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: June 1944

 
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: June 1944 Page: <<   < prev  124 125 [126] 127 128   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: June 1944 - 4/4/2017 1:00:10 PM   
ny59giants


Posts: 9869
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline 		AA - I would list them ALL. Next, go through where they are, number of guns per LCU, which have radar, and how many are heavy and medium guns. You will need to decide how many need to go to the Home Islands to defend against the B-29s and at which bases. Professor Lowpe should be able to help you with these numbers as I haven't gotten to the end game yet. I saw what troops you have in Manila in Dan's AAR and there were no AA LCUs there. Why not? Even the small AA LCUs with just 4 heavy AA guns should be in places like this to at least damage and lessen the impact of a 'milk run.'

_____________________________


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 3751
RE: June 1944 - 4/4/2017 1:54:25 PM   
AcePylut


Posts: 1494
Joined: 3/19/2004
Status: offline 		Got a question: reading through the last few months of reports, I get the sense that you are thinking “If I lose this ID, no big deal, I’ll just rebuild it in a couple of months, got plenty of stock, and it will be just as strong as it was ‘before’ I lost it”…. Are you looking at the exp and morale levels the ID’s had before they were lost vs. after rebuild? Any considerations to how the (possibly) reduced exp and morale might lead to ‘shocking’ losses (i.e. Damn my IJ Guards Div held for 1 month in that jungle terrain, and now the rebuilt one got it’s butt kicked in one attack against the same enemy forces)

It’s really for my own knowledge on “what to expect” in the future for me. This is a great learning experience for all. WRT to this game: I think it’s very important to take this game “to the end”, if for no other reason than to gain knowledge of “what to expect” for your next match. I mean the very absolute end. No "I lose my carriers I surrender" (your JAPANESE after all!!!) but "I lost my carriers, now lest see how these Kaitens work in the game -what can they do!" I’ll be interested in following the ’42-’43 moves you make in the next game  and see how you adjust strategy.


< Message edited by AcePylut -- 4/4/2017 1:55:00 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 3752
RE: June 1944 - 4/4/2017 2:26:52 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		I am in until the end is here. Things are somewhat enjoyable presently in TRYING to hit a little here and there.

As to the ID question, since the Burma debacle occurred I have bought back four ID. The XP is usually around 50% or so. I have bought them, rebuilt them in Tokyo and then sent them to locations where they should have plenty of time to prep at wherever their base is. I have one at Takao and another at one of the bases in Hainan. Both have been there long enough that they will be 100% prepped at that location. How will they do? Don't really know but I made sure they have a very good General commanding them.

As to Michael's AA question in Manila, I had five AA units at Mauban when he attacked and ALL of them were destroyed. Two were destroyed by those 4EB BEFORE the fighting even started. There are several at San Fernando presently as I am using that base to bring in limited supply and troops. Two more are at Clark. All the destroyed AA are being bought back, rebuilt, and deployed throughout the Home Islands for what is sure to come...



< Message edited by John 3rd -- 4/4/2017 2:32:15 PM >

_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to AcePylut)
Post #: 3753
RE: June 1944 - 4/4/2017 3:27:57 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		End Game Aircraft Research/Pools

Thought, since we're talking about education for the end game players, that I might Post the current research thrusts and pool levels within this match.

The current planes being heavily researched are as follows:
1. Ki-100 Tony 8-44 115 Planes + 28 Tony currently producing.
2. Ki-84b Frank 8-44 212 Planes + 330 Frank " "
3. D4Y4 Judy 10-44 116 Planes + 128 Judy " "
4. B7A2 Grace 10-44 52 Planes

My bet is that we see Frank and Tony go into production next month. Judy should come in August or late-July.

Here are the current pools of Japanese Aircraft:





Attachment (1)

_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 3754
RE: June 1944 - 4/4/2017 3:31:20 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Here is current aircraft production and research. The numbers are slightly different due to some factories still repairing:





Attachment (1)

_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 3755
RE: June 1944 - 4/4/2017 3:32:58 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		In an effort to eat up my large Naka Ha-35 pool, I have brought back into production several aircraft that use the engine. They will be used for Kamikaze or second-line fighter duty.


