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: Another Question to the Gallery: R&D

 
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: Another Question to the Gallery: R&D Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Another Question to the Gallery: R&D - 5/2/2014 11:12:58 PM   
mind_messing

 

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

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

What about your Unryu CVs?? I try to accelerate them so they come in as pairs. The farther they are out, the less it costs to accelerate. You can play around with this on Tracker to see that it costs just their Durability number to accelerate.

You need them in '43 before the Allies gets too strong. In my game in March '44 the Allied warship fleet is getting just plain nasty. Lots of 8 ship Fletcher DD TFs running around with and without 4 Cleveland Class CLs. IMO, you need to challenge the Allies in '43 or by '44 the "fleet in being" doesn't help as much.


I'll look into it. I've not thought much about the CV's still under construction, but more carriers in the mid-game can't be a bad thing.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe


quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

- Have as many HQ's as possible in the hex to provide support


For whatever reason, I always left the HQ one hex away and move troops out of combat to recover. I wonder if your way would have significantly accelerated my taking of Soerabaja?

I do everything else and even put the troops on reserve or rest too.

I also hardly ever see the leader bonus despite picking my combat leaders. Seems to be quite common complaint.



I think that troops need to be in the same hex as HQ's to take advantage of the support squads that HQ's have in their TOE.

Seeing as Japanese units always have less support squads than they need, I keep them in the same hex as the troops so that.

As usual, the manual isn't exactly clear what support squads do, so who knows?

(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 151
A Study in Strategy - 5/3/2014 9:47:43 PM   
mind_messing

 

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

The time of unrivaled Japanese dominance is fast coming to an end. While I will still enjoy the balance of power until 1943, soon the weight of Allied material and manpower will start to press the empire back.

My overall plan is as follows:




The blue boundary marks buffer areas: the regions where I'll offer resistance with local forces, with the goal to delay the Allied advance.

The red boundary indicates the areas that I want to keep the Allies out of at all costs. These will be the areas that the KB and the IJN will be commited to defend if the Allies attack, and the places where I'll do my best to counter-invade should the Allies get a foothold.

Ideally, I hope for a solid line of well-developed and strongly garrisoned bases ranging from the Bonins, through the Marianas, to the West Papua to hold of the Allies in the Pacific. Timor and the Flores chain will be the line of defence for the Lower DEI, and work is already underway to turn Java and Sumatra into strong redoubts against amphibious invasion.

I hope to have the Tokyo-Bonins-Marianas-Papua line ready for 1943. After that, engineers will be working towards building up the Philippines, Formosa and Okinawa.

I'll fight an extended delaying action in Burma following the end of 1942, with the goal to hold Rangoon into 1944. If it appears that Lokasenna is close to taking Burma, I have few qualms about withdrawing to Thailand and forcing the Allies to slog through terrible terrain, provided I can keep Rangoon unusable as a operational port for the Allies.

Review of Active Operations by Theater

North Pacific

I've been soundly beaten here. One battleship and one crusier, as well as a handfull of smaller ships lost for no real gain other than delaying the Allied buildup of the Kuriles for six months. Holding the Kuriles didn't prevent a carrier raid on Hokkaido either, and the time, units and supply spent in the Aleutians would have been far better used developing the Kuriles, Hokkadio and northern Honshu.

The good news is that any future Allied operations will be running into a wall of pillboxes, big airbases and strike planes that grows more formidable by the day.

Central Pacific

I'm fairly satisfied with this theater. About 70% of the defences I'd like to have built are constructed, though there are still several frontline islands sorely needing garrisons and aviation support. The Gilberts are rather exposed at present, with only a handfull of bases with decent defensive, and there are several valuable islands that are still ungarrioned.

The Marianas and Marshalls, however, are looking excellent. The Marianas are building up very nicely, though at present they're almost devoid of both combat and support troops, but this isn't a huge problem seeing as we don't see it becoming a problem any time soon.

The Marshalls still need a few garrisons here and there, as well as some support troops, and I'm looking at getting some small AA units to defend the larger airbases.

The Bonin's are still in need of token garrisons, as well as engineers to develop them, but they're on the hind teat at present until areas closer to the frontline are secured.

South-West Pacific

I'm starting to feel that I've over-commited in this theater, as despite a big American presence on Luganville, there's been little Allied activity. Defences here are about 80% complete, with Papau New Guinea strongly held, though there are a few more bases on the Rabual-Ndeni axis that I'd like to develop to add some depth to our defences.

As work is completed here, I'll be withdrawing engineering assets to help build up Northern Papua, to complete the Tokyo-Bonins-Marianas-Papua defensive barrier.

