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: BattleMoose Versus Endy, help a Newbie (No Endy please)

 
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: BattleMoose Versus Endy, help a Newbie (No Endy please) Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: BattleMoose Versus Endy, help a Newbie (No Endy ple... - 9/9/2014 3:53:43 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline 		2:1

12 to 6

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 31
RE: BattleMoose Versus Endy, help a Newbie (No Endy ple... - 9/9/2014 4:56:07 PM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 18046
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

2:1

12 to 6

Not sure what you are getting at here Moose? I agree that 2:1 is reasonable odds in most match-ups, but I am arguing that the Chinese lack of heavy weapons, leadership, morale and experience makes success impossible at 2:1 and unlikely until nearly 10:1.
Would be happy to hear others' take on the situation though. I have found many times what I concluded during my play is not always what is going on!

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 32
RE: BattleMoose Versus Endy, help a Newbie (No Endy ple... - 9/9/2014 5:41:29 PM   
Mike McCreery


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

ORIGINAL: BattleMoose

I chose discretion and not to counter attack and Chungking.

Supplies at Chengtu were 7800 and required at 4000 so just short again. Was a good idea but didn't work, sending all the units back to fortress Chengtu. He is raiding Chengtu with Tojos last turn,he lost 9 and I lost 16 of various airframes, hawks, cobras, and hurris. Going to try and deplete the units of airframes and withdraw them.


I think you chose well here as the Chinese are at quite a disadvantage. He attacked you in favorable terrain. The tables would be turned if you attacked him inside the city. It is a city hex isnt it?

He lost over 3 divisions worth of men and equipment. Bravo!! It is not so much the troops he lost but the supplies it will take to replace them.

_____________________________


(in reply to BattleMoose)
Post #: 33
RE: BattleMoose Versus Endy, help a Newbie (No Endy ple... - 9/9/2014 6:18:28 PM   
Lokasenna


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

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

2:1

12 to 6

Not sure what you are getting at here Moose? I agree that 2:1 is reasonable odds in most match-ups, but I am arguing that the Chinese lack of heavy weapons, leadership, morale and experience makes success impossible at 2:1 and unlikely until nearly 10:1.
Would be happy to hear others' take on the situation though. I have found many times what I concluded during my play is not always what is going on!


What he means is that IJ squads are worth twice what Chinese squads are worth. 12 Chinese devices destroyed = 1 VP. 6 destroyed IJ devices = 1 VP.

I don't think you need 10:1. There are more factors than raw AV - experience, morale, supply, disruption...terrain... Add it all up and take your best guess as to the result, and order accordingly.

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 34
RE: BattleMoose Versus Endy, help a Newbie (No Endy ple... - 9/9/2014 6:21:22 PM   
Lokasenna


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

ORIGINAL: Wargmr


quote:

ORIGINAL: BattleMoose

I chose discretion and not to counter attack and Chungking.

Supplies at Chengtu were 7800 and required at 4000 so just short again. Was a good idea but didn't work, sending all the units back to fortress Chengtu. He is raiding Chengtu with Tojos last turn,he lost 9 and I lost 16 of various airframes, hawks, cobras, and hurris. Going to try and deplete the units of airframes and withdraw them.


I think you chose well here as the Chinese are at quite a disadvantage. He attacked you in favorable terrain. The tables would be turned if you attacked him inside the city. It is a city hex isnt it?

He lost over 3 divisions worth of men and equipment. Bravo!! It is not so much the troops he lost but the supplies it will take to replace them.


Unfortunately for our plucky Allied player, it doesn't cost supply to repair disabled devices (to my knowledge) - only replace destroyed devices. Not many devices were destroyed, it seems. From a Japanese perspective, this is actually a pretty good result. The most important bits: forts dropped to 5, and not many devices destroyed. Not losing devices means that the accumulated XP from the attack isn't watered down by taking replacements. That's more important than the supply factor, in my opinion. At least in China where the IJ player can have as much supply as he wants with relative ease.

