RE: Ending an IJ wet dream - bluebook (J) vs castor troy (A)

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: Ending an IJ wet dream - bluebook (J) vs castor troy (A)

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: Ending an IJ wet dream - bluebook (J) vs castor troy (A)

Page: << < prev 6 7 [8] 9 10 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Ending an IJ wet dream - bluebook (J) vs castor tro... - 3/7/2012 6:52:09 AM

gradenko2k

Posts: 935
Joined: 12/27/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs
It isn't about what we infer. It was stated directly long ago. That's how they designed it - good/bad, right/wrong, inferior/superior, dumb/smart, or whatever.

And BTW all devices - all of them - have crews. Those crews can take individual casualties (KIA/WIA/captured) when the device is 'disabled'. Those casualties have to be made good when the device is 'fixed'.

Yes, of course the tank/gun/radar etc. needs spare parts to be fixed. It also needs any people casualties among the crew to be replaced.

Exactly. It has been this way since UV.

The device is an abstraction of the whole unit required to operate effectively. A 155mm "device" is the gun, the crew, the on site ammunition and the on site spare parts.

Supplies are an abstraction of everything this unit requires to be brought back to full strenght in case of taking losses, or to be kept operational when operating.
Whether this is a replacement loader for the one lying in field hospital with diarrhea, a new gun barrel, or a new tyre, is not discernable. If a soldier in the unit gets killed
supply is used to abstract the event of a new replacement soldier arriving at the squad.

The only situation different to the above is when the whole unit gets wiped out as a fighting force. The gun destroyed, the crew shot or killed by a direct hit, the commander killed
or taken prisoner. Then you need two abstracted means to replace the losses:
Supplies, as in the previous situation, but also manpower and/or "the device", representing a completely trained unit including their commander.

I think the argument being presented here is that while yes, a disabled squad does take *something* to be brought back to readiness, and that something is "supplies" as an abstraction of a lot of things, the fact that it's *just* supplies means that getting destroyed results is that much more valuable.

I don't think castor troy is saying that his troops are causing zero casualties absolutely, but he is saying that since most of the casualties are *just* disabled, the effect doesn't add up to much in the long run. We can grant that disabled still means "some soldiers died", but in-game, it doesn't mean a thing (relatively) to Japan's production pools, and that's what he's looking for,

(in reply to LoBaron)

Post #: 211

RE: Ending an IJ wet dream - bluebook (J) vs castor tro... - 3/7/2012 7:25:09 AM

castor troy

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andav

Speaking as someone who plays the Japanese, in the PI I personally like to make sure I send enough to take Manila and Clark. Bataan can then be controlled with about 800 AV (less if you really want) and eventually taken. The rest on the army packs up and heads other places. That being said, Singapore is really the key to everything early. In my opinion, it must be overwhelmed in early to mid January to allow a decent sized port in the area. BBs have to travel a very long way to rearm until Singapore falls. The longer Singapore holds, the longer the Japanese are delayed from the rest of the DEI and beyond.

Regarding ground attacks, if you play the Japanese, I think you get used to the pounding Allied air can give your units. One day of attacks will really do a number on a unit. We tend to think we can do the same thing. The problem is the Allies typically drop a minimum of 6 x 500 lbs bombs whereas the Japanese only drop a max of 4 x 250kg with many dropping far less both in number and size. The numbers just do not add up to anything especially in a place like Singapore where the total number of units being bombed is very high and the terrain and forts offer protection. Using carrier planes to ground attack Singapore is really kinda a waste of an asset.

And of course, the Amphibious Bonus is AWESOME! One of the best things ever added to the game! (please note the preceding smilie and consider my tongue firmly planted in my cheek)

Wa

yeah, ground bombing is only really useful if you catch the enemy in open terrain and it can show real effect if there are few units but as soon as you have some terrain bonus and lots of units the ground attacks do literally nothing in terms of decreasing the enemy's combat value. Again, I do not know what it means to supplies but I guess you would be better off bombing the airfield or port but I could be wrong here.

re the BB having to rearm, well, no need for bluebook's BB to rearm as the DEI is already Japanese!

Only my strongholds are still fighting and are waiting to be attacked.

Amphib bonus?

_____________________________

(in reply to Andav)

Post #: 212

RE: Ending an IJ wet dream - bluebook (J) vs castor tro... - 3/7/2012 7:31:15 AM

castor troy

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: SeethingErmine

I think bluebook made a mistake hitting Singapore with so many regiment-sized infantry units. They always seem to take severe losses and perform poorly in big battles. If you notice, on the last hit he finally snuck in a fourth full division (5th Div). If he'd had four or five full divs instead of all those broken up pieces from the start I bet it would have cost him a lot less with the same AV commitment.

Your math on his total AV is pretty good - the 20th Div that showed up at Clark is a Korea buyout, so you know where his PPs have gone. (And probably what prompted the attempt.) I bet he came ashore on Luzon with only like 1k AV originally, but a lot of it was good IJA tank regiments. One of the things I like about your AAR style is we can keep track of the LCUs from the full combat log.

I know we're a bit time-warped here, but could you give us a world map screenshot sometime? I confess a part of me just wants to see everything painted red, but it still would be interesting to see what you're dealing with after the initial rampage.

Totally agree, hitting the enemy with < div sized units usually isn't a good idea. I have noticed this myselve and wondered why all these Inf rgt showed up and why they aren't combined into divisions. Really not having looked at the Japanese so far, can't those Rgt be recombined into divisions? Are they all independent units?

I always fail to know which IJA divs are Southern Area Command units and which are coming from somewhere else but I was sure there are already bought out units operating against me as the total av was quite shocking to me when I summed it up. Nice catch with the 5th Div at Singapore, didn't notice he brought in another div.

The AAR is only a week behind the game at the moment as I spent more time updating the AAR than playing due to a lack of turns

, will take a screenshot of the strategic situation next turn, so that should show up soon.

