RE: Objective 'W' Secured on D

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: Objective 'W' Secured on D - Day+3

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: Objective 'W' Secured on D - Day+3

Page: << < prev 46 47 [48] 49 50 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Objective 'W' Secured on D - Day+3 - 3/7/2011 2:55:40 PM

EUBanana

Posts: 4552
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac
3. Allied SCTF's that achieve nothing despite being better ships witht he best leaders I have

I've noticed that one myself! Allied warships are crewed by total idiots or something.

Almost every surface combat I have seen begins with "<Allied admiral> crosses the T" which makes me feel hopeful, and I sit back waiting for some destruction.

Then the Allied ships just get blown to pieces. Guns, torpedoes, doesn't matter, it's not just the Long Lances, it's everything. Half the time the Allies barely even fire. Radar seems to make little odds.

The only time I can genuinely think of a 'win' was a series of encounters which left five Allied BBs damaged for 6 months plus apiece but sank two old Fuso BBs. They may have been shot to cr@p but at least they managed to actually sink something, so I take that as a win. And the overall Allied surface fleet strength must have been at least double the Japanese, if not triple.

OTOH in the early war all it takes is one stray CL to sink a whole brace of Japanese Marus. It's in warship to warship combat that the ninja IJN shows its massive superiority.

< Message edited by EUBanana -- 3/7/2011 2:56:38 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Andy Mac)

Post #: 1411

RE: Objective 'W' Secured on D - Day+3 - 3/7/2011 3:01:37 PM

beppi

Posts: 382
Joined: 3/11/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

Allied surface assets are quite weak even in late war. Might be a special "feature". I remember at the release ships with radar where quite strong (i remember a 25k hit at night by POW or Repulse) and the radar got toned town quite a lot with the info that it gets stronger later in the war. But i am not sure if that is working.

(in reply to EUBanana)

Post #: 1412

RE: Objective 'W' Secured on D - Day+3 - 3/7/2011 3:28:55 PM

EUBanana

Posts: 4552
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: beppi

Allied surface assets are quite weak even in late war. Might be a special "feature". I remember at the release ships with radar where quite strong (i remember a 25k hit at night by POW or Repulse) and the radar got toned town quite a lot with the info that it gets stronger later in the war. But i am not sure if that is working.

I get the impression that late war in general is potentially quite dicey until the thousand eyed playermonster gets to it and starts commenting.

The attack bombers being borked only came out when people noticed them behaving wonkily in game, IIRC. And I woulda thought that fairly obvious after a week of play in 1943.

_____________________________

(in reply to beppi)

Post #: 1413

RE: Objective 'W' Secured on D - Day+3 - 3/7/2011 7:20:38 PM

dekwik

Posts: 90
Joined: 9/22/2007
From: Atlanta
Status: offline

Nice to see you bounce back Andy, that had to be a tough weekend. The upper lip seemed to quiver a little, but it's firmly back in place. Best advice is that of Admiral Lord Sprior. "Blame it on the Yanks." Put Cunningham in charge.

At the risk of stating the blindingly obvious, it looks like a Burma and-or NE New Guinea axis holds the best opportunities for you now.

The air combat did look hugely one sided. It seems like that's becoming a theme in several AARs. Perhaps this isn't our old WITP

old witp says sail everything in the same hex. As you point out, maybe it's not so obvious to do that anymore since flak (and flak overlap) is far from what it was.

old witp says allies combine CV's more as time goes on. Maybe not. Maybe more small CV TF's disperses the offensive advantge.

PZB himself (I don't think this is any security breach) wonders whether detection levels have become much more important in CV combat. I think he might be right. In old WITP so long as both sides saw each other to some extent, the hammers fell equally. But does that make sense? If a CV TF is loitering, and the opposing Admiral sprints in for a strike, then changes heading, wouldn't they have a tremendous advantage? This is probably more a liability for Japan with their inferior radar.

As a game, the CV combat model seems to have become a lot more unpredictable. But that may make it a much better game. My (so far only) AE game came to an end when Japan lost all its CV's in Sept '42, while allies lost none. My opponent did nothing wrong that I could see and had an equal chance to come out on top, unless *maybe* I wonder now if I had a big DL advantage. Perhaps that's the missing piece of the puzzle. Even if I'd been on the wrong side of the battle I think I prefer it to WITP. When you send 6 or 8 CV's against allies late in the war *knowing* that you're unlikely to achieve even a scratch on the allies..... I get the impression now that CV fights are like two guys in a pitch black room walking around with Uzzi's. As soon as one side makes a sound it's all over. And perhaps that's a bit *too* random and severe.

