RE: Is THIS why?

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: Is THIS why?

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: Is THIS why?

Page: << < prev 17 18 [19] 20 21 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Is THIS why? - 5/26/2008 3:26:34 PM

ny59giants

Posts: 9869
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

To: D.Heywood - the under-secretary to the under-secretary of the advisor to the Minister.

From: Economics Minister

Re: WitP Chart

First, I would like to point out that your extra effort has not gone unnoticed and when the Minister (me) starts his own game against the War Minister (John), you may need a title change (less "unders" and maybe a few "overs"). When reading your title at the end, I had a small chuckle as I thought of the play on word in the cockpit during the classic movie "Airplane."

Second, the Minister usually has underlings do the charts (its below my level of dignity). Thus, it is broken up into two screenshots. Maybe someone can kindly show the Minister how to post more than one screenshot per post and/or how to get the whole WitP Chart into one screenshot.

I'm using Triscape FxFoto for screenshots and if there is an easier "free" program to run, I'm willing to convert.

As a side note, the under-secretary might want to change some of the pastel colors as they are hard on the eyes of the Minister.

Minister Benoit

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

(in reply to n01487477)

Post #: 541

RE: Is THIS why? - 5/26/2008 3:28:13 PM

ny59giants

Posts: 9869
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline

Part two

The Minister finally broke down and bought a 22" LCD monitor over the weekend. So it should help his eyes when it arrives!!

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

(in reply to ny59giants)

Post #: 542

RE: Is THIS why? - 5/26/2008 3:49:20 PM

rtrapasso

Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Something has chewing on my brain since this whole crazy set of landings commenced and now Michael has brought it into focus. CAN you use a Size-1 Port to replenish CV and BB? I had always ASSUMED that you couldn't. This is why you cannot disband a TF until you get to a minimum anchorage of 3.

The entire American Fleet moved to Tori Shima on the 2nd and stayed there...

If you can then this changes the WHOLE thing and alters the attitude I have been working under. He can refuel, rearm, replenish, and replace losses indefinately. If so, what a load of crap!

Please---someone tell me one way or the other...

short answer: yes he can rearm and refuel EVERYTHING in one turn at such a level 1 port...

Does it even need to be a port? i have a feeling it can be done at a "dot" base if there are enough supplies... of course, there is going to be a huge amount of "spoilage" but the USN could probably handle it.

(in reply to castor troy)

Post #: 543

RE: Is THIS why? - 5/26/2008 7:28:01 PM

Cap Mandrake

Posts: 23184
Joined: 11/15/2002
From: Southern California
Status: offline

When this is all over, I would say the residents of Chichi Jima are going to be in BIG trouble when the Emperor finds out they stockpiled tens of thousands of gallons of aviation fuel just so the Mayor could use his ride-behind lawn mower on the City Hall lawn.

(in reply to rtrapasso)

Post #: 544

RE: Is THIS why? - 5/26/2008 10:39:08 PM

ny59giants

Posts: 9869
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline

Due to the input of the under-over-under-secretary of the advisor to the Minister and others, the following changes have been put in place to "try" to get this economy running within accepted parameters.

With the Oil being at 2151 x 6 = 12906; I round up to 13000 for easier figuring.

HI is currently at 15150 and thus I need to reduce HI by about 2150. All repairing and/or expanding HI centers were stopped, I hope. But I will follow up after the next update and what WitPTracker tells me.

HI production was turned off at: Toyohara (16), Australia (430), Anshan (120), Akita (120), Aomori 9120), Hamamatsu (600), Takamatsu (600), and Hong Kong (150) for a total savings of 2156.

Production was turned of for: Merchant Shipbuilding at Kyoto (160 x 3 = 480); all of HI in Australia (430); Naval Building at Sendai (16 x 3 = 48); and Mitsubishi Engines at Matsue (80 x 18 = 1440) for a savings of 2131. I think this is area of adjustment I did incorrectly, so some more experienced "economic minister" will need to point out the errors of my ways.

