RE: Quick Test

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: Quick Test

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: Quick Test

Page: << < prev 33 34 [35] 36 37 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Quick Test - 4/5/2012 9:22:39 AM

Itdepends

Posts: 937
Joined: 12/12/2005
Status: offline

To answer your original question- I wouldn't ask for a redo. Everything you're dealing with (RE the AI) will affect Bart as well. You'll learn the tricks as you go along and so will he. Losing a CA isn't as bad as messing up and losing a CV due to a sub.

(in reply to PaxMondo)

Post #: 1021

April Blues - 4/5/2012 4:09:58 PM

SqzMyLemon

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

This morning I woke up to this lovely sight. Sigh, hopefully winter's last gasp.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by SqzMyLemon -- 4/5/2012 4:10:38 PM >

_____________________________

Luck is the residue of design - John Milton

Don't mistake lack of talent for genius - Peter Steele (Type O Negative)

(in reply to Itdepends)

Post #: 1022

RE: April Blues - 4/5/2012 4:12:24 PM

SqzMyLemon

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

I'll admit it is pretty, but...

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Luck is the residue of design - John Milton

Don't mistake lack of talent for genius - Peter Steele (Type O Negative)

(in reply to SqzMyLemon)

Post #: 1023

RE: Quick Test - 4/5/2012 6:23:08 PM

SqzMyLemon

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Itdepends

To answer your original question- I wouldn't ask for a redo. Everything you're dealing with (RE the AI) will affect Bart as well. You'll learn the tricks as you go along and so will he. Losing a CA isn't as bad as messing up and losing a CV due to a sub.

I agree, it's not the end of the world. I just hate losing something for nothing under these circumstances. There'll be an update posted of the last turn, which still stands, and then a new turn sent off tonight. The war continues...

_____________________________

Luck is the residue of design - John Milton

Don't mistake lack of talent for genius - Peter Steele (Type O Negative)

(in reply to Itdepends)

Post #: 1024

Feb. 9/43 - 4/6/2012 12:54:30 AM

SqzMyLemon

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

Feb. 9/43 Update:

Sub Ops:

SS KXIII is spotted by E Kiji near Rekata Bay. E Kiji scores one direct DC and 9 near miss hits, including damaging of the forward torpedo tubes. E Kiji is one of my better early ASW ships.

SS KXIV spots AO Toho Maru near Donggala, but escorts drive the submarine under before a torpedo attack is launched. No ASW attack.

SS Trout near Rekata Bay is spotted by escorts and attacked. DD Ariake scores one direct DC hit on the enemy. This was a bombardment TF bound for Lunga.

SS O20 is spotted by E Sagi near Rekata Bay adn attacked, no DC hits are recorded.

Burma:

Allied aircraft again sweep and bomb Bhamo. No Japanese ground losses are recorded.

China:

Various Chinese formations are bombed with particular attention paid to troops defending the river crossing north of Kweilin. It turns out only the 2nd Chinese BF remains and suffers 0(4) infantry and 0(12) non-combat squad losses totalling 112 casualties.

Four Japanese Divisions, an Ind. Mixed Brigade, 13th Army HQ and two mortar Bn.'s follow the air bombardment with a shock attack across the river. The 2nd Chinese BF suffers 26(0) infantry and 52(0) non-combat squad losses totalling 948 casualties and retreats to the N.W. Japanese forces have 0(2) infantry and 0(1) engineer squads disabled for 30 casualties.

The Solomons:

Three DD's from the ill fated CA Chikuma TF are ordered to bombard Lunga after attending to the final moments of the heavy cruiser. As her decks become awash, the destroyers open up on Lunga. No damage is recorded in this futile attempt for revenge against the enemy.

Horn Island:

Betty's (13) escorted by A6M2 Zero's (16) spot a small enemy supply TF and attack. F4F-3 Wildcat's (3) on CAP damage a few torpedo bombers and Zero's but can't stop both xAKL Lady Isobel and AM Dubbo being sunk. One Wildcat is shot down, but two Zero's and two Betty's are losses on the day from A2A and Ops.

Miscellanneous:

Japan:

Davao expands fortifications to size 4
Hollandia expands airfield to size 2

E Matsuwa arrives at Tokyo

Allied:

AM Dubbo is reported to have been sunk near Horn Island on Feb 09, 1943
xAKL Lady Isobel is reported to have been sunk near Horn Island on Feb 09, 1943

Thoughts:

Japanese planes are matchsticks. I suffered 8 Ops losses today, not including two float planes destroyed from CA Chikuma sinking. I can't rebase an air unit without suffering a damaged plane or Ops loss regardless of weather, base size or experience. I'm about to surpass 2000 Ops losses so far in the war.

