RE: Notes from a Small Island

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: Notes from a Small Island

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: Notes from a Small Island

Page: << < prev 84 85 [86] 87 88 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Notes from a Small Island - 8/30/2018 10:48:01 AM

Mike Solli

Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline

What's the composition of DS?

_____________________________

Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to T Rav)

Post #: 2551

RE: Notes from a Small Island - 8/30/2018 1:29:51 PM

Canoerebel

Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline

I'm not sure how much info you want, but Death Star is big, strong, and has all kinds of TFs embedded. It's strong enough to accept the risk of steaming within close range of multiple large enemy airfields and the main concentration of the Japanese navy.

(in reply to Mike Solli)

Post #: 2552

RE: Notes from a Small Island - 8/30/2018 1:38:18 PM

Canoerebel

Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline

I slept on the turn - a rarity reflecting the amount of thought given - and changed the plan this morning.

I believe Erik will either go all-in or all-out at Sapporo. If he's all-in, meaning mega-CAP, the Allied air force would likely take heavy losses, since Erik is now prepared and my guys are a bit tuckered out. If he's all-out, an Allied air strike wouldn't accomplish anything because there'd be nothing there to tangle with in aerial combat (the focus of Allied efforts) and any bombing success vs. the airfield would be temporary, as it's a level 9 field that could be quickly repaired. The Allies can't afford to give it perpetual attention, especially since other big supporting airfields are nearby. So the Allied plan is for the air force to mostly rest today, barring the unlikely possibility that Erik deploys his navy forward, near Wakkanai, in which they'll be subject to full attack.

The main focus is Erik's cruisers at Sapporo. He may sortie them towards safety, towards Death Star, or he may keep them at Sapporo to ward off Allied bombardment TFs (none are coming). About six Allied combat TFs will target Sapporo to seek battle, along with PT boats and subs. The combat TFs will take several routes, in case the IJN cruisers are set to flee.

50 B-29s have night orders to hit Sapporo's port, in the unlikely chance that Erik disbands his cruisers in port.

Death Star will patrol near Wakkanai. From there, it can continue the attack on Sapporo if things appear propitious. If not, it will be in position to proceed with the next amphibious assault.

(in reply to Canoerebel)

Post #: 2553

RE: Notes from a Small Island - 8/30/2018 2:19:10 PM

JohnDillworth

Posts: 3100
Joined: 3/19/2009
Status: offline

Now here is a dumb thought. I believe this is scenario 1. If so that means few Night Fighters for Japan. Even if you opponent pushed a few into production there can�t be a whole lot of them. But what ever he has he might have at Sapporo . Here is the dumb part. Do you have any night fighters? If so do they have a sweep setting? Maybe sweep before your bombers go it?

_____________________________

Today I come bearing an olive branch in one hand, and the freedom fighter's gun in the other. Do not let the olive branch fall from my hand. I repeat, do not let the olive branch fall from my hand. - Yasser Arafat Speech to UN General Assembly

(in reply to Canoerebel)

Post #: 2554

RE: Notes from a Small Island - 8/30/2018 2:22:14 PM

Canoerebel

Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline

To the best of my knowledge, night fighters can't fly sweep or escort missions at night.

But it just so happens that this turn I set one Black Widow squadron to escort the B-29 raid on Sapporo's port, just to see if it happens to work.

P.S. Erik seems to have plenty of night fighters that work - or at least, fighters that suffice at night.

(in reply to JohnDillworth)

Post #: 2555

RE: Notes from a Small Island - 8/30/2018 3:21:40 PM

dave sindel

Posts: 488
Joined: 3/13/2006
From: Millersburg, OH
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

To the best of my knowledge, night fighters can't fly sweep or escort missions at night.

But it just so happens that this turn I set one Black Widow squadron to escort the B-29 raid on Sapporo's port, just to see if it happens to work.

P.S. Erik seems to have plenty of night fighters that work - or at least, fighters that suffice at night.

I'm curious to find out if this escort happens. I've tried setting the F4U-2 Corsair Night Fighers to sweep - the game allows that mission - but I dont think it actually happens. Or at least I've never seen a combat report indicating the mission occurred.