(in reply to Mike McCreery)
Post #: 35
RE: BattleMoose Versus Endy, help a Newbie (No Endy ple... - 9/9/2014 6:25:43 PM   
witpqs


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

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna


quote:

ORIGINAL: Wargmr


quote:

ORIGINAL: BattleMoose

I chose discretion and not to counter attack and Chungking.

Supplies at Chengtu were 7800 and required at 4000 so just short again. Was a good idea but didn't work, sending all the units back to fortress Chengtu. He is raiding Chengtu with Tojos last turn,he lost 9 and I lost 16 of various airframes, hawks, cobras, and hurris. Going to try and deplete the units of airframes and withdraw them.


I think you chose well here as the Chinese are at quite a disadvantage. He attacked you in favorable terrain. The tables would be turned if you attacked him inside the city. It is a city hex isnt it?

He lost over 3 divisions worth of men and equipment. Bravo!! It is not so much the troops he lost but the supplies it will take to replace them.


Unfortunately for our plucky Allied player, it doesn't cost supply to repair disabled devices (to my knowledge) - only replace destroyed devices. Not many devices were destroyed, it seems. From a Japanese perspective, this is actually a pretty good result. The most important bits: forts dropped to 5, and not many devices destroyed. Not losing devices means that the accumulated XP from the attack isn't watered down by taking replacements. That's more important than the supply factor, in my opinion. At least in China where the IJ player can have as much supply as he wants with relative ease.

I always thought it did, no?

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 36
RE: BattleMoose Versus Endy, help a Newbie (No Endy ple... - 9/9/2014 6:27:21 PM   
witpqs


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

ORIGINAL: Wargmr

quote:

ORIGINAL: BattleMoose

I chose discretion and not to counter attack and Chungking.

Supplies at Chengtu were 7800 and required at 4000 so just short again. Was a good idea but didn't work, sending all the units back to fortress Chengtu. He is raiding Chengtu with Tojos last turn,he lost 9 and I lost 16 of various airframes, hawks, cobras, and hurris. Going to try and deplete the units of airframes and withdraw them.


I think you chose well here as the Chinese are at quite a disadvantage. He attacked you in favorable terrain. The tables would be turned if you attacked him inside the city. It is a city hex isnt it?

He lost over 3 divisions worth of men and equipment. Bravo!! It is not so much the troops he lost but the supplies it will take to replace them.

+1

Wise not to counter attack there. Sometimes it pays, but usually in open terrain with little or no Imperial air attacks supporting their ground troops. The Chinese units are better on defense than on offense.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Mike McCreery)
Post #: 37
RE: BattleMoose Versus Endy, help a Newbie (No Endy ple... - 9/9/2014 6:52:20 PM   
Lokasenna


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

ORIGINAL: witpqs


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

Unfortunately for our plucky Allied player, it doesn't cost supply to repair disabled devices (to my knowledge) - only replace destroyed devices. Not many devices were destroyed, it seems. From a Japanese perspective, this is actually a pretty good result. The most important bits: forts dropped to 5, and not many devices destroyed. Not losing devices means that the accumulated XP from the attack isn't watered down by taking replacements. That's more important than the supply factor, in my opinion. At least in China where the IJ player can have as much supply as he wants with relative ease.

I always thought it did, no?


I feel like I looked it up not so long ago. I remember Obvert being in that thread also. I'll try to find it and edit the info in to this post.

I seem to recall that there is no mention of a cost to repair devices - simply that LCUs need to have supply on hand to repair them. No supply, no repairs, but that doesn't mean that supplies are deducted to repair the device... subtle distinction.

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 38
RE: BattleMoose Versus Endy, help a Newbie (No Endy ple... - 9/9/2014 7:13:32 PM   
witpqs


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

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

Unfortunately for our plucky Allied player, it doesn't cost supply to repair disabled devices (to my knowledge) - only replace destroyed devices. Not many devices were destroyed, it seems. From a Japanese perspective, this is actually a pretty good result. The most important bits: forts dropped to 5, and not many devices destroyed. Not losing devices means that the accumulated XP from the attack isn't watered down by taking replacements. That's more important than the supply factor, in my opinion. At least in China where the IJ player can have as much supply as he wants with relative ease.

