RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A)

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: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A)

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 >> After Action Reports >> RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A)

Page: << < prev 10 11 [12] 13 14 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A) - 1/22/2012 12:25:22 AM

rader

Posts: 1238
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

quote:

Unless you count Mikasa, but that's a cruiser sized pre-dreadnought

Been on the Mass also. I've had the pleasure of seeing the New Jersey at sea, well at river. Operation Sail, sometime in the early 80's I think she went up the Hudson. I was surprised how low to the water she looked. Very business like. Most of the other ships were newer. A BB is a BB and nothing looks like a big gun ship.
Do you still have the Musahsi, Nagato & Mutsu? Those have equal guns

I have Mustsu and Musashi... Nagato was sunk by a PT boat... just like Yamato, and 2 of the Kirishimas

(in reply to JohnDillworth)

Post #: 331

RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A) - 1/22/2012 12:49:29 AM

pat.casey

Posts: 393
Joined: 9/10/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rader

He's bombarding them with all his BBs and CAs every turn, inflicting mild attrition. I get the sense that something isn't quite historical about being able to bombard every second day but I can't put my finger on it. Maybe it is reasonable given the proximity of his port. Did the allies historically use their BBs to bombard each day or two, or did they only do it sparingly? And if they didn't do it every possible opportunity, why not? Chance of wearing out the gun barrels? I'm just curious, not complaining, but I am wondering what the historical drawback to using a ship to shell a coast day after day was (if any?). You only really hear about shore bombardment accompanying invasions.

They kept the battleships offshore on normany for a few days after the invasion proper and ended up withdrawing them for fear of submarines rather than b/c they were out of ammo or anything analagous.

Likewise in WW I they didn't use battleships for shore bombardment much since it put them out of position in the event the high seas fleet sortied, but the british at least did have a large number of inshore monitors with battleship guns that they used as continuous fire support platforms for operations along the channel coast.

Same deal in Korea, when they had targets the navy stayed on station. They put a BB task force off the coast to support the retreat at Chosin and put something like 20,000 shells on-shore over the coarse of a week.

Don't actually know how common "long term" bombardments were in the pacific theatre, perhaps somebody else has some good examples.

(in reply to rader)

Post #: 332

RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A) - 1/22/2012 5:47:47 AM

Xxzard

Posts: 440
Joined: 9/28/2008
From: Arizona
Status: offline

As pat.casey mentioned, the fear of losing such valuable assets tended to cripple their use in such operations. Like Japan keeping Yamato sitting around at Truk b/c it was too valuable to risk doing what it was built for. GJ on the other hand probably figures bombarding is all they are useful for at this point.

I think you are probably right that the large caliber gun barrels would wear out fairly quickly. Replacement tubes existed, but the logistics of transporting and installing them in occupied territory would be painful.

Beyond that though, with the exception of Chosin, the army usually managed to advance outside the range of support fire before it was really an issue for the Navy. This line of thought leads to an oft cited issue with the game. IMO, massive land combat situations are not the strongest point of this game. It has been said before, but I'll say it again, the game does not simulate continuous combat. To my mind it is more like WW1, either you make gains with an overwhelming (2-1) attack, or you take massive casualties with almost anything less. I mean surely after weeks of fighting and with the support of tank divisions and tens of thousands of men, the allied army could at least push its way off the beach. But it is simulated as if they are still fighting for the beach. (i.e. transports dropping off supply taking CD fire, etc) Not to take anything away from your effort here, I just struggle to believe the Japanese could pull off an "Anzio style" containment of such a large landing in this situation.

Anyways, that's my 2cents, and isn't even entirely on topic... oh well.

_____________________________

(in reply to pat.casey)

Post #: 333

RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A) - 1/22/2012 8:01:16 AM

rader

Posts: 1238
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Xxzard

As pat.casey mentioned, the fear of losing such valuable assets tended to cripple their use in such operations. Like Japan keeping Yamato sitting around at Truk b/c it was too valuable to risk doing what it was built for. GJ on the other hand probably figures bombarding is all they are useful for at this point.

I think you are probably right that the large caliber gun barrels would wear out fairly quickly. Replacement tubes existed, but the logistics of transporting and installing them in occupied territory would be painful.

Beyond that though, with the exception of Chosin, the army usually managed to advance outside the range of support fire before it was really an issue for the Navy. This line of thought leads to an oft cited issue with the game. IMO, massive land combat situations are not the strongest point of this game. It has been said before, but I'll say it again, the game does not simulate continuous combat. To my mind it is more like WW1, either you make gains with an overwhelming (2-1) attack, or you take massive casualties with almost anything less. I mean surely after weeks of fighting and with the support of tank divisions and tens of thousands of men, the allied army could at least push its way off the beach. But it is simulated as if they are still fighting for the beach. (i.e. transports dropping off supply taking CD fire, etc) Not to take anything away from your effort here, I just struggle to believe the Japanese could pull off an "Anzio style" containment of such a large landing in this situation.