Austrailia

Operations are progressing well here, and I hope to have destroyed the British and Austrailian troops by June, and have withdrawn most of the troops by July. While I'm overjoyed to be destroying British and Austrailian units so far forward, I'm disapointed that the Allies haven't made any serious commitment in terms of airpower.

Nevertheless, the large buffer zone that Northern Austrailia offers is very welcome, and it's exceptionally handy that the bases I've developed to support the invasion are the same bases that I'll be using to defend the Lower DEI.

Burma

It's perhaps too early to tell how operations against Akyab are progressing, but on the whole, the situation is stable, but fragile.

With the bulk of the IJA divisions moving against Akyab, there's nothing else to hold Burma together bar the Imperial Guards Division and the Thai divisions. Should the Chinese make a bid to break through into Burma, there's little and less that could stop them at present, though that will swiftly change once the troops from the Philippines arrive in a week or two and a division from Manchuria some time after that.

As with my operations in Northern Austrailia, I'm disapointed by the refusal of the Allies to commit airframes to combat, and though the AVG took a bashing in the early months of 1942, Lokasenna has been content to hoard his British aircraft where I can't hit them.

China

The outlook is good. Chungking is bottled up and the forts falling every month or so, with the defenders out of supply. Kuming has been heavily bombed, but otherwise left alone, and as a result the Chinese are probably fairly well entrenched and with some supply.

The tentative plan is that once Chungking is secured, we'll surround Kunming, but not bother taking the base, and try to move the bulk of troops to Burma.

Elsewhere, nearly all of China is occupied, with the only fighting other than Chungking being the occasional anti-guerilla operation against Chinese remanants or a siege against a holdout mountain garrison.

< Message edited by mind_messing -- 5/3/2014 10:53:06 PM >

(in reply to mind_messing)
Post #: 152
RE: Another Question to the Gallery: R&D - 5/4/2014 11:08:57 PM   
mind_messing

 

Posts: 3393
Joined: 10/28/2013
Status: offline 		May 11th to May 12th, 1942

North Pacific

We close down our naval search station at Attu as the defenders are wiped out on Adak and Amchitka. Withdrawal of troops from Attu to Paramushiro-jima by transport plane continues at a good pace. We've most of the big transport squadrons, as well as the Manchurian transport planes ferrying troops back and forth along the Kuriles.

The KB will be nominally ready for operations within ten days, but I don't plan on moving them till mid-June, seeing as the Zuikaku and Shokaku have June upgrades that gives them Type 21 radar sets. While it is Japanese radar, every little helps.

Central Pacific

We've returned to the usual calmness following the botched landing of the Marine raiders. I'm glad Lokasenna didn't stick around with his submarines to hunt ships, as I've a fair few convoys shifting garrisons between the islands.

Part of this shifting of garrisons is to provide nominal garrisons and set up small seaplane bases on the outlying bases on the northern fringes of the Marshalls, the bases that I think the Allies might try to grab on the cheap to set up a naval search base from. I'll get there first and have a early-warning station or two to warn of any incursions.

I'm mounting a big map-wide mine-warfare campaign, but the bulk of it is going to be focused on the Central Pacific area. I've some 300 Type 4 mines and 550 Type 88 mines to get rid off, and there's plenty of islands between Tokyo and Babeldoab to set up minefields at. I'll need to pull the dedicated minelaying subs off active operations and set them to creating defensive minefields of their own.

South-West Pacific

Not much stirring here, either.

It appears the Allies have moved Catalina's into Luganville. Once I get my 81 sized Zero groups back in-theater, we'll have a go at sweeping Luganville.

Other than that, we've just been shunting around engineers and deploying garrison units.

Austrailia

The main IJA army inside Katherine is still waiting for the trailing divisions to reach the base. To the south, skirmishes are developing between Austrailian and IJA armour outside of Katherine. Lokasenna might have upgraded these tanks to something decent, so there's a fire-eater in command of the Japanese and what bombers can reach will fly in support.

To the north, everything is set for the assault on Darwin. The 1st Tank Regiment is on the march, the IJN paratroopers are waiting for the word to jump and the IJA infantrymen are getting ready to embark to hopefully made landfall in Austrailia!

Burma

B-17s and British Hudson's go after Lashio, where some Ann's are sitting on the tarmac. Oscars from Mandalay respond, and over a series of battles ten Oscars are traded for ten Hudsons and a few damaged B-17s.

I suspect that Lokasenna is trying to encourage me to spread my air defence network in Burma thin. I'll not comply, the only real value in Burma is in Rangoon and Magwe; that's where my defences are focused, and that's where they'll remain focused.

Nick production has reached 40 planes a month, and a small 12 plane unit has already been upgraded at detailed to provide CAP for Palambang along with some other planes. The next unit to be upgraded with Nicks is going to Burma, and after that, we'll get the Home Island groups upgraded to them as well.

