Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121


1. Dive bombers.
As far as I can see no divebomber chutai, sentai or daitai can upgrade to anything other than a divebomber. In essence this means that D3As upgrade only to D4 Judys. Ki-51 Sonias can only upgrade to Vals or Judys. In essence this means that we should upgrade the navy planes first and then upgrade all the army dive-bomber suadrons to the latest model navy divebomber. This will give us a large reserve of divebombers which can be used to replenish carrier airgroups after carrier battles.

REPLY: Aside from some players preferring it this way, it is the game code default assumption. However, I have some ability to influence this: you DO have Ki-51 Sentai able to upgrade to the Kate - for example. Once they do - if they do - they can never go back to dive bomber units again. MOST of your Ki-51s will upgrade to the D3 or D4. Similarly, your Ki-36 is technically a bomber - and not all units have the same upgrade path. Picking the Ki-36 upgrade paths carefully you may end up with recon planes, horizontal bombers, torpedo bombers or dive bombers.

(in reply to Nemo121)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

2. Single-engined torpedo bombers.
All single-engined torpedo bomber squadrons are under IJN control so apart from upgrading to the most current type ( apart from training kokutai which can use the B4 Jean until it is used up) I see no real choices to make here EXCEPT for the choice of whether or not to upgrade to the B5N2-Q ASW variant... I would argue that this shouldn't be done as the B5N2-Qs range of 2 hexes for ASW work is abysmal ( maximum ASW range is half of effective range) and we would be far better served by using the squadrons as ready replacements for carrier torpedo-bomber losses - which are likely to be extremely heavy, especially once VT-fused shells enter the picture. In addition I think there are so many level-bomber squadrons out there that we could easily get the same number of ASW planes ( each having greater range and more depth charges) with a much smaller relative apportionment of the level bomber force. So, all in all it makes no sense to apportion a significant portion of a rare and valuable commodity ( planes which can swap into CV airgroups) when one can do the job better with a relatively smaller portion of a common and less valuable commodity ( a twin-engined bomber daitai).

P.s. Ki-49Q durability in RHS EOS is wrong. It is 10. It should be 20.

Some of your Army Sentai in EOS will upgrade to Kate. I recommend it. Then stay on that upgrade path to ever better levels of torpedo bombers. The Army may be able to be one level below the navy in General - but having a find land based strike unit may be useful here or there - so it isn't out of bounds to ask to upgrade early.

The Ki-49Q has a durability of 20 in x.17 - which I am trying to complete. Darned Russian's - all screwed up - and all I can do is move in the right direction. Still - I do what I can. Seems no one gave them air support squads related to their units!

IRL the Kate was obsolete and a fine adaption to ASW. In WITP we don't get to convert planes - which is a mistake (I allow in when I design a game). So you are right - here we upgrade Kates to better torpedo bombers. We do have Ki-49 Q and the G4 Q for that purpose. These are almost identical - radar - MAD - same normal loadout - but one is more durable and better armed and the other has more range.

(in reply to Nemo121)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

3. Twin-engined army bombers.
Until the Ki-49 appears on the scene in August 1942 all Army bombers are unarmoured with no clear winner in which is most useful.

The Ki-36 is actually a quite useful strategic bomber over China... resource hits are a function of number of bombs dropped and not their weight/destructive potential.
The Ki-48 auto-upgrades to the Ki-45 Nick, a useful plane, and is arguably on a par with the Ki-21 when attacking land targets by virtue of its 8 x 50 Kg bombs which guarantee significantly more hits per bomber sortie, although with less destruction per hit. Obviously, versus ships, the Ki-48 is much inferior as its bombs do not penetrate.
The Ki-21 Sally has excellent range and auto-upgrades to the Ki-67 in May 1944.

So, from the point of view of what to do with the production of Ki-36s ( 17 per month), Ki-48s ( 30 per month) and Ki-21s ( 30 per month) I suggest just leaving them be until September 42 at which time the Ki-36 can be changed to something else while the Ki-48 and 21 are turned off to await auto-upgrades.


First - there are enough Ki-49s to put a few into IMMEDIATE service by upgrading. In particular, they make fine recon planes (in detachments of 3) and a squadron of 12 is well worth having for certian missions.

Second - the Ki-36 is junk. Kill it by upgrading ASAP. It is a remarkable plane - you can replace it with Ki-51s and get into the dive bomber path, with Ki-30/32s and get into the horizontal bomber path, or with recon planes. All of which are more useful - and more survivable - than the Ki-36 itself. I don't ever retain it even for the strange rear area Korean Command and Central Command units.

Third: Ki-51 has too small a bomb load. Replace ASAP - either with a Kate or a Val. It may be possible to go other ways (if you change a plane in a unit, a different set of options opens up - and code picks it - it is not always the same - so watch).

Fourth: The Ki-32/30 is too small a bomb load. Upgrade to Ki-48/21 ASAP. Or directly to a naval bomber if available.

Fifth: Retain Ki-48 only because it is better than a Ki-32/30. As soon as possible replace it with Ki-21.

Sixth: Ki-21 is your workhorse. Not because it is great - but because it is better than anything else around until the Ki--49 or to the extent you get Navy bombers. So always upgrade to it until you can finally get all Ki-21 or better in the fleet. THEN replace the Ki-21s with better.

