RE: Avian aggression leads to murder most fowl

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: Avian aggression leads to murder most fowl - Sqz(A) vs. Chickenboy(J)

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: Avian aggression leads to murder most fowl - Sqz(A) vs. Chickenboy(J)

Page: << < prev 17 18 [19] 20 21 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Avian aggression leads to murder most fowl - Sqz(A)... - 9/8/2015 10:36:34 PM

SqzMyLemon

Posts: 4239
Joined: 10/30/2009
From: Alberta, Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: fcharton

Would you be able to bomb him? I'm asking this because the Chungking basin has a lot of clear terrain, in B17 or B24 range from Ledo.

Francois

Definitely. The only problem would be lack of fighter coverage. If I could get enough supply to Chengtu I could then base Allied fighters there.

_____________________________

Luck is the residue of design - John Milton

Don't mistake lack of talent for genius - Peter Steele (Type O Negative)

(in reply to fcharton)

Post #: 541

RE: Avian aggression leads to murder most fowl - Sqz(A)... - 9/8/2015 10:41:59 PM

SqzMyLemon

Posts: 4239
Joined: 10/30/2009
From: Alberta, Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: tiemanj

Be careful thinking you can get much supply into China.

Considering none is getting in right now, any amount will help.

Actually, I have had experience plunking Chinese units along the Burma/China border and they did draw supply. I believe if I can get enough supply forward to Dimapur, Jorhat and Ledo it will get to the Chinese. I'm confident I'll get the logistics in place to sustain the Chinese...somehow.

Your points are well taken though, and I will leave myself an out if supply does not reach the levels I hope for.

_____________________________

Luck is the residue of design - John Milton

Don't mistake lack of talent for genius - Peter Steele (Type O Negative)

(in reply to tiemanjw)

Post #: 542

RE: Avian aggression leads to murder most fowl - Sqz(A)... - 9/8/2015 11:19:08 PM

tiemanjw

Posts: 580
Joined: 12/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon

quote:

ORIGINAL: tiemanj

Be careful thinking you can get much supply into China.

Considering none is getting in right now, any amount will help.

Actually, I have had experience plunking Chinese units along the Burma/China border and they did draw supply. I believe if I can get enough supply forward to Dimapur, Jorhat and Ledo it will get to the Chinese. I'm confident I'll get the logistics in place to sustain the Chinese...somehow.

Your points are well taken though, and I will leave myself an out if supply does not reach the levels I hope for.

Units can draw supply directly from the bases as well, and they are not subject to the base minimum supply requirements. So if a valid path can be drawn, the units can get some direct. If you move your Chinese LCUs into the mountains, but within supply range of Ledo (or whatever), they should get some. I also don't think units are subject to the "max draw" limitations - just the number of times / week limits depending on the quality of the path.

That is just a lot of words to say, I think you can support the units on the border (assuming you pull them back) at survival levels. Being spread out in the mountains, I doubt he'll chase as it would take a considerable amount of force a looooong time.

I don't know what I think of the abandon Chungking plan. On one hand, if you can support the Chinese along the India / China border (and I suspect you can), you can deny him a lot of LCU VPs. On the other hand, it frees up a lot of his forces to go do other things. Chungking also has a lot of industry, which if left intact, would help out the Empire. I guess it really doesn't matter which you choose, so long as you understand what that choice means.
You claim to want to play the deep game! I'd argue that the LCU VPs lost to him are more valuable to you than the extra units (smaller VP denominator for him means 2x or 3x less VPs you need in '45 or '44). The deep game depends on controlling the seas, and there is little those LCUs can do to help with that. Just make sure you pay attention to you sigint when planning on operations so you can hit the week spots. 10k AV in Manila is useless if you land on Formosa!
It also leaves a thorn in his side. Over time, those units will slowly recover damaged devices, and probably even draw in a few more. Once you take Burma you can force feed supplies into Rangoon (or even Ramree) to push enough into China to roll some of these units forward. If he weakens his defenses enough, you can make him pay here too.
You can also leave a bunch of engineers with 1 or 2 corps in Chungking. Perhaps this will destroy the industry and deny him the extra supply, too.

(in reply to SqzMyLemon)

Post #: 543

RE: Avian aggression leads to murder most fowl - Sqz(A)... - 9/9/2015 4:43:42 PM

Rio Bravo

Posts: 1794
Joined: 7/13/2013
From: Grass Valley, California
Status: offline

SqzMyLemon-

Interesting idea: Abandoning Chungking.

