DEI Question

[JWE]

Developing a scenario for the group that deals with the Japanese conquest of the Southern Resource Area. To get it sufficiently grainy, had to delve deep into structure, organization and placement of Dutch units in the DEI. Initial evaluation indicates it is worthwhile breaking up the various organized KNIL Regts into their component Bns and support Coys.

Some of this stuff can find its way into DaBabes, but am concerned about the detail level that campaign players are willing to put up with in the first 6 months of gameplay. The scenario drills down much farther for HQ definitions, so it’s a ‘don’t care’ that there are Bns and Coys running around, but don’t think this detail level is appropriate for a campaign level scenario.

Question is – would people think it worthwhile to have a similar breakdown of Dutch units “with the ability to recombine”, or would it be just too much of a pita and Dutch things should be left as they are in the campaign Master files?

[Terminus]

Too many "ants", John. The subunits would be so small as to be annihilated by an SNLF squad with a cold sneezing on them.

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: Terminus
Too many "ants", John. The subunits would be so small as to be annihilated by an SNLF squad with a cold sneezing on them.

Thanks Kristian. That was a big concern. Within the scenario it works, because both sides are equally grainy, but sometimes we get too excited and forget that things just don't scale all that well.

Ciao, J

[vinnie71]

Well it could be one way in which to upgrade some units more quickly (ie militia to regulars). But on the other hand, if these subunits are spread all over the islands, it would be next to impossible to really recombine them efficiently and could result in serious attrition of Dutch forces (which are already ridiculously weak as in real life). Admittedly they could become a bit of a PITA for the Japanese player because it will be very hard to eliminate all of them rapidly and allow small bases from which the Allies could operate.
 
Maybe a different approach should be taken here. I believe that KNIL was in fact in the throes of expansion and this should be somehow modeled. maybe unless a particular island fell, some reinforcements would keep appearing (now they dry up in June '42 even if you save the bulk of KNIL forces). Also KNIL and attached HQ's should not be removed from play but should rather be eliminated. Or maybe one can find the intended TO&E and allow such an expansion to happen. Let's face it, even as they are KNIL is extremely weak and its forces are basically outmoded by mid-1942 and therefore won't contribute much to the Allied cause.
 
I know its not easy but just my thoughts...

[witpqs]

Like T said, the game engine likes to wipe out small units in combat so the player would just spend time rushing to combine them.

Good thought, though.

[JWE]

@witpqs
@Offworlder
Appreciate ya'lls comments. They reinforce Kristian's. Well worth hearing. Thanks for taking the time to chime in.

As to the scenario, nobody upgrades (never understood how a militia squad could become regulars, anyway) and there are no pools, and there's no replacements. The Dutch have to play it out with what they have on opening day. The Japanese, too, have to play it out with what they had, and their forces are also decomposed to Bn level (for the most part).

This is a very interesting period of the war for us (and theater, for that matter), because the forces on both sides were relatively small and the operational space was relatively large. This permits deployment of smaller units within our scenario scope. Can certainly understand how detail is NOT appropriate for the campaign scenario.

Thanks again for ya'lls comments. Ciao. J

[Andy Mac]

Thats what I did as well in the Burma Scen John
 
No units can be reformed to Divs so the max scale is Regt or Bde and most units start as Bns or less.
 
 

[Kereguelen]

ORIGINAL: JWE

ORIGINAL: Terminus
Too many "ants", John. The subunits would be so small as to be annihilated by an SNLF squad with a cold sneezing on them.

Thanks Kristian. That was a big concern. Within the scenario it works, because both sides are equally grainy, but sometimes we get too excited and forget that things just don't scale all that well.

Ciao, J

It would be interesting to know if scenarios like yours and Andy's upcoming Burma scenario working exclusively on a sub-divisional scale will handle ground combat better (more realistic) than the AE campaign scenarios do. Given the origins (UV) of the land combat system, this could well be the case.

