RE: Insert witty AAR title here - Sqz(J) vs. fcharton (A)

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: Insert witty AAR title here - Sqz(J) vs. fcharton (A)

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: Insert witty AAR title here - Sqz(J) vs. fcharton (A)

Page: << < prev 10 11 [12] 13 14 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Insert witty AAR title here - Sqz(J) vs. fcharton (A) - 12/20/2015 4:09:55 PM

FeurerKrieg

Posts: 3397
Joined: 6/15/2005
From: Denver, CO
Status: offline

1:1 at Sydney is certainly a good thing. I was certainly disappointed when my first attacks at Colombo didn't come off at the greatest odds. I knew it meant weeks of fighting ahead. But 1:1 is pretty good for a first attack - and forts came down!

Anyway - I won't comment on whether you should attack tomorrow or not since I read both AARs.

_____________________________

Upper portion used with permission of www.subart.net, copyright John Meeks

(in reply to FeurerKrieg)

Post #: 331

RE: Insert witty AAR title here - Sqz(J) vs. fcharton (A) - 12/20/2015 4:25:47 PM

BBfanboy

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Feurer Krieg

1:1 at Sydney is certainly a good thing. I was certainly disappointed when my first attacks at Colombo didn't come off at the greatest odds. I knew it meant weeks of fighting ahead. But 1:1 is pretty good for a first attack - and forts came down!

Anyway - I won't comment on whether you should attack tomorrow or not since I read both AARs.

I agree that you did well - his complete loss of 57 AV plus some of those 80 disabled squads plus forts lowered to 1 mean his 529 AV of today will be much less effective tomorrow. Mid teens disruption is not that bad and he must be suffering too. Now is the time to go for broke - time is against you

_____________________________

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 FeurerKrieg)

Post #: 332

RE: Insert witty AAR title here - Sqz(J) vs. fcharton (A) - 12/20/2015 4:30:43 PM

Lowpe

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

You could attack, and I bet if you bombed with the KB's torpedo bombers & bombarded you might disrupt the defenders enough for you to win. A straight attack with no support I don't think would win, but the third attack would.

Given the situation, I would hit Sydney with everything I had bomber wise and ship bombardment wise. Taking it, and all your ships can rearm. Set bombardment distance to 12 or greater to avoid being mauled by the coastal guns and pray.

I would also long range CAP the paratroops and fly whatever I can into that base. His B17s are in China, no? He couldn't escort his bombers well last turn, and I doubt he can this turn. Allied fighter pools are very weak early, and he can't be happy with this most recent turn.

It is very hard giving advice with the limited information...but 1-1 is great first attack in an UH terrain.

(in reply to FeurerKrieg)

Post #: 333

RE: Insert witty AAR title here - Sqz(J) vs. fcharton (A) - 12/20/2015 4:54:09 PM

Lokasenna

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

quote:

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon

I need to learn to look at playing Japan as you and Pax do.

Ooh, I don't know about that! I make a pretty good mess of Japan.

Next time I have a game opening, we should play

(in reply to Lowpe)

Post #: 334

RE: Insert witty AAR title here - Sqz(J) vs. fcharton (A) - 12/20/2015 4:56:36 PM

Lokasenna

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

RE: Sydney

Disruption and fatigue in the mid-teens is great! My typical cut off for a consecutive attack is high-30s fatigue and higher than 25 disruption, although I will weigh my options... if the units don't have a lot of disabled devices that would be destroyed, then I might still attack. I definitely won't attack if fatigue is 50-60 and disruption is 40+. Mid-teens says to me that you should attack again. His units are likely in worse shape, especially considering the casualties.

I think you just need maybe 2 more attacks and Sydney is yours. That would be amazing.

(in reply to Lokasenna)

Post #: 335

RE: Insert witty AAR title here - Sqz(J) vs. fcharton (A) - 12/20/2015 5:10:59 PM

SqzMyLemon

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

You could attack, and I bet if you bombed with the KB's torpedo bombers & bombarded you might disrupt the defenders enough for you to win. A straight attack with no support I don't think would win, but the third attack would.

Given the situation, I would hit Sydney with everything I had bomber wise and ship bombardment wise. Taking it, and all your ships can rearm. Set bombardment distance to 12 or greater to avoid being mauled by the coastal guns and pray.

I would also long range CAP the paratroops and fly whatever I can into that base. His B17s are in China, no? He couldn't escort his bombers well last turn, and I doubt he can this turn. Allied fighter pools are very weak early, and he can't be happy with this most recent turn.

It is very hard giving advice with the limited information...but 1-1 is great first attack in an UH terrain.

I'll try to provide more information. There is at least one, maybe two, 4E squadrons operating in Australia based at either Brisbane or Melbourne. There is a P-40E squadron and possibly four Buffalo and Wildcat carrier based squadrons at the very least. So there are enough fighters and bombers to ruin my day.

