RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (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: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (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: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A)

Page: << < prev 142 143 [144] 145 146 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 1/17/2019 9:15:35 PM

rustysi

Posts: 7472
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline

quote:

The sweeps did nothing, as expected.

One day may not be a sufficient window to make a definite conclusion.

_____________________________

It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume

In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche

Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb

(in reply to rustysi)

Post #: 4291

RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 1/17/2019 9:16:47 PM

Alfred

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GetAssista

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe
Transports and bombers can drop supplies at a base even with the runways destroyed, they just air drop, and suffer a penalty in capacity...pretty sure that this is clear in the manual somewhere.

I am testing this right now and you won't believe what happened! [click here]

Fully developed base, several transport groups transporting supply to an island base in range. Level of runway damage on the island is set in the editor. No enemies on the map. All that jazz.
Contrary to common sense, transports do not fly at all towards the base with the severely damaged runway. I'm currently trying to determine the amount of damage that stops transports.
This pretty much amounts to a bug. Because as you have said nothing prevents supply paradrop in this case. Yet zero supply is transported

Edit: I do not remember what is the formula for airfield closing due to damage, but transports do not fly e.g. with 50% damage on 5 level airfield. And do fly with 50% damage on the 6 level
Edit2: Formula for airfield closing is damage>20+(Airfield Size *5) for strike missions (Manual 9.4.1). So apparently receiving airfield is treated the same way as starting airfield for transports. Both should be open for transports to fly. No paradrops of supply heh.

Not necessarily a bug.

1. Can drop troops onto enemy location at up to normal range of aircraft.

2. Can airlift troops to a friendly owned base at up to 50% the maximum range of the aircraft.

3. Can drop supply on to a non base hex at up to normal range of aircraft.

4. Can airlift supply to a friendly owned base at up to 50% the maximum range of the aircraft.

5. The quantity of airlifted troops or supply is not reduced by the amount of damage at the receiving airfield. However there is a damage threshold which when reached prevents any airlifting until the airfield damage is reduced below the threshold.

The current game design does not support the dropping of troops or supply onto a friendly owned base. This design is largely inherited from classical WITP. Air transport operations was not a high priority area during AE development.

Alfred

(in reply to GetAssista)

Post #: 4292

RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 1/17/2019 9:20:34 PM

Alfred

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rustysi

quote:

The sweeps did nothing, as expected.

One day may not be a sufficient window to make a definite conclusion.

Sweeps do not intercept transport aircraft.

Alfred

(in reply to rustysi)

Post #: 4293

RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 1/17/2019 9:40:59 PM

rustysi

Posts: 7472
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline

quote:

Because as you have said nothing prevents supply paradrop in this case.

Except that as said above supply drop and airlift occur at two different ranges. Or do they? I don't know, see 7.2.4 and tell me what you think. Specifically 7.2.4.3 and 7.2.4.4 p170. Is it still an airlift if the base is inop?

_____________________________

(in reply to rustysi)

Post #: 4294

RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 1/17/2019 9:44:36 PM

rustysi

Posts: 7472
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: rustysi

quote:

The sweeps did nothing, as expected.

One day may not be a sufficient window to make a definite conclusion.

Sweeps do not intercept transport aircraft.

Alfred

OK, but then could you please explain what's going on here, especially post 12, where the post says 'sweep'?

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4567896&mpage=1&key=#

< Message edited by rustysi -- 1/17/2019 9:46:04 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Alfred)

Post #: 4295

RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 1/17/2019 10:16:06 PM

Alfred

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline

The post didn't show any combat ensued. Remember there are two elements, the first indicating the presence of aircraft in the hex. The existence of a message display bug can't be totally dismissed either.

Have you ever seen a dedicated sweep mission finding and combating enemy bombers? Nor does a dedicated sweep mission loiter over an enemy airfield to increase the operational losses of RTB enemy aircraft. A dedicated sweep mission has only one purpose, to find enemy fighters protecting the airfield.

Where the potential for bugs arises is that the transport operation module is even more abstracted than the standard night (1x) and day (2x) phases. It is run as a separate module after the night and day operations.

Alfred

(in reply to rustysi)

Post #: 4296

RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 1/18/2019 12:37:49 AM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

I just think the Chinese are eating their dead.

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Alfred)

Post #: 4297

RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 1/18/2019 2:03:10 AM

Zorch

Posts: 7087
Joined: 3/7/2010
Status: offline

Maybe the Chinese dug a tunnel...

