Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bearcat2

Dropped in to say Thanks for the AAR!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anachro

what's the drawback of putting troops in reserve to prevent auto-bombardment? does it still trigger?

quote:

Morning Air attack on 7th Division, at 123,52 , near Kushiro Weather in hex: Clear sky Raid spotted at 20 NM, estimated altitude 10,000 feet. Estimated time to target is 6 minutes Allied aircraft Liberator B.VI x 21 Liberator GR.VI x 11 B-24J Liberator x 82 B-29-1 Superfort x 32 B-29-25 Superfort x 106 P-47D25 Thunderbolt x 19 PB4Y-1 Liberator x 11 PV-1 Ventura x 10 Allied aircraft losses Liberator B.VI: 17 damaged Liberator GR.VI: 6 damaged B-24J Liberator: 30 damaged B-24J Liberator: 1 destroyed by flak B-29-1 Superfort: 27 damaged B-29-25 Superfort: 47 damaged PB4Y-1 Liberator: 7 damaged PV-1 Ventura: 9 damaged Japanese ground losses: 4580 casualties reported Squads: 20 destroyed, 245 disabled Non Combat: 16 destroyed, 359 disabled Engineers: 2 destroyed, 32 disabled Guns lost 127 (2 destroyed, 125 disabled) Vehicles lost 56 (3 destroyed, 53 disabled) Aircraft Attacking: 3 x PB4Y-1 Liberator bombing from 8000 feet Ground Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anachro

what's the drawback of putting troops in reserve to prevent auto-bombardment? does it still trigger?

I can try that but I've always had one unit then revert to combat and take all of the damage. That's happening right now with troops walking in the clear and getting smashed by 4Es. One switches t combat each turn.

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert


. Kushiro troops take another hit form the landing auto-bombardments. Dan and I had a talk about this as apparently he's been getting a lot of flak in the AAR about it.

I won't lie. It's frustrating. It's not that he's doing something wrong though, it's that the game has a limitation that restricts me from making a choice here. These are the parts of game I have trouble with the the only areas I would now consider making AARs about. With this issue I don't know how it could be regulated though. You can't say don't send more troops in. He does put ships and troops at risk by doing so as well, but the risk is minimal compared to the gain in this case. It's become a system for him recently, and he's using it well.

quote:

ORIGINAL: adarbrauner

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert


. Kushiro troops take another hit form the landing auto-bombardments. Dan and I had a talk about this as apparently he's been getting a lot of flak in the AAR about it.

I won't lie. It's frustrating. It's not that he's doing something wrong though, it's that the game has a limitation that restricts me from making a choice here. These are the parts of game I have trouble with the the only areas I would now consider making AARs about. With this issue I don't know how it could be regulated though. You can't say don't send more troops in. He does put ships and troops at risk by doing so as well, but the risk is minimal compared to the gain in this case. It's become a system for him recently, and he's using it well.

It's simple; either Matrix disable this auto bombardment feature, which I can't grasp yet it's reasoning and historical plausibility, or add the choice to select NO AUTO BOMBARDMENT;

meanwhile it could be asked from the opposing player to refrain from landings which have the only clear main purpose to trigger this "autobombardment";
it works both ways IMHO;

I've respectfully asked from Adm. Roper to refrain from this practice;

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

Morning Air attack on 7th Division, at 123,52 , near Kushiro Weather in hex: Clear sky Raid spotted at 20 NM, estimated altitude 10,000 feet. Estimated time to target is 6 minutes Allied aircraft Liberator B.VI x 21 Liberator GR.VI x 11 B-24J Liberator x 82 B-29-1 Superfort x 32 B-29-25 Superfort x 106 P-47D25 Thunderbolt x 19 PB4Y-1 Liberator x 11 PV-1 Ventura x 10 Allied aircraft losses Liberator B.VI: 17 damaged Liberator GR.VI: 6 damaged B-24J Liberator: 30 damaged B-24J Liberator: 1 destroyed by flak B-29-1 Superfort: 27 damaged B-29-25 Superfort: 47 damaged PB4Y-1 Liberator: 7 damaged PV-1 Ventura: 9 damaged Japanese ground losses: 4580 casualties reported Squads: 20 destroyed, 245 disabled Non Combat: 16 destroyed, 359 disabled Engineers: 2 destroyed, 32 disabled Guns lost 127 (2 destroyed, 125 disabled) Vehicles lost 56 (3 destroyed, 53 disabled) Aircraft Attacking: 3 x PB4Y-1 Liberator bombing from 8000 feet Ground Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb

Now you see why I simply refuse to send Japanese units in a clear non-hex hex under any circumstance. It's absolute murder in the late war, and there's very little to do about it.

The cover provided by x2 and x3 terrain doesn't make it much better, but it's a massive casualty reduction and it costs nothing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: inqistor

What is your percentage settings for LRCAP? I had an extended conversation with PzB about this issue, in his AAR against Andy, and we concluded, that you have to set percentage low, if you are expecting to meet several sweeps, followed by bombers. It seems, that Air Unit will send more planes, as turn goes by, when they gradually meet opposition.

I think that was over friendly base, with Radars, but worth a try. Especially, since NICKs shouldn't tangle with enemy fighters anyway.

