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: To Good to be True!

 
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: To Good to be True! Page: <<   < prev  17 18 [19] 20 21   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: To Good to be True! - 12/22/2009 3:55:47 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline 		I've suffered horrific losses to subs in this game.  I've probably set the all time record for sub losses.  This is due to my implementation of a flawed transport system at the start of the game, my failure to modify the system quickly enough once it became clear it wasn't working, patches and hot fixes that altered sub/ASW interractions that caught me flat-footed and decimated my ASW ships, my failure to recognize and respond to those changes quickly enough, my general incompetence, and probably some luck on the part of my opponent.

I'm not exaggerating when I say my losses have been staggering.  I've had three RN BBs torpedoes and heavily damaged, one American BB sunk, a remarkable number of ASW assets sunk, and epidemic numbers of transports and tankers.  I would itemize the losses, but it would take hours of work and would be quite embarrassing to admit.

For all of that, I've managed to destroy just 20 or so Japanese submarines in the game.  Twenty sounds like alot until you compare it to the devastation wrought against the Allies.

Allied subs are still firing duds at an epidemic rate in my game.  If the sub system remains essentially the same by the time Allied subs are operating with decent efficiency, Miller is going to be yowling as loud or louder than I have been (given I'll have many more subs to work with; and barring bad luck or mismanagement on my part).

I think sub warfare is far too effective in the game, but I admit my shortcomings as commander may have had a profound affect on my thinking.

< Message edited by Canoerebel -- 12/22/2009 3:58:55 PM >

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 541
RE: To Good to be True! - 12/22/2009 4:21:00 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline 		11/30/42 and 12/01/42
 
KB:  The Japanese carriers that showed up between Noumea and Suva vanished to the north without doing any damage.

CenPac:  Transports are lined up to arrive at Midway over the coming days; overloading this base (I have 7,500 men ashore) really sucks the supply system.  A CVE just finished ferrying an F4F squadron to Midway.

SoPac:  Bettys escorted by Zeros sortied from Lunga against merchant shipping at Luganville.  No damage done, but a handful of Japanese aircraft splashed. 

SWPac:  Unloading continues at Merauke; base building continues there and at Horn Island.  To illustrate how far ahead the Allied player has to plan, I had several Seabee units 100% prepped for Merauke and the small islands north of Darwin.  I'm currently transporting them there by sub and by xAP.  All of this seems to be unnoticed by the Japanese.  Given the 300 AV at Merauke and the proxmiity of other major airbases (Portland Roads, Coen, etc.), this base is pretty much secure.  Now I can conentrate on beefing up supplies, engineers and base force personnel there to get this base up to level five or more as quickly as possible.  Oz is flush with supplies but almost totally out of fuel.

Allied carriers:  Wasp, Lexington, and an RN carrier are in port at Sydney.  The RN CV is due for withdrawal in about a month, so I'll leave her there.  Wasp and Lex will likely return to the West Coast as soon as I'm sure the KB has vacated the area.  Four CVEs are at Seattle, another is returning there after the Midway ferrying mission, and three are due to arrive at Balboa in two weeks.

Burma/India:  A massed Allied raid against Schwebo caused some damage, but I do these irregularly mainly as training missions and to keep Miller honest.

China:  Quiet since Sian fell to the Japanese.  The stack of Japanese troops that pulled back from Sian haven't showed up anywhere else, yet.  Japanese aircraft regularly bomb isolated Chinese units, mainly to train.

Subs:  I-11 got an AK a hex from Colombo.  Allied subs have been firing duds at a high rate this past week -especially against transports at Eniwetok and Tarawa.

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 542
RE: To Good to be True! - 12/22/2009 5:13:39 PM   
Chickenboy


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

What do you think of the new pilot training algorithms post patch II? Are you able to train your pilots up on specific skills to your satisfaction?

_____________________________


(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 543
RE: To Good to be True! - 12/22/2009 5:20:52 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline 		Chickenboy, that's a level of micromanagement I am not interested in.  I'm going to ignore it and hope that it really doesn't affect me.  If it puts me at a disadvantage, I'll have the difficult decision of whether to take it on and do it, or giving up the game.

