RE: May 1945

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: May 1945

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: May 1945

Page: << < prev 209 210 211 [212] 213 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: May 1945 - 3/7/2018 10:21:03 PM

BillBrown

Posts: 2335
Joined: 6/15/2002
Status: offline

If it is needed, I have a copy of version 5.3 RA available.

(in reply to Canoerebel)

Post #: 6331

RE: May 1945 - 3/8/2018 4:28:58 AM

John 3rd

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

Thanks Bill.

WE added the off-map system but it couldn't be applied to existing games.

_____________________________

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

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

(in reply to BillBrown)

Post #: 6332

RE: May 1945 - 3/8/2018 1:31:11 PM

John 3rd

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

Thought I might provide a few more screen shots of the end.

Here are the top aircraft losses for the war. I will do two posts on this:

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

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

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

(in reply to BillBrown)

Post #: 6333

RE: May 1945 - 3/8/2018 1:33:11 PM

John 3rd

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

Page Two:

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 #: 6334

RE: May 1945 - 3/8/2018 1:39:04 PM

BillBrown

Posts: 2335
Joined: 6/15/2002
Status: offline

I really wonder why C-47s seem to take such huge ops losses.

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 6335

RE: May 1945 - 3/8/2018 1:42:02 PM

Chickenboy

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
Here are the top aircraft losses for the war. I will do two posts on this:

Interesting tidbits here:

John: About half of your E13A1 losses were due to OPS losses. What was your perspective about range settings for your float scouts? Did you run them at Max range or limit them most of the time to 'normal' range? Also, what were your typical % settings for NavSearch?

Why do I ask? These numbers for OPS losses look high to me. I generally run my float fighters at 60%; normal range settings.

CR: 2091 C-47 losses is (almost all OPS) high by my book. What were your typical range settings? Did you toggle a squadron 'off' in the event of regional weather problems or heavy OPS losses? Did you have a transport pilot training regimen or did you just let 'em take their knocks from the get go?

_____________________________

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 6336

RE: May 1945 - 3/8/2018 1:44:46 PM

HansBolter

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: BillBrown

I really wonder why C-47s seem to take such huge ops losses.

Likely because we all have a tendency to throw them into operations with pilots that have experience levels in the 30s and 40s.

Ever looked closely at the experience levels of the pilots. They are some of the greenest the Allies get.

They really need a good six months of training before being committed to operations, but I never seem to give it to them.

I bet many other players don't either.

_____________________________

Hans

(in reply to BillBrown)

Post #: 6337

RE: May 1945 - 3/8/2018 1:45:00 PM

Chickenboy

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: BillBrown

I really wonder why C-47s seem to take such huge ops losses.

CR has been outspoken in the past about his disdain for the pilot training / transfer clickfest. I'd venture that that has been somewhat tempered in the last few years (it's easier to move pilots en masse now), but old habits probably die hard.

If my suspicions are confirmed, he's likely not training his supply pilots and letting green noobs fly at extended ranges with no breaks in their schedule.

_____________________________

(in reply to BillBrown)

Post #: 6338

RE: May 1945 - 3/8/2018 1:48:45 PM

Canoerebel

Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline

I didn't pay much attention to the transports until we resumed the game in early 1943. Until then, the squadrons basically got orders that never changed, resulting in high ops losses. After we resumed, I set each transport squadron to deliver supply (or occasionally troops) at 20% or 30% rest levels. I also tweaked some of the max distance runs to closer targets (for instance, changing the Ledo supply run from Chengte to Kunming). Other than that, I didn't monitor squadrons carefully, so ops losses were still pretty high.

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 6339

RE: May 1945 - 3/8/2018 2:14:01 PM

Canoerebel

Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

CR has been outspoken in the past about his disdain for the pilot training / transfer clickfest. I'd venture that that has been somewhat tempered in the last few years (it's easier to move pilots en masse now), but old habits probably die hard.

If my suspicions are confirmed, he's likely not training his supply pilots and letting green noobs fly at extended ranges with no breaks in their schedule.

That was a long time ago, ye of elephantine memories. Pilot training was a feature I had to embrace, though I can still make improvements. In this game, I gave alot of attention to pilot training, though trainers was lowest priority.

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 6340

RE: May 1945 - 3/8/2018 2:29:41 PM

crsutton

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

I thought this game was over....

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Canoerebel)

Post #: 6341

RE: May 1945 - 3/8/2018 2:31:38 PM

Chickenboy

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel
In this game, I gave alot of attention to pilot training, though trainers was lowest priority.

What does this mean?

_____________________________

(in reply to Canoerebel)

Post #: 6342

RE: May 1945 - 3/8/2018 2:33:17 PM

Chickenboy

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

I thought this game was over....

We're just getting started on the 'lessons learned', bro.

_____________________________

(in reply to crsutton)

Post #: 6343

RE: May 1945 - 3/8/2018 2:34:08 PM

Canoerebel

Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline

Priorities, man, priorities. Pilot training for fighter and bomber pilots got frequent attention; next came ASW and search; then recon; last came transport.

