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: June 1944

 
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: June 1944 Page: <<   < prev  123 124 [125] 126 127   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: June 1944 - 3/29/2017 2:15:41 AM   
Anachro


Posts: 2506
Joined: 11/23/2015
From: The Coastal Elite
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth
best slice in NYC which makes it the best slice in the world.


I take umbrage at this, sir. The best slice is, in fact, from Santarpio's in Boston.

(in reply to JohnDillworth)
Post #: 3721
RE: June 1944 - 4/2/2017 2:06:38 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lecivius

WTH?!? NYC is just a bit different than La Salle Why on earth would anyone go TO New York?


I agree. He musta lost a bet.

John: did you have to wear a Sunday dress and high heels and mow someone's lawn or some such too?


Am home and have survived the GREAT TRIP TO NYC! Currently feel like I need a vacation after the vacation. Got home late but feel fairly decent this morning. Dan just sent over the turn a an hour or so ago so we'll look at doing a turn probably this evening.

What we did:
Tuesday Night Arrived about 10pm and went to Time Square and starting gorging on all the fantastic food in the City!

Wednesday Intrepid (Very COOL), Central Park and Zoo, Museum of Natural History and a fantastic meal for dinner at Isabellas. Met up with my Aunt Carolyn (only living member of my Father's side of the family) and truly enjoyed our time together.

Thursday Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island, Ground Zero, and we did a tour of movie scene locations (Trinity Church (National Treasure), NYC Public Library (The Day After Tomorrow), Grand Central Station (2012). etc... Used the Subway for the first time and that was a pretty fun experience.

Friday It was worse then a Burma Monsoon Rain! Went to NBC Studios, Shopped at Rockefeller Center and 5th Ave, met up with the Aunt and had a great dinner with the finale being watching Lion King on Broadway. That show ROCKED!

Saturday Travel Day with layover in Chicago.

We plan to post some pictures later on a separate thread in the General Forum.



_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 3722
RE: June 1944 - 4/3/2017 1:48:31 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		June 16, 1944

After being gone for a week I felt semi-recharged to jump back into the match only to be absolutely crushed as I watched this turn play out. Ever WANT those combat animations to simply skip forward? Wish we could pick-and-choose the battles/fights/engagements that we WANT to watch with animations running. Oh, well...

Miri
The 6th ID arrives at Miri only to find CL Mobile and 4 DDs waiting. No big deal--RIGHT? The Musashi and Nagato are supposed to be covering the troops off-loading. They will make mincemeat of this STF. NOPE! The Allied TF makes three different attacks upon the hapless transports and never engages. Figure I made a mistake with the orders and LOOK for the BBs. Hmmm...they are right where they are supposed to be. Simply didn't do anything. Down goes 50% of the ID. Order them on the Saigon as a shattered ID that a day before was filled with veteran soldiers filled with fight. Crap. OK. You guys told me so...

Only positive news here is an afternoon strike by 17 Lily DB hits DD Clarence Benson with 3 100KG bombs. That stings some.


Clark
About 200 Fighters cover Manila and Clark. There are four P-47 sweeps of Clark and the Franks do very well holding up to them. The 79 Fighters hold up pretty well until the P-38 Sweeps begin. How does he get this coordination? WISH I could see it! Three Sweeps from them take my Franks down to about 10 defending when in comes the bombers. A total of 150 Liberators, 18 B-29s, and 12 B-25 pummel the AF. It gets absolutely crushed. See attached screenshot.

China
Launch an attack upon the six Chinese Corps at hex 75,54 NE of Liuchow. The assault is made up of 3 ID and a TK Division. Everyone attacks but the result is 1-5 with the Japanese taking 3,811 Cas. That ain't gonna do it. Order an ID and the Tankers back to Liuchow.

Kido Butai
The only POSITIVE major item to report is that Kido Butai moved towards Iwo Jima without any issues. Order them south to Saipan.

There are seven good sub hits this turn with three each on the USS Sunfish and Solet.

Economy
Lost 125 Franks in a single day. Goodness. I need the Frank-Bs BAD!

On the bright side, we have taken the HI stockpile from 674,000 to almost 780,000 in a single month. As long as the fuel flows the HI will grow at over 3-4,000 a day...





Attachment (1)

< Message edited by John 3rd -- 4/3/2017 1:49:25 AM >

_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 3723
RE: June 1944 - 4/3/2017 7:46:52 AM   
adarbrauner

 

Posts: 1496
Joined: 11/3/2016
From: Zichron Yaaqov, Israel; Before, Treviso, Italy
Status: offline 		MIRI encounter; that 's something it shouldn't happen in game, the accompanying surface TF should ALWAYS screen; I'm very pissed off of it; maybe the BBs TF was given a higher ID number than the transports, so maybe because of that?


