RE: Insert witty AAR title here - Sqz(J) vs. fcharton (A)

RE: Insert witty AAR title here - Sqz(J) vs. fcharton (A) (Full Version)

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

Message

SqzMyLemon -> RE: Insert witty AAR title here - Sqz(J) vs. fcharton (A) (11/2/2015 5:46:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lokasenna I think there's a lot of psychological value in the PH strike itself, as well as where it means KB is. If you put KB in the DEI right away, it reveals some things about your strategy. The PH strike is a great generalist approach and keeps your opponent guessing, to an extent. I couldn't agree more. I hope to have attention focused on the DEI and not a lightning quick strike against Australia. I hope Francois thinks Pearl Harbor strike, back to Truk to rearm/refuel and then off to help in the DEI, rather than Truk to Sydney. If KB was initially in the DEI, that could cause a full blown withdrawal resulting in the reinforcement of Australia with ships and LCU's from day one, which is the last thing I want.

JocMeister -> RE: Insert witty AAR title here - Sqz(J) vs. fcharton (A) (11/2/2015 5:55:15 PM)
I don´t really agree with that to be honest. I still feel PH is waste of time. The BBs are pretty much useless until 43-44 anyway and most importantly having KB in the DEI would have helped you secure the DEI lightning fast. The added shipping sunk (very little would have escaped) would have easily made up for the VPs from PH. You would also have had a good chance to sink force Z (which contrary to the slow BBs are extremely useful) together with those important cruisers. That being said if you can hold the timeline without KB I´ll stand corrected! [:)]

Lokasenna -> RE: Insert witty AAR title here - Sqz(J) vs. fcharton (A) (11/2/2015 6:00:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JocMeister I don´t really agree with that to be honest. I still feel PH is waste of time. The BBs are pretty much useless until 43-44 anyway and most importantly having KB in the DEI would have helped you secure the DEI lightning fast. The added shipping sunk (very little would have escaped) would have easily made up for the VPs from PH. You would also have had a good chance to sink force Z (which contrary to the slow BBs are extremely useful) together with those important cruisers. That being said if you can hold the timeline without KB I´ll stand corrected! [:)] The bolded section is not mutually exclusive with a PH strike. I didn't use KB for the DEI in my game, at least as much as I can remember... it's just not necessary. The BBs may not be useful until late 43 or 1944, but they're much easier to take out on December 7th and are worth hundreds of permanent VPs. Plus, every one that's missing for the Allies makes their job that much harder. Try invading places with only a couple of operable BBs sometime. It's not fun/borderline impossible.

SqzMyLemon -> RE: Insert witty AAR title here - Sqz(J) vs. fcharton (A) (11/2/2015 6:21:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JocMeister That being said if you can hold the timeline without KB I´ll stand corrected! [:)] A lot can happen yet Jocke. Japan doesn't need KB to sink Force Z either. If it runs, it runs, but if its committed to the DEI there are enough Japanese threats besides KB that can sink her. I think you are kind of missing my point about KB and the Pearl Harbor strike. Using KB in the DEI screams out "Hey, I need this wrapped up as quickly as possible so I can move against Australia or India" in traditional Phase II type operations. If I was an Allied player faced with KB in the DEI, I'd be looking at securing and reinforcing both Australia and India as quickly as possible. I don't want this, I want to encourage an Allied forward defence with a slower paced advance in the DEI coordinated with a Phase I invasion of Australia. Sometimes I think we get caught up in VP's and applying the most optimum strategies and lose focus on other aspects of playing a war game. I'm looking at things in terms of how can I possibly lead my opponent into doing what I want him to do, all the while setting things up on my end to do something unexpected. I've noticed many of the games follow the same script now, Japan does this, the Allies counter with this. It's all becoming rather vanilla. I'm not saying my planned invasion of Australia is original either, but it's tackling some of the same issues in a different way than the norm. Francois's a smart guy, he'll read standard play a mile away. I honestly think I need to stray from the accepted course if I'm going to catch him off guard. It's like poker, sometimes you just have to play your opponent and not the cards. Your points are well taken, but I'm following a different path this time around to make the game more interesting for me.

