Redesign 1941 Setup on v5 1942.2 San Francisco Experiment

There are obviously ways to rearrange the sub Saharan Africa forces if desired. If you want an artillery instead of an aa gun somewhere, or one less infantry, that’s fine. The important point is to start with at least 50% of British African assets south of Egypt.

I agree wholly to this 50%, it seems you know your business on African Armies.

You could start French West Africa with as much as 1 inf, 1 aa gun, 1 factory if desired.

No necessary. If there is nothing on FWA on set-up, I’m ok.
I like that there is no unit. Germany can get 1 Inf and 1 Fg, or even 1 Tank and 1 Fg (or 2Fgs!) if they really want to keep it.
But it means 1 less Fg in NWE which do not attack UK’s fleet somewhere, except for SZ13 Carrier.

To make Vichy a real partner, Germany have to give a “few guarantees”.

Also, would you increase Tanks in set-up to 11 (as in OOB 1942.2)?
To make a real cut into Russia, Germany cannot divert any resource in water or Africa, IMO.
I build up only Infantry and 1 or 2 Artillery to spent all money, each G turn.

IDK if it can be possible to make German’s purchase more interesting to allow for other strategy.
A late Sea-Lion, invading Iceland for VTs, going all out in Africa.

I played according to old pattern about capturing Russian Capital.
But, if we try a one per game round 24 IPCs (24 VTs) bonus split between alliance members, this can give more attract to VTs.

Another step can be to give 1 IPC per controlled VT at end of each income phase of a given Power.
For example, Germany can get up to 4 IPCs by end of G1 if Cairo is captured.
Even 5 IPCs if Caucasus is captured too.

I’m not that persistent for Wake and Midway receiving planes instead of Infantry.

But what do you think of either replacing 1 Infantry in Philippines by 1 Tactical Bomber (B-17 were mainly used that way in South-East PTO.)
Or add 1 C5 StB unit in Philippines. It will not change anything into opening, unless Japan decided to skip this VTs (which would be very weird).
Anyway, if they do so, this StB can eventually be useful for USA.

Prior to the Attack on Pearl Harbor, the 19th Bombardment Group had 35 B-17s in the Philippines. By 14 December only 14 remained. Beginning on 17 December, the surviving B-17s based there began to be evacuated to Australia, then were sent to Singosari Airfield, Java on 30 December 1941.
The 7th Bomb Group was originally scheduled to reinforce the Philippines in December 1941 from Fort Douglas, Utah, and the ground echelon had already left by ship from San Francisco. Pearl Harbor Attack led to ground echelon being returned to United States and the air echelon remained at Hamilton Field, California flying antisubmarine patrols. 9th Bomb Squadron deployed to Southwest Pacific in mid-December, travelling east via Floria, Brazil, across central Africa to the Middle East. Then via Arabia to Karachi, India via Singapore to Singosari Airfield, Java, joining the 19th BG on 14 January.
Both units would remain on Java until March 1942, taking part in the brave but ultimately futile attempts to defend the Philippines and the Dutch East Indies. The B-17s were never present in large enough numbers to make any real difference to the course of the campaign. The 19th BG withdrew to Australia with the B-17 survivors of the 9th Bomb Squadron, which was re-equipped with B-24s in India as part of Tenth Air Force.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-17_Flying_Fortress_units_of_the_United_States_Army_Air_Forces#Fifth_Air_Force

In Karelia SZ, I would place 1 DD, 1 Sub and 1 TP (for figuring convoys I suppose).
Russia needs this Sub to do something different than only land battle.
1 Sub in PTO is enough because it can make disturbing R1 lucky attack on Japan.

To get a less scripted play in opening, maybe Baltic may get only 3 Infantry.
Belorussia, 1 Inf and 1 Tank, Ukraine 1 Infantry, 1 Tank, 2 Fgs.
But West Russia can still have 2 TcBs and even 1 AAA…
While Karelia still have 1 Fg…

IDK if it can be faster to work this way…
Here is below a different set-up which is similar to yours but with a lot more naval units.
I even add an IC in Canada.
Maybe Germany might see the need to use more u-boats in a way to block this built up.

