Playtest of Pacific at War 3 25 14

Playtest of Pacific at War 3 25 14 (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> After Action Reports

Message

larryfulkerson -> Playtest of Pacific at War 3 25 14 (12/19/2014 3:51:10 PM)
Thomas Harvey has sent me a copy of the latest version of his Pacific at War 3 25 14 and I thought it might be fun to playtest it. I'd like Thomas to be able to post stuff in this AAR from time to time to give us his thoughts as we go along and maybe comment on stuff as it happens. Anyway, I'll do a hot-seat of a game since there's no AI for either side yet. [image]local://upfiles/16287/D2DDB9CDF2334D75BF4F2285BDAEB832.gif[/image]

larryfulkerson -> RE: Playtest of Pacific at War 3 25 14 (12/19/2014 5:13:40 PM)
I booted up the scenario and started looking over the Jap forces and one of the first things I noticed was the Allied partisans. This has the potential to change the character of the game. Also, there are fewer Jap forces surrounding Hong Kong at the start in this version. Not a problem though. [image]local://upfiles/16287/9FE81049C2C54298B633A76E999B22B0.gif[/image]

thomasharvey -> RE: Playtest of Pacific at War 3 25 14 (12/19/2014 8:14:37 PM)
I would recommend the Japanese player send scout ships to Pearl Harbor and Singapore on the first turn to spot the ships for the strikes. Then do what the Japanese did in the war in the following turns.

larryfulkerson -> RE: Playtest of Pacific at War 3 25 14 (12/19/2014 9:12:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thomasharvey I would recommend the Japanese player send scout ships to Pearl Harbor and Singapore on the first turn to spot the ships for the strikes. Then do what the Japanese did in the war in the following turns. Sounds good....I'll try it. In earlier versions the first strike usually loses a lot of planes so I'll try one-dot attacks.

larryfulkerson -> RE: Playtest of Pacific at War 3 25 14 (12/19/2014 9:44:43 PM)
Something else that is different: the Manchurian Garrison starts the game in garrison mode. Makes sense. [image]local://upfiles/16287/244618EC88D04CA589E0F9A089E37D12.gif[/image]

larryfulkerson -> RE: Playtest of Pacific at War 3 25 14 (12/20/2014 2:17:39 AM)
In previous runs through this scenario I got good results dropping some paratroops near Khola Lumpur ( sp? ). So I did it again this time. It seems to delay the Allies getting very many combatants up to the Bangkok area. [image]local://upfiles/16287/2E30EEF075264666B8A846BB8AD129F9.gif[/image]

larryfulkerson -> RE: Playtest of Pacific at War 3 25 14 (12/20/2014 2:38:23 AM)
Here's northern China now. There's a lot of frontier perimeter to cover with only a handful of divisions so I railed in some more people but it's still got gaps and the Chinese are experts at getting into gaps. Acting as the Allies, I treat the partisans as throw away units, useful at getting into the enemy backfield to destroy bridges and deny the use of the railroad etc. [image]local://upfiles/16287/CEDE46B03B3F4FF0B8FEE58EA9B60485.gif[/image]

thomasharvey -> RE: Playtest of Pacific at War 3 25 14 (12/20/2014 3:04:19 AM)
The army in Manchuria is the Army that was left in 1945. I put it on garrison so the Japanese player does not move the units to other uses. The way to attack enemy fleets is to spot them with either a visible on map appearance, and or send a search ship to further locate the enemy fleet or fleets. Only then can you bring in your fleet within range and send an attack with naval dive bombers and or torpedo bombers that are set in different units. Set the fighter units on air superiority. They will act as escort automatically and also defend on the base they are assigned to. You do not send them. Make sure all aircraft are in range. After the raid, if any portion of the turn is left move the carriers away so they are not visible to the enemy on the next turn. The ships can't really be hit in port if there are ground troops in the port as the attack is spread over all the targets in the hex.

