Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

US 42 deployments

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> The War Room >> US 42 deployments Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
US 42 deployments - 2/7/2008 5:08:42 AM   
borner


Posts: 1485
Joined: 3/20/2005
From: Houston TX
Status: offline 		I am starting this thread from some thought in the tocaff/Bigred game currently going on, as well as mine with Wirraway.

After my first few PBEM games, I had come to think that deploying forward in any strength as the allies simply gave Japan more points as nothing could be held. However, as Japan, I can see some situations where even though the US takes heavy losses, apart from CV's they can be easily replaced. The losses Japan takes in an early campaign, while usually less, are far more costly. Plus, the time lost cuts makes it harder for Japan to dig in, lay mines, and all the other things that make 1943 so fun.

I thought I would start this thread to debate the subject further. Anyone interested?
Post #: 1
RE: US 42 deployments - 2/7/2008 5:32:09 AM   
Nomad


Posts: 5905
Joined: 9/5/2001
From: West Yellowstone, Montana
Status: offline 		I feel in playing the game numous times, you must vary what you do. Sometimes I sit back and wait out most of 1942 and then advance. Other times I go ahead and go forward and try to defend forward bases. As the Japanese I try to gauge what my Allied opponent is doing, if I see him moving his US units North, then it is time to load up 2+ Divisions and land at Noumea. Nothing like cutting off all Naval and SoPac reinforcements to end a game.

_____________________________


(in reply to borner)
Post #: 2
RE: US 42 deployments - 2/7/2008 3:10:23 PM   
tocaff


Posts: 4781
Joined: 10/12/2006
From: USA now in Brasil
Status: offline 		Like Nomad says each game will be played differently, usually based on what your opponent is doing.  My game with BR has cost me, but I feel that with troop rotation I will still have an adequate LCU reserve force to deal with the '43 Allied offensive.  The KB is relatively intact with some units under repair.  The Allied forward deployment in force is a double edged sword and the Allies can afford the loses better than the Japanese.  I never was one to dwell on points because I've seen how quickly they can swing in the Allies favor.

_____________________________

Todd

I never thought that doing an AAR would be so time consuming and difficult.
www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2080768

(in reply to Nomad)
Post #: 3
RE: US 42 deployments - 2/7/2008 6:06:43 PM   
RGIJN


Posts: 1057
Joined: 11/24/2006
From: far away from battlefield :-(
Status: offline 		so you´re not going for an autovictory, or at least not anymore. Always thought that is the option you should prefer and aim for as Japanese, since 1943 will become too hard still to win then - considering the massive allied power-up?!?!

(in reply to tocaff)
Post #: 4
RE: US 42 deployments - 2/7/2008 9:26:45 PM   
Ike99


Posts: 1747
Joined: 1/1/2006
From: A Sand Road
Status: offline
quote:

so you´re not going for an autovictory, or at least not anymore. Always thought that is the option you should prefer and aim for as Japanese, since 1943 will become too hard still to win then - considering the massive allied power-up?!?!


I feel a good Allied player would give you slim to no chance of gaining an auto victory and if/when it goes bad it´s over as your losses will be so high you won´t have much left for defense in 43´.

In my own opinion, against a good Allied player hunkering down and not doing too much has actually a better chance of gaining at least a draw.

I say this because of the way ground battles work.

In total the Allied player recieves 3,910 Assault points. The Japanese 1,853 AP in 6 divisions plus they recieve 100´s more in all those Naval garrison units they recieve.

It works out to less than a 2-1 and to win a ground battle you need at least a 2-1 advantage. If the Japanese fortify all their major bases to level 9 and stockpiles supplies, surrounds them with thousands of mines, coastal guns and puts an entire division at each major high point value base it can be extremely difficult to dig them out of enough bases to gain victory.

If the Allied player deploys forward early and losses a good number of high AP valued land units it can be that much more difficult to gain ground later.

That´s my opinion.

But yeah, if it´s August 42´and he has thrown 500 Assault points in Port Moresby, by all means load up every transport you have with every carrier you have and set a course for Noumea, game over.


< Message edited by Ike99 -- 2/7/2008 9:39:49 PM >

(in reply to RGIJN)
Post #: 5
RE: US 42 deployments - 2/8/2008 1:05:14 AM   
Wirraway_Ace


Posts: 1400
Joined: 10/8/2007
From: Austin / Brisbane
Status: offline 		My thoughts on Scenario 17 or 19 and defending forward as the Allies against a skilled IJN opponant:

Excerpt from GEN MacArthur’s AAR on the battle for Irau, 22 Aug 42 – 1 Sep 42.

