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: Headhunter - Lokasenna (A) vs. mind_messing (J) - No MM yet

 
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: Headhunter - Lokasenna (A) vs. mind_messing (J) - No MM yet Page: <<   < prev  19 20 [21] 22 23   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Headhunter - Lokasenna (A) vs. mind_messing (J) - N... - 2/25/2016 11:23:25 PM   
obvert


Posts: 14050
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline 		well done!! that'll hurt.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 601
RE: Headhunter - Lokasenna (A) vs. mind_messing (J) - N... - 2/25/2016 11:24:40 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline 		As for his CAP numbers, the CVs he had there were not very big:

Hiyo/Junyo - size 53, default sizing is 19 VF, 19 VB, and 15 VT

Taiyo-class CVE - size 27, default sizing is 18 VF and 9 VT

Hosho-class CVE - size 18, default sizing is 12 VF and 6 VT (I think). Also possible he kept it as size 20 (pre-9/42 upgrade)

Ryuho-class CVL - size 31, default sizing is 21 VF and 9 VT

His numbers were:

VF - maybe 74 on CAP, 38 on strike (some of that could have been LRCAP)
VB - 34
VT - 99

So he probably had up to 4 DBs on search duty (10% search on each VB unit would do that). The VT numbers actually don't add up - his default size would imply about 72 Jills, whereas he had 99. He probably follows the same practice I do, which is to oversize your units such that your CVs are carrying 110% of their maximum load (115% is the cut off for flight ops).


quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

Awesome! DDs Hatsuharu and Tokitsukaze are going to be cramming an awful lot of survivors onto their decks! Well played!






All I can hear is Homer going, "Woo-hoo!"

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 602
RE: Headhunter - Lokasenna (A) vs. mind_messing (J) - N... - 2/25/2016 11:33:47 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline 		Oh yeah, I'm also doing some of this. I made it all the way to Daito Shoto before being spotted . That area has been somewhat of a shipping nexus around here, I often get submarine attacks on troop/resource/tanker convoys just to the east of it.

I sailed around Iwo Jima and Aogashima, and at one point was within 12 hexes of Chiba/Yokosuka. I sent 3 groups of 2-3 Fletchers. I lost a few, but it was a valuable exercise IMO. I did eventually sink some stuff in late May to the NW of the Marianas, but even more got away. The tally:

Sunk
4 LST
E Kusagaki
2682 reported casualties at sea

Escaped
E Hiyodori
2+ TFs




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 603
RE: Headhunter - Lokasenna (A) vs. mind_messing (J) - N... - 2/25/2016 11:39:12 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline 		Where was I?

Banda Sea - May 15, 1944

Escorting Lexington to Exmouth, which is port 3 at least. Will eventually send her to Perth and then either Colombo or Cape Town, depending on developments. Cape Town is currently repairing a small flock of BBs, CLs, APAs, and soon some CVEs.

KB was at Babeldaob, then came back SW. Note the new aircraft totals - Soryu and Ryujo almost certainly broken off for repairs, and perhaps some others left behind to drop some of that high system damage we saw.

Itsukushima definitely dropped mines at Lautem.

He's been flying paratroopers to Manokwari in an attempt to retake it. Supplies are not great there for me, but I am periodically able to get enough there that I'm comfortable running some search as I'm never in the red, just the yellow. Eventually I'm looking at the bulk of his available paratroops at this point in the war, which is great news for me.

I think this should be the beginning of the end for his Timor adventure. From this point onward I expect to be able to keep the airfields at Dili and Lautem closed almost every day, leaving just Koepang and Roti while I am more able to run supplies to Babar, Saumlaki, and even Lautem (still via sub for the time being).

I have some YMS on the way to clear out those mines on the cheap.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 604
RE: Headhunter - Lokasenna (A) vs. mind_messing (J) - N... - 2/25/2016 11:44:13 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline 		Last one before I head for home and many hours of housework. Laying tile tonight...

Score - May 15, 1944

Allied VPs: +2884
Japanese VPs: +581
Ratio: 1.231:1 against, a change of +.067

He lost 1250 planes, again almost up to an average of 100 per day, while I lost just 510.

On the day of the MKB battle, Japan lost 386 planes to my 150. The single day change in VP margin was +1331 for me - the biggest single day gain of the war so far, for obvious reasons.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 605
RE: Headhunter - Lokasenna (A) vs. mind_messing (J) - N... - 2/25/2016 11:49:26 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		I am kind of amazed, at this late date, that he would operate his carriers in two different groups.

What Japanese planes are giving you fits, if any? Or is it just the sheer numbers.