Anyways, that's my 2cents, and isn't even entirely on topic... oh well.

Anzio style containment, maybe not, but a chance at pushing the allies back into the sea... maybe

At least in the book Downfall, the author makes the case that it would certainly not have been easy to invade the home islands, even in late 1945 or early 1946. Japan would have had massive local superiority in the target sector, with many more forces than the germans had in the Normandy area. From the author's description, an invasion of the home islands would have been much more difficult than Normandy, Anzio, Salerno, Sicily, or any of the major invasions in the ETO.... more difficult terrain, and stronger resistance. I would go so far as to say that, with the allied committment to a Germany first and the historical forces, the allies should probably not be able to defeat the Japanese army in a massive battle in 1944. 1945 with the European redeployments, maybe. And piecemeal on island garrisons, of course. But put all the allied land forces in the PTO vs. all the Japanese land forces in 1944, and the Japanese should win every time.

But I absolutely agree with your main point about incremental combat benefits. The combat is modelled exactly the opposite of how it is advertised: it is all or nothing.

I came up with a system that would work really well where hex control would gradually shift from one side to the other with progressive attack (and shift back with counterattacks). E.g., the % of the hex control changed from the enemy side to your side in an attack would be equal to double the odds achieved. Get a 1:2, you get 1% of the hex. Get a 10:1, you get 20% of the hex. You capture the base at 51%. Once you get the full hex, the enemy has to retreat. Ideally, it should have hysteresis, so that it stats at 10%/90% or something.

(in reply to Xxzard)

Post #: 334

RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A) - 1/22/2012 8:02:29 AM

rader

Posts: 1238
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Xxzard

I think you are probably right that the large caliber gun barrels would wear out fairly quickly. Replacement tubes existed, but the logistics of transporting and installing them in occupied territory would be painful.

I wonder if they should accumulate system damage from bombardment... maybe they do? (never checked)

(in reply to Xxzard)

Post #: 335

RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A) - 1/22/2012 5:00:07 PM

rader

Posts: 1238
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline

We're now in late September 1944 (I think around the 28th). Not much going on. He seems to be just sitting there waiting, while he continues to daily bombard Japanese positions at Hachinohe.

No sign of the allied CVs, although a CVE did accidentally drift into range of Japanese dive bombers and get sunk yesterday (at the cost of ~50 Judys to CAP).

He's got another invasion forces (not yet loaded) of ~70 units at Hakkodate apparently waiting for a signal to proceed. I suspect what's happening is that he's decided to change plans after the landings in the North, and is now resolved to land farther down the coast in an outflanking move. But he wasn't planning to do that before, or is planning to go somewhere different, so he is waiting to reprep his units for the new target.

I can't allow my full attention to get sucked into the norht - I've got to remain alert to the possibility of invasion anywhere along the coast of Honshu. He could even go straight for the north coast of Kyushu... An interesting place for him to try would be Shimonoseki, right at the junction of Kyushu-Honshu. At least there is a big fortress there.

I've tried to put at least a division with some forts in each of the vulnerable invasion hexes closer to Hokkaido, with closer ones getting more like 3+ divisions. At the same time, I'm keeping at least some units in strat mode so they can rail in to respond to an invasion of any of the beaches. Units in strat mode don't do that well, but behind heavy forts they seem to at least contribute a good fraction of their unmodified AC and add bulk to defenders that are already entrenched. Their presence can be critical in the few days immediately following an invasion.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by rader -- 1/22/2012 5:10:47 PM >

(in reply to rader)

Post #: 336

RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A) - 1/22/2012 5:08:13 PM

Chickenboy

Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rader

At least in the book Downfall, the author makes the case that it would certainly not have been easy to invade the home islands, even in late 1945 or early 1946. Japan would have had massive local superiority in the target sector, with many more forces than the germans had in the Normandy area. From the author's description, an invasion of the home islands would have been much more difficult than Normandy, Anzio, Salerno, Sicily, or any of the major invasions in the ETO.... more difficult terrain, and stronger resistance. I would go so far as to say that, with the allied committment to a Germany first and the historical forces, the allies should probably not be able to defeat the Japanese army in a massive battle in 1944. 1945 with the European redeployments, maybe. And piecemeal on island garrisons, of course. But put all the allied land forces in the PTO vs. all the Japanese land forces in 1944, and the Japanese should win every time.

Great point, rader. I never really thought of this in this way, but it's a logical position.

In some ways, it's a great opportunity for you. Just think about how public support would flag for hundreds of thousands of American boys 'trapped' on a bridgehead in Japan, facing WWI-style combat and casualties. A grinding infantry-focused war of attrition was not what the American command had in mind and was not playing to their PR strengths.

Maybe they'd sue for peace if they couldn't break out?

You've got him by the nose, now, as George Patton would say, "kick him in the ***".

_____________________________

(in reply to rader)

Post #: 337

RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A) - 1/22/2012 5:45:23 PM

rader

Posts: 1238
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Great point, rader. I never really thought of this in this way, but it's a logical position.

