Japanese Campaign Feedback

[dickturpin]

I have completed a campaign, taking the side of the Japanese and would provide comment and feedback for the assistance of future developments if this is of interest.

Mission Philosophy
My view on the missions issued as part of the turn briefing is that these are rather too “clinical” and encourage a numeric risk against return assessment. I do not believe that historically such assessments would be made as there would most likely be some form of committee type discussion prior to a decision being made by the high command. Consequently, I will undertake delegated missions, unless there is some reasonable argument against it (e.g. insufficient OP, lack of suitable resources e.t.c.). Similarly, I may cancel a mission due to enemy action, opportunity to engage the enemy, damage to ships e.t.c. Otherwise, I conduct the majority of missions and endeavour to complete them regardless of their actual VP value.

Campaign Overview
The campaign was completed on 2nd November with a Japanese victory. Japanese losses were 2 small cruisers (lost to mines) 1destroyer (lost to weather) and 11 transports (2 sank as blockships, 3 lost in an failed attempt to place blockships and 6 supply ships). Russian losses were 5 battleships, 9 cruisers, 1 AMC, 27 torpedo craft and 2 minelayers. Whilst this appears to represent a one sided annihilation, the Russians were extremely unlucky; Japanese battleships could easily have been lost on 3 occasions and an armoured cruiser on another occasion. Whilst PETROPAVLOVSK exploded following a hit by torpedo, ASAHI survived a similar event and was able to recover sufficiently to rejoin battle which eventually resulted in the loss of RETVIZAN.

Most losses occurred due to gunfire although the torpedo hit was important in the loss of PETROPAVLOVSK. Mines played a part in the campaign with the Russians losing a small cruiser in addition to the aforementioned two lost by the Japanese. FUJI was also mined but survived and was able to limp home.

The Japanese attacked the main shore defences in Port Arthur on 2 occasions. The first attempt was made at long range and was unsuccessful. The second attempt involved an all out attack by the battlefleet at much closer range. This tactic worked as the defences were overwhelmed by massive firepower although there must have been a significant risk as several hits were made on the Japanese ships.

Vladivostok was also bombarded successfully on a couple of occasions; this involved 4 armoured cruisers moving in fairly close and hammering the southernmost works to complete the objective before withdrawing at speed.

There was 1 unsuccessful attempt to use blockships and these were accounted for by a coastal TB and the shore batteries. A successful mission appeared to be rather fortuitous as the blockships were spotted and hammered by the shore batteries just as they reached their scuttling position.

Conclusion

In my opinion, the Japanese campaign represents a significant improvement upon the original S&I version. This is largely the result of the missions being more interesting and challenging. Bombardment (especially of Port Arthur) is a particular enhancement of the game; I am not sure if the game is actually better or if it is more a case of the feature being used more imaginatively or the historical scenario inspiring the Designers to a greater extent. Similarly, the blockship and escort missions are new features which also enhance the game. Even the use of troop concentration targets and forts add atmosphere.

With the exception of attacks on anchorages, virtually every aspect of naval warfare (e.g. costal torpedo craft and commerce raiding) are present in the game and are covered in a playable but historically realistic way. Possibly restrictions on the rate and extent of repair to damaged coastal fortifications could be introduced.

The original S&I has much more the feel of using “go to” missions as a means to generate scenario battles whereas the RJW campaign appears to contain more depth, a greater range of challenges and covers a wide range of naval operations. Whilst there may be a lack of constructive criticism in this feedback, I can only call it as I see it.

[dickturpin]

AAR

Battle of Dalny 25th February 1904: Encounter between Russian battlefleet including 5 battleships and Japanese Combined Fleet including 6 battleships. The Japanese sortied with the bulk of the battlefleet to carry out a bombardment mission and demonstrate in front of Port Arthur. The mission was expanded to include the laying of a minefield. After probing the defences (from a distance) the Japanese decided to await nightfall but cruiser patrols did sight activity in the harbour and at least 1 battleship raising steam. Whilst the minefield was laid without incident, a significant clash occurred in the darkness.

The flagship MIKASA spotted a large ship in the darkness which turned out to be PETROPAVLOVSK. A gun duel broke out with first MIKASA and then ASAHI scoring hits. The retreating Russian appeared to get the worst of it. The Destroyers had been ordered to attack and INADZUMA launched 2 torpedoes, at least 1 hit and the Russian erupted with a massive explosion. The van of the line encountered Russian destroyers and in a dramatic clash 2 were sunk by gunfire and Hatsuse rammed and sank a third.

