RE: December 1944

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: December 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: December 1944

Page: << < prev 177 178 [179] 180 181 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: December 1944 - 9/29/2017 6:21:16 PM

HansBolter

Posts: 7704
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: United States
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Interesting to see the concept of the game as a simulation resurface.
A few years ago any mention of the game being a simulation was heavily shouted down by the chorus.

Personally, I have always perceived this and every other wargame as both game and simulation.
All endeavor to "simulate' various aspects of war in the form of a competitive game.

None achieve the goal of an actual 100% accurate simulation as aspects of reality too costly and or too cumbersome to model are commonly abstracted, or simply left out.

Not sure if I'll get shouted down once again for the audacity and blasphemy of labeling the game a simulation, but I have never been one to fear walking into as minefield on this site.

In the game space I think a lot depends on what is meant by "sim." A game like Kerbal Space Program, where you design and fly spacecraft from a 3rd-person POV, is a sim. We don't conn USS Fletcher. I don't know where the boundaries of the word lie. This is at least a "model" of the PTO. That has wiggle-room too.

But it's without question a "game." There is a score, and the score leads to a winner and a loser. Zero sum.

You reminded me of the Great Naval Battles Series. THAT had some serious SIM angles to it.

I loved those games, especially the Guadal Canal one. Kind of combined operational and tactical.
You got to organize TFs to resupply and fight for the island and then as you zoomed in you could literally see the strike package coming for your ship resolve into individual planes and then could go to any station on the various ships while the battle unfolded.

_____________________________

Hans

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 5341

RE: December 1944 - 9/29/2017 6:28:25 PM

John 3rd

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

I still have those games and wish I could get them to run on my 'modern' PC...

_____________________________

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

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

(in reply to HansBolter)

Post #: 5342

RE: December 1944 - 9/29/2017 6:53:02 PM

Chickenboy

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

December 12, 1944

The thoughts of opening up the bombers in Japan against the American 1.0x10^6 are smashed today when I do a fighter tally. The enemy targets Nagasaki again today to very little effect. There will be more on that later.

On the attacks there were 451 Naval Fighters accounted for. HQ moved a 36 plane Judy Kamikaze Group to Moppo to check the Allied CAP. Sure enough, they fly and attack. What they encounter staggers the High Command. They DBs run into 1,353 Fighters ON CAP! This makes a total of 1804 Fighters involved in attack and defense. We're not even talking about how many have the day off.

Holy CRAP!

But how many carriers did they sink? You're leaving out important details, John!

_____________________________

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 5343

RE: December 1944 - 9/29/2017 7:02:48 PM

Chickenboy

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

Your IJAAF fighters are shouldering most of this burden. Make it worthwhile by joining with the IJNAF. I agree that you've also got to go big or go home WRT the kamikazes one of these days. Dinking and dunking with 18 here and 36 there won't do you any good. If you're going to use them, use THEM. Use them *all*. You should have thousands of them ready to go by now. Don't let your fighters shoulder the burden until they break. The KB is going to have to factor in here too if you want to improve the odds of anything striking home.

Of course, the best time to strike en masse was many months ago. There were ample opportunities in the enemy's exploitation of the Philippines, then Formosa, then South China then East China. You've demurred, which is fine, but you've also let slip some meaningful opportunities to strike a significant blow to the enemy fleet and his timetable.

With all that said, a 2:3 ratio this late in the war is good. I doubt that you can maintain this ratio indefinitely though.

Also, in fairness, if you 'cancel out' the Judy suicide probe, then you probably need to 'cancel out' the Avenger losses in your calculus. That puts you at 66:124 or 1:1.87. Just sayin'.

_____________________________

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 5344

RE: December 1944 - 9/29/2017 7:55:43 PM

John 3rd

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

Well...there goes Chickenboy ruining all my hopes and dashing them against the rock of reality...

< Message edited by John 3rd -- 9/29/2017 7:56:03 PM >

_____________________________

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

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

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 5345

RE: December 1944 - 9/29/2017 8:16:38 PM

Chickenboy

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Well...there goes Chickenboy ruining all my hopes and dashing them against the rock of reality...

Pfft...hope is overrated.

As an aside, I thought about your esteemed opponent today. I had a can of boiled green peanuts that I'd been meaning to heat up and eat.

_____________________________

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 5346

RE: December 1944 - 9/29/2017 9:07:29 PM

Lowpe

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

Being illustrated right now is one dimensional attack and defense.

