RE: BTS/BTSL against John 3rd: What was Kitakami thinking?!?!?!? (Full Version)

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



Message

Kitakami -> RE: BTS/BTSL against John 3rd: What was Kitakami thinking?!?!?!? (4/27/2018 6:12:47 PM)

Ok... first post: non-restricted Japanese land units and starting locations (notes at the end):

IJA:

14th Army:

* 16th Inf Div - Takao
* 48th Inf Div - Pescadores
* 65th Inf Bde - Takao

15th Army:

* 4th Inf Div - Samah
* 33rd Inf Div - Nagasaki
* 55th Inf Div - Cam Ranh Bay

16th Army:

* 2nd Inf Div - Samah
* 38th Inf Div - moving towards Hong Kong
* 90th Inf Div - Tokyo
* 21st Ind Mixed Bde - Samah

25th Army:

* Imperial Guards Div - Battambang
* 5th Inf Div - Samah
* 18th Inf Div - Samah
* 21st Inf Div - Battambang
* 56th Inf Div - Hiroshima
* 41st Inf Rgt - Samah
* 4th Tk Rgt - Battambang
* 8th Tk Rgt - Battambang
* 9th Tk Rgt - Battambang
* 11th Tk Rgt - Battambang
* 14th Tk Rgt - Battambang

Southern Army:

* 90th Inf Rgt - Babeldaob
* 4th Ind Mixed Rgt - Long Son
* 41st Gd Bn - Saigon
* 1st Raider Rgt - Kompong Trach
* 124th Inf Rgt - Cam Ranh

IJN:

4th Fleet:

* 1st Maizuru Assault Div - Saipan
* 51st Nav Gd - Jaluit
* 52nd Nav Gd - Truk
* 53rd Nav Gd - Kwajalein
* 61st Nav Gd - Jaluit

5th Fleet:

* 2nd China Assault Division - Paramushiro-Jima

Southeast Area Fleet:

* 66th Nav Gd - Babeldaob/Truk
* 1st Ind SNLF Coy - Babeldaob
* 2nd Ind SNLF Coy - Truk
* Bandasan SNLF - Kompong Trach

Southwest Area Fleet:

* 1st Kure Assaault Div - Babeldaob
* 1st Parachute Assault Div - Peleliu

Northeast Area Fleet:

* 7th Inf Div - Asahikawa
* Karafuto Mixed Bde - Ominato

Combined Fleet:

* 6th Ind Inf Bde - Truk
* 1st China Assault Div - Tinian
* 1st Sasebo Assault Div - Saipan
* 15th Nav Gd - Ailinglaplap
* 16th Nav Gd - Samah
* 71st Nav Gd - Jaluit
* 81st Nav Gd - Hanoi/Haipong
* 91st Nav Gd - Cam Ranh Bay
* 1st Sasebo SNLF Coy - Takao
* 2nd Sasebo SNLF Coy - Cam Ranh Bay

NOTES:

* Some units do not start in their usual locations.
* There is an additional Inf Div, the 90th, starting in Tokyo under 16th Army command.
* I did not list artillery units. I did not think necessary, but will do if someone requests them.
* All five tank regiments start the game in Battambang. To me, this is VERY telling.
* Most large LCUs that were under Southern Army command have been assigned to numbered armies.
* The big, fat 7th Inf Div starts in Asahikawa. Its logical target is Alaska. Will John be logical?
* There are 6x IJN Assault Divs from Babeldaob eastwards. They will be able to conquer much, but they do not have the staying power of IJA Inf Divs. How can we capitalize on that?

With John being as aggressive as he is, we need to know where he is going AFTER conquering the Philippines / Malaya / DEI. With the current starting locations, I am afraid there is no way I can defend Burma if that is his target, unless I majorly delay him in Malaya. But an early (not first-turn) invasion of Mersing is very likely, so I am not confident I can do that.

The Allies start with 600 PP, and get 75 more per turn. What should be the priorities for spending them?



BillBrown -> RE: BTS/BTSL against John 3rd: What was Kitakami thinking?!?!?!? (4/27/2018 6:46:24 PM)

Well, the HRs are not as bad as I thought they might be.



Kitakami -> RE: BTS/BTSL against John 3rd: What was Kitakami thinking?!?!?!? (4/27/2018 8:09:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BillBrown
Well, the HRs are not as bad as I thought they might be.