I always thought it did, no?


I feel like I looked it up not so long ago. I remember Obvert being in that thread also. I'll try to find it and edit the info in to this post.

I seem to recall that there is no mention of a cost to repair devices - simply that LCUs need to have supply on hand to repair them. No supply, no repairs, but that doesn't mean that supplies are deducted to repair the device... subtle distinction.

Unable to find it in the manual.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 39
RE: BattleMoose Versus Endy, help a Newbie (No Endy ple... - 9/9/2014 7:50:03 PM   
Lokasenna


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

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

Unfortunately for our plucky Allied player, it doesn't cost supply to repair disabled devices (to my knowledge) - only replace destroyed devices. Not many devices were destroyed, it seems. From a Japanese perspective, this is actually a pretty good result. The most important bits: forts dropped to 5, and not many devices destroyed. Not losing devices means that the accumulated XP from the attack isn't watered down by taking replacements. That's more important than the supply factor, in my opinion. At least in China where the IJ player can have as much supply as he wants with relative ease.

I always thought it did, no?


I feel like I looked it up not so long ago. I remember Obvert being in that thread also. I'll try to find it and edit the info in to this post.

I seem to recall that there is no mention of a cost to repair devices - simply that LCUs need to have supply on hand to repair them. No supply, no repairs, but that doesn't mean that supplies are deducted to repair the device... subtle distinction.

Unable to find it in the manual.


Same, which combined with my in-game experience (I have not looked at it very closely, but units with disabled devices don't appear to use extra supply while repairing) leads me to believe that there isn't a cost to repair. You just need to be "in supply" and pass a check. Going to see if I can find any data in Tracker, but I'm doubtful.

Having trouble finding that thread, too.

Edit: I did find this thread, where Alfred says units consume more supply while recovering from disablements - http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3428992#

No idea how to quantify that, though... not without careful attention while sandboxing.

< Message edited by Lokasenna -- 9/9/2014 8:52:45 PM >

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 40
RE: BattleMoose Versus Endy, help a Newbie (No Endy ple... - 9/9/2014 8:03:23 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline 		My conclusion is that disabled devices don't appear to cause an increase in supply consumption. In fact, the opposite appears to be true: disabled devices appear to decrease the amount of supply required by a unit. As devices repair, the unit requires more supply.

If you think about it a little bit (but not too much), this makes sense. The manual references that disabled squads are half the "troop value" in the count of infantry/troops at a base. You can also notice this in the combat report - squads that are disabled are about 6 casualties, while destroyed squads are about 12 casualties. Unless of course they were disabled before being destroyed, in which case they are 6 casualties.

Here's one data point that seems to confirm my hypothesis:




Notice how, when the unit becomes entirely disabled (with a few devices lost), the supply needed drops from 32 to 28 (this value would have been based on the previous day's combat usage, modified by disabled device supply usage), and then to 27 on the following day when the unit has already recovered half of its AV (though there is also motorized support present).

Supply needed then slowly climbs back to 32 once the unit has reached its maximum AV again. In the past turn or two, the unit has been fully repaired.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Lokasenna -- 9/9/2014 9:03:50 PM >

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 41
RE: BattleMoose Versus Endy, help a Newbie (No Endy ple... - 9/9/2014 8:12:06 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline 		Another data point. I'm not cherrypicking here - I'm picking units that I moved out of the Chungking hex for recovering, so that there is no skewing from combat or anything like that. Each unit that I've looked at so far has demanded less supply when it has had disabled elements than it did at full.

Also, I've been keeping a spreadsheet with a record of how many disabled/destroyed devices in my LCUs, so that I can get a better "quantitative" grasp of what's going on. This particular LCU suffered 95 disabled devices and only 2 destroyed in the combat that occurred during this screenshot of Tracker. So those 2 destroyed devices were replaced almost right away, and we're looking at the increased supply demand as those 95 other disabled devices are repaired. I haven't been tracking that little Armored Car Co., as it's had other jobs and only recently came to Chungking.