In some ways, it's a great opportunity for you. Just think about how public support would flag for hundreds of thousands of American boys 'trapped' on a bridgehead in Japan, facing WWI-style combat and casualties. A grinding infantry-focused war of attrition was not what the American command had in mind and was not playing to their PR strengths.

Maybe they'd sue for peace if they couldn't break out?

You've got him by the nose, now, as George Patton would say, "kick him in the ***".

Remember that the Japanese army was basically the same size as the German army, and the Japanese historically dramatically drew down their strength in China and Manchuria to reinforce the home islands (as I have done). Japan has 6 million under arms in 1945 (5 million active in the army). This is about the same size as the peak strength of the Whermacht, and indeed Japan had a slighly larger population than Germany (~75 million million vs. ~68 million). (Today, Japan has a much larger population at arouind 120 million vs. ~80 million as I recall...)

The reason the Soviets had such an easy time in August 1945 was that the Kwangtung army had been stripped of all its best divisions for defense of the Marianas, Philipinnes, Okinawa, and especially the home islands. By 1945, most of the strength of the Japanese army, which was virtually untouched by the war up to that point (and was in no sense defeated in WW2), was fortified in the home islands (> 3 million soldiers in Japan alone). I'm not sure about how many US troops were available for operations in the PTO before operations ended in the ETO, but I would be willing to bet that it was a lot less than 3 million! Imagine what would have happened at Normandy if most of the German army had been facing the allies instead of it being mostly in Russia facing the Soviets.

And the Japanese were starting to learn how to inflict maximum casualties on the Americans by 1945. The casualty exchange rate was skyrocketing. It went from something like 10 Japanese casualties to each american in the early battles (e.g., Guadalcanal, New Guinea) to 3:1 (Japanese:American) in the Marianas, Palau, and Leyte, to 2:1 at Okinawa ~ and this was despite an American numerical superiority of around 6:1 and a firepower superiority of closer to 10:1. (At Iwo Jima, the casualty ratio was around a scary 1:1.) With numerical superiority, support of a local fanatical population, and no need to reinforce & resupply by sea, the casualty ratio could have been worse in Japan proper. Would the US public accept 1.5 million casualties when there was a chance that blockade & bombing alone might win eventually?

Later on in occupied zone, the author was arguing pursuasively that it would have been a lot like vietnam, with ambushes out of the rice fields, lots of guerilla tactics, civilians strapped with explosives, etc (probably allied occupation forces should require lots of garrison in Japan to prevent partisan attacks?). The world is extremely fortunate it never came to an invasion of Japan - I'm sure if it had, relations between Japan and the west would not be nearly so rosy today.

All this being said, I think I've got basically no chance to kick him out. His firepower would cut down my attackers before I got the assault off, and even if I got high odds, that is no guarantee of getting him to surrender if he is in the open instead of being in one of his own bases

I might be able to mount an effective and protracted defense... but attacking is probably out of the question given his superior firepower.

< Message edited by rader -- 1/22/2012 5:49:40 PM >

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 338

RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A) - 1/22/2012 5:55:17 PM

Crackaces

Posts: 3858
Joined: 7/9/2011
Status: offline

As far as the Soviets .. an operational detail that existed since Khalkhin Gol is far superior armor. In the open terrain the Guards Armies are murder against way undersized/inferior IJ armor.

The difference between any war previously fought by the United States and the "struggle with Japan" is that the Japanese struck first without a declaration of war. Despite the best rationalizations of the JFB's no way would the US sue for peace with anything less than unconditional surrender. Given the hypothetical situation that the IJ have been able to out produce the US in air power and some hypothetical situation that the US industrial might is somehow being completely diverted away from the Pacific [the historical withdrawals were made because the IJ blew it at Midway ..

] Ok the decision at this point would be around destroying Japan as a nation. Oppenheimer is very very busy these days ..

(in reply to rader)

Post #: 339

RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A) - 1/22/2012 6:21:33 PM

rader

Posts: 1238
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Crackaces

As far as the Soviets .. an operational detail that existed since Khalkhin Gol is far superior armor. In the open terrain the Guards Armies are murder against way undersized/inferior IJ armor.

The difference between any war previously fought by the United States and the "struggle with Japan" is that the Japanese struck first without a declaration of war. Despite the best rationalizations of the JFB's no way would the US sue for peace with anything less than unconditional surrender. Given the hypothetical situation that the IJ have been able to out produce the US in air power and some hypothetical situation that the US industrial might is somehow being completely diverted away from the Pacific [the historical withdrawals were made because the IJ blew it at Midway .. ] Ok the decision at this point would be around destroying Japan as a nation. Oppenheimer is very very busy these days ..

Absolutely, the Kwangtung army would have been defeated anyway being spread out in the open and attacked on 3 sides, but probably not as rapidly, and if they had pre-emptively withdrawn to Korea (maybe politically unlikely), they would have performed much better.

