RE: Logistics in the Pacific - USSAmerica (A), Mike (J)

RE: Logistics in the Pacific - USSAmerica (A), Mike (J) (Full Version)

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

Message

Mike Solli -> RE: Logistics in the Pacific - USSAmerica (A), Mike (J) (8/7/2021 5:38:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Shilka quote: Hi guys. Mike and I are starting a new game. This one will be a 1 day per turn game, unlike the last feeble attempt (by me) at a 2 day per turn game. That was awful and I couldn't manage it. Was the 2 day turn cycle really that bad? I'm currently playing the AI with it, it seems you can lose some reaction time for i.e. invasions. And in some cases bad decisions, or guesses can have multiplied effects, but then again so can good decisions so it might somewhat even out over time (of course AI is exception). But on the other hand, it might theoretically more or less halve the total time for a game, even if not practically that much but still it might be a big deal for most people. It doesn't affect too much on the strategic level but might in the tactical - well just good to know the trade offs. I guess the game is originally meant for 1 day turns but the devs have done what they can to help with longer cycles. Anyway thanks and good luck with the AAR, will be reading too. For me it was awful, especially against a really good opponent like Mike. We tried it specifically to cut the number of turns in half. I just couldn't make it work. Mike was eating me alive.

Mike Solli -> RE: Logistics in the Pacific - USSAmerica (A), Mike (J) (8/7/2021 5:39:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jdsrae I wouldn't like two day turns for air or land combat, or CV battles. For land combat, not being able to cancel the second day in a row of shock attacks would not be good. eg: Singapore assault or any amphibious landing on an atoll would cause back to back days of shock attacks. For air combat, not being able to cancel a sweep or bombing raid that ran into unexpected opposition would also be difficult to watch. CV battles which can change the strategic picture would also be even more of a lottery. Bingo! It would have been the same for the Allies when they went on the offensive, but I think the Japanese would have been decimated by that time. Just not my cup of coffee. (I hate tea.)

Mike Solli -> RE: Logistics in the Pacific - USSAmerica (A), Mike (J) (8/7/2021 5:41:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RangerJoe quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Solli Sorry for a lack of posts, but I've been scanning my old AAR to remind myself of all the stupid things I did and how to fix them. I plan on making different stupid mistakes this time around. [:D] Anyway, I'm starting at the end of the war and working my way to 1941 so I can plan with the end in mind. Air/engine R&D first. My end game fighters will be: IJA: Frank-r Ki-83 IJN: Sam George Simple and to the point. I plan on building the Ki-115 and Toka. I want to minimize engine and airframe factory wholesale changes. One thought is to Keep the Ha-34 engine going and build Helen bombers throughout the war to use as Kamikazes as well. Armor, high durability, good range. That way I don't have to change a 360 size factory for a huge cost in supply and I'll still have a nice supply of good IJAAF Kamikazes. I'll start with that. Let the litany begin. [:D] Edit: I estimate a pool of 4500-5000 Helens available as Kamikazes. As long as you don't keep repeating the same mistakes. A suggestion, especially if you remove a float plane unit from your cruisers that have two, resize the Jakes and train them on Low Naval. Even with trainees early on, they can get decent hits on Low naval. Then use them for ASW to get their experience up and you will have trained naval kamikaze pilots. Don't worry. I'll make all new mistakes here. [:D] Clever idea for the ships that have 2 FP units. Very sneaky actually. [;)]

btd64 -> RE: Logistics in the Pacific - USSAmerica (A), Mike (J) (8/7/2021 5:42:59 PM)
Interesting read. I tried Japan a few times but just couldn't get it right....GP

Mike Solli -> RE: Logistics in the Pacific - USSAmerica (A), Mike (J) (8/7/2021 5:43:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Solli Ok, 0 for 2 on the Helen as a Kamikaze. Was just thinking to save 360k supply on that Ha-34 factory. Guess that ain't happening. Now when do I change it and what do I change it to? Gotta figure that out... Ok, no Helens made specifically for Kamikazes. I will use the IIa as the primary IJAAF bomber though. It works as well as can be expected for that purpose. The Sally will be phased out when the IIa comes on line. More of those details later though. Also, the 360 Ha-34 factory I mentioned above was one I increased in the old game. I won't do that this game.

