RE: Loss of 6 carriers. Help on moving on? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room



Message

rustysi -> RE: Loss of 6 carriers. Help on moving on? (6/11/2016 3:01:44 AM)

quote:

There is a fourth reason to consider reloads - you intended to learn something by giving a particular set of orders and you wanted to test an alternate set of orders. The idea is not to keep the best outcome, but to learn how the game works in all its wonderful complexity.


+1



DeZanic -> RE: Loss of 6 carriers. Help on moving on? (6/16/2016 10:29:30 PM)

That is why I played a frw of the scenarios. My personal goal was to at least have a draw with them before starting the big game. I thought that was enough tactical and strategic training.

I also think I will feel more pride and satisfactiion to know I managed to recover (hopefully) from serious mistakes and blows and win it in the end when the year 1946 comes.



HansBolter -> RE: Loss of 6 carriers. Help on moving on? (6/17/2016 9:12:14 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

There is a fourth reason to consider reloads - you intended to learn something by giving a particular set of orders and you wanted to test an alternate set of orders. The idea is not to keep the best outcome, but to learn how the game works in all its wonderful complexity. I have been at it for years and still find things to experiment with. e.g. I worked out that Chinese troops need a 10:1 raw AV advantage over Japanese infantry to have any chance of success. If the terrain or forts favour the Japanese, an even higher ratio is needed. If the Japanese have tanks and the Chinese have no A/T guns - fuggeddabouttit.



I haven't found that to be true. The AI Japanese can easily be overcome in China with 1.5 to one odds or even less.

Not by attacking, but by moving into base hexes with more than the AI can dislodge.

It will attack and attack and attack until it kills itself off.

In my current game I moved 3200 AV into Hankow with an IJA stack of 23 units occupying it with an AV of 2700.

After weeks of doing nothing but bombarding I now have 3100 AV to the enemies 700 AV.

Every time the Japanese recover to about 900-1100 AV they attack again reducing themselves to 500 AV.

The AI simply doesn't know how to conduct land warfare.

Soon I'll make the attack that takes the hex.



falcon2006 -> RE: Loss of 6 carriers. Help on moving on? (8/14/2016 11:30:35 AM)

Hey, dude, I feel sad about your loss. But I think my situation is even worse. It's only mid 1942, and I've lost all carriers I currently get. The Japs took Moresby, Philippine and singapore. On the good side, I have all obsolete battleships survived in the pearl harbor attack, and 3 battleships were sent to Australia to protect the supply line. But, with no carriers(I do have 3 British carriers in port Blair, but they were used to protect India), I can barely defend Australia and central pacific.



falcon2006 -> RE: Loss of 6 carriers. Help on moving on? (8/14/2016 11:34:04 AM)

Doc, you were right, then how can I fight this disease



mind_messing -> RE: Loss of 6 carriers. Help on moving on? (8/14/2016 5:44:40 PM)

The solution is as follows:

For Allied players - Open reinforcements screen, filter to CV/CVL/CVE

For Japanese players - Face the Imperial Palace, swear that your superior fighting spirits will break the Allied will.



PaxMondo -> RE: Loss of 6 carriers. Help on moving on? (8/14/2016 6:22:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter


Every time the Japanese recover to about 900-1100 AV they attack again reducing themselves to 500 AV.

The AI simply doesn't know how to conduct land warfare.


Its a script. You're taking advantage of it, but it's your game.

The AI knows what it knows. The game is both complex, covers a VERY broad area, and a very long time frame.

There are a number of ways to address the Hankow script, but it takes a fair amount of time to write those scripts. Given that only one person is writing everything, he can't possibly address every loophole.

I try not to exploit holes in the scripts. I'm even working on plugging the gaps. I'm not nearly as good as Andy, but the new editor is a HUGE help. Every game gets better...



Yaab -> RE: Loss of 6 carriers. Help on moving on? (8/14/2016 8:29:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

The solution is as follows:

For Allied players - Open reinforcements screen, filter to CV/CVL/CVE

For Japanese players - Face the Imperial Palace, swear that your superior fighting spirits will break the Allied will.