The Solomons are crawling with enemy submarines, but I'm prepared to run this gauntlet in order to capture Lunga. I have some ideas, and will be throwing everything I can at suppressing/destroying the buggers. Today was a good day landing two solid DC hits. I'll be laying submarine deployed mines in the deep water hexes to try and bag a few as well.

_____________________________

Luck is the residue of design - John Milton

Don't mistake lack of talent for genius - Peter Steele (Type O Negative)

(in reply to SqzMyLemon)

Post #: 1025

Regarding bombardment TF's - 4/6/2012 1:17:02 AM

SqzMyLemon

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

By no means are my tests conclusive, but I ran three iterations of the last turn and discovered that waypoints are indeed the issue with the bombardment routine not working. The orginal turn, and the one I just provided an update for, had two waypoints set for my bombardment TF. No bombardment occurred despite actually sailing to Lunga. Another turn was run with one waypoint set, and this again failed to yield a bombardment of Lunga. The third running of the turn had no waypoints set and guess what? Lunga was bombarded.

So, DON'T set waypoints of any kind on bombardment missions. I must not have with my successful bombardments previously, as initially thought. I don't like this one bit, as it forces a player to rely on an AI derived path which takes into no account enemy dispositions and threat levels, or have to waste time establishing a start point to make a clean run to the target at risk of any number of interdictions and also further risk a TF not completing the movement altogether due to distance.

I think this is a huge oversight in not allowing waypoints to be set for this mission type and now have to put my forces at greater risk for absolutely no other reason than faulty design. That being said, I will do it because that is the way the game works. It's that or give up on bombardments altogether, not an option at this stage. I'll do my best to try and come up with the best alternative I can to ensure Lunga is whacked on a regular basis, but don't suffer getting torpedoed and bombed to death either.

So, the war continues and Lemon-san must once again adapt to adversity.

< Message edited by SqzMyLemon -- 4/6/2012 1:20:17 AM >

_____________________________

Luck is the residue of design - John Milton

Don't mistake lack of talent for genius - Peter Steele (Type O Negative)

(in reply to SqzMyLemon)

Post #: 1026

RE: Regarding bombardment TF's - 4/6/2012 1:33:10 AM

khyberbill

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

The waypoints were added to AE. To a code that was first written in the 90's with the game Pacific War. I think we are lucky to have them at all. So we are basically playing on a 20+year old game engine with lots of add ons. The Developers have more than once said they would not write the code this way with modern computers. I played Pacwar on an 8086 and then a an 80286 machine with 640k memory and a 40 meg hard drive.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to SqzMyLemon)

Post #: 1027

RE: Regarding bombardment TF's - 4/6/2012 1:47:38 AM

SqzMyLemon

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: khyberbill

The waypoints were added to AE. To a code that was first written in the 90's with the game Pacific War. I think we are lucky to have them at all. So we are basically playing on a 20+year old game engine with lots of add ons. The Developers have more than once said they would not write the code this way with modern computers. I played Pacwar on an 8086 and then a an 80286 machine with 640k memory and a 40 meg hard drive.

Ack, that's a good point kyhberbill. I'll try and temper my thoughts with that in mind for the future. I like waypoints, so if they were added for AE that's a good thing. I have to remind myself nothing is perfect and what may seem obvious doesn't necessarily translate into programmable code of an older nature. I appreciate the friendly rebuke.

_____________________________

Luck is the residue of design - John Milton

Don't mistake lack of talent for genius - Peter Steele (Type O Negative)

(in reply to khyberbill)

Post #: 1028

Feb. 10 turn away - 4/6/2012 4:55:19 AM

SqzMyLemon

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

Ok, the next turn is off.

I'm wrapped pretty tight these days, so my goal over the immediate future is to just chill.

I'll work on establishing a clear run for the bombardment TF's and get more air and naval ASW into the theatre to combat the submarine threat. I've set fighters to LRCAP of some important TF's in case the Allies do not withdraw aircraft from Lunga, or my bombardment fails to hit the airbase. I've looked at getting more eyes in the sky, and have based some long range naval search assets closer to the front. I need to be able to spot any Allied TF's heading anywhere near the Solomons or New Guinea so I can react appropriately.