Naval Shipbuilding had all remaining subs halted and then the DDs being build with a delay of less than 110 days were accelerated. These are the last of the DDs, as far as I can tell.

Note: to Sir John and other Japanese players, please remember to expand the port in your major Oil/Resource centers. John left Bankha, Medan, and Toboali at their starting levels. Thus loading at a size 1 port is a lenghty process vs at a size 3 ro 4 if they were build up.

Minister Benoit

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

(in reply to Cap Mandrake)

Post #: 545

RE: Is THIS why? - 5/27/2008 12:24:40 AM

castor troy

Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Something has chewing on my brain since this whole crazy set of landings commenced and now Michael has brought it into focus. CAN you use a Size-1 Port to replenish CV and BB? I had always ASSUMED that you couldn't. This is why you cannot disband a TF until you get to a minimum anchorage of 3.

The entire American Fleet moved to Tori Shima on the 2nd and stayed there...

If you can then this changes the WHOLE thing and alters the attitude I have been working under. He can refuel, rearm, replenish, and replace losses indefinately. If so, what a load of crap!

Please---someone tell me one way or the other...

short answer: yes he can rearm and refuel EVERYTHING in one turn at such a level 1 port...

Does it even need to be a port? i have a feeling it can be done at a "dot" base if there are enough supplies... of course, there is going to be a huge amount of "spoilage" but the USN could probably handle it.

never thought about a dot base, but now as you say it...

_____________________________

(in reply to rtrapasso)

Post #: 546

Economics 101--Japan - 5/27/2008 4:35:13 AM

John 3rd

Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

Wow. Thanks guys for all the work and discussion. I haven't been able to even check the Forum until now due to:

1. Took my eldest son to see the new Narnia film. Movie OK but not terrific.
2. We had severe Thunderstorms roll through (with our 4th Tornado Watch in 5 days) and cut our power for the last 4 hours. Any of you who saw the news on Thurs-Fri-Sat about Windsor, CO getting pummeled by a Twister? Well THAT one missed us by 5 miles and then we had ANOTHER on Friday to the East that missed us by 3 miles! It...has...been...rather...interesting...

As understand our problem with the economy we cannot return to full production until ALL the Oil Centers are repaired at Palembang and Balikpapan. Is this correct? Only at that point can we get back fully into gear.

Minister Benoit:
1. In turning off the HI in Australia--Does that need to be done since we just dropped off oil there?
2. Will we continue to stockpile the HI points with these changes? Seems like a logical answer but just want to check.
3. What impact does this have on my expanding aircraft production?

Thank you gentlemen. I have enjoyed watching the AAR get hijacked into an economic forum regarding the Japanese economy. This is a very useful discussion for anyone watching and trying to learn the ins-and-outs of the Japanese position...

I will post about my Lvl 1 Port thoughts in about a minute.

_____________________________

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to castor troy)

Post #: 547

Mos Eisley Space Port--Lvl 1 - 5/27/2008 4:39:38 AM

John 3rd

Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

The Americans managed to completely refuel, replenish, and supply themselves from the ultra-modern HUGE Port of Tori Shima within a span of 24 hours from Sept 2nd to 3rd. They did it so well that the 12-15 Aircraft Carriers and 10 or so battleships were then in position to place LRCAP over Iwo Jima to destroy a Japanese air attack from pagan.

How did the American do this with only a small anchorage with a 75 foot wooden pier that protected fishing vessels a few days ago? Easy! They used Star Wars Era technology to do so. This is the only explanation I can realistically see...

WHAT CRAP...

I am now shifting over to the AE Forum to make a comment.

