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: Manila Falls

 
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: Manila Falls Page: <<   < prev  71 72 [73] 74 75   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Manila Falls - 8/13/2016 2:05:31 PM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline 		The damage is permanent.

1.  The ships due for arrival at that location are treated as being in various stages of construction on the slipways.  Thus when the Japanese capture the base, all ships under "construction" are immediately lost and will never be refloated subsequently if the Allies recapture the base.

2.  The Allied player has no capability to manually convert a factory from one industrial type to another.  Captured Allied aircraft factories turn into Vehicle factories for Japan and can produce vehicle points for Japan as long as that base remains under Japanese control.  If the base is subsequently recaptured by the Allied player, as Vehicle factories do not exist for the Allies and the Allied player cannot manual convert them to one of the factory types which exist for the Allies, they just go "poof" and disappear from the landscape.

3.  The newly delivered Vehicle factories can of course be expanded by the Japanese player in accordance with standard requirements.  The Allied player can never expand a factory nor create a "greenfield" factory.  All that an Allied player can do is repair the damaged (or "disabled") centers of an existing "brownfield" factory.  An existing "brownfield" Allied factory which has had some of the factory centers destroyed by a firestorm, cannot have those destroyed factory centers rebuilt.

Alfred

(in reply to bigred)
Post #: 2161
RE: Manila Falls - 8/13/2016 5:57:37 PM   
poodlebrain

 

Posts: 392
Joined: 10/4/2012
From: Comfy Chair in Baton Rouge
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

I am not sure how it works on the Allied side of things, but here is a list of CVE that spawn at San Diego. If this were Japan, they would be destroyed and VP awarded for their destruction.

Not to mention the destruction of all the Plane factories.

What a delicious target.





Not certain if San Diego is best target for a December 1942 invasion. I would need to give more consideration to the planning first.

The good news is that if you do capture an Allied port which has ships scheduled to arrive, those ships are destroyed (as in scuttled or cancelled) and you receive 50% of their standard VP. Which is one reason why other important ports with far larger than San Diego Allied ship "construction" (=ship arrival dates) need to be considered.

Then again San Diego has all those aircraft factories although again other significant aircraft factory sites also exist. For example capturing Seattle really does cripple the Allied 4E force structure as American 4E production is heavily dependent on onmap, not offmap, factory production. Which would Japan rather face in 1944, 4E or 2E Allied bombers.

Were it not for the effect of the narrow straits, landing directly at Portland or Tacoma has a lot of merit. Partly because you could factor in friendly LBA and use of paratroops as blocking forces.

There is a lot more than the above to take into account before settling on the final destination.

Alfred
I think it is safe to conclude that it will be extremely difficult for the Japanese to capture any of the major West Coast bases in December 1942. The Allies should have no problem getting to Lvl 9 forts at Seattle, Tacoma, Portland, San Francisco, Los Angeles and San Diego. And they should be able to reinforce the choke points protecting Puget Sound and the Columbia River as well.

I think the best option for the Japanese is to try an invasion earlier in 1942, and I think San Diego is the easiest target. The fact that San Diego is even a target worth considering lets you know you are playing a game and not fighting a war. In the game you can perform a cost benefit analysis for invading the West Coast. In the real world it would not even merit consideration since it would be a one way mission, and no country can afford to be that cavalier with its people.


_____________________________

Never trust a man who's ass is wider than his shoulders.

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 2162
RE: Manila Falls - 8/16/2016 6:20:10 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		jan 27, 1944

My beloved Lilly divebombers garner 1 vp for no loss.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 2163
RE: Manila Falls - 8/16/2016 6:21:39 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		2nd Big Attack at Chungking.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 2164
RE: Manila Falls - 8/16/2016 6:24:37 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		I stopped counting how many divisions are attacking me in Hollywood. I think I captured Errol Flynn masquerading as a German behind Japanese lines...




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 2165
RE: Manila Falls - 8/17/2016 4:11:49 AM   
Alfred

 

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

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

I stopped counting how many divisions are attacking me in Hollywood. I think I captured Errol Flynn masquerading as a German behind Japanese lines...





Those are good odds. If you can keep the supply flowing to the units so that their combat firepower is not diminished, you should not be in a rush to evacuate them.