larryfulkerson -> RE: Playtest of Pacific at War 3 25 14 (12/20/2014 3:10:01 AM)
The Range of the KI-27 "Nate" seemed too long for to me so I looked it up on Wikipedia and here's what I found: [image]local://upfiles/16287/0976FA2E8D0D4A749D3FFE3E7987BD3C.gif[/image]

larryfulkerson -> RE: Playtest of Pacific at War 3 25 14 (12/20/2014 3:16:38 AM)
And here's what the equipment display says the effective range is for the Nate: So even if you use the ferry range that's still only 13.9 hexes. Round it off to 14. I'm guessing that for the game purposes it might be reasonable to use 3/4 of the ferry range ( to include using the drop tank ) for the effective range and that's only 511km and therefore only 10 hexes. So for game purposes I'm going to drop the range for the Nates manually to 10 hexes. I suspect the other aircraft as well. EDIT: I was confusing miles and km and my figures are off. I'm seeing the ferry range as 1100 km now and that means that the ferry range is 25 hexes so the range Thomas is using is okie dokie by me. [image]local://upfiles/16287/3316436AFB764DC5A1EABFEBEECC3676.gif[/image]

thomasharvey -> RE: Playtest of Pacific at War 3 25 14 (12/20/2014 3:41:14 AM)
The Chinese front should be a nonstop battle zone with no victory or defeat for either side. The Japanese player will need to breakdown some of his divisions into smaller units to cover the front. He will also need to send more troops to China to help out. The allies will want to keep the Japanese army engaged the entire war to soak up their forces to make less available for use in the island combat. However, this latest version has more Chinese units that should be good on defense but poor on offense. Hopefully the balance will be about right.

larryfulkerson -> RE: Playtest of Pacific at War 3 25 14 (12/20/2014 5:16:28 AM)
I dropped some paratroops on the bridge over the river Quwi ( sp?) and now the Allies will have to repair the bridge to get at my units moving into Malaya. I believe that I can get some land combat troops there unless there's an Allied unit between the bridge and the Jap forces. The paratroops may be behind enemy lines already. Besides they need a supply path to them anyway. [image]local://upfiles/16287/F4865631AA0444CBB21DB12207CB210A.gif[/image]

larryfulkerson -> RE: Playtest of Pacific at War 3 25 14 (12/20/2014 6:18:42 AM)
Here's the planes and ships of the Empire of Japan. There's a lot of planes on hand but that's because a lot of them are going to be used to fill up the units deployed already. And there's some ships listed but not assigned yet, that's normal. [image]local://upfiles/16287/E358CCBEF9804D32BE04474C2B06C18E.gif[/image]

larryfulkerson -> RE: Playtest of Pacific at War 3 25 14 (12/20/2014 6:28:59 AM)
I moved a BB adjacent to Wake island and the CD guns unit evaporated. I'm there as part of a multi-ship TF to bombard the air unit at Wake to try to destroy it before the transports carrying troops get within range in a future turn. [image]local://upfiles/16287/C478B3FCC736424CBE2B4A6DC902CE0B.gif[/image]

larryfulkerson -> RE: Playtest of Pacific at War 3 25 14 (12/20/2014 6:44:18 AM)
I was moving some ships into aircraft launching positions and none of the Allied ships were showing up yet so I thought I'd move a DD unit in closer and actually ran into the USS Arizona but at least now the Allied ships are showing up. I needed some search planes or something. Maybe I should have moved the carriers into their final firing positions so that the aircraft would have exposed the Allied ships. Something for somebody to find out. [image]local://upfiles/16287/9FC9D5C3EED04605A6E20EC5B7671387.gif[/image]

larryfulkerson -> RE: Playtest of Pacific at War 3 25 14 (12/20/2014 6:53:25 AM)
Something new with this version is spotter planes. Here's a Jake parked at Iwo Jima. It's got a pretty hefty range too. It can do any mission except Air Superiority. I'm going to move this plane unit to Guadacanal if I ever capture it. [image]local://upfiles/16287/35DE3FF08F8A466DA76D0424392ECEA4.gif[/image]

