Long range commerce raiding (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945



Message

Captain Cruft -> Long range commerce raiding (7/1/2004 2:57:51 PM)

I'd have to say that whilst I love this idea it suffers from one problem, not yet mentioned in this thread. There is no mid-ocean intercept! Well apart from the accidental ending up in the same hex thing.

If it were possible I think a CS would be an essential part of the TF.

P.S. Can you put CVLs in Surface TFs now then?



Og -> A real use for the Yammato (7/1/2004 5:19:52 PM)

Okay, I just want to win the game, I am not interested in what would happen historically or what the Japs would never do. I am serious about this, this is what I will really do with it.

But here is how you use the Yammato (since you can't scrap it and it arrives no matter what):

You place it one hex off Singapor (or a similar busy jap port) and draw allied subs to it. When you wrack up about 15 or 20 hits from 3 or 4 subs (you don't try to defend it) you stick it back in port (and maybe you never bother repairing it). Also you put almost no fuel into it since you don't go anywhere. The allied player will gleefully send more subs once he knows it is lurking around out there, and you might even concentrate some ASW in the feeding frenzied area around the big floating hulk.

The idea is you use up 4 or 5 entire allied sub sorties (that otherwise would be dammaging valuable shipping).

So there is a use for the vessel (in game terms).

yours
Og



Oznoyng -> RE: Should I scrap the Yamato on turn one? (7/1/2004 6:12:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tiornu

"By the time war in the Pacific began, it was already becoming clear that battleships were a thing of the past. Carriers ruled the sea in the Pacific."
I don't believe that's true. Neither did the US Pacific Fleet, as evidenced in the Dec 1945 report of the CINCPACFLT Board on Ship and Aircraft Characteristics which repeatedly describes the battleship as a vital unit. The mantra that carriers sent battleships slipping into archaism is too simplistic to be useful.


The USN still has reactionary old dinosaurs to get rid of in '45. :P

Jk, sort of. The value of the BB unit changed from being the main combatant to being an AA screen and shore bombardment auxiliary. They were still useful units, but useful does not mean pre-eminent. Given the choice between extra DD's or getting updated DD's faster, I'll probably take those. Japan's primary weakness is lack of Oil and Resources to fuel industry. The greatest risks to those resources are Allied Subs, and later bombers. I'd rather have more DD's, or my full complement of DD's faster than a big BB. Granted, they are nice ships, but I can sink the Allied BB's more easily and cheaply (VP ratio wise) with aircraft than with my own BB's.



jnier -> RE: Should I scrap the Yamato on turn one? (7/1/2004 6:21:55 PM)

The other value of BB's (for the Japanese player) is for night attacks on allied amphibious landings. In UV when the allies launched an amphibious assault that was within one night's cruise of Rabaul, you could send the BB's to bombard the location where the allies were landing. In the process, you will almost always catch some allied TF and engage them in surface combat. If the allied player is foolish enough not to have a big surface TF there, you will wreak havoc on the transports. And if the there is an allied surface TF there, you will get to engage them on somewhat favorable terms (i.e. you will not be attacked by allied airpower - at least on the way in - on the way back you might get nailed).



Mr.Frag -> RE: Should I scrap the Yamato on turn one? (7/1/2004 6:26:06 PM)

quote:

Granted, they are nice ships, but I can sink the Allied BB's more easily and cheaply (VP ratio wise) with aircraft than with my own BB's


Just thought I'd point out the error in your thought process. Sinking BB's with aircraft if you happen to be Japan is extrememly expensive due to the AA power of USN TF's. You pretty much have no choice but to just torpedoes only as the stardard bombs dropped just bounce off.

Even when you do land hits, you may not sink it due to the damage control abilities of the USN at which point all you have done is lost a fair number of highly skilled pilots and aircraft for nothing. Damage to ships is not scored. They have to sink to count.



Oznoyng -> RE: Should I scrap the Yamato on turn one? (7/1/2004 6:55:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

quote:

Granted, they are nice ships, but I can sink the Allied BB's more easily and cheaply (VP ratio wise) with aircraft than with my own BB's


Just thought I'd point out the error in your thought process. Sinking BB's with aircraft if you happen to be Japan is extrememly expensive due to the AA power of USN TF's. You pretty much have no choice but to just torpedoes only as the stardard bombs dropped just bounce off.

Even when you do land hits, you may not sink it due to the damage control abilities of the USN at which point all you have done is lost a fair number of highly skilled pilots and aircraft for nothing. Damage to ships is not scored. They have to sink to count.


The ineffectiveness of the Jap bombs is certainly a factor I didn't know to consider. I haven't played the Japanese side much in UV (and obviously none at all in WitP). Still, a BB scores a lot of VP. The point about using highly skilled pilots makes sense, but what about using highly unskilled pilots. :P

After the thread on mid-ocean intercepts, it seems problematic to use BB's to interdict enemy shipping anyway. The suggestion above on hitting unloading enemy TFs with BB forces sounds like a good plan though.



