RE: Guadalcanal AAR - The rematch///Noa Joa

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: Guadalcanal AAR - The rematch///Noa Joa

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

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Guadalcanal AAR - The rematch///Noa Joa

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Guadalcanal AAR - The rematch///Noa Joa - 7/20/2009 7:41:47 PM

Cribtop

Posts: 3890
Joined: 8/10/2008
From: Lone Star Nation
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

Nik;

Joe played a conservative Japan game, and was losing to you pretty handily. You are playing more aggressively as Japan, and it appears that you will likely lose as well, perhaps even worse than Joe. Do you think this scenario is skewed to the Allies?

IRL, taking Lunga or PM was probably a stretch for the Japanese, so maybe you modelled the history too well. If you need to take one of those to have a chance in this scenario, then maybe that's too high a bar if this is historically accurate?

While in part I share Q-Ball's concerns, which I expressed in the previous AAR, I also sense that Nik was just "having fun with it" in this run through. Nik's strategy has been to basically throw all naval and air assets at the Lunga landings as soon as those assets can get into position. In other words, his strategy has been almost fanatically aggressive. An IJN player adopting a strategy somewhere in between Joe's conservative approach and Nik's super-BANZAI may have more success.

I sincerely hope Nik has adopted the super-BANZAI because he knows AE will be released so soon that he has no time to adopt a longer term operational plan.

(in reply to Q-Ball)

Post #: 61

RE: Guadalcanal AAR - The rematch///Noa Joa - 7/20/2009 8:04:45 PM

Fishbed

Posts: 1822
Joined: 11/21/2005
From: Beijing, China - Paris, France
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

Nik;

Joe played a conservative Japan game, and was losing to you pretty handily. You are playing more aggressively as Japan, and it appears that you will likely lose as well, perhaps even worse than Joe. Do you think this scenario is skewed to the Allies?

IRL, taking Lunga or PM was probably a stretch for the Japanese, so maybe you modelled the history too well. If you need to take one of those to have a chance in this scenario, then maybe that's too high a bar if this is historically accurate?

Well historically the IJN subs accounted for two CVs and one BB put out of the picture, that was already a pretty lucky roll. Historically speaking, there's no way the IJN could expect to win a fight without the intervention of the subs. I'd say seing the KB overwhelmed is quite historically accurate... so far ;)

_____________________________

(in reply to Q-Ball)

Post #: 62

RE: Guadalcanal AAR - The rematch///Noa Joa - 7/20/2009 9:40:13 PM

AttuWatcher

Posts: 489
Joined: 6/25/2009
From: Hex 181, 36
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cribtop
I sincerely hope Nik has adopted the super-BANZAI because he knows AE will be released so soon that he has no time to adopt a longer term operational plan.

I'm going with this explanation...but only until I get to play the scenario myself

(in reply to Cribtop)

Post #: 63

RE: Guadalcanal AAR - The rematch///Noa Joa - 7/20/2009 10:38:17 PM

Wirraway_Ace

Posts: 1400
Joined: 10/8/2007
From: Austin / Brisbane
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

So this amazingly accurate mod starts off with errors?

If you are going to stir, could you do it without flying the Australian flag? It makes me cringe. I have to start telling people I am from New Zealand.

(in reply to JeffroK)

Post #: 64

RE: Guadalcanal AAR - The rematch///Noa Joa - 7/21/2009 2:24:31 AM

IndyShark

Posts: 303
Joined: 7/7/2002
From: Indianapolis
Status: offline

When carriers sink with aircraft on board, where do they show up in the aircraft losses? Ops?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

.

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 65

RE: Guadalcanal AAR - The rematch///Noa Joa - 7/21/2009 2:59:17 AM

greg_slith

Posts: 490
Joined: 9/14/2004
Status: offline

I have a follow up question, too. In the old days, even with FOW, you could count on the intelligence screen to give the staight dope. Does that still hold true? With FOW on will player A ever know what player B lost?

(in reply to IndyShark)

Post #: 66

RE: Guadalcanal AAR - The rematch///Noa Joa - 7/21/2009 3:06:04 AM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ecwgcx

I have a follow up question, too. In the old days, even with FOW, you could count on the intelligence screen to give the staight dope. Does that still hold true? With FOW on will player A ever know what player B lost?

no longer the straight dope

_____________________________

(in reply to greg_slith)

Post #: 67

RE: Guadalcanal AAR - The rematch///Noa Joa - 7/21/2009 3:06:42 AM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: IndyShark

When carriers sink with aircraft on board, where do they show up in the aircraft losses? Ops?

ops

_____________________________

(in reply to IndyShark)

Post #: 68

RE: Guadalcanal AAR - The rematch///Noa Joa - 7/21/2009 3:13:29 AM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

Nik;

Joe played a conservative Japan game, and was losing to you pretty handily. You are playing more aggressively as Japan, and it appears that you will likely lose as well, perhaps even worse than Joe. Do you think this scenario is skewed to the Allies?

