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: Here we go again! tc464 (A) vs. Mike (J) - No tc464

 
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: Here we go again! tc464 (A) vs. Mike (J) - No tc464 Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Here we go again! tc464 (A) vs. Mike (J) - No tc464 - 11/13/2009 5:31:16 PM   
Mike Solli


Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline 		Hi David.  If there turns out to be anything that needs a restart, then that won't work for my game.  The only thing I've heard of in patch 2 that may require a restart is monsoons.  I can live without it.  If I were you, I'd wait until patch 2 arrives before starting.  I couldn't bear the thought of doing this all over.  My guess is >95% of patch 2 will work with my game. 

If you want to start discussing your turn 1, start your AAR now.  I just love bantering about this game.  It might give me some more ideas for this game.  It's not too late to change things yet.  I still plan on minor tweaks happening here until game time.

_____________________________


Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to fabertong)
Post #: 61
RE: Here we go again! tc464 (A) vs. Mike (J) - No tc464 - 11/13/2009 5:34:31 PM   
fabertong


Posts: 4546
Joined: 2/25/2004
From: Bristol, England, U.K.
Status: offline 		Thanks Mike........I will wait for P-2....but am desperate to get started........I may start my AAR early......might help kill the time until the patch.......and get a bit of banter on the go.......

(in reply to Mike Solli)
Post #: 62
RE: Here we go again! tc464 (A) vs. Mike (J) - No tc464 - 11/13/2009 5:44:27 PM   
witpqs


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

ORIGINAL: fabertong

Hi Mike......as always this is very illuminating.........I know I've asked this (sort of) before......but I'm also waiting for the patch....and haven't even started a turn one because I thought you needed to start the turn under patch 2....and not just patch before ending turn 1.......do you know which is right....I'd love to post some thoughts on my Turn one here.....but you-know-who might see......


That's my impression too.

(in reply to fabertong)
Post #: 63
RE: Here we go again! tc464 (A) vs. Mike (J) - No tc464 - 11/13/2009 5:48:06 PM   
Mike Solli


Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline 		I guess we'll find out.  Hopefully soon.

_____________________________


Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 64
RE: Here we go again! tc464 (A) vs. Mike (J) - No tc464 - 11/13/2009 6:47:52 PM   
Mike Solli


Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline 		Faber's AAR reminded me of another thing I wanted to mention.  That single AO that begins the game with KB and the Replenishment TF has an agenda of it's own.  It's too slow to merge with the Replenishment TF, so it's going to dump it's load of fuel at Kushiro.  Kushiro begins with only 500 fuel and I plan on having a LOT of xAKs moving in and out of that port.

_____________________________


Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to Mike Solli)
Post #: 65
RE: Here we go again! tc464 (A) vs. Mike (J) - No tc464 - 11/16/2009 5:22:43 PM   
Mike Solli


Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline 		Musashi vs. Taiho

Very good question.  I haven't made a decision yet but here are my thoughts:

Not yet sure about the Musashi.  I'm going to start my game when the final version of patch 2 comes out.  I'm not sure how many naval shipbuilding points the Japanese player is short but I know there is a shortage on 7 Dec.  On 8 Dec, I'm going to halt the Yamato, Musashi and Shinano for 1 turn to determine the shortage.  I am doing that to determine the naval shipbuilding point shortage.  On 9 Dec, I will turn on Yamato, keep Shinano off and make a decision about Musashi.   I'm reluctant to keep the Musashi off because Japanese BBs are very powerful early in the game and that capability decreases with time.  I like to use the BBs to ambush Allied cruiser TFs.  I do not want my BBs to tangle with Allied BBs.  They end up in the repair yard (or worse).  Eventually (early 44 on), they usually end up dead or in the repair shop whenever they appear.  So, my decision is either to build her early or not at all.

