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: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent

 
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: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 12/6/2012 1:04:00 AM   
Bullwinkle58


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

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

I've had five good WitP or AE opponenets over the years. Here's the odds I'd assign to any one of them shedding the KB's destroyers under these circumstances:

John III: 0%
PzH: 75%
Chez: 3%
Q-Ball: 40%
Miller: 20%

If find that odd, because John III may be the most aggressive of the group, but I also think he's very protective of his carriers and so in tune with actual operations in the war that shedding destroyers wouldn't cross his mind.


He'd better not play me.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 91
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 12/6/2012 1:06:52 AM   
Bullwinkle58


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

ORIGINAL: Crackaces

quote:

no ASW to speak of and the carriers have their own AA


One thing DD's do is ensure only one shot. Even if the sub gets off shots the presence of ASW means diving deep rather than continually shooting torps ..


I lost Saratoga to four hits from an I-boat about Dec. 12th, 1941, right outside San Diego. She was escorted.

Puttting about 20% of one air unit on ASW flying down low will do about as much as DDs. It's a high risk move, but POW is a high-value target, and he's not that far away from his bigger ports.

I'd do it just to send a message about forward defense in the first week of the war.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Crackaces)
Post #: 92
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 12/6/2012 1:27:33 AM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline 		He won't do it (unless the question was broached and advice given in his AAR, which is possible).  I just don't see John sending carriers into the Java Sea unescorted.  He'll be reluctant to move that far into enemy territory, where he'll suspect subs and bombers await, plus the threat of surface combat action against Allied TFs with DDs.  John might move closer to Singkawang, and he'll probably get off at least one seroius strike package against PoW given that I've posted the TF at Singk.  Right now, though he isn't able to project in strength LBA into the region in which this fight will take place.

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 93
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 12/6/2012 1:42:26 AM   
Crackaces


Posts: 3858
Joined: 7/9/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


quote:

ORIGINAL: Crackaces

quote:

no ASW to speak of and the carriers have their own AA


One thing DD's do is ensure only one shot. Even if the sub gets off shots the presence of ASW means diving deep rather than continually shooting torps ..


I lost Saratoga to four hits from an I-boat about Dec. 12th, 1941, right outside San Diego. She was escorted.

Puttting about 20% of one air unit on ASW flying down low will do about as much as DDs. It's a high risk move, but POW is a high-value target, and he's not that far away from his bigger ports.

I'd do it just to send a message about forward defense in the first week of the war.


WOW! Are you saying the I-boat shot 4 salvos while the CV was escorted? Or did 4 torps hit out of one salvo? My observations are that a die roll determines to see if the sub or the escorts get the draw .. if the sub wins the draw it fires a salvo and stuff happends .. escorts respond .. or lose the sub .. I have not ever seen 4 salvos at capitol ships while any TF has been escorted .. I have seen shots at the DD's after the initial salvos in self preservation .. Also I have seen sub wins draw fires and hits CV's .. escorts do there thing .. battle ends .. and then a new battle starts with a new first salvo ..

Ok I learn something new about this game everyday


_____________________________

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so"

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 94
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 12/6/2012 2:58:21 AM   
Bullwinkle58


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

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

He won't do it (unless the question was broached and advice given in his AAR, which is possible).  I just don't see John sending carriers into the Java Sea unescorted.  He'll be reluctant to move that far into enemy territory, where he'll suspect subs and bombers await, plus the threat of surface combat action against Allied TFs with DDs.  John might move closer to Singkawang, and he'll probably get off at least one seroius strike package against PoW given that I've posted the TF at Singk.  Right now, though he isn't able to project in strength LBA into the region in which this fight will take place.


I stopped looking in his AAR about a week ago. Only plan to read this one ongoing. All I saw was 12/7.

FWIW, I recall about 8-9 months ago, maybe more, a thread where one of the devs discussed in broad terms that there is some kind of extra random which decreases the chance of a surface battle if carriers are in the TF. Why you see a lot of surface encounters with them followed by an immediate "TFs disengage." It's a hard roll to get a gun battle with CVs even if you get into the hex.

Anybody else remember what I'm talking about?

