Blitzkrieg in the Pacific

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Blitzkrieg in the Pacific

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> Blitzkrieg in the Pacific

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Blitzkrieg in the Pacific - 1/21/2003 5:00:35 AM

m0ngoose

Posts: 50
Joined: 12/19/2002
From: Southern California
Status: offline

Hey everyone.

Thought I'd share some results of my current game against the AI. Not that this opponent is proving to be a real challenge but I have learned a few interesting things.

I'm playing as IJN in scen 19. No pref changes other than disabling the sub doctrine.

I've been experimenting with some tactics I saw here on the board to great success. Mainly, taking a handful of squads in a sub convoy and picking off the allied bases. I have completely paralyzed the AI by taking everything in the west except for Noumea. I'm not sure he knows what even hit him! Big deal though.

The real treat was that the small squad ops work wonders against engineer only bases. While I'm waiting for more ships to come in (and then focus on PM and Australia) I'm taking everything I have to Noumea to invade in the next two weeks.

And the neat part is, it's only 6/11/42! How's that for speed?

And on that note, what happens when I take Noumea? Does it shut down the US pipeline completely? Are all ships destroyed forever? Rerouted to Brisbane? I believe I get the instant victory at 1/1/43 if I still hold Noumea but for argument's sake if I lose it does the US pop right back up full strength? I wonder if all those units are quo-ed up to appear all of a sudden....

wouldn't that be a surprise?

Well for the sake of excercise and learning some of the intricacies of transport use (or abuse as the case may be) I am on a quest to capture every single allied hex on the map. I'm almost done with all the islands...it looks like Australia will be the true challenge.

_____________________________

"May your sword be wet as a woman in her prime."

Post #: 1

- 1/21/2003 5:28:38 AM

Mr.Frag

Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline

You went the slow way:

6 Fast Transport TF's: Send 2 separate DD's at Shortland down to take Efate & Luganville. Send 4 separate DD's out from Rabaul to snag Buna, Gili Gili, Lunga & Tulagi.

When you are finished, be polite, send the DD's back to pick up your men instead of letting them rot to death! ;)

This is the problem with AI ... Playing a real person, the first thing they are going to do is Air Transport troops to each one of these bases, to prevent the Fast Transport blitz!

(in reply to m0ngoose)

Post #: 2

DUH... - 1/21/2003 6:04:33 AM

m0ngoose

Posts: 50
Joined: 12/19/2002
From: Southern California
Status: offline

Oh, yeah....

Fast Transport TF's....

guess I don't get the trophy for speed then....

:(

_____________________________

"May your sword be wet as a woman in her prime."

(in reply to m0ngoose)

Post #: 3

- 1/21/2003 6:07:17 AM

loader6

Posts: 198
Joined: 5/21/2002
From: Kentucky
Status: offline

I think the real problem is that large units like base forces have no nominal defense value. I don't care if I was a cook in a 500 man base force, if 20 or so Japs came ashore I'm sure me and at least 100 of my buddies could find some rifles and at least hold off the enemy. I'd like to see some nominal defensive value for support troops so this doesn't happen. Of course, it's not that big of an issue in a pretty much perfect game.

(in reply to m0ngoose)

Post #: 4

- 1/21/2003 7:14:13 AM

rcwkent

Posts: 51
Joined: 11/6/2002
From: New York City
Status: offline

Loader has an excellent point.

When thousands of support personnel cant defend themselves against 2 squads from a sub--something was wrong in basic training.

Some sort of defensive power would be nice.

_____________________________

"I don't know what the heck this logistics is that Marshall is always talking about, but I want some of it"
Admiral Ernest J King

(in reply to m0ngoose)

Post #: 5

- 1/21/2003 8:11:16 AM

Crocky

Posts: 417
Joined: 12/4/2001
From: Christchurch New Zealand
Status: offline

Ok my take on this.....I did this thing against an opponent he had 2 coastal defence units 2 Base forces and 2 seabees on the island ......my sub dropped its load on the island now next turn I attacked and captured the island destroying 40 odd planes he had there but cause no losses to his ground forces

Now if you dont want to guard you island with infantry a sneak attack with raiders (which is the way i would classify this) is gonna hurt you.....

