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: The first carriers battle

 
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: The first carriers battle Page: <<   < prev  18 19 [20] 21 22   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: The first carriers battle - 11/11/2005 10:32:04 PM   
Barbarigo

 

Posts: 12
Joined: 4/18/2005
Status: offline 		This is when this game really differs from reality.

What happened --> he clicked the wrong button

Equivalent in real war--> very difficult to find.

Bottom line: if you're interested in winning --> no redo.

If you're interested in a challenging game --> redo, maybe with some conditions (he knows where the carriers are now)

B.


(in reply to Taglia)
Post #: 571
RE: The first carriers battle - 11/11/2005 10:51:38 PM   
Taglia


Posts: 115
Joined: 2/16/2002
From: Italy
Status: offline 		Well ... I just wonder a thing: whenever I move a ship, I generally assure myself about its orders. Whenever I move warships, I DOUBLE CHECK orders and settings. Whenever I move CVs (especially after what happened me to Enterprise) I first touch my "coconuts", then I triple check all the single ships in the TF, all the planes and all the stuff that can inspect, then at the end of the turn, when the cursor is marching toward the "End Turn" button, I suddenly feel panicked and I recheck all of the above, ESPECIALLY when I know I'm moving against the enemy and there are chanches about entering combat.

The equivalent in real war is when operations are planned with haste and result in complete failure. This is not real war, this is a game. A game that goes on for a long time, and there is absolutely no point to play with haste to do 1 turn more a day. And the player should only blame himself if it loses assets for giving wrong orders to his units (like happened to me too...)

_____________________________

Taglia
NET WARGAMING ITALIA
Webmaster of THE GREAT PLANES
Do NOT click

(in reply to Barbarigo)
Post #: 572
RE: The first carriers battle - 11/11/2005 11:03:48 PM   
jwilkerson


Posts: 10525
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline
quote:

Equivalent in real war--> very difficult to find.


Midway - Nagumo clicked the wrong button - and he got no redo !






_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to Barbarigo)
Post #: 573
RE: The first carriers battle - 11/11/2005 11:18:29 PM   
Speedysteve

 

Posts: 15998
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline 		Exactly.

Once more just my thoughts but IF you assume and accept Gen hit the wrong button then before you know it every PBEMer will be asking for redo's due to a 'clicking error'......

_____________________________

WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 574
RE: The first carriers battle - 11/11/2005 11:22:51 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		No redos for mistakes IMO

(in reply to Speedysteve)
Post #: 575
RE: The first carriers battle - 11/11/2005 11:33:34 PM   
Speedysteve

 

Posts: 15998
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline 		Exactly. This is your finals exams not your mocks.........

_____________________________

WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 576
RE: The first carriers battle - 11/11/2005 11:38:02 PM   
pauk


Posts: 4162
Joined: 10/21/2001
From: Zagreb,Croatia
Status: offline 		Well it is not so simple... but the bottom line is what several people said here

"Midway - Nagumo clicked the wrong button - and he got no redo !"

Sorry for interupting this Allied thread, but this Jap fanboy is on your side - this time....

Of course, your victory wont be sweet because you didn't outplay him, it was his mistake after all but WiTP is like chess - winner will be the person who make fewer mistakes!

_____________________________


(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 577
RE: The first carriers battle - 11/11/2005 11:44:03 PM   
mc3744


Posts: 1957
Joined: 3/9/2004
From: Italy
Status: offline 		Just came back on line.

Thanks everybody for your feed-back.

I'd like to clarify that GH never asked for a redo, he is a tough one!
It's simply the first thing I thought when he told me that he had the Zero's on naval rather than escort.

Then, after watching the turn, I noticed that he was actually able to defend the carriers (the primary task I always assign my navy fighters to), but not to escort his DB and TB (I had only 10% on escort).
Now my guess is that he had the Zero's on naval attack to expand the attack radius of the KB vs. fast transports, convoys and monelayers and would have changed them to escort at the right time.
However he forgot to switch from Naval to escort before the carrier engagement. Hence he did not click the wrong button (otherwise at least some Zero's would have been on escort), he 'just' forgot to change orders. This somehow makes me feel slightly better

Bottom line, based on your advice and my evaluation here is what I've decided.
If GH was a rookie I'd offer a redo. But he is no rookie He is toughest opponent I ever met and I'd really like to stand a chance at beating him
Hence no redo.

