RE: Importance or Impotence of strategic bombing.

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: Importance or Impotence of strategic bombing.

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: Importance or Impotence of strategic bombing.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Importance or Impotence of strategic bombing. - 10/6/2005 4:13:31 PM

Yamato hugger

Posts: 5475
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: String

You will be needing a LOT of armament points stored for the big reinforcement day in the middle of 1943. You get 5-6 divisions + 2 brigades + 5 smaller 99 AP units in one DAY. A week or two later a smaller batch arrives. This IS going to put a strain on your armaments, and I personally wouldn't like those precious forces to arrive at 30% strength, or only the chinese and Kwantung divisions to arrive at full strentgh and the unrestricted units to come at 30%.

I dont reinforce my army much. Key base units get reinforcements mainly to upgrade their shore guns. Units under 50% strength if they are a critical unit will get reinforcements, but generally I keep it off. I keep tight control on how many of what engines I am making. And especially how many of what type of aircraft I produce. Now granted, I havent made it to '43 against a live player as yet. Time will tell Im guessing.

quote:

Same goes with A6M5 Zekes. You WILL need a lot of production to replace all those old zeroes quickly, and there will be a lot of new units coming in a surprisingly short amount of time. You'd want them all filled out within 1943 when decent pilots with 60~ exp are still available for IJNAF.

A6M2 factories upgrade to A6M3a's automatically yes? A6M3a's upgrade to A6M5s? This is plently for my needs.

The Jack is a better plane for the land based forces. Faster, longer range, more durability, more firepower, better climb rate, it has a bomb load, and most importantly, available 6 months earlier. It has 1 less point of manueverability, and less max altitude by 300 some feet (both are over 38,000 feet so I dont consider that a minus). I only put A6M5s on my carriers so making large numbers of them quickly isnt that big a deal. And I commit 100 R&D points to Jacks on turn 1 (granted it takes a while for these to come online) which means the Jack should come on-line sooner than 3/43 as well.

quote:

One thing to consider is that, if you keep your losses down, you might really not need all of those merchant ships, so turning off some naval yards which are a BIG HI hog can be useful.

You are 100% correct.

quote:

With player defined upgrades on, try to concentrate on single engined fighters. While the Dinah fighter version is decent, has good range and excellent speed, it does take two engines, which means a lot of HI. Same goes for japanese level bombers. Try to keep their losses and production down.

100% disagree on this. Ki-84 Frank is much better than the Dinah KAI, and the Dinah has one feature that would prevent me from building it to begin with. No armor for the pilot. Jap 1 engine bombers arent durable enough or long ranged enough to make them useful.

Different people are going to use different methods. You have to do what works for you.

(in reply to String)

Post #: 31

RE: Importance or Impotence of strategic bombing. - 10/6/2005 4:39:22 PM

Yamato hugger

Posts: 5475
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

quote:

quote:

* Japan entered the war with some 6,000,000 tons of merchant shipping of over 500 tons gross weight. During the war an additional 4,100,000 tons were constructed, captured or requisitioned.

Ive never had to expand my merchant shipyards to produce the AKs, et al. Again, in game terms, a non-issue.

IJ starts the war with capacity to create 1000 merchant shipbuilding points (MSP) per turn. On GT1 your MSP consumption is c.520; that is without any accelerations or AK conversions. During January 1943, daily consumption passes 1000; by the end of 1943, your merchant shipbuilding program will consume over 2600 MSP per day (again, no acceleration or conversions included). Well, actually, it won't; what will happen instead is that your big TKs and APs will halt construction.

Check out this thread concerning merchant shipbuilding.

Well as I said, never made it to late war period, but a couple of working theories I am going by:

Japs didnt use convoy system until late in '44. They also didnt put many resources into ASW before then either. This allowed their merchant fleet to be decimated. They increased the production of merchs late in the war to try to make up the losses. So:

1) If I keep my merch losses well below historical levels (which isnt hard to do) then I wont need this late-war influx of new merchants.

2) Same with late war influx of ASW forces. I wont need these additional sub killers, or at least not as quickly. This will save me some production in this area.

