Redesign 1941 Setup on v5 1942.2 San Francisco Experiment

[baron Münchhausen]

I am strongly opposed to the direction you are taking the US Pacific fleets. We keep adding more and more ships to San Francisco, while leaving Hawaii basically the same. In your v4, America has only 32 IPCs in Pearl Harbor, out of 170 IPCs total in the Pacific. This means that even if Japan sinks everything in Pearl Harbor, it does not “cripple” US naval power, even temporarily. We need to make a decision about whether attacking the San Francisco fleet on J1 should be (a) impossible, (b) possible but reckless, © an interesting anti-American opening option, or (d) the standard move. I think (d) is a bad idea because it means lots more putting pieces onto the starting setup only to take them off the board again before you get your first turn. Just like it is not fun for Russia to lose everything west of Moscow before R1, it is not fun for USA to lose everything west of Mexico before USA-1. I am fine with (a), (b), or © as long as the US will have a reasonable US-1 counter-attack. I like the idea of forcing America to respond to a strong anti-American opening by Japan by diverting fighters from Eastern US and spending 30+ IPCs in the Pacific on US-1 – this way Japan can choose to indirectly support Germany by forcing the USA to focus in the Pacific in the early game instead of allowing the US to proceed with Operation Torch.

I almost add 1 Cruiser to 1 Sub and 1 BB in Pearl Harbor, finally I changed my mind to a second Sub.
To not loose to much planes on this attack.
The issue with West Coast is that 2 Fgs and 2 TcBs can still wreck havoc in SZ.
IJN was in Midway and with 1 Sub and air can wipe it.
Then you put it in Iwo SZ with a DD blocker in Midway SZ.
The last option is to place 2 Carriers in Okinawa and place the last one somewhere else (maybe in China Sea, IDK).
Actually, the additional Carrier with 1 Fg, 1 Cruiser, 1 DD and 1 Sub gives only D10 for 5 hits while IJN has A14 attack with 4 hits. It can be very swingy. US player may decide to save Sub, or take the Carrier first before Cruiser. This can be viewed as if IJN found the carrier (Lexington) shipping planes to Midway or Enterprise coming back from Wake. This last one could have really occurred, a matter of a few hours: some scouting bombers even fight over Pearl Harbor !!!
But IJN is risking planes directly too, same way as against UK’s BB. (Glad we agree on that one.)

Maybe another idea to downscale West Coast is to place 2 Carriers in Okinawa and only 1 Iwo, that way West Coast can be downsized by 1 Cruiser and 1 Sub.
I still would let 1 DD and 1 Carrier with 1 TcB in West Coast while moving Fg in West USA.
It makes 1 TcB+1 Fg a daring raid, pretty reckless opening.

This would allows all Carriers to regroup at Midway, if Japanese player wanted it.

On Wake and Midway, it provides at least a reason to invade, particularly Wake.
That way, it feels more understandable that Japan controlled it for the duration of WWII.

I put 6 TPs and add 1 Inf and 1 Art in China because on J1, Japan has so much to do to reach around 30 $ income. Anyway, it will not be similar to 1942.2, China is much more heavily defended and US get Artillery to punch hole into Imp Japan Army and may received more help from UK.
At most, J2 will put a few units on Chinese coast.

The main issue with IJN is that splitting too much escort for each single TP is very risky.
Probably 1 or 2 have to be sacrificed to increase income fast.

---

Edit: I posted a different PTO with less powerful unit in WUSA coast and Mexico Coast.
I increased to 2 Fgs the US Carrier South of Hawaii.
Trading 1 plane 10 IPCs for 1 DD 5 IPCs is not interesting for Japan.

Wherever I moved Carriers, their planes were able to reach USWest coast and sink everything while establishing an unassailable Midway fleet. This is the big issue, allowing Carrier to reach either Hawaii or Midway (which is correct for late 1941, early 1942) without sinking US fleet.

So, I downsized this US fleet while increasing the counter capacity from the only US Carrier.

It gives a general idea of US fleet distribution: no BB, a few Cruisers, a lot of Destroyers, only 3 Carriers available in PTO and many Subs. Subs will survive according to US player casualty choices.
Particularly,  Hawaii now gets 3 Subs, to simulate multiple waves on Hawaii to sink them (if US choose to take them as casualty while Battleship take them down). This will increase the opening variety for US1 and gives a real tactical decision for US player.

As a counter, I increase by 1 Cruiser IJN in Chinese Sea and moved in Japan SZ the other Battleship. It allows more possibility to cover TPs, allows an opening on Alaska, Midway or as usual in Philippines but Cruiser is more vulnerable to Submarine.
IMO, Japan need to expand fast and it allows for more small skirmishes everywhere. I have the feel that Allies will be able to pick their fights and slowly decrease IJN strength (India have an additional Fg and a Submarine in Red Sea).
Also, there was many Japanese Cruisers which were sunk in WWII. A single unit seems too few to show the might of IJN gunships.
I named it Alpha5 because you may have decided to move in another direction (Alpha 4 is still open.)

From my first partial tries, I can say that it gives a feel for Japan to open up the engines because you can cover a bit more your TPs, but US counter is somewhat devastating (on Hawaii) if not enough Carriers in same SZ. Hawaii is really a deadzone with this setup and too much split is hard on IJN.
Even with an additional Cruiser, you still feel there is too many targets to take care of in a single assault.
Russian Sub in that configuration is pretty dangerous against Chinese Cruiser, DD and TP: in one test I loose all units. I would probably move 1 TP in Japan SZ. So, if it hits the mark, there is still 5 TPs remaining. But it left Soviet Sub with an interesting target to open hostility if you wish.

BB can remain in Chinese SZ while Cruiser is placed in Japan SZ. That way, there is no real interesting target J1 and must R2 to kill something with it.

SanFran_1941_Alpha05Baron.tsvg

[baron Münchhausen]

Here is an extract from a page which worth the reading.
It may help better depict our set up and R1 / R2 positioning.

Whichever way data is analysed, the whole Siberian transfer story is a myth in all respects: including timing, numbers, source of personnel and overall combat performance

WHERE DID THE NEW RED ARMY DIVISIONS COME FROM?
So the question is; who stopped the Germans in December 1941 if it couldn’t possibly have been hordes of newly arrived Siberian or East Front troops?

