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: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons revealed in post)

 
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 >> RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons revealed in post) Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons r... - 2/7/2017 9:17:20 PM   
mind_messing

 

Posts: 3393
Joined: 10/28/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

To me it all about air power. I don't want any type of surface combat!


This should be your motto as Japan.

In my current game, I had a series of engagements around Palembang where a IJN crack CA force was facing off against Allied DDs.

Nearly all of the engagements were Japanese wins or at best draws, but the Allies could afford to throw DD after DD against the CA's, and eventually attrition and accumulated damage forced them off.

It's a good illustration that the only way to win the surface combat game as Japan is not to play. As Japan you don't want to fight Allied surface ships with your own, you want to get the juicy amphib ships loaded with troops...



How do you protect bases against bombardements ? I found you need to get a good surface fleet there, it seems mines and coast arty does not work. And subs,mini subs mostly not. Perhaps masses of PTs (but Japan has none only late gets some). I already read the thread about it, also it suggest night search/attack, but the bombardement TFs rush in and out. Only if they are slowed down you might get a shot from the air (eg. if they are damaged, but this damage will mostly be delivered by own SF fleets protecting the base, only with much luck you might get a torp or mine hit)..


Simply, you can't. As the war progresses the Allied naval assets will be able to operate with greater degrees of freedom.

Air power helps - occasionally you'll get lucky with a long-range strike as bombarding ships enter/leave the strike area. Night attacks and PT's can work too, depending on the moonlight. IJN subs are always finicky at best after 1942, midgets even more so.

The best way to avoid bombardment is to build up bases where geography makes bombardment difficult. Inland bases are the best at this, for obvious reasons, but take the time to study the map. A few extra hexes of sailing around a headland or peninsula can mean some dead bombarding ships...

(in reply to Alpha77)
Post #: 61
RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons r... - 2/8/2017 4:07:45 PM   
Alpha77

 

Posts: 2116
Joined: 9/24/2010
Status: offline
" something is wrong with our damn torpedoes " ! We fired a lot of them and (I noted most cruisers and DD have empty torpedo magazines) but only a single one hit and exploded...

I have pics of the Yamato battles and more info what went wrong for unknown reasons and complete combat reports in my AAR if someone is interested. Link: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4175198



But ok here I copy it too:



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TF 198 encounters mine field at Kirakira (116,140)

Japanese Ships
SS RO-63, Mine hits 1, on fire, heavy damage



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submarine attack near Kirakira at 116,140

Japanese Ships
SSX Ha-20, hits 9, and is sunk

Allied Ships
BB Idaho
CA Cornwall
CA San Francisco
CA Astoria
CL St. Louis
CL Dauntless
CL Hobart
DD Lang
DD O'Brien
DD Le Triomphant
DD Isaac Sweers
DD Selfridge
DD Flusser

SSX Ha-20 is sighted by escort
DD Le Triomphant fails to find sub and abandons search
DD Isaac Sweers attacking submerged sub ....
DD Isaac Sweers cannot establish contact with SSX Ha-20
DD Isaac Sweers loses contact with SSX Ha-20
DD Isaac Sweers loses contact with SSX Ha-20
DD Selfridge fails to find sub and abandons search
DD Flusser fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Isaac Sweers attacking submerged sub ....
DD Isaac Sweers loses contact with SSX Ha-20
DD Isaac Sweers loses contact with SSX Ha-20
DD Flusser attacking submerged sub ....
SSX Ha-20 forced to surface!
DD Flusser firing on surfaced sub ....
DD Le Triomphant firing on surfaced sub ....
Massive explosion on SSX Ha-20
Sub slips beneath the waves


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TF 257 encounters mine field at Kirakira (116,140)

Japanese Ships
SSX Ha-25, Mine hits 2, heavy damage



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat, near Kirakira at 116,140, Range 8,000 Yards (why did the slower TF arrive first?)

Allied aircraft
no flights

Allied aircraft losses
OS2U-3 Kingfisher: 2 destroyed

Japanese Ships
BB Yamato, Shell hits 37, Torpedo hits 1, heavy fires, heavy damage
CA Kinugasa, Shell hits 4, on fire
CL Kuma
CL Kiso, Shell hits 2
CL Oi
DD Nowaki
DD Hibiki, Shell hits 3, on fire
DD Fumizuki
DD Oite
DD Hayate, Shell hits 4, heavy fires

Allied Ships
BB Idaho, Shell hits 38, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
CA Pensacola, Shell hits 1
CA Salt Lake City, Shell hits 2
CA Astoria, Shell hits 6, on fire
CA San Francisco, Shell hits 8, heavy fires
CA Australia, Shell hits 1
CA Cornwall
CL Leander
CL De Ruyter, Shell hits 1
CL Tromp, Shell hits 1
CL Hobart, Shell hits 2
CL Dauntless, Shell hits 4, on fire
CL St. Louis, Shell hits 1
DD O'Brien, Shell hits 2, on fire
DD Henley
DD Jarvis
DD McCall, Shell hits 2, on fire
DD Benham
DD Lang
DD Stack, Shell hits 4, heavy fires
DD Wilson, Shell hits 1
DD Flusser, Shell hits 2, on fire
DD Selfridge
DD Isaac Sweers, Shell hits 4
DD Le Triomphant


