The Whys and the Wherefores - AAR Post Mortem and House Rule Discussion (IJ – DanSez) vs (Allied – t (Full Version)

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



Message

DanSez -> The Whys and the Wherefores - AAR Post Mortem and House Rule Discussion (IJ – DanSez) vs (Allied – t (8/14/2018 3:04:27 PM)


I am a rules lawyer kind of guy. As an example: way back in the day I wrote a 10 page constitution for a Fantasy Football League that was fairly successful. Before that I was a D&D Dungeon Master writing special rules and spells. I like adding nuance to the games I play.

I know there are more experienced players who don’t like them, but I think they add a valuable tool to moderate a game that can quickly overwhelm new and moderately experienced players. I am still learning something new about the game each week I play.

This is a co-player AAR where I hope we will discuss (post mortem) events from both side’s perspective, important battles and effects of house rules on the deployment and action.

And I hope it can generate some discussion about house rules in general, including what is standard and what maybe hard to manage. The game should be fun for both players.




DanSez -> RE: The Whys and the Wherefores - AAR Post Mortem and House Rule Discussion (IJ – DanSez) vs (Allied – t (8/14/2018 3:06:01 PM)

Current situation is late October, 1942. I am holding close to the historic boundaries of IJ expansion.

To the West the line runs along the historic boundary of Burma, Port Blair and Sumatra.

To the South, some of the East Timor Islands are still unoccupied. No move so far toward Australia.

To the Southeast, Japan still holds Lunga but the Allies have crawled across the mountains and dominates New Guinea.

To Central Pacific, the Allies have started to nibble at the margins having taken Tabiteau. Japan still holds Tarawa and there have been some naval actions there the past month.

To North Pacific, the Japanese have pushed out to Umnak Island as a barrier. The Allies have run a few bombardment task forces at the edges and a plague of submarines continue to harass resupply convoys.

China, a push in South China has started.



[image]local://upfiles/41045/94487C1956D24FE498BC4690B3822D51.jpg[/image]



DanSez -> RE: The Whys and the Wherefores - AAR Post Mortem and House Rule Discussion (IJ – DanSez) vs (Allied – t (8/14/2018 3:07:14 PM)

Currently we are engaging in an experiment about one of my pet peeves of the game:

That single ship offensive tasks forces are almost impossible to spot or stop.

For the Allies, it isn’t as big a deal because they can flood their bases with PT boats which will slow down if not stop a single ship raider. Japan has few in comparison. If the game engine would launch Naval Strikes on single ship attackers, then my concerns would be much less. How well can ‘normal levels’ of Naval Search pick up and reliably identify single ship raiders?

As Alfred says, much of what is posted in AARs are hearsay or untested single point observations, I hope that trascott will join in this part of the discussion on what he did, or didn’t do over the next couple of game weeks as we test a single raider trying to disrupt the sea lanes between Hokkaido and the Aleutians.



DanSez -> RE: The Whys and the Wherefores - AAR Post Mortem and House Rule Discussion (IJ – DanSez) vs (Allied – t (8/14/2018 3:10:21 PM)


Previously to this, and reported to trascott in emails, I have sea search deployed with a few
picket tasks forces and patrols that have been running since the original invasion. We have (guess what) house rules about where IJN carrier forces must be deployed and one carrier task force (of between 1 and 3 CV/CVL/CVEs) must be around the Home Waters, which the Kurlies are included. They can’t raid Midway or run down past Chi-chi jima. Roughly, Adak/ Chi-chi Jima / Naha forms the deployment line. There maybe one or more CVs/CVLs/CVEs upgrading or converting in the Home Island ports.

Also there is at least 1 BB SCTF patrolling the seas with another either resting or upgrading in ports within the deployment line. Only a few cruisers are available and about a dozen DDs thru out this area. A few Es, TBs, PBs and SCs round out the order of battle. That is the Home Island Defense Fleet. I will discuss more about this in the future.

Another house rule is that Japan can use xAK/ xAKLs as picket ships within 15 hexes of the actual Home Islands, not extensions like the Kurlies. I keep the number down to 3 or 4 small task forces (2-4 ships). They have been in the water since March 42 to keep the Home Islands safe from surprise raider fleets, so this also predates our test.