Seventh: Note I expect to transfer a few G3 and G4 to Army service IMMEDIATELY. Case by case discussion. Also a few Kates and Vals. Also some recon planes and Zeros.


< Message edited by el cid again -- 10/31/2006 10:09:59 AM >

(in reply to Nemo121)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121


So, from the point of view of what to do with the production of Ki-36s ( 17 per month), Ki-48s ( 30 per month) and Ki-21s ( 30 per month) I suggest just leaving them be until September 42 at which time the Ki-36 can be changed to something else while the Ki-48 and 21 are turned off to await auto-upgrades.


If I only knew how to swear properly in Japanese!

OK - first principles:

New production is limited. Number of machines produced determines the rate at which units can upgrade. It is NEVER smart to focus on 4 Engine planes (even if doing the US economy) at a time you have lots of obsolescent planes to upgrade in field units. You want to produce Ki-48 and Ki-21 as replacements for units that have not upgraded as long as you must - or those units literally go to zero; You want to produce Ki-49 to upgrade Ki-32/30, Ki-48 and Ki-21 units to BECAUSE you get a lot more planes a lot faster. The idea is this: the sooner you get rid of 100% of Ki-36, Ki-51, Ki-32/30, Ki-48 and Ki-21 (in that order), the better off you are. ANYTHING that promotes that is good; ANYTHING that delays that - even one month - is bad.

For special missions, a limited number of fancy planes may be justified. But I cannot wait for the Me-264 for the Army to have long range planes. I will transfer to recon units some long range bombers - and probably selected bomber units as well. I will also transfer some Zeros - on an ongoing basis - so that the Army can perform some long range escort. Once the Recon Judy is out - it is amazing for a 1E plane - outranging the outstanding Ki-46 2E of the Army - I will transfer them over as well. And because a Recon Kate is better than a Ki-15 - to the extent you have not upgraded Ki-15s to Ki-46s I will outfit those units with Recon Kates.

Now the Me is a wonderful plane. And I regard it mainly as an Army plane. Even so- a few Navy units can upgrade to use it - and I will want to have some for them. But the Me has two hidden costs you may not be considering.

1) It costs you 4 times as much as a 1 Engine plane;

2) IT operates at such great ranges that, combined with higher attrition rates for Japanese planes in general, it is very likely to result in a severe loss rate. I note that since we extended plane ranges statistics say Japan is losing the operational attrition ratio much worse than before. Flying FEWER planes to MORE range can only exaserbate this issue: the ONLY mitigator is to range restrict the planes - which I don't think is your operational mould. Too much focus on ultra long range planes with 4 engines is going to be a net loser for Japan. Better to let 2 Engine planes do the mission if they can - and for two reasons: you get twice as many - it is harder to lose two planes than one. I am particularly concerned about keeping less effective planes in service so you can have a single super plane: real forces are teams - and no one plane is the answer - ever.

(in reply to Nemo121)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Once it comes along I plan to convert any Japanese Army Bomber Daitai/Chutai not currently flying Bettys or Nells to the Me-264. To put it into perspective building 115 Me-264s per month ( which seems like a massive investment of HI) consumes in one 30 day month only a bit over 10,500 HI. This is the exact same HI cost as is taken up in that month by a single Taiho class CV. Or to put it another way, if Japan were to suspend the CVs and BBs in its shipbuilding programme and begin building 4-engined bombers on Day 1 it could produce 830 Me-264s per month for the same cost per month as the halted BBs and CVs/CVLs. Not that I'm suggesting we do that, just illustrating that while efficiency is an argument the Me-264s really aren't that inefficient especially since 115 Me-264s are likely to cause more grief in one month than a single CV.

REPLY: You do like statistics! Are you aware that a nominal building capacity of 115 planes per months will NEVER (not once in a game) give you 115 planes in a single month? Are you aware that such a program would require 460 engines per month? There is no possibility of affording such an engine production for a unique engine (which I like - because it probably would be a unique engine). Japan needs - by late 1942 - well over a thousand engines per month of the Ishkawajima type - and large numbers of Hitachi and Nakajima engines - and it is NEVER able to produce them all - even in theoretical plant capacity (never mind that plant capacity does not produce that many every month).
We can not afford such an effort. I would not consider less than 40 engines per month. I would regard 80 or 160 as reasonable (corresponding to 20 or 40 planes per month). And by German standards - that is fantastic. Germany never came close to having a real bomber program - but its dream was to build a whole 60 - not 60 per month - but 60 - Me-264s.

Remember the principle of diminishing returns: the first Me-264s may have fantastic applications because of things no other plane can do. But as the number increases, they become relatively less useful. The cost (you are not building 4 fighters for every last one) in planes not built - and functions not performed - will at some point become cost prohibitive. Do some analysis of those effects.

(in reply to Nemo121)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121


Other than that the auto-upgrades take care of the rest. The Bettys upgrade to G7Ms or P1Y1 Frances while the Ki-21 upgrades to the Ki-67 Peggy. All have their places... The only thing I think is non-negotiable is producing a large force of Me-264s. The cost is of such a force is not that high when one looks at the cost of other things in the economy.

REPLY: Not my style. I micromanage. Various things go wrong - operationally - economically. I taylor the economy every day. Maybe not much - but always some. Move it towards what you need NOW - not what you thought you would need long ago - or what some program set before the game began. Much more efficient.