_____________________________

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 548

RE: Is THIS why? - 5/27/2008 4:42:52 AM

Mike Solli

Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

Production was turned of for: Merchant Shipbuilding at Kyoto (160 x 3 = 480); all of HI in Australia (430); Naval Building at Sendai (16 x 3 = 48); and Mitsubishi Engines at Matsue (80 x 18 = 1440) for a savings of 2131. I think this is area of adjustment I did incorrectly, so some more experienced "economic minister" will need to point out the errors of my ways.

Engine factories are builds per month so the above is actually 480 + 430 + 48 + (1440/30) = 1006

_____________________________

Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to ny59giants)

Post #: 549

RE: Is THIS why? - 5/27/2008 4:48:09 AM

John 3rd

Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

Thanks Mike. I am sure that Economic Minister Benoit will see your note.

_____________________________

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to Mike Solli)

Post #: 550

RE: Economics 101--Japan - 5/27/2008 5:04:23 AM

ny59giants

Posts: 9869
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

Minister Benoit:
1. In turning off the HI in Australia--Does that need to be done since we just dropped off oil there?
2. Will we continue to stockpile the HI points with these changes? Seems like a logical answer but just want to check.
3. What impact does this have on my expanding aircraft production?

1) Looks like I've had a change of heart after long conversation with my other ministers and will use the TF at Ambonia (2 x 6k TKs) to go from there to Townsville, Truk, and back to Ambonia (Oil, Fuel, Empty). I might need some ASW ships at one of those places to join them.
2) We will change the HI to "on" again, but I will double check when the next turn comes and I load it into Tracker to ensure no further repairs/building is going on with HI.
3) Merchant Ship Building will come to an almost complete halt unless we suffer too many losses. This will hopefully allow aircraft expansion and engine production. However, some of the Mitsubishi engine plants may be shut down for a while as we have over 2100 in reserve.

With the Americans so close to home, I want to build up a reserve of HI and other things as I expect he will try to interdict shipping asap or when Iwo Jima falls and he feels safe.

I have 4 Construction LCUs moving to Pusan from Manchuria. The first 2 should be there in a few days as they are half way down the Korean peninsula. I had thought about bringing the Japan (to build AF/forts), but you may want to transport them to Okinawa (which needs some infantry sent there soon). 4 APs are already disbanded at Pusan.

The Economics Ministry respectfully request a Construction LCU and/or engineers be sent to Bankha (sumatra) to build that base port from size 1 to 2. Why?? At a size 1 it will load 400 Oil per day per ship while a size 2 does 800. At a size 1 it will take 27 days to load a large TK (11000 / 400 = 27.5). That is a lot of time to have my TKs tied up to a small dock (one of those 75ft wooden ones like at Tori Shima).

Minister Benoit

< Message edited by ny59giants -- 5/27/2008 5:09:29 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 551

RE: Economics 101--Japan - 5/27/2008 5:11:58 AM

n01487477

Posts: 4779
Joined: 2/21/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
As understand our problem with the economy we cannot return to full production until ALL the Oil Centers are repaired at Palembang and Balikpapan.� Is this correct?� Only at that point can we get back fully into gear.

That is somewhat correct, at present there is almost a status quo of what you need HI for, and what HI you can produce with the current Oil levels. Any expansion however will tip you over and sink into your HI reserves (3 days of full supply)

quote:

Minister Benoit:�
1.� In turning off the HI in Australia--Does that need to be done since we just dropped off oil there?
2.� Will we continue to stockpile the HI points with these changes?� Seems like a logical answer but just want to check.
3.� What impact does this have on my expanding aircraft production?

1. There is no real need to turn off this (OZ) HI as there is no oil there, according to Michael, there is not harm. I wouldn't be turning off any HI, unless it is in a region where there are mulitple HI factories and supplies of Oil are dwindling, and you can't cover them all. This at least allows the turned on Factories to operate... Maybe in Japan, if you want to lengthen the use of oil you have there, turn off as Michael has stated, although, because you have a new shipment of Oil, I would have let it operate fully for a little while...

In the regions there is no oil, they will be unable to produce anyway.

