RE: Seven Days

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: Seven Days

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: Seven Days

Page: << < prev 67 68 [69] 70 71 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Seven Days - 7/14/2010 7:19:33 PM

Chickenboy

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

cr, a year or so ago in game time I was short on carriers so I converted all my replenishment CVEs into regular flight decks.� There might have been times when it would be helpful to replenish, but they are rare.� Usually when losses come they are so great that a few CVE VR wouldn't be enough to make good the losses and, by that time, the action is over anyhow.� I'm pleased with the decision, though I think other players could go the other way with excellent results for them.

As far as I know the replenishment CVE system works.� I used it in WitP.

Do you run into problems with the land based VR units mushrooming in size? This was sometimes a problem in WiTP vanilla.

_____________________________

(in reply to Canoerebel)

Post #: 2041

RE: Seven Days - 7/14/2010 7:23:48 PM

Canoerebel

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

No, nothing like that has happened. I kept the V fighters aboard the CVEs and transferred the strike aircraft to airfields where they remained the appropriate size.

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 2042

RE: Seven Days - 7/14/2010 7:27:14 PM

witpqs

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

IRL Halsey did not stay with the transports, and he was (and is) considered one of the best.

Except that, 70 years later, that one action is STILL the first thing naval historians bring up about his bio. It was a huge mistake; he should have been relieved for it. He got lucky. He risked utter devastation on the landing beaches, and the invasion itself. Destruction of toothless enemy cariers was not his prime charge. Liberation of the PI was.

Which is beside the point. This facet of the command structure of the game is meant to reflect such real life issues.

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)

Post #: 2043

RE: Seven Days - 7/14/2010 7:34:10 PM

witpqs

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: pat.casey

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

IRL Halsey did not stay with the transports, and he was (and is) considered one of the best.

Except that, 70 years later, that one action is STILL the first thing naval historians bring up about his bio. It was a huge mistake; he should have been relieved for it. He got lucky. He risked utter devastation on the landing beaches, and the invasion itself. Destruction of toothless enemy cariers was not his prime charge. Liberation of the PI was.

Have to agree; this is making the exception the rule.

Other factor is I very much doubt (although I could be wrong), that Halsey had orders from higher authority that said "do not under any circumstances leave the transports". Instead he probably had a vague understanding to "execute the mission using reasonable discretion".

If we set the reaction range to zero, that's the equivalent to putting a written order from the joint chief's on Halsey's desk saying "do not, under any circumstances, leave the transports".

The thing with Halsey is he used his discretion badly, not that he disobeyed and explicit order (at least not that I'm aware of).

In this game there is no way to issue any such orders to any kind of TF. They all can make their own decisions. Even the risk tolerance, 'remain on station', etc. settings do not make any of this absolute. part of the philosophy of WITP/AE is the viewpoint of the player's command, which has been maintained even with the contradictions that were added (like managing individual pilots).

I do think carrier react could be improved, but I doubt they will take it out entirely because it would violate one of the designers tenants. The whole bit about the perspective of command in this game has been discussed at length before. Which is different than suggesting that the choices you would make in designing a game would be in any way worse - they would just be different choices (yours). I really doubt they will remove carrier react entirely.

(in reply to pat.casey)

Post #: 2044

RE: Seven Days - 7/14/2010 7:38:56 PM

Canoerebel

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

11/21/44 and 11/22/44

Japanese Air Strikes: Japanese LBA sortied against both the Allied CV fleet nearing Jolo plus Allied transports in the area. The aircraft didn't manage anything against the carriers, but did rough up a dozen transports (some of these were damaged ships returning from Hainan Island, others were carrying reinforcements to NW Borneo). On that note, I just remembered that somebody asked whether Miller has been using kamikazees. Yes, he has. However it appears to me that they are appearing in manageable and sporadic numbers. Most of his effective strikes are conventional. I don't know whether it's that Miller's just been unlucky in getting them to sortie or whether he for some reason hasn't employed them en masse yet.

China: To my surprise, the American airborne force took Chaochow, the city between Swatow and Amoy. So now the Allies suddenly have a port city northeast of Hong Kong. I'm not sure whether I'll try to reinforce by sea due to the risk involved (the area is surrounded by hostile airfields.

Malaya: The Allied army besieging Victoria Point made some progress, so it looks like this city could fall within a few weeks.

Borneo: I think the Allies have enough troops ashore to take Kudat, the base north of Jesselton.