_____________________________

(in reply to SeethingErmine)

Post #: 213

RE: Ending an IJ wet dream - bluebook (J) vs castor tro... - 3/7/2012 7:41:33 AM

castor troy

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Schlemiel

I'd be curious to see the strat map myself.� As to the specifics of Clark, I absolutely agree that your AV can maul a small Japanese stack, especially early on in the campaign.� I'm probably thinking of mid February myself, by which time air power can probably get your supply levels down to the point where you don't particularly want to attack and the troops have time to build at least fort level 2 on the rough jungle terrain.� With that duration of prep time for 2 divisions worth of troops, it's going to take quite some luck to dislodge the IJA in that terrain with forts when your own supplies are probably quite limited.� The defensive multiplier in Clark Field is quite strong, much stronger than most places you'd consider the counter shock attack early in the campaign.� That said, I'm sure I'm want to go for the siege of Bataan myself, after sending enough to clear Manilla and Clark.� The Allied player can definitely take advantage of the open border between Bataan and Clark if we're thinking of a many month siege scenario with relatively few troops.

The point of such a move anyway would be to have the maximum av available for the last phase of operations during the amphibious bonus, wherever that will hit.� It doesn't exactly matter which line it is, though the Phillipines are so far behind what can be expected to be Japanese lines for the next few years that it's a safe bet that Allies won't be able to adequately exploit it if bypassed compared to, say Fiji if you are going for New Zealand.� If holing up the Allies in Clark lets you potentially hit later targets (the Darwins, Port Moresbys, and especially places like Sydney or Wellington (of those are your plans) with an extra thousand AV during the bonus rather than having 2000 extra available once it's gone, it might be a worthwhile tradeoff.� It's the classic back fill maneuver to deny the Allies as many bases as they can actually exploit in the first year or two of the war as possible (the Allies holding Port Moresby in fall 1942 is a far better position for the Allies than still holding a pocket in Clark Field well beyond any kind of supply).� Tying up unnecessary resources to eliminate a pocket that's too deep in your interior to be any threat seems like a suboptimal choice to me, all else being equal (which it never is).� Either bring enough to clear it fast, or bring just enough to tie it down (with some temporary cushion until forts can be raised).� Something in between doesn't seem, to me anyway, to be the way to go.� That's just looking at it from a Japanese perspective though.�

From an Allied perspective, balling up a lot of those early units makes a ton of sense, as it forces the Japanese player to react during the phase where aggression is important.� Think how much extra was brought to Ambon just for fear of what you might have put there.� The only "counter" to having these bypassed is what you already have to be doing-preparing your final line of defenses at the places you can actually get troops in time.� And, if your opponent gets a little sloppy, you can force a retreat and really put the hurt on.� I definitely agree with SeethingErmine that attacking you in Singapore with those regiment-sized units was a mistake.� I've gotten to the point that I'll only ever use them in an attack if I think I can force the retreat.� Divisions are so much more resilient and I've come to believe (based on admittedly limited evidence) that you'll suffer fewer overall casualties attacking at, say, 1:2 odds with full divisions than 1:1 with those regiments included.� The divisions can absorb the blows better to begin with, and there will be fewer of them (which can be temporarily split after to replenish disabled faster, at least as the Allies).� I haven't seen anything which convinces me that the firepower of the smaller units significantly increases the casualties to the defender, either.� I think Singapore could have been almost as bad in the lack of destroyed squads department as some of the other fights if bluebook hadn't been attacking with the smaller units consistently (and I totally agree with you there, seems so odd that the attacker can almost always be back up to full strength after a week of heavy attacking in short order).

This game is interesting though.� I'm curious to see just what bluebook plans as his major offensive.

bluebook is prepping div(s) - one or two - for Port Moresby, at least this is what intel is telling me. One div would sound a bit weak to me to be honest and with the importance of PM, this is what I would think where he will go to before the amphib bonus ends. Don't get me wrong, I bitch a lot about the amphib bonus and I really think it is a ridicoulos feature in PBEM when it enables the Japanese to land at five dozen atolls and dot bases all around the map, 10000 miles away from the SRA, but the amphib bonus isn't really needed for a major operation like attacking New Zealand, India or Australia. If the target is a one base island and there is a strong garisson, you of course either need preparation or the amphib bonus. If the target is a continent or a big island like NZ then you can just land a small unit at an empty base and take it and unload the rest in a friendly port (ok, takes longer without the amphib bonus).

My guess for the next major operations are Northern Australia and Port Moresby, enemy carriers have been sitting off Timor for over a week, we have spotted enemy BBs and lots of transports were going to Timor. Also had a lot of intel of Japanese units being transported to Koepang and I doubt these are garisson units.

_____________________________

(in reply to Schlemiel)

Post #: 214

RE: Ending an IJ wet dream - bluebook (J) vs castor tro... - 3/7/2012 8:52:27 AM

castor troy

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: gradenko_2000

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs
It isn't about what we infer. It was stated directly long ago. That's how they designed it - good/bad, right/wrong, inferior/superior, dumb/smart, or whatever.

And BTW all devices - all of them - have crews. Those crews can take individual casualties (KIA/WIA/captured) when the device is 'disabled'. Those casualties have to be made good when the device is 'fixed'.

Yes, of course the tank/gun/radar etc. needs spare parts to be fixed. It also needs any people casualties among the crew to be replaced.

Exactly. It has been this way since UV.

The device is an abstraction of the whole unit required to operate effectively. A 155mm "device" is the gun, the crew, the on site ammunition and the on site spare parts.

Supplies are an abstraction of everything this unit requires to be brought back to full strenght in case of taking losses, or to be kept operational when operating.
Whether this is a replacement loader for the one lying in field hospital with diarrhea, a new gun barrel, or a new tyre, is not discernable. If a soldier in the unit gets killed
supply is used to abstract the event of a new replacement soldier arriving at the squad.

The only situation different to the above is when the whole unit gets wiped out as a fighting force. The gun destroyed, the crew shot or killed by a direct hit, the commander killed
or taken prisoner. Then you need two abstracted means to replace the losses:
Supplies, as in the previous situation, but also manpower and/or "the device", representing a completely trained unit including their commander.

I think the argument being presented here is that while yes, a disabled squad does take *something* to be brought back to readiness, and that something is "supplies" as an abstraction of a lot of things, the fact that it's *just* supplies means that getting destroyed results is that much more valuable.