_____________________________

Nec recisa recedit

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 578
RE: The first carriers battle - 11/12/2005 12:23:10 AM   
Tom Hunter


Posts: 2194
Joined: 12/14/2004
Status: offline 		A lot of this game comes down to remembering to set your forces up correctly. Correct home port, CAP setting, you name it. He missed one, and lost a nice CV for it. I have lost nice CVs the same way.

You gambled and you won, fair and square. What if he had sent all 6 carriers and set CAP differently. You would have been murdered.

(in reply to mc3744)
Post #: 579
RE: The first carriers battle - 11/12/2005 1:24:50 AM   
mc3744


Posts: 1957
Joined: 3/9/2004
From: Italy
Status: offline 		December 12th, 1942

Tom has been complaining because I’m not describing my long term strategy.
Wouldn’t want to make a veteran like Tom unhappy! So let’s talk medium term (I’m not sure I have long term!)

IBC
Obviously India is in no imminent danger whatsoever: the main KB is in the Pacific.
GH has retreated his troops from all Northern Burma, but for a small garrison in Mandalay. Going southbound, Rangoon is the first heavily defended base I’ll encounter.
Some ‘bunker tactic’!
I can see - at least - part of his reasons: a) the Burma road has no longer any value since China is Japanese, b) those bases have very low VPs, c) nearby the Indian border I enjoy total air superiority, d) any valuable resource has been erased long ago by my bombers. He may have more reasons, but those could be enough already.

My strategy here is pretty straightforward.
1) Move all the available units - by land - southbound. They’ll go as far as their strength will allow to.
2) Keep the Chinese troops (actually they are so many that a part will suffice) for garrisoning duty.
3) The air force will provide the main defense vs. an unlikely seaborne invasions and will suppress enemy ground units barring the way.
4) Ground all the bombers till Jap planes appear in any nearby airfield or until I need to soften up any Jap LCU’s.
5) Once Northern Sumatra and/or Andaman will be within reach of my Burma’s air force I’ll conduct a seaborne invasion with my Indian reserve troops and the best Chinese ones.
6) I’m yet undecided on the CV’s role.

AUSTRALIA – NG
Not much to do here.
Without Northern Australia I have one target only: NG. I have not yet decided when to attack. But I’ll do it within the first quarter of 1943.
Right now I think I’ll wait to engage his carriers once again when the Essex will be deployed (one month to go). Hopefully I may be able to cripple some more Jap CVs. Then I’ll go for NG. The hundreds of heavies I now have will pave the way from Cooktown and Cairn.
Meanwhile Coen has reached airfield size (2). Tonight the first Australian fighters will start their training.
The base is not drawing any supply by land, I have to airlift everything. Sounds like a minor map problem to me.

PACIFIC
The bittersweet victory of yesterday h as not altered the balance heavily, but has eroded part of his advantage.
The (24) ships strong carrier TF is headed back to Suva. I need to dock the Enterprise and to replenish the air squadrons of the Saratoga and Wasp.
The other carriers will join this group within two days.
Some 500 planes are at Fiji airfields, he cannot come close or it’s game over.
I now have (5) CVE’s available. (1) is in SF, (3) on their way to PH and (1)a few hexes from Suva.

The strategy in the Pacific is quite simple.
Canton is out because I cannot use LBA and it’s too far from my bases. Unless I win a more decisive carrier battle I have to stay within a couple of days distance from my airfields. To run back under air cover if I’m wounded.
There are two possible attack vectors and two only: Guadalcanal and Tarawa.
When will it happen? It all depends on the speed at which my Seabees build up the bases and, of course, by any Jap reaction.
Given the relatively short distance (max one week) between the three potential objectives - NG, Guadalcanal and Tarawa – I’ll switch the intensity of the push mainly according to his reaction.
On my side I have a) the increasing exp of my pilots, b) a powerful US Navy (albeit with low crew experience): I have all BBs but one and all CV’s, c) the Seabees, d) the P-38.
On the Jap side: a) GH’s skills!! , b) my damned patrol planes, they always spot the carriers when it’s too late. I cannot rely on them. C) Japanese Navy’s fighters.

