RE: The butcher's bill

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: The butcher's bill

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: The butcher's bill

Page: << < prev 19 20 [21] 22 23 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: The butcher's bill - 9/17/2010 12:10:17 PM

CapAndGown

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR

One thing that seems completely pointless to me is turning off HI. Keeping the aircrafr production limited until advanced late-war types become available is sensible, but once HI points are in the pool, they are not going anywhere and when Home Islands are blockaded you don't need any fuel for the merchant fleet there anyway. And the Navy should go the bottom before allowing such situation to happen.

So your recommendation is to not build up stockpiles of resources? You recommend turning the fleet into Kamikaze's and then resign? That is not the way I intend to play at all.

< Message edited by cap_and_gown -- 9/17/2010 12:12:16 PM >

(in reply to FatR)

Post #: 601

RE: The butcher's bill - 9/17/2010 12:18:52 PM

Rainer79

Posts: 603
Joined: 10/31/2008
From: Austria
Status: offline

If you want to conserve resources, I'd rather turn off LI instead of HI as your supply situation seems to be excellent anyway. Tokyo's LI alone will result in a noticeable drop of consumption.

(in reply to CapAndGown)

Post #: 602

RE: The butcher's bill - 9/17/2010 12:22:40 PM

CapAndGown

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rainer79

If you want to conserve resources, I'd rather turn off LI instead of HI as your supply situation seems to be excellent anyway. Tokyo's LI alone will result in a noticeable drop of consumption.

When I said resources, I meant fuel mostly. Basically, FatR is recommending running the Empire lean, burning the fleet up to keep the lines to the DEI open, and when that fails, resign. No thank you.

(in reply to Rainer79)

Post #: 603

RE: The butcher's bill - 9/17/2010 1:22:12 PM

Rainer79

Posts: 603
Joined: 10/31/2008
From: Austria
Status: offline

Ahh, keeping fuel under "resources" might lead to some confusion.

Turning off LI to reduce the number of needed resource convoys, will also indirectly help fuel consumption so it still might be something to consider.

Even then I would never turn off HI as its product is (safely from enemy bombers) stored in the pool. If you have a given finite number of fuel reserves, then it does not matter if you burn them as soon as possible or draw that process out over a longer period of time. The end result of total HI points produced will still be the same, only during the second approach the allies have more time to bomb the plants into rubble.

The needs of the navy could slightly complicate the picture but IMO it isn't too much of a stretch to say that they will be taken from the DEI itself anyway, leaving the home islands' reserves alone. Or it is located at the bottom of the ocean as FatR suggests but then it won't need fuel either.

I am more of a fan of the cap and gown approach but I realize that there a different players with different styles out there.

Just my � 0,02.

(in reply to CapAndGown)

Post #: 604

RE: The butcher's bill - 9/17/2010 1:54:31 PM

Chickenboy

Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

Hi cap_n_gown,

Thanks for the production update. Looks like things are going swimmingly for you. Are you playing scenario 1 or 2? If the former, your feat is even more remarkable.

I think maybe what FatR is suggesting is using existing home island-based superfluous xAKs and xAPs as fuel stores for fleet combatants. Q-ball did some calculations a ways back about exactly how much fuel was sitting in HI supply shipping bunkers. It's stunning-well over 1,000,000 tons of fuel available for fleet uses. I intend to do this 'near the end' when xAKs and their lot are more restricted to home waters and less useful ferrying unnecessary resources, fuel or oil back home.

Nice punch in the mouth in the Marshalls (I'm referring to your carrier strike). A couple more of these 'victories' for your opponent and he's going to have some 'splainin' to do before a board of inquiry. His choices subsequently may be whether he wants a blindfold, a cigarette, both or neither.

_____________________________

(in reply to Rainer79)

Post #: 605

RE: The butcher's bill - 9/17/2010 3:02:06 PM

FatR

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: cap_and_gown
So your recommendation is to not build up stockpiles of resources? You recommend turning the fleet into Kamikaze's and then resign? That is not the way I intend to play at all.

