RE: The Elephant Vanishes :: obvert (J) vs SqzMyLemon (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: The Elephant Vanishes :: obvert (J) vs SqzMyLemon (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 SqzMyLemon (A)

Page: << < prev 39 40 [41] 42 43 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: The Elephant Vanishes :: obvert (J) vs SqzMyLemon (A) - 10/31/2016 8:16:50 PM

pontiouspilot

Posts: 1127
Joined: 7/27/2012
Status: offline

Forgive my Cdn friend he is a little high strung...for a Cndn anyway. Congrats on either the luckiest or most skilled ambush for some time. He did put his lemons into a place they could be squeezed. I avoid that area like the plague since there is no where to go.

(in reply to obvert)

Post #: 1201

RE: The Elephant Vanishes :: obvert (J) vs SqzMyLemon (A) - 10/31/2016 9:15:28 PM

obvert

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: pontiouspilot

Forgive my Cdn friend he is a little high strung...for a Cndn anyway. Congrats on either the luckiest or most skilled ambush for some time. He did put his lemons into a place they could be squeezed. I avoid that area like the plague since there is no where to go.

I'll take luckiest.

That is true. There is no where to go for a turn once you're there. If you flank out with the combat ships you leave your amphibs with the asses hanging out. This makes me feel better about my shameless grab of the Perth region and West OZ earlier, too. (Which by the way produced 20k supply that I just pulled out supply Dili, where the LBA strikes originated).

_____________________________

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

(in reply to pontiouspilot)

Post #: 1202

RE: The Elephant Vanishes :: obvert (J) vs SqzMyLemon (A) - 10/31/2016 9:19:07 PM

obvert

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

99% of the time, I do range 0 CAP. Because I control my TFs down to the last hex. With direct/absolute orders, only cripples that are split off get left behind. If there are any cripples, I either directly order their protection or slow down to maintain protection, depending. But realistically speaking, the only cripples that could occur would be from SCTFs or subs. If I'm doing my job with searches, SCTFs are extremely unlikely - leaving subs. And aside from setting up what ASW I can, there's no point in worrying about whether they will or won't strike because it's out of my control.

Range 0 CAP maximizes your CAP over your forces and prevents silly things like sweeps of the dot base next door bleeding off 40% of your CAP only to have a large strike package literally within sight (you can see 40-80 miles in the air at various altitudes...) sink a bunch of ships.

There have been times when I've known that my forces would be 1 hex apart and I've set a few groups to range 1 CAP, but that's it. Otherwise, I generally prefer to LRCAP with a range setting of 0 for forces that aren't going to be in the CV/CVE hex.

The only thing I wonder about this is for second strikes in a CV clash. If the afternoon comes and your CAP was trashed and damaged in the first strike, but your escort was not, you're sending out a strong escort but leaving your CVs vulnerable. Or vice versa.

It's something I'l probably not do, but it'd be a good test and not too hard to run through a bunch.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Lokasenna)

Post #: 1203

RE: The Elephant Vanishes :: obvert (J) vs SqzMyLemon (A) - 10/31/2016 9:35:19 PM

obvert

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

March 25, 1944

OZ: Ok. Back on track.

The lowdown on the 25th is that a lot of transports are sent down but no escorts. The Essex is finished off. I think the escorts are in Darwin judging by the roll over, and I'll bombard tomorrow to get some damage on the fields, blow up some planes, and see if some hits get onto ships as well. I may find a zillion PT boats here, but hopefully those can be negotiated.

The KB will skirt the edge of South New Guinea to avoid direct paths to Ambon and stay in the shallows. LBA will stay on alert at extended range from Biak, Ambon and Dili.

Once we see how he is going to play this, (i.e. if CAP will be introduced at Darwin), then I'll proceed accordingly.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR March 25, 44
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Day Time Surface Combat, near Darwin at 77,124, Range 28,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
CA Mogami
CA Mikuma
CA Aoba
CL Oyodo
DD Michishio
DD Arashio
DD Arare
DD Yugure

Allied Ships
APA Sheridan, Shell hits 18, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
APA Warren, Shell hits 26, and is sunk
APA Wayne, Shell hits 21, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk

Maximum visibility in Partly Cloudy Conditions: 28,000 yards
Range closes to 28,000 yards...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub attack near Darwin at 77,124

Japanese Ships
SS I-18

Allied Ships
AK Cheleb, Shell hits 1, Torpedo hits 2, heavy damage

SS I-18 attacking on the surface

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Darwin at 76,124

Weather in hex: Moderate rain

Raid detected at 37 NM, estimated altitude 9,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 15 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M5 Zero x 49
B5N2 Kate x 41
Ki-45 KAIa Nick x 4

Japanese aircraft losses
B5N2 Kate: 2 damaged

Allied Ships
AK Bullock, Bomb hits 1, on fire
xAP Van Diemen, Bomb hits 6, and is sunk
xAP Van Landsberge, Bomb hits 4, and is sunk
AK Charlevoix, Bomb hits 1, on fire
xAP Van Neck, Bomb hits 1, heavy fires
AK Chatham, Bomb hits 1, on fire

