RE: HAIRY TO THE BONE

RE: HAIRY TO THE BONE (Full Version)

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

Message

HansBolter -> RE: HAIRY TO THE BONE (1/20/2012 6:51:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AcePylut Ladies and gentlemen - we can not compare Scenario 2 to "real history". Scenario two is not supposed to be a representation of "history", it's a fantasy scenario with Japan on steroids... so complaining about Japan's production - well - that's what you signed up for. If you want to compare "real history" to "WITP-AE", then you must play Scen 1 and see what happens in '44, '45. Has anyone done that yet? probably not since all the JFBs seem to be willing to play is their wetdream scenario [;)] and btw....this IS a tongue in cheek jab for those not capable of discerning

JohnDillworth -> RE: HAIRY TO THE BONE (1/20/2012 6:53:19 PM)
quote: God knows that i've tried to interdict his sealanes...since 1942...with my subs Canoerebal is fond of sending 2 or 4 DD TF's deep into indian country. You might want to consider that. Netties don't really do a great job against DD's and the chance of running into a significant surface force is low. He probably has plenty of ASW escort but I bet it's wouldn't hold up well in a surface match with 4 Fletcher Class DD's. Send out a bunch of small combat TF's into the DEI or south japan and see what happens. I have another sinister idea but I don't know if the engine supports it. Can you escort a SS with a DD? Might take out a bunch of E-class that way and force him to escort better, which he probably can't do as most of his CA's & CL's are gone

cwDeici -> RE: HAIRY TO THE BONE (1/20/2012 7:02:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nemo121 cwDeici: that maths is highly suspect being he result of a conclusion built on foundations made of multiple suppositions. Could you be more specific, please? I really won't mind. I guess you're referring to my wild guess at Allied versus Japanese AC OTL in 44, or my other wild guess at how many AC Rader has total versus Greyjoy in-game. I'm sure I got the 205% in-game casualty figure right though, but I'm completely aware I may be terribly wrong about the others (that's why I put 'guess' there ^^). Anyway Wikipedia says Japan's total fighter production for WW2 was 34,5k IIRC, and Rader has already lost over 38k+, and has thousands remaining and eleven months to produce more before 8/45 (and someone just said the words 'unfathomable' for 45). How much of this is the DEI and other conquered territories and how much is the difference between Sc1 and Sc2? Please note this is not meant as a gripe against Sc2 and the difficulties GJ is facing, they are what makes his thread such a great read, just trying to get a rough handle on the level of differences. :)

Grfin Zeppelin -> RE: HAIRY TO THE BONE (1/20/2012 7:16:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cwDeici quote: ORIGINAL: Nemo121 cwDeici: that maths is highly suspect being he result of a conclusion built on foundations made of multiple suppositions. Could you be more specific, please? I really won't mind. I guess you're referring to my wild guess at allied AC numbers compared to Japan OTL in 44, or my other wild guess at how many AC Rader has versus Greyjoy in-game. I'm sure I got the 205% in-game casualty figure right though, but I'm completely aware I may be terribly wrong about the others (that's why I put 'guess' there ^^). Anyway Wikipedia says Japan's total fighter production for WW2 was 34,5k IIRC, and Rader has already lost over 38k+, and has thousands remaining and eleven months to produce more before 8/45. If there isn't that much of a difference in the number of airframes in Sc1 and Sc2 does this mean that if Japan had managed to hold onto the DEI and conquer further territories OTL that it would've had nearly comparable AC numbers to this game? Please note this is not meant as a grape about the difficulties GJ is facing, which is what makes his thread such a great read, just trying to get a rough handle on the level of differences. :) He lost 38k PLANES, not fighters thats a huge difference.

