RE: [Clever Title Here] Texas_D (J) vs Marbakka (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: [Clever Title Here] Texas_D (J) vs Marbakka (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: [Clever Title Here] Texas_D (J) vs Marbakka (A)

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: [Clever Title Here] Texas_D (J) vs Marbakka (A) - 4/11/2012 1:48:20 AM

princep01

Posts: 943
Joined: 8/7/2006
From: Texas
Status: offline

Marbakka, that is good advice flowing from BBFanboy abnd HansBolter.

A couple of observations regarding things Hans pointed out.

1. There is a significant amphibious unload bonus given to the Japanese early on. This bonus disappears on 4/6/42 (four months...p. 127 last sentence). Delaying Japanese landings until this bonus disappears is one of the real strategic objectives I try to achieve in the game as an Allied player. Beyond that point, IJN amphibious landings are glacerally slowl by comparison.

As an aside, I think the game (in the AE form) eloquently captures the fact that the Japanese had to withdraw considerable shipping from the Navy and reincorporate it in the civilian economy to avoid collapse of the latter. Thus ends the bonus.

2. Operating CV TFs. I choose to operate the US CVs in 2 CV TFs in 1942. There might be 4 in the hex, but it would be in two separate TFs. There is a point where attack coordination is penalized. It depends on both the number of A/C in the TF and the maximum distance they fly on the mission. The formula and a description are found on pp 166-167 of the manual. You can see that the coordination penalty is not likely to affect 2 CV US TFs in 1942, unless they are fighting at extended range (something you don't want to do anyway). One of the disadvantages of running around in single CV TFs is the number of escorts you have to deploy to function that way. Get close if you want to fight.

And finally, you will see that the CVs tend to do something bothersome in the reaction movement. This is automatic with CVs and, if led by an aggressive comander, they will even override a react setting of 0. Read and understand p. 129, Special CV Movement. This little "hidden" gem of a rule has led to some very unpleasant surprises for both side (although the US commander is often the victim).

Hope this helps.

(in reply to HansBolter)

Post #: 151

RE: [Clever Title Here] Texas_D (J) vs Marbakka (A) - 4/11/2012 4:51:44 AM

marbakka

Posts: 410
Joined: 3/9/2012
Status: offline

Orders Summary - December 27, 1941

- Scanned all training AGs for pilots over 50 xp. Overstaffed most of those and set them up to 100% training.
- Upgraded 1 P40 AG to P39...testing it to make sure I did it right then I'll look to do more as per the suggestion
- Optimized Force Z's position in case he goes for Ambon instead
- Decided against diverting cruisers to interfere with possible Lae landing (Aus troops finally get done with their march through the jungle tomorrow anyway). Recon mission sent to Rabaul.
- Enterprise is still within striking distance of Wake. I've focused the search planes to see what is going on with this invasion force headed up there. If it continues to approach and appears to be unescorted, I have the option of a) using the 4 PC force that had been escorting a supply shipment, or b) turning Enterprise back for a hit and run. I'll look at what the next day's search reveals and make a decision then. If it IS escorted, I'm evacuating everyone I can and leaving it to be captured. Until I find out more, my carrier is pausing on her return to PH.
- Loading has begun of about 6 LCUs assigned to the Pacific Fleet. They will sail to Pago Pago where some will stay to help out and others will be moved to nearby Fiji, Noumea, and CENPAC islands to get a better grip on these Pacific Islands. This should have been done a while ago, but I'm learning. Some mediocre escort has already been arranged, but I'll be pulling some more from a certain carrier group soon enough.
- Ordered a unit to try to cut off the enemy unit moving to the hex north of Pegu. I'd rather my rail not get cut off right away.
- Lots of transports finished moving units to Palembang, so I reassigned them to the next units. I'm loving the SkyTrain squadron.
- I have some patrol boats that just arrived and disbanded at the port 1 hex west of Billiton. The PTs that were already there are out of fuel and damaged. I'm trying a high speed dash to get some fuel up there, but I have no idea why he would allow me to unload it. If all else fails, I have enough fuel in the PTs that just arrived to launch a nighttime raid against Billiton, but I'm not expecting much success here. What I really wish I had were some more Dutch mines!

- In NOPAC, troops have finally finished unloading. Supplies, Fuel, and more engineers are all going to arrive within a day or two. No sign of Japanese activity up here yet.

Here is a snapshot of what China looks like at the moment. It's a mess. The red line represents where I plan on putting up a fight, but I'm open to suggestions. I didn't even draw anything in the south and west because I have no idea where to fight there - particularly near Canton where I know he has at least a full division or two (see Hong Kong). The numbers are the AV for those stacks. Stacks that I didn't give a number for are mostly too small to factor in just yet.

QUESTION FROM TEXAS_D: Does anyone know if the problem with Scenario 2 which "ruined" the endgame for Japan by flooding him with HI sucking pilots has been fixed/altered?

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by marbakka -- 4/11/2012 5:41:14 AM >

(in reply to marbakka)

Post #: 152

RE: [Clever Title Here] Texas_D (J) vs Marbakka (A) - 4/11/2012 9:57:17 AM

HansBolter

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

You have 3k AV in the woods NW of Hankow. How strong is he in the city? If you can distract him in the Changsha area and lure some strength out of Hankow it is a quick move from those woods down that major road. Hankow is quadrupled defense terrain. 3k AV quadrupled will be almost impossible for him to dislodge without concentrating half his army in China. Think about it.

