RE: Guad Mod - AE Scenario 4 - AAR - No Nik

RE: Guad Mod - AE Scenario 4 - AAR - No Nik (Full Version)

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

Message

jwilkerson -> RE: Guad Mod - AE Scenario 4 - AAR - No Nik (6/1/2009 2:03:54 PM)
Don't know - but TF engagement priority has been "randomified" a bit - I just not clear on the priorities of which will engage first - of course with randomification - it could be any - but perhaps some should be higher priority than others - for a surface engagement. I did have one group with many more ships - hoping they might have the highest chance to engage in surface battle first. Didn't work out this time.

Don Bowen -> RE: Guad Mod - AE Scenario 4 - AAR - No Nik (6/1/2009 2:59:22 PM)
The issue probably was the result of "walking" through the TFs, one by one. In AE, like WITP, whenever TFs have to be processed they are done in order, TF-1, then TF-2, etc UNLESS THE PLAYER DOES SOMETHING TO CHANGE THAT ORDER. So the lowest numbered TF will enter the hex first. There is indeed code (a lot of code) to determine who-fights-who when multiple TFs are in the same hex. AE uses hex-by-hex movement, one TF at a time, so "in the same hex" is the key. The first TF that moves into a hex containing enemy TF(s) will drop into the who-fights-who logic. Note that the lowest numbered TF will not automatically be the TF to fight, but only TFs already in the hex are even considered. If you want TFs to move (i.e. enter a destination hex) in a given sequence, use the Follow option. If, for instance, you want a Surface Combat TF to sweep aside any enemy TFs, then have a bombardment TF move in and rough up the enemy ashore, then an amphib TF to land troops, have them follow in (reverse of) that order. Bombardment TF follows Surface Combat TF. Amphib TF follows Bombardment TF (it could also follow the Surface Combat TF, in which case it might or might not arrive after the Bombardment TF). (follow stack limit is 10) You could also just take care to form the TFs in the order that you want them to move, but that would leave you open to speed differences between the TFs affecting the arrival order. Follow is your friend for complex operations.

Mistmatz -> RE: Guad Mod - AE Scenario 4 - AAR - No Nik (6/1/2009 4:11:19 PM)
Will a bombardment TF that follows another TF into a hex bombard that hex if it is a base or has hostile LCUs in it? I doubt it is handled that way in standard WitP.

jwilkerson -> RE: Guad Mod - AE Scenario 4 - AAR - No Nik (6/1/2009 4:12:50 PM)
Ok well that explains it. I had the bombardment force as the lead force - worrying that otherwise they might not bombard. I had the surface forces following hoping they would fight if enemy surface vessels encountered. Next time I will reverse the order! I did note in campaign game with Nik - that I sent in bombardment force "following" the amphib TF and the bombarding force did bombard - so separate confirmation that works.

rhohltjr -> RE: Guad Mod - AE Scenario 4 - AAR - No Nik (6/2/2009 2:22:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Don Bowen You could also just take care to form the TFs in the order that you want them to move, but that would leave you open to speed differences between the TFs affecting the arrival order. Follow is your friend for complex operations. So bombardment TFs will still bombard even if you've ordered them to follow the Surface Warfare TF? Amphib TFs will still Unload on to the beach even if they are following the bombardment group which is following the Surface warfare group which is heading back to Ulithi to refuel and rearm???? Never gave it much thought before[&:]. I've always had the transports arrive first since they are obviously slowest, followed by supporting TFs.[X(] How about a minesweeper TF followed by a Surface TF followed by the Bombardment and finally the Amphibs???

Don Bowen -> RE: Guad Mod - AE Scenario 4 - AAR - No Nik (6/2/2009 3:56:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rhohltjr So bombardment TFs will still bombard even if you've ordered them to follow the Surface Warfare TF? Amphib TFs will still Unload on to the beach even if they are following the bombardment group which is following the Surface warfare group which is heading back to Ulithi to refuel and rearm???? Never gave it much thought before[&:]. "At Destination" picks up for the follow chain. However, it would be a good idea to set the surface combat TFs to Remain on Station, lest the transports get a little lonely out there. quote: I've always had the transports arrive first since they are obviously slowest, followed by supporting TFs.[X(] AE (and WITP) adjust speeds to try and keep the follow chain together. quote: How about a minesweeper TF followed by a Surface TF followed by the Bombardment and finally the Amphibs??? Up to ten deep (or maybe nine, memory fails).

steveh11Matrix -> RE: Guad Mod - AE Scenario 4 - AAR - No Nik (6/2/2009 4:39:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Don Bowen AE (and WITP) adjust speeds to try and keep the follow chain together. It fails, very often, then. I normally do the same as rhohltjr, in respect of having the faster force follow the slower one, regardless of mission simply to keep the forces together. At least, in stock [;)] Maybe soon I'll get to try it in AE! Steve.

