RE: 1942”N1ŒŽ5“ú

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: 1942”N1ŒŽ5“ú

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: 1942”N1ŒŽ5“ú

Page: << < prev 3 4 5 [6] 7 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: 1942”N1ŒŽ5“ú - 3/30/2010 4:55:01 AM

witpqs

Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

Grotius,

For the record, I think they are giving you the right advice. But I nearly busted a gut laughing when I saw this new post in Harry's AAR "Three SAGs jump the KB."

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2391818&mpage=2�

(in reply to SqzMyLemon)

Post #: 151

RE: 1942”N1ŒŽ4“ú - 3/30/2010 8:06:30 AM

LoBaron

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy
F1M2 Pete: 26 in pool, 3/month; Halt immediately in favor of Jake. Don't think it's gamey to use and focus on the best plane design available to you instead of producing and using lesser airframes.

Short legged nimble bird
With teeth and claws
Every sub commanders´dream

Actually they are quite nice float planes for submarines. The reaction range of subs is now 1, so I mostly limit my search range to that and they are nimble and quite hard to shoot
down. Survivability and service rating plus a couple of more guns would be my choice for those missions.
Although I´d stop after the pool is big enough to bring your floatplane carrying subs through the war.

Great AAR!

Edit: I probably just gave the perfect demonstration how to not write a Haiku but just had to do it...

< Message edited by LoBaron -- 3/30/2010 8:08:35 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 152

RE: 1942”N1ŒŽ5“ú - 3/30/2010 3:26:51 PM

Chickenboy

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Grotius,

For the record, I think they are giving you the right advice. But I nearly busted a gut laughing when I saw this new post in Harry's AAR "Three SAGs jump the KB."

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2391818&mpage=2?

Yes, an amusing title for a post. But please read the entire day's events.

Perhaps Herwin takes pride in 'jumping the KB' ineffectually. The scattered supernumerary SCTFs are cut to ribbons later in the day since they didn't take KB out of action. Trying to guess KBs location with small, weak TFs and 'luck out' with a torpedo hit on an a/c carrier is a nice way to get pretty much all of your ships sunk.

The lesson learned from that AAR is that an allied player needs patience before trying to engage the IJN early in the war. Squeezemylemon is right: make him dance to your music now. Force him to do what you will. You've got the power, use it to effect.

_____________________________

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 153

RE: 1942”N1ŒŽ5“ú - 3/30/2010 5:30:02 PM

witpqs

Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

I read the whole thing. I thought referring Grotius to it to make his own assessment was better than me giving my take on it.

For what it's worth, I think the risk/reward profile of that engagement is less clear cut than you do. Things could have turned out worse for the KB. Was the loss of those assets worth that chance? Or, was it wiser to keep those assets sort of as a 'fleet in being' and just threaten KB? I think if the enemy knows you are only demonstrating then there is no threat. You must be known to be willing to attack for there to be a threat perceived.

I still agree with the advice already given to Grotius here. Just keep KB moving - maybe even give them a small patrol zone so they stay in position but are more difficult to intercept.

There is always risk. Just manage it.

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 154

RE: 1942”N1ŒŽ5“ú - 3/30/2010 5:35:49 PM

Grotius

Posts: 5798
Joined: 10/18/2002
From: The Imperial Palace.
Status: offline

quote:

Teach your enemy
To remember why it is
He fears the cruel sea

I have no idea if these are any good, but I gave it a shot

*bows to 私のレモンを絞るさん (My-Lemon-Squeezing-san)*
Excellent contribution, 私のレモンを絞るさん. "Cruel sea" is a compelling image, and you have the perfect number of syllables, 5/7/5. (Not that I'm a stickler about that -- any short three-line poem can be a beautiful haiku, something that captures vivid images in a few words.) In general, I have been impressed by the quality of haiku that have been contributed to this account; I thought no one but me would be willing to try it. :)

quote:

But I nearly busted a gut laughing when I saw this new post in Harry's AAR "Three SAGs jump the KB."