I agree. The are limiting, in their small ways, but they shouldn't decide the course of the game by themselves.



Kitakami -> RE: BTS/BTSL against John 3rd: What was Kitakami thinking?!?!?!? (4/27/2018 8:34:49 PM)

Ok... now a look at the IJN:

At start:

CV Akagi, Amagi (81 a/c)
CV Hiryu, Shoryu (63 a/c)
CV Shokaku, Zuikaku (72 a/c)

CVL Ryukaku, Karasu (33 a/c)
CVL Ryujo (39 a/c)
CVL Shoho, Zuiho (31 a/c)

CAV Tokachi, Kashiro (30 a/c - can be converted to CV with 63 a/c from August '42)

CVE Hosho, Ibuki (18 a/c)
CVE Taiyo (27 a/c)

CS Mizuho, Chitose, Chiyoda (24 a/c - can be converted to CVL with 31 a/c from Feb '42)
CS Adatara (12 a/c)

BB Nagato, Mutsu (8x 40cm)
BB Fuso, Yamashiro, Ise, Hyuga (12x 36cm)
BB Tosa (10x 40cm)

BC Kongo, Haruna, Hiei, Kirishima (8x 36cm)
BC Ishitaka (10x 40cm)
BC Chichibu (4x 40cm)

CB Fuji, Kita (6x 31cm)

CA Takao, Atago, Maya, Chokai (10x 20cm)
CA Myoko, Haguro, Nachi, Ashigara, Seiki, Chishima, Miyako, Yoshino (10x 20cm)
CA Mogami, Mikuma (10x 20cm)

CL Suzuya, Kumano, Tone, Chikuma (15x 15.5cm - can be converted to Mogami-class CA from Jan '42)
CL Aoba, Kinugasa, Furutaka, Kako (9x 15.5cm - can be converted to CLAA from Feb '42)
CL Nagara, Isuzu, Natori, Yura, Kinu, Abukuma (7x 14cm)
CL Sendai, Naka, Jintsu, Niyodo, Ishikari, Ayase, Otonase, Minase (7x 14cm)
CL Kitakami, Oi, Kiso (40x 61cm Long Lance)
CL Yubari (6x 14cm)
CL Tokoro (9x 15.5cm)

Reinforcements:

CV Junyo, Hiyo (57 a/c)
CV Kaimon, Taikaku (72 a/c)
CV Renkaku, Taiho, Katsuragi, Kasigi (81 a/c)

CVL Nisshin (31 a/c)
CVL Ryuho (31 a/c)
CVL Aso, Shinryu, Unryu, Kurama (36 a/c)

CS Poroshiri, Sukai, Norikura (12 a/c)

BB Yamato, Musashi, Shinano, Aki (9x 46cm)

CB Aino, Okuhotaka, Yari, Warusawa (6x 31cm)

CL Teshio, Shirbetsu, Agano, Yahagi, Noshiro, Oyodo, Sakawa (9x 15.5cm)

NOTES:

* John chose the variant with the Yamato-class BBs and the Fuji-class CBs. I think it is an interesting, although suboptimal, choice. I do not think he will build all four monsters but, if he does, they will guzzle up fuel like crazy.
* The cruiser force is much strengthened by the fact that four CLs can be converted to Mogami-class CAs.
* I would not convert the old Aobas and Furutakas to CLAA, but that is me. I think they are the best they ca be, and that is not much, as 9x 15.5cm CLs.
* The Fuji-class pocket battleships are definitely raiders. We will have to be careful not to send unescorted convoys into harm's way.



BBfanboy -> RE: BTS/BTSL against John 3rd: What was Kitakami thinking?!?!?!? (4/28/2018 2:30:02 AM)

Odd that he made Tone and Chikuma CLs. Those ships were built as CAs from the start, but with four main gun turrets (all forward) instead of five for the other big Japanese CAs. They had a bit smaller displacement than the Mogami class, so converting Tone and Chikuma to that class is adding tonnage and extra firepower to the IJN. I wonder if the mod will reduce their float plane complement too.



Kitakami -> RE: BTS/BTSL against John 3rd: What was Kitakami thinking?!?!?!? (4/28/2018 3:14:11 AM)

In this mod the Tone class does not exist. John used the names so he did not have to come up with new ones. They are Mogami-class vessels, with 5x triple 15.5cm turrets, so no extra float planes. They can be converted to CAs, though. The process takes 75 days in a 25+ size repair yard.