Whilst this encounter occurred to the north of the Japanese line, further activity occurred to the south where PERESVIET was involved in some inconclusive skirmishing with the Japanese light forces.

Whilst MIKASA had only received 3 hits, one had caused damage at the waterline and had suffered some flooding. As a precaution, the bombardment mission was cancelled, speed was reduced to 8 knots and the fleet headed for home.

Battle of Maizuru 26/27th February: Meanwhile, reports had been received of a Russian attack on Maizuru. IZUMO and AZUMA were hastily readied and sent to investigate. On nearing the port on 27th, they encountered the BOGATYR and GROMBOI. A running battle developed; AZUMA had developed engine trouble and was struggling to keep up. She also suffered a fire and was left behind. However, as it appeared that the Russians were holding their own and would probably escape, BOGATYR suffered steering damage and began to circle out of control. By the time her steering problems were resolved, the Japanese cruisers were upon her and she was smashed to pieces with close range gunfire. This raid had been an unmitigated disaster from the Russian perspective as both ROSSIYA and RURIK had been lost to the Japanese shore batteries.

Whilst GROMBOI was successfully repaired and carried out a couple of further raids against Japanese commerce, this battle effectively secured the Sea of Japan and allowed the Japanese to move a couple of armoured cruisers to the Yellow Sea to reinforce the Combined Fleet.

18th May off Port Arthur: SEVASTOPOL and TSESSAREVITCH damaged in engagement with MIKASA, ASAHI, KASUGA and NISSHIN.


Battle of Yellow Sea 3rd June 1904: By June, both fleets had been severely depleted with large numbers of ships in dockyard hands. The Japanese fleet ASAHI, YASHIMA, KASUGA and light forces encountered the Russian fleet of RETVIZAN, POBEDA, BAYAN. Following a prolonged exchange of gunfire at long range, the POBEDA was the first ship to show signs of damage and she started to withdraw from the action. However, a 12” shell from RETVIZAN smashed into ASAHI near the waterline and she took on significant quantities of seawater which temporarily knocked out her engines. As she slowed, the Russian destroyers moved forward and launched torpedoes, one of which hit the crippled ASAHI. She was put out of action and the Japanese command was thrown into turmoil, however, damage control was eventually able to bring her back under control and she rejoined the battle.

KASUGA gained the upper hand in her fight with BAYAN and the Russian cruiser began to withdraw. YASHIMA and RETVIZAN were involved in a prolonged gunnery duel but this was decisively resolved in favour of the Japanese when KASUGA and the now recovered ASAHI joined the fray. RETVIZAN gradually slowed and her fire diminished as the 3 Japanese vessels closed the range and pounded her to a wreck. The Japanese now began the pursuit of the retreating Russians and the damaged BAYAN was caught and followed RETVIZAN to the bottom. A further 3 destroyers were also lost by the Rusians in this engagement. POBEDA made her way back to Port Arthur but played no further part in the war due to the extent of the damage she suffered.

This battle appeared to effectively decide the campaign as the increasingly desperate Russians tried on a number of occasions to sally eastward along the coast in an attempt to disrupt the Japanese armies only to have superior Japanese forces cut them off from Port Arthur and destroy them piecemeal.


16th June 1904 off Port Arthur: PERESVIET sunk and BOYARIN badly damaged in fight with 3 Japanese battleships and 3 armoured cruisers.


30th June 1904: Large Japanese naval attack on Port Arthur.


30th July 1904 off Port Arthur: TSESSAREVITCH sunk following fight with 3 Japanese battleships and 3 armoured cruisers. Japanese attempt to use blockships fail with 3 blockships lost.

7th September 1904 off Port Arthur: FUJI mined but makes port with severe damage.

8th September 1904: Japanese sink blockships in entrance to Port Arthur.

9th September and 7th October 1904: Japanese cruisers attack Fort Russkyi, Vladivostok

21st October 1904 off Port Arthur: SEVASTOPOL, NORVIK and 4 destroyers lost in fight with Japanese fleet including 4 Battleships.

[randomizer]

Thank you for the input and observations, it is appreciated.