For Jap players - convert every merchant ship into a kamkikaze ship. You think a Montana class BB can handle a Tonan Whaler laden with long lances?



Shark7 -> RE: Loss of 6 carriers. Help on moving on? (8/18/2016 5:01:42 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo


quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter


Every time the Japanese recover to about 900-1100 AV they attack again reducing themselves to 500 AV.

The AI simply doesn't know how to conduct land warfare.


Its a script. You're taking advantage of it, but it's your game.

The AI knows what it knows. The game is both complex, covers a VERY broad area, and a very long time frame.

There are a number of ways to address the Hankow script, but it takes a fair amount of time to write those scripts. Given that only one person is writing everything, he can't possibly address every loophole.

I try not to exploit holes in the scripts. I'm even working on plugging the gaps. I'm not nearly as good as Andy, but the new editor is a HUGE help. Every game gets better...


This is similar results to what you will get if you manage to capture Noumea early in the war as the IJN. The AI will continue following its obsolete script that says move X,Y, and Z troop units to Noumea. You can virtually sink the entire allied amphibious fleet if you want to because the AI doesn't know to stop. So your only solution as an IJN player is to not try to capture Noumea in 1942 against the AI.



PaxMondo -> RE: Loss of 6 carriers. Help on moving on? (8/18/2016 11:03:15 AM)

exactly ... OR move on to another objective to supercede that script OR lose Noumea and take it back OR ....




SheperdN7 -> RE: Loss of 6 carriers. Help on moving on? (8/18/2016 7:12:29 PM)

Or play pbem where the script is non-existent[:'(]



Dili -> RE: Loss of 6 carriers. Help on moving on? (8/18/2016 11:29:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo


quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter


Every time the Japanese recover to about 900-1100 AV they attack again reducing themselves to 500 AV.

The AI simply doesn't know how to conduct land warfare.


Its a script. You're taking advantage of it, but it's your game.

The AI knows what it knows. The game is both complex, covers a VERY broad area, and a very long time frame.

There are a number of ways to address the Hankow script, but it takes a fair amount of time to write those scripts. Given that only one person is writing everything, he can't possibly address every loophole.

I try not to exploit holes in the scripts. I'm even working on plugging the gaps. I'm not nearly as good as Andy, but the new editor is a HUGE help. Every game gets better...


Paxmondo do you have a list of things to not do Vs the Japanese AI?



PaxMondo -> RE: Loss of 6 carriers. Help on moving on? (8/19/2016 11:48:18 AM)

Sure, search up prior responses for complete list ...
gist is:

1. no deep passes. Ex: as the IJ, don't bypass PI to take Palembang early.
2. Move on multiple fronts, allocating your resources accordingly. This is early war historically accurate. Both sides split their fleets to support multiple fronts. Don't form a single massive Deathstar. Ditto in China, no 40 unit stacks (except sieges like CK)
3. If the AI gets stuck, don't take advantage of it. either move forward or abandon your position. EX: as the allies either abandon PM early OR hold Rabaul and move back into the Solomons.
4. No restarts.
5. Ignore VP's. The Nasty, Nasty version fixes these somewhat for an AI game, but mostly they are balanced for PBEM, not AI games.

If you are playing Ironman on normal/hard, these concepts will easily get you a 2 year game (through '43). If you are playing a Nasty or Nasty, Nasty version on Hard/VH you can get +3 years easily ('44 and later). Stock scenarios are never going to challenge an experienced player. Decisions were made just before game release related to "realism" that essentially broke the AI concept. Ironman adds most of that back in. So, stock AI games are just for beginners learning. After that, you have to play Ironman versions as an AI player to have any challenge whatsoever. Not a big deal, but as a player, you have to be aware of this. Base Ironman is somewhat realistic (not a lot of fantasy). Nasty versions have a lot of fantasy (AI has ability to build units/replacements that historically would be difficult/impossible to support), but which GREATLY improves the AI ability to survive as it allows the AI to recover from at least one catastrophic event, in some cases 2 or more. The advantage of these 'fantasy' builds is that the game plays out much more like history; both sides had imperfect knowledge of the other, both were worried about 'uber-weapons', both sides had surprises. Ironman brings that feeling back into the game, particularly the first few times you play it.



