RE: War Begins!

RE: War Begins! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition

Message

jrcar -> RE: War Begins! (2/6/2009 8:00:20 PM)
Yes it can be done at major bases, requires at least a level 6 port with naval support, preferably level 7 port. At start the only one in CentPac or SWPAC is Truk. Sorebaya is 7, Batavia 6 . I having an AE also reloads torps on CV's trying to confirm. A torp is a load cost of 2500, a Level 6 port can reload 700, a level 7 5500. So you need a 6 with a LOT of naval support. The AE needs to have a capacity of the load size (in this case 2500) or greater, plus supplies, to reload. I'm moving AE's into theatre. Truk is level 6 but I don't think there is enough naval support there yet. Truk can be built to 7. Cheers Rob quote: ORIGINAL: Elladan Could you perhaps expand a bit on the possibilities of replenishing carrier's stock of air torpedoes? I see a mention it can only be done in Japan at the moment, what about other places to be conquered/built up soon?

jrcar -> Day 3 and 4 (2/7/2009 4:14:21 AM)
A good day for Cathartes :) A US sub leaving Bataan hits a mine, and i badly damage another that has the gall to attack one of my TF. DD Thanet (RN) though comes accross the Miri invasion force... Day Time Surface Combat, near Miri at 64,85, Range 12,000 Yards Japanese Ships APD D-31 TB Kasasagi, Shell hits 5, heavy fires AMc Wa 19, Shell hits 1, and is sunk xAK Hokko Maru, Shell hits 2, heavy fires xAK Zinzan Maru xAK Kinkasan Maru, Shell hits 6, heavy fires, heavy damage xAK Giyu Maru, Shell hits 4, heavy fires, heavy damage xAKL Kembu Maru xAKL Kiko Maru xAKL Anbo Maru Allied Ships DD Thanet, Shell hits 3, on fire Japanese ground losses: 756 casualties reported Squads: 11 destroyed, 13 disabled Non Combat: 14 destroyed, 38 disabled Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled Guns lost 11 (6 destroyed, 5 disabled) DD Thanet later comes accoss a CA SCTF, puts a torp into the CA while she dies... a great outcome for the enemy! My Zero's decide not to escort a large raid on Clark, and I pay a predictable price (The cause I think was weather, and an issue with not enough supply to fit drop tanks). Invasion wise I take Kota Bharu, and a reinforced Wake Invasion takes the island, although some ships are badly beaten up. My forces begin unloading at Ambon, it should fall next turn. These are forces usually assigned to Legapasi. Next turn should see the invasion of Guam, and I should arrive at Alor Star. [image]local://upfiles/6237/90F0E4BA6D81435899D15B8A49539DD4.jpg[/image]

jrcar -> RE: Day 3 and 4 (2/7/2009 4:17:14 AM)
Here is the status in Malaya, ships still unloading, a big chaneg from stock :) [image]local://upfiles/6237/3BA113536A0B499C8090E6F5EB6E24D5.jpg[/image]

Chad Harrison -> RE: Day 3 and 4 (2/7/2009 4:20:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jrcar AMc Wa 19, Shell hits 1, and is sunk Was there any previous damage to this little ship? Or did one 5" shell put her under? If so, I love the new and much more realistic damage routines!

jrcar -> RE: Day 3 and 4 (2/7/2009 5:14:14 AM)
Yes, the damage model is much changed, one or two bomb hits usually sink a merchant, and a couple of shell hits. The two AK with heavy damage sank the next day. There are a lot more ships now though, so loosing a few is sort of Ok.

Dili -> RE: Day 3 and 4 (2/7/2009 8:26:33 AM)
What size (tonnage) were the ships and the bombs that hit them?

jrcar -> RE: Day 3 and 4 (2/7/2009 10:51:19 AM)
In turn 2 I increased HA-32 and HA-34 production, doubling both. The HA-32 is used in Sally and betty, amogst others, the Ha-34 in the Helen. I was due to fly to Darwin tomorrow, however bushfires have cut me off from the airport, and two of my travelling companions have to stay to protect their properties, both are threatened by fire. I'm Ok being in a largish town, but it is very smokey outside. Cheers Rob

Chad Harrison -> RE: Day 3 and 4 (2/7/2009 12:37:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jrcar Yes, the damage model is much changed, one or two bomb hits usually sink a merchant, and a couple of shell hits. The two AK with heavy damage sank the next day. There are a lot more ships now though, so loosing a few is sort of Ok. Very cool! Will be nice to have a much more realistic approach to ship damage. Thanks for the reply.

