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: The Elephant Vanishes : obvert (J) vs Historiker_SqzMyLemon_Canoerebel (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: The Elephant Vanishes : obvert (J) vs Historiker_SqzMyLemon_Canoerebel (A) Page: <<   < prev  108 109 [110] 111 112   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: The Elephant Vanishes : obvert (J) vs Historiker_Sq... - 6/10/2019 8:06:31 PM   
obvert


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

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:


We can go around and around if you want, but please read what I'm writing first.

If he flies 500-1,000 at a base that has a big airfield and lots of NF, he can add 50 on airfield strikes while being able to overwhelm the defenses with the majority on Strat bombing. The NF only last so long and the airfield strikes will degrade any daytime CAP for the next phase when the airfield can then be obliterated.


Except 50 planes on airbase attack...isn't actually 50 planes on airbase attack. Leader/EXP rolls, night mission roll, moonlight, flak, NF, weather.

It might be 50 planes in theory, in practice it's never going to be that high except in exceptional circumstances.



The rule is 50 planes per target per base. Not 50 planes "set" per target per base. He already sets more than 50 knowing he'll get slightly fewer that will fly. His strikes have usually been close to 50 hitting the target. He set 6 groups for the Manila strike, which would be more than 50 total planes. I'm also not going to nitpick if it's 51 that hit.

quote:

A while ago when having this same conversation with Bullwinkle he pulled out a very good example of a night strike on Wewak. This did do some damage, and also degraded the day CAP so that when the main daylight strike arrived there was less resistance, and the low flying B-25s were able to take out virtually all of the remaining aircraft on the base.

My problem with historical examples of night strikes is that they were incredibly rare, not very effective against any pinpoint target (RAF estimated their strikes could not get better than 5 miles to target accuracy) and did not close airfields.

The USAAF was the most advanced Air Force in the world in the era and they chose to use their strategic assets almost exclusively in area bombing as pinpoint target bombing was found to be largely ineffective. They did hit airfields, did close them in the day, but not at night as far as I've been able to find. Maybe they didn't have to, but there is no evidence (I can find ) that they could either.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

An airbase is not a pinpoint target, and it's reflected like that in the game. Airbase attacks are separated into the planes, the airbase itself and the runways. Hitting a specific factory in the middle of a city is reasonably tricky. Plastering a large airbase, with most of the surface area being a flat, rectangular concrete surface is much more straightforward. That's reflected in the game design.


Well, good point. An airbase is actually an abstract for many airfields spread over a 46 mile hex. In big bases that means very many airfields. So even less likely that 4Es could close them all or wipe out 50-100% of the airframes in the hex. This is most bases in Japan, where about half the bases are size 5 or larger.

In reality an airbase with high fort levels would have planned dispersal and revetments to protect planes. So the size would benefit the defense, not increase the hit rate of bombing strikes at night. Night makes the fields and the nearby lake look a lot like flat level concrete, and it's just not shown that night strikes on airfields in the war were effective.

quote:

As you've seen the "trivial level" is quite effective, and could be in any base on map if he chose to employ it with some preparation.


quote:


I'd disagree, the damage is trivial. He bombed unopposed and destroyed 9 planes. That's trivial in itself, and compared to the number of planes stationed at those bases it would be even more so.



What strike? The Manila strike destroyed ~50+ airframes on the ground with 65+ hits to the base/ fields in thunderstorms. This is a level 9 base, and luckily I didn't have much in it. Only three fighter groups, an FB group and some search and ASW. It was a well-designed strike, and he swept and crushed the remainder in the morning with a very small B-24 follow-up.

quote:

I'm not highly inclined to consider changing any rules that pre-exist his part in this game to make things easier.


quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing
That's absolutely fine, but I'd use the word fairer instead of easier.


He's had Sakhalin since June 44 and the KB was halved on Dec 8, 41. It's been pretty fair and a hard fought game, especially since Sqz took over and definitely once Dan rolled it back six months and got his chance to reprep and plan his late game. He's never mentioned night bombing as a concern, and if he did I'd listen, but Dan is a tough opponent and I'm sure he'll come up with new ways to get the job done as he has continually so far.

< Message edited by obvert -- 6/10/2019 8:09:14 PM >

_____________________________

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to mind_messing)
Post #: 3271
RE: The Elephant Vanishes : obvert (J) vs Historiker_Sq... - 6/10/2019 8:53:08 PM   
mind_messing

 

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

Well, good point. An airbase is actually an abstract for many airfields spread over a 46 mile hex. In big bases that means very many airfields. So even less likely that 4Es could close them all or wipe out 50-100% of the airframes in the hex. This is most bases in Japan, where about half the bases are size 5 or larger.


Except that's not how the game works. The centralized versus dispersed debate has gone on since the game launched, but it's handwaving to provide an explanation for a design decision. The game engine considers it as one big airbase and that's all that matters. It's one big airbase, with one damage set for airbase, service and runways.

quote:

In reality an airbase with high fort levels would have planned dispersal and revetments to protect planes. So the size would benefit the defence, not increase the hit rate of bombing strikes at night. Night makes the fields and the nearby lake look a lot like flat level concrete, and it's just not shown that night strikes on airfields in the war were effective.


That's not the case in game.

Airbase size has no impact on damage protection. Fortification levels are what protects from bombing. Both are completely separate and require separate development. Developing airbases without fortification doesn't make airbases better protected. In my experience, I've only really seen serious damage reduction at the higher fortification levels. Forts between 1-6 doesn't seem to get you very much.

quote:

What strike? The Manila strike destroyed ~50+ airframes on the ground with 65+ hits to the base/ fields in thunderstorms. This is a level 9 base, and luckily I didn't have much in it. Only three fighter groups, an FB group and some search and ASW. It was a well-designed strike, and he swept and crushed the remainder in the morning with a very small B-24 follow-up.


It was an unopposed strike. I'd say it's safe to bet that the Allies had a high DL. Those two factors alone matter a great deal in determining the outcome of night bombing raids, regardless of other factors.

quote:

He's had Sakhalin since June 44 and the KB was halved on Dec 8, 41. It's been pretty fair and a hard fought game, especially since Sqz took over and definitely once Dan rolled it back six months and got his chance to reprep and plan his late game. He's never mentioned night bombing as a concern, and if he did I'd listen, but Dan is a tough opponent and I'm sure he'll come up with new ways to get the job done as he has continually so far.


I understand, but in my view the 50 plane rule is doing more for keeping Japan fighting than your own pilots, than flak or just about anything else.

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 3272
RE: The Elephant Vanishes : obvert (J) vs Historiker_Sq... - 6/10/2019 9:55:51 PM   
obvert


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

ORIGINAL: Bearcat2
quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert
........................

You're simply not thinking creatively about this, and ignoring the fact that it couldn't be done at this level at night during this era. (Plee drop me a list of night bombing raids on Okinawa if you have them, as I've never found anything that resulted in anything but sporadic losses unless it was a one-off well planned raid. We all know that whatever those raids accomplished, they didn't stop Kamis from being effective
..............................



No night bombing of airfields, because there were either light or no opposition to daytime bombing of the airfields.



See bold below.

quote:


Our heaviest enemy opposition was received on the 28th, when we claimed 2 destroyed, 2 probables and 6 damaged. On this mission, Lt. Brown and his crew, were forced to bail out. Except for the navigator, the entire crew was rescued. We received a commendation from the 5th. Fleet Commander for our share in this vital task."

About 35 Jap fighters met the raiders this time and pressed their
initial attacks with phosphorus bombs.

Fighter opposition was on the largest scale yet encountered. The
enemy had become fully aware of the sharp curtailment our raids
were having on their air operations. Our first squadron crews met
50 to 60 enemy planes immediately after bombs-away.

Considerable fighter resistance was met in this strike, and a good number of the
enemy fighters were knocked down. One of our tail-gunners was killed
by enemy fighter fire, and two of our planes suffered battle damage."


The airfield strikes you point out are all daytime raids by small numbers of B-29s that did encounter opposition. Why didn't they then bomb at night? Well, there is also a clue below.

quote:


Cloud cover made it impractical to bomb the primary target, so the
planes moved over to the city of Hamamatsu and made a radar run.


Radar runs were suitable for hitting cities, but not so much airfields. There is no mention of night strikes here other than city attacks.

I get that night bombing did happen sporadically, and the Poltava example is a rare one where the conditions played a big part in the success. The Soviets didn't allow radar in base, didn't allow US AA guns and only brought in truck mounted 50cal MG AA. It's said that the lack of dispersal or revetments increased the damage caused, as well as the AA that did operate perfectly outlining the area of the field for the boomers coming in.

