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: HAIRY TO THE BONE

 
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: HAIRY TO THE BONE Page: <<   < prev  192 193 [194] 195 196   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: HAIRY TO THE BONE - 1/20/2012 6:51:10 PM   
HansBolter


Posts: 7704
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: United States
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: AcePylut

Ladies and gentlemen - we can not compare Scenario 2 to "real history".  Scenario two is not supposed to be a representation of "history", it's a fantasy scenario with Japan on steroids... so complaining about Japan's production - well - that's what you signed up for. 

If you want to compare "real history" to "WITP-AE", then you must play Scen 1 and see what happens in '44, '45. 

Has anyone done that yet?



probably not since all the JFBs seem to be willing to play is their wetdream scenario


and btw....this IS a tongue in cheek jab for those not capable of discerning

< Message edited by HansBolter -- 1/20/2012 6:54:57 PM >

_____________________________

Hans


(in reply to AcePylut)
Post #: 5791
RE: HAIRY TO THE BONE - 1/20/2012 6:53:19 PM   
JohnDillworth


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

God knows that i've tried to interdict his sealanes...since 1942...with my subs

Canoerebal is fond of sending 2 or 4 DD TF's deep into indian country. You might want to consider that. Netties don't really do a great job against DD's and the chance of running into a significant surface force is low. He probably has plenty of ASW escort but I bet it's wouldn't hold up well in a surface match with 4 Fletcher Class DD's. Send out a bunch of small combat TF's into the DEI or south japan and see what happens. I have another sinister idea but I don't know if the engine supports it. Can you escort a SS with a DD? Might take out a bunch of E-class that way and force him to escort better, which he probably can't do as most of his CA's & CL's are gone

< Message edited by JohnDillworth -- 1/20/2012 6:55:17 PM >

_____________________________

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 John 3rd)
Post #: 5792
RE: HAIRY TO THE BONE - 1/20/2012 7:02:25 PM   
cwDeici

 

Posts: 70
Joined: 12/6/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121
cwDeici: that maths is highly suspect being he result of a conclusion built on foundations made of multiple suppositions.


Could you be more specific, please? I really won't mind.
I guess you're referring to my wild guess at Allied versus Japanese AC OTL in 44, or my other wild guess at how many AC Rader has total versus Greyjoy in-game. I'm sure I got the 205% in-game casualty figure right though, but I'm completely aware I may be terribly wrong about the others (that's why I put 'guess' there ^^).

Anyway Wikipedia says Japan's total fighter production for WW2 was 34,5k IIRC, and Rader has already lost over 38k+, and has thousands remaining and eleven months to produce more before 8/45 (and someone just said the words 'unfathomable' for 45). How much of this is the DEI and other conquered territories and how much is the difference between Sc1 and Sc2?

Please note this is not meant as a gripe against Sc2 and the difficulties GJ is facing, they are what makes his thread such a great read, just trying to get a rough handle on the level of differences. :)

< Message edited by cwDeici -- 1/20/2012 7:21:25 PM >

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 5793
RE: HAIRY TO THE BONE - 1/20/2012 7:16:36 PM   
Grfin Zeppelin


Posts: 1515
Joined: 12/3/2007
From: Germany
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: cwDeici

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121
cwDeici: that maths is highly suspect being he result of a conclusion built on foundations made of multiple suppositions.


Could you be more specific, please? I really won't mind.
I guess you're referring to my wild guess at allied AC numbers compared to Japan OTL in 44, or my other wild guess at how many AC Rader has versus Greyjoy in-game. I'm sure I got the 205% in-game casualty figure right though, but I'm completely aware I may be terribly wrong about the others (that's why I put 'guess' there ^^).

Anyway Wikipedia says Japan's total fighter production for WW2 was 34,5k IIRC, and Rader has already lost over 38k+, and has thousands remaining and eleven months to produce more before 8/45. If there isn't that much of a difference in the number of airframes in Sc1 and Sc2 does this mean that if Japan had managed to hold onto the DEI and conquer further territories OTL that it would've had nearly comparable AC numbers to this game?

Please note this is not meant as a grape about the difficulties GJ is facing, which is what makes his thread such a great read, just trying to get a rough handle on the level of differences. :)

He lost 38k PLANES, not fighters thats a huge difference.

_____________________________



(in reply to cwDeici)
Post #: 5794
RE: HAIRY TO THE BONE - 1/20/2012 7:22:54 PM   
cwDeici

 

Posts: 70
Joined: 12/6/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Gräfin Zeppelin


quote:

ORIGINAL: cwDeici

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121
cwDeici: that maths is highly suspect being he result of a conclusion built on foundations made of multiple suppositions.


