Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Developments

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: Developments Page: <<   < prev  27 28 [29] 30 31   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Developments - 2/2/2010 8:13:03 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Hi Canoerebel,

I'm not sure what you stand to gain by risking an amphibious assault into the Gilberts at this stage. Due to your early offensive into the Southern DEI, you've opened up THE front that you're looking for. This sideshow at Tarawa will not help you bring strategic bombing to the HI or destroy Japan's oil supplies.

Congrats on identifying and 'plucking' Tabiteau, but I'd leave well enough alone and redirect your offensive thrust into the soft underbelly of the DEI. The risk that you incur of getting your invasion ambushed and comprehensively destroyed is not worth the strategic gain, IMO.


Here's why I feel like it's a good idea:

1. The going is going to be slow and bloody in the DEI for a long, long time to come.
2. With the NoPac offensive winding down, the Japanese can concentrate everything in the DEI.
3. I'd prefer to have at least one other vector of attack, even if it isn't strategically critical at this time. If Miller is able to clog things up in the DEI longer than I'd like, I may have to consider opening a second front at some point. This would likely be in CenPac, and it would be nice if the Allies already had wrapped up Tarawa.
4. I doubt Tarawa is heavily defended at this point and the Allies have carriers close by. With the fall of Paramushiro imminent, Miller is going to shift his carriers to the DEI and he'll assume I'm going to do the same. They'll be helpful in the taking of Tarawa and I can put this together before the KB could possibly show up (I think).

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 841
RE: Developments - 2/2/2010 10:04:16 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline 		6/2/43 to 6/7/43
 
NoPac:  Paramushiro finally fell on June 6, 1943, bringing this bloody chapter to a close.  Bloody for both sides, but moreso for the Allies.  Without question it was a Japanese victory.  I can only hope that the contest had hidden, far-reaching ramifications I'm not aware of.  Strategically, the Allies performed well in gaining surprise and establishing powerful garrisons at Para and Onne.  Tactically the Allies didn't do too well as far too many supply ships were lost before they could unload.  Finally, I didn't count on the Japanese getting garrison troops that allowed Miller to put together a quick counter-invasion, nor did I expect him to take Onnekotan so easily.

SoPac:  Still mulling over Tarawa.

SWPac:  We have engaged in surface combat in growing intensity over the past weeks in the Port Moresby/Milne Bay areas.  With BB Sovereign present the Allies have upped the ante.  I wouldn't be at all surprised if Miller slips the Mini-KB around the top of New Guinea and tries to spring an ambush.  But the Allies have a carrier force at Auckland, so we'll see...

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 842
RE: Developments - 2/3/2010 12:11:05 AM   
Altaris

 

Posts: 216
Joined: 8/14/2009
Status: offline 		In hindsight, do you think if you had focused all your efforts on just taking Parumishiro that you would've fared better? Just curious if you thought you'd have been able to hold out longer with just 1 base as opposed to 2.

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 843
RE: Developments - 2/3/2010 12:53:26 AM   
ny59giants


Posts: 9869
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline 		Port size along with it's potential, amount of Naval Support brought with you, size of individual ships in a TF, and other planning and logistical matters that were not so important in WITP can be painful if overlooked in AE. Throwing away those small xAKLs and other small ships like the Dutch Navy has can come back to bit you later in the game when trying to unload at various bases or over the beach. I'm only 2 months in and I'm still trying to break some WITP habits that hurt in AE. 

(in reply to Altaris)
Post #: 844
RE: Developments - 2/3/2010 12:55:13 AM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline 		No, having a firm grip on Onnekotan bought me more time, though in the end not enough. Miller spent a month focusing almost entirely on Onne. If I hadn't taken it and fortified it fairly substantially he would have just committed everything he had to Para.

Either way I think Para would have fallen at about the same time.

What doomed me was lack of supplies and the fact that my CD guns at Onnekotan didn't rough up the Japanese invasion fleet like I had expected. Oh, and the availability of the garrison troops.

(in reply to Altaris)
Post #: 845
RE: Developments - 2/3/2010 1:07:47 AM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline 		I've detailed the major woes I've encountered thus far - strategic bombing in China, artillery death stars, and nucelar subs - but there's another concern that worries me even more going forward. 

Right now the Allies are in fairly decent position - June '43, Miller and I are locked in a fierce wrestling match in the DEI, and the Japanese are ahead 32,000 to 20,000.  But it's the air war that's really making it difficult for the Allies to advance.

The Japanese have lost 1200 more aircraft to date, but in the a-2-a category they've lost 300 less.  This is a telling statistic.  It shows that Allied fighters are getting beaten in nearly every engagement with Japanese fighters - whether the Allied fighters are flying escort, sweep, or flying CAP.