_____________________________

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to Bearcat2)
Post #: 3273
RE: The Elephant Vanishes : obvert (J) vs Historiker_Sq... - 6/10/2019 10:00:31 PM   
obvert


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

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

I understand, but in my view the 50 plane rule is doing more for keeping Japan fighting than your own pilots, than flak or just about anything else.



What do you base that on? He hasn't tried night bombing fields regularly before this? How would he have known it wouldn't work, and why does limiting bombing on one base affect the overall damage done? He can still use multiple targets or large raids with multiple types of target in one base.

You have no evidence for this claim and it's a bit ridiculous. This rule is keeping me going?

_____________________________

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to mind_messing)
Post #: 3274
RE: The Elephant Vanishes : obvert (J) vs Historiker_Sq... - 6/10/2019 11:47:58 PM   
mind_messing

 

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

ORIGINAL: obvert


quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

I understand, but in my view the 50 plane rule is doing more for keeping Japan fighting than your own pilots, than flak or just about anything else.



What do you base that on?


There's no ability for the Allies to close airbases during the night phase, except by naval bombardment.

quote:

He hasn't tried night bombing fields regularly before this? How would he have known it wouldn't work,


Can't really comment without disclosing a discussion in his AAR.

quote:

and why does limiting bombing on one base affect the overall damage done?


As that one base might be important to close for a tactical or strategic goal.

More importantly, having 10% damage on ten bases makes a trivial impact on air operations. 100% damamge stops air operations.

It's also far quicker for ten bases to repair 10% damage than one base to repair 100% damage.

quote:

He can still use multiple targets or large raids with multiple types of target in one base.


See above.

quote:

You have no evidence for this claim and it's a bit ridiculous. This rule is keeping me going?


It's meaning that you need to have minimal consideration for the night phase attacks on non-strategic targets. With a max of 50 planes attacking any given airbase at night, you can min-max IJ air deployments. Airbases aren't being close by night raids, you're not having to counteract the night bombing fatigue/morale spirals, or having to relocate squadrons in anticipation of night raids.

In short, it's made B-29s have very little flexiblity, giving them a binary choice:

- fly at night at (well defended) strategic targets en-mass and suffer accordingly.
- fly in small numbers at airbases and fail to inflict lasting damage.

At the very least, upping the minimum to 100 or 150 would give CR the ability to keep you honest (not in the literal sense) with night CAP and inflict some serious punishment for improper or insufficent planning.

IMO that has really stalled CR's ability to degrade IJ air power. YMMV

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 3275
RE: The Elephant Vanishes : obvert (J) vs Historiker_Sq... - 6/10/2019 11:49:48 PM   
Bearcat2

 

Posts: 577
Joined: 2/14/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert


............................

I get that night bombing did happen sporadically, and the Poltava example is a rare one where the conditions played a big part in the success. The Soviets didn't allow radar in base, didn't allow US AA guns and only brought in truck mounted 50cal MG AA. It's said that the lack of dispersal or revetments increased the damage caused, as well as the AA that did operate perfectly outlining the area of the field for the boomers coming in.



There was no reason to switch to night bombing when your losses for the 3 Bmb Grp, over 400 sorties attacking airfields, was 1 plane. I don't have the losses for the 4th Bmb Grp- 506th




< Message edited by Bearcat2 -- 6/10/2019 11:52:32 PM >

_____________________________

"After eight years as President I have only two regrets: that I have not shot Henry Clay or hanged John C. Calhoun."--1837

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 3276
RE: The Elephant Vanishes : obvert (J) vs Historiker_Sq... - 6/11/2019 7:37:10 AM   
obvert


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

ORIGINAL: Bearcat2

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert


............................

I get that night bombing did happen sporadically, and the Poltava example is a rare one where the conditions played a big part in the success. The Soviets didn't allow radar in base, didn't allow US AA guns and only brought in truck mounted 50cal MG AA. It's said that the lack of dispersal or revetments increased the damage caused, as well as the AA that did operate perfectly outlining the area of the field for the boomers coming in.



There was no reason to switch to night bombing when your losses for the 3 Bmb Grp, over 400 sorties attacking airfields, was 1 plane. I don't have the losses for the 4th Bmb Grp- 506th



Completely agree. But this is not evidence that night bombing would have been effective in closing airfields or destroying Japanese planes. The Pacific was much different than Europe, with more difficult terrain, fewer lights and recognizable landmarks to follow, and much more varied weather conditions year round.


_____________________________

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to Bearcat2)
Post #: 3277
RE: The Elephant Vanishes : obvert (J) vs Historiker_Sq... - 6/11/2019 7:39:18 AM   
obvert


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

ORIGINAL: mind_messing


quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert


quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

I understand, but in my view the 50 plane rule is doing more for keeping Japan fighting than your own pilots, than flak or just about anything else.



What do you base that on?


There's no ability for the Allies to close airbases during the night phase, except by naval bombardment.

quote:

He hasn't tried night bombing fields regularly before this? How would he have known it wouldn't work,


Can't really comment without disclosing a discussion in his AAR.

quote:

and why does limiting bombing on one base affect the overall damage done?


As that one base might be important to close for a tactical or strategic goal.

More importantly, having 10% damage on ten bases makes a trivial impact on air operations. 100% damamge stops air operations.

It's also far quicker for ten bases to repair 10% damage than one base to repair 100% damage.

quote:

He can still use multiple targets or large raids with multiple types of target in one base.


See above.

quote:

You have no evidence for this claim and it's a bit ridiculous. This rule is keeping me going?


It's meaning that you need to have minimal consideration for the night phase attacks on non-strategic targets. With a max of 50 planes attacking any given airbase at night, you can min-max IJ air deployments. Airbases aren't being close by night raids, you're not having to counteract the night bombing fatigue/morale spirals, or having to relocate squadrons in anticipation of night raids.

In short, it's made B-29s have very little flexiblity, giving them a binary choice:

- fly at night at (well defended) strategic targets en-mass and suffer accordingly.
- fly in small numbers at airbases and fail to inflict lasting damage.

At the very least, upping the minimum to 100 or 150 would give CR the ability to keep you honest (not in the literal sense) with night CAP and inflict some serious punishment for improper or insufficent planning.

IMO that has really stalled CR's ability to degrade IJ air power. YMMV



You continue to avoid actually providing any evidence, citing any parts of this actual game, or doing anything to support what you're saying over and over and over. At the same time you completely ignore all of the points I've made, reasonably and thoughtfully, to defend my position. It's not a winning strategy for convincing someone what you think is the correct course!

_____________________________

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to mind_messing)
Post #: 3278
RE: The Elephant Vanishes : obvert (J) vs Historiker_Sq... - 6/11/2019 8:41:11 AM   
CaptBeefheart


Posts: 2301
Joined: 7/4/2003
From: Seoul, Korea
Status: offline 		I see that CR is cool with your HR, so that's the important thing. How goes the war?

Cheers,
CB

_____________________________

Beer, because barley makes lousy bread.

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 3279
RE: The Elephant Vanishes : obvert (J) vs Historiker_Sq... - 6/11/2019 8:57:53 AM   
obvert


Posts: 14050
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline 		August 2, 1945

This is farther than either Dan or I have been in game so far. I believe my game with Jocke ended in late July as he was approaching 2:1 and after my BBs stopped short on a bombardment run and were sunk.

In this one I have a few less assets available on the sea, but more in the air. I've been able to employ the J7W which Jocke bombed out of production last time around, and it's proven a very good point defense plane. No range, so it can't sweep, but in numbers on high CAP it's a tough cookie.

CR employs another good night strike on Takao, all within the rules with 44 planes hitting the base, and I'll again be forced to constrain operations (not that much was going on here with the DS nearby). I can't afford to spread NF thin as the Home Island industry is the only real target I'm concerned about right now. The return on a strike like this is decent with 22 planes lost for one downed B-29, but he can get 500-1,000 VPs a day on a Strat strike in some bases on the Home Islands, so it makes sense to keep these assets protecting the big factory centers.