Dili -> RE: Loss of 6 carriers. Help on moving on? (8/19/2016 6:21:43 PM)

Thanks, i have been aware that trying to holding Timor would break the AI, also that RAF base forces in Burma/upper Malasya coast left behind might stuck the AI in not advancing to Burma.



PaxMondo -> RE: Loss of 6 carriers. Help on moving on? (8/20/2016 1:32:35 PM)

re:Burma: not sure about this one. Most of the AI scripts have primary support scripts, meaning the script target has a support base which if lost will shut down the script and trigger a new one with its target as the old support base. What they generally lack, but there are exceptions, is enveloping scripts. Meaning, it a target isn't taken on the first attack, put that on hold and go after the surrounding bases to isolate it and then come back to the original target. But to do this, the bases to isolate need to exist, that's one reason why in Ironman is several areas a lot of new 'dot' bases are added. It allows better scripting because there is no way to get the AI to a non-base hex ...



Dili -> RE: Loss of 6 carriers. Help on moving on? (8/20/2016 9:41:33 PM)

Interesting , about Ironman how "realistic" is it? does not bother me if the AI have got more supply and that AI options and other such things but AI getting more hardware would be a step too far unless there is a reasonable explanation. I mean i am not to play just to have a challenge at all costs.



PaxMondo -> RE: Loss of 6 carriers. Help on moving on? (8/21/2016 12:51:23 AM)

Well, I rationalize it a couple of ways (remember I play IJ against allies)
1. Allies re-prioritize, europe first initiative fails as IJ is too successful. [;)]
2. I've modded the Nasty, Nasty. The fighter increase is with the P39 and then P51A. Both options get around the super-charger shortage that was the crux of the US fighter shortage until mid-43.
3. I've also modded the IJ engine production to be significantly more expensive for all Ha-4x engines to better represent the issues IJ had until '45 with their super charger (and twin charger) development and production. Turbo-jet engines are so pricey that they cannot be anything other than wunder-toys ... unless the IJ controls all of asia (literally).

OK, I've also modded a bunch of other stuff to make it more challenging ... but the allies do NOT get F4F's nor do they get Forrestal class in the game. Not even a single BUFF. [:D][:D][:D]



Kull -> RE: Loss of 6 carriers. Help on moving on? (8/21/2016 2:15:47 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo


quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter


Every time the Japanese recover to about 900-1100 AV they attack again reducing themselves to 500 AV.

The AI simply doesn't know how to conduct land warfare.


Its a script. You're taking advantage of it, but it's your game.

The AI knows what it knows. The game is both complex, covers a VERY broad area, and a very long time frame.

There are a number of ways to address the Hankow script, but it takes a fair amount of time to write those scripts. Given that only one person is writing everything, he can't possibly address every loophole.

I try not to exploit holes in the scripts. I'm even working on plugging the gaps. I'm not nearly as good as Andy, but the new editor is a HUGE help. Every game gets better...


Are you sure that attacking with poor odds is script driven? Because I see the AI do this in many locations, and not necessarily even on a base hex. I assumed the hard code decision process for when to initiate a battle was poorly written (or "overly optimistic"), since it would make more sense for the AI to not waste AV in situations where victory is literally impossible.

Also, do we know the hard-coded parameters that drive AI unit movement? For example, in China the Japanese AI will often chase after weak Chinese units that are in adjacent hexes (even non-base hexes) so that can't be script driven. On the other hand, the AI seems to be completely unaware of bases that are more than 2 hexes distant, so I wonder how much of the "go attack that base" code is driven by hard code versus script.



