Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

I see the enemy aircraft totals you list are taken from the recon info.

They are exceedingly low. That mass of carriers will have way more than 271 fighters.

Then again, even the number of carriers being reported is subject to heavy FOW.

Even your own totals appear low.

You should have 324 fighters on your 9 CVs alone, if at full strength.

Are you using the replenishment carriers in their intended role or did you convert them to attack CVEs?

Given the deep foray, I would have wanted the ability to replenish air frames on my combat carriers and would have brought a TF of replenishment carriers along.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rio Bravo

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

I see the enemy aircraft totals you list are taken from the recon info.

They are exceedingly low. That mass of carriers will have way more than 271 fighters.

Then again, even the number of carriers being reported is subject to heavy FOW.

Even your own totals appear low.

You should have 324 fighters on your 9 CVs alone, if at full strength.

Are you using the replenishment carriers in their intended role or did you convert them to attack CVEs?

Given the deep foray, I would have wanted the ability to replenish air frames on my combat carriers and would have brought a TF of replenishment carriers along.

Hans-


As you have noticed and so indicated the Japanese aircraft totals and number and type of Japanese carriers are shown as intelligence indicates and of course subject to FOW.

The totals for the Allied carriers are accurate. Prior to the Invasion Fleet leaving the vicinity of Formosa, I flew off approximately 200 fighters and approximately 200 bombers to Pescadores and Takao.

I am using the replenishment carriers as fighting aircraft. As I have mentioned a few times but you may have forgotten, I first loaded as many carrier capable fighters as the 25 carriers could hold. The remaining aircraft space on the carriers was filled with Dauntless and Avenger. I wanted as many fighters as possible to provide CAP and LRCAP for the carriers, Invasion Fleet, and the three objectives of Amoy, Pescadores, and Takao.

Presently, some of the Allied carriers do not have any aircraft on them.

Best Regards,

-Terry

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rio Bravo

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

I see the enemy aircraft totals you list are taken from the recon info.

They are exceedingly low. That mass of carriers will have way more than 271 fighters.

Then again, even the number of carriers being reported is subject to heavy FOW.

Even your own totals appear low.

You should have 324 fighters on your 9 CVs alone, if at full strength.

Are you using the replenishment carriers in their intended role or did you convert them to attack CVEs?

Given the deep foray, I would have wanted the ability to replenish air frames on my combat carriers and would have brought a TF of replenishment carriers along.

Hans-


As you have noticed and so indicated the Japanese aircraft totals and number and type of Japanese carriers are shown as intelligence indicates and of course subject to FOW.

The totals for the Allied carriers are accurate. Prior to the Invasion Fleet leaving the vicinity of Formosa, I flew off approximately 200 fighters and approximately 200 bombers to Pescadores and Takao.

I am using the replenishment carriers as fighting aircraft. As I have mentioned a few times but you may have forgotten, I first loaded as many carrier capable fighters as the 25 carriers could hold. The remaining aircraft space on the carriers was filled with Dauntless and Avenger. I wanted as many fighters as possible to provide CAP and LRCAP for the carriers, Invasion Fleet, and the three objectives of Amoy, Pescadores, and Takao.

Presently, some of the Allied carriers do not have any aircraft on them.

Best Regards,

-Terry

Thanks for the reminder of how you chose to structure things. I presume after having used at least some of your carriers as aircraft shuttles you won't be seeking a carrier engagement.

I would have done things a bit differently.

I would have massed all of my AKVs for aircraft shuttle purposes as they allow squadrons to land in ready to fly condition the way a CV shuttle would (they just have to dock to be able to unload unlike a CV shuttle that allows a fly off).

I also would have maintained some CVEs as replenishments extending the station keeping ability of the combat CVs and ensuring a better match up in a CV on CV fight.

Not a criticism of your approach, just an offer of a different approach that you might consider if choosing to go deep in another game.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CaptHaggard

BB—

Once again, I truly appreciate your rapid and accurate responses.

OK, I am done hampering the performance of my own ships.

The bad news is I have exactly ONE DMS in the Marianas. I have 5-6 in the Pescadores area—all banged up except for a pair of them. I definitely wanted to get those back to Saipan, with the idea of doing something like what you describe above.

