RE: Feb. 7/43 (Full Version)

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



Message


SqzMyLemon -> RE: Feb. 7/43 (3/30/2012 5:10:11 PM)

Further thoughts on yesterday's action.

I think the Allies may have had another SCTF in the area of Lunga that wasn't able to complete its mission for some reason. Bart hinted in his e-mail that "at least we'll get to see some battleships in action today" so I half expected to see Allied BB's at Lunga. Perhaps he meant engaging mine? Betty's on naval search did pick up a small Allied TF S.E. of Lunga, but composed of only three ships of unknown type.

Lunga's airbase needs to be hit soon, but I need to change up how I do it. I've purposely been using small TF's to draw out Allied surface ships and today saw the Allies react. I don't think I'll be as lucky the next time. I'm going to put together a few SCTF's and a heavy bombardment TF to strike at Lunga in two days. It will allow the Allies to base LBA at Lunga and get some naval air strikes in, but at risk of seeing the aircraft destroyed on the ground with another Japanese bombardment. Timing is going to be everything right now.

I'm getting reports of increased enemy naval activity along the east coast of Australia lately. Something is up. My CV's will remain stationed within a few days of being able to react to any Allied move against New Guinea or further landings in the Solomons.

The small amphibious TF near Carnarvon yesterday is believed to be moving towards Port Hedland. I have three submarines on patrol here. I am lacking a Glen based submarine patrolling the area and one is being dispatched. Japanese CVL's are currently at Batavia and are ordered to take up position N.W. of Carnarvon to interdict any future TF's spotted. I'll also be putting together a SCTF with units currently based at Soerabaja to patrol north of Port Hedland and strike if given an opportunity.

My reorganization of LBA in the DEI is being accelerated with the recent developments along the north coast of Australia. All infantry units recently bought out from China are heading to the DEI.

Speaking of China. The Chinese are massing near Kweiyang. There are now 51 Chinese LCU's north of the river facing Tuyun and a further 39 are moving west from Chihkiang, scary! I think the plan is to rely on the massive AV even if unsupplied, as my understanding is that LCU's with no supply still retain 25% of their combat value. That could still amount to some serious AV. My plan is to move around these large forces and keep driving forward to force the Chinese to split up, withdraw or be surrounded. I'll be engaging some smaller Chinese formations in the north soon and if successful will continue the advance towards Kienko.

I have a couple of ideas for some local operations, but I want to see where the next Allied blow falls first. I'm expecting one of four operations at the moment. Tarawa, Port Moresby, Milne Bay or a further landing in the Solomons. Tarawa will be uncontested, but anything in New Guinea or the Solomons will see a fight. I'm looking hard at Port Hedland and may try and cobble together a spoiling attack if I can get some solid recon on what is currently at the base. If I can surprise the Allies with a late invasion I may delay an advance from here for months. Only problem is the air support can only be provided by CVL and CVE's against a level 5 airfield. It could be costly.

Any requests for more information or screenshots don't hesitate to ask. The slow pace of the game allows me too much time to think about things, but things are looking ok to me. The Allies are taking some knocks, and I'm working daily on putting myself into a situation to respond quickly and bring the hammer against their next operation. [8D]




SqzMyLemon -> Feb. 8/43 (4/1/2012 5:51:21 PM)

Feb. 8/43 Update:

Sigh. You take a risk anytime you set orders in this game, and there is always the chance of some unexplained game mechanic coming into play resulting in a player getting burnt on occasion. Today, I got burnt and lost an extremely valuable ship. As feared, the Allies based some LBA at Lunga after the last two bombardment missions have gone astray leaving the airbase operational and CA Chikuma was the unlucky victim as a result. In hindsight, I should have cancelled the mission, but I was concerned about the possibility of a small Allied TF reaching Lunga today and I wanted to disrupt the operation. Right intention, wrong outcome. AAR follows:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Lunga at 114,138

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid spotted at 9 NM, estimated altitude 20,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 3 minutes

Allied aircraft
SBD-3 Dauntless x 17

Allied aircraft losses
SBD-3 Dauntless: 3 damaged

Japanese Ships
CA Chikuma, Bomb hits 2, on fire
DD Yugure
DD Suzukaze

Aircraft Attacking:
7 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 3000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb GP Bomb
2 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 3000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
8 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 2000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb GP Bomb

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Lunga at 114,138

Weather in hex: Heavy cloud

Raid spotted at 19 NM, estimated altitude 21,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 7 minutes

