Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

June 4, 1942

 
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 >> June 4, 1942 Page: <<   < prev  11 12 [13] 14 15   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
June 4, 1942 - 3/22/2013 4:33:28 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		I have highly trained pilots and either air parity or air superiority in every theatre presently and yet I got my A** handed to me last turn.

1. Burma: The same BS that has dogged my in this game through the ground war reared its head again this turn. Total lack of coordination made worse by horrific die rolls. I had about 125 planes attack a Fast TF off Ramree Island west of Burma. Did they come in in 1--2--3 attack groups? NO! They attacked in eight separate waves where each wave could be decimated by LR CAP flying over the TFs. NO damage to enemy shipping at all and I lose about 65 planes.

2. Aleutians: A supply convoy reaches Cold Bay. I have two Daitai of Zeros, two Daitai of kates, and one Daitai of Vals all ready to attack. What happens? Each Daitai attacks separately while only one Zero Daitai actually flies along for protection. Fighting only 20 American Fighters, I manage to hit two AKs in exchange for 50 planes.

3. Marshalls: The KB arrives and Dan does one of the most irritating things for a player to do. He breaks all his TF into single ship TF and scatters them fleeing eastwards. I waste over 250 sorties to sink a total of 3 AKs. GAMEY is what I call the single ship action. What a waste of Torps and Bombs...

I am closing my rant and shutting up before I grab something sharp here at home.

Here is the day's screenshot:







Attachment (1)

_____________________________



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 #: 361
RE: June 4, 1942 - 3/22/2013 4:38:30 AM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline 		John. I'm sensing an underwhelming amount of KILLING here this last turn. Your readers demand blood, damnit! I thought my post on this matter was clear?

_____________________________


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 362
June 4, 1942 - 3/22/2013 4:38:47 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Here is the screenshot east of the Marshalls. Am I wrong to think the way I do with this?

He lands and I will take those bases back killing American troops. He knows I am coming since the entire Kaigun is present in the area so he drops the troops, distracts, and then separates into 20-25 TFs where my killing power is fairly useless. There are about 5-65 more TF heading SE and South not shown on the screenshot. Picture:






Attachment (1)

< Message edited by John 3rd -- 3/22/2013 4:39:41 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 #: 363
RE: June 4, 1942 - 3/22/2013 9:35:26 AM   
obvert


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

1. Burma: The same BS that has dogged my in this game through the ground war reared its head again this turn. Total lack of coordination made worse by horrific die rolls. I had about 125 planes attack a Fast TF off Ramree Island west of Burma. Did they come in in 1--2--3 attack groups? NO! They attacked in eight separate waves where each wave could be decimated by LR CAP flying over the TFs. NO damage to enemy shipping at all and I lose about 65 planes.


Are you guys playing one of the more recent patches, or the last official version of game? As Jocke and I tested, and as others have noticed, in the newer patches coordination is tougher to achieve and usually requires an HQa with a good leader, close proximity to target, good group leaders and similar cruise speeds of planes, along with probably other details. Anyway, this kind of thing is what you would see. Maybe more historically accurate but somewhat frustrating if you're not used to it.

quote:

Here is the screenshot east of the Marshalls. Am I wrong to think the way I do with this?


Did he do this to get ships out of the Philipenes? It seems standard procedure there, but what rule could you make to prevent it? Even two ship TFs would limit your striking power against them.

I think the real question is more of strategic rather than tactical problems right now. Hitting a few more xAKs isn't going to hurt the Allies. You'd be better off hitting the troops on the islands to disrupt and ruin their moral and effectiveness in building things.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 364
RE: June 4, 1942 - 3/22/2013 10:01:41 AM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 8262
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

Are you guys playing one of the more recent patches, or the last official version of game? As Jocke and I tested, and as others have noticed, in the newer patches coordination is tougher to achieve and usually requires an HQa with a good leader, close proximity to target, good group leaders and similar cruise speeds of planes, along with probably other details. Anyway, this kind of thing is what you would see. Maybe more historically accurate but somewhat frustrating if you're not used to it.