I had them in a MS TF and intended to send these back as part of the vast TFG armada, in the departure hex and set on "Follow the (Lead) TF". But—in a repeat result when I tried to do the very same thing with the MS TFs when we left PH for the Marianas—everyone left but the MS TF.

It was too dangerous to try and catch up, so the two healthy DMS remained at Pescadores.

QUESTION: Why are MS TFs singularly resistant to "Follow" in a Task Force Group, in which all other types of TFs do just fine in that regard? It is simply a matter of changing their designation to "Surface Combat" TF or "Escort" TF or imbedding them in other TFs, thus avoiding "MS" designation?

I thought the "MS" inability to "Follow" was an anomaly the first time, but now I'm pretty convinced something else is up...


Morning after Thanksgiving. A tough one. One couple brought over (an unexpected) 4 bottles of pinot to blind taste, then the 3 bottles we already had airing were naturally next, then the cabs and syrahs during dinner... by then I'm having a helluva time, once again co-owner of earth, when the one dude pulls out a 2001 bottle of French sauterne to have with the pumpkin mousse the Adjutant made. "You have to have this, Hag—this is probably the only 100-rated Robert Parker wine you'll ever have, because you're so cheap."

So the cheapskate indulged. Dessert wines, man—they'll get you every time—those efficient high-sugars say "Danger—will supercharge hangovers".

Anyhow... onward we trudge...

Thanks again for your insights, BB!

Hag

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rio Bravo
Nice of your friend to bring that bottle of wine. I'm curious, what does a 2001 Bottle of French Sauterne cost?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rio Bravo

Nice of your friend to bring that bottle of wine. I'm curious, what does a 2001 Bottle of French Sauterne cost?

quote:

ORIGINAL: fcharton

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rio Bravo
Nice of your friend to bring that bottle of wine. I'm curious, what does a 2001 Bottle of French Sauterne cost?

Sauternes is an area (appellation), where you have different vineyards (crus), of different qualities and prices. For a given year, prices can range from a few euros to several hundreds.

Now, if it was a 100 on Parker, what you had is an Yquem 2001. This is the very best (the only 1er cru classé, the highest notch in the classification). It should fetch around 700€ these days. Other years, some older, would be cheaper. 200€ is typical.

Then, there are other crus, notably 1er crus, which are much less expensive, and still well past 95 in the Parker.

Francois

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

Ok - some new advice ... about hangovers!

Sugar, alcohol and salt (most party food and beverage) suck up the water from your body and cause you to expel it. When I am at a party (such as this Sunday's Grey Cup) I do my drinking of alcohol up front and switch to water about half way through.

After returning from the party I drink lots of water before going to bed - might mean a trip to the bathroom during the night but at my age I do that anyway!
Almost never get a hangover or the queasy stomach that comes with dehydration of the mucous lining.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rio Bravo

quote:

ORIGINAL: CaptHaggard

BB—

Once again, I truly appreciate your rapid and accurate responses.

OK, I am done hampering the performance of my own ships.

The bad news is I have exactly ONE DMS in the Marianas. I have 5-6 in the Pescadores area—all banged up except for a pair of them. I definitely wanted to get those back to Saipan, with the idea of doing something like what you describe above.

I had them in a MS TF and intended to send these back as part of the vast TFG armada, in the departure hex and set on "Follow the (Lead) TF". But—in a repeat result when I tried to do the very same thing with the MS TFs when we left PH for the Marianas—everyone left but the MS TF.

It was too dangerous to try and catch up, so the two healthy DMS remained at Pescadores.

QUESTION: Why are MS TFs singularly resistant to "Follow" in a Task Force Group, in which all other types of TFs do just fine in that regard? It is simply a matter of changing their designation to "Surface Combat" TF or "Escort" TF or imbedding them in other TFs, thus avoiding "MS" designation?

I thought the "MS" inability to "Follow" was an anomaly the first time, but now I'm pretty convinced something else is up...


