - and it is NEVER able to produce them all - even in theoretical plant capacity (never mind that plant capacity does not produce that many every month).
We can not afford such an effort. I would not consider less than 40 engines per month. I would regard 80 or 160 as reasonable (corresponding to 20 or 40 planes per month). And by German standards - that is fantastic. Germany never came close to having a real bomber program - but its dream was to build a whole 60 - not 60 per month - but 60 - Me-264s.

Remember the principle of diminishing returns: the first Me-264s may have fantastic applications because of things no other plane can do. But as the number increases, they become relatively less useful. The cost (you are not building 4 fighters for every last one) in planes not built - and functions not performed - will at some point become cost prohibitive. Do some analysis of those effects.

[el cid again]

[quote]ORIGINAL: Nemo121


Other than that the auto-upgrades take care of the rest. The Bettys upgrade to G7Ms or P1Y1 Frances while the Ki-21 upgrades to the Ki-67 Peggy. All have their places... The only thing I think is non-negotiable is producing a large force of Me-264s. The cost is of such a force is not that high when one looks at the cost of other things in the economy.

REPLY: Not my style. I micromanage. Various things go wrong - operationally - economically. I taylor the economy every day. Maybe not much - but always some. Move it towards what you need NOW - not what you thought you would need long ago - or what some program set before the game began. Much more efficient.

4. Recon Planes.
Upgrade to the latest available. Simple, no real choices to make here.

REPLY: Lots of choices. In general, I prefer range. If possible, a carrier plane with range. Any problem with that?


5. Transports.
A mix of Tabbys ( good range with high payload) and Liz ( 40% more cost than a Tina but over four times the payload) seems to be the right mix here. Fortunately this seems to cover every squadron I've looked at in RHS.

REPLY: First- downgrade the civil DC-3s to junk transports. Then upgrade junk military units to DC-3s.
Second - same for Type LO.
Third - upgrade the First Raiding Sentai directly to the Ki-57. It is more survivable and maybe should NEVER change.
Fourth - Convert military flying boats to military patrol planes - and use the freed up flying boat transports as replacements for the civil DNKKK flying boat unit - no need to produce any.
Fifth - Upgrade as production permits along the path LO - Ki57 - L2 - G5 (retaining Tina until Ki-77 or G5 replace it).
When this results in extra LO or Ki-57 upgrade civil transports to them.




6.Floatplanes etc.
Float fighters - just go with the best available at the time. The Pete is almost utterly useless and just serves to get pilots killed IMO. I beach them and save the pilots for Rufes.

REPLY: Surely you jest? I see Petes as fine float fighters. But as an AAW theorist, perhaps I should explain:
ANY air opposition at all - just one or two Petes counts in WITP - means you reduce the effectiveness rolls for ALL attacking bombers in a tactical situation. Add to that Petes sometimes shoot things down. And their pilots get practice.

MY priority: E8 is useless: upgrade ALL E8 to PETES !! Except maybe training units.


Float Planes. Either the Jake or Alf. I think that the extra range and larger number of ( albeit smaller) bombs makes the Alf the better plane but it is your choice as it is a purely navy plane.
Patrol Planes... Just go with the most modern. A nice big fleet of transport Mavises would be nice. They are worth their weight in gold IMO.


REPLY: Obvously you are an American in disguise. Too expensive. Not only directly, but in planes not built. I prefer a flying boat that can patrol OR transport - so only the civil transport unit retains these. IF we have lots of capacity we might upgrade to Emily transports for that unit. But mostly we use the regular versions of these planes, or long range land transports.

[el cid again]

[quote]ORIGINAL: Nemo121


7. Fighters.
Now it gets a bit contentious. From previous discussions I think we are both agreed on the need to build up a sizable pool of Ki-43 IIs and A6M2 before they auto-upgrade, the first to act as Kamikazes, the latter to at as long-range escorts so as to allow bombers to launch in 1943/44 etc.


REPLY: Boy did you read that wrong! I never use - nor will allow - the use of ANY Kamikazes. Not on moral grounds - but on operational grounds. Again - I am an AAW guy - and this is a wasteful use of resources. IRL it has other problems - notably on morale.

Anyway - the Me-109 is NOT available at first - so you uprade to the Ki-43I or Zero (for interceptor/escort duty).
The Me-109 replaces the Ki-43 I in that role - and then the Ki-44 II - and finally the Ki-44 III - which the Navy ALSO will use for interceptor duty.