I, like so many others, prosicute subs at every turn. I dont use 25 ship ASW fleets, but I have somewhere around 30 4 to 6 ship ASW TFs stationed all over, and when I get a sub contact, I fly 2 or 3 groups of sub killer AC and 3 or 4 of these sub hunter groups to the area.

Thats my working theroy at any rate.

< Message edited by Yamato hugger -- 10/6/2005 4:41:29 PM >

(in reply to tsimmonds)

Post #: 32

RE: Importance or Impotence of strategic bombing. - 10/6/2005 4:55:49 PM

String

Posts: 2661
Joined: 10/7/2003
From: Estonia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

quote:

ORIGINAL: String

You will be needing a LOT of armament points stored for the big reinforcement day in the middle of 1943. You get 5-6 divisions + 2 brigades + 5 smaller 99 AP units in one DAY. A week or two later a smaller batch arrives. This IS going to put a strain on your armaments, and I personally wouldn't like those precious forces to arrive at 30% strength, or only the chinese and Kwantung divisions to arrive at full strentgh and the unrestricted units to come at 30%.

I dont reinforce my army much. Key base units get reinforcements mainly to upgrade their shore guns. Units under 50% strength if they are a critical unit will get reinforcements, but generally I keep it off. I keep tight control on how many of what engines I am making. And especially how many of what type of aircraft I produce. Now granted, I havent made it to '43 against a live player as yet. Time will tell Im guessing.

You will be sorely needing those units in '43. And considering the amount of them arriving at the same time you will have all of them at 33% if you don't gather any armament points. And that my dear friend means that you can't keep up a decent garrison level all over the empire, you'd have to concentrate on just one area, which leaves .. well you know

quote:

quote:

Same goes with A6M5 Zekes. You WILL need a lot of production to replace all those old zeroes quickly, and there will be a lot of new units coming in a surprisingly short amount of time. You'd want them all filled out within 1943 when decent pilots with 60~ exp are still available for IJNAF.

A6M2 factories upgrade to A6M3a's automatically yes? A6M3a's upgrade to A6M5s? This is plently for my needs.

The Jack is a better plane for the land based forces. Faster, longer range, more durability, more firepower, better climb rate, it has a bomb load, and most importantly, available 6 months earlier. It has 1 less point of manueverability, and less max altitude by 300 some feet (both are over 38,000 feet so I dont consider that a minus). I only put A6M5s on my carriers so making large numbers of them quickly isnt that big a deal. And I commit 100 R&D points to Jacks on turn 1 (granted it takes a while for these to come online) which means the Jack should come on-line sooner than 3/43 as well.

How much do you have in A6M2 production right now? Japan begins with 120 i think. Consider that you have to first upgrade all of your carrier based fighters, which is over 200 planes (provided you didn't lose some). This is almost two months just for upgrades, and this doesn't cover the day to day losses. Ofcourse if you have PDU on then it doesn't matter much. Oh and 100 R&D will almost 100% give no reduction.. I had over 200 points for Oscar II's and didn't advance a single month, I'd say a fair bet is over 300 points and if you are going to upgrade your IJN zeroes to jacks then all of those 300 factories will be in full swing upgrading your air groups for 2-3 months atleast.

Oh, and how much range DOES the Jack have? IIRC from the 45 scenario tests then it is just 4 hexes at extended range, which is too small for my liking. Or was it George?

quote:

quote:

With player defined upgrades on, try to concentrate on single engined fighters. While the Dinah fighter version is decent, has good range and excellent speed, it does take two engines, which means a lot of HI. Same goes for japanese level bombers. Try to keep their losses and production down.

100% disagree on this. Ki-84 Frank is much better than the Dinah KAI, and the Dinah has one feature that would prevent me from building it to begin with. No armor for the pilot. Jap 1 engine bombers arent durable enough or long ranged enough to make them useful.

Different people are going to use different methods. You have to do what works for you.

Hmm.. I said Dinah isn't a good fighter plane.. and then you 100% disagree with me and state that Dinah sucks ..