larryfulkerson -> RE: Playtest of Pacific at War 3 25 14 (12/20/2014 7:04:08 AM)
I moved some spotter planes down to near the Saigon area to see if they might expose some Allied ship or two but no joy. [image]local://upfiles/16287/04D10496CB274F3384DF07DF0CF83D63.gif[/image]

larryfulkerson -> RE: Playtest of Pacific at War 3 25 14 (12/20/2014 7:13:03 AM)
I found a place where there's three spotter aircraft hovering over the water instead of based at Iwo Jima. I'm thinking they need to be moved a hex or two rather than make the player move them manually. EDIT: I found a simalar situation at 91,65. [image]local://upfiles/16287/115BD474DBDE4377872521D0CC470778.gif[/image]

Chattez -> RE: Playtest of Pacific at War 3 25 14 (12/20/2014 1:50:36 PM)
If the Japanese are going to be successful, they are going to have to move harshly and quickly before the allies rebound. The clock is always ticking for the Japanese player. Japan can pursue a "western" strategy--invading India-- but it will require a full commitment of resources, including capital ships and carriers. But this means 1) removing the carriers from any use elsewhere in the Pacific; and 2) placing them in a vulnerable sea without much land-based air cover, for several turns. Alternately, the Japanese might pursue a "southern strategy", and try and cut off Australia from the US. Seizing the island bases means that allied planes cannot make the transit by air; and presents the allies with major problems in reinforcing Australia. Australia itself may then be invaded. But again, this will require a full commitment by Japan, and will place the balance of the Imperial navy where the allies can find it; and it will be without much land-based air cover. But a choice must be made, and made early in the game, since the Japanese carriers cannot be risked with impunity. A less risky, but more difficult, option, is to leave the conquest of India to ground forces alone. If Australia is taken (or at least invaded) one can assume that Japanese units there may not be able to be evacuated later (as the strengthened allied navies will then prevent that). But the allies will have to spend time liberating the area; and since Japan is playing for time, that may serve a useful purpose in itself. Finally, if any attempt at taking Hawaii is made, this must also be done early in the game. The allies must recoil from any early confrontation with the entire Imperial fleet; and there is just a chance that a successful invasion might be made on one or more of the islands. The Imperial fleet will have to rely on its only planes for air cover (no land-based planes), but early in the game the allies are not strong enough to penetrate this. However, this again risks the carriers, which Japan cannot afford to lose, should they fall prey to an allied attack.

Chattez -> RE: Playtest of Pacific at War 3 25 14 (12/20/2014 1:57:50 PM)
Remember, the control of the Pacific rests on "ten ships"--the Japanese carriers. As long as Japan has those carriers, its forces can go anywhere it wants, and close off the Pacific to the allies. Once those ten ships are lost, it is the allies who can go anywhere; the Imperial Army can only buy time. It must be the allied goal to destroy those "ten ships", and then move in on the home islands (securing island bases for air cover as they go).

