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: She Does

 
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: She Does Page: <<   < prev  61 62 [63] 64 65   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: She Does - 7/1/2010 11:59:13 PM   
vettim89


Posts: 3615
Joined: 7/14/2007
From: Toledo, Ohio
Status: offline 		Through my play of Andy Mac's Marianas and Downfall Scenarios my general impression is that Allied late war AAA seems underpowered. Other's have shared the same concern. Now that is purely anecdotal and may have no basis in reality. But my one combat report from the Marianis scenario looked very much like your last one - like 5 Japanese losses to AAA and 40-50 USN. Seems backwards

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 1861
RE: She Does - 7/2/2010 12:08:14 AM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline 		Okay, I have a tough decision to make.  I have the momentum, and the KB threat is seriously diminished, but do I have the "oomph" left to prosecute a major invasion deep inside enemy territory?  Or, should I retire to port, replenish mission sorties, missing aircraft, and pilots?

My carriers and transports are in the southern end of the South China Sea, in good position to head due north.  The route would take them up the middle of the Sea, so my ships would be quite distant from airfields until approaching Hainan Island.  At that point, Haiphong, Hong Kong, Canton, and probably a few other fields will come into play.

Mission sorties on my carriers range from 70% to 88%.  That's acceptable because, as noted, the KB is out of commission.  70% to 88% should be sufficient to handle whatever might be out there (like combat TFs near the invasion beach).

Pilot fatigue ranges from 20% to 40% at the moment, but since I'm way out at sea I can probably rest a goodly number of pilots.

The real problem is airframes.   Carrier aircraft range from 50% to 100%, with the average at about 70%.

I do have the option of replacing a few depleted squadrons with some carrier-capable fighter squadrons.  That might bump my numbers by about 100 fighters.

Or should I pull back to replenish.  I don't remember the rules, but here's my options.  Pontianak is a level three port.  I have AD, AE, and AKE available.  Would that be sufficient to replace aircraft and mission sorties, or do I need a level six base?  If the latter, I'd have to return all the way to Darwin and the very thought of doing so makes me ache.

On the other hand, CVs Ticonderoga and Constellation will arrive at Darwin in three or four days.

So, do I forge ahead and chance an encounter with massed kamikazees, taking advantage of the enemy while they are down and in disarray?  Or have I reached the point where I need to accept the victory and not go "a bridge too far"?

(in reply to vettim89)
Post #: 1862
RE: She Does - 7/2/2010 12:47:28 AM   
JohnDillworth


Posts: 3100
Joined: 3/19/2009
Status: offline 		I think the Philippines charade is over. He as got to know it's North Borneo or China. He will just keep building up airgroups, defense and kamikazes. I think you have to go now. Once you have the land based air in place life will be easy.

_____________________________

Today I come bearing an olive branch in one hand, and the freedom fighter's gun in the other. Do not let the olive branch fall from my hand. I repeat, do not let the olive branch fall from my hand. - Yasser Arafat Speech to UN General Assembly

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 1863
RE: She Does - 7/2/2010 4:16:55 AM   
pat.casey

 

Posts: 393
Joined: 9/10/2007
Status: offline 		I think you have to move forward. The balance of forces is more favorable to you after the fight than before since it sure looks like he lost heavier than you did. From what I can see, KB is done for as a major threat.

(in reply to JohnDillworth)
Post #: 1864
RE: She Does - 7/2/2010 5:34:43 AM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline 		I also think you go, and echo the thoughts of others. I'll also note that time is moving right along, and it'll be 1945 pretty soon. Things in China, especially building up the supply piles you'll need for strat bombing, will not take mere days or weeks.

If you wanted Java or Sumatra you would have planned it that way. You've wanted to Go China for two years. So, go already.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 1865
RE: She Does - 7/2/2010 7:44:21 AM   
castor troy


Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

Congratulations on the damage inflicted even if you're not going to be invited to any cve reunions any time soon. Tough call on finishing them off. A lot of lba about and presumably your fighters have high fatigue.

