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: Gnashing of Teeth: Cries of Fury

 
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: Gnashing of Teeth: Cries of Fury Page: <<   < prev  119 120 [121] 122 123   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Gnashing of Teeth: Cries of Fury - 8/16/2017 7:36:03 PM   
Lowpe


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

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

Shinden. Jack. George-5. Etc.




PDU off, baby!

Only have 1 Jack Squadron now, and it gets yanked in 44. Three more eventually arrive. I think I will have 4 George Squadrons that stick around. Shindens upgrade from George-5 I believe and only 2-3 squadrons.

Of the fighters only the Ki94 is around with more than 6 squadrons.


But do you really want to switch IJN factories to IJA? I mean, you might, given how the OOB shifts away from IJN F-squadrons and towards IJA F-squadrons...

PDU Off is garbage. Mega dislike. It's tantamount to something like forcing a historical offensive/counteroffensive timetable. /preach



PDU off is not well developed or thought out, imho. It skips entire models of planes; it severely handicaps the night fighters which I think is pretty much a death knell for Japan, and really hamstrings kamikazes.

You should be able to at least field a squadron or two of all planes -- perhaps a PP purchase or something. If I were to do it again, I feel many changes need to be made in the editor to address these concerns.

It is well intentioned though.

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 3601
RE: Gnashing of Teeth: Cries of Fury - 8/17/2017 11:55:31 AM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		Nov 24, 1943

No Allied deliberate attacks anywhere...






Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 3602
RE: Gnashing of Teeth: Cries of Fury - 8/17/2017 12:04:05 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		Allies unleash their 4E bombers at Madang, but don't attack.


Morning Air attack on Madang , at 97,123

Weather in hex: Thunderstorms

Raid detected at 66 NM, estimated altitude 11,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 22 minutes

Allied aircraft
B-25C Mitchell x 13
A-20G Havoc x 8
B-17E Fortress x 3
B-24D1 Liberator x 35
B-24J Liberator x 40
B-25C Mitchell x 14
B-25D1 Mitchell x 28
B-25G Mitchell x 27
PB4Y-1 Liberator x 21

No Allied losses

Japanese ground losses:
78 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 5 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 6 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Airbase hits 20
Airbase supply hits 10
Runway hits 42

Aircraft Attacking:
10 x PB4Y-1 Liberator bombing from 9000 feet
Airfield Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb
11 x PB4Y-1 Liberator bombing from 9000 feet
Airfield Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb
13 x B-25C Mitchell bombing from 9000 feet
Ground Attack: 6 x 500 lb GP Bomb
14 x B-25C Mitchell bombing from 9000 feet
Ground Attack: 6 x 500 lb GP Bomb
3 x B-24J Liberator bombing from 9000 feet
Ground Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb
14 x B-24J Liberator bombing from 9000 feet
Ground Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb
3 x B-24D1 Liberator bombing from 9000 feet
Ground Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb
3 x B-24D1 Liberator bombing from 9000 feet
Ground Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb
3 x B-25D1 Mitchell bombing from 9000 feet
Ground Attack: 6 x 500 lb GP Bomb
12 x B-25D1 Mitchell bombing from 9000 feet
Ground Attack: 6 x 500 lb GP Bomb
13 x B-25D1 Mitchell bombing from 9000 feet
Ground Attack: 6 x 500 lb GP Bomb
3 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 9000 feet
Airfield Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb
6 x B-25G Mitchell bombing from 9000 feet
Ground Attack: 6 x 500 lb GP Bomb
12 x B-24D1 Liberator bombing from 9000 feet
Ground Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb
6 x B-24D1 Liberator bombing from 9000 feet
Ground Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb
3 x B-24D1 Liberator bombing from 9000 feet
Ground Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb
2 x A-20G Havoc bombing from 9000 feet
Ground Attack: 4 x 500 lb GP Bomb
3 x B-24J Liberator bombing from 9000 feet
Ground Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb
6 x B-25G Mitchell bombing from 9000 feet
Ground Attack: 6 x 500 lb GP Bomb
15 x B-25G Mitchell bombing from 9000 feet
Ground Attack: 6 x 500 lb GP Bomb
8 x B-24J Liberator bombing from 9000 feet
Ground Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb
3 x B-24J Liberator bombing from 9000 feet
Ground Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb
9 x B-24J Liberator bombing from 9000 feet
Ground Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb
8 x B-24D1 Liberator bombing from 9000 feet
Ground Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb
3 x A-20G Havoc bombing from 9000 feet
Ground Attack: 4 x 500 lb GP Bomb
3 x A-20G Havoc bombing from 9000 feet
Ground Attack: 4 x 500 lb GP Bomb

