No fleet, no problem... (Full Version)

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



Message

Nemo121 -> No fleet, no problem... (4/22/2013 1:05:35 AM)

Or, how Japan gets crushed by 1944 without the use of carriers [8D]. There, there's nothing like having a meta-narrative to keep things interesting.

NB: Pretty much everyone's welcome except for one or two who should be able to remember the lack of invitation. I'd ask that people keep it civil as I won't have a second's hesitation pulling the AAR if it turns into a shooting gallery.

I'm AARing since it can be fun and since Damian has said he'll AAR his side. If it stops being fun I'll stop AARing. Whether or not it is fun is pretty much up to the forum and forumites so.... try to keep it civil. Disagreement, even vociferous disagreement, is welcome as is OT historical or strategic discussion, or anything Deep Battle. The only line in the sand is not to get personal. I'd ask people to respect that.


Situation:
Floyd and Damian have gracefully allowed me to take over from Floyd in his game vs Damian. The situation is that in mid-August 1942 the Allies have lost all but 2 of the US CVs and the RN CV Formidable ( which is about to be sent back to the UK ). This means the Allies will have just 2 CVs with which to fight until the 2nd quarter of 1943. Overall the Allies have lost 532 ships and the Japanese have lost about 50. The largest combatant lost by Japan are 4 DDs and an AMC. Apart from subs those are the only surface combatants Japan has lost. It is rather amazing that they've lost so little.

Allies have lost 4 CVs and a CVL, 5 BBs, 10 CAs, 18 CLs and 2 CLAAs, 62 DDs, all but one DM and one DMS and, perhaps most worringly of all, all but 14 TKs and 7 AOs on the US side of the Pacific. There are loads more on the UK side but there basically isn't enough fuel capacity to support major fleet operations in the Pacific... Fortunately there isn't much of a fleet to supply so there's probably enough to support.

In total in the Pacific there are 2 CVs, 2 CVEs, 9 BBs, 5 CAs, 3 CLs, 2 CLAAs and 43 DDs ( including damaged ones and ones about to be sunk by KB ). Several of those CAs, CLs and DDs are seriously damaged and within a few hexes of KB so should sink next turn. So, about 50 combat-ready warship in the Pacific.

The situation in the Pacific is rotten with the Japanese having taken Noumea, Norfolk Island and everything to the south-east all the way to Pago Pago and Baker Island. They could have taken more because the Allies seem not to have garrisoned anything beyond a line running from Midway to Johnson Island to Tahiti but it seems they are happy with their current, defensible line.

In Oz the Japanese are about to be pushed into Darwin and from there into the sea. All the north-western bases in Oz are under Japanese control.

China is stalemated with strong IJA and Chinese forces facing eachother in strong defensive terrain. The front line is contiguous, which is unusual in my experience and means there are very few openings for manoeuvre.

Burma is firmly in Japanese hands. Large garrisons wait in the southern Indian cities as they are fortified to fend off the seemingly inevitable Japanese invasion of India. Myitkina is in Allied hands and held by a little over 100 AV. One other Allied force is fighting in the jungle on the Indian-Burma border but, basically, Burma has been abandoned to Japan as the focus has been on defending India.

An amphibious invasion of the Kuriles has ended in disaster with the loss of almost every on-map USN AP, xAP. The USN itself has 2 CVs, a solid core of BBs and a small number of CAs, CLs and DDs left. Losses amongst CAs, CLs and DDs have been horrendous. To put it into perspective apart from the battered USN TFs around the Aleutians I can't find a dozen combat-worth DDs in the Pacific or in CONUSA.

800 AV of troops have been landed but, unfortunately, only 1400 tons of supplies are ashore and the planes which were supposed to defend the islands all appear to have been sunk aboard ship.

What about the USN TFs in the Aleutians? Well, there are about 40 CAs, CLs and DDs there but KB is present in force in 3 separate 10-ship TFs and my minimum estimate for their strength is 9 CVs, which would give them a striking power of roughly 320+ strike aircraft. The Aleutians should provide a shield but have not been occupied or built up with the exception of Dutch Harbour and Attu Island. Attu has no fuel so everything has to run to Dutch Harbour where there are a few thousand tons of fuel, not enough to refuel everything I have. If the IJN pushes eastward they will be able to butcher the USN and literally sink every ship as it runs out of fuel around Dutch Harbour.