I enjoy the micromanagement inherent in dealing with individual subs, ships, aircraft squadrons, ground units, supply, docking limits, search arcs (thought that's getting pretty tedious), etc., but dealing with individual men is not appealing.

< Message edited by Canoerebel -- 12/22/2009 5:21:00 PM >

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 544
RE: To Good to be True! - 12/22/2009 5:52:30 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		I never bother with search arcs and just leave them on random and hope for the best as I cannot be bothered with the micromanagement

Same ofr pilot training so you are not alone

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 545
RE: To Good to be True! - 12/22/2009 6:09:40 PM   
Oliver Heindorf


Posts: 1911
Joined: 5/1/2002
From: Hamburg/Deutschland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Chickenboy, that's a level of micromanagement I am not interested in.  I'm going to ignore it and hope that it really doesn't affect me.  


Hello, not to disturb your party here in any way...but this decision will hurt you badly.
These search Arcs needed to be placed well and with thought in AE. Just my 0.02 $ cents.
(No € cents spent )

_____________________________


(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 546
RE: To Good to be True! - 12/22/2009 6:21:23 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline 		On pilot training I only deal with ordering squadrons to train, but search arcs are vital.

(in reply to Oliver Heindorf)
Post #: 547
RE: To Good to be True! - 12/22/2009 7:21:53 PM   
Chickenboy


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

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Chickenboy, that's a level of micromanagement I am not interested in.  I'm going to ignore it and hope that it really doesn't affect me.  If it puts me at a disadvantage, I'll have the difficult decision of whether to take it on and do it, or giving up the game.

I enjoy the micromanagement inherent in dealing with individual subs, ships, aircraft squadrons, ground units, supply, docking limits, search arcs (thought that's getting pretty tedious), etc., but dealing with individual men is not appealing.

Hi Canoerebel,

I agree. It's a fine line between detailed attention and tedium. This game lets you have it both ways.

I mostly train whole Daitai or Chutai at a time-I rarely look at individual men per se, except when populating the training command. I have only played a few turns in my PBEMs post patch II, so it's too early for me to say what effect the training aspect of the game has been changed post patch II. Anyways, even with my limited exposure post patch II, I like what I see for pilot management-wondering if you had some broad observations.

_____________________________


(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 548
RE: To Good to be True! - 12/22/2009 7:45:05 PM   
castor troy


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

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Chickenboy, that's a level of micromanagement I am not interested in.  I'm going to ignore it and hope that it really doesn't affect me.  If it puts me at a disadvantage, I'll have the difficult decision of whether to take it on and do it, or giving up the game.

I enjoy the micromanagement inherent in dealing with individual subs, ships, aircraft squadrons, ground units, supply, docking limits, search arcs (thought that's getting pretty tedious), etc., but dealing with individual men is not appealing.



If Miller is doing it extensively and you don´t then he will wipe the floor with your airforce over the years and I guess this will lead to huge problems for you. Kind of the same as in WITP when the Japanese did on map training via bombing isolated units or bases and creating 80 exp fighter pilots which then wiped the floor with Corsairs flown by the normal 55 exp replacement USMC pilot.

I would not ignore the training function at all. Don´t know about Miller though, if he doesn´t use it, no need for you doing it. Otherwise...

_____________________________


(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 549
RE: To Good to be True! - 12/22/2009 7:46:31 PM   
castor troy


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

ORIGINAL: witpqs

On pilot training I only deal with ordering squadrons to train, but search arcs are vital.



I´m using search arcs only very seldome and it works just fine. At least I can´t say I would spot more with search arcs even though this would sound logical.

_____________________________


(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 550
RE: To Good to be True! - 12/22/2009 7:49:14 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline 		Agree with castor troy: this could put you at a competitive disadvantage. Believe it or not, it doesn't add THAT much time to a turn (pilot management and training). As the IJNAF in particular, one HAS to marshall their good pilots with care.

