New player drowning in the Coral Sea

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

New player drowning in the Coral Sea

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 >> New player drowning in the Coral Sea

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

New player drowning in the Coral Sea - 1/10/2015 7:09:52 PM

jwolf

Posts: 2493
Joined: 12/3/2013
Status: offline

Following recommendations from an earlier recent thread, I have experimented a bit playing the Allies in the Coral Sea scenario, enough that now I have some questions. Not in any particular logical order, here they are:

1. Aside from better ships, planes, crews, etc as I expected, the Japanese recon also appears to be vastly superior to Allied. At least at this stage of the war, their recon seems near perfect while mine as Allied is ... substantially less than perfect. Is this an accurate perception of relative abilities of the two sides?

2. How do you stop the Japanese from unloading their army at Port Moresby? In one game, I had the Lexington waiting for them and they didn't attack during the unloading turn, but then bombed the hell out of them the next turn. Ultimately the vast majority of their AK and AKLs were wiped out, but not before they put their troops ashore. Why didn't Lex attack the previous turn? There had already been a ship to shore battery exchange, so it wasn't exactly a secret that Japanese ships were there.

3. General observation: it seems the Japanese have a LOT more fighters in this theater than the Allies. Consequently, the Allied CVs have only a narrow window of time during which they can operate reasonably. Once there has been some fighter attrition on both sides, if the Lex and York stick around then things get ugly really fast. I assume this imbalance is just part of life for 1942 action. Correct?

4. Port Moresby seems to be just about undefendable for the Allies. They don't have any additional land units they can move there, and potential air support from Australia is out of range. So only the carriers can support them, but not for long and their planes aren't really for ground support anyway.

5. In one game there was a carrier exchange that worked out in my favor, by luck, sort of like the historical Midway. Their two carriers attacked the Lex and wiped it out (well, technically it didn't sink until the next day). Meanwhile the Yorktown attacked them and damaged them very badly; both of their CVs sank a day or two later. Now my question about this exchange is the tactical deployment. Their CVs were together in one hex, while mine were split in neighboring hexes. If I had had the Lex and York together, my bet is that they both would have been wiped out in the Japanese attack. So I am wondering what is the better way to deploy a small group of carriers like this: together in one TF, or split but nearby?

6. The ground combat appears to be very mysterious to me. I am used to WITE with battles that are of course much larger in scale, but also more straightforward or so it seems to me. When the Japanese land at Port Moresby, their ground troops outnumber the Allied defenders by about 4-1 or even 5-1. In one game, they promptly took the base, while in another, they seemed to be stalled with ineffective attacks that just didn't get them anywhere. Very small sample size of course; I know it's reckless to try to draw some kind of conclusion. I wish they had a small scenario just focused on land war in China or Burma where I could get some sort of feel for what is typical.

7. Finally, I have a question of strategic perspective. In my first game, the Japanese successfully took Port Moresby, thereby winning the scenario, though at a high cost in lost ships. They lost 20, essentially nearly all of their cargo ships in this scenario. But they didn't lose any really valuable ships. Specifically, they lost AKx12, AKLx3, APDx2, and one each of PB, CM, and AMc. Now let's imagine that all of this -- gaining Port Moresby but losing those ships -- is part of a larger campaign. Is that a net plus or a net minus to Japan? Is the base worth the loss of the ships?

Post #: 1

RE: New player drowning in the Coral Sea - 1/10/2015 7:51:10 PM

Yaab

Posts: 4552
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poland
Status: offline

ad.4. You should have some spare fighters in Australia. Move them to Townsville, enable drop tanks and fly them to Port Moresby.

(in reply to jwolf)

Post #: 2

RE: New player drowning in the Coral Sea - 1/10/2015 8:47:59 PM

alimentary

Posts: 142
Joined: 3/22/2010
Status: offline

If you look at the victory conditions, the game is won or lost on whether Port Moresby changes hands.

