RE: Strategic bombing experiment

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Strategic bombing experiment

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> After Action Reports >> RE: Strategic bombing experiment

Page: << < prev 45 46 47 48 [49]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Strategic bombing experiment - 12/17/2007 11:53:48 PM

RUPD3658

Posts: 6922
Joined: 8/28/2002
From: East Brunswick, NJ
Status: offline

Supply is getting destryoed at a record pace but keeps flowing to Chungking

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 12/25/45

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Kyoto , at 63,41

Allied aircraft
PB4Y Liberator x 143

Allied aircraft losses
PB4Y Liberator: 3 damaged

hits 75

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Chungking , at 43,32

Allied aircraft
Liberator VI x 450
F-5A Lightning x 10
B-25J Mitchell x 261
PB4Y Liberator x 88
B-24J Liberator x 452

No Allied losses

Japanese ground losses:
708 casualties reported
Guns lost 1

Airbase hits 171
Airbase supply hits 14
Runway hits 1057

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Chungking , at 43,32

Allied aircraft
PB4Y Liberator x 69
B-24J Liberator x 270

No Allied losses

Japanese ground losses:
234 casualties reported

Airbase hits 45
Airbase supply hits 8
Runway hits 687

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Chungking , at 43,32

Allied aircraft
B-29 Superfortress x 660

No Allied losses

Japanese ground losses:
548 casualties reported

Airbase hits 132
Airbase supply hits 16
Runway hits 1567

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Sining , at 44,23

Allied aircraft
PB4Y Liberator x 21

No Allied losses

Airbase hits 4
Runway hits 54

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Sining , at 44,23

Allied aircraft
B-29 Superfortress x 75

No Allied losses

Airbase hits 13
Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 169

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Lanchow , at 45,25

Allied aircraft
B-29 Superfortress x 43

Allied aircraft losses
B-29 Superfortress: 1 damaged

Airbase hits 4
Runway hits 94

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Nanchang

Allied Shock attack

Attacking force 514299 troops, 4668 guns, 164 vehicles, Assault Value = 17263

Defending force 43374 troops, 402 guns, 2 vehicles, Assault Value = 799

Allied engineers reduce fortifications to 0

Allied max assault: -32096 - adjusted assault: 22754

Japanese max defense: 761 - adjusted defense: 402

Allied assault odds: 56 to 1 (fort level 0)

Allied forces CAPTURE Nanchang base !!!

Japanese ground losses:
9063 casualties reported
Guns lost 240
Vehicles lost 1

Allied ground losses:
11351 casualties reported
Guns lost 135
Vehicles lost 20

Defeated Japanese Units Retreating!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 12/26/45

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Chungking , at 43,32

Allied aircraft
Liberator VI x 435
F-5A Lightning x 12
B-25J Mitchell x 237
PB4Y Liberator x 83
B-24J Liberator x 421

No Allied losses

Japanese ground losses:
831 casualties reported

Airbase hits 86
Airbase supply hits 26
Runway hits 2042

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Chungking , at 43,32

Allied aircraft
PB4Y Liberator x 81
B-24J Liberator x 215
B-29 Superfortress x 33

No Allied losses

Japanese ground losses:
125 casualties reported

Airbase hits 22
Airbase supply hits 10
Runway hits 586

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Chungking , at 43,32

Allied aircraft
PB4Y Liberator x 65
B-24J Liberator x 247

No Allied losses

Japanese ground losses:
118 casualties reported

Airbase hits 16
Airbase supply hits 6
Runway hits 539

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Chungking , at 43,32

Allied aircraft
B-29 Superfortress x 148

No Allied losses

Japanese ground losses:
99 casualties reported

Airbase hits 12
Airbase supply hits 2
Runway hits 301

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Sining , at 44,23

Allied aircraft
PB4Y Liberator x 24

No Allied losses

Airbase hits 3
Runway hits 15

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Lanchow , at 45,25

Allied aircraft
B-29 Superfortress x 144

Allied aircraft losses
B-29 Superfortress: 3 damaged

Japanese ground losses:
19 casualties reported

Airbase hits 10
Airbase supply hits 2
Runway hits 256

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Lanchow , at 45,25

Allied aircraft
B-29 Superfortress x 46

Allied aircraft losses
B-29 Superfortress: 3 damaged

Airbase hits 1
Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 86

_____________________________

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has limits"- Darwin Awards 2003

"No plan survives contact with the enemy." - Field Marshall Helmuth von Moltke

(in reply to RUPD3658)