larryfulkerson -> RE: Playtest of Pacific at War 3 25 14 (12/20/2014 2:50:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chattez If the Japanese are going to be successful, they are going to have to move harshly and quickly before the allies rebound. The clock is always ticking for the Japanese player. Japan can pursue a "western" strategy--invading India-- but it will require a full commitment of resources, including capital ships and carriers. But this means 1) removing the carriers from any use elsewhere in the Pacific; and 2) placing them in a vulnerable sea without much land-based air cover, for several turns. Alternately, the Japanese might pursue a "southern strategy", and try and cut off Australia from the US. Seizing the island bases means that allied planes cannot make the transit by air; and presents the allies with major problems in reinforcing Australia. Australia itself may then be invaded. But again, this will require a full commitment by Japan, and will place the balance of the Imperial navy where the allies can find it; and it will be without much land-based air cover. But a choice must be made, and made early in the game, since the Japanese carriers cannot be risked with impunity. A less risky, but more difficult, option, is to leave the conquest of India to ground forces alone. If Australia is taken (or at least invaded) one can assume that Japanese units there may not be able to be evacuated later (as the strengthened allied navies will then prevent that). But the allies will have to spend time liberating the area; and since Japan is playing for time, that may serve a useful purpose in itself. Finally, if any attempt at taking Hawaii is made, this must also be done early in the game. The allies must recoil from any early confrontation with the entire Imperial fleet; and there is just a chance that a successful invasion might be made on one or more of the islands. The Imperial fleet will have to rely on its only planes for air cover (no land-based planes), but early in the game the allies are not strong enough to penetrate this. However, this again risks the carriers, which Japan cannot afford to lose, should they fall prey to an allied attack. Remember, the control of the Pacific rests on "ten ships"--the Japanese carriers. As long as Japan has those carriers, its forces can go anywhere it wants, and close off the Pacific to the allies. Once those ten ships are lost, it is the allies who can go anywhere; the Imperial Army can only buy time. It must be the allied goal to destroy those "ten ships", and then move in on the home islands (securing island bases for air cover as they go). Excellent summary there Chattez dude. Thanks for posting. Now I know what I'm doing wrong....I'm trying to do all three directions at the same time. And welcome to the forum and for posting your verbage. Feel free to post your thoughts here.

larryfulkerson -> RE: Playtest of Pacific at War 3 25 14 (12/20/2014 3:12:39 PM)
Here's the result of one carrier's worth of planes attacking a stack of Allied ships. They received not a scratch and my planes were almost totally wiped out. EDIT: There were three carrier strikes and all three had results similar to this one. [image]local://upfiles/16287/FFD6A238C17E49598829AC17E2A7AB47.gif[/image]

thomasharvey -> RE: Playtest of Pacific at War 3 25 14 (12/20/2014 3:22:27 PM)
When shelling a land target from sea it is extremely important to have any BB at a range of two hexes from the target. (I fudged a little on their range as the scale of the map would not really allow for that but it is close. It is important they have the extra range reflected.) That way the BB does not suffer loss. Then for the other ships I recommend using only destroyers to fire when adjacent to the target. The destroyers will take losses but you get replacements for them. The cruisers can be in the hex if there are ground troops but do not have them do direct fire. Any ship doing that gets point blank fire from every gun in the target hex. In an invasion, the BBs safely fire two hexes away, the cruisers escort ground troops but do not use direct fire and the destroyers go in with direct fire. At the end of the combat some ground troops may still be at sea escorted by the cruisers with the destroyers having loses or wiped out. Any ground troops at sea without any escort are destroyed very easily by anything the enemy fires at them so avoid that.

larryfulkerson -> RE: Playtest of Pacific at War 3 25 14 (12/20/2014 3:34:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thomasharvey When shelling a land target from sea it is extremely important to have any BB at a range of two hexes from the target. (I fudged a little on their range as the scale of the map would not really allow for that but it is close. It is important they have the extra range reflected.) That way the BB does not suffer loss. Then for the other ships I recommend using only destroyers to fire when adjacent to the target. The destroyers will take losses but you get replacements for them. The cruisers can be in the hex if there are ground troops but do not have them do direct fire. Any ship doing that gets point blank fire from every gun in the target hex. In an invasion, the BBs safely fire two hexes away, the cruisers escort ground troops but do not use direct fire and the destroyers go in with direct fire. At the end of the combat some ground troops may still be at sea escorted by the cruisers with the destroyers having loses or wiped out. Any ground troops at sea without any escort are destroyed very easily by anything the enemy fires at them so avoid that. Great ideas. Thanks for this analysis. I think it's a great way to go.