*scambles to figure out how to say "witpqs" in 日本語* Erm, *bows to witpqs-さん*
My worst nightmare! My opponent just lives to send surface ships charging in everywhere. In fact, the day after the Pearl Harbor attack, he had surface ships out, trying to force a surface engagement against KB.

quote:

Perhaps Herwin takes pride in 'jumping the KB' ineffectually. The scattered supernumerary SCTFs are cut to ribbons later in the day since they didn't take KB out of action.

You're surely correct, 鳥少年さん (Chickenboy-san -- actually "Birdboy-san" because it looks cooler in kanji). I continue to plan to abide by your advice. But for the record, Herwin got something out of it, I suppose; this from the first surface-combat action:

CV Soryu, Shell hits 2
CV Shokaku, Shell hits 2, Torpedo hits 1
CV Zuikaku, Shell hits 1

quote:

Short legged nimble bird
With teeth and claws
Every sub commanders´dream

*bows to ロバロンさん (Lobaron-san)* Excellent contribution, ロバロンさん, thank you. I also favor "bird" images when composing verse about aircraft, and there are plenty of birds to draw on as examples. But I am curious about your defense of the F1M2 Pete. It sounds like you use them instead of the Glen on submarines? Or do you like them for ASW in general, on board surface ships? One advantage of the Jake is that it can prosecute submarines further away, helping to flush them out. A detected submarine is a less effective one. But I hadn't considered the Pete's service rating or guns; I will have a closer look.

< Message edited by Grotius -- 3/30/2010 5:37:58 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 155

RE: 1942”N1ŒŽ5“ú - 3/30/2010 7:27:03 PM

Chickenboy

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs
You must be known to be willing to attack for there to be a threat perceived.

Disagree. A player who only perceives a threat after a history of previous attacks is not very open minded. A wise player should be open to unknown or potential threats, regardless of history.

quote:

There is always risk. Just manage it.

Agree.

_____________________________

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 156

RE: 1942”N1ŒŽ5“ú - 3/30/2010 7:51:54 PM

Chickenboy

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Grotius

You're surely correct, 鳥少年さん (Chickenboy-san -- actually "Birdboy-san" because it looks cooler in kanji). I continue to plan to abide by your advice. But for the record, Herwin got something out of it, I suppose; this from the first surface-combat action:

Here's the other side of those exchanges, with repeats only listed once (the last time they were attacked):

1: DD Jupiter, Shell hits 1, and is sunk

2: DD John D. Edwards, Shell hits 1
DD Parrott, Shell hits 1
DD Stewart, Shell hits 1

3. DD Kortenaer, Bomb hits 2, heavy fires, heavy damage

4. DD Whipple, Bomb hits 3, and is sunk
CA Houston, Bomb hits 8, heavy fires, heavy damage
DD Bulmer, Bomb hits 1, heavy fires, heavy damage

5. DD Encounter, Bomb hits 5, heavy fires, heavy damage
CL Mauritius, Bomb hits 3, heavy fires, heavy damage

6. DD Stronghold, Bomb hits 2, heavy fires, heavy damage
DD Isis, Bomb hits 2, heavy fires, heavy damage

7. CL Boise, Bomb hits 3, heavy fires

8. DD Van Nes, Bomb hits 5, and is sunk
DD Banckert, Bomb hits 1, heavy fires
DD Evertsen, Bomb hits 3, and is sunk
CL Tromp, Bomb hits 2, and is sunk
DD Van Ghent, Bomb hits 1, and is sunk
CL Java, Bomb hits 2, heavy fires, heavy damage
DD Witte de With, heavy fires, heavy damage
CL De Ruyter, Bomb hits 2, and is sunk

I count:
12 x DDs confirmed sunk / probable sunk
5 x CLs confirmed sunk / probable sunk
1 x CA confirmed sunk / probable sunk

Damaged:
3x DD

On the IJN side: some shell damage to 4 or 5 CVs / CVLs and (maybe) a torpedo hit against a fleet carrier. That may be FOW.