DanSez -> RE: The Whys and the Wherefores - AAR Post Mortem and House Rule Discussion (IJ – DanSez) vs (Allied – t (8/14/2018 3:22:56 PM)

General Stats:

Reluctant Admiral 8.0 (very first version of this – it has since been updated).
Which is based on the da Babes shipping and aircraft database.
We are using the Stacking Limits pwhexe.dat
Strategic Bombing starts 1 Jan, 1943.

Trascott asked for a rule on night bombing (50% moonlight or greater).
He has used night bombing so I expect to see it increase and used in strategic bombing as the Allies push toward the oil production centers in 1943. Night fighter R&D has been prioritized.

PDU ON. Realistic R&D OFF. Reasons for this: Japan’s lack of supply, not so I can build jets in 1942. This gives Japan a decent chance to fight the air battles until the economy collapses and the Home Islands are invaded. I readily admit to not being an armchair Admiral and I need help here to remain relevant thru 1944 against a more experienced Allied opponent.




witpqs -> RE: The Whys and the Wherefores - AAR Post Mortem and House Rule Discussion (IJ – DanSez) vs (Allied – t (8/14/2018 4:08:25 PM)

Single-ship stuff
Fleeing (especially greatly lopsided force); supplying 'small' places (especially over somewhat short distances); pickets of appropriate ship types for appropriate situations; pretty well anything in rear areas where danger is perceived to be nil; combat/ASW/other combatant-type TF's in limited situations especially where resources are limited enough to warrant it; maybe some other cases I am forgetting, but I think my philosophy should be evident from those examples.

When you talk about "single ship offensive tactics" I really want get a better picture of what you are referring to. Just for example: in the early game Philippines, depending on the course of events, the USN might well wind up sending a cruiser or destroyer alone to disrupt some landing or carrier operations (helping other ships escape). Similar situations could occur anywhere on the board, especially in the later game near Japan or its closer holdings.

Are you describing something else? Are you seeing general use of single-ship TF's as a tactic? How about (obviously small) invasions? Can you please just expand on that?

As far as the game engine goes, I certainly see air strikes on single-ship TF's. They are definitely more difficult to spot, as intended to reflect reality. The air strikes on small and single ship TF's were tuned a long time ago by the developers because at first they were getting large strikes, even alpha strikes (everything plus the kitchen sink). What sort of single-ship raider tactics are you seeing?



DanSez -> RE: The Whys and the Wherefores - AAR Post Mortem and House Rule Discussion (IJ – DanSez) vs (Allied – t (8/14/2018 4:33:36 PM)

Thank you for the questions:

Single ship offensive tasks forces as I try to define it:
That would be a force heading into enemy base hex or deep in enemy territory.

I guess it comes in two modes, the first more objectionable than the second.
Example -- A single Japanese CA raiding the Suva area to attack a port I suspect is lightly defended.
Example -- A single Japanese AMC raiding supply convoys between US and deep back water stations.

Our experiment looks at the second condition where trascott will run one CA or AMC in the North Pac operational area to try and interdict my supply to the Aleutians. I recognize that as a valid game goal but I don't want to see a wolf pack of 6+ single raiders blowing up everything. Especially if it is something I can not see nor defend against.

It is not as if I am not trying to defend this area as I described above, so I am not trying to create a lazy or free defensive zone. If I am not mounting search or patrol or pickets, then a 3 ship SCTF can easily creep in and blow away supply transports at any time.

Generally Agreed Deployment Rules:
A 'legal' action would be running a single Fast Transport ship between already occupied based to either bring supply, deploy a unit or to pull a unit out.

Any traffic between already owned bases can be whatever size the player wishes it to be. It is the target or the intent of the patrol that constitutes 'offensive'.

Single ship port raids or bombardments are my greatest concern.
How can you defend them if your Air Units won't launch attacks against them?
Japan does not have the PT boats to slow down or thwart such raiders.

If there is no defense then this is were a house rule can keep the game within boundaries.



