RE: Always with them negative waves... Aaffins/Cheesesteak v. RADM Yamaguchi

RE: Always with them negative waves... Aaffins/Cheesesteak v. RADM Yamaguchi (Full Version)

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

Message

Cheesesteak -> RE: Always with them negative waves... Aaffins/Cheesesteak v. RADM Yamaguchi (10/9/2019 10:02:56 AM)
Greetings from my travels! Fins has been running the allied forces solo while I'm abroad. He can provide an update, but it's from news. Admiral King would be fuming at us, and demanding more resources be diverted from Europe. Tried to upload a picture of Salzburg castle or my breakfast beer in Belgium, but no dice.

Cheesesteak -> RE: Always with them negative waves... Aaffins/Cheesesteak v. RADM Yamaguchi (10/9/2019 10:16:19 AM)
I'll ask someone ahem closer to home to fill in the gaps, but I've been thoroughly entertained by the ebbs and flows. It seems our opponent has an expert level use of subs. Once more info has been provided to contextualize my question, I'd love to hear how allied players go about maximizing use of their CVs. Negative space, splitting them, selecting targets of opportunity when every major landing is covered by KB or MiniKB, etc.

Bif1961 -> RE: Always with them negative waves... Aaffins/Cheesesteak v. RADM Yamaguchi (10/9/2019 3:56:32 PM)
Avoid the KB if it is together. Combine your carriers in no more than 2 carrier per TF. then keep them mutually supporting carrier TFs and hunt the mini-KB if he is using it say in CBI or DEI away from the KB. Try not to make a move until you have recent intel where the KB is because 9 out of 10 times u got toe-to-toe with it before 1943 you will come out worse for the wear. If you hunt the KB and cripple it, he will be forced to make a decision about splitting the KB or not to cover the gap left by the diminished mini-KB or not go with carrier support of any decent size on part of the map. In early war it is important for the Allied side to hit the enemy where they ain't. Use as much naval recon as possible to see his intention as soon as possible and pool your resources to strike at his weakest link.

aaffins -> RE: Always with them negative waves... Aaffins/Cheesesteak v. RADM Yamaguchi (10/10/2019 1:08:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bif1961 Avoid the KB if it is together. Combine your carriers in no more than 2 carrier per TF. then keep them mutually supporting carrier TFs and hunt the mini-KB if he is using it say in CBI or DEI away from the KB. Try not to make a move until you have recent intel where the KB is because 9 out of 10 times u got toe-to-toe with it before 1943 you will come out worse for the wear. If you hunt the KB and cripple it, he will be forced to make a decision about splitting the KB or not to cover the gap left by the diminished mini-KB or not go with carrier support of any decent size on part of the map. In early war it is important for the Allied side to hit the enemy where they ain't. Use as much naval recon as possible to see his intention as soon as possible and pool your resources to strike at his weakest link. Is there any special trick to the 2 carrier thing? I've read that on here and tried in my RA game against Cheesesteak and they just didn't do what I wanted. I had all my airgroups on their normal settings and they didn't do anything I expected, attacks were uncoordinated, etc.