This has got to be one of the strangest combat results that I've ever seen:

quote:

Weather in hex: Light rain

Raid detected at 120 NM, estimated altitude 12,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 52 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M5b Zero x 333

Allied aircraft
Avenger II x 12
Corsair II x 4
Wildcat V x 4
FM-2 Wildcat x 70
F4U-1A Corsair x 16
F4U-1D Corsair x 11
F6F-3 Hellcat x 124
F6F-3N Hellcat x 3
F6F-5 Hellcat x 65
SB2C-3 Helldiver x 17
SBD-5 Dauntless x 20
TBF-1 Avenger x 20
TBM-1C Avenger x 129

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M5b Zero: 2 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
Avenger II: 1 destroyed, 4 damaged
Wildcat V: 1 destroyed
FM-2 Wildcat: 2 destroyed
F6F-3 Hellcat: 3 destroyed
F6F-3N Hellcat: 1 destroyed
F6F-5 Hellcat: 1 destroyed
SB2C-3 Helldiver: 2 destroyed, 6 damaged
SBD-5 Dauntless: 2 destroyed, 7 damaged
TBF-1 Avenger: 2 destroyed, 4 damaged
TBM-1C Avenger: 16 destroyed, 46 damaged




that´s the engagement that made me really think "what the hell is that again"... 333 fighters for Cap, two of them destroyed, "no" damage to the enemy? With the next thought "nearly 200 bombers for a couple of hits"?

_____________________________


(in reply to anarchyintheuk)
Post #: 1866
RE: She Does - 7/2/2010 7:46:36 AM   
CaptBeefheart


Posts: 2301
Joined: 7/4/2003
From: Seoul, Korea
Status: offline 		One word: Nike (i.e. "Just Do It"). Your big flattops are still intact, most of your carrier aviation is intact, and he's reeling from a major loss. Go for China before he has a chance to reinforce the area. The timing could hardly be better. Just remember Patton: "A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan next week."

Cheers,
CC

_____________________________

Beer, because barley makes lousy bread.

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 1867
RE: She Does - 7/2/2010 2:33:58 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline 		I decided over the night to "go!"  Then, I logged onto the Internet this a.m. to see if anybody had posted here with advice or recommendations.  The website was down, however, so I proceeded with the plan.  Then the website was back up, I logged on, and found that the uninimous feeling among you guys was to "go!" That was encouraging.

I've moved a few land-based fighter squadrons over to the carriers, bumping numbers up by about 50.  The invasion TF and escorts will proceed due north and for at least a few days will be distant from the closest enemy airfield (Brunei followed by Saigon).  I've reduced range on my strike aircraft to four (to allow them to rest unless a threat appears at close range) and I've set most fighters to 40% CAP.

One factor that weighed into the decision to "go!" was that fuel is getting worrisome.  I need to move on now while I still have enough to handle the operation.

I expect things to get dicey at the landing beaches, but unless Miller has a stout garrison at Samah, Hainan Island, the invasion should succeed whatever happens to my ships.  I have too many men for it to fail barring a strong defense.  I'll begin recon of Hainan Island in about four days.

In the meantime, Miller will probably suspect that Vietnam is the target.  I'm really ramping up recon there beginning tomorrow.

I think Miller's stricken ships have retired mainly to Kuantan and Khota Bharu (rather than Singapore).  If the Allies are successful in invading Hainan Island, the heavily damaged IJN ships will be cutoff from their nearest ports or refuge (I think Manila or Hong Kong would be his preference at this point).

Bullwinkle is right that we're getting awfully late in the game.  This operation needs to succeed for the Allies to remain on task toward getting bases close enough to hit the Home Islands.

I think the late battle, while an Allied victory, was much closer than it should have been.  It appears to me that flak and aircraft/pilot parity are way out of whack for this point in the game.  The latter could be a relic of my neglect of the pilot-training routines, but I don't think so.  As noted, my carrier fighter pilots are quite good, their aircraft are quite good, but they do not handle enemy aircraft well at all.  By late '44 the Allies shouldn't barely be holding their own against the Japanese air forces.  That's frustrating, but I don't think there's anything I can do about it at this point.

Go!

(in reply to CaptBeefheart)
Post #: 1868
RE: She Does - 7/2/2010 3:42:48 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline 		The map shows the current location of the invasion armada, projected course, enemy land-based air threats, and the probable location of damaged IJN ships.

