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: Fight for Hawaii

 
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: Fight for Hawaii Page: <<   < prev  13 14 [15] 16 17   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Fight for Hawaii - 7/6/2010 8:33:25 PM   
Wirraway_Ace


Posts: 1400
Joined: 10/8/2007
From: Austin / Brisbane
Status: offline 		Messing with poor 1eyedjacks head again with the a thread subject title, "Re: Fight for Hawaii"?




(in reply to Capt. Harlock)
Post #: 421
RE: Fight for Hawaii - 7/7/2010 12:27:25 AM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline 		Hordes of 4-engined bombers? Not with the Allied replacement rates in 1942.


FatR,
Well, if you go for it in December or January and the Allied fighters choose to fight you will just slaughter them. They won't have trained up enough by then... So, really, their ability to repopulate the airgroups is really rather more theoretical threat than real. Sure if they waited until April 42 and repopulated them all en masse in a single day after swapping in 70+ A2A Exp pilots then they might hold but, honestly, if you're facing an Allied opponent with the discipline to do that then you're already facing someone in the top 5% of this forum and are probably already borked. People here aren't good at thinking strategically and delaying such operations for months at a time.

So, if your opponent is able to do that then you probably have lots of other bigger problems on the map by April 42 and you're probably going to lose relatively early.


Harlock:
What about the USN and USMC squadrons? Without trained pilots a la April those planes are just more targets. Sure you'll take losses but not nearly as many as one might think. In any case even losing 1,000 planes over Oahu in 6 months is worth it if it delays the primary American strategic thrust by 12 months to 18 months. It isn't about doing this at no cost, it is about achieving a delay at a cost worth paying.



Wirraway Ace,
No, Harlock chose that title... I'm happy to let it stand for its misdirective effect but it wasn't something I started, just something I'm happy to add to the mix until someone comes along and changes the title.


_____________________________

John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.

(in reply to Capt. Harlock)
Post #: 422
RE: Fight for Hawaii - 7/7/2010 10:35:17 AM   
bklooste

 

Posts: 1104
Joined: 4/10/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Capt. Harlock

quote:

Yes you dont need to shut down Oahu airfields , that is far too expensive . Just sweep and bomb it to oblivion if he has lots of aircraft their( using Salies/Helens)


The point being that you can't sweep and bomb to oblivion if your own airfields have been devastated by hordes of 4E's. (Which can be transferred directly from the west coast without having to be uncrated and assembled.)

One other thought: it isn't just the USAAF fighters that need to be dealt with. What about USN and USMC Wildcat squadrons?



That would be the best thing ... Multiple overlapping bases , a 4E vs fighters and then counter attack and hit them on the ground with Sallies from 4 bases.. The alternative is 4E bombers in Ponape flattening Truk or Sumatra flatenning Singapore / Borneo oil - tough choice that is . You wont be able to shut them all down ( and keep them that way) till 43 at least and if you park too many 4E there Japan can shut you down for a few days and bomb them on the ground ( in which case the AA losses are worth it). I think it very unwise for an allied player to expose 4E bombers on the ground they are too expensive.

The more the US put there the better as an attritional battle is in Japans favour in early 42 as it gives the allies less air frames for training. In fact the worst thing is if their is just fighters as you need to go to PH. If you can get CAP battles over your own airfields you get most of the pilots back and Japan does not lack for air frames.

< Message edited by bklooste -- 7/7/2010 10:36:26 AM >

_____________________________

Underdog Fanboy

(in reply to Capt. Harlock)
Post #: 423
RE: Fight for Hawaii - 7/7/2010 4:24:57 PM   
traskott


Posts: 1546
Joined: 6/23/2008
From: Valladolid, Spain
Status: offline 		The good side of read your AAR is that give plenty of ideas (and plenty of info for possible new enemies xD ).

The downside is that, after this, I should garrison Hawai NOW to avoid thinks like I have read in the last 10 post (I'm a bit scared )

(in reply to bklooste)
Post #: 424
RE: Fight for Hawaii - 7/7/2010 11:02:56 PM   
Xxzard

 

Posts: 440
Joined: 9/28/2008
From: Arizona
Status: offline 		In addition to what Traskott said on the topic, I don't think I can play another game without strongly considering the tactic of reinforcement at Palembang with evacuated troops. Quite simply, it is the best, (most easily done, most defensible, and effective utilization of resources that would most likely otherwise be wasted) tactic for the Malaya and Dutch troops in the area. It is also the tactic I would fear the most from a Japanese perspective. Now, the addition of the reinforcement troops is optional, as they could be sent elsewhere, (I sent them to defend Burma in my AI game) but with the strategy as you decided it, it has worked out well.

On this thread in general, I had not read any of it up to this time, but I've read the whole of it in the last two days, and I must say I'm rather impressed with the level of thought put into the game and the AAR by you, Nemo. Excellent and useful thoughts with results to back them up. I would certainly recommend this thread to someone trying to move beyond the basics of the game and understand the greater strategy aspects of the game.

