RE: CV Esoterica (not Erotica, Cap)

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: CV Esoterica (not Erotica, Cap)

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: CV Esoterica (not Erotica, Cap)

Page: << < prev 16 17 [18] 19 20 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: CV Esoterica (not Erotica, Cap) - 12/12/2009 1:18:59 PM

Canoerebel

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

10/17/42 to 10/22/42

Operation Port Royal: The Paramushiro/Onnektoan invasion force has sailed west all the way to a point north of Attu Island. Winter is ten days away and I'm poised to pull the trigger on the invasion in the (increasingly unlikely) event the KB appears somewhere far, far away. I think the next two-day turn is the last opportunity to pull the trigger - if there's no KB sighting somewhere distant, all these ships and aircraft and men and equipment and supplies has to just turn around and go back home. A bad case and dissatisfying case of invasion interruptus, but I'll have no choice. If the KB is parked at, say, Ominato or Tokyo or Osaka, it could pounce on the invasion in two days and I'd lose 150 ships and about four divisions of men.

Subwoes: Several more ASW get clobbered right under the the umbrella of ASW air patrols: I-33 gets an AVD and a PC near Los Angeles (and a tanker to boot, despite the fact that there are six ASW TFs and at least ten ASW air patrols out of the nearby airfields). Elsewhere, I-27 finished off a damaged DMS near Townsville, I-11 got an AK near Karachi, and I-30 got an AKL near Port Headland. On the Allied side of the ledger, Thresher got an AP near Eniwetok and S-34 an AG near Shortlands.

Surface Clash: In one of the most satisfying engagements for the Allies in months of game time, a sharp surface engagement took place at Port Moresby. The Japanese had a fairly large supply convoy there and were counting on the decisive defeat inflicted on an Allied combat TF by Bettys several months ago to mean that the Allies wouldn't return. But the Allies set up a CL/DD force at Townsville and sent it north under P-38 LRCAP. In the resutling melee, the Allies sank five AKs and an APD. The Japanese inflicted light/moderate damage to a DMS that, as already noted, fell victim to a patroling sub. Thoroughly arouse by this sting, the Japanese sent a strong CA/CL/DD force to Luganville where it sank five PT boats. Not to be outdone, the Allies received SigInt that transports were taking a division to Tarawa. I've sent a CA/CL/DD force north from Pago Pago. This is rolling the dice, because that's a long way out in Indian Country.

China: Bombardments at Changsha are destroying enough squads per strike that if they continue at this rate for a month it will exceed exceed the reinforcements the Chinese receive. IE, just by bombarding at a single city the Japanese are able to inflict more casualties than the Allies can replace. Here are some examples from bombardments: (1) 19th: 11 infantry and 19 non-combat squads destroyed; (2) 20th: 10 infantry and 20 non-combat squads destroyed; (3) 21st: 11 infantry and 19 non-combat; (4) 22nd: 9 infantry and 11 non-combat. The average number of infantry squads destroyed per day is just over 10, meaning that in a month (30 days) the Chinese would lose 300 - and they receive only 200 replacements. And this is just one city. And the Chinese are behind 7 forts (and it was eight, nearly nine, just a week ago). And there's nothing I can do about it. I have 4,100 AV strongly fortified led by the best leaders I can select, the infantry were rested (since we're coming off a ceasefire) and most of these units have experience around 50-55 now. The Japanese are doing this with eight artillery units.

Oz: Portland Roads airfield just went to level three. I'm stil awaiting arrival of two base forces to reach Coen to increase aircraft support from 32 to 125 at this level six airfield. They'll be there within the week and the bombing campaign begins in earnest then. I'll also be able to use the airfields for LRCAP to reinforce Horn Island and to occupy Merauke in southern New Guinea.

(in reply to Canoerebel)

Post #: 511

RE: CV Esoterica (not Erotica, Cap) - 12/12/2009 8:55:06 PM

Canoerebel

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

10/23/42 and 10/24/42

A quick summary as I hope the following turns will be pretty busy:

NoPac: I've turned the invasion fleet around and it will head back toward Kodiak and then the West Coast. Invasion Non-Completus as there was no sign that the KB was far away.

SoPac: For some reason, my fast combat TF is taking it's own sweet time about hitting Tarawa. After four days of steaming at mission speed from Pago Pago, it looks like the TF is set to go in tonight. Five turns? I dunno why. I hope it's not a bad omen. I hope my TF doesn't arrive at Tarawa and decide to sit around and enjoy the view for a few days. I hope it strikes quickly, successfully, and vamooses home.

SWPac: All bombers in North Oz are ordered to hit the airfield at Port Moresby tomorrow. Four P-38 squadrons at Coen and Portland Roads to provide escort. All planes are set at 10,000 feet to (hopefully) foster cooperation and coordination.

India: All bombers at Diamond Harbor and Calcutta to hit Akyab's airfield and troops tomorrow, with fighters at Chittagong and Cox's Bazaar to provide escort. All planes are set at 6,000 feet to (hopefully) foster cooperation and coordination.