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 95
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 12/6/2012 2:59:08 AM   
Bullwinkle58


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

ORIGINAL: Crackaces


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


quote:

ORIGINAL: Crackaces

quote:

no ASW to speak of and the carriers have their own AA


One thing DD's do is ensure only one shot. Even if the sub gets off shots the presence of ASW means diving deep rather than continually shooting torps ..


I lost Saratoga to four hits from an I-boat about Dec. 12th, 1941, right outside San Diego. She was escorted.

Puttting about 20% of one air unit on ASW flying down low will do about as much as DDs. It's a high risk move, but POW is a high-value target, and he's not that far away from his bigger ports.

I'd do it just to send a message about forward defense in the first week of the war.


WOW! Are you saying the I-boat shot 4 salvos while the CV was escorted? Or did 4 torps hit out of one salvo? My observations are that a die roll determines to see if the sub or the escorts get the draw .. if the sub wins the draw it fires a salvo and stuff happends .. escorts respond .. or lose the sub .. I have not ever seen 4 salvos at capitol ships while any TF has been escorted .. I have seen shots at the DD's after the initial salvos in self preservation .. Also I have seen sub wins draw fires and hits CV's .. escorts do there thing .. battle ends .. and then a new battle starts with a new first salvo ..

Ok I learn something new about this game everyday



Nope, one salvo, all four hit.

As I typed that I just realized CR has non-dud torpedoes. Forgot that. Never mind.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Crackaces)
Post #: 96
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 12/6/2012 3:18:23 AM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline 		Even with realistic allied torpedo dud rates, in this area you'll have Dutch and British subs operating during this phase of the war. I can't picture any time that I would detach my ASW escorts from a CV TF facing those bad boys.

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 97
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 12/6/2012 1:20:05 PM   
HansBolter


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

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

He won't do it (unless the question was broached and advice given in his AAR, which is possible).  I just don't see John sending carriers into the Java Sea unescorted.  He'll be reluctant to move that far into enemy territory, where he'll suspect subs and bombers await, plus the threat of surface combat action against Allied TFs with DDs.  John might move closer to Singkawang, and he'll probably get off at least one seroius strike package against PoW given that I've posted the TF at Singk.  Right now, though he isn't able to project in strength LBA into the region in which this fight will take place.


I stopped looking in his AAR about a week ago. Only plan to read this one ongoing. All I saw was 12/7.

FWIW, I recall about 8-9 months ago, maybe more, a thread where one of the devs discussed in broad terms that there is some kind of extra random which decreases the chance of a surface battle if carriers are in the TF. Why you see a lot of surface encounters with them followed by an immediate "TFs disengage." It's a hard roll to get a gun battle with CVs even if you get into the hex.

Anybody else remember what I'm talking about?



Not as hard as you think. It is hard to get your ships to actually hit the CVs instead fo concentrating on the escorts once you get them into a surface fight however.

In my lateset Babes Ironman game I built a fortress Koepang. The AI doggedly keeps coming to Koepang with carrier forces, sailing right into the Koepang hex itself regardless of what I have stationed there. I have had numerous surface fights with the CV TFs and have very, very rarely gotten any hits on the CVs themselves.

_____________________________

Hans


(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 98
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 12/6/2012 1:50:48 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline 		I've run the turn for 12/11.  It wasn't particularly bloody, but both sides end up with a convergence of forces in and near Borneo's southwestern cape.  It will be challenging for the Allies to plan for the 12th. 

But before I go further, I want to run something up the flagpole for opinion.  As stated above, I began the game totally in the dark about what carriers, BBs and CAs Japan begins the game with.  We've now had sustained sightings by multiple patrol aircraft (and other types of aircraft, in some cases) of three enemy CVs TFs - the KB that hit Pearl (which has been sighted every days since then by patrols operating out of three Hawaiin Islands), the force now off Kuching (sighted many times evey day since the war began and targeted by A-24 Banshees once) and a tiny carrier force that was near the Celebes yesterday.

I'm thinking by now the Allies would have cobbled together a pretty strong list of what Japan has, so I'm inclined to open up a game from the Japanese side to see exactly what's out there.  Does anybody feel like the Allies wouldn't have been able to identify the puzzle pieces after so many sightings over so many days?