To be fair my testing showed that cruise speeds have nothing to do with it. B25s were just as likely to link up with B29s as other B25s. What it did show pretty clearly is that there is very, very little you can do to actually effect coordination in the BETA patch. Air HQ seemed perhaps to help a little. But getting 20 fragments instead of 25 makes little difference. Most fun things was to watch the 100 plane escort attach itself to a 3 plane fragment so the rest of the 200 bombers arrived completely unescorted! (in 20 fragments)

Despite me running several tests that pretty clearly showed that the "coordination bug" that michealm found and removed broke coordination completely I was quickly declared the village idiot. Apparently we are not supposed to have coordinated bombing raids in the game. 200 bombers ARE supposed to arrive in 5-10 planes fragments. So I won´t go near the BETA patch even with a 10 foot pole. I dread the day the BETA goes official.

But I´m not bitter!

On a more serious note:
The only thing that did seem to matter is having a air HQ at the airbase. I found nothing else to be of any noticeable impact. I did not test impact of range. And my test was land to land. But I think you will just have to come to peace with the fact that you won´t get the usual raids of one big chuck and then 5-6 fragments but rather one small chunk and then 20 fragments. Having groups/squadrons attached to the same HQ did not seem matter so don´t waste PPs.


(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 365
RE: June 4, 1942 - 3/22/2013 5:13:43 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline 		Yeah, my opponent and I have both observed and commented on it (coordination) in our long going game. It now is very hard to coordinate massive LBA attacks on strong carrier forces. I sort of like it since it has a more historical feel and as I am now approaching the Japanese homeland have been worried about those 1,000 plane kamikaze attacks...It takes some getting used to.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 366
RE: June 4, 1942 - 3/22/2013 10:34:52 PM   
JeffroK


Posts: 6391
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Yeah, my opponent and I have both observed and commented on it (coordination) in our long going game. It now is very hard to coordinate massive LBA attacks on strong carrier forces. I sort of like it since it has a more historical feel and as I am now approaching the Japanese homeland have been worried about those 1,000 plane kamikaze attacks...It takes some getting used to.

It would be interesting to see how the kamis work out in a campaign game.

In Downfall you still get 4-500 kami attacks from 4-5 widely spread bases (Could be the scenario settings for the HQs)

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 367
RE: June 4, 1942 - 3/22/2013 10:45:33 PM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 8262
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Yeah, my opponent and I have both observed and commented on it (coordination) in our long going game. It now is very hard to coordinate massive LBA attacks on strong carrier forces. I sort of like it since it has a more historical feel and as I am now approaching the Japanese homeland have been worried about those 1,000 plane kamikaze attacks...It takes some getting used to.


We will probably have to switch too eventually. I´m just afraid it will mess things up in the long run. Its a very big thing to change on the fly without any kind of testing.


(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 368
RE: June 4, 1942 - 3/22/2013 11:33:06 PM   
Chickenboy


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

ORIGINAL: JocMeister


quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Yeah, my opponent and I have both observed and commented on it (coordination) in our long going game. It now is very hard to coordinate massive LBA attacks on strong carrier forces. I sort of like it since it has a more historical feel and as I am now approaching the Japanese homeland have been worried about those 1,000 plane kamikaze attacks...It takes some getting used to.


We will probably have to switch too eventually. I´m just afraid it will mess things up in the long run. Its a very big thing to change on the fly without any kind of testing.




It's a very real concern of yours and you're right-a very big thing to change on the fly with limited testing. This has happened before with the betas though-that's why I don't use 'em.

