Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

I've had several single ship pickets hit. I know it's a frustrating tactic at times, but would TFs of two ships be much different in this case? I think what is frustrating John is more that he has then to spread attacks thus limiting the number of ships that could be hit before they were out of range. (If I am wrong please correct me John).

Japan, of course, always has the OPTION to split the KB into six separate 1-carrier TFs and go in multiple directions to close range on many fleeing TFs.

Oh, wait. They NEVER do that. Hmm . . .

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

Single Ship TF - This is a gamey thing to do after the first month of the war, IMO. The AI will not launch air strikes against these targets. If they are formed as a result of combat by the AI, then its fine. But to do so knowing the AI will ignore them is another matter. I would ask Dan for a HR forbidding this. This would include picket TF, too.

Bold part not true. See my AAR for evidence.

What obligation does either player have to place his own assets (emphasis on HIS OWN) in optimal structures to be destroyed? What CO would order his forces to form large, easily-attacked formations if he had the option not to? If the AI doesn't attack single-ship TFs as readily as multi-ship TFs, and I agree it does not although it sometimes does, how does that not reflect history as so many clamor for around here? Sending out one Kate with one Zero to get an xAK looks nice on a game map, but in real life you're risking losing two planes with pretty high certainty in a WWII AA environment. Merchants have AA. WWII air operations depended on mass attacks for penetration, much more so than today.

I invite interested readers to look up Allied convoy tactics when hit by wolfpacks in the Atlantic. Yep. Scatter! Single-ship targetting. Lose a few to save the whole. Force the enemy to multiple decisions on force allocation; buy time to evade and escape.

What CR ACTUALLY did I will not comment on as I am reading both sides right now.

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

I've had several single ship pickets hit. I know it's a frustrating tactic at times, but would TFs of two ships be much different in this case? I think what is frustrating John is more that he has then to spread attacks thus limiting the number of ships that could be hit before they were out of range. (If I am wrong please correct me John).

Japan, of course, always has the OPTION to split the KB into six separate 1-carrier TFs and go in multiple directions to close range on many fleeing TFs.

Oh, wait. They NEVER do that. Hmm . . .

This highlights exactly the strategic level of thinking in this case. Why risk those CVs going after transports when the damage is done, the troops are onshore.

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

I've had several single ship pickets hit. I know it's a frustrating tactic at times, but would TFs of two ships be much different in this case? I think what is frustrating John is more that he has then to spread attacks thus limiting the number of ships that could be hit before they were out of range. (If I am wrong please correct me John).

Japan, of course, always has the OPTION to split the KB into six separate 1-carrier TFs and go in multiple directions to close range on many fleeing TFs.

Oh, wait. They NEVER do that. Hmm . . .

This highlights exactly the strategic level of thinking in this case. Why risk those CVs going after transports when the damage is done, the troops are onshore.

quote:

So I persoanlly find it rude when Japanese players claim they have some right to reach into the Allied OOB and demand a certain force structure just because it makes their lives easier.

Want to sink more Allied ships? Take more risks. The game allows it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

Both of these 'solutions' invite risk and bring in the strategic problem; Japan can't make-up losses of fleet assets easily (or at all in some cases, like the CAs), therefore might be best off using them for strategic goals primarily.

I agree, but that sidesteps the original issue about single-ship TFs. The point is there are solutions other than HRs which handcuff good tactics. Two mentioned, and there are others depending on location, era, and OOB remaining. Mines, subs, shuttled LBA, etc. Too many players, when they can't figure out how to play better, shout for HRs.

As for making up ships, the Alies get what they get, they get all they get, no more, no less. Japan knows this. The Allied player does not know what Japan will get within bands. The planning task for Japan is far easier. Asymmetric to be sure, but an easier planning job. OTOH, Japan doesn't have to win to win. Just survive.

quote:

So I persoanlly find it rude when Japanese players claim they have some right to reach into the Allied OOB and demand a certain force structure just because it makes their lives easier.

Want to sink more Allied ships? Take more risks. The game allows it.

I agree. Also, there will be a time later (or soon even) in game when the Japanese player may have good reason to use a similar strategy.

Absolutley. If I were fuel-limited I'd be humming, looking at the sky, and walking away whenever someone proposed banning single-ship TFs.

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

I think the problem I have with this is the sheer planning to stage a snatch-and-grab KNOWING where the Fleet is and THEN running away--abandoning the troops--in 20-30 TF. If you are going to take the risk then TAKE THE RISK! Those troops, whether intentionally or not, have been sent on a suicide mission. The shipping? Well it boils me to see the scatter technique used in this manner. YES: Convoys did scatter with horrific results usually occurring afterwards. Concur with Michael about it being gamey after the 1st month or so...

quote:

ORIGINAL: desicat

This highlights exactly the strategic level of thinking in this case. Why risk those CVs going after transports when the damage is done, the troops are onshore.