The Allies move one hex from Manila on Luzon. Not long until the 3,000 VP swing here to the Allies. They also take Samah from the fortress unit there.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Aug 2, 1945
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Night Air attack on Takao , at 84,65

Weather in hex: Partial cloud

Raid spotted at 29 NM, estimated altitude 7,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 9 minutes

Japanese aircraft
no flights

Allied aircraft
B-29-25 Superfort x 23

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-100-II Tony: 1 destroyed on ground
Ki-49-IIb Helen: 1 destroyed on ground
Ki-67-Ia (T) Peggy: 1 destroyed on ground
Ki-56 Thalia: 1 destroyed on ground
Ki-43-IV Oscar: 1 destroyed on ground
E13A1b Jake: 2 destroyed on ground
B5N2 Kate: 2 destroyed on ground

Allied aircraft losses
B-29-25 Superfort: 9 damaged

Airbase hits 7
Runway hits 23

Aircraft Attacking:
14 x B-29-25 Superfort bombing from 7000 feet
Airfield Attack: 20 x 500 lb GP Bomb
9 x B-29-25 Superfort bombing from 7000 feet
Airfield Attack: 20 x 500 lb GP Bomb

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Air attack on Takao , at 84,65

Weather in hex: Partial cloud

Raid spotted at 22 NM, estimated altitude 10,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 6 minutes

Japanese aircraft
no flights

Allied aircraft
B-29-25 Superfort x 7

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-102b Randy: 1 destroyed on ground

Allied aircraft losses
B-29-25 Superfort: 2 damaged

Airbase hits 3
Runway hits 1

Aircraft Attacking:
7 x B-29-25 Superfort bombing from 7000 feet
Airfield Attack: 20 x 500 lb GP Bomb

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Air attack on Takao , at 84,65

Weather in hex: Partial cloud

Raid spotted at 45 NM, estimated altitude 10,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 13 minutes

Japanese aircraft
no flights

Allied aircraft
B-29-25 Superfort x 5

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-43-IV Oscar: 1 destroyed on ground
Ki-49-IIb Helen: 1 destroyed on ground
H8K2-L Emily: 1 destroyed on ground
L2D2 Tabby: 1 destroyed on ground
Ki-100-II Tony: 1 destroyed on ground

Allied aircraft losses
B-29-25 Superfort: 2 damaged
B-29-25 Superfort: 1 destroyed by flak

Japanese ground losses:
4 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled

Airbase hits 8
Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 21

Aircraft Attacking:
5 x B-29-25 Superfort bombing from 7000 feet
Airfield Attack: 20 x 500 lb GP Bomb

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Air attack on Takao , at 84,65

Weather in hex: Partial cloud

Raid spotted at 29 NM, estimated altitude 10,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 9 minutes

Japanese aircraft
no flights

Allied aircraft
B-29-25 Superfort x 4

No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
B-29-25 Superfort: 2 damaged

Aircraft Attacking:
4 x B-29-25 Superfort bombing from 7000 feet
Airfield Attack: 20 x 500 lb GP Bomb

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Air attack on Takao , at 84,65

Weather in hex: Partial cloud

Raid spotted at 31 NM, estimated altitude 8,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 9 minutes

Japanese aircraft
no flights

Allied aircraft
B-29-25 Superfort x 5

No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
B-29-25 Superfort: 3 damaged

Aircraft Attacking:
5 x B-29-25 Superfort bombing from 7000 feet
Airfield Attack: 20 x 500 lb GP Bomb

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub attack near Lingga at 51,87

Japanese Ships
xAK Hokusei Maru, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
PB Hinode Maru #20

Allied Ships
SS Subtle

SS Subtle launches 6 torpedoes at xAK Hokusei Maru
Subtle bottoming out ....

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Bintan at 51,86

Weather in hex: Light rain

Raid detected at 18 NM, estimated altitude 6,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 7 minutes

Allied aircraft
Avenger II x 8
Thunderbolt II x 14

No Allied losses

Japanese Ships
xAK Seisyo Maru, Torpedo hits 4, and is sunk

Aircraft Attacking:
8 x Avenger II launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 18in Mk XII Torpedo

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Singapore , at 50,84

Weather in hex: Severe storms

Raid detected at 75 NM, estimated altitude 15,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 22 minutes

Allied aircraft
B-25D Mitchell x 5
Spitfire F.XIV x 7
Thunderbolt I x 13
Wellington GR.XIII x 3
Beaufort VIII x 14
A-20G Havoc x 12
B-24J Liberator x 23
B-25J1 Mitchell x 3
B-25J11 Mitchell x 28
P-38L Lightning x 21

Allied aircraft losses
Wellington GR.XIII: 1 damaged
Beaufort VIII: 5 damaged
A-20G Havoc: 4 damaged
A-20G Havoc: 1 destroyed by flak
B-24J Liberator: 9 damaged
B-25J1 Mitchell: 1 damaged
B-25J11 Mitchell: 11 damaged
B-25J11 Mitchell: 1 destroyed by flak

Japanese ground losses:
23 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Airbase hits 1
Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 3

Aircraft Attacking:
5 x B-25D Mitchell bombing from 11000 feet
Airfield Attack: 6 x 500 lb GP Bomb

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub attack near Babeldaob at 86,96

Japanese Ships
E Uku
E Mokuto

Allied Ships
SS Haddo, hits 27, on fire, heavy damage

SS Haddo launches 6 torpedoes at E Uku

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




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to Bearcat2)
Post #: 3280
RE: The Elephant Vanishes : obvert (J) vs Historiker_Sq... - 6/11/2019 9:00:45 AM   
obvert


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

ORIGINAL: CaptBeefheart

I see that CR is cool with your HR, so that's the important thing. How goes the war?

Cheers,
CB


The endgame is a long drawn out series of disappointments, but at least I feel good about still forcing some supply, fuel and resources back through to the Home Islands at this stage.

The air war in China has been tough on the Allies, but I'm now inevitably running short on supply, and I'll have to pick my spots to try to intercede in the constant milk runs on Shanghai and Hnagchow. No troops moving their direction yet though. No attempts to take anything in the South either after the Nanning pullout.

He seems focused on Luzon now, which is fine.

_____________________________

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to CaptBeefheart)
Post #: 3281
RE: The Elephant Vanishes : obvert (J) vs Historiker_Sq... - 6/11/2019 9:42:26 AM   
obvert


Posts: 14050
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline 		August 3, 1945


A DD raider hits a big convoy near Iwo Jima, but Grace's from that base hit back later, putting it in jeopardy. I'll try to end it with some FP strikes tomorrow if possible. The Allies sink a gaggle of little PBs and xAKL in Balikpapan with a small night strike.

Manila is attacked and will falll soon.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Aug 3, 1945
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Night Time Surface Combat, near Haha-jima at 112,78, Range 7,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
E No.134, Shell hits 8, and is sunk
PB Wa 9, Shell hits 10, and is sunk
PB Kyo Maru #3
PB Rokko Maru, Shell hits 1
PB Kaiun Maru, Shell hits 7, on fire
xAK Borneo Maru
xAK Italy Maru
xAK Karachi Maru
xAK Victoria Maru
xAK Eihuku Maru
xAK Gokoku Maru #2
xAK Keihuku Maru
xAK Kinkai Maru
xAK Midori Maru
xAK Nagato Maru
xAK Nikki Maru
xAK Sinsei Maru
xAK Tohuku Maru
xAK Ume Maru, Shell hits 4
xAK Kuwayama Maru
xAK Hokumai Maru
xAK Kyokusei Maru

Allied Ships
DD Vesole

Reduced sighting due to 21% moonlight
Maximum visibility in Partly Cloudy Conditions and 21% moonlight: 4,000 yards

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Air attack on Balikpapan , at 64,97

Weather in hex: Partial cloud

Raid spotted at 19 NM, estimated altitude 10,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 5 minutes

Allied aircraft
B-29-25 Superfort x 8

Allied aircraft losses
B-29-25 Superfort: 1 damaged

Japanese Ships
PB Magane Maru, Bomb hits 1
PB Kunitu Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire
PB Kamitu Maru, Bomb hits 2, heavy fires
xAKL Raizan Maru, Bomb hits 2, heavy fires, heavy damage
xAKL Tateyama Maru, Bomb hits 2, heavy fires, heavy damage
PB Hakata Maru #2, Bomb hits 2, heavy fires, heavy damage
SC CHa-1, Bomb hits 1, heavy damage
PB Akagane Maru, Bomb hits 1, on fire
SC CHa-3, Bomb hits 1, heavy damage
PB Nagato Maru, Bomb hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
PB Kamitsu Maru, Bomb hits 2, heavy fires, heavy damage
xAKL Honan Maru, Bomb hits 2, heavy fires, heavy damage
xAKL Kokuei Maru, Bomb hits 2, heavy fires, heavy damage

Port hits 5
Port fuel hits 2

Aircraft Attacking:
8 x B-29-25 Superfort bombing from 9000 feet
Port Attack: 20 x 500 lb GP Bomb

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Haha-jima at 112,78

Weather in hex: Heavy cloud

Raid detected at 31 NM, estimated altitude 13,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 8 minutes