Allied aircraft
SBD-3 Dauntless x 12

No Allied losses

Japanese Ships
CA Chikuma, Bomb hits 4, on fire, heavy damage (System damage is 95%, she's done for)
DD Kawakaze, Bomb hits 1, on fire
DD Yugure

Aircraft Attacking:
1 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 2000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
7 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 3000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb
4 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 4000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb

Heavy smoke from fires obscuring CA Chikuma
Heavy smoke from fires obscuring DD Kawakaze

Sadly, the CA Chikuma and four DD's shouldn't have even been at Lunga during the air phase. They were ordered on a full speed surface action mission to Lunga and should have retired back to base during the daylight naval phase. One of those AE mysteries causing the TF to be caught still at Lunga during the air phase, beyond range of CAP based at Munda. All ships were fully fueled and should have made the movement easily, especially encountering no enemy TF's. Normally I'd be pretty PO'd, but have learned it's the nature of this game. Today I was unlucky, as I have been most of the game, and getting upset by it is counterproductive. Next time, I plot my orders as if everything will go wrong and try to provide as best defensive CAP coverage as I can. Another lesson learned, a costly one unfortunately. Needless to say, I need to shut the airbase down again...pronto.

Burma:

Allied P-40K Warhawk's (25) sweep Bhamo prior to a bombing raid. There is no Japanese CAP. The bombing raid consists of B-24D Liberator's (36) and the damage is light at 0(1) infantry and 0(1) non-combat squad losses totalling 13 casualties. The base is then swept again by another group of P-40K Warhawk's (25).

China:

Most of my bombers were grounded today, and more importantly a single Chinese LCU holding the river line north of Kweilin was not bombed. Four Japanese divisions are about to perform another river assault tomorrow, and as much preparatory disruption caused by bombing right now will make a big difference. Hopefully they fly as planned next turn.

Japanese forces launch a deliberate attack in the north against withdrawing Chinese forces. AAR follows:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at 81,40 (near Tienshui)

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 43528 troops, 322 guns, 186 vehicles, Assault Value = 1622

Defending force 22408 troops, 134 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 939

Japanese adjusted assault: 800

Allied adjusted defense: 1168

Japanese assault odds: 1 to 2

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), op mode(-), experience(-), supply(-) (All trumped by 3x terrain)
Attacker:

Japanese ground losses:
1483 casualties reported
Squads: 12 destroyed, 128 disabled
Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 27 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 29 disabled

Allied ground losses:
1105 casualties reported
Squads: 10 destroyed, 78 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 8 disabled
Engineers: 1 destroyed, 1 disabled
Guns lost 17 (1 destroyed, 16 disabled)

Assaulting units:
63rd Division
110th Division
12th Tank Regiment
27th Division
2nd Ind.Mixed Brigade
North China Area Army

Defending units:
57th Chinese Corps
3rd Chinese Cavalry Corps
9th Chinese Corps
43rd Chinese Corps
3rd Chinese Corps
7th New Chinese Corps

Terrain remains everything in this game. Despite three pretty substantial negative combat modifiers the odds are only 1:2. At least losses were tolerable on my end, but I think I suffered another bad roll considering the state of the enemy. I'm no longer surprised by these kinds of results.

Miscellaneous:

Japan:

Peleliu expands airfield to size 2
Tuyun expands fortifications to size 1
Soerabaja expands airfield to size 5
Long Island expands fortifications to size 2

Aircraft A6M5 Zero advances R&D

CV Taiho arrives at Kobe (The arrival of this CV is marred by the soon to be sinking of the CA Chikuma)

Allied:

Katha expands airfield to size 7
Luganville expands airfield to size 7

Previous report of sinking of CV Yorktown incorrect. Intelligence reports ship is still in service (No surprise here only taking one torpedo hit)

Thoughts:

Unlucky today, but getting used to it.

A note on the acceleration of CV Taiho. She arrives with A6M5 Zero's, Jill's and Judy's and these planes are not even in production yet. Under PDU off, I can't downgrade the aircraft, so any losses I suffer prior to production of these planes can't be replaced. Dumb. On the other hand, the experience levels of the pilots are the best in the entire Pacific.




SqzMyLemon -> RE: Feb. 8/43 (4/1/2012 10:59:35 PM)

Post removed.




SqzMyLemon -> RE: Feb. 8/43 (4/2/2012 4:37:31 PM)

The arrival of CV Taiho results in a surplus of naval shipyard points accumulating daily. I can either reduce the number of naval shipyards operating or accelerate more ships. I think it would be prudent to accelerate more DD's.