I also agree that the US would probably have pursued the war until the end. The possibility of any kind of negotiated settlement short of unconditional surrender was pure Japanese fantasy. But it is possible that the the blockade and bomb camp would have prevailed, leading to a war that laster until 1947 or so before Japan finally got tired of fighting and the right people in the Japanese camp took power and surrendered.

< Message edited by rader -- 1/22/2012 6:22:10 PM >

(in reply to Crackaces)

Post #: 340

RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A) - 1/22/2012 6:31:15 PM

desicat

Posts: 542
Joined: 5/25/2008
Status: offline

The Japanese army of 1944-45 had absolutely no chance of stopping the Soviet Army in Manchuria, Northern China, or Korea. Soviet combat experience against the Germans, armor, mechanized units, artillery, and ground support aircraft would have ground down, encircled, and cut even elite Japanese units to pieces.

Without effective tanks, anti-tank guns, hand held anti-tank weapons, or mechanized supply capabilities large formation Japanese units were at best speed bumps. US forces in Korea had the exact same problems with North Korean forces early in Korea (and the US had absolute air superiority).

On the other hand the Soviets had virtually no combat sea power or landing capabilities so a Soviet invasion of the mainland was virtually impossible in the short term. Landing beaches are few and far between with many overlooked by high rocky cliffs of mountains. Lets also not forget the sea ice in the winter that sometimes chokes the Sea of Japan between Japan and the USSR for several months as well.

US forces fighting in Japan would have had a difficult time employing mass armor in the area that GJ now is contesting as the terrain fluctuates from Mountain to marsh, with very little "tank country". Artillery would have pounded rubble into smaller rubble, and the weather is horrible with fog mixed with rain and snow for at least half the year.

< Message edited by desicat -- 1/22/2012 6:34:49 PM >

(in reply to Crackaces)

Post #: 341

RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A) - 1/22/2012 6:36:01 PM

rader

Posts: 1238
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: desicat

The Japanese army of 1944-45 had absolutely no chance of stopping the Soviet Army in Manchuria, Northern China, or Korea. Soviet combat experience against the Germans, armor, mechanized units, artillery, and ground support aircraft would have ground down, encircled, cut even elite Japanese units to pieces.

Without effective tanks, anti-tank guns, hand held anti-tank weapons, or mechanized supply capabilities large formation Japanese units were at best speed bumps. US forces in Korea had the exact same problems with North Korean forces early in Korea (and the US had absolute air superiority).

On the other hand the Soviets had virtually no combat sea power or landing capabilities so a Soviet invasion of the mainland was virtually impossible in the short term.

US forces fighting in Japan would have had a difficult time employing mass armor in the area that GJ now is contesting as the terrain fluctuates from Mountain to marsh, with very little "tank country". Artillery would have pounded rubble into smaller rubble, and the weather is horrible with fog mixed with rain and snow for at least half the year.

You're probably right in the long run RE: Soviets. I just think the Japanese could have fought for longer than 15 days if properly deployed

And, I've argued in detail before that I don't think pretty much any terrain in Japan should be clear. Japan is one of the roughest, hilliest, and most forrested industrialized countries in the world. I think the only clear hex I agree with is Chiba, SW of Tokyo on the Kanto plain (where Corronet was supposed to target).

(in reply to desicat)

Post #: 342

RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A) - 1/22/2012 6:37:45 PM

Chickenboy

Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

Granted, but in your game comparative to IRL, the blockade and bombardment camp has failed. Invasion was performed (was it on a shoestring?) and casualties in larger numbers than they've ever seen are daily newspaper and small town reports. Allied (particularly American) casualties now make Tarawa look like a Sunday dance-and there were repercussions after Tarawa.

Would the American public be looking at their civilian and military leaders with despair and anger (like they did after Tarawa)? Now magnify that by a log factor of 2-something never experienced in the real war. Still so sure about no settlement?

Remember, the idea of 'unconditional surrender' was a late war development. I believe there was more openness to the concept of a 'conditional surrender' prior to Yalta. Your game is before Yalta, before D-day, before so many other bloody tests of Allied resolve. It's the mother of all Allied tests-I'm not so sure that they (the public / civilian leaders) wouldn't make a different decision.

_____________________________

(in reply to rader)

Post #: 343

RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A) - 1/22/2012 6:40:21 PM

desicat

Posts: 542
Joined: 5/25/2008
Status: offline

Rader, I lived and flew out of Japan for many years and the weather and terrain would be horrendous to fight in and around.

As far a GJ goes, he has three beachheads that need to be supplied - what can you do about it?

(in reply to rader)

Post #: 344

RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A) - 1/22/2012 6:41:39 PM

Chickenboy

Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rader

All this being said, I think I've got basically no chance to kick him out. His firepower would cut down my attackers before I got the assault off, and even if I got high odds, that is no guarantee of getting him to surrender if he is in the open instead of being in one of his own bases

I might be able to mount an effective and protracted defense... but attacking is probably out of the question given his superior firepower.

