No fleet, no problem...

[witpqs]

Lemonade, obvert, lemonade!

[obvert]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Lemonade, obvert, lemonade!

I like lemonade! [:D]

More the kind that still has a bit of sour to it than the overly sweet.

[Nemo121]

Obvert,

This is my AAR. Propaganda here would be pointless. Sometimes the mistake is in seeing a play where there's no play you know?

As to not taking advantage of 200 fighters over the Kuriles... Restricted or not they'll take losses, cost resources, siphon pilots away from critical fronts at critical times, use up his attention span/mental energy.... Any and all of these are things I can wrest advantage from. You have to look at the whole picture, not just a little part of it to see the value of some moves.

As to the rest of the IJN intervening in my littoral invasions. GREAT!!! I hope they do. I'll simply commit ships to cover invasions and suck up the losses I suffer secure in the knowledge that attrition of his fleet around Burma inevitably opens up CENPAC, NORPAC etc to major amphibious invasions. If he opposes the littoral campaign with his navy I can make that work for me, if he doesn't I can make that work for me also.

As to this being a tough year.... Hmm, not as tough as you think it'll be IMO.


As to the inability to twist his moves to my favour. Well I guess you're more pessimistic than I. I enter the game with the opinion that no matter what he does I should be able to twist it to my advantage somehow, somewhere, somewhen. You seem rather pessimistic and constrained by conventional wisdom. I prefer to view initiative and winning etc as matters of opinion. In my opinion no matter the correlation of forces I should be able to wrest the initiative from an opponent very rapidly and begin offensive operations soon thereafter. Opponents will counter but I expect to find aspects of these counters which I can turn to my advantage no matter the counter. You might say that isn't feasible but I'd suggest that I haven't done too badly in PBEMing this game and other strategy/wargames online and so evidently this works for me.

Then again I'm one of the people who always found that my chess tournaments were determined a lot less by the position on the board than by the opinions I and my opponent held about who was winning. I saw opponents lose when their position was superior simply because I held a stronger opinion that I was winning than them. You may philosophically disagree with this and that's your right obviously.


If I were taking the other side I'd be plotting the invasion of the Aleutians and Hawaii ( but not PH ) right about now combined with a retreat from the south pacific and Oz to a defensible series of mutually supporting fortress bases whilst preserving the mobile reserve ( KB etc ) which is necessary to prevent the Allies from mounting breakthrough operations which launch exploitation forces into my operational and strategic depth. That's the IJN's "next best step" in this situation IMO and could be achieved at minimal risk and cost in-game right now. That's what I think he should do. Of course if he does do that i'll just ignore it entirely and attack him along different routes.

You see problems. I have a belief that no matter what he does I can take advantage and prefer to take the view that the problems I can cause him are out of proportion to the problems he can cause me. Obviously anyone here who has read previous AARs knows I'm not blind to the problems I face BUT it is better, at this stage, to focus on causing him problems than to suffer paralysis by over-analysis of the problems he can impose on me.

Sure he can take the Kuriles back if he really wants them. If he does I'll rue the lost opportunity for a day and focus on causing him more problems elsewhere. There's simply no point in gifting him the initiative through worrying excessively about what he can do to me. I want him to be worrying about what I'm about to do unto him. And, yes, if I were the Allies I'd have the same attitude. I'd be focused on all the opportunities I have to do unto him in great measure before he does unto me. And if he did unto me I'd mentally strike off whatever ships and divisions were wrecked and get right back to focusing on doing unto him again.

It isn't propaganda, it is just a fundamentally different viewpoint than yours.

[Elladan]

Amazing how often this "mind over matter" approach works, given the apparent material disparity. On the other hand, one has to have something substantial to back up his own opinion against his opponent's. And in this game odds are clearly in Damian's favour, wonder what the end result will be when the dust finally settles.
Very good read though and very thought-provoking.

[obvert]

Then again I'm one of the people who always found that my chess tournaments were determined a lot less by the position on the board than by the opinions I and my opponent held about who was winning. I saw opponents lose when their position was superior simply because I held a stronger opinion that I was winning than them. You may philosophically disagree with this and that's your right obviously.

