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: Autumn '42

 
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 >> After Action Reports >> RE: Autumn '42 Page: <<   < prev  14 15 [16] 17 18   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Autumn '42 - 10/26/2005 4:52:46 PM   
mc3744


Posts: 1957
Joined: 3/9/2004
From: Italy
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen

quote:

ORIGINAL: mc3744
On top of that the bombings mainly kill planes and not pilots, the only thing he could get short of.


Sorry, but he'll never suffer from a pilot shortage. There're unlimited pilots in the game for both sides. He'll simply train up rookies by attacking your undefended bases behind his lines...

quote:

With the FDC there’s no limit to massing planes hence the total production is what really counts, airfields size and location plays a minor role. As long as I hit with everything I have and he defends with everything he has, I’m loosing.


Yes, the simple logic of air combat in WITP lies in massing planes and overhelming the opponent with sheer numbers. This works to his favour now, later (from second half of 1943) it will work for you. But currently he simply needs to mass some hundred planes at some airfield

K


Hi K

Let's talk theory, this match is as it is.

I have 5 other games running. In all of them (but one) we stick to the airfield size limit and the game has a completely different flavour. It's not about sheer numbers. You have to decide whether you want to defend or attack or torpeado or ASW ... You can't do everything from a size 4 airfiled, you have to make choices. You need to develop multiple airfields for mutual protection, .... And IMHO it provides a more interesting game: we both get chances to play.
This way the one with the biggest number gets to play, the other watches. Of course the fact that I'm loosing affects my feeling . Still I'm quite sure I won't enjoy bombing him with 1.000 heavies, in a few months from now. Although that's obviously the way to go.
A few months ago I posted about "Is it fun in '44 for ther Allies?" for this precise reason.

I may also add that the FDC alters completely the structure of the game and its reality. Since the Allies cannot alter production with FDC Japan becomes even more the industrial power as opposed to the US.

Anyway, in this match I'll have to wait till I got the numbers. It's going to take a while

_____________________________

Nec recisa recedit

(in reply to Kereguelen)
Post #: 451
RE: Autumn '42 - 10/26/2005 5:47:18 PM   
Kereguelen


Posts: 1829
Joined: 5/13/2004
Status: offline 		Hi,

I've faced one PBEM opponent (a very good player, comparable to GH in many aspects) who used the same tactics as GH. As a result, that game was somewhat flawed. I could not (and did not) accuse my opponent of gameyness (hm, wonder if one could find this word in a dictonary?) but I became somewhat frustrated because I always had the feeling that this (attacks by hundreds of planes from relatively small airfields) was not realistic at all (the game was terminated due to too many bugs occurring).

In my other PBEM (started under patch 1.2, about a year ago) the problem of overwhelming plane numbers does not occur. Neighter me nor Mogami uses this tactic, and we don't have any (!) houserules. Nevertheless, air strikes with more than hundred planes are the exception in that game and we never use large night-bombing attacks (it never seemed to be realistic to me, cannot talk for Mog, but he seems to have a similar overall approach to the game) even if we both use night-bombing at times. Thus it seems that the game works very well (and in a realistic way) if both players have a similar understanding of what is realistic play and what is tweaking the mechanics of the game engine.

But I think that one (working) solution for the problems coming with massive airstrikes would be to simply reduce the number of available aviation support (for both players), base forces are too plentiful and too large in this regard. And one would not need one more houserule.

K

(in reply to mc3744)
Post #: 452
RE: Autumn '42 - 10/26/2005 6:55:40 PM   
mc3744


Posts: 1957
Joined: 3/9/2004
From: Italy
Status: offline 		I agree.

In the last three games I started, I asked for the airfield stacking rule. Due to this experience.
In the first one however (started under 1.1 ) we have no formal rule, we just avoid overstacking 'naturally'.
It doesn't feel right.
In this game I still can't get used to it. Yesterday I wanted to bomb Moulmein and I spread all the bombers through Akyab, Chandpur and Imphal. I forgot once again that I could stack them all in Akyab.

I also don't use night bombings, or very seldom, in the other PBEMs. In this game I felt it was the only option left if I wanted to play a bit.

Initially I was obviously not prepared for this tactic, I had in fact developed all the Indian border airfields to be able to use more planes. Rather useless with hindsight, I could speed up a couple and forget about the others.