Post #: 1441

The end of the Strategic bombing experiment - 12/18/2007 12:04:27 AM

RUPD3658

Posts: 6922
Joined: 8/28/2002
From: East Brunswick, NJ
Status: offline

4th Nuke on Toko forces a tie. I will write a full summery of my findings some time soon.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has limits"- Darwin Awards 2003

"No plan survives contact with the enemy." - Field Marshall Helmuth von Moltke

(in reply to RUPD3658)

Post #: 1442

RE: The end of the Strategic bombing experiment - 12/18/2007 12:04:50 AM

RUPD3658

Posts: 6922
Joined: 8/28/2002
From: East Brunswick, NJ
Status: offline

End supply

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has limits"- Darwin Awards 2003

"No plan survives contact with the enemy." - Field Marshall Helmuth von Moltke

(in reply to RUPD3658)

Post #: 1443

RE: The end of the Strategic bombing experiment - 12/18/2007 12:05:09 AM

RUPD3658

Posts: 6922
Joined: 8/28/2002
From: East Brunswick, NJ
Status: offline

China

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has limits"- Darwin Awards 2003

"No plan survives contact with the enemy." - Field Marshall Helmuth von Moltke

(in reply to RUPD3658)

Post #: 1444

RE: The end of the Strategic bombing experiment - 12/18/2007 5:01:33 AM

KDonovan

Posts: 1157
Joined: 9/25/2005
From: New Jersey
Status: offline

and so it ends.....nice job finishing out our game towards the end....

question.....with the devastation of japanese industry and supply.....how was the effect on the japanese army??...were reinforcements coming in half strength?...was it tougher to recover from diablements?

_____________________________

(in reply to RUPD3658)

Post #: 1445

Findings of the Strategic bombing experiment - 12/18/2007 8:19:17 PM

RUPD3658

Posts: 6922
Joined: 8/28/2002
From: East Brunswick, NJ
Status: offline

This will be a series of posts

1. Japan can not be starved out: Even after having all but 100 supplies being produced per day the total supply level barely dropped. Oddest of all, when supply stockpiles were targeted, the overall supply level in the empire went up. Case in point were the supply stock piles at Osaka and Amori. They had 920K and 800K respectively. Even when close to 40 supply hits were scored the supply levels did not change. I thought that maybe supplies had flowed in from othere bases but a check of the industry screen showed that the levels had not changed.

The only thing that seemd to cause the overall supply level to drop was doing nothing. When left alone, supply dropped between 10-20K per day. When bases were bombed the supply level fluctuated between dropping 5K to incresing by 10K. I thought that this may be caused by supply leeching out of LCUs but almost none were seen to be short supply. Also, this should have been a one time cause yet it happened for several months.

Anther supply odditiy was that the supply level at captured Irkustk fluctuated between 5K and 100K despite a minimal garrison. There seemed to be no rhyme or reason to how supplies were being distributed. At one point I had bombed Chungking into the red (Had I dropped nuke #3 at this point the Allies would have scored a Marginal Victory). After 2-3 weeks supplies flowed into the double the needed amount. Once I started an all out assult on Chingking by air (1000+ planes per day) the supply level did not budge.

Clearly the supply model is pooched. Hopefully this will be fixed in AE.

< Message edited by RUPD3658 -- 12/18/2007 8:29:22 PM >

_____________________________

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has limits"- Darwin Awards 2003

"No plan survives contact with the enemy." - Field Marshall Helmuth von Moltke

(in reply to KDonovan)

Post #: 1446

Findings of the Strategic bombing experiment - 12/18/2007 8:21:48 PM

RUPD3658

Posts: 6922
Joined: 8/28/2002
From: East Brunswick, NJ
Status: offline

2. Firestorms do not work: Even with over 1000 ac attacking and scoring 2-3K manpower hits, already damaged industry was not destroyed. Fire were in the 200-300,000 level . It is possible that the only way to destroy industry is to start a fire storm when the indusry is undamaged.

_____________________________

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has limits"- Darwin Awards 2003

"No plan survives contact with the enemy." - Field Marshall Helmuth von Moltke

(in reply to RUPD3658)

Post #: 1447

Findings of the Strategic bombing experiment - 12/18/2007 8:24:13 PM

RUPD3658

Posts: 6922
Joined: 8/28/2002
From: East Brunswick, NJ
Status: offline

3. Units take forever to starve: Kwaj was out of supply for over 2 years. While some units would starve, the overall fat/disruption level of the unit barely moved. Even after 2 years the total AV had only been reduced by about 60%.

