RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons revealed in post)

RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons revealed in post) (Full Version)

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

Message

Lokasenna -> RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons revealed in post) (2/6/2017 9:45:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hotei Maybe you should not fight at all under those terms? What are you fighting for? Lunga? Is it worth it? Lunga may not be, but sinking those Allied CAs would have been.

BBfanboy -> RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons revealed in post) (2/6/2017 9:46:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hotei Also the ROE settings have a role? The only range of engagement settings I am aware of is the stand-off distance for bombardment TFs. The "react" setting has no bearing on range in battle.

Hotei -> RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons revealed in post) (2/6/2017 9:51:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lokasenna quote: ORIGINAL: Hotei Maybe you should not fight at all under those terms? What are you fighting for? Lunga? Is it worth it? Lunga may not be, but sinking those Allied CAs would have been. Naturally but that was not his mission in this battle, he was in a bombardment run that got intercepted. If it happened after the bombardment it would explain the result even more.

BBfanboy -> RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons revealed in post) (2/6/2017 9:54:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lokasenna quote: ORIGINAL: Alpha77 Yes, ergo the DDs and perhaps some of the CAs should have closed fire torps etc. then retreat back to the battleline (which in this case was only 1 Kongo BC). Also what should I do if Allies send 20 ships TFs vs. my 10 ships. Can I rely on that they perform so bad `cause of big TF ship number or am I outnumbered then ? Ah, but in WITP this does not happen. All ships are treated to be at the same range at all times, as far as I know. When it says "combat at 7,000 yards", then all ships are at 7,000 yards. It's an abstraction. Alpha77, if you check the ammo usage on your ships you will likely find that many of them did not engage at all. This is why a couple of TFs with 6-10 ships is better than one of 12-20 ships. Yes the enemy will have more ships in a massive TF, but a good number of his ships will not get to shoot either. So your smaller TF will typically engage, fire a good percentage of its ammo, take some damage and disengage. Then your next TF will show up and engage an enemy with damage/fires burning/less ammo/torpedoes expended. The enemy ships that did not engage first time around often do not engage in the second round of battles either as the AI is treating them the same as it did the first time (poor CO aggression or naval skills, low crew experience - whatever factors the AI uses). EDIT: I forgot to mention that the AI also seems to give a maneuver advantage to a smaller TF and there are fewer collisions.

Hotei -> RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons revealed in post) (2/6/2017 9:56:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BBfanboy quote: ORIGINAL: Hotei Also the ROE settings have a role? The only range of engagement settings I am aware of is the stand-off distance for bombardment TFs. The "react" setting has no bearing on range in battle. Threat tolerance setting has a role only before battle, deciding if you get in to one, not after you are engaged? I have read these things before but this is the sort of things that I easily forget and that could bite me in the ass. You can play this game with common sense approach but some concepts are dangerous if misunderstood. But there are so many variables that over analysis is also a very real danger.

BBfanboy -> RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons revealed in post) (2/6/2017 10:06:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hotei quote: ORIGINAL: BBfanboy quote: ORIGINAL: Hotei Also the ROE settings have a role? The only range of engagement settings I am aware of is the stand-off distance for bombardment TFs. The "react" setting has no bearing on range in battle. Threat tolerance setting has a role only before battle, deciding if you get in to one, not after you are engaged? I have read these things before but this is the sort of things that I easily forget and that could bite me in the ass. You can play this game with common sense approach but some concepts are dangerous if misunderstood. But there are so many variables that over analysis is also a very real danger. Threat tolerance is not about engagement ranges, it is about whether to approach a dangerous position or not. Set to "normal" and many TFs with no air cover will refuse to go near an enemy airfield with bombers on it. Set to "Absolute" the TF is more likely to ignore the threat but there are other factors that affect that too (TF mission, TF commander aggression, ship types, value of the troops/cargo aboard).