Also, in this mod all the Takao-class ships, not only the Maya, can lose one 2x 20cm turret to gain 4x 10cm AA, starting on April '43. It takes 60 days in a 25+ size repair yard.

I have helped check the database for these Mods on and off for a number of years now. I know the Japanese air and naval side of things passably well, with the exception of the latest changes (the Fuji-class CBs, for example). It is the Allied side of things I need to wrap my head around... and to learn to defend against John's aggressive style. You can see from my handle and pic what side I have usually played in the past :)



crsutton -> RE: BTS/BTSL against John 3rd: What was Kitakami thinking?!?!?!? (4/28/2018 4:03:45 AM)

Sent a note to John and I think he is in agreement. A simple search in Google shows lots of photos of Hellcats and Corsairs operating off of CVEs. Most CVEs were built with catapults and there seems to have been no trouble with them operating these larger aircraft. You should contact him and trash this rule right away. Only thing is that I am not sure if all of the early CVEs had catapults but that would be hard to manage trying to sort them out. A few photos of Helldivers on CVEs but I don't know if they were just being ferried. But they probably could operate on CVEs if the other planes could. I think they used Avengers only because they were plentiful and better suited to multiple roles but this does not mean that they could not have used the Helldiver.



Falken -> RE: BTS/BTSL against John 3rd: What was Kitakami thinking?!?!?!? (4/28/2018 2:11:02 PM)

Hi Kitamami,

In the other thread (John's), i've asked crsutton to confirm if he has objections to only the allies side of Rule #6. We use the same rule in our game, so would love to know if my thoughts on the A7M2 or B7A2/3 for the IJN CVEs was incorrect as well.

Dave...



Kitakami -> RE: BTS/BTSL against John 3rd: What was Kitakami thinking?!?!?!? (4/28/2018 3:01:26 PM)

Regarding CVEs and the planes they are allowed to fly...

I may have generalized a bit without doing too much research. This is a class by class description:

USN

- Kittyhawk class (Langley, Ely): 1x elevator, 1x catapult, flight deck length unknown, but less than 165 m. (total length).
- Long Island class: 1x elevator, 1x catapult, 133 m. flight deck.
- Bogue class: 2x elevator, 2x catapult, 9 arresting wires, 3 barriers, 134 m. flight deck.
- Sangamon class: 2x elevator, 1x catapult (2 after 1944), 153 m. flight deck.
- Casablanca class: 2x elevator, 1x catapult, 9 arresting wires, 3 barriers, 145 m. flight deck.
- Commencement Bay: 2x elevator, 2x catapult, 153 m. flight deck.

So, they all had catapults and elevators, but the flight decks were very short (in comparison, the Lexington had an overall length of 270 meters... 100 meters longer than the Commencement Bay CVEs).

On the other hand, the game has the Casablancas with smaller fighters (FM-1/2), but the Commencement Bays with F6Fs and F4Us. Perhaps this last class should not be under the house rule, for historical reasons.

Thoughts?



crsutton -> RE: BTS/BTSL against John 3rd: What was Kitakami thinking?!?!?!? (4/28/2018 3:32:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kitakami

Regarding CVEs and the planes they are allowed to fly...

I may have generalized a bit without doing too much research. This is a class by class description:

USN

- Kittyhawk class (Langley, Ely): 1x elevator, 1x catapult, flight deck length unknown, but less than 165 m. (total length).
- Long Island class: 1x elevator, 1x catapult, 123 m. flight deck.
- Bogue class: 2x elevator, 2x catapult, 134 m. flight deck.
- Sangamon class: 2x elevator, 1x catapult, flight deck length unknown, but less than 169 m. (total length).
- Casablanca class: 2x elevator, 1x catapult, flight deck length unknown, but less than 156 m. (total length).
- Commencement Bay: 2x elevator, 2x catapult, flight deck length unknown, but less than 170 m. (total length).

So, they all had catapults and elevators, but the flight decks were very short (in comparison, the Lexington had an overall length of 270 meters... 100 meters longer than the Commencement Bay CVEs).

On the other hand, the game has the Casablancas with smaller fighters (FM-1/2), but the Commencement Bays with F6Fs and F4Us. Perhaps this last class should not be under the house rule, for historical reasons.

Thoughts?