I can use KB's aircraft to cause disruption and can hit Sydney with naval bombardments with the following ships:

2 BB's
7 CA's
4 CL's
36 DD's

Naval assets approaching Rockhampton are:

1 CVL
1 CVE
4 BB's
3 CA's
1 CL
21 DD's

Troops:

1st Infantry Rgt.
5th Tank Rgt.
8th Tank Rgt.

_____________________________

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 #: 336

RE: Insert witty AAR title here - Sqz(J) vs. fcharton (A) - 12/20/2015 5:22:54 PM

SqzMyLemon

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

Regarding the paratroops at Bathurst. This is a small chance, remote even, that somehow the paratroops are not destroyed during the Allied counterattack. I own the base and hex outright, so I have a viable retreat path along the main road towards Port Kembla, providing the AI choose that route. If somehow that happens, I block the rail line to Sydney for at least another day, maybe two. The only troops I could airlift to Bathurst would be elements of 113th Inf. Rgt. currently at Newcastle. Here's the rub, there is no aviation support at the base so the transports will have to land, pick up the 113th, and suffer whatever damage to aircraft accrues. I think it is worth a try. If I can hold Bathurst for another day, or at least get a favourable retreat, it will be huge.

< Message edited by SqzMyLemon -- 12/20/2015 6:36:10 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 SqzMyLemon)

Post #: 337

RE: Insert witty AAR title here - Sqz(J) vs. fcharton (A) - 12/20/2015 5:34:18 PM

SqzMyLemon

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

RE: Sydney

Disruption and fatigue in the mid-teens is great! My typical cut off for a consecutive attack is high-30s fatigue and higher than 25 disruption, although I will weigh my options... if the units don't have a lot of disabled devices that would be destroyed, then I might still attack. I definitely won't attack if fatigue is 50-60 and disruption is 40+. Mid-teens says to me that you should attack again. His units are likely in worse shape, especially considering the casualties.

I think you just need maybe 2 more attacks and Sydney is yours. That would be amazing.

Would you go all out, air and naval bombardments followed by an assault? Would you go deliberate or shock? My experience with consecutive ground attacks has not been good, regardless of the disruption and fatigue.

Please note, I'm not asking anyone to break OpSec and tell me to attack or not. I just want suggestions and opinions based on the information at hand regarding launching another attack. Is the tactical situation favourable? The way I look at it, everything hinges on capturing Sydney and I am willing to lose assets to take it. The minefield at Sydney is substantial and I may suffer a lot of collateral damage, but taking Sydney right now is everything. I caught Bullwinkle's thread looking for a quote and it totally applies to my situation right now.

"If you start to take Vienna - take Vienna"

I need to mull this over and decide whether to go all out, or risk delaying a day resulting in Sydney being reinforced.

_____________________________

Luck is the residue of design - John Milton

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

(in reply to Lokasenna)

Post #: 338

RE: Insert witty AAR title here - Sqz(J) vs. fcharton (A) - 12/20/2015 6:05:59 PM

Lokasenna

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

RE: Sydney

Disruption and fatigue in the mid-teens is great! My typical cut off for a consecutive attack is high-30s fatigue and higher than 25 disruption, although I will weigh my options... if the units don't have a lot of disabled devices that would be destroyed, then I might still attack. I definitely won't attack if fatigue is 50-60 and disruption is 40+. Mid-teens says to me that you should attack again. His units are likely in worse shape, especially considering the casualties.

I think you just need maybe 2 more attacks and Sydney is yours. That would be amazing.

Would you go all out, air and naval bombardments followed by an assault? Would you go deliberate or shock? My experience with consecutive ground attacks has not been good, regardless of the disruption and fatigue.

Please note, I'm not asking anyone to break OpSec and tell me to attack or not. I just want suggestions and opinions based on the information at hand regarding launching another attack. Is the tactical situation favourable? The way I look at it, everything hinges on capturing Sydney and I am willing to lose assets to take it. The minefield at Sydney is substantial and I may suffer a lot of collateral damage, but taking Sydney right now is everything. I caught Bullwinkle's thread looking for a quote and it totally applies to my situation right now.

"If you start to take Vienna - take Vienna"

I need to mull this over and decide whether to go all out, or risk delaying a day resulting in Sydney being reinforced.

I haven't been reading the other AAR (from posts it seems like there is one).

I wouldn't shock. You got good results in the 1:1 - better damage to his troops than you took, and your disruption/fatigue are in OK shape. The only thing that would stop me from attacking again with a deliberate attack is if I had a large portion (more than 1/3 or more than 1/2) of my infantry squads in my main combat units disabled.

I could go either way on the aerial/naval bombardments. Sydney has CD guns, so I'm not sure naval bombardments would do all that much to the combat troops. Aerial bombardments are a crap shoot, but at least they'd burn up supply... but I would probably rather save my planes. If you bomb anybody, I'd bomb the reinforcements coming in. If bombing them delays them, that buys you more time to do the attacks you need to take the city.