China

The Chinese have mounted a feeble offensive against exposed and isolated garrisons, and I've sent local forces to respond to it, but there's no real harm. The most I stand to lose are a few resource centers, but we've an 11k resource surplus in China, so it's hardly critical.

The AV of the two forces in Chungking is now roughly equal again, thanks to recovering units and reinforcements from Northern China. We'll wait till some battered units are replaced with units fresh from some R&R at Chengtu before we try to hit the Chinese again.


Small minelayers like the Itsukushima are being used to make amphibious landings that bit more difficult for the Allies. Some bases have had minefields for quite some time, but a big effort is being made to improve coverage. The hope is that where-ever the Allies go, they'll need to bring minesweepers.


< Message edited by mind_messing -- 9/25/2014 5:48:32 PM >

(in reply to mind_messing)
Post #: 153
RE: Another Question to the Gallery: R&D - 5/4/2014 11:46:42 PM   
ny59giants


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

It appears the Allies have moved Catalina's into Luganville. Once I get my 81 sized Zero groups back in-theater, we'll have a go at sweeping Luganville.


This is something that is very gamey in my book. It would be a game ender for me as Allies cannot do anything to counter it.

_____________________________


(in reply to mind_messing)
Post #: 154
RE: Another Question to the Gallery: R&D - 5/4/2014 11:57:22 PM   
mind_messing

 

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

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

quote:

It appears the Allies have moved Catalina's into Luganville. Once I get my 81 sized Zero groups back in-theater, we'll have a go at sweeping Luganville.


This is something that is very gamey in my book. It would be a game ender for me as Allies cannot do anything to counter it.


They're divded up prior to combat, so they're like any other Sentai.

(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 155
RE: Another Question to the Gallery: R&D - 5/4/2014 11:58:41 PM   
Lowpe


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

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

quote:

It appears the Allies have moved Catalina's into Luganville. Once I get my 81 sized Zero groups back in-theater, we'll have a go at sweeping Luganville.


This is something that is very gamey in my book. It would be a game ender for me as Allies cannot do anything to counter it.



I thought the Allies could resize too.

I have to admit, I am not a fan of this either, and in my AAR'd pick upped game I disbanded two such units and got grief for doing so. Somehow, I managed to inherit a size 91 IJN air group! Don't know how that is even possible.

(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 156
RE: Another Question to the Gallery: R&D - 5/5/2014 12:08:10 AM   
mind_messing

 

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

ORIGINAL: Lowpe


quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

quote:

It appears the Allies have moved Catalina's into Luganville. Once I get my 81 sized Zero groups back in-theater, we'll have a go at sweeping Luganville.


This is something that is very gamey in my book. It would be a game ender for me as Allies cannot do anything to counter it.



I thought the Allies could resize too.

I have to admit, I am not a fan of this either, and in my AAR'd pick upped game I disbanded two such units and got grief for doing so. Somehow, I managed to inherit a size 91 IJN air group! Don't know how that is even possible.


I don't see the problem, to be honest. Provided you divided the group into the A/B/C components prior to combat so not to push the engine, there's not an issue.

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 157
RE: Another Question to the Gallery: R&D - 5/5/2014 12:17:31 AM   
Lowpe


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

ORIGINAL: mind_messing
I don't see the problem, to be honest. Provided you divided the group into the A/B/C components prior to combat so not to push the engine, there's not an issue.


You are not doing it, but imagine a size 81 sweep...come on that is cheese.

(in reply to mind_messing)
Post #: 158
RE: Another Question to the Gallery: R&D - 5/5/2014 12:59:36 AM   
mind_messing

 

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

ORIGINAL: Lowpe


quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing
I don't see the problem, to be honest. Provided you divided the group into the A/B/C components prior to combat so not to push the engine, there's not an issue.


You are not doing it, but imagine a size 81 sweep...come on that is cheese.


We've an agreement that size 81 groups will be divided when in combat so that they function as three seperate groups. I suppose a house rule would solve that little quirk of the code quite nicely.

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 159
RE: Another Question to the Gallery: R&D - 5/5/2014 1:11:15 AM   
ny59giants


Posts: 9869
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline 		Its your game, but I would not re-size any air group to be larger than what already exist. If there is no size 81 in game, then this cannot be done. I think at this point maybe a group that is 42 planes is the largest IJN fighter group. Even if you divide the 81 into 3 x 27, this still adds lots of airframes to the game, IMO. Adding this many more airframes in mid-42 would tilt the game even more towards Japan.