I am soon going to face the dilema you are facing now in China.

That darn Evil El Lobo just keeps pressing hard in China.

Best Regards,

-Terry

_____________________________

"No one throws me my own guns and tells me to run. No one."

-Bret (James Coburn); The Magnificent Seven

(in reply to tiemanjw)

Post #: 544

RE: Avian aggression leads to murder most fowl - Sqz(A)... - 9/9/2015 9:08:12 PM

SqzMyLemon

Posts: 4239
Joined: 10/30/2009
From: Alberta, Canada
Status: offline

I have a turn to run tonight, then I thought I'd try and find the time to put together a comprehensive update showing Burma and China. It might highlight whether abandoning Chungking is a viable option or a strategic mistake of epic proportions.

Allied progress in India could lead to establishing a strong position in Burma from which to directly support the Chinese war effort. How much support is up for debate. I'm not convinced that sacrificing the bulk of the Chinese Army holding Chungking will have anything other than a negative impact on the Allied cause.

How quickly it takes to traverse Burma and reach the Chinese border will determine if China falls or not.

_____________________________

Luck is the residue of design - John Milton

Don't mistake lack of talent for genius - Peter Steele (Type O Negative)

(in reply to Rio Bravo)

Post #: 545

RE: Avian aggression leads to murder most fowl - Sqz(A)... - 9/9/2015 9:41:55 PM

BBfanboy

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

Some players have pulled surprises on the IJA in China by airlifting in some good Allied equipment - like an A/T gun regiment (2 pounders) and light AA (40 MM) which can fit on transport aircraft. I can't recall if this had to wait for the Globemasters or if the C-47 Skytrain was sufficient. If China is on the cusp of being saved or lost, this could make all the difference.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to SqzMyLemon)

Post #: 546

RE: Avian aggression leads to murder most fowl - Sqz(A)... - 9/9/2015 9:49:00 PM

SqzMyLemon

Posts: 4239
Joined: 10/30/2009
From: Alberta, Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

Some players have pulled surprises on the IJA in China by airlifting in some good Allied equipment - like an A/T gun regiment (2 pounders) and light AA (40 MM) which can fit on transport aircraft. I can't recall if this had to wait for the Globemasters or if the C-47 Skytrain was sufficient. If China is on the cusp of being saved or lost, this could make all the difference.

That's exactly my intention. Get Allied equipment into China, but the problem of supply remains. If I can't get supply into the country, all the Allied hardware and P-38's won't matter.

My efforts will first focus on air transport of supplies to Paoshan and Kunming. I'm hoping avoiding the hump may reduce my transport losses to Ops.

_____________________________

Luck is the residue of design - John Milton

Don't mistake lack of talent for genius - Peter Steele (Type O Negative)

(in reply to BBfanboy)

Post #: 547

RE: Avian aggression leads to murder most fowl - Sqz(A)... - 9/9/2015 10:18:19 PM

GetAssista

Posts: 2732
Joined: 9/19/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon
My efforts will first focus on air transport of supplies to Paoshan and Kunming. I'm hoping avoiding the hump may reduce my transport losses to Ops.

Oh, does the game have special penalties coded in for flying over The Hump?
I know that ops losses mount up with the usual massive supply transporting from India to China, but assumed it's because of the scale of operation and generally bad airfields in China

(in reply to SqzMyLemon)

Post #: 548

RE: Avian aggression leads to murder most fowl - Sqz(A)... - 9/9/2015 10:33:34 PM

SqzMyLemon

Posts: 4239
Joined: 10/30/2009
From: Alberta, Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GetAssista

Oh, does the game have special penalties coded in for flying over The Hump?
I know that ops losses mount up with the usual massive supply transporting from India to China, but assumed it's because of the scale of operation and generally bad airfields in China

Not that I'm aware of. I was referring to the lower range from Dimapur and Ledo to Paoshan, than say flying to Chengtu.

_____________________________

Luck is the residue of design - John Milton

Don't mistake lack of talent for genius - Peter Steele (Type O Negative)

(in reply to GetAssista)

Post #: 549

RE: Avian aggression leads to murder most fowl - Sqz(A)... - 9/9/2015 11:16:35 PM

tiemanjw

Posts: 580
Joined: 12/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

Some players have pulled surprises on the IJA in China by airlifting in some good Allied equipment - like an A/T gun regiment (2 pounders) and light AA (40 MM) which can fit on transport aircraft. I can't recall if this had to wait for the Globemasters or if the C-47 Skytrain was sufficient. If China is on the cusp of being saved or lost, this could make all the difference.

