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: Under the Southern Cross

 
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 >> RE: Under the Southern Cross Page: <<   < prev  8 9 [10] 11 12   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Under the Southern Cross - 12/7/2009 9:15:05 AM   
Smeulders

 

Posts: 1879
Joined: 8/9/2009
Status: offline 		He couldn't have done that yet, it takes a 360 day delay for the conversion to be completed and even disregarding that I don't think he has even hit the conversion date yet.

(in reply to d0mbo)
Post #: 271
RE: Under the Southern Cross - 12/7/2009 9:16:24 AM   
d0mbo

 

Posts: 592
Joined: 8/21/2009
From: Holland
Status: offline 		Then is the Chitose Ku- unit not linked to the ship but rather to the city?

(in reply to Smeulders)
Post #: 272
RE: Under the Southern Cross - 12/7/2009 9:47:20 AM   
ChezDaJez


Posts: 3436
Joined: 11/12/2004
From: Chehalis, WA
Status: offline
quote:

I thought the Chitose was an floatplane tender.... I take it you have converterted her to a CVL?


Chitose is the name of the district from where the unit originated and/or is administratively controlled. It does not refer to the ship. The same with the Tainan Ku S-1 group. It is from the Tainan district on Formosa (Taiwan). BTW, the Tainan group was Saburo Sakai's group. These groups are land-based but are carrier capable.

Chez

_____________________________

Ret Navy AWCS (1972-1998)
VP-5, Jacksonville, Fl 1973-78
ASW Ops Center, Rota, Spain 1978-81
VP-40, Mt View, Ca 1981-87
Patrol Wing 10, Mt View, CA 1987-90
ASW Ops Center, Adak, Ak 1990-92
NRD Seattle 1992-96
VP-46, Whidbey Isl, Wa 1996-98

(in reply to d0mbo)
Post #: 273
RE: Under the Southern Cross - 12/7/2009 1:55:29 PM   
jwilkerson


Posts: 10525
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Cuttlefish
Burma: the RAF had fallen into something of a pattern over Mandalay; daily sweeps at 21,000 feet by two squadrons of Hurricanes and, once every two or three days, an attack by about 18 bombers and a couple dozen assorted escorts. There are enough Japanese engineers there that the airfield is kept in decent shape so on 13 July I flew in about 50 Zeros and 20 Oscars.

I set the Zeros to 22,000 feet and the Oscars to 16,000, all on 70% CAP.On 14 June in came the Hurricanes as usual and I chewed them up pretty good. I shot down 12 at a cost of 3 Oscars and a Zero and left most of the survivors damaged. What seemed to happen is that the Zeros dove on the Hurricanes, which mixed it up for a bit, then the Hurricanes would dive on the Oscars, which mixed it up for a bit, and this allowed the Zeros to dive on the Hurricanes again. It seemed to neutralize the enemy fighters pretty well.

There was no bombing attack during the turn and on 15 July I withdrew my fighters to Rangoon again.

It will be interesting to see what Q-Ball does now. He has enough air power across the border to flatten Mandalay again, and he might. But keeping the airfield suppressed will mean accepting ops and flak losses. There are three Japanese AA units at Mandalay now, which is my self-imposed limit for a given base (putting in more starts to feel gamey). But three is enough to inflict some damage and losses. If he doesn’t keep the airfields there wrecked and returns to penny-packet attacks he runs the risk of another aerial ambush.


Thanks for the Burma air war description - I'll put more detail in my AAR as well on this topic so we can see the differences in tactics and planning!

_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to Cuttlefish)
Post #: 274
RE: Under the Southern Cross - 12/7/2009 4:44:32 PM   
BrucePowers


Posts: 12094
Joined: 7/3/2004
Status: offline 		You put in very nice descriptions of what seems to be happening. It helps me do a better job of visualizing what is oing on.

(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 275
Run Silent, Run Deep - 12/8/2009 5:58:01 AM   
Cuttlefish

 

Posts: 2454
Joined: 1/24/2007
From: Oregon, USA
Status: offline 		The military value of a partisan’s work is not measured by the amount of property destroyed, or by the number of men killed or captured, but by the number he keeps watching.
- John S. Moseby: War Reminiscences, 1887

7/16/1942 – 7/18/1942

A look at the benefits and risks of an operation against Australia have convinced me to call off the invasion there. I wasn’t paying enough attention to Port Hedland and hadn’t realized how large a base it was becoming. I think that in a future game as Japan I might make neutralizing or capturing that base a priority. It can be built up nicely and is very hard to reach except by sea.