Or to simplify matter just set a agreed up historical date-say mid 1944 when the Allied CVEs can use these aircraft. Keeping track of single ships would just add to the already heavy logistical burden. I doubt that these 1st line aircraft came into common use until the main carrier TF was well satisfied with their supply.



witpqs -> RE: BTS/BTSL against John 3rd: What was Kitakami thinking?!?!?!? (4/28/2018 4:21:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kitakami

Regarding CVEs and the planes they are allowed to fly...

I may have generalized a bit without doing too much research. This is a class by class description:

USN

- Kittyhawk class (Langley, Ely): 1x elevator, 1x catapult, flight deck length unknown, but less than 165 m. (total length).
- Long Island class: 1x elevator, 1x catapult, 123 m. flight deck.
- Bogue class: 2x elevator, 2x catapult, 134 m. flight deck.
- Sangamon class: 2x elevator, 1x catapult, flight deck length unknown, but less than 169 m. (total length).
- Casablanca class: 2x elevator, 1x catapult, flight deck length unknown, but less than 156 m. (total length).
- Commencement Bay: 2x elevator, 2x catapult, flight deck length unknown, but less than 170 m. (total length).

So, they all had catapults and elevators, but the flight decks were very short (in comparison, the Lexington had an overall length of 270 meters... 100 meters longer than the Commencement Bay CVEs).

On the other hand, the game has the Casablancas with smaller fighters (FM-1/2), but the Commencement Bays with F6Fs and F4Us. Perhaps this last class should not be under the house rule, for historical reasons.

Thoughts?


Dump the rule because the Allied CVE's did operate the aircraft in question.

Second best:
quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Or to simplify matter just set a agreed up historical date-say mid 1944 when the Allied CVEs can use these aircraft.

This is huge IMO. It's one of the reasons I hate some rules like 'sweeps at X maneuver bands' - I just don't want my brain cells trudging through those swamps.
quote:


Keeping track of single ships would just add to the already heavy logistical burden.


quote:


I doubt that these 1st line aircraft came into common use until the main carrier TF was well satisfied with their supply.




Bearcat2 -> RE: BTS/BTSL against John 3rd: What was Kitakami thinking?!?!?!? (5/1/2018 4:58:07 PM)

In this alternate scenario, does the US start with reliable torpedo?



Kitakami -> RE: BTS/BTSL against John 3rd: What was Kitakami thinking?!?!?!? (5/1/2018 5:03:43 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bearcat2
In this alternate scenario, does the US start with reliable torpedo?

No.

It would be too lopsided if it was so. Believe me, the Allies do not get it as bad as people think. There are currently two AARs (one mine) that show how the lower experience of Japanese pilots make things complicated for the Empire of the Rising Sun. To sum it up, yes, they have more toys, but they also have less reserves, and they go through them like water, as production has to be increased, and more units consume more supply. In the end, Japan's doom is, in my opinion, the economy, not the tactical side of things, and these mods accelerate the process.



PaxMondo -> RE: BTS/BTSL against John 3rd: What was Kitakami thinking?!?!?!? (5/1/2018 6:27:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kitakami

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bearcat2
In this alternate scenario, does the US start with reliable torpedo?

No.

It would be too lopsided if it was so. Believe me, the Allies do not get it as bad as people think. There are currently two AARs (one mine) that show how the lower experience of Japanese pilots make things complicated for the Empire of the Rising Sun. To sum it up, yes, they have more toys, but they also have less reserves, and they go through them like water, as production has to be increased, and more units consume more supply. In the end, Japan's doom is, in my opinion, the economy, not the tactical side of things, and these mods accelerate the process.

A lot of mods are like this, mine included. There is far more to build than the economy can support ... more realistic. You have to choose, and then have the self control to not overdo it. Very difficult when the alligators are snapping around your legs and you do in fact need everything ...
So, watch your supply at Tokyo like a hawk and make small moves. Mike style.



ny59giants -> RE: BTS/BTSL against John 3rd: What was Kitakami thinking?!?!?!? (5/1/2018 6:32:30 PM)

For Japan, there are extra engineers and engineer vehicles. I got myself into supply trouble by expanding too many bases in Japan in early '42. If Heavy Industry gets too big, there is a drain on fuel. We expanded economic industry in the DEI, but like everything else, there is a balance that you need to achieve. [:-]



Kitakami -> RE: BTS/BTSL against John 3rd: What was Kitakami thinking?!?!?!? (5/2/2018 2:36:41 PM)

Ok...

