RE: New Years Day, 1943 (Full Version)

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



Message

jwolf -> RE: New Years Day, 1943 (4/23/2019 6:43:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

If your signal intelligence says something like "it is real busy at the store" or "month end inventory" and then radio silence....... That is a good thing


Heh, instead of SIGINT that sounds more like PSYINT.



Canoerebel -> RE: New Years Day, 1943 (4/23/2019 7:01:43 PM)

John will usually jump all over a bad turn and flip it pretty quickly with a gracious comment or a pissy one, depending on his mood. But if he should prevail in a carrier clash, we all know what the comment and mood shall be.



Anachro -> RE: New Years Day, 1943 (4/23/2019 7:07:39 PM)

John has a tendency to split off his forces to chase a juicy target if spotted. I think the only big danger to me this turn is an unexpected surface action.



paullus99 -> RE: New Years Day, 1943 (4/23/2019 7:15:16 PM)

He does like to put his head in the lion's mouth, doesn't he?



JohnDillworth -> RE: New Years Day, 1943 (4/23/2019 8:20:56 PM)

Well, it is a game. And for the most part, John has seems to have a lot of fun with it




Canoerebel -> RE: New Years Day, 1943 (4/23/2019 8:59:11 PM)

John does have a lot of fun and, despite the holes in his game, he's a pretty doggone good player. I've played a lot of old timers now, and John compares favorably to most. And his style of play makes it especially fun for the Allied player. He's so aggressive and enthusiastic that the Allied player ends up feeling like he's riding a bronc at a rodeo.

John's said before that he finds it difficult to read the AARs kept by his opponents, due to the many comments that may come across as harsh. His braggadocio style is responsible for a lot of that, but it doesn't change the fact that he's a nice guy and a great opponent.

But that daggum braggadocio is a sight to behold. So I have to pull for Anachro, to avoid the dreaded "Banzai!" crap. :)



Anachro -> January 2nd, 1943 (4/24/2019 12:16:14 AM)

January 2nd, 1943

Nothing! My carriers move short of their flank speed target and....are 9 hexes away from John's carriers. He knows my entire force is there now..shucks. My carriers were supposed to move a further 3 hexes up. They would have been 6 hexes distant... Oh well, my DBs and fighters at Luganville get slaughtered. Put away the popcorn, guys.

I think I know why...for some reason my carrier TF commander decided to "retreat from air threat." And of course, John says "I KNEW IT! Bet you waited in agony to watch this turn all day. Wish my shift hadn’t lasted so long so I could have gotten it back to you earlier." Yeah, I'm sure he knew it. His carriers are in a terrible position; if my carriers hadn't decided to flee an air threat (carriers fleeing an air threat?) he'd be in very bad shape. Shame.

[image]https://i.imgur.com/knYFc3H.png[/image]



BBfanboy -> RE: January 2nd, 1943 (4/24/2019 12:24:50 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anachro

January 2nd, 1943

Nothing! My carriers move short of their flank speed target and....are 9 hexes away from John's carriers. He knows my entire force is there now..shucks. My carriers were supposed to move a further 3 hexes up. They would have been 6 hexes distant... Oh well, my DBs and fighters at Luganville get slaughtered. Put away the popcorn, guys.

I think I know why...for some reason my carrier TF commander decided to "retreat from air threat." And of course, John says "I KNEW IT! Bet you waited in agony to watch this turn all day. Wish my shift hadn’t lasted so long so I could have gotten it back to you earlier." Yeah, I'm sure he knew it. His carriers are in a terrible position; if my carriers hadn't decided to flee an air threat (carriers fleeing an air threat?) he'd be in very bad shape. Shame.



The fleeing air threat thing is why I set most of my TFs to Direct/Absolute routing ... it also helps to set a waypoint at the destination hex.



Anachro -> RE: January 2nd, 1943 (4/24/2019 12:25:53 AM)

Yeah, I set them to absolute for the coming turn, but I've never seen carriers react in such a cowardly way before...and I sent three carriers against the full KB in January '42 once!



CaptBeefheart -> RE: January 2nd, 1943 (4/24/2019 1:31:03 AM)

Ah, you must feel like Geraldo when he opened Al Capone's vault. Shucks.

Did you set the CV TFs to patrol a certain area or to move to a destination hex? After years of playing against the AI, I eventually discovered I usually have better luck at interception if I send them to patrol a certain area with "remain on station" not selected, of course. Also, I assume you don't have any low aggression TF commanders, but I have to ask.