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 6344

RE: May 1945 - 3/8/2018 2:36:24 PM

Chickenboy

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel
In this game, I gave alot of attention to pilot training, though trainers was lowest priority.

What does this mean?

Ah. So, you meant "transports" where you said "trainers".

_____________________________

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 6345

RE: May 1945 - 3/8/2018 2:37:25 PM

Canoerebel

Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline

Oops, yes.

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 6346

RE: May 1945 - 3/8/2018 2:43:11 PM

Chickenboy

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Oops, yes.

John, since this is your AAR, can we call others 'knuckleheads' in here? Just wondering.

_____________________________

(in reply to Canoerebel)

Post #: 6347

RE: May 1945 - 3/8/2018 4:44:36 PM

John 3rd

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Oops, yes.

John, since this is your AAR, can we call others 'knuckleheads' in here? Just wondering.

Absolutely. Bring them in.

Spent five days being depressed at my Mom's place and got back late-Monday/Early-Tuesday.

_____________________________

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

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

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 6348

RE: May 1945 - 3/8/2018 4:47:50 PM

John 3rd

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
Here are the top aircraft losses for the war. I will do two posts on this:

Interesting tidbits here:

John: About half of your E13A1 losses were due to OPS losses. What was your perspective about range settings for your float scouts? Did you run them at Max range or limit them most of the time to 'normal' range? Also, what were your typical % settings for NavSearch?

Why do I ask? These numbers for OPS losses look high to me. I generally run my float fighters at 60%; normal range settings.

CR: 2091 C-47 losses is (almost all OPS) high by my book. What were your typical range settings? Did you toggle a squadron 'off' in the event of regional weather problems or heavy OPS losses? Did you have a transport pilot training regimen or did you just let 'em take their knocks from the get go?

In all honesty I never thought about limiting their range to cut down on the Ops Losses. Will consider that for future games. I trained the heck out of my Search Plane pilots when they were not at sea. Generally, their experience stayed decent enough to be useful until the end of the war. When I headed into battle they were run at 100% Search. When not expecting battle or at bases (searching for SS usually) I ran them at about 60% with then the remainder set on rest.

The range comment is an excellent tidbit. Will remember that!

_____________________________

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

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

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 6349

RE: May 1945 - 3/8/2018 4:49:02 PM

John 3rd

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Oops, yes.

Dan: Did we have the permanent West Coast Training Squadrons established in this version of RA? Did you use them for training and were they useful?

_____________________________

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

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

(in reply to Canoerebel)

Post #: 6350

RE: May 1945 - 3/8/2018 4:50:22 PM

AcePylut

Posts: 1494
Joined: 3/19/2004
Status: offline

Question for the masses... So we know that setting a group to "extended" range increases Ops losses over "normal" range... but...

Does the actual "range" matter? Say I have a group, normal range is 10, extended range is 15. If I set the unit to range 2, will it suffer the same ops losses as if I set it to range 10?

_____________________________

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 6351

Match Debriefing - 3/8/2018 4:52:44 PM

John 3rd

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

I am OFFICIALLY shifting this to a Match Debrief at this point. We have already started but want to make it official.

Decorum shall follow for anyone entering this discussion. Feel like I have to say that due to things said on Dan's AAR that others took great exception to.

Let the discussion really get rocking and rolling with a thrust towards whys? Hows? What have we learned? The goal will be to better understand the match and how it can be used to better players who may have never gone so deep within a campaign.

Hope to apply some of this towards improving Michael and I's work within the whole arc of the Mods: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral, Between the Storms, and Between the Storms Lite.

< Message edited by John 3rd -- 3/8/2018 4:54:06 PM >

_____________________________

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

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

(in reply to BillBrown)

Post #: 6352

RE: Match Debriefing - 3/8/2018 5:17:13 PM

AcePylut

Posts: 1494
Joined: 3/19/2004
Status: offline

Ok first question: Why didn't you challenge the Death Star with the KB when he invaded the DEI, Phillipines, China, or Korea? What was your thought process during the time (of course hindsight is 50/50 fwiw)

_____________________________

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 6353

RE: May 1945 - 3/8/2018 5:17:42 PM

Canoerebel

Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
...
Dan: Did we have the permanent West Coast Training Squadrons established in this version of RA? Did you use them for training and were they useful?

I think so, but I'm not positive, because I don't remember what squadrons did or didn't appear in earlier games that I played. IE, if a squadron appeared in this game, I have no idea whether it did or didn't appearin in games I played in 2012 or earlier.

That's a lot of equivocating, but I do think there were specialized training squadrons. In fact, I somehow managed to load a fighter training squadron aboard a fleet carrier (Lexington or Enterprise) in San Fran early in the game and couldn't manage to offload it. It remained aboard that ship for the rest of the game, but fortunately that ship wasn't sunk.