This point seems to keep getting lost...are those empty, retiring allied merchant ships really worth sending the KB after? If not then what should the KB be doing?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

I think the problem I have with this is the sheer planning to stage a snatch-and-grab KNOWING where the Fleet is and THEN running away--abandoning the troops--in 20-30 TF. If you are going to take the risk then TAKE THE RISK! Those troops, whether intentionally or not, have been sent on a suicide mission. The shipping? Well it boils me to see the scatter technique used in this manner. YES: Convoys did scatter with horrific results usually occurring afterwards. Concur with Michael about it being gamey after the 1st month or so...

I don't like it when people come into my AAR and get snarky, so I won't. I'll just suggest that CR, who is an honorable man and does not cheat, only knows what you give him. If he knew the location of the KB (did he?) it was because you let him know. I'll also suggest that the troops are his, the ships are his. High-risk operations were undertaken many times in WWII, by both sides. I'd ask you for cases where convoy scattering was "horrific", or at least more than would have been the case if the ships had stayed in column so U-boat ladder-combing torpedoes could do multiple re-attacks.

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

I think the problem I have with this is the sheer planning to stage a snatch-and-grab KNOWING where the Fleet is and THEN running away--abandoning the troops--in 20-30 TF. If you are going to take the risk then TAKE THE RISK! Those troops, whether intentionally or not, have been sent on a suicide mission. The shipping? Well it boils me to see the scatter technique used in this manner. YES: Convoys did scatter with horrific results usually occurring afterwards. Concur with Michael about it being gamey after the 1st month or so...

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

I think the problem I have with this is the sheer planning to stage a snatch-and-grab KNOWING where the Fleet is and THEN running away--abandoning the troops--in 20-30 TF. If you are going to take the risk then TAKE THE RISK! Those troops, whether intentionally or not, have been sent on a suicide mission.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

I'd ask you for cases where convoy scattering was "horrific", or at least more than would have been the case if the ships had stayed in column so U-boat ladder-combing torpedoes could do multiple re-attacks.

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert
It was slightly after this in timing, but wasn't the Guadalcanal/Tulagi operation pretty similar in terms of leaving troops on islands? As I see it the main difference there was that the Japanese were actually closer and had a better position to snuff that landing and wipe those troops off the island fairly quickly afterward, and fortunately didn't do it. I've been reading 'Islands of Destiny' by John Prados so I've been thinking a bit about this recently. Interesting to see something similar in game.

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Disagree on targeting - there is no question about single ship TFs being targeted. They are targeted. If a player does not have sufficient search in the area that is one of the game problems that player faces. As was pointed out above, single ship TFs are more difficult to see and fix via search. The developers covered that a long time ago and plenty of us have seen single ship TFs get hit. The game was changed specifically to handle targeting small and single ship TFs. The assertion that they don't get targeted or that it's an open question whether they get targeted is without merit.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CowboyRonin

The classic example is PQ-17, a UK-Russia convoy that scattered in the face of a potential attack from a SAG based on Tirpitz (which never came off, the SAG turned back). The result was a bloodbath by U-boats and bombers, only a handful of cargo ships made port in Russia.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Disagree on targeting - there is no question about single ship TFs being targeted. They are targeted. If a player does not have sufficient search in the area that is one of the game problems that player faces. As was pointed out above, single ship TFs are more difficult to see and fix via search. The developers covered that a long time ago and plenty of us have seen single ship TFs get hit. The game was changed specifically to handle targeting small and single ship TFs. The assertion that they don't get targeted or that it's an open question whether they get targeted is without merit.

If folks would just understand that the whole combat model rests on DL and MDL in some way, that they are foundational, they would be a lot happier. In my own Top-5 for any WITP2 are rudimentary radar and sonar models, but I can guarantee that the JFBs would be howling if they had to face any semblamce of sonar-based ASW or surface gunnery with mid- and late-war surface radar, Allied-style.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CowboyRonin

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert
It was slightly after this in timing, but wasn't the Guadalcanal/Tulagi operation pretty similar in terms of leaving troops on islands? As I see it the main difference there was that the Japanese were actually closer and had a better position to snuff that landing and wipe those troops off the island fairly quickly afterward, and fortunately didn't do it. I've been reading 'Islands of Destiny' by John Prados so I've been thinking a bit about this recently. Interesting to see something similar in game.

