RE: October 1944

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: October 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: October 1944

Page: << < prev 163 164 [165] 166 167 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: October 1944 - 8/2/2017 3:21:10 PM

John 3rd

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Timotheus

I am reading this.
Fantastic literary work this, and as a bonus a decent player of the game shows us how it's done.

Controversy: I am a big fan of the game engine squashing any "gaminess". The game allows civilian ship "pickets" - I think the game engine should prioritize the biggest threats as targets for the carrier air... so that 100 Kates wouldn't go for an AKL while 5 Kates go for the Lexington...

In fact, I am shocked that there isn't an extra setting on "Preferred Targets" for each naval task force (and their air component): you could want to prioritize civilian, carrier or standard (everything targetted)...

I blame the game engine - this should have been addressed.

Oh yeah: I have not caught up to the latest post, it will take me some time. Refuse to read so no spoilers for me until I get here.... to 2017 (am a few years behind ).

I would truly agree with your 'preferred' targets idea. Have seen, over the years, many strikes hit the WRONG target. Bet many experienced players can tell stories.

_____________________________

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

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

(in reply to Timotheus)

Post #: 4921

RE: October 1944 - 8/2/2017 3:22:56 PM

John 3rd

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: hartwig.modrow

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Summary
For the loss of 2 CL and 4 DDs, the Americans lose 3 DDs and see damage to a modern CL and 7-9 DDs.

As stated when I sent these ships into Harm's Way, I did not expect any survives. Instead, we do get 2 CAs and 4 DDs back.

It may be just me, but I think you should look at your victory -if it is one- either as

"For the loss of 2 CL and 4 DDs, the Americans lose 3 DDs."

or as

"For the loss of 2CL and 4DDs and damage to 1 CA and 3DDs (or is it 4?), the Americans lose 3DDs and see damage to a modern CL and 7-9 DDs."

Just my point of view.

Hartwig

NEVER called it a victory. Those ships were sent on a probable suicide mission. Instead of losing all of them I only lost half of them. At this stage and in this situation I consider it a VICTORY that anyone came home whatsoever!

It also serves to keep Dan on notice that the Fleet WILL sortie and attack his 1.0x10^6 at any point in time. Keeps him honest and--just a little--nervous.

< Message edited by John 3rd -- 8/2/2017 3:25:39 PM >

_____________________________

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

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

(in reply to modrow)

Post #: 4922

RE: October 1944 - 8/2/2017 3:37:27 PM

John 3rd

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

With the conflict slowing down a bit in the air, I am seriously toying with the idea of shifting some of my fighter research forward along the pre-planned production paths. Specific aircraft: the Frank-R, the next Tony-100, the third variant of George, or the second model of Sam. Any thoughts and/or feedback on those planes?

Pools have grown to nearly 500 planes of Frank-B, Goerge-2, and Sam. Have about 250 Tony. I know that that can be eaten up FAST but would it serve to be useful in trying to bring one of the very late-war models forward?

_____________________________

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 #: 4923

RE: October 1944 - 8/2/2017 6:15:06 PM

AcePylut

Posts: 1494
Joined: 3/19/2004
Status: offline

I'd invest in nuclear bomb research. What better way to eliminate the Death Star but a well placed kamikazi nuke?

_____________________________

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 4924

RE: October 1944 - 8/2/2017 6:38:05 PM

Lecivius

Posts: 4845
Joined: 8/5/2007
From: Denver
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AcePylut

I'd invest in nuclear bomb research. What better way to eliminate the Death Star but a well placed kamikazi nuke?

Invest in Star Destroyer technology

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

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

(in reply to AcePylut)

Post #: 4925

RE: October 1944 - 8/2/2017 7:33:24 PM

John 3rd

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

I am TRYING the Star Destroyer angle but the dratted Emperor wants way too fat of a percentage!

_____________________________

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

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

(in reply to Lecivius)

Post #: 4926

RE: October 1944 - 8/2/2017 9:31:56 PM

JohnDillworth

Posts: 3100
Joined: 3/19/2009
Status: offline

As to strategic bombing. These are just the first generation of B-29's. A newer, night bombing version shows up about now and the groups are bigger and there are lots of groups. You can load a dummy game to get a good idea of what is coming. IRL, by March 1945 the Allies could put up regular night raids of 300 planes or so. I expect the game numbers will be lower but not much lower. Point is this is going to get worse and you can not defend everything, in fact you can't even defend most things. So you have to look at your cities and factories and figure out what you want to hold onto and defend those targets as best you can. The Reich decided that the Leuna works were their most important resource and had massive amounts of flak. To a large extend there were able to defend them well into 1945. The 8th Air Force paid a heavy price for modest success. So, pick what you want to defend and stack night fighters, day fighters pretending to be night fighters and AAA at all levels. Doesn't mean you can't have your CAP bleed over or abandoning everything....just look at what you want to keep producing defend accordingly.

