Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Early war strategy for Allies

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Early war strategy for Allies Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 4 [5]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Early war strategy for Allies - 4/25/2014 2:32:53 PM   
AW1Steve


Posts: 14492
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: Mordor Illlinois
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: littleike

Wow! This is one of the finest answers i have ever received!
Many thanks really!


You are most welcome. In case you can't tell , strategy and writings on the subject are a couple of my passions. Any questions that you want to PM , I'd be happy to try an answer. And if I can't , I often can tell you who can (as I've had my head handed to me from so many forum denizens ) .

Have you started any PBEM's yet?

_____________________________

VP-92 sig banner

(in reply to littleike)
Post #: 121
RE: Early war strategy for Allies - 4/25/2014 3:00:38 PM   
Erkki


Posts: 1461
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: offline
Use your initial CVs to hit the shipping at and near Truk ASAP. The initial landings on Wake, Solomons and New Guinea area launch from Bedeloap and Truk and they are all very slow unescorted xAKL TFs except the Wake invasion which has a CL.

You should be able to bring CV air units within range in 4 days. Remember to set as many CV fighters as possible for escort just to be sure. Once that is done you can raid Bedeloap, Hokkaido or even Tokyo itself(though it doesnt have much to hit early, besides the factories).

Also there is no need to let Prince of Wales and Repulse be sunk by IJN bombers without achieving a thing. So set them to sail to Singora(waypoint at Khota Bharu) at full speed, coastal, absolute. You have the chance to take out 2 IJN BBs and 4 CAs right at the first day of the war!


This strhonk tektikh is prhovided to you by Admirahr Watabane

_____________________________


(in reply to AW1Steve)
Post #: 122
RE: Early war strategy for Allies - 4/25/2014 3:18:45 PM   
AW1Steve


Posts: 14492
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: Mordor Illlinois
Status: offline
I'll agree with Erikki about the POW and Force Z. It makes an excellent carrier escort. Evacuate to Oz , then PH. them Hitting Wake with your CV's is great against a rookie. But then again , most rookies don't last long playing Japan in a GC. It's not uncommon for an experienced Japanese player to run the KB through the Wake island area , often all the way down to Johnston hoping that an aggressive allied player will try this gambit. How many AKLs do you need to sink to equal the loss of one CV, and it's airgroup? And it's escorts? That is one heck of a lot of AKL's just to break even.

I'd recommend sending your CV's as far south of Wake and PH as fast as possible. Maybe Christmas island (Pacific one). Maybe further. Clear the waters , and let his KB rule. And don't be in a hurry to return to PH. Along with the possibility that his KB may swing back again to kill any cripples heading for the west coast (I always wait more than 2 weeks) and you can almost walk on the subs he has deployed around PH. Give him at least a couple of weeks to clear out.

< Message edited by AW1Steve -- 4/25/2014 4:19:40 PM >


_____________________________

VP-92 sig banner

(in reply to Erkki)
Post #: 123
RE: Early war strategy for Allies - 4/25/2014 3:19:42 PM   
littleike

 

Posts: 135
Joined: 10/3/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

Have you started any PBEM's yet?




I feel not yet ready to do the jump but maybe soon i will !!
In the meantime thanks for your usefulness. Be sure i will contact you.



(in reply to AW1Steve)
Post #: 124
RE: Early war strategy for Allies - 4/25/2014 3:27:23 PM   
AW1Steve


Posts: 14492
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: Mordor Illlinois
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: littleike


quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

Have you started any PBEM's yet?




I feel not yet ready to do the jump but maybe soon i will !!
In the meantime thanks for your usefulness. Be sure i will contact you.





You don't have to start out with the GC. I strongly recommend doing all the smaller scenarios 1st. And be sure to play both sides. I feel the perfect way to learn is to "mirror game" them , you play one side then your opponent plays the other. At the same time the two of you set up a parallel game so that you wind up playing both sides at the same time. It gives you a lot more to think about , but allows you to comprehend both sides view of the same battle/campaign.

If you need a mentor , let me know. I've just finished with my latest student , he's gone on to the GC . And I don't feel competent yet to play Japan in the GC. I'm still working on some of the experts as a AFB in the GC. When I can cream someone like Chickenboy in the GC , THEN I'll feel ready to try JFB in the GC. That day will probably never come. But I do try!