_____________________________


(in reply to mind_messing)
Post #: 160
RE: Another Question to the Gallery: R&D - 5/5/2014 6:43:27 PM   
mind_messing

 

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

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

Its your game, but I would not re-size any air group to be larger than what already exist. If there is no size 81 in game, then this cannot be done. I think at this point maybe a group that is 42 planes is the largest IJN fighter group. Even if you divide the 81 into 3 x 27, this still adds lots of airframes to the game, IMO. Adding this many more airframes in mid-42 would tilt the game even more towards Japan.


I suppose it all depends on your attitude towards the game.

Sure, Japan gets "expanded" squadrons, but is still limited by aviation support, need for airframes, pilots and so forth. The biggest Japanese fighter groups are 45 planes strong, does adding 26 planes to the group skew the game so badly?

Then there's the cost. Expanded squadrons need more pilots, airframes and aviation support, and eat up more supply, so it's far from a "free" way to boost Japanese strength.

(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 161
RE: Another Question to the Gallery: R&D - 5/5/2014 7:03:24 PM   
Mike McCreery


Posts: 4232
Joined: 6/29/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing


quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

Its your game, but I would not re-size any air group to be larger than what already exist. If there is no size 81 in game, then this cannot be done. I think at this point maybe a group that is 42 planes is the largest IJN fighter group. Even if you divide the 81 into 3 x 27, this still adds lots of airframes to the game, IMO. Adding this many more airframes in mid-42 would tilt the game even more towards Japan.


I suppose it all depends on your attitude towards the game.

Sure, Japan gets "expanded" squadrons, but is still limited by aviation support, need for airframes, pilots and so forth. The biggest Japanese fighter groups are 45 planes strong, does adding 26 planes to the group skew the game so badly?

Then there's the cost. Expanded squadrons need more pilots, airframes and aviation support, and eat up more supply, so it's far from a "free" way to boost Japanese strength.


A squadron of 81 planes should have to take 3 times as long to get into the air and land. The computer algorithm does not account for larger squadrons and therefore gives an advantage to someone who is oversizing squadrons.

It may not appear to be *free* but it certainly is a manipulation of the game engine to get an advantage.

As such, people should be able to make HR's to their hearts content if they feel the need to do so.






_____________________________


(in reply to mind_messing)
Post #: 162
RE: Another Question to the Gallery: R&D - 5/5/2014 7:21:22 PM   
mind_messing

 

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

ORIGINAL: Wargmr


quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing


quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

Its your game, but I would not re-size any air group to be larger than what already exist. If there is no size 81 in game, then this cannot be done. I think at this point maybe a group that is 42 planes is the largest IJN fighter group. Even if you divide the 81 into 3 x 27, this still adds lots of airframes to the game, IMO. Adding this many more airframes in mid-42 would tilt the game even more towards Japan.


I suppose it all depends on your attitude towards the game.

Sure, Japan gets "expanded" squadrons, but is still limited by aviation support, need for airframes, pilots and so forth. The biggest Japanese fighter groups are 45 planes strong, does adding 26 planes to the group skew the game so badly?

Then there's the cost. Expanded squadrons need more pilots, airframes and aviation support, and eat up more supply, so it's far from a "free" way to boost Japanese strength.


A squadron of 81 planes should have to take 3 times as long to get into the air and land. The computer algorithm does not account for larger squadrons and therefore gives an advantage to someone who is oversizing squadrons.


That's why the game has two seperate stacking limits on airbases: one for air-groups, and one for air planes. It doesn't matter if you've 2 groups of 40 planes or one group of 80 planes, you've still used 80 slots of the airbases capacity.

quote:

It may not appear to be *free* but it certainly is a manipulation of the game engine to get an advantage.

As such, people should be able to make HR's to their hearts content if they feel the need to do so.


In combat, I agree, that's why they'll be divided prior to combat and so act as any other air group.

In all other respects, I'm not so sure. There's a part of me that objects to the historical "shoe-horning" (loosely used) in regards to aircraft squadrons and their size.

If Japan had the airframes and pilots sitting doing nothing, I'm sure Yamamoto could have said "Turn them into a big training unit" and it would have been done fairly promptly.

(in reply to Mike McCreery)
Post #: 163
RE: Another Question to the Gallery: R&D - 5/5/2014 7:32:07 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		Can you always divide them? I think I have some sized 50 groups that can't be divided...with no splinters that I can find.



(in reply to mind_messing)
Post #: 164
RE: Another Question to the Gallery: R&D - 5/5/2014 7:57:52 PM   
Mike McCreery


Posts: 4232
Joined: 6/29/2013
Status: offline 		Following that logic you should be able to resize squadrons to whatever size you see fit...