John wrote last night saying that I would get turn one today. So, esteemed Peanut Gallery (TM), how do we defend against him? I think the only relevant house rule would be:

--- 9. No new TFs can be formed on turn one. Any existing TFs can be altered.

Take the following existing TF into consideration:

1. The Indomitable TF (CV, CA, CL, 2x CLAA, 5x DD) and the Valiant & Queen Elizabeth TF (2x BB, CA, 4x DD) TF are at Colombo.
2. Force Z (BB, 2x BC, 3x DD, DM) is at Singapore, ready to sail. So is the lone CL Danae in another TF.
3. The Boise TF (CL, 4x DD) is at Cebu.
4. The Houston & Chicago TF (2x CA, 4x DD) is at Tawi-Tawi.
5. The Marblehead TF (CL, 5x DD) is at Tarakan.
6. A DD TF (4x DD) is at Balikpapan.
7. A DD TF (2x DD) is at Hong Kong.
8. The Charlotte TF (CLV, CA, 3x DD) is at Perth.
9. A CA TF (CA, CL) is at Townsville.
10. The Jacksonville TF (CLV, 2x BC, 2x CA, 6x DD) is at Jarvis Island.
11. The Enterprise TF (CV, 2x CA, 9x DD) is 6 hexes NW of Palmyra.
12. The Lexington TF (CV, 2x CA, 7x DD) is 13 hexes NW of Palmyra.
13. An empty amphibious TF (CA, 2x xAP) is 1 hex E of Vanikoro.
14. The De Ruyter TF (CL, 4x DD) is sailing towards Soerbaja.
15. The Java TF (CL, 2x DD) Java is sailing towards Soerbaja.
16. CL Tromp is sailing towards Soerbaja.
17. CL Leander is at Townsville.
18. CL Dragon & Durban are at Palembang.
19. An empty amphibious TF (CL, 4x DD, 3x xAP, 3x xAK) is at Umnak Island.
20. A loaded amphibious TF (DD, AGP, AP, 3x xAP, 3x xAK) carrying 2x Base Group and 3x Field Arty Bns is at Darwin.

Those are the major naval assets at sea on the first turn. So, the question is... where to fight, and where to flee? Any and all opinions welcome!



Kitakami -> RE: BTS/BTSL against John 3rd: What was Kitakami thinking?!?!?!? (5/2/2018 5:24:45 PM)

Also...

I have the turn!



Kitakami -> RE: BTS/BTSL against John 3rd: What was Kitakami thinking?!?!?!? (5/3/2018 6:59:47 PM)

Ok... since there were no comments from the Peanut Gallery (TM), I did the best I could, and sent the turn back to John. We will see how we fared.

China, in particular, is a difficult theater. Although in my game with Falken I learned TONS (both of what works and what doesn't), John knows the theater far better than I, and he has an additional infantry division (one of the three the IJA gets from removing a regiment from each of nine square divisions). I have run where I think I should run, I have moved to the mountains and forested rough where possible, and I have moved forward in a couple of places because, frankly, I need the terrain. We will see.

In my game against Falken I landed the 18th British Inf Div in Sumatra, and that has given him about three months worth of headaches. In this game, I do not think they would get there on time (before the invasion of Palembang), so I am considering other destinations. Java, Burma, India, Ceylon all have their good and bad points, so I am not sold on any of them yet.

Northern Australia I am ready to concede... and let it become a supply sink first, and a large POW camp later. SE and NW Australia I will defend with tooth and nail if needed, and I am not letting him have Port Moresby for cheap either.

The one thing that worries me, because I don't have that much to stop John for the time being, is a drive into the SE Pacific. If he decides to move in that direction, and sends at least 2x KB CarDivs, there is not much I can do.

Finally, Alaska. I will defend to the best of my ability, but I will not lose sleep over it. If he gains a foothold (or more than one), I will let it be a secondary (or tertiary) theater until I am ready.

That is all for now. I will write more when I get the combat report.



Canoerebel -> RE: BTS/BTSL against John 3rd: What was Kitakami thinking?!?!?!? (5/3/2018 7:13:27 PM)

Kitakami, I think lots and lots of Forumites will be following your AAR. And, no doubt, you'll begin to get more and more advice, sometimes helpful, sometimes not, and too often contradictory. It's so early now that it's hard to give advice, so many readers are just waiting a bit to see how things shake out.