1. Summary: The preponderance of Naval Forces and veteran Army Divisions that Japan has committed to conquer New Guinea and the Solomons made a mockery of our valiant, but doomed attempts to hold these bases. Our delaying actions on New Guinea were successful at giving time to develop a well dug-in and supplied position on Irau supported by bomber capable airfields on Nevea and Luganville. The intent was to defeat the enemy landings through massed air attacks from Nevea and Luganville employing the entire Theater bomber assets reinforced by carrier torpedo and dive-bomber aircraft operating from these bases. All the time and effort simply resulted in high losses in aircraft and ground troops and another risky naval evacuation. IJN transport losses were also high, but it is not clear that such losses will greatly affect operations in 1943.

Other notes:

I do believe that the key to successful delaying actions in New Guinea is the committment of a bde or two of the veteren 7th Aus Div. These desert veterans really help stiffen the defense. The New Guinea force boys run like dogs...

Successful delaying in New Guinea allows you time to build-up Nevea, Luganville and Espirto Santo into mutually supporting bases that make auto-victory nearly impossible. I would think twice before trying to hold onto Irau, and anything futher north in the Solomons is simply going to become a prisoner of war camp against a skilled IJN opponant.

(in reply to Ike99)
Post #: 6
RE: US 42 deployments - 2/8/2008 4:31:24 AM   
borner


Posts: 1485
Joined: 3/20/2005
From: Houston TX
Status: offline 		I agree the auto-victory is a slim option. The only way I see it happening is if the US sails out for an early CV battle and things go very well for Japan.

One I have seen against me that worked well is Japan sending a force to take Luganville. Not so much to hold it, but to delay it being built up as a major base. Only issue is that it gives US bombers a useful target to build up experience, anything Japan sends there become POW's.


(in reply to Wirraway_Ace)
Post #: 7
RE: US 42 deployments - 2/8/2008 10:23:20 AM   
RGIJN


Posts: 1057
Joined: 11/24/2006
From: far away from battlefield :-(
Status: offline 		so then, how about the japanese prospects in 1943? Besides the stunning war of PzB I read about some time ago, I´ve rarely seen games running successful for the Emperor and winning them by points in 1944. AFAIK, most games fade out sometime in 1943 when you (as IJN player) just have to realize the overwhelming allied tide, leaving you torn apart and without any assets worth to mention. Once the US gain a foothold on either NG or the Solomons, I´d understand that simply as game over boy. Mostly they will overrun both theatres with ease.

So, unless lots of fortune, you need to focus for quick knock-out at least a bit. Kinda core behind your overall strategy which of course should be well considered and always allows to opt for more than one outcome.
Historically, the Japanese were forced to construct their campaign that way. They just had not the power for the long run... Yamamoto was well aware about that. Though he did not well after the initial onslaught. Most of all, he got penalized for his desire of complicated and complex battle plans I believe. ("operation MI" the most disastrous one, resulting in the loss of the KB)

Would appreciate your thoughts about!

(in reply to borner)
Post #: 8
RE: US 42 deployments - 2/9/2008 5:16:47 AM   
borner


Posts: 1485
Joined: 3/20/2005
From: Houston TX
Status: offline 		Japan's issue in my opinion was that she over-extended herself during the war. If they had held back and had the whole KB available in 1942, the US could not have done much of anything. New Essex class carrires did not arrive in any decent numbers until late 43. They may have held off the US for an extra year, but eventually the weight of US production would have been too much. The only possibility was that dueing the last wartime election, if the war was still costly and not looking all but won, would the US public, even with the anger of Pearl Harbor, looked for a quicker peace than unconditional surrender? Essentialy what the South tried to do in the in the Civil War.

You are correct that once the US get a foothold, it is all downhill for Japan. However, much depends on what happens in 1942. If you are careless with the US fleet, or your shipping, anything could happen. Most players from what I have seen will have Japan set 60-100% higher than the US to help even the odds.