BBfanboy -> RE: Loss of 6 carriers. Help on moving on? (8/21/2016 2:42:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kull

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo


quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter


Every time the Japanese recover to about 900-1100 AV they attack again reducing themselves to 500 AV.

The AI simply doesn't know how to conduct land warfare.


Its a script. You're taking advantage of it, but it's your game.

The AI knows what it knows. The game is both complex, covers a VERY broad area, and a very long time frame.

There are a number of ways to address the Hankow script, but it takes a fair amount of time to write those scripts. Given that only one person is writing everything, he can't possibly address every loophole.

I try not to exploit holes in the scripts. I'm even working on plugging the gaps. I'm not nearly as good as Andy, but the new editor is a HUGE help. Every game gets better...


Are you sure that attacking with poor odds is script driven? Because I see the AI do this in many locations, and not necessarily even on a base hex. I assumed the hard code decision process for when to initiate a battle was poorly written (or "overly optimistic"), since it would make more sense for the AI to not waste AV in situations where victory is literally impossible.

Also, do we know the hard-coded parameters that drive AI unit movement? For example, in China the Japanese AI will often chase after weak Chinese units that are in adjacent hexes (even non-base hexes) so that can't be script driven. On the other hand, the AI seems to be completely unaware of bases that are more than 2 hexes distant, so I wonder how much of the "go attack that base" code is driven by hard code versus script.


I have always put this down to the hyper-aggressiveness of the IJA commanders and, as you suggest, the AI not taking into account all the info that should dictate caution. For example, I had two fairly strong Chinese units in a Mountain hex (Chinese controlled hexsides) and the AI marched in two IJA brigades. The Japanese proceeded to immolate themselves against the Chinese defences (terrain + field forts) and when they could no longer attack, the AI marched a division up to rescue them. After it entered the hex (through the one IJA controlled hex side), I sent a weak Chinese unit in to close the hex side and the AI did not respond to the threat.

Now all three IJA units are cut off from supply and unable to escape. A human player would have responded to the threat to the supply/escape route.



GetAssista -> RE: Loss of 6 carriers. Help on moving on? (8/21/2016 6:03:57 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kull
Also, do we know the hard-coded parameters that drive AI unit movement? For example, in China the Japanese AI will often chase after weak Chinese units that are in adjacent hexes (even non-base hexes) so that can't be script driven. On the other hand, the AI seems to be completely unaware of bases that are more than 2 hexes distant, so I wonder how much of the "go attack that base" code is driven by hard code versus script.

I played AI extensively, also a lot of turns with peeking into the opposite side to learn how things are done. As far as I can see, land AI has 2 mostly independent layers of behaviour.

First one can be called "strategic" and is driven by scripts, either historical ones, or reactions to somer major developments, mainly losses of bases. When reactions are fired, AI sifts through units in the theatre and assigns some to the task. Then they all march to the target no matter what. To the point of trying to go around blocked hex sides even if roadblock units are negligible. If a human player desides so, he can yo-yo strategically occupied AI hordes between 2 alternating routes forever by juggling roadblocks. The only 2 ways to get strategically occupied LCUs out of the mode is to either have enemy LCUs in their hex, or lose the target base to AI.
Second layer is "tactical" when AI is reacting to enemy LCUs in the adjacent hex. This happens when AI deems enemy as weak + there is no strong enemy forces in the hex or other adjacent hexes + AI LCUs are not strategically occupied. It is hardcoded and I'd say mostly detrimental to AI because human can easily lure AI out of fortified positions. I doubt it can be switched off selectively by scenario designer



Macclan5 -> RE: Loss of 6 carriers. Help on moving on? (8/22/2016 3:20:14 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kull

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo


quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter


Every time the Japanese recover to about 900-1100 AV they attack again reducing themselves to 500 AV.

The AI simply doesn't know how to conduct land warfare.


Its a script. You're taking advantage of it, but it's your game.

The AI knows what it knows. The game is both complex, covers a VERY broad area, and a very long time frame.