IRL, taking Lunga or PM was probably a stretch for the Japanese, so maybe you modelled the history too well. If you need to take one of those to have a chance in this scenario, then maybe that's too high a bar if this is historically accurate?

Last year, the scenario worked pretty darn well in terms of balance. A well managed Japan campaign had a good chance of winning and the onus was on the Allied player to play a smart game and avoid MAD with the carriers, which along with troop assets are their main trump cards.

Obviously alot has happened to AE in that time. The way things stand now......its looking like its pretty hard to lose as Allies. Its rather frustrating to be honest after all the work put into this beast. I spent a portion of last nite pondering what i could do to adjust things to re-establish balance within a historical framework. Some things i can't control, but there were a couple areas i thought i might make an impact. I have made several more tweaks in the hopes of doing this. I hope it will make the cut in time. I didn't have alot of time to test it, but it seems to have resolved the most outstanding issue.

That said, yes...it remains hard for the Japanese, primarily because the schedule rate of their troop arrival is the bane of quickly retaking Lunga. The restricted command slows down the Allies but unless a successful series of naval battles are achieved and a state of siege established, the Japanese will never retake the island.....just like in real life.

Keep in mind too that there is an oft not used WitP feature that randomizes unit arrivals. That was playtested once and it did make things...."interesting"

_____________________________

(in reply to Q-Ball)

Post #: 69

RE: Guadalcanal AAR - The rematch///Noa Joa - 7/21/2009 3:26:13 AM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

Guadalcanal

Admiral Yamamotto is convinced that we are ju ju cursed. 3 subs launch 3 salvos at 3 different targets....including the CV Wasp. All torpedoes miss.

We need to purify our HQ.

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Aug 28, 42
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASW attack near Kirakira at 115,142

Japanese Ships
SS I-171

Allied Ships
DD Bagley
DMS Southard

I-171 diving deep ....
DD Bagley fails to find sub, continues to search...
DMS Southard attacking submerged sub ....
DD Bagley attacking submerged sub ....
DMS Southard fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Bagley attacking submerged sub ....
DMS Southard attacking submerged sub ....
DD Bagley fails to find sub, continues to search...
DMS Southard attacking submerged sub ....
Escort abandons search for sub

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub attack near Rennell Island at 114,140

Japanese Ships
SS I-21, hits 3

Allied Ships
CV Wasp
BB North Carolina
CA Minneapolis
CA New Orleans
DD Grayson
DD Russell
DD Frazier
DD Farenholt
DD Buchanan

SS I-21 launches 6 torpedoes at CV Wasp
DD Russell fails to find sub and abandons search
DD Frazier fails to find sub and abandons search
DD Farenholt fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Buchanan fails to find sub and abandons search
DD Farenholt attacking submerged sub ....
DD Farenholt fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Farenholt fails to find sub, continues to search...
Escort abandons search for sub

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on 144th Infantry Regiment, at 99,130

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid spotted at 21 NM, estimated altitude 10,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 6 minutes

Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 4

No Allied losses

Japanese ground losses:
37 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 4 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Aircraft Attacking:
4 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 6000 feet
Ground Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on 144th Infantry Regiment, at 99,130

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid spotted at 13 NM, estimated altitude 10,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 3 minutes

Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 6

No Allied losses

Japanese ground losses:
13 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 1 (0 destroyed, 1 disabled)

Aircraft Attacking:
6 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 6000 feet
Ground Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Yokoyama Tai , at 99,130

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid spotted at 37 NM, estimated altitude 13,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 10 minutes

Allied aircraft
P-39D Airacobra x 27

Allied aircraft losses
P-39D Airacobra: 2 damaged

Japanese ground losses:
56 casualties reported
Squads: 1 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled
Guns lost 1 (0 destroyed, 1 disabled)

Aircraft Attacking:
15 x P-39D Airacobra diving from 10000'
Ground Attack: 1 x 500 lb GP Bomb
10 x P-39D Airacobra diving from 10000'
Ground Attack: 1 x 500 lb GP Bomb
2 x P-39D Airacobra diving from 10000'
Ground Attack: 1 x 500 lb GP Bomb