Hotei -> RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons revealed in post) (2/6/2017 10:14:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BBfanboy quote: ORIGINAL: Hotei quote: ORIGINAL: BBfanboy quote: ORIGINAL: Hotei Also the ROE settings have a role? The only range of engagement settings I am aware of is the stand-off distance for bombardment TFs. The "react" setting has no bearing on range in battle. Threat tolerance setting has a role only before battle, deciding if you get in to one, not after you are engaged? I have read these things before but this is the sort of things that I easily forget and that could bite me in the ass. You can play this game with common sense approach but some concepts are dangerous if misunderstood. But there are so many variables that over analysis is also a very real danger. Threat tolerance is not about engagement ranges, it is about whether to approach a dangerous position or not. Set to "normal" and many TFs with no air cover will refuse to go near an enemy airfield with bombers on it. Set to "Absolute" the TF is more likely to ignore the threat but there are other factors that affect that too (TF mission, TF commander aggression, ship types, value of the troops/cargo aboard). So no role in disengaging from a battle? I did not think it affected range in a battle but good to have that also cleared.

BBfanboy -> RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons revealed in post) (2/6/2017 10:19:30 PM)
I think disengagement is mostly to do with the TF commander's aggression and perhaps inspiration. Threat tolerance is about hex movement, not battle resolution by the AI.

Alpha77 -> RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons revealed in post) (2/6/2017 10:21:28 PM)
My ships had 100% ammo they did not bombard, but retreated after the lost battles. And is Lunga worth fighting for... NO, but the Allies want to fight there. If they had left me in peace building some facilities (like airfields, forts and pubs) I would use my ships and other stuff somewhere else. I was also shocked by the possibility to be thrown out there in late Apr. 42 / early May 42... and when did the Allies secure the area in reality ? End of 42 ? [:@] Also what if I do not fight there ?`Then I fight perhaps for Shortlands, Munda or even Rabaul (ecxept the Allies then have big bases at Tassa, Lunga and Tulagi and Kirakira) also they would have 4Es in range of Rabaul (even in escort range of P38!) SO if not fight there, where ? IN Tokio? You must draw a line somewhere were you make a stand (in 42!) I believe in 43 or 44 it may be better to retreat from such positions. But in 42 already - really ? [X(] Also note a bunch of Allied units are quite trapped there now, execpt the 10000 men that surrendered to my landing at Lunga (I know for the US these support units that were mostly there are easy to replace but still 10000 are 10000 right?) [:)]

Hotei -> RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons revealed in post) (2/6/2017 10:24:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BBfanboy I think disengagement is mostly to do with the TF commander's aggression and perhaps inspiration. Threat tolerance is about hex movement, not battle resolution by the AI. � That is logical and actually gives you a better command of the situation in hand, better to have different settings or variables controlling different aspects than mixing them.

BBfanboy -> RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons revealed in post) (2/6/2017 10:35:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hotei quote: ORIGINAL: BBfanboy I think disengagement is mostly to do with the TF commander's aggression and perhaps inspiration. Threat tolerance is about hex movement, not battle resolution by the AI. � That is logical and actually gives you a better command of the situation in hand, better to have different settings or variables controlling different aspects than mixing them. It's a strategic level game, never intended to let players control the tactical battles. The game engine just cannot support that level of player input, so the AI takes all the stuff it does have, adds some randoms (simulated dice rolls) and performs calculations that we mortals are not privy to. The end result is an "abstraction" and, as in real life, may include surprises that we may or may not like! [:)]

Hotei -> RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons revealed in post) (2/6/2017 10:55:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BBfanboy quote: ORIGINAL: Hotei quote: ORIGINAL: BBfanboy I think disengagement is mostly to do with the TF commander's aggression and perhaps inspiration. Threat tolerance is about hex movement, not battle resolution by the AI. � That is logical and actually gives you a better command of the situation in hand, better to have different settings or variables controlling different aspects than mixing them. It's a strategic level game, never intended to let players control the tactical battles. The game engine just cannot support that level of player input, so the AI takes all the stuff it does have, adds some randoms (simulated dice rolls) and performs calculations that we mortals are not privy to. The end result is an "abstraction" and, as in real life, may include surprises that we may or may not like! [:)] I do think it has strong tactical elements that you get to control, in sea and air combat especially, but I agree that the game strikes an excellent balance with the strategic, operative and tactical levels.