Morning after Thanksgiving. A tough one. One couple brought over (an unexpected) 4 bottles of pinot to blind taste, then the 3 bottles we already had airing were naturally next, then the cabs and syrahs during dinner... by then I'm having a helluva time, once again co-owner of earth, when the one dude pulls out a 2001 bottle of French sauterne to have with the pumpkin mousse the Adjutant made. "You have to have this, Hag—this is probably the only 100-rated Robert Parker wine you'll ever have, because you're so cheap."

So the cheapskate indulged. Dessert wines, man—they'll get you every time—those efficient high-sugars say "Danger—will supercharge hangovers".

Anyhow... onward we trudge...

Thanks again for your insights, BB!

Hag

Captain Haggard-


Apparently, you had quite a bout with Thanksgiving Day.

However, I take exception with the comment alleging that you are "cheap."

You and the Adjutant are an extremely generous couple and I for one am appreciative for the impeccable hospitality the two of you have always extended to me and for all the good times throughout the years that we have had together

Nice of your friend to bring that bottle of wine. I'm curious, what does a 2001 Bottle of French Sauterne cost?

Your pal,

-Terry

quote:

ORIGINAL: CaptHaggard

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rio Bravo

quote:

ORIGINAL: CaptHaggard

BB—

Once again, I truly appreciate your rapid and accurate responses.

OK, I am done hampering the performance of my own ships.

The bad news is I have exactly ONE DMS in the Marianas. I have 5-6 in the Pescadores area—all banged up except for a pair of them. I definitely wanted to get those back to Saipan, with the idea of doing something like what you describe above.

I had them in a MS TF and intended to send these back as part of the vast TFG armada, in the departure hex and set on "Follow the (Lead) TF". But—in a repeat result when I tried to do the very same thing with the MS TFs when we left PH for the Marianas—everyone left but the MS TF.

It was too dangerous to try and catch up, so the two healthy DMS remained at Pescadores.

QUESTION: Why are MS TFs singularly resistant to "Follow" in a Task Force Group, in which all other types of TFs do just fine in that regard? It is simply a matter of changing their designation to "Surface Combat" TF or "Escort" TF or imbedding them in other TFs, thus avoiding "MS" designation?

I thought the "MS" inability to "Follow" was an anomaly the first time, but now I'm pretty convinced something else is up...


Morning after Thanksgiving. A tough one. One couple brought over (an unexpected) 4 bottles of pinot to blind taste, then the 3 bottles we already had airing were naturally next, then the cabs and syrahs during dinner... by then I'm having a helluva time, once again co-owner of earth, when the one dude pulls out a 2001 bottle of French sauterne to have with the pumpkin mousse the Adjutant made. "You have to have this, Hag—this is probably the only 100-rated Robert Parker wine you'll ever have, because you're so cheap."

So the cheapskate indulged. Dessert wines, man—they'll get you every time—those efficient high-sugars say "Danger—will supercharge hangovers".

Anyhow... onward we trudge...

Thanks again for your insights, BB!

Hag

Captain Haggard-


Apparently, you had quite a bout with Thanksgiving Day.

However, I take exception with the comment alleging that you are "cheap."

You and the Adjutant are an extremely generous couple and I for one am appreciative for the impeccable hospitality the two of you have always extended to me and for all the good times throughout the years that we have had together

Nice of your friend to bring that bottle of wine. I'm curious, what does a 2001 Bottle of French Sauterne cost?

Your pal,

-Terry

Thank you, Rio.

Re "cheap"—what he meant was I draw a much tighter purse-string when it comes to high-end wines. He was joking but he is right.

For years I thought a carefully chosen vintage below $25 could equal the high-end stuff, and sometimes it does. But my belief was, in the main, wishful thinking. Now my typical bottle exceeds $25 by a good margin, but I do not want to know about the next rung up, I don't want to fork over hundreds for a bottle of wine. At what price-point the principle begins or ends, I don't know, but I'm happy with my "OK but not great" cellar, and that's that.

So yeah, in this crowd, regarding wine, I am cheap. Proudly.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CaptHaggard
It was magical, and did go well with the mousse. (However, I rather would have had it with simple pan-sauteed foie gras *yum*).

quote:

ORIGINAL: fcharton

quote:

ORIGINAL: CaptHaggard
It was magical, and did go well with the mousse. (However, I rather would have had it with simple pan-sauteed foie gras *yum*).

