Matrix Games Forums

To End All Wars: Mountain InfantryPandora: Eclipse of Nashira Announced! Deal of the Week: Command Ops goes half price!New Fronts are opening up for Commander: The Great WarCharacters of World War 1Sign of for the Pike and Shot Beta!More Games are Coming to Steam! Return to the Moon on October 31st! Commander: The Great War iPad Wallpapers Generals of the Great War
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Tip-Toeing through a minefield wearing iron galoshes

 
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 >> After Action Reports >> RE: Tip-Toeing through a minefield wearing iron galoshes Page: <<   < prev  13 14 [15] 16 17   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Tip-Toeing through a minefield wearing iron galoshes - 5/30/2008 10:07:02 PM   
Mike Solli


Posts: 13933
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline
I agree with you too, Castor.  I've never found spoilage to be a significant factor.

_____________________________


Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 421
RE: Tip-Toeing through a minefield wearing iron galoshes - 5/30/2008 10:07:14 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5807
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline
Can you provide links to tests which show supply not being used to repair bases? I am very curious as it really does appear to be used and the manual does make it clear that supplies are used to effect repairs ( yeah I know the manual is FUBAR but when it says what you seem to see you tend to believe it ).

As to supplies not being a problem. Well, if 80,000 tons doesn't get spoiled the other 320,000 tons he lands DOES. So if 80% wastage isn't a problem for you then that's fine. I would detest 80% wastage and view it as a significant planning error personally - not one which would interfere with the mission's success but one which would rob me of my enjoyment of the operation as I play not to win but to put together knife-edge, succesful operations and the finer the margin the more I enjoy the op. 80% wastage in a succesful operation means, to me, that I could have run 4 more concomittant, succesful, operations and thus, actually, it just proved that I over-committed and wasteful -- essentially a failure.I know others don't share that approach but that's where my comments come from. Also I'd point out that with a single-engined plane costing about 20 tons of supply to "spawn" on Iwo the loss of 50 planes will cost 1000 tons in terms of respawning.

Still, the fact that repairs don't cost supply does change the arithmetic a bit alright.

I think that while Iwo's position is strong you guys are both being FAR too blase about the problems. 80% spoilage is horrific. I always do the math to ensure there is NO spoilage. I even dock ships and leave them there until the base has used up enough to let them unload without causing spoilage. There ARE areas there which a Japanese player can capitalise on. I don't think John will do so succesfully but that's no reason not to point them out.


Overall what Japan SHOULD do is simply interdict the supply runs to Iwo using KB and rely on LBA to blunt further advances. This would be the indirect approach and would be asynchronous enough to gain some useful advantage. John isn't an indirect thinker though so it won't happen and he's limited to optimising his force on force attritional engagement.


Accepting 80% spoilage is completely outside of my mindset though. OUCH !!! A Japanese player who accepted 80% inefficiency in his operations would go down to defeat in no time at all - and deservedly so.

< Message edited by Nemo121 -- 5/30/2008 10:14:22 PM >

(in reply to Kereguelen)
Post #: 422
RE: Tip-Toeing through a minefield wearing iron galoshes - 5/30/2008 10:21:07 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 12262
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Can you provide links to tests which show supply not being used to repair bases? I am very curious as it really does appear to be used and the manual does make it clear that supplies are used to effect repairs ( yeah I know the manual is FUBAR but when it says what you seem to see you tend to believe it ).

As to supplies not being a problem. Well, if 80,000 tons doesn't get spoiled the other 320,000 tons he lands DOES. So if 80% wastage isn't a problem for you then that's fine. I would detest 80% wastage and view it as a significant planning error personally - not one which would interfere with the mission's success but one which would rob me of my enjoyment of the operation as I play not to win but to put together knife-edge, succesful operations and the finer the margin the more I enjoy the op. 80% wastage in a succesful operation means, to me, that I could have run 4 more concomittant, succesful, operations and thus, actually, it just proved that I over-committed and wasteful -- essentially a failure.I know others don't share that approach but that's where my comments come from. Also I'd point out that with a single-engined plane costing about 20 tons of supply to "spawn" on Iwo the loss of 50 planes will cost 1000 tons in terms of respawning.

Still, the fact that repairs don't cost supply does change the arithmetic a bit alright.