4. Recon Planes.
Upgrade to the latest available. Simple, no real choices to make here.

REPLY: Lots of choices. In general, I prefer range. If possible, a carrier plane with range. Any problem with that?


5. Transports.
A mix of Tabbys ( good range with high payload) and Liz ( 40% more cost than a Tina but over four times the payload) seems to be the right mix here. Fortunately this seems to cover every squadron I've looked at in RHS.

REPLY: First- downgrade the civil DC-3s to junk transports. Then upgrade junk military units to DC-3s.
Second - same for Type LO.
Third - upgrade the First Raiding Sentai directly to the Ki-57. It is more survivable and maybe should NEVER change.
Fourth - Convert military flying boats to military patrol planes - and use the freed up flying boat transports as replacements for the civil DNKKK flying boat unit - no need to produce any.
Fifth - Upgrade as production permits along the path LO - Ki57 - L2 - G5 (retaining Tina until Ki-77 or G5 replace it).
When this results in extra LO or Ki-57 upgrade civil transports to them.




6.Floatplanes etc.
Float fighters - just go with the best available at the time. The Pete is almost utterly useless and just serves to get pilots killed IMO. I beach them and save the pilots for Rufes.

REPLY: Surely you jest? I see Petes as fine float fighters. But as an AAW theorist, perhaps I should explain:
ANY air opposition at all - just one or two Petes counts in WITP - means you reduce the effectiveness rolls for ALL attacking bombers in a tactical situation. Add to that Petes sometimes shoot things down. And their pilots get practice.

MY priority: E8 is useless: upgrade ALL E8 to PETES !! Except maybe training units.


Float Planes. Either the Jake or Alf. I think that the extra range and larger number of ( albeit smaller) bombs makes the Alf the better plane but it is your choice as it is a purely navy plane.
Patrol Planes... Just go with the most modern. A nice big fleet of transport Mavises would be nice. They are worth their weight in gold IMO.


REPLY: Obvously you are an American in disguise. Too expensive. Not only directly, but in planes not built. I prefer a flying boat that can patrol OR transport - so only the civil transport unit retains these. IF we have lots of capacity we might upgrade to Emily transports for that unit. But mostly we use the regular versions of these planes, or long range land transports.

(in reply to Nemo121)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121


7. Fighters.
Now it gets a bit contentious. From previous discussions I think we are both agreed on the need to build up a sizable pool of Ki-43 IIs and A6M2 before they auto-upgrade, the first to act as Kamikazes, the latter to at as long-range escorts so as to allow bombers to launch in 1943/44 etc.


REPLY: Boy did you read that wrong! I never use - nor will allow - the use of ANY Kamikazes. Not on moral grounds - but on operational grounds. Again - I am an AAW guy - and this is a wasteful use of resources. IRL it has other problems - notably on morale.

Anyway - the Me-109 is NOT available at first - so you uprade to the Ki-43I or Zero (for interceptor/escort duty).
The Me-109 replaces the Ki-43 I in that role - and then the Ki-44 II - and finally the Ki-44 III - which the Navy ALSO will use for interceptor duty.

I see the IJA upgrade path as being Me-109 to Ki-44II to Ki-44 III. Why on earth they "upgrade" the Ki-44 III to a substantially inferior plane in February 45 ( A7M2 - slower, less manoeuvrable, smaller rate of climb and lower overall ceiling) is beyond me.


Well - it isn't slower for one thing. So get the facts strait. And it has more range. And it carries a very useful bomb load - which the Ki-44III does not. So it is arguable. You might want to bomb something, no? [The A7 is actually 2mph faster in the critical speed rating - cruising speed: the one that matters for air air combat intercepts in WITP calculations]

(in reply to Nemo121)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

How is production going to be run??
If a shipyard is to be expanded who decides??
What about the movement of supplies/resources/oil??

Movement of supplies by land is not under player control - but AI control. Movement at sea is under player control -
and theoretically should be army - but more practically should be navy - since it has more escort assets. We are likely to divide it by area - and so the Army may control shipping in the Sea of Japan - the Yellow Sea - the East China Sea - maybe the South China Sea - all of which it can patrol from land based air bases reasonably well. Not decided.


Nemo,
Since you are IJA, do you have to request of Cid the shipping needed to invade India and the follow up of supplies and such??

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Sid,

FWIW I propose that the best way to divide things up is obviously to split things by theatre, bargain for the forces required and then each run an individual theatre. This should minimise the amount of friction ( using the Clausewitzian meaning of the word) which could occur... and would occur if we were reliant on the other making exactly the right orders for co-located units.

REPLY: Concur in detail. Read my vom Krieg in the original German und ich verstehen!


As I am commanding the IJA my priorities will be DEI, India, Phillipines, China, Soviet Union and Australia in that order. I know you will quibble with those priorities, especially putting India first, but I think neutralising this front is crucial to long-term success. I see your job in the IJN as the following:


REPLY: You have a genius for understatement.

India is not an option. I explained to you the sim is not valid if we take all of India. The Allies cannot base themselves and hit us with bombers as they really could. The economic model also will give us too much supply.
It isn't valid and it isn't fair and I won't do it. Nothing is off limits to attack - but conquest is a different story.