I am having a heck of a time in the DEI because my fighters get trashed.  I ran out of P-38 replacements, so I had to swap them out with P-40Ks.  My P-40s get beaten as do Corsairs, Wildcats, and Kittyhawks. 

By mid-43 I would have expected the Allies to be winning most a-2-a battles and Japanese losses to be greviously high.  That isn't the case in my game as best I can tell.  Miller has mentioned a few things in different posts and emails suggesting that he too is struggling to mount an adequate air defense, but I can't tell that from my position.

Until the Allies get control of the air I cannot safely move forward in concentrated numbers.  Instead of sending forward a big invasion fleet, right now I can only send out expendable little detachments and wait for airfields to get big enough to base massive numbers of fighters.  Base building takes time, so the advances will be slow.

Why are the Allies not performing at historic levels?  I'm not positive - it could very well be something purely to do with player performance:  how Miller trains his pilots compared to how I do so.  But Allied pilots seem to have low experience and not enough aircraft in the pools to replace losses.  By mid-43 I doubt the Allies were down to just one P-38 squadron in the entire PTO, but that's my situation.

I'm working on the problem, but the going is slow!    

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 846
RE: Developments - 2/3/2010 2:28:26 AM   
DW

 

Posts: 161
Joined: 2/14/2008
Status: offline 		I had a look at another AAR, "Ranting" Castor Troy's (and the "Ranting" part is no exaggeration :) ", and there was a "discussion" about air-air combat.

Among those participating in the discussion, the consensus seem to be that the three most important factors in air-air combats are altitude, altitude and altitude.

Who ever is higher when combat is initiated gets the bounce and who ever gets the bounce devastates the enemy.

It seems that who ever gets the bounce so damages the enemy formation on the first pass that the surviving aircraft are fairly easy to mop up. 

It was also suggested that this tactic was less effective against very large raids because enough aircraft survive the bounce to effectively mix it up in later rounds of combat.  But, since most raids are on the smallish side, 20-30 or so aircraft, the tactic was very effective.  This held true for operating cap, flying sweeps and flying escort.

Castor Troy was complaining about how unhistorical it was.  While high altitude air-air combat was fairly common in Europe, most air-air combat in the Pacific happened between 10,000 and 15,000 feet.

But hey...  What ever works.

I suggest you experiment with this and set your fighters to max altitude for a few battles and see if it makes a difference in improving your kill ratio.

Also, if you've any old combat reports saved, you might want to have a look at air battles and see if you notice any sort of correlation between your successes, failures and relative altitudes.

Too bad about Paramushiro, btw...  It really looked like you had him by the short hairs for a while there.  Those unexpected troops he got really simplified Miller's response.  I think that if he hadn't gotten them it would have been an entirely different battle.

I know you said you did finally put some PBYs flying in supplies.  Can you tell me how many aircraft you put on the task and how much supply they were able to move?  I'm just curious as to how much supply can be moved through such means.  That might be important knowledge in upcoming battles.


(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 847
RE: Developments - 2/3/2010 3:25:57 AM   
JeffroK


Posts: 6391
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline 		But Allied pilots seem to have low experience and not enough aircraft in the pools to replace losses

I have found (up to Feb 43) that Allied plane pools are very low, its really only since 43 arrived I have a stock of Hurri IIC, P40K & F4F to play with. I only recently sold my SBC-4's when I got 30 SBD-3's in the pool. Added to this the "almost unlimited" pool of japanese planes makes it very, very hard.

IMHO, the Allied pilot exp is low because you are always on the wrong end of the attrition battle. You find you are always outnumbered therefore always suffering losses and so you are always replacing pilots.

PS. If players, either japanese or Allied receive extra troops to fight off an attack, they should be restricted because afterall, they are there to defend not perform an expeditionary force. Even moreso when these troops are basically "Extra Militia" raised to defend against attack on their homeland.


_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to DW)
Post #: 848
RE: Developments - 2/3/2010 6:31:55 AM   
crsutton


Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline 		I agree. My game is only at June 1 1942 but the biggest problem that I see is that a good Japanese player will mass his airforce on attack and overwhelm even the most concentrated Allies defence. I don't see myself getting the ability to counter this until early 1943 when I can produce planes on a parity with him. So the effect is that all things being equal, it takes longer to slow the pace of the Japanese offensive due Japanese air superiority. AE addressed many of the air problems of WITP but the biggest issue that I see is that it is too easy to mass airpower in 1942. All of this benefits the Japanese player because he has, better pilots, better leaders thus better coordination, so is going to win the bulk of the big air battles. Thus a greater chance of gaining control of a theater.