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 2045

RE: Seven Days - 7/14/2010 8:40:22 PM

anarchyintheuk

Posts: 3921
Joined: 5/5/2004
From: Dallas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

IRL Halsey did not stay with the transports, and he was (and is) considered one of the best.

Except that, 70 years later, that one action is STILL the first thing naval historians bring up about his bio. It was a huge mistake; he should have been relieved for it. He got lucky. He risked utter devastation on the landing beaches, and the invasion itself. Destruction of toothless enemy cariers was not his prime charge. Liberation of the PI was.

Don't want to disrupt the aar but Halsey was acting according to his understanding of his orders. Prior to the op Halsey specifically asked if his priority was destruction of the enemy or protection of the transports and was told the former. This was in direct response to a feeling amongst some USN commanders that Spruance had made a mistake at Phillipine Seas (had Spruance prioritized on the cvtfs in the transports, there may not have been a decoy available to lure Halsey later). Technically, Kinkaid was responsible for close support so he should have been covering both straights. The biggest failure was by Nimitz who failed to name one naval commander for the operation or, in lieu of that, be responsible for maintaining the coordination between both fleets. I think Nimitz realized that and that was one of the major reasons that Halsey didn't get canned. Don't take any of the above to mean that I think that Halsey didn't make numerous mistakes during the battle.

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)

Post #: 2046

RE: Seven Days - 7/14/2010 11:05:30 PM

witpqs

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

It was understood that Halsey was guarding the North Strait. It was not understood to be Kinkaid's job to guard them both.

(in reply to anarchyintheuk)

Post #: 2047

RE: Seven Days - 7/15/2010 1:41:02 AM

Bullwinkle58

Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

I do think carrier react could be improved, but I doubt they will take it out entirely because it would violate one of the designers tenants. The whole bit about the perspective of command in this game has been discussed at length before. Which is different than suggesting that the choices you would make in designing a game would be in any way worse - they would just be different choices (yours). I really doubt they will remove carrier react entirely.

You're talking beside the point. I haven't seen anyone calling for the react---carrier or otherwise--to be removed. Only that it do what it says. If a non-zero react is set, let the TF react as the variables, primarily the CO's specs, call for, with any randoms. But when the player uses the interface provided by the devs, let zero BE zero. In all my years of reading WITP forums no one has ever been able to explain why "1" can mean "1", and "0" can mean "one". There's no design utility in it.

If initiative and aggressiveness is the be all, imagine the howls if the player told a TF to resupply PH, but the CO decided he'd rather see Tarawa. This is a game reflecting MILITARY events. When your orders say "don't react", damn it, you don't react.

< Message edited by Bullwinkle58 -- 7/15/2010 1:42:37 AM >

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 2048

RE: Seven Days - 7/15/2010 2:47:20 AM

witpqs

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

I do think carrier react could be improved, but I doubt they will take it out entirely because it would violate one of the designers tenants. The whole bit about the perspective of command in this game has been discussed at length before. Which is different than suggesting that the choices you would make in designing a game would be in any way worse - they would just be different choices (yours). I really doubt they will remove carrier react entirely.

You're talking beside the point. I haven't seen anyone calling for the react---carrier or otherwise--to be removed. Only that it do what it says. If a non-zero react is set, let the TF react as the variables, primarily the CO's specs, call for, with any randoms. But when the player uses the interface provided by the devs, let zero BE zero. In all my years of reading WITP forums no one has ever been able to explain why "1" can mean "1", and "0" can mean "one". There's no design utility in it.

If initiative and aggressiveness is the be all, imagine the howls if the player told a TF to resupply PH, but the CO decided he'd rather see Tarawa. This is a game reflecting MILITARY events. When your orders say "don't react", damn it, you don't react.

That's what I meant - the designer intended for less than ironclad command certainty for the player.

For many things 'faithfully do what the setting says' does not come against any design decision. But 'carrier react = 0 means react sometimes depending...' is the kind of thing they have said in the past is 'as designed'. They mentioned there were some things that they checked with Grigsby on. Perhaps that was one of them. Anyway, to the best of my knowledge we are stuck with it.

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)

Post #: 2049

RE: Seven Days - 7/15/2010 7:41:25 AM

Canoerebel

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

Thanks, witpqs. It helps to know that the issue has been long since addressed by the designer, who it turns out wanted the feature included, and that the matter is closed. I will adjust my thinking accordingly.