Maximum visibility in Clear Conditions and 67% moonlight: 12,000 yards
Range closes to 20,000 yards...
CONTACT: Allies radar detects Japanese task force at 20,000 yards
Range closes to 14,000 yards...
Range closes to 8,000 yards...
CONTACT: Allies radar detects Japanese task force at 8,000 yards
Kingman, F.V. crosses the 'T'
BB Yamato engages BB Idaho at 8,000 yards
CA Kinugasa engages BB Idaho at 8,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CA San Francisco at 8,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CA Astoria at 8,000 yards
BB Idaho engages DD Hayate at 8,000 yards
BB Idaho engages DD Oite at 8,000 yards
DD Fumizuki engages BB Idaho at 8,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CL Hobart at 8,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CL Tromp at 8,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CL De Ruyter at 8,000 yards
DD Hibiki engages DD Isaac Sweers at 8,000 yards
DD Hibiki engages DD Wilson at 8,000 yards
DD Jarvis engages DD Hayate at 8,000 yards
DD Hibiki engages DD O'Brien at 8,000 yards
Range closes to 4,000 yards
BB Yamato engages BB Idaho at 4,000 yards
CA Kinugasa engages CA Cornwall at 4,000 yards
CL Oi engages BB Idaho at 4,000 yards
BB Idaho engages CL Kiso at 4,000 yards
BB Idaho engages CL Kuma at 4,000 yards
CA Salt Lake City engages DD Hayate at 4,000 yards
DD Wilson engages DD Oite at 4,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CL St. Louis at 4,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CL Dauntless at 4,000 yards
DD Nowaki engages DD Stack at 4,000 yards
BB Idaho engages BB Yamato at 4,000 yards
CA Kinugasa engages BB Idaho at 4,000 yards
BB Idaho engages CL Oi at 4,000 yards
CL Kiso engages BB Idaho at 4,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CA Astoria at 4,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CA Salt Lake City at 4,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CA Pensacola at 4,000 yards
CL St. Louis engages DD Fumizuki at 4,000 yards
DD Hibiki engages DD O'Brien at 4,000 yards
DD Stack engages DD Nowaki at 4,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CL Tromp at 4,000 yards
DD Benham engages DD Fumizuki at 4,000 yards
DD McCall engages DD Oite at 4,000 yards
DD Hibiki engages DD O'Brien at 4,000 yards
Range closes to 2,000 yards
BB Idaho sunk by BB Yamato at 2,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CA Australia at 2,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CA San Francisco at 2,000 yards
DD Stack engages DD Oite at 2,000 yards
DD Fumizuki engages DD Isaac Sweers at 2,000 yards
CL Dauntless engages BB Yamato at 2,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CL Hobart at 2,000 yards
CL Oi engages CL De Ruyter at 2,000 yards
DD Hibiki engages DD Isaac Sweers at 2,000 yards
DD Lang engages DD Hibiki at 2,000 yards
DD Benham engages DD Oite at 2,000 yards
DD Hayate engages DD McCall at 2,000 yards
Range increases to 3,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CA Cornwall at 3,000 yards
CA Kinugasa engages CA Australia at 3,000 yards
CA San Francisco engages CL Oi at 3,000 yards
CL Kiso engages CA San Francisco at 3,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CA Salt Lake City at 3,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CA Pensacola at 3,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CL St. Louis at 3,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CL Dauntless at 3,000 yards
DD Stack engages DD Hibiki at 3,000 yards
CL Tromp engages BB Yamato at 3,000 yards
DD Le Triomphant engages DD Oite at 3,000 yards
DD Hibiki engages DD Flusser at 3,000 yards
DD Stack engages DD Hayate at 3,000 yards
Range increases to 4,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CA Cornwall at 4,000 yards
CA Kinugasa engages CA San Francisco at 4,000 yards
CL Oi engages CA San Francisco at 4,000 yards
CA San Francisco engages CL Kiso at 4,000 yards
CL Kuma engages CA Salt Lake City at 4,000 yards
DD Oite engages DD Le Triomphant at 4,000 yards
DD Fumizuki engages DD O'Brien at 4,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CL Hobart at 4,000 yards
DD Stack engages DD Nowaki at 4,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CL Leander at 4,000 yards
DD Le Triomphant engages DD Nowaki at 4,000 yards
DD Hayate engages DD Isaac Sweers at 4,000 yards
DD Hibiki engages DD Stack at 4,000 yards
DD Jarvis engages DD Fumizuki at 4,000 yards
Range closes to 3,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CA San Francisco at 3,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CA Australia at 3,000 yards
CL Oi engages CA San Francisco at 3,000 yards
CL Kiso engages CA San Francisco at 3,000 yards
CA San Francisco engages CL Kuma at 3,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CA Pensacola at 3,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CL St. Louis at 3,000 yards
DD Fumizuki engages DD Jarvis at 3,000 yards
DD Hibiki engages DD McCall at 3,000 yards
DD Nowaki engages CL Tromp at 3,000 yards
DD Hayate engages DD Wilson at 3,000 yards
DD Hayate engages DD Henley at 3,000 yards
Range increases to 6,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CA San Francisco at 6,000 yards
CA Kinugasa engages CA Australia at 6,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CA San Francisco at 6,000 yards
CL Kuma engages CA San Francisco at 6,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CA Pensacola at 6,000 yards
DD Oite engages DD Benham at 6,000 yards
DD Fumizuki engages DD McCall at 6,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CL Hobart at 6,000 yards
DD Nowaki engages DD Stack at 6,000 yards
DD Hayate engages DD Le Triomphant at 6,000 yards
DD Selfridge engages DD Hayate at 6,000 yards
DD Fumizuki engages DD Flusser at 6,000 yards
DD Benham engages DD Hayate at 6,000 yards
Range increases to 9,000 yards
CA Australia engages BB Yamato at 9,000 yards
CL Oi engages CA Pensacola at 9,000 yards
CL Kiso engages CA San Francisco at 9,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CA Salt Lake City at 9,000 yards
CA Pensacola engages DD Hayate at 9,000 yards
DD Oite engages DD Flusser at 9,000 yards
DD McCall engages DD Fumizuki at 9,000 yards
CL Hobart engages DD Hibiki at 9,000 yards
DD Nowaki engages DD McCall at 9,000 yards
CL Kuma engages CL De Ruyter at 9,000 yards
DD Nowaki engages DD Le Triomphant at 9,000 yards
DD Flusser engages DD Hayate at 9,000 yards
DD Hibiki engages DD Wilson at 9,000 yards
DD Lang engages DD Hibiki at 9,000 yards
DD Oite engages DD Jarvis at 9,000 yards
Range increases to 12,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CA San Francisco at 12,000 yards
CA San Francisco engages CA Kinugasa at 12,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CA San Francisco at 12,000 yards
CL Kuma engages CA San Francisco at 12,000 yards
DD Stack engages DD Hayate at 12,000 yards
DD Oite engages DD Stack at 12,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CL Hobart at 12,000 yards
DD O'Brien engages DD Nowaki at 12,000 yards
DD Stack engages DD Nowaki at 12,000 yards
DD Fumizuki engages DD Benham at 12,000 yards
DD Hayate engages DD Jarvis at 12,000 yards
DD Henley engages DD Oite at 12,000 yards
Task forces break off...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat, near Kirakira at 116,140, Range 12,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
CL Jintsu, Shell hits 6, on fire
CL Yubari
DD Mochizuki, Shell hits 1
DD Tachikaze
DD Fuyo
DD Yugao

