RE: Guadalcanal USN AI

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: Guadalcanal USN AI

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: Guadalcanal USN AI

Page: << < prev 53 54 [55] 56 57 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Guadalcanal USN AI - 8/19/2009 1:43:57 AM

mariandavid

Posts: 297
Joined: 5/22/2008
Status: offline

AndyMac: Yes Bevis is good, some of his earlier material uses my sources. I do have a couple of quibbles with his Coronet section: The 116th/117th RM Brigades were very third-rate material disbanding as the war ended; the 34th RM Support Regiment had reached India as early as May 7th, 1945 and would, I suspect, have operated with the Indian contingent; it is highly unlikely that all of the sixteen commando battalions would have been sent to the Pacific - apart from time-discharge (many of the men were very long serving), all four brigades were already short of men - hence my suggestion that the two NW Europe brigades (the 1st and 4th) would have been the only ones sent.

On the Indian division arrival times some minor amendments might be needed:
- 8th Division leaves Taranto June 11th, 1945, reforming at Jhansi in July. However it is short three battalions and all but the anti-tank artillery. It was designated to serve in Burma (probably as an occupation force)
- 10th Division lead elements arrive at Bombay on December 17th, 1945 (less the same assets)
- 4th Division leaves Greece at the end of January 1946 (also lacking all artillery and three battalions)
My caveat about their use is the shortage of replacement artillery in India and the need for experienced internal security troops in a period when the new Labour Government had sent signals about Independence. But that is all speculative.

I concur that it makes little difference in game terms whether CW or US equipment is used. What does matter is where the CW troops would have moved to Japan from, or even what route they would have taken to the Pacific. There is distressingly little information on this, though I suppose we can rule out India as the facilities there would have been already overstretched. My guess (and it is no more) is that the troops would have based in Australia using the facilities already built for the British Pacific Fleet.

J Boomer: Glad you could clarify where the 6th Division re-equipment issue came from - I wonder if this contributed to the decision to equip the Army with US stuff in the early '50's. Yes also on the word 'militia' - it caught me yet again - I just cannot get used to a wording (I suppose it was a legal issue) that called everyone - regulars, conscripts, volunteers etc 'militia'!

I did some research on where the men were coming from. The regimental histories (mind you they were not particularly interested in this period) imply that the regulars were shipping as intact units, while the remainder would have come from all sorts of sources and then (as you suggest) placed in new units. What does puzzle me is the lack of any identifiable armoured unit(s) as by this time a Canadian infantry division was used to operating with an entire armoured brigade in support. Maybe they would have used the two British armoured brigades - difficult to determine - the 4th was probably picked because it had used DD tanks to cross the Rhine, while the men of the 9th had been using amphibious equipment in Italy. If the same logic held true then presumably the Canadian unit would have been the 2nd Armoured Brigade (or part thereof) which used DD tanks at Normandy. It was apparently easy to equip with DD tanks but very difficult and time-consuming to train men to operate them with confidence (!). It is interesting that when the 9th Armoured was selected its tankers were flown to NW Europe, (leaving their equipment behind), although there were dozens of experienced armoured regiments already there.

(in reply to JSBoomer)

Post #: 1621

RE: Guadalcanal USN AI - 8/19/2009 2:52:25 AM

JSBoomer

Posts: 267
Joined: 11/5/2004
From: Edmonton Alberta
Status: offline

mariandavid

6th Can div was organized along American lines, Regiments instead of brigades, etc. They were even considing adopting the American rank strucure for the Div and ranks were being adjusted. This was an ALL volunteer force and a completely new divison. As per American organization there was a Tank Bn (Canadian Grenadier Guards) and a Recce Troop (from Montreal?).

As for the term milita. From Confederation through WWII Militia was the name of the Army. Prior to WWII it was devided into the following; Permanent Acitve Militia (Full time) and Non-permanent Active Militia (reserves). The NPAM Bns were mobilized during the war and the other regiments (Bns) were reformed in various forms. The name of the Army was changed after the war. However to this day the official term for the reserves is Militia; however it is rarely used.

_____________________________

Jordan S. Bujtas
Deas Gu Cath

(in reply to mariandavid)

Post #: 1622

RE: Guadalcanal USN AI - 8/19/2009 3:45:16 AM

mariandavid

Posts: 297
Joined: 5/22/2008
Status: offline

J Boomer:

It is certainly irrelevant to Admiral's Edition but our discrepancy is interesting. My sources say men/units told would be shipped to Canada from Europe to the Pacific, yours that they were all volunteers! I keep wondering about the timing factor here: The plans obviously well predate VE day, the allocations of units are obviously post VE (for example the Canadian Grenadier Guards are serving with the 4th Armoured Brigade in Europe. All very interesting.