_____________________________


(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 369
RE: June 4, 1942 - 3/22/2013 11:52:34 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister


quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

Are you guys playing one of the more recent patches, or the last official version of game? As Jocke and I tested, and as others have noticed, in the newer patches coordination is tougher to achieve and usually requires an HQa with a good leader, close proximity to target, good group leaders and similar cruise speeds of planes, along with probably other details. Anyway, this kind of thing is what you would see. Maybe more historically accurate but somewhat frustrating if you're not used to it.



To be fair my testing showed that cruise speeds have nothing to do with it. B25s were just as likely to link up with B29s as other B25s. What it did show pretty clearly is that there is very, very little you can do to actually effect coordination in the BETA patch. Air HQ seemed perhaps to help a little. But getting 20 fragments instead of 25 makes little difference. Most fun things was to watch the 100 plane escort attach itself to a 3 plane fragment so the rest of the 200 bombers arrived completely unescorted! (in 20 fragments)

Despite me running several tests that pretty clearly showed that the "coordination bug" that michealm found and removed broke coordination completely I was quickly declared the village idiot. Apparently we are not supposed to have coordinated bombing raids in the game. 200 bombers ARE supposed to arrive in 5-10 planes fragments. So I won´t go near the BETA patch even with a 10 foot pole. I dread the day the BETA goes official.

But I´m not bitter!

On a more serious note:
The only thing that did seem to matter is having a air HQ at the airbase. I found nothing else to be of any noticeable impact. I did not test impact of range. And my test was land to land. But I think you will just have to come to peace with the fact that you won´t get the usual raids of one big chuck and then 5-6 fragments but rather one small chunk and then 20 fragments. Having groups/squadrons attached to the same HQ did not seem matter so don´t waste PPs.



While the coordination is different (yes, tougher), my experience with the Betas is not nearly so extreme as you are reporting seeing. If you like I could zip up my combat reports and send them all to you.

_____________________________

Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/view/staffmonkeys/home

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 370
RE: June 4, 1942 - 3/23/2013 7:16:34 AM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline 		What I observed regarding coordination in the current beta:

1)AI will try to attack as many target TFs as possible in each phase, with little regard to their actual value. I predict that using trash TFs as bait will become a staple of carrier battles under this model.

2)Otherwise coordination works as it did in carrier raids.

3)LBA bomber units very rarely coordinate with each other during naval strikes. LBA fighter escort units only attach to one bomber unit flying from the same base, most likely picked randomly, and will never split to provide escort to several raids, unless that unit fragments. More than one fighter unit might attach to one bomber unit, no matter how many other bomber units are present. This makes chances of penetrating strong CAP with an LBA raid very slim - unless you can provide sweeps/LRCAP to batter it down, you can only hope for attrition. I think that setting fighters airgroups on naval attack at high altitudes, to whittle down CAP and draw it up and away from usual torpedo/LowN raiders should be considered instead of escorting, if you try to attack a well-protected fleet at open seas.


< Message edited by FatR -- 3/23/2013 7:17:39 AM >

_____________________________

The Reluctant Admiral mod team.

Take a look at the latest released version of the Reluctant Admiral mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 371
RE: June 4, 1942 - 3/23/2013 10:07:39 AM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 8262
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline 		First of all, sorry John for cluttering your AAR!

Perhaps this is not the best place to discuss this. But the forum being what it is there is no room for a discussion. Just hinting at that something might not be working very well will instantly spark a witch hunt on whoever dares say such atrocities. Its a shame because I think this is a very important discussion. But for the last two years even discussing things are not tolerated. Sadly this forum is not what is used to be.

Witpqs, I documented it pretty well. Although the number of test were a bit too low it was pretty conclusive. This was in an earlier BETA though so I guess its possible michaelm has tweaked this without writing it down in the change log. I´ll drop you a PM with my email. Would be especially interested in big LBA strikes using 4Es. This is were I saw some extreme fragmentation. Using 200 bombers 15-25 fragments always happened. I was told this was due to different air HQs of the groups, different airspeed, poor leaders (all were over 60 in air except one). My test later showed that at least the two first have no noticeable impact (in my tests). Again this was on an older BETA but after micheal "fixed the fix".