Does anyone see merit in accelerating tanker production?

I've upgraded 2/3's of a Sentai to Ki-61-Ia Tony's.

In China it looks like Chihkiang has been abandoned. If this is correct after confirming with recon next turn, I'm going ahead with the river crossing north of Kweilin. I want to see how four divisions fair against a small one unit blocking force showing less than 10,000 troops. I could cancel the crossing and move to Chihkiang, but that would amount to weeks of delay.

It appears Chinese units are also withdrawing from N.E. of Tuyun towards Kweiyang. I expect a token blocking force to remain holding the river line. I will continue to advance N.W. from Tuyun into the rough terrain until I learn just how many Chinese units are withdrawing. If I can cross the river against little or no opposition, I will do so. My entire movements will be dictated by how many Chinese units withdraw and where. I will look to engage Chinese forces to my advantage as often as possible. Cause losses and gain territory, while withdrawing units to the Pacific is the order of the day.

I have to say, after all this time of trying to advance in China, to have Bart simply withdraw and possibly mass the entire Chinese army at Kunming is disappointing. I'll continue to advance and take what is given though.

The loss of CA Chikuma means I must come up with a different plan for the Solomons. I'm not going to give the Allies any more freebies if I can help it. As far as I'm concerned, I'm facing two opponents right now, Bart and a hostile AI that continues to give huge breaks to one side at the expense of the other. Yeah, I'm still miffed at a KB strike only sinking two DE's and an xAK.

From now on, I'm going to do what I should have done right from the start...and that's kill em' all or die trying. I counter invade at Lunga with everything I've got. [sm=00000036.gif]




obvert -> RE: Feb. 8/43 (4/2/2012 7:10:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon

The arrival of CV Taiho results in a surplus of naval shipyard points accumulating daily. I can either reduce the number of naval shipyards operating or accelerate more ships. I think it would be prudent to accelerate more DD's.

Definitely go with more DDs accelerated. Better to have them while they can make a difference.
quote:


I have to say, after all this time of trying to advance in China, to have Bart simply withdraw and possibly mass the entire Chinese army at Kunming is disappointing. I'll continue to advance and take what is given though.

Too bad you couldn't have gotten Kunming before his retreat there. There have been a few threads lately talking about getting units out of China when China looks bad. (I'm sure, although I haven't looked of course, that my opponent's thread could be one as well). If you Get them caught up there and they are restricted from going to Burma though, it could be tough for him to supply them.
quote:


From now on, I'm going to do what I should have done right from the start...and that's kill em' all or die trying. I counter invade at Lunga with everything I've got. [sm=00000036.gif]

Banzai! That's the spirit. In the spirit of the NCAA finals tonight, don't blame the refs for the bad calls, just go to the basket harder!
[sm=00000613.gif]




SqzMyLemon -> RE: Feb. 8/43 (4/2/2012 7:35:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

Banzai! That's the spirit. In the spirit of the NCAA finals tonight, don't blame the refs for the bad calls, just go to the basket harder!
[sm=00000613.gif]


Hi obvert,

Thanks for posting, as it seems to be rather desert like in the AAR of late. I'm sure people are tired of the complaining lately. It's just becoming extremely frustrating on my end with these kinds of things happening consistently. Losing the cruiser sucks. I know bad things can happen, but to have my opponent rewarded because of a movement that didn't go right on my end just gets me seeing red. I mean, the one turn he moves DB's to Lunga a TF of mine gets hung out to dry with no air cover because it doesn't complete it's movement? Yet, when I move my carrier force to within striking range of the enemy I lay an egg. I hate using the "it's the games fault" excuse, but so far I get burned more often than not due to something beyond my control.

Anyway, back to your point about not "blaming the referee" I totally agree. I figure if I just go for it maybe things will fall into place and I'll see better results.

I'm risking this move simply because I don't have confidence in my forces performing as planned at the most critical times, which sitting back and waiting has seemed to foster. The plan is hit Lunga with four divisions and use my fleet to simply batter the defenders over the next month and grind down the defences. The Allies either let it go or bring in reinforcements and the fleet to stop me. I just lost a cruiser for nothing, I don't plan on having that happen again. If I lose ships now, at least it's because I'm actually attacking and trying to accomplish an objective. I'm not going to sit back and wait till the Hellcat's arrive and then get clobbered. The next two months will see me throw everything at Guadalcanal, as I should have done immediately upon the invasion.

I'm trying to play smart and it's costing me. It's time to start playing dumb and see what happens. [:D]

Glad you are back and posting. It sounds like you enjoyed your trip. My spouse and I would like to visit Austria one day and I'd like to hit Germany as well for all the history.