As you point out, if the Japanese get ashore, you are doomed. You don't have time to get reinforcements in place. Air to ground attacks will not turn the tide on the land battle. The only reasonable way to defend Port Moresby is to rough up the enemy amphibious fleet or to prevent them from unloading. A surface engagement can succeed in both goals. An air attack can also succeed. So your goal is clear.

Note that killing his carriers is secondary. Having your carriers survive is also secondary. Remember the mission.

You know where his amphibious fleet must go. Position yourself so that you can intervene and so that you can survive to intervene. Consider consolidating your carriers into a single fleet to better defend against possible air attack. Adjust your search arcs and your bomber range settings to try to ensure that your alpha strike goes on the enemy amphibious fleet and is not wasted on the enemy carriers.

If he fails to take Port Moresby but succeeds in taking out both of your carriers, he can eke out a minor victory. So you need to be ready to run away the moment the enemy amphibious fleet is adequately compromised.

You have a ton of highly skilled pilots in your U.S. Army reserve pools. You have relatively unskilled pilots in your active-duty squadrons. Trade them out. You have fighter squadrons defending backwater bases that, if attacked, will earn no victory points for the enemy. Put those planes to good use. Transfer them to Port Moresby. If you put them on CAP at range zero, they can do some damage against any incoming raids. And they may be able to escort the eventual naval attacks that you expect to launch against the enemy amphibious fleet.

< Message edited by alimentary -- 1/10/2015 9:52:38 PM >

(in reply to jwolf)

Post #: 3

RE: New player drowning in the Coral Sea - 1/10/2015 9:26:43 PM

geofflambert

Posts: 14863
Joined: 12/23/2010
From: St. Louis
Status: offline

If you're playing against the AI, it cheats. It has to against a human to have any balance. Ambush the invasion fleet as happened historically, then hightail it out of there. Because you can't exit the map Zuikaku and Shokaku will likely track you down. But the IJN was stupid in this case, not leading with their carriers. Just stop the invasion then hope for the best when you engage his carriers. On another note, although Zui and Sho were excellent carriers, they were not superior to any US carriers save maybe Wasp. Also the Wildcats, in my view, were the best fighters the US had at that time, including land based. The Dauntless and the Avenger (I don't remember if they're there in this battle) are quite good. Training might be an issue, but not by any overwhelming margin.

If you're play testing against the AI, stop it. Play head to head and run both sides if you want to learn quickly.

(in reply to alimentary)

Post #: 4

RE: New player drowning in the Coral Sea - 1/11/2015 12:47:01 AM

zuluhour

Posts: 5244
Joined: 1/20/2011
From: Maryland
Status: offline

"If you're play testing against the AI, stop it. Play head to head and run both sides if you want to learn quickly. "

Yo Lizard, that was golden.

(in reply to geofflambert)

Post #: 5

RE: New player drowning in the Coral Sea - 1/11/2015 2:21:11 AM

jwolf

Posts: 2493
Joined: 12/3/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

Ambush the invasion fleet as happened historically, then hightail it out of there.

Yeah, I just finished a run of this scenario where I did exactly that. I was finally able to sink his transports before they unloaded, so the intended invasion ground force was completely lost at sea. Prior to that I did transfer the two groups of Hurricanes from Australia to Port Moresby and they helped somewhat with my carrier strikes against the CAP from the Zeros.

By that time the risk of ground invasion was cleared but I had lost several of my Wildcats, so from that point I played defensively with my carriers, trying to keep them well away from any hot spots. Then the air balance of power near Port Moresby went decisively to the Japanese; from then on they hammered the air base mercilessly from Rabaul and Lae. Eventually I had to pull out any plane that could still fly. If I imagined this scenario as part of a longer, continuing campaign I really don't know how I could maintain a force at Port Moresby as the Allies did historically.

I agree the Dauntless is very effective -- as long as the Zeros don't shoot them down first.

Side note: when there is air to air combat, the detailed play by play in the animation always shows far greater losses and damage than the combat summary -- unless all those planes which leave trailing smoke magically become intact upon landing.