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert



In the next turn I tried Lowpe's idea of having Irving S-A on low CAP to add radar, but it didn't work well. What I got was all groups scrambling everything, then getting caught out by sweeps and losing masses of fighters.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

Ensure you have both day and night naval search covering the same area to catch those single ship raiders.

Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: adarbrauner

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert


. Kushiro troops take another hit form the landing auto-bombardments. Dan and I had a talk about this as apparently he's been getting a lot of flak in the AAR about it.

I won't lie. It's frustrating. It's not that he's doing something wrong though, it's that the game has a limitation that restricts me from making a choice here. These are the parts of game I have trouble with the the only areas I would now consider making AARs about. With this issue I don't know how it could be regulated though. You can't say don't send more troops in. He does put ships and troops at risk by doing so as well, but the risk is minimal compared to the gain in this case. It's become a system for him recently, and he's using it well.

It's simple; either Matrix disable this auto bombardment feature, which I can't grasp yet it's reasoning and historical plausibility, or add the choice to select NO AUTO BOMBARDMENT;

meanwhile it could be asked from the opposing player to refrain from landings which have the only clear main purpose to trigger this "autobombardment";
it works both ways IMHO;

I've respectfully asked from Adm. Roper to refrain from this practice;

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

Ensure you have both day and night naval search covering the same area to catch those single ship raiders.

Alfred

I always have some night search to spot subs around the ig oil bases, so that part should be covered, but I've found it hasn't mattered with single ships.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Noticing moderate numbers of mid-war IJNAF and IJAAF fighters in your lineup: Ki-44-IIc, N1K2-J and Ki-43 IIIa.

Sorry to dive into minutiae, but what are your pools of these antiquated airframes like now? I assume you're 'using them up' because you have them in abundance, rather than ongoing production.

Also, no Ki-84a in the lineup. I know you've used quite a few of these airframes in the last few months. Is everything just going into -r and -b production?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

Ensure you have both day and night naval search covering the same area to catch those single ship raiders.

Alfred

I always have some night search to spot subs around the ig oil bases, so that part should be covered, but I've found it hasn't mattered with single ships.

"Naval Search" or the "ASW" mission? Plus is it of the same density as the daylight operation?

Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

What does everyone think?

Single ship raiding TFs deep behind enemy lines??

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

Once engaged, a DD should be very hard to hit with planes. They are fast and they turn on a dime. They have dual shafts, and can twist. Late-war USN DDs have fearsome AA capability, and TBs fly low, slow, and straight. 8-10 in one unit coming in on the same vector should be shot to pieces by a Fletcher. That's not unreasonable.

quote:

The way to stop single DD TFs is with surface forces, and there Japan is at a disadvantage if they have had their navy sunk. Such is life.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

But the main point to me is ROI. One DD can only do one DD's-worth of damage. They have limited ammo, limited ops points. If damaged they have no TF buddies to provide AA and ASW services on the retreat. And damage shoots the DL up fast.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

RE the question (the limited question) of an HR to ban single-ship TFs. I think players tie themselves into knots due to asking the wrong questions.

On the issue of detection, it should be hard to detect one ship from the air. It's darn hard to see a 300-ft vessel from the surface of the sea at five miles (10,000 yards.) Gray on gray if there is any sort of mist or fog, not to mention camo schemes specifically aimed at making a ship look like fog. Smoke was the main way to detect in calm air. In perfect conditions, with height-of-eye at top weather deck, with good binocs, you can push the circle out to ten miles or so. If you can see the tops of masts coming over the curve a bit more depending on height. But the math is the math.

Aloft, a ship is seen most often from the wake. But wakes merge with whitecaps very quickly. And 300-feet long is not very much data from 3-5 miles up, moving at 150 kts or more.

Once engaged, a DD should be very hard to hit with planes. They are fast and they turn on a dime. They have dual shafts, and can twist. Late-war USN DDs have fearsome AA capability, and TBs fly low, slow, and straight. 8-10 in one unit coming in on the same vector should be shot to pieces by a Fletcher. That's not unreasonable.

The way to stop single DD TFs is with surface forces, and there Japan is at a disadvantage if they have had their navy sunk. Such is life.

But the main point to me is ROI. One DD can only do one DD's-worth of damage. They have limited ammo, limited ops points. If damaged they have no TF buddies to provide AA and ASW services on the retreat. And damage shoots the DL up fast.

Many IJN PB's are up-armed tramp steamers essentially. They are not real warships. One or two of them ought to be fresh meat for a modern, well-crewed and led USN DD (with armor.) IF you let 1-2 PBs meet a DD you shouldn't ask for HRs. Just don't do that. Mass your remaining surface assets, move in company under whatever LBA you can put together (you might get lucky), and muddle through, knowing he's probably under-using his DDs anyway.

'Cause if 1-ship is bad, why is 2-ships OK? Why not an HR for 3? 4?

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert
I get that. The HR is bothersome to me, but on the other hand it does feel like there is a distinct difference between 1 ship and 2+ ship TFs regarding detection. If not there wouldn't have been dozens of threads and posts about this over the years. I've strayed away form ever asking for an agreement on this as most players simply self-regulate their use.