RE: Situation 08/16/45

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: Situation 08/16/45

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 >> RE: Situation 08/16/45

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Situation 08/16/45 - 5/30/2010 4:46:47 AM

sfbaytf

Posts: 1122
Joined: 4/13/2005
Status: offline

That probably made a difference in losses. Also this particular turn I didn't fly sweeps over airbases like I did the previous turns.

I did have LR CAP the previous turn over the invasion hexes, but once again didn't fly them this turn. I also had the carrier range turned down-in the past I had the fighters spend too much time flying sweeps over 1 or 2 ML's TF's near the Home Islands.

Part of the reason I had so many dispersed fleets was to send some SAG's off to kill the 1-2 element IJN TF's so my carriers wouldn't be wasting sorties on them. I figured I would be seeing tons of these sacrificial lamb TFs and I wanted to kill them with SAG'S and not have my carriers waste launching strikes against them.

(in reply to topeverest)

Post #: 31

RE: Situation 08/16/45 - 5/30/2010 4:49:46 AM

sfbaytf

Posts: 1122
Joined: 4/13/2005
Status: offline

Actually the ships were at full ammo and fully upgraded. Experience was average to above average. I do have to admit I did think that by this point my flak would be a lot more effective, but once again, I'm not going to use that as an excuse.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy
All sorts of explanations for why flak may not have been as effective as historical in this turn, Jim.

Just this turn eh? Look at the war totals then and you get the same less than 10% levels. Total losses: 64,203, flak losses: 6,258. Looks pretty consistent to me. And far too low to be anywhere close to historical. Historically more than 50% of all planes lost to hostile fire were lost to flak.

Jim

Not interested in your recitation of facts from the Second World War, Jim. The ships in this game turn could have been low on AAA ammo (it's been known to happen), been poorly experienced, etc., etc., etc.

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 32

RE: Situation 08/16/45 - 5/30/2010 11:23:05 AM

Miller

Posts: 2226
Joined: 9/14/2004
From: Ashington, England.
Status: offline

I always assumed that as the Allies grew ever stronger the Jap player should seek out the final big battle asap. Seems that this is not always the case.........

(in reply to sfbaytf)

Post #: 33

RE: Situation 08/16/45 - 5/30/2010 11:49:33 AM

Sardaukar

Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Miller

I always assumed that as the Allies grew ever stronger the Jap player should seek out the final big battle asap. Seems that this is not always the case.........

The idea of "Decisive Battle" did not work for Japan that well in real life either...

_____________________________

"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von B�lov, 1870-

(in reply to Miller)

Post #: 34

RE: Situation 08/16/45 - 5/30/2010 1:47:01 PM

vonTirpitz

Posts: 511
Joined: 3/1/2005
From: Wilmington, NC
Status: offline

I have the distinct impression that a good portion of the flak damage inflicted on my planes result in higher Operational losses.

Even if the losses are not a perfect representation of "historical" expectations there is a good chance that it isn't as bad as some like to believe.

quote:

ORIGINAL: sfbaytf

Actually the ships were at full ammo and fully upgraded. Experience was average to above average. I do have to admit I did think that by this point my flak would be a lot more effective, but once again, I'm not going to use that as an excuse.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy
All sorts of explanations for why flak may not have been as effective as historical in this turn, Jim.

Just this turn eh? Look at the war totals then and you get the same less than 10% levels. Total losses: 64,203, flak losses: 6,258. Looks pretty consistent to me. And far too low to be anywhere close to historical. Historically more than 50% of all planes lost to hostile fire were lost to flak.

Jim

Not interested in your recitation of facts from the Second World War, Jim. The ships in this game turn could have been low on AAA ammo (it's been known to happen), been poorly experienced, etc., etc., etc.

(in reply to sfbaytf)

Post #: 35

RE: Situation 08/16/45 - 5/30/2010 5:53:36 PM

sfbaytf

Posts: 1122
Joined: 4/13/2005
Status: offline

This was an unusual situation. I was operating near the Home Islands and as already mention the carrier game mechanics doesn't handle that well.

Also Japan can produce more planes with 100% quality (no defects-and no suffering from poor fuel quality) and man them with pilots that was historically the case.