Seems like a small misunderstanding.

edit: Aaanyway .. I did some calculations and found out that the production of my 1671 planes takes a whopping total of 1385 HI per day. That's only 50% more than my vehicle assembly cost of 1038 per day. (I turned off most of them for now) Which means that aircraft production takes less than 10% of my HI. Biggest hog is armament factories, which I heavily expanded, resulting in a reserve of 180k armament points, and which uses a bit over 5k HI per turn. I turned off quite a few factories after I did the survey though, reducing the HI need by 1800. After that come the Naval ship yards with 3600+ HI and merchant shipyards at 3k HI. I haven't expanded any of them

I have a little over 14600 HI while daily requierments at full production are 15418 HI. I have turned off my most of my vehicle factories and some of my armament assembly resulting in a requierment of just 12832 HI per turn, giving me approx 1800 HI bonus per turn which makes for an almost 650k large reserve within a year. Given that I'm already in late april 1943 then i'd say that That's the maximum reserve that I can gather anyway.

At current levels it would last about 50 days when all HI production would be shut off

< Message edited by String -- 10/6/2005 5:02:17 PM >

(in reply to Yamato hugger)

Post #: 33

RE: Importance or Impotence of strategic bombing. - 10/6/2005 5:11:23 PM

Yamato hugger

Posts: 5475
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: String

You will be sorely needing those units in '43. And considering the amount of them arriving at the same time you will have all of them at 33% if you don't gather any armament points. And that my dear friend means that you can't keep up a decent garrison level all over the empire, you'd have to concentrate on just one area, which leaves .. well you know

Well all the armaments that I am not using in '42 goes to the pool for '43 reinforcements. I have come to the understanding that land units alone wont stop an attack. Leader skill, supplies, support, fort level are all as much if not more important than the strength of the unit. As you say, I would rather have full strength reinforcements than units at 25%. The best way to do this is to starve your non-critical units of replacements.

quote:

How much do you have in A6M2 production right now? Japan begins with 120 i think. Consider that you have to first upgrade all of your carrier based fighters, which is over 200 planes (provided you didn't lose some). This is almost two months just for upgrades, and this doesn't cover the day to day losses. Ofcourse if you have PDU on then it doesn't matter much. Oh and 100 R&D will almost 100% give no reduction.. I had over 200 points for Oscar II's and didn't advance a single month, I'd say a fair bet is over 300 points and if you are going to upgrade your IJN zeroes to jacks then all of those 300 factories will be in full swing upgrading your air groups for 2-3 months atleast.

The only expansion I make at all of Zeros is I convert the Claude factory. I think this gives 4 more points to the Zero.

Edit. I do convert the Zero R&D factories to M2.s on turn 1.

Edit 2: I have all my Claudes converted to Zeros by the end of March 42.

quote:

Oh, and how much range DOES the Jack have? IIRC from the 45 scenario tests then it is just 4 hexes at extended range, which is too small for my liking. Or was it George?

A6M5 is 310 endurance (4 hexs). Jack is 320 (4 hexes). Same in game range. No reason in the world to equip land navy figther groups with Zeros. I keep a few A6M2 groups around for their 11 hex range for escort duty, and I will put A6M5s on the carriers. And of course the M8 will be incredible when its available, but really, these are the only Zeros I make. And truth be told, the only reason I would make the M5 is I cant put Jacks on the carriers.

Why wouldnt you use PDUs? Of the 5 games I have right now, only 1 isnt using PDUs and in that one I am allied

< Message edited by Yamato hugger -- 10/6/2005 5:15:50 PM >

(in reply to String)

Post #: 34

RE: Importance or Impotence of strategic bombing. - 10/6/2005 5:41:28 PM

Yamato hugger

Posts: 5475
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline

One thing to remember String is that you can produce all the HI, armaments, ect in the world, but your limiting factor is manpower. This cant be expanded. It does no good to produce more armaments than your manpower can sustain.

(in reply to Yamato hugger)

Post #: 35

RE: Importance or Impotence of strategic bombing. - 10/6/2005 5:43:58 PM

String

Posts: 2661
Joined: 10/7/2003
From: Estonia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

quote:

ORIGINAL: String

You will be sorely needing those units in '43. And considering the amount of them arriving at the same time you will have all of them at 33% if you don't gather any armament points. And that my dear friend means that you can't keep up a decent garrison level all over the empire, you'd have to concentrate on just one area, which leaves .. well you know

Well all the armaments that I am not using in '42 goes to the pool for '43 reinforcements. I have come to the understanding that land units alone wont stop an attack. Leader skill, supplies, support, fort level are all as much if not more important than the strength of the unit. As you say, I would rather have full strength reinforcements than units at 25%. The best way to do this is to starve your non-critical units of replacements.

true true.. I have a feeling that I over expanded my armament factories, but we shall see after the reinforcement week how much points it took to bring all those units online.