I don't think a second attack will capture the place, although you might get lucky. I'd double-check my LCU leaders and go for the absolute best I could get. I think a third attack would probably do it, assuming the second attack goes much like the first.

Edit: Oh, and assuming your second attack drops forts to 0, that's when I would bomb the airfield a bit. You wouldn't need to hit it all-out, but you would need to hit it some to prevent forts from going back to 1. Level 1 forts are extremely easy to build, but level 1 to level 2 takes 2 or more days unless you have a large stack of engineers. I don't think he does, given the units there.

< Message edited by Lokasenna -- 12/20/2015 7:07:18 PM >

(in reply to SqzMyLemon)

Post #: 339

RE: Insert witty AAR title here - Sqz(J) vs. fcharton (A) - 12/20/2015 6:06:38 PM

PaxMondo

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Feurer Krieg

1:1 at Sydney is certainly a good thing.
...I won't comment on whether you should attack tomorrow or not ...

+1

Crap shoot. High risk. If Sydney is still blocked, maybe rest on turn and then go. He took ~175 AV loss that turn. His morale will still be low so he won't recover disablements nearly as fast as you.
So he will be ~440 AV in two turns. The only way for you to get to 1800AV that turn would be to shock. If you drop the forts to 0, reasonable then at 2:1 you win. But really tight ... I would not shock until your blockers fall ... then you have to.

With just deliberate attacks, you likely take Sydney on your 3rd overall attack (2 from now), so 4 turns. Can your blockers hold 4 turns?

KB has to stay to provide CAP ... you cannot afford to have disablements due to LBA ...

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to FeurerKrieg)

Post #: 340

RE: Insert witty AAR title here - Sqz(J) vs. fcharton (A) - 12/20/2015 6:09:08 PM

Lokasenna

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

quote:

ORIGINAL: Feurer Krieg

1:1 at Sydney is certainly a good thing.
...I won't comment on whether you should attack tomorrow or not ...

+1

Crap shoot. High risk. If Sydney is still blocked, maybe rest on turn and then go. He took ~175 AV loss that turn. His morale will still be low so he won't recover disablements nearly as fast as you.
So he will be ~440 AV in two turns. The only way for you to get to 1800AV that turn would be to shock. If you drop the forts to 0, reasonable then at 2:1 you win. But really tight ... I would not shock until your blockers fall ... then you have to.

With just deliberate attacks, you likely take Sydney on your 3rd overall attack (2 from now), so 4 turns. Can your blockers hold 4 turns?

KB has to stay to provide CAP ... you cannot afford to have disablements due to LBA ...

Agree. With regard to timing of attacks, I think you can do it in 3 days, not 4.

With a second attack on this coming day, I'd say 99% you have to wait a day in between. Or you could rest a day, and go for 2 consecutive attacks starting a day from now. I think you get the city on the third overall attack in either case.

(in reply to PaxMondo)

Post #: 341

RE: Insert witty AAR title here - Sqz(J) vs. fcharton (A) - 12/20/2015 6:12:26 PM

SqzMyLemon

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

China Theatre:

Jan. 8/42:

I feel much better about China. I ignore the Allied bombings and get my air force ready for the coming battles. I won't risk flying into any CAP traps at this time, as I can't afford the losses in aircraft or pilots. There are definitely Allied fighter units being deployed to China, but I will avoid combat until the odds are in my favour.

I am now in position to move. My tactic of isolating Chinese forces by closing hex sides is beginning to take solid form. I will isolate and siege a number of Chinese bases, all the while moving forward towards Kweilin.

Kanhsien fell easily on the 6th and I'll now advance on Kukong. AAR follows:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Kanhsien (81,57)

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 29563 troops, 287 guns, 134 vehicles, Assault Value = 870

Defending force 11193 troops, 38 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 263

Japanese engineers reduce fortifications to 1

Japanese adjusted assault: 835

Allied adjusted defense: 73

Japanese assault odds: 11 to 1 (fort level 1)

Japanese forces CAPTURE Kanhsien !!!

Allied aircraft
no flights

Allied aircraft losses
P-40E Warhawk: 1 destroyed

Combat modifiers
Defender: forts(+), experience(-)
Attacker:

Japanese ground losses:
349 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 27 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 7 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled

Allied ground losses:
3734 casualties reported
Squads: 105 destroyed, 26 disabled
Non Combat: 112 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 23 destroyed, 3 disabled
Guns lost 14 (8 destroyed, 6 disabled)
Units retreated 2

Assaulting units:
51st Division
104th Division
1st Hvy.Artillery Regiment
21st Mortar Battalion
2nd Ind.Hvy.Art. Battalion

Defending units:
25th Chinese Corps
18th Chinese Base Force

I launched a deliberate assault against Pingsiang on the 7th. The battle went as expected as I can only commit two IJA divisions due to stacking limits. I don't sweat any battles against the Chinese in 2x terrain. I'll continue to grind away until I can commit bombers to soften up the defenders. AAR follows:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Pingsiang (82,54)