I see the IJA upgrade path as being Me-109 to Ki-44II to Ki-44 III. Why on earth they "upgrade" the Ki-44 III to a substantially inferior plane in February 45 ( A7M2 - slower, less manoeuvrable, smaller rate of climb and lower overall ceiling) is beyond me.


Well - it isn't slower for one thing. So get the facts strait. And it has more range. And it carries a very useful bomb load - which the Ki-44III does not. So it is arguable. You might want to bomb something, no? [The A7 is actually 2mph faster in the critical speed rating - cruising speed: the one that matters for air air combat intercepts in WITP calculations]

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

How is production going to be run??
If a shipyard is to be expanded who decides??
What about the movement of supplies/resources/oil??

Movement of supplies by land is not under player control - but AI control. Movement at sea is under player control -
and theoretically should be army - but more practically should be navy - since it has more escort assets. We are likely to divide it by area - and so the Army may control shipping in the Sea of Japan - the Yellow Sea - the East China Sea - maybe the South China Sea - all of which it can patrol from land based air bases reasonably well. Not decided.


Nemo,
Since you are IJA, do you have to request of Cid the shipping needed to invade India and the follow up of supplies and such??

Turns out IJA holds most of the cards:

There are three divisions of shipping: Army, Navy, Civil. Their size is in that order. The army controls Army ships directly - and civil ships indirectly - since it also controls the government! On the other hand, the Japanese way is to require consensus: if I don't agree more or less we don't have a deal - until we do.

[el cid again]

[quote]ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Sid,

FWIW I propose that the best way to divide things up is obviously to split things by theatre, bargain for the forces required and then each run an individual theatre. This should minimise the amount of friction ( using the Clausewitzian meaning of the word) which could occur... and would occur if we were reliant on the other making exactly the right orders for co-located units.

REPLY: Concur in detail. Read my vom Krieg in the original German und ich verstehen!


As I am commanding the IJA my priorities will be DEI, India, Phillipines, China, Soviet Union and Australia in that order. I know you will quibble with those priorities, especially putting India first, but I think neutralising this front is crucial to long-term success. I see your job in the IJN as the following:


REPLY: You have a genius for understatement.

India is not an option. I explained to you the sim is not valid if we take all of India. The Allies cannot base themselves and hit us with bombers as they really could. The economic model also will give us too much supply.
It isn't valid and it isn't fair and I won't do it. Nothing is off limits to attack - but conquest is a different story.

Wholly aside from those first principles - which cannot be fixed short of doing a new game -
India should not be an option in the sense of All of India. Too many troops required too far from our center of gravity. It defeats our primary assets: a large army and interior lines - in one task! We do not have the bases - and support units (e.g. AAA) to defend bases - in India - Japan- the SRA - and everywhere else we need them.
To attempt this is to spread too thin - and be ineffective EVERYWHERE. Again - not an option - even if it were an option - which thank goodness on this map it is not.

There is one other consideration - if the above two were not already fatal (which they are):
shipping. I cannot cover an invasion of India and invade Hawaii at the same time. And the absolute amount of shipping required is simply not available under any reasonable allocation system. Invasion transports may be lost - so they cannot be drawn from ships that will be needed to run the economy. And invasions of Malaya, the Philippines, DEI, Aleutians and Hawaii do not leave any invasion shipping at all - probably we can't do all these tasks well and have to phase them. And India needs as many ships again. You might get the tonnage if you committed big ships - but it is not IJA doctrine to do that - nor mine. LITTLE ships do invasion duty. Big ships do not load/unload efficiently anyway, and they are way too important for economic duty to risk losing. Winners of WITP need to regard AKs highly - they are not pawns but the real workhorses of logistics.

[el cid again]

[quote]ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Sid,
I see your job in the IJN as the following:

1. Seize the Aleutians at all costs. It is the best route into Japan in-game.

REPLY: And IRL. It is why Japan invaded. I don't like it. But it may be foolish to ignore. Once they have major bases it is impossible.

2. Seize PH and other important Pacific holdings so as to create a north-south line from the Aleutians, through Hawaii to Palmyra/Washington etc.

REPLY: Not a bad idea - and one Yamamoto thought of on 10 Dec 1941 - Tokyo time (9 Dec our time). Changes the nature of the naval war. They likely will try to retake Hawaii. We can afford to lose it. And it is a long way from anything that matters to us. Also - Hawaii has half the oil stores of the entire Empire!