Mr.Frag -> RE: Should I scrap the Yamato on turn one? (7/1/2004 6:59:03 PM)

quote:

After the thread on mid-ocean intercepts, it seems problematic to use BB's to interdict enemy shipping anyway. The suggestion above on hitting unloading enemy TFs with BB forces sounds like a good plan though.


BB's are best used pounding bases. Most are not fast enough to be used in an interception role as they can't get out of the area fast enough to escape the daylight air response to their visits [;)]

quote:

The ineffectiveness of the Jap bombs is certainly a factor I didn't know to consider. I haven't played the Japanese side much in UV (and obviously none at all in WitP). Still, a BB scores a lot of VP. The point about using highly skilled pilots makes sense, but what about using highly unskilled pilots.


You have to *sink* it to score the points ... a lot tougher to do with unskilled pilots then skilled pilots. Obviously luck factors into this ... it could just be you lucky day and some trainie pops off a shot that gets a super-critical hit [:D]



Oznoyng -> RE: Should I scrap the Yamato on turn one? (7/1/2004 7:25:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

quote:

After the thread on mid-ocean intercepts, it seems problematic to use BB's to interdict enemy shipping anyway. The suggestion above on hitting unloading enemy TFs with BB forces sounds like a good plan though.


BB's are best used pounding bases. Most are not fast enough to be used in an interception role as they can't get out of the area fast enough to escape the daylight air response to their visits [;)]



I guess this is one reason why I see the Yamato class BB's as scrappable. Much of the support for them written here lies in their ability to tangle with the Iowa class BB's. It isn't like Japan doesn't have other BB's for shore bombardment. Are they effective enough in the bombardment role to make their fuel consumption worth it? Does their value in that role come from their ability to deal with the BB's sent to intercept them? They are indeed nice ships, I jsut don't know that they are worth the cost IF I can get a bunch of DD's or something to augment my ASW forces. I guess a big part of this is, what can I get as Japan if I forego these monsters?



Adnan Meshuggi -> RE: Should I scrap the Yamato on turn one? (7/1/2004 7:27:26 PM)

Wel... even if a bb is "just" damaged, i think if for example 2 american bbs get heavily damaged in a critical phase of combat (for example Guadalcanar), and this means you loose a few 10 thousend marines, this is not good for the us side....
if i remember the war correctly the main problem for the us of a was the lack of enough transport capacity (cause of the battle of the atlantic) and the lack of enough troops (cause of the "germany first strategy"). So, if a combined strike force knock out the only battle ready bbs AND the japanes loose "only" some well trained pilots and say 2 old battle cruisers, but catch 20 transporters with the troops, well, this is it worth ! Or not ? Are the vpīs for such ships so high that the other losses does not bring the advantage in points for the japanese side ?

What had happend if the american bbs in the guadalcanar time had been lost or the landing troops had been slaughtered on the ships ? This could have happened, and the resources in ships and troops were short.

The best chance for the japanese player is to knock out the most heavies at pearl, sink the american carriers and then catch the american navy in your favours and let him bleed to death. Cause if the american player (or AI) try to use heavy or light cruisers against your battle ships and carriers, he will loose too much ships and points. Sure, new bbs, cruisers etc will come, but again, you canīt so something against this. Better to kill as much ships as possible BEFORE the others come in service, too.

In UV as the japanese you need an important base and the american ai will send one tf after the other, you wait and kill. This will be more difficulty in witp, but it should be possible. If the allied numbers will defeat you, he will have lost a lot lot lot ships and points, the timetable is much worser as in history, and you have lesser ships to protect your military operations = more losses OR more time to need. That is everything i need as the japanese....

if i loose the same numbers of ships but the allied side loose much more as historically, the allied air superiority helps nothing... if you have not the ships to transport your troops or to suply them, this superiority is not as powerful as in history. And for the japanese side, this is the only chance you have.

But untill they start the dd [:@] i can only speak theoretically about witp...



kaleun -> RE: Should I scrap the Yamato on turn one? (7/1/2004 7:29:21 PM)

I'll just HAVE to play the japanese side, to find some creative, and annoying things to do with surface TFs[:)]



Arnir -> RE: Should I scrap the Yamato on turn one? (7/1/2004 7:34:09 PM)

Okay, I've gotten totally lost in this thread now. [:)]

Can you scrap the Yamato or anything else in the game?

Thanks.



Xargun -> RE: Should I scrap the Yamato on turn one? (7/1/2004 7:41:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arnir

Okay, I've gotten totally lost in this thread now. [:)]

Can you scrap the Yamato or anything else in the game?

Thanks.


You CANNOT SCRAP any ship... You CAN HALT any ship being built. You will not get anything for it in return, but you will stop spending ship construction points on a ship you do not want - for whatever reason.

Xargun

PS This only applies to the Japanese side - the US has no control over ship building



Arnir -> RE: Should I scrap the Yamato on turn one? (7/1/2004 7:42:05 PM)

Thanks.



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.546875