Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

The opponent's head

 
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 >> After Action Reports >> The opponent's head Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
The opponent's head - 11/3/2009 11:03:34 AM   
modrow

 

Posts: 1100
Joined: 8/27/2006
Status: offline 		DivePac,

thanks for the kind comments. Even though I still like my plan and think the outcome may have been in my favour, I would like to add a pointer to the bit of luck that is needed for AE surface combat and that was mostly on my side in this series of engagements. One really could not count on a torpedo hit each in the two engagements.

In fact, you mention another important point in your comment: getting into the opponent's head. I want to add a word or two in this direction, because in fact a consideration along this line was also responsible for my decision to commit here.

Presently, I believe that my opponent is following a very systematic approach (btw: Does anyone know whether the Ambon landing force composition corresponds to the "out of the box standard" or whether it has been reinforced by my opponent ?). Specifically, he relies heavily on bombardment runs to support his invasions (see e.g. my post re. developments in the north of the PI, but this reveals is just a fragment of the many bombardment runs he has been doing). In order to keep that amount of bombardment missions running, he is relying partly on CLs/DDs for bombardments, which can be fun if the position of a CD unit has been changed and they run into some 155mm guns...
but I'm still waiting for that to happen.

As pointed out in my earlier post, I went in because I assumed the heavy hitters were pulled back in order to reload. This was probably not in time to really hurt the invading troops - a day or two too late for that, but the idea was to stress the need to keep heavy surface units with sufficient ammo around or even as a part of the invasion TF, thus adding just one more constraint on his naval asset management, which will get more and more relevant as his expansion proceeds. I hope this will contribute to slowing him down a bit if he really sticks to the systematic approach.

As things may have turned out (if FOW does not fool me), the message "you need to protect your invasion TFs in addition to bombardment and suppression of guns on the shore while landing the troops" may have been transported more efficiently than I had hoped. After all, if Haruna is not in good shape, this may transport the message that a lone BB as support is not sufficient .

But perhaps, Rattovolante just pretends to be systematic and thorough in order to surprise me with a change of op style. We'll see...

Thanks for your interest

Hartwig

(in reply to DivePac88)
Post #: 31
RE: The opponent's head - 11/3/2009 2:25:42 PM   
DivePac88


Posts: 3119
Joined: 10/9/2008
From: Somewhere in the South Pacific.
Status: offline 		Hartwig.

Your opponent has put together a composite brigade of Special Naval Landing Battalions (SNLF's), with engineer support for his operation against Ambon. Added to this force is what I assume are garrison troops of a Naval Guard Unit, along with a Naval Airfield Engineer Company. This Force your opponent has put together is pretty standard in the game, for this operation. The Japanese forces used historically were the Kure 1st SNLF, 1x company + engineers from Sasebo 1st SNLF, and the 228th Army Infantry Regiment.

DivePac.

_____________________________


When you see the Southern Cross, For the first time
You understand now, Why you came this way

(in reply to modrow)
Post #: 32
Info - 11/3/2009 9:02:54 PM   
modrow

 

Posts: 1100
Joined: 8/27/2006
Status: offline 		DivePac,

thanks a lot for the info. It really is great to have you aboard in this thread .

Hartwig

(in reply to DivePac88)
Post #: 33
Australians... - 11/3/2009 10:27:29 PM   
modrow

 

Posts: 1100
Joined: 8/27/2006
Status: offline 		Alfred,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred
Well....I am still uncertain what the actual question was, but will make a few comments anyway.


Now, that's the true spirit of a free flowing German discussion ! Next, you need to get rid of the feeling that it is actually important what the actual question was, and you can join any talkshow or even politics over here.

Anyway, the direction of my original question was: Might it be that the generally assumed brakes that are put on Japanese expansion by AE are not quite as effective as everyone currently assumes because the reduced tact of operations is (less jumps per given time) is compensated at least partly by an ability to make bigger jumps ? But let's move this discussion to a later point of time and instead move to the defensibility of northern Australia/Northern Oz (is that term pc?) strategy discussion first. Before I get into it, I'll try to provide a few facts, starting with one which is potentially easy to neglect - with dire consequences:




Above, you see a comparison of the status of the 7th Australian Brigade on December 7th 1941 in AE (top half) and WitP (vanilla, bottom half). The ugly black boxes contain the stats of the dominant infantry as contained in the infantry database pasted into the respective pictures. I want to stress three things:

a) compare the yellow markers: Morale and experience of the unit in WitP were significantly better.
b) compare the red markers: The TOE in WitP is significantly less depleted and there are more items fit for duty than in AE.
It will take longer to get the unit back to full strength.
c) compare the blue markers: The anti-soft values of the infantry components in WitP were more than twice as high as the ones in AE. For comparison: I think IJA infantry's anti soft value has been cut from 21 (WitP) to 20 (AE).

These are typical values for the units available in Australia, there are very few exceptions.

What is the point I want to demonstrate with this statement ? Consider what you used to be able to do in WitP with an Australian brigade and assume that the above-mentioned factors influence what you can do in a linear way. That means you end up with 0.6 (exp)x0.8(TOE)x0.5(anti-soft) of what you could do in WitP with the unit, thus without considering morale effects less than a quarter of the combat value you used to get out of the unit.

In other words, I believe that you need serious amounts of time before can actually try to stand up and defend against the Japanese successfully. One of the best friends you currently have is the rest/train command, but in order for the training to start, you need to be fully prepped for the target.

This is an aspect we should bear in mind for the following discussion.

At the next opportunity, I'll provide more facts re. maps/bases and then get into the discussion in more detail. For tonight, however, this is it.

Thanks for your interest

Hartwig

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by hartwig.modrow -- 11/3/2009 10:51:45 PM >

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 34
Map data post - 11/4/2009 11:30:06 AM   
modrow

 

Posts: 1100
Joined: 8/27/2006
Status: offline 		Gentlemen,

to provide some more hard data for the discussion (which will not be posted in the next few hours), I post a picture of northern oz in the versions of WitP that I have played - vanilla, Nemo's mod and AE, including port/airfield info.

After I had completed the picture I realized that I had actually cut off a base: two hexes south of Port Hedland, there is a dot base connected to P.H. by rail. That's an airfield suitable for significant expansion 0(6), I think, maybe 0(7), not sure right now. Anyway, now you are aware that it's there.


Thanks for your interest

Hartwig






Attachment (1)

(in reply to modrow)
Post #: 35
North Australia comparisons (NOW COMPLETE) - 11/5/2009 11:31:09 AM   
modrow

 

Posts: 1100
Joined: 8/27/2006
Status: offline 		Gentlemen,

as Rattovolante has not supplied me with the game file so far (but he indicated that he was pretty busy during the week these days, so I am not worried, just a bit aching to play), I actually find the time to continue this discussion using some of the interesting issues Alfred and DivePac88 mentioned. Actually, by the time I continue this post I got the turn... thus, the post will be shorter than intended originally

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

Regarding northern Australia.  In WITP classic, generally speaking in 1942 northern Australia is indefensible against a determined Japanese attack.


A) agreed.

quote:

 ORIGINAL: Alfred

In AE, I don't think the situation is quite as bad for the Allies and under certain circumstances an Allied reinforcement of the north makes a lot of sense.  Consider the following factors:

(1)  in classic WITP, Darwin was basically 100% dependent on sea transport for resupply. 


