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: No fleet, no problem...

 
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: No fleet, no problem... Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: No fleet, no problem... - 5/2/2013 12:48:58 AM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline 		Lemonade, obvert, lemonade!

_____________________________

Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/view/staffmonkeys/home

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 61
RE: No fleet, no problem... - 5/2/2013 1:05:19 AM   
obvert


Posts: 14050
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Lemonade, obvert, lemonade!


I like lemonade!

More the kind that still has a bit of sour to it than the overly sweet.

_____________________________

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 62
RE: No fleet, no problem... - 5/2/2013 1:13:12 AM   
Nemo121


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

This is my AAR. Propaganda here would be pointless. Sometimes the mistake is in seeing a play where there's no play you know?

As to not taking advantage of 200 fighters over the Kuriles... Restricted or not they'll take losses, cost resources, siphon pilots away from critical fronts at critical times, use up his attention span/mental energy.... Any and all of these are things I can wrest advantage from. You have to look at the whole picture, not just a little part of it to see the value of some moves.

As to the rest of the IJN intervening in my littoral invasions. GREAT!!! I hope they do. I'll simply commit ships to cover invasions and suck up the losses I suffer secure in the knowledge that attrition of his fleet around Burma inevitably opens up CENPAC, NORPAC etc to major amphibious invasions. If he opposes the littoral campaign with his navy I can make that work for me, if he doesn't I can make that work for me also.

As to this being a tough year.... Hmm, not as tough as you think it'll be IMO.


As to the inability to twist his moves to my favour. Well I guess you're more pessimistic than I. I enter the game with the opinion that no matter what he does I should be able to twist it to my advantage somehow, somewhere, somewhen. You seem rather pessimistic and constrained by conventional wisdom. I prefer to view initiative and winning etc as matters of opinion. In my opinion no matter the correlation of forces I should be able to wrest the initiative from an opponent very rapidly and begin offensive operations soon thereafter. Opponents will counter but I expect to find aspects of these counters which I can turn to my advantage no matter the counter. You might say that isn't feasible but I'd suggest that I haven't done too badly in PBEMing this game and other strategy/wargames online and so evidently this works for me.

Then again I'm one of the people who always found that my chess tournaments were determined a lot less by the position on the board than by the opinions I and my opponent held about who was winning. I saw opponents lose when their position was superior simply because I held a stronger opinion that I was winning than them. You may philosophically disagree with this and that's your right obviously.


If I were taking the other side I'd be plotting the invasion of the Aleutians and Hawaii ( but not PH ) right about now combined with a retreat from the south pacific and Oz to a defensible series of mutually supporting fortress bases whilst preserving the mobile reserve ( KB etc ) which is necessary to prevent the Allies from mounting breakthrough operations which launch exploitation forces into my operational and strategic depth. That's the IJN's "next best step" in this situation IMO and could be achieved at minimal risk and cost in-game right now. That's what I think he should do. Of course if he does do that i'll just ignore it entirely and attack him along different routes.

You see problems. I have a belief that no matter what he does I can take advantage and prefer to take the view that the problems I can cause him are out of proportion to the problems he can cause me. Obviously anyone here who has read previous AARs knows I'm not blind to the problems I face BUT it is better, at this stage, to focus on causing him problems than to suffer paralysis by over-analysis of the problems he can impose on me.

Sure he can take the Kuriles back if he really wants them. If he does I'll rue the lost opportunity for a day and focus on causing him more problems elsewhere. There's simply no point in gifting him the initiative through worrying excessively about what he can do to me. I want him to be worrying about what I'm about to do unto him. And, yes, if I were the Allies I'd have the same attitude. I'd be focused on all the opportunities I have to do unto him in great measure before he does unto me. And if he did unto me I'd mentally strike off whatever ships and divisions were wrecked and get right back to focusing on doing unto him again.

It isn't propaganda, it is just a fundamentally different viewpoint than yours.

< Message edited by Nemo121 -- 5/2/2013 1:19:33 AM >

_____________________________

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

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 63
RE: No fleet, no problem... - 5/2/2013 2:01:16 AM   
Elladan

 

Posts: 300
Joined: 8/18/2005
From: Manchester, UK
Status: offline 		Amazing how often this "mind over matter" approach works, given the apparent material disparity. On the other hand, one has to have something substantial to back up his own opinion against his opponent's. And in this game odds are clearly in Damian's favour, wonder what the end result will be when the dust finally settles.
Very good read though and very thought-provoking.

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 64
RE: No fleet, no problem... - 5/2/2013 2:04:11 AM   
obvert


Posts: 14050
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline
quote:

Then again I'm one of the people who always found that my chess tournaments were determined a lot less by the position on the board than by the opinions I and my opponent held about who was winning. I saw opponents lose when their position was superior simply because I held a stronger opinion that I was winning than them. You may philosophically disagree with this and that's your right obviously.


That's what I'm talking about. As a chess player the opponent must be accounted for during the entire game. Especially toward the end of the opening into the middle game when you get out of book, which seems where you are now in this contest. But AE is a bit different than traditional chess in that more material arrives as you play. In fact it might be closer to Siamese, where you're always looking for new pieces and trying to gain advantage through your surprising and inventive use of them.

quote:

If I were taking the other side I'd be plotting the invasion of the Aleutians and Hawaii ( but not PH ) right about now combined with a retreat from the south pacific and Oz to a defensible series of mutually supporting fortress bases whilst preserving the mobile reserve ( KB etc ) which is necessary to prevent the Allies from mounting breakthrough operations which launch exploitation forces into my operational and strategic depth. That's the IJN's "next best step" in this situation IMO and could be achieved at minimal risk and cost in-game right now. That's what I think he should do. Of course if he does do that i'll just ignore it entirely and attack him along different routes.

You see problems. I have a belief that no matter what he does I can take advantage and prefer to take the view that the problems I can cause him are out of proportion to the problems he can cause me. Obviously anyone here who has read previous AARs knows I'm not blind to the problems I face BUT it is better, at this stage, to focus on causing him problems than to suffer paralysis by over-analysis of the problems he can impose on me.


This is closer to what I was aiming to hear. I do see problems, which I'd rather call challenges. They are the things that drive you to find solutions, and of course the challenges are bigger in this game than at the beginning of a virgin campaign. Not sure though how the situation you propose is the best option if you'd so easily find a counter to it, and if you can take advantage of anything that he does do to counter you. Are you saying the Japanese position is inherently lost regardless of the moves your opponent makes? Or just that you're confident you'll beat him no matter which course he takes.

quote:

Sure he can take the Kuriles back if he really wants them. If he does I'll rue the lost opportunity for a day and focus on causing him more problems elsewhere. There's simply no point in gifting him the initiative through worrying excessively about what he can do to me. I want him to be worrying about what I'm about to do unto him. And, yes, if I were the Allies I'd have the same attitude. I'd be focused on all the opportunities I have to do unto him in great measure before he does unto me. And if he did unto me I'd mentally strike off whatever ships and divisions were wrecked and get right back to focusing on doing unto him again.

It isn't propaganda, it is just a fundamentally different viewpoint than yours.