The answer is a massive number of newly mobilised and deployed divisions and brigades. The Soviet land model shows that 182 rifle divisions, 43 militia rifle divisions, eight tank divisions, three mechanised divisions, 62 tank brigades, 50 cavalry divisions, 55 rifle brigades, 21 naval rifle brigades, 11 naval infantry brigades, 41 armies, 11 fronts and a multitude of other units were newly Mobilised and Deployed (MD) in the second half of 1941. If Mobilized and Not Deployed (MND) units are included then this list is considerably higher.(2) Even if the few Siberian divisions exhibited a higher than average combat proficiency in the winter of 1941/42, their contribution was almost insignificant compared to the mass of newly mobilised units. There is no doubt that the 1941 Soviet mobilisation programme was simply the largest and fastest wartime mobilisation in history. The multitude of average Soviet soldiers from all over the USSR that made up these units saved the day, and definitely not the existing units transferred west after June 1941, or the mostly non-existent and mythical Siberian divisions.

It seems very likely the term “Siberian” was applied to any division that exhibited an above average proficiency or resilience in combat. This was similar to, but less official than, a “Guards” designation which the Stavka started awarding to such divisions in 1941. Ultimately it cost nothing to name a division “Siberian”, “Guards” or “elite”, and if it enhanced morale, scared the enemy and enabled better divisions to be easily identified then it was certainly worth while. It is easy to forget that all combatants in WWII were waging a morale and propaganda war alongside the real one. Unfortunately much post WWII history calls on the same propaganda based stories as the basis of historical fact. This then results in certain war stories, legends and myths become cemented over the years as unquestioned historical events.

http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/the-siberian-divisions-and-the-battle-for-moscow-in-1941-42/#Red Army Divisions Transferred West from June to July 1941

Name   Originated from…   Assigned to in 22nd June…    Transfer to…
58th Tank*     Far East        Far East          16th Army, Western Front, Nov 41
60th Tank*   Far East         Far East         4th Separate Army, (in Volkhov area), Oct 41
82nd Mech   T Baikal         T Baikal           5th Army, Western Front, Nov 41 1
18th Mtn Cav   Cen Asia         Cen Asia         30th Army, Kalinin Front, Nov 41 1
20th Mtn Cav   Cen Asia         Cen Asia       16th Army Western Front, Nov 41 1

• Only started forming in March-April 1941
  Of these 14 divisions, two were small mountain cavalry divisions from Central Asia, while the three tank and mechanized divisions were very new and had very little (if anything) to do with Siberian personnel.
  The 58th and 60th tank divisions had only started forming in March-April 1941.

[Argothair]

I still believe that Germany has too much power on the eastern front and Japan has too much power in China in your v5 setup. Check out this saved game and let me know how you would respond to this round 1 Axis opening. I moved Germany and Japan the way I wanted to, and I stacked Caucasus hard on R1, per your instructions. Note that even if you block Central Med sea zone, fly in British tacB from Gibraltar sea zone, and fly in British fighter from India to support Caucasus, battle calculator still says that on G2 Germany can take Caucasus with 100% odds and about $30 of profit. I think G2 will also be able to retake (and hold) Leningrad and trade West Russia. It is conceivable that Russia could retake Caucasus on R2 with its 5 inf, 1 art from Moscow, but after that, Russia is finished – Germany takes and holds Caucasus and trades West Russia again on G3, and either (a) takes Moscow on G4 or (b) builds infantry in Caucasus on G4 + planes in Berlin on G4 and then takes Moscow on G5. British have no starting transports left at start of B1, and any attack by Britain on Germany will take too long to make a difference – Germany can ignore most British attacks (using common sense to make some counter-attacks if, e.g., UK takes NW Europe with 1 inf remaining) in favor of just pressing on toward Moscow. USA cannot offer much support to Atlantic front because it will be busy in Pacific – if USA ignores Pacific or even splits 50/50 then Japan can change gears without too much trouble and start killing off remaining US Pacific fleet and then threaten Los Angeles.

USA can win some naval battles in Pacific on US1, but again, USA has no transports remaining in Pacific at start of US1, so USA is very limited in how much damage it can cause to Japan’s core plans – USA cannot take control of Tokyo sea zone until at least USA4, and Japan can turtle for a while if necessary. Meanwhile, China is dead (if US attacks Kwangtung, then remaining Japanese forces can capture Szechuan on J2; if US does not attack Kwangtung, then combined Japanese forces can capture Szechuan on J2), Siberian Russian forces are dead, and Japan can press forward through China and Siberia to Moscow. USA can recapture money islands by US3 or US4, but that will not stop Axis from sacking Moscow.

If Russia chooses not to stack Buryatia on R1, then instead of hitting Buryatia with 2 transports, Japan can hit Burma with 2 transports and significant warships, threatening India and also threatening to move directly to Persia to join up with Germans in Stalingrad.

I do not see any way for Allies to win against this opening. Do you?

SanFran_1941_Alpha05Baron_Test1UK1.tsvg

[baron Münchhausen]

I will look further into it.
Just for now, I would be mad as Germany to loose all my luftwaffe but 4 planes to get 1 Tank in Caucasus (average results). Then you can recapture it with Moscow units.

For Germany, it is a Pyrrhic victory. I would wait another round and push forward elsewhere but not into Caucasus. Tanks and planes units are too precious. Such an all or nothing gambit, I do it on Russia only. Emptying almost all European TTs
If all 3 UK’s planes are added in there. It is a total blast.

You really put all you have on Asia. I’m not against the idea of moving 1 Infantry and 1 Artillery in Japan if it gives more opportunity in China. Maybe just moving 1 Artillery in Japan can be enough to delay a frontal assault on China’s Factory.

I saw you made  illegal moves against US West Coast, you send 1 too many Fighter.
And you have sent 3 planes in Philipines Islands, which imply that 2 Carriers have to move in that SZ: both Okinawa SZ Carriers cannot be split between Hawaii (to allow for the 1 Fg in WUS a landing spot) and a landing spot for 3 in Philipinnes SZ (and not considering the planes in Hawaii SZ which have to land on a Carrier within 2 SZs from there (keeping 1 Carrier in Okinawa).
You also sent one too many TcB on Hawaii SZ?