_____________________________

VP-92 sig banner

(in reply to littleike)
Post #: 125
RE: Early war strategy for Allies - 4/25/2014 3:45:10 PM   
mind_messing

 

Posts: 3018
Joined: 10/28/2013
From: Glasgow, Scotland
Status: offline
quote:


You don't have to start out with the GC. I strongly recommend doing all the smaller scenarios 1st. And be sure to play both sides. I feel the perfect way to learn is to "mirror game" them , you play one side then your opponent plays the other. At the same time the two of you set up a parallel game so that you wind up playing both sides at the same time. It gives you a lot more to think about , but allows you to comprehend both sides view of the same battle/campaign.


I'll second that. Start out with something extremely small and focused at the operational level. The Coral Sea Scenario is the best for this. After you've played both sides through on that a couple of times, switch to the Thousand Mile War scenario for a few playthroughts.

Once you're fairly slick on the operational side of things, jump on to the Guadalcanal scenario for a sort of mini-campaign at the tatical level and to get some experience of a prolonged campaign.

Reading AAR's helps a great deal as to understand the strategic level, and you'll pick up nifty tricks or efficent ways of doing things.

(in reply to AW1Steve)
Post #: 126
RE: Early war strategy for Allies - 4/25/2014 3:54:52 PM   
uncivil_servant


Posts: 200
Joined: 2/19/2013
Status: offline
"So my point is , in an over long winded way , that most players today are far better than the real life "actors" were. So you need to "dog down" the system for the allies and "speed up" the playability for the Japanese to keep people playing. And I feel that if you allowed the allies to blow up every base you'd over tax Japanese engineering capability. Frankly in the early war the allies just were not that competent. They didn't practice "Sir Robin" which is a disciplined , planned , organize retreat and embraced a "run for your lives" , or "lets just get drunk, we're screwed" attitude. Not always , but often. And allies like the Dutch always seemed to be more afraid of the natives than the Japanese. "

From someone new looking in from the outside pondering taking the plunge - I understand what you're saying but an organized retreat is not leaving units in place and having everything else run to safe spots. It seems everyone just runs for the hills and calls it Brave Sir Robin - there is no organized retreating possible as:
1: So many units are restricted (Dutch islands)(Philippines) meaning one has to move heaven and earth to do a more organized DEI or Philippines defense.
2: The ability to have enemy fleets be anywhere in huge area without same ability for allies to react to that.
3. Sonar guided torpedoes for the IJ forces makes most actions with moving troops or reorganizing or putting up a fight inherently stupid. You will be sunk. Almost guaranteed.
4. The complete ineffectiveness of non-torpedo land based bombers. B-17s out of Clark scored hits on their attacks on enemy ships every time they tried (transports then Ashigari - but they only had a minimal bomb load so light damage), then at Midway they came so close to a carrier that it was was described from adjacent carrier commander as being completely obscured by the plumes of water. They couldn't sail just outside of Sydney and laugh at the attempts to attack their ships because they program makes level bombing scoring a hit a very rare thing - hence no one is afraid of allied air forces.
5. I cannot use smart tactics to save the troops in places like Bataan, whereas if they had brought supplies wit them they could have lasted much, much longer, the game makes the defeat inevitable on much the same time rate as bombing airfields uses up their food to repair them as the player is not allowed to "ignore" repairing an airfield with no planes.
6. I have to hide my air forces as high level sweeps will force me fight them instead of wisely declining to fight and letting AA guns start firing into the fighter formations, making them choose to either come down to levels where I would be willing to engage them, or exit the air space but AA, in the game, doesn't defend against sweep attacks.
7. I have to really trust the other player to 1) play through to when it isn't all IJ victory after victory and b) if what I read was true - that for some ungodly reason the IJ player can keep playing/reloading the turn they receive until they get results they are not diametrically opposed to.
(Speed limit effect with no cops - people will speed - guaranteed) Sense of fair will might win out sometimes but if it is possible to do that, I guarantee as human nature it has been done)

With the above, it is hard contemplating everything but a rout of non restricted forces. It just seems inevitable that places like India and Australia may be attacked at the whim of the IJ player no matter what strategies are implemented in defense as the software makes holding the IJ to historical gains improbable at best.

