In Defense of "Brave Sir Robbin"

[Big B]

This is about strategic redeployment of Allied forces in the first 4 months of war.
I just wondered if or how many of you have done this.

This is what we have done as The Allies in a Team PBEM Game from Dec 8th.

Our Japanese Opponent (he wanted it all - Allies have two players), is a competent player and student of history. He believes in the maxim of concentration of force, where he decides to go - you will NOT stop him - yet he will not waste resources on unnecessary adventures that will not matter in the long run... I can't find fault in that.
For example - in one game we play-tested - Dec 7th Philippines Reinforced, he chose to forego bombing Pearl Harbor on Dec 7th - in order to smash concentrated Allied air-power in the Philippines. His reasoning - slow BB's mean little - killing off a huge portion of American available air-power at-start will reap greater benefits.
So this is the character of our opponent - "kill it effectively while I call the shots".

With this in mind we get to the meat of my question.

You are able to evacuate Hong Kong and Malaya/Singapore from Day-1.
Those locals are absolutely doomed because they cannot be effectively re-supplied and reinforced, so with that in mind, and accepting they were lost anyway - I took all available shipping, cast caution to the winds, and successfully pulled out everything except the fortresses (and a couple Malay Battalions from Malaya) and shipped the entire lot to Burma by Jan 1st.

We also rescued from Manila the 4th Marines, 31st Infantry, the two tank Battalions, some engineers...and redeployed fully 1/2 of all Dutch units to Palembang - the other half along with the Americans to Darwin (as well as the Australian elements of the Malayan Army), and all air units as well.
By February 42 Burma and Northern Australia were well equipped and defended.
Given all the above, Locations have still held out to within days of their historical fall - so no strategic harm done by redeploying.

As of late April Java has completely fallen, the Allies are still in Palembang and Bataan (but doomed), the Burma Road is still quite open (and looking likely to stay open) and Many-Many Units from the USA are loading up for a counter-attack into the DEI from North Oz in 2nd 1/2 1942.
China has taken it on the chin, but is still potent.

All in all, this game looks like one Carrier Battle away from an early end on Japans part.

So my question - has anyone else successfully pulled off a complete "Brave Sir Robbin" redeployment? What were your results?

I am just curios about what other players have done...

B

[BBfanboy]

I have read many AARs but have not seen as complete a redeployment as you have accomplished. Most AARs have house rules against early movement or formation of new TFs before second turn. A few have managed to save some Singapore troops but not the ones in Hong Kong. Lots have tried to evacuate troops by ship only to have them sunk by Netties and/or roving carriers. Evacuation by Catalina and Dornier seaplanes seems to be most common.

Not sure why you spent the first few paragraphs describing your opponents actions and aggressive nature. Is there a dispute going on over the redeployment you did? If so, you have not provided enough info for the forum to weigh in on whether your moves should be acceptable.
For instance, did you use air HQs for your land units so that you only had to pay ¼ the political points?
Did you send subs into KBs path on turn 1?
Was Turn 1 surprise supposed to be on or off?

If no rules were set and you used avenues available to you, and your opponent did not take effective action to interdict, well he must realize that he cannot have everything go his own way and expect you to sit back and wait for him to come on his terms.
That said, if you want the game to continue you must get agreement on points of annoyance before continuing.

[HansBolter]

In games against the AI, which is incapable of stopping me, I typically evac the entire III Indian Corps and most of the airbases form Malaya, all of the air from the PI and airlift all of the Dutch to concentrate the entire lot.

The combined air of the DEI, Malaya and PI can put up a decent fight. The combined ground troops of the DEI and Malaya can actually put a decent fight over a couple of bastion hexes.

The Allies aren't just ill trained at the start they are also scattered to the four winds.

Leaving them where they are to be defeated is detail is simply criminal.

Any one who has ever played Russian in an eastern front game understands that the way to overcome a qualitative advantage is with a quantitative advantage.

Quantity is a quality unto itself.