Attachment (1)

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 4298

RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 1/18/2019 6:33:55 AM

GetAssista

Posts: 2732
Joined: 9/19/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rustysi

quote:

Because as you have said nothing prevents supply paradrop in this case.

Except that as said above supply drop and airlift occur at two different ranges. Or do they? I don't know, see 7.2.4 and tell me what you think. Specifically 7.2.4.3 and 7.2.4.4 p170. Is it still an airlift if the base is inop?

7.2.4.3 specifically implies that supply drop can happen only to the non-base hex. And this is what I consider to be an illogical restriction. Nothing should prevent supply paradrop to the base hex if airlift is also possible range-wise.
In the test I also ran turns with a scenario not having a base at all in the same target hex, only an LCU. So it was exactly the same range and conditions as for airlifts, and supply paradrops went fine at 1/2 capacity. While airlifts did not happen if the target was sufficiently damaged

< Message edited by GetAssista -- 1/18/2019 6:34:27 AM >

(in reply to rustysi)

Post #: 4299

RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 1/18/2019 10:48:50 AM

Mike Solli

Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline

11 Dec 43 - An omen of things to come.

Sub War

The Harder is still hanging around 2 hexes NE of Palembang, smack dab on top of the route to Singapore. I have 3 separate ASW TFs sitting there. Today, Shirataka found her and hit her once with a depth charge. I know she's been hit at least once before. Hopefully that sends here home, but there's probably half a dozen more subs headed there. I know I'd be doing that.

A hex east of Buna, the I-9, who's job it is to scout, not attack, decided to surface and attack an LST. She hit her twice with torpedoes sending her to the bottom, but not before being hit 5 times by a 40mm Bofors. Here's her damage: 6-35(6)-4-0

5 Fleet

The 23 Tank Regiment is fully repaired and the 19 Division is repairing nicely now and is at 284 AV. The BBs will reach Ominato tomorrow and replenish their main gun rounds. Then they'll return and I'll finally attack Umnak.

4 Fleet

The US carriers disappeared after their attack on Nauru Island. I have a few subs in the area looking for the carriers in case they return.

I had dropped off some mines by sub at Mili a few days ago and today it paid off. The DD Caldwell hit one and is apparently heavily damaged. The report said 2 mines were cleared. I wonder if that includes the mine that the DD ate.

SE Fleet

It all started with an 12 plane Betty attack on an enemy TF that had been floating around about 7 hexes south of Truk. They spotted 2 BBs and a CA and hit the BB Massachusetts with a torpedo. I think this is a bombardment TF of 9 ships. I hope they try to bombard Truk. I have 450 mines (yeah, I know, unlikely to do anything) and 99 CD guns. All those base forces that were in New Britain and points south ended up at Truk. There are also a few subs around Truk to give then a warm welcome. Could be interesting.

In the morning the bombers returned to Truk, a total of 187x 4 and 100x 2E bombers escorted by 26x P-38Gs. My response was an even 200 fighters. The first massive raid got through followed by a series of squadron sized raids that did little. Here's the final tally:

Allied:
Fighters: 11 destroyed, 1 op loss
2E bombers: 18 destroyed, 1 op loss
4E bombers: 32 destroyed, 13 op losses

Japanese:
Fighters: 26 shot down
84 planes destroyed on ground.

Japanese pilot losses:
IJAAF: 5 KIA, 12 WIA
IJNAF: 2 KIA, 4 WIA

Truk Damage: 0-54-97

So, the airfield is closed. I have a LOT of engineers there (and supply too) so the airfield should be repaired at a fairly good clip. There is also a lot of AAA so continued raids will cost him in planes lost and damaged, as well as pilots. Truk will recover, this time. I won't station nearly as many planes there anymore. His last 300 plane bombing raid was 11/24/43, so 17 days for him to recover. I expect continued raids to attempt to keep the damage up, but he'll run out of steam eventually due to damage and low morale. I see about 180 planes at Kavieng now (where he's been stationing his bombers. It was over 300 yesterday, so there are a fair number of damaged planes too.

I'm not too concerned about my destroyed planes. My pools are good. I am pleased at the low number of pilot losses, especially the naval pilot losses.

SRA

Quiet today.

Burma

My bombers hit the airfield at Kalemyo, where the level 4 airfield is being upgraded. They caused a decent amount of damage that wasn't fully repaired. There were some Hurricane IIbs guarding the airfield!

