quote:

Ground combat at Santa Ana (226,76)

Allied Deliberate attack

Attacking force 81585 troops, 1495 guns, 4262 vehicles, Assault Value = 3230

Defending force 119800 troops, 1466 guns, 1064 vehicles, Assault Value = 2995

Allied adjusted assault: 1483

Japanese adjusted defense: 989

Allied assault odds: 1 to 1 (fort level 0)

Allied Assault reduces fortifications to 0

Combat modifiers
Defender: op mode(-), preparation(-)
Attacker:

Japanese ground losses:
7630 casualties reported
Squads: 53 destroyed, 408 disabled
Non Combat: 22 destroyed, 145 disabled
Engineers: 24 destroyed, 69 disabled
Guns lost 219 (48 destroyed, 171 disabled)
Vehicles lost 122 (30 destroyed, 92 disabled)

Allied ground losses:
2835 casualties reported
Squads: 19 destroyed, 215 disabled
Non Combat: 63 destroyed, 63 disabled
Engineers: 2 destroyed, 24 disabled
Guns lost 117 (46 destroyed, 71 disabled)
Vehicles lost 149 (23 destroyed, 126 disabled)
Units destroyed 1

Assaulting units:
641st Towed Tank Destroyer Battalion
6th Armoured Division
8th Motorized Division
91st Infantry Division
3rd Marine Division
Provisional Tank Brigade
757th Tank Battalion
13th Armoured Division
2nd Armored Division
5th Armoured Division
44th Infantry Division
640th Tank Destroyer Battalion
2nd Army Tank Brigade

Defending units:
1st Division
2nd Division
4th Ind Engineer Regiment
4th Division
18th Tank Regiment
16th Division
12th Division
9th Division
1st Tank Division
6th Guards Division
5th Guards Division
22nd Air Defense AA Regiment
3rd Air Defense AA Regiment
22nd Fld AA Gun Co
2nd Hvy.Artillery Regiment
11th RF Gun Battalion
1st Fleet
305th Ship Eng Coy
18th Medium Field Artillery Regiment
1st Ind.Hvy.Art. Battalion
15th Medium Field Artillery Regiment
9th RF Gun Battalion
5th RF Gun Battalion
15th Ind.Art.Mortar Battalion
15th Air Defense AA Regiment
2nd RF Gun Battalion
7th Air Defense AA Regiment
10th RF Gun Battalion
1st Air Defense AA Battalion
8th RF Gun Battalion
7th Ind.Hvy.Art. Battalion
22nd Ind.AA Gun Co
3rd Hvy.Artillery Regiment
9th Ind.Hvy.Art. Battalion
12th Air Defense AA Regiment
2nd Air Defense AA Regiment
32nd Air Defense AA Battalion
12th Ind.AA Gun Co
56th JNAF AF Unit

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

Looking good! He had an Op Mode - in that battle, which must mean the troops just arriving from LA were still in move mode.
Even though he lost 500 AV in the battle he may have brought a lot more than that from LA and it will be ready to fight next round.
Can you bombard to get a handle on the new AV level?
Do you have a feel for his supply situation (AA guns firing, etc.)? I'm thinking your success in sinking all those AKs a few turns back would have set him back in his supplies.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

I don't see why you wouldn't move the troops up from San Diego now. There's no reason not to. The more pressure you put on his troops the better.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

Looking good! He had an Op Mode - in that battle, which must mean the troops just arriving from LA were still in move mode.
Even though he lost 500 AV in the battle he may have brought a lot more than that from LA and it will be ready to fight next round.
Can you bombard to get a handle on the new AV level?
Do you have a feel for his supply situation (AA guns firing, etc.)? I'm thinking your success in sinking all those AKs a few turns back would have set him back in his supplies.

Not sure I follow? [:)] The troops arriving from LA took part in the attack so their AV is accounted for?

Flak is still strong so I doubt supply is an issue right now for him. Losing 2-4 bombers per turn.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

Looking good! He had an Op Mode - in that battle, which must mean the troops just arriving from LA were still in move mode.
Even though he lost 500 AV in the battle he may have brought a lot more than that from LA and it will be ready to fight next round.
Can you bombard to get a handle on the new AV level?
Do you have a feel for his supply situation (AA guns firing, etc.)? I'm thinking your success in sinking all those AKs a few turns back would have set him back in his supplies.

Not sure I follow? [:)] The troops arriving from LA took part in the attack so their AV is accounted for?