Grotious-san: This is a wholesale slaughter. I'd take this exchange any day of the week. This is as poor a showing as Savo island was for the allies-a complete and total drubbing. Looking at it as anything else is disingenuous.

Your goal is to kill and destroy. If your opponent opts to sell his life cheaply by exposing himself to your fire in a nonsensical naval charge, so much the better.

_____________________________

(in reply to Grotius)

Post #: 157

RE: 1942”N1ŒŽ5“ú - 3/30/2010 9:38:16 PM

CapAndGown

Posts: 3206
Joined: 3/6/2001
From: Virginia, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

I count:
12 x DDs confirmed sunk / probable sunk
5 x CLs confirmed sunk / probable sunk
1 x CA confirmed sunk / probable sunk

Damaged:
3x DD

On the IJN side: some shell damage to 4 or 5 CVs / CVLs and (maybe) a torpedo hit against a fleet carrier. That may be FOW.

Grotious-san: This is a wholesale slaughter. I'd take this exchange any day of the week. This is as poor a showing as Savo island was for the allies-a complete and total drubbing. Looking at it as anything else is disingenuous.

Your goal is to kill and destroy. If your opponent opts to sell his life cheaply by exposing himself to your fire in a nonsensical naval charge, so much the better.

I concur. This is what I meant when I said that if he sallies his surface forces they will die.

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 158

RE: 1942”N1ŒŽ5“ú - 3/30/2010 11:13:10 PM

Grotius

Posts: 5798
Joined: 10/18/2002
From: The Imperial Palace.
Status: offline

quote:

Grotious-san: This is a wholesale slaughter. I'd take this exchange any day of the week.

No argument there, Cap-san -- even if there was a torpedo hit on the carrier. I'd take it too.

_____________________________

(in reply to CapAndGown)

Post #: 159

RE: 1942”N1ŒŽ5“ú - 3/31/2010 1:42:51 AM

Xxzard

Posts: 440
Joined: 9/28/2008
From: Arizona
Status: offline

It's not fair to put F1M's on subs, that's not what they are for, and it is by no stretch of the imagination possible in real life. The Glen was a specially designed plane, and if you look at some of the stats, that is very clear. It is a very small plane, very light. The F1M Pete could not possibly fit inside a sub hanger.

What is the Pete useful for? Well, discounting some fairly impressive stats that might help it take on light bombers, it isn't better than the Jake. Of course, that's the point of the advice given to you earlier, to stop producing it in favor of the Jake.

_____________________________

(in reply to Grotius)

Post #: 160

RE: 1942”N1ŒŽ5“ú - 3/31/2010 3:10:33 AM

Grotius

Posts: 5798
Joined: 10/18/2002
From: The Imperial Palace.
Status: offline

quote:

It's not fair to put F1M's on subs, that's not what they are for, and it is by no stretch of the imagination possible in real life. T

I agree, and I wouldn't do that -- I keep only Glens on subs, and even those I use only sparingly, mostly for recon. (I have had one reconning Port Moresby off and on, for example.) In fact, as I recall, the tabular records of movement of Japanese submarines suggest Glens were used more for recon than for air-search, although I'm willing to use them on air-search on occasion. I do use them for air search on occasion, but they have a high rate of operational loss if one leaves them on naval search turn after turn. Actually, I plan to recon San Francisco or Seattle once or twice just to tweak my opponent. :)

But I was interested in the suggestion that the F1M2 Pete might be superior to the Jake in some ways, since the Jake is so obviously superior in range. I asked because I am in the process of upgrading some land-based Petes to Jakes, and I'm curious whether I'm losing anything by doing so.