cwDeici -> RE: HAIRY TO THE BONE (1/20/2012 7:22:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Gräfin Zeppelin quote: ORIGINAL: cwDeici quote: ORIGINAL: Nemo121 cwDeici: that maths is highly suspect being he result of a conclusion built on foundations made of multiple suppositions. Could you be more specific, please? I really won't mind. I guess you're referring to my wild guess at allied AC numbers compared to Japan OTL in 44, or my other wild guess at how many AC Rader has versus Greyjoy in-game. I'm sure I got the 205% in-game casualty figure right though, but I'm completely aware I may be terribly wrong about the others (that's why I put 'guess' there ^^). Anyway Wikipedia says Japan's total fighter production for WW2 was 34,5k IIRC, and Rader has already lost over 38k+, and has thousands remaining and eleven months to produce more before 8/45. If there isn't that much of a difference in the number of airframes in Sc1 and Sc2 does this mean that if Japan had managed to hold onto the DEI and conquer further territories OTL that it would've had nearly comparable AC numbers to this game? Please note this is not meant as a grape about the difficulties GJ is facing, which is what makes his thread such a great read, just trying to get a rough handle on the level of differences. :) He lost 38k PLANES, not fighters thats a huge difference. Oh! How silly of me... Thanks! Well, let's talk about something else, like surface raiding against tankers/oilers... or something. ^^

Nemo121 -> RE: HAIRY TO THE BONE (1/20/2012 10:49:03 PM)
quote: Thus, Allied players are guaranteeing that they will lose air parity early and often just because of the defacto early research. Except of course for the in-game reality that some Allied players playing Scenario 2 haven't lost air parity and have actually achieved air superiority early in the game ( mid to late 1942 ). It is easy to throw around statements like "people are guaranteeing x" or "This is what WILL happen" or "if they lose this then this MUST happen" but the reality is that those statements aren't supported by the objective reality of AARs posted here. Most Allied players cede Japan aerial superiority in 1942 and 1943 but not all do. If you look at ALL of the AARs you can find several Scenario 2 AARs in which the IJNAF and IJAAF were functionally defeated in mid to late 1942. Only if you ignore those AARs in which Allied players prevailed in the air in 1942 and 43 ( nevermind 1944 or 45 ) can you say that the air war is guaranteed to go in favour of Japan. The challenge is greater than in Scenario 1 but several players have managed to defeat the IJAAF and IJNAF in 42/43 and only by actually including ALL of the data available will we actually be able to make statements which are worth listening to. A statement which ignores a significant portion of AARs in making a point about the inevitability of a given situation is a worthless statement. It'd be like me saying that by ignoring all cases where someone shot with a bullet died I could prove that bullets never killed anyone. Yes, the statement is true but only because my inclusion and exclusion criteria are so ludicrous as to make any conclusion drawn irrelevant to actual real-world experience. I'd ask people to think before they go getting themselves all fired up about x or y being inevitable based on an incomplete sampling of AARs because what starts here with some people making statements which simply cannot be supported by objective, available reports from Scenario 2 games could quickly become yet another hue and cry demanding unnecessary changes from Michaelm because of the "inevitability" of things which are not inevitable and only occur because the Allied player let them happen or played poorly. cwDeici, I will answer since it doesn't apply to this game. Most sources I've read spoke of Japan producing between 72,000 and 82,000 military planes throughout the war. There's a bit of fudging based on whether trainer x was a military plane or a non-military one pressed into military service etc. Bottom line though, if you split the difference, Japan built 77,000 planes during the war years with 47,000 of them being built in 1943/44. That's 2,000 planes a month with Japan's hideous bureaucracy. Given that the player CAN eliminate all sorts of poor planning, poor resource allocation, duplication etc etc etc it shouldn't be surprising to us that an Allied player who captured all of the DEI and most of India and gained the benefits of Indian HI/resources/oil etc has, by now, built an industrial base, R&D base and aircraft production base significantly superior to what WW2 Japan actually achieved. After all, if Japan had conquered and held most of India for a year or year and a half I'm sure they'd have built more than 2,000 planes a month during that time period also. People will retort that since many of the 77000 were trainers there were constraints on engine size which would have limited new generations of fighters being built in the numbers envisaged etc. They may be right but the game doesn't model that. It takes as much to build a new 800 hp engine factory as it does to build a 2500hp engine factory. That may be an area that requires looking at and, actually, in my mod it is an area I edited so it costs more to build and repair more advanced engine factories than obsolescent ones ( which I think is an improvement in realism ). But, as it stands, in the official scenarios an engine factory is an engine factory is an engine factory. The model could be improved but they have chosen not to do so officially yet.