Mike Solli -> RE: Logistics in the Pacific - USSAmerica (A), Mike (J) (8/7/2021 5:44:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mind_messing quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Solli Ok, 0 for 2 on the Helen as a Kamikaze. Was just thinking to save 360k supply on that Ha-34 factory. Guess that ain't happening. Now when do I change it and what do I change it to? Gotta figure that out... Ki-74 Patsy all the way. Range of a B-29, respectable speed. Armour. Good durability. It's the massive range that will really let this airframe shine and give you both some real defence in depth and long reach. With 29 hexes normal range, you can be staging out of bases in Manchuria and flying against beach-heads in Hokkaido or Kyushu. Alternatively, draw a 29 hex circle around Truk. All those are potential targets. Don't get me wrong, it's a bit hit or miss to get consistent attacks over those long ranges, but it's a real step change while the Helen is a comparatively minor incremental improvement. I'm considering the Patsy. Again, more on that later.

Mike Solli -> RE: Logistics in the Pacific - USSAmerica (A), Mike (J) (8/7/2021 6:06:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ITAKLinus Mike, good luck with your new match and thanks for all the very instructive posts you did over the course of the years. Albeit questionable for many, in an AAR I started on this forum you can find my vision regarding Japanese R&D: https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4966141 I am firmly against Tojo and Tony. I'm a great proponent of the duo Frank-R and Oscar I reviewed it. Very interesting. I'm not bothering with the Tony this go around, but I still love the Tojo. It served me very well last game. It'll be my primary ground fighter until some of the mid-war planes start arriving (George & Frank).

Mike Solli -> RE: Logistics in the Pacific - USSAmerica (A), Mike (J) (8/7/2021 6:08:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rustysi quote: I am firmly against Tojo IMHO, Tojo is a must to bridge to the Frank. Specifically the IIc. Oscar is a stablemate with its own functions, but is just too 'everything' to be your main front-line fighter. Too slow, too fragile, too under-gunned. Yeah, its maneuverable, but that wins acrobatic contests, not wars. Agree with your comments both on the Tojo and Oscar. I may not bother with Oscar R&D this time. Still haven't finalized R&D.

Mike Solli -> RE: Logistics in the Pacific - USSAmerica (A), Mike (J) (8/7/2021 6:10:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: btd64 Interesting read. I tried Japan a few times but just couldn't get it right....GP lol, getting the Japanese right. Lifelong ambition of mine. It could happen. [:D] Not counting on it though.

RangerJoe -> RE: Logistics in the Pacific - USSAmerica (A), Mike (J) (8/7/2021 6:32:46 PM)
For your paratroops, they can go to Wuchan area then drop on that unoccupied base two hexes away from Sian plus one farther up to cut most of the road links from Chungking to Sian. Send another one or better yet two to that main naval base in SE Indochina and use that to paradrop onto Sinkawang (sp?) on the corner of Borneo, then fly and/or FT an air HQ unit plus some engineers and use that as a Zero/Betty/Nell base. They can carry torpedoes from a Level 2 airbase and if there are no torpedoes there then they will carry a full load of bombs on Low Naval with Torpedoes set as the ordinance. From there, the paratroopers could go elsewhere in the DEI to capture a base. Another paradrop onto the base just next to Mersing will cut the flow of the Allied units withdrawl to Singapore. This may require a lot of Allied fighters to be knocked down so a mini-KB action may be needed. If combined with a Mersing Invasion . . . Also, a base farther up that is empty may also be able to be grabbed, air support and supplies flown in for a fighter base. For Ambon, next to it is an empty base with a Level 2 airfield. Put an air HQ there and you can control the air and have torpedo armed bombers as well. If you put a land HQ there with prep for Ambon, that will help the invasion at Ambon. If you get a base on the north side of New Guinea put one of those expanded Jake FP units there to patrol as well as bomb any merchants south of there. An AV and/or a small unit with air support can provide for those aircraft. If there are no fighters at Horn Island, you can also interfere there with those aircraft as well. If you take Jolo and/or have light carriers in the area, break the torpedo plane units into thirds if possible. More attacks are possible on single ships running away. They will carry two 250kg bombs on Low Naval when the carrier runs out of torpedoes which are effective against all but the Battleships as far as putting holes into the side to let the water in. That is also a good area for those Jake FP units as well. When you get enough Zeroes and trained pilots, supersize the air units on that CVL, fill out the air units, and either put two thirds of a Zero unit on it for CAP - or one can be Claudes for low CAP against biplane torpedo bombers and Dutch bombers on Low Naval, or put one third of a Zero unit on it and one third of a Kate unit on it. You can rotate the thirds if they get really trashed. But you can have two thirds training while one third is active on a carrier. You can also supersize the other CVE/CVL air units but only one third will comfortably fit on them. I think that you should have enough Jeans to fill out a supersized unit which would be good for trainees.