That's what I'm talking about. As a chess player the opponent must be accounted for during the entire game. Especially toward the end of the opening into the middle game when you get out of book, which seems where you are now in this contest. But AE is a bit different than traditional chess in that more material arrives as you play. In fact it might be closer to Siamese, where you're always looking for new pieces and trying to gain advantage through your surprising and inventive use of them.

If I were taking the other side I'd be plotting the invasion of the Aleutians and Hawaii ( but not PH ) right about now combined with a retreat from the south pacific and Oz to a defensible series of mutually supporting fortress bases whilst preserving the mobile reserve ( KB etc ) which is necessary to prevent the Allies from mounting breakthrough operations which launch exploitation forces into my operational and strategic depth. That's the IJN's "next best step" in this situation IMO and could be achieved at minimal risk and cost in-game right now. That's what I think he should do. Of course if he does do that i'll just ignore it entirely and attack him along different routes.

You see problems. I have a belief that no matter what he does I can take advantage and prefer to take the view that the problems I can cause him are out of proportion to the problems he can cause me. Obviously anyone here who has read previous AARs knows I'm not blind to the problems I face BUT it is better, at this stage, to focus on causing him problems than to suffer paralysis by over-analysis of the problems he can impose on me.

This is closer to what I was aiming to hear. I do see problems, which I'd rather call challenges. They are the things that drive you to find solutions, and of course the challenges are bigger in this game than at the beginning of a virgin campaign. Not sure though how the situation you propose is the best option if you'd so easily find a counter to it, and if you can take advantage of anything that he does do to counter you. Are you saying the Japanese position is inherently lost regardless of the moves your opponent makes? Or just that you're confident you'll beat him no matter which course he takes. [;)]

Sure he can take the Kuriles back if he really wants them. If he does I'll rue the lost opportunity for a day and focus on causing him more problems elsewhere. There's simply no point in gifting him the initiative through worrying excessively about what he can do to me. I want him to be worrying about what I'm about to do unto him. And, yes, if I were the Allies I'd have the same attitude. I'd be focused on all the opportunities I have to do unto him in great measure before he does unto me. And if he did unto me I'd mentally strike off whatever ships and divisions were wrecked and get right back to focusing on doing unto him again.

It isn't propaganda, it is just a fundamentally different viewpoint than yours.

Ahh, but that is where you're wrong. I don't have a viewpoint. I'm not playing the game. I just want to see more of your viewpoint.

I've read your AARs and many posts in other areas of the forum. I don't question your ability to play strategically, tactically or psychologically. This is simply a difficult position to enter a game, and although I have no doubt it's winnable by the Allies, I also think it could be winnable by the Japanese side. In analyzing an opponent's moves if I don't consider best play I'll end up losing the opportunity to combat it. I get that you're still formulating what you'll do, and that his moves will determine your counters, but this is not a gambit position, where your losses are balanced by gaining the initiative. It's more like losing a knight in the opening. With best play that means the game is lost.

So really this is not chess, as the sides are inherently unequal. It is an amazingly interesting game where either side can win or lose, though, and I guess I'm interested in understanding positions like this one objectively, with the opportunities and challenges for each equally weighted.

Thanks for the explanation. I'll be very interested to see how this one develops. [:)]

[Justus2]

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Aye, some of the AMCs have cargo capacity but they're too slow and will go in with the main fleet as torpedo sumps.

Something to consider, although the AMCs are slow, they are considered 'commissioned' ships and unload at the speed of an AP or AK, vs an xAP or xAK. I like to use them for amphib ops with smaller units, but given your losses of APs and AKs, they may be more valuable than the average torpedo sump

Some of them (I think a couple of the Australian ones) also have an ASW capability, not great, but again makes them good for relatively independent ops (again, when you are short of DDs to escort).

[Nemo121]

Elladan,

one has to have something substantial to back up his own opinion against his opponent's

That's close but it isn't quite correct IMO. I would rewrite it to read, "One has to convince one's opponent that one has something substantial to support one's opinion." In other words what matters is NOT the presence or absence of the thing/the support/the 1000s of AV. What matters is the opponent's BELIEF in its presence.