There is no night bombing of the runway. There is no daytime bombing of the runway. There is no shore bombardment. There is no targeted strategic bombing runs against Japanese fighters and engines. It seems to me there is no massed 600 bomber runs. There is no sweeps to pick off CAP bleed. I could go on and on, but it is almost as if the Allies want to extend the war.

On Japanese side...the Allies are getting away with everything on the cheap. With the KB away in the SRA,..fighter defense of Honshu is significantly weakened.

Where are the 2 and 3 ship destroyer raids into the KB, the one way MTB raids, the CAP Traps, the high altitude fighter sweeps of the deathstar (a splinter of a bombing/kamikaze group escorted by 2-300 Franks). The sub rush, the night torpedo bombing runs, the air attacks designed to hit around the deathstar, the sweeps of Chinese bases, etc, etc., etc..there are so, so many counter strategies to be used here.

Without the KB's fighter squadrons, the advantage here is to the Allies and with the absolute impotence of the IJN....

Since this mod greatly increases the CV strength of Japan, one side effect, is that it most likely greatly increases the potential fighter strength of Japan, but we haven't really seen that.

And finally, something John seems to have forgotten, is that you see your plane losses/damaged status accurately, however the Allies are most likely losing at least 30% less due to fog of war.

I said earlier I thought John needed to pickup his air game over Honshu, I will expand that to John needs to think of how to counter a suddenly active Deathstar. Tons of things to do, but to let them sit off Honshu is not one of them.

Re-reading this, it seems to me I might have come across as too critical...but John's recent brush with the deathstarCAP...I think he is drawing the wrong conclusions. Also, it is very easy for me to look at all of Japan's strength, and wish I had 10% of it in my end games.

< Message edited by Lowpe -- 9/29/2017 9:39:12 PM >

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 5347

RE: December 1944 - 9/29/2017 10:37:46 PM

crsutton

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton
I will know in the end if I have lost or won.

Yes. So will your opponent. Will you each have an objective opinion on your years-long effort or will you be biased by your own personal perspective about whether you 'lost or won'? I suggest that some (many? most? all? ) players would look subjectively favorably on their efforts. In that environment, a neutral arbiter (e.g., VPs / autovictory) is the sensible choice.

Well, as long as we are not playing for money. I don't really care if he thinks he won or lost. Actually Viberpol is my long term opponent and in our last campaign he surrendered the day of the Russian activation. He has ships and aircraft left but his supply and fuel pools were drained. He congratulated me on my win. I told him it was a draw because I really did not do anything more than the Allies actually pulled off. He was beat but I did not have any boots on the ground in the HI. Draw in my book.

I don't get this argument. If you did what the Allies did, you won because they won. Unconditional surrender (with one condition, but who's quibbling?). If that isn't winning, what is? They never landed on the HI, so you shouldn't need to either, if it's a sim.

The VP system and the victory conditions allow the Allies to win in other ways than having to channel everything toward the HI. This to me is a good thing for longevity of the game.

And if it IS a sim, as you say, then ignoring the core design can lead to strange things, such as NAGASAKI BEING BOMBED (!!!!), while Japan wastes ships and men plinking at Liberty ships down by Oz. In any reading of the Japanese Empire and culture would this have happened? Such an assault on national honor would have resulted in every single platform and man who could get home, coming home. The design encourages that, if it's respected. When four Liberty ships are 40 VP, and strat bombing can reap thousands in one night, the Japan player ought not to be down by Oz doing anything, sim or game.

Being half-pregnant--liking the plinking for 40 VPs because it's a rush to sink something, while still "not playing for an auto-vic"--can lead to bad games. The two opponents are playing different games in fact. The design genius of GG's system is Japan doesn't have to win to win. They just have to not lose. The Allies can't do better than a draw if they don't achieve auto-vic, and they have a timetable than makes pushing and risking mandatory. For an endeavor that takes four years or more that's pretty exciting.

Right now, in this game, I feel as if CR and John are playing two different games. Lowpe has posted extensively about how Japan can have a yabba-dabba-do time trying to stymie the Allied timetable, and win. I've learned from reading his posts, as I haven't been in an end-game for about five real time years. Even though Japan gets crushed every day, the design, if it is respected, can provide excellent gaming up to the last day.

