RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A)

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: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A)

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: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A)

Page: << < prev 8 9 [10] 11 12 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A) - 1/11/2012 3:07:56 PM

jeffk3510

Posts: 4132
Joined: 12/3/2007
From: Kansas
Status: offline

Rader-

I am curious how long it takes to watch these replays..

_____________________________

Life is tough. The sooner you realize that, the easier it will be.

Currently chasing three kids around the Midwest.

(in reply to crsutton)

Post #: 271

RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A) - 1/11/2012 5:59:43 PM

SuluSea

Posts: 2358
Joined: 11/17/2006
Status: offline

I know this is a scenario two game but seeing all those RN ships in the Pacific to go along with Indian units on mainland Japan makes me cringe. The allies already have incredible superiority at this stage without siphoning off units from theatres where they didn't operate historically. I felt the same way when I played the Allies so it isn't a JFB thing, best of luck in the coming operations.

_____________________________

"There�s no such thing as a bitter person who keeps the bitterness to himself.� ~ Erwin Lutzer

(in reply to crsutton)

Post #: 272

RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A) - 1/12/2012 12:31:39 AM

rader

Posts: 1238
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jeffk3510

Rader-

I am curious how long it takes to watch these replays..

About an hour if I watch it in detail.

We're having problems with disapearing leaders, game on hiatus

(in reply to jeffk3510)

Post #: 273

RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A) - 1/12/2012 12:53:39 AM

Schlemiel

Posts: 154
Joined: 10/20/2011
Status: offline

I'm not sure I exactly agree, SuluSea, especially in the context of this game. With the incredible advances Japan made, the historical theatres don't really apply. Indian units wouldn't have been able to even operate in Indian until a few months ago (given the conquest), so any existing units would have been free to deploy most anywhere (see Free French forces to some degree). It certainly seems plausible that the people of India might want some revenge after a few years of Japanese occupation. Of course historical Indian unit replacements wouldn't have been possible on the scale they are in this game, since even with a large number of volunteers (who might have been able to cross the border into Pakistan in this game), the areas and equipment to train them would be sorely lacking, but that's a different issue and probably impossible to handle in the engine. As for allied superiority without those units, I"m not sure. Certainly US units are qualitatively superior in this game, but given the need to protect slocs and such, I doubt they would be even remotely able to tackle an invasion of this magnitude. I'd have to count for sure, but I doubt at this point in 44 there are more than 25 deployable divisions of US troops (though I haven't actually checked). Naval and air superiority and land unit quality does not translate to land superiority in and of itself, especially in scenario 2. Even marginal superiority within the context of game mechanics is just not enough for amphibious invasions. Rader just needs to be able to resist attack to turn the beachhead into a prison camp, and presumably has many more divisions theoretically available (if they could be warped back to the home islands).

Basically what I"m saying is that such cooperation is obviously ahistorical, but against the Japan that exists in this universe I can see it as plausible. An opponent that was dangerous enough to conquer and still have access to much of the resources of se Asia needs to be dealt with rather ruthlessly.

I'll be fascinated to see the outcome, as I've far too little experience actually playing this stage (as opposed
to checking the reinforcements list when playing against the ai) to have a good sense of who will win.

(in reply to SuluSea)

Post #: 274

RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A) - 1/12/2012 1:01:13 AM

beppi

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

As i regular post in GreyJoys thread i do not want to comment anything about the ongoing game. Just some general thoughts from me:

I had some big WW1 style battles in my ongoing games as allieds against the japanese troops in 1944 with 12k AV against around 7k AV as the biggest one. In general the combat power of allied units late war is
much bigger than the japanese but especially in very big battles it is not a battle of combat power it is more a battle of "squad recovery". Even allied attacks tend to often suffer 1000nds of disables squads and i gets more and more a question which side recovery more squads in a battle.

If you get a solid 1,5 : 1 in unadjusted AVs as Japanese in defense you should be able to cause quite big number of disabled squads whenever the allieds attack. Combine that with the large calibre artilery units which i hate quite a lot as ally and it could be possible to not even defend a beachhead instead after some battles (so after a month or more) to even turn the tide and push the allies back. I would not commit any premature offensive actions. If you rotate your defending units you should be able to keep quite a good defensive force in battle. And always try to prevent a push out of the hex at all cost. Saw 3000+ destroyed squads on a reateat once.