I think that while Iwo's position is strong you guys are both being FAR too blase about the problems. 80% spoilage is horrific. I always do the math to ensure there is NO spoilage. I even dock ships and leave them there until the base has used up enough to let them unload without causing spoilage. There ARE areas there which a Japanese player can capitalise on. I don't think John will do so succesfully but that's no reason not to point them out.


Overall what Japan SHOULD do is simply interdict the supply runs to Iwo using KB and rely on LBA to blunt further advances. This would be the indirect approach and would be asynchronous enough to gain some useful advantage. John isn't an indirect thinker though so it won't happen and he's limited to optimising his force on force attritional engagement.


Accepting 80% spoilage is completely outside of my mindset though. OUCH !!! A Japanese player who accepted 80% inefficiency in his operations would go down to defeat in no time at all - and deservedly so.



I´m sorry, the search function didn´t bring up a result, but AndyMac just recently confirmed that repairs don´t need any supplies, only building. Same was just confirmed by Kereguelen.

About the spoilage: yes, you are correct, would 320.000 supplies (sorry, I´ve misread your first post, I read 40.000 supplies) spoil it would be a problem, BUT spoilage doesn´t mean that 320.000 supplies would just vanish in a couple of days. I have never really tested it but it would take an eternity to really see the effect of spoilage and until then, the base will be big enough. And if you are really concerned about spoilage, the easiest way would be to just not unload more than 150.000 and keep the rest on the ships set to "do not unload". Voila, no spoilage at all, unload more supply when needed. It doesn´t matter if there are 30 big AKs parked at Iwo (30x7000 =210.000 if the big AKs have that capacity in BigB mod).

Really, spoilage IMO will be the smallest problem for the Allied at Iwo. But again, I´ve got no idea what Canoerebel really brought in terms of eng, supply, flak, etc.

Of course, the Allied supply line from Midway would be in danger of being raided by KB, but to interdict it? I would just use a carrier TF to escort huge supply or troop convoys. Of course, steady, smaller convoys can be interdicted, but if supply ever gets low, just put up a 100 AK convoy, escort it with 7 fleet carriers and I would be glad to meet KB...


< Message edited by castor troy -- 5/30/2008 10:24:29 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 423
RE: Tip-Toeing through a minefield wearing iron galoshes - 5/30/2008 11:00:26 PM   
Mistmatz

 

Posts: 1396
Joined: 10/16/2005
Status: offline
I agree with castor, spoilage wouldn't be 80%, nowhere near that number.

Reason is exactly what nemo thinks a japanese player should do, there will be battles. So there is a lot of supply to consume. Not for AF (was also new for me) but still for plane losses, disruption, normal demand for 8 divisions and so on.
So the regular supply requirement for this base will be quite high. The supplies exceeding the storage and applicable to spoilage will thus shrink every day due to regular demand and spoilage. But I believe regular demand will be 10 times the number that is lost due to spoilage.

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 424
RE: Tip-Toeing through a minefield wearing iron galoshes - 5/30/2008 11:35:45 PM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 5537
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline
So, the conclusion is:

Iwo can't be starved out
It can't be bombed to shut it
It can't be taken back
It MAYBE can be bombarded, but probably quickly repaired

John would be foolish to attack Dan at Iwo. Maybe he will, but it would be highly foolish, as Dan could use LBA to help his ships, not that late '43 Allies need much help.

(in reply to Mistmatz)
Post #: 425
RE: Tip-Toeing through a minefield wearing iron galoshes - 5/31/2008 12:22:45 AM   
Big B

 

Posts: 4119
Joined: 6/1/2005
From: Just over there.
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball
...
Dan needs a torpedo bomber that can carry torps out to 5 hexes;
I don't know Allied A/C ranges in Big-B. Can the Beaufort carry a torp that far?


Actually - after checking ...no






Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Big B -- 5/31/2008 3:13:26 AM >

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 426
RE: Tip-Toeing through a minefield wearing iron galoshes - 5/31/2008 3:19:15 AM   
castor troy


Posts: 12262
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B

quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball
...
Dan needs a torpedo bomber that can carry torps out to 5 hexes;
I don't know Allied A/C ranges in Big-B. Can the Beaufort carry a torp that far?


Actually - after checking ...no











_____________________________


(in reply to Big B)
Post #: 427
RE: Tip-Toeing through a minefield wearing iron galoshes - 5/31/2008 5:37:49 PM   
String


Posts: 2653
Joined: 10/7/2003
From: Estonia
Status: offline
barracuda should be able to.