Allied Ships
CA Pensacola
CA Salt Lake City
CA Astoria, heavy fires
CA San Francisco, Shell hits 1, heavy fires
CA Australia
CA Cornwall
CL Leander
CL De Ruyter
CL Tromp, on fire
CL Hobart
CL Dauntless, on fire
CL St. Louis, on fire
DD O'Brien, on fire
DD Henley
DD Jarvis
DD McCall, heavy fires
DD Benham
DD Lang
DD Stack, Shell hits 1, heavy fires, heavy damage
DD Wilson, on fire
DD Flusser, heavy fires
DD Selfridge
DD Isaac Sweers, on fire
DD Le Triomphant


Maximum visibility in Clear Conditions and 67% moonlight: 12,000 yards
Range closes to 24,000 yards...
Range closes to 22,000 yards...
Range closes to 20,000 yards...
Range closes to 18,000 yards...
Range closes to 16,000 yards...
Range closes to 14,000 yards...
Range closes to 12,000 yards...
CONTACT: Allies radar detects Japanese task force at 12,000 yards
Allies open fire on surprised Japanese ships at 12,000 yards (LOL)
CA Cornwall fires at CL Jintsu at 12,000 yards
CA San Francisco fires at CL Jintsu at 12,000 yards
CA San Francisco fires at CL Jintsu at 12,000 yards
CA Astoria fires at CL Jintsu at 12,000 yards
CL Dauntless fires at CL Jintsu at 12,000 yards
CL Leander fires at CL Jintsu at 12,000 yards
DD Flusser fires at DD Mochizuki at 12,000 yards
DD Henley fires at DD Mochizuki at 12,000 yards
Range closes to 11,000 yards
CA San Francisco engages CL Yubari at 11,000 yards
CL Jintsu engages CA San Francisco at 11,000 yards
DD Mochizuki engages DD Stack at 11,000 yards
DD Mochizuki engages DD Jarvis at 11,000 yards
CA Cornwall engages CL Jintsu at 11,000 yards
CA San Francisco engages CL Jintsu at 11,000 yards
CA San Francisco engages DD Yugao at 11,000 yards
DD Stack engages DD Fuyo at 11,000 yards
DD Fuyo engages DD Benham at 11,000 yards
DD Mochizuki engages DD McCall at 11,000 yards
Range closes to 10,000 yards
CL Jintsu engages CA Cornwall at 10,000 yards
CL Jintsu engages CA San Francisco at 10,000 yards
DD Flusser engages DD Fuyo at 10,000 yards
CA Salt Lake City engages CL Jintsu at 10,000 yards
DD Mochizuki engages DD Henley at 10,000 yards
CL Jintsu engages CL St. Louis at 10,000 yards
DD Mochizuki engages DD Le Triomphant at 10,000 yards
DD Fuyo engages DD McCall at 10,000 yards
Range closes to 8,000 yards
CL Yubari engages CA San Francisco at 8,000 yards
CL Jintsu engages CA Australia at 8,000 yards
CA San Francisco engages CL Jintsu at 8,000 yards
CL Jintsu engages CA Astoria at 8,000 yards
CA Salt Lake City engages CL Jintsu at 8,000 yards
DD Stack engages DD Mochizuki at 8,000 yards
CL Jintsu engages CL St. Louis at 8,000 yards
CL Jintsu engages CL Leander at 8,000 yards
DD Selfridge engages DD Mochizuki at 8,000 yards
DD Mochizuki engages DD Stack at 8,000 yards
DD Henley engages DD Mochizuki at 8,000 yards
Range increases to 11,000 yards
CL Yubari engages CA Cornwall at 11,000 yards
CL Jintsu engages CA Australia at 11,000 yards
CA San Francisco engages DD Yugao at 11,000 yards
DD Stack engages DD Fuyo at 11,000 yards
CL Jintsu engages CA Salt Lake City at 11,000 yards
DD Jarvis engages DD Mochizuki at 11,000 yards
CL Jintsu engages CL Leander at 11,000 yards
Kozai, Torazo orders Japanese TF to disengage
Range increases to 12,000 yards
CL Yubari engages CA San Francisco at 12,000 yards
CA Australia engages CL Jintsu at 12,000 yards
DD Yugao engages DD Stack at 12,000 yards
CA Astoria engages CL Jintsu at 12,000 yards
DD Stack engages DD Tachikaze at 12,000 yards
DD McCall engages DD Mochizuki at 12,000 yards
CL Leander engages CL Jintsu at 12,000 yards
DD Fuyo engages DD Jarvis at 12,000 yards
Range increases to 13,000 yards
CL Jintsu engages CA Cornwall at 13,000 yards
CA San Francisco engages CL Jintsu at 13,000 yards
DD McCall engages DD Yugao at 13,000 yards
CA Salt Lake City engages DD Tachikaze at 13,000 yards
DD Mochizuki engages DD Stack at 13,000 yards
CL Jintsu engages CL St. Louis at 13,000 yards
CL Hobart engages CL Jintsu at 13,000 yards
DD Henley engages DD Mochizuki at 13,000 yards
DD Tachikaze engages DD O'Brien at 13,000 yards
Task forces break off...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASW attack near Kirakira at 116,140

Japanese Ships
SSX Ha-16

Allied Ships
DD Henley
CA Cornwall
CA Australia
CA San Francisco, on fire
CA Salt Lake City
CL Tromp
CL Leander
DD McCall
DD Selfridge
DD Flusser, on fire
DD Wilson
DD Lang

SSX Ha-16 launches 2 torpedoes at DD Henley
Ha-16 bottoming out ....
DD Selfridge fails to find sub and abandons search
DD Flusser fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Wilson fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Lang fails to find sub and abandons search
DD Flusser fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Wilson fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Flusser fails to find sub and abandons search
DD Wilson fails to find sub, continues to search...
Escort abandons search for sub


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat, near Kirakira at 116,140, Range 12,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
BB Yamato, Shell hits 40, Torpedo hits 1, heavy fires, heavy damage
DD Oite
DD Hayate, Shell hits 9, and is sunk

Allied Ships
CA Pensacola
CA Salt Lake City
CA San Francisco, on fire
CA Australia
CA Cornwall
CL Leander
CL De Ruyter
CL Tromp
CL Hobart
DD Henley
DD Jarvis, Shell hits 2, heavy fires
DD McCall, on fire
DD Benham
DD Lang
DD Wilson
DD Flusser, on fire
DD Selfridge

