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: Battle of Moulmien day 2

 
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: Battle of Moulmien day 2 Page: <<   < prev  66 67 68 [69] 70   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Battle of Moulmien day 2 - 12/22/2011 11:55:14 AM   
traskott


Posts: 1546
Joined: 6/23/2008
From: Valladolid, Spain
Status: offline 		Put a VERY agressive admiral  on the amphibious task force....

(in reply to JeffroK)
Post #: 2041
RE: Battle of Moulmien day 2 - 12/22/2011 12:45:11 PM   
beppi

 

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

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Not going to say a lot just been ****ed by the game again

Tried an attack in Bay of bengal

Was ready in position took my licks but then guess what not a single ****ing man landed despite being set to absoulute do not retire or I will crucify every sailor in the fleet

2 Destroyers get in amongst them and a 5 Div assault fleet with over 20 escorting warships turns and runs despite the presence of seperate SCTF's

Next day same thing and again not a single ****ing man lands

The casualties are not this issue I was willing and expecting to take losses but to not land a signel man is a ****ing joke.



I had a similiar problem during my Marians invasion. A few enemy PT fleets where defending the Islands and my Amphib TF always did not land and retired even with do not retire on and absolut threat setting. Tried it 5 days in a row with different settings and never even one troop landed. I finally found out (at least for me, i did not do any systematic testing) that if you have TFs following your invasion TF (i usually have some CVE Fleets following just to provide escort) you have to set all following TFs to direct/absolute threat setting. After i did it that way the landing worked.

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 2042
RE: Battle of Moulmien day 2 - 12/22/2011 8:25:24 PM   
hades1001

 

Posts: 977
Joined: 12/17/2007
Status: offline 		Hi Andy, I have been following the battle between you and PZB since the WITP time.
This is the first time I jumped in, keep it up man. The allied will prevail :)

I do have a question for you. I notice that in many bombing missions your 50 heavy bombers can achieve 300 hits on the runway, even in bad weather. I'm wondering how did you train you bomber pilots and what's the exp level are them.

Mind to share the secrets of your successful bombing tactics?

(in reply to beppi)
Post #: 2043
RE: Battle of Moulmien day 2 - 12/24/2011 3:43:09 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		50+xp 70+ land bombing

Re the attack on Andamans I am not at all bothered by the losses I took in ships I expected the losses and was willing to pay that price to re open the theatre but to lose them without securing the objective thats the thing that bugs me

(in reply to hades1001)
Post #: 2044
RE: Battle of Moulmien day 2 - 1/16/2012 1:54:08 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		Quiet few turns pretty slow due to my iT issues

Lowlight was i picked up a replenishment convoy en route to Port Blair

Aware of the CAP trap at Bangkok I set all my air search to the Port Blair quadrant with no one searching over Bangkok as I didnt want strike aircraft going to Bankok where they would be massacred I got unlucky and all my strike aircraft rather than going 10 hexes to South of Port Blair attacked the AK convoy in Bankok harbour also at 10 hexes

Sure enough my strike aircraft decided to hit Bankok in force....

result I lose 150+ aircraft

It was a deliberate CAP trap to take advantage of the rules where I cannot exclude a target brilliant move - not unhappy about it but it does mean the gloves come off.

PZB used the mechanics of the game to engineer a brilliant trap I am going to take a few steps of my own to deal with the issue.

(I have been wary of using 4E to flatten all these AF's as I know it bugs PZB that 4E are so ahistorically tough to kill but two sets of issues in a row 1st the fleet refusing to unload because of 2 DD's and then now this flak trap have made me reconsider)

As soon as my Sqns are back up to strength the gloves come off !!!!!

I will be hitting and exterminating every Japanese AF in fighter range of P47's with massed 4E strikes if that means his AF's are all toast so be it I have been playing with one hand tied behind my back for to long....

I reckon I can muster 400+ P47's and maybe 300+ 4E - if this is the way it has to be so be it

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 2045
RE: Battle of Moulmien day 2 - 1/16/2012 2:16:39 PM   
janh

 

Posts: 1216
Joined: 6/12/2007
Status: offline 		Andy, from what PzB posted he was himself surprised to see such a huge strike coming into Bangkok and actually had taken measures to avoid his resupply efforts being discovered and attacked.  I hope I'll not disclose anything critical by saying that he had organized a decoy operation to draw your attention and keep it (and hence your assets) focused elsewhere. 