veji1 -> RE: Day 3 and 4 (2/7/2009 12:59:33 PM)
this will mean longer and better planning for amphibious operations and a lot more escorting duties for warships : A lone jap CL or AMC wondering in the american shipping lanes will be able to massively hurt poorly escorted convoys.. This will mean in turn that many of the CVEs and DEs the USN used for escort duties will actually have to do this... Very positive...

kokubokan25 -> RE: Day 3 and 4 (2/7/2009 1:38:15 PM)
Sinking a ship with only two shells it's a realistic aproach to ship damage? Well, i will see future surface combats to cheers.

Erik Rutins -> RE: Day 3 and 4 (2/7/2009 2:25:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fremen Sinking a ship with only two shells it's a realistic aproach to ship damage? Well, i will see future surface combats to cheers. If it's a tiny ship like a AMc (coastal mine sweeper), yes, that could be realistic.

W T Door -> RE: Day 3 and 4 (2/7/2009 2:46:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fremen Sinking a ship with only two shells it's a realistic aproach to ship damage? Well, i will see future surface combats to cheers. Actually, it is. Merchant vessels are typically built with lighter structure (fewer frames and so forth) to reduce hull tonnage and boost profitable weight and volume. They also lack the extensive watertight compartmentation and damage control organisation of naval vessels (they have these but to a far lesser degree and size, they are, after all designed to haul goods, not fight). It's entirely possible to sink a small or lightly constructed vessel with a near miss by opening the seams between plates or strakes and cause unrecoverable flooding.

kokubokan25 -> RE: Day 3 and 4 (2/7/2009 2:52:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: W T Door quote: ORIGINAL: fremen Sinking a ship with only two shells it's a realistic aproach to ship damage? Well, i will see future surface combats to cheers. Actually, it is. Merchant vessels are typically built with lighter structure (fewer frames and so forth) to reduce hull tonnage and boost profitable weight and volume. They also lack the extensive watertight compartmentation and damage control organisation of naval vessels (they have these but to a far lesser degree and size, they are, after all designed to haul goods, not fight). It's entirely possible to sink a small or lightly constructed vessel with a near miss by opening the seams between plates or strakes and cause unrecoverable flooding. Yes, i agree in some specific cases (small ships, small xAKs), but not in general. Reading jrcar comment seems as sinking ships with only small number of shells will be the norm in AE. I'm in panic thinking about...

castor troy -> RE: Day 3 and 4 (2/7/2009 2:54:02 PM)
the question will nevertheless be if the naval engagement routine will keep attacking a PT boat with 8inch+ guns after it was already hit by 58 shells...

Erik Rutins -> RE: Day 3 and 4 (2/7/2009 3:21:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fremen Yes, i agree in some specific cases (small ships, small xAKs), but not in general. Reading jrcar comment seems as sinking ships with only small number of shells will be the norm in AE. I'm in panic thinking about... No, it's not the norm. Battleships are as durable as ever - but on the lower end merchant ships, barges, PT boats and tiny coastal ships are more vulnerable than they used to be.

Dili -> RE: Day 3 and 4 (2/7/2009 4:24:26 PM)
The shear volume of commercial ships makes them possible of survival if the cargo is not explosive. Here is an example known of Australians and New Zelandeers for sad reasons : http://www.aifpow.com/part_1__missing_in_action,_believed_pow/chapter_4__transportation_of_pow/a._by_sea quote: ...On that same day, the Royal Navy submarine "Turbulent" (formerly named the "Trieste") commanded by Lt. Commander "Tubby" Linton, VC, was on patrol off Novarino. About 3 o'clock that afternoon, it sighted the convoy and despite its strong protective cover, "Tubby" Linton attacked, with a salvo of three torpedoes narrowly missing the "Sestriere" but hitting the "Nino Bixio" in Number 1 hold forward, in the engine room amidship and glancing off the rudder, but doing enough damage to render it useless. No. 1 hold was crammed with Allied POW, in the main Australian, New Zealand and South African and the torpedo burst through the skin of the ship and exploded inside. Less than half of the 300 men in this hold survived. The 2/28th Infantry Battalion of the AIF lost 29 men alone from the 39 Australians killed. 118 New Zealanders died. Barton Maughan (A3 p764) has slightly different figures: "Of the 504 originally in No.I hold, only 70 remained". The survivors were kept on the ship for four days to carry up as many dead as practical and to identify them if possible. During this period a few Italian army biscuits were their only food, but, as a survivor put it, "everyone was too dazed by the shock to worry about food". Of the 201 Australians on board at Benghazi, 37 were killed or drowned. After a short stay at Corinth, the uninjured were shipped to Bari in Italy, where they entered Campo 75, then being used as a main transit camp for British prisoners from North Africa. The "Saetta" took the stricken "Nino Bixio" in tow and beached her in the harbour at Navarino...