At this point in the game I could have just continued the fire bombing and force a auto victory in a month or 2. I could also drop some nukes. I don't see much fun in that so I decided to try and invade. In hindsight I should have waited longer.

I think in 6-12 months after more players get to this point we'll see how balanced the game is and where the defects are.

As the saying goes-you can tell a pioneer by the arrows in their back.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Miller

I always assumed that as the Allies grew ever stronger the Jap player should seek out the final big battle asap. Seems that this is not always the case.........

(in reply to Miller)

Post #: 36

RE: Situation 08/16/45 - 5/30/2010 5:57:09 PM

USSAmerica

Posts: 18715
Joined: 10/28/2002
From: Graham, NC, USA
Status: offline

Holy pure carnage, Batman!

_____________________________

Mike

"Good times will set you free" - Jimmy Buffett

"They need more rum punch" - Me

Artwork by The Amazing Dixie

(in reply to sfbaytf)

Post #: 37

RE: Situation 08/16/45 - 5/30/2010 6:00:18 PM

sfbaytf

Posts: 1122
Joined: 4/13/2005
Status: offline

That it was. My opponent surrounded my fleet with numerous ones and just came charging.

(in reply to USSAmerica)

Post #: 38

RE: Situation 08/16/45 - 5/30/2010 6:31:31 PM

BLurking

Posts: 199
Joined: 3/24/2005
From: Frisco, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: sfbaytf

Also Japan can produce more planes with 100% quality (no defects-and no suffering from poor fuel quality) and man them with pilots that was historically the case.

At this point in the game I could have just continued the fire bombing and force a auto victory in a month or 2. I could also drop some nukes. I don't see much fun in that so I decided to try and invade. In hindsight I should have waited longer.

Since this game is pretty much at an end, I'll let the Allies in on a secret. Target engine factories. HI, supply, fuel, armaments, vehicles, merchant and naval ship reserves can be stocked up. But the drain on engines is a neverending hassle for the Empire. And mid-summer '45 The Emperor was shocked to discover that his final generation aircraft were switching to Mitsubishi from Nakajima. The industrial switchover nearly wrecked Japan's economy. Target specific aircraft and engine factories, and the Empire will crumble that much quicker.

Oh, and JFBs - never, ever, ever expand HI or factories in the Home Islands if you can help it. Crank up the factories in SE Asia and Manchukuo, where the Allies have a tougher time hitting it. And you don't lose strategic points when it gets nailed. Strategic bombing is cake in AE - night or day - so don't give the Allies any freebies by expanding factories they can easily crush...

(in reply to sfbaytf)

Post #: 39

RE: Situation 08/16/45 - 5/30/2010 6:37:02 PM

BLurking

Posts: 199
Joined: 3/24/2005
From: Frisco, TX
Status: offline

HI situation at present. As you can see, there are probably 4-5 months stockpile left - even if the existing factories were to be wiped out instantly:

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by BLurking -- 5/30/2010 6:39:20 PM >

(in reply to sfbaytf)

Post #: 40

RE: Situation 08/16/45 - 5/30/2010 6:43:24 PM

BLurking

Posts: 199
Joined: 3/24/2005
From: Frisco, TX
Status: offline

Engine production, on the other hand, was falling off a cliff:

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by BLurking -- 5/30/2010 6:44:06 PM >

(in reply to BLurking)

Post #: 41

RE: Situation 08/16/45 - 5/30/2010 9:37:09 PM

topeverest

Posts: 3376
Joined: 10/17/2007
From: Houston, TX - USA
Status: offline

Good lessons here. Thanks for posting...even if they may be painful for some.

_____________________________

Andy M

(in reply to BLurking)

Post #: 42

RE: Situation 08/16/45 - 5/30/2010 11:54:58 PM

sfbaytf

Posts: 1122
Joined: 4/13/2005
Status: offline

Good lesson for sure. Painful? l not really for me. I'm very satisfied with my results regardless of the last bloodbath. Sure its never pleasant to see your carriers get torched. On the other hand I managed to get closer to Japan than historically was the case and decided to try to invade the HI. May not have worked out the way I expected and there are things I could have and should have done, but that's the way it goes. You learn from you mistakes and you move on.

Don't spend time dwelling on it.

I'm sure my opponent is satisfied he made it past the historical surrender date. I'm glad I did better this time around then my first PBEM campaign game. Next time I know to target the engine factories.