China

As I said earlier, the Oscar IIIas performing LRCAP over Chungking didn't do anything. They were from 4 hexes away using drop tanks but set to only 4 hexes. There were 3 units doing this mission from 2 different locations. I reset their max range to 14 and will try it again tomorrow.

The bombers didn't do a lot today. They killed only 5 squads (2 infantry) while disabling another 128. The ground bombardment killed 21 (20 infantry) and disabled 36. There are 164 ground units in Chungking (down 1 from yesterday).

A total of 204 Chinese infantry steps have been destroyed this month.

The Japanese army is ready to go with 11,069 raw AV. Tomorrow, the deliberate assault goes in. Let's see what this does.

Other Stuff

Reinforcement: MTB G-162

Not much else to discuss today.

_____________________________

Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to GetAssista)

Post #: 4300

RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 1/18/2019 10:53:49 AM

Mike Solli

Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline

Here is a screen shot of the plane losses to show you how wildly inaccurate they can be:

Edit: I wish I had shot down 31 B-24Js.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Mike Solli -- 1/18/2019 10:55:05 AM >

_____________________________

Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to Mike Solli)

Post #: 4301

RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 1/18/2019 1:03:25 PM

Lowpe

Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline

Mike, I believe that when you set a target, that overrides the range restrictions. Not sure if that carries true for all missions thou...definitely for LRCAP. I have hundreds of time designated a LRCAP at 0 range and the planes flew.

When you set a range for LRCAP, I think then you are dispersing your fighters from the target hex to cover the rest of the range.

Therefore, you want to enable drop tanks and set range to 0 to concentrate your fighters in the target hex.

Cheers!

(in reply to Mike Solli)

Post #: 4302

RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 1/18/2019 1:47:17 PM

Mike Solli

Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline

Waiting for the next turn. If it doesn't work, I'll try that next!

_____________________________

Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to Lowpe)

Post #: 4303

RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 1/18/2019 4:22:35 PM

GetAssista

Posts: 2732
Joined: 9/19/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe
Mike, I believe that when you set a target, that overrides the range restrictions. Not sure if that carries true for all missions thou...definitely for LRCAP. I have hundreds of time designated a LRCAP at 0 range and the planes flew.

When you set a range for LRCAP, I think then you are dispersing your fighters from the target hex to cover the rest of the range.

Therefore, you want to enable drop tanks and set range to 0 to concentrate your fighters in the target hex.

+1. That's how mechanics works.

Also, if LRCAP does not do anything maybe it is because transports do not fly?

(in reply to Lowpe)

Post #: 4304

RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 1/18/2019 4:24:53 PM

Mike Solli

Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline

That could very well be true. I have 3 units that can keep this up (1 sentai, 2 chutai). I'll probably rotate them if there is no luck next turn. They're all stuck in China. May as well do something useful with them.

_____________________________

Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to GetAssista)

Post #: 4305

RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 1/18/2019 5:52:35 PM

Lokasenna

Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

If it's reporting you maybe shot down 31, you may have actually shot down 31. Or 20. Or 40.

Even 20 would be plenty good.

(in reply to Mike Solli)

Post #: 4306

RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 1/18/2019 8:29:31 PM

rustysi

Posts: 7472
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline

quote:

Nothing should prevent supply paradrop to the base hex if airlift is also possible range-wise.

But that's not how the game rules define it. A paradrop and airlift seem to follow two different range rules.

Edit: Then again that's what you said "range-wise".

< Message edited by rustysi -- 1/18/2019 8:32:14 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Lokasenna)

Post #: 4307

RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 1/18/2019 8:30:34 PM

rustysi

Posts: 7472
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

The post didn't show any combat ensued.� Remember there are two elements, the first indicating the presence of aircraft in the hex.� The existence of a message display bug can't be totally dismissed either.

Have you ever seen a dedicated sweep mission finding and combating enemy bombers?� Nor does a dedicated sweep mission loiter over an enemy airfield to increase the operational losses of RTB enemy aircraft.� A dedicated sweep mission has only one purpose, to find enemy fighters protecting the airfield.

Where the potential for bugs arises is that the transport operation module is even more abstracted than the standard night (1x) and day (2x) phases.� It is run as a separate module after the night and day operations.

Alfred

Thanks Alfred. Makes sense.