_____________________________

(in reply to Xxzard)

Post #: 161

RE: 1942”N1ŒŽ5“ú - 3/31/2010 10:03:49 AM

LoBaron

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

Thank you Grotius-san. *bows*

I did not consider that using Petes on submarines could be understood as gamey by many. Though I don´t think its gamey per default
this surely should be discussed with an opponent.
Rob Brennan-san, old foe, what do you say on this topic?

Their use on surface vessels does not make much sense because of its range limitations, but I like its versability for some secondary missions:

- Point defense ASW (e.g. a harbor hex)
- Point defense CAP in low threat areas (actually they do quite ok on this mission if kept in the optimum alt band)
- Close range naval search/interdiction

That said it does not really cover any areas where the Rufe wouldn´t be the better choice. In fact this is one of the most underestimated planes in my opinion,
the reason probably because it often arrives with pilots that are not trained in A2A. But this is nothing a bit of training can´t solve.

You have the airframes. If you find the niches where its limitations don´t have too much impact its a good plane for the task.
The manouverability of 36 in the lower alt bands is not shared by many other aircraft. It won´t beat a specialized fighter but with all this talk
about speed and altitude one tends to forget that manouverability has an impact too.

Edit: On second thought, I accept that using the Pete on subs is gamey if Xxxard´s comment is correct, and no imaginable modification would enable the
airframe to be stored in submarine hangars. I am not a float plane expert.

I still do not agree that the Jake perfectly covers the Petes area of operations though.

The versability of an airframe is something very valuable. A plane that can accomplish (even if marginally) several different missions is the perfect choice for
remote areas with no powerful immediate threats.

< Message edited by LoBaron -- 3/31/2010 10:44:05 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Grotius)

Post #: 162

RE: 1942”N1ŒŽ5“ú - 3/31/2010 4:33:28 PM

Grotius

Posts: 5798
Joined: 10/18/2002
From: The Imperial Palace.
Status: offline

*bows to LoBaron-san* Thank you for your further comments.

quote:

Point defense CAP in low threat areas (actually they do quite ok on this mission if kept in the optimum alt band)

Now I hadn't thought of that. Certainly worth a try.

quote:

Close range naval search/interdiction

Likewise, hadn't thought of trying to use them for close-range interdiction. I did just use some Petes in a recon role, in my belated invasion of Guam, and they performed very nicely.

quote:

I accept that using the Pete on subs is gamey if Xxxard´s comment is correct

I'm pretty sure he's right. Before AE came out, this was an increasingly common house rule in WITP PBEMs: only Glens on IJN submarines. In fact, some people went further and put restrictions on their use for naval search, since there are indications that they were used more as a recon craft historically. I permit myself some naval search, but I fly as much recon as search with my Glens.

Incidentally, the Glen was certainly a good idea -- just not the best-implemented one, I guess, as they proved very difficult for sub crews to manage while under way. Other navies, not just the Japanese, experimented with the notion. I gather sub-based aircraft never really "took off" (haha) after World War II, what with the advent of the helicopter and other technologies. (Remember that chopper rendez-vous scene in "The Hunt for Red October"? Fun!) Still, I understand there may be some continuing interest in something similar even today. I'm hardly an expert on it, but would be interested to learn more.

_____________________________

(in reply to LoBaron)

Post #: 163

RE: 1942”N1ŒŽ5“ú - 3/31/2010 4:44:25 PM

Canoerebel

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

Hey, Grotius, I'm enjoying your AAR and awaiting the next inspiration for my efforts at haiku.

You have mentioned several times that I am more experienced with the game than you, but I could swear you've been around a long, long time. I seem to remember you from UV days.

Well, I just checked your avatar and see you joined the forums in late October 2002. I joined in early December 2002. So by date of rank you are my superior!

(in reply to Grotius)

Post #: 164

RE: 1942”N1ŒŽ5“ú - 3/31/2010 7:06:06 PM

Grotius

Posts: 5798
Joined: 10/18/2002
From: The Imperial Palace.
Status: offline

Hiya Canoerebel-san,

Thanks for checking in! I'm also enjoying your AAR; I check it every day.