On a personal note on arriving in Canada in 1970 and being used to the British Army I was utterly baffled by the mention of 'militia', which in Britain carried the same image as the Home Guard!

(in reply to JSBoomer)

Post #: 1623

RE: Guadalcanal USN AI - 8/19/2009 4:35:26 AM

JSBoomer

Posts: 267
Joined: 11/5/2004
From: Edmonton Alberta
Status: offline

You are right about it being irrelevant, however here is one good link about the CAPF http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dhh-dhp/his/rep-rap/doc/ahqr-rqga/ahq016.pdf

They were having trouble getting as many voluteers as possible and plans were thrown around about who would be voluntold. It never got to that point as the dropping of the A-Bombs made the whole issue moot.

The war in Europe was over when plans were being implimented for 6th Div. The names of units were just that, names and were reused. Volunteers from Europe were given priority transit home and 30 days leave upon return.

There were Veterns Guard units here in Canada during the war which were very much like the home guard. In BC they defended many RCAF bases.

< Message edited by J Boomer -- 8/19/2009 5:18:50 AM >

_____________________________

Jordan S. Bujtas
Deas Gu Cath

(in reply to mariandavid)

Post #: 1624

RE: Guadalcanal USN AI - 8/19/2009 12:34:37 PM

DBS

Posts: 513
Joined: 4/29/2004
Status: offline

Further to J Boomer's comments above, have just consulted the Canadian Army Official History, pp291-2, which is essentially a good precis of the large PDF to which he linked.

The context for the reformation of 6th Canadian Division was a parliamentary statement by the PM on 4 April 45. He promised that the Division would concentrate in Canada before deploying to the Pacific, that no-one currently serving in Europe would be expected to serve in the Pacific without having gone home first, and that the force would be 100% volunteer.

There was no shortage of volunteers, but there was a shortage of suitable volunteers. 9,943 officers and 68,256 ORs in Europe volunteered for Pacific service, but only 2,796 + 36,386 were judged wholly suitable (age, fitness, etc). The problem was that the planning estimate was for 30,000 all ranks in the Canadian expeditionary force with a further 33,600 reinforcements/replacements in training.

The infantry battalions were to use the same identities as those in 1st Canadian Div, to mark their history as the first to deploy overseas in the war. Although using US organisation, each "Regiment" was to be commanded by a Brigadier, not a Colonel. The Recce "Troop" was the Royal Montreal Regiment.

The 13th Bde used on Kiska was definitely not part of the force, having been withdrawn in Jan 44 since Japanese interest in the Aleutians had vanished, although it had set a bit of a precedent by being at least notionally reorganised along US lines, albeit with the odd variation - a fourth infantry battalion in lieu of a combat engr bn. And of course one third of the personnel in the US 1st Special Service Force's six infantry battalions had been Canadian.

With regards to mariandavid's musing on the routing of CW troops to theatre, the July 45 directive to Mountbatten to my mind suggests that via India was not totally out of the question - Mountbatten might have whinged about Indian resources, but whether London would have been suitably sensitive is perhaps debateable. They were certainly warning him off to provide two divisions' worth of assault lift - whether London would have envisaged that being sent all the way across the Pacific for a US or Canadian rendezvous seems perhaps questionable.

Returning to J Boomer's linked PDF, what is interesting are the quotes on pp106-7 regarding the mooted CW Corps. The way I interpret that is that the British and US were agreed in principle on the desirability of a three divisional CW Corps, and assumed that the 6th Canadian would be part of this; but that the Canadian CGS was not inclined since he thought that the Division's integration with the US was too far advanced. To my mind this suggests that the CGS was not convinced that the supposed reorganisation and logistic support of the CW Corps along US lines would not be as comprehensive as that which the Canadians had already implemented.

(in reply to JSBoomer)

Post #: 1625

6 Can Div - 8/19/2009 2:12:13 PM

JSBoomer

Posts: 267
Joined: 11/5/2004
From: Edmonton Alberta
Status: offline

The link I provided was interesting, until last night I'd only read a smaller version of the that document which only mentioned the volunteer part. I do recall however from talking from some vets that they were statring to draw volunteers from the Bns that never deployed such as 2 C SCOT R. I'm currently looking at a doc from the same source on coastal defences.