As Allies, you may be able to make up for the difference in pilot quality with quantity, but if your pilots are decidely inferior through lack of training, it may take you considerably longer to exert air superiority or air supremacy in a given region. I recommend a training regimen for your pilots that are behind the lines or due for engagement in the near future, particularly if they're way below experience levels of 70+.

_____________________________


(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 551
RE: To Good to be True! - 12/22/2009 7:54:19 PM   
Chickenboy


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

ORIGINAL: Oliver Heindorf


quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Chickenboy, that's a level of micromanagement I am not interested in.  I'm going to ignore it and hope that it really doesn't affect me.  


Hello, not to disturb your party here in any way...but this decision will hurt you badly.
These search Arcs needed to be placed well and with thought in AE. Just my 0.02 $ cents.
(No € cents spent )

Because of the limited air coverage associated with patrol aircraft at 60-70% search, it doesn't make sense to have them squander their air sorties patrolling a zone that is irrelevant for game terms. Would you rather your ASW / air search go from 180-000 degrees at San Diego (searching the channel islands / pacific ocean) or 000-180 (searching the inland desert / Barstow / Arizona)?

Like the Ronco chicken rotisserie: set it and forget it if you're too concerned about it being a time sink. But you should set it properly at least once so that you're not wasting valuable search aircraft on a fool's errand.

_____________________________


(in reply to Oliver Heindorf)
Post #: 552
RE: To Good to be True! - 12/22/2009 8:06:38 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline 		I set my aircraft squadrons to train, but I am not interested - repeat, I am not interested - in implementing a training regimen for individual pilots or the leaders of training squadrons.  If that puts me at a competitive disadvantage then my thinking right now is that this is not the game for me.

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 553
RE: To Good to be True! - 12/22/2009 8:08:25 PM   
ny59giants


Posts: 9869
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline 		Almost all the American PBY squadrons start the war with below 30 experience rating when it comes to ASW. 
I set them to training at 50% as soon as their morale gets up above 95 (I'm putting 15 pilots in a squadron of 12 so I can have some spares). Hopefully, my initial losses will slow down once they get above 50. I'm at the end of 12/41 vs Andy's Japanese AI and have just got those large Kingfisher squadrons. They will fill out, rest until morale is above 95, and then 50% training for ASW work only. They will be placed at San Fran, LA, San Diego, and Seattle with specific search arcs.

Am I missing anything here??

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 554
RE: To Good to be True! - 12/22/2009 8:46:01 PM   
Chickenboy


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

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

I set my aircraft squadrons to train, but I am not interested - repeat, I am not interested - in implementing a training regimen for individual pilots or the leaders of training squadrons.  If that puts me at a competitive disadvantage then my thinking right now is that this is not the game for me.

OK, this makes more sense. Your first reply seemed to suggest that you were forsakeing all manifestations of pilot (yes, squadron) training. Such a disregard (which is what the other posters were commenting on too) would yield trouble in your faceoff versus Miller in short order.

Individual pilot TRACOM training is a hit or miss affair-an incremental improvement that you can probably live without if you want to draw the hard line at focusing on individual pilots. I would say that it (TRACOM) is LESS important than a strategic effort at pilot (yes, squadron) skill training, were I asked to choose between the two.

So, Canoerebel, if you don't mind me repeating my previous question-how have you found squadron training to be post patch II versus pre patch II? Better, easier, harder, slower, faster, what? Thanks in advance for your response.

_____________________________


(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 555
RE: To Good to be True! - 12/22/2009 9:14:11 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline 		Thanks for the clarification - and I apologize for generating a flurry of comments based upon my misunderstanding of the written word.  And to think I make a living by working with the written word...

I haven't kept detailed records of training, but my unscientific impression is that squadron training is better and faster than it was before.  IE, instead of it taking 27 light years for a B-24 squadron to increase from 25% to 32% experience level, now it takes a much shorter period of time, perhaps a month or two (a guesstimate).