(in reply to HansBolter)
Post #: 99
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 12/6/2012 2:10:21 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline 		To clarify two things:

1.  Working torpedoes are OFF.  IE, the Americans suffer from the historic dud rate (and I've experienced that at least ten times in the game already).

2.  In one of my posts yesterday, I don't think I gave the impression that I thought one of my readers might chime in on John's AAR to suggest that he strip the Mini KB's destroyers and send the carriers ahead at flank speed.  I was just alluding to the fact that some of John's dedicated (and aggressive) readers might come up with that idea and lobby for it in his AAR.  To me, that was the only possible way that John might conceive of the plan.  IE, that's just not the kind of thing he would come up with on his own because (I think) he'd blanch at the very notion.

< Message edited by Canoerebel -- 12/6/2012 2:11:01 PM >

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 100
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 12/6/2012 2:18:31 PM   
Bullwinkle58


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

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

Even with realistic allied torpedo dud rates, in this area you'll have Dutch and British subs operating during this phase of the war. I can't picture any time that I would detach my ASW escorts from a CV TF facing those bad boys.


You're very cautious. ASW escorts it this era are all 2 and have very low reloads. There are virtually no British subs at all in this month (1 maybe?) Dutch yes.

It's all a risk-reward. Risk for sure, but POW might be worth it. If CR doesn't think he'll do it he's probably right. But part of the fun of the game, at least for me, is to sometimes do things my opponent is sure I would never do, or which are "crazy." OODA loop and all.

< Message edited by Bullwinkle58 -- 12/6/2012 2:30:07 PM >

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to bradfordkay)
Post #: 101
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 12/6/2012 2:24:06 PM   
Bullwinkle58


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

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel
Does anybody feel like the Allies wouldn't have been able to identify the puzzle pieces after so many sightings over so many days?


Is that the relevant way to ask the question?

You're playing the guy who designed the mod. He has perfect knowledge of his own and your OOB plus starting dispositions. If you open and look all you do is get what he already has. If you decide not to open and look you give yourself a self-imposed restriction. Whether you do that or not is it seems to me completely internal to your own mind. This is a fantasy scenario; there's no good "What would the Allies have known?" answer. If you make that up as a question you can make up any answer you like and it will be correct.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 102
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 12/6/2012 2:26:26 PM   
Bullwinkle58


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

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Not as hard as you think. It is hard to get your ships to actually hit the CVs instead fo concentrating on the escorts once you get them into a surface fight however.

Perhaps, but that's not the issue I raised. What I recall was a dev saying there were additional randoms holding back the odds a surface battle would happen between a Surface TF and an Air TF. Not that they wouldn't enter the hex and the battlescreen would come up, but that the Air TF would immediately escape without engaging. I hate to have to use Search but this is bugging me.




< Message edited by Bullwinkle58 -- 12/6/2012 2:31:42 PM >

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to HansBolter)
Post #: 103
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 12/6/2012 2:29:10 PM   
Bullwinkle58


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

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

To clarify two things:

1.  Working torpedoes are OFF.  IE, the Americans suffer from the historic dud rate (and I've experienced that at least ten times in the game already).


I thought I'd read that they were non-dud in exchange for you playing the mod which he has intimate knowledge of. But I was previously (a month or so ago) reading his thread where he mused about the pre-game negotiations, so I must have conflated.

< Message edited by Bullwinkle58 -- 12/6/2012 2:32:08 PM >

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 104
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 12/6/2012 2:32:08 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
Is that the relevant way to ask the question?


I hear you, but the question is relevant to me from this perspective. I wanted to begin the game totally in the dark. At this point, I'm pretty sure the Allies would have obtained enough info from constant patrol sightings of enemy carrier TFs to pretty much know exactly what Japan has. Due to intrinsic limitations in the way patrols report in the game, I'm still essentially in the dark. What I'm looking for is confirmation (or rebuttal, if required) that under these circumstances the Allies would have developed alot more info than the game has given me at this point. I have no military experience, but alot of you guys know this stuff.

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 105
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 12/6/2012 2:37:43 PM   
Bullwinkle58


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

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
Is that the relevant way to ask the question?