In any case, kudos for getting the stiff upper lip back in place. You'll come back. And not to forget that if there was a community vote for "world champion AE player" I think PZB would win it

(in reply to EUBanana)

Post #: 1414

RE: Objective 'W' Secured on D - Day+3 - 3/7/2011 10:25:42 PM

FatR

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

I don't see supposed Japanese surface domination in actual battles. All their battleships but 4 are fast, yet weak (old USN battleships have, like, 4000-yards zone, where they can blast **** out of Fusos/Ises while not getting penetrated in return). Their CLs (in stock, at least) range from very mediocre, to oversized DDs. Their CAs and DDs are good, but lose much of their shine once Allies don't need to rely on shoddy early-war British and Dutch ships so much anymore. Unless one side is heavily outclassed, sheer numbers and right mix of forces will be the decisive factors most of the time.

And speaking about the right mix, if faced with regular night combats against numerous IJN forces, I would have brought Brooklin/Helena/Cleveland cruisers, maybe, but not necessarily mixed with torpedo-carrying British/Commonwealth cruisers, in multiple groups of about 3-4 CLs and 4-5 Fletcher/Livermore/Gleaves/Benson DDs. Handpicked TF commanders and ship commanders, of course. These "CLs" can swiftly take out anything short of a battleship. Primarily, they can take out Japanese CAs, which are the main threat to the Allied battle line. DDs are here mostly to draw attention from enemy DDs, so that the latter will waste their torpedoes on them, maybe to finish cripples (in general DDs relatively rarely fire on capital ships if enemy DDs are present, that's why it can be useful to pack some torpedo-carrying cruisers). Wouldn't have risked battleships without solid air cover, though.

(in reply to dekwik)

Post #: 1415

RE: Objective 'W' Secured on D - Day+3 - 3/7/2011 10:35:46 PM

FatR

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

And I agree, that in the current situation Allies should utilize their assets in a way, that won't result in new major naval battles until mid-1944 at least. Advance through Burma with overwhelming power (not be afraid to strip other theatres bare of major LCUs) while your opponent looks at Waingapoe. Base-hop across New Guinea. Move methodically under heavy LBA cover. Abuse 4Es power the best you can, try to always use them in masses of 100 and more planes, this both gives much better effect and significantly reduces casualties.

(in reply to Andy Mac)

Post #: 1416

RE: Objective 'W' Secured on D - Day+3 - 3/7/2011 10:50:10 PM

crsutton

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR

I don't see supposed Japanese surface domination in actual battles. All their battleships but 4 are fast, yet weak (old USN battleships have, like, 4000-yards zone, where they can blast **** out of Fusos/Ises while not getting penetrated in return). Their CLs (in stock, at least) range from very mediocre, to oversized DDs. Their CAs and DDs are good, but lose much of their shine once Allies don't need to rely on shoddy early-war British and Dutch ships so much anymore. Unless one side is heavily outclassed, sheer numbers and right mix of forces will be the decisive factors most of the time.

And speaking about the right mix, if faced with regular night combats against numerous IJN forces, I would have brought Brooklin/Helena/Cleveland cruisers, maybe, but not necessarily mixed with torpedo-carrying British/Commonwealth cruisers, in multiple groups of about 3-4 CLs and 4-5 Fletcher/Livermore/Gleaves/Benson DDs. Handpicked TF commanders and ship commanders, of course. These "CLs" can swiftly take out anything short of a battleship. Primarily, they can take out Japanese CAs, which are the main threat to the Allied battle line. DDs are here mostly to draw attention from enemy DDs, so that the latter will waste their torpedoes on them, maybe to finish cripples (in general DDs relatively rarely fire on capital ships if enemy DDs are present, that's why it can be useful to pack some torpedo-carrying cruisers). Wouldn't have risked battleships without solid air cover, though.

I have to agree. My Allied surface ships are doing OK. I just don't use my BBs in surface combat in restricted waters as they tend to get hammered. I prefer the modern Allied CLs over the treaty cruisers but do find that many 6 inch hit do not penetrate Japanese CAs. I thought that historically they were fairly deadly vs this type of ship. I look to use six to eight ship TFs and this seems to work OK. I have had no trouble sinking Japanese CLs in the game, they are indeed weak.