Also attacking 7th Indpt SNLF Coy ...
Also attacking 46th JAAF AF Bn ...
Also attacking 7th Indpt SNLF Coy ...
Also attacking Madang ...
Also attacking 46th JAAF AF Bn ...
Also attacking 7th Indpt SNLF Coy ...
Also attacking 46th JAAF AF Bn ...
Also attacking 7th Indpt SNLF Coy ...
Also attacking 46th JAAF AF Bn ...
Also attacking 7th Indpt SNLF Coy ...
Also attacking 46th JAAF AF Bn ...
Also attacking 46th JAAF AF Bn ...
Also attacking 7th Indpt SNLF Coy ...
Also attacking 46th JAAF AF Bn ...
Also attacking Madang ...
Also attacking 46th JAAF AF Bn ...
Also attacking 7th Indpt SNLF Coy ...
Also attacking 46th JAAF AF Bn ...
Also attacking 7th Indpt SNLF Coy ...
Also attacking 46th JAAF AF Bn ...
Also attacking 7th Indpt SNLF Coy ...
Also attacking 46th JAAF AF Bn ...
Also attacking Madang ...
Also attacking 7th Indpt SNLF Coy ...
Also attacking 46th JAAF AF Bn ...
Also attacking 7th Indpt SNLF Coy ...
Also attacking 46th JAAF AF Bn ...
Also attacking 7th Indpt SNLF Coy ...
Also attacking 7th Indpt SNLF Coy ...

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 3603
RE: Gnashing of Teeth: Cries of Fury - 8/17/2017 12:08:11 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		By contrast, here is some Japanese bombing of ground troops in a mountain hex...

Morning Air attack on 92nd Chinese Corps, at 66,47 , near Tsuyung

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid spotted at 10 NM, estimated altitude 4,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 2 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-43-IV Oscar x 6
Ki-45 KAIa Nick x 21
Ki-45 KAIc Nick x 16

No Japanese losses

Allied ground losses:
415 casualties reported
Squads: 1 destroyed, 20 disabled
Non Combat: 11 destroyed, 32 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled

Aircraft Attacking:
16 x Ki-45 KAIc Nick bombing from 100 feet
Ground Attack: 2 x 250 kg GP Bomb
21 x Ki-45 KAIa Nick bombing from 100 feet
Ground Attack: 2 x 250 kg GP Bomb
6 x Ki-43-IV Oscar bombing from 100 feet
Ground Attack: 2 x 250 kg GP Bomb

Also attacking 94th Chinese Corps ...
Also attacking 54th Chinese Corps ...
Also attacking 92nd Chinese Corps ...
Also attacking 54th Chinese Corps ...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on 54th Chinese Corps, at 66,47 , near Tsuyung

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid spotted at 11 NM, estimated altitude 6,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 2 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-43-IV Oscar x 18

No Japanese losses

Allied ground losses:
172 casualties reported
Squads: 1 destroyed, 10 disabled
Non Combat: 5 destroyed, 14 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Aircraft Attacking:
18 x Ki-43-IV Oscar bombing from 100 feet
Ground Attack: 2 x 250 kg GP Bomb



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on NCAC , at 66,47 , near Tsuyung

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid spotted at 21 NM, estimated altitude 8,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 7 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-51 Sonia x 14

No Japanese losses

Allied ground losses:
103 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 10 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Aircraft Attacking:
14 x Ki-51 Sonia bombing from 5000 feet
Ground Attack: 4 x 50 kg GP Bomb

Also attacking 92nd Chinese Corps ...
Also attacking NCAC ...

