RE: Are we actually playing THE SAME GAME?

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: Are we actually playing THE SAME GAME?

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: Are we actually playing THE SAME GAME?

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

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Are we actually playing THE SAME GAME? - 7/22/2010 7:46:52 AM

PzB74

Posts: 5076
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline

I had to make some decisions after "Sweep Week" that started 2 days ago.

1) Magwe is to exposed and within range of too many Allied air bases.
For now I will redistribute the base forces and Air HQ in Magwe to bases further to the rear.
- Taung Gyi is a size 5 field 2 hexes SE of Magwe and I've placed 2 Tojos formations here and will see if Andy is willing and able to sweep
this far back.

The other fields between Magwe and Rangoon are still too small to be of much use.

If we are to use Magwe as a main field again I have to increase base support to 250 and place twice as many fighters here.
Even then the heavies will be able to have a field day after enemy sweeps.

2) With heavy enemy attacks on our airfields it will be difficult to launch our own bombers as they have to fly from Rangoon.
Rangoon bombers can only rach Akyab and Cox Basar and even a strike on enemy troops north of Shwebo is 10 hexes away
and I have to use Nicks, Zero's and Oscars for escorts. This is also risky as the 70 4Es can drop into Rangoon for a visit and we need
to keep a good number of CAP fighters on patrol and few planes on the ground.

3) An enemy LCU formatio is spotted in the jungle NNW of Magwe, ca 3 hexes away.
This means the Shwebo attacking force was one of two directions of attack. I have decided to continue to pursue Allied troops north of Shwebo and capture the railhead
in Katje. Enemy bomber formations are still not too strong and we have superior force in the area. Supplies have reached Mandalay and I've sent an extra Army Corps HQ here while the other has moved to Shwebo and is pulling in supplies.

110k supplies is currently unloading at Rangoon and there is already 60k supplies in our main base.
The troops not included in the Shwebo counterattack make up ca 2000 AV, but 500 of these are distributed as support and garrisons.

4) To bolster strength in Burma further the following has been decided:
One division and 3-4 tank formations from Zone 3 will be shipped to Rangoon.
Another division will be released from Manchukuo within 10 days and shipped to Rangoon.
- This will add more than 1000 AV to our strength in Burma (ca 5000).

5) The Navy has been ordered to continue with its bombardment runs against Akyab, Cox Basar and Chittagong.
the 4 Fuso and Ise class battleships will perform this duty with their 12x14" guns.

I don't want to put too much focus on Burma, so offensive action is planned in other theatres.

_____________________________

"The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without"
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

(in reply to PzB74)

Post #: 1021

RE: Are we actually playing THE SAME GAME? - 7/22/2010 9:23:24 AM

LoBaron

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

Spot on analysis I think. If you can draw him into a battle of attrition threatening Myikwhatever thats probably the best option.
Conquering it makes no sense at all.

_____________________________

(in reply to PzB74)

Post #: 1022

RE: Are we actually playing THE SAME GAME? - 7/22/2010 9:52:08 AM

veji1

Posts: 1019
Joined: 7/9/2005
Status: offline

The question is how do you make him pay, hurting LCUs, without putting your defense off balance ? I am no expert but the problem once massive allied armies are in the clear terrain is that they will soon be able to outmanouver you by threatening to go West of the Irrawady and cross it downstream.. Then central Burma becomes untenable...

_____________________________

Adieu � Dieu odieux... sign� Adam

(in reply to LoBaron)

Post #: 1023

RE: Are we actually playing THE SAME GAME? - 7/22/2010 10:14:07 AM

PzB74

Posts: 5076
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline

Hm yes, truly no easy answers here.
- By not letting Andy run the show I hope to put a monkey spanner in his works.

It's surprising that the Allies can muster such an offensive in Burma by late 42.
- The advantage that Andy actually is going for it this early is that he doesn't have the same punch as he will have later.
If we can steadily corrode his LCU and air strength we may be able to stop him, not ony in 42 but also in 43 and 44.

An Allied advance down Malaya and Thailand is a favored and dangerous one.
The loss of Singapore and Palembang and a backdoor into the PI Sea is potentially cripling for Japan and I will do everything I can to prevent it.

_____________________________

"The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without"
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

(in reply to veji1)

Post #: 1024

RE: Are we actually playing THE SAME GAME? - 7/22/2010 10:24:07 AM

LoBaron

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

So that means keep the pressure on?

_____________________________

(in reply to PzB74)

Post #: 1025

RE: Are we actually playing THE SAME GAME? - 7/22/2010 10:32:01 AM

PzB74

Posts: 5076
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline

Yep, at least for now.
The army is marching 8 miles per day and that means 6 days to get into the clear hex, and another 6 to get to the jungle hex.
If Andy's troops are keeping the same pace it will be hard to catch up with them and he will no doubt hit us with his bombers in the clear hex.
- With his attention in that direction we get other opportunities though.

Also need to do some more recon to reveal the nastiness that's hiding in the jungle.
Ordered the bombers to drop them a visit next turn.

_____________________________

"The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without"
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

(in reply to LoBaron)

Post #: 1026

RE: Are we actually playing THE SAME GAME? - 7/22/2010 11:34:16 AM

janh

Posts: 1216
Joined: 6/12/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PzB
- By not letting Andy run the show I hope to put a monkey spanner in his works.

It's surprising that the Allies can muster such an offensive in Burma by late 42.
- The advantage that Andy actually is going for it this early is that he doesn't have the same punch as he will have later.
If we can steadily corrode his LCU and air strength we may be able to stop him, not ony in 42 but also in 43 and 44.

I like this spirit. Have you considered the possibility that Andy's whole Burma show is just a big demonstration? Or could turn into one? He might be trying to bind your forces and induce you to weaken other theaters. For now this would seem like a real threat, and that you can really get some pay-back from hurting him here. But I would keep an attentive eye out for a change in stance in his Burma operations.

< Message edited by janh -- 7/22/2010 11:35:04 AM >

(in reply to PzB74)

Post #: 1027

RE: Are we actually playing THE SAME GAME? - 7/22/2010 11:53:51 AM

PzB74

Posts: 5076
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline

I have, but there's fine little to do about it than play along for now.

The Central Pacific is safe until mid to late 43 as we have naval superiority.
An all out offensive in Oz against Darwin is something we can deal with and it has always been planned to leave the continent by 43.
- This leaves Burma....the only truly interesting and promising theatre for Andy.