Chickenboy -> RE: HAIRY TO THE BONE (1/20/2012 10:55:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AcePylut Ladies and gentlemen - we can not compare Scenario 2 to "real history". Scenario two is not supposed to be a representation of "history", it's a fantasy scenario with Japan on steroids... so complaining about Japan's production - well - that's what you signed up for. If you want to compare "real history" to "WITP-AE", then you must play Scen 1 and see what happens in '44, '45. Has anyone done that yet? Yes. Several have. I'm midway through July 1943, so I'll be there before long. Personally, I like scenario 1 with my long-standing PBEM partner. He's historical-minded, so we're having a very manageable game out of it. I don't know if I'd be so fortunate with an uber-aggressive "damn the torpedoes" sort of Allied player.

aoffen -> RE: HAIRY TO THE BONE (1/20/2012 11:01:05 PM)
Nemo How on earth did they achieve that? I am struggling in March 43 to achieve parity in Scenario 1!!!! My opponents have thrown a lot of effort into research and I have been facing Georges (first version) since Feb with my P-40K's. His Tojo's and A6M5's are his weaker fighters. From the reparte in the emails I get the feeling Franks aren't far away - certainly available in second half of '43. Seems a long way to air superiority from here. Air losses thus far are about equal. Cheers Andrew

jrcar -> RE: HAIRY TO THE BONE (1/20/2012 11:12:52 PM)
Quick thread Hijack, sorry :) I think the "problem" is making the Japanese more competitive in 1943-44, rather than making the Japanese stronger in 1942. I'd like to see a scenario with more "garrison" units in late 1942 and 1943. Maybe some more warships, always nice :) The Japanese aircraft production system can already be manipulated enough (with a fair bit of effort and risk) to make Japanese aircraft competitive in 1943. The benefit of Scenario 2 is that it is obviously "fantasy". Getting people to play Japanese in Scen 1 though is increasingly very difficult. Part though is changing the JFB psyche where they want to conquer the world... and get upset when they don't/can't. This game is very interesting, thank you for the land attack on Japan! Always wanted to do that. Cheers Rob

Nemo121 -> RE: HAIRY TO THE BONE (1/20/2012 11:34:27 PM)
Aoffen, How was it achieved? A careful analysis of the two forces and self-discipline. That's all it takes. In terms of AARs showing this... Well there's at least one scenario in which the Allies were on the offensive by March 1942 and re-invaded Malaysia in May 1942 ( causing the Japanese opponent to quit ) and in which the Allied air force was regularly achieving 2 or 3 to 1 kill rates in the air - it even featured a half-dozen B-339 Dutch aces ( which is something you rarely see - especially since most of the B-339 kills were Zeroes and Oscars. ). I'm aware of a game vs jwilkerson and Nikademus in which the Allies managed to lure them into unfavourable aerial battles and turned the tables very early as well. CR hasn't achieved aerial superiority in his game but he's not too far off ( although some of that may be a morale failure on his opponents part ). I think a lot of lessons which might be drawn from that AAR aren't actually good lessons to draw but it is an AAR in which Japan hasn't been able to impose its aerial will in '42. The third example is accessible but should be used with caution. The first two examples are, I believe, good examples of Japan not being able to impose its aerial will. The second example ( Nikademus and jwilkerson ) is, I believe, a Scenario 1 game. The other game is definitely a Scenario 2 game and so features a Japan with all the steroid boosters. IIRC Japanese aerial superiority lasted into the end of February. I'm sure there are others but those 3 are the AARs I think of when trying to explain how this can be done.

John 3rd -> RE: HAIRY TO THE BONE (1/20/2012 11:51:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jrcar Quick thread Hijack, sorry :) I think the "problem" is making the Japanese more competitive in 1943-44, rather than making the Japanese stronger in 1942. I'd like to see a scenario with more "garrison" units in late 1942 and 1943. Maybe some more warships, always nice :) The Japanese aircraft production system can already be manipulated enough (with a fair bit of effort and risk) to make Japanese aircraft competitive in 1943. The benefit of Scenario 2 is that it is obviously "fantasy". Getting people to play Japanese in Scen 1 though is increasingly very difficult. Part though is changing the JFB psyche where they want to conquer the world... and get upset when they don't/can't. This game is very interesting, thank you for the land attack on Japan! Always wanted to do that. Cheers Rob Making the IJN/IJA stronger later in the war is difficult. We work it in RA where the Japanese start marginally stronger but really don't begin to gain steam until the end of 42 and through mid-43. After that it will go downhill like IRL, however, the Kaigun gains some real strength to fight it out in late-43/early-44.