If I make a move and my opponent believes that that move MUST be supported by reserves then they will behave as though it IS supported by reserves. In reality I may have judged that the time is ripe to conduct operations without reserves in order to create an operational tempo which bounces my opponent into losing the initiative and believing that my forces are much, much stronger than they are. In fact this is often what I do. In the case where the opponent believes the reserves are present they will ACT as though they are present -since that's militarily prudent, you plan based on enemy capabilities.

So, if the opponent ACTS as though the reserves are present then surely it is not necessary for them to actually be present. In fact I would argue that the most militarily efficient course of action is to paralyse an opponent through a maskirovka designed to create the perception of strength, depth etc whilst actually mobilizing all those forces at the front to be stronger at the front than you'd actually be able to be otherwise.

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Unlike WitP, Allied destroyers and light cruisers don't have any cargo capacity to carry cargo or troops. For fast transport missions, you need APD (some other classes might be able to participate - perhaps some of the CM and AMC, though I'm not positive). Of course, cruisers and destroyers can act as escorts in FT TFs.

Edited to add "Allied." I have no idea if Japanese DDs or CLs have cargo capacity.

AVDs can carry cargo in FT but aside from APDs that is it for the Allies.

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: crsutton

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Unlike WitP, Allied destroyers and light cruisers don't have any cargo capacity to carry cargo or troops. For fast transport missions, you need APD (some other classes might be able to participate - perhaps some of the CM and AMC, though I'm not positive). Of course, cruisers and destroyers can act as escorts in FT TFs.

Edited to add "Allied." I have no idea if Japanese DDs or CLs have cargo capacity.

AVDs can carry cargo in FT but aside from APDs that is it for the Allies.

Some of the Allied minelayers can do Fast Transport missions. Check the British CMs like Manxman. They were designed to get in and out fast when laying mines (40 knots!) and they can do the same with cargo.

[desicat]

As to the inability to twist his moves to my favour. Well I guess you're more pessimistic than I. I enter the game with the opinion that no matter what he does I should be able to twist it to my advantage somehow, somewhere, somewhen.

Nemo has the luxury of knowing that he currently has the advantage in LCU's on the perimeter of the Japanese expansion (Burma, Australia, and China) where they really matter, and far off in the distance he hears the faint echo of a bugle call heralding the of the approaching cavalry know as the 1943 US Navy reinforcements!

Outside the Kuriles the game is a classic "Whale vs Elephant" with Nemo choosing where and when to rampage with his tuskers. Attrition is his mission so it matters not what the Japanese do or where they do it, he just needs to keep up the pressure until the cavalry arrives - and once they do he will be able to exploit where the Japanese currently aren't. Anything that burns Japanese fuel and attrits its fleet and pilots is a strategic win, even if it is a tactical loss.

[desicat]

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

If I were taking the other side I'd be plotting the invasion of the Aleutians and Hawaii ( but not PH ) right about now combined with a retreat from the south pacific and Oz to a defensible series of mutually supporting fortress bases whilst preserving the mobile reserve ( KB etc ) which is necessary to prevent the Allies from mounting breakthrough operations which launch exploitation forces into my operational and strategic depth. That's the IJN's "next best step" in this situation IMO and could be achieved at minimal risk and cost in-game right now. That's what I think he should do. Of course if he does do that i'll just ignore it entirely and attack him along different routes.

Note here how Nemo would try to reduce the "Elephant" advantage by withdrawing to areas that play to the current IJN "Whale" strengths and mobility. Why fight a battle of attrition to the Allied advantage? Make them come to you (if they can in their current naval condition). Hitting the Aleutians and Hawaii?!? are purely naval operations where naval air can concentrate to overcome LBA if needed.

The Chinese can't advance in the open vs Japanese air in 42 or 43 unless something goes completely wrong so that leaves the Japanese having to properly contest Burma.

[Nemo121]

Elladan,

I didn't get to answer you in proper detail earlier today as work intervened. Here's the other parts I wanted to address.