IDK if it can work to increase possibilities, strategic options.
I tried to solve the US West Coast issue, as I perceived it.
Now, you can have both Hawaii J1 and kind of Midway-Hawaii USA1.
It is around 35% success for USA1, of course it depends if Japan brings a third Carrier in Hawaiian SZ or a Battleship in Midway SZ. But doing this, may not be optimal for Japan income increase.

Take a look, pick the save, revert things back. Take a snap shot.
With less words and more pictures, it may helps see faster where we disagree, discuss, disagree radically or agree to disagree, etc.

1941Argo_edit setupv2_TcBsRussiaG1.tsvg

@Argothair:

I think it works! I think we’re done here, at least as far as an Alpha version to send out to the wider community. I can’t think of any changes that I feel confident would improve this setup. :-)

I tested a G3 Sea Lion, and it does not seem to work unless Britain is caught totally by surprise. The problem with leaving the Russian air force alive to conserve the German air force is that the Russians can just fly their planes over to London for extra defense. Also, if Britain sees the Sea Lion coming, then they can keep their African fleets on the west coast of Africa, and then a combined assault on UK2 + US2 can probably destroy the Axis Mediterranean fleet, which means two fewer transports that are available to hit London. Still, if everything goes perfectly, a Sea Lion could work. Japan has to keep the USA busy enough that it can’t afford to send any fighter reinforcements to London. The Sea Lion chances were 0% for Germany in my test, but if you remove 1 Russian fighter and 3 American fighters, then I think it switches to something like 20%.

I would prefer higher odds for a G3 Sea Lion, but I’m not sure how to make that happen without disturbing other aspects of the game.

I also tested an immediate G1 Barbarossa blitz, with Germany building mostly tanks and sending both Med transports to take the Caucasus on G1, plus using the Finnish troops to take Karelia G1. I was not able to take Karelia, but it did weaken Karelia enough that all of my eastern front forces were safe. UK & USA were able to save Moscow by steadily flying in fighters and sending reinforcements from India/Egypt, but this means that Japan would have become a monster (I did not actually use Japan’s turns for these two tests). I think a G1 blitz is much weaker than a more reasonable German opener that only attacks Baltic/Belorussia/Ukraine with land forces, and waits until G2 to attack Leningrad and Stalingrad – the optimal G1 move is probably to send one Med transport to Ukraine (so you don’t run out of infantry there to soak hits) and one Med transport to Egypt (for the TUV profit, and so those forces don’t wind up coming to the aid of Stalingrad a couple turns later). Still, the G1 blitz is an interesting alternative to have on the table, and depending on how Japan exploits the Allies’ distractions, it could be a viable opening!

I also tested some battles in the Pacific, and it seems to see-saw for quite a while, with Japan and the USA each able to destroy each other’s fleets at a profit, turn after turn. That’s pretty cool! It’s not obvious that either or both players would actually want to throw 60%+ of their budget into continuing to smash up fleets near Hawaii, but it’s good that that’s an option. The factories in Hawaii and Sydney go a long way toward making the South Pacific something worth fighting over; it really does seem to matter when you win control of a sea space. If America is off the coast of Hawaii and can hold it, that means a big boost in USA’s Pacific momentum because they can build a carrier in Pearl Harbor and fly in planes to land on it from the mainland. On the other hand, if Japan can deadzone the coast of San Francisco (not at all unlikely, if the battles go well for Japan and the USA tries to split its attention between both theaters!) then it can be a real challenge for the USA to make a Pacific comeback – even if they have ships near Hawaii or Mexico or whatever, those ships may be effectively dead for lack of an ability to reach reinforcements/safety. The M3 transports threaten San Francisco once the USA loses control of its sea zone, the submerging unblockable subs provide some additional fodder in regions that would otherwise be deadzoned, and the M3 cruisers and carriers equipped with 3.5 attack fighter/tacB pairs really help project offensive power three spaces forward instead of just two spaces forward. It’s all very exciting. I can’t be sure that it’s balanced, because there are hundreds of plausible combinations for Japan’s five fleets vs. USA’s three fleets, but that’s a good thing! There are options. :-)

Anyway, great work on this map. I vote we slap both of our names on it, submit it to the tripleA experimental map collection, and call it a success.