This could be a very risky proposition though as he could surround you and starve you out. I've actually taken Hankow from the AI several times, but an opponent with a brain will respond far more aggressively than the AI.

< Message edited by HansBolter -- 4/11/2012 11:32:15 AM >

_____________________________

Hans

(in reply to marbakka)

Post #: 153

RE: [Clever Title Here] Texas_D (J) vs Marbakka (A) - 4/11/2012 12:32:43 PM

Blackhorse

Posts: 1983
Joined: 8/20/2000
From: Eastern US
Status: offline

quote:

Here is a snapshot of what China looks like at the moment. It's a mess. The red line represents where I plan on putting up a fight, but I'm open to suggestions. I didn't even draw anything in the south and west because I have no idea where to fight there - particularly near Canton where I know he has at least a full division or two (see Hong Kong).

In Scenario 2 the IJA can roll over you, if he puts his mind to it. To the southwest, try to keep him off the RR line Liuchow-Changsha for as long as possible, so you can maintain interior lines. Wuchow and Kukong are exposed outposts -- once you collect the scattered corps and HQs from the SE consider railing them to build a main line of resistance in the wooded approached to Kweilen and Liuchow.

A clever IJA will send a unit or two up the minor road above Nanning to either cut the rail line from Tuyun, or threaten the Kweiyang-Kunming road.

Napoleon said something like, "the strategic defensive is a form of deferred suicide." You don't want to be passive along the entire front. As HansBolter suggests, consider a thrust at Hankow -- or somewhere else -- to make him react to you.

_____________________________

WitP-AE -- US LCU & AI Stuff

Oddball: Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?
Moriarty: Crap!

(in reply to marbakka)

Post #: 154

RE: [Clever Title Here] Texas_D (J) vs Marbakka (A) - 4/11/2012 3:45:57 PM

marbakka

Posts: 410
Joined: 3/9/2012
Status: offline

Re Hankow: I positioned those troops there to threaten Hankow, but I've been operating on the chess principle that "A threat has more power than its execution." Sure, I could probably take Hankow if I draw enough troops over to Changsha, but as you point out there is the counter-threat of surrounding a sizable portion of my Chinese army and starving them out (as well as losing Changsha in the bargain). But the threat of taking Hankow seems more powerful to me because without even engaging in battle, it removes troops from the Changsha front and relieves pressure there. That said, when his large force marches out of the hex adjacent to Changsha, I'm going to move INF units back to that square again, and if he replies by marching those 30k soldiers back toward Changsha, I may decide that in this case the execution is just more fun.

(in reply to Blackhorse)

Post #: 155

RE: [Clever Title Here] Texas_D (J) vs Marbakka (A) - 4/11/2012 3:52:43 PM

HansBolter

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: marbakka

Re Hankow: I positioned those troops there to threaten Hankow, but I've been operating on the chess principle that "A threat has more power than its execution." Sure, I could probably take Hankow if I draw enough troops over to Changsha, but as you point out there is the counter-threat of surrounding a sizable portion of my Chinese army and starving them out (as well as losing Changsha in the bargain). But the threat of taking Hankow seems more powerful to me because without even engaging in battle, it removes troops from the Changsha front and relieves pressure there. That said, when his large force marches out of the hex adjacent to Changsha, I'm going to move INF units back to that square again, and if he replies by marching those 30k soldiers back toward Changsha, I may decide that in this case the execution is just more fun.

Excellent strategy....the fleet in being is better than the war lost in a single afternoon......old reference to WWI and the battle of Jutland....you likely wouldn't be able to take Hankow anyway unless he really denuded it. But you could lodge yourself in it in way that would be difficult to dislodge. And I believe that the owner receives no manpower, resources or industrial production form a contested hex, not positive, but I think so.

He can reinforce Hankow by sea though. In my current Ironman game I took it from the AI and it tried several very weak attempts to invade it from the river.....but I have 5.1k sitting in it.

I also discovered one turn that I had a ship sitting in port there when I noticed a yellow anchor symbol appear. I wondered how I suddenly acquired a Chinese navy and discovered that a damaged US submarine that had been operating off the Korean peninsula took refuge there for repairs. Since that alerted me to the reality that subs can run up river to it I sent an operational one there to patrol the hex to intercept any further invasion attempts.