RevRick -> RE: Guad Mod - AE Scenario 4 - AAR - No Nik (6/3/2009 12:35:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Don Bowen quote: ORIGINAL: rhohltjr So bombardment TFs will still bombard even if you've ordered them to follow the Surface Warfare TF? Amphib TFs will still Unload on to the beach even if they are following the bombardment group which is following the Surface warfare group which is heading back to Ulithi to refuel and rearm???? Never gave it much thought before[&:]. "At Destination" picks up for the follow chain. However, it would be a good idea to set the surface combat TFs to Remain on Station, lest the transports get a little lonely out there. YUP!! quote: quote: I've always had the transports arrive first since they are obviously slowest, followed by supporting TFs.[X(] AE (and WITP) adjust speeds to try and keep the follow chain together. Since I have always done this as rhohltjr worded it, does this mean that the faster TFs adjust their speed for the slower TFs no matter who follows who in the follow TF command. That has been a bit spotty, if I recall. quote: quote: How about a minesweeper TF followed by a Surface TF followed by the Bombardment and finally the Amphibs??? Up to ten deep (or maybe nine, memory fails). Brings up a question. I, perhaps mistakenly, understood that DMs and DMSs attached to an Amphibious TF would sweep the invasion area prior to the commencement of festivities. Would, therefore, DMSs in a Surface Warfare TF sweep a channel for the others, or would the only add their combat factors to the aggregate of the TF? Or am I just sucking smoke from the tailpipe?

Don Bowen -> RE: Guad Mod - AE Scenario 4 - AAR - No Nik (6/3/2009 12:57:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RevRick quote: quote: I've always had the transports arrive first since they are obviously slowest, followed by supporting TFs.[X(] AE (and WITP) adjust speeds to try and keep the follow chain together. Since I have always done this as rhohltjr worded it, does this mean that the faster TFs adjust their speed for the slower TFs no matter who follows who in the follow TF command. That has been a bit spotty, if I recall. Well, it was coded to adjust speeds forward and backward so the whole chain moved as a unit (if possible - if one TF was really, really slow and far out of position it could monkey wrench things). We originally allowed speed to go all the way to zero but that was removed. Beta testers have set a TF a San Francisco to follow a TF at Pearl, with zero hex follow distance. The TF at Pearl stopped and refused to move until the San Francisco TF caught up. The problem report included impolite language! Now it will move (slowly) and the San Francisco TF will slowly close. P.S. Don't do this! quote: Brings up a question. I, perhaps mistakenly, understood that DMs and DMSs attached to an Amphibious TF would sweep the invasion area prior to the commencement of festivities. Would, therefore, DMSs in a Surface Warfare TF sweep a channel for the others, or would the only add their combat factors to the aggregate of the TF? Or am I just sucking smoke from the tailpipe? Minesweepers attached to non-minesweeping TFs can sweep. Better if in a pure minesweeping TF, lest they get pulled off to other duties.

jwilkerson -> RE: Guad Mod - AE Scenario 4 - AAR - No Nik (6/3/2009 2:39:36 AM)
17-18-19-20 September 1942 Solomons Quiet until the second turn. Apparently SBDs can bomb Shortlands from Lunga. We lost 1xEscort and one light cargo vessel. We will hence forth put Shortlands on the "emergency" supply base list so fast transports, submarines, air transports etc. No more merchant ships to this base. In the mean time Shortlands is 38% towards the level-1 airfield and has 8500 supply. Tass has 500 supply with the units at that base having about 50% of internal stocks. New Britain Gasmata is 20% towards having the airfield complete.

jwilkerson -> RE: Guad Mod - AE Scenario 4 - AAR - No Nik (6/3/2009 4:35:58 AM)
21-22 September 1942 Solomons Massive strikes from Lunga and Carriers on Shortlands - 150+ sorties in one day. Am considering cancelling the airfield construction. Even if we finish the base I doubt it will be viable - too far forward to be supplied in the face of all that air power. Truk Fuel level at end of turn is zero - still refueling the fleet after the surface sortie.

