Jump to content


IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT

ODGW has recently experienced a catastrophic event with our website.


Please Click Here for more information


Photo

Can the Japanese sortie both the Davao and Jolo convoys in Turn 1?


  • Please log in to reply
9 replies to this topic

#1 paul.reynolds999

paul.reynolds999

    Private

  • Members
  • 8 posts

Posted 01 April 2022 - 01:30 AM

If I am reading things correctly both the Davao and Jolo convoys are Medium and so need a minimum of 4 Destroyers each.

 

The Eastern Attack Force starts with:

 

2nd Destroyer Flotilla – Rear Admiral Raizo Tanaka (Veteran)

   IJN Jintsu Sendai class CL

15th Destroyer Division, 2nd Destroyer Flotilla

   IJN Natsushio Kagero class DD

   IJN Hayashio Kagero class DD

   IJN Kuroshio Kagero class DD

   IJN Oyashio Kagero class DD

16th Destroyer Division (-), 2nd Destroyer Flotilla

   IJN Amatsukaze Kagero class DD

   IJN Hatsukaze Kagero class DD

 

Which is a total of 6 Destroyers, so only enough for Davao or Jolo.

 

Am reading this I correctly?

 

Regards,

Paul



#2 Dave Franklin

Dave Franklin

    Captain

  • Members
  • 297 posts
  • LocationColorado Springs CO

Posted 02 April 2022 - 09:00 AM

Paul,

 

It's been several years now since I authored DTMB, so things are not anything like fresh in my mind.  I admit that is how the rules read.  However, I also saw an AAR by Bill Clark where he talked about taking both Davao and Jolo with the EAF on Turn 1.  Further, I seem to remember the IJN was supposed to have the option to split their EAF forces and do both (they did take both during the Turn 1 timeframe historically), taking the risk the EASGROUP sorties a Sweep from Tarakan against the EAF (probably in conjunction with one of the Theater Events that gives the EASGROUP reinforcements at Tarakan), rather than just transferring.

 

I mentioned Bill Clark above.  Bill and his group have played the campaign far more times than anyone else I'm aware of, so maybe he can weigh in if we ever had a discussion about it.

 

So, back to your question, I think there was supposed to be a provision/exception for the IJN to be able to sortie convoys against both Davao and Jolo on Turn 1.

 

Dave



#3 W. Clark

W. Clark

    Captain

  • Members
  • 335 posts
  • LocationOregon, out in the sticks

Posted 02 April 2022 - 11:02 PM

You have brought up something that I never really thought of before in the 8 times I have run the campaign. I vaguely remember it coming up during play testing and the decision as I recall was to allow both convoys. And I have always allowed both convoys in every campaign that I have run. 

 

The EAF has 12 objectives to take in 6 turns and 16 convoy CDs to take them with. If you hold the EAF to the minimum requirement on GT1 then you are automatically requiring them to waste a convoy CD at the start. The EAF has a hard enough time of it if the Allies concentrate (as they should IMHO) against the EAF without taking 25% of its extra convoys CDs on GT1. I would hold the EAF's feet to the fire on mission requirements on subsequent GTs but give them a break on GT1. In addition, the requirement if enforced prohibits them from doing what they did historically in GT1 which was to take both Davao and Jolo.

 

Of course, if you want to make it harder on the Japanese just follow the RAW and let nature take its course. But, you are right, now that I examine it in that the RAW seem to prohibit sortieing convoys against Jolo and Davao on GT1 due to lack of destroyers to satisfy the minimum requirements. Its a hole IMHO and Dave Franklin will address it I'm sure in the near future.



#4 W. Clark

W. Clark

    Captain

  • Members
  • 335 posts
  • LocationOregon, out in the sticks

Posted 04 April 2022 - 09:52 AM

I was writing off the top of my head and my head was wrong. The EAF has 13 objectives to take and 16 invasion CDs to do it with. So, losing an invasion CD is a full third of their spare CDs. They can not make it up and they can not target a S or VS objective instead as both Invasion CDs on GT1 are targeted (by name) specifically at Davao and Jolo. The design intent as I understand it is to allow both CDs to be targeted on GT1 and the EAF needs two DesDivs to do it. The EAF has two DesDivs but as you know one is short 2 DDs. Its a hole. Making a one time exception to the 4 DD minimum requirement is the easiest solution that fills the hole and allows the EAF to do what it did historically. I wish I had a better answer. Heck, I wish I had done a better job of play testing and caught this before the rules went to print, but it is what it is.



#5 W. Clark

W. Clark

    Captain

  • Members
  • 335 posts
  • LocationOregon, out in the sticks

Posted 05 April 2022 - 05:49 PM

Regardless of which way you decide to play it the EAF has to take Davao on GT1. In other words (but it sucks) Jolo has to wait. Why? Go back to your OOB for the EAF. The EAF does not get its LBA support until GT2 and it gets it at Davao which becomes the new support base instead of Palou once it is taken. No Davao, no LBA for the EAF. Your LBA is your great leveler and not having to face it is a real boon to the Allies. I've run this campaign eight times now and the Japanese have lost 5 times. Four out of 5 losses have occurred because the EAF got thumped and three of those losses occurred without a capital ship option. The EAF does not IMHO need any further challenges. The EAF has a full plate now and some times bad die rolls (and there are a lot of die rolls) can mean that the EAF has bitten off more than it can chew as is.