2. As you are about at equalibrium, the only way to continue accumulating will be to trim the fat...
I recommended cutting back on Merchant build, unless there is something you really need (there are 2943 HI used per turn)
or
if you want to reopen your veh plants (50 * 6 = 300HI) or arm (324 * 6 = 1944HI) you need to compensate with shutting something else down. So turning both of these back on, compensate by shutting down (1944 HI worth of Merchant shipyards 1944/3 = 648)

I'm not sure why you shut down your Repair shipyards ... they don't use HI, but they do use supplies ...

3. I'm not sure where you are going with production issues here, but I do think that you need to balance engine production with aircraft production, try not to build a surplus of engines for the meantime, except Kawasaki ... obviously
I know you are about to get a whole heap of upgrades, so the R&D factories will convert to producing, this too will start impacting on your HI.

Every engine or plane built costs 18 HI, think of what you can build overall to keep below that 13000 HI, you produce daily, and you should be ok... but it will take some shrewd management. And a bit of on/off with some production...

Keep that Oil incoming ...

---- "Dont' panic , Don't Panic" Dad's Army --- (guess you yanks never had that)

< Message edited by n01487477 -- 5/27/2008 5:15:14 AM >

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 552

RE: Economics 101--Japan - 5/27/2008 5:13:05 AM

John 3rd

Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

I have evacuated the fragments of 4 Con Btn from Iwo Jima. They should be able to help as they reconstruct themselves.

I have already thought about the Con Btn to go to Banka or the other Port. As soon as I can move them down from Pisanoluke they will move.

_____________________________

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to ny59giants)

Post #: 553

Minefield Allegiance - 5/27/2008 5:36:14 AM

John 3rd

Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

I had something happen the turn after Rangoon fell. I moved a bunch of barges from Moulmein to Rangoon for continued evacuation of Japanese troops are I had 20 of them hit mines and sink. The only mines there are the ones I had sown...

Do minefields change allegiance the moment a base falls?

_____________________________

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 554

RE: Economics 101--Japan - 5/27/2008 5:37:50 AM

ny59giants

Posts: 9869
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

Engine factories are builds per month so the above is actually 480 + 430 + 48 + (1440/30) = 1006

Thanks Mike!!

So back to WitP Chart and Tracker I have these numbers (per day):
HI - 15250
Oil - 2191 x 6 = 13146
Naval - 1366 x 3 = 4098 HI needed
Merchant - 981 x 3 = 2943
Amrament - 248 x 6 = 1488
Vehicles - 121 x 6 = 726
Planes - 1769/30days = 59/day x 18 = 1061
Engines - 2168/30days = 72/day x 18 = 1300

Thus, HI needed each day to run things is 11,616
Subtract the saving (shutdown of plants this turn ) using Mike's new numbers that means 11616 - 1006 = 10610 HI needed per day.

How much HI should I try to budget daily to be put into reserve??

_____________________________

(in reply to ny59giants)

Post #: 555

RE: Economics 101--Japan - 5/27/2008 5:48:49 AM

ny59giants

Posts: 9869
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline

Here is where I'm getting my numbers from. Note that a lot of industry is not producing right now. This is were i need input from John and others as we try to change from the "Course" knob to the "Fine" knob to tweak the economy.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

(in reply to ny59giants)

Post #: 556

Letters from Iwo Jima - 5/27/2008 5:54:55 AM

John 3rd

Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

Combat Report
September 3, 1943

Iwo Jima
To my surprise this garrision still holds out. The Americans are so disorganized due to landing at a place they didn't plan on AT ALL that they cannot launch a simple attack against an enemy with Forts at 4 and only 150 AS. Defies the imagination...

More damaged AP/AK sink with troops on board: 3rd Marine Division and 1st US Cav Div boys go for a swim...