Air forces:
Losses have been horrendous, 3300+ Allied planes have been downed. Pilot training and leadership selection hasn't been prioritised with the result that the Allied reserves are paper-thin. The USAAF reserve pool had about 100 pilots in it, many of them with 40 to 50 A2A Exp. Only the top 10 to 20 had A2A Exp in the high 60s to low 70s. USN pools were tiny also. Essentially the Allied planes are flown by pilots ranging from 70 Exp and skill ( if they've survived since the war started ) all the way down to new 30 Exp, 30 Skill rookies. There are no reserves to speak of and it seems replacements are drawn directly into combat squadrons - where they either die or Darwin up over the months.

There are 100 F4F4s in the pool but only 20 to 30 of most other fighter types. Replacements are low at this time also. Basically the Allied air forces comprise 1/3rd good pilots, 1/3rd ok pilots and 1/3rd brand new replacements who are easy meat. There are almost no reserves and thus there is no depth to the Allied air forces. I'll be putting a LOT of effort into establishing a pilot training programme. This is as important as breathing when it comes to the game and I have a real mania for training. I think the training programme in this game is about average for games I've taken over but, really, I think training of pilots is so crucial that I'd easily expend 1/3rd of my in-game time just on training.


So, a good challenge which I think hinges on different things in different areas.

Pacific:
1. The ability to hold Japan back in the Pacific without actually having a fleet to do so.
2. The ability to carry out and support amphibious invasions without a fleet to support them.

Burma:
This needs to become active or the Japanese will get so much free time and space they will begin seriously thinking about a spoiling invasion of India. They can't take it but taking southern India would delay my advance by a year or more.

Aleutians:
The question here is whether to abandon the troops to their fate or to try to support them.

China:
Here it is all about fancy land warfare stuff. Can I find or make a hole which I can exploit into a dislocation of his line such that the nice contiguous front is broken?

Oz:
Once Darwin is taken how can I exploit that? There's a solid line of enemy bases north of Darwin and I don't have the CVs to push beyond it. The RN is in good shape but it would take horrendous losses pushing north and, frankly, I probably need it to defend India unless I can get Burma to become active.



So, a lot will depend on how a side with no fleet can stop a side with a fleet from advancing or, better yet, how a side with no fleet can attack a side with an overwhelmingly superior fleet. The answer is, of course, to mount operations which don't require fleets.

As a side goal I'd like to try to wrap this up as a going concern by the end of 1943, 16 months time. I don't think I'll have taken Japan by that stage but I think that by that stage I'd like it to be pretty clear that Japan has no hope left. We can then decide whether to play on just to test the mod to failure or we can call it and move on to another game at that stage. That timeline requires going on the offensive now - which is, unfortunately, something Damian will expect.

I'll leave with a picture of the strategic front line as it currently stands. Basically without the use of off-map routing Via Cape Town-the Falklands-Panama CONUSA is pretty much cut off right now. It is marginally quicker to go via Oz and NZ but much riskier. With that said it'll allow me to load fuel in Cape Town, drop it in Oz and Pacific Islands before reaching CONUSA so that'll increase efficiency in my fuel resupply efforts ( which is important since I have so few TKs and AOs in the US side of the Pacific ).

[image]local://upfiles/10809/F362A0409A5541468063C5A3998F16C1.jpg[/image]



SierraJuliet -> RE: No fleet, no problem... (4/22/2013 1:20:50 AM)

Very much looking forward to see how you deal with this situation.



desicat -> RE: No fleet, no problem... (4/22/2013 1:24:50 AM)

How is your submarine force looking? Massed sub forces could make some areas of the map less hospitable (or unattractive from an IJN standpoint) from a pure numbers standpoint.

