RE: Bollocks

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: Bollocks

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: Bollocks

Page: << < prev 27 28 [29] 30 31 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Bollocks - 11/13/2010 7:18:46 PM

CapAndGown

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

Here is a look at the Solomon Sea.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to CapAndGown)

Post #: 841

RE: Bollocks - 11/13/2010 8:00:03 PM

CapAndGown

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

Here is a look at the Bismark Sea. Now that the allies have conquered the Marshalls, I need to defend the Solomons from both the south and the west. I also have garrisons guarding against airdrops on rear area bases on New Guinea.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to CapAndGown)

Post #: 842

RE: Bollocks - 11/13/2010 8:19:59 PM

CapAndGown

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

Here is a look at Cent Pac. Truk is maxed out with troops. The island will hold a max of 60,000 men. We are at 57,000+. Forts are 87% of the way to level 6. We have 243 engineers there, so any airfield damage should be able to be repaired fairly quickly.

I am considering moving more troops into the Mariana's. This is where I would like to see a decisive carrier/naval battle. I also need to think about where to base reserves for these islands.

Ulithi and Wolei are garrisoned to make it harder for the allies to get bases from which to attack the Mariana's with 4E bombers and to make it harder for them to isolate Truk.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by cap_and_gown -- 11/13/2010 8:20:07 PM >

(in reply to CapAndGown)

Post #: 843

RE: Bollocks - 11/13/2010 9:05:00 PM

CapAndGown

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

Here is a look at the area around the Celebes Sea. The idea here is that any allied thrust that breaks through the Banda Sea or makes its way west across the north coast of New Guinea will aim for Mindanao and into the Sulu Sea. This disposition is meant to slow down any such thrust. OTOH, should the thrust come through Cent Pac using primarily carrier support, it will most likely aim for the central Philippines.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to CapAndGown)

Post #: 844

RE: Bollocks - 11/13/2010 9:13:08 PM

MrPlow9

Posts: 21
Joined: 7/7/2008
From: Vancouver, Canada
Status: offline

Since you are doing amazing so far, any chance in building the Shinano?
BTW, thanks for an incredibly enjoyable AAR!

MrPlow

(in reply to CapAndGown)

Post #: 845

RE: Bollocks - 11/13/2010 9:23:39 PM

CapAndGown

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrPlow9

Since you are doing amazing so far, any chance in building the Shinano?
BTW, thanks for an incredibly enjoyable AAR!

MrPlow

Thank you. I just checked: if I were to accelerate Shinano next turn and keep it accelerated until finished, it would take 541 days to complete. During that time it would cost 471 naval points a day which would be 1413 HI points a day, which is the equivalent of 2826 fuel points per day. I think not.

Now if this were a scenario two game and the Shinano were a Taiho class ship, I would have built it.

(in reply to MrPlow9)

Post #: 846

RE: Bollocks - 11/13/2010 9:32:12 PM

MrPlow9

Posts: 21
Joined: 7/7/2008
From: Vancouver, Canada
Status: offline

quote:

Thank you. I just checked: if I were to accelerate Shinano next turn and keep it accelerated until finished, it would take 541 days to complete. During that time it would cost 471 naval points a day which would be 1413 HI points a day, which is the equivalent of 2826 fuel points per day. I think not. Now if this were a scenario two game and the Shinano were a Taiho class ship, I would have built it.

Ouch, I think you make some good points there haha! Though if you did build it, I think you would make WITP: AE history by being the first.

< Message edited by MrPlow9 -- 11/13/2010 9:33:08 PM >

(in reply to CapAndGown)

Post #: 847

RE: Bollocks - 11/13/2010 9:40:00 PM

CapAndGown

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

Here is a look at western Sumatra. I was very, very concerned about this area before the big carrier battle of Ponape. I am less concerned now. I am maintaining regimental garrisons of many of these bases, but the aviation support here has been evacuated to bolster other regions.

