RE: Developments

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: Developments

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: Developments

Page: << < prev 26 27 [28] 29 30 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Developments - 2/1/2010 5:16:49 PM

Chickenboy

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

P.P.S. It's going to take me a long time, but eventually my opponent shall pay for his excesses in China.

You know the game ends in early-mid 1946, right?

_____________________________

(in reply to Canoerebel)

Post #: 811

RE: Developments - 2/1/2010 5:23:09 PM

Chickenboy

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel
1.� No strategic bombing in CBI (by either Allies or Axis) until 1944.

I couldn't abide by this as an IJ player.

Restricting strat bombing until 1944 is a giveaway to the allied player who can then steamroll Japanese production at will in 1944 and 1945, after securing air superiority with a surfeit of 4EBs. I think to be fair to both sides, this has to be either a complete restriction of any strategic bombing in or from the CBI or no restrictions at all.

Early on, this strat bombing restriction will benefit the Chinese. Later, it will benefit the Japanese. Give and take. Compromise. Quid pro quo or nothing.

_____________________________

(in reply to Canoerebel)

Post #: 812

RE: Developments - 2/1/2010 5:29:12 PM

Canoerebel

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

This is the House Rule that both Q-Ball and I think is fair. No strategic bombing in CBI helps the Allies by preventing the Japanese from destroying Chinese industry. It helps the Japanese by preventing the Allies from strategic bombing places like Magwe and Rangoon.

The Japanese can easily wipe out Chinese industry by strategic bombing in '42 and '43, so this rule makes sense. The ability of the Allies to use Chinese bases for strategic bombing will be severely limited by the supply situation.

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 813

RE: Developments - 2/1/2010 5:39:50 PM

John 3rd

Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Many of my Chinese units have 60 experience now.� The Chinese are able to stand behind fortifications as long as "nuclear artillery" isn't employed.

Were I to start another game, I'd use these House Rules:

1.� No strategic bombing in CBI (by either Allies or Axis) until 1944.
2.� No more than one artillery unit for each two divisions.
3.� I'd also strongly consider something tying artillery units to infantry in Manchuko - perhaps the Japanese have to withdraw (and pay political points) one infantry division per artillery unit.

With those things in place China should be much more historical and not subject to ludicrous and a-historic strategy.

P.S. I lost Sian a long time ago.

P.P.S. It's going to take me a long time, but eventually my opponent shall pay for his excesses in China.

I will note these thoughts for when I start my campaign. As always I will simply say "I HATE CHINA!"

_____________________________

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to Canoerebel)

Post #: 814

RE: Developments - 2/1/2010 5:42:05 PM

John 3rd

Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

Dan, I concur with you and QBall's House Rule. The Strategic Aerial Bombardment is soooooo powerful. The Japanese do have the limited ability as you mention and the Allies have it through to whole game. Seems to me to be a fair rule...

_____________________________

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 815

RE: Developments - 2/1/2010 5:49:21 PM

Grollub

Posts: 6674
Joined: 10/9/2005
From: Lulea, Sweden
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel
For some reason my transport subs won't load, so I'm using patrol aircraft to evacuate cadres.�

You do know that the troops to be sub loaded must be in "strat" mode? In addition to this, given the size of the port at Paramushiro and the air situation, my guess is that it only allows one unit/day to load (http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=2334326)

Cheers - Grollub

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Canoerebel)

Post #: 816

RE: Developments - 2/1/2010 5:51:32 PM

Canoerebel

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Grollub

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel
For some reason my transport subs won't load, so I'm using patrol aircraft to evacuate cadres.�

You do know that the troops to be sub loaded must be in "strat" mode? In addition to this, given the size of the port at Paramushiro and the air situation, my guess is that it only allows one unit/day to load (http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=2334326)
Cheers - Grollub

Yes, I know about the "strat" mode. I had previously used subs to withdraw a few loads of men to Attu Island. But something changed - the interface no longer permitted me to load men. The men were "grayed out." I assume it's due to the level of damage the port has suffered as a result of bombing and bombardments. Not sure though.

