Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

quote:

REPLY: I expect to catch them at sea. They seem to believe leaving port is a good idea. It isn't. 

Depends on which direction they run really doesn't it? They can run 8 hexes, north, south, east or west. It isn't possible to cover that entire area with the footprint of KB's torpedo and dive-bomber squadrons UNLESS on Day 1 KB and 2 CVLs are split into 4 x 2 CV TFs and established at 4 hexes from PH in range to bomb it OR bomb any ships leaving the area...


The distance depends on the ship. Some are faster, some slower.

Anyway I plan a net of detection based on long range CV recon - land based recon and sub recon. They probably won't escape. And IF they do - they are not a problem for the ships I want to protect- nor any value to the defense of Hawaii.

As to Sallys etc for Pearl... I suggest we adopt Soviet nomenclature as we are both familiar with it... When you talk regiment I presume you mean sentai or hikotai/daitai correct?

Actually I meant the Army terminology - Sentai - and was translating into English. Three or four squadrons - group - the usual IJA unit.

So, in those terms I'd be happy to give you 3 regiments or, in other words, a bomber division for that mission... That's about 100 Sallys + replacements. That ought to be enough.

quote:

This is not meaningful in operational or strategic terms IRL. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

quote:

This is not meaningful in operational or strategic terms IRL. 

In your opinion. Again you state opinion as fact. I believe you are incorrect. Not being able to supply a ground offensive through India into Burma or supply bombers based in India sufficiently for a bomber offensive to close ports and airfields preparatory to an amphibious attack into Sumatra/Malaysia IS a major strategic blow.

In any case we agree sufficiently that I'm not interested in arguing over it.

quote:

you seemed to say that resource bombing was unrealistic - and that implied not on the table.

quote:

Surely it is a fact that it is far too easy to damage resource centers than IRL.

quote:

Since you said both of these things are true

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

quote:

you seemed to say that resource bombing was unrealistic - and that implied not on the table.

Nope, that's what you read into it. One of the things I have been most consistent on is that I am in favour of strategic bombing of HI, repair yards, resource centres etc. I may have said that the way the game models it is not entirely realistic but, then again, a whole host of things in the game aren't realistic and we play in spite of them. Saying something is not modelled perfectly is not the same as saying that since it isn't perfect I will avoid the whole area.

quote:



Well - it isn't consistent with either the primary house rule or with your 'physically possible' rule - which I liked so much I adopted it. [I must say your situation when you said that - facing massive coast guns taking years to emplace teleporting to Aden - was certainly outrageous. I believe that you are quite fair - and the fact you were the victim is not the reason you objected: that you would not do such a thing if the sides were reversed. Here that is the situation: you cannot really target a massive resource area in the sense you do a factory. Yet the same algorithms yield damaged centers on the same basis. I was just reading German literature on iron bombs and it is shocking the numbers they felt were required to do significant damage to a point target. Area targets are far worse.]

(in reply to Nemo121)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

quote:

Surely it is a fact that it is far too easy to damage resource centers than IRL.

No, I don't know that that is so.

quote:

Since you said both of these things are true

Now you are just making things up.

REPLY: Unlikely. Much more likely is a miscommunication. Aside from the fact that is normal for most people, we are very good at it. I would not make something up. Neither would you. I acknowledge that - you should try to bear it in mind.


As to strategic resource bombing... I do believe that it would be possible to target attacks against resources of a military nature and that repairing them would be costly in terms of supplies redirected AND time. It is probably true that the game make the supply cost of repair too high but I would also argue the rate at which repair happens is probably incorrect also.


REPLY: Well - since it is abstract - it is hard to say. You repair up one point per day - typical of a Matrix simple algorithm. That means 365 points damage takes a year to fix. PROBABLY that is too long. But if the resource were a very unusual one - a hydroelectric dam - a point target rather than an area one - and one which EXISTS in RHS (in the form of oil) - it might take more than a year to fix. On the other hand, if you inflict a single point, it may be up in a single day, and that may be way too fast. For a simple mechanism it is probably acceptable.