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 2050

RE: Seven Days - 7/15/2010 9:12:18 AM

JeffroK

Posts: 6391
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

I do think carrier react could be improved, but I doubt they will take it out entirely because it would violate one of the designers tenants. The whole bit about the perspective of command in this game has been discussed at length before. Which is different than suggesting that the choices you would make in designing a game would be in any way worse - they would just be different choices (yours). I really doubt they will remove carrier react entirely.

You're talking beside the point. I haven't seen anyone calling for the react---carrier or otherwise--to be removed. Only that it do what it says. If a non-zero react is set, let the TF react as the variables, primarily the CO's specs, call for, with any randoms. But when the player uses the interface provided by the devs, let zero BE zero. In all my years of reading WITP forums no one has ever been able to explain why "1" can mean "1", and "0" can mean "one". There's no design utility in it.

If initiative and aggressiveness is the be all, imagine the howls if the player told a TF to resupply PH, but the CO decided he'd rather see Tarawa. This is a game reflecting MILITARY events. When your orders say "don't react", damn it, you don't react.

That's what I meant - the designer intended for less than ironclad command certainty for the player.

For many things 'faithfully do what the setting says' does not come against any design decision. But 'carrier react = 0 means react sometimes depending...' is the kind of thing they have said in the past is 'as designed'. They mentioned there were some things that they checked with Grigsby on. Perhaps that was one of them. Anyway, to the best of my knowledge we are stuck with it.

if so, then a react of 1 should be 1 or 0, a react of 2 should be 2 or 1 or 0,

NOT, 0 = anything , 1 = anything, 2 = anything.

GG had some great ideas, most of them needed tweaking.

Now Dan, back to the war.......

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 2051

RE: Seven Days - 7/15/2010 5:03:25 PM

Canoerebel

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

11/23/44 and 11/24/44
�
Quiet everywhere except where the Allies wished to make noise, so two more good days for the Allies:

Vietnam:� The British army took Vinh, mauling the garrison.� This opens the door to the Hanoi, so most of the British (and Indian) units will move north to besiege Hanoi.� As soon as they arrive, the combined American/Chinese army just north of Hanoi will move south and join in the siege.� I don't imagine Hanoi can hold long.� Once it falls, the Allies have an open road between Burma/Thailand and China.

China:� Allies units are fanning out with the next clashes to take place at Nanning and Kulako.� Nothing's positive yet, but I'm beginning to get the feeling that the Allies will be able to drive to the coast, bypassing Canton and Hong Kong.� This is and has been the chief objective - to seize bases with big-potential airfields to permit strategic bombing.

Borneo:� The Allies easily took Kudat and will now move to adjacent Jesselton.

Carriers:� The Allied fleet carriers arrived at Balikpan where a large replenishment convoy awaited.� As soon as the carriers are gassed up and make good replacements of lost aircraft, the carriers will return to their battle stations somewhere in the vicinity of Luzon or the South China Sea.

Points:� The Japanese lead is under 4,000 points now (but it's still noteworthy that�Miller has the lead; a tip of the cap to him).� However, it's beginning to look to me like this offensive has "broken" Japan's back.��It took long enough, there will be tough fighting ahead, and it will take a long time for the Allies to achieve a 2:1 lead in points (assuming the cause doesn't�because so hopeless beforehand that Miller concedes).� Nevertheless,�the Allies have�broken through and acheived a position from which the end-game can be waged.�

< Message edited by Canoerebel -- 7/15/2010 5:05:11 PM >

(in reply to JeffroK)

Post #: 2052

RE: Seven Days - 7/15/2010 6:07:43 PM

Bullwinkle58

Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

I know you aren't primarily playing for VPs, but your situaiton is interesting. Since you didn't do the Mid-Pac thing a lot of juicy VP tanks aren't available to you. He doesn't have that many high VP ships left for you to sink. Your aircraft exchange rates--unless he starts throwing mass kamis at you--aren't skewed enough to make up many thousands of points.

So you're left with bases and troops (and strat damage, a different problem.) There are several big VP bases at your relative fingertips, but a lot aren't that close either. Lopsided troop casualty VPs might be your best source of ready points, so your movements might need to be enveloping rather than frontal confrontations. Forcing him back east does net you a lot of casualties if the IJA is out of supply and routing, but not as many as compete destruction. Routes like the Malay peninsula are good for high VP bases, but also the sometimes scores of LCUs you can utterly destroy at the tip in Singapore.