_____________________________


(in reply to mind_messing)
Post #: 165
RE: Another Question to the Gallery: R&D - 5/5/2014 8:14:13 PM   
mind_messing

 

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

ORIGINAL: Wargmr

Following that logic you should be able to resize squadrons to whatever size you see fit...




...and still be faced with the same operational restrictions in terms of aviation support and airbase stacking limits.

The only problem is that the air combat engine falls apart when big groups are deployed. If the air combat didn't turn big air groups into sweepers and escorters with perfect co-ordination, what would be the problem?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

Can you always divide them? I think I have some sized 50 groups that can't be divided...with no splinters that I can find.



All my re-sized squadrons can be divided.

(in reply to Mike McCreery)
Post #: 166
RE: Another Question to the Gallery: R&D - 5/5/2014 8:34:18 PM   
Mike McCreery


Posts: 4232
Joined: 6/29/2013
Status: offline
quote:

If the air combat didn't turn big air groups into sweepers and escorters with perfect co-ordination, what would be the problem?


But it does....

THAT!!!! is the problem that people have brought up.


_____________________________


(in reply to mind_messing)
Post #: 167
RE: Another Question to the Gallery: R&D - 5/5/2014 11:59:16 PM   
mind_messing

 

Posts: 3393
Joined: 10/28/2013
Status: offline 		May 13th to May 16th, 1942

North Pacific

We get a single torpedo hit on the Honolulu on the 14th as she with the New Mexico and the Idaho along the Aleutians chain.

Attu is now a shell, with everything bar a few support troops and some sound detector sets left sitting on the island.

Forts are building nicely in the Kuriles, with Etorofu and Paramushiro-juma at level 3 and Kunashiri and Onnekotan-jima at level 2 but well on their way to level 3. Shimishuri-jima is nearly at a level 4 airbase, at which point the 150 odd engineers will build forts before being withdrawn to build Hokkaido and Honshu.

Central Pacific

Token garrisons to outlying islands of limited value are being dispatched. I doubt SNLF companies will hold back an full-out American sub invasion, but it will at least force him to do things properly.

We get some JAAF bombers in to Roi-Namur to run ASW patrols. This isn't permanant, as I want IJN floatplanes to do the bulk of work in this theater, but we're hampered by being stuck with Pete's and Alf's.

Troops are en-route to Alinglaplap, and once they arrive, every base in the Marshalls that has a potential airbase size of 5 will be garrisoned.

South-West Pacific

Nothing new here.

I'm still unsure over the value of building up an airbase at Tassarafonga and at the Russell Islands. While this would leave us with a fantastic airbase complex for torpedo strikes, it is a big investment, and one that will be wasted if the Allies take a different axis of advance.

We'll wait and see.

Austrailia

The plan to take Darwin works perfectly. The 1st Tank Regiment takes the city with the help of IJN paratroopers, while paratroopers seize Fenton, which has been abandoned. IJA troopers are unloading in the harbour, and a host of troop transports are en-route to move the bulk of air support to the size 7 airbase - courtesy of ABDA!

With this, we'll be in a position to destroy the Allied forces in Katherine within a week or two. The two trailing IJA divisions are one hex out from the battle, and their arrival will give the IJA the advantage.

Four slow IJN battleships depart this theater for Singapore and the Akyab bombardment run while Fuso is being sent for repairs in Singapore.

Burma

In an effort to force the Allies to play the air war game here, I've contrived a series of deep raids behind the lines. There are several bomber bases undefended by fighters that I plan to hit, as well as Diamond Harbour and Calcutta, both of which have ships in port. I'm waiting for more bombers and some Zero's to arrive in-theater before conducting the really deep raids: we'll only have one turn to inflict maximum damage before everything is moved out of range.

Ledo airbase is bombed with the loss of a couple of Allied aircraft. The Allies react by moving in fighters. We'll sweep those fighters in a few days, while our numerous recon planes keep finding us fresh targets.

China

Quiet. We're building up to another attack at Chungking while hunting down the Chinese stragglers outside it.

Some KMT corps make an appearence in north-east China and kick around a garrison. We'll move some local forces to deal with them.


Guess what arrives in a few days...


< Message edited by mind_messing -- 9/25/2014 5:48:48 PM >

(in reply to Mike McCreery)
Post #: 168
RE: Another Question to the Gallery: R&D - 5/6/2014 1:26:24 AM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		If you use the south west pacific to isolate/slow supply buildup of Oz it can be viable to develop, but still very costly. However, for that to work you need to take Perth...or threaten the supply line to Perth.

If you simply build it up into a festung, it is easily bypassed to the north or extreme north or the India/Burma front.

If you leave it open and concentrate further north, then the Allies steamroll thru there making the backdoor of the DEI vulnerable.

Perhaps the answer lies somewhere between the extremes.