Building up stockpiles of fuel by not producing HI points is completely meaningless, because all you need fuel for, besides moving the fleet around, is producing HI points (as about resources, you already have more than you can spend).

As about sending the Navy to die, the question is not "if", but "when". Sacrificing the fleet when it can slow down the Allied advance towards Japanese communications and bases for the strategic bombing is meaningful. Once Allies achieve both of these goals, the condition of IJN becomes mostly irrelevant. It won't be able to stage a counteroffensive of sufficient strength to push Allies back or cut their spearhead off, so it won't really matter. But every month naval communications with SRA remains open and Home Islands indusrty unbombed means increase in sum total of HI points Japan can produce throughout the war.

Also, don't put words in my mouth.

< Message edited by FatR -- 9/17/2010 3:05:58 PM >

(in reply to CapAndGown)

Post #: 606

RE: The butcher's bill - 9/17/2010 3:36:23 PM

Q-Ball

Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

I think maybe what FatR is suggesting is using existing home island-based superfluous xAKs and xAPs as fuel stores for fleet combatants. Q-ball did some calculations a ways back about exactly how much fuel was sitting in HI supply shipping bunkers. It's stunning-well over 1,000,000 tons of fuel available for fleet uses. I intend to do this 'near the end' when xAKs and their lot are more restricted to home waters and less useful ferrying unnecessary resources, fuel or oil back home.

The calculations were not exact, but a swag. There's alot of gas there though. The ADEN-Class alone, which is the most common xAK and also pretty much a "Mid-Size", has 1,146 in fuel. If you have upwards of 800+ AK/AP, that's close to a Million Tons sitting in ships bunkers.

Of course you can't pull that out and put it in a factory, but you CAN either:

1. Only run transports that have GAS, and dock all the ones that don't. Permanently. You can just rotate through your Resource convoys, and dock ships that are low on fuel; don't refuel them.
2. Use them to "Replenish at Sea" with Warships in the hex. Realistically, it's hard to get 100% of the gas out, but 50%, or about 500,000 tons, is certainly doable.

You are right that this is a 1945 expedient. If you need to do this in 1943, you are in really deep trouble.

As a side note, did you notice that new ship construction comes with a full tank of gas, whether you have fuel or not? So, theoretically, you can use HI points to "create" fuel that way, though that's a pretty expensive way to do it. I'm just saying.

_____________________________

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 607

RE: The butcher's bill - 9/17/2010 5:51:05 PM

CapAndGown

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

I typed a long response here earlier, but then the connection went down before I could post, so I hope I can recreate my earlier comments here:

The point of shutting down the big Tokyo factory was to save on fuel, both globally, and locally. As can be seen when comparing the graph on HI and the graph on Fuel, my fuel stocks were slowly diminishing until I turned off some HI production. I need that fuel for my fleet operations. Indeed, I want a stockpile of fuel so that I can keep running the fleet and industry even if access to the DEI is cut off.

I would also like to build up stocks of fuel specifically in the Home Islands so that the fleet can operate there. That was very hard to do whilst the Home Island HI factories were running at full blast. That created a deficit of over 4k tons of fuel per turn just for HI production, let alone what the fleet was using.

By shutting down the big HI factory at Tokyo, then, my production of fuel per turn now exceeds factory consumption by 15k globally and in the Home Islands by 1.3k. Fuel stocks can now be much more easily built up both in the Home Islands and elsewhere. Indeed, I have been squirreling away fuel in such locations at Mindanao, Luzon, Morotai, Taiwan, and Babeldoab (plus Rabaul).

My goal here is to loosen the tether between the DEI and the rest of the empire. I want each region to be able to stand on its own and continue production and servicing of the fleet even if the LOC between regions is cut. I did more or less the same thing with resources: to build up the stock pile of resources on Honshu I turned off the LI factories at Tokyo and Osaka and as the resource stockpile began to approach the 200 day mark these factories were turned back on. The same may happen in HI production, but not until I have a very large stockpile of fuel on Honshu and elsewhere, where I feel the fleet and the factories can both operate for a long time without the need for additions from the DEI.