This is my first attempt to run the submarine gauntlet without waypoints set for the bombardment TF. Here's hoping they accomplish the mission, hit Lunga hard and don't see an enemy torpedo or bomb.

_____________________________

Luck is the residue of design - John Milton

Don't mistake lack of talent for genius - Peter Steele (Type O Negative)

(in reply to SqzMyLemon)

Post #: 1029

RE: Possible bug! - 4/6/2012 3:10:40 PM

crsutton

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

Curious abut one thing you mention above, CR. Why would you not want an aggressive TF commander? Doesn't this make it more likely that if a surface element is in the path that the TF will engage?

An agressive commander if intercepted will stay and fight longer and use up more ammo and OP points. If the enemy is on the ball and throws multiple surface and PT TFs in your way, then you might use up all your ammo and OP points before getting to the target and then find yourself only halfway home the following day with little or no ammo. A careful commander will on many occasions evade or break off surface actions early and stay on mission. It depends on your aims. Sometimes, I am looking for a fight regardless and will use an aggressive commander, but in that case will always make sure I have a good deal of LRCAP over the TF

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to obvert)

Post #: 1030

RE: Possible bug! - 4/6/2012 3:11:04 PM

crsutton

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: khyberbill

quote:

I use patrol and movement waypoints for my SCTF's all the time and have never had an issue.

It appears that if one assigns a patrol zone to an ASW task force with a reaction range of 6 it will only attack subs directly in its path, the path of the patrol zone is paramount. In other words, reaction range does not matter.

No, this is not correct. I use a reaction range of 3 for all my ASW TFs, and always use a three point patrol zone setting. They react all the time and sometimes too much. It is dependent on TF leader skill and agression rating and detection level of the sub. So lots of air patrols over a highly aggressive ASW TF commander will result in multiple reactions and some good kills. However, I never set the reaction range to 6. It is overkill and can cause more problems than it is worth. 2 or 3 seems to be the best.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to khyberbill)

Post #: 1031

RE: Possible bug! - 4/7/2012 1:04:09 AM

PaxMondo

Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

... I use a reaction range of 3 for all my ASW TFs, and always use a three point patrol zone setting. They react all the time and sometimes too much. It is dependent on TF leader skill and agression rating and detection level of the sub. So lots of air patrols over a highly aggressive ASW TF commander will result in multiple reactions and some good kills. ... 2 or 3 seems to be the best.

+1

Consistent with my experience and use as well.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to crsutton)

Post #: 1032

RE: Possible bug! - 4/7/2012 7:20:39 PM

obvert

Posts: 14050
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline

Works for my ASW too. Reacting a lot, but still hard to hit anything in June 42 in deep water.

Great points above about the aggression of commanders, crsutton. Hadn't considered all of those points.

OT - Been doing a fair bit of work on some IJN ships lately. Got the Tamiya auxiliary ship set. Cool to see relative sizes of DMS, CM and sub chasers next to a DD. Much smaller. Also got a sub set with the I-15 and I-46. Amazing how massive those subs were. Almost twice the size of a Type 7 U-Boat and nearly as long as my DD Shiranui!

Attachment (1)

(in reply to PaxMondo)

Post #: 1033

Feb. 10/43 and bombardment woes continue - 4/8/2012 5:36:54 PM

SqzMyLemon

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

Feb. 10/43 Update:

Sub Ops:

SS KXIV is spotted near Donggala by SC CH 27. No DC attack, but the submarine is driven off.
SS KXIV is spotted again near Donggala by escort PB Yokae Maru and driven off again. No transports were targetted.

SS Grayling duds on E Susuki near Russell Islands. The escort counters with an ASW attack, but no DC hits are recorded.

SS Grayback is spotted by DD Yuzuki near Russell Islands. One DC near miss hit is recorded.
SS Grayback then misses DD Shimakaze with four torpedoes near Russel Islands. DD Satsuki scores a near miss DC hit causing a fuel leak. This is my bombardment TF returning to Munda.

SS Grayling misses DD Yuzuki with four torpedoes near Russel Islands. No ASW attack is launched.

Burma:

The Allies sweep and bomb Lashio today. No Japanese CAP and the bombers damage the airbase with 8 AB, 3 ABS and 24 Runway hits. A Ki-46-II Dinah is destroyed on the ground and 10 casualties are sustained.

Japanese fighters sweep Shwebo, but no enemy CAP is set. I guess they were all sweeping Lashio.