That was August versus June, but the biggest difference was that Guadalcanal was after Midway, when 2/3 of the KB went down. The Americans had 3 carriers to the 2 remaining KB carriers, so they felt they had air superiority over the carriers. Another difference was that Guadalcanal was taken to prevent building a Betty strip there, as the Americans were unwilling or unable to push supplies strictly through Perth. The Americans at Guadalcanal were more worried about Betty LBA (a left-over fear from early in the war). After Savo Island, they really had no choice-their escorts and surface cover were at the bottom of Ironbottom Sound, so they had to leave. Fletcher bugging out didn't help, but I do not recall that carriers were his big worry at that time.

If you want to talk gamey, you can argue that the gamiest thing about this game is permitting all theaters to be under one strategic mind. If you take away the competition, the misunderstandings and miscommunications that both the Allies and Japan experienced (the Japanese Army and Navy were rarely on speaking terms), then you can play the game much more efficiently than either side in the war could command their forces. Also, seeing Hawaii as secure on its own, rather than terribly vulnerable, unleashes some very ahistorical strategies on the part of the Allied player. Canoe has shown in previous games that he is entirely comfortable sending US infantry divisions to India, rather than the Pacific. IMO, that is gamier than anything involving single-ship TFs escaping from a high-risk operation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

GREAT DISCUSSION Guys! This is what I love to see happen in an AAR.

OK. Let me clarify a few things:

1. The KB AIN'T going after them. That is a waste of fuel and resources. Want to keep my wear-and-tear down on the Fleet as well.

2. I will land the 14th within a week of game time. Barring a horrific roll on landing they should easily carry the atoll. Makin should follow within a week of that.

3. The door was in the process of being closed as witnessed by me having to divert a convoy carrying two CD units and a pair of Naval Guard that were headed for Tarawa and Tabiteau (Sp?). Makin and Apamama weren't going to get anything.

4. It is a suicide mission. I shall turn it into that. Those troops are DEAD. HIGH Body Count in store. They cannot have much supply so we'll burn that up with Aerial Attack and Surface TF.

5. This has not diverted my attention from finishing the objectives of Sho-1. There are still 2 1/2 ID prepping to take out Luganville. Have plenty of airpower to aid and complete this.

Maybe I simply don't get the move on his part. He deliberately moved these units into my roundhouse knowing the Fleet was concentrated and quite close. The attack hasn't stopped Sho-1 at all. Thus, the confusion comes in simply asking 'why take the risk?'

Hope this help clarify the thinking currently...

quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

I don´t understand where the "suicide discussion" comes from! Why is this suicide? For now his troops are safe and sound onshore and its going to take a MASSIVE effort to dislodge them. He is on atolls. Atolls. Not islands.

Atoll invasions are nasty, nasty business even as the allies with specialized units and ships. I can only assume its a nightmare as the Jap.

quote:

ORIGINAL: janh

Sure, you are probably right that it is going to take a while to reduce them with the allocated force, but with stacking that's what is is. However, at this point in time, what other than voluntary prison camps for some premier US LCUs do they represent? What is the point of this? John can easily isolate them there for the next 6-12 months? Ok, it will bind a few units, but I still fail to see the forest from all these trees... Once they are starving, they'll be ripe, even on an atoll.

quote:

ORIGINAL: janh

Sure, you are probably right that it is going to take a while to reduce them with the allocated force, but with stacking that's what is is. However, at this point in time, what other than voluntary prison camps for some premier US LCUs do they represent? What is the point of this? John can easily isolate them there for the next 6-12 months? Ok, it will bind a few units, but I still fail to see the forest from all these trees... Once they are starving, they'll be ripe, even on an atoll.

quote:

ORIGINAL: koniu

quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

I don´t understand where the "suicide discussion" comes from! Why is this suicide? For now his troops are safe and sound onshore and its going to take a MASSIVE effort to dislodge them. He is on atolls. Atolls. Not islands.

Atoll invasions are nasty, nasty business even as the allies with specialized units and ships. I can only assume its a nightmare as the Jap.

I have landed on atoll as Japan in middle of `42 with full 100% prepared ID.
Enemy have ~70-90 AV on atoll (Infantry and some small number of tanks) behind fort 2 or 3.

I have not prepared landing good enough with bombers, and naval bombardment. Also lack of Tank support not help. But biggest problem was overstocking by 2x numbers of troop i landed in first day.

Short story is that I suffer 12k deaths on day one for ~500 killed enemy soldiers.
It took 4 months to rebuild ID.

Atoll landing for Japan is nasty thing. I would consider blockade. And If he decide to break it, it can create chance to CV engagement, and after few months on bombarding You can try to capture those islands.