The best method the Allie have for making a stand somewhere and giving the Japs a bloody nose is to concentrate their scattered forces to provide a local quantitative superiority.

The much maligned by JFBs Sir Robin strategy is all about concentration of force and choosing where and when to fight.

JFBs who get upset about an ahistorical Allied redeployment are usually the very same ones who ahistorically keep the KB concentrated and ahistorically conquer China and or/ most of India and/or most of OZ.

JFBs who get upset over an early Allied redeployment aren't looking for an opponent they are looking for a patsy who will sit on his hands and allow himself to be rolled over.

[Big B]

@BBfanboy - Oh there is no complaining from my opponent - none at all.
I merely described his style so as to show he's methodical, but not Banzai Crazy. His style merely (I think) helped me pull off Dunkirk II - by not being overly aggressive on his part.

As an aside, the reason we sent so much to Palembang was simply to try to have it damaged as much as possible when he inevitably takes it.
As far as we are concerned, the Japanese can have the Pacific (excluding Hawaii) - the war must be fought where it counts - in the DEI.

I merely posted this out of curiosity to see what others have done. [;)]

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy
....
Not sure why you spent the first few paragraphs describing your opponents actions and aggressive nature....

@HansBolter "nice" [;)]

[Canoerebel]

Brave Sir Robin is a valid defense tactic in AE given the "godlike knowledge" the Japanese player possesses at the start of the game. In other threads, Bullwinkle has recently offered some concise and accurate summaries of why it's so important.

But Brave Sir Robin isn't always a necessity. There are games ongoing in which the Allied player has committed in force early (and often paid dearly for it, but sometimes achieved important gains).

Occasionally, an experienced Allied player will pull out all the stops and really break the game by entirely thwarting the opening Japanese offensive. The best example I can think of is Nemo vs. One-Eye-Jacks. That was utter anihilation, mainly in the DEI. I'll have to go back and re-read that, but Nemo never lost control of the DEI and was also offensively minded elsewhere. That game ended early and ugly for Japan.

I can think of another game in which the Allied player (ahem, hint, hint) held Palembang and turned it into a fortress. The Japanese player conceded early there too. (Fortress Palembang came about in that case after the same Nemo made a few helpful comments in said Allied player's AAR.)

I don't think an aggressive Allied early game would succeed against an elite level Japanese player under any circumstances, but it can succeed against an inexperienced or unprepared Japanese player. By "unprepared," I mean one caught by surprise by the aggression and unable to wrap his mind around it quickly enough to counter properly.

[HansBolter]

Very good points CR.

I recall a game of Castor Troy's (can't recall the opponent) where he played very aggressively early and ambushed the Japanese off Perth resulting in an early Japanese capitulation.

Aggressive play early by the Allies can succeed, but more often then not for the to happen, it seems to require pitting an experienced Allied player against an inexperienced Japanese player.

[KenchiSulla]

You know, it is all about circumstance. When playing the allies sometimes it is OK to trade blood for time instead of ground for time. Having a few Indian divisions annihilated in Singapore while hanging on to the city until February 1942 is not a bad thing (strategically speaking, not morally). Wasn't it Manstein who said that the death of the 6th Army at Stalingrad in November, December and early January was a very important service (binding so many Soviet forces to the city and the encirclement, allowing other forces to re-organise and stabilize the situation further west)?

To get back to your question, if the Japanese player is allowing you to withdraw key forces to key defensive positions (I don't think Burma or Northern Australia is key, but Singapore, Palembang and Rabaul are) he is doomed to surrender in 1942....

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel
Brave Sir Robin is a valid defense tactic in AE given the "godlike knowledge" the Japanese player possesses at the start of the game.

Meh. Of course, as bandied about in so many other threads, 'godlike knowledge' (GK) goes both ways. If the Japanese avoid using their GK on the first turn (most self-respecting IJ players don't carrier hunt the known position of the Allied CVs for instance), from time to time, the Allies should withhold their omniscience for the sake of a better game experience, in my opinion.

