Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Battle for Korea

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: Battle for Korea Page: <<   < prev  117 118 [119] 120 121   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Battle for Korea - 2/4/2014 4:07:45 PM   
witpqs


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

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

One or more developers has written in the past that defensive mines in a base hex are presumed to be in the vicinity of the base.


Have you got a cite?

And even if that is true, in a 40 NM-wide hex is there any real tactical difference between 2000 yards off the beach and 8000?

Hah! I get to quote multiple versions of your same post!

IIRC the range spinner goes up to 30,000 yards, which is 15 miles. 2,000 yards is 1 mile. For a given length (the bombardment run), that 15 times as many square miles of water. Plus whatever variables they throw in for whatever size they consider to be the base's environs, all of which I am not privy to. Seems like a big difference.


_____________________________

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

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 3541
RE: Battle for Korea - 2/4/2014 4:17:18 PM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 8262
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline 		I just did some quick testing. Only a couple of runs though so nothing certain. But bombarding a base at default distance I did not hit any mines (500) over 10-15 tries.

Just a very quick test though. I´ll see if I can get some proper testing done tomorrow.


(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 3542
RE: Battle for Korea - 2/4/2014 4:24:30 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

Also, I've had bombardment TFs hit mines. Not often, but a couple of times. I'm not sure setting the distance higher helps at all.


I would be very surprised if it did. I think this is another one of those "received knowledge" items in forum culture, that the closer the range spinner is set the higher the chance of hitting a mine.



This is my working understanding, because as you say - it's just a hex with mines in it. There may be a "check" if the TF is just passing through vs. approaching the base, as amphibious TFs like to hit mines while sub patrols or ships passing through the hex are relatively safe if they aren't approaching the base for some reason (landing, bombardment, etc.).

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 3543
RE: Battle for Korea - 2/4/2014 4:28:14 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

One or more developers has written in the past that defensive mines in a base hex are presumed to be in the vicinity of the base.


Have you got a cite?

And even if that is true, in a 40 NM-wide hex is there any real tactical difference between 2000 yards off the beach and 8000?

Hah! I get to quote multiple versions of your same post!

IIRC the range spinner goes up to 30,000 yards, which is 15 miles. 2,000 yards is 1 mile. For a given length (the bombardment run), that 15 times as many square miles of water. Plus whatever variables they throw in for whatever size they consider to be the base's environs, all of which I am not privy to. Seems like a big difference.



I did a quick search. Found a LOT of posts on mines from WITP days (surprise!), and not so many for AE. Did find this one by JWE which bears repeating, not because it is strictly on point here, but for general knowledge.

"Yes. And that’s just how it works (kinda, sorta). There’s hundreds of lines to the minefield thing, but it all boils down pretty simply: open ocean/ shallow water, your base/enemy base, the TF type (amphib, surfcom, minewarfare), the TF mission and how long might it linger in the hex (i.e., is it looking for mines, patrolling for something, or just an amphib TF looking to anchor).

And once a minefield is detected, what would the TF do? An amphib/surfcom TF would attempt to avoid and exit the minefield. A minesweep TF would enter the minefield and try to do some bidness.

One detects a minefield in various ways. The most obvious is getting blown up, but that’s not the most desirable method. Another is spotting a mine. Lots of different class types can spot mines. Mine warfare classes (layers and sweepers) and good escort types, in appropriate (mine warfare) TFs have the best shot. But even good escorts in an amphib TF have a “chance” (that’s one way amphib TFs “detect” minefields).

So what does one do when they detect a mine? They get a “chance” to destroy (shoot) it. Depending on the TF type, the combat report message will be a bit different. A lucky tuna boat in an amphib TF might get to “destroy” a mine. The same lucky tuna boat in a minesweeping TF might get to “clear” a mine. It’s all loops within loops with the minesweep TF components looping to the “clear mines” text messages, and others looping to the “destroy mines” text messages, because the mine TFs are wanting to “clear”, while the others are wanting to “avoid/exit”.

So, yes, those escort types in a Sweep TF can detect mines (that’s what the TF is there for), and shoot at the ones they find (called “clearing” if they are successful). But shooting (‘clearing’, ‘destroying’, whatever), a mine doesn’t help much. If the TF must remain in a hex with a 200 minefield, it just means the next ship has 199 chance to get whacked instead of 200 (99.9% instead of 100%, base chance).

The only way to keep your ships from getting blown up is sweep a channel through the minefield. And the only class types that can sweep a channel are the ones listed above somewhere. Somewhere down in the dark nitty gritty there’s this check for Amphib TFs where a minefield is detected:
If Path = Exists, Then Go On.
If Not, Go To Sequential Death Roll
Sweeping a channel is utterly different from spotting and potting at individual mines. "

When I said "mines are linear in the hex" I didn't mean "one mine per mile" or such. I know they're in fields, which is done with fancy probability code I guess. What I meant was the code so far as I know doesn't have internal math for range from other micro-points inside the hex. It has shallow water/deep water bits, reef bits, strait status bits, etc., but no way to say a mine is 5000 yards away from a land pixel, or 25 miles away from that same land pixel. It could easily have probability code that, once a "base hex Y/N?" check is cleared, makes a mine strike more probable, which I suppose could accomplish the same goal, but I still don't see how it could get as granular as 8000 yards versus 20,000 yards off the land pixels. Shoreline would have to be logically defined somehow, and that makes a pwhex file pretty big for a map like AE's.