(in reply to geofflambert)

Post #: 6

RE: New player drowning in the Coral Sea - 1/11/2015 2:27:57 AM

pontiouspilot

Posts: 1127
Joined: 7/27/2012
Status: offline

I have never played a mini scenario so my comment may not apply. In the "full meal deal" the single most important unit to have paid pol pts for and get moved to Pt M is one of the Aussie coastal artillery units. This saved Pt M in 1 game and delayed a Rabaul takeover for 5 weeks in another. In the latter they were backed up by less than 75 AV.

(in reply to zuluhour)

Post #: 7

RE: New player drowning in the Coral Sea - 1/11/2015 3:20:41 AM

Malagant

Posts: 372
Joined: 3/13/2004
Status: offline

Jwolf, your experiences mirror mine in learning with Coral Sea.

In my limited GC experience, and based on reading of a few AARs, if the Empire wants to take PM there's very little the Allies can do to stop them. They may make it more costly and/or slow it down a bit, but the Empire can do pretty much whatever it wants for awhile.

_____________________________

"La Garde meurt, elle ne se rend pas!"

(in reply to pontiouspilot)

Post #: 8

RE: New player drowning in the Coral Sea - 1/11/2015 10:46:35 PM

jwolf

Posts: 2493
Joined: 12/3/2013
Status: offline

Today I tried playing the Coral Sea scenario from the Japanese side, and I have correspondingly some questions.

1. In two separate games I hit the Lexington badly, but at the end of the game it was listed neither as sunk nor in the list of ships on the Allied side. Instead, it was listed as a "reinforcement" to come in 1944 or even 1945! So was it sunk? Or just severely damaged but survived? And it appears I didn't get any points for it.

2. Why does a task force not stay where I put it? Instead, often it will withdraw toward its home port even though the ships have plenty of fuel and insignificant damage, if any at all. Worst of all is when the TF abandons the mission I set for it and moves for a port far away, thereby blundering into an enemy carrier attack.

How do you stop this?

3. How long does it take for an amphibious group to unload everything? In the one game in which I actually successfully captured Port Moresby, the cargo ships still hadn't finished unloading at the end of the game.

(in reply to Malagant)

Post #: 9

RE: New player drowning in the Coral Sea - 1/12/2015 2:51:28 AM

msieving1

Posts: 526
Joined: 3/23/2007
From: Missouri
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwolf

Today I tried playing the Coral Sea scenario from the Japanese side, and I have correspondingly some questions.

1. In two separate games I hit the Lexington badly, but at the end of the game it was listed neither as sunk nor in the list of ships on the Allied side. Instead, it was listed as a "reinforcement" to come in 1944 or even 1945! So was it sunk? Or just severely damaged but survived? And it appears I didn't get any points for it.

Probably Fog of War. If you're playing against the computer you can turn off Fog of War in the game preferences. If you're playing as the Japanese I don't know how you could be seeing Allied reinforcements, and in a short scenario like this there aren't any reinforcements to begin with.

If you didn't get any points for Lexington, you probably didn't sink her.

quote:

2. Why does a task force not stay where I put it? Instead, often it will withdraw toward its home port even though the ships have plenty of fuel and insignificant damage, if any at all. Worst of all is when the TF abandons the mission I set for it and moves for a port far away, thereby blundering into an enemy carrier attack. How do you stop this?

Well, the first question I'd have to ask is, did you set the TF to "Do Not Retire"? If not, then the task force will retire to its home port as soon as it has completed its mission. For a combat TF, that means it will go to its destination, then immediately return to its home port, unless you set a patrol area or "Do Not Retire". Then again, sometimes a task force will abandon its mission, depending on the type of TF, the mission, opposing forces, the TF leader, etc. A transport TF will generally not move into a hex where an opposing surface combat TF has been spotted. You can increase the odds of a TF going ahead against opposition by assigning an aggressive leader to the TF. On the other hand, if you assign an aggressive leader to a combat TF, the TF may go charging after an enemy force instead of staying where you wanted it.

quote:

3. How long does it take for an amphibious group to unload everything? In the one game in which I actually successfully captured Port Moresby, the cargo ships still hadn't finished unloading at the end of the game.