Yes. This is more what I meant. Hold 'em by the nose and attrit his naval, air and ground forces. Bleed him. Quickly where you can, slowly where you must. Bleed him. Challenge his resolve for (unsustainable) casualties. Make him choke on the bite that was too big for him to chew. Bleed him. On Honshu, time is on your side in many ways.

_____________________________

(in reply to rader)

Post #: 345

RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A) - 1/22/2012 7:17:47 PM

rader

Posts: 1238
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: rader

All this being said, I think I've got basically no chance to kick him out. His firepower would cut down my attackers before I got the assault off, and even if I got high odds, that is no guarantee of getting him to surrender if he is in the open instead of being in one of his own bases

I might be able to mount an effective and protracted defense... but attacking is probably out of the question given his superior firepower.

Yes. This is more what I meant. Hold 'em by the nose and attrit his naval, air and ground forces. Bleed him. Quickly where you can, slowly where you must. Bleed him. Challenge his resolve for (unsustainable) casualties. Make him choke on the bite that was too big for him to chew. Bleed him. On Honshu, time is on your side in many ways.

The problem is that the only place I could get at him is Hakkodate, and he's got all his strength (~10 BBs, 3,200 figthers, 1,600 bombers) there. I could try a KB raid, but honestly, the risk is probably not worth the potential reward, and it would open up a route into the Bonins/Ryukus for him. With the KB intact and LBA, I bet I could stop anything unsupported by his LBA (especially with many of his CVEs gone). But I need to keep it that way.

I don't see a lot of avenues for disproportional attrition, unless he opens them for me.

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 346

RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A) - 1/22/2012 9:44:17 PM

Heeward

Posts: 343
Joined: 1/27/2003
From: Lacey Washington
Status: offline

I finally found your AAR - I will have to read it all....

_____________________________

The Wake

(in reply to rader)

Post #: 347

RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A) - 1/22/2012 9:46:46 PM

rader

Posts: 1238
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Heeward

I finally found your AAR - I will have to read it all....

Oh it's not that much. Don't have a lot of free time and haven't really kept the story going. But I'll try to do about a once a week update. These days things are very quiet, and we are zooming through the turns... up to around Oct 8.

(in reply to Heeward)

Post #: 348

RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A) - 1/22/2012 11:08:32 PM

Heeward

Posts: 343
Joined: 1/27/2003
From: Lacey Washington
Status: offline

Now read it all, and the qualification statements...

I have read your opponents' AAR and made one post. - so yours will be ahead

Could you give us a strategic overview?

I suggest you do a unit count of major allied units, and determine his reserves.
What is your replacement ability of shattered land units - in the most favorable location on Honshu- including production of said replacements?
As you own all the bases still, and control all the hex sides - his units can not retreat - verify this by the way.

If you believe you have a stalemate - concentrate you reserves whatever they are,� Pick one beach head with the fewest enemy units and destroy it.
If you have more units then the enemy consider placing the excess troops in reserve, until the turn - they should not have significant disruption levels and be pretty fresh for the assault turn. On the assault turn you commit your entire air-force to ground support including strafing. Your goal here is to force a retreat, and destruction / surrender of his units.

Last caveat - consider practicing this operation, especially the ground support operation.

< Message edited by Heeward -- 1/22/2012 11:11:01 PM >

_____________________________

The Wake

(in reply to rader)

Post #: 349

RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A) - 1/22/2012 11:46:52 PM

rader

Posts: 1238
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Heeward

Now read it all, and the qualification statements...

I have read your opponents' AAR and made one post. - so yours will be ahead

Could you give us a strategic overview?

I suggest you do a unit count of major allied units, and determine his reserves.
What is your replacement ability of shattered land units - in the most favorable location on Honshu- including production of said replacements?
As you own all the bases still, and control all the hex sides - his units can not retreat - verify this by the way.

If you believe you have a stalemate - concentrate you reserves whatever they are,� Pick one beach head with the fewest enemy units and destroy it.
If you have more units then the enemy consider placing the excess troops in reserve, until the turn - they should not have significant disruption levels and be pretty fresh for the assault turn. On the assault turn you commit your entire air-force to ground support including strafing. Your goal here is to force a retreat, and destruction / surrender of his units.

Last caveat - consider practicing this operation, especially the ground support operation.

As far as Allied units, he's got ~6000 AV in Akita, ~6000 AV in Hachinohe, and ~1200 AV in Hirosaki. Based on previous invasions, I'd guess he can land around 6000-8000 AV per invasion, and he's got about that many troops in reserve at Hakkodate. So he's got about 1 more good invasion for now left (for now).

I have about equal or slightly more troops than the allies at the invasion sites: ~6000-7000 at Akita & Hachinohe, ~2200 at Hirosaki. Enough to stop him, but not nearly enough to counterattack.