B) I think that depends on the map one was playing - for any advanced map (e.g. Nemo's mod) I think that you are correct, but Vanilla was very generous relating to infrastructure in Northern Australia. I actually think the situation in AE may be worse than the one in vanilla WitP: There, you had planes which could conduct naval attacks successfully, a variety of bases enabling the use of bombers and ground units of a much higher quality to begin with.

quote:


ORIGINAL: Alfred

In AE, with the capacity of bases to pull supply (by nominating a specified supply level), in theory you should be able to set up a series of inland bases to act as pumping stations to push supply overland to the Top End;


C) Interesting point. I am currently experimenting with this type of supply-pumping, specifically in Burma in an attempt to get some supply into China, where it is needed desperately. At the same time, the question (to which I cannot yet provide an answer) is whether sufficient supply is generated in Australia to allow moving some of it towards Darwin early on. There is a number of bases which need supply early on, earlier than a convoy from the West Coast can possibly arrive. Thus currently I find myself exporting some supplies from Australia to places where I believe it may be important. Frankly, I have the feeling that I need to restrain myself doing that.

quote:

(2)  resupply of Darwin by sea, whilst still potentially risky for the Allies in AE, is less risky than in classic because (a)  Nells and Bettys (referred by jrcar as Netties, a term I rather like) will need the presence of an Air HQ in order to launch torpedoes, at least until captured bases are built up
(b)  Japanese torpedo air operations (by the Netties) now consume more supply (the usual amount to launch level bombers plus that consumed by Air HQs to restock on torpedoes)
(c)  air strikes on naval targets are now less powerful unless the unit in question has the relevant air skill


D)
i) Whereas I am not sure about the skill distribution in the Japanese air units (they had no problem to blow POW and Repulse out of the water), in general I agree. I would tend to add the aspect that it is much more difficult now to make a given unit fly on a regular basis and that I think that rotation of units is more difficult as well. There are planes that are grounded for maintenance or repair purpose for several days in a row now, and I think that such fragments are partly counted when determining the number of groups at a base.

ii) Note, however, that all of these aspects also hurt the Allied side when trying to defend against a Japanese invasion, and possibly even more so because a) air HQs are not that frequent in Australia early in the war and b) experience and skill levels of the bombers are quite bad. In WitP (at least Vanilla), just move a few Beauforts into a base and you could almost be certain they would make the enemy pay for moving in range of the base. These days may well be gone now.

Therefore, these changes actually work against the Allied defender in my opinion, making his job more difficult.

quote:


ORIGINAL: Alfred

(3)  south of Darwin there is now a dot base which can be built up to a significant air base.  Doing so provides the following advantages
(a)  the Allies can disperse their airpower away from Darwin airfield onto nearby mutually supporting airfields
(b)  no longer can Darwin by "nuked" by a sea bombardment which renders the entire Allied airpower (concentrated at Darwin due to lack of suitable nearby supporting air bases) hors de combat
(c)  it allows the Allies a fortified fall back position if forced to withdraw from Darwin, with chances to block any further southward movement by the enemy whose Darwin port would remain within range of Allied interdiction


E)
i) I concur absolutely with 3(a) and 3(b).

ii) I am concerned about 3(c). All of this depends a bit on the time scale and thus (4) below, but generally speaking right now I believe that one of the major mistakes the Allied player can make is to use units that are not yet fit to fight (but will become fit to fight after upgrades and with sufficient preparation) in attempts to stop the Japanese too early. I believe you have to pick your fights (and the units you commit for these fights) much more carefully than in WitP. Do you want to try to hold PM ? Then that's where you need to put the few Australian assets that you can buy out and that are of slightly higher quality than the rest (exp 40). These are the ones which shoud receive the first Infantry upgrades then. All of this leads to a situation in which it takes a long time until you can put together a force which has a chance of holding against a determined Japanese attack unless you decide this is where you want to use the few good units you receive as reinforcements.

iii) There may be a further catch. I think the days of real quick buildup of a base may be gone. To get an AF to LVL3, so that it can support bombers, or 4 seems to take longer than before. The BFs don't have many engineers and engineer vehicles. I am presently looking quite desperately for suitable units to move to vital places in Australia whose AFs/ports/forts need to be improved If someone can suggest units to use, I'll be interested. Unfortunately, at least so far I did not find many. There are a few base forces at places where you don't need them, but a considerable number of these cannot be moved by land, so you need to buy them out to beable to ship them around or use air transport - but airlift capacity is significantly lower than it used to be in WitP.

quote:


ORIGINAL: Alfred

(4)  in AE most Japanese players will be somewhat more cautious in conquering the DEI.  This means that in Jan-Feb 1942, the Allied player will probably have a largely clear run to reinforce Darwin  by sea with supply and troops.


F) This is an aspect which I consider frequently now (as indicated by my previous statement what my original question was).

i) First of all, I am not sure about the time scale.

ia)One thing that seems to occur quite consistently in the AARs I follow more or less regularly now is that in most cases Singapore and Luzon seem to be finished by about February (jrcar's and his companions admirable world defence being an exception and an exceptional performance, I need to recheck this AAR in more detail). That means, earlier than in WitP, even though the siege of the respective places tends to begin at a later point of time, freeing troops for other use at an earlier point of time.

ib) In addition, I believe that deep thrusts early on are possible in the DEI are now possible, as a matter of fact I would be concerned that the next jump after Ambon may be Darwin. The reason for this new possibilty is the fact that Naval attacks tend not even to score a lucky hit now and then any more and that it is difficult to keep surface TFs roaming because of the new requirements to get ammo for 8" and 6" guns. This also leads to the fact that some moves of TFs after battle may become quite predictable, thus superior surface assets, which Japan enjoys with Repulse and Renown sunk, or baby KB may be positioned accordingly (air threat to them is minimal).

ic) One of the aspects I really noticed when taking over 2ndACR's game agains Nemo is how much it can matter if the battlefield is segmented so that you have to start making detours. If Darwin is taken early on, I believe more and more that it hurts. Right now, I move some assets from the DEI towards Darwin first to move on towards SE Australia next. Then, they can be used to move stuff from the West Coast. I think that this is a much better suited place to use the assets than India. Of course, one may move via Perth, or via cape town round the world, but that's a much longer route.

ii) Also, I am concerned about the concerning the reinforcements -as mentioned above. the question is what you bring in. Marching Australians to the place will take a notable amount of time (not sure how much, did someone do this already and can provide a number) and only provide weak units, which will be broken easily. You could go for the British Brigades (53, 54, 55 IIRC) that enter the map from cape town, unless you want to use them elsewhere, they may in fact be a nasty surprise for the attacker.

quote:


ORIGINAL: DivePac88

About Supply; I would buildup Broome/Port Headland as support bases with fighter and ship refueling capabilities. I would run resupply convoys into Darwin with fighter cover, with the express purpose of cutting down the Netty population in the area. I think that in AE the Netty's are a bit more vulnerable, as they were historically.


G) I have noted Port Headland as a potentially interesting base as well; note that it, too, has a dot base that can be turned into a decent sized AF in close vicinity, thus it may be possible to defend it even if Broome is taken if one starts building there sufficiently early. Of course, the question is again what units may be used to start a buildup there. any suggestions, DivePac ?

Ok, that's it for now - I need to have a look at that turn in my mailbox

Thanks for your interest

Hartwig

< Message edited by hartwig.modrow -- 11/5/2009 2:07:17 PM >

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 36
Haruna reported as sunk... - 11/5/2009 3:37:35 PM   
modrow

 

Posts: 1100
Joined: 8/27/2006
Status: offline 		Gentlemen,

I' glad to report that the sunk ships screen lists IJN BB Haruna as sunk , along with 2 sunk PBs and 1 sunk DD. As mentioned previously, some more Japanese ships may be damaged, so perhaps losses will increase a bit more.