I never drank Yquem, but I have heard one must try it with roasted chicken (and curries).

With foie gras, and especially sauteed foie, I would go for something less sweet. Too much sugar in the wine will dominate the taste of the food. If you want something sweet, a moelleux (semi dry), Alsace pinot gris or Vouvray. But some dry, southern wines (Condrieu, some spanish whites) would be great. Personally, I like reds, médocs, a bit old so that they are not too tannic.

I agree with you about price tags. Whereas is it often worth going the extra dollar to get premium vintages (premier crus, better producers or makes), some big names and years have just become collectibles. I seldom put more than 30€ for a bottle I will keep, and more than 60 in a liquor store, for something to be drunk right now.

Francois

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rio Bravo

After Action Report

October 5, 1943

Highlight for Today

1.) Japanese Carrier Aircraft attack the Allied Invasion Fleet and take a beating.

2.) The grand tally for aircraft and ships losses for today is as follows:

-6 Japanese ships are damaged, including but not limited to, 1 CL on fire, 1 CL lightly damaged, and 1 DD with heavy fires.
-11 Allied ships are sunk and 3 are damaged, including but not limited to, 1 CVE on fire and 2 DDs sunk.

-155 Japanese aircraft destroyed and 9 damaged.
-6 Allied aircraft destroyed


Synopsis of Combat Action for Today


1.) The Marianas Islands

Japanese Losses

5 destroyed (B6N2 Jill).
2 Destroyed (N1K1-J George).

CL Noshiro: 2 shell hits.
CL Oyodo: 2 shell hits; 1 torpedo hit; on fire
DD Kosugiri: 8 shell hits; heavy fires.
E Uji: 2 shell hits.
E Tsuga: 2 shell hits; on fire.
E Kiji: 3 shell hits; on fire.

Allied Losses

5 destroyed (F4U-1 Corsair).

DD Nepal: Sunk.
DD Racehorse: Sunk.
AM Sheldrake: Sunk.
SC PC-781: 1 shell hit.
PC Vigilant: Sunk.
PC Jackson: Sunk.
YMS 244: Sunk.
YMS 287: Sunk.
YMS 288: Sunk.
YMS 290: Sunk.


2.) The Philippine Sea near Daito Shoto.

Japanese Losses

16 destroyed (A6M5 Zero).
59 destroyed (B6N2 Jill).
73 destroyed 9 damaged (D4Y3 Judy).

No Japanese ship losses.

Allied Losses

1 destroyed (F6F-3 Hellcat).

CVE Altamaha: 1 bomb hit; on fire.
SS Bluefish: 2 hits.
CM Gouden Leeuw: Sunk.
xAK William Windom: Sunk.
xAK Steel Worked: Sunk.


3.) Japanese bomb Chungking. Same old story; minimal casualties, manpower hits, and hundreds of thousands of fires.


4.) Japanese bomb 94th Chinese Corps near Chungking.

Japanese Losses

None.

Allied Losses

93 Chinese casualties.


5.) Japanese bomb 92nd Chinese Corps near Shaoyang.

Japanese Losses

None.

Allied Losses

77 Chinese casualties.


6.) Japanese deliberate attack near Chunking.

Japanese Losses

5,231 Japanese casualties.

Allied Losses

10,142 Allied casualties.
Chinese retreat toward Chickiang.


7.) Allies shock attack Taichu.

Japanese Losses

272 Japanese casualties.

Allied Losses

790 Allied casualties.


Attached below as a link is the entire Combat Report for October 5, 1943.

Best Regards,

-Terry

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rio Bravo

Obvert & PaxMondo-


Welcome to The War College, Pax.

Welcome back to the War College, Obvert.

El Lobo advised me in an email that you JFBs knew the issue and the implications at your fingertips. He advised me to take a look at the last two posts in his AAR.

Initially, I did not know the reason why Captain Haggard and myself received a Turn 668 (October 5, 1943) Combat Video and the Combat Report text that it generated that was substantially different from the Combat Video and Combat Text Report that El Lobo saw, and the Combat Report Text generated by Turn 669 (again that Combat Text Report is for the date of October 5, 1943).