The same thing happened at Chungking and Iman. At Chungking units were cut off for nearly 2 years. Despite the influx of auto supply the units were barely effected despited daily LCU bombardment. What did seem to work was daily air bombardment but even this took several months to show a significant effect.

< Message edited by RUPD3658 -- 12/18/2007 8:27:48 PM >

_____________________________

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has limits"- Darwin Awards 2003

"No plan survives contact with the enemy." - Field Marshall Helmuth von Moltke

(in reply to RUPD3658)

Post #: 1448

Findings of the Strategic bombing experiment - 12/18/2007 8:31:45 PM

RUPD3658

Posts: 6922
Joined: 8/28/2002
From: East Brunswick, NJ
Status: offline

4. Nukes work: Each of the 4 nukes used scored between 5-7K AVs despited the fact that 99% of the targets were already damaged. Against an undamaged target I would estimate the effects to be 8-12K VP.

_____________________________

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has limits"- Darwin Awards 2003

"No plan survives contact with the enemy." - Field Marshall Helmuth von Moltke

(in reply to RUPD3658)

Post #: 1449

RE: Findings of the Strategic bombing experiment - 12/18/2007 9:15:34 PM

VSWG

Posts: 3432
Joined: 5/31/2006
From: Germany
Status: offline

Useful information, thanks! I was going to ask you to post your findings in a separate thread so that I could add it to the List of Must Read Threads, but you already did that.

_____________________________

(in reply to RUPD3658)

Post #: 1450

RE: Findings of the Strategic bombing experiment - 12/18/2007 10:28:12 PM

RUPD3658

Posts: 6922
Joined: 8/28/2002
From: East Brunswick, NJ
Status: offline

Feel free to add that thread to your list

_____________________________

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has limits"- Darwin Awards 2003

"No plan survives contact with the enemy." - Field Marshall Helmuth von Moltke

(in reply to VSWG)

Post #: 1451

Other lessons learned - 12/18/2007 10:41:25 PM

RUPD3658

Posts: 6922
Joined: 8/28/2002
From: East Brunswick, NJ
Status: offline

Other lessons learned aside from the Strategic Bombing Experiment:

1. Allied subs are not as strong as in real life Despite getting killed in mid 43, once I developed a good convoy system and ASW hunter-killer groups, the loss ratio of subs to transports was almost 1:1. With this in mid attacking manilla on Day 1 was a bad idea.

2. Kamikazies suck: The worst example of this is when a strike of 40 Sallies scored only 2 hits against an unescorted AK Kenny was trying to get sunk. Even this did not sink it. Kami strikes against Hellcat CAP fared just as bad as regular AC. This may change in AE when the A2A model is redone.

3. Never expand any industry in the HI that can be expanded elsewhere. Repair yards, AC factories, Armament factories, ect should be expanded on the mainland first since these do not count for VPs when damaged/destroyed. Those in the HI do.

4. Japan should cut back on mercahnt production from Day 1. I was never at a loss for AP/AKs but by mid 43 I had a ton of them and nothing to move. They just ended up as targets for the Allies.

5. Changing the AC load out of the KB can fend off the 4E terrors until late 43 By removing the Vals and adding Zeros, the KB can fend off up to 150 4E bombers. This should protect it until late 43. AE may change this

6. Surrounded units do not starve on their own. Simply bombarding with LCUs will not do the job. Constant AC bombing is needed to raise the fat/disruption to the point where the base can be captured.

And most important for Japan:

7. Treat all units as disposable assets: I would not risk losing the KB in 43 but by 44 it was a white elephant. It could not accomplish anything and was doomed as soon as it left port. Had I known this I should have been more aggressive with it early on when it could still do some damage. Same thing with surface forces. I learned this by accident when I sent DDs on suicide runs against Allied BBs and sunk a few of them.

< Message edited by RUPD3658 -- 12/18/2007 10:43:53 PM >

_____________________________

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has limits"- Darwin Awards 2003

"No plan survives contact with the enemy." - Field Marshall Helmuth von Moltke

(in reply to RUPD3658)

Post #: 1452

RE: Other lessons learned - 12/18/2007 11:57:12 PM

KDonovan

Posts: 1157
Joined: 9/25/2005
From: New Jersey
Status: offline

Lesson Learned from Allied point of view.....