If everything was OK , so than this is a big setback in game mechanics that should be corrected the earliest; it happened to me twice or thrice as well;

in the situation you are it should not have happened, after having hard played and invested for more than three years and in a such tight and difficult situation you are; that was a major operation for Japan at this point that seemingly went FUBAR.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 3724
RE: June 1944 - 4/3/2017 7:58:57 AM   
adarbrauner

 

Posts: 1496
Joined: 11/3/2016
From: Zichron Yaaqov, Israel; Before, Treviso, Italy
Status: offline 		About the engagement over Clarck Field, well the "name was on the wall"; kudos for your resistance and resilience of your air crews under such overwhelming conditions; try to conterfeat with what you have and can; so now we know we have to disperse our air assets when confronted with very strong allied air power in range;

P.S.: you've not posted the report of air losses, how many of ours down how many of theirs;

2nd P.S: thnak you for your pictures and those of your family, very nice to see;

< Message edited by adarbrauner -- 4/3/2017 8:01:31 AM >

(in reply to adarbrauner)
Post #: 3725
RE: June 1944 - 4/3/2017 11:50:36 AM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		Sounds like a fair day....if you lost 2-1 or less versus the Jugs, then a very good day indeed.

I mentioned a while back that you were mistaken in thinking 300 Georges will tilt the balance of power. The math is simple, you need 3000 Franks to attrit the Jugs in mid 1944. Take away the Jugs sweeps in large numbers, and the Allies will slow down, move to night bombing, etc be forced to use lesser planes and give you a better victory point margin or they will simply prepare for the next big step when the Mustangs show up late in 1944.

Are there any bases you can sweep hoping to catch some lesser fighters? Set up a CAP Trap too. You can use your lesser planes for the CAP traps (zero, sam, oscar, fighter bombers) but you need to use George or Frank as sweepers I believe....although with this mod not certain on this.

This is 1944, and this is the grind. 95% of the turn will be you taking it on the chin, but the thing is to always find that five percent where you inflict unlooked for losses on the Allies.

You will become inured to the losses as long as you trade them favorably. Give us a couple of pictures of your SAG that failed to engage...I bet the fault is in the settings as they are tricky. Having spotted that convoy, I am surprised the Allies didn't respond with the Deathstar.

There really is no decisive battle, for Japan there is the decisive bleed and you need to do it favorably with respect to victory points.

(in reply to adarbrauner)
Post #: 3726
RE: June 1944 - 4/3/2017 12:07:39 PM   
Lowpe


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

ORIGINAL: adarbrauner

MIRI encounter; that 's something it shouldn't happen in game, the accompanying surface TF should ALWAYS screen; I'm very pissed off of it;




You complain about the very genius of the game.

We do not know what orders were given, we don't know the level of night search if any, we don't know the DL.

Local decisions made by local commanders (of varying ability and aggressiveness).

A great outcome for the enjoyment of the game, and another endgame lesson learned by John the hardway.

Hard to complain about it all, except to say well done Allied commander.

(in reply to adarbrauner)
Post #: 3727
RE: June 1944 - 4/3/2017 12:45:31 PM   
Bif1961


Posts: 2014
Joined: 6/26/2008
From: Phenix City, Alabama
Status: offline 		Hindsight is 20-20 but no less painful then watching it unfold the first time. There are usually ways to have done whatever it is better, we all feel that way after something happens we thought we had planned for. The only sure way to have the Covering TF engage his surface TF was to have merged your two TFs into one, but then you lose some other abilities like reaction. However AARs are for figuring out what went wrong and if you can fix it, if at all, then resolving to do so in the future, or assume the risk.

< Message edited by Bif1961 -- 4/3/2017 12:46:51 PM >

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 3728
RE: June 1944 - 4/3/2017 1:14:53 PM   
adarbrauner

 

Posts: 1496
Joined: 11/3/2016
From: Zichron Yaaqov, Israel; Before, Treviso, Italy
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

Hard to complain about it all, except to say well done Allied commander.


I can hardly figure out a situation where 4 DDs raid a convoy closely escorted by a big surface escort unscathed and without any consequence or even a scrap or fire.,
Ok it's true, the Big ships hould have been "embedded" in the convoy' but you know I cannot intervene and detach them before the target to perform the bombardment task but rather give all the orders before the turn... me not held penalised because of a structural limitation of the simulation but.