JocMeister -> RE: Insert witty AAR title here - Sqz(J) vs. fcharton (A) (11/2/2015 6:32:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lokasenna The bolded section is not mutually exclusive with a PH strike. I didn't use KB for the DEI in my game, at least as much as I can remember... it's just not necessary. The BBs may not be useful until late 43 or 1944, but they're much easier to take out on December 7th and are worth hundreds of permanent VPs. Plus, every one that's missing for the Allies makes their job that much harder. Try invading places with only a couple of operable BBs sometime. It's not fun/borderline impossible. The faster CA/CL/DDs and even some of the faster Aux ships are usually possible to get out when the KB isn´t around. These are also the most useful ships. With the KB in the area not even those could get away. While I agree the VPs are nice the problem with a PH strike (especially in DBB where followup strikes are very costly due to AA) is that not many BBs are sunk. I did invade places with only a couple of BBs remember? [:)] The BBs can be substituted by using air power which actually works better since you have 2-3 weeks of staying power and is easily restocked on sorties without big facilities.

JocMeister -> RE: Insert witty AAR title here - Sqz(J) vs. fcharton (A) (11/2/2015 6:39:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon quote: ORIGINAL: JocMeister That being said if you can hold the timeline without KB I´ll stand corrected! [:)] A lot can happen yet Jocke. Japan doesn't need KB to sink Force Z either. If it runs, it runs, but if its committed to the DEI there are enough Japanese threats besides KB that can sink her. I think you are kind of missing my point about KB and the Pearl Harbor strike. Using KB in the DEI screams out "Hey, I need this wrapped up as quickly as possible so I can move against Australia or India" in traditional Phase II type operations. If I was an Allied player faced with KB in the DEI, I'd be looking at securing and reinforcing both Australia and India as quickly as possible. I don't want this, I want to encourage an Allied forward defence with a slower paced advance in the DEI coordinated with a Phase I invasion of Australia. Sometimes I think we get caught up in VP's and applying the most optimum strategies and lose focus on other aspects of playing a war game. I'm looking at things in terms of how can I possibly lead my opponent into doing what I want him to do, all the while setting things up on my end to do something unexpected. I've noticed many of the games follow the same script now, Japan does this, the Allies counter with this. It's all becoming rather vanilla. I'm not saying my planned invasion of Australia is original either, but it's tackling some of the same issues in a different way than the norm. Francois's a smart guy, he'll read standard play a mile away. I honestly think I need to stray from the accepted course if I'm going to catch him off guard. It's like poker, sometimes you just have to play your opponent and not the cards. Your points are well taken, but I'm following a different path this time around to make the game more interesting for me. You might be right. But personally regardless of where the KB strikes I start preparing for an India or OZ invasion on the very first turn. And I think most allied players do. So I´m not sure a ruse is necessary. I think speed is much more important hence I think having the KB in the DEI would have been better in this case. Again, I might be wrong. [:)] Just make sure you don´t slip from your timetable. [:)]

KenchiSulla -> RE: Insert witty AAR title here - Sqz(J) vs. fcharton (A) (11/2/2015 7:40:03 PM)
One might question the importance of OPSEC in the first two months or so. Securing key objectives fast (Singapore, Palembang, Balikpapan and if Australia is important don't forget about Horn Island) is, in my opinion, more important. Nevertheless, I'm interested in what way you are going to use your fleet in supporting landings in Australia and how much time will be lost in transit and refueling opposed to a DEI support operation.