Improved night sighting under 78% moonlight
Maximum visibility in Clear Conditions and 78% moonlight: 12,000 yards
Range closes to 24,000 yards...
Range closes to 22,000 yards...
CONTACT: Allies radar detects Japanese task force at 22,000 yards
Range closes to 20,000 yards...
CONTACT: Allies radar detects Japanese task force at 20,000 yards
Range closes to 18,000 yards...
Range closes to 16,000 yards...
CONTACT: Allies radar detects Japanese task force at 16,000 yards
Range closes to 14,000 yards...
Range closes to 12,000 yards...
CONTACT: Japanese lookouts spot Allied task force at 12,000 yards
CONTACT: Allied lookouts spot Japanese task force at 12,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CA Cornwall at 12,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CA Australia at 12,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CA San Francisco at 12,000 yards
BB Yamato engages DD Lang at 12,000 yards
BB Yamato engages DD Jarvis at 12,000 yards
Range closes to 9,000 yards
DD Jarvis engages DD Hayate at 9,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CL Leander at 9,000 yards
BB Yamato engages DD Selfridge at 9,000 yards
DD Wilson engages DD Hayate at 9,000 yards
Range closes to 6,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CA Australia at 6,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CL Leander at 6,000 yards
DD Jarvis engages DD Hayate at 6,000 yards
Range closes to 3,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CA San Francisco at 3,000 yards
DD Selfridge engages DD Hayate at 3,000 yards
DD Selfridge engages DD Hayate at 3,000 yards
DD Benham engages DD Hayate at 3,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CA Cornwall at 3,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CA Australia at 3,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CA San Francisco at 3,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CA Salt Lake City at 3,000 yards
DD Hayate engages DD Lang at 3,000 yards
Range increases to 4,000 yards
CA Australia engages DD Hayate at 4,000 yards
DD Flusser engages DD Hayate at 4,000 yards
Range increases to 5,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CA San Francisco at 5,000 yards
CA Australia engages DD Hayate at 5,000 yards
DD Oite engages DD Jarvis at 5,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CA Pensacola at 5,000 yards
Range closes to 4,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CA Cornwall at 4,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CA Australia at 4,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CA Pensacola at 4,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CL De Ruyter at 4,000 yards
DD Oite engages DD Benham at 4,000 yards
DD McCall engages DD Hayate at 4,000 yards
DD Jarvis engages DD Oite at 4,000 yards
DD McCall engages DD Oite at 4,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CA Salt Lake City at 4,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CA Pensacola at 4,000 yards
DD Jarvis engages DD Oite at 4,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CA Australia at 4,000 yards
Range increases to 7,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CA Cornwall at 7,000 yards
DD Jarvis engages DD Oite at 7,000 yards
Range increases to 8,000 yards
DD Selfridge engages DD Oite at 8,000 yards
Japanese Task Force Manages to Escape
Task forces break off...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat, near Kirakira at 116,140, Range 12,000 Yards

Japanese aircraft
no flights

Japanese aircraft losses
E13A1 Jake: 6 destroyed

Japanese Ships
BB Yamato, Shell hits 48, and is sunk
DD Oite

Allied Ships
CA Pensacola
CA Salt Lake City
CA Australia
CA Cornwall
CL Leander
CL De Ruyter
CL Tromp
CL Hobart
DD Henley
DD Benham
DD Lang, Shell hits 1
DD Selfridge

Improved night sighting under 78% moonlight
Maximum visibility in Clear Conditions and 78% moonlight: 12,000 yards
Range closes to 24,000 yards...
Range closes to 22,000 yards...
Range closes to 20,000 yards...
Range closes to 18,000 yards...
Range closes to 16,000 yards...
Range closes to 14,000 yards...
Range closes to 12,000 yards...
CONTACT: Japanese lookouts spot Allied task force at 12,000 yards
CONTACT: Allied lookouts spot Japanese task force at 12,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CA Cornwall at 12,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CA Cornwall at 12,000 yards
CA Australia engages DD Oite at 12,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CL Leander at 12,000 yards
BB Yamato engages DD Benham at 12,000 yards
Range closes to 9,000 yards
DD Lang engages DD Oite at 9,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CA Salt Lake City at 9,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CA Pensacola at 9,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CL Hobart at 9,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CL De Ruyter at 9,000 yards
BB Yamato engages DD Selfridge at 9,000 yards
DD Lang engages DD Oite at 9,000 yards
Range closes to 7,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CA Cornwall at 7,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CA Australia at 7,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CA Salt Lake City at 7,000 yards
BB Yamato engages DD Henley at 7,000 yards
Range closes to 6,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CA Cornwall at 6,000 yards
DD Oite engages DD Benham at 6,000 yards
DD Henley engages DD Oite at 6,000 yards
Range increases to 7,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CA Cornwall at 7,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CA Australia at 7,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CA Pensacola at 7,000 yards
DD Oite engages DD Benham at 7,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CA Cornwall at 7,000 yards
BB Yamato engages CA Australia at 7,000 yards
BB Yamato sunk by CA Pensacola at 7,000 yards
Range increases to 9,000 yards
DD Benham engages DD Oite at 9,000 yards
Japanese Task Force Manages to Escape
Task forces break off...



< Message edited by Alpha77 -- 2/8/2017 4:29:53 PM >

(in reply to mind_messing)
Post #: 62
RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons r... - 2/8/2017 4:11:57 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline
At this date in the game, that TF looks like KB bait.

(in reply to Alpha77)
Post #: 63
RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons r... - 2/8/2017 4:16:35 PM   
Alpha77

 

Posts: 2116
Joined: 9/24/2010
Status: offline
No KB at this time there....

... and Allies have ca. 160 fighters at Kira and 140 on Ndeni plus 300 or so bombers/aux planes (I dont want to send any ships near these air concentrations in day light, you perhaps?).

... and btw read more in the AAR except the torps failing also the fatser TF arrived after the slower one (departure was for both Tassa), as well noticed nothing of the huge battle with dozends of ships on fire in the night And was surprised LOL IJN is blind, dumb and deaf.

< Message edited by Alpha77 -- 2/8/2017 6:47:55 PM >

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 64
RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons r... - 2/8/2017 6:10:49 PM   
BBfanboy


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

No KB at this time there....

... and Allies have ca. 150 fighters at Kira and 130-140 or more on Ndeni plus 200 or so bombers/aux planes (I dont want to send any ships near these air concentrations in day light, you perhaps?).

... and btw read more in the AAR except the torps failing also the fatser TF arrived after the slower one (departure was for both Tassa), as well noticed nothing of the huge battle with dozends of ships on fire in the night And was surprised LOL IJN is blind, dumb and deaf.