I would certainly enjoy seeing you take the reins of the Japanese side for a grand campaign, to take on the many challenges of their side firsthand.

Anyway, impressive game, good thinking, great job!

_____________________________


(in reply to traskott)
Post #: 425
RE: Fight for Hawaii - 7/7/2010 11:27:15 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline 		Hi Traskott, Xxzard,

I'm glad you found the AAR illuminating. That is my hope in continuing it. Well, that and to spark some interesting discussions.


As re: reinforcing Sumatra etc... Well I did send other troops to Burma overland from India so I didn't have to commit the non-restricted Allied divisions there. A while back I sent the Imperial Guards Division reeling back into Thailand and now have about 2,000 AV guarding Rangoon and its approaches. I can only do this because we agreed to allow land movement from restricted commands. Well, I advised Mike not to choose that option as I said I would be able to make it work more in my favour than he imagined. I think he thought I was playing mindgames and he really wanted those several thousand AV of IJA troops in China.

So far it has worked out better for me than him.


As Japan: Well, I'm not one of those who thinks that one needs different skills etc for Japan vs the Allies. It all comes down to just analysing the situation objectively and doing the basics well. Once you do that both sides are sides you can do eminently well with.


If you like this I would suggest reading up an old WiTP game which shows how one can turn a pretty bad situation ( I took over in mid-42 after the Allied position was pretty poor ) into a series of counter-attacks which all functioned to move things further. It also has a counterpart AAR by my opponent and I think he has probably posted a lot of "lessons learned" in there which would probably be interesting to read also.

URLs are Allied WiTP AAR ( Nemo )
and
Japanese AAR ( Damian )

Some of the tactics there aren't useful in AE as they have been coded out ( and are a bit unrealistic ) but within the confines of WiTP I think it is an example of fairly good play. I've also definitely made more mistakes in this PBEM as it is my first AE game - early on I lost a few ships I didn't need to as I was getting used to the air routines etc...

Anyways, comments welcome.... The WITP game I've linked to has stopped now so feel free to make any comments etc you wish here. FOW isn't an issue. I also must remember to ask Damian to give me permission to read his side so that I can post some reflections on his side of the AAR> I;m sure it will be interesting

_____________________________

John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.

(in reply to Xxzard)
Post #: 426
RE: Fight for Hawaii - 7/8/2010 1:37:21 PM   
traskott


Posts: 1546
Joined: 6/23/2008
From: Valladolid, Spain
Status: offline 		Thanks for the link !! I'm currently reading it and looks like very interesting.

Do you have an AAR with u playing as Japanese (playing with EA would be superb. Thanks!).

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 427
RE: Fight for Hawaii - 7/8/2010 7:33:05 PM   
wpurdom

 

Posts: 476
Joined: 10/27/2000
From: Decatur, GA, USA
Status: offline
quote:

India: No, not at all. At this point in time I think an invasion of India with the aim of capturing all of it ( I don't think there's all that much point going for India unless you are going to make a good effort at taking all of it ) makes use of his main strengths ( a strong IJA), minimises the impact of his current weaknesses ( his loss of 40% of his battleline ), solves the Burmese problem in its entirety rather rapidly and creates a medium-term solution for the destruction of China. I think it can do this without risking additional loss in China and can use manoeuvrist approaches along a subsidiary axis to neutralise southern Sumatra all while using this offensive to create the defensive perimeter Japan needs for defence in 1943.


I's guessing this is a reply to my comment:

quote:

I have to feel that you must be engaging in a little psyops with your readers in bringing up an Indian invasion,


You then proceed to analyze how you might feasibly roll up India during 1942. But that was not my point:

quote:

Sure, you might be able to roll up India, but what happens in the meantime?


It seems to me that what you already have done in the Marshalls as well as what Q-Ball did in the DEI against Cuttlefish, suggests that even in the first stage of your plan (taking the DEI outside Sumatra and NW Austrailia, there's several things that could be done on the other side of the Pacific to either distract from a S. India invasion or prepare to do some serious damage while KB was supporting the India invasion if you refused to respond to the first stage distraction. Nothing in your sketch of first thoughts on an operational plan answers for me how you would prevent offsetting damage at the other end of the Pacific.

PS - Alfred's approach appeared more reasonable to me.