Don’t you think?

There is too many illegal planes move on that one to clearly see a plausible result.

Also, I just realized there is no TP in India SZ.
I believe there should be 2, one in Anzac and the other with BB in India SZ.
It will allow for a fiercer fight without the need for UK, which cannot do both homeland, Africa and India and ANZAC, to purchase another TP in PTO.
What do you think on this TP?

[Argothair]

So, I mostly agree with you about the Caucasus attack. If you look at the saved game, I did not attack Caucasus on G1 – instead I brought both transports to Ukraine, which is what guarantees that Germany can take Caucasus at a profit on G2.

I don’t insist that going hard against Asia is the only viable strategy for Japan – my point is that the way you have got Eastern Europe and China set up right now allows Germany and Japan to cooperate to knock Russia out of the game very quickly. Since this is one of the main problems that everybody gripes about in the OOB editions, I think it’s very important that we avoid this particular failure mode.

Also, I split my forces as Japan pretty evenly – 1 tp to Borneo, 1 tp to East Indies, 1 tp to Philippines, 3 planes to Philippines, and about 6 planes to US Pacific Fleet, with only 2 planes and 3 transports going to mainland Asia. If I had wanted to, I could have skipped the attack on East Indies and Pearl Harbor BB (hitting only the San Francisco fleet) in order to send something like 4 planes and 4 transports to mainland Asia, for an even heavier Asia strategy.

I apologize for making illegal moves with the carriers; I assumed that tripleA would validate my moves for me. Evidently not. However, I had to crash-land two planes because of my illegal moves. I have a hard time believing that I could not have found a way to re-work the Pacific opening that would not work out at least as well for Japan. If you need to see it, I can show you, but you can probably work it out for yourself – just look and see what you would do as Japan if your primary goals were maintaining control of the Japanese sea zone and dropping as many troops as possible into Asia as quickly as possible.

I think an additional British transport in India is potentially interesting, but also potentially overkill, and not my preferred method for solving what I see as a problem involving too many Japanese infantry starting in the mainland. The British start with transports in Canada, Scotland, Gold Coast, and Australia. Germany has good odds to pick off the Gold Coast transport if they want to, but that is expensive for Germany in terms of available subs – if Germany wants to kill the Gold Coast tp, then they have to either let the Canadian transport live (which means guarding France and NWE pretty heavily) or divert 3+ planes to attack the British navy (which means additional Russian planes will survive) or let the GIbraltar task force live (which means that Britain can rally in the Atlantic and build up a home fleet that will be a big problem by UK3 or so). I like giving Germany these tough choices. If Britain starts out with a tp in India, then they have 2 tps in the Pacific (India + ANZAC) even without the Gold Coast tp, and 2 tps is probably plenty given that they’re only producing 3 to 5 units a turn in the region, so sinking the Gold Coast tp is a less interesting target for Germany and Germany has a much easier time making decisions on G1. Plus, the OOB game starts with transports in India and Australia. I like that our starting position is a bit different.

Moving an artillery back to Japan would be helpful, but there are limits to how well that will work because Japan can use air power as a substitute for artillery. It is also somewhat unrealistic – the Japanese army in China was moderately well-equipped, so it seems wrong to represent it as a huge stack of unsupported infantry. My preference would be to move 2 infantry back to Japan from Kiangsu, so that Manchuria is 3 inf, 1 ftr and Kiangsu is 3 inf, 1 art. The key thing in the Sino-Japanese war is boots on the ground – the more hit points the Japanese army has coming in, the harder it is for CHina to stop them from marching into Szechuan.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Argothair:

So, I mostly agree with you about the Caucasus attack. If you look at the saved game, I did not attack Caucasus on G1 – instead I brought both transports to Ukraine, which is what guarantees that Germany can take Caucasus at a profit on G2.

I don’t insist that going hard against Asia is the only viable strategy for Japan – my point is that the way you have got Eastern Europe and China set up right now allows Germany and Japan to cooperate to knock Russia out of the game very quickly. Since this is one of the main problems that everybody gripes about in the OOB editions, I think it’s very important that we avoid this particular failure mode.

I made a G2 lucky attack on Caucasus, I will see how my 4 remaining planes can do it.
(The AACalc told me it was a lost cause (UK send: 2 Fgs and 1 TcB) but I did it… and win?!?)

I agree on Russia intent to be more interesting (hence more planes possibly according to G opening.) I’m not against adding more units in Vologda or Evenki or Yakut.
I saw the issue with Finland and Karelia. I will think about it.

@Argothair:

I think an additional British transport in India is potentially interesting, but also potentially overkill, and not my preferred method for solving what I see as a problem involving too many Japanese infantry starting in the mainland. The British start with transports in Canada, Scotland, Gold Coast, and Australia. Germany has good odds to pick off the Gold Coast transport if they want to, but that is expensive for Germany in terms of available subs – if Germany wants to kill the Gold Coast tp, then they have to either let the Canadian transport live (which means guarding France and NWE pretty heavily) or divert 3+ planes to attack the British navy (which means additional Russian planes will survive) or let the GIbraltar task force live (which means that Britain can rally in the Atlantic and build up a home fleet that will be a big problem by UK3 or so). I like giving Germany these tough choices. If Britain starts out with a tp in India, then they have 2 tps in the Pacific (India + ANZAC) even without the Gold Coast tp, and 2 tps is probably plenty given that they’re only producing 3 to 5 units a turn in the region, so sinking the Gold Coast tp is a less interesting target for Germany and Germany has a much easier time making decisions on G1. Plus, the OOB game starts with transports in India and Australia. I like that our starting position is a bit different.