DanSez -> RE: The Whys and the Wherefores - AAR Post Mortem and House Rule Discussion (IJ – DanSez) vs (Allied – t (8/14/2018 4:34:47 PM)

For Disrupting a Landing, that would be considered a Defensive Move (protecting an already controlled hex).



DanSez -> RE: The Whys and the Wherefores - AAR Post Mortem and House Rule Discussion (IJ – DanSez) vs (Allied – t (8/14/2018 4:38:41 PM)

Maybe this test will confirm as you say, single ship TFs will be launched against.

I have 'regular' search going across the wide expanse of the area so expecting Japan to concentate search before the attack is not feasiable in an on going game vs an experiment.

Maybe this will kill the urban myth or it might add a data point to my concern that single ship raiders are near impossible to detect --- with normal game levels of search and patrol.

thanks



DanSez -> RE: The Whys and the Wherefores - AAR Post Mortem and House Rule Discussion (IJ – DanSez) vs (Allied – t (8/14/2018 4:45:54 PM)

Back to the 'disruption'

Let's say I am invading Iloilo:
The small task force hits the beach and starts to unload.
Allied CA shows up and blows up the party, that would be ok as long as I have not taken the Base.

Once I take the base, and another tf comes to unload support or supplies, then it should be a multiple ship TF to do the raiding as it is attacking (offensive) an enemy port.

Hope that defines the concept of 'Offensive' missions better.



witpqs -> RE: The Whys and the Wherefores - AAR Post Mortem and House Rule Discussion (IJ – DanSez) vs (Allied – t (8/14/2018 5:09:29 PM)

I have notes on several of your response posts, I'll reply individually.
quote:

ORIGINAL: DanSez

Thank you for the questions:

Single ship offensive tasks forces as I try to define it:
That would be a force heading into enemy base hex or deep in enemy territory.

I guess it comes in two modes, the first more objectionable than the second.
Example -- A single Japanese CA raiding the Suva area to attack a port I suspect is lightly defended.
Example -- A single Japanese AMC raiding supply convoys between US and deep back water stations.

Our experiment looks at the second condition where trascott will run one CA or AMC in the North Pac operational area to try and interdict my supply to the Aleutians. I recognize that as a valid game goal but I don't want to see a wolf pack of 6+ single raiders blowing up everything. Especially if it is something I can not see nor defend against.
2 points.

1) You certainly can defend against it. Even single ships do get spotted; not all the time; they are more difficult to spot. You can use submarines, surface forces of your own, and of course aircraft. Defense is not guaranteed.

2)I think sending (at a time) one or maybe two single ship raids into an area at a time is fine, but 6?! That sounds like gaming it to me. Up to the parties to agree or disagree; my preference is disagree.


It is not as if I am not trying to defend this area as I described above, so I am not trying to create a lazy or free defensive zone. When you talk about one single-ship raider TF, your house rule would achieve just that: a lazy or free defensive zone. I disagree with your proposal. If I am not mounting search or patrol or pickets, then a 3 ship SCTF can easily creep in and blow away supply transports at any time.

Generally Agreed Deployment Rules:
A 'legal' action would be running a single Fast Transport ship between already occupied based to either bring supply, deploy a unit or to pull a unit out.

Any traffic between already owned bases can be whatever size the player wishes it to be. It is the target or the intent of the patrol that constitutes 'offensive'.

Single ship port raids or bombardments are my greatest concern.
How can you defend them if your Air Units won't launch attacks against them?
Japan does not have the PT boats to slow down or thwart such raiders.
Use all your assets (you have many surface and subsurface combatants). If you cannot defend against a reasonable offense, you can't sustain the position. Air strikes not happening? More search to increase DL. Put part of the strike group on search. Put in more aggressive commanders.

If there is no defense then this is were a house rule can keep the game within boundaries.
There is definitely defense against them. If you are seeking something guaranteed to work which you are guaranteed to have the resources to do every time every place, why are you playing against a human opponent?