This might be how the game was intended to be from the beginning but its not sure it will work with the game we have now. The air model have been tweaked and balanced since the beginning and this is now to a large extent undone from one day to another. This is NOT how you implement far reaching changes that effect many, many other aspects of a game that has been on the market for several years. Many games that has been ongoing for years and this can upset the balance in those games. Its just not proper patching procedure. Yes I know the BETA is optional to use but at some point it will become official. And people that don´t want to risk their ongoing games with gameplay changes miss out on pure bugfixes like the HQ fragment bug.

Just look at the behavior of escorts. This is a clear indication that something is not working correct. If it is then something has to be done to the escort mission. My experience is the same as FatR describes in point 3). The escort is just as likely to attach itself to a small 3 plane fragment as anything else. And the fact that the escort doesn´t fragment together with the bombers speaks volumes. Even the bomber squadrons themselves fragments into pieces!!

I can make a list a mile long with things that might be effected by this. No one can answer with certainty what this change really brings and that is why I´m worried. My main point remains valid. This is way to big to chance and I think beyond the scope of what should be changed at this stage of development. Bug fixes? Yes. Major gameplay tweaks/changes? Absolutely not. I never got an answer to how long this bug has been present in the game despite a direct question. I believe this bug might be something that has been present since the very first release or at least for a very long time. If so it means that ALL tweaking that has been done over the last years to balance the air war is instantly undone and we are now back to square one.

It might be that this is indeed a very good change to the air war. I´m not saying it isn´t. And I will probably be forced to switch over to it at some point. I know Erik is itching to. But the fact remains that we won´t know that for quite some time what implications this change has. And just to make it perfectly clear. I don´t mean for this in any way as any criticism against michealm. I applaud his work and is eternally grateful for the work he is doing. He is doing a fantastic job! I´m just not so sure the bug he found with air coordination should be fixed at this stage. It just has to many unknowns with it.

And any personal insults/poo throwing/raging aimed at me is better sent via PM. You know who you are...




< Message edited by JocMeister -- 3/23/2013 11:09:54 AM >

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 372
RE: June 4, 1942 - 3/24/2013 1:38:11 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		No apologies needed Sir.

This is a GREAT discussion and it is what I like to see in my AARs. This has been the problem with this one due to my being so flipping busy and not able to write much for discussion. Does anyone remember the VAST discussion we had on the Japanese Economy in Dan and I's original game? MAN: It was something.

Just got home from 36 hours of quality----no children with us--Husband and Wife time in Denver. NICE!

We got another 8-10" of snow today. It is beginning to almost feel like Colorado again with three similar storms in four weeks.

Running turn and will add more in a bit.


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 373
Venting - 3/24/2013 1:40:10 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		This is the note I sent Dan in a separate email after I sent the turn yesterday. Dan's Response starts this so begin at the bottom:

As a fellow player of this complex, massive, fascinating, thrilling, irritating game, I empathize with the need to vent.


-----Original Message-----
Subject: Response


Opening War Plan:
Did you COUNT the number of IDs committed to Luzon at war’s start? I placed no less then SIX there to take out Luzon ASAP. This worked in Lew’s game to the tune of being done here by mid-January 42. The quick fall of Manila seemed to point to this same thing happening but then I got a series of the worst die rolls I could ever imagine at Clark. The Stacking Limits CRUSHED my attack values and left such a mess afterwards I was forced to drop the assault down to two ID. Terrible to watch.

Singapore was meant to take some time as I wanted to have the DEI and Cocos quickly. The Java and Cocos part worked but your troops stubborn resistance at Singers itself defied the imagination. How many times did I attack when your Forts were at ZERO? I believe the answer is six or seven. Once again the worst result I’ve ever seen. Each time I had a single ID take nearly ALL the casualties. When Imperial Guards crossed over the strait and went to Singers it lost 65% of its combat power and didn’t do a thing. Lots of Forum imput: Do you have Southern HQ close? YES. Do you have everyone prepping for the target? YES. It went on and on...

