Allied Capital Ship use Early War?

[Mike McCreery]

A game I was in ended after about 60 days in February of 1942. The Japanese player I was gaming against asked me why I was so passive in the game.

He stated that statistically we have the same number of naval ships and some of my carriers were replaceable with better carriers if they got sunk and the allies would keep getting ships so I should be using my capital ships and air combat forces to go up against the Japanese KB and surface armada. And because I was not doing this he was bored.

I asked him after we crashed our ships together and he lost his irreplaceable ships would the game be less boring or more boring going forward? This ended the game.

Overlooking the fact that 7 of my battleships were still smoldering in Pearl Harbor he was technically correct about the ship numbers.

I play a very defensive game in 1942, trying to save as many ships and aircraft as possible until they can be used effectively. In the many games I have played the Allied capital ships do not seem to have parity with the Japanese in equipment, torpedoes, training and tactics in the early game. The BB's are torpedo magnets at 22knots or less and the Allied CA's are inferior in armor and accuracy to the Japanese CA's. In almost every combat of equal forces at least in my games the allies seem to lose more than the Japanese.

But this leads me to a question.

How do you use your capital ships as the Allies from the start of the game until 4-6 months in? Bombardment? Attempted naval interdiction? Broadside faceoffs between your Japanese equals? Base protection? Let me know, maybe I am too passive.

[dr.hal]

I think an important thing to remember is that how YOU play the game is how you play it, which should not be confused with your opponent trying to bait you into doing something you're not comfortable with. Second, your observations about the Allied "toys" are correct. They are largely inferior and should be "husbanded" (no relation to the Admiral). As for your activities, you do want to "blood" your troops a bit but ONLY when it's to your advantage. Thus you need to hit him where he is NOT! His KB can't be everywhere at once, so the best you can do is keep tabs on it and hit where it ISN'T. You have three CVs that can present some real headaches for him. But pick easy targets at first to get your guys some much needed battle experience. But you play the game YOU want to play and if it's caution all the way, so be it.

[WEXF]

Obviously there is no ONE answer. It is important to remember that the Allies have a number of ships that have to be withdrawn early in the war and there are numerous upgrades to carriers, heavy cruisers and DDS before 1942 is half over.
Pick your battles carefully.
WEXF

[btd64]

I think an important thing to remember is that how YOU play the game is how you play it, which should not be confused with your opponent trying to bait you into doing something you're not comfortable with. Second, your observations about the Allied "toys" are correct. They are largely inferior and should be "husbanded" (no relation to the Admiral). As for your activities, you do want to "blood" your troops a bit but ONLY when it's to your advantage. Thus you need to hit him where he is NOT! His KB can't be everywhere at once, so the best you can do is keep tabs on it and hit where it ISN'T. You have three CVs that can present some real headaches for him. But pick easy targets at first to get your guys some much needed battle experience. But you play the game YOU want to play and if it's caution all the way, so be it.

Right on the nose doc....GP

[CaptBeefheart]

I'd say your opponent was off base. Historically, the USN's slow battleships didn't show up to play until maybe Tarawa (Nov. 1943)? Certainly they were nowhere near the fighting in the Solomons. Other than the Asiatic Fleet putting up a doomed fight in the DEI, the USN didn't contest any Japanese moves until Coral Sea in May 1942.

In game terms, the slow BBs suck up a lot of fuel and they tend not to do well in surface fights. There may be a few opportunities to use them early, but the Japanese player shouldn't expect a lot of fighting in the first six months.

Cheers,
CB

[jiajia1]

I feel he wants you to sacrifice your BBs or any other ships showing to the front of KB turning into his VPs. Keep your strategy.

[Jellicoe]

Agree with the responses - the temptation as the allied player is always to 'do something'. The top flight players have often said that they exploit this tendency. And it is a real temptation when you have a bunch of battleships swinging round the buoy to go and blast something. In my current campaign vs AI this has led to all my RN capital ships bar the Royal Sovereign ending up in the fender shop with either torpedo or 16inch shell damage fighting a series of night actions whilst bombarding Akyab. Nothing more calculated to leave your heart in your mouth than watching the R's go into a night action! (although at least they have much better crews than the US battleline)

[RangerJoe]

Play your game and not his.

He can make as many aircraft as he wants to while your production of aircraft is limited. His torpedo planes are better than yours early on while your dive bombers are better. His pilots are better trained initially. He also has long ranged land based torpedo aircraft that can use a size 2 airfield. Your long ranged bombers have a hard time hitting moving ships with bombs due to training and other factors. His torpedo aircraft can also carry a 800 kg bomb if they were to attack ships in port as well.

His land units are better trained and many of yours do not have the "stamina" in the sense of replacements of squads and equipment while he just has to have enough manpower and supplies plus the relevant weapons and vehicle points. You are also trying to build up your defensive positions which means that they are probably not expanding ports to enable them to assist the naval aspect of things.

If you fight forward, his units are closer to his "body and fender" shops while yours are father away and hence more vulnerable - especially with the lovely Mark 14 torpedoes equipping many of your better long ranged submarines. He also has more and better flying boats plus submarines with float planes for spotting. If you try to hide in a small port and repair some system damage while also pumping out unneeded water in the hull, he also has minisubs.

All that said, look at Lowpe's AAR as to how the relative weaker fleet in both ship numbers and capabilities can be used early on to surprise the enemy, forcing a slower pace in operations or suffering losses that could and should slow the enemy advance.

Then you can play Teddy Roosevelt* when your fleet numbers and capabilities improve.

