RE: 28Jan42 Moo v. Fulkerson

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: 28Jan42 Moo v. Fulkerson

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: 28Jan42 Moo v. Fulkerson

Page: << < prev 37 38 [39] 40 41 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: 28Jan42 Moo v. Fulkerson - 9/5/2012 2:08:32 AM

larryfulkerson

Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline

Here's the situation at Java. I'm needing a bunch more recon of course before I decide where to land with my initial invasion but I'm
thinking either Batavia or Soerabaja and I'm leaning toward Soerabaja because it's more in the middle where I can split up the Allied
defenders better. More recon will tell me where the ground forces are and I'll sort of need that info before I land. I can always start up
WITP with the original scenario playing the Allied side to get a rough idea where they are but I think that's a bit gamey to do that so I
won't. Anyway, recon will reveal them. I'm thinking I can use the carriers to clean out the ships that might interfere with minesweeping,
then clear out the minefield at Soerabaja and then do the landing proper. And I'll have to plan on bringing engineers and AF dudes
so as to have some air cover right away. All in all, I think this is doable. Might take a couple of weeks to get the pieces in place and
clear out the ships and mines but I can get started on it right now.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)

Post #: 1141

RE: 28Jan42 Moo v. Fulkerson - 9/5/2012 2:19:10 AM

larryfulkerson

Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline

I've got my three CVL's at BubbleDrop getting some last minute attention to repairs but within about 4 days they should be ready for
operations in and around Java. I'm planning on using them to get rid of the Allied ships. That, and the surface ships should do the
trick. The CV's will concentrate on trying to find where Jim has moved his CV's. So the Java operations can start in about two weeks.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)

Post #: 1142

RE: 28Jan42 Moo v. Fulkerson - 9/5/2012 2:27:58 AM

larryfulkerson

Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline

Here's what the Midway situation looks like now. I-9 has like, 1 torpedo left so I'm counting him as winchester already and he's mainly
hanging around for the recon value. I'm seeing about 2 Allied CA's so I'm guessing Jim left the Jap home island area and went to the
Midway waters....and I'm guessing that's where the CV's are now too. So I'm going to mount a recon in force to go see what's there and
maybe even attack something. Probably in about two weeks from now.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)

Post #: 1143

RE: 28Jan42 Moo v. Fulkerson - 9/5/2012 3:20:44 AM

larryfulkerson

Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline

I counted at least 7 Allied Subs around the Jap home islands. There's more that aren't showing in this display I'm pretty sure. Jim is
really taking his game seriously. Good for him.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)

Post #: 1144

RE: 28Jan42 Moo v. Fulkerson - 9/5/2012 9:21:03 AM

larryfulkerson

Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline

I did a cut and paste of all the spoilage and I'm posting it here to show how closely I'm trying to prevent it.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)

Post #: 1145

RE: 28Jan42 Moo v. Fulkerson - 9/5/2012 5:53:49 PM

larryfulkerson

Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline

I finally remembered to post the combat report for those of you who want to see the whole thing.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)

Post #: 1146

RE: 28Jan42 Moo v. Fulkerson - 9/5/2012 6:10:17 PM

larryfulkerson

Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline

Here's the latest losses:

Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)

Post #: 1147

RE: 28Jan42 Moo v. Fulkerson - 9/5/2012 6:19:56 PM

larryfulkerson

Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline

Here's the Palembang situation: the fires are out and the damage is being repaired. I'm already shipping oil and fuel through the
port to the home islands. I gave some thought to maybe shutting down the refineries to let the oil level build up but then I thought
again and decided to just let the fuel be produced rather than ship it to the home islands to be refined. If the fuel level gets too high
then I'll shut down the refinery(s) to give some leeway for ships to pull it back down again ( by exporting the fuel ).

