RE: Operation Shooting Star (Full Version)

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



Message

USSAmerica -> RE: Operation Shooting Star (2/9/2009 4:31:38 PM)

Dan, I suspect the sudden collapse of the defense at Wake has to do with the combat routine for atolls.  It is supposed to be violent, bloody, and short.  Seems like you saw just that. 



Q-Ball -> RE: Operation Shooting Star (2/9/2009 4:51:41 PM)

This is an interesting AAR on both sides in defending the Empire, and conversely attacking it.

It reinforces my view that the only critical Allied objectives are 1) securing airfield(s) close to Japan that allow you to bomb the Home Islands, and 2) reducing/eliminating/interdicting Oil Shipments to Japan. Everything else is either a supporting objective, or a VP grab.

You have accomplished #1, and with the fall of Sinagpore and Saigon, should be well on your way to #2, as you are within easy range of Palembang, and raiding range of Brunei/Miri. This game is an Allied Victory.



Canoerebel -> RE: Operation Shooting Star (2/9/2009 4:59:26 PM)

The Good Lord knows I've made plenty of mistakes in this game; some I'm aware of and have admitted and I'm sure John can point out plenty of opportunities I've missed.  But I think the Allies will be victorious, mostly because the Allies have overwhelming resources and partly because the invasions of Iwo and Hokkaido/Sikhalin caught John by surprise and put the Allies in great position.  The Japanese failure to throw everything at this Allied invasion was John's biggest blunder of the game.  I think his second biggest was withdrawing so many troops from SEAC.  Japanese troops can hold against high odds in difficult situations (Malacca as an example).  I think he would have been better off leaving strong armies at important posts - trading relatively "cheap" Japanese squads for time.



veji1 -> RE: Operation Shooting Star (2/9/2009 5:12:54 PM)

I think John got surprised by your willingness to go straight for gold with Iwo and Sakkhalin/Hokkaido in late 43... Like many jap players he had planned on a allied advance that would have allowed him to retreat progressively to his inner defense... this gave serves as a valuable lesson for Jap players : No matter how well you are doing it is never too early to start prepping the inner circle, Iwo, the Philippines, the Marianas and the Northern Islands need to be ready to withstand a strong attack by mid 43... garrisonning Noumea or Suva is always secondary...

The other lesson here is that when you go for australia you must either finish it fully or stop early enough so that you don't get bogged down... He invested too much in Australia to efficiently protect Burma, Sumatra and Malaya and he payed for that...

In a way, and to be a tiny bit nitpicky with your play, he was also surprised by the audacity of your moves in Hokkaido.. I think he never saw it coming because in his mind it was, if not gamey, not sensible historically... He never imagined you would dare landing Many divs in north japan in winter and therefore didn't prepare for that.. I honestly can't really blame him for this one (as opposed to IWO where he committed a major blunder...)...

brilliant game from both of you and kudos to you for hunging in there despite the early defeats..



Canoerebel -> RE: Operation Shooting Star (2/9/2009 7:31:10 PM)

8/23/44
 
Harbin, Manchuria:  The largest Allied raid to date brings 123 B-29, 174 B-24, 43 PBY Liberators, 49 B-17s, and 10 Black Widows to face 40 Jack, 13 Tony, 11 Nate, and 6 Frank (lighter opposition than I had expected).  The Japanese fighters down 31 bombers (most of them B-24s) and 4 Black Widows while the Allies down something like 15 fighters.  The bombers score the following hits:  Frank factory 32, oil 27, and resources 88.  Current state of Harbin:  Franks 105 (140); oil 47 (29), resources 433 (168).  Adding in ops losses (something like 8 or 9), this raid of 400 aircraft suffers 9% losses and scores pretty well.  I'd rate this a success.

Japanese Air Defenses/Allied Air Strategy:  The Allies shuffle through targets and try to keep the Japanese off-balance, but John has done a good job recently countering Allied raids.   The Harbin raids (plus prior raids against Shanghai and Peking) are important because they force John to have to consider defending these bases, thus diluting his CAP a bit.  So I'll continue to strike non-HI targets from time to time.  Taking some Jap-held bases on the China coast will help, too, as that will bring the southern HI within range.

SEAC:  Johore Bahru fell to a 9:1 shock attack on the 23rd.  The defenders retreated to Singapore.  About half the Allied troops were prepping for Singapore and have reached about 65-70%.  The other half were prepping for Johore, so I've changed them now.  As soon as these troops have recovered from disruption, the Allied army will advance to Singapore for what should be a long campaign. 