My AAR clearly states my frustration by Feb 1st that I was throwing in the towel and starting all over from scratch when it came to planning.

Current:
Your single ship TF drive me nuts. You force me to use up 40-50 sorties to kill a single ship. Out go the TTs and nothing is left to replace it.

How about the air-to-air last turn? Not a single location (Aleutians, Burma, Marshalls) launched a single coordinated attack! AWFUL. I lost 115 planes for NOTHING. Last turn sums up this campaign in a nutshell...

Done with venting....

Up early and then on to Denver for some healthy time with my wife.
John

< Message edited by John 3rd -- 3/24/2013 1:41:14 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 #: 374
RE: June 4, 1942 - 3/24/2013 2:14:20 AM   
Chickenboy


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

ORIGINAL: JocMeister
I´m just not so sure the bug he found with air coordination should be fixed at this stage. It just has to many unknowns with it.


+1. These things have been going on since the advent of the game. Usually the developments are positive. Sometimes they take a real step back.

_____________________________


(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 375
RE: June 4, 1942 - 3/24/2013 2:15:30 AM   
Chickenboy


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

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
Just got home from 36 hours of quality----no children with us--Husband and Wife time in Denver. NICE!


I'm jealous as hell, John! That's a very rare reward-glad you were able to partake.

_____________________________


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 376
RE: June 4, 1942 - 3/24/2013 2:29:40 AM   
ny59giants


Posts: 9869
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline 		I've noticed in my game vs Olorin (Nick) that he gets 60 to over 70 Oscars to fly as escorts for his Helens attacking my troops in Burma on a daily basis. But, I then see neither one of us getting more than one air group to fly sweeps from the same base at the same time. Large number of escort fighters, but low number of sweep fighters. Why?!?

_____________________________


(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 377
RE: June 4, 1942 - 3/24/2013 2:47:28 AM   
John 3rd


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

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
Just got home from 36 hours of quality----no children with us--Husband and Wife time in Denver. NICE!


I'm jealous as hell, John! That's a very rare reward-glad you were able to partake.


Sure doesn't happen often enough. There are times when it is NICE to REMEMBER why one got married...

_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 378
RE: June 4, 1942 - 3/24/2013 2:48:27 AM   
John 3rd


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

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

I've noticed in my game vs Olorin (Nick) that he gets 60 to over 70 Oscars to fly as escorts for his Helens attacking my troops in Burma on a daily basis. But, I then see neither one of us getting more than one air group to fly sweeps from the same base at the same time. Large number of escort fighters, but low number of sweep fighters. Why?!?


Michael! Haven't talked in FOREVER! Must correct that ASAP. How 'bout I call tomorrow after church?


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 379
RE: June 4, 1942 - 3/24/2013 2:51:17 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Just got the June 5th turn done. Not much happened.

On the very bright side, the Japanese got to take Liuchow for FREE. NICE!

Got to refuel KB tomorrow. Following commentary above, I order Kates to Naval Attack--Ground Attack or AF Attack at Tarawa and Makin. BB TF moving in to hit Tarawa tomorrow. Will counter-land in 2-3 days with the 14th ID.

La Foa fell so we'll have Noumea in 2-3 days...


_____________________________



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 #: 380
RE: June 4, 1942 - 3/24/2013 4:32:48 AM   
ny59giants


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

Michael! Haven't talked in FOREVER! Must correct that ASAP. How 'bout I call tomorrow after church?


I'm off all day Sunday. Some of us have unused holiday time so I'm working only three days per week through the rest of the month.

< Message edited by ny59giants -- 3/24/2013 4:33:36 AM >

_____________________________


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 381
RE: June 4, 1942 - 3/24/2013 4:53:45 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		...such a hard life one has...