In addition the allies get only around 80 army and 80 marines squads each month. So if you can cause a 1000 or so dead us squads you are on a very good way. They get some additional british/quite a lot indian/and australian ones but these squads are not much stronger in combat power than the japanese ones even the 1944 version.

With good prepping the allies can get around 1 to 1,2 unadjusted AV as adjusted AV when properl prepared so always take that into consideration when you plan your reserves and your defendig forces. Supply should not be a real problem as you fight on the main land with good supply routes. And do not forget the allied paras which the allies have quite a lot latewar.

< Message edited by beppi -- 1/12/2012 1:03:18 AM >

(in reply to rader)

Post #: 275

RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A) - 1/12/2012 1:14:22 AM

rader

Posts: 1238
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: beppi

As i regular post in GreyJoys thread i do not want to comment anything about the ongoing game. Just some general thoughts from me:

I had some big WW1 style battles in my ongoing games as allieds against the japanese troops in 1944 with 12k AV against around 7k AV as the biggest one. In general the combat power of allied units late war is
much bigger than the japanese but especially in very big battles it is not a battle of combat power it is more a battle of "squad recovery". Even allied attacks tend to often suffer 1000nds of disables squads and i gets more and more a question which side recovery more squads in a battle.

If you get a solid 1,5 : 1 in unadjusted AVs as Japanese in defense you should be able to cause quite big number of disabled squads whenever the allieds attack. Combine that with the large calibre artilery units which i hate quite a lot as ally and it could be possible to not even defend a beachhead instead after some battles (so after a month or more) to even turn the tide and push the allies back. I would not commit any premature offensive actions. If you rotate your defending units you should be able to keep quite a good defensive force in battle. And always try to prevent a push out of the hex at all cost. Saw 3000+ destroyed squads on a reateat once.

In addition the allies get only around 80 army and 80 marines squads each month. So if you can cause a 1000 or so dead us squads you are on a very good way. They get some additional british/quite a lot indian/and australian ones but these squads are not much stronger in combat power than the japanese ones even the 1944 version.

With good prepping the allies can get around 1 to 1,2 unadjusted AV as adjusted AV when properl prepared so always take that into consideration when you plan your reserves and your defendig forces. Supply should not be a real problem as you fight on the main land with good supply routes. And do not forget the allied paras which the allies have quite a lot latewar.

Interesting to note all this, thanks beppi. I hadn't realized that allied replacements were quite so low as that, but Greyjoy also has hardly taken any army losses so far so he must have a big pool.

If I can hold the beach, I've got a chance to win or at least last into late 1945/early 1946. Otherwise, I am very, very screwed.

(in reply to beppi)

Post #: 276

RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A) - 1/12/2012 8:27:29 PM

Skyland

Posts: 280
Joined: 2/8/2007
From: France
Status: offline

You can also send and rotate your low experience units in order for them to gain some combat exp points.

_____________________________

War Options 1941 mod : https://sites.google.com/site/waroptionswitpaemod/

(in reply to rader)

Post #: 277

RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A) - 1/12/2012 9:56:52 PM

rader

Posts: 1238
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline

Yes, I think rotating units in and out of combat is a great idea...

(in reply to Skyland)

Post #: 278

RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A) - 1/17/2012 8:46:20 PM

desicat

Posts: 542
Joined: 5/25/2008
Status: offline

The world wonders....what is Rader pondering?

(in reply to rader)

Post #: 279

RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A) - 1/18/2012 3:52:17 AM

Schlemiel

Posts: 154
Joined: 10/20/2011
Status: offline

an invasion of los angeles at this stage will surely catch him by surprise ;)

(in reply to desicat)

Post #: 280

RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A) - 1/18/2012 4:31:30 AM

rader

Posts: 1238
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline

Haha, yeah. Sorry guys, I'm travelling this week and can barely manage to send a turn or two back - don't have much time to update the 'AAR'. But he did just land on the other side of Japan at Akita. I'm sending in some reinforcements.

And we lots most of the reaminaing surface ships of the IJN today to air attack because my commanders didn't follow orders. I set them to bombard his beachead on 'mission speed' and 'return to base' (so they should have gone in at night), but they just totally ignored that and decided to waltz into enemy air cover during the day (arriving at and holding station at Hchinohe in broad daylight). Thus basically the last of the Japanese cruisers were sunk, along with one of the Kirishima class BBs

All for nothing because I thought the TF would actually act as it was supposed to.