Erkki -> RE: Feb. 8/43 (4/2/2012 7:47:52 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon
Glad you are back and posting. It sounds like you enjoyed your trip. My spouse and I would like to visit Austria one day and I'd like to hit Germany as well for all the history.


Sry for the offtopic, but...

June 29 to July 12. [8D]

[image]local://upfiles/34100/4C4FBF907CF640B58498BC480CE3DD0C.jpg[/image]




SqzMyLemon -> RE: Feb. 8/43 (4/2/2012 8:31:42 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erkki

quote:

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon
Glad you are back and posting. It sounds like you enjoyed your trip. My spouse and I would like to visit Austria one day and I'd like to hit Germany as well for all the history.


Sry for the offtopic, but...

June 29 to July 12. [8D]

[image]local://upfiles/34100/4C4FBF907CF640B58498BC480CE3DD0C.jpg[/image]


Post away Erkki. I'm finding the non-game related posts the most enjoyable. Have you been to Austria before? I'm envious, if I'm lucky I may get a week in Vancouver or a weekend in Vegas this year for a vacation. I like both places, but I'm due something new and exciting soon.




SqzMyLemon -> RE: Feb. 8/43 (4/2/2012 8:36:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

Too bad you couldn't have gotten Kunming before his retreat there. There have been a few threads lately talking about getting units out of China when China looks bad. (I'm sure, although I haven't looked of course, that my opponent's thread could be one as well). If you Get them caught up there and they are restricted from going to Burma though, it could be tough for him to supply them.


I realized the importance of Kunming 6 months ago, but vasilated once again until it was too late. I think Kunming and area is key to taking out China and preventing anything like what is happening now. I'll definitely look at Kunming differently in my next game. This one remains a case of shoulda, coulda, woulda.

I'm not sure what I'm going to do against the Chinese once Burma collapses and they start receiving bucket loads of supply. Depending how far back the Chinese withdraw, I may be able to trade space for time on the defence.




SqzMyLemon -> RE: Feb. 8/43 (4/3/2012 5:36:04 AM)

Next turn is away.







The die is cast. It was a massive turn getting everything in motion. I'd like to feel confident, but I've been burnt too many times lately. I'm not saying a word and will just see how things develop. All I know is if the AI continues to mess with me...I won't have a chance. Could be an interesting 3-4 weeks for those following along.




obvert -> RE: Feb. 8/43 (4/3/2012 9:25:36 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

Too bad you couldn't have gotten Kunming before his retreat there. There have been a few threads lately talking about getting units out of China when China looks bad. (I'm sure, although I haven't looked of course, that my opponent's thread could be one as well). If you Get them caught up there and they are restricted from going to Burma though, it could be tough for him to supply them.


I realized the importance of Kunming 6 months ago, but vasilated once again until it was too late. I think Kunming and area is key to taking out China and preventing anything like what is happening now. I'll definitely look at Kunming differently in my next game. This one remains a case of shoulda, coulda, woulda.

I'm not sure what I'm going to do against the Chinese once Burma collapses and they start receiving bucket loads of supply. Depending how far back the Chinese withdraw, I may be able to trade space for time on the defence.


Well, if he does retreat everything to the mountains, and holds there, you could fight the Chinese the way the Chinese usually fight the IJA. Place strong units in key points, and once those are taken retreat to the next line while also leaving some units to fill in behind and harass the LOC. There are only two roads out of those mountains. In most of that terrain he would need a 3 to 1 advantage to move forward, and that will be tough to achieve.




SqzMyLemon -> RE: Feb. 8/43 (4/3/2012 4:04:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

Well, if he does retreat everything to the mountains, and holds there, you could fight the Chinese the way the Chinese usually fight the IJA. Place strong units in key points, and once those are taken retreat to the next line while also leaving some units to fill in behind and harass the LOC. There are only two roads out of those mountains. In most of that terrain he would need a 3 to 1 advantage to move forward, and that will be tough to achieve.


I was thinking the same last night while completing the turn. Looking for the chokepoints and how I might disrupt any advance. This is where not advancing farther in Burma at start has cost me. An offensive against China from Burma would seal the fate of the Chinese and delay the opening of a direct supply route for months. If I move now, the cork is out of the proverbial bottle and the Allies will pour into the plains and drive on Rangoon, most likely cutting off any troops I send to China. As I play, I see all the long term consequences from missed opportunities and I'm learning what is important and why. I'm paying the piper right now because of things I didn't do years ago, literally! [:D]

It's too bad the game takes so long to play, there are so many opportunities to try different strategies and new tactics. You only have a limited window of opportunity as Japan to try something new each game. I guess that is the challenge and some are better at is than others.




