Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

On the vagaries of one of three sisters....

 
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 >> On the vagaries of one of three sisters.... Page: <<   < prev  21 22 [23] 24 25   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
On the vagaries of one of three sisters.... - 9/26/2010 1:12:48 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline 		namely time....


Well today's turn was a bit rough with the thread of several of my APs being cut a bit shorter than I had hoped.

Basically an IJN TF comprising a CA, 3 CL and about 6 or 7 DD ran into the port I was using in Northern Sumatra for unloading. I had intended to get the ships out of there as they couldn't fully unload until it got to Size 3 ( currently it is size 2 + 20% ). Anyways, I forgot and the IJN creamed about 12 AKs and APs including a few rather large ones worth 12 and 18 points respectively.

This TF couldn't have made it here in just a single day which means it must have been sent from Singers at least 2 days ago ( the day before my aerial assault). If I'd attacked a day earlier I could have plastered the CA, CLs and DDs. As it is I may have to face them again.

On the plus side 45 B-17s managed 18 bomb hits on ships in Singapore port ( 7 xAPs, 2 AKs, 1 LSD, 1 DD and 1 E ). No sign of Haruna... Since she can't have been put into the repair yard because of those fires and would have been targetted if she'd been in the port ( and wouldn't have been able to put to sea ) I'm going to suggest that she was, indeed, sunk yesterday.

I've told Mike that in about 3 weeks or so I get an additional 75 B-17s. That'll bring my strike force to 150 bombers and at that point I intend to use those bombers to close whatever airbases he uses to base bombers and fighters at in opposition to my Malaysian attack.


In other news the TF coming from CONUSA with forces for the Malaysian invasion ( which set out about 6 weeks ago when I first decided to give this invasion a go ) is now just 5 days from Sumatra. Once it unloads I'll let the troops recover disruption and then they'll join the invasion force. 3rd week in May is looking good for the invasion, I might be able to push it up a week but probably no more than that unless I want to go without all of the BBs. Right now I can only mass 5 BBs as escort.


Harlock,
I can gather about 100 UK Albacores, Swordfish and Vildebeest. If he sends BBs and CAs to within range of my bases without adequate fighter cover I should be able to sink his battleline in a day.... but Mike won't be doing that. He's definitely getting better at covering operations and staging hit and run raids in areas he has checked are lightly covered.


< Message edited by Nemo121 -- 9/26/2010 1:15:00 PM >

_____________________________

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 #: 661
RE: On the vagaries of one of three sisters.... - 9/26/2010 8:44:38 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline 		So, we have an interesting situation: Mike appears to have responded to the raid on Singapore by focusing on the B17s to the exclusion of all else. Of course once he made a comment about B17s on the day of the raid I decided to increase the pressure by hitting him with B17s at Singapore every day since.

Here's the last three days of comments re: Singapore from Mike...

Day1
quote:

Here's the turn. All in all Singapore coulda been worse for me. It was still a pretty vivid fortelling of what things might be like when you get loads of fortresses later in the war... <shudder>


Day2
quote:

I figured you'd come back. Oscars VS Fortresses is like David VS Golieth and David is armed with spitwads and a straw.


Day3
quote:

I'm not really fond of house rulez but those Fortesses are too much. With all of the advantages in the current air combat model I still cannot do much more then scratch your fortresses (even when you seem to be providing little to no escort nor sweeps prior to 4E bomber group attack). Dispite 2:1 odds or greater plus an altitude advantage plus operating in their most advantagious altitude band my CAP seems to have little to no impact on the accuracy of your 4E bombers - the fortresses pound their mission objective with seeming impunity. They also seem impervious to my flak... I would liken the damage done by a 4E strike to something along the lines of the uber-artillery or uber-CD damage that was done in previous versions of this game.

I'd like to propose a house rule to have 4E LB use a base minimum altitude of 20k and then drop that minimum altitude down from 20k based on average experience level of an air groups average pilot experience level. So say you have pilots with experience levels in the 70s in a bomber group - that group would have a minimum altitude of 13k (20-7=13k).

Right now you are sending in small groups of 4E bombers and they are spanking my bases. I'm fearful of what that will look like when you send in attacks of 100 4E bombers or greater. My intent is to do something to reduce the accuracy @ this stage through the medium of altitude to compensate for what I see as a flaw in the air combat model as it relates to 4E LB.

What say you? Any counters? Or does the 4E portion of the air combat model seem correct to you?


So, basically, I said I didn't think they were overpowered for all sorts of reasons, that there were counters and will strike again tomorrow.

_____________________________

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 #: 662
RE: On the vagaries of one of three sisters.... - 9/26/2010 11:35:23 PM   
paullus99


Posts: 1985
Joined: 1/23/2002
Status: offline 		This is exactly the historical problem that the Japanese had against US 4E Bombers - their fighters weren't equipped to handle that kind of situation & they paid for it.

Since this is a know historical fact, your opponent (and any Japanese player for that matter) should attempt to deal with it as is, without resorting to house rules.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 663
RE: On the vagaries of one of three sisters.... - 9/27/2010 2:39:37 AM   
pat.casey

 

Posts: 393
Joined: 9/10/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: paullus99

This is exactly the historical problem that the Japanese had against US 4E Bombers - their fighters weren't equipped to handle that kind of situation & they paid for it.

Since this is a know historical fact, your opponent (and any Japanese player for that matter) should attempt to deal with it as is, without resorting to house rules.


Well, that's true provided there is a viable in game counter. If there's really nothing you can do about it, then a house rule comes in useful.

In the case of the 4E scourge, I'm on record of saying I think they're imbalanced, but they offset other imbalances in the game that favor the japanese (like PDU and production bonuses) so from a gameplay standpoint its probably a necessary balancing factor.

At this point I actually think AE is reasonably well balanced, but it achieves this balance through a number of ahistorical mechanisms.

(in reply to paullus99)
Post #: 664
RE: On the vagaries of one of three sisters.... - 9/27/2010 2:09:25 PM   
modrow

 

Posts: 1100
Joined: 8/27/2006
Status: offline 		Nemo,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121
If I'd attacked a day earlier I could have plastered the CA, CLs and DDs. As it is I may have to face them again.


Surprising comment from you.

Hartwig

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 665
RE: Attribution theory squared - 9/27/2010 3:30:05 PM   
modrow

 

Posts: 1100
Joined: 8/27/2006
Status: offline 		Alfred,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

Sorry Hartwig, but on this point I don't agree with your comment that it is "quite independent of the opponent in a game like AE".

Firstly, in AE the most basic issue to be determined even before the first turn is inputted, is the basis for play. Will victory be determined by VPs or some other criterion? Are HRs necessary and if so, what will they cover? Which scenario will be used and will there be any modifications made to it? These are all subjective matters which are greatly affected by your opponent's views.

Secondly, there are many different paths to victory. The efficacy of each one is very dependent on the qualities and skill of your opponent. Opponents usually have marked preferences in play style. One opponent could be very good in the air but relatively poor at naval operations, or dislike greatly land combat in China. Or perhaps not very good at logistics. There is great value in forcing your opponent to play what he does not want to play as this will increase the odds of him making unforced errors (to use a tennis concept).

Thirdly, the choice of strategy is dependent also on the dispositions made by your opponent. What exactly is the value of pursuing a strategy which on your objective grounds (ie dismissing your opponent as a key faactor) is the best but is actually failing due to timely actions by your opponent. Just because it was the "correct" strategy, there is no need to reinforce failure.

I don't know if you have been following Q-Ball's current AAR, but I would suggest you read my posts #38 and #84 in that AAR as I think they are pertinent to my argument here. Nemo's posts in that AAR are also relevant to this discussion.

Alfred


I still owe you a detailed response. Sorry, took me longer than expected.

First of all, thanks for the link to the AAR, actually I had not followed it but there are a number of interesting contributions. For the following discussion of issues you raised, I would like to add Nemo's post #31, 72 and perhaps 55 to the list of posts that for a basis for this discussion.

The reason for this addition is that your posts #38 and 84 are, as usual, excellent strategic advice - but I read them as advice that is independent of the opponent. (or "the other player", if this change of terminology helps). You start from an assumed national goal (VP condition) (which, btw, the players must not agree on) and analyze the ways to get there in order to develop a strategy and assess strategic options. You do not discuss qualities and skills of Q-Ball's opponent, nor his dispositions.

In case you disagree, I would be interested if you could point out the statements that would be different if Q-Ball's opponent would be someone else.

If you compare this to Nemo's posts I just mentioned, you will probably recognize that he factors in statements relating to the specific opponent (player). I believe that these are valuable and important comments if the analysis of the player they are based on is sound, but I am not sure whether they really influence (on-map) strategy (off-map strategy may be a different issue). What they can be used for is help with your OODA cycle (make the orienting more smoothly), interfere with the opponent's OODA cycle (illustrate more clearly how he may be disoriented) and choice of options on the tactical level.

I will always be willing to concede that potentially on a more refined level of gameplay the opponent may influence on-map strategy and, of course, it may turn out that the strategy does not work as planned and needs to be revised. In addition, there is a coupling between the respective aspects in that a perfect strategy needs proper execution, which can be wrecked by getting stuck in the OODA cycle. So there is a coupling, but I think that is a second order effect. Once you know how to deal with the decoupled problems, you can tackle the coupled one. Personally, I am still struggling with both isolated concepts.