Mos Eisley
Using the Mos Eisley Spaceport rule for refueling, rearming, and replenishing 200+ combat ships in less then 24 hours, Dan moved his Fleet back to a central location so a planned Betty strike against Iwo Jima shipping got wiped out. At a cost of 30 Betty versus 312 F6F I get nothing other then enjoying the creation of a future House Rule to NOT ALLOW this crap happening at a Sz-1 or Sz-2 Port.

Tori Shima
The shipping around Mos Eisley itself got smacked by two Japanese mainland strikes: 18 Zero escorted 50 Sally/Helen who creamed 4 DM and 43 Kates with 3 Helen then pasted 3 AVD and 2 AK.

I ordered the re-formation of my STF: CAs Maya and Furutaka, CLs Agano and Natori, plus 5 DD are ordered to attack the shipping around this Most Modern Sz-1 Space Port. We'll see how they do. I predict another Future House Rule being broken: 8,000 PT cannot defend a Sz-1 Port. I would expect to run into 3 groups of 6 PTs. Perhaps I will be happily mistaken...doubt it...

Burma
My AP/AK continue to flee the vacinity going south. Allied air is being tough but not unreasonable. I think I will end up losing 10-12 AP/AK is exchange for pulling out over 85,000 troops from Rangoon prior to collapse. Wish I knew about Minefields changing allegiance; however, I will keep sending the barges in until they are all sunk.

I had a STF of DD, MSW, PC manage to actually sink a SS! Down goes KXV...

Australia
Dan has backed away from Adelaide and Broken Hill again. My LBA hits him every turn but he doesn't attack. His LBA is attacking the 20th Inf Div at Broken Hill. I have 45-50 Fighters defending it and they exact a toll of 4-8 Bombers everyday.

_____________________________

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to ny59giants)

Post #: 557

RE: Is THIS why? - 5/27/2008 5:56:51 AM

thegreatwent

Posts: 3011
Joined: 8/24/2004
From: Denver, CO
Status: offline

Well John, I for one have enjoyed this AAR and learned a great deal about the Japanese industry, kudos for keeping it up. In terms of refueling TFs I think it is currently equal, you can do the same operation as your opponent. If AE adopts changes I would hope they are equal for both Axis and Allied players in terms of refuel/rearm times.

Also glad to hear that you missed the tornadoes, here in Denver we just got a little rain.

_____________________________

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 558

RE: Letters from Iwo Jima - 5/27/2008 5:59:24 AM

John 3rd

Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

If we can simply keep adding something to the pool I think that is good.

My concern is aircraft, aircraft engines, and vehicles. Had a massive drawdown in vehicles last month. Take a look at the Sept VP/Industrial Posting on that. Got to keep them producing so I can flesh out those 2 TK Divisions (Hanoi and Bangkok) as well as as those TK Regiments...

At the other end of this is the need for supply and fuel to get to the Marianas and/or Truk for the Fleet and bases there. I think this is being handled but it is a concern for combat operations.

_____________________________

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 559

RE: Letters from Iwo Jima - 5/27/2008 6:01:07 AM

John 3rd

Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

I never noticed that you were in Denver Sir! Good to have a close reader on the Forum. IT has been crazy weather here and we have lost power for some portion of time in 3 of the last 5 days. This has been a lot of fun and very neat...

_____________________________

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 560

RE: Letters from Iwo Jima - 5/27/2008 6:11:30 AM

ny59giants

Posts: 9869
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline

I have supply/fuel loading and headed to our designated rendezous base. After next turn that I recieve (wink, wink

) and can update things, I'll post what TF are going where.

I will review aircraft production to ensure that enough engines are being built. Right now, we are in very good shape on Mitsubishi engines (2100 in reserve!).

Next is to get my first turn to you (by sometime Thursday at the latest) for our PBEM using Empire's Ablaze. The blessing from your game is the learning curve�has been steep here, so hopefully I will not crash and burn over there. �

< Message edited by ny59giants -- 5/27/2008 6:13:10 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 561

RE: Minefield Allegiance - 5/27/2008 7:04:01 AM

bbbf

Posts: 493
Joined: 7/16/2000
From: Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

I had something happen the turn after Rangoon fell.� I moved a bunch of barges from Moulmein to Rangoon for continued evacuation of Japanese troops are I had 20 of them hit mines and sink.� The only mines there are the ones I had sown...