CenPac:  The Allied carrier/transport fleet will near Wake Island tomorrow as it continues steaming for Eniwetok.  Once there, I'll reorganize everything and send some troop transport TFs south, accompanied by the carriers, to pick up what I expect are some lightly held bases. 

SWPac:  Milne Bay's airfield and port both reached level one.  This is important as this base will serve as the jumping off point for ANZAC operations time to coincide with the CenPac operation.

Points: (A) 64,356 to (J) 55,704; Ratio:  1:15 to 1; Strategic Points:  10,254 (strikes in Manchuria don't count toward this total).



tocaff -> RE: Operation Shooting Star (2/9/2009 9:51:02 PM)

Reading your & John's postings has been very entertaining and helped me immensely in my strategic thinking for both sides.  Keep up the good work.



Canoerebel -> There shall be howlings... (2/9/2009 11:26:24 PM)

8/24/44 to 8/26/44
 
There shall be howlings:  I am implementing a long-thought out plan.  If it works, John will howl (I hope); if it doesn't, I'll be the howler.

Osaka/Kobe:  Tori Shima airfield went to level 2 on the 26th, allowing me both to base an additional 50 aircraft there and to fly offensive missions, most importantly a sweep.  So I've added a second P-47D squadron and a second P-38L squadron to those already there.  Tomorrow, all four of those squadrons are to fly sweeps over Osaka/Kobe, where recon the past two weeks has consistently shown a CAP of about 100 fighters, plus the presence of a CV and a CVL in port.  Following the sweeps, a group of B-24s from Iwo will join three B-29 groups from Shikuka and four from Changsha, China.  If all these bombers get off the ground, the raid will consist of about 330 B-29s, 30 B-24s, and an escort of perhaps 50 P-38s from Iwo.  Most of these bombers are targeting the port facility, with one targeting the Frank factory and one targeting resources.  I've been planning this for weeks, but didn't dare mention it for fear John might catch wind.  With Tori Shima's airfield going to level 2, he might be on the alert.  If the bombers score hits on carriers, though, it will be sweet!

SWPac:  New Zealand infantry will land at Espiritu Santo, which I believe is vacant, tomorrow.  John has a big garrison at Lunga - something like 12 units.  I have no interest in getting bogged down there.  I am about to evaluate other bases - Port Moresby, Lae, Kaeving, Rabaul, Buin, and Shortlands.



Heeward -> RE: Operation Shooting Star (2/10/2009 12:54:42 AM)

What does operation Shooting Star do for you versus taking Okinawa / Taiwan / Philippines? How does that effect his supply oil / resource situation.
How long would it take your army to walk to these objectives compared to the air / naval battle in John's front yard?



Canoerebel -> RE: Operation Shooting Star (2/10/2009 1:14:16 AM)

Shooting Star accomplishes the same thing at much less risk.  With Iwo Jima to the east and coastal China airbases to the west, Allied bombers can hit anything moving from DEI to Japan.  Any operation to move on Okinawa, Philippines, or Borneo would involve moving into Japanese controlled waters and air space, and the British are also low on transports.  But the simultaneous invasion and ground campaign for coastal China will occur in Allied dominated waters and airspace and requires less shipping.

To answer your second question, this won't take place in John's front yard.  The Allies have enough airbases to assert control over the waters, or at least to assure parity.

As usual, there are many, many things factoring into this decision that I cannot mention due to length and other considerations, but suffice it to say in my opinion this is the best move.



tocaff -> RE: Operation Shooting Star (2/10/2009 11:13:38 AM)

Always go with your strengths against your opponent's weaknesses, real or perceived.  Don't forget to bring the kitchen sink too.



Canoerebel -> RE: There shall be howlings... (2/10/2009 2:25:37 PM)

8/27/44

There Shall Be Howlings: The Osaka/Akita raids were a success, though not as successful as I had hoped, yet successful enough that John was definately gnashing his teeth - even if not howling - as I had hoped. Here's how it went: (1) Fighters (these squadons: 2 P-47D, 1 P-38J, and 1 P-38L) flew sweeps at Osaka from Tori Shima, meeting 34 Franks, 48 Jacks, 15 Oscars, and 25 Tonys; the Allies lost 11 fighters, the Japs 66, thus clearing the way for the bombers; (2) 34 B-24s and 51 fighters (P-38s of various kinds) faced 35 Jacks and 4 Franks over Osaka, with the Japs losing 22 fighters and the Allies 2 fighters and 1 bomber; the B-24s scored hits on 12 transports in the harbor, but didn't find any carriers (drat!); (3) 157 B-29s from Changsha came in unopposed and scored hits on 13 transports plus 24 hits on the Frank factory; (4) three B-29 groups from Shikuka refused to sortie, darn it; (5) 157 4EB from Shikuka and Toyohara hit Akita's resources, manpower, oil, and heavy industry, and the fighter escorts downed 15 Franks with little or no loss; Akita shows "100 fires" - the first time "fires" have appeared in the game.

