Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition
ORIGINAL: obvert
On the 8th another sub gets into the KB, but launches only 2 torps against the Unryu. Huh? [:-][X(]
ORIGINAL: Big B
The obvious question is - "Will each shell do at least 0ne Million Dollars worth of damage?" If not, someone needs to look at this again and rethink it.
You can't air-lay mines outside a base. Only on a base hex. It's essentially a City attack.
The DL is calculated each turn, maybe each phase; I don't recall. It's in the manual. Wolf packs were discussed long ago; they don't help.
In War in the Pacific, Admiral’s Edition™, each of these
units, as well as each base, has a Detection Level (DL) and a Maximum Detection Level (MDL),
both between 0 and 10. The DL indicates very recent intelligence about the enemy and it is
the DL that has an impact on combat results. The MDL represents a general awareness of the
enemy based on both recent and less current information, and it is this level that is used to
determine which enemy units are placed on the map.
An MDL of zero indicates the unit has not been spotted by the enemy and is not shown on the
map (enemy bases are always shown on the map even if a base has an MDL of zero nothing
but the name of the base will be known by the enemy). MDL’s above zero indicate the enemy
has spotted the unit. When Fog of War is Off, all units have a minimum MDL value of one. The
greater the MDL, the more is likely to be known about the unit by the enemy and displayed
on the screen.
The greater the DL the easier it is to inflict damage on the enemy in combat. Often even
when the DL is zero, friendly forces will take action due to an MDL value that is higher (i.e.
even though an enemy TF disappears at night, expectations of enemy movements based
on following the enemy closely the previous day can lead to friendly forces anticipating the
enemy’s next move). The DL of every unit changes constantly during the resolution phase
based on the unit’s activities and enemy actions.
10.1.1.1 DL OF NAVAL TASK FORCE
Add 1 to DL TF spotted by search aircraft (per aircraft that spots the TF – only notified of first plane each phase)
Add 2 to DL TF attacked by search aircraft
Add 2 to DL TF has Air Combat Mission and it reacts to an enemy TF
Add 1 to DL TF has carrier(s) launching a strike Mission (per air unit that attacks/escorts from TF)
Add 1 to DL Japanese TF moves into coastal hex with y coordinate>30 and sighted by coastwatcher during daylight 75% chance of sighting, during Night 50% chance of sighting, also if daylight phase then second chance of adding 1 if DL is still 0 after first check). This also happens at the beginning of each
resolution phase for each Japanese TF in a coastal hex.
Add 1 to DL TF spotted by enemy sub
Add 1 to DL TF attacked by enemy sub
Add 1 to DL TF is a sub TF that is attacked by an enemy ship
Add 1, 2, or 4 to DL (if) TF is spotted by a recon flight (see 10.2 Recon Flight section below)
Set DL to 0 All Task Forces at the very beginning of each Day and Night resolution phase
10.2 RECON FLIGHTS
Whenever a plane flying a recon Mission reaches its target hex or an air unit bombs a target,
every enemy ground unit, TF or base (not minefield) in the hex has a possibility of having its
DL increased by 1, 2 or 4.
Each enemy unit is checked separately to see if the pilot has successfully spotted the unit:
»» If a recon aircraft type is flying a Recon Mission, the percentage
chance that any given unit will have its DL increased is equal to the
Experience of the pilot. If the DL is increased, it will increase by 4.
»» If a non-recon type plane is flying a Recon Mission, the percentage chance
that any given unit will have its DL increased is equal to the Experience
of the pilot divided by 2. If the DL is increased it will increase by 2.
»» If an air unit bombs any enemy target, the percentage chance that any
given unit in the target hex will have its DL increased is equal to the
Experience of the one pilot chosen at random to take reconnaissance
photos divided by 2. If the DL is increased it will increase by 1.
This is critical to sub ops, but it doesn't mean they're not then spotted right away in the day phase.ORIGINAL: RangerJoe
Set DL to 0 All Task Forces at the very beginning of each Day and Night resolution phase
ORIGINAL: obvert
This is critical to sub ops, but it doesn't mean they're not then spotted right away in the day phase.ORIGINAL: RangerJoe
Set DL to 0 All Task Forces at the very beginning of each Day and Night resolution phase
It's a complex part of the game, and Bullwinkle has a lot of experience with RL subs in the USN, so he's a bit of an authority on what's NQR in game. I defer to him on how it should be and try to figure what to do with how it is now. [:D]
Currently I've got most subs in deep open water more than 8 hexes from any land base. He could still fly G3M3 Nell at 26 hexes (13 for ASW) or G4M1 Betty at 17 hexes (9 for ASW) or the P1Y Frances at 18 hexes with drop tanks (9 for ASW).
I'll have a look at those commanders when I get the next turn though. [:)]
. . . Any CO who used 2 fish on a CV would be relieved on the pier by SubPac. If you can shoot two you can shoot six in only a few more seconds.
ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
To sink him you have to go to shallow water. He knows that, you know that.
ORIGINAL: obvert
ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
To sink him you have to go to shallow water. He knows that, you know that.
That's what I thought, but most of the CV attacks are randoms patrolling South of the HI in the big open deeps between the PI and the Marianas. I think he was escorting a reinforcement of the Marianas or something when I got the two hits, but these last ones I don't know.
The TKs of course, yes, I've gotta hug the coast. Hopefully I'll get the oil shut down and won't have to worry about that much longer.
ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
ORIGINAL: obvert
ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
To sink him you have to go to shallow water. He knows that, you know that.
That's what I thought, but most of the CV attacks are randoms patrolling South of the HI in the big open deeps between the PI and the Marianas. I think he was escorting a reinforcement of the Marianas or something when I got the two hits, but these last ones I don't know.
The TKs of course, yes, I've gotta hug the coast. Hopefully I'll get the oil shut down and won't have to worry about that much longer.
Yes, my mistake for being too terse. I meant shallow in anti-merchant ops. Sub/combatant encounters will be primarily in deep.
Tankers yes, but at some point he may pull back in a big way from Burma, and then it's troop convoys along the coasts, maybe from Bangkok, maybe Saigon. All under his air ASW blanket.
The game forces Allied players, by dint of the DL et al issues, to focus their subs on anti-combatant efforts. This is not what the USN sub force focused on. They did it quite successfully, and were there in nearly every major operation after Guadalcanal, but their role was to destroy the Japanese economy, which they did. The game would be far different if they were even half as effective at this as they were historically. But it's all been beaten to death before.
ORIGINAL: obvert
ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
ORIGINAL: obvert
That's what I thought, but most of the CV attacks are randoms patrolling South of the HI in the big open deeps between the PI and the Marianas. I think he was escorting a reinforcement of the Marianas or something when I got the two hits, but these last ones I don't know.
The TKs of course, yes, I've gotta hug the coast. Hopefully I'll get the oil shut down and won't have to worry about that much longer.
Yes, my mistake for being too terse. I meant shallow in anti-merchant ops. Sub/combatant encounters will be primarily in deep.
Tankers yes, but at some point he may pull back in a big way from Burma, and then it's troop convoys along the coasts, maybe from Bangkok, maybe Saigon. All under his air ASW blanket.
The game forces Allied players, by dint of the DL et al issues, to focus their subs on anti-combatant efforts. This is not what the USN sub force focused on. They did it quite successfully, and were there in nearly every major operation after Guadalcanal, but their role was to destroy the Japanese economy, which they did. The game would be far different if they were even half as effective at this as they were historically. But it's all been beaten to death before.
It'd be fun to play just one game as Japan with self-imposed historical parameters.
No ASW air training, and only using air for search, not ASW mission.
No ASW TFs, only escorts
No pilot training, so that both sides would simply have to use national starting experience and "play" the pilots up to train, and use TRACOM to increase starting experience. (I'd like to see what it would be like to have 35-40 exp pilots going at each other)
No cooperation between IJA/IJN. Make them use different bases for airfields and only their own support units. (Complicated, but it would be interesting).
PDU-off
No airframe R & D (none, so nothing ahead of it's historical date)
No air group resizing
No ground bombing of troops in China
No buying back of destroyed units or air groups
Anything else?
ORIGINAL: CaptBeefheart
ORIGINAL: obvert
ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
Yes, my mistake for being too terse. I meant shallow in anti-merchant ops. Sub/combatant encounters will be primarily in deep.
Tankers yes, but at some point he may pull back in a big way from Burma, and then it's troop convoys along the coasts, maybe from Bangkok, maybe Saigon. All under his air ASW blanket.
The game forces Allied players, by dint of the DL et al issues, to focus their subs on anti-combatant efforts. This is not what the USN sub force focused on. They did it quite successfully, and were there in nearly every major operation after Guadalcanal, but their role was to destroy the Japanese economy, which they did. The game would be far different if they were even half as effective at this as they were historically. But it's all been beaten to death before.
It'd be fun to play just one game as Japan with self-imposed historical parameters.
No ASW air training, and only using air for search, not ASW mission.
No ASW TFs, only escorts
No pilot training, so that both sides would simply have to use national starting experience and "play" the pilots up to train, and use TRACOM to increase starting experience. (I'd like to see what it would be like to have 35-40 exp pilots going at each other)
No cooperation between IJA/IJN. Make them use different bases for airfields and only their own support units. (Complicated, but it would be interesting).
PDU-off
No airframe R & D (none, so nothing ahead of it's historical date)
No air group resizing
No ground bombing of troops in China
No buying back of destroyed units or air groups
Anything else?
I like TRACOM pilots boosting skill and experience rather than numbers of graduates.
With all of those handicaps, something would have to give on the Allied side. Perhaps longer times to unload and refuel ships (they said Noumea harbor was a nightmare for some time), longer times for submarine crew R&R, slower airfield and port construction rates, etc.