Wholly aside from those first principles - which cannot be fixed short of doing a new game -
India should not be an option in the sense of All of India. Too many troops required too far from our center of gravity. It defeats our primary assets: a large army and interior lines - in one task! We do not have the bases - and support units (e.g. AAA) to defend bases - in India - Japan- the SRA - and everywhere else we need them.
To attempt this is to spread too thin - and be ineffective EVERYWHERE. Again - not an option - even if it were an option - which thank goodness on this map it is not.

There is one other consideration - if the above two were not already fatal (which they are):
shipping. I cannot cover an invasion of India and invade Hawaii at the same time. And the absolute amount of shipping required is simply not available under any reasonable allocation system. Invasion transports may be lost - so they cannot be drawn from ships that will be needed to run the economy. And invasions of Malaya, the Philippines, DEI, Aleutians and Hawaii do not leave any invasion shipping at all - probably we can't do all these tasks well and have to phase them. And India needs as many ships again. You might get the tonnage if you committed big ships - but it is not IJA doctrine to do that - nor mine. LITTLE ships do invasion duty. Big ships do not load/unload efficiently anyway, and they are way too important for economic duty to risk losing. Winners of WITP need to regard AKs highly - they are not pawns but the real workhorses of logistics.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 10/31/2006 12:24:19 PM >

(in reply to Nemo121)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Sid,
I see your job in the IJN as the following:

1. Seize the Aleutians at all costs. It is the best route into Japan in-game.

REPLY: And IRL. It is why Japan invaded. I don't like it. But it may be foolish to ignore. Once they have major bases it is impossible.

2. Seize PH and other important Pacific holdings so as to create a north-south line from the Aleutians, through Hawaii to Palmyra/Washington etc.

REPLY: Not a bad idea - and one Yamamoto thought of on 10 Dec 1941 - Tokyo time (9 Dec our time). Changes the nature of the naval war. They likely will try to retake Hawaii. We can afford to lose it. And it is a long way from anything that matters to us. Also - Hawaii has half the oil stores of the entire Empire!

3. Isolate Australia by taking Rabaul, Fiji, Port Moresby, New Zealand.


REPLY: Not a bad idea - and one the Japanese thought of and attempted to execute.

Essentially I see the navy job as being to keep the Americans far away and prevent them from bringing their strength to bear in Australia... I know about the shipping channels but they can be overcome by the Japanese simply by taking Exmouth at 11,86. I think this is a good argument for these shipping channels terminating "behind" Australia so that they cannot be reached by Japanese bombers unless these bombers are on the southern coast of Australia. If you are worried about the length of transit not being correct just put in a few doglegs and that should sort it out. Unfortunately the obvious counter to the shipping channel ending at 1,95 is to take Exmouth.\


REPLY: OK - time here to repeat the primary house rule of El Cid - recommended for all players in all games:

IF you don't think a real commander would do it IRL - or if you don't think an option to do that would exist IRL - don't do it. In Level 6 Exmouth is indeed not too far from the West Map Edge (Indian Ocean) Entry Point: but you are then range restricted to the distance to the opening itself. That means ships are not at risk for long - just about two hexes of their transit - which may or may not be at night. Not to mention I never planned to take Austraila that far West for use as a base. Not to mention I NEVER will build a base in NORTHERN Austraila that the Allies can use (when captured) to bomb Java. The Indian Ocean Entry Point represents many points over thousands of miles of sea. It is where it is so we get transit times right - not to focus attacks! It is on the map edge - and this area is LOGISTICAL in focus - not OPERATIONAL. I will never run major sustained ops near the map edge. While that is not the same thing as saying I will never attack - it is saying I am playing by the spirit of my own rules. I want the Allies to have to proove their supplies and reinforcements arrive over a contested sea - but not to be wholly excluded from the map.

To that add that you are missing the SE Pacific entry point - they can enter near Tahati and go to the South - and avoid me pretty must altogether. Which is still a victory: longer supply lines dramatically reduce throughput.




< Message edited by el cid again -- 10/31/2006 11:22:43 AM >

(in reply to Nemo121)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Sid,

China:
I will simply clean out the partisans from behind the lines, make a slight strategic withdrawal from Ichang and bomb their resources. Combined with the pressure on India this should bring about a Chinese collapse. They may be quite frisky for the first few months but after about 3 months ( I've done the calculations based on some tests) I think Chinese resistance will collapse and we can push them back. It will be costly to repair the resources etc BUT bombing them will make the job of taking China so much easier that I think it is worth it.

quote:

Not to mention I NEVER will build a base in NORTHERN Austraila that the Allies can use (when captured) to bomb Java.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Cid,

I think that your points on the planes are, generally, good but there are a few flaws:


REPLY: And one omission: I should have said your opposition to the ASW Kate was flawed - because it is the ONLY CARRIER ASW plane! And YOU have ASW carriers which use it in EOS (vice the Ki-76 in other scenarios). It has MAD and you WANT this plane - trust me.

1. All of this upgrading etc costs supplies... supplies you want us not to waste and which I'm trying to conserve by delaying upgrading until September 42 when we can do a single upgrade of Ki-36s ( and others) instead of two upgrades ( costing twice as much supply).