< Message edited by HansBolter -- 4/11/2012 3:59:57 PM >

_____________________________

Hans

(in reply to marbakka)

Post #: 156

RE: [Clever Title Here] Texas_D (J) vs Marbakka (A) - 4/11/2012 7:58:28 PM

marbakka

Posts: 410
Joined: 3/9/2012
Status: offline

December 28, 1941 Report

- Nighttime bombings in Singapore
- Japanese take Loyang
- Enemy TFs appear to be making their move on Kendari. Force Z is in position, but my first cruiser group is still a couple days
- My fuel tanker arrived west of Billiton and fueled the PTs. They have been ordered to go throw themselves at the massive (but heavily escorted) cargo TFs next door.
- Recon of Hankow shows only 1600 troops but 7 units. Clearly more recon is needed.
- Wake: I don't think he planned for it to happen, but Wake was lightly bombed by carrier aircraft in the afternoon. Search planes spotted what appears to be the KB (the full KB recombined?) to the W/NW of Wake. I have reconfirmed the lightly escorted transport TF moving to Wake

Orders Summary - December 29, 1941

- PTs ordered to attack Billiton
- Singapore CAP is back up in a big way with about a third of them flying at night.
- AVG sweep east of Changsha. Ordered more recon on Hankow
- B-17Es out of Calcutta finally have something to shoot at. They will be welcoming the Japanese to Burma starting this morning
- Dropped a slow moving AMC that was dragging down the second cruiser group trying to make it to Kendari/Ambon in time for the fight
- Enterprise is order to return to Pearl Harbor with all haste and then proceed toward the WC. A replenishment fleet will meet her halfway
- The small group of PCs that I had on ASW will attempt to disrupt their attack on Wake. Best of luck to them!
- A submarine wolfpack that was traveling to the Japanese coast to disperse into patrol zones is diverted to the south to see if I can get a lucky hit in the KB. They have been split into multiple TFs and given patrol routes for now.
- I didn't mention it yesterday, but Saratoga was ordered from the Bering Sea to the WC. Glad I did as she would be in a heap of trouble without a bit of a head start if this KB makes for Alaska
- Pearl Harbor air defense changed from training to 50% CAP. Getting ready to bring my ASW fleets into port as well. Klaxon alarms everywhere. Bring it.
- Sims class DDs arrived in San Diego from Balboa and 3 were immediately ordered to join the big troop transport that just left San Fran for PaPa

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by marbakka -- 4/11/2012 7:59:21 PM >

(in reply to HansBolter)

Post #: 157

RE: [Clever Title Here] Texas_D (J) vs Marbakka (A) - 4/11/2012 11:53:10 PM

marbakka

Posts: 410
Joined: 3/9/2012
Status: offline

December 29, 1941 Report

- PT attack at Billiton resulted in nothing but an MTB being sunk at 12000yd. I think I'll move the PT gang to Palembang and just have them harass whatever he eventually sends to take it.
- He landed about 250ish AV worth of troops at Wake in the night. His transport fleet was savaged first by the mines and then by my group of PCs. He managed to moderately damage one PC (who is returning to PH) but the other three came off unscathed. They will chase down the fleeing xAPs and hopefully put them down such that those troops have to be moved from Wake by other means. He'll take Wake, of course, but it'll bleed him a bit. The KB that was NW of the island has disappeared. I'm surprised that there was no attack from the air either from LBA or the carrier aircraft. Did he send it north to the Aleutians? Is it supposed to be a trap to lure the Enterprise out to Wake again?
- Enterprise made it more than halfway to PH during the day. I've turned her speed down to Mission and ordered the Replenishment fleet to refuel her, though she has enough to make it to PH on her own, so I may change my mind and tell that fleet to go meet the Saratoga instead. Saratoga is leaving the Bering Sea and heading SE toward the WC. There is already a refueling fleet set to meet her, but it won't hurt to prepare in case she has to crank up the speed.
- Nighttime bombing of Singapore and Palembang and a daytime, half-hearted sweep of Batavia. I think I may move AVG to Batavia for a turn and slaughter those zeros, leaving my other fighters to cover Palembang
- Japan has SAGs hovering NE of Kendari finishing off islands on the way. CA Chokai is a part of that group.

I've got to run, but I'll post more later.

Oh...and a certain legendary aircraft carrier arrived today

(in reply to marbakka)

Post #: 158

RE: [Clever Title Here] Texas_D (J) vs Marbakka (A) - 4/12/2012 5:02:35 AM

BBfanboy

Posts: 18046
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

He can reinforce Hankow by sea though. In my current Ironman game I took it from the AI and it tried several very weak attempts to invade it from the river.....but I have 5.1k sitting in it.

I also discovered one turn that I had a ship sitting in port there when I noticed a yellow anchor symbol appear. I wondered how I suddenly acquired a Chinese navy and discovered that a damaged US submarine that had been operating off the Korean peninsula took refuge there for repairs. Since that alerted me to the reality that subs can run up river to it I sent an operational one there to patrol the hex to intercept any further invasion attempts.

Yet another little twist in this marvellous game! I can't foresee ever getting tired of it!