IMHO no fleet means going from the Aleutians through the Kuriles utilizing self supporting airfields, advanced bombers, and sub power. Seems you need to use the Royal Navy or seemingly "poor" Indian land defenses to draw the KB (or his attention) into the IO. Of course this is the obvious route but it can become less so if the surface fleet is absent and poor weather time frames are utilized.




Nemo121 -> RE: No fleet, no problem... (4/22/2013 1:35:10 AM)

There are 21 S class boats and about 50 other submarines ( UK and US ) as well as about a dozen Dutch subs ( O and K types ).

Subs won't be an arm of decision though, I tend to use them in the Soviet, command push recon manner as screening lines before my fleet, to catch their cripples after a fleet action and ( much more frequently ) to support land operations through recon and/or minelaying/the creation of cordons around targeted islands.

In this case the most likely use of many of my submarines for a significant time will be the running of supplies to isolated but strategically important bases in the Pacific which are within Netty range of other Japanese bases but which cannot be abandoned --- and for which I don't have the fleet necessary to provide escorts for xAK supply convoys.



desicat -> RE: No fleet, no problem... (4/22/2013 1:45:58 AM)

quote:

How is your submarine force looking? Massed sub forces could make some areas of the map less hospitable (or unattractive from an IJN standpoint) from a pure numbers standpoint.

IMHO no fleet means going from the Aleutians through the Kuriles utilizing self supporting airfields, advanced bombers, and sub power. Seems you need to use the Royal Navy or seemingly "poor" Indian land defenses to draw the KB (or his attention) into the IO. Of course this is the obvious route but it can become less so if the surface fleet is absent and poor weather time frames are utilized.


There are 21 S class boats and about 50 other submarines ( UK and US ) as well as about a dozen Dutch subs ( O and K types ).

Subs won't be an arm of decision though, I tend to use them in the Soviet, command push recon manner as screening lines before my fleet, to catch their cripples after a fleet action and ( much more frequently ) to support land operations through recon and/or minelaying/the creation of cordons around targeted islands.

Interesting, I was hoping to see subs used in a novel way to challenge the game design.



Cap Mandrake -> RE: No fleet, no problem... (4/22/2013 2:02:38 AM)

I take it that is Raoul Is, the southernmost red dot? And that Pago Pago is in LYB control as well?

Seems like you could still send TK's throught the Marquesas and then south of NZ...just not in big convoys.



Nemo121 -> RE: No fleet, no problem... (4/22/2013 2:06:48 AM)

quote:

Interesting, I was hoping to see subs used in a novel way to challenge the game design.


No that's really never my intent with anything. I just plan to use them in the Soviet manner. Same with the ships, same with the ground troops, same with the air force. If that uncovers a flaw in the game design then so be it. My line in the sand in terms of the game is that if the game allows me to do it AND it is possible in terms of physics then I'll do it. I'll also be quite happy when the designers close any flaw found even if it was benefitting me in the game so far.

Of course the Soviets did divide their forces into "ordinary" and "extraordinary" forces so anything I put into the "extraordinary" force group tends to get tasked to less than normal operations. There's a lot more chance of them operating at the margins of what the game designers conceived but that's an incidental occurrence.


I should probably mention the HR now.

1. Both sides must pay PP to move any restricted unit outside of the country it is in. So, no Kwantung Army in China, no Chinese or Indians or Brits in Burma without me paying PP for them. Damian was flexible on this and would have let the British Army move without PP but I think it is easier for both sides just to have either blanket permission or a blanket ban.

2. No night bombing by either side. It doesn't work properly so it is easier to ban it than to make myriad tiny rules to allow it even a little. Plus by the time we had 50 rules governing it I'd forget some and end up breaking them by mistake. So, again, better to ban completely than have lots of caveats.

3. No 4E on low naval attack. I guess that means I could use them at higher level but probably they'll be so busy with other tasks I won't use them at all.

4. There had been a ban on strategic bombing until mid-43 but my view is that that's artificial and if the Allies are in range why wouldn't they bomb strategic assets before a given date? So we agreed to allow strategic bombing.

5. We both would like to play with stacking limits on since neither of us have played a game with stacking limits before. Damian has a huge stack somewhere in China which he wants to untangle first through so we've agreed that we'll play without stacking limits till September 1st and then switch over to stacking limits on that date. That'll give us both time to untangle any major stacks.