Also attacking I/55 Mtn Gun Rgt ...
Also attacking 15th Engineer Regiment ...
Also attacking Yokoyama Tai ...
Also attacking I/55 Mtn Gun Rgt ...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Horii Group , at 99,130

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid spotted at 26 NM, estimated altitude 14,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 7 minutes

Allied aircraft
P-39D Airacobra x 15

Allied aircraft losses
P-39D Airacobra: 1 damaged

Japanese ground losses:
25 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 4 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Aircraft Attacking:
13 x P-39D Airacobra diving from 10000'
Ground Attack: 1 x 500 lb GP Bomb
2 x P-39D Airacobra diving from 10000'
Ground Attack: 1 x 500 lb GP Bomb

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub attack near Rennell Island at 114,140

Japanese Ships
SS I-21, hits 4

Allied Ships
DD Balch
CA Vincennes
CLAA San Juan
DD Dale
DD Worden
DD MacDonough
DD Farragut

SS I-21 launches 6 torpedoes at DD Balch
DD Dale attacking submerged sub ....
DD Worden attacking submerged sub ....
DD MacDonough attacking submerged sub ....
DD Farragut fails to find sub and abandons search
Escort abandons search for sub

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Aug 29, 42

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TF 125 encounters mine field at Rabaul (106,125)

Allied Ships
SS Grayling, Mine hits 1

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub attack near Truk at 114,112

Japanese Ships
DD Tokitsukaze
DD Oyashio

Allied Ships
SS Sculpin

SS Sculpin launches 4 torpedoes at DD Tokitsukaze
DD Tokitsukaze fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Oyashio fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Tokitsukaze fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Oyashio fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Tokitsukaze fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Oyashio fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Tokitsukaze fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Oyashio fails to find sub, continues to search...
Escort abandons search for sub

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub attack near Rennell Island at 114,140

Japanese Ships
SS I-21, hits 4

Allied Ships
DD MacDonough
CA Vincennes
CLAA San Juan
DD Balch
DD Dale
DD Worden
DD Farragut

SS I-21 launches 6 torpedoes at DD MacDonough
DD Dale fails to find sub and abandons search
DD Worden fails to find sub and abandons search
DD MacDonough fails to find sub and abandons search
DD Farragut attacking submerged sub ....
DD Farragut attacking submerged sub ....
DD Farragut fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Farragut fails to find sub, continues to search...
Escort abandons search for sub

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Yokoyama Tai , at 99,130

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid spotted at 39 NM, estimated altitude 11,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 11 minutes

Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 9

No Allied losses

Japanese ground losses:
70 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 4 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 6 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Guns lost 2 (0 destroyed, 2 disabled)

Aircraft Attacking:
4 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 6000 feet
Ground Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb
5 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 6000 feet
Ground Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on Horii Group , at 99,130

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid spotted at 48 NM, estimated altitude 16,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 14 minutes

Allied aircraft
P-39D Airacobra x 26

Allied aircraft losses
P-39D Airacobra: 4 damaged

Japanese ground losses:
25 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 3 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Aircraft Attacking:
15 x P-39D Airacobra diving from 10000'
Ground Attack: 1 x 500 lb GP Bomb
9 x P-39D Airacobra diving from 10000'
Ground Attack: 1 x 500 lb GP Bomb
2 x P-39D Airacobra diving from 10000'
Ground Attack: 1 x 500 lb GP Bomb

Also attacking 144th Infantry Regiment ...
Also attacking Horii Group ...
Also attacking 144th Infantry Regiment ...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on 15th Engineer Regiment, at 99,130

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid spotted at 37 NM, estimated altitude 12,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 10 minutes

Allied aircraft
P-39D Airacobra x 15

Allied aircraft losses
P-39D Airacobra: 1 damaged

Japanese ground losses:
8 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Aircraft Attacking:
13 x P-39D Airacobra diving from 10000'
Ground Attack: 1 x 500 lb GP Bomb
2 x P-39D Airacobra diving from 10000'
Ground Attack: 1 x 500 lb GP Bomb

_____________________________

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 70

RE: Guadalcanal AAR - The rematch///Noa Joa - 7/21/2009 4:23:50 AM

oldman45

Posts: 2320
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline

How much of the combat results are just luck? If you reran the turn a few times are the results going to be the same with the 3 carriers sunk?