Depends on the type of TF, the type of ships in the TF and how much it needs to unload. Dedicated amphibious ships in an amphibious TF will be the fastest to unload at an unfriendly base, though not necessarily at a friendly base. The details are discussed in the manual. Since the Japanese have precious few dedicated amphibious ships it may take several days to unload completely, and if the unloading port is too small, some devices may not unload at all.

Even so, I think the game may underestimate the time needed to unload ships. I recall a message Admiral Halsey received from COMINCH, complaining that it was taking three weeks to unload ships at Noumea, while the same ships only required three days to unload at San Francisco. Halsey replied back that if were given the port facilities of San Francisco, he would have ships unloading in two days. The lesson, though, is that even at a major port, unloading cargo ships took multiple days. This was before the days of container ships or roll-on/roll-off when ships could be unloaded over night.

_____________________________

-- Mark Sieving

(in reply to jwolf)

Post #: 10

RE: New player drowning in the Coral Sea - 1/12/2015 1:53:10 PM

jwolf

Posts: 2493
Joined: 12/3/2013
Status: offline

Thanks, the "do not retire" sounds likely to be the answer. I'll check it out tonight at home. Rookie player making rookie mistakes.

Edit: regarding my query (1) about the Lexington, I saw the info from the Allied side at the end of the game, when you can see everything from both sides. During the game there were only various reports of dubious accuracy.

< Message edited by jwolf -- 1/12/2015 2:55:35 PM >

(in reply to msieving1)

Post #: 11

RE: New player drowning in the Coral Sea - 1/13/2015 2:27:23 AM

geofflambert

Posts: 14863
Joined: 12/23/2010
From: St. Louis
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pontiouspilot

I have never played a mini scenario so my comment may not apply. In the "full meal deal" the single most important unit to have paid pol pts for and get moved to Pt M is one of the Aussie coastal artillery units. This saved Pt M in 1 game and delayed a Rabaul takeover for 5 weeks in another. In the latter they were backed up by less than 75 AV.

You're right, this has nothing to do with the short scenario, but there's some CD (US I believe)units on ships near Fiji. I always redirected those to PM, and most of the time they made it.

(in reply to pontiouspilot)

Post #: 12

RE: New player drowning in the Coral Sea - 1/26/2015 6:04:04 AM

Remenents

Posts: 176
Joined: 5/12/2007
Status: offline

Hmm, not sure why, but played this 2 days ago to "refresh" on how the game works (been over 2 years since I played) and I didn't have an issue. I managed to stop their landing force and sink their 3 carriers and only taking damage to Lex (had it been main campaign, she would have survived with a long trek back to base for seriously long repairs). I read this post and played again today and managed similar results, but Lex was sunk. Maybe I just had seriously good die rolls? I'm not sure.

_____________________________

Avenge the U.S.S. Houston (CA 30)

(in reply to geofflambert)

Post #: 13

RE: New player drowning in the Coral Sea - 5/27/2015 11:38:57 PM

Strike Eagle

Posts: 75
Joined: 8/18/2014
From: United States
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

If you're playing against the AI, it cheats. It has to against a human to have any balance. Ambush the invasion fleet as happened historically, then hightail it out of there. Because you can't exit the map Zuikaku and Shokaku will likely track you down. But the IJN was stupid in this case, not leading with their carriers. Just stop the invasion then hope for the best when you engage his carriers. On another note, although Zui and Sho were excellent carriers, they were not superior to any US carriers save maybe Wasp. Also the Wildcats, in my view, were the best fighters the US had at that time, including land based. The Dauntless and the Avenger (I don't remember if they're there in this battle) are quite good. Training might be an issue, but not by any overwhelming margin.