Moving an artillery back to Japan would be helpful, but there are limits to how well that will work because Japan can use air power as a substitute for artillery. It is also somewhat unrealistic – the Japanese army in China was moderately well-equipped, so it seems wrong to represent it as a huge stack of unsupported infantry. My preference would be to move 2 infantry back to Japan from Kiangsu, so that Manchuria is 3 inf, 1 ftr and Kiangsu is 3 inf, 1 art. The key thing in the Sino-Japanese war is boots on the ground – the more hit points the Japanese army has coming in, the harder it is for CHina to stop them from marching into Szechuan.

On UK’s TP… IDK still.
It is hard to fight Japan on land and island without a ready additional TP.
UK needs at least a 1 strike with 2 TPs to fight on East Indies or Borneo IMO.
But for now I will not add it.

Different starting position is compelling too.

Ok for 2 Infantry in Japan, I prefer 1 artillery on China too (depicting armies is a good reason).

[Argothair]

If you are sure about an extra tp for britain, let’s put it in Persian gulf or south Africa, not in India.

[baron Münchhausen]

Persian Gulf offer more opening strategies: either for fast reinforcement in Egypt or landing forces in East Indies.

I’m not in any hurry to add it somewhere.

I thought about India so it gives opening UK1 even more variability due to Fg+TcB attacking Battleship even more unpredictable results.
IJN take a risk and blast all the SZ (60%) or it is a draw and both (15%) planes and BB are sunk but TP survives or (25%) both BB and TP make it through.
It is kind of sweetening the pot for Japan, but it is in no way a piece of cake for them. It usually lost 1 plane and often 2. This restraint the other land attack support on J2. Sometimes, it seems rather better to wait for more naval fodder before launching the attack on UK’s Battleship.
For me, it is an opportunity for high risk, high reward matter.
And J1 can end the same way as you wanted: no additional TP in Indian SZ.

[baron Münchhausen]

I think an additional British transport in India is potentially interesting, but also potentially overkill, and not my preferred method for solving what I see as a problem involving too many Japanese infantry starting in the mainland. The British start with transports in Canada, Scotland, Gold Coast, and Australia. Germany has good odds to pick off the Gold Coast transport if they want to, but that is expensive for Germany in terms of available subs – if Germany wants to kill the Gold Coast tp, then they have to either let the Canadian transport live (which means guarding France and NWE pretty heavily) or divert 3+ planes to attack the British navy (which means additional Russian planes will survive) or let the Gibraltar task force live (which means that Britain can rally in the Atlantic and build up a home fleet that will be a big problem by UK3 or so). I like giving Germany these tough choices. If Britain starts out with a tp in India, then they have 2 tps in the Pacific (India + ANZAC) even without the Gold Coast tp, and 2 tps is probably plenty given that they’re only producing 3 to 5 units a turn in the region, so sinking the Gold Coast tp is a less interesting target for Germany and Germany has a much easier time making decisions on G1. Plus, the OOB game starts with transports in India and Australia. I like that our starting position is a bit different.

There is a lot of parameters to calibrate.
Just enough units in UK to make a Sea Lion possible.
Not too much unit in Canada so Japan invading Alaska is not on the beginning too much to handle.
Pacific ICs are draining around 15 IPCs or more to provide a correct opposition to Japan.
India need a full land built up each turn but ANZAC can be useful to bring a few naval units (DDs or Subs).
ANZAC ICs are a magnet because not adding any unit makes an easier target for Japan.
Still, the 1 IPC unit is quite describing the utter limitation of Australian and New Zealand mobilization and population.

If UK doesn’t capture Dakar IC in French West Africa (for USA purpose: reminding about Sierra Leone?), it left around 15 IPCs in UK to built up an attack on Germany.
Is it enough ? IDK. I would have to try abandoning ANZAC to increase UK to see if it is enough to threat Germany and still defend India.
Giving a set-up TP allows more actions in PTO without compromising the real effort which have to be done in Europe.
From a strategic POV, maybe ANZAC is only a distraction (but playing with more warships is so cool!!!) because the real money is in France, NWE and Norway and disrupting Barbarossa remains the thing to do.

Maybe the +1 PUs VTs bonus per turn for a given power and +1 PUs VTs bonus to share amongst alliance powers at the end of each round will solve the lack of money for UK. IDK.

Still it is not made to correct the too many Infantry issue in mainland Asia.
I rather try your way on that one and left 1 art and 3 Inf in Kiangsu while moving 2 Infantry on Japan for 6 Inf, 1 Art, 1 Tank.

What do you think about striping 1 Infantry from Caroline Islands but adding 1 more Artillery for 3 Inf, 1 Art?

It would increase the possibility to attack harder all airfields around (Hawaii, Midway, Wake) but make no difference on defense (that way it may even be possible that Borneo and East Indies get 1 less unit to keep this Artillery on a better use elsewhere. (More tactic involved than just flying 2 Infs in East Indies and Borneo.) Do IJN want to loose this attacking power unit to get the best defense?
I would add a UK Destroyer in New Zealand SZ (so Cruiser cannot bombard if amphib J1).
Seems more plausible they have a few naval defense and gives more defensive choice for ANZAC on UK1 NCM, since it is also out of position (unless New Guinea is captured).

[Argothair]

I like all these ideas. That sounds correct. :-)

+1 DD in New Zealand, swap 1 inf for 1 art in Carolines, move 2 inf from kiangsu to Tokyo, and maybe +1 inf to E. Canada. No extra transports.

Britain can defend all colonies, or allow 1-2 colonies to become vulnerable to enable a serious assault on France/Norway. It’s a very interesting choice.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Argothair:

I like all these ideas. That sounds correct. :-)

+1 DD in New Zealand, swap 1 inf for 1 art in Carolines, move 2 inf from kiangsu to Tokyo, and maybe +1 inf to E. Canada. No extra transports.

Britain can defend all colonies, or allow 1-2 colonies to become vulnerable to enable a serious assault on France/Norway. It’s a very interesting choice.

With an additional Destroyer and 1 Infantry in ECanada, it worth the price of a TP.
So UK can pay for it because we relieved it from buying these needed Infantry and Destroyer, anyway.
(And for Germany, sinking Eastern Canada TP and UK’s TP makes more sense if you don’t want UK gets reinforcement.)