EDIT: It would be really cool if we could get Jim to give us some kind of report like this on his bases, etc. Hint, hint.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by larryfulkerson -- 9/5/2012 6:21:07 PM >

(in reply to larryfulkerson)

Post #: 1148

RE: 28Jan42 Moo v. Fulkerson - 9/5/2012 6:28:22 PM

larryfulkerson

Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline

I took a look around and found some resource centers that need to be serviced ( resources to be exported ). Kendari doesn't have a
resource center but there are some resources there that I need to carry to the home islands.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)

Post #: 1149

RE: 28Jan42 Moo v. Fulkerson - 9/5/2012 6:45:41 PM

larryfulkerson

Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline

Here's a list of the places where I'm having a problem w/ insufficient AF dudes. I've got AF dudes on the way to a lot of those places
already but it's still a problem so far.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)

Post #: 1150

RE: 28Jan42 Moo v. Fulkerson - 9/6/2012 2:15:41 AM

moore4807

Posts: 1089
Joined: 6/2/2000
From: Punta Gorda FL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: larryfulkerson

Here's the Palembang situation: the fires are out and the damage is being repaired. I'm already shipping oil and fuel through the
port to the home islands. I gave some thought to maybe shutting down the refineries to let the oil level build up but then I thought
again and decided to just let the fuel be produced rather than ship it to the home islands to be refined. If the fuel level gets too high
then I'll shut down the refinery(s) to give some leeway for ships to pull it back down again ( by exporting the fuel ).

EDIT: It would be really cool if we could get Jim to give us some kind of report like this on his bases, etc. Hint, hint.

Larry,

Reporting on the Allies are pretty boring in 1942, I'm reluctant to post info - not so much because of opsec. . . My "plan"(s) have gone pretty badly so far. I am pretty set on protecting the Australia shipping lanes and moved a lot of my initial troops and engineers to that area. Some of those troops didn't make it into position before being sunk.

My plan is to keep the IJN CarDiv in the Central Pacific by attacking there. I do not expect to hold the Islands, just (hopefully) keeping Larry hustling Navy back n forth until I am getting more serious naval assets delivered (mid 43).

_____________________________

(in reply to larryfulkerson)

Post #: 1151

RE: 28Jan42 Moo v. Fulkerson - 9/6/2012 6:19:55 PM

larryfulkerson

Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline

I just now ( Thursday 10:09 am 9/6/2012 ) emailed my moves to Jim. There's no hurry on him getting them back to me of course. I'm
going to try something special here in about two weeks ( game time ) and I'm not sure it'll work so cross your fingers everybody.
Actually, I'm not sure who you are crossing your fingers for.....me or Jim.....either way is okie dokie with me. This has been a great
game so far and I'm pretty happy with the way it's moving along and Jim is a pretty good opponent and he's keeping me guessing and
that's a good thing. I've noticed that there are about 200+ more ships for the Jap side to handle in the RA 4.2 version compared to
the stock version. I'm not complaining just saying I noticed it. I have no idea what's changed for the Allies of course......Jim would
have to speak to that for us. Also, there's a lot of changes in the supplies and fuel levels at the bases......they are lower than the
stock version of the scenario. I'm playing Rob using the stock version of the scenario simultaneously while I'm playing Jim using RA
4.2 and I'm noticing a lot of differences that make the play subtilly different. Not really in a bad way but game changing. I'm having to
keep an eye on the fuel level(s) at the various bases more than the stock version and it seems like there's a lot more action going on
with more ships to handle for the Jap side. I'm roughly at the same place in time in each game and they are playing out almost the
same way in each.......I'm using the same strategy for each and already I've captured Manila in my game w/ Rob whereas it's still a
hard nut to crack in Jim's game. I'm wondering if that's because of the stacking limits or the numbers of Allied defenders or what. It's
hard to say. We'd have to hear from the scenario designers for the answer to that I guess.

Needless to say I'm having a blast in each game.