By the time enemy amph operations become a threat and Darwin abandoned we need to complete many preparations in order to be ready for the
storm that will break.

A bit tempted to land a few raiding parties along the Indian coast between Madras and Calcutta.
Just let them charge into the interior and force a reaction and redployment of Allied troops

_____________________________

"The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without"
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

(in reply to janh)

Post #: 1028

RE: Are we actually playing THE SAME GAME? - 7/22/2010 2:53:36 PM

seille

Posts: 2134
Joined: 6/19/2007
From: Germany
Status: offline

@PzB

What are your plans for the air force ?

How do you want to fight the alled 4E bombers ?
What planes you�ll focuss at in 43 and 44 (Main fighter types and bombers including planned production numbers) ?
Any planes you wish to have sooner than later ?

What is your actual production ? (Which and how many air frames per month)

And last but not least whats your overall fuel and supply situation ?

You see i�m a bit interested in the economic side

Many thanks.

(in reply to PzB74)

Post #: 1029

RE: Are we actually playing THE SAME GAME? - 7/23/2010 7:41:42 AM

PzB74

Posts: 5076
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline

Commented to Andy about the problems with troops in a jungle / malaria zone yesterday.
- This is a concern that is a bit frustrating.

I have a unit that has been sitting in the jungle for a month:
Fatigue / Disruption = 0 / 8 and all squads and equipment is 100%.

Another unit that has been sitting in Magwe for a month has 12/23 Fatigue / Disruption.

One of the biggest killers in the war in Burma was malaria and the jungle itself.
This hit the Allied troops especially hard in 42-43.

When I now see a stack of 25 Allied units marching through the thick of the jungle I'm constantly reminded
that all the troops will be fresh and rested when they get out while my troops in bases outside Rangoon will be less effective.

As I understand it this is a issue that the devs are aware of but that is difficult to fix.
The combination of very strong Allied presence in India - Burma already in 42, a jungle and malaria that doesn't casue any problems
and a monsun that doesn't do much to halt air and land operations turns Burma into a very dangerous place for Japan early on.

_____________________________

"The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without"
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

(in reply to seille)

Post #: 1030

RE: Are we actually playing THE SAME GAME? - 7/23/2010 7:51:52 AM

castor troy

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: PzB

Commented to Andy about the problems with troops in a jungle / malaria zone yesterday.
- This is a concern that is a bit frustrating.

I have a unit that has been sitting in the jungle for a month:
Fatigue / Disruption = 0 / 8 and all squads and equipment is 100%.

Another unit that has been sitting in Magwe for a month has 12/23 Fatigue / Disruption.

One of the biggest killers in the war in Burma was malaria and the jungle itself.
This hit the Allied troops especially hard in 42-43.

When I now see a stack of 25 Allied units marching through the thick of the jungle I'm constantly reminded
that all the troops will be fresh and rested when they get out while my troops in bases outside Rangoon will be less effective.

As I understand it this is a issue that the devs are aware of but that is difficult to fix.
The combination of very strong Allied presence in India - Burma already in 42, a jungle and malaria that doesn't casue any problems
and a monsun that doesn't do much to halt air and land operations turns Burma into a very dangerous place for Japan early on.

they�re not just going to be fresh and rested, they�re also going to be fully supplied...

ask my opponent how long it took to take Burma due to his tried defense in open terrain. Now that he massed 7000av on the line Moulmein - Chiang Mai, I�m stopped cold of course. No chance to break through in jungle terrain.

_____________________________

(in reply to PzB74)

Post #: 1031

RE: Are we actually playing THE SAME GAME? - 7/23/2010 7:55:44 AM

PzB74

Posts: 5076
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline

Hi Seille,

The Air Force is is at a loss when it comes to dealing with 4Es.
- The Tojo only has 12.7mm guns and isn't a very efficient interceptor.

The Nick should theoretically be our best behind the lines interceptor, but it's not exactly a bomber killer either.
If you look at the overview of Jap ac listed according to gun value there is only one "top of the list" model that will be available to us anytime soon, the George.

The George has 2x7.7 guns and 4x20mm cannons and a gun value of 20 and is available from 7/43.
I hope to have it ready by 5/43.

There are several minuses:
a) Only 4 units or so can upgrade to this model early on
b) It has a service rating of 3 and should only be operated from large well supplied bases like Rangoon, Singapore, Rabaul, Truk etc.

I've also heard other players comment that while this interceptor eats Mustangs and Corsairs for breakfast it's still a puppy versus 4Es...like almost everything else.
My understanding is therefore that 4Es are meant to always get through to their target and obliterate it. Losses when facing large numbers of fighters unescorted will in the long run
cause heavy losses but this will not help the Japs in 44-45 when thousands become available. Even now in 42 less than a 100 4Es is enough to permanently close down the biggest airbase in a couple of raids.

Guess this is one of the true challenges for the Jap player in AE.

Except for the George it is of course the Frank that will become the mainstay of the Jap Army Air Force by late 43, early 44.
When it comes to bombers I'm tempted to up production of the Helen II; it got armor, good armament and a fairly good max range (13 hexes).
Later in the war I expect Helen's and Peggy's to become the mainstay of the bomber force.

The Navy is cursed and will have to rely on Zeros / Zeks for another few years, the introduction of the Judy dive bomber with its 500kg bomb will be a welcome
upgrade by early 43. Still without armor and lightly armed, all naval ac will pay an increasing toll to Allied flak and CAP in the years to come.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

"The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without"
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

(in reply to PzB74)

Post #: 1032

RE: Are we actually playing THE SAME GAME? - 7/23/2010 8:19:43 AM

castor troy

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

PzB, being the Allied player in my PBEM and halve a year ahead of your game, I can tell you that the only thing my 4Es "feared" so far were Nicks on Cap. Fear doesn�t mean they would go down in droves but twin engine fighters are far harder to drive off than single engined fighters like the paper flyers Oscar and Zero. The Tojo is doing slightly better but is also not comparable to Nicks. I�m glad the enemy only got a couple of sentais of Nicks. Now that I get more than 50 4Es a month it wouldn�t matter anyway though.