(in reply to Capt. Harlock)
Post #: 428
RE: Fight for Hawaii - 7/8/2010 8:24:30 PM   
traskott


Posts: 1546
Joined: 6/23/2008
From: Valladolid, Spain
Status: offline 		I think invasion of India has some disvantages:

a) Only two viable ways: Ceylan or via Chittagong/Diamond Harbour area.

b) It puts the KB at the "border" of the map: Plenty of room to the allied to take counter offensive maneouvers: Alelutianas, Marshalls, even Solomons or Shortlands in order to supress Rabaul or Truk (altought this last one is a very limited choice, from an strategic point of view).

c) A careful allied which don't put more than 17th and Burmese Division at Burma will have more than enough AV to repel the assault: There are LOTs of armoured units at India and they hurts to the japanese troops which have relative low AT capacity.

d) If trigger the addicional reinforcements, it can turn the tide around...they are SIX divisions...A evil minded player can use them to a maximum effect...

just my two cents

(in reply to wpurdom)
Post #: 429
Using the initiative to impale oneself - 7/9/2010 1:52:53 AM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline 		traskott,
I have several where I played as Japan but I'm not sure they'd be much use as, in my experience,

a) a lot of people get stuck in reading "Japanese AARs" to learn "Japanese tricks" and "Allied AARs" to learn "allied tricks". I strongly disagree with this approach as I believe that it leads to people focussing on learning side-specific "tricks" as opposed to just learning good strategic thinking.

b) I think a lot of the AARs where Japan is successful end up being AARs in which the success is due to an Allied Sir Robin or just put down to Japanese materiel superiority. I think that this limits the utility of such early-war Japanese AARs as most of the proper lessons aren't drawn from them.


Basically though strategy is strategy is strategy. I don't think Japan differs from the US except insofar as it has different national policy objectives and that necessitates different strategic goals. The process of strategic analysis ( which is the important thing you can learn from an AAR ) remains the same though IMO.


wpurdom,
Well, there are counters to everything. I was asked though what I'd do if I were to take over from 1EyedJacks today though. From 7th December I'd do things very differently but given his current dispositions I outlind a plan I thought would work. Any assessment needs to bear that context in mind.

I would suggest though that there is benefit to doing so much carnage to an opponent that that opponent is no longer psychically capable of mounting an offensive elsewhere even if physically capable of doing so. It would be a very rare player who would find India invaded and actually put a in a meaningful and successful attack in the Pacific... The key there is "successful" since a Pacific counter is such a blindingly obvious play that anyone playing me who tries it would find themselves sucked into multi-axially ambushes etc.

I would be quite happy to see an opponent decide that the lack of KB meant he could attack in the Pacific. I'd prepare for it and attrit it/allow it if allowing his assault to succeed furthered my strategic goal by drawing additional Allied forces into action in areas distant from PH. Such minor preparations of allowing an opponent's use of the initiative to impale themselves are simply things I assume to always occur though so I wasn't bothering to write them out. That may have made it unclear.

I think this current AAR is a pretty good example of allowing one's opponent the initiative but making that initiative almost meaningless in terms of actually determining the shape of the fight to come. I would be fairly confident that I could use any actions by the Allies in the Pacific to my advantage to lure the Allies into the force disposition I desired in order to boost the chances of success of the Hawaiian operations to follow.

As to Alfred's approach being more "reasonable". I doubt that Alfred's approach actually differs from mine all that much in-game. However, you are obviously welcome to your opinion if you see differences of a magnitude I have overlooked.


Traskott,
Disadvantages:

b - Well, that's only a disadvantage if you don't believe you can "use" Allied offensive actions and fit them to your purposes to further your strategic plans... I make great use of allowing an opponent the initiative but guiding him ( through various means ) to use that initiative to both:
1. Impale himself operationally on my defences and
2. Stringing together acceptances and declinations of combat where he uses his initiative in order to draw his forces out of position/attrit his forces such that his offensive actually helps "shape" the battlefield for my own strategic plans.

So, what does it matter if he attacks if he attacks where you want him to, loses more than you and ends up with forces out of position/unavailable for a much more strategically decisive battle a short time later? People are too focussed on holding ground, scaring off offensives etc etc.


c - If I were to go for India 2 or 8 divisions wouldn't make a huge difference I assure you. I wouldn't go for India unless I was sure I had enough for the job. One can certainly choose to disagree with that but that's my judgement and even though it may go against the conventional wisdom I'd argue that my judgement with respect to relative force correlations etc has been shown to be reasonably good. Again, you may, of course, disagree. As to armoured units.... I find that ground attacking air is a very good counter to armoured units. Certainly my armoured units in the Phillipines were reduced to half-strength by just 5 or 6 days

d - And a more evil-minded player will make sure not to trigger them until it is too late for them to be of any significant benefit.

Well, we won't know until someone tries it.

_____________________________

John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.

(in reply to traskott)
Post #: 430
RE: Using the initiative to impale oneself - 7/9/2010 4:08:57 AM   
Wirraway_Ace


Posts: 1400
Joined: 10/8/2007
From: Austin / Brisbane
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121


Basically though strategy is strategy is strategy. I don't think Japan differs from the US except insofar as it has different national policy objectives and that necessitates different strategic goals. The process of strategic analysis ( which is the important thing you can learn from an AAR ) remains the same though IMO.



While the process of strategic analysis is the same, the answers that come out of the process for Japan seem very limited.