That whole go in at night thing never worked properly in the code (especially for pick up troops which really dosen't work as advertised that often, but even for bombardment). I should not have assumed that it would work (it actually did work very well the last time I tried it at Hakkodate, so I thought it would work again). I wish you could give orders to your commanders like: "We're sending you on a bombardment mission. We'd like you to hit the target if you can (and only attempt to do so at night). If you think there is any chance you might not make it out of range of enemy a/c by daylight, by all means scrub the mission and come home. Your #1 mission is not to hit the objective, but to bring your ships home safely. I say again: Only hit the target if you can be certain to get out of range of enemy aircraft by daylight. Otherwise don't bother." Idiots

Well, if he manages to get Akita or Hachinohe, the war is over. I've got a reasonable, but not great, chance to hold Hachinohe and Akita and I will try. If he has many more troops to bring in though, the war could be over by xmas.

< Message edited by rader -- 1/18/2012 4:33:04 AM >

(in reply to Schlemiel)

Post #: 281

RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A) - 1/18/2012 6:02:41 AM

SqzMyLemon

Posts: 4239
Joined: 10/30/2009
From: Alberta, Canada
Status: offline

I feel your pain Rader. Like many things in this game, what works one time may not the next. I've struggled at times with bombardment missions too at both mission and full speed. I think I'm getting better at it, but it sure can mess you up when you get hung out to dry within enemy range during the day. Expecting a night bombardment probably explains the lack of any LRCAP over your SCTF. You didn't think you would need it.

_____________________________

Luck is the residue of design - John Milton

Don't mistake lack of talent for genius - Peter Steele (Type O Negative)

(in reply to rader)

Post #: 282

RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A) - 1/18/2012 1:08:08 PM

rader

Posts: 1238
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline

Well I should have set LRCAP anyway just in case, but I was busy with work and didn't have much time to do the turn. Was racing to get it out and got kinda sloppy I guess.

< Message edited by rader -- 1/18/2012 1:09:34 PM >

(in reply to SqzMyLemon)

Post #: 283

RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A) - 1/18/2012 1:09:42 PM

JohnDillworth

Posts: 3100
Joined: 3/19/2009
Status: offline

quote:

The world wonders....what is Rader pondering?

now now, no taunting

_____________________________

Today I come bearing an olive branch in one hand, and the freedom fighter's gun in the other. Do not let the olive branch fall from my hand. I repeat, do not let the olive branch fall from my hand. - Yasser Arafat Speech to UN General Assembly

(in reply to rader)

Post #: 284

RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A) - 1/18/2012 1:35:57 PM

JohnDillworth

Posts: 3100
Joined: 3/19/2009
Status: offline

quote:

Haha, yeah. Sorry guys, I'm travelling this week and can barely manage to send a turn or two back - don't have much time to update the 'AAR'. But he did just land on the other side of Japan at Akita. I'm sending in some reinforcements.

And we lots most of the reaminaing surface ships of the IJN today to air attack because my commanders didn't follow orders. I set them to bombard his beachead on 'mission speed' and 'return to base' (so they should have gone in at night), but they just totally ignored that and decided to waltz into enemy air cover during the day (arriving at and holding station at Hchinohe in broad daylight). Thus basically the last of the Japanese cruisers were sunk, along with one of the Kirishima class BBs All for nothing because I thought the TF would actually act as it was supposed to.

I believe in Canoerebals last game CR had a lot of trouble with his CV Task Forces just "freelancing" for lack of a better word. He would tell them not to react, set their response to 0 but every time they saw a squirrel they would go bounding after it, usually right into massive LBA. If I recall the problem was the aggression level of the TF commander. Aggressive commanders are usually the best ones but they do have some bad habits. I also recall that this was "working as designed". So if you didn't want your TF's taking the initiative, you had to saddle them with a low aggression leader. So my question to you is, "how Aggessive were your CA TF leaders"?

_____________________________

(in reply to JohnDillworth)

Post #: 285

RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A) - 1/18/2012 7:12:09 PM

crsutton

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

quote:

Haha, yeah. Sorry guys, I'm travelling this week and can barely manage to send a turn or two back - don't have much time to update the 'AAR'. But he did just land on the other side of Japan at Akita. I'm sending in some reinforcements.