*"Speak softly and carry a big stick."

[Nemo121]

1. You do you. You had a plan and were sticking to it. It mightn't be my strategy but that's irrelevant since it is YOUR game. Personally I favour finding possibilities to expend the early war Allied capital ships in return for outsized Japanese losses and/or disruption of IJN/IJA strategic objectives - ideally wresting the initiative from them - but that's me and if that isn't how you're wired then don't force yourself to play in a manner which doesn't suit you, at this stage in your AE gaming experience.

2. It is your opponent's job to beat you no matter what strategy you follow. If you fight forward then they should take advantage of that to beat you, if you hold back then that provides different opportunities they can capitalise on.

3. Rather than being "boring" I'd suggest your strategy was effective and kudos to you for sticking to it. Most would give in to the temptation to "do something", suffer crippling losses and major strategic setbacks in doing so and then wonder why the game was going poorly.

One of my favourite sayings to apply to situations like this is, "Don't just do something, stand there." Sometimes making the decision to stand there instead of flailing around wildly is the right decision ( for you ).

The most important take away here though is that you had the good judgement to pick a plan and the discipline to stick with it. That augurs well.

Obviously YMMV etc etc.

[USSAmerica]

1. You do you. You had a plan and were sticking to it. It mightn't be my strategy but that's irrelevant since it is YOUR game. Personally I favour finding possibilities to expend the early war Allied capital ships in return for outsized Japanese losses and/or disruption of IJN/IJA strategic objectives - ideally wresting the initiative from them - but that's me and if that isn't how you're wired then don't force yourself to play in a manner which doesn't suit you, at this stage in your AE gaming experience.

2. It is your opponent's job to beat you no matter what strategy you follow. If you fight forward then they should take advantage of that to beat you, if you hold back then that provides different opportunities they can capitalise on.

3. Rather than being "boring" I'd suggest your strategy was effective and kudos to you for sticking to it. Most would give in to the temptation to "do something", suffer crippling losses and major strategic setbacks in doing so and then wonder why the game was going poorly.

One of my favourite sayings to apply to situations like this is, "Don't just do something, stand there." Sometimes making the decision to stand there instead of flailing around wildly is the right decision ( for you ).

The most important take away here though is that you had the good judgement to pick a plan and the discipline to stick with it. That augurs well.

Obviously YMMV etc etc.

Nice to see you post, Nemo! Hope all is well with you and yours!

[DougKimura]

WAY late on this, but....

I have had the game for 8+ years and haven't been smart enough to use the forum to learn how to actually play the game.

With one exception I play the Allied against the AI. (I think I've only played a handful of times.)

My view on Allied surface units early is to get them as far forward as safely possible. Japan seems everywhere at once, but their numerous landings are often unsupported by anything bigger than a DD or a few PBs. They are often beyond air support. Nothing spoils an amphibious assault better than a CL or two against a PB escorting several AKs and AKLs. I've been able to hold onto Rabaul long enough to land reinforcements to dislodge any Japanese troops that come ashore. This is only possible as follow-up landing forces are driven away or dispatched. If you hold Rabaul in January the Solomons and the eastern end of New Guinea should remain in the Allies hands. The number of SBDs and fighter units that can get committed to that area before February 1942 is significant.

I attempt to keep the Allied surface ships away from Japanese CV TFs. The same goes with their torpedo laden land-based air units. The extent of the Japanese reach is that there are a number of places where I can disrupt landings without serious threat of air attacks.

This doesn't always pay off, but the gamble seems to work more often than not. The Japanese sending a BB or two in advance of a Rabaul landing sure can spoil the party. While I have had success on sinking follow-up landings at Rabaul other places are almost sure bets: Madang for instance. In the DEI this has worked at Kendari, Makassar, Ambon, Miri and Kuching as well if I do so when their carrier TFs aren't in the area and if it is before they have offensive airpower at Manado and/or Ternate.

One time I ran into a HUGE Japanese TF bound for the southern shore of Java. It must have been 30 vessels. They had apparently gone through the Malacca strait and were coming down the western side of Sumatra. How they managed to do that undetected was a mystery as I was still in control of Sumatra. Once discovered every DD, CL and CA available got into the action. The TF escort was small and I don't think consisted of a few DDs and PBs. Thousands of Japanese troops had their transports out from under them over the period of several days. My surface vessels were running out of ammo and withdrawing there were so many targets!

[RangerJoe]

Ah,the fun of thrashing the AI. But a human player is much more likely to guard his convoys - especially after the first one is hit! But that is okay too since it can slow down the enemy.

[DougKimura]

"Ah,the fun of thrashing the AI. But a human player is much more likely to guard his convoys - especially after the first one is hit! But that is okay too since it can slow down the enemy."

I'm only a little bit ashamed that I've only played against the AI, but I can't imagine taking on a real player with the lack of knowledge I have about the game. I've gleaned SO much information from this forum in the last few weeks. I can't believe I hadn't bothered spending the time researching things!

There was the time my first amphib operation had to retreat back to the ships, or the time I couldn't figure out why I didn't have PP until I was WAY negative, or the time I had B-17s scattered around the Pacific on bases without aviation support, or why I couldn't figure out why bombers wouldn't bomb, or torpedo planes wouldn't use torpedoes......so many newbie errors!

[btd64]

We've all been there before. I must of restarted the campaign a dozen or more times the first time I played AE. Maybe you should play one of the smaller scenarios from both sides and then read an AAR or two then try scenario one again....GP