No, I have to disagree. With the assets the Allies eventually get (I know this mod is different) then total victory is a foregone conclusion given equal opponents. Japan is not going to end up with a Pacific empire here. In my eye a Allied victory has to surpass what the Allied pulled off. Either but doing more or doing the historical much earlier. To repeat the historical outcome is not a hard task for a skilled Allied player. Likewise if I annihilate Japan and lose 20 fleet carriers in doing so-I am pretty sure that I have lost. One thing that I am positive of is that there is just no way VP figures for win and lost could have been effectively play tested in a game of this scope. How many playtest campaigns could have possibly gone the distance? You would have had to have an infinite number of monkeys to pull that one off.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)

Post #: 5348

RE: December 1944 - 9/30/2017 6:25:00 PM

Bullwinkle58

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

No, I have to disagree. With the assets the Allies eventually get (I know this mod is different) then total victory is a foregone conclusion given equal opponents. Japan is not going to end up with a Pacific empire here. In my eye a Allied victory has to surpass what the Allied pulled off. Either but doing more or doing the historical much earlier. To repeat the historical outcome is not a hard task for a skilled Allied player. Likewise if I annihilate Japan and lose 20 fleet carriers in doing so-I am pretty sure that I have lost. One thing that I am positive of is that there is just no way VP figures for win and lost could have been effectively play tested in a game of this scope. How many playtest campaigns could have possibly gone the distance? You would have had to have an infinite number of monkeys to pull that one off.

These things always seem to get buried in AARs . . .

While we won't agree, I just wanted to say that your comment is predicated on a critical phrase: "total victory is a foregone conclusion given equal opponents."

My impression is you have always played the same opponent in PBEM. At least nearly always. I have played four Japan opponents of widely varying ability and experience. From my POV I have never played someone of my exact ability. And each took radically different approaches to playing Japan. VPs are how I measured how I was doing as I figured out what they were about.

VPs and auto-vic are objective. To me there's no "cost" to using them versus a subjective "I feel I won", especially if my opponent, after 4-5 years, says, "No, I won." I've never understood the objection to watching the score from players who would never golf, watch baseball, or enjoy the Olympics without an objective winner and loser. Even if money is not involved.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to crsutton)

Post #: 5349

RE: December 1944 - 10/2/2017 4:18:05 AM

John 3rd

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

Had a very busy weekend with the stores (meaning staffs) being STUPID! Worked 2-11pm on Friday, 7a-4p AND 6-9p on Saturday, had church in the morning and evening and then found that one of the stores tried to close an hour early today. Am rather tired and wanting a day off...

_____________________________

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

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

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)

Post #: 5350

RE: December 1944 - 10/2/2017 4:23:34 AM

John 3rd

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

December 13, 1944

For three days the American juggernaut has been hitting Nagasaki. Today is no different except they run into the strongest Japanese CAP yet as nearly 300 Fighters wait for the attacks.

287 F vs 30 F4U
261 F vs 35 F4U
243 F vs 30 F4U
205 F vs 26 F6F
175 F vs. 23 F4U
144 F vs. 36 F4U
113 F vs. 21 F4U
83 F vs. 15 F4U
68 F vs. 9 F4U
53 F vs. 14 F4U
25 F vs. 14 F4U
13 F vs. 16 F4U
2 F vs. 17 F4U
2 F vs. 103 F and 341 Avengers
2 F vs. 42 B-29

The Avengers go after anything and everything--LI, HI, Factories--ENG and Aircraft. The B-29 hit Manpower.

No truly appreciable damage sustained.

What were losses like? NEXT Posting!

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by John 3rd -- 10/2/2017 4:24:31 AM >

_____________________________

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 #: 5351

RE: December 1944 - 10/2/2017 4:25:45 AM

John 3rd

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

December 13, 1944

Here are the losses. I checked and saw that I lost just 52 pilots:

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 #: 5352

RE: December 1944 - 10/2/2017 4:27:41 AM

John 3rd

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

Over 50 B-24 hit Keijo and did a total of 1 LI in damage!

My newly deployed SS continue to score with an LST and LCM sunk today.

He has a bunch of small craft trying to catch convoys between Japan and Korea. Move TB and DB, set Alt to 1,000Ft and range 1. Should be interesting to watch.

_____________________________

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 #: 5353

RE: December 1944 - 10/2/2017 4:28:46 AM

John 3rd

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

Purposefully antagonized my opponent by opening my note saying "I could do this for days and days." See what that provokes...