I am going to skip a picture of Java, but I will mention my dispositions there. I have reconsidered my positions on Java. I had regiments garrisoning the southern/western port cities to guard against an amphibious invasion from Australia. I decided that I don't need to do that. First, the allies ability to launch a long range amphibious invasion has been severely crimped because of the battle of Ponape. But another reason is that I can have units reach these bases very quickly should an invasion fleet appear by leaving the units in strat mode while sitting in Sorebaja. That way, they can act as reserves for both Java (using rail move mode) and the rest of the DEI (by ship). This gives me 3 divisions on Java that can act as a theater reserve, plus three naval guard units needed to meet garrison requirements. I also have 6 tank regiments on Java. I am not sure what to do with those. Maybe move them up to Thailand.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to CapAndGown)

Post #: 848

RE: Bollocks - 11/13/2010 10:16:59 PM

cookie monster

Posts: 1693
Joined: 5/22/2005
From: Birmingham,England
Status: offline

Nice and detailed. Thanks from a Jap beginner.

(in reply to CapAndGown)

Post #: 849

RE: Bollocks - 11/13/2010 11:33:59 PM

CapAndGown

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: cookie monster

Nice and detailed. Thanks from a Jap beginner.

Glad I can be of help. That is part of my goal in doing this AAR.

(in reply to cookie monster)

Post #: 850

RE: Bollocks - 11/14/2010 12:01:48 AM

Xxzard

Posts: 440
Joined: 9/28/2008
From: Arizona
Status: offline

It does look pretty good. There isn't any area that I could say you are weak in. Great job distributing so many units and building up all those myriad bases!

_____________________________

(in reply to CapAndGown)

Post #: 851

RE: Bollocks - 11/15/2010 1:37:25 AM

CapAndGown

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

Dec. 3, 1943

Kasagi made it back to Yokohama two turns ago, but that port is busy fixing other carriers. So then it was further up the harbor to Tokyo, but going into the shipyard there would slow down Junyo considerably. So now she will head over to Nagoya, or maybe Hiroshima. At least I don't have to worry about her sinking. Amazing. She survived 3 torpedo hits. I think the key here is there were not many fires or much system damage. It is torpedo hits combined with bomb hits that are most deadly since the torpedoes open up the hull, while the bombs start fires and break the bilge pumps, making it very difficult to do anything about the flooding.

Now for some more info on the state of the war after two years of game time. This post will involve the economy, specifically the state of heavy industry and resources.

Global
Oil . . 2 million
Fuel . . 3.5 million
HI . . 1.5 million

Honshu
Oil . . 1.5 million . . 195 days
Fuel . . 2 million . . 200 days at full production
Resources . 18 million . 212 days at full production
Supply . . 880k

For convoys:
one resource convoy between Fusan and Shimonoseki
two tanker convoys of ~185k each move fuel and oil from Singapore to Fukuoka.

-Two convoys ~56k shuttle between Palembang and Singapore.
-One convoy ~46k shuttles between Miri and Singapore.
-Balikpapan is used to fuel replenishment TFs and general purpose tanker TFs that send fuel to various front line bases line Rabaul, Truk, Guam, etc.
-One CS resource convoy from Billiton to Batavia.
-One 39k convoy for resources from Balikpapan, Kendari, and Makassar to Sorebaja.

9470 HI is produced per turn. This is allocated as follows:

Airframes (1740/month): 1039 HI/day
Engines (2123/month): 1260 HI/day
Vehicles (90/day): 540 HI/day
Armaments (110/day): 660 HI/day
Naval Shipyard (211/day): 633 HI/day
Merchant Shipyard (865/day): 2595 HI/day

As can be seen from the picture below, I have begun to shutdown on some factories to save on resources. Now that the major carrier production is over Naval Shipyards have been scaled way back. Merchant Shipyards are gradually being phased out as well and will become a very small consumer of HI by next March. Most armament production was shutdown in the fall of 1942 leading to a rapid climb in the amount of HI in the pool. Vehicle production has been scaled back some as well. The reduction in HI usage by Naval Shipyards has somewhat been offset by a rapid and continuing increase in airframe/engine production. The big Tokyo HI factory has been shutdown in order to help build up fuel stocks. This has had an unfortunate side effect is causing a drop in supply levels as engine and airframe factories are expanded. OTOH, a great deal of supply has accumulated at Miri, Balikpapan and Palembang due to the refineries. I am picking up this supply with xAKs and redistributing it to needy bases.

Later posts will discuss aircraft and ship production.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Xxzard)

Post #: 852

RE: Bollocks - 11/15/2010 4:20:24 AM

CapAndGown

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

Now for a discussion of airframe/engine production.

The D4Y3 Judy becomes available in February. This model uses the Mitsubishi Ha-33 engine rather than the Aichi Ha-60. Therefore, when the new model Judy become available the two Aichi factories become obsolete. One of them will be switched over to the Nakajima Ha-35 and the other will be switched to the Nakajima Ha-45. This will give me 3 factories for these two engines. Ideally, I would like to have 3 factories for each type of engine.