_____________________________

Jordan S. Bujtas
Deas Gu Cath

(in reply to DBS)

Post #: 1626

RE: AI & Wake Island - 8/19/2009 7:22:48 PM

bsq

Posts: 517
Joined: 1/5/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

David I sorta agree on tyhe equipment front but have chosen to go with my sources over my own common sense AT guns are not that important (often the lighter 2 pounder was more use v the japanese anyway)

The only logic for equipping them with 17 pounders is if it came to a shooting war witht he soviets !!!

Andy you forget that the 17 Pdr had a useful HE round, whereas the lighter guns did not.

I also do not accept that our force would have re-equipped with US kit. Notwithstanding the low regard many items of US equipment was held in the British Army, your arguments ignore several factors.

Wars are fought be Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen on behalf of politicians, so whatever pandering was done to the sensibilities of the JCS by CW politicians, in the final analysis the commanders on the ground would have the veto and the ability to say 'I told you so' when it all goes pear shaped. There is no way that certain types of kit would be traded in except perhaps medium and heavy artillery were the US pieces were significantly better.

REME and the RE spent years getting to know the quirks of their own kit, so how would they have got on with kit they did not know.

We had some excellent support tanks (late model Churchills, Centurions, Crocodiles and AVRE's) - we had no 'bloody Omaha' in part due to this kit.

I do not accept that the Indian Army would not have been used, SEAC was told to expect to lose 3+ division from the OB needed to retake Malaya and Singapore. My father served in the Punjab Regt as a Bn 2 I/C. They were training for Coronet from late Spring 45 until it was realised that this would not happen. In addition as already pointed out, here was an army that had beaten the Japanese at their own game, not just island hopping to the fringes of the Empire proper. Indeed the Aussies with their 'side show' in Borneo that so infuriated the Australian CGS (another example of MacArthur's ego in overdrive) vested in that army more skills than the US could muster. Add to this the warrior culture of two of our larger 'Indian' Regts (Gurkha's and the Punjabs) and you have a force to be reckoned with.

In the final analysis it is a good job it never happened as between MacArthur's over-inflated ego (surrounded as he was by 'yes men') and the anglo-phobes on the JCS, these men would have visited a national tragedy on the US nation like that visited on the smaller populous of Canada during the Dieppe raid, only on a scale that would make all previous casualty lists (including that on the Western Front in 1916) pale into insignificance. On the back of that the whole face of the US would have been different for I doubt an ex-General would have been elected President.

I am sure the whole issue could be solved with a week at Kew as just a cursory search turned up hundreds of candidate files and documents (I was looking for AIR files for Tiger Force at the time). It's a pity I don't have the time for the next 9 years.

(in reply to Andy Mac)

Post #: 1627

RE: AI & Wake Island - 8/19/2009 7:53:10 PM

Andy Mac

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline

BSQ Neither Macarthur or King wanted CW forces involved in their war.

Roosevelt forced them to accept the BPF without Roosevelt no one can know what would have happened.

Indian forces includign the returning 4th 8th and 10th Divs and 31st Ard Div all make an appearance so there are no shortage of Indian Army forces to send to Coronet if required but they arrive fromt eh ME so are not part of the forces assembling in Canada/USA.

10th Corps is part of these forces and are included the only question is whether they would be trained and equipped on US lines and whether the RM Div is to strong.

There is clear evidence for the Canadian Div being reassembled and the Aus Div is taken from one of the existing Divs.

The only real debate is over the TOE and Equipment of 3rd Div and the two Armoured Bdes.

Would the British really have insisted on using Churchills/Comets/Centurions when Shermans had been used for by British Forces for a long time - I think it is more than likely despite in many ways better tanks being available they would have used Shermans as they were ready and convenient and they were familiar kit.

Would they have re equipped with US Arty and MMG's and AT Guns honest answer is no one can know but if it was a precondition of the force coming from PH/SF then I actually believe its likely they would.

I accept its possible they would not but the intention in the papers I have indicates that were the Div to be formed it would be organised and equipped on US lines that was the agreement

(in reply to bsq)

Post #: 1628

RE: AI & Wake Island - 8/19/2009 8:23:21 PM

Mynok

Posts: 12108
Joined: 11/30/2002
Status: offline

I would think it foolhardy to hook into the US logistic system with British kit.