BBfanboy -> RE: Always with them negative waves... Aaffins/Cheesesteak v. RADM Yamaguchi (10/10/2019 2:07:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: aaffins quote: ORIGINAL: Bif1961 Avoid the KB if it is together. Combine your carriers in no more than 2 carrier per TF. then keep them mutually supporting carrier TFs and hunt the mini-KB if he is using it say in CBI or DEI away from the KB. Try not to make a move until you have recent intel where the KB is because 9 out of 10 times u got toe-to-toe with it before 1943 you will come out worse for the wear. If you hunt the KB and cripple it, he will be forced to make a decision about splitting the KB or not to cover the gap left by the diminished mini-KB or not go with carrier support of any decent size on part of the map. In early war it is important for the Allied side to hit the enemy where they ain't. Use as much naval recon as possible to see his intention as soon as possible and pool your resources to strike at his weakest link. Is there any special trick to the 2 carrier thing? I've read that on here and tried in my RA game against Cheesesteak and they just didn't do what I wanted. I had all my airgroups on their normal settings and they didn't do anything I expected, attacks were uncoordinated, etc. Early in the game it is inexperience that contributes most to lack of coordination (assuming you got the altitude settings etc. correct). Not much you can do about that. The 2 CV idea is because there is a coordination penalty for having too many aircraft trying to launch together from the same TF. The number of aircraft varies by year, starting at something like 150, then going to 200 or so, etc. However other posters have ignored the limit and found that the penalty for exceeding the strike size limits is quite small. IMO, the other thing to consider is whether a large TF is likely to have more collisions during maneuver. I think the high Naval skill of the ship and TF commanders assigned to CV TFs likely limits how big a problem that is, but I get nervous when I have over 15 ships in a CV TF. Others go up to the full limit of 25 in hopes of getting better AA coverage.

Bif1961 -> RE: Always with them negative waves... Aaffins/Cheesesteak v. RADM Yamaguchi (10/10/2019 5:10:29 PM)
I limit my fleet CVs to no more than 2 per TF until 1944, though when I get my light carriers I will include 1 or 2 in a TF with 2 CVs, I use the CVLs for 100% CAP setting and their TB or DBs for ASW work.. I have multiple carrier TF set to reaction zero following the lead carrier TF, also set to reaction zero. This helps my carrier TF stay together and don't go charging off after the enemy carrier TFs, depending on the aggression rating of the TF Cdr. It works well the majority of the time but is not fool-proof. CVEs will be assigned to escort amphibious TF providing them with close CAP and ASW support.

BBfanboy -> RE: Always with them negative waves... Aaffins/Cheesesteak v. RADM Yamaguchi (10/10/2019 7:43:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bif1961 I limit my fleet CVs to no more than 2 per TF until 1944, though when I get my light carriers I will include 1 or 2 in a TF with 2 CVs, I use the CVLs for 100% CAP setting and their TB or DBs for ASW work.. I have multiple carrier TF set to reaction zero following the lead carrier TF, also set to reaction zero. This helps my carrier TF stay together and don't go charging off after the enemy carrier TFs, depending on the aggression rating of the TF Cdr. It works well the majority of the time but is not fool-proof. CVEs will be assigned to escort amphibious TF providing them with close CAP and ASW support. Alfred clarified that the react setting you make on the TF screen is not the one used by the AI when it does a carrier reaction calculation. The react you can set yourself is for patrolling SCTFs, ASW TFs, etc. Carrier reactions are a special case that looks (I think) at TF commander aggression, relative strength of the two sides, sorties/fuel remaining, and similar considerations. Plus the usual random die roll of course. [:)]

Bif1961 -> RE: Always with them negative waves... Aaffins/Cheesesteak v. RADM Yamaguchi (10/11/2019 2:06:34 PM)
Maybe that is why Halsey finds himself in charge of something other than carriers in my Allied navies. He has led some wild charges in the past and I understand the other variables, like need to fuel ships in on TF and operational points in another have their affects as well. It is a witches brew of things we can't control that can affect the response of carrier TFs and now you tell me I have even less control over my digital forces than I imagined.

Cheesesteak -> RE: Always with them negative waves... Aaffins/Cheesesteak v. RADM Yamaguchi (10/15/2019 5:25:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bif1961 Maybe that is why Halsey finds himself in charge of something other than carriers in my Allied navies. He has led some wild charges in the past and I understand the other variables, like need to fuel ships in on TF and operational points in another have their affects as well. It is a witches brew of things we can't control that can affect the response of carrier TFs and now you tell me I have even less control over my digital forces than I imagined. witches brews are rarely good for the health. on the other hand, i found this to be exceptionally delicious [image]local://upfiles/36542/F4476F3ACCA14198A3A881757C16FFC1.jpg[/image]

Cheesesteak -> RE: Always with them negative waves... Aaffins/Cheesesteak v. RADM Yamaguchi (10/15/2019 5:29:39 PM)
Our CVs are organized and prepared to (counter)strike one of two major targets. Tentatively naming the plan of action: 'Operation HMB' Upon returning stateside, I texted Fins for an in-game update to add to the emails we've exchanged. Apparently something upsetting happened in NASCAR that annoyed/upset him to the point of putting off WITP. Hopefully he didn't follow through on his claim to send our CVs on a suicide run.