There are a number of ways to address the Hankow script, but it takes a fair amount of time to write those scripts. Given that only one person is writing everything, he can't possibly address every loophole.

I try not to exploit holes in the scripts. I'm even working on plugging the gaps. I'm not nearly as good as Andy, but the new editor is a HUGE help. Every game gets better...


Are you sure that attacking with poor odds is script driven? Because I see the AI do this in many locations, and not necessarily even on a base hex. I assumed the hard code decision process for when to initiate a battle was poorly written (or "overly optimistic"), since it would make more sense for the AI to not waste AV in situations where victory is literally impossible.

Also, do we know the hard-coded parameters that drive AI unit movement? For example, in China the Japanese AI will often chase after weak Chinese units that are in adjacent hexes (even non-base hexes) so that can't be script driven. On the other hand, the AI seems to be completely unaware of bases that are more than 2 hexes distant, so I wonder how much of the "go attack that base" code is driven by hard code versus script.


I have always put this down to the hyper-aggressiveness of the IJA commanders and, as you suggest, the AI not taking into account all the info that should dictate caution. For example, I had two fairly strong Chinese units in a Mountain hex (Chinese controlled hexsides) and the AI marched in two IJA brigades. The Japanese proceeded to immolate themselves against the Chinese defences (terrain + field forts) and when they could no longer attack, the AI marched a division up to rescue them. After it entered the hex (through the one IJA controlled hex side), I sent a weak Chinese unit in to close the hex side and the AI did not respond to the threat.

Now all three IJA units are cut off from supply and unable to escape. A human player would have responded to the threat to the supply/escape route.


In support of BBFanboy supposition / explanation ....

Please refer to the real life battle of Changsha January 1 1942.

Here is the wiki link. Some people discredit wiki for inaccuracies but I rarely find much very wrong with its WW2 history:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Changsha_(1942)


--

In essence the script is linear.

I do not deem the AI to be broken.

Merely that given its linear thinking it will not react in multiple levels of thinking. My home PC does not run Big Blues operating system either. [8D]

See situation X >> evaluate priority >> take resources 1,2,3 to capture X.

I think we all understand that and accept that.

Further I would not call it an exploit.

Real life events noted above supports the contention that real life Admirals/Generals can think in linear fashion.

What a player against the AI must really compensate for is ; 'nearly perfect historical knowledge'.

While there are bound to be certain tactics that exploit the inherent aggressiveness of AI scripts (relative to which of the 13 it randomly chose) this is not necessarily unrealistic given the real life example of the Battle of Changsa in 1942 for example.

The choice is to: (1) accept it for what it is (2) increase difficulty and accept it at that level or (3) play against a compatible human opponent







Dauntless42 -> RE: Loss of 6 carriers. Help on moving on? (9/24/2016 8:29:32 PM)

If playing the AI, all is not lost. I had a similar game due to some lucky Betty hits. Recon where the Japanese defenses are weak to non-existent. Land small groups of paratroopers either with transport/patrol planes or with sub transports (SST) to seize islands. Bring in Seabees by Catalina or sub. Pretty soon you will have a chain of useful bases. With this strategy and despite lack of carriers, by late 1942 my fighter squadrons were able to hop all the way from India to Pearl without getting their feet wet. Now I'm waiting for Essexes and Hellcats before starting the traditional ampib assaults.

Of course this would not likely work in PBEM. But the AI doesn't seem too skilled at counter invasion.

War hands you lemons. Make lemonade. Invent a new recipe if need be. The game engine gives you a multitude of tools to do so. Good luck!



DeZanic -> RE: Loss of 6 carriers. Help on moving on? (11/5/2016 12:39:49 PM)

Well its going good for the British for now at least, almost reconquered Thailand back. Preparing attack against Canton Island, Baker Island, Vanuatu and Funafuti and Guadalcanal simultaneously. Also a small feint attack against Wake is planned at the same time to deceive the AI. Considerably harde without support of aircraft carriers.