RangerJoe -> RE: Logistics in the Pacific - USSAmerica (A), Mike (J) (8/7/2021 6:44:39 PM)
Don't forget to put fighters on a low percentage of LRCAP at lower levels at the enemy air bases. This will help to increase OPs losses. Consider attacking Manila's port the first turn with your Betties/Nells set at 1000 feet. With surprise on and no low level AAA there, with the ordinance set to torpedoes, they will drop a full load of bombs with little to no interference from flak. The Sallies can bomb the airfields. Consider have your Zeroes going to Oahu set to "airfield attack" at 9 or 10 k. If they meet interference, they will drop their bombs and dogfight. Also consider some LRCAP there as well the next turn along with sweeps if you will still be in range. If allowed, consider attacking Lahaina with two Zero units at 100 feet along with a group of Vals dive bombing the port. Redirect the Wake Island invasion force or just unload it so you can replace the commander to someone who knows what is going on. Sending your carriers with their oilers to rearm is a good idea instead of all of the way back to Japan. You should be able to redirect a magic move force to take Midway Island and even Dutch harbor. Send you midget sub carriers back to get more midget subs. You can leave those in the ocean even where they can still sink ships . . .

RangerJoe -> RE: Logistics in the Pacific - USSAmerica (A), Mike (J) (8/7/2021 6:55:07 PM)
To help protect your Luzon landings, you can either paradrop on a base with a Level 2 or higher airfield, FT or fly in any air support and supplies needed, then bring fighters in for CAP to protect any landing. Go for the bases that generate supplies, then bomb and bombard the Allied units to reduce their supplies as well as bombing the airfields/ports to reduce supplies and create damage for the engineers to repair before building forts. Small bombers will work quite nicely for this during the day when the enemy fighters are gone. Until then, they can work the night shift. To protect against mosquito boats, fighters and float planes on low naval at 100 feet will cause damage as well.

BBfanboy -> RE: Logistics in the Pacific - USSAmerica (A), Mike (J) (8/7/2021 7:26:33 PM)
So as to keep the balance in the WITP-AE Universe, I will submit a counterweight to the post I made in your opponent's AAR. Your very own seagoing wench ...[8D] [image]local://upfiles/35791/4E6B0B71B73E40BC94191ACBB1688BF1.jpg[/image]

Lowpe -> RE: Logistics in the Pacific - USSAmerica (A), Mike (J) (8/7/2021 7:51:05 PM)
Well, I think every plane model works...it just depends how you use them and what energy you put into them. Too many JFBs are looking for that one model to do everything (simplify)...and I think that makes the game poorer. For example, the Dinah Fighter is really looked down upon, and yet I have had very good success with them as an early night fighter, deep area anti bomber defense, and with their range as a LRCAP fighter over enemy bases. They are a must build for me...but not more than a size 30 factory.[;)] Also, I am a big fan of the Jack used defensively. Great climb, comes earlier than George, easier to get the later models, engine available at game start. I just don't sweep with them. If you can ever swing it they make great short range escorts for a plane like the Grace or Frances.