In othe words they snuck on the island eluded the minimal patrols and then sabotaged the planes at the airfield.....

Just another way of looking at it there was no intention of holding the island.....now if you said that they killed 5000 second line troops at the same time I would say there is a problem but that didnt happen in my case :)

_____________________________

Mike Blair CROCKY

(in reply to m0ngoose)

Post #: 6

- 1/21/2003 8:13:51 AM

RevRick

Posts: 2617
Joined: 9/16/2000
From: Thomasville, GA
Status: offline

[QUOTE]The real treat was that the small squad ops work wonders against engineer only bases. [/QUOTE]

My Dad introduced me to some guys who were combat engineers in WWII. I don't think you and any two squads of IJA troops were going to take much away from them. The were nasty SOB's, and knew how to shoot. "First you dig 'em. Then you die in 'em!" Sounds like another case of gaming the game. Legal, but tacky.

_____________________________

"Action springs not from thought, but from a readiness for responsibility.� ― Dietrich Bonhoeffer

(in reply to m0ngoose)

Post #: 7

- 1/21/2003 10:26:33 AM

loader6

Posts: 198
Joined: 5/21/2002
From: Kentucky
Status: offline

I mean, I know plenty of cooks, radio repairmen, mechanics, etc. in the Army today and they all have rifles or pistols at a minimum and usually some crew served weapons as well. I'm guessing this was also the case during WWII for even the REMFs. I could see a small raiding group destroying some planes and leaving or dieing, but not destroying all the planes and taking the airfield and port.

(in reply to m0ngoose)

Post #: 8

- 1/21/2003 11:16:34 AM

Yamamoto

Posts: 743
Joined: 11/21/2001
From: Miami, Fl. U.S.A.
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by RevRick
[B]My Dad introduced me to some guys who were combat engineers in WWII. [/B][/QUOTE]

COMBAT engineer groups are different. Some engineers have infantry squads and they can fight (and capture bases). Others are purely non-combatants. I think non-combatants still have some combat value though. I seem to remember that if you look on the infantry screen they are worth something. Five points or something like that.

Yamamoto

(in reply to m0ngoose)

Post #: 9

- 1/21/2003 12:13:22 PM

denisonh

Posts: 2194
Joined: 12/21/2001
From: Upstate SC
Status: offline

The Battle of the Bulge saw many "converged" infantry units formed to fight. Cooks, mail clerks, truck drivers. etc.... My grandfather was an M-10 crewman whose vehicle got destroyed, and was temporarily "reassigned" as infantry during the bulge.

Of course he had no winter gear and got strafed by P-47s, so he did not have fond memories of the bulge....

You might surpise them and wreak some havoc, but overrunning them would be difficult....

_____________________________

"Life is tough, it's even tougher when you're stupid" -SGT John M. Stryker, USMC

(in reply to m0ngoose)

Post #: 10

SITREP - 1/22/2003 12:04:58 AM

m0ngoose

Posts: 50
Joined: 12/19/2002
From: Southern California
Status: offline

Well last night I took Noumea. Did it with 3 entire divisions, 4 artillery rgts, and 2 armor rgts. Had some base ENG along for the ride to fix things once we mopped up.

The defensive troops lasted for three days but lost the base on my third assault and 28000 men surrendered on my 4th and final assault. Sunk all those ships in port too. Nailed 2 carriers that way!

So now I've got this size 9 malaria free port. Woo hoo!

Of course the AI is completely confused by this. A steady trickle of ships keeps coming and trying to dock with my base. Well the practice is keeping the gun crews sharp in my surface combat groups and the Vals and Kates are honing their skills too.

Current date? 07/11/42

Brisbane is next....stay tuned

_____________________________

"May your sword be wet as a woman in her prime."

(in reply to m0ngoose)

Post #: 11

- 1/22/2003 2:06:34 AM

Feinder

Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline

Yes, I agree that I think the base-forces and other 2nd line formations need a little more defense. While I don't care what anyone does in a single-player game, the whole "rush in a couple of APDs and raze Luganville and Efate is more than a bit gamey in a PBEM situation." Again, I'm not banging anyone who does it in single-player situation. Do whatever the he11 you want to do.