I guess using A6M2 with Jills isn't so bad as the cruise speed matches up, but I was surprised to see them in use.

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 606
RE: Headhunter - Lokasenna (A) vs. mind_messing (J) - N... - 2/26/2016 12:51:48 AM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

I am kind of amazed, at this late date, that he would operate his carriers in two different groups.

What Japanese planes are giving you fits, if any? Or is it just the sheer numbers.

I guess using A6M2 with Jills isn't so bad as the cruise speed matches up, but I was surprised to see them in use.


I don't think I've seen the A6M2 in a while. I think it was the A6M5? I also haven't seen any real penalties from the disparities in cruise speed. I know it can happen, it just doesn't seem to happen a lot.

It's really more the quantity of planes than the quality. The George and Frank can really beat up on my Hellcats, and sometimes Corsairs, but the P-47s are winning for me. But when we're talking several bases all with 100+ planes on day CAP and 20-30 on night CAP, in each theater... it's absurd. It takes the required naval air support through the roof and makes it all but impossible to invade anywhere. So long as KB is around to counter, it's going to be tough going. With no KB, I can just let his LBA fly into my CAP for a few days and then land wherever I please. But there's a KB.

The Ki-100 and Jack seem to counter P-38 sweeps pretty well, so I haven't been using them as much anymore.

Also, CV Taiho took a torpedo shortly before all of this, off Babeldaob. Her planes are now seeming to operate out of Kyushu (Taiho-3 attacked my DDs outside Daito Shoto), so I assume she's currently repairing.

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 607
RE: Headhunter - Lokasenna (A) vs. mind_messing (J) - N... - 2/26/2016 1:24:19 AM   
Sangeli


Posts: 1132
Joined: 3/29/2012
From: San Francisco
Status: offline 		Nicely done crushing the Mini-KB!

I'm interested in your CAP settings. Originally I thought there may have been an advantage with setting fighters to either 100% CAP or 100% escort. However, upon some tests against the AI I couldn't see any real advantage in CAP performance compared to the standard 40% CAP levels. How did you decide to use the 100% CAP or escort scheme?

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 608
RE: Headhunter - Lokasenna (A) vs. mind_messing (J) - N... - 2/26/2016 2:21:38 AM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sangeli

Nicely done crushing the Mini-KB!

I'm interested in your CAP settings. Originally I thought there may have been an advantage with setting fighters to either 100% CAP or 100% escort. However, upon some tests against the AI I couldn't see any real advantage in CAP performance compared to the standard 40% CAP levels. How did you decide to use the 100% CAP or escort scheme?


To make sure that I knew exactly what each unit was doing and leaving nothing to chance. With 40% CAP, range 7 (for example, for USN CVs), I feel less comfortable with being able to manage fatigue and morale on my units. It is also difficult to cycle them. In this case, if I need to stick around for another day of battles, I can adjust my CAP and escort units according to which ones are best suited to remaining on strike escort duty and which can fly CAP (albeit at reduced levels, probably). This calculus can also help me decide if it's even feasible to stick around.

With range 7 (or 8 for IJN) CAP settings, it's also more likely that the units will get worn out trying to defend other hexes, and if their morale/fatigue gets too low they may fail the check(s) to escort the strike (I think these exist?). Obviously, the flip side to this with range 0 is that everything has to be in the same hex or a TF might be left out in the open with its pants down. In my many times of doing this (every invasion in the other game, and this game), this hasn't happened because I am very careful with my TF movement settings. I make sure all TFs can get to the hex at the speed settings being used, or else I divert some CVEs to cover those that lag behind. I use direct/absolute on every TF in every instance. I want them to go exactly where I tell them to go.

IIRC, in this case I left my CAP at 100% or maybe I only dropped it to 90%, as I was escorting Lexington away at only 2-3 hexes per turn.

Using 100% CAP and 100% escort also allows me to pick which pilots are going to get sacrificed escorting the strike in. I don't think I've ever used my elite pilots (avg. 80+) on anything but CAP. So it's also pilot management.

(in reply to Sangeli)
Post #: 609
RE: Headhunter - Lokasenna (A) vs. mind_messing (J) - N... - 2/26/2016 2:36:54 AM   
zuluhour


Posts: 5244
Joined: 1/20/2011
From: Maryland
Status: offline 		Thank you for sharing that. I seldom mention how I handle naval air. I think it depends a lot on how many and
how large the incoming strikes are expected to be. Four strikes by KB in a day I thought would wear out those
100% levels. I have to do some rethinking. (as always in this game). Then there's day 2...but your fatigue levels
here are very manageable for a day 2.....