Erik Rutins -> RE: Day 3 and 4 (2/7/2009 4:51:15 PM)
No doubt, but as far as I recall there were actually some bugs we found in original WITP that made them even more durable than they should be. I haven't seen an AK or AP go down to a single small shell hit - the larger the ship, the more it takes, but an equivalent size military ship will be more durable. Combination of construction as well as crew experience with damage control. Regards, - Erik

traskott -> RE: Day 3 and 4 (2/7/2009 5:11:38 PM)
Well...with a bit of real surface combat in the AAR we'll see how combat model really works [:)]. Any chance ?

vettim89 -> RE: Day 3 and 4 (2/7/2009 5:35:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins No doubt, but as far as I recall there were actually some bugs we found in original WITP that made them even more durable than they should be. I haven't seen an AK or AP go down to a single small shell hit - the larger the ship, the more it takes, but an equivalent size military ship will be more durable. Combination of construction as well as crew experience with damage control. Regards, - Erik One of my big gripes about WITP was that merchant shipping was too durable. I have hit AK's with three or four 500 lb bombs and not have them sink. A DD would have a hard time absorbing that kind of punishment with trained DC teams and warship watertight intergrity. We have also seen a medium to large size AK take multiple torpedo hits. Not only should two or more TT sink most MS but it should do it on the spot. I acknowledge the concerns about making them too fragile but it needed improving. Keep in mind that a single 225 lb warhead took out the Atlantic Conveyor in the Falklands conflict. She displaced 14,500 tons which is bigger than any AK in the Japanese inventory. Making MS historically vulnerable will add a level of sanity to both sides offensive operations - Japan in 1941-42 and the Aliies in 1943-45.

Cathartes -> RE: Day 3 and 4 (2/7/2009 5:39:25 PM)
My view of the DD Thanet, which after this heroic action, moved on and ate a torpedo off Serasan suffering heavy damage. [image]local://upfiles/2187/2D7394A5C91041ED9932AD1B12409E85.jpg[/image]

Cathartes -> RE: Day 3 and 4 (2/7/2009 5:43:23 PM)
Wake falls, I lose all my Wildcats at the base, but they manage to down a couple of raiding Nells before the tragic loss of the island. [image]local://upfiles/2187/7AB32057D9B64DDCBCCC02C36E3D0865.jpg[/image]

Zeta16 -> RE: Day 3 and 4 (2/8/2009 12:03:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vettim89 quote: ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins No doubt, but as far as I recall there were actually some bugs we found in original WITP that made them even more durable than they should be. I haven't seen an AK or AP go down to a single small shell hit - the larger the ship, the more it takes, but an equivalent size military ship will be more durable. Combination of construction as well as crew experience with damage control. Regards, - Erik One of my big gripes about WITP was that merchant shipping was too durable. I have hit AK's with three or four 500 lb bombs and not have them sink. A DD would have a hard time absorbing that kind of punishment with trained DC teams and warship watertight intergrity. We have also seen a medium to large size AK take multiple torpedo hits. Not only should two or more TT sink most MS but it should do it on the spot. I acknowledge the concerns about making them too fragile but it needed improving. Keep in mind that a single 225 lb warhead took out the Atlantic Conveyor in the Falklands conflict. She displaced 14,500 tons which is bigger than any AK in the Japanese inventory. Making MS historically vulnerable will add a level of sanity to both sides offensive operations - Japan in 1941-42 and the Aliies in 1943-45. I am reading a book about US subs during the war and it was rare if a merchant went down with one torp it was usually more than two that took it down. So it wasn't like they they took a little damage and went down. Also it seemed deck guns on subs were useless when merchants shot back as most of the time the sub would go back under, but deck guns were good aganist real small ships and sampains.