I have a hard time contemplating anything but a full on rout of forces as anything from India, Australia, Noumea, Fiji can be attacked (and latter two taken) turning the game into a painful slog - only then to have many AARs here end the moment the tide turns and land is being taken back. That and reading AARs of IJ players building more planes (and of the hand picked best varieties) than the allies which is completely mind boggling. To actually out build the Arsenal of Democracy so one cannot even count on attrition contributing to winning your war for you in the air.

Again - complete new person looking from the outside in. In my game versus the computer (first ever) there are so many times where things would go drastically worse for me it isn't funny).

_____________________________

It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion,
It is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed,
The hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a warning,
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.

(in reply to littleike)
Post #: 127
RE: Early war strategy for Allies - 4/25/2014 4:12:36 PM   
AW1Steve


Posts: 14492
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: Mordor Illlinois
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: uncivil_servant

"So my point is , in an over long winded way , that most players today are far better than the real life "actors" were. So you need to "dog down" the system for the allies and "speed up" the playability for the Japanese to keep people playing. And I feel that if you allowed the allies to blow up every base you'd over tax Japanese engineering capability. Frankly in the early war the allies just were not that competent. They didn't practice "Sir Robin" which is a disciplined , planned , organize retreat and embraced a "run for your lives" , or "lets just get drunk, we're screwed" attitude. Not always , but often. And allies like the Dutch always seemed to be more afraid of the natives than the Japanese. "

From someone new looking in from the outside pondering taking the plunge - I understand what you're saying but an organized retreat is not leaving units in place and having everything else run to safe spots. It seems everyone just runs for the hills and calls it Brave Sir Robin - there is no organized retreating possible as:
1: So many units are restricted (Dutch islands)(Philippines) meaning one has to move heaven and earth to do a more organized DEI or Philippines defense.
2: The ability to have enemy fleets be anywhere in huge area without same ability for allies to react to that.
3. Sonar guided torpedoes for the IJ forces makes most actions with moving troops or reorganizing or putting up a fight inherently stupid. You will be sunk. Almost guaranteed.
4. The complete ineffectiveness of non-torpedo land based bombers. B-17s out of Clark scored hits on their attacks on enemy ships every time they tried (transports then Ashigari - but they only had a minimal bomb load so light damage), then at Midway they came so close to a carrier that it was was described from adjacent carrier commander as being completely obscured by the plumes of water. They couldn't sail just outside of Sydney and laugh at the attempts to attack their ships because they program makes level bombing scoring a hit a very rare thing - hence no one is afraid of allied air forces.
5. I cannot use smart tactics to save the troops in places like Bataan, whereas if they had brought supplies wit them they could have lasted much, much longer, the game makes the defeat inevitable on much the same time rate as bombing airfields uses up their food to repair them as the player is not allowed to "ignore" repairing an airfield with no planes.
6. I have to hide my air forces as high level sweeps will force me fight them instead of wisely declining to fight and letting AA guns start firing into the fighter formations, making them choose to either come down to levels where I would be willing to engage them, or exit the air space but AA, in the game, doesn't defend against sweep attacks.
7. I have to really trust the other player to 1) play through to when it isn't all IJ victory after victory and b) if what I read was true - that for some ungodly reason the IJ player can keep playing/reloading the turn they receive until they get results they are not diametrically opposed to.
(Speed limit effect with no cops - people will speed - guaranteed) Sense of fair will might win out sometimes but if it is possible to do that, I guarantee as human nature it has been done)

With the above, it is hard contemplating everything but a rout of non restricted forces. It just seems inevitable that places like India and Australia may be attacked at the whim of the IJ player no matter what strategies are implemented in defense as the software makes holding the IJ to historical gains improbable at best.

I have a hard time contemplating anything but a full on rout of forces as anything from India, Australia, Noumea, Fiji can be attacked (and latter two taken) turning the game into a painful slog - only then to have many AARs here end the moment the tide turns and land is being taken back. That and reading AARs of IJ players building more planes (and of the hand picked best varieties) than the allies which is completely mind boggling. To actually out build the Arsenal of Democracy so one cannot even count on attrition contributing to winning your war for you in the air.

Again - complete new person looking from the outside in. In my game versus the computer (first ever) there are so many times where things would go drastically worse for me it isn't funny).