---

I just think about a special way to integrate Solomon Islands into the mix.
What about giving Japan 2 or 3 StBs in Caroline Islands, that would figure Japan ability to cut shipping and trading resources between USA and ANZAC?
Controlling Solomon to move these 2 or 3  StBs allows to SBR all 3 ICs from the same spot.
It has to be done in 2 steps.
Capture J1, then moving StBs J2 in position then SBR, J3 SBR (Unless Triple A allows landing of StBs in just owned TT, IDK).

To accelerate this action, I would even make it Japanese on set-up (but no unit on it), anyway it worth zero IPC and change nothing for income and starting PUs.
So, end of J1 there will be 2 or 3 StBs there to make up to 6 Dmg pts to Allies on J2.
It would be a special use (like allowing only Artillery or Infantry production on chinese IC + Western China impassable except Enveki for Soviet, etc.) in which these StBs can only be use for this purpose, until destroyed.)

Even the Caroline Fighter can NCM J1 to land on Solomon (already Japanese controlled color on set-up) and defend StBs.
I really would like to put 3 StBs in Caroline Islands, knowing that Japan will not sanely invested in them.
And 3 StBs vs 3 ICs with damage cap of 2 pts each are weaker than a single StB against IC with 6 pts max out (each StB being AA gunned @1).

It will be only J2 that SBR will start and almost any invasion will put an end to it.
Hence explaining somehow all issues about why these Islands were invaded and fight over it early in PTO war of 1942.

That way, all invasion of these atolls: Wake, Midway, Solomon will make sense for any player and give a few game hints about historical meaning of these islands.

[Argothair]

Maaaaybe? That sounds like an awful lot of special rules to help simulate a temporary, moderate-strength interference with US-ANZAC shipping lanes.

What if we just started off with the Solomon Islands as Japanese and holding 1 Japanese StratB? The obvious play with that StratB is to bomb an ANZAC factory, and then after you do that, the logical place to land the bomber is the Solomon Islands. If you try to fly it to the center, then it would take a long time (J3?) to get that bomber in range of Moscow, so most players will choose to leave the StratB in place.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Argothair:

Maaaaybe? That sounds like an awful lot of special rules to help simulate a temporary, moderate-strength interference with US-ANZAC shipping lanes.

What if we just started off with the Solomon Islands as Japanese and holding 1 Japanese StratB? The obvious play with that StratB is to bomb an ANZAC factory, and then after you do that, the logical place to land the bomber is the Solomon Islands. If you try to fly it to the center, then it would take a long time (J3?) to get that bomber in range of Moscow, so most players will choose to leave the StratB in place.

It is a big maybe, I know.
Your idea is not very different than mine, only more freedom in yours.
Mine is slightly anachronistic, yours is more and leave no room for Allies to block it on J1.
But, your right about one thing.
If we don’t put right away this StB in Solomon, there is no difference between moving it from Caroline to Solomon or to South East Asia.
So, next round J2, StB will be more effective against India’s IC or even Chinese’s IC.
From a game play, it seems better to move StBs elsewhere instead of Solomon then, I agree with you.
Placing (against historical accuracy for late 1941) StB in Solomon right away will work better.

As a proof of concept, would you agree to place two Japanese StBs in Solomon (which have to stay there) until destroyed?
I prefer two StBs because of 3/6 odds of loosing 1 bomber against Anzac: 2 ICs and 1 Fg in New Zealand.
It will be more of an annoyance then. And UK’s or US will probably take action to block this sooner than later.

Another interesting thing about Barney made StB, is that you need boots on the ground to destroy them.
Which means Solomons have to be captured to get rid of this annoyance.

[Argothair]

I’m fine with 2 StratBs starting in Solomon. I really don’t see the point in limiting their movement because ANZAC targets are very nearly optimal. You cannot hit India or China unless you give up a full turn of bombing, and it’s not obvious to me that, e.g., two turns of bombing India is better than three turns of bombing ANZAC. You cannot hit Moscow or LA until J3, and you have to conquer a landing pad to make that possible; it’s not automatic.

What are you afraid that players will do if they are allowed to move their stratBs?

[baron Münchhausen]

@Argothair:

I’m fine with 2 StratBs starting in Solomon. I really don’t see the point in limiting their movement because ANZAC targets are very nearly optimal. You cannot hit India or China unless you give up a full turn of bombing, and it’s not obvious to me that, e.g., two turns of bombing India is better than three turns of bombing ANZAC. You cannot hit Moscow or LA until J3, and you have to conquer a landing pad to make that possible; it’s not automatic.

What are you afraid that players will do if they are allowed to move their stratBs?

You are totally right. While driving home, it struck me as unnecessary to limit any movement: simpler the better. It is just a bit not accurate historically on the beginning but 2 StBs in Solomons in conjunction with 3 ICs within range bring the big picture about Japan plans on “Henderson Field”. On this map, there is no Convoy Disruption and the closer we get is SBR.
If Japan player want to keep up this nuisance or move it elsewhere (if Allies are closing in) it is his strategy.

Another point is that Solomon airfield building precede the invasion of New Guinea.
So, StBs on Solomons while New Guinea is UK controlled convey this schedule.

After the occupation of the Solomon Islands in April 1942, the Japanese military planned to capture Port Moresby in New Guinea and Tulagi in the southern Solomons, extending their southern defensive perimeter establishing bases to support possible future advances. Seizure of Nauru, Ocean Island, New Caledonia, Fiji, and Samoa would cut supply lines between Australia and the United States, with the result of reducing or eliminating Australia as a threat to Japanese positions in the South Pacific.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henderson_Field_(Guadalcanal)

However, Rabaul in New Britain was the earliest conquest in January and February 1942. And it becomes a major Airbase for all Solomons and New Guinea campaign. It can be seen as this Air Base (since on Triple A, New Britain is not on the map.) For this reason, I added a single Infantry there. It does not worth any effort to move IJN TP to protect such a low value TT, but on starting set up, it can be a little stretch to place an Infantry and 2 StBs to figure what will happen early in 1942. If IJN player want to protect it more, he can NCM the single Fg in Caroline Islands.
Anyway, both Fg and StBs are carrying the idea of important Air Bases.