< Message edited by adarbrauner -- 4/3/2017 1:15:32 PM >

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 3729
RE: June 1944 - 4/3/2017 1:54:55 PM   
Lowpe


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

ORIGINAL: adarbrauner

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

Hard to complain about it all, except to say well done Allied commander.


I can hardly figure out a situation where 4 DDs raid a convoy closely escorted by a big surface escort unscathed and without any consequence or even a scrap or fire.,
Ok it's true, the Big ships hould have been "embedded" in the convoy' but you know I cannot intervene and detach them before the target to perform the bombardment task but rather give all the orders before the turn... me not held penalised because of a structural limitation of the simulation but.


See, I can see lots. Weather, Leaders, Aggression, Settings, Fuel, Ammo, distance traveled and all sorts of settings.


(in reply to adarbrauner)
Post #: 3730
RE: June 1944 - 4/3/2017 2:06:33 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline 		Not to mention the fact that a Cl / 4 DD TF in 1944 is not your grandfather's 1941 Allied Cl and 4 DD TF. Depending on the ship classes involved, there's a good chance that modern DDs (e.g., Fletcher class) plus a modern Cl leading will mop the floor with the vast majority of escorted amphibious TFs.

I too am surprised that *just* a SCTF awaited this ill-fated venture to Miri. I would have expected the Death Star and the 1.0x10^6 to double back on itself and complete the liquidation of the full ID.

Probably got off lucky only losing half the ID. Time to backtrack to Singapore, offload and rail transport the survivors to someplace more useful.

_____________________________


(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 3731
RE: June 1944 - 4/3/2017 2:08:18 PM   
Panther Bait


Posts: 654
Joined: 8/30/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: adarbrauner

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

Hard to complain about it all, except to say well done Allied commander.


I can hardly figure out a situation where 4 DDs raid a convoy closely escorted by a big surface escort unscathed and without any consequence or even a scrap or fire.,
Ok it's true, the Big ships hould have been "embedded" in the convoy' but you know I cannot intervene and detach them before the target to perform the bombardment task but rather give all the orders before the turn... me not held penalised because of a structural limitation of the simulation but.



The problem is that there is no such order as "closely escort" in the game. You can order one TF to follow another or you can both order them to the same hex at the same time. The game just doesn't have a mechanism for which TFs support which other TFs. Generally the AI will have Surface TFs intercept enemy Surface TFs before a Transport TF can be engaged in the same hex, but it all comes down to die rolls, all adjusted by a tangle of murky modifiers. Sometimes that goes in the other guys favor.

Mike

_____________________________

When you shoot at a destroyer and miss, it's like hit'in a wildcat in the ass with a banjo.

Nathan Dogan, USS Gurnard

(in reply to adarbrauner)
Post #: 3732
RE: June 1944 - 4/3/2017 2:18:26 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline 		If I wanted some sense of surety that a valuable ID would be properly covered, I'd:

1. Embed some larger combatants in with the amphibious TF landing the ID. 2 BBs or a BB and a CA plus 3-4 DDs would probably suffice. Something to take the fire off of the non-combatants.

2. "Sweep" the target hex with an SCTF prior to the arrival of the amphibious TF.

3. Have another SCTF 'patrol' the target hex in question the night of arrival of the amphibious TF.

4. What other commentors have stated about DL, air cover, etc.

What's that you say? Not enough surface combatants to properly effect these responsibilities? That's the game's way of telling you that maybe this is an ill-advised venture.

_____________________________


(in reply to Panther Bait)
Post #: 3733
RE: June 1944 - 4/3/2017 2:41:16 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		I think Chickenboy has the rights on this engagement.

The convoy was spotted, attacked, and it's contents known a day before. John should be thankful he didn't lose a lot more. In fact this could be said for a lot of engagements recently. Moulmein, Vietnam, troops in the open without AA, etc., etc., etc.

Even if there would have been total surprise, and the ID landed, I don't think it could destroy the Allied troops there, unless CR would let them be destroyed. And I don't think it would take much to save the Allied troops there.

Allied troops are incredibly tough now in 44, and Japan doesn't have control of either the sea or the air beyond one day surprise control.

However, I think John lost a chance for some small traps there at sea and in the air.


(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 3734
RE: June 1944 - 4/3/2017 2:42:09 PM   
Lecivius


Posts: 4845
Joined: 8/5/2007
From: Denver
Status: offline 		I can, off the top of my head, think of 8 separate examples where a Japanese STF providing "cover" were miles away from the actual troop convoy. There is an entire section of this Japanese tendency in Shattered Sword ( I just got my copy, good reading).

_____________________________

If it ain't broke, don't fix it!

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 3735
RE: June 1944 - 4/3/2017 3:48:26 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

See, I can see lots. Weather, Leaders, Aggression, Settings, Fuel, Ammo, distance traveled and all sorts of settings.