I have had a multitutde of squadrons training for the entire game with relatively little progress.  Glaciation goes faster.  But I suppose that's the nature of the beast - we're one year into the war, so how much SHOULD pilot experience increase over a period of one year if the squadron is set at 40% training?

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 556
RE: To Good to be True! - 12/23/2009 6:45:47 PM   
Chickenboy


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

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

Almost all the American PBY squadrons start the war with below 30 experience rating when it comes to ASW. 
I set them to training at 50% as soon as their morale gets up above 95 (I'm putting 15 pilots in a squadron of 12 so I can have some spares). Hopefully, my initial losses will slow down once they get above 50. I'm at the end of 12/41 vs Andy's Japanese AI and have just got those large Kingfisher squadrons. They will fill out, rest until morale is above 95, and then 50% training for ASW work only. They will be placed at San Fran, LA, San Diego, and Seattle with specific search arcs.

Am I missing anything here??


Canoerebel: sorry for the hijack...

ny59giants,

About the only thing I didn't see in your post was the unit commander's stats. Are you replacing squadron commanders with those of high levels of (in your example of ASW focus) naval skills? I assume that this would have an effect, but must confess that I'm not far enough along post patch II to really be able to tell.

_____________________________


(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 557
RE: To Good to be True! - 12/23/2009 7:11:16 PM   
ny59giants


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

About the only thing I didn't see in your post was the unit commander's stats. Are you replacing squadron commanders with those of high levels of (in your example of ASW focus) naval skills? I assume that this would have an effect, but must confess that I'm not far enough along post patch II to really be able to tell.


I will have to do that. But right now there are more pressing needs for PP expenditures before I go through squadron leaders. Evac of what you want from the SRA, Malaya, and Luzon take up those precious PPs early in the war. I will check on them when I get home tonight and see if their are some truly bad leaders (poor naval and admin will hurt training).

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 558
RE: To Good to be True! - 12/24/2009 4:09:44 AM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline 		12/02/42 to 12/05/42

Rabaul: I played a hunch and scored a flashy but not really substantive blow against the Japanese. After the KB withdrew from the Noumea vicinity I figured Miller would send it to Rabaul to refuel. So I ordered a strike by four B-24 squadrons based in northern Oz. This was the first strike against Rabaul, so I figured I'd achieve surprise. On the first day of the two-day turn, 35 Liberators hit the port facilities. With no opposition, the low-experienced pilots were able to score some hits - three 500lbers each on BBs Ise and Hyuga, one hit on CA Kako, and one fiery strike on an AD. The next turn, the KB was there, because the Liberators found 80 Zeros on CAP and a notation that at least one squadron was from Shikaku. The CAP scared off the bombers. No real damage done to the Japanese, but I scored some intel.

Merauke: AV is up to 333 with 20,000 supplies on hand.

Darwin and Timor: The AP and AKL arrived at one of these little islands (Samaluk or somesuch), but were sighted by a patrol aircraft. A strike by Bettys from Kendari or vicinity finished off the AP. Darwin's bombers fly irregular strikes against Lautem and Koepang. Miller has barely occupied these two bases - each has a ground unit, no aircraft, and apparently no base force units.

American Carriers: Since I'm pretty sure the KB is far away, I'm sending Wasp and Lexington from Sydney to the West Coast, with a layover at Auckland to refuel.

India/Burma: Quiet at the moment. Allied troops continue to gather at Cox's Bazaar and will begin moving on Akyab in a week or so.

China: The Japanese stack that disappeared after taking Sian? They are beginning to show up across the river from Chengtu. I had a hunch Miller was heading this way (taking Chengtu would flank Changsha), so I have units on the move there. The current garrison is 2,700 AV. By the time Miller is ready to cross the river it should be well over 3,000 AV. This is a forested hex with six forts and a river crossing involved, so I'm optimistic about my chances here.