I hope you do a Japanese sided AAR. It will be very interesting to see what you come up with. My own answers are not completely satisifying.

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 431
RE: Using the initiative to impale oneself - 7/9/2010 1:39:02 PM   
traskott


Posts: 1546
Joined: 6/23/2008
From: Valladolid, Spain
Status: offline 		@Wirraway: I think Japan has more answers that the allies. Although he is more limited (ie:can not allow lost or not conquer DEI), the flexibility it's "player-chose" production has, give him, plus the inner lines and a proper use of KB, more satisfactory answers that you and I can find.

@Nemo121:
-(With all respect) I don't think you can guide the allied offensive to your own terms. . More probably, suffer the offensive, and react with some carefully planned measures which make the allied took a decision beneficial for you (ie:Stop when there was plenty of room to advance).

-India has a lot of room to the allied to defend, and supplies are a trouble. A decisive force means lots of supplies and India is very very far...

Sidequestion: For your AARs, looks like you "play" a lot with the mind, words, and so... How will u face a player that only say "here is the turn"? 










(in reply to Wirraway_Ace)
Post #: 432
RE: Using the initiative to impale oneself - 7/9/2010 5:05:39 PM   
bklooste

 

Posts: 1104
Joined: 4/10/2006
Status: offline


quote:

@Wirraway: I think Japan has more answers that the allies. Although he is more limited (ie:can not allow lost or not conquer DEI), the flexibility it's "player-chose" production has, give him, ....



Few people note the changes this production can have on strategy in most AARs they burn through the HI ( which can be used in 43) and just start churning out Zeros and Tojos replacing all the Daitai who mostly sit around training why the allied player also sits back and trains. Particularly since the allied player is very limited in 42. Also a few players have tried to be very conservative on HI but they havent tied this into a plan.

Valid options are save HI , or start attritioning the allies but whatever you do it needs to be centre stage of your plan.

Ben














_____________________________

Underdog Fanboy

(in reply to traskott)
Post #: 433
RE: Using the initiative to impale oneself - 7/9/2010 5:24:45 PM   
traskott


Posts: 1546
Joined: 6/23/2008
From: Valladolid, Spain
Status: offline 		there are a lot of valid strategies. I think the key is mantain your initial idea clear in your mind, and stay focus (or so, sorry, my english is a bit poor)

(in reply to bklooste)
Post #: 434
RE: Using the initiative to impale oneself - 7/9/2010 7:28:40 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline 		Well then, why don't we look at scenario 2 and put together a strategic plan till the end of 1942 with emphasis on forces committed and why and the phasing of ops as well as, ideally, logistical underpinnings.

Can be as conservative or risky as we like but the key will be that it hangs together. Anything posted can be critiqued by anyone as the point will be to firm up the strategy and correct holes in the initial strategy.


Assumptions:
Allied and Japanese units can move across borders without paying PP ( goes for India and Manchukuo units ).
Nowhere is off limits except Capetown, Aden ( and the one beside Aden I can't remember ) and Port Stanley. I've always been of the view that Panama should be doable.
No other restrictions on either side.

_____________________________

John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.

(in reply to traskott)
Post #: 435
RE: Using the initiative to impale oneself - 7/9/2010 7:40:33 PM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline 		But Panama IS off limits, notwithstanding your own view. That is how the game engine is. Leaving Panama out of your call to arms is in keeping with the choices confronting you and your opponent at the start of this game.

Alfred

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 436
RE: Using the initiative to impale oneself - 7/9/2010 7:47:45 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline 		No, it is off-map, that's not the same as off-limits. In-game one can invade CONUSA but not Panama? There's no logical basis for that distinction. If one can invade CONUSA then Panama should be fair game as well. It is not more logistically impossible and in the real war the USA did garrison it and Japan did attack ( two conditions which also apply to CONUSA, OZ and Ceylon/India but which don't apply to Capetown, Port Stanley or Aden.

As such I don't think including Panama wi the Aden/Capetown bunch is warranted. It far more easily fits into the Oz, Ceylon, CONUSA bunch. As to the game engine not allowing it. As far as I am aware the shipping channels can be used by IJN TFs just as easily as Allied TFs so I don't see the game engine as making such movement impossible.

< Message edited by Nemo121 -- 7/9/2010 7:48:14 PM >

_____________________________

John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 437
RE: Using the initiative to impale oneself - 7/9/2010 7:52:38 PM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline 		No, you are mistaken here Nemo. According to the developers, off map locations are off limits to Japanese forces. Have a look at the Tech sub forum where one of the recent threads deals with a Japanese fragment appearing at Abadan and the inability of either side launching an attack.

Alfred

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 438
RE: Using the initiative to impale oneself - 7/9/2010 7:58:07 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline 		Ah, beaten by the conventionality of coders. Ah well, mox nix.

So, panama's off limits then, strange design choice.