For the Japanese, Rabaul was important because of its proximity to the Caroline Islands, which was the site of a major Imperial Japanese Navy base on Truk. The capture of New Britain offered them a deep water harbour and airfields to provide protection to Truk and also to interdict Allied lines of communication between the United States and Australia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Rabaul_(1942)

Another point is that for once on this 1942.2 map, Japan will start with possible options for SBR in Redesign rules. On OOB setup, I was doing nothing J1. It gives a glimpse of how to use this different unit when you see such bombers so far away from Japan and so near of enemy’s ICs.

---

Here I made a lot of changes to increase Soviet possibilities, for R2.
I still like it very much that only Tank can move on Karelia R1 if it falls on G1.
There is much more Tanks which can come to help of Leningrad (up to five!).
Another harder choice to make due to Soviet disorganised High command.
Things will work as usual on R2 (Infantry being fodder and covering big hitter.)
I made Vologda a Tankograd theme only (2 Tanks).
Evenki get another Infantry.
I added 1 German Tank (to just compensate a bit for all additional Soviet Tanks), so there will be a Soviet vs German Tank and Arty around R3 or R4 due to Germany Infantry lack of on front TTs.

In South Pacific, there is more AAA to get a passive defense against any incoming J1 attack, at least to be a mixed challenge against a full 4 Infs+2 Art blast.
I also increased Hawaii by 1 Inf.
There is much more as we just talked about New Zealand DD and Eastern Canada Inf.
New Guinea (Port Moresby) received an Infantry (to balance for Solomons IJN Infantry.)
A combat will be more interesting, this TT was contested even early 1942.

---

I can also confirmed now that you must control the land to destroy StBs in Solomons.
StBs are no regular combat fighting forces and are well hidden!
:-)

SanFran_1941_Alpha06Baron.tsvg

[baron Münchhausen]

On Sea Lion, the only way I see it as viable is if there is enough Infantry in Archangel, Karelia, Ukraine and West Russia, to hold some of these TTs with 1 Infantry to fall back up to two rows to launch an effective Sea Lion which will deplete Germany, Baltic, Norway and NWEurope. Meanwhile Soviet will have reach a large income basis.

If not enough Infantry to be picket fodder, it becomes harder to sacrifice Art or Tank to hold position.

Most of my early G playtests purchase are max Inf and 1 or 2 Art to left no single unused IPC. Pretty boring, but necessary to hold Red Army at bay without too much losses of Tank and Art.

Do you think giving on setup an additional TP to Germany may help making Sea Lion a possibility without off balancing Soviet front?
Don’t forget, Med TPs have to capture Gibraltar, this leave 1 round relief and more if going against UK.
Or, is it that we must add more Inf and Art on NWE or France or Norway (7 IPCs same cost as an additional TP)? So Germany can use these units to load up TP for the early amphib assault (G2 to G4 max)?
Worst, do you think Germany need around 5 Infantry split between NWE, France and Norway to not emptied too much Europe when purchasing on G1 a Carrier (14 IPCs) to defend its invasion fleet?

With only 30 IPCs on G1, it provides a CV, 1 TP and only 3 Infs (Italy IC).

G2 40 IPCs purchase is more substantial but you need 1 more TP and it left 11 Infs.
Then you may proceed G3 but, your Tank and Art have to retreat to not loose them because there is not enough Inf coming fast from Germany.

I’m wondering if to solve this issue, we should not totally reversed Germany setup, a lot of Infantry with Art and a few Tank. On Barbarossa, Germany had more Infantry readied on Eastern Front than in any invasion.
Soviet had more Tanks and Aircrafts.

What do you think could happen if 4 German Tanks (in France, NWE, Berlin) were converted to 8 Infantry, split 50-50 between Poland and Romania? Even more, including Southern Europe Tank, add 10 Infs, 5 on both TTs ready for Barbarossa?
Instead of 11 Tanks, Germany would have 6 available and will seems inferior to 8 Soviet starting tanks.

It would be :
Poland: 9 Infantry, 1 Art, 2 Tanks, 1 Fg, 2 TcBs
Romania: 8 Infantry, 2 Art, 1 Tank, 1 Fg, 1 TcB
Southern Europe: 4 Infantry, 1 Art
Germany: 6 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Tank, 2 AAAs, 1 TcB, 1 StB
France: 3 Infantry, 1 AAA, 1 Tank

[Argothair]

Solomon / ANZAC Tweaks

These are fine – it adds flavor, and it doesn’t break anything.

Tanks in Leningrad

Can you explain why you want Russia to take back Leningrad with 5 tanks? That seems wildly ahistorical to me. I don’t think Tankograd was really operational at the start of Barbarossa – half of Leningrad’s industrial work force was relocated to the Urals in response to the German invasion, and it took them several months after they arrived to re-assemble the machines and start cranking out mass-produced tanks again. At setup, the workers would not have even reached Vologda yet, let alone had time to manufacture two tank divisions.

From a tactical point of view, I’m also not really understanding why it’s fun or interesting for Germany and Russia to be forced into a giant tank battle on G2/R2, but for them to use mostly infantry on all other turns.

There is also the problem that placing multiple tanks in Siberia at game start allows the Soviets to flood China with tanks, which is not accurate – there would have been no way to maintain the supply lines for all of the gasoline, ammo, and spare parts all the way across the Kazakh prairies, Gobi Desert, Tibetan Mountains, Szechuan jungles, etc. Putting 4 Russian tanks in China on R1 will seriously disturb any Japanese strategy…even if the Japanese send a couple of transports’ worth of troops to take Kwangtung and Buryatia, they are too vulnerable to a 1-2-3 punch from the British, Russians, and Chinese.

Sea Lion

I think the biggest problem with Sea Lion here is that the Allies start the game with moderate naval and air superiority over London, which is historical. By 1941, it was really too late for Germany to launch a Sea Lion attack without a massive redirection of resources. I think that if Germany is trying to seriously threaten London, it should only conquer one row of Russian territory (Baltic / Belo / Ukraine) and just stack those territories hard, weighted more toward Baltic than Ukraine. That way the same infantry can defend against Russian counter-attacks and be ready to deploy onto Baltic Sea transports.