(in reply to Canoerebel)

Post #: 2556

RE: Notes from a Small Island - 8/30/2018 3:45:44 PM

Mike Solli

Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

I'm not sure how much info you want, but Death Star is big, strong, and has all kinds of TFs embedded. It's strong enough to accept the risk of steaming within close range of multiple large enemy airfields and the main concentration of the Japanese navy.

I was just curious how many CVs and CVLs you have. Just a morbid JFB curiosity.

_____________________________

Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to Canoerebel)

Post #: 2557

RE: Notes from a Small Island - 8/30/2018 4:25:38 PM

Simonsez

Posts: 110
Joined: 12/7/2011
Status: offline

More than even you can imagine.....

_____________________________

Simonsez

It's a trap!

(in reply to Mike Solli)

Post #: 2558

RE: Notes from a Small Island - 8/30/2018 4:27:09 PM

Lokasenna

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

If he's aware of how carrier TFs function, then I think the most likely thing is he will attempt a surface intercept of the carriers. Doing so will cancel any Remain On Station orders for them and they will begin retiring towards their home port.

This could potentially leave some of your assets with their pants down.

(in reply to Simonsez)

Post #: 2559

RE: Notes from a Small Island - 8/30/2018 4:33:41 PM

Canoerebel

Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline

Yes, I figured a spoiling attack or an all-out attack by his combat TFs was the main thing I had to provide for. Hence the Allied combat TFs heading to Sapporo, hopefully acting as spoilers themselves.

The home port for most of my TFs is Shikuka, of course. And that's also the "controlling" home port, since Pacific HQ is there.

(in reply to Lokasenna)

Post #: 2560

RE: Notes from a Small Island - 8/30/2018 4:35:02 PM

Mike Solli

Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Simonsez

More than even you can imagine.....

_____________________________

Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to Simonsez)

Post #: 2561

RE: Notes from a Small Island - 8/30/2018 4:39:17 PM

Canoerebel

Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline

Death Star has 16 CVs, 10 CVLs, and 57 CVEs, in 11 carrier TFs.

(in reply to Mike Solli)

Post #: 2562

RE: Notes from a Small Island - 8/30/2018 4:41:16 PM

Mike Solli

Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Death Star has 16 CVs, 10 CVLs, and 57 CVEs, in 11 carrier TFs.

You were right, Simonsez.

_____________________________

Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to Canoerebel)

Post #: 2563

RE: Notes from a Small Island - 8/30/2018 4:59:44 PM

BBfanboy

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: dave sindel

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

To the best of my knowledge, night fighters can't fly sweep or escort missions at night.

But it just so happens that this turn I set one Black Widow squadron to escort the B-29 raid on Sapporo's port, just to see if it happens to work.

P.S. Erik seems to have plenty of night fighters that work - or at least, fighters that suffice at night.

I'm curious to find out if this escort happens. I've tried setting the F4U-2 Corsair Night Fighers to sweep - the game allows that mission - but I dont think it actually happens. Or at least I've never seen a combat report indicating the mission occurred.

This could be because the fighters do not have a good radar to allow for night intercepts of other fighters. The Black Widow features an intercept radar in that big nose so it might be able to escort. If escort and sweep don't work, they might LRCAP.

_____________________________

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 dave sindel)

Post #: 2564

RE: Notes from a Small Island - 8/30/2018 5:14:06 PM

AcePylut

Posts: 1494
Joined: 3/19/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Death Star has 16 CVs, 10 CVLs, and 57 CVEs, in 11 carrier TFs.

And one tactical nuclear weapon?: Yes? No? Drop one when the time comes. I know I will as soon as this upcoming game between ChickenYoungMan and I gets there ! :D

_____________________________

(in reply to Canoerebel)

Post #: 2565

RE: Notes from a Small Island - 8/30/2018 6:29:04 PM

Canoerebel

Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline

In choosing his emoticon, Mike may or may not have meant to express disapproval about Death Star. I can't tell one way or the other. If any reader wishes to discuss this, send me a PM. I'll be glad to respond in detail. In short, DS is a necessity because of greatly enhanced Japanese capabilities in the game. Faced with these same circumstances, the Allies in the war would have done the same thing.