Thanks Argo,
I checked your partial game. Seems fine.
I think it is interesting to left alive 1 or 2 Soviet planes.

I’m actually trying this setup myself since you seems to agree with the few points I added in.

Moving VTs from Eastern Canada to Iceland and Poland to Ploesti in Romania need to be done, one day or another.

I’m not convinced about Rio over Carolines Islands, need to see deeper mid-game and how it impact balance.
I did not try a +1 $ single bonus at the end of a turn per VT owns and a +1$ to split between Alliance members. This will be next once the general rough balancing and depicting history will be done.

The old Capital capture is dominating my play-tests.

Your Japanese fleet groups allow for a lot of openings. I like to feel there is too much things to do and not enough units to get the job done.

IDK for sure about West Coast fleet vs Midway fleet.
I’m still able to obliterate everything. And US1 counter-attack is not very punchy when all three full Carriers and a Battleship are all at Midway.
1 IJN Destroyer is needed in Midway against Soviet Sub but it allows to throw it in against West Coast fleet.

At least, it reliefs UK fleet from an important power projection when all IJN Carriers are at Midway.

The need to control both Norway and North-Western Europe seems very hard on Germany.
I’m not sure about that one. It is blocking a lot of possibility for German Baltic Fleet.
Maybe only NWE need to be controlled?

Here is a saved game of 3 rounds, it is G4, but not played.
I totally missed a Sea Lion. The start was awful, I lost too many Subs.
Also, I lacked coordination with Med Fleet.

Japan was dominant at Midway but loose the edge against UK in South-East Asia.
Also, Submarines can be a real pain if there is no air cover to protect warships and TPs.
I lost 1 BB, 1 DD and 2 TPs to a Soviet Sub. And 1 Cruiser, 1 DD, 1 TP to 1 US Sub.

I’m not so sure that Sub should not be block at all…

But, I would like a rule when crossing a SZ in which there is Destroyer…
Probably a good thing to implement. Each DD can roll 1@1 ASDef.
I forgot to apply this rule. And I feel very much OK.

If you choose to move any type of surface ships through a sea zone containing one or more enemy submarines without stopping to fight those submarines, you must roll one die per enemy submarine (it does not matter how many ships you move, only how many enemy subs there are).
Your fleet takes one hit for each “1” rolled on the dice.
If you move through more than one sub-infested sea zone, repeat this process.

But, it can be the other way around. Each DD roll once regardless of Sub number.

I believe Germany needs a bit more Infantry or Tank at start to make Sea Lion more plausible.

After a second opening try, I still feel it needs a bit more Infantry to fight on Eastern Front.
It was pretty much interesting to lose 4 planes and Russia kept its 2 TcBs. AAA rolls snake eyes.

I made a V3: Germany, Poland and Romania received +1 Infantry.
NWE received 1 Armor.
Norway, moved 1 Infantry into Finland to reach 4 Infantry.

IMO, the temptation to use planes to boost a Karelia G1 with 4 Infantry (vs 4 Inf and 1 Art) might rise the dilemma toward not launching plane on UK’s fleet and lets Subs doing the job, partially at least.

Extreme StBs purchase and Subs should probably be tested to be sure it is not OP.

1941Argo_edit setupv2_TcBsRussia4G.tsvg
1941Argo_edit setupv3_TcBsRussiaG1.tsvg

Maybe I have to change an option about Always active AA.

I don’t want a secondary capital for now. I just need to play considering VTs bonus.
Giving IPCs when controled is not integrated in engine actually. I’m bit lazy to make the calculations and edit IPCs on hands. I will focus on this when general dynamics will be OK.

I really like the various play patterns for Japan too.

How I see the issue with Eastern Front is that it needs a few Infantry remaining after G1 in Baltic (not difficult), but also Belorussia and Ukraine. Otherwise, the first Russian counter can get ride of half Artys and Tanks either in Ukraine or Belorussia.