I doubt I will ever be able (or want) to quantify exactly how much of a difference there is between repaired and disabled squads in terms of supply demand.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 42
RE: BattleMoose Versus Endy, help a Newbie (No Endy ple... - 9/9/2014 8:51:11 PM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 18046
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline 		If I recall correctly from that recent discussion (which I also remember seeing but can't remember where - but I can plead age-related forgetfulness ), there was a change made in the latest Beta that took away supply consumption for repair, but kept the check to ensure supply was present.
Alfred's response about supply being used was in 2013 and may have referred to previous iterations of the game.

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 43
RE: BattleMoose Versus Endy, help a Newbie (No Endy ple... - 9/10/2014 3:14:47 AM   
Lokasenna


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

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

If I recall correctly from that recent discussion (which I also remember seeing but can't remember where - but I can plead age-related forgetfulness ), there was a change made in the latest Beta that took away supply consumption for repair, but kept the check to ensure supply was present.
Alfred's response about supply being used was in 2013 and may have referred to previous iterations of the game.


So now I should go dig through the changelogs...

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 44
RE: BattleMoose Versus Endy, help a Newbie (No Endy ple... - 9/10/2014 9:38:59 AM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

Unfortunately for our plucky Allied player, it doesn't cost supply to repair disabled devices (to my knowledge) - only replace destroyed devices. Not many devices were destroyed, it seems. From a Japanese perspective, this is actually a pretty good result. The most important bits: forts dropped to 5, and not many devices destroyed. Not losing devices means that the accumulated XP from the attack isn't watered down by taking replacements. That's more important than the supply factor, in my opinion. At least in China where the IJ player can have as much supply as he wants with relative ease.

I always thought it did, no?


I feel like I looked it up not so long ago. I remember Obvert being in that thread also. I'll try to find it and edit the info in to this post.

I seem to recall that there is no mention of a cost to repair devices - simply that LCUs need to have supply on hand to repair them. No supply, no repairs, but that doesn't mean that supplies are deducted to repair the device... subtle distinction.

Unable to find it in the manual.


Same, which combined with my in-game experience (I have not looked at it very closely, but units with disabled devices don't appear to use extra supply while repairing) leads me to believe that there isn't a cost to repair. You just need to be "in supply" and pass a check. Going to see if I can find any data in Tracker, but I'm doubtful.

Having trouble finding that thread, too.

Edit: I did find this thread, where Alfred says units consume more supply while recovering from disablements - http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3428992#

No idea how to quantify that, though... not without careful attention while sandboxing.


Not what I said.

Re read closely what I did say and you would have found no need to test your hypothesis.

I said as the unit recovers disablements, it's [ie the unit itself] supply consumption increases.

Alfred

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 45
RE: BattleMoose Versus Endy, help a Newbie (No Endy ple... - 9/10/2014 9:46:27 AM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline 		As to counter attacking at Chungking.

this was the one occasion when an immediate next day Chinese shock counter attack was in order.  Look at the huge number of disabled enemy infantry squads (but also guns etc), almost all of which would have remained disabled the next day.  With the large support squad casualties the infantry recovery would not be that efficient for a few days also.

The net result is that the following day only about 1/3 of the original enemy raw AV would have remained.  A Chinese shock attack stood a good chance of overpowering the remaining enemy firepower.  Remember firepower is a combination of soft value and quantum of devices.

Alfred

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 46
RE: BattleMoose Versus Endy, help a Newbie (No Endy ple... - 9/10/2014 11:09:59 AM   
MrBlizzard


Posts: 636
Joined: 4/16/2012
From: Italy
Status: offline 		You should put a temporary stockpiling option to YES in Chengdu before moving out troops so that supplies stay inside and requirements lower.
Losing a\c in combat before withdrawing the group is a good option indeed.

_____________________________

Blizzard

(in reply to BattleMoose)
Post #: 47
RE: BattleMoose Versus Endy, help a Newbie (No Endy ple... - 9/10/2014 11:24:38 AM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MrBlizzard

You should put a temporary stockpiling option to YES in Chengdu before moving out troops so that supplies stay inside and requirements lower.
Losing a\c in combat before withdrawing the group is a good option indeed.