Cheers,
CB
ORIGINAL: RangerJoe
AVG:
in Burma and China only unless overrun.
only 99 air frames - no upgrading
only 99 pilots max, no replacements
after AVG disbands, then the pilots be like any other Army pilots
Chinese units:
no Red and White Chinese stacked together
Chinese units in Burma early but not in the open valley, no PPs spent
Chinese units in Burma cut off from China are allowed to go to India to fill out and train, no PPs spent
If used in the front lines, then PPs spent to release them to the unrestricted Chinese HQs, those HQs stay under China High Command.
No Marine units operating from Carriers until Kamikazes - unless the carrier comes with them.
Once kamikazes are used, the Marine fighters are allowed on carriers as carrier air units.
No using replacement air units as regular units, only for replacement and training since pilots might also be transferred.
No air units serving on other nations carriers. I do not think that it happened.
Except in the early days and in emergencies, like when a British CV served in the US Pacific fleet, no mixing of fleet units except that the ANZAC ships can go with either other Commonwealth ships of the American fleet. Merchants don't matter, combat vessels do. I think that any Dutch ships served with the British fleet.
No subs in the Sea of Japan until 1944 since the sonar was not developed until then. If the exact date is located, then from that date on.
Units stay in their Command and lower HQs Area of Operations (AO) except for short loaner periods. Being thousands of miles away from your higher HQ and being committed to battle really should not work. Being sent to a rear area for I and I is fine. So SoPac and SWPAC can work together on the fringes but you would have to change the bases and/or units Command if they go too far astray. Eastern Army and SE Asia in the Central/Northern Pacific is too far afield. New Guinea (sp?) can work in the DEI as the eastern part of New Guinea is secured and the front moves forward.
III Corps can retreat from Malaya into the DEI and thence to Australia and into SWPAC (even though MacArthur really did not think highly of Indian troops) since SWPAC early on can use all the help that it can get. The command of III Corps would then go to SWPAC. New Guinea can go to SWPAC if it needs to, but the I and II Corps can go earlier.
American troops mostly under American HQs except for such units as Merrils marauders that operated in the CBI theater. Most units would serve under their own nations HQs unless otherwise noted as reinforcements. Australian units into their New Guinea, I and II Corps and directly under SWPAC. New Zealand under SoPac.
Get SoPac and NoPac under CentPac so there is a unified Navy command.
Same for the Far East Command under SWPAC, then SWPAC comes in the Far East Command disbands.
ORIGINAL: CaptBeefheart
Wow, that's a big yard there in Manila. That makes it a pretty credible target to use as a decoy.
How big are the yards in Hong Kong, Saigon and the Pescadores?
Cheers,
CB
P.S. I just had my Slitherine account merged with this, so I'm now Capt. Beefheart. Since I'm more familiar with Beefheart's music (being a Frank Zappa fan back in the day) than Commander Cody's music (e.g. "Hot Rod Lincoln"), it's all good to me. The first modem game I played was some sort of Star Trek game back in the 80s and I needed a name for my character. I thought Commander Cody had a nice ring to it (a musician with a naval rank).
ORIGINAL: HansBolter
I don't see the point of allowing Marine air units on the carriers only after kamikazes activate.
By then there is no need for placing Marine units on the carriers as their own air squadrons have expanded and a second fighter squadron added.
The need for Marine air units on carriers is in '42 when the Allied carriers are low on fighters that can easily be overwhelmed by a combined KB.
The best way to eliminate the need for Marine squadrons on the carriers in '42 is to historically limit the KB to no more tan four fleet carriers in '42 following the opening attack.
It's Japanese players ahistorically (and smartly) keeping the KB concentrated that drives Allied players to load up their carriers with fighters in '42.
By late '44 and 45 the issue is moot.
ORIGINAL: obvert
Hong Kong I'll have to recon. Singapore is also big at 87.
Beginning in December 1944, Marine fighter squadrons were assigned to fast carriers in an effort to increase the number of fighter aircraft with the goal of providing added protection against the Kamikazes. This effort was only marginally successful as the emergency effort did not allow for adequate carrier training for the Marine flyers.
ORIGINAL: RangerJoe
The earlier models of the F4F did not have folding wings so they took up more space and fewer aircraft could be carried.
Beginning in December 1944, Marine fighter squadrons were assigned to fast carriers in an effort to increase the number of fighter aircraft with the goal of providing added protection against the Kamikazes. This effort was only marginally successful as the emergency effort did not allow for adequate carrier training for the Marine flyers.
United States Marine Corps Aviation
In 1943, General Holland M (Howling Mad) Smith recommended that Marine aviators be assigned to escort carriers for the purpose of ground support. (page 7) But they did not get on them until much later.
Starting on page 14 is the story of VMF-422.
Part V Marine Aviation in the Western Pacific.