I hear you, but the question is relevant to me from this perspective. I wanted to begin the game totally in the dark. At this point, I'm pretty sure the Allies would have obtained enough info from constant patrol sightings of enemy carrier TFs to pretty much know exactly what Japan has. Due to intrinsic limitations in the way patrols report in the game, I'm still essentially in the dark. What I'm looking for is confirmation (or rebuttal, if required) that under these circumstances the Allies would have developed alot more info than the game has given me at this point. I have no military experience, but alot of you guys know this stuff.


I think you're looking for absolution.

In these first chaotic days, if I were thinking in fantasy terms here, I think the issue is not hardware or human assets to collect raw data. Intel analysis is rarely constrained by a lack of data. In Dec. 1941, given the technology-based communication bottlenecks and the panic and scrambling inherent on the Allied side, I doubt they would have come up with a firm analytical position on the questions you ask, or, more importantly, had the means to disseminate such a thing to the operating forces.

An ancillary issue is that the well-developed naval intellignece of the time (remember, we had no national intelligence agency, no CIA, no OSS yet) would have had a firm read and deep analysis of Japan's pre-war building programs and ship inventories. The very things you have denied yourself. The fleet you're facing did not spring fully-formed from the forehead of Zeus. It was built over the previous decade and more in full view of Naval Intelligence operatives.

IOW, I'd sure open it up and look, and look HARD.

< Message edited by Bullwinkle58 -- 12/6/2012 2:39:08 PM >

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 106
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 12/6/2012 2:47:31 PM   
witpqs


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

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
Is that the relevant way to ask the question?


I hear you, but the question is relevant to me from this perspective. I wanted to begin the game totally in the dark. At this point, I'm pretty sure the Allies would have obtained enough info from constant patrol sightings of enemy carrier TFs to pretty much know exactly what Japan has. Due to intrinsic limitations in the way patrols report in the game, I'm still essentially in the dark. What I'm looking for is confirmation (or rebuttal, if required) that under these circumstances the Allies would have developed alot more info than the game has given me at this point. I have no military experience, but alot of you guys know this stuff.


I think you're looking for absolution.

In these first chaotic days, if I were thinking in fantasy terms here, I think the issue is not hardware or human assets to collect raw data. Intel analysis is rarely constrained by a lack of data. In Dec. 1941, given the technology-based communication bottlenecks and the panic and scrambling inherent on the Allied side, I doubt they would have come up with a firm analytical position on the questions you ask, or, more importantly, had the means to disseminate such a thing to the operating forces.

An ancillary issue is that the well-developed naval intellignece of the time (remember, we had no national intelligence agency, no CIA, no OSS yet) would have had a firm read and deep analysis of Japan's pre-war building programs and ship inventories. The very things you have denied yourself. The fleet you're facing did not spring fully-formed from the forehead of Zeus. It was built over the previous decade and more in full view of Naval Intelligence operatives.

IOW, I'd sure open it up and look, and look HARD.

IMO this is the real point.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 107
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 12/6/2012 2:51:30 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline 		I'm probably going to do that.

With respect to entering the war blind, this came as a result of the rioting following the Rosco Fillburn Rebellion, which in turn was partly inspired by the Agricultural Act of 1936.  That and the Great Depression persuaded America to turn inward, focusing on it's own problems, becoming isolationist, and thereby missing alot of information it should have had.  It's a mess, but I'll unravel it eventually.

For any inquisitive soul that might wonder who Rosco Fillburn was, I refer you to the decision by the Supreme Court in Wickard vs. Fillburn.

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 108
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 12/6/2012 2:53:01 PM   
Chickenboy


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

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel
Does anybody feel like the Allies wouldn't have been able to identify the puzzle pieces after so many sightings over so many days?


I know I'm not supposed to answer a question with a question, but I'll do it anyways.

On December 6, 1941 did the Allies have a perfect picture of the IJN OOB relating to aircraft carrier strength? If so-there's your model for historical foreknowledge. If not-when did they develop the intelligence that clearly enumerated the IJN OOB? That should give you your outside window of realism-if you wanted to go that way.

Personally, I'd rely on your agents in this AAR. Let the bums do some work for you instead of you having to do it yourself, dernit! After all, all Admirals have their staff, don't they? Ask them to report (in as vague terms as you desire) on the IJN OOB.