Evidently, some or all of this may be FOW, but I think I'll just go ahead and count the battles of Ambon/Namlea as the first Allied naval victory in this war.

Thanks for your interest

Hartwig

(in reply to modrow)
Post #: 37
RE: Haruna reported as sunk... - 11/6/2009 1:47:26 AM   
DivePac88


Posts: 3119
Joined: 10/9/2008
From: Somewhere in the South Pacific.
Status: offline 		Hi Hartwig.

Just two points on troop deployment for Darwin that you might, or might not be aware of:

#1 Black Force is a good steady Australian divisional Cavalry regiment that is based on Karachi, and is free to be lifted to Darwin in the time-frame needed.

#2 3rd Australian Infantry Brigade is an above average militia unit based on Broken hill, that can be moved overland to Darwin, arriving around the end of January.

Depac.

_____________________________


When you see the Southern Cross, For the first time
You understand now, Why you came this way

(in reply to modrow)
Post #: 38
What to use where ? - 11/6/2009 8:00:12 AM   
modrow

 

Posts: 1100
Joined: 8/27/2006
Status: offline 		DivePac,

thanks for the hints. Black force - yeah, I noted that unit and intend to put it to good use in this first phase of the war, though presently it is not heading to Darwin. 3rd Australian Bde... well, I had earmarked it for PM. But looking at the marching distances, you are correct in that it may be a good idea to use units from the Pt Augusta, Adelaide region to reinforce the northern coast.

What do you think about using the Australian cavalry regiments for that purpose ? Actually, I am also quite interested in reshuffling the base forces. If there's top secret information you won't share on the forums, there's always the PM button .

As I have managed to send the turn back yesterday evening, maybe I will sit down sometime today and make a list of Australian units which I think may be moved and their status and post it. Not a promise, just a vague statement of intention, of course Maybe we can identify another gem or two.

Generally speaking, I am still not 100% sure whether I truly want to commit at Darwin/Northern Australia, but weighing the options can't be wrong.

Once again, thanks for your detailed input

Hartwig

(in reply to DivePac88)
Post #: 39
RE: What to use where ? - 11/6/2009 2:06:39 PM   
DivePac88


Posts: 3119
Joined: 10/9/2008
From: Somewhere in the South Pacific.
Status: offline 		Hi Hartwig.

Concerning base forces; there are 2x large RAN base forces that I build-up from component units:

#1 3rd RANbase force from the Albany RAN BF, Carnavon RAN BF, and the Geraldton RAN BF. I base this BF on Perth along side the 4th RANbase force for a start, then when I buildup Broome I move it there.

2# 5th RANbase force from the Bowen RAN BF, Bundaberg RAN BF, and the Rockhampton RAN BF. I base this BF on Sydney permanently, as Sydney does not have any Naval support (which in my book it needs,because of having a shipyard), as it only has a RAAF BF.

DivePac.

_____________________________


When you see the Southern Cross, For the first time
You understand now, Why you came this way

(in reply to modrow)
Post #: 40
Christmas presents - 11/7/2009 11:58:23 PM   
modrow

 

Posts: 1100
Joined: 8/27/2006
Status: offline 		Gentlemen,

I'm back with a short update relating to the game, as I got the December 24 turn file and the December 25 resolution. I did also do some unit-hunting in Australia with some interesting results and plans, but I'll hopefully return to that topic at another point of time (as Rattovolante indicated I might get the game file back on Sunday, it may well be Monday before I actually do).

Before I get to the presents my opponent and I exchanged, I have another question for my readers: Does anyone have any recommendation whether or not to combine the units that start as seperate entities (e.g. some of the Australian divisions) ? Do I get a bonus in combat power if I do ?.

In the December 24th turn (in Germany, that's the day when you get the presents), Japan took quite a number of bases, though none of them surprisingly:

Japanese forces CAPTURE Naga !!!
Japanese forces CAPTURE Taiping !!!
Japanese forces CAPTURE Georgetown !!!

These bases were mostly deserted. At Naga, there was a fragment of Manila base force (some air support), at Taiping a base force which ended up marching 45 miles before Rattovolante attacked and in Georgetown the static fortress.

Furthermore, as expected, Ambon fell -just too many units. I had hoped for a more streamlined/optimized invasion force...

In addition, Wake fell as well. At Wake, he felt the need to bring in carriers as support (ground attacks with about 100 Vals on two days), which I think is nice. He did not lose too many planes (I think a total of 4 Vals), but every Japanese plane/ CV pilot counts.

Also, Boise did not live up to her fame in other AARs in the December 24 turn... I thought that Rattovolante would move his surface units back and guessed sufficiently well to manage a surface intercept...

Night Time Surface Combat, near Obi at 76,106, Range 1,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
CM Itsukushima
DD Samidare
PB Kenkon Maru
xAK Kyusyu Maru
xAK Tenryu Maru
xAK Thames Maru
xAK Macassar Maru
xAK Nansin Maru
xAK Taihei Maru
xAK Amakusa Maru

Allied Ships
CL Boise, Shell hits 1

Reduced visibility due to Rain with 32% moonlight
Maximum visibility in Rain and 32% moonlight: 1,000 yards
Range closes to 10,000 yards...
Range closes to 8,000 yards...
Range increases to 10,000 yards...
Range closes to 8,000 yards...
Range closes to 6,000 yards...
Range increases to 8,000 yards...
Range closes to 7,000 yards...
Range closes to 5,000 yards...
Range closes to 4,000 yards...
Range increases to 7,000 yards...
Range closes to 6,000 yards...
Range increases to 9,000 yards...
Range closes to 6,000 yards...
Range closes to 5,000 yards...
Range closes to 4,000 yards...
Range closes to 3,000 yards...
Range closes to 2,000 yards...
Range increases to 4,000 yards...
Range increases to 5,000 yards...
Range closes to 2,000 yards...
Range increases to 3,000 yards...
Range closes to 2,000 yards...
Range increases to 4,000 yards...
Range closes to 1,000 yards...
CL Boise engages DD Samidare at 1,000 yards
Range increases to 2,000 yards
DD Samidare engages CL Boise at 2,000 yards
CL Boise engages xAK Tenryu Maru at 2,000 yards
Task forces break off...

But before that turn, her night combat experience was 40, now it is 58 - that makes the encounter a profitable one after all.
Unfortunately, DD Encounter was met by superior enemy surface forces while refueling at Namlea and sunk - yet another present for my opponent...

So what did I achieve in that turn ? I had hidden some eggs at Miri, even though easter is yet to come...

TF 42 encounters mine field at Miri (64,87)

Japanese Ships
CL Isuzu, Mine hits 1

According to the "sunk ships" list, Isuzu is now resting beyond the surface of the sea . Also, according to said list the second of the DDs damaged in the December 23 turn is now sunk. Good...

Also, this Japanese bombardment attack in China was very nice... Clearly, a single artillery unit is not going to provide uber-results

Ground combat at 88,41

Japanese Bombardment attack

Attacking force 360 troops, 29 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 812

Defending force 13602 troops, 103 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 316

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

Assaulting units:
37th Division
41st Division
5th Armored Car Co
6th Medium Field Artillery Regiment

Defending units:
33rd Chinese Corps
34th Chinese Corps
43rd Chinese Corps
7th Group Army
8th Group Army

Ok, that's about it for now. December 25 was quite uneventful as I see it so far...