Hotei -> RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons revealed in post) (2/6/2017 11:16:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alpha77 My ships had 100% ammo they did not bombard, but retreated after the lost battles. And is Lunga worth fighting for... NO, but the Allies want to fight there. If they had left me in peace building some facilities (like airfields, forts and pubs) I would use my ships and other stuff somewhere else. I was also shocked by the possibility to be thrown out there in late Apr. 42 / early May 42... and when did the Allies secure the area in reality ? End of 42 ? [:@] Also what if I do not fight there ?`Then I fight perhaps for Shortlands, Munda or even Rabaul (ecxept the Allies then have big bases at Tassa, Lunga and Tulagi and Kirakira) also they would have 4Es in range of Rabaul (even in escort range of P38!) SO if not fight there, where ? IN Tokio? You must draw a line somewhere were you make a stand (in 42!) I believe in 43 or 44 it may be better to retreat from such positions. But in 42 already - really ? [X(] Also note a bunch of Allied units are quite trapped there now, execpt the 10000 men that surrendered to my landing at Lunga (I know for the US these support units that were mostly there are easy to replace but still 10000 are 10000 right?) [:)] If you can win air superiority you should fight him as you will get to destroy all the troops and ships he has committed. He would have to commit his carriers to save them and you could get an opportunity to destroy those also. Anything else is most likely not worth it, you dont have to draw a line in the sand but force him to draw one in bad ground or stick his neck up in the wrong place.

SheperdN7 -> RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons revealed in post) (2/6/2017 11:40:36 PM)
Kongo class ships are good as small raiding TF's as they can slip in and out due to their high speed. Personally I use them for Air Combat TF escorts as their AAA is adequate and they can survive a lot of bomb hits. All other IJN BB's I will use in surface combat TF's and I ALWAYS make sure to put the Nagato's with Yamato + Musashi as when they are combined they can rain down impressive amounts of firepower. The Fuso's and Ise's are a toss up to convert to their hybrid states and if I do that they will be used to escort the Mini Butai. If I don't convert, Put them all into SF TF's and let them unleash Hades on any enemy SF TF. Also I will never ever EVER leave the CS ships as they are. Not even a toss up on whether to convert those.

Hotei -> RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons revealed in post) (2/6/2017 11:45:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SheperdN7 Kongo class ships are good as small raiding TF's as they can slip in and out due to their high speed. Personally I use them for Air Combat TF escorts as their AAA is adequate and they can survive a lot of bomb hits. All other IJN BB's I will use in surface combat TF's and I ALWAYS make sure to put the Nagato's with Yamato + Musashi as when they are combined they can rain down impressive amounts of firepower. The Fuso's and Ise's are a toss up to convert to their hybrid states and if I do that they will be used to escort the Mini Butai. If I don't convert, Put them all into SF TF's and let them unleash Hades on any enemy SF TF. Also I will never ever EVER leave the CS ships as they are. Not even a toss up on whether to convert those. � They actually work well together? Never tried, just assumed they would not work well.

Lokasenna -> RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons revealed in post) (2/6/2017 11:46:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SheperdN7 Kongo class ships are good as small raiding TF's as they can slip in and out due to their high speed. Personally I use them for Air Combat TF escorts as their AAA is adequate and they can survive a lot of bomb hits. All other IJN BB's I will use in surface combat TF's and I ALWAYS make sure to put the Nagato's with Yamato + Musashi as when they are combined they can rain down impressive amounts of firepower. The Fuso's and Ise's are a toss up to convert to their hybrid states and if I do that they will be used to escort the Mini Butai. If I don't convert, Put them all into SF TF's and let them unleash Hades on any enemy SF TF. Also I will never ever EVER leave the CS ships as they are. Not even a toss up on whether to convert those. Eh, 2 of the CS ships are slow. Chitose/Chiyoda is a no-brainer, but Mizuho/Nisshin is not.

