|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 29, 2022 11:01:55 GMT -6
1) The strategic objectives of this SAI campaign are necessarily those that the game mechanics allows, i.e. possessing more BBs and BCs than the opponent at the end of the game and accumulating a certain number of victory points. The interaction between naval warfare and land warfare cannot be simulated, as far as I can understand. 2) In addition to the wear and tear produced by the long journey, many miles had to take place in the area of the Mandate Islands (former German colonies: see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Seas_Mandate, where there is an excellent map). The Japanese created many bases there (Truk, Lae, etc.). In a SAI scenario I've worked out, a night ambush by highly trained Japanese DDs against the US fleet did a lot of damage. Furthermore, facilities to repair damaged ships, especially dry docks, were lacking. The strategic objectives for the game, make some sense. The three-island groups that the US went after to move the fleet across the Pacific were as follows. Eastern and Western Marshall's Central Carolinas. Specifically, Kwajalein, Eniwetok then Manus. Manus should have a great port for repair ships. Ulithi is another good base, south of the Mariana's.
|
|
|
Post by vonfriedman on Nov 30, 2022 4:24:30 GMT -6
After some work I managed to get a functioning campaign (for the Philippines area only, the Pacific distances being prohibitive for SAI game mechanics). AAR after Turn 1 (end December 1Q21)- "War is declared with a surprise attack and landing of Japanese troops in northern Luzon. Immediately the Japanese HQ decides to send 4 BBs or BCs in an area SW of Manila. Moreover, at least 2 enemy TRs suspected in that zone must be sunk. Adm. Suzuki Kantarō sails from Takao with his four Kongō class battlecruisers, plus scouting CLs and DD screen. Off the NW coast of Luzon, in full daylight, the Japanese meets almost unexpectedly three old US CLs with escorting DDs and sink most of them. Suzuki thereafter continues his mission heading S. He thinks that the old US battleships in Subic Bay will remain in port, owing to the presence of a superior Japanese force at sea. He is wrong: just as the Japanese force, short of fuel, is starting its journey back to base after an unsuccessful search for US TRs, reports arrive about the bombardment of the Japanese landing zone in Aparri, by part of several US heavy ships. Two old Japanese BCs are sent to Aparri in a hurry. Thanks to their superior speed they should be able to deal with the slow US pre-dreadnoughts of the Virginia class, making contact with them until Suzuki arrives. Should the Japanese be able to implement this tactic plan and sink most of the US battleships, they would have secured complete naval dominance for several months, since the modern American BBs of the Pacific Fleet are still thousands of miles away and those of the Atlantic Fleet even more. But this time luck doesn't smile on Suzuki and the American pre-dreadnoughts manage to avoid the interception and return to Subic Bay safely." Things are looking to get interesting...
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 30, 2022 13:25:47 GMT -6
Suzuki thereafter continues his mission heading S. He thinks that the old US battleships in Subic Bay will remain in port, owing to the presence of a superior Japanese force at sea.
Does Suzuki have submarines monitoring Subic Bay? He should, or at least some tin cans to monitor and verify that the US ships have either left or stayed, plus which direction are they headed.
|
|
|
Post by zederfflinger on Nov 30, 2022 15:02:19 GMT -6
Sub spotting can always be unreliable.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 30, 2022 15:19:15 GMT -6
Sub spotting can always be unreliable. Yes, and so can aircraft spotting, it's better than nothing, however. The best method is to have a spy in the harbor area like Takeo Yoshikawa at Pearl Harbor. The most efficient would-be submarines monitoring off of the coast with the spy sending reports of the harbor and ships, plus locations
|
|
|
Post by zederfflinger on Nov 30, 2022 21:08:37 GMT -6
Sub spotting can always be unreliable. Yes, and so can aircraft spotting, it's better than nothing, however. The best method is to have a spy in the harbor area like Takeo Yoshikawa at Pearl Harbor. The most efficient would-be submarines monitoring off of the coast with the spy sending reports of the harbor and ships, plus locations This sounds like a solid plan to me, but I imagine that there must be a hitch, otherwise this would have happened more often.
|
|
|
Post by vonfriedman on Dec 1, 2022 1:30:27 GMT -6
The Japanese have a limited number of medium-sized submarines. Two of them are always lurking near the US base at Subic, but rarely provide information. Furthermore, an airport was activated in northern Luzon from which reconnaissance planes take off, but they are not very effective (we are in 1922 = I used the same effectiveness values of SAI North Sea campaigns). Finally: it's winter and the weather is often bad. In a later turn 2 US CAs sent to bombard the landing area failed to locate the targets as a storm raged (thus I explained their failure, though I'm not sure.)