I agree with Q-Ball that the Taiho is a very powerful ship and is a better choice than the Musashi.  Given that, I'd really like to accelerate her.  More on that in a second.  First, a short discussion on my ideas for accelerating ships:

Here's a quote from the manual on ship production/acceleration:

"13.4.1 JAPANESE SHIP PRODUCTION
All ships remove 1 day of delay when the delay is greater than:
»» 10 * Ship Durability
This automatic delay removal does not cost Naval or Merchant shipyard points. Those ships set
for normal construction with a delay less than 10 * Ship Durability require Naval or Merchant
shipyard points equal to their durability to remove 1 delay (each day). If set to accelerated
production, the ship will remove 2 days of delay (each day) for a cost equal to 3 times its
durability. A ship that has a delay over 10 * Ship Durability and less than 30 * Ship Durability
may be accelerated. It will remove 1 additional delay (other than the free 1 delay removal) each
day for a cost of appropriate shipyard points equal to the ship’s durability."
 
Note the bold portion.  The way I read that means (to me) that if you accelerate a ship at (10 to 30) * Ship Durability, you remove 2 days of delay for the cost of 1 * Ship Durability.  All accleration will only be during that period of time.  I do not plan on ever acclerating a ship at <10 * Ship Durability (in days of delay remaining).

No on to the Taiho question.  Yes, I'd love to have her early.  Is she worth that cost?  Not sure.  Getting her in 1943 can cause the Allied player lots of problems.  The problem is that I like to accelerate the other CVs, the Hiyo, and some DDs too.  That's too much.  What to do...

I like to allocate points to certain ships.  I'll figure out how many naval ship points are available and then allocate 68 (or whatever it is in AE) to 1 CV, 115 (or whatever it is in AE) to the Taiho and a set number to DDs.  I like to keep ~6 DDs accelerated if possible.  I like to keep about 500 naval shipbuilding points in the pool.  If it begins to drop, there are three alternatives. 

1. Remove something from acceleration.  This is my last resort.  If I do, it's usually a DD. 
2. Halt something.  I usually do this.  I tend to halt Ro class subs.  To me, they are the least useful for a couple of reasons.  If hit, more often than not they die.  Second, they carry so few torps that they spend much of their time moving to and from their patrol stations.
3. Increase shipbuilding points.  If I do this, it's usually in Dec 42 (modestly and not very often) or in late Spring, 42.  I'm very cautious with economic increases and this is not high on the priority list.

I have not increased my naval (or merchant) ship points.  I won't even consider it until 9 Dec 41 at the earliest, after I have a chance to determine my baseline.

< Message edited by Mike Solli -- 11/16/2009 5:25:19 PM >

_____________________________


Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to Mike Solli)
Post #: 66
RE: Here we go again! tc464 (A) vs. Mike (J) - No tc464 - 11/16/2009 5:46:06 PM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

  I do not plan on ever acclerating a ship at <10 * Ship Durability (in days of delay remaining).



Taiho though is definitely at <10* Ship Durability in days of delay. So if you consider her, you will have to break that rule.

She will consume 309 pts. per day of Naval Ship points, or about 1/4 of your entire budget. That isn't cheap. Accelerating her can't be taken lightly. You still have to find a little after halting Musashi, which frees up 233 points a day.

Halting the RO-boats is a very good idea. I like the seaplane subs though, so I don't want to push those out too much. But a RO-boat costs almost as much as Agano; which would you rather have?

I don't advocate accelerating the Junyos. Each one will cost an extra 168 pts a day, which I would rather apply toward the 206 extra you need for Taiho. They just ain't worth it, not when I consider Taiho to be almost as good as the two Junyos put together.

I would spend the 183 pts. a turn to accelerate the first 3 Unryus. Once they get to 610 days delay, you have to decide whether to up the ante and spend more, but you can at least knock 6 months off of each one pretty cheaply.

Overall, I am in the Taiho camp, but I can also see missing Musashi.

< Message edited by Q-Ball -- 11/16/2009 6:00:00 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to Mike Solli)
Post #: 67
RE: Here we go again! tc464 (A) vs. Mike (J) - No tc464 - 11/16/2009 5:55:27 PM   
Mike Solli


Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline 		So many fun toys, so few points.

_____________________________


Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 68
RE: Here we go again! tc464 (A) vs. Mike (J) - No tc464 - 11/16/2009 9:33:54 PM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

So many fun toys, so few points.



Yes! Too bad the game doesn't start in 1936, and we can start monkeying with the production then!

We can cancel the Yamatos, the Katoris, the CSs, in fact the whole shadow program can bite me.

We go to war with 3 extra Shokakus, all Nagaras converted to AA cruisers, and the Frank so heavily researched we get it in in July of 1942. BANZAI!