Change in the HI Dynamic: This raid makes it clear that fighter sweeps from Tori are going to be an effective tool against the Home Islands. Tori is close to so many bases, and four squadrons of Thunderbolts and Lightnings strong enough, that it should give John some headaches in reconfiguring his defenses to meet this new threat. He could rely solely upon changes to his CAP, or he could commence strong raids against Tori Shima, or he could even try an invasion of the island. But for now I'll try to make use of this as much as I can. Tomorrow, two of Tori's squadrons will sweep Toyama; then the Shikuka B-29s plus the Iwo B-24s will hit Toyama's resources and airfield; some other Sikhalin Island 4EB will return to Akita and see if we can ratchet up the "fires" level (I'm not sure what "fires" means yet, so I have some rules reading to do).

CenPac: The Allied amphibious TFs plus carriers are nearing Eniwetok. They will stop there to refuel and then move south. This is the northern component of a pincers movement.

SWPac: New Zealanders landed at a vacant Espiritu Santo and will take this base tomorrow. Another amphibious group has weighted anchor and is moving north. This is the southern component of the pincers movement.

SEAC: The Allies took Soc Trang, a coastal base south of Saigon which holds a handful of wrecked Japanese ground units. Another Allied army is gathering at Siem Riep where the other Japanese SEAC remants have gathered. To the south, the Allied army (4200 AV strong) at Johore Bharu will be ready to move on Singapore in two or three days.

Score: (A) 64,734 (J) 55,761; Spread: 1:16 to 1; Strategic Points: 10,370.



Q-Ball -> RE: There shall be howlings... (2/10/2009 6:25:54 PM)

Not that you need any help Dan, but don't bomb Manpower. You are doing the Japs a favor bombing Manpower. Why?

Manpower consumes Resources, and produces...Men. As Japan, you have way way more than enough Manpower for all units, so losing production in this area doesn't matter at all. Destroying Manpower, though, means the Manpower centers are consuming fewer Resources; this helps the Japanese, because it means more resources available for HI.

PS on FIRES: They do damage everything in the hex, so that's kind of cool, but you need a huge amount of fires to make that happen. You could try it against one city, but to have any real effect, you need to create 1000s of fires. As I said before though, killing Manpower helps Japan in other ways.



Canoerebel -> RE: There shall be howlings... (2/10/2009 6:34:02 PM)

Q-Ball, thanks for the heads up.  Your giving me information about something I know absolutely nothing about.

I read the rules about "fires" this morning.  Apparently, fires are started by bombing manpower.  If I understand the rules, fires (once they become severe enough) can destroy, not merely damage, indsutry.  IE, my bombing raids damage oil, factories, and resources, but fires can apparently permanently destroy these things.

I have no idea how many "fires" are needed and how sustained an effort it will take to destroy things (assuming that I've interpreted the rules correctly in the first place). 

If fires are devastating, I need to hit manpower unless the effect you mention outweighs the benefit.

If they are damaging, but require too much effort to acheive, then Manpower will remain a low priority item.  Right now, I have about a dozen Japanese cities in easy range of my 4EB, and have essentially eliminated resources, aircraft factories, oil (where available), heavy industry, and ship building/repair.  So manpower is one of the few targets remaining.  I do get points from hitting manpower, too.

Okay, does anybody have enough experience to say:  Q-Ball is right, don't bomb Manpower; or:  Q-Ball is right to an extent, but hitting Manpower does cause devastating fires so it's worth it.



FeurerKrieg -> RE: There shall be howlings... (2/10/2009 6:36:38 PM)

I agree with Q-ball here.

Also - I'm curious why it seems like you spread your attacks across many targets (types, not location). If there is one thing I know from Operations Management it is that a single component can stop an entire production line. So it seems like you would be better serves picking a type of target and sticking with that everywhere you attack.

If you can reduce oil or HI or engines or resource to nearly zero, then you will stop ALL aircraft production once his pools run out.

I can see why you might want to hit Frank factories for a near term gain and that probably makes sense - but overall, hitting so many different targets (oil, resources, HI, manpower, engines, aircraft factories) doesn't seem efficient to me.

EDIT: seeing you post above - I guess if all targets are destroyed that would be why you are hitting other things. I am amazed that you have managed to destroy everything though, that's scary!