Big AV Infantry: You know, the Allies really don't have an over-abundance of strong infantry units. You will recall that I have a stout army at Seattle that is prepped for the Kuriles. I still don't know if that's a move I want to make, and I sure could use those troops in upcoming operations against the islands between Oz and New Guinea, but I it would take them months to reach the theater and I would be essentially giving up on the Kuriles.

(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 559
RE: ASW a go-go - 12/24/2009 3:26:31 PM   
crsutton


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

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

NO USSHENRICO OR CRIMGUY, please.

.
.
.
.





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.


Sorry guys, as an Allied player I have sympathy with the ASW woes and am searching for solutions, but I consider this move extremely gamey. If my opponent does it, I ask them to stop. I especially disliked it in WITP. So, make sure you discuss this tactic with your opponent before doing it.




_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 560
RE: To Good to be True! - 12/24/2009 3:46:12 PM   
crsutton


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

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Thanks for the clarification - and I apologize for generating a flurry of comments based upon my misunderstanding of the written word.  And to think I make a living by working with the written word...

I haven't kept detailed records of training, but my unscientific impression is that squadron training is better and faster than it was before.  IE, instead of it taking 27 light years for a B-24 squadron to increase from 25% to 32% experience level, now it takes a much shorter period of time, perhaps a month or two (a guesstimate).

I have had a multitutde of squadrons training for the entire game with relatively little progress.  Glaciation goes faster.  But I suppose that's the nature of the beast - we're one year into the war, so how much SHOULD pilot experience increase over a period of one year if the squadron is set at 40% training?



I have noticed post patch that training in a specific area, that area will grow much faster than overall experience. For example, training pilots on escort, I now have many pilots with overall exp in the 40s but air combat exp in the 50s and low 60s. Interesting. But it is obvious that units set to train in a specific skill can gain experience in that skill very fast now. My only concern is that this may favor the Japanese player too much as if it works the same way for them, they should be able to keep up a well trained core of experienced pilots well into the game. One of the most important aspects of them game is the overall drain on Japanese pilot quality. If this can be bypassed then it can hurt the game. Time will tell

I want the Japanese player to be able to train up pilots but it should never be as easy for them to do as the Allies.

< Message edited by crsutton -- 12/24/2009 3:47:13 PM >

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 561
RE: ASW a go-go - 12/24/2009 3:54:17 PM   
Canoerebel


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

ORIGINAL: crsutton
quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

NO USSHENRICO OR CRIMGUY, please..





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.


Sorry guys, as an Allied player I have sympathy with the ASW woes and am searching for solutions, but I consider this move extremely gamey. If my opponent does it, I ask them to stop. I especially disliked it in WITP. So, make sure you discuss this tactic with your opponent before doing it.



Currently I have one TF composed of an AK and a variety of ASW ships - some DDs, AMs, and SCs. This TF is operating off the West Coast. At one point I had two of these operating for about a week.

I fail to see how this can be considered gamey. It's a legit tactic, hasn't given me a single kill yet, and was implemented only after I had tried a zillion other tactics including going to the extreme of disbanding all my transports into ports worldwide. Japanese subs were wreaking havoc and still are. Allied ASW is completely neutered (and Japanese ASW is probably in the same shape, I'm sure).

And this strategem is somehow gamey?

I don't see it.

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 562
RE: ASW a go-go - 12/24/2009 7:53:11 PM   
Chickenboy


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

ORIGINAL: crsutton


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

NO USSHENRICO OR CRIMGUY, please.

.
.
.
.





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.


Sorry guys, as an Allied player I have sympathy with the ASW woes and am searching for solutions, but I consider this move extremely gamey. If my opponent does it, I ask them to stop. I especially disliked it in WITP. So, make sure you discuss this tactic with your opponent before doing it.




@ crsutton,

I agree with Canoerebel. If your 'search for solutions' has included standing down all of your allied submarine PBEM efforts pending 'fix' of the problem, then I salute you for staying your hand. Particularly in the presence of clear evidence that the system needs adjustments to be fair.