As with a lot of aspects of the game, the air system works very well in normal battles, but most of us angle for massive air battles and then the results get skewed. The biggest problem for the Allies is that they are just attritioned out of any sort of situation when the Japanese side wants to do it. I think the problem lies with the ability to put too many planes into a battle. There needs to be a way to get a handle on these large air battles. It is something that just did not happen in 1942.

What is the solution. Slower to build up airbases, longer to repair planes at forward bases and significant operational penalties for flying planes out of a base in excess of support. To suggest a few.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to JeffroK)
Post #: 849
RE: Developments - 2/3/2010 8:29:20 AM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline 		Well guys the trick is that as the Allies you can't face the Japanese schwerpunkt and survive for long. On the other hand you CAN nibble around the edges and achieve favourable attrition and you CAN stand up to the schwerpunkt for small periods of time at critical junctures. I will make a post to my AAR as I don't want to breach FOW here about my management of the strategic air campaign.

The end result is that my P40s are achieving about a 1:1 exchange rate vs the IJN Zeroes while my H81s ( because of pilot experience in the mid to high 60s ) are achieving better than 1:1. This is in January 1942. I do think there are a few tricks as to why this is the case though and I'll post them to my AAR. FWIW the Hurricane IIs I've just received ( I received the first squadron about 5 days ago ) are achieving about a 2.5 to 1 exchange rate vs enemy Zeroes. They really shred them. Even accounting for overclaiming I'm coming out at somewhere between 1.5 or 2:1 with those Hurricanes which is pretty good in January 1942.


I like the Air Combat model, there's a lot more leeway for nuance and skill but that does mean that if you get things even slightly wrong you can get butchered., If, on the other hand, as the Allies, you set things up properly your air force can be a LOT more competitive than they were in WiTP. The way it is right now I just amn't afraid of IJN Zero sweeps. I figure that if I have 50 fighters at a base it'll cost him 50 Zeroes to clear those skies. That's a pretty good deal to me right now.

The trick is that not every base is worth those 50 fighters so I have to pick and choose where I fight. But when I fight I'm confident I'll get a good exchange rate.

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 850
RE: Developments - 2/3/2010 8:32:08 AM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline 		I play both sides, and I am not yet sure about this issue, but interesting question. For sure, AE is an improvement, particularly in the areas of airbase stacking and uber-cap, which is definitely gone. So those are certainly improvements.

In general, I think WITP favored the advanced Allied fighters a bit too much. It could be AE doesn't favor them enough. Jury still out, but worth keeping an eye on. Certainly the USAAF shouldn't be scraping the bottom on replacements. I am not an expert on Japanese airplane production, but historically it does seem like the Japanese didn't really lack airplanes after ther early part of the war. They lacked pilots, trained air crews, supplies, construction troops, pretty much all the other stuff you need, but not airplanes.

In AE, there is a bigger gap than in WITP in terms of base force and construction troops; in AE, the Allies are WAY ahead of Japan, which is how it should be.

_____________________________


(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 851
RE: Developments - 2/3/2010 10:08:13 AM   
Galahad78

 

Posts: 386
Joined: 9/28/2009
Status: offline 		Just a newbie but, could it be possible that this "lack" of performance could be due to low level pilots in a-2-a? There are some threads in the forums suggesting that overall experience is only a factor when recovering fatigue, not for actual combat. Perhaps, due to the attrition, the pilots replacements could have a "nice" experience but su** at air-to-air combat, where you need them most.

Just thinking out loud.

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 852
RE: Developments - 2/3/2010 10:27:50 AM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

I play both sides, and I am not yet sure about this issue, but interesting question. For sure, AE is an improvement, particularly in the areas of airbase stacking and uber-cap, which is definitely gone. So those are certainly improvements.

In general, I think WITP favored the advanced Allied fighters a bit too much. It could be AE doesn't favor them enough. Jury still out, but worth keeping an eye on. Certainly the USAAF shouldn't be scraping the bottom on replacements. I am not an expert on Japanese airplane production, but historically it does seem like the Japanese didn't really lack airplanes after ther early part of the war. They lacked pilots, trained air crews, supplies, construction troops, pretty much all the other stuff you need, but not airplanes.

In AE, there is a bigger gap than in WITP in terms of base force and construction troops; in AE, the Allies are WAY ahead of Japan, which is how it should be.