Aircraft Attacking:
41 x B5N2 Kate bombing from 5000 feet *
Naval Attack: 2 x 250 kg GP Bomb

Heavy smoke from fires obscuring xAP Van Landsberge
Heavy smoke from fires obscuring xAP Van Neck
Heavy smoke from fires obscuring xAP Van Diemen
Heavy smoke from fires obscuring AK Charlevoix

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Darwin at 76,124

Weather in hex: Moderate rain

Raid detected at 65 NM, estimated altitude 13,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 19 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-45 KAIa Nick x 4
Ki-48-IIc Lily x 22

No Japanese losses

Allied Ships
xAP Camphuys, Bomb hits 8, and is sunk
xAP Le Maire, Bomb hits 2, heavy fires
xAP Siberg, Bomb hits 4, and is sunk

Aircraft Attacking:
8 x Ki-48-IIc Lily releasing from 2000'
Naval Attack: 2 x 100 kg SAP Bomb

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Gove at 83,127

Weather in hex: Light cloud

Raid detected at 111 NM, estimated altitude 14,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 28 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M5b Zero x 101
A6M5c Zero x 42
A6M8 Zero x 34
B5N2 Kate x 8
B6N1 Jill x 25
B6N2 Jill x 38
D4Y3 Judy x 54
N1K1 Rex x 12

Allied aircraft
no flights

Japanese aircraft losses
B6N2 Jill: 1 damaged
D4Y3 Judy: 3 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
F6F-3 Hellcat: 1 destroyed
SBD-5 Dauntless: 11 destroyed
TBF-1 Avenger: 11 destroyed

Allied Ships
CV Essex, Bomb hits 4, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk

Aircraft Attacking:
3 x D4Y3 Judy releasing from 2000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 500 kg SAP Bomb

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Groote Eylandt at 82,129

Weather in hex: Partial cloud

Raid detected at 30 NM, estimated altitude 12,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 7 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M5b Zero x 75
A6M5c Zero x 7
B6N1 Jill x 9
B6N2 Jill x 8
D4Y1 Judy x 47
D4Y3 Judy x 27

Allied aircraft
F6F-3 Hellcat x 3

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M5b Zero: 1 destroyed
D4Y3 Judy: 1 damaged
D4Y3 Judy: 1 destroyed by flak

Allied aircraft losses
F6F-3 Hellcat: 1 destroyed

Allied Ships
LST-353, Bomb hits 5, and is sunk
LST-204, Bomb hits 4, heavy fires, heavy damage
LST-343, Bomb hits 2, heavy fires, heavy damage
LST-475, Torpedo hits 2, and is sunk
LST-480, Bomb hits 2, heavy fires, heavy damage
LST-87, Bomb hits 5, and is sunk
LST-344, Bomb hits 4, and is sunk
LST-469, Bomb hits 3, and is sunk
LST-464, Bomb hits 4, heavy fires, heavy damage
LST-481, Bomb hits 5, and is sunk
LST-84, Bomb hits 5, and is sunk
LST-472, Bomb hits 4, and is sunk
LST-484, Torpedo hits 3, and is sunk
LST-483, Bomb hits 6, and is sunk

Allied ground losses:
Vehicles lost 410 (331 destroyed, 79 disabled)

Aircraft Attacking:
8 x D4Y1 Judy releasing from 2000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 500 kg SAP Bomb

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Darwin at 76,124

Weather in hex: Overcast

Raid detected at 103 NM, estimated altitude 11,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 34 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M5 Zero x 8
A6M5b Zero x 49
A6M5c Zero x 28
A6M8 Zero x 10
B5N2 Kate x 17
B6N1 Jill x 16
B6N2 Jill x 31
D4Y3 Judy x 36
N1K1 Rex x 12
Ki-43-IIIa Oscar x 22
Ki-45 KAIa Nick x 4

Japanese aircraft losses
B6N2 Jill: 3 damaged

Allied Ships
xAP Le Maire, Bomb hits 2, and is sunk
AK Brevard, Bomb hits 2, and is sunk
AK Charlevoix, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
AK Beltrami, Bomb hits 4, and is sunk
AK Chatham, Bomb hits 4, and is sunk
AK Cabell, Bomb hits 4, and is sunk

Aircraft Attacking:
2 x D4Y3 Judy releasing from 3000'
Naval Attack: 1 x 500 kg SAP Bomb
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gained a few thousand VPs in a few days here.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by obvert -- 10/31/2016 9:37:57 PM >

_____________________________

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

(in reply to obvert)

Post #: 1204

RE: The Elephant Vanishes :: obvert (J) vs SqzMyLemon (A) - 10/31/2016 9:43:11 PM

obvert

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

CV Losses

Here is the updated version. The Lexington is not sunk. It took only one hit in the recent battle. This does mean damage likely increased before damage control took over, so that is good.

There are probably another 3-4 CVEs that will end up on this list.

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 #: 1205

RE: The Elephant Vanishes :: obvert (J) vs SqzMyLemon (A) - 10/31/2016 9:46:06 PM

obvert

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

BB Losses

We are doing well in BB ratio so far. I would have loved to pick a few more old ones off here, but alas, the seem to have scooted out. We'll see at Darwin, though.