However, the long lance is still very dangerous in game in late 43 and that is a point in the war where it was really not so much of a factor. Considering Ameican ship building technology, fire control, auto loading and radar. I would expect Allied surface ships to come out on top in most all late 1943 battles. Frankly, I would expect modern American CLs to eat the old Japanese treaty CAs for lunch. Don't really see that. Japanese surface forces are very powerful all through the game that I can see. Perhaps 1944 will boost the Allies as I believe the torpedoes in the DDs get better. Now don't get me started about ship based AA which has been a travesty ever since the game was introduced.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to FatR)

Post #: 1417

RE: Objective 'W' Secured on D - Day+3 - 3/7/2011 11:56:58 PM

kfsgo

Posts: 446
Joined: 9/16/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

As an aside, it's astonishing how widely the penetration ranges on 6" guns vary, particularly outside the USN - compare:

USN 8in Mk. 9 - 300 (pre-war CAs)
USN 8in Mk. 12 - 282 ('new' CAs)
GBR 8in Mk. VIII: 278 (all 8in CAs)
IJN 20cm 3YT: 291 (all CAs)

USN 6in Mk. 12 - 140 (Omahas)
USN 6in Mk. 16 - 169 (modern CLs)
IJN 15cm 41YT - 86 (Aganos)
IJN 15.5cm 3YT - 222 (Oyodos - not that they're ever likely to do anyone much good, but what a difference that extra .5 makes, eh?)
GBR 6in Mk. XXIII - 121 (Leander, Town etc)
GBR 6in Mk. XII - 108 (Letter CLs)
DUT 15cm No. 6/9/10/11 - 86 (everything)

I can't say I've ever seen a 6in shell that wasn't coming out of a Mk. 16 penetrate a Japanese CA, but that's just in a bunch of faffing around with mini-scenarios so, y'know, anecdote not data. I'd definitely be very leery about taking them on even with more guns' worth of the Brit CLs, which is a shame as there's quite a few of them.

(in reply to crsutton)

Post #: 1418

RE: Objective 'W' Secured on D - Day+3 - 3/9/2011 8:50:15 AM

Andy Mac

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline

Computer fried by a virus so will be a few days while I rebuild before turns start again

(in reply to kfsgo)

Post #: 1419

RE: Objective 'W' Secured on D - Day+3 - 3/9/2011 12:53:11 PM

PaxMondo

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Computer fried by a virus so will be a few days while I rebuild before turns start again

Fards!! A lingering death to all virus scriptors ....

My wife has issues all the time .. I have to re-build her hard drive 3 - 4 times/years.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to Andy Mac)

Post #: 1420

RE: Objective 'W' Secured on D - Day+3 - 3/9/2011 5:13:45 PM

crsutton

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: kfsgo

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

As an aside, it's astonishing how widely the penetration ranges on 6" guns vary, particularly outside the USN - compare:

USN 8in Mk. 9 - 300 (pre-war CAs)
USN 8in Mk. 12 - 282 ('new' CAs)
GBR 8in Mk. VIII: 278 (all 8in CAs)
IJN 20cm 3YT: 291 (all CAs)

USN 6in Mk. 12 - 140 (Omahas)
USN 6in Mk. 16 - 169 (modern CLs)
IJN 15cm 41YT - 86 (Aganos)
IJN 15.5cm 3YT - 222 (Oyodos - not that they're ever likely to do anyone much good, but what a difference that extra .5 makes, eh?)
GBR 6in Mk. XXIII - 121 (Leander, Town etc)
GBR 6in Mk. XII - 108 (Letter CLs)
DUT 15cm No. 6/9/10/11 - 86 (everything)

I can't say I've ever seen a 6in shell that wasn't coming out of a Mk. 16 penetrate a Japanese CA, but that's just in a bunch of faffing around with mini-scenarios so, y'know, anecdote not data. I'd definitely be very leery about taking them on even with more guns' worth of the Brit CLs, which is a shame as there's quite a few of them.

Well, from my experience the modern Allied 6 " guns fire more often and land more hits. (makes sense with autoloaders and fire control) but rarely penetrate on any hull hit. They do penetrate and do damage when they hit a Japanese CA in the superstructure. If they can get some early superstructure hits on the CAs in a battle, then the Japanese CAs really start shooting poorly, but sometimes it drives me crazy as they rack up a number of hull hits and do nothing. That can really turn a battle into a Japanese win.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to kfsgo)

Post #: 1421

RE: Objective 'W' Secured on D - Day+3 - 3/10/2011 7:28:50 PM

Andy Mac

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline

Still down busy at work and no time to fix it probably tomorrow before its done

(in reply to crsutton)

Post #: 1422

RE: Objective 'W' Secured on D - Day+3 - 3/11/2011 12:09:07 PM

Andy Mac

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline

OK been a busy week

Supposed to be on holiday - ended up at work all week
Computer caught a nastyvirus - required full re install - grrrr
Played Poker on Wednsday - lost.