As always, just my 2cts.

Hartwig


(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 666
RE: On the vagaries of one of three sisters.... - 9/28/2010 1:51:40 AM   
Capt. Harlock


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

So, basically, I said I didn't think they were overpowered for all sorts of reasons, that there were counters and will strike again tomorrow.


I agree with you generally, but Mike may have one point in his favor. I'm not sure about Scenario 2, but it seems to me that the Ki-45 Nick was historically available months earlier than it shows up in the game. It's a reasonable 4E killer, as long as there are no Allied fighter escorts.

Hint to Mike that this is why he should continue his AAR -- he can get suggestions from his readers.

P.S. Nice allusion to the Parcae in your thread title.

< Message edited by Capt. Harlock -- 9/28/2010 1:55:55 AM >

_____________________________

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 Nemo121)
Post #: 667
RE: On the vagaries of one of three sisters.... - 9/28/2010 10:33:53 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline 		Well Mike continues to grow more and more exasperated by the B17s. He actually used intemperate language in his last email re: them. This coincided with the turn on which he shot down 3 in A2A combat which rather undercut his argument.

Basically his view is that when he outnumbers them 2:1 he should shoot down lots. I pointed out that while he might have had 90 fighters in the air only 20 or so were Zeroes and the Oscars could be pretty much discounted as their firepower is insufficient to achieve decision. As such the odds were actually 1:2 in my favour which is a very different kettle of fish.

Right now his focus on B17s is excessive and whenever I show them to him he puts his losses down to them even if they aren't responsible. E.g. His CAP was broken before the B17s were committed to Singapore but we see what we want to see, not what is there.


AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Apr 26, 42

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pre-Invasion action off Tacloban

Japanese Ships
DMS W-7
AMC Kongo Maru
DD Uranami

I'm beginning to wonder if he realises he's reached his culmination point.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amphibious Assault at Tacloban

TF 47 troops unloading over beach at Tacloban, 81,85

Japanese ground losses:
44 casualties reported
Squads: 2 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 2 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled



17 troops of a SNLF Squad lost overboard during unload of 32nd Nav Gsn Unit /1
17 troops of a SNLF Squad accidentally lost during unload of 32nd Nav Gsn Unit
10 Support troops lost in surf during unload of 32nd Nav Gsn Unit
8 Aviation Support troops lost in surf during unload of 38th JNAF AF Unit


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASW attack near Truk at 112,109

Japanese Ships
DD Kuretake

Allied Ships
SS S-42

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Invasion Support action off Tacloban

Japanese Ships
DMS W-7
AMC Kongo Maru
DD Uranami



DMS W-7 fired at enemy troops
Defensive Guns fire at approaching troops in landing craft at 6,000 yards
Defensive Guns fire at approaching troops in landing craft at 2,000 yards


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Invasion Support action off Tacloban

Japanese Ships
AMC Kongo Maru
DD Uranami



Defensive Guns fire at approaching troops in landing craft at 1,000 yards


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on 4th Chinese Corps, at 77,59 (Canton)

Weather in hex: Severe storms

Raid spotted at 21 NM, estimated altitude 12,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 6 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-27b Nate x 7
Ki-30 Ann x 17
Ki-48-Ib Lily x 14



No Japanese losses


Allied ground losses:
37 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 3 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Nanchang , at 85,54

Weather in hex: Partial cloud

Raid spotted at 16 NM, estimated altitude 19,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 4 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-21-IIa Sally x 24
Ki-43-Ic Oscar x 25



No Japanese losses



Airbase hits 6
Airbase supply hits 4
Runway hits 36

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Kiukiang , at 85,53

Weather in hex: Light cloud

Raid spotted at 13 NM, estimated altitude 14,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 3 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-43-Ic Oscar x 2
Ki-48-Ib Lily x 17



No Japanese losses



Airbase hits 2
Airbase supply hits 2
Runway hits 14

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on 61st Infantry Brigade, at 84,51 (Wuchang)

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid spotted at 36 NM, estimated altitude 10,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 12 minutes


Allied aircraft
A-29A Hudson x 3
SB-III x 8


Allied aircraft losses
SB-III: 1 damaged

Japanese ground losses:
20 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Singapore , at 50,84

Weather in hex: Thunderstorms

Raid spotted at 20 NM, estimated altitude 9,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 6 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 29
Ki-43-Ib Oscar x 15
Ki-43-Ic Oscar x 35



Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 23


Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 1 destroyed, 2 damaged
Ki-43-Ib Oscar: 1 damaged
Ki-43-Ic Oscar: 1 destroyed, 4 damaged
Ki-43-Ic Oscar: 1 destroyed on ground
Ki-51 Sonia: 1 destroyed on ground

Allied aircraft losses
B-17E Fortress: 1 destroyed, 10 damaged

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



Airbase hits 2
Runway hits 6

Fatigue and planes under maintenance pretty much mandate a break in the bombing campaign. I'm basing the B-17s out of Palembang, well within his reach, in order to tempt him into more sweeps in which I can kill fighters and bombing raids in which my FlAK can kill bombers - or, it would if my FlAK was still there. In reality the FlAK is in Oosthaven waiting for ships to load onto for the invasion of Palembang.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Singapore , at 50,84

Weather in hex: Thunderstorms

Raid spotted at 42 NM, estimated altitude 12,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 12 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 16
Ki-43-Ib Oscar x 10
Ki-43-Ic Oscar x 17



Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 4


No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
B-17E Fortress: 4 damaged



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Singapore , at 50,84

Weather in hex: Thunderstorms

Raid spotted at 29 NM, estimated altitude 9,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 7 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 12
Ki-43-Ib Oscar x 6
Ki-43-Ic Oscar x 9



Allied aircraft
B-17D Fortress x 6


No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
B-17D Fortress: 5 damaged

Japanese Ships
xAP Huzi Maru, Bomb hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
xAP Buenos Aires Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
xAP Kokuryu Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire, heavy damage



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Kiukiang , at 85,53

Weather in hex: Light cloud

Raid spotted at 31 NM, estimated altitude 17,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 10 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-49-Ia Helen x 18



No Japanese losses



Airbase hits 2
Airbase supply hits 4
Runway hits 12

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on Kukong , at 79,57

Weather in hex: Light cloud

Raid spotted at 22 NM, estimated altitude 10,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 7 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-51 Sonia x 15



No Japanese losses



Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 12

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on Kweilin , at 76,54

Weather in hex: Partial cloud

Raid spotted at 43 NM, estimated altitude 12,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 20 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-27b Nate x 8
Ki-36 Ida x 11



No Japanese losses



Airbase hits 2
Runway hits 10

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submarine attack near Selaroe at 77,119

Japanese Ships
SS I-171

Allied Ships
xAK Nils Moller, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage


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


xAK Nils Moller is sighted by SS I-171
SS I-171 launches 4 torpedoes


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ground combat at Canton (77,59)

Japanese Bombardment attack

Attacking force 29940 troops, 296 guns, 32 vehicles, Assault Value = 1234

Defending force 20702 troops, 119 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 678


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


Assaulting units:
68th Ind.Infantry Battalion
Yokosuka 3rd SNLF
20th RGC Division
10th Garrison Unit
66th Infantry Regiment
1st Ind.Inf.Group
19th Ind.Mixed Brigade
Yokosuka 1st SNLF
21st Division
1st Sasebo SNLF Coy
20th Ind. Mtn Gun Battalion
Canton Special Base Force
1st JAAF AF Coy
31st Special Base Force
47th JAAF AF Bn
2nd JAAF AF Coy

Defending units:
4th Chinese Corps
25th Chinese Corps
49th Chinese Corps

He has brought an additional 800 AV into Canton, which is a great diversion of effort of his reserve from Malaysia. Quite a nice little diversion on my part if I say so myself.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ground combat at 54,57

Japanese Shock attack

Attacking force 16194 troops, 216 guns, 52 vehicles, Assault Value = 651

Defending force 9432 troops, 106 guns, 47 vehicles, Assault Value = 368

Japanese adjusted assault: 181

Allied adjusted defense: 269

Japanese assault odds: 1 to 2

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

Japanese ground losses:
2766 casualties reported
Squads: 10 destroyed, 225 disabled
Non Combat: 5 destroyed, 205 disabled
Engineers: 1 destroyed, 25 disabled
Vehicles lost 37 (1 destroyed, 36 disabled)

This represents the attempt by the IJA Imperial Guards division and two Thai Army divisions to break open the coastal road into Burma. Unfortunately the 1st Burmese Division proved more than adequate to the task... or rather the terrain and two forts they've built proved up to the task. As these attacks fail their experience will build and they'll do better and better.