aoffen -> RE: HAIRY TO THE BONE (1/20/2012 11:57:53 PM)
quote: How was it achieved? A careful analysis of the two forces and self-discipline. That's all it takes. Ok Nemo you have clearly identified my two areas of critical weakness :) I am the first to admit I am still relatively inexperienced (although I have learnt a lot over the past 12 months at the brutal hands of jrcar and Tony and thanks to Greyjoy and Rader too) but I really struggle to see how B-339's, P-39's and even P-40E's have a chance vs Zeroes that are well managed by a competent Japanese player. Oscars sure, but zeroes with high quality pilots that are not over extended and over fatigued are a tough match. Do you have to rely on the Japanese player screwing things up or are you saying that parity and superiority can be achieved in 42 against a competent Japanese? Apologies for the thread hijack btw. Greyjoy - as Hannibal Lecter once said....love your work. Cheers Andrew

Nemo121 -> RE: HAIRY TO THE BONE (1/21/2012 12:08:24 AM)
Discipline, careful analysis and a reliance on objective reality ( instead of just selecting out the data you like and ignoring what you don't) combined with honesty about how you've performed ( IOW, not lying to yourself that you're doing well when you aren't ) will let you beat anyone. Have a gander at the AARs I listed. I'm sure someone has the links - I don't anymore. Reading the AARs is the best way to understand how these things were accomplished. P.s. Don't think of it as a thread hijack, think of it as inflating the post count for the AAR [8D]

jrcar -> RE: HAIRY TO THE BONE (1/21/2012 12:12:49 AM)
Thanks John, if I do another game as Japanese RA may be it... Cheers Rob quote: ORIGINAL: John 3rd quote: ORIGINAL: jrcar Quick thread Hijack, sorry :) I think the "problem" is making the Japanese more competitive in 1943-44, rather than making the Japanese stronger in 1942. I'd like to see a scenario with more "garrison" units in late 1942 and 1943. Maybe some more warships, always nice :) The Japanese aircraft production system can already be manipulated enough (with a fair bit of effort and risk) to make Japanese aircraft competitive in 1943. The benefit of Scenario 2 is that it is obviously "fantasy". Getting people to play Japanese in Scen 1 though is increasingly very difficult. Part though is changing the JFB psyche where they want to conquer the world... and get upset when they don't/can't. This game is very interesting, thank you for the land attack on Japan! Always wanted to do that. Cheers Rob Making the IJN/IJA stronger later in the war is difficult. We work it in RA where the Japanese start marginally stronger but really don't begin to gain steam until the end of 42 and through mid-43. After that it will go downhill like IRL, however, the Kaigun gains some real strength to fight it out in late-43/early-44.

jrcar -> RE: HAIRY TO THE BONE (1/21/2012 12:24:19 AM)
The game against Joe and Nik was Tony and I. We had a couple of game engine advantages, such as supply in Burma, which was consequently (and rightly) tightened up. However we did have force restrictions (such as only 1 USA combat unit) in Burma. The key was the defeat of the invasion of ADAK, in particular the decimation of KB with P-39 :) P-39 are great Val/Kate killers! This made the risk of our consequent operations in the SWPAC a little less. Adak was very close run thing though... it could have gone either way. In the SWPAC/DEI area we just didn't give the Japanese time to dig in and consolidate. We planed a sequence of moves to "fight through" the good Japanese defence through a campaign of continuous battles. Almost made it back to the Phillipines before the last unit there surrendered! Andrew my assessment is that overall you have done well, except for the rash decision which cost you your CV's. You haven't optimised some of your battle choices though... that is where your inexperiance with the game shows a little, rather than you knowledge of basic military tactics and the strategy choices that the game offers. We are doing pretty good, as two experianced players against a relative newbie in Scen 1. If both sides are experianced players then Scen 1 is very tough as the Japanese... although some of the recent BETA changes help I think (such as supply movement). The differnce between winning and loosing in this game, as Greyjoy has shown, is a very delicate balance that can easily be upset! Cheers Rob quote: ORIGINAL: aoffen quote: How was it achieved? A careful analysis of the two forces and self-discipline. That's all it takes. Ok Nemo you have clearly identified my two areas of critical weakness :) I am the first to admit I am still relatively inexperienced (although I have learnt a lot over the past 12 months at the brutal hands of jrcar and Tony and thanks to Greyjoy and Rader too) but I really struggle to see how B-339's, P-39's and even P-40E's have a chance vs Zeroes that are well managed by a competent Japanese player. Oscars sure, but zeroes with high quality pilots that are not over extended and over fatigued are a tough match. Do you have to rely on the Japanese player screwing things up or are you saying that parity and superiority can be achieved in 42 against a competent Japanese? Apologies for the thread hijack btw. Greyjoy - as Hannibal Lecter once said....love your work. Cheers Andrew