(in reply to RGIJN)
Post #: 9
RE: US 42 deployments - 2/9/2008 6:35:47 AM   
Nomad


Posts: 5905
Joined: 9/5/2001
From: West Yellowstone, Montana
Status: offline 		My memory( which is none too good these days ) says that 200/120 or 200/140 were the norm for senarios 17 and 19. That was deemed to provide a good balance for the long game. If Japan was not ablel to secure an autovictory, then the Allies needed most of 1943 to try to obtain a win. It always seemed to provide some very hard decisions by both sides.

_____________________________


(in reply to borner)
Post #: 10
RE: US 42 deployments - 2/9/2008 7:04:37 AM   
Ike99


Posts: 1747
Joined: 1/1/2006
From: A Sand Road
Status: offline
quote:

Once the US gain a foothold on either NG or the Solomons, I´d understand that simply as game over boy.


No it´s not over because the Allies gain a foothold in the Solomons or New Guinea. It should be just beginning. As the Japanese you have almost an entire year to ship men and material, lay mines and fortify bases.

Remember, the Japanese are expected to take a beating in 43´. The Allies can capture and build up Port Moresby, Dobadura, Guadalcanal, Tulagi, etc., etc., and build everyone of these bases up to maximum and he will still not have enough points to win if you have been tight on your points. Loosing big ships early and such.

As long as you can hold Truk, Rabaul and a little bit more you can hold to a draw.

(in reply to Nomad)
Post #: 11
RE: US 42 deployments - 2/9/2008 5:45:21 PM   
borner


Posts: 1485
Joined: 3/20/2005
From: Houston TX
Status: offline 		I agree. The allies have 3 main targets early PM, GG, and Irau. Irau is the easiest, as p-38's can fly some cap to help cover the landings. However, it is also the easisst for Japan to hit with bombardment raids to hit planes and supplies that are being brought in.

PM and GG require carrier aircover, and the US CV's should be busy protecting the fragile AP's from the IJN, so these landings should be more costly up front. Once this happens, the name of the game is shipping. If Japan can sink, or in 43 even damage, enough of the US transports, they have a chance. all those divisions and planes need supplies, and lots of them.

(in reply to Ike99)
Post #: 12
RE: US 42 deployments - 2/11/2008 7:38:50 PM   
Wirraway_Ace


Posts: 1400
Joined: 10/8/2007
From: Austin / Brisbane
Status: offline 		borner,

back to your original topic of Allied deployments in 42 (vs retaking them in 43).  Against a skilled IJN player, Port Moresby and Lae Lae (beach hex just to the NW of PM) are the only reasonable sites to try and defend.  Other locations can help an overall strategy of delay, depending to some extent on the IJN player's decisions.  Buna can act as delying sites in conjuntion with a defense of PM.  Irau can help slow the Japanese in the Solomons.  Gili Gili is a death trap using the UV map if the enemy mines the adjacent hex--no naval evacuation possible.  Note, WiTP stock map has a trail that connects to Port Moresby that I believe is historically more accurate.  Wau--deathrap.  Lunga--deathtrap.

(in reply to borner)
Post #: 13
RE: US 42 deployments - 5/29/2008 4:15:06 PM   
bigbaba


Posts: 1238
Joined: 11/3/2006
From: Koblenz, Germany
Status: offline 		after my first PBEM, i can list things allied should NOT do in the first months of the game (i learnd this lessons at a very painfull way):

-massing aircrafts at PM. although 100 fighters and 100 bombers sound very good on the paper, they just invite a good japanese player to heavily bomb the AF there with his LB and carrier force, so most of this planes there are destroyed or under repair. "lesser is better" when it comes to the allied airforce at PM.

-do not risk your 6 starting carriers against a good japs player and his 10! i tried that in my game and the result was 2 sunken allied CV and only light damage on the zuikaku. next time, i would prefer to keep the carriers in reserve in australia (but close enough to strike, if the japs makes a error) and wait for hellcats/corsairs.

-avoid naval clashs with japs BB until you get your own BB. the allied have some CA at the beginning and for a long time and this are simply no match für japs BB and long lance torpedos.

what you should and can do is to hold PM and to supply it with fast transports. my PBEM game ended at the beginning of october and by then PM was far away from beeing captured by the japs. the best assult units of the japs were trapped at PM and my troops there had 15.000 supply and around 800 attack strengh in a level 6 fortificated base. it IS possible to hold PM even against a good japs player and to force his best units to stay there instead of doing crazy things in the solomon area. so try to get as much supply to PM as possible before the entire KB arrives and upgradeing PM fortification to 9 is top priority. at a level 9 fort, the loses caused by bombardements and air attacks are reduced to a acceptable level.