(in reply to Grollub)

Post #: 817

RE: Developments - 2/1/2010 10:43:40 PM

Canoerebel

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

5/19/43 to 5/28/43

In some ways this game seems to be entering the realm of the surreal. Weird things and unexpected things are happening.

NoPac: The Japanese didn't bring enough in the first wave at Paramushiro (or perhaps it was that too many troops were lost during the landings), so Miller has had to bring in reinforcements. The coastal artillery CD unit has bit into the Japanese ships pretty hard, so Miller will probably end up losing 60 to 80 ships all-told in this campaign, compared to twice that many for the Allies. The Allies are successfully withdrawing cadres from each unit at Paramushiro. On the 27th and 28th, the KB showed up south of Adak and lit into the shipping in that port. Unfortunately for the Japanese, about 70 Allied aircraft were on CAP. Over two turns the Japanese lost more than 250 aicraft (more than 200 Judys alone) while the Allies lost about 50. This should have some significant impact on the KB's pilot quality. The Japanese strike aircraft did sink about a dozen transports and various other small craft.

SoPac: The Allied landings at Tabiteau (spelling?), the dot-hex south of Tarawa, have apparently gone unnoticed (not a big suprise since the Allies control the hex). I've landed engineers and a Marine CD. Next we'll scout Tarawa to see how strongly it is fortified. If it's not too tough, the Allies will mount a quick campaign using the CVEs that are nearing Christmas Island.

SWPac: The Japanese appear to be evacuating Milne Bay. I sent a small CL/DD force to snoop around but it encountered a large CA/CL force. I lost CL Java and a DD. The main activity continues at the line of Allied islands off the coast of Darwin. Construction at those airfields is making progres, but not quite fast enough.

Burma: The Allies have taken everything west of Rangoon/Pegu. Two base forces are on the way to Prome, which is already a level two airfield (on the way to nine). The Japanese have 37 units in Rangoon. What a remarkable retreat this has been.

China: Not sure where the Japanese plan to go now that they've taken Hengyang. I had expected Miller to move west toward the rear of Changsha, but thus far he's moved a unit or two south toward Liuchow. A Japanese shock attack there came off at 1:4 and cost the Japanese 6K to 2K casualties.

Subwars: On the same day, two Japanese subs sank two American subs. Allied subs have been remarkably quiet over the past month. There was one hit against a Japanese DD, but that's been about it.

(in reply to Canoerebel)

Post #: 818

RE: Developments - 2/1/2010 10:46:36 PM

Chickenboy

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

The Japanese can easily wipe out Chinese industry by strategic bombing in '42 and '43, so this rule makes sense.� The ability of the Allies to use Chinese bases for strategic bombing will be severely limited by the supply situation.

Yes, the rule makes sense, provided that its application is realistically extended to both parties.

The allies aren't able to introduce strategic bombing in China in 1942 or 1943 because of their strategic situation there as well as the supply situation. So 'holding off' on allied strategic bombing from China in until 1944 is a straw man argument. You're not denying the allied player anything-because he can't do it until 1944 or thereabouts. It's like a house rule agreeing to no atom bomb attacks against the Japanese HI until after June 1945 in exchange for no bombing of allied ports before June 1945.

The IJN player, on the other hand, has the ability and motive to turn Chinese resources and supplies into a smoldering pile beginning in 1941. A restriction until 1944 effectively denies this throughout the war, as local allied air superiority will be in place in the CBI by then. The Japanese player that agrees to this rule is giving up a whole lot more than the allied player is.

Now, after 1945 the CBI is a shambles, so anything goes for the allies then...

I would agree to the following modifications:

1. No CBI-based (or targeted) strategic bombing throughout the war by either side. Period. OR...
2. No CBI-based (or targeted) strategic bombing throughout the war prior to 1945 by either side. OR....
3. No restrictions on CBI-based (or targeted) strategic bombing.