He might be looking at base hex VPs and designing his defenses to deny you those. You can get into a slugging match, which you'll win if you get enough supplies in, or you can run a maneuver war and snipe up the 20- and 30-VP bases all over the place at once. An interesting time-distance problem. But you can be more places at once than he can (even a lot of your late-war base forces can take unoccupied bases alone), and you now have immense-range recon assets to tell you where he isn't.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Canoerebel)

Post #: 2053

RE: Seven Days - 7/15/2010 6:17:41 PM

JohnDillworth

Posts: 3100
Joined: 3/19/2009
Status: offline

quote:

Since you didn't do the Mid-Pac thing

One wonders how much a of garrison is left on any of the mid pacific islands. a single Marine division might be able to make a road trip picking up a bunch of bases with little prep. Half a chance many of these are completely stripped

_____________________________

Today I come bearing an olive branch in one hand, and the freedom fighter's gun in the other. Do not let the olive branch fall from my hand. I repeat, do not let the olive branch fall from my hand. - Yasser Arafat Speech to UN General Assembly

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)

Post #: 2054

RE: Seven Days - 7/15/2010 6:25:51 PM

Bullwinkle58

Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

quote:

Since you didn't do the Mid-Pac thing

One wonders how much a of garrison is left on any of the mid pacific islands. a single Marine division might be able to make a road trip picking up a bunch of bases with little prep. Half a chance many of these are completely stripped

Probably worth doing some recon at least. Some of those beasts, like Saipan and Iwo, have CD and forts enough to be a problem even with minimal garrisons, but there are probably some cherries to be picked. Wake, Marcus, Ocean, and Ponape for starters.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to JohnDillworth)

Post #: 2055

RE: Seven Days - 7/15/2010 6:34:40 PM

Canoerebel

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

I suspect that Miller will concede once the cause becomes utterly hopeless.

If he continues to grind it out and it becomes clear there won't be a concession unless and until the Allies achieve a 2:1 auto-victory, I would do things this way:

1. Strategic bombing: alot of points to be scored.
2. Tidying up the map: Singapore and some of the other bases in the DEI and SEAC are worth alot of points and they also have stout garrisons. The Allies would pick up alot of points here.
3. Moving forward: The Allies would aim for Manila and some of the CenPac bases (as you guys suggest)
4. China: Trying to encircle and destroy as many troops as possible
5. Hunting down carriers and transports: Miller still has a fair number of CVs and a host of transports, so the Allies would try to pick these off.

But strategic bombing is the quickest and easiest way to both score points and wear out Japan to the point that Miller throws in the towel.

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)

Post #: 2056

RE: Seven Days - 7/15/2010 6:42:22 PM

JohnDillworth

Posts: 3100
Joined: 3/19/2009
Status: offline

What is the experience level of your bomber pilots? the B-29's come in pretty low. You get hundreds of them, but you will lose alot of these through operations and if your experience level is low you will lose plenty of the HI

_____________________________

(in reply to Canoerebel)

Post #: 2057

RE: Seven Days - 7/15/2010 6:46:44 PM

Canoerebel

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

Well, my B-29 pilots aren't anything to boast about.� Most arrived with experience in the upper 40s and some are now in the mid 50s.� I'm fiddiling around with the training command feature and I seem to have a decent reserve of high-experience bomber pilots, but I just had to draw some for my carrier TBM squadrons because their pilots had experience of 27 (!!!!!).

(in reply to JohnDillworth)

Post #: 2058

RE: Seven Days - 7/15/2010 7:27:14 PM

JohnDillworth

Posts: 3100
Joined: 3/19/2009
Status: offline

I think the pools are different.TBM should be Navy, you need Army. you might want to start cashing out some of your B-25 & B-24 guys. go to the squadrons, list the pilots and right click twice on the good ones (first click puts them into the group reserve, second one puts them in the general reserve). Within a week or 2 they will show up in the general reserve. You can then "request veteran" from you B-29's squadrons and pick from the reserve. Send the clunkers already in your B-29 groups home. Don't forget to back fill the B-25, & B-24 groups and start training them at 100%. Kind of late in the game but it can't hurt. I hate pilot training too but it is a necessary evil in the game.