So far he has landed only under allied land-based air, which seems practically uncontestable. I have the KB and a lot of LBA ready to respond to an invasion farther down the coast, or elsewhere on the map. Without most of his CVEs, I'd guess that I could mess up pretty well, if not stop, an invasion outside of his LBA cover (at the very least, make it very costly).

I have about a total of 8000 AV in reserve not committed to the battle area, so about the same as the allies. These are distributed around beaches farther south, mostly at Sendai and Niggita (obvious secondary locations), but I've got at least a division in the bases closer to Hokkaido, and I've got anti-paradrop forces in all bases of importance.

If I commited my reserve, I could get up to around 14000 AV at Akita/Hachinohe, or maybe 10000 AV at Hirosaki. This *might* be able to push the allies into the sea, but I actually sort of doubt it given their better firepower. I'd guess that I would need about 3.5:1 to actually win at Akita/Hachinohe, or more like 5:1 at Hirosaki (difficult terrain). If I did build up for a counterattack, he could rush reinforcements in, and of course would use massive air & bombardments.

Moreover, if I commited my reserve and stripped my remaining beaches, while I might have some chance to attack, I would certainly open up an opportunity for him to invade somewhere else down the coast with his 6000-8000 AV reserve at Hakkodate. I don't know where he's prepping for, but I'm willing to bet it's somewhere down the coast, and if I totally stripped my reserves he could go pretty much anywhere, preparation or not. So basically, I can't afford to counterattack, beecause I need to keep my reserves ready to respond to his reserves. I've got a wolf by the ears - I don't like it, but I can't let it go.

As far as replacements, the attrition is steady but actually fairly mild in terms of absolute losses. In terms of land attrition, this situation is probably preferable to the norm - uterly losing isolated garrisons one by one without hope of recovering any of the men or equipment. So far, I can keep up. But here the danger is much greater. If I lose an isolated island or two, who cares? But if I lose a portion of Honshu, it will be tea in the imperial palace for Admiral Nimitz.

< Message edited by rader -- 1/22/2012 11:49:02 PM >

(in reply to Heeward)

Post #: 350

RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A) - 1/23/2012 12:01:12 AM

rader

Posts: 1238
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline

Remaining surface units:

BBs (7): Musashi, Nagato (Mustu was the one sunk), Hiei, Fuso, Yamashiro, Ise, Hyuga

CAs (3): Takao, Mikuma, Kumano

CLs: (8): Agano, Noshiro, Yahagi, Abukuma, Katori(*), Yubari(*), Teshio, Sakawa - *=not much good

DDs: ~55 modern, 10 obsolete (+~50 building)

KB untouched except for loss of CVE Hosho, all carriers in service.

(in reply to rader)

Post #: 351

RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A) - 1/23/2012 1:54:33 AM

Chickenboy

Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

rader,

If you're convinced that he's tying up that much of his LCU AVs on Hokkaido / N. Honshu, is there any option for you to import some LCUs from Korea? They may do you some good and, with KB's cover, you should be able to get them onto the island, no?

_____________________________

(in reply to rader)

Post #: 352

RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A) - 1/23/2012 2:15:46 AM

rader

Posts: 1238
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

rader,

If you're convinced that he's tying up that much of his LCU AVs on Hokkaido / N. Honshu, is there any option for you to import some LCUs from Korea? They may do you some good and, with KB's cover, you should be able to get them onto the island, no?

I've already extracted about as many as I can from the Kwangtung army without breaking the Soviet garrison - it's currently at ~8400 AV. Want to leave a bit of margin of safety.

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 353

RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A) - 1/23/2012 2:17:46 AM

JohnDillworth

Posts: 3100
Joined: 3/19/2009
Status: offline

quote:

BBs (7): Musashi, Nagato (Mustu was the one sunk), Hiei, Fuso, Yamashiro, Ise, Hyuga

CAs (3): Takao, Mikuma, Kumano

CLs: (8): Agano, Noshiro, Yahagi, Abukuma, Katori(*), Yubari(*), Teshio, Sakawa - *=not much good

DDs: ~55 modern, 10 obsolete (+~50 building)

Not so bad. Better than RL, much better than RL if you consider the KB. Don't know if it's true for the Japanese , but for the allies there seems to be some problems when operating TF's with ships of wildly different speeds and vintages. Also nationalities but that is not your problem. Not sure how your KB pilots are but it seems you have a punch or two left

_____________________________

Today I come bearing an olive branch in one hand, and the freedom fighter's gun in the other. Do not let the olive branch fall from my hand. I repeat, do not let the olive branch fall from my hand. - Yasser Arafat Speech to UN General Assembly

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 354

RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A) - 1/23/2012 3:00:24 AM

rader

Posts: 1238
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

Not sure how your KB pilots are but it seems you have a punch or two left

The KB pilots are decent... not in the 80s like they start. All the veterans are pretty dead

But they don't have much to do these days except train, so they are all ~ 70 in the relevant skills.