But I'm spit-balling.

I also suppose Michael could have tied mine probabilities to the spinner in the patch, calling the mine strike probabilities with each 1000-yard wind-down iteration on the firing run. Did he? Don't know. With spaghetti code you might not do that in a patch. And you still need a starting probability for the field's location, that it's within the max number on the spinner in the first 1000-yards at all and not 39-miles off the beach. Wherever in the hex math that is. .

< Message edited by Bullwinkle58 -- 2/4/2014 5:29:22 PM >

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 3544
RE: Battle for Korea - 2/4/2014 5:02:06 PM   
poodlebrain

 

Posts: 392
Joined: 10/4/2012
From: Comfy Chair in Baton Rouge
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

One or more developers has written in the past that defensive mines in a base hex are presumed to be in the vicinity of the base.


Have you got a cite?

And even if that is true, in a 40 NM-wide hex is there any real tactical difference between 2000 yards off the beach and 8000?

Hah! I get to quote multiple versions of your same post!

IIRC the range spinner goes up to 30,000 yards, which is 15 miles. 2,000 yards is 1 mile. For a given length (the bombardment run), that 15 times as many square miles of water. Plus whatever variables they throw in for whatever size they consider to be the base's environs, all of which I am not privy to. Seems like a big difference.

I think it is up to 225 times as much area. The area of a circle is the square of the radius.


_____________________________

Never trust a man who's ass is wider than his shoulders.

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 3545
RE: Battle for Korea - 2/4/2014 5:09:47 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline 		Good-O, Moose!

A bit of commentary on your commentary.
quote:

When I said "mines are linear in the hex" I didn't mean "one mine per mile" or such. I know they're in fields, which is done with fancy probability code I guess. What I meant was the code so far as I know doesn't have internal math for range from other micro-points inside the hex. It has shallow water/deep water bits, reef bits, strait status bits, etc., but no way to say a mine is 5000 yards away from a land pixel, or 25 miles away from that same land pixel. It could easily have probability code that, once a "base hex Y/N?" check is cleared, makes a mine strike more probable, which I suppose could accomplish the same goal, but I still don't see how it could get as granular as 8000 yards versus 20,000 yards off the land pixels. Shoreline would have to be logically defined somehow, and that makes a pwhex file pretty big for a map like AE's.

But I'm spit-balling.

I also suppose Michael could have tied mine probabilities to the spinner in the patch, calling the mine strike probabilities with each 1000-yard wind-down iteration on the firing run. Did he? Don't know. With spaghetti code you might not do that in a patch. And you still need a starting probability for the field's location, that it's within the max number on the spinner in the first 1000-yards at all and not 39-miles off the beach. Wherever in the hex math that is. .

They don't need to worry about pixels at all, land or sea. They can (read: 'could if they so chose') simply have assumptions, and make certain assumptions by chance.

- How far from the base is the mine field to be found. This can also be made variable, and stored with the mine field data (in other words not generated on the fly each turn).
- How far away is the 'default' bombardment. Might vary with main gun range (think: 'escorts bombard y/n?', or different type capital ships having different gun ranges). Or use the bombardments set range.
- Use a random variable for from what direction the TF bombards. Does not even need to correspond to a compass - might be 1 to 100, with a presumption that 1 to 100 covers 160 degrees of a circle (just a made up example to illustrate). But if it does correspond to a compass, then the hex from which the TF entered the target hex could play a role (variable, of course!) in determining from which direction the TF bombards.
- At the same time, randomly assign the direction from the base of the (or each) mine field (and, as above, optionally store that data with the mine field so it remains from turn to turn).
- Or, forget about that and just assume that all the mine fields are within a certain distance of the base, but otherwise randomly distributed. If a TF is within that distance is has a certain (pretty small) chance to encounter a mine field. Maybe, if 'at' that range the chance begins to climb above zero and gets greater and greater the closer to the base the TF is set to bombard.
- Or even take the previous point and substitute 'mines' in place of 'mine fields'.

Now, the above is just to illustrate that they can (and they obviously do) easily handle this without worrying at all about tracking the exact position within the hex of any TF, ship, mine field, or mine - or for that matter, even the base. I have NOT inferred that they are doing things as noted in the example, it is strictly a made up example to illustrate the point. It is obvious from the narrative you quoted that they have a much more involved implementation, which is exactly what one would expect given the depth of the rest of the game.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 3546
RE: Battle for Korea - 2/4/2014 5:11:54 PM   
witpqs


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

ORIGINAL: poodlebrain

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

One or more developers has written in the past that defensive mines in a base hex are presumed to be in the vicinity of the base.


Have you got a cite?

And even if that is true, in a 40 NM-wide hex is there any real tactical difference between 2000 yards off the beach and 8000?

Hah! I get to quote multiple versions of your same post!