For now, since it is already loaded and heading east anyway, I am sending the 48th Division to Noumea. The reserve division, the 2nd, will head for Burma. I haven’t decided about the other two divisions yet. I may station them on Java and Sumatra as defenders.

Burma: speaking of Burma, Q-Ball quietly moved a small unit over the mountains to the dot base between Mandalay and Myitkyina. There they intercepted and destroyed (with the help of air attacks) an AA unit that was moving by rail to Myitkyina. I can picture it quite clearly; the train moving through the jungle and coming under air attack, then the raiders that called in the attack swooping down to blow up what’s left. A small unit like my AA battalion would be easily destroyed.

Q-Ball is very good at infiltration tactics. He does it all over the place in China and keeping his units off my rail lines takes a fair amount of effort. Which is the purpose, of course, to tie down my troops. Fortunately there are a lot of small units available to me there for security work, though they can’t handle anything close to a full-strength Chinese corps.

Air attacks have resumed against Mandalay, though not in enough strength to close the airfield. If they keep up I will try another aerial ambush in a turn or two. Meanwhile the AA guns there have bagged a couple of Blenheims.

Under the Sea: an Allied sub (Finback, I think) sank an xAK on the Port Arthur – Hiroshima resource run. It launched torpedoes at two other ships in the same convoy but they came up duds. Fortunately some of the air units (Vals and Sallys, mostly) that I started training on ASW warfare months ago are approaching competence and I am taking them off training and putting them to work around the Home Islands. I am hoping that it will at least force his subs to keep their head down a little. I don’t expect hits from pilots with an ASW experience of 55 or so but they’re at they point where they will improve faster against live targets than they will by training.

I had a Betty report hitting Shark near Ambon a few turns ago but Q-Ball informs me that the sub was not in fact damaged.

Hey, I have an idea! I’ll put a destroyer in the Bungo Strait with a really good ASW commander. With it I’ll have a submarine lurking and air assets nearby. My intelligence screen will inform me when enemy submarines are in the area (maybe by finding their dumped garbage or something). It will become a death trap for US submarines!


(in reply to Cuttlefish)
Post #: 276
RE: Run Silent, Run Deep - 12/8/2009 5:50:46 PM   
Caliban

 

Posts: 94
Joined: 2/5/2006
Status: offline
quote:

Hey, I have an idea! I’ll put a destroyer in the Bungo Strait with a really good ASW commander. With it I’ll have a submarine lurking and air assets nearby. My intelligence screen will inform me when enemy submarines are in the area (maybe by finding their dumped garbage or something). It will become a death trap for US submarines!


Cuttlefish,

I am curious as to what skill levels you would consider as being "really good" for an ASW commander.

Caliban

(in reply to Cuttlefish)
Post #: 277
RE: Run Silent, Run Deep - 12/8/2009 7:37:12 PM   
Alikchi2

 

Posts: 1785
Joined: 5/14/2004
Status: offline
quote:


For now, since it is already loaded and heading east anyway, I am sending the 48th Division to Noumea. The reserve division, the 2nd, will head for Burma. I haven’t decided about the other two divisions yet. I may station them on Java and Sumatra as defenders.


Does that mean that the time for expansion is over? No flinging divisions at New Zealand?

Kudos to you in showing restraint in re: Australia, anyhow. I know that when I plan out an invasion and get everything ready, the inertia of the operation keeps me trying at it even when it's clearly not worth the risk.

_____________________________


(in reply to Cuttlefish)
Post #: 278
RE: Run Silent, Run Deep - 12/8/2009 7:49:35 PM   
Cuttlefish

 

Posts: 2454
Joined: 1/24/2007
From: Oregon, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Alikchi

quote:


For now, since it is already loaded and heading east anyway, I am sending the 48th Division to Noumea. The reserve division, the 2nd, will head for Burma. I haven’t decided about the other two divisions yet. I may station them on Java and Sumatra as defenders.


Does that mean that the time for expansion is over? No flinging divisions at New Zealand?

Kudos to you in showing restraint in re: Australia, anyhow. I know that when I plan out an invasion and get everything ready, the inertia of the operation keeps me trying at it even when it's clearly not worth the risk.


I felt the force of that inertia, for sure. It was an effort of will to turn back the transports. But I think it was the right call. The invasion might have succeeded in April or May but by this time it seems Q-Ball has had to much time to prepare a warm welcome.