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 27497 troops, 327 guns, 14 vehicles, Assault Value = 821

Defending force 24034 troops, 183 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 673

Japanese engineers reduce fortifications to 1

Japanese adjusted assault: 430

Allied adjusted defense: 477

Japanese assault odds: 1 to 2 (fort level 1)

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), forts(+), preparation(-), experience(-)
Attacker:

Japanese ground losses:
714 casualties reported
Squads: 4 destroyed, 134 disabled
Non Combat: 2 destroyed, 19 disabled
Engineers: 3 destroyed, 16 disabled
Guns lost 8 (1 destroyed, 7 disabled)

Allied ground losses:
466 casualties reported
Squads: 2 destroyed, 30 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 8 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled

Assaulting units:
9th Armored Car Co
6th Division
40th Division
8th Ind Engineer Regiment
8th Armored Car Co
1st Mortar Battalion
2nd Ind. Mountain Gun Regiment
51st Ind.Mtn.Gun Battalion
11th Army
14th Medium Field Artillery Regiment
52nd Ind.Mtn.Gun Battalion

Defending units:
9th Prov Chinese Corps
21st Chinese Corps
50th Chinese Corps
3rd New Chinese Corps
23rd Group Army

I'm feeling good about China. I'm clearing the rail lines and about to redeploy more divisions for operations in the east. Once I get enough aviation support in place I'll start ramping up in China.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by SqzMyLemon -- 12/20/2015 7:37:47 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 SqzMyLemon)

Post #: 342

RE: Insert witty AAR title here - Sqz(J) vs. fcharton (A) - 12/20/2015 6:24:34 PM

SqzMyLemon

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

Thanks for the thoughts on Sydney. I'll decide what to do later tonight while doing some modelling.

I have already targeted the airbase at Sydney quite heavily. Mouse over indicates airfield damage at 52%, port at 1%. There will be no increase in fortification levels before I attack again.

I have thought about targeting the Allied relief forces as well, knocking them out of strategic mode. I do have some options.

KB will stay. I honestly expected to get trashed during the first deliberate attack which would have meant withdrawing. I have sorties/fuel and losses to ground bombing attacks against Sydney have been light. KB is in good shape. The Allied light bomber force took a spanking last turn, finally, and will have to be more careful to avoid such losses again. I don't expect Francois to pull his air units back though, and I expect to get hit with everything he has next turn. At least he has to escort his bombers now and sweep to try and whittle down my fighter strength. I'm committing an Oscar Sentai to Port Kembla in two days.

_____________________________

Luck is the residue of design - John Milton

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

(in reply to SqzMyLemon)

Post #: 343

RE: Insert witty AAR title here - Sqz(J) vs. fcharton (A) - 12/20/2015 6:35:12 PM

SqzMyLemon

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

Malaya Theatre:

Jan. 8/42:

Ugh, another spelling error. I really need to proofread these screenshots.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by SqzMyLemon -- 12/20/2015 7:36:09 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 SqzMyLemon)

Post #: 344

RE: Insert witty AAR title here - Sqz(J) vs. fcharton (A) - 12/20/2015 6:48:11 PM

SqzMyLemon

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

For those of you that may be wondering, this is what set me off yesterday.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat, near Shortlands at 110,132, Range 7,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
E Uji, Shell hits 11, and is sunk
xAK Sinko Maru, Shell hits 21, and is sunk
xAK Tamagawa Maru, Shell hits 28, and is sunk
xAK Toa Maru, Shell hits 10, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
xAK Teikoku Maru, Shell hits 28, and is sunk
xAK Yamabiko Maru, Shell hits 17, and is sunk
xAK Yamagiri Maru, Shell hits 2, Torpedo hits 2, and is sunk

Allied Ships
CA Australia, Shell hits 1
CL Perth, Shell hits 1

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Naval bombardment of Shortlands at 110,132

Allied Ships
CA Australia
CL Perth

Port hits 12
Port supply hits 3

CA Australia firing at Shortlands
Seagull V acting as spotter for CL Perth
CL Perth firing at Shortlands

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub attack near Deboyne Islands at 102,136

Japanese Ships
SS RO-64

Allied Ships
CA Australia

SS RO-64 launches 6 torpedoes at CA Australia
Escort abandons search for sub

I don't know how many times Allied SCTF's have slipped through my forces, but it has to end. My CVL and CVE did not complete it's assigned movement the day prior and just might have been in position to spot the Allied cruisers, before they made their run to Shortlands. The Japanese TF just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time as it was unspotted the day before. Call a spade a spade, sometimes you just have to be lucky in this game. The submarine missing is just another in a long list of misses against Allied surface and transport shipping. The worst I've ever seen Japanese submarines perform in any of my previous games.

So it's not Australia, China, Malaya or the DEI theatres that are getting me worked up. It's the invulnerability and sheer luck of my opponents SCTF's that are driving me crazy. The missed submarine attack was just the final straw in a long list of missed opportunities.