aoffen -> RE: HAIRY TO THE BONE (1/21/2012 3:28:34 AM)
quote: Andrew my assessment is that overall you have done well, except for the rash decision which cost you your CV's. You haven't optimised some of your battle choices though... that is where your inexperiance with the game shows a little, rather than you knowledge of basic military tactics and the strategy choices that the game offers. You had to bring it up didn't you. 3 months of intense counselling and psychiatric care out the window (the sound of weeping in the background). By not optimised you mean not bringing enough mass to the crucial point of battle or more not maximizing co-ordination of the various land sea and air assets? Or both?

Xxzard -> RE: HAIRY TO THE BONE (1/21/2012 6:10:33 AM)
Well it seems like ships passing in the night or a submarine beneath the waves, this thread has become the leader in hits without a mention. (Unless I missed it!) Who would've thought when this started that we would be here today witnessing such an epic battle play out between these two players? I saw the start of the game, although I've been more of a lurker than a member of GJ's council of advisers. When will we reach the end... we'll see, but if it is anything like what we have experienced so far it will be awe inspiring. So congratulations GJ for becoming the AAR forum thread hit leader! (hitman?) Three cheers for a fantastic game, take your pick of hip, hip, or banzai! if you so prefer.

HansBolter -> RE: HAIRY TO THE BONE (1/21/2012 11:31:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nemo121 quote: Thus, Allied players are guaranteeing that they will lose air parity early and often just because of the defacto early research. Most Allied players cede Japan aerial superiority in 1942 and 1943 but not all do. If you look at ALL of the AARs you can find several Scenario 2 AARs in which the IJNAF and IJAAF were functionally defeated in mid to late 1942. Only if you ignore those AARs in which Allied players prevailed in the air in 1942 and 43 ( nevermind 1944 or 45 ) can you say that the air war is guaranteed to go in favour of Japan. The challenge is greater than in Scenario 1 but several players have managed to defeat the IJAAF and IJNAF in 42/43 and only by actually including ALL of the data available will we actually be able to make statements which are worth listening to. A statement which ignores a significant portion of AARs in making a point about the inevitability of a given situation is a worthless statement. It'd be like me saying that by ignoring all cases where someone shot with a bullet died I could prove that bullets never killed anyone. Yes, the statement is true but only because my inclusion and exclusion criteria are so ludicrous as to make any conclusion drawn irrelevant to actual real-world experience. It may well be that the outcomes wherein the Japanese continue to rampage well into '44 are more a function of less than competent Allied players pittted against supremely competent Japanese players as a result of newbie Allied players having scenario 2 foisted upon them by the Japanese players under the false pretense of it being presented to the unsuspecting newbie as the "scenario of choice" that gives the "poor Japoanese" "a fighting chance". This is exactly the tactic used by the POS excuse for an honest and decent human being on me as an unsuspecting newbie UV player who had the iroman version of a UV scenario foisted upon me under the pretense of "giving the Japanese a fighting chance". And, no I'm not bitter because I got my butt kicked by an overpowered Japanese side, I'm bitter because the miscreant quit like a petulant little child after I kicked his butt. This is the reason why I play the AI instead of humans. The AI will never quit like a petulant little child after it's wild gambit fails. Nemo, your reliance on a couple of games outcomes as a counter to the argumants of the rest of us based on all the other games begs the question were the results of those two games a function of two competent Allied players, while the rest of the games with Japanese bow outs being a function of incompetent Allied players or were they merely a function of two very incompetent Japanese players? You seem to be implying that all the Japanese blow out versions of scenario 2 are simply the results of a plethora of less than competent Allied players, which I am sure you will find most probaly sticks in the craws of most Allied players. Let's suppose for a minute that the two games you continue to site as proof that sceanrio 2 isn't a JFB wet dream that guarantees a Japanese blow out, were the abherations and not the norm, what then would be your position?