The question about the expansion phase is an interesting one. I realize that I really don't have a handle on what Allied offensive capabilities are at this stage of the game and how fast they will grow. It's my first AE game and not many PBEMs (those with AARs, anyway) have gotten this deep into a game yet. As a result I'm feeling my way along and that makes me more cautious than I might otherwise be.

Expansion may be over, though I am prepared to be opportunistic. We will see.


_____________________________


(in reply to Alikchi2)
Post #: 279
RE: Run Silent, Run Deep - 12/8/2009 8:30:00 PM   
Capt. Harlock


Posts: 5358
Joined: 9/15/2001
From: Los Angeles
Status: offline
quote:

Kudos to you in showing restraint in re: Australia, anyhow.


Granted, it may be the right call, but I'm disappointed. There would have been fireworks!

_____________________________

Civil war? What does that mean? Is there any foreign war? Isn't every war fought between men, between brothers?

--Victor Hugo

(in reply to Alikchi2)
Post #: 280
RE: Run Silent, Run Deep - 12/9/2009 9:47:07 PM   
Cuttlefish

 

Posts: 2454
Joined: 1/24/2007
From: Oregon, USA
Status: offline 		I propose to fight it out on this line if it takes all summer.
- U.S. Grant: Dispatch to Major General Halleck, from Spotsylvania Court House, 11 May 1864

7/19/1942 – 7/22/1942

Our game is now patched up to the 1.00.95 official version. On with the war!

The siege at Noumea continues. He either had a huge stockpile of supplies there or is managing to fly in enough to keep his troops in beans and bullets. I haven’t managed to intercept anything flying in, though, so I don’t know. But I am going to keep it up until he either lifts the siege by force or his units surrender.

There are more units on the way. I have broken off attacking lately because on of the divisions there, the 53rd, had become almost entirely disrupted. It is back at La Foa now, resting. I’m not sure why it got into such a state; my other two divisions there are in good shape. When the 53rd is back on the line along with the new troops I hope to compel a swift surrender.

Burma: I am getting more and more worried about this area. Aside from infiltrators there are lots of troops at bases just over the border and if Q-Ball initiates a general advance I will be hard-pressed to stop it. The Imperial Guard Division is disembarking at Rangoon now, however, and more divisions are on the way, so my position should be more secure soon.

I don’t think I have to worry about amphibious assaults down the coast yet, maybe not for a long while, but it bears thinking about. I should at least start building up the forts at places like Tavoy and Victoria Point. You can get forts to level 3 in this game practically overnight but getting forts above that requires a lot of time and engineers. I like this change from WITP a lot, by the way, even though I think Japan is the side primarily affected.

Down Under, Redux: I am sending mini-KB, along with the Nagato/Fuso battle group, on a long run through the Indian Ocean to the southern Australia coast. They will wind up at a point between Exmouth and Perth, close enough to the coast to attack anything transiting the area but far enough from any major air bases to avoid attack.

The move is not without risks. My last foray Down Under stung Q-Ball a bit and it isn’t beyond the realm of possibility that he might have some carriers in the area. The RN carriers in particular seem like a possibility. But no risk, no reward, and maybe it will provide some of the those fireworks Capt. Harlock wants.

Under the Sea: no sooner did I put my newly trained ASW air groups into operation around the Home Islands when not one but two Sallys put reported putting bombs into SS Gudgeon off Sasebo. Could be fog of war, of course, but it’s an encouraging sign. I have the groups flying at 60% ASW, 20% rest, altitude 2000 feet. I need to keep an eye on them, as flying at that frequency and altitude seems to generate a fair amount of fatigue.

The Shipping News: as I mentioned earlier in a reply to Mike Solli I have some of the Std-class xAKs converting to TKs. By now a total of 10 are undergoing conversion, with the first group due back in action any day. These will join the smaller TKs in the DEI, hauling fuel to Singapore. Right now I have three TFs hauling fuel from Palembang, one from Miri, and one from Balikpapan. I will add another TF to the Balikpapan run and assign another to work where ever fuel is piling up. Right now there is no way I can haul fuel away faster than it accumulates.

Resource and HI levels are slowly but steadily climbing again. It takes a lot of work. Hauling resources is almost kind of a mini-game in itself.

I was looking at converting some of the t-xAKs back to cargo hauling. For the moment I am not too pinched for cargo space, though, so I have decided to put it off. I’m still moving large numbers of troops around and the extra troop capacity is handy. Later, when my posture is more defensive and subs are taking their toll on my convoys, I will probably do these conversions.