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 3604
RE: Gnashing of Teeth: Cries of Fury - 8/17/2017 2:46:14 PM   
Bif1961


Posts: 2014
Joined: 6/26/2008
From: Phenix City, Alabama
Status: offline 		I see one difference is that the Japanese are using dive bombers or fighter bombers, which release their loads at a very low altitude in clear weather and you are using multi-engine bombers at over 10K in thunderstorms. Altitude and weather conditions might account for the unequal outcome of these missions.

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 3605
RE: Gnashing of Teeth: Cries of Fury - 8/17/2017 3:19:42 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline 		Also keep in mind that in a sample size of 1... there's a lot of FoW in LCU casualty numbers. Unless you're getting a lot of bombing raids on them, you really have no idea how much damage you actually caused. It reports 418 - it could have been 200. Likewise, the 78 reported for you could have been 120.

Also also, it's easier to hit those big Corps units rather than AF Bn's. More troops there, there's going to be more damage.

In addition to also also, the number of troops reported damaged or destroyed is dependent upon squad size. The raw number will be higher for Chinese than for Japanese as the squad size is slightly larger.

(in reply to Bif1961)
Post #: 3606
RE: Gnashing of Teeth: Cries of Fury - 8/19/2017 2:55:51 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		Nov 25th, 1943

No Allied deliberate attacks.






Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 3607
RE: Gnashing of Teeth: Cries of Fury - 8/19/2017 4:38:31 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		Darwin is now up to an 8th level runway...Allies have so many engineers there. I suspect he plans on bombing the oil in the lower SRA from there, and not venturning into the SRA with troops for a long time.

I managed to upgrade a squadron thru the Tony 61c to the 61d today...a substantial improvement over the 61a. I suspect I will send all 4 of my Tony 61d squadrons to protect the oil in the SRA....once I have them up and flying.

My two George Sentai are still repairing, and I am thinking also of sending the to protect the oil/fight in the lower SRA.

My one Jack squadron is a little worse for wear, down to 19 planes, and I will pull them back for some r&r from Burma.

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 3608
RE: Gnashing of Teeth: Cries of Fury - 8/19/2017 4:41:03 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		I re-allocated my A6M8 facilities to the Sam J and the Kikka.

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 3609
RE: Gnashing of Teeth: Cries of Fury - 8/19/2017 10:56:23 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		Nov 26, 1943

Franks sweep and run into a horde of Jugs...way, too many of them flying. Less than 3-1 in losses, if barely, unfortunately some Hellcats shot down instead of Jugs.

15-1 deliberate attack on the hapless 32nd and 6th Aus Divisions....it will take a while to grind them down into the jungle...they have nowhere to retreat to.






Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 3610
RE: Gnashing of Teeth: Cries of Fury - 8/20/2017 1:30:13 AM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		The Darwin Menace...soon to be a level 9 runway.

That the Allies have so many B29s so early has really thrown a tactical monkey wrench into the works. I was expecting them to show up around Jan of 44 and perhaps not even used till Feb of 44.

Well, what will be will be...I am going to switch my night fighters, few that they are to the oil in the SRA. I am actually doing great pumping oil, and have great fuel stockpiles, but I can't let the Allies get free bombing runs in.

I am also not sure if the Allies will result in night bombing of runways and ports. So far it hasn't happened, but will it? But I will try not to have ships in port that are vulnerable to B29 strikes, and use my planes over the refineries and oil.