That being said, if Sydney can be captured, it's open season on Allied naval assets. I am so not going to let this happen anymore. Eventually I'll start getting some hits.

< Message edited by SqzMyLemon -- 12/20/2015 7:49:38 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 SqzMyLemon)

Post #: 345

RE: Insert witty AAR title here - Sqz(J) vs. fcharton (A) - 12/20/2015 6:56:21 PM

Bullwinkle58

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon

Would you go all out, air and naval bombardments followed by an assault? Would you go deliberate or shock? My experience with consecutive ground attacks has not been good, regardless of the disruption and fatigue.

Please note, I'm not asking anyone to break OpSec and tell me to attack or not. I just want suggestions and opinions based on the information at hand regarding launching another attack. Is the tactical situation favourable? The way I look at it, everything hinges on capturing Sydney and I am willing to lose assets to take it. The minefield at Sydney is substantial and I may suffer a lot of collateral damage, but taking Sydney right now is everything. I caught Bullwinkle's thread looking for a quote and it totally applies to my situation right now.

"If you start to take Vienna - take Vienna"

I need to mull this over and decide whether to go all out, or risk delaying a day resulting in Sydney being reinforced.

Not trying to pile on, but I was looking for the quote to comment in this AAR.

At the time, since by-the-boards, I was going to use it to urge you to forget the Rockingham air bridge op and just do a bolt-from-the-blue on Sydney with both feet. No paras, no elegant maneuvering. Just a straight punch in the face with everything you had. To try to take Sydney now you have to trade-off really massive amounts of other things a lot of folks are urging you to do. You gave him the emergency reinforcements; you're right that at the present time you have to make this pay off. It's too late to worry about what else you could have done three weeks ago. You've got to have this boon.

I'd avoid a shock attack; you don't need it with the numbers from the first. Naval bombardments are going to have to run the mines, but often, if you set the range spinner out a bit, you can avoid most of them. You could also send a sacrificial skimmer in to find a field, but that costs a turn. CD usually is not a big deal for bombardments. Landings, yes. Not night bombardment. But bombardment costs your whole big-gun ammo load less (2), so maybe not worth it either. Close call.

Once you have Sydney you need to think about keeping it or leaving. You may reap strat VPs for the industry and flip the aircraft plants. You will for sure reduce the industry even if he re-takes it. But the garrison requirement is about a division I think; check the scenario. It self-funds supply for a division easily, but you can't stay forever, so unless you think auto-vic is really a thing there's no good reason to stay once you trash it.

An aside on the air search screenie you posted up-thread. It's a pretty lie.

Alfred has posted many times, including somewhere here in the past month, that despite many PT planes having great range the effective air search limit is about 12 hexes. The Allies have Cats, Coronado-beasts, and Mariners that exceed that by roughly 100%, but the search past 12 is low. I sometimes leave some of mine out past 12 because the chance isn't zero, but it's not good. Max range for recon sure, but you can't trust those pie slices in your screenshot to give you DL out at the ends. Not sure, but maybe a good bit of the reason your LBA isn't making you happy.

I can tell you that in my second game my opponent established an LBA base on one of the little "gap" islands SE of Soerbaja--very early in the first phase--and took Soerbaja away from me with shocking speed. No sub base, no rearm, nada. Gone inside a month or so. It really threw me off and cost me a lot of ships. In other games I have come to lean on Soerbaja for up to four months into the critical first phase. Losing it so fast pulled the rug out on a key map sector. He used carriers to support the landings and that was that.

< Message edited by Bullwinkle58 -- 12/20/2015 8:02:22 PM >

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to SqzMyLemon)

Post #: 346

RE: Insert witty AAR title here - Sqz(J) vs. fcharton (A) - 12/20/2015 7:01:08 PM

GetAssista

Posts: 2732
Joined: 9/19/2009
Status: offline

Did myself a lot of Sydney sea bombardments recently against AI.
On the upside, mine damage is bearable, most of the time 1-2DD out of 20-size TF, occasionally 1 larger ship, 30% cases nothing hit mines at all. With distance set at 12 and no escorts bombard of course. On the downside, you mostly engage CD units (they have some AV though) and disrupt base forces in the city, INF LCUs stay mostly unhurt. On the upside, bombardment is very effective in keeping place damaged to prevent forts. On the downside, it can hit valuable industry )

If you get Sydney, this would be awesome and overcome all your earlier bad luck

(in reply to SqzMyLemon)

Post #: 347

RE: Insert witty AAR title here - Sqz(J) vs. fcharton (A) - 12/20/2015 7:42:58 PM

Lokasenna

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon

Thanks for the thoughts on Sydney. I'll decide what to do later tonight while doing some modelling.

I have already targeted the airbase at Sydney quite heavily. Mouse over indicates airfield damage at 52%, port at 1%. There will be no increase in fortification levels before I attack again.