Japanese aircraft
B7A2 Grace x 25

Japanese aircraft losses
B7A2 Grace: 2 destroyed, 3 damaged

Allied Ships
DD Vesole, Bomb hits 2, heavy fires

Aircraft Attacking:
18 x B7A2 Grace releasing from 2000'
Naval Attack: 2 x 250 kg SAP Bomb
3 x B7A2 Grace releasing from 3000'
Naval Attack: 2 x 250 kg SAP Bomb
4 x B7A2 Grace releasing from 10000'
Naval Attack: 2 x 250 kg SAP Bomb

Heavy smoke from fires obscuring DD Vesole
Banzai! - Hirano E. in a B7A2 Grace is willing to die for the Emperor
Banzai! - Kurihara O. in a B7A2 Grace is willing to die for the Emperor

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASW attack near Lingga at 50,87

Japanese Ships
E No.40

Allied Ships
SS Statesman, hits 24, heavy damage

SS Statesman is sighted by escort
E No.40 fails to find sub, continues to search...
E No.40 attacking submerged sub ....
Debris floats to surface in area of attack!
Escort abandons search for sub

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

Ground combat at Manila (79,77)

Allied Deliberate attack

Attacking force 12678 troops, 82 guns, 1352 vehicles, Assault Value = 848

Defending force 14899 troops, 75 guns, 69 vehicles, Assault Value = 215

Allied adjusted assault: 305

Japanese adjusted defense: 291

Allied assault odds: 1 to 1 (fort level 6)

Allied Assault reduces fortifications to 5

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), forts(+), preparation(-)
Attacker:

Japanese ground losses:
3387 casualties reported
Squads: 70 destroyed, 125 disabled
Non Combat: 33 destroyed, 63 disabled
Engineers: 31 destroyed, 18 disabled
Guns lost 42 (13 destroyed, 29 disabled)
Vehicles lost 8 (3 destroyed, 5 disabled)
Units destroyed 1

Allied ground losses:
9 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 10 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Vehicles lost 30 (1 destroyed, 29 disabled)

Assaulting units:
711th Tank Battalion
2/4th Armoured Regiment
3rd USMC Tank Bn /2
CenPac Amphib Tank Brigade
2/6th Armoured Rgt /1
670th Tank Destroyer Battalion
44th Tank Battalion
2nd USMC Amphb Tank Battalion
706th Tank Bn /2
815th Towed Tank Destroyer Battalion
6th USMC Tank Battalion
4th USMC Tank Bn /2

Defending units:
43rd Naval Guard Unit
21st Ind. Engr Rgt /2
41st Naval Guard Unit
1st South Seas Det.
88th Nav Gd /4
8th Garrison Unit /2
7th JNAF AF Unit
87th JAAF AF Bn
79th JAAF AF Bn /1
8th JAAF AF Coy
35th Const Co /2
14th JAAF AF Bn
9th JNAF Coy
9th Fleet
19th Army
83rd Nav Gd /2

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Lots of Soviets moving around. It looks like nothing is coming directly from the Vlad area yet. Fighters have disappeared. No air action at all up here.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by obvert -- 6/11/2019 9:43:03 AM >

_____________________________

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 3282
RE: The Elephant Vanishes : obvert (J) vs Historiker_Sq... - 6/11/2019 10:51:05 AM   
mind_messing

 

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

ORIGINAL: obvert


quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing


quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert


quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

I understand, but in my view the 50 plane rule is doing more for keeping Japan fighting than your own pilots, than flak or just about anything else.



What do you base that on?


There's no ability for the Allies to close airbases during the night phase, except by naval bombardment.

quote:

He hasn't tried night bombing fields regularly before this? How would he have known it wouldn't work,


Can't really comment without disclosing a discussion in his AAR.

quote:

and why does limiting bombing on one base affect the overall damage done?


As that one base might be important to close for a tactical or strategic goal.

More importantly, having 10% damage on ten bases makes a trivial impact on air operations. 100% damamge stops air operations.

It's also far quicker for ten bases to repair 10% damage than one base to repair 100% damage.

quote:

He can still use multiple targets or large raids with multiple types of target in one base.


See above.

quote:

You have no evidence for this claim and it's a bit ridiculous. This rule is keeping me going?


It's meaning that you need to have minimal consideration for the night phase attacks on non-strategic targets. With a max of 50 planes attacking any given airbase at night, you can min-max IJ air deployments. Airbases aren't being close by night raids, you're not having to counteract the night bombing fatigue/morale spirals, or having to relocate squadrons in anticipation of night raids.

In short, it's made B-29s have very little flexiblity, giving them a binary choice:

- fly at night at (well defended) strategic targets en-mass and suffer accordingly.
- fly in small numbers at airbases and fail to inflict lasting damage.

At the very least, upping the minimum to 100 or 150 would give CR the ability to keep you honest (not in the literal sense) with night CAP and inflict some serious punishment for improper or insufficent planning.

IMO that has really stalled CR's ability to degrade IJ air power. YMMV



You continue to avoid actually providing any evidence, citing any parts of this actual game, or doing anything to support what you're saying over and over and over


How many squadrons have you on night CAP over bases with little or no industry?

What percentage as a whole of your IJ air force is on night CAP?

How many large size 9 airbases host a large number of IJ aircraft> And you expect 50 bombers to make a significant impact on those bases?

I'll warrant that your responses will be interesting. And that's the evidence of the adverse effects of your HR. Unintended, no doubt, but still there.

quote:

At the same time you completely ignore all of the points I've made, reasonably and thoughtfully, to defend my position. It's not a winning strategy for convincing someone what you think is the correct course!


I've address points as you've raised them. You obviously have no intention of changing the HR, and that's fine. I just want to highlight that what started out as an attempt to limit the perceived issues with night bombing has ended up having an unfair outcome.

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 3283
RE: The Elephant Vanishes : obvert (J) vs Historiker_Sq... - 6/11/2019 11:56:45 AM   
obvert


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

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

I've address points as you've raised them. You obviously have no intention of changing the HR, and that's fine. I just want to highlight that what started out as an attempt to limit the perceived issues with night bombing has ended up having an unfair outcome.


As a teacher I often use strategies called constructive constraints. They don't block action, they force people to react and come up with new and creative solutions to the situation.

There's more than one way to skin a cat.

_____________________________

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to mind_messing)
Post #: 3284
RE: The Elephant Vanishes : obvert (J) vs Historiker_Sq... - 6/11/2019 12:51:46 PM   
obvert


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

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

How many squadrons have you on night CAP over bases with little or no industry?



I have an 18 plane NF group in China to guard Hankow. That's it!

There is actually some industry there, and it's a sub base on the river.

quote:


What percentage as a whole of your IJ air force is on night CAP?


I only use the NF on night CAP. No day F or FP. So it's a smallish percentage of the whole.

Looks like 528 NF flying CAP out of a total of 10,582. So roughly 4.7%.
quote:


How many large size 9 airbases host a large number of IJ aircraft> And you expect 50 bombers to make a significant impact on those bases?



What is a large number of aircraft at this stage? Tokyo and Osaka have large concentrations (~850 and ~1,000 respectively) due to their increased defenses to protect industry. I place a lot of the training groups there to shield them as well, but some are in other big bases like Kobe, Yokohama and Hiroshima. Hiroshima is ~600, Yokohama ~500, and three more above 300. So about seven that are large, but the defensive CAP s spread as evenly as I can get it in order to utilize the low CAP tactic as efficiently as possible. It actually has a threshold above which is doesn't work as well, so I try to keep CAP numbers below 300, and usually more like 200-250 in bigger bases.

When he's attacked them they have made a significant dent. Ominato has been struck repeatedly, as has Nagasaki. The attacks are sporadic and not well coordinated with day strikes though so far.

His day strikes can also break through my CAP and do a positive amount of damage where there are concentrations of planes. This is inevitable at this stage of the war. I've actually disbanded about 1/4 of the training groups so far to avoid excess losses of non-essential airframes and I'm planning to disband many more once the pilots in them now are trained.

quote:



I'll warrant that your responses will be interesting. And that's the evidence of the adverse effects of your HR. Unintended, no doubt, but still there.


You see it as adverse, and that any limits on Allied bombing at night are unfair. The major difference in our opinion is that I see a limitation on night bombing for both sides as a method of ensuring fairness for each at different points in the war.

_____________________________

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to mind_messing)
Post #: 3285
RE: The Elephant Vanishes : obvert (J) vs Historiker_Sq... - 6/11/2019 1:37:42 PM   
mind_messing

 

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

I have an 18 plane NF group in China to guard Hankow. That's it!

There is actually some industry there, and it's a sub base on the river.


So you're essentially neglecting the night air phase outside of major industrial centres.

You should be punished for that through large night bombing strikes of your undefended airbases, not by penny packets of 50.

quote:

I only use the NF on night CAP. No day F or FP. So it's a smallish percentage of the whole.

Looks like 528 NF flying CAP out of a total of 10,582. So roughly 4.7%.