(in reply to Cuttlefish)
Post #: 281
RE: Run Silent, Run Deep - 12/10/2009 12:31:22 AM   
erstad

 

Posts: 1944
Joined: 8/3/2004
From: Midwest USA
Status: offline
quote:

These will join the smaller TKs in the DEI, hauling fuel to Singapore. Right now I have three TFs hauling fuel from Palembang, one from Miri, and one from Balikpapan.


Why are you hauling from those locations to Singapore? I could maybe see shipping some of the Palembang fuel to Singers if Medan isn't giving you enough, but Miri and Balikpapan to Singers is going the wrong way - seems like that would increase overall fuel consumption.

(in reply to Cuttlefish)
Post #: 282
RE: Run Silent, Run Deep - 12/10/2009 1:06:49 AM   
Cuttlefish

 

Posts: 2454
Joined: 1/24/2007
From: Oregon, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: erstad

quote:

These will join the smaller TKs in the DEI, hauling fuel to Singapore. Right now I have three TFs hauling fuel from Palembang, one from Miri, and one from Balikpapan.


Why are you hauling from those locations to Singapore? I could maybe see shipping some of the Palembang fuel to Singers if Medan isn't giving you enough, but Miri and Balikpapan to Singers is going the wrong way - seems like that would increase overall fuel consumption.



It seemed like that to me too when I first thought of it. In practice, however, it is faster and more efficient than anything else I've tried.

It takes big tankers too long to load at the small ports and the Home Islands are out of range of the small tankers. The port facilities at Singapore are so good that the time saved in loading/unloading more than makes up for the extra time spent en route. The regional task forces unload there and get out in a single day, while the task forces of large tankers making the Honshu-Singapore run (there are four of these currently) load in just two days.

So at any given time I have about 120,000 tons of fuel en route from Singapore to the Home Islands. An average of two small convoys hit Singapore a day, unload 15,000 tons, and get out. Singapore maintains an average of about 75,000 tons stored, which bobs up and down as the big convoys arrive and load up. So far it is working very well.



_____________________________


(in reply to erstad)
Post #: 283
RE: Run Silent, Run Deep - 12/10/2009 1:12:04 AM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline 		No USSHenrico or Crimguy reading please....
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
How do you feel about using Brunei as a local dump for small TKs from Miri? Brunei's port can be significantly expanded (plus it needs some transport for its petro production). Shouldn't a small handful of 1250 capacity TKs be able to shuttle back and forth to Brunei on a daily basis and keep Miri supply down enough? Larger TKs can then shuttle from an enlarged Brunei to the HI.

I'm debating how to handle Miri and Brunei shipments in my PBEMs as well-this is what I'm thinking of...

_____________________________


(in reply to Cuttlefish)
Post #: 284
RE: Run Silent, Run Deep - 12/10/2009 3:50:57 AM   
Cuttlefish

 

Posts: 2454
Joined: 1/24/2007
From: Oregon, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

No USSHenrico or Crimguy reading please....
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
How do you feel about using Brunei as a local dump for small TKs from Miri? Brunei's port can be significantly expanded (plus it needs some transport for its petro production). Shouldn't a small handful of 1250 capacity TKs be able to shuttle back and forth to Brunei on a daily basis and keep Miri supply down enough? Larger TKs can then shuttle from an enlarged Brunei to the HI.

I'm debating how to handle Miri and Brunei shipments in my PBEMs as well-this is what I'm thinking of...


Brunei can be built up to a level 6 port. With a port or shipping engineer unit there larger tankers might be able to load at acceptable speed. But the difference between the way ships load at a level 6 port and a level 9 or 10 like Singapore is significant. I think it would be faster to ship from Singapore even if it is two or three days sail further from the Home Islands but it would be interesting to actually try it and compare.


_____________________________


(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 285
RE: Run Silent, Run Deep - 12/12/2009 8:25:13 PM   
Cuttlefish

 

Posts: 2454
Joined: 1/24/2007
From: Oregon, USA
Status: offline 		The defeat of the U-boat is the prelude to all effective aggressive operations.
- Winston Churchill: To conference of the Ministers of the Crown, 11 February 1943

7/23/42 – 7/30/42

Summer wears on. The war has been fairly quiet the past week but there have been some developments of note.

