The Good The Bad & The Indifferent

[pws1225]

ORIGINAL: Cribtop

Well, whatever he does, so far this is already fun!

+1 to that. Two good players both willing to provide informative and entertaining AARs - it's Witp-AE nirvana.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

I'm playing Scen. 2 now and he's blowing smoke. On the economy? Maybe. On hardware? This thing is JFB Disneyland.

Yup.

[Canoerebel]

I've just about decided to turn this into the Shootout at the OK Corral.  On the basis that I don't want to allow John to bombard Singkawang unchallenged, I'm going to protect the port with four TFs.  PoW will be the strongest.  There will be two CL/DD TFs and one small Dutch DD TF in support.  The Allies have enough air power in the area to do some damage if things go right.  I'm taking a chance since the odds are about as good as I can get at this point in the war.  If I can blunt or stop an early grab at Sing/Kuching, it'll be worth it.  If I get hammered then I'll have Pensacola, Houston and Boise almost on the scene (these three will reach the eastern Java Sea tomorrow).

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel
On the basis that I don't want to allow John to bombard Singkawang unchallenged, I'm going to protect the port with four TFs. 

Why opt for port / anti-bombardment duties versus carrier TF plinking? I think your decision is most likely to result in nighttime surface action, for what it's worth, but I'd be interested in hearing your logic against a carrier TF intercept in these confined waters.

[Canoerebel]

Trying for a carrier intercept is tough.  I have probably a 25% chance or less of succeeding, but if I try and fail, my ships may end up hung out in no-man's-land, much more vulnerable to enemy carrier and land-based strike aircraft (in part because they'd be closer to the enemy airfields and further from friendly CAP).
 
Early on, I had decided to try for an intercept, vector two combat TFs to patrol "out there."  I ultimately decided that I'd prefer not to dilute my forces. 
 
I'm not sure I'm doing the right thing or the best thing.  I'm taking some chances here, but I think there's at least a 50/50 chance the Allies could have a good day.  It won't be often that I'll get a crack at enemy capital ships distant from overwhelming enemy LB or carrier air cover.  So I'm going to roll the dice.

[Encircled]

Good luck!

I have to admit I'd have lasted about 10 seconds before checking the Japanese naval assets in this mod, but fair play to you for resisting the temptation.

[Panther Bait]

I believe the RA mod gives the IJN a lot of new goodies in the form of ships, planes, and navy troops (SNLFs), much better than Scenario 2.  I don't think it does much at all (or possibly anything) to beef up the IJA relative to Scenario 1.  So while the extra navy and planes will make it harder for the Allies to wage war via amphibious invasions, it probably makes largely land-based routes (e.g. Burma) more attractive.
 
Mike
 

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Cribtop

I don't think he'll move flank again. The DDs will be gassed, re-fuel and kill his Ops points in the middle of Indian Country. OTOH, consider that Japanese players often mentally equate PoW with effective surface naval force in the DEI. While not necessarily accurate, this perception can mean that keeping PoW alive slows up the IJN out of apprehension alone.

PS - send in the Boise and end the war already! [:D]

He has Miri, so there's gas there. He could detach the DDs. They don't do a lot for him yet; no ASW to speak of and the carriers have their own AA. That would be a scrambler. Dump the DDs into Miri and send the carriers after POW naked . . .

[Canoerebel]

I've had five good WitP or AE opponenets over the years. Here's the odds I'd assign to any one of them shedding the KB's destroyers under these circumstances:

John III: 0%
PzH: 75%
Chez: 3%
Q-Ball: 40%
Miller: 20%

If find that odd, because John III may be the most aggressive of the group, but I also think he's very protective of his carriers and so in tune with actual operations in the war that shedding destroyers wouldn't cross his mind.

[Crackaces]

no ASW to speak of and the carriers have their own AA

One thing DD's do is ensure only one shot. Even if the sub gets off shots the presence of ASW means diving deep rather than continually shooting torps ..