Well, anyway I need to get used to it. If you see I forget please remind me

Cheers

_____________________________

Nec recisa recedit

(in reply to Kereguelen)
Post #: 453
RE: Autumn '42 - 10/26/2005 7:21:14 PM   
hawker


Posts: 849
Joined: 6/25/2005
From: Split,Croatia
Status: offline 		I never put many bombers in small airfields.Its a gamey tactics.In my current game against GH i can put 400+bombers in Khota Baru and Singapore will be in peaces,but it isnt realistic.The rule are:size of airfield x 40(top).I think that is solution for more realistic game.

_____________________________


Fortess fortuna iuvat

(in reply to mc3744)
Post #: 454
RE: Autumn '42 - 10/26/2005 8:09:52 PM   
mc3744


Posts: 1957
Joined: 3/9/2004
From: Italy
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: hawker

I never put many bombers in small airfields.Its a gamey tactics.In my current game against GH i can put 400+bombers in Khota Baru and Singapore will be in peaces,but it isnt realistic.The rule are:size of airfield x 40(top).I think that is solution for more realistic game.


The rule I follow is the one of the game: airfield size*50.

Anyway I would advise you to use FDC with GH, he is surely going to use it against you.

_____________________________

Nec recisa recedit

(in reply to hawker)
Post #: 455
RE: Autumn '42 - 10/26/2005 11:33:26 PM   
Tom Hunter


Posts: 2194
Joined: 12/14/2004
Status: offline 		I never overstack the airfields because I am afraid to.

As to there being too much AV support, what are you guys smoking? I lose more planes than anyone and I never have enough.

(in reply to mc3744)
Post #: 456
RE: Autumn '42 - 10/27/2005 12:12:25 AM   
mc3744


Posts: 1957
Joined: 3/9/2004
From: Italy
Status: offline 		What are you afraid of?

Actually I'm a not smoker
Anyway I wouldn't say that the main topic of the brief discussion was AV points, which btw I don't think they are too many, but I really haven't got a clue about the reality on this topic.
It rather was the effect on the game balance of massing airplanes, at least that was my point.
And with FDC you actually need even less AV points anyway.

Cheers ... I know you are a Hoepner fanboy

_____________________________

Nec recisa recedit

(in reply to Tom Hunter)
Post #: 457
RE: Autumn '42 - 10/27/2005 12:19:29 AM   
mc3744


Posts: 1957
Joined: 3/9/2004
From: Italy
Status: offline 		November 26th, 1942

IBC
Jap planes appeared in Kunming. Dinah are for sure, I saw them on recon.
I usually send all my bombers to attack whatever airport gets airplanes within (8) range of my Indian airfields. However GH must have gotten it by now. Hence I may find a huge CAP or LRCAP.
Hence this time I’m only doing recon, to verify the situation. Meanwhile most of my fighter squadrons have been moved to Imphal, Dimapur and Ledo on 90% CAP, just in case.
93rd Chinese/A Division has unloaded in Colombo, to beef up the two Bde’s already there.

AUSTRALIA – NG – NZ
Moving troops, planes and ships to prepare for the attack on NG … one day

PACIFIC
BBs South Dakota and Washington are leaving PH, destination Australia.


_____________________________

Nec recisa recedit

(in reply to mc3744)
Post #: 458
RE: Autumn '42 - 10/27/2005 1:35:50 AM   
mc3744


Posts: 1957
Joined: 3/9/2004
From: Italy
Status: offline 		November 27th, 1942

IBC
As expected I found a CAP of (44) Tony’s over Kunming. He is eventually trying to regain control over the Indian border skies. I was wondering why he hadn’t come yet.
I’m hoping he’ll try to bomb my airfields. This way I can eventually use my fighters, otherwise they are useless.
I don’t think he’ll bomb immediately, hence I’m still keeping some squadrons in reserve, not to show the entire force. I’m also moving backward some training units and I’ve switched training to night.
Chungking is at 20k supplies. At 26k it’ll be in full supply.
In a month I’ll have the AVG converted to P-38 and I’ll be able to start thinking 'offensive'.

