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: Off Map Targets

 
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: Off Map Targets Page: <<   < prev  14 15 [16] 17 18   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Off Map Targets - 7/10/2010 3:33:25 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline 		I am in December of my game (scen #2) and can give a few thoughts on it.

Both my opponent and I started it without really knowing the full ramifications but it is playable and fun. However, the first casualty was that any preconcieved notions or planning based on the historcal simulation had to be thrown out.

Biggest factors are. Incredible numbers of Japanese planes and pilots. Japanese air superiority should last until the end of 1942 and relative parity through all of 1943. The ability to make plenty of tojos in 1942 gives the Japanese player the dominant plane until the corsair starts to arrive. (Really not ended until the P47 comes on board in mid 43). The lack of air superiorty will hinder Allied offensive operations in early 1943. KB can replace aircraft and pilots fairly quickly so a big battle with lots of naval air shot down is not a big deal. A smart Japanese player should go after Allied aircraft anytime that he can for the first year of the war. The Allied player just can't produce enough. The real reason is to limit Allied training as "no plane, no train"

Serious boost to land combat capabilites, allowing quicker land campaigns and an accelerated stragetic timetable. The Japanese player should be able to roll right over Singapore, Bataan and be well into OZ or India by June of 1942-if not sooner. Russia is an option and the Allied player has to be prepared for it. China might fall-it not it may be close.

I have not experienced the ramifications of the HI penalty in 1944-45 but am guessing that the advantages in 1942 might outweigh this. Especially since the advantages given to Japan should allow a good player to build up an extensive and deeper defensive perimiter and delay the onset of the Allied advance by six months or longer.

Successful Allied AARs aside, I feel that the only effective plan for an Allied player vs a competent Japanese player is to go Sir Robin. Fight where you can, delay where you can. Don't fight where you will be trapped and don't waste your carriers. Don't plan to come out swinging in 1942 as you can not win an attrition battle in the air. Look to fight the Japanese navy on good terms but don't fret if the chance is not offered and you do not lose any ships.

Scen #2 is nerve wracking on the Allies but you just need to "Rope a Dope" Japan and don't worry if it looks like the war will go into 1946. Keep your wits and you will win.


_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 451
RE: Off Map Targets - 7/10/2010 4:09:01 PM   
bklooste

 

Posts: 1104
Joined: 4/10/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121



Strange as it might seem. I wasn't being touchy... I was simply saying that if you don't like scenario 2 then one shouldn't bother to enter a discussion based around it. I wouldn't as I would find it aggravating to enter a discussion limited by issues I thought were incorrect/wrong. Again though I think you are imputing an emotional basis which simply isn't there. What I will say though is that I find it intensely annoying to be have my own feelings told me by another, especially when I'm then told to chill out for feelings and thoughts I never had. I suggest we chalk it up to a misunderstanding and drop it at this stage.


It just read that way ... Appologies if i got it wrong.

And while i preffer scenario 1 ( or slight mods of it) - since scenario 2 has even less thought than RE i am perfectly happy to work with it ( though i feel i should be allowed to point out my oppinions on it).

_____________________________

Underdog Fanboy

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 452
RE: Off Map Targets - 7/10/2010 4:25:56 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline 		bklooste,

You are, obviously, allowed to post your opinion BUT I think one can handily express an opinion without telling another person what they think, publicly, about a third party, particularly when what you are going to publicly state is negative and potentially inflammatory. I think most people would be perturbed to be on the receiving end of such a statement.

_____________________________

John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.

(in reply to bklooste)
Post #: 453
RE: Off Map Targets - 7/10/2010 4:38:41 PM   
bklooste

 

Posts: 1104
Joined: 4/10/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121


2. I've read the Reluctant Admiral Mod thread in detail. My conclusion is that the various changes aren't sufficiently ( IMO ) linked up, interlinked and mutually supporting in a manner which will support the creation of the flow of operations envisioned. That's an utterly impersonal assessment and it, frankly, disappoints me that you would so quickly impugne my motivations.

3. As to the adjustments being subtle... We obviously have very different views of the meaning of the word subtle.

4. As to the "type of player" I referred to... It seems clear that the mod is big on flash but low on deep strategic consideration of ramifications beyond the superficial level of impacts of changes. As such it will appeal to the type of player who likes flashy opening and the appearance of depth without actually being led into traps, dead-ends and impossible choices between long-term plans ( IOW, forcing people to really analyse things strategically out to 18 months to 2 years in order to make the right decisions ) but I don't consider that it will lead to any significantly more interesting play as it doesn't truly create different strategic options. There's nothing "personal" there, it is my assessment of the mod and the types of players it would appeal to. I resent your implication that other issues would impinge on such an assessment.


I agree it is not coherent / strategic mod ( neither is 2 which is the alternative we are discussing and 2 has a well known flaw ) it is just a tweak pushing things slightly in favour of Japan in a historically plausable way which shows a bit in 43. Version 2 of the mod helps the allies with a few interesting options at the opening and later 42.

I disagree it suits a flash player more which is why i wondered why you made that comment , supply and starting stock piles are reduced and you need to retool and build up engines or build old frames to conserve HI/supplies. In fact the only thing that suits a flash player is the CV exchange which is the main change in the mod and doesnt come in till mid 43 ( 3 Shokakus instead of Taiho , Shinano and the 111 Hull) and in 42 a flash player will do about the same as stock - . In 42 it has some better opening plays for the allies not really Japan . I know a few people thought we have built an uber 4E interceptor but the truth is the new interceptor is worse than the Jack.... and is interesting more from a production and histroical what if point of view.

Personally i have pushed for more counterplay and strategic options but these were seen as unhistorical and not really accepted. Which is fine it is still a decent mod as its historic gives better allied counterplay in 42 and slighly better Japanese in 43 and has the same strategic options than scen 1. In my own i can do what i like and be more a historical in the process .



_____________________________

Underdog Fanboy

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 454
RE: Off Map Targets - 7/10/2010 4:44:25 PM   
bklooste

 

Posts: 1104
Joined: 4/10/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

bklooste,

You are, obviously, allowed to post your opinion BUT I think one can handily express an opinion without telling another person what they think, publicly, about a third party, particularly when what you are going to publicly state is negative and potentially inflammatory. I think most people would be perturbed to be on the receiving end of such a statement.


To true , its always dangerous to give your true thoughts on someone they like to bite back - it just really read that way , anyway i apologize that i got it wrong .

< Message edited by bklooste -- 7/10/2010 4:45:33 PM >

_____________________________

Underdog Fanboy

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 455
RE: Off Map Targets - 7/10/2010 6:17:25 PM   
Capt. Harlock


Posts: 5358
Joined: 9/15/2001
From: Los Angeles
Status: offline
quote:

So, since each PBY carries two torpedoes and each Devastator and British torpedo-carrying plane carries one I should be able to launch (57 x 2) + (120 x 1 ) = 234 torpedoes per alpha strike... That's a damned lot of torpedoes. Of course many of the planes will be shot down before they get to launch but vs unloading merchants I am expecting good results from the torpedo bombers... especially since almost all of them have just sat and trained for the past 3 months. Many of my torpedo-carriers have more than 70 Exp in Naval Torpedo Attacks at this stage ).


Impressive planning. At this stage of the war you will get much better results from British torpedoes than American ones, so I wouldn't count on much from your PBY's especially. (If you run short of torps then those would be the planes to hold back.)

The plan for dealing with the LRCAP also seems sound. (That's quite a lot of B-17's -- I assume you've had to strip a number of other areas to assemble them?)

_____________________________

Civil war? What does that mean? Is there any foreign war? Isn't every war fought between men, between brothers?