Obviously , your right. There are a lot of units that you can't save. Most of them in fact. But as I said before, the biggest thing for you to save is USN ships , and some aircraft. Troops generally are not worth saving. Some British/commonwealth ships are worth saving. The major question you need to ask about any ship is can it be updated? If it can't then you are saving a ship doomed to obsolescence. Go ahead a use it, if it gets sunk , your not losing that much. Does the ship have some useful conversion ability? Is it a tanker? Can it be converted to a tender? An AR? A AE or AKE? Yes by all means save it.

Troops generally die in place. Use them, consolidate them , turn bases into speed bumps. Send every Dutch unit you can to places like Palembang (so that hopefully between the engineers and JFB's they will trash the place). Hold Singapore and Bataan as long as you can. Make the JFB bleed. But evac the B-17's and PBY's. Save some USA pilots. Use the PI fighter planes to generate experienced pilots , and rotate them out. Don't forget that some of the USAAF's 1st aces cut their teeth in the PI. You need to get your fighters into combat. You'll lose all the planes and most of the pilots , but those who survive are veterans. And go ahead and use those B-17D's. OK , so they just spash water on the Japanese ships. But look at how quickly your pilots experience goes up. Combat is training! Use it. Use everything you have to either build for the future (your most important goal) or to delay the enemy (your 2nd most important goal).



_____________________________

VP-92 sig banner

(in reply to uncivil_servant)
Post #: 128
RE: Early war strategy for Allies - 4/25/2014 4:40:39 PM   
mind_messing

 

Posts: 3018
Joined: 10/28/2013
From: Glasgow, Scotland
Status: offline
Alright, uncivil_servant, I'll bite.

quote:

1: So many units are restricted (Dutch islands)(Philippines) meaning one has to move heaven and earth to do a more organized DEI or Philippines defense.


Quite historical. Otherwise, we'd no doubt see Phillipine units defending Palambang or something akin to that.

quote:

2: The ability to have enemy fleets be anywhere in huge area without same ability for allies to react to that.


That's not really true. The Allies can't contest the Japanese carriers for the first four months of the war alone, at least, but there's plenty of scope for operations wherever the IJN isn't. The real problem is getting the Allied naval assets concentrated.

quote:

. Sonar guided torpedoes for the IJ forces makes most actions with moving troops or reorganizing or putting up a fight inherently stupid. You will be sunk. Almost guaranteed.


Wrong. Operating ships without air cover in IJN torpedo bomber range is a sure way to be sunk. It's the lack of suitable long-range escorts that hampers the Allied navies in the early war, which is quite historical.

quote:

4. The complete ineffectiveness of non-torpedo land based bombers. B-17s out of Clark scored hits on their attacks on enemy ships every time they tried (transports then Ashigari - but they only had a minimal bomb load so light damage), then at Midway they came so close to a carrier that it was was described from adjacent carrier commander as being completely obscured by the plumes of water. They couldn't sail just outside of Sydney and laugh at the attempts to attack their ships because they program makes level bombing scoring a hit a very rare thing - hence no one is afraid of allied air forces.


You've a point, but this falls to personal taste. Simply amassing a flotilla of 200 B-17's and sending it after the IJN might be a "cheap" route to victory in the eyes of some. 200 B-17s with 8 bombs (1600 bombs total) each gives you an excellent chance of seeing some hits on IJN ships regardless of the altitude, and it's a move that the Japanese have no real counter for.

quote:

5. I cannot use smart tactics to save the troops in places like Bataan, whereas if they had brought supplies wit them they could have lasted much, much longer, the game makes the defeat inevitable on much the same time rate as bombing airfields uses up their food to repair them as the player is not allowed to "ignore" repairing an airfield with no planes.


What smart tactics? The player can stockpile supplies in Bataan, as well as bring supplies in via submarine. The bombing of airstrips abstracts bombers attacking supply depots, and I very much doubt that every Allied supply depot in Bataan was untouchable by bombing.

quote:

6. I have to hide my air forces as high level sweeps will force me fight them instead of wisely declining to fight and letting AA guns start firing into the fighter formations, making them choose to either come down to levels where I would be willing to engage them, or exit the air space but AA, in the game, doesn't defend against sweep attacks.