Apart from these rules it is anything goes.

I see that Para units are now the only ones which can launch an amphibious operation from a submarine so I guess that solves the problem of whether or not submarines could carry troops to capture dot bases. So no need to HR that one.

I am curious as to whether the code has changed with respect to landing in non-base hexes. I can see a few non-base hexes I'd love to drop a division or two into. Anyone know? I haven't played a game or beta in over a year so Im rather out of date with where the code base is now.



desicat -> RE: No fleet, no problem... (4/22/2013 2:18:48 AM)

quote:

No that's really never my intent with anything. I just plan to use them in the Soviet manner. Same with the ships, same with the ground troops, same with the air force. If that uncovers a flaw in the game design then so be it. My line in the sand in terms of the game is that if the game allows me to do it AND it is possible in terms of physics then I'll do it. I'll also be quite happy when the designers close any flaw found even if it was benefitting me in the game so far.


I wasn't suggesting anything devious, I was thinking along the line of what happened after Pearl Harbor. No BB's, use CV's.

I was curious how an opponent would (or wouldn't) react to a novel (massed forces) use of the submarine force in an attempt to project power or in a sea denial role.

Your moves in China will be interesting to watch, I hope you detail your thoughts.



Nemo121 -> RE: No fleet, no problem... (4/22/2013 2:33:01 AM)

These SS simply don't have the lethality to act in the sea denial role IMO.

If I had Captor mines, Kilos for coastal work, Ladas with AIP for work out to the continental shelf, Oscar IIs with satellite linkages to aid SS-N-19 targetting and some Akula/Bars for anti-sub work then we could begin talking about sea denial. As it is the most these submarines can do is impose a small attritional cost to putting to sea. Without fleet actions though that attritional cost is unlikely to exceed the IJN's planned replacement rate.

Of course, better yet would just be to get a dozen DF-21Ds, hook them up with some SAR intel and solve the problem in a single afternoon. I doubt the IJN has any SM-3s [8D]



desicat -> RE: No fleet, no problem... (4/22/2013 2:43:52 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

These SS simply don't have the lethality to act in the sea denial role IMO.

If I had Captor mines, Kilos for coastal work, Ladas with AIP for work out to the continental shelf, Oscar IIs with satellite linkages to aid SS-N-19 targeting and some Akula/Bars for anti-sub work then we could begin talking about sea denial.


You would, if you were playing Harpoon! The only things you failed to mention were wake homing keel breaking torpedoes and of course the Shkval high speed torpedo! Shkval

quote:

As it is the most these submarines can do is impose a small attritional cost to putting to sea. Without fleet actions though that attritional cost is unlikely to exceed the IJN's planned replacement rate.



You may know that - does your opponent? He may see swarms of SS and decide he may take his CV's elsewhere. Another time maybe. FYI the Moose is creating havoc in his game through an aggressive use of subs (though not in the role I proposed).



floydg -> RE: No fleet, no problem... (4/22/2013 2:44:35 AM)

Good luck!

I did make quite a mess of things... lots of hard lessons learned.



Nemo121 -> RE: No fleet, no problem... (4/22/2013 2:55:21 AM)

Floyd,

Well I think China and Oz are in good shape on the land side of things. You did well in both of those areas. The aerial training is about average for what I've seen when I've taken over. I just tend to put huge effort into it since I view it as a crucial area. Obviously the navy is pretty hopeless though. There's just so little left and 90% of what is left is at the mercy of KB. But that's what makes the situation interesting.


Desicat,
Well if I had wake homers even 1942 era US subs would be sea denial weapons [:D]. I never liked the Shkval though. Until the latest version which just uses its speed to get to the general location of the US sub before slowing down to home I just never thought they would ever hit anything except a slow, dumb surface contact.

As to Moose etc... Yeah but the opportunity cost of that is all the other ground-support operations he isn't doing. Personally I'd rather gain a strategic advantage through using the subs to supply the Kuriles than sink xAKs and a few DDs here and there in an attritional manner over months. Each to their own though.