A game this complex means you're going to make mistakes. Playing 2 day turns magnifies that. Had we been playing 1 day turns I would have easily escaped much of the carnage. That's another thing everyone has to keep in mind-the time frame.

Playing 2 day turns means you're really rolling the dice...

(in reply to topeverest)

Post #: 43

RE: Situation 08/16/45 - 5/31/2010 12:41:23 PM

Jim D Burns

Posts: 4013
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Salida, CA.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy
Not interested in your recitation of facts from the Second World War, Jim. The ships in this game turn could have been low on AAA ammo (it's been known to happen), been poorly experienced, etc., etc., etc.

The totals I listed were from his screenshot above, not the actual war...

Jim

_____________________________

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 44

RE: Situation 08/16/45 - 5/31/2010 1:05:01 PM

JuanG

Posts: 906
Joined: 12/28/2008
Status: offline

Wow, wonderful clash there. Way to go.

Satisfying to see the surface combatants throwing their weight around here too, particularly Musashi and Alaska, both of whom seem to have done exceptionally well. That was also a close call for the USN CVTF the first time when it was missed at 7,000yards by the IJN SCTF.

< Message edited by JuanG -- 5/31/2010 1:06:29 PM >

_____________________________

Coral Sea HDM
AltWNT Scenarios

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 45

RE: Situation 08/16/45 - 6/3/2010 3:54:49 AM

Tophat1815

Posts: 1824
Joined: 1/16/2006
Status: offline

Notes to self: Bomb engine factories..........................check

(in reply to JuanG)

Post #: 46

RE: Situation 08/16/45 - 6/3/2010 4:09:11 AM

jomni

Posts: 2827
Joined: 11/19/2007
Status: offline

RE flak:
I thought we were complaining that flak is powerful a few months ago (pre-CAP flak).

_____________________________

My Blog
Random Wargame Name Generator

(in reply to Tophat1815)

Post #: 47

RE: Situation 08/16/45 - 6/3/2010 8:30:34 PM

Chickenboy

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy
Not interested in your recitation of facts from the Second World War, Jim. The ships in this game turn could have been low on AAA ammo (it's been known to happen), been poorly experienced, etc., etc., etc.

The totals I listed were from his screenshot above, not the actual war...

Jim

Yes, and your 'seems low' conclusion (re: numbers of AA casualties) from the turn is without foundation. Seems low versus IRL? Seems low versus your experiences in the game in an Olympic-sized attack on Kyushu, circa 1945?

I would imagine that, even if AA ammo bunkers on the in game TFs were full at the beginning of the turn, they certainly were running 'winchester' towards the end. This combat replay was SO long with each TF engaged and then re-engaged over a two day turn period, before AA stores could be replaced.

I think there are more mundane explanations of WHY AA was limited in Day 2 other than 'the AA model in the game is borked' compared to IRL. That was my point.

_____________________________

(in reply to Jim D Burns)

Post #: 48

RE: Situation 08/16/45 - 6/4/2010 12:41:52 AM

BLurking

Posts: 199
Joined: 3/24/2005
From: Frisco, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

I would imagine that, even if AA ammo bunkers on the in game TFs were full at the beginning of the turn, they certainly were running 'winchester' towards the end. This combat replay was SO long with each TF engaged and then re-engaged over a two day turn period, before AA stores could be replaced.

I think there are more mundane explanations of WHY AA was limited in Day 2 other than 'the AA model in the game is borked' compared to IRL. That was my point.

Now that's an interesting point I hadn't thought of - I do know that when playing 2 day turns that fleets set to auto-disband don't do so even if hitting port on the first day. So, are AA bunkers getting replenished automatically on the second day if AEs are present? In '45 I believe that should be the case. My attacking surface groups and carrier reaction may have caused the Allied fleet to get so disorganized that replenishment wasn't possible.

Something to think about...

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 49

RE: Situation 08/16/45 - 6/4/2010 4:13:56 PM

morganbj

Posts: 3634
Joined: 8/12/2007
From: Mosquito Bite, Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

My goodness! What a bloodbath. It took me 10 minutes to quickly scroll through that turn-it must have taken an hour and a half for resolution!

That's why you nuke 'em and call it over.

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 50