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to HansBolter)

Post #: 159

RE: [Clever Title Here] Texas_D (J) vs Marbakka (A) - 4/12/2012 5:41:51 AM

marbakka

Posts: 410
Joined: 3/9/2012
Status: offline

Orders Summary - December 30, 1941

- Saratoga will meet with a replenishment fleet tomorrow and continue toward the WC
- Lexington continues to lazily make her way to her assigned repair yard
- Enterprise has slowed to Mission Speed and will rendezvous with a replenishment fleet tomorrow before proceeding to PH
- USS Yorktown is now in theater. She picked up her DD escorts in San Diego and will meet a CA and 2 CLs on the way to meet Saratoga and Enterprise
- "The Grand Old Lady" (BB Warspite) is ordered to Balboa from which she will proceed to Trincomalee via Cape Town to join the RN fleet in the Indian Ocean
- My 3 undamaged PCs at Wake will attempt to take out his remaining transport ships which are attempting to flee back south.
- Tinkered with the Wake search planes in the hopes of spotting the KB again. It vanished.
- I need 2-3 more days to have my cruiser SAGs join up with Force Z at which point I can press into the Banda Sea and attack his protection there. Based on "radio chatter" he thinks Force Z is sitting in port somewhere. My only concerns here are that a) I'm not sure where the mKB is, and b) Force Z keeps having to be replenished while it sits out there waiting.
- Assigned all level bombers in range to attack the airfield at Billiton. My thinking is that I can slow down his AF base build up there
- PT boats that can still float have been ordered to Palembang
- Palembang is now up to 400 AV. C-47 Skytrains are the bomb.
- I'm still thinking about buying the AUS troops out of Singers. I can take my time thinking about it because as of right now, they couldn't get past the massive fleets around Billiton.
- HMS Indomitable should arrive at Trincomalee tonight and will be given her CG assignments tomorrow.
- Didn't change much in China this turn. AVG to sweep one more time before a trip back to the rear again.
- Pago Pago is surrounded by a sea of ships that would love to dock, but the dock is still being built. There is going to be a backlog there for some time, but that's ok at this early stage.

NEWB QUESTION: Is it advisable to divide units in India to leave a garrison behind? I have a number of cities where the garrison is something like 104/30, but the 104 is in 1 unit. If I move it out then I'm short on the garrison requirement. Can I split that unit and send the rest to the front lines, or will that make it useless?

(in reply to marbakka)

Post #: 160

RE: [Clever Title Here] Texas_D (J) vs Marbakka (A) - 4/12/2012 6:01:42 AM

koniu

Posts: 2763
Joined: 2/28/2011
From: Konin, Poland, European Union
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: marbakka

NEWB QUESTION: Is it advisable to divide units in India to leave a garrison behind? I have a number of cities where the garrison is something like 104/30, but the 104 is in 1 unit. If I move it out then I'm short on the garrison requirement. Can I split that unit and send the rest to the front lines, or will that make it useless?

You can divide them and move parts on front line, but remember bigger units fight better and they are taking less damage during fight that smaller units, sp prababaly when You splli them they will loose lots of combat capability

In my small experience I can tell that one ID will fight better and longer than 4 regiments etc (Even with equal AV). In battle size matters.
On another hand when you have unit that need replacements and/or have lots of disabled squads i have notice that dividing ID to sub units make healing process faster.

_____________________________

"Only the Dead Have Seen the End of War"

(in reply to marbakka)

Post #: 161

RE: [Clever Title Here] Texas_D (J) vs Marbakka (A) - 4/12/2012 9:45:04 AM

Blackhorse

Posts: 1983
Joined: 8/20/2000
From: Eastern US
Status: offline

Look around India. You will find several independent battalions that will fill out to 29 or 39 AS. A few of these are not needed for garrisons where they are, and are perfect to send to those 10/20/30 Garrison requirement cities, to free up larger units.

quote:

ORIGINAL: koniu

quote:

ORIGINAL: marbakka

NEWB QUESTION: Is it advisable to divide units in India to leave a garrison behind? I have a number of cities where the garrison is something like 104/30, but the 104 is in 1 unit. If I move it out then I'm short on the garrison requirement. Can I split that unit and send the rest to the front lines, or will that make it useless?

You can divide them and move parts on front line, but remember bigger units fight better and they are taking less damage during fight that smaller units, sp prababaly when You splli them they will loose lots of combat capability

In my small experience I can tell that one ID will fight better and longer than 4 regiments etc (Even with equal AV). In battle size matters.
On another hand when you have unit that need replacements and/or have lots of disabled squads i have notice that dividing ID to sub units make healing process faster.

_____________________________

(in reply to koniu)

Post #: 162

RE: [Clever Title Here] Texas_D (J) vs Marbakka (A) - 4/12/2012 1:40:24 PM

BBfanboy

Posts: 18046
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse

Look around India. You will find several independent battalions that will fill out to 29 or 39 AS. A few of these are not needed for garrisons where they are, and are perfect to send to those 10/20/30 Garrison requirement cities, to free up larger units.

quote:

ORIGINAL: koniu

quote:

ORIGINAL: marbakka

NEWB QUESTION: Is it advisable to divide units in India to leave a garrison behind? I have a number of cities where the garrison is something like 104/30, but the 104 is in 1 unit. If I move it out then I'm short on the garrison requirement. Can I split that unit and send the rest to the front lines, or will that make it useless?

You can divide them and move parts on front line, but remember bigger units fight better and they are taking less damage during fight that smaller units, sp prababaly when You splli them they will loose lots of combat capability

In my small experience I can tell that one ID will fight better and longer than 4 regiments etc (Even with equal AV). In battle size matters.
On another hand when you have unit that need replacements and/or have lots of disabled squads i have notice that dividing ID to sub units make healing process faster.