IIRC the range spinner goes up to 30,000 yards, which is 15 miles. 2,000 yards is 1 mile. For a given length (the bombardment run), that 15 times as many square miles of water. Plus whatever variables they throw in for whatever size they consider to be the base's environs, all of which I am not privy to. Seems like a big difference.

I think it is up to 225 times as much area. The area of a circle is the square of the radius.


I'm considering the difference in size of the linear run along the shore as one dimension and the distance to shore as the other, basically a rectangle. I assume that the length of the run would be the same, only the distance to shore would vary. Way, way oversimplified, I know!

_____________________________

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

(in reply to poodlebrain)
Post #: 3547
RE: Battle for Korea - 2/4/2014 5:11:55 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: poodlebrain


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

One or more developers has written in the past that defensive mines in a base hex are presumed to be in the vicinity of the base.


Have you got a cite?

And even if that is true, in a 40 NM-wide hex is there any real tactical difference between 2000 yards off the beach and 8000?

Hah! I get to quote multiple versions of your same post!

IIRC the range spinner goes up to 30,000 yards, which is 15 miles. 2,000 yards is 1 mile. For a given length (the bombardment run), that 15 times as many square miles of water. Plus whatever variables they throw in for whatever size they consider to be the base's environs, all of which I am not privy to. Seems like a big difference.

I think it is up to 225 times as much area. The area of a circle is the square of the radius.



If only it were that easy.

Your point works for atolls, more or less (reefs restrict certain approach vectors), but not river bombardments such as at Rangoon where some of the circle is trees. Further to my point that, except for top-line probability methods, you'd need a pixel-by-pixel definition of the area inside the hex.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to poodlebrain)
Post #: 3548
RE: Battle for Korea - 2/4/2014 5:14:00 PM   
witpqs


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

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: poodlebrain

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

One or more developers has written in the past that defensive mines in a base hex are presumed to be in the vicinity of the base.


Have you got a cite?

And even if that is true, in a 40 NM-wide hex is there any real tactical difference between 2000 yards off the beach and 8000?

Hah! I get to quote multiple versions of your same post!

IIRC the range spinner goes up to 30,000 yards, which is 15 miles. 2,000 yards is 1 mile. For a given length (the bombardment run), that 15 times as many square miles of water. Plus whatever variables they throw in for whatever size they consider to be the base's environs, all of which I am not privy to. Seems like a big difference.

I think it is up to 225 times as much area. The area of a circle is the square of the radius.



If only it were that easy.

Your point works for atolls, more or less (reefs restrict certain approach vectors), but not river bombardments such as at Rangoon where some of the circle is trees. Further to my point that, except for top-line probability methods, you'd need a pixel-by-pixel definition of the area inside the hex.

Nah, you don't "need" it. Yes, the more robust the simulation you want the better to have it. But AE abstracts things at that level. Does the bombardment code even treat a construct like Rangoon or Palembang differently than, say, Port Moresby?

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 3549
RE: Battle for Korea - 2/4/2014 5:37:07 PM   
poodlebrain

 

Posts: 392
Joined: 10/4/2012
From: Comfy Chair in Baton Rouge
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


quote:

ORIGINAL: poodlebrain


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

One or more developers has written in the past that defensive mines in a base hex are presumed to be in the vicinity of the base.


Have you got a cite?

And even if that is true, in a 40 NM-wide hex is there any real tactical difference between 2000 yards off the beach and 8000?

Hah! I get to quote multiple versions of your same post!

IIRC the range spinner goes up to 30,000 yards, which is 15 miles. 2,000 yards is 1 mile. For a given length (the bombardment run), that 15 times as many square miles of water. Plus whatever variables they throw in for whatever size they consider to be the base's environs, all of which I am not privy to. Seems like a big difference.

I think it is up to 225 times as much area. The area of a circle is the square of the radius.



If only it were that easy.

Your point works for atolls, more or less (reefs restrict certain approach vectors), but not river bombardments such as at Rangoon where some of the circle is trees. Further to my point that, except for top-line probability methods, you'd need a pixel-by-pixel definition of the area inside the hex.
I realized this. It is why I used the qualifier "up to" in my post. Even atolls would be less than 225 times since there must be some area within the circle that is inaccessible to bombarding ships.

_____________________________

Never trust a man who's ass is wider than his shoulders.

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 3550
RE: Battle for Korea - 2/4/2014 6:44:52 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Nah, you don't "need" it. Yes, the more robust the simulation you want the better to have it. But AE abstracts things at that level. Does the bombardment code even treat a construct like Rangoon or Palembang differently than, say, Port Moresby?


Possibly not, but it ought to treat Port Moresby differently than an atoll I'd think. The defense problem at PM is very much easier than Kwajalein.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 3551
RE: Battle for Korea - 2/4/2014 7:03:18 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Good-O, Moose!