[Quote]

quote:

Oh, and how much range DOES the Jack have? IIRC from the 45 scenario tests then it is just 4 hexes at extended range, which is too small for my liking. Or was it George?

You are looking at the A6M5c which indeed has a max range of 4, it's the fighterbomber version of the Zeke. The one that carriers use and which all groups upgrade to is however A6M5 .. without the c. It has a max range of 6 hexes. 6 Hexes is the range one should seek for their main fighters as it's 6 hexes that a ship TF can move at most. The rest is obvious.

And I'm not using PDU as I don't like it much, turns the game out of whack imo. Besides, 2 of my 3 games started in pre 1.6 versions

(in reply to Yamato hugger)

Post #: 36

RE: Importance or Impotence of strategic bombing. - 10/6/2005 5:52:09 PM

pompack

Posts: 2582
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: University Park, Texas
Status: offline

String & Yamato hugger:

Kudos to both of you

This particular dialogue has been highly informative and has raised some points that I need to explore further. It is also an excellent example of the power of creative disagreement.

Keep up the good work

(in reply to String)

Post #: 37

RE: Importance or Impotence of strategic bombing. - 10/6/2005 6:03:39 PM

Yamato hugger

Posts: 5475
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: String

You are looking at the A6M5c which indeed has a max range of 4, it's the fighterbomber version of the Zeke. The one that carriers use and which all groups upgrade to is however A6M5 .. without the c. It has a max range of 6 hexes. 6 Hexes is the range one should seek for their main fighters as it's 6 hexes that a ship TF can move at most. The rest is obvious.

And I'm not using PDU as I don't like it much, turns the game out of whack imo. Besides, 2 of my 3 games started in pre 1.6 versions

The endurance of the M5c is 200. The endurance of the M5 is 310. The endurance of the Jack is 320. I guess this would make both the Jack and the M5 6 hexes, my error.

My thought on PDUs is this: I control what engine a given factory is making. I control what bases get supplies. I control what bases have torpedos for submarines. I control what squadron gets this one single pilot. I can even control if this squadron upgrades from its Claudes to Zeros.

Why shouldnt I be able to control if that squadron equips Zeros, or Jacks? I have god like control over everything else, why not this also?

Now allied production I can understand why they kept it out of player hands. There is much more to American politics of this era than Japanese. There is the war in europe, and the politics of the Senate and House as well. Look at the P-51. Almost wasnt produced at all because of politics.

Now I agree that the theatre commander should be able to decide if a squadron is equipped with P-40s or P-39s as long as he has the resources at his disposal, but he doesnt make the decision as to what gets shipped to him.

Edit: The M5c does make a very good point defence aircraft, and its worthwhile to make a few of these. 20 point cannon rating should be very good vs 4E bombers.

< Message edited by Yamato hugger -- 10/6/2005 6:07:33 PM >

(in reply to String)

Post #: 38

RE: Importance or Impotence of strategic bombing. - 10/6/2005 6:11:29 PM

String

Posts: 2661
Joined: 10/7/2003
From: Estonia
Status: offline

Then indeed, Jack is better. BUT.. i'd still leave atleast 2-3 landbased groups as Zekes.

1. For training purposes in china. When your CV airgroups suffer heavy losses it's easy to disband said training groups to bring up strength
2. For use on CVE's in case you need some extra cap.
3. I'm sure there is a third good reason

About the PDU. Imho it gives the japs too big an advantage. If I had PDU on in my game vs Andy.. well, those 1000 oscars would be 1000 Tonies and I do think that he wouldn't bother much after that, corsairs or not. High exp Tonies can take on Corsairs.

But that's just my personal opionion. A matter of taste I guess and not really something to be discussed in this thread anyway.