A few more thoughts about the late battle and situation:

1. Had Miller known or suspected the target of the Allied invasion, he almost certainly would have waited to attack until my ships were distant from ports of refuge and friendly LBA. So I take this as a good sign that he wasn't anticipating a move on China.

2. He must have thought the likely target was western Java and that he needed to pounce quickly as my ships were nearing the beachheads by the time they reached a point south of Pontianak, Borneo.

3. Japan's points lead is about 6,100 now, but it usually goes UP a little bit each turn unless something major happens in favor of the Allies. This game continues to be a hard-fought match as we near the end of '44. It is nothing like the one-sided contest that WitP became in late '44. That could be for reasons peculiar to the game between Miller and I, or it may be symptomatic of AE in general. Frankly, I'm not sure which is the case.

4. The game engine usually has a tough time sifting through vast amounts of data when a huge Allied force is on the move. For that reason Miller's LBA seldom strikes in the way he wishes it would. At long distances, strikes are sporadic and tend to come in unescorted when they do occur. This really frustrates Miller, but I think this is fairly representative of real life. It was rare for massed Japanese raids to strike effectively at long distance. If he COULD get his LBA to strike, total carnage would ensue (witness Bullwinkle's recent post about kamis at the Home Islands). His best results have been when he has closed with his carriers - as at Morotai in November '43. On that occasion he got real close and his airforces performed well and with devastating effect.

5. The outcome of the game is still up in the air a bit. If the Allies get hammered in landing on Hainan Island, I will have a tough time regrouping. It's getting late in the game for the Allies to be advancing slowly. But if this invasion succeeds, the Japanese Empire will have been severed and the Allies should be in fine shape.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 1869
RE: She Does - 7/2/2010 4:11:54 PM   
JohnDillworth


Posts: 3100
Joined: 3/19/2009
Status: offline
quote:

It appears to me that flak and aircraft/pilot parity are way out of whack for this point in the game.

I second the flak complaint. I have only gotten late in the game against the AI but allied ships can't come anywhere near the home islands. Part is overwhelming airstrikes, but flak is only shooting down 1 out of 100 aircraft on big strikes. I wonder what the historical percentage was late in the war for CAP vs flak?

_____________________________

Today I come bearing an olive branch in one hand, and the freedom fighter's gun in the other. Do not let the olive branch fall from my hand. I repeat, do not let the olive branch fall from my hand. - Yasser Arafat Speech to UN General Assembly

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 1870
RE: She Does - 7/2/2010 4:48:29 PM   
janh

 

Posts: 1216
Joined: 6/12/2007
Status: offline 		I kind of recall 5% of the japanese air losses in naval action were due to AAA -- might have read that in Nimitz book, I don't recall.  Was definitely not a huge number, and flak appeared to have the primary effect of scattering and disturbing attacks.

(in reply to JohnDillworth)
Post #: 1871
RE: She Does - 7/2/2010 4:57:28 PM   
rtrapasso


Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

quote:

It appears to me that flak and aircraft/pilot parity are way out of whack for this point in the game.

I second the flak complaint. I have only gotten late in the game against the AI but allied ships can't come anywhere near the home islands. Part is overwhelming airstrikes, but flak is only shooting down 1 out of 100 aircraft on big strikes. I wonder what the historical percentage was late in the war for CAP vs flak?


Don't know about AA on ships, but late in the war the USA had a radar controlled 90mm AA system (Type 584 with M-9 director) that unless the aircraft entered the radar envelope doing radical maneuvers, it was essentially 100% kill rate on propeller driven aircraft. In the Luftwaffe's last "offensive" on Jan 1, 1945, using proximity fuses, this combination was credited with shooting down 394 FIGHTERS (with 112 probables)... so much for the Luftwaffe... it was the last time they made any major attack.

