Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

On that note, does anyone have any recommendations for a late-war AAR which is interesting to read? I carved out some time on an ongoing basis and I'm particularly interested in something from the Japanese side as that's by far the most challenging side to play late-war.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

mind_messing,
Because before psychiatry entered my life in my late 20s I had the opportunity to take a different path due to an uncommon mix of skills for the time. I worked with various companies whose software ended up being used by several western militaries for training/mission planning. So, I got recommended to various militaries when they contacted those companies and had the opportunity to mix with individuals from various military academies and conventional forces (Sandhurst, Fort Benning, the doctrine office of the Pentagon and a few other places in other countries) as well operators in Tier 2 units but some who were clearly Tier 1 but it would have ruined relationships as well as simply being foolish to ask overtly). There was no plan to it and things developed very organically. When someone in one military or unit or school was seen to be using a software for training or mission planning it would become known at various tiers within that military and to other militaries they sometimes trained with. Next thing you know someone from another unit or country would contact the company and one could be recommended as being someone who could add value to those discussions. It became a positive feedback loop. In US military terms conventional leads to Tier 2, Tier 2 to 1 and then TLAs. It all happened very organically... and haphazardly, you have to remember this was 20 to 25 years ago. I'm certain things are much more structured now.

I came away from all of that with a lively appreciation of the keen intellects in many of those areas. The Tier 2 guys were very impressive with NCOs there impressing as much as relatively senior officers in conventional forces but the ones I suspect were Tier 1 were another level. No time for bullshit, no time for false niceties, a ruthless focus on murder boarding any proposal, coming up with the best solution irrespective of hierarchical etc concerns and accomplishing the objective as efficiently as possible. Very, very impressive people with varied interests. I met an 18E who loved to debate psyops (the 18Es don't just twiddle dials on a radio ), Soviet doctrine and napoleonics. Like I said, very impressive people with a wide range of skills and interests... and interesting stories which may have happened to "some other guy in some indeterminate place"... possibly.

quote:

On that note, does anyone have any recommendations for a late-war AAR which is interesting to read? I carved out some time on an ongoing basis and I'm particularly interested in something from the Japanese side as that's by far the most challenging side to play late-war.

Also from my quick skim of the forums it seems that some changes have been made to kamikazes which has made them more impactful. Is this correct?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121
On that note, does anyone have any recommendations for a late-war AAR which is interesting to read? I carved out some time on an ongoing basis and I'm particularly interested in something from the Japanese side as that's by far the most challenging side to play late-war.

quote:

mind_messing, Aye, I'm reading it now... I'll post a comment there since I don't want to breach FOW. What I will say is that it is good to see the Ki-94 II being used. Reading Lowpe's AAR I couldn't understand the focus on the Ki-202 instead of the Ki-94 II. The Ki-94 II is a star and, crucially, in-game costs the same as the Ki-202 with its tiny durability. It and the Patsy are under-appreciated stars of late-war Japan both in the air and as kamis.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dave sindel

Per his request, a quick note to Nemo to advise him that I responded to his post in my thread on China.

quote:

Ki-94... Well, it costs the same to make as an Oscar II ( once online ) so with appropriate planning of supply usage, research and production and mating those appropriately with strategic needs I believe enough can be made to be useful. You've got to bear in mind that in a game beginning 7th December 1941 I would always have my research and production plans for 1945 planned from Day 1 and decide my strategy and operations on the basis of that.

quote:

I could be wrong as I've been away quite a while but I've never seen an AARed game feature proper planning research planning to focus research and production from 7th December 1941 to accelerate late-war planes combined with operational pauses to get the IJAF and IJNAF over the difficult months where a generation of planes is being skipped. In some games I've withdrawn the Japanese airforce from the front lines for months at a time in order to get through a period of decreased airplane production as I'm skipping a generation of planes via research. Do that twice during the war and plan your research and production from Day 1 with efficiency of supply and HI utilisation in mind and you can get very useful planes in early-1944 and paradigm-shifting planes in early 45 ( assuming PDU on etc obviously ). I believe that with proper planning the increased supply usage in the present is amortised by the decreased cost in supplies over time in the future due to decreased losses. Especially as an increased plane performance improves pilot survival rates, increases enemy losses and generally decreases losses in the future with consequent supply savings.

quote:

So, in the short term it looks ruinously expensive, over the course of a 5 year war when you factor in decreased Japanese aerial losses, increased Allied aerial losses and a slowing in the rate of Allied advance I think it isn't that expensive at all. This sort of interesting what if is one of the reasons to play the game. Maybe I'm right, maybe I'm wrong. From my experience in game meeting mid-1943 Allied fighters with mid-1944 Japanese fighters is worth the cost and can delay the Allies long enough to bring the 1945 generation of planes into action. Obviously though, for Japan you've got to take into account SR ratings and so there is still a place for slightly inferior planes with SR1 or 2 to thicken low level CAP and which can be produced from an early stage allowing you to build a huge pool over time through lengthy periods of low to moderate level production.