Horn Island:

Japanese forces sweep Horn Island hoping to find more enemy fighters, but the sky is empty.

China:

Japanese bombers focus on Chinese ground troops at Kweiyang and cause 1(46) infantry, 3(32) non-combat and 0(3) engineer squad losses totalling 632 casualties.

The Solomons:

The big news is Lunga was bombarded today, finally! However, the bombardment routine once again let me down. The bombardment did not target the facilities, but rather the ground troops. Allied forces suffered 0(8) infantry, 0(14) non-combat, 0(2) engineer squads losses including 2(3) vehicles destroyed totalling 121 casualties. Only one floatplane, out of four, spotted for my ships. I know the routine was adjusted to target ground troops more often in a patch, due to player complaints, and I think that was a mistake. The routine is a complete crap shoot whether the facilities are targeted at all now.

Another issue noted was the range at which the ships bombarded. I left the range defaulted to 0 as the TF screen indicated. However, the BB's bombarded at a range of 15,000 and never closed the distance. This probably explains the poor results. Another day wasted hoping this routine works properly.

This routine is killing me and I fear I may call off the counterinvasion if Lunga remains open for much longer. Allied fort construction was allowed to go ahead today, as no facilities remain damaged. I may have to start sending in air attacks, and risk them getting shot out of the sky by enemy CAP since I can't damage the airbase anymore. I have no choice anymore, I have to throw everything at closing Lunga's airbase.

The bombardment routine is almost a game breaker for me. This is the first time I've needed to rely on it, and planned on using it a lot, but the limitations are becoming clear to me. I can no longer route my ships as desired, the range was pooched despite indicating otherwise, my floatplanes are not spotting consistently and the facilities weren't even touched. This is now FIVE days of no damage to the airbase and the risk of the Allies deploying more aircraft to Lunga is increasing daily. I need Lunga closed and the most powerful forces at my disposal to do so, have been completely neutered.

As I stated earlier, random is good, but not when is causes things to not work properly and takes control away from the player too often. I feel I have no control anymore, and my tactical play is being completely undermined by the AI and game mechanics. My opponent hasn't had to do a thing, because the AI is defending Lunga for him. The whole situation sucks.

Miscellaneous:

Japan:

Shasukotan expands fortifications to size 2

7th Sentai converting to Ki-21-IIb Sally

Allied:

Previous report of sinking of SS Gar incorrect. Intelligence reports ship is still in service
SS S-46 is reported to have been sunk near Makassar on Nov 17, 1942

Thoughts:

I'm so discouraged right now and the game is quickly losing it's lustre after too many setbacks for my liking. I invest a lot of time into this and to have my efforts consistently undermined in this way isn't helping. Tomorrow may be a watershed moment, if nothing goes right it may be more model time and less aggravation.

_____________________________

Luck is the residue of design - John Milton

Don't mistake lack of talent for genius - Peter Steele (Type O Negative)

(in reply to obvert)

Post #: 1034

RE: Feb. 10/43 and bombardment woes continue - 4/8/2012 6:59:43 PM

crsutton

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

What was the detection level of the base before you bombarded it?

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to SqzMyLemon)

Post #: 1035

RE: Feb. 10/43 and bombardment woes continue - 4/8/2012 7:21:23 PM

SqzMyLemon

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

What was the detection level of the base before you bombarded it?

DL at Lunga has consistently been 9/10 lately. It gets daily recon and with all the attempted bombardments the DL has remained high.

_____________________________

Luck is the residue of design - John Milton

Don't mistake lack of talent for genius - Peter Steele (Type O Negative)

(in reply to crsutton)

Post #: 1036

RE: Feb. 10/43 and bombardment woes continue - 4/8/2012 9:05:18 PM

PaxMondo

Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon

The big news is Lunga was bombarded today, finally! However, the bombardment routine once again let me down. The bombardment did not target the facilities, but rather the ground troops. Allied forces suffered 0(8) infantry, 0(14) non-combat, 0(2) engineer squads losses including 2(3) vehicles destroyed totalling 121 casualties. Only one floatplane, out of four, spotted for my ships.

Pretty sure that it will only show one FP no matter how many are used. So that is WAD.

I see land troops targetted exclusively about 1 in 3 bombardments. It might also suggest that he has really low Air/Port yet. He might be focused on forts first. I believe that the targetting routine looks at those levels in developing the odds of what to attack. This is strictly anecdotal evidence from my playing.

The good news is that your bombardment worked today. It should work again tomorrow, barring interference from Bart or weather.