Cribtop -> RE: No fleet, no problem... (4/22/2013 3:04:02 AM)

This should be great. Quite a challenge. Looking forward to your description of The Plan...



desicat -> RE: No fleet, no problem... (4/22/2013 3:05:58 AM)

Chinese DF-21D's capabilities are an interesting topic of conversation. The demise of US CVBG's has been foretold many times yet, on some level, they are a lot like Big Jake:

"Who are you?"

"Jacob McCandles."

"I thought you were dead."

"Not hardly."

--------------
As for the Moose, I'm not saying what he is doing is right or wrong, but he is using his subs as part of a strategic plan that he established from the outset and it is having an effect. You are proposing to use them in another manner, again to a specific purpose. In both cases you are avoiding following the IJN historical example of sending subs here and there looking for targets of opportunity.

---------------
Shkval: U.S. intelligence experts call the nuclear-equipped Shkval a "revenge weapon," since it would destroy its target and the submarine that launched it. Russian sources have disagreed with this assessment, saying that the double-hull construction of Soviet-built submarines could withstand the resultant nuclear shockwave. Some would say that Soviet Naval Doctrine established that all assets were expendable...at a price of course.



desicat -> RE: No fleet, no problem... (4/22/2013 3:23:14 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121
Of course, better yet would just be to get a dozen DF-21Ds, hook them up with some SAR intel and solve the problem in a single afternoon. I doubt the IJN has any SM-3s [8D]


Naval Laser's are getting more advanced. Soon they will become the primary defense weapon with missiles as back-up.

...and let's not even talk about Rail Guns!



floydg -> RE: No fleet, no problem... (4/22/2013 3:25:39 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Floyd,

Well I think China and Oz are in good shape on the land side of things. You did well in both of those areas. The aerial training is about average for what I've seen when I've taken over. I just tend to put huge effort into it since I view it as a crucial area. Obviously the navy is pretty hopeless though. There's just so little left and 90% of what is left is at the mercy of KB. But that's what makes the situation interesting.
ust never thought they would ever hit anything except a slow, dumb surface contact.


I made a concerted effort in Australia to fight back. I did luck out at Carnavron and caught him way out of position. And you see I do have some "extra" assets in Western Oz to hopefully ensure success. Just be careful of mini-KB lurking in that area.

At Daly Waters, I had begun the counter-attack after almost two months of positioning.

In China, Damian had two chances to make major breakthroughs, but never took advantage. Had had a nice armor thrust around Nanyang, and let it stall and allowed me to beat back his armor with my infantry. At Wuchow, he took it quickly, then never pressed forward, allowing me to bolster defenses and also stop him in his tracks (which is that big stack you referred to, I assume).

In Burma, I was too spread out (poor initial setup), so I decided to fall back and make him fight over poor lines of supply if he wanted to press into India.

As for pilot training, I admit I could have done better. But I did attrit a good amount of his airforce, which is harder to replace.



Nemo121 -> RE: No fleet, no problem... (4/22/2013 3:44:22 AM)

Well there's a few issues there:
a) going nuclear with a Shkval is a pretty big step if you aren't nuclear yet. Then again I have no doubt that if they were sheperding a Typhoon or Delta IV and they were fired on they'd be quite likely to fire a nuclear Shkval. If it took down the US sub and the Soviet SSN then that SSN died removing a threat to the SSBN and achieved its mission at acceptable cost (I'm assuming the Typhoon would survive due to double-hull plus stand-off ).

b) Personally, I think the Soviets might have had something there... THey had excellent metallurgists - witness the Alfa, for example. On the other hand I wouldn't like to trust my life to Soviet-era welders. Your scientists can take you so far but at the end of the day if the welder and the weld inspector are incompetent then that's the sub gone. The USN has recently had problems with that IIRC where the inspector signed off work they hadn't actually inspected etc etc.


As to the DF-21D. As with anything there are counters and as others have pointed out finding a USN CVBG at sea, IDing it and targeting it rapidly is a non-trivial task which I'm sure is subject to disruption. Then there are the SM3s etc and, as of yet, I don't think there's any evidence the DF-21D is MIRV'ed. Lastly, sure they're mobile but I'd be willing to bet that if anything ever came to pass those transporters etc would suffer a high rate of attrition.