Fishbed -> RE: Guad Mod - AE Scenario 4 - AAR - No Nik (6/3/2009 1:05:12 PM)
Man, do the Japanese really stand a chance in this scenario? Seeing how you struggle when it comes to feed your ships with some overpriced fuel in constant shortage, were these difficulties anywhere as real back then in Truk as they seem to be in this scenario?

rhohltjr -> RE: Guad Mod - AE Scenario 4 - AAR - No Nik (6/3/2009 1:55:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Don Bowen Well, it was coded to adjust speeds forward and backward so the whole chain moved as a unit (if possible - if one TF was really, really slow and far out of position it could monkey wrench things). Appologies to jwilkerson for continuing this "follow" thread, but it is interesting..... to me.... Don, you must be referring to AE above, because in stock Witp when I have my usual Transports followed by Support TFs, when the transports finish dropping supplies or troops and start back to base the support TFs drop the support part and flank speed it back to base leaving my transports out hanging ....sort of flapping in the tropical breeze..... this has happened more times than I can count.... @jwilkerson : [&o] I'm still reading your AAR.

Don Bowen -> RE: Guad Mod - AE Scenario 4 - AAR - No Nik (6/3/2009 2:22:19 PM)
I am, of course, speaking of AE. I've not seen stock in years. As to exactly what happens in complex follow circumstances when destination is reached, only the beta testers would really know. There is code to keep the chain together and to deliver it to it's destination. There is code to handle TF orders at destination. Once at destination and mission done, the TFs would fall back into the general TF processing routines and the movement processor would have it's way with them. There is considerable complexity in "follow" when it interacts with other features - like patrol, react, retreat, low-fuel/low-ammo, and damage processing. How it works in any given circumstance??? If I get a chance tonight, I'll go over it.

jwilkerson -> RE: Guad Mod - AE Scenario 4 - AAR - No Nik (6/3/2009 4:07:08 PM)
23-24 September 1942 Solomons SBDs continuing to hit Shortlands from Lunga. The only good news is that this reduces the pressure on supply at Tass - only the B-17s from Espiritu are hitting the supply at Tass now. Supply at Tass still not building up though - currently at 400 - with about 40% in the units. Papua Supply at Finschhaven/Lae/Buna is 1600/1200/1000. We will try and risk a single APD on a fast transport mission to Buna to see if direct supply deliveries will even work. Looks like the Aussie 30 Bde which was in the hex with our Army troops on the Owen Stanley has decided to walk over to Milne Bay so there are currently no Allied units in the hex with us. Truk Fuel at Truk still zero at end of turn as we continue to refuel the surface ships after the surface sortie. Zuiho has arrived so now we have five "carriers" for our eventual sortie.

Q-Ball -> RE: Guad Mod - AE Scenario 4 - AAR - No Nik (6/3/2009 4:36:15 PM)
Reading this it makes me think CV's are going to be even more important in AE than they are in WITP. In WITP, it is alot easier to build and supply forward airbases. In AE, land bases become less useful, because of the time and effort required to build, the limits to building, and the difficulty of keeping them supplied. The 5 IJN CVs mustering at Truk don't have supply problems, are fully-built airfields, with plenty of AV support, etc. They represent virtually ALL of joe's strike capability, probably a greater percentage than in WITP. Am I on track?

jwilkerson -> RE: Guad Mod - AE Scenario 4 - AAR - No Nik (6/3/2009 10:42:44 PM)
Hum taking a tactical short term view yes you are somewhat on track. 01 - Many small Island and Atoll bases are far less valuable in AE because they cannot be built up as much and they are impossible to hold against a well prepared attacker. This does make carriers more powerful in areas of the map with no large bases. 02 - Ports however are more critical in AE. Reasons include the loading/unloading limits, the arming limits, fueling limits and the torpedo limits aboard the carriers. One turn of carrier airstrikes will use up all of your torpedos and send you home. In the Nik's Guadalcanal scenario, the importance of logisitics is greatly enhanced vis-a-vis the campaign game. In our Guad scenario Nik can limit the total amount of fuel and supply available to the player for the entire scenario. In the campaign game - if a player has 100,000 supply on the map - he can move it all to Truk if he wants to. He can optimize one region over the others. As the theater commander in GuadMod - I cannot do that - I only get what my bosses send me - and they are't sending me much! [:D] So scenario 04 has a different logistical feel than the campaign game will. But bases - particularly ports are more important in AE than in stock - and I think correctly so.