You won�t have to really fear flak I guess, just make sure you stay at 10000 ft or slightly higher. Won�t really reduce your hit rate but you stay above 40mm Bofors and everything smaller than that, means you usually only face 3.7inch, 75mm and 90mm flak. And these babies are useless, I�ve got bases in Burma with 200+ 3.7inch flak being attacked by five dozen IJAAF bombers with the result of a couple of bombers damaged and now and then one or perhaps two shot down. Best result so far were 5 bombers downed IIRC. I would have thought that 200+ heavy flak guns would take quite a toll on the IJAAF bombers at 11000ft but that�s not true. While my standard attack altitude for bombers on ground attack is 10000ft, the enemy�s is 11000ft, no matter if a base with or without flak is attacked.

< Message edited by castor troy -- 7/23/2010 8:24:12 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to PzB74)

Post #: 1033

RE: Are we actually playing THE SAME GAME? - 7/23/2010 8:19:56 AM

PzB74

Posts: 5076
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline

I'm aware of the supply issues Castor, but I'm trying not to get too much involved in this as it is a much discussed and rather sore issue

On this issue Andy says that "my forces are not easily supplied are not without fatigue and are not immune to effects.
- I am being VERY carefull with my supply levels and the force I can project I cannot say more without affecting opsec but I can guarantee that I have been very carefull not to overload my supply net".

I respect what Andy is saying and that he got the necessary supplies in his bases to support his armies.
My concerns are more directed against the fact that the jungle is no more demanding to troops than the Goodwood Hotel in Singapore.

Seille, attaching an overview of my productions.
- I've sorted by production rate.

As you can see I'm upping Tojo production while Zero production is halted as I have 160 fighters in the pools and is expecting an upgrade soon.
Same applies to Val's and Kate's and I'm considering to halt production of Betties and Lily's too soon.
As mentioned in the last post I'm also tempted to switch medium bomber production from the Sally II to Helen II.

In total we are making 841 ac (+214 researched) and 1574 engines.
The high number of engines is caused by the simple fact that many ac have not only 1 but as many as 4 engines.
Production of engines for the next generation ac has also started (Nakajima Ha-5?) and I'm building a stock.

I'm not a wiz when it comes to supplies and general industry tweaking.
The resource screen shows totals which doesn't mean a lot as much fuel and resources are dispersed throughout the Empire.
I am also aware that fuel and oil could become scarce if I don't reduce heavy industry production a bit while restricting convoying and naval sorties.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by PzB -- 7/23/2010 8:21:28 AM >

_____________________________

"The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without"
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

(in reply to PzB74)

Post #: 1034

RE: Are we actually playing THE SAME GAME? - 7/23/2010 8:26:07 AM

veji1

Posts: 1019
Joined: 7/9/2005
Status: offline

I agree with Castor, the Jungle/malaria/out of base model of fatigue/disruption and supply for units is completely out of whack... Units trekking through jungle should arrive with disruption and fatigue in the 50s quite quickly as stragglers get sick, are left behind, heavy equipment gets bogged and must be abandonned, rain ruins supplies and affect reliability of equipment, etc...

We players love to say "this is broken" about everything, but I am really convinced that in Burma the allies can bring to bear their material superiority way too quicklye. Even if Andy says "I am being very conservative and careful; etc..." the very fact that in mid/late 42 he launches a massive offensive through Burma goes to show the extent of the problem...

_____________________________

Adieu � Dieu odieux... sign� Adam

(in reply to PzB74)

Post #: 1035

RE: Are we actually playing THE SAME GAME? - 7/23/2010 8:27:41 AM

castor troy

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: PzB

I'm aware of the supply issues Castor, but I'm trying not to get too much involved in this as it is a much discussed and rather sore issue
On this issue Andy says that "my forces are not easily supplied are not without fatigue and are not immune to effects.
- I am being VERY carefull with my supply levels and the force I can project I cannot say more without affecting opsec but I can guarantee that I have been very carefull not to overload my supply net".

I respect what Andy is saying and that he got the necessary supplies in his bases to support his armies.
My concerns are more directed against the fact that the jungle is no more demanding to troops than the Goodwood Hotel in Singapore.

yeah I know. Andy mentioned in his AAR that the supply routine is not FUBAR and I replied saying it�s totally FUBAR, again mentioning that I�ve marched 7000av into Burma without any supply problems, then 250000 supplies were sucked from Burma to China (over trails???????) in no time and I�ve got 2500av in Northern Australia (around Katherine and now at Darwin) that get perfectly supplied from Alice Springs. Sorry but if the supply routine isn�t FUBAR then the dive is a disadvantage in aircombat...

_____________________________

(in reply to PzB74)

Post #: 1036

RE: Are we actually playing THE SAME GAME? - 7/23/2010 8:50:00 AM

PzB74

Posts: 5076
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline

I'm aware that everything isn't perfect in this regard, this my questions regarding malaria and jungle effects outside of bases.
I also know that units outside a base receives supplies while those inside starve if there's a deficit, opposite of what it should have been.

Still I think we should tone down the strong wording and negative criticism and not make it personal.
Andy has been and is putting in a tremendous effort in the ground combat model. Being responsible for upgrading and improving a far from perfect model isn't easy and too harsh judgements and comments will only be considered offensive. So let's try not to spam with words like FUBAR, broken and utterly useless.

I think this game with Andy will provide good learning and a foundation for future changes (if technical possible to implement).

Plans Cent Pac and status 33rd Div

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

"The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without"
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

(in reply to castor troy)

Post #: 1037

RE: Are we actually playing THE SAME GAME? - 7/23/2010 9:17:20 AM

PzB74

Posts: 5076
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Oct 19, 42

Air Combat

Numerous sweeps and bombing missions against Magwe and Shwebo.
I'm noticing a rising number of P-38s. In all 49 of them on sweeps today.
We were also bombed by 100 4Es and another 100 mediums.

What is questionable is that so many air strikes can be flown in the middle of the monsun.
Weather says "t-storms". Still ops casualties are low and most missions are completed.

Magwe is closed for now and most ac distributed to other fields.
I'm moving out most base units but moving in more troops and engineers.
Want to keep this base open in the long run and force Andy to divert attention to it.