I don't have a phD in industrial management and this IS meant to be a FUN game. At a certain point in time the I am willing to accept the imperfections in the game and have some fun. Worrying about exactly how resources are to be repaired if damaged etc etc etc is way past the point where I no longer find it fun to consider house rules ( something you wanted to get away from in this game).

REPLY: It is quite true - I don't like restricting players or long lists of house rules. On the other hand, I consider the primary house rule should have covered this. Same for the added rule about what is possible. But it may be that, after decades of study of every strategic bombing campaign in history, I may be assuming a general knowledge that is not in fact general. In any case - this is elegant argument on your part - citing my own principles against me!


As to your point about damaging resources by ground fighting. LOL!!! I'd love to do that BUT you forbade me from invading India proper... You ban me from invading a place and then when I come up with the idea of strategic bombing it into the stone age tell me that I should ground invade it to do the damage instead. LOL!!!!



REPLY: Ouch. Well - once again - you are being elegant. But it reveals two germane points:

1) As ususal we miscommunicated. You MISSED that I several times said "raids" were permitted.

2) You really intended to honor your agreement. Now I know this was the case anyway - from personality analysis in voice communication - but here is proof of it. Nemo is an honorable player in fact. I don't suppose it hurts to say so -
since you often feel I never have a positive opinion.

No Sid. Opinions do not substitute for facts here and at this point in time I'm quite happy that the veracity of the model is "good enough" to start a game. I'm not intereste in negotiating 50,000 painstaking house rules as, quite frankly, I am right at the cusp of no longe enjoying the prospect of this game. Now if you are unwilling to continue with a game in which the IJA engages in resource bombing then that's fine and I will step aside but, at this stage, I am highly resistant to any plans to add further house rules as I'm sick and tired of negotiating every tiny bleeding little detail. It isn't at all fun.

REPLY: Bombing of resource centers is the centerpiece of your strategy - apparently: "tiny bleeding little detail?"
I was writing on the basis you had said it was not valid - or I thought you had said so. I distinctly remember you saying something about bombing industrial centers BECAUSE bombing resources was probably unrealistic. Now perhaps that was in a context I misconstrued? On the other hand, I have undertaken not to be in the ultimatum business - which seems to upset you a good deal. I am close to despair that you will ever not think in gamey terms - but if I agreed to team with you - I guess it is my own fault - since you long made it clear you actually believe in "do whatever the system allows". I feel that this is not consistent with your "don't do the physically impossible principle" or my "don't do what real commanders would not do principle" and I believe you should reconsider your position on that basis. BUT

1) I now see you do not think whatever I read or heard meant what I thought it did - so I cannot appeal to an agreement that seems not to have been intended as a criticism of a proposal;

2) I see some sense of "the cost of repair may well be too high" -

3) I admit your point that some significant damage would indeed be possible

SO I suggest a compromise. What if you CAN bomb resources - but (within the limits of what you know) you do NOT attempt to bomb them to zero? Not sure what the target value should be - or how we might know what damage had been done - or repaired? But there is clearly a point at which one is engaged in overkill - and experience in running games on both sides for tests should allow you to estimate in the ball park. The first ball park that comes to mind is your suggestion when we first spoke: IF we disagree - we split the difference. Aim at 50%.



As to your comment in email that you control most of the SAA... Hmm, that's an army formation. Certainly you would be lent some divisions for the capture of the Phillipines but I see absolutely no need for you to keep them when they could be much more useful to us in China or speeding up the conquest of Burma.