A stockpile 1,500,000 HI points is a rather large buffer. 3,300,000 tons of fuel is not. I am always astounded at just how fast my carriers and battleships suck down fuel. I will not be happy until the stockpile of fuel is much greater.

(in reply to Q-Ball)

Post #: 608

RE: The butcher's bill - 9/17/2010 5:57:56 PM

CapAndGown

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

Sept. 26, 1943

Just a quick update to note that during the replay I heard the sounds of a sub sinking, making this the fourth confirmed allied sub to be sunk by my ASW AC! Go Helen!

(in reply to CapAndGown)

Post #: 609

RE: The butcher's bill - 9/17/2010 7:29:01 PM

FatR

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

Ah, sorry. Looks like I misunderstood the purpose of your fuel-saving measures from your earlier posts.

(in reply to CapAndGown)

Post #: 610

Praise be to Helen - 9/18/2010 1:13:19 AM

CapAndGown

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

Sept. 28, 1943

I can't believe it: for the second turn in a row, my ASW AC sank another allied sub! This time, not only do I have aural confirmation, but visual and textual. Visual in the sense that the hex the sub was in during the combat phase is empty during the order phase, textual in the sense that a sub is recorded as having been sunk in that hex today. Here there is a slight contradiction, with the Helens reporting attacking the KVXI and the text claiming it was the Permit. Whichever it was, it was great to hear that sub going down.

Even though the estimates on repair times for my ships indicated that all the carriers would be ready today, the Shokaku was still under repair with 1 point of sys damage.

Rats. I need the KB to get under way. I am sure that an invasion of either Enewetok or Ponape is immanent. Allied subs are streaming east from Truk. I assume that means they are setting up a screen of the next invasion target, and their ain't that many to chose from (unless, I guess, he is going south in the direction of the Gilberts). I did take advantage of the delay to upgrade another Zero squadron to the A6M5 model, and another Kate squadron to the B6N2 Jill.

Assault strength at Truk is now up to 1000. I still have room there for another division. I just may send one there. Some more aviation support would be nice too; right now I have 120 aviation support.

< Message edited by cap_and_gown -- 9/18/2010 2:12:09 AM >

(in reply to FatR)

Post #: 611

RE: Praise be to Helen - 9/18/2010 3:30:39 AM

CapAndGown

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

The Japanese investment in R&D for P-3 Orions is really beginning to pay off.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to CapAndGown)

Post #: 612

RE: Praise be to Helen - 9/18/2010 3:55:12 AM

krupp_88mm

Posts: 406
Joined: 10/13/2008
Status: offline

your going to hold up the entire fleet for just one sys damage.. seems crazy to me that one day might be your opportunity lost, this sounds like another case of your OCD in preserving ships taking the better of you, shove her off

(in reply to CapAndGown)

Post #: 613

RE: Praise be to Helen - 9/18/2010 4:39:24 AM

Chickenboy

Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: cap_and_gown

The Japanese investment in R&D for P-3 Orions is really beginning to pay off.

ETA: You're M.A.D., sez I, M.A.D....

< Message edited by Chickenboy -- 9/18/2010 4:40:00 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to CapAndGown)

Post #: 614

RE: Praise be to Helen - 9/18/2010 6:58:37 AM

CapAndGown

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: krupp_88mm

your going to hold up the entire fleet for just one sys damage.. seems crazy to me that one day might be your opportunity lost, this sounds like another case of your OCD in preserving ships taking the better of you, shove her off

You don't understand: I can't just grab the ship since it is not in readiness mode. It would take it two days to switch from stood down to readiness mode no matter what I did. I don't have any choice but to wait.

(in reply to krupp_88mm)

Post #: 615

RE: The butcher's bill - 9/18/2010 12:51:52 PM

KenchiSulla

Posts: 2948
Joined: 10/22/2008
From: the Netherlands
Status: offline

If you lower your HI production to build up fuel it means you are more flexible compared to just being out of fuel and having a lot of HI in pool....