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 610
RE: Headhunter - Lokasenna (A) vs. mind_messing (J) - N... - 2/26/2016 3:27:35 AM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: zuluhour

Thank you for sharing that. I seldom mention how I handle naval air. I think it depends a lot on how many and
how large the incoming strikes are expected to be. Four strikes by KB in a day I thought would wear out those
100% levels. I have to do some rethinking. (as always in this game). Then there's day 2...but your fatigue levels
here are very manageable for a day 2.....


It depends on the size of the incoming strikes and how many planes get damaged, how long it takes to shoot things down, etc. But I agree - you can run 100% CAP for up to 2 days before you're in the 30s on fatigue. You can run 90% CAP, so long as it's range 0, for at least 3 and maybe 4...

When I land somewhere and need lots of CAP, I set about 50% on the day I expect I might be detected, then 70-80% on all the next day, and I might go to 90% while covering the landings, just to be sure.

I'd rather lose a few dozen planes and pilots, and maybe a dozen to Ops losses, than a single APA, for example.

(in reply to zuluhour)
Post #: 611
RE: Headhunter - Lokasenna (A) vs. mind_messing (J) - N... - 2/26/2016 3:44:08 AM   
Sangeli


Posts: 1132
Joined: 3/29/2012
From: San Francisco
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna
To make sure that I knew exactly what each unit was doing and leaving nothing to chance. With 40% CAP, range 7 (for example, for USN CVs), I feel less comfortable with being able to manage fatigue and morale on my units. It is also difficult to cycle them. In this case, if I need to stick around for another day of battles, I can adjust my CAP and escort units according to which ones are best suited to remaining on strike escort duty and which can fly CAP (albeit at reduced levels, probably). This calculus can also help me decide if it's even feasible to stick around.

With range 7 (or 8 for IJN) CAP settings, it's also more likely that the units will get worn out trying to defend other hexes, and if their morale/fatigue gets too low they may fail the check(s) to escort the strike (I think these exist?). Obviously, the flip side to this with range 0 is that everything has to be in the same hex or a TF might be left out in the open with its pants down. In my many times of doing this (every invasion in the other game, and this game), this hasn't happened because I am very careful with my TF movement settings. I make sure all TFs can get to the hex at the speed settings being used, or else I divert some CVEs to cover those that lag behind. I use direct/absolute on every TF in every instance. I want them to go exactly where I tell them to go.

IIRC, in this case I left my CAP at 100% or maybe I only dropped it to 90%, as I was escorting Lexington away at only 2-3 hexes per turn.

Using 100% CAP and 100% escort also allows me to pick which pilots are going to get sacrificed escorting the strike in. I don't think I've ever used my elite pilots (avg. 80+) on anything but CAP. So it's also pilot management.

This reads like something I would write...I can tell you have a very similar thought process to me.

That being said, I'm not sure I agree with everything. First and foremost is the tradeoff between area CAP that can provide protection for nearby TFs and dealing with morale/fatigue issues. To me it seems a 40% CAP fighter unit at range 8 won't really have fatigue/morale issues unless they are also being forced to escort bombers for multiple turns as well. And by using area CAP theoretically you could let the CVTFs react to the Japanese and have more operational freedom, yes? And given that CVTFs seem to react no matter what you do in some circumstances, this seems like a more prudent measure. And as for the pilot argument, I can see it going the other way as well. If you put your bad pilots on 100% escort they are going to be flying far fewer missions than the 100% CAP units and therefore won't gain much over time. So I could see that you would be stuck with one cadre of very very good pilots and another mediocre tier which stays stagnant as they aren't flying many missions.

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 612
RE: Headhunter - Lokasenna (A) vs. mind_messing (J) - N... - 2/26/2016 4:52:47 AM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sangeli

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna
To make sure that I knew exactly what each unit was doing and leaving nothing to chance. With 40% CAP, range 7 (for example, for USN CVs), I feel less comfortable with being able to manage fatigue and morale on my units. It is also difficult to cycle them. In this case, if I need to stick around for another day of battles, I can adjust my CAP and escort units according to which ones are best suited to remaining on strike escort duty and which can fly CAP (albeit at reduced levels, probably). This calculus can also help me decide if it's even feasible to stick around.

With range 7 (or 8 for IJN) CAP settings, it's also more likely that the units will get worn out trying to defend other hexes, and if their morale/fatigue gets too low they may fail the check(s) to escort the strike (I think these exist?). Obviously, the flip side to this with range 0 is that everything has to be in the same hex or a TF might be left out in the open with its pants down. In my many times of doing this (every invasion in the other game, and this game), this hasn't happened because I am very careful with my TF movement settings. I make sure all TFs can get to the hex at the speed settings being used, or else I divert some CVEs to cover those that lag behind. I use direct/absolute on every TF in every instance. I want them to go exactly where I tell them to go.