It seems a bit strange to tell me that you control a large part of one of the three main unrestricted army formations... No, you control the invasion of the Phillipines for which I'm happy to lend you forces but to expect to take those 5 or 6 divisions elsewhere is unrealistic. In the same way as I don't expect to take over all the navy ships after they have done the job of covering my invasion convoys ( although I will be lent a few for the long term protection against British pobes) and expect to have to give most of the covering force back to your command so I expect most of the army units in the Phillipines and DEI to come back under army control once their objectives are achieved. You will be left sufficient for further offensive actions but certainly not the majority of SAA.


Anyways, let me know if my view that i'm not interested in negotiating a whole series of house rules to cover areas in which the game model may not be the best ( there are so many such areas that we could keep negotiating house rules forever under those circumstances) is unacceptable and I'll happily step aside. Maybe someone else will find enjoyment in interminable negotiations but I don't.


I'm not saying this out of rancour or upset... I'm just being very honest that a certain level of negotiation to get an agreeable game for everyone is fine but what is being indulged in now is, IMO, excessive and a real case of "perfect being the enemy of good enough". No offence Sid but one of the most important areas of any game model is internal consistency and going for perfection in one area when there are other areas of the model one could drive a good-sized bus through is, IMO, excessive.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

quote:

you seemed to say that resource bombing was unrealistic - and that implied not on the table.

Nope, that's what you read into it. One of the things I have been most consistent on is that I am in favour of strategic bombing of HI, repair yards, resource centres etc. I may have said that the way the game models it is not entirely realistic but, then again, a whole host of things in the game aren't realistic and we play in spite of them. Saying something is not modelled perfectly is not the same as saying that since it isn't perfect I will avoid the whole area.

quote:

Surely it is a fact that it is far too easy to damage resource centers than IRL.

No, I don't know that that is so.

quote:

Since you said both of these things are true

Now you are just making things up.


As to strategic resource bombing... I do believe that it would be possible to target attacks against resources of a military nature and that repairing them would be costly in terms of supplies redirected AND time. It is probably true that the game make the supply cost of repair too high but I would also argue the rate at which repair happens is probably incorrect also.

I don't have a phD in industrial management and this IS meant to be a FUN game. At a certain point in time the I am willing to accept the imperfections in the game and have some fun. Worrying about exactly how resources are to be repaired if damaged etc etc etc is way past the point where I no longer find it fun to consider house rules ( something you wanted to get away from in this game).


As to your point about damaging resources by ground fighting. LOL!!! I'd love to do that BUT you forbade me from invading India proper... You ban me from invading a place and then when I come up with the idea of strategic bombing it into the stone age tell me that I should ground invade it to do the damage instead. LOL!!!!


No Sid. Opinions do not substitute for facts here and at this point in time I'm quite happy that the veracity of the model is "good enough" to start a game. I'm not intereste in negotiating 50,000 painstaking house rules as, quite frankly, I am right at the cusp of no longe enjoying the prospect of this game. Now if you are unwilling to continue with a game in which the IJA engages in resource bombing then that's fine and I will step aside but, at this stage, I am highly resistant to any plans to add further house rules as I'm sick and tired of negotiating every tiny bleeding little detail. It isn't at all fun.



As to your comment in email that you control most of the SAA... Hmm, that's an army formation. Certainly you would be lent some divisions for the capture of the Phillipines but I see absolutely no need for you to keep them when they could be much more useful to us in China or speeding up the conquest of Burma.

It seems a bit strange to tell me that you control a large part of one of the three main unrestricted army formations... No, you control the invasion of the Phillipines for which I'm happy to lend you forces but to expect to take those 5 or 6 divisions elsewhere is unrealistic. In the same way as I don't expect to take over all the navy ships after they have done the job of covering my invasion convoys ( although I will be lent a few for the long term protection against British pobes) and expect to have to give most of the covering force back to your command so I expect most of the army units in the Phillipines and DEI to come back under army control once their objectives are achieved. You will be left sufficient for further offensive actions but certainly not the majority of SAA.