I don't think castor troy is saying that his troops are causing zero casualties absolutely, but he is saying that since most of the casualties are *just* disabled, the effect doesn't add up to much in the long run. We can grant that disabled still means "some soldiers died", but in-game, it doesn't mean a thing (relatively) to Japan's production pools, and that's what he's looking for,

well put, this is what I want to say. I really give a sh*t about 1 enemy squad disabled when the enemy attacks a garisson of 1000 troops on an atoll as it means just nothing. Not that 1 squad destroyed would really mean something, so together with the amphib bonus an enemy nav guard unit can rush through the Pacific or Indian Ocean and take out literally all garissons and empty islands in two months, as can be seen in my game against bluebook. You might think that even 1000 soldiers of a support unit would be able to kill perhaps more than 2 enemy soldiers when they attempt to land on an atoll.

I only spent 8 months draft service in the Army (a badly equipped one of a neutral country) and I have been a support, better say I have been a waiter for 7 months after the first month "combat training". I was stationed at a military training area in the mountains the whole time and back then, Austria, while being a neutral country, was working together with the NATO as it was called "partnership for peace".

This meant we had foreign troops doing wargames at our place to train combat in mountainous terrain. There were French, German, US, Dutch

(fun to see those Dutch units doing mountain combat training with their country being flat and partially below sea level), Italian and troops from other countries training. While they were training on their own during the week, we were waiters, drivers, cooks or other supports from Monday to Friday lunch time. And every Friday afternoon halve a company of us was ordered to dress up as real soldiers and we always ended up in the same prepared position near a small, terrible cold river going through a very narrow valley only leaving roughly 100m of ground next to the river. I would call the position a fort level 3 at best, well camouflaged, no concrete. We were always equipped with 2 light machine guns, STG77 and STG58 assault rifles, grenades and two non existing medium mortars we could call in for fire support. Guess we wouldn't be called a well equipped elite unit with our second class equipment, old uniforms and boots that have been worn by probably 10 other soldiers in draft service before we were wearing them, all of us doing normal jobs during the week instead of combat training. Our "enemies" on Friday afternoon could be called elite units, well equipped, modern weapons, far better trained than us, I dare to say, those guys were soldiers. I think comparing us with those NATO units would be pretty much the same as comparing an IJN Naval guard unit with an Allied support unit of early 42.

So every time we were sitting in our position, sometimes waiting for three or more hours to see the enemy finally showing up roughly 250m in front of our position. Most of the times they were advancing frontally on our position, not being aware where they are going to walk into. Usually we were assaulted by roughly twice the number of friendly strenght and usually the enemy ended up being shot up badly, suffering from the terrain, the two light machine guns and fire from something like 40 assault rifles. I can't remember a single time when we weren't declared winning high when the enemy ran right into our position, we suffering minimal losses with the enemy literally being wiped out. Debriefing then most often was the funniest part, when we were looking into the faces of our "enemies" when they were told what they already knew anyway, most of you are dead now, defeated by those ill equipped clowns that serve food during the week.

I only took part in those wargames every second week and I can only remember us losing 4 times. 3 out of 3 times we were overrun from behind by Italian Alpini, which went directly up roughly 600m of steep rock to flank us. Took them the whole afternoon and they didn't show up before the evening, which meant a long day for us

. We were sure that the Alpini were cheating as it was obvious they always knew were our position was and the same happened to the other halve of our team whenever they faced the Italian. The position wasn't fortified against an attack from behind so whenever this happened we were done. The fourth time losing was against Bavarian Gebirgsj�ger which did the same but not flanking us without us even spotting them first, they advanced onto our position and then sent halve of their unit across the rocks. All the other units just failed. What really impressed me back then was the effect of a good position and an enemy advancing towards it not knowing you were there. No high tech weapons, just guns and bullets and we were able to defeat the enemy something like 9 out of 10 times (more if you exclude the Italian).

Now long story short, what I want trying to say is that even a non first line combat unit with a couple of guns should be able to cause notable losses within the enemy if not completely caught by surprise. As this doesn't happen, the enemy in our in game example overruns the whole Pacific and Indian Ocean with 3000 soldiers as the amphib bonus and the non existing damage let's him do this with so few troops.

But hey ho, it's just a nuissance so I think we shouldn't make this more than it is.

_____________________________

(in reply to gradenko2k)

Post #: 215

RE: Ending an IJ wet dream - bluebook (J) vs castor tro... - 3/7/2012 11:48:54 AM

castor troy

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

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Feb 05, 42
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat, near Lord Howe Island at 102,176, Range 9,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
PB Choko Maru #2, Shell hits 5, on fire

Allied Ships
DD Thanet

that's one of the picket PB bluebook uses, probably to draw a carrier strike if my CVs end up in range... well... we had intel about that PB moving into the area and ordered DD Thanet to engage... I wondered why the PB was only hit by 4 inch shells, just to find out Thanet is a third class destroyer only carrying a couple of 4 inch guns... being on fire and quite a way from home the PB should be done though...

Improved night sighting under 78% moonlight
Maximum visibility in Partly Cloudy Conditions and 78% moonlight: 11,000 yards
CONTACT: Allied lookouts spot Japanese task force at 11,000 yards
Range closes to 9,000 yards...
CONTACT: Japanese lookouts spot Allied task force at 9,000 yards
DD Thanet engages PB Choko Maru #2 at 9,000 yards
Range closes to 8,000 yards
DD Thanet engages PB Choko Maru #2 at 8,000 yards
Range closes to 7,000 yards
DD Thanet engages PB Choko Maru #2 at 7,000 yards
Range closes to 6,000 yards
DD Thanet engages PB Choko Maru #2 at 6,000 yards
Range increases to 7,000 yards
DD Thanet engages PB Choko Maru #2 at 7,000 yards
DD Thanet engages PB Choko Maru #2 at 7,000 yards
Range increases to 8,000 yards
DD Thanet engages PB Choko Maru #2 at 8,000 yards
DD Thanet engages PB Choko Maru #2 at 8,000 yards
Range closes to 7,000 yards
DD Thanet engages PB Choko Maru #2 at 7,000 yards
DD Thanet engages PB Choko Maru #2 at 7,000 yards
Range closes to 6,000 yards
DD Thanet engages PB Choko Maru #2 at 6,000 yards
Range increases to 8,000 yards
DD Thanet engages PB Choko Maru #2 at 8,000 yards
Range increases to 9,000 yards
DD Thanet engages PB Choko Maru #2 at 9,000 yards
Davies, E.S. orders Allied TF to disengage
Range closes to 8,000 yards
DD Thanet engages PB Choko Maru #2 at 8,000 yards
Shibuya, Y. orders Japanese TF to disengage
Task forces break off...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASW attack near Koepang at 68,116