< Message edited by larryfulkerson -- 9/6/2012 6:21:23 PM >

(in reply to moore4807)

Post #: 1152

RE: 28Jan42 Moo v. Fulkerson - 9/7/2012 2:52:38 AM

larryfulkerson

Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline

So um.......hey you guys.......I made a discovery just now. I had a TF loading some resources and one of them just happened to have
some supplies loaded. You know that the supplies column is orange when the "supplies" are resources right? So I wondered what
would happen if there were already some supplies in the supplies column on the ship display. I discovered that the ship didn't load any
supplies or resources either one. It stayed the same from one turn to the next. Cool. Now we know.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)

Post #: 1153

RE: 28Jan42 Moo v. Fulkerson - 9/7/2012 9:05:18 AM

moore4807

Posts: 1089
Joined: 6/2/2000
From: Punta Gorda FL
Status: offline

Larry,

to answer your request of whats different in RA4.2 vs. stock game for the Allies = A LOT!

All of the West Coast bases start out damaged (roughly 50%) and there is the Phillipine Is. reinforcement TF that now starts out @ Darwin instead of getting sunk immediately at P.I. (major upgrade to the Allies there) Overall I'd say the pipeline is more realistic for the Allies in RA than stock, in the first months of the war the Allies are pretty much "tied to the whipping post". My resources and oil/fuel is going up very slowly, Australia is already hurting because of the lack of supply and bases in C-B-I are nowhere near ready to sustain themselves. Everything else is looked at as supply bases or lost bases.

The "plan"(s) so far have been failures as you have widespread superiority and have done an excellent job interdicting shipping. The only thing surprising me is your subs havent gotten to more of my mainline TF's, most of the damage has been from AKL's that I use to feed the "outposts" in my hub-&-spoke system. The Australia route is my greatest exposure and I'm trying to beef up my defenses along this line. You already sank some AP's taking some highly needed troops down with them. I'm not changing commands much, conserving my PP's early figuring I'll need them later in the war.

Air experience is horrible and I am training my A** off in the USA, but there is no immediate relief in sight. The A-24's and P-40's that appear early in Australia are welcome - they are just getting slaughtered in the beginning by the Zeroes. I'm rotating in as many fighters as I can into the Port Moresby area to gain experience flying CAP but fatigue builds up quickly (resting set to 30%). I moved some 4E bombers to Australia from P.I. and the West Coast - the airgroups are shortly going to be lost to withdrawls, but I got some morale benefit out of it!

My subs are the brightest spots in the war so far, wolfpacking them around the Home Islands and interdicting your oil/fuel TF's now coming out of Balikpapan/Miri
& Singapore/Palembang areas are going to be a priority. Having said that, when I lose Singers and Sojeraba, finding ports to handle the subs will be a challenge. Perth was a consideration til you recently started showing interest in the Western approaches there. Ceylon and Western India are stretching the "legs" of the S-boats and the Dutch boats. I'm reserving a few newer subs to keep pressure on Beetlebob and Truk supplies, you never know what/when juicy targets may come calling there.

On another note: your screenshot above the loading of resources on an AMPHIBIOUS TF??? That could be why the supplies weren't offloaded if you went to a different port and loaded resources there. . .

_____________________________

(in reply to larryfulkerson)

Post #: 1154

RE: 28Jan42 Moo v. Fulkerson - 9/7/2012 9:15:42 AM

larryfulkerson

Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: moore4807
On another note: your screenshot above the loading of resources on an AMPHIBIOUS TF??? That could be why the supplies weren't offloaded if you went to a different port and loaded resources there. . .

Ah.....good catch. I guess there's some truth to the saying that a fresh pair of eyes are sometimes needed. Yes, of course the mission
should have been transport instead of amphib.