(in reply to Canoerebel)

Post #: 512

RE: CV Esoterica (not Erotica, Cap) - 12/14/2009 2:31:50 AM

Canoerebel

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

10/25/42 to 10/28/42

NoPac: The Paramushiro invasion ships have reversed course and are already south of Kodiak Island. They will reach Seattle in four or five days. At this point I don't know if I'll consider the invasion next year or whether I'll employ the troops elsewhere. From reading my WitP AAR against John III, Miller knows I have a fondness for NoPac, so he'll be on his guard.

SoPac: The combat TF that took forever to reach Tarawa ended up taking so long that the juicy transport convoy there retired first. My TF visited Tarawa and withdrew and, as far as I know, Miller isn't even aware that Allied ships were in the area.

SWPac: The first two-day strike on Port Moresby went very well, the second two-day strike went badly. The first encountered 28 Zeros on CAP, the second 108. I have about 75 P-38Es and P-38Fs along as escort and they didn't do very well. But I like my shiny new bases in northern Oz and I don't think there's any chance now that Miller would hazard a move on north Oz. A stalemate is in place and slowly the Allies will begin to move.

China: Artillery Death Stars patch two: Japanese bombardment at Sian with seven artillery - 6,223 casualties and 68 infantry squads destroyed. Ludicrous.

ASW: Another ASW DD claimed by a sub at Perth (and two TKs go down). The Jap sub isn't even attacked despite five ASW TFs there. An ASW TF operating out of Noumea reacted and followed a Japanese sub too close to Lunga and got nailed by Nells. This isn't a Nuclear Sub problem, but it is another casualty of the sub wars.

(in reply to Canoerebel)

Post #: 513

Blitzkrieg not Siege - 12/15/2009 2:01:20 PM

Canoerebel

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

10/29/42 to 11/3/42
�
Sian, China:� The collapse of China's northern flank is complete as the Chinese have been forced to withdraw from the fortress (so to speak) of Sian.� The Chinese had 4,000 well-rested AV behind four forts at Sian.� These troops had 99% morale and experience averaging 50 to 55%.� Supplies were a problem, naturally:� there was about 5,000 on hand.� The Japanese show up with an army of the same size - 4,000 AV. Given the quagmire nature of the real war in China, you'd expect this clash to devlolve into a protracted siege.� Not with artillery death stars, however.� Miller blasted through the defenses in eight days.� Bombardments on days one and two dropped the Chinese AV from 4,000 to 3,600 (destroying about 100 squads with the Japanese losing nothing); a deliberate attack on the third day destroyed 110 Chinese squads; nothing happened the fourth day; bombardments on days five and six destroyed 110 Chinese squads; a deliberate attack at 2:1 on the seventh day dropped forts to three and destroyed 33 squads (with the Japanese losing a "horrific" 7 squads); and a delliberate attack at 4:1 on the eighth day�dropped forts to two.� After�eight days of "siege," the�Chinese are a mess and the Japanese have negated the fortifications with next�to no loss on their end.� The Chinese have to withdraw, of course.� If the Japanese attack again before the Chinese vacate the hex, the army�will be in terrible shape.��So, instead of siege we have blitzkrieg.� The Chinese will withraw into the mountains, make a stand there, and then pull back to the small town of Kienko where about 1,300 AV is waiting and building forts.� Right behind Kienko is Chungking.

Subwoes:� I-11 got two AKs near Bombay; I-169 got an AKL near Pago Pago; RO-66 got an ASW AM near Noumea; and RO-68 got an AK near Vanua Lava.� American subs got some hits:� Tunny got a PB near Iwo Jima and Saury an AK near Kaeving.� The Allies lost several ASW TF ships to surface combat near Noumea.� I had four ASW TFs working out of the base and I have a powerful surface combat TF (led by Prince of Wales) docked at Noumea with reaction set to six.� Miller sent a strong CA/CL combat TF to as close as one hex from Noumea.� This force tangled with at least two (maybe three, I can't recall) ASW TFs sinking a DMS, PG, and DD over the course of a couple of turns.� My combat TF at Noumea has an aggressive and highly skilled captain and it failed to react.... (yes, I know that combat TFs only react to enemy TFs in ports within range, but come on...one hex?)� I had some LBA sortie from Efate, but you know how effective Allied LBA is in '42.

Oz:��I'm having a hard time replacing the�P-38s lost in the recent battles over Port Moresby.� It looks like production of the E and F models�has discontinued in favor of the G model, but I don't have enough of those yet to swap out for the earlier models.� It may be a week before I can cobble together a decent force of fighters here.� As soon as I can, I'm going to send troop transports to either Horn Island (with replacements) or to Merauke (troops to take this unoccupied base on the south coast of New Guinea with great potential). I need the Lightnings to serve as LRCAP.

India:� An RN BB TF has moved from Colombo to Diamond Harbor and will be used to bombard Akyab.� I'll rely on�LRCAP from Chittagong to cover these ships.�Miller has a bombardment TF operating in the area (Nagato and friends), though I haven't seen them in weeks.