And we lots most of the reaminaing surface ships of the IJN today to air attack because my commanders didn't follow orders. I set them to bombard his beachead on 'mission speed' and 'return to base' (so they should have gone in at night), but they just totally ignored that and decided to waltz into enemy air cover during the day (arriving at and holding station at Hchinohe in broad daylight). Thus basically the last of the Japanese cruisers were sunk, along with one of the Kirishima class BBs All for nothing because I thought the TF would actually act as it was supposed to.

I believe in Canoerebals last game CR had a lot of trouble with his CV Task Forces just "freelancing" for lack of a better word. He would tell them not to react, set their response to 0 but every time they saw a squirrel they would go bounding after it, usually right into massive LBA. If I recall the problem was the aggression level of the TF commander. Aggressive commanders are usually the best ones but they do have some bad habits. I also recall that this was "working as designed". So if you didn't want your TF's taking the initiative, you had to saddle them with a low aggression leader. So my question to you is, "how Aggessive were your CA TF leaders"?

It is annoying and sometimes heartbreaking but has happened to all of us. However, I think this is an important and exciting part of the game. Don't know if it is designed in or not, but quite frankly, if the game followed our orders all the time to perfection it would be incredibly boring and be less of a simulation of the real war where things went wrong fairly often. I for one love (and fear) it.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to JohnDillworth)

Post #: 286

RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A) - 1/18/2012 7:25:17 PM

EUBanana

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: rader
I wish you could give orders to your commanders like: "We're sending you on a bombardment mission. We'd like you to hit the target if you can (and only attempt to do so at night). If you think there is any chance you might not make it out of range of enemy a/c by daylight, by all means scrub the mission and come home. Your #1 mission is not to hit the objective, but to bring your ships home safely. I say again: Only hit the target if you can be certain to get out of range of enemy aircraft by daylight. Otherwise don't bother." Idiots

I have wondered if picking a particularly cautious commander might have this effect. People generally consider aggression = good, but maybe not always...

Edited to add, I see I am too slow.

< Message edited by EUBanana -- 1/18/2012 7:26:36 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to rader)

Post #: 287

RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A) - 1/18/2012 11:13:27 PM

desicat

Posts: 542
Joined: 5/25/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

quote:

The world wonders....what is Rader pondering?

now now, no taunting

I wasn't taunting, I was bumping the thread and actually was wondering what Rader was thinking. My post was before the invasion hit....

(in reply to JohnDillworth)

Post #: 288

RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A) - 1/18/2012 11:34:02 PM

JohnDillworth

Posts: 3100
Joined: 3/19/2009
Status: offline

quote:

I wasn't taunting, I was bumping the thread and actually was wondering what Rader was thinking. My post was before the invasion hit....

Then withdrawn

_____________________________

(in reply to desicat)

Post #: 289

RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A) - 1/19/2012 2:36:26 AM

rader

Posts: 1238
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline

September 14, 1944

This turn was a lot better than the last

The turn after the landing at Akita, I decided to redeploy a number of units from the strategic reserve (about 5000 more AV, making 9000 total) as emergency reinforcements by rail.

The allies decided to attack while they had numerical superiority and even sent in paratroopers to help out, but by the time of the combat phase, the reinforcements had already arrived. We took more losses, but importantly, the allies didn't manage to dismantle any of the forts

. The units railed in took it much worse than the units in combat mode with about x3 casualties, but they didn't fare too badly overall and probably helped substantially in the defense.

Ground combat at Akita (117,55)

Allied Shock attack (because of paratroopers?)