(in reply to JohnDillworth)

Post #: 355

RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A) - 1/23/2012 5:25:50 PM

rader

Posts: 1238
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline

Allied and Japanese diplomats are currently negotiating on the rules of war: GJ asked for a change to our HR on night bombing. Probably easier to to paste my response:

Hmm, well, I don't have a problem with night bombing in principle. I just have a problem with how it's implemented in the game. It seems to do just as much damage as day bombing, and can't be intercepted by fighters set to normal (day) CAP. There should be a reduction in accuracy (more than there is now), and day fighters should sometimes be able to react to incomming bombers (even at reduced effectiveness).

The really broken part is night bombing airfields, and this is related to the fact that bombers almost never fail to find (or bomb) their targets. Historically, most night bombing was completely unreliable, and precision night bombing was basically a myth. In the game, if you send many hundred night bombers to attack an airfield, you are completely circumventing any fighters stationed there, and since the game considers all the planes to be lined up in neat rows at a single runway (instead of dispersed and camouflaged amongst many small airstrips as they should be), the effect is about the same as if you drop a nuclear bomb on the hex. In fact, I am convinced that regular airfield bombing is overpowered for the same reason - the game takes no account of failing to find the target, decoy dummy target aircraft, dispersal/camouflage of aircraft at the airfield, and dispersal of aircraft amongst many airfields.

That being said, I think a stronger case can be made for city bombing at night - provided you aren't attacking sepcific targets. About the smallest target you can hit at night is a city, and the British in Europe and some of the B-29s in Japan did this effectively. So I am less convinced that a HR is necessary for bombing cities - and by cities, I mean manpower, not specific targets like particular types of factories at cities. But I have a litttle concern that unintercepted night bombing seems to be still really powerful. I wish a day fighter group would at least sometimes try to scramble at night. German fighter groups did this all the time, and it might at least throw off the bomber's aim or something. Eh, I guess not a problem. I might agree to something like night bombers (only) are not restricted in number (but still in altitude) when attacking manpower at night. I'm not sure what night bombers are in the game... some B-29s maybe. Lancasters later on? Any others? And then you could add day bombers up to our current HR to the attack. Is it still 20K ft?

I also might consider removing the moonlight restriction and say something like you can always use up to 2 night bombing air groups per turn. I like the moonlight thing, but then you have to keep track of it, and I often forget to try it while the moonlight is high.

I do think Michael tweaked it with a patch and it does seem a bit better now though we haven't used it enough to really know. I would like to run some more tests before I agree to anything, but in principle I might be willing to modify the HR for bombing manpower - although I bet, like all bombing, it is more powerful in the game than in RL for a variety of reasons ~ mostly to do with the fact that bombers never lose their way, can fly every day (compare this with average major sortie rates of around once per week!), never bomb the wrong target, and with good pilots, have laser-glide bomb like accuracy :)

Incidentally, this fact that bombers are way overpowered is the whole reason for the HR on strat bombing of 20K ft. It seems though that it dosen't help that much - even at that altitude, one good raid is pretty much good enough to destroy all the aircraft production of a city ~ they never miss their target :( I'm reading a lot about the strat bombing campaign against Japan, and while they did do a pretty good job at destroying cities, even B-29s almost never did much damage (usually missed their target completely) when they tried to bomb specific aircraft factories.

(in reply to rader)

Post #: 356

RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A) - 1/23/2012 5:30:19 PM

rader

Posts: 1238
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline

My view on HRs is that I would like as much as possible to represent historical capabilities, constraints, and tactical results (i.e., historical sensible outcomes of battles), while leaving the strategic choices up to the player (with some realistic strategic/political constraints). This is the only purpose of HRs IMO - when players feel these constraints and capabilities are not modelled as well as they could be.

The idea of making a mod to attempt to fix a lot of percieved issues and "re-balance" the game has been stewing in my brain for a while. (Actually, I think the game as it stands is relatively balanced, but in ways that are historically skewed for both sides: i.e., overpowered 4Es trades off vs. "unlimited" Japanese aircraft production). I'd like to work on this with GJ, if he's willing. These are really just issues I perceive with game balance, and if you think the game is perfect exactly as it is, I totally respect your opinion - I'm not asking anyone to play it

Feel free to contribute stuff to the list if you want

Main areas for tweaks would be (* = not sure how to implement):
4Es:
-Reduce accuracy of defensive armament (this has been tried and seems to work)
-Reduce bomb accuracy vs. small targets by having them drop fewer "sticks" of more powerful bombs (this has been tried and seems to work)

Other aircraft:
-Try to make their defensive armament not totally useless (when was the last time anything other than a 4E shot something down?)
-Increase the accuracy of small bombs carried by light bombers and dive bombers vs. land targets (why dosen't the IL-2 ever do anything? - 20 times less powerful than a 4E at tactical air support seems strange)
-Reduce the effectiveness of night bombing*
-Somehow try to represent aircraft camouflage/dispersion at smaller airfields (make airfield bombing slightly less powerful)*