Ahh, but that is where you're wrong. I don't have a viewpoint. I'm not playing the game. I just want to see more of your viewpoint.

I've read your AARs and many posts in other areas of the forum. I don't question your ability to play strategically, tactically or psychologically. This is simply a difficult position to enter a game, and although I have no doubt it's winnable by the Allies, I also think it could be winnable by the Japanese side. In analyzing an opponent's moves if I don't consider best play I'll end up losing the opportunity to combat it. I get that you're still formulating what you'll do, and that his moves will determine your counters, but this is not a gambit position, where your losses are balanced by gaining the initiative. It's more like losing a knight in the opening. With best play that means the game is lost.

So really this is not chess, as the sides are inherently unequal. It is an amazingly interesting game where either side can win or lose, though, and I guess I'm interested in understanding positions like this one objectively, with the opportunities and challenges for each equally weighted.

Thanks for the explanation. I'll be very interested to see how this one develops.

_____________________________

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 65
RE: No fleet, no problem... - 5/2/2013 3:29:25 AM   
Justus2


Posts: 729
Joined: 11/12/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Aye, some of the AMCs have cargo capacity but they're too slow and will go in with the main fleet as torpedo sumps.



Something to consider, although the AMCs are slow, they are considered 'commissioned' ships and unload at the speed of an AP or AK, vs an xAP or xAK. I like to use them for amphib ops with smaller units, but given your losses of APs and AKs, they may be more valuable than the average torpedo sump ;)

Some of them (I think a couple of the Australian ones) also have an ASW capability, not great, but again makes them good for relatively independent ops (again, when you are short of DDs to escort).

_____________________________

Playing/Learning Shadow Empire


(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 66
RE: No fleet, no problem... - 5/2/2013 12:02:32 PM   
Nemo121


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

quote:

one has to have something substantial to back up his own opinion against his opponent's


That's close but it isn't quite correct IMO. I would rewrite it to read, "One has to convince one's opponent that one has something substantial to support one's opinion." In other words what matters is NOT the presence or absence of the thing/the support/the 1000s of AV. What matters is the opponent's BELIEF in its presence.

If I make a move and my opponent believes that that move MUST be supported by reserves then they will behave as though it IS supported by reserves. In reality I may have judged that the time is ripe to conduct operations without reserves in order to create an operational tempo which bounces my opponent into losing the initiative and believing that my forces are much, much stronger than they are. In fact this is often what I do. In the case where the opponent believes the reserves are present they will ACT as though they are present -since that's militarily prudent, you plan based on enemy capabilities.

So, if the opponent ACTS as though the reserves are present then surely it is not necessary for them to actually be present. In fact I would argue that the most militarily efficient course of action is to paralyse an opponent through a maskirovka designed to create the perception of strength, depth etc whilst actually mobilizing all those forces at the front to be stronger at the front than you'd actually be able to be otherwise.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Justus2)
Post #: 67
RE: No fleet, no problem... - 5/2/2013 3:50:47 PM   
crsutton


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

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Unlike WitP, Allied destroyers and light cruisers don't have any cargo capacity to carry cargo or troops. For fast transport missions, you need APD (some other classes might be able to participate - perhaps some of the CM and AMC, though I'm not positive). Of course, cruisers and destroyers can act as escorts in FT TFs.

Edited to add "Allied." I have no idea if Japanese DDs or CLs have cargo capacity.


AVDs can carry cargo in FT but aside from APDs that is it for the Allies.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 68
RE: No fleet, no problem... - 5/2/2013 7:00:43 PM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 18046
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton


quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Unlike WitP, Allied destroyers and light cruisers don't have any cargo capacity to carry cargo or troops. For fast transport missions, you need APD (some other classes might be able to participate - perhaps some of the CM and AMC, though I'm not positive). Of course, cruisers and destroyers can act as escorts in FT TFs.

Edited to add "Allied." I have no idea if Japanese DDs or CLs have cargo capacity.


AVDs can carry cargo in FT but aside from APDs that is it for the Allies.

Some of the Allied minelayers can do Fast Transport missions. Check the British CMs like Manxman. They were designed to get in and out fast when laying mines (40 knots!) and they can do the same with cargo.

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 69
RE: No fleet, no problem... - 5/2/2013 10:40:02 PM   
desicat

 

Posts: 542
Joined: 5/25/2008
Status: offline
quote:

As to the inability to twist his moves to my favour. Well I guess you're more pessimistic than I. I enter the game with the opinion that no matter what he does I should be able to twist it to my advantage somehow, somewhere, somewhen.


Nemo has the luxury of knowing that he currently has the advantage in LCU's on the perimeter of the Japanese expansion (Burma, Australia, and China) where they really matter, and far off in the distance he hears the faint echo of a bugle call heralding the of the approaching cavalry know as the 1943 US Navy reinforcements!

Outside the Kuriles the game is a classic "Whale vs Elephant" with Nemo choosing where and when to rampage with his tuskers. Attrition is his mission so it matters not what the Japanese do or where they do it, he just needs to keep up the pressure until the cavalry arrives - and once they do he will be able to exploit where the Japanese currently aren't. Anything that burns Japanese fuel and attrits its fleet and pilots is a strategic win, even if it is a tactical loss.

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 70
RE: No fleet, no problem... - 5/2/2013 10:50:33 PM   
desicat

 

Posts: 542
Joined: 5/25/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

If I were taking the other side I'd be plotting the invasion of the Aleutians and Hawaii ( but not PH ) right about now combined with a retreat from the south pacific and Oz to a defensible series of mutually supporting fortress bases whilst preserving the mobile reserve ( KB etc ) which is necessary to prevent the Allies from mounting breakthrough operations which launch exploitation forces into my operational and strategic depth. That's the IJN's "next best step" in this situation IMO and could be achieved at minimal risk and cost in-game right now. That's what I think he should do. Of course if he does do that i'll just ignore it entirely and attack him along different routes.


Note here how Nemo would try to reduce the "Elephant" advantage by withdrawing to areas that play to the current IJN "Whale" strengths and mobility. Why fight a battle of attrition to the Allied advantage? Make them come to you (if they can in their current naval condition). Hitting the Aleutians and Hawaii?!? are purely naval operations where naval air can concentrate to overcome LBA if needed.

The Chinese can't advance in the open vs Japanese air in 42 or 43 unless something goes completely wrong so that leaves the Japanese having to properly contest Burma.

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 71
RE: No fleet, no problem... - 5/2/2013 11:02:38 PM   
Nemo121


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

I didn't get to answer you in proper detail earlier today as work intervened. Here's the other parts I wanted to address.

quote:

Not sure though how the situation you propose is the best option if you'd so easily find a counter to it,


Well the best option I listed is the best option vs most players. How I assess things etc is quite different, IMO, than how most players who AAR/post on the forum assess things and so what works vs them mightn't work vs me. What would work vs me is preventing me from doing what it is I'm trying to do whilst achieving something, anything which has strategic significance and forms part of a multi-year overarching strategic plan. It doesn't really matter whether that's invading India or Oz or Hawaii or whether that is transitioning to the defensive or whatever so long as it involves a coherent long-term plan which subordinates tactical and operational play to strategic objectives which are rational and mutually supporting. Very few people, however, ever engage in long-term, joined up thinking. I've seen this in life, chess and PBEMs.

quote:

and if you can take advantage of anything that he does do to counter you. Are you saying the Japanese position is inherently lost regardless of the moves your opponent makes? Or just that you're confident you'll beat him no matter which course he takes.