Yes, I've been here forever -- I did indeed play UV, including a couple fun UV PBEMs. I think UV is what brought me to these forums in the first place. In fact, this last couple of turns has had me thinking back to the first time I invaded Port Moresby in a PBEM, many years go -- in UV. Back then, as I recall, you could put your CVs right in the port hex with no detriment; they later patched it to decrease the effectiveness of carrier aircraft in a base hex. So I think I sailed KB right into the harbor at PM, on follow mode with the transports. One doesn't do that anymore. :)

I'm really new to AE -- I didn't play it much at all when it first came out, as Maikarant and I decided to wait for a couple patches before starting our PBEM, and I wasn't in the mood to play a full game against the AI. So this is really my first full game, although I did play enough AI turns to see that the AI is much improved. I find I keep having to "unlearn" stuff I "knew" from WITP, which makes me feel like a beginner. And I've always been a bit uncomfortable playing Japan; as the Allies, one has a bit more margin for error. But Maikarant (who is a member of my "guild" from RPGs) loves playing the Allies, so Japan it is. Now I'm glad of it; this game has actually inspired me to renew my study of Japanese, and I'm now obsessively studying kanji every day. I'm up to 750 or so learned, with a goal of 2000.

I may be a couple months older than you in terms of forum membership, but you have far more AE experience than I do, especially as your game is now in 1944. Two-day turns helps, I imagine. At the rate Maikarant and I are going, we won't get to 1944 until 2020 or something. But it's about the journey, not the destination, right?

_____________________________

(in reply to Canoerebel)

Post #: 165

RE: 1942”N1ŒŽ5“ú - 4/1/2010 1:25:28 PM

gladiatt

Posts: 2576
Joined: 4/10/2008
Status: offline

All destination are at end of the trail
The journey always beggin
Let's start the trip

_____________________________

(in reply to Grotius)

Post #: 166

RE: 1942”N1ŒŽ5“ú - 4/3/2010 3:04:31 AM

Xxzard

Posts: 440
Joined: 9/28/2008
From: Arizona
Status: offline

Not to beat it to death or anything, but to be clear, here is my justification for calling the use of F1M's on subs gamey:

Some of the basic length-wingspan stats are comparable, but that is mostly due to the differences of monoplane vs biplane. But there is one very telling stat:

Loaded weight of E14Y Glen: 1,450 kg (3,197 lb) (with a 340hp engine)

Loaded weight of F1M Pete: 2,550 kg (5,622 lb) (with a 875hp engine)

I doubt a sub size catapult could handle the Pete, even if it fit, which it wouldn't because of non-folding wings and such. Hence you get the Glen, which is certainly a cool plane, and to be fair it was the best implemented of all of the very small family of experimental sub-aircraft.

_____________________________

(in reply to gladiatt)

Post #: 167

RE: ”o‹å : ƒOƒƒeƒBƒEƒX v. ƒ}ƒB‚©ƒ‰ƒkƒb ƒe (AAR by... - 4/5/2010 7:01:13 AM

kevin_hx

Posts: 156
Joined: 1/20/2008
From: China
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: yubari

日本語上手
機動部隊はどこ
にあるかなー？

Well, it almost fits.

能显示汉语？

(in reply to yubari)

Post #: 168

1942年1月6日 - 4/8/2010 5:30:53 PM

Grotius

Posts: 5798
Joined: 10/18/2002
From: The Imperial Palace.
Status: offline

1942年1月6日

Frightened fish flee sharks;
Samurai approach More Bees;
brass hide in Tokyo

-----------------------------------------

Excellency, our air search spotted absolutely zero surface ships in the vicinity of New Guinea, vindicating my War Council, who correctly predicted that any remaining enemy surface vessels would flee. This time our air search blanketed the entire vicinity, and we spotted nothing. Our transports, carrying the 4th Division, are now just 160 miles south of Port Moresby and should land tomorrow. BB Hiei is now in the transport task force, along with several destroyers.