2. If we have planes in the pool then we might as well use them up so long as we can find niches in which they can survive and achieve goals.

REPLY: You are not considering pilot costs. Nor the efficiency of fewer types. Different types are not nearly as easy to manage. Even so, there are niches: I mentioned training units - which if used as such (and not doing so is gamey - and probably unwise for pilot skill reasons) are both survivable and have no need for line planes. I usually use civil air transport the same way briefly - downgrade to Ki-34s and never use them in combat - UNTIL I have more better transports than I can use. [This was historical practice on both sides early war].


3. The strategic strike model focuses on number of bombs dropped, not their weight such that planes carrying many bombs are more effective than planes carrying fewer but heavier bombs.

REPLY: To the extent that is so, it is gamey to exploit it. The Ki-36 carries the smallest bombs in the game - 5 of them. If you are not attacking a light target - it is not permitted under the RHS general house rule: a real commander would not use it as a strategic bomber (your term). We don't do things like that. I don't think this is as so as you think it is - I tampered with the bombs. In RHS these tiny bombs have very little value except against soft targets. And the value 9 is incorrect: it is only 5. [verified]


E.g. The Ki-32 carries 9 bombs and is thus three times as effective at resource attacks as the Ki-21. Sure the Ki-21 has more range and more durability BUT over China there are more than enough bases within 6 ( or even 8 hexes) to make the Ki-32 ( of which we have about 500, including the pools) a really viable bomber for the anti-resource campaign. Obviously we should expand production of the Ki-21 BUT we shouldn't do so and think it is the answer to all our problems. The Ki48, 32 and 36 all have excellent niche roles, albeit mostly over China.


4. Ki-36 and Ki-51 being junk.I have 93 Ki 36s in the pool and 60 Ki-51s. I won't upgrade from them to Kates and Vals ( which are rare) until the Ki-36s and Ki-51s are used up.

REPLY: I want priority for naval bombers. But I want an IJA dangerous to ships: here is the deal: I will upgrade these planes when I think I have naval bombers to spare for them. I also want IJA pilots to survive. You have over 40% of our airpower - and I don't want you to run out of pilots as soon as I will.

I am just arguing that you need to be open to the benefits of the older planes in China and other subsidiary theatres in the first few months while production of the necessary replacements is ramped up.

REPLY: We must use some planes (notably Ki-27) far longer than I like. I want you to optimize to minimize that time.


6. As regards the Me-264... I think your maths as regards comparing the Me-264 to a Ki-21 is flawed. A single Me-264 costs 90 HI ( 4 engines + 1 airframe x 18 HI ). A single twin-engined plane costs 54 HI ( 2 engines + 1 airframe x 18 HI). So the Me-264 only costs 66% more than a Ki-21. It doesn't mean that one should immediately stop the Ki-21 obviously though but it does mean that the Me-264 isn't quite as expensive, relatively speaking, as you seem to believe.

REPLY: Per the manual, your math is flawed. It says the ONLY cost of an aircraft is engines. Engines indeed cost 18 HI each. Airframes cost 18, 36 or 72 HI - period. No airframe cost. So it say.


Your analysis of Me-264 production vs fighters is flawed. A fighter costs 36 HI ( 18 for the engine, 18 for the airframe) so a single Me 264 costs the same as 2.5 fighters, not 4. As to the 115 planes per month. That was illustrative of the relative cost of an Me-264 vs a CV so as to provide context for the discussion. It wasn't intended to justify production of 120 per month ;).

REPLY: I would prefer your analysis to be correct - and I disagree with the Matrix system. They refused to use the system I gave them when WITP was proposed - or they used it and grossly simplified it. They ignore lots of costs in the aircraft cycle. Even so - a full blown system would make the ratio WORSE than 4:1!



8. Transports.
Looks like we are in substantial agreement as re: focussing on a mix of L2s and G5s for the army... I understand what you are saying about using Mavis and Emilys flying boats as extempore transports so as to maintain the maximum recon capability BUT there is a 42 plane flying boat unit. Surely that could be equipped with the transport version as it is massive overkill for a patrol unit. As to all the other units, sure, maximise your patrol capability. That makes sense.


REPLY: Note in RHS a TRANSPORT FLYING BOAT DOES have recon capability. What it lacks is armament. [Curiously - they sometimes depth charge submarines! So do wholly unarmed recon planes! Some code. These may be rationialized as improvised attacks.] The transport flying boats actually are unique: they may deliver troops or supplies to an undeveloped airfield! They have great range as well. If they were only cheaper - or if I only had more airborne troops...

9. Floatplane fighters...
Well every time you lose a Pete you lose a 70 Exp pilot... Its your navy you can do with it what you wish... I prefer to risk a bit of minor damage to a few DDs than continue to lose my precious pilots in this way. You draw the line in a different place, that's fine. it is your navy after all.

REPLY: DDs are not pawns for Japan. They are the minimum "major warship" for cause. And who says I am protecting DDs? I am protecting capital ships, transports laden with IJA troops, even aircraft carriers: stuff like that.


10. Kamikazes.
LOL! So under no circumstances would you use kamis EVEN in the face of uebercap where your only chance of getting a hit was to sneak a few Oscar IIs in above their CAP ceiling and dive down into their elevators?