Even the complete loss of the LCUs can be a worthwhile investment if (a) the fight is long enough and (b) occupies the Allied assets so far away from your critical locations.

Alfred

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 2166
RE: Manila Falls - 8/17/2016 3:31:42 PM   
paullus99


Posts: 1985
Joined: 1/23/2002
Status: offline 		I believe most, if not all, of the American units are limited to the Continental United States....so it's no skin off the Allied player to burn those units out, since they can't be deployed to the Pacific.

_____________________________

Never Underestimate the Power of a Small Tactical Nuclear Weapon...

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 2167
RE: Manila Falls - 8/17/2016 3:36:45 PM   
poodlebrain

 

Posts: 392
Joined: 10/4/2012
From: Comfy Chair in Baton Rouge
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

I stopped counting how many divisions are attacking me in Hollywood. I think I captured Errol Flynn masquerading as a German behind Japanese lines...





Those are good odds. If you can keep the supply flowing to the units so that their combat firepower is not diminished, you should not be in a rush to evacuate them.

Even the complete loss of the LCUs can be a worthwhile investment if (a) the fight is long enough and (b) occupies the Allied assets so far away from your critical locations.

Alfred
Can't the Allies just sit back and starve the Japanese? They have more than enough white restricted units to secure L.A., and there is no imperative to attack if the threat to S.D. is removed. Are the benefits of tying down Allied LCUs and preventing resources from being produced sufficient to justify abandoning the LCUs at L.A.? I'm inclined to believe it is worthwhile to abandon them since the potential costs of extracting them could come from irreplaceable naval assets.


_____________________________

Never trust a man who's ass is wider than his shoulders.

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 2168
RE: Manila Falls - 8/18/2016 2:21:29 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		Thanks for the posts...

The weakness of Holding at LA is the Allies put in a holding force there and move in strength to to the South where they would be fighting in clear terrain.

I figure I have two to three weeks to enact some kind of retreat.

Oscars can fly to Canada...but the Tojo IIbs can't.


(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 2169
RE: Manila Falls - 8/30/2016 7:40:49 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		Jan 31, 1943

Tough January....closes on an even more sour note, at a loss of only 3 Mitchells the Allies start aerial bombing the troops in LA.






Attachment (1)

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 2170
RE: Manila Falls - 8/30/2016 7:41:19 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		Snag a raider...




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 2171
RE: Manila Falls - 8/30/2016 7:42:01 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		Imphal holds....not pictured is the invasion fleet off Port Moresby. Also, Allied sub had a shot a big oiler and misses...

On the good news front is plane research is quite steady and advanced.






Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Lowpe -- 8/30/2016 7:44:06 PM >

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 2172
RE: Manila Falls - 8/30/2016 7:50:38 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		Worth more than I thought...French.

When I have played as Allies I always struggle with what to do with AMCs...they are so darn fragile, and when they do catch a convoy, don't really seem to inflict enough damage to merit their risk.

Troop movement, Invasions, seems a much better choice in the long run, but using them here as raiders from a different quadrant their loss in VP is made up in tactical gain. Well played I think.

I am down to 2 programs that I still use Windows for, and this game is one of them. I started the installation to Linux, but got bogged down for personal reasons and never finished installing all the mod files. I am now at the point where I loathe opening up windows, and I will devote time this week to getting the game fully ported over to Linux where I have found a new home away from automatic upgrades and other abuses.

I am in the process of heavily planning out the evacuation from the west coast, but it looks dodgy. Very dodgy. But dare I leave the troops there????????????????

I lost a 1 point PB and a good sub in deep water off Ceylon...





Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Lowpe -- 8/30/2016 7:51:57 PM >

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 2173
RE: Manila Falls - 8/30/2016 7:57:56 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		Ha45 engines start production tomorrow....at a clip of 180 per month across three factories. They will be expanded immediately, but the question is how much?

With plane upgrades, etc, it is a little more complicated question than in PDU on.

The Ha44 will also start production too.


(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 2174
RE: Manila Falls - 8/30/2016 8:03:09 PM   
SqzMyLemon


Posts: 4239
Joined: 10/30/2009
From: Alberta, Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

Ha45 engines start production tomorrow....at a clip of 180 per month across three factories. They will be expanded immediately, but the question is how much?

With plane upgrades, etc, it is a little more complicated question than in PDU on.