Attacking force 169013 troops, 3511 guns, 3985 vehicles, Assault Value = 6550

Defending force 220400 troops, 2417 guns, 2284 vehicles, Assault Value = 7402

Allied adjusted assault: 2116

Japanese adjusted defense: 4550

Allied assault odds: 1 to 2 (fort level 7)

Combat modifiers
Defender: forts(+), op mode(-), experience(-) (units railed in)

Attacker: shock(+)

Japanese ground losses:
5913 casualties reported
Squads: 207 destroyed, 550 disabled
Non Combat: 33 destroyed, 182 disabled
Engineers: 48 destroyed, 366 disabled
Guns lost 357 (61 destroyed, 296 disabled)
Vehicles lost 224 (61 destroyed, 163 disabled)

Allied ground losses:
14818 casualties reported
Squads: 75 destroyed, 1364 disabled
Non Combat: 18 destroyed, 419 disabled
Engineers: 91 destroyed, 440 disabled
Guns lost 379 (22 destroyed, 357 disabled)
Vehicles lost 700 (69 destroyed, 631 disabled)

Assaulting units:
193rd Tank Battalion
82nd (West African) Division
43rd Infantry Division
4th USMC Tank Battalion
1st Marine Division
632nd Tank Destroyer Battalion
2nd USMC Amphb Tank Battalion
7th Infantry Division
IV Corps Engineer Battalion
31st Infantry Division
3rd Marine Division
762nd Tank Battalion
22nd Marine Regiment
5th USMC Tank Battalion
33rd Infantry Division
93rd Infantry Division
77th Infantry Division
4th Marine Division
711th Tank Battalion
754th Tank Battalion
2nd British Division
34th Combat Engineer Regiment
18th Canadian Brigade
I Corps Cmbt Engineer Regiment
671th Tank Destroyer Battalion
41st Infantry Division
29th Marine Regiment
3rd USMC Tank Battalion
11th Airborne Div /1
147th Field Artillery Regiment
198th Field Artillery Battalion
XIV US Corps
168th Field Artillery Regiment
225th Field Artillery Battalion
2/13th Field Regiment
4th USMC Field Artillery Battalion
10th USMC Field Artillery Battalion
181st Field Artillery Regiment
97th Field Artillery Battalion
205th Field Artillery Battalion
Eighth US Army
251st Field Artillery Battalion
2nd USMC Field Artillery Battalion
XI Corps Artillery
RAF 231 Group Base Force
XIV Corps Artillery
134th Field Artillery Battalion
7th USMC Field Artillery Battalion
4th Eng Amph Bde
148th Field Artillery Battalion
A Det USN Port Svc

Defending units:
144th Infantry Regiment
77th Division
19th Division
9th Ind.Mixed Brigade
27th Tank Regiment
25th Tank Regiment
73rd Division
3rd Ind. Engineer Regiment
50th Ind.Mixed Brigade
47th Division
8th Tank Regiment
85th Infantry Brigade
61st Infantry Brigade
7th Ind.Tank Brigade
Karafuto Mixed Brigade
42nd Division
61st Ind.Mixed Brigade
66th Ind.Mixed Brigade
Guards Tank Division
70th Ind.Mixed Brigade
4th Tank Division
4th Amphibious Brigade
18th Division
86th Naval Guard Unit
81st Division
56th Ind.Mixed Brigade
10th Ind.Mixed Regiment
48th Recon Regiment
60th Ind.Mixed Brigade
61st Division
Iwo-jima Naval Guard Unit
43rd Division
23rd Ind. Engineer Regiment
2nd Depot Division
132nd AA Regiment
15th Ind.Medium Field Artillery Regiment
18th Field AF Construction Battalion
7th Field AF Construction Battalion
11th Field Artillery Regiment
11th Ind. Field Artillery Battalion
45th Field AA Battalion
1st Mobile Field Artillery Regiment
2nd Ind. Mountain Gun Regiment
29th Fld AA Gun Co
9th Ind. Engineer Regiment
146th JAAF AF Bn
29th Field AA Machinecannon Company
36th Field AA Battalion
27th Fld AA Gun Co
6th Ind. Field Artillery Battalion
31st Mountain Gun Regiment
6th Base Force
28th Special Base Force
7th Ind. Engineer Regiment
26th Fld AA Gun Co
2nd Ind. Field Artillery Regiment
2nd Mortar Battalion
Southern Army
38th Field AA Battalion
5th Field AF Construction Battalion
21st Medium Field Artillery Battalion
10th Ind. Field Artillery Battalion
14th Naval Construction Battalion
2nd Area Army
4th Field AF Construction Battalion
38th JNAF AF Unit
23rd Fld AA Gun Co
62nd Construction Battalion
3rd Ind. Mountain Gun Regiment
1st Naval Construction Battalion
30th Fld AA Gun Co
22nd Field AA Machinecannon Company
9th Field AF Construction Battalion
28th Fld AA Gun Co
Masuda JAAF Base Force

(in reply to JohnDillworth)

Post #: 290

RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A) - 1/19/2012 2:38:43 AM

rader

Posts: 1238
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline

I also put a lot of CAP in the air up north, and there were huge air battles with around 800 a/c lost for the allies, and around 900 for Japan. We "only" lost about 250 pilots though fighting over our own base.