Cheesesteak -> RE: Always with them negative waves... Aaffins/Cheesesteak v. RADM Yamaguchi (10/15/2019 5:40:59 PM)
RA Fins didn't think this overly noteworthy, but I love reading this kind of combat report. Yay for PT boats: AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Feb 19, 42 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Night Time Surface Combat, near Moulmein at 55,55, Range 5,000 Yards Japanese Ships SC Ch 25 SC Ch 26 xAK Kamogawa Maru xAK Sinko Maru xAK Seia Maru xAK Tamagawa Maru xAK Tatuwa Maru xAK Toa Maru xAK Yamabiko Maru xAK Yamakaze Maru, Torpedo hits 2, and is sunk xAK Yamazato Maru xAK Yamagiri Maru xAK Yamazuki Maru xAK Yodogawa Maru xAK Onoe Maru xAK Hitati Maru xAK Kosin Maru xAK Nichiyu Maru xAK Nitti Maru xAK Nitiran Maru xAK Nozima Maru xAK Nitisan Maru xAK Kozui Maru Allied Ships MTB 9, Shell hits 2 MTB 10, Shell hits 1, on fire

Cheesesteak -> RE: Always with them negative waves... Aaffins/Cheesesteak v. RADM Yamaguchi (10/15/2019 5:41:36 PM)
Night Time Surface Combat, near Moulmein at 55,55, Range 2,000 Yards Japanese Ships SC Ch 4 SC Ch 5 SC Ch 6 SC Ch 10 SC Ch 11 SC Ch 12 AK Sakito Maru xAK Azumasan Maru xAK Yamasimo Maru xAK Canberra Maru, Torpedo hits 1, heavy fires xAK Brisbane Maru xAK Melbourne Maru xAK Hawaii Maru xAK Manila Maru xAK Arizona Maru xAK Seattle Maru xAK Azuma Maru xAK Kinugasa Maru xAK Kagu Maru xAK Kinai Maru xAK Katuragi Maru xAK Kirishima Maru xAK Hakkai Maru xAK Hokuroku Maru xAK Tokyo Maru xAK Arimasan Maru xAP Hie Maru xAP Terukuni Maru xAP Husimi Maru xAP Buenos Aires Maru xAP Huzi Maru xAP Kokuryu Maru xAP Mizuho Maru xAP Kamo Maru xAP Ural Maru xAP Baikal Maru xAP Kasado Maru xAP Kowa Maru xAP Palau Maru Allied Ships MTB 9 Japanese ground losses: 55 casualties reported Squads: 0 destroyed, 4 disabled Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 3 disabled Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled Allied Ships Reported to be Approaching! Japanese TF suspends unloading operations and begins to get underway

Cheesesteak -> RE: Always with them negative waves... Aaffins/Cheesesteak v. RADM Yamaguchi (10/15/2019 5:42:08 PM)
Wenchow gets paid a visit by some big boys: Night Naval bombardment of Wenchow at 89,58 Japanese Ships BB Mutsu BB Nagato CL Yubari CL Oi CL Kitakami Allied ground losses: 266 casualties reported Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled Non Combat: 16 destroyed, 21 disabled Engineers: 4 destroyed, 1 disabled Heavy Industry hits 1 Manpower hits 2 Fires 244 Airbase hits 5 Airbase supply hits 4 Runway hits 11 Port hits 4 Port fuel hits 2 E7K2 Alf acting as spotter for BB Mutsu BB Mutsu firing at Wenchow BB Nagato firing at Wenchow CL Yubari firing at 70th Chinese Corps CL Oi firing at Wenchow CL Kitakami firing at 86th Chinese Corps