Overall a crap week to follow not a great weekend....

However next steps and plans are now WIP

Been thinking and looking around at what my options could be and there are a couple of good ones and a few high risk need to wait and see

Andy

(in reply to Andy Mac)

Post #: 1423

RE: Objective 'W' Secured on D - Day+3 - 3/11/2011 12:37:09 PM

Andy Mac

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline

Taking a long look around and at my reinforcement schedule I am worried.

I went into that last fight with 1200 aircraft PZB had at best 850 and cleaned my clock.

So 3:2 is not a big enough hammer....

On prjected replacement rates that takes me in carriers until Mid 44 andthen I am reliant on CVE's for some of the kick which is dangerous as they typically arrive with inferior pilots.

Even re equipping them with Hellcats and Corsairs is evidentally not good enough.

So I think a CENTPAC attack that achieves anything is basically out. To achieve anything meaningfull I need to hit the Marianas and I do not have the strength to do it nor will I for a year or more.

So thats looking like an iffy attack route.
Solomons to Rabaul to New Guinea is slow but I will probably put some effort into that theatre to keep PZB busy
Darwin to DEI the return.... is a possibility in a few months so I will probably do it again to keep the pressure on.
Andaman Islands - Sumatra and Burma - a bunfight in the north Burmese jungles will probably go nowhere but again may be worth trying to stretch out the Japanese

(in reply to Andy Mac)

Post #: 1424

RE: Objective 'W' Secured on D - Day+3 - 3/11/2011 1:26:17 PM

castor troy

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

going with my last carrier battle, two dozen CVE that backed up my carrier fleet of some 20 CV/CVL was easily enough to defeat a comparable force that your carriers faced. Of course it�s going to take a while to have such a fleet for you now.

All my pilots of course had 70 skill, the result was far more one sided and decisive than the beating you took, in my case it went the other way around though. All but the British carriers were fielding Hellcats, the British were 70% Corsairs 30% Hellcats. I have been focussing on one area of advance for the whole war, therefore never have split up my force and this still is the way to go for me, otherwise awful things tend to happen far more often, like in your campaign.

_____________________________

(in reply to Andy Mac)

Post #: 1425

RE: Objective 'W' Secured on D - Day+3 - 3/11/2011 3:58:28 PM

traskott

Posts: 1546
Joined: 6/23/2008
From: Valladolid, Spain
Status: offline

Without carrier support, only New Guinea, Burna, or mini-island hoping from Darwin to D.E.I. is the only chance...

Alelutianas ?

(in reply to castor troy)

Post #: 1426

RE: Objective 'W' Secured on D - Day+3 - 3/12/2011 3:08:55 AM

ADB123

Posts: 1559
Joined: 8/18/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Taking a long look around and at my reinforcement schedule I am worried.

I went into that last fight with 1200 aircraft PZB had at best 850 and cleaned my clock.

So 3:2 is not a big enough hammer....

On prjected replacement rates that takes me in carriers until Mid 44 andthen I am reliant on CVE's for some of the kick which is dangerous as they typically arrive with inferior pilots.

Even re equipping them with Hellcats and Corsairs is evidentally not good enough.

So I think a CENTPAC attack that achieves anything is basically out. To achieve anything meaningfull I need to hit the Marianas and I do not have the strength to do it nor will I for a year or more.

So thats looking like an iffy attack route.
Solomons to Rabaul to New Guinea is slow but I will probably put some effort into that theatre to keep PZB busy
Darwin to DEI the return.... is a possibility in a few months so I will probably do it again to keep the pressure on.
Andaman Islands - Sumatra and Burma - a bunfight in the north Burmese jungles will probably go nowhere but again may be worth trying to stretch out the Japanese

Andy - stop dreaming up potential disasters for a year from now and stabilize your current situation - you've got to stop giving PzB free reign to attack your forces at will whenever and wherever he wants. Start doing some things right:

1 - Protect your ships. Give them CAP where enemy planes can reach them, give them combat escorts where enemy surface raiders can reach them, and give them ASW escorts everywhere

2 - Hunt down the enemy Surface Raiders and sink them

3 - Hunt down the enemy subs and sink them

4 - Use your LBA for Search, Search and more Search, and when you know where all of the enemy forces are, set some of your LBA to ASW

5 - Use your 4Es to start to suppress enemy air bases and ports

6 - Go after the enemy where he is weak, not where he is strong

7 - Let the enemy rot in malarial hellholes and rest up your good troops in non-malarial bases

8 - Build up your Air Bases first, then operate out of them

9 - Set up Fighter traps so that you make your enemy think twice about freely sending out bombers everywhere

10 - Use your Air Bases to provide CAP, and use your CVs to hunt enemy ships

You've thrown away 1943, so you have to start to plan for 1945 - in between, wear down the enemy so that 1945 will be a cake walk instead of yet another disaster.