Could you be more specific, please? I really won't mind.
I guess you're referring to my wild guess at allied AC numbers compared to Japan OTL in 44, or my other wild guess at how many AC Rader has versus Greyjoy in-game. I'm sure I got the 205% in-game casualty figure right though, but I'm completely aware I may be terribly wrong about the others (that's why I put 'guess' there ^^).

Anyway Wikipedia says Japan's total fighter production for WW2 was 34,5k IIRC, and Rader has already lost over 38k+, and has thousands remaining and eleven months to produce more before 8/45. If there isn't that much of a difference in the number of airframes in Sc1 and Sc2 does this mean that if Japan had managed to hold onto the DEI and conquer further territories OTL that it would've had nearly comparable AC numbers to this game?

Please note this is not meant as a grape about the difficulties GJ is facing, which is what makes his thread such a great read, just trying to get a rough handle on the level of differences. :)

He lost 38k PLANES, not fighters thats a huge difference.


Oh! How silly of me... Thanks!

Well, let's talk about something else, like surface raiding against tankers/oilers... or something. ^^

< Message edited by cwDeici -- 1/20/2012 7:24:23 PM >

(in reply to Grfin Zeppelin)
Post #: 5795
RE: HAIRY TO THE BONE - 1/20/2012 10:49:03 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline
quote:

Thus, Allied players are guaranteeing that they will lose air parity early and often just because of the defacto early research.


Except of course for the in-game reality that some Allied players playing Scenario 2 haven't lost air parity and have actually achieved air superiority early in the game ( mid to late 1942 ). It is easy to throw around statements like "people are guaranteeing x" or "This is what WILL happen" or "if they lose this then this MUST happen" but the reality is that those statements aren't supported by the objective reality of AARs posted here.

Most Allied players cede Japan aerial superiority in 1942 and 1943 but not all do. If you look at ALL of the AARs you can find several Scenario 2 AARs in which the IJNAF and IJAAF were functionally defeated in mid to late 1942. Only if you ignore those AARs in which Allied players prevailed in the air in 1942 and 43 ( nevermind 1944 or 45 ) can you say that the air war is guaranteed to go in favour of Japan. The challenge is greater than in Scenario 1 but several players have managed to defeat the IJAAF and IJNAF in 42/43 and only by actually including ALL of the data available will we actually be able to make statements which are worth listening to. A statement which ignores a significant portion of AARs in making a point about the inevitability of a given situation is a worthless statement. It'd be like me saying that by ignoring all cases where someone shot with a bullet died I could prove that bullets never killed anyone. Yes, the statement is true but only because my inclusion and exclusion criteria are so ludicrous as to make any conclusion drawn irrelevant to actual real-world experience.


I'd ask people to think before they go getting themselves all fired up about x or y being inevitable based on an incomplete sampling of AARs because what starts here with some people making statements which simply cannot be supported by objective, available reports from Scenario 2 games could quickly become yet another hue and cry demanding unnecessary changes from Michaelm because of the "inevitability" of things which are not inevitable and only occur because the Allied player let them happen or played poorly.

cwDeici,
I will answer since it doesn't apply to this game. Most sources I've read spoke of Japan producing between 72,000 and 82,000 military planes throughout the war. There's a bit of fudging based on whether trainer x was a military plane or a non-military one pressed into military service etc. Bottom line though, if you split the difference, Japan built 77,000 planes during the war years with 47,000 of them being built in 1943/44. That's 2,000 planes a month with Japan's hideous bureaucracy. Given that the player CAN eliminate all sorts of poor planning, poor resource allocation, duplication etc etc etc it shouldn't be surprising to us that an Allied player who captured all of the DEI and most of India and gained the benefits of Indian HI/resources/oil etc has, by now, built an industrial base, R&D base and aircraft production base significantly superior to what WW2 Japan actually achieved.

After all, if Japan had conquered and held most of India for a year or year and a half I'm sure they'd have built more than 2,000 planes a month during that time period also.

People will retort that since many of the 77000 were trainers there were constraints on engine size which would have limited new generations of fighters being built in the numbers envisaged etc. They may be right but the game doesn't model that. It takes as much to build a new 800 hp engine factory as it does to build a 2500hp engine factory. That may be an area that requires looking at and, actually, in my mod it is an area I edited so it costs more to build and repair more advanced engine factories than obsolescent ones ( which I think is an improvement in realism ). But, as it stands, in the official scenarios an engine factory is an engine factory is an engine factory. The model could be improved but they have chosen not to do so officially yet.

< Message edited by Nemo121 -- 1/20/2012 10:56:53 PM >

_____________________________

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

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 5796
RE: HAIRY TO THE BONE - 1/20/2012 10:55:30 PM   
Chickenboy


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

ORIGINAL: AcePylut

Ladies and gentlemen - we can not compare Scenario 2 to "real history".  Scenario two is not supposed to be a representation of "history", it's a fantasy scenario with Japan on steroids... so complaining about Japan's production - well - that's what you signed up for. 