It makes less TUV to keep in reserve to turn either toward UK (Sea Lion) or going toward Moscow.

In my mind, Barbarossa should work G1 and G2 then being repelled.
I’m not against increasing armies in East, adding 1 Tank in Vologda and 1 or 2 Infantry in Evenki, or 1 in Russia and another in Evenki something like that.

I just think Germany should be able to capture G2 West Russia and Karelia and/or Caucasus.
But should payed it dearly with the help of Eastern Units and build up of R1.

The idea is that trying to swap Caucasus G1 will be costly in planes and let survives Soviet TcB or Fg.
These can be very useful for Russia even R1.

OK, keeping Norway and NWE for now.
Baltic TP is easier to protect with BB, DD so it can be possible to ship more units in Norway G2 or G3.
It will remain under microscope.

Good catch on a too early Sea Lion!
I will look all of this closely.
Though I like the swingyness of an AAA in West Russia.
Anyway, only aircrafts may attack it.
AAA is an opening 1 time impact.
Of course, it is against up to 3 planes…
Maybe too much on opening.

Below, it is a game v2 which finishes off Japan in 4 rounds!

It make me thinks IJN needs 1 more TP to achieve an early faster control of TTs and even a double opening which may includes Pearl, Midway and Alaska.
Otherwise, it seems to remain with a low income.

I will look closely at your new Japan overhaul.
(For my part, I was moving the Midway Sub into Carolines Island: so only 1 DD and 4 planes could have attacked US West Coast but the Sub may have reach Pearl Harbor.)

You can also look closely G1 and R1 counter. Germany was not able to pull any Sea Lion because the Subs failed radically on UK’s BB. It was a slow attrition of higher value units. At the end, Germany was only keeping Art and Infantry.
It was not enough units to overwhelmed Soviet Union.
The initial swing on planes allows Soviet to keep a lot of them.
I’m not sure it is a good idea to add another Infantry in Archangel…
If one more Infantry is needed, I would rather place it in Russia.

There is a lot of small changes with interesting outcomes. I will have to analyse it more closely.
I will come back to you about it in a day or two.

1941Argo_edit setupv2_TcBsRussia4Gb.tsvg

I think there is room to bulk up the German army in Southern Europe – the Yugoslavia campaign finished only a couple of months before Barbarossa started, so significant German forces would have still been there. Compared to your v2, I added +2 infantry to Southern Europe, +1 infantry to Berlin, and +1 tactical bomber to Finland. I also moved one tank from Romania to Southern Europe, to show Romania’s relatively weak tank corps.

Then, I added +1 infantry to Archangel, and converted the AA gun in West Russia into an infantry. This both potentially gives Russia some land units to fight back with on R1, and reduces the swingyness of the G1 airblitz battles. I also added +1 infantry in Kazakh and +1 infantry in Novosibirsk, to help set up additional counter-attacks / stacks on R1.

I’m a bit torn up by Alpha 3 setup.
IMO, it is too much planes in Finland from an historical POV.
It was already a stretch with 1 Fg and 1 TcB.
Are you against moving back the single Infantry into Russia?
(I really want to give a 2 rounds momentum to Germany to reach almost Russia (before Eastern forces push them backward). And allowing a single counter TT on R1.)
What about removing the AAA in Yakut and 1 Infantry in Novo but giving one Tank in Evenki?

Also, from a general POV, one comparative I made to better find where the balance can be is to compared ground units in OOB 1942.2. Since it allows one round of expansion, then Allies counter, I think Japan need at least the same number of units in mainland Asia to be able to push forward at least 2 rounds. Otherwise, it will always remain behind because there is already more opposition in China (more units, including 1 art and an IC) and in Soviet Union.