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 1, 2022 9:12:55 GMT -6
Yes, and so can aircraft spotting, it's better than nothing, however. The best method is to have a spy in the harbor area like Takeo Yoshikawa at Pearl Harbor. The most efficient would-be submarines monitoring off of the coast with the spy sending reports of the harbor and ships, plus locations This sounds like a solid plan to me, but I imagine that there must be a hitch, otherwise this would have happened more often. Well, yes, there are many hitches. The information transmitted to the CinC of the fleet might take time to decode, then be given to him. Then it takes time to assess and transmit new orders, again taking time to decode and then passing this information to the fleet commander. Aircraft are vulnerable to weather especially in this time period. Examine the results of the aircraft scouts at Jutland. They are especially vulnerable to non-operational problems like engines etc. Submarines have their problems too numerous to mention, especially in the 1920's era. There is no perfect solution except to scout as much as possible, then make plans that have alternatives. Another idea. What about sending your battleships to blockade Subic Bay. If the opponent's ships come out, you have the advantage.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 2, 2022 13:31:33 GMT -6
You could lay mines at the entrance to Subic Bay and use the subs to take out the any ship removing the mines, the mines could hamper travel to and from the bay.
|
|
|
Post by vonfriedman on Dec 2, 2022 14:55:00 GMT -6
The same goes for the USA. In my campaign test the Japanese have already lost an old CA/BC (Tsukuba class) and 1 DD to mines off Takao. The subs, on the other hand, are extremely ineffective, I assume due to a choice made by NWS in order to concentrate the game on surface naval battles.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 2, 2022 15:29:00 GMT -6
The same goes for the USA. In my campaign test the Japanese have already lost an old CA/BC (Tsukuba class) and 1 DD to mines off Takao. The subs, on the other hand, are extremely ineffective, I assume due to a choice made by NWS in order to concentrate the game on surface naval battles. It is possible that the lack of submarine support is in the game dynamics. Mining can be effective. It would be interesting if you could use coast watching near Subic Bay. The Coast Watchers were very effective in the Solomons. If you could transmit the information from the Coast Watchers around Subic to the subs, it might help. I doubt the game will allow it.
|
|
|
Post by vonfriedman on Dec 3, 2022 4:45:35 GMT -6
The campaign editor allows you to create coastal areas where the presence of enemy ships can be reported, with less or more probability. In my tests, I designed several such zones around Luzon etc., in favor of the US. Similar ones around Formosa, Okinawa, etc. assume that the population there was predominantly pro-Japanese. As far as submarines are concerned, in SAI they are treated as a kind of immobile, small and weak minefield, which in addition has the ability to report - not always and almost never in a precise way - the presence and course of enemy ships.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 3, 2022 8:02:41 GMT -6
The campaign editor allows you to create coastal areas where the presence of enemy ships can be reported, with less or more probability. In my tests, I designed several such zones around Luzon etc., in favor of the US. Similar ones around Formosa, Okinawa, etc. assume that the population there was predominantly pro-Japanese. As far as submarines are concerned, in SAI they are treated as a kind of immobile, small and weak minefield, which in addition has the ability to report - not always and almost never in a precise way - the presence and course of enemy ships. Sounds good, hope you get good results. Update: I am wondering after examining the route taken by Suzuki, why he stayed so close to the coast of Luzon? This would put him in visual contact with coast watchers and US ships. Would it not have been better to sail out into South China Sea and then turn 90 degrees to the east. Just my observations.
|
|
|
Post by vonfriedman on Dec 5, 2022 16:04:36 GMT -6
Absolutely correct observation. If he wanted to surprise American ships, he would have to do this. However, my understanding is that the mechanics of the game only cause a "reaction" of AI-controlled ships to occur if there is a sighting of "human player" enemy ships. For this the Japanese, wanting to take advantage of their (temporary) superiority, also in later turns sail in the area observed by the coast watchers and, moreover, they bombard any land target in the same area. You can find a part of the continuation of the campaign in the "War in the Pacific, SAI discussions" thread (which, however, does not seem to arouse much interest in the participants...)
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 6, 2022 7:20:41 GMT -6
Absolutely correct observation. If he wanted to surprise American ships, he would have to do this. However, my understanding is that the mechanics of the game only cause a "reaction" of AI-controlled ships to occur if there is a sighting of "human player" enemy ships. For this the Japanese, wanting to take advantage of their (temporary) superiority, also in later turns sail in the area observed by the coast watchers and, moreover, they bombard any land target in the same area. You can find a part of the continuation of the campaign in the "War in the Pacific, SAI discussions" thread (which, however, does not seem to arouse much interest in the participants...) Games do have limitations and that is understandable. I will research when time permits the thread you indicated.
|
|