< Message edited by Canoerebel -- 12/15/2009 9:03:41 PM >

(in reply to Canoerebel)

Post #: 514

RE: Blitzkrieg not Siege - 12/15/2009 9:14:12 PM

Canoerebel

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

11/4/42 and 11/5/42
�
Sian:� The Japanese stood down over these two days, allowing the Chinese troops to pull out of the hex (this is good; had the Japanese attacked the carnage would have crippled most of my units) but costing me a VP for the vacated hex...� Some of the more powerful units will begin prepping for Kienko; the ragged units will prep for Chungking and retire there to permit disrupted units to recover.� I'll try to defend in the mountainous hexes north of Kienko.� All is not lost, yet, though things are bleak.

Changsha:� Successive bombardments cost the Chinese 32 squads (a pace that would yield 480 over a month).

Air Woes:� Massed waves of Japanese fighters swept the airfield at Chittagong, followed the next day by fighters and bombers.� The Japanese came out ahead, but not by a heck of alot.� I think the Allies ended up losing about 90 aircraft over two days, the Japanese roughly 75.� Fighter losses were roughly 1.5 to 1.� The problem is that it takes alot of time to rebuild Allied air units and replace lost aircraft.

Sub Woes:� The sub vs. ASW carnage continues.� I-21 got an ASW AM docked in Perth.� The next day I-20 got another ASW AM one hex from Perth.� The ASW didn't attack the subs. There are alot of doubters out there about the condition of the sub and ASW model in this game. Believe me, it is broken.

Mini-KB:� A Mini-KB showed up near Perth and sank a few AKs and three AMs.� The Allied fighters - one squadron of American P-40s and one of Aussie Kittihawks - didn't offer much opposition.

Overall Situation:� China is a wreck; subs are wreaking absolute havoc, Japanese combat TFs steam within a hex of a powerful Allied combat TF which sits on its butt....yet the Allies are not in that bad�a shape�(China excepted).� Miller probably should have used this period when he had such a great carrier advantage to seize some Allied held islands.

< Message edited by Canoerebel -- 12/15/2009 9:16:56 PM >

(in reply to Canoerebel)

Post #: 515

RE: Blitzkrieg not Siege - 12/15/2009 9:20:14 PM

Chickenboy

Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel
Miller probably should have used this period when he had such a great carrier advantage to seize some Allied held islands.

Agreed. His solitary focus on liquidating Chinese resistance at all hazards may prove to be his undoing elsewhere.

Canoerebel: is it completely out of the line of possibility to use those Northern troops that aren't going to Paramushiro now on one of the Marianas islands in early 1943? A coup de main on Tinian or Guam?

_____________________________

(in reply to Canoerebel)

Post #: 516

RE: Blitzkrieg not Siege - 12/15/2009 10:17:00 PM

Canoerebel

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel
Miller probably should have used this period when he had such a great carrier advantage to seize some Allied held islands.

Agreed. His solitary focus on liquidating Chinese resistance at all hazards may prove to be his undoing elsewhere.

Canoerebel: is it completely out of the line of possibility to use those Northern troops that aren't going to Paramushiro now on one of the Marianas islands in early 1943? A coup de main on Tinian or Guam?

I'd do that if I knew where the Japanese carriers were, but I can't hazard a big invasion lacking that knowledge until mid- or late-summer '43 when I'll have more carriers.

In the meantime, though, I'll try to hatch a plan that I can put into effect if the KB shows up far away or a plan that will permit me to move under cover of LBA. Both are certainly possibilities in early '43.

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 517

ASW a go-go - 12/16/2009 5:49:32 PM

Canoerebel

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

11/6/42 to 11/9/42

ASW a go-go: As in: Good buy, ASW! Thanks for dropping by and getting sunk! I've stood down most of my ASW forces map-wide. They get chewed up by submarines. Like the SC near Pago Pago that was sunk by I-162 on the 8th. I'm still setting up convoys that will have escorts; we'll see if that particular strategy works. I've lost so many ships recently that I'm afraid to put anything to sea these days. I have lost an incredible amount of shipping and combat ships.

Changsha: Four more days of bombardment with 18, 8, 8 and 16 infantry squads destroyed (and many more disrupted). I think Miller will have a hard time reducing this base, however, as it's possible and useful to retreat badly disrupted units a hex to the adjacent city to allow them to recover. A rotation system like this is pretty effective.

Sian: This city fell to the Japanese on the 7th. I don't see any signs, yet, that Miller is advancing. He may be too embarrassed by the situation in China to push any further.

Oz: One P-38 squadron has upgraded to the -G model. I need some time to get my fighters back on line in order to provide LRCAP for the planned effort to reinforce Horn Island and to occupy Merauke in strength. I'll need to be cautious about Merauke because Miller isn't going to like it. He'll send the Mini-KB or even the KB to contest this move. So I'd better move fast or surreptitiously or both. That Mini-KB off Perth disappeared into the vastness of the IO. I am moving Wasp and Lexington from Auckland to Adelaide, where the only RN CV in the game at the moment is currently parked. I wouldn't mind tangling with the Mini-KB with those three (I think).