I totally agree. The real advantage of the Allies is simple the ability to project power better than the Japanese.
You can build up bases much faster, have a greater pool of eng replacements, have an overwhelming number of
BF´s and so should be able to concentrate airforces in a greater number of areas than the Japanese.

To add to the issue with a2a performance:
AE handles a2a combat based on 2 main factors, thats AC performance and pilot experience.
The plane performance late in the war was not as onesided as it seems if you only look at it by
recalling the devastating results for the IJN/IJA in many of the late war battles.

AC performance and pilot experience is a major factor, admitted, but the real problem lay somewhere else:

- the Japanes never had an integrated air defense system, not even on the HIs
- they had lacking or non-existing radio communication and thus nearly no streamlined procedures
to enable them to react fast to different situations.
- they had not enough mechanics to keep a big number of fighters ready for an extended period of time
- they lacked sophisticated equipment neccesary for building advanced airbases with maintenance facilities

As a result they were nearly never able to fight on their terms late-war and where outnumbered in nearly every situation.

Some of this is reflected by AE (e.g. the lack of base forces and engineering equipment) other (like missing radio communication
and as a result no advanced group tactics or group situational awareness) is not.
But it is enough that a Japanese player is able to compensate for some of the above points, making the battle more even than
it historically was.

_____________________________


(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 853
RE: Developments - 2/3/2010 3:03:01 PM   
Panther Bait


Posts: 654
Joined: 8/30/2006
Status: offline 		For the most part, it seems that Allied players are also a lot more aggressive in late 1942-1943 than the Allies were in real life as well.  While the US/ANZAC forces were slugging their way up the Solomons during that time, this didn't really generate the type of response from the Japanese that striking into the DEI or Paramushiro would have done, particularly from the IJA.

Unfortunately the plane pools probably reflect that a little too much.  The small plane pools are probably a combination of the Europe First policy (heavy bombers in particular), and a low commitment level.  With their modest efforts they just didn't need huge number of fighters on the front line and probably concentrated them in training in the CONUS.

The Europe First reason should definitely affect the game.

The second reason probably causes too much of a disconnect with the events in the game versus history, or in other words, the Allies (i.e. the US) could almost certainly feed more fighters (particularly Navy and more Pacific theater specific planes like the P-38) to the theater if they really needed them.  In real like, they chose not to/didn't really need them at the moment (moreso in 1943, versus Operation Shoestring-type affairs in late 42).  So in the game, the 1943 lull sort of forces the Allied player to lay back and make modest plans or run more aggressive campaigns on the razor's edge.  Maybe that's a good thing, maybe it's not. 

An interesting idea would be to make the Allied player "buy" an increase in aircraft replacement rates with PPs.  It would allow them to tailor their needs a little more, but still force some choices on them (more airframes, more airgroups or more troops) without opening up the virtually limitless production that on-board Allied airplane production would bring.  Something like "just give me 100 more P-38's and I'll take the DEI back from the Japanese and end this by Christmas 1943."

Mike

_____________________________

When you shoot at a destroyer and miss, it's like hit'in a wildcat in the ass with a banjo.

Nathan Dogan, USS Gurnard

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 854
RE: Developments - 2/3/2010 4:05:50 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		This is what an AAR is all about (in my opinion)! Serious discussion of a specific campaign and its play broadening out to a discussion about AE as a whole. Well done Mr. Roper! If I had a better feel for the game I would jump in but my knowledge base is woefully lacking in this area.



_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to Panther Bait)
Post #: 855
RE: Developments - 2/3/2010 4:15:36 PM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline 		I am confident that the aircraft replacements are accurate for the Allies. Timtom meticulously researched it, and any questions that have come up, he has had an excellent response. That's not an issue.

As far as Japanese production, the Japanese player does have more flexibility to increase production. I don't know how unrealistic it is; after all, the Japanese made over 30,000 FIGHTERS during the war, which is about 650 per month. To hit that level, the Japanese MUST expand their production, so being able to do so is realistic. I don't think that's much of an issue.

There is no doubt that for many, like Canoerebel, the Allies are LOSING more aircraft than historical. Why? Probably to Panther's point, the Allies in AE are generally more aggressive than RL. It could be that advanced types aren't rated high enough to improve their survivability. This deserves further study.

It should be noted that almost every AE or WITP game I have seen is bloodier than RL, in all aspects. More combat, more naval fights, more air fights, everything.

_____________________________


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 856
RE: Developments - 2/3/2010 4:22:08 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline 		Thanks, John, and also thanks to you guys for chiming in with observations and suggestions.