Anyways, let me know if my view that i'm not interested in negotiating a whole series of house rules to cover areas in which the game model may not be the best ( there are so many such areas that we could keep negotiating house rules forever under those circumstances) is unacceptable and I'll happily step aside. Maybe someone else will find enjoyment in interminable negotiations but I don't.


I'm not saying this out of rancour or upset... I'm just being very honest that a certain level of negotiation to get an agreeable game for everyone is fine but what is being indulged in now is, IMO, excessive and a real case of "perfect being the enemy of good enough". No offence Sid but one of the most important areas of any game model is internal consistency and going for perfection in one area when there are other areas of the model one could drive a good-sized bus through is, IMO, excessive.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Monter_Trismegistos

When you are trying to damage oil plants you are not aiming oil below ground - you attack oil wells, railroad trucks - infrastructure = point target. When you are trying to damage resource centers you are not aiming coal or iron ore below ground - you attack infrastructure = point target.

You pretty much have to. But some mines are vast open pits immune to damage - the bombs might actually help in some instances! And how do you bomb a forest? [I admit one warrant officer Fujida ran two "strategic bombing missions" firebombing Oregon forrests - from a mighty E14Y1 Glen no less - but there was never any possibility of destroying enough to show up as a point on our scale. We didn't know we had been attacked.] I saw B-52 "strategic bombers" bombing jungle - and not cause any useful impact even on organized depots and camps. Now Japan has nothing in the league of a B-52 - it can lift 40 tons or ordnance at a time - and the idea it could haul enough bombs and fuel to do significant damage to NON point targets in India is technical nonsense.


Fact that you added weird resources like fields producing food... well if you added resource centers to represent them, generally it is your fault because such things cannot be represented accurately. Now you must live with that - now it is possible to reduce it as any other point target. It's a consequence of adding things which cannot work properly.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Xargun

The Japanese bombing resources ??? Why not ? The allies do it as soon as they can, so why not return the favor - especially in china. A realistic Japanese commander knows he will never capture Chungking, Kweiyang or many of the other interior bases - so why not blast them back to the stone ages. We can't do it anywhere near as good as the allied Heavies can, but if you have doubt ask Oliver about my 140+ Sally raid on the airfield at Chungking and how the chinese air force liked it.. Something like 50 planes killed on the ground - that will take the chinese months to recover - if they have the supply to 'buy' them into air groups.

I have no qualms about bombing resources I know I can't even capture. Now bombing Palembang is just stupid. But hitting India, Interior china or Oz is a legitimate target. And if the allied player doesn't like it, then he shouldn't be allowed to strat bomb you. Trust me, the allied player will be upset, whine and complain.... UNTIL his heavies start flattening you. You can ask Oli about that too.. His Heavies are killing me - and nothing can stop them.

Xargun

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121


So, how about a division of resources elsewhere into two sectors:
a) HI, repair shipyards, airplane factories, engine factories, armaments, armour, merchant and naval shipyards... all of which can be bombed to 100% destruction. These sorts of point targets can be almost 100% destroyed if sufficient weight of material is applied

quote:



There was never any question about this. I think we have a language problem here: I interpret "resources" to mean "resource centers as seen on the WITP map" - not a general description including ANY of the things you describe here. So perhaps the "disagreement" was a great deal less than it seemed to be. IF you meant these sorts of things - I would never have said a thing. I thought "resources' meant "resource centers." While oil is probably a similar thing - it is also full of point targets - wells - pump stations - storage tanks - pipelines - vehicle parks: I do NOT mean to include oil as "resources" either. There is oil in RHS that isn't oil - it is really rubber - and you cannot really kill a rubber plantation with bombers - but these are so tiny I cannot imagine you bombing them - and it hardly matters if you do.

(in reply to Nemo121)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

As to the "don't do it if you wouldn't do it in real life"... Well, in real life I would try to reduce the Allied ability to stage an invasion force overland into Burma.

REPLY: Applause. Good show.