_____________________________

Today I come bearing an olive branch in one hand, and the freedom fighter's gun in the other. Do not let the olive branch fall from my hand. I repeat, do not let the olive branch fall from my hand. - Yasser Arafat Speech to UN General Assembly

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 4927

RE: October 1944 - 8/2/2017 9:55:16 PM

John 3rd

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

My initial thoughts along that line would be placing Tokyo, Maebishi, and Osaka as the priority defensive locations. Opinions on others?

_____________________________

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

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

(in reply to JohnDillworth)

Post #: 4928

RE: October 1944 - 8/3/2017 12:26:37 AM

John 3rd

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

October 19, 1944

B-29 penny packets hit Kobe and Tokyo. Total was just under 30 planes used. Here are the results:

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 #: 4929

RE: October 1944 - 8/3/2017 12:29:59 AM

John 3rd

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

October 19, 1944
North of Amoy

The Americans move out of their defenses and attack the Japanese blocking force. The Tanks all attack but the Infantry Divs bombard. Here is the result: 1-34 (88--3079) Japan 390 Cas and 11 Guns Americans 13 Guns and 144 Vehicles. NICE!

Don't know if China is where he truly is going. There are LOTS of troops movements and there are lots of troops on the Chinese Coast but, other then these, no real advancing as of yet.

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 #: 4930

RE: October 1944 - 8/3/2017 12:30:35 AM

John 3rd

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

The first TF of Tankers arrive at Tokyo with 108,000 Fuel. Anchors drop and fuel flows...

_____________________________

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 #: 4931

RE: October 1944 - 8/3/2017 12:40:15 PM

Lowpe

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

My initial thoughts along that line would be placing Tokyo, Maebishi, and Osaka as the priority defensive locations. Opinions on others?

A lot depends upon what you think the Allies are targeting via strategic bombing.

Tokyo and Osaka are very important as that is the bulk of your supply generation after that you need to decide.

My basic rule is that the Allies should never get a milk run...where they bomb something with no AA or Fighters or Night Fighters present and preferably both (NF and AA).

For an interesting look at what the Allies can do with respect to daytime bombing, checkout the latest post in Wargamr & Mr. Kanes AAR.

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 4932

RE: October 1944 - 8/3/2017 12:54:06 PM

Lowpe

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

With the conflict slowing down a bit in the air, I am seriously toying with the idea of shifting some of my fighter research forward along the pre-planned production paths. Specific aircraft: the Frank-R, the next Tony-100, the third variant of George, or the second model of Sam. Any thoughts and/or feedback on those planes?

Pools have grown to nearly 500 planes of Frank-B, Goerge-2, and Sam. Have about 250 Tony. I know that that can be eaten up FAST but would it serve to be useful in trying to bring one of the very late-war models forward?

This is basically nuts, but since I don't know your economy and status and arrival dates perhaps not.

At this point you should generally not be repairing any damage but desperately trying to save supplies.

I don't see how you can have the supply stockpile to invest in r&d and expect to actually repair it and for it to actually accelerate a plane model. Maybe if you are a month or two away from getting the plane...but even then I don't see it.

Of the planes you listed, only Frank R would help at high altitude, Sam-j is a beast of a bomber killer, Tony 2 probably isn't worth it, final George is good too. However, unless you already have r&d in these planes, how in the world do you think you will accelerate them enough to use them?

If you can't have final war generation planes, follow NJP's advice to make a ton of fighters that you have. You really want to have pools much deeper of Franks, Georges, Sams than 500 (that is one fight). 1750 fighters in the pools is better, and what I think you are saying...but still that is only a few days fight.

Realize too, that you are coming to the end of the happy times in the Air for Japan, as in November the spigots are being turned on with incredible fighter production/replacements for the Allies. The growth of the Allied air power over the next few months is staggering in numbers and new frames.

< Message edited by Lowpe -- 8/3/2017 12:56:52 PM >

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 4933

RE: October 1944 - 8/3/2017 12:56:45 PM

mind_messing

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

My initial thoughts along that line would be placing Tokyo, Maebishi, and Osaka as the priority defensive locations. Opinions on others?

The key cities are your big light industry centres, as it's these that keep your planes flying when 1945 rolls around. As such, these are your priority defensive locations.