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 428
Operation Crescent Moon - 6/2/2008 3:53:20 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 9770
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline
9/11/43 to 9/15/43
 
Iwo Jima:  The minesweepers completed their work, so the carriers docked at Iwo on the 13th.  That same day, the port increased in size to level 2.  Three more Jap subs were sunk (I-171, I-174, and RO-63, and I think John has moved the rest away from Iwo.  An Allied AK and two LSTs succumbed to previous damage and went under.  The ground troops are starting to inflict one-sided losses on the remaining Jap defenders, and I think that job will be complete within a week. Up at Tori Shima, a Jap DD TF raided the base on the 11th, sinking an AK and six PTs, but two Jap DDs took torpedoes. 

Operation Crescent Moon:  As best I can tell, John appears to be focusing his defenses on Luzon right now.  SigInt indicates 46th Division at Aparri (this is a surprise, and redoubles my relief that I didn't invade Luzon) and 2nd Area Army at Legaspi.  Therefore, there are at least two divisions on Luzon outside of Manila (one each at Aparri and Legaspi), and I'm sure Manila was strongly garrison.  On the 15th, sub Haddo torpedoed and sank a ML just off Aparri.  On the otherhand, Okinawa seems lightly garrisoned at the moment, with two units at each base.  SigInt showes just 4,553 men at Kadina.  Most of the Allies troops on Midway are prepping for Nada, as are other units at Midway, Pearl Harbor, and San Francisco.  Convoys are gathering at Midway in preparation for the move to Iwo.  It will take some time to accomplish that move, but once it's done the Allies will be in a position to activate Crescent Moon (unless circumstances change in the meantime).  CV Intrepid and CVL Langley just arrived at Pearl after a surprisingly unproductive, and certainly risky, cruise near the Society Islands.

Australia:  Quiet.

India:  The Royal Navy CVs will be back at Colombo in three days.

Burma:  Allied troops are resting and replenishing at newly-captured Rangoon.  The Japs squashed the Allied units at Siem Reap (small detachments of 50th Indian Paratroops and a Chinese unit).  I think the next Allied operation in this region will be an invasion (rather than a major effort to force a river crossing at Moulmein).  I'm not sure where this invasion will take place, yet, but it will be timed to coincide with Crescent Moon.

China:  Quiet.

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 429
RE: Operation Crescent Moon - 6/3/2008 3:49:06 PM   
USS America


Posts: 16075
Joined: 10/28/2002
From: Apex, NC, USA
Status: offline
Still reading quietly and enjoying immensely, Dan! 

_____________________________

Mike

"Good times will set you free" - Jimmy Buffett

"They need more rum punch" - Me


Artwork by The Amazing Dixie

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 430
RE: Operation Crescent Moon - 6/3/2008 4:09:20 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 9770
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline
9/16/43 to 9/19/43
 
Iwo Jima:  The Jap defenders were finally wiped out on September 16.  The eight American divisions involved in the attack (and many of them also involved in the invasion of Midway) are pretty roughed up - AVs range from about 175 to about 333 (the latter for a Marine division).  All but one of these units are prepping for Naha.  An F-5 recon unit transferred in from Midway on the 16th, rested a day, and then flew over Saipan, Pagan, and then Saipan again, and reported that the KB is anchored at Saipan.  Six Jap CVs were sighted there on the 19th.

Carrier Raid on the Home Islands:  The US carriers are going raiding tonight - they'll take station four hexes southeast of Osaka/Kobe.  There will be six TFs flying 303 Hellcats (212 set for CAP, about 90 for escort duty), 216 SBDs, and 161 TBFs.  Cursor intel does't reveal much in port there (four or five APs is about it), but this raid is as much about "sending a message" that the HI are no longer safe as it is about sinking ships.  I'm crossing my fingers that nothing goes wrong.

Operation Crescent Moon:  John's been reading my thoughts again.  He's augmenting the defenses on Okinawa.  Cursor intel revealed an increase to three units at Naha on the 17th, and to 5 units on the 19th.  CV Intrepid and CVL Langley are nearing Midway.  A number of important transport TFs are on the way there from San Francisco.  The big reinforcement convoy should be ready to leave Midway for Iwo in about a week or ten days.

Eniwetok:  SigInt reports just 5,341 Jap troops at this island base.  That's something to think about in the future, should I decide to "back fill."

Australia:  Quiet.