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

I've had five good WitP or AE opponenets over the years. Here's the odds I'd assign to any one of them shedding the KB's destroyers under these circumstances:

John III: 0%
PzH: 75%
Chez: 3%
Q-Ball: 40%
Miller: 20%

If find that odd, because John III may be the most aggressive of the group, but I also think he's very protective of his carriers and so in tune with actual operations in the war that shedding destroyers wouldn't cross his mind.

He'd better not play me. [:)]

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Crackaces

no ASW to speak of and the carriers have their own AA

One thing DD's do is ensure only one shot. Even if the sub gets off shots the presence of ASW means diving deep rather than continually shooting torps ..

I lost Saratoga to four hits from an I-boat about Dec. 12th, 1941, right outside San Diego. She was escorted.

Puttting about 20% of one air unit on ASW flying down low will do about as much as DDs. It's a high risk move, but POW is a high-value target, and he's not that far away from his bigger ports.

I'd do it just to send a message about forward defense in the first week of the war.

[Canoerebel]

He won't do it (unless the question was broached and advice given in his AAR, which is possible).  I just don't see John sending carriers into the Java Sea unescorted.  He'll be reluctant to move that far into enemy territory, where he'll suspect subs and bombers await, plus the threat of surface combat action against Allied TFs with DDs.  John might move closer to Singkawang, and he'll probably get off at least one seroius strike package against PoW given that I've posted the TF at Singk.  Right now, though he isn't able to project in strength LBA into the region in which this fight will take place.

[Crackaces]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: Crackaces

no ASW to speak of and the carriers have their own AA

One thing DD's do is ensure only one shot. Even if the sub gets off shots the presence of ASW means diving deep rather than continually shooting torps ..

I lost Saratoga to four hits from an I-boat about Dec. 12th, 1941, right outside San Diego. She was escorted.

Puttting about 20% of one air unit on ASW flying down low will do about as much as DDs. It's a high risk move, but POW is a high-value target, and he's not that far away from his bigger ports.

I'd do it just to send a message about forward defense in the first week of the war.

WOW! Are you saying the I-boat shot 4 salvos while the CV was escorted? Or did 4 torps hit out of one salvo? My observations are that a die roll determines to see if the sub or the escorts get the draw .. if the sub wins the draw it fires a salvo and stuff happends .. escorts respond .. or lose the sub .. I have not ever seen 4 salvos at capitol ships while any TF has been escorted .. I have seen shots at the DD's after the initial salvos in self preservation .. Also I have seen sub wins draw fires and hits CV's .. escorts do there thing .. battle ends .. and then a new battle starts with a new first salvo ..

Ok I learn something new about this game everyday [8D]

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

He won't do it (unless the question was broached and advice given in his AAR, which is possible).  I just don't see John sending carriers into the Java Sea unescorted.  He'll be reluctant to move that far into enemy territory, where he'll suspect subs and bombers await, plus the threat of surface combat action against Allied TFs with DDs.  John might move closer to Singkawang, and he'll probably get off at least one seroius strike package against PoW given that I've posted the TF at Singk.  Right now, though he isn't able to project in strength LBA into the region in which this fight will take place.

I stopped looking in his AAR about a week ago. Only plan to read this one ongoing. All I saw was 12/7.

FWIW, I recall about 8-9 months ago, maybe more, a thread where one of the devs discussed in broad terms that there is some kind of extra random which decreases the chance of a surface battle if carriers are in the TF. Why you see a lot of surface encounters with them followed by an immediate "TFs disengage." It's a hard roll to get a gun battle with CVs even if you get into the hex.

Anybody else remember what I'm talking about?

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Crackaces

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: Crackaces



One thing DD's do is ensure only one shot. Even if the sub gets off shots the presence of ASW means diving deep rather than continually shooting torps ..

I lost Saratoga to four hits from an I-boat about Dec. 12th, 1941, right outside San Diego. She was escorted.

Puttting about 20% of one air unit on ASW flying down low will do about as much as DDs. It's a high risk move, but POW is a high-value target, and he's not that far away from his bigger ports.

I'd do it just to send a message about forward defense in the first week of the war.