I can't kill their troops quickly enough to do that BUT I can reduce their ability to generate supplies locally AND force them to bring them in from farther.  As every logistician in history will tell you the farther from ones depot you operate the less power you project with the point of the spear.

REPLY: And I am one of them - I am pleased you know this: more applause.

So, since I can't whittle down the spear point via attrition and win I have decided that the best thing to do is to force the supply depot to be as far away ( either in north-western India or, better yet, Aden) so that I am artificially lengthening the distance to the depot and thus decreasing the strength that can be projected at the spear point.


REPLY: Very similar to how I think: still more applause.

This is the acme of manoeuvrist theory ( defeating the enemy's strength by attacking his weaknesses... in this case the myriad resource=producing areas which are so widespread that the enemy cannot provide sufficient air cover to defend them all.... and most pleasingly to me...


REPLY: The only problem being - even today with B-52s we could not really do this. And I saw us actually try! Seemed stupid at the time - and now historians commenting say 'yep - it could never have worked'. BUT while this isn't realistic in the sense you stated (total shutdown) - nevertheless you are right that significant inefficiencies could be achieved. WITP fails to allow attacks on infrastructure (other than port facilities) - so I can rationalize at least some resource damage as "he took out the bridges needed to move them" (etc).

and one reason I find this approach particularly skillful and, thus, pleasing is that any attempt to defend the resource centres will just result in burning more of the supplies in the areas in which the Allies will soon be scrabbling for every ton of supply...


REPLY: I see you are indeed a great captain. [Intended to be simultaneously humorous and serious]

(in reply to Nemo121)

quote:

and you cannot really kill a rubber plantation with bombers

quote:

nevertheless you are right that significant inefficiencies could be achieved

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

quote:

nevertheless you are right that significant inefficiencies could be achieved

And in WiTP we CANNOT stop all supplies being produced... Aden is a massive source of free supply which we can do nothing about. We can, however, create such inefficiencies in TRANSPORT ( tieing down many dozens of AKs shipping it from Aden to Karachi and then even more inefficiency in transporting it by rail down to south-eastern India) that the bombing can have a major effect. I figure that about 50% of Allied supplies landed at Karachi will be "lost in transport" if it has to be transported overland to south-eastern India. This is a massive victory for us and will pay major dividends until such time as the Allies are able to take Ceylon and close the airfields which prevent the shipping of supply directly to south-eastern India.

quote:


Joe,

In a VERY real sense we haven't even begun fighting yet ;). Sad but true

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Sid,

quote:

and you cannot really kill a rubber plantation with bombers

Incendiaries +/- biowarfare via the release of pests which attack rubber trees and vectors of said pests.

REPLY: I have material on Japans BW programs: Unit 731, Factories of Death and some general histories of BW along with some reports. Japan had the most extensive BW program in history to that time - and was the first nation ever to achieve a technical overkill capability. [It had enough anthrax to kill every person on the planet - if it could be delivered uniformly and internally - which it could not. 16 tons.] It did have research on bw to attack animals as well as humans - and it used a thousand prisoners from Bataan to insure there was no immunity of Caucasions to their agents (and even tried to make diseases that ONLY attacked Caucasions - but failed in that). Nevertheless, while post war Soviet and American (and British) BW programs engaged in extensive plant agent research, Japan seems not to have done that. Aside from the fact BW is not in the game, it was not an option for IJA IRL - so you should not assume it would be ordered - on the basis of your "it ain't physically possible" rule.

quote:

nevertheless you are right that significant inefficiencies could be achieved

And in WiTP we CANNOT stop all supplies being produced... Aden is a massive source of free supply which we can do nothing about.

REPLY: Nor should we be able to. Aden represents a stream of things from places we cannot reach. There are smaller points of this sort. In this area there is Rawalpindi (I think) - by Afghanistan. It produces a few points that are not from resource centers - representing off map sources. Farther North - a major supply source is Krasnyarsk - representing Western Siberia. These are map edge sources - and the heart of the game is that they feed Allied units - no matter what happens on the map. We should not be upset about that. It is a good model - and the normal one.