_____________________________

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 #: 5354

RE: December 1944 - 10/2/2017 2:57:00 PM

John 3rd

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

December 14, 1944

Peripheral strategy or not, my SS are scoring again as I-19 sinks another LST near Flinders Isle. This makes 5 LST sunk in three days. Two of them were carrying troops. No SS damaged in return. NICE!

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

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

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

(in reply to HansBolter)

Post #: 5355

RE: December 1944 - 10/2/2017 3:01:09 PM

John 3rd

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

December 14, 1944

Dan and I had similar ideas this turn. I decided to give my Fighters a break and rest ALL of them at Nagasaki. This was calculated since he hasn't even tried to hit the AFs whatsoever and his bombers have done so little damage.

The Allies do attack Nagasaki this day but it is a night attack by 19 B-29s. They are met by 29 NF and get roughly handled--as normal--by NF, AA, and Balloons. Things should get more interesting as four more heavy AA units arrive here and begin to set-up.

To try and throw the Allies off, I shift from low CAP to HIGH CAP at 33-35,000 Feet. Hope to surprise the Sweepers for a day!

All this action occurred over China--Losses for today:

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by John 3rd -- 10/2/2017 3:03:38 PM >

_____________________________

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 #: 5356

RE: December 1944 - 10/2/2017 3:13:50 PM

Chickenboy

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

December 14, 1944

Peripheral strategy or not, my SS are scoring again as I-19 sinks another LST near Flinders Isle. This makes 5 LST sunk in three days. Two of them were carrying troops. No SS damaged in return. NICE!

John, as far as you can tell, were these TFs escorted? If he's sailing unescorted troop TFs around...

_____________________________

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 5357

RE: December 1944 - 10/2/2017 3:27:34 PM

Lowpe

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

How does it look on the victory point tally? Total ratio, and what your are losing or gaining each day?

since you don't use tracker, I would create a very simple spreadsheet and track VP Ratio changes per day. Why, so you can get a picture of how you are slowing the Allies down, or not.

I also would track supply.

It can't be your sole guide...but it will give you some insight.

If you can't measure it, you can't manage it, and an un-managed Japan falls fast.

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 5358

RE: December 1944 - 10/2/2017 10:26:29 PM

John 3rd

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

December 14, 1944

Peripheral strategy or not, my SS are scoring again as I-19 sinks another LST near Flinders Isle. This makes 5 LST sunk in three days. Two of them were carrying troops. No SS damaged in return. NICE!

John, as far as you can tell, were these TFs escorted? If he's sailing unescorted troop TFs around...

All unescorted...

LOVE IT!

_____________________________

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

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

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 5359

RE: December 1944 - 10/3/2017 4:21:31 AM

Capt. Harlock

Posts: 5358
Joined: 9/15/2001
From: Los Angeles
Status: offline

quote:

December 13, 1944

Here are the losses. I checked and saw that I lost just 52 pilots:

Whoa. That may have set the record for the largest one-day loss of Corsairs!

_____________________________

Civil war? What does that mean? Is there any foreign war? Isn't every war fought between men, between brothers?

--Victor Hugo

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 5360

RE: December 1944 - 10/3/2017 3:04:05 PM

John 3rd

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

Certainly have taken down a bunch of USN planes and pilots over the last four days. Nice to knock them down and be fighting over my base where losses are lowered.

Am getting ready to run the new turn with the High Altitude CAP set. If the day goes well, I am thinking of placing a BUNCH of fighters over Nagasaki next turn and try to CRUSH my opponent's Sweeps. By a bunch, I mean move to surrounding bases another 4-500 fighters and place them on LRCAP.

_____________________________

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

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

(in reply to Capt. Harlock)

Post #: 5361

RE: December 1944 - 10/3/2017 4:08:37 PM

John 3rd

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

December 15, 1944

Not only can we fight in the skies over Nagasaki but we can also stage ambushes still. How Dan has not taken out Batan Isle amazes me. Staged from there, two Daitai of IJN planes ambush a Squadron of P-47s and then CRUSH all 19 of this raid.

YUMMY!

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

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

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

(in reply to HansBolter)

Post #: 5362

RE: December 1944 - 10/3/2017 4:10:20 PM

John 3rd

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

December 15, 1944

I-19 bags its 2nd LST in as many days as it Battle Surfaces to sink LST-912 with 9 Shell Hits and 1 TT.