IIRC, in this case I left my CAP at 100% or maybe I only dropped it to 90%, as I was escorting Lexington away at only 2-3 hexes per turn.

Using 100% CAP and 100% escort also allows me to pick which pilots are going to get sacrificed escorting the strike in. I don't think I've ever used my elite pilots (avg. 80+) on anything but CAP. So it's also pilot management.

This reads like something I would write...I can tell you have a very similar thought process to me.

That being said, I'm not sure I agree with everything. First and foremost is the tradeoff between area CAP that can provide protection for nearby TFs and dealing with morale/fatigue issues. To me it seems a 40% CAP fighter unit at range 8 won't really have fatigue/morale issues unless they are also being forced to escort bombers for multiple turns as well. And by using area CAP theoretically you could let the CVTFs react to the Japanese and have more operational freedom, yes? And given that CVTFs seem to react no matter what you do in some circumstances, this seems like a more prudent measure. And as for the pilot argument, I can see it going the other way as well. If you put your bad pilots on 100% escort they are going to be flying far fewer missions than the 100% CAP units and therefore won't gain much over time. So I could see that you would be stuck with one cadre of very very good pilots and another mediocre tier which stays stagnant as they aren't flying many missions.



I think we approach land combat in much the same way, from your previous posts in some other AARs. In any case, a couple of points for response.

CV reaction has been tweaked, but even before I would have (and did) done it this way. CVs now react a maximum of 1 time, as it was always supposed to be. When they did react more, in my case (each of my TFs always has some CAP) they all reacted together.

For the escort units being lower XP, it's not that they're not skilled. I try to use guys who are 60+ at least, if possible. 70+ is better. But a CV that stays alive is a CV that can keep putting out damage. In MMO parlance, dead DPS is no DPS. The same applies to carriers, IMO, so I use my best pilots for CAP and the second-best for escort.

Oh, and obviously while there's no action, I train them all. A month or so of running CAP can turn a 50-55 XP pilot into 60+ easily.

< Message edited by Lokasenna -- 2/26/2016 4:53:20 AM >

(in reply to Sangeli)
Post #: 613
RE: Headhunter - Lokasenna (A) vs. mind_messing (J) - N... - 2/26/2016 6:55:21 AM   
Sangeli


Posts: 1132
Joined: 3/29/2012
From: San Francisco
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna
CV reaction has been tweaked, but even before I would have (and did) done it this way. CVs now react a maximum of 1 time, as it was always supposed to be. When they did react more, in my case (each of my TFs always has some CAP) they all reacted together.

CVs may react together but I've had CVEs not accompany, even if the CV TF was set to follow the CVE TF. But in that case almost assuredly into the KB meaning that the area CAP is probably the last thing you want. I think I may switch to 100% CAP/escort now...

Another question I have is how do you handle providing air cover to fast BB TFs you might break off the Deathstar for bombardment. Do you ever LRCAP them from CVs? If so what settings do you use?

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 614
RE: Headhunter - Lokasenna (A) vs. mind_messing (J) - N... - 2/26/2016 7:17:06 AM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sangeli


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna
CV reaction has been tweaked, but even before I would have (and did) done it this way. CVs now react a maximum of 1 time, as it was always supposed to be. When they did react more, in my case (each of my TFs always has some CAP) they all reacted together.

CVs may react together but I've had CVEs not accompany, even if the CV TF was set to follow the CVE TF. But in that case almost assuredly into the KB meaning that the area CAP is probably the last thing you want. I think I may switch to 100% CAP/escort now...

Another question I have is how do you handle providing air cover to fast BB TFs you might break off the Deathstar for bombardment. Do you ever LRCAP them from CVs? If so what settings do you use?


I don't really do this. If I do, it's when I'm already within range - a move in and then out for the bombardment routine, so they'll already be almost as far away as they were before. I rely more on the retirement routine from the bombardment than on LRCAP to protect them. I choose "home port" carefully.