I'm saying that I am confident that no matter what any opponent does I'll be able to find advantage somewhere, somehow and can work to use that advantage to disrupt their plans, rob them of their confidence and the initiative and impose my own tempo and will on the game. Hence I view even terrible setbacks optimistically. E.g. "Sure, I've lost 4 CVs and most of the fleet.... but look at the size of those ground forces, I bet I can make trouble for him in China and with a littoral amphibious campaign. Hell, I bet you I can launch amphibious invasions in the Pacific without CV support. Let's start looking for places I can start making those landings." Some will try to represent that as arrogance. It isn't, it is simply a choice to maintain a certain belief which supports looking for and utilising any advantages possible whilst still rationally assessing the objective reality of the situation.

quote:

I also think it could be winnable by the Japanese side.


Absolutely agree except with one caveat... It is winnable by the Japanese side --- so long as they're not playing me . Sure I can lose but I choose to inculcate and culture the view that if I look for and find advantage even in the face of seemingly insurmountable situations then, over time, even a losing position can be turned into a winning one ( for various values of winning ). I might be right, I might be wrong but it is important to go into the game with a clear belief that I can win, whilst accepting I might lose.

This is allied with the seemingly contradictory viewpoint that it isn't actually about winning. What matters to me is not whether I win or lose but whether or not I face worthy opposition ( both in terms of the challenge presented and in terms of their personal integrity etc --- this is a reason I won't play certain individuals here ) and whether or not I am pushed into difficult situations and have to apply myself in order to try to meet those challenges. In the end so long as I'm challenged and try interesting ploys etc and engage in skillful play whether I win or lose according to conventional wisdom isn't of interest to me. Obviously though if you play as the Allies and play skillfully then "winning" according to the conventional wisdom tends to follow. Hell, if you play as the Allies and play abysmally you also win (which is amply demonstrated in many AARs).

This isn't chess due to unequal positions.
Aye, this is correct. I would prefer if this were a perfectly mirrored game but it isn't. What it is is, IMO, more complicated than chess and with the potential for a greater richness of variety. I play this instead of chess now because it provides, to me, the potential for a greater personal challenge than chess. It isn't perfectly balanced but then again that isn't what I seek. I seek interesting situations which push me to the limit --- hence my penchant for picking up games after others have abandoned them or playing as Japan in 1945. I don't play to win, I play for the challenge - sometimes that could lead to "winning" as per conventional wisdom but if it does or not is irrelevant to me. Winning while playing poorly would represent abject failure to me. Losing whilst playing well would be interesting and enjoyable.

Obviously that's my personal viewpoint and others may differ etc etc etc.


Justus2,
Ah, everything that floats is just an expendable torpedo sump . Whenever the strategic gains from risking it outweigh the strategic cost of losing it I'll send them out even if it means losing them. I try not to risk them senselessly but taking Ramree is worth losing 50 or 60 transports. I'll work to reduce that number since reducing that number represents skillfull play but if it takes 60 then so be it. So long as the objective gained is worth the cost....

FT TFs:
I found Abdiel. It is transporting an Air HQ. So rather than gifting Damian more time I'm going to just invade Ramree tomorrow with my forces deployed haphazardly since losing time would likely cost more.

I'll give an update of today's action - which was really rather interesting - later.


Desicat,
What you say is true BUT surely it would be more skillful yet to advance into areas in which the enemy is strong? A japanese hawaii is an irrelevance to me but a Japanese Kuriles is something i don't want at all. So in the Kuriles I'm willing to fight in the presence of IJN strength - plus it lets me pit tiny forces against strong and use cunning to survive. Something which is challenging and thus meets my personal goals for the match.

As to the cavalry coming down the road. I don't really play for that since it is less interesting and skillful to simply bludgeon someone with superior numbers. Don't forget any game in which I've been Allied has finished in 1942 with massive Allied counter-attacks into Japanese territory. If I had to wait till 43 or 44 for all those reinforcements I would, personally, have failed in my task and would be more than likely to surrender to Japan. Winning when anyone no matter how poorly they play could win isn't a challenge or something I'm interested in devoting my time to doing.

Again, that's just my personal motivation etcetcetc.

< Message edited by Nemo121 -- 5/2/2013 11:08:00 PM >

_____________________________

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

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 72
RE: No fleet, no problem... - 5/2/2013 11:27:09 PM   
obvert


Posts: 14050
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline
quote:

This isn't chess due to unequal positions.

Aye, this is correct. I would prefer if this were a perfectly mirrored game but it isn't. What it is is, IMO, more complicated than chess and with the potential for a greater richness of variety. I play this instead of chess now because it provides, to me, the potential for a greater personal challenge than chess. It isn't perfectly balanced but then again that isn't what I seek. I seek interesting situations which push me to the limit --- hence my penchant for picking up games after others have abandoned them or playing as Japan in 1945. I don't play to win, I play for the challenge - sometimes that could lead to "winning" as per conventional wisdom but if it does or not is irrelevant to me. Winning while playing poorly would represent abject failure to me. Losing whilst playing well would be interesting and enjoyable.


It is definitely more complicated. It not being mirrored could be frustrating on the side with less, but I agree it can give a very different feeling to 'winning' and 'losing' for this very reason. I like the gritty never say die attitude one must adopt on the Japanese side.


_____________________________

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 73
RE: No fleet, no problem... - 5/2/2013 11:37:55 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline 		August 23rd 1942.

Today was very interesting since I uncovered an invasion TF making for the Kuriles/Aleutians. I also have a nasty surprise in store for this invasion TF which I will uncover on the 25th. Basically I spotted several TFs of transports, PBs and escorts moving around northern Japan via the Sakhalins. They are on line to hit the Kuriles or Aleutians - my bet is they are going to hit the Aleutians - which now has almost 400 mines and has almost completed the air transport of another regiment of troops. BY the time the Japanese can reach it the AV will have risen from 130 AV when I took over 4 days ago to approximately 300 AV behind mines. Additionally I should have 3 to 4 TFs of DDs and possibly even a few CAs available and hiding up in the bad weather near the icepacks ready to race in and engage in surface combat with a view to disrupting the landings once they start. Attu had 2 squadrons of fighters when I took over. I've been racing ships northward from Pearl and west from CONUSA for the past few days and right now I have about 150 fighters ready to defend Attu. In 1 week's time that will rise to approximately 450 fighters with a commensurate number of strike aircraft.

The only reason Attu is even slightly at risk is that NO bases between Dutch Harbour and Attu have been occupied or built up at all. Lesson #1 guys, isolated bases aren't worth a damn. Attu is so far from Dutch Harbour that I can't support it from Dutch adequately. I don't have an option but to fight for Attu though since losing Attu means abandoning 3 divisions of troops in the Kuriles + the troops at Attu.