wdolson -> RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons revealed in post) (2/7/2017 2:30:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SheperdN7 I would add in the Katori class CL's, poor main armament and no long lance. BLAH. The Katoris were training ships pressed into frontline service. They were incredibly slow for cruisers, but were better than most IJN CLs in service at the time because the IJN CLs were mostly very old ships that were really large DDs compared to US CLs which were, for the most part, very similar to US CAs with smaller caliber guns. Bill

rustysi -> RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons revealed in post) (2/7/2017 2:50:35 AM)
To me it all about air power. I don't want any type of surface combat! Now in the beginning I know I must have SCTF's about because my Allied opponent will have them out there because its his only option. Beyond that my BB's are merely adjuncts of the CV forces and will operate as AAA platforms when my carriers are out and about. If this drains my fuel, well its like I've said, its all about air power. No CV's, no naval air power, game over, and BB's are good CV protectors. Even in bombardment TF's, if I expect/suspect enemy SCTF's to be in the area, they will not go in to engage. I will either have to take care of the area in question with my air power or withdraw. It seems to me the OP is talking early '42 here, a time in which he should still have adequate air superiority any place he wishes to impose it. Now I'm talking about LBA here. That to me is the answer to maintaining dominance is the Solomons in 1942. In addition if needed the the KB at this time is still the 600lb. gorilla in the room. She can mop-up what's left, all the time being under her own protection of additional LBA.

rustysi -> RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons revealed in post) (2/7/2017 3:22:36 AM)
quote: Decided to post in main forum, almost no one reads this "AAR" ok, it is probably not as good an AAR like most others TBH I've only read AAR's related to stock scen1. I feel this is the only version of the game I wish to play. Since I'm still learning, even after years of effort, why confuse the issue with scenarios/mods that are irrelevant to myself. Therefore sir while I imagine the quality of your AAR is at least adequate, I will refrain from reading it. Now will the gorn and AW1 please get a move on.[:D] OK, sorry Steve. Come on gorn, get the lead out.[:'(]

obvert -> RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons revealed in post) (2/7/2017 6:03:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lokasenna quote: ORIGINAL: SheperdN7 Kongo class ships are good as small raiding TF's as they can slip in and out due to their high speed. Personally I use them for Air Combat TF escorts as their AAA is adequate and they can survive a lot of bomb hits. All other IJN BB's I will use in surface combat TF's and I ALWAYS make sure to put the Nagato's with Yamato + Musashi as when they are combined they can rain down impressive amounts of firepower. The Fuso's and Ise's are a toss up to convert to their hybrid states and if I do that they will be used to escort the Mini Butai. If I don't convert, Put them all into SF TF's and let them unleash Hades on any enemy SF TF. Also I will never ever EVER leave the CS ships as they are. Not even a toss up on whether to convert those. Eh, 2 of the CS ships are slow. Chitose/Chiyoda is a no-brainer, but Mizuho/Nisshin is not. The FP cruisers can be useful throughout 43, but only if they're not converting to CVL. [:)] The conversion times are very long, and this is the time when the IJN needs to fight CV battles. So, do you want to do that with 48-60 extra CAP in the form of N1K1 Rex? Or have them all nice and upgraded ready to join the now decimated KB in later 43? [:D] Personally I like the CS cruisers as they are, and they have a combo of Rex FF and some Jakes/Norms to increase search for the KB/Mini-KB.

Lokasenna -> RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons revealed in post) (2/7/2017 6:14:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: obvert quote: ORIGINAL: Lokasenna quote: ORIGINAL: SheperdN7 Kongo class ships are good as small raiding TF's as they can slip in and out due to their high speed. Personally I use them for Air Combat TF escorts as their AAA is adequate and they can survive a lot of bomb hits. All other IJN BB's I will use in surface combat TF's and I ALWAYS make sure to put the Nagato's with Yamato + Musashi as when they are combined they can rain down impressive amounts of firepower. The Fuso's and Ise's are a toss up to convert to their hybrid states and if I do that they will be used to escort the Mini Butai. If I don't convert, Put them all into SF TF's and let them unleash Hades on any enemy SF TF. Also I will never ever EVER leave the CS ships as they are. Not even a toss up on whether to convert those. Eh, 2 of the CS ships are slow. Chitose/Chiyoda is a no-brainer, but Mizuho/Nisshin is not. The FP cruisers can be useful throughout 43, but only if they're not converting to CVL. [:)] The conversion times are very long, and this is the time when the IJN needs to fight CV battles. So, do you want to do that with 48-60 extra CAP in the form of N1K1 Rex? Or have them all nice and upgraded ready to join the now decimated KB in later 43? [:D] Personally I like the CS cruisers as they are, and they have a combo of Rex FF and some Jakes/Norms to increase search for the KB/Mini-KB. I'm fine with using Ise/Hyuga for this later. Also, you can control when your KB fights. If you want to wait until the CVLs are done upgrading, you can do that. Or at least, I did...