What do you think of adding another US Carrier on West Coast and moving 1 Fighter on it;
something like that, to increase US mobility (and more accurately depict the number of 2 Carrier Task force available in PTO: Enterprise, Lexington and  Saratoga, at San Diego during Pearl Harbour, torpedoed after first attempt to liberate Wake, being repaired WUSA at the time of Midway Ops, ATO:  Yorktown, Hornet and Wasp were rapidly sent into Pacific Ocean too) early actions and to diverge more from 1941 AA50 setup? I moved US Sub from West Coast to Pearl Harbor. It left more option to US player to save them (for US1 counter) or take them as casualties.

To offset somehow, it will be more interesting to add 1 Fighter in Carolines Island: Truk was such an important Naval and Air Base at that time for PTO (like an IJN Pearl Harbor). And use your added Sub into the mix in Japan.

What do you think of Wake and Midway Airbase?
IMO, Wake becomes an historical target that way while Midway is optional (1 more TcB for US).

However, maybe a more direct (and historical event) combat between planes and UK’s BB maybe more epic on opening. Something like 1 Fg+1TcB in FIC, vs 1 BB: 60%-25%- draw 15%
But Infantry on land will have far less air support or waiting J2 and make a more easier Naval Battle with all IJN units within range against UK’s regrouped fleet?
I gave 1 Fg and 1 Sub to India in compensation.

SanFran_1941_Alpha04Baron.tsvg

Pretty in-depth analysis Argo.
You put a lot in this.
In my mind, there is no viable possibility for Germany to trade Eastern Europe.
It means not enough income and too much for Soviet.
It needs level 2 or 3 to works.
Actually, trying to take Karelia and Caucasus G1 imply that only 1 Italian Fg can be used against UK (fleet or Egypt). Meaning UK fleet will be in good shape.
Also, it makes very hard to get rid of Arch Fg and WR TcBs if fighting for both Karelia and Caucasus G1.
It makes for Pyrhic victory in my two or three attempts living Soviet with more starting planes while losing many Fg and TcB in opening.

This makes for 2 interesting options IMO, a pure level 2 Conquer with a balanced choice between UK fleet and Soviet Aircrafts. Usually, only Russia’s Fg and TcB can attack R1 either helping Caucasus or Karelia counter-attack on most vulnerable German stack (Belo or Ukraine). G2 will retake it and at most control Caucasus and Leningrad, leaving West Russia and Archangel.

A level 3 Penetrating attack gives no opportunity to directly attack Belo or Ukraine but Caucasus is easily reconquered (here, we differ : Soviet have to retake it for income and not allowing G build up) and you probably still hold Karelia and now, you have more planes to play with or, at least, Germany have much less. G2 will then gets Leningrad, West Russia, Caucasus and maybe Archangel. That will be the maximum expansion. But R2 will have much more to counter and repel with more Infantry and planes (that is where I saw Evenki third Tank useful with all planes).

That’s how I see it. Playing with more aircrafts imply much more options to use Infantry to trade TTs with Germany.
If Germany has no real opportunity to trade Archangel, Caucasus and Western Russia, its income will be too low and UK will easily block Baltic fleet by taking Norway. And fighting back and forth over it, allows to increase UK’s fleet steadily with US and UK units.
In fact, Norway is of main importance if there is a raid against UK’s fleet otherwise, the Luftwaffe is toasted with no fodder.

In Eastern Soviet, there is so much units that is a repellant in itself. In addition, the Chinese factory is a magnet that becomes prioritize along taking 2 IPCs Kwantung.
Japan has to wait for Soviet calling eastern troops for help against Germany, otherwise it will be too bloody for one or two 1 IPC TTs.

I believed by giving an additional back up tank, which can be use in either east or west, I gave more options to Russian players. I’m not a russian stacker, I rather like play offense and trade where Germany is weaker. Is it what you want by adding more russian units to front line, making stronger Karelia as a viable option?

Penetrating attack seems to me an handicapping tactics for airfleets but you have more boots on the East, level 2 allows to keep more planes but makes at least 1 TT vulnerable to R1 counter and it delay the income level next turn.

On Yakut AAA, what is it suppose to represent?
I do not want to change anything else, but it seems to me that Eastern divisions were less static and brings tanks with them. That’s why I think to better depict them and it was more useful also to get 1 unit which may fight either east or west.

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

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.

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.

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).