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 #: 1206

RE: The Elephant Vanishes :: obvert (J) vs SqzMyLemon (A) - 10/31/2016 9:56:28 PM

Lokasenna

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

99% of the time, I do range 0 CAP. Because I control my TFs down to the last hex. With direct/absolute orders, only cripples that are split off get left behind. If there are any cripples, I either directly order their protection or slow down to maintain protection, depending. But realistically speaking, the only cripples that could occur would be from SCTFs or subs. If I'm doing my job with searches, SCTFs are extremely unlikely - leaving subs. And aside from setting up what ASW I can, there's no point in worrying about whether they will or won't strike because it's out of my control.

Range 0 CAP maximizes your CAP over your forces and prevents silly things like sweeps of the dot base next door bleeding off 40% of your CAP only to have a large strike package literally within sight (you can see 40-80 miles in the air at various altitudes...) sink a bunch of ships.

There have been times when I've known that my forces would be 1 hex apart and I've set a few groups to range 1 CAP, but that's it. Otherwise, I generally prefer to LRCAP with a range setting of 0 for forces that aren't going to be in the CV/CVE hex.

The only thing I wonder about this is for second strikes in a CV clash. If the afternoon comes and your CAP was trashed and damaged in the first strike, but your escort was not, you're sending out a strong escort but leaving your CVs vulnerable. Or vice versa.

It's something I'l probably not do, but it'd be a good test and not too hard to run through a bunch.

Disagree.

Each air phase is separate. If I set 90% CAP, then 90% of the planes are flying in the morning. 90% are flying in the afternoon. Yes, that might be 90% of 24 instead of 90% of 30, but I'd rather have the strongest possible force available to my combats at all times. A weak AM strike isn't going to wear down my PM CAP such that a strong PM strike would get a better go at it than they would if I put up a strong CAP all day. By contrast, a strong AM strike against which a large portion of my CAP has to scramble is undesirable.

Likewise, I use dedicated escort squadrons. I don't know why you would ever not use dedicated escort squadrons. If you run a percentage of CAP at your strike range (say, 7 or 8) not only are you going to be detracting from the number of escorts flying with your strike, but that group will become much more fatigued than if you specialized groups for CAP or escort. It also allows you to set certain plane models entirely for attack or defense, as you see fit.

We've been over this before and you've always brought up this idea about PM CAP being weakened due to AM CAP being worn down when a high percentage of them are flying, but I just don't see how it would ever actually happen in practice vs. in theory. It all comes down to this: if a 90% CAP setting gets thrashed in the early strike(s), how much worse would you fare with only a 50% CAP setting? The number of planes in the air is a critical factor.

Also note that damaged planes are not stood down for maintenance until the end of the day (per the order of things in the ops report).

Of course, if you test and it turns out you are somehow correct and I'm wrong, I'll happily change my ways

. But my 90% CAP settings are veritable buzzsaws. Ask MM

. A recent example is 21 Helen kamikazes escorted by 85 Franks: 20ish Franks were knocked off of the escorting portion, and 20 of 21 Helens were shot down. My losses were something like 5 planes on the day. Maximum force CAP = quicker/better resolution to the first strike(s) against my stuff, which means more of them are left in the air for later strikes. It takes many raids to burn through 200+/300+/400+ planes on CAP with 40-minute warning or more for each strike.

(in reply to obvert)

Post #: 1207

RE: The Elephant Vanishes :: obvert (J) vs SqzMyLemon (A) - 10/31/2016 10:52:06 PM

obvert

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

99% of the time, I do range 0 CAP. Because I control my TFs down to the last hex. With direct/absolute orders, only cripples that are split off get left behind. If there are any cripples, I either directly order their protection or slow down to maintain protection, depending. But realistically speaking, the only cripples that could occur would be from SCTFs or subs. If I'm doing my job with searches, SCTFs are extremely unlikely - leaving subs. And aside from setting up what ASW I can, there's no point in worrying about whether they will or won't strike because it's out of my control.

Range 0 CAP maximizes your CAP over your forces and prevents silly things like sweeps of the dot base next door bleeding off 40% of your CAP only to have a large strike package literally within sight (you can see 40-80 miles in the air at various altitudes...) sink a bunch of ships.

There have been times when I've known that my forces would be 1 hex apart and I've set a few groups to range 1 CAP, but that's it. Otherwise, I generally prefer to LRCAP with a range setting of 0 for forces that aren't going to be in the CV/CVE hex.

The only thing I wonder about this is for second strikes in a CV clash. If the afternoon comes and your CAP was trashed and damaged in the first strike, but your escort was not, you're sending out a strong escort but leaving your CVs vulnerable. Or vice versa.

It's something I'l probably not do, but it'd be a good test and not too hard to run through a bunch.

Disagree.

Each air phase is separate. If I set 90% CAP, then 90% of the planes are flying in the morning. 90% are flying in the afternoon. Yes, that might be 90% of 24 instead of 90% of 30, but I'd rather have the strongest possible force available to my combats at all times. A weak AM strike isn't going to wear down my PM CAP such that a strong PM strike would get a better go at it than they would if I put up a strong CAP all day. By contrast, a strong AM strike against which a large portion of my CAP has to scramble is undesirable.