_____________________________

John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 439
RE: Using the initiative to impale oneself - 7/9/2010 8:02:48 PM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline 		Just went back to double check. Don Bowen was most emphatic in a post of his dated 29 June 2010 that Japanese units are not permitted to move off map.

Our's is not to reason why
But to do and die

Alfred

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 440
RE: Using the initiative to impale oneself - 7/9/2010 8:11:47 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline
quote:

Our's is not to reason why
But to do and die


As artfully as possible.


Dulce et decorum est
To make the other guy
Pro patria mori



_____________________________

John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 441
RE: Using the initiative to impale oneself - 7/9/2010 8:14:52 PM   
traskott


Posts: 1546
Joined: 6/23/2008
From: Valladolid, Spain
Status: offline 		Interesting...I0ve only played once as japanese, and was in a mod against AI. It should be interesting... Last week I'll try to make a plan (hehehe, weekend at the beach, and sunday Spain vs Dutch )

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 442
Off Map Targets - 7/9/2010 8:22:54 PM   
Capt. Harlock


Posts: 5358
Joined: 9/15/2001
From: Los Angeles
Status: offline
quote:

Don Bowen was most emphatic in a post of his dated 29 June 2010 that Japanese units are not permitted to move off map.


Interesting. Can they be attacked by airstrikes or bombardment? I seem to recall there was an attempt to close the Panama Canal IRL.

_____________________________

Civil war? What does that mean? Is there any foreign war? Isn't every war fought between men, between brothers?

--Victor Hugo

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 443
RE: Off Map Targets - 7/10/2010 5:45:43 AM   
bklooste

 

Posts: 1104
Joined: 4/10/2006
Status: offline 		I dont like Scenario 2 ...

The HI pilot cost is crippling in 44-45 and in 41-42 you have enough pilots anyway.
You get a new army out of thin air at start when things are already easier.
You get 10 more destroyers.
You get extra resources and some HI.

So basically the scenario makes 41-42 easier and 44-45 harder , for more even play 41-42 should be harder and 44-45 easier. Hence Scen 2 is really a VP auto victory scenario. 

Taking VP out of teh equation it requires more oil to feed HI which is burned making pilots which are never used.  Based on the oil and the extra army you would want an even more oil heavy strategy so i would suggest  a quick take of Borneo , Palembang and Malaysia . Quickly take Rabaul  , PM , Wake & Midway and Burma as buffer space . Take Java and PI slowly while you attack Russia.   In scenario II you can use non veteran pilots against the RUssians and you can make plenty of modern air frames so you should get a well trained air force for 43. In 43 with Russia under control you can crush China . In 44 -45 the Russian oil close to home will keep all that HI running ( for all those green Pilots you dont need) .   Scenario I is less oil dependent than 2 which gives more options.

I kind of like the Reluctant Admiral Scenario it gives more interesting allied counterplay in 41 - early 42  , is more logical / balanced and gives a better position in 44 due to the smaller pilot pool.  

_____________________________

Underdog Fanboy

(in reply to Capt. Harlock)
Post #: 444
RE: Off Map Targets - 7/10/2010 5:46:23 AM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline 		So, a little while back I posted about the ground defences of Southern Sumatra and the southern DEI/northern Oz ( Kendari/Makkasar/Ambon/Darwin ). Now it is time to give a rundown of the shipping and aerial forces there. I'm going to tell you what will be there in two weeks time as the last bits of my deployment will be finished then. I expect Mike to attack no later than the beginning of April and am planning to have my entire deployment in place, fully repaired and, where possible, upgraded by then.

So, let us look at the shipping which will be available to strike at any landings at Oosthaven ( I won't commit the RN to Palembang principally because only ships smaller than a CA can get up the river to Palembang and it will be easier for me to let my airpower hit any landings at Palembang than throw away my DDs and CLs )....

10 BBs ( 2 of them modern and fast RN ships ( PoW and the BC ). The other 8 are 4 slow R class BBs and 4 slow USN BBs. Both fast RN ships have radar and so do 4 of the slow BBs )
10 CL - 1 of which has radar. If I get more than 2 weeks I can add another 4 CLs to this number as they are repairing battle damage.
1 CA - In 3 weeks I'll have an additional CA available. I am committing my CAs to the Pacific where their greater speed can keep them safe and my USN BBs to this area.
53 DDs - 4 of which have radar and another 3 or 4 are upgrading.

Maximal enemy force is 6 BBs and 8 CAs but at least 4 CAs are being pinned down at Truk by my aggressive manoeuvring of CA TFs into striking range and then back out ( I'm also running 2 further deep penetration raids of half a dozen DDs each into the Saipan and Phillipines areas at the moment to again force the committment of light units to the Pacific and away from Sumatra ). So, worst case scenario I expect to see 6 BBs and 4 CAs + a horde of CLs and DDs. I think the force I've gathered is well capable of taking on and mutually annihilating that worst case scenario, which will then leave Japan utterly toothless for the rest of the game.