Also, whereas our recon spotted 12,000 troops at Moresby yesterday, today we see 7,000. The Kido Butai was ordered to follow a surface-combat group stationed south of Port Moresby, but for some reason the aircraft carriers moved very slowly, and they are still separated from the surface group by 80 miles. We shall reunite the groups today.

The strangest development, however, was that as the 23rd Air Flotilla landed at Rabaul, simultaneously a fragment of the same unit arrived as a "reinforcement" at Tokyo. And, on the same turn, all the ground units that had been "organizing" suddenly disappeared from the ground-troop-reinforcement menu. I trust this is all the normal workings of war, and indeed the arrival of the fragment probably is part of the recent war-fix that solved the disappearing-fragment "bug." Unfortunately, however, the arrival of the "fragment" seems to have designated it, and not the main force residing in Rabaul, as the "headquarters." Consequently, I am unable to draw torpedoes at Rabaul for my G4M bombers.

Is there any chance the designations will be reversed in a coming day, so that the fragment becomes subordinate, and the main force at Rabaul the "headquarters"? If not, it would appear that I have no choice but to repeat the time-consuming shipment I just carried out: a 2- or 3-week voyage of the remainder of the Air HQ to Rabaul. Quite frustrating!

(In other words, even though I see a torpedo "purchase arrow" at Rabaul, it doesn't do anything. There is 60,000 supply at Rabaul, and the Air HQ itself is well-supplied. But as I understand it, most or all of the Air HQ must be present for it to function. While I appreciate the bug fix, it's rather annoying that the fix has negated my effort to bring torpedoes to the South Pacific. Is there anything I can do, other than ship the LCU fragment from Tokyo to Rabaul? Also, is there any reason to worry about the sudden disappearance of all those "organizing" units -- and in particular, will this fragmentation happen each time I move an Air HQ now?)

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

(in reply to kevin_hx)

Post #: 169

RE: 1942年1月6日 - 4/8/2010 9:32:46 PM

CapAndGown

Posts: 3206
Joined: 3/6/2001
From: Virginia, USA
Status: offline

The main unit is at Rabaul. The fragment at Tokyo is a reinforcement. You have replacements on. Those replacements arrived while the unit was on board ship. Therefore, I believe, the replacement arrived at the base HQ. (You will need to read in the manual just what determines whether replacements arrive back at the main base or are just accepted by the unit on the spot. I think it has to do with supply levels. At any rate, if a unit cannot take replacements where it is at, then a fragment arrives somewhere else.)

Notice the difference between A and B in the picture below. The propeller thingy on the HQ icon indicates that it is the main unit while the designation "HQ" indicates it is the fragment. Also notice at C that there is a "/36" after the unit name. This indicates that it is a sub unit.

To get the main unit to have torpedoes, click the button marked D. A popup text dialog will appear asking how many torpedos you want to have the HQ stock. You can only pick 10 max at a time. Therefore to get 100 torpedoes, you will need to click the button 10 times.

I am not sure why the fragment at Tokyo is allowing you to store torpedoes there. Normally, HQ fragments will not have the ability to provide torpedoes. Maybe this is a weird situation where the reinforcement arrived while the main unit was on board a ship.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Grotius)

Post #: 170

RE: 1942年1月6日 - 4/9/2010 4:29:38 PM

Grotius

Posts: 5798
Joined: 10/18/2002
From: The Imperial Palace.
Status: offline

quote:

To get the main unit to have torpedoes, click the button marked D.

*bows to Cap-san.* But that's just it -- when I click button D, nothing happens. It looks to me like only the fragment can get torpedoes, not the "main" unit.

It's encouraging to hear, though, that the Air HQ is the "main" unit. I'm hoping the passage of a turn or two might "wake it up" and allow it, rather than the fragment, to get torpedoes. If that doesn't happen, I guess I'll have to ship the fragment forward. I did briefly consider "disbanding' the fragment and then allowing its elements to return as replacements, but that seems a rather extreme solution to what will presumably be a short-term (2-3 game-week) problem.

quote:

Maybe this is a weird situation where the reinforcement arrived while the main unit was on board a ship.