_____________________________

(in reply to Alfred)

Post #: 4308

RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 1/19/2019 1:03:35 AM

Lowpe

Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline

I got to thinking about the transports, and depending upon your mod, the Nick might well be a good choice.

And then, I checked some of the Japanese ugly ducklings, that almost nobody every builds like the Dinah Fighter, the 93 (well they come so late most games are done by then). But the Dinah fighter has great range and a big honking gun (that is inaccurate) but perhaps it would do well LRCAP enemy bases?

The 93 has even better range...

Perhaps those big honking guns could really wreck damage among transports?

Don't know.

Also, wanted to mention that even though transports might not be able to air drop supplies into a damaged runway (thanks you guys), that I bet bombers and patrols do. Is it possible to intercept a bomber on a supply mission? You can certainly intercept patrols transporting troops.

< Message edited by Lowpe -- 1/19/2019 1:05:49 AM >

(in reply to rustysi)

Post #: 4309

RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 1/19/2019 12:56:30 PM

mind_messing

Posts: 3393
Joined: 10/28/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

I got to thinking about the transports, and depending upon your mod, the Nick might well be a good choice.

And then, I checked some of the Japanese ugly ducklings, that almost nobody every builds like the Dinah Fighter, the 93 (well they come so late most games are done by then). But the Dinah fighter has great range and a big honking gun (that is inaccurate) but perhaps it would do well LRCAP enemy bases?

The 93 has even better range...

Perhaps those big honking guns could really wreck damage among transports?

Don't know.

Also, wanted to mention that even though transports might not be able to air drop supplies into a damaged runway (thanks you guys), that I bet bombers and patrols do. Is it possible to intercept a bomber on a supply mission? You can certainly intercept patrols transporting troops.

With the lowest accuracy weapon in the game, I wonder if the Dinah KAI could hit a battleship let alone a transport plane

(in reply to Lowpe)

Post #: 4310

RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 1/19/2019 1:17:24 PM

GetAssista

Posts: 2732
Joined: 9/19/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe
Also, wanted to mention that even though transports might not be able to air drop supplies into a damaged runway (thanks you guys), that I bet bombers and patrols do. Is it possible to intercept a bomber on a supply mission? You can certainly intercept patrols transporting troops.

Guess what, you just lost the bet

Bombers behave exactly the same way as transports when on supply mission. Drop fine in non-base hex but do not fly at all when target airfield is closed. Same range and place, target base changed in the editor between tries.

(in reply to Lowpe)

Post #: 4311

RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 1/19/2019 1:32:01 PM

Mike Solli

Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GetAssista

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe
Also, wanted to mention that even though transports might not be able to air drop supplies into a damaged runway (thanks you guys), that I bet bombers and patrols do. Is it possible to intercept a bomber on a supply mission? You can certainly intercept patrols transporting troops.

Guess what, you just lost the bet
Bombers behave exactly the same way as transports when on supply mission. Drop fine in non-base hex but do not fly at all when target airfield is closed. Same range and place, target base changed in the editor between tries.

So you're saying that with Chungking's airfield closed, the transports aren't flying there?

_____________________________

Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to GetAssista)

Post #: 4312

RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 1/19/2019 2:19:40 PM

GetAssista

Posts: 2732
Joined: 9/19/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli
So you're saying that with Chungking's airfield closed, the transports aren't flying there?

I think I did it here couple days ago already

quote:

ORIGINAL: GetAssista

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe
Transports and bombers can drop supplies at a base even with the runways destroyed, they just air drop, and suffer a penalty in capacity...pretty sure that this is clear in the manual somewhere.

I am testing this right now and you won't believe what happened! [click here]

Fully developed base, several transport groups transporting supply to an island base in range. Level of runway damage on the island is set in the editor. No enemies on the map. All that jazz.
Contrary to common sense, transports do not fly at all towards the base with the severely damaged runway. I'm currently trying to determine the amount of damage that stops transports.
This pretty much amounts to a bug. Because as you have said nothing prevents supply paradrop in this case. Yet zero supply is transported

Edit: I do not remember what is the formula for airfield closing due to damage, but transports do not fly e.g. with 50% damage on 5 level airfield. And do fly with 50% damage on the 6 level
Edit2: Formula for airfield closing is damage>20+(Airfield Size *5) for strike missions (Manual 9.4.1). So apparently receiving airfield is treated the same way as starting airfield for transports. Both should be open for transports to fly. No paradrops of supply heh.