Hotei -> RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons revealed in post) (2/7/2017 7:41:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: obvert quote: ORIGINAL: Lokasenna quote: ORIGINAL: SheperdN7 Kongo class ships are good as small raiding TF's as they can slip in and out due to their high speed. Personally I use them for Air Combat TF escorts as their AAA is adequate and they can survive a lot of bomb hits. All other IJN BB's I will use in surface combat TF's and I ALWAYS make sure to put the Nagato's with Yamato + Musashi as when they are combined they can rain down impressive amounts of firepower. The Fuso's and Ise's are a toss up to convert to their hybrid states and if I do that they will be used to escort the Mini Butai. If I don't convert, Put them all into SF TF's and let them unleash Hades on any enemy SF TF. Also I will never ever EVER leave the CS ships as they are. Not even a toss up on whether to convert those. Eh, 2 of the CS ships are slow. Chitose/Chiyoda is a no-brainer, but Mizuho/Nisshin is not. The FP cruisers can be useful throughout 43, but only if they're not converting to CVL. [:)] The conversion times are very long, and this is the time when the IJN needs to fight CV battles. So, do you want to do that with 48-60 extra CAP in the form of N1K1 Rex? Or have them all nice and upgraded ready to join the now decimated KB in later 43? [:D] Personally I like the CS cruisers as they are, and they have a combo of Rex FF and some Jakes/Norms to increase search for the KB/Mini-KB. I also like them as they are, I guess this is a question that gets answered in every game differently.

mind_messing -> RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons revealed in post) (2/7/2017 4:47:24 PM)
quote: To me it all about air power. I don't want any type of surface combat! This should be your motto as Japan. In my current game, I had a series of engagements around Palembang where a IJN crack CA force was facing off against Allied DDs. Nearly all of the engagements were Japanese wins or at best draws, but the Allies could afford to throw DD after DD against the CA's, and eventually attrition and accumulated damage forced them off. It's a good illustration that the only way to win the surface combat game as Japan is not to play. As Japan you don't want to fight Allied surface ships with your own, you want to get the juicy amphib ships loaded with troops...

Revthought -> RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons revealed in post) (2/7/2017 5:40:01 PM)
quote: Do you have a report from that battle? Day or night? What was the weather? What was the detection for both sides? What where the cruisers it was facing? Any DDs take part and what class where they? What skill did the commanders have? Okay, let me preface by saying I've got some issues with the surface model and engagement ranges--I've seen USN destroyer guns "firing" at 16k yards. Not bloody likely. So the caveat to what I say next might be that sometimes the game allows ships that in life would have been "out of range" to shoot. In any case, I think the biggest question is how many cruisers? Sure Kongo's guns outclass us 8inch guns, and it would be shocking, unless a magazine hit was scored, to see Kongo sunk by one CA; however, start adding CAs and it isn't much of a shock. If you have a Kongo facing three or four CAs... those CAs can put a LOT of 8inch shells on the ship.

Lokasenna -> RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons revealed in post) (2/7/2017 6:11:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Revthought quote: Do you have a report from that battle? Day or night? What was the weather? What was the detection for both sides? What where the cruisers it was facing? Any DDs take part and what class where they? What skill did the commanders have? Okay, let me preface by saying I've got some issues with the surface model and engagement ranges--I've seen USN destroyer guns "firing" at 16k yards. Not bloody likely. So the caveat to what I say next might be that sometimes the game allows ships that in life would have been "out of range" to shoot. In any case, I think the biggest question is how many cruisers? Sure Kongo's guns outclass us 8inch guns, and it would be shocking, unless a magazine hit was scored, to see Kongo sunk by one CA; however, start adding CAs and it isn't much of a shock. If you have a Kongo facing three or four CAs... those CAs can put a LOT of 8inch shells on the ship. Well, the range on the 5"/38 gun was 18,000 yards, so... And yes - more ships equals more shots.