Float planes will also be flying night fighter duty to help out. Preferably Petes.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 3611
RE: Gnashing of Teeth: Cries of Fury - 8/20/2017 4:02:41 AM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe



PDU off is not well developed or thought out, imho. It skips entire models of planes; it severely handicaps the night fighters which I think is pretty much a death knell for Japan, and really hamstrings kamikazes.

You should be able to at least field a squadron or two of all planes -- perhaps a PP purchase or something. If I were to do it again, I feel many changes need to be made in the editor to address these concerns.

It is well intentioned though.

Yeah, the problem is that IJ historically made a number of bad decisions in terms of aircraft development, and then compounded those by having the bad luck at Midway.

PDU OFF enforces all of those bad decisions upon you, like the total lack of NF squadrons late war forcing you to use regular fighters at night ... or so few groups that can upgrade past Oscar/A6M.

In PDU OFF, I think you go with A7M. Almost all fighter groups can upgrade to it, and it is a better than A6M in every way except range .... You already have Frank, so that is the last fighter that most groups will eventually be allowed to upgrade to.
I don't think researching anything else in a PDU OFF game is worth it ... Just build the aircraft to staff the groups as best you can ....

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 3612
RE: Gnashing of Teeth: Cries of Fury - 8/20/2017 1:09:46 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		Nov 27, 1943

December is coming quick.

There is a very interesting small struggle going on at Madang. I am reinforcing with one unit SNLF unit that is being flown in by flying boat, the other flying boats are evacuating the Rabaul garrison (20K strong) as they struggle back thru the jungle. More on that later.

Did I just get a really great roll? Knocking the sheep herders AV down to 0? I don't think so...the base was going to fall.




It is important to note, but not obvious from the picture, that the sheep herders started the fight at 0 AV.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Lowpe -- 8/20/2017 1:33:55 PM >

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 3613
RE: Gnashing of Teeth: Cries of Fury - 8/20/2017 1:11:38 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		Here is todays bombing run, which targeted only the ground troops. There was about 6 waves of bombers.





Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Lowpe -- 8/20/2017 1:12:25 PM >

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 3614
RE: Gnashing of Teeth: Cries of Fury - 8/20/2017 1:17:19 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		I noticed that the Allies are sweeping heavily, but there is no LRCAP. So, picking thru my available bomber squadrons in the area, I chose some Helen IIa to make a low altitude attack.

I would have preferred fighter bombers to strafe...but none available. Oscars IV would have worked well, I think, but I am uncertain if this unit has any inherent AA fire...and quite frankly, I need the fighters in this theater to perform as fighters. Better to send in a good bomber squadron.

All the bombers sortied, thanks to the HQa and size 5 runway.

As expected, no losses inflicted on the sheep herders...but I had hope.




Pilot skill: Average exp 68; Average ground bombing skill 76. I got to thinking did I nerf my attack because the altitude was set at 4000 feet, and the pilots really need low ground skill. There has been back and forth on this subject and I am not sure what the game engine uses...I don't think so, because every time I do this, I check the pilot skill and like today only ground bombing shows several pilots getting an uptick in skill...never has the low ground bombing skill gone up from a 4K attack that I have observed.

Conversely, when I strafe at 1000 feet, low ground does go up. My observation is that low ground is only used on 1000 foot attacks. This is one of the reasons why most players don't like strafing attacks...as you need to train strafing, low ground, and defense.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Lowpe -- 8/20/2017 1:33:06 PM >

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 3615
RE: Gnashing of Teeth: Cries of Fury - 8/20/2017 1:24:06 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		And the combat result.

Because New Zealanders were listed at 0 in the combat replay, I feel that the Helen bombing was decisive and that this wasn't simply the result of a good roll, although I probably did get a decent roll.k

Of course, you can believe what you want.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 3616
RE: Gnashing of Teeth: Cries of Fury - 8/20/2017 1:43:37 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		I have been using flying boats to pick up these troopers, as best I can. When the Allies took Rabaul, this was pretty much the entire fighting strength in the area.