Cheesesteak -> RE: Always with them negative waves... Aaffins/Cheesesteak v. RADM Yamaguchi (10/15/2019 5:42:47 PM)
invasions and a lucky strike Amphibious Assault at Morotai (80,101) TF 77 troops unloading over beach at Morotai, 80,101 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Amphibious Assault at Gorontalo (72,99) TF 85 troops unloading over beach at Gorontalo, 72,99 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Amphibious Assault at Lomblen (68,113) TF 117 troops unloading over beach at Lomblen, 68,113 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sub attack near Phuket at 47,69 Japanese Ships DD Mikazuki, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage DD Minazuki DD Satsuki DD Uzuki DD Yayoi Allied Ships SS Truant Japanese ground losses: Vehicles lost 2 (1 destroyed, 1 disabled) SS Truant launches 6 torpedoes at DD Mikazuki

Cheesesteak -> RE: Always with them negative waves... Aaffins/Cheesesteak v. RADM Yamaguchi (10/15/2019 5:43:42 PM)
while his sub activity remains focused on major ports: Sub attack near Auckland at 117,184 Japanese Ships SS I-3 Allied Ships AM Moa AM Muritai SS I-3 launches 2 torpedoes at AM Moa I should add he's notched an impressive tally of allied CAs sunk by subs. annoying and effective.

Cheesesteak -> RE: Always with them negative waves... Aaffins/Cheesesteak v. RADM Yamaguchi (10/15/2019 5:44:20 PM)
have given up the air over rangoon for now: Morning Air attack on Rangoon , at 54,53 Weather in hex: Overcast Raid spotted at 18 NM, estimated altitude 26,000 feet. Estimated time to target is 5 minutes Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 30 No Japanese losses Aircraft Attacking: 30 x A6M2 Zero sweeping at 20000 feet

Cheesesteak -> RE: Always with them negative waves... Aaffins/Cheesesteak v. RADM Yamaguchi (10/15/2019 5:45:11 PM)
he's put a naval guard unit at lord howe: Morning Air attack on 34th JNAF AF Unit , at 128,177 (Raoul Island) Weather in hex: Heavy rain Raid spotted at 35 NM, estimated altitude 11,000 feet. Estimated time to target is 10 minutes Allied aircraft B-17E Fortress x 5 Allied aircraft losses B-17E Fortress: 1 damaged Aircraft Attacking: 5 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 6000 feet * Ground Attack: 4 x 500 lb GP Bomb -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Morning Air attack on Lord Howe Island , at 100,169 Weather in hex: Light cloud Raid spotted at 27 NM, estimated altitude 10,000 feet. Estimated time to target is 7 minutes Allied aircraft B-17D Fortress x 11 Allied aircraft losses B-17D Fortress: 1 damaged Japanese ground losses: 40 casualties reported Squads: 0 destroyed, 3 disabled Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 3 disabled Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled Port hits 5 Aircraft Attacking: 8 x B-17D Fortress bombing from 6000 feet Port Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb 3 x B-17D Fortress bombing from 6000 feet Ground Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb Also attacking 91st Naval Guard Unit ... Also attacking Lord Howe Island ...