_____________________________

"Measure civilization by the ability of citizens to mock government with impunity" -- Unknown

(in reply to Andy Mac)

Post #: 1629

RE: AI & Wake Island - 8/19/2009 8:34:31 PM

Andy Mac

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline

p.s. I was warned not to do never weres and to leave it to modders and just end the reinforcement list 10/45 sometimes I wish�I had listened !!!!

(in reply to Mynok)

Post #: 1630

RE: AI & Wake Island - 8/19/2009 9:53:43 PM

JSBoomer

Posts: 267
Joined: 11/5/2004
From: Edmonton Alberta
Status: offline

I'm glad that you didn't!

_____________________________

Jordan S. Bujtas
Deas Gu Cath

(in reply to Andy Mac)

Post #: 1631

RE: AI & Wake Island - 8/19/2009 10:54:39 PM

JSBoomer

Posts: 267
Joined: 11/5/2004
From: Edmonton Alberta
Status: offline

quote:

In the final analysis it is a good job it never happened as between MacArthur's over-inflated ego (surrounded as he was by 'yes men') and the anglo-phobes on the JCS, these men would have visited a national tragedy on the US nation like that visited on the smaller populous of Canada during the Dieppe raid, only on a scale that would make all previous casualty lists (including that on the Western Front in 1916) pale into insignificance. On the back of that the whole face of the US would have been different for I doubt an ex-General would have been elected President.

Lets not open up that can of worms...

and there is more than one can there!

_____________________________

Jordan S. Bujtas
Deas Gu Cath

(in reply to bsq)

Post #: 1632

RE: AI & Wake Island - 8/19/2009 11:36:05 PM

Buck Beach

Posts: 1973
Joined: 6/25/2000
From: Upland,CA,USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bsq

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

David I sorta agree on tyhe equipment front but have chosen to go with my sources over my own common sense AT guns are not that important (often the lighter 2 pounder was more use v the japanese anyway)

The only logic for equipping them with 17 pounders is if it came to a shooting war witht he soviets !!!

Andy you forget that the 17 Pdr had a useful HE round, whereas the lighter guns did not.

I also do not accept that our force would have re-equipped with US kit. Notwithstanding the low regard many items of US equipment was held in the British Army, your arguments ignore several factors.

Wars are fought be Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen on behalf of politicians, so whatever pandering was done to the sensibilities of the JCS by CW politicians, in the final analysis the commanders on the ground would have the veto and the ability to say 'I told you so' when it all goes pear shaped. There is no way that certain types of kit would be traded in except perhaps medium and heavy artillery were the US pieces were significantly better.

REME and the RE spent years getting to know the quirks of their own kit, so how would they have got on with kit they did not know.

We had some excellent support tanks (late model Churchills, Centurions, Crocodiles and AVRE's) - we had no 'bloody Omaha' in part due to this kit.

I do not accept that the Indian Army would not have been used, SEAC was told to expect to lose 3+ division from the OB needed to retake Malaya and Singapore. My father served in the Punjab Regt as a Bn 2 I/C. They were training for Coronet from late Spring 45 until it was realised that this would not happen. In addition as already pointed out, here was an army that had beaten the Japanese at their own game, not just island hopping to the fringes of the Empire proper. Indeed the Aussies with their 'side show' in Borneo that so infuriated the Australian CGS (another example of MacArthur's ego in overdrive) vested in that army more skills than the US could muster. Add to this the warrior culture of two of our larger 'Indian' Regts (Gurkha's and the Punjabs) and you have a force to be reckoned with.

In the final analysis it is a good job it never happened as between MacArthur's over-inflated ego (surrounded as he was by 'yes men') and the anglo-phobes on the JCS, these men would have visited a national tragedy on the US nation like that visited on the smaller populous of Canada during the Dieppe raid, only on a scale that would make all previous casualty lists (including that on the Western Front in 1916) pale into insignificance. On the back of that the whole face of the US would have been different for I doubt an ex-General would have been elected President.

I am sure the whole issue could be solved with a week at Kew as just a cursory search turned up hundreds of candidate files and documents (I was looking for AIR files for Tiger Force at the time). It's a pity I don't have the time for the next 9 years.

I am constantly amaze at those folks waiting in the wings to jump in on an opportunity to push forward their opionions (right or wrong) and their agenda as to how the war should have be fought. All this is very much history and not "would of, could of, should of" stuff. If you feel strongly about your agenda, then create a mod and if not, seek out a forum or thread that loves to discuss such matters (not that I am able to dictate what should be on this forum).