To a degree you can funnel the Allied advance, but they have the initiative to pick and choose. Japan needs to be flexible enough to answer.



(in reply to mind_messing)
Post #: 169
RE: Another Question to the Gallery: R&D - 5/6/2014 10:34:34 AM   
Mike McCreery


Posts: 4232
Joined: 6/29/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

If you use the south west pacific to isolate/slow supply buildup of Oz it can be viable to develop, but still very costly. However, for that to work you need to take Perth...or threaten the supply line to Perth.

If you simply build it up into a festung, it is easily bypassed to the north or extreme north or the India/Burma front.

If you leave it open and concentrate further north, then the Allies steamroll thru there making the backdoor of the DEI vulnerable.

Perhaps the answer lies somewhere between the extremes.

To a degree you can funnel the Allied advance, but they have the initiative to pick and choose. Japan needs to be flexible enough to answer.





Even if you take Perth you have to maintain search and interdict forces off of Australia. My opponent took Perth and I simply sent the convoys to Melbourne. It takes longer but the supplies still flow.


_____________________________


(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 170
RE: Another Question to the Gallery: R&D - 5/6/2014 10:46:41 AM   
Lowpe


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

ORIGINAL: Wargmr

Even if you take Perth you have to maintain search and interdict forces off of Australia. My opponent took Perth and I simply sent the convoys to Melbourne. It takes longer but the supplies still flow.


Quite right. There is a lot to learn about the temporary nature of an aggressive Japanese player's conquests from your game.


< Message edited by Lowpe -- 5/6/2014 11:50:06 AM >

(in reply to Mike McCreery)
Post #: 171
RE: Another Question to the Gallery: R&D - 5/6/2014 2:31:31 PM   
mind_messing

 

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

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

If you use the south west pacific to isolate/slow supply buildup of Oz it can be viable to develop, but still very costly. However, for that to work you need to take Perth...or threaten the supply line to Perth.


My chances in the South-West Pacific died with the 4th Division being slaughtered on their transports. Combined with the messy affair at Noumea, I've been left too short on proper combat troops to mount any sort of offensive action. With both Noumea and Luganville developed into formidable bases, I don't have the numbers to bypass and isolate the South-West Pacific, nor the strength to take these bastions and destroy the troops.

At this point in time, I expect Lokasenna would be overjoyed for me to conduct an offensive in an area where my naval assets are exposed to his land-based airpower.

Cutting off Perth is still on the cards for a late 1942 offensive, seeing as the small bases between Broome and Perth haven't been heavily developed. We'll get some recon up and start planning.

quote:

If you simply build it up into a festung, it is easily bypassed to the north or extreme north or the India/Burma front.

If you leave it open and concentrate further north, then the Allies steamroll thru there making the backdoor of the DEI vulnerable.

Perhaps the answer lies somewhere between the extremes.


I've tried my best to remember why I invaded Northern Austrailia. It was to destroy the stack of ABDA troops in Darwin. I'm still working towards that goal.

Northern Austrailia is going to be nothing more than a holding action: once the ABDA stack in Katherine is defeated I'll leave two or three Naval Guards or a IJA regiment behind forts in Darwin to make the Allies fight for it.

If the Allies steamroller wants to push up through Northern Austrailia into the DEI, it's in a very difficult position. From my own limited experience in the region and AAR's that I've read, Darwin needs supplied from the sea. My ownership of Broome and Port Moresby/Horn Island prevents this, and while Broome could be taken from the land, any supply convoys would need to run past torpedo bases on Timor.

I may even build Bathurst Island into a size 2 airbase to base Val's to keep the Allies out for good.

On the whole, I'd welcome an Allied move through Australia to the DEI. It would be logistically difficult without free access to Darwin, while I'd have the advantage of Palambang, Singapore and Java providing a logisticall base within a few days sail of the frontlines.

quote:

To a degree you can funnel the Allied advance, but they have the initiative to pick and choose. Japan needs to be flexible enough to answer.


That's only too true. I'm trying to lay the groundwork for an Allied push from just about any direction by building up rear-area bases: when the Allies do make a move, I want to be able to get big convoys moving units in as quick as possible.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wargmr


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

If you use the south west pacific to isolate/slow supply buildup of Oz it can be viable to develop, but still very costly. However, for that to work you need to take Perth...or threaten the supply line to Perth.

If you simply build it up into a festung, it is easily bypassed to the north or extreme north or the India/Burma front.

If you leave it open and concentrate further north, then the Allies steamroll thru there making the backdoor of the DEI vulnerable.

Perhaps the answer lies somewhere between the extremes.

To a degree you can funnel the Allied advance, but they have the initiative to pick and choose. Japan needs to be flexible enough to answer.





