Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Counting Seagulls - Redsunrizing (J) vs. jeffs (A). A jeffs-free zone.

 
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 >> Counting Seagulls - Redsunrizing (J) vs. jeffs (A). A jeffs-free zone. Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Counting Seagulls - Redsunrizing (J) vs. jeffs (A). A j... - 11/30/2011 9:13:26 PM   
Redsunrizing


Posts: 40
Joined: 11/15/2011
Status: offline
Hello Readers, I am a newby to pbem and AARs, so please be patient with me. Jeffs has graciously agreed to be my opponent in this Scenario 2 grand campaign. I have been playing with this game since the week it was realised and before that the original War in the Pacific game. I have also completed 1 scenario 2 game against the computer, after many restarts that is, so I am not a complete novice.

You are probably wondering why I am writing an AAR on my first pbem game and a little voice in my head is asking the same question. The main reason I think is that I have been reading these reports for years and that is how I learned to play this game. Or another reason could be I just want somewhere to do some rambling and see myself in print. But I do think it will help me follow my game better, with the possibility of some advice from some experienced players, please!

We are playing 1 turn a day and these are the preferences and HRs:

#combat reports on
#auto sub ops off
#TF move radius on
#plane move radius on
#fac to expand off
#ships/air groups upgrade off
#accept air/ground rep off
#turn cycle 1
#AI historical

#show combat anim on
#show combat sum on
#show clouds on

#fog of war on
#advan weather on
#allied dam control on
#PDU on
#hist 1st turn off
#dec 7th surp on
#el USN torps off
#real R&D on
#no unit withdraw off
#reinforcements fixed

#No 4-engine bombing on naval attack below 10,000ft, other that for Naval bombers.
#Fighters max altitude is the band with their second best manoeuvre rating.
#Restricted units must pay PPs to cross national boundaries.
#Allied player on turn one can move only Chinese ground units and TFs already at sea.
#Allied player on turn one cannot create any new TFs.
#The Maximum of one port attack by Japan
#Night bombing only when the moonlight is above 50% before 1944.
#No strategic bombing within or from China.
#Landing or paradropping on non base/dot hex is not allowed.
#No use of many single ships to confuse naval combat routines, but picket ships are OK.


That is about the first post, but I would like to add; that I would really appreciate any input in any form, as I know that jeffs is a very experienced player and I will need all the help I can get. Also you will have to bear with me as I learn to write this report, but I do promise that it will get better.


< Message edited by Redsunrizing -- 12/1/2011 1:46:18 AM >


_____________________________

Post #: 1
RE: Counting Seagulls - Redsunrizing (J) vs. jeffs (A).... - 11/30/2011 9:52:19 PM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline
Looking forward to this. Good Luck! Real R&D isn't too bad, just takes more planning and focus.

BANZAI!!!

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to Redsunrizing)
Post #: 2
RE: Counting Seagulls - Redsunrizing (J) vs. jeffs (A).... - 11/30/2011 9:59:13 PM   
HansBolter


Posts: 7704
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: United States
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Redsunrizing


#Landing or paradropping on non base/dot hex is not allowed.





For the life of me I cannot grasp the need or desire for this HR.

This means Guadalcanal will never be fought over.

Granted, I'm an AI player and don't have a PBEMers perspective.

Can anyone explain the desire for a HR like this?

_____________________________

Hans


(in reply to Redsunrizing)
Post #: 3
RE: Counting Seagulls - Redsunrizing (J) vs. jeffs (A).... - 11/30/2011 10:28:33 PM   
Redsunrizing


Posts: 40
Joined: 11/15/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

This means Guadalcanal will never be fought over.


I might be wrong, but I was under the impression that the Marine landing on Guadalcanal, was at a coastal point just across the river, south of the village of Lunga. Also that the airfield and the camp the Japanese's were building, was across this river directly opposite the village. You should then find that Lunga is one of two dot-bases on Guadalcanal, and the other being Tassaforonga where the Japanese landed their reinforcements.

_____________________________


(in reply to HansBolter)
Post #: 4
RE: Counting Seagulls - Redsunrizing (J) vs. jeffs (A).... - 11/30/2011 10:30:01 PM   
Alfred

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

quote:

ORIGINAL: Redsunrizing


#Landing or paradropping on non base/dot hex is not allowed.





For the life of me I cannot grasp the need or desire for this HR.

This means Guadalcanal will never be fought over.

Granted, I'm an AI player and don't have a PBEMers perspective.

Can anyone explain the desire for a HR like this?