(in reply to bsq)

Post #: 1633

RE: AI & Wake Island - 8/20/2009 2:12:41 AM

Mynok

Posts: 12108
Joined: 11/30/2002
Status: offline

I don't know. I always learn some history from these types of threads.

_____________________________

"Measure civilization by the ability of citizens to mock government with impunity" -- Unknown

(in reply to Buck Beach)

Post #: 1634

RE: CW and Japanese Invasion - 8/20/2009 3:44:21 AM

mariandavid

Posts: 297
Joined: 5/22/2008
Status: offline

Well, for my sins I started this issue and I think it is now comfortably closed. Perhaps in the fullness of time there may be some amendments to the Commonwealth Invasion of Japan ground OB; alas the issue of where the units would have staged from will forever remain unknown (or perhaps until some brave soul decides - as Buck Beach suggested - to mod the whole extravanganza); and I accept AndyMac's position that the origin of infantry equipment is not particularly germane to the game in 1945. I will no doubt take up the peculiarly Canadian issues elsewhere.

(in reply to Mynok)

Post #: 1635

RE: CW and Japanese Invasion - 8/20/2009 4:17:40 PM

fbs

Posts: 1048
Joined: 12/25/2008
Status: offline

Scenario 001:

Unit #6249 has a typo; it lists as "RNZF OTU Wellington" instead of "RNZAF OTU Wellington".

Thanks!
fbs

(in reply to mariandavid)

Post #: 1636

RE: CW and Japanese Invasion - 8/20/2009 4:28:35 PM

fbs

Posts: 1048
Joined: 12/25/2008
Status: offline

Scenario 001:

Unit #6248: Christchurch Base Force is the only named base force in New Zealand that is mobile; it should be static like the other named base forces (Nelson, Invercargill, etc...).

Thanks,
fbs

(in reply to fbs)

Post #: 1637

AI mistakes SPOILER - 8/20/2009 5:18:20 PM

DrewMatrix

Posts: 1429
Joined: 7/15/2004
Status: offline

First, Andy:

Is this a good place to post what we think are bad choices by the AI? I don't want to give away what it's doing and do have a spoiler notice.

Second:

The AI made what I think was a bad choice using a large unescorted TF for a minor task. It used 50 ships (based on looking at the game from the IJ side so there is no FOW)�to land a single IJ garrison unit�at a size 0 port. I suspect they chose all those ships to unload fast over the beach, but this put a lot at risk for very little gain.�They took the port but lost essentially all of the ships on the way back. They ran into first PTs at Port Moresby, then a surface combat group patrolling south of New Guinea (one battle with that group which then retired out of ammo) then by that time I got an Air Combat Group there from Brisbane. 50 ships lost for little gain.

I like the aggressiveness of the AI, but I think it shouldn't put so many ships into a minor operation for minor gain, with no real escort (1 or 2 PC only). You may want to tell the AI "No more than 15 or 20 ships unless this is a major op/division sized invasion" or similar. What contributed to their loss was that they were far from home so they could be pounded by a series of forces on the return trip (I regarded a 50 AK fleet as worth chasing).

Regards,

Drew S.

< Message edited by Beezle -- 8/20/2009 5:19:21 PM >

_____________________________

Beezle - Rapidly running out of altitude, airspeed and ideas.

(in reply to fbs)

Post #: 1638

RE: AI mistakes SPOILER - 8/20/2009 5:22:42 PM

Andy Mac

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline

Your assuming I have that level of control in any event if its the one I think it is I have already fixed the order of it.

Better to email or PM me with bonehead moves just accept I cannot always fix them
Andy

(in reply to DrewMatrix)

Post #: 1639

RE: AI mistakes SPOILER - 8/20/2009 5:25:35 PM

BigJ62

Posts: 1800
Joined: 12/28/2002
From: Alpharetta, Georgia
Status: offline

I don't think the TF was built to pickup that small unit up but was instead diverted from an earlier completed mission to go and pickup the small unit so maybe some tweeking to be done for diverted TFs.

_____________________________

Witp-AE
AeAi�AeAi �AeAi�Long live AeAi.