The low troop losses would suggest to me that he has gotten fort levels built up already. Prolly level 3. It looks as though he has a fair number of engineers there based upon the ratios lost. Take this with a grain of salt though, it could have just been a mediocre result as well. You need a few more days results to have a better idea of what you are facing there.

Don't despair! This operation is a long shot. I've already stated I know I can't do this one, and wouldn't even be trying. You're doing better than I thought was possible, so this is a great learning thread for me. Thanks.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to SqzMyLemon)

Post #: 1037

RE: Feb. 10/43 and bombardment woes continue - 4/8/2012 9:10:27 PM

khyberbill

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

quote:

As I stated earlier, random is good, but not when is causes things to not work properly and takes control away from the player too often. I feel I have no control anymore, and my tactical play is being completely undermined by the AI and game mechanics. My opponent hasn't had to do a thing, because the AI is defending Lunga for him. The whole situation sucks.

In my game against JohnIII where he took Hilo early and built up the AF's I had great luck destroying his planes at the bases and knocking them out, but I did not start bombarding until he had built them up to Lvl 5. If Bart is still at 1 then you are probably just digging fox holes for him.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to SqzMyLemon)

Post #: 1038

RE: Feb. 10/43 and bombardment woes continue - 4/8/2012 9:24:47 PM

ny59giants

Posts: 9869
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline

Shorten the bombardment range to between 6k and 10k. I would have your Escorts bombard.

I feel that Japan is at a disadvantage in this mission due to lack of surface radar. I'm waiting for most of my warships to get it in 43 before trying this mission again. I don't known if code looks for radar on warships, but the Allied bombardments can reach 'nuke' level at times.

_____________________________

(in reply to khyberbill)

Post #: 1039

RE: Feb. 10/43 and bombardment woes continue - 4/8/2012 9:49:59 PM

khyberbill

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

quote:

but the Allied bombardments can reach 'nuke' level at times.

I did quite well against JohnIII's AF's when he had lots of planes at the them. In fact, I suspect (I never did read his AAR) my success with the bombardment missions was what broke his blockade of the islands and eventual retreat. I do not know if the BB's had radar-probably did if they upgraded during their yard work. I usually bombarded from 15k because he had lots of nasty mines there. Most TF's had two old BB's, three or four CA's etc and rarely more than 13 ships overall. I would send a DD TF in front to clear occupy subs.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to ny59giants)

Post #: 1040

RE: Feb. 10/43 and bombardment woes continue - 4/8/2012 10:07:33 PM

SqzMyLemon

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

Thanks for the comments everyone. I thought I'd just clarify a few things here.

First off, the initial bombardments that hit Lunga prior to the waypoint issue were working, About half the bombardments so far have targeted the ground troops though. The ones that hit the airbase and facilities did pack a punch. Look back at the previous turn updates and check out the damage to both facilities and ground forces. When I ran the last test turn prior to this end of turn save the orders were identical in every way, and the turn ran the same save for one important exception, the airbase was targetted. SBD's were damaged and destroyed on the ground and the airbase was moderately damaged. So this turn was once again a poor roll, I am getting more than my fair share of them.

When the base was assaulted the forts were at level four and reduced to level three at capture. If they were not destroyed upon changing hands the current level of forts at Lunga is three. The damage to the port and airbase just reached 0% this turn, so there's no way forts are at level four yet. The airbase level is currently 3(5), so it should be a viable target for the ships, and more importantly should sustain substantial damage if the bombardments would just target the facilities.

The big boys are ordered in again today with four BB's including Yamato and Musashi. I set this bombardment to range one since there is no threat of CD guns. I left it at zero last turn thinking it was correct, but it must be some sort of default error as the bombardment occurred at 15k.

I don't set the escorting DD's to bombard, because if the Allies do interdict my TF, I want the DD's to be an effective screen for the BB's. I set a patrol zone last turn for this bombardment TF to set up a clear run to Lunga at range seven and avoid the majority of enemy subs and more importantly move through shallow water hexes. I've ordered in numerous ASW TF's to suppress the enemy submarines. If I can substantially damage the airbase this turn, I will begin air attacks to further suppress Lunga. KB is based at Rabaul and can arrive in one turn to address any issues and even bomb the airbase if I feel I need to.

My first amphibious TF's are beginning to arrive in theatre and if Lunga's airbase can be knocked out, I will begin landing troops on Tassafaronga and march on Lunga. This will avoid disruption, due to lack of prep, and give me the time to get more airbases up and running providing even more LBA to interdict the Allies.