Lokasenna -> RE: Insert witty AAR title here - Sqz(J) vs. fcharton (A) (11/2/2015 8:23:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JocMeister quote: ORIGINAL: Lokasenna The bolded section is not mutually exclusive with a PH strike. I didn't use KB for the DEI in my game, at least as much as I can remember... it's just not necessary. The BBs may not be useful until late 43 or 1944, but they're much easier to take out on December 7th and are worth hundreds of permanent VPs. Plus, every one that's missing for the Allies makes their job that much harder. Try invading places with only a couple of operable BBs sometime. It's not fun/borderline impossible. The faster CA/CL/DDs and even some of the faster Aux ships are usually possible to get out when the KB isn´t around. These are also the most useful ships. With the KB in the area not even those could get away. While I agree the VPs are nice the problem with a PH strike (especially in DBB where followup strikes are very costly due to AA) is that not many BBs are sunk. I did invade places with only a couple of BBs remember? [:)] The BBs can be substituted by using air power which actually works better since you have 2-3 weeks of staying power and is easily restocked on sorties without big facilities. But you can't always bring the air power to stay. Doing so is predicated on KB being a nonfactor, either because of geography, value of the real estate in question, or it being sunk. And I don't think I've seen anything that shows you can completely substitute BB bombardments of islands/coastal bases with air power alone. Sinking/damaging the BBs at Pearl is about more than just the VPs from sinking them. Even causing heavy damage taxes the Allied shipyards for months or years, in addition to adding logistical strain to your opponent's brainpower. I'd rather hit Pearl and leave my opponent guessing as to where I'm going to send KB next than have KB mucking about in the DEI for a month garnering approximately the same number of VPs from sunk cruisers/destroyers as from 1-2 sunk BBs at Pearl.

BBfanboy -> RE: Insert witty AAR title here - Sqz(J) vs. fcharton (A) (11/2/2015 9:36:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JocMeister quote: ORIGINAL: Lokasenna The bolded section is not mutually exclusive with a PH strike. I didn't use KB for the DEI in my game, at least as much as I can remember... it's just not necessary. The BBs may not be useful until late 43 or 1944, but they're much easier to take out on December 7th and are worth hundreds of permanent VPs. Plus, every one that's missing for the Allies makes their job that much harder. Try invading places with only a couple of operable BBs sometime. It's not fun/borderline impossible. The faster CA/CL/DDs and even some of the faster Aux ships are usually possible to get out when the KB isn´t around. These are also the most useful ships. With the KB in the area not even those could get away. While I agree the VPs are nice the problem with a PH strike (especially in DBB where followup strikes are very costly due to AA) is that not many BBs are sunk. I did invade places with only a couple of BBs remember? [:)] The BBs can be substituted by using air power which actually works better since you have 2-3 weeks of staying power and is easily restocked on sorties without big facilities. I think some of you may have forgotten that Sqz tested attacks on PH to find a setup that gave best chance of getting the CAs/CLs and DDs there, but it just didn't play out that way in the PBEM strike. He is not blind to the value of fast surface combat ships. He just picked a different batch to attack than those in the DEI area (which will likely be sent into harms way anyway). There are enough random factors in this game that any strategy chosen will have plus and minus arguments and results. Let's see how it plays out!

Mike McCreery -> RE: Insert witty AAR title here - Sqz(J) vs. fcharton (A) (11/3/2015 12:12:54 AM)
Everyone here is an expert ;] Have fun with it squeeze!!