The bag limit in the South Pacific looks like it could go pretty high!

_____________________________

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

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

(in reply to HansBolter)

Post #: 5363

RE: December 1944 - 10/3/2017 5:16:12 PM

John 3rd

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

December 15, 1944

The Fighters at High Altitude do OK. Doesn't seem to be much more effective then Low Altitude.

The Allies come in at Nagasaki for a fifth day of action:

NIGHT
25 B-24 attack the AF--maybe Dan is listening to his readers?--and do a grand total of 1 Air Base Hit. There are 19 NF defending. That number will triple tomorrow.

Morning
103 F vs. 10 F4U
103 F vs. 14 F4U
98 F vs. 258 F4U--WOW!

96 F vs. 21 F4U

Afternoon
104 F vs. 16 P-47
98 F vs. 16 P-51
82 F vs. 47 P-47

The biggest thing that stands out to me in this day's action is the consistency of my CAP size thru all these Sweeps. Even after that MEGA-Sweep of 258, the CAP bounces right back. Pretty impressive.

Orders for tomorrow:
NF reinforce as detailed above and 4 new AA units will swing into action as well.

Bring in, as detailed earlier, 350 more Fighters. Place 2/3 of them at nearby bases to hid the bump in numbers. They are set at 50% LR CAP--Nagasaki. The remaining 100 or so reinforce the planes already at the Nagasaki base complex. Hope to do this next turn today so, perhaps, I will be able to Post this action in a couple of hours.

Here are the lovely totals for the day's action:

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 #: 5364

RE: December 1944 - 10/3/2017 10:56:38 PM

John 3rd

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

December 16, 1944

VICTORY! At least a temptorary one...

The Allied Fleet moves back towards Formosa. GREAT!

At Tokyo a Tanker TF carrying 154,313 Fuel and 95.200 Oil begins unloading...

_____________________________

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 #: 5365

RE: December 1944 - 10/3/2017 11:07:42 PM

ny59giants

Posts: 9869
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline

Total Supply is.....

(in reply to HansBolter)

Post #: 5366

RE: December 1944 - 10/4/2017 12:49:14 PM

savelius2

Posts: 57
Joined: 3/10/2016
Status: offline

The way I see things there are a few critical questions to ask at this point: First, are you going to be able to maintain this pace of fighter operations for long? The moment you run out of airframes or supply things will quickly go south. Secondly, what is the VP result of the strategic bombing campaign vs airframe points? Trading airframes at 1:1 will help vs the 2:1 autovictory, but if he�s getting 300 VP of strategic points a day on top then you have maybe three months to the end, and that�s assuming he can�t ramp up the bombing campaign or get better at it in the engine. Third, can you use the KB to augment your homeland fighter forces without losing them, or are your current raids netting enough points or tempo disruption to be worth the opportunity cost of not having them over Japan?

(in reply to ny59giants)

Post #: 5367

RE: December 1944 - 10/4/2017 4:17:40 PM

John 3rd

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

Michael and I chatted some yesterday and he asked about supply in the Home Islands. I stated my frustration about the lack of it and how it wasn't growing hardly at all. This made me get to thinking and so I went thru the entire Home Islands last night on our evening turn and I found BUNCHES of items trying to repair themselves: Factories, Engines, LI, HI, etc...

ROOKIE mistake. Damn. Just pisses me off. EVERYTHING in the Home Islands is now not repairing anything.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

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

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

(in reply to savelius2)

Post #: 5368

RE: December 1944 - 10/4/2017 4:29:36 PM

John 3rd

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

The Victory Point Question:

December 14, 1944
Japan: 68616
Allies: 101,644

December 17, 1944
Japan: 68969
Allies: 102,674

Net Gains:
Japan: +353
Allies: +1,030

_____________________________

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 #: 5369

RE: December 1944 - 10/4/2017 4:31:20 PM

John 3rd

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

December 17, 1944

A HUNTING we shall go!

I-197 SINKS AK John Davis with 2 TT near Newcastle and damages AK Skagerak with 1TT near Brisbane.

No escort. Continuing patrol...

< Message edited by John 3rd -- 10/4/2017 4:32:09 PM >

_____________________________

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 #: 5370

Page: << < prev 177 178 [179] 180 181 next > >>

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: December 1944

Page: << < prev 177 178 [179] 180 181 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

0.734

Slitherine

RE: December 1944