(in reply to moore4807)

Post #: 1155

RE: 28Jan42 Moo v. Fulkerson - 9/7/2012 9:18:30 AM

moore4807

Posts: 1089
Joined: 6/2/2000
From: Punta Gorda FL
Status: offline

Larry,
Your new avatar is soooo appropriate!!! I'm drowning in cute little fuzzy kittens here!
I live near an apartment complex and there has always been overflow of stray cats in the neighborhood - we have two indoor cats already (as background to the story). My wife decided a couple years ago to start feeding "Hobbles" a grey broken down geezer cat that was crippled (probably in a fight) and it was snowing and he took up on our porch to get out of the snow. OK he was nice and let us pet him for the food. OBVIOUSLY there is a monthly kitty convention around here where they compare notes. . . as into the spring the numbers of strays multiplied with the food left out - were talking 4-5 regulars and various visitors. . . Then there was "Orange Mommy" who one day walked her four tiny kittens up the sidewalk and our driveway. . . The wife and daughter "HAD" to feed and name everybody and I became the cruel "man" who tried to reason that this was getting out of control to no avail. So now "Hobbles" stops showing up, presumably gone to that great cathouse in the sky. . . Soon "Orange Mommy" has "Creamy" "Goldy" "Greybar" and I dont remember the fourth's name (he apparently got taken) are now living under a fence/deck down the street and are regular visitors to "Chez Moore's Culinary Cat Catering". Now this spring there were some cuts ("Orange Mommy") and additions to the regulars ("Mama Moulie" "Smoky"and "Cooper" apparently made the cut and wormed thier way into house privileges).

Flash forward and you guessed it!!! There are now THREE litters of kittens INSIDE the house. " Mama Moulie" - has two litters here, 3 sixteen week olds ("Oreo" "Bear" and "Lucy") who started out in the garage, until it was TOO HOT!!! per the wife and brought downstairs into the basement. Just yesterday "Mama Moulie" gave birth to S I X more yet unnamed mouths to feed. "Girlfriend" got nailed by "Goldy" and she is now nursing 4 seven week old kittens in our garage. ("Stevie" & 3 others I dont know names of yet)

Now we found out a house around the corner has 4 families of cats living in thier garage, adding to the population problem around here. EXTREMELY nice people, just not too understanding or worried about the unchecked processes of cats (input-output-reproduce). So far we have been able to get 5-6 cats to the animal shelter for free spay/neutering and we have taken all but the new kittens to our local vet to be checked out. as soon as they are old enough we will take the lot of them to the shelter for the free spay/neutering. Oreo and the other two are proving almost impossible to catch - even though they are inside - several scratches and panting kitties later, we are still trying.
EDIT: We can't even get Animal Control out to trap since the shelter isnt accepting cats due to overpopulation at the shelter. . .

All this has caused a problem with our trailer trash neighbor (really a shame) who has 3 dogs and the cats are using her front flowerbed for a bathroom (a legitimate gripe), we tried to give her info on natural repellents ( peppercorns, orange rinds,) but she just lets her dogs loose now to chase the cats.

Anyway - the original two cats ("MowMow" and "Shiloh") and I are hopelessly outnumbered, outgunned and under seige. Threats of violence and getting an apartment has not deterred the human females from turning our home into a cathouse. . . But I'm making some progress - photos and advertisements have gone up and we have had two calls but no takers on the kittens so far. The local shelters are overrun with cats-n-kittens and are not accepting any til they have some room. . . So we started with two cats and within a year we now have 14 cats/kittens under our roof.

Totally off topic, but I feel better now...

< Message edited by moore4807 -- 9/7/2012 9:21:56 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to moore4807)

Post #: 1156

RE: 28Jan42 Moo v. Fulkerson - 9/7/2012 9:50:44 AM

moore4807

Posts: 1089
Joined: 6/2/2000
From: Punta Gorda FL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: larryfulkerson

quote:

ORIGINAL: moore4807
On another note: your screenshot above the loading of resources on an AMPHIBIOUS TF??? That could be why the supplies weren't offloaded if you went to a different port and loaded resources there. . .

Ah.....good catch. I guess there's some truth to the saying that a fresh pair of eyes are sometimes needed. Yes, of course the mission
should have been transport instead of amphib.

Ok you meant CARGO. . . Right? I find i mess up so many TF's orders that I'm the biggest problem in shipping... So I've learned to slow down and keep a written logbook of my TF orders... It does help me.