Allied ground losses:
129 casualties reported
Squads: 2 destroyed, 8 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 9 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled


Assaulting units:
Imperial Guards Division
1st RTA Division
6th RTA Division
15th Army
55th Mountain Gun Regiment
21st Medium Field Artillery Battalion

Defending units:
1st Burma Division


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ground combat at Canton (77,59)

Allied Bombardment attack

Attacking force 20688 troops, 119 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 677

Defending force 37025 troops, 344 guns, 32 vehicles, Assault Value = 1234



Assaulting units:
25th Chinese Corps
4th Chinese Corps
49th Chinese Corps

Defending units:
68th Ind.Infantry Battalion
10th Garrison Unit
1st Ind.Inf.Group
21st Division
19th Ind.Mixed Brigade
66th Infantry Regiment
Yokosuka 1st SNLF
Yokosuka 3rd SNLF
20th RGC Division
1st Sasebo SNLF Coy
20th Ind. Mtn Gun Battalion
31st Special Base Force
Canton Special Base Force
1st JAAF AF Coy
47th JAAF AF Bn
2nd JAAF AF Coy


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ground combat at 86,42

Allied Bombardment attack

Attacking force 25290 troops, 110 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 989

Defending force 17758 troops, 132 guns, 32 vehicles, Assault Value = 655



Assaulting units:
9th Chinese Corps
15th Chinese Corps
27th Chinese Corps
5th New Chinese Corps
43rd Chinese Corps
93rd Chinese Corps
8th New Chinese Corps
14th Group Army
15th Group Army

Defending units:
35th Division
3rd Ind.Mixed Brigade


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ground combat at Wuchang (84,51)

Allied Deliberate attack

Attacking force 50202 troops, 228 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 1916

Defending force 7584 troops, 116 guns, 22 vehicles, Assault Value = 193

Allied adjusted assault: 522

Japanese adjusted defense: 363

Allied assault odds: 1 to 1 (fort level 3)

Allied Assault reduces fortifications to 2

My assaulting troops have some supply problems but I'm relying on mass, not finesse, here. Two more attacks should see the forts completely removed and then the town will fall and I can call a halt to the current offensive in the centre of China. I'll then begin pushing troops along the riverline towards Shanghai with a view to prolonging the front ( which serves me more than Mike as I have more troops and can thus better afford to extend the front without showing overt weakness ). My estimation is that this will force Mike to commit more of his reserve to hold Shanghai and also to spread his forces in northern China along the east/west riverline north of Shanghai such that he will no longer maintain the necessary reserve for offensive action to relieve Changsha.

That will keep the troops in Changsha bottled up ( by 2,000 AV of Chinese troops ) and will help the troops invading Malaysia as there won't be as much of a ready reserve to counter them, especially with the wrecking of 3 Divisions on the road to Burma earlier in the day.

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

Japanese ground losses:
832 casualties reported
Squads: 8 destroyed, 16 disabled
Non Combat: 26 destroyed, 27 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 6 disabled


Allied ground losses:
426 casualties reported
Squads: 1 destroyed, 41 disabled
Non Combat: 3 destroyed, 22 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled


Assaulting units:
100th Chinese Corps
99th Chinese Corps
37th Chinese Corps
10th Chinese Corps
74th Chinese Corps
79th Chinese/A Corps
Central Reserve

Defending units:
Kyuko Naval Guard Unit
61st Infantry Brigade
22nd/B Division
22nd AA Regiment
17th JAAF Base Force


So, all in all it is going well. Recent transport losses have been a bit higher than I would have liked but I've diverted an additional 40 transports to make good some of the loss of carrying capacity for the Malaysian invasion.

< Message edited by Nemo121 -- 9/28/2010 10:35:07 PM >

_____________________________

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 #: 668
RE: On the vagaries of one of three sisters.... - 9/29/2010 1:28:21 AM   
jrcar

 

Posts: 3613
Joined: 4/19/2002
From: Seymour, Australia
Status: offline 		It is pretty usual for people not not know they have culminated :)

Cheers

Rob

_____________________________

AE BETA Breaker

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 669
RE: On the vagaries of one of three sisters.... - 9/29/2010 3:17:50 AM   
Capt. Harlock


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

Attacking force 16194 troops, 216 guns, 52 vehicles, Assault Value = 651

Defending force 9432 troops, 106 guns, 47 vehicles, Assault Value = 368

Japanese adjusted assault: 181

Allied adjusted defense: 269

Japanese assault odds: 1 to 2

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

Japanese ground losses:
2766 casualties reported
Squads: 10 destroyed, 225 disabled
Non Combat: 5 destroyed, 205 disabled
Engineers: 1 destroyed, 25 disabled
Vehicles lost 37 (1 destroyed, 36 disabled)

This represents the attempt by the IJA Imperial Guards division and two Thai Army divisions to break open the coastal road into Burma. Unfortunately the 1st Burmese Division proved more than adequate to the task... or rather the terrain and two forts they've built proved up to the task.


Interesting that in this battle report, the fort level is not specified -- or did you edit it out?

_____________________________

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 Nemo121)
Post #: 670
RE: On the vagaries of one of three sisters.... - 10/3/2010 7:58:39 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline 		No, there's no fort level because the Allied troops were defending outside of a base and just had the forts their combat engineers built in the actual hex itself.

Mike's in Vegas so, no turn until he returns... What's he up to? Don't ask, don't tell. Even I know that what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas

_____________________________

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 #: 671
By battalions they come.... - 10/8/2010 1:28:35 AM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline 		AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Apr 27, 42



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat, near Malacca at 48,81, Range 8,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
E Omae, Shell hits 7, heavy fires, heavy damage


As I move the light British raiding TF to Colombo I decided to run it through the Malacca straits to see what it would find. This proved a costly decision... It started well with Omae heavily damaged....

Allied Ships
CL Enterprise
CL Emerald
CL Ceres
CL Caledon
DD Tjerk Hiddes
DD Fortune
DD Griffin
DD Hotspur



Improved night sighting under 89% moonlight
Maximum visibility in Overcast Conditions and 89% moonlight: 8,000 yards
Range closes to 11,000 yards...
Range closes to 10,000 yards...
Range closes to 9,000 yards...
Range closes to 8,000 yards...
CONTACT: Japanese lookouts spot Allied task force at 8,000 yards
CONTACT: Allied lookouts spot Japanese task force at 8,000 yards
CL Ceres engages E Omae at 8,000 yards
DD Fortune engages E Omae at 8,000 yards
DD Tjerk Hiddes engages E Omae at 8,000 yards
Range increases to 10,000 yards
CL Caledon engages E Omae at 10,000 yards
Range closes to 9,000 yards
CL Caledon engages E Omae at 9,000 yards
DD Fortune engages E Omae at 9,000 yards
Range closes to 7,000 yards
CL Caledon engages E Omae at 7,000 yards
CL Enterprise engages E Omae at 7,000 yards
DD Fortune engages E Omae at 7,000 yards
Range increases to 11,000 yards
CL Caledon engages E Omae at 11,000 yards
CL Emerald engages E Omae at 11,000 yards
Japanese Task Force Manages to Escape
Task forces break off...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submarine attack near Singapore at 49,83

Japanese Ships
E Omae, Torpedo hits 1, heavy fires, heavy damage

Allied Ships
SS O16



E Omae is sighted by SS O16
SS O16 launches 4 torpedoes


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Time Surface Combat, near Langsa at 47,74, Range 17,000 Yards

But then things went a bit downhill as the Atago took a high toll of my forces almost all by itself. 1 CL and 2 DDs sank after this encounter.

Japanese Ships
CA Atago, Shell hits 3
CL Isuzu, Shell hits 2
CL Kinu, Shell hits 2
DD Asashio, Shell hits 1
DD Kasumi
DD Yudachi, Shell hits 3, on fire
DD Hatsuharu, Shell hits 3, on fire
DD Asagiri, Shell hits 3, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage

Allied Ships
CL Enterprise, Shell hits 5
CL Emerald, Shell hits 3
CL Ceres, Shell hits 8, heavy fires, heavy damage
CL Caledon, Shell hits 5, on fire
DD Tjerk Hiddes, Shell hits 1, on fire
DD Fortune, Shell hits 6, heavy fires, heavy damage
DD Griffin, Shell hits 8, heavy fires, heavy damage
DD Hotspur, Shell hits 2, heavy fires

So, 3 CL and a couple of DD will survive and make for Colombo for repair and upgrading. In the meantime the gathering at Oosthaven continues with about 180 transports and 40 or so warships already gathered there and the invasion forces arriving and transitioning into combat mode.



