Here are some statistics concerning the game.

Overall air losses were: Japanese 420 planes (28 steps), Allies 495
planes (33 steps).

Average dierolls (together with number of dierolls of that kind which
occurred during the game):

J air combat: 5(4)
A air combat: 4.25(4)
J AA fire: 6.2(9)
A AA fire: 4.7(40)
J sub attacks: 4.64(14)
A sub attacks: 4.49(53)
J ASW combat: 5.76(21)
A ASW combat: 3.33(3)	
J ground combat: 4.75(52)
J rally: 5.66(6)	
A rally: 4.56(41)
J TQC: 4(8)	
A TQC: 4.93(69)

Notable among the more frequent rolls are the Allied sub attacks
(almost dead average), the Japanese ASW combat and rally rolls
(totally awful) and the Japanese ground combat rolls (not as awful,
but still clearly above average).

Allied ground losses were 29 steps in Malaya (equiv. 29,000 men), 35
in the Philippines (70,000), 24 steps (24,000) in the Dutch Indies,
and the HK Brigade.  The Japanese lost 13,000 men (13 steps) in Malaya
(close to the historical total of 10,000), 24,000 in the Philippines,
5,000 in Hong Kong (bad luck), 6,000 at sea en route to Java (bad
play), and a whopping 22,000 in the East Indies, not counting those
that went down with the transports (historically they lost 6,000,
total in the East Indies).

The Allies lost 8 naval steps to air attacks, 8 to submarines, 33 in
naval combat, and 5 subs overall. The Japanese lost no less than 32
ships to submarine attacks, despite average sub attack rolls and the
screening rule.  I will increase screening values by 1 in my next solo
game.

However, what upon a closer look appears more disturbing are the
Japanese ground losses.  The Japanese actually managed to keep up the
historical schedule of amphibious operations, but at an extremely high
cost.  This led me to take a look at the invasions in the Dutch East
Indies.  

The "typical" invasion there, in game terms, is that of a Japanese 7-1
Marine Battalion (representing the Japanese Special Naval Landing
Force or SNLF units), which attacks a 3-1 Dutch regiment in amphibious
assault.  Historically, this situation occurred on Timor, at Kendari,
Menado, and Balikpapan.

At Menado, the SNLF encountered 1500 defenders, of which only 350 were
regular troops.  The Dutch surrendred after one day.  At Balikpapan,
the 200 strong garrison offered no resistance.  At Kendari, the SNLF
suffered two wounded before resistance was overcome.

Now let's examine this situation in the game.  I assume that the Dutch
are broken (a 60% chance on the first TQC). Note that this is the best
situation possible.  The amphibious assault results in TQ 4 facing TQ
2 on row 14, shifted to row 11 due to Mixed terrain present in all the
above hexes.  The outcome is interesting.  In 40% of cases, both
Japanese and Dutch are eliminated, the hex remains in Dutch hands.  In
10%, the Dutch are eliminated outright, and in another 28% [40%x0.7]
the Dutch are kicked out through failing a TQC in their Mandatory
Retreat (which also costs them a step, eliminating them on the way
out).  In 12% of cases the Dutch retreat and survive.

What is fairly obvious is that these seem not to be the historical
odds compared to the four invasions above.  The question remains
whether the result can be approximated by using other tactics in the
game.  Obviously, the first is to attempt to minimize the effects of
the amphibious landing.  Let us assume the Japanese landed on a
neighboring hex and marched in, taking 1 extra move.  Note that this
is a completely gamey tactic - as Mark Herman noted, no one did this
and in fact at places like Balikpapan the Japanese debarked directly
in front of the town.  But let's check the results.  The Assault now
has a TQ 7 unit facing TQ 2 on row 15, shifted to row 12 due to
terrain.

Again, the outcome is that Japanese and Dutch are both eliminated in
40% of the cases, with the Dutch alone eliminated in the other 60%.
Better, but still drastically worse than historical performance.

However, the "lone SLNF against lone Dutch unit" is not the only
situation we encounter.  The other situation is what occurred
historically at Tarakan and Amboina, with a stronger garrison faced by
a stronger Japanese force: a 7-1 SLNF (Mar Bn) plus a 6-3 Inf Regiment
attack a 3-2 Dutch Regiment in amphibious assault.