_____________________________

(in reply to larryfulkerson)

Post #: 1157

RE: 28Jan42 Moo v. Fulkerson - 9/7/2012 12:50:15 PM

larryfulkerson

Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: moore4807
Ok you meant CARGO. . . Right?

Um........I don't remember off the top of my head what the difference is between "transport" and "cargo". I'll have to look that up again.
It's the size of the TF I'm guessing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: moore4807
I find i mess up so many TF's orders that I'm the biggest problem in shipping... So I've learned to slow down and keep a written logbook of my TF orders... It does help me.

I used to do that and yeah, it does help. But the Jap side has sooooo many TF's that it takes me like three sheets of paper to have the
room to contain it all. I put the number of the taskforce, the payload, and the destination and I find that I get fewer duplicate missions
that way. It's a pain having to write it all down but it's great when you really need to refer to it again. I wish there was some way to
automate it ingame somehow. There might be a way, I just don't know what it is yet.

(in reply to moore4807)

Post #: 1158

RE: 28Jan42 Moo v. Fulkerson - 9/7/2012 5:27:45 PM

larryfulkerson

Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: moore4807
On another note: your screenshot above the loading of resources on an AMPHIBIOUS TF??? That could be why the supplies weren't offloaded if you went to a different port and loaded resources there. . .

quote:

ORIGINAL: larryfulkerson
Ah.....good catch. I guess there's some truth to the saying that a fresh pair of eyes are sometimes needed. Yes, of course the mission
should have been transport instead of amphib.

I've re-read the manual and found out that I've been doing it wrong all this time. I've been using Amphibious and transport only for the
mission type(s). Now I've found out that "cargo" is used when moving supplies and resources, "tanker" is used for moving fuel and oil,
"transport" is used to move troops, and "amphibious" is used to land troops on enemy hexes. D'oh. Live and learn I guess. My mission
type should be more accurate now that I know this.

(in reply to larryfulkerson)

Post #: 1159

RE: 28Jan42 Moo v. Fulkerson - 9/8/2012 1:21:13 AM

larryfulkerson

Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline

Here's the complete list of my damaged ships in my game w/ Rob. I'd show you the list for my game w/ Jim but OPSEC handlers would scream at me. But the list is similar believe me. This has been a busy game so far.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)

Post #: 1160

RE: 28Jan42 Moo v. Fulkerson - 9/8/2012 8:15:54 AM

moore4807

Posts: 1089
Joined: 6/2/2000
From: Punta Gorda FL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: larryfulkerson

I've re-read the manual and found out that I've been doing it wrong all this time. I've been using Amphibious and transport only for the
mission type(s). Now I've found out that "cargo" is used when moving supplies and resources, "tanker" is used for moving fuel and oil,
"transport" is used to move troops, and "amphibious" is used to land troops on enemy hexes. D'oh. Live and learn I guess. My mission
type should be more accurate now that I know this.

I'm always subject to being wrong,

I think using the correct mission type will speed up your load/unload times (subject to port size and support of course) The stacking limits on ships in the TF's are different too.

But mostly I realize that I just helped my opponent. . . who is already kicking my XXL a** all over the Pacific. . . to be a better player.

_____________________________

(in reply to larryfulkerson)

Post #: 1161

RE: 28Jan42 Moo v. Fulkerson - 9/8/2012 8:51:18 AM

larryfulkerson

Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: moore4807
But mostly I realize that I just helped my opponent. . . who is already kicking my XXL a** all over the Pacific. . . to be a better player.

And I really appreciate it.