3. Isolate Australia by taking Rabaul, Fiji, Port Moresby, New Zealand.


REPLY: Not a bad idea - and one the Japanese thought of and attempted to execute.

Essentially I see the navy job as being to keep the Americans far away and prevent them from bringing their strength to bear in Australia... I know about the shipping channels but they can be overcome by the Japanese simply by taking Exmouth at 11,86. I think this is a good argument for these shipping channels terminating "behind" Australia so that they cannot be reached by Japanese bombers unless these bombers are on the southern coast of Australia. If you are worried about the length of transit not being correct just put in a few doglegs and that should sort it out. Unfortunately the obvious counter to the shipping channel ending at 1,95 is to take Exmouth.\


REPLY: OK - time here to repeat the primary house rule of El Cid - recommended for all players in all games:

IF you don't think a real commander would do it IRL - or if you don't think an option to do that would exist IRL - don't do it. In Level 6 Exmouth is indeed not too far from the West Map Edge (Indian Ocean) Entry Point: but you are then range restricted to the distance to the opening itself. That means ships are not at risk for long - just about two hexes of their transit - which may or may not be at night. Not to mention I never planned to take Austraila that far West for use as a base. Not to mention I NEVER will build a base in NORTHERN Austraila that the Allies can use (when captured) to bomb Java. The Indian Ocean Entry Point represents many points over thousands of miles of sea. It is where it is so we get transit times right - not to focus attacks! It is on the map edge - and this area is LOGISTICAL in focus - not OPERATIONAL. I will never run major sustained ops near the map edge. While that is not the same thing as saying I will never attack - it is saying I am playing by the spirit of my own rules. I want the Allies to have to proove their supplies and reinforcements arrive over a contested sea - but not to be wholly excluded from the map.

To that add that you are missing the SE Pacific entry point - they can enter near Tahati and go to the South - and avoid me pretty must altogether. Which is still a victory: longer supply lines dramatically reduce throughput.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Sid,

China:
I will simply clean out the partisans from behind the lines, make a slight strategic withdrawal from Ichang and bomb their resources. Combined with the pressure on India this should bring about a Chinese collapse. They may be quite frisky for the first few months but after about 3 months ( I've done the calculations based on some tests) I think Chinese resistance will collapse and we can push them back. It will be costly to repair the resources etc BUT bombing them will make the job of taking China so much easier that I think it is worth it.

Absent from this is the vital strategic goal (and a historical one not achieved in a meaningful way - but technically achieved in 1944): Unit the main rail connection from Indochina to Manchuria under Japanese control. Resources, supplies- even oil will flow this way - and never be torpedoed!

[Andy Mac]

Great Idea guys this is going to be fun watching the IJN and IJA fight it out....
 
I figure about a week before you have you grand strategic priorites sorted !!!!
 
Andy

[Monter_Trismegistos]

I just hope that allied commanders wouldn't interfere in such a beautiful war between IJA and IJN.

[pauk]

ah... great idea... Cid and Nemo playing together... that will be really a 2x war - one against allies, one between IJA and IJN....[;)][:D]

Seriously, looking forward for this game. Nemo, we all missed your flames[;)]

[Nemo121]

Cid,

I think that your points on the planes are, generally, good but there are a few flaws:

1. All of this upgrading etc costs supplies... supplies you want us not to waste and which I'm trying to conserve by delaying upgrading until September 42 when we can do a single upgrade of Ki-36s ( and others) instead of two upgrades ( costing twice as much supply).

2. If we have planes in the pool then we might as well use them up so long as we can find niches in which they can survive and achieve goals.

3. The strategic strike model focuses on number of bombs dropped, not their weight such that planes carrying many bombs are more effective than planes carrying fewer but heavier bombs.

E.g. The Ki-32 carries 9 bombs and is thus three times as effective at resource attacks as the Ki-21. Sure the Ki-21 has more range and more durability BUT over China there are more than enough bases within 6 ( or even 8 hexes) to make the Ki-32 ( of which we have about 500, including the pools) a really viable bomber for the anti-resource campaign. Obviously we should expand production of the Ki-21 BUT we shouldn't do so and think it is the answer to all our problems. The Ki48, 32 and 36 all have excellent niche roles, albeit mostly over China.