Even if you take Perth you have to maintain search and interdict forces off of Australia. My opponent took Perth and I simply sent the convoys to Melbourne. It takes longer but the supplies still flow.




That is why I don't make much effort towards interdicting supply convoys. Unless it's an all-out effort, the Allies will simply go around. Adding a week or two onto Allied shipping times isn't worth the risk you put IJN assets at.

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 172
RE: Another Question to the Gallery: R&D - 5/6/2014 7:09:44 PM   
Lowpe


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

ORIGINAL: mind_messing
I've tried my best to remember why I invaded Northern Austrailia. It was to destroy the stack of ABDA troops in Darwin. I'm still working towards that goal.


Sometimes, it is easy to lose sight of the original goal.

My earlier post was not specific advice for your game, just kind of my views on the southwest pacific. And, perhaps it is more of a scenario 1 type outlook.







(in reply to mind_messing)
Post #: 173
RE: Another Question to the Gallery: R&D - 5/6/2014 8:01:52 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline 		I don't have any advice for you, but your current moves are making me think a lot about the pros and cons of taking actions that won't last for the effects of making the Allies work to reverse them.

We're at a similar point in our game, with Loka doing things to throw tables and chairs in my path, but which I can reverse after awhile. The VPs will swing back to me, but what is the time worth?

< Message edited by Bullwinkle58 -- 5/6/2014 9:01:45 PM >

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to mind_messing)
Post #: 174
RE: Another Question to the Gallery: R&D - 5/7/2014 12:26:35 AM   
mind_messing

 

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

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

I don't have any advice for you, but your current moves are making me think a lot about the pros and cons of taking actions that won't last for the effects of making the Allies work to reverse them.


Regarding Northern Austrailia, it's the only sensible move to make. I'm a big fan of spoiling attacks, and the Austrailian invasion is a prime example of it:

- Lokasenna had turned Darwin into a festung with ABDA refugees and some British and Austrailian divisions. It was probably equal parts a speedbump and a investment for a campaign into the DEI.
- I isolate the base, bring superior force to bear, and will hopefully destroy all the troops shortly.
- Once that's done, I'll withdraw out of Darwin and leave some Naval Guards to keep the Rising Sun flying.

I'll collect a nice bunch of VP's, while Lokasenna will be out of a great many units, the prime stepping off point for a DEI campaign and the time he has to spend reclaiming Darwin.

Noumea would probably have been another good example of it, had the superior force (the 4th Division) not been destroyed.

All too often I find that Japanese players think that any blow against the Allies needs to be massive on scale. Taking big bites out of the Allies is apt to give the Empire a fatal case of indigestion: small mouthfulls are digested quciker, leaving room for seconds. Sure, I've not crushed the Allies will to fight, nor captured all of Austrailia, but I'll have destroyed some pretty valuable British and Austrailian units and gave the DEI a nice big buffer zone.

quote:

We're at a similar point in our game, with Loka doing things to throw tables and chairs in my path, but which I can reverse after awhile. The VPs will swing back to me, but what is the time worth?


Time is paramount to Japan, in nearly every way.

While the Allies outgrow the Japanese in every respect, the Japanese really need to get to '44 for the massive number of unrestricted IJA reinforcements. The Japanese don't get much in the way of ground combat LCU's, other than small IJN units and what's bought out with PP's, but if they can enter '44 with the Allies behind the historical timeline, they'll have plenty of unrestricted divisions and brigades to defend the "must-have" areas in the inner permimiter.

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 175
RE: Another Question to the Gallery: R&D - 5/7/2014 2:30:44 AM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline 		I essentially "gave" him Darwin and somewhat regretted it. But not sure now. He also got Noumea, Suva, Luganville, etc. and it's a boat of VPs to swim upstream against. My macro plan was to let him, once I saw how aggressive he was (didn't know him as a player at all), and hope he'd go broke trying to supply it all. I think supply is thin, but he has a lot of real estate. More than I've ever worked against in PBEM or AI games.

I'm spending the middle of 1942 working north and west in Northern Oz. He didn't bring nearly what you have, but it's been enough to hurt given how little supply flows north.

< Message edited by Bullwinkle58 -- 5/7/2014 3:31:08 AM >

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to mind_messing)
Post #: 176
RE: Another Question to the Gallery: R&D - 5/7/2014 12:04:02 PM   
mind_messing

 

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

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

I essentially "gave" him Darwin and somewhat regretted it. But not sure now. He also got Noumea, Suva, Luganville, etc. and it's a boat of VPs to swim upstream against. My macro plan was to let him, once I saw how aggressive he was (didn't know him as a player at all), and hope he'd go broke trying to supply it all. I think supply is thin, but he has a lot of real estate. More than I've ever worked against in PBEM or AI games.