I agree. AA should be part of the combat routine, but only on unopposed sweeps (lest the combination of flak + CAP makes defending far more advantagous than attacking) and only have a real effect on fighters at low altitude (seeing as fighters don't need to rigidly line up for bombing runs).

quote:

7. I have to really trust the other player to 1) play through to when it isn't all IJ victory after victory and b) if what I read was true - that for some ungodly reason the IJ player can keep playing/reloading the turn they receive until they get results they are not diametrically opposed to.
(Speed limit effect with no cops - people will speed - guaranteed) Sense of fair will might win out sometimes but if it is possible to do that, I guarantee as human nature it has been done)


It takes a rare type of person that's willing to play Japan, where they know they're going to lose from the start, and need to delay that defeat for as long as possible and where mistakes that lead to the loss of Japanese troops, ships or planes only increase the massive disparity in resources between the two sides.

As for what you say about reloading turns, it's impossible. The Japanese player has no access to the turns results until the Allied orders are inputted, so how would he know said results?

(in reply to uncivil_servant)
Post #: 129
RE: Early war strategy for Allies - 4/26/2014 1:40:43 AM   
wdolson

 

Posts: 10395
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve
I'm not sure if this would ever be possible (I'm not a software guru) but it would significantly change the character of the game from where it now stands. For one thing it would tremendously slow down the Japanese advance. And the resource cost to Japan would be significant. As it is now , a aggressive Japanese player can sweep through the Pacific and the Indian oceans much faster and further than happened in real life. If you took that away , I think it would demoralize the Japanese players tremendously. "Why am I spending two weeks setting up the 1st turn , and spending all this time micro-managing things for such a little achievement"?

Part of the problem with this game mirroring real life (it doesn't) is that most players who do this game in PBEMs are not incompetent. They are very, very competent. Where I'm sure if one were to quantify history , they'd find something like 75% of the generals in history were not.

So the difficulty is establishing a "balanced" game as opposed to a simulator. A simulator that does everything exactly as real life will never produce the same results because EVERYONE that plays this game devotes far more study to it than the generals did in real life. Crazy isn't it? I've been fortunate (or unfortunate enough depending on your point of view) to sit down with lots of senior serving officers (Including lots of Admirals and Generals) and when the subject of the subject of strategy arose , they were usually quick to change the subject. Clausewitz and Mahan most had heard of , but hadn't studied in years , but mention the names Douhet, Jomini , Colbert , or many other writers that your average player has not only heard of , but often read , their eyes glaze over and they look at you with un asked questions in their eyes. What they really want to ask is "Who?". But instead say "yeah. And how about them Red Soxs?".

But they CAN tell you what forms to use , how to get promoted (AKA "knowing what blocks to get checked") and the latest per diem rates. The really clever ones are up to date on the latest "ethics regs". Generals who glory in military strategy and history today are limited to a few recent examples like Swarzkoft and Franks. Post graduate degrees among such officers are MBA's , political science and economics , not history or lord forbid "military history". My experience has been that the average senior NCO knows far more about military history and strategy that their senior leaders. You are far more likely to see a board war game in a NCO barracks than a BOQ. And "official wargames" are less a test of battle and more of a Choreographed dance which ensures that "everyone" plays by scripting it and forcing players to follow the script. (This is nothing new , both the Japanese and Americans followed "scripted" war games right up till and in the Japanese case , through the war. (The famous pre-midway wargame).

So my point is , in an over long winded way , that most players today are far better than the real life "actors" were. So you need to "dog down" the system for the allies and "speed up" the playability for the Japanese to keep people playing. And I feel that if you allowed the allies to blow up every base you'd over tax Japanese engineering capability. Frankly in the early war the allies just were not that competent. They didn't practice "Sir Robin" which is a disciplined , planned , organize retreat and embraced a "run for your lives" , or "lets just get drunk, we're screwed" attitude. Not always , but often. And allies like the Dutch always seemed to be more afraid of the natives than the Japanese.


Just my 2 cents.


It's impossible to solve the 20/20 hindsight problem. The first week of the war made it very clear that the Allies had dramatically underestimated Japanese capabilities and intentions. Nobody was really sure how off the picture was and there was a lot of second guessing that interfered with mounting a good defense and it tanked morale everywhere. The Allies also had very poor intelligence about a lot of other things.