Again, this is the consequence of your HR's. The night phase simply isn't getting used, enabling you to min-max your air force for the day phase.

That really shouldn't be happening at this late stage of the game, especially not with current Allied assets. More on this in a bit.

quote:

What is a large number of aircraft at this stage? Tokyo and Osaka have large concentrations (~850 and ~1,000 respectively) due to their increased defenses to protect industry. I place a lot of the training groups there to shield them as well, but some are in other big bases like Kobe, Yokohama and Hiroshima. Hiroshima is ~600, Yokohama ~500, and three more above 300. So about seven that are large, but the defensive CAP s spread as evenly as I can get it in order to utilize the low CAP tactic as efficiently as possible. It actually has a threshold above which is doesn't work as well, so I try to keep CAP numbers below 300, and usually more like 200-250 in bigger bases.

When he's attacked them they have made a significant dent. Ominato has been struck repeatedly, as has Nagasaki. The attacks are sporadic and not well coordinated with day strikes though so far.

His day strikes can also break through my CAP and do a positive amount of damage where there are concentrations of planes. This is inevitable at this stage of the war. I've actually disbanded about 1/4 of the training groups so far to avoid excess losses of non-essential airframes and I'm planning to disband many more once the pilots in them now are trained.


This feeds into my dispersion versus concentration arguement. You're able to concentrate such large numbers of aircraft at a few select bases with CR unable to strike the airbases with anything near the force to attain an advantage in the air.

He'd have better luck in the day phase if the night phase actually required some investment on your part in order to provide a sufficient defence. That would require balancing day/night commitments without the solid knowledge that you'll face at most 50 planes attacking any given airbase in the night phase.

quote:

You see it as adverse, and that any limits on Allied bombing at night are unfair. The major difference in our opinion is that I see a limitation on night bombing for both sides as a method of ensuring fairness for each at different points in the war.


It's not remotely fair, as the capabilities of each side are vastly different.

- Japan simply lacks an effective night bomber airframe. There is no long-range, high durability airframe with a large bombload and radar.

- On the other hand, a significant portion of the late-war Allied OOB consists of heavy bombers, with long range and exceptional bomb loads, equipped with radar and specifically intended to be used at night.

Fundamentally, it's not ensuring fairness.

It's ensuring that your airbases don't get wrecked and you can forget about night CAP more or less completely.

Additionally, your comment about fairness at different points of the war doesn't hold true. On Dec 7th, capabilities for night bombing are roughly similar. As the war progresses, that changes as heavier Allied planes with more bombs and better radar start to arrive. Japanese airframes don't develop along those lines. To deny the Allies that advantage that was inherent in the design of the game is unfair.


(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 3286
RE: The Elephant Vanishes : obvert (J) vs Historiker_Sq... - 6/11/2019 10:33:57 PM   
obvert


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

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

I have an 18 plane NF group in China to guard Hankow. That's it!

There is actually some industry there, and it's a sub base on the river.


So you're essentially neglecting the night air phase outside of major industrial centres.

You should be punished for that through large night bombing strikes of your undefended airbases, not by penny packets of 50.



There is a lot you choose to ignore or just don't know because you haven't played this particular game for seven years. I am not ignoring, I'm accepting night bombing losses in areas outside the Home Islands in order to maximize protection of industry (including Home Islands airfields that base fighters that protect industry).

The NF are on the Home Islands for these reasons and there are only about 3-4% of my total number of planes outside the Home Islands!!

There is nothing to punish.


quote:

I only use the NF on night CAP. No day F or FP. So it's a smallish percentage of the whole.

Looks like 528 NF flying CAP out of a total of 10,582. So roughly 4.7%.


quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing
Again, this is the consequence of your HR's. The night phase simply isn't getting used, enabling you to min-max your air force for the day phase.

That really shouldn't be happening at this late stage of the game, especially not with current Allied assets. More on this in a bit.



Again, wrong. I Never use day fighters at night, and this is a choice. It doesn't return a good VP ratio. This is a defensive game, period. I've planned for it, played it through for this outcome, and these rules have been involved for the whole duration. You're missing so many possible tactics in your preaching about the night bombing HR. It's really boring.

On top of that I've talked to Dan about it days ago after your first notes and he doesn't want to change the rule. So what are you still on about?

quote:



quote:


What is a large number of aircraft at this stage? Tokyo and Osaka have large concentrations (~850 and ~1,000 respectively) due to their increased defenses to protect industry. I place a lot of the training groups there to shield them as well, but some are in other big bases like Kobe, Yokohama and Hiroshima. Hiroshima is ~600, Yokohama ~500, and three more above 300. So about seven that are large, but the defensive CAP s spread as evenly as I can get it in order to utilize the low CAP tactic as efficiently as possible. It actually has a threshold above which is doesn't work as well, so I try to keep CAP numbers below 300, and usually more like 200-250 in bigger bases.

When he's attacked them they have made a significant dent. Ominato has been struck repeatedly, as has Nagasaki. The attacks are sporadic and not well coordinated with day strikes though so far.

His day strikes can also break through my CAP and do a positive amount of damage where there are concentrations of planes. This is inevitable at this stage of the war. I've actually disbanded about 1/4 of the training groups so far to avoid excess losses of non-essential airframes and I'm planning to disband many more once the pilots in them now are trained.


This feeds into my dispersion versus concentration arguement. You're able to concentrate such large numbers of aircraft at a few select bases with CR unable to strike the airbases with anything near the force to attain an advantage in the air.

He'd have better luck in the day phase if the night phase actually required some investment on your part in order to provide a sufficient defence. That would require balancing day/night commitments without the solid knowledge that you'll face at most 50 planes attacking any given airbase in the night phase.



Again. No. I only have a few baes to use, and I spread fighters as evenly as I can as stated above. The bases with more aircraft have almost the same number of fighters (as I mentioned) and the other planes are training, and bombers not bombing. Read my post before your next diatribe, please.

It's also just silly to imagine I wouldn't add a few more on Tokyo and Osaka.

quote:


quote:

You see it as adverse, and that any limits on Allied bombing at night are unfair. The major difference in our opinion is that I see a limitation on night bombing for both sides as a method of ensuring fairness for each at different points in the war.


It's not remotely fair, as the capabilities of each side are vastly different.

- Japan simply lacks an effective night bomber airframe. There is no long-range, high durability airframe with a large bombload and radar.

- On the other hand, a significant portion of the late-war Allied OOB consists of heavy bombers, with long range and exceptional bomb loads, equipped with radar and specifically intended to be used at night.

Fundamentally, it's not ensuring fairness.

It's ensuring that your airbases don't get wrecked and you can forget about night CAP more or less completely.

Additionally, your comment about fairness at different points of the war doesn't hold true. On Dec 7th, capabilities for night bombing are roughly similar. As the war progresses, that changes as heavier Allied planes with more bombs and better radar start to arrive. Japanese airframes don't develop along those lines. To deny the Allies that advantage that was inherent in the design of the game is unfair.



Your interpretation is so funny. And the way you use the word fair.

Each side has its advantages. Early the advantages conferred by night bombing results in game could help to reduce expert pilot losses, gain morale and fatigue against entrenched and maxed airfield positions to be further exploited in the day phase, and to ensure big ports like Singers cannot then become a haven for Allied surface combatants.

I'm also playing late war Allies against an opponent with no HRs. He's maxed virtually all of his fighter and NF groups I'm sure. I know he's got virtually every good late war airframe producing in mass numbers. He's researching jets. I love it! What a challenge to face.

I choose to limit my night bombing in that game. That to me is fair. I'll still be able to inflict losses on his big bases. I'll find a way, because that's the fun of it.

< Message edited by obvert -- 6/12/2019 10:42:41 AM >

_____________________________

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to mind_messing)
Post #: 3287
RE: The Elephant Vanishes : obvert (J) vs Historiker_Sq... - 6/12/2019 11:11:05 AM   
mind_messing

 

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

There is a lot you choose to ignore or just don't know because you haven't played this particular game for seven years. I am not ignoring, I'm accepting night bombing losses in areas outside the Home Islands in order to maximize protection of industry (including Home Islands airfields that base fighters that protect industry).

The NF are on the Home Islands for these reasons and there are only about 3-4% of my total number of planes outside the Home Islands!!

There is nothing to punish.


In which case, it's an even worse situation for the Allied, given that the only option to impact IJ air power in favourable circumstances generated by night bombing is by using 50 a paltry 50 bombers.

quote:

Again, wrong. I Never use day fighters at night, and this is a choice. It doesn't return a good VP ratio. This is a defensive game, period. I've planned for it, played it through for this outcome, and these rules have been involved for the whole duration. You're missing so many possible tactics in your preaching about the night bombing HR. It's really boring.