For one thing, I'm not very familiar with you as a player. I don't know if you need help tying your shoes or if you've already placed second in the Boston Marathon. So I'm reluctant to weigh in because I don't know how yet. You may be so far ahead of me that anything I had to say would be milk to a man who teethed 25 years ago and likes steak for breakfast.

I'm glad you're doing this AAR!



ny59giants -> RE: BTS/BTSL against John 3rd: What was Kitakami thinking?!?!?!? (5/3/2018 7:22:26 PM)

I will have to limit my comments as I have a game vs njp72 and he is reading your AAR.
Op Sec you know! [:-]



Kitakami -> RE: BTS/BTSL against John 3rd: What was Kitakami thinking?!?!?!? (5/3/2018 7:28:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants_MatrixForum
I will have to limit my comments as I have a game vs njp72 and he is reading your AAR.
Op Sec you know! [:-]

Understood! PMs would be much appreciated, though :)



Kitakami -> RE: BTS/BTSL against John 3rd: What was Kitakami thinking?!?!?!? (5/3/2018 7:39:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel
Kitakami, I think lots and lots of Forumites will be following your AAR. And, no doubt, you'll begin to get more and more advice, sometimes helpful, sometimes not, and too often contradictory. It's so early now that it's hard to give advice, so many readers are just waiting a bit to see how things shake out.

For one thing, I'm not very familiar with you as a player. I don't know if you need help tying your shoes or if you've already placed second in the Boston Marathon. So I'm reluctant to weigh in because I don't know how yet. You may be so far ahead of me that anything I had to say would be milk to a man who teethed 25 years ago and likes steak for breakfast.

I'm glad you're doing this AAR!


Ok... let's see. I am 52, and I cut my teeth on the old AH and SPI games starting at the age of 14, when I gave myself Panzer Leader as a birthday present. I have played UV, WitP and AE on and off for years, and I'd say that I am of middling ability. At least I know enough to know that I need all the help I can get, especially in regard to how John likes to play.

Regarding this scenario, although I do not know everything there is to know about its last iteration, I have been following the development of RA, BtS and BtSL for a time now, and I have checked the Japanese side of the database as thoroughly as I have been able to. I have also made a minor suggestion here and there, some of which have been accepted, most not. Reading the fluff, and looking at the database (and taking notes), it felt like if the Allies can stop Japan from a 1942 auto victory in this scenario, the war will actually be shorter, not longer. That is only a feeling without factual data, but it is the reason that prompted me to play the dark side (the Allies... Japan is totally Jedi ;p).

So, my current mindset is... how can I stop John from auto victory? Because if I am able to do that, I think I will do well in the long run.




jwolf -> RE: BTS/BTSL against John 3rd: What was Kitakami thinking?!?!?!? (5/3/2018 7:42:53 PM)

quote:

In my game against Falken I landed the 18th British Inf Div in Sumatra, and that has given him about three months worth of headaches. In this game, I do not think they would get there on time (before the invasion of Palembang), so I am considering other destinations. Java, Burma, India, Ceylon all have their good and bad points, so I am not sold on any of them yet.


Considering how aggressive John is, IMHO I would not use this division anyplace where it would ultimately be surely trapped. Therefore, I recommend Ceylon or India FWIW.



witpqs -> RE: BTS/BTSL against John 3rd: What was Kitakami thinking?!?!?!? (5/3/2018 8:06:55 PM)

In my last game against Andav I sent the 18th to Burma. That worked out quite well at first, but he kept at it and (because they couldn't get away fast enough) eventually mauled the division (or its constituent parts) which was a problem because of the extremely low British infantry squad replacement rate. Not sure where you should send it but that's data for you.



Kitakami -> RE: BTS/BTSL against John 3rd: What was Kitakami thinking?!?!?!? (5/3/2018 8:28:07 PM)

@ jwolf, witpqs: thank you. Yes, I am seriously considering the division's safety as very important in this game.



BillBrown -> RE: BTS/BTSL against John 3rd: What was Kitakami thinking?!?!?!? (5/3/2018 9:41:29 PM)

Don't worry Kitakami, we will be there to help. It is very hard to give turn 1 advice. It looks like
you took care of things fine. Until you see where John is headed you have to keep many options open and
try to not take too many losses. Once you know where KB and associates are, you can see about jabbing back.