House Rules are between opponents; I am only giving you my opinion because you asked for input. I suggest you give some thought to what you really want from the game.





witpqs -> RE: The Whys and the Wherefores - AAR Post Mortem and House Rule Discussion (IJ – DanSez) vs (Allied – t (8/14/2018 5:14:29 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DanSez

Maybe this test will confirm as you say, single ship TFs will be launched against.

I have 'regular' search going across the wide expanse of the area so expecting Japan to concentate search before the attack is not feasiable in an on going game vs an experiment.

Maybe this will kill the urban myth or it might add a data point to my concern that single ship raiders are near impossible to detect --- with normal game levels of search and patrol.

thanks


I have seen this so much I am not going to believe any test you run because so much will depend on the conditions of your test. It is not an urban myth; the urban myth is that single-ships are somehow invulnerable. I would only be convinced by many reproducible tests run with well known conditions by several people. For an example see the current thread about aircraft ASW mission weapons filters. One player's tests showed no attacks: bug! Another player consistently gets attacks in his tests. No bug! AE is very complex and it is super easy to have differences that result in very different test results.

From what I am reading it sounds like you expect too much from search. We are not guaranteed to have all the assets we need in all the places we want all the time. [8D]



inqistor -> RE: The Whys and the Wherefores - AAR Post Mortem and House Rule Discussion (IJ – DanSez) vs (Allied – t (8/14/2018 5:17:24 PM)

Submarines love single ship TFs. Seems to me, they attack them 100% of the time (unless Captain thinks, target is not worth wasting torpedo). I am guessing, midgets would behave the same, so just put some on patrol, in all potential target bases.



witpqs -> RE: The Whys and the Wherefores - AAR Post Mortem and House Rule Discussion (IJ – DanSez) vs (Allied – t (8/14/2018 5:25:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DanSez

Back to the 'disruption'

Let's say I am invading Iloilo:
The small task force hits the beach and starts to unload.
Allied CA shows up and blows up the party, that would be ok as long as I have not taken the Base.

Once I take the base, and another tf comes to unload support or supplies, then it should be a multiple ship TF to do the raiding as it is attacking (offensive) an enemy port.
Why? You have a base which you are not willing to defend against a single enemy surface ship and you want HR's to defend it for you?

Hope that defines the concept of 'Offensive' missions better.

To reiterate from one of my earlier replies, if he is sending in several singleton surface raiders I think that is too much and I would certainly object unless it was some very particular phase of the war (late game desperate IJN just for example). Truly single-ship raiders in an area I feel I cannot object to. They were used quite a bit during WWI and WWII and certainly before (although that's less relevant), but I don't recall reading of much use by the IJN. I do not object to limited use of them. The "6" singleton raiders example you cited I do find objectionable, as I mentioned.

I must disagree with your positions about not being able to defend or that single ship TF's are never spotted or attacked. You've got to use all the resources available to defend an area, and if you can't then... you can't defend the place.

All of this is just sharing my own observations and opinions; it's totally up to you and your opponent to find agreement or not.

[8D]



witpqs -> RE: The Whys and the Wherefores - AAR Post Mortem and House Rule Discussion (IJ – DanSez) vs (Allied – t (8/14/2018 5:26:19 PM)

Hope my feedback is helpful.



jwolf -> RE: The Whys and the Wherefores - AAR Post Mortem and House Rule Discussion (IJ – DanSez) vs (Allied – t (8/14/2018 6:11:34 PM)

My own 2 cents worth:

IMHO it is too simplistic to say that X is allowed on defense but not on offense. I would take a more expansive view and say if a player has a naval objective in mind, then he can use any combination of his ships to try to achieve it, including a single ship raid or probe. One may wish to probe a potential bombardment or invasion site, for example, to test for minefields or shore guns; if so, it certainly makes sense to me to use a small, expendable force although this is clearly an offensive mission as you put it.

If I read you correctly above, it sounds like you ran into a situation with numerous single ship TFs that were sent on the assumption that the game engine would not or could not handle them appropriately. If that is really true it would be a problem. But proving such a thing, apart from direct confirmation from the devs, would be just about impossible. Short of that, I suppose I would be inclined to accept the testimony of several very experienced players.