(in reply to DrewMatrix)

Post #: 1640

RE: AI mistakes SPOILER - 8/20/2009 5:29:01 PM

Andy Mac

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline

Ah excellent

(in reply to BigJ62)

Post #: 1641

RE: Dutch OOB Errors - 8/21/2009 6:56:57 AM

Jo van der Pluym

Posts: 834
Joined: 10/28/2000
From: Valkenburg Lb, Netherlands
Status: offline

Hi

1. The KNIL Mariener Brigade must be Mariniers Brigade and is not a KNIL unit.

2. The 1st KNIL (T) Brigade must be T Brigade and is also not a KNIL unit. It's raised in the Netherland from Dutch Volunteers.

3. I miss Korps Insuline a Dutch para-trained commando unit raised from volunteers from the Princess Irene brigade in 1942 on Ceylon,

4. The only new raised KNIL units in war where the 1st KNIL Battaljon in Australia and after liberation of some parts of DEI /Prison Camps (Tarakan) the 2nd KNIL Battaljon and 3rd KNIL Battaljon and how more parts are liberated how more KNIL battaljons.

5. From spring 1946 arrives more Dutch units in the DEI from the Netherlands

_____________________________

Greetings from the Netherlands

Jo van der Pluym
Crazy

Dutch

(in reply to Andy Mac)

Post #: 1642

RE: AE Land and AI Issues - 8/21/2009 1:53:57 PM

khyberbill

Posts: 1941
Joined: 9/11/2007
From: new milford, ct
Status: offline

quote:

So on with the show fire away !!!

I am playing a PBEM and we are now at 27 Feb 42. My problem is in China. Soon he will be knocking on the doors (kicking them down actually) of Chungking. I tried to collapse my army to the cities of Changsa (soon to be invested with 32 units), Sian (42 Japan units there now), Loyang (21 units now) and Kweiyang (soon to be about 40). I am taking bombardment casualties of around 3000+ a turn in each of Loyang and Sian. My impression from reading all the pre-release news about AE is that these death stars would be hobbled by supply. If he is hobbled much more, he will be in Calcutta by the spring. I have all units set to rest except for in the cities that he is contesting.

_____________________________

"Its a dog eat dog world Sammy and I am wearing Milkbone underwear" -Norm.

(in reply to Andy Mac)

Post #: 1643

RE: AE Land and AI Issues - 8/21/2009 3:25:57 PM

erstad

Posts: 1944
Joined: 8/3/2004
From: Midwest USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: khyberbill

quote:

So on with the show fire away !!!

I am playing a PBEM and we are now at 27 Feb 42. My problem is in China. Soon he will be knocking on the doors (kicking them down actually) of Chungking. I tried to collapse my army to the cities of Changsa (soon to be invested with 32 units), Sian (42 Japan units there now), Loyang (21 units now) and Kweiyang (soon to be about 40). I am taking bombardment casualties of around 3000+ a turn in each of Loyang and Sian. My impression from reading all the pre-release news about AE is that these death stars would be hobbled by supply. If he is hobbled much more, he will be in Calcutta by the spring. I have all units set to rest except for in the cities that he is contesting.

Do you have a house rule that prevents units from Manchuria from being used without political points?

Also, do you see a number of divisions operating in the DEI/Phillipines/Malaya, or are they absent? (Converse question - are you seeing the unrestricted Jap units in China, off the top of my head the Imperial Guards, 38th division, 22nd division, 4 division, etc.)

(in reply to khyberbill)

Post #: 1644

RE: AE Land and AI Issues - 8/21/2009 4:00:27 PM

vaned74

Posts: 389
Joined: 11/17/2008
Status: offline

Hi there - I'm Bill's opponent in the PBEM - I was thinking about posting in here that bombardment casualties seem way out of whack. I had been running a few head to head games vs myself (yes I know I am sick...) and found out that the heavy arty is deadly, particularly to un-entrenched units. So, I have spent just about every PP point (up to 4,500 at this point) pulling the heavy art bns and regiments out of Manchuria and into China - some are cheaper than others, I can't tell why.

I think my opponent kinda let China slip by unnoticed for a little while (and I think he will admit this) assuming it to be a morass - I was able to concentrate my armor (including many regts shipped in from Hainan/Formosa) and drive into Nanyang, cutting the Chinese northern forces into in half and isolating a large pocket of about 13 corps between Sinyang and Nanyang. As opposed to finishing off the corps, I started concentrating forces and headed for Sian (which was partly my plan as I had been prepping units there for a while - there is no easy road route from Chengchow, Loyang back to Sian so those forward deployed forces are in trouble if not pulled back early).