Japanese Ships
DD Tachikaze
DD Asagao

Allied Ships
SS S-37, hits 3

SS S-37 is sighted by escort
S-37 bottoming out ....
DD Asagao attacking submerged sub ....
DD Asagao fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Asagao fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Asagao fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Asagao fails to find sub, continues to search...
Escort abandons search for sub

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASW attack near Koepang at 68,116

Japanese Ships
xAK Oigawa Maru
xAKL Yosyu Maru
PB Chohakusan Maru

Allied Ships
SS S-37

still lots of shipping at Koepang...

SS S-37 is sighted by escort
PB Chohakusan Maru fails to find sub, continues to search...
PB Chohakusan Maru fails to find sub, continues to search...
PB Chohakusan Maru fails to find sub, continues to search...
PB Chohakusan Maru fails to find sub, continues to search...
PB Chohakusan Maru attacking submerged sub ....
PB Chohakusan Maru is out of ASW ammo
PB Chohakusan Maru is out of ASW ammo
Escort abandons search for sub

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amphibious Assault at Tawi Tawi (72,90)

TF 202 troops unloading over beach at Tawi Tawi, 72,90

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

17 troops of a SNLF Squad lost overboard during unload of III/66th Nav Gd
17 troops of a SNLF Squad lost in surf during unload of III/66th Nav Gd

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Bataan at 78,77

Weather in hex: Heavy rain

Raid detected at 45 NM, estimated altitude 15,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 16 minutes

Japanese aircraft
D3A1 Val x 12

No Japanese losses

Allied Ships
PT-41
PT Q-111

Aircraft Attacking:
1 x D3A1 Val releasing from 2000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 250 kg SAP Bomb
3 x D3A1 Val releasing from 3000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 250 kg SAP Bomb
8 x D3A1 Val releasing from 1000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 250 kg SAP Bomb

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Singapore Fortress, at 50,84 (Singapore)

Weather in hex: Light cloud

Raid detected at 38 NM, estimated altitude 14,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 16 minutes

Japanese aircraft
B5N1 Kate x 68

Japanese aircraft losses
B5N1 Kate: 4 damaged

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

Aircraft Attacking:
38 x B5N1 Kate bombing from 11000 feet
Ground Attack: 2 x 250 kg GP Bomb
30 x B5N1 Kate bombing from 11000 feet
Ground Attack: 2 x 250 kg GP Bomb

Also attacking Malaya Army ...
Also attacking Singapore Fortress ...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Clark Field , at 79,76

Weather in hex: Moderate rain

Raid detected at 119 NM, estimated altitude 15,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 37 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-21-IIa Sally x 22
Ki-30 Ann x 28
Ki-36 Ida x 11
Ki-48-Ib Lily x 24
Ki-51 Sonia x 12

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-21-IIa Sally: 6 damaged
Ki-36 Ida: 1 damaged
Ki-48-Ib Lily: 3 damaged
Ki-51 Sonia: 1 damaged

Airbase hits 1
Runway hits 15

Aircraft Attacking:
18 x Ki-48-Ib Lily bombing from 11000 feet
Airfield Attack: 4 x 100 kg GP Bomb
22 x Ki-21-IIa Sally bombing from 11000 feet
Airfield Attack: 4 x 250 kg GP Bomb
6 x Ki-48-Ib Lily bombing from 11000 feet
Airfield Attack: 4 x 100 kg GP Bomb
28 x Ki-30 Ann bombing from 11000 feet
Airfield Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb
12 x Ki-51 Sonia bombing from 11000 feet
Airfield Attack: 4 x 50 kg GP Bomb
11 x Ki-36 Ida bombing from 11000 feet
Airfield Attack: 4 x 30 kg GP Bomb

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

Weather in hex: Light cloud

Raid detected at 40 NM, estimated altitude 13,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 11 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-21-IIa Sally x 78
Ki-48-Ib Lily x 40

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-21-IIa Sally: 21 damaged
Ki-48-Ib Lily: 11 damaged

Allied ground losses:
40 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 7 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled

Airbase hits 9
Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 45

Aircraft Attacking:
24 x Ki-21-IIa Sally bombing from 11000 feet
Airfield Attack: 4 x 250 kg GP Bomb
22 x Ki-21-IIa Sally bombing from 11000 feet
Airfield Attack: 4 x 250 kg GP Bomb
16 x Ki-21-IIa Sally bombing from 11000 feet
Ground Attack: 4 x 250 kg GP Bomb
16 x Ki-48-Ib Lily bombing from 11000 feet
Ground Attack: 4 x 100 kg GP Bomb
24 x Ki-48-Ib Lily bombing from 11000 feet
Airfield Attack: 4 x 100 kg GP Bomb
16 x Ki-21-IIa Sally bombing from 11000 feet
Ground Attack: 4 x 250 kg GP Bomb

Also attacking Singapore Base Force ...
Also attacking Singapore Fortress ...
Also attacking Singapore ...
Also attacking Singapore Fortress ...
Also attacking 11th Indian Division ...
Also attacking Singapore Fortress ...
Also attacking Singapore ...
Also attacking 27th Australian Brigade ...
Also attacking III Indian Corps ...
Also attacking Singapore ...
Also attacking 22nd Australian Brigade ...
Also attacking Singapore Fortress ...
Also attacking Singapore ...
Also attacking 224 Group RAF ...
Also attacking Singapore ...
Also attacking 223 Group RAF ...
Also attacking Malayan Air Wing ...
Also attacking Singapore ...
Also attacking AHQ Far East ...
Also attacking Singapore Fortress ...
Also attacking Singapore ...
Also attacking Singapore Fortress ...
Also attacking Singapore ...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on Singapore Fortress, at 50,84 (Singapore)