I tend to move the British 18th Division to India to help with the defense.



Kitakami -> RE: BTS/BTSL against John 3rd: What was Kitakami thinking?!?!?!? (5/3/2018 9:47:46 PM)

John will run the turn tonight, and send me the combat report. I will post something between then and receiving turn 2, I think. Then the dreaded Allied turn 2. More tedious (but more forgiving) than Japanese turn 1.



PaxMondo -> RE: BTS/BTSL against John 3rd: What was Kitakami thinking?!?!?!? (5/4/2018 2:29:04 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kitakami

John will run the turn tonight, and send me the combat report. I will post something between then and receiving turn 2, I think. Then the dreaded Allied turn 2. More tedious (but more forgiving) than Japanese turn 1.

Far more forgiving ... [8D]



Kitakami -> RE: BTS/BTSL against John 3rd: What was Kitakami thinking?!?!?!? (5/4/2018 1:31:17 PM)

A day that will live in infamy!!!! (post 1 of several)

Ok... first the bad news, then the really bad news.

The sneak attack in Pearl Harbour went rather well for the IJN. DD Washington was sunk, BB Mississippi might follow lead, and damage to the other battle wagons was hefty. Besides that, DM Pruitt was also sunk.

This is the detailed report:

Japanese aircraft
***** A6M2 Zero x 100
***** B5N2 Kate x 132
***** D3A1 Val x 102

Allied aircraft
***** P-36A Mohawk x 2
***** P-40B Warhawk x 5

Japanese aircraft losses
***** B5N2 Kate: 31 damaged
***** B5N2 Kate: 7 destroyed by flak
***** D3A1 Val: 1 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
***** P-36A Mohawk: 1 destroyed
***** P-36A Mohawk: 5 destroyed on ground
***** P-40B Warhawk: 1 destroyed, 3 damaged
***** P-40B Warhawk: 4 destroyed on ground
***** B-18A Bolo: 5 destroyed on ground
***** PBY-5 Catalina: 3 destroyed on ground
***** B-17E Fortress: 1 destroyed on ground
***** A-20A Havoc: 2 destroyed on ground

Allied Ships
***** BB Washington, Bomb hits 5, Torpedo hits 6, and is sunk
***** BB Tennessee, Bomb hits 3, Torpedo hits 3, on fire, heavy damage
***** BB California, Bomb hits 8, Torpedo hits 3, on fire
***** BB Idaho, Bomb hits 12, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
***** BB New Mexico, Bomb hits 9, Torpedo hits 3, on fire, heavy damage
***** BB Nevada, Bomb hits 6, Torpedo hits 6, on fire, heavy damage
***** BB Oklahoma, Bomb hits 5, Torpedo hits 1
***** DM Pruitt, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
***** BB Mississippi, Bomb hits 4, Torpedo hits 4, on fire, heavy damage
***** CA New Orleans, Bomb hits 1
***** BB Arizona, Torpedo hits 4, heavy damage
***** AVD Thornton, Bomb hits 1, on fire
***** CM Oglala, Bomb hits 1
***** CA Minneapolis, Bomb hits 1, Torpedo hits 1
***** DD Ralph Talbot, Bomb hits 1
***** CL St. Louis, Bomb hits 1, Torpedo hits 2, on fire
***** CA San Francisco, Torpedo hits 1
***** AV Curtiss, Torpedo hits 1, on fire
***** SS Flying Fish, Bomb hits 1, heavy damage
***** SS Manatee, Bomb hits 1

Repair Shipyard hits 12
Airbase hits 30
Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 59
Port hits 25
Port fuel hits 3
Port supply hits 2

And this is the damage report from the game. Airframe losses feel light, although facilities were greatly damaged, which makes me fear a second day of attacks...

Port Damage: 20
Airfield Service Damage: 29
Airfield Runway Damage: 48



[image]local://upfiles/6334/B508808761694AC2AF75C6AD1EA7BD6B.jpg[/image]

EDIT: Please note the position of the 2x KB CarDiv EAST of PH. Not a position to go CV hunting, I guess.



BillBrown -> RE: BTS/BTSL against John 3rd: What was Kitakami thinking?!?!?!? (5/4/2018 1:44:15 PM)

Well, the bad news isn't too bad, yet. I agree that your airframe losses are light, that will be useful, especially the Cats.



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

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.578125