(in reply to Canoerebel)

Post #: 518

RE: ASW a go-go - 12/16/2009 6:14:54 PM

Canoerebel

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

I posted my ASW losses from 9/1/42 to 10/16/42 on the previous page. Here's a list that shows how ASW losses to subs since then. Bear in mind that all of these were combat ships in ASW TFs in or close to major ports. Because of the extreme losses in ASW assets, I began standing them down a week or so ago, so the losses should be tapering off:

ASW Lost to subs 9/01/42 to 10/16/42: DD - 5; AM - 4; KV - 1; YP - 1; SC - 1.
ASW Lost to subs 10/17/42 to 11/9/42: DD - 1; AM - 3; KV - 0; YP - 0; SC - 1; AVD - 1; PC - 1.

Total ASW lost to subs since 09/01/42: DD - 6; AM - 7; KV - 1; YP - 1 ;SC - 2; AVD - 1; PC - 1.

(in reply to Canoerebel)

Post #: 519

RE: ASW a go-go - 12/17/2009 11:21:11 AM

veji1

Posts: 1019
Joined: 7/9/2005
Status: offline

So basically before a certain date (43 ?) it might be better to escort everything but not attack subs specifically with asw TFs ???

_____________________________

Adieu � Dieu odieux... sign� Adam

(in reply to Canoerebel)

Post #: 520

RE: ASW a go-go - 12/17/2009 11:37:54 AM

Canoerebel

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: veji1
So basically before a certain date (43 ?) it might be better to escort everything but not attack subs specifically with asw TFs ???

That's the step I'm implementing right now, but it's too early to tell whether escorts will work.

Here's how my strategy against enemy subs has evolved over the game:

1. At first, I used many one-ship convoys (I did the same in WitP and found this very efficient as losses were relatively light).
2. I began taking heavy losses at big forward bases like Pago Pago, Noumea, Syndey, Colombo, and Melbourne, so I stopped sending ships there and began concentrating on bases more to the rear or that seemed kind of remote and unvisited by unfriendlies: Tahiti, Adelaide, Perth and Bombay. At the same time, I began to use ASW TFs heavily. At first this worked well - I was still taking moderate losses but was also inflicting moderate losses on Japanese subs. This was the situation from early 1942 to mid '42.
3. As Japanese subs began reaching even the most rear bases, they suddendly became much more lethal. Every sub was claiming two to five ships right around major bases. I stood down all merchant ships (that's a huge task and takes quite awhile) so that I could concentrate on ASW activity.
4. I had multiple ASW TFs operating out of big bases plus ASW air patrols. Some bases (Pearl, Seattle, SF, LA, Tahiti, Pago Pago, Noumea, Syndey, Colombo/Trincomalee, and Bombay in particular) had up to five or six ASW TFs. Sometime around mid-summer of '42, I noticed that I was taking heavy ASW losses. This started with DDs out of Pearl, then DDs out of SF, then all kinds of ships everywhere. At first I ascribed this to random chance and bad luck, but it didn't abate and got worse.
5. So recently I've disbanded all my ASW into port. My transports, meanwhile, have mostly made it to port now and I've begun running multi-ship convoys with escorts. Don't know if this will work yet. I doubt it will until this issue is addressed.

One observation: It was rather harmful for the developers to tweak ASW/Sub interraction without clearly notifying those of us that were in the midst of PBEM games. Because I had gone to alot of effort to reconfigure my tactics, they were somewhat working, and then everything changed without warning so that my tactics were not only rendered ineffective, but dangerous.

In fact, I think this change cost me BB Pennsylvania. I had waited until August '42 to send this ship from Pearl Harbor to the West Coast. She has 0 SYS damage and moderately heavy FLT damage (high 50s, I believe). She was escorted by four DDs. Fairly close to SF she encountered two Japanese subs that followed for several turns and sank her with three TTs. As she neared the WEst Coast I sent additional ASW forward to try to come to her aid. None of the ASW did a thing. Had I realized things had been tweaked to make subs uber, I woudn't have sent the BB out of Pearl.

< Message edited by Canoerebel -- 12/17/2009 11:48:22 AM >

(in reply to veji1)

Post #: 521

RE: ASW a go-go - 12/17/2009 1:31:18 PM

Swenslim

Posts: 437
Joined: 4/15/2005
From: Odessa, Ukraine
Status: offline

Confirm . Subs become very efficient against unprotected convoys after patch 2. ASW TF become much less effective after patch (in 1942 at least).
Recomend you to train some LBA as ASW untill they have 55-60 asw skill, they nicely detect subs so they dont attack anyone.

(in reply to Canoerebel)

Post #: 522

RE: ASW a go-go - 12/17/2009 1:34:08 PM

Chickenboy

Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

NO USSHENRICO OR CRIMGUY, please.

.
.
.
.

Canoerebel,

I consider myself fortunate that my 2x PBEMs are not as chronologically advanced as your game. This may have to do, in part, with the fact that I'm just not seeing these ASW / sub issues. I also haven't applied patch II yet, so that's another variable to potentially explain differences.

I cannot explain the inefficiency of your ASW, nor the 'uber' sub effects on your ASW. In my game, it feels right, but yours looks and sounds 'off'. You've got a very good point there.