A bit of commentary on your commentary.
quote:

When I said "mines are linear in the hex" I didn't mean "one mine per mile" or such. I know they're in fields, which is done with fancy probability code I guess. What I meant was the code so far as I know doesn't have internal math for range from other micro-points inside the hex. It has shallow water/deep water bits, reef bits, strait status bits, etc., but no way to say a mine is 5000 yards away from a land pixel, or 25 miles away from that same land pixel. It could easily have probability code that, once a "base hex Y/N?" check is cleared, makes a mine strike more probable, which I suppose could accomplish the same goal, but I still don't see how it could get as granular as 8000 yards versus 20,000 yards off the land pixels. Shoreline would have to be logically defined somehow, and that makes a pwhex file pretty big for a map like AE's.

But I'm spit-balling.

I also suppose Michael could have tied mine probabilities to the spinner in the patch, calling the mine strike probabilities with each 1000-yard wind-down iteration on the firing run. Did he? Don't know. With spaghetti code you might not do that in a patch. And you still need a starting probability for the field's location, that it's within the max number on the spinner in the first 1000-yards at all and not 39-miles off the beach. Wherever in the hex math that is. .



They don't need to worry about pixels at all, land or sea.

They can (read: 'could if they so chose') simply have assumptions, and make certain assumptions by chance.

- How far from the base is the mine field to be found. This can also be made variable, and stored with the mine field data (in other words not generated on the fly each turn).

I agree. Not a big chunk of data to stick in an array given the usual number of mine fields on the map at once. But it gets complicated if you consider not every base is in the center of the hex, is the same size (large islands, etc.), or that field placement ought not in any sort of RL way be random. Nor is closer always best, at least according to the minemen I spent six weeks on Guam living with. They kept telling me as we talked that a key to mine warfare is "I know that you know that I know that you know that I know . . ." You could just simplify this stuff away, but you end up wasting mines. Some in trees or on reefs.

But this also ties this data just to bombardments, right? Other than that one mission does any other TF type consider ranges of less than 1-hex? And bombardment range was only added in the patch, not the core EXE or WITP's. All WITP and the release version had was "Escorts bombard Y/N?"

- How far away is the 'default' bombardment. Might vary with main gun range (think: 'escorts bombard y/n?', or different type capital ships having different gun ranges). Or use the bombardments set range.

You don't need this after the spinner. You know the starting range. That's an easy check against the mine field array above. But it still doesn't get to why folks believe the odds of a strike increase as the firing range closes the shore. IF laying were random you would be as likely to be driving away from the field as into it.

- Use a random variable for from what direction the TF bombards. Does not even need to correspond to a compass - might be 1 to 100, with a presumption that 1 to 100 covers 160 degrees of a crcle (just a made up example to illustrate). But if it does correspond to a compass, then the hex from which the TF entered the target hex could play a role (variable, of course!) in determining from which direction the TF bombards.

I'd be surprised if azimuth played any role in mines. I think you can do the same job with topline probabilities, adjusted for terrain or not. Although in that case some hexes would give one side or the other a big advantage.

- At the same time, randomly assign the direction from the base of the (or each) mine field (and, as above, optionally store that data with the mine field so it remains from turn to turn).

You might be able to do this in the x,y system somehow down to hexside level. I don't know how you go finer than that without eating a lot of RAM.

- Or, forget about that and just assume that all the mine fields are within a certain distance of the base, but otherwise randomly distributed. If a TF is within that distance is has a certain (pretty small) chance to encounter a mine field. Maybe, if 'at' that range the chance begins to climb above zero and gets greater and greater the closer to the base the TF is set to bombard.

As the player has no control lower than 1-hex except in this one case with the bombardment spinner they could do this. If Michael got into the guts when he did the spinner in the patch. Just, say, make an assumption that fields have X percent chance to exist at the max of the spinner (30K?) and increase to X+Y at 1000 yards. This would give the result many say they think they see with more mine hits closer in. But it wouldn't be "real" in any way, as it would toss out real tactical mine usage, as well as azimuth and terrain. But it would, in the abstract nature of the game, penalize the bombarding player's choice to get better chances at damage by going in closer.

- Or even take the previous point and substitute 'mines' in place of 'mine fields'.

Now, the above is just to illustrate that they can (and they obviously do) easily handle this without worrying at all about tracking the exact position within the hex of any TF, ship, mine field, or mine - or for that matter, even the base. I have NOT inferred that they are doing things as noted in the example, it is strictly a made up example to illustrate the point. It is obvious from the narrative you quoted that they have a much more involved implementation, which is exactly what one would expect given the depth of the rest of the game.

I agree. I'd love to know as an exercise how they did what they did. But failing that I'd like a yes/no from a dev that mines hit more close in on bombardment missions. It might be in the archives, but I can't find it.



< Message edited by Bullwinkle58 -- 2/4/2014 8:05:54 PM >

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 3552
RE: Battle for Korea - 2/5/2014 5:21:11 AM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 8262
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline 		26th-27th May -45
______________________________________________________________________________

I think things will get quite interesting around Korea in the coming days.

------------------------
Korea
------------------------
Erik manages to actually shut down Moppo after no less then 3 Night bombardments by all the remaining BBs. My Minelayers get into the thick of it again but fares a little worse today. Luckily they didn´t run into any of the big boys.