If I do LRCAP, I set no more than 70% in "normal" circumstances - threat is not overly much, and range will not be more than 4-5 once the air phase comes around. I always set drop tanks on the LRCAP groups. In most cases, I LRCAP using LBA rather than carrier based cover. If I LRCAP from carriers, it is almost always from CV/CVL type that can't go to the invasion beach without the 50% penalty, in which case I will usually stand 1-2 hexes off and set 70% LRCAP with some groups. This usually eliminates my ability to strike as all fighters are on defensive duties. I'm OK with this, because in many cases gaining the territory is more important than sinking some ships or bombing some airfields. Not that I am against harvesting VPs from ships and planes when it is possible, but gaining territory so that I can harvest more when my opponent feels that he must defend and the balance has swung too far in my favor is more important to me. An inexorable, implacable advance. A tsunami of steel. I think somebody said that once? Maybe it's the title of a book.


In each of my Allied games I am actually finding the fast BBs to be more useful as heavy surface forces in a separate TF than within the CV TFs themselves. If they are in the same hex, there is still a chance they will soak attacks instead of the more fragile CVs, but the BBs are themselves great weapons. I have a glut of AKEs (converted many) so I can rearm them almost anywhere.

All of this kind of dances around the fact that I use certain routings of sea forces and invasions while avoiding others. Sometimes on this forum I see a sort of squid-like attack on targets such as the Marianas or Marshalls, and I've even done it. When facing possible aerial resistance, I would never perform an advance like that. Everything in one hex on its way in, with roving Fletchers moving ahead if there is a surface threat (they're the only thing I'm willing to risk, as they often require more planes to kill them than they're worth in VPs). Maybe it's not historical or realistic to cram everything into one hex (only 5000 square miles in that hex, after all) - but neither is Japan having 1,000,000 torpedoes.

(in reply to Sangeli)
Post #: 615
RE: Headhunter - Lokasenna (A) vs. mind_messing (J) - N... - 2/26/2016 11:33:07 AM   
obvert


Posts: 14050
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline 		One thing to watch if running high levels of anything for multiple days without actions is airframe fatigue. I've aid close attention to this due to playing the Japanese side with decidedly more fragile airframes flying. Even USN units though can take 30-50 points airframe fatigue from flying multiple days set to strike. Then when the encounter happens they go down more easily than one would expect.

Starting any new venture I like to set all to 0 for a few days, then embark for the 5-7 days it may take in a potential combat zone to invade or interdict, then get out.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 616
RE: Headhunter - Lokasenna (A) vs. mind_messing (J) - N... - 2/26/2016 5:02:30 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline 		Banda Sea - May 31, 1944

2 weeks later and we're keeping Dili/Lautem pretty well suppressed. He is basing up to 100-150 planes at Koepang, Roti, and sometimes Waingapoe but I am also able to "reach out and touch" these places at times. My air support west of Darwin could use improvement. VB/VT-16 from Lexington are at Wyndham along with the VB/VT from Intrepid, and there's only 16 Air Support there.

Supplies from subs now working again to Lautem. We lost SST Narwhal to 2 mine hits on May 18. Nautilus and Argonaut eventually hit mines also, and are now repairing (ARD moved to Gove). Several other SS hit mines also. Our YMS sweep for the first time on May 22, and we lose several to Lily dive bombers. They're only 1 point apiece, though. He also starts to bomb the place regularly with Helens from Kendari, but they rarely cause any casualties and our supplies are climbing again. He only attacks once, on May 22, for 3300 IJA casualties to just 60-some Allies. This may have been the last attack he's tried.

Kaimana captured by paratroops on May 18. Will fly in some Seabees and supplies and build it up. This was one of my initial targets. We'll use it in tandem with Biak later to put pressure on Boela/Sorong.

Also flying long range recon to Balikpapan, Ternate, Talaud-Eilanden, Davao, etc.... searching for KB, but also checking out troop/plane numbers. They are usually empty of planes, and none have more than a single division. He really throws everything at the front lines.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 617
RE: Headhunter - Lokasenna (A) vs. mind_messing (J) - N... - 2/26/2016 5:04:49 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline 		Southwest Pacific - May 31, 1944

Oh, hello there. Note that we're also checking up on Tarakan (we captured it via SST a while back and forced him to damage the Oil/Refinery when taking it back, so I wanted accurate production numbers on the place), and Cotabato.

I should've recorded the troop numbers here also. Oops.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 618
RE: Headhunter - Lokasenna (A) vs. mind_messing (J) - N... - 2/26/2016 5:09:35 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline 		New Guinea - May 31, 1944

This is a day after the bombardment fiasco of Biak where our guys were 6 hexes away yet only moved 4 to "bombard" and then decided to retreat, despite what should've been correct settings. I believe Michael is currently working on a tweak/fix for this, as posted in the thread in the main forum.

I still get mad about it when I think about it. That's 200 VPs I have to "pay for" now, and Tennessee is out for at least a year with Boise damaged as well.