AUSTRALIA – NG – NZ
In Sidney there is now a considerable Navy Force.
(6) CVs, (9) BBs, (16) CAs, (15) CLs and (45) DDs. As soon as the units previously engaged in central Australia will be in Townsville I may try to attack PM. Before he reinforces the area too much. But I haven’t made up my mind yet.
The CVE Long Island is moving to Perth with a small escort to try to hit some AV/AK in the Indian Pond.

PACIFIC
Bora Bora is now completely expended and I’m moving Seabees from Palmyra and Bora to Australia.


_____________________________

Nec recisa recedit

(in reply to mc3744)
Post #: 459
RE: Autumn '42 - 10/27/2005 12:34:55 PM   
mc3744


Posts: 1957
Joined: 3/9/2004
From: Italy
Status: offline 		Hey Tom

Why are you afraid of overstacking?
What am I missing?

Please I promise I won't tell GH

_____________________________

Nec recisa recedit

(in reply to Tom Hunter)
Post #: 460
RE: Autumn '42 - 10/27/2005 1:57:21 PM   
AmiralLaurent

 

Posts: 3351
Joined: 3/11/2003
From: Near Paris, France
Status: offline 		I think the game needs some things to reduce the level of aerial activity to a logical level:

1) trash this stupid rule that says that any base with 250+ air support squads may support any number of AC. If your land army is needing 2000 support points, you need them. If you have 2000 aircraft in a base, you should need 2000 air support points too.

2) limit the size of raids launched from a given AF to 15 AC per AF point. And the CAP provided at one time to 10 aircraft per point too. 500 AC can't effectively take off and gather from a tiny AF.
In this model, if we have for example the AVG (50 P-40) and 2 Blenheim Sqns (30 bombers) in Akyab (size 3) and 2 Zero Daitais (50 Zeroes) in Mytkyina (size 2). All Allied AC have offensive orders, all Zeroes are on CAP.
Max size raid of Akyab is 45 (15 * 3), so two raids will be made, one by each Blenheim squadron, each escorted by around 25 P-40. They won't meet each time 50 Zeroes but 20 (10 * 2). And not the same for both raids.
So rather than one heavy air battle, a serious air offensive will see a succession of small to medium raids hit the same target and a row of small air battles (that WITP engine handles far better than big air battles).

For the night raids the same apply but in this case the raid will be reduced to 5 AC per AF point and only one raid may be launched for any base. So night raids will always remain small. The number given is the number taking off so it will be reduced then by the current limitations, planes getting lost and so on.

3) link the level of support needed to the number of engines of the aircraft.

4) bomber and torpedo units should be able to use normal load only if a BF of the good type (IJNAF fo Betties, USAAF for B-17, USN for Avengers) is on the airfield. To be precise each aviation support point of the good type should support one aircraft.

(in reply to mc3744)
Post #: 461
RE: Autumn '42 - 10/27/2005 2:49:44 PM   
mc3744


Posts: 1957
Joined: 3/9/2004
From: Italy
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: AmiralLaurent
So rather than one heavy air battle, a serious air offensive will see a succession of small to medium raids hit the same target and a row of small air battles (that WITP engine handles far better than big air battles).


Hello Admiral
An honor to have you in my AAR (I mean it, I really love your strategic evaluations in the forum, I seldom have time to post myself - beside the AAR - but I read)

I totally concur with your evaluation and particularly with the above statement.

I do however believe that your system, albeit very reasonable it's a bit complicated and would require much more time for each single turn to plan and count. Which I don't have and maybe other players don't either.

However sticking to the simple rule of size*50 seems to work quite well in my other games.
Air battles are more frequent and smaller in the number of planes involved, Japan is still predominant in most areas, but there's more equilibrium. Also you need to invest supplies and engineers to build up airfileds at a good pace.
Truth be told, I'm biased by the fact that I'm doing way better in all my other games (without FDC) hence I obviously tend to prefer the other system , still it seems my opponents are enjoying as well, while I can't really say that I'm enjoying this match.

After my 'morale break-down' and the support received by GH on the force concetration (I read a few comments in the AAR on the match, when I was giving up) I went back to some of my opponents to ask if they wanted to skip the airfiled stacking rule (which I proposed in the first place) since it seemed the forum does like the massing, but they all wanted to keep it.
I honestly believe that huge concetrations are not realistic and not handled propoerly by the game engine.

