RE: Battle for Korea

RE: Battle for Korea (Full Version)

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

Message

JocMeister -> RE: Battle for Korea (2/8/2014 1:20:27 PM)
Just watched the entire replay. Again the Avengers saved the day. I´m starting to wonder if I would have been better off using the radar equipped SDB-5 instead. Does the radar effect target accuracy (dropping bombs) or just the chance to find target TFs? Not a single Helldiver hit something that wasn´t already slowed by Torpedoes from the Avengers. The British Avengers II was the heroes of the day hitting no less then 6 undamaged enemy ships slowing them down for others. God bless the queen! [:D]

Miller -> RE: Battle for Korea (2/8/2014 1:43:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: morejeffs It does seem ridiculous that 200 Sam would perfectly protect a strike defended by 900 modern fighters... A total joke.... The CAP will no doubt have been "worn down" by numerous earlier raids. Of course its still a silly result that they hardly touched the bombers.

JocMeister -> RE: Battle for Korea (2/8/2014 1:52:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Miller quote: ORIGINAL: morejeffs It does seem ridiculous that 200 Sam would perfectly protect a strike defended by 900 modern fighters... A total joke.... The CAP will no doubt have been "worn down" by numerous earlier raids. Of course its still a silly result that they hardly touched the bombers. Actually it was only 2 smaller raids before that one. As indicated in my post this is not the first time something like this has happened. I don´t know what kind of setting Erik uses but its certainly effective! Same thing cost me dearly a month ago! Then the CAP was something like 1800 Fighters. One strike just sailed right through most of the CAP knocking out 1000 Allied CV plane capacity! [X(]

Captain Cruft -> RE: Battle for Korea (2/8/2014 1:59:34 PM)
That Italian guy was right - the "bomber will always get through". It is clear to me that this is a design decision, and one I agree with. The impenetrable CAP of WitP made for a very dull and desperate late-war game for Japan.

koniu -> RE: Battle for Korea (2/8/2014 2:04:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JocMeister Same thing cost me dearly a month ago! Then the CAP was something like 1800 Fighters. One strike just sailed right through most of the CAP knocking out 1000 Allied CV plane capacity! [X(] Imagine how this will look if You are still playing latest official patch and not beta. Coordination bug of LBA will probably create 2 or 3 more planes waves that also will get trough CAP. It will cost You 3k capacity not 1k

JocMeister -> RE: Battle for Korea (2/8/2014 2:31:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Captain Cruft That Italian guy was right - the "bomber will always get through". It is clear to me that this is a design decision, and one I agree with. The impenetrable CAP of WitP made for a very dull and desperate late-war game for Japan. I´m not saying its a bad thing per see but I don´t like how Escorts can completely shield the bombers. If 200 Fighters is enough to completely shield the strike planes that can lead to disproportionate situations when even a very small CV force can totally annihilate a much, much stronger force. Or at least cause crippling losses. Pretty much the same problem as in the GJ/radar game. I don´t know if Erik has found some "golden setting" but I have never managed to come close to what he does with his alpha strike. They always come through unmolested. I actually had MORE escorts then Erik had but he still shot down a big number of strike planes before the airphase was done. Could also be just a fluke that Erik managed to pass the right rolls the last three CV battles. [:)] Still very happy with todays result!

JocMeister -> RE: Battle for Korea (2/8/2014 2:33:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: koniu quote: ORIGINAL: JocMeister Same thing cost me dearly a month ago! Then the CAP was something like 1800 Fighters. One strike just sailed right through most of the CAP knocking out 1000 Allied CV plane capacity! [X(] Imagine how this will look if You are still playing latest official patch and not beta. Coordination bug of LBA will probably create 2 or 3 more planes waves that also will get trough CAP. It will cost You 3k capacity not 1k Yeah, the game would be pretty much unplayable without the BETA. Nothing could come close to any level 9 AF without getting wiped out in the official.

witpqs -> RE: Battle for Korea (2/8/2014 3:12:37 PM)
I don't see escort totally shield bombers very much. I think it was just a combination of factors plus chance. I presume those were all his best pilots??