That will not work.

Stockpiling only prevents export of surplus to another base, not to units out in the field. Besides which the base needs 3x before it registers a surplus anyway.

Alfred

< Message edited by Alfred -- 9/10/2014 12:25:46 PM >

(in reply to MrBlizzard)
Post #: 48
RE: BattleMoose Versus Endy, help a Newbie (No Endy ple... - 9/10/2014 1:14:36 PM   
MrBlizzard


Posts: 636
Joined: 4/16/2012
From: Italy
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrBlizzard

You should put a temporary stockpiling option to YES in Chengdu before moving out troops so that supplies stay inside and requirements lower.
Losing a\c in combat before withdrawing the group is a good option indeed.


That will not work.

Stockpiling only prevents export of surplus to another base, not to units out in the field. Besides which the base needs 3x before it registers a surplus anyway.

Alfred

Ops...
And what about setting supplies requirements level of the base before moving out? This I'm pretty sure should work

_____________________________

Blizzard

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 49
RE: BattleMoose Versus Endy, help a Newbie (No Endy ple... - 9/10/2014 2:31:03 PM   
Lokasenna


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

ORIGINAL: Alfred

Not what I said.

Re read closely what I did say and you would have found no need to test your hypothesis.

I said as the unit recovers disablements, it's [ie the unit itself] supply consumption increases.

Alfred


Ha. Yeah, I failed at reading comprehension there.

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 50
RE: BattleMoose Versus Endy, help a Newbie (No Endy ple... - 9/15/2014 2:48:27 AM   
BattleMoose

 

Posts: 231
Joined: 2/17/2014
Status: offline 		Its been an eventful weekend, played a lot of turns.

Hunter hunted in the Indian Ocean.

My opponent had regularly been using CAs to raid my logistics chain. I have moved major logistic operations to the Cape Town -> Perth region. And placed assets to intercept any raiding force. It came and spotted only one of my SAG groups, and the enemy was placed inbetween two of my SAGs, both two hexes away with Heremes a few hexes further south. It couldn't have been any better. There was a night surface action between my CA/CL force and his cruisers, I was outgunned and got the worst of it but was very inconclusive. No major damage to the enemy but a few hits. Fast forward my trying to intercept and failing and then he shows up with 3? CVEs and smacked BB Resolution which was out of fuel! (one turn away from an AO). I had strong cruisers in the area and for the next few turns tried to intercept his CVEs but was just failing. Told Hermes to turn tail, too vulnerable to air attacks. Stupidly my AO and escorting DD transferred ALL their fuel to Resoultion and was now dead in the water. It was quite the Saga but ended badly for the Allies. Losses were Resolution, one CA, one AO (trinity), Japanese no losses and very mild damage to cruisers, very frustrating affair.

China
After moving (and foolishly overstacking) units out of Chengtu and back again I think I lost a lot of supply and went I moved things back I had 4000 supply, while building forts! The airlift continues and seems very effective, supply is increasing by about 400 a turn and sit at 12000 now. My opponent did try doing sweeps over Chengtu but air combat results were favourable to me! And he hasn't done any more sweeps for the past 2 weeks? All his air assets are hitting Chungking. I withdrew 3 RAF squadrons from Chengtu and have some USA/N air squadrons heading to India. He tried another attack on Chungking, suffered 1800 combat squads destroyed but got the forts down another level. Chungking will fall, but not sure when, might still hold out for some time. Chengtu is at forts 5 now. Starting on building an airbridge to Kashgar, northern most part of the map, building up the airbases. And have a lot of USA heavy bomber squadrons all training for transport. Don't have many targets for them to bomb so, might as well fly supplies into China. I have about 60 B17s on Fiji.