Flak is still strong so I doubt supply is an issue right now for him. Losing 2-4 bombers per turn.

I've never been too sure that all the AV of troops in move mode is counted in the raw AV of a combat. It seemed to me that enemy AV next round always seems better than it was prior despite losses. Just an impression - I don't catch enemy troops in the wrong mode often enough to be sure. Usually the Japanese are hunkered down behind forts and my troops are the ones moving in.

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

Looking good! He had an Op Mode - in that battle, which must mean the troops just arriving from LA were still in move mode.
Even though he lost 500 AV in the battle he may have brought a lot more than that from LA and it will be ready to fight next round.
Can you bombard to get a handle on the new AV level?
Do you have a feel for his supply situation (AA guns firing, etc.)? I'm thinking your success in sinking all those AKs a few turns back would have set him back in his supplies.

Not sure I follow? [:)] The troops arriving from LA took part in the attack so their AV is accounted for?

Flak is still strong so I doubt supply is an issue right now for him. Losing 2-4 bombers per turn.

I've never been too sure that all the AV of troops in move mode is counted in the raw AV of a combat. It seemed to me that enemy AV next round always seems better than it was prior despite losses. Just an impression - I don't catch enemy troops in the wrong mode often enough to be sure. Usually the Japanese are hunkered down behind forts and my troops are the ones moving in.

AFAIK the full AV of the troops in other than Combat mode is counted. But, what I think you are hot on the trail of is that there adjusted AV will suffer the penalties of their mode, plus more vulnerability during various combat phases (artillery, etc.).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Crackaces

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

Looking good! He had an Op Mode - in that battle, which must mean the troops just arriving from LA were still in move mode.
Even though he lost 500 AV in the battle he may have brought a lot more than that from LA and it will be ready to fight next round.
Can you bombard to get a handle on the new AV level?
Do you have a feel for his supply situation (AA guns firing, etc.)? I'm thinking your success in sinking all those AKs a few turns back would have set him back in his supplies.

Not sure I follow? [:)] The troops arriving from LA took part in the attack so their AV is accounted for?

Flak is still strong so I doubt supply is an issue right now for him. Losing 2-4 bombers per turn.

I've never been too sure that all the AV of troops in move mode is counted in the raw AV of a combat. It seemed to me that enemy AV next round always seems better than it was prior despite losses. Just an impression - I don't catch enemy troops in the wrong mode often enough to be sure. Usually the Japanese are hunkered down behind forts and my troops are the ones moving in.

AFAIK the full AV of the troops in other than Combat mode is counted. But, what I think you are hot on the trail of is that there adjusted AV will suffer the penalties of their mode, plus more vulnerability during various combat phases (artillery, etc.).

I think one concept not being discussed is that combat results are from firepower not AV. It is my understanding AV simply determines if a retest occurs. I'm on my cell phone but I believe a good example is in my first AAR .. I caught the IJ trying to rail forces to Rangoon and I broke the rail line .. and then entered the hex with units in strategic mode .. the AV was around 1:5 as I remember but the results were 5 digits of IJ casulties armor. He strat mode

quote:

I believe you are right (it looks like auto-spell on your phone made "retreat" into "retest" ). The final AV odds are good for 1) "who owns the base?", and 2) "is a retreat tested for?"

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

BTW, are the additional units that you received as an invasion bonus restricted? What is their experience level? Is it growing?

quote:

Sub attack near Dadjangas at 79,94

Japanese Ships
AO Shiriya, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
AO Shiretoko
AO Hayamoto
TK San Ramon Maru
TK Ogura Maru #2
TK Nitiei Maru
PB Nishho Maru

Allied Ships
SS Tambor

quote:

Night Naval bombardment of Santa Ana at 226,76

Allied Ships
DD Chew
DD Ward
DD Hull
DD Dewey
DD Worden
DD Monaghan
DD Phelps
DD Strong

Japanese ground losses:
304 casualties reported
Squads: 2 destroyed, 12 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 20 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled

quote:

Ground combat at Santa Ana (226,76)

Allied Deliberate attack

Attacking force 93368 troops, 1755 guns, 4353 vehicles, Assault Value = 3786

Defending force 118821 troops, 1525 guns, 1436 vehicles, Assault Value = 2861

Allied adjusted assault: 1329

Japanese adjusted defense: 923

Allied assault odds: 1 to 1 (fort level 2)