JocMeister -> RE: Battle for Korea (2/8/2014 3:17:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs I don't see escort totally shield bombers very much. I think it was just a combination of factors plus chance. I presume those were all his best pilots?? It might be. But it would be odd to "waste" the best pilots on Escort wouldn´t it? But it could be an deliberate tactics of course which might explain his success in the last couple of CV clashes. Personally I only use "cannonfodder" (50 EXP/70Air/70 DEF) for escorts which could of course explain that my fighters wern´t so successful in shielding the strike planes.

JocMeister -> RE: Battle for Korea (2/8/2014 3:19:56 PM)
Probably won´t get the turn back today. Erik is a bit out of shape after partying hard last night and I´m a bit out of shape after doing some renovating work. Not hard to guess who is the family father! [:D]

witpqs -> RE: Battle for Korea (2/8/2014 3:20:49 PM)
If the objective is to get the bombers through, the chances of doing that are better with the best fighter pilots. What is the game date? In 1942 it might make sense to save the best pilots for later, but now, what is later? I only presume they were among the best, based partly on the situation but also on the results.

JocMeister -> RE: Battle for Korea (2/8/2014 3:31:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs If the objective is to get the bombers through, the chances of doing that are better with the best fighter pilots. What is the game date? In 1942 it might make sense to save the best pilots for later, but now, what is later? I only presume they were among the best, based partly on the situation but also on the results. Obviously I can´t answer for Erik but I use my best pilots for CAP and never on Escort. Getting a pilot to 70-80 EXP is hard work and I don´t want to waste that on having them drop like flies on Escort. This turn I probably lost 400-500 Hellcats doing Escort meaning probably 300 pilots or so. While having 70EXP on Escort might give a bit of an extra punch you are as likely to lose them flying against a couple of PBs (or in my case AMc) as against enemy CVs. I wouldn´t dare that gamble. Considering Erik has burned at least 10-15 full KB strikes (and thousands of pilots) by now I doubt he can put "good" pilots on Escort. But you will have to ask him. Could be a deliberate tactic! If it is its working! [:)]

koniu -> RE: Battle for Korea (2/8/2014 3:48:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JocMeister Obviously I can´t answer for Erik but I use my best pilots for CAP and never on Escort. In my last battle i use for escort my best 80+XP pilots. I lost ~50 of them. But it was totally worth it. During giving orders to strike i spend lot of time thinking what to do. I was so close to use 50XP pilots. I think it could be mistake because when i watch replay i saw that many many time my boys manage to avoid dives from F6F (but not from F4U[:@]) Also i think better XP mean that more planes will stick with major strike They use enough CAP passes to allow ~80% of bombers to get trough My plan was not to save pilots lives but to crash enemy. From the same reson i chose 4-5 hexes strike insted if magic 8 hex strike [sm=00000612.gif]

Miller -> RE: Battle for Korea (2/8/2014 4:08:46 PM)
What altitude do you fly your CAP at? I set all mine to 10k. It has served me well for both sides. Likewise I set all my DB/TB to the same altitude.

Grollub -> RE: Battle for Korea (2/8/2014 4:20:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JocMeister Thank you! [:)] Updated the initial post with some new text and better formatting! A little bit of celebratory music. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnAvNdVyJB0 Here is a cooler version for you Grollub! [:)] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaP3wKVKkSA Thank you for that one! [:D]

