RE: The Gamiest Game in Town. El Lobo (J), vs. Rio Bravo (A)

RE: The Gamiest Game in Town. El Lobo (J), vs. Rio Bravo (A) (Full Version)

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

Message

obvert -> RE: The Gamiest Game in Town. El Lobo (J), vs. Rio Bravo (A) (3/6/2017 6:03:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PaxMondo quote: ORIGINAL: el lobo My cap faded to nothing during the seven morning raids but held strong through the five afternoon raids. more groups at a lower CAP setting is what you need for this. common when your opponent is using a large number of bases to attack your one. you can also LRCAP from another base or CAP from another base and use range to encompass. Both of these two techniques are less efficient than the first though ... eriks comment is correct, but not quite as precise as I like. meaning, I know what he says will work for most people, i'm just more picky. why? scramble to 10K for Zero = 5mins. for Jack = 3 mins. that's 2 mins they fight all alone ... 120 seconds in a dogfight where 2 sec bursts kill is an eternity in RL and the way Ian has built the A2A model. At least that is my outcome. I also freely admit to more than a modicum of OCD.[8\|] [;)] Not sure what you're saying about not precise? [;)] I was unbelieving for a long while about the specific low CAP all set below 10k, but it works in tests much better than anything else I've tested. Loka was suggesting I try a higher n to make sure I'm getting consistent results, and I've been able to slowly work through testing 20 times on each of several settings. He set me three groups at 31k, 20k and 10k to combat high sweeps, and I tried those against the low CAP. I'm just compiling and will post soon in my AAR. Pax, give me your ideal altitudes, airframes, etc to combat a 4 group P-47 sweep from 4 hexes. You have three groups of 45 planes, any airframes, to play with. I can test what you would normally do, and if I was a betting man, I'd say I could use the same planes and put in them in a low CAP at 9k, 7k, and 5k and they would do better. I'm starting to think I know why, but still working on all of the reasons.

PaxMondo -> RE: The Gamiest Game in Town. El Lobo (J), vs. Rio Bravo (A) (3/6/2017 11:04:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: obvert ...and if I was a betting man, I'd say I could use the same planes and put in them in a low CAP at 9k, 7k, and 5k and they would do better. I'm starting to think I know why, but still working on all of the reasons. correct. low alt multi-layer CAP clearly works particularly with IJ AC as most of them suffer much more performance loss at altitude compared to 2nd gen allied AC. You just want to be sure ALL of you CAP is in place at the same time. Those who arrive early to the party are easily killed by numbers ... or you can look at it from the opposite perspective, if a layer doesn't arrive in time, then it doesn't count in yo9ur tactic, just as if the group wasn't present.

obvert -> RE: The Gamiest Game in Town. El Lobo (J), vs. Rio Bravo (A) (3/6/2017 11:49:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PaxMondo quote: ORIGINAL: obvert ...and if I was a betting man, I'd say I could use the same planes and put in them in a low CAP at 9k, 7k, and 5k and they would do better. I'm starting to think I know why, but still working on all of the reasons. correct. low alt multi-layer CAP clearly works particularly with IJ AC as most of them suffer much more performance loss at altitude compared to 2nd gen allied AC. You just want to be sure ALL of you CAP is in place at the same time. Those who arrive early to the party are easily killed by numbers ... or you can look at it from the opposite perspective, if a layer doesn't arrive in time, then it doesn't count in yo9ur tactic, just as if the group wasn't present. It was trying the same settings with early Allied airframes that has been leading me down the road of understanding. It's not a blanket tactic to apply to any set of planes, and it does require some real attention to the specific planes and positions. While I keep trying to find a correlation for climb, I've not been able to do it. The IJ have so many good planes for climb, but the things I've noticed so far are that his manoeuvre airframes in the lowest bands (Oscar, A6M, George, etc) seem best in the ow spot, while the faster, more heavily gunned airframes work better up high.

Lowpe -> RE: The Gamiest Game in Town. El Lobo (J), vs. Rio Bravo (A) (3/6/2017 12:53:23 PM)
Obvert, test low cap versus Jugs with the lowest band a sentai of Oscar Ic and A6M2 please.[&o]

obvert -> RE: The Gamiest Game in Town. El Lobo (J), vs. Rio Bravo (A) (3/6/2017 5:36:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lowpe Obvert, test low cap versus Jugs with the lowest band a sentai of Oscar Ic and A6M2 please.[&o] Ha! The PDU-off version? [:D]