The Japanese advantage was in visual spotting at night if it was dark enough. It wasn't, and Allied radar had your TF detected long before shooting started:

Maximum visibility in Clear Conditions and 67% moonlight: 12,000 yards
Range closes to 20,000 yards...
CONTACT: Allies radar detects Japanese task force at 20,000 yards
Range closes to 14,000 yards...
Range closes to 8,000 yards...
CONTACT: Allies radar detects Japanese task force at 8,000 yards
Kingman, F.V. crosses the 'T'


The game seems to give the Allies an advantage in gunnery if the visibility is really good. And I see by your AAR screenshots that the British/Commonwealth ships with working torpedoes got the torpedo hits on Yamato. These ships generally have good crew experience and good captains.

BBs were never intended to fight a close-in battle in the dark - their rate of fire and maneuverability is too low. Their big guns should be reserved for daylight engagements at long range and shore bombardments. Unfortunately the game does not allow for exact control of when engagements take place.


_____________________________

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 Alpha77)
Post #: 65
RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons r... - 2/8/2017 6:26:20 PM   
Hotei

 

Posts: 110
Joined: 1/30/2017
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

No KB at this time there....

... and Allies have ca. 150 fighters at Kira and 130-140 or more on Ndeni plus 200 or so bombers/aux planes (I dont want to send any ships near these air concentrations in day light, you perhaps?).

... and btw read more in the AAR except the torps failing also the fatser TF arrived after the slower one (departure was for both Tassa), as well noticed nothing of the huge battle with dozends of ships on fire in the night And was surprised LOL IJN is blind, dumb and deaf.


They had radar and crossed you T, you sunk a BB also.
You seem to fight on equal or even worse terms, that is the major issue.

(in reply to Alpha77)
Post #: 66
RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons r... - 2/8/2017 6:53:28 PM   
Alpha77

 

Posts: 2116
Joined: 9/24/2010
Status: offline
Is this moonlight number you get exact ? It is for the next night right ? It now says 78% moonlight at the top; this is for all the map ? And the bigger the % the worse for IJN ships right?


I was pondering if I wait a tuen to send the ships, but decided against it (Tassa is no really safe place for bigger ships imho). This was also an experiment, as noted most ships are from the list (and I lost only one of them plus only 1 CL badly damaged and a DD sunk), if torps had hit and worked the battle would have been better (one CA of the USN was hit by by big shell also, a torp would have sunk her), the Kitakami has 40 torps right ? They fired all of them, no hit. I noted already before these ships hit almost nothing for some reason.


Hotei, the Allies build huge TFs always and they work ok for them, our huge TFs seem not to work good (as ppl pointed out smaller TFs are better), so there is no real choice right? I can build easily a maxed out SF TF too but they would perform bad probably build in game malus for bad radios, electronics, command/control of the IJN?

But from the AAR you can see we won some surface fights and some others were more a draw. The bad performance of the bigger Kongo lead TF was the main issue.I corrected the mistakes like bad CO, SF combat mission, sending a recon and night search (as not being surprised, but they still were suprised lol) and in fact this TF performed better (they at least scored lots of gun hits if lousy torpedo performance)... Yamato is just too weak in armor and ammo usage etc for being some kind of super ship (at least in the game)

and:
The CO from Yamato was quite low AGR (better LS and NAV) but as LOKA already suspected he still closed to Allied cruisers and DDs so AGR value seems to have no impact (would need more testing perhaps)

< Message edited by Alpha77 -- 2/8/2017 7:10:30 PM >

(in reply to Hotei)
Post #: 67
RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons r... - 2/8/2017 7:11:25 PM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 4320
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline
With Japan you have so few ships that you will need to find a use to each; simply as that, even if that use is to remain in port as "fleet in being"

As far as not building:
- Late war "autogyro" CVEs; the ones that look like xAKs
- submarines: I will build a few, but they are really too costly for the service they provide (besides I start with plenty)
- Poor fuel efficient xAKLs ... I would use those already built but other than those with nice conversions, I won't build more



(in reply to Alpha77)
Post #: 68
RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons r... - 2/8/2017 7:18:09 PM   
Alpha77

 

Posts: 2116
Joined: 9/24/2010
Status: offline
Yup the Std-AKLs are really bad, the Std C and bigger can convert to TKs so I build some of them. The CVEs I have cancelled the ones with only 9 planes, but will try to build the ones with 12 planes (still bad - but may be useful for asw, escort). If the game goes that far...

..btw a pity we do not get any more usefull cruisers. I really would like one eg. modelled from Mogami, but trading more armor and AA for shorter range. In these waters when ships can refuel at Shortlands and Rabaul the long range is not needed really. And I won´t sail KB all over the map so also does not need long range (escort cruisers)

...(same for Zeros and Oscars btw. I rarely use their range at all)

< Message edited by Alpha77 -- 2/8/2017 7:19:23 PM >

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 69
RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons r... - 2/8/2017 11:11:26 PM   
SheperdN7


Posts: 296
Joined: 2/23/2016
From: Edmonton, AB, Canada
Status: offline
I used to really not like even building Yamato but after I learned that they are great in massive 20-25 ship SC TF's I have learned to love them.


Don't know why I see people using them in 8 ships TF's honestly makes a lot more sense to put them with a big fleet and to slug away at opposing forces.

Save the small TF's for hit and runs with CL's and DD's

_____________________________

Current Games:

WitP:AE PBEM against Greg (Late '44)
AE PBEM against Mogami (Early'44)
WITE PBEM against Boomer Sooner

(in reply to Alpha77)
Post #: 70
RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons r... - 2/8/2017 11:19:15 PM   
Hotei

 

Posts: 110
Joined: 1/30/2017
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SheperdN7

I used to really not like even building Yamato but after I learned that they are great in massive 20-25 ship SC TF's I have learned to love them.


Don't know why I see people using them in 8 ships TF's honestly makes a lot more sense to put them with a big fleet and to slug away at opposing forces.

Save the small TF's for hit and runs with CL's and DD's


The fact that Japan can barely buy a full tank of gas for them is the biggest reason not to build them.

(in reply to SheperdN7)
Post #: 71
RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons r... - 2/9/2017 5:14:43 PM   
SheperdN7


Posts: 296
Joined: 2/23/2016
From: Edmonton, AB, Canada
Status: offline
The fact that when combined, they have 18 of the most powerful guns in the game is enough for me to build them.