I do not support a second Baltic transport. In real life, the Russians mined Leningrad’s harbor, so the Germans were not really able to ship over significant numbers of troops anywhere east of the Finnish front lines anyway, let alone east of Leningrad / Lake Ladoga.

I think you can tinker with the Western European garrisons if you want to, but it’s not obvious to me that a lack of available German infantry is the problem. It’s just hard to invade London after the USA is already in the war and the UK has had a bit of a chance to build up its homeland defense and fighter corps. I don’t think there will be any way for the Germans to force a Sea Lion against an alert Britain…the best they can do is force Britain to spend more money than it wanted to on placing infantry in London, exposing (some of) Britian’s overseas colonies to Japanese invasion and/or slowing down the progress of the British Atlantic fleet. I’m OK with that.

Adding German infantry to the eastern front

With only the infantry available in your v5 setup, I thought I showed that the Germans have a crushing advantage. I don’t understand why you would want to add even more German infantry.

General Note

You have obviously acquired a very detailed and wide-ranging knowledge of the relevant history for this setup, but I don’t think you’re pausing to apply that knowledge in a thoughtful, measured way. It is not enough to say “Oh, Russia had 9,000 tanks” and then put 9 Russian tank divisions on the map. There’s no exact equivalence between historical unit strengths and the number of pieces that go on the board, partly because of all the variation in leadership, logistics, technology, training, terrain, etc., and partly because the game needs edits from “real life” in order to be fun and balanced for all players.

I am starting to get frustrated with what I see as the careless brainstorming that you are using to come up with ideas for the European front. Every time I come back to this thread, you have a totally new distribution of units for Barbarossa. You always offer a couple of interesting reasons for your new distributions, but I don’t think you’re putting your changes in context or testing your designs to make sure that Germany and Russia are at least roughly balanced against each other.

You’ve shared some thoughts about your overarching vision for how the Barbarossa front is supposed to play out, i.e., Germany has enough troops to advance to the gates of Moscow for two turns, and then Germany runs out of troops so Russia starts to be able to make successful counterattacks. What I don’t see is how you’re organizing the starting forces to make this vision a reality. Which territories do you want Germany to occupy, specifically? How many troops does Germany need to seize them? How many troops does Russia need for a successful counter-attack against those troops? How many troops short is Russia from being able to make that counter-attack, and how many turns will it take Russia to accumulate those missing troops, and how many more troops will Germany be able to advance to the front line while Russia is stockpiling its reinforcements, and why and when will Russia be able to accumulate troops on the front line faster than Germany, and what could disturb that balance in one direction or the other?

I don’t expect you to answer all of these questions correctly on version 6 of our map, but if you’re not even trying to work through these questions before posting a map file, then I probably don’t want to playtest it.

More generally, I would like to start wrapping this project up – I’d like to converge on a map that we’re both happy with, and then be done and show our work to the rest of the community for alpha playtesting. This suggests that we need to be making smaller changes (+1 inf here, move 1 artillery around over there) rather than bigger changes (swap out all infantry for tanks and vice versa). I want to start building on the knowledge we’ve already accumulated from the first 8 versions or so of our map, instead of constantly starting from scratch with radically new designs.

This is a really fun map, and I think you and I are able to complement each other’s strengths and weaknesses very well, and I’ve enjoyed working with you on it, but I wanted to be honest about my growing frustration.

[baron Münchhausen]

Thanks again for all the answers on many points.

Just a few aspects for now help you see I’m not going everywhere with Russian front.
About total switch from Tank to Infantry,  I assumed it was a real paradigm shift. That’s why I did not bother to move anything and send a snapshot. Just general talk on that one.

However, on V6, I addressed a few issues about stacking Caucasus and not being able to hold on G2 or appear to be so huge that Germany will wait G3 before punching this bag. I switched 1 Infantry into 1 Tank (+2A +1 Def, but more mobile attack for a possible R1 counter somewhere.)
Russia also get another AAA which can be send into Caucasus. And Vologda receiving another Tank, it makes for another 3 defense points more into Caucasus R1. And I didn’t add any unit on German front, only one additional Tank in NWE for “balance”, which I based upon 1942.2 setup (if it was there later in war, it seems ok to have a few units remaining from France invasion). Because there is 11 Armor on 1942.2 OOB set up, and Germany is much deeper in Russia. How can it be possible to reach Moscow if you have more TTs to fight for, a lesser starting income, a still stronger UK’s fleet to consider on the beginning, M3 US TPs and Cruiser (wasting no time next round to unload ground units once purchased), and not at least the same number of Germany’s ground units ?

When I talked about 5 Tanks, it was not my intent to suggest it was a sound strategy to move all-in in such a deadzoned TT as Karelia, just that Soviet changes increase in Mechanized units allows to reach it in many ways to cover this flank and to not let fall in German’s hands too early. But still I like the cost in unprotected Tank payed by Soviet if Finland units are able to storm Karelia.

It conveys the same message about how this front is not well organized on R1 for Soviet. R2 things will be better coordinated.

I know Tankograd will product later in war, but on October 1941 real Siberian Tank division come to help fighting and delaying the northern army group trying to invade Leningrad.
On your Japan full attack on Asia (to center crush hard), I saw it can be necessary to leave more options to Soviet player (and you asked for more variety than a repetition of 1942.2 setup. It is possible to travel into China but we know there is much bigger fish to fry in the west.

I agree that we cannot make any 1 for 1 correspondence between divisions, only impressionistic depiction.

Coming back on strategy, the issue I realized on Germany’s units distribution is that we were working on inherited setup of AA50 1941 and 1942.2 as background. But, if any of us, as player, had to built up a game invasion from scratch and place all its units where it is needed we will agree that having plenty of Inf and Art on front row is the best while Tank can be purchased later and can feed the front more faster. It does not work the other way around if you have plenty of tanks and too few fodders. Your attack will jammed near G2 because you have to wait for more Infantry purchased to reach your forward front. In that case, it is almost like you have to wait 2-3 turns before restarting the “perfect storm”: building 10 new Infantry, moving in Poland or Baltic states G3, then reaching your immobilized stack of Art and Tank in Ukraine and Belorussia G4. (Not saying that freezing your army is the thing to do, but just for the sake of understanding the point.)  In fact, if we give more Soviet Infs to Karelia, Archangel, West Russia and Caucasus, this is where the front will stall back and forth anyway.