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Time Surface Combat, near Moppo at 100,54, Range 18,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
E Kanawa, Shell hits 10, and is sunk
E Shiga, Shell hits 23, and is sunk
E Amami, Shell hits 24, and is sunk
E Hodaka, Shell hits 23, and is sunk

Allied Ships
DM Gamble, Shell hits 2, on fire
DM Montgomery, Shell hits 1, on fire
DM Ramsay
DM Tracy, Shell hits 2
DM Robert H. Smith
DM Harry F. Bauer, Shell hits 1


None are in danger of sinking and this time they did drop their mines. 780 mines are now in place.

Erik is basically running amok in the area. But now I´m in position so its time to try and do something about that. I´ve "retooled" the navy a bit shedding most of the CAs and CL to create more DD TFs. Against Eriks BBs I´m better off using DDs only. Many on the forum talk about how powerful the modern US CAs are. I have not seen that in this game getting 4 of them blasted (3 sunk) against a single Kongo.

It looks like we the opposition consists of the following ships:

BB TF1:
Yamato
Musashi
+3 DDs

BB TF 2:
Ise
Fuso
Hyuga
Yamashiro
+4 DDs

CA TF:
Mikuna, Nachi, Maya
+ unknown amount of DDs

CL TF 1:
CL Sakawa
CL Kiso
+2 DDs

By the looks of it Erik is badly lacking DDs. I´m not happy with the situation right now. Moppo is closed as mentioned and while I was certain the sheer number of Engineers would keep the field open I did not take into account the disruption caused to those troops. Its now up in the 80s so I very much doubt they will repair anything for a couple of days. Same goes for the AS that is so disrupted now they stopped repairing the damaged planes. I´m so temped to use Eriks "disbanding trick" right now.

I guess I got a day of peace and quiet for now while Erik reloads the BBs. The air force didn´t show up today either. He probably have them all on Naval attack for now. Recon has found 2500 bombers in the area. They have withdrawn a bit farther east though.

------------------------
China
------------------------
At least things go as planned here. The main army has arrived in position so the CMA will race North to block the 3 IDs coming from Changsha.

We also clear the roadblock to the North.

quote:


Ground combat at Tuyun (74,51)

Allied Deliberate attack

Attacking force 65311 troops, 788 guns, 162 vehicles, Assault Value = 2586

Defending force 5477 troops, 74 guns, 13 vehicles, Assault Value = 89

Allied engineers reduce fortifications to 3

Allied adjusted assault: 1712

Japanese adjusted defense: 154

Allied assault odds: 11 to 1 (fort level 3)

Allied forces CAPTURE Tuyun !!!

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), preparation(-), supply(-)
Attacker:

Japanese ground losses:
2491 casualties reported
Squads: 61 destroyed, 24 disabled
Non Combat: 195 destroyed, 17 disabled
Engineers: 18 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 63 (60 destroyed, 3 disabled)
Vehicles lost 17 (17 destroyed, 0 disabled)
Units retreated 4

Allied ground losses:
264 casualties reported
Squads: 3 destroyed, 19 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled


First attack at Hong Kong. Forts will take a couple of days to wear down.

quote:

Ground combat at Hong Kong (77,61)

Allied Deliberate attack

Attacking force 84265 troops, 1588 guns, 1530 vehicles, Assault Value = 2634

Defending force 15516 troops, 144 guns, 80 vehicles, Assault Value = 352

Allied engineers reduce fortifications to 5

Allied adjusted assault: 1580

Japanese adjusted defense: 1581

Allied assault odds: 1 to 2 (fort level 5)

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), forts(+), leaders(+), preparation(-)
experience(-)
Attacker:

Japanese ground losses:
1743 casualties reported
Squads: 7 destroyed, 113 disabled
Non Combat: 17 destroyed, 52 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 24 disabled
Guns lost 30 (8 destroyed, 22 disabled)

Allied ground losses:
1009 casualties reported
Squads: 2 destroyed, 89 disabled
Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 16 disabled
Engineers: 5 destroyed, 47 disabled
Guns lost 7 (1 destroyed, 6 disabled)
Vehicles lost 6 (1 destroyed, 5 disabled)


------------------------
Stratbombing
------------------------
The losses from the 4E strike are brutal. I lose 50 B29s and 25 B24. Ouch. Going in low meant flak was deadly and at Tsu I hit the balloons as well. But all the factories are blown up!

Stupidly though I forgot to turn off a bunch of bombers that got blasted the following day costing me further 20 losses.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 3553
RE: Battle for Korea - 2/5/2014 7:08:50 AM   
CaptBeefheart


Posts: 2301
Joined: 7/4/2003
From: Seoul, Korea
Status: offline 		Wow, this is some interesting stuff going on. The Koreans will be happy that you decided to liberate their country before invading Japan proper . I don't really know what to tell you, other than layering several DD and PT TFs at Moppo and hoping his BBs slow down enough for your CV aircraft to hit them hard during daylight. Of course, you probably figured that out.

Bullwinkle: Any chance we'll see your fine AAR soon? That was a monument to concision and clarity.

Cheers,
CC


_____________________________

Beer, because barley makes lousy bread.