Not sure though how the situation you propose is the best option if you'd so easily find a counter to it,

Well the best option I listed is the best option vs most players. How I assess things etc is quite different, IMO, than how most players who AAR/post on the forum assess things and so what works vs them mightn't work vs me. What would work vs me is preventing me from doing what it is I'm trying to do whilst achieving something, anything which has strategic significance and forms part of a multi-year overarching strategic plan. It doesn't really matter whether that's invading India or Oz or Hawaii or whether that is transitioning to the defensive or whatever so long as it involves a coherent long-term plan which subordinates tactical and operational play to strategic objectives which are rational and mutually supporting. Very few people, however, ever engage in long-term, joined up thinking. I've seen this in life, chess and PBEMs.

and if you can take advantage of anything that he does do to counter you. Are you saying the Japanese position is inherently lost regardless of the moves your opponent makes? Or just that you're confident you'll beat him no matter which course he takes.

I'm saying that I am confident that no matter what any opponent does I'll be able to find advantage somewhere, somehow and can work to use that advantage to disrupt their plans, rob them of their confidence and the initiative and impose my own tempo and will on the game. Hence I view even terrible setbacks optimistically. E.g. "Sure, I've lost 4 CVs and most of the fleet.... but look at the size of those ground forces, I bet I can make trouble for him in China and with a littoral amphibious campaign. Hell, I bet you I can launch amphibious invasions in the Pacific without CV support. Let's start looking for places I can start making those landings." Some will try to represent that as arrogance. It isn't, it is simply a choice to maintain a certain belief which supports looking for and utilising any advantages possible whilst still rationally assessing the objective reality of the situation.

I also think it could be winnable by the Japanese side.

Absolutely agree except with one caveat... It is winnable by the Japanese side --- so long as they're not playing me [8D]. Sure I can lose but I choose to inculcate and culture the view that if I look for and find advantage even in the face of seemingly insurmountable situations then, over time, even a losing position can be turned into a winning one ( for various values of winning ). I might be right, I might be wrong but it is important to go into the game with a clear belief that I can win, whilst accepting I might lose.

This is allied with the seemingly contradictory viewpoint that it isn't actually about winning. What matters to me is not whether I win or lose but whether or not I face worthy opposition ( both in terms of the challenge presented and in terms of their personal integrity etc --- this is a reason I won't play certain individuals here ) and whether or not I am pushed into difficult situations and have to apply myself in order to try to meet those challenges. In the end so long as I'm challenged and try interesting ploys etc and engage in skillful play whether I win or lose according to conventional wisdom isn't of interest to me. Obviously though if you play as the Allies and play skillfully then "winning" according to the conventional wisdom tends to follow. Hell, if you play as the Allies and play abysmally you also win (which is amply demonstrated in many AARs).

This isn't chess due to unequal positions.
Aye, this is correct. I would prefer if this were a perfectly mirrored game but it isn't. What it is is, IMO, more complicated than chess and with the potential for a greater richness of variety. I play this instead of chess now because it provides, to me, the potential for a greater personal challenge than chess. It isn't perfectly balanced but then again that isn't what I seek. I seek interesting situations which push me to the limit --- hence my penchant for picking up games after others have abandoned them or playing as Japan in 1945. I don't play to win, I play for the challenge - sometimes that could lead to "winning" as per conventional wisdom but if it does or not is irrelevant to me. Winning while playing poorly would represent abject failure to me. Losing whilst playing well would be interesting and enjoyable.

Obviously that's my personal viewpoint and others may differ etc etc etc.


Justus2,
Ah, everything that floats is just an expendable torpedo sump [8D]. Whenever the strategic gains from risking it outweigh the strategic cost of losing it I'll send them out even if it means losing them. I try not to risk them senselessly but taking Ramree is worth losing 50 or 60 transports. I'll work to reduce that number since reducing that number represents skillfull play but if it takes 60 then so be it. So long as the objective gained is worth the cost....

FT TFs:
I found Abdiel. It is transporting an Air HQ. So rather than gifting Damian more time I'm going to just invade Ramree tomorrow with my forces deployed haphazardly since losing time would likely cost more.