< Message edited by bigbaba -- 5/29/2008 4:22:58 PM >

(in reply to Wirraway_Ace)
Post #: 14
RE: US 42 deployments - 5/29/2008 4:37:18 PM   
Nomad


Posts: 5905
Joined: 9/5/2001
From: West Yellowstone, Montana
Status: offline 		That is interesting bigbaba - in my experience a competant Japanese commander can take PM - he just needs to use his assets properly.

< Message edited by Nomad -- 5/29/2008 4:38:13 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to bigbaba)
Post #: 15
RE: US 42 deployments - 5/29/2008 4:53:08 PM   
bigbaba


Posts: 1238
Joined: 11/3/2006
From: Koblenz, Germany
Status: offline 		well, although i lack experience in PBEM games, i can say that i played against a very good japs player and (at the beginning) i did every mistake i could do like massing 300 aircrafts at PM or forgetting to max out the fort-level at PM...

and although PM had to survive anything you can imagine (that includes regular 120 val+ 130 kate night attacks and massive naval bombardements) it was a very stable situation at PM after the first 5 month of the game (may-october). i had 62.000 troops there and he had 71.000 japs troops.

(in reply to Nomad)
Post #: 16
RE: US 42 deployments - 5/29/2008 4:56:48 PM   
tocaff


Posts: 4781
Joined: 10/12/2006
From: USA now in Brasil
Status: offline 		A good Japanese player can & will take PM despite the Allied player's best efforts.  The key is what the Japanese player is willing to send forth as the strength is unbalanced early on in the game.  Fast transport is a very good option to drop off troops and or supplies on a limited basis, but it's not enough to sustain a large scale op.

Bigbaba says the PBEM ended in October and I was wondering why?


_____________________________

Todd

I never thought that doing an AAR would be so time consuming and difficult.
www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2080768

(in reply to Nomad)
Post #: 17
RE: US 42 deployments - 5/29/2008 5:12:35 PM   
bigbaba


Posts: 1238
Joined: 11/3/2006
From: Koblenz, Germany
Status: offline 		my opponent was very "conservative" about the usage of his CV+BB.

maybe a japs player, who is willing to risk far more, can take PM early in the game.

(in reply to tocaff)
Post #: 18
RE: US 42 deployments - 5/29/2008 5:46:35 PM   
HansBolter


Posts: 7704
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: United States
Status: offline 		Todd has repeatedly pointed out to me that he can come and take PM if and when he wants to and there is little the Allied player can do.

Not having sufficient experience to have witnessed this I began building up the ground force there in the hope that I could oppose him effectively if he comes.


I just witnessed how impotent the Allied LBA is early in the game as he sailed the KB down to within 6 hexes of the Australian coast and sunk most of my transports plying those waters.

He then pointed out that the way the Japanese can take PM is to isolate it with a combination of KB and LBA. To do this the KB doesn't even have to come south of GG, it can be done by placing them within range of PM from the north side of the peninsula. Couple that with repeated shore bombardment runs and the supply stockpiles will be depleated rapidly with no ability to restock them at any where the rate necessary to sustain a defense against a siege.

After experiencing the raid on the Aussie coast I no longer believe he is bluffing.

(in reply to bigbaba)
Post #: 19
RE: US 42 deployments - 5/29/2008 7:22:58 PM   
tocaff


Posts: 4781
Joined: 10/12/2006
From: USA now in Brasil
Status: offline 		If there is any doubt about how a battle royal at PM will end like please read the AAR of my game with BR.  Both sides never fully recovered from that fight and though my Japanese forces prevailed I was never able to exploit the hollow victory other than temporarily keeping it out of Allied hands.  In that game I'm watching to see if the squeeze caused by past lost fights placed enough of a shortage of troops to hurt BR's Allied forces.

The raid against Hans wasn't even done with the whole KB and then I even split that force so only 1 CV Div (2 CVs) approached the coast of Oz.  Later in the game more respect will have to be shown towards the Allied LBA and the USN.


_____________________________

Todd

I never thought that doing an AAR would be so time consuming and difficult.
www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2080768

(in reply to HansBolter)
Post #: 20
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> The War Room >> US 42 deployments Page: [1]
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

1.547