Night Air attack on Magwe , at 57,47
Weather in hex: Partial cloud

Japanese aircraft
no flights

Allied aircraft
Liberator II x 8
Wellington Ic x 19

Japanese aircraft losses
No Japanese losses

No Allied losses

Airbase hits 3
Runway hits 13
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Magwe , at 57,47
Weather in hex: Light cloud

Raid spotted at 39 NM, estimated altitude 15,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 8 minutes

Allied aircraft
P-38E Lightning x 9

No Allied losses

Aircraft Attacking:
9 x P-38E Lightning sweeping at 30000 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Magwe , at 57,47
Weather in hex: Light cloud

Raid spotted at 29 NM, estimated altitude 32,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 6 minutes

Allied aircraft
P-38F Lightning x 14

No Allied losses

Aircraft Attacking:
14 x P-38F Lightning sweeping at 30000 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Magwe , at 57,47
Weather in hex: Light cloud

Raid spotted at 38 NM, estimated altitude 31,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 8 minutes

Allied aircraft
P-38F Lightning x 10

No Allied losses

Aircraft Attacking:
10 x P-38F Lightning sweeping at 30000 feet
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Guards Tank Division, at 59,45 (Shwebo)
Weather in hex: Light cloud

Raid spotted at 20 NM, estimated altitude 28,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 6 minutes

Allied aircraft
Blenheim IV x 18
Hudson IIIa x 12
Beaufort V x 12
Kittyhawk IA x 8
Bolingbroke IV x 12

No Allied losses

Japanese ground losses:
15 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Vehicles lost 1 (1 destroyed, 0 disabled)

Aircraft Attacking:
12 x Bolingbroke IV bombing from 22000 feet
Ground Attack: 4 x 250 lb GP Bomb
12 x Beaufort V bombing from 22000 feet
Ground Attack: 4 x 500 lb GP Bomb
15 x Blenheim IV bombing from 22000 feet
Ground Attack: 4 x 250 lb GP Bomb
12 x Hudson IIIa bombing from 22000 feet
Ground Attack: 4 x 250 lb GP Bomb
3 x Blenheim IV bombing from 22000 feet
Ground Attack: 4 x 250 lb GP Bomb

Also attacking 4th Division ...
Also attacking 14th Guards Regiment ...
Also attacking 55th Infantry Regiment ...
Also attacking 7th Ind.Tank Brigade ...
Also attacking 113th Infantry Regiment ...
Also attacking 23rd Tank Regiment ...
Also attacking 6th Tank Regiment ...
Also attacking Guards Tank Division ...
Also attacking 14th Guards Regiment ...
Also attacking 55th Infantry Regiment ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Imperial Guards Division, at 59,45 (Shwebo)
Weather in hex: Light cloud

Raid spotted at 49 NM, estimated altitude 24,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 16 minutes

Allied aircraft
Blenheim IV x 9
Hurricane IIa Trop x 8

No Allied losses

Aircraft Attacking:
9 x Blenheim IV bombing from 22000 feet
Ground Attack: 4 x 250 lb GP Bomb
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on 14th Guards Regiment, at 59,45 (Shwebo)
Weather in hex: Light cloud

Raid spotted at 48 NM, estimated altitude 20,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 19 minutes

Allied aircraft
Vengeance I x 32

Allied aircraft losses
Vengeance I: 1 destroyed, 7 damaged

Japanese ground losses:
66 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 8 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled

Aircraft Attacking:
6 x Vengeance I bombing from 2000 feet
Ground Attack: 2 x 500 lb GP Bomb, 2 x 250 lb GP Bomb
2 x Vengeance I bombing from 5000 feet
Ground Attack: 2 x 500 lb GP Bomb, 2 x 250 lb GP Bomb
15 x Vengeance I bombing from 3000 feet
Ground Attack: 2 x 500 lb GP Bomb, 2 x 250 lb GP Bomb
2 x Vengeance I bombing from 4000 feet
Ground Attack: 2 x 500 lb GP Bomb, 2 x 250 lb GP Bomb
7 x Vengeance I bombing from 4000 feet
Ground Attack: 2 x 500 lb GP Bomb, 2 x 250 lb GP Bomb

Also attacking 90th Infantry Regiment ...
Also attacking 55th Infantry Regiment ...
Also attacking 4th Ind.Hvy.Art. Battalion ...
Also attacking 2nd Recon Battalion ...
Also attacking 14th Guards Regiment ...
Also attacking 55th Infantry Regiment ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on 42nd Infantry Regiment, at 59,45 (Shwebo)
Weather in hex: Light cloud

Raid spotted at 15 NM, estimated altitude 22,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 5 minutes

Allied aircraft
Hurricane IIc Trop x 7
Vengeance I x 14

Allied aircraft losses
Vengeance I: 4 damaged

Japanese ground losses:
79 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 6 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Aircraft Attacking:
14 x Vengeance I bombing from 2000 feet
Ground Attack: 2 x 500 lb GP Bomb, 2 x 250 lb GP Bomb
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Magwe , at 57,47
Weather in hex: Light cloud

Raid spotted at 21 NM, estimated altitude 17,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 7 minutes

Japanese aircraft
no flights

Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 53
B-17F Fortress x 25

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-46-II Dinah: 1 destroyed on ground

Airbase hits 10
Airbase supply hits 6
Runway hits 92
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Magwe , at 57,47
Weather in hex: Light cloud

Raid spotted at 33 NM, estimated altitude 19,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 11 minutes

Allied aircraft
B-17F Fortress x 9

Allied aircraft losses
B-17F Fortress: 1 damaged

Runway hits 14

Aircraft Attacking:
9 x B-17F Fortress bombing from 15000 feet
Airfield Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Magwe , at 57,47
Weather in hex: Light cloud

Raid spotted at 33 NM, estimated altitude 18,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 9 minutes

Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 7

No Allied losses

Airbase hits 1
Runway hits 5

Aircraft Attacking:
7 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 15000 feet
Airfield Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Magwe , at 57,47
Weather in hex: Light cloud

Raid spotted at 49 NM, estimated altitude 33,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 11 minutes

Allied aircraft
P-38E Lightning x 6
P-38F Lightning x 5
P-38G Lightning x 5

No Allied losses

Aircraft Attacking:
6 x P-38E Lightning sweeping at 30000 feet
5 x P-38G Lightning sweeping at 30000 feet
2 x P-38F Lightning sweeping at 30000 feet
3 x P-38F Lightning sweeping at 30000 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our own strike on the enemy troops NE of Akyab was a success even though we didn't inflict too many casualties.
We identified many LCUs and confirmed that a major offensive is on the way.
- The heavy flak cost us 2 Sally's so there are AA units there as well.