However, is it possible to build infrastrcuture. I figure if you can build airfields and ports you should be able to build roads and railways or am I missing something? I think it sounds logical.

Also, is there a smoother way to reorganize entire armies into approrpirate HQs. Because it seems to take forever to gather enough political points to make appropriate reorganisations. I would need more than 60000-100000 political points to make it as I want but I only get few houndred daily. Is this normal?



BBfanboy -> RE: Loss of 6 carriers. Help on moving on? (11/5/2016 6:08:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DeZanic

Well its going good for the British for now at least, almost reconquered Thailand back. Preparing attack against Canton Island, Baker Island, Vanuatu and Funafuti and Guadalcanal simultaneously. Also a small feint attack against Wake is planned at the same time to deceive the AI. Considerably harde without support of aircraft carriers.

However, is it possible to build infrastrcuture. I figure if you can build airfields and ports you should be able to build roads and railways or am I missing something? I think it sounds logical.

Also, is there a smoother way to reorganize entire armies into approrpirate HQs. Because it seems to take forever to gather enough political points to make appropriate reorganisations. I would need more than 60000-100000 political points to make it as I want but I only get few houndred daily. Is this normal?

Some players had developed a tool that allows building of railroads and roads, but the tool they use is outside the game and it modifies the map files so both players have to synchronize their construction changes once a month. The game itself does not model road or railroad construction. Building bases will help with supply flow through the base.

I agree that being able to organize the armies better would help the player, but war is chaotic and the game designers did not want the Allied player to be able to bring everything he has to the front in 1942, so the political point system spreads out your reinforcements.



Big B -> RE: Loss of 6 carriers. Help on moving on? (11/5/2016 10:19:22 PM)

Regarding your original Post (from May 14th), yes shame on you for forgetting to hit - then run...a painful lesson.
But as many posters have said already - all is certainly not lost.
You need to train up your land based air assets.
If you perhaps had done this at game start, in 4 or 5 months (by April or May 1942) you can have all your land based fighters trained up in 70's in air-to-air, experience, and defense skills (alternate between flying CAP and training Escort & Sweep). These will be perfectly able to trade blows with Japan's best air units and trade out about even in losses.
Now you can replace land based air relatively cheaply, but once the KB is drained of experienced aircrews - it goes downhill quickly for them.
And as for training Land based bomber and attack units - you can accomplish the same for their naval bombing and defense skills (though experience comes slower - but you can still get experience up to the upper 50s lower 60s before they see any action).

This combination of trained up land based air power (fighters and bombers) can easily give you the defensive bulwark you need for Australia, Burma/India, and the Eastern Pacific - that will keep the Japanese at bey until you are ready with a re-built Pacific Fleet - to give open battle with the odds on your side.

Many players seem to overlook the value of the massive land based air you will get as early as1942.

B

quote:

ORIGINAL: DeZanic

Hello

I have had a serious disastrous war for the last 9 months in this game. It is august 1942 and I lost a serious amount of carriers because of a failed attempt to attack Rabaul.

Now I am kinda locked and can't do anything I guess. Is this the point where I should surrender and start over?

By the way.. I do not reload savegames. What has happened has happened and cannot be undone. So that is not an option. I would like what I do in this case. Hints? Because I feel kinda depressed now.

Thanks for some answers and hints.

[image]local://upfiles/47767/A2EF359F6F364B46B68DB1F776E813BE.jpg[/image]




rustysi -> RE: Loss of 6 carriers. Help on moving on? (11/6/2016 12:07:10 AM)

quote:

political points to make it as I want but I only get few houndred daily. Is this normal?


If you're playing stock scen1 you only get 50/day. WAD. Don't know how many in mods or other scenarios.