Canoerebel -> RE: There shall be howlings... (2/10/2009 6:43:10 PM)

Feurer, at first I concentrated on resources and advanced fighter factories, mostly at the bases in the northern half of Japan.  Once I knocked those out, I did two things:  (1)  hit everything else at those bases, becuase they are undefended and within easy range; and (2) began hitting high priority items (resources and advanced fighter factories at more distant points).

I've already wiped out essentially everything in the northern half of Japan.  All raids from Sendia/Akita north are just mop-up operations now.  In central and southern Japan the targets remain resources and advanced fighters.

There are other factors too - I try to keep John off balance by switching targets around.  He has alot of BIG bases all over Japan and can put up hundreds of fighters at a time.  I'd prefer not to face hundreds of fighters at a time.  Too, my bombers need time to recouperate after raids, especially the B-29s.  The other 4EB can fly raids 2x or 3x/week, while B-29s are good for 1x or 2x per week.  The B-29s can raid deeply, while the others can only make the northern half. 

I hope you see what I mean by the number of variables that factor in targeting.  These are just some of the more important ones.

Edited to add: The raid on Akita is a good example. Allied bombers had already damaged most of the strategic targets there, so when I sent the most recent raid I was just mopping up what little remained to hit. The same holds true with Aomori, Sendai, Ominato, Hakodate, Sapporo, and Ashigara. They are within easy range of my non-B-29 4EB, so I've tried to totally destroy them.

My Toyohara 4EB can hit more distant bases (Niigata, Toyama, Tokyo, and Gumma), but until Tori Shima's airfield reach level two (thus permitting fighter sweep missions), they had to fly without escort. 150 unescorted 4EB at max range against 125 fighters wasn't a good thing.




rtrapasso -> RE: There shall be howlings... (2/10/2009 7:01:13 PM)

quote:

I read the rules about "fires" this morning. Apparently, fires are started by bombing manpower. If I understand the rules, fires (once they become severe enough) can destroy, not merely damage, indsutry. IE, my bombing raids damage oil, factories, and resources, but fires can apparently permanently destroy these things.


You have to get fires in the tens of thousands before you start to get such effects... numerous folks have tried to do this, without success... even tests without Japanese opposition can't start effective firestorms.

The game just doesn't work for getting firestorms.




paullus99 -> RE: There shall be howlings... (2/10/2009 7:20:14 PM)

Oil is still the biggest achillies heel out there. Without it, the entire Japanese economy ceases to function & the fleet is crippled. Anything you can do to minimize what he has or has access to (particularly in the DEI) will pay huge dividends down the road.

Are you in a position to either take or flatten those major fields in the DEI?



Canoerebel -> RE: There shall be howlings... (2/10/2009 7:52:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

quote:

I read the rules about "fires" this morning. Apparently, fires are started by bombing manpower. If I understand the rules, fires (once they become severe enough) can destroy, not merely damage, indsutry. IE, my bombing raids damage oil, factories, and resources, but fires can apparently permanently destroy these things.


You have to get fires in the tens of thousands before you start to get such effects... numerous folks have tried to do this, without success... even tests without Japanese opposition can't start effective firestorms.

The game just doesn't work for getting firestorms.




That's interesting. Here's the way I see strategic bombing shaping up in the near term:

1) If the Allies aren't able to sustain fighter sweeps from Tori for any reason (IE, the Japs shut down the field somehow), the present campaign will continue - B-29s from Sikhalin Island will primarily hit targets (Frank factories and resources) in central Japan; B-29s from China will hit the same kinds of targets in southern Japan; and other 4EB from Sikhlain Island will focus on northern Japan and northeastern Manchuria.
2) If the Allies are able to fly fighter sweeps from Tori Shima (as I hope), the entire Home Islands are open to raids; in the short term B-29s will concentrate on resources and advanced-fighter factories (primarily Franks) at major cities like Tokyo, Gumma, Osaka, Nagasaki, Hiroshima, etc. Since the other 4EB on Sikhalin only have range to hit northern HI cities that are presently a wastleland, I might eventually swap them for the B-29s in China. IE, most B-29s would be based on Sikhalin Island, while China would get the bulk of the B-24s and B-17s. This thought just occurred to me, and I like it.
3) Regarding oil, I don't think it's as vital as resources; also, you can either destroy oil at the source (DEI) or at the destination (Japan), or enroute(shipping). Some of the DEI bases are in range - Palembang's oil and resources are already 50% damaged; while others will be in range as soon as base forces reach Camranh Bay and that field goes to level 7 (high enough to support B-29s, if I keep in in SEAC). The Allies will also interdict shipping from the DEI, using subs, LBA from Iwo Jima and China, and perhaps carrier air to do so. John's "safe" sea lanes are already pretty narrow and choked with subs. Finally, the non-stop targeting of Japan's oil, heavy industry, and resources ought to hurt.