Alpha77 -> RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons revealed in post) (2/7/2017 6:23:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mind_messing quote: To me it all about air power. I don't want any type of surface combat! This should be your motto as Japan. In my current game, I had a series of engagements around Palembang where a IJN crack CA force was facing off against Allied DDs. Nearly all of the engagements were Japanese wins or at best draws, but the Allies could afford to throw DD after DD against the CA's, and eventually attrition and accumulated damage forced them off. It's a good illustration that the only way to win the surface combat game as Japan is not to play. As Japan you don't want to fight Allied surface ships with your own, you want to get the juicy amphib ships loaded with troops... How do you protect bases against bombardements ? I found you need to get a good surface fleet there, it seems mines and coast arty does not work. And subs,mini subs mostly not. Perhaps masses of PTs (but Japan has none only late gets some). I already read the thread about it, also it suggest night search/attack, but the bombardement TFs rush in and out. Only if they are slowed down you might get a shot from the air (eg. if they are damaged, but this damage will mostly be delivered by own SF fleets protecting the base, only with much luck you might get a torp or mine hit).. Anyway I made 2 new TFs and sent them out, this time no bad commander and mission SF combat - lets see what happens. Yamato and mostly ships from my list are among the "kamikaze" mission[;)] This time a small CL fleet leads the way perhaps acting as a recon mission so the main fleet does not get surprised. Also set much search to night....it is still possible some Allied crusiers are short on ammo if he still has them there - cause they bombarded an island of mine 3 turns back... a recon a turn ago showed no AKE or cargo ships mostly smaller ones, in harbour (might be false ofc) and Kira has only a small port to reload even cruiser guns. So either portion of the ships went back to Ndeni or are still lingering somewhere but perhaps with low ammo... I know he must be afraid of bombardement there, he has over 120 or so fighers and 25 or so bombers there (Ndeni 150 FI, 120 BO, 50 AUX) I made 2 smaller TFs now, as suggested by most here - also tried psychological warfare when I wrote him, that the mighty Yamato will sortie soon [8\|] - also I formed a new mini KB after Junyo was sunk (we hit Wasp with 3 bombs and before that a small UK CV with a torp and 3 bombs and most of his other CVs are either sunk or should be damaged in repair, when it failed the 1st time you can try again, right ? But if the 2nd time also fails...probably not [:'(]) Mh, I should write that in the AAR (I only update it every 3-4 days or so and when major events happen)

Alpha77 -> RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons revealed in post) (2/7/2017 6:58:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rustysi Even in bombardment TF's, if I expect/suspect enemy SCTF's to be in the area, they will not go in to engage. I will either have to take care of the area in question with my air power or withdraw. It seems to me the OP is talking early '42 here, a time in which he should still have adequate air superiority any place he wishes to impose it. Now I'm talking about LBA here. That to me is the answer to maintaining dominance is the Solomons in 1942. In addition if needed the the KB at this time is still the 600lb. gorilla in the room. She can mop-up what's left, all the time being under her own protection of additional LBA. a) Air power, he has more at Ndeni and Kira, I do not use Lunga field I can not protect it. I have ca. 70-80 fighter at Tassa, they get sweeped now for 3 turns or so. I do not want to use eg. Betties from Shortlands as the escort is too unreliable, they might fly against small AKLs etc. I also had some Vals at Tulagi, but they got caught by 30-35 or so fighters with 10 Zero escort and half shot down, they however sank an AM and an AKL, so targets worthy for 20 planes lost [:-] Yes, mostly some bombers might get through, but if you lose 30 highly trained Netties for 2 AKs sunk, might not be the best deal, or is it? Shortlands is a bit far away imho also. Ok I have Munda which reached 4 airfield, maybe I try the air approach later. But the failed bombardement mission ofc should hit his masses of fighters, as it failed I would say in this area the air belongs more to him..only if the air from Tassa (not including it) in direction Rabaul/Milne belongs to me. But he will not sail there for sure lol He made however an error imho not preventing me from repairing / bulding forts at Lunga, it should be very difficult to expell us from this position now (Tassa has 4 forts too meanwhile, and some stranded Allies are still sitting there, but still to strong to push out among them 2 marine regs and 2 tk bats) b) KB is/was in repair/update in the HI, I have 2 updated CVs at Truk now. But I will not send them near the masses of fighters he has in the area Kira/Ndeni (probably Luganville too). Also remember Allies now have good torp bombers aka Avengers, 2-3 lucky ones might get through and my CVs need to burn more time and fuel to get to a shipyard. Also note 3-4 bomb hits by Allied DBs are often enough to threaten IJN CVs to sink. Eg. Junyio only had 3-4 bomb hits for 30 sys, only 20 float, but 80 fires.. she sank in the night after.