Chickenboy -> RE: SUDDENLY HAIRY (1/21/2012 1:57:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GreyJoy quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 As you begin to think about strat bombing, what are your target priorities? Briefly: aircraft 3rd generation factories... You know, GreyJoy, I hadn't followed this AAR at all until the last month or so, when I was alerted to your coup de main on Northern Japan. I still haven't read the entirety of this thread, just going back to your initial reveal of your plans and rationale for your actions here. This was nicely done and will impact my defensive strategy for the Empire in my game. Thanks for the very realistic lesson about under defending the northern reaches into 1944. Lesson learned...[&o] I just thought I'd post a reminder here about your prospective strat bombing targets that you identified when asked by Bull a couple months ago. Wiping the floor with his fighter (3rd gen) factories still seems the way to go IMO.

GreyJoy -> RE: SUDDENLY HAIRY (1/21/2012 2:35:41 PM)
Wow guys...i cannot spend a night drinking that immediately i lose contact with my AAR that now has its own life!!![:D] Cannot answer to all of your comments...i feel like a rock star who has to deny himself to the fans after the concert...[8D] However, the problem with strat bombing, as i said, is that i've done what i could before the new patch that tuned the CAP routines...now a strat bombing campaign - with my streched numbers - would be really a massacre....and i probably could only stand a couple of raids then, due to heavy losses, i'll have to stop my planes...my pools are so dry you cannot imagine... How many Liberators in pool? ZERO. How many B-29s? ZERO...how many Corsairs? ZERO...how many Hellcats? 15... How many P-47s? ZERO...how many P-51s? 20.... pretty hard to do anything beyond Sentai under these circumstances... Anyway...i'm not losing faith...i'm simply re-orienting my mind under a brand new plan...[8D]...still elaborating it but i have a couple of good ideas.... i got the Flash of Genius this morning while i was watching the reply sat on my WC, with a cup of coffea and a sigarette.... Too early too tell you now...just know that we have a plan...[;)] Today Rader unchained his Kamikazes.... they attacked my supply ships unloading at Akita...2 xAKs sunk and a DD lightly damaged in exchange of more than 120 Helens and Oscars Kamikaze and of a brand new bunch of american and british aces [:D] I got lucky cause i forgot to change my fighter bomber squadrons (Mosquitos and P-39s)...and they were left at 100% CAP... Rader quite silly sent the kamikaze without any escort and they got butchered badly... Now Aikita beachead has 390k supplies and so does Hachinoe...we're gonna reinforce a bit the Aomori Beachhead tomorrow with a small amphib operation... Oh...i noticed somthing very strange.... the Amphib HQ always got destroyed once they are unloaded during an amphib operation and you have to buy them back...is that normal???? [&:]...lost 2 Amphib HQs like that at Hachinoe and Aikita...very silly if you ask me... AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Sep 18, 44 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Night Naval bombardment of Akita at 117,55 Japanese aircraft no flights Japanese aircraft losses J1N1-C Irving: 1 damaged J1N1-C Irving: 1 destroyed on ground Allied Ships BB Richelieu BB Alabama BB Massachusetts CA Salt Lake City Japanese ground losses: 381 casualties reported Squads: 5 destroyed, 12 disabled Non Combat: 14 destroyed, 18 disabled Engineers: 1 destroyed, 4 disabled Guns lost 14 (9 destroyed, 5 disabled) Vehicles lost 10 (5 destroyed, 5 disabled) Manpower hits 1 Fires 1458 Airbase hits 5 Airbase supply hits 2 Runway hits 6 Port hits 4 BB -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Night Naval bombardment of Hachinohe at 118,55 Allied Ships BB Indiana BB South Dakota BB North Carolina CA Astoria CA Houston Japanese ground losses: 291 casualties reported Squads: 1 destroyed, 16 disabled