Maximum visibility in Overcast Conditions: 20,000 yards
Range closes to 17,000 yards...
CONTACT: Japanese lookouts spot Allied task force at 17,000 yards
CONTACT: Allied lookouts spot Japanese task force at 17,000 yards
Boyd, D.W. crosses the 'T'

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASW attack near Kwajalein Island at 132,115

Japanese Ships
SSX Ha-20, hits 1

Allied Ships
AM Tern
AM Bobolink
AM Robin
AM Vireo
AM Grebe



SSX Ha-20 is sighted by escort
AM Bobolink fails to find sub, continues to search...
AM Robin fails to find sub and abandons search
AM Vireo attacking submerged sub ....
AM Vireo cannot establish contact with SSX Ha-20
AM Vireo loses contact with SSX Ha-20
AM Grebe attacking submerged sub ....
SSX Ha-20 eludes ASW attack from AM Grebe
AM Grebe loses contact with SSX Ha-20
SSX Ha-20 eludes ASW attack from AM Grebe
SSX Ha-20 eludes ASW attack from AM Grebe
AM Bobolink attacking submerged sub ....
AM Bobolink cannot reach attack position over SSX Ha-20
AM Bobolink cannot reach attack position over SSX Ha-20
AM Bobolink cannot reach attack position over SSX Ha-20
AM Bobolink cannot establish contact with SSX Ha-20
AM Vireo fails to find sub, continues to search...
AM Grebe fails to find sub and abandons search
AM Bobolink fails to find sub, continues to search...
AM Vireo fails to find sub and abandons search
AM Bobolink fails to find sub, continues to search...
Escort abandons search for sub


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Kukong , at 79,57

Weather in hex: Light cloud

Raid spotted at 13 NM, estimated altitude 14,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 4 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-27b Nate x 8
Ki-51 Sonia x 21



No Japanese losses



Airbase hits 1
Airbase supply hits 2


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Kweilin , at 76,54

Weather in hex: Severe storms

Raid spotted at 39 NM, estimated altitude 13,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 17 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-36 Ida x 15



No Japanese losses



Airbase hits 3
Runway hits 13

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on 25th Chinese Corps, at 77,59 (Canton)

Weather in hex: Heavy rain

Raid spotted at 47 NM, estimated altitude 11,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 14 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-48-Ib Lily x 14



No Japanese losses


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


Also attacking 4th Chinese Corps ...
Also attacking 25th Chinese Corps ...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Sian , at 83,41

Weather in hex: Thunderstorms

Raid spotted at 36 NM, estimated altitude 12,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 11 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-21-IIa Sally x 4
Ki-48-Ib Lily x 6



Allied aircraft
I-16-III x 2
I-15-III x 3
Hawk 75M x 1


Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-21-IIa Sally: 1 destroyed, 2 damaged
Ki-48-Ib Lily: 1 destroyed, 1 damaged

Many Chinese Air Force pilots now have 3 kills and one pilot has 4. Almost an ace, not bad.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Sian , at 83,41

Weather in hex: Thunderstorms

Raid spotted at 33 NM, estimated altitude 12,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 9 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-21-IIa Sally x 11
Ki-27b Nate x 8



Allied aircraft
I-16-III x 1


No Japanese losses

No Allied losses



Airbase hits 1
Runway hits 1

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on 61st Infantry Brigade, at 84,51 (Wuchang)

Weather in hex: Partial cloud

Raid spotted at 35 NM, estimated altitude 11,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 11 minutes


Allied aircraft
A-29A Hudson x 3
SB-III x 8


Allied aircraft losses
SB-III: 1 damaged

Japanese ground losses:
23 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Kwajalein Island , at 132,115

Weather in hex: Light cloud

Raid spotted at 44 NM, estimated altitude 12,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 10 minutes


Allied aircraft
A-20A Havoc x 9


Allied aircraft losses
A-20A Havoc: 4 damaged

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

Runway hits 13

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Kwajalein Island , at 132,115

Weather in hex: Light cloud

Raid spotted at 18 NM, estimated altitude 11,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 5 minutes


Allied aircraft
A-20A Havoc x 3
A-29 Hudson x 6


Allied aircraft losses
A-29 Hudson: 1 damaged

Japanese Ships
SSX Ha-25, Bomb hits 1, and is sunk

Runway hits 3

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on 25th Chinese Corps, at 77,59 (Canton)

Weather in hex: Light cloud

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

Japanese aircraft
Ki-30 Ann x 12



No Japanese losses


Allied ground losses:
27 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on 25th Chinese Corps, at 77,59 (Canton)

Weather in hex: Light cloud

Raid spotted at 23 NM, estimated altitude 13,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 7 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-27b Nate x 7



No Japanese losses

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on Changsha , at 82,52

Weather in hex: Heavy rain

Raid spotted at 24 NM, estimated altitude 16,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 6 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-21-IIa Sally x 17
Ki-43-Ic Oscar x 25



No Japanese losses



Airbase hits 1
Runway hits 2

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on Kiukiang , at 85,53

Weather in hex: Severe storms

Raid spotted at 16 NM, estimated altitude 15,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 4 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-48-Ib Lily x 12



No Japanese losses


Airbase hits 1
Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 13

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub attack near Tandjoengbalai at 47,78

Japanese Ships
CL Kinu
CL Isuzu
DD Asashio
DD Yudachi
DD Kasumi

Allied Ships
SS S-39, hits 2



SS S-39 launches 4 torpedoes at CL Kinu
DD Yudachi fails to find sub and abandons search
DD Kasumi fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Kasumi fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Kasumi fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Kasumi fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Kasumi attacking submerged sub ....
Escort abandons search for sub


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ground combat at Tacloban (81,85)

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 2404 troops, 19 guns, 144 vehicles, Assault Value = 146

Defending force 655 troops, 0 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 21

Japanese adjusted assault: 81

Allied adjusted defense: 1

Japanese assault odds: 81 to 1 (fort level 0)

Japanese forces CAPTURE Tacloban !!!

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


Allied ground losses:
700 casualties reported
Squads: 50 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 62 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Units destroyed 1


Assaulting units:
8th Tank Regiment
32nd Nav Gsn Unit
24th Fld AA Machinecannon Company
27th Fld AA Machinecannon Company
53rd Field AA Battalion
20th Fld AA Machinecannon Company
41st Air Defense AA Battalion
38th JNAF AF Unit

Defending units:
93rd PA Infantry Regiment


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ground combat at Canton (77,59)

Japanese Bombardment attack

Attacking force 29963 troops, 296 guns, 32 vehicles, Assault Value = 1234

Defending force 20657 troops, 119 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 675

Japanese ground losses:
59 casualties reported
Squads: 3 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled


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


Assaulting units:
Yokosuka 1st SNLF
66th Infantry Regiment
68th Ind.Infantry Battalion
10th Garrison Unit
1st Ind.Inf.Group
20th RGC Division
19th Ind.Mixed Brigade
Yokosuka 3rd SNLF
21st Division
1st Sasebo SNLF Coy
31st Special Base Force
Canton Special Base Force
47th JAAF AF Bn
20th Ind. Mtn Gun Battalion
1st JAAF AF Coy
2nd JAAF AF Coy

Defending units:
25th Chinese Corps
4th Chinese Corps
49th Chinese Corps



Ground combat at 86,42

Allied Bombardment attack

Attacking force 25293 troops, 110 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 988

Defending force 17773 troops, 132 guns, 32 vehicles, Assault Value = 654



Assaulting units:
93rd Chinese Corps
27th Chinese Corps
43rd Chinese Corps
9th Chinese Corps
5th New Chinese Corps
15th Chinese Corps
8th New Chinese Corps
14th Group Army
15th Group Army

Defending units:
35th Division
3rd Ind.Mixed Brigade


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ground combat at Wuchang (84,51)

Allied Deliberate attack

Attacking force 53212 troops, 242 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 1891

Defending force 7039 troops, 116 guns, 22 vehicles, Assault Value = 162

Allied adjusted assault: 943

Japanese adjusted defense: 149

Allied assault odds: 6 to 1 (fort level 2)

Allied forces CAPTURE Wuchang !!!

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

Japanese ground losses:
3233 casualties reported
Squads: 44 destroyed, 16 disabled
Non Combat: 111 destroyed, 32 disabled
Engineers: 29 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 20 (20 destroyed, 0 disabled)
Vehicles lost 18 (18 destroyed, 0 disabled)
Units retreated 5

Well, that's the joining of the two fronts completed.


Allied ground losses:
599 casualties reported
Squads: 2 destroyed, 45 disabled
Non Combat: 3 destroyed, 42 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 3 disabled


Defeated Japanese Units Retreating!

Assaulting units:
37th Chinese Corps
74th Chinese Corps
10th Chinese Corps
100th Chinese Corps
99th Chinese Corps
79th Chinese/A Corps
Central Reserve

Defending units:
61st Infantry Brigade
Kyuko Naval Guard Unit
22nd/B Division
22nd AA Regiment
17th JAAF Base Force



Next targets, Shanghai, Malaysia and Luzon...




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Nemo121 -- 10/8/2010 1:31:48 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 #: 672
Encounter - 10/8/2010 8:26:59 PM   
Capt. Harlock


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

Japanese Ships
CA Atago, Shell hits 3
CL Isuzu, Shell hits 2
CL Kinu, Shell hits 2
DD Asashio, Shell hits 1
DD Kasumi
DD Yudachi, Shell hits 3, on fire
DD Hatsuharu, Shell hits 3, on fire
DD Asagiri, Shell hits 3, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage

Allied Ships
CL Enterprise, Shell hits 5
CL Emerald, Shell hits 3
CL Ceres, Shell hits 8, heavy fires, heavy damage
CL Caledon, Shell hits 5, on fire
DD Tjerk Hiddes, Shell hits 1, on fire
DD Fortune, Shell hits 6, heavy fires, heavy damage
DD Griffin, Shell hits 8, heavy fires, heavy damage
DD Hotspur, Shell hits 2, heavy fires




Maximum visibility in Overcast Conditions: 20,000 yards
Range closes to 17,000 yards...
CONTACT: Japanese lookouts spot Allied task force at 17,000 yards
CONTACT: Allied lookouts spot Japanese task force at 17,000 yards
Boyd, D.W. crosses the 'T'


A very peculiar result. I'm not sure how the IJN could have scored more hits even though the Allied TF 'crossed the T'. Perhaps it has something to do with the 17,000 yard range?