I have thought about targeting the Allied relief forces as well, knocking them out of strategic mode. I do have some options.

KB will stay. I honestly expected to get trashed during the first deliberate attack which would have meant withdrawing. I have sorties/fuel and losses to ground bombing attacks against Sydney have been light. KB is in good shape. The Allied light bomber force took a spanking last turn, finally, and will have to be more careful to avoid such losses again. I don't expect Francois to pull his air units back though, and I expect to get hit with everything he has next turn. At least he has to escort his bombers now and sweep to try and whittle down my fighter strength. I'm committing an Oscar Sentai to Port Kembla in two days.

Just a note...

I've noticed that even if the airfield is being bombed, with no CAP up, that if your planes are all out flying missions you won't lose them on the ground, at least. There might be airfield damage when they return... but it does mean that you don't have to CAP Kembla. You can set LRCAP over Sydney from Kembla, taking some strain off KB, for example.

(in reply to SqzMyLemon)

Post #: 348

RE: Insert witty AAR title here - Sqz(J) vs. fcharton (A) - 12/20/2015 7:54:25 PM

Lokasenna

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

I can tell you that in my second game my opponent established an LBA base on one of the little "gap" islands SE of Soerbaja--very early in the first phase--and took Soerbaja away from me with shocking speed. No sub base, no rearm, nada. Gone inside a month or so. It really threw me off and cost me a lot of ships. In other games I have come to lean on Soerbaja for up to four months into the critical first phase. Losing it so fast pulled the rug out on a key map sector. He used carriers to support the landings and that was that.

That's basically what I was talking about. Take Denpasar and Koepang (which are either already big enough or can be in short order due to SPS ratings), base some Kates there, and that's that. You don't even need an air HQ, although it's always nice. Kendari can work instead of Koepang, and has its own advantages (less vulnerable to Allied attack, for one). Kendari is a Phase 1 target for me for this reason - it creates a 10- or 15-hex bubble where it's harder for my opponent to move around in. I landed there on December 20 against the Moose. To me, the DEI is about LBA bubbles more than anything else. I prefer to concentrate forces and create no-sail zones and use that to isolate Allied positions, expanding out to my desired initial perimeter and then backfilling. But to each their own, and obviously setbacks can affect this.

I think the "Alfred 12-hex thing" is just a theory, albeit with some evidence. I look at it as a function of plane range/endurance and the amount of ocean to cover. I try to have "black arcs" (double search) at all times on all areas I want to cover for sure. I figure it's the only way I'm guaranteed to at least spot something, barring scrubbed flights/bad weather. I tend to limit my searches to the maximum Normal range rather than an arbitrary 12 hexes for fatigue/maintenance reasons rather than because they aren't effective beyond that. The only times I reliably get sightings beyond 14-15 hexes or so is with Emily/Mavis units, and not all the time. I could search from Port Blair to Ceylon, but no guarantee I would spot anything outside Trincomalee. I've also been on the other side of that, with Emily/Mavis units out of Blair spotting things all the way at Madras. So it can happen, but the DL is almost always going to be low.

As for the sub attack on the CA, it happens. I miss all the time against combat ships. Can't tell you how many times I've seen subs with at least average XP (55+) and COs with Naval 65+ shoot 6 torpedoes at a big ship and miss with every one. The odds of a successful attack appear to be south of 20%, if not south of 10%. This is with both (working) Allied subs and IJN subs, although the I-boats seem to do an OK job for a while.

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)

Post #: 349

RE: Insert witty AAR title here - Sqz(J) vs. fcharton (A) - 12/20/2015 9:13:42 PM

SqzMyLemon

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

Oops, KB's sorties are lower than I thought. Anybody know the smallest sized port I need to replenish sorties at off the top of their head? I'm trying to find it in the manual, but haven't seen it yet.

_____________________________

Luck is the residue of design - John Milton

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

(in reply to FeurerKrieg)

Post #: 350

RE: Insert witty AAR title here - Sqz(J) vs. fcharton (A) - 12/20/2015 10:21:40 PM

PaxMondo

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

Alfred has posted many times, including somewhere here in the past month, that despite many PT planes having great range the effective air search limit is about 12 hexes.

+1

And even then you need multiple 'hits' to get enough DL to have a good probability to launch. You absolutely can launch against DL=1 targets, but the odds are low.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)

Post #: 351

RE: Insert witty AAR title here - Sqz(J) vs. fcharton (A) - 12/20/2015 10:47:46 PM

Lokasenna

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon

Oops, KB's sorties are lower than I thought. Anybody know the smallest sized port I need to replenish sorties at off the top of their head? I'm trying to find it in the manual, but haven't seen it yet.

Page 284 through 287. The last page has what you want.