I honestly do not have them impression that he designed a CAP trap intentionally, but this time it was just an unfortunate combination of the whole area around Bangkok being covered naturally with lots of air bases your strike getting sucked into that. 
Otherwise, your hint on exclusions zones for air ops is a good one.  Could be very handy, but I assume that's got to be a good amount of time one would need to spent coding.

< Message edited by janh -- 1/16/2012 3:29:33 PM >

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 2046
RE: Battle of Moulmien day 2 - 1/16/2012 2:22:52 PM   
Dan Nichols


Posts: 863
Joined: 8/30/2011
Status: offline 		janh, this information seems to cross the opsec line a bit. You might want to reconsider what you are posting.

(in reply to janh)
Post #: 2047
RE: Battle of Moulmien day 2 - 1/16/2012 2:45:08 PM   
Grfin Zeppelin


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

ORIGINAL: janh
#####CLASSIFIED#####





< Message edited by Gräfin Zeppelin -- 1/17/2012 9:11:36 PM >

_____________________________



(in reply to janh)
Post #: 2048
RE: Battle of Moulmien day 2 - 1/16/2012 3:14:22 PM   
janh

 

Posts: 1216
Joined: 6/12/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Dan Nichols
janh, this information seems to cross the opsec line a bit. You might want to reconsider what you are posting.


Made it a little more vague. Thought the previous post didn't disclose anything that was beyond the obvious anyways, but you might be right. Just wanted to step in to avoid sensible house rules going overboards and this beautiful AAR to the bottoms... This definitely is my favorite match.

GräfinZ -- Danke für's entfernen des Zitats, oder der Details.

< Message edited by janh -- 1/16/2012 3:29:42 PM >

(in reply to Dan Nichols)
Post #: 2049
RE: Battle of Moulmien day 2 - 1/17/2012 1:58:58 AM   
JeffroK


Posts: 6391
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline 		I wonder what that translates to in English?

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to janh)
Post #: 2050
RE: Battle of Moulmien day 2 - 1/17/2012 2:07:20 AM   
Dan Nichols


Posts: 863
Joined: 8/30/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

I wonder what that translates to in English?

quote:

Danke für's entfernen des Zitats, oder der Details


"Thank you for removing the details"

(in reply to JeffroK)
Post #: 2051
RE: Battle of Moulmien day 2 - 1/17/2012 2:30:21 AM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

... It was a deliberate CAP trap to take advantage of the rules where I cannot exclude a target brilliant move - not unhappy about it but it does mean the gloves come off.

PZB used the mechanics of the game to engineer a brilliant trap I am going to take a few steps of my own to deal with the issue.

(I have been wary of using 4E to flatten all these AF's as I know it bugs PZB that 4E are so ahistorically tough to kill but two sets of issues in a row 1st the fleet refusing to unload because of 2 DD's and then now this flak trap have made me reconsider) ...



This is not the first time your opponent has benefitted from the game's mechanics. Frankly I'm quite surprised you give any credence to your opponent's concerns about the effectiveness of Allied 4E. He enjoys several "ahistorical" benefits and yet you handicap yourself against not using one of the few effective Allied weapon systems.

Setting a CAP trap is quite a legitimate tactic. Using 4E to counter it is also a quite legitimate tactic. For every tactic there is always a counter tactic to neutralise it. What is quite wrong is to deliberately exclude the use of a legitimate neutralising counter tactic.

Alfred

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 2052
RE: Battle of Moulmien day 2 - 1/17/2012 4:34:51 AM   
JeffroK


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

ORIGINAL: Dan Nichols


quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

I wonder what that translates to in English?

quote:

Danke für's entfernen des Zitats, oder der Details


"Thank you for removing the details"

Thanks Dan

I thought it might have askling for the removal of the picture and its symbols.

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to Dan Nichols)
Post #: 2053
RE: Battle of Moulmien day 2 - 1/17/2012 2:51:34 PM   
EUBanana


Posts: 4552
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline 		Sucks. But I've seen worse.

Apparently in an amphibious landing there is a "panic, run away!" roll that the Allies have to pass. If they fail the roll, then they abort the landing and try and re-embark.