I just had a big sweep/bombing mission scheduled to hit Lautem.  My fighters were coming from nearby Babar and Saumlaki.  The B-24s and B-17s were coming from Darwin.  I had all fighters set at the same altitude, and all bombers set to the same altitude.  Instead of going in together, they went in dribs and drabs - 15 fighters here, 25 bombers and six fighters there, etc.  Given the disarray I was fortunate that the Japanese didn't have any CAP this time, but I still lost something like 15 bombers to Ops.

The air war in AE is very challenging and somewhat frustrating.

On a separate note, I thought I'd comment about Allied transport capacity.  I have lost vast numbers of transports in this game - submarines, naval bombers, and Paramushiro's guns took the vast majority.  I doubt anybody will manage to equal my record in squandering transports.

And yet the Allies have plenty of transports as of June '43.  I have plenty to tote supplies around the map.  I have plenty of supplies at bases like Adak, Christmas, Tahiti, Pago Pago, Auckland, and Noumea. The level of supplies in OZ are even greater - huge.  The only place I'm having difficulty is getting supplies to the frontline bases where subs and combat ships and enemy aircraft and moth and dust doth corrupt.

So it doesn't seem to me that transports is a big issue for the Allies in AE even if you manage to lose ships at an exhorbitant rate like me.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 857
RE: Developments - 2/3/2010 4:25:51 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		I think the early-war Allied agressiveness has a lot to do with it. As stated earlier the Allies tend to start their offensive earlier then in the war. In some games there is a Guadalcanal-type battle where the Japanese are atritted down but in many it seems there is a go-for-the-throat attack in early-1943 that becomes extraordinarily bloody.

The other side to that coin is that many Japanese players will try to be even more agressive in the early stages of the war. I always am. This may have something to do with the airframe issue because there isn't too much transition between the Japanese continous attacks (destroying said airframes) and the Allied counterattack.


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 858
RE: Developments - 2/3/2010 4:26:59 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Panther Bait

For the most part, it seems that Allied players are also a lot more aggressive in late 1942-1943 than the Allies were in real life as well.  While the US/ANZAC forces were slugging their way up the Solomons during that time, this didn't really generate the type of response from the Japanese that striking into the DEI or Paramushiro would have done, particularly from the IJA.


Mike


Yes, but historically, the Allies had won air supiority in most all points of contact by late 1942. There must have been a reason for this. I just don't see it happening in the game until perhaps mid 1943 but we reallly have to see how it plays out as I am only at June 1 in my game.

Right now what I am seeing is that a skilled Japanese player can mass air assets and dominate any theater that he wants. It is not horrible and certainly I like it better than WITP but this has a marked effect on the Japanese ability to advance and continue advancing. Its just does not seem quite right.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Panther Bait)
Post #: 859
RE: Developments - 2/3/2010 4:28:36 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Thanks, John, and also thanks to you guys for chiming in with observations and suggestions.

I just had a big sweep/bombing mission scheduled to hit Lautem.  My fighters were coming from nearby Babar and Saumlaki.  The B-24s and B-17s were coming from Darwin.  I had all fighters set at the same altitude, and all bombers set to the same altitude.  Instead of going in together, they went in dribs and drabs - 15 fighters here, 25 bombers and six fighters there, etc.  Given the disarray I was fortunate that the Japanese didn't have any CAP this time, but I still lost something like 15 bombers to Ops.

The air war in AE is very challenging and somewhat frustrating.

On a separate note, I thought I'd comment about Allied transport capacity.  I have lost vast numbers of transports in this game - submarines, naval bombers, and Paramushiro's guns took the vast majority.  I doubt anybody will manage to equal my record in squandering transports.

And yet the Allies have plenty of transports as of June '43.  I have plenty to tote supplies around the map.  I have plenty of supplies at bases like Adak, Christmas, Tahiti, Pago Pago, Auckland, and Noumea. The level of supplies in OZ are even greater - huge.  The only place I'm having difficulty is getting supplies to the frontline bases where subs and combat ships and enemy aircraft and moth and dust doth corrupt.

So it doesn't seem to me that transports is a big issue for the Allies in AE even if you manage to lose ships at an exhorbitant rate like me.


I AGREE! Lord knows I sunk over 1,100 Allied ships in our WitP Campaign and you KEPT ON COMING! I felt like Apollo Creed fighting Rocky Balboa. Nothing stopped you.



Nothing like tenacity...


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 860
RE: Developments - 2/3/2010 4:32:48 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton
Yes, but historically, the Allies had won air supiority in most all points of contact by late 1942. There must have been a reason for this. I just don't see it happening in the game until perhaps mid 1943 but we reallly have to see how it plays out as I am only at June 1 in my game.

