Opinions from experienced Allied Players desired..

Share your gameplay tips, secret tactics and fabulous strategies with fellow gamers here.

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

Post Reply
User avatar
Macclan5
Posts: 1064
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2016 2:46 pm
Location: Toronto Canada

Opinions from experienced Allied Players desired..

Post by Macclan5 »

Gentlemen (Ladies):

Curiosity drives me to ask the question.

I stand in December 1942 in my first Grand Campaign ~ contemplating my position.

Much in the same fashion as historical precedence I am executing a version of operation Watchtower / Cartwheel.

Do I plan and execute:

1) Invasion of Rabul and capture of it?

2) Bypassing in favor of the Admiralty Islands / et al / and devoting midterm resources to isolation and starvation of said base?

For most Allied Players, primarily verses the AI but additionally against a PBEM opponent, I am curious if there is a “general consensus” about Rabul?

I fully understand it will depend upon circumstances ~ especially in PBEM. I mean you obviously react to “the possible” dependent upon your opponent.

Further that playing with Electron lives is a lot simpler than real armies.

However I wonder if experienced players have a general bias towards either the capture or isolation tactics based its value to future operations verses devoting at least some resources in terms of air and naval assets to persistent isolation till it no longer matters.

I have read a number of AARs where both have occurred. i.e. Mr Witpqs rumble in the southwest did take Rabul where as others bypassed.

Could anyone opine whether storming Rabul may have shortened the war (for them) or added such flexibility that it made a huge difference?
A People that values its privileges above it's principles will soon loose both. Dwight D Eisenhower.
User avatar
Macclan5
Posts: 1064
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2016 2:46 pm
Location: Toronto Canada

RE: Opinions from experienced Allied Players desired..

Post by Macclan5 »

Of interest – perhaps- my particular situation is as follows:

Game verses AI

Historical difficulty with periodic increases to provide the AI some legs

Player Defined Upgrades OFF

No Re-Loads – play on regardless of results

1 day turns

Self-discipline house rules about using escorts for off map movements / limiting fuel movement by cargo ships to short runs and on map.

V Bomber and II Fighter Command are entrenched in the Coral Sea in Nomea and Luganville respectively. I generally have air superiority over the Coral Sea. They are supported by a number of very experienced VMF VMB squadrons.

The very recent introduction of a few Nicks / Tojos too Rabul base did however bring about some even losses especially against P40s from Munda.

Japanese Carrier forces are recently (August) significantly crippled with 4 CV 1 CVL either sunk outright or in dry dock for an extended period (FOW). The Japanese ran into a Carrier trap at Nedai where Lexington, Enterprise and Saratoga – with radar upgrades and under a massive land based II Fighter Command CAP - executed a counter strike of their initial attack and collectively hit with some 17 bombs and 4 torpedoes; Marines/V Bomber Command also contributed hits to the entire task force.

My own Carrier force was required to return to the West Coast with some damage and for overdue October 42 upgrades.

Yorktown, Hornet, Wasp fully updated and supported by a couple new CVEs are in the Tarawa area and are steaming to the Coral Sea.

I control the southern Solomon’s with a firmly entrenched landing on Torokina / Bougainville Isle.The Americal Division, Tanks, Artillery, support engineers, and additional Battalions of US Army forces are well supplied. I seem to have isolated some 20000 troops, 154 guns, 81 fighting vehicles in Buin running out of supply.

Equally the Australian and US Marine forces have isolated a similar force on the Kokoda trail by capturing Buna behind them.

Both forces (40000 troops +) have dwindling prospects of relief with no supply being enforced by CAP / Bombing / Naval isolation.

Rabul itself recons with only 3900 forces under a very high detection level. However two Battleships anchor a SCTF taught me a recent lesson in humility sinking Cruiser, a couple of destroyers and a number of small endurance cargo and tanker ships supporting Torokina.

I have the IJA caught in a quagmire war of resource depletion in China and at Akylab in Burma.

Is the computer able to rush unknown reserves to Rabul ? Should I use Americal and supporting forces to land on New Britan – or bypass ?
A People that values its privileges above it's principles will soon loose both. Dwight D Eisenhower.
User avatar
Jorge_Stanbury
Posts: 4345
Joined: Wed Feb 29, 2012 12:57 pm
Location: Montreal

RE: Opinions from experienced Allied Players desired..

Post by Jorge_Stanbury »

AI is scripted, it is OK to rush for Rabaul, as it is a base that AI won't care to much about losing. Anything that was historically lost is OK to grab. A deep thrust into the Pacific or an early conquest of India is not OK. You will have to be really careful with bypassing, or doing anything non historic as you might break the AI and make your game boring.

EDIT: I thought you were Japan... so I don't think you should, it might make the AI get into a loop of trying to recapture it with very inadequate forces
User avatar
dr.hal
Posts: 3449
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2006 12:41 pm
Location: Covington LA via Montreal!

RE: Opinions from experienced Allied Players desired..