< Message edited by ADB123 -- 3/12/2011 3:10:12 AM >

(in reply to Andy Mac)

Post #: 1427

RE: Objective 'W' Secured on D - Day+3 - 3/12/2011 12:45:51 PM

traskott

Posts: 1546
Joined: 6/23/2008
From: Valladolid, Spain
Status: offline

Although you have been stopped here, I suggested begin with advances all over the map. Don't let PzB gains strategic advantage of this battle. You have lost a lot of ships. Ok. It's true. But you still have lot of planes, troops, and supplies. Make movements all over the map to make PzB confused about your movements. Make feints, using expendable troops in careless fashion.. oh, and improve your management of your forces. Allied at 1943, 44 and 45 is just matter of management

, battles are just a funny fact between rounds of logistic management.

Good luck

(in reply to ADB123)

Post #: 1428

RE: Objective 'W' Secured on D - Day+3 - 3/12/2011 1:34:23 PM

ADB123

Posts: 1559
Joined: 8/18/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: traskott

Although you have been stopped here, I suggested begin with advances all over the map. Don't let PzB gains strategic advantage of this battle. You have lost a lot of ships. Ok. It's true. But you still have lot of planes, troops, and supplies. Make movements all over the map to make PzB confused about your movements. Make feints, using expendable troops in careless fashion.. oh, and improve your management of your forces. Allied at 1943, 44 and 45 is just matter of management , battles are just a funny fact between rounds of logistic management.

Good luck

I'll disagree. At this point Andy has no expendable troops, planes or ships, nor even supplies and fuel. He can't waste more forces and time. All of his moves must "count", and the most important part of that "count" is the destruction of enemy forces.

(in reply to traskott)

Post #: 1429

RE: Objective 'W' Secured on D - Day+3 - 3/12/2011 2:02:54 PM

traskott

Posts: 1546
Joined: 6/23/2008
From: Valladolid, Spain
Status: offline

Perhaps I have not been clear. I didn't talking about kamikaze attacks, but, more "ala comando", which can disturb one sector, provoking KB movements and so...

(in reply to ADB123)

Post #: 1430

RE: Objective 'W' Secured on D - Day+3 - 3/12/2011 2:18:17 PM

paullus99

Posts: 1985
Joined: 1/23/2002
Status: offline

Andy's biggest problem has been giving his opponent a one-dimensional threat. He has hit one area & allowed the enemy to concentrate all of their available resources against him (which creates a sub-optimal situation). He needs to hit at multiple areas, in multiple theaters simultaneously & be prepared to be repulsed in one area, if it means sucess in another. Not just simple diversions, but real thrusts towards vital targets. PzB can't be everywhere at once.

_____________________________

Never Underestimate the Power of a Small Tactical Nuclear Weapon...

(in reply to traskott)

Post #: 1431

RE: Objective 'W' Secured on D - Day+3 - 3/12/2011 2:29:58 PM

traskott

Posts: 1546
Joined: 6/23/2008
From: Valladolid, Spain
Status: offline

However, he must comit enough A.V. on every axis of advance to be sure of taken the target/targets.... Too much axis make more weaks attacks..

(in reply to paullus99)

Post #: 1432

RE: Objective 'W' Secured on D - Day+3 - 3/12/2011 3:22:32 PM

castor troy

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: paullus99

Andy's biggest problem has been giving his opponent a one-dimensional threat. He has hit one area & allowed the enemy to concentrate all of their available resources against him (which creates a sub-optimal situation). He needs to hit at multiple areas, in multiple theaters simultaneously & be prepared to be repulsed in one area, if it means sucess in another. Not just simple diversions, but real thrusts towards vital targets. PzB can't be everywhere at once.