SqzMyLemon -> RE: Feb. 8/43 (4/3/2012 4:20:36 PM)

A bombardment of Lunga is ordered for today and I need a solid performance to close the airbase. I've provided LRCAP over my TF to try and prevent a repeat of last turn. Will the Allies reinforce success and move more planes to Lunga? I'm expecting to see an enemy SCTF appear to interdict my bombardment TF's anyday now. With that in mind, I'm preparing a little welcoming committee to be on hand just in case.

In China, the river assault goes ahead north of Kweilin. I've also begun withdrawing some bombers back to the DEI and the Solomons. I'm going to have to supplement the naval bombardments with air attacks. I want my Betty's free to interdict naval shipping. I'm moving submarines and minelayers to create pockets of trouble for any Allied moves in the area. I have not been using my submarine mine capacity and have over 350 mines available, guess where they are going now?

I'm expecting to see an Allied effort to close my airfields soon. Once I get a few more airbases built up I'll have plenty of CAP to deal with the 4E's. I won't stop them of course, but I can try and make it costly.

Defensive preparations in the DEI will not be affected during this period. The expansions continue and reinforcements from China are still on the way.




SqzMyLemon -> RE: Feb. 8/43 (4/3/2012 11:10:13 PM)

Next turn has arrived. Bart has learned the best way to deal with me when I point out he capitalized on an AI derived gift, he just doesn't respond. [:D]

He bagged a cruiser and that's really all that matters, how it was done is irrelevant. I'm sure on his end it was mission accomplished and simply can't relate to what it means to have something go wrong and lose something valuable from the AI messing up your orders. He hasn't experienced that in any meaningful way.

I'm looking forward to seeing how the bombardment against Lunga goes and if there are any surprises in store for me. I'm also keen on seeing the results of the river assault in China. I hope to not suffer more miscues resulting in one sided losses on my end.

Now, if the last hour of work would just go quickly so I can get home and find out. I must be a closet masochist, because I'm more often than not always expecting bad results now. [sm=fighting0056.gif]

Hopefully, everyone takes this in the spirit it was intended. Just want to have my opponent suffer a little of what I've been going through of late. I hope to kick some ass at Guadalcanal over the next 4 weeks and like him, I'll take it anyway I can and sleep like a baby if I pull this off. [8D]




SqzMyLemon -> Possible bug! (4/4/2012 1:01:54 AM)

Well, I may have figured out why my bombardment missions have not been carried out. I mentioned in an earlier post about a bombardment not going ahead and thought it was an error on my part inputting the orders. The second time I was starting to wonder. Now I definitely believe there is a problem. I'm glad I have posted about it to indicate something was up prior to today.

The TF sailed a couple of hexes from Munda, encountered a submarine which indicated it did indeed leave port, but after there was no bombardment of Lunga. Looking post turn the orders stated the home port was Munda and the bombardment destination was also Munda. I checked a duplicate save file saved prior to the end turn save and checked the orders. It clearly stated that Munda was the home port and Lunga was the target of the bombardment. If there is a bug, I've suffered it 3 out of the last 4 turns.

This means Lunga was not damaged for four days allowing the airbase to repair, which allowed the basing of DB's there which consequently sunk a CA after an AI induced faulty movement. What might have been the damage to Lunga had my missions worked as ordered? Is it possible the base would have been too damaged to base DB's there in the first place?

I've posted in the tech forum and will await comment from michaelm before commenting further. If it does turn out to be a bug and not error on my part...would I be justified in asking for a redo of the last four turns? Perhaps I'm asking this question prematurely. I'll wait to hear what tech support says first, it could still be something on my end.




Itdepends -> RE: Possible bug! (4/4/2012 2:20:06 PM)

Are you setting the bombardment force threat tolerance to absolute and routing to direct?




SqzMyLemon -> RE: Possible bug! (4/4/2012 4:18:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Itdepends

Are you setting the bombardment force threat tolerance to absolute and routing to direct?


Not absolute, but the next setting down, and yes direct to target. I've run numerous bombardment TF's with the identical settings and waypoints and had no problems. Just recently they are not working properly. Michaelm has confirmed my ships are reaching Lunga, but there is movement left prior to the bombardment check, so they have already left Lunga before the game checks for bombardment orders. Essentially, my ships are arriving too quickly for some reason. Why it's changed now I have no idea.