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 3756
RE: June 1944 - 4/4/2017 3:34:47 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Current VP board:





Attachment (1)

_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 3757
RE: June 1944 - 4/4/2017 3:40:56 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Here are my top Naval Fighter units. These are some BAD boys!





Attachment (1)

_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 3758
RE: June 1944 - 4/4/2017 3:46:36 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Damn. I can see all of you watching these Posts!

Here is the economic overview:





Attachment (1)

_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 3759
RE: June 1944 - 4/4/2017 3:51:44 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Am pondering a Naval Question...

I have the Decoy KB at Soerabaja topping off their tanks. The Kido Butai is at Saipan.

Should work to combine these two into one, massed force. Am thinking of bringing KB down and shoot through Dan's Ambon--Boela area to unite with the rest of the CVs. In doing this we would:

1. Unify the Carriers and have nearly 1,000 aircraft available for attack/defense.
2. Be closer to my fuel supply.

Am actively thinking about this due to Dan's next wave of reinforcements being about 4 hexes east of Gove, AUST. Could come down and try to make serious assault on an element of his forces without the full brunt of the 1.0^10x6 present.

Won't get to the turn until I after I get Inventory done tonight so there is plenty of time for comments, thoughts, and suggestions.

This is the last of my current set of Posts.


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 3760
RE: June 1944 - 4/4/2017 3:58:12 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

End Game Aircraft Research/Pools

Thought, since we're talking about education for the end game players, that I might Post the current research thrusts and pool levels within this match.

The current planes being heavily researched are as follows:
1. Ki-100 Tony 8-44 115 Planes + 28 Tony currently producing.
2. Ki-84b Frank 8-44 212 Planes + 330 Frank " "
3. D4Y4 Judy 10-44 116 Planes + 128 Judy " "
4. B7A2 Grace 10-44 52 Planes

My bet is that we see Frank and Tony go into production next month. Judy should come in August or late-July.

Here are the current pools of Japanese Aircraft:




John,

Sorry if you've already said this, but does your mod have / are you producing the Peggy(T)? Many late war IJ players extoll the virtues of an IJAAF torpedo plane, particularly as the defensive perimeter shrinks.


_____________________________


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 3761
RE: June 1944 - 4/4/2017 4:04:39 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
Am pondering a Naval Question...


Sorry. I can't give you any tactical advice / thoughts / meaningful feedback with insufficient information.

Don't know how close the 1.0x10^6 is, where enemy submarine activity or SCTF activity has been most meaningful, the likelihood of getting through there without being detected, significant Allied bases in the area that may interdict the movement with land based bombers, etc. etc.

How is the evacuation of Java, Southern Borneo, and most of Sumatra going?

_____________________________


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 3762
RE: June 1944 - 4/4/2017 4:15:18 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		8 Peggy T a day - or at least the last day. post 3755

< Message edited by Lowpe -- 4/4/2017 4:16:21 PM >

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 3763
RE: June 1944 - 4/4/2017 5:02:38 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

8 Peggy T a day - or at least the last day. post 3755

Thx.

ETA: This will not be enough.

_____________________________


(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 3764
RE: June 1944 - 4/4/2017 8:05:05 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		I don't intend to slip through un-observered. My thought is to blast through, link up, and be concentrated for trouble. He only had fighters and 4EB based at Sorong, Ambon, and Boela...


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 3765
RE: June 1944 - 4/4/2017 10:34:15 PM   
pws1225

 

Posts: 1166
Joined: 8/9/2010
From: Tate's Hell, Florida
Status: offline 		I think you might be better served by keeping KB hidden until you have a chance to hit something really valuable. Letting Dan know where KB is does nothing other than telling him strike in another direction.

Just my two cents.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 3766
RE: June 1944 - 4/4/2017 11:45:07 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Could go through, hit the target, refuel, shock my opponent by roaring back through and going back to the Marianas. Have to think about it and make a decision...

