Various questions

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Various questions

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Various questions

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Various questions - 10/11/2004 3:20:12 PM

Exinfernis

Posts: 45
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline

Hi all

My campaign (Scen 15 Allies Vs AI), is unfolding rather encouragingly with a line drawn at Imphlal-Kohima-Ledo in Burma and PM-Buna-Lae-Munda in SoPac. It is 20.07.42. As I get to grips with the game mechanics (my first campaign in WITP) and try to apply my Pacwar experience I think I have managed to blunt the Jap onslaught. However, certain aspects appear that are beyond me atm. A previous quert I had regarding the rate of ready/repairing A/C has been duly addressed with good input from forum vets

Now, I'd like some insight on the following:

A. Carrier TFs - I'm aware of the restriction on the number of A/C onboard a TF and the gradual increase in limits at each successive year. Since it is 1942 and the 100+100 rule applies, I have set up 4 Carrier TFs with two comprising 2 carriers and the rest with one. The aim here is to have two seperate carrier groups, one operating from PM and the other from Wake each being at 2+1 so as to curb the disorganisation effect. It proved quite taxing to assemble a decent entourage for all four but at last I have managed it. Any other option you might suggest? I thought of 6 carrier TFs but escort ships are not enough..
Also on the same topic, does the same disorganisation rule apply to the Japanese carriers? Not sure if I have seen any mention on this point in the manual. Judging from experience the KB unleashed more than 250+ A/C on Buna 2 months ago, so I am sure something else gives.

B. I have set up a powerful contigent of SWPac forces in Darwin and Derby. Got my sights on either Koepang and/or Lautern. Recon shows me Jap garrisons of not over 4k troops in both. Would an endeavour at this point in time to launch a landing at these spots with HQ and Division-sized forces be premature or untenable? Air power is quite under control as the main enemy airfield at Amboina is being excavated by my B-17s each turn

Any views are welcome

_____________________________

In time, nothing matters

Post #: 1

RE: Various questions - 10/12/2004 12:30:01 PM

Exinfernis

Posts: 45
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline

As I see that I'm not likely to be graced with answers - I take it to imply that like questions have been asked before. Nevertheless, I want to point out that although I've scoured any relevant threads I came up with partial or conflicting answers. Especially on the subject of Japanese carrier TFs, I saw nothing pertinent.

So, in the hope of some enlightenment, I'll be more precise with my queries:

In 42 Allied carrier TFs are optimally configured at 2 carriers max and could be aided by a single carrier TF if sufficient escorts are available. Most of you would agree I reckon.. In 43 what is the optimum carrier TF composition? Need to plan for the future

It is August 42 and I'm at a standoff with the AI. I have amassed large forces into N Oz and contemplate a re-taking of Lautern & Koepang. KB is somewhere in the Marshalls vincinity. Jap air power in the area I'm coveting is seriously hampered. All in all, I think my proposed invasion will succeed but I ask for your thoughts on the tenability of such a move. Maybe it's too early in Autumn 42 for such a move?

Japanese carrier TFs suffer from no restrictions regarding A/C carried? If so, is the benefit only valid for 42? As far as I have witnessed, the KB sails around with nearly 300 planes on board..

Thank you for any forthcoming replies

_____________________________

In time, nothing matters

(in reply to Exinfernis)

Post #: 2

RE: Various questions - 10/12/2004 1:43:11 PM

Twotribes

Posts: 6929
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: Jacksonville NC
Status: offline

With out reading the rules again ( and I dont have them prited out) I believe the Japanese have no worry about fragmented flights at least in 41 and 42 for sure. Cant remember if all war or not.

As for attacking DEI, why? Wouldnt it be better to do the south pacific central pacific push and cut off the resources with submarines?

(in reply to Exinfernis)

Post #: 3

RE: Various questions - 10/12/2004 4:08:34 PM

KPAX

Posts: 735
Joined: 6/3/2004
From: Where the heart is; Home of the Fighting Irish
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

With out reading the rules again ( and I dont have them prited out) I believe the Japanese have no worry about fragmented flights at least in 41 and 42 for sure. Cant remember if all war or not.

As for attacking DEI, why? Wouldnt it be better to do the south pacific central pacific push and cut off the resources with submarines?

Excellent point.

DEI has many condensed decent sized airfields. You can not hit them all, and the Bettys could rip you up from several spots.

I would think that they could set subs athe the Oz / NG strait and it could be tough to get through there if the IJN did not want you to, or a long ways from Perth around.

_____________________________

"War makes Heros on both sides." Hero (the movie)

Thanks !!

KPAX

(in reply to Twotribes)

Post #: 4

RE: Various questions - 10/13/2004 11:52:22 AM

Exinfernis

Posts: 45
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline

Useful info tks ppl

_____________________________

In time, nothing matters

(in reply to Exinfernis)

Post #: 5

RE: Various questions - 10/13/2004 4:22:32 PM

Xargun

Posts: 3690
Joined: 2/14/2004
From: Near Columbus, Ohio
Status: offline

As the allies I would keep US CVs in separate TFs, but have one follow the other around so they are always in the same hex... This gives you the bonus of having both CVs protect each other with their CAP, while not risking any chance for the coordination rule to bite you.. The odds of having a coordination problem with 2 US CVS together is 80% since they carry 180 planes... (and the theoretical max is 100-200) By keeping them each in their own TF you avoid this problem and still have the extra CAP - the allies have the extra escorts easily to support 3-4 CV TFs at game start and when the DDs start rolling in you will have no problems...

The same rule affects the Japanese but not as severely for a couple reasons.. One the IJN CVs each carry less planes and second they had been practicing such group movements for a long time.. I believe the IJN can operate 3 CVs together before risking the coordination rule... The exact numbers are in the manual though...

Well first of all your recon is wrong... In this game it always is wrong.. Expect 50% more troops and plan for it, that way in the off chance your recon was right you will have more than enough troops ... but if its wrong, you won't have thrown away a division. Its always better to have more troops than just enough...

One way to check on the enemy strength is to bomb the ground units. It will list the ground unit under attack giving you an idea of what is there.. Do it a couple days in a row - or from separate bases and you will get a look at the biggest units there -- ground attacks target the strongest unit in the hex for attack... So bomb him and validate your recon.

I think as the allies it is never to early to strike back on one condition... You will win... If you land a division on Koepang only to watch the KB swoop in and sink your invasion TF and her escorts, leaving half the division sitting on the island with no support, then you just threw away a division (not counting the ships)... If you are sure the KB is elsewhere and can provide some CAP go ahead...

This is also less risky if playing against the AI than a human opponent.

Xargun

(in reply to Exinfernis)

Post #: 6