I don't agree that PDU on or off has anything to do with engine production. You produce as many as you need. If PDU off limits you to the number of squadrons, then you produce to meet those requirements...simple.


_____________________________

Luck is the residue of design - John Milton

Don't mistake lack of talent for genius - Peter Steele (Type O Negative)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 2175
RE: Manila Falls - 8/30/2016 8:03:19 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		Some of the LA Troops....forts are shaping up nicely, and I bet I can survive aerial bombing for a long time.

The real dangers is a holding action at LA and a cross country attack around LA in the open terrain.


Allies have 55 units in LA and could easily accomplish the move. The Question is why haven't they? I can think of several reasons why not too...I wonder what Jocke's reasons are.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Lowpe -- 8/30/2016 8:07:33 PM >

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 2176
RE: Manila Falls - 8/30/2016 8:04:49 PM   
Lowpe


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

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

Ha45 engines start production tomorrow....at a clip of 180 per month across three factories. They will be expanded immediately, but the question is how much?

With plane upgrades, etc, it is a little more complicated question than in PDU on.


I don't agree that PDU on or off has anything to do with engine production. You produce as many as you need. If PDU off limits you to the number of squadrons, then you produce to meet those requirements...simple.



I stated that poorly, sorry, I know what to expand the engines to in PDU on game, and need to do a little homework to calculate PDF off needs. Just different.

(in reply to SqzMyLemon)
Post #: 2177
RE: Manila Falls - 8/30/2016 9:03:10 PM   
SqzMyLemon


Posts: 4239
Joined: 10/30/2009
From: Alberta, Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

quote:

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

Ha45 engines start production tomorrow....at a clip of 180 per month across three factories. They will be expanded immediately, but the question is how much?

With plane upgrades, etc, it is a little more complicated question than in PDU on.


I don't agree that PDU on or off has anything to do with engine production. You produce as many as you need. If PDU off limits you to the number of squadrons, then you produce to meet those requirements...simple.


I stated that poorly, sorry, I know what to expand the engines to in PDU on game, and need to do a little homework to calculate PDF off needs. Just different.


If I was to hazard a guess, I don't think you'll be producing that many less Ha-45's in terms of fighters. Despite probably having fewer squadrons using that engine, what you will have flying will be flying and dying...a lot. You may be constantly replenishing lost aircraft which will burn through a stockpile quickly.

Pure speculation on my part, but I believe you'll be relying heavily on the Frank and have a large number of squadrons that upgrade to it. You'll be using a lot of them, maybe even more than in PDU off considering they'll be seeing constant action.

< Message edited by SqzMyLemon -- 8/30/2016 9:04:11 PM >

_____________________________

Luck is the residue of design - John Milton

Don't mistake lack of talent for genius - Peter Steele (Type O Negative)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 2178
RE: Manila Falls - 8/30/2016 10:46:47 PM   
Lokasenna


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

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

quote:

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

Ha45 engines start production tomorrow....at a clip of 180 per month across three factories. They will be expanded immediately, but the question is how much?

With plane upgrades, etc, it is a little more complicated question than in PDU on.


I don't agree that PDU on or off has anything to do with engine production. You produce as many as you need. If PDU off limits you to the number of squadrons, then you produce to meet those requirements...simple.


I stated that poorly, sorry, I know what to expand the engines to in PDU on game, and need to do a little homework to calculate PDF off needs. Just different.


If I was to hazard a guess, I don't think you'll be producing that many less Ha-45's in terms of fighters. Despite probably having fewer squadrons using that engine, what you will have flying will be flying and dying...a lot. You may be constantly replenishing lost aircraft which will burn through a stockpile quickly.

Pure speculation on my part, but I believe you'll be relying heavily on the Frank and have a large number of squadrons that upgrade to it. You'll be using a lot of them, maybe even more than in PDU off considering they'll be seeing constant action.


My instinct is that this is correct, but there's still going to be a difference. You'll need to produce more Ha-35 for longer, for example, in a PDU Off game. I would actually expect that to be the main difference between PDU Off and On (the Ha-45 and Ha-35 usage) given that many squadrons are stuck with Oscars and Zeroes. Should have a slight impact on Ha-43 as well.