_____________________________

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 Nemo121)
Post #: 673
RE: Encounter - 10/9/2010 12:06:18 AM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline 		Well I shortened the CR... Basically it went down to about 3,000 feet, then back out to 20,000, then back to about 4,000 or so then finally out to 27,000 yards....

Atago looks like it did most of the damage. I think Atago took a couple of meaningful hits too though. I'll find out soon enough, I'm sending the Northern Sumatran Raiding TF ( 1 x USN CL and 5 DDs ) into the IJN port in northern Sumatra tonight.

_____________________________

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 #: 674
RE: Encounter - 10/9/2010 3:27:26 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline 		So, the shipping for the invasion of Malaysia is beginning to load. I do have some more warships on the way as they finish upgrades but haven't included some of those warships which may not make it in time.

I've also thought of a slight wrinkle to the plan which would cut a couple of weeks off of the landings....

So, here's the current apportionment of resources...
BB: 7
CA: 4
CL: 7
DD: 40

Minor escorts of various types, about 50....

AP: 4
xAP: 32
xAK: 127
xAKL: 23


Ground component:
3 Oz Divisions ( 6th, 7th and 8th ), 18th British Division, 9th and 11th Indian Divisions and 44th,45th and 46th Indian Brigades. That's 7 division equivalents.

Armour: 7th Armoured Bde ( 150 Stuarts ), 254th Armoured Bde ( much weaker ) + about 10 recce Bns and armoured car Bns as well as 4 US Tank Bns. Total of 700+ AV. Their firepower should be awesome though and really chew up IJA divisions. I certainly wouldn't want to have to pit an IJA divisions vs 250 Stuarts + Valentines etc. Those Stuarts have excellent anti-infantry firepower.

3 x CD Regts, 4 Arty Regts, 1 AT Regt, 7 AAA Regts and 1 AAA Bde. So that's about 400+ AAA pieces. I'm going to sealift them all to the base I invade in order to protect it from air attack and naval bombardment.



Recently I began looking at the distance around the western coast of Sumatra to Georgetown and thinking how long that would take for a 6 hex per day xAKL to traverse.... I then looked at the much shorter direct route past Singapore into the Malacca straits from Oosthaven. It'd be a bit riskier but I could LRCAP it with planes from Palembang and Djambi and Sabang so, really, it'd be under 100s of land-based fighters on LRCAP the whole way. It would mean giving the IJA a couple of day's notice of the landings but that shouldn't really matter much. It would also allow me to seed the entire western portion of Malaysia with landings at each of the bases.

Most importantly it'd save about 1 week of travel time and would shorten the war by that week. A shorter war, generally, means fewer overall dead. A not unimportant consideration.

My plan is to land, push out the Indian Bdes as anti-counterinvasion forces on the eastern coast of Malaysia ( 1 Bde per base ) and push the armoured units north into Thailand while the infantry move on Singapore.

Eventually I'd try to link up with China and also draw so many of his ground forces and reserves into action along the Malaysia/Thai/China line of advance that it'll starve him of the ground reserves he would need to counter the more meaningful US-led invasion of Luzon which I hope to spring before year's end.


KB is still decoyed down to Mindanao and cannot possibly intervene in time. Haruna is damaged or sunk in Singapore and Atago is damaged. The IJN CLs are in fine shape but there's only 2 CLs and 3 or 4 DDs. My escorts should easily brush them aside.

< Message edited by Nemo121 -- 10/9/2010 3:40:45 PM >

_____________________________

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 #: 675
RE: Encounter - 10/20/2010 2:55:19 PM   
d0mbo

 

Posts: 592
Joined: 8/21/2009
From: Holland
Status: offline 		Nemo,

In Cap_and_Grown's AAR you got into an argument....nay... civil discussion with Castor Troy on the effects of CC CAP on incoming strikes. Castor proclaimed it's impossible to get good od's vs Cap as they will always outclimb the incoming strike and thus get the 'Dive". you metnioned getting close to 1:1 odds  vs enemy Cap, even with inferior planes. You alluded to some certain 'optimal circumstances'for this to happen. I wonder: what settings and circumstances led you to this result? Couldn;'t find it in the AAR, but I'll admit to not reading every post.

Regards,

d0mbo.


(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 676
RE: Encounter - 10/20/2010 3:14:38 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline 		With the invasion of Malaysia about to begin ( some 3,000 AV of infantry units ( including some American infantry regiments and tank Bns as well as the Marine Parachute Bn ) and about 700 AV of armoured units ) and the success of Chinese operations in destroying 2 IJA divisions and trapping 5,000+ AV of Chinese troops at Changsha I expect the Japanese reserves to be fully committed in reacting to my actions. About the only uncommitted IJA forces are the 800 AV or so in the Kuriles. He could use them to launch invasions in the Aleutians. If he does this I will simply delay him but accept the battle as it serves my purposes to tie these forces up. However there's always the possibility of this reserve being committed. It is only 800 AV and in the face of the many thousands of AV I have either currently hitting him in China or about to hit him in Malaysia this 800 AV isn't all that much.

On the other hand wars aren't won by allowing the enemy the freedom to commit even small reserves at the time and place of his choosing so it is preferable to begin putting the next phases into action in order to continue misdirecting his reserves away from the sectors of decision - which vary with time obviously as I need a multi-pronged approach in order to avoid having to face KB, an entity I simply don't have the force to destroy at this point in time so I have sought to neutralise it with misdirection and forcing it into a reactive posture which I can more easily manage.


Anyways, at present I'm looking at the following phasing:

1. Invasion of Malaysia with the capture of Singapore by the infantry component while the armour component links up with some 1500 AV coming down from Burma and proceeds to assault Bangkok and then from there through to mainland China allowing me a more reliable land route into China. This will be the northern part of the overall thrust to cut northern Borneo's resources and oil off from Japan. I'll do whatever I can during the invasion of Malaysia to accept mutually annihilatory surface fleet battles such that the IJN forces capable of interdicting the invasions of Phase 2 will be greatly reduced.


2. An invasion of several of the islands north of the Marshalls in the Pacific should follow 2 to 4 weeks after the invasion of Malaysia. Once I see how rattled he is by the invasion of Malaysia I will decide on the timing of this invasion. I will be ready to go within 2 weeks of the invasion of Malaysia but could delay it a bit more. Basically I want to hit him while his reserves are in a state of motion towards Malaysia so as to disrupt that plan. If he reacts massively and rapidly to the invasion of Malaysia then I can go two weeks after that invasion and catch his reserves in the midst of their redeployment. If he reacts more slowly and is willing to lose Singers then I may wait another two weeks for the Pacific invasions.

I have 2 Marine Regts, an Army Division, several tank Bns and a US Army Regt available for these landings. Again I'll hit at least 3 targets, possibly 4. I won't have carrier-based aircover as I don't judge that essential and neither will these invasions be localised and within cover of land-based air. This isn't the time to cause superficial wounds, this is the time to use speed and misdirection to take deep targets of great significance with little risk. Of course if KB runs across the fleets before they land I'll have 2 divisions of troops drowned to the last man. C'est la guerre.

I expect to force KB to be committed to counter these Pacific invasions. Once it has been committed I will begin Phase 3 - the exploitation of the portion of Mindanao I still hold. From Mindanao I plan to drive north, exploiting the lack of IJA forces available for a protracted land battle and continuing to write down those which are available, and link up with the Malaysian thrust in the Formosa region.

At that point in time it'll be a choice between island-hopping to Japan from Formosa or doing something more red-blooded and invading Korea in order to defeat the Manuchukuo army in detail by catching it between the Chinese army in the north and the British, Oz, Indian and US Armies in the south.


Either way I'd expect to be on the coast of Japan proper by the end of 1942 with Borneo still in Japanese hands ( but isolated ), significant Japanese holdings around Truk and east of the Phillipines ( but again isolated ) and the Kuriles and a variable portion of the Aleutians in Japanese hands ( acceptable as they don't hold significant resources nor are they strategically threatening to my forces ).

So, Japan isolated by the end of 1942 and invaded at the end of the first quarter of 1943, if the game lasts that long. The strange thing is that I'll still be inferior in CVs and airpower at that stage. That's ok though, this planning minimises my need to rely on CVs or airpower, principally by running most invasions without reliance on either and just relying on misdirection and strategic phasing ( which I am good at ) to provide the protection that I can't provide tactically.

_____________________________

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 #: 677
RE: Encounter - 10/20/2010 3:36:19 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline 		d0mbo,

I wouldn't say an argument. I would say that Castor Troy made all sorts of claims with no basis in fact. I pointed out this lack of basis in fact and asked him to provide facts. He has, as of yet, failed to respond with facts which support his argument or counter my in-game, factual explanations for the ouctomes he saw.