Foolishness at Luganville
My inexperience really showed here! I positioned a fast cruiser force, 6 cruisers, 2 DD, 4 DMS 10 hexes away from Luganville, not spotted. Been probing his search arcs. Sent them in full speed for bombard. Apparently they can do 18 hexes in full speed, but lies! The paused 1 hex away from Luganville!!! Don't know why but they didn't come under air attack. Should have just bugged out but I figured, move one hex, bombard and flee. I did have my entire CV force, 5 carriers, (lex is sunk and York is in drydock) out of sight and in the area. As well as a 5 BB SAG group, so was prepared to support these CA should they need it. My orders were.

CA force, bombard luganville, retirement, base Suva. (At least I think I did, maybe I got the orders wrong here?)
CV force, full speed and follow CA.
BB force, mission speed and follow CA force.
CA force was supposed to retire towards Suva!

CA force encountered Jap BB force and exchanged fire, sank a few DD and lost 1 CA, Haruna took about 20 hits and on fire.
CA force stayed in the same hex, did not move at all! Not sure if this was a result of being intercepted and a few surface combats. The more I think about it I think I must have gotten the orders wrong.
Jap land based air launched a few strikes on my Carriers but were easily defeated.
My Carriers launch large airstrikes on the Japanese 2 BBs. They were covered my LBA and suffered greatly. A lot of strike aircraft got through but severe storms and managed to sink a DD! Thats it. Lost about 100 carrier aircraft for no gain! So, these forces are 1 hex away from Lunganville at the moment, its a bad situation and fully expect KB to show up next turn and wipe out my Carriers.

Lost 1 CA here and another CA is badly damaged with 3 DMS, they will be destroyed I am sure. He's lost 4 DD and Haruna on fire. About equal losses in aircraft but mine are carrier aircraft.

Going to have to check those orders for the CA. I have a good relationship with my opponent, and if it appears I stuffed up those orders he may allow me to reissue them. Otherwise I do have a mulligan in the bag. Many months ago he got too aggressive with KB and I sunk it off of Sydney. Depending on what happens next turn might have to use it, already considering using it.

I seriously need to stop being so damn aggressive. Nothing about this operation went as expected.

< Message edited by BattleMoose -- 9/15/2014 4:05:01 AM >

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 51
RE: BattleMoose Versus Endy, help a Newbie (No Endy ple... - 9/15/2014 4:38:45 AM   
BattleMoose

 

Posts: 231
Joined: 2/17/2014
Status: offline 		I think I know what happened.

I know for certain that I changed the home base for my CA taskforce to Suva, so it would withdraw in that direction and I don't think I reordered its destination. So it would have just stayed put. Will have to wait till I get home to check but I think that's what and how it happened. :-/

(in reply to BattleMoose)
Post #: 52
RE: BattleMoose Versus Endy, help a Newbie (No Endy ple... - 9/15/2014 5:49:56 AM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 18046
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline 		You may have expected that AO to refuel Revenge from the fuel cargo tanks, but early in the game the AOs cannot do this at sea. The only fuel they will transfer is from their own fuel tanks - thus the fuel-less AO.
If you are doing buddy fuel at sea, it is often better to use some long range xAKs to provide the fuel and not risk the AOs.

About the bombardment SNAFU - there are many factors that can keep a TF from moving the full available movement. I think storms can slow you down, and waypoints definitely kill movement.
It is also possible that the DDs were getting too low on fuel and had to take some from the larger ships.

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to BattleMoose)
Post #: 53
RE: BattleMoose Versus Endy, help a Newbie (No Endy ple... - 9/15/2014 6:47:27 AM   
witpqs


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

You may have expected that AO to refuel Revenge from the fuel cargo tanks, but early in the game the AOs cannot do this at sea. The only fuel they will transfer is from their own fuel tanks - thus the fuel-less AO.
If you are doing buddy fuel at sea, it is often better to use some long range xAKs to provide the fuel and not risk the AOs.

I'm not really sure what you mean here. AFAIK and have seen, AO refuel from cargo at sea from the very beginning. The only thing that I recall is that AO used to not be able to get fuel for themselves from their own cargo, but that was changed in a patch (maybe in a Beta).