< Message edited by Q-Ball -- 11/16/2009 9:43:35 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to Mike Solli)
Post #: 69
RE: Here we go again! tc464 (A) vs. Mike (J) - No tc464 - 11/16/2009 11:12:54 PM   
Monter_Trismegistos

 

Posts: 1359
Joined: 2/1/2005
From: Gdansk
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball
We can cancel [...] the CSs,

Yeah, but this would save Merchant points for you - few additional AKs, not CVs :)

_____________________________

Nec Temere Nec Timide
Bez strachu ale z rozwagą

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 70
RE: Here we go again! tc464 (A) vs. Mike (J) - No tc464 - 11/16/2009 11:38:10 PM   
erstad

 

Posts: 1944
Joined: 8/3/2004
From: Midwest USA
Status: offline
quote:

Yeah, but this would save Merchant points for you - few additional AKs, not CVs :)


Not AKs, TKs!

(in reply to Monter_Trismegistos)
Post #: 71
RE: Here we go again! tc464 (A) vs. Mike (J) - No tc464 - 11/17/2009 12:54:02 AM   
SqzMyLemon


Posts: 4239
Joined: 10/30/2009
From: Alberta, Canada
Status: offline 		I haven't even looked at naval build points yet, I'm so overwhelmed as it is. Great thread Mike, learning tons. I think I'm going to bite the bullet and install witpstaff though...I'm really worried about getting my economy going.

Sounds like you have organized your fleet smartly, don't forget to add in contingency planning! In my other PBEM, both POW and Repulse are active, they were never spotted, and they have caused me to revise my Malaya/Borneo strategy. And on an even better note, he wiped out my intial Wake invasion force, that caused more grief! I wasn't prepared for such an aggresive move so early. So my advice after playing a week in game time...best laid plans...

You're an invaluable resource with the time and effort you are putting into the game as the Japanese, keep up the great thread.

(in reply to Mike Solli)
Post #: 72
RE: Here we go again! tc464 (A) vs. Mike (J) - No tc464 - 11/17/2009 5:57:02 PM   
Mike Solli


Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline 		Yeah, I don't expect to see Force Z.  I expect Ted to run with it so he can harass me later.  He did that in our WitP game.  I'll just make sure and have good naval search and Nells and Bettys ready to pounce.

_____________________________


Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to SqzMyLemon)
Post #: 73
RE: Here we go again! tc464 (A) vs. Mike (J) - No tc464 - 11/18/2009 3:38:37 AM   
jwilkerson


Posts: 10525
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline 		My take on the Taiho versus Musashi is that even with maximum acceleration, the Taiho will come in after the Japanese offensive phase is clearly over, where as with maximum acceleration, if this were possible, the Musashi might still see some use during the offensive phase. So, given that, I would postpone the Taiho and bring in the Musashi.

_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to Mike Solli)
Post #: 74
RE: Here we go again! tc464 (A) vs. Mike (J) - No tc464 - 11/20/2009 6:57:22 PM   
undercovergeek

 

Posts: 1526
Joined: 11/21/2006
From: UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

Load that 3-plane Val Chutai that starts in Pescadores onto Ryujo for a turn, and RESIZE; it now becomes a 19-plane Chutai.



ive shipped this to tokyo and have put it on one of the mini kbs ships - may or may not be ryujo, set it to resize - it acknowledges that the chutai now has the potential to be 19 in size, even asks if i want 16 more pilots, but it wont grow - any thoughts - plenty of vals in the pool

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 75
RE: Here we go again! tc464 (A) vs. Mike (J) - No tc464 - 11/20/2009 8:13:49 PM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: undercovergeek


quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

Load that 3-plane Val Chutai that starts in Pescadores onto Ryujo for a turn, and RESIZE; it now becomes a 19-plane Chutai.



ive shipped this to tokyo and have put it on one of the mini kbs ships - may or may not be ryujo, set it to resize - it acknowledges that the chutai now has the potential to be 19 in size, even asks if i want 16 more pilots, but it wont grow - any thoughts - plenty of vals in the pool


Not sure; if the Max Size is now 19, you should be good to go. Take it off the ship and request replacement aircraft. If you can't get any, it could be because the base is low on supplies, or you haven't met the # of days delay yet (this is new to AE).