I landed a division of troops at Port Blair, they landed fine in D-0. Ordered to attack in turn 2, which was in error, because they had disruption 80+ and I didn't notice. But bear in mind, they did land. The transports were still there unloading more supply/support.

So D+1 due to the ordered attack, the roll is made, and failed. Rather than attack the bombed out of supply IJ brigade there which had 0 chance of pushing them back into the sea even with high disruption, the commander decided to re-embark on the transports. About 95% of the division was disabled in so doing. If he attacked, even with dismal results, it wouldn't have been 1/10th as bad. As it was, he may as well have shot half of his division in the back of the head. Took 4 months for them to recover.

The thing that irks me most is, if the ships had left and not continued to unload arty and supply, then this wouldn't have happened, there would be no divisional self-immolation. Next time I'll be careful to make sure there is no avenue of escape for cowardly commanders to take.

_____________________________


(in reply to JeffroK)
Post #: 2054
RE: Battle of Moulmien day 2 - 1/17/2012 2:55:47 PM   
EUBanana


Posts: 4552
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

There is no need to identify the individual units. The aggregated troop number divided by 30 will give you a very good and close approximation of the unadjusted assault value of the garrison.

Alfred


Nice rule of thumb, thanks. I shall bear that in mind.

Up till now I assume that 20,000 reported = 1 division = ~350 AV. The game seems to double estimates of troop numbers, in general.

_____________________________


(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 2055
RE: Battle of Moulmien day 2 - 1/17/2012 3:40:33 PM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

There is no need to identify the individual units. The aggregated troop number divided by 30 will give you a very good and close approximation of the unadjusted assault value of the garrison.

Alfred


Nice rule of thumb, thanks. I shall bear that in mind.

Up till now I assume that 20,000 reported = 1 division = ~350 AV. The game seems to double estimates of troop numbers, in general.


EUBanana,

Your former rule of thumb can also be used, although you will understand if I maintain that I prefer my rule of thumb.

Actually in the game 18,000 reported is closer to a division equivalent, and most fully equipped divisions fall within the 400-450 unadjusted AV range. Consequently if you see 6,000 reported that is the rough equivalent of a brigade or a /A sub unit. So with these adjustments, you could continue with your former approach.

The problem with your former approach is that you have no way of distinguishing whether the 18,000 reported troops all belong to the one unit, in which case it is almost certainly a division, or the 18,000 is made up of many support units and consequently the unadjusted AV would be seriously overestimated.

On the other hand the 30:1 ratio already takes into account that even non combat troops which have no AV, such as Support troops, actually provide some defensive AV (on the ratio of 1:10) when atacked.

Alfred

(in reply to EUBanana)
Post #: 2056
RE: Battle of Moulmien day 2 - 1/17/2012 4:08:21 PM   
EUBanana


Posts: 4552
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred
The problem with your former approach is that you have no way of distinguishing whether the 18,000 reported troops all belong to the one unit, in which case it is almost certainly a division, or the 18,000 is made up of many support units and consequently the unadjusted AV would be seriously overestimated.



Yeah, you tend to pick up things like this automatically with experience I think. A handful of units and 8000 reported men is probably a brigade + baseforce/engineers. A single unit with 15000+ is almost certainly a division, etc.

Interpreting recon info is pretty daunting as a newb though, I remember when starting out that trying to work out what you were likely to be up against was a nightmare.

_____________________________


(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 2057
RE: Battle of Moulmien day 2 - 1/17/2012 8:42:12 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline 		Yes, eventually you just get a feel for whats there. Sort of learn what to expect from a long time opponent as well. We all develop patterns. You can also just run the detection level up and then ground bomb with aircraft. This will ID the units getting hit as well, but not necessarily the strength. It is pretty hard at first but play a campaign for two years and it comes easy..

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to EUBanana)
Post #: 2058
RE: Battle of Moulmien day 2 - 1/18/2012 4:49:07 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		OK my IT is more or less fixed and I am going to get ready to kick him hard.