Anyways, the plan is to disrupt them on the way there. I've been expecting a counter-invasion since day 1 so while most of my DDs were running or sacrificing themselves interdicting coastal IJN shipping one snuck away and got lost in the shuffle. It has been quietly sitting north of Sakhalin waiting for the IJN invasion TF. On the 25th this DD will position itself to interdict the invasion TF and will seek to disrupt it a little. It won't stop it or anything but it should damage some transports, slowing the invasion TF or forcing it to leave them behind and conduct the initial landing without whatever troops were on those ships.

When the invasion TF reaches Attu I will remove most of my fighters and invite a naval bombardment. I'm banking on the 400 mines + 20 PT boats I've gathered to blunt the bombardment. It'll cost me some fighters but I want to blunt the bombardment before the troops land. Once his troops begin landing I plan to commit 3 to 4 DD TFs comprising 3 DDs each to the waters around Attu. My plan is to halt debarkation and cause the initial landing to be too small to take the island immediately. This will then cause Damian to commit KB again. IN the meantime the airbase will be repaired and more fighters will fly in along with a squadron of divebombers. Damian will then have to bombard again - using up more ammo and causing whatever ships have now bombarded twice to be sent home. At this stage my more powerful SC TF will interdict the new landings and, hopefully, drive them off again. Most of this group of ships will be sunk soon after ( as will the DDs obviously ). What they will have gained me though is a significant delay - which should allow me to fly another regiment of ground troops + combat engineers onto Attu island.

My goal is to have enough force to cause his landings to fail but not enough to push them into the sea. I want to cause his landing force to become trapped and I want to use their entrapment to pin KB in the area for the next couple of months ( this is why I have all these fighters ). As I get BBs, CAs and CLs back in action ( most of the USN BBs I have are in dockyards being repaired ) I'll place them at Attu under a strong fighter CAP. This will force Damian to choose between losing KB pilots sweeping the air before airstrikes sink the ships and close the airbase OR to commit warships and lose them in attritional surface combat vs my ships. Either choice works for me.

In the meantime I'll build up other Aleutian bases and continue using Attu to fly supplies into the Kuriles/support subs sub transporting supplies to the Kuriles.

That's how I see the Aleutians invasion play out. If he hits the Kuriles instead then I can only mount pinprick DD raids and will have to simply accept the collapse of the Kuriles at this stage.



In China 73,000 Chinese troops ( just below what I've been told the stacking level should be ) are hitting 5 tank regiments and 1.5 Divisions of IJA infantry. I was concerned about how the Chinese would do vs the tanks but it seems that they destroyed 38 vehicles and damaged about 75. I lost quite a few squads but I'm bringing another 800 AV in. This should boost me back to 2800 AV for the next attack in two days time. I'm CAPing the hex with my Chinese fighters but am happy to accept the thrashing of a Chinese corps a day to his bombers. That isn't sufficient to change the outcome PLUS every bomber committed here is one less bomber in Burma - where the important fight is happening. China is just a diversion at this stage. Damian should pull every bomber he has out of China and concentrate them in Burma. He knows the invasion is coming as he has spotted my TFs. I think he'll split them and try to cover both theatres at the same time. This would be a grievous mistake.

Ground combat at 87,44 (near Chengchow)

Allied Deliberate attack

Attacking force 73443 troops, 436 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 2433

Defending force 23243 troops, 152 guns, 609 vehicles, Assault Value = 981

Allied adjusted assault: 1048

Japanese adjusted defense: 646

Allied assault odds: 1 to 1

Combat modifiers
Defender: leaders(+), fatigue(-)
Attacker:

Japanese ground losses:
557 casualties reported
Squads: 1 destroyed, 30 disabled
Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 49 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 13 disabled
Vehicles lost 113 (38 destroyed, 75 disabled)

Allied ground losses:
3579 casualties reported
Squads: 100 destroyed, 348 disabled
Non Combat: 5 destroyed, 63 disabled
Engineers: 3 destroyed, 20 disabled
Guns lost 29 (3 destroyed, 26 disabled)

Assaulting units:
51st Chinese Corps
47th Chinese Corps
89th Chinese Corps
40th Chinese Corps
2nd Chinese Cavalry Corps
36th Chinese Corps
85th Chinese Corps
9th Chinese Corps
82nd Chinese Corps
1st Chinese Cavalry Corps
87th Chinese Corps
38th New Chinese Division
24th Group Army
5th War Area
14th Group Army
3rd Group Army
57th AT Gun Regiment
Jingcha War Area
39th Group Army
1st War Area
4th Group Army
20th Artillery Regiment
56th AT Gun Regiment

Defending units:
23rd Tank Regiment
36th Division
5th Tank Regiment
12th Tank Regiment
3rd Tank Regiment
3rd Ind.Mixed Brigade
8th Recon Regiment

I'm undecided whether to Shock Attack or not in 2 days time. With a shock attack I'd suffer more disablements but the Shock Attack bonus might just give me the AV to push the Japanese back. I can't exploit this much but I do know that pushing Damian back will make him panic a bit as I think he put a lot of stock in this hex being the cornerstone of the junction of his lines between Northern and Southern China. I'm hitting the junction hoping to blow a hole and then exploit south-eastward and north-eastward in the IJA's strategic depth in China.


Burma:
I'm going into Ramree tomorrow. It won't be pretty but it should land enough troops to take the base. I am LRCAPing with about 100 fighters, half of all my fighters in India. I expect Damian to launch 200 to 300 bombers vs the fleet and to lose quite a lot. So long as I hold Ramree almost any losses will prove acceptable.

I expect he will retaliate with SC TFs the next day so whatever happens I'll be pulling back to Akyab before the landings are complete. He and I can then dance into and out of Ramree as I try to avoid his SC TF ( since I only have 2 CLs and a DD in all of India ) and build Ramree into a Level 2 airfield. Once it is a level 2 airfield I can project aerial power over Rangoon and force the SC TFs to displace southward. Once that happens I can offload into Ramree in peace.

So, Ramree will be bloody and painful but, I believe, worth it and if I don't do it now he can move a Regt in and it'll take me 3 to 4 months of prep to do. Since I want this game over in 16 months I don't have 3 to 4 months to wait to create an initial opening.

So, that's the state of play and how I see the theatres going. I'm fairly sure about Burma and the Aleutians but not at all convinced my forces have the firepower to burst through in China.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 74
RE: No fleet, no problem... - 5/2/2013 11:39:05 PM   
floydg

 

Posts: 2052
Joined: 6/27/2004
From: Middletown, NJ
Status: offline 		I threw away so many good ships that I dug myself a deep hole and kept clawing at the sides making the hole harder to get out. And I had convinced myself of impending doom. Nemo is making lemonade, which is good.

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 75
RE: No fleet, no problem... - 5/2/2013 11:41:33 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline 		Yeah, sometimes you need to cut your losses, forget about it and move on as though nothing happened just waiting for the next awesome opportunity

_____________________________

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

(in reply to floydg)
Post #: 76
RE: No fleet, no problem... - 5/2/2013 11:44:38 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline 		One problem I am having is in Oz. There are armoured units in northern Oz ( in the desert or on trails ) which have to be withdrawn in 10 days. It is going to take me a month or more to march them back to Sydney to disband them. Is there anything I can do to work around this apart from trying to destroy the units in combat?