mind_messing -> RE: Logistics in the Pacific - USSAmerica (A), Mike (J) (8/7/2021 8:33:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Solli quote: ORIGINAL: mind_messing quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Solli Ok, 0 for 2 on the Helen as a Kamikaze. Was just thinking to save 360k supply on that Ha-34 factory. Guess that ain't happening. Now when do I change it and what do I change it to? Gotta figure that out... Ki-74 Patsy all the way. Range of a B-29, respectable speed. Armour. Good durability. It's the massive range that will really let this airframe shine and give you both some real defence in depth and long reach. With 29 hexes normal range, you can be staging out of bases in Manchuria and flying against beach-heads in Hokkaido or Kyushu. Alternatively, draw a 29 hex circle around Truk. All those are potential targets. Don't get me wrong, it's a bit hit or miss to get consistent attacks over those long ranges, but it's a real step change while the Helen is a comparatively minor incremental improvement. I'm considering the Patsy. Again, more on that later. Wonderful, looking forward to seeing your thinking. quote: If allowed, consider attacking Lahaina with two Zero units at 100 feet along with a group of Vals dive bombing the port. Better in my view to redirect the Zeros to conduct port bombing of Pearl at 8k. The 60kg bombs will not really do much to anything with armour, but they'll make a mess of the thin-skinned ships and add to fires on the larger combatants. Regarding paratroopers, I am quite fond of conducting a Dec 7th paradrop on to Luzon, if just to rattle the Allied cage and potentially catch a few units that might try to run for cover at Clark. quote: ORIGINAL: Lowpe Well, I think every plane model works...it just depends how you use them and what energy you put into them. Too many JFBs are looking for that one model to do everything (simplify)...and I think that makes the game poorer. For example, the Dinah Fighter is really looked down upon, and yet I have had very good success with them as an early night fighter, deep area anti bomber defense, and with their range as a LRCAP fighter over enemy bases. They are a must build for me...but not more than a size 30 factory.[;)] Also, I am a big fan of the Jack used defensively. Great climb, comes earlier than George, easier to get the later models, engine available at game start. I just don't sweep with them. If you can ever swing it they make great short range escorts for a plane like the Grace or Frances. That's a fair position to take. I suppose I look at my R&D from the perspective of thinking what airframes give the biggest changes in capability for their respective roles. That narrows down the options are there are several planes that are undoubted improvements over their predecessors, but don't actually bring much improved capability. On the other hand, there are some that are completely different beasts. The A6M8 vs the Sam is probably the best example I can think of to show this. A different aspect that leads me to try and have as few models as possible is for resilience in the late game. Aircraft pools can't be bombed, and having fewer types of engines and airframes in production should (in theory anyways) mean more factories producing. That gives you a bit more resilience when the strategic bombing campaign rolls around, on top of any surplus that you've built in the pools.

rustysi -> RE: Logistics in the Pacific - USSAmerica (A), Mike (J) (8/8/2021 3:02:39 AM)
quote: A suggestion, especially if you remove a float plane unit from your cruisers that have two, resize the Jakes and train them on Low Naval. Even with trainees early on, they can get decent hits on Low naval. Then use them for ASW to get their experience up and you will have trained naval kamikaze pilots. You're going to need Jake's to search your extended empire and training them for anything other than search and ASW is a moot point. BTW, once they have attained their other air skills, get their experience up by, sweep, range 0, cap 100%. Then with even a half way decent air leader watch their experience climb.[8D] FYI, if you're unaware, this works for all fighter units as well. Take those 50 experienced pilots, put them in a training unit together, sweep, range 0, cap 100%, and watch their experience increase as well. quote: Clever idea for the ships that have 2 FP units. Very sneaky actually. If you think that's sneaky keep in mind that all your CS ships also have two FP units, each of which may become 24 plane unit. Of course one will become land based. In addition transfer those 9 plane units on your AV's to the CS's to make them 24 FP units. Some of which may then break down into three units of eight, which can man those AV's, others become land based as well. And after all that you may convert those CS's to CVL's.[8D] Why I suggest you need lots of Jake's.[:D]

