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: Deafeat in CENTPAC

 
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: Deafeat in CENTPAC Page: <<   < prev  35 36 [37] 38 39   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Deafeat in CENTPAC - 11/18/2010 11:57:22 AM   
beppi

 

Posts: 382
Joined: 3/11/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: traskott

You can bring billions of engineers, but only a maximum of 250 will work in the base (per code). There is no Hellcats...yet, nor Corsairs.

one million of supplies ?? the bests AKs bring 7.000 tons of supplie.. 100 of them 700.000, but you don't have 100, so several convoys of 100+ AKs will be flying around...

Overall, I think the idea of an assault over Java is unaffordable right now... Besides, with all the toys PzB has...it can be a bloody job.



I doubt that limit of 250 engineers too. In a full campaign i did against the AI i remember that at the end when i dropped huge amounts of engineers (in the 1000nds of equivalent) the bases realy exploded in size realy fast.

And it was more or less a theoretical list of things you would have to do if you realy want to create an almost independent base deep in enemy territory by "suprise" if you cant keep your lines of supply open. And so what, put 300 xAks full of supply with your fleet. xAKs are the only thing you are not short of. xAPs to ferry all the troops in one drop would be a bigger problem.

If Andy would do such an operation is an good old all in and if you go all in then commit to it and to do it in a big way. I am not saying that this is the best way to achieve anything. Just dropping 10 divisions with 100k supply which are getting hammered by enemy air and naval assets is just a waste of ressources as it will be a desaster.


< Message edited by beppi -- 11/18/2010 12:09:48 PM >

(in reply to traskott)
Post #: 1081
RE: Deafeat in CENTPAC - 11/18/2010 12:00:25 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: traskott

You can bring billions of engineers, but only a maximum of 250 will work in the base (per code). There is no Hellcats...yet, nor Corsairs.

one million of supplies ?? the bests AKs bring 7.000 tons of supplie.. 100 of them 700.000, but you don't have 100, so several convoys of 100+ AKs will be flying around...

Overall, I think the idea of an assault over Java is unaffordable right now... Besides, with all the toys PzB has...it can be a bloody job.






says who? If this is the code then the code isnīt working as bases with hundreds of engineers and hundreds of eng vehicles explode in size compared to bases where you only got 250 engineers. I guess you mistake this with 250 aviation support.

_____________________________


(in reply to traskott)
Post #: 1082
RE: Deafeat in CENTPAC - 11/18/2010 12:05:19 PM   
traskott


Posts: 1546
Joined: 6/23/2008
From: Valladolid, Spain
Status: offline 		All right, all right !!! 3 against 1 is not fair !!! 


I'm currently re-reading the manual, to find where I have see this date, but ( to this moment ) I have found it, so sorry, til I find it, ignore that part of the post.

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 1083
RE: Deafeat in CENTPAC - 11/18/2010 12:27:39 PM   
traskott


Posts: 1546
Joined: 6/23/2008
From: Valladolid, Spain
Status: offline 		Yeah, I haven't found it, so please forget my previous statment about "250 engineers limit"....

However, the idea of a great invasion of Java is a bit risky...The bridge will be isolated, and without a clear way of retreat. I'll prefer wait, or the idea of P.M.





(in reply to traskott)
Post #: 1084
RE: Deafeat in CENTPAC - 11/18/2010 12:31:20 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: traskott

Yeah, I haven't found it, so please forget my previous statment about "250 engineers limit"....

However, the idea of a great invasion of Java is a bit risky...The bridge will be isolated, and without a clear way of retreat. I'll prefer wait, or the idea of P.M.








itīs the 250 aviation support you had in mind...

_____________________________


(in reply to traskott)
Post #: 1085
RE: Deafeat in CENTPAC - 11/18/2010 12:36:52 PM   
traskott


Posts: 1546
Joined: 6/23/2008
From: Valladolid, Spain
Status: offline 		No, no, the 250 aviation limit is well known by me (well, better than the "250 engineers limit")...Perhaps I read that on the first ideas or wishlist about WitPAE...

Well. It doesn't matter.

@Andy: What is the USAAF situation ? With all that CVs of less, the US Air Force will have double work....

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 1086
RE: Deafeat in CENTPAC - 11/18/2010 12:48:02 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline 		Fair? FAIR?

