Matrix Games Forums

OSO is preparing a turn (which must mean as Japan) for RHS Test Series 10 -

RHSEBO version 7.80 - released yesterday (with revised submarine durability, more durable major CD units,
and a few other features)

That means I get to be the Allies - and for me coalition warfare requires different points of view - SO

I want Allied advisors from whom political guidance can be obtained. Pick your country (or perhaps group of countries) -
and first come first serve. Preferably a country you understand the history and politics of.

I also will do a public mailing of reports, replays and my turn - with published password - for anyone who wants to watch
how I run the Allies. I need a pm of an email address for this feature - don't post on the board to avoid hostile email
trackers.

Partial copy of PM - address deleted to defeat hostile crawlers


Hi Cid,

I'd be happy to take on the Anzacs.

email

Cheers

Rob L

I counter proposed to form a strong US/ANZAC alliance. To give priority to moving US forces and logistical support there even over US territories - to defeat the strategic aim of a Central Pacific Offensive - keep me out of the SRA as long as possible. I proposed to resist in the SRA - and to use non militia ANZAC forces to do it - replacing them with green US forces as they become available. I also propose that we base our early war operations where we can use short range aircraft to advantage - instead of mid ocean. In other words - no War Plan Orange - no direct head on confrontation over Central Pacific Islands - which is not to say no active defense - just not send everything there and fight to the death of all forces for them. Fight instead in SE Asia - and with all the stuff we can get there. No response yet - but it hardly seems a deal likly to be rejected.

He responded with very intelligent concerns - he worries about what Aussies call "the Northwest Approaches" - and of course this is a big problem area. He tentatively agreed to put Aussie assets under US command.

I countered by proposing the entire area be an Aussie command - that way he can decide what units cover vital cities etc.
I then proposed we really do that - I will run other areas - the economy - but he will move all the units in the area we define as our primary focus - the SRA - ANZAC - however we define the boundaries. So it really is an Aussie command. I am a coalition warrior - and I trust my allies - and am trusted by them.

One of the exchanges:

Our trade off for providing our regular divisions is that we expect significant ASW assets to be deployed in Australia and NZ - especially aircraft. As we are almost totally reliant on SLOC's, they must be protected and submarines prosecuted vigorously.
Aircraft are about all we have - until 1943 when DEs become available. But I do intend to combine the coalition - sending British assets as well - if it is a good base - it is a good base. And I am big on SLOCs - I want to develop a network of bases - and station units to guard the SLOCs - even if not attacked at any given time. If a major SLOC is threatened - I think we should consider sending the main naval forces to fight over it - if that is not suicide in those conditions. Even at the cost of not doing a planned offensive.Agreed.

Sid

Agreed

Rob L

the trick is to know how much force to send into the area too make things at least a little difficult for the attacker.

Rob L

It is tricky. I have some things up my sleeve though. I know how to make things effective - and how to get some things out. The main thing is to have enough pieces on the board - and early this is hard for the Allies. Which is why I think a strategic focus helps - we sent the pieces to Australia and use them for points North - building a foundation for offensive, defensive and offensive defensive at the same time - which then is played according to operational considerations - depending on events we cannot forsee in a strategic sense.
I am willing to lose in other places - but I don't want to give up SRA or Austrailia or the approaches without a fight. Sir Robin I am not

Sid

In a message dated 5/20/2008 4:54:31 P.M. Alaskan Daylight Time, rjjvlee@bigpond.com writes:
We release our naval forces to your command, with the proviso that there must be at least one cruiser and two destroyers stationed on the east coast at all times, until there is no significant threat to Australia.

Rob L

More or less I am proposing the opposite - we send the major naval forces to Australia - and then place them under ANZAC operational command in that area. It is impossible to imagine how we can send battleships and carriers in whatever numbers are available and not have enough stuff there. We will be repairing up MODESTLY damaged ships all the time at Aussie shipyards - so ad hoc task groups of some size should be easy to form.

Sid

Many players strip the rear areas completely,except for rebuilding/repairing units. This would be completely unacceptable, especially early on. I know you understand that fact well enough!

Rob L

Every area needs a minimum defensive capability to force the enemy to concentrate to take valuable locations - to detect major concentrations moving in and provide some warning of events about to occur - and to be the foundation which, when reinforced, makes an offensive defensive possible. An offensive defensive is a campaign in which one attacks at moments of opportunity - particularly at isolated or LOC locations - to impose a cost on the enemy offensive - and to force him to become more cautious - guarded - and inefficient (therefor delayed). This policy should be in place until the enemy is too weak to conduct offensive operations.