Hey I found a really good video on the Pacific war:

Click here to watch it

I received some moves from Jim about 10 minutes ago ( Sat. 01:39 am ) and here's a Tracker report on the economy now:

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by larryfulkerson -- 9/8/2012 10:17:45 AM >

(in reply to moore4807)

Post #: 1162

RE: 28Jan42 Moo v. Fulkerson - 9/8/2012 12:58:17 PM

geofflambert

Posts: 14863
Joined: 12/23/2010
From: St. Louis
Status: offline

Larry, consider Tjilijap for your invasion. Probably not heavily defended and you can cut the rail lines between Batavia and Soerbaja quickly. Are you using a house rule of no invasions at non-base hexes? I'm not a fan of such, the Normandy landings were mostly in non-base hexes (of course they brought their own ports with them) but for division sized groups or less I don't see the justification.

I use the "cargo" designation when I'm using xAKs AKLs and AKs (AGs too) when I'm loading them with fuel and you can include some TKs in a cargo TF as well.

Moo, feral house cats (felis domesticus) are a major problem for migrating songbirds. I love cats (I've always had at least one), but that is just unacceptable to me. Think about your ASPCA or whoever to make a plan to get rid of them (yes, euthanasia). They really have no business out there. They're an artifact of our carelessness.

A little aggressiveness can often find weak points accidentally. The central Pacific islands are of little value until the B-29 comes along. He will soon tire of using his KB as a bucket brigade. Also, those P-40s (Kittyhawks) in Oz, never let him dictate when your fighters engage. Put them on training missions like ground attack or sweep somewhere where nothing is happening to limit attrition when all he's doing are nuisance attacks on your bases. He is smart to try and gain air superiority by baiting your fighters. Your fighters on 100% training will not be destroyed on the ground, either. When you do wish to defend a base, set the max range to zero and most of your pilots who get their planes shot down will parachute home and get a new plane. Also, early in the war you simply cannot afford to send land based fighters on escort missions. Let the bombers take care of themselves. Set them to attack at 2,000 feet or even less to get those lowN and lowG experience points. He doesn't have radar early on and your bombers will sneak in and out without many losses from fighters. The few B-17's you have are too valuable as search planes to send them on bombing missions (early on), don't let anyone tell you differently. A major weakness for the IJN as opposed to you is their lack of search arcs in the areas they want to attack. Establish and fortify your search bases to maximize your advantage in this area. It's wonderful to watch his KB operating blind while your CVs track them waiting for a good opportunity to attack. His best counter is to deploy the subs with those float planes in the correct places. I've seen them being deployed in incorrect places a lot.

< Message edited by geofflambert -- 9/8/2012 1:08:31 PM >

(in reply to larryfulkerson)

Post #: 1163

RE: 28Jan42 Moo v. Fulkerson - 9/8/2012 3:06:31 PM

larryfulkerson

Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert
Larry, consider Tjilijap for your invasion. Probably not heavily defended and you can cut the rail lines between Batavia and Soerbaja quickly.

I like that idea a lot. Thanks.

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert
Are you using a house rule of no invasions at non-base hexes?

No. At least I don't remember such a rule being discussed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert
Moo, feral house cats (felis domesticus) are a major problem for migrating songbirds. I love cats (I've always had at least one), but that is just unacceptable to me. Think about your ASPCA or whoever to make a plan to get rid of them (yes, euthanasia). They really have no business out there. They're an artifact of our carelessness.

Yeah, and they don't play fetch very well either.

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert
A little aggressiveness can often find weak points accidentally.

I've found this to be true already. I've discovered that I can sneak a DMS boat in close to the place where I want to invade and do
some investigation, snoop around a llittle and only have to retreat when he finally gets a detection on my boat.

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert
The central Pacific islands are of little value until the B-29 comes along.

I've got some Betty's out there and so far they haven't done me much good. I'm using them as a sort of naval search / recon plane
and I'm considering putting some PB's out there instead. I think I'd rather use the Betty's to bomb something.

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert
He will soon tire of using his KB as a bucket brigade.

They've already put a lot of mileage on just going back and forth. I'm considering parking them somewhere. Good catch.