That’s all folks for today.
I hope Tom is a bit more satisfied.


_____________________________

Nec recisa recedit

(in reply to Tom Hunter)
Post #: 580
RE: The first carriers battle - 11/12/2005 3:55:57 PM   
Barbarigo

 

Posts: 12
Joined: 4/18/2005
Status: offline 		The Nagumo analogy has not much sense here. These variation and chances are included in variables like abilities of TF commanders, chance of critical hits and so on. Nagumo's mistake was a bad operational judgement of the situation.

If GH left vals on training, zeros on naval attack, Float planes left on training, this is a silly mistake, but what would a a parallel in history be ?

Nagumo leaving the planes in training all day while under heavy attack? Nagumo asleep with no order of being awakened, like Hitler in Normandy, while his carriers were hammered ? Please....

Mc, it's your game and so it's clearly your decision. If you say it's your fault, GH, so blame yourself, you've a point. I don't like re-do myself as they spoil the game and it's a slippery slope. But when you say the outcome would have not changed much...I disagree. With 3-4 times increased zero cap and many more zeros in escort the results would have probably been very different and there's a high chance the allies would have lost the engagement. I think this will tilt the balance of the game.

So, in conclusion, I am a bit disappointed as I've enjoyed the AAR and I think it was going to be a interesting challenge. Saying a silly mistake is a mistake is perfectly fine and it's your pick, but contributes in increasing the "game" feeling at the expense of the "simulation" one.

B.

(in reply to mc3744)
Post #: 581
RE: The first carriers battle - 11/12/2005 5:59:28 PM   
mc3744


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

ORIGINAL: Barbarigo

If GH left vals on training, zeros on naval attack, Float planes left on training, this is a silly mistake, but what would a a parallel in history be ?

But when you say the outcome would have not changed much...I disagree. With 3-4 times increased zero cap and many more zeros in escort the results would have probably been very different and there's a high chance the allies would have lost the engagement. I think this will tilt the balance of the game.


I'm afraid I have to disagree, at least in part.

As far as I know (what GH told me) he had Zero's on Naval and not on Escort.
The cause could be one of three
1) He did set CAP, clicked naval instead of escort and then sett all
2) He had the Zero's intentionally on Naval to hit convoys and forgot to set them to escort
3) He clicked the wrong button for every squadron

If it's 3) (I serioulsy doubt it) it's really a huge mistake, not just a distraction.
If it's 2) it's a rather common mistake. He forgot to switch settings. I did it myself more than once.
If it's 1) it's the silliest. Althought I use the "set all" myself, I then check each squadron one by one, just in case.

However in this last case the CAP would be the one he had decided anyway (wrong order, not wrong CAP. Otherwise it'd be an awful lot of bad clicks). I don't see how he could have had more Zero's on CAP, the CAP was there, the CVs in the TF where 2-3 he couldn't possibly have more Zero's on CAP and then on escort too.
Hence the hits on his carriers wouldn't have changed. What would certainly have changed are the hits on my carriers.

I would gladly exchange 2 of my CVs for Kaga and Ryuho. I get them back, he doesn't.

Last, but not least, I told GH about my thought on the redo, he said that he wouldn't have accepted anyway.
I told you he's a tough one

Bottom line, I wish I lost 1 or 2 of my CVs. I'd still consider the engagement a victory.
With a redo I may not hit his carriers and that wouldn't be fair.

_____________________________

Nec recisa recedit

(in reply to Barbarigo)
Post #: 582
RE: The first carriers battle - 11/12/2005 6:48:37 PM   
Barbarigo

 

Posts: 12
Joined: 4/18/2005
Status: offline 		In reality, by reading GH AAR, it's none of the 3. And it's not that difficult to guess without peeking in his AAR...have you been attacked by any Val?

Anyway, when the talking is too much it gets boring. Good luck to you for the game, but now I am definitely a Jap fanboy for this game....Go Hoppy!!!!!

B.