Non Combat: 7 destroyed, 19 disabled Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled Guns lost 5 (2 destroyed, 3 disabled) Vehicles lost 4 (3 destroyed, 1 disabled) Airbase hits 1 Airbase supply hits 1 Runway hits 5 Port hits 3 Port fuel hits 2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Day Time Surface Combat, near Iwaki at 120,60, Range 12,000 Yards....you see?...i learn :-) i listened to you guys and am sending some small DD forces to deal with the ASW TFs.... Japanese Ships E No.26, Shell hits 9, and is sunk E No.28, Shell hits 8, heavy fires, heavy damage E No.30, Shell hits 5, heavy fires E No.34, Shell hits 13, and is sunk Allied Ships DD Preston II, Shell hits 1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sub attack near Iwaki at 120,60 PAYBACK Japanese Ships E No.30, Torpedo hits 1, heavy fires, heavy damage Allied Ships SS Bowfin -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Morning Air attack on TF, near Akita at 117,55 Weather in hex: Overcast Raid detected at 38 NM, estimated altitude 4,000 feet. Estimated time to target is 11 minutes Japanese aircraft Ki-49-IIa Helen x 20 Ki-49-IIb Helen x 19 Allied aircraft Mosquito FB.VI x 25 P-39N2 Airacobra x 8 Japanese aircraft losses Ki-49-IIa Helen: 11 destroyed Ki-49-IIa Helen: 1 destroyed by flak Ki-49-IIb Helen: 10 destroyed Ki-49-IIb Helen: 1 destroyed by flak No Allied losses Allied Ships xAK Mary E. Kinney xAK Alcoa Pioneer xAK Owen Summers xAK S. African Victory xAK Cape Faro xAK John lsaacson -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Akita at 117,55 Weather in hex: Severe storms Raid detected at 40 NM, estimated altitude 7,000 feet. Estimated time to target is 12 minutes Japanese aircraft Ki-49-IIa Helen x 20 Ki-49-IIb Helen x 5 Allied aircraft Mosquito FB.VI x 23 P-39N2 Airacobra x 8 Japanese aircraft losses Ki-49-IIa Helen: 12 destroyed Ki-49-IIa Helen: 1 destroyed by flak Ki-49-IIb Helen: 2 destroyed Ki-49-IIb Helen: 1 destroyed by flak No Allied losses Allied Ships xAK Trevince xAK Cape Martin -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Niigata at 115,55 Weather in hex: Moderate rain Raid detected at 79 NM, estimated altitude 7,000 feet. Estimated time to target is 19 minutes Japanese aircraft Ki-43-IIIa Oscar x 20 Japanese aircraft losses Ki-43-IIIa Oscar: 11 destroyed Ki-43-IIIa Oscar: 2 destroyed by flak Allied Ships DD Cassin Young DD Wedderburn, Kamikaze hits 1, on fire DD Wickes DD Young DD Yarnall Aircraft Attacking: 20 x Ki-43-IIIa Oscar flying as kamikaze Kamikaze: 2 x 250 kg GP Bomb -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Morning Air attack on TF, near Akita at 117,55 Weather in hex: Thunderstorms Raid detected at 150 NM, estimated altitude 34,000 feet. Estimated time to target is 47 minutes Japanese aircraft Ki-49-IIa Helen x 5 Ki-49-IIb Helen x 2 Allied aircraft Mosquito FB.VI x 25 Japanese aircraft losses Ki-49-IIa Helen: 3 destroyed Ki-49-IIb Helen: 1 destroyed No Allied losses Allied Ships xAK William Schirmer AM Effective xAK Peter Lassen xAK Trevince, Kamikaze hits 1, on fire, heavy damage xAK Martand, Kamikaze hits 1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Akita at 117,55 Weather in hex: Moderate rain Raid detected at 37 NM, estimated altitude 10,000 feet. Estimated time to target is 9 minutes Japanese aircraft Ki-43-IIIa Oscar x 23 Allied aircraft Mosquito FB.VI x 21 P-39N2 Airacobra x 7 Japanese aircraft losses Ki-43-IIIa Oscar: 10 destroyed No Allied losses [image]local://upfiles/37890/2584B684862B4DF288C6AF0896BF20A2.jpg[/image]

GreyJoy -> RE: SUDDENLY HAIRY (1/21/2012 2:39:01 PM)
Oh Jeff...i don't have any Omaha class left...they all got sunk during the Solomons campaign fighting against the japanese Cruiser force.... I could spare probably a Fiji Class british CL for that task.... I'll try to elaborate something John...i think it can be done and can be a good idea...problem is how to refuel and avoid his dreaded dive bombers.... however i can manage to devote a Fletcher division for this task...