I just read the victory conditions today; unless I am truly off-base, the Allies will achieve a 2:1 victory in 1945, which is a decisive victory; the Allies may even do so sometime during the first half of the year. I have the bases to try fire bombing, and it looks like I may have the luxury of time to try it too.

John has his back against the wall, yet he's smart and still has alot of teeth left (a heck of alot of carriers mainly). The Allies can win without ever sticking their noses into his "home territory" (like an invaison of the Philippines), so I don't think he'll get a chance to use combined land- and naval air to launch a final, all-out attack on his terms close to his home ports. I hope to force him to either come out of his safety zone and fights, or risk losing his carriers in port or some other less-than-satisfactory way. So, will he come out and fight?



castor troy -> RE: There shall be howlings... (2/11/2009 8:47:04 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

quote:

I read the rules about "fires" this morning. Apparently, fires are started by bombing manpower. If I understand the rules, fires (once they become severe enough) can destroy, not merely damage, indsutry. IE, my bombing raids damage oil, factories, and resources, but fires can apparently permanently destroy these things.


You have to get fires in the tens of thousands before you start to get such effects... numerous folks have tried to do this, without success... even tests without Japanese opposition can't start effective firestorms.

The game just doesn't work for getting firestorms.






I can only agree with rtrapasso, I´ve tried it as an Allied player in PBEM late 44 with a nearly unlimited bomber supply and even when I´ve attacked one target with nearly 2000 4E bombers from several bases in one day I couldn´t get those firestorms that are mentioned in the manual but probably aren´t in the game. [;)]

I only bombed manpower when I ran out of other targets and while knowing that bombing manpower does reduce resource consumption of the Japanese I still attacked it, just for the right feeling. And my opponent tried to defend his bases.



Canoerebel -> RE: There shall be howlings... (2/11/2009 1:07:19 PM)

8/28/44
 
Japan:  The fighter sweep over Toyama was a standoff, the Allies losing 18 fighters and the Japanese 14; but the Shikuka B-29s failed to participate, and the rest of that base's 4EB failed to hit Akita as ordered.  The Toyahara 4EB scored a few hits, but today's raids fizzled.

CenPac:  The American amphibious TFs are about three hexes from Eniwetok, have replenished fuel from AOs, and may just continue south to the next targeted islands.  Iwo remains quiet, except it's the hub of the large number of Allied subs working the Philippine Sea.

NoPac:  The Allies are still trying to vanquish the Japanese defenders at Dutch Harbor; slow going.  11th Air HQ just arrived at Toyohara.

SWPac:  The Kiwis took a vacant Efate (Espiritu Santo).  Now they'll scout Luganville.  A base force is about to land at Milne Bay, where a P-38 squadron is already providing CAP for a couple of AKs unloading the balance of an Aussie brigade and airbase engineers.

SEAC:  The Allies continue mop-up operations at Soc Trang and Siem Riep.  The Allied army at Johore Bharu is awaiting three units enroute from Malacca before moving on Singapore.  That move should take place in two or three days.  The Georgetown-based B-29s will try a raid on Batavia tomorrow.

KB:  I don't know the current whereabouts of the KB.  Recon shows a single carrier at Nagasaki.  I think the safest substantial Japanese-controlled port may be Davao.  Even that is within extreme range of Darwin based B-29s (so I'll try a raid tomorrow, assuming the crews obey orders).  Nearly every Jap-controlled port is now within range of B-29s, including Soerabaja, Batavia, Kendari, Manila, Davao, Cebu, and the Home Islands.  Palau is probably not within range, nor is Truk, but Truk is too close to Allied bases at Ponape and Eniwetok, where I can base Liberators.  So Davao is probably the home base.  Not much room for John to hide his carriers any longer.

Points:  (A) 64,777 (J) 55,592; Ratio:  1.16 to 1; Strategic:  10,370; Ship Losses/Points:  (A) 1,337 (14,760); (J) 1,005 (9,831).



crsutton -> RE: There shall be howlings... (2/11/2009 4:55:38 PM)

Whew! I just spent the last week reading this AAR and am about 2/3rds of the way through John's. It really has been the best. Not only because it was well done but the game itself has been a nail biter with lots of action. My two campaigs as the Allies have been much less dramatic and followed a much more predictible course.

Some comments

1. You are right. The key for the Allies is to get into position to bomb Japan. Once that is done, then the game is over. This AAR proves that any Japanese sucess elsewhere is negated if the Allies get an opening to start an early bombing campaign against the homeland. John's failure to eject you from your home island foothold was a major mistake. You are correct in that he should have spared no effort to eject you.