The stage is set, but I want the Allies afraid, or unable, to base aircraft at Lunga. These bombardment missions are crucial, not only for the material damage they cause, but the pyschological affect. I want the Allies feeling helpless and to have to make a tough call, commit naval assets or see Lunga's defenders wiped out. So I need the airbase knocked out, and that's why I'm so concerned about the bombardment routine being more of a hindrance than not. I really think the changes made in an earlier patch, because of complaints of bombardments not hitting troops was a mistake as well. I think it's been shifted too far in that direction.

We'll see what happens though. I am discouraged, but not giving up yet. I just need some better results to turn things around. And Pax, I'm glad you are getting something out of this, I'll do my best to provide a learning experience for other players contemplating the merits of fly by the seat of your pants tactics at times

. I just know that caution has not worked for me, it's time to risk a lot to gain a lot.

< Message edited by SqzMyLemon -- 4/9/2012 1:37:30 AM >

_____________________________

Luck is the residue of design - John Milton

Don't mistake lack of talent for genius - Peter Steele (Type O Negative)

(in reply to ny59giants)

Post #: 1041

Off topic - 4/8/2012 10:10:07 PM

SqzMyLemon

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

obvert,

Thanks for posting your picture of the auxilliary ship set. I'll comment more on that later, I'm just too focused on the game right now. I definitely will strike up more of a conversation with you next time, about your own model building projects. I'm glad to have discovered you're interested and build them too.

< Message edited by SqzMyLemon -- 4/9/2012 6:32:05 AM >

_____________________________

Luck is the residue of design - John Milton

Don't mistake lack of talent for genius - Peter Steele (Type O Negative)

(in reply to SqzMyLemon)

Post #: 1042

RE: Feb. 10/43 and bombardment woes continue - 4/8/2012 11:24:14 PM

PaxMondo

Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon

Thanks When the base was assaulted the forts were at level four and reduced to level three at capture. If they were not destroyed upon changing hands the current level of forts at Lunga is three.

You know, good question/point. Do forts transfer intact? I rarely ever capture a base with forts > 0 and I have never checked to see what the starting forts are when I take over. I always assume 0, but clearly they could be higher. Huh. Have to watch for this next time.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to SqzMyLemon)

Post #: 1043

RE: Off topic - 4/9/2012 12:28:29 AM

obvert

Posts: 14050
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon

obvert,

Thanks for posting your picture of the auxialliary ship set. I'll comment more on that later, I'm just too focused on the game right now. I definitely will strike up more of a conversation with you next time, about your own model buildng projects. I'm glad to have discovered you're interested and build them too.

No problem. Just thought I'd throw them in there as there. Hope you don't mind a pic on your AAR.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

quote:

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon

Thanks When the base was assaulted the forts were at level four and reduced to level three at capture. If they were not destroyed upon changing hands the current level of forts at Lunga is three.

You know, good question/point. Do forts transfer intact? I rarely ever capture a base with forts > 0 and I have never checked to see what the starting forts are when I take over. I always assume 0, but clearly they could be higher. Huh. Have to watch for this next time.

When I've picked up a base by occupying it after my opponent vacates, with no combat during the changeover turn, the forts remain. When the base is captured through combat, the forts do not remain and must be rebuilt. I think.

< Message edited by obvert -- 4/9/2012 12:36:19 AM >

(in reply to SqzMyLemon)

Post #: 1044

RE: Feb. 10/43 and bombardment woes continue - 4/9/2012 12:58:36 AM

crsutton

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

quote:

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon

Thanks When the base was assaulted the forts were at level four and reduced to level three at capture. If they were not destroyed upon changing hands the current level of forts at Lunga is three.

You know, good question/point. Do forts transfer intact? I rarely ever capture a base with forts > 0 and I have never checked to see what the starting forts are when I take over. I always assume 0, but clearly they could be higher. Huh. Have to watch for this next time.

I am pretty sure that forts revert to 0 in all cases when a base changes hands.

Regardless of casualties, your bombardments will cause heavy disruption-especially with BBs. This works very well in conjunction with infantry attacks. And constant bombardment cause morale to deteriorate. This is important too as morale is very slow to recover.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to PaxMondo)

Post #: 1045

Feb. 11/43 - 4/9/2012 1:36:16 AM

SqzMyLemon

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

A good day, we got two turns completed.