The HR means a paradrop can be made on a base. There are two types of bases; those which have at least some of their facilities already developed and those which are currently completely undeveloped. The later are referred to in shorthand as dot bases.

The better way of phrasing the HR is to say that paradropping is allowed on both developed and dot bases only.

With the HR, Guadalcanal will still be fought over because Lunga is a "dot" base.

Alfred

(in reply to HansBolter)
Post #: 5
RE: Counting Seagulls - Redsunrizing (J) vs. jeffs (A).... - 11/30/2011 10:53:45 PM   
Redsunrizing


Posts: 40
Joined: 11/15/2011
Status: offline
Thanks Alfred, yes I didn't realise it could be a misunderstood house rule.

My intent was that landings and para-drops are allowed at/on base or dot-base hexes.

_____________________________


(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 6
RE: Counting Seagulls - Redsunrizing (J) vs. jeffs (A).... - 11/30/2011 11:12:19 PM   
jeffs


Posts: 644
Joined: 2/19/2004
From: Tokyo
Status: offline
I am Redsunrizing opponent for this one (and sadly,....at least until the end of the war, the last time I will gaze at this AAR).
I probably will not do an AAR as I am a boring writer and just too lazy...

But missing advice is clearly a minus so maybe after being crushed the first months of war I will beg for clear headed advice.

To get a minor point out of the way... I think we both assumed that landings and para-drops are allowed at/on base or dot-base hexes.

I am a bit intimidated by both Scen 2 (in my scen 1 games I do not do Sir Robin.....but in Scen 2...forward defense seems like a dangerous game)
and Redsunrizing verbal bellicosity...I get the feeling we will see some rather aggressive movement soon.

We are both in for the long haul so this will probably be around a while.

Anybody with questions on how I view the allies is free to PM (but of course, stay within the boundaries of good taste and do not spill anything would be IJA future plans)...

Anyway..Enjoy the AAR!

_____________________________

To quote from Evans/Peattie`s {Kaigun}
"Mistakes in operations and tactics can be corrected, but
political and strategic mistakes live forever". The authors were refering to Japan but the same could be said of the US misadventure in Iraq

(in reply to Redsunrizing)
Post #: 7
RE: Counting Seagulls - Redsunrizing (J) vs. jeffs (A).... - 11/30/2011 11:43:44 PM   
HansBolter


Posts: 7704
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: United States
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Redsunrizing

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

This means Guadalcanal will never be fought over.


I might be wrong, but I was under the impression that the Marine landing on Guadalcanal, was at a coastal point just across the river, south of the village of Lunga. Also that the airfield and the camp the Japanese's were building, was across this river directly opposite the village. You should then find that Lunga is one of two dot-bases on Guadalcanal, and the other being Tassaforonga where the Japanese landed their reinforcements.



Yes, both Lunga and Tassafaronga are dot hexes and your HR states that there can be no landings on dot hexes,
which means that neither will ever be fought over.

_____________________________

Hans


(in reply to Redsunrizing)
Post #: 8
RE: Counting Seagulls - Redsunrizing (J) vs. jeffs (A).... - 11/30/2011 11:46:44 PM   
HansBolter


Posts: 7704
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: United States
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred


quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

quote:

ORIGINAL: Redsunrizing


#Landing or paradropping on non base/dot hex is not allowed.





For the life of me I cannot grasp the need or desire for this HR.

This means Guadalcanal will never be fought over.

Granted, I'm an AI player and don't have a PBEMers perspective.

Can anyone explain the desire for a HR like this?


The HR means a paradrop can be made on a base. There are two types of bases; those which have at least some of their facilities already developed and those which are currently completely undeveloped. The later are referred to in shorthand as dot bases.

The better way of phrasing the HR is to say that paradropping is allowed on both developed and dot bases only.

With the HR, Guadalcanal will still be fought over because Lunga is a "dot" base.

Alfred



Alfred, the HR uncategorically states that "landings" on "dot" hexes are "not allowed".

I can appreciate that the intent may differ from the statement, but there can be no misinterpretation of what the statement actually says.

_____________________________

Hans


(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 9
RE: Counting Seagulls - Redsunrizing (J) vs. jeffs (A).... - 11/30/2011 11:52:10 PM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline
Not how I was taught at school how to read a double negative.

Alfred

(in reply to HansBolter)
Post #: 10
RE: Counting Seagulls - Redsunrizing (J) vs. jeffs (A).... - 11/30/2011 11:52:35 PM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Redsunrizing

Thanks Alfred, yes I didn't realise it could be a misunderstood house rule.