WOW! Are you saying the I-boat shot 4 salvos while the CV was escorted? Or did 4 torps hit out of one salvo? My observations are that a die roll determines to see if the sub or the escorts get the draw .. if the sub wins the draw it fires a salvo and stuff happends .. escorts respond .. or lose the sub .. I have not ever seen 4 salvos at capitol ships while any TF has been escorted .. I have seen shots at the DD's after the initial salvos in self preservation .. Also I have seen sub wins draw fires and hits CV's .. escorts do there thing .. battle ends .. and then a new battle starts with a new first salvo ..

Ok I learn something new about this game everyday [8D]

Nope, one salvo, all four hit.

As I typed that I just realized CR has non-dud torpedoes. Forgot that. Never mind. [:)]

[bradfordkay]

Even with realistic allied torpedo dud rates, in this area you'll have Dutch and British subs operating during this phase of the war. I can't picture any time that I would detach my ASW escorts from a CV TF facing those bad boys.

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

He won't do it (unless the question was broached and advice given in his AAR, which is possible).  I just don't see John sending carriers into the Java Sea unescorted.  He'll be reluctant to move that far into enemy territory, where he'll suspect subs and bombers await, plus the threat of surface combat action against Allied TFs with DDs.  John might move closer to Singkawang, and he'll probably get off at least one seroius strike package against PoW given that I've posted the TF at Singk.  Right now, though he isn't able to project in strength LBA into the region in which this fight will take place.

I stopped looking in his AAR about a week ago. Only plan to read this one ongoing. All I saw was 12/7.

FWIW, I recall about 8-9 months ago, maybe more, a thread where one of the devs discussed in broad terms that there is some kind of extra random which decreases the chance of a surface battle if carriers are in the TF. Why you see a lot of surface encounters with them followed by an immediate "TFs disengage." It's a hard roll to get a gun battle with CVs even if you get into the hex.

Anybody else remember what I'm talking about?

Not as hard as you think. It is hard to get your ships to actually hit the CVs instead fo concentrating on the escorts once you get them into a surface fight however.

In my lateset Babes Ironman game I built a fortress Koepang. The AI doggedly keeps coming to Koepang with carrier forces, sailing right into the Koepang hex itself regardless of what I have stationed there. I have had numerous surface fights with the CV TFs and have very, very rarely gotten any hits on the CVs themselves.

[Canoerebel]

I've run the turn for 12/11.  It wasn't particularly bloody, but both sides end up with a convergence of forces in and near Borneo's southwestern cape.  It will be challenging for the Allies to plan for the 12th. 
 
But before I go further, I want to run something up the flagpole for opinion.  As stated above, I began the game totally in the dark about what carriers, BBs and CAs Japan begins the game with.  We've now had sustained sightings by multiple patrol aircraft (and other types of aircraft, in some cases) of three enemy CVs TFs - the KB that hit Pearl (which has been sighted every days since then by patrols operating out of three Hawaiin Islands), the force now off Kuching (sighted many times evey day since the war began and targeted by A-24 Banshees once) and a tiny carrier force that was near the Celebes yesterday.
 
I'm thinking by now the Allies would have cobbled together a pretty strong list of what Japan has, so I'm inclined to open up a game from the Japanese side to see exactly what's out there.  Does anybody feel like the Allies wouldn't have been able to identify the puzzle pieces after so many sightings over so many days?

[Canoerebel]

To clarify two things:

1.  Working torpedoes are OFF.  IE, the Americans suffer from the historic dud rate (and I've experienced that at least ten times in the game already).

2.  In one of my posts yesterday, I don't think I gave the impression that I thought one of my readers might chime in on John's AAR to suggest that he strip the Mini KB's destroyers and send the carriers ahead at flank speed.  I was just alluding to the fact that some of John's dedicated (and aggressive) readers might come up with that idea and lobby for it in his AAR.  To me, that was the only possible way that John might conceive of the plan.  IE, that's just not the kind of thing he would come up with on his own because (I think) he'd blanch at the very notion.