I'm not going to tell you not to whine in your AAR. Heck, that's one of the great reasons for going through the effort of having an AAR! But, with all that said, I think keeping your convoys unescorted through much of the early game may have been a mistake. I know, water under the bridge and all, but in so doing you were inviting major deep Japanese interdiction efforts. All Miller had to do was correctly guess where to send his long-range subs and he won a bonanza when he encountered unescorted transports. Unescorted merchants deserved to get greased by subs, IMO.

It's not that hard to guess what bases the Allied player is using as major transport hubs and route plan interdiction accordingly. In my PBEM versus USSHenrico (late January 1942), my sigint (yes, IJ sigint) has paid dividends. A sudden burst of 'heavy volume of radio traffic' from some backwater base frequently means a large merchant convoy has just put in to port. I sent a few AMCs from Kwajalein to investigate such an occurence at Tahiti and lo! They set an AO afire (it probably sank) before being beaten back by an escorting DD.

It looks like my opponent is running convoys due South out of the Panama canal area to the Tahiti region. Sigint has identified convoys that could only have come from there. Linear extension with a Southern waypoint (where the convoy turns West) would put it into Tahiti. I've clustered a few subs along this route for the next convoy coming through. A Glen equipped sub spotting for other 'reacting' subs in a regional wolfpak can be quite effective.

Have you loaded up a 'transport' TF with a couple of crummy xAKLs and about 20 ASW units and gone trolling for subs? Pump up the transport ASW rating to 50 or so and see what happens with his detected subs when the attack one of your merchants. I wonder if the artificial cap on 4 ship ASW hunter-killer groups in the game is underestimating the efficacy of such units IRL.

_____________________________

(in reply to Canoerebel)

Post #: 523

RE: ASW a go-go - 12/17/2009 1:46:17 PM

Canoerebel

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

Chickenboy, that's a good idea. I'll try creating some "decoy" transport convoys with lots of escorts.

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 524

RE: ASW a go-go - 12/17/2009 1:56:31 PM

Chickenboy

Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

Canoerebel: I hope it's a good idea, as I suggested it to you in a PM several weeks ago.

I have a suspicion that this will attract the most aggressive IJN sub captains too-like a moth to a flame. Kind of a submarine ju-jitsu. I haven't tried this in a PBEM, but would be most interested in hearing how it turns out.

Have you received any non-VR CVEs yet? I wonder how effective they will be in their classic role of ASW and convoy protection.

_____________________________

(in reply to Canoerebel)

Post #: 525

RE: ASW a go-go - 12/17/2009 2:04:17 PM

Canoerebel

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Canoerebel: I hope it's a good idea, as I suggested it to you in a PM several weeks ago.

I have a suspicion that this will attract the most aggressive IJN sub captains too-like a moth to a flame. Kind of a submarine ju-jitsu. I haven't tried this in a PBEM, but would be most interested in hearing how it turns out.

Have you received any non-VR CVEs yet? I wonder how effective they will be in their classic role of ASW and convoy protection.

I have about five CVEs now - all of them posted at Seattle. Three are non-VR, I believe. I used Long Island for convoy protection at first, but I stood her down as she was slated for the Paramushiro invasion. To be honest, I'd be afraid to put the CVEs at sea until the ASW/sub issues are resolved. They are so brittle and Allied ASW-air is so ineffective that I'm afraid CVEs would be nothing more than potential victims at the moment.

P.S. I had gotten your PM, but at the time I was still trying to get my transports home. Most of them are home now, but I'm still working on getting ASW assets into ports where the transports are located.

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 526

RE: ASW a go-go - 12/18/2009 4:49:22 PM

Canoerebel

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

11/10/42 to 11/15/42

CenPac: SigInt on the 11th indicated that 1st Engineers are prepping for Midway. On the 15th, the PBY squadron sighted a TF of Japanese ships well to the SW of the island. This feels very much like the real thing. I've expected this, so I have overloaded the island with about 7,500 troops (the limit is 6,000; and yes, being over the limit really increases supply usage). The garrison is 200 AV behind four forts with a Marine CD unit. The port is mined. I don't think I could do much more. Several subs showed up on the 14th - I-172 got two AKs near French Frigage and RO-33 got an AK at Midway. A DM heading to Midway left Pearl on the 14th, but I'll have to see her progress when I open the next turn file. I may have to recall her.

SWPac: The Allies are about to engage in a critical yet relatively low risk operation to occupy Merauke on New Guinea's south coast. This base has big potential and is right in the heart of the Japanese breadbasket. I feel very fortunate that Miller hasn't taken it already, but I assume he'll react like a stirred up hornet's nest when he realizes what's going on and the threat the base poses. I have two Aussie brigades combat loading at Townsville. LRCAP will be provided by fighters from Cooktown, Coen, Portland Roads, and Horn Island. Under the cover of the this operation, I'm sending additional supplies and troops to Horn Island. There are alot of Jap aircraft at Port Moresby and I assume at Lae, or potentially at Lae anyhow, so things could get messy quick. But if I can seize and hold Merauke it's as good as a succeeding at a major invasion.