_____________________________

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

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 54
RE: BattleMoose Versus Endy, help a Newbie (No Endy ple... - 9/15/2014 6:49:51 AM   
BattleMoose

 

Posts: 231
Joined: 2/17/2014
Status: offline 		The AO had fuel in its tanks and storage and after refuelling had no fuel in its tanks or storage. Resolution, the greedy pig, took all the fuel from both tanks leaving AO trinity with no fuel and near certain death. :-/

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 55
RE: BattleMoose Versus Endy, help a Newbie (No Endy ple... - 9/15/2014 6:55:27 AM   
witpqs


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

ORIGINAL: BattleMoose

The AO had fuel in its tanks and storage and after refuelling had no fuel in its tanks or storage. Resolution, the greedy pig, took all the fuel from both tanks leaving AO trinity with no fuel and near certain death. :-/

That makes sense! Yes, that is a bit of a problem with the refuel routine. What version of the game are you running? If a recent Beta, then Michael might be able to look at a save and see if there is something that can be fixed. If an older version, it might be something already fixed.

BTW, I had searched for "Revenge" without success.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to BattleMoose)
Post #: 56
RE: BattleMoose Versus Endy, help a Newbie (No Endy ple... - 9/16/2014 6:07:44 AM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 18046
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: BattleMoose

The AO had fuel in its tanks and storage and after refuelling had no fuel in its tanks or storage. Resolution, the greedy pig, took all the fuel from both tanks leaving AO trinity with no fuel and near certain death. :-/

That makes sense! Yes, that is a bit of a problem with the refuel routine. What version of the game are you running? If a recent Beta, then Michael might be able to look at a save and see if there is something that can be fixed. If an older version, it might be something already fixed.

BTW, I had searched for "Revenge" without success.

I have not played the mods or betas, so it looks like AO refuelling has been enabled since I started playing. I do recall getting jumped on by several of the old hands for suggesting that the difference between an AO and a TK was that the former could refuel ships at sea, while the latter had to be in port.
I was promptly informed that at-sea refuelling was not enabled until something like June of 1944. I'm quite happy if that has been changed!

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 57
RE: BattleMoose Versus Endy, help a Newbie (No Endy ple... - 10/3/2014 1:42:43 AM   
BattleMoose

 

Posts: 231
Joined: 2/17/2014
Status: offline 		Game mechanics questions, sea mines

So I am trying to build up isle of pines and start progressing up the Solomans. Its very early 43 now. There is an airfield and its thrashed and at the moment the island isn't good for much but it is mine. Really need to get more engineers in. But my opponent has taken to bombarding it.

I have placed what must have been hundreds of sea mines in the location. There isn't a port and the mines aren't listed as defensive, does this matter? I actually don't know how to get intel on how many mines I have laid. But really it is some hundreds at this point, probably more. His bombard fleets seem to easily negotiate the hex with no impact from the minefield?

Will I "know" if he hits a mine? Am I doing something wrong?

Cheers

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 58
RE: BattleMoose Versus Endy, help a Newbie (No Endy ple... - 10/3/2014 3:11:13 AM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline 		You might or might not get a message if he hits a mine.

If and when you build the port (IIRC) you will see the mines listed on the base display.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to BattleMoose)
Post #: 59
RE: BattleMoose Versus Endy, help a Newbie (No Endy ple... - 10/3/2014 6:15:10 AM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 18046
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline 		Right - level one minimum port needed to get a count on your mines.
The other thing about mines, if his bombardment fleet seems to be immune to them, is that once the enemy discovers the minefield, his ships will usually avoid them.
It seems to be better to lay about 200 mines initially, and when he finds those, add another 50 or so, and keep doing this so there is always a surprise waiting for him.

IRL, when German subs had figured out the channel through a British minefield, the Brits swept a new channel and then strung a series of mines across the old channel, like rungs on a ladder.
It worked pretty well for the first couple of U-boats but after the Germans caught on they stopped using the old channel. Mine-games never cease!

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: BattleMoose Versus Endy, help a Newbie (No Endy please) Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   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

2.656