Weather in hex: Heavy rain

Raid detected at 34 NM, estimated altitude 15,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 11 minutes

Japanese aircraft
G3M2 Nell x 41
G4M1 Betty x 36

Japanese aircraft losses
G3M2 Nell: 3 damaged
G4M1 Betty: 1 damaged

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

Aircraft Attacking:
36 x G4M1 Betty bombing from 11000 feet
Ground Attack: 2 x 250 kg GP Bomb, 4 x 60 kg GP Bomb
34 x G3M2 Nell bombing from 11000 feet
Ground Attack: 2 x 250 kg GP Bomb, 4 x 60 kg GP Bomb
7 x G3M2 Nell bombing from 11000 feet
Ground Attack: 2 x 250 kg GP Bomb, 4 x 60 kg GP Bomb

Also attacking 9th Indian Division ...
Also attacking Singapore Fortress ...
Also attacking 9th Indian Division ...
Also attacking Singapore Fortress ...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASW attack near Koepang at 68,116

Japanese Ships
DD Sawakaze
xAK Gyoko Maru

Allied Ships
SS S-40

pity we don't target the freighters but at least there is an escort which means we attack submerged instead of surfaced just to break off right away...

SS S-40 launches 2 torpedoes at DD Sawakaze
Sub escapes detection

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amphibious Assault at Niuafo'ou (141,160)

TF 309 troops unloading over beach at Niuafo'ou, 141,160

must be a dot or so somewhere far away in the South Pacific...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amphibious Assault at Lunga (114,138)

TF 335 troops unloading over beach at Lunga, 114,138

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

Ground combat at Singapore (50,84)

Japanese Bombardment attack

Attacking force 8981 troops, 339 guns, 56 vehicles, Assault Value = 2062

Defending force 37634 troops, 418 guns, 286 vehicles, Assault Value = 305

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

Allied ground losses:
73 casualties reported
Squads: 1 destroyed, 4 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 5 disabled
Engineers: 3 destroyed, 4 disabled
Guns lost 5 (4 destroyed, 1 disabled)

the last failed deliberate attack means a couple of days more of Allied resistance...

Assaulting units:
33rd Division
16th Infantry Regiment
41st Infantry Regiment
23rd Ind. Engineer Regiment
4th Ind. Engineer Regiment
56th Recon Regiment
56th Engineer Regiment
2nd Engineer Regiment
12th Engineer Regiment
113th Infantry Regiment
55th Infantry Regiment
114th Infantry Regiment
56th Infantry Regiment
2nd Recon Regiment
148th Infantry Regiment
21st Division
5th Division
Imperial Guards Division
II./4th Infantry Battalion
15th Ind. Engineer Regiment
24th Infantry Regiment
3rd Medium Field Artillery Regiment
1st RF Gun Battalion
84th JAAF AF Bn
3rd Mortar Battalion
25th Army
18th Mountain Gun Regiment
3rd Ind. Mountain Gun Regiment
56th Field Artillery Regiment
18th Medium Field Artillery Regiment
5th Mortar Battalion
2nd Field Artillery Regiment
1st Raiding Rgt /2

Defending units:
SSVF Brigade
11th Indian Division
27th Australian Brigade
9th Indian Division
223 Group RAF
224 Group RAF
111th RAF Base Force
Malaya Army
22nd Australian Brigade
Singapore Base Force
1st Manchester Battalion
2nd Malay Battalion
2nd Loyal Battalion
III Indian Corps
22nd Indian Mountain Gun Regiment
1st ISF Base Force
AHQ Far East
Singapore Fortress
3rd Heavy AA Regiment
2nd ISF Base Force
Malayan Air Wing
1st Indian Heavy AA Regiment
3rd HK&S Light AA Regiment
FMSV Brigade
24th NZ Pioneer Coy
112th RAF Base Force
109th RAF Base Force
2nd HK&S Heavy AA Regiment
2nd Gordons Battalion
1st HK&S Heavy AA Regiment
1st Hyderabad Battalion
110th RAF Base Force
109th RN Base Force

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

Ground combat at Misool (80,108)

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 450 troops, 2 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 16

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

Japanese adjusted assault: 16

Allied adjusted defense: 1

Japanese assault odds: 16 to 1 (fort level 0)

Japanese forces CAPTURE Misool !!!

Combat modifiers
Attacker:

Assaulting units:
Bandasan SNLF

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

Ground combat at Sampit (58,97)

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 222 troops, 2 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 12

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

Japanese adjusted assault: 7

Allied adjusted defense: 1

Japanese assault odds: 7 to 1 (fort level 1)

Japanese forces CAPTURE Sampit !!!

Combat modifiers
Attacker: leaders(-)

Assaulting units:
III/81st Naval Guard Unit

intel:

4/38th/A Division is loaded on xAK Tatukami Maru moving to Noumea.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by castor troy -- 3/7/2012 11:49:44 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to castor troy)

Post #: 216

RE: Ending an IJ wet dream - bluebook (J) vs castor tro... - 3/7/2012 12:46:18 PM

EUBanana

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

Those Hong Kong DDs are terrible, they are WW1 relics. Almost not worth saving.

They do however carry mines IIRC.

_____________________________

(in reply to castor troy)

Post #: 217

RE: Ending an IJ wet dream - bluebook (J) vs castor tro... - 3/7/2012 2:45:27 PM

witpqs

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

Great story, Castor! Thanks for telling it.

Do you think any Pacific Islands will be left by Bluebook?

(in reply to EUBanana)

Post #: 218

RE: Ending an IJ wet dream - bluebook (J) vs castor tro... - 3/7/2012 3:49:04 PM

castor troy

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Great story, Castor! Thanks for telling it.

Do you think any Pacific Islands will be left by Bluebook?

yeah, Hawaii

seriously, as he took everything below Palmyra/Christmas Island and Canton Island further West he is probably done with his assault on the South Pacific. He knows that I have 150av on Canton Island as he already had a SNLF wiped out when he attempted to land it. Now of course you can't rely on holding a 6000 troop stacking atoll and if he wants it, he can take it, but in that case he has to use serious troops that are seriously prepared. My guess is Australia, everything seems to point at that target. He may also attack New Zealand but I am not sure if it does him any good and it wouldn't cut off Australia more than it already is cut off. From Noumea or the Fijis it's not that far to the Southern map edge so any convoy passing that area is in high danger of being attacked and destroyed.