If you want to compare "real history" to "WITP-AE", then you must play Scen 1 and see what happens in '44, '45. 

Has anyone done that yet?

Yes. Several have. I'm midway through July 1943, so I'll be there before long. Personally, I like scenario 1 with my long-standing PBEM partner. He's historical-minded, so we're having a very manageable game out of it. I don't know if I'd be so fortunate with an uber-aggressive "damn the torpedoes" sort of Allied player.

_____________________________


(in reply to AcePylut)
Post #: 5797
RE: HAIRY TO THE BONE - 1/20/2012 11:01:05 PM   
aoffen

 

Posts: 494
Joined: 6/7/2002
From: Brisvegas, Australia
Status: offline 		Nemo
How on earth did they achieve that? I am struggling in March 43 to achieve parity in Scenario 1!!!! My opponents have thrown a lot of effort into research and I have been facing Georges (first version) since Feb with my P-40K's. His Tojo's and A6M5's are his weaker fighters. From the reparte in the emails I get the feeling Franks aren't far away - certainly available in second half of '43. Seems a long way to air superiority from here. Air losses thus far are about equal.
Cheers
Andrew

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 5798
RE: HAIRY TO THE BONE - 1/20/2012 11:12:52 PM   
jrcar

 

Posts: 3613
Joined: 4/19/2002
From: Seymour, Australia
Status: offline 		Quick thread Hijack, sorry :)

I think the "problem" is making the Japanese more competitive in 1943-44, rather than making the Japanese stronger in 1942.

I'd like to see a scenario with more "garrison" units in late 1942 and 1943. Maybe some more warships, always nice :)

The Japanese aircraft production system can already be manipulated enough (with a fair bit of effort and risk) to make Japanese aircraft competitive in 1943.

The benefit of Scenario 2 is that it is obviously "fantasy". Getting people to play Japanese in Scen 1 though is increasingly very difficult.

Part though is changing the JFB psyche where they want to conquer the world... and get upset when they don't/can't.

This game is very interesting, thank you for the land attack on Japan! Always wanted to do that.

Cheers

Rob


_____________________________

AE BETA Breaker

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 5799
RE: HAIRY TO THE BONE - 1/20/2012 11:34:27 PM   
Nemo121


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

How was it achieved? A careful analysis of the two forces and self-discipline. That's all it takes.

In terms of AARs showing this...
Well there's at least one scenario in which the Allies were on the offensive by March 1942 and re-invaded Malaysia in May 1942 ( causing the Japanese opponent to quit ) and in which the Allied air force was regularly achieving 2 or 3 to 1 kill rates in the air - it even featured a half-dozen B-339 Dutch aces ( which is something you rarely see - especially since most of the B-339 kills were Zeroes and Oscars. ).

I'm aware of a game vs jwilkerson and Nikademus in which the Allies managed to lure them into unfavourable aerial battles and turned the tables very early as well.

CR hasn't achieved aerial superiority in his game but he's not too far off ( although some of that may be a morale failure on his opponents part ). I think a lot of lessons which might be drawn from that AAR aren't actually good lessons to draw but it is an AAR in which Japan hasn't been able to impose its aerial will in '42.


The third example is accessible but should be used with caution. The first two examples are, I believe, good examples of Japan not being able to impose its aerial will. The second example ( Nikademus and jwilkerson ) is, I believe, a Scenario 1 game. The other game is definitely a Scenario 2 game and so features a Japan with all the steroid boosters. IIRC Japanese aerial superiority lasted into the end of February.

I'm sure there are others but those 3 are the AARs I think of when trying to explain how this can be done.

< Message edited by Nemo121 -- 1/20/2012 11:43:45 PM >

_____________________________

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

(in reply to jrcar)
Post #: 5800
RE: HAIRY TO THE BONE - 1/20/2012 11:51:39 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: jrcar

Quick thread Hijack, sorry :)

I think the "problem" is making the Japanese more competitive in 1943-44, rather than making the Japanese stronger in 1942.

I'd like to see a scenario with more "garrison" units in late 1942 and 1943. Maybe some more warships, always nice :)

The Japanese aircraft production system can already be manipulated enough (with a fair bit of effort and risk) to make Japanese aircraft competitive in 1943.

The benefit of Scenario 2 is that it is obviously "fantasy". Getting people to play Japanese in Scen 1 though is increasingly very difficult.

Part though is changing the JFB psyche where they want to conquer the world... and get upset when they don't/can't.

This game is very interesting, thank you for the land attack on Japan! Always wanted to do that.