But in a PBEM situation (and I relize that your game is single-player Mongoose), it is beyond any reasonable comprehension that such an attack would be done under any normal circumstances. The only reason a player does it to begin with, is because a. he already knows the disposition of the Allied forces, b. he knows that these bases can be razed by 2 squads (or whatever), and c. that he CAN do it to begin with. And while I have never had the pleasure of suffering such an "attack" (if you can really call it that). There doesn't seem much that can be done about it (altho like I said, I haven't fiddled with the situation, because it is "gamey" beyond all reason if you ask me).

Strengthening the defenses of 2nd-line troops prevents this situation to begin with, and adds to the realism of the game. The 20 men landing off the subs are NOT Special Forces or Delta Force. They are NOT SEALS. They are not Marine Recon units. They're 2 (random) squads picked from whatever parent unit that they are drawn from. As previous poster indicated, does anyone really think that 20 or so infantrymen are going to take control a base from 5000 2nd line troops? Much less 500? I could maybe see 20 combat vs. 100 2nd line, maybe even 150 2nd line and possibly succeed. But again, these 2nd line troops are still soldiers, and even if their only means of defense were forks (altho they would no doubt have SOME weapons avaiable), 500 2nd line troops would definately hold vs. 20 combat infantryman (again, we're not talking about SEALs or other troops specially trained in special insertion type missions). I even have to think about the effectiveness of them shutting down all the planes at an AF. 20 "normal" combat guys aren't going to even carry enough explosives (not that they carry that much on a normal load anyways) to blow up 40 planes. 3 - 5 maybe, but not 40. Again, we're not talking about specialize units here, or even what todays combat infantryman is carrying. We're talking about 20 schmucks who got pulled from their platoon, told to pack some gear and hop on the sub. While they'd likely bring more than than they would as a part of their normal formation, they're still not demolishions experts.

My 2 pfennigs.
-F-

(in reply to m0ngoose)

Post #: 12

- 1/22/2003 2:09:04 AM

HawaiiFive-O

Posts: 295
Joined: 12/21/2002
From: USA
Status: offline

Yes, it is ridiculous that Base Forces don't have some sort of organic defense.

Yes, it is ridiculous that 40 men can wipe out 5000.

Is it likely to change? Nope.

Can two PBEM'ers make a house rule to avoid this situation? Yup.

(in reply to m0ngoose)

Post #: 13

- 1/22/2003 2:32:36 AM

CapAndGown

Posts: 3206
Joined: 3/6/2001
From: Virginia, USA
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by HawaiiFive-O
[B]
Can two PBEM'ers make a house rule to avoid this situation? Yup. [/B][/QUOTE]

Don't even need to do that, just be aware of this tactic and use a FT TF of your own to beat them off. The American should be sending troops to Luganville and Efate anyway. So just make a FT TF to start the ball rolling.

(in reply to m0ngoose)

Post #: 14

- 1/22/2003 3:52:26 AM

denisonh

Posts: 2194
Joined: 12/21/2001
From: Upstate SC
Status: offline

I agree with Cap and Gown

I have had PBEM players on two occaisons try the "quickie" on Efate and Luganville in SC #17, and I burned them.

Use a combination of FTs and air transport to position forces to repel that strategy.

_____________________________

"Life is tough, it's even tougher when you're stupid" -SGT John M. Stryker, USMC

(in reply to m0ngoose)

Post #: 15

- 1/23/2003 10:55:06 PM

crsutton

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

I don't think it can be done against my defense, but if I had an opponent pull some cheese like that on me, I would most likely find another opponent for the next game.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to m0ngoose)

Post #: 16

- 1/23/2003 11:45:33 PM

marc420

Posts: 224
Joined: 9/23/2002
From: Terrapin Station
Status: offline

As far as I know, everyone in the Army is issued a Rifle and given some training on how to use it. So to me, this situation does sound a bit ridiculous.

BTW, Mongoose's situation where he dropped 3 Divisions on Noumea sounds like a very different situation than a sub landing a few squads on a base.