Shouldn't matter the A/C type. The manual says devices with a load 9 or less can be airlifted. The size of the A/C does not matter (though bigger A/C may be able to lift more at a time).
C-47s can move anything that can be moved. Just not as far, and possibly a little slower.

(in reply to BBfanboy)

Post #: 550

RE: Avian aggression leads to murder most fowl - Sqz(A)... - 9/10/2015 5:09:47 AM

BBfanboy

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: tiemanj

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

Some players have pulled surprises on the IJA in China by airlifting in some good Allied equipment - like an A/T gun regiment (2 pounders) and light AA (40 MM) which can fit on transport aircraft. I can't recall if this had to wait for the Globemasters or if the C-47 Skytrain was sufficient. If China is on the cusp of being saved or lost, this could make all the difference.

Shouldn't matter the A/C type. The manual says devices with a load 9 or less can be airlifted. The size of the A/C does not matter (though bigger A/C may be able to lift more at a time).
C-47s can move anything that can be moved. Just not as far, and possibly a little slower.

This varies from my experience in game where I was unable to load some equipment (I forget what -maybe mountain guns?) on a C-47 but was able to move it on a Catalina. Of course Cats won't help in China ...

_____________________________

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

(in reply to tiemanjw)

Post #: 551

RE: Avian aggression leads to murder most fowl - Sqz(A)... - 9/10/2015 5:17:39 AM

witpqs

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: tiemanj

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

Some players have pulled surprises on the IJA in China by airlifting in some good Allied equipment - like an A/T gun regiment (2 pounders) and light AA (40 MM) which can fit on transport aircraft. I can't recall if this had to wait for the Globemasters or if the C-47 Skytrain was sufficient. If China is on the cusp of being saved or lost, this could make all the difference.

Shouldn't matter the A/C type. The manual says devices with a load 9 or less can be airlifted. The size of the A/C does not matter (though bigger A/C may be able to lift more at a time).
C-47s can move anything that can be moved. Just not as far, and possibly a little slower.

This varies from my experience in game where I was unable to load some equipment (I forget what -maybe mountain guns?) on a C-47 but was able to move it on a Catalina. Of course Cats won't help in China ...

That's what I have seen, too. The size of the aircraft does matter (I think max load is the relevant stat), but when a device is above the threshold where air transport is allowed then it won't go no matter how big the plane.

BTW, the PBY-5A is an amphibian and (if the game models it) can land on ground runways. Might be worth a try.

< Message edited by witpqs -- 9/10/2015 6:18:11 AM >

_____________________________

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

(in reply to BBfanboy)

Post #: 552

RE: Avian aggression leads to murder most fowl - Sqz(A)... - 9/10/2015 3:29:50 PM

Lokasenna

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: tiemanj

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

Some players have pulled surprises on the IJA in China by airlifting in some good Allied equipment - like an A/T gun regiment (2 pounders) and light AA (40 MM) which can fit on transport aircraft. I can't recall if this had to wait for the Globemasters or if the C-47 Skytrain was sufficient. If China is on the cusp of being saved or lost, this could make all the difference.

Shouldn't matter the A/C type. The manual says devices with a load 9 or less can be airlifted. The size of the A/C does not matter (though bigger A/C may be able to lift more at a time).
C-47s can move anything that can be moved. Just not as far, and possibly a little slower.

This varies from my experience in game where I was unable to load some equipment (I forget what -maybe mountain guns?) on a C-47 but was able to move it on a Catalina. Of course Cats won't help in China ...

That's what I have seen, too. The size of the aircraft does matter (I think max load is the relevant stat), but when a device is above the threshold where air transport is allowed then it won't go no matter how big the plane.

BTW, the PBY-5A is an amphibian and (if the game models it) can land on ground runways. Might be worth a try.

There isn't a threshold for air transport, but there is for parachute attacks.

You can fit some obscenely large things in Tabby (load 9920) and Emily (load 12400) aircraft. Just about the only thing from an entire IJA division that won't fit in those are the big guns. Never tried mass airlifting with the Allies. The C-46 has a load of 10000, so it would be comparable to the Tabby...