2. Oz is a big gamble and IMHO not worth the effort. It also bugs me that in stock or any of the mods taking OZ is even remotely feasable for Japan. The Japanese Army was just not mobile enough to undertake a campaign such as that as the superior allied tanks would have just sliced them up in the open terrain. But a campaign in Oz really means a Japanese commitment to autovictory and as you proved exposes the Japanese player to counterblows where he can least afford it.

A word on balance. Except for autovictory, we really do not see Japanese players winning much. This tends to skew the game as so many Japanese players base their strategy on gaining an autovictory. That is they tend to blitz out and overexpand rather than following a more sound expansion and fortify plan. It sort of makes for some boring endgames as the Japanese are prone to getting overwhelmed by the Allies as a penalty for over reaching in pursuit of the auto victory.

I would suggest two things. One is to get rid of autovictory. It does nothing to enhance the game. So the emphasis should be on the point system and playing a full campaign to the end. Now how to balance the points out. In most games the Allies are going to sooner or later get close enough to Japan to start racking up bombing points so Japan needs some help.

As a solution, perhaps points can be scaled to different levels at different times in the game. For expample, it should cost the Japanese a lot more in VP to lose a carrier (or any ship) in 1942 than it should in late 1944 when they are just about doomed. Likewise casualties for the Allies in late 1944 should be much more expensive. If the Allies player loses a TF with a full division on it to a Japanese carrier raid in 1944 the penalty should be stiff. Just imaging the political fallout in the States if 15,000 men were lost for no reason.

So even little victories by Japanese in 1944 and 45 should bring big rewards while Allies victories should provide smaller VP gains. This not only serves to balance the game but also will keep Japanese players interested in playing out the game when everything seems to be hopeless.



Canoerebel -> Three Days of the Superfort (2/12/2009 1:04:00 PM)

8/29/44 to 8/31/44
 
Superforts ranged far and wide over these three days:

Day 1:  B-29s from Georgetown were ordered to hit Batavia's resources, and B-29s from Darwin to hit Davao's port.  Both strikes were the first against these targets and both raids went in as ordered and faced little or no opposition.  The Batavia raid of 124 bombers hit 48 resources; the Davao raid of 55 bombers damaged seven transports (but no signs of carriers here).  These raids were "snap" decisions.

Day 2:  In a raid that had been in the planning for quite some time, B-29s were ordered to hit the port of Shanghai, where recon showed there to be alot of transports.  Prior to the raid, the Allies reconfigured fighters at Chinese bases, moving more long-range aircraft (P-51Bs, Lightnings, and P-47Ds) to Changsha and Hengchow.  The first raid of 58 P-51B, 17 P-47, and 182 B-29 faced 30 Zeke, 25 Jack, and 20 Tony.  The Allies lost 4 P-51s; the Japs lost 14 Zeke, 17 Jack, 16 Tony.  The bombers hit three ARs, three transports, and damaged 53 resources.  A second raid of 28 B-24s with fighter escort faced weak opposition and dstroyed 28 aicraft in the air and on the ground.

Day 3:  A concerted raid against Tokyo.  First, three squadrons of fighters from Tori Shima (31 P-47D, 15 P-38L) flew a sweep, facing 12 Zeke, 27 Jack, and 130 Franks.  The Allies lost 17/7 and the Japs 4/6/40.  Next came a raid from Iwo Jima consisting of 25 B-24, 25 P-38L, 34 P-38J, 20 P-47D, and 6 P-61 facing 8 Zeke, 21 Jack, and 86 Franks.  The Allies lost 2 P-38L, 21 P-38J, 3 P-47D, and 2 P-61; the Japs lost 3 Zeke, 4 Jack, and 54 Frank. The B-24s were supposed to hit the Ohka factory, but no hits registered. Finally, 143 unescorted B-29s came in and faced 34 Frank, 5 Zeke, and 17 Jack, the Allies losing two bombers and the Japs a single Frank.  The bombers scored 59 resource hits, 23 Frank factory hits, and 58 heavy industry hits.  B-24s and B-17s from Toyohara were supposed to join in, but failed to do so.  B-24s, B-17s and PBY Liberators from Shikuka hit Aomori, destroying 15 resources and damaging a few other facilities.