Lowpe -> RE: The Gamiest Game in Town. El Lobo (J), vs. Rio Bravo (A) (3/6/2017 5:39:52 PM)
Actually the A6M2 and the Oscar IIb would be better choices for the endgame PDU off version. I used Nates down low and in CAP traps in my last game in those dark days of 1944.[:)] There gets to be a point in most games where Japan is really scraping the bottom of the barrel for fighters.

el lobo -> RE: The Gamiest Game in Town. El Lobo (J), vs. Rio Bravo (A) (3/6/2017 11:22:12 PM)
This is great discussion guys. Please keep it going.

el lobo -> RE: The Gamiest Game in Town. El Lobo (J), vs. Rio Bravo (A) (3/6/2017 11:24:29 PM)
CHINA May 12, 1943 Turn 522 Meanwhile, back at the war. Way back when, I said I was going to close all the hex-sides at CK and Pax advised to be careful ringing that bell. Well, I did not ring that bell and Rio moved some troops out of CK. We will see how this develops. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ground combat at 77,46 (near Chungking) Allied Shock attack Attacking force 32271 troops, 0 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 1443 [image]local://upfiles/45493/DB316CA09DA54EBBBB65192498263442.jpg[/image]

obvert -> RE: The Gamiest Game in Town. El Lobo (J), vs. Rio Bravo (A) (3/7/2017 6:19:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: el lobo CHINA May 12, 1943 Turn 522 Meanwhile, back at the war. Way back when, I said I was going to close all the hex-sides at CK and Pax advised to be careful ringing that bell. Well, I did not ring that bell and Rio moved some troops out of CK. We will see how this develops. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ground combat at 77,46 (near Chungking) Allied Shock attack Attacking force 32271 troops, 0 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 1443 I don't understand your post here, but I'm not up to speed on the game either, so maybe you've explained it previously. Did you have troops here that the Chinese shocked out against? Over a river into a x3 hex? [X(] what does the rest of that combat look like? You only seem to have the Chinese side here. They should have been moving for over 10 days to get out. Do you have recon on Chungking? Have you been bombing the troops? As of now you should be able to obliterate those where they are for the air and move back in, then attack after about a month of bombing.

adarbrauner -> RE: The Gamiest Game in Town. El Lobo (J), vs. Rio Bravo (A) (3/7/2017 7:07:08 AM)
He has been bombing Chunking daily for about an year. Still, in his last attack less than amonth ago, he suffered 35.000 (!) casualties, against irrelevant enemy losses.

el lobo -> RE: The Gamiest Game in Town. El Lobo (J), vs. Rio Bravo (A) (3/7/2017 7:54:52 AM)
Sorry obvert, I did assume prior knowledge. I have been in CK for some time now. I have DAed and knocked forts down to five but all my DAs have been hard on my AV. I have focused on Chengtu for awhile but my DAs are hard there also. Right now my AV is building at Chengtu. However I have moved some Divs out of Chengtu with the intention of them going back to CK and do another DA. They got a little side-tacked on the way but will head back to CK in few turns. Yes, I did have troops there. I only showed the part of the CR which I considered important and that is that Rio has moved 1443 AV out of CK. The rest of the CR; -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Defending force 5570 troops, 37 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 195 Allied adjusted assault: 1378 Japanese adjusted defense: 109 Allied assault odds: 12 to 1 Combat modifiers Defender: terrain(+), leaders(+), experience(-), supply(-) Attacker: shock(+) Japanese ground losses: 3213 casualties reported Squads: 51 destroyed, 124 disabled Non Combat: 50 destroyed, 25 disabled Engineers: 2 destroyed, 8 disabled Guns lost 17 (5 destroyed, 12 disabled) Units retreated 1 Allied ground losses: 729 casualties reported Squads: 6 destroyed, 161 disabled Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 3 disabled Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled Defeated Japanese Units Retreating! Assaulting units: 4th Chinese Corps 120th Red Chinese Division 38th Chinese Corps 19th Chinese Corps 29th Chinese Corps 42nd Chinese Corps 129th Red Chinese Division Defending units: 19th Ind.Mixed Brigade I did not see his units moving. I will check back some turns and see if I missed the movement arrow or if there was one at all. Things have not changed there for so long I have become a little complacent. I do check my own troops for supply daily and his troops to see how many new units he has there. I am bombing CK troops and the air-field daily and with my troops there I would have thought that would provide sufficient intel. Would additional aerial recon possibly better shown his troops moving? As far as his troops being in 3X terrain, I hope they stay there and he does not move back into CK. If Rio follows his usual pattern, they will scatter like deer and I will have to chase them down. It is a good tactic on his part as it ties-up a lot of my units. Do Chinese troops ever die when they run-out of supply? If so, how long does it take?