Thanks for your interest

Hartwig

(in reply to DivePac88)
Post #: 41
Searching the haystack... - 11/9/2009 11:42:43 AM   
modrow

 

Posts: 1100
Joined: 8/27/2006
Status: offline 		Gentlemen,

as announced a few posts ago, I actually did go through the available Australian units in order to sort out the ones that are available / suited for possible defense work up north and elsewhere on the map. Here's a few things I found out:

There are two relatively big RAAF baseforces at Ceduna and Portland (17th and 16th RAAF BF), repsectively. I think they can be put to better use elsewhere on the map; specifically Katherine and Cunderdin (sp?) - the AF two hex east of Perth that can be built up to a big airbase - come to mind.

In the vicinity of Peth, there is a bunch of batallions that can be united to form the 13th Australian Bde. This looks like one of the best Australian units inside Australia (exp 40, great morale). I think if one wants to look at a forward defence of Port Headland (nice port) or Broome (nice AF), this is where one should/could look. In view of the situation on the roads, however, one would need to buy it out.

If one is looking for other units fit for early use, in my opinion specifically the Cavalry brigades seem to be worth looking at. Their exp is a bit better than the one of most standard brigades (35 vs 30), and they seem to be relatively cheap relative to their striking power. Also, the MG battallions tend to have 35 exp, maybe they'll augment defences at some places nicely - but I'm not sure about that. Has anyone any experience in how they affect combat ?

There is a bunch of tank units available, but I really think they need an upgrade before they can be used in the face of the enemy. Still, it may be a wise thing to prep them for the places where one expects a tank battle or two and maybe move them towards where they will be needed, but I'm definitely not willing to commit them right now...

One open question is still whether it makes use to form the Australian divisions. Any views on this ?

Well, that much as my update relating to the force distribution in Australia... Any additional input is, of course, highly appreciated.

Thanks for your interest

Hartwig

(in reply to modrow)
Post #: 42
RE: Searching the haystack... - 11/9/2009 12:11:36 PM   
Smeulders

 

Posts: 1879
Joined: 8/9/2009
Status: offline 		There are a couple of large BF and air HQs arriving in North Australia in March 42', totalling over 300 AV. Sending extra RAAF BF up there isn't really needed I think.

(in reply to modrow)
Post #: 43
RE: Searching the haystack... - 11/9/2009 2:17:26 PM   
modrow

 

Posts: 1100
Joined: 8/27/2006
Status: offline 		Smeulders,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Smeulders

There are a couple of large BF and air HQs arriving in North Australia in March 42', totalling over 300 AV. Sending extra RAAF BF up there isn't really needed I think.


Thanks for your input. I have a clarification of my motives and a question relating to it:

First, the clarification

Yes, I am aware that a lot of aviation support (I use AV for attack value, thus I was a bit confused when I first read your post) scheduled to arrive at that point of time. I hope, northern Australia will still be mine at that point of time .

The question that drives my considerations here is what can be done -if anything at all- to make the conquest of Northern Australia sufficiently difficult for the Japanese (note that I am willing to lose Northern Australia in spite of Chardonnay and all IF this manages to keep the enemies focus from other places sufficiently long). Thus, precautions should be taken as early as possible (I started late, because for some time I thought that the Japanese expansion would be much slower in AE compared to WitP, which I am no longer sure about, even though I play against a conservative opponent and with historical turn 1 -which helps- and I thought there would be enough time to develop a sound plan).

One of the things that can be done in order to slow down a conquest is build - especially forts, even though one may definitely argue that Katherine should increase the AF to a size that can support bombers on attack missions as a support for Darwin. Actually, the main reason why I want to move the BFs in question (and should have moved them right in turn 1) is their engineering capacity. You need to do a lot of building - Katherine, e.g. should build forts in order to be able to serve as a blocking position if the Japanese should go after northern Australia and be expanded to be able to fly bombers from it if you want to use the base to defend Darwin- but engineers are difficult to find.

But that is just my consideration, based on my concerns, which may be quite wrong. Feel free to tell me that this is incorrect and why that is the case in your opinion.

Next, the question:

I'm also interested to hear your plans (if you are willing to share them)/ideas what should/could be done with these units (which cost 88 pp each, if I'm not mistaken). Where would you suggest to use these assets - leaving them where they are seems a bit of a waste of good units to me. So what's your vision for putting them to good use ?

Thanks for your input and hoping for additional comments

Hartwig

(in reply to Smeulders)
Post #: 44
RE: Searching the haystack... - 11/9/2009 5:00:35 PM   
Smeulders

 

Posts: 1879
Joined: 8/9/2009
Status: offline 		Yup, mixed up the acronyms, should have been AS instead of AV. Sending up engineers for forts is a good idea,engineers are indeed in short supply there. I wouldn't be building up the airfield at Katherine though, at least not in the first months. If the Japanese want the North of Australia, they'll get it and the extra airfield won't make much of a difference, as it's the planes your lacking at the start of the war. On the other hand, the extra airfield will help the Japanese later in the defense of the North so let him take the trouble of bringing in engineers and supplies to build it. That's just my opinion though. In my game I'm planning to let most of the RAAF BF remain in place, they can be important for scouting purposes if the Japanese players wants to raid. If I'm short of AS somewhere, they can be quickly moved by the rail network, but I think I'll find enough AS without having to touch too many RAAF BF.

(in reply to modrow)
Post #: 45
RE: Searching the haystack... - 11/10/2009 10:06:09 AM   
modrow

 

Posts: 1100
Joined: 8/27/2006
Status: offline 		Smeulders,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Smeulders

Yup, mixed up the acronyms, should have been AS instead of AV. Sending up engineers for forts is a good idea,engineers are indeed in short supply there. I wouldn't be building up the airfield at Katherine though, at least not in the first months. If the Japanese want the North of Australia, they'll get it and the extra airfield won't make much of a difference, as it's the planes your lacking at the start of the war. On the other hand, the extra airfield will help the Japanese later in the defense of the North so let him take the trouble of bringing in engineers and supplies to build it. That's just my opinion though. In my game I'm planning to let most of the RAAF BF remain in place, they can be important for scouting purposes if the Japanese players wants to raid. If I'm short of AS somewhere, they can be quickly moved by the rail network, but I think I'll find enough AS without having to touch too many RAAF BF.


thanks for your additional thougths. Actually, I always have to force myself not not write AV when I'm talking about aviation support almost all the time .

I am a believer in using forces at my disposal (once I realize I got them, which may at occasional occasions be a bit late, of course ), even if it is just as a threat, like in the case of the surface assets in the DEI. Therefore, I think no matter what your plans are 116th and 117th RAAF BF should be moved from where they are, mostly due to their nice suite of engineers. Another option to use them would be assistance in a buildup of the bases in the northern part of Eastern Oz (Cairns and Cooktown come to mind, which even if PM is taken can serve as a point from which the enemy may be harassed).

Your points relating to the build-up of Katherine as an Airstrip are definitely valid, though I'm not sure about the statement relating to available planes. There are some B17 units at the West coast that are assigned to an unrestricted command (sub-command of SOPAC ? Not sure right now) that can be island hopped to Astralia and beyond. The first few have just arrived there in my game. Here, too, I want to try to make good use of the units as they are available (which, depending on how things develop, just consist in showing them in a demonstration once or twice to make the enemy aware there may be a corresponding threat and use his assets in order to defend from it in case it should materialize rather than using them to keep up his initiative and momentum. I have a corresponding op in mind which may take place in four turns or so if things develop accordingly ). Potentially, my opponent might cooperate - according to sub attacks and ASW attacks on my subs, the region around Ambon is buzzing with heavy surface units now, after I staged the Ambon raids. But I start babbling off-topic...