JocMeister -> RE: Insert witty AAR title here - Sqz(J) vs. fcharton (A) (11/3/2015 6:10:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lokasenna quote: ORIGINAL: JocMeister quote: ORIGINAL: Lokasenna The bolded section is not mutually exclusive with a PH strike. I didn't use KB for the DEI in my game, at least as much as I can remember... it's just not necessary. The BBs may not be useful until late 43 or 1944, but they're much easier to take out on December 7th and are worth hundreds of permanent VPs. Plus, every one that's missing for the Allies makes their job that much harder. Try invading places with only a couple of operable BBs sometime. It's not fun/borderline impossible. The faster CA/CL/DDs and even some of the faster Aux ships are usually possible to get out when the KB isn´t around. These are also the most useful ships. With the KB in the area not even those could get away. While I agree the VPs are nice the problem with a PH strike (especially in DBB where followup strikes are very costly due to AA) is that not many BBs are sunk. I did invade places with only a couple of BBs remember? [:)] The BBs can be substituted by using air power which actually works better since you have 2-3 weeks of staying power and is easily restocked on sorties without big facilities. But you can't always bring the air power to stay. Doing so is predicated on KB being a nonfactor, either because of geography, value of the real estate in question, or it being sunk. And I don't think I've seen anything that shows you can completely substitute BB bombardments of islands/coastal bases with air power alone. Sinking/damaging the BBs at Pearl is about more than just the VPs from sinking them. Even causing heavy damage taxes the Allied shipyards for months or years, in addition to adding logistical strain to your opponent's brainpower. I'd rather hit Pearl and leave my opponent guessing as to where I'm going to send KB next than have KB mucking about in the DEI for a month garnering approximately the same number of VPs from sunk cruisers/destroyers as from 1-2 sunk BBs at Pearl. I did several atoll landings with very few BBs. Worked well enough and I´m sure it would work without them too. [:)] Having BBs instead of CVs doesn´t change anything regarding the presence of KB? With the slow BBs you would still need complete control of the seas and air just as you would using CV/CVEs. Perhaps it comes down to personal preferences/taste? I don´t think the old BBs are very useful (at all) hence I don´t really understand why Japanese players usually do a PH strike.

Encircled -> RE: Insert witty AAR title here - Sqz(J) vs. fcharton (A) (11/3/2015 7:21:35 AM)
Reading to see how this pans out. I can't see an experienced Allied player not prioritising defending Sydney/Melbourne from Turn 1 though!

ny59giants -> RE: Insert witty AAR title here - Sqz(J) vs. fcharton (A) (11/3/2015 11:28:48 AM)
Sydney - supplies will tend to stockpile here to have over a few hundred thousand in a few months. Melbourne - smart players will stockpile (turn option to YES) to have some here. I increase required to get over 100,000 early in game. Turnaround - It will take month to get xAKs from greater Australia to USA. Another month to get back to Australia. For me, taking Sydney first is a priority over Melbourne in your plans. Add in its capture will mean any destroyed LCUs have no place to come back.

BBfanboy -> RE: Insert witty AAR title here - Sqz(J) vs. fcharton (A) (11/3/2015 2:14:46 PM)
Something I never paid attention to before - Melbourne has more aircraft plants than Sydney, and they are making Beauforts and Beaufighters, some of which can carry torpedoes. Hopefully you can take Melbourne before many of them are produced. There will still be American Cats though ...

witpqs -> RE: Insert witty AAR title here - Sqz(J) vs. fcharton (A) (11/3/2015 3:55:48 PM)
Was going to read both sides, but saw your early posts first and decided to stick to your side for this one. Good luck!

witpqs -> RE: Insert witty AAR title here - Sqz(J) vs. fcharton (A) (11/3/2015 3:57:47 PM)
Forgot to mention, I agree with your assessment. You must get Sydney isolated ASAP, and Melbourne too to the degree that you can. Australia is just amazingly weak in the early going. Air opposition at first will practically be limited to mosquitoes. The insects, not the airplanes.

SqzMyLemon -> RE: Insert witty AAR title here - Sqz(J) vs. fcharton (A) (11/3/2015 4:07:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs Was going to read both sides, but saw your early posts first and decided to stick to your side for this one. Good luck! quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs Forgot to mention, I agree with your assessment. You must get Sydney isolated ASAP, and Melbourne too to the degree that you can. Australia is just amazingly weak in the early going. Air opposition at first will practically be limited to mosquitoes. The insects, not the airplanes. Great to have you along for this one! It really comes down to what you say. I think Australia is very weak and even with some forts, the low experience of the Australian forces could be the deciding factor on whether they can hold or not. Speed is the key and I hope showing up 2-4 months sooner than Francois might expect will make things that much harder.