el lobo -> RE: The Gamiest Game in Town. El Lobo (J), vs. Rio Bravo (A) (3/7/2017 8:54:32 AM)
Here is May 11, the same as some days prior. Movement arrow or not? [:)] [&:] [:)] [image]local://upfiles/45493/6AC0A339123149BC9A4ED98A5AFFB69B.jpg[/image]

PaxMondo -> RE: The Gamiest Game in Town. El Lobo (J), vs. Rio Bravo (A) (3/7/2017 11:59:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: el lobo CHINA May 12, 1943 Turn 522 Meanwhile, back at the war. Way back when, I said I was going to close all the hex-sides at CK and Pax advised to be careful ringing that bell. Well, I did not ring that bell and Rio moved some troops out of CK. We will see how this develops. I might have chosen a clear terrain hex available for him to move to ... like NW of CK ....

Lowpe -> RE: The Gamiest Game in Town. El Lobo (J), vs. Rio Bravo (A) (3/7/2017 1:22:50 PM)
Yep, that is movement dots. You know, I know someone, who knows someone, that uses a magnifying glass while playing WITP. Others take a screen shot and magnify the picture in Paint, etc. This happened to me in my game with Tiemanj...takes a division plus to keep that blocked off. Against Jocke, I simply moved the division in to close the hex, and on the day of the crossing, deliberate attacked with everyone else to help them. You can even use non combat troops like HQ to close off the hexside I believe. Never done it, but there you have it.

Andav -> RE: The Gamiest Game in Town. El Lobo (J), vs. Rio Bravo (A) (3/7/2017 7:42:07 PM)
quote: Way back when, I said I was going to close all the hex-sides at CK and Pax advised to be careful ringing that bell. Well, I did not ring that bell and Rio moved some troops out of CK. I think your comment to me was Rio was a Sneaky Rat Bastard. This is certainly sneaky and it smells like a rat! Wa

PaxMondo -> RE: The Gamiest Game in Town. El Lobo (J), vs. Rio Bravo (A) (3/7/2017 9:40:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lowpe You know, I know someone, who knows someone, that uses a magnifying glass while playing WITP. O Wonder if we know the same guy? [:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D]

witpqs -> RE: The Gamiest Game in Town. El Lobo (J), vs. Rio Bravo (A) (3/7/2017 10:00:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PaxMondo quote: ORIGINAL: Lowpe You know, I know someone, who knows someone, that uses a magnifying glass while playing WITP. O Wonder if we know the same guy? [:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D] [sm=innocent0009.gif][sm=innocent0009.gif][sm=innocent0009.gif][sm=innocent0009.gif][sm=innocent0009.gif][sm=innocent0009.gif][sm=innocent0009.gif][sm=innocent0009.gif][sm=innocent0009.gif][sm=innocent0009.gif]

el lobo -> RE: The Gamiest Game in Town. El Lobo (J), vs. Rio Bravo (A) (3/9/2017 1:51:37 AM)
Has anybody noticed that I changed my text size? I wounder why that is.[8\|] Rio is taking a couple of days personal time so there will be a lull in the war. In the meantime, a question, probably for Pax but anyone else is welcome. I am trying to make a scenario for testing and I want to eliminate all the movement, ground all air groups, ships stay in port, etc. I have saved-as Scen #2 to #31, gone through and set all the air group missions and targets to zero. But when I open the game, Scen #31, they are still set to their original missions and targets. I have rebooted and I have even changed the names of Scen #2 so it can not be referenced. Is this WAD or am I doing something wrong? [image]local://upfiles/45493/1DC8B0781A434B0280F2A369A0A8DC33.jpg[/image]

obvert -> RE: The Gamiest Game in Town. El Lobo (J), vs. Rio Bravo (A) (3/9/2017 10:11:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: el lobo In the meantime, a question, probably for Pax but anyone else is welcome. I am trying to make a scenario for testing and I want to eliminate all the movement, ground all air groups, ships stay in port, etc. I have saved-as Scen #2 to #31, gone through and set all the air group missions and targets to zero. But when I open the game, Scen #31, they are still set to their original missions and targets. I have rebooted and I have even changed the names of Scen #2 so it can not be referenced. Is this WAD or am I doing something wrong? What are you trying to create for testing? The full campaign scenarios are tough to modify because so much is already set up. I use guadalcanal as my testing start point and I've modified from that to include only the units, ships and air groups I wan to test. Now that I've gone through a few iterations, I'm pretty good at adding and changing elements if needed. If you go to the scenario panel you can limit the size of the board too. So if you just want to isolate some air battles, or fight some naval skirmishes, you can keep it in one area and the turns run very fast. You can also modify bases to have whatever size fields/ports you need and exorbitant amounts of fuel and supply so you don't have to think about any of that. If you do want to use a grand campaign and modify it for testing you can just do you modifications, let it run one turn, and then go into the air group box and simply turn off all air missions (stand down all groups) and then save that as a game file. Then adjust as necessary. I have a late game file like this but I found it take so long to run turns with that much stuff and the big map, that it works for me to use a smaller map area. Hope something here helps.