Burma/In dia:  Allied bombers will begin regular raids on Moulmein to give the appearance that this will be the next target.  The Royal Navy carriers finally made Colombo and took on much-need fuel.  The Royal Navy invasion of "someplace" will take place sometime in the next month or six weeks.  The most likely target is Port Blair.

China:  I've got hords of units moving adjacent to Haiphong and Hanoi again, but it's just a bluff to draw John's attention to this area.

Points:  The Jap lead is almost exactly 2:1 now - nearly 44,000 to nearly 22,000; that's a vast improvement over what it was not too long ago.

(in reply to USS America)
Post #: 431
RE: Operation Crescent Moon - 6/3/2008 4:26:15 PM   
Kereguelen


Posts: 1775
Joined: 5/13/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

9/16/43 to 9/19/43

Iwo Jima: The Jap defenders were finally wiped out on September 16. The eight American divisions involved in the attack (and many of them also involved in the invasion of Midway) are pretty roughed up - AVs range from about 175 to about 333 (the latter for a Marine division). All but one of these units are prepping for Naha. An F-5 recon unit transferred in from Midway on the 16th, rested a day, and then flew over Saipan, Pagan, and then Saipan again, and reported that the KB is anchored at Saipan. Six Jap CVs were sighted there on the 19th.

Carrier Raid on the Home Islands: The US carriers are going raiding tonight - they'll take station four hexes southeast of Osaka/Kobe. There will be six TFs flying 303 Hellcats (212 set for CAP, about 90 for escort duty), 216 SBDs, and 161 TBFs. Cursor intel does't reveal much in port there (four or five APs is about it), but this raid is as much about "sending a message" that the HI are no longer safe as it is about sinking ships. I'm crossing my fingers that nothing goes wrong.

Operation Crescent Moon: John's been reading my thoughts again. He's augmenting the defenses on Okinawa. Cursor intel revealed an increase to three units at Naha on the 17th, and to 5 units on the 19th. CV Intrepid and CVL Langley are nearing Midway. A number of important transport TFs are on the way there from San Francisco. The big reinforcement convoy should be ready to leave Midway for Iwo in about a week or ten days.

Eniwetok: SigInt reports just 5,341 Jap troops at this island base. That's something to think about in the future, should I decide to "back fill."

Australia: Quiet.

Burma/In dia: Allied bombers will begin regular raids on Moulmein to give the appearance that this will be the next target. The Royal Navy carriers finally made Colombo and took on much-need fuel. The Royal Navy invasion of "someplace" will take place sometime in the next month or six weeks. The most likely target is Port Blair.

China: I've got hords of units moving adjacent to Haiphong and Hanoi again, but it's just a bluff to draw John's attention to this area.

Points: The Jap lead is almost exactly 2:1 now - nearly 44,000 to nearly 22,000; that's a vast improvement over what it was not too long ago.


Hi,

your opponent may try the same as you - a carrier raid. The presence of KB could indicate this. This could leave you between hammer and anvil after your raid against the HI with a low number of sorties left and high fatigue (depending on what you encounter near the HI). And a Japanese raid on Iwo without your presence of your carriers in the vicinity could cost you dearly in (then unprotected) transports.

Okinawa should be one of your logical targets now. Not too hard to guess for your opponent. And difficult to keep and supply in 1943 without a safe LOC.

Dashing raids and deep thrusts into enemy territory are a nice thing, but with KB intact Okinawa would probably be one step too far.

K

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 432
RE: Operation Crescent Moon - 6/3/2008 4:47:40 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 9770
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline
The raid on the HI is chancy simply because I may run into alot of LBA, but my carriers won't be encountering Jap CVs.  Knowing that the KB is way down at Saipan gave me the info I needed to send out my carriers for a few days.

I will bet everything I have that the KB won't be raiding Iwo, at least anytime soon; anyway, that base can take care of itself for a few days while my carriers are off.  Iwo LBA includes three Corsair squadrons and a big (54 aircraft) Hellcat squadron.  There are also at least five CVEs posted there, each with about 20 Hellcats. 

(in reply to Kereguelen)
Post #: 433
RE: Operation Crescent Moon - 6/3/2008 8:28:32 PM   
Kereguelen


Posts: 1775
Joined: 5/13/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

The raid on the HI is chancy simply because I may run into alot of LBA, but my carriers won't be encountering Jap CVs. Knowing that the KB is way down at Saipan gave me the info I needed to send out my carriers for a few days.