Do�minefields change allegiance the moment a base falls?�

Minefields don't change sides, they just become hostile to everybody!

_____________________________

Robert Lee

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 562

RE: Minefield Allegiance - 5/27/2008 8:36:33 AM

John 3rd

Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

It helps knowing that!� Another New House Rule Note: Mines may only be laid in increments of 2,000/Pt Size. I am abusing this right now and wouldn't like it myself.� Will remember that!

< Message edited by John 3rd -- 5/27/2008 8:54:04 AM >

_____________________________

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to bbbf)

Post #: 563

RE: Letters from Iwo Jima - 5/27/2008 8:48:10 AM

n01487477

Posts: 4779
Joined: 2/21/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

Next is to get my first turn to you (by sometime Thursday at the latest) for our PBEM using Empire's Ablaze. The blessing from your game is the learning curve has been steep here, so hopefully I will not crash and burn over there.

Not sure I should say this here, but make sure that you fill up all your pilots into grps (only applicable, if you have variable setup first turn), If you do this, nothing is taken from the pool. It's a little cheeky, but I think everyone does it ! Planes added to groups, will be taken from the pool however ...

Sorry John ...

(in reply to ny59giants)

Post #: 564

Mos Eisley PTs! - 5/27/2008 8:52:48 AM

John 3rd

Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

Combat Report
September 4, 1943

Mos Eisley (Tori Shima)
I was WAY off in my prediction of PT-Boats at Tori Shima! I predicted 18 and was DEAD WRONG. There wasn't 18, there were 29. How about that? Rr-Adm Kawahigashi's ships didn't ave ENOUGH ammunition to stop them whatsoever. Though 6 of these vessels were confirmed destroyed they managed to sink THREE Japanese DD: Maikaze, Kiyonami, and Hatsushima. No more raids there...

New House Rule for John Campaigns: Port 0-2 can have 6 PT, 3-5 12 PT, 6-8 18 PT, and 9+ can have anything! Seems realistic to me.

Iwo Jima
My good General at Iwo reports that the Allies managed to put together a Shock Attack---all 150,000 of them! Units Observered: 8 Inf Div, 1 Engineer Reg, 1 Base Force, 2 TK Btn, 2 Art Reg, 3 AA units, and 2 Marine Btn. They manage to reach an AS of 1,000 (possible 2,600 AS) and get a 3-1 attack that reduces the Forts to 2 and inflicts 1,600 Casualties. Iwo will fall next turn. Mines still sit at a respectable 8,500.

Tokyo Strike
16 Z and 29 B hit 3 more DM.

Rescuing Troops: 7th Inf Div and 27th Inf Div troops enter the water for rescue.

Burma
Rangoon The Allies hit the remaining troops with a 106-1 attack! I lose 7,134 Cas for only 472 Allied Cas. This leaves about 15,000 troops there. I order the last 21 Barges to move from Moulmein to Rangoon and a final lift. Expect to lose most of them but if I can save any troops that will help.

Have troops and fragments of units spread at Moulmein, Tavoy, Georgetown, and all point in between. Will begin to reorganize them at Bangkok. Moulmein is the next logical target but it has 2,500+ AS right now and I will not be pulling out of there until I am driven out.

Another new John House Rule: There can only be a maximum of 600 carrier-based planes in a single hex. I have seen rules like this elsewhere but it is not in Dan and I's list. Keeping EVERY CV in the same hex is impossible to fight. I've run into an average of 350 F6F whenever something has approached his CV TFs.

_____________________________

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 565

RE: Mos Eisley PTs! - 5/27/2008 8:57:53 AM

John 3rd

Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

n0148...