Morning Air attack on 20th Indian Division, at 57,44
Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid spotted at 43 NM, estimated altitude 13,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 12 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-21-IIa Sally x 53
Ki-43-Ic Oscar x 30

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-21-IIa Sally: 1 destroyed, 18 damaged

Allied ground losses:
35 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 8 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Aircraft Attacking:
23 x Ki-21-IIa Sally bombing from 8000 feet
Ground Attack: 4 x 250 kg GP Bomb
29 x Ki-21-IIa Sally bombing from 8000 feet
Ground Attack: 4 x 250 kg GP Bomb

Also attacking 150th RAC Regiment ...
Also attacking 23rd Indian Division ...
Also attacking 20th Indian Division ...
Also attacking 150th RAC Regiment ...
Also attacking 23rd Indian Division ...
Also attacking 20th Indian Division ...
Also attacking 150th RAC Regiment ...
Also attacking 20th Indian Division ...
Also attacking 23rd Indian Division ...
Also attacking 150th RAC Regiment ...
Also attacking 23rd Indian Division ...
Also attacking 20th Indian Division ...
Also attacking 150th RAC Regiment ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Allied offensive in Burma

Need to find out what kind of AV we are expecting here.
Can we defend Magwe and Mandalay in clear terrain? The bases got level 4 and 5 forts and we
can mass a really large Jap Army.

I got a cunning plan, will get back to this later if it has potential

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by PzB -- 7/23/2010 9:18:08 AM >

_____________________________

"The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without"
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

(in reply to PzB74)

Post #: 1038

RE: Are we actually playing THE SAME GAME? - 7/23/2010 9:24:54 AM

PzB74

Posts: 5076
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline

Nik the FFB should be put on the Flak guns issue

I do think Jap bombers suffers from flak, could have been worse but how sofisticated were Allied and Jap flak in Burma in 42?

Well, I'm loading up troops at Rabaul and I've found a suitable candidate to transfer from Manchukuo.
Soon we will have 6 full sized divisions in Burma (5 inf, 1 armored) as well as numerous brigades and regiments.
- No way I'll allow Andy to ubersize is in Burma this early

_____________________________

"The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without"
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

(in reply to PzB74)

Post #: 1039

RE: Are we actually playing THE SAME GAME? - 7/23/2010 9:49:08 AM

castor troy

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: PzB

I'm aware that everything isn't perfect in this regard, this my questions regarding malaria and jungle effects outside of bases.
I also know that units outside a base receives supplies while those inside starve if there's a deficit, opposite of what it should have been.

Still I think we should tone down the strong wording and negative criticism and not make it personal.
Andy has been and is putting in a tremendous effort in the ground combat model. Being responsible for upgrading and improving a far from perfect model isn't easy and too harsh judgements and comments will only be considered offensive. So let's try not to spam with words like FUBAR, broken and utterly useless.

I�m not making it personal nor was I the one but Andy who used the word FUBAR...

If Andy says everything is just fine, then he�s wrong though, no matter if dev or not. Dev doesn�t mean god, even if there are people who might think of theirself that this would be the same (not Andy). Or he ignores the facts or has got a special edition for the developers that is contrary to ours.

< Message edited by castor troy -- 7/23/2010 9:50:51 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to PzB74)

Post #: 1040

RE: Are we actually playing THE SAME GAME? - 7/23/2010 10:09:45 AM

janh

Posts: 1216
Joined: 6/12/2007
Status: offline

On a side note, the damage I have seen so far from AAA seems to be quite well modeled -- compared to the allied experiences over Europe.� German flak with its sophisticated fixed installations and targeting devices probably should represent an upper maximum for the AAA effects on the 2E and 4E.� I recall that someone came up with an estimate of the number of 88mm shells fired for each downed B17, B24 or Lancaster, which was in the 10,000s (the use of the 88mm at home is probably one of the nonsense decisions in history).�

In regard to the Japanese fighters and the durability of the US 4E bombers, I would expect that the George, which outguns the mainstay of the German air force (the Bf109e/f/g) and is comparable in design to the FW190A, should be able to achieve similar results as the latter, given the ratio of employed fighters to bombers and escorts is similar, and the training level.�� In average I would expect one should observe the typical loss rate in the European theater for 4E's, i.e. 5% per mission (incl. ops losses), for the George as well.� Particularly before powerful escorts such as the Corsair or P51 show up.� I am curious how it will do here?

< Message edited by janh -- 7/23/2010 10:10:40 AM >

(in reply to PzB74)

Post #: 1041

RE: Are we actually playing THE SAME GAME? - 7/23/2010 10:39:55 AM

PzB74

Posts: 5076
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline

At times it can be hard to come to a conclusion, especially if the discussions get a bit heated.
Repeating the same message over again seems to become counter-productive. I've noticed this when trying to sell in something at work.
- Even though I _know_ I'm right I can't convince the other side (especially if they're French!-) no matter how many examples I give or how well I try to articulate myself.

In AE I think extended testing and feedback from many players is important to avoid one sided or biased conclusions.

Regarding the topics we're discussing here I think that:
a) Flak routines should continue to be observed and evaluated
b) Supplies routines should continue to be observed and evaluated
c) A tweak is needed regarding jungle / malaria effects on troops.
- There is an issue with how LCU's take fatigue/disruption in a malaria base hex but not in a jungle hex.

As I understood from Andy's reaction troops are not supposed to shock attack when crossing a river into a friendly base.

You should also keep in mind that the George had numerous tech problems that reduced its performance janh.
Also, Japanese use of radio and radar would also reduce the combat efficiency of their fighters.
- As I understand it only squadron leaders had 2 way radios while the rest only had receivers.
Can anyone confirm if this also was the case in 43-45?

A raid by 100 4Es means that a 5% loss rate would be 5 planes.
A raid by 50 4Es means that a 5% loss rate would be 2.5 planes.
- Don't think we're too far off in AE in this regarg?

_____________________________

"The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without"
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

(in reply to janh)

Post #: 1042

RE: Are we actually playing THE SAME GAME? - 7/23/2010 11:46:29 AM

janh

Posts: 1216
Joined: 6/12/2007
Status: offline

Surely not far off, I agree.� It is really hard to quantify for such a complex games, with so many variables from weather over specific pilot skills and HQ coordination influencing the outcome.� Probably no one else but the devs can really estimate and judge the outcomes. � It may well be that all the routines are spot on, but also that 4E losses could be a factor of <2 on the low side.� I guess the only way to know would be setting up a testing scenario, and run dozens of sample raids with a close eye on the effects of each parameter.�

From the overall picture, I have the impression the 4E are a tid bit more durable than they ought to be -- I cannot recall a single book or statement where someone would observe that the US had undisturbed capability to close any Japanese airfield within a few raids already by 1943. � I indeed remember having read in the CMH series book on the Guadalcanal campaign, that McArthur was using the B17s very carefully and they were not used to try to close airfields like those in Rabaul so early on without escorts for fear of losses.� I get the impression in AE that would be doable in autumn 1942.� But maybe this is just a misleading personal impression.