(in reply to AcePylut)

Post #: 2566

RE: Notes from a Small Island - 8/30/2018 6:59:58 PM

Mike Solli

Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

In choosing his emoticon, Mike may or may not have meant to express disapproval about Death Star. I can't tell one way or the other. If any reader wishes to discuss this, send me a PM. I'll be glad to respond in detail. In short, DS is a necessity because of greatly enhanced Japanese capabilities in the game. Faced with these same circumstances, the Allies in the war would have done the same thing.

I have no problem with it. I've never even reached 1944 in a game (but I'm close!) let alone 1945. The power of the US is amazing. You're right, the Japanese do have enhanced capabilities in this game. Even so, they're doomed. The Japanese never can come close to that type of power. It's pretty scary. I look at 6-8 Japanese CVs and think that's an immense force, until I look at the size of your force. How many carriers have you lost to date?

_____________________________

Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to Canoerebel)

Post #: 2567

RE: Notes from a Small Island - 8/30/2018 7:07:21 PM

Canoerebel

Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline

The Japanese aren't doomed in game terms. Japan has a fair chance to win under the victory point system.

This game is a good example. Erik has a lead of 69k to 56k (or something like that). That's a fairly significant lead in 1945. There's a chance the Allies won't achieve auto victory until 1946. And that's a big improvement over the game situation in September '44, when it seemed unlikely the Allies would every approach auto victory.

Lokasenna has an even bigger lead against Obvert in December 1944. Obvert took over from Bullwinkle, who withdrew after giving the game his best for years and growing weary. I think it's fair to say that Bullwinkle thought the wheels were coming off for the Allies. Obvert may prevail in that game before all is said and done, but the Japanese are definitely "winning" at the point they're at.

(in reply to Mike Solli)

Post #: 2568

RE: Notes from a Small Island - 8/30/2018 7:11:58 PM

HansBolter

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Death Star has 16 CVs, 10 CVLs, and 57 CVEs, in 11 carrier TFs.

If you had nine of those CVEs in a Replenishment TF with their respective replenishment air squadrons, airframe attrition to the DS while remaining on station would be moot.

Certainly, you have sufficient CAP without those 9 CVEs.

I'm the Official Replenishment Carrier Forum Advocate.

Gotta get me some sig art.

_____________________________

Hans

(in reply to Canoerebel)

Post #: 2569

RE: Notes from a Small Island - 8/30/2018 7:13:17 PM

Mike Solli

Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline

That's interesting. I rarely consider victory points. I know, I should. In my game, I have a lead of 44k to 22k. I have no idea whether that's good or not.

_____________________________

Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to Canoerebel)

Post #: 2570

RE: Notes from a Small Island - 8/30/2018 7:17:08 PM

Canoerebel

Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline

You should consider victory points. Every player should. Every Japanese player must.

It makes the game far richer and more enjoyable for both sides, but especially for the Japanese player. There's a reason to soldier on in 1945. Lowpe has been an excellent example of this. Obvert too.

Your strategy must be built around victory point considerations - every move and gambit evaluated with that in mind. Not paying attention to VP is like playing chess without know about castling and en passant. You can do it, but you're going to pay for it eventually - as soon as you face a player who does know.

(in reply to Mike Solli)

Post #: 2571

RE: Notes from a Small Island - 8/30/2018 7:20:06 PM

Canoerebel

Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Death Star has 16 CVs, 10 CVLs, and 57 CVEs, in 11 carrier TFs.

If you had nine of those CVEs in a Replenishment TF with their respective replenishment air squadrons, airframe attrition to the DS while remaining on station would be moot.

Certainly, you have sufficient CAP without those 9 CVEs.

I'm the Official Replenishment Carrier Forum Advocate.

Gotta get me some sig art.

I am the Official Replenishment Carrier Forum Opponent. In almost every case, carrier action will last a single day in which every fighter possible is needed for CAP. More so when there are airfields within range, as is the case here. I can send depleted squadrons to Shikuka, etc. to draw fresh aircraft, while sending fresh squadrons from there to the carriers. It's not as seemless as the replenishment routine, but I'd much rather have 150 fighters on CAP than in reserve.

There are exceptions but they are rare.

(in reply to HansBolter)

Post #: 2572

RE: Notes from a Small Island - 8/30/2018 7:51:29 PM

Lokasenna

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Death Star has 16 CVs, 10 CVLs, and 57 CVEs, in 11 carrier TFs.