Evaluation:  Over three days, B-29s hit the "remote" locations of Davao and Batavia.  This may force John to re-evaluate CAP even at "interior" bases, and impacts his sense of "security" there and everywhere within range of these bombers.  The B-29s also scored well at Shanghai, perhaps reinforcing the conclusion that this is no longer a safe harbor.  The raid at Tokyo was a marked success, with the Allies winning both the air battle and doing material damage to the city.  However, the failure of the Toyohara bombers to fly served as a reminder that I need to swap out some of these B-24s and B-17s for B-29s.

SEAC:  On the 31st, Japanese bombers sortied against a solitary AK at Padang, Sumatra, the Japs losing 53 aircraft while only damaging the transport (the 31st was an aweful day for John in the air, what with this raid, Tokyo, and the loss of 12 Randys over Tori Shima; for the day, the Japs lost 213 aircraft, the Allies 77).  The Allies wiped out the Japanese remnants at Soc Trang on the 30th and took vacant Luangprabang (in  interior Indochina) and Mersing on the 31st.  The Japs now have two bases left in SEAC:  Siem Riep with two weary brigades (the Allies will be attacking there commencing in two days); and Singapore, which holds 31 Japanese units.  The Allied army at Johore Bharu began the advance to Singapore on the 29th, and may cross the straits on September 1.

China:  Troops continue prepping for Operation Shooting Star, the simulataneous land and amphibious campaigns against Japanese bases in eastern China.

NoPac:  The Allies have established a good supply line to make sure there are plenty of supplies at Sikhalin Island to support the B-29s and other 4EB hitting Japan.

CenPac:  Iwo remains quiet; the Allied amphibious TF is SW of Eniwetok, but I'm not yet positive I want to move south.  A recon squadron at Milne Bay is checking out defenses at places like Rabaul (which appears heavily fortified) and Lae (lightly fortified); tomorrow I'll check out Kaeving; over the enxt days I'll do Admiralty Islands and Buin.   I'm leary of sending my ships too far into Indian territory as I don't want to give John the very chance I've spoken against - permitting him to mass his carriers for a strike in his home waters.  So I'm evaluating a bit before I move.

SWPac:  Jap bombers and a small destroyer TF damaged several transports at Milne Bay, sinking one plus a DE; but the base force is unloaded.  The Allies wiped out resistance at Koumac.  An amphibious force is moving slowly north, hoping to coordinate its strike with whatever the CenPac amphibious force does.

Score:  (A) 65,591 (J) 55,721; Ratio:  1:17 to 1; Strategic:  10,668; Bases:  (A) 260 (J) 240.



paullus99 -> RE: Three Days of the Superfort (2/12/2009 3:04:34 PM)

Wow - the Franks really took it on the chin today. Between that & hitting the factories, it should put a pretty good dent into his supply of replacements.

It is obvious that the concentric pressure is starting to build. Although John still has the advantage of interior lines to move to meet any one threat, the multiple threat axis is going to pose a huge problem. He has two centers of mobile mass - his carriers (probably fully equipped now with the latest & greatest aircraft) and his air force (but it looks like he is beginning to take serious losses there).

The next few weeks should be very interesting.



veji1 -> RE: Three Days of the Superfort (2/12/2009 3:18:26 PM)

I read the 2 AARs and I sort of root for the 2 players, and I must say It makes me sad to see the Franks take such a battering so quickly... It was bound to happen at some point put it really seems that again sweeps proved deadly efficient... Well done Dan.



Q-Ball -> RE: Three Days of the Superfort (2/12/2009 3:28:09 PM)

I think crsutton said it perfectly with regard to Victory Conditions.

As Japan, you must play for auto-victory, because winning in 1945 is just about impossible. Check out PzB; he won an easy auto victory and played late war brilliantly, yet that game still ended in a VP draw, with the Allies gaining ground.

John was clearly overextended in this game, but I can't fault him, as he was doing what you have to do: Go for broke.

I've also said before: The Allies have 2 primary objectives, and that's it:

1. Get a bombing platform(s) within range of Japan
2. Interdict/destroy/capture oil shipments to Japan

All other objectives should be in support of these two, or just VP grabs.



castor troy -> RE: Three Days of the Superfort (2/12/2009 4:33:35 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

I think crsutton said it perfectly with regard to Victory Conditions.

As Japan, you must play for auto-victory, because winning in 1945 is just about impossible. Check out PzB; he won an easy auto victory and played late war brilliantly, yet that game still ended in a VP draw, with the Allies gaining ground.

John was clearly overextended in this game, but I can't fault him, as he was doing what you have to do: Go for broke.

I've also said before: The Allies have 2 primary objectives, and that's it:

1. Get a bombing platform(s) within range of Japan
2. Interdict/destroy/capture oil shipments to Japan

All other objectives should be in support of these two, or just VP grabs.