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert
Also, those P-40s (Kittyhawks) in Oz, never let him dictate when your fighters engage. Put them on training missions like ground attack or sweep somewhere where nothing is happening to limit attrition when all he's doing are nuisance attacks on your bases.
He is smart to try and gain air superiority by baiting your fighters.

Uh oh. My secret is out now.

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert
Your fighters on 100% training will not be destroyed on the ground, either. When you do wish to defend a base, set the max range to zero and most of your pilots who get their planes shot down will parachute home and get a new plane. Also, early in the war you simply cannot afford to send land based fighters on escort missions. Let the bombers take care of themselves. Set them to attack at 2,000 feet or even less to get those lowN and lowG experience points. He doesn't have radar early on and your bombers will sneak in and out without many losses from fighters.

This is a good idea Jimbo.

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert
The few B-17's you have are too valuable as search planes to send them on bombing missions (early on), don't let anyone tell you differently A major weakness for the IJN as opposed to you is their lack of search arcs in the areas they want to attack. Establish and fortify your search bases to maximize your advantage in this area. It's wonderful to watch his KB operating blind while your CVs track them waiting for a good opportunity to attack.

I've already been through about a dozen B-17 attacks and have only lost one ship so far. I like this idea.

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert
His best counter is to deploy the subs with those float planes in the correct places. I've seen them being deployed in incorrect places a lot.

I've got them watching SFO, SAN, and Pearl. There's not a lot of them and I consider them valuable.

(in reply to geofflambert)

Post #: 1164

RE: 28Jan42 Moo v. Fulkerson - 9/8/2012 4:57:06 PM

geofflambert

Posts: 14863
Joined: 12/23/2010
From: St. Louis
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: larryfulkerson

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert
Moo, feral house cats (felis domesticus) are a major problem for migrating songbirds. I love cats (I've always had at least one), but that is just unacceptable to me. Think about your ASPCA or whoever to make a plan to get rid of them (yes, euthanasia). They really have no business out there. They're an artifact of our carelessness.

Yeah, and they don't play fetch very well either.

I've got them watching SFO, SAN, and Pearl. There's not a lot of them and I consider them valuable.

Yeah, but when you need someone to take charge of the household, cats are always prepared. Dogs don't know what to do with themselves except to lick their balls. And dine from the cat's litter box.

SFO SAN and Pearl are prime examples of incorrect places to put those boats. When you see something there, what can you do about it? Where's his fueling station along his supply lines to OZ? If you knew that you could send some AMCs to sink some oilers. Wouldn't that be fabulous? Also Sydney, Aukland and Noumea (possibly Fiji as well) are potential forward bases for his carrier fleet. Nice to know where they are when they're committed to the front lines.

< Message edited by geofflambert -- 9/8/2012 5:00:09 PM >

(in reply to larryfulkerson)

Post #: 1165

RE: 28Jan42 Moo v. Fulkerson - 9/8/2012 5:49:25 PM

larryfulkerson

Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert
SFO SAN and Pearl are prime examples of incorrect places to put those boats. When you see something there, what can you do about it? Where's his fueling station along his supply lines to OZ? If you knew that you could send some AMCs to sink some oilers. Wouldn't that be fabulous? Also Sydney, Aukland and Noumea (possibly Fiji as well) are potential forward bases for his carrier fleet. Nice to know where they are when they're committed to the front lines.

Ah, I see what you mean. And I take your point. Good idea. Thanks.

(in reply to geofflambert)

Post #: 1166

RE: 28Jan42 Moo v. Fulkerson - 9/8/2012 6:27:17 PM

larryfulkerson

Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline

Jim is intent on making the invasion of Port Moresby difficult. I'm not sure but I think the Hokuan Maru sinks later with the troops still on
board.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)

Post #: 1167

RE: 28Jan42 Moo v. Fulkerson - 9/8/2012 6:30:18 PM

larryfulkerson

Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline

Yep, the Hokuan Maru is showing up on the sunk ships list so evidently it went down. Also, I saw a line in the operational report that the
Boise isn't sunk after all. D'oh.