Feb. 11/43 Update:

Sub Ops:

SS O20 is spotted by E Yomogi near Rekata Bay, but no ASW attack.

SS S-47 elects not to launch torpedoes against SC CH 36 near Gasmata, the Subchaser does launch a DC attack though and scores a near miss hit.

Burma:

Allied B-24D Liberator's (34) in two raids hit Lashio again. Damage is 2 AB, 2 ABS and 9 Runway hits. No enemy fighter sweeps today.

The Gilbert Islands:

F4F-3 Wildcat's (22) sweep Tarawa today. There is no Japanese CAP set. Could this be the beginning of the next phase of the Allied advance in this theatre?

China:

Pretty quiet as just some local air attack against various Chinese forces as Japanese troops advance. Unfortunately weather grounded the bombing of troops at Kweiyang. There is now a Chinese force of 89 units across the river N.E. of Tuyun.

The Solomons:

Do I have this bombardment thing figured out? Not an overwhelming result, but a successful bombardment regardless. Four BB's unload on Lunga and one BB targets the facilities while the others concentrate on the 27th Division. Enemy ground forces suffer 0(7) infantry, 2(18) non-combat and 4(1) engineer squads lost totalling 148 casualties. The facilities at Lunga suffer 7 AB, 5 ABS, 35 Runway, 7 Port and 1 Port Supply hits. Damage to the airbase shows 35%. Much better and now I can send some bombers in to complement the bombardments.

Miscellaneous:

Japan:

Sapporo expands fortifications to size 1
Ketoi-jima expands fortifications to size 1
Raba expands fortifications to size 2

E Oki arrives at Tokyo
E Sado arrives at Tokyo

Allied:

Umnak Island expands airfield to size 5
Cristobal expands port to size 6

Thoughts:

The bombardment TF from the 10th has reached Rabaul and is rearmed and refueled. The Yamato TF retired to Shortlands. This means I may be able to conduct bombardments against Lunga every two days. I'm frantically building up airbases and troops are pouring into the theatre. I'll gladly trade Allied attention in the Gilberts for a chance to liberate Lunga.

_____________________________

Luck is the residue of design - John Milton

Don't mistake lack of talent for genius - Peter Steele (Type O Negative)

(in reply to crsutton)

Post #: 1046

RE: Off topic - 4/9/2012 6:00:04 AM

SqzMyLemon

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

When I've picked up a base by occupying it after my opponent vacates, with no combat during the changeover turn, the forts remain. When the base is captured through combat, the forts do not remain and must be rebuilt. I think.

This has been my experience as well, in terms of occupying a base after the enemy has vacated it. When the Chinese abandoned Changteh and my forces rolled in, I was pleasantly surprised to see a level three fort waiting for me. Alfred has also made some comments to this affect in one of his 101 threads.

I'm not sure about when losing my own bases. My gut tells me they go back to zero, but in this situation I'm going to base my operations on a worse case scenario of at least level three forts.

_____________________________

Luck is the residue of design - John Milton

Don't mistake lack of talent for genius - Peter Steele (Type O Negative)

(in reply to obvert)

Post #: 1047

RE: Off topic - 4/9/2012 6:31:21 AM

SqzMyLemon

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

Next turn is away. Ships are starting to show a little sign of wear and tear. I'll be cycling ships in and out of the line now to get some back to the rear to repair out of enemy 4E range. My refits are about five days from joining up with the Combined Fleet. I'm debating whether to send the CVE's to the Solomons or keep them available in case the Allies try something in the DEI or IO. I am really trying to improve my search capacity and pushing the edge of my perimeter to allow patrol plane bases and anchorages. With KB at Rabaul, I do not want a surprise visit whacking the Solomons and the concentration of shipping I have there. KB is poised to strike anything of worth, but needs a minimum of one day notice to be in position.

No bombardment of Lunga today. I'm going to try and cycle three BB TF's to keep up continual bombardments. I forgot the Ops expediture for rearming and refueling at Rabaul. If I stick with two TF's I can only hit Lunga every three days, but with three TF's it increases to every two days. If the Allies do not move on the Gilberts soon, I anticipate an attempt to get more troops on Lunga or invasions of other islands in the island chain. Once Lunga is closed and I get troops into position on Tassafaronga, I move to a new phase of operations to disrupt any interference by the Allies. Bart mentioned in the last e-mail he only has four BB's in the South Pacific. He's implying I still have substantial strength committed. I'm not sure how to take this comment, although I'm operating on the assumption he has more and is blowing smoke to try and make me underestimate a possible Allied response. This is sort of the point of why I'm doing this. He knows where I am and what I have...the decision on whether to do anything about it lies with him, I have my own agenda at the moment, but I'm prepared for anything he may try. If there is a massive commitment of Allied naval forces, then we may have one heck of a fight on our hands.