4. Ki-36 and Ki-51 being junk.I have 93 Ki 36s in the pool and 60 Ki-51s. I won't upgrade from them to Kates and Vals ( which are rare) until the Ki-36s and Ki-51s are used up. In my current RHS PBEM I've managed to take out over 100 Chinese resource centres in the first two days of way using just my Ki-36s and Ki-51s. If I keep this up for another 2 or 3 weeks the Chinese ground forces are going to be so starved of supply as to be crippled and start melting away. Being caught up with a mania to upgrade to the best planes available ASAP isn't the solution. The navy will need all the Vals and Kates it can produce in the first couple of months and, believe me, if you tangle with the US and RN a few times you'll burn through what you are producing soon enough. Ki-51 is a crap anti-shipping DB BUT its multiple small bombload makes it an excellent resource bomber in China. And the fact that it is armoured helps it survive the FlAK better than the D3A would. I won't build any more and as I use them up I will update the sentai to Vals but we might as well get use out of the Ki-51s while we have them. Waste not want not.

Obviously though none of this changes the fact that when it comes to expanding production the Ki-21 is the one to expand. I am just arguing that you need to be open to the benefits of the older planes in China and other subsidiary theatres in the first few months while production of the necessary replacements is ramped up.


5. Ki-21s as work-horses. Agreed. I plan to increase their production. I think you took my points re: using what I start with as effectively as possible as being a sign that I thought they were good. Hell no, I'm just focussed on using what I have as effectively as possible until we produce enough replacements that I can start upgrading. Up until September 1942 I plan to produce Ki-21s predominantly. At that point in time I plan to switch my main effort to the Me-264. Obviously there will be a period of time in which both the Ki-21 and Me-264 are being produced. How long that will be will depend upon operational exingencies and losses.


6. As regards the Me-264... I think your maths as regards comparing the Me-264 to a Ki-21 is flawed. A single Me-264 costs 90 HI ( 4 engines + 1 airframe x 18 HI ). A single twin-engined plane costs 54 HI ( 2 engines + 1 airframe x 18 HI). So the Me-264 only costs 66% more than a Ki-21. It doesn't mean that one should immediately stop the Ki-21 obviously though but it does mean that the Me-264 isn't quite as expensive, relatively speaking, as you seem to believe.

As for its range and the correlation to operational losses... You are absolutely correct... My harping on about range is all about its force multiplier ability to hit enemy airbases etc we could not hit without the Me-264 but, obviously, just because one CAN fly to 33 hexes doesn't mean one should always fly that far . If a base 6 hexes away requires pounding then that's fine too. Remember Sid that just because I identify something as an advantage doesn't mean that I will slavishly follow it into the jaws of Cerberus.


Your analysis of Me-264 production vs fighters is flawed. A fighter costs 36 HI ( 18 for the engine, 18 for the airframe) so a single Me 264 costs the same as 2.5 fighters, not 4. As to the 115 planes per month. That was illustrative of the relative cost of an Me-264 vs a CV so as to provide context for the discussion. It wasn't intended to justify production of 120 per month .


7. Recon planes.
. When I said no real choices there it was pretty much because I figured range and speed ( which improves survivability) would be the sole determinants and during the war there is a clear winner in the recon category at every stage of the war using those criteria. We should focus on producing that winner.


8. Transports.
Looks like we are in substantial agreement as re: focussing on a mix of L2s and G5s for the army... I understand what you are saying about using Mavis and Emilys flying boats as extempore transports so as to maintain the maximum recon capability BUT there is a 42 plane flying boat unit. Surely that could be equipped with the transport version as it is massive overkill for a patrol unit. As to all the other units, sure, maximise your patrol capability. That makes sense.


9. Floatplane fighters...
Well every time you lose a Pete you lose a 70 Exp pilot... Its your navy you can do with it what you wish... I prefer to risk a bit of minor damage to a few DDs than continue to lose my precious pilots in this way. You draw the line in a different place, that's fine. it is your navy after all.


10. Kamikazes.
LOL! So under no circumstances would you use kamis EVEN in the face of uebercap where your only chance of getting a hit was to sneak a few Oscar IIs in above their CAP ceiling and dive down into their elevators?

Well, in that case I think we might see the army becoming the kamikaze wing of Imperial Japan in 1944 . I love kamis... Obviously I prefer conventional attacks so long as they produce results. Once they stop producing acceptable results though I will switch over to kamis.