(in reply to Yamato hugger)

Post #: 39

RE: Importance or Impotence of strategic bombing. - 10/6/2005 6:18:26 PM

Yamato hugger

Posts: 5475
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline

Well lets face it. Against a competent allied player, I dont believe the Japs have a chance of actually winning the game. So why not at least make it a challange and fun to play? I think this does that. And yes, of course you have to have a few groups training replacements.

(in reply to String)

Post #: 40

RE: Importance or Impotence of strategic bombing. - 10/6/2005 6:20:08 PM

String

Posts: 2661
Joined: 10/7/2003
From: Estonia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

Well lets face it. Against a competent allied player, I dont believe the Japs have a chance of actually winning the game. So why not at least make it a challange and fun to play? I think this does that. And yes, of course you have to have a few groups training replacements.

*shrugs* I got a 4:1 in my japanese PBEM

... although i don't know if andys predecessor who lost 4 carriers can be called competent.

edit: Thanks Pompack for the kind words

(in reply to Yamato hugger)

Post #: 41

RE: Importance or Impotence of strategic bombing. - 10/6/2005 6:21:49 PM

Yamato hugger

Posts: 5475
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: String

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

Well lets face it. Against a competent allied player, I dont believe the Japs have a chance of actually winning the game. So why not at least make it a challange and fun to play? I think this does that. And yes, of course you have to have a few groups training replacements.

*shrugs* I got a 4:1 in my japanese PBEM ... although i don't know if andys predecessor who lost 4 carriers can be called competent.

edit: Thanks Pompack for the kind words

Congrats! First time Ive heard of someone actually winning as Japs vs a human.

(in reply to String)

Post #: 42

RE: Importance or Impotence of strategic bombing. - 10/6/2005 6:26:40 PM

String

Posts: 2661
Joined: 10/7/2003
From: Estonia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

quote:

ORIGINAL: String

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

Well lets face it. Against a competent allied player, I dont believe the Japs have a chance of actually winning the game. So why not at least make it a challange and fun to play? I think this does that. And yes, of course you have to have a few groups training replacements.

*shrugs* I got a 4:1 in my japanese PBEM ... although i don't know if andys predecessor who lost 4 carriers can be called competent.

edit: Thanks Pompack for the kind words

Congrats! First time Ive heard of someone actually winning as Japs vs a human.

Thanks

Anyway, I think it's fair to say that cutting japanese oil supply will be very bad for the jap. He can keep up the plane production though, as the home islands produce 1200 oil (and hence 1200 HI) every day. Add to that the Kwantung and China oil and HI, which iirc is somewhere around 2-3k per turn ( have to check) and there's enough to run your aircraft factories and then to do some other things, like keeping enough naval shipyards online to complete Taiho and a few more important ships. But that's it. No ground reinforcements to speak of, no real quantities of fuel produced, no merchant ships or convoy escorts, a vastly reduced fighting capacity for Japan.

(in reply to Yamato hugger)

Post #: 43

RE: Importance or Impotence of strategic bombing. - 10/6/2005 6:37:40 PM

Bradley7735

Posts: 2073
Joined: 7/12/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

quote:

ORIGINAL: String

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

Well lets face it. Against a competent allied player, I dont believe the Japs have a chance of actually winning the game. So why not at least make it a challange and fun to play? I think this does that. And yes, of course you have to have a few groups training replacements.

*shrugs* I got a 4:1 in my japanese PBEM ... although i don't know if andys predecessor who lost 4 carriers can be called competent.

edit: Thanks Pompack for the kind words

Congrats! First time Ive heard of someone actually winning as Japs vs a human.

The older I get, the better I was.

(in reply to Yamato hugger)

Post #: 44

RE: Importance or Impotence of strategic bombing. - 10/6/2005 6:55:05 PM

String

Posts: 2661
Joined: 10/7/2003
From: Estonia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

quote:

ORIGINAL: String

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

Well lets face it. Against a competent allied player, I dont believe the Japs have a chance of actually winning the game. So why not at least make it a challange and fun to play? I think this does that. And yes, of course you have to have a few groups training replacements.

*shrugs* I got a 4:1 in my japanese PBEM ... although i don't know if andys predecessor who lost 4 carriers can be called competent.

edit: Thanks Pompack for the kind words

Congrats! First time Ive heard of someone actually winning as Japs vs a human.