Right! And if you have already sent those forward to Imphal or Kohima or Chittagong, the railway will get them back in three or four days. You can speed up the handover by putting the oversized garrison unit in strat mode [but not moving them yet] until the new unit gets there. Strat mode does not affect its performance as a garrison against partisan attacks.

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to Blackhorse)

Post #: 163

RE: [Clever Title Here] Texas_D (J) vs Marbakka (A) - 4/12/2012 9:05:27 PM

marbakka

Posts: 410
Joined: 3/9/2012
Status: offline

I've received the next turn and hurriedly watched the replay but I had to leave the house to get some work done. I'll have the reports for that turn later.

But before I do all that, let me - for a second time - issue a plea for your cooperation. I consider any information gleaned from this AAR to be FoW/OPSEC and not to be passed to Texas_D. That includes my questions about game mechanics, my earlier mistakes (Lexington fuel debacle), your evaluation of my playing skill, and whatever else is gleaned from reading this. Frankly, it doesn't matter whether you consider it FoW because it is not your game. If you can't handle not talking to my opponent about what you read here, then please stop reading this AAR. This is twice now that I've been extremely frustrated to find that my discussion here is getting to him. And, yes, telling him "He's frustrated that I told you XYZ" is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. He doesn't get to know that I'm frustrated, excited, confused, anticipating, etc. He is not to be told anything that is contained in this AAR. The whole point of it is that I, as a new player, can openly ask questions without tipping off my opponent as to where I'm at tactically, strategically, or psychologically.

Strike two. If it happens again, I'm done with the AAR and probably the game with Texas_D too.

(in reply to BBfanboy)

Post #: 164

RE: [Clever Title Here] Texas_D (J) vs Marbakka (A) - 4/12/2012 11:49:56 PM

marbakka

Posts: 410
Joined: 3/9/2012
Status: offline

December 30, 1941 Report

- He pulled the trigger on Kendari and landed about 165 AV during the night. The landing is being covered by several SAGs which I would happily send to the bottom except that during the day, there was a carrier air strike against Ambon. The Carrier group (mKB? KBb?) is located NW of Taliaboe and can easily cover any attempt to interfere with Kendari.
- The invasion of Wake continues. My PC group failed to intercept the fleeing transports, but they will try again tonight. I doubt the island will hold for another day, but we'll see. He shock attacked with 35 AV against my 9 yesterday reducing the fort to level 1. The Carrier TF that he has NW of Wake has vanished. It was last seen headed NE but I have not been able to spot it since then. My Aleutian forces are on high alert.
- More nighttime bombings of Palembang and Singapore. I'm frustrated that AVG didn't see any action above Batavia. I'll leave them there for another day to see if he comes. My nighttime CAPs seem to be largely ineffective.

Nothing else major to report unless I'm forgetting something.

SigInt: Nothing huge here that I can see. He seems to be pretty active in the Solomons with SAGs covering his landings. The main focus for him right now seems to be the capture of Kendari/Ambon and the "big attacks" in Malaya and Burma (soon).

Attachment (1)

(in reply to marbakka)

Post #: 165

RE: [Clever Title Here] Texas_D (J) vs Marbakka (A) - 4/13/2012 12:41:09 AM

HansBolter

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

Just wanted to say that I don't know Texas_D, haven't noticed if he is running a counter AAR of his own and have never even seen him post on this forum. When I do see counter AARs I tend to observe them both and post in neither. Sorry this is happening to you because I'm enjoying the discourse here.

I'll continue to encourage you and provide any advice I can as long as your game and this thread continue.

_____________________________

Hans

(in reply to marbakka)

Post #: 166

RE: [Clever Title Here] Texas_D (J) vs Marbakka (A) - 4/13/2012 1:32:13 AM

marbakka

Posts: 410
Joined: 3/9/2012
Status: offline

Orders Summary - December 31, 1941

- HMS Indomitable and HMS Hermes have joined together for a shakedown/ASW patrol in the Bay of Bengal. We'll be steering clear of suspected enemy LBA, but getting close enough to check for submarine activity near Calcutta and SW of Rangoon.
- USS Enterprise should arrive in PH today. She will refuel and depart to the east on the 1st
- USS Saratoga is ordered to skirt the Canadian coast rather than sail directly to her WC destination for fear that the KB spotted NW of Wake has moved NE toward Dutch Harbor.
- I'm borderline depressed that the landing of Kendari can't be countered without further information. I'm not naive enough to believe I could have held it for any length of time, but I was looking forward to tangling with those SAGs. Until I learn more about the enemy air coverage, Force Z is ordered to Darwin for refueling and rendezvous with the cruiser SAGs which will turn back to meet them there. I'm unsure of what to do with Force Z at this point. He has extended his LBA coverage over the western Java Sea and with Kendari covered by carrier aircraft, it will only be a matter of time before it and Ambon fall and become LBA bases. Is it time to move these guys to the IO? Perhaps use them in off Australia instead? I need intel on these enemy carriers!
- Adjusted air defense in Singapore, Palembang, and Batavia. Our attempt to attack Billiton's airfield was largely ineffective. Doing some recon this turn to see if I did anything at all. AVG to stay in Batavia for one more day.
- Wouldn't it be cool if China had, you know, like...an air force or something? AVG back to the rear again.
- In India, I'm switching out smaller garrison units for larger ones and sending the big boys to the front

(in reply to marbakka)

Post #: 167

RE: [Clever Title Here] Texas_D (J) vs Marbakka (A) - 4/13/2012 1:39:36 AM

obvert

Posts: 14050
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: marbakka

- HMS Indomitable and HMS Hermes have joined together for a shakedown/ASW patrol in the Bay of Bengal. We'll be steering clear of suspected enemy LBA, but getting close enough to check for submarine activity near Calcutta and SW of Rangoon.