11. Fighters.

Ok I'm quoting from V6.15 ( latest version I have). The Ki-44 III is listed as having a top speed of 394. The A7M2 is listed as having a top speed of 390. Sure the A7M2 has a 2 mph advantage in cruise speed but surely it would make more sense to base air intercepts on top speed as I would imagine most planes trying to intercept another plane making for a precious CV would use top speed for the intercept.

Maybe you can explain the A2A model a bit more as I always thought top speed was the most important thing. Now you seem to be saying it is cruising speed ( which seems a bit unlikely to me).




Ground combat issues:

12. India.

Sid, I told you before going into this that I would go for India. To pull the rug now is not, IMO, reasonable.

In any case one can argue the following:
a) YOU won't be invading India, I will be.

b) Once Burma is taken the front line in India will become the new de facto front line and the forces in India will, once again, have interior lines of communication. Some of them will be sea lines of communication but they'll still be well-protected.

c) As regards spreading oneself too thin... Well, by defending the outer perimeter ( India, Ceylon, Sumatra, Java) one doesn't have to defend the inner holdings quite as strongly. This helps avoid spreading too thin... It is, of course, still a problem but one in which the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.

d) The Allies won't be long in taking back India. They will hit it and hit it in force once they use the shipping lanes to bring enough troops and CVs in to cover such an invasion. At that point in time all India will be is an opportunity to bleed their invasion fleets, their aerial forces and their ground troops as the IJA conducts a vicious fighting withdrawal trading ground for time. In an RHS with shipping channels India simply cannot be held as the Allies can concentrate the necessary forces relatively quickly and safely BUT it gives the Japanese more ground to trade for time and on a personal level I relish the opportunity to conduct a fighting withdrawal in WiTP.

In addition one reason I am so motivated to get the Me-264 is that I intend to scorch every resource centre in India off the map as this fighting retreat occurs. They WILL retake India and they will retake it sooner rather than later but it will be an unproductive husk when they do.

Hell, worst case scenario, if the invasion fails and all we hold onto is Ceylon I can still base Me-264s there and destroy most of the resources in India. This will still cripple Allied offensive potential in this theatre for the rest of the war - which is my goal.


13. Aleutians.
Ok, we agree on this.


14. Pearl.
It appears we agree here. The only question is whether you charge into the guns on December 11th or go for the more gradual approach of taking Hilo and Kona and blockading, running down supplies and the defending coastal defences with concentrated bomber raids before landing sometime in February or March.


15. Oz.

Not to mention I NEVER will build a base in NORTHERN Austraila that the Allies can use (when captured) to bomb Java.

I think this is short-sighted. The Allies will be able to build these bases up with their engineers + bulldozers in almost no time when they take those bases. OTOH if we take some of these bases we can unleash our strategic bombers on their resources, repair shipyards and HI. If Australia can be bombed into oblivion ( in terms of resource production) we can greatly lessen its utility to the Allies AND force them to commit massive numbers of AKs to supply transportation - thus lessening the number of ships available to their transports.
As we have discussed WiTP should, more accurately, be called Logistics in The Pacific. Logistically speaking if we build up Exmouth and bomb resources in Western Oz into oblivion ( using PM and other bases to do the same elsewhere in conjunction with the Me-264) then I think we will have dealt a crippling blow to the Allies in the Western Theatre of Operations.
Between India and Australia having their resource production crippled in this manner I think that we can force the Allies to ship everything they have to CONUSA ( where they DO have abundant resupply) and launch any major offensives from there, right into the teeth of prepared IJN defences ( strengthened by IJA forces stripped from less active fronts.

16. China.
The vital strategic goal of clearing the rail-lines can be achieved once Chinese troops begin to starve and troops begin returning from India ( minus the troops left there as a garrison force... not all that many troops since they aren't expected to hold India, just conduct a fighting retreat to Ceylon and the southern coastal ports and then be evacuated from there... while Me-264s bomb as many of the resources as possible.


Sid, I'll post an economic analysis later... I will assume a 50/50 split initially with aircraft production split 50/50 between us as totting up who was producing a given plane and using it would just be too much of a headache on a per turn basis.


Pauk, hopefully no flames. Any amount of criticism of plans is fine but once criticism takes on a personal cant I will walk away...

[pauk]

hi, didn't mean anything mean. Just wanted to tell that i missed your writing style and solid (?) attitude....[:)]