As to the practicalities. Once one selects a city attack one gets a readout of ALL of the resource centres within range. We know what resource levels they start with and can measure how much we've destroyed. I can even keep an eye on repair efforts in-game. So, it will be easy to calculate the total resource level and then calculate what 1/3rd of that level is. Once I've damaged the difference I will stop the bombing of resources.



If you signify agreement with this I will post the proposal to the Allied side.

REPLY: I am confused slightly - but not in disagreement. What proposal to the Allied side? I thought you said above you did not want any more house rules - and this was just between us.



Also, am awaiting feedback on the SAA situation....

REPLY: SAA? What is an SAA?

I posit that they are army troops and thus their disposition - after the invasion of the Phillipines is up to the IJA in-game...

REPLY: Uh - I thought I was doing the Philippines. AND DEI except Sumatra. Now IRL the troops that did PI went on to DEI. In fact - so did the troops that did Malaya - Java was hit on both ends by both forces. I didn't think you would want to send those troops to my area - from Malaya - particularly as you have other adventures in mind to the West - but I hardly thought you would want the troops I used? It seems obvious that they must garrison PI and DEI - and over time a good deal more will be required. IRL IJA was way too unwilling to commit troops early - and ended up committing them anyway - at a time they ended up getting badly hurt. We cannot take this vast area - and contest it effectively - if we then transfer the troops somewhere else.


Obviously I'm happy to leave you a significant number of divisions but if we have 2 or 3 divisions earmarked for Hawaii and another 5 for the Phillipines you could end up with more of the SAA than the IJA. I would not have allowed this in real life.

REPLY: There are 3 divisions allocated for the Philippines initially - 2 as such and two technical brigades -
plus another some follow on troops. The Navy has only companies (special NLFs), demi-battalions (NLFs), battalions (SNLFs) and dual battalions (CSNLFs) - plus a tiny number of light tank companies. [3 of the SNLFs are airborne - witn no more to come]. Just as you must have some naval assets in your areas - I must have some troops. Thinking in terms of "these are IJA, so they are really mine" is not consistent with "each controls operations in his area." I do not think in terms of keeping ships out of your hands - and even when you don't ask for them I won't allow you to have less than what I regard as minimum in EACH area you control. Similarly for certain critical and scarce air assets. Need them for the vast Pacific I may - grossly inadequate the total number may be - you are going to have patrol assets - and to the extent and degree you don't have them in JAAF - also naval fighters and bombers. Even captial ships and submarines. You ask for two BB - and I insist on sending four. That is my attitude.

After Hawaii and DEI are cleared up you will be able to aim the 2 to 3 divisions from Hawaii + whatever is left from DEI ( several Brigades) at Port Moresby and Noumea.


REPLY: While I intend to leave only 1 division and 1 brigade in Hawaii (on Oahu and the other island with major bases) - defending other bases with naval units - that probably only brings back a division or so. DEI isn't going to free up anything - ever. It is going to need more troops over time - as pressure builds. These forces will probably invest Northern Australia - and be fully engaged on that front. On the other hand, 1 plus divisions - and a few specialist units (I want every specialist company you can spare - and a few battalions - these matter a lot in the empty Pacific) - should be enough - and I will go for Noumea if no major problems develop. I intend to make it hard to transit the Pacific from US to Australia. They must either go way South - or go via the Indian Ocean.

That should come to about 5 division equivalents and be enough for your operations. I would like to keep most of the divisions from the Phillipines in order to speed up the capture of Burma and allow me to concentrate this whole force for my previously discussed plan for wrapping up China as quickly as possible and opening up that southern railroad ASAP.