Land units:
-Add some more static BF & static garisons, but reduce the mobile ones

Industry:
-Increase the cost to expand "heavy" industries (aircraft/engine factories/HI/shipyards)
-Reduce the cost to expand "light" industries and repair industries
(this should go a long way to helping to balancing Japanese aircraft production)
-Make R&D slightly harder*
-Make pilot training slightly harder*

Logistics:
-Reduce the capacity of transports & cargo ships
-Reduce the SPS of most bases, but this would require a new map
-Make expanding bases slower*
-Increase ops losses*
-Reduce overall AV support available for both sides
-Try to spread out engineers a bit so most units can at least repair facilities, but overall building bases is harder

Combat:
-Normalize combat air speeds a little bit (say conver to knots, so 5280/6080), ot make airframe slightly less of a combat determinant (nates should kind of suck, but not be completely useless with a good pilot)
-Increase the durability of all a/c slightly to reduce combat losses somewhat
-Try to increase the effectiveness of small flak concentrations, but decrease large ones*
-Try to normalize terrain effect a little (instead of x1, x2, x3, x4, more like x1.25, x1.5, x2, x2.5 for defense)*
-Reduce the firepower of all squads and AFVs so that land combat lasts a bit longer and is more attritional

< Message edited by rader -- 1/23/2012 6:10:04 PM >

(in reply to rader)

Post #: 357

RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A) - 1/23/2012 5:30:50 PM

Chickenboy

Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

Rader,

This seems reasonable to me and an example of open communication between two partners adapting to the vagaries of the game engine over time. Good on you both for working this through.

_____________________________

(in reply to rader)

Post #: 358

RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A) - 1/23/2012 7:36:56 PM

crsutton

Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rader

quote:

ORIGINAL: Crackaces

As far as the Soviets .. an operational detail that existed since Khalkhin Gol is far superior armor. In the open terrain the Guards Armies are murder against way undersized/inferior IJ armor.

The difference between any war previously fought by the United States and the "struggle with Japan" is that the Japanese struck first without a declaration of war. Despite the best rationalizations of the JFB's no way would the US sue for peace with anything less than unconditional surrender. Given the hypothetical situation that the IJ have been able to out produce the US in air power and some hypothetical situation that the US industrial might is somehow being completely diverted away from the Pacific [the historical withdrawals were made because the IJ blew it at Midway .. ] Ok the decision at this point would be around destroying Japan as a nation. Oppenheimer is very very busy these days ..

Absolutely, the Kwangtung army would have been defeated anyway being spread out in the open and attacked on 3 sides, but probably not as rapidly, and if they had pre-emptively withdrawn to Korea (maybe politically unlikely), they would have performed much better.

I also agree that the US would probably have pursued the war until the end. The possibility of any kind of negotiated settlement short of unconditional surrender was pure Japanese fantasy. But it is possible that the the blockade and bomb camp would have prevailed, leading to a war that laster until 1947 or so before Japan finally got tired of fighting and the right people in the Japanese camp took power and surrendered.

I agree, but I think it would have come a little faster. The key would have been mass starvation as dwindling food sources were already an issue in 1945.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to rader)

Post #: 359

RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A) - 1/23/2012 7:57:48 PM

Captain Cruft

Posts: 3652
Joined: 3/17/2004
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rader
-Increase the accuracy of small bombs carried by light bombers and dive bombers vs. land targets (why dosen't the IL-2 ever do anything? - 20 times less powerful than a 4E at tactical air support seems strange)

Would need separate bomb device definitions for different plane types.

quote:

-Reduce the effectiveness of night bombing*

Hard-coded.

quote:

-Somehow try to represent aircraft camouflage/dispersion at smaller airfields (make airfield bombing slightly less powerful)*

Hard-coded.

quote:

-Increase the cost to expand "heavy" industries (aircraft/engine factories/HI/shipyards)

Hard-coded.

quote:

-Reduce the cost to expand "light" industries and repair industries
(this should go a long way to helping to balancing Japanese aircraft production)

Hard-coded.

quote:

-Make R&D slightly harder*

Algorithms are hard-coded, but you could start with a smaller number of zero size R&D factories.

quote:

-Make pilot training slightly harder*

Algorithms are hard-coded, but you could reduce the size of the pool, replacement rate and exp level.

quote:

-Reduce the SPS of most bases, but this would require a new map

No map required, SPS values are simply defined in the locations table in the editor.

quote:

-Make expanding bases slower*

Hard-coded, but you could reduce the number of engineers available.

quote:

-Increase ops losses*

Hard-coded.

quote:

-Try to increase the effectiveness of small flak concentrations, but decrease large ones*

Would need code change.

quote:

-Try to normalize terrain effect a little (instead of x1, x2, x3, x4, more like x1.25, x1.5, x2, x2.5 for defense)*

Hard-coded unless perhaps defined in PWHEX?

(in reply to rader)

Post #: 360

Page: << < prev 10 11 [12] 13 14 next > >>

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A)