Not sure if you want to take your two CVs sub hunting. You might find one in the wrong way. That side of India is a bit too close to the IJNAF, and if you get in range of a big group of Netties, it might not matter how much CAP you have, you could still take a fish.

Send some AMs over to check for subs.

(in reply to marbakka)

Post #: 168

RE: [Clever Title Here] Texas_D (J) vs Marbakka (A) - 4/13/2012 1:52:32 AM

HansBolter

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: marbakka

- HMS Indomitable and HMS Hermes have joined together for a shakedown/ASW patrol in the Bay of Bengal. We'll be steering clear of suspected enemy LBA, but getting close enough to check for submarine activity near Calcutta and SW of Rangoon.

Not sure if you want to take your two CVs sub hunting. You might find one in the wrong way. That side of India is a bit too close to the IJNAF, and if you get in range of a big group of Netties, it might not matter how much CAP you have, you could still take a fish.

Send some AMs over to check for subs.

Second that. Did Langley get out alive from the PI? Is Wright functional? Those two AVs and maybe another, not sure, actually have an aircraft capacity, unlike most American AVs. I like to place understrength Kingfisher squads on them (they only have a capacity of 4) and use them as ASW platforms. More valuable ships with aircraft capacities ie...CVs are best kept as far from fish shooters as possible.

_____________________________

Hans

(in reply to obvert)

Post #: 169

RE: [Clever Title Here] Texas_D (J) vs Marbakka (A) - 4/13/2012 2:11:20 AM

marbakka

Posts: 410
Joined: 3/9/2012
Status: offline

Langley was sunk in the attacks on Manila. Wright is sitting at Pearl Harbor doing nothing much.

I'm going to keep my RN carriers away from Burma, but I still want to send them out for a bit. They'll see action later, I know but I'm kinda wanting to get a feel for this Indomitable character.

(in reply to HansBolter)

Post #: 170

RE: [Clever Title Here] Texas_D (J) vs Marbakka (A) - 4/13/2012 3:54:32 AM

marbakka

Posts: 410
Joined: 3/9/2012
Status: offline

Snapshot at where we're at after the first month of the war:

Attachment (1)

(in reply to marbakka)

Post #: 171

RE: [Clever Title Here] Texas_D (J) vs Marbakka (A) - 4/13/2012 8:53:22 AM

BBfanboy

Posts: 18046
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: marbakka

Langley was sunk in the attacks on Manila. Wright is sitting at Pearl Harbor doing nothing much.

I'm going to keep my RN carriers away from Burma, but I still want to send them out for a bit. They'll see action later, I know but I'm kinda wanting to get a feel for this Indomitable character.

The big problem with Brit CVs is the lack of dive bombers. There is the Barracuda, classed as a fighter bomber but it doesn't seem too good in the bomber or the fighter role. The Martlet [Wildcat] and Sea Hurricane fighters are OK but there are not enough of them. The Albacore TBs are good with torps but not great bombers, unlike the Avengers the US has. Best torpedo bomber seems to be the venerable Swordfish!
The other big problem is the lack of capacity - something like 33 aircraft on a CV that outweighs most US CVs. The extra weight went into an armoured flight deck. This makes them tough against bombs but having more fighter aircraft aboard would protect them better against any hits.
As for how to use them - attack very soft targets - exposed merchantmen, auxilliary vessels like minesweepers and sub chasers, bases with no air cover, etc. Once you get about four British carriers you have enough mass in aircraft for a decent strike at a larger base. You might also think about supplementing them with a couple of US CVEs - you get a raft of them starting in late 42.

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to marbakka)

Post #: 172

RE: [Clever Title Here] Texas_D (J) vs Marbakka (A) - 4/14/2012 12:42:07 AM

marbakka

Posts: 410
Joined: 3/9/2012
Status: offline

December 31, 1941 Report

- The Red Devil (SS I-19) unsuccessfully attempts to torpedo CA Chicago off the west coast. I got a lucky break this time. She is on her way to rendezvous with Yorktown.
- The enemy carrier group near Kendari moved much further south than I ever anticipated, and launched an attack on 4 small AO Tans which were empty and being escorted back to Soerabaja by a PC. The PC and 2 AOs were sunk immediately, and the other 2 will almost certainly sink tonight.
- SS Perch, which had been creeping back toward Darwin after a tussle with Japanese destroyers west of Luzon, suffered a critical failure of her temporary repairs and sunk with all hands lost
- Kendari falls to about 5000 enemy troops. I expect they'll be turning their attention on Ambon next.
- CA Chikuma and DD Kasumi sallied out of the Marshals to attack my PG/PC SAG that was trying to intercept returning transports SW of Wake. All three allied vessels were sunk. Chikuma was hit by 2 shells and Kasumi was hit by 1. No reports of damage.
- Air attacks on Palembang and Singapore were limited to day time operations and appeared to only consist of fighter sweeps. His bombers are focusing their attention on the stranded troops in central Malaya, so I expect this is the calm before the storm