REPLY: This is a misunderstanding of the situation: there are probably more than that involved in PH & DEI. Add 3 for Hawaii. And then figure a stream of garrison units and specialist units. The only mitigator is that IJN has about a division in true assault battalions, and gets another divison worth of them, plus a similar amount in horribly weak (no heavy weapons) garrison units. Well - also base forces have organic garrison in them - worth perhaps a division or more at start and another in 1942/3. If you plan on the basis of the above you are going to replay the historical situation - in which too small forces had to be backed up by major ones. These never arrived in time or in sufficient strength (losing most along the way) - and it turned the war right around. The clever thing is to send enough to begin with - and then use it well. By 1945 the IJA has 150 divisions - and an equal amount in other units (half was not in divisions but brigades). And you are figuring I get 5 divsions? IJA is at all times larger than the US Army - and starts about 150 division equivelants.

(in reply to Nemo121)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

quote:

nevertheless you are right that significant inefficiencies could be achieved

And in WiTP we CANNOT stop all supplies being produced... Aden is a massive source of free supply which we can do nothing about. We can, however, create such inefficiencies in TRANSPORT ( tieing down many dozens of AKs shipping it from Aden to Karachi and then even more inefficiency in transporting it by rail down to south-eastern India) that the bombing can have a major effect. I figure that about 50% of Allied supplies landed at Karachi will be "lost in transport" if it has to be transported overland to south-eastern India. This is a massive victory for us and will pay major dividends until such time as the Allies are able to take Ceylon and close the airfields which prevent the shipping of supply directly to south-eastern India.

You'll probably loose lots of supplies and shipping enroute to Ceylon yourself if you take it and the Allied side still holds the rest of India (the approaches to Ceylon are a perfect hunting ground for US S-Class subs with their limited range). And you'll have to commit a sizeable part of your airforce to prevent your airfields on Ceylon from being bombed to dust from India (Bangalore and Hyderabad are inland, thus no naval bombardment is possible to suppress their airfields). If your opponents manage to ship some 100,000 supplies from Aden to Bombay/Karachi before you're able to threaten the sealane from Aden, spoilage on the Indian roads should not matter much for them.

quote:

 I am confused slightly - but not in disagreement. What proposal to the Allied side? I thought you said above you did not want any more house rules - and this was just between us. 

quote:

 What is an SAA?

quote:

They will raise much more than that right in India - every month.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

quote:

 I am confused slightly - but not in disagreement. What proposal to the Allied side? I thought you said above you did not want any more house rules - and this was just between us. 

Hell no. If the Allies don't agree to limit themselves in the exact same way you want us to limit ourselves then 100% resource bombing is back on the table for BOTH sides. I'll post it to them andif they agree then I will abie by that agreement. If they don't then they can bomb everything we have and I can bomb everything they have. Simple.


UNDERSTOOD and CONCUR

(in reply to Nemo121)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121
Southern Area Army.


Phillipines...
Ok, so you are asking for two divisions + 2 Brigades for the Phillipines, correct?

quote:



That is from memory. Whatever is/was assigned. See no need for more.

(in reply to Nemo121)

quote:

Japan CAN win a war of great battles - see the Russo Japanese War - with a whole series of both naval and land victories.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

my policy IS that Army divisions ARE Army divisions and the IJN must ask for them and have them re-assigned ( either for the duration of an operation or the duration of several operations/the war) by the IJA commander. The IJN cannot assume control of divisions etc without asking for them.


Seems awkward. I assume units assigned right now are associated with ops. But keep it simple: I want the units assigned to the missions. Both to start and follow on. This includes units in Japan - one of the divisions tasked for PI (16 I think) is on an island SW of Kyushu. You can tell by planning and TFs and stuff like that.


I would like to see a list of army divisions, Brigades etc which you would like control of and for how long


It would take days to assemble: you sure? Thought we wanted to play. I suggest CHANGES need to be clarified - not as is stuff.

(

(in reply to Nemo121)