_____________________________

(in reply to Canoerebel)

Post #: 2059

RE: Seven Days - 7/15/2010 7:43:56 PM

crsutton

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

What is the experience level of your bomber pilots? the B-29's come in pretty low. You get hundreds of them, but you will lose alot of these through operations and if your experience level is low you will lose plenty of the HI

John,

He can just pull pilots out of the liberator squadrons. They should be pretty experienced by now, then rotate the lesser pilots into the B24s. Or for that matter, he can pull them out of the mediums if they have not been kicked around too much.

< Message edited by crsutton -- 7/15/2010 7:46:02 PM >

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to JohnDillworth)

Post #: 2060

RE: Seven Days - 7/15/2010 7:51:43 PM

Canoerebel

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

I bet some of my medium bombers have decent-experience pilots. I'll give that a try.

By the way, I have found medium bombers useless in the game. They don't score against ships, they achieve poorly against land targets, and they get shot down fairly easily. I only use them when there's no chance of enemy CAP, so presently I have a few bombing Lae and a few hitting remote targets around the DEI.

(in reply to crsutton)

Post #: 2061

RE: Seven Days - 7/15/2010 8:12:33 PM

JohnDillworth

Posts: 3100
Joined: 3/19/2009
Status: offline

quote:

I bet some of my medium bombers have decent-experience pilots. I'll give that a try.

By the way, I have found medium bombers useless in the game. They don't score against ships, they achieve poorly against land targets, and they get shot down fairly easily. I only use them when there's no chance of enemy CAP, so presently I have a few bombing Lae and a few hitting remote targets around the DEI.

I agree, but I am told that was also a training issue. You have to figure out what the bombers will end up being used for (B-25c like regular bombers, B25G will always attack low level, so train them to straff)and train accordingly. So this either means know the full upgrade path of each squadron (Where does this Bolo group end up?) or micro-manage training and pilots. Simple, no? As for what skills are useful for City Attack I have no idea

_____________________________

(in reply to Canoerebel)

Post #: 2062

RE: Seven Days - 7/15/2010 8:15:28 PM

crsutton

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

I bet some of my medium bombers have decent-experience pilots.� I'll give that a try.

By the way, I have found medium bombers useless in the game.� They don't score against ships, they achieve poorly against land targets, and they get shot down fairly easily.� I only use them when there's no chance of enemy CAP, so presently I have a few bombing Lae and a few hitting remote targets around the DEI.

Yep agree 100 per cent. They are not that tough. They will bomb AKs and APs though when trained up in low level. Important to remember that if non attack bombers are attacking below 6k feet, they only carry 1/2 a bombload. Still this does not mean they are not useful for this.

Problems is we are both dealing with scen #2 and our opponents have plenty of CAP everywhere.

Once I get sufficent number of liberators, I plan on converting some mediums to heavies. Some do not like this but PDU is either "on or off" in my book and if it is on then anything goes....

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Canoerebel)

Post #: 2063

RE: Seven Days - 7/15/2010 9:05:33 PM

Canoerebel

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

quote:

I bet some of my medium bombers have decent-experience pilots. I'll give that a try.

By the way, I have found medium bombers useless in the game. They don't score against ships, they achieve poorly against land targets, and they get shot down fairly easily. I only use them when there's no chance of enemy CAP, so presently I have a few bombing Lae and a few hitting remote targets around the DEI.

I agree, but I am told that was also a training issue. You have to figure out what the bombers will end up being used for (B-25c like regular bombers, B25G will always attack low level, so train them to straff)and train accordingly. So this either means know the full upgrade path of each squadron (Where does this Bolo group end up?) or micro-manage training and pilots. Simple, no? As for what skills are useful for City Attack I have no idea

John, I feel like the husband who makes intricate arrangements so that the children will stay overnight with friends, then cleans the house, whips up a tasty dinner, grooms himself meticulously, only to have his wife announce: "Gee, Honey, my back really hurts tonight so I'm going to bed."

Here I was finally ready to dip my toe into pilot training. I've read up on what to click and when to click and what happens when I click. I think I know how to move pilots around so that my front line aircraft aren't in the hands of a 25-experience dude whose last attempt to steer something resulted in his lawn mower running over the neighbor's child's tricycle. I'm almost ready to sit down and learn what the heck Nav-G and Nav-T and Nav-Z are...and now you tell me that some B-25s handle one way and others another way so that pilots have to be specifically trained for each model?