The Frank and the Tony Id airframes will become available in January. The Frank R&D factories will go straight into production and be expanded. The Tony R&D factories, however, will be upgraded to researching the the Ki-100 as soon as they make the next research advancement. Meanwhile, the factories producing the Ic Tony will upgrade to the Id model.

I expect the J2M3 Jack to become available in February. Once the next advance occurs, these factories will be switched over to the A7M2 Sam. The IJNAF desperately needs a better plane than the Zero and most squadrons cannot upgrade to either the George or Jack.

I am looking to build large stockpiles of engines over the course of 1944. I expect a steady expansion of engine factories for quite some time to come.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by cap_and_gown -- 11/15/2010 4:21:18 AM >

(in reply to CapAndGown)

Post #: 853

RE: Bollocks - 11/16/2010 3:15:52 AM

CapAndGown

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

Dec. 5, 1943

Not much happening. So on to a discussion of my Naval ship building program.

Now that the major carrier construction is done, the number of active naval shipyards have been cut way back. In order to get the 6 Unryu class carriers as early as I did (I accelerated them on Dec. 8, 1942) I did two things: turn off production of all subs, and expand the naval shipyards somewhat. I do not believe subs can help the Japanese cause all that much since allied ASW is very, very deadly. I view the role of subs as mainly intelligence gatherers and as vultures picking off cripples. The IJN starts with 56 subs. These will last a long time if used cautiously. At any rate, I have not spent one naval point on sub construction since the beginning of the war.

Right now my naval shipyard points are being used mainly to build E class boats. I am accelerating the CVL Ibuki. Acceleration on that ship began after the last of the Unryu's came out of the yards. I also have one more CL to build. It will be done in just a few days. Mostly, though, I am accelerating E boats up to the point where they start to build at which point I change them back to normal. I have not had any success with surface ASW. My planes have been killers. But my ASW ships have accomplished very, very little. Nevertheless, I continue to pump out E boats in hopes that they will accomplish something at some point.

I would build MTB's, except that there is a bug that prevents them from being built. Probably, they should arrive at Hiliar like barges. That way they could be built by expending supplies. By arriving at bases other than Hiliar, the code seems not to recognize that they are part of the pool.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by cap_and_gown -- 11/16/2010 3:17:19 AM >

(in reply to CapAndGown)

Post #: 854

RE: Bollocks - 11/16/2010 3:33:05 AM

CapAndGown

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

A discussion of Merchant Ship Building.

My merchant marine has been more than adequate to meet my needs. Indeed, a few hundred xAKs and xAKLs have sat idle almost since the beginning of the game. Even TKs have not been a problem in a long time. I have about 60 TKs sitting idle at Singapore. These are the small ones or ones that were converted from xAKs and so are less efficient than purpose built TKs.

Since I am awash in xAKs and TKs, rather than build these ships all the way to completion, what I do is build them up until they reach one day delay, at which point I halt them. Should I need an infusion of xAKs or TKs, I will have dozens that can arrive in just one day.

The only xAKs I am building are the Std A types, 19 durability. For TKs, I am building Type 1 TM (19 durability) and Type 1 & 2 TL (30 durability). I was using spare Merchant build points to accelerate the big TKs when I still had all my merchant shipyards working at full production. But I reached a point where I said: after this Date of Arrival I will not build any more TKs or xAKs. So now any new xAKs or TKs that reach the point where they start building are halted. And as xAKs and TKs currently being built reach the one day delay mark and are halted, the number of merchant shipyards producing is reduced. So, for example, when a Std A xAK hits one day delay, it is halted and 20 merchant shipyard points are turned off, saving me 60 HI points per day.

The one exception here are LSTs. I am going to build these ships because I would like to have some fast amphibious unload capability for counter-invasions. LSTs will be mated up with reserve divisions in order to quickly deliver reinforcements to bases the allies have invaded.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to CapAndGown)

Post #: 855

RE: Bollocks - 11/16/2010 10:40:43 PM

Chickenboy

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

CNG,

I know Kamikazes will factor largely in your future. There's an interesting thread that Nemo121 and MichaelM started on the tech support page re: training of kamikazes. You may wish to check it out re: the most effective training regimen for maximum efficiency.