I'm spending the middle of 1942 working north and west in Northern Oz. He didn't bring nearly what you have, but it's been enough to hurt given how little supply flows north.


Giving up Darwin is probably the best move. A Japanese landing at Wydham, as I've done, gives the defenders of Darwin a choice: run south or be cut off. Loka went for the latter, probably to tie my troops up, but it's a trade. He's tied five divisions down for a few months, but he'll lose irreplacable units (the British and Oz Divisions).

In truth, Northern Oz is a crappy place for the Allies to fight. You can't supply the place, your logistical train is exposed for the entire trip from Perth to Darwin and theterrain is open, which means whatever side has air superiority will have a massive advantage, and considering the lack of supply, it will be the Japanese.

The Japanese, on the other hand, have Java, Palembang and Singapore all close at hand, as well as the ready-built bases on Timor to cover their logistics, and they can isolate the SLOC to Darwin by the capture of Port Moresby/Horn Island and Broome, all exposed positions.

I'd say to Allied players: don't defend Darwin. Build up the Western coast of Oz and make Darwin an untenable position for the Japanese.

I wouldn't be worried about real-estate: I'm sitting at roughly the historical perimiter (bar China and NorPac), and I'm hard-pressed to garrison it all, let alone supply it.

Building up Western Oz is a good move. It's a requirement to have airbases from Perth to Darwin in order to get supply into Darwin, and once the Allies are closer to Darwin than Broome, Northern Austrailia becomes a very exposed position for Japan.


(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 177
RE: Another Question to the Gallery: R&D - 5/7/2014 12:23:52 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline 		He has about 25,000 men in Darwin. I only know the ID of one base force unit. Some air, mostly Sallys. I've been using a lot of my B-17s from Alice to do what I can. I'm about to re-take Broome. All I've been able to operate with up north is armor, and Oz has more of that than most Allied areas early. Fortunately the IJA has terrible anti-armor capability. Also re-took Wyndham.

I'm trying to get a Level 2 AF at Katherine (I took up to Felton and stopped) to snipe Darwin. I have three subs trying to cut off Darwin, but of course he gets 2-3 supply ships in at will. Aircraft are already in Oz once I get in range, but that's pretty hard given the roads. The Aussie national command is at Daly Waters trying to pull some of that legendary 25,000 supply to itself, but so far nothing. (Sydney has 550,000 supply, Melbourne, over 200,000 and Alice about 85,000, so it's available.) If I can get Katherine operational the equation changes and I foresee him pulling out of Darwin fro Timor.

I hate DEI campaigns and never wanted to use Darwin for that anyway. But northern Oz is a lot of VPs. He forced this campaign on me. I need the VPs, so we fight. Similar to the Aleutians. I will have them, he's fought hard there, losing most of the MKB over them, but if he'd left them alone I wouldn't have come close to the Kuriles for years.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to mind_messing)
Post #: 178
RE: Another Question to the Gallery: R&D - 5/7/2014 12:52:35 PM   
mind_messing

 

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

I hate DEI campaigns and never wanted to use Darwin for that anyway. But northern Oz is a lot of VPs. He forced this campaign on me. I need the VPs, so we fight. Similar to the Aleutians. I will have them, he's fought hard there, losing most of the MKB over them, but if he'd left them alone I wouldn't have come close to the Kuriles for years.


Darwin has a value all of its own as a threat to the DEI. Darwin built up to it's maximum and some 4E's based from it would make me concerned. Even better, I'm sure that the Eastern DEI oil centers can be smashed by B-17s from Darwin.

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 179
RE: Another Question to the Gallery: R&D - 5/7/2014 10:01:37 PM   
Bullwinkle58


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

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

I hate DEI campaigns and never wanted to use Darwin for that anyway. But northern Oz is a lot of VPs. He forced this campaign on me. I need the VPs, so we fight. Similar to the Aleutians. I will have them, he's fought hard there, losing most of the MKB over them, but if he'd left them alone I wouldn't have come close to the Kuriles for years.


Darwin has a value all of its own as a threat to the DEI. Darwin built up to it's maximum and some 4E's based from it would make me concerned. Even better, I'm sure that the Eastern DEI oil centers can be smashed by B-17s from Darwin.


I'd have to count to Soerbaja. Not sure. B-17s lose range with about every model upgrade. The longest legs are the pre-war Ds I think. The Fs are only 18 hexes I believe. There are a couple of dog & cat oil sources (Baola sp?), but nothing big unless Soerbaja is in range. And Soerbaja is going to be crawling with fighters.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to mind_messing)
Post #: 180
Page:   <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: Another Question to the Gallery: R&D Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   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

0.984