As to getting the odds etc. Well, in this game I've downed over 400 Zeroes ( by the end of April 1942 ) and have done so almost exclusively with P40B,s P40Es and Hurricanes as well as a few F4F4s on occasion. With that said I'd also point out that the Chinese Air Force is doing pretty well with a 4 kill almost-ace flying an I-15 and several pilots with 3 kills flying I15s and I-16s. I also have a B339 Ace in the Dutch air force and his kills have been almost exclusively against Zeroes and Oscar Is.


Basically you need to look at the combat results as they happen. If you do that you'll realise that once the initial dive happens the diving plane continues the fight at the altitude of the plane it bounced ( roughly, I'm sure it retains a slight advantage but we're talking rule of thumbs here ). Now, what that means is that if it bounced a plane at 10,000 feet by diving from 30,000 feet it is NOW at about 11,000 feet and at a huge disadvantage vs enemy fighters at 20,000 feet. So, by accepting dives on one of your squadrons you can set things up so the majority of your squadrons get to dive on the enemy fighters.

Pick the guys in the bait squadrons based on their defensive skill to give them the maximum change of surviving being bounced. Put them in B-339/Buffaloes and then watch as your dozen B-339s get hurt pretty badly but your Hurris and P40Es dive ON the diving Zeroes and rip them apart.


Now, can you get the same sort of thing offensively? Sure, by varying sweep and escort altitudes. By varying escort altitudes you run the risk of the escorts not flying with the bombers - if you are hitting the enemy CV fleet - but if you target the hex being invaded you CAN assign sweepers at high altitude to accompany the bombers + low escorts. I have done this several times over southern Borneo with raids coming out of Balikpapan with good results. The close escorts got hit but my high sweepers then bounced the enemy CAP and butchered them.

Look at the raids in March ( which is when I fine-tuned this tactic over several raids ) originating from Balikpapan. That's your proof. By the end I was comfortably getting 1:1.


As to how to do this vs a massive US fleet in 43? Well, going directly up against the spearpoint tip to tip is a VERY poor way to go about things. You defeat the Americans in 43 by carefully setting up a multi-month plan to attrit their CV-based air until it is so weak you CAN take it on directly. I would, in similar situations, simply CAP and SWEEP the invasion hexes and send in IJN SC TFs to force the unloading to cease. Over the course of a couple of days this will result in disproportionate USN losses to escorting fighters and LRCAPing fighters. The base will fall but you can rebuild more quickly if you do this right and at the next base you should be facing less-experienced Allies and be able to move the the loss ratio even more in your favour.

Why the SC TFs? Simple, they increase the length of unloading and force the USN CVs to spend more time in the area, run more LRCAP missions and suffer more attritional losses. Fatigue, fighter losses on escort missions and LRCAP losses will mount and that will be the time to hit them with a direct strike. Not the CVs though, use your 1 hex range advantage to place your CVs JUST in range of the invasion hex ( thus 2 or 3 hexes from the USN CVs if the US player is following normal US strategy and parking the CVs a hex or two away ) and launch a maximum range strike on the invasion TFs after 3 or 4 days of denuding them of LRCAP and fatiguing their pilots with land-based air. That will bear dividends. The next day you can run like hell faster than the USN can hunt. By hitting the invasion hex you minimise your risks and amount of CAP you face ( you shold only face LRCAP and leakers from the CAP of the USN CVs ), should be able to accompany your strike with SWEEPers set to sweep the invasion hex ( a HUGE advantage vs escorts ) and also fly in fresh LBA fighters to provide CAP and further fighter strength. People don't do this though as they don't tend to enact multi-day attritional plans to shape the battlefield in the AARs I've read.


I didn't see any of that phased strategy in action in Troy's AAR and so his opponent, rightly, got his head handed to him.You can't expect to face a numerically superior, more experience foe flying better fighters over their own territory and then expect to triumph unless you've got some tactical mastery to switch the odds. Troy's opponent didn't have that to hand and so he suffered as one would expect.


Really though this is simply the application of basic idea that if you can't win the fight the enemy wants you set up to fight a fight ( or fights ) you CAN win. You CAN win fights over your own terrain which allow you to sweep and escort at the same time, rescue downed pilots and face less CAP than a strike into the full enemy CV fleet. Over a couple of iterations of this you might see an opportunity to take on the US CVs. If so you can take it if you wish. Bottom line though Castor's opponent could have set up much more effective strikes ( maybe not against the CVs ) even during that turn. If he had followed a different strategy over the previous months he might have been in the right place to take on the CVs.


P.s. For those who argue - But the airbase will be closed by USN bombing raids. Well, there's two replies to that.

1. Strategically if you want to fight this type of fight you should have LOTS of engineers and aviation support at the invasion hex in order to allow airfield and plane repairs quickly. Also lots and lots of FLAK. Does this require skill in forecasting? Yes but the requirement of skill doesn't make it a bad plan and most USN players have all the subtlety of a bulldozer in their choice of routes of advance anyways.

2. By sending in SC TFs to disrupt the landings at night you ensure the Allied player will keep many of their strike planes on naval strike. Every plane on naval strike is one less plane hitting the airfields. Tough on the IJN? Yes but if you plan properly the reward over the 4 to 6 months that this strategic approach could take to yield a viable KB strike on the USN CV fleet will far outweight the cost.


AE is much more about stringing together months of engagements to get a result than getting a crushing result on a single day. Some might be able to crush the US CV fleet in a single day like Cap And Gown. I prefer to take risks not gambles ( as per Rommel's definition of the way ) and so amn't ever going to win the war in a day.

< Message edited by Nemo121 -- 10/20/2010 3:42:08 PM >

_____________________________

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 #: 678
RE: Encounter - 10/20/2010 4:02:18 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline 		I'm really tired of people confusing dive bonus with escort penalty. The fact is, escorts seem to be inherently at a disadvantage against CAP, and I even heard that the developers confirmed the escort disadvantage being hardcoded. This has very little to do with the initial altitude of escorts and CAP.

Also, the altitude advantage is overrated. Exploiting it might be the way to go for Allies, with their Lightnings and Thunderbolts, but as far as I can see, certain Japanese planes, particularly early Oscars, actually benefit from giving the enemy the initial dive in exchange for fighting at low altitude, where they have the greates MVR advantage. In my current game Oscars sweeping at 15k generally massacre Warhawks and Airacobras, flying CAP higher, with 2:1 in my favor being about the best Allies can do. And score 1:1 against Hurricanes. While this might be a result of better Japanese pilots (I approach on-map training very seriously, and IJAAF has a massive reserve of Air 67-71, Defense about 60 pilots by May of 1942), Oscars never did that well against me in my previous PBEM as Allies, where we played the stratoshere air combat game.

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 679
RE: Encounter - 10/20/2010 4:32:47 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline 		I don't confuse escort disadvantage which, as you say, is hardcoded with dive bonus. It is merely that one cannot do anything about a hard-coded disadvantage ( except assign escorts to sweep and hope they sweep at the same time as the bombers go in becoming an extempore escort ) and so I don't mention it. My focus is on the things one can impact through tactical dispositioning.


I think you would be hard-pressed to find that result with Oscars vs well-trained Allied pilots. in April 1942 I ONLY added 70+ A2A skill pilots to my USAAF squadrons. The British and USN had to make do with, generally, 65+ A2A skill pilots. I find that when my opponent sweeps at 15,000 feet he loses more Oscars than I lose P-40s. Given that I am flying high I would suggest that the difference must be due to the Allied experience with mine being much higher than your opponents. Vs Hurris I expect better than 1:1 exchange rates in favour of my Hurris as every hit is pretty much a kill.

Overall I find that while exploiting MVR bands works it doesn't counter-act the effect of continuously arriving Allied planes being added to the CAP at high altitude and continually diving on the "low and slow" IJAAF and IJNAF fighters. On the other hand I've done as much as possible to create that steady stream of fighters arriving AFTER the Japanese have dived.... Many of my bases have no more than 10%CAP with many squadrons on 0% CAP purely in order to create and gain the advantage of this effect. I accept an initial disadvantage in order to gain the long-term advantage.

I certainly haven't noticed the Japanese doing better AFTER the dive when they are at their favoured MVR bands. What I tend to see is them being dived on time after time after time as more Allied planes join the CAP and getting damaged and eventually shot down as the number of dive attacks pretty much guarantees some Allied pilots will get lucky and get a kill. I think though that you may be seeing fewer dives on your Oscars than I subject my opponent to. I think that would make quite a large difference.


If you are seeing good kill rates I would imagine that his experience must be poor and I would also imagine you are seeing most of his CAP already in the air when the battle begins with, proportionally, few later joiners., In my battles the late joiners can be up to 80% of the Allied planes involved. I imagine you wouldn't be seeing that at all in your game though - and that is, I think, another important contributor to the difference.

< Message edited by Nemo121 -- 10/20/2010 4:38:08 PM >

_____________________________

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

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 680
RE: Encounter - 10/20/2010 4:47:32 PM   
Rainer79

 

Posts: 603
Joined: 10/31/2008
From: Austria
Status: offline 		Seing as my game is mentioned (and seemingly the Turkey Shoot over Northern New Guinea), I thought that I should post my opinion on this matter for whatever it is worth.

Naturally it was a masterful plan, perfectly executed and only the devilish RNG thwarted it.