Not all PBEM partners have been as responsive when told repeatedly that something is amiss. Some have essentially ignored these problems and continued to twist the knife in the wound. For these situations, there are three options: 1. Quit altogether or suspend the game pending patch 'fix'. 2. Continue complaining and hoping that partner stays his hand or 3. Try to find a workaround. I submit that this effort is a creative attempt at #3.

_____________________________


(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 563
RE: ASW a go-go - 12/26/2009 5:55:35 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline 		12/06/42 to 12/15/42
 
China:  The Japanese have crossed the river to besiege the key town of Changteh.  I cannot afford to lose this battle - to do so would mean Changhsa's downfall.  Fortunately, I had a pretty good hunch Miller was looking this way.  The base has six forts and the two sides are evenly matched with about 3500 AV.  I have more troops on the way, as does Miller I'm sure.  The initial Japanese river crossing didn't go well for them, but now they're across and have begun daily bombardments.  There are currently five artillery units present and the bombardments are doing no more than light damage.

NoPac:  I have about 3000 AV sitting in Seattle fully prepped for the Kuriles.  I have got to make a decision quickly as to whether I really intend to invade come mid-43.  If not, I need to switch prep and get these guys down to Oz.  This is a critical decision with war-long ramifications, so it's a tough one to make.

CenPac:  Japanese subs are picking off merchants at Midway, but the merchants are getting supplies ashore.  I think Miller will be back.  A sub at Palmyra picked off two AKs.  I wouldn't be surprised if Miller took a shot at Canton Island, but no sign of that happening yet.

SoPac:  Japanese subs have imposed a blockade on my efforts to get supplies to Vanua Lava, Ndeni and other islands north of Luganville.  I need more base forces here to permit me to base enough aircraft to rule the skies.  Reinforcements are on the way, but it will be awhile before they arrive.

SWPac:  The weird little war continues in which the Allies are reinforcing and supplying Horn Island and Merauke and building those bases without opposition form the enemy. I'm not even sure Miller is aware of what's going on there. Milller sent a fast transport convoy to Port Moresby.  I was tempted to interdict using a stout surface combat TF from Townsville, includng Prince of Wales, but I was afraid Miller was dangling bait in hopes that I would do just that; then he might swing the KB between PM and Townsville and wreak havoc. Figuring that he was also worried about his shipping and would have all available fighters flying LRCAP, I decided to instead hit the airfield at Milne Bay.  More than 100 heavy bombers from Oz clobbered the field on 10th, destroying 33 aircraft on the ground.  This was a satisfying victory.  At the same time, there was no appearance by the KB and Miller accomplished his resupply without opposition.  Pretty soon the big airfields in Northern Oz (and eventually Merauke) will allow the Allies to control the skies over New Guinea and as far north as the Rabaul area.

Burma/India:  The Allies occassionally target Akyab for big bombing raids without opposition.  The base is garrisoned by 20 Japanese units.  The Allies have about 2,500 AV at Cox's Bazaar that will advance sooner or later.

< Message edited by Canoerebel -- 12/26/2009 5:58:15 PM >

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 564
RE: ASW a go-go - 12/26/2009 8:51:45 PM   
JeffroK


Posts: 6391
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline 		IMHO, you have survived the danger period, Miller has missed the period that the IJN reigns supreme (maybe you had a little to do with it), now he has to be a lot more careful as your powers grow & grow.

Keep up the illusion of multiple threats, make him do the running around and chew up his Fuel.

Use your recce assets to pick his weak spots, with variable sacking limits you can arrange quick hits and then remove the excess troops, a defender cant do this (unless you sucker him into a false threat)

When you move from Akyab, its just as easy to move into Central Burma as it is to push toward Prome. (Also the IJA can do this, protect your flank.)

If yo are still thinking of a Timor approach, have a look at some of the small islands close by, many have their airbases at 0(4) or 0(5), maybe isolate Timor and work around it.

Thanks for tossing in the chastity, your AAR has probably caused more changes to the game than any other.


_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 565
RE: ASW a go-go - 12/26/2009 10:43:10 PM   
ny59giants


Posts: 9869
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline 		The big question is what your main thrust will be for 1943?? Until you decide that simple question, then not much else matters. 