Everyone always talks about the dangers of 1st and 2nd generation chinese-americans working in companies which do military etc work and passing secrets back to China but I've always thought that some 2nd, 3rd etc generation people of chinese extraction must have been able to pass various rigorous training regimes, been made to sound like locals of regions with various road systems which have been purpose-built or strengthened to support the DF-21D transporters ( several of these tracks have, from what I'm aware, been identified ) and are quietly working away as HGV drivers ( all the better to travel to and fro ) or somesuch nearby.

Obviously we'd only find out after the fact and, to be honest, China has the temperament to play the long game... a game it will likely win given the unlikeliness of the US engaging effectively in the long game and the likelihood of its economic etc ascent relative to America over the next 50 years.


As to the laser:
Aerial Shkval technology. Obviously there would be difficulties but I think the technology exists ( with a bit of development ) to disrupt a thin section of air around an incoming missile sufficient to attenuate lasers. Undoubtedly that'll turn into another arms race. I'm old-fashioned enough to prefer one piece of metal penetrating another piece of metal as my means of ensuring a high pK. I'm convinced all this new-fangled stuff will do much except make the systems more expensive, less reliant on humans whilst maintaining the same relative pKs as we've had since the 20s. It all comes down to Lanchester in the end - well, the salvo model if you want to really model modern pulse-like naval warfare. Same principle though.



desicat -> RE: No fleet, no problem... (4/22/2013 3:55:43 AM)

quote:

As to the laser:
Aerial Shkval technology. Obviously there would be difficulties but I think the technology exists ( with a bit of development ) to disrupt a thin section of air around an incoming missile sufficient to attenuate lasers. Undoubtedly that'll turn into another arms race. I'm old-fashioned enough to prefer one piece of metal penetrating another piece of metal as my means of ensuring a high pK. I'm convinced all this new-fangled stuff will do much except make the systems more expensive, less reliant on humans whilst maintaining the same relative pKs as we've had since the 20s. It all comes down to Lanchester in the end - well, the salvo model if you want to really model modern pulse-like naval warfare. Same principle though.


So much really cool stuff going on now. Reflective/reactive panels to thwart laser targeting, Rods from God, lasers that kill and target for SM's and possibly even rail guns.

Computer systems are a major weakness, be it cyber attacks or Cylons.



bigred -> RE: No fleet, no problem... (4/22/2013 4:01:24 AM)

Hi all.. interesting to watch Nemo w/ handicap..
1. IIRC you can amphib a non-base hex but will take 50% disruption.
2. Now we can bring back any destroyed sqn for PPs. So players can return a sunk CV based ftr grp and train 50 pilots w/ one naval air sqn since they are beached anyway.



Mac Linehan -> RE: No fleet, no problem... (4/22/2013 4:09:35 AM)

Nemo -

I would title this epic match "The Great White meets the Voracious Hammerhead - a Feeding Frenzy"!

This game was tailor made for you, Sir, as you thrive on the challenge!

Am so very pleased that you are back into the fray; I expect the fur to fly.


Floyd -

You are a competent and capable player, who has done so much for AE as part of the Tracker Team. AE is a 1600 turn game with so many variables and differing strategies, even the best laid plans can go awry. My respect to you for that which you have done right. There will be other opportunities at another time, Sir.

Gents - this is one to follow.

It would be best if the spectators stood clear of the Shark Tank... <grin>

Mac



Q-Ball -> RE: No fleet, no problem... (4/22/2013 4:55:05 AM)

Actually, I think CV losses are less of a problem than the cruisers. 4 CVs isn't wonderful, but by early 1944 you won't miss them much at all. The cruisers are a different story though; I think you'll miss them all the way until 1945.

The BBs will be very helpful though; it's fortunate he didn't lose too many of those



modrow -> RE: No fleet, no problem... (4/22/2013 7:37:09 AM)

Nemo,

welcome back. Good to see you have returned where you belong. But I'll postpone reading this AAR, as I decided to join the other camp. Not that I'll contribute anything useful... just wisdom of the crowds... or bloodlust from the peanut gallery [;)]

Have fun and get immersed once more in this wonderful parallel world.