I hear you in terms of the use of the 'sir Robin' tactic in the game for the purposes of avoiding an auto-victory in the game. But justifying its application IRL is a dicey argument. The Allies never considered wanton wholesale withdrawal of their forces from the forward theatre to the fringe nether regions of the map in real life either.

Waiting to build your forces for a counteroffensive until late 1942-1944 isn't giving credence to the real-life cacophony of public voices that would be screaming for some (any will do) Allied response to the Japanese onslaught. McClellan anyone?

Do you think the British would have fought for Ceylon with every fiber of their being? I do. Do you think that they would preemptively abandon Singapore as soon as possible when the shooting started or might that be Allied retrospective omniscience at work?

The proper response for the Japanese player that falls prey to a "Sir Robin on steroids" Allied gambit is to find another game going forward. Don't drop the game by any means, but find another game to occupy your time while submitting to the Allies lack of game for a year or more of game time.

I would like to see the Japanese player turn the tables on the Allied player by preemptively withdrawing from areas that they would have ordinarily fought desperately over. Allies want to wait until late 1943-early 1944 to begin any semblance of counteroffensive? Fine. Don't offer resistance. They want Truk? OK. Let them have it. They want Iwo Jima, Okinawa and Saipan? Can do-let them have them for free. They want to be on Honshu in late 1944? Why not?

Wargames that force you to suspend your disbelief about the conduct of the war lose their appeal to both sides. It's up to both sides to make the game interesting for the benefit of the other player. Those that deny their opponent's moment in the sun risk the same behavior leveled at themselves.

[Canoerebel]

I wasn't much of a Brave Sir Robin advocate in my playing days. I used my carriers (sometimes to my regret), defended forward sometimes, radically and successfully defended forward sometimes (Fortress Palembang), and invaded Sumatra en masse in '42.

But Brave Sir Robin is a valid tactic. This isn't Real Life. The Allies would be well-served to avoid playng as if this was real life unless the Japanese are willing to play as if it was real life.

This is a game. Brave Sir Robin is a tactic. I think a good Japanese player can counter it effectively and to great advantage.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

I wasn't much of a Brave Sir Robin advocate in my playing days. I used my carriers (sometimes to my regret), defended forward sometimes, radically and successfully defended forward sometimes (Fortress Palembang), and invaded Sumatra en masse in '42.

But Brave Sir Robin is a valid tactic. This isn't Real Life. The Allies would be well-served to avoid playng as if this was real life unless the Japanese are willing to play as if it was real life.

This is a game. Brave Sir Robin is a tactic. I think a good Japanese player can counter it effectively and to great advantage.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel
This is a game. Brave Sir Robin is a tactic.

Aye it is a game. If "Sir Robin on steroids' is a legitimate tactic, then "withdraw without a fight" for the Japanese player is equally legitimate. The loss of gameplay legitimacy should be clear reason to avoid overdoing either of these approaches.

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel
This is a game. Brave Sir Robin is a tactic.

Aye it is a game. If "Sir Robin on steroids' is a legitimate tactic, then "withdraw without a fight" for the Japanese player is equally legitimate. The loss of gameplay legitimacy should be clear reason to avoid overdoing either of these approaches.

And what pray tell is "Sir Robin on steroids?". "Sir Robin" was originally a slur against allied players who didn't subscribe to the approved alternative tactic (that is , approved by Japanese players) of "stay and die". I've always seen "sir Robin" as retreat to a defendable position where you can unify and unite your badly scattered forces so they can make a stand that doesn't necessarily mean total annihilation of the allied forces. Have I been missing something since 2007? I've taken it to mean retreat to wherever you need to , be it the Bataan peninsular or San Diego for the USN CV's. [&:]

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve
And what pray tell is "Sir Robin on steroids?".

Glad you asked. What the OP indicated qualifies, in my opinion. No offense to the OP (in his own thread no less), but that's my point of view.

British leaving Singapore en masse before Malay landings even take place? Canadians leaving Hong Kong on December 6? Massive evacuation of Luzon before the onset of hostilities?

These all qualify.