Some general suggestions I'd make concerning this topic.

1) Base Forces and Engineers should definitely have some sort of defense value. It should be set up in such a way that a player can't add these units in on an attack, but there should be some sort of basic defense. A few thousand cooks, engineers and clerks with guns could certainly defend a base against a couple of squads landing in rubber rafts from a submarine.

2) An attack on a base should have the potential to cause damage to planes, supplies, fuel stocks, and or facilities. In this case, it would simulate a "raid" by the commandos. In larger attacks, it seems reasonable that a major battle for control of a base would possibly damage the airfield service facilities, the runway, the port facilities, planes at the airfield, supply stocks etc. How much damage occurs could depend on how easily the defenders beat off the attack, and perhaps how much artillery the attackers had with them. But when 30,000 attackers fight 20,000 defenders for control of Port Moresby, at the end of the battle, the base should look like .... well .... a war zone.

3) Being able to create sub-units would help as well. I should be able to take a regiment, and put one company each from that regiment on a bunch of islands if I feel I need to provide some basic defense against this sort of attack.

Anyone see the episode of "Baa Baa Black Sheep" where the Japaneese commandos invade the island? Yes, I know its only TV, thu not exactly realistic. But I think it does give some sort of sense as to what might happened if a couple of squads of commandos landed.

In such a case, I think you could reasonably expect the operations of the base to be disrupted (Support and Aviation Support reduced, perhaps as far as to zero). I also think its reasonable that such a commando action could destroy planes, etc.

BTW, thinking about that show made me think of something else that is missing. In UV, there is no ability to have a small base force. If you think about the Black Sheep show, what we are seeing there is a small base force that is just enough to maintain one squadrons worth of fighter planes. In UV, while I can quickly create a level 1 or level 2 airbase to base a fighter squadron like this, I seem to only have the option to provide no support for this base, or enough support that would support a 100 to 150 planes.

Perhaps being able to create sub-units of base forces is something that could be considered. I'd like to have a BF that is the right size to support just a single fighter squadron off a level one airfield.

Of course, such a small BF should have a much smaller defence value and be more vulnerable to commando attacks. :)

(in reply to m0ngoose)

Post #: 17

- 1/24/2003 12:40:08 AM

Mr.Frag

Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline

[QUOTE]As far as I know, everyone in the Army is issued a Rifle and given some training on how to use it. So to me, this situation does sound a bit ridiculous.[/QUOTE]

You are quite correct :D

There is one training course: Basic Training. EVERYONE learns to be a Soldier FIRST, then becomes something that the Army requires.

There is no Basic Training "skip" because the Army decides that they need to use you as a cook AFTER you become a soldier :D

I know it's wrong from a logic standpoint, but how else could it be solutioned in that they were OPERATIONALLY not intended to be used as front line troops. If you want to have OPERATIONAL COMBAT TROOPS at a base, you need to transport them there. This little gotcha stops over agressive (unrealistic) expansion where one takes a base, leaves behind the cooks and zooms off to the next base with just the combat troops...

(in reply to m0ngoose)

Post #: 18

- 1/24/2003 1:19:14 AM

Feinder

Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline

[QUOTE]BTW, thinking about that show made me think of something else that is missing. In UV, there is no ability to have a small base force. If you think about the Black Sheep show, what we are seeing there is a small base force that is just enough to maintain one squadrons worth of fighter planes. In UV, while I can quickly create a level 1 or level 2 airbase to base a fighter squadron like this, I seem to only have the option to provide no support for this base, or enough support that would support a 100 to 150 planes.[/QUOTE]

Marc,

Actually there are several smaller base force units (at least for USN that I know of). There are a couple of AvSup=90 and I think even a 60 or two. Not really that familiar with the IJN OB tho.

-F-

(in reply to m0ngoose)

Post #: 19

- 1/24/2003 1:41:09 AM

Yamamoto

Posts: 743
Joined: 11/21/2001
From: Miami, Fl. U.S.A.
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Feinder
[B]Marc,

Actually there are several smaller base force units (at least for USN that I know of). There are a couple of AvSup=90 and I think even a 60 or two. Not really that familiar with the IJN OB tho.