If you fight fair then you haven't planned right ;-)

_____________________________

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 #: 1087
RE: Deafeat in CENTPAC - 11/18/2010 12:48:33 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline 		Fair? FAIR?

If you fight fair then you haven't planned right ;-)

_____________________________

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 #: 1088
RE: Deafeat in CENTPAC - 11/18/2010 12:52:14 PM   
traskott


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

Yeah, one my defence systems: Try to make you feel guilty .

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 1089
RE: Deafeat in CENTPAC - 11/18/2010 4:17:18 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline 		One of the developers posted a good while back on the limit to engineers that will function at a base. I don't recall what it is, but there is a limit and my best recollection is that it is in the low hundreds. 250 could be it, I just don't remember. As far as engineering vehicles go they are each treated as a certain number of engineers.

(in reply to traskott)
Post #: 1090
RE: Deafeat in CENTPAC - 11/18/2010 4:30:14 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

One of the developers posted a good while back on the limit to engineers that will function at a base. I don't recall what it is, but there is a limit and my best recollection is that it is in the low hundreds. 250 could be it, I just don't remember. As far as engineering vehicles go they are each treated as a certain number of engineers.



it canīt be 250 and if it is, then the code isnīt working. Like Iīve said, bases where Iīve put hundreds of eng and letīs say 200 eng vehicles just explode to max size while places with 300 eng and some 50 eng vehicles build up considerable slower. And yes, talking about similar sizes, not comparing SPS 3 with SPS 9 bases. And 300 eng with 50 eng vehicles would count as 500 eng too (or was a veh counting as 5 eng?). Even the big US const rgt would have more than 250 eng. If there is a limit for eng it would be great though as it just doesnīt make sense that thousands of eng in a mini place could all work. But then, you would have to look at it from the terrain side and map first to judge on how many eng can work at a certain place and I doubt thatīs how itīs done. There is a big difference between a flat, open hex in Australia and a small atoll, while both are in a 45 mile hex.

< Message edited by castor troy -- 11/18/2010 4:33:20 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 1091
RE: Deafeat in CENTPAC - 11/18/2010 4:34:11 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline 		Like I said, I know it was posted but forget the detailed content.

BTW, the fact that it was posted means that it's in there (unless subsequently pulled out), it does not guarantee 100% that its working right now.

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 1092
RE: Deafeat in CENTPAC - 11/18/2010 4:34:56 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Like I said, I know it was posted but forget the detailed content.

BTW, the fact that it was posted means that it's in there (unless subsequently pulled out), it does not guarantee 100% that its working right now.



tried the search but couldnīt find something yet. As Andy is one of the devs, he might chime in here.

_____________________________


(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 1093
RE: Deafeat in CENTPAC - 11/18/2010 4:37:02 PM   
traskott


Posts: 1546
Joined: 6/23/2008
From: Valladolid, Spain
Status: offline 		Oh, my !!! I've created a monster !!!

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 1094
RE: Deafeat in CENTPAC - 11/18/2010 4:51:22 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline 		I've tried Google on matrixgames.com but couldn't find it. I believe it was a developer that posted, not one of the OOB guys.

(in reply to traskott)
Post #: 1095
RE: Deafeat in CENTPAC - 11/18/2010 4:54:27 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline 		A developer did post that some time ago but it really doesn't appear to be how the game works. I've tested it and having 700 engineers at a base doesn't cap at 250 effective.


Traskott,
And you know how that tends to go for the creators don't you? The monsters tend to eat them

_____________________________

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

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 1096
RE: Deafeat in CENTPAC - 11/18/2010 5:07:04 PM   
traskott


Posts: 1546
Joined: 6/23/2008
From: Valladolid, Spain
Status: offline 		Poor monster....

Pfff...I'm trying to figure where I read about the 250 engineers, but....

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 1097
RE: Deafeat in CENTPAC - 11/18/2010 5:17:29 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline 		Maybe it's 2,500?

(in reply to traskott)
Post #: 1098
RE: Deafeat in CENTPAC - 11/19/2010 11:12:41 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		The issue with java is I will struggle to do it early I am looking round and considering many options.