I will bet everything I have that the KB won't be raiding Iwo, at least anytime soon; anyway, that base can take care of itself for a few days while my carriers are off. Iwo LBA includes three Corsair squadrons and a big (54 aircraft) Hellcat squadron. There are also at least five CVEs posted there, each with about 20 Hellcats.


KB is not 'way down' at Saipan. He can easily reach a position to intercept your carriers with KB anytime (from a position north of Pagan). He can even bring his slower carriers along and give his whole fleet some additional LRCAP (assuming that Pagan is at least a level 2 AF?) with land-based fighters.

Iwo can certainly take care of its own. But it seems that it currently will offer you no help if you encounter KB.

Not sure about BigB-Mod. If Hellcats are as good as in stock in this mod, you can even fight against the whole of KB. But the pilots need to be rested if you fight. And you'll need some luck with carrier reactions (but this applies to both sides, of course).

< Message edited by Kereguelen -- 6/3/2008 8:30:06 PM >

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 434
RE: Operation Crescent Moon - 6/3/2008 9:03:24 PM   
Mike Solli


Posts: 13933
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline
Just for your information, you can fly LRCAP from a level 1 airfield.

_____________________________


Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to Kereguelen)
Post #: 435
RE: Operation Crescent Moon - 6/4/2008 12:15:45 AM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 5537
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline
If the KB appears, the sequence could actually work to Canoerebel's favor if the forces are split.

He would be tempted to raid Iwo. If CR has 150+ Corsairs/Hellcats over Iwo, I can tell from experience that although he will cause alot of damage, he will lose at least half his attack planes in KB. He would immediately have to withdraw, or face the wrath of CR's CV's coming back from the Home Islands. That raid won't cost much in terms of planes, IMHO. He is unlikely to have a massive CAP over the target port.

(in reply to Kereguelen)
Post #: 436
RE: Operation Crescent Moon - 6/4/2008 3:11:36 AM   
Big B

 

Posts: 4119
Joined: 6/1/2005
From: Just over there.
Status: offline
Just an FYI,

Do Not count on Hellcats and Corsairs being as unstoppable as they were in stock(the old joke - X-Wings upgrade to Corsairs). I did go for realism, and in testing - with both sides pilots being about 65 in experience ...I was seeing a fairly consistent kill ratio of 2:1 over A6M5's (sometimes more...and always with equal numbers involved).

Then, I put it all into the Philippine Sea scenario (with experience being what ever that scenario said it was at that point in the war) - and the battle turned into a legitimate "Turkey Shoot" as it should have been. So far so good.

But I never saw what the results would have been with an intact KB (90+ experience and all)... with every Jap CV that could float - assuming they never lost one during the war. So if John has EVERYTHING with 80-90+ experience, and assuming he has rushed fighter production to the max - no telling (in my mind) what is likely to happen - but I don't foresee 300 Hellcats meeting 300 A6M5 Zeros and whatever, and still achieving a 14:1 kill ratio.

Could be interesting to see...

B
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

The raid on the HI is chancy simply because I may run into alot of LBA, but my carriers won't be encountering Jap CVs. Knowing that the KB is way down at Saipan gave me the info I needed to send out my carriers for a few days.

I will bet everything I have that the KB won't be raiding Iwo, at least anytime soon; anyway, that base can take care of itself for a few days while my carriers are off. Iwo LBA includes three Corsair squadrons and a big (54 aircraft) Hellcat squadron. There are also at least five CVEs posted there, each with about 20 Hellcats.


KB is not 'way down' at Saipan. He can easily reach a position to intercept your carriers with KB anytime (from a position north of Pagan). He can even bring his slower carriers along and give his whole fleet some additional LRCAP (assuming that Pagan is at least a level 2 AF?) with land-based fighters.

Iwo can certainly take care of its own. But it seems that it currently will offer you no help if you encounter KB.

Not sure about BigB-Mod. If Hellcats are as good as in stock in this mod, you can even fight against the whole of KB. But the pilots need to be rested if you fight. And you'll need some luck with carrier reactions (but this applies to both sides, of course).