Right now what I am seeing is that a skilled Japanese player can mass air assets and dominate any theater that he wants. It is not horrible and certainly I like it better than WITP but this has a marked effect on the Japanese ability to advance and continue advancing. Its just does not seem quite right.


I can tell you that nothing has changed as of mid-'43 in my game. It's June and the Japanese are still getting the best of the Allies. As noted above, the Allies have lost 300 more aircraft a-2-a than have the Japanese.

What I don't know is whether it's due to some flaw in the game or a flaw in my ability to play the game (or a combination of both plus Miller's aptitude).

I didn't have any trouble with the air war in WitP - it was pretty intuitive. But intuition isn't enough in AE. You've got to have some mojo that I don't have.

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 861
RE: Developments - 2/3/2010 4:40:02 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

There is no doubt that for many, like Canoerebel, the Allies are LOSING more aircraft than historical. Why? Probably to Panther's point, the Allies in AE are generally more aggressive than RL. It could be that advanced types aren't rated high enough to improve their survivability. This deserves further study.

It should be noted that almost every AE or WITP game I have seen is bloodier than RL, in all aspects. More combat, more naval fights, more air fights, everything.


Lots of good comments.

My experiences are only AI-related, and it gets huge windfalls in plane quantity out of the gate. Reasonable, but as an Allied player I've always felt as if I was trying to hold back the sea, especially in Burma. I went south in early 1943, taking Cox's B and Akyab, then, with an all-armor spearhead, charging down to Prome while simultaneously taking the dot hex at Ramree Island and building it furiously as a supply beachhead. I ran infantry and base support down to Prome and finally took Rangoon in September. I'm now hooking back northeast to a cut-off Mandalay and assorted small bases to clean up.

All during this effort the AI mounted massive, multi-base raids--120-150 fighters and 60-80 bomber raids, day after day. They came from 3-4 large bases like Moulmein and Pegu, and were usually perfectly coordinated. I threw everything I could at them, but, as Nemo says, you can't. I finally moved all the AA in I could (it's seldom mentioned here, but it's a killer in AE), and pulled my planes back. Having 9-12 Hurricanes rise to meet 150 incoming raiders was getting me nowhere.

What happened was . . . not much. LBA is not the King of All Warfare it was in WITP. They take out supplies, hole runways, and cause some LCU casualties and disruption, but they don't stop determined ground advances. Only other ground forces do that.

As for the P-38, I too have been disappointed in its performance as well as numbers. It was a good buy in mid-1942, and I moved what I had to PM. Swept Rabaul, escorted raids on Lae, etc., but it was fragile and in need of a lot of maintenance. For the space and maintenance resources consumed I think the late P-40 models are about as good.

What has been a nice surprise is how great the P-47 is when they show up. A flying tank, easy to keep flying, a great dogfighter as well as gournd attack unit. You get a lot in the last third of 1943 and they finally turned the tide in Burma. Like a knife through butter. Like Canoerebel I have one or two P-38 units hanging around, but they've been bypassed. I think they were better in RL than the game lets them be, but that's the way it goes.

Hellcats are pretty sweet too.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 862
RE: Developments - 2/3/2010 5:15:23 PM   
khyberbill


Posts: 1941
Joined: 9/11/2007
From: new milford, ct
Status: offline
quote:

My P-40s get beaten as do Corsairs, Wildcats, and Kittyhawks.


I am surprised your Corsairs are getting beaten. I have one squad with 47 kills and 1 loss. These are against Tojos and Tonys. I fly them at 30k for sweeps and cap and at 1-2k above bombers if escorting. I sweep a day or two before bombing begins in earnest. I have been disappointed in the performance of the P38 at any altitude. Hellcats are holding their own and I get P47s next turn and I suspect they will do as well as the Corsairs.

_____________________________

"Its a dog eat dog world Sammy and I am wearing Milkbone underwear" -Norm.

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 863
RE: Developments - 2/3/2010 5:19:26 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline 		Bullwinkle, interesting comments and I'll cross my fingers about P-47s (three squadrons are on the way to Cape Town and then on to Oz) and Hellcats (Essex, Saratoga, and Wasp now have about 100 of those critters).

Regarding your obersvation that losing control of the air over Burma proved to be no big deal as the Japanese aircraft didn't do much, the situation is very different in the Pacific.  While aircraft may not be everything in a land war like Burma, they are still death to ships in the sea. 