The War in the Air: the air war has been pretty active lately. In Burma the RAF is bombing both the regiment garrisoning Myitkyina and the airfield there. They are also launching heavy air attacks against the 33rd Division, advancing north from Mandalay. Japanese fighters are once again based at Mandalay and on one turn they attempted to interfere with the bombing. It went pretty well. The Allies lost 10 or 12 planes to 7 Japanese. Since then, however, I have restricted my fighters to the sky above Mandalay (no leakers, love that fix).

Every day since my attack Q-Ball has sent his fighters in to sweep the sky over the 33rd. Each squadron comes in separately, one at a time, all at precisely 21,000 feet. I am tempted to interfere but have resisted. The only real effect these attacks are having on the 33rd is to inflict a bit of disruption and to make them move more slowly by forcing them to stay in combat mode. Move mode under would not be good; neat lines of troops and vehicles along a narrow jungle road are a dandy target for air attack and game results reflect this.

The other aerial action has been over Noumea, where a whole bunch of P-40s and P-39s ambushed one of my bombing runs. It didn’t go as well as Q-Ball deserved; the escorting Zeros shot down 4 fighters at no loss and he only got two Bettys. His pilots did not seem to want to press home the attack with any kind of energy or vigor. Given their losses in the campaign this is perhaps not surprising.

The War at Sea: the only thing to report here is mini-KB, hanging undetected and motionless off the southern Australia coast waiting for prey. But so far nothing has come along.

The War under the Sea: both sides have scored here lately. Japanese submarines sank DM Preeble well southwest of Hawaii and xAP Silksworth near Pago Pago. The transport was full of troops and I love sinking those converted Clemson-class DMs (this was the fourth to go down). They are versatile and useful ships for the Allies in ’42.

Allied subs responded by sinking xAP Baikal Maru, which was loaded with 2nd Division troops heading for Rangoon, a subchaser near Sendai, and an xAK near Rabaul.

A word about ASW combat, since this has been the subject of some discussion lately. So far my experience has been that the only nation actually capable of sinking an enemy sub via ASW attack in ’42 is the British. The Brits, of course, already had a great deal of experience hunting subs by the start of the Pacific war, so that makes sense. It also argues that as the war progresses American ASW forces and, to a lesser extent, Japanese ASW forces will become more capable. For now, however, trying to sink enemy subs is largely an exercise in frustration.

I have found some measure to be effective, however. I started training some ASW air groups early. They are by now competent. They aren’t good enough to actually hit anything (that takes a very high level of experience and my guys are in the 55 – 65 range) but they do make a lot of attacks and force a lot of crash dives. This seems to go a long way towards reducing the number of submarine attacks in patrolled areas.

The second measure I have found effective is minefields. Only in ports, of course, but a minefield of even 200 mines is deadly to submarines that come poking around. I have put down minefields in all my most active ports by now and Q-Ball has learned to keep his submarines out of these ports.

The third measure is less reliable but potentially deadly; set submarines to hunt submarines. I have only sunk one Allied sub this way so far but that is one more sub than my ASW forces have sunk. Around the Home Islands I have recently set a number of short-range subs to patrol areas known to be frequented by enemy subs. We will see if anything comes of this.

The War on Land: the 48th Division, an army HQ, engineers, and more artillery have all landed or are unloading at Koumac right now. Soon these units will join the siege at Noumea, along with the rested 53rd Division. Then the attacks will resume in earnest.

The only other ground combat of any note is in China, and lately there hasn’t been a lot of that. I am completely reorganizing my forces here and as part of this I am pulling back from my attack at Liuchow. I don’t think major combat here will resume for a least a month.

Of course it is worth asking what I really want to accomplish here. I have seized nine Chinese cities so far and cleared out everything anywhere near the coast. With the new patch China is a sinkhole for supplies and advancing seems rather difficult. I do not feel a compelling urge to keep trying to advance in this area, though I don’t think I’m willing to stand down my troops just yet.

Patch Notes: so far the biggest difference I have noticed with the 1.00.95 final version is that my resource and HI levels are moving upward at a faster rate. I had not realized just how many resources I was losing to wastage in transit and it’s a big relief to have that corrected.


(in reply to Cuttlefish)
Post #: 286
RE: Run Silent, Run Deep - 12/12/2009 8:40:50 PM   
stldiver


Posts: 724
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: West Palm Beach, USA
Status: offline 		I have noticed it in my PBEM that the Nicks with Vet Pilots will eat up his bombers! Plus they can intercept at high altitude. They also have success vs P-38's, albeit when they come to me and thus fly further. I usually fly them solo or with Oscar's, who also reach high altititude.