[Andy Mac]

The key thing is to keep Divs out of it whichever side has the Divs wins in these arttritional battles

[Terminus]

Or flattens the other guy, if he only has battalions.

Anyway, would be a difficult scenario to score in the context of the engine.

[vinnie71]

A scenario like that JWE is proposing would essentially be an extended colonial campaign, where small forces took on each other. Therefore whoever possesses the best troops will prevail. By my reckoninig the only place where serious resistance could be made by KNIL would be on Java proper (where there are at least 2 regiments present and several militias too). From an Allied point of view, unless the Australians are included in the mix, the Allies would have little chance of surviving, let alone winning. 
 
What would be nice is to know what forces the Japanese committed to these campaigns. I'm under the impression that only small forces were initially used, supplemented later on by units who had concluded the Philippine and Malayan campaign. I guess the air and sea committment was also limited as well.
 
BTW if I'm not wrong, there isn't much difference in performance between militia and regulars in KNIL. So its more of a cosmetic change in a way...

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen
It would be interesting to know if scenarios like yours and Andy's upcoming Burma scenario working exclusively on a sub-divisional scale will handle ground combat better (more realistic) than the AE campaign scenarios do. Given the origins (UV) of the land combat system, this could well be the case.

It’s very possible. Since it doesn’t make sense to incorporate these things into the campaign scale, a couple of the guys want to go whole hog and split the arty out too. It would be interesting to see how that plays out.

ORIGINAL: Terminus
Or flattens the other guy, if he only has battalions.

Anyway, would be a difficult scenario to score in the context of the engine.

Oh, yes, both sides are at the same echelon levels. The folks have their own scoring system for this one. Agree the engine would probably choke on it. Since I’m building the scenario, they won’t let me play; they say I know too much about where I buried all the bodies. But it will be fun to watch this go forward. [;)]

[JWE]

Some people have asked if this scenario will be available. At first, I thought no, but on second thought, why the heck not. This isn’t for everyone, it’s pretty strict and requires a completely different play style. For example, all the arty is pulled out separately; that means it might not get whacked when its infantry attacks unless it’s selected – something new to consider. There’s a few other things going on, but nothing that can’t be figured out.

The scenario starts on Feb. 1, 1942, and runs for 6 months. It starts with Japanese landings at Kendari and Ambon (a few days later than irl). Under the initial conditions, the Japanese have already taken Brunei, Sarawak, Tarakan and Menado; Singkawang has just fallen and the remnants of the Punjabis are beginning their epic retreat to Sampit.

Luzon has been mostly cleared with the US/PI forces on the Abucay line. The Visayas/Mindanao forces remain, but Davao is occupied. Malaya is occupied, with the remaining forces contained in Singapore. Singers AF cut to a 2 (Kallang was the only one left) and 90% damaged (judged unusable on 8 Feb.).

Units in Malaya and the PI are reduced to their (mostly estimated) historical levels of ‘effectives’; Brigades to Bns, Provisional Tank Brigades to platoons, artillery almost non-existent in the Southern PI, and severely depleted elsewhere. Allies get nothing. Nothing builds, nothing replaces: no men, no guns, no planes, nothing – except those sqdns and units historically introduced into the toilet. Japanese forces are similarly reduced, but have a scaled build/reinforce capability.

Certain units (on both sides) will appear, from time-to-time, in ‘directed’ convoys to specific destinations. These are intended to be non-negotiable. Once they get to where they are going, the gloves are off.

So if this is the kind of scenario people are willing to deal with, I wouldn’t mind posting it.

Oh, and it's PBEM or H2H only.

[Andy Mac]

Could I have a look John ?

[JWE]

Sure thing. Soon as it's done I'll send you a copy. Woof ! this is like rooting for truffles in a minefield ! having to tweak every OOB I come across !

Nice thing is I could set up Kawaguchi and Oka's barge movement from Luhan island to Jessleton and Sandakan; sort of set up their expectations for their utter failure in the Solomons. Good opportunity, here, to introduce the 48th Anchorage Company and the 118th Land Duty Company (a split-off from III/3rd Shiping Eng. Regt.) and its associated barge transport TF.