ETA: In the games we've played, I don't think you subscribe to this approach, Steve. You've fought forward early and often with Philippino, British, Australian, Dutch, Chinese and (to a lesser extent) American troops and their navies and air forces. You haven't abandoned wholesale critical bastions decades in the making on day one.

ETA II: AFBs that get upset about an early (or complete) Japanese withdraw ("redeployment") aren't looking for an opponent. They're looking for a patsy who will sit on his hands and wait to be rolled over by the AFBs late war toys.

[Big B]

Just for the record, (and no offense has been taken [;)])... This was a Dec 8th start game, The British withdrawal out of Kota Bharu and down to Singapore for evacuation was done AFTER landings, after being expelled from Kota Bharu by the Japanese, and under fire the entire way down the peninsula - same for Hong Kong.
The only way I pulled it off was to keep up every aircraft I had in Singapore - to put up an appearance of strength - until the last transport had sailed (kinda like George Washington being the last man to leave Brooklyn in 1776).
EDIT: Also the units that were pulled from Manila were evac'ed at the end of December - I can't believe we got them out without being sunk - but I think a fanatical use of submarines may have made him move a bit more gingerly in the waters off Luzon...

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve
And what pray tell is "Sir Robin on steroids?".

Glad you asked. What the OP indicated qualifies, in my opinion. No offense to the OP (in his own thread no less), but that's my point of view.

British leaving Singapore en masse before Malay landings even take place? Canadians leaving Hong Kong on December 6? Massive evacuation of Luzon before the onset of hostilities?

These all qualify.

ETA: In the games we've played, I don't think you subscribe to this approach, Steve. You've fought forward early and often with Philippino, British, Australian, Dutch, Chinese and (to a lesser extent) American troops and their navies and air forces. You haven't abandoned wholesale critical bastions decades in the making on day one.

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel
Brave Sir Robin is a valid defense tactic in AE given the "godlike knowledge" the Japanese player possesses at the start of the game.

Meh. Of course, as bandied about in so many other threads, 'godlike knowledge' (GK) goes both ways. If the Japanese avoid using their GK on the first turn (most self-respecting IJ players don't carrier hunt the known position of the Allied CVs for instance), from time to time, the Allies should withhold their omniscience for the sake of a better game experience, in my opinion.

I hear you in terms of the use of the 'sir Robin' tactic in the game for the purposes of avoiding an auto-victory in the game. But justifying its application IRL is a dicey argument. The Allies never considered wanton wholesale withdrawal of their forces from the forward theatre to the fringe nether regions of the map in real life either.

Waiting to build your forces for a counteroffensive until late 1942-1944 isn't giving credence to the real-life cacophony of public voices that would be screaming for some (any will do) Allied response to the Japanese onslaught. McClellan anyone?

Do you think the British would have fought for Ceylon with every fiber of their being? I do. Do you think that they would preemptively abandon Singapore as soon as possible when the shooting started or might that be Allied retrospective omniscience at work?

The proper response for the Japanese player that falls prey to a "Sir Robin on steroids" Allied gambit is to find another game going forward. Don't drop the game by any means, but find another game to occupy your time while submitting to the Allies lack of game for a year or more of game time.

I would like to see the Japanese player turn the tables on the Allied player by preemptively withdrawing from areas that they would have ordinarily fought desperately over. Allies want to wait until late 1943-early 1944 to begin any semblance of counteroffensive? Fine. Don't offer resistance. They want Truk? OK. Let them have it. They want Iwo Jima, Okinawa and Saipan? Can do-let them have them for free. They want to be on Honshu in late 1944? Why not?

Wargames that force you to suspend your disbelief about the conduct of the war lose their appeal to both sides. It's up to both sides to make the game interesting for the benefit of the other player. Those that deny their opponent's moment in the sun risk the same behavior leveled at themselves.

You have valid points about the lack of realism of wholesale withdrawal.

However, that door swings very hard both ways.

Just how realistic is a January invasion of OZ by the Japanese to set up strategic bombing for an autovictory as Mr. Kane did?