_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 382
June 6, 1942 - 3/24/2013 3:53:03 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Combat Report
June 6, 1942

Assets continue to flow up from Tulagi--Lunga to the Marshalls as we prepare to blast the American lodgement there.

North Pacific
Troops are now nearly all in position to take Dutch Harbor, Akutan, and Cold Bay. Right now we're only waiting for the 7th ID to arrive in Theatre.

This operation shall be similar to what Dan did (meaning a distraction), however, I am not leaving my troops to die on a hopeless mission nor will I simply scatter my ships KNOWING there shall be a counterstroke. YES: I am bitter over the BS of his Marshall's Landing. I shall go through the particulars of who is landing where on the next update.

Central Pacific
KB refuels and nails Makin and Tarawa with afternoon Kate strikes. With fuel they now move slightly NE making sure the seas are clear of Allied FLEEING SINGLE SHIP TF's (Very BITTER...).

During the night BB's Ise and Hyuga deliver a devastating bombardment to the troops on Tarawa. They inflict only 187 Casaulties but absolutely PLASTER the Port (goes from 0 to 97% Damage). This will serve to keep Fort building minimalized.

Bettys at Roi Namur shall begin AF attacks at both Makin and Tarawa tomorrow.

The 14th ID arrives at Nauru where it shall unload and then reload picking up more supplies for the Assault Landing at Tarawa. They shall be facing the 7th Marine Regiment and a TK Bn. YUMMY!

South Pacific
The troops shall enter Noumea tomorrow. Two ID and a Brigade are well into Luganville planning while another ID is planning a Makin Assault.

Australia
I took Cloncurry about a week ago by a TK Reg and it is now driving on Normanton. He just took Cloncurry back this turn. Want him somewhat distracted due to not having ANY useful troops up here other then two TK Reg and the 90th Inf Reg. Support Troops and an ID is on the way from China departing there in about a week.

The Force threatening Geraldton is nearly back to Carnavon where 50% of it shall be lifted and dropped off at Aussie Bases to garrison them. Will go through those specifics later.

Burma
Man Dan really missed the bus on re-taking Burma over the last month. He has buckets of troops in Regiment and Brigade strength in the jungle hexes along the Burma Border. He SHOULD have attacked. I have moved enough troops here to hold. Three ID will be departing China in a few days to provide some serious teeth to this region where I might try to hit several of these hexes to drive the troops back.

DEI
Imperial Guards is now fully unloaded at Port Blair. It will take a NUKE to take that base back.

Have ordered the (9th Air Fleet HQ, an Air Flotilla, and several Base Forces from China to Langsha, Padang, and Georgetown to provide serious air support for WHEN Dan comes this way. Plenty of Engineers are digging in along the western shore of Sumatra with a minimum of a Regiment/Brigade at each point.

China
Continuing to inflict serious losses on the Chinese. This turn saw victorious cleansings of hexes (83,52---79,56). The Japanese lose a 1,000 men and destroy over 5,000 Chinese. Troops moving in all directions shifting garrisons and getting things in order. Changteh is now on the target list as troops begin moving into the base hex.

Aircraft are pounding Kweilin and Changteh. AF's at both locations are 100% damaged. Hitting the troops there right now as well.

Naval Construction
Forgot to mention a little development: CV Hiyo, CVL Ryujo, CL Yahagi, and three modern DD joined the Fleet over the last week. They are all formed up, passing North Luzon, and heading to Oosthaven to join-up with Junyo and 3 CVE based there.


_____________________________



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 #: 383
RE: June 6, 1942 - 3/24/2013 4:36:12 PM   
ny59giants


Posts: 9869
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline 		Single Ship TF - This is a gamey thing to do after the first month of the war, IMO. The AI will not launch air strikes against these targets. If they are formed as a result of combat by the AI, then its fine. But to do so knowing the AI will ignore them is another matter. I would ask Dan for a HR forbidding this. This would include picket TF, too.