REPLY: Well - that was Adm Yamamoto's position. It was not an option while he lived. Perhaps AFTER I am killed we can consider it! [I AM Adm Yamamoto - so we can tell.]


Well, in that case I think we might see the army becoming the kamikaze wing of Imperial Japan in 1944 ;). I love kamis... Obviously I prefer conventional attacks so long as they produce results. Once they stop producing acceptable results though I will switch over to kamis.

REPLY: I posted that somewhere already. But it is foolish use of pilots and planes (you realize they don't come back, right?).


11. Fighters.

Ok I'm quoting from V6.15 ( latest version I have). The Ki-44 III is listed as having a top speed of 394. The A7M2 is listed as having a top speed of 390. Sure the A7M2 has a 2 mph advantage in cruise speed but surely it would make more sense to base air intercepts on top speed as I would imagine most planes trying to intercept another plane making for a precious CV would use top speed for the intercept.

REPLY: Oddly - code considers cruise speed a factor. And possibly rightly so: a flight being intercepted may not know it is being intercepted, so it is at cruise speed. The faster that is, the less likely it is to be intercepted. I can't read the code - I only know I was told (by Mike Wood I think) it matters. I am guessing how.


Maybe you can explain the A2A model a bit more as I always thought top speed was the most important thing. Now you seem to be saying it is cruising speed ( which seems a bit unlikely to me).


REPLY: Well - I posted just that - and got corrected (partially).

Ground combat issues:



13. Aleutians.
Ok, we agree on this.

REPLY: Except YOU should do it! Northern Command is YOUR flank IMHO. And it gives your naval planes a job. And you love strategic bombing - from the North you can do it.


14. Pearl.
It appears we agree here. The only question is whether you charge into the guns on December 11th or go for the more gradual approach of taking Hilo and Kona and blockading, running down supplies and the defending coastal defences with concentrated bomber raids before landing sometime in February or March.

REPLY: It is necessary to have all nearby air bases and ports. Too many problems if you don't.


15. Oz.

quote:

Not to mention I NEVER will build a base in NORTHERN Austraila that the Allies can use (when captured) to bomb Java.

I think this is short-sighted. The Allies will be able to build these bases up with their engineers + bulldozers in almost no time when they take those bases.


REPLY: That is what Joe says. It is too bad - and a flaw. Doesen't matter - every week of production unmolested and shipping unmolested matters to us. It is unwise to build up bases for the enemy. This is my fundamental principle:
most of what we take that we don't need is NOT built up - we just hurt them retaking it - AFTER which they START to build things.


OTOH if we take some of these bases we can unleash our strategic bombers on their resources, repair shipyards and HI.


REPLY: We have the range. Bases are not a big problem. And the one thing we don't want is enemy bases in range of Java.

16. China.
The vital strategic goal of clearing the rail-lines can be achieved once Chinese troops begin to starve and troops begin returning from India


REPLY: You don't understand this. This is a fundamental priority. It grossly frees up shipping and it grossly messes up an enemy strategy focused on sinking transport ships. You can not achieve this soon enough. Soon enough would be about Dec 10, 1941 in my view. [Deliberate exaggeration - but you get the idea]

( minus the troops left there as a garrison force... not all that many troops since they aren't expected to hold India, just conduct a fighting retreat to Ceylon and the southern coastal ports and then be evacuated from there... while Me-264s bomb as many of the resources as possible.


Sid, I'll post an economic analysis later... I will assume a 50/50 split initially with aircraft production split 50/50 between us as totting up who was producing a given plane and using it would just be too much of a headache on a per turn basis.

REPLY: I start with a bigger air force. I get more additional air units. 50/50 is not going to work. I will send you the data (roughly - it is CHS era when I created it).




< Message edited by el cid again -- 11/3/2006 12:21:33 AM >

(in reply to Nemo121)

quote:

We must use some planes (notably Ki-27) far longer than I like. I want you to optimize to minimize that time.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Sid,

1. ASW Kates... Ok, good point. In any case it is a navy choice to make.

Does this mean you do not want to run ARMY ASW forces? That you want me to run Grand Escort Command? EOS assumes this formation dates to the start of the war - and that it is allocated closer to adequate resources. It is actually (in USN and RN theory) an OFFENSIVE naval command - but most people think it is defensive. This command HUNTS enemy submarines.

2. Training etc. Precisely, once the Ki-36s etc have fulfilled their niche role ( strategic bombing over China)

REPLY: This is not permitted. I pointed out above it violates the primary house rule: real commanders would not use it as a strategic bomber - so we cannot. Further - I tried to say it won't be as effective as other bombers would be. I am skeptical of the whole idea of "strategic bombers" in China. But if you are going to try it might it be germane to point out we have almost no plane the Chinese CAN shoot down often EXCEPT the Ki-36? Moot: we can't use it in that role. But still - I don't think we should use it in that role if we could. I do not see any niche role for the Ki-36 - but if you want one here it is: two units in your rear - Korea and Japan - fly tiny numbers of this plane. Central Command Unit and Korean Command Unit. They are supposed to patrol coasts - and they can do that. I always turn them into Kates.