--Victor Hugo

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 456
China: Settling Accounts - 7/10/2010 6:49:09 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline 		Yes, I only have about 20 x LB-30 in other areas and some B17s training in the US. But, in reality, this early in the war the Allies just don't have enough bombers or fighters so one must make do with what one has ( and, obviously, try to concentrate it in the most important theatre ).



bklooste,
I think you are failing to get my point... I have no problem with saying what I think about anyone AND having them bite back, if they so wish. I'm very fortright and can take the lumps I get for my directness.

What I have a problem with is someone ELSE saying what I think about a third party, especially if they say I think something negative about that third party or parties. That is simply not acceptable to me. I hope this is now clear to you.

< Message edited by Nemo121 -- 7/10/2010 7:36:16 PM >

_____________________________

John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.

(in reply to Capt. Harlock)
Post #: 457
RE: China: Settling Accounts - 7/12/2010 4:31:26 PM   
traskott


Posts: 1546
Joined: 6/23/2008
From: Valladolid, Spain
Status: offline 		@nemo121:

About your plan at China, looks impresive about paper but... logistics: Do you have enough supplies to cope with the huge demmand an offensive like this will require ?

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 458
RE: China: Settling Accounts - 7/12/2010 7:10:37 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline 		traskott,
If you follow my AARs you'll get to learn that I think logistics reigns supreme over strategy. It dictates strategy in most instances and I would be most unlikely to run a Chinese offensive without sufficient logistics.

Suffice it to say over 200,000 tons of supplies have flowed into China since the start of the game and every base in China has sufficient supplies and EVERY Chinese unit has sufficient supplies. I also have Level 5 and 6 forts in most places by now.


With that said I also designed the offensive to be "supply-cheap"... As an exercise I suggest you look at the map and see how many battles I need to fight to place those Japanese units in a pocket. Basically the answer is 2... I have to fight one battle south-west of CHangsha to open the road east and then will have to fight one more as I hook north-westward threatening to encircle Changsha. That's it.

Sure there will be a couple of other battles as the Japanese seek to relieve their forces but, basically, this offensive is manoeuvre heavy but fight-light...

In AE manoeuvre doesn't cost anything extra beyond subsistence. Only fighting increases supply usage significantly... I will move a lot but fight a little. Logistical considerations played a significant part in designing the plan - as they always do with my plans.

_____________________________

John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.

(in reply to traskott)
Post #: 459
En pointe ! - 7/12/2010 7:29:39 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline 		AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Mar 18, 42

Well, Mike is raiding and he is using fast CAs for it - which is fitting as it is in the Pacific. That's good. What's bad is that with 6 of his remaining CAs in the Pacific that robs his Javan invasion force of a damned lot of cover. He caught some shipping too which I had ordered away but had forgotten to change their home port so they returned here instead of PH. OOPS !!!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat, near Marcus Island at 123,85, Range 6,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
CA Maya
CA Ashigara
CA Mogami
CA Suzuya
CA Furutaka
CA Kako
CL Kashima
DD Murasame
DD Harusame
DD Samidare
DD Ayanami

Allied Ships
AP President Hayes, Shell hits 22, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
xAK Sea Fox, Shell hits 4, heavy fires
xAK Sea Hound, Shell hits 6, heavy fires, heavy damage


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub vs Sub: SS S-35 attacking SS I-1 at 112,109 - near Truk

Japanese Ships
SS I-1, Torpedo hits 2, heavy damage

Allied Ships
SS S-35


SS S-35 launches 4 torpedoes at 2,000 yards


This is the first time I've seen a sub vs sub attack. Pretty cool... I-1 is confirmed sunk.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat, near Truk at 112,108, Range 2,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
PB Toshi Maru #3, Shell hits 1, and is sunk
PB Tama Maru #8, Shell hits 1, and is sunk
PB Shonon Maru #15, Shell hits 3, and is sunk
PB Takunan Maru #2, Shell hits 8, and is sunk


I thought I had spotted CAs and suchlike at Truk and had some DDs attacked by IJN CV-based air just north of Truk yesterday. I thought the IJN CVs would port at Truk overnight and decided to take my tithe by sending a fast CA TF in to make gun attacks on the IJN CVs. Unfortunately, based on my recon the next day 6 CVs only showed up this morning. Their slowness saved them. Ah well, I still caught a few PBs. I am prepping Ponape Atoll to withstand a KB-sized air raid tomorrow or the next day as he tries to catch my CAs... Ponape is now a Level 4 airfield and I've got about 180 fighters and 20 patrol planes and bombers there also.

Allied Ships
CA Pensacola
CA New Orleans
CA Astoria
DD Fox
DD Litchfield
DD Crane
DD Kilty
DD Humphreys
DD Sands


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASW attack near Kwajalein Island at 132,115

Japanese Ships
SSX Ha-11, hits 5, heavy damage

This is a mini-sub isn't it?

Allied Ships
DMS Boggs
DMS Southard
DMS Elliot
DMS Wasmuth
DMS Chandler
DMS Long


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Naval bombardment of Marcus Island at 123,85 - Coastal Guns Fire Back!

17 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.

Japanese Ships
CA Kako
CA Furutaka
CA Suzuya
CA Mogami
CA Ashigara
CA Maya
CL Kashima, Shell hits 1


Allied ground losses:
113 casualties reported
Squads: 1 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 10 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 10 disabled


Airbase hits 3
Airbase supply hits 3
Runway hits 22
Port hits 8
Port fuel hits 4
Port supply hits 2

Marcus is fortified so this bombardment achieved precious little.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASW attack near Singapore at 50,84

Japanese Ships
CM Tsubame
CM Kamome
ACM Banshu Maru #52
PB Keiko Maru
PB Kamitsu Maru

Allied Ships
SS O19, hits 3


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub attack near Marcus Island at 123,85

Japanese Ships
CA Maya
CA Furutaka
CA Ashigara
CL Kashima
DD Murasame
DD Ayanami
DD Samidare

Allied Ships
SS Trout, hits 7

I've been expecting such raids and have fleet class boats on patrol at each of the likely bases. One might, after all, get lucky.

SS Trout launches 6 torpedoes at CA Maya

Hit but no explosion.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub attack near Culion at 74,78

Japanese Ships
PB Yamahagi Maru #3, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage

Allied Ships
SS Snapper

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Kwajalein Island , at 132,115

Weather in hex: Moderate rain

Raid spotted at 26 NM, estimated altitude 8,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 5 minutes


Allied aircraft
A-20A Havoc x 13


Allied aircraft losses
A-20A Havoc: 2 damaged

Runway hits 5

Just trying to prevent the buildng of forts.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Kwajalein Island , at 132,115

Weather in hex: Moderate rain

Raid spotted at 22 NM, estimated altitude 9,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 8 minutes


Allied aircraft
B-18A Bolo x 3
P-40E Warhawk x 1


No Allied losses

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on Singapore , at 50,84

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid spotted at 39 NM, estimated altitude 14,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 11 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 6
Ki-43-Ia Oscar x 27
Ki-43-Ic Oscar x 5


Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 19

About 1/3rd of the B17s flew. At day's end 7 Zeroes were shown as destroyed in return for a single B17. Ah well, he can build 300 Zeroes a month, I get 15 B17Es. Even with a 7:1 exchange rate he STILL wins, by a huge margin.


Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 1 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
B-17E Fortress: 12 damaged

Japanese Ships
xAK Kiyozumi Maru, Bomb hits 2, heavy fires
xAP Hakozaki Maru, Bomb hits 2, on fire, heavy damage

Port hits 8
Port fuel hits 1

Training flight from 64th Sentai Det has been caught up in attack


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on Singapore , at 50,84

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid spotted at 28 NM, estimated altitude 12,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 7 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-43-Ia Oscar x 13
Ki-43-Ic Oscar x 3



Allied aircraft
B-17D Fortress x 3
B-17E Fortress x 3


No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
B-17D Fortress: 1 damaged

Japanese Ships
xAP Hakozaki Maru, Bomb hits 1, heavy fires, heavy damage

Port hits 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub attack near Singapore at 50,84

Japanese Ships
PB Keiko Maru, Torpedo hits 1, on fire
CM Tsubame
CM Kamome
ACM Banshu Maru #52
PB Kamitsu Maru

Allied Ships
SS O19
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ground combat at Changsha (82,52)

Japanese Bombardment attack

Attacking force 1982 troops, 249 guns, 45 vehicles, Assault Value = 5028

Defending force 93556 troops, 598 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 2913

I've taken over 1,000 AV out of Changsha to help make the attack south-west of Changsha... Let's see if that tempts Mike into another, almost certainly futile, attack at Changsha.

Japanese ground losses:
31 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 8 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled


Allied ground losses:
45 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 5 disabled
Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled


Assaulting units:
10th Tank Regiment
39th Division
13th Ind.Mixed Brigade
11th RGC Temp. Division
34th Division
13th Division
55th Infantry Brigade
6th Division
10th Division
58th Infantry Regiment
3rd Division
9th Armored Car Co
40th Division
12th Division
116th Division
51st Infantry Brigade
13th Tank Regiment
13th RGC Temp. Division
17th/A Division
1st Mortar Battalion
2nd JAAF Base Force
14th Medium Field Artillery Regiment
5th Ind.Hvy.Art Battalion
51st Ind.Mtn.Gun Battalion
52nd Ind.Mtn.Gun Battalion
22nd Ind. Engineer Regiment
51st Road Const Co
13th JAAF Base Force
11th Army
2nd Ind. Engineer Regiment
10th Mortar Battalion
15th Ind.Medium Field Artillery Regiment
8th Ind. Engineer Regiment
2nd Ind. Mountain Gun Regiment
9th JAAF Base Force
6th RF Gun Battalion
11th Field Artillery Regiment
51st Const Co
54th JAAF AF Bn

Defending units:
50th Chinese Corps
46th Chinese Corps
21st Chinese Corps
78th Chinese Corps
58th Chinese Corps
72nd Chinese Corps
3rd New Chinese Corps
26th Chinese Corps
10th Chinese Corps
37th Chinese Corps
28th Chinese Corps
20th Chinese Corps
6th Construction Regiment
9th Prov Chinese Corps
5th Construction Regiment
19th Group Army
27th Group Army
30th Group Army
3rd War Area
10th Group Army
32nd Group Army
29th Group Army
25th Group Army
9th War Area
17th Chinese Base Force
56th AT Gun Regiment


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

Ground combat at Sinyang (86,48)

He's reinforcing this heavily. I think I may be about to pull back a little if he pours in more guys. I'm also making a subsidiary attack north of Sinyang to try to draw some of these troops off.

Allied Bombardment attack

Attacking force 30452 troops, 238 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 1103

Defending force 42474 troops, 398 guns, 159 vehicles, Assault Value = 1535


Allied ground losses:
12 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled


Assaulting units:
30th Chinese Corps
55th Chinese Corps
13th Chinese Corps
12th Chinese Corps
51st Chinese Corps
77th Chinese Corps
Jingcha War Area
31st Group Army

Defending units:
36th Division
18th RGC Temp. Division
12th RGC Temp. Division
32nd/A Division
15th Division
15th Ind.Mixed Brigade
2nd Ind.Mixed Brigade
32nd/B Division
52nd Road Const Co



Here's a teaser for you: Could Mike have decided not to try to take Java? I ask because at this stage he is deploying CVs and CAs into the Pacific en masse. Granted I've tried to encourage these deployments but, really, I don't see how he can imagine a successful invasion without bringing everything larger than a DD that the IJN still has afloat.

Maybe he sees things differently though? Strange. He only has 6 more weeks before Java becomes undoable due to the loss of the unloading bonus for Japan. Someone should ask him this in his AAR. |Right now he's either being incredibly sneaky or, IMO, he has massively misjudged what he's going to need for Java. Maybe he thinks his LBA will be sufficient to force a landing? I doubt that though...

Of note: just in case he's going for Palembang I've been filling it with mines recently and currently have 150 mines there. It may lack CD guns but it won't lack for mines and basic artillery.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 460
RE: En pointe ! - 7/12/2010 8:24:03 PM   
traskott


Posts: 1546
Joined: 6/23/2008
From: Valladolid, Spain
Status: offline 		I have read your AAR since first day. What surprises me is the fact you have achieve to create such amount reserve of supplies at China when the "standard" complain of every allied player at this theatre is the critical (and cronical ) lack of supplies. I've played just two times as allied in a PBEM and, although have mantained a good pool of supplies (via carefully managing of attacks) looks like VERY dificult gets 200.000 tons by the 18 Mar 42.... Aerial transport (improbably) ? Via "priorize supplies" ? 

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 461
RE: En pointe ! - 7/12/2010 9:24:18 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline 		Via holding Burma and prioritising shipping to bring supplies to Rangoon and move them overland from Rangoon to China. All of the supplies I am talking about are supplies I've shipped to Burma and then overlanded to China.

Certainly supplies will be short if you don't keep the Burma road open and don't commit the shipping necessary to bring supplies in but if you take the necessary steps the supply situation is manageable.


The standard complaint arises as a result of a failure to hold Rangoon, keep the Burma Road open and to commit the shipping and supplies necessary. Some of that is due to the Japanese player's strategic plan ( I think Mike's is pretty much stalled now ) and some due to the Allied players' tendency to not prioritise the protection of Rangoon and the Burma Road.... This issue was my first major quandary of the game. I believe early on I detailed how I vaccilated between holding the Burma Road only or holding all of Burma and finally decided to go for all of Burma by the end of December.

< Message edited by Nemo121 -- 7/12/2010 9:26:11 PM >

_____________________________

John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.

(in reply to traskott)
Post #: 462
RE: En pointe ! - 7/12/2010 9:42:32 PM   
traskott


Posts: 1546
Joined: 6/23/2008
From: Valladolid, Spain
Status: offline 		Depending H.R. and so, usually Rangoon is doomed in an "standard" game. Hummm..perhaps if Mike doesn't attack DEI will try to took Rangoon?? I'll certainly try to do it !!

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 463
RE: En pointe ! - 7/12/2010 11:56:01 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline 		Hmm, I wouldn't accept that thinking. Even in a "standard" game SEAC Chinese troops are available and they are sufficient to hold Burma unless the Allied player is silly and accepts some sort of HRs designed to cripple him.

_____________________________

John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.

(in reply to traskott)
Post #: 464
RE: En pointe ! - 7/13/2010 12:06:34 AM   
traskott


Posts: 1546
Joined: 6/23/2008
From: Valladolid, Spain
Status: offline 		Usually Allied must pay P.P. to change the HQ to SEAC in order to use them. 

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 465
RE: En pointe ! - 7/13/2010 12:49:59 AM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline 		Well, there are ways to achieve these things cheaply by switching from restricted to non-restricted within the same HQ... I'm freeing up a lot of Australian troops by this method... They are restricted but I assign them to the 1st Australian Corps and then I ship them out into the southern DEI defensive zone. I think I've bought out about 5 divisions like this.


In any case if you just look at the negatives you'll always find many reasons not to do anything. I prefer to look at both sides and then occasionally things which seemed unlikely suddenly become very doable. Each to their own though... If you are playing a game in which the Allies and Japanese must pay PP in order to move troops out of India/China or from Manchuria into China then I think that there's no excuse for the Allies not launching major offensives in China by early January 1942 to draw SRA troops away from the phillipines and DEI and tie them down - which, functionally, reduces the number of troops available for Burma.

Indirectly even without SEAC troops one can influence the Burma theatre... Don't be too negative or focus too much on the difficulty of things. There's usually a way to achieve anything you want - albeit it a cost.