In a game a player can do things different from history to mix things up and throw an opponent off balance, but any player who wants to get an idea of what he's facing just has to open the editor to get an idea of the enemy's capabilities. This is especially true early in a scenario.

In the real world if the Allies had the sort of knowledge that an Allied player starts with, they probably could have run a fairly effective Sir Robin strategy that would have stopped Japan at a smaller empire than they achieved.

Bill

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to AW1Steve)
Post #: 130
RE: Early war strategy for Allies - 4/26/2014 7:49:10 AM   
GreyJoy


Posts: 6750
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson



In the real world if the Allies had the sort of knowledge that an Allied player starts with, they probably could have run a fairly effective Sir Robin strategy that would have stopped Japan at a smaller empire than they achieved.

Bill


Obviously the same can be said for the japanese. If Japan had better known the weak points of the allied defences, they may have achieved more and faster.

(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 131
RE: Early war strategy for Allies - 4/26/2014 8:19:30 AM   
wdolson

 

Posts: 10395
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline
True to some degree, however the Japanese had very good intel on the state of the British Far East Empire. There were a number of turncoat Indians in sensitive places who bought into the Japanese Co-prosperity sphere PR and gave the Japanese very accurate information. I believe there were also people in the DEI and the Philippines who sold out too.

The intel on most pre-war Japanese bases was very thin. On the other hand Japanese agents were able to turn locals and gather intel on their own for many Allied bases in the Pacific.

However a Japanese player in game can know more about the Allies than the Japanese actually knew in the real war.

BTW, your avatar looks like Carlos Mencia with a large air brush in his mouth.

Bill

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to GreyJoy)
Post #: 132
RE: Early war strategy for Allies - 4/27/2014 4:04:52 AM   
topeverest


Posts: 3376
Joined: 10/17/2007
From: Houston, TX - USA
Status: offline
The game ends quickly when the empire CV capability is eliminated, because short hops are no longer needed. For those looking for the allied speed game, strategy must focus on getting a decisive CV battle or battles to definitively shift CV power early in the game. Once that happens, you can hop directly to Mariana's or Luzon and cut off large reaches of the empire. really bold players can move to invade northern approaches up to an including Hokkaido. I've seen quite a few examples of going early to the marshalls too if the empire doesn't come out to play. With that in mind a CV ambush is the top order. Much depends on how the empire CV forces are used, but tactics implied are massed allied carriers, excellent long range naval search, and putting the force where it could get that victory.




_____________________________

Andy M

(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 133
RE: Early war strategy for Allies - 4/27/2014 9:00:17 PM   
AW1Steve


Posts: 14492
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: Mordor Illlinois
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

True to some degree, however the Japanese had very good intel on the state of the British Far East Empire. There were a number of turncoat Indians in sensitive places who bought into the Japanese Co-prosperity sphere PR and gave the Japanese very accurate information. I believe there were also people in the DEI and the Philippines who sold out too.

The intel on most pre-war Japanese bases was very thin. On the other hand Japanese agents were able to turn locals and gather intel on their own for many Allied bases in the Pacific.

However a Japanese player in game can know more about the Allies than the Japanese actually knew in the real war.

BTW, your avatar looks like Carlos Mencia with a large air brush in his mouth.

Bill



Like the Japanese receiving the complete plans and data about Singapore from the Atlantis which captured a merchant ship transporting the reports to London (and the merchant captain didn't destroy the plans...OOPS!).

_____________________________

VP-92 sig banner

(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 134
RE: Early war strategy for Allies - 4/27/2014 9:07:34 PM   
AW1Steve


Posts: 14492
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: Mordor Illlinois
Status: offline
I find that CV's are crucial in "Air weak" areas. What I mean by that is areas with little LBA. One small island , such as Wake or Midway can't really muster enough airpower to stop a naval invasion. Big islands OR groups of mutually supporting islands CAN make an amphibious invasion very bloody. They can even challenge massed CV groups.

One of the mistakes (In my opinion) that most players make is to use CV's against such bulwarks. A CV group can raid against them , or reduce them by a series of successive raids against them , but it's a mistake to expose them to such a risk without a lot of prep work.

And the corollary point is if you do hold such terrain , fortify it and cram in every offensive air group you can.