JocMeister -> RE: Insert witty AAR title here - Sqz(J) vs. fcharton (A) (11/3/2015 4:20:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon It really comes down to what you say. I think Australia is very weak and even with some forts, the low experience of the Australian forces could be the deciding factor on whether they can hold or not. Speed is the key and I hope showing up 2-4 months sooner than Francois might expect will make things that much harder. If you can indeed land they in January...I think its doable. But the UH will be tough even with low forts. Bring combat engineers and lots of arty! [:)]

Chickenboy -> RE: Insert witty AAR title here - Sqz(J) vs. fcharton (A) (11/3/2015 4:36:16 PM)
The problem with a January 1942 Australian invasion is the offensive OOB for the IJ. There's a lot that's not freed up from typical offensive operations until February-March 1942. Other than the 4th ID and some of the SNLF units that normally expand across the islands in the Western Pacific, I don't know what you can put ashore in a meaningful manner to capture a continent early. Also, the 4th ID is usually tasked with other pretty important SoPac objectives. Will you not capture Suva or Pago Pago or Noumea early in order to get the 4th ashore in Australia proper? If so, that's leaving a massive hole in your left flank. Did you use your first turn "supermove" for any of the Australian expeditionary OOB? If so, where are they now? Lastly, you know my bias on first turn strike. It's true that Kaga+ the two CVLs plus the CVEs can effectively support the amphibious landings in the DEI and do a credible job of expelling the Allies with all due haste. Which then would leave the balance of the KB sailing somewhere en route to supporting Rabaul invasion on turn 3 (leaving Philippine waters after a Manila strike in my example). How far out are your carriers from supporting initial landings on or around Rabaul or are you actually considering bypassing Rabaul en route to East Coast Australia (ECOZ)?

witpqs -> RE: Insert witty AAR title here - Sqz(J) vs. fcharton (A) (11/3/2015 4:48:06 PM)
All those things are true. And, getting Sydney and Melbourne are the main targets of an Australian invasion; the heat is off after that. Those will deny many factories and a great deal of supply to the Allies, making what follows easier.

Lokasenna -> RE: Insert witty AAR title here - Sqz(J) vs. fcharton (A) (11/3/2015 4:50:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JocMeister quote: ORIGINAL: Lokasenna quote: ORIGINAL: JocMeister quote: ORIGINAL: Lokasenna The bolded section is not mutually exclusive with a PH strike. I didn't use KB for the DEI in my game, at least as much as I can remember... it's just not necessary. The BBs may not be useful until late 43 or 1944, but they're much easier to take out on December 7th and are worth hundreds of permanent VPs. Plus, every one that's missing for the Allies makes their job that much harder. Try invading places with only a couple of operable BBs sometime. It's not fun/borderline impossible. The faster CA/CL/DDs and even some of the faster Aux ships are usually possible to get out when the KB isn´t around. These are also the most useful ships. With the KB in the area not even those could get away. While I agree the VPs are nice the problem with a PH strike (especially in DBB where followup strikes are very costly due to AA) is that not many BBs are sunk. I did invade places with only a couple of BBs remember? [:)] The BBs can be substituted by using air power which actually works better since you have 2-3 weeks of staying power and is easily restocked on sorties without big facilities. But you can't always bring the air power to stay. Doing so is predicated on KB being a nonfactor, either because of geography, value of the real estate in question, or it being sunk. And I don't think I've seen anything that shows you can completely substitute BB bombardments of islands/coastal bases with air power alone. Sinking/damaging the BBs at Pearl is about more than just the VPs from sinking them. Even causing heavy damage taxes the Allied shipyards for months or years, in addition to adding logistical strain to your opponent's brainpower. I'd rather hit Pearl and leave my opponent guessing as to where I'm going to send KB next than have KB mucking about in the DEI for a month garnering approximately the same number of VPs from sunk cruisers/destroyers as from 1-2 sunk BBs at Pearl. I did several atoll landings with very few BBs. Worked well enough and I´m sure it would work without them too. [:)] Having BBs instead of CVs doesn´t change anything regarding the presence of KB? With the slow BBs you would still need complete control of the seas and air just as you would using CV/CVEs. Perhaps it comes down to personal preferences/taste? I don´t think the old BBs are very useful (at all) hence I don´t really understand why Japanese players usually do a PH strike. Because they deal so much more damage in one go than aircraft do. They cause much higher levels of disruption and fatigue in the units being targeted. To get a comparable level of results from airpower, you need to strike for days on end, which is just asking to get beat up by KB or large packages of LBA. And as for PH, it ties up valuable yard space at PH or further delays their use as the Allied player sends them to CONUS so the transit times are added to their repair times. They're also chunks of permanent VPs that you can't get as quickly elsewhere. Most strikes seem to sink 1-2 outright, with some going up to 3-4. That's somewhere between 400-800 VPs that the Allied player will have to get at the end of the war. KB might add 120-150 permanent VPs in the DEI. I'd rather take the strike with the upside... plus sending KB to the DEI right away gives some of your game away.