Night bombing.
I have no info on reality. Hence I bowed to the forum expert opinion.
However its impact, even with 4E, it's not so relevant in the game, unless you bring it to the extreme (as I did). And even in my case I probaly gained approx. 1.000 points (minus op losses) in 4-5 months.
Not game altering, as Australia proved. He wanted to keep Daly, he could, night bombing notwithstanding.

_____________________________

Nec recisa recedit

(in reply to AmiralLaurent)
Post #: 462
RE: Autumn '42 - 10/27/2005 7:05:14 PM   
AmiralLaurent

 

Posts: 3351
Joined: 3/11/2003
From: Near Paris, France
Status: offline 		Hi, mc,

I am a regular reader of both your and GH's AAR, so I make no strategic comment because I know both point of view.

I don't think my system will need more calculations from players. Now 200 AC will fly together and meet 100 AC on CAP. In my system the same will be true, except that instead of one battle there will be several far more realistic. I hate the fact that each flying unit in UV or WITP is meeting every enemy air unit on the hex.

(in reply to mc3744)
Post #: 463
RE: Autumn '42 - 10/27/2005 7:20:46 PM   
mc3744


Posts: 1957
Joined: 3/9/2004
From: Italy
Status: offline 		Hello Admiral

If I understood correctly you are not suggesting a house rule, but rather a change in the game system.
Is that so?

I'm glad you read the AAR , fair enough you don't comment.

_____________________________

Nec recisa recedit

(in reply to AmiralLaurent)
Post #: 464
RE: Autumn '42 - 10/27/2005 7:55:39 PM   
Tom Hunter


Posts: 2194
Joined: 12/14/2004
Status: offline 		mc3744

I was not ignoring your question, just had not checked your AAR until now. By the way I am not really pro-Hoepner, I just comment on the effectiveness of peoples strategy as I see it. I am also biased in favor of bloody strategies, and you seem fairly catious. Time will tell if caution is the way to go. I will readily admit that I have no way of judging success of a long term plan in the short term.

As to the "Afraid" comment I look at big airraids that Blackwatch launched in our games, and at the major raids I have organized in my games. It is very possible for either side to mass the planes needed to pound an airfield to rubble in a very short period, trapping the planes and then attritting them away to nothing.

Early in the war the Japanese have an advantage in this, because thier twin engine planes can use the smaller airbases more effectively that the Allied 4 engine planes. One of the things that suprises me about Gen Hoepner is the way he fights your 4 engine planes. He sends fighters to CAP his own bases, but does nothing against your bases. In a case like that I would mass 200 or so Japanese bombers and hit back at the Allies during daylight when the night bombers are lined up on the tarmac.

I like to have my planes spread out because I am afraid of the massive strike gaining control of the air. If I am using 2-4 mutually supporting bases then the enemy cannot really shut me down. But if I have just one base I can get murdered.

A good example comes from the Fear and Loathing game. When we were evacuating Malaya we sent 230 bombers to Batvia an L4 airfield. We started off smashing the Japanese airfield at Mersing, then Kuantan to cover our fleets. It worked we blew up a lot of planes and shut down the bomber forces there. But within days we had 100 planes stuck on the ground at Batavia. It took us weeks to get them all out. If the Japanese had sent 200-300 planes after Batvia we would have been in big trouble. The only reason it was worth the risk was getting the army out.


(in reply to mc3744)
Post #: 465
RE: Autumn '42 - 10/27/2005 8:23:34 PM   
mc3744


Posts: 1957
Joined: 3/9/2004
From: Italy
Status: offline 		I had the same fear, but looking at GH's way of handling airfileds it looks like the stronger one can forget about this problem.

He has some 500 bombers plus around 200 fighters in one single airport. He bombs where I have no air protection and still manages to get a CAP 150 strong of fighter, which is impassable by my 4E's without escort.

Also if you are stronger over one airfiled you can slowly hit them all.
If he manages to win over Ledo, he can then switches to Dimapur and Imphal.
While if I mass all my fighters in one airfiled I doubt he can get past the CAP.

Yes, I guess I'm cautios
I rather think of it as 'suicide adverse'

If you look back you'll see that I tried to fight, like in Timor. But there's no fighting with FCD. The stronger wins, end of story.
Hence I'm waiting to gain the upper edge. What can I do differently?
Plus I lost 6 months in Central Australia only to discover it's impossible to counter-attack due to the supply rules.
I would have starting preparing for New Guinea in April, now it's September and I'm only starting.