Basically, you need size 6+0 naval support. Or size 5+40. Size 4+78. Or size 3+94. Or size 2+97. Or AE/AKE. However, I think on the smaller port sizes you might bump up against replenishment limits for the port as a whole. If you're OK on fuel and just need sorties, when you get to the port remember to transfer the CVs to the port itself and then use the right-click on the rearm/replenish button within the port screen. Also remember to filter for CV/CVL/CVE if you only want to rearm the CVs...

Torpedoes are much harder to reload.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

Alfred has posted many times, including somewhere here in the past month, that despite many PT planes having great range the effective air search limit is about 12 hexes.

+1

And even then you need multiple 'hits' to get enough DL to have a good probability to launch. You absolutely can launch against DL=1 targets, but the odds are low.

The multiple hits don't need to be on the same day, though...

(in reply to SqzMyLemon)

Post #: 352

RE: Insert witty AAR title here - Sqz(J) vs. fcharton (A) - 12/20/2015 11:41:44 PM

PaxMondo

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

The multiple hits don't need to be on the same day, though...

No, but DL drops every phase, so ....

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to Lokasenna)

Post #: 353

RE: Insert witty AAR title here - Sqz(J) vs. fcharton (A) - 12/20/2015 11:56:15 PM

Lokasenna

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

The multiple hits don't need to be on the same day, though...

No, but DL drops every phase, so ....

The first number (current DL) does, but the maximum (second number) does not. It only goes down by 1 per phase (or maybe it's per turn...). If you've sighted a TF recently, even if it was just once, it should still have some maximum DL remaining no it. If you ping it again with a search, it should result in a better DL than a TF that was at 0/0 before the ping.

(in reply to PaxMondo)

Post #: 354

RE: Insert witty AAR title here - Sqz(J) vs. fcharton (A) - 12/21/2015 1:27:28 AM

Bullwinkle58

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

I can tell you that in my second game my opponent established an LBA base on one of the little "gap" islands SE of Soerbaja--very early in the first phase--and took Soerbaja away from me with shocking speed. No sub base, no rearm, nada. Gone inside a month or so. It really threw me off and cost me a lot of ships. In other games I have come to lean on Soerbaja for up to four months into the critical first phase. Losing it so fast pulled the rug out on a key map sector. He used carriers to support the landings and that was that.

That's basically what I was talking about. Take Denpasar and Koepang (which are either already big enough or can be in short order due to SPS ratings), base some Kates there, and that's that. You don't even need an air HQ, although it's always nice. Kendari can work instead of Koepang, and has its own advantages (less vulnerable to Allied attack, for one). Kendari is a Phase 1 target for me for this reason - it creates a 10- or 15-hex bubble where it's harder for my opponent to move around in. I landed there on December 20 against the Moose. To me, the DEI is about LBA bubbles more than anything else. I prefer to concentrate forces and create no-sail zones and use that to isolate Allied positions, expanding out to my desired initial perimeter and then backfilling. But to each their own, and obviously setbacks can affect this.

It was Denpasar. Not Koepang. (In my second game, not ours.)

This is a random day--January 11, 1942. Soerbaja was already useless.

Morning Air attack on Soerabaja , at 56,104

Weather in hex: Severe storms

Raid spotted at 40 NM, estimated altitude 15,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 15 minutes

Japanese aircraft
G3M2 Nell x 21

Allied aircraft
B-339D x 1

Japanese aircraft losses
G3M2 Nell: 1 damaged

No Allied losses

Airbase hits 2

Aircraft Attacking:
21 x G3M2 Nell bombing from 11000 feet
Airfield Attack: 2 x 250 kg GP Bomb, 4 x 60 kg GP Bomb

CAP engaged:
1-VI.G.V with B-339D (1 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
1 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 12000 , scrambling fighters between 0 and 12000.
Raid is overhead

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Balikpapan , at 64,97

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid spotted at 36 NM, estimated altitude 9,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 12 minutes

Japanese aircraft
G4M1 Betty x 20

Allied aircraft
B-339D x 2

Japanese aircraft losses
G4M1 Betty: 2 damaged
G4M1 Betty: 1 destroyed by flak

No Allied losses

Allied Ships
xAK American Leader, Bomb hits 3, on fire
xAK Capillo, Bomb hits 1, on fire
AM Finch, Bomb hits 1, heavy fires, heavy damage

Port hits 2

Aircraft Attacking:
19 x G4M1 Betty bombing from 6000 feet
Port Attack: 2 x 250 kg SAP Bomb, 4 x 60 kg GP Bomb

CAP engaged:
Ambon Patrouille with B-339D (1 airborne, 0 on standby, 1 scrambling)
1 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 10000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 29 minutes

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Soerabaja , at 56,104

Weather in hex: Severe storms

Raid spotted at 29 NM, estimated altitude 30,070 feet.
Estimated time to target is 9 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 5

Allied aircraft
B-339D x 1

No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
B-339D: 1 destroyed

Aircraft Attacking:
5 x A6M2 Zero sweeping at 29070 feet

CAP engaged:
1-VI.G.V with B-339D (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
1 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 12000 , scrambling fighters to 11000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 16 minutes