DanSez -> RE: The Whys and the Wherefores - AAR Post Mortem and House Rule Discussion (IJ – DanSez) vs (Allied – t (8/14/2018 7:41:51 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs
From what I am reading it sounds like you expect too much from search. We are not guaranteed to have all the assets we need in all the places we want all the time. [8D]


(expect too much from search) Maybe so.

I would expect a chance to see a ship coming within my zone of control. Doesn't mean I see it all the time, random dice, weather, all that counts, but if I can't see it at all, that is my concern.

I am not running 'extraordinary' efforts but the assets I have deployed should see something coming. Therefore the open experiment. Random dice and weather could have a big effect in the North Pacific. More than one raid will probably be necessary. If I see the raider in this run, then my premise is proven false.

I will detail the units, patrols and arcs after the raid and hopefully traskott will add information from his perspective.

Thanks for taking the time for the detailed replies, I will read and digest them in depth later.



jwolf -> RE: The Whys and the Wherefores - AAR Post Mortem and House Rule Discussion (IJ – DanSez) vs (Allied – t (8/14/2018 7:53:52 PM)

As far as I know, weather is routinely awful in the North Pacific. If ever a ship could dodge air search, that would be the place.



mind_messing -> RE: The Whys and the Wherefores - AAR Post Mortem and House Rule Discussion (IJ – DanSez) vs (Allied – t (8/14/2018 7:56:49 PM)

I don't like house rules, point blank. I find them to stifle creativity and be a crutch for weaker players to depend upon.

I'm firmly in the anarchy camp!



DanSez -> RE: The Whys and the Wherefores - AAR Post Mortem and House Rule Discussion (IJ – DanSez) vs (Allied – t (8/14/2018 8:02:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: inqistor

Submarines love single ship TFs. Seems to me, they attack them 100% of the time (unless Captain thinks, target is not worth wasting torpedo). I am guessing, midgets would behave the same, so just put some on patrol, in all potential target bases.


Hi,
I am using a few subs picket duty but there are not enough to do all the other duties and patrol every sector.

I've got midgets and even barges in some ports. I have in this game, on more than one occasion, seen an Allied sub enter a level 4 port, surface, shell and kill a barge while there was a large SCTF in the same port hex. This happened a turn or two after the ASW patrol unit 'stepped' to the next patrol point, leaving the port without ASW cover.

The midgets didn't intercept the Allied Sub, I am not confident they would intercept a surface raider either.

Even so, to deploy midgets requires a certain levels in port size and supply. I guess I could ferry a few midgets and drop them off at smaller ports but that is a whole lot of supply and effort when my concern is being blind.

I should have the chance to see and strike a raider with Naval Attack air units. If I can, then my concern is misplaced.

thanks



DanSez -> RE: The Whys and the Wherefores - AAR Post Mortem and House Rule Discussion (IJ – DanSez) vs (Allied – t (8/14/2018 8:03:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

I don't like house rules, point blank. I find them to stifle creativity and be a crutch for weaker players to depend upon.

I'm firmly in the anarchy camp!



I have already admitted to be a weaker player.




DanSez -> RE: The Whys and the Wherefores - AAR Post Mortem and House Rule Discussion (IJ – DanSez) vs (Allied – t (8/14/2018 8:12:37 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jwolf

As far as I know, weather is routinely awful in the North Pacific. If ever a ship could dodge air search, that would be the place.


Yes, weather and random dice rolls. But if the raider has to trasverse 10+ hexes of survaled seas, then I am hoping search would pick them up at least once on the way in or out.

Maybe I expect too much.

I will save the files and if the test progresses, then can dissect if my search and patrols were adequate.

I appreciate the comments.



mind_messing -> RE: The Whys and the Wherefores - AAR Post Mortem and House Rule Discussion (IJ – DanSez) vs (Allied – t (8/14/2018 8:34:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DanSez


quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

I don't like house rules, point blank. I find them to stifle creativity and be a crutch for weaker players to depend upon.

I'm firmly in the anarchy camp!



I have already admitted to be a weaker player.




Sorry, didn't intent you to take that as a jibe at your abilities.