aaffins -> RE: Always with them negative waves... Aaffins/Cheesesteak v. RADM Yamaguchi (10/16/2019 11:08:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BBfanboy quote: ORIGINAL: Bif1961 I limit my fleet CVs to no more than 2 per TF until 1944, though when I get my light carriers I will include 1 or 2 in a TF with 2 CVs, I use the CVLs for 100% CAP setting and their TB or DBs for ASW work.. I have multiple carrier TF set to reaction zero following the lead carrier TF, also set to reaction zero. This helps my carrier TF stay together and don't go charging off after the enemy carrier TFs, depending on the aggression rating of the TF Cdr. It works well the majority of the time but is not fool-proof. CVEs will be assigned to escort amphibious TF providing them with close CAP and ASW support. Alfred clarified that the react setting you make on the TF screen is not the one used by the AI when it does a carrier reaction calculation. The react you can set yourself is for patrolling SCTFs, ASW TFs, etc. Carrier reactions are a special case that looks (I think) at TF commander aggression, relative strength of the two sides, sorties/fuel remaining, and similar considerations. Plus the usual random die roll of course. [:)] Apologies for the delayed response. Thank you guys for the information, very helpful. I suspect my previous misadventures were simply bad luck, as I was using essentially the settings described, but it was February of '42.(VAC: This is a partial explanation for that dumpster fire of a Ceylon op)

aaffins -> RE: Always with them negative waves... Aaffins/Cheesesteak v. RADM Yamaguchi (10/16/2019 11:46:57 PM)
Here is a slightly more orderly update, dear readers. At last check on 2/8/42 a sizable carrier force had hit Adak and we were curious as to what that meant. Here's how things played out: 2/9/42 - We discovered the raid was a precursor to a fairly significant NoPac invasion. He captured Adak, Attu and Amchitka. Adak merited the full 7th Inf Div. We are fairly certain the carrier air was Kaga plus CVLs. The NZ Navy bombarded Suva, but did minimal damage. Subsequent ground attack reduced our forts to 0, but we held with 1:1 odds and the enemy now receiving a fatigue negative modifier. 2/10/42 - CL Trenton was sunk by enemy subs attempting to interdict enemy shipping near Fiji. Adak fell, we lost the following units: 151st Combat Engineer Regiment 154th FA Bn 42nd Construction Regiment B Det USN Port Svc Suva odds improved to 1:2 with the IJN marines exhausted. Enemy nearly overwhelmed Nanning, we rush reinforcements there. Not a good base to lose to a relatively small IJA contingent, especially without a lot to prevent a flanking maneuver on Changsha. 2/11/42 - The KB reappears north of Fiji. Meanwhile, the USN CVs see their first action of the war, with Yorktown hitting Raoul Island with a large raid. Purpose of this was to try to keep the KB interested in SoPac while we moved the fleet to Western Australia. Appeared to at least concern him based on his post turn email. An assault on Horn I. by 3 SNLFs was repulsed. 2/12/42 - Bandoeng fell after a multi week siege. Pegu was also taken out by two the divisions advancing from Moulmein. Horn I. fell as well. At least Nanning is still holding on by its fingernails. 2/13/42 - KB hammers Suva, but no ground attack follows. We have gotten some supplies in, there is a brief ray of hope. 2/14/42 - Well that was foolish. Day 2 of 160+ KB planes a a shock attack is too much, Suva falls. 2/15/42 - Nothing of real note, he spent some time cleaning up PI bases. Landed at Derby but only a JNAF Co. which was insufficient to capture the base. 2/16/42 - Landing at Darwin, we had anticipated this as we'd been getting a ton of SigInt reports about two divisions moving to Perth. We thought such an aggressive move was unlikely so figured they would probably hit Darwin. As a result, base was evacuated. Invasion is escorted by 4x BBs, 4X CAs and a CVE. 2/17/42 - The USN CVs (Lex/E/Sara) are now off NW Oz, an IJN sub attacks the TF but only sees a CA. With Nanning reinforced he appears to be pulling troops back. Considering he was using unrestricted troops to make this advance this is not shocking, surely they could be better used elsewhere. 2/18/42 - BBs Colorado, Mississippi and Warspite bombard Suva. Moderate risk, but since he had not brought up AV support with his attacks I figured we could get in there fairly safely. Hopefully delays his buildup by a few days. 2/19/42 - The above referenced PT mischief, always fun. He's reducing our Malaya survivors at Temuloh. Won't take long, no supplies. 2/20/42 - He has another go at Nanning, but our reinforcements are up, he gets 1:2 and takes heavy losses. 2/21/42 - An IJN sub runs into the USN CV TF again. Still no detection of CVs showing on the combat report, but I think he suspects. The enemy TFs from the Darwin op had been refueling/rearming and Koepang and they're all running to the east. KB pops up 10 hexes ENE of Brisbane. Our Oz P-40s may have their day. There's not a lot for him to get there, but the CA Canberra is in yard from a sub attack last month. Sydney is evacuated although it was somewhat empty too. He launches a first attack at Rangoon and is repulsed with 1:3 odds and his engineers take heavy casualties knocking our forts down to two. We're moving out anyway as he has two more division landing at Moulmein.