Just dipping in to mention there is, from memory, a 7 kt. speed disadvantage between the IJN ships (max speed is the lowest member) and the USN's.

You are correct here that his issue was assuming a covering STF would do. If you want amphibs defended put the defenders with the amphibs. If you lose bombardment or you lose surface hunting then you've forgotten the point of the mission--get the ID ashore intact. A late-war CL and Fletchers are epees, not claymores. And they bite deep when they engage.

< Message edited by Bullwinkle58 -- 4/3/2017 3:49:30 PM >

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 3736
RE: June 1944 - 4/3/2017 4:46:15 PM   
crsutton


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

ORIGINAL: adarbrauner

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

Hard to complain about it all, except to say well done Allied commander.


I can hardly figure out a situation where 4 DDs raid a convoy closely escorted by a big surface escort unscathed and without any consequence or even a scrap or fire.,
Ok it's true, the Big ships hould have been "embedded" in the convoy' but you know I cannot intervene and detach them before the target to perform the bombardment task but rather give all the orders before the turn... me not held penalised because of a structural limitation of the simulation but.



Yes, indeed....Somebody needs to fix this game or somefink..

http://www.wargamer.com/articles/the-david-vs-goliath-naval-battle-of-balikpapan-borneo-24-january-1942/

< Message edited by crsutton -- 4/3/2017 4:48:28 PM >

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to adarbrauner)
Post #: 3737
RE: June 1944 - 4/3/2017 4:54:12 PM   
Lowpe


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

ORIGINAL: Lecivius

I can, off the top of my head, think of 8 separate examples where a Japanese STF providing "cover" were miles away from the actual troop convoy. There is an entire section of this Japanese tendency in Shattered Sword ( I just got my copy, good reading).


Hey, lets shoot at the moon!

(in reply to Lecivius)
Post #: 3738
RE: June 1944 - 4/3/2017 5:19:50 PM   
adarbrauner

 

Posts: 1496
Joined: 11/3/2016
From: Zichron Yaaqov, Israel; Before, Treviso, Italy
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

quote:

ORIGINAL: adarbrauner

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

Hard to complain about it all, except to say well done Allied commander.


I can hardly figure out a situation where 4 DDs raid a convoy closely escorted by a big surface escort unscathed and without any consequence or even a scrap or fire.,
Ok it's true, the Big ships hould have been "embedded" in the convoy' but you know I cannot intervene and detach them before the target to perform the bombardment task but rather give all the orders before the turn... me not held penalised because of a structural limitation of the simulation but.



Yes, indeed....Somebody needs to fix this game or somefink..

http://www.wargamer.com/articles/the-david-vs-goliath-naval-battle-of-balikpapan-borneo-24-january-1942/


In primis, thank for the reading and the article;

Second but, this was a night surprise attack at a moored fleet in her harbor, which is btw well simulated in game; not to be compared to the action described by John the 3d above;

AND, that was BALIKPAPANnot MIRI, acompletely different dimension!

In any case, I'm hearing the remarks of you all;


quote:

The problem is that there is no such order as "closely escort" in the game. You can order one TF to follow another or you can both order them to the same hex at the same time. The game just doesn't have a mechanism for which TFs support which other TFs. Generally the AI will have Surface TFs intercept enemy Surface TFs before a Transport TF can be engaged in the same hex, but it all comes down to die rolls, all adjusted by a tangle of murky modifiers. Sometimes that goes in the other guys favor.

Mike


By memory, manual states that an ASW TF, for example, ordered to follow another, shall assume her defensive role, and I think I'm not mistaken.
I assume the same should be said for a "surface combatant" tasked accompnying TF;

anyhow, I here the remarks here.

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 3739
RE: June 1944 - 4/3/2017 5:54:50 PM   
Panther Bait


Posts: 654
Joined: 8/30/2006
Status: offline 		As I mentioned, a following surface TF(s) can, maybe even often, assume a defensive role on the followed TF, but it is subject to die rolls. It should not be considered automatic.

_____________________________

When you shoot at a destroyer and miss, it's like hit'in a wildcat in the ass with a banjo.

Nathan Dogan, USS Gurnard

(in reply to adarbrauner)
Post #: 3740
RE: June 1944 - 4/3/2017 6:40:25 PM   
ny59giants


Posts: 9869
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline 		In a conversation with John this morning on way to see my doc, he did confirm a few things.
1) Adm Tanaka was in command
2) the SC TF was a lower number that Amphib TF
3) the TF was order to go to Miri. It was NOT set to Patrol Zones with Miri as destination.