The secret to a really effective air defence network is that it needs to be holistic. It's not simply a case of having night fighters. You need all of the following:

- Strong day-time CAP
- Traditional fighters on night CAP to bulk up your numbers.
- High forts, both to minimise damage and force bombers away from barrage balloons.
- Dedicated night fighters to rotate in anticipation/response to Allied raids.
- Heavy duty flak. The IJ 8cm guns don't cut it much, you need the 12cm stuff as a minimum. This is probably the key point, as flak is the real passive attrition of 4E's.

The number of bases that you can defend along these lines is small, so you need to make sure that they'll be the bases that are critical to your economy.

For all the other bases, it's a case of token night CAP with whatever you can spare. At worst it throws off the aim of the raids, at best you might damage a few that crash on the way home.

What the 4E menace boils down to is that you don't shoot them down in raids, you damage them and they crash on the way home or you damage them and they take two weeks to repair. Both of these outcomes slowly attrition down the Allied force.

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 4934

RE: October 1944 - 8/3/2017 1:02:16 PM

Lowpe

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

My initial thoughts along that line would be placing Tokyo, Maebishi, and Osaka as the priority defensive locations. Opinions on others?

The key cities are your big light industry centres, as it's these that keep your planes flying when 1945 rolls around. As such, these are your priority defensive locations.

The secret to a really effective air defence network is that it needs to be holistic. It's not simply a case of having night fighters. You need all of the following:

- Strong day-time CAP
- Traditional fighters on night CAP to bulk up your numbers.
- High forts, both to minimise damage and force bombers away from barrage balloons.
- Dedicated night fighters to rotate in anticipation/response to Allied raids.
- Heavy duty flak. The IJ 8cm guns don't cut it much, you need the 12cm stuff as a minimum. This is probably the key point, as flak is the real passive attrition of 4E's.

The number of bases that you can defend along these lines is small, so you need to make sure that they'll be the bases that are critical to your economy.

For all the other bases, it's a case of token night CAP with whatever you can spare. At worst it throws off the aim of the raids, at best you might damage a few that crash on the way home.

What the 4E menace boils down to is that you don't shoot them down in raids, you damage them and they crash on the way home or you damage them and they take two weeks to repair. Both of these outcomes slowly attrition down the Allied force.

M-M you left out mentioning radar, search lights. People pooh-pooh searchlights, but I have seen how early on in the war they are very important before radar takes over, but I expect they still act as a minor force multiplier even late in the game.

You are the expert on balloons, but isn't it both forts and size of the base that contribute? Haven't looked at that in a while...

(in reply to mind_messing)

Post #: 4935

RE: October 1944 - 8/3/2017 1:22:41 PM

mind_messing

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

My initial thoughts along that line would be placing Tokyo, Maebishi, and Osaka as the priority defensive locations. Opinions on others?

The key cities are your big light industry centres, as it's these that keep your planes flying when 1945 rolls around. As such, these are your priority defensive locations.

The secret to a really effective air defence network is that it needs to be holistic. It's not simply a case of having night fighters. You need all of the following:

- Strong day-time CAP
- Traditional fighters on night CAP to bulk up your numbers.
- High forts, both to minimise damage and force bombers away from barrage balloons.
- Dedicated night fighters to rotate in anticipation/response to Allied raids.
- Heavy duty flak. The IJ 8cm guns don't cut it much, you need the 12cm stuff as a minimum. This is probably the key point, as flak is the real passive attrition of 4E's.

The number of bases that you can defend along these lines is small, so you need to make sure that they'll be the bases that are critical to your economy.

For all the other bases, it's a case of token night CAP with whatever you can spare. At worst it throws off the aim of the raids, at best you might damage a few that crash on the way home.

What the 4E menace boils down to is that you don't shoot them down in raids, you damage them and they crash on the way home or you damage them and they take two weeks to repair. Both of these outcomes slowly attrition down the Allied force.

M-M you left out mentioning radar, search lights. People pooh-pooh searchlights, but I have seen how early on in the war they are very important before radar takes over, but I expect they still act as a minor force multiplier even late in the game.

You are the expert on balloons, but isn't it both forts and size of the base that contribute? Haven't looked at that in a while...

I've never seen any real effect of radar at night, to be fair. It seems to make a great deal of difference in daylight, but night raids all seem to be detected at very short times to interception.

Searchlights I cannot comment on, I've thought they were a filler item to give IJ AF units an upgrade path into radars?

Balloon effectiveness is based on fort level of any base with port + AF greater than 6. They're pretty effective at making sure that 2/4E bombers stay above 6000ft, at least during the day. Less effective at night, but still the odd damage to aircraft here and there.

It really just forces raids to fly at 7k ft, which can be helpful in setting your CAP to maximise intercepts if your opponent is bothered about the extra OPS losses. With B-29's I think they're critical, as a damaged B-29 is in the shops for days at a time.