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 71

RE: Guadalcanal AAR - The rematch///Noa Joa - 7/21/2009 1:12:05 PM

Kull

Posts: 2625
Joined: 7/3/2007
From: El Paso, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: oldman45

How much of the combat results are just luck? If you reran the turn a few times are the results going to be the same with the 3 carriers sunk?

Luck is always going to play a role, but Kwik-E probably nailed the biggest factor:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kwik E Mart
...plus, weather over US carriers was Hvy Rain, weather over Jap carriers was Partial Clouds...might account for the poor AAA performance...i think the weather gods played a big role in this battle...

From an overall strategy standpoint, it may be worthwhile for the Japanese player to bluff the KB rush - thus holding the Allied Carriers on patrol in the area - with the real goal being to flood the zone with subs and hope for a CV hit. Based on the number of intercepts that Nik posted, that seems like a viable strategy. Unfortunately for him, there's no KB left to take advantage of a potential Wasp sinking or disablement.

(in reply to oldman45)

Post #: 72

RE: Guadalcanal AAR - The rematch///Noa Joa - 7/21/2009 3:30:24 PM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: oldman45

How much of the combat results are just luck? If you reran the turn a few times are the results going to be the same with the 3 carriers sunk?

Very little.

rerunning the turn will usually give you the same results. This is by design (security)

_____________________________

(in reply to oldman45)

Post #: 73

RE: Guadalcanal AAR - The rematch///Noa Joa - 7/21/2009 3:35:39 PM

Erik Rutins

Posts: 37503
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline

PBEM security and variability are two different aspects of this question. PBEM security locks down the random factors, but that doesn't change the fact that in the game design, there are a lot of random factors. Based on the game design, if you re-ran that turn allowing the random "rolls" to be rolled fresh each time, you could get very different results. So several different PBEMs each coming to the same kind of battle in the same scenario could get very different results.

_____________________________

Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC

For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 74

RE: Guadalcanal AAR - The rematch///Noa Joa - 7/21/2009 6:11:16 PM

vettim89

Posts: 3615
Joined: 7/14/2007
From: Toledo, Ohio
Status: offline

If you look at the historical basis for this scenario, many things went the Japanese way early in the fight for Guadalcanal. While these did not alter the final outcome, they did prolong the battle. Some of these are:

* The Battle of Savo Island which could not have gone better for the IJN in terms of Allied combatants lost. True, Mikawa did not pursue the transports but he did force the Allies to leave the GC garrison woefully undersupplied.

* Fletcher's decision to withdraw his CV's during the initial landings. Even if Savo Is had not gone so badly for the Allies, they still would have been had to depart the next day without unloading the supplies

* Not having Wasp at the Battle of the Eastern Solomons. Again, Fletcher mismanaged his units so that he had 1/3 of his striking force out of the battle.

* The loss of Wasp and withdraw of North Carolina from the most successful torpedo attack ever.

These are the type of things that needed to happen for the Japanese to even hope to contest GC. They would be very difficult to achieve in a game like AE but as long as there is a reasonable chance to achieve these type of results, I am happy. It is obvious that AE is a very different game than WiTP. This just seems to be a lot more challenging to me. WiTP made it too easy for both sides to have overwhelming success at the opposite ends of the war. It appears AE will make both sides work a lot harder.

BTW, Nik was not pushing it. His CV battle occurred almost on the identical date of the Battle of the Eastern Solomons - 24-26 August 1942. See what happened when the USN had all three of their CV's available? Fletcher was not much of a CV admiral IMO.

_____________________________

"We have met the enemy and they are ours" - Commodore O.H. Perry

(in reply to Erik Rutins)

Post #: 75

RE: Guadalcanal AAR - The rematch///Noa Joa - 7/21/2009 7:52:04 PM

Ursa MAior

Posts: 1416
Joined: 4/20/2005
From: Hungary, EU
Status: offline

What happened with that rule which was saying something like no/unlikely coordinated USN DB/TB attacks in 42? Or is my memory flcikering?

_____________________________

Art by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to vettim89)

Post #: 76

RE: Guadalcanal AAR - The rematch///Noa Joa - 7/21/2009 7:58:09 PM

Local Yokel

Posts: 1494
Joined: 2/4/2007
From: Somerset, U.K.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: vettim89

Fletcher was not much of a CV admiral IMO.