Presently, I would be glad to have a base in Northern Australia at my disposal from which these assets could fly, but one would need to do some building in order to do that. Right now, I still possess Koepang and Kendari, but it's just a question of time till those bases are gone and specifically Kendari is a place which provides good opportunities for employing planes with more limited range like the Hudsons and the Dutch planes. More specifically, if that base would enable some harrassing of a Northern Australia invasion without the risk of being closed by naval bombardments (which my opponent would definitely employ, unless he changes his in-game habits) would be even better.

But evidently, with an early Darwin invasion all of this may be turned into mere wishful thinking. The more I think about that option, the more interesting it appears to me from the Japanese point of view. If you manage to lure your opponent into throwing his weak LCUs into the maelstream early on, the long term potential of Australia may be significantly reduced. I guess at some point of time I'll have to make the jump into Japanese economy and try it .

Thanks again for your input

Hartwig


(in reply to Smeulders)
Post #: 46
RE: Searching the haystack... - 11/13/2009 4:19:54 AM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline 		Continuing on the Teutonic philosophy school (and noting your reference to chardonnay) - just a few clarification comments on northern Australia.

1.  My reference to chardonnay in another AAR was to abandonning everything north of the Murray River, not north of the Tropic of Capricorn.  The former includes Sydney and Brisbane whereas the latter is only from north of Rockhampton.  (It was also said in humour - there is a local competitive rivalry between Melbourne and Sydney, different football codes, traditionally different economic philosophies etc)

2.  December 1941 is far too early for the Allies to commit themselves to a forward defence of northern Australia.  My reference to January/Februrary 1942 perhaps allowing for reinforcement of the north was meant to cover logistical reinforcement of the north via sea.  Obviously if Japan moves early to capture Timor/Ceram, then sea movement in the Timor and Arafura Seas becomes much too dangerous to expose troop convoys, although the risk to supply/fuel convoys may be acceptable.

3.  I totally concur that in AE, Australian militia units are much weaker and that there is a great risk of commiting them to battle prematurely, risking the long term defence of Australia.  This is one of the reasons why I would be very loathe to expend any PPs to make them transportable by sea.

4.  What I am suggesting is that in AE, because most Japanese players will be loathe to capture northern Australia by coup de main, then conditions may allow for an Allied forward defence policy to be implemented.  Factors to take into account include the ability to:
(a) move north supply/fuel in the first 3 months,
(b) move overland engineering units plus some combat units to occupy minimum level 4 fortifications,
(c) relocate air units to deny the enemy uncontested local air supperiority,
all without compromising the more important long term position in Australia.
All this while coping with Japanese operational moves.

Alfred

(in reply to modrow)
Post #: 47
Teutonic philosophy school in session... - 11/13/2009 3:00:51 PM   
modrow

 

Posts: 1100
Joined: 8/27/2006
Status: offline 		Alfred,

thanks for the comments (so you mean I can actually give Northern Australia away and still have Chardonnay to sip while waiting for the Cavalry to arrive from the US? This gets better and better )- and providing a much needed bump to this AAR. The reason for the lull is -well, a bit of a lull in the game both on and off-map.

Re. off-map, Rattovolante suffered from a bad attack of the flu, which slowed him down a bit.

Re. on-map, we are now in the December 27th turn (I am waiting for the next game file), and since the battle of Ambon not too much has been happening (if you don't count a breathtaking gun duel between SS Nautilus and a Japanese Tanker and the start of the Rabaul invasion, which will be over pretty soon). Part of this is due to the fact that a number of my planes refused to fly last turn, I had planned to pay the big surface TF guarding Ambon a visit with planes that supposedly can hit even in AE, but they refused to fly, only the secondary strike went in and hit -as usual- nothing. Oh, and I could rant about the loss of a DD on ASW mission to a Japanese sub for no return.

So next, a few comments relating to your post... in absence of the possibility to employ inner-Australian bantering, I’ll continue to train your growing skills in the art of Teutonic philosophical discussion further by beginning my rambles with an entirely different aspect/hypothesis:

I believe that Northern Australia on this map is not well suited to form the basis for a major axis of attack, but that it may serve as a jump-off point for a limited operation which is likely to catch the opponent's attention and make him react.

Why do I start with this remark ? Because it illustrates that I am fine with losing Northern Australia and not likely to commit there in terms of an intentional forward defense. Why do I say intentional? Because especially in the PI more than once I was a turn late, usually not even with the bulk of the units but with a single LCU and got clobbered. Controlled ground movement is different now, and I definitely failed to master it so far…

Let’s go for yet another viewing angle: What should be Japan’s approach in Northern Australia ? I think this should be a limited operation, taking out the coastal bases, maybe taking Katherine as a roadblock while a bulk of troops is present in the neighborhood anyway. Definitely not more, maybe less. I think that there are other places on the map where a comparable investment in terms of assets and initiative may reap a higher yield.

As a consequence of these views, I would like to create a situation in which a Japanese move on Northern Australia develops a tendency to draw additional Japanese assets in. Clearly, this cannot be done by just ceding the bases. Instead, one needs an at least substantial-looking, but moving defense screen, which may deal with lead units and gets out of town in time when more assets appear.

Thus, how can one implement that? As you know from my game against Nemo, I am sometimes just saying the right words, but my implementation of the concepts may be… lacking… to say the least .

With respect to logistical reinforcement, that is what I am currently doing – even though the origin of fuel and supplies that I try to bring to Northern Australia (at least until I get the first convoys from Capetown) right now is the DEI rather than Southern Australia. Of course, this is not going to work much longer, but while it does, I will. Also, it has the advantage that it allows for more trips in a given about of time because of the relatively short distances to be covered.

Engineering and base construction: There are not too many readily available Engineers around, mainly the two BFs I had mentioned earlier, but I am most likely going to build forts at Katherine and –depending on my progress in doing so if time allows and I get sufficiently strong sufficiently fast- also an airfield level or two, so that offensive missions may be conducted from that base.

Buildup of airforce: Well, that may be a major problem, as there is not too much of a usable RAAF presently and once it appears it may be much needed elsewhere on the map as well.

In addition, I will try to demonstrate with some of the weak militia units in the Northeast without really committing them to battle. If the “tanks” available at the beginning of the war are sufficiently fast during retreat, they may be suited to show that there is a huge number of units. Not sure about the Northwest as of yet – perhaps something needs to be sacrificed at Port Hedland or Broome.

Re. “exporting” units and your loathe to spend PP on them – there is one thing I am thinking about: I guess it is still true that there are a number of target bases in the vicinity of Australia that need protection against a coup de main relatively early on, but may be taken later if Japan wants to take them no matter what is there for defense. Thus, once thing I am pondering about now is whether it may be a suitable course of action to use Australian units for the protection against a quick but weak attack in case it should occur and either “replace” them in Australia with high quality US units that in many games die in Noumea or so… Not sure whether you really gain something right now.