< Message edited by ny59giants -- 3/24/2013 4:37:56 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 384
RE: June 6, 1942 - 3/24/2013 5:09:12 PM   
Bullwinkle58


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

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

Single Ship TF - This is a gamey thing to do after the first month of the war, IMO. The AI will not launch air strikes against these targets. If they are formed as a result of combat by the AI, then its fine. But to do so knowing the AI will ignore them is another matter. I would ask Dan for a HR forbidding this. This would include picket TF, too.


Bold part not true. See my AAR for evidence.

What obligation does either player have to place his own assets (emphasis on HIS OWN) in optimal structures to be destroyed? What CO would order his forces to form large, easily-attacked formations if he had the option not to? If the AI doesn't attack single-ship TFs as readily as multi-ship TFs, and I agree it does not although it sometimes does, how does that not reflect history as so many clamor for around here? Sending out one Kate with one Zero to get an xAK looks nice on a game map, but in real life you're risking losing two planes with pretty high certainty in a WWII AA environment. Merchants have AA. WWII air operations depended on mass attacks for penetration, much more so than today.

I invite interested readers to look up Allied convoy tactics when hit by wolfpacks in the Atlantic. Yep. Scatter! Single-ship targetting. Lose a few to save the whole. Force the enemy to multiple decisions on force allocation; buy time to evade and escape.

What CR ACTUALLY did I will not comment on as I am reading both sides right now.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 385
RE: June 4, 1942 - 3/24/2013 5:34:33 PM   
1EyedJacks


Posts: 2244
Joined: 3/12/2006
From: The Eastern Sierras
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR

What I observed regarding coordination in the current beta:

1)AI will try to attack as many target TFs as possible in each phase, with little regard to their actual value. I predict that using trash TFs as bait will become a staple of carrier battles under this model.

2)Otherwise coordination works as it did in carrier raids.

3)LBA bomber units very rarely coordinate with each other during naval strikes. LBA fighter escort units only attach to one bomber unit flying from the same base, most likely picked randomly, and will never split to provide escort to several raids, unless that unit fragments. More than one fighter unit might attach to one bomber unit, no matter how many other bomber units are present. This makes chances of penetrating strong CAP with an LBA raid very slim - unless you can provide sweeps/LRCAP to batter it down, you can only hope for attrition. I think that setting fighters airgroups on naval attack at high altitudes, to whittle down CAP and draw it up and away from usual torpedo/LowN raiders should be considered instead of escorting, if you try to attack a well-protected fleet at open seas.



It feels like LBA rarely coordinate Period. With a capitol "P". Maybe even exclamation marks should be added...
I experienced escort issues as you've noticed also. My current fix is to have an extra air group of fighters set to escort. It screws up my rotations when I stand down and air group but this procedure seems to be working.

My frustration is sweeps. It feels like I get a sweep before my bombing run about 70% of the time. If I'm doing rinse-and-repeat missions (all air groups do the same thing to the same target for multiple days) then there should be some kind of a bonus to coordination (in my humble opinion).

_____________________________

TTFN,

Mike

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 386
RE: June 6, 1942 - 3/24/2013 5:38:25 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

Single Ship TF - This is a gamey thing to do after the first month of the war, IMO. The AI will not launch air strikes against these targets. If they are formed as a result of combat by the AI, then its fine. But to do so knowing the AI will ignore them is another matter. I would ask Dan for a HR forbidding this. This would include picket TF, too.


Bold part not true. See my AAR for evidence.