Chattez -> RE: Playtest of Pacific at War 3 25 14 (12/20/2014 7:30:38 PM)
The combat results at Pearl look like what the US Navy expected to happen: no battleship could be sunk by airpower. Thus the battleships parked in rows at Pearl Harbor would have been safe, because they would have put up a solid wall of flak which would have prevented any attacking planes from getting through. (I think Kimmel found out otherwise, though...)

larryfulkerson -> RE: Playtest of Pacific at War 3 25 14 (12/20/2014 9:46:16 PM)
And this is from an email from Thomas: I saw your post showing an air strike with disastrous results to the Japanese. Something is clearly wrong here. When I do that with the same game version, but perhaps different naval rules in place, the opposite happens. All the American ships are lost with no losses to the Japanese aircraft. Did you assign the attacking aircraft to the stack of ships? Not the actual harbor but the ships? There is no need to send in the zero fighters on the strike as they automatically escort if they are within range from the ship they are based on. They have greater range than the bombers so they are always in range if based on the carrier that launched the bombers. If you attack with the fighters they actually attack the ships which can cause them losses and uses up their supply status. They have to do defensive work on the next turn in case you are attacked by the enemy so they should always be on air superiority to be safe. Getting back to the attack, there is something wrong. If you attacked the ships in this set up there is a defect somewhere. It should be a successful attack and it is when I do it on my computer with the current version of the game. The scenario totally fails as a concept is you can't have a successful air strike with that set up. The older version does a good job. Has the new naval rules made this happen? This scenario is based on naval combat and under the old engine, while not perfect, does a good job at it. It will not work properly just as a land combat scenairo.

larryfulkerson -> RE: Playtest of Pacific at War 3 25 14 (12/20/2014 10:06:21 PM)
I've formed a ring around Wake island so the Allies can't ship in some more troops and I've got all the ships assigned to do an airfield attack. I'll keep you posted on what happens. [image]local://upfiles/16287/481CCF2EA56443D7B59B27DA05AFB41C.gif[/image]

larryfulkerson -> RE: Playtest of Pacific at War 3 25 14 (12/20/2014 10:12:49 PM)
I went to the editor function of the game engine and loaded the scenario and then chose to edit the deployment of the forces and then the drop down menu shows the controls I can change and I notice that the attrition divider is set to 5 and I'm wondering if it should be changed to a different number for the new game engine so that the Jap air power is stronger and the Allied ship defense is less robust. Anybody have a preference where it gets set at? EDIT: Thomas informs me by email that adjusting the attrition divider will just change the losses for both sides at the same time and that's not the problem we're having here. Something else needs to be adjusted yet. I'm at a loss as to what slider or control or event it might be. [image]local://upfiles/16287/8E25C1F6826D4F71B348B42D861C68B8.gif[/image]

sPzAbt653 -> RE: Playtest of Pacific at War 3 25 14 (12/20/2014 11:21:53 PM)
The AD is the same for both sides, so I don't think that is the source of the issue. My first thought would be that the US planes are assigned missions and they are therefore intercepting when in fact they should be in church or sleeping off a hangover. If they have missions assigned, try unassigning them and see what happens. And as Tom said, attack the BB's only with your Torpedo and Divebombers.

larryfulkerson -> RE: Playtest of Pacific at War 3 25 14 (12/20/2014 11:29:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653 The AD is the same for both sides, so I don't think that is the source of the issue. Thomas and I agree with you. There's something else that needs adjusting I'm guessing. quote: ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653 My first thought would be that the US planes are assigned missions and they are therefore intercepting when in fact they should be in church or sleeping off a hangover. If they have missions assigned, try unassigning them and see what happens. Thomas informs me they were on "rest" status. I'll confirm and inform you if it's different. quote: ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653 And as Tom said, attack the BB's only with your Torpedo and Divebombers. You two guys are better players than I am. Of course that's the proper course of action. I have no excuse for my action except that I've obviously gotten in the habit from other games to assign some fighers just in case there's ever a chance that the fighter units all fail their morale check and don't fly. In this case they have such a high readiness and proficiency that they'll probably never fail such a morale check and WILL fly and there's no reason to worry about that. Okay. You win.

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.641602