_____________________________

https://sites.google.com/site/bigbsshipyard/home

(in reply to Kereguelen)
Post #: 437
RE: Operation Crescent Moon - 6/4/2008 6:29:37 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 9770
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline
9/20/43 and 9/21/43
 
U.S. Carrier Raid on Japan:  This turned out to be a non-event.  The carriers performed just as ordered (a rare experience for me), sailing together and taking station four hexes SE of Osaka/Kobe.  The port, however, was socked in by clouds and the carriers didn't launch a single sortie.  A scout SBD did manage to score a bomb hit on an AK off Japan's west coast.  The outcome of this raid was disappointing since it probably eliminated the opportunity to ever strike a surprise blow against a major Japanese port; on the other hand, it should accomplish alerting John that he has to defend against such an attack, further expanding the number of things he needs to worry about.

Iwo:  When the carriers took station up near Japan, John sent a bezerker email message:  "You moved away from IWO!  BANZAI! Coded Message Combined Fleet to all Warship of the Imperial Navy: "Commence Operation Nakri.""  I wasn't sure if this was disinformation or the inadvisable disemination of intelligence, but operatin on the principal that John might have the gall to announce a major operation (he did so frequently earlier in the game) I battended down the hatches at Iwo.  My carriers were heading back that way anyhow since suprrise was lost.

To be honest, I thought John's message was probably misinformation, but maybe not.  On the 21, Allied LBA and CVE air from Iwo found a small combat TF five hexes east of Iwo.  The bombers struck and badly damaged CS Nishin, CS Mizuko, and 3 DDs.  One DD went under, and I think the two CS will follow suit.

So it appears that John is up to something.  With that in mind, I've ordered the CVs and CVE TFs to take station two hexes NE (true NE) of Iwo, with most all transport TFs set to follow.  The two big combat TFs will remain at Iwo.  Damaged ships will sail a hex NW and then return (hoping to temporarily vacate the port if combat ships pay a call).

I've had a number of damaged ships leaving Iwo, heading NE, and then making for Midway.  A damaged DD made the journey early in the month, PG Charleston is following suit, and some merchant vessels are on the way.  It seems that John is focusing on Iwo and leaving these lanes unguarded; since I need an MLE at Iwo badly, I've ordered one at Midway to sail NW.  I'm going to chance a sprint to Iwo.

Okinawa:  John now has six units at Nada and seven at Kadina.  Poof, he goes from two at each to plenty over just a few days.  So whether I hit Okinawa any time soon is more doubtful.  I prefer easy pickings.

Australia:  Quiet.

Burma/India:  Zzzz.

China:  Snooze.

(in reply to Big B)
Post #: 438
What the heck? - 6/5/2008 12:51:18 AM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 9770
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline
I'm confused...

John called foul on himself.  Said he loaded a bunch of carriers with Jack fighters that don't belong there and asked to re-do the turn so that he could swap for appropriate fighters.

How is it possible to do that?  If I try to load P-39s on a carrier, the game won't allow me.  So my question to him was, "Are these Jacks carrier-capable; if so, let's proceed."  John's reply was:  "The air groups are but the planes are not."  What does that mean?

If the game allows Jacks to fly from carrier's (IE, they read "carrier-capable") then I want to proceed even if I get ripped to shreds.  If the planes aren't marked "carrier-capable," then I would agree to back up.

From John's emails, I took it that they are not marked "carrier-capable," so I agree to back up.  Then I discover that as far as John is concerned it's tough luck that I lose those hits on his two CS and destroyers.

This doesn't seem right.  We back up so that he can correct a mistake (if it was a mistake - I'm still not sure) and he gets several nice ships back.  Why don't I like this scenario?

< Message edited by Canoerebel -- 6/5/2008 12:54:46 AM >

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 439
RE: What the heck? - 6/5/2008 1:02:18 AM   
heenanc

 

Posts: 412
Joined: 2/25/2007
Status: offline
I think John should sacrifice these ships as you have been kind enough to return back a turn or 2 in the name of the game. A good opponent he is, but if I was in your shoes I would stick by my guns like you have on a lot disagreements in the past... I think these ship should be sacrificed!!

Just my thoughts!!

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 440
RE: What the heck? - 6/5/2008 1:10:32 AM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 5537
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline
I agree with heenanc. You should ask for a free sacrifice, he shouldn't be able to keep those ships.

Land-Based Zero Daitai are "Carrier Capable" units. They also have JACKS available in their upgrade path if PDU's are on. Apparently John upgraded some land-based Daitai to JACKS, and loaded them on CV's. A bunch of people pointed out that is WAY gamey, and a big no-no, as the Jack was NEVER CV capable.