So, if you move your observations about Burma to some place like the DEI, and if the results are the same, it plays havoc with the Allies.   That's my situation - I can't send ships forward because the Japanese still have control of the air.  I have a level three base at Babar, level four (nearly five) at Saumlaki, one at Taberfane, two at Aru Island, and one at Kai-eilenden.  Even with the ability to base that many fighters in fairly close proximity I'm getting whipped.  Eventually, all of these bases can be built to level eight (except one, which can only reach seven).  So eventually the Allies will win this air battle, but it's going to take a long time. 

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 864
RE: Developments - 2/3/2010 5:25:12 PM   
khyberbill


Posts: 1941
Joined: 9/11/2007
From: new milford, ct
Status: offline
quote:

I agree. My game is only at June 1 1942 but the biggest problem that I see is that a good Japanese player will mass his airforce on attack and overwhelm even the most concentrated Allies defence. I don't see myself getting the ability to counter this until early 1943 when I can produce planes on a parity with him.


This is what I did and it is the only thing you can do. Now and then you can ambush an over eager player and count some coup! What I finally did was start night bombing airfields with B17/24/25/26. This served three purposes, exp up, killed a few planes each turn on the ground and forced my opponent to put some fighters on night CAP which isn't good for them this early in the war. To date, my Corsairs have been used exclusively over Darwin. Before they arrived I was taking a real beating there in the air. Now I have control of the air and have 50 units with an AV of about 3500 trapped there.

_____________________________

"Its a dog eat dog world Sammy and I am wearing Milkbone underwear" -Norm.

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 865
RE: Developments - 2/3/2010 5:31:25 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

So, if you move your observations about Burma to some place like the DEI, and if the results are the same, it plays havoc with the Allies.   That's my situation - I can't send ships forward because the Japanese still have control of the air.  I have a level three base at Babar, level four (nearly five) at Saumlaki, one at Taberfane, two at Aru Island, and one at Kai-eilenden.  Even with the ability to base that many fighters in fairly close proximity I'm getting whipped.  Eventually, all of these bases can be built to level eight (except one, which can only reach seven).  So eventually the Allies will win this air battle, but it's going to take a long time. 


No, I read you on island-hopping. I have great respect and also distain for the Betty. In my Nov. 1943 game the Japanese have lost 3352 of them (2084 a-to-a, 678 flak, 23 ground, and 567 Ops.) It's the number-1 lost aircraft in the game, yet it keeps coming and coming. I feel like Mickey in "The Sorcerer's Apprentice."

I sound like a broken record (you're old enough to know what that means, right?) but things will keep getting better, especialy CVE/CVL-wise. Also, I've had pretty good success with hitting unloading cargo ships at 100 feet, especially with that (can never recall numbers) B-24/-25 variant with the quad-50s in the nose. It's its own flak suppressor (you get a combat report on that) when skip bombing, and the bullets do some pretty good damage to xAKs in their own right.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 866
RE: Developments - 2/3/2010 6:07:31 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline 		6/8/43 to 6/11/43
 
NoPac:  This area will become a backwater.  The Allies have a ton of fuel and supplies at Adak, and a ton of fuel at Kodiak, but I don't know if it'll ever be put to good use.  The only thing that should happen in this area is the rebuilding of the units that had cadres pulled out of Paramushiro.

SoPac:  Tabiteau should reach level one port/airfield in about a week.  Tarawa looks ripe for the plucking, but Miller is the kind of player that might sneak the Mini-KB there to rough up any invasion force.  For that reason, I probably won't proceed without my full carrier compliment.  Speaking of which, CVEs are coming in hot and heavy now.  The Allies still only have three fleet carriers (four if you count Victorious), but the impact of 13 or so CVEs is pretty dramatic - that's about 250 aircraft.  I've moved the bulk of the carriers from Auckland to Noumea.  They'll park there while I decide which way they'll go.  If Miller commits a sizeable force to the Milne Bay area they go that way; if not, I may use them to support an invasion of Tarawa.

SWPac:  I'm not reconning Boela, Babo, Sorong, and Manikawari as I don't want to tip my hand, but I think Babo and Sorong are vacant and Boela and Manikaware fairly lightly held.  I have Marine 'chute battalions at Aru Island prepped for both Boela and Sorong.  I have transports loaded with a full contingent of troops for Babo - but I would only move if I got a warm, fuzzy feeling that the coast was clear for a few days (IE, the Mini-KB clears the area temporarily, which is possible under a couple of scenarios).  Kaimana on the New Guinea coast is a level one port/airfield and will continue to build.  This base is just a few hexes south of Babo, so it will play an important role when the time comes to move this way.  I'm sure Miller realizes I may be looking this way, but I think he's more concerned about the big bases closer to the heart of the DEI - Ambon, Kendari, Lautem, Koepang, and the like.