_____________________________

(in reply to Canoerebel)

Post #: 819

RE: Developments - 2/1/2010 10:50:39 PM

Canoerebel

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

The Allies are fully capable of strategic bombing in Burma in '42 and '43, so this House Rule certainly benefits the Japanese. There is no way the Allies will be capable of any kind of strategic bombing campaign in China in '42 or '43, and probably well into '44. So I think the House Rule will work fine.

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 820

RE: Developments - 2/1/2010 10:53:00 PM

Chickenboy

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

Sorry, my bad. You're right about Burma. My "CBI" was exclusively restricted to China. I used the wrong acronym to mean CHINA THEATER. All of my arguments were intended thusly.

_____________________________

(in reply to Canoerebel)

Post #: 821

RE: Developments - 2/1/2010 10:53:58 PM

Q-Ball

Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline

There is no doubt that a strat bomb restriction in China only benefits the Japanese. That's why they need a balance; the Allies shouldn't strat bomb any Japanese OIL until 1944. That prevents cheapo strat bombing in 1942 by the Dutch; the Allies were not going to bomb targets in the SRA in 1942 for fear of killing civilians, even if they could. You shouldn't be able to in game either. That's my opinion.

For the Japanese, wiping out Chinese industry is way too easy, and needs to be limited. Japanese players deserve a break in return, and unmolested exploitation of Oil is a good trade-off.

I'm not as concerned as dan about Jap artillery, maybe I haven't used it effectively. The only other HR I would insist on at this point is that Restricted units should NEVER cross a national border, period.

< Message edited by Q-Ball -- 2/1/2010 10:54:30 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 822

RE: Developments - 2/1/2010 10:58:17 PM

Canoerebel

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

Paramushiro Balance Sheet

With the Paramushiro campaign winding down I want to begin tallying the costs and benefits to the Allies. I'll edit this as additional thoughts occur or as I tally losses, etc.

Benefits:

1. Four Japanese BBs sunk (the Kongo class)
2. The net result of the air campaign has the Japanese losing perhaps 700 more aircraft than the Allies.
3. Japanese merchant shipping lost - currently estimated at perhaps 60 to 80 ships.
4. Other Japanese combat ships lost - a few CA/CL/DD.
5. Japanese focus shifts from DEI to Paramushiro for 3+ months - including all 11 BBs for awhile and KB for that entire period. This weakens the opposition in the DEI considerably allowing the Allies to seize, hold, and build up bases in the eastern DEI.
6. Japansese subs diverted to NoPac, freeing up most of the eastern half of the map.
7. Hard to quantify impact on Japanese logistics and fuel.

Costs:

1. Allies lose four slow BBs plus Warspite.
2. Allies lose a few CA/CL/DD
3. Allies lose roughly 150 transports and support ships.
4. Allies will lose most of the men committed to these invasions (most of an infantry division, three Marine regiments, two army regiments, etc.)

(in reply to Canoerebel)

Post #: 823

RE: Developments - 2/1/2010 11:16:47 PM

Q-Ball

Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline

Biggest losses for you are the Ground Units, though if you pulled cadres like you said you did, you'll get them back. But Ground Troops is a limiting factor for the Allies. Losing BBs, even old ones, doesn't help either. The transports and planes you can replace.

For the Japanese, losing all 4 Kongos hurts alot. The planes aren't a huge deal. The pilots might be, but I bet Miller's best cadres were killed off long ago, so probably not. But I hate losing the KONGOS, they are extremely useful ships.

_____________________________

(in reply to Canoerebel)

Post #: 824

RE: Developments - 2/1/2010 11:23:06 PM

crsutton

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel
1.� No strategic bombing in CBI (by either Allies or Axis) until 1944.

I couldn't abide by this as an IJ player.

Restricting strat bombing until 1944 is a giveaway to the allied player who can then steamroll Japanese production at will in 1944 and 1945, after securing air superiority with a surfeit of 4EBs. I think to be fair to both sides, this has to be either a complete restriction of any strategic bombing in or from the CBI or no restrictions at all.