So, General Hopener, PZB and WITPDude don't count? In fact, WITPDude has already won. (past 8/45 and allies don't have 2:1 score)

The only AAR that I've seen where an allied player won was the Freeboy AAR. I think Tom Hunter would have won his game vs Blackwatch, if it had kept going on. And, I think Admiral Spruance will win his. But, I tend to see more Japanese players winning the AAR's than Allied.

It'll be interesting to see how Mogami's 4 lunacy AAR's work out.

With all respect to PZB and others .. he never got 4:1, a few hundred points short but never there. Hoepner quit his previous game and his current game hasn't reached 1/43 yet, and WITP_Dude didn't achieve 4:1 by 1/43 either, which is what I think Yamato Hugger meant by winning.

(in reply to Bradley7735)

Post #: 45

RE: Importance or Impotence of strategic bombing. - 10/6/2005 7:40:31 PM

Bradley7735

Posts: 2073
Joined: 7/12/2004
Status: offline

Winning as Japan means that the allied player didn't win. The allied player needs to have 2:1 by 8/45 to win. Anything else is a japanese win.

_____________________________

The older I get, the better I was.

(in reply to String)

Post #: 46

RE: Importance or Impotence of strategic bombing. - 10/6/2005 7:45:06 PM

rtrapasso

Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

Winning as Japan means that the allied player didn't win. The allied player needs to have 2:1 by 8/45 to win. Anything else is a japanese win.

Well, that's one way of looking at it.

I think most would call it a draw (although certainly a victory for the player's morale...)

(in reply to Bradley7735)

Post #: 47

RE: Importance or Impotence of strategic bombing. - 10/6/2005 8:10:58 PM

String

Posts: 2661
Joined: 10/7/2003
From: Estonia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

Winning as Japan means that the allied player didn't win. The allied player needs to have 2:1 by 8/45 to win. Anything else is a japanese win.

Yes I agree.. I've never disagreed.. but we were basically talking about the 4:1 victory

(in reply to Bradley7735)

Post #: 48

RE: Importance or Impotence of strategic bombing. - 10/6/2005 8:16:11 PM

Bradley7735

Posts: 2073
Joined: 7/12/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: String

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

Winning as Japan means that the allied player didn't win. The allied player needs to have 2:1 by 8/45 to win. Anything else is a japanese win.

Yes I agree.. I've never disagreed.. but we were basically talking about the 4:1 victory

Sorry, I missed that part. I thought you were just talking about winning. I didn't read back enough to see it all.

_____________________________

The older I get, the better I was.

(in reply to String)

Post #: 49

RE: Importance or Impotence of strategic bombing. - 10/6/2005 9:00:22 PM

Gen.Hoepner

Posts: 3645
Joined: 9/4/2001
From: italy
Status: offline

So, General Hopener, PZB and WITPDude don't count? In fact, WITPDude has already won. (past 8/45 and allies don't have 2:1 score)

The only AAR that I've seen where an allied player won was the Freeboy AAR. I think Tom Hunter would have won his game vs Blackwatch, if it had kept going on. And, I think Admiral Spruance will win his. But, I tend to see more Japanese players winning the AAR's than Allied.

It'll be interesting to see how Mogami's 4 lunacy AAR's work out.
[/quote]

I'm far from winning my game. Late July 42 and i'm only at 3-1
The last match vs MC i was beyond 4-1 in sept 42 but quitted and so i've lost that match.

I really think that against a stiff and experienced allied opponent a japanese fan boy cannot win by 1-43. If he hides his main ships and his planes...you won't have enough points if you play a vanilla style game. You can go for India...but as PzB has thought us that will drain a lot of points in terms of ships,planes and men.

_____________________________

[image]http://yfrog.com/2m70331348022314716641664j [/image]

(in reply to Bradley7735)

Post #: 50

RE: Importance or Impotence of strategic bombing. - 10/6/2005 9:45:46 PM

Yamato hugger

Posts: 5475
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline

I dont read AARs, but yes when I said "actually winning" I ment actually winning (ie 4:1).