el lobo -> RE: The Gamiest Game in Town. El Lobo (J), vs. Rio Bravo (A) (3/9/2017 12:06:21 PM)
Hay obvert, thanks for the response. You have some good suggestions. I especially like the idea of using smaller scenarios and maps to limit the extraneous information and speed-up the turns. I modified and saved the first turn in some of my previous testing as you said but I was hoping for something a litter more sophisticated, but that's OK. That is probably what I will do again if I can't get the Editor to work the way I want. This may be wishful thinking but right now what I am trying to do is automate the testing procedure by using autohotkey. We can do some R&D mathematically and even introduce some randomness to somewhat emulate the game but I would like to be able to run five-hundred or a thousand game turns a dozen times. I am not a statistician but I know that a certain small number of turns can give you a decent representation. Thanks again.

GetAssista -> RE: The Gamiest Game in Town. El Lobo (J), vs. Rio Bravo (A) (3/9/2017 2:27:52 PM)
El lobo, you can dl my stripped-off test Coral Sea scenario I did for the research thread. It is attached into first post. With hundreds R&D factories in place and supplied

PaxMondo -> RE: The Gamiest Game in Town. El Lobo (J), vs. Rio Bravo (A) (3/9/2017 11:03:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: obvert quote: ORIGINAL: el lobo In the meantime, a question, probably for Pax but anyone else is welcome. I am trying to make a scenario for testing and I want to eliminate all the movement, ground all air groups, ships stay in port, etc. I have saved-as Scen #2 to #31, gone through and set all the air group missions and targets to zero. But when I open the game, Scen #31, they are still set to their original missions and targets. I have rebooted and I have even changed the names of Scen #2 so it can not be referenced. Is this WAD or am I doing something wrong? What are you trying to create for testing? Yeah, not knowing why makes answering difficult. What exactly are you trying to test?

el lobo -> RE: The Gamiest Game in Town. El Lobo (J), vs. Rio Bravo (A) (3/10/2017 12:01:09 AM)
Thanks GA. FYI. I downloaded it, un-zipped, and copied the files into the SCEN folder. When I clicked on #34 I got your Description but the scenario would not load. I opened it in the Editor and "saved as" to #35 and it loaded fine from there, but did not show your Description. Looks good and yeah, you have a BUNCH of factories.

el lobo -> RE: The Gamiest Game in Town. El Lobo (J), vs. Rio Bravo (A) (3/10/2017 12:02:16 AM)
Hi Pax. We are talking apples and oranges here, not as a comparison but two different subjects. My original question was as to why the Game would not reflect the scenario edit by the Editor. I'm still curious about that, but as far as testing it doesn't matter. obvert's suggestions and GA's scenario will work fine, but it would still be nice to be able modify them through the Editor. What I am playing with is automating the testing. I know, I should be reading AARs, but I like fooling around with this kind of stuff.

PaxMondo -> RE: The Gamiest Game in Town. El Lobo (J), vs. Rio Bravo (A) (3/10/2017 7:32:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: el lobo Hi Pax. We are talking apples and oranges here, not as a comparison but two different subjects. No worries, I get confused often quote: ORIGINAL: el lobo My original question was as to why the Game would not reflect the scenario edit by the Editor. I'm still curious about that, but as far as testing it doesn't matter. obvert's suggestions and GA's scenario will work fine, but it would still be nice to be able modify them through the Editor. Check the date stamps of the files. When this happens to me, it is because I am editting one folder and launching the game from another. (User error) quote: ORIGINAL: el lobo What I am playing with is automating the testing. I know, I should be reading AARs, but I like fooling around with this kind of stuff. NP, do that myself all the time. I have a dozen different 'sand boxes' myself.

obvert -> RE: The Gamiest Game in Town. El Lobo (J), vs. Rio Bravo (A) (3/10/2017 8:12:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: el lobo Hi Pax. We are talking apples and oranges here, not as a comparison but two different subjects. My original question was as to why the Game would not reflect the scenario edit by the Editor. I'm still curious about that, but as far as testing it doesn't matter. obvert's suggestions and GA's scenario will work fine, but it would still be nice to be able modify them through the Editor. What I am playing with is automating the testing. I know, I should be reading AARs, but I like fooling around with this kind of stuff. If you're testing R & D you still don't need the entire map. You can just restrict Scen 1 to the HI, then let her run. Stop it every 6 months or so to see what happened. I did this for about a 500 turn period to test pilots training.