There is NO WAY they can get to Sydney in less than a month and I think the cost in PPs is crippling. I'm already down 180 PP because of shipping which cannot reach a national base to disband quickly enough - although that should settle down as they arrive at the relevant bases in the next 3 to 4 days.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 77
RE: No fleet, no problem... - 5/3/2013 12:11:17 AM   
V I Lenin

 

Posts: 31
Joined: 12/30/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

One problem I am having is in Oz. There are armoured units in northern Oz ( in the desert or on trails ) which have to be withdrawn in 10 days. It is going to take me a month or more to march them back to Sydney to disband them. Is there anything I can do to work around this apart from trying to destroy the units in combat?

There is NO WAY they can get to Sydney in less than a month and I think the cost in PPs is crippling. I'm already down 180 PP because of shipping which cannot reach a national base to disband quickly enough - although that should settle down as they arrive at the relevant bases in the next 3 to 4 days.


? ground units automatically withdraw themselves, wherever they are - there are no penalties since they can't overstay.

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 78
RE: No fleet, no problem... - 5/3/2013 12:23:42 AM   
floydg

 

Posts: 2052
Joined: 6/27/2004
From: Middletown, NJ
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Yeah, sometimes you need to cut your losses, forget about it and move on as though nothing happened just waiting for the next awesome opportunity


That was one of the major lessons learned here. I was a stubborn SOB.

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 79
RE: No fleet, no problem... - 5/3/2013 12:24:57 AM   
floydg

 

Posts: 2052
Joined: 6/27/2004
From: Middletown, NJ
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: V I Lenin


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

One problem I am having is in Oz. There are armoured units in northern Oz ( in the desert or on trails ) which have to be withdrawn in 10 days. It is going to take me a month or more to march them back to Sydney to disband them. Is there anything I can do to work around this apart from trying to destroy the units in combat?

There is NO WAY they can get to Sydney in less than a month and I think the cost in PPs is crippling. I'm already down 180 PP because of shipping which cannot reach a national base to disband quickly enough - although that should settle down as they arrive at the relevant bases in the next 3 to 4 days.


? ground units automatically withdraw themselves, wherever they are - there are no penalties since they can't overstay.


What he said. That's why I marched them so far away. They were intended to be point units and get clobbered.

(in reply to V I Lenin)
Post #: 80
RE: No fleet, no problem... - 5/3/2013 5:50:29 AM   
Elladan

 

Posts: 300
Joined: 8/18/2005
From: Manchester, UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Elladan,

quote:

one has to have something substantial to back up his own opinion against his opponent's


That's close but it isn't quite correct IMO. I would rewrite it to read, "One has to convince one's opponent that one has something substantial to support one's opinion." In other words what matters is NOT the presence or absence of the thing/the support/the 1000s of AV. What matters is the opponent's BELIEF in its presence.

If I make a move and my opponent believes that that move MUST be supported by reserves then they will behave as though it IS supported by reserves. In reality I may have judged that the time is ripe to conduct operations without reserves in order to create an operational tempo which bounces my opponent into losing the initiative and believing that my forces are much, much stronger than they are. In fact this is often what I do. In the case where the opponent believes the reserves are present they will ACT as though they are present -since that's militarily prudent, you plan based on enemy capabilities.

So, if the opponent ACTS as though the reserves are present then surely it is not necessary for them to actually be present. In fact I would argue that the most militarily efficient course of action is to paralyse an opponent through a maskirovka designed to create the perception of strength, depth etc whilst actually mobilizing all those forces at the front to be stronger at the front than you'd actually be able to be otherwise.


I tend to agree. Will just point out that when one's opponent calls the bluff (which is inevitable, especially in a game like this) it's a very useful thing to have a proper sized stick nearby. Helps with future bluffs as well.
Anyway, this argumentation is somewhat academical as I'm of opinion that it's always better to try and fail than fail without even trying and you seem to follow that line just fine.

I like your approach to the game, treating it as a game and not a historical simulation - a refreshing change from perhaps a majority of other active players here. Not that there is anything wrong with historical simulations, it's just that your way is more though provoking, so to say.

I have one request, if I may - next time you get a nice, bloody air combat result, involving your CAP, could you post your plane's and incoming raid's altitudes? I still struggle with fully understanding the proper way of setting layered CAP. Thanks in advance.

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 81
RE: No fleet, no problem... - 5/3/2013 8:32:12 PM   
Nemo121


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

Sure thing re: CAP. It'll have to wait until he starts sweeping Akyab/Ramree though as right now I'm just massacring his escorts.

Aye, it is a game. I am in favour of making it as accurate as possible but it is a game and not a simulation of WW2 and so I'm happy to do whatever the game engine allows - whilst supporting changes to fix bugs and historical errors etc. Many people don't appreciate the nuance in those two positions and deem them to be in conflict, which, of course, they aren't.


So, onto the 24th August. The first waves went into Ramree. It seems Damian sensed that the moment had arrived as he ran a CA-led SC TF into Ramree overnight. It ran into one of the CLs and the DD I have ( 2/3rds of the RN in India ). My force crossed the enemy T and in return for a DD sunk and the CL damaged I managed to seriously damage an IJN DD and leave the CA burning. This enemy TF then turned back before getting in amongst the transports.

My amphibious TFs landed small portions of most of the formations I'm seeking to land. So, right now Damian can see multiple divisions, multiple Brigades and quite a few armoured units and engineers at Ramree. He will assume I will land the rest of those units there when, in fact, they will all be gathering to land farther south near Prome. In any case about 180 AV are ashore and facing about 200 men from the 1st Raiding Sentai. I should mention losses also. In total I lost 3 small xAKs to air attack so far. That's quite acceptable so far but will rise over coming days.

Tomorrow my ground forces will shock attack while my transports retreat to Akyab. My fighters will CAP akyab and hopefully lure the IJNAAF and IJAAF into action again ( I downed about 46 planes in return for about 20 of my own today ). Then I can begin the dance of reinforcing Ramree whilst avoiding his SC TFs. I plan to complicate his position with the deployment of Beauforts and Vildebeest to Akyab with naval attack orders.

If I guess wrong his DDs will rip my transports apart, if I guess right I can land more reinforcements at Ramree. Or I can just try outlasting him and play it safe.


Elsewhere.... About 100+ bombers which should be leveling Ramree are being diverted by the operation in China. I must have forgotten to cancel a Corps' attack orders so one of my Corps got pretty much annihilated when it attacked the IJA without any support. Live and learn. Another 800 AV have entered the hex and my efforts to supply the Chinese have borne fruit with every one of my units in the hex being fully supplied. Tomorrow the attack goes in again. I'm about 70% confident this will break the Japanese. If it doesn't then I'll just use it to attrition their tank regiments. The cost will be high but, economically, the Japanese don't produce a lot of vehicle points so destroying their tankettes is worth a lot more than destroying an equivalent number of infantry squads ---- in the long run I want to create some armoured OMGs for deployment in China and Korea in 12 to 18 months time. It is never too early to begin shaping the battlefield and to get started with reducing the units which will provide his only effective counter to those OMGs when the time comes.