Using day fighters at night should not be a choice for you, in this time frame and given Allied assets. It should be a hard balancing act of fighter squadrons between day and night phases to mount an effective resistance to Allied bombers.

The fact that you're able to make the choice to simply not divert any daytime fighter assets to night CAP should tell you all you need to know about the unintended impact of your HR's.

Given my ignorance of air tactics, please enlighten me.

quote:

On top of that I've talked to Dan about it days ago after your first notes and he doesn't want to change the rule. So what are you still on about?


In short, HR's are bad and promote sloppy play. That's about as snappy as I can make it.

This HR more than most makes the late-game air war exceptionally hard for the Allies to wear down a large and robust IJ air force.

quote:

Again. No. I only have a few baes to use, and I spread fighters as evenly as I can as stated above. The bases with more aircraft have almost the same number of fighters (as I mentioned) and the other planes are training, and bombers not bombing. Read my post before your next diatribe, please.

It's also just silly to imagine I wouldn't add a few more on Tokyo and Osaka.


You've made the point for me. Should the late-game air war degenerate into the IJ air force spreading a critical mass of fighters evenly over Japan? You'd get a far more dynamic air war without HR's.

quote:


Your interpretation is so funny. And the way you use the word fair.


Evidently you consider a rule that impacts one side much more severely than the other to be fair. That's absolutely fine, but I think it just ain't so.

quote:

Each side has its advantages.


Nope, just the Allies really. They get the big, durable, radar equipped bombers as the war progresses.

quote:

Early the advantages conferred by night bombing results in game could help to reduce expert pilot losses, gain morale and fatigue against entrenched and maxed airfield positions to be further exploited in the day phase, and to ensure big ports like Singers cannot then become a haven for Allied surface combatants.



Emphasis mine. Please provide an example of IJ night bombing that you could consider remotely equivalent to the same numbers of B-29s attacking a target.

IJ simply cannot conduct night operations as effectively as the Allies can. I think what's annoying me most is that you're insisting that this is fair and equally effects both sides, when in fact it doesn't. On Dec 7th, both sides have equal capability to night bomb tactical targets (IJ have a small edge due to pilot quality) but over the course of the game Allied capabilities skyrocket. Your HR's are throttling Allied capabilities far, far more than Japanese, and that just isn't fair.

If you and CR are cool with it, that's great. For other games, I'd suggest you don't insist on that HR, you'll have a better game for it.


(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 3288
RE: The Elephant Vanishes : obvert (J) vs Historiker_Sq... - 6/12/2019 1:50:34 PM   
Chickenboy


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

ORIGINAL: mind_messing
In short, HR's are bad and promote sloppy play. That's about as snappy as I can make it.


In short, you're wrong for everyone but yourself.

Not a snappy or witty or even relevant observation. They don't promote sloppy play-they promote reasoned approaches to gaming. Try not to paint people with too broad a brush-it's unbecoming.

_____________________________


(in reply to mind_messing)
Post #: 3289
RE: The Elephant Vanishes : obvert (J) vs Historiker_Sq... - 6/12/2019 2:50:16 PM   
mind_messing

 

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

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing
In short, HR's are bad and promote sloppy play. That's about as snappy as I can make it.


In short, you're wrong for everyone but yourself.

Not a snappy or witty or even relevant observation. They don't promote sloppy play-they promote reasoned approaches to gaming. Try not to paint people with too broad a brush-it's unbecoming.


I disagree wholeheartedly. All the common HR's stem from difficulties of players to adapt their playstyle.

The "no strategic bombing before X" date HR's stem from players that can't (or rather don't want) to make proper preparations and investments into defending strategic targets before a certain date.

The rules restricting 4E useage stem from Japanese players that can't adapt to generate effective trades with 4E aircraft.

The altitude band rule seems to be fading away, guess why? Players were able to adapt using low-layered CAP to provide an effective counter to stratosweeps. We'd have never seen that progression if that HR was in effect every game.

The key point is that HR's are posted to address perceived issues with the game. IMO those issues are massively overblown.

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 3290
RE: The Elephant Vanishes : obvert (J) vs Historiker_Sq... - 6/12/2019 3:15:25 PM   
Chickenboy


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

ORIGINAL: mind_messing


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing
In short, HR's are bad and promote sloppy play. That's about as snappy as I can make it.


In short, you're wrong for everyone but yourself.

Not a snappy or witty or even relevant observation. They don't promote sloppy play-they promote reasoned approaches to gaming. Try not to paint people with too broad a brush-it's unbecoming.


I disagree wholeheartedly. All the common HR's stem from difficulties of players to adapt their playstyle.



Yes. You've made your increasingly strident points abundantly clear. And you're still wrong. For everybody but yourself. Enjoy the game your way and have a great day!

_____________________________


(in reply to mind_messing)
Post #: 3291
RE: The Elephant Vanishes : obvert (J) vs Historiker_Sq... - 6/12/2019 5:46:20 PM   
Lowpe


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

ORIGINAL: obvert

August 3, 1945


A DD raider hits a big convoy near Iwo Jima, but Grace's from that base hit back later, putting it in jeopardy. I'll try to end it with some FP strikes tomorrow if possible. The Allies sink a gaggle of little PBs and xAKL in Balikpapan with a small night strike.



To my mind, there is no reason for the Allies to use a single destroyer raider. For crying out loud use at least 2.

I am kind of shocked there wasn't some float plane attacks on it however!

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 3292
RE: The Elephant Vanishes : obvert (J) vs Historiker_Sq... - 6/12/2019 7:36:58 PM   
obvert


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

ORIGINAL: Lowpe


quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

August 3, 1945


A DD raider hits a big convoy near Iwo Jima, but Grace's from that base hit back later, putting it in jeopardy. I'll try to end it with some FP strikes tomorrow if possible. The Allies sink a gaggle of little PBs and xAKL in Balikpapan with a small night strike.



To my mind, there is no reason for the Allies to use a single destroyer raider. For crying out loud use at least 2.

I am kind of shocked there wasn't some float plane attacks on it however!


I know. I assumed it would go East but it may have retired to the Kuriles and out of range.

He often does use two, but sometimes just one. I've been able to see them at times, but usually one can get past search to get in close. A week or so ago he used four together and those got nailed.

_____________________________

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 3293
RE: The Elephant Vanishes : obvert (J) vs Historiker_Sq... - 6/12/2019 8:24:15 PM   
obvert


Posts: 14050
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline 		August 4-5, 1945

The Allies take Manila. The T-34 brigades break the Japanese border defense to shreds. No sign of the Soviet Air Force. Singers continues to take a pounding while taking a toll in return with flak hits. The DS moves into the South China Sea. Picking up troops to go around the Nanning blockade in China?

The raider disappears for now. Either hit harder than I thought and sunk, or skedaddled.

Virtually nothing new on the 5th. Trying to bomb Soviet bases but so far weather isn't cooperating.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Aug 4, 1945
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Morning Air attack on Voroshilov , at 112,45

Weather in hex: Moderate rain

Raid detected at 27 NM, estimated altitude 42,530 feet.
Estimated time to target is 6 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-83 x 47

No Japanese losses

Aircraft Attacking:
47 x Ki-83 sweeping at 41530 feet

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Singapore , at 50,84

Weather in hex: Partial cloud

Raid detected at 74 NM, estimated altitude 13,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 21 minutes

Allied aircraft
B-25D Mitchell x 6
P-51D Mustang x 3
Corsair IV x 15
Thunderbolt II x 8
Wellington GR.XIII x 5
A-20G Havoc x 3
B-24J Liberator x 36
B-25J1 Mitchell x 4
B-25J11 Mitchell x 12
P-38L Lightning x 17

Allied aircraft losses
Wellington GR.XIII: 1 damaged
Wellington GR.XIII: 1 destroyed by flak
A-20G Havoc: 3 damaged
B-24J Liberator: 7 damaged
B-25J1 Mitchell: 1 damaged
B-25J11 Mitchell: 3 damaged
B-25J11 Mitchell: 1 destroyed by flak

Japanese ground losses:
21 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Airbase hits 3
Runway hits 21

Aircraft Attacking:
6 x B-25D Mitchell bombing from 11000 feet
Airfield Attack: 6 x 500 lb GP Bomb

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

Ground combat at Manila (79,77)

Allied Shock attack

Attacking force 17874 troops, 82 guns, 1639 vehicles, Assault Value = 892

Defending force 11788 troops, 63 guns, 66 vehicles, Assault Value = 47

Allied adjusted assault: 600

Japanese adjusted defense: 83

Allied assault odds: 7 to 1 (fort level 5)

Allied forces CAPTURE Manila !!!