(in reply to JohnDillworth)

Post #: 2064

RE: Seven Days - 7/15/2010 9:22:57 PM

JohnDillworth

Posts: 3100
Joined: 3/19/2009
Status: offline

Just learning most of this myself. The good news is there has been endless discussion about it. Fighter pilots are easier. I always wanted my b-25's to be ship killers like they truly were. But I never trained them right. As for B-29's it is a fairly simple question to the group: Besides experience, what trait is most coveted for Strategic bombing? I suspect it is ground bombardment. Tell you what, I 'll post in the general forums.
BTW, I notice you started a new game so you are in a good position to start learning this stuff too. Step 1, put all you idol squadrons at 100% training. Particularly the ones on the west coast. I guess put the bombers on general training until it becomes clear what they will be doing. Float planes 100% on naval attack. They can be trained out as torpeodo pilots later on I am told.

_____________________________

(in reply to Canoerebel)

Post #: 2065

RE: Seven Days - 7/19/2010 3:05:41 PM

Canoerebel

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

11/25/44 to 12/2/44

An Open Road: The Allies took both Hanoi and Nanning on the 2nd. This opens up the road all the way from Thailand through Vietnam to Wuchow.

Pockets: A sizeable pocket of IJA troops remains at Haiphong. This will be eliminated shortly, after which a massive Allied army will be free to join the general advance toward coastal China. The IJA troops that retreated from Nanning are caught in no-man's-land. Two small Chinese units will be left to deal with them. The remaining troops from this siege will move directly to the front.

Advance: Allied troops are pouring toward the coast - mainly around Kulenko and Kanhsien, but also further north near Nankang. It takes time to cover ground, but the Allies should begin attacking at the "nearest" base (Kulenko) in a week or so.

Strategic Airfields: The objective is to reach, seize, and build up the big-potential bases on the coast: Swatow, Amoy, Foochow, and Wenchow. I believe the Allies will have some of these bases by ealry 1945, so that strategic bombing can commence early that year. The Allies will continue pressing forward until they are stopped - Shanghai might be the ultimate target.

Carriers: The fleet carriers are on the way back to the front and should arrive in two days. After the reinforcement transports break off to unload, the carriers will cruise into enemy territory to halt traffic between Luzon and Japan, or Japan and China.

(in reply to JohnDillworth)

Post #: 2066

RE: Seven Days - 7/20/2010 6:12:02 PM

Canoerebel

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

12/3/44 and 12/4/44

Strategic Bombing Commences: The Allies conducted the first strategic bombing raid of the war - massed waves of B-29s from Kwangchoan and Kiungshan set to hit Hiroshima and Nagasaki...or that was the idea. In actuality, the bombers performed poorly, scoring a total of 12 points while losing a bunch of aircraft. I'll stand down strategic ops for awhile - training my pilots and waiting until I have airfields closer to the targets.

China: It will take awhile, but Allied troops are moving north and east. It will be at least a week before the next big assault takes place.

Vietnam: The southern half of the big Allied army crossed the river and assaulted Haiphong with poor results; the northern half will cross tomorrow. Once all troops cross and have four to six days of rest to recover from disruption, the attacks will commence.

Borneo: The Allies took Jesselton.

Carriers: The fleet carriers are moving east to a point south of Formosa. The CVE TFs will remain near Hainan Island.

(in reply to Canoerebel)

Post #: 2067

RE: Seven Days - 7/20/2010 6:42:14 PM

witpqs

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

You might consider having a look at your other USA bomber squadrons with an eye toward finding some you can trade pilots with the B-29's. Let the other groups train while the B-29's rain (destruction, that is).

(in reply to Canoerebel)

Post #: 2068

RE: Seven Days - 7/20/2010 6:55:59 PM

JohnDillworth

Posts: 3100
Joined: 3/19/2009
Status: offline

quote:

Strategic Bombing Commences: The Allies conducted the first strategic bombing raid of the war - massed waves of B-29s from Kwangchoan and Kiungshan set to hit Hiroshima and Nagasaki...or that was the idea. In actuality, the bombers performed poorly, scoring a total of 12 points while losing a bunch of aircraft. I'll stand down strategic ops for awhile - training my pilots and waiting until I have airfields closer to the targets.

What were you targets (City Attack?) , altitude, and ops losses? One can always go righ to the firebomb route. Low altitude/night/city.

_____________________________

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 2069

RE: Seven Days - 7/21/2010 7:31:56 AM

Galahad78

Posts: 386
Joined: 9/28/2009
Status: offline

Have you tried also to Sweep a couple of cities with hordes of fighters (guess perhaps you do not have close enough bases for them?) for a couple of turns, and then striking another city with your B-29s?