I would intend to send them to one of the training centres

REPLY: That is allowed and possible - but rather silly given the vast numbers of much better Ki-32/30s we have - and are trying to get rid of EXCEPT for the training role. If you have enough in inventory - why not use the better plane? Seems a no brainer. And this better plane ended production before the war began. The Ki-36 is mostly a spotter plane - and also a trainer - and neither is allowed to us as such (with some wierd exceptions - CHS politics before my time - and now a tradition - you get these few training units - none of them with the Ki-36). It also is used by two "ground support units" - as TACTICAL bombers - and was almost utterly useless outside China in this role. Inside China it was marginal and hurt badly by the Chinese.


( I will be planning the invasions of DEI/Malaysia/Burma etc with a view to creating many of these training centres) where I will try to train them to as close as 99 Exp as possible.

REPLY: Joe says he spends MOST of his time training pilots. I disapprove and think we should ban the practice. This is not the way the game is to be played. Further - it breaks a major RHS technical mechanism:

we LOWERED experience ON PURPOSE as a device to be more realistic and to reduce air air combat losses. No designer ever intended the exp to be as high as it got anyway - and the entire WITP system and the RHS reforms of it are at risk if we get gamey in this way. You cannot evaluate a "typical" unit UNLESS its experience is based on its - experience! Further - history suggests that focus on excessive training DEFEATED JNAF - and a EOS "reform" is to REDUCE JNAF training by half - doubling output.

They are the sentai and chutai I plan to convert to the Me-264 first.

REPLY: Again - this is a total misapplication of the system. We are supposed to be commanders - not tactical trainers - doing what Joe says he does - which he also says is no fun. IRL you would not run a major offensive of this sort and NOT commit major squadrons - which then were used as training units - only to turn those into your first line units later. I am not interested in that sort of play - and I suggest we post this publically in some form. It may be the WITP traditions have become entirely too gamey for words and people have forgotten what simulation means?

I think we see eye to eye on this more than you initially thought. Use them in their niche and then send them for training while upgrading the line units ASAP.

REPLY: If you contemplate Ki-36 for ANY mission at all - we do not see eye to eye. It ought to be tied for first place on the way out - with E8N and Ki-34.

3. My bad re: bombload of the Ki-36. Was thinking of either the Ki-48 or Ki-32. As to using it as a strategic bomber... Well, once no enemy bases exist in range of my bombers elsewhere I will transfer those bombers to China.

REPLY: You begin with bombers in China. You should be transferring some more to China day one - out of Home Islands, Korea and Manchuria. You are not giving China sufficient priority. I want that RR in the shortest possible time. You can never reduce the problem of shipping losses too low: the less we need to move by sea - and the sooner we need to move it less by sea - the better. Further - this will cause Chinese industry to become a significant factor in our favor. With a bit of oil added we will have fantastic production in Manchuria, Korea, China, Indochina, Malaya - and maybe eventually Russia.

So pretty much every bomber type will be involved in the air war over China, almost all of them as strategic bombers. So, using the Ki-36 in a similar role is consistent.

REPLY: I am alarmed at your consistent focus on strategic bombing. This is not going to work for JAAF. It is not big enough and, attempting to do so with too many objectives, it will not be focused enough. Worse - such a many country target of my strategic bombing focus means you are not going to support land forces with full power - and then spend every EVERY possible sortee hunting submarines with whatever is not required. My secret of naval warfare is to kill subs early and often: the sooner you kill a sub the fewer successes it has.

I also have a strategic focus - and a Russian one. A "strategic target" is "a target it is important to sieze or control - not destroy." [Soviet Encyclopecia of Military Science] Strategic bombing has failed in every campaign in history - measured in cost benefit terms. The British statistical analyst for Bomber Command was Freeman Dyson - then a masters degree math guy - later a Cold War era physicist of some proportions. See Weapons and Hope for the extent of the failure: "It cost the Germans about a third as much to repair what we damaged as it cost us to inflict that damage." I witnessed strategic bombers with B-52s - a long way from a Ki-36 - and was most unimpressed. Finally - I much prefer to capture a resource center with less damage rather than more. Suggest re-evaluation of methods. For me air power is to be used operationally. [I regard strategic bombing as illegal as practiced in WWII - and both my parents were in USAAF in bombers - although neither believed in or participated in USAAF strategic bombing campaigns. My father ran tennis shoes and peanuts to Mikhalovitch in Yugoslavia - sort of like our bombers on supply runs - in B-17s. My mother trained gunners and bombradiers - and was a backup photo analyst in case the country got invaded.] USAAF didn't like using bombers to drop naval mines - yet did more damage to Japans economy in a few months of mining than all the rest. I think using bombers as strategic bombers is wasteful - and diverts them from effective military applications - sort of the opposite of classical bomber theory (the ONLY planes should be bombers, doing ANYTHING but strategic bombing is ALWAYS a waste of effort).

4.

quote:

We must use some planes (notably Ki-27) far longer than I like. I want you to optimize to minimize that time.

Agreed. In addition my focus is also on getting the most out of the planes I do have while I'm waiting to upgrade them. I also want an IJA which is capable of destroying enemy shipping. So, I think we see eye to eye on this in general except that, obviously, as IJA commander I'm also trying to see how to use what I have as best as possible while waiting to upgrade. Believe me though when I say that I won't be turning down any upgrades to Bettys ( or, perhaps a better way to simulate this would be the IJN giving the IJA its Nells as it upgrades to Bettys? I think that might be a realistic way for this to happen.... with one or two Betty Daitai for special targets... the Betty is a clearly superior plane in-game in RHS. I find it suffers far fewer losses in the early stages than the Nell.)