My intent was that landings and para-drops are allowed at/on base or dot-base hexes.

That's how I read it ... you're doing fine.

Onto pummeling the imperialistic allies!!!



_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to Redsunrizing)
Post #: 11
RE: Counting Seagulls - Redsunrizing (J) vs. jeffs (A).... - 11/30/2011 11:52:53 PM   
Redsunrizing


Posts: 40
Joined: 11/15/2011
Status: offline
Thank you for pointing the HR out, and I have just learned that not all the natives on this site are friendly.

_____________________________


(in reply to HansBolter)
Post #: 12
RE: Counting Seagulls - Redsunrizing (J) vs. jeffs (A).... - 12/1/2011 12:01:44 AM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

Not how I was taught at school how to read a double negative.

Alfred



_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 13
RE: Counting Seagulls - Redsunrizing (J) vs. jeffs (A).... - 12/1/2011 8:13:19 PM   
Redsunrizing


Posts: 40
Joined: 11/15/2011
Status: offline
Thank you Alfred and PaxMondo for you support, and I hope it is not an omen to start this AAR with a disagreement.

Also thank you HansBolter for pointing-out your interpretation of my HR (maybe it was my Aussie English), you point is taken and I will move on.

Hello jeff’s my Allied opponent and also thank you for your support. I will also add a hearty good luck to you too, but may your defeats in this game be numerous and demoralizing.


_____________________________


(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 14
RE: Counting Seagulls - Redsunrizing (J) vs. jeffs (A).... - 12/1/2011 8:14:08 PM   
Redsunrizing


Posts: 40
Joined: 11/15/2011
Status: offline
Just I quick word as to why I choose scenario 2 as the format to play this pbem game in and it is not because I think I need the advantage. I have been reading these AAR’s for years; it is how I learnt to play this complex game.

But one sad fact that I have noticed, is the number of games that end in stalemate. I think if you have two evenly skilled opponents, this is bound happen with scenario 1. The Reason is the flow of the game is predictable, the Japanese player prevail in the early game and the Allied player will do likewise in the endgame.

I think that with scenario 2 the Japanese player has the opportunity to go deep into Allied territory, or create a strong defensive position. This means that the Allied player to work for his advantages, even with his vast reinforcements. This in my mind makes a better balanced game, that can hold the interest of both players


_____________________________


(in reply to Redsunrizing)
Post #: 15
RE: Counting Seagulls - Redsunrizing (J) vs. jeffs (A).... - 12/2/2011 2:21:05 AM   
Redsunrizing


Posts: 40
Joined: 11/15/2011
Status: offline
Report for December 7th 1941.

Pacific.
In the morning 5 of our midget submarines attacked the American anchorage at Pearl Harbour, with 1 managing to penetrate the defences and torpedoing an American battleship. But sadly the 4 other midget submarines were destroyed before they achieved any results.

The Pearl Harbour air-raid had average results and went in fully coordinated with its A6M2 Zero escort, suffering the loss of only 2 B5N2 Kate’s. The Kate’s got multiple bomb and torpedo hits on all 8 of the American battleships, with also some hits on 4 cruisers and 2 destroyers. The D3A1 Val’s worked-over the airfields pretty good for no loss. The Val’s destroyed about 20 and damaged over 130 Allied machines, while getting 42 hits on the runways.

G3M2 Nell’s also raided the airfield on Wake Island today, with all the our aircraft returning safely. The Nell’s which attacked at 4000 feet damaged 5 American naval fighters, and hit the runways 19 times.

Both the raids on Pearl Harbour and Wake Island will be repeated for effect tomorrow. So there is the possibility of heavy casualties to the aircraft and air crews of the air-groups of the main mobile carrier force and the force of Nell’s based on Rio-Namur.

Philippines.
Aircraft from the light mobile carrier force attacked 2 American destroyers in the Celebes Sea, to the south of Tarakan.

Army and naval land based bombers from Formosa raided the American airfields on Luzon at Iba, Clark Field and Manila today. These raids destroyed about 10 and damaged over 100 enemy machines for the loss of 1 bomber.

In the Morning the heavy cruiser Chokai was damaged by a torpedo in a skirmish with some British MTB’s and a destroyer in the South China Sea, midway between Hong Kong and Luzon. The cruiser and her 2 escorting destroyers made it back Takao during the day. Her damage is in the low-range and there is no danger of sinking, but she will have to go to Japan for hull repairs.