If anything, i'd encourage you to try without house rules to make yourself a better player.

For example, you won't learn about the best way to construct a night CAP over an airbase if you have a house rule banning night bombing...



brian800000 -> RE: The Whys and the Wherefores - AAR Post Mortem and House Rule Discussion (IJ – DanSez) vs (Allied – t (8/14/2018 9:00:51 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DanSez


quote:

ORIGINAL: jwolf

As far as I know, weather is routinely awful in the North Pacific. If ever a ship could dodge air search, that would be the place.


Yes, weather and random dice rolls. But if the raider has to trasverse 10+ hexes of survaled seas, then I am hoping search would pick them up at least once on the way in or out.

Maybe I expect too much.

I will save the files and if the test progresses, then can dissect if my search and patrols were adequate.

I appreciate the comments.


The ocean is really big. If you have a patrol group covering a territory out to 10 hexes, that is over 500,000 square miles of ocean to cover every day. Go out to 15 hexes and you are more than a million. Spotting a single ship in that territory that may have bad weather seems a lot to ask for a dozen patrol planes.



DanSez -> RE: The Whys and the Wherefores - AAR Post Mortem and House Rule Discussion (IJ – DanSez) vs (Allied – t (8/15/2018 1:35:32 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

If anything, i'd encourage you to try without house rules to make yourself a better player.

For example, you won't learn about the best way to construct a night CAP over an airbase if you have a house rule banning night bombing...


Trascott was the requestor of the 50% moonlight rule. Night bombing isn't banned. I mentioned the push for night fighter R&D and we are already jousting over Burma and the Solomon Islands in the dark.

A number of our house rules are to slow down the operational tempo.
The goal isn't to cripple one side or the other, as the end results are accepted (defeat of Japan).

I hope to improve my game skills and the best teacher is experience. You can't learn everything at once. This thread is also an attempt to address a rumor/urban myth about single ship task forces at the moment.

You are very skilled and 'play to win'. How many years have you been playing?
Regardless, I'm nowhere near your level yet.
Thanks for the comments.



Canoerebel -> RE: The Whys and the Wherefores - AAR Post Mortem and House Rule Discussion (IJ – DanSez) vs (Allied – t (8/15/2018 1:42:25 AM)

Dan, I haven't read all the comments, but I hope you don't end up feeling that I'm helping pile on. I wanted to toss in my comments.

I don't like house rules. They are too often a crutch and are annoying to keep track of.

Single-ship TFs are not hard to spot and are not hard to target. They may or may not be hard to hit, depending upon a lot of things like weather and the skill of the enemy pilots.

I recently sent two one-DD TFs into the DEI in my game with Erik. He didn't have search up until after the first DD sank a small ship of his. Then he put search and strike aircraft up. He immediately spotted my DD and some Kates hit it with a bomb. Sometime thereafter, I sent an old USN DD raiding in the same vicinity. This time Erik had search aircraft flying. They sighted my DD and I withdrew it. If I felt like the routine was borked, I would've let the DD continue to raid. Instead, I felt like the DD was a lost cause if I didn't extract it.

I've had many similar instances in my game with John III and Erik. The search and strike routines against lone DDs seem to work fine. They aren't easy to hit and shouldn't be, but they can be lost for no return if the defender has his defenses up and prepared.



DanSez -> RE: The Whys and the Wherefores - AAR Post Mortem and House Rule Discussion (IJ – DanSez) vs (Allied – t (8/15/2018 1:51:42 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: brian800000
The ocean is really big. If you have a patrol group covering a territory out to 10 hexes, that is over 500,000 square miles of ocean to cover every day. Go out to 15 hexes and you are more than a million. Spotting a single ship in that territory that may have bad weather seems a lot to ask for a dozen patrol planes.


True, it is a big wide ocean. But it also takes a ship time to transverse that distance. It isn't just one shot to spot the single ship. It is two phases each day, plus the (best case) 3 days it takes to move into the zone, attack and flee. Emily has a long search range.

With (best case) 6 recon pulses, I should get one good shot at a sighting or else it is undefendable. Random dice and so forth, maybe not this test but the next one.