1. Don't be afraid to lose CV's early on: The allies have such a huge disparity in CV's, there is no reason, not to throw them at the Japanese player early in the game to disrupt his plans. I would say losing 2 CV's for every Japanese CV sunk is well worth it before June, 1942. I say this b/c 1943 is a crucial year for the allies to turn the tide in their favor, and they need every CV they can get their hands on. And those CV's lost early on, will start to respawn when you need them most. By early 1944 i had so many CV, CVL's, CVE's i didn't know what to do with them.

2. Do be afraid to lose CV's in late 42/early 43: This is the crucial time for the Allies, as most players will start their offensives at this point, while still fielding F4F's on their CV's. Losing CV's at this point, means you won't see the respawn version until mid to late 1944, when CV's are of less use.

3. Battleships!!!: B/t protecting beach-heads from Japanese CL's/DD's (although poorely in my game), and nuking well fortified base's, every singe one lost is a huge hit to your offensive. I rarely used them as AA defense for CV's (thats what Hellcats are for). Instead they serve so much better in knock out well fortified base's.

4:Navy Pilots: the achilles heel of the USN. After one major battle in mid 1943 w/ my USN, i has down to less than 100 pilots left in my pool. I found out that most of my navy pilots were being used up on bombing runs by PB4Y's (Liberators). So while many of those Ventura Squadrons can by upgraded to PB4Y's, becareful using them in front line duty as army bombers as those pilots should be reserved for your carriers, instead send them to the rear to look for subs.

5: Subs: as stated by my oppenant, they are pratically worthless as the allies, against a formidable convoy system. I think towards the end of the game, i probably on scored on a 1:1 point ratio of subs lost to merchant ships sunk. Probably would've been worse had i not moved every sub on patrol into different hex's every turn to avoid repeated air attacks. On the other hand allied 4E at 75+ Exp will devastate any japanese subs that wonder w/ 12 hex's of an allied base. So its fair turn around

6: Non-Maleria Base's: Allies need to capture non-maleria base's, period. Disablements will not get repaired and morale howevers in the 60's. Not a great place to stage offensives out of. Time and time again i had to move troops back to Australia, refit and send back into battle. Wasn't until i captured Utiliti and Formosa that i had access to excellent non-maleria deep water ports (also important), from which to stage offensives from.

7: Coronado's: little i trick i learned. Utilizing Coronado's for Para-drops will give you 15 hex range to any targets, that allied players crave.

8: Can't lose both India and China: pretty obvious, but losing those divisions was probably the reason the game only ended in a draw, instead of an allied victory. I still think that the Allies can prevail w/ China lost, but India is a must hold.

< Message edited by KDonovan -- 12/18/2007 11:58:09 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to RUPD3658)

Post #: 1453

Lesson's on Invasions - 12/29/2007 5:11:15 PM

KDonovan

Posts: 1157
Joined: 9/25/2005
From: New Jersey
Status: offline

From 1943 on i embarked on over 2 dozen invasions, some against well defended bases. Needless to say i became quite adapt to forming up invasion TF's, which i will discuss now.

Loading Troops/Supply:: During the course of my offensive as the allies into 1943-1944, i came to realize that i had a severe shortage of AP's and LST/LSV/LSD/LCI's, while i had plenty of AK's. Unfortunately unloading troops over hostile beaches from AK's takes a long time and increases disablements. On the otherhand i never had enough AP's and Landing Craft to carry all my Divisions.

My solution to this problem was to use a mix force of AK's/AP's/and Landing Craft. Looking in the manual i saw that AK's load Artillery and Guns really well, while they load troops very poorly, while the opposite was true from AP's. So i said to myself, "how can i get my Divisional Artillery and other heavy weapons to just load on AK's, while have my troops just load on AP's and Landing Craft?".

The solution was pretty easy, i found out the heavy weapons will load first, with the troops to follow. I also found out that most of heavy weapons of a standard size division can mostly be loaded onto 3 AK's of 7000 capacity. So with my division ashore i first formed a TF of 3 AK's of 7000 capacity and loaded the division. This would load about 80-90% of the heavy weapons of the Division as well as 10% of the troops. This left about 90% of the combat troops and a few mortars ashore still. With a unit comprised of mostly troops my AP's now became more efficient in their loading space (instead of wasting loading points on heavy weapons). Usually i would need around 16,000 points in AP's to load the rest of the division. So with this format one division can be combat loaded w/ 3 AK's (7000), and 4 AP's (4000).