_____________________________

Current Games:

WitP:AE PBEM against Greg (Late '44)
AE PBEM against Mogami (Early'44)
WITE PBEM against Boomer Sooner

(in reply to Hotei)
Post #: 72
RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons r... - 2/9/2017 5:31:08 PM   
mind_messing

 

Posts: 3393
Joined: 10/28/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SheperdN7

The fact that when combined, they have 18 of the most powerful guns in the game is enough for me to build them.


The problems with the Yamato's are legion, though

- How do you get them to fire on targets that are actually worth the cost?
- Torpedo magnets
- Pier queens: even limited damage takes ages to repair
- Exceptionally difficult to reload anywhere other than the biggest ports.
- Guzzle fuel at a gargantuan rate.
- On the slow side for modern BB's.

Yeah, I'd trade both for three more decent IJN CA's.

(in reply to SheperdN7)
Post #: 73
RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons r... - 2/9/2017 7:48:02 PM   
Encircled


Posts: 2024
Joined: 12/30/2010
From: Northern England
Status: offline
Don't think I've ever built them in my games as Japan.

VP magnets

_____________________________


(in reply to mind_messing)
Post #: 74
RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons r... - 2/9/2017 7:56:13 PM   
Lokasenna


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Encircled

Don't think I've ever built them in my games as Japan.

VP magnets


I'd rather build them and have them soak bombs/torpedoes in KB at the very least than lose a carrier.

(in reply to Encircled)
Post #: 75
RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons r... - 2/9/2017 8:16:19 PM   
Cavalry Corp

 

Posts: 3107
Joined: 9/2/2003
From: Sampford Spiney Devon UK
Status: offline
My Y and Mush are now sadly gone in oct 44 but they sank a lot of ships during the war including 4 allied BB sunk ( including the New Jersey) or so badly damaged they are out of the war. The are well worth building. The Kongo class is good as its fast, for raiding and also CV escort. All other BB ( and all other ships) that cannot make over 25kts seem to be TT magnets - I have been playing for a long time I know so. Do not look at AA values in stock ( I think the game is a bit inaccurate in this ), I do all the upgrades the AA difference is no value on any ship, radar ok that is good. ASW upgrades that too is good.

I would say all ships have a good use just like chess pieces.

This is my first PBEM SCN 2 -and boy are you in for a shock if you do too much and find the oil cut in mid 44 by Oct 44 you will be on your knees.
The problem for Japan is keeping fuel available for ships and industry. And for that reason I keep the guzzling short rangers in DEI most of the time and use fuel from the DEI where at all possible. AO with them also only collect fuel from the DEI.

Not sure about building Jap SS. I do not like to play too much with hindsight, they saw value so I guess they should be built and many do have use, esp ones with range that can keep away from strong allied ASW assets. The SST I agree are rubbish - not sure they even work properly. I have had some fun with the i400 and 401 - caused more than a few ships to slip under the waves and tied up a lot tracking them. But the mistake I made was getting them before Oct 44 when the Seiran is available!! Live and learn.

< Message edited by cavalry -- 2/9/2017 8:18:46 PM >

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 76
RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons r... - 2/9/2017 9:05:00 PM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 18046
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline
The "AA value" counts the number of barrels of AA guns to come up with a number, I think, just like ASW value is the number of weapons that can be fired/dropped on subs underwater. The effectiveness of the weapon is in the combat resolution algorithm and it looks at range, rate of fire, supporting radar detection, and perhaps reliability. The IJN 25mm AA gun was poor in range, rate of fire and reliability. Best IJN defence against aircraft is other aircraft or speed+maneuver.

_____________________________

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 Cavalry Corp)
Post #: 77
RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons r... - 2/10/2017 10:44:31 AM   
Alpha77

 

Posts: 2116
Joined: 9/24/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SheperdN7

Don't know why I see people using them in 8 ships TF's honestly makes a lot more sense to put them with a big fleet and to slug away at opposing forces.

Save the small TF's for hit and runs with CL's and DD's


Yes but the big sized TFs do not work well for IJN, as pointed out by several ppl not only in this thread. See the Kongo battle which was a big powerful TFs and they were lousy (for other reasons perhaps too). The smaller one worked indeed better as I corrected mistakes (even if the CO seems tohave no big influence to close or not). At least they dealed out some serious (gun)damage and most ships survived, contrary to the other fleet.

Well obviously I used the wrong moonlight % tho, as ppl also pointed out.
But does not matter it helped to decide to stop Mushashi and accelerate more useful stuff (CV,DD)

I wanted to stop using valuable SF ships for a while, but now the Allies (perhaps triggered by Yamato loss) bombard Tassa with good effect and as also pointed out there is not much one can do other than using SF fleets. I had 5 mini subs and a real sub there and mines. All these hit nothing....Must think about this.

< Message edited by Alpha77 -- 2/10/2017 10:48:20 AM >

(in reply to SheperdN7)
Post #: 78
RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons r... - 2/10/2017 10:53:15 AM   
Cavalry Corp

 

Posts: 3107
Joined: 9/2/2003
From: Sampford Spiney Devon UK
Status: offline
Thanks yes - more 25mm mean nothing - I never notice any difference, there probably should or maybe some maybe the game is at error or maybe something else. I guess the only effective gun is the 5 inch and the 3.9.

(in reply to Alpha77)
Post #: 79
RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons r... - 2/10/2017 10:59:44 AM   
Alpha77

 

Posts: 2116
Joined: 9/24/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: cavalry

Thanks yes - more 25mm mean nothing - I never notice any difference, there probably should or maybe some maybe the game is at error or maybe something else. I guess the only effective gun is the 5 inch and the 3.9.



25mm is better than nothing or only MGs, but indeed compared with other AA weapons they were pretty poor. I seldom saw some serious losses by Allied planes attacking IJ ships (even with high AA value), the other way around already in 43 the game will see more IJ losses to Allied ship AA. Pretty realistic right.

And yes, I would also trade 2 x Yamato vs. 3 CAs (the upgraded Mogami with more armour but less range would be cool if it existed )

(in reply to Cavalry Corp)
Post #: 80
RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons r... - 2/10/2017 11:01:52 AM   
Hotei

 

Posts: 110
Joined: 1/30/2017
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

quote:

ORIGINAL: SheperdN7

Don't know why I see people using them in 8 ships TF's honestly makes a lot more sense to put them with a big fleet and to slug away at opposing forces.