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), preparation(-)
Attacker: shock(+)

Japanese ground losses:
2895 casualties reported
Squads: 141 destroyed, 5 disabled
Non Combat: 127 destroyed, 195 disabled
Engineers: 25 destroyed, 2 disabled
Guns lost 47 (20 destroyed, 27 disabled)
Vehicles lost 49 (46 destroyed, 3 disabled)
Units destroyed 5

Allied ground losses:
Vehicles lost 12 (1 destroyed, 11 disabled)

Assaulting units:
706th Tank Battalion
4th USMC Tank Battalion
6th USMC Tank Battalion
3rd USMC Tank Battalion
44th Tank Battalion
CenPac Amphib Tank Brigade
711th Tank Battalion
815th Towed Tank Destroyer Battalion
2/4th Armoured Regiment
2nd USMC Amphb Tank Battalion
670th Tank Destroyer Battalion
2/6th Armoured Regiment

Defending units:
1st South Seas Det.
9th Fleet
88th Nav Gd /4
14th JAAF AF Bn
8th JAAF AF Coy
8th Garrison Unit /2
9th JNAF Coy
7th JNAF AF Unit
35th Const Co /2
19th Army
41st Naval Guard Unit
43rd Naval Guard Unit
79th JAAF AF Bn /1
87th JAAF AF Bn
83rd Nav Gd /2

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

Ground combat at Mishan (114,42)

Allied Deliberate attack

Attacking force 17988 troops, 90 guns, 1170 vehicles, Assault Value = 665

Defending force 2433 troops, 61 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 44

Allied adjusted assault: 414

Japanese adjusted defense: 11

Allied assault odds: 37 to 1 (fort level 1)

Allied forces CAPTURE Mishan !!!

Combat modifiers
Defender: op mode(-), experience(-)
Attacker:

Japanese ground losses:
985 casualties reported
Squads: 47 destroyed, 2 disabled
Non Combat: 5 destroyed, 40 disabled
Engineers: 13 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 47 (38 destroyed, 9 disabled)
Units retreated 1

Allied ground losses:
13 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Defeated Japanese Units Retreating!

Assaulting units:
76th Tank Brigade
75th Tank Brigade
72nd Tank Brigade
77th Tank Brigade
259th Tank Brigade

Defending units:
12th Border Defense Fortress
135th Field Artillery Regiment

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




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 3294
RE: The Elephant Vanishes : obvert (J) vs Historiker_Sq... - 6/12/2019 10:20:21 PM   
obvert


Posts: 14050
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline 		I miss the olden days, when a myriad of players would chime into a subject with actual evidence, varied opinions, and mostly respectful dialogue around an issue in game. There was enough weight to the knowledge of certain members then that it brought extremes of behavior closer to the center and resulted in a really profitable discussion.

Here are some threads on the subject that's dominated the recent portion of this AAR. Lots of the same thing I've been mentioning, and a lot of what mind-messing has countered with, but with a lot of evidence for one very well tested understanding; night bombing was ridiculously unsuccessful in targeting areas smaller than a city. (There were exceptions in rare and small samples, often very late in the war and still tenuous as to actual effectiveness in closing airfields or destroying airframes).

I'm confident mind_messing will find something to support his claims that I'm a lazy player who is behaving unfairly by not offering to remove an HR my opponent has stated he doesn't want removed.

I found a lot of evidence to support the claim that night bombing of airfields and ports are areas where many players have thought it useful to either self-apply restraint or limit both sides with an HR.

I find the discussions enthralling and some of these forum members much missed.

Night Bombing Overpowered? (2011)

Is Night Air Combat Broken? (2013)

Night Bombing of Airfields (2013)

Night Bombing (2013)


The effects of weather, moonlight and defensive capability at night are not well modeled in game:

Well, put it this way: In 1941, the Butt Report on the accuracy of Bomber Command concluded as follows:

Any examination of night photographs taken during night bombing in June and July points to the following conclusions:

1.Of those aircraft recorded as attacking their target, only one in three got within 5 miles [(8 kilometres)].
2.Over the French ports, the proportion was two in three; over Germany as a whole, the proportion was one in four; over the Ruhr it was only one in ten.
3.In the full moon, the proportion was two in five; in the new moon it was only one in fifteen. ...

All these figures relate only to aircraft recorded as attacking the target; the proportion of the total sorties which reached within 5 miles is less than one-third. ...
The conclusion seems to follow that only about one-third of aircraft claiming to reach their target actually reached it.

Now this was based upon crewman extensively trained for night operations. So how likely is it that a day bomber force choosing to attack at night can even find, much less hit, an airfield in the jungle?

Now it you ask about how well the system models night attacks by B29s bombing cities with a really good radar (for the time), the answer seems to be it models it pretty well. If you ask about any other a/c (especailly Japanese a/c) attacking LAND targets at night, IMHO the answer is the model sucks big time. Note that the model does pretty well reflecting the performance of trained JNAF crews attacking ships at night


And, just to provide balance, evidence that things were changing by mid-45. The APS-7 system of radar led night bombing could achieve precision results on a small scale, with highly trained crews and a specific striped down pathfinder aircraft to lead. Not ready for mass use by this time, but this is a perfect reason to allow 50/per target per turn to hit airfields.

The B-29's participated in two types of operations that demanded specialized training and tactics. One was a campaign against oil refineries by the 315th Wing, equipped with an improved radar (AN/APQ-7) mounted in stripped-down B-29's. Bombing wholly at night, the wing achieved a remarkable degree of accuracy, destroying or heavily damaging Japan's ten largest petroleum or synthetic oil plants and much of the nation's storage capacity.


quote:


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy
quote:


quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve
The developers sent over a "so-so" BTO RADAR

OK, when was this (APS-7) in widespread use in PTO? This could be your 'earliest possible date' endpoint.

ETA: Interesting Hyperwar summary too. Can you post it here in case anyone's still following this conversation?


As requested, http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/V/AAF-V-20.html



But then this as well:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=3250086
About page 633 In support of ICEBERG.
The raids were designed not only to destroy airfield installations but to keep enemy fighters at home and hence out of the battle for Okinawa. Fighter opposition to the B-29's fluctuated but was generally weak. During the third week in April, after the command had intensified its attacks, the Japanese increased their fighter forces in Kyushu from a combat strength of 75 single-engine and 22 twin-engine planes to an estimated total of 282, including 60 Navy interceptors. Apparently the enemy was funneling fighters through Kyushu to escort kamikazes going down to Okinawa. Later some of the short-range interceptors were sent back to Tokyo and indeed the enemy shifted his dwindling air forces so continuously that mission planning for Kyushu strikes after 30 April was based on a day-by-day estimate of the opposition that might be expected.95 Interceptions varied from none at all on 4 raids to 199 individual attacks on 27 April.

B-29 crewmen reported a total of 1,403 such attacks and claimed 134 enemy planes destroyed and 85 probably destroyed. Antiaircraft was weak except at Kushira and the two Kanoya fields; only one plane was destroyed by flak. In all, 24 B-29's were destroyed and 233 damaged.

This was a light loss ratio; what the B-29's accomplished in return (other than against enemy interceptors) is difficult to evaluate. The B-29's went in at lower levels than in day strikes at heavily defended targets, at altitudes from 10,000 to 18,000 feet, and they frequently laid excellent bomb patterns on the runways, dispersal areas, and installations, But the enemy usually had warning enough to get his planes off the fields, and he was able to repair cratered runways in a matter of hours. After considerable experimentation with fragmentation and GP bombs, the command concentrated on the 500-pound GP, with fuzes varying from instantaneous to delays up to 36 hours, a combination which did hinder repairs. Best results were obtained against storage, maintenance, and repair facilities, but these affected future rather than current air operations. In general, the whole campaign was judged by Twentieth Air Force leaders to have confirmed their opinion that the B-29 was not a tactical bomber. Specifically, it was estimated that between 17 April and 11 May, 95 per cent of the enemy's 1,405 combat sorties were flown on the same day that some of their key bases were being attacked by the Superforts.

As for HRs in general, I don't advocate for using many, but have no problem with those who do. Neither do the devs, apparently:

ORIGINAL: castor troy
I know Nikademus and Joe Wilkerson for example who have spoken about having house rules on night bombing. I don't have to tell you they didn't say: "night bombing is screwed up and here's the house rule to fix it" ? And still they had a house rule. Both Nik and Joe have been part of the dev team and they are probably not the only ones using a hr. Noone forces you to use a hr nor is there anyone forcing you out of your oppinion of pin point attacks at night but if you just want to go with your above statement, there was more than one dev using a hr, so...

And this:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron
quote:


Just my 2c´s:

Night bombings are still a bit overpowered, but it is now highly dependent on the situation.