Crimguy -> RE: Day 3 and 4 (2/8/2009 3:16:23 AM)
Zeta - which book , if I may ask? I was looking into Clay Blair's book. . .

TMFoss -> RE: Day 3 and 4 (2/8/2009 5:55:07 AM)
Clay Blair actually wrote three books on submarine warfare during WWII. Silent Victory was about the Pacific War and written a few decades ago. It was out of print last time I checked, but things do change again. He also wrote a two volume set called Hitler's U-Boat War covering the German U-boat campaign. Knowing Blair's penchant for data, you probably could mine some very good information from these books.

jrcar -> 11-12 Dec 41 (2/8/2009 10:18:08 AM)
11-12 Dec 41 The invasion of Ambon continues, the CD guns extract revenge and I loose 2 ships (PB and an xAK), but the base falls on the first attack. Naval strike aircraft immediately fly in. B-17 hammer the invasion TF in the northern Phillipines, hitting 5-6 ships over the 2 days. Thankfully the bad weather helps to protect my shipping as someone forgot to LRCAP them... Aparri and Loang fall and the sweep down Luzon begins. A BB tf gets some target practice (see image below). the US sub S-38 has a good time sinking ships near Pescadores, getting two carrying resources. A ASW tf is formed to go after here. The Dutch sub KXV also hits a shi, but is hit in return, near Miri. More forces arrive at Miri and it should fall next turn. Loosing two ships to the Brit DD has really thrown things out here. Hong Kong is subejected to attack from the air and ground, the main attack should go in tomorrow. Guam is invaded as well. In China forces are moving to secure the rear areas, with a series of attacks to occur. A strategey in China is begining to form. Finally in Malaya forces are advacing with some small air battle ocuring between Nates and Buffaloe (about even outcome). Kota Bharu is almost repaired, with an AirHQ on the way offensive operations should begin soon. A BB TF is sent into Kuantan to soften it up. With Ambon mine the rate of advance will pick up soon, things are almost in position. Cheers Rob [image]local://upfiles/6237/08BDF85C2B45434486A0B173AB577908.jpg[/image]

Monter_Trismegistos -> RE: 11-12 Dec 41 (2/8/2009 2:49:03 PM)
Hi, you are transferring resources so early? From where to where?

IndyShark -> RE: Day 3 and 4 (2/8/2009 3:05:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jrcar Yes, the damage model is much changed, one or two bomb hits usually sink a merchant, and a couple of shell hits. The two AK with heavy damage sank the next day. There are a lot more ships now though, so loosing a few is sort of Ok. How does the bomb model handle strafers like the B-25J and skip bombing? I assume they would be deadly against anything smaller than a cruiser.

Cathartes -> RE: Day 3 and 4 (2/8/2009 6:22:46 PM)
Overall, Dec. 11-12 was one Allied Happy Day(s) in the endless march of Japanese Happy Days. Not all was perfectly rosy, so we'll start with the one particularly unhappy moment: [image]local://upfiles/2187/C2CA01D75EFE4DE1A6FD80FCB2D41F9A.jpg[/image]

Cathartes -> RE: Day 3 and 4 (2/8/2009 6:24:02 PM)
Actually, you don't even mind getting plastered by such magnificent looking battleships--was worth the loss just for the show...

Cathartes -> RE: Day 3 and 4 (2/8/2009 6:38:24 PM)
One thing I really appreciate in AE is the new patrol zones that you can set up with your subs. You simply delineate the patrol zones with up to 3 waypoints, and your sub will cruise between the points on patrol. It's having the best of both worlds--manual control and autopilot. In this situation I set up S-38 to cruise back and forth along this hex row and she found two different unescorted targets to abuse from the surface. Sub attack near Pescadores at 83,63 Japanese Ships xAK Konzan Maru, Shell hits 1, Torpedo hits 4, on fire, heavy damage Allied Ships SS S-38 SS S-38 attacking xAK Konzan Maru on the surface -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sub attack near Pescadores at 83,63 Japanese Ships xAK Koyu Maru, Torpedo hits 3, on fire, heavy damage Allied Ships SS S-38, hits 1 SS S-38 attacking xAK Koyu Maru on the surface [image]local://upfiles/2187/9D2EBAC63FF940F8A363ACF64D67EB18.jpg[/image]

Page: << < prev 9 10 [11] 12 13 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.6875