There isn't really much to say here, except that I'm continuing the low risk little ship advance. We're actually getting ahead of prep, and since he always has at least a mixed brigade in a place, I need that prep to be as close to 100 as possible. We're going to invade Biak shortly, but then the jump to Sansapor and Sorong will be much more risky because all of the Moluccas are built up a little bit, and the trio of Waigeo/Sorong/Sansapor have AF 4-6 each. We're not concerned about keeping Boela suppressed with current assets and bases to the SW, but it's going to take longer to jump to the tip of New Guinea. It may require actual amphibious ships that are currently back in Hawaii, prepping to do some work in the Marshalls for SLOC purposes.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 619
RE: Headhunter - Lokasenna (A) vs. mind_messing (J) - N... - 2/26/2016 5:18:51 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline 		Burma - May 31, 1944

Rangoon captured from minimal resistance (a division-plus). He's trying to lure me into the swap now, but I'll just bomb his troops to death with B-25s and Wellingtons. Still have to build up Rangoon's port/AF a little bit for the full VP tally on it.

My movement outside Pegu towards his enormous stack outside Moulmein was meant as decoy movement, but I forgot to cancel all moves and several of my units get trashed, costing me a few hundred VPs in LCUs. This is a mistake I could stand not to make in future. It's an easy one to do - I've done it several times in this game and several times in my other game. When my main force moves over from Rangoon, I intend to push east while feinting SW. If I take the Ragaeng complex from him, it's a much slower walk from Tavoy to Bangkok. I've set up CS convoys from Ceylon now, where I have 1.6M supply (and CS set to bring it in from CT), so supply in Burma will soon cease to be an issue.

Outside Chiang Mai, I have just one decent Chinese Corps (~540 AV, ~50 XP/90+ Morale). They're really there as a distraction, and to take Chiang Mai as soon as he leaves it. He does have 2 Tank Divisions heading this way, which is great news for me. I'd much rather they were up here than elsewhere with better terrain. I will have to keep my eyes on Chiang Mai for them, so I can bomb in case they try to rail out.

Check the recon to the SE . I'm not heading there anytime soon as the timing is crucial - I need them to get to my targets in tandem with some other things happening, in a couple of months. There are units at Hanoi, so I will need to stay more than 1 hex away from there because of the "adjacent units" free recon. I began prepping the units (a few HQ's in the stack) for Saigon, just in case. Supplies are a challenge, obviously, but will get better if/when I get Chiang Mai.

Port Blair will be ours soon, and Little Andaman has a brigade on it with some support troops. We'll have to go back to Ceylon for the African Division to take care of it.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 620
RE: Headhunter - Lokasenna (A) vs. mind_messing (J) - N... - 2/26/2016 5:41:01 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline 		Pirates of the Pacific: The Joy of Fletchers - May 15 & 16, 1944

Going back in the month a little bit, I know I alluded to Fletcher raiders deep in Japanese territory - from the Bonins and onwards. I got all the way through the Bonins with all 3 groups and wasn't detected until the second day that they were adjacent to Daito Shoto, searching for convoys. If I had a single Glen I-boat on my side, imagine what I could've done here...

As it is, our boys in the Philippine Sea do contact several convoys and we caught some fish up near Daito Shoto and at Naha as well.

May 15
quote:


Night Time Surface Combat, near Daito Shoto at 95,81, Range 8,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
xAK Natisan Maru, Shell hits 1
xAK Imizu Maru, Shell hits 2
xAK Kanko Maru, Shell hits 2, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
xAK Kaiko Maru, Shell hits 2, heavy fires
APD T-1, Shell hits 1, on fire
APD T-2, Shell hits 7, heavy fires, heavy damage

Allied Ships
DD Guest
DD Hazelwood

--------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat, near Daito Shoto at 97,81, Range 8,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
xAK Natisan Maru
xAK Imizu Maru
APD T-1, Shell hits 7, heavy fires

Allied Ships
DD Capps
DD Chevalier
DD Kimberly

--------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat, near Naha at 95,66, Range 4,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
SC Ch 50, Shell hits 6, and is sunk

Allied Ships
DD Poterfield
DD Tingey

--------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat, near Naha at 95,66, Range 8,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
xAKL Columbia Maru, Shell hits 5, on fire
PB Tsuneshima Maru, Shell hits 4, on fire, heavy damage
xAKL Nichirin Maru, Shell hits 5, on fire
PB Tsukikawa Maru, Shell hits 1, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk

Allied Ships
DD Porterfield
DD Tingey

--------------------------------
Night Naval bombardment of Naha at 95,66 - Coastal Guns Fire Back!