Fishbed -> RE: Guad Mod - AE Scenario 4 - AAR - No Nik (6/3/2009 11:17:01 PM)
Yep I understand that, but I just wondered if Nick's choices when it came to how much oil the Japanese player should received weren't a little bit... harsh? [:D] That was probably made with game balance matters in mind, but well that's really cruel for the Japanese player! I mean, ships are pretty much the only thing you can move around, twice as much fuel wouldn't have killed the game as far as I can see. Right now you're actually maintaining a lower activity than your historical counterpart. I understand Nick doesn't want to see Japanese carriers roaming around with no restrictions, but we're far from it!

jwilkerson -> RE: Guad Mod - AE Scenario 4 - AAR - No Nik (6/4/2009 1:38:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Fishbed Right now you're actually maintaining a lower activity than your historical counterpart. Are you sure? Well anyway, all of this is scenario design stuff - and one rule we've tried to maintain is that scenario design is the pervue of the scenario designer. Anyone can give feedback - but the final call is up to the scenario designer!

Fishbed -> RE: Guad Mod - AE Scenario 4 - AAR - No Nik (6/4/2009 2:12:38 AM)
Well I am just the average WW2 wargame player, you know, but well back in the days of Task Force and Pacific Air War, and reading stuff about it now that I am a little older, looks to me that the waters around Guadalcanal were a little more disputed back then. If I understand well, you managed to put a whole carrier division at sea for an Eastern-Solomons kind of engagement-that-didn't-happen (but in a smaller scale as your force was not as formidable as what Yamamoto had mustered), a BB bombardment run, but that's all, and you were already out of everything. Although I may understand everything is done to keep the IJN activity at a reasonable level before the tough... "oktoberfest" and the following deadly november, well it doesn't leave you with much, while your historical counterpart was running some Tokyo express stuff every two nights or so as soon as August 17, and put up several larger efforts with troop transports on August 23, 28, 29 & 30 (!!), and this doesn't count everything else happening around northern Solomons, New Britain or New Guinea. At least, I hope that Nick planned on delivering a big bunch of oil in september so you may be expected to emulate history a little more, but well that's quite tough so far! [;)]

Dili -> RE: Guad Mod - AE Scenario 4 - AAR - No Nik (6/4/2009 2:16:30 AM)
Yeah Oil seems too low level.

SuluSea -> RE: Guad Mod - AE Scenario 4 - AAR - No Nik (6/4/2009 2:58:43 AM)
It's hard to judge if fuel is set too low without seeing the whole scenario play out. Just reading the AAR oil level does look on the low side for the IJN thus far keep in mind during the days that preceded the Battle of Santa Cruz the oilers were siphoning fuel from Battleships at Truk to help get enough fuel for the transports, carriers and escorts to operate in the mid october attempt to land reinforcements/supplies on the 'canal.

Fishbed -> RE: Guad Mod - AE Scenario 4 - AAR - No Nik (6/4/2009 3:20:11 AM)
Sure, but still, we're talking about full-fledge operations here - Santa Cruz is about deploying 2 CV, 2 CVL, 4 BB, 8 CA, 3 CL, 40 DD, 4 AO, 12 SS on October 26. Before that, on October 14-15, the reinforcement TF was made of 2 CA, 10 DD and 6 AP, preceded by a bombardment force of 2 BB and 1 CL and 6 DD, with countless Tokyo Express runs the whole time. Add to this the Cape Esperance episode on the 11, with a 3 CA, 2 DD force covering a 2 CS, 6 DD reinforcement convoy... Well I am not sure I have quite a good picture of jwilkerson's fuel reserves right now, but considering his historical counterpart had quite a busy time in August (Eastern Solomons alone, that's a 1 BBH, 5 BB, 2 CV, 2 CVL, 1 CVE, 1 CS, 13 CA, 3 CL, 30 DD, 3 AP, 4 PB, countless subs engagement... ouch! And we're not even counting August 28-September 2 operations or the tokyo express runs) I start to seriousely doubt he's anywhere close to the Kaigun capability at this time, keeping in mind that we're not mentionning the whole NG/New Britain/Shortlands usual trafic that is still under his watch considering the scenario... Sure, the IJN gets to feel some pressure, but well at least give him a chance... or a couple tankers!! [:D] [;)]

jwilkerson -> RE: Guad Mod - AE Scenario 4 - AAR - No Nik (6/4/2009 3:48:42 AM)
My fuel reserves right now: Truk: 3500 Rabaul: 12000 4xAO at sea: 26000 Needed aboard the DD and larger warships at Truk - about 500. Since mid-August I had two major sorties of combat ships - the first included 3 carriers, 5 BB, 24 cruisers and 29 DDs - this first sortie lasted about 2 weeks - the second sortee included 4xBB, 10 cruisers and 20 DD and lasted about 1 week. These two sortees burned all the gas that existed except a wee bit at Rabul. I have been continuously operating all the submarines, most of the APD, E, some PC, and some AK and TK. These guys are actually eating over a quarter of the fuel that is arriving - they eat close to 500 per day (of the 2000 we get).