Allied Assault reduces fortifications to 1

Combat modifiers
Defender: preparation(-)
Attacker:

Japanese ground losses:
3259 casualties reported
Squads: 13 destroyed, 176 disabled
Non Combat: 94 destroyed, 90 disabled
Engineers: 6 destroyed, 29 disabled
Guns lost 181 (16 destroyed, 165 disabled)
Vehicles lost 240 (106 destroyed, 134 disabled)
Units destroyed 2

Allied ground losses:
2079 casualties reported
Squads: 11 destroyed, 248 disabled
Non Combat: 9 destroyed, 46 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 31 disabled
Guns lost 97 (16 destroyed, 81 disabled)
Vehicles lost 268 (50 destroyed, 218 disabled)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

19th February -43
_____________________________________________________________________________

Turn starts with a nice sub attack. I rarely get anything off and even less rarely hit something and it explodes. So this was a nice surprise.

Is this the KB oilers?

quote:

Sub attack near Dadjangas at 79,94

Japanese Ships
AO Shiriya, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
AO Shiretoko
AO Hayamoto
TK San Ramon Maru
TK Ogura Maru #2
TK Nitiei Maru
PB Nishho Maru

Allied Ships
SS Tambor

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

With a PB in the TF (max speed 14), no that is not the KB oiler TF.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BattleMoose

Just caught up with this AAR and what a treat it was! It was really cool to see a Japanese player to attempt it and make a serious bid at it too. It makes me wonder if a WC gambit is even possible, he seemed seriously dedicated to it and still couldn't get through.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Pearl Harbor may not have been worth it for Jeff, but that doesn't mean it's never worth it. I've seen experienced Japanese players take it quickly, efficiently and at modest cost. (I'm going from very old memory here, but John III vs. NYGiants is a good example, IIRC.)

Taken the right way and under the right conditions, an early Japanese conquest of Hawaii might well be beneficial in a campaign to achieve AV through an early attack on the West Coast.

Some very bright Forumites have discussed, at length and many years ago, ways in which a West Coast gambit, or modified versions, could harvest the points necessary to achieve AV. Also, there have been other ideas, such as attacking industry to ruin CVE production (Portland!) or 4EB production, which may have merit on their own, apart from auto victory considerations.

Unless an Alied player is very, very negligent, I do think a West Coast gambit needs to happen early, before forts are built up.

A later WC gambit might be successful against a less attentive or experienced player, but Jocke's commendable attention to fort-building and garrisoning doomed Jeff in this case, I believe.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Pearl Harbor may not have been worth it for Jeff, but that doesn't mean it's never worth it. I've seen experienced Japanese players take it quickly, efficiently and at modest cost. (I'm going from very old memory here, but John III vs. NYGiants is a good example, IIRC.)

Taken the right way and under the right conditions, an early Japanese conquest of Hawaii might well be beneficial in a campaign to achieve AV through an early attack on the West Coast.

Some very bright Forumites have discussed, at length and many years ago, ways in which a West Coast gambit, or modified versions, could harvest the points necessary to achieve AV. Also, there have been other ideas, such as attacking industry to ruin CVE production (Portland!) or 4EB production, which may have merit on their own, apart from auto victory considerations.

Unless an Alied player is very, very negligent, I do think a West Coast gambit needs to happen early, before forts are built up.

A later WC gambit might be successful against a less attentive or experienced player, but Jocke's commendable attention to fort-building and garrisoning doomed Jeff in this case, I believe.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Pearl Harbor may not have been worth it for Jeff, but that doesn't mean it's never worth it. I've seen experienced Japanese players take it quickly, efficiently and at modest cost. (I'm going from very old memory here, but John III vs. NYGiants is a good example, IIRC.)

Taken the right way and under the right conditions, an early Japanese conquest of Hawaii might well be beneficial in a campaign to achieve AV through an early attack on the West Coast.

Some very bright Forumites have discussed, at length and many years ago, ways in which a West Coast gambit, or modified versions, could harvest the points necessary to achieve AV. Also, there have been other ideas, such as attacking industry to ruin CVE production (Portland!) or 4EB production, which may have merit on their own, apart from auto victory considerations.

Unless an Alied player is very, very negligent, I do think a West Coast gambit needs to happen early, before forts are built up.

A later WC gambit might be successful against a less attentive or experienced player, but Jocke's commendable attention to fort-building and garrisoning doomed Jeff in this case, I believe.