That is a fine reminder that I was unaware of until I started this campaign!� HELL--this AAR is serving as a Japanese Fan Boy learning experience and I think that is great.� More comment the better regarding playing the Japanese.� I really am enjoying turning on the computer to see which new (or not so new) person has jumped in a with a new piece of infomation and/or comment.

Seems to be really working out!

< Message edited by John 3rd -- 5/27/2008 8:58:55 AM >

_____________________________

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 566

RE: Mos Eisley Space Port--Lvl 1 - 5/27/2008 11:12:21 AM

tabpub

Posts: 1019
Joined: 8/10/2003
From: The Greater Chicagoland Area
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

The Americans managed to completely refuel, replenish, and supply themselves from the ultra-modern HUGE Port of Tori Shima within a span of 24 hours from Sept 2nd to 3rd.� They did it so well that the 12-15 Aircraft Carriers and 10 or so battleships were then in position to place LRCAP over Iwo Jima to destroy a Japanese air attack from pagan.

How did the American do this with only a small anchorage with a 75 foot wooden pier that protected fishing vessels a few days ago?� Easy!� They used Star Wars Era technology to do so.� This is the only explanation I can realistically see...

WHAT CRAP...

I am now shifting over to the AE Forum to make a comment.

An excerpt from over a year ago in the "Eternity" AAR. At the time, Pago Pago was under assault from your IJN as you might recall.....

quote:

3/2/2007 9:50:45 AM

Cap Mandrake
Battlefields! Beta Tester

Posts: 6394
Joined: 11/15/2002
From: Southern California
Status: offline The 2nd Marine Division have again held their lines after a second huge Japanese attack on Pago Pago. It seems every SNLF and free brigade from the South Pacific has been thrown into the fray along with the initial 3 division equivalents. A huge number of transports have been damaged or sunk by shore guns. The IJN has somehow managed to drag a supply of battleship main gun ammo to Upolu...so Pago Pago is now getting visited regularly by two BB's lobbing big shells onto the defenders. Every day 50+ Jap bombers pound the island. At least 4 Jap carriers (2 CV and 2 CVL) and possibly 6 are on station to the NE to intercept any resupply/evac attempt

bolding added for clarity

Perhaps you forgot about this? Otherwise why the surprise?

_____________________________

Sing to the tune of "Man on the Flying Trapeze"
..Oh! We fly o'er the treetops with inches to spare,
There's smoke in the cockpit and gray in my hair.
The tracers look fine as a strafin' we go.
But, brother, we're TOO God damn low...

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 567

RE: Mos Eisley PTs! - 5/27/2008 1:53:09 PM

Sheytan

Posts: 863
Joined: 11/28/2006
Status: offline

PT boats didnt need extensive facilities. They were beached...and repaired or serviced. I wouldnt get too excited about it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Combat Report
September 4, 1943
�
Mos Eisley (Tori Shima)
I was WAY off in my prediction of PT-Boats at Tori Shima!� I predicted 18 and was DEAD WRONG.� There wasn't 18, there were 29.� How about that?� Rr-Adm Kawahigashi's ships didn't ave ENOUGH ammunition to stop them whatsoever.� Though 6 of these vessels were confirmed destroyed they managed to sink THREE Japanese DD:� Maikaze, Kiyonami, and Hatsushima.� No more raids there...

New House Rule for John Campaigns:� Port 0-2 can have 6 PT, 3-5 12 PT, 6-8 18 PT, and 9+ can have anything!� Seems realistic to me.

Iwo Jima
My good General at Iwo reports that the Allies managed to put together a Shock Attack---all 150,000 of them!� Units Observered:� 8 Inf Div, 1 Engineer Reg, 1 Base Force, 2 TK Btn, 2 Art Reg, 3 AA units, and 2 Marine Btn.� They manage to reach an AS of 1,000 (possible 2,600 AS) and get a 3-1 attack that reduces the Forts to 2 and inflicts 1,600 Casualties.� Iwo will fall next turn.� Mines still sit at a respectable 8,500.