Thanks for the feed back

_____________________________

Nec recisa recedit

(in reply to Tom Hunter)
Post #: 466
RE: Autumn '42 - 10/27/2005 8:54:13 PM   
Tom Hunter


Posts: 2194
Joined: 12/14/2004
Status: offline 		I'm really not sure what you can do different. Are you playing CHS? or just the map mod? The CHS thread about Allies getting screwed in the air was very interesting, and there was an earlier thread where Jim Burns (I think) and I compared aircraft numbers, Allies Vs. Japan.

I was amazed to learn that the Japanese outproduce the Allies in aircraft if the game is played with PDU. So husbanding your resources can make some sense.

Personally I would be pushing harder in the South Pacific, but that is more of a personality issue than a "correct strategy" issue. And I agree that the Australian supply thing does set you off balance, and I don't think anyone realized that the revised map had that effect until it showed up in your game.

(in reply to mc3744)
Post #: 467
RE: Autumn '42 - 10/27/2005 9:03:41 PM   
jwilkerson


Posts: 10525
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline 		Allied player can be beaten - as you know - you've suffered that once - though you changed your mind and decided you weren't beaten after all !!

But allied side cannot really be beaten - yes VP win for Japanese maybe - but if play were to continue - Allies would still destroy Japan eventually.

It is obviously too late to fight a bloodier opening for the Allies since the opening is over. But at this point I think you might consider a point made by Liddel Hart. That concentrating on one line of attack will strengthen the defense.

Japan has "interior lines" ... if you consider all possible avenues of counterattack for Allies.

1. Aleutians.
2. Marshall/Gilbert.
3. Solomon/Bismarck/Papua.
4. Timor/Kai/Ceram/Celebes/Bornea etc. etc.
5. China
6. Burma.
7. Andaman/Summatra/Malaya

So you have maybe 7 lines along which you can counter attack. Point I'm try to make is - try to find a way to counterattack on as many of these lines as possible. This will spread out the defense. He can probably be strong in one of these places. Maybe in two of them though not in all dimensions ( a dimension being like Carriers, Surface, Landbased air ... these three are his primary strike weapons ).

You will soon have more overall combat power than he - but if you try to funnell all that combat power down one narrow thrust - he may be able to concentrate sufficiently to defeat it. However, if you can attack along 3 or more lines - then it is doubtful. Yes you will take some losses - but advancing and keeping him off balance and beginning to gain some initiative will change the complection of everything.

So by attacking along multple lines you will be able to bring more of your greater combat power to bear across a wider portion of the front - and will be able to gain local superiority in at least some of these places - and you will be able to advance in these places.

If he shifts his defensive strength - then that will open up another alternative attack route for you. Remain flexible and ready to reinforce success.

Anyway, just some thoughts - thus far I have been playing only Japanese ( I'm right around 2000 turns PBEM completed ) but I am describing the type of Allied counterattack that would worry me. A single powerful thrust - worries me the least.

Good luck !



_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to mc3744)
Post #: 468
RE: Autumn '42 - 10/27/2005 11:56:01 PM   
mc3744


Posts: 1957
Joined: 3/9/2004
From: Italy
Status: offline 		September 29th, 1942

I just noticed I posted the last two summaries as November! Wishful thinking?

We are not playing CHS, only Andrew’s (beautiful) Map Mod.
You still get the Japs overpowering the Allies on the production side.
(125) B-24D
(40) B-17
(5) LB-30
(75) P-38
That’s what you can use attacking (after October), you may want to throw in another (30) Wellington.
There’s a lot of B-25 and F4F, but the B-25 must be escorted and the F4F hasn’t got the legs, it’s only ‘good’ defending.
If I could see GH production I’d bet that the combined production of Tojo, Tony and Zero is close to 400-500. Then you have the LBs, probably another 2-300. Not counting DB and G3/4M.

I’ll soon be facing a dilemma. Will I upgrade my IBC high exp squadrons to P-38 or should I use those for NG and SOPAC?
If I upgrade the AVG and the 18th FG I get (144) P-38 with 75-82 exp to escort some 200+ heavies. Maybe I can hurt him. Still there would be no strategic gain, only points.
On the other hand, in NG and SOPAC I could use them to aid in regaining some ground, but they’d be wasted on low exp squadrons.
I really don’t know.