Oz: Thanks to those who answered about withdrawals. I've never played with withdrawals on before as I always found it a bit fiddly for the Allies and didn't want to deal with it/force Allied opponents to deal with it. He definitely has his CVEs/CVLs hanging around west of Carnarvon. This is just within sprint range of my DDs so I'm going to sprint DDs out and see if I can't force some surface combats to scare him off. I really want to sealift a Bde and some supplies to Carnarvon.


Aleutians/Kuriles: The airlift into Attu is doing well delivering about 40 AV per day now. Large troop convoys are beginning to arrive at Dutch Harbour and the DDs which were lightly damaged in the aborted Kuriles op are repairing well at Dutch Harbour ready to defend Attu if called upon.


In other news I've decided that I'll restrict myself to using CVEs, CVLs and CVs purely for air transport. They won't fly offensive or defensive missions. Essentially I'll fight the war as though the US didn't believe in ship-based airpower and only built the CVs as VERY large AKVs . That should keep things more interesting in the Pacific and elsewhere.


Lastly: A map of Burma. You can see his 2 SC TFs, his concentration of airpower at Magwe- he REALLY fears me hitting his OIL there. It would seem OIL to fuel conversion is his biggest economic weakpoint in this mod.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Nemo121 -- 5/3/2013 9:09:29 PM >

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Elladan)
Post #: 82
RE: No fleet, no problem... - 5/4/2013 2:59:40 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline 		25th August 1942: Things are beginning to heat up.

An IJN SC TF interdicts the landings at Ramree. I had pulled all of my transports out under cover of CAP at Akyab so this IJN SC TF only ran into some MGBs and HDMLs I had left behind as a speed bump.

Day Time Surface Combat, near Ramree Island at 54,48, Range 20,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
CA Suzuya
CA Kumano
CL Sendai
DD Asagumo
DD Kikuzuki
DD Hayate
DD Akikaze
DD Yakaze
DD Hokaze
DD Wakatake
DD Kuretake
DD Tsuga
DD Yomogi
DD Karii

Allied Ships
HDML Panglima, Shell hits 2, and is sunk
HDML 1100, Shell hits 1, and is sunk
HDML 1101, Shell hits 1, and is sunk
HDML 1103, Shell hits 1, and is sunk
HDML 1104, Shell hits 2, and is sunk


As part of the landing force I'd dumped about 200 mines overboard to cause trouble for IJN SC TFs seeking to contest the landing. One of my mines scored a nice hit.
TF 5 encounters mine field at Ramree Island (54,48)

Japanese Ships
CL Sendai
DD Wakatake
DD Akikaze
DD Tsuga, Mine hits 1, on fire, heavy damage

3 mines cleared


The IJAAF and IJNAF attempted to intervene with my transports. Unfortunately for them I had gathered most of my fighters in India to ward them off and the day ended with some 40 Allied planes destroyed for about 90 Japanese planes including 40 Helens, 20+ fighters and a similar number of Sallys. None of my shipping was hit although when they make for Ramree again that will change.

The RAF sent two squadrons into Ramree on naval attack missions. Each unit suffered approximately 50% casualties but I landed a 500lb bomb directly through the deck armour of the CL Sendai. So far the IJN has lost or had damaged 1 CA, 1 CL and 2 DDs. If I keep whittling away I may eventually be able to remove most of the surface threat to additional littoral landings. I should note i'm also sending a BB TF ( complete with escorts ) up towards India from Oz. I have about 6 BBs and a couple of dozen DDs sitting around in Oz doing nothing while I only had 2 CL and a DD in India. That has to change.

Morning Air attack on TF, near Ramree Island at 54,48

Weather in hex: Light rain

Raid spotted at 20 NM, estimated altitude 6,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 13 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A5M4 Claude x 1
E13A1 Jake x 2
Ki-43-Ia Oscar x 1
Ki-43-Ic Oscar x 6

Allied aircraft
Vildebeest III x 9

No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
Vildebeest III: 2 destroyed, 2 damaged
Vildebeest III: 1 destroyed by flak

Japanese Ships
CL Sendai, Bomb hits 1, on fire
CA Suzuya

Aircraft Attacking:
5 x Vildebeest III bombing from 2000 feet
Naval Attack: 2 x 500 lb SAP Bomb


And here's the free look I wanted Damian to have at portions of the first wave. Note the armoured units. I want him to think I'm commiting armour to the jungle fight so as to discount the possibility of an armoured landing in the plains further south.

Ground combat at Ramree Island (54,48)

Allied Shock attack

Attacking force 3815 troops, 112 guns, 128 vehicles, Assault Value = 202

Defending force 121 troops, 3 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 7

Allied adjusted assault: 123

Japanese adjusted defense: 1

Allied assault odds: 123 to 1 (fort level 0)

Allied forces CAPTURE Ramree Island !!!

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+)
Attacker: shock(+)

Japanese ground losses:
108 casualties reported
Squads: 13 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 2 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 4 (4 destroyed, 0 disabled)
Units destroyed 1

Assaulting units:
7th Hussars Rgt /2
6th Aus Div Cav Rgt /1
16th Light Cavalry Rgt /1
16th British Brigade
19th Australian Bde /4
23rd Indian Div /2
254th Armoured Bde /3
44th Indian Brigade
2nd Recce Rgt /2
Sikh Const Bn /1
6th Medium Rgt /1
35th Light AA Rgt /1
12th Indian Engineer Battalion
8th Medium Rgt /2
24th Indian Engineer Battalion
1st Madras Const Bn /1
1st Indian Heavy AA Rgt /1

Defending units:
1st Raiding Rgt /1


Meanwhile, in China:
Ground combat at 87,44 (near Chengchow)

Allied Deliberate attack

Attacking force 86841 troops, 537 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 2538

Defending force 23661 troops, 156 guns, 623 vehicles, Assault Value = 911

Allied adjusted assault: 908

Japanese adjusted defense: 766

Allied assault odds: 1 to 1

Combat modifiers
Defender: leaders(+)
Attacker:

Japanese ground losses:
3750 casualties reported
Squads: 54 destroyed, 184 disabled
Non Combat: 2 destroyed, 35 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 10 disabled
Guns lost 32 (7 destroyed, 25 disabled)
Vehicles lost 62 (12 destroyed, 50 disabled)

Allied ground losses:
4356 casualties reported
Squads: 137 destroyed, 336 disabled
Non Combat: 6 destroyed, 79 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 44 disabled

2:1 losses in his favour. I just may still be able to break through here. I'll rest a day and try again. He obviously fears this thrust as he has rushed another Tank Regiment in to reinforce.... yet another opportunity for me to write down his tanks.