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 553

RE: Avian aggression leads to murder most fowl - Sqz(A)... - 9/10/2015 4:04:42 PM

mind_messing

Posts: 3393
Joined: 10/28/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: tiemanj

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

Some players have pulled surprises on the IJA in China by airlifting in some good Allied equipment - like an A/T gun regiment (2 pounders) and light AA (40 MM) which can fit on transport aircraft. I can't recall if this had to wait for the Globemasters or if the C-47 Skytrain was sufficient. If China is on the cusp of being saved or lost, this could make all the difference.

Shouldn't matter the A/C type. The manual says devices with a load 9 or less can be airlifted. The size of the A/C does not matter (though bigger A/C may be able to lift more at a time).
C-47s can move anything that can be moved. Just not as far, and possibly a little slower.

This varies from my experience in game where I was unable to load some equipment (I forget what -maybe mountain guns?) on a C-47 but was able to move it on a Catalina. Of course Cats won't help in China ...

That's what I have seen, too. The size of the aircraft does matter (I think max load is the relevant stat), but when a device is above the threshold where air transport is allowed then it won't go no matter how big the plane.

BTW, the PBY-5A is an amphibian and (if the game models it) can land on ground runways. Might be worth a try.

There isn't a threshold for air transport, but there is for parachute attacks.

You can fit some obscenely large things in Tabby (load 9920) and Emily (load 12400) aircraft. Just about the only thing from an entire IJA division that won't fit in those are the big guns. Never tried mass airlifting with the Allies. The C-46 has a load of 10000, so it would be comparable to the Tabby...

If I've interpreted the rules correctly, load isn't all that important when transporting troops.

With troop transports, all that matters is load >7500. That means they get to move two squads per turn, less than 7500 and its just one squad. I assume they can also move two artillery devices with a load cost of 9 or less, but the dev post on the matter specified "squad or engineer" type devices.

One of the good things about the TOE of most IJA units is that their organic artillery is almost completely air-transportable, much more so than the US units. It makes an IJA regiment much more flexible than it's American counterpart.

Load is important for supply transport though.

< Message edited by mind_messing -- 9/10/2015 5:08:48 PM >

(in reply to Lokasenna)

Post #: 554

RE: Avian aggression leads to murder most fowl - Sqz(A)... - 9/10/2015 4:40:41 PM

tiemanjw

Posts: 580
Joined: 12/6/2008
Status: offline

I doubled checked:

7.2.4.2 AIR TRANSPORT TROOPS BETWEEN BASES
Ground units can be moved between friendly bases up to half (50%) the Maximum range of
the carrying aircraft.
Non-squad and non-engineer type devices of a load cost greater than 9 can NOT be
transported.

I have used C-47s to air transport 40mm Bofers (device 980) with a load cost of 9, so I know they can do it.

Perhaps it hasn't been implemented as described, but the manual seems clear on this one.

I did a quick check of Japanese devices (in tracker):
AFVs: their light tanks, tankettes and armored cars are all 9 or less. Only the medium tanks are bigger
Guns: all mortars (except 32cm) and all but the T90 guns 75mm or smaller have a load cost of 9 or less. Only the big boys are bigger
For flak, DP guns and radars though they will have trouble.

For the allies though, they have bigger AFVs, and though their 76mm and smaller tend to be transportable, most TO&Es have 25 Lbrs or 105s. Plus a crap ton of motorized support.

And I have airlifted entire commonwealth and US divisions with C47s exclusively - less the 25lbrs, 105s, and motorized support which need to walk or get sea lifted.

Back to why this is relevant:
All allied AT guns, except the 17lbr (my word, what a monster! I haven't even seen these yet) can be airlifted (load of 9 or less). This includes the powerful British 6lbr and US 37mm and 57mm. If necessary, you can use C47s to move a few of these into China to help them stem the tide of Japanese "armor". Be careful though, as replacement rates are rather low on these devices.

edit: Also, don't discount the British PIAT, which is organic to commonwealth squads '43 and newer (plus the "African Rifle Squad" and "Cdo/Para"). These are nasty little buggers with an AT value 1 point lower then the 6lbr or 57mm (75 instead of 76).

< Message edited by tiemanj -- 9/10/2015 5:46:10 PM >

(in reply to mind_messing)

Post #: 555

RE: Avian aggression leads to murder most fowl - Sqz(A)... - 9/10/2015 4:55:49 PM

mind_messing

Posts: 3393
Joined: 10/28/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: tiemanj

I doubled checked:

7.2.4.2 AIR TRANSPORT TROOPS BETWEEN BASES
Ground units can be moved between friendly bases up to half (50%) the Maximum range of
the carrying aircraft.
Non-squad and non-engineer type devices of a load cost greater than 9 can NOT be
transported.