I'm all for randomness thrown in, but not when it makes things not work. [:D] Hopefully something can be done short of me having to change the routes. It's a critical period of the game and it's not fair if I have to tinker around hoping I'll get a bombardment to work. I've already lost a heavy cruiser as a direct result of this. No player should have to guess on something working or not.




SqzMyLemon -> RE: Possible bug! (4/4/2012 5:13:59 PM)

It seems waypoints are the issue. I wonder if I have inadvertly added a second waypoint which is screwing up the movement. I can't check till I get home as I dont' remember at this point. I previously routed the TF's to traverse as many shallow water hexes as possible to avoid the large concentration of enemy submarines in the two deep water hexes separating Munda from Lunga. If I have to now set my bombardment TF's with no waypoints, that means the enemy gets 4 shots at me with submarines while traversing the deep water hexes instead of only two as previously. Needless to say, I'm not happy about this as the whole intent was to force enemy submarines to use shallow water hexes if they wished to interdict my missions.

Once again, I feel I'm on the short end because of something beyond my control. I just want to play the game to the best of my ability and routing my TF's through shallow water is the smart thing to do, and now I can't if I wish to have any chance of suppressing Lunga's airbase with bombardments. It may be just me, but that doesn't seem right. This clearly might benefit my opponent.

I have no choice but to try and see what happens.

That being said, am I in a position to ask for a redo of the previous turns to the point I first mentioned where my bombardments didn't work? Would you? I feel I lost the CA Chikuma as a direct result of two previous bombardment missions not going ahead which possibly could have kept Lunga's airbase unoperational. My ships have accumulated fuel expenditure and operational damage from speed runs in to perform the missions as well, with no actual bombardments occuring. I'd value everyone's thoughts please to see if asking for a redo is justified or not? It's clear my forces have suffered because of it and the Allies would actually also get two DD's back in exchange for my CA.




crsutton -> RE: Possible bug! (4/4/2012 6:04:46 PM)

No, I would not ask for a redo. Redo request are just like borrowing money. Only do it if it is needed for something critical. Just make the corrections to insure you will get correct bombardments. At this stage of the war, I don't know if I would fret too much about Allied subs. You have quite a few weeks to go before his torepdoes upgrade to 90% from the now 40%. Allied subs were the reality for Japan and you should not be too upset over them. You are bound to lose some ships to them. That is just the way it is.

As for your bad luck with your ships getting caught, I personally believe that this randomness should be part of the game. Neither side should have perfect control over operations as it would make for a very boring game and not be very historical. For whatever reason, sometimes a TF should just get fouled up and caught with it pants down. As the Allied player it has happened to me any number of times. But in real life operations for both sides went wrong as well and they had to pay the piper. Quite frankly, if every bombardment came off perfect and every fast transport convoy worked to perfection, I would quickly find the game tedious and look for something else to play. I think Grigsby planned for the game to have a certain element of chaos in it and consider this feature to be one of the most brilliant aspects of the design.

As for bombardments. These are the rules I use. Keep it simple-use direct paths and no waypoints. Good but not aggressive commander. Set to zero reaction range. Avoid max range run ins-give yourself a little cushion. Make sure that no ship in your TF has expended OP points before the mission. Use ships with little or no damage. Sweep with PTs or surface TFs if you have them to spare. High detection level on your target and at least one scout seaplane group set to recon the target at night as you run in. I rarely have a bombardment TF fail. I have noticed that if the target is a land unit not in a base, the bombardment TF seems to stay and do a day bombardment. I generally avoid this but if you do it. Make sure you have plenty of fighters on LRCAP over the TF. In fact, if I can spare it, I always put at least one fighter unit on LRCAP over a bombardment TF regardless. Then if something does go wrong, you have some protection.

And yes, I am checking your AAR for updates every day...[;)]




obvert -> RE: Possible bug! (4/4/2012 7:45:41 PM)

Curious abut one thing you mention above, CR. Why would you not want an aggressive TF commander? Doesn't this make it more likely that if a surface element is in the path that the TF will engage?




SqzMyLemon -> RE: Possible bug! (4/4/2012 8:34:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

As for your bad luck with your ships getting caught, I personally believe that this randomness should be part of the game. Neither side should have perfect control over operations as it would make for a very boring game and not be very historical. For whatever reason, sometimes a TF should just get fouled up and caught with it pants down. As the Allied player it has happened to me any number of times. But in real life operations for both sides went wrong as well and they had to pay the piper. Quite frankly, if every bombardment came off perfect and every fast transport convoy worked to perfection, I would quickly find the game tedious and look for something else to play. I think Grigsby planned for the game to have a certain element of chaos in it and consider this feature to be one of the most brilliant aspects of the design.