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 3554
RE: Battle for Korea - 2/5/2014 7:28:10 AM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 8262
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline 		CC,

That is the plan!

(in reply to CaptBeefheart)
Post #: 3555
RE: Battle for Korea - 2/5/2014 7:43:26 AM   
CaptBeefheart


Posts: 2301
Joined: 7/4/2003
From: Seoul, Korea
Status: offline 		Also, you might consider using those big piles of FM-2s and F6F-3s flown by mediocre pilots as escort fodder for your SBDs and TBFs.

Cheers,
CC

_____________________________

Beer, because barley makes lousy bread.

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 3556
RE: Battle for Korea - 2/5/2014 7:55:08 AM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 8262
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Commander Cody

Also, you might consider using those big piles of FM-2s and F6F-3s flown by mediocre pilots as escort fodder for your SBDs and TBFs.

Cheers,
CC


I would if I had any rooms for more squadrons somewhere. Thats the biggest reason I wanted Moppo. I need a level 9 AF somewhere. The Okinawas is packed to the rafters!

(in reply to CaptBeefheart)
Post #: 3557
RE: Battle for Korea - 2/5/2014 12:57:07 PM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 8262
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline 		Trap is set
______________________________________________________________________________

So the trap is set for tomorrow. It will be a low risk operation using low value assets. I brought some toys with my fleet. Namely 48 new PT boats all fueled an ready. The should arrive during the night.

As Eriks BBs will have to reload I´ll use the opportunity to hunt some of the gazillion "Es" and PBs in the area. This is just a small test to get a "feel" for how things are. I´m using small 4 ship DE TFs. I´ve mixed them up a bit so each TF has at least on DE with a 5 inch guns. We will see how they do against the "Es". The DMs 4 inch guns was enough to blast them so I hope this will work.

To hedge the bet I also sent in 2 Fletcher TFs under Moosebrugger and Burke. For now I´ll keep the rest of the navy back. While I don´t fear Eriks BBs I do fear getting stuck somewhere outside my CV umbrella. With 2500 bombers in the area that would mean certain doom. I will commit eventually. But I´m waiting for that right moment.

------------------------
Air war
------------------------
Tomorrow I´ll move in a brand new unused Air Fleet that has been sitting on Luzon. These are good bunch. 360 Corsairs and 225 P47-25s. All over 70 EXP. I´ve now banned use of any fighter pilot below 70EXP on the front line.

From now on there will be sweeps over the HI and Kyushu every day. No letting up from now on. I´m going to box Erik in over his major bases leaving all the smaller bases empty for the bombers. He is relying almost exclusively on "bleeding CAP" to protect smaller bases. These can be swept with very good results. He can´t cover everything well. I´ll just punch where he is weak.

It will be a couple of days before the bombers can go in again. I´m still clearing space on the Okinawa. A more offensive stance means I can lower CAP numbers and give me a bigger punch. Tomorrow around 200 Fighters will Sweep targets on Kyushu.

Have to say I havn´t enjoyed this game this much since I was fighting in New Guinea. Glad Erik found some fighting spirit again! While I´m not convinced what he is doing in Korea is the right call it is working for him right now. Will be interesting to see how long it holds. I´ll try to make it short lived!

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 3558
RE: Battle for Korea - 2/5/2014 2:14:54 PM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 8262
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline 		Naval battles 28th of May
______________________________________________________________________________

Went almost as expected. My TFs clear out a big amount of smaller shipping but run into the Yamatos! Sadly me Fletcher has expended most of their TTs on lesser targets. Havn´t gotten the turn file back so these are estimates:

Allied losses
7 DDs confirmed. Two after retreating EAST() into naval air.
2 DEs possible (heavy damage)

All these losses suffered against the Yamato TF involving both allied DD TFs.

Japanese losses: (I count anything with heavy fire/ heavy damage as sunk)
4 DDs
14 "Es"
13 PB
4 SCs

Not a great haul but I need to clear out this gazillion Japanese TFs. The yet again idiotic retreat due EAST that has cost me so much already rears its ugly head again. I bet this is because of the myriad of TFs all around messing up the retreat routine. I won´t risk losing more ships to it.

Oddly enough the Yamatos didn´t bombard. Perhaps they ran out of ammo before reaching Moppo Erik forgot to switch them from SCTF to Bombardment. God knows I have done that a million times.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 3559
RE: Battle for Korea - 2/5/2014 2:27:04 PM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 8262
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline 		So now Erik knows I´m in place and I´m going to fight back. The question is: When do I show my hand? When do I send in the big guns? Admittedly I have very little experience in Surface combat.

My main worry being to get "stranded" within naval air outside my CV CAP.



< Message edited by JocMeister -- 2/5/2014 3:41:20 PM >

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 3560
RE: Battle for Korea - 2/5/2014 2:28:27 PM   
ny59giants


Posts: 9869
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline 		Can you aerial mine the ports that Erik is using to base his BBs from??

If not those, then how about from Pusan over to Japan?? There are only three hexes that would be needed.