_____________________________

John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.

(in reply to traskott)
Post #: 466
RE: En pointe ! - 7/13/2010 12:58:35 AM   
traskott


Posts: 1546
Joined: 6/23/2008
From: Valladolid, Spain
Status: offline 		Oh, don't worry about it, I'm sweeping all over the coast of China, crippling several japanese regiments in the process....I have no much supplies, so a limited offensive is a must.

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 467
RE: En pointe ! - 7/13/2010 2:02:46 AM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline 		If, and it must be a big if, your opponent is not going for Java, then that would also strongly suggest that he is not going to quickly mop up the southern DEI. That would mean he is not going for the oil in Java and Boela/Babo. Combined with the lack of resources he has dedicated to date to the capture of Burma and its oil nor any move shown to date to capture Sumatran oil, your opponent would be engaged in some quite unusual play.

To completely overlook the raw materials of the SRA is quite strange. The only plan which might warrant this course of action is if he were aiming to capture the Hawaiian islands as a base for landing on the west coast. But for that he does not have his forces positioned correctly (you have identified a naval buildup at Singkawang) for the necessary quick capture of Pearl Harbor.

My assessment is that your capture of the Marshalls has rattled him and he feels obligated to maintain strong forces in the area to hit at your SLOCs and prevent any further Allied encroachments. Alternatively it could be that he is making a demonstration in the area with existing in theatre forces in an attempt to persuade you to redeploy assets there. Once accomplished he could use his interior lines to more quickly redploy his in theatre forces.

Alfred

(in reply to traskott)
Post #: 468
RE: En pointe ! - 7/13/2010 3:11:03 AM   
Capt. Harlock


Posts: 5358
Joined: 9/15/2001
From: Los Angeles
Status: offline
quote:

Maybe he sees things differently though? Strange. He only has 6 more weeks before Java becomes undoable due to the loss of the unloading bonus for Japan. Someone should ask him this in his AAR. |Right now he's either being incredibly sneaky or, IMO, he has massively misjudged what he's going to need for Java. Maybe he thinks his LBA will be sufficient to force a landing? I doubt that though...


Any possibility he's planning on using paratroops?

_____________________________

Civil war? What does that mean? Is there any foreign war? Isn't every war fought between men, between brothers?

--Victor Hugo

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 469
Seadragon CO transferred to BB... - 7/15/2010 3:00:40 AM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline 		AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Mar 19, 42

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submarine attack near Singapore at 50,84

Japanese Ships
CA Chokai
CL Kinu
DD Okikaze
DD Tawakaze
DD Kyukaze
DD Yukaze
DD Akikaze

Allied Ships
SS Seadragon, hits 11, heavy damage


Well, Seadragon got depthcharged to the surface today and then engaged all of the IJN DDs in a surface gun battle. The combat report then showed it to have slipped beneath the waves. Ah well, one dead sub... or so I thought.



SS Seadragon is sighted by escort
DD Tawakaze attacking submerged sub ....
DD Kyukaze fails to find sub and abandons search
DD Yukaze fails to find sub and abandons search
DD Akikaze fails to find sub and abandons search
DD Tawakaze fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Tawakaze fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Tawakaze fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Tawakaze fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Tawakaze fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Tawakaze fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Tawakaze attacking submerged sub ....
SS Seadragon forced to surface!
DD Kyukaze firing on surfaced sub ....
DD Yukaze firing on surfaced sub ....
DD Akikaze firing on surfaced sub ....
DD Kyukaze firing on surfaced sub ....
DD Yukaze firing on surfaced sub ....
DD Akikaze firing on surfaced sub ....
DD Kyukaze firing on surfaced sub ....
DD Yukaze firing on surfaced sub ....
DD Akikaze firing on surfaced sub ....
DD Kyukaze firing on surfaced sub ....
DD Yukaze firing on surfaced sub ....
DD Akikaze firing on surfaced sub ....
DD Kyukaze firing on surfaced sub ....
DD Yukaze firing on surfaced sub ....
DD Akikaze firing on surfaced sub ....
DD Kyukaze firing on surfaced sub ....
DD Yukaze firing on surfaced sub ....
DD Akikaze firing on surfaced sub ....
Sub slips beneath the waves

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submarine attack near Iba at 77,75

Japanese Ships
PB Yamahagi Maru #3, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage

Allied Ships
SS Snapper

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASW attack near Singkawang at 56,88

Japanese Ships
DD Shiranui
DD Tanikaze

Allied Ships
SS Sculpin

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASW attack near Singapore at 50,84

Japanese Ships
CM Kamome
CM Tsubame, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
ACM Muro Maru, Shell hits 2
ACM Chiyo Maru, Shell hits 3

Allied Ships
SS Seadragon, hits 2, heavy damage

Seadragon strikes again. Not content with fighting half a dozen DDs the Seadragon took on a support TF in Singapore harbour, torpedoing the Tsubame and engaging the other shipping in a surface gun battle.



SS Seadragon is sighted by escort
CM Tsubame firing on surfaced sub ....
ACM Muro Maru firing on surfaced sub ....
ACM Chiyo Maru firing on surfaced sub ....
ACM Muro Maru firing on surfaced sub ....
ACM Chiyo Maru firing on surfaced sub ....
ACM Muro Maru firing on surfaced sub ....
ACM Chiyo Maru firing on surfaced sub ....
ACM Muro Maru firing on surfaced sub ....
ACM Chiyo Maru firing on surfaced sub ....
ACM Muro Maru firing on surfaced sub ....
ACM Chiyo Maru firing on surfaced sub ....
ACM Muro Maru firing on surfaced sub ....
ACM Chiyo Maru firing on surfaced sub ....
ACM Muro Maru firing on surfaced sub ....
ACM Chiyo Maru firing on surfaced sub ....
Sub slips beneath the waves

She might have slipped beneath the waves again but she's actually still afloat at the end of the turn. Not bad.



This sub extraordinariness should be added to the sinking of the I-1 ( which Mike tells me was damaged by a mine at one of my Marshalls bases ) by one of my subs which torpedoed it as it ran for Truk on the surface yesterday.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASW attack near Hengchun at 85,68

Japanese Ships
DD Harukaze
DD Hatakaze

Allied Ships
SS Spearfish


I've deleted a load of ground attack missions over China but suffice it to say the Chinese air force bombed 3 IJA concentrations and the IJNAF bombed a few of mine.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Truk , at 112,108

Mike thinks this may have been a bug but when I saw the combat replay it was pretty clear that his morale was abysmal. Before we even made contact I got a message that a flight of 3 Oscars had fled the fight. By the time his Zeroes entered the fray most of his Oscars had already fled. I think the reason his Zeroes fled so easily was that I've pretty butchered this Daitai on several occasions over the past month. The last time it saw action 14 out of 14 Zeroes were destroyed. Prior to that it lost about 20 Zeroes over Roi-Namur and Kwajalein. So, really, it looks like it has been wiped out a couple of times over the past month so it is no surprise its morale is in its boots.

Weather in hex: Heavy rain

Raid spotted at 46 NM, estimated altitude 14,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 16 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 27
Ki-43-Ic Oscar x 23



Allied aircraft
LB-30 Liberator x 3


No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
LB-30 Liberator: 3 damaged

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Kwajalein Island , at 132,115

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid spotted at 39 NM, estimated altitude 9,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 8 minutes


Allied aircraft
A-20A Havoc x 13
P-40E Warhawk x 1


Allied aircraft losses
A-20A Havoc: 2 damaged



Airbase hits 2
Airbase supply hits 2
Runway hits 6

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Kwajalein Island , at 132,115

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid spotted at 12 NM, estimated altitude 11,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 4 minutes


Allied aircraft
B-18A Bolo x 3


No Allied losses

Japanese Ships
SSX Ha-10, Bomb hits 1, and is sunk

My shipping had damaged this mini-sub so I figured it would have to port for repairs... hence the port attacks.