I would have thought that a 2:1 exchange rate in fleet carriers in favour of the US suggested a more creditable assessment. But then, I'm something of an FJF fanboy

What struck me about Mikawa's surface action was this:

"Day Time Surface Combat, near Tulagi at 114,137, Range 31,000 Yards" (my emphasis)

So was Mikawa given 'do not retire' orders when he reached Savo Sound? Not only would that have exposed him to a daylight gunnery action in which he would not enjoy the advantage the Japanese had in night combat but it would also have left him under the carrier cosh - as seems to have been the case.

_____________________________

(in reply to vettim89)

Post #: 77

RE: Guadalcanal AAR - The rematch///Noa Joa - 7/21/2009 8:00:35 PM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Local Yokel

So was Mikawa given 'do not retire' orders when he reached Savo Sound? Not only would that have exposed him to a daylight gunnery action in which he would not enjoy the advantage the Japanese had in night combat but it would also have left him under the carrier cosh - as seems to have been the case.

In game? no. Retirement allowed. However he retreated into Lunga hex which caused a another whole series of battles which led to a daylight engagement then slaughter by air. Turns out this was a good thing. It exposed a boo boo which has been fixed.

_____________________________

(in reply to Local Yokel)

Post #: 78

RE: Guadalcanal AAR - The rematch///Noa Joa - 7/21/2009 8:02:11 PM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ursa MAior

What happened with that rule which was saying something like no/unlikely coordinated USN DB/TB attacks in 42? Or is my memory flcikering?

Its still there....but you can suppress it by insuring your CV's launch at the same distance from the target with all airgroups set to the same altitude.

_____________________________

(in reply to Ursa MAior)

Post #: 79

RE: Guadalcanal AAR - The rematch///Noa Joa - 7/21/2009 9:58:02 PM

Local Yokel

Posts: 1494
Joined: 2/4/2007
From: Somerset, U.K.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

quote:

ORIGINAL: Local Yokel

So was Mikawa given 'do not retire' orders when he reached Savo Sound? Not only would that have exposed him to a daylight gunnery action in which he would not enjoy the advantage the Japanese had in night combat but it would also have left him under the carrier cosh - as seems to have been the case.

In game? no. Retirement allowed. However he retreated into Lunga hex which caused a another whole series of battles which led to a daylight engagement then slaughter by air. Turns out this was a good thing. It exposed a boo boo which has been fixed.

Thanks Nik. If the boo boo was the game mechanism that causes TF's to retreat away from their home base (as reported by Yamato Hugger in this thread - post #302) and it has been changed so this no longer happens then that's good news.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

Its still there....but you can suppress it by insuring your CV's launch at the same distance from the target with all airgroups set to the same altitude.

So this is how those dastardly Allies will circumvent that irritating non-coordination rule from day 1!

_____________________________

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 80

RE: Guadalcanal AAR - The rematch///Noa Joa - 7/21/2009 10:15:13 PM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Local Yokel

Thanks Nik. If the boo boo was the game mechanism that causes TF's to retreat away from their home base (as reported by Yamato Hugger in this thread - post #302) and it has been changed so this no longer happens then that's good news.

You could still see it 'happen' but what was messed up was the % value in calculating retreat hex. Its supposed to be heavily weighted towards the hex entered from, instead it was accidently weighted for any other hex but the one entered from. This has been corrected. So you can still see some random move into another hex but its far less likely now.

_____________________________

(in reply to Local Yokel)

Post #: 81

RE: Guadalcanal AAR - The rematch///Noa Joa - 7/21/2009 10:26:15 PM

JeffroK

Posts: 6391
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

So this amazingly accurate mod starts off with errors?

If you are going to stir, could you do it without flying the Australian flag? It makes me cringe. I have to start telling people I am from New Zealand.

Unlike many I am proud of where I live, and also live in a country that still allows people to fly the flag of their choice, unlike the place you choose to live.

I also hate the PR that pushes AE as being super-historical, but still has errors. Yes I know a lot about this small corner of the map, what other areas will need questioning?

The conversation has moved from 30 Bde to the "AE Mod"
Until VERY recently AE needed WITP,(Good to see comon sense put in place here) and it still uses the WITP format and much of the same base so its a Mod.

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to Wirraway_Ace)

Post #: 82

RE: Guadalcanal AAR - The rematch///Noa Joa - 7/21/2009 10:32:24 PM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

its not an error. I put it there on purpose. Sorry if that twists your bonnett into a knot.

_____________________________

(in reply to JeffroK)

Post #: 83

RE: Guadalcanal AAR - The rematch///Noa Joa - 7/21/2009 10:33:00 PM

crsutton

Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

To me it looks like the Allied SBD coordination was just too good. 150 DB attacking the target at once was most likely beyond the capability of the Allies at this time-or Japan for that matter. Was this a freak result of some very good die rolls or can this be expected as the norm?