I can't really think of an all out attack on Australia though, at least that isn't what I would do, I would only go for the North Coast but looking at bluebook's agressiveness so far, he may well try to take all of it. Now that would be a great victory for him, haven't heard about a Japanese player being able to take all of Australia in an AE PBEM yet. Wouldn't it be satisfying to teach bitching castor a real lesson?

Of course the attempt could also lead to major disaster, while the chances to suffer a disaster as the IJ taking the North Coast are rather small.

< Message edited by castor troy -- 3/7/2012 3:51:16 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 219

RE: Ending an IJ wet dream - bluebook (J) vs castor tro... - 3/7/2012 3:56:21 PM

EUBanana

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

Maybe he'll get victory disease. Maybe not.

I guess you'll know for sure quite soon.

_____________________________

(in reply to castor troy)

Post #: 220

RE: Ending an IJ wet dream - bluebook (J) vs castor tro... - 3/7/2012 3:59:40 PM

witpqs

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

Hmmm. Well if he gets large forces to Canton before the Amphib bonus wears out the prep will only help with the combat itself.

Australia seems like a tough nut to crack. If you have been using Tracker to help coordinate getting squads and such updated then both the Australian and New Zealand forces become tougher pretty quickly, although NZ's are still small enough to be overwhelmed.

(in reply to castor troy)

Post #: 221

RE: Ending an IJ wet dream - bluebook (J) vs castor tro... - 3/7/2012 4:11:06 PM

castor troy

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Hmmm. Well if he gets large forces to Canton before the Amphib bonus wears out the prep will only help with the combat itself.

Australia seems like a tough nut to crack. If you have been using Tracker to help coordinate getting squads and such updated then both the Australian and New Zealand forces become tougher pretty quickly, although NZ's are still small enough to be overwhelmed.

yeah, true about Canton, I doubt that it is up high enough on his target list to do that though as one div is being moved to Noumea, one seems to be recombining on Fiji and parts of another one seem to be tasked for PM (or was that the same as one of the mentioned two? don't know).

AIF 42 squads just started to go online, means it will take roughly 7-8 weeks to be able to upgrade all my Aus divs to those squads. 55 per month and usually some 200-250 inf squads per div as it is now. So splitting them into regiments would make it possible to upgrade a rgt each day. If I would be totally desperate I could disband one of the two divs (or only a rgt of one of the divs) that show up in Aden, would leave me with enough squads to upgrade right away. Now I wouldn't really regret doing that right away but disbanding a unit means a lot of victory points for the enemy, just as if he would have destroyed the unit, which is something I don't understand as the enemy also doesn't get victory points if I disband an air unit with it's planes going into the pool which is the same as the devices of a LCU going into the pool. This is the only real reason why I don't disband ground units, with US AA units coming to mind, they all sit around horrible understrenght (33% usually). I would like to disband them to have their equipment being sent to other units that need them but I don't want to give the enemy the victory points for ground losses, as those are really high for Allied units.

We'll see, he can't take Australia in a week so we've got plenty of time to decide what will be necessary... hopefully...

_____________________________

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 222

RE: Ending an IJ wet dream - bluebook (J) vs castor tro... - 3/7/2012 4:32:38 PM

witpqs

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

IIRC the CMF Inf squads are much better than the CMF Militia squads (I might have the names a bit wrong). Any upgrading you can get from Militia to Inf increases the anti-soft of the squads quite a bit.

(in reply to castor troy)

Post #: 223

RE: Ending an IJ wet dream - bluebook (J) vs castor tro... - 3/7/2012 4:55:55 PM

castor troy

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

IIRC the CMF Inf squads are much better than the CMF Militia squads (I might have the names a bit wrong). Any upgrading you can get from Militia to Inf increases the anti-soft of the squads quite a bit.

not enough CMF squads around to upgrade the divisions. Only if I would disband a unit filled up with CMF squads but then I would be better off disbanding one rgt of the two arriving Aus Divs. Both options could be done within a couple of days though.

< Message edited by castor troy -- 3/7/2012 4:56:13 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 224

RE: Ending an IJ wet dream - bluebook (J) vs castor tro... - 3/7/2012 5:31:33 PM

crsutton

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

Those Hong Kong DDs are terrible, they are WW1 relics. Almost not worth saving.

They do however carry mines IIRC.

But perfect for the exact use that CT used it for. You won't lose a lot of sleep if Japanese air catches it.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to EUBanana)

Post #: 225

RE: Ending an IJ wet dream - bluebook (J) vs castor tro... - 3/7/2012 5:34:45 PM

crsutton

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Hmmm. Well if he gets large forces to Canton before the Amphib bonus wears out the prep will only help with the combat itself.

Australia seems like a tough nut to crack. If you have been using Tracker to help coordinate getting squads and such updated then both the Australian and New Zealand forces become tougher pretty quickly, although NZ's are still small enough to be overwhelmed.

yeah, true about Canton, I doubt that it is up high enough on his target list to do that though as one div is being moved to Noumea, one seems to be recombining on Fiji and parts of another one seem to be tasked for PM (or was that the same as one of the mentioned two? don't know).

AIF 42 squads just started to go online, means it will take roughly 7-8 weeks to be able to upgrade all my Aus divs to those squads. 55 per month and usually some 200-250 inf squads per div as it is now. So splitting them into regiments would make it possible to upgrade a rgt each day. If I would be totally desperate I could disband one of the two divs (or only a rgt of one of the divs) that show up in Aden, would leave me with enough squads to upgrade right away. Now I wouldn't really regret doing that right away but disbanding a unit means a lot of victory points for the enemy, just as if he would have destroyed the unit, which is something I don't understand as the enemy also doesn't get victory points if I disband an air unit with it's planes going into the pool which is the same as the devices of a LCU going into the pool. This is the only real reason why I don't disband ground units, with US AA units coming to mind, they all sit around horrible understrenght (33% usually). I would like to disband them to have their equipment being sent to other units that need them but I don't want to give the enemy the victory points for ground losses, as those are really high for Allied units.