Cheers

Rob



Making the IJN/IJA stronger later in the war is difficult. We work it in RA where the Japanese start marginally stronger but really don't begin to gain steam until the end of 42 and through mid-43. After that it will go downhill like IRL, however, the Kaigun gains some real strength to fight it out in late-43/early-44.

< Message edited by John 3rd -- 1/20/2012 11:53:08 PM >

_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to jrcar)
Post #: 5801
RE: HAIRY TO THE BONE - 1/20/2012 11:57:53 PM   
aoffen

 

Posts: 494
Joined: 6/7/2002
From: Brisvegas, Australia
Status: offline
quote:

How was it achieved? A careful analysis of the two forces and self-discipline. That's all it takes.


Ok Nemo you have clearly identified my two areas of critical weakness :)
I am the first to admit I am still relatively inexperienced (although I have learnt a lot over the past 12 months at the brutal hands of jrcar and Tony and thanks to Greyjoy and Rader too) but I really struggle to see how B-339's, P-39's and even P-40E's have a chance vs Zeroes that are well managed by a competent Japanese player. Oscars sure, but zeroes with high quality pilots that are not over extended and over fatigued are a tough match. Do you have to rely on the Japanese player screwing things up or are you saying that parity and superiority can be achieved in 42 against a competent Japanese?

Apologies for the thread hijack btw.

Greyjoy - as Hannibal Lecter once said....love your work.

Cheers
Andrew

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 5802
RE: HAIRY TO THE BONE - 1/21/2012 12:08:24 AM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline 		Discipline, careful analysis and a reliance on objective reality ( instead of just selecting out the data you like and ignoring what you don't) combined with honesty about how you've performed ( IOW, not lying to yourself that you're doing well when you aren't ) will let you beat anyone.

Have a gander at the AARs I listed. I'm sure someone has the links - I don't anymore. Reading the AARs is the best way to understand how these things were accomplished.

P.s. Don't think of it as a thread hijack, think of it as inflating the post count for the AAR

< Message edited by Nemo121 -- 1/21/2012 12:10:34 AM >

_____________________________

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

(in reply to aoffen)
Post #: 5803
RE: HAIRY TO THE BONE - 1/21/2012 12:12:49 AM   
jrcar

 

Posts: 3613
Joined: 4/19/2002
From: Seymour, Australia
Status: offline
Thanks John, if I do another game as Japanese RA may be it...

Cheers

Rob

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

quote:

ORIGINAL: jrcar

Quick thread Hijack, sorry :)

I think the "problem" is making the Japanese more competitive in 1943-44, rather than making the Japanese stronger in 1942.

I'd like to see a scenario with more "garrison" units in late 1942 and 1943. Maybe some more warships, always nice :)

The Japanese aircraft production system can already be manipulated enough (with a fair bit of effort and risk) to make Japanese aircraft competitive in 1943.

The benefit of Scenario 2 is that it is obviously "fantasy". Getting people to play Japanese in Scen 1 though is increasingly very difficult.

Part though is changing the JFB psyche where they want to conquer the world... and get upset when they don't/can't.

This game is very interesting, thank you for the land attack on Japan! Always wanted to do that.

Cheers

Rob



Making the IJN/IJA stronger later in the war is difficult. We work it in RA where the Japanese start marginally stronger but really don't begin to gain steam until the end of 42 and through mid-43. After that it will go downhill like IRL, however, the Kaigun gains some real strength to fight it out in late-43/early-44.



_____________________________

AE BETA Breaker

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 5804
RE: HAIRY TO THE BONE - 1/21/2012 12:24:19 AM   
jrcar

 

Posts: 3613
Joined: 4/19/2002
From: Seymour, Australia
Status: offline 		The game against Joe and Nik was Tony and I. We had a couple of game engine advantages, such as supply in Burma, which was consequently (and rightly) tightened up. However we did have force restrictions (such as only 1 USA combat unit) in Burma.

The key was the defeat of the invasion of ADAK, in particular the decimation of KB with P-39 :) P-39 are great Val/Kate killers! This made the risk of our consequent operations in the SWPAC a little less. Adak was very close run thing though... it could have gone either way.

In the SWPAC/DEI area we just didn't give the Japanese time to dig in and consolidate. We planed a sequence of moves to "fight through" the good Japanese defence through a campaign of continuous battles.

Almost made it back to the Phillipines before the last unit there surrendered!

Andrew my assessment is that overall you have done well, except for the rash decision which cost you your CV's. You haven't optimised some of your battle choices though... that is where your inexperiance with the game shows a little, rather than you knowledge of basic military tactics and the strategy choices that the game offers.

We are doing pretty good, as two experianced players against a relative newbie in Scen 1. If both sides are experianced players then Scen 1 is very tough as the Japanese... although some of the recent BETA changes help I think (such as supply movement).

The differnce between winning and loosing in this game, as Greyjoy has shown, is a very delicate balance that can easily be upset!