Likewise, I use dedicated escort squadrons. I don't know why you would ever not use dedicated escort squadrons. If you run a percentage of CAP at your strike range (say, 7 or 8) not only are you going to be detracting from the number of escorts flying with your strike, but that group will become much more fatigued than if you specialized groups for CAP or escort. It also allows you to set certain plane models entirely for attack or defense, as you see fit.

We've been over this before and you've always brought up this idea about PM CAP being weakened due to AM CAP being worn down when a high percentage of them are flying, but I just don't see how it would ever actually happen in practice vs. in theory. It all comes down to this: if a 90% CAP setting gets thrashed in the early strike(s), how much worse would you fare with only a 50% CAP setting? The number of planes in the air is a critical factor.

Also note that damaged planes are not stood down for maintenance until the end of the day (per the order of things in the ops report).

Of course, if you test and it turns out you are somehow correct and I'm wrong, I'll happily change my ways . But my 90% CAP settings are veritable buzzsaws. Ask MM . A recent example is 21 Helen kamikazes escorted by 85 Franks: 20ish Franks were knocked off of the escorting portion, and 20 of 21 Helens were shot down. My losses were something like 5 planes on the day. Maximum force CAP = quicker/better resolution to the first strike(s) against my stuff, which means more of them are left in the air for later strikes. It takes many raids to burn through 200+/300+/400+ planes on CAP with 40-minute warning or more for each strike.

Well, I will try it!

Thanks for the full explanation. It does sound like this is a good system. The thing I like is that you also choose the exact number and groups of your CAP and escort.

As I say, I always set some on 0 hex, just not all. I do set those for a high CAP %, usually 80. So I'll have to give it a try. Considering the current situation in game I guess I have a while to do some testing!

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Lokasenna)

Post #: 1208

RE: The Elephant Vanishes :: obvert (J) vs SqzMyLemon (A) - 10/31/2016 11:11:07 PM

obvert

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

CA/CL Losses

Here are the cruiser losses. Only 8 CA left.

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 #: 1209

RE: The Elephant Vanishes :: obvert (J) vs SqzMyLemon (A) - 10/31/2016 11:20:33 PM

obvert

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

APA/AP/xAPLosses

This is an area I wish I was doing better with. I seem to be a day late regularly. Again, maybe some of these are sitting in Darwin port right now. We'll see.

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 #: 1210

RE: The Elephant Vanishes :: obvert (J) vs SqzMyLemon (A) - 10/31/2016 11:23:22 PM

crsutton

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

Truth is that if you throw victory conditions by date out this is actually a very playable game for the Allies. I would gladly take the Allied carrier losses to date in exchange for the Japanese carrier losses. Frankly the loss of three fleet quality Japanese CVs hurts a lot more than all of the Allied losses. 1944 will replace and then double his forces. I would love to play the Allies at this date. In fact, I think it would be a great idea to never activate the Soviets by agreement, you could see a campaign go deep into 1946 with a lot of interesting new toys come into use. This is something that we have yet to see in an AAR. You should propose this. Throw out victory conditions and tether the Russians and see what happens.

As for the 8 hex thing. It is the Allied cross to bear but not a game breaker at all. There are plenty of ways to manage it.

Thing is that after another year of war, barring some seriously mind boggling poor play, the Allied player is just going to be crapping out more resources than he can handle-regardless of what happens now. Been there and seen it. Heck, just the thought that I would finally get to use the A-bomb would make me want to cry with joy like a little girl..

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to obvert)

Post #: 1211

RE: The Elephant Vanishes :: obvert (J) vs SqzMyLemon (A) - 11/1/2016 1:13:48 AM

Lokasenna

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

As for the 8 hex thing. It is the Allied cross to bear but not a game breaker at all. There are plenty of ways to manage it.

It never would have happened in real life, but there have been times when I've just stood my strike planes down and put all my fighters on CAP in case of an 8-hex strike. Worked just fine, but I also had higher priorities than sinking carriers in those instances.

(in reply to crsutton)

Post #: 1212

RE: The Elephant Vanishes :: obvert (J) vs SqzMyLemon (A) - 11/1/2016 8:08:57 AM

obvert

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

As for the 8 hex thing. It is the Allied cross to bear but not a game breaker at all. There are plenty of ways to manage it.

It never would have happened in real life, but there have been times when I've just stood my strike planes down and put all my fighters on CAP in case of an 8-hex strike. Worked just fine, but I also had higher priorities than sinking carriers in those instances.

As I understand it the range differences of IJN vs USN airframes led to the Japanese trying out the "8 hex strike," or long distance unreturnable strike, at the Marianas. We know how that turned out. That was planes pushing fuel limits to the brink and CVs reacting in to pick them up though, some into the night hours.

I think this feature was added for those reasons and the react choice players have is the built in counter. When the Allies have 15 CV react works.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Lokasenna)

Post #: 1213

RE: The Elephant Vanishes :: obvert (J) vs SqzMyLemon (A) - 11/1/2016 8:13:55 AM

obvert

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Truth is that if you throw victory conditions by date out this is actually a very playable game for the Allies. I would gladly take the Allied carrier losses to date in exchange for the Japanese carrier losses.