It's doubly weird because this fragment appeared on the same day that two other things happened: (1) all those "organizing" LCUs in the ground-reinforcement screen suddenly disappeared from the list; and (2) the 23rd Air Flotilla unloaded at Rabaul.

_____________________________

(in reply to CapAndGown)

Post #: 171

RE: 1942”N1ŒŽ6“ú - 4/9/2010 4:43:16 PM

Canoerebel

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

When house divided
Vexacious fragmentatious
No torps for poor Kate

< Message edited by Canoerebel -- 4/9/2010 4:47:22 PM >

(in reply to Grotius)

Post #: 172

1942年1月7日 - 4/11/2010 6:36:19 PM

Grotius

Posts: 5798
Joined: 10/18/2002
From: The Imperial Palace.
Status: offline

1942年1月7日

Charging through the surf
onto the beach at Moore's Bee
with shouts of "Banzai!"

--------------------------------------

Excellency, the 4th Division has landed intact at Port Moresby. BB Kirishima and her escorts did a fine job of suppressing fire from coastal defense guns, with just a few hits to a couple transports, and no serious damage done to either. We had a minesweeper task force on the scene as well, but no mines were encountered.

No enemy ships encountered. Kido Butai continues to patrol south of Port Moresby, accompanied by a surface force and ASW task forces. To the east, we captured Buna unopposed.

The enemy has five units at Port Moresby, including an Australian Division. That force conducted an automatic bombardment attack, showing an "assault value" of 375 versus our 448. We see something like 12,000 enemy soldiers all told. I hope we have enough to take the place, but if not, I have two regiments in reserve, one at Truk and one at Rabaul. I may move the Truk regiment to Port Moresby now anyway, so as to provide a garrison for Moresby, and to allow the 4th Division to move on to operations in Timor.

As my War Council predicted, the 4th Division's disruption rose to 28 -- not as high as I thought it might, but still high. I am anxious to attack, but I will probably follow my Council's advice and wait a day to allow the Division to regroup and reduce its disruption. I hope it falls significantly.

_____________________________

(in reply to Canoerebel)

Post #: 173

RE: 1942年1月7日 - 4/18/2010 5:47:40 PM

Grotius

Posts: 5798
Joined: 10/18/2002
From: The Imperial Palace.
Status: offline

1942年1月8日

Gooney birds and larks
fly into Port of Moore's Bee
adding to the swarm

---------------------------------

Excellency, the Australians are now reinforcing Port Moresby by air, or so it would appear. Our long-range CAP over Port Moresby intercepted C-47s transporting something in, and the enemy conducted a bombardment attack in which we saw a couple new infantry fragments. Our own troops rested to reduce disruption. We still outnumber the enemy in Assault Value, but the difference is shrinking. I'm already loading a reserve regiment in Truk, and I have another regiment in reserve at Rabaul; I hope all that is enough. I doubt I'll get anywhere near 1:1 odds for a while, but I suppose I should begin my attacks so as to reduce the enemy's forts.

I do have a BB and a few DDs in the task force unloading troops at Port Moresby; I am debating whether to have them detach themselves into a surface-group and bombard PM this coming turn. The only downside is that they'll expend most of their ammo doing so, which would diminish their utility in covering the unloading transports. But all that's left to unload is supply, and the enemy is respecting my carrier-blockade of Port Moresby, so there seems to be little risk in ordering a naval bombardment. The tentative plan is to conduct naval bombardment and, in the same turn, the first (deliberate) ground attack.