Good Luck I enjoy both yours and Qballs AAR's.

(in reply to Cuttlefish)
Post #: 287
RE: Run Silent, Run Deep - 12/12/2009 11:41:40 PM   
Smeulders

 

Posts: 1879
Joined: 8/9/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Cuttlefish

The third measure is less reliable but potentially deadly; set submarines to hunt submarines. I have only sunk one Allied sub this way so far but that is one more sub than my ASW forces have sunk. Around the Home Islands I have recently set a number of short-range subs to patrol areas known to be frequented by enemy subs. We will see if anything comes of this.



I seem to remember from somewhere that sub on sub attacks are linked to local air superiority. The side with air superiority will run it's subs on the surface and is therefore usually the one being attacked. If this is correct (again, I'm not sure), subs around the HI are more likely to be sunk than sink an enemy sub.

(in reply to Cuttlefish)
Post #: 288
RE: Day of the Turkey - 12/13/2009 2:06:01 AM   
stuman


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

ORIGINAL: Jones944


quote:

ORIGINAL: Cuttlefish

Resources exist to be consumed. And consumed they will be, if not by this generation then by some future. By what right does this forgotten future seek to deny us our birthright? None I say! Let us take what is ours, chew and eat our fill.
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan: The Ethics of Greed

Lol! Loved that game at the time it came out.


Was that Alpha Centauri ?

_____________________________

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


(in reply to Jones944)
Post #: 289
RE: Run Silent, Run Deep - 12/13/2009 2:09:25 AM   
stuman


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

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

No USSHenrico or Crimguy reading please....
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
How do you feel about using Brunei as a local dump for small TKs from Miri? Brunei's port can be significantly expanded (plus it needs some transport for its petro production). Shouldn't a small handful of 1250 capacity TKs be able to shuttle back and forth to Brunei on a daily basis and keep Miri supply down enough? Larger TKs can then shuttle from an enlarged Brunei to the HI.

I'm debating how to handle Miri and Brunei shipments in my PBEMs as well-this is what I'm thinking of...


I think you mentioned that elsewhere and that is exactly what I am experimenting with in my AI game. I don't have my timing down quite right but it makes some sense imo.

_____________________________

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


(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 290
RE: Day of the Turkey - 12/13/2009 9:58:39 PM   
Jones944

 

Posts: 153
Joined: 3/3/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: stuman


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jones944


quote:

ORIGINAL: Cuttlefish

Resources exist to be consumed. And consumed they will be, if not by this generation then by some future. By what right does this forgotten future seek to deny us our birthright? None I say! Let us take what is ours, chew and eat our fill.
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan: The Ethics of Greed

Lol! Loved that game at the time it came out.


Was that Alpha Centauri ?

Correct!

(in reply to stuman)
Post #: 291
The not-so-epic CV duel - 12/15/2009 8:09:22 AM   
Cuttlefish

 

Posts: 2454
Joined: 1/24/2007
From: Oregon, USA
Status: offline 		The better part of valor is discretion, in which better part I have saved my life.
- Shakespeare: Henry IV, Part 1

7/31/42 – 8/3/42

The first carrier battle of the war occurred on 2 August 1942. As it turned out it really wasn’t much of a battle. In fact it was scarcely a battle at all.

What did happen went like this: on the morning of 2 August the Japanese light carriers, Ryujo, Shoho, and Zuiho, were lurking off the southern Australia coast between Exmouth and Carnarvon. They had been there several days. A small convoy of about 7 xAKLs was detected coming back from (probably) Port Hedland. Bad weather hampered the Japanese strike and only one carrier launched Kates, all of which missed their targets.

At this point a previously undetected enemy task force a couple of hexes off Carnarvon launched 13 Albacores at my carriers. Nine of the unescorted Albacores were shot down by Zeros and flak got one or two more. No hits were scored.

That was it. I think mini-KB could easily take a single British carrier, especially one with most of its torpedo bombers gone. Two or three carriers would be problematic, however, so I ordered my ships out of the area. The 3 August turn was quiet.

Midway it wasn’t. The interesting question is what his carriers were doing there. Planning a raid of their own? Trying to secure an important sea lane against exactly the kind of attack I was trying? The world may never know. Correction: I may never know. The rest of you can go read Q-Ball’s AAR when he posts next and find out.