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

Ground combat at Changsha (82,52)

Japanese Bombardment attack

Attacking force 1997 troops, 249 guns, 45 vehicles, Assault Value = 5043

Defending force 93708 troops, 598 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 2924

Interesting, his force at Changsha hasn't significantly redeployed.

Japanese ground losses:
55 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 9 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Vehicles lost 2 (1 destroyed, 1 disabled)


Allied ground losses:
74 casualties reported
Squads: 1 destroyed, 3 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 4 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled


Assaulting units:
13th Tank Regiment
12th Division
13th Division
40th Division
9th Armored Car Co
13th RGC Temp. Division
55th Infantry Brigade
51st Infantry Brigade
58th Infantry Regiment
6th Division
10th Division
10th Tank Regiment
11th RGC Temp. Division
13th Ind.Mixed Brigade
116th Division
39th Division
3rd Division
34th Division
17th/A Division
2nd JAAF Base Force
14th Medium Field Artillery Regiment
9th JAAF Base Force
51st Road Const Co
11th Army
2nd Ind. Engineer Regiment
8th Ind. Engineer Regiment
11th Field Artillery Regiment
15th Ind.Medium Field Artillery Regiment
22nd Ind. Engineer Regiment
5th Ind.Hvy.Art Battalion
2nd Ind. Mountain Gun Regiment
51st Const Co
1st Mortar Battalion
51st Ind.Mtn.Gun Battalion
6th RF Gun Battalion
10th Mortar Battalion
13th JAAF Base Force
52nd Ind.Mtn.Gun Battalion
54th JAAF AF Bn

Defending units:
58th Chinese Corps
37th Chinese Corps
26th Chinese Corps
20th Chinese Corps
50th Chinese Corps
9th Prov Chinese Corps
3rd New Chinese Corps
78th Chinese Corps
46th Chinese Corps
28th Chinese Corps
21st Chinese Corps
6th Construction Regiment
72nd Chinese Corps
10th Chinese Corps
5th Construction Regiment
9th War Area
32nd Group Army
27th Group Army
3rd War Area
29th Group Army
19th Group Army
30th Group Army
17th Chinese Base Force
10th Group Army
25th Group Army
56th AT Gun Regiment


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

Ground combat at Hankow (85,50)

Allied Bombardment attack

Attacking force 87637 troops, 454 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 3137

Defending force 12204 troops, 128 guns, 84 vehicles, Assault Value = 297

Now THIS is a major mistake on Mike's part. Hankow is his easiest escape route from any Changsha pocket. With 3,000+ AV ( even though my experience is abysmal ) I can just push through by dint of numbers.


Allied ground losses:
12 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled


Assaulting units:
2nd Chinese Corps
68th Chinese Corps
67th Chinese Corps
87th Chinese Corps
53rd Chinese Corps
8th Chinese Corps
18th Chinese Corps
75th Chinese Corps
94th Chinese Corps
20th Group Army
6th War Area
26th Group Army

Defending units:
57th Infantry Brigade
1st Ind.Mixed Brigade
Hankow Special Base Force
16th JAAF Base Force
67th JAAF AF Coy


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

Ground combat at 86,42

Allied Bombardment attack

Attacking force 21173 troops, 92 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 685

Defending force 29221 troops, 254 guns, 32 vehicles, Assault Value = 968

And here he is threatening to cut in behind my forces east of Sian. Fortunately I have woods protecting me but if he pushes here I might not be able to hold.

Japanese ground losses:
6 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled


Allied ground losses:
5 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

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

Ground combat at Sinyang (86,48)

Allied Bombardment attack

Attacking force 34754 troops, 281 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 1106

Defending force 42566 troops, 399 guns, 160 vehicles, Assault Value = 1539


Hmm, another pressure point where he's pushing troops in from Manchuria... I think it is definitely time to take Hankow and push for that Changsha pocket. He has the potential to dislocate my northern lines and the best defence for that is to dislocate his southern position.



Assaulting units:
55th Chinese Corps
12th Chinese Corps
13th Chinese Corps
51st Chinese Corps
30th Chinese Corps
77th Chinese Corps
Jingcha War Area
31st Group Army

Defending units:
18th RGC Temp. Division
15th Division
12th RGC Temp. Division
32nd/A Division
2nd Ind.Mixed Brigade
36th Division
15th Ind.Mixed Brigade
32nd/B Division
52nd Road Const Co


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

Ground combat at 81,53

Allied Deliberate attack

Attacking force 9581 troops, 38 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 1952

Defending force 6379 troops, 42 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 236

This was hilarious. 2,000 AV of Chinese troops vs 200 AV of IJA troops and I still ended up on the wrong side of the adjusted AV. Ah well, more combat gets more experience gets larger adjusted AVs and, in the long run, 2000 AV vs 200 will eventually wear the smaller force down. That's what's nice about the new combat model, it models the reality of force correlations quite a lot better IMO.

Allied adjusted assault: 167

Japanese adjusted defense: 202

Allied assault odds: 1 to 2

Combat modifiers
Defender: op mode(-), leaders(+), experience(-)
Attacker:

Japanese ground losses:
462 casualties reported
Squads: 3 destroyed, 59 disabled
Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 39 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled


Allied ground losses:
388 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 23 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 22 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled


Assaulting units:
99th Chinese Corps
73rd Chinese Corps
74th Chinese Corps
70th Chinese Corps
100th Chinese Corps

Defending units:
12th Ind.Mixed Brigade
23rd RGC Temp. Division



Harlock,
As to paras... He might have 200 or 300 AV of paras tops. Vs 1200 AV behind Level 6 forts with 100% prep and a x3 defensive modifier for terrain that wouldn't even register. His only chance would be to hit Benkoenen with them but even there I now have about 200 AV which is behind forts and with AAA to shoot down enemy transports. I can't see it causing any serious trouble.


Alfred,
Aye, it makes no sense, no sense at all. But, neither does a further delay in taking southern Borneo. Sure, I've managed to fake at least 800 AV into the Pacific with the Marshalls operation and the drive into the Kuriles but surely he could have freed 300 or 400 AV for the operations necessary to take southern Borneo.

It really doesn't make much sense. Even taking Hawaii now wouldn't avail him much since most of my battleline units are deployed into the DEI region and ready for a base-hopping campaign there if he doesn't commit KB and enough Netties to the area. Hell, if he really doesn't make an effort into the DEI by the end of April ( the time at which his amphib bonus runs out ) I'll just invade Malaysia and conduct a campaign to link up with the Chinese... with sufficient supply flowing to China and the new ground combat model a Chinese offensive will be unstoppable.

I find it difficult to believe he could forego the SRA so though.

< Message edited by Nemo121 -- 7/15/2010 3:09:25 AM >

_____________________________

John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.

(in reply to Capt. Harlock)
Post #: 470
RE: Seadragon CO transferred to BB... - 7/15/2010 1:12:01 PM   
traskott


Posts: 1546
Joined: 6/23/2008
From: Valladolid, Spain
Status: offline 		+1. He should definitely go against Java. Even if he must bleed his troops, the strategic situation with Java taken worth even the loss of a whole army. 

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 471
RE: Seadragon CO transferred to BB... - 7/15/2010 8:23:11 PM   
Capt. Harlock


Posts: 5358
Joined: 9/15/2001
From: Los Angeles
Status: offline
quote:

This was hilarious. 2,000 AV of Chinese troops vs 200 AV of IJA troops and I still ended up on the wrong side of the adjusted AV. Ah well, more combat gets more experience gets larger adjusted AVs and, in the long run, 2000 AV vs 200 will eventually wear the smaller force down. That's what's nice about the new combat model, it models the reality of force correlations quite a lot better IMO.