China: Miller doesn't appear to be advancing out of Sian. This is the AE version of the mercy rule in softball.

Subwoes: I-159 got an ASW AM near Sydney. Two Japanese subs are a hex west of San Francisco. Six or seven ASW TFs and ASW air patrols aren't do a thing about it. I do have a small transport TF with six ASW ships embedded heading to SF from LA.

(in reply to Canoerebel)

Post #: 527

RE: ASW a go-go - 12/18/2009 5:30:28 PM

Canoerebel

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

A quick update as I've just sent the 16th/17th turn file back to Miller...

CenPac: Here come the Japanese. Two big TFs including carriers position just 200 miles SW of Midway. I've recalled the DM, ordering it to lay mines at French Frigate and then head back to Pearl. I'm also pulling out my AS, though it's going to have to run the gauntlett.

SWPac: Several Allied amphibious TFs will depart Townsville and stop in Cairns, where I have about 105 fighters to provide CAP. I'll have to be very careful to keep this ships under a CAP umbrella, so from Cairns they'll likely go to Cooktown, then to Portland Roads, then to Horn Island. At that pace it'll take me ten days to get anywhere, and time is important, so I may try to jump from Cairns to Portland Roads. One thing I can promise: the Japanese aren't going to like this move.

(in reply to Canoerebel)

Post #: 528

RE: ASW a go-go - 12/18/2009 5:37:29 PM

Bullwinkle58

Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

A quick update as I've just sent the 16th/17th turn file back to Miller...

CenPac:� I'm also pulling out my AS, though it's going to have to run the gauntlett.

You might be able to waypoint way to the NE, then around the long way to PH. Better slow than losing her.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Canoerebel)

Post #: 529

RE: ASW a go-go - 12/18/2009 7:14:39 PM

Canoerebel

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

11/16/42 and 11/17/42

Midway: The KB and invasion fleet parked one hex from Midway while Japanese strike aircraft pounded the island. This clever move allowed Miller to correctly guestimate the strength on the island (he said 150 AV in his email; it was 195 but dropped to 175 after the massive air attacks). He says he didn't bring enough and is mulling over his options. I hope he leaves. I did route the AS to flee northeastward, but a sub put a TT into her and I'll bet more subs are lurking. I'd say the odds of her making it to Pearl are one in three at best.

West Coast: Japanese subs are parked just off the West Coast. They attack my ASW, but they refuse to assault the little transport TFs I've set up to conceal a bunch of ASW escorts.

SWPac: The transports arrived at Cairns in good shape. As best I can tell Miller isn't aware of what I'm up to (yet). Next stop is Portland Roads. I've set up CAP there and LRCAP from Coen and Cooktown. Things should heat up rapidly.

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)

Post #: 530

RE: ASW a go-go - 12/18/2009 10:41:17 PM

Canoerebel

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

11/18/42 to 11/19/42

Invasion Non-Completus: Both Miller and I are suffering from invasion non-completus (mine dating from the decision to cancel the strike on the Kuriles three weeks ago). He turned his Midway invasion force around. I don't think he'll give up though. I suspect he'll return with more troops. In the meantime, he'll have plenty of subs in the area. I need to get supplies to Midway and that's going to be a real challenge.

SWPac: The Allied transports arrived at Portland Roads and depart for Horn Island tomorrow. Still no appearance by Japanese LBA from Port Moresby. I'm wondering if there's been a failure of Japanese patrols to pick up the activity, which would be too good to be true. By tomorrow, troops and supplies will be unloading at Horn Island. In about four days, troops and supplies will be unloading at Merauke. In the meantime, I'm beginning to air transport 3rd Marine Regiment and an Aussie base force to Merauke from Coen. I am very encouraged by these developments. Establishing a major presence on New Guinea is a big step in the right direction.

Subwoes: I-7 finished off the damaged AS fleeing Midway. I-29 got two docked AKs at Bombay and I-162 got a docked AK at Pago Pago (the ridiculous daytime sinkings of docked Allied ships in huge ports has been occurring regularly for several months now; ASW is totally ineffective). Meanwhile, my two "Trojan Horse" transport TFs (AKs with mutliple ASW escorts) keep steaming back and forth from SF to LA and the two Japanese subs in the area ignore them.

China: Miller is leaving about 7 units at Sian. I don't know where the rest of that stack is headed, but I'm guessing he could try a move on Chengtu or reinforce his army at Changsha. I'm moving some units to reinforce Chengtu, which has a decent garrison of 2,000 AV anyhow.

(in reply to Canoerebel)

Post #: 531

To Good to be True! - 12/20/2009 10:05:41 PM

Canoerebel

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

11/18/42 to 11/25/42

To Good to be True: I'm hoping Miller takes this for a comment on the hot fix affect on nuclear artillery, which has been very gratifying, but this actually describes the situation at Merauke, New Guinea, as described below.

Artillery Death Stars: The hot fix appears to have resolved this issue based upon early returns at Changsha. I've posted detailed results in another thread, but the two bombardments following the fix resulted in 25% casualties compared to before the fix. The past two days Miller didn't even bombard. I will keep my fingers crossed and hope this will have fixed the situation in China without swinging things out of whack the other way.