I have used C-47s to air transport 40mm Bofers (device 980) with a load cost of 9, so I know they can do it.

Perhaps it hasn't been implemented as described, but the manual seems clear on this one.

I did a quick check of Japanese devices (in tracker):
AFVs: their light tanks, tankettes and armored cars are all 9 or less. Only the medium tanks are bigger
Guns: all mortars (except 32cm) and all but the T90 guns 75mm or smaller have a load cost of 9 or less. Only the big boys are bigger
For flak, DP guns and radars though they will have trouble.

For the allies though, they have bigger AFVs, and though their 76mm and smaller tend to be transportable, most TO&Es have 25 Lbrs or 105s. Plus a crap ton of motorized support.

And I have airlifted entire commonwealth and US divisions with C47s exclusively - less the 25lbrs, 105s, and motorized support which need to walk or get sea lifted.

Back to why this is relevant:
All allied AT guns, except the 17lbr (my word, what a monster! I haven't even seen these yet) can be airlifted (load of 9 or less). This includes the powerful British 6lbr and US 37mm and 57mm. If necessary, you can use C47s to move a few of these into China to help them stem the tide of Japanese "armor". Be careful though, as replacement rates are rather low on these devices.

edit: Also, don't discount the British PIAT, which is organic to commonwealth squads '43 and newer (plus the "African Rifle Squad" and "Cdo/Para"). These are nasty little buggers with an AT value 1 point lower then the 6lbr or 57mm (75 instead of 76).

This is the post I am talking about.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=2485606

Specifically:

quote:

Common for ready devices:
b) Aviation support - 2 devices moved plus 2 more if a/c max load is 7500 or more
c) Squad or Engineer device type - 1 device moved plus one more if a/c max load is 7500 or more

Common for disabled devices:
d) Aviation support - 2 devices moved
e) Squad or Engineer device type - 1 device moved plus one more if a/c max load is 7500 or more

This leaves me unsure if you can transport more than 1 artillery device per aircraft, seeing as artillery is most certainly not a squad or engineer type device.

(in reply to tiemanjw)

Post #: 556

RE: Avian aggression leads to murder most fowl - Sqz(A)... - 9/10/2015 5:00:34 PM

Lokasenna

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

I can tell you from doing it first hand, on more than one occasion, that what the manual says is definitely not true in this case.

I've moved guns and even tanks by plane. Obvert has also.

(in reply to mind_messing)

Post #: 557

RE: Avian aggression leads to murder most fowl - Sqz(A)... - 9/10/2015 5:06:35 PM

mind_messing

Posts: 3393
Joined: 10/28/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

I can tell you from doing it first hand, on more than one occasion, that what the manual says is definitely not true in this case.

I've moved guns and even tanks by plane. Obvert has also.

I'm not contesting that. I've done (and am doing it) myself.

What I'm saying is that, for troop transport, the load of an aircraft doesn't isn't important so long as it's over 7500. So long as it's over 7500, you carry two "squad or engineer" type devices. The aircraft could have a load of 7501 or 12000, and, according to the link I posted above, it wouldn't matter. Two is the limit, if you're using a Tabby or a C 54 Skymaster.

What I'm saying is it's not specifically stated if you can move 2 "Non-squad and non-engineer" devices (read: tanks/artillery) in a transport aircraft with a load >7500.

Of course, load is important when it comes to supply transport, but we're talking troops here.

< Message edited by mind_messing -- 9/10/2015 6:10:38 PM >

(in reply to Lokasenna)

Post #: 558

RE: Avian aggression leads to murder most fowl - Sqz(A)... - 9/10/2015 5:26:13 PM

Lokasenna

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

I can tell you from doing it first hand, on more than one occasion, that what the manual says is definitely not true in this case.

I've moved guns and even tanks by plane. Obvert has also.

I'm not contesting that. I've done (and am doing it) myself.

What I'm saying is that, for troop transport, the load of an aircraft doesn't isn't important so long as it's over 7500. So long as it's over 7500, you carry two "squad or engineer" type devices. The aircraft could have a load of 7501 or 12000, and, according to the link I posted above, it wouldn't matter. Two is the limit, if you're using a Tabby or a C 54 Skymaster.