Japanese aircraft losses
E13A1 Jake: 2 damaged
Ki-49-IIb Helen: 1 damaged

41 Coastal gun shots fired in defense

Allied Ships
DD Tingey
DD Porterfield

Japanese ground losses:
17 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled

Manpower hits 1
Fires 70
Runway hits 6

--------------------------------
Day Time Surface Combat, near Naha at 95,66, Range 15,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
E No. 15, Shell hits 6, heavy fires, heavy damage
PB Magane Maru, Shell hits 2
xAK Giyu Maru
xAK Hasuna Maru, Shell hits 1
xAK Kyuma Maru, Shell hits 1
xAK La Plata Maru
xAK Minryo Maru, Shell hits 6, on fire
xAK Shozan Maru
xAK Tatsuaki Maru, Shell hits 2

Allied Ships
DD Porterfield
DD Tingey

--------------------------------
Day Time Surface Combat, near Iwo-Jima at 100,79, Range 18,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
xAK Natisan Maru, Shell hits 28, and is sunk
xAK Imizu Maru, Shell hits 34, and is sunk

Allied Ships
DD Guest
DD Hazelwood


Really wish my bombardment TF had run into that xAK TF before bombarding.


May 16
quote:


Day Time Surface Combat, near Iwo-jima at 102,81, Range 18,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
CMc Kurokami, Shell hits 13, and is sunk
PB Sinko Maru, Shell hits 22, heavy fires, heavy damage
xAK Anzan Maru, Shell hits 33, and is sunk
xAK Hoeisan Maru, Shell hits 21, and is sunk
xAK Tamaki Maru, Shell hits 27, and is sunk

Allied Ships
DD Capps
DD Chevalier
DD Kimberly


Also down at Boela, we sink AMC Bankok Maru, 1 "Super E", and 2-5 xAKs. All with Fletchers.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 621
RE: Headhunter - Lokasenna (A) vs. mind_messing (J) - N... - 2/26/2016 5:44:29 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline 		Score - May 31, 1944

Allied VPs: +4365
Japan VPs: +534
Ratio: 1.136:1 against, a change of +.095

A bit slower in the air, but still over a 2:1 in our favor during this period.

PPs going back up.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 622
RE: Headhunter - Lokasenna (A) vs. mind_messing (J) - N... - 2/26/2016 5:54:03 PM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 8262
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline 		Nice to see you updating again!

I´ll try to catch up tomorrow!

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 623
RE: Headhunter - Lokasenna (A) vs. mind_messing (J) - N... - 2/26/2016 6:35:49 PM   
Lowpe


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

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna
He really throws everything at the front lines.



Very interesting.

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 624
RE: Headhunter - Lokasenna (A) vs. mind_messing (J) - N... - 2/26/2016 7:01:24 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline 		Japanese Industry

What's this, Japanese industry being covered in an Allies AAR?! Yup. A little while back, during a gap in turns, I was curious about something. I should have started taking advantage of the implications of his MechaGroups and propensity for rebuilding dead LCUs much sooner. Mostly I didn't out of risk aversion (care for my bomber pools), but also out of laziness when doing the turns. The cat and mouse game with unescorted bomber strikes on potentially CAPped bases is tedious. But each time he upgrades a group or takes replacement planes (in the dozens...) it costs him a chunk of supply, and then there's the rebuilding... A strategic goal of mine is to run him out of supply and fuel in 1945 by taking advantage of his tendency to sail his capital ships hither and thither to respond to everything he can reach, and all of the supply he expends in air/ground operations (for example on Timor).

In any case, I went through every single base Japan controlled with industry and added it to a spreadsheet. At first I was just doing this for aircraft and engine factories because I was curious about his production numbers, and I know this knowledge is not perfect as if he expands a factory, I won't see that happen on the map for a while.

Numbers here are current as of June 10, 1944. At this point, I figure we might have 500 days left of the war, which takes the date up to about 1946. So each point of HI is worth 1000 supplies, and each point of LI is worth 500. I've bombed out about 200 points of HI and maybe 100-200 points of LI in China in the past few months. I filtered the spreadsheet by region. Yellow highlights are current or recent targets - places I need to check up on to see if the numbers have changed. Now that I have Port Blair and Rangoon, I am working on trasnferring Liberator recon planes up here, which will also help with getting hits.

You can see that I added up his total ARM/VEH factories as well. Obviously, I can't know if they (or aircraft/engine factories) are turned on or not, or which of his aircraft factories are R&D and therefore not currently costing him HI, but it does give me an idea of what his total potential production is. At this point his engines should all be in production, so assuming none are turned off (probably not turned off, to meet that potential 3800 planes per month) then engines alone are costing him 1842.6 HI per day. If he's able to keep all those refineries fed, his Fuel deficit per day is still somewhere around north of 10K/day, plus fleet costs . Basically, there's a lot of inferences that can be drawn from this information.