GreyJoy -> RE: HAIRY TO THE BONE (1/21/2012 2:39:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Xxzard Well it seems like ships passing in the night or a submarine beneath the waves, this thread has become the leader in hits without a mention. (Unless I missed it!) Who would've thought when this started that we would be here today witnessing such an epic battle play out between these two players? I saw the start of the game, although I've been more of a lurker than a member of GJ's council of advisers. When will we reach the end... we'll see, but if it is anything like what we have experienced so far it will be awe inspiring. So congratulations GJ for becoming the AAR forum thread hit leader! (hitman?) Three cheers for a fantastic game, take your pick of hip, hip, or banzai! if you so prefer. [sm=sign0066.gif][sm=sign0031.gif]

Heeward -> RE: HAIRY TO THE BONE (1/21/2012 3:24:40 PM)
Other Base Advantage: If you can keep open the airfield - no long range cap over the hex. As you own the hex - you have a better chance of recovering shot down pilots, - this can be ameliorated some (completely?) by stationing a lifeguard submarine in the hex. My suggestions: Ask those who are familiar with Japanese late war industry: Is it feasible to create a supply shortage on Honshu?

pws1225 -> RE: HAIRY TO THE BONE (1/21/2012 3:28:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nemo121 ... and a reliance on objective reality ( instead of just selecting out the data you like and ignoring what you don't) But wait, I play as the Japanese. Isn't that what I'm supposed to do?[:'(]

Grfin Zeppelin -> RE: HAIRY TO THE BONE (1/21/2012 4:09:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Heeward Other Base Advantage: If you can keep open the airfield - no long range cap over the hex. As you own the hex - you have a better chance of recovering shot down pilots, - this can be ameliorated some (completely?) by stationing a lifeguard submarine in the hex. My suggestions: Ask those who are familiar with Japanese late war industry: Is it feasible to create a supply shortage on Honshu? Certainly if you stop the flow of resources and fuel/oil into the home islands. However its way more likely the HI will run out of fuel first.

khyberbill -> RE: SUDDENLY HAIRY (1/21/2012 4:22:56 PM)
quote: lost 2 Amphib HQs like that at Hachinoe and Aikita...very silly if you ask me... I never unload my Amphib HQ. They stay on their command ship in their own TF and have the same effect as if they were ashore.

witpqs -> RE: SUDDENLY HAIRY (1/21/2012 4:55:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: khyberbill quote: lost 2 Amphib HQs like that at Hachinoe and Aikita...very silly if you ask me... I never unload my Amphib HQ. They stay on their command ship in their own TF and have the same effect as if they were ashore. The trouble with that is that Michael posted a few months ago that he looked in the code and Amphib HQs only assist the landing of troops of the TF the Amphib HQs are in. Said it's been that way all along, at least in AE.

khyberbill -> RE: SUDDENLY HAIRY (1/21/2012 5:14:35 PM)
Ah, one continues to learn something everyday. On the other hand, at least my Amphib commanders stay alive.

castor troy -> RE: HAIRY TO THE BONE (1/21/2012 5:22:32 PM)
hmm, crazy, have never seen ships being hit from supply unloading before. Never. [&:] And I had bases with roughly a hundred CD guns of all different types.

Crackaces -> RE: HAIRY TO THE BONE (1/21/2012 5:41:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: castor troy hmm, crazy, have never seen ships being hit from supply unloading before. Never. [&:] And I had bases with roughly a hundred CD guns of all different types. Something has changed then ...because in my game I have smacked 3 IJ xAKL over 5 turns with 75mm field guns unloading at Wenchow ..forget CD's ...[;)]

Page: << < prev 192 193 [194] 195 196 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.171875