Allied adjusted assault: 167

Japanese adjusted defense: 202

Allied assault odds: 1 to 2

Combat modifiers
Defender: op mode(-), leaders(+), experience(-)
Attacker:

Japanese ground losses:
462 casualties reported
Squads: 3 destroyed, 59 disabled
Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 39 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled


Allied ground losses:
388 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 23 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 22 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled


You may have ended up on the wrong side of the AV balance, but not on the wrong side of the casualty figures. Especially when you realize the Allies did not have any units destroyed, just disrupted. If you can manage the supply cost, this is an attrition duel worth trying.

_____________________________

Civil war? What does that mean? Is there any foreign war? Isn't every war fought between men, between brothers?

--Victor Hugo

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 472
RE: Seadragon CO transferred to BB... - 7/15/2010 11:32:48 PM   
DTurtle

 

Posts: 443
Joined: 4/26/2010
Status: offline
quote:

Ground combat at 81,53

Allied Deliberate attack

Attacking force 9581 troops, 38 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 1952

Defending force 6379 troops, 42 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 236

This was hilarious. 2,000 AV of Chinese troops vs 200 AV of IJA troops and I still ended up on the wrong side of the adjusted AV. Ah well, more combat gets more experience gets larger adjusted AVs and, in the long run, 2000 AV vs 200 will eventually wear the smaller force down. That's what's nice about the new combat model, it models the reality of force correlations quite a lot better IMO.

Allied adjusted assault: 167

Japanese adjusted defense: 202

Allied assault odds: 1 to 2

A question about that report: The attacking force shows only 9600 allied troops - which is quite a lot less than would be needed for 2000 AV. Could it be that the ground forces missed some kind of check, causing most of the forces not to attack, with only a small part of the forces attacking? It would explain the massive loss of adjusted assault.

(in reply to Capt. Harlock)
Post #: 473
RE: Seadragon CO transferred to BB... - 7/16/2010 7:56:56 PM   
wpurdom

 

Posts: 476
Joined: 10/27/2000
From: Decatur, GA, USA
Status: offline
quote:

Ground combat at Hankow (85,50)

Allied Bombardment attack

Attacking force 87637 troops, 454 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 3137

Defending force 12204 troops, 128 guns, 84 vehicles, Assault Value = 297

Now THIS is a major mistake on Mike's part. Hankow is his easiest escape route from any Changsha pocket. With 3,000+ AV ( even though my experience is abysmal ) I can just push through by dint of numbers.


Huge problem. Hankow is the key to the whole Central China front for the Japanese. With the level 4(2) port, the huge air base, the good terrain - it's the key to logistics and strategic mobility. With Hankow securely held, pocketing the Wuhan area is a little like trying to beseige Chattanooga after the "Cracker line" was opened. With a little shipping on the river, the IJA has superior mobility between Nanking and the center and no supply problems. But if Hankow falls, there's potential for the whole Central front army to wither and die with the Chinese acquiring experience killing them off. And Sinyang also becomes more secure with alternate supply routes. If he doesn't have the force to relieve Hankow from the north before you take it, or to immediately kick you out afterwards before you can fortify, he could be in for a world of pain.

OTOH, he could have enough force in the other half of the city (Wuchang) to hold on. He starts with 2 good divisions there with about 450 AV each.



< Message edited by wpurdom -- 7/16/2010 8:06:13 PM >

(in reply to DTurtle)
Post #: 474
RE: Seadragon CO transferred to BB... - 7/17/2010 12:48:37 AM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline 		Dturtle, it could be.. I've taken the precaution of replacing the leaders with ones with more aggression. Also I did find a supply problem. Basically I draw supplies to Hankow via Ichang and the base circled in red. Unfortunately the base in red requires a garrison and I mistakenly ordered the unit there out as my reserve passed through on the way to take Ichang. The airbase is utterly trashed and I think that is cutting the flow of supplies also. Anyways in 2 or 3 days I'll have the garrison back and supplies should flow better. As it is half of my units at Hankow had insufficient supplies today... which I think must have hurt the attack. In any case though I'll keep attacking because even an exchange rate in Japan's favour works in my favour when I have ten times as many troops.

Allied ground losses are a bit over 2,500 points while IJA losses are over 500 now. I'm ramping up IJA losses now as I begin to really engage their forces in China.

In other news: in the north I've advanced eastward to cut IJA supply lines to Sinyang and 3 IJA units have retreated from Sinyang as I forced their compatriots backward near Changsha. Only a single IJA unit blocks my path at Kweiyang and even though my troops are poorly experienced and the terrain favours Japan I've decided to push out... It all complicates the IJA situation and invites the committment of SRA troops - which then cannot move into action along the DEI axis.


In other news, as my forces really begin to push out in China and try to draw SRA troops into close action I am beginning to free up US and USMC Regiments from the Marshalls and CONUSA. 2nd Marine Regiment has been en route for the DEI for the past 2 weeks and it is meeting up with the 8th USMC Regiment and two US Army Regiments from the Marshall Islands. These 4 Regiments are going to be used as circumstances dictate:

a) Balikpapan - I can see an IJN convoy making for the Balikpapan region. If I still hold Balikpapan when the US Regiments get there they may go into Balikpapan to hold it and prevent the IJN opening the southern Borneo flank to the DEI.

b) Menado - As time goes by and I get a solid anti-shipping ( torpedo bomber and dive-bomber ) force holding Menado and projecting power into the Badeldoab/southern Phillipines region looks ever more attractive.

c) counter-invasion. If he invades somewhere nothing should stuff him up more than a few BBs and 500 AV of angry Americans visiting the base before he has finished taking it.


Logistics:
a) China... Another 60,000 tons of supplies has reached China and bolstered the forces at the front. Only along the Hankow front are any of my forces short of supplies - and that's due to my error in terms of garrison requirements.

b) Oosthaven is almost ready to reload BBs ( including 16 inchers )... I have been assiduously bringing naval support units there since Day 1 with a view to this and I've just topped 500 naval support squads. This was the trigger for my committment of the Royal Navy HQ from Ceylon ( which was hugely helping my repair times there ) which brings an additional 300 squads and pushed the Level 4 port's naval support up into the high 800s - enough to reload every ship I have in the area ( including CVs if and when that time comes ).




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.

(in reply to wpurdom)
Post #: 475
RE: Seadragon CO transferred to BB... - 7/17/2010 3:49:51 PM   
wpurdom

 

Posts: 476
Joined: 10/27/2000
From: Decatur, GA, USA
Status: offline 		I request blow-by-blow updates on what happens in Hankow and Sinyang and any reinforcements that arrive for each side in Hankow.

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 476
RE: Seadragon CO transferred to BB... - 7/17/2010 4:17:18 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline 		To what purpose? I'm an auftragstaktiken rather than a directive orders kind of guy. If I know why I can decide if it is worth doing ( it probably is since I am assuming there's something you're checking for ) and what you're actually looking for and use my judgement to better provide/ present that info.

I assume you're just looking to see the AVs to check reinforcements etc coming in and to see if, under the current combat model, the "wearing down" of the forces at Hankow is a viable strategy by the Chinese... but there's always the possibility you're looking for something different.

From his forces I think he can kick me out of Sinyang but there's a good possibility I could push him out of Hankow ( especially once I repair the supply line in 2 to 3 days time)...

< Message edited by Nemo121 -- 7/17/2010 4:19:17 PM >

_____________________________

John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.

(in reply to wpurdom)
Post #: 477
RE: Seadragon CO transferred to BB... - 7/17/2010 4:24:34 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline 		20th March 1942

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

Ground combat at Hankow (85,50)

Allied Deliberate attack

Attacking force 87671 troops, 454 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 3204

Defending force 12256 troops, 129 guns, 85 vehicles, Assault Value = 301

Allied adjusted assault: 912

Japanese adjusted defense: 1569

Allied assault odds: 1 to 2 (fort level 4)

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), forts(+), leaders(+), preparation(-)
experience(-)
Attacker: supply(-)

Several of my forces were low on supply.. It'll be three or so days before this is fixed but even so I will keep attacking. Attrition very much favours me here.