The other interesting development during this period is that two turns ago the daily Allied air attacks in Burma abruptly stopped. He may just be trying to rest his pilots for a few turns. There had been a notable increase in Allied ops losses recently, most of them involving fighters of the kind doing the daily sweeps, so that makes sense. If so the attacks will probably resume shortly.


(in reply to Cuttlefish)
Post #: 292
RE: The not-so-epic CV duel - 12/15/2009 8:29:06 PM   
Wirraway_Ace


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

ORIGINAL: Cuttlefish

[
The first carrier battle of the war occurred on 2 August 1942. As it turned out it really wasn’t much of a battle. In fact it was scarcely a battle at all.

What did happen went like this: on the morning of 2 August the Japanese light carriers, Ryujo, Shoho, and Zuiho, were lurking off the southern Australia coast between Exmouth and Carnarvon. They had been there several days. A small convoy of about 7 xAKLs was detected coming back from (probably) Port Hedland. Bad weather hampered the Japanese strike and only one carrier launched Kates, all of which missed their targets.

At this point a previously undetected enemy task force a couple of hexes off Carnarvon launched 13 Albacores at my carriers. Nine of the unescorted Albacores were shot down by Zeros and flak got one or two more. No hits were scored.

That was it. I think mini-KB could easily take a single British carrier, especially one with most of its torpedo bombers gone. Two or three carriers would be problematic, however, so I ordered my ships out of the area. The 3 August turn was quiet.

Midway it wasn’t. The interesting question is what his carriers were doing there. Planning a raid of their own? Trying to secure an important sea lane against exactly the kind of attack I was trying? The world may never know. Correction: I may never know. The rest of you can go read Q-Ball’s AAR when he posts next and find out.


But surely this is simply fog of war. In reality, the IJN achieved a smashing victory, sinking 3 hapless RN CVs and a few BBs for good measure...

(in reply to Cuttlefish)
Post #: 293
RE: The not-so-epic CV duel - 12/15/2009 8:34:31 PM   
Grollub


Posts: 6674
Joined: 10/9/2005
From: Lulea, Sweden
Status: offline 		I believe the correct wording would be;

"The IJN has achieved another smashing victory near Carnarvon, with the sinking of two carriers, a battleship, and numerous cruisers and destroyers"

_____________________________

“Not mastering metaphores is like cooking pasta when the train is delayed"

(in reply to Wirraway_Ace)
Post #: 294
RE: The not-so-epic CV duel - 12/15/2009 8:40:08 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Grollub

I believe the correct wording would be;

"The IJN has achieved another smashing victory near Carnarvon, with the sinking of two carriers, a battleship, and numerous cruisers and destroyers"



(in reply to Grollub)
Post #: 295
RE: The not-so-epic CV duel - 12/16/2009 3:53:44 AM   
Capt. Harlock


Posts: 5358
Joined: 9/15/2001
From: Los Angeles
Status: offline
quote:

At this point a previously undetected enemy task force a couple of hexes off Carnarvon launched 13 Albacores at my carriers. Nine of the unescorted Albacores were shot down by Zeros and flak got one or two more.


One other interesting question is why they weren't escorted. It's not like British CV's don't carry any fighters. (A wild mix of types, yes, but the point is they exist.)

_____________________________

Civil war? What does that mean? Is there any foreign war? Isn't every war fought between men, between brothers?

--Victor Hugo

(in reply to Cuttlefish)
Post #: 296
RE: The not-so-epic CV duel - 12/16/2009 10:59:21 PM   
crsutton


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

ORIGINAL: Capt. Harlock

quote:

At this point a previously undetected enemy task force a couple of hexes off Carnarvon launched 13 Albacores at my carriers. Nine of the unescorted Albacores were shot down by Zeros and flak got one or two more.


One other interesting question is why they weren't escorted. It's not like British CV's don't carry any fighters. (A wild mix of types, yes, but the point is they exist.)



Could be range. The British carrier fighters are very shor legged.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Capt. Harlock)
Post #: 297
RE: The not-so-epic CV duel - 12/17/2009 1:28:34 AM   
Cuttlefish

 

Posts: 2454
Joined: 1/24/2007
From: Oregon, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton


quote:

ORIGINAL: Capt. Harlock

quote:

At this point a previously undetected enemy task force a couple of hexes off Carnarvon launched 13 Albacores at my carriers. Nine of the unescorted Albacores were shot down by Zeros and flak got one or two more.