< Message edited by Bullwinkle58 -- 12/21/2015 2:50:51 AM >

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Lokasenna)

Post #: 355

RE: Insert witty AAR title here - Sqz(J) vs. fcharton (A) - 12/21/2015 2:54:08 AM

SqzMyLemon

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

Thoughts:

I'm just about to start working on the next turn and have made my decision. I will launch a consecutive deliberate assault against Sydney. I'm nervous about it, I've never had great success with back to back assaults, but in this case I have to risk it. My three complete divisions are in good shape and none have infantry squad disablements greater than 28. One infantry regiment is reduced to 2/3 strength, but the remaining two are fine. IJA 113th and 148th infantry regiments have no AV, just support elements that didn't unload at Newcastle.

KB is running out of sorties and is the main reason I've decided to attack. I have to take the threat of Allied LBA or naval surface attack seriously. If I run out of sorties, I'm in big trouble. I only have 124 sorties left on Hiryu and Soryu for example. KB can provide just two more strikes in support of the ground assault, before it absolutely has to go.

_____________________________

Luck is the residue of design - John Milton

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

(in reply to FeurerKrieg)

Post #: 356

RE: Insert witty AAR title here - Sqz(J) vs. fcharton (A) - 12/21/2015 3:05:10 AM

SqzMyLemon

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

I'd just like to add a thank you.

I know I don't always present myself in the best way and often let my emotions get the better of me. I don't like losing my cool, and I don't understand why I feel the need to post when I do. I guess for me, it is just a way to vent and get the frustration out at times.

Anyway, thanks for all the comments and continued interest. It's greatly appreciated on my end and the reason why I continue to keep an AAR.

As to Francois, he knows I lose my cool on occasion. In an e-mail exchange, he's even said he knows what I'm like from my previous AAR's, and if it was a problem for him he'd never have agreed to a game. I can't thank him enough for his empathy, he's a class act all around. I will try and emulate a more positive approach to the game.

_____________________________

Luck is the residue of design - John Milton

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

(in reply to FeurerKrieg)

Post #: 357

RE: Insert witty AAR title here - Sqz(J) vs. fcharton (A) - 12/21/2015 3:35:49 AM

Lokasenna

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon

Thoughts:

I'm just about to start working on the next turn and have made my decision. I will launch a consecutive deliberate assault against Sydney. I'm nervous about it, I've never had great success with back to back assaults, but in this case I have to risk it. My three complete divisions are in good shape and none have infantry squad disablements greater than 28. One infantry regiment is reduced to 2/3 strength, but the remaining two are fine. IJA 113th and 148th infantry regiments have no AV, just support elements that didn't unload at Newcastle.

KB is running out of sorties and is the main reason I've decided to attack. I have to take the threat of Allied LBA or naval surface attack seriously. If I run out of sorties, I'm in big trouble. I only have 124 sorties left on Hiryu and Soryu for example. KB can provide just two more strikes in support of the ground assault, before it absolutely has to go.

You could prioritize your sorties. For example, 2 days of Kates flying with 2x250kg bombs is better than 1 day of Kates + Vals.

I think you'll be alright at Sydney, if your fatigue/disruption really weren't that bad. Especially OK if you have an HQ present (can't recall).

(in reply to SqzMyLemon)

Post #: 358

RE: Insert witty AAR title here - Sqz(J) vs. fcharton (A) - 12/21/2015 6:27:54 AM

SqzMyLemon

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

You could prioritize your sorties. For example, 2 days of Kates flying with 2x250kg bombs is better than 1 day of Kates + Vals.

I think you'll be alright at Sydney, if your fatigue/disruption really weren't that bad. Especially OK if you have an HQ present (can't recall).

That's an excellent idea on a way to save sorties. Thanks for that!

I sent all of KB this turn though. I want maximum support for the ground assault. I decided not to bomb Allied units at Bathurst or Katoomba. There's a pretty good chance I'll run into a strong Allied CAP. I also want to make sure I have maximum CAP over Sydney because I think the B-17's will be making an appearance.

I can't tell you how nervous I am getting with KB. I've never ran the sorties down this low before. I can only hope the second assault goes well and KB can get out of Dodge soon.

_____________________________

Luck is the residue of design - John Milton

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

(in reply to Lokasenna)

Post #: 359

RE: Insert witty AAR title here - Sqz(J) vs. fcharton (A) - 12/21/2015 1:58:34 PM

Encircled

Posts: 2024
Joined: 12/30/2010
From: Northern England
Status: offline

I think a lot of us JFBs get to the stage were you think "The gods are against me"!

I think you will be fine with at most a couple more deliberate attacks, though I would be pounding the base every turn I could from air and sea.

Good luck!

_____________________________

(in reply to SqzMyLemon)

Post #: 360

Page: << < prev 10 11 [12] 13 14 next > >>

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: Insert witty AAR title here - Sqz(J) vs. fcharton (A)