The only reason you can't do that with P-38s, for example, is that the P-38 is not an upgrade option for any of your CV Capable units. If they were, it would be available, even if the P-38 was not capable IRL.

PS, to be fair, you should not be putting Corsairs on any CV's until later in '44, if that option is available to you.

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 441
RE: What the heck? - 6/5/2008 1:34:57 AM   
rtrapasso


Posts: 22525
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline
quote:


John called foul on himself. Said he loaded a bunch of carriers with Jack fighters that don't belong there and asked to re-do the turn so that he could swap for appropriate fighters.

How is it possible to do that?


You can load any 1E plane (at least fighters) onto a CV - this is useful for ferry purposes. Historically accurate (i.e. WASP(i think - i might have been HORNET) ferrying fighters to Malta - they flew off once in range.

In game, the planes can fly off, but can't land on a CV - only at a land base.

So, it is quite possible to load them in port if you thought they are carrier capable (and are not).

BTW - John was also surprised to learn this (on his AAR).

EDIT: It was WASP - see also
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Wasp_(CV-7)

< Message edited by rtrapasso -- 6/5/2008 1:36:53 AM >

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 442
RE: What the heck? - 6/5/2008 2:28:22 AM   
heenanc

 

Posts: 412
Joined: 2/25/2007
Status: offline
This is true but it wasn't John's intentions!!

(in reply to rtrapasso)
Post #: 443
RE: What the heck? - 6/5/2008 3:04:21 AM   
desicat

 

Posts: 306
Joined: 5/25/2008
Status: offline
Seems that those ships were lost prior to the "Jacks" even being a factor. I would agree that they should be counted as "sunk".

Good Luck!

(in reply to heenanc)
Post #: 444
RE: What the heck? - 6/5/2008 4:06:35 AM   
Sheytan


Posts: 830
Joined: 11/28/2006
Status: offline
Well if you let the game be backed up thats a real nice gesture. Personally when I read what was posted on his AAR thread about the "trapping shipping in map corner" my sentiments were, let him take his medicine. Using map limitations to your own advantage is a exploit, and is about as gamey a thing a player can do imo, in REALITY...those assets could have withdrawn. I understand AE will fix this really obivious and frankly silly aspect of the game.

(in reply to desicat)
Post #: 445
RE: What the heck? - 6/5/2008 4:56:28 AM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 9770
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

quote:


John called foul on himself. Said he loaded a bunch of carriers with Jack fighters that don't belong there and asked to re-do the turn so that he could swap for appropriate fighters.

How is it possible to do that?


You can load any 1E plane (at least fighters) onto a CV - this is useful for ferry purposes. Historically accurate (i.e. WASP(i think - i might have been HORNET) ferrying fighters to Malta - they flew off once in range.

In game, the planes can fly off, but can't land on a CV - only at a land base.

So, it is quite possible to load them in port if you thought they are carrier capable (and are not).

BTW - John was also surprised to learn this (on his AAR).

EDIT: It was WASP - see also
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Wasp_(CV-7)


Ah, now I understand. Thank you rtpasso. So I could transfer P-39s to one of my CVs in port, and then ferry them to another base to unload. But those P-39s wouldn't fly CAP (or any other mission). That's the same dilemma John had with his Jacks, right?

So, John loaded a bunch of premium fighters on his carriers and then sent his carriers into harm's way, realize his mistake, and asks for a re-do. I've agreed, though a part of me thinks, "Hey, that's tough. I had Hornet and Wasp sunk when they didn't put up CAP for some reason, and I refused a mulligan."

So we'll replay a few turns and I've asked John to scuttle the two CS and DD or two that sank or would have following the battle that "didn't" occur.

Funny thing is, thanks to John's emails I now know that he plans a massive all-or-nothing carrier engagement. I had no idea something of this magnitude was in the offing, although the presence of the KB at Saipan, and the advance of that CS TF would have been a clue. Now I know they are in all likelihood coming. I've agreed to keep my CVs at Iwo a few days (John was worried I might attack while his carriers were swapping from Jacks back to Zeros). I guess I won't do anything different when normal operations resume - other than to pull all my ships out of Iwo and under cover of the carriers for awhile, plus putting most of the LBA fighters on LRCAP, to guard against a 150 ship combat armada hitting Iwo.

Iwo is a level 4 airfield and won't reach level 5 for at least a week, so I'll have 200 LBA to augment my carriers.