JocMeister -> RE: Battle for Korea (2/8/2014 4:27:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: koniu In my last battle i use for escort my best 80+XP pilots. I lost ~50 of them. But it was totally worth it. During giving orders to strike i spend lot of time thinking what to do. I was so close to use 50XP pilots. I think it could be mistake because when i watch replay i saw that many many time my boys manage to avoid dives from F6F (but not from F4U[:@]) Also i think better XP mean that more planes will stick with major strike They use enough CAP passes to allow ~80% of bombers to get trough My plan was not to save pilots lives but to crash enemy. From the same reson i chose 4-5 hexes strike insted if magic 8 hex strike [sm=00000612.gif] I would absolutely be willing to use great pilots for Escort if it wasn´t for all those unwanted strikes. [:(] I´ve probably lost over 1000 pilots going after small craft like PBs, AMc and "Es" Quite often under an enormous CAP. I lost an entire Alpha strikes worth of planes (600-800 planes) in the Marianas going after a couple of AMc. Losing fantastic fighter pilots on something like that would kill me. [:(] But you have a good point. I might consider doing differently in my other game. [:)] quote: ORIGINAL: Miller What altitude do you fly your CAP at? I set all mine to 10k. It has served me well for both sides. Likewise I set all my DB/TB to the same altitude. Everything is at 10k. CAP/Escorts/TB/DBs. [:)] Interestingly enough Erik seems to go in higher! quote: Raid detected at 120 NM, estimated altitude 17,000 feet. Raid detected at 120 NM, estimated altitude 19,000 feet. Raid detected at 118 NM, estimated altitude 17,000 feet. Raid detected at 120 NM, estimated altitude 17,000 feet. Raid detected at 119 NM, estimated altitude 17,000 feet. Raid detected at 119 NM, estimated altitude 17,000 feet. Raid detected at 117 NM, estimated altitude 20,000 feet. Raid detected at 112 NM, estimated altitude 18,000 feet. Raid detected at 120 NM, estimated altitude 15,000 feet. Raid detected at 34 NM, estimated altitude 16,000 feet. Raid detected at 114 NM, estimated altitude 12,000 feet. Very odd. That last stike at 12k doesn´t contain any Sams. I wonder if he sets his Escorts up high and that makes the engine go bonanas sending all the CAP up to 17k? But then again some of the unescorted strikes are also detected up at at 17k. Perhaps he has them at 14k (max alt for DBs)? My own strikes are listed between 10-13k in the CR.

JocMeister -> RE: Battle for Korea (2/8/2014 4:27:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Grollub quote: ORIGINAL: JocMeister Thank you! [:)] Updated the initial post with some new text and better formatting! A little bit of celebratory music. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnAvNdVyJB0 Here is a cooler version for you Grollub! [:)] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaP3wKVKkSA Thank you for that one! [:D] [;)]

JocMeister -> RE: Battle for Korea (2/8/2014 4:39:27 PM)
2nd of May - Rest of the world ______________________________________________________________________________ While the CV strike was the main event of the day some interesting things happened in China. Good news too! [:)] quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ground combat at Hong Kong (77,61) Allied Deliberate attack Attacking force 83851 troops, 1589 guns, 1530 vehicles, Assault Value = 2559 Defending force 11668 troops, 117 guns, 80 vehicles, Assault Value = 42 Allied engineers reduce fortifications to 2 Allied adjusted assault: 1831 Japanese adjusted defense: 313 Allied assault odds: 5 to 1 (fort level 2) Allied forces CAPTURE Hong Kong !!! [&o][&o][&o] Combat modifiers Defender: terrain(+), forts(+), leaders(+), experience(-), supply(-) Attacker: Japanese ground losses: 2140 casualties reported Squads: 65 destroyed, 1 disabled Non Combat: 143 destroyed, 31 disabled Engineers: 61 destroyed, 1 disabled Guns lost 39 (20 destroyed, 19 disabled) Vehicles lost 59 (59 destroyed, 0 disabled) Allied ground losses: 141 casualties reported Squads: 0 destroyed, 10 disabled Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 4 disabled Engineers: 0 destroyed, 8 disabled Guns lost 6 (1 destroyed, 5 disabled) And now for the most insane/silly event of the day! Think this is the bloodiest battle I have seen in this game at least! 11.000 ADJUSTED AV. Boom! [sm=00000028.gif] quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ground combat at Kweiyang (74,49) Allied Deliberate attack Attacking force 508265 troops, 1993 guns, 162 vehicles, Assault Value = 19322 Defending force 50527 troops, 457 guns, 116 vehicles, Assault Value = 1724 Allied engineers reduce fortifications to 4 Allied adjusted assault: 11410 [X(] Japanese adjusted defense: 921 Allied assault odds: 12 to 1 (fort level 4) Allied forces CAPTURE Kweiyang !!! [:)] Combat modifiers Defender: terrain(+), forts(+), supply(-) Attacker: Japanese ground losses: 19800 casualties reported [X(] Squads: 419 destroyed, 379 disabled Non Combat: 506 destroyed, 182 disabled Engineers: 125 destroyed, 4 disabled Guns lost 201 (189 destroyed, 12 disabled) Vehicles lost 97 (97 destroyed, 0 disabled) Units retreated 8 Allied ground losses: 22455 casualties reported [X(] Squads: 254 destroyed, 2082 disabled Non Combat: 14 destroyed, 222 disabled Engineers: 3 destroyed, 55 disabled Guns lost 79 (5 destroyed, 74 disabled) Units destroyed 1 ------------------------ Soviet Union ------------------------ Got all the air squadrons sorted. But AS is a disaster. I havn´t done an exact count but I´m at least 700-1000 AS short. Is this intentional for some reason? Sounds weird if that is the case. Going to ask Erik if I can send squadrons to Allied bases as long as they don´t fly any missions. At least that way I could jump out some transports and stuff that I don´t really need.