Earlier, without proximity fuses, during a night attack with 3 pathfinders and 35 bombers, 2 AA battalions downed all three pathfinders and 13 bombers confirmed (8 probables) in an attack SE of Paris WITHOUT proximity fuses (this was before Paris fell - August 1944). The system was so accurate it discovered errors in the firing tables for 90mm guns, and could pick up mortar rounds in flight and backtrack them to their firing positions, as well as picking up trucks, etc. at 25+ miles on the ground. They system was still in use until at least 1998.

Even against the V-1, they were pretty impressive: in an attack on 28 August 1944, 97 V-1s were launched against London: fighters shot down 23, guns 65, balloons 2, and 4 of the remaining 7 actually hit London.

The predecessor SCR-268 when coupled with the 90mm guns of the 9th Marine Defense Battalion at Rendova (July 1943) shot down 12/16 bombers with the expenditure of 88 rounds.

The data with shipboard AA is a bit more difficult to evaluate since there were large numbers of air to air combats in the same area, but it was probably about as deadly - and they were using 5" guns, much larger than the 90mm. stuff the Army used. Use of AA radars at sea was considered much more conducive to a good fix since the sea surfaces gave good consistent vertical lobe patterns (which the land-based AA guns usually didn't have).

For more details, see "Radar History of WW2" by Louis Brown, pp. 376 ff.

(in reply to JohnDillworth)
Post #: 1872
RE: She Does - 7/2/2010 5:25:42 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso
Don't know about AA on ships, but late in the war the USA had a radar controlled 90mm AA system (Type 584 with M-9 director) that unless the aircraft entered the radar envelope doing radical maneuvers, it was essentially 100% kill rate on propeller driven aircraft. In the Luftwaffe's last "offensive" on Jan 1, 1945, using proximity fuses, this combination was credited with shooting down 394 FIGHTERS (with 112 probables)...

Too bad that the total Luftwaffe losses in Operation Bodenplatte were 290 aircraft destroyed due to all causes (with the leading cause being friendly fire).

As about general complaints about IJN aviation being too strong in 1943-44 due to whatever reason, I don't see how these complaints can be valid if the Allied player failed to destroy most of Kido Butai in 1942 or, indeed, to arrange his battles so that Japanese LBA is neutered before IJN can engage.




(in reply to rtrapasso)
Post #: 1873
RE: She Does - 7/2/2010 5:30:57 PM   
HMS

 

Posts: 2
Joined: 6/28/2010
Status: offline 		Unless there are some seriously flawed combat routines you'd have to chalk it up to play balancing . Water down some allied strengths and dial up some japanese weaknesses . Tweak a combat routine here , adjust a combat modifier there . Super ijn aaa , puzzling allied flack . No more ijn death star but no allied hits either . In one of the other aar's - Admiral Spruance - 2 ijn cruisers ran off two american bb's commanded by halsey . He had previously engaged a barge , which the game treats as a full fledged ijn sag , but at least he crosssed the T on the barge . Usn sag's only seem to be willing to fight when it's to save their own skin and generally even do badly at that . Radar directed gunfire or not . The ijn seems to be able to cherry pick who they engage . Bye bye cve's . 100 usn db's score no hits against 2 cruisers and are mauled in the process . If the shoe had of been on the other foot the usn would have easily contributed 2 new artificial reefs - thunderstorms or not . It's a great game , a challenging historical simulation but with some of the allied combat results being posted it definitely appears that the empire is getting preferential treatment .

(in reply to janh)
Post #: 1874
RE: She Does - 7/2/2010 5:41:17 PM   
rtrapasso


Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR

quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso
Don't know about AA on ships, but late in the war the USA had a radar controlled 90mm AA system (Type 584 with M-9 director) that unless the aircraft entered the radar envelope doing radical maneuvers, it was essentially 100% kill rate on propeller driven aircraft. In the Luftwaffe's last "offensive" on Jan 1, 1945, using proximity fuses, this combination was credited with shooting down 394 FIGHTERS (with 112 probables)...

Too bad that the total Luftwaffe losses in Operation Bodenplatte were 290 aircraft destroyed due to all causes (with the leading cause being friendly fire).

As about general complaints about IJN aviation being too strong in 1943-44 due to whatever reason, I don't see how these complaints can be valid if the Allied player failed to destroy most of Kido Butai in 1942 or, indeed, to arrange his battles so that Japanese LBA is neutered before IJN can engage.