Tokyo Strike
16 Z and 29 B hit 3 more DM.

Rescuing Troops:� 7th Inf Div and 27th Inf Div troops enter the water for rescue.

Burma
Rangoon� The Allies hit the remaining troops with a 106-1 attack!� I lose 7,134 Cas for only 472 Allied Cas.� This leaves about 15,000 troops there.� I order the last 21 Barges to move from Moulmein to Rangoon and a final lift.� Expect to lose most of them but if I can save any troops that will help.

Have troops and fragments of units spread at Moulmein, Tavoy, Georgetown, and all point in between.� Will begin to reorganize them at Bangkok.� Moulmein is the next logical target but it has 2,500+ AS right now and I will not be pulling out of there until I am driven out.

Another new John House Rule:� There can only be a maximum of 600 carrier-based planes in a single hex.� I have seen rules like this elsewhere but it is not in Dan and I's list.� Keeping EVERY CV in the same hex is impossible to fight.� I've run into an average of 350 F6F whenever something has approached his CV TFs.

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 568

RE: Mos Eisley PTs! - 5/27/2008 3:21:18 PM

ny59giants

Posts: 9869
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline

Here is the list of upcoming LCU reinforcement per my under-minister.

Next lesson for me, is the LCUs. Afterwards, its going to be Aircraft Production
How do I determine how much Armament and Vehilces I will need to fill them out??

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

(in reply to Sheytan)

Post #: 569

RE: Mos Eisley PTs! - 5/27/2008 3:46:57 PM

n01487477

Posts: 4779
Joined: 2/21/2006
Status: offline

Michael,
this screen is a bit dumb, in the sense that it doesn't take note of TOE yet, but it will in later iterations ... This screen just shows how it will arrive...

Can you check sometime that the Delay is correct(in the game), there seems to be a "large" gap between units ... but then I've never got to mid '43 . And there are some kinks in the Delay filter. Sorry.

When you use the Delay filter, the Delay Need display changes to reflect just what is showing.
M/A/V are obviously Manpower/Arm/Veh

So, compare Have with Delay Need,
1. I realise that Manpower is off the hook at present, but you must have plenty... so no probs.
2. You have 58951 Arm Pts, these 4 units will cost 1468 points
3. You have 822 Veh Pts, these units will cost 0

The Reinforcement Need is for all your LCU's NOT delayed (out there, working for your tax Yen)

I've found for the best results to turn off all reinforcements to LCU's before the new one arrives,(they tend to arrive 2 days before) then they tend to come in full. But only if you have enough Pts, obviously!

The 25th Ind Mixed, will come in at 76%, this is a DB setting for it, not the game. It will use 7994 Manpower pts to fill to this level, and 938 Arm Pts. It's TOE number is the same as the unit, so it will not have to fill out to a different TOE configuration ... (You guys know what I mean)

When it arrives the Reinf columns will show what it needs to fill out, now that it is in the field.

It's calculated AV (very difficult calculation I might add..& can be +/- 1 pt at present) is 148 and can be loaded on an AP for 9222 cost.

I guess the thing is to look into the future and determine how much you'll need and plan for that ... In the next 60 days you're fine to build these new units, but not to repair all the existing LCU's. you might have to be selective with which ones you want to reinforce ... as Reinf Need is 137900/16102/1072 (it's the Vehicles you have a problem with)

---Damian---
Any questions ? comments ? 90/120 Days Filter ? I'm pretty sure the values are working correctly, but bug testing is the long haul ... (& this was a recent addition)

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by n01487477 -- 5/27/2008 4:39:26 PM >

(in reply to ny59giants)

Post #: 570

Page: << < prev 17 18 [19] 20 21 next > >>

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> After Action Reports >> RE: Is THIS why?