< Message edited by janh -- 7/23/2010 11:47:36 AM >

(in reply to PzB74)

Post #: 1043

RE: Are we actually playing THE SAME GAME? - 7/23/2010 12:17:51 PM

CapAndGown

Posts: 3206
Joined: 3/6/2001
From: Virginia, USA
Status: offline

RE 4E bombers:

It is the B-17 with its 68 durability that is the real bear. The B-24 has a durability of 60. This makes it easier to knock down. I have had success against the B-24 with Tojo's when they are massed in sufficient numbers. I had one raid of 65 Liberators over Meiktila opposed by Tojo's in which 11 B-24s were shot down A2A and 7 were ops losses. This is a 25% loss rate.

As to my airforce: for the IJA my fighter is the Tojo. (I would like to have more Nicks, but only a few squadrons upgrade to that. The Nick is good against 4E bombers, but not so good against fighters because of its lower speed. The Tojo's speed makes it a great dog fighter.) My bomber is the Helen. My Recon is the Dinah III. For transports I was using the Thalia until the Helen transport became available. Now that I have reached August of 43 I am starting to build the Tony Ic because it has 2x20mm cannons and has armor, although I will continue to use the Tojo. I am heavily researching the Tojo IIc model because it has armor, 4x12.7mm MGs, and a service rating of 1. The Frank should also prove useful when it becomes available because of its very high speed.

For the IJN, I am just about to switch over to the A6M5 from the A6M3a. I am also starting to build George's and Jack's. The Jack may prove to be better than the George as a dog fighter because of it greater top speed. The Frances should start producing soon and I will switch the Nell and Betty squadrons over to that. My Dive Bomber is the Judy and as the number increases I will be switching more squadrons over from Kates to Jills. Recon is the Irving.

(in reply to PzB74)

Post #: 1044

RE: Are we actually playing THE SAME GAME? - 7/24/2010 12:02:21 AM

PzB74

Posts: 5076
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline

I think Burma is the single biggest threat to Japan in 42-43, if this front is breached the US will storm in the floodgates in 43-44 and bypass
all other defensive perimeters. So I'm preparing for the most determined stance in Burma that I can deploy!

Just showing the main air attacks this turn. Again the 99 4Es came back together with their smaller
siblings. Monsun and t-storms doesn't help neither on reducing air activity nor on causing ops losses.
Not a single 4E reported lost this turn. I can see no possible way of stemming the 4E tide, we just have to take the hits and it will be hard.

The 84 Nicks are all in Rangoon on 40% CAP, this is a sensible deployment I think.
Yes, the Jack may deserve some attention C&G. In real life teething problems kept this puppy from becoming effective well into 44 and only some 440 were
produced altogether throughout the war. A miniscule number really.

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Oct 20, 42

Sub Attacks

A large British TF is heading into Colombo.
Our sub fire at it but misses and is hunted down and sunk.
- Still, this is valuable information.

Submarine attack near Trivandrum at 27,42

Japanese Ships
SS I-122, hits 9, and is sunk

Allied Ships
BB Royal Sovereign
CA Exeter
CA Cornwall
CL Mauritius
CL Danae
CL Emerald
CLAA Van Heemskerck
DD Van Galen
DD Vampire
DD Paul Jones
DD Fortune
DD Tenedos
DD Stronghold
DD Tjerk Hiddes

SS I-122 is sighted by escort
DD Fortune fails to find sub and abandons search
DD Tenedos fails to find sub and abandons search
DD Stronghold attacking submerged sub ....
DD Tjerk Hiddes attacking submerged sub ....
DD Stronghold fails to find sub and abandons search
DD Tjerk Hiddes attacking submerged sub ....
DD Tjerk Hiddes fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Tjerk Hiddes attacking submerged sub ....
SS I-122 eludes DD Tjerk Hiddes by hugging bottom
DD Tjerk Hiddes loses contact with SS I-122
SS I-122 forced to surface!
DD Fortune firing on surfaced sub ....
DD Tenedos firing on surfaced sub ....
DD Stronghold firing on surfaced sub ....
DD Fortune firing on surfaced sub ....
DD Tenedos firing on surfaced sub ....
DD Fortune firing on surfaced sub ....
DD Tenedos firing on surfaced sub ....
DD Stronghold firing on surfaced sub ....
Sub slips beneath the waves
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Air Combat

Bombing the Chinese 1/3 Corps near Lashio before attacking with a regiment.

Morning Air attack on 66th Chinese/A Corps, at 61,46
Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid spotted at 24 NM, estimated altitude 9,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 6 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-21-IIa Sally x 21
Ki-43-Ic Oscar x 56

No Japanese losses

Allied ground losses:
17 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Aircraft Attacking:
21 x Ki-21-IIa Sally bombing from 7000 feet *
Ground Attack: 2 x 250 kg GP Bomb
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on 66th Chinese/A Corps, at 61,46
Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid spotted at 23 NM, estimated altitude 8,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 6 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-21-IIa Sally x 21

No Japanese losses

Allied ground losses:
61 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 4 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 4 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Aircraft Attacking:
21 x Ki-21-IIa Sally bombing from 7000 feet *
Ground Attack: 2 x 250 kg GP Bomb
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Mandalay , at 59,46
Weather in hex: Light cloud

Raid spotted at 16 NM, estimated altitude 22,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 5 minutes

Allied aircraft
Blenheim IV x 27
Hudson IIIa x 12
Hurricane IIa Trop x 16
Beaufort V x 3
Kittyhawk IA x 8
Bolingbroke IV x 12
P-38E Lightning x 7
P-38F Lightning x 3