PaxMondo -> RE: The Gamiest Game in Town. El Lobo (J), vs. Rio Bravo (A) (3/10/2017 10:28:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: obvert quote: ORIGINAL: el lobo Hi Pax. We are talking apples and oranges here, not as a comparison but two different subjects. My original question was as to why the Game would not reflect the scenario edit by the Editor. I'm still curious about that, but as far as testing it doesn't matter. obvert's suggestions and GA's scenario will work fine, but it would still be nice to be able modify them through the Editor. What I am playing with is automating the testing. I know, I should be reading AARs, but I like fooling around with this kind of stuff. If you're testing R & D you still don't need the entire map. You can just restrict Scen 1 to the HI, then let her run. Stop it every 6 months or so to see what happened. I did this for about a 500 turn period to test pilots training. Yep. one of my sandboxes is literally one island big. Nothing else. Another is just 2 islands, one allied, one IJ .... etc ...

el lobo -> RE: The Gamiest Game in Town. El Lobo (J), vs. Rio Bravo (A) (3/11/2017 1:31:17 AM)
Thanks all of you for your input. The program on which I am working is a shell that sits on top of the scenario on which you are working, and basically fires E and Y as many times as you set. You can put it on top of any scenario you have. Right now I have it on top of GA's scenario because it is the best one I have at the moment. (You could put it on top of the game also but it would be worthless.) It does not interact with the scenario. So far it works. I am working on the user interface such as setting pauses and adjusting turn cycle time. It is taking some time as I am having to re-learn what little programming I once knew and learning new syntax, etc.

el lobo -> RE: The Gamiest Game in Town. El Lobo (J), vs. Rio Bravo (A) (3/14/2017 1:27:03 PM)
BURMA-CHINA May 15, 1943 Turn 525 Swept Shwebo with two George units and then bombed. Moving-out of Prome, Rio moving-in. I am not sure what Rio is going to do with the units out of CK. They are moving west and I am bombing them daily to slow them down. [image]local://upfiles/45493/EF183B3FD52A4F07AB1640FB5DD41D67.jpg[/image]

el lobo -> RE: The Gamiest Game in Town. El Lobo (J), vs. Rio Bravo (A) (3/16/2017 7:24:47 AM)
BURMA May 16, 1943 Turn 526 This was a pleasant surprise. This flashed-by in the CR replay and when I opened the Operations Report this is what I found. Transports flying to 59,46 intercepted by 282 Ku S-1 (Mandalay) PO2 Nojima H. of 282 Ku S-1 is credited with kill number 3 PO1 Saito, S. of 282 Ku S-1 is credited with kill number 2 PO2 Mikami F. of 286 Ku S-1 is credited with kill number 3 PO2 Nojima H. of 282 Ku S-1 is credited with kill number 4 PO1 Saito, S. of 282 Ku S-1 is credited with kill number 3 PO2 Mikami F. of 286 Ku S-1 is credited with kill number 4 PO2 Matsuyama U. of 286 Ku S-1 is credited with kill number 2 PO2 Matsuyama U. of 286 Ku S-1 is credited with kill number 3 PO2 Matsuyama U. of 286 Ku S-1 is credited with kill number 4 PO2 Handa I. of 282 Ku S-1 is credited with kill number 2 PO1 Kumagaya G. of 286 Ku S-1 is credited with kill number 2 PO1 Kawasaki M. of 282 Ku S-1 is credited with kill number 3 PO2 Handa I. of 282 Ku S-1 is credited with kill number 3 PO2 Mikami F. of 286 Ku S-1 is credited with kill number 5 PO2 Mikami F. of 286 Ku S-1 attains ace status!! PO2 Kanda W. of 282 Ku S-1 is credited with kill number 2 PO2 Akashiba M. of 282 Ku S-1 is credited with kill number 2 PO2 Akashiba M. of 282 Ku S-1 is credited with kill number 3 PO1 Kumagaya G. of 286 Ku S-1 is credited with kill number 3 I gave Rio a bad time, accusing him of trying to land at my airfield. I said that the JFBs would get a good laugh on this one. He said, "Don't forget to tell them you lost a Helen... bla, bla, bla." Seems like a fair trade to me. [image]local://upfiles/45493/8C91A82FBA7F4C60AE1A1B1BBB567FEB.jpg[/image]

Page: << < prev 28 29 [30] 31 32 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.109375