IBC
Chungking is still at 20k.
I have only few fighter squadrons still training, and they are already 75+, all the rest is 80+ exp.

AUSTRALIA – NG - NZ
(5) Divisions will soon be in Townsville.
(123) combat vessels are leaving Sidney for Townsville. Right now I feel like rushing the attack on PM.
Recon reports only some 4-6k men.
If I upgrade (24) P-38 I’d get a CAP of (198) F4F and (24) P-38, it may be enough to avoid a slaughter and to land in PM. If I can grab it fast I can bring in P-40s.
I’m not sure. I still have to make sure I have enough transports, I’m massing them in Townsville, but they may not be enough.
Also jw consideration on multiple attacks makes much sense. I’ve been writing more than once that I should attack on multiple fronts. Still I feel now he is not so strong in NG and maybe a powerful thrust could work without too many losses.
Anyway jw's suggestion is real good I must keep it in mind. Thanks.

PACIFIC
No news.


_____________________________

Nec recisa recedit

(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 469
RE: Autumn '42 - 10/28/2005 12:00:19 AM   
String


Posts: 2661
Joined: 10/7/2003
From: Estonia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mc3744



I’ll soon be facing a dilemma. Will I upgrade my IBC high exp squadrons to P-38 or should I use those for NG and SOPAC?
If I upgrade the AVG and the 18th FG I get (144) P-38 with 75-82 exp to escort some 200+ heavies. Maybe I can hurt him. Still there would be no strategic gain, only points.
On the other hand, in NG and SOPAC I could use them to aid in regaining some ground, but they’d be wasted on low exp squadrons.
I really don’t know.




I'd say upgrade only one squadron in india, with 75+ exp it will be enough for your limited needs there.

edit: Oh and watch it, you can only LRCAP within normal range.

(in reply to mc3744)
Post #: 470
RE: Autumn '42 - 10/28/2005 12:04:34 AM   
Tom Hunter


Posts: 2194
Joined: 12/14/2004
Status: offline 		Just figuring out how to get your airforce into combat is a really big problem for the Allied player.

A good part of my decisions about basing and what theater to push in are made because of the range of Allied fighter aircraft. It is also one of the reasons the South Pacific is so important, the bases are close together.

I realize that Japan has problems all its own, but playing the Allies well is really difficult too. The difference is that you can play the Allies badly and still play, but if you play the Japanese badly you get smacked.

(in reply to String)
Post #: 471
RE: Autumn '42 - 10/28/2005 1:21:58 AM   
mc3744


Posts: 1957
Joined: 3/9/2004
From: Italy
Status: offline 		Right, what's the normal range for P-38?

Yes, playing the Japs badly doesn't work at all.

_____________________________

Nec recisa recedit

(in reply to Tom Hunter)
Post #: 472
RE: Autumn '42 - 10/28/2005 1:35:18 AM   
mc3744


Posts: 1957
Joined: 3/9/2004
From: Italy
Status: offline 		September 30th, 1942

IBC
I’m reloading the carrier’s squadrons and upgrading them to Seafire’s.
I’m also starting to bomb Port Blair. I think I’ll use an invasion on Port Blair as a diversion from PM. I should have more diversions, but I’m not ready for that yet.
Probably I will not engage the carriers, Port Blair is too close to tons of LBA’s. Right now I think I’ll use a (25) ships Fast Transport after some days of air bombings with the heavies.
I’ll keep the carriers a bit out to try to distract some of his CVs to the area.
I’m evacuating Dimapur and concentrating the fighter force in Imphal and Ledo.
Chungking is now at 21k supplies. Very slowly it keeps rising. I may be able to hold onto Chungking for a very long time.

AUSTRALIA – NG – NZ
Eventually my heavies decided to take off. They’ve been on airfield attack for the past three days, but they were feeling a bit tired and decided to take a vacation!
The attack has been moderately successful, 20:38. (20) of my planes lost in air-to-air, (33) of his on the ground.
I’ve moved another (48) B-17’s in Alice for a second round over Daly. I’m hoping to destroy some of the damaged ones. That is if my pilots feel like flying, of course. Wouldn’t wanna force them.