No Allied losses

Airbase hits 1
Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 5

Aircraft Attacking:
12 x Bolingbroke IV bombing from 22000 feet
Airfield Attack: 4 x 250 lb GP Bomb
3 x Beaufort V bombing from 22000 feet
Airfield Attack: 4 x 500 lb GP Bomb
12 x Blenheim IV bombing from 22000 feet
Airfield Attack: 4 x 250 lb GP Bomb
15 x Blenheim IV bombing from 22000 feet
Airfield Attack: 4 x 250 lb GP Bomb
12 x Hudson IIIa bombing from 22000 feet
Airfield Attack: 4 x 250 lb GP Bomb
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Mandalay , at 59,46
Weather in hex: Light cloud

Raid spotted at 48 NM, estimated altitude 17,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 18 minutes

Allied aircraft
Liberator II x 3
Wellington Ic x 27
B-17E Fortress x 28
B-17F Fortress x 29
P-38E Lightning x 9
P-38F Lightning x 18
P-38G Lightning x 3

No Allied losses

Airbase hits 8
Airbase supply hits 4
Runway hits 47

Aircraft Attacking:
12 x Wellington Ic bombing from 15000 feet
Airfield Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb
3 x Liberator II bombing from 15000 feet
Airfield Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb
3 x Wellington Ic bombing from 15000 feet
Airfield Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb
12 x Wellington Ic bombing from 15000 feet
Airfield Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb
3 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 15000 feet
Airfield Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb
9 x B-17F Fortress bombing from 15000 feet
Airfield Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb
6 x B-17F Fortress bombing from 15000 feet
Airfield Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb
6 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 15000 feet
Airfield Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb
3 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 15000 feet
Airfield Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb
7 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 15000 feet
Airfield Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb
14 x B-17F Fortress bombing from 15000 feet
Airfield Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb
6 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 15000 feet
Airfield Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb
3 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 15000 feet
Airfield Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Mandalay , at 59,46
Weather in hex: Light cloud

Raid spotted at 25 NM, estimated altitude 18,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 9 minutes

Allied aircraft
Liberator II x 11
B-17E Fortress x 9

No Allied losses

Airbase hits 2
Runway hits 12

Aircraft Attacking:
11 x Liberator II bombing from 15000 feet
Airfield Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb
3 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 15000 feet
Airfield Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb
6 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 15000 feet
Airfield Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Mandalay , at 59,46
Weather in hex: Light cloud

Raid spotted at 44 NM, estimated altitude 15,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 15 minutes

Allied aircraft
B-17F Fortress x 9

Allied aircraft losses
B-17F Fortress: 1 damaged

Airbase hits 1
Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 16

Aircraft Attacking:
9 x B-17F Fortress bombing from 15000 feet
Airfield Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Mandalay , at 59,46
Weather in hex: Light cloud

Raid spotted at 10 NM, estimated altitude 17,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 2 minutes

Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 6
P-38F Lightning x 6

No Allied losses

Airbase hits 1
Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 11

Aircraft Attacking:
6 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 15000 feet
Airfield Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Mandalay , at 59,46
Weather in hex: Light cloud

Raid spotted at 44 NM, estimated altitude 18,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 13 minutes

Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 6

No Allied losses

Airbase hits 1
Runway hits 11

Aircraft Attacking:
6 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 15000 feet
Airfield Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bo
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Mandalay , at 59,46
Weather in hex: Light cloud

Raid spotted at 17 NM, estimated altitude 18,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 5 minutes

Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 9

No Allied losses

Runway hits 12

Aircraft Attacking:
9 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 15000 feet
Airfield Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ground Combat

The Chink corps we sent into the jungle near Lashio has been split in 3 and this third
came down on the road west of Lashio. I placed a regiment there to send it back to the woods but
obviously one regiment isn't enough. Chinks are much more capable in AE than they ever were in RL, still
it's possible to capture ground in China rather easily...

Ground combat at 61,46
Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 3416 troops, 26 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 127
Defending force 3484 troops, 39 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 157

Japanese adjusted assault: 116
Allied adjusted defense: 124
Japanese assault odds: 1 to 2

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), leaders(+), fatigue(-), experience(-)
Attacker:

Japanese ground losses:
102 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 7 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 3 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Allied ground losses:
105 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 11 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 6 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Assaulting units:
79th Infantry Regiment

Defending units:
66th Chinese/A Corps
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The isolated Chinese corps; defensive modifiers make it very hard to eliminate!

Ground combat at 80,56
Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 7753 troops, 65 guns, 12 vehicles, Assault Value = 283
Defending force 2344 troops, 23 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 81

Japanese adjusted assault: 133

Allied adjusted defense: 184
Japanese assault odds: 1 to 2

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), leaders(+), experience(-)
Attacker:

Japanese ground losses:
87 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 7 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 11 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled

Allied ground losses:
265 casualties reported
Squads: 2 destroyed, 21 disabled
Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 20 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Assaulting units:
17th/B Division
116th/B Division

Defending units:
50th Chinese Corps
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

_____________________________

"The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without"
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

(in reply to CapAndGown)

Post #: 1045

RE: Are we actually playing THE SAME GAME? - 7/24/2010 9:49:38 AM

janh

Posts: 1216
Joined: 6/12/2007
Status: offline

Hmmh, Andy must be worried about potential IJN bombardments or amphib raids down the Indian coast.� Seems like his bring at least a few battlewagons back into the theater to stop your BB or CA.� What british carriers would Andy now have after losses and withdrawals?�

Since british LBA in India seems to be less of a threat to the IJN than the capable US LBA in CentPac or AUS, would it be possible to trap some british capital ships after an intercepted bombardment run, say with the mini-KB, perhaps augmented for a week by a CV division from KB?�
The other two CV divisions of KB could raid convoys in CentPac, EastPac or NZ theater (or secretly cover a CA or two doing so)?� I know it sounds risky to split KB, but all you need to avoid it is a CV engagement with his USN carriers at the initiative, so just use it for covering purposes?� I guess Andy wouldn't expect you to do so, so that may give an additional uncertainty factor for the presence the "presumably undivided KB", and may induce him to assume it is either fully in the Indian ocean, or CentPac, depending on where you strike first.� Maybe you can get him to make a mistake again and exploit a weakness that isn't there?

Regarding Burma, it seems like a few player had the experience that is hard to defend for the Japanese.� That is of dual benefit for the allied player now: either, he can stage an offensive through it to Vietnam, or he can just reduce his force requirements there and free a lot of Indian and British units since he won't need that many for a demonstration and binding lots of Japanese forces.

< Message edited by janh -- 7/24/2010 9:50:07 AM >

(in reply to PzB74)

Post #: 1046

RE: Are we actually playing THE SAME GAME? - 7/24/2010 12:54:20 PM

Nomad

Posts: 5905
Joined: 9/5/2001
From: West Yellowstone, Montana
Status: offline

I think that monsoon is from May,15 through October 15. You have passed out of monsoon.