I wonder if he will get most of his pilots back? He does have a lot of troops in the base... and from the Solomons, that certainly helps. I got a lot of my pilots back when I swept Tulagi where I had troops at the base. His fighter pilots must still be killers... he showed me his aces once and keeps talking about how he has tons of aces with 30+ kills

My best is 15, and I've got very few over 10 who are still alive. I've had to lower my standards for a pilot to 60 ata skill/45 defense. They don't last that long, but it is quick to train them up to this...

Now we've redeployed all the fighters back to defend the factories again. We can only really do hit-and-run CAP traps... don't have enough fighters to cover both factories and troops at the same time.

< Message edited by rader -- 1/19/2012 2:43:56 AM >

(in reply to rader)

Post #: 291

RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A) - 1/19/2012 2:51:55 AM

rader

Posts: 1238
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline

Well, this certainly is interesting. My surface fleet is basically gone, but my army might actually have a chance to stalemate him for a while. Although under his 3,000+ allied fighters stationed at Hakkodate alone, I really don't have much of a chance at bombing his fleet there. Plus they are protected by probably 100 DDs and PT boats. He's basically using invulnerable battleships stationed under this impenetrable CAP umbrella, and he might bomb and bombard my army to dust. On the other hand, with the fort levels pretty high (6 and 7), he might not be able to make significant progress for a while with his army without leaving his air umbrella and landing further down the coast where I might actually be able to use my airforce effectively.

So basically, I can't hurt his fleet around Hakkodate and can land troops at will in Northern Honshu, but my army might actually be strong enough to hold him off there at least for a while (notwithstanding the slow whittling attrition I'm taking from his air and bombardments).

The KB is still untrouched, but pretty much useless in this situation. If I had a choice, I would certainly convert all my carriers into surface warships (CAs, BBs, etc) in a complete reversal of late-war IJN policy. On the other hand, his carriers really aren't that useful in these circumstances either. I have enough land-based air that I can still probably deal his carriers a serious blow in Southern Honshu, but he has air superiority in Northern Honshu anyway. What a strange world we live in

(in reply to rader)

Post #: 292

RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A) - 1/20/2012 9:36:10 PM

rader

Posts: 1238
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline

Does anyone else get the impression that kamikazes are totally useless?

They can't seem to hit anything, even unloading transports

At least certainly not better than conventional strikes, and they don't get through defenses any better or do more damage either...

I decided to try some more kamikazes this turn. Some flew into a bit of LRCAP and almost none of these made it through even though I flew at low altitude and there were fairly few fighters.

The ones that attacked targets without CAP got though ok, but almost all crashed into the ocean without hitting a thing. And these were 'trained' pilots with LowN skill ~ 70.

I tried kamikazes several months ago game time, and they didn't hit much then either. And it dosen't seem like they do more damage than conventional weapons. Dive bombers have way better accuracy and seem to do more damage too. And kamikazes don't seem to have a much better chance of getting through CAP/flak. What's the point of them?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Akita at 117,55

Weather in hex: Overcast

Raid detected at 38 NM, estimated altitude 4,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 11 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-49-IIa Helen x 20
Ki-49-IIb Helen x 19

Allied aircraft
Mosquito FB.VI x 25
P-39N2 Airacobra x 8

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-49-IIa Helen: 11 destroyed
Ki-49-IIa Helen: 1 destroyed by flak
Ki-49-IIb Helen: 10 destroyed
Ki-49-IIb Helen: 1 destroyed by flak

No Allied losses

Allied Ships
xAK Mary E. Kinney
xAK Alcoa Pioneer
xAK Owen Summers
xAK S. African Victory
xAK Cape Faro
xAK John lsaacson

Aircraft Attacking:
1 x Ki-49-IIb Helen flying as kamikaze
Kamikaze: 4 x 250 kg GP Bomb
9 x Ki-49-IIa Helen flying as kamikaze
Kamikaze: 4 x 250 kg GP Bomb