Captain Cruft -> RE: Battle for Korea (2/8/2014 5:13:19 PM)
Why not just rail the un-needed planes to the Soviet Union base off-map?

JocMeister -> RE: Battle for Korea (2/8/2014 5:18:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Captain Cruft Why not just rail the un-needed planes to the Soviet Union base off-map? Only off map bases I can rail them to are Soviet Union and Alma-Ata for a total of 300 AS. I´m assuming there arn´t no special rules concerning off map bases and AS?

Lokasenna -> RE: Battle for Korea (2/8/2014 5:20:47 PM)
15k is the maximum altitude for dive bombing, not 14k. The escorts will then fly at 17k. Those detection numbers look like a spread of about what you'd see if they were all set at 15k. Edit - I am reading both sides of this. I saw no mention of the unescorted strikes that hit your CAP wall! [:-]

Captain Cruft -> RE: Battle for Korea (2/8/2014 5:22:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JocMeister quote: ORIGINAL: Captain Cruft Why not just rail the un-needed planes to the Soviet Union base off-map? Only off map bases I can rail them to are Soviet Union and Alma-Ata for a total of 300 AS. I´m assuming there arn´t no special rules concerning off map bases and AS? If the planes are not doing anything it doesn't matter if they are servicable or not.

JocMeister -> RE: Battle for Korea (2/8/2014 5:34:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lokasenna 15k is the maximum altitude for dive bombing, not 14k. The escorts will then fly at 17k. Those detection numbers look like a spread of about what you'd see if they were all set at 15k. Ah, I seem to remember they started glide bombing at 15k? What do you mean "the escorts will then fly at 17k"? quote: ORIGINAL: Lokasenna Edit - I am reading both sides of this. I saw no mention of the unescorted strikes that hit your CAP wall! [:-] Obviously the entire battle didn´t consist of 4 strikes. Doh? [:)] I left out the ones that didn´t cause any damage. Both allied and Japanese strikes. There were about 8-10 strikes per side that either didn´t penetrate the CAP or did so but failed to hit anything. I´ve attached the entire CR for you if you want to have a peek! [:'(]

JocMeister -> RE: Battle for Korea (2/8/2014 5:37:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Captain Cruft quote: ORIGINAL: JocMeister quote: ORIGINAL: Captain Cruft Why not just rail the un-needed planes to the Soviet Union base off-map? Only off map bases I can rail them to are Soviet Union and Alma-Ata for a total of 300 AS. I´m assuming there arn´t no special rules concerning off map bases and AS? If the planes are not doing anything it doesn't matter if they are servicable or not. Point taken. But that means I will have to ground a lot of planes. 808 Engines to be exact. That is the current AS shortage for the SU. I might cream some more out of what available by massing everything at level 8-9 AFs which will doubt AS. Can´t do it now though as I´m not allowed to move any units until the SU activates.

JocMeister -> RE: Battle for Korea (2/8/2014 8:51:16 PM)
Got an email from Erik earlier tonight. Sadly it was his turn to get hit by a computer virus (I was hit a year back). I hope he manages to sort it without doing a clean Windows install. So no turn until he can get that fixed obviously.

Lokasenna -> RE: Battle for Korea (2/8/2014 11:47:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JocMeister quote: ORIGINAL: Lokasenna 15k is the maximum altitude for dive bombing, not 14k. The escorts will then fly at 17k. Those detection numbers look like a spread of about what you'd see if they were all set at 15k. Ah, I seem to remember they started glide bombing at 15k? What do you mean "the escorts will then fly at 17k"? They definitely dive bomb up to 15k and if you look really hard you can find evidence in post history here. The 14k that comes up so often originates, I think, from a typo in Skyros's reference sheet (or even farther back). Set some DBs to 15k and try it. I thought that escorts fly 2k higher than the strike they were escorting. I don't have a source for this, just hearsay. Perhaps someone can confirm or disabuse me of this notion.