What I'm saying is it's not specifically stated if you can move 2 "Non-squad and non-engineer" devices (read: tanks/artillery) in a transport aircraft with a load >7500.

Of course, load is important when it comes to supply transport, but we're talking troops here.

I was responding to tiemanj, really.

I don't know that I trust anything the manual says on this subject. I can tell you that I transported the entire IJA 2nd Division except for the really big guns in just a matter of days using maybe 50 planes. I think that multiple devices will be transported as long as there's space, which is determined by load cost per device vs. aircraft load.

(in reply to mind_messing)

Post #: 559

RE: Avian aggression leads to murder most fowl - Sqz(A)... - 9/10/2015 5:50:42 PM

mind_messing

Posts: 3393
Joined: 10/28/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

I can tell you from doing it first hand, on more than one occasion, that what the manual says is definitely not true in this case.

I've moved guns and even tanks by plane. Obvert has also.

I'm not contesting that. I've done (and am doing it) myself.

What I'm saying is that, for troop transport, the load of an aircraft doesn't isn't important so long as it's over 7500. So long as it's over 7500, you carry two "squad or engineer" type devices. The aircraft could have a load of 7501 or 12000, and, according to the link I posted above, it wouldn't matter. Two is the limit, if you're using a Tabby or a C 54 Skymaster.

What I'm saying is it's not specifically stated if you can move 2 "Non-squad and non-engineer" devices (read: tanks/artillery) in a transport aircraft with a load >7500.

Of course, load is important when it comes to supply transport, but we're talking troops here.

I was responding to tiemanj, really.

I don't know that I trust anything the manual says on this subject. I can tell you that I transported the entire IJA 2nd Division except for the really big guns in just a matter of days using maybe 50 planes. I think that multiple devices will be transported as long as there's space, which is determined by load cost per device vs. aircraft load.

That's not what michaelm says on the subject. Aircraft load factors in only for air transport of supplies. With troop transport, for an aircraft to fly with multiple squad/engineer devices is a simple check of aircraft load. If aircraft load >7500 then carry two. If not, carry one.

Granted, the post in question is 5 years old, but I've check the beta patch changelogs and not spotted anything.

Assuming your 50 planes did have an aircraft load >7500 then that's 100 infantry squads per turn being moved. Three three turns for the bulk of the infantry in a typical IJA division, then three more for the lighter artillery.

(in reply to Lokasenna)

Post #: 560

RE: Avian aggression leads to murder most fowl - Sqz(A)... - 9/10/2015 6:15:51 PM

BBfanboy

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

Here's something I did last turn: I used 88 C-47s (6000 lb payload IIRC) to haul a Russian division to a new base with no troops.
Here is what was moved:

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

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

(in reply to mind_messing)

Post #: 561

RE: Avian aggression leads to murder most fowl - Sqz(A)... - 9/10/2015 6:18:37 PM

BBfanboy

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

The transport was 8 hexes and they may have flown two missions in the one day. This transport unit was on it's first mission and most of the pilots now have two missions credited:

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

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

(in reply to BBfanboy)

Post #: 562

RE: Avian aggression leads to murder most fowl - Sqz(A)... - 9/10/2015 6:35:15 PM

tiemanjw

Posts: 580
Joined: 12/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

I can tell you from doing it first hand, on more than one occasion, that what the manual says is definitely not true in this case.

I've moved guns and even tanks by plane. Obvert has also.

I believe you that you moved tanks. I explicitly said that (according to tracker) that most IJA equipment - including most IJA tanks - had a load cost of 9 (or less). So, this would mean that they are transportable.

I did attempt to verify this in the AE editor, and found that in there, the Type 95 light tank had a load of "10" - which would mean it isn't air transportable. I have updated my scenarios (andy mac?) since starting the game I keep tabs on in tracker, so maybe that has something to do with it. I suspect that at some point the developers changed the value for it (and nearly all armored vehicles) to a minimum of 10 for exactly this reason.

To confirm the air transport weight acts as described in the manual, I performed a test. Using the Marianas scenario, I added an air group of 200 G4M1-L Betty transports (with a jaw dropping 2000 lb payload!) to Saipan and attempt to transport the 9th tank regiment.
1st test - nothing moved
2nd test - change T95 load from 10 to 9. Result, all T95s moved - nothing else (T97s or mot support). And this with 2000 lb transport capacity - very, very small.
3rd test - boosted the payload of the betty to 20,000. Result, all T95s moved, nothing else moved.