According to the followup article i've read, 88 of the shootdowns were credited to Allied AA, although, indeed, some 84 Luftwaffe aircraft were shot down by their own AA units.

Apparently, overclaiming kills isn't limited to fighter jockeys.


(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 1875
RE: She Does - 7/2/2010 5:44:26 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline 		FatR, Miller's pilot supply has been depleted over and over again in massive carrier- and land-sea battles in '42, '43, and '44.  However, he has had no problems replacing either pilots or aircraft.  What I don't know is what his pilot experience is like, but he tells me it's pretty low.  What I do know is that whatever their experience, and despite the great losses he has taken, the Japanese airforce remains at least the equal of the Allied airforce in October 1944.

(in reply to HMS)
Post #: 1876
RE: She Does - 7/2/2010 6:36:44 PM   
rtrapasso


Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline
quote:

It's a great game , a challenging historical simulation but with some of the allied combat results being posted it definitely appears that the empire is getting preferential treatment .


Japan pretty much HAS to have preferential treatment for there to be any game balance... of course, there are those of us who would like to see a more accurate simulation with adjustment of the victory conditions... but, this has been argued over 100 times or more before, and it still being argued about now on the main forum.

Personally, i'd like to see a VP comparison of what was going on in the game vs. what happened in real events... if you did better than what actually happened, then you win.

(in reply to HMS)
Post #: 1877
RE: She Does - 7/2/2010 6:46:27 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline 		10/4/44 and 10/5/44
 
Why Miller Pounced:  This email message from Miller explains why he attacked when he did - "I must admit I thought you were heading for Palembang or Singapore next, it now looks like you are going to land somewhere on the coast of Thailand.. Pity I did'nt hold back the KB for another day or two, it would have been a more even fight without your LBA in range..."  He's right - had he known and waited it could have been a much different battle.  This also suggest that he wasn't expecting a move on China (or that's what I hope, anyway).

Operation Seven Days:  The Allied invasion armada steamed north without incident - no massed kamikaze raids from Borneo; no interdiction by combat ships; no targets to draw strikes by Allied carrier aircraft so badly in need of rest.  So this was a very good turn.

IJN Combat TFs:  Several big DD TFs did hit shipping at Pontianak, sinking CVE Bougainville and two AOs, then tangling with CLAA Atlanta and a bunch of DDs.  The Allied TF inflicted far more damage than it took.  Then some Allied LBA administered additional hits to the Japanese destroyers.  The attrition to IJN DDs over the past four days has been pretty significant.

Allied LBA:  B-29s hit the port of Kuantan, where I thought the KB had retired, on both days of this turn, hammering perhaps twenty merchant ships.  (I haven't seen the turn file yet, so I'm not sure where the KB -what remains of it - moved to).

Sandakan/Raba:  An Aussie brigade took Sandakan (northeastern tip of Borneo) on the 5th.  A Brit brigade, assisted by American tanks, took Raba (east of Java) on the 3rd.

(in reply to rtrapasso)
Post #: 1878
RE: She Does - 7/2/2010 7:30:52 PM   
CapAndGown


Posts: 3206
Joined: 3/6/2001
From: Virginia, USA
Status: offline 		I just wanted to comment on the carrier battle.

It seems to me from what I have seen in my own game and what is reported in your combat report has to do with a severe disadvantage for escorts. Basically, escorts are dead meat in this game. This applies to both sides; it is not an allied or japanese thing, although it benefited the japanese in this case since your qualitatively better planes still could not overcome the inherent advantage of CAP over escorts.

I think the reason that escorts have such a rough time in this game is due to the altitude advantage being so extreme. If the CAP is at all above the escorts, the escorts are going to get murdered.

I would say the air model here is very good and better than vanilla WitP. But this altitude thing, whether for sweeps or escorts, seems to need some tweaking.

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 1879
RE: She Does - 7/3/2010 12:47:58 AM   
Bullwinkle58


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

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

Don't know about AA on ships, but late in the war the USA had a radar controlled 90mm AA system (Type 584 with M-9 director) that unless the aircraft entered the radar envelope doing radical maneuvers, it was essentially 100% kill rate on propeller driven aircraft.