Cheers
Rob


quote:

ORIGINAL: aoffen

quote:

How was it achieved? A careful analysis of the two forces and self-discipline. That's all it takes.


Ok Nemo you have clearly identified my two areas of critical weakness :)
I am the first to admit I am still relatively inexperienced (although I have learnt a lot over the past 12 months at the brutal hands of jrcar and Tony and thanks to Greyjoy and Rader too) but I really struggle to see how B-339's, P-39's and even P-40E's have a chance vs Zeroes that are well managed by a competent Japanese player. Oscars sure, but zeroes with high quality pilots that are not over extended and over fatigued are a tough match. Do you have to rely on the Japanese player screwing things up or are you saying that parity and superiority can be achieved in 42 against a competent Japanese?

Apologies for the thread hijack btw.

Greyjoy - as Hannibal Lecter once said....love your work.

Cheers
Andrew



_____________________________

AE BETA Breaker

(in reply to aoffen)
Post #: 5805
RE: HAIRY TO THE BONE - 1/21/2012 3:28:34 AM   
aoffen

 

Posts: 494
Joined: 6/7/2002
From: Brisvegas, Australia
Status: offline
quote:

Andrew my assessment is that overall you have done well, except for the rash decision which cost you your CV's. You haven't optimised some of your battle choices though... that is where your inexperiance with the game shows a little, rather than you knowledge of basic military tactics and the strategy choices that the game offers.


You had to bring it up didn't you. 3 months of intense counselling and psychiatric care out the window (the sound of weeping in the background).

By not optimised you mean not bringing enough mass to the crucial point of battle or more not maximizing co-ordination of the various land sea and air assets? Or both?

(in reply to jrcar)
Post #: 5806
RE: HAIRY TO THE BONE - 1/21/2012 6:10:33 AM   
Xxzard

 

Posts: 440
Joined: 9/28/2008
From: Arizona
Status: offline 		Well it seems like ships passing in the night or a submarine beneath the waves, this thread has become the leader in hits without a mention. (Unless I missed it!)

Who would've thought when this started that we would be here today witnessing such an epic battle play out between these two players? I saw the start of the game, although I've been more of a lurker than a member of GJ's council of advisers. When will we reach the end... we'll see, but if it is anything like what we have experienced so far it will be awe inspiring.

So congratulations GJ for becoming the AAR forum thread hit leader! (hitman?)
Three cheers for a fantastic game, take your pick of hip, hip, or banzai! if you so prefer.

_____________________________


(in reply to aoffen)
Post #: 5807
RE: HAIRY TO THE BONE - 1/21/2012 11:31:22 AM   
HansBolter


Posts: 7704
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: United States
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

quote:

Thus, Allied players are guaranteeing that they will lose air parity early and often just because of the defacto early research.


Most Allied players cede Japan aerial superiority in 1942 and 1943 but not all do. If you look at ALL of the AARs you can find several Scenario 2 AARs in which the IJNAF and IJAAF were functionally defeated in mid to late 1942. Only if you ignore those AARs in which Allied players prevailed in the air in 1942 and 43 ( nevermind 1944 or 45 ) can you say that the air war is guaranteed to go in favour of Japan. The challenge is greater than in Scenario 1 but several players have managed to defeat the IJAAF and IJNAF in 42/43 and only by actually including ALL of the data available will we actually be able to make statements which are worth listening to. A statement which ignores a significant portion of AARs in making a point about the inevitability of a given situation is a worthless statement. It'd be like me saying that by ignoring all cases where someone shot with a bullet died I could prove that bullets never killed anyone. Yes, the statement is true but only because my inclusion and exclusion criteria are so ludicrous as to make any conclusion drawn irrelevant to actual real-world experience.


It may well be that the outcomes wherein the Japanese continue to rampage well into '44 are more a function of less than competent Allied players pittted against supremely competent Japanese players as a result of newbie Allied players having scenario 2 foisted upon them by the Japanese players under the false pretense of it being presented to the unsuspecting newbie as the "scenario of choice" that gives the "poor Japoanese" "a fighting chance". This is exactly the tactic used by the POS excuse for an honest and decent human being on me as an unsuspecting newbie UV player who had the iroman version of a UV scenario foisted upon me under the pretense of "giving the Japanese a fighting chance". And, no I'm not bitter because I got my butt kicked by an overpowered Japanese side, I'm bitter because the miscreant quit like a petulant little child after I kicked his butt. This is the reason why I play the AI instead of humans. The AI will never quit like a petulant little child after it's wild gambit fails.




Nemo, your reliance on a couple of games outcomes as a counter to the argumants of the rest of us based on all the other games begs the question were the results of those two games a function of two competent Allied players, while the rest of the games with Japanese bow outs being a function of incompetent Allied players or were they merely a function of two very incompetent Japanese players?