Malaya.
The British airfields at Alor Star, George Town, Kota Bharu and Kuantan raided by our aircraft from the army and naval land based bombers today. In the four raids a total of 5 enemy machines were destroyed and another 10 were damaged. Numerous runway hits were also scored at all four enemy airfields, for the loss of only one army bomber.

A further 3 British machines were destroyed, when they attempted to strike at my landing convoys off the ports of Singora and Kota Bharu. But unfortunately the enemy managed to hit and sink the cargo ship Noto Maru off Singora.

I am landing troops at both Kota Bharu and Singora; with the bulk of the 18th division plus a tank regiment landing at Kota Bharu. While the entire 5th division plus the 41st regiment are landing at Singora.

Burma.
Army Ki-21-IIa Sally bombers raided the British airfield at Rangoon destroying 1 enemy machine and damaging another 4 on the ground. The raid managed 35 runway hits, but lost 1 of the escorting Ki-43-Ib Oscar fighters over the target.

Naval land based G4M1 Betty bombers raided the American volunteer group airfield at Toungoo today destroying 10 and damaging over 100 of the American fighters. 53 bomb hits on the runways were scored, and all my aircraft returned safely to Bangkok.

Hong Kong.
Army Ki-51 Sonia light bombers attacked the British airfield at Hong Kong managing to damage 5 British machines and hit the runways with 43 bombs.

I have included the combat report as an attachment at the bottom of this post for those who care to read the full report.


Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Redsunrizing -- 12/2/2011 9:15:41 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Redsunrizing)
Post #: 16
RE: Counting Seagulls - Redsunrizing (J) vs. jeffs (A).... - 12/2/2011 9:19:29 AM   
obvert


Posts: 14050
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline
Good Betty strike on Tongou. And you seem to have gotten a lot out of the Sonias at Hong Kong. I used them on the port, but they have sucked for anything so far in my game and are all being changed out for Anns and Lily, and eventually Sally.

At PH you got a fairly light strike due to the use of Vals only on airfield attack, it seems. I doubt any of those BBs will go down, with the possible exception of Tennessee. Maybe Oklahoma, as she seems ready to go down with almost any significant damage. The Vals getting a fairly free shot first turn at least increases the fires, which keeps building damage after the attack and is often the reason these ships actually sink. Also, the Vals will get a few more of the smaller ships.

I know opinion seems to be toward using Vals on the airfields, and I do think getting planes destroyed is hugely important this turn. I've had luck using zeros at 100ft and not losing more than 1 or 2 during the first turn, and getting nearly the same amount of damage to the fields and planes.

Looks like you're going in again. Where will you set the Kates and Vals for next turn? I wouldn't suggest dive-bombing Vals toward anything with the flak on full there for turn 2.

(in reply to Redsunrizing)
Post #: 17
RE: Counting Seagulls - Redsunrizing (J) vs. jeffs (A).... - 12/2/2011 10:26:50 PM   
Redsunrizing


Posts: 40
Joined: 11/15/2011
Status: offline
Hello obvert,

I think you are correct about the use of the Val's, and the strike results show it. As the hit rate on the ships and airframe/airfields seems good to me, but the damage seems underwhelming. Apart from one test this is the first time I have used the Kate's only on the port attack, and the Val's exclusively on the airfields. The results from the test on the port were not much better, but with over 60 aircraft destroyed on the airfields.

The test should have been a warning and maybe in hindsight I should have gone with a traditionally mixed strike. Unfortunately I had already sent the second turn out before you have confirmed my suspicions, never mind the cumulative damage might have better results. But I only have one realistic chance of neutralizing the Pacific fleet and I will have to hit it again if the battleships can be quickly repaired.

I have one air-group in China converted to Ki-48-Ib Lily for use against Hong Kong, but they will not be repaired for a few turns, so I have to use Ki-51's for the opening turns. But it is my ultimate goal to convert all one engine bombers to Lily/Sally/Helen, but because of the 75PP cost for each air-group now it will take sometime.

_____________________________


(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 18
RE: Counting Seagulls - Redsunrizing (J) vs. jeffs (A).... - 12/3/2011 12:21:02 AM   
Redsunrizing


Posts: 40
Joined: 11/15/2011
Status: offline
I have managed to workout how to upload a screenshot, so here is my airframe building set-up for turn 1.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________


(in reply to Redsunrizing)
Post #: 19
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> Counting Seagulls - Redsunrizing (J) vs. jeffs (A). A jeffs-free zone. Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.344