Nuclear Subs: Too early to know if the hot fix has addressed this issue - it will take me a month or more to get a good feel, but the very preliminary returns are positive - no ASW ships sunk since we installed the patch.

Stategic Thinking: This game requires player to think and plan WAY ahead of time in order to have the time needed to organize offensives and position suppies, fuel, and support personnel. It's autumn '42 but I've been thinking for many weeks about spring '43 and further. At this point, my plan is to push the Japanese hard in SWPac in hopes of drawing Miller's full attention (read: the KB) that way, and then to hit the Kuriles (no, I haven't given up on that idea, yet). If (big if) this plan is put into effect, the Allies would then be committed for most of the rest of the war to a two-prong advance in NoPac and SWPac. I'm also considering focusing on Timor, Ambon, Celebes, Borneo, Vietnam and China rather than on the Philippines.

SWPac: The Allies are making tremendous headway at both Horn Island and Merauke. No patrol aircraft have been sighted, so I wonder if I've been enjoying a gap in Japanese coverage. Sooner or later, Miller will notice what's going on. Merauke is important because it has big-base potential and helps secure the perimeter from Darwin all the way to Cairns. I have 280 AV ashore and part of the Rabaul Detachment Base Force. As stated in previous posts, I consider this operation to be as important as a successful opposed invasion, and thus far at nearly no cost.

CenPac: I think there's a 50% chance Miller will return to Midway. I"m sending some supplies that way, and a CVE left Seattle to ferry an F4F-4 squadron there.

India/Burma: RAF and USAAF B-24s from Diamond Harbor and Calcutta hit the airfield at Rangoon, destroying 30 bombers (mainly Sallys) on the ground.

Sync Bug: Appears to be alive and well. The last combat replay showed BB Mississippi at Luganville taking seven torpedoes from a Nell/Betty raid from Lunga. Made me sick. Opened the file and BB Mississippi was unscractched. Whew! This TF was protecting some transports unloading at Vanua Lava; I've ordered all ships to retire to Noumea. That apparition gave me much heart burn.

Sub wars: RO-68 got an AKL at Efate; I-29 got three AKs docked at Bombay; I-27 missed an SC near Tahiti but got an AK; I-20 got an AK near Perth.

< Message edited by Canoerebel -- 12/20/2009 10:06:11 PM >

(in reply to Canoerebel)

Post #: 532

RE: To Good to be True! - 12/20/2009 10:41:11 PM

racndoc

Posts: 2519
Joined: 10/29/2004
From: Newport Coast, California
Status: offline

Canoerebel....

Try defensive mining of all your important ports....my opponent has lost 10 or 11 subs to mines in my ports and he doesnt stick his nose in any more...then u dont have to worry about in port ASW issues.

(in reply to Canoerebel)

Post #: 533

RE: To Good to be True! - 12/21/2009 2:15:08 AM

Canoerebel

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

Mines are certainly scarce and precious in AE - not nearly enough to go around; but I have mined my major ports.� A handful of Japanese subs have fallen victim to minefields, including one recently at Nouma.� Miller has also lost subs to mines at Pago Pago, Pearl Harbor, and I think another port or two.

P.S. But it is also frustrating that Japanese subs still seem to be able to operate against docked ships at big, mined bases. RO-33 just got a docked AK at Midway, which is mined. This kind of thing has been going on at mined bases for many months of game time. How do you thwart subs when mines, ASW TFs, and ASW air patrols don't work?

< Message edited by Canoerebel -- 12/21/2009 2:21:22 AM >

(in reply to racndoc)

Post #: 534

RE: To Good to be True! - 12/21/2009 4:18:02 AM

Chickenboy

Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Mines are certainly scarce and precious in AE - not nearly enough to go around; but I have mined my major ports.� A handful of Japanese subs have fallen victim to minefields, including one recently at Nouma.� Miller has also lost subs to mines at Pago Pago, Pearl Harbor, and I think another port or two.

P.S. But it is also frustrating that Japanese subs still seem to be able to operate against docked ships at big, mined bases. RO-33 just got a docked AK at Midway, which is mined. This kind of thing has been going on at mined bases for many months of game time. How do you thwart subs when mines, ASW TFs, and ASW air patrols don't work?

May just be your bad luck. How many mines ya got there at Midway? There's 'mined' and there's MINED.

I put about 200 into Miri, along with a supportive ACM to thwart one of my opponent's snoopy allied subs working northern Borneo. A very gratifying 'crashing' sound greeted one of my recent combat replays, with a combat report confirming that the snoopy little bugger had run into one while poking his nose into the harbor. Won't be doing that again anytime soon...

_____________________________

(in reply to Canoerebel)

Post #: 535

RE: To Good to be True! - 12/21/2009 10:13:21 AM

ny59giants

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

Do you have any of the old Flush Deck DDs left from Manila and/or SRA?? If so, the Clemson Class can convert to a nasty DE ASW platform (4/42).