Hartwig



modrow -> RE: No fleet, no problem... (4/22/2013 7:46:41 AM)

P.S: Did you notice KI-666 is now available in stock scenarios now ?

Just kidding [;)]



Olorin -> RE: No fleet, no problem... (4/22/2013 12:05:31 PM)

Obviously I will be following. Good to have you back Nemo.

Since the Japanese are about to be thrown into the sea in Northern Oz and since you still hold Horn Island and Perth, I am willing to bet that we will soon see you pushing into Eastern DEI. No fleet required, lots of dot bases still in allied hands. Together with land offensives in Burma and China and possible opportunistic invasions in (north?) Pacific, this course of action seems to me quite promising. I could be wrong of course :)

However, this assumes that your opponent is willing to switch to the defensive. Why would he do that? He has total carrier supremacy and can continue his advance in the Pacific and at the same time raid your SLOCs at will. You said you are going to risk the NZ-Oz route with your remaining tankers/transports. That's a big risk, imho. The space between Pago-Pago and the edge of the map is not that big, Japan can just park a few carriers+cruisers+destroyers+submarines there and cut you off completely (save the off-map route of course).



Canoerebel -> RE: No fleet, no problem... (4/22/2013 12:37:45 PM)

I am very thankful that Nemo's keeping an AAR (and I hope Damian will continue his).  Mirror AARs are rare.  Mirror AARs against two experienced and well-regarded players rarer.  What a treat to have this (these?) to feast on!



JocMeister -> RE: No fleet, no problem... (4/22/2013 1:18:11 PM)

This I will follow! (And take lots and lots of notes! [:D])



floydg -> RE: No fleet, no problem... (4/22/2013 1:22:01 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

Actually, I think CV losses are less of a problem than the cruisers. 4 CVs isn't wonderful, but by early 1944 you won't miss them much at all. The cruisers are a different story though; I think you'll miss them all the way until 1945.

The BBs will be very helpful though; it's fortunate he didn't lose too many of those


Yeah, there was a bit of a disaster concerning the CA's. I had about a dozen CA/CL/CLAA attempting to break up an invasion of Port Moresby. Didn't see the KB coming. I believe I was able to save just two cruisers.

Since Damian only sunk one BB on Day 1, I was able to repair a good number. Four are "waiting" in western Oz.



bigred -> RE: No fleet, no problem... (4/22/2013 1:36:41 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: hartwig.modrow

P.S: Did you notice KI-666 is now available in stock scenarios now ?

Just kidding [;)]

[:D][:D]



Elladan -> RE: No fleet, no problem... (4/22/2013 1:55:32 PM)

Ah, another AAR by Master Nemo, truly excellent news :)
[makes himself comfy on a sofa and fetches a notepad]

Do you think you will be able to hold onto Kuriles? That would be an excellent platform for keeping your opponent focused while staging an invasion elsewhere if nothing else.



witpqs -> RE: No fleet, no problem... (4/22/2013 3:08:19 PM)

A couple of notes for you:

- I hope you are using the most recent Beta. It is the least bug free and has the most enhancements. You will find that the player effort required to move pilots around (effort spent on pilot training) is massively reduced.

- Non-base hex invasions are fine. There have been no code changes AFAIK, but it was clarified by multiple developers in a thread discussion that non-base hex invasions were fully accounted for in the code. For one thing, some hexes do not allow invasions in their terrain code. If you have a look at the pwhex editor (I always forget who wrote that nice tool) you will see there is a code for that, the point being that a map or scenario designer can declare certain coastal hexes as not supporting invasions (00 = normal, 01 = prohibited). IIRC there are indeed some hexes on the map which have been defined as 'no invasion'. Maybe the swamp hexes near Rangoon? I don't recall.

Also, if you make non-base hex invasions then your troops suffer disruption, most especially in the face of opposition. The point is, it is taken into account and need not be HR'd against.



Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.0625