_____________________________


(in reply to Panther Bait)
Post #: 3741
RE: June 1944 - 4/3/2017 7:07:33 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		Settings. The devil is in the details.




(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 3742
RE: June 1944 - 4/3/2017 8:40:26 PM   
HansBolter


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

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

In a conversation with John this morning on way to see my doc, he did confirm a few things.
1) Adm Tanaka was in command
2) the SC TF was a lower number that Amphib TF
3) the TF was order to go to Miri. It was NOT set to Patrol Zones with Miri as destination.



A Patrol order is the closest thing to a guarantee you can get when it comes to interceptions.
I've experimented heavily with this in solo play.
A Patrolling squadron with a Reaction Range set that arrives in the hex first may even react out of the hex to intercept in an adjacent hex.
Whenever I send a SCTF to a hex as a defensive move it gets a one hex patrol pattern with an appropriate reaction range.

_____________________________

Hans


(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 3743
RE: June 1944 - 4/3/2017 8:54:09 PM   
MakeeLearn


Posts: 4278
Joined: 9/11/2016
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

In a conversation with John this morning on way to see my doc, he did confirm a few things.
1) Adm Tanaka was in command
2) the SC TF was a lower number that Amphib TF
3) the TF was order to go to Miri. It was NOT set to Patrol Zones with Miri as destination.



Did the weather have a part in this debacle ?

(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 3744
RE: June 1944 - 4/4/2017 3:23:05 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Weather was fair to OK. There was plenty of moonlight. Had the TF set to react 2 hexes--which it did not--and placed Tanaka in there. Looking back I should have placed a BB and several DDs into the Amphibs and then had the other BB and DDs run Cover.

Agree about the whole lessons learned paradigm here. I continue to think in 1942 terms and NOT 1944 terms. As stated before this adjustment is adding up to a steep learning curve. I apologize to the those who have come this far before and not hearing you. Continues to simply be a failure of vision and experience. Example: I am producing nearly 400 Franks a month. That number jumps to 600 when the -B comes in. I THOUGHT man--that is incredible--this will kick the Allies patookus. The answer---NOT! Should have been even more. Ramping up the aircraft production (and engines) was done but not on the level of foresight I needed.

Damn...I am truly looking forward to my next match. Telling you that 1942--1943 will be totally different.




< Message edited by John 3rd -- 4/4/2017 3:25:43 AM >

_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to MakeeLearn)
Post #: 3745
RE: June 1944 - 4/4/2017 3:25:01 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Happy as all HE** to hear another Forum member reading Shattered Sword. That book changed everything for me with the Japanese.

_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 3746
RE: June 1944 - 4/4/2017 6:58:39 AM   
adarbrauner

 

Posts: 1496
Joined: 11/3/2016
From: Zichron Yaaqov, Israel; Before, Treviso, Italy
Status: offline 		your match is NOW

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 3747
RE: June 1944 - 4/4/2017 12:19:00 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		Show us what you have now at Miyako Jima? It is adjacent to Ishigaki, east of Formosa.

That is a level 7 Air base within sweep range of all of Kyushu. Only 7 hexes to the Chinese Coast.

It is clear terrain.

You have very limited fuel. And yet, You are steaming around with the KB without purpose except to hunt subs. You showed the KB for no purpose alleviating any doubt in the Allied plans whatever they are with no victory points to show for it.

I posit your endgame in the next game you play will not see the improvement you desire.

And yet, in this game you are in great shape for mid 44. A KB! Fuel and oil still sneaking thru to the HI. Economy untouched at the HI. A great VP buffer. Most JFB would be excited as all get out to be in your position in mid 44.

You are fighting yesterday's battles with yesterdays economy thinking Allied forces are comparable to their 1941 experience, equipment, leadership and morale.

Rant off.














(in reply to adarbrauner)
Post #: 3748
RE: June 1944 - 4/4/2017 12:37:02 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Rants are fully allowed and encouraged! Rant on.

We are not simply 'steaming around.' KB will arrive at Saipan this turn and refuel. It is then positioned for several possibilities.

My endgame in the next match will be FAR different. Mark those words.

OK. Running next turn now.


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 3749
RE: June 1944 - 4/4/2017 12:44:16 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		"You are fighting yesterday's battles with yesterdays economy thinking Allied forces are comparable to their 1941 experience, equipment, leadership and morale." This quote is FULLY accurate. This is why the learning curve is so steep presently! You go right on with yourself Mr. Lowpe. Keep it coming please.

_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 3750
Page:   <<   < prev  123 124 [125] 126 127   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: June 1944 Page: <<   < prev  123 124 [125] 126 127   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.984