In my book that is a good decision....

_____________________________

AKA Cannonfodder

"It happened, therefore it can happen again: this is the core of what we have to say. It can happen, and it can happen everywhere.�
� Primo Levi, writer, holocaust survivor

(in reply to FatR)

Post #: 616

RE: The butcher's bill - 9/18/2010 11:07:23 PM

CapAndGown

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

Sept. 29, 1943

Roi-Namur fell to the allies today. An allied fleet is heading to Enewetok. I looked into the possibility of trying to intercept the invasion with surface forces, but they are far enough away that the invasion fleet can be in and out before my ships arrive.

The KB set sail today. It is heading for the Mariana's where it will meet up with the CVE group. It is three days sailing to the Mariana's, during which time the allies will be invading Enewetok. Hopefully, the allies will be ready to move on Ponape very soon after that. I am ready to rock and roll.

(in reply to KenchiSulla)

Post #: 617

RE: The butcher's bill - 9/19/2010 11:11:33 PM

CapAndGown

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

Sept. 30, 1943

Holy Cow! Another allied sub sunk by Japanese AC. This is the 3rd in 4 days and the 6th confirmed sinking overall. Time to reload the sonobouys!

Allies capture Enewetok with the 138 (sep) regiment.

KB is about one day sailing from northern Marianas.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to CapAndGown)

Post #: 618

RE: The butcher's bill - 9/20/2010 1:38:08 PM

FatR

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

Impressive ASW results. In my own game I see reported hits against subs every turn, but it doesn't look like much if any of them are real, looking how many reported hits against PTs ans such are obviously fake (one PT was reported hit three turns in a row... hopefully at least the third time was real). When I was playing as Allies, Japanese planes attacked my subs 2-3 times per turn and sank maybe 2 in several months.

Can you tell us more about your pilots' skills and altitude/range settings for ASW missions?

(in reply to CapAndGown)

Post #: 619

RE: The butcher's bill - 9/20/2010 2:27:20 PM

CapAndGown

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR

Impressive ASW results. In my own game I see reported hits against subs every turn, but it doesn't look like much if any of them are real, looking how many reported hits against PTs ans such are obviously fake (one PT was reported hit three turns in a row... hopefully at least the third time was real). When I was playing as Allies, Japanese planes attacked my subs 2-3 times per turn and sank maybe 2 in several months.

Can you tell us more about your pilots' skills and altitude/range settings for ASW missions?

Altitude = 1 - 2k feet
ASW skill = 60+
Range = maximum
Patrol level = 50%

I get lots of reports of hits, often on the same sub multiple times during the turn, and most of the time it means nothing. Occasionally, a sub will be reported as sunk during the turn and I assume this means it was hit, but not sunk. The only "confirmed" kills are those that have a sound cue associated with them, and in those cases I am often unsure of where the sub was that got hit since there are so many of them and a dozen of them might be attacked during the turn.

(in reply to FatR)

Post #: 620

RE: The butcher's bill - 9/20/2010 4:06:58 PM

castor troy

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: cap_and_gown

Sept. 30, 1943

Holy Cow! Another allied sub sunk by Japanese AC. This is the 3rd in 4 days and the 6th confirmed sinking overall. Time to reload the sonobouys!

Allies capture Enewetok with the 138 (sep) regiment.

KB is about one day sailing from northern Marianas.

guess none of them are actually sunk, you would be lucky to see one of them hit (of those that are reported hit). I�m only one month late in my PBEM compared to your date and while the Japanese received probably hundreds of "hit" messages (and sinkings

) the enemy managed to sink ONE sub so far. And that one went down due to having 69 sys rather than a high flt damage as it started out with 14 or so flt, but the sys was responsible for seeing the flt go dramatically up. But like I�ve said, the enemy sunk one so far and out of a dozen "hits" only perhaps one is a damaging one.