We'll see, he can't take Australia in a week so we've got plenty of time to decide what will be necessary... hopefully...

Crap! I never knew it cost VP to disband units. I have given about a million to my opponent so far...Doh!

I think the key to Australia is mobile units. You really do not have much use for American tanks early on in the game. Once I felt sure that India was safe I sent most of my tank units to Oz. Both American tanks from the Pacific and a couple of Indian tank brigades. Once they upgrade to valentines and matildas the Japanese just can't deal with Allied tanks in the open, and OZ is made for tanks.

< Message edited by crsutton -- 3/7/2012 5:39:14 PM >

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to castor troy)

Post #: 226

RE: Ending an IJ wet dream - bluebook (J) vs castor tro... - 3/7/2012 5:50:27 PM

witpqs

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Crap! I never knew it cost VP to disband units. I have given about a million to my opponent so far...Doh!

This is what it says in the manual.

quote:

Disband Unit: If located at a base with greater than 100,000 supplies or in a key base (Delhi, Auckland, Sydney, Vladivostok, San Francisco, Osaka or Tokyo), then the player may manually disband units which will return 100% of active devices to the pool and 50% of disabled devices. If in a key base this is free; if in a base with 100,000 supplies it will cost a portion of the units VP value. The player is given the option whether or not to have the unit disbanded rebuilt in 180 days as an administrative cadre.

So maybe it only costs points depending on where you disband them???

(in reply to crsutton)

Post #: 227

RE: Ending an IJ wet dream - bluebook (J) vs castor tro... - 3/7/2012 6:55:49 PM

castor troy

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Crap! I never knew it cost VP to disband units. I have given about a million to my opponent so far...Doh!

This is what it says in the manual.

quote:

Disband Unit: If located at a base with greater than 100,000 supplies or in a key base (Delhi, Auckland, Sydney, Vladivostok, San Francisco, Osaka or Tokyo), then the player may manually disband units which will return 100% of active devices to the pool and 50% of disabled devices. If in a key base this is free; if in a base with 100,000 supplies it will cost a portion of the units VP value. The player is given the option whether or not to have the unit disbanded rebuilt in 180 days as an administrative cadre.

So maybe it only costs points depending on where you disband them???

hmmm, this is interesting. Last time I disbanded a unit, IIRC at San Francisco

, I sure paid with vp for it as I was quite shocked about the victory points going up by a hell a lot of points. Never tried it again ever since. Anyone know if it works as in the manual?

Wonder if I lost a bigger ground combat when I disbanded a unit last time which could also have been the reason for the vp going up and I just thought it would have been from disbanding.

< Message edited by castor troy -- 3/7/2012 7:00:28 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 228

RE: Ending an IJ wet dream - bluebook (J) vs castor tro... - 3/7/2012 8:24:26 PM

castor troy

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

just checked in game with the next turn, there are several bases with far more than 100,000 supplies on the map but none work to disband (unrestricted) units. So there the manual definitely isn't correct, so what about the victory points?

At San Francisco I can disband restricted units.

< Message edited by castor troy -- 3/7/2012 8:26:34 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to castor troy)

Post #: 229

RE: Ending an IJ wet dream - bluebook (J) vs castor tro... - 3/8/2012 7:24:50 AM

castor troy

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

I have disbanded a restricted West Coast division at San Francisco and it didn't show any change in victory points the same turn. Two things surprised me, I didn't expect to be able to disband restricted units and I haven't paid ANY victory points. Or do the victory points show up the next turn? I didn't end the turn, I just saved the orders phase, disbanded and then reloaded the save to give my orders.

_____________________________

(in reply to castor troy)

Post #: 230

RE: Ending an IJ wet dream - bluebook (J) vs castor tro... - 3/8/2012 5:33:40 PM

crsutton

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

I have disbanded a restricted West Coast division at San Francisco and it didn't show any change in victory points the same turn. Two things surprised me, I didn't expect to be able to disband restricted units and I haven't paid ANY victory points. Or do the victory points show up the next turn? I didn't end the turn, I just saved the orders phase, disbanded and then reloaded the save to give my orders.

Hmmmmm. I will have to check but I thought one of the recent patches won't allow you to disband "white" restricted units or any unit that is due to be withdrawn. I was disbanding white restricted units in India but at some point could no longer do it. Figured michalem did that.

One of these days I am going to have to get around to reading that manual.

< Message edited by crsutton -- 3/8/2012 5:35:06 PM >

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to castor troy)

Post #: 231

RE: Ending an IJ wet dream - bluebook (J) vs castor tro... - 3/9/2012 1:53:31 PM

castor troy

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

I have disbanded a restricted West Coast division at San Francisco and it didn't show any change in victory points the same turn. Two things surprised me, I didn't expect to be able to disband restricted units and I haven't paid ANY victory points. Or do the victory points show up the next turn? I didn't end the turn, I just saved the orders phase, disbanded and then reloaded the save to give my orders.

Hmmmmm. I will have to check but I thought one of the recent patches won't allow you to disband "white" restricted units or any unit that is due to be withdrawn. I was disbanding white restricted units in India but at some point could no longer do it. Figured michalem did that.

One of these days I am going to have to get around to reading that manual.

oh, it wasn't a "white" one (permanently restricted), but it was one assinged to West Coast. But I could disband it without changing it to a non restricted command.

_____________________________

(in reply to crsutton)

Post #: 232

RE: Ending an IJ wet dream - bluebook (J) vs castor tro... - 3/9/2012 4:51:30 PM

crsutton

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

Yes, as long as it is yellow, it is possible.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to castor troy)

Post #: 233

RE: Ending an IJ wet dream - bluebook (J) vs castor tro... - 3/11/2012 3:04:36 PM

castor troy

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

no pp to be paid for disbanding units in the big national bases, just disbanded a couple of AA rgts and it has cost me nothing.

Disbanding in bases with 100000+ supplies doesn't work at all though.