----------------

Bombing Daly




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Nec recisa recedit

(in reply to mc3744)
Post #: 473
RE: Autumn '42 - 10/28/2005 2:32:10 PM   
mc3744


Posts: 1957
Joined: 3/9/2004
From: Italy
Status: offline 		October 1st, 1942

The month of the P-38 Lightning, what an achievement!!

IBC
Unlucky once again with the British withdrawal. Last month CV + 2 DD, I kept the CV. This month BB + 2 DD, I’ll keep the DDs, the Resolution will go back to GB. I’m now at -180 PP. Four days to recover.
In Karachi has arrived the 221 RAF HQ, which was destroyed in Tsuyung. Soon (within a week) several Chinese units will also be available in Karachi. Thanks to Andy.
All CVs are now fully loaded with Seafire’s and Swordfish’s.
Dimapur has been vacated and the air fighting force is now concentrated in Ledo and Imphal. Some reserve fighter squadrons are in Chandpur.
Bad weather prevented the first bombing of Port Blair.
Over Kunming there’s always a CAP of 40-70 Tony’s. If I upgrade the entire AVG to P-38 I could sweep over the airfield and enjoy some dog fighting. Just as thought.

AUSTRALIA – NG – NZ
Second bombing raid over Daly, despite a slightly stronger CAP (a Tojo’s Daitai has been added) the results have been quite good, 17:36 (5 air – 31 ground).
Recon reports airfield damage at (67). I’ll keep bombing, maybe I can shut it down temporarily and finish off the grounded planes. The exchange rate is not great, but acceptable.
I’m out of LB-30’s in the pool (only 5 replacements per month), I’ll have to upgrade a squadron but I’m currently too short on B-17 and B-24D because I’ve recently upgraded (192) medium bombers in DH and PH.
In Townsville there are now (17) AP’s and Cooktown building goes fast, in two weeks it has gone to port (3) and airfield (4).

NOPAC
I’m sending dozens of subs to mine Japan’s ports from Attu.
So far one hit on a DD.

--------------

A new toy




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Nec recisa recedit

(in reply to mc3744)
Post #: 474
RE: Autumn '42 - 10/28/2005 5:09:25 PM   
mc3744


Posts: 1957
Joined: 3/9/2004
From: Italy
Status: offline 		October 2nd, 1942

IBC
(5) Chinese divisions, (3) Base Forces and (2) HQs are now in Karachi, all at 1/3 strength.
I’ll leave them there to recover. They’ll be very useful in the future.

AUSTRALIA – NZ – NG
The third bombing raid over Daly scored quite well, 12:56 (4-52).
Most of the Jap fighters were damaged and did not take off. It’s been a good three days, retribution for the Exmouth ambush.
No more planes in Daly and probably a LRCAP from Darwin, hence I’m now recovering the heavies. Their next target will be PM.
Recon over PM now reports (9) units but only 3.500 men!?!


_____________________________

Nec recisa recedit

(in reply to mc3744)
Post #: 475
RE: Autumn '42 - 10/28/2005 5:58:21 PM   
Speedysteve

 

Posts: 15998
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline 		Wouldn't trust your recon bud.

In my game vs swift I have had 'wonky' intel.

At Wake it said he had 68,000 troops in fact he had 40,000.

At PM it said he had 7 units where as he only had 5.

My theory is always take more than you may need at least you will take the place rather than losing a ton of men.

Regards,

Steven

_____________________________

WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to mc3744)
Post #: 476
RE: Autumn '42 - 10/28/2005 6:26:55 PM   
AmiralLaurent

 

Posts: 3351
Joined: 3/11/2003
From: Near Paris, France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mc3744

Hello Admiral

If I understood correctly you are not suggesting a house rule, but rather a change in the game system.
Is that so?

I'm glad you read the AAR , fair enough you don't comment.


Yes, sorry, I was speaking of a game change, no house rule can correct the air system, as no house rule can correct the fact that the land model is even worse. As soon as I win the lotery I will write WITP II... and WWII (why just limiting ourselves to some thousands of ships and hundred of divisions when you can have ten times more).

Anyway WITP is the best game I ever played. But it isn't historical at all and that is a pity.