Let's look at the historical results first.  At Tarakan, the surrender
of the 1300 strong Dutch garrison was forced after 24 hours.  At
Amboina, 2600 Dutch/native troops and an Australian Battalion,
defended and the Island was secured after 5 days.  Japanese losses
were negligible.

To look at this in terms of the game, we again assume the Dutch are
broken (a 60% chance on a single TQC).  The amphibious assault goes in
at TQ 4:2, on column 11. Total number of steps is 6, just sufficient
for the second row on the table.  As a result, the SNLF spearheading
the invasion will always die!  The Japanese will always survive though
(although there is a 10% chance they will hang on with only one
step). The Dutch will be eliminated in 51% of cases (30% +
30%x0.7MR=51%).

Now let's assume the Dutch were repeatedly broken (which means they
lost a step and are down to one).  In this case, the Japanese gain a
-2 DRM, and 5 steps involved in the combat mean a lower row for
losses.  This time, the outcome is more pleasant.  There is a 20%
chance of the SNLF being eliminated, and the same 51% chance of the
Dutch.  If the Japanese land next door and move in, the combat happens
on row 13.  The Dutch will always be eliminated.  Ironically, so will
be the SNLF although the infantry regiment will survive unscathed.


Conclusion: The game clearly overrates Dutch strength and
preparedness.  Reading the historical accounts indicates that the
Dutch troops were largely used and organized to keep order in the
colonies, not defend against an external foe.  Now, in principle the
Japanese should be able to survive the losses the game causes (and, as
the replay showed, they are also in general able to keep up the
timetable).  But the problem is that the SLNF battalions are
irreplaceable, and at this rate half of them will be gone after the
initial offensive.

We came up with two proposals.  One is a general change to the
Amphibious Assault rules, aiming at representing the fact that a small
unit could not defend a coastline effectively and therefore, a landing
was bound to be easier.

Proposal 1: Amphibious assault is necessary if

1. landing on an atoll
2. landing on a single-hex island with at least 1 Reg defending
3. landing anywhere with at least 1 Div defending.

The interesting thing about this proposal also removes an anomaly
elsewhere.  It means Port Moresby is no longer harder to attack by sea
than by land - under the circumstances that held in May 1942.  In
other words, it recreates the circumstances of the Battle of the Coral
Sea (which at the moment would never occur in the Strategic Scenario
since it is always preferable to the Japanese to try to attack via
Buna, a route they historically tried only after the naval option had
failed).  

Proposal 2: All Dutch ground combat units are TQ 2 until end of
February 1942 for all purposes, afterwards they are TQ 3 as printed.

This has the advantage of being limited in scope, since we don't have
to worry about what the more general rule would do to the Allied
attacks in the New Guinea campaign. We have adopted the TQ 2 solution
for the next Strategic Scenario.  Let's take a look at it.

Consider again the above "standard" situation - a 7-1 SNLF against a
3-1 Dutch unit - and assume again the Dutch are broken (now a 70%
chance if they have to undergo a TQC). The Amphibious Assault goes in
on row 16, shifted to row 13 due to terrain.  Again, both Japanese and
Dutch are eliminated with 40% chance, the Dutch alone with 60% chance.

If we again land on a neighboring hex and march in, the Assault now is
TQ 7:1 on row 19, row 16 due to terrain.  In 20% of cases both
Japanese and Dutch are eliminated, and the Dutch lose the hex in 80%
of cases.  This seems to at least remotely approach the historical
outcome.

In the second situation (SNLF and infantry regiment), the chance of
the Dutch being broken is now also higher.  A direct assault against a
broken Dutch garrison will see them eliminated every time, with the
SNLF eliminated in 40% of cases.  A direct assault against a
repeatedly broken (i.e., 1-step) Dutch garrison will cut the
percentage of SNLF deaths to 20%.  An assault overland against a
broken grarrison will always succeed.  It has a 20% chance of seeing
the SNLF dead.  If the Dutch have been reduced to 1 step, then even
the SNLF will always survive.  In other words, even though the tactics
used do not really correspond to the historical ones, we do have
outcomes that fit.  The only disadvantage is that the Southern
Conquests scenario again becomes somewhat more easy for the Japanese,
but that is a price I am willing to pay.  It still is much more of a
balanced context than it was with the original rules.