< Message edited by castor troy -- 3/11/2012 3:05:01 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to crsutton)

Post #: 234

RE: Ending an IJ wet dream - bluebook (J) vs castor tro... - 3/11/2012 4:01:05 PM

Dan Nichols

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

From Patch 3 dated Feb 28, 2010:

89. Gameplay Change: Changed disbands to must be in national home base and can not be permently restricted then disband is free (no vp cost), in all other situations it is not allowed.

(in reply to castor troy)

Post #: 235

RE: Ending an IJ wet dream - bluebook (J) vs castor tro... - 3/11/2012 9:32:58 PM

crsutton

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

thanks for looking it up Dan.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Dan Nichols)

Post #: 236

RE: Ending an IJ wet dream - bluebook (J) vs castor tro... - 3/11/2012 9:39:48 PM

Smeulders

Posts: 1879
Joined: 8/9/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

IIRC the CMF Inf squads are much better than the CMF Militia squads (I might have the names a bit wrong). Any upgrading you can get from Militia to Inf increases the anti-soft of the squads quite a bit.

not enough CMF squads around to upgrade the divisions. Only if I would disband a unit filled up with CMF squads but then I would be better off disbanding one rgt of the two arriving Aus Divs. Both options could be done within a couple of days though.

Disbanding parts of the divisions arriving in Aden doesn't seem like the best move to me. These units are pretty experienced, disbanding parts of them to be refilled later will lower that exp. The units in Australia are bad to begin with so rebuilding them won't hurt them. The second reason is that units in Australia are restricted, as long as there isn't a massive invasion of Australia, you're not going to be using all of them anyway, so you might as well use them as a replacement pool for your other units (though it's starting to look like you might be fighting on Australian soil soon).

(in reply to castor troy)

Post #: 237

RE: Ending an IJ wet dream - bluebook (J) vs castor tro... - 3/12/2012 9:07:50 AM

castor troy

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dan Nichols

From Patch 3 dated Feb 28, 2010:

89. Gameplay Change: Changed disbands to must be in national home base and can not be permently restricted then disband is free (no vp cost), in all other situations it is not allowed.

great catch Dan, I must have never tried since patch 3 until just now

_____________________________

(in reply to Dan Nichols)

Post #: 238

RE: Ending an IJ wet dream - bluebook (J) vs castor tro... - 3/12/2012 9:12:09 AM

castor troy

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Smeulders

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

IIRC the CMF Inf squads are much better than the CMF Militia squads (I might have the names a bit wrong). Any upgrading you can get from Militia to Inf increases the anti-soft of the squads quite a bit.

not enough CMF squads around to upgrade the divisions. Only if I would disband a unit filled up with CMF squads but then I would be better off disbanding one rgt of the two arriving Aus Divs. Both options could be done within a couple of days though.

Disbanding parts of the divisions arriving in Aden doesn't seem like the best move to me. These units are pretty experienced, disbanding parts of them to be refilled later will lower that exp. The units in Australia are bad to begin with so rebuilding them won't hurt them. The second reason is that units in Australia are restricted, as long as there isn't a massive invasion of Australia, you're not going to be using all of them anyway, so you might as well use them as a replacement pool for your other units (though it's starting to look like you might be fighting on Australian soil soon).

Yeah, disbanding a rgt of the Aden divs wouldn't be the best one could do but if bluebook really goes for Australia then I need those AIF42 squads as those are 50% better than the CMF militia. Have found an easier way to do it though, got three dozen AIF42 squads in the pool and can upgrade an uderstrenght bgd using those squads. Then I am going to disband the bgd in Sydney which will bring my squads to something like 70-75 which is enough to upgrade a division every couple of days.

_____________________________

(in reply to Smeulders)

Post #: 239

RE: Ending an IJ wet dream - bluebook (J) vs castor tro... - 3/12/2012 7:11:25 PM

crsutton

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Smeulders

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

IIRC the CMF Inf squads are much better than the CMF Militia squads (I might have the names a bit wrong). Any upgrading you can get from Militia to Inf increases the anti-soft of the squads quite a bit.

not enough CMF squads around to upgrade the divisions. Only if I would disband a unit filled up with CMF squads but then I would be better off disbanding one rgt of the two arriving Aus Divs. Both options could be done within a couple of days though.

Disbanding parts of the divisions arriving in Aden doesn't seem like the best move to me. These units are pretty experienced, disbanding parts of them to be refilled later will lower that exp. The units in Australia are bad to begin with so rebuilding them won't hurt them. The second reason is that units in Australia are restricted, as long as there isn't a massive invasion of Australia, you're not going to be using all of them anyway, so you might as well use them as a replacement pool for your other units (though it's starting to look like you might be fighting on Australian soil soon).

Yeah, disbanding a rgt of the Aden divs wouldn't be the best one could do but if bluebook really goes for Australia then I need those AIF42 squads as those are 50% better than the CMF militia. Have found an easier way to do it though, got three dozen AIF42 squads in the pool and can upgrade an uderstrenght bgd using those squads. Then I am going to disband the bgd in Sydney which will bring my squads to something like 70-75 which is enough to upgrade a division every couple of days.

Yes, this is the way to do it all the way through. Upgrade smaller units like lark and gull. Then after filling them up and upgrading them disband them. The extra squads will go into the pool as upgraded squads and you can then start upgrading full divisions by doing it a brigade at a time. Realistically you are looking towards using Australian units on the offensive in 1944. With careful disbanding and considering the pitiful replacement rate and PP costs you can sustain about 4 active divisions in combat. This should be your goal. Once there is no threat to OZ focus on building four good divisions. The fully upgraded 1944 Australian divisions are very powerful and loaded with support. Very good units but you have to be very careful about replacements. Does not help that they use commonwealth devices of which there are never enough.

So many players go to great pains to reconstruct the lost Singapore brigades and divisions but quite frankly it is a waste of time and resources. Focus on building up the units you already have. You will eventually have more than you can use anyways. What with PP costs, I am in mid 44 and only have about three Australian divisions and one or two NZ brigade bought out. Just too many demands on my precious PPs.

< Message edited by crsutton -- 3/12/2012 7:12:11 PM >

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to castor troy)

Post #: 240

Page: << < prev 6 7 [8] 9 10 next > >>

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: Ending an IJ wet dream - bluebook (J) vs castor troy (A)