Re your specific proposals - no cruiser plus two destroyers is adequate to the needs of the industrial SW sector of Australia. Japanese warships are in important respects the most powerful in the world - and the Allies need to have fairly large forces to be competative in battle - or must avoid battle altogether. I also believe that heavy units (BB and CV) need to refit in this area - so modestly damaged units will always be rotating back to repair back to tip top form - and would be able to form emergency TFs in a time of need. I do not think the enemy will expect major forces to be based in this region - and instead will expect major forces to come from the US West Coast, Panama, Aden or even South Africa. But none of those poses the logistical advantage of servicing just South of what we regard as our main operating area. The facilities, locally generated supplies, resources and HI points (provided we supply oil), and lack of long transit times will permit a greater fraction of the time on the front lines compared to repairing up in CONUS. It was SOP for major damaged units to repair up there - but I want to repair up forward - using HQ, repair ships and tenders, and shipyards as the foundation. The less damage - the farther forward. I also believe in rotating air units to major locations with lots of supplies - to rebuild in morale as well as in other senses - meaning those air units are also available for local defense. And there should never be a major location without ground defenses appropriate to its size and situation.


Sid

We will allow the use of any of our fighter squadrons, but there must be at least one squadron for each of Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane at all times until the threat to Australia is virtually nil - they can be squadrons rebuilding/refitting.
I am not comfortable with no fighters in that area even if we are winning the war. If only green American units still working up experience - I think there will always be squadrons - probably more than one - at these and probably other locations too. I also think there should be some air power in New Zealand - although it might be best if it is newere, greener units. And I want to fight for New Caledonia and Fiji - which I think are on our primary SLOC.

Sid

Agreed and would be politically more than acceptable

Rob L

I realise that these restrictions may not ,make perfect sense militarily, but they are along the line of what would be needed politically in Aus/NZ at the time. Stripping of too many assetts to place forward would not have been acceptable while there was a perception that invasion was a possibility.

Rob L

In my view they are very sensible militarily - if you think strategically - and I am a naval thinker (= strategic or global). There is a harmony of military and political logic in them - and if I differ - it is that I think your minimums may be too low. My attitudes tend to generate very close working relationships with allies - by trusting them they trust me. By honoring commitments - they take risks they might normally not take - because we are going to make them pay dividends - however the tactical dice rolls.

Sid

Trust is a wonderful thing, and very much underestimated!

Rob L

I want to use non militia ANZAC troops forward early - they are there - and replace them with US troops - which are green and need time to work up to full value anyway

Sid

As long as the troops aren't going to be placed in completely suicidal situations - which I trust you not to do. Singapore is fine, as we do not know that it is a death trap at this stage.

Rob L

You have that right. And I am not entirely convinced Singapore need be a death trap.

Sid

My thoughts too - the secret is too get enough force and supplies there early enough to make a difference. You can really bleed the IJA's offensive capability in the SRA and into Burma by holding Singapore.

Rob L

I believe in withdrawing units of no immediate use - and of withdrawing at least part of other units - to help them rebuild. I believe in rotating air units out when in low states of morale - rather than letting them get wiped out. I believe in rotating ships out when modestly damaged - fighting only when in tip top form - so they do well. I believe the goal at first is to delay - and sometimes to damage things when captured - it takes a day to repair up any damaged thing - and 1000 supply points - so every bit of damage translates into more delays and more costs.

Sid

Scot McConnachie of Seattle - whose family immigrated from Canada and who has traveled extensively in Canada and studied Canadian military history - has agreed to be the Canadian Political advisor. I proposed that we do something similar to history - writ larger - and create a unified Alaska Command (which it happes is in the game but NEVER happened IRL - that is the Alaska Command did not - during WWII - control naval forces - and it was horribly inefficient). When gen Buckner asked for reinforcements

1) Canada always sent them, the US did not always send them

2) IF the US sent them, Canada ALWAYS sent more

Eventually Alaska Command (post war) became unified - and due to the nature of Alaska (it is an air oriented place, with more planes per capita than any other on the planet, and most places are ONLY accessable by aircraft) - it is an Air Force Command. The deputy commander is usually a Canadian - but sometimes it is reversed - and it is the only place I know of that US forces are regularly commanded by a foreign general officer - while on US soil.

Anyway - I suggested we create a unified command - land air sea - and forward base Canadian forces in it as the Western frontier of Canada - and that we make it a Canadian command responsibility (meaning the Canadians decide the operational force allocations in that area - which is more or less everything North of Seattle.

He replied that is reasonable.

Crazy Dutch will advise for NEI politically speaking.

OSO reports a machine failure - and time required to replace it. So he cannot do a first turn for this game - which is not even ready to start yet even if he was able. So this game will be delayed - as will his other games (including one with me). We can work out Allied strategy in some detail.

Revisions 7.8 and 7.9 being done, and OSO having obtained a new machine, this game should start soon. We have advisors for ANZAC, Canada (which includes Alaska Command), and NEI. Others are available.

This game - RHSEBO Test 10b - has a thread on the AAR Forum. OSO completed the Japanese turn after extensive work.
I have now created the Allied response turn.

But so much time elapsed that Rob L's email has fallen off the back end. Please re contact me - so you can manage ANZAC
and attached US forces or other forces.

I still have room for advice as China, and as UK/Commonwealth/India (NOT including Australia and New Zealand - who are the main Allied player in this game - and even control the board in their area - even US units are under their command - and control - the ANZAC player is tag teaming with me when he can)