rustysi -> RE: Logistics in the Pacific - USSAmerica (A), Mike (J) (8/8/2021 3:04:52 AM)
quote: ordinance This is a local law about something or another. Ordnance is what your planes will carry.[;)]

rustysi -> RE: Logistics in the Pacific - USSAmerica (A), Mike (J) (8/8/2021 3:05:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BBfanboy So as to keep the balance in the WITP-AE Universe, I will submit a counterweight to the post I made in your opponent's AAR. Your very own seagoing wench ...[8D] [image]local://upfiles/35791/4E6B0B71B73E40BC94191ACBB1688BF1.jpg[/image] She can walk my plank.[:D]

rustysi -> RE: Logistics in the Pacific - USSAmerica (A), Mike (J) (8/8/2021 3:08:27 AM)
quote: Well, I think every plane model works...it just depends how you use them and what energy you put into them. This is so true. Just remember you can't produce every one, and the ones that you do produce need to compliment each other.

rustysi -> RE: Logistics in the Pacific - USSAmerica (A), Mike (J) (8/8/2021 3:13:10 AM)
Ah, aircraft R&D, another topic we could all debate ad infinitum.[:D]

rustysi -> RE: Logistics in the Pacific - USSAmerica (A), Mike (J) (8/8/2021 3:15:22 AM)
I could say more, but I gotta go. Now doesn't that make you all happy.[:D]

rustysi -> RE: Logistics in the Pacific - USSAmerica (A), Mike (J) (8/8/2021 3:30:05 AM)
quote: Why don't I get pics like this in my AAR? None of them. Ever. Ya do now.[:D]

jdsrae -> RE: Logistics in the Pacific - USSAmerica (A), Mike (J) (8/8/2021 4:08:31 AM)
My experiment in a supersized Jake Force is now into Jan 1944. If you upsize every FP-2 unit and fill them you can have about 1000 Jakes. If you do that you�ll need to build more than 3/day or 90/month to fill those units out and replace ops losses. Apart from NavS and ASW, Jake units can train almost everything, but most importantly they can train Air and Def skills so you don�t have to use as many Fighter units for fighter pilot training.

Mike Solli -> RE: Logistics in the Pacific - USSAmerica (A), Mike (J) (8/8/2021 10:21:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jdsrae Apart from NavS and ASW, Jake units can train almost everything, but most importantly they can train Air and Def skills so you don�t have to use as many Fighter units for fighter pilot training. Very true, but don't you lose some experience when you put a FP pilot into a fighter? I know that happens at times, but I can't remember when. Maybe someone can enlighten me.

btd64 -> RE: Logistics in the Pacific - USSAmerica (A), Mike (J) (8/8/2021 11:44:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rustysi I could say more, but I gotta go. Now doesn't that make you all happy.[:D] About time [:D][:D]....GP

Lowpe -> RE: Logistics in the Pacific - USSAmerica (A), Mike (J) (8/8/2021 11:47:58 AM)
Expanding the FP squadrons and staffing with Jakes comes with cons too, especially in a scenario 1 limited economics game. The supply cost is large, and the VP loss can be too. I can remember an Obvert/Jocke game where I think the Jake losses approached 4000 frames for the game...but it is the supply cost that concerns me the most. If used for naval search when the deathstar is around they get shot down at alarming numbers. That is why I always train up some Dinah III squadrons for naval search...to keep an eye on the Deathstar. You can overstuff a squadron with pilots for training without supersizing them. M-M has far more experience with this, perhaps he will chime in. PS: I like using Petes as a night time CAP...they do surprisingly well at disrupting the bombers without getting shot down.