(in reply to mc3744)
Post #: 583
RE: The first carriers battle - 11/12/2005 10:34:06 PM   
ChezDaJez


Posts: 3436
Joined: 11/12/2004
From: Chehalis, WA
Status: offline 		I agree with your decision not to offer a redo. GH probably wouldn't take it anyways. I've enjoyed reading yours and his AARs and find his mistake regretable but war is hell and I don't believe in redos unless its due to a fault in the game. Don't mean to be harsh, but its up to the player to ensure that when he sends his turn out, he has done everything necessary to ensure he has checked all his options.

I actually think his defence will become even more tenacious as he no longer has KB to fall back on.

Chez

_____________________________

Ret Navy AWCS (1972-1998)
VP-5, Jacksonville, Fl 1973-78
ASW Ops Center, Rota, Spain 1978-81
VP-40, Mt View, Ca 1981-87
Patrol Wing 10, Mt View, CA 1987-90
ASW Ops Center, Adak, Ak 1990-92
NRD Seattle 1992-96
VP-46, Whidbey Isl, Wa 1996-98

(in reply to mc3744)
Post #: 584
RE: The first carriers battle - 11/12/2005 10:52:08 PM   
Arstavidios

 

Posts: 780
Joined: 11/19/2004
Status: offline 		Well, the damage inflicted to the Japanese are not critical. The most frustrating part for the Japanese is that he lost an opportunity to sink three carriers american and gain the edge for several months while instead he goes back home limping and may well lose a couple of carriers.

You've been very lucky but you the IJN is still powerfull enough to inflict a lot of damage.

(in reply to ChezDaJez)
Post #: 585
RE: The first carriers battle - 11/13/2005 1:43:59 AM   
mc3744


Posts: 1957
Joined: 3/9/2004
From: Italy
Status: offline 		Thanks guys for all your suggestion

Anyway the damaged carriers did not sink. Hence it has ended mainly in a lost opportunity for GH.
Not much has changed after all.

Next report, tomorrow or Monday

_____________________________

Nec recisa recedit

(in reply to Arstavidios)
Post #: 586
RE: The first carriers battle - 11/13/2005 12:12:34 PM   
String


Posts: 2661
Joined: 10/7/2003
From: Estonia
Status: offline 		I think the worst damage done was the loss of his precious zero pilots, especially in this very significant timeframe where they still enjoy the last bits of their advantage, the corsair not having arrived yet. It will take him a month or two to train them up.

(in reply to mc3744)
Post #: 587
December '42 - 11/14/2005 12:58:55 PM   
mc3744


Posts: 1957
Joined: 3/9/2004
From: Italy
Status: offline 		December 21st, 1942

IBC
Maybe GH has changed his mind, a few units now appear to be headed North.
Hundreds of Allied bombers are trying to dissuade them . The 6th Tank Rgt has been heavily hit in the past two days.
Meanwhile my LCU’s continue the long and difficult journey into Burma.
Myitkyina’s flow of reinforcements by air is steady, I’m confident the base will soon able to withstand an unlikely counter-attack.

AUSTRALIA
I’m trying to eat some Jap supplies with a continuous airfield bombing of Daly.
I know it worked in China!
Fighter’s training proceed nicely from Coen, which is now at airfield size (3).

PACIFIC
The CVL Ryuho eventually sank, not exactly a crippling blow to the IJN. But hey, better than nothing!
I’m sending the Enterprise and two more CVs to PH. The Enterprise needs some repairs (sys dmg 23) and they all need the 10/42 upgrade.

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

Burma situation





Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Nec recisa recedit

(in reply to String)
Post #: 588
Request for suggestion - 11/15/2005 4:35:28 PM   
mc3744


Posts: 1957
Joined: 3/9/2004
From: Italy
Status: offline 		My dear readers

Sorry guys I'm kind of busy and I'd rather play than write . Anyway later today a new post.

Right now I, once gaian, need your input.

Since I’m getting, quite unexpectedly, all the China Command units back in Karachi and since GH is not allowed - by house rules - to take China units or Kwantung units out of their respective areas, I thought to propose GH the following house rule.

China Command units can only stay in India, if I want to move them out I have to spend PPs to reassign them to other HQ’s.

What do you guys think? Should I make the proposal?


_____________________________

Nec recisa recedit

(in reply to mc3744)
Post #: 589
RE: Request for suggestion - 11/15/2005 4:41:10 PM   
Speedysteve

 

Posts: 15998
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline 		I think thats a fair suggestion MC. That way you are both restricted with the same limitations.