I also moved the 43rd Division (using the 2000 lb load A/C), and everything but the Type 97 tankettes (load 10), 75mm T90 guns (load 10), and the motorized support squads (load 15) were moved.

So it appears that this is working exactly as advertised.

The question relevant for SqzMyLemon would be what version he is running, and to check the weights there. He says he is playing stock, but is it the updated stock or what comes out of the box?

(in reply to Lokasenna)

Post #: 563

RE: Avian aggression leads to murder most fowl - Sqz(A)... - 9/10/2015 7:27:48 PM

Lokasenna

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

I think there may have been a change in the betas, and therefore the latest official, that changed things from what the manual says. The artillery is moving in your test and BBfanboy's, which shows that it's not just squads and engineers. Here's what's being moved (so far) in mine that isn't a basic squad, support, or engineer, as well as load cost in my scenario:

47mm AT gun (7)
70mm T92 Howitzer (6)
7.7mm T99 AAMG (4)
75mm Infantry Gun (8)

Type 97 Tankette (7)

IJA Cavalry Squad (16)
IJA Motorized Squad (17)
IJA HMG Section (10)

These are all under "squads" in Tracker, though, so presumably they'll go regardless.

So... yeah, I guess it's right, or maybe I fail at reading comprehension.

(in reply to tiemanjw)

Post #: 564

RE: Avian aggression leads to murder most fowl - Sqz(A)... - 9/14/2015 7:10:57 PM

SqzMyLemon

Posts: 4239
Joined: 10/30/2009
From: Alberta, Canada
Status: offline

Great discussion everyone, it's providing valuable information on something I've never looked closely at in any of my games. Since I plan on moving into Burma as quickly as possible, the understanding and use of air transport will be crucial to success.

As to the version of game we are running, it is the second last official patch released. So anything covered or changed in the last official patch isn't available. I'm not sure if we will be updating or not. We've mentioned it previously, but I'm not sure how Andre feels about upgrading mid-game. I know I'd certainly like to take advantage of the reduced effectiveness of the Japanese E's in the late war.

Thanks again for continuing the transport discussion in my absence. I haven't been posting since I haven't received a turn since the 9th. Andre is also leaving on a trip soon, so there will be another long hiatus of two weeks. I'm always positive in response to Andre's apologies for the slow pace, but I have to admit I'm starting to find the lack of turns discouraging.

_____________________________

Luck is the residue of design - John Milton

Don't mistake lack of talent for genius - Peter Steele (Type O Negative)

(in reply to Lokasenna)

Post #: 565

RE: Avian aggression leads to murder most fowl - Sqz(A)... - 9/17/2015 6:00:48 AM

SqzMyLemon

Posts: 4239
Joined: 10/30/2009
From: Alberta, Canada
Status: offline

I received a turn today, but Andre leaves for a trip on Sunday and won't be back for two weeks. I've decided to hang on to this one until he returns. That will give me plenty of time to do some updates.

A brief update on the Sept. 25-26/42 turns.

Japanese CV's were spotted off the northeast coast of Australia on the 25th. They appear to be escorting an amphibious TF carrying an IJA Inf. Rgt. bound for Darwin according to SIGINT. The regiment was previously deployed at Port Moresby, again according to SIGINT. It looks like Andre will fight and delay at Darwin.

No news in India really. Japanese units remain at Jamshedpur, eight in total. Allied units will invest the base from the west in three days, while reinforcements move down from Ranchi. Additional forces will invest the base from the east. I'll threaten to cut off the defenders to see if that sparks a full withdrawal. Something tells me Andre has reached his line in the sand, and will force me to fight for what he currently holds in India. Maybe.

Rangpur is already a level 5 airbase. Jorhat will be liberated on Sept. 27th, and I'm curious to see how supply will flow along the secondary rail line.

I'm staying away from engaging the CAP heavy defences at Calcutta, Colombo and Trincomalee with Allied air. Bombers have been stood down for days, training and building up reserves for the coming air battles. I'm pretty confident I can shut down Japanese air along the India/Burma border once the rail line is clear. The only Japanese bases of consequence that can interdict my push into Burma, or provide CAP, are Lashio and Myitkyina.