The rest is just opportunity - I suppose it is no secret but the PI heavy arty and the heavy arty deployed with 38th division have taken the south road. Given the enemy's withdrawals into fortress Singapore, Soerbaja, Batavia, and Manila (2 of which I have no idea how to crack - Singapore will be a bloody shock attack across the straits from Johore...) this has freed up a lot of specialist assets and about 4 divisions worth of troops to reinforce a drive from Hanoi and Canton up behind the center Chinese forces.

Once on top of the game in China I opted to slow all other advances up and just take advantage of the opportunity to secure my interior and seize all probably Chinese airfields that could hurt the home islands later. May or may not be a mistake. The fact that units die so readily when retreating and never recover if you stay after them (pursuit or not, doesn't matter, you can catch them easily before they recover b/c their fatigue/disruption is too high to prevent fast movement after a retreat from combat) also has resulted in recognition that once the enemy is down, keep on top of him. As RE Lee said at Chancellorsville - "we must press those people..."

Strategy aside, I think land combat has been perhaps overly tweaked.

(1) artillery bombardments are downright lethal, Bill is right - I have been wasting 3,000 to 5,000 troops per day by two bombardments of about 8 regiments/bns at each location. I think WitP's original artillery model wasn't far off although with slow/large bombardments killing a few hundred troops/day even though I know many folks complained about how static land combat was. Even if FOW is on, concentrations of 70,000 to 80,000 troops in cities in China are too easy to kill off as Japan in AE.

(2) when units retreat - they die in droves; I noticed that leaving a retreat path open for units is a far more efficient way to kill them off; you simply fight them with a pair of units having one pursue from reserve while the other attacks - once the stack is broken the losses are deadly. There seems to be no way to screen retreats.

On the supply question - I have had little issue supplying my forces in China; partly this is due to consolidation of road and rail lines and moving hq assets/supply convoys into the interior to pull supplies from coastal drop-offs. Partly also though we have captured a lot of resource/light industry. A 40 pt light industry center will produce 1,200 supplies a month or enough to sustain a division in normal operations. May or may not be accurate.

Thoughts or observations by others would be appreciated. I can't dispute Bill's probable frustration on this one at all and my pending frustration as late war US formations are loaded for bear with firepower.

< Message edited by vaned74 -- 8/21/2009 4:02:58 PM >

(in reply to erstad)

Post #: 1645

RE: AE Land and AI Issues - 8/21/2009 5:53:04 PM

Iron Duke

Posts: 529
Joined: 1/7/2002
From: UK
Status: offline

AEC Matador ? just wondering why this vehicle was included ?

_____________________________

"Bombers outpacing fighters - you've got to bloody well laugh!" Australian Buffalo pilot - Singapore

(in reply to Andy Mac)

Post #: 1646

RE: AE Land and AI Issues - 8/21/2009 6:06:29 PM

khyberbill

Posts: 1941
Joined: 9/11/2007
From: new milford, ct
Status: offline

Don answered before I could, but I was going to say that I didn't thing he was pulling any gamey tricks. He came right at me, no airdrops to cut off retreat etc with pansywansy companies. But the Chinese troops start out poorly trained, poorly led and poorly fed and they move slower than Japan. We started the PBEM shortly after AE came out and have been playing two day turns. Because we have gotten in about 3 turns a day, we are now at March 1, 1942. Other than the land combat model (China/Burma) I am happy with the game, oh and except for those subs that run out of fuel before reaching port. That is a pet peeve. Didn't any beta testers use subs?

While I admit I havent spent a whole lot of time working on China, that is because there isn't much to work with. He attacks, I retreat. He bottles me up, I die from the art attacks. 5000+ casualties per assault are not uncommon. When I bombard I actually receive more casualties than I inflict. I read all those words that said China is a morass and believed them; and it is for the Chinese but it is a playground for the Japanese. There are no Chinese reinforcements coming in except for those from surrendering.

It is not unreasonable to expect Don to take Chungking in a few weeks. I don't expect that will end the game (but it is a 2400 point swing in the score) but I may lose on points at the end of 42 or early 43. However if this is the new land war model for China/AE then I see no reason to start any new PBEMs. Except as Japan.

As far as future HRs, I don't think it is fair to have a HR that says Japan cant bring artillery and armor to China, or how about Australia or India? In fact, I thought one of the goals of AE was to reduce HRs. However, the Japanese player knows exactly what assets the allies start with and where they are and I have a feeling that I wont be the first to feel the sting of this strategy now that it is known. Don saw a weakness in China, the power of artillery, the easy death of retreated troops and exploited it. He bombards for a few turns, does a deliberate attack with his armor in reserve and on it goes. Don has destroyed 5 or 6 corps, the same amount of HQ and has about 20 corp on the ropes. And about 20 more he can pick off at leisure in Yenan etc.