Or perhaps not.

But I'll come to that later. Nemo raises some good points in his post but also makes a couple of assumptions that IMO are questionable - or has discovered some way to manipulate the game mechanics that are yet unknown to me in which case I really would like to know them.

-) Sweeping the invasion hex or fleet is the first one. Since the sweep mission does get a bonus against CAP it is a very good choice theoretically but the problem is that you cannot sweep your own airfields or enemy task forces it is not easy to accomplish. I guess setting fighters on escort and trying your best to make coordination unsuccessful might be the only way but it is not a very reliable one.

-) Using SCTFs to lengthen the time the invasion has to stay in the hex. That is not a bad idea at all but in AE it seems to be a lot harder to pull off. Castor's APAs and LSTs can unload a corps of troops + a ton of supplies within a single day so the SCTFs would have to be pre-positioned and re-fueled just correctly. The fact that 4Es on 1k ft naval attack make Betties look positively tame might holding them there for any period of time ...difficult.

-) Attriting the US CAGs is also a lot harder than in theory. In this case castor rarely uses his carrier bombers at all (leaving suppression to the 4Es) and without them having to escort strikes reducing the 120 Hellcats/month is not an easy task.

-) Layered CAP does indeed help against sweeps but it works not perfectly (at least for me). I have seen that more often than not the strato-sweepers engage the highest squadron first, then dive on the next one and so on. There is also the fact that sweeping leaking CAP can easily erode the defender's best advantage - numbers. Thanks to the wonderful feature that most sweeping squadrons come in one after another they each will face a small number of opponents that can be outnumbered, dived on and shot down with impunity. LRCAP isn't an effective answer either if there are say 6 bases around the target base in question. But I would love to hear your suggestions on this matter.


Back to that battle:

The single portion of the game where I think the RNG did screw me over was not related to the ata combat but rather the weather. Instead of the predicted sunshine the US fleet was rained in which did not help accuracy at all. But there was nothing I can do about that.

What I wanted to achieve was pretty much what happened - an opportunity to strike against the USN carriers without any (or at least limited if a couple of carriers reacted) retaliation. I think my biggest mistake was not trusting my gut feeling and holding the IJN SAGs back during the night (they could have reached the carriers but not the invasion fleet IIRC). I correctly predicted the position of the carriers but kept telling myself that castor would surely move them a hex or two laterally to avoid a surface intercept. It would have been a bloody night but certainly worthwhile during the day phase.

I can't really say much about the ata phase except that less fighters than expected flew. OTOH they were available to combat the USN heavies so I won't complain. One thing that could have helped would have been switching bomber daitais with fighters. I understand that some people like Nemo like to do this routinely but this is something I personally find gamey and is therefore not an option for me.

I did expect brutal losses - and was not disappointed there - even if the hits scored were meagre. OTOH the IJN also lost nothing critical. Both airframes and trained pilots can be produced and replaced in quantity and I gained valuable experience and information to better set up the next engagment. And perhaps then a couple of Netties might decide to leave their cosy hangars and fly against the invasion fleet.

BTW castor likes to place his carriers (and SAGs) in front of the invasion TFs which might make your suggested plan for dealing with them a bit awkward.

Just my € 0,02.

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 681
RE: Encounter - 10/20/2010 4:55:13 PM   
Nemo121


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

1. Umm, I've been able to sweep my own hexes. There's a bit of fiddling to get it right but it can be done. Also you can get sweeping fighters to go along as escorts too ( but without the inbuilt escort disadvantage and with all the height advantage you want ) if you co-ordinate things right.

2. SC TF placement. Aye, never said it would be easy . It is tough to get right but easier than taking on the USN CVs with inferior planes and numbers and pilots.

3. Attriting the US CAGs... Planes with poor pilots are pretty useless. If you could down 400 USN fighters over 3 months over your own territory then I doubt the USN pilot reserves of really good pilots ( 70+ ) are going to stretch that deeply. I happen to think that 400 plane goal is quite doable if you fight a defensive fight.

4. Layered CAP. Layered CAP on its own isn't enough. Layer it AND have the late-arrivers be your highest layers. That's the implication of what I was talking about above... and it works.

5. If he places his CVs in front of the invasion TF then you just set up your strike to come in from "behind" his invasion TF. If he puts his CVs west of the invasion TF then you put your CVs 8 hexes east of them. Does it take skill to avoid being spotted etc etc? Sure but it is doable.


Aye the bad weather was unlucky for you. Overall though my main input re: the battle was just to point out that Castor's view that shooting down so many of your planes in response to so few of his wasn't quite as unlikely as he seems to have thought it to be. Good luck next time you bring him to battle.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Rainer79)
Post #: 682
RE: Encounter - 10/20/2010 5:33:41 PM   
FatR

 

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

ORIGINAL: Nemo121
If you are seeing good kill rates I would imagine that his experience must be poor and I would also imagine you are seeing most of his CAP already in the air when the battle begins with, proportionally, few later joiners., In my battles the late joiners can be up to 80% of the Allied planes involved. I imagine you wouldn't be seeing that at all in your game though - and that is, I think, another important contributor to the difference.

That is probably a contributing factor. IIRC, my only outright fighter defeat to this point had many Allied late joiners (but then again, my fighters were simply heavily outnumbered there). The pilot quality likely makes the biggest difference. And concentration of forces/their tactical use is a factor too - I haven't read this AAR entirely, but your opponent seems to be too fond of single-group sweeps and allowing strikes to go into enemy-controlled airspace without accompanying sweeps.

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 683
RE: Encounter - 10/20/2010 5:47:40 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline 		He's had problems with co-ordination but by the same token he has mounted a few 50+ escort attacks and mounted a few days of 100+ to 200+ fighter sweeps. Unfortunately for him I declined most of those battles and, instead, chose to fight him only where he was weak.

BY concentrating 200 fighters in one place it meant he created other places he only had 20 or 30 and so I avoided the 200 and hit the 20 or 30. So it looks like he is choosing to send those poorly escorted strikes in vs my CAP but really he is being manipulated into it a lot of the time. To be fair though, when he concentrated his force apart from a 3 or 4 day portion of time recently I've always chosen to run away and look for easier prey.


Pilot quality is, overall, the biggest factor, I agree.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 684
New game.... - 10/22/2010 5:42:32 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline 		While this game is continuing I have had an abiding interest in an end of war scenario. Unfortunately there is no end of war grand campaign but AndyMac's Downfall scenario forms an excellent starting point for an EA mini-mod.

I'm not going to touch anything in the scenario except to decide that in mid-43 the Japanese saw this sort of situation developing and planned accordingly, converting their SS to SSTs and minelayers, accelerating and expanding Ohka production etc.

1. Adding the Ki-264 series of bombers/transport/recon planes to the mix. I will substitute 2 x Ohkas for the HS-293s in EA to better represent the desparate backs to the wall situation Japan found itself in in 1945. Each Ki-264 would have been easily able to handle 2 x Ohkas. I will also reduce the range of the torpedo-carrying version but give it more armour in return. I think that's a reasonable trade-off. Each Ki-264 will still cost 6 engines to produce and these will be of the latest engine type.

2. I will remove the requirement for engines to make the Ki-115 and its naval variant.

3. I will change some of the IJN subs to minelaying versions and convert most of the rest to SSTs.

4. The biggest change is that I plan to rationalise IJNAAF and IJAAF production.
The rules I will follow will be as follows:
a) engines can be swapped within a "generation"

E.g. Engines which began production in 1941 can be swapped to any other engine type which began production in 1941 at no cost and with no loss in productivity prior to game start ( I will use the editor for this ).

So, Mitsubishi Ha32s can be switched to Ha33s since both were available in December 1941 BUT neither the Mitsubishi Ha32 or Ha33 could be switched to Nakajima Ha44s since the Nakajima Ha44 only entered service in 1943.

I will make all engines in the game which enter production after September 1st 1945 ( the Mistubishi Ha42, NE Turbojet and Toko Rocket ) producible from September 1st 1945. This won't have any impact on production or the ability to swap production except for the NE turbojet but you'd have to be mad to make lots of them anyways. The overall effect of this is that Japan will be forced to produce older airframes because it simply won't have enough modern engines to produce nothing but the most modern planes...


b) Airplane production can be rationalised WITHIN a plane airframe type.
E.g. If I wished to produce lots of AB6N2as ( 40 are made ) I could swap the 36 B6N2s to B6N2as within the editor at no cost. I could not, however, swap the 76 B6N2 and B6N2as produced to B7Ns as the B7N is a different airframe entirely.
Also, this means that the 68 G3M3s being produced per month cannot be swapped to G4Ms or any other plane type without cost.


c) On the other hand production of any plane type can be "scrapped" and the number of factories "scrapped" can be changed to produce another airframe type BUT they must begin the game in a damaged state and will be repaired in-game as per normal rules.

E.g. If I decide the G3M3 is useless I could decide to scrap all 68 G3M3s and add another 68 G4M2a factories ( but these factories would all have to be damaged and would have to repair in-game at a cost in supply etc ).