By the way, and totally off topic, I'm studying WWII (as a hobby) and I found a list of Italian casualties with the following abbrevations for the fate of people : C ( = caduti ), D ( = dispersi), F ( = feriti), IN (?), B (?) and M (?). What may be the meaning of the last 3 ones ? I may read Italian but not well enough to imagine that.

(in reply to mc3744)
Post #: 477
RE: Autumn '42 - 10/31/2005 12:56:51 PM   
mc3744


Posts: 1957
Joined: 3/9/2004
From: Italy
Status: offline 		October 14th, 1942

Sorry Admiral for the delay. I’ve been trying to think of something for the abbreviations. The only idea is about (IN) it could be Incapacitato (= Incapacitated), but it’s not a very common word in Italian.

IBC
I’ve upgraded my best unit to P-38’s. It’s an AVG section with (82) experience and my top ace. I have a plan forming up. I’ll discuss the details later on, in a couple of weeks.
Chungking is now at 23k supplies.

AUSTRALIA – NG – NZ
The Long Island is moving into the Indian Pond hoping to catch some AV’s. Found a sub. When I went with ASW TF’s I found AV’s, now that I go with a CVE I find subs.
I tried placing a sub screen line from Gili Gili to the East, the subs have been attacked by countless Jap planes. I’m withdrawing them.
The High Command has ordered radio silence for the operation preparing in Australia. I won’t be able to discuss the details. However troops, ships and planes are massing.

PACIFIC
All quiet.


_____________________________

Nec recisa recedit

(in reply to AmiralLaurent)
Post #: 478
RE: Autumn '42 - 11/1/2005 12:47:23 AM   
mc3744


Posts: 1957
Joined: 3/9/2004
From: Italy
Status: offline 		October 18th, 1942

IBC
In a couple of turn I’ll ambush Jap planes over China.
Chunking, Sining and Lanchow bombings are always unescorted, at least they’ve been so for more than a month.
Over Lanchow however only fighters are bombing: training runs. Hence the airfield is 100% operational. AS is at (40), enough for what I have in mind.
Soon the AVG equipped with P-38 will be ready. I’ll move into Lanchow (24) P-38’s, (24) P-40E’s and (16) Kitty’s.
The P-38 will LRCAP over Chungking, the Kitty’s over Sining and the P-40E’s will engage the training fighters over Lanchow. At the end of the day they’ll retreat back to Ledo.

AUSTRALIA – NG – NZ
Dutch pilots are getting back in shape. The first Brewster's squadron has hit (80) exp. I’ll use the Mog system, since the Dutch pilots are like the Jap ones. No replacements and I’ll disband smaller units into bigger ones.
Operation “Sealed lips” continues , I’m getting really nervous.
PM shows an increase of movement and troops.

PACIFIC
In SOPAC I upgraded a squadron of P-39 to P-38.


_____________________________

Nec recisa recedit

(in reply to mc3744)
Post #: 479
RE: Autumn '42 - 11/1/2005 12:43:51 PM   
mc3744


Posts: 1957
Joined: 3/9/2004
From: Italy
Status: offline 		October 19th, 1942

Bad luck strikes again.
The weather was clear everywhere in China (I carefully checked the forecast yesterday). For weeks Chungking, Lanchow and Sining have been bombed daily and without escort.
Today no bombers over Chungking or Sining and escort over Chungking for one squadron of DB and LRCAP and escort over Lanchow. Only (14) Tony's came, and not the usual 44+.
I still managed some kills, but nothing relevant.

I feel this AAR is bringing me bad luck.
I go for Tongarapu, just two weeks later he comes for it, I go with ASW TFs I find AV's, I go with CVE I find subs, I ambush the most regular raids I've had in months and the bombers are resting and I find escort.
I want to move for PM and he starts building up. Not to mention the follow all bug or the supply/distance rule in Australia.
I had good luck over Daly, but by chance I forgot to mention in the AAR about the strike.
I'm always one step behind. I'm too predictable and I've got some curse.

I think it's the AAR bringing me bad luck. From now on I will only comment on the past.

_____________________________

Nec recisa recedit

(in reply to mc3744)
Post #: 480
Page:   <<   < prev  14 15 [16] 17 18   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> After Action Reports >> RE: Autumn '42 Page: <<   < prev  14 15 [16] 17 18   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

0.891