_____________________________


(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 3561
RE: Battle for Korea - 2/5/2014 2:29:20 PM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 8262
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

Can you aerial mine the ports that Erik is using to base his BBs from??

If not those, then how about from Pusan over to Japan?? There are only three hexes that would be needed.


They were set to do that this turn but didn´t fly! Not sure if I´m out of mines or if it was the weather!

(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 3562
RE: Battle for Korea - 2/5/2014 4:21:36 PM   
jeffk3510


Posts: 4132
Joined: 12/3/2007
From: Kansas
Status: offline 		The Yamatos were probably on Bombardment, but they will switch to a SAG when they run into other SAGs. Once this is over,
they revert back to bombardment, and try and proceed to their target taking into account ammo and opps. SAGs will retreat
once their ammo is low and they feel the opposition is overwhelming in the destination hex/area. This is stated in the manual.

How many DDs did you have in the taskforce taking on the Yamato?

I am NO expert by any means, but I would like to see how 6 Fletchers take on that task force of Yamatos vs say 12-15 in one SAG...



< Message edited by jeffk3510 -- 2/5/2014 5:25:14 PM >

_____________________________

Life is tough. The sooner you realize that, the easier it will be.

Currently chasing three kids around the Midwest.

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 3563
RE: Battle for Korea - 2/5/2014 5:24:27 PM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 8262
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline 		12 DDs! That battle was lost before it began since the DDs had spent all their TTs at DEs/PBs before running into the Yamatos. Still, I did sink 4 DDs. And going by Eriks TF composition he is scraping the barrel now.

He often has more capital ships then DDs. Last time the Yamatos went in the TF only had 3 DDs. And the CL TF he is operating just have one DD in it. If it wasn´t for the fact that each and every sub of mine is slammed with 10/10 DL I think I would get loads of shots in.

(in reply to jeffk3510)
Post #: 3564
RE: Battle for Korea - 2/5/2014 5:27:00 PM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 8262
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline 		Turn is back. Now I just have to decide what to do tomorrow...

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 3565
RE: Battle for Korea - 2/5/2014 6:44:02 PM   
jeffk3510


Posts: 4132
Joined: 12/3/2007
From: Kansas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

12 DDs! That battle was lost before it began since the DDs had spent all their TTs at DEs/PBs before running into the Yamatos. Still, I did sink 4 DDs. And going by Eriks TF composition he is scraping the barrel now.

He often has more capital ships then DDs. Last time the Yamatos went in the TF only had 3 DDs. And the CL TF he is operating just have one DD in it. If it wasn´t for the fact that each and every sub of mine is slammed with 10/10 DL I think I would get loads of shots in.


Sounds like he IS scraping the bottom of the barrel for escorts as you mention.. yikes.

Really looking forward to each update you have.

_____________________________

Life is tough. The sooner you realize that, the easier it will be.

Currently chasing three kids around the Midwest.

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 3566
RE: Battle for Korea - 2/6/2014 5:39:15 AM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 8262
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline 		28th-29th May -45
______________________________________________________________________________

Pretty decent two days.

------------------------
Korea
------------------------
I´ve already outlined what happened in the waters here on the 28th. While not a stellar result Erik will eventually run out of ships. For the 29th I decided not to do anything. I wanted to get a better feel for Eriks agenda here and see what he did. Moppo is closed anyway and will likely be so for a while. Patience.. Erik has to keep Moppo closed. I can work with that.

I also wanted to shift my CVs a bit south to meet up with some reinforcements. 280 CV planes, 12 CLs and about 40 DDs are coming up from Naha. They also bring with them the assault troops for Kaishu in case I get an opening to dash North. With 4000 AV on board I will have to play this carefully.

Erik did send in his slower BBs and the 3 CA (still escorted by a lone DD) on the 29th. They brushed aside the new PTs and plastered the base again. But not without casualties. One of Eriks precious DDs hit a mine at Moppo and is later sunk by CV air.

I finally get some much awaited result from the myriad of subs working in the area. Not sure it has been worth the 10 or so subs lost so far. A good result none the less!

quote:

ASW attack near Masan at 101,55

Japanese Ships
BB Yamashiro, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
BB Ise
BB Fuso
DD Kiyoshimo
DD Ikazuchi
DD Yamakaze

Allied Ships
SS Carp, hits 11, heavy damage


She is definitively out for the rest of the war.

KB is spotted on the 28th far North in the Sea of Japan. Probably wary of a landing further up the Yellow Sea. This makes a possible landing a bit dicey. But I´ll see if I can get him to over extend in the south. I have an empty 15 ship Amphib TF with damaged APAs and AKAs with my CVs. I might be able to fake a landing at Moppo drawing the KB south.

Tomorrow I´ll send in some smaller TFs to try and clear out more of those Es and PBs. At least looks like they are starting to thin out.