Too many TFs

(in reply to Canoerebel)

Post #: 2573

RE: Notes from a Small Island - 8/30/2018 7:52:43 PM

Lokasenna

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Death Star has 16 CVs, 10 CVLs, and 57 CVEs, in 11 carrier TFs.

If you had nine of those CVEs in a Replenishment TF with their respective replenishment air squadrons, airframe attrition to the DS while remaining on station would be moot.

Certainly, you have sufficient CAP without those 9 CVEs.

I'm the Official Replenishment Carrier Forum Advocate.

Gotta get me some sig art.

I am the Official Replenishment Carrier Forum Opponent. In almost every case, carrier action will last a single day in which every fighter possible is needed for CAP. More so when there are airfields within range, as is the case here. I can send depleted squadrons to Shikuka, etc. to draw fresh aircraft, while sending fresh squadrons from there to the carriers. It's not as seemless as the replenishment routine, but I'd much rather have 150 fighters on CAP than in reserve.

There are exceptions but they are rare.

Then we are the Official Replenishment Carrier Opposition Committee.

I always offload the DBs/TBs and retain the 28-plane fighter squadrons, or move the VFR units to land duty (where IIRC they can still supply replacements) and move USMC or sunken-CV V(M)F units to the replenishment CVEs.

More CAP on day 1 is better.

(in reply to Canoerebel)

Post #: 2574

RE: Notes from a Small Island - 8/30/2018 7:53:17 PM

Lokasenna

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

That's interesting. I rarely consider victory points. I know, I should. In my game, I have a lead of 44k to 22k. I have no idea whether that's good or not.

Like all things - it depends.

(in reply to Mike Solli)

Post #: 2575

RE: Notes from a Small Island - 8/30/2018 7:57:39 PM

Canoerebel

Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Death Star has 16 CVs, 10 CVLs, and 57 CVEs, in 11 carrier TFs.

Too many TFs

I'm not a sand-boxer, but I like the current set up. I have three fleet carrier TFs handling 26 CVs and CVLs. I have eight jeep carrier squadrons for the 57 CVEs. I have enough BBs to spread around, and I have enough combat ships left over to create a large navy. I feel like the risk is spread a bit, and I don't feel like I'm taking away from other uses, so why not? If I should run short of combat ships, I'd likely combine those eight CVE TFs into five or six.

(in reply to Lokasenna)

Post #: 2576

RE: Notes from a Small Island - 8/30/2018 8:03:58 PM

JohnDillworth

Posts: 3100
Joined: 3/19/2009
Status: offline

so you have CV/CVL task forces with 8 or so carriers each? I always thought there was some kind of coordination penalty for having more than 4 or so CV's in a TF? Or is that just an early war thing?

_____________________________

(in reply to Canoerebel)

Post #: 2577

RE: Notes from a Small Island - 8/30/2018 8:05:48 PM

Canoerebel

Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline

The coordination penalty drops over time. More significantly, many good players have consistently reported that coordination issues are minor and pale in comparison to the advantages of using larger carrier TFs.

(in reply to JohnDillworth)

Post #: 2578

RE: Notes from a Small Island - 8/30/2018 8:10:24 PM

AcePylut

Posts: 1494
Joined: 3/19/2004
Status: offline

Well fuddy duddy, I guess I'll have to be the Official Replenishment Carrier Individual Observing Contrary Arguments.

<grabs popcorn and a notepad>

_____________________________

(in reply to Canoerebel)

Post #: 2579

RE: Notes from a Small Island - 8/31/2018 7:54:42 AM

Squamry

Posts: 94
Joined: 2/28/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

The coordination penalty drops over time. More significantly, many good players have consistently reported that coordination issues are minor and pale in comparison to the advantages of using larger carrier TFs.

Just curious if this is a late war thought or applies all the way through? When playing as allies I like at most 4 CV/CVLs in a TF but none of my games have got past mid 44. I've found this much better against the KB mega TF used by a couple of opponents because there is usually at least one TF that does not get targeted so I always have some active carriers after the clash.

(in reply to Canoerebel)

Post #: 2580