SigInt:
- He has evidently rebuilt the 33rd Division because I have received intel saying that it is now plotting for Rangoon (I suspect this is the stack SE of Pegu now).
- At least one element of his 4th Division is on its way to Billiton. I assume this will then be turned to the invasion of Java/Sumatra

< Message edited by marbakka -- 4/14/2012 4:19:58 AM >

(in reply to BBfanboy)

Post #: 173

RE: [Clever Title Here] Texas_D (J) vs Marbakka (A) - 4/14/2012 4:19:23 AM

marbakka

Posts: 410
Joined: 3/9/2012
Status: offline

Orders Summary - January 1, 1942

Happy New Years!

- Enterprise has refueled and is now embarking on her ponderous route home
- Lexington has arrived safely to her destination and is receiving the tender loving care of every available dock worker
- Force Z met with the cruisers in Darwin and has been reformed. It will stay in Darwin until I figure out how to use it. It is accompanied by a SAG flagged by the USS Houston and blessed by the presence of USS Boise. Nothing can stop them! (except that carrier group at Kendari)
- Initiated Operation On A Lark: Phase One which includes evacuating troops from Port Moresby by ship to Darwin and by air to Townsend. It also included relocating the DEI squadron of AVG to an undisclosed location. More on this in a few days.
- Started to form something of a southern MLR in China. Mostly I'm just posting troops in the woods near Canton. At some point they will have to swing north and defend that rail line.

(in reply to marbakka)

Post #: 174

RE: [Clever Title Here] Texas_D (J) vs Marbakka (A) - 4/14/2012 8:34:34 AM

obvert

Posts: 14050
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: marbakka

Orders Summary - January 1, 1942

Happy New Years!

- Enterprise has refueled and is now embarking on her ponderous route home
- Lexington has arrived safely to her destination and is receiving the tender loving care of every available dock worker
- Force Z met with the cruisers in Darwin and has been reformed. It will stay in Darwin until I figure out how to use it. It is accompanied by a SAG flagged by the USS Houston and blessed by the presence of USS Boise. Nothing can stop them! (except that carrier group at Kendari)
- Initiated Operation On A Lark: Phase One which includes evacuating troops from Port Moresby by ship to Darwin and by air to Townsend. It also included relocating the DEI squadron of AVG to an undisclosed location. More on this in a few days.
- Started to form something of a southern MLR in China. Mostly I'm just posting troops in the woods near Canton. At some point they will have to swing north and defend that rail line.

Be careful how much you keep at Darwin. It's a very easy place to hit early on and also very tough to find good defenses for or escape from.

(in reply to marbakka)

Post #: 175

RE: [Clever Title Here] Texas_D (J) vs Marbakka (A) - 4/14/2012 2:46:21 PM

princep01

Posts: 943
Joined: 8/7/2006
From: Texas
Status: offline

+1 re Obvert's observation about basing major fleet units in Darwin. It is extremely dangerous to do this even if you still possess the buffer of Timor. I don't place major units there as it is too easy to be cut-off by enemy fleets to the east and LBA to the west. It is further vulnerable to the type of lightning raid that Obvert noted. Finally, keeping adequate fuel in stock there is always a problem. Better to seek the relative security of Perth or the east coast Aussie ports.

And, Marbakka....if you have a CV sunk there, we will award you the "Bold to the Point of RASHNESS" Razzy trophy. This is an award wargamers generally do not seek:).

(in reply to obvert)

Post #: 176

RE: [Clever Title Here] Texas_D (J) vs Marbakka (A) - 4/14/2012 7:39:04 PM

BBfanboy

Posts: 18046
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: princep01

+1 re Obvert's observation about basing major fleet units in Darwin. It is extremely dangerous to do this even if you still possess the buffer of Timor. I don't place major units there as it is too easy to be cut-off by enemy fleets to the east and LBA to the west. It is further vulnerable to the type of lightning raid that Obvert noted. Finally, keeping adequate fuel in stock there is always a problem. Better to seek the relative security of Perth or the east coast Aussie ports.

And, Marbakka....if you have a CV sunk there, we will award you the "Bold to the Point of RASHNESS" Razzy trophy. This is an award wargamers generally do not seek:).

Right on! To reinforce this I am attaching part of Arnhem's post #72 in his "Shall We Play a Big Babes Game" :

SWPAC
To date, I've lost 693 VP worth of ships in the Darwin Turkey Shoot. This includes the warships that tried to take on KB prior to the blockade and bombing of Darwin port and ships that I've lost due to sinkings at sea post KB departure. A partial list of ships lost includes (non-combatants/auxiliaries below 2,000t are mostly not included)

2 CA Canberra, Australia - lost in Darwin
7 CL Dragon, Leander, De Ruyter, Marblehead, Perth, Achilles, Tromp - first 4 lost in Darwin, latter 3 lost in action
19 DD - 5 American, 4 Australian, 3 British, 6 Dutch, 1 French - 5 lost in Darwin, rest lost in action
3 CM
2 AS
3 TK
34 xAPs
6 xAKs
10 xAKL

Arnhem was trying to resist in DEI and got lots of damaged warships which he put into Darwin for emergency repairs. Then he tried to save some of the troops in DEI and New Guinea and had a lot of transport vessels going into Darwin as the closest major base around. Unfortunately the IJN was in hot pursuit from both east and west and was surprised to find all the sheep gathered in one place. I think Arnhem's opponent stayed a week until there was nothing left to bomb or shell.