-F- [/B][/QUOTE]

Most of the Japanese ones have 40 aviation support. A couple of large ones have 150.

(in reply to m0ngoose)

Post #: 20

- 1/24/2003 3:49:37 AM

bilbow

Posts: 741
Joined: 8/22/2002
From: Concord NH
Status: offline

You can also get smaller base forces by subdividing them via air transport. Have a C47 take one-days worth of a large unit to a new location and you will end up with 20-40 support points where you want them. They don't divide strictly proportionatly, but it's a quick way to get some support to a forward location. The rest of the unit follows on ship or maybe to another forward location entirely. Note that the radars won't move by air- they are too heavy.

(in reply to m0ngoose)

Post #: 21

- 1/24/2003 12:34:05 PM

marc420

Posts: 224
Joined: 9/23/2002
From: Terrapin Station
Status: offline

learn something new every day!

(in reply to m0ngoose)

Post #: 22

Decisive Victory - IJN - 1/1/43 - 1/28/2003 11:57:20 PM

m0ngoose

Posts: 50
Joined: 12/19/2002
From: Southern California
Status: offline

Okay, I just concluded scen 19 this morning as the IJN.

In the beginning of November I landed 2 divisions in Cooktown while a second group landed troops in Brisbane. 4 divisions worth plus artillery and armored units.

The northern force took Cooktown, Cairns, and marched south to Townsville where the offensive stalled (high fatigue, lack of supply, and massive attrition of units). A recon regiment headed inland and captured Charter towers.

The Brisbane force swiftly secured Brisbane (total assault strength of 1397) and then proceeded north to Rockhampton.

Note that during the landing I lost 10 IJN carriers to strike planes based out of Brisbane. And I didn't capture the port fast enough to dock ships there for repairs. I'd call this a Pyhric victory....

Rockhampton fell on 1/1/43 and the end of the turn I got the victory message. And I also captured every single allied base hex on the map with the exception of Townsville which would have taken another week.

Lessons learned:

Over long marching distances, army units get separated.

Individual enemy ground units can stop the advance of an entire army. IE-once you are in a hex with an enemy unit, you cannot set move orders to go past them...you must attack.

IJN carriers are incredibly prone to "operational failure." One carrier gets sunk so the planes transfer to another carrier...which then is over the 10% limit which shuts down that carrier...so the excess planes go to the NEXT carrier and shut that one down....I had no CAP or attack planes flying by the second day of the invasion. Repeated waves of 200+ SBDs and B25s swiftly crippled all of my carriers and sunk them (while my transports vommited troops upon the pristine beaches of Brisbane of course...)

I could have done more to protect the carriers and I could have brought some bombardment TFs (I didn't bring any) to close the air strips but hey, we were on a timetable okay? I lost about 1500 pts of ships in 5 days but he lost about 6000 pts in bases in that month alone.

Also, it is a real pain loading and unloading a small force and island hopping. The transport had a tendancy to leave before finishing the load or unload and also would just flip to retirement arbitrarily (I still haven't figured out all the nuances of moving transport TFs and doing loading/unloading---it's a real b1tch) and head to Egypt somewhere.

If I remember more lessons I'll post 'em.

-M

_____________________________

"May your sword be wet as a woman in her prime."

(in reply to m0ngoose)

Post #: 23

- 1/29/2003 3:02:40 PM

pad152

Posts: 2871
Joined: 4/23/2000
Status: offline

One easy way to fix this is to add some defense troops with the editor to the allied bases.

The sad part is the AI has no clue what to do after Port Vila and Luganville are captured. The AI allied keeps sending transports unescorted to Lunga where I have a carrier group based. The AI has not even tried to retake Port Vila or Luganville. :(

(in reply to m0ngoose)

Post #: 24

- 1/30/2003 10:20:13 PM

tri71669

Posts: 15
Joined: 7/12/2002
From: Milwaukee
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by HawaiiFive-O
[B]Yes, it is ridiculous that Base Forces don't have some sort of organic defense.