5. Hmm, everything I've ever read about production says the airframe cost is included also and that's certainly the view on the forum. I'll look into this and revert with the answer.


6. Transport flying boats. In RHS I have 3 airborne units at game start. 2 Yokosukas (1st and 3rd IIRC) and the IJA Raiding Bde. I'd be happy to give you one of the Yokosukas if you want in the initial period of operations. Later on I'd be prepared to consider giving the 2 Yokosukas if requested. Paras will give you an important additional string to your bow. Let me know if you want a Yokosuka.

REPLY: Boy are you misreading the game. I did the airborne - with Joe - his variation is in CHS. We spent too much time - got declassified documents - a new British book - and had lots of fun. See the prefix of each unit: IJA means ARMY - IJN means NAVY. Also - SNLF is a hint - it is navy. There are are three NAVY airborne units: Yokoska 1 and 3, and Sasebo 2nd. These are little guys. You have a different situation entirely.

The First Raiding "Brigade" is a binary unit - two battalions IRL - and thus the WITP code is right for it (it divides into two units too). BUT you get a good deal more: there is for example a Second Raiding Brigade, a Glider unit that is a heaver version of these guys, and some special stuff. The two "Brigades" will gain a bit in strength too (tricky we are). The special units include a "tank raiding unit" and a wierd native Formosa unit of commandoes - the only one in Japan. Both are two companies. You have the ONLY flying tank unit in the game! Finally - you should note that the GROUND elements of the Brigades are ALSO combat units in a sense.
They have the AAA unit and some other elements - and are meant to operate a forward airfield with some effect. These are called Raiding Base Units or some such thing (depending on how I translated it). Thus you get three big units (6 bn in 2 bn packages), two small units (2/3 bn sized - very specialized - one armor - one commando), and two ground support units (that support planes and other ground units, and have organic AAA - by JAAF standards). Note that ALL your airborne is NOT IJA - it is JAAF! Most of the reinforcements appear in 1943 or 1944.
This stuff is all very light by Western standards - its name is perfect - raiders - and it is not going to survive unsupported against anything much. It is very specialized stuff - and it is not quick to replace. It should not be used like US or UK airborne would be. Way too small, almost no heavy weapons, issues like that.



7. LOL! Admiral Yamamoto's death in-game is not guaranteed. Come 1944 I foresee the IJA demanding Yamamoto gets in an MSW and makes an unsupported raid on CONUSA


8. Aleutians. Excellent ! I thought you'd want this theatre... If you are willing to cede it then consider it accepted by the IJA. I do think you need to look at making at least some of the supply in Kodiak come from on-map resources though. The way it is modelled now it is a supply cow for the Allies 250/day and gives the Japanese ZERO supply or resources once they take it. They may not get 250 but surely they'd get something?

REPLY: This is treeless, barren grassland - full of bears - possibly the only source of supply! The biggest bears in the world - even bigger than in the rest of Alaska (which has the 2nd Biggest - Polar Bears - and 3rd Biggest - a variant of the Grizzly - as well). ALL you have there is canneries that shut down if the fleet - based in Oregon - retires or is sunk. What you gonna get resources from? It has SUPPLY POINTS rather than resources for this reason. Lots of food - no resources - ever - even for its owners. Capture it - you got a nice air base - and no supply. Plenty of supply to the North though. And resources. You can feed ANYTHING in the Mat Su Valley - so capture of these resources does NOT require a sink. [The vegtables in Alaska belong in a cartoon. They are the size of - what - small tables? Our losers would win in any fair in the world. Related to ultra long growing daylight.]


9. Pearl. Agreed. I'll be doing this in my current AAR. A few errors in TF orders have F'ed up my plans and so it will be messier than I had wished but it will be attempted in that game.


10. Not building up.... Hmm, but not building it up lessens our ability to FLY the bombers which will do much of the hurting... I think this is a flaw.

REPLY: OK - first - near the DEI not building up is an extra layer of protection - delaying the day of uber bombing raids. Elcewhere - you may build selected points - but we have VERY FEW units to operate such points - so we will get VERY FEW bases - and we better worry about them being used in reverse when they come back. For example, you don't want to build a base in range of Japan - make em build their own. Costs us MORE than them anyway - don't give it em free.



11. Division of resources for plane production... Ok, we can talk. If 50/50 doesn't work for the air force you may need to look at cutting shipbuilding more or, probably better, expanding HI even more ( which would be my choice).


REPLY: Just sent spreadsheets for CVO air forces. Not much different in EOS except a few carriers - CVS show up as CVL - stuff like that.


A key question which occurs to me is this:
How many bettys and A6M2s would you like to be producing in February or March 42? To give me some idea of what your re-equipping goals are.

quote:

Moot: we can't use it in that role.

quote:

IRL you would not run a major offensive of this sort and NOT commit major squadrons - which then were used as training units - only to turn those into your first line units later.

quote:

If you contemplate Ki-36 for ANY mission at all - we do not see eye to eye. It ought to be tied for first place on the way out

quote:

I am alarmed at your consistent focus on strategic bombing.