As for bombardments. These are the rules I use. Keep it simple-use direct paths and no waypoints. Good but not aggressive commander. Set to zero reaction range. Avoid max range run ins-give yourself a little cushion. Make sure that no ship in your TF has expended OP points before the mission. Use ships with little or no damage. Sweep with PTs or surface TFs if you have them to spare. High detection level on your target and at least one scout seaplane group set to recon the target at night as you run in. I rarely have a bombardment TF fail. I have noticed that if the target is a land unit not in a base, the bombardment TF seems to stay and do a day bombardment. I generally avoid this but if you do it. Make sure you have plenty of fighters on LRCAP over the TF. In fact, if I can spare it, I always put at least one fighter unit on LRCAP over a bombardment TF regardless. Then if something does go wrong, you have some protection.

And yes, I am checking your AAR for updates every day...[;)]


I agree with much of what you are saying crsutton. It's just the timing of the randomness. Just too many things are happening beneficial to my opponent at my expense and it's happening far too often. That's really all I'm trying to point out. I'm all for randomness and chance, but make sure it affects both sides. The one turn he moves planes to Lunga is the turn I get burnt. And if they were still there this last turn, they should have been hit with a bombardment, now I bet they are removed during the next turn.

I'll have to tweak my bombardments and possibly select a prestaging area from which to strike from in a direction more beneficial to me. My bombardments to this point had been trouble free, so I do think I have a sense of what I'm doing. I just don't like being forced to put my ships at risk when I shouldn't have to. A further quick comment about the routing issue and the submarines. I'm all for the risk the Allied submarines pose, but my issue is this, I know they are there and I have a perfectly viable approach to the target without having to travel through this kill zone. I'm now forced to travel through the enemy submarines in order to perform my operations and I don't have to like it [:D]. I could argue what if it was a mined hex, that I knew was mined and I had the ability to travel around the hex and avoid the mines on the way to the target I should be able to do so. What you and michaelm are proposing is that I go through that minefield even though I don't have to because of a faulty routine. I'm not trying to game the system or do anything sneaky. I'm just playing and trying to operate my forces with as little risk to them as possible. I know things won't always go well, but I also know there's a much greater chance now since I can't move them to avoid obvious known enemy concentrations.

I just can't catch a break lately and now I've lost control over how I can move my forces in order to perform a bombardment. The options for me have gone from limited risk to high risk now and my opponent hasn't had to change a thing. I know pixel warfare isn't fair, but it seems pretty one sided lately.

Glad you are still following along! Pax seems to have forsaken me [sm=sad-1361.gif]. If the game would just cooperate I'd have some good news for a change and the war could move forward. [:D]

I know I talk too much and lately it's been negative, but I'm doing everything in my power to change that. So far no love.




SqzMyLemon -> Moving on. (4/4/2012 8:52:55 PM)

I won't ask for a redo either. I'll accept the loss of the CA and the lack of bombardments and move forward. I don't like what's been happening, but there's not much I can do about it either. I will try and figure out another way to bombard Lunga with as little risk as possible. Obviously the need to bombard it will disappear if I capture it, so that's the plan...capture the friggin' place.

I'll post the turn update later. I did at least get some good damage in against a couple of Allied subs in that kill zone and my river assault in China was a success.

I'll save my redo request for the next time I really get screwed [sm=00000055.gif]. If on the other hand something goes wrong for the Allies and they lose something bigtime, nope, not a chance for a redo...no more freebies until things even out a bit here. [:D]

So, another bombardment attempt against Lunga is on the cards for tomorrow with new orders and routes. Lets see what happens. I'm officially done talking about this, tomorrow is another day. [8D]




khyberbill -> RE: Possible bug! (4/4/2012 9:57:51 PM)

quote:

It seems waypoints are the issue.

I have never used waypoints for bombardments, and rarely for Surface Combat. IIRC there is a point in the bombardment routine where the speed is ratcheted up from cruise to full speed. Waypoints might mess with this routine. And I have wondered if there is a pause in the progress of ship movement when a waypoint is reached.




SqzMyLemon -> RE: Possible bug! (4/4/2012 10:51:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: khyberbill

quote:

It seems waypoints are the issue.