Normally my subs (those that are actually hit by air asw) end up with a dozen sys and perhaps 20 flt damage after taking a bomb "hit"...

< Message edited by castor troy -- 9/20/2010 4:07:56 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to CapAndGown)

Post #: 621

RE: The butcher's bill - 9/20/2010 4:27:59 PM

Rainer79

Posts: 603
Joined: 10/31/2008
From: Austria
Status: offline

Sigh...

Actually I get 3-4 "hit" messages every turn. I am amazed that the US boats actually take so few damage from 250 kg bombs. Combined with the super-charged repair routine there are back in their patrol zone in record time. Still, the ratio is better than against PT boats or LCTs. None of the hundreds of "hits" against those targets seems to have caused damage.

(in reply to castor troy)

Post #: 622

RE: The butcher's bill - 9/20/2010 4:47:38 PM

Q-Ball

Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline

I get FOW and all, but it would be nice if the routine was changed to put the number of bomb hits closer to actual, instead of it being completely bogus.

_____________________________

(in reply to Rainer79)

Post #: 623

RE: The butcher's bill - 9/20/2010 5:55:21 PM

Canoerebel

Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline

By late '43 in my game against Miller, Japanese ASW was hammering Allied subs. By 1944 the carnage inflicted on Allied subs was unbelievable. So, early in the game Japanese ASW is worthless, but late in the game it is potent far beyond what it should be from a historical standpoint.

(in reply to Q-Ball)

Post #: 624

RE: The butcher's bill - 9/20/2010 8:11:23 PM

janh

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

Probably because player put much more emphasis on preparing and training it than historically? Plus, they maybe make much more use of the convoy system, which the Japanese were notoriously slow in bringing to use.

(in reply to Canoerebel)

Post #: 625

The Hunt for Red October - 9/21/2010 1:31:44 AM

CapAndGown

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

Oct. 1, 1943

This is becoming insane. Another allied sub sunk by Japanese AC. Or at least I assume that is what caused a sub to sink. I heard the sinking sound, but I am not sure who sank and who did the sinking. Tracker reports that the Skipjack bought the farm. OK. That may be FOW, but someone sank.

That makes 4 allied subs sunk by AC in 5 days. I know that RNG's generate streaks, but boy, this is weird. Maybe it has to do with the sheer number of subs the allies have out there. There must be dozens and dozens lurking around Truk and still more lurking in the Banda Sea. They are as likely to run into each other as a Japanese ship.

At least the allies got some payback today: the SS Bluefish torpedoed and sank the I-23.

So in the air we have Japanese Orions hunting down and killing allied subs, and at sea we have allied Dallas class SSN's sinking Japanese diesel-electric boats. We seem to be caught in a Tom Clancy novel.

(in reply to janh)

Post #: 626

I hate subs - 9/25/2010 7:57:42 PM

CapAndGown

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

Oct. 6, 1943

I hate subs. Even my own. Sub warfare is not fun. I want to see surface fights and/or carrier fights. Those are interesting. Subs are just plain boring.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub attack near Johnston Island at 159,107

Japanese Ships
SS I-15

Allied Ships
CVL Princeton, Torpedo hits 1, on fire
DD Lansdowne

I have no idea why Princeton was out there. It was on a route that ships returning from the Marshalls to Pearl Harbor would use. I wonder if it was returning to the shipyards to repair damage from a collision? It is listed as sunk, but that is highly improbable. No carrier planes are listed as ground casualties, and one torpedo generally is not enough short of an ammo explosion.

Right now the allies are delivering base forces and engineers to Kusaie Island. This delivery is being covered by the US carriers (minus Princeton, of course). I saw them getting set up for this delivery and was sorely tempted to attack with the KB. Unfortunately, the KB was just far enough away that it did not look like I would be able to guarantee they would be in position at the optimal moment and time. So we bide our time waiting for another opportunity.