I'll give an update of today's action - which was really rather interesting - later.


Desicat,
What you say is true BUT surely it would be more skillful yet to advance into areas in which the enemy is strong? A japanese hawaii is an irrelevance to me but a Japanese Kuriles is something i don't want at all. So in the Kuriles I'm willing to fight in the presence of IJN strength - plus it lets me pit tiny forces against strong and use cunning to survive. Something which is challenging and thus meets my personal goals for the match.

As to the cavalry coming down the road. I don't really play for that since it is less interesting and skillful to simply bludgeon someone with superior numbers. Don't forget any game in which I've been Allied has finished in 1942 with massive Allied counter-attacks into Japanese territory. If I had to wait till 43 or 44 for all those reinforcements I would, personally, have failed in my task and would be more than likely to surrender to Japan. Winning when anyone no matter how poorly they play could win isn't a challenge or something I'm interested in devoting my time to doing.

Again, that's just my personal motivation etcetcetc.

[obvert]

This isn't chess due to unequal positions.

Aye, this is correct. I would prefer if this were a perfectly mirrored game but it isn't. What it is is, IMO, more complicated than chess and with the potential for a greater richness of variety. I play this instead of chess now because it provides, to me, the potential for a greater personal challenge than chess. It isn't perfectly balanced but then again that isn't what I seek. I seek interesting situations which push me to the limit --- hence my penchant for picking up games after others have abandoned them or playing as Japan in 1945. I don't play to win, I play for the challenge - sometimes that could lead to "winning" as per conventional wisdom but if it does or not is irrelevant to me. Winning while playing poorly would represent abject failure to me. Losing whilst playing well would be interesting and enjoyable.

It is definitely more complicated. It not being mirrored could be frustrating on the side with less, but I agree it can give a very different feeling to 'winning' and 'losing' for this very reason. I like the gritty never say die attitude one must adopt on the Japanese side.

[Nemo121]

August 23rd 1942.

Today was very interesting since I uncovered an invasion TF making for the Kuriles/Aleutians. I also have a nasty surprise in store for this invasion TF which I will uncover on the 25th. Basically I spotted several TFs of transports, PBs and escorts moving around northern Japan via the Sakhalins. They are on line to hit the Kuriles or Aleutians - my bet is they are going to hit the Aleutians - which now has almost 400 mines and has almost completed the air transport of another regiment of troops. BY the time the Japanese can reach it the AV will have risen from 130 AV when I took over 4 days ago to approximately 300 AV behind mines. Additionally I should have 3 to 4 TFs of DDs and possibly even a few CAs available and hiding up in the bad weather near the icepacks ready to race in and engage in surface combat with a view to disrupting the landings once they start. Attu had 2 squadrons of fighters when I took over. I've been racing ships northward from Pearl and west from CONUSA for the past few days and right now I have about 150 fighters ready to defend Attu. In 1 week's time that will rise to approximately 450 fighters with a commensurate number of strike aircraft.

The only reason Attu is even slightly at risk is that NO bases between Dutch Harbour and Attu have been occupied or built up at all. Lesson #1 guys, isolated bases aren't worth a damn. Attu is so far from Dutch Harbour that I can't support it from Dutch adequately. I don't have an option but to fight for Attu though since losing Attu means abandoning 3 divisions of troops in the Kuriles + the troops at Attu.


Anyways, the plan is to disrupt them on the way there. I've been expecting a counter-invasion since day 1 so while most of my DDs were running or sacrificing themselves interdicting coastal IJN shipping one snuck away and got lost in the shuffle. It has been quietly sitting north of Sakhalin waiting for the IJN invasion TF. On the 25th this DD will position itself to interdict the invasion TF and will seek to disrupt it a little. It won't stop it or anything but it should damage some transports, slowing the invasion TF or forcing it to leave them behind and conduct the initial landing without whatever troops were on those ships.