So, basically, I have enough here to create 3 strong BB TFs ( TF 1: 2 x fast BBs + 1 CA + 8 DD, TF 2 + 3: 4 old BBs ( 2 with radar ) and 8 DDs each ) and 3 light TFs comprising 3 CL and 9 DDs each with each of those TFs having a CL or DD with radar.



In terms of airpower: In the Southern Sumatra / Northern Oz/Southern DEI region I have the following planes ( note: the US CVs are about 1 week away from dropping their entire complements off so I'm including them in these figures )....

USN forces being delivered as we speak comprise: approx 140 fighters, 120 divebombers and 40 torpedo bombers ( I don't start getting any TB replacements for another 6 weeks ).



P40E: 230
P39: 148
P400: 24
Hurricanes: 182
Buffaloes/B339s: 56
Kittyhawks: 40
Other ( Dutch variants, Hawks etc ) : 18

So, in total, 700 army fighters + approx 140 USN/USMC fighters ready by end of March 1942. I also have about 100 USAAF fighters, 50 RAF and about 30 USN fighters in reserve. Not much but a damn sight better than things looked just 2 months ago.


Dive-bombers:
The USN complement + 60 A24 Banshees.


Torpedo Bombers:
The USN complement + 37 Vildebeest, 28 Albacore and 15 Swordfish. Gives a total of 120 torpedo bombers in Southern Sumatra.


Light bombers:
Wirraway: 108
CW-22: 26


Medium Bombers:
254 including 45 B-26 and about 20 B-25s.


Heavy Bombers: 63 x B17 in Southern Sumatra. I intend to use them. combined with my fighters to break the back of his LRCAP over his invasion TF when it begins to land.


Patrol Planes:
71 bomb-carrying patrol planes.
57 torpedo-carrying PBY5s.



So, since each PBY carries two torpedoes and each Devastator and British torpedo-carrying plane carries one I should be able to launch (57 x 2) + (120 x 1 ) = 234 torpedoes per alpha strike... That's a damned lot of torpedoes. Of course many of the planes will be shot down before they get to launch but vs unloading merchants I am expecting good results from the torpedo bombers... especially since almost all of them have just sat and trained for the past 3 months. Many of my torpedo-carriers have more than 70 Exp in Naval Torpedo Attacks at this stage ).

To support the torpedo strikes each of the 5 bases in Southern Sumatra has an Air HQ on it with 300+ torpedoes in stock.



So, in total it looks like my recent decision to divert some forces from the Marshalls as the enemy was successfully pinned back to Truk and Saipan has boosted the planes available for the defence of Southern Sumatra and Southern DEI to about 1,750. Not even half will be committed on any given day as I will want to retain reserves and rotate forces in and out but, even still, that's a potent force.

< Message edited by Nemo121 -- 7/10/2010 5:52:35 AM >

_____________________________

John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.

(in reply to Capt. Harlock)
Post #: 445
RE: Off Map Targets - 7/10/2010 5:49:55 AM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline 		bklooste,

Reluctant Admiral is not, IMO, a coherent, cohesive scenario and I would query the strategic thought underlining the predictions of what will and wont't balance it in 1944/45. I think it will turn out less balanced and with a lot more "unforeseen" ( but not unforseeable ) issues than was expected as the game gets past 1943.

Each to their own though of course.... I don't make postings with my thoughts to its forum threads as I don't care to throw mud in its own backyard but from what I've seen I doubt the foundations are solid. But for the first year or so I'm sure it'll hold up well and be fun for a certain type of player.


As to not liking scenario Two... Well, that's fine. I happen to agree with your points and pilot training numbers are way down in EA ( with exp up ) but EA won't be released for another couple of months as I'm just too committed to other things right now so it can't be used as a benchmark for any strategic analysis. In any case if scenario two isn't to your liking then one doesn't need to consider the strategic issues of playing it. It is meant to be a fun exercise, not a slog through something you don't like.

< Message edited by Nemo121 -- 7/10/2010 5:55:54 AM >

_____________________________

John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 446
RE: Off Map Targets - 7/10/2010 10:43:46 AM   
bklooste

 

Posts: 1104
Joined: 4/10/2006
Status: offline
quote:


bklooste,

Reluctant Admiral is not, IMO, a coherent, cohesive scenario and I would query the strategic thought underlining the predictions of what will and wont't balance it in 1944/45. I think it will turn out less balanced and with a lot more "unforeseen" ( but not unforseeable ) issues than was expected as the game gets past 1943.


Its basically scenario 1 with a hand full of changes.. it wasnt designed with any strategic thought . That said neither was scn2 and Im pretty sure it will play far better in 44-45 than scenario 2 ( because it will be like scn1) . The AARs on scenario 2 have been pretty bad in their comments . eg
- Unlimited planes and Pilots in 42-43 ( Castor Troy ... yes I know)
- 50K heavy Industry drain per month due to pilots. When the DEI get shut off / cut you are down to Light industry and resources in no time.