CAP engaged:
No.27 Sqn RAF Det with Mosquito FB.VI (5 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
(5 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.)
5 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 15000
Raid is overhead
No.177 Sqn RAF with Mosquito FB.VI (20 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
(20 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.)
20 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 15000
Raid is overhead
71st RG/110th TRS with P-39N2 Airacobra (8 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
(8 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.)
8 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 8000
Raid is overhead

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

Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Akita at 117,55

Weather in hex: Severe storms

Raid detected at 40 NM, estimated altitude 7,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 12 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-49-IIa Helen x 20
Ki-49-IIb Helen x 5

Allied aircraft
Mosquito FB.VI x 23
P-39N2 Airacobra x 8

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-49-IIa Helen: 12 destroyed
Ki-49-IIa Helen: 1 destroyed by flak
Ki-49-IIb Helen: 2 destroyed
Ki-49-IIb Helen: 1 destroyed by flak

No Allied losses

Allied Ships
xAK Trevince
xAK Cape Martin

Aircraft Attacking:
1 x Ki-49-IIb Helen flying as kamikaze
Kamikaze: 4 x 250 kg GP Bomb
1 x Ki-49-IIa Helen flying as kamikaze
Kamikaze: 4 x 250 kg GP Bomb

CAP engaged:
No.27 Sqn RAF Det with Mosquito FB.VI (5 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
(5 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.)
5 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 15000
Raid is overhead
No.177 Sqn RAF with Mosquito FB.VI (18 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
(18 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.)
18 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 15000
Raid is overhead
71st RG/110th TRS with P-39N2 Airacobra (8 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
(8 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.)
8 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 8000
Raid is overhead

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Niigata at 115,55

Weather in hex: Moderate rain

Raid detected at 37 NM, estimated altitude 2,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 11 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-49-IIa Helen x 5

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-49-IIa Helen: 3 destroyed

Allied Ships
DD Cassin Young
DD Wedderburn

Aircraft Attacking:
5 x Ki-49-IIa Helen flying as kamikaze
Kamikaze: 4 x 250 kg GP Bomb

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Niigata at 115,55

Weather in hex: Moderate rain

Raid detected at 79 NM, estimated altitude 7,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 19 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-43-IIIa Oscar x 20

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-43-IIIa Oscar: 11 destroyed
Ki-43-IIIa Oscar: 2 destroyed by flak

Allied Ships
DD Cassin Young
DD Wedderburn, Kamikaze hits 1, on fire
DD Wickes
DD Young
DD Yarnall

Aircraft Attacking:
20 x Ki-43-IIIa Oscar flying as kamikaze
Kamikaze: 2 x 250 kg GP Bomb

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Akita at 117,55

Weather in hex: Thunderstorms

Raid detected at 150 NM, estimated altitude 34,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 47 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-49-IIa Helen x 5
Ki-49-IIb Helen x 2

Allied aircraft
Mosquito FB.VI x 25

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-49-IIa Helen: 3 destroyed
Ki-49-IIb Helen: 1 destroyed

No Allied losses

Allied Ships
xAK William Schirmer
AM Effective
xAK Peter Lassen
xAK Trevince, Kamikaze hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
xAK Martand, Kamikaze hits 1

Aircraft Attacking:
5 x Ki-49-IIa Helen flying as kamikaze
Kamikaze: 4 x 250 kg GP Bomb
2 x Ki-49-IIb Helen flying as kamikaze
Kamikaze: 4 x 250 kg GP Bomb

CAP engaged:
No.27 Sqn RAF Det with Mosquito FB.VI (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
(7 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 7 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 15000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 17 minutes
No.177 Sqn RAF with Mosquito FB.VI (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
(18 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 18 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 15000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 16 minutes

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Akita at 117,55

Weather in hex: Moderate rain

Raid detected at 37 NM, estimated altitude 10,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 9 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-43-IIIa Oscar x 23

Allied aircraft
Mosquito FB.VI x 21
P-39N2 Airacobra x 7

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-43-IIIa Oscar: 10 destroyed

No Allied losses

CAP engaged:
No.27 Sqn RAF Det with Mosquito FB.VI (7 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
(7 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.)
7 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 15000
Raid is overhead
No.177 Sqn RAF with Mosquito FB.VI (14 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
(14 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.)
14 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 15000
Raid is overhead
71st RG/110th TRS with P-39N2 Airacobra (7 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
(7 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.)
7 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 8000
Raid is overhead