Assaulting units:
87th Chinese Corps
36th Chinese Corps
94th Chinese Corps
9th Chinese Corps
40th Chinese Corps
82nd Chinese Corps
1st Chinese Cavalry Corps
89th Chinese Corps
2nd Chinese Cavalry Corps
47th Chinese Corps
3rd Chinese Corps
85th Chinese Corps
38th New Chinese Division
51st Chinese Corps
4th Group Army
3rd Group Army
39th Group Army
24th Group Army
5th War Area
Jingcha War Area
57th AT Gun Regiment
14th Group Army
22nd Group Army
1st War Area
20th Artillery Regiment
56th AT Gun Regiment

Defending units:
3rd Ind.Mixed Brigade
23rd Tank Regiment
3rd Tank Regiment
12th Tank Regiment
36th Division
1st Recon Regiment
5th Tank Regiment
8th Recon Regiment





In the Aleutians the first significant portions of forces from Hawaii and CONUSA have arrived and are being parcelled out to Attu and other islands in the chain. I have delivered another dozen PT boats from Dutch Harbour to Attu but, unfortunately, the TK I had sent to drop 5,000 tons of fuel at Attu ( to refuel my SC TFs ) was torpedoed overnight.

Submarine attack near Kiska Island at 159,48

Japanese Ships
SS I-17

Allied Ships
TK Esso Durban, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage

TK Esso Durban is sighted by SS I-17
SS I-17 launches 2 torpedoes

I'm organising another convoy with better escorts and am routing it via the coastal hexes in between Dutch Harbour and Attu so as to avoid submarines.


Tomorrow my transports pull back to Chittagong and I try to draw more of his bombers into my CAP. I'm happy to leave him to interdict Ramree until such time as I have a Level 1 airfield there and can provide proper CAP for my shipping. Once I can provide that CAP I'll be happier to send transports in to offload again.

Why am I not in a huge rush? Well, 2 reasons:
1. I have 1,000+ AV marching overland from Imphal and I want to give them time to get into the road network of northern Burma and lure IJA formations north before I land the amphibious punch aimed at Prome.

2. I also want to give Damian time to commit a large force to stop my advance from Ramree. Rushing now would simply mean fewer IJA troops trapped at Ramree and in northern Burma when I do land west of Prome.





Attachment (1)

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 83
RE: No fleet, no problem... - 5/8/2013 2:13:45 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline 		Well, things have moved along. We're now on 29th August. From my point of view the main news is as follows:

China:
Another enemy tank regiment moved in to help out the enemy stack I was attacking and I decided that discretion was the better part of valour. I've ordered other forces in China to manoeuvre and bring pressure to bear in the centre and the south of the country and am redeploying the units I was using to attack in the north in order to invite an enemy attack I can then manoeuvre against for advantage. Damian has begun bombing HI in China. Well, at least he can't complain when I start bombing his back . The supply situation in China is currently reasonable insofar as I am able to maintain armies in the field and in action for short bursts of activity. The next step is going to be clearing the southern coastal hexes and occupying the bases there in preparation for the littoral campaign in 12 months time. I'm committing slightly over 2,000 AV to this operation.


Burma:
The enemy's surface raiders mean I cannot bring slow supply convoys into Ramree for fear of night-time surface attack since I only have a single CL in all of India. In 3 weeks time I will have the majority of the surface fleet from Australia in the Indian theatre ( they have been underway already for 5 days ) and that will boost my force with 5 BBs, several CAs and CLs and approximately two dozen DDs. I have one BB and one DD just 3 days out after they used almost all their fuel sprinting to Colombo from down near the Cocos islands where they were doing something, although god alone knows what that might have been.

Myitkina seems to be the focal point for an effort by Damian to push my forces across the border into India ( this is, I presume, a defensive effort to remove my toeholds in Burma ). I am responding by marching/airlifting an Indian division across the border into Myitkina while bringing in about 900 AV to the west near Wazarup to dislocate half of the enemy force moving on Myitkina.

I have successfully sucked Damian's strike groups in several times and am generally achieving 2 or 3 to 1 kill rates in the air overall. Today, for example, I shot down 29 Kates and 9 Oscars/Zeroes over Akyab in return for damage to 5 xAKs, only one of which is in danger of sinking.


Oz:
I'll post a picture from here some other day but basically it looks to me like Damian is using his CVLs/CVEs to cover FT TFs evacuating his division from Carnarvon. He is keeping the airfield closed with bomber attacks and there's very little I can do until I can open the airfield again.

Elsewhere I'm gathering the shipping in Oz at Perth and will decide where it needs to go from there afterward. Most probably I'll just keep the shipping there while I clear the route to Darwin, move the USN surface fleet from the Pacific to Oz and push north with the USN from OZ while pushing south through Burma with the RN. In the north Pacific I shouldn't need heavy units, just light FT TFs and convoy escorts while in the central pacific I plan to use paratroops and fast light units in the face of his aerial superiority ( which I plan to lessen through distraction/attrition on other fronts ).


Aleutians:
Well, you can check out the picture below. Frantic effort and the acceptance of losses to subs as I sent unescorted ships into the area because time was so important I couldn't wait to mate them with appropriate escorts has paid off.

Attu now has almost 400 AV from 2 US Army and 1 USMC Regiment, 2 AAA units, 500 mines and just under 30 PT boats. Its stacking limit is 32,000 tons of supply and I have just over 30,000 tons there. A TK I was sending with 5,000 tons of fuel was sunk en route. The lack of fuel and the fact that it is only a Level 2 airfield are the only two major deficits remaining. I have another dozen PT boats from Hawaii due to arrive in the next 5 days. I need to bring in more engineers and aviation support also but that's in hand.

I have just today occupied Amchitka Island and Adak Island. The black box onscreen shows the troops offloading from the convoy I sent to Adak Island. As you can see the force comprises an aviation HQ element, 2 Base Forces, a AAA Regt and 2 Engineer units. My plan is to use transports to fly the 34th Combat Engineer Regiment into Attu island if it is invaded or directly into Shimishiru Jima once I have sufficient supplies on hand to support fighters.

Amchitka has fewer forces at present but, obviously, this was an operation I had to throw together on the first day I took over using whatever was at hand. It will be built up to a similar level ASAP.

I also plan to take one of the islands around Attu and build up its airfield to provide redundancy should the enemy try to bombard Attu out of existence.


Dutch Harbour is a TERRIBLE choice to build up in-game. I know the port size looks enticing ( it can be built to a Size 6 port ) but the difficulty building the airfield means that the port is relatively useless since you cannot CAP it appropriately unless you invest huge numbers of engineers - who have better uses elsewhere until mid-42. I MUCH prefer building up Umnak Island but in this case I have to use what was already present.

I have designated Prince Rupert as the main base for shipping troops and supplies to the Aleutians and currently have over 1,000AV + a commensurate level of engineers etc there waiting to move into the Aleutians and Kuriles. Today Prince Rupert became a Level 6 Port and I will keep expanding it to its full size.

I have prioritised the ASW effort along CONUSA and now have an interlocking series of search zones running all the way from San Diego to Prince Rupert along the coast ( I have all my shipping to Prince Rupert set to use COASTAL ZONES when moving to Rupert). This should reduce my losses in the move to Rupert to pretty much nothing ( this is important as I'll have to be sending newly arrived ships to Rupert or San Fran without escorts). Rupert and San Fran are the gathering ports for my escorts and as the emergency missions are completed and ships move to Rupert ( to support operations in the north ) or San Fran ( to support the Central Pacific ) I will allocate escorts commensurate with the convoy's importance. I'll post a picture of the ASW cover off CONUSA some other time.