I'd play the Allied side here without a doubt. I've seen what the Allies can do in 44 when the machine gets rolling. I think payers who haven't been through that before don't know how fragile the Japanese defences are in reality. They see the strong points. Which is what I want them to see right now!

quote:

Frankly the loss of three fleet quality Japanese CVs hurts a lot more than all of the Allied losses. 1944 will replace and then double his forces. I would love to play the Allies at this date. In fact, I think it would be a great idea to never activate the Soviets by agreement, you could see a campaign go deep into 1946 with a lot of interesting new toys come into use. This is something that we have yet to see in an AAR. You should propose this. Throw out victory conditions and tether the Russians and see what happens.

As for the 8 hex thing. It is the Allied cross to bear but not a game breaker at all. There are plenty of ways to manage it.

Thing is that after another year of war, barring some seriously mind boggling poor play, the Allied player is just going to be crapping out more resources than he can handle-regardless of what happens now. Been there and seen it. Heck, just the thought that I would finally get to use the A-bomb would make me want to cry with joy like a little girl..

I don't see the Russians as a problem to reaching 46. They can have Manchuria by mid 45 when they activate. I'd be more concerned with getting needed fuel and resources to keep an economy working at that point. If that is still happening, yes, the game can go happily into a massive jet fur ball over Japan in 46!

< Message edited by obvert -- 11/1/2016 8:14:33 AM >

_____________________________

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

(in reply to crsutton)

Post #: 1214

RE: The Elephant Vanishes :: obvert (J) vs SqzMyLemon (A) - 11/1/2016 1:47:13 PM

obvert

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

Thinking about the state of this game right now I though I'd check into losses for the USN during the war. At this point, in early 44, the losses of CVs was similar with one additional fleet CV lost, but of course more CVE lost in this game.

For BBs the Allies are doing much worse than historical, and for cruisers probably similar to historical. For BBs in game the Allies are suffering much more than in the war.

On the Japanese side Midway happened early!

After that losses have been light to CVs, but cruisers and DDs have been heavily depleted. BBs are good, with only two lost.

So not too far off historical.

BATTLESHIPS

ARIZONA Pearl Harbor 7 December 1941

OKLAHOMA Pearl Harbor 7 December 1941

AIRCRAFT CARRIERS

HORNET 08 38 S, 166 43 E 26 October 1942

LEXINGTON 15 12 S, 155 27 E 8 May 1942

WASP 12 25 S, 164 08 E 15 September 1942

YORKTOWN 30 36 N, 176 34 W 7 June 1942

ESCORT AIRCRAFT CARRIERS

LISCOME BAY 02 54 N, 172 30 E 24 November 1943

HEAVY CRUISERS

HOUSTON Off Java, N.E.I. 1 March 1942

QUINCY Off Savo I., Solomons 9 August 1942

ASTORIA Off Savo I., Solomons 9 August 1942

VINCENNES Off Savo I., Solomons 9 August 1942

NORTHAMPTON Off Savo I., Solomons 30 November 1942

CHICAGO 11 25 S, 160 56 E 30 January 1943

LIGHT CRUISERS

ATLANTA Off Lunga Point, Guadalcanal 13 November 1942

JUNEAU 10 34 S, 161 04 E 13 November 1942

HELENA Kula Gulf, Solomons 6 July 1943

< Message edited by obvert -- 11/1/2016 1:49:09 PM >

_____________________________

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

(in reply to obvert)

Post #: 1215

RE: The Elephant Vanishes :: obvert (J) vs SqzMyLemon (A) - 11/1/2016 2:49:57 PM

mind_messing

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

As for the 8 hex thing. It is the Allied cross to bear but not a game breaker at all. There are plenty of ways to manage it.

It never would have happened in real life, but there have been times when I've just stood my strike planes down and put all my fighters on CAP in case of an 8-hex strike. Worked just fine, but I also had higher priorities than sinking carriers in those instances.

True, but the only two circumstances where you've pulled it off was against a fragment of the KB.

The battle of Singapore was against 3 CV IIRC, and off Borneo was about the same (1 CV and 3 CVL IIRC). Going 100% CAP to defend against the 8 hex strike is risky.

FWIW, as Japan, I'd happily have my KB airgroups mauled by a buzzsaw CAP in exchange for a shot at Allied carriers free from the prospect of return strikes. In my experiance, there's always at least one carrier strike package that gets through in fairly good shape, even if the rest get mauled. The planes and pilots can be replaced easily enough - the carriers much less so.

Of course, you're 100% CAP has mauled my land-based air groups quite horrifically, but such is the nature of the game.

(in reply to Lokasenna)

Post #: 1216

RE: The Elephant Vanishes :: obvert (J) vs SqzMyLemon (A) - 11/1/2016 2:50:56 PM

mind_messing

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

quote:

Of course, if you test and it turns out you are somehow correct and I'm wrong, I'll happily change my ways . But my 90% CAP settings are veritable buzzsaws. Ask MM . A recent example is 21 Helen kamikazes escorted by 85 Franks: 20ish Franks were knocked off of the escorting portion, and 20 of 21 Helens were shot down. My losses were something like 5 planes on the day. Maximum force CAP = quicker/better resolution to the first strike(s) against my stuff, which means more of them are left in the air for later strikes. It takes many raids to burn through 200+/300+/400+ planes on CAP with 40-minute warning or more for each strike.