Incidentally, Don is bitch slapping the heck out of me in Burma with the same tactics. An earlier poster asked where are the Imperial Guards? Well, they are advancing nicely in Burma. They should be able to eat sushi in the Red Fort a few months after Chungking falls. An invasion of Northern India is supposed to trigger something (not specified in the manual of what or when-perhaps a mobile canteen?) but the speed of advance to Karachi or Bombay might be faster than the reinforcements.

And for those of you sending cards or letters, please add rice for our chaps in Chungking.

_____________________________

"Its a dog eat dog world Sammy and I am wearing Milkbone underwear" -Norm.

(in reply to vaned74)

Post #: 1647

RE: AE Land and AI Issues - 8/21/2009 6:34:05 PM

Mynok

Posts: 12108
Joined: 11/30/2002
Status: offline

Sounds like bombardment might need a look, but your opponent has reinforced China fairly heavily. When the Japanese made a serious effort in China historically, the Chinese were quite incapable of stopping them from doing as they pleased.

_____________________________

"Measure civilization by the ability of citizens to mock government with impunity" -- Unknown

(in reply to khyberbill)

Post #: 1648

RE: AE Land and AI Issues - 8/21/2009 6:48:39 PM

vaned74

Posts: 389
Joined: 11/17/2008
Status: offline

Mynok is correct - Japan has poured reinforcements into China - mainly specialist units. The offensives started out simply as a means of securing the supply lines into Wuchang/Hankow and sweeping the interior but developed quickly and into a coordinated plan. Actually, I stand corrected in my prior post - I didn't pay PPs in this game for all the arty and engineers. I did in my other game that I am playing myself in to understand the system mechanics. Bill and I didn't have any house rules on that but in retrospect given its effectiveness, we probably should. I still have though over 10,000 AV guarding Manchuria so it's not like the garrison was denuded much.

I have always wondered why the Japanese did not implement operation Ichi-Go earlier in the war, especially when the Russians were distracted by the Germans. The intent of the operation to open the rail lines and create a landlink to Indo-China was a good strategic aim and with 20/20 hindsight into the shipping struggles and ravages of US submarines and heavy bombers, probably one that if the Imperial High Command had to do over they would have struck sooner.

On the flip side, I think the real issue may be the movement of supplies and ability to support troops on limited transportation networks. I have found it quite easy to move large stockpiles of supply to where needed. For example, I clicked that little arrow on Nanyang and pulled 50,000 tons in a turn into into to flow uproad to my units in Sian.

Perhaps the real solution is some limitation on how much supply can flow between two bases based on the transportation network?

Japanese players will note that now port-to-port transfers in the home islands is limited to 500 tons of resources per port size and 100 tons of oil - fyi to all Japanese players - you will need to use those little AKLs and small tankers to supplement the automatic transfer of oil and resources between the home islands. It's a one hex trip but I am seeing locations like Hakodate and Fukuoka loaded with resources. No more dump everything in Sasebo and let it flow everywhere...(even if port handling limitations allowed it - which they don't).

< Message edited by vaned74 -- 8/21/2009 6:50:52 PM >

(in reply to Mynok)

Post #: 1649

RE: AE Land and AI Issues - 8/21/2009 7:37:40 PM

khyberbill

Posts: 1941
Joined: 9/11/2007
From: new milford, ct
Status: offline

quote:

Sounds like bombardment might need a look, but your opponent has reinforced China fairly heavily. When the Japanese made a serious effort in China historically, the Chinese were quite incapable of stopping them from doing as they pleased.

Good point Mynok. Now then, why play the game? If you can take out China totally by the end of March or early April then Australia or India should be a breeze. In my PBEMS as Japan it has always taken me to the end of 43 to take Australia. I think that it is now doable by August with this new model of bombardment, followed by retreat and then the destruction of the retreating ground forces by the reserves in hot pursuit. Fortified cities are small speed bumps. Incidentally, I can't build the fort in Chungking beyond 6. Those that read Sneers

AAR can recall his frustration with the land combat model. I bet Sneer is really looking forward to a rematch with RaverDave.

_____________________________

"Its a dog eat dog world Sammy and I am wearing Milkbone underwear" -Norm.

(in reply to Mynok)

Post #: 1650