_____________________________

WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to mc3744)
Post #: 590
RE: Request for suggestion - 11/15/2005 9:54:09 PM   
Taglia


Posts: 115
Joined: 2/16/2002
From: Italy
Status: offline 		Anyway I still wonder to know what is the reason for a chinese unit to respawn in Karachi?? I think the proposal is fine

_____________________________

Taglia
NET WARGAMING ITALIA
Webmaster of THE GREAT PLANES
Do NOT click

(in reply to Speedysteve)
Post #: 591
RE: Request for suggestion - 11/16/2005 12:42:29 AM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		To be honest restricting them to India is probably not enough IMO

It either has to be both sides free from restraint or no Chinese unit leaves Karachi unless PP's are paid or else you can strip India to the bone and use Chinese units to garrison India.

Andy


(in reply to Taglia)
Post #: 592
RE: Request for suggestion - 11/16/2005 12:58:58 AM   
mc3744


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

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

To be honest restricting them to India is probably not enough IMO

It either has to be both sides free from restraint or no Chinese unit leaves Karachi unless PP's are paid or else you can strip India to the bone and use Chinese units to garrison India.

Andy




I can do that too. I'm counting on RAF and RN to keep China safe.
Anyway right now I'm already keeping the China Command units in Karachi

However I do believe that this bug-like compensates somehow the Australia's situation. I still feel bad about that: both about the impossibility of defending it in the first place and then of not being able counter attack by land. It's not a minor disadvantage I've suffered, exclusively due to game mechanics. It has cost me several months.

Right now I've already offered to GH the restriction to India. I'll think about this additional binding.

Thanks guys


_____________________________

Nec recisa recedit

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 593
December '42 - 11/16/2005 1:36:07 AM   
mc3744


Posts: 1957
Joined: 3/9/2004
From: Italy
Status: offline 		December 28th, 1942

IBC
At the first lights of the new day LGEN Alexander lead the Burma Liberation Force across the Irrawadi, just NW of Mandalay.
Over 100 thousands men, fully equipped and supported by tanks, heavy artillery and pioneers are pouring into Northern Burma.
They are joining the 15k men spearhead that captured Myitkyina a few weeks ago.
Very soon another 50k troops will also cross the Irrawadi around Magwe.
More are already on their way from Imphal.
Tomorrow a Chindit Bde will reclaim Mandalay. Just by the end of ’42 Northern Burma will return into British hands. The liberation has begun. It’s a great day for the Allied forces!
The Japanese troops fled with their tail between their legs. They didn’t even dare face the brave and proud Commonwealth warriors. They made sure to be several hundreds miles away.
Myitkyina airfield is now 100% operational and some (70) AS are already there.
“Operation Toilet Paper” will soon be declared a complete success.
The question now is: where to stop?
Japan seems to have an overwhelming fear of our air force. Hence I believe that I should be able to go as far as Rangoon and Moulmein relatively fast.
Meanwhile the sub force docked at DH has been ordered to begin heavy mining operations around the ports of Rangoon and Moulmein.
Part of the bombers force is daily hitting any Japanese unit that dares move North of Rangoon and Moulmein. The 21st Division has been spotted and hit severely.
Due to the complete lack of air attrition the P-38’s pool keeps growing (60+ in pool). I may even upgrade a forth squadron in the IBC area, but I feel pretty much safe as it is.
It looks like 1943 will be fun.

PACIFIC
Fiji, Noumea and Luganville are now fully developed, all are equipped with dozens of AR’s, AD’s, AS’s, MLE’s and hundreds of ships and planes on training.
Nukufetau build up continues. The base is at airfield size (1), (4) LCU’s are already on station, more on their way as well as (24) PT’s with additional fuel and an AGP. As protection from naval attacks. Patrol planes and fighters are also there.
Mining operations are intense, both offensive and defensive. Japan is fighting the mine war with lots of MSW’s.
I’ll soon have to pay some attention to those gentlemen.

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

The Burma Liberation





Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Nec recisa recedit

(in reply to mc3744)
Post #: 594
RE: December '42 - 11/16/2005 12:30:32 PM   
mc3744


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

IBC
I’m bringing additional Base Forces to Ramree Island, as it is the most advanced airfield to provide tactical air support to the advancing units.