I don't know the code (I say for about the 100th time here), but I suspect that the whole, general topic of radar, and especially radar evolution across the war years, is a weakness in the code models. The DB is generally driven, for gun results of all types, by the gun itself--range, penetration, etc. These values are pretty hard-coded I think. If the ammo changes in mid-war to add proximity fuses I wish someone would explain to me how that works.

But AA success in RL was not all, or even mostly, about the guns or crew training, it was about C&C, and I don't see how a DB-driven game can really model that well across the upgrade curves in a game this long. Harpoon can do it because the hardware and electronics are static from start of the scenario to the end. But the Allies' electronics in 1941 vs. 1945 are like a VW Beetle becoming a Porsche.

There may be ways to kludge the results, but that might break something else. Unless we ever have a dynamic DB, with values swapping in at key historical dates, I think we're sort of stuck.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to rtrapasso)
Post #: 1880
RE: She Does - 7/3/2010 1:27:03 AM   
rtrapasso


Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

Don't know about AA on ships, but late in the war the USA had a radar controlled 90mm AA system (Type 584 with M-9 director) that unless the aircraft entered the radar envelope doing radical maneuvers, it was essentially 100% kill rate on propeller driven aircraft.


I don't know the code (I say for about the 100th time here), but I suspect that the whole, general topic of radar, and especially radar evolution across the war years, is a weakness in the code models. The DB is generally driven, for gun results of all types, by the gun itself--range, penetration, etc. These values are pretty hard-coded I think. If the ammo changes in mid-war to add proximity fuses I wish someone would explain to me how that works.

But AA success in RL was not all, or even mostly, about the guns or crew training, it was about C&C, and I don't see how a DB-driven game can really model that well across the upgrade curves in a game this long. Harpoon can do it because the hardware and electronics are static from start of the scenario to the end. But the Allies' electronics in 1941 vs. 1945 are like a VW Beetle becoming a Porsche.

There may be ways to kludge the results, but that might break something else. Unless we ever have a dynamic DB, with values swapping in at key historical dates, I think we're sort of stuck.

Maybe, but it seems Allied AA is underpowered from the git-go... trying out the game with the new patch just now, running the Pearl Harbor attack on 7 Dec turn 5 times in a row, the USN shot down 2-5 IJN attacking aircraft (fog of war off average 4), losing 2-5 BBs on that turn (average 4, and probably more would sink in the following turns)... maybe this is a glitch just on turn 1, but from the remarks made here and elsewhere, it seems the whole Allied flak power is problematic.

IRL, the IJN lost 29 aircraft in the attack (from all causes, but mostly from flak). The average was less than 1/6 this amount, and never reached 20% in the "best case" effort. The USN permanently lost 2 BBs, so the relative difference is about 12x in the 5 instances run (1/6 as many aircraft downed, vs. twice as many BBs sunk - and this doesn't count the other ships lost which were also much greater).

< Message edited by rtrapasso -- 7/3/2010 1:29:11 AM >

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 1881
RE: She Does - 7/3/2010 1:53:23 AM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline 		Isn't the DBB mod dealing with the ammo issue for Allied ship flak?

(in reply to rtrapasso)
Post #: 1882
RE: She Does - 7/3/2010 2:22:22 AM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline 		Map below shows the planned route of the Allied invasion armada and the location of the KB, which is retiring to Hong Kong (I think) to replenish. Some points:

1) Miller has suspected the Vietnam is the target and that was bolstered by Allied recon over the past two days. He's probably already identified Hainan Island as a possible target. Tomorrow, new Allied recon of bases there and on mainland China will increase his suspicions (not to mention the location of the Allied ships). However, I'll try to maintain some uncertainty by bombing Saigon and Camranh Bay.

2) I think D-Day will take place in three to five days. If it's the former, I'll head strait for the beach. If it's five days, I may feint a bit toward the Vietnam coast. But I'll try to get to the beach as quickly as possible.

3) Recon of Samah beginning this turn should indicate how strongly it is held. If the garrison appears stout, I'll have to modify plans on the fly. But I can't believe it would be strongly defended.