Save the small TF's for hit and runs with CL's and DD's


Yes but the big sized TFs do not work well for IJN, as pointed out by several ppl not only in this thread. See the Kongo battle which was a big powerful TFs and they were lousy (for other reasons perhaps too). The smaller one worked indeed better as I corrected mistakes (even if the CO seems tohave no big influence to close or not). At least they dealed out some serious (gun)damage and most ships survived, contrary to the other fleet.

Well obviously I used the wrong moonlight % tho, as ppl also pointed out.
But does not matter it helped to decide to stop Mushashi and accelerate more useful stuff (CV,DD)

I wanted to stop using valuable SF ships for a while, but now the Allies (perhaps triggered by Yamato loss) bombard Tassa with good effect and as also pointed out there is not much one can do other than using SF fleets. I had 5 mini subs and a real sub there and mines. All these hit nothing....Must think about this.


Can you win and defend air superiority in the region at this time is the only thing you need to think about before making more plans.

(in reply to Alpha77)
Post #: 81
RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons r... - 2/10/2017 11:09:20 AM   
Alpha77

 

Posts: 2116
Joined: 9/24/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Hotei


Can you win and defend air superiority in the region at this time is the only thing you need to think about before making more plans.



I like to have advise from experts on that one, how to get rid of the 500-600 Allied planes on Kira and Ndeni ? As can be seen the surface mission failed (ofc the plan would be as soon Allied ships are weakened to bomabrd the F out of Kira so destroy planes and airfields then yes, I believe you could say I had the upper hand. But with so many Allied planes right near there and massas of B17s I would say in the moment it is more in Allies favour. Even if the air war of attrition leans to our side (he is on the offensive so his pilot losses at least must by way higher)
Thanks

PS: I want to stay strong there to perhaps bag the stranded Allies at Guadalcanal... but I already consider to pull back some better troops from other places like Shortlands etc. I had prepped some troops for Kira too, but as the IJN failed pretty much I guess I can scratch the landing there. Cause of the enemy airpower I would not dare to land or send any ships in daylight.

< Message edited by Alpha77 -- 2/10/2017 11:15:20 AM >

(in reply to Hotei)
Post #: 82
RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons r... - 2/10/2017 11:34:56 AM   
Alpha77

 

Posts: 2116
Joined: 9/24/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing


quote:

ORIGINAL: SheperdN7

The fact that when combined, they have 18 of the most powerful guns in the game is enough for me to build them.


The problems with the Yamato's are legion, though

- How do you get them to fire on targets that are actually worth the cost?



So actually I did good, as she sank at least a US BB (ok, the coup de grace was probably the single crusier torp that hit :) Way better than in reality at least. But you forget to note that the ammo runs out pretty quick, I beleive in the 2nd batte phase she either did not hit or not fire any big shells anymore. She hit a lot of with her 15 and 12,7cm guns tho

I remember in my 1st campaign as IJ (vs.the AI) she sank an AM and ALK...when I checked the ammo of the big guns after that, 30-40% or so was gone for 2 tiny ships lol

(in reply to mind_messing)
Post #: 83
RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons r... - 2/10/2017 11:44:49 AM   
Hotei

 

Posts: 110
Joined: 1/30/2017
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hotei


Can you win and defend air superiority in the region at this time is the only thing you need to think about before making more plans.



I like to have advise from experts on that one, how to get rid of the 500-600 Allied planes on Kira and Ndeni ? As can be seen the surface mission failed (ofc the plan would be as soon Allied ships are weakened to bomabrd the F out of Kira so destroy planes and airfields then yes, I believe you could say I had the upper hand. But with so many Allied planes right near there and massas of B17s I would say in the moment it is more in Allies favour. Even if the air war of attrition leans to our side (he is on the offensive so his pilot losses at least must by way higher)
Thanks

PS: I want to stay strong there to perhaps bag the stranded Allies at Guadalcanal... but I already consider to pull back some better troops from other places like Shortlands etc. I had prepped some troops for Kira too, but as the IJN failed pretty much I guess I can scratch the landing there. Cause of the enemy airpower I would not dare to land or send any ships in daylight.



I am not an expert, I have never played an PBEM.
I just think you need to have a clear picture about the enemy strength, its capabilities and its intentions and then form a coherent strategy and a suitable doctrine.
You are fighting a superior enemy, you should fight him where he is the weakest, not where you have parity or worse, there you should be opportunistic and flexible in defense.

(in reply to Alpha77)
Post #: 84
RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons r... - 2/10/2017 11:51:51 AM   
Alpha77

 

Posts: 2116
Joined: 9/24/2010
Status: offline
He is weakest in China and it will fall eventually

He is strongest in the south (I have not seen any major combatants anywhere for a while except there) he certainly likes to concentrate his stuff (contrary to the AI, so I needed to get used to that - this is my 1st full PBM). I have a pretty clear picture of both Ndeni and Kira (good D/L), again 500-600 planes and 20 ships at Kira and 250 or so at Ndeni. I tried to isolate the places with subs, my sub sunk an AKL recently so I am making progress

Subs are funny he started to shoot his guns at the AKL and I thought, ah a clever capt not wasting torps, but then after the AKL was crippled already by gun fire he fired a torp spread Big succes: 1 VP It seems I sank CA Quincy perhaps near Ndeni 3 turns ago (2 torp hits could be enough or?)

< Message edited by Alpha77 -- 2/10/2017 11:53:22 AM >

(in reply to Hotei)
Post #: 85
RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons r... - 2/10/2017 1:17:40 PM   
Hotei

 

Posts: 110
Joined: 1/30/2017
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

He is weakest in China and it will fall eventually

He is strongest in the south (I have not seen any major combatants anywhere for a while except there) he certainly likes to concentrate his stuff (contrary to the AI, so I needed to get used to that - this is my 1st full PBM). I have a pretty clear picture of both Ndeni and Kira (good D/L), again 500-600 planes and 20 ships at Kira and 250 or so at Ndeni. I tried to isolate the places with subs, my sub sunk an AKL recently so I am making progress

Subs are funny he started to shoot his guns at the AKL and I thought, ah a clever capt not wasting torps, but then after the AKL was crippled already by gun fire he fired a torp spread Big succes: 1 VP It seems I sank CA Quincy perhaps near Ndeni 3 turns ago (2 torp hits could be enough or?)


You also seem to be pushing in India, dont over do it, just crushing China is a good objective if he is allowing it.
Keep a better win/loss ratio in the Solomons and dont commit valuable assets to do it.