AUSTRALIA – NG
Heavy bombings over Daly. I hope he’ll soon start needing additional supplies.
Soon PM will start feeling the wrath of my heavies too.
A new major operation is being set up: “Operation Rise and Shine” . It’s time to get serious.

PACIFIC
A minor night naval engagement occurred in the waters surrounding Nanumea. A light surface combat TF (1 CA + 2 CL’s and some DD’s) engaged and easily sank (2) AK's and (1) AP.
Not an important victory, but it’s the first time I can venture out with my surface fleet without risking a slaughter and I actually achieved some results.
The TF was under the protective cover of P-38’s based at Nukufetau.
Next step Nanumea.


_____________________________

Nec recisa recedit

(in reply to mc3744)
Post #: 595
RE: The first carriers battle - 11/16/2005 6:42:58 PM   
Tom Hunter


Posts: 2194
Joined: 12/14/2004
Status: offline 		I would feel kind of cheap if I won by sending in a huge army of Chinese from Karachi.

It is probabley better and more fun to win with the Americans.

Just my opinion.

(in reply to Barbarigo)
Post #: 596
RE: The first carriers battle - 11/16/2005 7:36:53 PM   
mc3744


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

ORIGINAL: Tom Hunter

I would feel kind of cheap if I won by sending in a huge army of Chinese from Karachi.

It is probabley better and more fun to win with the Americans.

Just my opinion.


Ho Tom Always a pleasure to have you here.

Do you mean that you wouldn't even use reassigned Chinese units?

I don't think I have enough troops to face HIS reassigned units, unless I use Chinese troops.
He will be getting approx. 2 (very tough and experienced) divisions every 3 months. I need 6-8 divisions to kick out 2 good Jap div from a base. British and Indian troops are just not enough once the 'Chinese' and 'Kwantung' divisions start coming in.

I've been looking at the reinforcements. Air and ship wise the Allies are just overwhelming, but very few INF units are due to arrive (even far in the future). And most of them are small ones: 100-200 AV.


_____________________________

Nec recisa recedit

(in reply to Tom Hunter)
Post #: 597
RE: The first carriers battle - 11/16/2005 11:54:18 PM   
Bliztk


Posts: 779
Joined: 4/24/2002
From: Electronic City
Status: offline 		You don´t need that many Divisions. The Allied idea is to hop from atoll to atoll with the cover of the Guns of your BBs and the bombs from your B24s.

The nature of the offense vs defense in WitP is that you can concentrate against him if you achieve air superiority. It`s the same that Japan does against Java or PM is if well defended.

Bomb disrupt, continue bombing, 5-6 days of BB shore bombardemt and land with 3xDivs with plenty of ENG and support.

Base taken

Take note that if he is using that China Comm units to stop the British in Burma, he is not using them to garrison atolls or islands.

(in reply to mc3744)
Post #: 598
RE: The first carriers battle - 11/17/2005 12:05:40 AM   
mc3744


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

I don't disagree with you. But I have to recover at least 3-4 lost months due to the Australian disadventure.
I have to try to make advances on more than one front at a time. Or the game is lost already. It's '43 and everywhere but in Burma I'm way behind 'schedule'.

And by land (i.e. IBC) the atoll jumping doens't work that well
That's where I need the reassigned Chinese units.

_____________________________

Nec recisa recedit

(in reply to Bliztk)
Post #: 599
RE: The first carriers battle - 11/17/2005 8:41:11 AM   
Bliztk


Posts: 779
Joined: 4/24/2002
From: Electronic City
Status: offline 		Well, until July of 1944 you don´t have to be in much hurry. Then the Hellcat/Corsair combo will pave your way to victory.

Burma is important, but not decisive, if you want to advance here you will have to make him divert his units to other fronts, but fighting in Burma while pinning his China/KW units here is better for the overall Allied Strategy IMHO.

Your goal is to conquer the Marianas for April 1944, then his industry is toasted by B-29.


(in reply to mc3744)
Post #: 600
Page:   <<   < prev  18 19 [20] 21 22   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> After Action Reports >> RE: The first carriers battle Page: <<   < prev  18 19 [20] 21 22   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

1.189