4) By now, Miller should be (a) freaking out over an invasion this far behind his lines and (b) possibly licking his chops at a chance to strike.

5) He's loaded his airfield at Saigon and has shifted aircraft to more northern bases including Samah, Hanoi, and others. This shift should continue tomorrow (hence the need to hasten to the beachhead).

6) Patrol aircraft sighted the KB making for Hong Kong. It should take him a few days to replenish torpedoes, etc, but when he does the KB poses a real threat since torpedo stores on my carriers are depleted. But his pilots ought to be very low experience.

7) The Allies managed to transfer a goodly number of fighter to the carriers. Many of the fleet carriers now hold about 75 aircraft. Since my carrier aircraft rested over the past two-day turn, they are in much better shape.

8) Will Japanese LBA sortie in numbers tomorrow?

9) Go, Boys, go!




Attachment (1)

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 1883
RE: She Does - 7/3/2010 2:33:43 AM   
rtrapasso


Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Isn't the DBB mod dealing with the ammo issue for Allied ship flak?


Not familiar with it... is it just for ammo, or does it deal with the whole issue of anemic flak for the Allies??

i did see that Nikmod for Guadalcanal has decreased IJN flak (effectiveness?) by 75%.

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 1884
RE: She Does - 7/3/2010 2:37:21 AM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline 		Maybe a bad idea (what? me?), but perhaps you can spare 6-8 cruisers and destroyers to go KB hunting now (you have a fix and a track on him in the picture) and into Hong Kong while you unload? Once he sees that you're going into China, HK isn't going to be the garden spot to refit he's grown to know and love. Attacking him might buy you a cruicial day, or even two.

Edit: I just re-looked at the inserted scan. You're too far away to catch him en route. Might still be worth taking the fight to him, and delaying his re-load.

< Message edited by Bullwinkle58 -- 7/3/2010 2:38:32 AM >

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 1885
RE: She Does - 7/3/2010 2:40:11 AM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Isn't the DBB mod dealing with the ammo issue for Allied ship flak?


Not familiar with it... is it just for ammo, or does it deal with the whole issue of anemic flak for the Allies??

i did see that Nikmod for Guadalcanal has decreased IJN flak (effectiveness?) by 75%.


Da Big Babes (or Babies, or whatever).

(in reply to rtrapasso)
Post #: 1886
RE: She Does - 7/3/2010 3:17:48 AM   
JeffroK


Posts: 6391
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline 		A bit late for another monday morning quarterback comment of "Go and get him"  (Wasnt it the Kuriles when we last pushed you into a meatgrinder?)

I think Grant after Belmont sizes up your position.


_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 1887
RE: She Does - 7/3/2010 5:56:42 AM   
Bullwinkle58


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

ORIGINAL: JeffK

I think Grant after Belmont sizes up your position.



Drunk?

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to JeffroK)
Post #: 1888
RE: She Does - 7/3/2010 6:09:17 AM   
JeffroK


Posts: 6391
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline 		Yep, give me more drunken generals if they will fight like Grant

To paraphrase Abe.

Its odd that the South denegrate Grant and Sherman consistantly, yet few of their Generals could claim victory over them.

I was thinking more of his realising that while he was fearful of the Confederates, they were just as fearful of the Union forces, and both ran away.


_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 1889
RE: She Does - 7/3/2010 3:38:08 PM   
rtrapasso


Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs


quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Isn't the DBB mod dealing with the ammo issue for Allied ship flak?


Not familiar with it... is it just for ammo, or does it deal with the whole issue of anemic flak for the Allies??

i did see that Nikmod for Guadalcanal has decreased IJN flak (effectiveness?) by 75%.


Da Big Babes (or Babies, or whatever).

Ah, thanks for the lead!!

This seems promising, but right now it is apparently devoted to correcting OOB/map issues, not gameplay issues... still, it took about 4 years for CHS to make WITP something that more or less approached reality (CHS-NikMod which still had many problems), so, i'll keep hoping...

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 1890
Page:   <<   < prev  61 62 [63] 64 65   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: She Does Page: <<   < prev  61 62 [63] 64 65   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

1.031