BBfanboy -> RE: Always with them negative waves... Aaffins/Cheesesteak v. RADM Yamaguchi (10/17/2019 1:25:51 AM)
Multiple sub contacts with a TF are one of the reasons to change a CVTF's escorts each time it makes port. Many players have ID'd their opponents CV TFs by having one sighting that included the CVs and all the escorts, and then later detecting a few of the same escorts in a TF and concluding that the CVs are likely there too.

Cheesesteak -> RE: Always with them negative waves... Aaffins/Cheesesteak v. RADM Yamaguchi (10/17/2019 4:47:19 PM)
Question for people who have done AARs - how did you get over the mental hurdle of sharing valuable intel on the forum?? We're getting into the part of the game where it starts presenting unique circumstances worth fully explaining.

Gridley380 -> RE: Always with them negative waves... Aaffins/Cheesesteak v. RADM Yamaguchi (10/17/2019 6:57:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Cheesesteak Question for people who have done AARs - how did you get over the mental hurdle of sharing valuable intel on the forum?? We're getting into the part of the game where it starts presenting unique circumstances worth fully explaining. I've seen players have a lag between the game and the AAR - so the AAR is on January 10th and the game is at January 20th, say. But in a big enough buffer and you're unlikely to give away anything major.

Cheesesteak -> RE: Always with them negative waves... Aaffins/Cheesesteak v. RADM Yamaguchi (10/17/2019 7:16:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Gridley380 quote: ORIGINAL: Cheesesteak Question for people who have done AARs - how did you get over the mental hurdle of sharing valuable intel on the forum?? We're getting into the part of the game where it starts presenting unique circumstances worth fully explaining. I've seen players have a lag between the game and the AAR - so the AAR is on January 10th and the game is at January 20th, say. But in a big enough buffer and you're unlikely to give away anything major. Thanks Gridley. Your Amazon package of: "Interesting AAR Updates" and "Potentially Moronic Ideas" is expected to arrive in 5-10 turn days.

aaffins -> RE: Always with them negative waves... Aaffins/Cheesesteak v. RADM Yamaguchi (10/17/2019 11:12:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Cheesesteak quote: ORIGINAL: Gridley380 quote: ORIGINAL: Cheesesteak Question for people who have done AARs - how did you get over the mental hurdle of sharing valuable intel on the forum?? We're getting into the part of the game where it starts presenting unique circumstances worth fully explaining. I've seen players have a lag between the game and the AAR - so the AAR is on January 10th and the game is at January 20th, say. But in a big enough buffer and you're unlikely to give away anything major. Thanks Gridley. Your Amazon package of: "Interesting AAR Updates" and "Potentially Moronic Ideas" is expected to arrive in 5-10 turn days. We have deprived our dear readers of "excitement" far too long, can't be cutting them off now! I, for one, have complete and utter trust in the integrity of WITP forumites. 2/22/42: Here come the big boys for Brisbane, our ABDA P-40s rise in defense: Afternoon Air attack on Brisbane , at 96,160 Weather in hex: Clear sky Raid spotted at 35 NM, estimated altitude 15,000 feet. Estimated time to target is 13 minutes Japanese aircraft A6M2 Zero x 41 B5N2 Kate x 17 D3A1 Val x 63 Allied aircraft P-40E Warhawk x 85 Japanese aircraft losses A6M2 Zero: 4 destroyed B5N2 Kate: 5 destroyed D3A1 Val: 11 destroyed, 11 damaged Allied aircraft losses P-40E Warhawk: 7 destroyed Not so bad, methinks, should sting at least a little. [image]local://upfiles/34239/AD660F6ABCC347AFA8F5C6A9AC66BAE6.jpg[/image]