Early on, this strat bombing restriction will benefit the Chinese. Later, it will benefit the Japanese. Give and take. Compromise. Quid pro quo or nothing.

To be honest. Looking at the current state of supply in China, I don't think stragetic bombing in China is much of an option for the Allies player at any time. As it is, I had to move the AVG to India just so I could replace lost aircraft. If the Japanese take Sian and Changsha, there really is not a lot left to produce supply and the heavy bombers take a lot of supply.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 825

RE: Developments - 2/1/2010 11:25:45 PM

Chickenboy

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

I'm not as concerned as dan about Jap artillery, maybe I haven't used it effectively. The only other HR I would insist on at this point is that Restricted units should NEVER cross a national border, period.

Ummm...except for the Indian troops crossing the Burmese border to Akyab?

_____________________________

(in reply to Q-Ball)

Post #: 826

RE: Developments - 2/2/2010 1:31:55 AM

khyberbill

Posts: 1941
Joined: 9/11/2007
From: new milford, ct
Status: offline

quote:

For some reason my transport subs won't load

There are only one or two Allied subs that will load troops in AE. The rest will only load supplies

_____________________________

"Its a dog eat dog world Sammy and I am wearing Milkbone underwear" -Norm.

(in reply to Canoerebel)

Post #: 827

RE: Developments - 2/2/2010 2:58:14 AM

Fishbed

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

Biggest losses for you are the Ground Units, though if you pulled cadres like you said you did, you'll get them back. But Ground Troops is a limiting factor for the Allies. Losing BBs, even old ones, doesn't help either. The transports and planes you can replace.

For the Japanese, losing all 4 Kongos hurts alot. The planes aren't a huge deal. The pilots might be, but I bet Miller's best cadres were killed off long ago, so probably not. But I hate losing the KONGOS, they are extremely useful ships.

I think the biggest losses instead are the transports. Such heavy loss of shipping will hurt and slow down the advance, especially if AP(A)s and AK(A)s got sunk.

_____________________________

(in reply to Q-Ball)

Post #: 828

RE: Developments - 2/2/2010 5:05:10 AM

Canoerebel

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

Miller opened a thread about the recent air battle over Adak Island. The losses he listed (140 dive bombers, I think) are far less than showed in both the combat report (something above 175) and on the Air Losses menu (more than 200). What I find most interesting is his comment that he won't miss the pilots because they were green.

I wonder if this is disinformation, because I don't think Miller's losses have been excessive, and he has maintained a vigorous pilot-training program in China.

In even up fights between Japanese and Allied fighters, the Allies usually come out on the short end, sometimes decisively. Since most Brit pilots have exp. around 70, and most American fighter pilots between 55 and 65, I assume his fighter pilots have experience higher than that. And I think he has lost far more fighters than naval strike aircraft.

The air war game in AE is much different than in WitP - at least for me. As we approach the end of May 1943 here's the reality I'm dealing with in the Oz/eastern DEI theaters where most of the action is occuring:

1. Not enough planes: I am always short of every kind of P-38. I just had three new P-38G squadrons arrive at Townsville - each with two planes out of the 25 authorized. I can't fill out these squadrons. I have quite a few Marine F4F units facing the same situation and I don't have enough Corsairs to serve the four squadrons spread over the map. There are plenty of P-40Ks and P-39s.

2. Green fighter pilots: As noted, most of my American squadrons at the front avg. experience from 55 to 65. This isn't that great for this point in the war (at least compared to WitP). I have squadrons with pilots at 40% and thereabouts training at rear bases.

3. Green bomber crews: Most of my 4EB crews at the front avg. experience ranging from about 40 to about 55. I'm finding it very difficult to get crew experience up, even for the squadrons that are regularly flying unopposed missions against bases like Milne Bay. Fortunately, the B-24 and B-17 are so tough that they dish out more than they take.