jwilkerson -> RE: Guad Mod - AE Scenario 4 - AAR - No Nik (6/4/2009 3:52:37 AM)
25-26 September 1942 Solomons One US cruiser bombarded Shortlands - we got one 4.7" hit on the ship - but our hit was on "tower" armor - so no penetration. One of our support squads was disabled. New Britain We now are back up to a respectable anti-naval force at Rabaul - 99 Betty and 40 A6M2. We still have 15xA6M3 protecting the airbase. Planning We will probably start loading up the troops in 1-2 turns.

vettim89 -> RE: Guad Mod - AE Scenario 4 - AAR - No Nik (6/4/2009 1:40:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jwilkerson 25-26 September 1942 Solomons One US cruiser bombarded Shortlands - we got one 4.7" hit on the ship - but our hit was on "tower" armor - so no penetration. One of our support squads was disabled. New Britain We now are back up to a respectable anti-naval force at Rabaul - 99 Betty and 40 A6M2. We still have 15xA6M3 protecting the airbase. Planning We will probably start loading up the troops in 1-2 turns. What is your air torpedo status? Is this a number that needs to be plugged in by scenario designers? BTW, I love the feel of this scenario. I really feel it portrays the RL difficulties both sides experienced in the battle for Guadalcanal. I played the stock GC scenario once against m,y brother. He just parked all his IJN CV's off GC and left them there for like a month. No fuel shortage there.

jwilkerson -> RE: Guad Mod - AE Scenario 4 - AAR - No Nik (6/4/2009 3:53:27 PM)
Torpedo Status: Submarines: For submarines I can rearm at Truk - and there is an unlimited supply - no different from stock really - except the details of the rearming limits. Surface Ships: Same - I can rearm at Truk - unlimited supply - no different from stock - except for details of rearming limits. Aerial Torpedos - Land based: Here I have an HQ at Rabaul which is torpedo capable - there is a limit of 100 - but I case temporarily increase this by spending supply. Aerial Torpedos - ship based: Each carrier has a torpedo capacity - usually enough for between 1 to about 2.5 sorties - these can be replenished at Truk - there is an unlimited supply.

vettim89 -> RE: Guad Mod - AE Scenario 4 - AAR - No Nik (6/4/2009 5:01:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jwilkerson Torpedo Status: Submarines: For submarines I can rearm at Truk - and there is an unlimited supply - no different from stock really - except the details of the rearming limits. Surface Ships: Same - I can rearm at Truk - unlimited supply - no different from stock - except for details of rearming limits. Aerial Torpedos - Land based: Here I have an HQ at Rabaul which is torpedo capable - there is a limit of 100 - but I case temporarily increase this by spending supply. Aerial Torpedos - ship based: Each carrier has a torpedo capacity - usually enough for between 1 to about 2.5 sorties - these can be replenished at Truk - there is an unlimited supply. Just out of curiosity, what would you need to do to have DD's rearm at Rabaul? Would an AD suffice or do you need a Naval BF too?

jwilkerson -> RE: Guad Mod - AE Scenario 4 - AAR - No Nik (6/6/2009 6:01:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vettim89 Just out of curiosity, what would you need to do to have DD's rearm at Rabaul? Would an AD suffice or do you need a Naval BF too? I'd either either RTFM or try it and see if it works! Various combinations of naval support and tenders will enhance a port's ability to rearm for various ordnance. I'm not basing DD and above out of Rabaul because they eat a lot of gas - and I'm trying to use Rabaul as a supply distribution point. The main warship groups will operate out of Truk because there isn't enough fuel to use them much and they might as well stay out of harms way and near the fuel source. 27-28 September 1942 Solomons B-17s and Wildcats attack Tass - supply is holding at 400. Shortlands is 47% complete. New Britain The single APD delivery to Buna worked out. APDs are also delilvering supply to Finschhaven and Gasmata For those who are watching - here is the Val unit that has been training up on ASW since the start of the scenario - they have just about reached the training limit - we will use them in the upcomming activities. [image]local://upfiles/7611/BAB24BC6C5AA4C8B9027A41DFDCA40F5.jpg[/image]

Dili -> RE: Guad Mod - AE Scenario 4 - AAR - No Nik (6/6/2009 9:17:30 AM)
quote: The main warship groups will operate out of Truk because there isn't enough fuel to use them much and they might as well stay out of harms way and near the fuel source. At risk of damage operating from nearer front you will get more miles from your fuel.

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.84375