Alpha77 -> RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons revealed in post) (2/7/2017 7:26:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Revthought Sure Kongo's guns outclass us 8inch guns, and it would be shocking, unless a magazine hit was scored, to see Kongo sunk by one CA; however, start adding CAs and it isn't much of a shock. If you have a Kongo facing three or four CAs... those CAs can put a LOT of 8inch shells at and IN the ship. Nope, the Kongo armor is too weak at close distance (as I reported above) the 8inch put holes like swiss chesse to Kongo classes. As the Kongo did not stand off, but closed. There is ofc no single reason in reality a BB should close vs. cruisers, but we can not control this fine detail in this game, right? Perhaps except the CO rating, now I have sent Yaamto with a CO that has all quite high values only AGR is in the 50ties. Lets hope he stands off... and does not close. But perhaps the Allies have their SF assets withdrawn last turn and my fleets hit only empty seas. Or he has re-inforced with 4-5 BBs than this will be interesting [;)]

Lokasenna -> RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons revealed in post) (2/7/2017 8:14:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alpha77 quote: ORIGINAL: Revthought Sure Kongo's guns outclass us 8inch guns, and it would be shocking, unless a magazine hit was scored, to see Kongo sunk by one CA; however, start adding CAs and it isn't much of a shock. If you have a Kongo facing three or four CAs... those CAs can put a LOT of 8inch shells at and IN the ship. Nope, the Kongo armor is too weak at close distance (as I reported above) the 8inch put holes like swiss chesse to Kongo classes. As the Kongo did not stand off, but closed. There is ofc no single reason in reality a BB should close vs. cruisers, but we can not control this fine detail in this game, right? Perhaps except the CO rating, now I have sent Yaamto with a CO that has all quite high values only AGR is in the 50ties. Lets hope he stands off... and does not close. But perhaps the Allies have their SF assets withdrawn last turn and my fleets hit only empty seas. Or he has re-inforced with 4-5 BBs than this will be interesting [;)] But how close did combat begin? Also, closer range = easier to get hits (which of course works both ways). Also also, maybe there was no choice because of how the forces began the engagement. That's an abstraction, but this sort of thing is almost certainly modeled in some way. Your Yamato is almost certainly going to close with the enemy, because that's what happens. Prepare your salt shaker. Let me get my tequila and lime so that I'm ready for the salt as well.

Alpha77 -> RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons revealed in post) (2/7/2017 9:13:24 PM)
[image]http://www.wwiivehicles.com/japan/ships/battleships/yamato-class/yamato-battleship-1941-10-trials-imperial-war-museum-mh6177.png[/image] ... REST or better rust IN PEACE [:(] (seems the ships is not worth the cost - with 2 torp hits and 100 or so 8inch and smaller gun hits she goes down) but even worse, fully loaded giant TK also sunk by RN sub [:(] Amazingly we only lost 1 DD except Yamato and only a CL has some more serious damage, all other ships slightly or not damaged and will all arrive at Munda safely [&o]

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

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.566406