(in reply to Mike Solli)

Post #: 4313

RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 1/19/2019 3:05:40 PM

Lowpe

Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

I got to thinking about the transports, and depending upon your mod, the Nick might well be a good choice.

And then, I checked some of the Japanese ugly ducklings, that almost nobody every builds like the Dinah Fighter, the 93 (well they come so late most games are done by then). But the Dinah fighter has great range and a big honking gun (that is inaccurate) but perhaps it would do well LRCAP enemy bases?

The 93 has even better range...

Perhaps those big honking guns could really wreck damage among transports?

Don't know.

Also, wanted to mention that even though transports might not be able to air drop supplies into a damaged runway (thanks you guys), that I bet bombers and patrols do. Is it possible to intercept a bomber on a supply mission? You can certainly intercept patrols transporting troops.

With the lowest accuracy weapon in the game, I wonder if the Dinah KAI could hit a battleship let alone a transport plane

I had three squadrons of her in my game against Tiemanj, and they did very well as an earlynight fighter. They have about the worst climb rate of any Japanese fighter, and so would never actually engage the night bombers, but still count for disrupting the attack. Wonderful limited use plane.

(in reply to mind_messing)

Post #: 4314

RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 1/19/2019 3:06:44 PM

Lowpe

Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GetAssista

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe
Also, wanted to mention that even though transports might not be able to air drop supplies into a damaged runway (thanks you guys), that I bet bombers and patrols do. Is it possible to intercept a bomber on a supply mission? You can certainly intercept patrols transporting troops.

Guess what, you just lost the bet
Bombers behave exactly the same way as transports when on supply mission. Drop fine in non-base hex but do not fly at all when target airfield is closed. Same range and place, target base changed in the editor between tries.

Thanks for checking, and dispelling my urban myth rules of WITPAE!

(in reply to GetAssista)

Post #: 4315

RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 1/20/2019 4:49:32 AM

USSAmerica

Posts: 18715
Joined: 10/28/2002
From: Graham, NC, USA
Status: offline

My money is on the the likelihood that there are no transports flying to Chungking. With the airfield shut down by damage, they can't drop supply there. Airdrop only works for friendly forces outside friendly bases. The only item that has led Mike to assume there are transports flying in supply is the Chinese AV increasing from time to time. This is most likely due two factors (neither of which is air transported supply). First there are destroyed Chinese LCU's respawning in Chungking with relatively small numbers of combat squads. They will boost the raw AV when they arrive. Second, in Stock Scen 1, Chungking generates 400 supply/turn, aside from any that might be created via industry present in the hex. This would allow some disabled squads to recover and boost the raw AV.

_____________________________

Mike

"Good times will set you free" - Jimmy Buffett

"They need more rum punch" - Me

Artwork by The Amazing Dixie

(in reply to Lowpe)

Post #: 4316

RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 1/20/2019 6:34:31 AM

Lokasenna

Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

It does not take supply to repair disabled devices, such as squads.

Chungking also has a nominal level of supply that is produced every day, regardless of industry status, which would help prevent units from suffering disablements from having no supply for a long period of time.

(in reply to USSAmerica)

Post #: 4317

RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 1/20/2019 3:14:52 PM

Mike Solli

Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline

Mike, I never knew you couldn't fly supply into a shut down airfield until this all came up and everyone chimed in. Guess I'll switch those Oscars to ground attack. May as well do something useful. By the way, I'm still working on the turn. Getting there....

Loka, thanks for that reminder. I never can remember if supply is needed to repair disabled devices. It makes sense that the raw AV is increasing then, from repair and the rebuilt units.

Just got an email from Ted. He's working the turn.

_____________________________

Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to Lokasenna)

Post #: 4318

RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 1/20/2019 7:00:19 PM

Mike Solli

Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline

Just finished shoveling the foot of snow out of my driveway and came back in to find the turn. Only 3 more football games left (I don't count the pro bowl) and 2 are today. Can't miss my football! I'll run the turn later.

_____________________________

Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to Mike Solli)

Post #: 4319

RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 1/20/2019 7:47:12 PM

rustysi

Posts: 7472
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

Just finished shoveling the foot of snow out of my driveway and came back in to find the turn. Only 3 more football games left (I don't count the pro bowl) and 2 are today. Can't miss my football! I'll run the turn later.

Priorities?????

_____________________________

(in reply to Mike Solli)

Post #: 4320

Page: << < prev 142 143 [144] 145 146 next > >>

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A)