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 84

RE: Guadalcanal AAR - The rematch///Noa Joa - 7/21/2009 10:34:05 PM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

it was.

_____________________________

(in reply to crsutton)

Post #: 85

RE: Guadalcanal AAR - The rematch///Noa Joa - 7/21/2009 10:38:01 PM

Don Bowen

Posts: 8183
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Local Yokel

Thanks Nik. If the boo boo was the game mechanism that causes TF's to retreat away from their home base (as reported by Yamato Hugger in this thread - post #302) and it has been changed so this no longer happens then that's good news.

That "issue" is in fact opinion. A TF will retreat away from a strong enemy threat. If the enemy is between the TF and it's home base, then of course it will be away from the home base. Not exactly sure how a TF can "retreat" through the enemy to get to its base.

The issue mentioned by Nik is a little check at the end of surface combat that determines how the TF(s) leave the hex. The assumption being that course changes during combat could possibly leave the TF in such a position in the hex that it would be at a random edge of the hex and might exit in any (valid) direction. The check was supposed to give a very strong preference to the TF leaving the hex via the same hex side that it entered. This required a reciprocal calculation to convert from one hexes� side of the hexside to another. A "hexside" is actually formed by the intersection of two hexes and the SE side of one is the NW side of the other. If not properly reciprocal-ized, a TF that really, really wanted to go NW would go SE. It appears that the hexside check was severely under-reciprocal-ized by some unknown programmer or another.

(in reply to Local Yokel)

Post #: 86

RE: Guadalcanal AAR - The rematch///Noa Joa - 7/21/2009 10:40:00 PM

UniformYankee

Posts: 84
Joined: 7/7/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK
Nope, Its a mod of WITP, otherwise we wouldn't need to own it to run the new mod.

Looks like the "argument" will need an "upgrade" .... er a "mod" I guess ... since it needs AE in order to exist.

(in reply to JeffroK)

Post #: 87

RE: Guadalcanal AAR - The rematch///Noa Joa - 7/21/2009 10:45:16 PM

Kwik E Mart

Posts: 2447
Joined: 7/22/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

...This required a reciprocal calculation to convert from one hexes� side of the hexside to another. A "hexside" is actually formed by the intersection of two hexes and the SE side of one is the NW side of the other. If not properly reciprocal-ized, a TF that really, really wanted to go NW would go SE. It appears that the hexside check was severely under-reciprocal-ized by some unknown programmer or another.

damn, that just made my head hurt a lot...

_____________________________

Kirk Lazarus: I know who I am. I'm the dude playin' the dude, disguised as another dude!
Ron Swanson: Clear alcohols are for rich women on diets.

(in reply to Don Bowen)

Post #: 88

RE: Guadalcanal AAR - The rematch///Noa Joa - 7/21/2009 11:10:20 PM

Fishbed

Posts: 1822
Joined: 11/21/2005
From: Beijing, China - Paris, France
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ursa MAior

What happened with that rule which was saying something like no/unlikely coordinated USN DB/TB attacks in 42? Or is my memory flcikering?

Basically don't forget also that the raid was launched from the adjacent hex...!

_____________________________

(in reply to Ursa MAior)

Post #: 89

RE: Guadalcanal AAR - The rematch///Noa Joa - 7/21/2009 11:13:39 PM

Fishbed

Posts: 1822
Joined: 11/21/2005
From: Beijing, China - Paris, France
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

So this amazingly accurate mod starts off with errors?

If you are going to stir, could you do it without flying the Australian flag? It makes me cringe. I have to start telling people I am from New Zealand.

Unlike many I am proud of where I live, and also live in a country that still allows people to fly the flag of their choice, unlike the place you choose to live.

I also hate the PR that pushes AE as being super-historical, but still has errors. Yes I know a lot about this small corner of the map, what other areas will need questioning?

The conversation has moved from 30 Bde to the "AE Mod"
Until VERY recently AE needed WITP,(Good to see comon sense put in place here) and it still uses the WITP format and much of the same base so its a Mod.

Sorry Jeff but will you please stop this bullshit? Even if AE still needed WitP to run, that still wouldn't be a mod, that would be an addon. If you can't get your vocabulary straight, at least stop pissing the people off about that very one. It's provocating and insulting to anyone who worked on that project, although, of course, there are great mods out there - but that's simply not the same thing.

_____________________________

(in reply to JeffroK)

Post #: 90