Cheers,
CB



Anachro -> RE: January 2nd, 1943 (4/24/2019 1:55:50 AM)

All are good carrier TF commanders. Of course, I didn't go for Halsey because he is too aggressive, but Spruance, etc. The key factor here is I should have gone for "absolute" threat tolerance.



obvert -> RE: January 2nd, 1943 (4/24/2019 7:41:32 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Anachro

All are good carrier TF commanders. Of course, I didn't go for Halsey because he is too aggressive, but Spruance, etc. The key factor here is I should have gone for "absolute" threat tolerance.


With CVs yes, ALWAYS if you want to engage. In fact I don't like to leave reactions to chance unless it's TFs I know I specifically want to be careful with, so I choose absolute most of the time for everything.

Very odd, still. If I flank in I always use a direct hex selection destination with "remain on station." Works for me.



Anachro -> RE: January 2nd, 1943 (4/24/2019 2:27:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

Very odd, still. If I flank in I always use a direct hex selection destination with "remain on station." Works for me.


This is what I do. I have never seen carrier TFs act as happened. Nonetheless, three of my four TFs had "avoiding air threat" messages. Lesson learned for future.



Lecivius -> RE: January 2nd, 1943 (4/24/2019 2:32:07 PM)

At least you didn't have 1 TF react into him & the rest away. That might not have gone well. I am surprised he juked away, shows what little I know.



Anachro -> RE: January 2nd, 1943 (4/24/2019 2:34:59 PM)

This happened again the next turn. John flankspeed fled to Lunga with his carriers (none of his TFs ran into my minefield it seems, still unspotted). My carriers are southeast of Luganville 13 hexes away...and they are still fleeing an air threat. Keep in mind all their threat tolerances are set to "absolute," including this TF. It seems I am going to have to use Halsey as my TF commander, probably for the TF I set as the leader for everyone to follow.

[image]https://i.imgur.com/Q38HSzK.png[/image]



jwolf -> RE: January 2nd, 1943 (4/24/2019 2:52:35 PM)

Wild speculation: is the problem that your carrier force is split into several small TFs? Each one may be comparing its own air power against the perceived enemy CV threat ... and coming up with the "flee" answer even though your overall force would be sufficient.



Anachro -> RE: January 2nd, 1943 (4/24/2019 2:56:10 PM)

If so, stupid since the game is designed for the Allied player to split carriers into multiple TFs, but could be the reason.



Canoerebel -> RE: January 2nd, 1943 (4/24/2019 2:58:57 PM)

For goodness sakes, don't use Halsey. He has his uses, but not in 1943 in an environment where there's a possibility of parity or inferiority.

In my game with John III, Halsey commanded the CA Baltimore combat TF, set to patrol near Wake Island. The crazy goofball reacted all the way to Marcus - how many hexes is that, 15? - and nearly got chewed alive by enemy bombers. He's uncontrollable, like Patton on speed.

Whatever the problem is, you'll figure it out or it's a one-time thing. Check your commanders when your TFs return to port to make sure there's nobody there with a 20s aggression rating. Make sure that you didn't accidentally set any of your TFs to Low threat tolerance.



Anachro -> RE: January 2nd, 1943 (4/24/2019 3:01:10 PM)

There is nobody with a 20 aggression rating...



apbarog -> RE: January 2nd, 1943 (4/24/2019 4:40:30 PM)

I've seen messages like that carry-over to subsequent turns. When I reset the task forces destination, the message would go away. Do so for each task force and they should be reset.



Anachro -> RE: January 2nd, 1943 (4/24/2019 4:55:42 PM)

Also in the last turn: We knock Calcutta forts down to 2 and 1000 AV should be reinforcing Calcutta in next few days. John has moved 10k troops ti Diamond harbor, which is fine by me. Ceylon will be captured soon and then I'll bombard it.

Major re-orienting of forces in SoPac, targeting New Guinea and nearby chains. All carriers are heading back to Pearl for refuel and then will move to take advantage of some of the gaps I've seen in nav search.



BBfanboy -> RE: January 2nd, 1943 (4/24/2019 8:23:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Anachro

This happened again the next turn. John flankspeed fled to Lunga with his carriers (none of his TFs ran into my minefield it seems, still unspotted). My carriers are southeast of Luganville 13 hexes away...and they are still fleeing an air threat. Keep in mind all their threat tolerances are set to "absolute," including this TF. It seems I am going to have to use Halsey as my TF commander, probably for the TF I set as the leader for everyone to follow.