DeZanic -> RE: Loss of 6 carriers. Help on moving on? (7/21/2018 6:23:33 PM)

Situation Report:

It was a long time since I have been posting here. Mostly because I have been focused playing. For now I am only able to do one turn per real day or sometimes even less. Today is the 31st July 1944 and if everything goes to plan I am expecting to end this game by the end of the year 1944. So in about 6 months real time. I have been playing for more than two years without and reloading due to mistakes made in the decision.[image][/image]

Many of the carriers were lost in the beginning so I was forced to change strategy. What I did was focus on India, Indochina and China. All men capable of fighting were sent to that theatre. Burma was never captured by the Japanese and by the end of 1943 Indochina was liberated and as I can remember Singapore by Christmas 1943.

Thereafter all the focus switched to liberating China. This battle is still ongoing. Mainly focusing on encircling and destroying Japanese forces while a heavy bombing campaing with bombers flying from Shanghai and nearby areas is devastating Japan.

The submarines are also operating from Shanghai and effectively blockading Japan.

Wake Island, Guam and Saipan were recaptured but considering the heavy losses sustained; I am not really interested in pursuing to occupy island wich in my opinion do not hold any value or are worth fighting for. I regret mostly attacking Saipan because I am not really sure what I would need it for. This was probably a mistake but on the other hand. Naval bombers are now patrolling the area and blockading any surrounding islands from being resupplied by the Japanese.

The Japanese carriers were finished of in a rather unspectacular showdown. They were lured and destroyed by the allied carrier forces. Since I have learned to play the game without carrier support, I am not really using them and I do not think I will need them until maybe an invasion of Japan.

The strategic plan is to recapture all of China and Korea and launch an invasion with the help of US, British and Chinese forces from there.

Summarized:

If no carriers are available and option is to focus on India, China and IndoChina. Make sure to know where the enemy carriers are and avoid them as much as you can. You do not really need to duel them.

Primary Objective:
-Liberation of Indochina. Needed to ensure no attacks can be launched from here.
-Liberation of Singapore. Needed to keep supplies going through here to reach Hong Kong and supply China.
-Liberation of Hong Kong. A big port is needed to keep supplies coming to China by naval routes.
-Liberation of Shanghai. From there submarines and bombers can operate against Japan.
-Liberation of all of China and Korea. To be used as a staging area against a possible invasion of Japan.

Any supplies convoyed to Hong Kong via Singapore should be heavily escorted.



[image]local://upfiles/47767/BF1C3C5A22684124A422E944D857DBD3.jpg[/image]



Chickenboy -> RE: Loss of 6 carriers. Help on moving on? (7/21/2018 8:34:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DeZanic
The Japanese have lost 3 CV and 1 CVL during this period. I don't know how man they have left.


Actually, if you traded 6 Allied CVs for 3+1 IJ CVs/CVLs, that's not so bad. [8D] Chin up.

In addition to the other advice (ship upgrades, new ship deliveries, training, etc.) mentioned, think about where you can use Land Based Air ("LBA") for covering your invasion fleets. USMC Corsairs and DBs can supplement your USN / RN remaining CVs.

Also, CBI (China, Burma and India) really don't require CVs to be prosecuted in a useful manner, so you can throw your LBA and LCU (Land Combat Unit) weight around there while you're rebuilding your USN CV fleet.

EDIT: Missed that this was a two-year-old necro thread. Looks like you've soldiered through. Well done. [&o]



Lovejoy -> RE: Loss of 6 carriers. Help on moving on? (7/22/2018 4:41:42 AM)

A Manchuria/Korea offensive would also have the added advantage of potentially accelerating Soviet activation. You don't need the Soviets, but they get some pretty monstrous artillery (Breakthrough Artillery Divisions IIRC) that are pretty nice to have when you've got a stubborn enemy.




rockmedic109 -> RE: Loss of 6 carriers. Help on moving on? (7/22/2018 6:32:29 AM)

Allied General Order Number One

Anytime you can trade the IJN one for one in any class of ships {CV, BB, etc}, it is to be considered a Strategic Victory. As allies, this is a war of attrition. Maintaining a one-to-one loss ratio will eat the IJN up. This attrition warfare goes for pilots as well {at least against the AI}. Whittle them down....you can replace the losses, Japan can't.



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

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.875