(in reply to Gen.Hoepner)

Post #: 51

RE: Importance or Impotence of strategic bombing. - 10/7/2005 1:12:49 AM

tabpub

Posts: 1019
Joined: 8/10/2003
From: The Greater Chicagoland Area
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

quote:

ORIGINAL: tabpub

He DID bombard me; not for 3 days, but more like 2 weeks. AF and port and bombardment from land units in hex. The secret (I like to think) was not only the concentration, but the sapper squads. As they are embedded in a unit, they are very difficult to affect with any combat other than del. or shock attacks.

Well I dont know the situation of course, but as I said earlier, it is the most important hex the Japs have and if he didnt take care to prevent you from building it up (the Japs can indeed make it difficult to remove troops from Malaya if they want) there isnt much I can say. I can say you wouldnt do it against me :)

Not in significant numbers anyway.

Is that a gauntlet on the ground in front of me?

Perhaps we shall me on the field someday. When Mogami gives up the ghost officially in his "Take SF or die" quest, then I shall have an open PBEM slot if you like.

Tabpub (otherwise known as the "Green Knight")

_____________________________

Sing to the tune of "Man on the Flying Trapeze"
..Oh! We fly o'er the treetops with inches to spare,
There's smoke in the cockpit and gray in my hair.
The tracers look fine as a strafin' we go.
But, brother, we're TOO God damn low...

(in reply to Yamato hugger)

Post #: 52

RE: Importance or Impotence of strategic bombing. - 10/7/2005 1:22:56 AM

Yamato hugger

Posts: 5475
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: tabpub

Is that a gauntlet on the ground in front of me?
Perhaps we shall me on the field someday. When Mogami gives up the ghost officially in his "Take SF or die" quest, then I shall have an open PBEM slot if you like.

Tabpub (otherwise known as the "Green Knight")

Anytime. Always have room for 1 more

Edit: Never carry a rapier into a gunfight

< Message edited by Yamato hugger -- 10/7/2005 1:25:18 AM >

(in reply to tabpub)

Post #: 53

RE: Importance or Impotence of strategic bombing. - 10/7/2005 1:28:46 AM

Zeta16

Posts: 1199
Joined: 11/20/2002
From: Columbus. Ohio
Status: offline

Listen to Witpdude, he has played me great. Get a lot of points as Japan early and hold on. I could have scored a lot more points sooner, but I will never invade Japan as the allies. and land on non base hexes, which freeboy did to me. In my game with freeboy I had several million HI points left when the game was over, and supply until the waves of bombers took care of that. Japan was pretty bare because I defended the Marianas with over 4000 assult points through those Islands and if you don't take out China like Dude did to me it is hard to defend Burma and once the allies get into Burma they role down hill from there to china very easy. Also if you can take Russia it helps Japan out a lot.

Also my games have all been started before user upgrades on planes, so don't take this for truth now. The Jack sucks, the George rules and kami's blow unless there is little CAP.

< Message edited by Zeta16 -- 10/7/2005 1:30:26 AM >

_____________________________

"Ours was the first revolution in the history of mankind that truly reversed the course of government, and with three little words: 'We the people.' 'We the people' tell the government what to do, it doesn't tell us." -Ronald Reagan

(in reply to tabpub)

Post #: 54

RE: Importance or Impotence of strategic bombing. - 10/7/2005 1:45:55 AM

WiTP_Dude

Posts: 1434
Joined: 7/3/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zeta16

Listen to Witpdude, he has played me great. Get a lot of points as Japan early and hold on. I could have scored a lot more points sooner, but I will never invade Japan as the allies. and land on non base hexes, which freeboy did to me. In my game with freeboy I had several million HI points left when the game was over, and supply until the waves of bombers took care of that. Japan was pretty bare because I defended the Marianas with over 4000 assult points through those Islands and if you don't take out China like Dude did to me it is hard to defend Burma and once the allies get into Burma they role down hill from there to china very easy. Also if you can take Russia it helps Japan out a lot.

How did you end up with several million tons of heavy industry at the end?

I agree about the China thing. The Commonwealth forces seem abnormally active in this game. If you actually have to leave 40 divisions in China and Siberia to defend with, I don't know how the Allies will be prevented from retaking Burma in 1943 or 1944.