Burma:  Prome is a level four airield already and two small base forces will arrive within the week.

China:  I've evacuated Nanning as I need the troops to reinforce Liuchow (and possibly Kweilin).  Miller has tried probing attacks at Changteh and Liuchow, but neither went well for the Japanese.

Strategic Situation:  Japanese control of the air is making progress in the eastern DEI painfully slow.  In sixty days the Allies will have a full compliment of carriers and should be able to assert carrier and air parity in the eastern DEI.  At that point the war heats up quickly and there could be lots of action here.  I am very concerned about Japanese subs.  They continue to wreak havoc wherever they show up (one just claimed an Aussie DD near Darwin, yet another destroyer on ASW duty that fell victim to its prey) and the DEI waters are awfully confined.

< Message edited by Canoerebel -- 2/3/2010 6:09:04 PM >

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 867
RE: Developments - 2/3/2010 6:45:20 PM   
Panther Bait


Posts: 654
Joined: 8/30/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Yes, but historically, the Allies had won air supiority in most all points of contact by late 1942. There must have been a reason for this. I just don't see it happening in the game until perhaps mid 1943 but we reallly have to see how it plays out as I am only at June 1 in my game.

Right now what I am seeing is that a skilled Japanese player can mass air assets and dominate any theater that he wants. It is not horrible and certainly I like it better than WITP but this has a marked effect on the Japanese ability to advance and continue advancing. Its just does not seem quite right.


I agree in general with you, although I am not sure that the Japanese can dominate any theater. I think they can dominate areas with lots of interlocking bases, that are close to areas of supply, and that don't require a lot of upfront construction. So places like the DEI or Burma or China they can dominate. It also takes more than just the IJN to dominate these areas. The IJA has to assist.

Areas like the Solomons/NG are a little trickier since the supply lines are starting to stretch out and pre-existing bases are a lot more spread out. Sure there are lots of dot bases to build up, but the Japanese are less able to build insta-bases like the Allies do (which is completely realistic).

I think one of the reasons that the Allies could establish air superiority in late 42-43 is that most of the areas being contested were not areas that the Japanese (especially the IJA) were all that concerned with keeping, at least not until it was too late. For example, the Japanese air resources committed to keeping the Solomons were not that extreme, particularly compared to what the average player is willing to commit if they feel it is important. This goes to the whole issue of IJA/IJN cooperation in real life versus that cooperation in the typical game. Of course this applies somewhat to the Allies as well (particularly with coordinating pressure in Burma/SEAC with pressure in the Pacific to stretch Japanese resources), but I think it overall benefits the Japanese more.

Anyway, I'll try to limit any more discussion here so as to not hijack Canoerebel's excellent AAR any further. It is one of my daily must read's along with the paired Q-Ball/Cuttlefish AARs, although I am still catching up on the back issues.

Mike



_____________________________

When you shoot at a destroyer and miss, it's like hit'in a wildcat in the ass with a banjo.

Nathan Dogan, USS Gurnard

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 868
RE: Developments - 2/3/2010 8:25:47 PM   
ny59giants


Posts: 9869
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline 		Your game started just after AE came out. You have had to deal with a lot of problems that have been addressed in patches and hotfix (but possibily not all). The issue of pilot training is a major one. I think my first patch of recruits trained up in Japan will take about 2 months to complete (70 experience in only one area). They will go to into the Reserve and replace carrier daitais first.

A truer test of this game will be when you play the second time and the learning curve is more forgiving. You have done us all a big favor by bringing up issues from this game and getting the developers to look at and make changes. By AE's one year anniverary, it should be a relatively stable game, IMO.

(in reply to Panther Bait)
Post #: 869
RE: Developments - 2/4/2010 3:02:16 AM   
vettim89


Posts: 3615
Joined: 7/14/2007
From: Toledo, Ohio
Status: offline 		Dan,

Well its not very fun to just engage the Japanese for a year in a war of attrition in an area like the Solomons. In RL that campaign began in Aug 1942 and continued all the way through the 1943 and even into 1944. Point being that the Allies advanced about 1500 nm in about 15 months. Now that doesn't seem like much fun does it? So, I guess as the Allies you can follow the RL model where you wait to achieve critical mass in late 1943 or you accept abnormally high losses. I hope eventually the pendulum will swing and the Japanese will eventually exhaust their pools and have to start throwing low EXP pilots at you

_____________________________

"We have met the enemy and they are ours" - Commodore O.H. Perry

(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 870
Page:   <<   < prev  27 28 [29] 30 31   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: Developments Page: <<   < prev  27 28 [29] 30 31   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.984