(in reply to Alpha77)
Post #: 86
RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons r... - 2/10/2017 2:05:56 PM   
Hotei

 

Posts: 110
Joined: 1/30/2017
Status: offline
That concentration of allied assets seems almost a game killer to be honests, when you are over running Burma and India the British units should be there mostly even if Australia is also important for the empire.
I want to play a PBEM but this is one point that would kill a lot of the historical immersion that the game potentially holds.

One option would be that there are at least two allied players to create even some friction between the allies and their objectives.
British Commonwealth and DEI are a logical pairing, USA did not support the return of their colonial holdings and that is also a reason that was not a primary front for US forces.
Australia and New Zealand where in the US camp from the start but they never got the voice they wanted or felt deserving on the conduct of the war.

quote:

The Australian government's policy has been grounded on two facts. One is that
the war with Japan is not a phase of the struggle with the Axis powers, but is a
new war. The second is that Australia must go on a war footing.

Those two facts involve two lines of action - one in the direction of external
policy as to our dealings with Britain, the United States, Russia, the
Netherlands East Indies and China in the higher direction of the war in the
Pacific.

The second is the reshaping, in fact the revolutionising, of the Australian way
of life until a war footing is attained quickly, efficiently and without
question. ...

Now with equal realism, we take the view that, while the determination of
military policy is the Soviet's business, we should be able to look forward with
reason to aid from Russia against Japan. We look for a solid and impregnable
barrier of the Democracies against the three Axis Powers, and we refuse to
accept the dictum that the Pacific struggle must be treated as a subordinate
segment of the general conflict. By that it is not meant that any one of the
other theatres of war is of less importance than the Pacific, but that Australia
asks for a concerted plan evoking the greatest strength at the Democracies'
disposal, determined upon hurling Japan back.

The Australian Government, therefore, regards the Pacific struggle as primarily
one in which the United States and Australia must have the fullest say in the
direction of the democracies' fighting plan.

Without any inhibitions of any kind, I make it quite clear that Australia looks
to America, free of any pangs as to our traditional links or kinship with the
United Kingdom.

We know the problems that the United Kingdom faces. We know the constant threat
of invasion. We know the dangers of dispersal of strength, but we know too,
that Australia can go and Britain can still hold on. ...

Summed up, Australian external policy will be shaped toward obtaining Russian
aid, and working out, with the United States, as the major factor, a plan of
Pacific strategy, along with British, Chinese and Dutch forces.


http://john.curtin.edu.au/pmportal/text/00468.html


Other way is respecting the OOB and pay PP for all troops movement outside the chain of commmand.




< Message edited by Hotei -- 2/10/2017 2:17:06 PM >

(in reply to Hotei)
Post #: 87
RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons r... - 2/10/2017 3:57:23 PM   
DRF99


Posts: 90
Joined: 9/3/2009
Status: offline
quote:

One option would be that there are at least two allied players to create even some friction between the allies and their objectives.


At the same time have two Japanese players who hate each other, hide information from each other, generally don't cooperate; one for the IJA, one for the IJN.

IJN: "Let's go to Australia"
IJA: "Screw you!"

IJN: "Let's go to India"
IJA: "Screw you!"

You can see the pattern here.

(in reply to Hotei)
Post #: 88
RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons r... - 2/10/2017 4:07:26 PM   
Hotei

 

Posts: 110
Joined: 1/30/2017
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DRF99

quote:

One option would be that there are at least two allied players to create even some friction between the allies and their objectives.


At the same time have two Japanese players who hate each other, hide information from each other, generally don't cooperate; one for the IJA, one for the IJN.

IJN: "Let's go to Australia"
IJA: "Screw you!"

IJN: "Let's go to India"
IJA: "Screw you!"

You can see the pattern here.


I expected that response and would be open for that but the Japanese player has to usually pay to get the extra LCUs in the game and only has one navy.

(in reply to DRF99)
Post #: 89
RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons r... - 2/10/2017 4:13:44 PM   
Alpha77

 

Posts: 2116
Joined: 9/24/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Hotei


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

He is weakest in China and it will fall eventually

He is strongest in the south (I have not seen any major combatants anywhere for a while except there) he certainly likes to concentrate his stuff (contrary to the AI, so I needed to get used to that - this is my 1st full PBM). I have a pretty clear picture of both Ndeni and Kira (good D/L), again 500-600 planes and 20 ships at Kira and 250 or so at Ndeni. I tried to isolate the places with subs, my sub sunk an AKL recently so I am making progress

Subs are funny he started to shoot his guns at the AKL and I thought, ah a clever capt not wasting torps, but then after the AKL was crippled already by gun fire he fired a torp spread Big succes: 1 VP It seems I sank CA Quincy perhaps near Ndeni 3 turns ago (2 torp hits could be enough or?)


You also seem to be pushing in India, dont over do it, just crushing China is a good objective if he is allowing it.
Keep a better win/loss ratio in the Solomons and dont commit valuable assets to do it.



THANKS! I have only few naval assets there, as I saw that he sends everything to the south (even candian corvets, all RN & Aussie ships). I also suspect he uses off map movement for most convois I was not able to find much on map so far. Would be cool if we get some possibility to send eg. subs and raiders "off map" to at least disturb this a bit. Or a simulation of German/Italian disturbances. He does not even need escort off map which in reality they would need esp. vs. German subs. OTH the loss of some cargo ships even with fuel/supply will not disturb the Allies much, they have/get enough of all these. Only troop convois would be a valueable target imo (except good combat ships).

I reached my main goal in India (Calcutta and 3-4 surounding towns as perimeter), will establish defense now there. Or would it be better to try getting more ? However I find most of the nearer places have not much foghting for (HI,oil eg). Most only a bit LI and RES.

Still no solution for the south, I am outnumbered there. It perhaps was a mistake to commit 2 divs and all these ships. But as reported above he would now have the whole area otherwise and can build giant bases and then make my positions at shortlands/rabaul dangerous (would always need huge CAP but 4e get through anyway - means could not even keep ships there in port/repair. This in turn would mean, my PM position becomes outflanked and I would need to reatreat to Truk area (in 42 already). Or is this analysis wrong

However he has significant air assets in India too (just not much naval, they are in the south) I wonder are not a lot of US units also restricted (and air units) Seems he lot he can bring in 42 already.

< Message edited by Alpha77 -- 2/10/2017 4:17:42 PM >

(in reply to Hotei)
Post #: 90
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Not so good IJ combat ships (for severall reasons revealed in post) Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   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

0.844