I have never used waypoints for bombardments, and rarely for Surface Combat. IIRC there is a point in the bombardment routine where the speed is ratcheted up from cruise to full speed. Waypoints might mess with this routine. And I have wondered if there is a pause in the progress of ship movement when a waypoint is reached.


I think you nailed it kyberbill. The waypoint somehow interferes with the bombardment routine during the transition from mission to full speed and stops the bombardment routine working properly. It's a shame because there are times a routing of your TF is absolutely necessary in my opinion, especially when operating in confined areas like the Solomons. I used a waypoint to try and minimize the danger to my forces, and I'm really disappointed to learn the game engine can't take this into account and it wasn't anticipated to be used by a player on setting up bombardment missions either. It's the way it operates though, so I'll have to figure out a different way of doing things that work within the constraints of the engine.

I use patrol and movement waypoints for my SCTF's all the time and have never had an issue. Combined with the reaction radious settings I can interdict enemy shipping if they fall within my patrol waypoints quite easily.




khyberbill -> RE: Possible bug! (4/4/2012 10:57:59 PM)

quote:

I use patrol and movement waypoints for my SCTF's all the time and have never had an issue.

It appears that if one assigns a patrol zone to an ASW task force with a reaction range of 6 it will only attack subs directly in its path, the path of the patrol zone is paramount. In other words, reaction range does not matter.




SqzMyLemon -> RE: Possible bug! (4/4/2012 11:06:01 PM)

I typically assign a reaction radiuos of only 1 or 2 hexes for an ASW TF as I want them sticking pretty close to their patrol area and not wandering off. I have no idea whether this is then hurting their chances of interdictions or not. Thanks for the information and I'll have to follow what is happening more closely. I love the game, but so much is simply not documented it can be frustrating. I can only imagine what some people may go through that never visit the forums to learn this kind of game information and rely solely on the manual.




PaxMondo -> NO Bug, it's WAD. (4/5/2012 12:03:35 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon

Glad you are still following along! Pax seems to have forsaken me [sm=sad-1361.gif].

Nope still here, just RL has become quite busy. I haven't gotten a turn done in my game since ... Feb? longer maybe. I find just enough time to get caught up to start some moves and then something happens to pull me away for a week.

I agree with CR regarding bombardments, especially waypoints. My experience is that adding waypoints clearly adds to the potential for random errors, and maybe even uses some op points (not sure on this though). I don't use them for this mission profile - ever. I always get them setup on straight line movements starting from max range.

No reaction. If you do and they react, they will get caught by air strikes the next day. That is why PT sweeps are REALLY important. You want the PT's to clear your path for your capital ships. If no PT, then low value DD's (if it is late game).




PaxMondo -> RE: Possible bug! (4/5/2012 12:10:05 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: khyberbill

quote:

I use patrol and movement waypoints for my SCTF's all the time and have never had an issue.

It appears that if one assigns a patrol zone to an ASW task force with a reaction range of 6 it will only attack subs directly in its path, the path of the patrol zone is paramount. In other words, reaction range does not matter.


Mmm, not sure if this is consistent with my experiences. I routinely have my ASW SCTF's with reaction ranges set to >1 (ussually 4 - 6 depending upon where they are deployed) and frequently see "dogpiles"* on top of subs that are off of the plotted paths.

Not sure if I am just lucky or what ....

*Dogpiles = several ASW SCTF's prosecuting a single sub contact with its DL=10 due to my air ASW efforts.




SqzMyLemon -> Quick Test (4/5/2012 1:20:24 AM)

Ok, now that I'm home and have had a chance to look at things, I see my last my bombardment TF was set with two waypoints. Now, I'm not sure why I changed that, because if I set only one waypoint the TF moves the exact same route. I've asked Bart to just send me an Allied save file so I can rerun the turn to determine if one, two or both instances where waypoints are used is the root of the problem. I can't remember exactly my previous movement orders for my successful bombardments, but if I did use only one waypoint and it worked then I'd like to know. So, this TF has one waypoint set and if the bombardment does not work this time, I can confidently say any waypoints set are the cause of the bombardment routine not working. I'd like to run this test before completing the next turn. Stay tuned.

Thanks for all the comments and bearing with me. Pax, glad to see you and I'm going to try and capture Lunga for you ;).




PaxMondo -> RE: Quick Test (4/5/2012 3:58:37 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon

Pax, glad to see you and I'm going to try and capture Lunga for you ;).

Watching with great interest. You're already doing better than I would have ... BANZAI!!!

[sm=00000613.gif]





Page: <<   < prev  32 33 [34] 35 36   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
4.375