The Japanese didn't know the concentrated KB was invincible and could effectively go wherever it wanted to dominate.

How many Japanese players hold back and reserve the onslaught? How many Japanese players role play victory disease?

It's a game, not a simulation. Each side should be free and unfettered in their approach to going for victory, not just the Japanese side.
Why should Allied players be expected to role play sitting on their hands and defending every locale to the death when the Japanese player isn't role playing a historical Japanese approach?

[Chickenboy]

Of course. Both players need to ensure that their gameplay makes the game 'fun' for the other player. This is a balancing act for both sides to understand their responsibility vis a vis their partner.

One player vacating a theatre where the other expected a reasonable semblance of fighting can cause a game to lose its appeal. Here's where the Allies have to show the cut of their jib first. If they eliminate any vestige of hope for Japanese autovictory by wholesale withdrawal of their forces from the first day, they should expect comeuppance later in the war when they're feeling full of themselves and spoiling for a fight. I imagine a non-defense of the Marianas, Truk, Rabaul and so on and so on would suck the life out of the game for Allies. Consider that when you're rationalizing Allied wholesale withdrawal in 1941-1942.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter
Just how realistic is a January invasion of OZ by the Japanese to set up strategic bombing for an autovictory as Mr. Kane did?

Probably about as realistic as the Allies strat bombing DEI oil / refinery facilities the first few days of the war. Again-it cuts both ways.

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Of course. Both players need to ensure that their gameplay makes the game 'fun' for the other player. This is a balancing act for both sides to understand their responsibility vis a vis their partner.

One player vacating a theatre where the other expected a reasonable semblance of fighting can cause a game to lose its appeal. Here's where the Allies have to show the cut of their jib first. If they eliminate any vestige of hope for Japanese autovictory by wholesale withdrawal of their forces from the first day, they should expect comeuppance later in the war when they're feeling full of themselves and spoiling for a fight. I imagine a non-defense of the Marianas, Truk, Rabaul and so on and so on would suck the life out of the game for Allies. Consider that when you're rationalizing Allied wholesale withdrawal in 1941-1942.

What sucks the life out of a game for the Allies is having a Japanese player run ahistorically rampant over the Allies going for AV and then simply quit when the gambit fails completely and utterly denying the Allied player his day in the sun.

No Allied player ever has any guarantee of seeing their day in the sun.

Allied players HAVE to play all out to deny AV if they want to have even a shot at the sunny day.

I've seen very, very few AARed games where a Japanese player played for the long game by restricting the expansion and working to build a defense.

I have the utmost respect for the Japanese players of those few games.

[Canoerebel]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy
....If they eliminate any vestige of hope for Japanese autovictory by wholesale withdrawal of their forces from the first day, they should expect comeuppance later in the war when they're feeling full of themselves and spoiling for a fight. I imagine a non-defense of the Marianas, Truk, Rabaul and so on and so on would suck the life out of the game for Allies. Consider that when you're rationalizing Allied wholesale withdrawal in 1941-1942.

[&:]

I thought the idea in a game was to minimize the chances of enemy victory?

I can think of a few players who would laugh at Allied wholesale withdrawal and then turn it against them. There were/are some who would simply feast on that tactic.

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy
....If they eliminate any vestige of hope for Japanese autovictory by wholesale withdrawal of their forces from the first day, they should expect comeuppance later in the war when they're feeling full of themselves and spoiling for a fight. I imagine a non-defense of the Marianas, Truk, Rabaul and so on and so on would suck the life out of the game for Allies. Consider that when you're rationalizing Allied wholesale withdrawal in 1941-1942.

[&:]

I thought the idea in a game was to minimize the chances of enemy victory?

I can think of a few players who would laugh at Allied wholesale withdrawal and then turn it against them. There were/are some who would simply feast on that tactic.

Indeed it has it's risks. You withdraw to fast and too far without slowing or attriting the enemy and you open up the possibility of further and greater expansion losing more victory point valuable real estate.

The tactic requires a fine balance.