4. Two-engine bombers can't stand up to fighters: Blenheims, B-25s, and B-26s are cannon-fodder when they face fighter opposition. I try to use them only against undefended targets.

5. It is nealry impossible to use fighters in China, at least more than once: This is excacerbated by the chronically low supply situation brought about, in part, by Japanese strategic bombing during the first year of the game. Fighters have short legs. If you base them far enough forward to fly combat missions, the planes that are damaged when they land don't get repaired (due to no supply). They never get repaired (due to no supply). The AVG can only last a short time - few replacements and the squadrons are withdrawn in mid-42 (if memory serves).

6. Carrier CAP is inadequate: From the few attacks we've seen against carriers it seems that CAP claims an unusually low percentage of the attackers so that a high percentage of attackers survives to press home the attack. Usually, the CAP gets tied up by escorting fighters and does little against the strike aircraft. It's still early in this regard, and we haven't had many big carrier air battles yet, but this is a concern. I have F6F Hellcats on Wasp, Saratoga, and Essex, and I hope they perform per history.

(in reply to Fishbed)

Post #: 829

RE: Developments - 2/2/2010 11:46:22 AM

LoBaron

Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline

Canorebel do I get this right? You are right now swapping navy squads for Corsairs/F6F all over the map and are still short of F4F�s?
Strange.

Btw. I think that one of the really important things to watch for is when squadrons arrive that use planes you don�t have in much supply.

What about changing some of the P38 squads to P40K? They have a quite ok performance (admittedly short legs) but the main trick
for the allies is to get as many planes in the air as possible.
Numbers first, quality second.

What are you using the P38�s for atm?

_____________________________

(in reply to Canoerebel)

Post #: 830

RE: Developments - 2/2/2010 1:36:45 PM

SireChaos

Posts: 710
Joined: 8/14/2006
From: Frankfurt, Germany
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

This is the House Rule that both Q-Ball and I think is fair.� No strategic bombing in CBI helps the Allies by preventing the Japanese from destroying Chinese industry.� It helps the Japanese by preventing the Allies from strategic bombing places like Magwe and Rangoon.

The Japanese can easily wipe out Chinese industry by strategic bombing in '42 and '43, so this rule makes sense.� The ability of the Allies to use Chinese bases for strategic bombing will be severely limited by the supply situation.

I currently have an improvised truce with my opponent to a similar effect: every month of ceasefire in China buys him one month, starting in 4/44, in which I do not base B-29 in China (and do not use them to do strategic bombing in Japan). Bombing anywhere from other places, of course, is fair game.

(in reply to Canoerebel)

Post #: 831

RE: Developments - 2/2/2010 2:30:11 PM

Canoerebel

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron
Canorebel do I get this right? You are right now swapping�navy�squads for Corsairs/F6F all over the map and are still short of F4F�s?
Strange.

Btw. I think that one of the really important things to watch for is when squadrons arrive that use planes you don�t have in much supply.

What about changing some of the P38 squads to P40K? They have a quite ok performance (admittedly short legs) but the main trick
for the allies is to get as many planes in the air as possible.
Numbers first, quality second.

What are you using the P38�s for atm?

That's right. There are a bunch of Marine F4F-3 squadron's whose upgrade paths only include Corsairs - they do NOT include F4F-4s. I have two or three of these sitting in Sydney now and three more parked on CVEs (these three have two fighters each and can only upgrade with Corsairs, but I only have enough Corsairs in the pool to handle the three or four Corsair squadrons currently on the board.

Good idea about swapping P-38s for P-40Ks. The orders have been issued. Pretty soon I'll only have one P-38 squadron left on the map and that's at Chittagong.

(in reply to LoBaron)

Post #: 832

RE: Developments - 2/2/2010 3:22:29 PM

Chickenboy

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: SireChaos

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

This is the House Rule that both Q-Ball and I think is fair.� No strategic bombing in CBI helps the Allies by preventing the Japanese from destroying Chinese industry.� It helps the Japanese by preventing the Allies from strategic bombing places like Magwe and Rangoon.