I would be very interested in how you're preparing for the Divine Wind. Airframes, pilot training, how you're planning on using them (as part of a combined arms assault or singlets), locations, etc. Whatever else you can share would be very helpful.

_____________________________

(in reply to CapAndGown)

Post #: 856

RE: Bollocks - 11/17/2010 2:44:19 AM

CapAndGown

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

Dec. 7, 1943, Pearl Harbor Day

An allied ASW TF of PF boats (I am not even sure what these are) hit the SS I-8 51 times, killing it. I need to talk to Milo and see if I can't get some of these guys.

Chickenboy: I have not even really thought about Kamikazes. They seems like they are still quite a ways in the future. I suppose it would make most sense to use single engine armored planes as Kamikazes. Armored because you want them to get through the flak, single engined because you want to build lots of them and so single engine planes would cost half as much as two engine planes. "Training" Kamikaze pilots seems kinda weird. After all, the point of Kamikazes was that Japan had run out of trained pilots and so the Kamikaze mission was something even an untrained pilot could do. (Kinda like the 9/11 hijackers who didn't seem to care about training to land since they would never need to do that.)

More on the 2nd anniversary of the Game: Plane/Pilot losses

Pilot Casualties to date:
KIA 1500
MIA 675
WIA 800

Pilot Reserves
IJNAF Reserves 80
IJNAF TRACOM 60 (all torpedo/dive bomber pilots were removed from TRACOM after the battle of Ponape)
IJAAF Reserves 300
IJAAF TRACOM 60

At one time, the IJNAF had over 600 pilots in reserve, but the battles of Wotje and Ponape depleted those reserves to nothing, leaving only transport and patrol pilots in the reserve pool.

Casualties from the battle of Wotje: (fought over a Japanese base)
KIA 117
WIA 107
Casulties from the 2 days of the battle of Ponape: (Partially fought over a Japanese base, mostly over open ocean)
KIA 234+118=352
MIA 179+40=219
WIA 29+40=69

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 857

RE: Bollocks - 11/17/2010 3:02:03 AM

CapAndGown

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

In the realm of Naval Losses, the IJN has done very well in preserving its fleet. Allied losses have not been terribly high, but they have included some very important ships.

Japanese ships sunk, 153

1x CA Furutaka
1x CL Kashima
12xDD
3x TB
11xSS
10xDMS
2x APD
3x E
23xPB
9x SC
3x TK
8x ACM (tending mines is dangerous work!)
6x AMc
4x AKE
1x AV
5x AMC
4x AK
41xxAK

Allied ships sunk (336 in list)
Telling which allied ships sank is difficult. Nevertheless, here is a conservative guess:

5x CV (positive - Enterprise, Wasp; high probability - Saratoga, Lexington, Yorktown)
2x CVL (high probability, but not confirmed - Independence, Cowpens)
11xCVE
7x BB (at Pearl - California, Nevada, Tennessee; confirmed - Pennsylvania, Indiana; likely - Arizona, Oklahoma)
1x CA Houston
1x CLAA
8x CL (including 4 Dutch and 1 Australian)
31xDD (including 2 Dutch, 4 British, and 1 Australian)
3x DE
5x DM
2x DMS
31xSS (any sub listed as sunk by unknown device was considered not sunk, 40 subs are listed as sunk)
5x AO
17xTK
3x APA
8x xAP
103xxAK/L
Numerous other auxiliary and patrol craft

Attachment (1)

(in reply to CapAndGown)

Post #: 858

RE: Bollocks - 11/17/2010 3:13:05 AM

cookie monster

Posts: 1693
Joined: 5/22/2005
From: Birmingham,England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: cap_and_gown

An allied ASW TF of PF boats (I am not even sure what these are) hit the SS I-8 51 times, killing it. I need to talk to Milo and see if I can't get some of these guys.

They are a Patrol Frigate ASW of 11 similiar to a DE. Excellent ASW properties just got my first versus the AI.