(in reply to rtrapasso)
Post #: 446
RE: What the heck? - 6/5/2008 9:28:49 AM   
castor troy


Posts: 12262
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
John doesn´t have the dilemma that Jacks won´t fly from the CVs. They fly Cap, they fly escort, they fly nav attack, they fly everything from the carrier that they also fly from a land base. So he will have Jacks instead of Zekes, never have made it that far in BigB mod but if they are nearly as effective as in stock you will lose 4 or 5 times more aircraft to the Jacks than you would lose to the Zekes.

Even if they are carrier capable in the game, it´s totally gamey to use Jacks on carriers.

_____________________________


(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 447
RE: What the heck? - 6/5/2008 4:19:28 PM   
rtrapasso


Posts: 22525
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline
quote:

Ah, now I understand. Thank you rtpasso. So I could transfer P-39s to one of my CVs in port, and then ferry them to another base to unload. But those P-39s wouldn't fly CAP (or any other mission).


You should be able to transfer, and no, they shouldn't fly CAP...

i've done this in prior versions of WITP (1.6xx or 1.7xx) although i don't think i've tried it under 1.8xx, however, i don't think anything has changed in respects to that.

Does NOT work for P-38s, iirc, nor for 2E bombers.

< Message edited by rtrapasso -- 6/5/2008 4:20:35 PM >

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 448
RE: What the heck? - 6/5/2008 7:10:25 PM   
Cap Mandrake

 

Posts: 16465
Joined: 11/15/2002
From: Southern California
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

John doesn´t have the dilemma that Jacks won´t fly from the CVs. They fly Cap, they fly escort, they fly nav attack, they fly everything from the carrier that they also fly from a land base. So he will have Jacks instead of Zekes, never have made it that far in BigB mod but if they are nearly as effective as in stock you will lose 4 or 5 times more aircraft to the Jacks than you would lose to the Zekes.

Even if they are carrier capable in the game, it´s totally gamey to use Jacks on carriers.



To be complete, it was certainly John's expectation that the Jacks would fly in the naval air role from carrier decks and he certainly got a world of criticism from readers about gaminess (because it was unhistorical) in using Jacks from carriers, although at least one knowledgeable individual raised a warning that it might not work. His zeal for correcting the deployment seemed to increase when that issue was raised

@ Canoerebel:

It was the apparent universal opinion that correcting the deployment was the fairest thing to do. You will be much better off without Jacks flying from Jap carrier decks as castor has said.


I do have sympathy for your point for the redo erasing the loss of his CS's. A fair compromise might be to have John purposely scuttle those ships that were sunk or mortally damaged (along with their air complement). You can verify this has been done when they eventually show up on th sunk ships list (I think it shows on the ocmbat replay too).

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 449
RE: What the heck? - 6/5/2008 10:17:46 PM   
String


Posts: 2653
Joined: 10/7/2003
From: Estonia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake


quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

John doesn´t have the dilemma that Jacks won´t fly from the CVs. They fly Cap, they fly escort, they fly nav attack, they fly everything from the carrier that they also fly from a land base. So he will have Jacks instead of Zekes, never have made it that far in BigB mod but if they are nearly as effective as in stock you will lose 4 or 5 times more aircraft to the Jacks than you would lose to the Zekes.

Even if they are carrier capable in the game, it´s totally gamey to use Jacks on carriers.



To be complete, it was certainly John's expectation that the Jacks would fly in the naval air role from carrier decks and he certainly got a world of criticism from readers about gaminess (because it was unhistorical) in using Jacks from carriers, although at least one knowledgeable individual raised a warning that it might not work. His zeal for correcting the deployment seemed to increase when that issue was raised

@ Canoerebel:

It was the apparent universal opinion that correcting the deployment was the fairest thing to do. You will be much better off without Jacks flying from Jap carrier decks as castor has said.


I do have sympathy for your point for the redo erasing the loss of his CS's. A fair compromise might be to have John purposely scuttle those ships that were sunk or mortally damaged (along with their air complement). You can verify this has been done when they eventually show up on th sunk ships list (I think it shows on the ocmbat replay too).


Can't scuttle without heavy damage.

(in reply to Cap Mandrake)
Post #: 450
Page:   <<   < prev  13 14 [15] 16 17   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> After Action Reports >> RE: Tip-Toeing through a minefield wearing iron galoshes Page: <<   < prev  13 14 [15] 16 17   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

0.131