[image]https://i.imgur.com/Q38HSzK.png[/image]

I wonder if the "follow" command affects the parsing of the threat tolerance setting ...
For sure, a daisy-chained follow situation can confuse the game engine and cause some TFs to break out of the chain. This seems to happen if the TF # sequence does not directly line up with the sequence of follow settings.



Anachro -> January 3rd, 1943 (4/24/2019 11:22:01 PM)

January 3rd, 1943

[image]https://i.imgur.com/KpFPEwC.png[/image]



BBfanboy -> RE: January 3rd, 1943 (4/25/2019 12:35:15 AM)

Still on the TF retreating from air threat issue - something I should have thought of earlier:
Changing the routing to Absolute does not reset the flag for the retreat routine! You must get rid of the flag before the Absolute routing instruction will be used by the AI. The way to do that is to set the TF to return to home base (not just the return allowed setting but actually having home base as the target hex). The red retreat text will disappear at this point, then just re-select the hex you want the TF to go to.



Anachro -> January 6th, 1943 (4/25/2019 12:28:52 PM)

@BB Yup, TFs are still showing the "retreat" but doesn't seem to affect their course. I did re-route them home.

January 6th, 1943

[image]https://i.imgur.com/1jId3BS.png[/image]



HansBolter -> RE: January 3rd, 1943 (4/25/2019 12:29:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

Still on the TF retreating from air threat issue - something I should have thought of earlier:
Changing the routing to Absolute does not reset the flag for the retreat routine! You must get rid of the flag before the Absolute routing instruction will be used by the AI. The way to do that is to set the TF to return to home base (not just the return allowed setting but actually having home base as the target hex). The red retreat text will disappear at this point, then just re-select the hex you want the TF to go to.



Have run into this many times and concur with BBFanboy's technique for clearing the red flag that prevents you from redirecting the TF.



Anachro -> RE: January 3rd, 1943 (5/6/2019 2:36:28 PM)

Wow, I haven't posted in awhile, but will do so when I get the next turn back. We are around January 23 or so in game and India is free of Japanese forces (though Ceylon is still in Japanese hands). John has lost ~20-30k troops over the last 30 days there. However, due to my naval bombers performing poorly and their escorts inexplicably not going with them, John was able to extract about half his forces from Calcutta. The rest have been destroyed.

Now, I am focusing on repairing Calcutta and Chittagong, building airfields along the border, and buying out Indian divisions. Burmese invasion will happen by land, supported by sea when possible. John has ~70k men at Rangoon with ~200 fighters and ~150 bombers. Ceylon invasion will happen soon (debating whether to wait for my additional surface forces transiting to Capetown and then India or not), supported by significant LBA air cover; ~150 heavy bombers are at Madras and its level 9 airfield to knock out airpower and airfields on Ceylon.



Anachro -> RE: January 3rd, 1943 (5/6/2019 2:37:24 PM)

John seem to have gone camping with his kids; he said he'd post when he got to the camp which has wifi but I haven't received it yet...and lo and behold as I was typing this I get the turn from him by email. It seems he has gotten home. Will do a more extensive update tonight.

[image]https://i.imgur.com/mLolQ2z.jpg[/image]



Anachro -> January 23rd, 1943 (5/6/2019 2:53:55 PM)

January 23rd, 1943

Other than the above; it's useful to note a couple of things. Now that Allied sub torpedoes are somewhat better, I've repositioned my submarines to start acting as an economic nuisance and have been successful at that over the past month. John's comments to me were that he had "now activated his ASW defenses based on lessons learned in Canoerebel's game" and that "we should soon see results." He also mentioned nice positioning by my subs, which have hit a few TKs, xAKs, and XAKLs.

In other news, my carriers are moving to Pearl for some fun.

[image]https://i.imgur.com/TFmVoIO.jpg[/image]



jwolf -> RE: January 23rd, 1943 (5/6/2019 3:58:31 PM)

Your defense and counterattack in India was superbly done IMHO. That was a great campaign for the Allied side.

I'm looking forward to the "fun" your carriers will enjoy after they deploy from Pearl.



Page: <<   < prev  35 36 [37] 38 39   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.890625