But the Allies didn't pursue their victory...which has allowed several strong IJA units to arrive in the next line of defense.

10,000 men have made it to the northern beaches of New Britain, and it is a little used tactic, but you can assign fast transports to pick up troops from coastal hexes. I will be shooting to evacuate lots of troopers that way and hoping that the Americans don't have a surface fleet at Rabaul patrolling with intercept range of 2 or more.

We shall see what happens.

Note the SSTs delivering supplies...I love those ships.

These 20,000 men are very important to the defense in this area. They actually have some combat experience now! And that is very rare in today's Japanese Army.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 3617
RE: Gnashing of Teeth: Cries of Fury - 8/20/2017 1:48:49 PM   
Lowpe


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

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

I don't think researching anything else in a PDU OFF game is worth it ... Just build the aircraft to staff the groups as best you can ....


I think that is either misinformed or a function of the mod changes in this case, a rare disagreement between us. Most Frank squadrons can upgrade to the Ki94II. Most Sam squadrons can go to the Sam J. If I can hold the Allies off into 1945, I have a real good chance of fielding them in large numbers.

The others are in such small numbers that it probably isn't worth r&d. Ki83, Shinden, Jets, etc. Randy A and Randy B are worthwhile but don't need much allocated to them.

< Message edited by Lowpe -- 8/20/2017 1:50:11 PM >

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 3618
RE: Gnashing of Teeth: Cries of Fury - 8/20/2017 2:48:58 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		I heard sinking sounds twice two days ago, and was rewarded by seeing the Mingo appear in the sunk ships report. That gives me roughly 8 sunk subs in November, and I think that is roughly my goal - 2 a week at this point in the game.

I have had to allocate lots of Army planes to ASW work, Navy just can't do it alone.

I also am making wholesale changes based on the ASW ships reacting to subs now too.

Here is a look at some E's in Japan's arsenal. The Ukuru is the real Super E.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 3619
RE: Gnashing of Teeth: Cries of Fury - 8/20/2017 4:14:11 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		This turn I am sending in over 100 bombers at Darwin hitting the port. There are over 300 guns there, so I expect flak to be merciless. I am going in at 15K, and in the past flying into heavy flak I have gotten horrible results.

But there are no fighters present, and a dozen AP in the port...which in truth probably are pt boats.

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 3620
RE: Gnashing of Teeth: Cries of Fury - 8/20/2017 5:46:46 PM   
Alfred

 

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

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

... PDU off is not well developed or thought out, imho. It skips entire models of planes; it severely handicaps the night fighters which I think is pretty much a death knell for Japan, and really hamstrings kamikazes...



Au contraire mon ami, it is PDU ON which was not developed or thought out.

PDU ON was introduced in a patch for classical WITP which was initially shipped out with only PDU OFF. The entire Japanese economic and logistical structure was calibrated to work "seamlessly" with PDU OFF. It was only following sustained criticism from predominantly JFBs that essentially a "marketing" decision was made to introduce PDU ON. However in doing so, none of the economic and logistic structure was recalibrated to accommodate this game unbalancing action.

With the exception of wdolson, to the best of my knowledge, none of the devs of either classical WITP or WITP:AE have ever publicly supported the availability of PDU ON. Mike Wood, the coder who wrote the PDU ON code for classical WITP subsequently stated that if he could revisit the issue, he would not have come up with PDU ON as the solution. Several of the AE devs have very clearly stated that they disapprove of the existence of PDU ON. I tend to agree with their reasons for their disapproval.

Even wdolson, the sole AE dev I recall who is not disparaging of it, likes it because it reduces clicks and micromanagement for an Allied player attempting to maintain units at full strength. IOW in a PDU OFF environment where downgrading to an obsolete, but plentiful in the pools, model is not possible combined with the strict fixed quantum of airframes which is delivered to the Allied player, the game is made more "playable" with PDU ON for an Allied player. This difficulty of not being able to downgrade with PDU OFF is not a problem for a Japanese player as they can always configure their aircraft production to produce as many airframes as needed to fully equip their air units.