A better one might be to land on West Sumatra and at the same time send small TF's with 2 Seabee Bns supplies and an Inf Bn or 2 to take all the dot islands at the same time PZB would struggle to suppress or retake them all so at least a few would get to be AF's especially if it all happens at the same time

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 1099
RE: Deafeat in CENTPAC - 11/19/2010 11:40:40 PM   
DivePac88


Posts: 3119
Joined: 10/9/2008
From: Somewhere in the South Pacific.
Status: offline 		If you have to launch an operation in the SEA area, why not a landing ops against Ramree Island on the Burmese coast. The strategic purpose of taking Ramree would be as a forward fighter and recon base, and a flanking bridgehead for LCU operations toward Rangoon. The advantages would be that you can use your LBA in support, and have a reasonable chance of protecting your sea LOC.

_____________________________


When you see the Southern Cross, For the first time
You understand now, Why you came this way

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 1100
RE: Deafeat in CENTPAC - 11/20/2010 12:30:34 AM   
pat.casey

 

Posts: 393
Joined: 9/10/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

The issue with java is I will struggle to do it early I am looking round and considering many options.

A better one might be to land on West Sumatra and at the same time send small TF's with 2 Seabee Bns supplies and an Inf Bn or 2 to take all the dot islands at the same time PZB would struggle to suppress or retake them all so at least a few would get to be AF's especially if it all happens at the same time


I dunno, my instinct here would be to go big or go home. Either land someplace critical with an overwhelming force or sit tight and wait until you can.

Seems like sending regiment sized forces all over the map just invites the japanese to scrape together a few divisions and gobble them up.

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 1101
RE: Deafeat in CENTPAC - 11/20/2010 1:57:51 AM   
Xxzard

 

Posts: 440
Joined: 9/28/2008
From: Arizona
Status: offline 		I think that especially after a Japanese victory at sea, concentrating forces for some big decisive push is a very bad idea. That is exactly what the Japanese player wants. If you concentrate your push, then the Japanese player concentrates their defenses, and you will surely encounter the KB and have your fleets sunk again. The Japanese counteroffensive, even if you do take some ground, can be devastating at this point of the war, and you may end up losing a lot more than you would ever gain. Focus on causing attrition to Japanese forces instead.

One of the best ways to do this is to take smaller bases that are a thorn in the side of the Japanese player. He will either a) not respond, which means you get a free gain, or he will b) counterattack, and since you should be able to plan for this, and set up something of a defense/trap, you will have the advantage.

_____________________________


(in reply to pat.casey)
Post #: 1102
RE: Deafeat in CENTPAC - 11/20/2010 3:06:54 AM   
pat.casey

 

Posts: 393
Joined: 9/10/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Xxzard

I think that especially after a Japanese victory at sea, concentrating forces for some big decisive push is a very bad idea. That is exactly what the Japanese player wants. If you concentrate your push, then the Japanese player concentrates their defenses, and you will surely encounter the KB and have your fleets sunk again. The Japanese counteroffensive, even if you do take some ground, can be devastating at this point of the war, and you may end up losing a lot more than you would ever gain. Focus on causing attrition to Japanese forces instead.

One of the best ways to do this is to take smaller bases that are a thorn in the side of the Japanese player. He will either a) not respond, which means you get a free gain, or he will b) counterattack, and since you should be able to plan for this, and set up something of a defense/trap, you will have the advantage.


I think it depends entirely where he fights. If he tries to do something big in centpac, then, yes, he runs a high likelyhood of running into KB and he'll be forced to fight with his weaker arm (his navy).

If, on the other hand, he can get massively ashore someplace in the japanese perimeter and use his army and army air pilots (of which he has many), then the situation is going to favor the allies a lot more.

The tricky bit, of course, is trying to arrange that sort of outcome, but that's why we play the game :)

(in reply to Xxzard)
Post #: 1103
RE: Deafeat in CENTPAC - 11/20/2010 12:55:30 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		To be clear I have decided nothing at present and deacto until I have pool density in Hellcats, Corsairs and hopefully Thuds I aint doing anything.

I am three months away from a fleet that can put to sea and take KB.

With the defeat of my fleet PZB could just sit back its the smarty play to avoid losses like those I just took. However PZB is ultra aggressive he may come back out to play if he does de facto its either Midway or New Cal neither of which are critical to my ability to fight.

In Burma I am holding - barely but holding on suciking in a huge proportion of his forces but HOLDING.

Next year will be the year of decision in this theatre.