Post by dr.hal »

The best thing to do is ask yourself WHY you would "take it" or bypass it. For the Japs, its location was important, as a support base for the interdiction of traffic to Australia and to take PM thus closing off the northern passage around Australia. However the reverse is NOT true. Is there a reason, geographically or tactically/strategically to take it back by the Allies? I'm not sure. It does depend upon circumstances and your overall game strategy, however I think it is less attractive/strategic to the Allies as it was to Japan. If it is fortified (as it was by the Japanese) then bypassing it makes sense as it is not absolutely necessary. Why loose electronic soldiers needlessly? Remember you are taking "stepping stones" on the road to Japan, there are many stones to use, some can be left "unturned" so to speak.
User avatar
Anachro
Posts: 2506
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2015 4:51 pm
Location: The Coastal Elite

RE: Opinions from experienced Allied Players desired..

Post by Anachro »

Only reason I could see is to build xp for your troops for later.
"Now excuse me while I go polish my balls ..." - BBfanboy
User avatar
Macclan5
Posts: 1064
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2016 2:46 pm
Location: Toronto Canada

RE: Opinions from experienced Allied Players desired..

Post by Macclan5 »

Thank you gentlemen.

Jorge - your advice is noted and appreciated. I am indeed taking steps logically and the game within the parameters set (above) is certainly as much fun and challenge as I desire to enjoy right now :)

Dr Hal you have neatly summarized my very own internal debate on the issue.

Cheers.

Hence I wonder about others experience.

Rabul's great strategic value was to Japan (relatively speaking) in interdicting Allied sea lanes.

To the Allies it strategic value less imperative especially as an isolated base bereft of supplies.

There is an unspoken opportunity cost in this (last) statement.

The Allies will have to devote some Air / Naval / potentially land assets to maintain Rabul's isolation as they did historically. In 1942 / 1943 this opportunity cost is notable for constraints in other areas especially Central Pacific; it will be less constraining in 1944 / 1945. I fully understand.

I assume/ anticipate the AI will indeed continue to run supply gauntlet transport missions or submarine transport missions as they did historically.

I wonder if experienced Allied players have a bias towards "taking Rabul and paying the electron cost" to the forces - in favor of the benefits of freeing up air / naval assets to operate elsewhere?

Do experienced players generally "undo" MacArthur's decision?


--


In my particular situ - I infer that I have "persistently" isolated significant Japanese troop concentrations Buin / Kokoda Trail. 40M + troops with guns and AFV's. Of course that remains to be seen is I truly have it sealed shut.

I suspect in terms of the AI scripts for example the 40000 odd troops can be bombed away into attrition and eventual elimination ; albeit it seems to be a very slow process as the troops on the Kokoda Trail - 60 nautical miles east of PM - have endured for months without notable success in attacking. They are deeply fortified in favorable terrain.

These troop levels meet or exceed the historical levels seen at Rabul as I recall; my war of attrition isolation is occurring further south of Rabul in Rabul like manner.

I am tying up assets in this war of attrition.

I also have similar sticky wickets in Burma / China. I do not know the Japanese OOB very well ; but playing Historical and PDU off would infer there are no troop concentrations left elsewhere (Truk? Singapore?) without serious consequences to Japan's defense.

Assuming I can bring my Carrier / supporting BB SCTF's into play on these isolated troops ~ I may be able to eliminate them quickly.

Rabul with only 4000 troops would be "easier pickings" even with assault costs ; the benefit would be a small flotilla supported by II Fighter V Bomber Command / VMF could cause significant disruption in DEI (for example).
A People that values its privileges above it's principles will soon loose both. Dwight D Eisenhower.
User avatar
Macclan5
Posts: 1064
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2016 2:46 pm
Location: Toronto Canada

RE: Opinions from experienced Allied Players desired..

Post by Macclan5 »

Thanks Anachro...

Not mentioned above is that my Troops are gaining excellent experience facing the concentrations at Kokoda / Buin. My Bombers have significant increases in Ground Attack.

On that score I am not likely nor desire to "blood" the little electron guys.

The Americal Division in conquered Munda has the resources to take Rabul assuming my Carriers can neutralized those 2 Battle Barges / suppress the sudden arrival of experienced pilots in Nicks and Tojo's.
A People that values its privileges above it's principles will soon loose both. Dwight D Eisenhower.
User avatar
bomccarthy
Posts: 414
Joined: Fri Sep 06, 2013 7:32 pm
Location: L.A.

RE: Opinions from experienced Allied Players desired..

Post by bomccarthy »

ORIGINAL: Macclan5

Not mentioned above is that my Troops are gaining excellent experience facing the concentrations at Kokoda / Buin. My Bombers have significant increases in Ground Attack.

On that score I am not likely nor desire to "blood" the little electron guys.

This is a good reason for bypassing certain bases and assigning a few USAAF level bomber groups to bomb them regularly throughout the rest of the war. Come 1944 and 1945, your AAF bomber squadrons are going to increase in size, significantly. And, when your B-29s start bombing the Home Islands you are going to suffer significant casualties. All of this often leads to a critical shortage of trained and experienced bomber pilots in 1945.

Use your level bomber units around Rabaul and other bypassed bases as training units - as pilots gain the desired level of experience bombing the bypassed bases, rotate them into the Reserve Pool to serve as experienced replacements for the B-29 pilots you lose (and you will lose a lot of them).
Post Reply

Return to “The War Room”