It works though, and using the same method you should have all the Jake units you need. You can even take 1-plane Jake units off ships that don't need them, like the Katoris, and expand them to 9-plane Chutais by loading them on an AV.

The main purpose of expanding the Val and Kate units is to provide advanced training for KB. You will need it!

_____________________________


(in reply to undercovergeek)
Post #: 76
RE: Here we go again! tc464 (A) vs. Mike (J) - No tc464 - 11/20/2009 8:52:48 PM   
undercovergeek

 

Posts: 1526
Joined: 11/21/2006
From: UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball


quote:

ORIGINAL: undercovergeek


quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

Load that 3-plane Val Chutai that starts in Pescadores onto Ryujo for a turn, and RESIZE; it now becomes a 19-plane Chutai.



ive shipped this to tokyo and have put it on one of the mini kbs ships - may or may not be ryujo, set it to resize - it acknowledges that the chutai now has the potential to be 19 in size, even asks if i want 16 more pilots, but it wont grow - any thoughts - plenty of vals in the pool


Not sure; if the Max Size is now 19, you should be good to go. Take it off the ship and request replacement aircraft. If you can't get any, it could be because the base is low on supplies, or you haven't met the # of days delay yet (this is new to AE).

It works though, and using the same method you should have all the Jake units you need. You can even take 1-plane Jake units off ships that don't need them, like the Katoris, and expand them to 9-plane Chutais by loading them on an AV.

The main purpose of expanding the Val and Kate units is to provide advanced training for KB. You will need it!


i will confess to having it on resize to fit ship before it landed on there - take it off and set it to no resize, next turn land on and set to resize again? ill try a few things - i read this when you first mentioned it - the vals have been shipping to tokyo ever since

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 77
RE: Here we go again! tc464 (A) vs. Mike (J) - No tc464 - 11/23/2009 3:59:26 PM   
Mike Solli


Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline 		Question #1 for the masses:  Try to hold Ichang or give it up?  In our WitP PBEM, Ted pushed me out of Ichang early on.  I'm still debating what to do.  I think he is going to try and take it again.  Assuming this, do I reinforce or withdraw (or do nothing).  Also, should I suck supply there?  I think there is something in the vicinity of 3k supply there.

Question #2:  What do you guys think of an air assault of the Philippines (in addition to the normal sea invasion)?  I've done it in the past.  Not sure if I'd gain anything by doing that.  If I do it on Turn 1, I can be sure there will be little or no enemy fighter opposition.

_____________________________


Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to undercovergeek)
Post #: 78
RE: Here we go again! tc464 (A) vs. Mike (J) - No tc464 - 11/23/2009 4:15:56 PM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

Question #1 for the masses:  Try to hold Ichang or give it up?  In our WitP PBEM, Ted pushed me out of Ichang early on.  I'm still debating what to do.  I think he is going to try and take it again.  Assuming this, do I reinforce or withdraw (or do nothing).  Also, should I suck supply there?  I think there is something in the vicinity of 3k supply there.

Question #2:  What do you guys think of an air assault of the Philippines (in addition to the normal sea invasion)?  I've done it in the past.  Not sure if I'd gain anything by doing that.  If I do it on Turn 1, I can be sure there will be little or no enemy fighter opposition.


Ichang isn't very useful in the end. Giving it up wouldn't bother me.

Para Drop on the PI? I think it would be most useful to drop on Altimonaon or one of those bases so you can ride the rails up from Legaspi, if you land there. But I wouldn't land there; I would prefer to land right on Altimonaon anyway and forget a landing at Legaspi.


_____________________________


(in reply to Mike Solli)
Post #: 79
RE: Here we go again! tc464 (A) vs. Mike (J) - No tc464 - 11/23/2009 4:22:57 PM   
Mike Solli


Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline 		Good point about Ichang, Q-Ball.  I've already changed the invasion site to Altimonaon.

_____________________________


Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 80
RE: Here we go again! tc464 (A) vs. Mike (J) - No tc464 - 11/23/2009 4:26:41 PM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

Good point about Ichang, Q-Ball.  I've already changed the invasion site to Altimonaon.


Makes sense, landing at Legaspi is a waste of time. A landing south of Manila isn't, however, because that should force the Allies to commit to Manila or Clark for a final defense, and IMO Clark is the better choice for the Allies.