The Japanese can easily wipe out Chinese industry by strategic bombing in '42 and '43, so this rule makes sense.� The ability of the Allies to use Chinese bases for strategic bombing will be severely limited by the supply situation.

I currently have an improvised truce with my opponent to a similar effect: every month of ceasefire in China buys him one month, starting in 4/44, in which I do not base B-29 in China (and do not use them to do strategic bombing in Japan). Bombing anywhere from other places, of course, is fair game.

What a novel idea...that's quid pro quo in my book.

_____________________________

(in reply to SireChaos)

Post #: 833

RE: Developments - 2/2/2010 5:23:17 PM

Canoerebel

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

5/29/43 to 6/1/43

NoPac: The first Japanese deliberate attacks at Paramushiro came off at high odds (4:1) and drops forts to one. This base will fall to the Japanese in no more than three days, ending the Allied occupation at three months. The KB withdrew from the Adak Island vicinity.

SoPac: Still no opposition to the Allied landing at Tabiteau, near Tarawa. I'm mulling over whether to employ the Allied carriers in support of an invasion of Tarawa, or even whether to proceed with the invasion. Recon shows four units at Tarawa - probably a mixed brigade and some support.

SWPac: A moderate-sized surface combat engagement at Port Moresby. I'll copy and paste the results below. I think I came out ahead, but I'm not sure. While that was going on, BB Royal Sovereign TF hit a slew of barges at Milne Bay, sinking perhaps 50 to 100. While that was going on, a convoy returning to Noumea from Darwin took a weird route close to New Guinea and got chewed up by Bettys. The Nagatu/Mutsu TF and Mini-KB haven't made an appearance in the eastern DEI in recent days. A long range SBD-5 group (range of 11 with drop tanks) based at Saumlaki clobbered three PB at Ambon. Cursor intel shows that neither Boela nor Sorong on the western New Guinea coast have airbases yet. I think the Allies may be ready to move that way in a few weeks.

Burma: 37 Japanese units at Rangoon, one at Pegu. Eventually Miller's going to realize I don't have many units up around Meiktila/Mandalay/Schewbo. Yet he probably can't get too frisky since the Allies do have a building army at Prome.

China: Reshuffling the garrisons continues as the Chinese try to adjust to the loss of Hengyang.

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 834

RE: Developments - 2/2/2010 5:28:20 PM

Canoerebel

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

Round One of Naval Combat at Port Moresby:

Night Time Surface Combat, near Port Moresby at 98,130, Range 11,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
     CA Myoko, Shell hits 2
     CL Jintsu, Shell hits 2
     CL Nagara, Shell hits 2
     CL Natori, Shell hits 2
     DD Asashio
     DD Oshio
     DD Hibiki
     DD Mikazuki, Shell hits 1
     DD Mochizuki, Shell hits 1
     DD Uruyuke, Shell hits 4, on fire
     DD Kosugiri, Shell hits 3, on fire

Allied Ships
     CA Northampton
     CA Pensacola, Shell hits 2
     CL Tromp, Shell hits 4
     CL Danae, Shell hits 1
     DD Russell, Shell hits 2, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
     DD Walke
     DD Drayton
     DD Selfridge, Shell hits 2, on fire
     DD Barker

Round Two of Naval Combat at Port Moresby:

Day Time Surface Combat, near Port Moresby at 97,131, Range 29,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
     CA Myoko, Shell hits 2
     CL Nagara, Shell hits 4
     CL Natori, Shell hits 4, on fire
     DD Asashio, Shell hits 1
     DD Oshio, Shell hits 2, on fire
     DD Hibiki
     DD Mikazuki, Shell hits 1, on fire
     DD Mochizuki, Shell hits 1, on fire
     DD Uruyuke

Allied Ships
     CA Northampton
     CA Pensacola, Shell hits 2
     CL Tromp, Shell hits 3
     CL Danae, Shell hits 4, on fire
     DD Walke, Shell hits 2
     DD Drayton, Shell hits 1
     DD Selfridge, Shell hits 2
     DD Barker, Shell hits 1, on fire

Number of LB (barges) sunk at Milne Bay: 63. Question: Is this something that a Japanese player would even feel?