(in reply to Lowpe)

Post #: 4936

RE: October 1944 - 8/3/2017 1:48:14 PM

John 3rd

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

I have seen the effect of those barrage balloons. He has been trying to come in at 2,000 Ft and several planes a raid hit the balloons. The massed unit upgrades I have seen have been in vital areas. LIKE THAT a bunch.

On aircraft production and R&D, I felt Lowpe was going to say what he said. My focus for research was on late-44 aircraft and not 45 aircraft. Very short-sighted of me. Another lesson to put in the hat of experience and things to change for the next match.

Have TONS of AA coming in right now. I am buying back all the units destroyed in Formosa and elsewhere. There are LOTS of AA units. Though they take time to fillout, they will be of considerable help.

_____________________________

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

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

(in reply to mind_messing)

Post #: 4937

RE: October 1944 - 8/3/2017 2:20:48 PM

JohnDillworth

Posts: 3100
Joined: 3/19/2009
Status: offline

You really only need AA at home and in the parts of China you are fighting over. DEI, Singapore, Marianas, Truk, Rabaul. Not doing you much good there. AA needs to be where the planes are

_____________________________

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 4938

RE: October 1944 - 8/3/2017 2:46:27 PM

Lowpe

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

Not going for late generation fighters is not short sighted...if you make tons of the planes you can reasonably expect to get. You gain more supplies, certainty and deep pools. It is just a different tactic and valid really pioneered quite recently by NJP.

Your fighter pools are adequate...but that also warns me that most likely the Allied player's pools are strong too.

(in reply to JohnDillworth)

Post #: 4939

RE: October 1944 - 8/3/2017 2:56:02 PM

John 3rd

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

October 20, 1944

Here is a fine example of Barrage Balloons!

Agree with you Mr. Lowpe.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

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

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

(in reply to Lowpe)

Post #: 4940

RE: October 1944 - 8/3/2017 3:48:35 PM

Chickenboy

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

October 20, 1944

Here is a fine example of Barrage Balloons!

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 4941

RE: October 1944 - 8/4/2017 12:04:25 AM

Bif1961

Posts: 2014
Joined: 6/26/2008
From: Phenix City, Alabama
Status: offline

I wonder if the loose barrage balloons will end up on the west coast of the US with the jetsream pushing them there.

< Message edited by Bif1961 -- 8/4/2017 12:28:09 AM >

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 4942

RE: October 1944 - 8/4/2017 1:08:15 AM

John 3rd

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

Hah-Hah---You are NOT supposed to know about THAT SECRET Plan....

_____________________________

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

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

(in reply to Bif1961)

Post #: 4943

RE: October 1944 - 8/4/2017 2:46:24 AM

Capt. Harlock

Posts: 5358
Joined: 9/15/2001
From: Los Angeles
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Hah-Hah---You are NOT supposed to know about THAT SECRET Plan....

Not a secret:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_balloon

(The only WWII war deaths in the contiguous States.)

_____________________________

Civil war? What does that mean? Is there any foreign war? Isn't every war fought between men, between brothers?

--Victor Hugo

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 4944

RE: October 1944 - 8/4/2017 1:38:03 PM

John 3rd

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

October 21, 1944

Another Tanker TF makes it home and drops anchor at Osaka. 72,000 Fuel immediately begins to unload...

_____________________________

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 #: 4945

RE: October 1944 - 8/4/2017 2:29:15 PM

John 3rd

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

October 21, 1944

The Allied Juggernaut swings eastward so that is in striking range of Shanghai. Course not much happens but it is interesting. Will Post a screenshot with next entry.

Had a decent day in the air:

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 #: 4946

RE: October 1944 - 8/4/2017 2:36:44 PM

John 3rd

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

Here is their location...

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 #: 4947

RE: October 1944 - 8/4/2017 4:13:42 PM

JohnDillworth

Posts: 3100
Joined: 3/19/2009
Status: offline

Avenger I is a British plane. Weird to just strike with that. Seems like a click may have been missed. Was it going after merchant ships? Brits don't carry many of these so it might be a whole CV's worth

_____________________________

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 4948

RE: October 1944 - 8/4/2017 4:17:39 PM

Chickenboy

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

You've got "0" fuel and only ~17k supply at Shanghai? How come? You can't expect your 350+ aircraft there to perform well if they have to make supply checks on a regular basis...

< Message edited by Chickenboy -- 8/4/2017 4:18:37 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 4949

RE: October 1944 - 8/4/2017 4:49:30 PM

Lecivius

Posts: 4845
Joined: 8/5/2007
From: Denver
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

You've got "0" fuel and only ~17k supply at Shanghai? How come? You can't expect your 350+ aircraft there to perform well if they have to make supply checks on a regular basis...

I saw that, too.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 4950