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 6354

RE: May 1945 - 3/8/2018 6:17:08 PM

John 3rd

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: AcePylut

Question for the masses... So we know that setting a group to "extended" range increases Ops losses over "normal" range... but...

Does the actual "range" matter? Say I have a group, normal range is 10, extended range is 15. If I set the unit to range 2, will it suffer the same ops losses as if I set it to range 10?

Where is a good zone to be in? I concur with this question. My OPs losses were quite high early in the war but then I watched Dan's climb as time passed. What have players found that works best?

_____________________________

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

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

(in reply to AcePylut)

Post #: 6355

RE: May 1945 - 3/8/2018 6:18:58 PM

John 3rd

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
...
Dan: Did we have the permanent West Coast Training Squadrons established in this version of RA? Did you use them for training and were they useful?

I think so, but I'm not positive, because I don't remember what squadrons did or didn't appear in earlier games that I played. IE, if a squadron appeared in this game, I have no idea whether it did or didn't appearin in games I played in 2012 or earlier.

That's a lot of equivocating, but I do think there were specialized training squadrons. In fact, I somehow managed to load a fighter training squadron aboard a fleet carrier (Lexington or Enterprise) in San Fran early in the game and couldn't manage to offload it. It remained aboard that ship for the rest of the game, but fortunately that ship wasn't sunk.

That is FUNNY! Your answer jogs my memory and I KNOW you had the Training Squadrons but I had not made them permanent static at that point. Fixed that issue immediately!

_____________________________

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

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

(in reply to Canoerebel)

Post #: 6356

RE: Match Debriefing - 3/8/2018 6:22:18 PM

John 3rd

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: AcePylut

Ok first question: Why didn't you challenge the Death Star with the KB when he invaded the DEI, Phillipines, China, or Korea? What was your thought process during the time (of course hindsight is 50/50 fwiw)

The best chance to hit his Death Star was in the SE DEI when he started the move north. I seem to remember that my CVs had just entered into an upgrade cycle at that point so I was out of position for any sort of meaningful early attack.

Once I saw the sheer number of Fighters carried on the carriers, I saw absolutely no benefit to attacking the Main Fleet. At that point I shifted to trying hit his massed reinforcement TFs. Never could quite pull it off. Rarely could get close enough to initiate a full speed jump to attack the next day.

Dan did fantastically well covering those forces. Highly frustrating!

_____________________________

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

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

(in reply to AcePylut)

Post #: 6357

RE: Match Debriefing - 3/8/2018 6:53:01 PM

BillBrown

Posts: 2335
Joined: 6/15/2002
Status: offline

A question for Dan. After you got your fighters and bombers close to the Japanese home islands, did you consider sweeping and bombing the airfields to lessen the number of bases he could use his fighters? That would be before you started the city bombing.

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 6358

RE: Match Debriefing - 3/8/2018 7:10:29 PM

Canoerebel

Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline

My 4EB were within range long before I got within fighter range, so of course the early bombing campaign didn't involve fighters.

As I drew within fighter range, I elected to (mostly) focus on industrial targets. I focused on the direct rather than the indirect. I knew that bombing industry directly yield points, whereas interdiction (destroying fighters, damaging airfields, etc.), offered only an indirect return. Eventually this doctrine changed, once I finally got a feel that John was starting to run short on fighters and quality pilots. Then 4EB (and 2EB) also began targeting airfields, and fighters began sweeping.

Up until then it seemed to me that the quantity of Japanese fighters and the number of interlocking major airfields made a suppression campaign inefficient. In part, this was due to my bomber pools. They were low enough that I didn't want to lose any on indirect missions when direct missions were available.

< Message edited by Canoerebel -- 3/8/2018 7:12:05 PM >

(in reply to BillBrown)

Post #: 6359

RE: Match Debriefing - 3/8/2018 8:02:25 PM

Lecivius

Posts: 4845
Joined: 8/5/2007
From: Denver
Status: offline

I have a question, for anyone to answer. I tried to ask in Dan's AAR, without going into any strategy, since I was reading both AAR's. It is my understanding that firebombing Manpower causes fires. These fires then spread to and damage other industries. This 'snowball' effect of causing huge fires by repeated Manpower bombing therefore also generates a 'Snowball' of VP's for permanently destroyed industry. Dan was looking to get serious VP's from bombing. He got enough VP's to win, but was missing on the harvest of VP's that he was hoping for. I know you tried to answer, Dan, but I could not ask pointed questions as OpSec is a priority.

So, my question is, does large scale Manpower bombing over a period of days (or some such) cause huge fires that cause widespread damage to industry that would dramatically increase the daily VP total for the allied player? Or am I, as seems typical anymore, confused? I know firestorms are out, I'm curious about the residual effects of fires in the 10, 20, 50k range etc.

_____________________________

If it ain't broke, don't fix it!

(in reply to Canoerebel)

Post #: 6360