(in reply to CapAndGown)

Post #: 859

Security Breech - 11/17/2010 9:24:54 PM

CapAndGown

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

Dec. 8, 1943

Uh Oh. A group of xAKs I had standing by to refuel a CVE group west of Australia were sighted and attacked by an allied sub today. The torpedo either missed or was a dud, but it revealed that the allies were aware of our presence. In fact, our CVE group spotted another sub heading in their direction. It would appear it is time to hit the panic button. Even though I checked these groups each turn to see if they had been spotted, somehow the allies got wind of their presence. So now I have to get my CVEs out of there without being sunk. I thought the allies had moved their subs out of the area around Timor because of all the hits my planes were getting. Now it looks like they left in order to flood the Indian Ocean with their vile presence.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to cookie monster)

Post #: 860

RE: Security Breech - 11/17/2010 10:06:48 PM

CapAndGown

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

Here is a screen shot of allied advances during 1943. There have only been two significant battles in the last year: one at Wotje and one at Ponape. Most of the rest of this territory was ceded without too much of a fight.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by cap_and_gown -- 11/17/2010 10:10:13 PM >

(in reply to CapAndGown)

Post #: 861

RE: Security Breech - 11/17/2010 10:08:47 PM

Chickenboy

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: cap_and_gown

Here is a screen shot of allied advances during 1942.

1943?

_____________________________

(in reply to CapAndGown)

Post #: 862

RE: Security Breech - 11/17/2010 10:11:17 PM

CapAndGown

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: cap_and_gown

Here is a screen shot of allied advances during 1942.

1943?

oops. fixed. thanks.

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 863

RE: Security Breech - 11/18/2010 7:37:54 AM

castor troy

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: cap_and_gown

Here is a screen shot of allied advances during 1943. There have only been two significant battles in the last year: one at Wotje and one at Ponape. Most of the rest of this territory was ceded without too much of a fight.

nice hold for entering 44 and with your recent victory in the big naval clash you are definetely in a good position.

_____________________________

(in reply to CapAndGown)

Post #: 864

Rangoon Falls - 11/22/2010 10:56:52 PM

CapAndGown

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

Dec. 16, 1943

Been a while since I updated this. Things have been rather quite.

Rangoon fell a few turns back, yielding the allies a bundle of VPs. Now supply will start flowing to the Chinese. I am planning an offensive to try to deal with this fresh infusion.

On the production front, both the Tony Id and Frank were advanced to January, while the Jack J2M3 was advanced to February. The Tony Id factories were upgraded to the Ki-100 I model. The Frank factories were expanded and will go directly from R&D to production in January. (For the Tony, the existing production factories will be upgraded to the Id version.)

In looking at my options, I decided that the Jack J2M3 will be the plane of choice for the IJN, at least for those groups that can upgrade to the Jack or the George (I have found if you can upgrade to one, you can upgrade to the other). It has 4 20mm cannons with 2 of them mounted on the cowling, giving better accuracy. This is compared to the George which has its 4 20mm cannons all mounted in the wings. Plus, the Jack J2M3 has a service rating of 2 and a speed that is just about the same as any of the George models.

What this choice meant was that now that the J2M3 has advanced as far as R&D will take it (I can't get it up to January) and with my decision not to bother with the George N1K2 model, it was time to reallocate those R&D factories. In this case, I chose to convert some of the factories to the A7M2 Sam and others to the Ki-84b Frank. I like the "b" model because it has 4 20mm cannons, unlike the "a" and "r" models. Unfortunately, the "b" model has nothing that directly upgrades to it, so you need to research it de novo. (That will also mean that when it becomes available, the existing "a" model factories will need to be converted to something else without the benefit of a "no-damage conversion.")

Lexington showed up on the sunk ships list and in the operation report. I was positive that she was sunk based on the fact that my planes did not attack her in the afternoon phase of the 26th. So that seems to indicate that the tally from the battle of Ponape is, at least:

5xCV (Enterprise, Yorktown, Saratoga, Lexington, Wasp)
2xCVL (Independence, Cowpens)
8xCVE (2 by subs)
1xBB (Indiana, plus maybe one of the Pearl Harbor BBs)

I am currently working on a new doctrine for defeating an allied invasion. My prior planning did not involve trying to stop the allies from landing since I was not that in love with the Marshalls or Gilberts. I am, however, more strongly attached to Truk and the Marianas. Therefore, I am not just looking for a decisive carrier battle, but a surface action that disrupts and perhaps demolishes a landing attempt. I will outline my ideas later, but I certainly would like to hear your thoughts.