_____________________________

VP-92 sig banner

(in reply to AW1Steve)
Post #: 135
RE: Early war strategy for Allies - 4/27/2014 9:48:12 PM   
rook749


Posts: 1037
Joined: 12/21/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

One of the mistakes (In my opinion) that most players make is to use CV's against such bulwarks. A CV group can raid against them , or reduce them by a series of successive raids against them , but it's a mistake to expose them to such a risk without a lot of prep work.

And the corollary point is if you do hold such terrain , fortify it and cram in every offensive air group you can.


I could not agree with this more. The US Carrier fleet can win a decisive Midway type battle vs the Combined Fleet if the following can be arranged (the more the better).

1. The Combined Fleet is forced to support an attack at a groups of islands with interlocking airfields and deployed Fighter cover of 75 - 100 fighters. They don't all have to be at the same island rotating them in and out also works. The more the better - you don't even need bombers just fighters and surface forces you are willing to lose.
2. The Combined Fleet is forced to fight for several days giving away is location, takings combat losses, operational losses and adding Pilot Fatigue.
3. The Allies have a superior search grind and interior lines of defense.
4. The Allies have been able to whittle away at the pilots of Combined Fleet over the course of several such engagements as noted in #2 above.
5. The Allies have worked hard to increase pilot training and get this pilots to the front.
6. The American CV's are massed in taffy's with their best leaders. Everyone has a different view of the best taffy but this still must be done.
7. Each American CV has an extra Marine Fighter air unit on board.
8. They American CV's attack after 2 - 4 days of the Combined Fleet fighting in an area(see #2).

This can be done even as early as March of 1942 or it could take longer or never come if he never hits one of these defensive points. You can only make three to five of the points and his invasion path could take him away from all of them.....

It takes making multiple defensive points and good positioning of your carriers but it's worth trying as the Allies.

_____________________________


(in reply to AW1Steve)
Post #: 136
RE: Early war strategy for Allies - 4/28/2014 12:24:21 AM   
Numdydar

 

Posts: 3058
Joined: 2/13/2004
Status: offline
The only reason the Allies attacked at Midway is they knew the Japanese OOB AND they had (worthless) planes at Midway. And they still almost lost.

There is no reason in AE for the Allies to respond to any attack on Midway. Nor is there any reason for Japan to go after it either. If it was not for the battle there Midway would be just another out of the way place like Johnson Is.

(in reply to rook749)
Post #: 137
RE: Early war strategy for Allies - 4/28/2014 12:30:54 AM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 9158
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: rook749


quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

One of the mistakes (In my opinion) that most players make is to use CV's against such bulwarks. A CV group can raid against them , or reduce them by a series of successive raids against them , but it's a mistake to expose them to such a risk without a lot of prep work.

And the corollary point is if you do hold such terrain , fortify it and cram in every offensive air group you can.


I could not agree with this more. The US Carrier fleet can win a decisive Midway type battle vs the Combined Fleet if the following can be arranged (the more the better).

1. The Combined Fleet is forced to support an attack at a groups of islands with interlocking airfields and deployed Fighter cover of 75 - 100 fighters. They don't all have to be at the same island rotating them in and out also works. The more the better - you don't even need bombers just fighters and surface forces you are willing to lose.
2. The Combined Fleet is forced to fight for several days giving away is location, takings combat losses, operational losses and adding Pilot Fatigue.
3. The Allies have a superior search grind and interior lines of defense.
4. The Allies have been able to whittle away at the pilots of Combined Fleet over the course of several such engagements as noted in #2 above.
5. The Allies have worked hard to increase pilot training and get this pilots to the front.
6. The American CV's are massed in taffy's with their best leaders. Everyone has a different view of the best taffy but this still must be done.
7. Each American CV has an extra Marine Fighter air unit on board.
8. They American CV's attack after 2 - 4 days of the Combined Fleet fighting in an area(see #2).

This can be done even as early as March of 1942 or it could take longer or never come if he never hits one of these defensive points. You can only make three to five of the points and his invasion path could take him away from all of them.....

It takes making multiple defensive points and good positioning of your carriers but it's worth trying as the Allies.


Once there is fighter parity, it (USN winning a CV battle) depends largely on individual settings for each player's task forces. The USN can even take a tactical loss if they bag a few of the IJN CVs - the ones that come later just aren't as good. They're still CVs, mind you.