When the invasion TF reaches Attu I will remove most of my fighters and invite a naval bombardment. I'm banking on the 400 mines + 20 PT boats I've gathered to blunt the bombardment. It'll cost me some fighters but I want to blunt the bombardment before the troops land. Once his troops begin landing I plan to commit 3 to 4 DD TFs comprising 3 DDs each to the waters around Attu. My plan is to halt debarkation and cause the initial landing to be too small to take the island immediately. This will then cause Damian to commit KB again. IN the meantime the airbase will be repaired and more fighters will fly in along with a squadron of divebombers. Damian will then have to bombard again - using up more ammo and causing whatever ships have now bombarded twice to be sent home. At this stage my more powerful SC TF will interdict the new landings and, hopefully, drive them off again. Most of this group of ships will be sunk soon after ( as will the DDs obviously ). What they will have gained me though is a significant delay - which should allow me to fly another regiment of ground troops + combat engineers onto Attu island.

My goal is to have enough force to cause his landings to fail but not enough to push them into the sea. I want to cause his landing force to become trapped and I want to use their entrapment to pin KB in the area for the next couple of months ( this is why I have all these fighters ). As I get BBs, CAs and CLs back in action ( most of the USN BBs I have are in dockyards being repaired ) I'll place them at Attu under a strong fighter CAP. This will force Damian to choose between losing KB pilots sweeping the air before airstrikes sink the ships and close the airbase OR to commit warships and lose them in attritional surface combat vs my ships. Either choice works for me.

In the meantime I'll build up other Aleutian bases and continue using Attu to fly supplies into the Kuriles/support subs sub transporting supplies to the Kuriles.

That's how I see the Aleutians invasion play out. If he hits the Kuriles instead then I can only mount pinprick DD raids and will have to simply accept the collapse of the Kuriles at this stage.



In China 73,000 Chinese troops ( just below what I've been told the stacking level should be ) are hitting 5 tank regiments and 1.5 Divisions of IJA infantry. I was concerned about how the Chinese would do vs the tanks but it seems that they destroyed 38 vehicles and damaged about 75. I lost quite a few squads but I'm bringing another 800 AV in. This should boost me back to 2800 AV for the next attack in two days time. I'm CAPing the hex with my Chinese fighters but am happy to accept the thrashing of a Chinese corps a day to his bombers. That isn't sufficient to change the outcome PLUS every bomber committed here is one less bomber in Burma - where the important fight is happening. China is just a diversion at this stage. Damian should pull every bomber he has out of China and concentrate them in Burma. He knows the invasion is coming as he has spotted my TFs. I think he'll split them and try to cover both theatres at the same time. This would be a grievous mistake.

Ground combat at 87,44 (near Chengchow)

Allied Deliberate attack

Attacking force 73443 troops, 436 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 2433

Defending force 23243 troops, 152 guns, 609 vehicles, Assault Value = 981

Allied adjusted assault: 1048

Japanese adjusted defense: 646

Allied assault odds: 1 to 1

Combat modifiers
Defender: leaders(+), fatigue(-)
Attacker:

Japanese ground losses:
557 casualties reported
Squads: 1 destroyed, 30 disabled
Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 49 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 13 disabled
Vehicles lost 113 (38 destroyed, 75 disabled)

Allied ground losses:
3579 casualties reported
Squads: 100 destroyed, 348 disabled
Non Combat: 5 destroyed, 63 disabled
Engineers: 3 destroyed, 20 disabled
Guns lost 29 (3 destroyed, 26 disabled)

Assaulting units:
51st Chinese Corps
47th Chinese Corps
89th Chinese Corps
40th Chinese Corps
2nd Chinese Cavalry Corps
36th Chinese Corps
85th Chinese Corps
9th Chinese Corps
82nd Chinese Corps
1st Chinese Cavalry Corps
87th Chinese Corps
38th New Chinese Division
24th Group Army
5th War Area
14th Group Army
3rd Group Army
57th AT Gun Regiment
Jingcha War Area
39th Group Army
1st War Area
4th Group Army
20th Artillery Regiment
56th AT Gun Regiment

Defending units:
23rd Tank Regiment
36th Division
5th Tank Regiment
12th Tank Regiment
3rd Tank Regiment
3rd Ind.Mixed Brigade
8th Recon Regiment

I'm undecided whether to Shock Attack or not in 2 days time. With a shock attack I'd suffer more disablements but the Shock Attack bonus might just give me the AV to push the Japanese back. I can't exploit this much but I do know that pushing Damian back will make him panic a bit as I think he put a lot of stock in this hex being the cornerstone of the junction of his lines between Northern and Southern China. I'm hitting the junction hoping to blow a hole and then exploit south-eastward and north-eastward in the IJA's strategic depth in China.