Eh, I've just not managed to pull off that thousand plane strike on your carriers just yet.

You'll see, just you wait!

(in reply to Lokasenna)

Post #: 1217

RE: The Elephant Vanishes :: obvert (J) vs SqzMyLemon (A) - 11/1/2016 7:48:54 PM

Alpha77

Posts: 2116
Joined: 9/24/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

The flak updates we're talking about are actually in the scenario updates from Andy. They are in the modding subforum somewhere... Unofficial Scenario Updates I think is the thread title. It basically makes a lot of updates to ships especially, similar to DBB. Changing device numbers and whatnot - no more 8-rack E-class vessels for Japan, for one thing.

The LMG is not in the IJA infantry squad to my knowledge, but what do I know?

In my Scen 1 game, with the database updates, the IJA Infantry '43 has an anti-armor of 25. That is +20 from the previous squad.

Thanks, so I guess I need this update too for scen 2. But maybe I do not make to 43 anyway, so why bother ? However tbh this sounds quite confusing meanwhile scen updates, database updates and mods. I guess you mean scen update is hopefully the same as data update otherwise....

And can it be used in an ongoing game at all ?

Check this video for the better LMG "type99" I am taking about: (looks like a Bren, but guy tells us its different actually. But seems quite good too)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckB3e6IObU4

< Message edited by Alpha77 -- 11/1/2016 7:50:03 PM >

(in reply to Lokasenna)

Post #: 1218

RE: The Elephant Vanishes :: obvert (J) vs SqzMyLemon (A) - 11/1/2016 8:08:51 PM

Drakanel

Posts: 253
Joined: 4/6/2015
Status: offline

Well, you posted losses and I really wanted to know that. I am curious about one thing though.

How are you doing with pilot pools and aircraft pools in this game? Especially in regard to carrier-specific airframes. You did lose quite a few recently, but I don't think you wrote recently how your pools are doing.

(in reply to Alpha77)

Post #: 1219

RE: The Elephant Vanishes :: obvert (J) vs SqzMyLemon (A) - 11/1/2016 8:53:04 PM

crsutton

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Truth is that if you throw victory conditions by date out this is actually a very playable game for the Allies. I would gladly take the Allied carrier losses to date in exchange for the Japanese carrier losses.

I'd play the Allied side here without a doubt. I've seen what the Allies can do in 44 when the machine gets rolling. I think payers who haven't been through that before don't know how fragile the Japanese defences are in reality. They see the strong points. Which is what I want them to see right now!

quote:

Frankly the loss of three fleet quality Japanese CVs hurts a lot more than all of the Allied losses. 1944 will replace and then double his forces. I would love to play the Allies at this date. In fact, I think it would be a great idea to never activate the Soviets by agreement, you could see a campaign go deep into 1946 with a lot of interesting new toys come into use. This is something that we have yet to see in an AAR. You should propose this. Throw out victory conditions and tether the Russians and see what happens.

As for the 8 hex thing. It is the Allied cross to bear but not a game breaker at all. There are plenty of ways to manage it.

Thing is that after another year of war, barring some seriously mind boggling poor play, the Allied player is just going to be crapping out more resources than he can handle-regardless of what happens now. Been there and seen it. Heck, just the thought that I would finally get to use the A-bomb would make me want to cry with joy like a little girl..

I don't see the Russians as a problem to reaching 46. They can have Manchuria by mid 45 when they activate. I'd be more concerned with getting needed fuel and resources to keep an economy working at that point. If that is still happening, yes, the game can go happily into a massive jet fur ball over Japan in 46!

I think it is more that when the Russians come in Manchuria will fall very quickly along with Korea-putting a lot of level 9 airbases right next door to Japan. Considering that the Allies will get 100 B17s a month-not to mention all those lancasters, I just see the Japanese air force getting suppressed very fast. (jets or no) I would tether the Russians completely to stop that. Even that may not work as the American as so powerful but it would be very fun to watch and find out. But you are right. I really don't know how the industry thing would play out but as it stands now, your oil pipeline is not threatened so you might be in pretty good shape.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to obvert)

Post #: 1220

RE: The Elephant Vanishes :: obvert (J) vs SqzMyLemon (A) - 11/1/2016 8:59:36 PM

crsutton

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

Thinking about the state of this game right now I though I'd check into losses for the USN during the war. At this point, in early 44, the losses of CVs was similar with one additional fleet CV lost, but of course more CVE lost in this game.

For BBs the Allies are doing much worse than historical, and for cruisers probably similar to historical. For BBs in game the Allies are suffering much more than in the war.

On the Japanese side Midway happened early!

After that losses have been light to CVs, but cruisers and DDs have been heavily depleted. BBs are good, with only two lost.

So not too far off historical.