I hope the enemy will regret his aggressive defense of Port Moresby. He may well be building himself a prison camp. I'm now taking all the bases surrounding PM. I already have Buna, and this turn I landed at Milne Bay and Madang. I have another invasion force arriving at Finschafen tomorrow. I plan to take Lae, Salamau and Merape as well. If I take all this stuff, I'm not sure he'll have a valid retreat path left. Maybe he will, as I still don't have every other base on the island of New Guinea. But even if he does, I don't know how he'll keep supplying a division of troops with me blockading Moresby with my carrier strike force. Really my only fear is a lucky enemy submarine strike against one of my CVs -- and I do fear that. I've got a zillion ASW assets in the same hex as Kido Butai, but you never know. Is there any other way to mitigate that risk?

In other news, landings in the DEI went smoothly at Sorong and the base to its east. Invasion of Ternate jumps off from Palau today. I am still behind schedule there, but I have picked up the pace.

In the Philippines, most of my bombers didn't make it to Manila because of bad weather -- no doubt the Icelandic volcano is interfering with flight patterns.

< Message edited by Grotius -- 4/18/2010 5:49:29 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Grotius)

Post #: 174

RE: 1942年1月7日 - 4/20/2010 9:15:16 PM

Grotius

Posts: 5798
Joined: 10/18/2002
From: The Imperial Palace.
Status: offline

One question I have is how to minimize the chance of a lucky submarine hit on KB as it blockades Port Moresby. Inevitably the enemy will send swarms of subs toward my carriers; he always does. And my guess is it will be a while before I take PM and use it as a naval/air base.

Right now KB and its accompanying surface and ASW groups appear to be undetected, a few hexes south of PM. (The enemy has no search aircraft on New Guinea at all, it appears.) Should I just stay in this hex? Move around a hex or two a turn?

_____________________________

(in reply to Grotius)

Post #: 175

RE: 1942年1月7日 - 4/20/2010 9:28:59 PM

witpqs

Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

Well, if it is really undetected right now staying put might be OK. Definitely if it is seen I would say move around a few hexes each turn. Overall I think the best thing is to get done and move on before extra subs have time to show up. Of course you need to take counter-measures anyway because he might have some subs on guard duty any time you show up.

(in reply to Grotius)

Post #: 176

RE: 1942年1月7日 - 4/20/2010 9:51:29 PM

Grotius

Posts: 5798
Joined: 10/18/2002
From: The Imperial Palace.
Status: offline

Thanks for your reply.

I also just realized that my surface ships at Port Moresby are already low on ammo because of their pre-invasion support bombardments, so I can't use naval bombardment. With the enemy airlifting in reinforcements, he has almost as much Assault Value in PM as I do now. (I will put up more LRCAP over PM to try to discourage this.) It's thus almost certain that any deliberate attack will fail to achieve 1:1 odds. I know it's important to start wearing down his forts, but ugh, it could be ugly.

Should I delay my deliberate attack a few days until my reserve regiments arrive at PM?

_____________________________

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 177

RE: 1942年1月7日 - 4/20/2010 11:05:46 PM

witpqs

Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

If you have highly experienced troops, good commanders, low fatigue, and low disruption, then you might try a deliberate attack. AFAIK AV does not take troop and commander quality into account, but they do matter a great deal in battle.

EDIT: Forgot to mention morale, too.

< Message edited by witpqs -- 4/20/2010 11:14:01 PM >

(in reply to Grotius)

Post #: 178

RE: 1942年1月7日 - 4/21/2010 12:20:54 AM

CapAndGown

Posts: 3206
Joined: 3/6/2001
From: Virginia, USA
Status: offline

Have you even tried one attack yet? Give it a shot. See what you are really facing. Don't be so discouraged before you have even begun. You have plenty of force available.

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 179

RE: 1942”N1ŒŽ7“ú - 4/21/2010 2:53:44 AM

Chickenboy

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

I'm with Cap-and-gown on this. Your opponent's paper AV values will fall when experience, leaders, his supply level and disruption are factored in. Don't be surprised if you make significant headway with a deliberate attack.

_____________________________

(in reply to CapAndGown)

Post #: 180