Japanese ground losses:
417 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 28 disabled
Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 56 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 6 disabled

Allied ground losses:
990 casualties reported
Squads: 5 destroyed, 81 disabled
Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 69 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 3 disabled


Assaulting units:
18th Chinese Corps
8th Chinese Corps
75th Chinese Corps
67th Chinese Corps
87th Chinese Corps
53rd Chinese Corps
2nd Chinese Corps
68th Chinese Corps
94th Chinese Corps
45th Chinese/C Corps
6th War Area
20th Group Army
26th Group Army

Defending units:
57th Infantry Brigade
1st Ind.Mixed Brigade
Hankow Special Base Force
16th JAAF Base Force
67th JAAF AF Coy


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

Ground combat at 86,42

Allied Bombardment attack

Attacking force 21210 troops, 92 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 692

Defending force 29374 troops, 254 guns, 32 vehicles, Assault Value = 981


Allied ground losses:
7 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled


Assaulting units:
9th Chinese Corps
27th Chinese Corps
93rd Chinese Corps
5th New Chinese Corps
14th Group Army
15th Group Army

Defending units:
35th Division
3rd Ind.Mixed Brigade
11th Division


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

Ground combat at Sinyang (86,48)

Allied Bombardment attack

Attacking force 34803 troops, 281 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 1110

Defending force 42690 troops, 399 guns, 160 vehicles, Assault Value = 1550

The terrain is in my favour but my experience is very low ( was in the mid-30s but is now in the low to mid-40s). I am bombarding every turn to increase experience and if he waits another few days I should be at 50+ Exp. This will pretty much increase my adjusted AV by 50% on where it would have been just a week ago and should make a difference to any attack. The wooded terrain should help also, plus the fact that I've driven 1,000 AV into the supply route for this IJA force.


Allied ground losses:
37 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 3 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled


Assaulting units:
12th Chinese Corps
51st Chinese Corps
13th Chinese Corps
55th Chinese Corps
30th Chinese Corps
77th Chinese Corps
Jingcha War Area
31st Group Army

Defending units:
15th Division
32nd/A Division
15th Ind.Mixed Brigade
2nd Ind.Mixed Brigade
36th Division
18th RGC Temp. Division
12th RGC Temp. Division
32nd/B Division
52nd Road Const Co


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

It looks like MIke is upgrading to the next beta patch so I'll be moving onto that as well now...

_____________________________

John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 478
RE: Seadragon CO transferred to BB... - 7/17/2010 5:33:14 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline 		AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Mar 21, 42

A mixed day for the Allies. China went well, the Pacific less so....

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASW attack near Singkawang at 56,88

Japanese Ships
BB Kongo
CA Atago
DD Nenohi
DD Hatsuharu

Allied Ships
SS Sculpin, hits 3

Hit but dud. Nice to see a CA and BB at Singkawang though. I can get at them with surface shipping when the time comes.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub attack near Singkawang at 56,88

Japanese Ships
DD Hatsuharu
BB Kongo
CA Atago
DD Nenohi

Allied Ships
SS Sculpin, hits 2

This torp missed.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Truk , at 112,108

Weather in hex: Light cloud

Raid spotted at 40 NM, estimated altitude 16,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 14 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 23
Ki-43-Ic Oscar x 23



Allied aircraft
LB-30 Liberator x 3


No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
LB-30 Liberator: 1 destroyed, 1 damaged

Actually it looks like two were destroyed. With enough planes US 4-engined bombers are vulnerable.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Ponape at 116,111

What a missed opportunity. I was sending Warspite, some CLs and CAs and DDs to Truk. I had assigned a massive CAP ( 200 fighters from Ponape ) but, unfortunately, the fighters failed to fly. Even more unfortunately the Japanese didn't. If my fighters had flown I feel confident I could have butchered this strike. 100 top IJN aviators will live to fight another day. Damn!!!

Weather in hex: Moderate rain

Raid detected at 120 NM, estimated altitude 12,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 45 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 34
B5N1 Kate x 13
B5N2 Kate x 21
D3A1 Val x 29



Japanese aircraft losses
B5N2 Kate: 5 damaged
D3A1 Val: 1 destroyed, 8 damaged

Allied Ships
CA New Orleans, Bomb hits 2, on fire
BB Warspite, Torpedo hits 1
DD Litchfield
DD Balch
CL Detroit

Zuikaku, Shokaku and Zuiho were IDed as contributing airgroups to the attack. The number of Kates which dropped bombs only makes me think a few CVEs might be involved also.

So, 4 CVLs up in the Kuriles and another 3 to 4 CVs down here + some CVEs. He's really split KB up.

If he has split them up like this there is no chance that he can seriously think he is going to be able to invade Java and Sumatra. Without KB he just doesn't have a chance. He just may be trying to neutralise Hawaii... which would be interesting as my response will be to counter-invade the Phillipines or Malaysia... after a little deceptive manoeuvring.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Ponape at 116,111

Weather in hex: Overcast

Raid detected at 80 NM, estimated altitude 11,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 30 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 19
B5N1 Kate x 27
B5N2 Kate x 24
D3A1 Val x 18


Japanese aircraft losses
B5N1 Kate: 1 destroyed, 2 damaged
B5N2 Kate: 1 destroyed, 1 damaged
D3A1 Val: 1 damaged

Allied Ships
CA Astoria
BB Warspite, Bomb hits 8, Torpedo hits 3, on fire, heavy damage
CL Leander, Bomb hits 3, on fire
CA New Orleans
CL Detroit
DD Clark
DD Dale
DD Worden, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
DD Porter

Tomorrow I will leave another ship out with massive CAP over it. With just a little luck I might get a chance at these strikegroups again. I will do my best to get Warspite to Ponape.

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

Ground combat at Sinyang (86,48)

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 42478 troops, 399 guns, 158 vehicles, Assault Value = 1554

Defending force 38613 troops, 296 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 1181

Japanese adjusted assault: 708

Allied adjusted defense: 887

Japanese assault odds: 1 to 2

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), preparation(-), experience(-)
Attacker:

Japanese ground losses:
2854 casualties reported
Squads: 10 destroyed, 307 disabled
Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 184 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 20 disabled


Allied ground losses:
1417 casualties reported
Squads: 11 destroyed, 38 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 113 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 4 disabled

Well, the terrain helped me hold and I think that without reinforcement the Japanese won't open this road.


Assaulting units:
2nd Ind.Mixed Brigade
32nd/A Division
36th Division
15th Division
15th Ind.Mixed Brigade
12th RGC Temp. Division
18th RGC Temp. Division
32nd/B Division
52nd Road Const Co

Defending units:
51st Chinese Corps
55th Chinese Corps
13th Chinese Corps
77th Chinese Corps
12th Chinese Corps
30th Chinese Corps
45th Chinese/A Corps
Jingcha War Area
31st Group Army


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

Ground combat at Hankow (85,50)

Japanese Shock attack

The IJA 23rd Division crossed the river to help out but it appears the programme has decided that my troops have such overwhelming numbers that any river-crossing is actually being done under fire. As such the IJA division was forced to Shock Attack. Before the battle proper even started it went from 470 AV to just 270 AV. OUCH !!!