IIRC, PzB missed the autovictory by only a couple of points, didn´t he? People always state how easy it is to achieve a Japanese autovictory in 43 but when you really read the AARs, there aren´t that many folks that are then able to do it! [X(]

IMO with the possibility to score points en masse with strategic bombing, it´s easier for the Allied to score autovictory in 1/45 then for the Japanese to do it in 1/43. At least this is what I see when reading AARs, of course only a couple of them make it into later stages of the war but as you can also see in this one, strategic bombing scores a hell a lot of points.



Canoerebel -> RE: Three Days of the Superfort (2/12/2009 5:46:48 PM)

Q-Ball, I like CRSutton's suggestions too.  As it is now, the game forces the Allies to achieve a 2:1 advantage to win auto-victory in 1945, which I don't think is very difficult; but it has to be very demoralizing to a Japanese player to play well, fight hard, but come out on the losing end on points.  Changing the points system so that the Japanese player gets more points late in the game for sinking ships, downing planes, etc. makes good sense, and it would encourage Japanese players not to throw in the towel.

In our game, John won the first half, in large part because he was aggressive, smart, and well-organized, with my inexperience certainly contributing its mite.  I think I've won the second half, partly because I gambled on some big moves - carefully planned moves, but tinged with some desperation - that turned out very well. The overwhelming might of the Allies was a big factor too.

In his other AAR, John recently poo-pooed my interest in scoring points in these games.  But to me, the fun of a massive, complex game like this is the challenge of "solving a problem":  Okay, I have these resources, this much time, and my opponent has such-n-such - now, how do I win?  That's the way I approached this game and it's been a blast - sometimes a scary, nerve-wracking, irritating blast, but a blast nonethelss. 

John has shown real character by sticking too this game so long (as did Miller, my opponent in my previous PBEM game).  It was hard on me to take it on the chin for a 1.5 years early in the game, and now John's been taking it on the chin for that long late in the game.  Only I knew the punishment would draw to a close; John doesn't have that luxury. 



Q-Ball -> RE: Three Days of the Superfort (2/12/2009 6:57:44 PM)

Really, PzB missed the Auto-Victory? That only reinforces that VP's aren't balanced right; he conquered all of India, yet still couldn't win the game. And you're right castor, haven't observed many Japanese Auto-Victories.

Not sure how important VP's are, but you do want to measure how you are doing.

There is no doubt that WITP Japan is more powerful than RL Japan. If AE is more historically accurate, hopefully the VP's are re-balanced.

If you produce an exactly historical result in WITP as in RL, I think the Allies would easily win a decisive victory without using the A-Bombs. Probably too much of a penalty for using those, but that's another story. But the point difference would be HUGE.

There should be something to keep you in late as Japan, because unlike the early-war Allies it gets WORSE every day for the Empire.




vettim89 -> RE: Three Days of the Superfort (2/12/2009 7:05:49 PM)

One thing I noticed is the huge disparity in points the Allies get for controling bases vs Japan. I think this was done to avaoid almost a guarteed Autovictory for Japan by the end of 1942. But if you removed Autovictory from the equation, it would make the game more interesting. It would take some serious parsing of the data but one could set it up so that a game that has near historical results by AUgust '45 in terms of territory held, a/c losses and ship losses would equal a near tie in points. Any variation beyond that would equal a clear victory for the side who performed better than the RL model.

Is that not the point about this game? If it is a forgone conslucion that the Japanese will lose the war, do we not play (both AFB and JFB) to se if we can do better than our historical counterparts?

In the old SPI War in the Pacific game one of the best things in the game was called "Shortening the War". What this basically meant was that if the Japanese player achieved certain strategic goals above the historica reality, the Allied player lost turns. For example, the Allied player was required to keep what was called a Merchant Shipping Pipeline between WC USA and Oz. Every month that this was not true, the Allied player lost a week. So if say Japan conquers NZ and no MS Pipeline existed for say six months, the war ends on 1 July 1945. BTW, in the SPI game, victory was achieved by making the Japanese economy collapse not by killing ships, planes or troops.



crsutton -> RE: Three Days of the Superfort (2/12/2009 7:40:12 PM)

It might be a good idea to move this autovictory and VP point debate to the main forum? I don't know if it is too late but if it has not been discussed it should before AE is done.

Canoerebel, You really have not touched on your sub war in your AAR. Could I ask you to take some time and write a few paragraphs about the course of the Allied sub effort for your game? What has worked, what has not. Your thoughs on how you think it is best to conduct the Allies sub campaign. Perhaps list a few of your major sucesses and so on.



Page: <<   < prev  31 32 [33] 34 35   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.734375