quote:

Patsy,
If you can hold the Allies back from strategic bombing range into mid-44 and bring this plane into action at that point in time then, prior to kamikaze activation, you have a bomber which can bomb Allied forming up bases and, after kamikaze activation, you've got a plane which can attrit the Allied navy at a favourable ratio for Japan and slow the pace of their advances by providing a meaningful threat to naval TFs in areas which would have previously been safe. Whenever I've gotten them I tend to commit all of my Patsy to Kamikaze duties. With a 15% hit rate (less vs warships, more vs merchants) I can expect to have 45 hits on Allied naval ships from a production of 300 Patsy per month. From an autovictory point of view I expect that Patsys will cause better than a 1:1 exchange ratio, which is far more than the 2:1 I need to make it worth my while and more effective than building 600 D5Ys which will complicate Allied SLOC security requirements less and secure fewer than 45 hits per month, on average.

Obviously strategic bombing impacts on this but, really, once that enters the fray Japan has already fallen off the cliff edge and it is just a matter of how quickly and messily you hit the rocks below.

Bottom line though, you can't get them early enough to matter without planning from it from Day 1 and making massive sacrifices to get them. Those sacrifices necessitate strategic compromises which I've never seen implemented cohesively in an AAR but which I've found to be worth the cost. YMMV of course and that's one of the nice things about the game. There are MANY different approaches and many of these approaches are valid. It all depends on how well the approach you take fits into your grand strategic objective and how it is suited vs the particular opponent you play. Aim to get the super-planes into action in mid-44 but collapse in late-43 and you'll never get to see them in action . That tends to be the most common scenario played out in AARs from what I can see.

quote:

True, but starting on Dec 7th doesn't give you any inherent advantage in pushing the deployment date of the airframe forward.

quote:

It's different of course if you capitalize on the upgrade chain to bring late war airframes forward but that doesn't apply here.

quote:

Withdrawing the Japanese air force is one solution to the mid-war airplane shift, but it's contingent upon having an opponent that won't capitalize on it or isn't in a position to do so.

quote:

I don't really see the Pasty's value in attacking ground targets much

quote:

but the G3M3 can do that

quote:


Why? I don't remember it being outruled or ruled in one way or the other.

quote:

It is contingent upon the opponent and how you've shaped the battlefield. Also, it depends on the cost you are willing to pay. E.g in late 42 to early 43 many Japanese players are frittering away planes over Burma defending multiple bases and taking attritional losses at a ratio that serves to increase the experience delta in favour of the Allied air forces. This defence of these bases and resource points usually ends up with the resource points destroyed and several hundred IJAF and IJNAF fighters destroyed. What I've done in similar situations is simply withdraw the air force, push AAA forward and let the resources be destroyed while the AAA attrits the Allied air forces. The end result is that the resources are lost a little earlier, at which time the Allied player using begins bombing the ground forces continuing their own attritional bomber losses to AAA, they lose the opportunity to increase the A2A experience delta in their favour and the IJAF and IJNAF are preserved. Of course I take the opportunity to mix in some CAP/LRCAP traps by concentrating the IJAF and IJNAF from time to time and inflict disproportionate losses occasionally while preserving the IJAF and IJNAF to deploy en masse ( rested, with high availability levels and with high experience levels - because the pilots have been training this whole time ) to resist the Allies at the crucial point and time.

quote:


I have used the Patsy very successfully in massed night raids on B-29 bases. This avoids daytime CAP.

quote:

Let's assume the G3M has a range of 20 hexes on an airfield strike mission and the Patsy has a range of 36 hexes on an airfield strike mission. These figures should be in the ballpark. From any given base the G3M can imperil an area with a diameter of 40 hexes. The Patsy is a threat to an area with a diameter of 72 hexes. Even if we assume the Allies are only based along a single axis ( which certainly isn't true if you have prepared bypassed bases for this 1945 eventuality throughout 1942 and 1943 --- long-term planning again ) that's another 16 hexes of bases along which they've got to base daytime CAP, just in case.

quote:

Of course all of the above only worked some of the time and it always resulted in very high Japanese losses but by 1944 and 1945 the goal is simply to survive to January 1946 and, ideally, to do so by trading VPs at such a ratio that the Allies cannot achieve 2:1 by January 1946. The Japanese are never going to win and no-one who plays the Japanese side should ever expect that. You can however, play skillfully on the road to as small a defeat as possible as late as possible. That's the only realistic goal, IMO ( especially since a game abandoned by an Allied player who resigns can be picked up by another ).