Also, I am stumped as to what to do right now. I tried sending out the CVs to interdict allied supply lines. What that led to was fending off a mass a subs without the allied CVs ever coming out to challenge me. My expedition into the Indian Ocean also attracted a bunch of subs without turning up any game. I am not terribly interested in losing my CVs to his subs without some clear goal they can be achieving. (I almost lost the Kasagi in that last foray!) I am also not to terribly interested in risking my CVs against allied LBA. So I am not sure there are too many attractive targets for an invasion. While I still have carrier superiority, I would like to do something with them to hurt the allies rather than just sit and wait for the next invasion. But I am having a difficult time figuring out what I could do that will not get some of my CVs sunk for just a minor gain.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by cap_and_gown -- 11/22/2010 11:17:14 PM >

(in reply to castor troy)

Post #: 865

RE: Rangoon Falls - 11/23/2010 1:09:43 AM

vicberg

Posts: 1176
Joined: 4/19/2008
Status: offline

Since his subs are preventing an exploit, the best thing to do (and the most boring), imo, is to defend. Park the KB at a strategic location, conserve fuel, train up replacement pilots, rebuild pilot reserves, rebuild LBA and Carrier squadrons and wait for him to come. You have an excellent set of interlocking airbases, so any attack anywhere near the SRA or marianas will most likely be met with further losses, especially when kamakazis come into play. He attacks in one spot and is met with 10-20 squadrons (minimum) from multiple locations...it's not looking good for him atm.

Reserves are the key for your defensive scheme, which I think is a very good one. Sitting back and rebuilding is key right now.

If I were him, I'd assault from burma at this point, asap. If you can keep rangoon from being resupplied, the burma supply rules should prevent any major advances, but that's where I'd keep a sharp eye.

(in reply to CapAndGown)

Post #: 866

RE: Rangoon Falls - 11/23/2010 7:52:22 AM

cookie monster

Posts: 1693
Joined: 5/22/2005
From: Birmingham,England
Status: offline

You can suck supply using the draw arrows into Burma and even China, supply should not be an issue.

(in reply to vicberg)

Post #: 867

RE: Rangoon Falls - 11/23/2010 9:39:37 AM

veji1

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

indeed, you will need lots and lots of planes and if not good, decent pilots, for the next big battle. So you want to park the KB (maybe divide it in two, with one fleet in Manilla and the other around Palau) and train your KB wings. On the other hand you want to keep training a lot of you LBA against subs, including your naval LBA : Betties and Nells are great ASW platforms thanks to their range and on the naval side of things his subs are his most dangerous assets. Furthermore next big battle your Betties will go down in flames anyway, they are here to tire his CAP, not really score hits (or against cripples), so you are better off trading a bit of torpedo and bombing ability for more ASW.

If I were your opponent I would try 2 approches :
- beating you by pure LBA and land forces power from Burma, basically trying to push/envelop you out of Thailand and sending troops to China to make it an active theater.
- saving my naval asset for a big bold assault in late 44 or early 45 rather than trying to grind you out island by island, which has failed so far.

This means that to me your utmost priority should be to deal with the Burmese/Chinese situation. You really need to stop him cold. How much troops can you muster to try to seal off China ? what can you do to protect you Thai flank against a major onslaught which could include lots of american troops coming via the Cape ?

_____________________________

Adieu � Dieu odieux... sign� Adam

(in reply to cookie monster)

Post #: 868

RE: Rangoon Falls - 11/23/2010 9:53:37 AM

BigBadWolf

Posts: 584
Joined: 8/8/2007
From: Serbia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: cap_and_gown

In looking at my options, I decided that the Jack J2M3 will be the plane of choice for the IJN, at least for those groups that can upgrade to the Jack or the George (I have found if you can upgrade to one, you can upgrade to the other). It has 4 20mm cannons with 2 of them mounted on the cowling, giving better accuracy. This is compared to the George which has its 4 20mm cannons all mounted in the wings. Plus, the Jack J2M3 has a service rating of 2 and a speed that is just about the same as any of the George models.

Not quite, mate. All 4 of them are on the wings.

_____________________________

(in reply to CapAndGown)

Post #: 869

RE: Rangoon Falls - 11/23/2010 11:45:40 AM

castor troy

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

and the George got two more center lined MGs which brings it to a total gun value of 20! I was shocked when I first saw those stats because up to that point I�ve thought the P-47 would be the non plus ultra in regards to firepower of 1E fighters, but the George even got 2 more points. As the Japanese player I would use those as bomber interceptors only.

edit: the P-47 got 24 IIRC so still better than the George, my bad.

< Message edited by castor troy -- 11/23/2010 12:21:14 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to BigBadWolf)

Post #: 870