Alfred

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 3621
RE: Gnashing of Teeth: Cries of Fury - 8/20/2017 5:56:35 PM   
Alfred

 

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

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

And the combat result.

Because New Zealanders were listed at 0 in the combat replay, I feel that the Helen bombing was decisive and that this wasn't simply the result of a good roll, although I probably did get a decent roll.k

Of course, you can believe what you want.





Ahem, cough, ...

There is a negative leader check on the Combat Report.

Still the LBA strike would have been of benefit to you.

This Allied invasion is another poorly constructed operation. The fact that so many Allied bombers are hitting your position indicates the precarious position the "sheep herders" are in. It is a bit too early now but given a little time you should start planning on barbequeing the sheep.

Alfred

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 3622
RE: Gnashing of Teeth: Cries of Fury - 8/20/2017 9:00:03 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		Nov 28th, 1943

Bombed Darwin, and no CAP present. Lost 5 bombers, but managed to sink 2-3 PT boats.

Another attack on the isolated 32nd and 6th Divisions. Light losses inflicted in a 14-1 assault. At this pace it will take a long to time to destroy these guys...they have nowhere to retreat to and are dug in. I will stay the course.

No Allied attacks.

I am gathering my Fast Transports for the plunge to rescue the troopers off New Britain.

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 3623
RE: Gnashing of Teeth: Cries of Fury - 8/20/2017 9:07:44 PM   
Lowpe


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

ORIGINAL: Alfred


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

... PDU off is not well developed or thought out, imho. It skips entire models of planes; it severely handicaps the night fighters which I think is pretty much a death knell for Japan, and really hamstrings kamikazes...



Au contraire mon ami, it is PDU ON which was not developed or thought out.

PDU ON was introduced in a patch for classical WITP which was initially shipped out with only PDU OFF. The entire Japanese economic and logistical structure was calibrated to work "seamlessly" with PDU OFF. It was only following sustained criticism from predominantly JFBs that essentially a "marketing" decision was made to introduce PDU ON. However in doing so, none of the economic and logistic structure was recalibrated to accommodate this game unbalancing action.

With the exception of wdolson, to the best of my knowledge, none of the devs of either classical WITP or WITP:AE have ever publicly supported the availability of PDU ON. Mike Wood, the coder who wrote the PDU ON code for classical WITP subsequently stated that if he could revisit the issue, he would not have come up with PDU ON as the solution. Several of the AE devs have very clearly stated that they disapprove of the existence of PDU ON. I tend to agree with their reasons for their disapproval.

Even wdolson, the sole AE dev I recall who is not disparaging of it, likes it because it reduces clicks and micromanagement for an Allied player attempting to maintain units at full strength. IOW in a PDU OFF environment where downgrading to an obsolete, but plentiful in the pools, model is not possible combined with the strict fixed quantum of airframes which is delivered to the Allied player, the game is made more "playable" with PDU ON for an Allied player. This difficulty of not being able to downgrade with PDU OFF is not a problem for a Japanese player as they can always configure their aircraft production to produce as many airframes as needed to fully equip their air units.

Alfred


Perhaps it is the mod I am playing?

I don't see why you would have planes you can research and make, and yet have absolutely no squadron than can upgrade to it. Maybe there is a hidden upgrade path that is not visible and gets unlocked after an upgrade?

Plus I believe (at least in my modded game) every possible Toka squadron is a size 10 training Willow squadron that arrives in May of 45. Why research and make the Toka at all? Training squadrons can't be converted to kamikazes.







(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 3624
RE: Gnashing of Teeth: Cries of Fury - 8/20/2017 9:11:04 PM   
Lowpe


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

ORIGINAL: Alfred

Ahem, cough, ...