"We zip in. Zip out. It's not like we're going to Wisconsin." Bill Murray--Stripes



< Message edited by John 3rd -- 4/4/2017 11:46:02 PM >

_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to pws1225)
Post #: 3767
RE: June 1944 - 4/4/2017 11:46:50 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		We are up and over 250,000 AAR hits.

BANZAI!


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 3768
RE: June 1944 - 4/5/2017 12:11:42 AM   
MakeeLearn


Posts: 4278
Joined: 9/11/2016
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Could go through, hit the target, refuel, shock my opponent by roaring back through and going back to the Marianas. Have to think about it and make a decision...

"We zip in. Zip out. It's not like we're going to Wisconsin." Bill Murray--Stripes





Take the same way out that you took in? Number 1 NO-NO in Grunt Handbook. However rules are made to be broken.

Stuart in his 2 "Ride around the Union Army" never went back the way he came. Yet Forrest raided into west Tennessee crossing the Tennessee River at Clifton below Double Island(a great place to fish).
He returned the same way. In breaking this rule he made a new rule "Always know what is behind you". Forrest feinted that his RIDE would not cover already crossed ground and he kept a constant communication line of scouts from Clifton to wherever he was during the raid.

So Forrest knew what new enemy forces were waiting along the route he had taken and supposedly abandoned.


OR to quote a line from Young Guns "YOU WANT TO CROSS IN FRONT OF THAT S***HOUSE AGAIN?!"

< Message edited by MakeeLearn -- 4/5/2017 12:27:18 AM >

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 3769
RE: June 1944 - 4/5/2017 12:54:01 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to MakeeLearn)
Post #: 3770
RE: June 1944 - 4/5/2017 1:55:21 AM   
Bif1961


Posts: 2014
Joined: 6/26/2008
From: Phenix City, Alabama
Status: offline 		And Harold Ramis answered i got my ass kicked in Wisconsin once.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 3771
RE: June 1944 - 4/5/2017 5:53:15 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Thank YOU! I was waiting for that rejoinder. LOVE that movie...


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to Bif1961)
Post #: 3772
RE: June 1944 - 4/5/2017 12:17:30 PM   
Bif1961


Posts: 2014
Joined: 6/26/2008
From: Phenix City, Alabama
Status: offline 		Always willing to play the straight man for WITPAE comedians.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 3773
RE: June 1944 - 4/5/2017 2:05:00 PM   
crsutton


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

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Here is current aircraft production and research. The numbers are slightly different due to some factories still repairing:




As an Allied FB it is fascinating and sobering to see the production numbers for Japan at this point. By mid 44 Allied production is finally getting reasonable but in 1/44 the Americans are only producing 35 B25s per month. Even with the production of 65 or so Liberators a month I still have a good dozen or more Allied bomber units flying with no aircraft or obsolete aircraft such as the Bolo.

Not complaining though, the Allies have their own strengths to counter these production figures and it makes for a fun contest. It is just sobering. My only question is will this kind of production hurt you come 1945?

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 3774
RE: June 1944 - 4/5/2017 2:19:41 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline 		John,

I'd like to amend my previous comment by saying that your production levels for your Peggy(T) will probably be sufficient. I like the production levels for your Frank-a and -b line. Why so low for the Ki-100 at this time? I assume that you will be producing more than 102/month? You might as well...the research is a 'sunk cost' at this time.

_____________________________


(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 3775
RE: June 1944 - 4/5/2017 2:19:43 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton


quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Here is current aircraft production and research. The numbers are slightly different due to some factories still repairing:




As an Allied FB it is fascinating and sobering to see the production numbers for Japan at this point. By mid 44 Allied production is finally getting reasonable but in 1/44 the Americans are only producing 35 B25s per month. Even with the production of 65 or so Liberators a month I still have a good dozen or more Allied bomber units flying with no aircraft or obsolete aircraft such as the Bolo.