Attacking force 13460 troops, 110 guns, 42 vehicles, Assault Value = 747

Defending force 91626 troops, 468 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 3151

Japanese adjusted assault: 388

Allied adjusted defense: 4073

Japanese assault odds: 1 to 10

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), preparation(-), experience(-)
Attacker: shock(+)

Japanese ground losses:
3082 casualties reported
Squads: 3 destroyed, 117 disabled
Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 176 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 22 disabled


Allied ground losses:
143 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 7 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 19 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled


Assaulting units:
57th Infantry Brigade
1st Ind.Mixed Brigade
23rd Division
Hankow Special Base Force
16th JAAF Base Force
67th JAAF AF Coy

Defending units:
75th Chinese Corps
94th Chinese Corps
87th Chinese Corps
18th Chinese Corps
67th Chinese Corps
8th Chinese Corps
68th Chinese Corps
53rd Chinese Corps
2nd Chinese Corps
45th Chinese/C Corps
6th War Area
20th Group Army
26th Group Army


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

Ground combat at Catbalogan (82,84)

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 1204 troops, 8 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 43

Defending force 0 troops, 0 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 0

Japanese adjusted assault: 13

Allied adjusted defense: 1

Japanese assault odds: 13 to 1 (fort level 0)

Japanese forces CAPTURE Catbalogan !!!

The IJA and IJN are still cleaning up around the Phillipines. I'm leaving these forces be as it suits my purposes for them to be wasted in this way.

Combat modifiers
Attacker: op mode(-), leaders(-)



Assaulting units:
Miura Det


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

Ground combat at Tablas (79,81)

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 1468 troops, 12 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 61

Defending force 0 troops, 0 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 0

Japanese adjusted assault: 23

Allied adjusted defense: 1

Japanese assault odds: 23 to 1 (fort level 0)

Japanese forces CAPTURE Tablas !!!

Combat modifiers
Attacker: leaders(-)



Assaulting units:
16th Naval Guard Unit


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

Ground combat at Hankow (85,50)

Allied Deliberate attack

Attacking force 88543 troops, 468 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 3144

Defending force 22935 troops, 239 guns, 127 vehicles, Assault Value = 571

Allied adjusted assault: 1377

Japanese adjusted defense: 1025

Allied assault odds: 1 to 1 (fort level 4)

Allied Assault reduces fortifications to 3

Excellent result. I get 1:! and I dropped the forts. The 23rd division is also rather savaged.

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), forts(+), preparation(-), fatigue(-)
experience(-)
Attacker:

Note that the supply problem from last turn has now been sorted out.


Japanese ground losses:
470 casualties reported
Squads: 1 destroyed, 36 disabled
Non Combat: 4 destroyed, 65 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 4 disabled


Allied ground losses:
1497 casualties reported
Squads: 5 destroyed, 172 disabled
Non Combat: 5 destroyed, 86 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 3 disabled


Assaulting units:
8th Chinese Corps
68th Chinese Corps
87th Chinese Corps
53rd Chinese Corps
18th Chinese Corps
75th Chinese Corps
67th Chinese Corps
2nd Chinese Corps
94th Chinese Corps
45th Chinese/C Corps
20th Group Army
6th War Area
26th Group Army

Defending units:
57th Infantry Brigade
1st Ind.Mixed Brigade
23rd Division
Hankow Special Base Force
16th JAAF Base Force
67th JAAF AF Coy


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

Ground combat at 86,42

Allied Bombardment attack

Attacking force 21250 troops, 92 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 698

Defending force 29458 troops, 254 guns, 32 vehicles, Assault Value = 988



Assaulting units:
27th Chinese Corps
93rd Chinese Corps
9th Chinese Corps
5th New Chinese Corps
14th Group Army
15th Group Army

Defending units:
3rd Ind.Mixed Brigade
35th Division
11th Division


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

Ground combat at Sinyang (86,48)

Allied Bombardment attack

Attacking force 33893 troops, 281 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 1101

Defending force 39937 troops, 399 guns, 160 vehicles, Assault Value = 1326



Assaulting units:
12th Chinese Corps
55th Chinese Corps
77th Chinese Corps
51st Chinese Corps
30th Chinese Corps
13th Chinese Corps
45th Chinese/A Corps
Jingcha War Area
31st Group Army

Defending units:
18th RGC Temp. Division
2nd Ind.Mixed Brigade
32nd/A Division
15th Division
12th RGC Temp. Division
36th Division
15th Ind.Mixed Brigade
32nd/B Division
52nd Road Const Co


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

Ground combat at Kweilin (76,54)

Allied Deliberate attack

Attacking force 38022 troops, 253 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 1465

Defending force 2100 troops, 0 guns, 60 vehicles, Assault Value = 1

Allied adjusted assault: 1754

Japanese adjusted defense: 19

Allied assault odds: 92 to 1

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), leaders(+), preparation(-), supply(-)
Attacker:

Japanese ground losses:
631 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 37 destroyed, 48 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Vehicles lost 38 (14 destroyed, 24 disabled)
Units retreated 1

23rd Army HQ gets taken care of...It appears to have retreated too slowly. Ah well ;-).


Allied ground losses:
14 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled


Defeated Japanese Units Retreating!

Assaulting units:
62nd Chinese Corps
88th Chinese Corps
63rd Chinese Corps
86th Chinese Corps
31st Chinese Corps
2nd Prov Chinese Corps
2nd Chinese Base Force
4th War Area
7th War Area
11th Chinese Base Force
7th Chinese Base Force
12th Group Army
13th Chinese Base Force

Defending units:
23rd Army


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

Ground combat at 87,45

Allied Deliberate attack

Attacking force 43361 troops, 191 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 1633

Defending force 891 troops, 10 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 10

Allied adjusted assault: 1501

Japanese adjusted defense: 1

Allied assault odds: 1501 to 1

Combat modifiers
Defender: op mode(-), experience(-), supply(-)
Attacker:

Japanese ground losses:
1024 casualties reported
Squads: 10 destroyed, 1 disabled
Non Combat: 42 destroyed, 18 disabled
Engineers: 8 destroyed, 6 disabled
Units retreated 1


Allied ground losses:
45 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 4 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled


Defeated Japanese Units Retreating!

Assaulting units:
90th Chinese Corps
59th Chinese Corps
41st Chinese Corps
92nd Chinese Corps
39th Chinese Corps
7th New Chinese Corps
5th War Area
22nd Group Army
33rd Group Army

Defending units:
23rd JNAF AF Unit


A lot of IJA forces have been damaged but actually destroyed squads are rare. Only 71 IJA squads and vehicles were destroyed today. Over time though as the IJA seeks to evacuate the pocket it can, no doubt, see developing at Changsha I expect to be able to seriously hurt those retreating forces.... They will either have to go through Hankow ( and shock attack and lose 30 to 40% of their strength ) or turn east south of Hankow and try to break through my blocking forces between them and Shanghai.

All in all I think the plan is coming together nicely although, obviously, it is still subject to change in response to developing circumstances.

_____________________________

John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 479
RE: Seadragon CO transferred to BB... - 7/17/2010 6:38:05 PM   
Capt. Harlock


Posts: 5358
Joined: 9/15/2001
From: Los Angeles
Status: offline
quote:

Allied Ships
CA Astoria
BB Warspite, Bomb hits 8, Torpedo hits 3, on fire, heavy damage
CL Leander, Bomb hits 3, on fire
CA New Orleans
CL Detroit
DD Clark
DD Dale
DD Worden, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
DD Porter

Tomorrow I will leave another ship out with massive CAP over it. With just a little luck I might get a chance at these strikegroups again. I will do my best to get Warspite to Ponape.


How much does Warspite interfere with your plans to assemble Surface Combat forces in the DEI? (But it seems New Orleans has managed to shrug off that fire...)

_____________________________

Civil war? What does that mean? Is there any foreign war? Isn't every war fought between men, between brothers?

--Victor Hugo

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 480
Page:   <<   < prev  14 15 [16] 17 18   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: Off Map Targets Page: <<   < prev  14 15 [16] 17 18   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

1.441