[Removed]

quote:

As to not liking scenario Two... Well, that's fine. I happen to agree with your points and pilot training numbers are way down in EA ( with exp up ) but EA won't be released for another couple of months as I'm just too committed to other things right now so it can't be used as a benchmark for any strategic analysis. .


I have my own mod in the works but it is months of and is based on makeing game play more interesting and challenging with more allied early counterplay as well as better Japanese play in 43 . It starts 2-3 months earlier with the US guaranteeing Vietnam forcing the Japanese to leave it - since Vietnam is an allied possession with free french force no Japan player can follow the historical route. Anyway this isnt about my mod.

quote:

In any case if scenario two isn't to your liking then one doesn't need to consider the strategic issues of playing it. It is meant to be a fun exercise, not a slog through something you don't like


You dont need to be so touchy .. I just said i dont like scenario 2 because of the Pilot training impacts the strategy too much , im still happy to have a fun /challenging discussion of scenario 2. I still made a strategy , which is up for discussion and is based on the problems of sc2 ( - though their are alternatives ) . I just feel scn1 or Reluctant Admiral would allow a more interesting strategy discussion because the 44-45 oil problem ( due to the Pilot drain ) is not as nasty.


< Message edited by bklooste -- 7/10/2010 4:44:36 PM >

_____________________________

Underdog Fanboy

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 447
RE: Off Map Targets - 7/10/2010 2:46:23 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline 		bklooste,

1. I'm quite sure you actually don't know my internal thought processes. As such I'd thank you not to state what I think or feel about others. In this instance you are incorrect.

2. I've read the Reluctant Admiral Mod thread in detail. My conclusion is that the various changes aren't sufficiently ( IMO ) linked up, interlinked and mutually supporting in a manner which will support the creation of the flow of operations envisioned. That's an utterly impersonal assessment and it, frankly, disappoints me that you would so quickly impugne my motivations.

3. As to the adjustments being subtle... We obviously have very different views of the meaning of the word subtle.

4. As to the "type of player" I referred to... It seems clear that the mod is big on flash but low on deep strategic consideration of ramifications beyond the superficial level of impacts of changes. As such it will appeal to the type of player who likes flashy opening and the appearance of depth without actually being led into traps, dead-ends and impossible choices between long-term plans ( IOW, forcing people to really analyse things strategically out to 18 months to 2 years in order to make the right decisions ) but I don't consider that it will lead to any significantly more interesting play as it doesn't truly create different strategic options. There's nothing "personal" there, it is my assessment of the mod and the types of players it would appeal to. I resent your implication that other issues would impinge on such an assessment.

To be even clearer... as it seems this may be necessary for you bklooste, in EA I spent the majority of the mod on the logistics side of the mod. The combat stuff people noted ( new planes, ships etc ) was the stuff which was easiest to do, easiest to balance and of least strategic import. The logistics, on the other hand, was where the hard work which really impacted the strategic decision-making went on. I really didn't see enough logistics-sided work going on in that mod thread to make me think that they gave the logistics enough thought. Others may well differ, which is fine. ON the other hand differing opinions is one thing, impugning another's motivation another thing entirely.

And to be clear: there's nothing at all wrong with being the type of player who would enjoy that kind of flashy, logistics-light mod. It isn't for me as the lack of requirement for strategic analysis as part of the design process simply doesn't appeal to me. That's why I made EA the way I wanted it to be. FAR more players who will prefer to play the Reluctant Admiral mod than will ever choose to play EA. Why? EA is designed to be a challenge not only in terms of playing your opponent but also in terms of punishing ANY laxity of play, planning and balancing of competing requirements. If you don't plan 24 months ahead in EA then you should expect the game to crucify you irrespective of the enemy's play. Most people don't like such a challenging mod and that's fine. I hope they enjoy the games they play. I make my mod to be enjoyed by me and that means making it convoluted, tricky, utterly unforgiving if you act cavalierly and hiding most of the depth far beneath the surface where no-one will ever notice it or appreciate it. If anyone else enjoys it that's a bonus but I most assuredly don't fall into the trap of thinking that if someone wants to play a different mod that somehow devalues them or whatever - which I think seems to be your, unwarranted, implication.

I will say I was gratified that some people did seem to enjoy it and dug out their editors and calculators and managed to spot quite a few of the pitfalls I put in. It was nice to see them enjoying the fact that they were, in a sense, spotting my ambushes and working around them in-game as they played eachother. I think they enjoyed that. With that said I'm sure many times more people will play Reluctant Admiral and will enjoy it immensely and good luck to them in that. There is, after all, no competition or anything so childish.



Strange as it might seem. I wasn't being touchy... I was simply saying that if you don't like scenario 2 then one shouldn't bother to enter a discussion based around it. I wouldn't as I would find it aggravating to enter a discussion limited by issues I thought were incorrect/wrong. Again though I think you are imputing an emotional basis which simply isn't there. What I will say though is that I find it intensely annoying to be have my own feelings told me by another, especially when I'm then told to chill out for feelings and thoughts I never had. I suggest we chalk it up to a misunderstanding and drop it at this stage.