Right now you can see the beginnings of my ASW efforts in the Aleutians. As SBD-3 units are trained up in Naval Bombing Skills I will put them on Naval Search missions in order to:
a) spot subs and
b) build up their naval search skill - which helps them find and hit targets at sea.

Sure, it costs me a few fully trained pilots a month but my pilot training programme ( which I established from a very low baseline given how crucial it is ) can more than replace those numbers.

NB: The SC TF hanging out around the Bering Sea is a DD flotilla I have waiting to pounce should any amphibious TF attempt to land at Attu before I'm ready. I'm rotating DDs in and out of that flotilla as they get repaired at Dutch Harbour.

Now onto Dutch Harbour:
I'm expanding the port as rapidly as possible and am dumping all my engineers etc there to help this effort. Dutch Harbour is almost at its supply limit of 110,000 tons and has successfully refueled the survivors of the USN SC TFs and transports with about 100,000 tons of fuel to spare.

I have multiple AGs, AEs, ADs, AS and even all three of my ARs at Dutch Harbour. Right now that harbour can resupply anything I have in the fleet and is busy bringing all of my DDs, BBs and cruisers back into action. I am choosing to repair them slowly using ordinary repair so that they can sail out to resist an invasion of Attu at a moment's notice while only the more heavily damaged ships ( which cannot fight at all ) are reserved for the ARs. Essentially I'm trading efficiency for combat power again.


In terms of airpower. When I took over there were 3 squadrons of fighters, some PBYs and remnants from the sunk carriers in the north. As of today I have roughly 800 planes in the region with more to come ( mainly heavy bombers on their way from Oz ). I certainly cannot defeat the IJN's surface forces or KB BUT with the force I have available in the Aleutians I can bloody them and inflict significant attritional losses as well as forcing them to burn a LOT of fuel ( fuel seems to be a sore point for Damian in this mod. I'm not sure of the exact economic changes but I think he changed the ratio of oil to fuel or oil to HI or somesuch. In any case the economy is the weak point and I've had success luring Japanese players into burning fuel before so will try it again.). Doing the same around Oz and in Burma will hasten that time at which a culmination point is reached for Damian where the correlation of forces flips and becomes favourable to the Allies and he no longer has sufficient force available to counter each of my thrusts.


In terms of air power he is using naval bombers to bomb my forces in the Kuriles. I'm delighted with this since using his IJNAF bombers in this way imposes operational losses on his trained pilots AND prevents those groups being used to train up another cadre of IJNAF torpedo attack pilots. I think we're going to reach an aerial culmination point very, very rapidly and that I will soon rule the air. At present he has greater numbers of planes, a higher quality of plane and better and more pilots BUT I sense that his reserves weren't deep and, unlike me, he doesn't have the capacity to expand his training programme. I've gotten well over 1,000 pilots enrolled as we speak and that gives me a depth he lacks.

I expect things to be relatively quiet for another week until Ramree opens up and I have some RN ships in the area. I also wonder if he is going to attack Attu. I'd have expected him to be there by now if he was going to attack it. Maybe he's just slow as he had to wait for PP. Floyd left me with something like 5,900 PP points when I took over while Damian has bemoaning his lack of them. Maybe he just had to wait a week in order to have enough to buy his counter-invasion force out from the Home Islands?






Attachment (1)

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 84
RE: No fleet, no problem... - 5/8/2013 4:09:23 PM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 18046
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline 		+1 on the undesirability of Dutch Harbour as a main base. I have left the starting BF on there for six months and still have not been able to build a level 1 AF. Yes, there is lots of supply.

I try to get Adak and Amchitka as mutually supporting bases where I can build quickly and control the whole area. Attu can be built later for extended search. Kiska can be built up between Amchitka and Attu. Anything with a (0) Standard Potential Size for port or airfield is only to be built in desperation.

If the Japanese take Attu while the Allies have Adak and Amchitka, they will have a hard time supporting it unless they bring the whole IJN, or declare war on Russia and take Petropavlovsk.

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 85
RE: No fleet, no problem... - 5/8/2013 5:02:54 PM   
Nemo121


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

Aye, my thinking precisely. These are being built to make Attu defensible. One cannot underestimate the importance of having an air bridge into an island the enemy invades. It allows for much easier flow of supplies and troops if necessary.

Today was the 30th August.
There was only one action of significance which is that Damian hit a TF of ships unloading at Akyab. He sank about 10 ships as they ran through the single remaining CL I had in all of India and destroyed about 700 squad equivalents. About 150 infantry, 300 or so support, 200 guns, 100 vehicles. These losses were spread across about 30 units so it really isn't nearly as bad as it seems. Most of the infantry came from one of the Indian Infantry Divisions though so that division is hurting. Everything else is pretty much fine.

It looks like I'll be sitting back in Chittagong and only running in small transport TFs to Ramree until such time as I can get BBs and escorts into position.


This is the price I pay for the entire RN being completely out of position pinned in Perth. Ah well, c'est la guerre. Onwards and upwards.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 86
RE: No fleet, no problem... - 5/8/2013 8:40:25 PM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 18046
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline 		Or in the case of some unlucky ships and aircraft, onwards and downwards.

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 87
RE: No fleet, no problem... - 5/8/2013 10:54:19 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline 		True but Ramree is worth at least a couple of divisions. To be honest I thought I'd take more than these losses in the initial landing so, at this stage, the operation has just moved from being almost cost-free to just being well-worth it. I'd need to take at least quadruple these losses to get to a point where the Ramree landing would break even with the cost of slogging it through the jungles in northern Burma.

Nothing I've lost prevents the littoral campaign continuing although, obviously, it would be better to lose nothing and avoid bolstering Damian's morale

_____________________________

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

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 88
RE: No fleet, no problem... - 5/9/2013 1:27:17 AM   
princep01

 

Posts: 943
Joined: 8/7/2006
From: Texas
Status: offline 		Nemo, I sincerely hope I am not out of line asking, but perhaps you have said elsewhere and I just missed it.  Are you a citizen of the UK?  I ask because I am due to make my first real foray to the mother country May 17 thru the end of the month, starting in Edinburgh and moving steadily southward.  While I have passed thru that great land several times, it has been limited to airports heretofore.  I look forward with great anticipation to the visit.

As to the game, it is the sort of challenge that a player like you must relish.  Good luck.

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 89
RE: No fleet, no problem... - 5/9/2013 3:20:00 AM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline 		princep01,

No, not out of line at all. No I'm not British, I'm Irish although, obviously, we're all Europeans now with our socialism, our green subsidies and faltering economies . We're uniting just in time to slip into senescence .

If you're in London you have to pass by the Imperial War Museum ( it is currently closed for renovation ;-( ). Inside it is very crowded and there isn't enough space to, in my mind, show the exhibits off to best effect but it is cool to see the He-162 and, most importantly, the naval guns outside. The one on the right - as you stand in front of them - is a 15 incher that came from HMS Ramillies which is cool as it is in-game. You can also visit HMS Belfast (in-game CL ) in London and Duxford is cool if you like planes .If tanks are more your bag then Bovington's the place to be.



_____________________________

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

(in reply to princep01)
Post #: 90
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: No fleet, no problem... Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.656