I have LCU's and trained pilots and strong land based airforces but I lack a fighter that can kill Tojo's on sweep so I need time to train and prepare but that doesnt mean I cannot scheme and plan

(in reply to pat.casey)
Post #: 1104
RE: Deafeat in CENTPAC - 11/20/2010 12:56:04 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		ps I am a better player with my back to the wall I get careless when I think I am in front

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 1105
RE: Deafeat in CENTPAC - 11/20/2010 5:54:38 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		Japanese were about to break through at kalmeyo and just as all was lost the infantry tired after their long fight heard a trundling along the road....rolling straight into the fight just in time to stop the rot the heavy tanks of the 50th Tank Bde - the General Lee tanks of the Bde roll straight into battle containing the breach in the line and stopping the Japanese dead in their tracks.

In other news. Indian Army Divisions are increased to 10 Bn Divs with the addition of a security Bn - this increases the infantry available to Divisional commanders and makes the Indian Army Divisions more effective in the jungle for all round defence.

In addition several British Infantry are replaced with newly raised ISF Bns or units from the new Madras Regiment


(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 1106
RE: Deafeat in CENTPAC - 11/20/2010 9:31:35 PM   
rodri_irizar

 

Posts: 5
Joined: 11/17/2010
Status: offline 		If you ask me, New Caledonia is a much more tempting target for him, and that is because:
1) He played the whole game trying to affect your supply lines, and from that point of view, New Caled affects this topic much more than Midway.
2) Midway is much more easily recoverable than New Caled. I mean, if he take one of the two, itīs for sure that will be much easier and faster to retrieve Midway than Caled.
And
3) Midway is much more risky than Called because it is much closer to a possible counterattack from you

So, may i be wrong, but if I were PzB and had to choose between one of these two objectives, would definitely be New Caled.

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 1107
RE: Deafeat in CENTPAC - 11/20/2010 11:59:56 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		New cal maybe if he is after points but he wants to tempt my remaining carriers out so Midway is more logical what will be will be I will await developments and react accordingly

(in reply to rodri_irizar)
Post #: 1108
RE: Deafeat in CENTPAC - 11/21/2010 4:58:09 AM   
aprezto


Posts: 824
Joined: 1/29/2009
Status: offline 		Having tried Java against PzB I can tell you it is horrible if you aren't ready. Having adequate stepping stones for short range LB-fighters to get there was the main issue. I thought I'd bought enough with 12-15 sqds (can't quite remember) it wasn't even close. Eventually I had to use the carriers to defend a re-supply run, he hammered my CAP and then sent in KB - gurgle gurgle. And then I was isolated.

And I had Northern Oz

You must bring a shedload of supplies and fuel

_____________________________



Image courtesy of Divepac

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 1109
RE: Deafeat in CENTPAC - 11/21/2010 2:44:39 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline 		Southern Sumatra ( makes enough fuel and supplies to keep itself mostly self-sufficient ) + Cocos Islands ( to support the flying in of fighters from CVs ( can be army fighters ) ) and then ferrying into Southern Sumatra makes a lot more sense.

Java on its own - even with Northern Oz - is a bit of a deathtrap unless you also own Timor --- and even then the lack of supply in Darwin will probably destroy you.


Southern Sumatra, on the other hand, is very doable and has only limited options for the IJN to drive in a counter-invasion. Palembang can't handle CAs or BBs and so is very tough for Japan to push an invasion into if you have sufficient 6 inch CD guns there. Oosthaven is more doable but highly predictable while the base to the west is also doable but the terrain there favours the defence quite significantly. The short journey times from the centre of Southern Sumatra also allow a very speedy reaction by a central armoured reserve.

It also gives the Allies the option of extending through Java, Malaysia and Borneo without the need for carrier aircover allowing you to push two strong axes of advance without having to split your CVs ( something you need to be MUCH MORE wary of ). Invasions without CV support are eminently doable and I don't understand why more Allied players don't engage in them. All you have to do is make sure the invasion can be LRCAPed at reasonable range by land-based fighters.

< Message edited by Nemo121 -- 11/21/2010 2:49:18 PM >

_____________________________

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

(in reply to aprezto)
Post #: 1110
Page:   <<   < prev  35 36 [37] 38 39   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: Deafeat in CENTPAC Page: <<   < prev  35 36 [37] 38 39   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

0.875