I bolded #1 because that would be an enormous strategic error on the part of the Japanese player. The Japanese player should move quickly enough and decisively enough that the Allies are never able to establish this sort of defensive position at a piece of ground that Japan wants. If you run into a strong Allied defensive position, it's best to take a good hard look. There's no need to start the war of attrition early, in the first 2/3 of 1942. After that, unless the Allies have no CVs, Japan really can't continue to conduct offensive operations. And even supposing minimal Allied CV airpower, can Japan sustain offensive operations logistically? Is it worth it? I can think of a few things that would be (plundering Calcutta or Ceylon for any supplies/fuel shipped in that aren't properly protected), but those require mistakes on the part of the Allied player.

(in reply to rook749)
Post #: 138
RE: Early war strategy for Allies - 4/28/2014 7:05:58 PM   
AW1Steve


Posts: 14492
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: Mordor Illlinois
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna


quote:

ORIGINAL: rook749


quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

One of the mistakes (In my opinion) that most players make is to use CV's against such bulwarks. A CV group can raid against them , or reduce them by a series of successive raids against them , but it's a mistake to expose them to such a risk without a lot of prep work.

And the corollary point is if you do hold such terrain , fortify it and cram in every offensive air group you can.


I could not agree with this more. The US Carrier fleet can win a decisive Midway type battle vs the Combined Fleet if the following can be arranged (the more the better).

1. The Combined Fleet is forced to support an attack at a groups of islands with interlocking airfields and deployed Fighter cover of 75 - 100 fighters. They don't all have to be at the same island rotating them in and out also works. The more the better - you don't even need bombers just fighters and surface forces you are willing to lose.
2. The Combined Fleet is forced to fight for several days giving away is location, takings combat losses, operational losses and adding Pilot Fatigue.
3. The Allies have a superior search grind and interior lines of defense.
4. The Allies have been able to whittle away at the pilots of Combined Fleet over the course of several such engagements as noted in #2 above.
5. The Allies have worked hard to increase pilot training and get this pilots to the front.
6. The American CV's are massed in taffy's with their best leaders. Everyone has a different view of the best taffy but this still must be done.
7. Each American CV has an extra Marine Fighter air unit on board.
8. They American CV's attack after 2 - 4 days of the Combined Fleet fighting in an area(see #2).

This can be done even as early as March of 1942 or it could take longer or never come if he never hits one of these defensive points. You can only make three to five of the points and his invasion path could take him away from all of them.....

It takes making multiple defensive points and good positioning of your carriers but it's worth trying as the Allies.


Once there is fighter parity, it (USN winning a CV battle) depends largely on individual settings for each player's task forces. The USN can even take a tactical loss if they bag a few of the IJN CVs - the ones that come later just aren't as good. They're still CVs, mind you.

I bolded #1 because that would be an enormous strategic error on the part of the Japanese player. The Japanese player should move quickly enough and decisively enough that the Allies are never able to establish this sort of defensive position at a piece of ground that Japan wants. If you run into a strong Allied defensive position, it's best to take a good hard look. There's no need to start the war of attrition early, in the first 2/3 of 1942. After that, unless the Allies have no CVs, Japan really can't continue to conduct offensive operations. And even supposing minimal Allied CV airpower, can Japan sustain offensive operations logistically? Is it worth it? I can think of a few things that would be (plundering Calcutta or Ceylon for any supplies/fuel shipped in that aren't properly protected), but those require mistakes on the part of the Allied player.



Fighter parity is good. But enough LBA bombers , combined with your CV planes might just overwhelm the KB.

In one of my games I've built a "KB Fence". I keep shuttling my CV's and other forces behind a series of heavily fortified large islands running from Christmas to New Zealand , an my opponent really doesn't dare come in range, as I've put every available air group and put several divisions on each island. By saturating the area with LBA patrols , bombers , PT's, individual pickets and subs , he doesn't know what I've got behind the "fence" , where my CV's and other battlegroups or convoys are , and except for the occasional sub (which I prosecute viciously) he is blind. He could charge with his KB , but he has no way of knowing which , if any island has my CV's behind it. It's been pretty successful for mid-1942.

_____________________________

VP-92 sig banner

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 139
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 3 4 [5]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Early war strategy for Allies Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 4 [5]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.180