_____________________________

(in reply to janh)

Post #: 1047

Monsoon - 7/24/2010 1:39:13 PM

MikeS4269

Posts: 182
Joined: 9/14/2004
Status: offline

I live in Singapore, and having just had some rain floods due to excessive rainfall, I can guarantee that June and July definitely DO fall into the monsoon period!

(Lousy idea of mine to buy a motorcycle here...............)

-Lb

(in reply to Nomad)

Post #: 1048

RE: Monsoon - 7/25/2010 6:50:59 PM

PzB74

Posts: 5076
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline

Hm, weather in Burma is always t-storms and I haven't noticed any difference in air operations over the last 3 weeks.
Is the monsoon truly a monsoon in AE?

Hi LB, nice to hear from you!
Monsoon in Singers now? It was monsoon time when I visited in late January and then it had been lasting since October

A little behind with the AAR;

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Oct 21, 42

Sub Attacks

Yuck, a real scare as a light carrier is hit by a dud torp

We get our revenge by torpedoing 2 other vessels, but hits by only 1 torp is probably not enough to sink em.

Submarine attack near Bombay at 33,25

Japanese Ships
SS I-166

Allied Ships
AK Alchiba, Torpedo hits 1

AK Alchiba is sighted by SS I-166
SS I-166 launches 4 torpedoes at AK Alchiba
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submarine attack near Bombay at 33,25

Japanese Ships
SS I-166

Allied Ships
xAP Dominion Monarch, Torpedo hits 1, on fire

xAP Dominion Monarch is sighted by SS I-166
SS I-166 launches 4 torpedoes at xAP Dominion Monarch
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub attack near Baker Island at 147,138

Japanese Ships
CVL Ryuho
DD Samidare

Allied Ships
SS Plunger

SS Plunger launches 4 torpedoes at CVL Ryuho
Plunger diving deep ....
DD Samidare attacking submerged sub ....
DD Samidare fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Samidare fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Samidare fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Samidare fails to find sub, continues to search...
Escort abandons search for sub
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Air Combat

Lysanders as light bombers, Andy is bringing in the sink!

Morning Air attack on Shwebo , at 59,45
Weather in hex: Moderate rain

Raid spotted at 31 NM, estimated altitude 25,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 14 minutes

Allied aircraft
Lysander II x 18
P-38F Lightning x 17

No Allied losses

Runway hits 1

Aircraft Attacking:
9 x Lysander II bombing from 20000 feet *
Airfield Attack: 2 x 100 lb GP Bomb
9 x Lysander II bombing from 20000 feet *
Airfield Attack: 2 x 100 lb GP Bomb
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sub Menace

This was a good hit, was hoping for a follow up strike.

The Dominion Monarch is actually a huge NZ liner of 27000 tons

http://www.nzmaritime.co.nz/dm01.htm

Will require an effort to fix her up!

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by PzB -- 7/25/2010 6:52:57 PM >

_____________________________

"The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without"
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

(in reply to MikeS4269)

Post #: 1049

RE: Monsoon - 7/25/2010 6:57:54 PM

PzB74

Posts: 5076
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Oct 22, 42

Air Combat

Continued attacks on Magwe.

Morning Air attack on Magwe , at 57,47
Weather in hex: Heavy cloud

Raid spotted at 10 NM, estimated altitude 25,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 3 minutes

Allied aircraft
Blenheim IV x 27
Hudson IIIa x 12
Beaufort V x 12
Bolingbroke IV x 12

No Allied losses

Airbase hits 1
Runway hits 3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Magwe , at 57,47
Weather in hex: Heavy cloud

Raid spotted at 20 NM, estimated altitude 17,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 7 minutes

Japanese aircraft
no flights

Allied aircraft
Liberator II x 14
Wellington Ic x 39
B-17E Fortress x 53
B-17F Fortress x 29

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-15-II Babs: 1 destroyed on ground

Japanese ground losses:
7 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Airbase hits 16
Airbase supply hits 3
Runway hits 128
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Magwe , at 57,47
Weather in hex: Heavy cloud

Raid spotted at 25 NM, estimated altitude 21,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 7 minutes

Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 6

Allied aircraft losses
B-17E Fortress: 1 damaged

Airbase hits 1
Runway hits 5

Aircraft Attacking:
6 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 15000 feet
Airfield Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Magwe , at 57,47
Weather in hex: Heavy cloud

Raid spotted at 39 NM, estimated altitude 19,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 13 minutes

Allied aircraft
B-17F Fortress x 6

Allied aircraft losses
B-17F Fortress: 1 damaged

Aircraft Attacking:
6 x B-17F Fortress bombing from 15000 feet
Airfield Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Try to take out a small TF at Cox's but our crack Nell's can't score on the small targets.

Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Cox's Bazar at 54,43
Weather in hex: Moderate rain

Raid spotted at 23 NM, estimated altitude 8,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 7 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-43-Ic Oscar x 27

No Japanese losses

Aircraft Attacking:
27 x Ki-43-Ic Oscar sweeping at 7000 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Cox's Bazar at 54,43
Weather in hex: Moderate rain

Raid spotted at 38 NM, estimated altitude 11,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 14 minutes

Japanese aircraft
G3M2 Nell x 6

Japanese aircraft losses
G3M2 Nell: 1 damaged

Allied Ships
xAKL Kalarand
PG Clive

Aircraft Attacking:
6 x G3M2 Nell launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 18in Type 91 Torpedo
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ground Combat

I don't like having Chink corps sitting on my road sholder...managed to force this one out.

Ground combat at 80,56
Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 7714 troops, 65 guns, 12 vehicles, Assault Value = 280
Defending force 2081 troops, 23 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 56

Japanese adjusted assault: 260
Allied adjusted defense: 34

Japanese assault odds: 7 to 1

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), leaders(+), experience(-)
Attacker:

Japanese ground losses:
57 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 5 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 4 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Allied ground losses:
699 casualties reported
Squads: 37 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 26 destroyed, 1 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Units retreated 1

Defeated Allied Units Retreating!

Assaulting units:
17th/B Division
116th/B Division

Defending units:
50th Chinese Corps
----------------------------------------------------------------------

_____________________________

"The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without"
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

(in reply to PzB74)

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: Are we actually playing THE SAME GAME?