 

I would go so far as to say that if you are operating in teams then your most experienced player needs to command the EAF. But if you are running inexperienced players then the foregoing advice is probably a good idea. The two primary considerations for any Japanese player is to sortie every possible invasion convoy each game turn; and to get and keep his 8" cruisers (and bats if available) between the Allies and his convoys. If he fails to do that, he will almost invariably lose. There is very little margin for error. 



#6 paul.reynolds999

paul.reynolds999

    Private

  • Members
  • 8 posts

Posted 06 April 2022 - 06:53 PM

Thanks Dave & Bill,

 

I fully agree that EAF has a lot on its plate and was therefore surprised to find, as written, that they couldn't sortie against both Davao & Jolo.

 

Things get missed in play testing so I will allow both to sortie and use this thread as a reference if required.

 

Regards,

Paul



#7 Dave Franklin

Dave Franklin

    Captain

  • Members
  • 297 posts
  • LocationColorado Springs CO

Posted 07 April 2022 - 08:58 AM

Paul,

 

I hope you enjoy the campaign.  I've been hunting around back through the archives as it were.  It was in Version 3 in the development, dated 3/9/2016, where both the minimum and maximum numbers of divisions and ships were added.  Prior to that, for a Medium Convoy, it was a minimum of one division, and maximum of 12 DDs, so attacking both Davao and Jolo was possible.  I guess when it was changed, I missed the secondary effect of it technically making both Davao and Jolo on Turn 1 no longer possible.  I would consider a Turn 1 exception for the EAF to use the original escort requirement of a minimum of one division, and maximum of 12 DDs for their two Medium Convoys an official errata.

 

As an aside, the other possible errata item I am aware of is optional.  It came out of one of Bill Clark's campaigns, and has to do with the definitions of Crippled and Disabled, and the last two items of the Engagement portion of the Sequence of Play, CG and LBA follow-up attacks vs. crippled/disabled Allied/ABDA surface groups.  The definitions of Crippled and Disabled leveraged what was written for The Solomons Campaign (TSC), and they way they are written ("and/or") it is possible for a ship to fall into these categories without having taken any hull damage that would slow her down.  So, for the purposes of CG and LBA follow-up attacks vs. crippled/disabled Allied/ABDA surface groups, players can play it as is, they can play it there must be at least one hull box of damage that would slow the group of ships down, or they can use a specific value (TSC uses 11 knots) for the ship group to be subject to the follow-up attacks.  Frankly an argument can be made for any of the options.  I would suggest you decide which way you want to go, and let the players know, as it can affect the Allied/ABDA player's decisions on how to group ships when retiring.

 

Dave



#8 W. Clark

W. Clark

    Captain

  • Members
  • 335 posts
  • LocationOregon, out in the sticks

Posted 07 April 2022 - 03:23 PM

I concur with Dave. Not that he needs my concurrent.

 

I would advise going with the base start option to begin with. You will find that it is very balanced (the record so far for me is 3 to 3 for Allied/Japanese wins). Unless someone makes a bad mistake it will come down to who gets the best weather and engagement set up die rolls, all other aspects being equal. The other start options start moving the bar in favor of the Allies as they mitigate against the Japanese advantage in 8" cruisers.

 

Nevertheless there are some base truths for both the Japanese and the Allies about what they should prioritize and the the player/team that grasps these will have a tremendous advantage over their opponent. The bottom line is that the Japanese have to win and the Allies just need to avoid losing.



#9 paul.reynolds999

paul.reynolds999

    Private

  • Members
  • 8 posts

Posted 08 April 2022 - 02:17 AM

Thanks Dave & Bill,

 

our campaign is underway so as umpire I can't say too much in public.

 

We started with the historic start option much to the disappointment of the Allied player who has models of the Dutch battlecruisers.

 

I will do a post campaign report here.

 

My question came up as I was looking at how I would play it if I was the Japanese.

 

Regards,

Paul



#10 W. Clark

W. Clark

    Captain

  • Members
  • 335 posts
  • LocationOregon, out in the sticks

Posted 08 April 2022 - 01:54 PM

IMHO, Panzerschiff option (see this forum for details) is better than the Scharnhorst knockoffs. There are several reasons.

1. The panzerschiffs, though labeled a battle/capital ship option are in fact heavy cruisers with reduced BC armament. So, they cause damage (albeit reduced) like a BC, but they affect Japanese LBA like any other cruiser.

2. You get three of them in a division so the actual number of 11" is not reduced in total.

3. They have torpedoes and are useful in a night action.

 

The down side is CA rather than BC protection and they need to hit first when facing the Kongos. But any of the capital ship options upgrade the Dutch to a contender rather then a speed bump. Except for the Mackensens, none of the Dutch capital ship options want to see the Fusos. 11" vs BB armor is not a good idea.

 

I've posted AAR where the Panzerschiffs totally smashed a pair of Kongos in a night action. If your friend has the German pocket battleships they would work as the Panzerschiffs are just Dutch versions of Panzerschiffs D & E that look more like Scheer or Graf Spee than Lutzow.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users