Yes, it is ridiculous that 40 men can wipe out 5000.

Is it likely to change? Nope.

Can two PBEM'ers make a house rule to avoid this situation? Yup. [/B][/QUOTE]

Then again... in a scenario like this one historrically speaking- the Japs had a good time doing this
--------
Later, a contingent of about 1,500 Japanese and Korean laborers arrived to begin construction of an airfield. Another 300 Nauruan and Gilbertese were conscripted to augment the work force.

from http://166.122.164.43/archive/2000/April/04-03-19.htm

Results when the japs came was odds of like 1vs 100 and they took the island.
I guesse those realllllllyyyyy looooong odds can happen.

_____________________________

- See you at the Fire...

(in reply to m0ngoose)

Post #: 25

- 1/30/2003 11:04:27 PM

denisonh

Posts: 2194
Joined: 12/21/2001
From: Upstate SC
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by pad152
[B]One easy way to fix this is to add some defense troops with the editor to the allied bases.

The sad part is the AI has no clue what to do after Port Vila and Luganville are captured. The AI allied keeps sending transports unescorted to Lunga where I have a carrier group based. The AI has not even tried to retake Port Vila or Luganville. :( [/B][/QUOTE]

Looks like you may be ready for a PBEM opponent......

_____________________________

"Life is tough, it's even tougher when you're stupid" -SGT John M. Stryker, USMC

(in reply to m0ngoose)

Post #: 26

- 1/31/2003 12:38:02 AM

HawaiiFive-O

Posts: 295
Joined: 12/21/2002
From: USA
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by tri71669
[B]
Results when the japs came was odds of like 1vs 100 and they took the island.
I guesse those realllllllyyyyy looooong odds can happen. [/B][/QUOTE]

Are you equating the combat abilities of ~2000 civilians, natives, and a handful of military personnel to the combat abilities of ~2000 rear echelon troops each outfitted with a rifle and given basic combat training?

Seriously?

(in reply to m0ngoose)

Post #: 27

TF composition - 1/31/2003 4:16:10 AM

m0ngoose

Posts: 50
Joined: 12/19/2002
From: Southern California
Status: offline

Something else I just remembered. The composition of my transport TFs.

I had two tfs with over 50 ships each (just to see what would happen) and because with all the stuff I was bringing in I didn't want to deal with 6 tfs. For the most part it worked pretty well although I'm sure I took a major hit for AAA effectiveness. But it sure was convenient in terms of managing landing that many troops at once. The way I formed the TF was to first form a TF of 25 and then load lots of large units above and beyond the transport capacity of the TF. The system then added as many APs and AKs as required to fill my load order. One TF had 57 ships!

I really don't think this would be smart in a PBEM game but if I could do something like this with a supply-only convoy (behind the combat zone) I would be set.

_____________________________

"May your sword be wet as a woman in her prime."

(in reply to m0ngoose)

Post #: 28

- 1/31/2003 4:30:00 AM

Mr.Frag

Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline

[QUOTE]I had two tfs with over 50 ships each (just to see what would happen) and because with all the stuff I was bringing in I didn't want to deal with 6 tfs. For the most part it worked pretty well although I'm sure I took a major hit for AAA effectiveness. But it sure was convenient in terms of managing landing that many troops at once. The way I formed the TF was to first form a TF of 25 and then load lots of large units above and beyond the transport capacity of the TF. The system then added as many APs and AKs as required to fill my load order. One TF had 57 ships![/QUOTE]

That most certainly is a bug and should have never happened. Even with the AA penalty kicking in due to the large number of ships involved, it was probably immune to air attack.

Post your save in the bugs forum.

(in reply to m0ngoose)

Post #: 29

- 1/31/2003 4:55:33 AM

Grotius

Posts: 5798
Joined: 10/18/2002
From: The Imperial Palace.
Status: offline

I did the same thing, inadvertently, on one occasion. I had a Transport TF of almost 25 ships; loaded many troops; and presto, now I had a Transport TF of 37 ships. I'd forgotten that the game would automatically add transports to accommodate the extra troops.

Don't have a savegame, though.

(in reply to m0ngoose)

Post #: 30