Of note, he expanded the Hong Kong HI to 100 and I think expanded the LI a bit as well.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 625
RE: Headhunter - Lokasenna (A) vs. mind_messing (J) - N... - 2/26/2016 7:07:46 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna
He really throws everything at the front lines.



Very interesting.



It works OK for him, but I'm not sure if he has taken the industrial cost of this into account. I say that it works OK for him, or at least it appears to in the present, because he is able to stall me out in some cases. Sometimes it's because I didn't bring enough to capture a base (Saumlaki). Other times, it's because I brought enough to eventually capture a base, but he reinforces such that I need to bring yet more (Kusaie, and to an extent Lautem - my initial landing here was not too far off from enough). Yes, this stalls me, but it costs him in terms of fuel to get them there, supply to fly the planes, and supply to feed his troops in combat instead of at rest. There's also the opportunity cost of pilot training: so far as I can tell, he has almost every unit that can be bought out on the front lines, and very few doing training or rear area protection. That's the only way I can account for the sheer numbers of planes I face in every theater. I compare to my game, which is scenario 2 and therefore I think even more friendly to me in terms of planes, and the numbers I'm facing off against are inconceivable for me to put in place without sacrificing a lot of training.

If he runs out of supply, and I find out about it, it's all going to come tumbling down around his ears rather quickly. At least that's my wishful thinking on the matter. So long as I'm careful about force attrition on my side, I think I'll be alright.

I'm already thinking that he might be running low on Timor. He hasn't intentionally bombarded in a while, and he might be running low at Boela - he was either trying to pick up troops, get Resources out, or drop off supply recently and I sank or tried to sink the ships doing so. Now that I'm able to bomb these airfields pretty much daily, it's at least heading in that direction. I know from defending against Bullwinkle that air raids can destroy a frightening amount of supply rather quickly sometimes .

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 626
RE: Headhunter - Lokasenna (A) vs. mind_messing (J) - N... - 2/26/2016 11:31:59 PM   
zuluhour


Posts: 5244
Joined: 1/20/2011
From: Maryland
Status: offline 		Reading along with witpqs we should be able to tell how and when supply becomes an issue for Japan. He has his opponent in an ever tightening choke hold.
So far I have not seen any apparent effect.

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 627
RE: Headhunter - Lokasenna (A) vs. mind_messing (J) - N... - 2/27/2016 1:43:34 AM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: zuluhour

Reading along with witpqs we should be able to tell how and when supply becomes an issue for Japan. He has his opponent in an ever tightening choke hold.
So far I have not seen any apparent effect.


But is his opponent using size 81 groups, which sometimes get decimated and need to be rebuilt? Doing so should burn a lot of supply. We'll see... I'm just going to keep hammering away at the Chinese bases I don't see myself needing supplies at if I retake them (that's all but about 2), especially while I wait for ships and men to get into place.

(in reply to zuluhour)
Post #: 628
RE: Headhunter - Lokasenna (A) vs. mind_messing (J) - N... - 2/27/2016 8:35:49 AM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 8262
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline 		Not sure you have the troops to spare but I always try to have some troops prepped in reserve in case the Japanese do what they did at Kusaie. Its a good way to kill Japanese troops and makes the Japanese player wary of reinforcing in the future.

On critical landings I always try and have a full Corps in reserve.

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 629
RE: Headhunter - Lokasenna (A) vs. mind_messing (J) - N... - 2/27/2016 10:55:10 AM   
witpqs


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

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna


quote:

ORIGINAL: zuluhour

Reading along with witpqs we should be able to tell how and when supply becomes an issue for Japan. He has his opponent in an ever tightening choke hold.
So far I have not seen any apparent effect.


But is his opponent using size 81 groups, which sometimes get decimated and need to be rebuilt? Doing so should burn a lot of supply. We'll see... I'm just going to keep hammering away at the Chinese bases I don't see myself needing supplies at if I retake them (that's all but about 2), especially while I wait for ships and men to get into place.

I don't think so, unless some exist naturally. We had an email discussion recently (just off-hand, not sparked by anything) and he mentioned that the max-out re-sizing of groups is something he doesn't like to do.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 630
Page:   <<   < prev  19 20 [21] 22 23   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: Headhunter - Lokasenna (A) vs. mind_messing (J) - No MM yet Page: <<   < prev  19 20 [21] 22 23   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

0.813