You seem to be implying that all the Japanese blow out versions of scenario 2 are simply the results of a plethora of less than competent Allied players, which I am sure you will find most probaly sticks in the craws of most Allied players. Let's suppose for a minute that the two games you continue to site as proof that sceanrio 2 isn't a JFB wet dream that guarantees a Japanese blow out, were the abherations and not the norm, what then would be your position?

< Message edited by HansBolter -- 1/21/2012 11:48:56 AM >

_____________________________

Hans


(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 5808
RE: SUDDENLY HAIRY - 1/21/2012 1:57:45 PM   
Chickenboy


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

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


As you begin to think about strat bombing, what are your target priorities?


Briefly: aircraft 3rd generation factories...


You know, GreyJoy,

I hadn't followed this AAR at all until the last month or so, when I was alerted to your coup de main on Northern Japan. I still haven't read the entirety of this thread, just going back to your initial reveal of your plans and rationale for your actions here.

This was nicely done and will impact my defensive strategy for the Empire in my game. Thanks for the very realistic lesson about under defending the northern reaches into 1944. Lesson learned...

I just thought I'd post a reminder here about your prospective strat bombing targets that you identified when asked by Bull a couple months ago. Wiping the floor with his fighter (3rd gen) factories still seems the way to go IMO.

_____________________________


(in reply to GreyJoy)
Post #: 5809
RE: SUDDENLY HAIRY - 1/21/2012 2:35:41 PM   
GreyJoy


Posts: 6750
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline 		Wow guys...i cannot spend a night drinking that immediately i lose contact with my AAR that now has its own life!!!

Cannot answer to all of your comments...i feel like a rock star who has to deny himself to the fans after the concert...

However, the problem with strat bombing, as i said, is that i've done what i could before the new patch that tuned the CAP routines...now a strat bombing campaign - with my streched numbers - would be really a massacre....and i probably could only stand a couple of raids then, due to heavy losses, i'll have to stop my planes...my pools are so dry you cannot imagine... How many Liberators in pool? ZERO. How many B-29s? ZERO...how many Corsairs? ZERO...how many Hellcats? 15... How many P-47s? ZERO...how many P-51s? 20.... pretty hard to do anything beyond Sentai under these circumstances...

Anyway...i'm not losing faith...i'm simply re-orienting my mind under a brand new plan......still elaborating it but i have a couple of good ideas.... i got the Flash of Genius this morning while i was watching the reply sat on my WC, with a cup of coffea and a sigarette....

Too early too tell you now...just know that we have a plan...

Today Rader unchained his Kamikazes.... they attacked my supply ships unloading at Akita...2 xAKs sunk and a DD lightly damaged in exchange of more than 120 Helens and Oscars Kamikaze and of a brand new bunch of american and british aces
I got lucky cause i forgot to change my fighter bomber squadrons (Mosquitos and P-39s)...and they were left at 100% CAP... Rader quite silly sent the kamikaze without any escort and they got butchered badly...

Now Aikita beachead has 390k supplies and so does Hachinoe...we're gonna reinforce a bit the Aomori Beachhead tomorrow with a small amphib operation...

Oh...i noticed somthing very strange.... the Amphib HQ always got destroyed once they are unloaded during an amphib operation and you have to buy them back...is that normal???? ...lost 2 Amphib HQs like that at Hachinoe and Aikita...very silly if you ask me...








AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Sep 18, 44
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Naval bombardment of Akita at 117,55

Japanese aircraft
     no flights

Japanese aircraft losses
     J1N1-C Irving: 1 damaged
     J1N1-C Irving: 1 destroyed on ground

Allied Ships
     BB Richelieu
     BB Alabama
     BB Massachusetts
     CA Salt Lake City

Japanese ground losses:
     381 casualties reported
        Squads: 5 destroyed, 12 disabled
        Non Combat: 14 destroyed, 18 disabled
        Engineers: 1 destroyed, 4 disabled
     Guns lost 14 (9 destroyed, 5 disabled)
     Vehicles lost 10 (5 destroyed, 5 disabled)



Manpower hits 1
Fires 1458
Airbase hits 5
Airbase supply hits 2
Runway hits 6
Port hits 4

BB --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Naval bombardment of Hachinohe at 118,55

Allied Ships
     BB Indiana
     BB South Dakota
     BB North Carolina
     CA Astoria
     CA Houston

Japanese ground losses:
     291 casualties reported
        Squads: 1 destroyed, 16 disabled
        Non Combat: 7 destroyed, 19 disabled
        Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
     Guns lost 5 (2 destroyed, 3 disabled)
     Vehicles lost 4 (3 destroyed, 1 disabled)



Airbase hits 1
Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 5
Port hits 3
Port fuel hits 2


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Time Surface Combat, near Iwaki at 120,60, Range 12,000 Yards....you see?...i learn :-) i listened to you guys and am sending some small DD forces to deal with the ASW TFs....
 