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Battle for Korea (2/8/2014 11:54:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lokasenna quote: ORIGINAL: JocMeister quote: ORIGINAL: Lokasenna 15k is the maximum altitude for dive bombing, not 14k. The escorts will then fly at 17k. Those detection numbers look like a spread of about what you'd see if they were all set at 15k. Ah, I seem to remember they started glide bombing at 15k? What do you mean "the escorts will then fly at 17k"? They definitely dive bomb up to 15k and if you look really hard you can find evidence in post history here. The 14k that comes up so often originates, I think, from a typo in Skyros's reference sheet (or even farther back). Set some DBs to 15k and try it. I thought that escorts fly 2k higher than the strike they were escorting. I don't have a source for this, just hearsay. Perhaps someone can confirm or disabuse me of this notion. It's been 2k since WITP so far as I know. However, you should set the escorts in the spinner to the strike altitude. The engine puts them up the 2k by itself. If you do it you'll bone coordination.

Lokasenna -> RE: Battle for Korea (2/9/2014 4:55:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 quote: ORIGINAL: Lokasenna quote: ORIGINAL: JocMeister quote: ORIGINAL: Lokasenna 15k is the maximum altitude for dive bombing, not 14k. The escorts will then fly at 17k. Those detection numbers look like a spread of about what you'd see if they were all set at 15k. Ah, I seem to remember they started glide bombing at 15k? What do you mean "the escorts will then fly at 17k"? They definitely dive bomb up to 15k and if you look really hard you can find evidence in post history here. The 14k that comes up so often originates, I think, from a typo in Skyros's reference sheet (or even farther back). Set some DBs to 15k and try it. I thought that escorts fly 2k higher than the strike they were escorting. I don't have a source for this, just hearsay. Perhaps someone can confirm or disabuse me of this notion. It's been 2k since WITP so far as I know. However, you should set the escorts in the spinner to the strike altitude. The engine puts them up the 2k by itself. If you do it you'll bone coordination. Yeah, I meant that it occurred automatically based on strike altitude.

JocMeister -> RE: Battle for Korea (2/9/2014 6:31:37 AM)
That is one of the things I love about the game. You learn something new every week even after playing for 6 years. [:)] I had 14k for DBs in my notes as well. Don´t know where I got it from though. My CAP was at 10k. Didn´t know the Escorts went in at 2k higher. Wonder if going in higher then my CAP somehow "sheltered" the strike planes. As I said Erik has had some remarkable success getting his strike planes in the alpha strike cleanly though. Anyone know anything about this? quote: ORIGINAL: JocMeister Just watched the entire replay. Again the Avengers saved the day. I´m starting to wonder if I would have been better off using the radar equipped SDB-5 instead. Does the radar effect target accuracy (dropping bombs) or just the chance to find target TFs? My Helldivers have done quite poorly on many occasions.

JocMeister -> RE: Battle for Korea (2/9/2014 6:49:10 AM)
2nd of May - Aftermath ______________________________________________________________________________ Got the turn back from Erik sometime during the night. Things are better then expected. [:)] 14 CVEs are sunk with another likely to sink. The rest will make it. CV Randolph and CVL Princton just took glancing blows and can continue combat operations. Air losses are about half what I would expect. While I certainly lost a good amount of planes I still have almost 400 TB/DBs left. Escorts are still available in decent numbers. Our priority right now is to reunite the fleet under the CV CAP which is mostly intact. I lost only about 70 Corsairs which means CAP will still be very strong (700-800 planes). I will also try and guide the damaged CVEs to safety. I won´t do any offensive moves towards Moppo this turn. I want to see what Erik does. He still have 2500-3000 LBA bombers that will likely take off tomorrow. I want everything tucked in under a CV CAP tomorrow morning. [image]local://upfiles/32406/D8C53E47154E447B9265358A4D239BF2.jpg[/image]

Page: << < prev 119 120 [121] 122 123 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.0625