The most effective positive modifiers for night bombings still are:
- DL of the base under attack
- Weather
- Altitude

I still think the effect of night bombings is a bit too high with maxed out DL, below it is absolutely reasonable for mid-late war.
The problem is, it is much too easy for a player to max out DL. In addition to accuracy, the op loss figures for night attacks are not high enough, more
so for low exp crews.

For this, in our PBEM, we use the following houserules:

quote:


*) Night bombings must have squadrons set to 50% rest
*) Night bombings may not be performed below 10000ft
(the baloons mentioned are only effective at or below 6k, and only at bases with a combined port&airfield of at least 6, so their existence is no point against an alt restriction,
as the bands from 7-9k are still overpowering night bombing)

Targets may only be chosen depending on moon:

*) Below 20%: no missions possible
*) From 20-50%: only coastal cities may be attacked (no specified industry)
*) Above 50%: non coastal attacks are possible (no specified industry)
*) Above 70%: everything goes, including specified industry, ports, airfields,...



Up to now we have not identified any issues using these HRs, additional advantage is, it restricts tactical targets to 30% of the month.

My personal wish for the next PBEM would be to additionally flavor those HRs depending on the year.


< Message edited by obvert -- 6/12/2019 10:31:22 PM >

_____________________________

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 3295
RE: The Elephant Vanishes : obvert (J) vs Historiker_Sq... - 6/12/2019 11:37:43 PM   
mind_messing

 

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


I'm confident mind_messing will find something to support his claims that I'm a lazy player who is behaving unfairly by not offering to remove an HR my opponent has stated he doesn't want removed.


It's your game.

FWIW, not having/changing the HR wouldn't have made one bit of difference to the outcome of the game. This game wasn't or lost during the night phase.

I just want to highlight the unfairness inherent in your HR, and the advantage this has provided you in your air war.

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

Edit for brevity.


A few points:

1. Those threads are all at least six years old. We've had some progression in understanding how the game works since then. Quite a lot of the game has also changed with it. IIRC one of the official updates tweaked night bombing, but that was before my time so I forget the exact patch.

2. The real-life examples are nice, but let's not get down the road of comparing history to a video game. Sorties in the millions were flown, there will be examples replete on both sides of the argument.

3. To paraphrase another fourmite, AE is asymmetric by design. Any HR's fundamentally impact one side more than another. You really need to accept this before we can have any progression to a more productive discussion, Obvert.

4. Regarding the past forum comments on night bombing, as far as I can see there's only Symon who directly contributed to the thread, and even then there's no indication as to what those HR's are. From reading those threads, I see absolutely nothing about arriving (in an arbitrary manner?) at 50 bombers flying against airbases at night. Symon's comments on the subject are amusing in hindsight.

< Message edited by mind_messing -- 6/12/2019 11:38:46 PM >

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 3296
RE: The Elephant Vanishes : obvert (J) vs Historiker_Sq... - 6/13/2019 1:25:57 AM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		A little off topic:


In this game there has been 10,000 strategic points scored by bombing since DDAy at Sakhalin on June 6th, 1944.

I am not reading the Allied side, but quite frankly I almost never see a strong strategic bombing plan by the Allies. In general, it is the bigger hammer and manpower attacks. That's it.

Given that Obvert has ceded a lot of industry unprotected at night (not using anything but NF squadrons), and it still seems to be in place and working is not the HR fault...That Obvert's NF & F & Engine factories are cranking out planes continuously since Sakhalin has been invaded on June 6th 1944 is not a HR problem.

Night bombing requires patience and persistence and learning. It isn't easy, but it also will devastate Japan. The Allies were in Sakhalin in June of 44 when Night fighters are few and weak. The Allies should have focused everything on winning the Night War and Fighter wars then by targeting factories with hits on all sources of supply generation within range. Not to mention, Allied ships constantly bombarding ports.

This is a scenario 1 game, and the Economy is the greatest weakness of Japan. And yet it seems to me pretty heavily ignored by the Allies till recently.












(in reply to mind_messing)
Post #: 3297
RE: The Elephant Vanishes : obvert (J) vs Historiker_Sq... - 6/13/2019 8:07:28 AM   
Wuffer

 

Posts: 402
Joined: 6/16/2011
Status: offline 		Exactly my thoughts, Lowpe. MM himself confirms that the Allies' struggles are not based on the no-night-attack house rule. Territorial gains alone and neglecting the economy let the Allies face a hydra, for every fighter shot down the Empire will build two even more advantaged new ones... When did your last oil tankers from the DEI arrived, Obvert? *gg*

IMHO some minor additions or regulations are necessary, for example 4Es on low naval attack. Even me was able to sink the KB in a concentrated effort by all available heavies including all Cats in 1942 in my very first match. Forget about precision night strikes in the '40s.

< Message edited by Wuffer -- 6/13/2019 8:08:40 AM >

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 3298
RE: The Elephant Vanishes : obvert (J) vs Historiker_Sq... - 6/13/2019 11:13:38 AM   
obvert


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

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:


I'm confident mind_messing will find something to support his claims that I'm a lazy player who is behaving unfairly by not offering to remove an HR my opponent has stated he doesn't want removed.


It's your game.

FWIW, not having/changing the HR wouldn't have made one bit of difference to the outcome of the game. This game wasn't or lost during the night phase.

I just want to highlight the unfairness inherent in your HR, and the advantage this has provided you in your air war.

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

Edit for brevity.


A few points:

1. Those threads are all at least six years old. We've had some progression in understanding how the game works since then. Quite a lot of the game has also changed with it. IIRC one of the official updates tweaked night bombing, but that was before my time so I forget the exact patch.

2. The real-life examples are nice, but let's not get down the road of comparing history to a video game. Sorties in the millions were flown, there will be examples replete on both sides of the argument.

3. To paraphrase another fourmite, AE is asymmetric by design. Any HR's fundamentally impact one side more than another. You really need to accept this before we can have any progression to a more productive discussion, Obvert.

4. Regarding the past forum comments on night bombing, as far as I can see there's only Symon who directly contributed to the thread, and even then there's no indication as to what those HR's are. From reading those threads, I see absolutely nothing about arriving (in an arbitrary manner?) at 50 bombers flying against airbases at night. Symon's comments on the subject are amusing in hindsight.


I've discovered what I need to know.

_____________________________

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to mind_messing)
Post #: 3299
RE: The Elephant Vanishes : obvert (J) vs Historiker_Sq... - 6/13/2019 6:48:26 PM   
uncivil_servant


Posts: 200
Joined: 2/19/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

A little off topic:


In this game there has been 10,000 strategic points scored by bombing since DDAy at Sakhalin on June 6th, 1944.

I am not reading the Allied side, but quite frankly I almost never see a strong strategic bombing plan by the Allies. In general, it is the bigger hammer and manpower attacks. That's it.

Given that Obvert has ceded a lot of industry unprotected at night (not using anything but NF squadrons), and it still seems to be in place and working is not the HR fault...That Obvert's NF & F & Engine factories are cranking out planes continuously since Sakhalin has been invaded on June 6th 1944 is not a HR problem.

Night bombing requires patience and persistence and learning. It isn't easy, but it also will devastate Japan. The Allies were in Sakhalin in June of 44 when Night fighters are few and weak. The Allies should have focused everything on winning the Night War and Fighter wars then by targeting factories with hits on all sources of supply generation within range. Not to mention, Allied ships constantly bombarding ports.

This is a scenario 1 game, and the Economy is the greatest weakness of Japan. And yet it seems to me pretty heavily ignored by the Allies till recently.


Maybe you never see a concerted attack on Japan's overall industry as you would encounter greater losses than the 8th AF encountered. The 8th had to cease and desist for losses. Commit suicide of your air force for a few points of industrial destruction that can be repaired instantly (albeit it with a supply cost)

Risk > Reward.

"The Allies should have focused everything on winning the Night War and Fighter wars then by targeting factories with hits on all sources of supply generation within range."

How when you have to send a squadron here then a squadron there and divide your focus. Very hard to "focus" when you have to divide your squadrons into different targets. Tokyo was night bombed by close to 300 hundred bombers.

Further, how do you "focus" when you cannot bomb from mainland bases but small bases that can easily get bombarded and you lose your precious bombers.

I just do not follow how one can achieve what you said. I agree with the necessity of what you said, but I see zero opportunity to meet that goal.

_____________________________

It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion,
It is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed,
The hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a warning,
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 3300
Page:   <<   < prev  108 109 [110] 111 112   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: The Elephant Vanishes : obvert (J) vs Historiker_SqzMyLemon_Canoerebel (A) Page: <<   < prev  108 109 [110] 111 112   next >   >>
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

0.703