Japanese Ships
     E No.26, Shell hits 9, and is sunk
     E No.28, Shell hits 8,  heavy fires,  heavy damage
     E No.30, Shell hits 5,  heavy fires
     E No.34, Shell hits 13, and is sunk

Allied Ships
     DD Preston II, Shell hits 1


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub attack near Iwaki  at 120,60 PAYBACK
 
Japanese Ships
     E No.30, Torpedo hits 1,  heavy fires,  heavy damage

Allied Ships
     SS Bowfin


 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Akita at 117,55

Weather in hex: Overcast

Raid detected at 38 NM, estimated altitude 4,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 11 minutes

Japanese aircraft
     Ki-49-IIa Helen x 20
     Ki-49-IIb Helen x 19



Allied aircraft
     Mosquito FB.VI x 25
     P-39N2 Airacobra x 8


Japanese aircraft losses
     Ki-49-IIa Helen: 11 destroyed
     Ki-49-IIa Helen: 1 destroyed by flak
     Ki-49-IIb Helen: 10 destroyed
     Ki-49-IIb Helen: 1 destroyed by flak

No Allied losses

Allied Ships
     xAK Mary E. Kinney
     xAK Alcoa Pioneer
     xAK Owen Summers
     xAK S. African Victory
     xAK Cape Faro
     xAK John lsaacson


 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Akita at 117,55

Weather in hex: Severe storms

Raid detected at 40 NM, estimated altitude 7,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 12 minutes

Japanese aircraft
     Ki-49-IIa Helen x 20
     Ki-49-IIb Helen x 5



Allied aircraft
     Mosquito FB.VI x 23
     P-39N2 Airacobra x 8


Japanese aircraft losses
     Ki-49-IIa Helen: 12 destroyed
     Ki-49-IIa Helen: 1 destroyed by flak
     Ki-49-IIb Helen: 2 destroyed
     Ki-49-IIb Helen: 1 destroyed by flak

No Allied losses

Allied Ships
     xAK Trevince
     xAK Cape Martin


 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Niigata at 115,55

Weather in hex: Moderate rain

Raid detected at 79 NM, estimated altitude 7,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 19 minutes

Japanese aircraft
     Ki-43-IIIa Oscar x 20



Japanese aircraft losses
     Ki-43-IIIa Oscar: 11 destroyed
     Ki-43-IIIa Oscar: 2 destroyed by flak

Allied Ships
     DD Cassin Young
     DD Wedderburn, Kamikaze hits 1,  on fire
     DD Wickes
     DD Young
     DD Yarnall



Aircraft Attacking:
     20 x Ki-43-IIIa Oscar flying as kamikaze
              Kamikaze:  2 x 250 kg GP Bomb


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Akita at 117,55

Weather in hex: Thunderstorms

Raid detected at 150 NM, estimated altitude 34,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 47 minutes

Japanese aircraft
     Ki-49-IIa Helen x 5
     Ki-49-IIb Helen x 2



Allied aircraft
     Mosquito FB.VI x 25


Japanese aircraft losses
     Ki-49-IIa Helen: 3 destroyed
     Ki-49-IIb Helen: 1 destroyed

No Allied losses

Allied Ships
     xAK William Schirmer
     AM Effective
     xAK Peter Lassen
     xAK Trevince, Kamikaze hits 1,  on fire,  heavy damage
     xAK Martand, Kamikaze hits 1

 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Akita at 117,55

Weather in hex: Moderate rain

Raid detected at 37 NM, estimated altitude 10,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 9 minutes

Japanese aircraft
     Ki-43-IIIa Oscar x 23



Allied aircraft
     Mosquito FB.VI x 21
     P-39N2 Airacobra x 7


Japanese aircraft losses
     Ki-43-IIIa Oscar: 10 destroyed

No Allied losses







Attachment (1)

< Message edited by GreyJoy -- 1/21/2012 2:37:04 PM >

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 5810
RE: SUDDENLY HAIRY - 1/21/2012 2:39:01 PM   
GreyJoy


Posts: 6750
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline 		Oh Jeff...i don't have any Omaha class left...they all got sunk during the Solomons campaign fighting against the japanese Cruiser force....

I could spare probably a Fiji Class british CL for that task....

I'll try to elaborate something John...i think it can be done and can be a good idea...problem is how to refuel and avoid his dreaded dive bombers.... however i can manage to devote a Fletcher division for this task...