That’s it for now. Thanks for your input and everyone’s interest

Hartwig


< Message edited by hartwig.modrow -- 11/13/2009 3:06:26 PM >

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 48
RE: Teutonic philosophy school in session... - 11/18/2009 7:45:39 AM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline 		hartwig.modrow,

Yes, as long as you keep everything south of the Tropic of Capricorn, you will still be able to have chardonnay plus riesling, semillon and reds such as pinot noir, cabernet sauvignon, merlot etc.  NB - the list does not include any trockenbeerenauslese wines.  Mind you, in the 1940s, most of these varieties were not planted and most production was centered on producing sherry.  I should add that just last week I had a very nice Kracher pinot grigio from Austria.

Getting back to northern Australia.  I think it would be a mistake for Allied players to not take into account a new possible enemy entry route into Australia.  In AE there are now several Allied dot bases around the Gulf of Carpentaria (Arnhem Land area, Groote Eyland).  Some of these can be built up into decent airfields to either

(a)support from the flank a drive down the Stuart Highway to Daly Waters or

(b) directly support an invasion at Normanton and then drive to Mt Isa (with its substantial number of resource centres)

Alfred

(in reply to modrow)
Post #: 49
Wine whine - 11/21/2009 11:10:07 PM   
modrow

 

Posts: 1100
Joined: 8/27/2006
Status: offline 		Gentlemen in general, and specifically Alfred,

as a matter of fact, my presently favored "standard" white wine (i.e. for everyday use in contrast to more expensive wines I keep for/drink at special occasions) is one based on one of the typical grapes usually used for reds, pinot noir. Leads to a very interesting white...

Does anyone know whether the Allied were facing a lack of wine during WWII ? I'm not sure how big an output Californian wineyards provided back then, and it seems like a lot of the "classic" providers were either in the Axis camp or occupied anyway...

Ok, back to the game - the lack of updates during the last week was due to the fact that I was in Straßburg, but we managed to do another turn or two (December 29, 1941 turn was executed, giving me some reason to whine but also some facts for updating the AAR):

First of all, it looks like Haruna is still afloat after all .

Morning Air attack on Ambon , at 76,109
Weather in hex: Light rain

Raid spotted at 26 NM, estimated altitude 11,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 8 minutes


Allied aircraft
Hudson I x 3

Allied aircraft losses
Hudson I: 1 damaged

Japanese Ships
BB Haruna, Bomb hits 1, heavy damage
CL Kiso, Bomb hits 1

Aircraft Attacking:
3 x Hudson I bombing from 11000 feet
Port Attack: 4 x 250 lb GP Bomb

This ID makes a lot of sense, because I was really surprised to see that the ships that seemed to have been hurt during the battle of Ambon sort of disappeared from the map in spite of massive search efforts by subs and planes. If they were reurned to Ambon once the base was taken and disbanded, that would make a lot of sense.

Then, IJN subs prove to be deadly once again. I lost one DD that was escorting a TF yesterday and today an AK from the same TF (even though I changed its course, I guess reaction range takes its toll) and another DD that was escorting a TF.

Next, look at the losses of a 2-1 attack against the chinese...

Ground combat at 87,48

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 14525 troops, 112 guns, 69 vehicles, Assault Value = 428

Defending force 17191 troops, 81 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 488

Japanese adjusted assault: 414

Allied adjusted defense: 142

Japanese assault odds: 2 to 1

Combat modifiers
Defender: leaders(-), experience(-), supply(-)
Attacker: leaders(+)

Japanese ground losses:
280 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 16 disabled
Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 7 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Guns lost 2 (0 destroyed, 2 disabled)
Vehicles lost 2 (0 destroyed, 2 disabled)


Allied ground losses:
8040 casualties reported
Squads: 216 destroyed, 12 disabled
Non Combat: 292 destroyed, 16 disabled
Engineers: 6 destroyed, 5 disabled
Guns lost 3 (3 destroyed, 0 disabled)
Units retreated 2


Defeated Allied Units Retreating!

Assaulting units:
15th Division

Defending units:
12th Chinese Corps
85th Chinese Corps
3rd Group Army

and compare to the results of a failed japanese attack with the same odds:

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 4519 troops, 40 guns, 11 vehicles, Assault Value = 137

Defending force 5357 troops, 43 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 173

Japanese adjusted assault: 49

Allied adjusted defense: 51

Japanese assault odds: 1 to 2 (fort level 1)

Combat modifiers
Defender: leaders(+), preparation(-), experience(-)
Attacker: fatigue(-)

Japanese ground losses:
492 casualties reported
Squads: 1 destroyed, 23 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 16 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled


Allied ground losses:
500 casualties reported
Squads: 1 destroyed, 26 disabled
Non Combat: 2 destroyed, 18 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled


Assaulting units:
21st Ind.Mixed Brigade

Defending units:
64th Chinese Corps

Furthermore, I am afraid fighting in Burma will start soon and may not last long. Imperial Guards were seen at Moulmein, along with at least one tank unit. I'll try to make the supply situation a bit difficult, but it appears quitel clear that I will not be able to hold against these foes at Pegu with the "great" troops I have at my disposal there.

In yet another item of bad news, Rattovolante caught me off-guard with a nice surprise attack on Singapore, wrecking a lot of shipping in port... I got loads of AAA there, but it did not really help... The only good new is that he hit the repair shipyard, which he will probably want to use at some point of time... fine with me

Morning Air attack on Singapore , at 50,84

Weather in hex: Overcast

Raid detected at 40 NM, estimated altitude 14,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 11 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-21-IIa Sally x 43
Ki-43-Ia Oscar x 26

Allied aircraft
Walrus II x 1


Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-21-IIa Sally: 9 damaged


Allied Ships
SS O16, Bomb hits 3, and is sunk
xAK Tai Sang, Bomb hits 2, heavy fires, heavy damage
xAP Matang, Bomb hits 1, heavy fires, heavy damage
xAP Sin Kheng Seng, Bomb hits 1, heavy fires, heavy damage
xAK Demodocus, Bomb hits 2, on fire
xAKL Bust, Bomb hits 1, heavy fires, heavy damage
xAKL Marudu, Bomb hits 1, heavy fires


Repair Shipyard hits 2
Port hits 1

Aircraft Attacking:
9 x Ki-21-IIa Sally bombing from 11000 feet
City Attack: 4 x 250 kg GP Bomb
18 x Ki-21-IIa Sally bombing from 11000 feet
Port Attack: 4 x 250 kg GP Bomb
16 x Ki-21-IIa Sally bombing from 11000 feet
Port Attack: 4 x 250 kg GP Bomb
26 x Ki-43-Ia Oscar sweeping at 11000 feet

Nice move by my opponent...