_____________________________

________________________________________
I feal so dirty when I sink convoys with 4E bombers, makes porn feal wholsome. - Brady, Founding Member of the Japanese Fanboy Club

(in reply to Zeta16)

Post #: 55

RE: Importance or Impotence of strategic bombing. - 10/7/2005 4:09:28 AM

Zeta16

Posts: 1199
Joined: 11/20/2002
From: Columbus. Ohio
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: WiTP_Dude

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zeta16

Listen to Witpdude, he has played me great. Get a lot of points as Japan early and hold on. I could have scored a lot more points sooner, but I will never invade Japan as the allies. and land on non base hexes, which freeboy did to me. In my game with freeboy I had several million HI points left when the game was over, and supply until the waves of bombers took care of that. Japan was pretty bare because I defended the Marianas with over 4000 assult points through those Islands and if you don't take out China like Dude did to me it is hard to defend Burma and once the allies get into Burma they role down hill from there to china very easy. Also if you can take Russia it helps Japan out a lot.

How did you end up with several million tons of heavy industry at the end?

I agree about the China thing. The Commonwealth forces seem abnormally active in this game. If you actually have to leave 40 divisions in China and Siberia to defend with, I don't know how the Allies will be prevented from retaking Burma in 1943 or 1944.

I did bulid many extra merchant ships and still had over 300 alive hiding in the north pacific at wars end. As said did not lose many troops as many where left with tons of supply in the Mariana's and Formosa. At one time I was making so much HI I had over 3 million in reserve, with close to a million armament points stored. I lost because he always cut me off with landings behind my lines on non base hexes and cut my supply off many times like this. So he landed in forces in Japan and I could not stop him. The last let me see his screen and he had over 15000 assult points in tokyo which he took to win the game. He had close to several thousand planes at one base and hammered everything with this.

_____________________________

(in reply to WiTP_Dude)

Post #: 56

RE: Importance or Impotence of strategic bombing. - 10/7/2005 4:20:35 AM

WiTP_Dude

Posts: 1434
Joined: 7/3/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zeta16

I did bulid many extra merchant ships and still had over 300 alive hiding in the north pacific at wars end. As said did not lose many troops as many where left with tons of supply in the Mariana's and Formosa. At one time I was making so much HI I had over 3 million in reserve, with close to a million armament points stored. I lost because he always cut me off with landings behind my lines on non base hexes and cut my supply off many times like this. So he landed in forces in Japan and I could not stop him. The last let me see his screen and he had over 15000 assult points in tokyo which he took to win the game. He had close to several thousand planes at one base and hammered everything with this.

The landing at the non-base hex tactic sounds kind of gamey given how the land combat is flawed. Most players have reported problems moving to a non-base location if they are under attack.

Also the several thousand planes (

) at one airfield shouldn't happen. The operational losses should be 20% each day or something under such conditions.

_____________________________

________________________________________
I feal so dirty when I sink convoys with 4E bombers, makes porn feal wholsome. - Brady, Founding Member of the Japanese Fanboy Club

(in reply to Zeta16)

Post #: 57

RE: Importance or Impotence of strategic bombing. - 10/7/2005 3:25:13 PM

tsimmonds

Posts: 5498
Joined: 2/6/2004
From: astride Mason and Dixon's Line
Status: offline

In my PBEM with Halsey we have a house rule restricting landings to base hexes. I would not care to play either side without it.

_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to WiTP_Dude)

Post #: 58

RE: Importance or Impotence of strategic bombing. - 10/7/2005 3:30:47 PM

Feinder

Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline

Don't get me started on "landing anywhere". Landing anywhere is very unrealistic, and (IMHO) was not the intent of the Devs.

That's a house-rule of mine also.

-F-

_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me

(in reply to Yamato hugger)

Post #: 59

RE: Importance or Impotence of strategic bombing. - 10/7/2005 3:36:38 PM

Gen.Hoepner

Posts: 3645
Joined: 9/4/2001
From: italy
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Feinder

Don't get me started on "landing anywhere". Landing anywhere is very unrealistic, and (IMHO) was not the intent of the Devs.

That's a house-rule of mine also.

-F-

mine too. Even more important than night bombings Imho

_____________________________

[image]http://yfrog.com/2m70331348022314716641664j [/image]

(in reply to Feinder)

Post #: 60

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: Importance or Impotence of strategic bombing.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]