So, basically, Japan gets to continue producing plane types and optimise them for the most useful subtypes for free and with no delay in production (upgrading A6M2 to A6M5 ) but if it wants to upgrade airframes to vastly newer airframes ( e.g. G3Ms modernised to P4Y Frances then it must "scrap" the G3M production line and replace it with an equivalent number of damaged P4Y factories which will repair in-game. This is exactly how things work in-game at present but doing it in the editor will simplify my planning process and make sure I don't forget something when the game starts. One exception is the Ki-115. If I wished I could scrap the G3M3 production and just make 68 x Ki-115s instead. The reasoning is that the Ki-115 could be made by woodcarvers and didn't really require much expertise at all so switching production should be pretty easy.

Apart from this I'll be ensuring that land-based IJNAF and IJAAF squadrons can fly eachothers fighters and bombers ( particularly in terms of making the torpedo-carrying IJAAF bombers available to the IJNAF ). That's just a bit of common sense.



Pilot experience and training:
On both sides I'm going to reduce the number of replacements by 50% and increase pilot experience x 100% ( up to a maximum of 80% ). This means that the Allies simply won't have to worry about on-map training as they will get, roughly, 1296 pilots of 80 Exp per month. The Japanese will get 548 pilots of 70 Exp per month and so will still have to worry about pilot experience if they want to do well.

Ohkas and mines:
I'll increase mine production for both sides to make minelayers useful. I'll also increase Ohka production so it doesn't prevent G4M3es being useful.


IJA AAA:
I will be adding a small number of IJA Heavy AAA Regiments. These will join the game at something like 10% TO&E and will have to built up in order to be useful. SO the Japanese player won't get them for free. On the other hand if the Japanese player plays well those AAA units can become formidable.


So, apart from the Ki-115 change and the Ki-264 family addition, some sub conversions and the AAA the Japanese won't be getting anything "new" or extra. They will get some increased flexibility in terms of production and usage. Both sides will benefit from the change to pilot training as managing pilot training for thousands of pilots can be really annoying.


In return for the above changes the Allies will get a significant increase to their bomber replacement rates. I'm thinking of an across the board 25% increase to bomber replacements. Fighter replacements will remain the same for land-based fighters but CV-based fighters will also be increased somewhat. This should allow the Allies to attack into increased fighter opposition. Overall the Allies get about 1,200 fighters per month in 44 and that increases in 45.



Now, with that explained, I'm looking for someone willing to start a game. I would prefer to play as Japan since I want to see how I can manage a defence vs a massive number of Allied CVs and overwhelming force ;-). It seems that people are getting 7 or 8 :1 wins vs the AI and are handily able to defeat the Japanese vs a human player ( assuming they don't sail too close to Japan with a CV TF before battering its defences into the dust with LBA ).

I would prefer that the person who wishes to command the Allies would have an interest in doing an AAR as I would be planning to do an AAR myself. I would also like a third party to hold both passwords to ensure against anyone dropping out.

In terms of house rules... If Japan is going to survive at all it'll only be through nasty, dirty fighting so it would be churlish not to allow the Allies to do the same. So, as far as I'm concerned anything goes. Please though, before thinking of accepting the Allied position be sure you are comfortable with an anything goes game. Suicide TFs into invasion hexes to disrupt unloading, bombers flying at 100 feet to avoid radar, kamis at max altitude above your CAP etc, 1000 B-29s bombing from a Level 4 airfield at night and destroying 200 fighters on the ground. ANYTHING goes.



So, fancy beating up on a pretty helpless Japan with no navy to speak of ( I have 1 BB, 2 CAs and about 4 CVs ) but a fearsome number of land-based planes? No rules except a ban on exploiting game bugs. 1 turn per day and dual AARs preferrable. PM me if interested.

Again though, please DO be aware of what a no rules game means. Of course since the Allies have 24 CVs, some 26 CVLs and about 48 CVEs at game start and 29 BBs as well as about 300 DDs there's every chance you'll get to do unto me before I get to do unto you. ON the other hand I am rather sneaky at times.

< Message edited by Nemo121 -- 10/22/2010 5:44:11 PM >

_____________________________

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 #: 685
RE: New game.... - 10/22/2010 5:49:49 PM   
traskott


Posts: 1546
Joined: 6/23/2008
From: Valladolid, Spain
Status: offline 		Interesting concept...I'll follow it closel.

No EA from December 1941?

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 686
RE: New game.... - 10/22/2010 5:55:33 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline 		Aye, there will be....

Four things are holding it up:
1. The next patch is supposed to bring some significant changes to the A2A model and there is a possibility there might be significant changes in there to aspects which would particularly impact on EA.

2. I think there may be some aspects which impact on Allied on-map production in the patch.

3. I want to check my thinking re: late-war air combat. Consider this very small mini-mod and game to be my testing of that concept.

4. I've tested some more and I think late-war Allied FlAK may well be understated.... not so much against ordinary attacks but against kamis... This could cripple any late-war game but I want to test it so I have data before I commit to that view.


If the patch isn't out by the beginning of December then no matter what I'll release EA by the end of the month. I'm happy with it insofar as testing goes.

_____________________________

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 #: 687
RE: New game.... - 10/22/2010 8:33:20 PM   
Capt. Harlock


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

ON the other hand I am rather sneaky at times.


No! . . . Really??

The addition of the Ki-264 (one of your favorites) does make things interesting. I'm not sure the additional armor is realistic, because later in the war the Japanese had a serious shortage of the alloying elements needed to make high strength-to-weight steels. For the Allies, cannon-armed F8F Bearcats would not be available to USN CV's until at least late 1945, but after the first encounter, it might be reasonable to allow American fighter-bombers to use their rockets as air-to-air weapons.

_____________________________

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 Nemo121)
Post #: 688
RE: New game.... - 10/22/2010 8:34:30 PM   
d0mbo

 

Posts: 592
Joined: 8/21/2009
From: Holland
Status: offline 		Nemo,

thanks for your elaborate reply. Some insights in there I hadn't realized myself before.

On thing bothers me though> how do you sweep own hexes? Or does that involve some settings that arent WAD? Or maybe it's your secret and dont want to share...

Anyway: thanks for the pointers!

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 689
RE: New game.... - 10/23/2010 4:49:47 AM   
n01487477


Posts: 4779
Joined: 2/21/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

... Now, with that explained, I'm looking for someone willing to start a game. I would prefer to play as Japan since I want to see how I can manage a defence vs a massive number of Allied CVs and overwhelming force ;-). It seems that people are getting 7 or 8 :1 wins vs the AI and are handily able to defeat the Japanese vs a human player ( assuming they don't sail too close to Japan with a CV TF before battering its defences into the dust with LBA ).

I would prefer that the person who wishes to command the Allies would have an interest in doing an AAR as I would be planning to do an AAR myself. I would also like a third party to hold both passwords to ensure against anyone dropping out.

In terms of house rules... ANYTHING goes.
...

If I had time & experience handling the Allied war machine I'd gladly take up the mantle. Alas I do not but let me say to prospective players, playing Nemo121 is a helluva experience.

Having said that I think the prospective player should have:
  • Worn green for a long time. Lighter shades of brown or yellow are also acceptable. Mixing and matching is encouraged even cross-dressing will have given you a flair for what works for you.
  • Memorised the entire posting history of Nemo's tips and tricks. But having read Machiavelli, Clauswitz, Shakespeare's tragedies or other obscure papers on military tactics in a foreign tongue may be considered.
  • Been divorced at least once... cause "Anything goes"!
  • Been remarried cause you don't have commitment issues.
  • Been accused by significant other of being "hard to read".
  • Been recruited by MI-5 as a double agent and a proponent in misinformation. You tell your partner you're a used car salesman.
  • No links to wiki-leaks.
  • Learned in German and Russian language and tactics. Those having spent some "reflection" time in a Siberian Gulag, need not apply.
  • The ability to quote "Black Adder" or be Adder-esque would be highly prized.
  • Thinks Patton, MacArthur, Rommel, Genghis Khan and Alexander were all pussies. Wakes to the sound of "Ride of the Valkyries".
  • Organised at least a 5 day - 20 city Asian tour with young children in(en?)-tow.
  • Or alternatively have cheated on a mistress who has the calibre of Portman, Hepburn (either one) or Judd; cause it's never enough for you.. Sitting on your laurels should result in immediate termination of said contract.
  • You were not the skipper of the HMS Astute(how ironic), with a lot more time on his hands now.
  • Have considered selling your Grandmother or other close relatives and thinks that it's an acceptable & necessary loss. Hence no attachment issues or namby-pamby feelings of digital regret.
  • Committed to:
    quote:

    This story shall the good man teach his son; (AAR wise)
    And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by,
    From this day to the ending of the world,
    But we in it shall be remembered-
    We few, we happy few, we band of brothers; (hopefully not too few - see previous post)
    For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
    Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,

  • And above all you like to play to learn & have fun.

    Enjoy

    < Message edited by n01487477 -- 10/23/2010 4:50:04 AM >

    _____________________________

    -Damian-
    EconDoc
    TrackerAE
    Tutes&Java

    (in reply to Nemo121)
    • Post #: 690
    Page:   <<   < prev  21 22 [23] 24 25   next >   >>
    All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> On the vagaries of one of three sisters.... Page: <<   < prev  21 22 [23] 24 25   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

    2.875