Pour poster vos comptes rendu de partie....
Je rejoins Amulius sur l'avis défavorable. Comme au poker, maintenant que j'ai payé pour voir, je peux dire que je ne referai pas un scenario stratégique avec ces nouvelles règles foireuses.
- Messages : 1118
- Enregistré le : lun. 3 janv. 2011 11:35
- Localisation : Juno beach - Normandie
Voilà qui me conforte dans mon idée initiale de me "contenter" de la bonne vieille version de VG
Avant de traverser le fleuve, n'insultez pas le crocodile
Une autre perspective sur l’attrition des navires marchand japonais par Mark Popofsky et les CP japonais qui en résultent.
Je file direct à la conclusion
La suite de la conversation se lit iciA few notes before I answer:
The key dynamic, I found, in the sub war is that Patrols on the Map cost CPs (1 per 6 subs); merchant hunting for the Allies, by contrast, is free. This matters greatly from Sept. '42 - Oct '43, when the Allies both face the 60 CP Progress of War penalty and confront a severe dearth of CPs. The Allies have huge incentives to devote most subs to merchant hunting for the straightforward reason that they cannot afford but few patrols in the early/mid-game. Given the merchant hunting table pre-March 1943, the Allies in my game would have devoted far more to on-map patrols if they had the CPs.
A second predicate point is: Both sides get tons of sub reinforcements. The Allies over 200 in the first 2/3s of '42. Even assuming every sub in Manlia is killed (as they were in this game) in December '41, by late '42, both sides will have plenty of subs and the issue is CPs to deploy them. Alleis did not max out merchant hunting until late '42 and only then b/c of lack of CPs for patrols.
Thrid point: Merchant hunting before the March '43 is almost a rounding error (amounting in total to kills = 3 months in late '43). The results largely are driven by which table applies (pre or post March '43) and the strategic intelligence level. Japan can keep merchants above 550 into early 1943; it is mid-1943 on when every 3 months she will start losing (gross) ~90+. Whether Japan must live with 21 CPs in April or June '44 likely won't matter much.
Fourth: As Mark H has noted: Escorts are largely ineffective for Japan, especially once the Allies max out their subs: Best Japan can do is 0.3 or 0.5 ratio, which won't change much once the March '43 table kicks in and Allies reliably are L3 or L4 strategic intelligence per turn. Heavy escort allocation may at most save the equivalent of one month of mid-43 kills. The DEs are pretty useless for Japan, so perhaps worth doing a few turns when the DDs are not needed on map until the DEs are killed.
Fifth: ASW does matter. But it is not about whittling down total number of subs (when the Allies get 18 a turn and the Japanese often more), but rather to clear safe sea lanes during operations.
Basically, Mark has build a model showing how the silent service played a key role winning the war; and the CP cost for actual patrols when the Allies have huge CP issues (sometimes 20-40 CPs a turn in early '43) create incentives to wage that war.
So keep the above in mind with the following figures. Japan has bought every merchant through November 1943 and usually has 13-15 patrols on the map.
Date Subs Merchant Hunting # of Allied Patrols Merchants Merchants Lost [you can check the OOB for purchases]
Feb 42 None 2 (Dutch) Over 600 -
Mar 42 89 4 Over 600 4
Apri 42 111 4 614 2
May 42 119 2 615 7
June 42 118 4 609 11 (Allies have some good rolls; Japan consider escorts but needs DDs on map).
July 42 130 4 606 9
Aug 42 130 4 603 8
Sept 42 140 4 596 4 [Note: Falls under 600 only at this point]
Oct 42 164 (max table going forward) 5 590 14
Nov 42 170 6 584 9
Dec 42 170 6 569 17 [Japan invokes escorts, largely to reposition DDs; best with all DDs temproarily pulled is .034!]
Jan 43 170 6 560 14
Feb 43 173 6 545 17
March 43 (new table) 180 6 524 26
April 43 200 2 (Allied CP deficit acute) 515 34
May 43 300 0 490 28
June 43 200 0 458 34
July 43 200 2 428 34
Aug 43 200 2 397 33 [note: given now table works, losing 3 fewer earlier would ahve made a difference here]
Sept 43 300 0 (no CPs for subs for Allies; oodles of actual subs on track) 369 33
Oct 43 200 2 339 34
Nov 43 200 7 (Allied CPs return) 301 34
Note Japan still had over 500 merchants in April 43 and only 300 merchants in Nov '43 -- it is a matter of math after March '43. Buying Merchants will start to make no sense by late '43 (CP cost not worth the temporary delay hitting bottom) if any other use for those CPs.
Mark has modeled history, as I understand it. For those who think the merchnat hunting campaign kicks in too early, house rule that mechant hunting cost CPs. That will delay the Allied effort into '43.
Regardless, under the new edition of the game, both sides have oodles of subs they lack the CPs to deploy on the map, even with active ASW by both sides killing subsz especially the Allies from early 1943.
Hope this is interesting.
Je file direct à la conclusion
As stressed, the numbers show that the Allies should put their subs on the map to the extent they can do so before the PoW penalty makes that uneconomical in late '42. The Allies will be maxing out at 151+ by early '43 either way, and Japan hitting 21 CPs a turn earlier won't make a difference. Mark's statement that Japan historically had ~390 MSP Jan 44 means that the strategy employed in my game attrited them faster, but we're talking 2 turns faster to 21 CPs (that's all!), and Japan focused on China, so the Allies arguably needed fewer on map.
Pourquoi donc? Qui pensait sérieusement qu’il peut "gagner" avec le japonais, ou avoir l’initiative en 1944, ou ne pas voir sa flotte marchande fondre comme neige au Soleil, ou avoir assez de CP pour faire des choses lui permettant de se sortir d’affaire? Je ne comprends pas le problème en fait.
- Vieille barbe
- Messages : 1737
- Enregistré le : dim. 22 mai 2016 09:08
- Localisation : Dans un trou d'souris
Pacific War est non seulement un monstre mais c'est aussi un mythe et on ne critique pas un mythe!!
En revanche, tu peux te lâcher sur le "designer" dont les modifications ne sont guère convaincantes.
Sur table: Barbarians at the Gates/A Most Fearful Sacrifice/Age of Napoleon/The Third World War/Hungarian Rhapsody(OCS)