< Message edited by Nemo121 -- 7/10/2010 2:51:52 PM >

_____________________________

John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.

(in reply to bklooste)
Post #: 448
RE: Off Map Targets - 7/10/2010 2:52:43 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		Scen 2 was built at a time before the HI penalty for pilot training was put in which was patch 2.

If we ever do a data patch I will be lowering the pilot numbers a touch in that scenario

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 449
China: MAJOR news - 7/10/2010 3:02:22 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline 		OK, so below you can see the map of China with some major news of the second major Allied offensive of the war. As some of you will have noticed I've been using local offensives in the centre of China and north of China to cause a relocation of forces from Southern China ( near Changsha ) and towards the north of China. There were many reasons for this, including, trying for a lucky break-out in the north ( which didn't happen ), a desire to ensure he wouldn't divert troops from China to Burma ( which doesn't seem to be happening ) and, lastly, a desire to set things up for a possible offensive in Southern China if things fell properly for me.

Well, things have fallen properly and for the past week my forces have been moving into position as:
a) the situation in China looks pretty good.

b) my spidey-sense tells me that I'm going to see an invasion of Java/Sumatra within the fortnight ( I am seeing a minimum of 6 CAs and 4 BBs at Singapore right now and that's about 2/3rds of his remaining battleline... too much to be there unless he's planning something major ).

So, here's the explanation of the map:

RED ARROWS: These show the movement of Japanese Army forces in response to my attacks in the north and the central attacks which took Ichang and exploited beyond Nanyang. Basically he sent 1,000 AV to the hex south-east of Sian to try to outflank my defenders north of the small river there. I held him in the woods using terrain bonuses.

He sent another 1,000 AV north from Changsha and Wuchang to Sinyang where it rescued the IJA Infantry Division my guys were pursuing down from Nanyang. That 1,000 AV is now also pretty much stuck in place.

He has another 600+ AV at Hankow where it is embroiled in battle with 1,000AV+ of Chinese troops which took Ichang.... You can also see that I'm insinuating a Corps into the hex in between Sinyang and Hankow... The idea is to give me interior lines of communication so as to allow my forces to threaten a concentration of mass on either Sinyang or Hankow and a defeat in detail using these interior lines to shuffle troops to and forth more quickly than the enemy can reinforce either position.

Additional enemy forces are piuring into Wuchang from which, importantly, they have good LOCs to Anking and Nanking but very poor LOCs to Shanghai.

YELLOW ARROWS: Show my offensive of the past month ( except for in the south where I'm only striking in a couple of days time ).

WHITE: show ths pocket I am trying to create.

Now that the enemy forces are well and truly on the move I'm uncovering my Strategic Reserve comprising 1,500 AV of troops from Changsha and another 2,000 AV from positions to the west of Changsha and I am about to use them to attack, initially, south-east to clear my LOCs eastward before turning east to march on Nanchang. Changsha utterly protects my northern flank for this move and by dislocating and pinning enemy forces at Sinyang and Hankow ( and securing the internal lines ) and also pinning them in defence of Kaifeng I give myself a good opportunity to take Nanchang and threaten a significant move eastward toward Hangchow or a short left hook north from Nanchang which would create a massive pocket of 6,000 IJA troops almost-encircled in the area running from Changsha to Wuchang and Nanchang ).

So, I've creating multiple problems along multiple axes in order to draw troops north and out of position. Since the northern attack failed I've been focussing on just drawing the IJA from Changsha out of position and threatening this "long march to the sea" whilst, really, what I'll try and do is just create a huge pocket of IJA troops who can be threatened with utter encirclement if Hankow falls ( which is why I'm creating the interior lines bewtween Hankow and the blocking force at Sinyang ) or who will just need to march out of the "Changsha pocket" through Hankow and onto Anking/Sinyang etc.


Either way it will cause three things:

1. It will tax Mike's decision-making time at this crucial time just prior to his invasion of Java/Sumatra.

2. It will allow me to lengthen the front in China significantly and gain the strategic initiative there which I can use for future advances...

3. It will certainly draw planes into the China theatre and away from the DEI. It might even panic him into committing SRA troops into China in order to stabilise the front. Every one of those troops in China is one less soldier in Sumatra.


So, over the next two weeks a situation of flux suits me perfectly and I think that now is the right time to strike in order to create this flux and invite a further misallocation of IJA resources prior to the invasion of Sumatra. I may, of course, be wrong but that's my estimate in any case.

Comments? Question?





Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Nemo121 -- 7/10/2010 3:18:05 PM >

_____________________________

John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 450
Page:   <<   < prev  13 14 [15] 16 17   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: Fight for Hawaii Page: <<   < prev  13 14 [15] 16 17   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.645