I am not sure what the allies are going to do next. They could reinforce Enewetok, since there are no base forces there yet. Or they could go straight for Ponape. That is what I am hoping for. Or they could go south to Naru. For some reason they have been giving Naru a lot of attention with their 4E bomber force. Not sure why. They may be aiming for the supplies. Or they could be worried about its use as an airbase, though why I am not sure.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to CapAndGown)

Post #: 627

RE: I hate subs - 9/25/2010 8:22:33 PM

Chickenboy

Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: cap_and_gown

Oct. 6, 1943

I hate subs. Even my own. Sub warfare is not fun. I want to see surface fights and/or carrier fights. Those are interesting. Subs are just plain boring.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub attack near Johnston Island at 159,107

Japanese Ships
SS I-15

Allied Ships
CVL Princeton, Torpedo hits 1, on fire
DD Lansdowne

I have no idea why Princeton was out there. It was on a route that ships returning from the Marshalls to Pearl Harbor would use. I wonder if it was returning to the shipyards to repair damage from a collision? It is listed as sunk, but that is highly improbable. No carrier planes are listed as ground casualties, and one torpedo generally is not enough short of an ammo explosion.

Right now the allies are delivering base forces and engineers to Kusaie Island. This delivery is being covered by the US carriers (minus Princeton, of course). I saw them getting set up for this delivery and was sorely tempted to attack with the KB. Unfortunately, the KB was just far enough away that it did not look like I would be able to guarantee they would be in position at the optimal moment and time. So we bide our time waiting for another opportunity.

I am not sure what the allies are going to do next. They could reinforce Enewetok, since there are no base forces there yet. Or they could go straight for Ponape. That is what I am hoping for. Or they could go south to Naru. For some reason they have been giving Naru a lot of attention with their 4E bomber force. Not sure why. They may be aiming for the supplies. Or they could be worried about its use as an airbase, though why I am not sure.

Perhaps they're picking on Nauru because its size permits sizeable numbers of defenders? Alternatively, its value as a resource source may be overestimated by an Allied opponent too-he may be picking on its defenders on the mistaken assumption of its resource value to you.

_____________________________

(in reply to CapAndGown)

Post #: 628

RE: I hate subs - 9/27/2010 1:44:26 AM

CapAndGown

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

Oct. 9, 1943

I still hate subs. Good thing I am wounding and killing lots of them!

Another allied sub was sunk this turn. Not sure by whom or where, just heard the sinking sound. Over the last few turns we have had several subs listed as being sunk by 250kg bombs. Most of that is no doubt BS. But it probably does mean we are getting hits. I had an ASW TF severely damage the Halibut. Interestingly, Halibut was also attacked by Helens and is listed as being sunk by a 250kg bomb, not a depth charge. I guess bombs are bigger. OTOH, no sinking sound and the icon was still there during the orders phase. So who knows?

Right now this is just a numbers game. I can see 21 subs this turn between Guam and the Admiralty Islands. if this is just 1/4 of the subs in that region, then there may be 100 of them out there. Add in the subs in the Banda Sea, those around the Solomons, and those up near Japan and yeah, we are going to be getting a lot of hits. When there are that many subs out there my pilots could drop rocks at random intervals and probably hit something once and a while.

Well, this makes 7 subs most likely sunk by AC, and 5 in the last 2 weeks.

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 629

RE: I hate subs - 10/2/2010 2:40:39 AM

CapAndGown

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

Oct. 13, 1943

Another allied sub sunk by AC. Good thing my AC can sink them, because nothing else can, apparently. Just lost an APD to a British sub. Mostly my ASW ships fail to prosecute attacks against subs they find. Currently I am trying to smother the Seawolf, which is just off Singapore, with something like 8-9 ASW TFs. Even though it is shallow water, I have not had any luck.

Allies have been invading some dot bases around the Marshalls, such as Bikini. Not sure why. They also continue to bomb Nauru. Again, I don't know why. The allied carriers are currently just west of Kwajalein. I am hoping that an invasion of Ponape is about to kick off. I am getting impatient. I have worked out a counter attack plan that I very much would like to implement as soon as possible.

(in reply to CapAndGown)

Post #: 630