If you're play testing against the AI, stop it. Play head to head and run both sides if you want to learn quickly.

In one of my games against the AI in this scenario I managed to sink both Japanese CVs while not losing either of mine and stopped the invasion fleet, so I guess I cheated the cheating AI.

_____________________________

What counts is not necessarily the size of the dog in the fight-it's the size of the fight in the dog.

Dwight D. Eisenhower

(in reply to geofflambert)

Post #: 14

RE: New player drowning in the Coral Sea - 5/29/2015 12:38:13 AM

Dante Fierro

Posts: 330
Joined: 2/23/2012
From: Idaho Falls
Status: offline

I played Coral Sea today and the Japanese managed to sink the Yorktown a few hexes away from PM. I was able to inflict major damage to most of the invasion landing fleet as it entered PM, but that still did not stop the landing.

So once Yorktown was sunk, I turned the TF into a Surface Combat TF and went straight into PM the next turn.

So I get to PM, and I have 4CAs, and 4DDs not a scratch on them, commanded by RADM Fletcher,F. The TF immediately finds the IJN invasion fleet made up of bunch of heavily damaged xAKs and some AMcs and I think a destroyer. So I watch expecting Fletcher to make mince meat of the remaining transports.

What happens instead? The first thing Fletcher does is order a retreat. My surface fleet runs away from a heavily damaged transport/invasion fleet.

So, you tell me ...

< Message edited by Dante Fierro -- 5/29/2015 1:40:42 AM >

(in reply to Strike Eagle)

Post #: 15

RE: New player drowning in the Coral Sea - 5/29/2015 2:02:18 AM

Dante Fierro

Posts: 330
Joined: 2/23/2012
From: Idaho Falls
Status: offline

Here is a report via Combat Reporter of the surface engagement I described above. Notice
the Allied force attempts to evade first:

Night Time Surface Combat, near Port Moresby at 98,130, Range 26,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
CM Tsugaru
DMS W.20
AMc Fumi Maru #2
xAK Canberra Maru, on fire
xAK Kansai Maru
xAK Kagu Maru, heavy fires
xAK Asakaze Maru, heavy fires, heavy damage
xAK Tatumiya Maru
xAK Kamikaze Maru
xAK Sinsei Maru, heavy fires, heavy damage
xAK Ikushima Maru, heavy damage
xAK Kasuga Maru #2
xAK Aso Maru, heavy fires, heavy damage

Allied Ships
CA Portland
CA Chester
CA Chicago
CA Astoria
DD Anderson
DD Hammann
DD Morris
DD Perkins

Allied Ships Reported to be Approaching!
Japanese TF suspends unloading operations and begins to get underway
Allied Ships Reported to be Approaching!
Maximum visibility in Partly Cloudy Conditions and 32% moonlight: 11,000 yards
Range closes to 25,000 yards...
CONTACT: Allies radar detects Japanese task force at 25,000 yards
Range closes to 24,000 yards...
Range closes to 22,000 yards...
CONTACT: Allies radar detects Japanese task force at 22,000 yards
Range closes to 21,000 yards...
CONTACT: Allies radar detects Japanese task force at 21,000 yards
Range closes to 19,000 yards...
CONTACT: Allies radar detects Japanese task force at 19,000 yards
Range closes to 17,000 yards...
CONTACT: Allies radar detects Japanese task force at 17,000 yards
Range increases to 21,000 yards...
CONTACT: Allies radar detects Japanese task force at 21,000 yards
Range closes to 20,000 yards...
Range closes to 19,000 yards...
Range increases to 23,000 yards...
Range closes to 22,000 yards...
Range increases to 23,000 yards...
Range closes to 20,000 yards...
Range closes to 19,000 yards...
CONTACT: Allies radar detects Japanese task force at 19,000 yards
Range closes to 16,000 yards...
CONTACT: Allies radar detects Japanese task force at 16,000 yards
Range closes to 13,000 yards...
CONTACT: Allies radar detects Japanese task force at 13,000 yards
Range closes to 12,000 yards...
Range closes to 11,000 yards...
CONTACT: Allies radar detects Japanese task force at 11,000 yards
Allied TF attempts to evade combat
Range increases to 16,000 yards...
Range increases to 21,000 yards...
Range increases to 26,000 yards...
Range increases to 26,000 yards...
Range increases to 26,000 yards...
Both Task Forces evade combat