Are you re-directing those 2 SNLF pointed at Legaspi to Ambon or Kendari turn 1? I would then land the 16th Division south of Manila, but that's just me.

I love the idea of Paratroopers, but I have trouble figuring out useful purposes for them in the game, because the most opposition they can handle is a base force. Dropping them on Port Blair before Singapore falls is a pretty good move, beyond that it's not easy to find a good use. I just used them to drop on Coxs Bazaar to conincide with a landing at Akyab, so that worked pretty well, but only because Cox Bazaar was empty.

There are alot of ways you can drop then use transports to get in follow-up troops and base forces, but the problem is always supply: I find you just can't keep an airbase supplied via air transport.

< Message edited by Q-Ball -- 11/23/2009 4:30:43 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to Mike Solli)
Post #: 81
RE: Here we go again! tc464 (A) vs. Mike (J) - No tc464 - 11/24/2009 12:17:54 AM   
erstad

 

Posts: 1944
Joined: 8/3/2004
From: Midwest USA
Status: offline
quote:

Question #1 for the masses: Try to hold Ichang or give it up? In our WitP PBEM, Ted pushed me out of Ichang early on. I'm still debating what to do. I think he is going to try and take it again. Assuming this, do I reinforce or withdraw (or do nothing). Also, should I suck supply there? I think there is something in the vicinity of 3k supply there.


I agree with Q-ball that Ichang does not have great intrinsic value. IMO, he question of how to treat Ichang is a neat little problem in game theory, because your best response depends on your opponent's plan.

If he's going for Ichang, then I think the best move is to heavily reinforce Ichang immediately. Ichang is a Clear terrain hex and if he makes an early grab for it a reinforced Ichang can generally retreat the however-many-Chinese-corps. After they are trashed, you can pull the reinforcements out as he won't have the moxie left to threaten Ichang. I suspect a lot of allied players will try an immediate attack - all those corps just sitting there, prepped for Ichang. But you need to go big, especially if you have no HRs against shock attacks in China, because there's a lot of chinese in the vicinity - you don't want to be the one retreated. And I would air bombard some of the stacks from the get-go to get their disruption up.

If he's not going for Ichang, then don't reinforce as there's no need.

What you don't want is (Allied ignores Ichang) and (Japanese heavily reinforce) because then your troops are out of the way until you figure out Ichang is safe. It's a week from Ichang to troops loaded on the RR.

Although if you can't read your opponent and don't want to roll the dice, you won't suffer much if you leave Ichang to whatever fate your opponent chooses. If you see him moving on Ichang that's a good time to head to Nanyang/Loyang/Chengchow as you can get there a lot faster than his troops moving on Ichang. And it's not like he is likely to threaten Hankow (Uh terrain + easily reinforced)


< Message edited by erstad -- 11/24/2009 12:18:08 AM >

(in reply to Mike Solli)
Post #: 82
RE: Here we go again! tc464 (A) vs. Mike (J) - No tc464 - 11/24/2009 12:25:29 AM   
Smeulders

 

Posts: 1879
Joined: 8/9/2009
Status: offline 		Ichang can be a good gambit for the Allied. I moved in the corps North of the city and in 2 shock attacks routed the Japanese defenders, that's a division out of the war for quite some time. If your Japan and see your opponent move on the city, either reinforce fast or retreat, because the starting forces around the city are hugely in favour of the Chinese.

(in reply to erstad)
Post #: 83
RE: Here we go again! tc464 (A) vs. Mike (J) - No tc464 - 12/2/2009 4:35:43 PM   
Mike Solli


Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline 		Guys, thanks for the insight on Ichang.  I'm still not sure what I'm going to do, but I think I'll most likely evacuate.  I'll wait a turn or two for Ted to make a move (which is what I expect him to do).  I think what clinched it is learning that Ichang is clear terrain (and it has no real intrinsic value.

A quick update.  We're on hold until the offical patch 2 is released.  Then, I'll save, end turn and send it off.  One thing I am going to do is change my air unit training.  Most of the units I have on training are on general training.  Apparently, that's not the best way to do things.  I'm going to change them tonight or tomorrow night.