To finish, however, let's look at a small victory. Rattovolante has started to hop towards the Gilberts, and I thought maybe I can stir up some trouble there by sending in a DD or two. I could

Night Time Surface Combat, near Makin at 136,125, Range 7,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
PB Tama Maru #5, Shell hits 4, and is sunk
PB Hirotama Maru, Shell hits 5, heavy fires, heavy damage
PB Fumi Maru #3, Shell hits 2, and is sunk
PB Kyo Maru #7, Shell hits 10, and is sunk
PB Aso Maru #7, Shell hits 7, heavy fires

Allied Ships
DD Blue

Improved night sighting under 82% moonlight
Maximum visibility in Partly Cloudy Conditions and 82% moonlight: 7,000 yards
Range closes to 7,000 yards...
CONTACT: Japanese lookouts spot Allied task force at 7,000 yards
CONTACT: Allied lookouts spot Japanese task force at 7,000 yards
DD Blue engages PB Aso Maru #7 at 7,000 yards
Range closes to 4,000 yards
DD Blue engages PB Kyo Maru #7 at 4,000 yards
Range closes to 2,000 yards
DD Blue engages PB Kyo Maru #7 at 2,000 yards
DD Blue engages PB Hirotama Maru at 2,000 yards
DD Blue engages PB Hirotama Maru at 2,000 yards
PB Kyo Maru #7 sunk by DD Blue at 2,000 yards
DD Blue engages PB Tama Maru #5 at 2,000 yards
DD Blue engages PB Aso Maru #7 at 2,000 yards
Range increases to 3,000 yards
DD Blue engages PB Aso Maru #7 at 3,000 yards
Range increases to 4,000 yards
DD Blue engages PB Aso Maru #7 at 4,000 yards
Range increases to 5,000 yards
DD Blue engages PB Fumi Maru #3 at 5,000 yards
Range closes to 4,000 yards
DD Blue engages PB Aso Maru #7 at 4,000 yards
Range closes to 2,000 yards
DD Blue engages PB Aso Maru #7 at 2,000 yards
DD Blue engages PB Tama Maru #5 at 2,000 yards
Range increases to 3,000 yards
DD Blue engages PB Tama Maru #5 at 3,000 yards
DD Blue engages PB Hirotama Maru at 3,000 yards
Range increases to 4,000 yards
PB Tama Maru #5 sunk by DD Blue at 4,000 yards
Range closes to 2,000 yards
DD Blue engages PB Fumi Maru #3 at 2,000 yards
Range increases to 3,000 yards
DD Blue engages PB Aso Maru #7 at 3,000 yards
PB Fumi Maru #3 sunk by DD Blue at 3,000 yards
Williams, H. orders Allied TF to disengage
Range closes to 2,000 yards
DD Blue engages PB Aso Maru #7 at 2,000 yards
DD Blue engages PB Hirotama Maru at 2,000 yards
Fujita C. orders Japanese TF to disengage
Range increases to 8,000 yards
DD Blue engages PB Aso Maru #7 at 8,000 yards
DD Blue engages PB Hirotama Maru at 8,000 yards
Range increases to 12,000 yards
DD Blue engages PB Aso Maru #7 at 12,000 yards
DD Blue engages PB Hirotama Maru at 12,000 yards
Task forces break off...

Ok, that's my update for tonight. Thanks for your interest

Hartwig

< Message edited by hartwig.modrow -- 11/21/2009 11:18:41 PM >

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 50
RE: Wine whine - 11/22/2009 7:08:40 AM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: hartwig.modrow

Gentlemen in general, and specifically Alfred,

as a matter of fact, my presently favored "standard" white wine (i.e. for everyday use in contrast to more expensive wines I keep for/drink at special occasions) is one based on one of the typical grapes usually used for reds, pinot noir. Leads to a very interesting white...


Let's see....pinot noir grape used to produce a white wine....of course, that usually means a ....champagne! Popped over to Strassburg to pick up French champagne which would be cheaper than some trockenbeerenauslese which you obviously "keep for/drink at special occasions".

Alfred

(in reply to modrow)
Post #: 51
RE: Wine whine - 11/23/2009 11:13:46 AM   
modrow

 

Posts: 1100
Joined: 8/27/2006
Status: offline 		Alfred,



But you don't judge me correctly with respect to a number of aspects... Depth of my purse comes to mind, but also sensibility of my gums. Never was able to acquire that last bit of finesse...

Gamewise, I just sent the December 30 turn to my opponent. So far, the lull on the map is continuing. I guess if things stay that way, the next major series of posts will be a end of December status-update.

Btw, I would like to add that the last few losses of escorting DDs to Japanese subs all happened in regions where I also had planes on ASW patrol...

That's all for now. Thanks for your continued interest

Hartwig

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 52
Counter-accounting - 11/27/2009 11:11:46 AM   
modrow

 

Posts: 1100
Joined: 8/27/2006
Status: offline 		Gentlemen,

yesterday, I sent the orders for December 31, 1941 to my opponent. He has announced that he wants to do some accounting next in order to analyse the state of his economy and thus will need more time than usual before I can get the turn back. I'm out of town this weekend, so that's sort of fine with me; but I'll try to use some of the time to prepare a summary or two myself, as announced earlier.

First of all, let's talk a bit about the air war. I'm still quite pleased with how it went so far, if one forgets about the new inability to perform successful naval attacks. Here's the loss screen from the Tracker , sorted by total losses so far, filtered by side. First, Japanese losses:






Attachment (1)

(in reply to modrow)
Post #: 53
RE: Counter-accounting - 11/27/2009 11:14:16 AM   
modrow

 

Posts: 1100
Joined: 8/27/2006
Status: offline 		Next, Allied airframe losses:




Note the considerable ground losses, 80% of which are due to the strikes against Pearl and Clark at the beginning of the game. I still suffer a lot from the huge number of patrol planes lost, but historical turn 1 sort of limits the options one has.

I was actually quite surprised to see the Zeros taking the highest Japanese fighter losses... All in all, I am quite content with the relative loss numbers. As you see from the Day's losses, on good days you can even win a day of air war.

My general impression is that total loss numbers are relatively low compared to what happens in other games. We both seem to be saving our assets for future battles. In general, my opponent has launched relatively few attacks on bases, the ones he ordered were mostly port attacks, partly at night, which had a surprisingly good rate of success. So far, we have seen a clear focus on naval attack and ground support missions.

Specifically in Malaya, the air war has been less intense than I would have expected/was used to in WitP. Not sure what that means, I don't think it's just the consequence of the increased difficulty to keep bombers performing missions. Maybe it is partly a consequence of the fact that my current bombing strategy has shifted in view of the somewhat lackluster performance of my level bombers. I try to keep them mostly out of harms way, attacking backwater bases in order to train them on the mission while performing missions with low risk profile. Haven't seen too much improvement so far, but everything is better than training missions - maybe the patch will change this. Naturally, that removes much of the tendency to try to close down my airstrips, because that just means wrecking them before conquest of the respective base, thus delaying their efficient use.

Every now and then, however, I try to go for a concentrated strike in order to delay progress of the enemy. I'll probably post an example for that when I discuss the present situation in Singapore.

Ok, that's the first installment... not sure when the next one will follow.

Regards

Hartwig

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by hartwig.modrow -- 11/27/2009 12:01:27 PM >

(in reply to modrow)
Post #: 54
RE: Counter-accounting - 11/29/2009 2:19:27 AM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline 		hartwig.modrow,

In your last post you commented that your bombers didn't seem to be much improving their skills but that you preferred them to train on the job rather than being given the training mission.

I could be completely wrong, but I thought I had read elsewhere that pilots were not improving their skills if they relied upon "on the job" missions - that only if taken "off line" on a "training mission", however slowly was any improvement seen.

Alfred

(in reply to modrow)
Post #: 55
RE: Counter-accounting - 11/30/2009 8:36:40 AM   
modrow

 

Posts: 1100
Joined: 8/27/2006
Status: offline 		Alfred,

thanks for pointing this out, I'll check. I only did this change in my approach a few game days ago and I'm sure I saw some increase in exp for escort fighters and a bomber unit or two,that's why I thought it works - slower than in WitP, but I attributed that to the lower overall number of hits scored. But I did not check in detail for each pilot, but just looked at the entire group's numbers. That means in principle my observation may be based on a loss of low-quality pilots during the mission.

In any case, was not patch 2 supposed to modify something relating to the experience gains ? I guess after patching, reevaluation will be necessary.