Basically, slightly to moderately fewer "late war engines" (Ha-45, Ha-43) and more "mid war engines" (Ha-33, Ha-35, Ha-32, etc.).

(in reply to SqzMyLemon)
Post #: 2179
RE: Manila Falls - 8/31/2016 2:26:39 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		I have to say this jives with my current thinking too.


(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 2180
RE: Manila Falls - 9/1/2016 3:57:58 PM   
Bullwinkle58


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

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

I have to say this jives with my current thinking too.




Ob English nit to increase hit count: it's "jibe" rather than "jive."

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 2181
RE: Manila Falls - 9/1/2016 8:53:16 PM   
HansBolter


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

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

I have to say this jives with my current thinking too.




Ob English nit to increase hit count: it's "jibe" rather than "jive."


and THIS is jive:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBw25CrUS-o


_____________________________

Hans


(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 2182
RE: Manila Falls - 9/1/2016 9:43:45 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		It was autocorrect. Sheesh.

That is my story and I am sticking to it.

(in reply to HansBolter)
Post #: 2183
RE: Manila Falls - 9/1/2016 10:15:39 PM   
Bullwinkle58


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

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

It was autocorrect. Sheesh.

That is my story and I am sticking to it.


Some sources report that "jive" is becoming the norm in the US, which is a shame. This is like another pet peeve, wherein people say "I'm chomping at the bit." It's "champing." The use of chomping is about 20:1 now according to one source, and champing is a dead verb outside the idiom, but it's still champing. Grump!

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 2184
RE: Manila Falls - 9/1/2016 11:58:54 PM   
jmalter

 

Posts: 1673
Joined: 10/12/2010
Status: offline 		Folks who "tow the line" don't come up to scratch.

Also, too:
Reading of ships that unmoor described as "getting under weigh" - I can't cope, I just run for the liquor cabinet.

Damn this language & its homonyms/spelling errors.

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 2185
RE: Manila Falls - 9/2/2016 12:17:22 AM   
BillBrown


Posts: 2335
Joined: 6/15/2002
Status: offline 		nm

< Message edited by BillBrown -- 9/2/2016 12:18:20 AM >

(in reply to jmalter)
Post #: 2186
RE: Manila Falls - 9/2/2016 12:37:17 AM   
Anachro


Posts: 2506
Joined: 11/23/2015
From: The Coastal Elite
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
Some sources report that "jive" is becoming the norm in the US, which is a shame. This is like another pet peeve, wherein people say "I'm chomping at the bit." It's "champing." The use of chomping is about 20:1 now according to one source, and champing is a dead verb outside the idiom, but it's still champing. Grump!


Just think of how much of the "correct" language you adore came about through the process you describe happening in the U.S. I'm sure a good chunk of it.

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 2187
RE: Manila Falls - 9/2/2016 7:24:42 PM   
Bullwinkle58


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

ORIGINAL: Anachro


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
Some sources report that "jive" is becoming the norm in the US, which is a shame. This is like another pet peeve, wherein people say "I'm chomping at the bit." It's "champing." The use of chomping is about 20:1 now according to one source, and champing is a dead verb outside the idiom, but it's still champing. Grump!


Just think of how much of the "correct" language you adore came about through the process you describe happening in the U.S. I'm sure a good chunk of it.



Yes and no. Words change all the time, and new loanwords are vacuumed into the language, but idioms normally stay put. It's part of their charm.

Idioms have begun to morph, as discussed here, for lots of reasons. Part is the Net, whereby incorrect uses can spread to ill-informed readers who figure everything there is true. Part is laziness. Part is an increasing lack of reading in the general public where they see idioms spelled out. Part is the lack of respect for the past by younger folks.

IRRegardless, I don't like it.

< Message edited by Bullwinkle58 -- 9/2/2016 7:25:41 PM >

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Anachro)
Post #: 2188
RE: Manila Falls - 9/2/2016 7:50:30 PM   
Lokasenna


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

Jive and jibe are different words with different uses.

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 2189
RE: Manila Falls - 9/2/2016 8:50:14 PM   
Bullwinkle58


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

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

But...

Jive and jibe are different words with different uses.


They are. So here I'd go with causes #1 and 3.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 2190
Page:   <<   < prev  71 72 [73] 74 75   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: Manila Falls Page: <<   < prev  71 72 [73] 74 75   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.328