BATTLESHIPS

ARIZONA Pearl Harbor 7 December 1941

OKLAHOMA Pearl Harbor 7 December 1941

AIRCRAFT CARRIERS

HORNET 08 38 S, 166 43 E 26 October 1942

LEXINGTON 15 12 S, 155 27 E 8 May 1942

WASP 12 25 S, 164 08 E 15 September 1942

YORKTOWN 30 36 N, 176 34 W 7 June 1942

ESCORT AIRCRAFT CARRIERS

LISCOME BAY 02 54 N, 172 30 E 24 November 1943

HEAVY CRUISERS

HOUSTON Off Java, N.E.I. 1 March 1942

QUINCY Off Savo I., Solomons 9 August 1942

ASTORIA Off Savo I., Solomons 9 August 1942

VINCENNES Off Savo I., Solomons 9 August 1942

NORTHAMPTON Off Savo I., Solomons 30 November 1942

CHICAGO 11 25 S, 160 56 E 30 January 1943

LIGHT CRUISERS

ATLANTA Off Lunga Point, Guadalcanal 13 November 1942

JUNEAU 10 34 S, 161 04 E 13 November 1942

HELENA Kula Gulf, Solomons 6 July 1943

Really light losses for the Allies in game terms. I don't really consider BBs much of an issue as my goal in game is to focus on sinking Japanese CAs and especially DDs. Once they and the carrier force is whittled, the BBs become less of a factor and very vulnerable. In my last campaign, Japanese BBs really started to take hits from subs and other factors by mid 44. Once a BB takes a couple of torpedo hits it takes forever to repair. For Japan, that means they can be effectively out of the war. As for CVE's, well the Allies get so many....

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to obvert)

Post #: 1221

RE: The Elephant Vanishes :: obvert (J) vs SqzMyLemon (A) - 11/2/2016 1:14:53 AM

obvert

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Drakanel

Well, you posted losses and I really wanted to know that. I am curious about one thing though.

How are you doing with pilot pools and aircraft pools in this game? Especially in regard to carrier-specific airframes. You did lose quite a few recently, but I don't think you wrote recently how your pools are doing.

I can post some of this soon. Not right now as it's late!

Quickly though, I have plentiful A6M5 in the pools. They're escorts now and can in a pinch be low CAP.

For IJN LBA the Georges have been depleted extensively,as have the Jacks. I'm making only 100 Georges and 75 Jacks for now, until the last models arrive. The A6M8 is now being made in numbers 150 a month I think? That is a good plane for 44, but it's not on all of the CVs yet. Still have A6M5b and A6M5c on them as well.

For IJA LBA I'm starting to build some small pools of Franks and Ki-100. Up to around 50-60 each now. Making only 100 Ki-100 and something like 120 Frank Ia.

The IJN strike planes are okay. I have a lot of D3Y3, and it just converted to the D3Y4 with 800kg bomb. I'll have 90 Graces next month. Jills are running short, but plenty of Kates to fill in if needed. Once the last Jill model arrives I'll have more, but the Grace is a DB/TB so it will fill in where needed too. Love that plane.

Got a ton of Peggy (T) building now, but need to get some pilots trained! Takes forever. I have three groups training now. Will add a fourth once I have the turn back.

Frances Ib are online now and that means they're much more useful with service 2.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Drakanel)

Post #: 1222

RE: The Elephant Vanishes :: obvert (J) vs SqzMyLemon (A) - 11/3/2016 9:34:50 PM

obvert

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

March 26, 1944

OZ: We are moving forward again and all is normal in terms of game expectations.

The Allies break out of Darwin with escorts, a few APA, some AO and some sub chasers. I'd hoped the two BB TFs moving in would prevent the escape, but alas most ships got away. Moonlight at 7% probably contributed. One plucky TF moves in to sink another xAKL at Saumlaki. Some Frances sortie and sink one of these DDs on the day. This should make Joseph feel slightly better about the affair, as I made the decision to withdraw the KB and restrict the range of many other strike planes so as not to run into LR CAP traps.

The BBs accomplished their primary mission extraordinarily well. Darwin got a pasting!

The Kongos sank three SCs on the way and then gave a mediocre bombardment to the base, but the next five, including Yamato, absolutely trashed the place. They didn't start in until morning, and the extra light seemed to make a difference. I'd forgotten to take them off of remain, so they stayed and waited.

No CAP was moved into Darwin, and the Allies lost 126 squads and devices destroyed, more disabled. These units already had a rough landing, so I don't think they're doing so well now. I started a division prepping for Darwin and I'll continue regular bombardments by sea and possibly air, depending on flak. I'm sure some supply was added here, but probably not enough for more than a month of constant battles. No forts will be able to be built, which is great, (unless one was built on day one).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR March 26, 44
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Night Time Surface Combat, near Darwin at 77,124, Range 4,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
BB Kongo
BB Hiei
DD Shimakaze
DD Urakaze
DD Nowaki
DD Tanikaze
DD Shigure
DD Murasame

Allied Ships
SC-1063, Shell hits 1, and is sunk
SC-1064, Shell hits 1, and is sunk
SC-1065, Shell hits 1, and is sunk

Reduced sighting due to 7% moonlight
Maximum visibility in Partly Cloudy Conditions and 7% moonlight: 4,000 yards

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat, near Saumlaki at 77,117, Range 4,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
xAKL Misaki Maru, Shell hits 11, and is sunk
SC CHa-5, Shell hits 2, and is sunk