KenchiSulla -> RE: Logistics in the Pacific - USSAmerica (A), Mike (J) (8/8/2021 11:50:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Solli quote: ORIGINAL: jdsrae Apart from NavS and ASW, Jake units can train almost everything, but most importantly they can train Air and Def skills so you don�t have to use as many Fighter units for fighter pilot training. Very true, but don't you lose some experience when you put a FP pilot into a fighter? I know that happens at times, but I can't remember when. Maybe someone can enlighten me. Yes, this happens when you transfer a pilot from it's original type training (ie, FP) to another type (ie, fighter or whatever that is not a FP - including PAs). In my memory it always happens but nothing that would keep me up at night.. (couple of points). A good practice is to train up to roughly 70 and then switch them to reserve and pull them into an appropriate unit for final operational training.

mind_messing -> RE: Logistics in the Pacific - USSAmerica (A), Mike (J) (8/8/2021 12:37:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lowpe Expanding the FP squadrons and staffing with Jakes comes with cons too, especially in a scenario 1 limited economics game. The supply cost is large, and the VP loss can be too. I can remember an Obvert/Jocke game where I think the Jake losses approached 4000 frames for the game...but it is the supply cost that concerns me the most. If used for naval search when the deathstar is around they get shot down at alarming numbers. That is why I always train up some Dinah III squadrons for naval search...to keep an eye on the Deathstar. You can overstuff a squadron with pilots for training without supersizing them. M-M has far more experience with this, perhaps he will chime in. PS: I like using Petes as a night time CAP...they do surprisingly well at disrupting the bombers without getting shot down. Supersizing the squadrons for frontline use is a bit of a dead end from my experience. Yes, you get more airframes and pilots on the frontline, but supply cost increases as do losses (both in airframes and pilots) that are hard to replace. Especially airframes, as you're limited to the 12/week replacement maximum. Far better in my opinion to backload the supersized squadrons for the training programme. If you're training more pilots for fewer slots, you can build up deeper pilot pools or increase the training threshold. I've had some substantial success with this. Gone is the 50/70/70 benchmark for fight pilots. Instead I'm throwing a month or so of CAP on top at taking pilots out of the training programme with EXP in the mid-60s. Makes a massive difference in terms pilot survivability, especially in their first few combats. Jake squadrons are well worth supersizing as they can train just about everything an IJN pilot will need to do bar NavT. There's a few variations of training regimes I'll use in floatplane squadrons: - General duty/future kamikaze (NavS/Recon/LowNav) - Dive bomber (NavB/NavS/GrnB) - IJN 2E/torpedo bomber prep school (NavB/NavS - then into torpedo capable squadrons for NavT training). On the actual tactical use of Jakes, I think as the IJ you just need to accept that you'll pay the price for sufficient naval search. There are too few dedicated patrol squadrons, and even with the IJA recon squadrons on NavS duty there's still a lot of ocean you'll want covered. The Betty and Nell can fill the gap to some extent, but they're already doing a lot of other roles and the IJA don't get a level bomber with similar range until the Peggy or Patsy. The other aspect of it is that with the Allied tech advantage, particular in radar (both air and naval) means that swarms of Jakes is an expensive way ensuring good DL levels in combat zones without drawing on other assets.

rustysi -> RE: Logistics in the Pacific - USSAmerica (A), Mike (J) (8/8/2021 7:34:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Solli quote: ORIGINAL: jdsrae Apart from NavS and ASW, Jake units can train almost everything, but most importantly they can train Air and Def skills so you don�t have to use as many Fighter units for fighter pilot training. Very true, but don't you lose some experience when you put a FP pilot into a fighter? I know that happens at times, but I can't remember when. Maybe someone can enlighten me. Yes, you'll lose a few points experience, but its not a whole lot. Also you can use those pilots for you're FF's. Some of which can now be 24 aircraft. Some may even be split, useful on your AV's. Probably only for a short time, and in limited locations, but is better that nothing.

rustysi -> RE: Logistics in the Pacific - USSAmerica (A), Mike (J) (8/8/2021 7:41:48 PM)
quote: If you do that you�ll need to build more than 3/day or 90/month to fill those units out and replace ops losses. Well that's what's worked for myself. Don't get me wrong, my FP training units use the many Dave's and Pete's to do that job. Also I use the range 5 FP (can't recall their name) at certain locations. So that somewhat reduces the burden for Jake's.

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

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.0625