Until the patch arrives, we wait. *Sigh*

< Message edited by Mike Solli -- 12/2/2009 4:36:31 PM >

_____________________________


Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to Smeulders)
Post #: 84
RE: Here we go again! tc464 (A) vs. Mike (J) - No tc464 - 12/2/2009 4:57:11 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline 		They're changing the monsoon season for Burma in the official patch 2 - not sure if updating the game in progress will pick that up.

(in reply to Mike Solli)
Post #: 85
RE: Here we go again! tc464 (A) vs. Mike (J) - No tc464 - 12/2/2009 5:01:20 PM   
SqzMyLemon


Posts: 4239
Joined: 10/30/2009
From: Alberta, Canada
Status: offline 		I'm the player Smeulders routed out of Ichang. Japan is too weak there at start, so in hindsight, if China makes a move for it early pull out. The second shock attack routed me because I was in move mode trying to get out, if I had stayed in combat mode I'd still have been forced out but not at the losses I sustained. I have an issue with how weak frontline Japanese forces are at the start of the game in China, it makes no sense to me that much of Japan's strength is located to the rear at start, garrison requirements not withstanding, I feel more troops should be located directly at the front, the Chinese have the tactical advantage of superiorty of numbers at a number of locations if they mass, and it takes the Japanese too long to move up rear units to counter. So my advice, pull out of Ichang, mass and then start offensive operations.

(in reply to Smeulders)
Post #: 86
RE: Here we go again! tc464 (A) vs. Mike (J) - No tc464 - 12/2/2009 5:07:27 PM   
Mike Solli


Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

They're changing the monsoon season for Burma in the official patch 2 - not sure if updating the game in progress will pick that up.


Yeah, I read that somewhere. If it works, great. But if not, I'm not redoing the first turn for monsoons.

_____________________________


Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 87
RE: Here we go again! tc464 (A) vs. Mike (J) - No tc464 - 12/2/2009 5:10:03 PM   
Mike Solli


Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon

I'm the player Smeulders routed out of Ichang. Japan is too weak there at start, so in hindsight, if China makes a move for it early pull out. The second shock attack routed me because I was in move mode trying to get out, if I had stayed in combat mode I'd still have been forced out but not at the losses I sustained. I have an issue with how weak frontline Japanese forces are at the start of the game in China, it makes no sense to me that much of Japan's strength is located to the rear at start, garrison requirements not withstanding, I feel more troops should be located directly at the front, the Chinese have the tactical advantage of superiorty of numbers at a number of locations if they mass, and it takes the Japanese too long to move up rear units to counter. So my advice, pull out of Ichang, mass and then start offensive operations.


Yeah, Ted pummelled my Ichang forces in WitP right at the start. I'm going to do some recon of his forces in the area and if they show up as headed for Ichang, I'm heading for the hills.

_____________________________


Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to SqzMyLemon)
Post #: 88
RE: Here we go again! tc464 (A) vs. Mike (J) - No tc464 - 12/2/2009 5:32:39 PM   
Mike Solli


Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline 		I can see why supply has to be shipped to China.  The whole of China/Manchuria/Korea produces only ~80k supply a month while Honshu produces ~570k a month.  That 80k is probably needed just to feed that massive army there.  I guess I'll need another TF or two to ship supply to China.

_____________________________


Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to Mike Solli)
Post #: 89
RE: Here we go again! tc464 (A) vs. Mike (J) - No tc464 - 12/2/2009 5:34:29 PM   
SqzMyLemon


Posts: 4239
Joined: 10/30/2009
From: Alberta, Canada
Status: offline 		Mike,

I also wanted to put in my 2 cents about the Musashi and Taiho question. I have to base mine on the historical outcome of Carriers over BB's. I feel the Taiho in the long run will be more valuable in defending the Empire. The numbers of instances where I see the Musashi making a huge difference strategically are minimal, the odd invasion that it can counter I don't see altering the strategic outcome, however, the damage the Taiho can achieve defensively combined with LBA over the long haul I think outweigh the advantages of another heavy BB. It would be nice though to be able to accelerate both ships.

< Message edited by SqzMyLemon -- 12/2/2009 5:48:43 PM >

(in reply to Mike Solli)
Post #: 90
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: Here we go again! tc464 (A) vs. Mike (J) - No tc464 Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   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

1.266