The next few weeks of game time should be uneventful. Things are in motion for some small operations in the Central Pacific though, primarily invasions of Baker and Canton Islands timed for the middle of October. My spidey sense is still tingling over Northwest Australia. I just don't get a good vibe on the planned Broome invasion. Between the threat of LBA at Timor and a suspected KB at Soerabaja, I'm nervous about being pinned against the coast. A sacrificial assault first against Port Hedland to bait KB might be the best option. If KB does show up, I can shift focus to securing New Caledonia and isolate Fiji.

< Message edited by SqzMyLemon -- 9/17/2015 7:03:00 AM >

_____________________________

Luck is the residue of design - John Milton

Don't mistake lack of talent for genius - Peter Steele (Type O Negative)

(in reply to SqzMyLemon)

Post #: 566

RE: Avian aggression leads to murder most fowl - Sqz(A)... - 9/17/2015 11:51:12 AM

Rio Bravo

Posts: 1794
Joined: 7/13/2013
From: Grass Valley, California
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon

Great discussion everyone, it's providing valuable information on something I've never looked closely at in any of my games. Since I plan on moving into Burma as quickly as possible, the understanding and use of air transport will be crucial to success.

As to the version of game we are running, it is the second last official patch released. So anything covered or changed in the last official patch isn't available. I'm not sure if we will be updating or not. We've mentioned it previously, but I'm not sure how Andre feels about upgrading mid-game. I know I'd certainly like to take advantage of the reduced effectiveness of the Japanese E's in the late war.

Thanks again for continuing the transport discussion in my absence. I haven't been posting since I haven't received a turn since the 9th. Andre is also leaving on a trip soon, so there will be another long hiatus of two weeks. I'm always positive in response to Andre's apologies for the slow pace, but I have to admit I'm starting to find the lack of turns discouraging.

I agree!

Great information that might prove to come in very handy in my battle with El Lobo.

Thank you for all the great input everyone.

Best Regards,

-Terry

_____________________________

"No one throws me my own guns and tells me to run. No one."

-Bret (James Coburn); The Magnificent Seven

(in reply to SqzMyLemon)

Post #: 567

RE: Avian aggression leads to murder most fowl - Sqz(A)... - 9/22/2015 7:30:05 PM

SqzMyLemon

Posts: 4239
Joined: 10/30/2009
From: Alberta, Canada
Status: offline

I'm doing a series of mundane tasks while Andre is away. Pilot training and transferring more experienced pilots to front line squadrons is one such task. Another big one, is the complete revising of my transport task force naming conventions. I want to get more information at a glance, so task force names will now consist of route, cargo and quantity. I've tinkered with this format before, but have never fully implemented it across the board.

I'm also looking for ships that still have upgrades pending and getting them to the yards, if needed. Others requiring no yard space will be withdrawn to bases outside of Japanese air search or bomber range.

I'm in the process of updating various theatres with screenshots, but I'm finding it slow going and a little on the boring side. However, I hope to provide those following with a much clearer picture of the campaign so far.

In the Indian theatre, there's an emphasis on my part to get more engineer and support units forward for rapid base expansion along the Rangpur - Ledo rail line. Southern India also needs more support troops in preparation for operations against Ceylon.

Lots to do.

_____________________________

Luck is the residue of design - John Milton

Don't mistake lack of talent for genius - Peter Steele (Type O Negative)

(in reply to SqzMyLemon)

Post #: 568

RE: Avian aggression leads to murder most fowl - Sqz(A)... - 9/23/2015 10:58:35 AM

richlove

Posts: 196
Joined: 5/1/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon

...Another big one, is the complete revising of my transport task force naming conventions. I want to get more information at a glance, so task force names will now consist of route, cargo and quantity. I've tinkered with this format before, but have never fully implemented it across the board.

...

Could you post a screenshot of what you're doing, and how that manifests itself in-game?

(in reply to SqzMyLemon)

Post #: 569

RE: Avian aggression leads to murder most fowl - Sqz(A)... - 9/23/2015 3:41:21 PM

SqzMyLemon

Posts: 4239
Joined: 10/30/2009
From: Alberta, Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: richlove

Could you post a screenshot of what you're doing, and how that manifests itself in-game?

Once I get everything set up I'll post that information for you.

_____________________________

Luck is the residue of design - John Milton

Don't mistake lack of talent for genius - Peter Steele (Type O Negative)

(in reply to richlove)

Post #: 570

Page: << < prev 17 18 [19] 20 21 next > >>

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: Avian aggression leads to murder most fowl - Sqz(A) vs. Chickenboy(J)