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 2059
RE: Battle of Moulmien day 2 - 1/18/2012 4:52:20 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		Invasion TF's are loading up for my next operartion covered by 32 CVE's 8 CV's and 10 CVL's

So about 2,000 carrier aircraft with Superfort support and LR P38's from forward bases

Things are about to heat up again

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 2060
RE: Battle of Moulmien day 2 - 1/18/2012 4:56:56 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		Operations in the second half of 44

1. Secure Andaman Islands
2. Eliminate Japanese Land Based Air in Burma


3. Secure New Britain
4. Secure New Guinea Coast
5. Neutralise Truk

6. Assault Marshall and Gilbert Islands

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 2061
RE: Battle of Moulmien day 2 - 1/18/2012 4:59:58 PM   
EUBanana


Posts: 4552
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Invasion TF's are loading up for my next operartion covered by 32 CVE's 8 CV's and 10 CVL's




32 CVEs, wowzers.

I take it a lot of them are VR squadron CVEs though. Did you swap out the reinforcement airgroups?

_____________________________


(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 2062
RE: Battle of Moulmien day 2 - 1/30/2012 12:01:28 AM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		A mix some are still VR some are pure fighter platformsees onto a couple of ungarr
Been relativelly quiet recently landed Paras and Seabees onto a pair of 30k atolls in the spouthern Gilberts not going anywhere without strong Thud support to close down enemy AF's

I have lost my ability to take losses in Carriers and keep going so I need to be carefull

(in reply to EUBanana)
Post #: 2063
RE: Battle of Moulmien day 2 - 1/30/2012 12:02:36 AM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		Been resting 4E bombers in burma saving my main battles for when they can be decisive

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 2064
RE: Battle of Moulmien day 2 - 1/30/2012 1:32:56 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		In CENTPAC now secured 2 atolls both 30,000 men capacity with a decet airfield build.

Takes about 6 - 7 days for massed Seabees to get the AF to lvl 1 so no need to rush into the Gilberts or marshalls without proper support.

I will wait until I can put a strong force of mediums onto those islands for AF suppressions backed by sweeping Thuds

I cannot afford heavy losses in carrers in the initial phases of this operation so I am being ultra carefull and not advancing beyond the support of LBA.

The plan requires me to have cleared all the Marshalls and Gilberts in the next 5 months so I am not ia huge rush in this theatre and can afford the time to do it safely


(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 2065
RE: Battle of Moulmien day 2 - 1/30/2012 1:59:18 PM   
castor troy


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

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

In CENTPAC now secured 2 atolls both 30,000 men capacity with a decet airfield build.

Takes about 6 - 7 days for massed Seabees to get the AF to lvl 1 so no need to rush into the Gilberts or marshalls without proper support.

I will wait until I can put a strong force of mediums onto those islands for AF suppressions backed by sweeping Thuds

I cannot afford heavy losses in carrers in the initial phases of this operation so I am being ultra carefull and not advancing beyond the support of LBA.

The plan requires me to have cleared all the Marshalls and Gilberts in the next 5 months so I am not ia huge rush in this theatre and can afford the time to do it safely





6 - 7 days for massed Seabees to build a level 1 airfield? What are those airfields, 0 (0) airfields? Massed Seabees do this in one day for me if it's a 0 (3) or so.

_____________________________


(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 2066
RE: Battle of Moulmien day 2 - 1/30/2012 4:54:39 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		massed as in 3 seabee bns and its nearer 5 days after4 they hit their stride

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 2067
RE: Battle of Moulmien day 2 - 1/31/2012 8:03:02 AM   
castor troy


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

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

massed as in 3 seabee bns and its nearer 5 days after4 they hit their stride



ok, 3 btns wasn't what I would have called "massed". That explains it.

_____________________________


(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 2068
RE: Battle of Moulmien day 2 - 1/31/2012 6:30:29 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		:) being carefull to get my foothold established before I punch in with carriers.

My CV's are only really in theatre to force PZB to come out from behind his LBA if he wants to party.

I am not sending unsupported CV's in against KB and LBA I cannot afford the losses for minor objectives

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 2069
RE: Battle of Moulmien day 2 - 2/1/2012 7:38:31 AM   
castor troy


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

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

:) being carefull to get my foothold established before I punch in with carriers.

My CV's are only really in theatre to force PZB to come out from behind his LBA if he wants to party.

I am not sending unsupported CV's in against KB and LBA I cannot afford the losses for minor objectives




_____________________________


(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 2070
Page:   <<   < prev  66 67 68 [69] 70   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: Battle of Moulmien day 2 Page: <<   < prev  66 67 68 [69] 70   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

6.078