Then, once sighted the question is will Naval Attack launch against a single ship task force.

So: can I spot it?
And if I can spot it: can I strike it?

That is the issue. I am willing to reveal my search and deployments post mortem for discussion. Hopefully we will get trascott's movement notes as well so we can plot against my search. We may continue this test thru the South-Central Pacific region next as Winter is about to sock in the Aleutians.

It will take several game days, maybe more than a week depending on his choice of raider and it's current location, to log enough turns to start dissecting this first test.




DanSez -> RE: The Whys and the Wherefores - AAR Post Mortem and House Rule Discussion (IJ – DanSez) vs (Allied – t (8/15/2018 2:02:04 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel
Single-ship TFs are not hard to spot and are not hard to target. They may or may not be hard to hit, depending upon a lot of things like weather and the skill of the enemy pilots.

I recently sent two one-DD TFs into the DEI in my game with Erik. He didn't have search up until after the first DD sank a small ship of his. Then he put search and strike aircraft up. He immediately spotted my DD and some Kates hit it with a bomb.


I appreciate your taking the time to comment. I don't take it as piling on.

Stating something is so doesn't teach me how.

If I can detect and launch strikes in this game (current test or next round if needed), then I am documenting the death to the single task force urban myth, doing a service for the community.

I hope it is so.

If I can't get it to trigger, but with dissecting my search and picket plans, maybe someone can give improved instructions so my game is improved and in later followup tests, the urban myth is disproved.



JeffroK -> RE: The Whys and the Wherefores - AAR Post Mortem and House Rule Discussion (IJ – DanSez) vs (Allied – t (8/15/2018 2:09:05 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DanSez


quote:

ORIGINAL: brian800000
The ocean is really big. If you have a patrol group covering a territory out to 10 hexes, that is over 500,000 square miles of ocean to cover every day. Go out to 15 hexes and you are more than a million. Spotting a single ship in that territory that may have bad weather seems a lot to ask for a dozen patrol planes.


True, it is a big wide ocean. But it also takes a ship time to transverse that distance. It isn't just one shot to spot the single ship. It is two phases each day, plus the (best case) 3 days it takes to move into the zone, attack and flee. Emily has a long search range.

With (best case) 6 recon pulses, I should get one good shot at a sighting or else it is undefendable. Random dice and so forth, maybe not this test but the next one.

Then, once sighted the question is will Naval Attack launch against a single ship task force.

So: can I spot it?
And if I can spot it: can I strike it?

That is the issue. I am willing to reveal my search and deployments post mortem for discussion. Hopefully we will get trascott's movement notes as well so we can plot against my search. We may continue this test thru the South-Central Pacific region next as Winter is about to sock in the Aleutians.

It will take several game days, maybe more than a week depending on his choice of raider and it's current location, to log enough turns to start dissecting this first test.



Remember Midway. Even a small delay in aircraft take offs, faulty radios, etc etc etc.

Nothing is guaranteed in this game, makes it fantastic.



JeffroK -> RE: The Whys and the Wherefores - AAR Post Mortem and House Rule Discussion (IJ – DanSez) vs (Allied – t (8/15/2018 2:25:02 AM)

Talking House Rules:

If I was to PBEM this ever again I'd look into "strategic HR" rather than "Tactical HR"

ie You must pay PP to cross borders.
US LCU cannot enter China/India/Burma except for the historicl forces (Merrill, 112 Cav etc)
Only AIF units (6,7,8 & 9 Aust Infantry, Cdo Companies, Armd Rgts & Base Forces) can leave continental Australia except for 3 other Divisions which can enter Papua/NewGuinea, Solomons. The 3 AIF Divisions & Corps troops which arrive in Aden cannot be deployed into India. They may base in Ceylon but must attempt to transit to Australia (bit hard to enforce)
NZ Army/Air Force units cannot move further north than Rabaul.
Canadian units can only deploy in Canada, Alaska incl the Aleutians.

Similar limits on the japanese player.

Generally I want to create more of the political environment that the war took place in rather than limit some of the tactics used.



Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1