SqzMyLemon -> RE: Insert witty AAR title here - Sqz(J) vs. fcharton (A) (11/3/2015 5:01:07 PM)
Gentlemen, I have a plan, really I do. Lets see how things play out. [8D] I'm still awaiting the second turn after all. [:D]

witpqs -> RE: Insert witty AAR title here - Sqz(J) vs. fcharton (A) (11/3/2015 5:13:45 PM)
In my current AAR/PBM I lost 6x BB at PH! [X(]

witpqs -> RE: Insert witty AAR title here - Sqz(J) vs. fcharton (A) (11/3/2015 5:14:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon Gentlemen, I have a plan, really I do. Lets see how things play out. [8D] I'm still awaiting the second turn after all. [:D] The only suggestion that I have is "Yeah, that's a good plan!" [:D]

SqzMyLemon -> RE: Insert witty AAR title here - Sqz(J) vs. fcharton (A) (11/3/2015 5:28:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs In my current AAR/PBM I lost 6x BB at PH! [X(] Go back and look at Francois's AAR against Spence. Spence called the results a Japanese wet dream. When I compared that one to mine I almost cried.

witpqs -> RE: Insert witty AAR title here - Sqz(J) vs. fcharton (A) (11/3/2015 5:31:34 PM)
Not all bad. The yard at PH was free for other duties. Francois has to deal with 8 heavily damaged battleships, which you can still sink later.

JocMeister -> RE: Insert witty AAR title here - Sqz(J) vs. fcharton (A) (11/3/2015 5:34:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon Gentlemen, I have a plan, really I do. Lets see how things play out. [8D] [sm=00000613.gif]

SqzMyLemon -> RE: Insert witty AAR title here - Sqz(J) vs. fcharton (A) (11/3/2015 6:10:28 PM)
Is it obvious I'd rather be planning and playing AE today more then working? I'm not sure when Francois is going to be able to send the next turn. I'm heading to Phoenix between Nov. 6-11 and suggested if he needs more time he might as well hang on to the turn until I return, as I won't have access to the game while away, If he sends the next turn before Thursday, I can have it back to him before I leave.

Chickenboy -> RE: Insert witty AAR title here - Sqz(J) vs. fcharton (A) (11/3/2015 6:24:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon Gentlemen, I have a plan, really I do. Lets see how things play out. [8D] No way. Don't interrupt us with your game's outcome while we're busy telling you what will happen apriori. [:D]

Chickenboy -> RE: Insert witty AAR title here - Sqz(J) vs. fcharton (A) (11/3/2015 6:26:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon Is it obvious I'd rather be planning and playing AE today more then working? I'm not sure when Francois is going to be able to send the next turn. I'm heading to Phoenix between Nov. 6-11 and suggested if he needs more time he might as well hang on to the turn until I return, as I won't have access to the game while away, If he sends the next turn before Thursday, I can have it back to him before I leave. Which reminds me. Do you have our turn done yet? [:'(] Thanks for the reminder about your time away. Would you like one of us to run your turns for you while you're away? [:D]

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

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.75