This really had me stumped. The only thing I thought of afterwards was maybe the Commander (Fletcher) withdrew
because he has a low Aggressive skill (in the 30s)? Or does the computer just total # of ships and base a decision
to withdraw off of that? It was quite a surprise. It ended up being decisive failure for me as the IJN invasion
force continued to land even more troops on the following turn, and then left the scene of the crime.

Although I just realized something I didn't before - the engagement was a night time engagement. Could that have made all the difference??

< Message edited by Dante Fierro -- 5/29/2015 3:03:00 AM >

(in reply to Dante Fierro)

Post #: 16

RE: New player drowning in the Coral Sea - 5/29/2015 2:08:11 AM

wdolson

Posts: 10398
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline

Are they low on ammo?

Bill

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to Dante Fierro)

Post #: 17

RE: New player drowning in the Coral Sea - 5/29/2015 2:21:42 AM

Numdydar

Posts: 3211
Joined: 2/13/2004
Status: offline

Afraid of the dark

(in reply to wdolson)

Post #: 18

RE: New player drowning in the Coral Sea - 5/29/2015 2:27:58 AM

Dante Fierro

Posts: 330
Joined: 2/23/2012
From: Idaho Falls
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

Are they low on ammo?

Bill

Hmm good question. Now I am looking at the ship panels and I assume the number in parenthesis is the maximum ammo (though I could not find a reference to what the parenthesis mean in the manual).

So:
CA Portland: 8in/55 14(14), 14(14) .... 5in/25 6(20), 7(20) AA Guns are almost full.
CA Chester: 8in/55 14(14), 14(14) .... 5in/25 6(20), 6(20) AA about 80%
CA Chicago: 8/in55 14(14), 14(14) .... 5in/25 9(20), 7(20) AA Guns about 80%
CA Astoria: 8/in55 14(14), 14(14) .... 5in/25 6(20), 7(20) AA Guns about 80%

So the CAs had full ammo in their 8 inchers, but were down to about 1/3rd with the 5 inchers.

The DDs also 5 inchers were at 1/3rd i.e. 5(16). A few even show up red on their ship panels with 2 or 3 left. But all the DDs which carry Torps have the full compliment.

So there is some depletion but should that be enough to make 4CAs and 4DDs runaway from mostly heavily damaged xAKs?

Especially given the 8 Inchers were full?

(in reply to wdolson)

Post #: 19

RE: New player drowning in the Coral Sea - 5/29/2015 2:29:55 AM

Dante Fierro

Posts: 330
Joined: 2/23/2012
From: Idaho Falls
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

Afraid of the dark

Maybe it was a combination of the dark, the 5 inchers only having a 1/3rd of ammo left, and a reluctant leader? heh

(in reply to Numdydar)

Post #: 20

RE: New player drowning in the Coral Sea - 5/29/2015 5:46:00 AM

LargeSlowTarget

Posts: 4443
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline

Maybe Fletcher thought that he needs to refuel his DDs?

_____________________________

AE Mod "Bottlenecks" UPDATED 01/2022

(in reply to Dante Fierro)

Post #: 21

RE: New player drowning in the Coral Sea - 5/29/2015 5:53:19 AM

Dante Fierro

Posts: 330
Joined: 2/23/2012
From: Idaho Falls
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

Maybe Fletcher thought that he needs to refuel his DDs?

I'm thinking there was a misplaced comma in some C++ function that made Fletcher run for the hills when he saw all those xAKs.

< Message edited by Dante Fierro -- 5/29/2015 6:58:32 AM >

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)

Post #: 22