[edit] oh pooh, should have mentioned, it's got a bunch of base and map edits, so it uses a unique pwhex file, too.

[Kereguelen]

ORIGINAL: JWE

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen
It would be interesting to know if scenarios like yours and Andy's upcoming Burma scenario working exclusively on a sub-divisional scale will handle ground combat better (more realistic) than the AE campaign scenarios do. Given the origins (UV) of the land combat system, this could well be the case.

It’s very possible. Since it doesn’t make sense to incorporate these things into the campaign scale, a couple of the guys want to go whole hog and split the arty out too. It would be interesting to see how that plays out.

Not sure if this doesn't make sense for the full campaign. It is doable (technically), only a little bit [:'(] work-intensive.

[Andy Mac]

Its hard on the AI
 
The Ai is bad at co ordinating units - one big all arms is better than  5 sub units
 
By all means for a PBEM only variant but the AI will struggle

[JeffroK]

I hope you release it, even PBEM.

The only way people will learn about the historical actions in these out of the way areas is by playing them.

In a GC PBEM, history has been so twisted by player decisions that these campaigns may never happen.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Its hard on the AI

The Ai is bad at co ordinating units - one big all arms is better than  5 sub units

By all means for a PBEM only variant but the AI will struggle

Andy, the problem here is the way the game engine distributes casualties. Divisions take casualties, but companies, battalions and sometimes regiments get wiped out. Then, there is no ability to reconstitute those units from the pools.

I would love to have all units be able to break down to smaller units (well I know there would be some limit), but the engine doesn't handle combat elegantly enough for that.

[JWE]

Both Andy and Kereguelen have interesting points. Hope I can address them.

In a sense, it’s still combined arms units, just dropped down an echelon or two. For example, 38th Div is broken down to 228, 229, 230 IRs and the 38th Mtn Arty Rgt into I/38th, II/38th, and III/38. If it had a Recce or Cav Bn (Rgt), that would get split out, too.

The Rgts each keep their support guns and get a proportion of DivEngs, and tankettes (if present). Some of the separated IRs (like Kawaguchi’s 124th) are broken down into component Bns.

Several reasons for doing this: first, is that’s how they were deployed. Again taking 38th Div as an example, it was never deployed as a division: the 228th hit Ambon and then Timor; the 229th hit Banka and then Sumatra; the 230th hit Batavia and then Bandoeng: same with the 48th Div (3 task groups). Only one that operated as a division was the 2nd.

Second, is that the DEI defense forces were realistically Bn sized in scale (with a few being able to coalesce to Rgts, but not many), while several are represented at company size. As mentioned, a 900 lb gorilla division sized unit doesn’t need to pause to urinate on these before eliminating them. So respective echeloning seems appropriate; Rgts and Bns opposing Bns (and some Rgts), and Coys seems to provide a skoosh more operational flexibility and fun.

Last, is the Arty. Our play style is very different; we tend to try and use assets as intended. Folding arty into infantry units just makes it vulnerable (in game engine terms) in attacks. Splitting it out allows arty units to conduct “bombardment” attacks while the poor, dumb, infantry bastards make a deliberate or shock assault. From our limited initial testing, a (broken down) divisional unit stack will eventually attrit to its arty and support assets. Surprise, surprise, ain’t that exactly what happened? Makes combat profile selection, of units within a stack, more reasonable.

So clearly, this scenario is non-functional with the AI. Never expected it to be and cannot see how the AI engine could even hope to deal with this paradigm shift. This is a “tool” scenario; a short PBEM or even a solitaire H2H. As an H2H, it is best run with 2 (or 3) day turns; the AI “code” (as opposed to the AI scripts written for scenarios) can usually accommodate a few turns when left to its own devices. In a solitaire H2H, one can do a couple H2H turns, a couple turns as Allies, a couple turns as Japan, a couple H2H, and so on.

Anyway, that’s the concept for this scenario.