Allied Ships
DD Henley
DD Craven
DD Gridley
DD Maury

Japanese ground losses:
93 casualties reported
Squads: 5 destroyed, 5 disabled
Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 1 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 4 (2 destroyed, 2 disabled)

Reduced sighting due to 7% moonlight
Maximum visibility in Partly Cloudy Conditions and 7% moonlight: 4,000 yards

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Naval bombardment of Darwin at 76,124

Japanese Ships
BB Hiei
BB Kongo

Allied ground losses:
86 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 5 destroyed, 7 disabled
Engineers: 1 destroyed, 8 disabled
Guns lost 5 (1 destroyed, 4 disabled)
Vehicles lost 12 (4 destroyed, 8 disabled)

Airbase hits 6
Airbase supply hits 2
Runway hits 17
Port hits 6
Port supply hits 1

E13A1 Jake acting as spotter for BB Hiei
BB Hiei firing at Darwin
BB Kongo firing at Darwin

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Naval bombardment of Darwin at 76,124

Japanese Ships
BB Ise
BB Yamashiro
BB Yamato
BB Mutsu
BB Nagato

Allied ground losses:
1011 casualties reported
Squads: 6 destroyed, 14 disabled
Non Combat: 27 destroyed, 85 disabled
Engineers: 40 destroyed, 15 disabled
Guns lost 19 (5 destroyed, 14 disabled)
Vehicles lost 34 (22 destroyed, 12 disabled)

Resources hits 2
Airbase hits 13
Airbase supply hits 5
Runway hits 28
Port hits 17
Port supply hits 4

BB Ise firing at Darwin
BB Yamashiro firing at 2nd Australian Division
BB Yamato firing at Darwin
BB Mutsu firing at 1st Australian Division
BB Nagato firing at Darwin

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Wessel Islands at 85,124

Weather in hex: Heavy cloud

Raid detected at 67 NM, estimated altitude 8,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 20 minutes

Japanese aircraft
P1Y1 Frances x 13
Ki-43-IIIa Oscar x 25

Japanese aircraft losses
P1Y1 Frances: 2 damaged

Allied Ships
DD Gridley
DD Craven
DD Henley, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
DD Maury

Aircraft Attacking:
13 x P1Y1 Frances launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 18in Type 91 Torpedo

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

Hard to hit these with TB.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by obvert -- 11/8/2016 11:39:03 AM >

_____________________________

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

(in reply to obvert)

Post #: 1223

RE: The Elephant Vanishes :: obvert (J) vs SqzMyLemon (A) - 11/3/2016 11:36:39 PM

obvert

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

Fighter Pools_IJAAF

I promised some info about airframes. So far I'm trying to get through this stage of the game with fairly conservative production numbers, at least compared to what I could be making.

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 #: 1224

RE: The Elephant Vanishes :: obvert (J) vs SqzMyLemon (A) - 11/3/2016 11:48:35 PM

obvert

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

DB/TB Pools_IJAAF

No problem with the DBs here, but the Jills are a bit scarce. The Grace and last Jill model will alleviate that in a month or two.

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 #: 1225

RE: The Elephant Vanishes :: obvert (J) vs SqzMyLemon (A) - 11/4/2016 12:00:52 AM

obvert

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

2E Pools_IJAAF

The 2E pools look good.

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 #: 1226

RE: The Elephant Vanishes :: obvert (J) vs SqzMyLemon (A) - 11/4/2016 12:28:10 AM

Lokasenna

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

My good sir, your Frank production is far too low.

(in reply to obvert)

Post #: 1227

RE: The Elephant Vanishes :: obvert (J) vs SqzMyLemon (A) - 11/4/2016 8:35:40 AM

obvert

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

My good sir, your Frank production is far too low.

I agree!!!

I'm waiting for the Ki-84b and then the Ki-84r to come online. By 7/44 I should have the b which will bring me to 195. Then when the r arrive around 11/44 I'll have 255.

What do you think? I'm trying to be conservative with the production numbers. I'm also very aware that I'll have to rely more and more on the IJAAF as the groups for IJN disappear in summer 44. I'll also have the J2M5 and N1K5 by 9/44 at least so the IJN groups left will be very good airframes.

The Sam doesn't seem to want to repair factories. Very frustrating. I've had one factory at 25(5) for about three months!

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Lokasenna)

Post #: 1228

RE: The Elephant Vanishes :: obvert (J) vs SqzMyLemon (A) - 11/4/2016 9:11:34 AM

ny59giants

Posts: 9869
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

The Sam doesn't seem to want to repair factories. Very frustrating. I've had one factory at 25(5) for about three months!

Replace the leader.

_____________________________

(in reply to obvert)

Post #: 1229

RE: The Elephant Vanishes :: obvert (J) vs SqzMyLemon (A) - 11/4/2016 10:19:11 AM

obvert

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

quote:

The Sam doesn't seem to want to repair factories. Very frustrating. I've had one factory at 25(5) for about three months!

Replace the leader.

Yes!!!

wait a minute ...

_____________________________

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

(in reply to ny59giants)

Post #: 1230

Page: << < prev 39 40 [41] 42 43 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 SqzMyLemon (A)