(in reply to Canoerebel)

Post #: 835

RE: Developments - 2/2/2010 5:59:57 PM

Q-Ball

Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline

He can get the barges back in 30 days, and you got no points for them. Probably won't hurt him hardly at all.

37 units at Rangoon, and ONE at Pegu? That's strange. Take Pegu, and Rangoon is cut-off. An airbase at Prome, with an AIR HQ, some Beauforts and Vengence bombers, would make a sea evacuation from Rangoon quite expensive. Can you scrape up enough guys to threaten Pegu? Why don't you build-out Prome, find some planes that can kills ships, then send troops down the Pegu road? Either you will kill lots of ships, or he will retreat to Siam, either one probably works for you.

_____________________________

(in reply to Canoerebel)

Post #: 836

RE: Developments - 2/2/2010 6:05:47 PM

Canoerebel

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

I'm building the fields at both Prome and Bessien (the latter is a base adjacent, but across-river, from Rangoon).� My hold on these two bases is pretty secure.

Advancing down the road from Mandalay is a weak mishmash of Chinese and Burmese troops.� I have a Japanese unit or two in the rear (up near Myitkyina) and I have to guard against paratroops taking a base and cutting my line of retreat.� I can advance and threaten Pegu, but it would be a force of about 500 AV Chinese.� I'm not sure I want to give Miller a crack at seeing how weak my force is. Time is on my side - as I build up Prome's garrison that will deter Miller from weakening Rangoon by moving troops out toward Mandalay.

Base forces for Prome are on the way from Akyag.� I'll probably have to base fighters there, though, as Miller has a big force of aircraft (200+) at Rangoon.

< Message edited by Canoerebel -- 2/2/2010 6:06:18 PM >

(in reply to Q-Ball)

Post #: 837

RE: Developments - 2/2/2010 6:19:23 PM

Q-Ball

Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline

I am thinking that project is going to take a couple months, both to build the airbases, move in base troops, and also get more troops on the Pegu Road. You should think about buying an Indian Division or two and sending them into Burma to move south. You're ahead of schedule, so you have time to get the forces together.

I agree you don't want to show your hand. If you get another 2-3 divisions on that Axis, and prep them for Pegu, you can rush Pegu and hold it, creating a real problem for Miller.

_____________________________

(in reply to Canoerebel)

Post #: 838

RE: Developments - 2/2/2010 6:45:30 PM

Canoerebel

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

I've already bought out one Indian division, using it to bolster the garrison at Prome, which sits at about 1000 AV.

I currently have about 1300 Political Points. I need to buy a US Army division that's sitting at San Diego. Next on my list after that will be another Indian division.

(in reply to Q-Ball)

Post #: 839

RE: Developments - 2/2/2010 7:53:09 PM

Chickenboy

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

SoPac:� Still no opposition to the Allied landing at Tabiteau, near Tarawa.� I'm mulling over whether to employ the Allied carriers in support of an invasion of Tarawa, or even whether to proceed with the invasion.� Recon shows four units at Tarawa - probably a mixed brigade and some support.

Hi Canoerebel,

I'm not sure what you stand to gain by risking an amphibious assault into the Gilberts at this stage. Due to your early offensive into the Southern DEI, you've opened up THE front that you're looking for. This sideshow at Tarawa will not help you bring strategic bombing to the HI or destroy Japan's oil supplies.

Congrats on identifying and 'plucking' Tabiteau, but I'd leave well enough alone and redirect your offensive thrust into the soft underbelly of the DEI. The risk that you incur of getting your invasion ambushed and comprehensively destroyed is not worth the strategic gain, IMO.

_____________________________

(in reply to Canoerebel)

Post #: 840