I have been giving my oponent a one-dimensional threat for the whole war and due to the fact that I used a steamroller there�s pretty much nothing the Japanese can really do about it from a point in mid-late 43 on. I�m not a fan of mutliple advances at all, because that�s exactly what Andy for example is usually doing and this always gives a Japanese player to mass force somewhere and defeat that advance with several BB/CV/CVE sunk. Rinse and repeat and these multiple advances sum up in ten times more losses than one huge steam roller that drives onto the final target which is either cutting off SRA or bombing Japan to dust.

While the Allied got enough ships and aircraft to create one steamroller in mid 44 that is pretty much unbeatable, they aren�t strong enough to creat two or three steamrollers so if they go with three, everyone can be defeated by the Japanese player massing his assets.

_____________________________

(in reply to paullus99)

Post #: 1433

RE: Objective 'W' Secured on D - Day+3 - 3/12/2011 3:29:42 PM

bigbaba

Posts: 1238
Joined: 11/3/2006
From: Koblenz, Germany
Status: offline

i realy doubt if andy can get enough men&material for more then one offensive at the same time. ADb is right here imho. andy has to concentrate on defensive for a long time and win his battles in the defense. that means for example fighting japanese ships near own shipyards and shooting down japanese planes over own bases. he must do what he can to keep his stuff together while forcing the japanese to fight far away from his bases. too bad that in AE the US subs are crap earlier AND later in the game and die like flies into the superb japanese E class ASW ships like in Cts AAR. otherwise, the silent service could break the japanese merchant fleets backbone. but with this "laser guided japanese depth charges" its not a option.

(in reply to traskott)

Post #: 1434

RE: Objective 'W' Secured on D - Day+3 - 3/12/2011 3:34:55 PM

castor troy

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

Allied subs work very well in 42 and 43, even with crap torps I have sunk hundreds of enemy ships in that time frame. And my opponent has used escorts for all his convoys as well as air ASW. Of course you often see four or five attacks in a row fail but there were days with three or four succesful attacks and that accumulates to quite some ships sunk in two years where IJN ASW is pretty much what it was in real life. AE sub warfare in 42-43 is pretty realistic IMO, from 44 on it is completely off the line due to the often mentioned super E when the USN ends up with one sub sunk for one freighter torpedoed. That�s an Atlantic style sub war, nothing to do with the subwar in the Pacific.

Knowing PzB well enough, he won�t allow a succesful USN sub offensive against IJN convoys in 44.

_____________________________

(in reply to bigbaba)

Post #: 1435

RE: Objective 'W' Secured on D - Day+3 - 3/12/2011 5:27:30 PM

Andy Mac

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline

Defence wont work PZB through away KB in our last game he wont do it again.

I am not yet sure of my next move but 1st thing on the agenda is repairing ships and waiting for new construction all the while training training training

(in reply to castor troy)

Post #: 1436

RE: Objective 'W' Secured on D - Day+3 - 3/12/2011 6:07:48 PM

ADB123

Posts: 1559
Joined: 8/18/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Defence wont work PZB through away KB in our last game he wont do it again.

I am not yet sure of my next move but 1st thing on the agenda is repairing ships and waiting for new construction all the while training training training

Andy - I'll write it one more time, AE is not WitP.

Don't be like the French in 1939, preparing to fight in 1914 again...

Oh well, good luck.

(in reply to Andy Mac)

Post #: 1437

RE: Objective 'W' Secured on D - Day+3 - 3/12/2011 6:19:31 PM

traskott

Posts: 1546
Joined: 6/23/2008
From: Valladolid, Spain
Status: offline

Andy must atack know in a place where he can steamroller without fleet, and close to allied suppli lines to be able to win just for simplemnumber: india or new guinea, i think

(in reply to ADB123)

Post #: 1438

RE: Objective 'W' Secured on D - Day+3 - 3/12/2011 6:21:22 PM

Andy Mac

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline

New Guinea is tough to do and make progress in lots of bad terrain

India not much better

Looking at both but options are not great in either direction

(in reply to traskott)

Post #: 1439

RE: Objective 'W' Secured on D - Day+3 - 3/12/2011 6:43:33 PM

Alfred

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

New Guinea is tough to do and make progress in lots of bad terrain

India not much better

Looking at both but options are not great in either direction

With the greatest respect, that is the wrong attitude.

You don't actually have to make much progress in either location. What you have to do is to fix in position the enemy forces so that the local reserves can't be relocated to mass against your schwerpunkt elsewhere.

Alfred

(in reply to Andy Mac)

Post #: 1440

Page: << < prev 46 47 [48] 49 50 next > >>

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: Objective 'W' Secured on D - Day+3