EDIT - removed a few details of which Arnhem's opponent may not be aware.

< Message edited by BBfanboy -- 4/14/2012 10:13:56 PM >

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to princep01)

Post #: 177

RE: [Clever Title Here] Texas_D (J) vs Marbakka (A) - 4/14/2012 7:39:27 PM

marbakka

Posts: 410
Joined: 3/9/2012
Status: offline

January 1, 1942 Report

I've got to run out the door to get some lunch and work until late, but I watched the replay real quick, checked the file for a couple of things and will post here so I can think about what my orders will be when I get to it tonight.

Wake Island
- Bombardment by 4-6 enemy CAs and CLs with various DDs
- 33 Zeros escorted 77 Vals to attack Wake Island. The KB is a few hexes SW of the island and reportedly contains 6 CVs 2 BBs and 2CAs. I doubt that is accurate, but I'm thrilled to verify that the KB did NOT race up the Aleutians where it might have caught some important stuff unprepared.

NOPAC
- 8 Zeros escorted 6 Vals to attack and sink AM Oriel who was on picket duty SW of Attu Island
- The carrier group there reportedly contains 1 CVE 1 DD and 2 CAs.
- Force A is a few hexes west of Dutch Harbor. In theory, it could make its way over to the carrier group and attempt to attack it on the surface. Force A consists of BBs Maryland and West Virginia, CA Minneapolis, CL Honolulu, DM Gamble, and DMSs Lamberton and Perry. They can move 6 hexes per turn at normal speed. I'd love to have a little victory over there but I'm concerned that a) I'm risking a lot to sink only a CVE, b) the KB could possibly come to the CVEs aid, and c) My BBs can only make 21 knots and will probably not have any element of surprise. Worth a shot?

Elsewhere
- Guam finally is captured
- Sub activity off the West Coast sinks 2 xAKs, one of which was full of supplies
- Japan has started flying LRCAP over their Burmese invasion force. I'm going to have to start escorting the B-17s out of Calcutta, I think.
- There was a deliberate attack at Clark Field at 1 to 5 odds against Japan. 170 of his squads were destroyed, 224 disabled as well as 57 guns and 112 vehicles either lost or disabled. The Allies suffered only 16 squads destroyed and 206 disabled with 45 guns and 19 vehicles. That'll show 'em.
- Bombers out of Singkawang struck the port at Singapore the day after I formed some of the transports into a TF. I'll be increasing the CAP to cover those ships.

SigInt: More troops headed for Rabaul. Lots of activity at Truk

Big decisions of the day are:
- What to do with Force Z and the Houston TF. The Carrier group in the Banda Sea did not launch an attack this turn, but I have no doubt that it is still present. For now, these guys are sitting in Darwin.
- Do I risk 2 BBs and attempt to intercept the light carrier group near the Aleutians?
- Does the bombing of Singapore's harbor mean that I won't be able to sneak out transport ships as I'd planned to do in a few turns?

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by marbakka -- 4/14/2012 7:41:04 PM >

(in reply to princep01)

Post #: 178

RE: [Clever Title Here] Texas_D (J) vs Marbakka (A) - 4/14/2012 7:52:49 PM

BBfanboy

Posts: 18046
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

If Force A were close enough to make the intercept next day, I would go for it. You have little to fear from a strike group of six Vals when you have stout BBs and CAs to soak up the damage and put up a good AA screen.
Problem #1 is that you appear to need to close in quite a bit and will likely be sighted by Nav Search before you get a chance to intercept. That will blow your surprise Ace in the Hole for any future opportunities such as hitting a landing where the offloading ships cannot move.
Problem #2 as you touched on, is that KB may race up toward Anchorage and trap your slow BBs away from any significant air cover.
Unless you can somehow bait his group to come east under your LBA and within a one-day intercept range, keep Force A hidden.

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to marbakka)

Post #: 179

RE: [Clever Title Here] Texas_D (J) vs Marbakka (A) - 4/14/2012 8:18:16 PM

princep01

Posts: 943
Joined: 8/7/2006
From: Texas
Status: offline

I would go for the CVE (or is it a CVL?) TF in the far north,;but I would only go with the cruisers and DD types only. Those BBs will not likely have the speed to catch the qarry nor the ability to shot enough to hurt them (they will run from those slow BBs before they find the range). Send the slow BBs back home and basically leave them there until you can use them for one of two things:

1. Shooting at other IJN slow BBs;
2. More importantly, bombardment missions.

Otherwisae, you are burning fuel and risking SS attack to no good effect.

(in reply to BBfanboy)

Post #: 180

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: [Clever Title Here] Texas_D (J) vs Marbakka (A)