One other interesting question is why they weren't escorted. It's not like British CV's don't carry any fighters. (A wild mix of types, yes, but the point is they exist.)



Could be range. The British carrier fighters are very short legged.


Range is my best guess. I don't know the range on the British carrier fighters but the engagement took place at about 7 or 8 hexes.



_____________________________


(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 298
That Hideous Green Glow - 12/17/2009 1:31:20 AM   
Cuttlefish

 

Posts: 2454
Joined: 1/24/2007
From: Oregon, USA
Status: offline 		We have attacked fired upon and dropped depth charges on sub operating in defensive sea area.
- DD Ward, second message following attack on midget sub outside Pearl Harbor, 7 December 1941

---

8/4/1942 – 8/8/1942

Three Japanese submarines each launched a midget sub to attack Pago Pago on the morning of 7 August. They met the usual fate of midget subs, foundering, getting tangled in anti-sub nets, etc. Despite their dismal success rate I enjoy launching such attacks, though. It’s an interesting option to have and there is always the chance that one of the blind squirrels might find an acorn.

Q-Ball’s subs have been more successful. One sank a large tanker in the South China Sea and another sank DD Asagao in the Malacca Strait.

Noumea: almost ready to resume the attack here. The 48th Division is nearing Noumea and the 53rd Division is finally at less than 50% disruption. It is now in range of its parent HQ, the 14th Army and General Homma having arrived. I don’t think this will do anything to speed the division’s recovery – if so I couldn’t find it in the manual – but it will boost the attack when it resumes. There is more artillery there now too and the 19th and 4th Divisions are ready to go.

This siege needs to end soon. Keeping Combined Fleet in the area (over three months now!) sucks down a lot of fuel and if it goes on too long the tables will turn and it will be my forces trapped on New Caledonia, not his.

Burma: 33rd Division chased off the intruders on the Mandalay – Myitkyina rail line, restoring the flow of supplies. Allied air attacks here have halted completely. I think Q-Ball probably decided that it was costing him planes for no real gain. I expect the planes will come back when he is ready to resume the offensive. In the meantime I have control of the air over Mandalay again.

The Imperial Guards and the 2nd Division are now also in Burma, along with some other units, so I feel much more secure about this area.

Accelerated Developments: I am currently accelerating CV Taiho and two of the Unryu-class carriers. As of right now Taiho is due 12/43 and I can probably push that back until at least summer ’43.

I know there are good arguments that these carriers arrive to late to do any real good. I am not sure about that, though. In my experience playing Japan in ’44 – ’45 it is useful to have even two or three functioning carriers. They cannot give battle to the US fast carrier forces but just by existing they exert pressure on Allied seaborne supply lines. And by that stage of the game those supply lines are long and sometimes vulnerable. It forces the Allied player to be just a tad more careful.

All Your Base Are Belong To Us Department: I am still capturing bases as a pretty good clip, all of them in what are now my rear areas. Flores is finally being invaded, for instance, and a force is out in the Indian Ocean to take possession of Christmas Island. There are so many bases in AE!

I am kind of on the fence about the dozens of dot hexes still to be captured. On the one hand it does take time and a certain amount of fuel to capture them and most have no strategic importance at all. On the other hand they can provide my opponent with a bit of free intelligence if I get careless. And of course they break up the nice unbroken field of soothing red dots on the strategic map with their hideous green glow.


(in reply to Cuttlefish)
Post #: 299
RE: That Hideous Green Glow - 12/17/2009 4:52:39 AM   
jwilkerson


Posts: 10525
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Cuttlefish
I am kind of on the fence about the dozens of dot hexes still to be captured. On the one hand it does take time and a certain amount of fuel to capture them and most have no strategic importance at all. On the other hand they can provide my opponent with a bit of free intelligence if I get careless. And of course they break up the nice unbroken field of soothing red dots on the strategic map with their hideous green glow.


We are going to capture all the green glowers. We've found that our opponents like to "hide" large garrisons on them - and the only way to tell if the bad guys are there is to have them as friendlies. But there are lots of them - at the rate we're going - we will still be attacking them into 1943 !!!. Maybe one day we can extend the "auto-capture" feature a bit farther - to say 2-3 hex range - that would help a lot!!!


_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to Cuttlefish)
Post #: 300
Page:   <<   < prev  8 9 [10] 11 12   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: Under the Southern Cross Page: <<   < prev  8 9 [10] 11 12   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

1.281