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 536

RE: To Good to be True! - 12/21/2009 11:38:41 AM

JeffroK

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

The last combat replay showed BB Mississippi at Luganville taking seven torpedoes

This could be FOW, though an extreme version

I've had 1-2 hits reported only to find no damage.

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to ny59giants)

Post #: 537

RE: To Good to be True! - 12/21/2009 9:05:29 PM

Canoerebel

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

11/26/42 to 11/29/42
�
JeffK:� FOW doesn't work like that, does it?� I don't receive FOW on my own ships.
NYGiants:� I have some left and they've all upgraded.
Chickenboy:� Midway has about 60 mines.

SWPac:� The dream operation continues unmolested.� I have 12,000 supplies and 310 AV ashore at Merauke, with more on the way.� Most of my NE OZ coast airfields are at level six or seven, now, with plenty of base forces and 4EB present.� I want to send a big raid to Rabaul, but I'm afraid to do anything that might draw Miller's attention to this area.� For now, I'll just keep the planes parked and try to get as much moved to Horn Island, Merauke, and then to the island NNW of Darwin as I possibly can.� The interlude won't last forever, but when it ends I'll ramp up bombing.� I attribute the quiet to a failure of reconnaisance.

SoPac:��The KB or a version thereof just showed up between Suva and Noumea.� Fortunately for me I have nothing in the area.� So these guys are welcome to steam around and use up fuel.� I "hope" I have enough fighters at Noumea to discourage or prevent Miller from attacking, because BB Mississippi is disbanded into port there.

Burma/India:� A two-BB bombardment TF hit Chittagong.� I saw them coming, but elected not to sortie my one-BB TF at Diamond Harbor.� The Japanese only destroyed two aircraft on the�raid.

China:� The Japanese tried a deliberate attack at Changsha.� It came off at 1:19 and cost the Japanese 16,823 compared to 1,832 for the Allies.� Since the Allies have the larger force present and are behind seven forts, this feels fairly reasonable to me.� The Japanese probably shouldn't be attacking unless they have numerical superiority.

Subwoes:� RO-33 gets an AK at Midway; I-164 gets an AKL at Midwayp I-34 gets an AM at Suva (though this may have been FOW - I didn't note a missing AM when I checked the list of ships sunk); I-6 missed a DD one hex from San Fran.

(in reply to JeffroK)

Post #: 538

RE: To Good to be True! - 12/22/2009 1:15:49 PM

Kereguelen

Posts: 1829
Joined: 5/13/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Mines are certainly scarce and precious in AE - not nearly enough to go around; but I have mined my major ports.� A handful of Japanese subs have fallen victim to minefields, including one recently at Nouma.� Miller has also lost subs to mines at Pago Pago, Pearl Harbor, and I think another port or two.

P.S. But it is also frustrating that Japanese subs still seem to be able to operate against docked ships at big, mined bases. RO-33 just got a docked AK at Midway, which is mined. This kind of thing has been going on at mined bases for many months of game time. How do you thwart subs when mines, ASW TFs, and ASW air patrols don't work?

Scapa Flow was protected by extensive minefields in 1939, did not help the Royal Oak. There is no guarantee that a ship (sub) will hit a mine if a minefield is present. But, as you have noticed, sometimes (actually quite often) subs hit mines when operating in mined base hexes. Anyway, I think this aspect works quite well in the game. Nevertheless, I understand your frustration - but you can pay back in kind to your opponent by doing the same (USN S-Class subs should work best for this kind of operations, they have fairly reliable torps & their limited range makes them less useful for long-range patrol missions than bigger US subs). Actually the Allies have an advantage here due to their SIGINT.

(in reply to Canoerebel)

Post #: 539

RE: To Good to be True! - 12/22/2009 2:45:13 PM

castor troy

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Mines are certainly scarce and precious in AE - not nearly enough to go around; but I have mined my major ports.� A handful of Japanese subs have fallen victim to minefields, including one recently at Nouma.� Miller has also lost subs to mines at Pago Pago, Pearl Harbor, and I think another port or two.

P.S. But it is also frustrating that Japanese subs still seem to be able to operate against docked ships at big, mined bases. RO-33 just got a docked AK at Midway, which is mined. This kind of thing has been going on at mined bases for many months of game time. How do you thwart subs when mines, ASW TFs, and ASW air patrols don't work?

Scapa Flow was protected by extensive minefields in 1939, did not help the Royal Oak. There is no guarantee that a ship (sub) will hit a mine if a minefield is present. But, as you have noticed, sometimes (actually quite often) subs hit mines when operating in mined base hexes. Anyway, I think this aspect works quite well in the game. Nevertheless, I understand your frustration - but you can pay back in kind to your opponent by doing the same (USN S-Class subs should work best for this kind of operations, they have fairly reliable torps & their limited range makes them less useful for long-range patrol missions than bigger US subs). Actually the Allies have an advantage here due to their SIGINT.

they not just have an advantage due to sigint but also due to the fact that there are nearly 400 Allied subs.

_____________________________

(in reply to Kereguelen)

Post #: 540

Page: << < prev 16 17 [18] 19 20 next > >>

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: CV Esoterica (not Erotica, Cap)