------------------------
China
------------------------
Things are continuing on track here. My bombers continue to stay grounded though. Both flying from Saigon and Canton. Annoying but on the 29th the 4Es take of at last.

quote:

Morning Air attack on 7th Mongol Cavalry Division, at 82,54 (Pingsiang)

Weather in hex: Thunderstorms

Raid spotted at 20 NM, estimated altitude 9,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 6 minutes

Allied aircraft
Liberator B.VI x 18
Liberator GR.VI x 9
B-24J Liberator x 5
B-17E Fortress x 4
B-17F Fortress x 5
B-24D Liberator x 4
B-24D1 Liberator x 20
B-24J Liberator x 78
PB4Y-1 Liberator x 7

Allied aircraft losses
Liberator B.VI: 1 damaged
Liberator GR.VI: 1 damaged
B-17E Fortress: 1 damaged
B-17F Fortress: 3 damaged
B-24D1 Liberator: 5 damaged
B-24J Liberator: 15 damaged

Japanese ground losses:
560 casualties reported
Squads: 30 destroyed, 21 disabled
Non Combat: 25 destroyed, 20 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 8 (5 destroyed, 3 disabled)


Mongol Cavalry division?! Have to check that unit but it sounds like crap. Erik do have 3 other IDs coming down from Changsha that merged with the cavalry this turn. I´m still very optimistic I can cut the Canton stack off. I have the CMA + an OZ reinforced Corp moving in to seal the way out. The easily brush aside a Brigade in the clear East of the Canton stack.

quote:

Ground combat at 82,55 (near Pingsiang)

Allied Deliberate attack

Attacking force 36799 troops, 668 guns, 1975 vehicles, Assault Value = 2829

Defending force 3267 troops, 15 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 87

Allied adjusted assault: 1514

Japanese adjusted defense: 1

Allied assault odds: 1514 to 1

Combat modifiers
Defender: leaders(+), disruption(-), experience(-), supply(-)
Attacker:

Japanese ground losses:
3626 casualties reported
Squads: 103 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 172 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 3 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 18 (18 destroyed, 0 disabled)
Units destroyed 1

Allied ground losses:
38 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 4 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 3 disabled
Engineers: 1 destroyed, 1 disabled



At Hong Kong the second attack goes better then expected!

quote:

Ground combat at Hong Kong (77,61)

Allied Deliberate attack

Attacking force 83869 troops, 1588 guns, 1530 vehicles, Assault Value = 2572

Defending force 14300 troops, 138 guns, 80 vehicles, Assault Value = 251

Allied engineers reduce fortifications to 4

Allied adjusted assault: 1656

Japanese adjusted defense: 2281

Allied assault odds: 1 to 2 (fort level 4)

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), forts(+), leaders(+), supply(-)
Attacker:

Japanese ground losses:
1905 casualties reported
Squads: 30 destroyed, 115 disabled
Non Combat: 10 destroyed, 38 disabled
Engineers: 8 destroyed, 25 disabled
Guns lost 28 (8 destroyed, 20 disabled)

Allied ground losses:
729 casualties reported
Squads: 2 destroyed, 68 disabled
Non Combat: 4 destroyed, 20 disabled
Engineers: 2 destroyed, 55 disabled
Vehicles lost 6 (1 destroyed, 5 disabled)


------------------------
DEI
------------------------
Not sure what happened here. A small barge TF went astray and ended up within Eriks Jakes flying from Singapore. Lost some barges and some troops.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by JocMeister -- 2/6/2014 6:39:40 AM >

(in reply to jeffk3510)
Post #: 3567
RE: Battle for Korea - 2/6/2014 5:57:15 AM   
FeurerKrieg


Posts: 3397
Joined: 6/15/2005
From: Denver, CO
Status: offline
quote:

Mongol Cavalry division?! Have to check that unit but it sounds like crap.


There are a few Mongol Cav units that are under Chinese Command. Also, does your HR not allow Kwangtung units to be bought out with PP's?

_____________________________


Upper portion used with permission of www.subart.net, copyright John Meeks

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 3568
RE: Battle for Korea - 2/6/2014 5:57:45 AM   
koniu


Posts: 2763
Joined: 2/28/2011
From: Konin, Poland, European Union
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister
Mongol Cavalry division?! Have to check that unit but it sounds like crap.


There was time when they conquer half of world. But now they lack of firepower






Attachment (1)

_____________________________

"Only the Dead Have Seen the End of War"

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 3569
RE: Battle for Korea - 2/6/2014 6:32:06 AM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 8262
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Feurer Krieg

quote:

Mongol Cavalry division?! Have to check that unit but it sounds like crap.


There are a few Mongol Cav units that are under Chinese Command. Also, does your HR not allow Kwangtung units to be bought out with PP's?


Yes absolutely. I wasn´t implying something was awry. Just expressing a feeling that a Mongol Cavalry division might be...quite useless. Turns out I was right. I guess Erik bought them out to use for garrison duty! Calling this a division is stretching it though!


quote:

ORIGINAL: koniu


quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister
Mongol Cavalry division?! Have to check that unit but it sounds like crap.


There was time when they conquer half of world. But now they lack of firepower





Turns out their TOE is about the same now as it was then!






Attachment (1)

(in reply to FeurerKrieg)
Post #: 3570
Page:   <<   < prev  117 118 [119] 120 121   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: Battle for Korea Page: <<   < prev  117 118 [119] 120 121   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

0.891