Considering I neither knew the reason why we had two different Combat Report Texts for the same date of the war nor did I know which, if either, were genuine and accurate, I suspected and advised El Lobo that a game glitch must have occurred. Furthermore, since EL Lobo and I could not determine which Combat Text Report was genuine and considering I thought it possible for such a glitch to occur in the future, and because El Lobo asked me what I wanted to do, I advised El Lobo that I thought it best to leave the game as at that time, based on the information we had, it didn't seem to make much sense to me to spend so many hours on the game when a glitch could compromise the game.

However, considering the "bug" only provided false reports to the Allies (and not to El Lobo) and the "bug" did not effect genuine Combat Action Results, I have advised EL Lobo that I don't now see any reason why we should not proceed with the war. He hasn't responded back yet.

In the event that El Lobo agrees that we should continue to prosecute the war, I will post in my AAR that my October 5, 1943 Combat Action Report is bogus and I will post a new October 5, 1943 Combat Action Report to reflect the genuine state of affairs.

It is good that you JFBs have so much knowledge and replied so promptly to El Lobo to set the record straight for us. Furthermore, it is good that the "bug" did not and does not actually effect the game play and only generates false reports. Captain Haggard and I will just need to keep in mind for Carrier Battles not to give credence to wpae001.wps generated Combat Video and Combat Report text, but rather, just wait for the Game Turn Combat Text Report.

Thank you both for your help with this issue; it is appreciated.

Best Regards,

-Terry

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rio Bravo

Obvert & PaxMondo-


Welcome to The War College, Pax.

Welcome back to the War College, Obvert.

El Lobo advised me in an email that you JFBs knew the issue and the implications at your fingertips. He advised me to take a look at the last two posts in his AAR.

Initially, I did not know the reason why Captain Haggard and myself received a Turn 668 (October 5, 1943) Combat Video and the Combat Report text that it generated that was substantially different from the Combat Video and Combat Text Report that El Lobo saw, and the Combat Report Text generated by Turn 669 (again that Combat Text Report is for the date of October 5, 1943).

Considering I neither knew the reason why we had two different Combat Report Texts for the same date of the war nor did I know which, if either, were genuine and accurate, I suspected and advised El Lobo that a game glitch must have occurred. Furthermore, since EL Lobo and I could not determine which Combat Text Report was genuine and considering I thought it possible for such a glitch to occur in the future, and because El Lobo asked me what I wanted to do, I advised El Lobo that I thought it best to leave the game as at that time, based on the information we had, it didn't seem to make much sense to me to spend so many hours on the game when a glitch could compromise the game.

However, considering the "bug" only provided false reports to the Allies (and not to El Lobo) and the "bug" did not effect genuine Combat Action Results, I have advised EL Lobo that I don't now see any reason why we should not proceed with the war. He hasn't responded back yet.

In the event that El Lobo agrees that we should continue to prosecute the war, I will post in my AAR that my October 5, 1943 Combat Action Report is bogus and I will post a new October 5, 1943 Combat Action Report to reflect the genuine state of affairs.

It is good that you JFBs have so much knowledge and replied so promptly to El Lobo to set the record straight for us. Furthermore, it is good that the "bug" did not and does not actually effect the game play and only generates false reports. Captain Haggard and I will just need to keep in mind for Carrier Battles not to give credence to wpae001.wps generated Combat Video and Combat Report text, but rather, just wait for the Game Turn Combat Text Report.

Thank you both for your help with this issue; it is appreciated.

Best Regards,

-Terry

It is tough that so much rides on so few turns sometimes. A CV clash can change the game for years, literally. I've had to talk a few opponents off the ledge after that (even without a sync bug) and in the end we had some great gaming moments we wouldn't have had if it had ended in 43. The late game is fun, and especially for the Allies. It kinda sucks to go through the planning stages for two years only to have the game end.

So I hope this continues!

quote:

ORIGINAL: pontiouspilot

Those losses are not significant. Have you conceded as your opponent suggests or is this more of your Yankee fake news?