(in reply to GreyJoy)
Post #: 5811
RE: HAIRY TO THE BONE - 1/21/2012 2:39:49 PM   
GreyJoy


Posts: 6750
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Xxzard

Well it seems like ships passing in the night or a submarine beneath the waves, this thread has become the leader in hits without a mention. (Unless I missed it!)

Who would've thought when this started that we would be here today witnessing such an epic battle play out between these two players? I saw the start of the game, although I've been more of a lurker than a member of GJ's council of advisers. When will we reach the end... we'll see, but if it is anything like what we have experienced so far it will be awe inspiring.

So congratulations GJ for becoming the AAR forum thread hit leader! (hitman?)
Three cheers for a fantastic game, take your pick of hip, hip, or banzai! if you so prefer.


(in reply to Xxzard)
Post #: 5812
RE: HAIRY TO THE BONE - 1/21/2012 3:24:40 PM   
Heeward


Posts: 343
Joined: 1/27/2003
From: Lacey Washington
Status: offline 		Other Base Advantage:
If you can keep open the airfield - no long range cap over the hex.
As you own the hex - you have a better chance of recovering shot down pilots, - this can be ameliorated some (completely?) by stationing a lifeguard submarine in the hex.

My suggestions:
Ask those who are familiar with Japanese late war industry: Is it feasible to create a supply shortage on Honshu?


_____________________________

The Wake

(in reply to paullus99)
Post #: 5813
RE: HAIRY TO THE BONE - 1/21/2012 3:28:35 PM   
pws1225

 

Posts: 1166
Joined: 8/9/2010
From: Tate's Hell, Florida
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

... and a reliance on objective reality ( instead of just selecting out the data you like and ignoring what you don't)



But wait, I play as the Japanese. Isn't that what I'm supposed to do?

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 5814
RE: HAIRY TO THE BONE - 1/21/2012 4:09:20 PM   
Grfin Zeppelin


Posts: 1515
Joined: 12/3/2007
From: Germany
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Heeward

Other Base Advantage:
If you can keep open the airfield - no long range cap over the hex.
As you own the hex - you have a better chance of recovering shot down pilots, - this can be ameliorated some (completely?) by stationing a lifeguard submarine in the hex.

My suggestions:
Ask those who are familiar with Japanese late war industry: Is it feasible to create a supply shortage on Honshu?


Certainly if you stop the flow of resources and fuel/oil into the home islands. However its way more likely the HI will run out of fuel first.

_____________________________



(in reply to Heeward)
Post #: 5815
RE: SUDDENLY HAIRY - 1/21/2012 4:22:56 PM   
khyberbill


Posts: 1941
Joined: 9/11/2007
From: new milford, ct
Status: offline
quote:

lost 2 Amphib HQs like that at Hachinoe and Aikita...very silly if you ask me...

I never unload my Amphib HQ. They stay on their command ship in their own TF and have the same effect as if they were ashore.

_____________________________

"Its a dog eat dog world Sammy and I am wearing Milkbone underwear" -Norm.

(in reply to GreyJoy)
Post #: 5816
RE: SUDDENLY HAIRY - 1/21/2012 4:55:43 PM   
witpqs


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

ORIGINAL: khyberbill

quote:

lost 2 Amphib HQs like that at Hachinoe and Aikita...very silly if you ask me...

I never unload my Amphib HQ. They stay on their command ship in their own TF and have the same effect as if they were ashore.


The trouble with that is that Michael posted a few months ago that he looked in the code and Amphib HQs only assist the landing of troops of the TF the Amphib HQs are in. Said it's been that way all along, at least in AE.

(in reply to khyberbill)
Post #: 5817
RE: SUDDENLY HAIRY - 1/21/2012 5:14:35 PM   
khyberbill


Posts: 1941
Joined: 9/11/2007
From: new milford, ct
Status: offline 		Ah, one continues to learn something everyday. On the other hand, at least my Amphib commanders stay alive.

_____________________________

"Its a dog eat dog world Sammy and I am wearing Milkbone underwear" -Norm.

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 5818
RE: HAIRY TO THE BONE - 1/21/2012 5:22:32 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline 		hmm, crazy, have never seen ships being hit from supply unloading before. Never. And I had bases with roughly a hundred CD guns of all different types.

_____________________________


(in reply to GreyJoy)
Post #: 5819
RE: HAIRY TO THE BONE - 1/21/2012 5:41:19 PM   
Crackaces


Posts: 3858
Joined: 7/9/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

hmm, crazy, have never seen ships being hit from supply unloading before. Never. And I had bases with roughly a hundred CD guns of all different types.


Something has changed then ...because in my game I have smacked 3 IJ xAKL over 5 turns with 75mm field guns unloading at Wenchow ..forget CD's ...

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 5820
Page:   <<   < prev  192 193 [194] 195 196   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: HAIRY TO THE BONE Page: <<   < prev  192 193 [194] 195 196   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

4.125