_____________________________


(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 109
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 12/6/2012 2:57:29 PM   
Bullwinkle58


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

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

For any inquisitive soul that might wonder who Rosco Fillburn was, I refer you to the decision by the Supreme Court in Wickard vs. Fillburn.


Came up a lot in the debate pre-USSC decision on Obamacare. And not in a good way for those opposed to OC.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 110
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 12/6/2012 3:02:06 PM   
crsutton


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

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

I know Japan has or gets additional carriers and cruisers.  But I don't know when.  IE, I have no idea how many carriers Japan has when the game opens.  So I'm really flying a bit blind.  That's dumb, but it's fun.  So far.



Well, John likes playing the Japanese side of his own mod. That may say something about the balance.. And, in his contest with Viberpol where he played the Allies-he managed to get crushed in the first few months. Once again, playing his own mod. That may just about say enough about Japanese resources in this one. Patience and caution are the watch word.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 111
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 12/6/2012 3:06:16 PM   
crsutton


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

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

I don't think it's a different one. If it is, then Japan starts with about 92 carriers in this mod.

Seriously, I picked up the TF in the PI, then a similar TF (same number of fighters and bombers) near Kuching. One day. 17 hexes. Is that possible?


Possible? Yes. A jap fast CVTF (meaning with a shokaku class CV for example) can travel up to 9 hexes per phase at max speed...so 18 hexes is the possible max range in one day...but it's very hard to obtain cause even 1 sys damage point will slow it down and you end up with a 8+8=16 max travel distance...


By my quick calculation, that is a high speed run for 24 hours at about 40 knots..


_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to GreyJoy)
Post #: 112
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 12/6/2012 3:06:41 PM   
MateDow


Posts: 218
Joined: 8/6/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

...But before I go further, I want to run something up the flagpole for opinion.  As stated above, I began the game totally in the dark about what carriers, BBs and CAs Japan begins the game with.  We've now had sustained sightings by multiple patrol aircraft (and other types of aircraft, in some cases) of three enemy CVs TFs - the KB that hit Pearl (which has been sighted every days since then by patrols operating out of three Hawaiin Islands), the force now off Kuching (sighted many times evey day since the war began and targeted by A-24 Banshees once) and a tiny carrier force that was near the Celebes yesterday.

I'm thinking by now the Allies would have cobbled together a pretty strong list of what Japan has, so I'm inclined to open up a game from the Japanese side to see exactly what's out there.  Does anybody feel like the Allies wouldn't have been able to identify the puzzle pieces after so many sightings over so many days?


I think that the allies would know of the existence of Japanese naval forces, even if they aren't as familiar with the details of the ships themselves.

If you look at the knowledge that the US had IRL 1941, they knew that the Japanese were building two battleships (Yamato and Musashi) but underestimated their size and capability.

This knowledge would come from a source like Janes Fighting Ships or Brassy without having to rely on formal intelligence agencies. Signal intelligence and other sources, like British or other Allied countries, would also help fill in the gaps.

Basically, I doubt that the US would be completely blind like you are making yourself. Yes, they made some assumptions based on US practice, but they pretty much had an idea of the number of ships.

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 113
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 12/6/2012 3:08:14 PM   
MateDow


Posts: 218
Joined: 8/6/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

By my quick calculation, that is a high speed run for 24 hours at about 40 knots..



If I remember correctly, in this mod the Japanese have extra Shokaku-class carriers and they are capable of high speeds.

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 114
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 12/6/2012 3:14:50 PM   
Panther Bait


Posts: 654
Joined: 8/30/2006
Status: offline 		Regarding the pre-war intelligence issue.  I'd say the Allies would have a very good idea of what the Japanese already had in service, at least from DDs on up (certainly from CA/CLs on up).  They'd probably a pretty good idea on the size of the IJ army (number of divisions/ ind. brigades/ind. regiments).  The IJNAF and IJAAF might be harder to know the specifics, but I think they would have a fairly good idea of general size and types of equipment.