(in reply to JeffroK)
Post #: 566
RE: ASW a go-go - 12/28/2009 7:17:21 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline 		12/16/42 to 12/19/42
 
Long-Range Planning:  After much mulling over of options, the Allies have decided on a course of action for 1943.  There will be two main theaters of action - seizing and building bases in the New Guinea area, mostly the island bases between NG and Timor.  From there, the Allies will move west with major targets being islands like Timor, Flores, and the Celebes.  Since there are a multitude of potential bases in this region, I don't anticipate a need to make major contested invasions.  Therefore, I have decided I don't really need to requisition the stack of troops at Seattle.  Instead, these troops will remain in place.  If I am successful in drawing Miller's full attention to SWPac, I plan to proceed with an invasion of the Kuriles.  All ground troops are fully prepped and I have most of the ships already stationed at Seattle.  I'll move my carriers to Seattle, also, since LBA should be sufficient for the SWPac operations.

NoPac:  Quiet here.  I haven't gotten any good Kuriles SigInt recently, but Onnekotan Jima still doesn't have an airfield and Paramushiro is still at level four.

CenPac:  I'm busy sending small convoys to Midway, and Miller's subs are busy sinking them.  On the 19th, I-28 got an AK there.  I am very worried about Midway, not because the Japs really need it but because it controls a vast swath of ocean.  If he takes it then it pushes the "starting point" for the Allies all the way back to Pearl.  So the Japs should take Midway not because of what it does for them, but what it does to the Allies.

SoPac:  As we near 1943, I'll have to begin considering drawing down the garrisons at Suva, Pago Pago, and Noumea for use elsewhere.  I've already done that at Auckland.

SwPac:  The Allied operations at Horn Island and Merauke continue unimpeded.  I believe Miller is focusing on fast transport convoys to Port Moresby and hasn't picked up on the Allied moves in this region.  Fuel is very short in Australia.  Bombers from Darwin irregularly hit either Koepang and Lautem.  Miller hasn't built up either base and the garrisons are weak.  This comes as a big surprise considering what happened to him on Timor in our WitP game.

Burma/India:  The big concentration of bombers at Calcutta/Diamond Harbor hit Schwebo on the 18th and 19th and will hit Akyab over the next two days.  I think the Allied army at Cox's Bazaar will be ready to advance on Akyab within a weak.  If the Allies can control the air space over Akyab, they should win the battle eventually.  If the Japanese wrest control of the air space, the Allies will have to retreat.

(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 567
RE: ASW a go-go - 12/28/2009 9:32:46 PM   
JeffroK


Posts: 6391
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline 		CenPac:  I'm busy sending small convoys to Midway, and Miller's subs are busy sinking them.  On the 19th, I-28 got an AK there.  I am very worried about Midway, not because the Japs really need it but because it controls a vast swath of ocean.  If he takes it then it pushes the "starting point" for the Allies all the way back to Pearl.  So the Japs should take Midway not because of what it does for them, but what it does to the Allies.

Have you developed either Laysan or FF Shoals??

If yes, can you fly in some supplies, its only penny packets but it helps.


_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 568
RE: ASW a go-go - 12/28/2009 9:49:21 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline 		A Seabee unit has been working at French Frigate for several months now, but I think it will be another year before it reaches level one port.  IE, by the time I can use it, French Frigage will probably be strategically irrelevant.

(in reply to JeffroK)
Post #: 569
RE: ASW a go-go - 12/28/2009 9:54:33 PM   
JeffroK


Posts: 6391
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline 		Yeah, big problem in bringing those 0(0) bases into use.

Maybe having Miller so interested in Midway will keep his attention from other ventures.

Does japanese intel work like WITP, and you can have some West Coast formations prep for Midway??


_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 570
Page:   <<   < prev  17 18 [19] 20 21   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: To Good to be True! Page: <<   < prev  17 18 [19] 20 21   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

1.703