In general, as an addendum to the above remarks relating to the air war, I would like to add that AVG does not seem to do a good job for me (I got the December 31, 1941 turn execution and definitely lost that day in the air). E.g., 15 well rested AVG fighters on escort mission, distance from base 2, with altitude advantage (they got the bounce) against 12 Oscars on LRCAP with much larger distance to home base are unable to do their job properly. This is not a single incindents, I usually get results worse than 1-1 against Oscars and Nates. Any hint how to make those planes more efficient anyone ?

Thanks for your interest

Hartwig

< Message edited by hartwig.modrow -- 11/30/2009 8:38:12 AM >

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 56
I see a bad moon arisin - 11/30/2009 9:25:03 PM   
modrow

 

Posts: 1100
Joined: 8/27/2006
Status: offline 		Gentlemen,

a small update from the combat report of December 31 - a series of nice sub attacks at Ambon, all of them by S-37. Apart from a failed attack on a TF comprising at least one xAK,

Japanese Ships
DD Sagiri
DD Hibiki
TB Otori
xAK Yamabiko Maru
DD Hokaze

Allied Ships
SS S-37, hits 1

we got these results which should weaken the "Guard TF":




This is the initial composition of the guard TF:

Sub attack near Ambon at 76,109
Japanese Ships
CA Maya, Torpedo hits 1, on fire
BB Hyuga
CA Nachi
DD Samidare
DD Asagao
DD Okikaze
DD Minekaze
DD Ayanami

Allied Ships
SS S-37, hits 1

I believe that Maya may have taken a bit of damage even from the first hit, because the second attack appears to be directed at an escort TF that has been split off...

Sub attack near Ambon at 76,109

Japanese Ships
CA Maya, Torpedo hits 1, heavy damage
DD Asagao

Allied Ships
SS S-37, hits 2

It's a pity the moon is currently shining brightly, otherwise it may even be worth a try to go in. If nothing else, it would negate a bit of support by bombardment to the invaders if hey have to replenish ammunition for the real big guns. Let's see whether an opportunity can be found.

Thanks for your interest

Hartwig

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by hartwig.modrow -- 11/30/2009 9:35:18 PM >

(in reply to modrow)
Post #: 57
RE: Teutonic philosophy school in session... - 11/30/2009 10:56:47 PM   
stuman


Posts: 3907
Joined: 9/14/2008
From: Elvis' Hometown
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

hartwig.modrow,

Yes, as long as you keep everything south of the Tropic of Capricorn, you will still be able to have chardonnay plus riesling, semillon and reds such as pinot noir, cabernet sauvignon, merlot etc.  NB - the list does not include any trockenbeerenauslese wines.  Mind you, in the 1940s, most of these varieties were not planted and most production was centered on producing sherry.  I should add that just last week I had a very nice Kracher pinot grigio from Austria.

Getting back to northern Australia.  I think it would be a mistake for Allied players to not take into account a new possible enemy entry route into Australia.  In AE there are now several Allied dot bases around the Gulf of Carpentaria (Arnhem Land area, Groote Eyland).  Some of these can be built up into decent airfields to either

(a)support from the flank a drive down the Stuart Highway to Daly Waters or

(b) directly support an invasion at Normanton and then drive to Mt Isa (with its substantial number of resource centres)

Alfred


Playing as the Jap. atm I have myself wondered if such an attack vector was feasible. I am bothered by the fact that although there are several high potential airbases ( 'tho they would all need a lot of supplies to build up ) all of the ports in that area are 1 or 0. And then if I made it ashore, I am not sure that I could move inland fast enough with sufficient force to be able to accomplish much. I do however like the idea of taking N Oz ( meaning the N coast areas ). That is what I plan to do in my game.

_____________________________

" Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room. " President Muffley


(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 58
Capricorn gambits - 12/1/2009 9:37:01 PM   
modrow

 

Posts: 1100
Joined: 8/27/2006
Status: offline 		Stuman,

quote:

ORIGINAL: stuman


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

hartwig.modrow,

Yes, as long as you keep everything south of the Tropic of Capricorn, you will still be able to have chardonnay plus riesling, semillon and reds such as pinot noir, cabernet sauvignon, merlot etc.  NB - the list does not include any trockenbeerenauslese wines.  Mind you, in the 1940s, most of these varieties were not planted and most production was centered on producing sherry.  I should add that just last week I had a very nice Kracher pinot grigio from Austria.

Getting back to northern Australia.  I think it would be a mistake for Allied players to not take into account a new possible enemy entry route into Australia.  In AE there are now several Allied dot bases around the Gulf of Carpentaria (Arnhem Land area, Groote Eyland).  Some of these can be built up into decent airfields to either

(a)support from the flank a drive down the Stuart Highway to Daly Waters or

(b) directly support an invasion at Normanton and then drive to Mt Isa (with its substantial number of resource centres)

Alfred


Playing as the Jap. atm I have myself wondered if such an attack vector was feasible. I am bothered by the fact that although there are several high potential airbases ( 'tho they would all need a lot of supplies to build up ) all of the ports in that area are 1 or 0. And then if I made it ashore, I am not sure that I could move inland fast enough with sufficient force to be able to accomplish much. I do however like the idea of taking N Oz ( meaning the N coast areas ). That is what I plan to do in my game.


thanks for your contribution and bringing this interesting remark by Alfred back into the spotlight.

Actually, I did ponder a bit about this attack vector as well, and it actually worries me a bit now as a possible alternative entry route, so once again I think Alfred provided an excellent hint. I am not moved by concerns relating to support for a drive to Daly Waters (which seems to work well for the Japanese anyway if it is performed sufficiently early in the game) or the resources of Mt Isa, but why not entering via Normanton and then drive towards the Townsville/Charter Towers/Cairns region? By chosing this approach early on, PM may be isolated quite nicely, the port problem will be solved soon by these bases, and there are no units in that region that could be relied on to stop that thrust. So yes, I think it is a dangerous backdoor in any case.

Hartwig

(in reply to stuman)
Post #: 59
Sitrep (next part) - 12/1/2009 9:40:55 PM   
modrow

 

Posts: 1100
Joined: 8/27/2006
Status: offline 		Gentlemen,

I would like to add the next bit to the situation report of the Allied struggles by the end of 1941, this time a bit on situation in Burma. Here's a map:




My opponent chose to bypass Victoria Point and Tavoy, drove straight towards the coastal road and then on to Moulmein.
This was definitely a fast way to get to Pegu, I know Imperial Guards and the 14th Tk Rgt are in the vicinity and received cursor intel indicating the presence of 5 units, not counting the ones which are marching towards Moulmein right now. I'm trying to use the infantery unit at Tavoy to make the flow of supplies for these units more difficult, not sure how well this will work. I did run a couple of airstrikes and naval bombardment missions against Moulmein in an attempt to make this airstrip more difficult to use for my opponent, but success was limited so far.

Pegu is at Fort level 2, I don't think it will reach 3 before the action starts. I moved a lot of units there and formed the 1st Burma division, but am still quite uncertain whether I can stop a coordinated attack there, bearing in mind the typical adjustments to Allied AVs early in the game. Note in addition that Rattovolante seems to be trying to cross into Burma north of Pegu (not sure which unit that is), so maybe I'll try to wait sufficiently long to force him to arrange everything for a coordinated, big attack, thus gain time to build another fort level at Rangoon (3 ) and then try to go for an orderly retreat...

Ok, now I'll work a bit on my turn. Thanks for your interest

Hartwig

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by hartwig.modrow -- 12/1/2009 9:52:30 PM >

(in reply to modrow)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> The opponent's head Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.953