Of all this ships Landing Craft (LSV,LSD, LST, LCI) bring troops ashore the most efficiently, with the least disablements, however you need alot of them to combat load a division. So once again the artillery went first on my 3 AK's (7000). Then usually i would need about 30,000 points in landing craft, which is tough to come by. With that in mind i would save my Landing craft for my best assualt divisions (ie USMC Div's), while my Army Divisions got the AP's.

Lastly, you need to load supply. Since supply unloads after the troops unload. One needs to form up TF's of just AK's filled w/ supply points. Supply unloads about 1,000 points per turn per ship. So depending on how big you invasion TF is, you may need 20+ AK's (7000) in a supply task force along.

Escorts:: In terms of escorting my invasion TF's i used a mixed bag of ships. I wouldn't utilize more than 80 transports per TF, thereby leaving 20 ship slots for escorts. With those 20 ship slots i would usually put about 2-4 DD's. The manual states that putting DD's in invasion TF's will help suppress CD-Guns, and i found that to be true. While some players but CA's or BB's in invasion TF's to "soak up" CD-gunfire, i found it better to use those heavy ships in bombardment TF's. Next i would put 2-4 MSW's in TF's to detect the mines, for a separate dedicated MSW TF of 10-20 ships. Next i would through in some ASW assetts such as PG's, PC's, and SC's numbering about 12-16.

As stated before, i put the majority of my MSW's in a separate MSW TF, rather than w/in transport TF's. I found my transports hit less mines that way. However, its important that MSW TF's don't arrive before the invasion TF's or they will get smacked by CD-guns.

_____________________________

(in reply to KDonovan)

Post #: 1454

RE: Lesson's on Invasions - 12/29/2007 8:44:06 PM

ttjhowell

Posts: 28
Joined: 11/25/2007
From: Denmark
Status: offline

Thanks to you both for taking the time to write about your game - the effort was much appreciated and the end result very educational. I loved the maps at the start but can understand why it wasn't possible to continue with them!

RUPD, I have a question for you. You did about as well playing the Japs as I can imagine - took all of China and India and even got rid of the Soviets. Do you reach the autovictory conditions at any point? Do you think it is possible for the Japanese to get an autovictory result late in the game?

Knowing what you know now about using the KB, could you have pushed even further and taken NZ or Australia?

I remember reading that you would both be doing a non-stock game next time? Why and what are your plans?

(in reply to KDonovan)

Post #: 1455

RE: Lesson's on Invasions - 12/29/2007 11:13:41 PM

KDonovan

Posts: 1157
Joined: 9/25/2005
From: New Jersey
Status: offline

quote:

Thanks to you both for taking the time to write about your game - the effort was much appreciated and the end result very educational. I loved the maps at the start but can understand why it wasn't possible to continue with them!

Thanks for the post, glad to know our game was entertaining and education to those that spent to time reading the AAR.

quote:

RUPD, I have a question for you. You did about as well playing the Japs as I can imagine - took all of China and India and even got rid of the Soviets. Do you reach the autovictory conditions at any point? Do you think it is possible for the Japanese to get an autovictory result late in the game?

Not meaning to speak for Tom, but he did achieve autovictory at the end of 1942 of 4:1, however we had agreed to override it prior to the start of the game. However by mid-to-late 1943 the victory level fell below 3:1, so Japan was unable to claim victory.

Tom may have been able to acheive that 3:1 victory level had he not been aggressive in trying to prevent the landings at Port Moresby or Wake. On the otherhand, if i had lost carriers during those battles at Wake and Port Moresby than i surely would've loss to autovictory by the end of 1943. So i don't think there was any correct way to play it, besides just rolling the dice.

quote:

Knowing what you know now about using the KB, could you have pushed even further and taken NZ or Australia?

Would've been interesting see if Tom made that much of a push in late 1942. In fact i was expecting a landing at either Perth, North. Oz, or Noumea during that time. Forces present were substantial though, with 2 Inf Div at Perth, 2-3 Inf Div in NorthWestern Oz, and Noumea containing 2 Inf Division's, along with RCT's at Luganville, Efate, and Koumac. Would've been bloody for sure.

quote:

I remember reading that you would both be doing a non-stock game next time? Why and what are your plans?