There is a negative leader check on the Combat Report.

Still the LBA strike would have been of benefit to you.

This Allied invasion is another poorly constructed operation. The fact that so many Allied bombers are hitting your position indicates the precarious position the "sheep herders" are in. It is a bit too early now but given a little time you should start planning on barbequeing the sheep.

Alfred


I wasn't clear...I meant no malus listed for disruption from the aerial bombing. The leader malus certainly helped, but in and of itself can't justify the starting 0 AV on the combat animation replay -- or can it?

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 3625
RE: Gnashing of Teeth: Cries of Fury - 8/20/2017 10:04:50 PM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

I don't think researching anything else in a PDU OFF game is worth it ... Just build the aircraft to staff the groups as best you can ....


I think that is either misinformed or a function of the mod changes in this case, a rare disagreement between us. Most Frank squadrons can upgrade to the Ki94II. Most Sam squadrons can go to the Sam J. If I can hold the Allies off into 1945, I have a real good chance of fielding them in large numbers.

The others are in such small numbers that it probably isn't worth r&d. Ki83, Shinden, Jets, etc. Randy A and Randy B are worthwhile but don't need much allocated to them.

You are correct, I don't know this mod. If the Franks will upgrade to the FrankII (ki94), then by all means research it.
No idea what a SamJ is, but any Sam is good. So there you go. Two more fighters to go for ...


_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 3626
RE: Gnashing of Teeth: Cries of Fury - 8/20/2017 10:46:32 PM   
Lowpe


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

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

I don't think researching anything else in a PDU OFF game is worth it ... Just build the aircraft to staff the groups as best you can ....


I think that is either misinformed or a function of the mod changes in this case, a rare disagreement between us. Most Frank squadrons can upgrade to the Ki94II. Most Sam squadrons can go to the Sam J. If I can hold the Allies off into 1945, I have a real good chance of fielding them in large numbers.

The others are in such small numbers that it probably isn't worth r&d. Ki83, Shinden, Jets, etc. Randy A and Randy B are worthwhile but don't need much allocated to them.

You are correct, I don't know this mod. If the Franks will upgrade to the FrankII (ki94), then by all means research it.
No idea what a SamJ is, but any Sam is good. So there you go. Two more fighters to go for ...


Sam J is in stock...it has two extra 30mm up guns or something like that. I think it has the most firepower of any Japanese fighter.

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 3627
RE: Gnashing of Teeth: Cries of Fury - 8/21/2017 4:00:47 AM   
Lowpe


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

ORIGINAL: Alfred

This Allied invasion is another poorly constructed operation. The fact that so many Allied bombers are hitting your position indicates the precarious position the "sheep herders" are in. It is a bit too early now but given a little time you should start planning on barbequeing the sheep.

Alfred


I am going to fly in some 47mm AT rapidfire guns. Plus I now have some Nicks ready to strafe, or to attack his reinforcements as they have 70 low naval.

I am afraid to attack with more, as I really want to evacuate my 19K troopers from New Britain...we shall see, I think I might do both at the same time. Depends what I can get away with.

Finished the turn, upgraded another fighter squadron to Frank Rs, one to Sonia B (a plane I don't think I have ever used much), a sentai to Peggy. I really like the Peggy's longer legs.

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 3628
RE: Gnashing of Teeth: Cries of Fury - 8/21/2017 7:07:10 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		Nov 29, 1944

A great little fight, that the Allies win for now, of Singers.






Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 3629
RE: Gnashing of Teeth: Cries of Fury - 8/21/2017 7:20:49 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		IJN is not spotted, good DL really only on Manus.

I suspect this the sheepherders succor...




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 3630
Page:   <<   < prev  119 120 [121] 122 123   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: Gnashing of Teeth: Cries of Fury Page: <<   < prev  119 120 [121] 122 123   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

0.968