Burma:
I'm going into Ramree tomorrow. It won't be pretty but it should land enough troops to take the base. I am LRCAPing with about 100 fighters, half of all my fighters in India. I expect Damian to launch 200 to 300 bombers vs the fleet and to lose quite a lot. So long as I hold Ramree almost any losses will prove acceptable.

I expect he will retaliate with SC TFs the next day so whatever happens I'll be pulling back to Akyab before the landings are complete. He and I can then dance into and out of Ramree as I try to avoid his SC TF ( since I only have 2 CLs and a DD in all of India ) and build Ramree into a Level 2 airfield. Once it is a level 2 airfield I can project aerial power over Rangoon and force the SC TFs to displace southward. Once that happens I can offload into Ramree in peace.

So, Ramree will be bloody and painful but, I believe, worth it and if I don't do it now he can move a Regt in and it'll take me 3 to 4 months of prep to do. Since I want this game over in 16 months I don't have 3 to 4 months to wait to create an initial opening.

So, that's the state of play and how I see the theatres going. I'm fairly sure about Burma and the Aleutians but not at all convinced my forces have the firepower to burst through in China.

[floydg]

I threw away so many good ships that I dug myself a deep hole and kept clawing at the sides making the hole harder to get out. And I had convinced myself of impending doom. Nemo is making lemonade, which is good.

[Nemo121]

Yeah, sometimes you need to cut your losses, forget about it and move on as though nothing happened just waiting for the next awesome opportunity [8D]

[Nemo121]

One problem I am having is in Oz. There are armoured units in northern Oz ( in the desert or on trails ) which have to be withdrawn in 10 days. It is going to take me a month or more to march them back to Sydney to disband them. Is there anything I can do to work around this apart from trying to destroy the units in combat?

There is NO WAY they can get to Sydney in less than a month and I think the cost in PPs is crippling. I'm already down 180 PP because of shipping which cannot reach a national base to disband quickly enough - although that should settle down as they arrive at the relevant bases in the next 3 to 4 days.

[V I Lenin]

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

One problem I am having is in Oz. There are armoured units in northern Oz ( in the desert or on trails ) which have to be withdrawn in 10 days. It is going to take me a month or more to march them back to Sydney to disband them. Is there anything I can do to work around this apart from trying to destroy the units in combat?

There is NO WAY they can get to Sydney in less than a month and I think the cost in PPs is crippling. I'm already down 180 PP because of shipping which cannot reach a national base to disband quickly enough - although that should settle down as they arrive at the relevant bases in the next 3 to 4 days.

? ground units automatically withdraw themselves, wherever they are - there are no penalties since they can't overstay.

[floydg]

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Yeah, sometimes you need to cut your losses, forget about it and move on as though nothing happened just waiting for the next awesome opportunity [8D]

That was one of the major lessons learned here. I was a stubborn SOB.

[floydg]

ORIGINAL: V I Lenin

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

One problem I am having is in Oz. There are armoured units in northern Oz ( in the desert or on trails ) which have to be withdrawn in 10 days. It is going to take me a month or more to march them back to Sydney to disband them. Is there anything I can do to work around this apart from trying to destroy the units in combat?

There is NO WAY they can get to Sydney in less than a month and I think the cost in PPs is crippling. I'm already down 180 PP because of shipping which cannot reach a national base to disband quickly enough - although that should settle down as they arrive at the relevant bases in the next 3 to 4 days.

? ground units automatically withdraw themselves, wherever they are - there are no penalties since they can't overstay.

What he said. That's why I marched them so far away. They were intended to be point units and get clobbered.