I'm semi-retired for now due to a child on the way, and working through my first year as a medical resident (60-70 hour work week), however i have been playing around with the AI from time to time on CHS Big B Mod, which is largely based on stock. I'm in love with the CHS map, so thats why my move there. But in generaly i find the units (ships, planes, LCU's) easier to deal with on stock. The air combat is a problem though, so hence my move to Big B Mod. I am anxiously awaiting the release of AE....after which i'm sure to restart a new PBEM sometime late next year (as the Japanese

)

< Message edited by KDonovan -- 12/29/2007 11:14:32 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to ttjhowell)

Post #: 1456

RE: Lesson's on Invasions - 12/30/2007 5:45:05 AM

RUPD3658

Posts: 6922
Joined: 8/28/2002
From: East Brunswick, NJ
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ttjhowell

RUPD, I have a question for you. You did about as well playing the Japs as I can imagine - took all of China and India and even got rid of the Soviets. Do you reach the autovictory conditions at any point? Do you think it is possible for the Japanese to get an autovictory result late in the game?

Knowing what you know now about using the KB, could you have pushed even further and taken NZ or Australia?

I remember reading that you would both be doing a non-stock game next time? Why and what are your plans?

AS Kenny said I had a 4:1 VP ratio at the end of 42. I could have possibly retained a 3:1 if I had played very conservatively and not contested any of Kenny's landings. I thought that this was a bit gamey so I decided to play for a total victory or a draw. The goal was not so much to win but to have fun and we had a lot of fun.

As for using the KB, I still think I was too conservative with it. In my new PBEM against Bill Durant I am being a bit more aggressive with it (Or is it them

). I will be posting an AAR soon. The title will be "Joe Friday VS Sherlock Holmes" since Bill is a detective in the UK and I am one in the US. I am sticking with stock to avoid the learning cliff.

I don't think I could have taken all of OZ or NZ but I think I could have taken Northern OZ if I hadn't gotten spooked my the B-17s in Feb 42. I should have used the KB as a raiding force and tried to force a battle with the Allied CVs.

1st thing I did different was to attack Singapore on 12/7 in stead of Manilla. I have also landed at Noemea in the first week of the war. The rest is classified at this point.

_____________________________

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has limits"- Darwin Awards 2003

"No plan survives contact with the enemy." - Field Marshall Helmuth von Moltke

(in reply to ttjhowell)

Post #: 1457

RE: Lesson's on Invasions - 12/30/2007 7:05:41 PM

RUPD3658

Posts: 6922
Joined: 8/28/2002
From: East Brunswick, NJ
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ttjhowell

Do you think it is possible for the Japanese to get an autovictory result late in the game?

See this AAR where it was done

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=768936

_____________________________

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has limits"- Darwin Awards 2003

"No plan survives contact with the enemy." - Field Marshall Helmuth von Moltke

(in reply to ttjhowell)

Post #: 1458

RE: Lesson's on Invasions - 1/14/2008 8:17:49 AM

RUPD3658

Posts: 6922
Joined: 8/28/2002
From: East Brunswick, NJ
Status: offline

Stats requested by Treespider:

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has limits"- Darwin Awards 2003

"No plan survives contact with the enemy." - Field Marshall Helmuth von Moltke

(in reply to RUPD3658)

Post #: 1459

Production stats - 1/14/2008 8:18:15 AM

RUPD3658

Posts: 6922
Joined: 8/28/2002
From: East Brunswick, NJ
Status: offline

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has limits"- Darwin Awards 2003

"No plan survives contact with the enemy." - Field Marshall Helmuth von Moltke

(in reply to RUPD3658)

Post #: 1460

RE: Production stats - 1/14/2008 1:41:27 PM

treespider

Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline

Thanks for the stats...

How would you characterize your aircraft production....not counting the negative numbers you either had in your pools or used from your pools c.40,000 aircraft?

< Message edited by treespider -- 1/14/2008 1:44:52 PM >

_____________________________

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910

(in reply to RUPD3658)

Post #: 1461

RE: Production stats - 1/14/2008 8:17:02 PM

RUPD3658

Posts: 6922
Joined: 8/28/2002
From: East Brunswick, NJ
Status: offline

I hit a peak of about 3500 AC per month in mid 1943. The pools coupled with the 24K AC losses would lead me to believe I produced somewhere between 60-70,000 during the war.

PM me you e-mail and I will send you the saves for more in depth analysis.

_____________________________

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has limits"- Darwin Awards 2003

"No plan survives contact with the enemy." - Field Marshall Helmuth von Moltke

(in reply to treespider)

Post #: 1462

Page: << < prev 45 46 47 48 [49]

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> After Action Reports >> RE: Strategic bombing experiment