So, here is what I realized, if we want to convey the idea that Germany is a well prepared, well organized army, it should not be obvious to hard core player that you have to loose you costly units almost on starting G2 to make gains in Soviet union and more incomes. It is like you are fighting for 8 IPCs swing while you are wasting around 30 more or less IPCs TUVs to maintain your invasion in second row of TTs in Soviet Union. A bit unsound.

On G40, German player can prepare his built up to launch Barbarossa, if he wishes.

There is no room for that here, it is up to you and me.

I would like to recreate a G1 june 1941, G2 end at the gate of Moscow dec 1941 dynamics. R2, winter 1942 “Siberian reinforcement” counter attack effect.

How to get it while leaving enough room for Soviet player strategic or tactical freedom, I’m still looking for the best way. (And also giving more options if Germany want to try Sea Lion.) I just realized yesterday that maybe a paradigm shift was needed because we started Germany’s foundations on older OOB setups.

I knew in order to really move into that direction it needs more talking and more solitary lab work. I was talking first before making any big overhaul.

I understand you feel we were near the finalized setup to be canned with just a few tweak here and there on Eastern front. I’m ok with this. I will follow your lead on that one. (If you want to revert back Soviet Tank into Infantry and put it nearer Karelia and West Russia.)
Our actual scenario is probably not well suited for Sea Lion options, so at least we can make it a balanced setup for Barbarossa and Operation Overlord. (Which I agree with you, we were not that far.)

And as you said, if I want big changes, I will work them out much more before submitting a map to test.

I hope it will cool some steam off.
:wink:

[baron Münchhausen]

There is also the problem that placing multiple tanks in Siberia at game start allows the Soviets to flood China with tanks, which is not accurate – there would have been no way to maintain the supply lines for all of the gasoline, ammo, and spare parts all the way across the Kazakh prairies, Gobi Desert, Tibetan Mountains, Szechuan jungles, etc. Putting 4 Russian tanks in China on R1 will seriously disturb any Japanese strategy…even if the Japanese send a couple of transports’ worth of troops to take Kwangtung and Buryatia, they are too vulnerable to a 1-2-3 punch from the British, Russians, and Chinese.

What about closing totally Western China, but adding another IC in Sinkang or 1 or 2 more Infs to simulate their populations reservoir?
That way, if Soviet want to attack with Tanks it will be via Amur and Trans-Siberian to Vladivostok.

---

On VTs topic, do you believe that Rio Brazil can really be fight for by Germany?

IMO, it is a gift to USA.
Think about placing it either in Archangel (to help Moscow) or moving it to Truk in Caroline Islands to be a target for UK or USA.
(Or even in Western Canada to be another target up north, but this is less interesting.)

I just want as much as possible to streamline VTs according to 20-30-40 lists.

If you don’t want, I can wait and try somehow to launch one Med TP to fight over Rio, once Gibraltar will be captured. But, from my biased (aim to test other things) play-tests, it is either Stalingrad, Cairo or even London which attract Med TPs attention.

[Argothair]

All right, that all makes much more sense – I’m sorry I criticized your methods so harshly. I am under some stress at work right now, and I may have been trying to take some of it out on you.

How Germany Can Expect to Win From 1941

In the 1942.2 OOB setup, Germany has 29 infantry and 3 artillery. Of those, Russia typically kills off 6 inf, 2 art (West Russia & Ukraine attack) before Germany even gets to move. So Germany will usually start G1 with 23 inf + 1 art = 24 walking units.

In your San Fran Alpha 0.5 1941 setup, Germany starts with 35 infantry and 6 artillery, and Germany gets to go first, so Germany will always start G1 with 35 + 6 = 41 walking units – almost twice as many walking units as the 1942 starting position.

Similarly, in 1942.2 OOB, Germany starts with 4 subs and 7 planes. It has two tiny fleets with one transport each, but they are very badly exposed, and Germany must take drastic measures to keep either of them alive until G2, let alone G3.

In SF Alpha 0.5 1941, Germany starts with 10 subs and 10 warplanes, plus a pair of reasonably well-protected fleets (BB + DD + tran in Baltic, BB + 2 CA + 2 DD + 2 tran in Med).

I think tanks come out roughly the same.

So Germany is “ahead” by about 180 IPCs’ worth of units in the 1941 setup relative to the 1942 setup. Yes, Germany has more tasks to accomplish (more British fleets to kill, more Russian fleets to kill, more Russian planes to kill, more Russian territories to take, etc.), but even allowing for serious losses (let’s say you lose 4 subs and 4 planes on G1 – that is a loss of $64) and even if it takes you 2 full turns just to get to the 1942 front lines (a loss of at most $10 on G1 and $5 on G2) that still leaves Germany well ahead of the game.

As you say, the Allies also have advantages…more starting troops in Africa, faster transports, a better-defended China, factories in ANZAC, etc. But Germany has enough “extra value” left over in its starting setup to have a fair shot at counteracting these advantages, I think.

Setting up tank battles

I did not fully understand this paragraph you wrote:

So, here is what I realized, if we want to convey the idea that Germany is a well prepared, well organized army, it should not be obvious to hard core player that you have to loose you costly units almost on starting G2 to make gains in Soviet union and more incomes. It is like you are fighting for 8 IPCs swing while you are wasting around 30 more or less IPCs TUVs to maintain your invasion in second row of TTs in Soviet Union. A bit unsound.

This sounds interesting. Can you say more about this?

In general, I approve of the idea of trying to show that germany was organized for war and russia was not. I am still unclear on how you want to do that, but I would like to learn more.

By the way, if you want to experiment with switching out many of germany’s tanks for extra infantry, we can explore that together – I have calmed down now and I can see why that would be interesting. We may decide to abandon that fork and go back to v5 or v6 or even earlier, but I do think it’s worth at least testing a version of that. I may try to create a radically new setup myself along those lines, that you can test if you wish.