What obligation does either player have to place his own assets (emphasis on HIS OWN) in optimal structures to be destroyed? What CO would order his forces to form large, easily-attacked formations if he had the option not to? If the AI doesn't attack single-ship TFs as readily as multi-ship TFs, and I agree it does not although it sometimes does, how does that not reflect history as so many clamor for around here? Sending out one Kate with one Zero to get an xAK looks nice on a game map, but in real life you're risking losing two planes with pretty high certainty in a WWII AA environment. Merchants have AA. WWII air operations depended on mass attacks for penetration, much more so than today.

I invite interested readers to look up Allied convoy tactics when hit by wolfpacks in the Atlantic. Yep. Scatter! Single-ship targetting. Lose a few to save the whole. Force the enemy to multiple decisions on force allocation; buy time to evade and escape.

What CR ACTUALLY did I will not comment on as I am reading both sides right now.

I will add that in my experience the game-engine certainly DOES target single ship TFs.

_____________________________

Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/view/staffmonkeys/home

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 387
RE: June 6, 1942 - 3/24/2013 5:57:55 PM   
obvert


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

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

Single Ship TF - This is a gamey thing to do after the first month of the war, IMO. The AI will not launch air strikes against these targets. If they are formed as a result of combat by the AI, then its fine. But to do so knowing the AI will ignore them is another matter. I would ask Dan for a HR forbidding this. This would include picket TF, too.


I've had several single ship pickets hit. I know it's a frustrating tactic at times, but would TFs of two ships be much different in this case? I think what is frustrating John is more that he has then to spread attacks thus limiting the number of ships that could be hit before they were out of range. (If I am wrong please correct me John).

In my game with Torsten he sent single ships to the PI and they made it all of the way to Bataan to land supply. I thought this unplausible, but I didn't want a rule against it as it isn't really that different than having two ships in a TF, and I can see places where having one ship in a TF makes sense. Didn't some combat ships operate as single ships quite often in the early war? Certainly merchant raiders did.

This ongoing discussion is a tough one. It seems more driven by the low DL than the single ship TF, as once the ships to Bataan arrived there my recon lit them up and the Vals took them out easily.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 388
RE: June 6, 1942 - 3/24/2013 6:14:07 PM   
Bullwinkle58


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

ORIGINAL: obvert

I've had several single ship pickets hit. I know it's a frustrating tactic at times, but would TFs of two ships be much different in this case? I think what is frustrating John is more that he has then to spread attacks thus limiting the number of ships that could be hit before they were out of range. (If I am wrong please correct me John).



Japan, of course, always has the OPTION to split the KB into six separate 1-carrier TFs and go in multiple directions to close range on many fleeing TFs.

Oh, wait. They NEVER do that. Hmm . . .

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 389
RE: June 6, 1942 - 3/24/2013 6:20:57 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert


quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

Single Ship TF - This is a gamey thing to do after the first month of the war, IMO. The AI will not launch air strikes against these targets. If they are formed as a result of combat by the AI, then its fine. But to do so knowing the AI will ignore them is another matter. I would ask Dan for a HR forbidding this. This would include picket TF, too.


I've had several single ship pickets hit. I know it's a frustrating tactic at times, but would TFs of two ships be much different in this case? I think what is frustrating John is more that he has then to spread attacks thus limiting the number of ships that could be hit before they were out of range. (If I am wrong please correct me John).

In my game with Torsten he sent single ships to the PI and they made it all of the way to Bataan to land supply. I thought this unplausible, but I didn't want a rule against it as it isn't really that different than having two ships in a TF, and I can see places where having one ship in a TF makes sense. Didn't some combat ships operate as single ships quite often in the early war? Certainly merchant raiders did.

This ongoing discussion is a tough one. It seems more driven by the low DL than the single ship TF, as once the ships to Bataan arrived there my recon lit them up and the Vals took them out easily.

Detection Level is the key. The better the search, the better both the finding and the targeting.

_____________________________

Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/view/staffmonkeys/home

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 390
Page:   <<   < prev  11 12 [13] 14 15   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> June 4, 1942 Page: <<   < prev  11 12 [13] 14 15   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

5.988