I'm starting to get in a rythym elsewhere on the map. I've got a few little surprises set up and just need a suitable victim to come along. I want to start throwing some curveballs and get the Allies out of their comfort zone. I've earmarked two more regiments for removal from China, I'm just waiting on the PP's to accumulate. To save time they are already redeploying to Hong Kong. That makes four regiments earmarked for Pacific duties with two ready to go and PP's paid.

I've accelerated as many DD's as I can. I've added a bunch of E's a few late war CV's. I have also resumed production of about five submarines. They may get lucky, or as some have suggested provide me with some valauble recon when I most need it. With more E's coming online, I can free up some older DD's to be used for interdiction of enemy ASW TF's in the Solomons and Gilberts. I'd like to be doing that now, but am short DD's for my combat TF's as it is, so I have to wait.

New AO's and tankers join the merchant navy soon and they will be put to immediate use. More airframes should be advancing their R&D soon, particularly the Tojo IIc. The Ki-84 Frank factories seem to be taking forever to repair, but I started those late.

I'll let a few more days develop and then post some screenshots to bring the visuals up to speed.

_____________________________

Luck is the residue of design - John Milton

Don't mistake lack of talent for genius - Peter Steele (Type O Negative)

(in reply to SqzMyLemon)

Post #: 1048

RE: Off topic - 4/9/2012 9:12:04 AM

ny59giants

Posts: 9869
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline

Form a small SC TF that the BB TF can follow in to Lunga. If I was the Allies, I would send in some PT boats to disrupt your bombardments. 3 or 4 DDs should be enough.

_____________________________

(in reply to SqzMyLemon)

Post #: 1049

RE: Off topic - 4/9/2012 4:40:48 PM

SqzMyLemon

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

Form a small SC TF that the BB TF can follow in to Lunga. If I was the Allies, I would send in some PT boats to disrupt your bombardments. 3 or 4 DDs should be enough.

Hi Michael,

Other than submarines, I'm not sure what the Allied plan for defending Lunga is. I wonder if my previous passivity has led to a strategy of simply wait me out until I tire of bombardments, or start losing some ships to torpedoes and stop. I heavily mined Lunga as soon as the Allied naval vessels retired. The initial field was 150 mines, so depending on degradation there should still be a lot there. I plan on a second minelaying operation as soon as Lunga is closed again. There's a good chance the mines are keeping the Allies away right now, especially with how cautious Bart is.

Now that bombardments are working better, I will begin to ratchet up the pace of operations. I don't know where the Allied CV's are, but I want to start landing troops in two days. I will also land troops on Tulagi and start building the base up. I need to get artillery, AA and more engineers moving though. It's going to be quite a job dislodging the defenders. The immediate plan is make CAP available in numbers that will allow me to station a SCTF directly at Lunga. If the Allies want to do anything here, they will have to fight for it...no more freebies. This may mean the 4E's will start hitting me soon though if the Allies fear committing naval forces.

I'm putting together a couple of small SCTF's to guard against PT's as you suggest, however they will act independently of the bombardment TF's. I've had enough troubles already, I won't risk problems with the follow command in case they screw up or refuel en route. That's another reason why I don't set my escorting DD's to bombardment. I want them fully armed to deal with PT's and anything else they may encounter. I'm also about to go after his ASW TF snooping around to the S.E. of Lunga. I see anything Allied come too close, I'm going to sink it. Once I'm established again on Guadalcanal, I'll look at paying Ndeni a visit and shut that airbase down as well. I'll expand operations so that the Allies can't simply concentrate on Lunga. If I threaten Ndeni, it will take pressure away from my forces at Lunga.

When my DD reinforcements arrive at Rabaul, I'll be much more aggressive with my naval forces. Those 18 DD's will be invaluable at this stage.

_____________________________

Luck is the residue of design - John Milton

Don't mistake lack of talent for genius - Peter Steele (Type O Negative)

(in reply to ny59giants)

Post #: 1050

Page: << < prev 33 34 [35] 36 37 next > >>

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

Page: << < prev 33 34 [35] 36 37 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

0.906

Slitherine

RE: Quick Test