CaptBeefheart -> RE: Always with them negative waves... Aaffins/Cheesesteak v. RADM Yamaguchi (10/18/2019 2:59:12 AM)
There are pros and cons to doing a lag in your AAR. If you do a lag, then you won't get real-time advice from astute gentlemen such as myself. [;)] I don't comment on anything except game mechanics if I'm reading both AARs. I would hope others would be the same. In your case, I'm not reading the esteemed admiral's AAR so there's no chance of an opsec breach. Cheers, CB

Cheesesteak -> RE: Always with them negative waves... Aaffins/Cheesesteak v. RADM Yamaguchi (10/18/2019 3:07:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CaptBeefheart There are pros and cons to doing a lag in your AAR. If you do a lag, then you won't get real-time advice from astute gentlemen such as myself. [;)] I don't comment on anything except game mechanics if I'm reading both AARs. I would hope others would be the same. In your case, I'm not reading the esteemed admiral's AAR so there's no chance of an opsec breach. Cheers, CB good point! in that case, we will solicit advice. What on earth to do now?! Pulling directly from our 4-person mini-war council email thread: FAF: Not a great turn. Our RN CLs which had been ordered to retreat I guess didn't get going fast enough got ripped by some IJN CAs. I think two got Long Lanced, all four are sunk without doing much in return. Old ships, so not huge losses, but losing cruisers is never a good thing. KB is pulling back as anticipated. Large CV force detected 12 hexes NW of Canton I. in the Central Pacific...raid, move on one of our CentPac bases? Guess would be this is the Kaga and friends group coming down from the Aleutians, timing is about right with a fuel stop at Truk or from AOs around Wake. USN CVBG is detected two hexes NE of Port Hedland, Aus. We are 19 hexes from Darwin, so we can get to the edge of strike range next turn. There is a large TF unloading there. It's probably a fair assumption they were unloading, so it would difficult for them to get moving quickly. However that would leave us 7 hexes from Koepang, where he has an air HQ. Tempted as I am, I don't think operating within range of torpedo planes and zeroes is wise at this point in the war. We're risking a massive setback for a relatively limited prize - some nice transports and maybe parts of support units.

Cheesesteak -> RE: Always with them negative waves... Aaffins/Cheesesteak v. RADM Yamaguchi (10/18/2019 3:16:02 PM)
My thought is that Darwin no longer comes out in the green on a CBA. He has enough lead time to take swipes at us, and we would just barely be hitting whatever is still there. I've not loaded the turn, so will be looking to Fins to update on weather conditions. I believe they are clear-partly cloudy in the area. What do you gentlemen think? 1) Go in full steam 2) Turn tail 3) Move just out of Zero range and hope he sends his Bettys on a suicide run 4) ? I like 3, because we likely caught him with his pants down in the area. If we retain a presence in this (relatively) vulnerable area, my hope it that he would, by necessity, divert from his current plan. Really isn't much of an operational success, but gotta try to at least make lemonade out of this. Does anyone have better recommendations? I'll be able to provide screenshots around 5pm EST if that helps.

aaffins -> RE: Always with them negative waves... Aaffins/Cheesesteak v. RADM Yamaguchi (10/18/2019 10:31:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Cheesesteak My thought is that Darwin no longer comes out in the green on a CBA. He has enough lead time to take swipes at us, and we would just barely be hitting whatever is still there. I've not loaded the turn, so will be looking to Fins to update on weather conditions. I believe they are clear-partly cloudy in the area. What do you gentlemen think? 1) Go in full steam 2) Turn tail 3) Move just out of Zero range and hope he sends his Bettys on a suicide run 4) ? I like 3, because we likely caught him with his pants down in the area. If we retain a presence in this (relatively) vulnerable area, my hope it that he would, by necessity, divert from his current plan. Really isn't much of an operational success, but gotta try to at least make lemonade out of this. Does anyone have better recommendations? I'll be able to provide screenshots around 5pm EST if that helps. Light rain, forecast partly cloudy