Not complaining though, the Allies have their own strengths to counter these production figures and it makes for a fun contest. It is just sobering. My only question is will this kind of production hurt you come 1945?


You should look at it as victory point harvesting. Only a fraction of Japan's planes are competitive, the rest pretty much victory point gifts to the Allies.

John's store of planes and production will melt in less than one month once the Allies pursue an aggressive air superiority doctrine.

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 3776
RE: June 1944 - 4/5/2017 2:25:05 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

John,

I'd like to amend my previous comment by saying that your production levels for your Peggy(T) will probably be sufficient. I like the production levels for your Frank-a and -b line. Why so low for the Ki-100 at this time? I assume that you will be producing more than 102/month? You might as well...the research is a 'sunk cost' at this time.


The Peggy T constraint is trained pilots, very difficult to do for the Army. I wonder if you aren't better off forgoing the Peggy T and simply using the Peggy as a kamikaze where pilots could be trained from Dec 7.

In addition to the Pilot constraints, there is also the additional supply cost of the torpedoes, which can become geographically problematic. However, it would be interesting to take the best experienced IJA bomber pilots (exp 80+) train them in torpedo attacks and use them strictly as a night naval attack squadron. Super high experience seems to make a real difference here.



(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 3777
RE: June 1944 - 4/5/2017 2:42:02 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

John,

I'd like to amend my previous comment by saying that your production levels for your Peggy(T) will probably be sufficient. I like the production levels for your Frank-a and -b line. Why so low for the Ki-100 at this time? I assume that you will be producing more than 102/month? You might as well...the research is a 'sunk cost' at this time.


The Peggy T constraint is trained pilots, very difficult to do for the Army. I wonder if you aren't better off forgoing the Peggy T and simply using the Peggy as a kamikaze where pilots could be trained from Dec 7.

In addition to the Pilot constraints, there is also the additional supply cost of the torpedoes, which can become geographically problematic. However, it would be interesting to take the best experienced IJA bomber pilots (exp 80+) train them in torpedo attacks and use them strictly as a night naval attack squadron. Super high experience seems to make a real difference here.


Good point about the pilot constraint for the IJAAF NavT trained pool. That may bode for identifying any existing Peggy(T) groups and MAX training them while possible. These planes-in this game-came in 3/44. That was about 2.5 months ago in game time. If sizeable numbers of squadrons of IJAAF 2EB ('level bombers') were converted to Peggy(T) 2.5 months ago, there should be some decent pilots starting to emerge soon.

I disagree about the use of the Peggy(T) as kamikaze. Too early to scavenge torpedo-capable airframes for that purpose. Not until all the Sally, Helen and Lilly (not to mention older single engine bomber airframes) airframes have been so utilized would I think use the Peggys in that capacity.

Your observation about the use of supply for torpedoes is well received, but overly parsimonious in my opinion. It's worth burning some supply to put a torpedo into the side of an American carrier or surface combatant. "You've got to break some eggs if you want to make an omelette."

I think the Peggy(T) will be a contributor to a broad group of options. This 'well balanced diet' of 1 and 2-engine kamikaze, IJAAF torpedo plane, IJNAF torpedo plane, IJNAF 800kg-carrying bomber, IJAAF level bomber, 3rd and 4th generation IJAAF and IJNAF fighters will help to defray some of the brittle nature of over reliance on any one defense.

John: How many groups are flying the Peggy(T)? What are their training settings like? What are your IJAAF NavT trained pilot pools?

_____________________________


(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 3778
RE: June 1944 - 4/7/2017 2:16:10 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Most of my IJA Sentai are flying Peggy (T). I have 4-6 groups where the TT experience is now over 50.


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 3779
RE: June 1944 - 4/7/2017 2:26:34 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		June 21, 1944

To get a perspective on what I am dealing with, here is a screenshot of the 1.0^10x6 moving down to cover the reinforcement TFs.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 3780
Page:   <<   < prev  124 125 [126] 127 128   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: June 1944 Page: <<   < prev  124 125 [126] 127 128   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

1.031