If I was playing this mod and wanted to acquire a "historical" level of pre-war intelligence on the Japanese forces, I'd probably do the following:

- View and write down the current IJN BBs, CVs (all types), CAs, and CLs.  I'd probably look at types and overall numbers of DDs and SSs.  I probably wouldn't look at anything else.
- I'd look at a listing of the IJA/IJN ground forces and write down a list of the active combat units (not ENG, base force, support, etc.)
- I'd look at types of IJA/IJN aircraft in service and maybe list the # of squadrons of ground-based Netties/Fighters/Bombers.
- I'd probably look at the build list for BB/CV/CA for the next 6 months or so.

Please note, I would not look at the map to see where these units start the game.  Just look at the various unit lists.  One possible exception to that general rule would be units in China, where the Allies might have semi-decent pre-war intelligence.  Even then, I'd probably look at the unit list for ground units assigned to the China commands rather than looking at the map.

Anyway, those are my thoughts on what I'd look at.

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 Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 115
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 12/6/2012 3:55:34 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline 		Wickard v. Fillburn provided a strong argument against OC.  Wickard stands for the proposition that federal law can proscribe (prevent) certain conduct.  In contrast, OC requires conduct.  Very, very different propositions.

(in reply to Panther Bait)
Post #: 116
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 12/6/2012 4:14:30 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline 		Bullwinkle was right about me seeking absolution.  :)

Second question for the Peanut Gallery.  I've just about decided to not seek battle for the huge enemy force moving on Kuching and/or Singakwang.  It's clear now that the Japanese are bringing lots of powerful combat ships.  To oppose them, all I have are four combat TFs.  The one flagged by PoW is decent, but the other three are a weak conglomeration of old destroyers and light cruisers.  Furthermore, I don't have any decent bombers that hold out the prospect of hitting enemy cripples.  I think this is a situation of:  when the enemy comes early with a heckuva lot, better get out of the way.

Does anyone disagree?  Would you stay and fight?

Edited to Add: Orders entered to withdraw.

< Message edited by Canoerebel -- 12/6/2012 4:29:00 PM >

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 117
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 12/6/2012 4:31:13 PM   
Bullwinkle58


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

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Wickard v. Fillburn provided a strong argument against OC.  Wickard stands for the proposition that federal law can proscribe (prevent) certain conduct.  In contrast, OC requires conduct.  Very, very different propositions.


The argument made was that Wickard expands the Commerce Clause to include commercial behavior, even on wholly private property, which does not on its own cross state lines, but rather, at several arm's length, influences interstate commerce and is thus under Congress' power to regulate. It went againt the proposition that Congress does not have the power to force private, non-consentual commercial behavior, such as purchasing health insurance.

As it turned out the USSC didn't decide the case on Commerce Clause grounds.

< Message edited by Bullwinkle58 -- 12/6/2012 5:16:25 PM >

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 118
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 12/6/2012 4:42:19 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline 		The argument is that Wickard affirmed the power of the government to proscribe conduct - a farmer growing wheat for consumption on his own property - because growing that wheat had an affect on interstate commerce. OC, on the other hand, requires citizens to participate in certain activity (buying insurance).  Two completely different propositions (and hence the debate over whether the federal government could thereby order citiziens to, say, eat broccoli).

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 119
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 12/6/2012 4:54:02 PM   
Bullwinkle58


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

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Bullwinkle was right about me seeking absolution.  :)

Second question for the Peanut Gallery.  I've just about decided to not seek battle for the huge enemy force moving on Kuching and/or Singakwang.  It's clear now that the Japanese are bringing lots of powerful combat ships.  To oppose them, all I have are four combat TFs.  The one flagged by PoW is decent, but the other three are a weak conglomeration of old destroyers and light cruisers.  Furthermore, I don't have any decent bombers that hold out the prospect of hitting enemy cripples.  I think this is a situation of:  when the enemy comes early with a heckuva lot, better get out of the way.

Does anyone disagree?  Would you stay and fight?

Edited to Add: Orders entered to withdraw.


I would agree. Pick your own time and place.

In the discussion of OOBs and such I think it's important to not lose sight of what others who have studied the mod have said: It gives Japan a lot of toys, but in exchange it does not give Japan economic super-powers. It is far behind Scen. 2 in this regard. Japan must do an historical or nearly historical seizure of raw materials and do it quickly, or the situation becomes dire. I would focus your efforts on that rather than a pure destruction of enemy hardware.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 120
Page:   <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   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

1.531