BBfanboy -> RE: Always with them negative waves... Aaffins/Cheesesteak v. RADM Yamaguchi (10/18/2019 10:53:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Cheesesteak My thought is that Darwin no longer comes out in the green on a CBA. He has enough lead time to take swipes at us, and we would just barely be hitting whatever is still there. I've not loaded the turn, so will be looking to Fins to update on weather conditions. I believe they are clear-partly cloudy in the area. What do you gentlemen think? 1) Go in full steam 2) Turn tail 3) Move just out of Zero range and hope he sends his Bettys on a suicide run 4) ? I like 3, because we likely caught him with his pants down in the area. If we retain a presence in this (relatively) vulnerable area, my hope it that he would, by necessity, divert from his current plan. Really isn't much of an operational success, but gotta try to at least make lemonade out of this. Does anyone have better recommendations? I'll be able to provide screenshots around 5pm EST if that helps. Option 3 sounds good, anything to make him lose those highly experienced Nettie pilots at sea. It will not work if he restricts their range to the 14 hexes of a Zeke with drop tanks, but chances are he has them set for full torpedo carrying range because carriers are a juicy target. So move to 15-16 hexes of Ambon and have good Nav Search/Nav Attack set in case he sends some SCTFs your way.

aaffins -> RE: Always with them negative waves... Aaffins/Cheesesteak v. RADM Yamaguchi (10/20/2019 5:25:59 PM)
The turn VAC posted my thoughts on above was 2/23 On 2/24 we did pick 'Option 3' as suggested, but the Netties from Koepang stayed home. The opponent had landed an SNLF Co. at Derby from 2 APDs, which a small Dutch SCTF we had in the area sank as they tried to retreat. Our CVs flew a strike mission against it and basically destroyed - 522 casualties. The ensuing attack against our base force got 1:99 odds. The DD Thanet was damaged in the first week of the war and has been repairing for the last several months at Cebu. Although not fully repaired she was good enough to fight so we attacked a small TF landing troops to mop up bases in the central PI, sinking 3 PBs. Enemy captured Toungoo with Paras, unfortunately our RAF Hurricane Recce unit was flying out of there so we've lost it. Buying back of course but that leaves us without recon in that theater. Temuloh fell, ending Allied resistance in Malaysia. The KB and presumed mini-KB seen in the Central Pacific a few days ago both disappeared. 2/25 - Large enemy force arrived at Singyang to try to reopen the railroad link between Hankow and the north. We've got nearly 1,600 AV there...keeping that LOC closed is valuable and it's a wooded hex so good defensive terrain. He suffers over 5,000 casualties (432 squads disabled/destroyed). He'll undoubtedly reinforce, so we're pushing some units forward from Nanyang to cut off his supply line from Chengchow/Loyang and possibly even threaten those bases if he's lightly garrisoned with Chinese puppet units. He captured Prome by airdrop, which does cut us off at Rangoon. More problematically the BFF Brigade was there in Strat mode and got hammered. Our main units are pulling out of Rangoon already. 2/26 - Thanet hits another convoy, sinking 3 more PBs and damaging some other shipping. Our CVs are moving back towards Perth, hammering the subs he has off NW Oz. We want him to see us heading that way as the plan is to now divert West, link up with Yorktown (just arrived at Perth) and then circle back to hit Palembang. Hope to catch a tanker convoy there and ideally damage the oil refinery. CL Raleigh was badly damaged by a sub off NZ.

Page: << < prev 5 6 [7] 8 9 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2