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Akita at 117,55

Weather in hex: Moderate rain

Raid detected at 25 NM, estimated altitude 7,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 7 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-49-IIa Helen x 2

Allied aircraft
Mosquito FB.VI x 21
P-39N2 Airacobra x 3

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-49-IIa Helen: 1 destroyed

No Allied losses

CAP engaged:
No.27 Sqn RAF Det with Mosquito FB.VI (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
7 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters to 5000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 41 minutes
No.177 Sqn RAF with Mosquito FB.VI (14 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
14 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 15000
Raid is overhead
71st RG/110th TRS with P-39N2 Airacobra (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
3 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 8000 , scrambling fighters to 5000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 137 minutes

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

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by rader -- 1/20/2012 9:37:44 PM >

(in reply to rader)

Post #: 293

RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A) - 1/20/2012 9:44:57 PM

Crackaces

Posts: 3858
Joined: 7/9/2011
Status: offline

If you take a look at Nemo's AAR he had quite a bt of success with Kami's at different altitudes; however, he is also dissapointed that low level Kami's do not seem to get through or hit things ..

(in reply to rader)

Post #: 294

RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A) - 1/20/2012 10:06:41 PM

JohnDillworth

Posts: 3100
Joined: 3/19/2009
Status: offline

quote:

My surface fleet is basically gone

Kind of thought you had a bunch of the old slow BB's hanging around. Not optimal , but I believe your night fighting invasion outweighs his radar advantage. They might not make it home, but they will mess up an invasion fleet.

_____________________________

(in reply to Crackaces)

Post #: 295

RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A) - 1/20/2012 10:13:43 PM

rader

Posts: 1238
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

quote:

My surface fleet is basically gone

Kind of thought you had a bunch of the old slow BB's hanging around. Not optimal , but I believe your night fighting invasion outweighs his radar advantage. They might not make it home, but they will mess up an invasion fleet.

But how would they break though the 6 or so Iowa class BBs guarding his invasions and shore bombarding me every turn?

(in reply to JohnDillworth)

Post #: 296

RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A) - 1/20/2012 10:14:17 PM

rader

Posts: 1238
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Crackaces

If you take a look at Nemo's AAR he had quite a bt of success with Kami's at different altitudes; however, he is also dissapointed that low level Kami's do not seem to get through or hit things ..

Hmm, you mean they have better accuracy flying at higher altitudes? Strange...

(in reply to Crackaces)

Post #: 297

RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A) - 1/20/2012 10:26:36 PM

Crackaces

Posts: 3858
Joined: 7/9/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rader

quote:

ORIGINAL: Crackaces

If you take a look at Nemo's AAR he had quite a bt of success with Kami's at different altitudes; however, he is also dissapointed that low level Kami's do not seem to get through or hit things ..

Hmm, you mean they have better accuracy flying at higher altitudes? Strange...

No I think [and please read the AAR] that multiple altitudes meant that packs get through and thus more are enabled to get a die roll so to speak ..

(in reply to rader)

Post #: 298

RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A) - 1/20/2012 10:32:07 PM

rader

Posts: 1238
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Crackaces

quote:

ORIGINAL: rader

quote:

ORIGINAL: Crackaces

If you take a look at Nemo's AAR he had quite a bt of success with Kami's at different altitudes; however, he is also dissapointed that low level Kami's do not seem to get through or hit things ..

Hmm, you mean they have better accuracy flying at higher altitudes? Strange...

No I think [and please read the AAR] that multiple altitudes meant that packs get through and thus more are enabled to get a die roll so to speak ..

Well maybe, but with the current "die roll", why would you ever want to bother at all compared with conventional aircraft?

(in reply to Crackaces)

Post #: 299

RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A) - 1/20/2012 10:33:27 PM

rader

Posts: 1238
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline

I mean, are they supposed to give an advantage in ability to get through defenses, accuracy, or damage inflicted? And if none of these, what's the point of using them?

(in reply to rader)

Post #: 300

Page: << < prev 8 9 [10] 11 12 next > >>

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: Caging the Tiger~ Rader (J) vs. GreyJoy (A)