RE: new AAR

Matrix Games Forums

The Age of Shadows on Distant Worlds starts now!

Paypal System Update

Distant Worlds: Shadows Final Teaser!

Distant Worlds: Legends gets Updated!

Recruiting Testers for Commander: the Great War on Mac!

Armageddon invasion starts in 2014

Command Rommels Panzers in Battle Academy!

Servers Update

The Deal goes Fourth!

Command Ops gets a Massive Update!

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: new AAR

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

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Advanced Tactics Series >> After Action Reports >> RE: new AAR

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: new AAR - 10/30/2011 7:24:43 PM

**budd**

Posts: 908
Joined: 7/4/2009
From: Tacoma
Status: offline

I dont see the AI moves, i did replay the history. Saw 3 stacks attacks my unit with 2 cruisers, torpedo bombers as i remember. The others were 2 units of 1 cruiser each, i left them close to shore maybe arty helped destroy them. I was wondering about flak protection of the cruisers, what do people feel is a good size for a cruiser unit?
budd

_____________________________

Enjoy when you can, and endure when you must. ~Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

*I'm in the Wargamer middle ground*
I don't buy all the wargames I want, I just buy more than I need.

(in reply to Josh)

Post #: 31

RE: new AAR - 10/31/2011 9:43:21 AM

Josh

Posts: 1810
Joined: 5/9/2000
From: Leeuwarden, Netherlands
Status: offline

Ah Torpedo bombers, that makes sense, that'll explain your losses then. I tend to make 1 cruiser units at start, as soon as possible I combine them into 4-5 cruiser units. Later on when things are going better I put 1-2 BB's and 1-2 CV's into them as well. Although in AT I have seen quite a few AI killer stacks (say 10 BB's or 60 planes) I haven't seen these apppear in ATG /phew. So the naval unit I make should suffice, if not I just combine them with another one.
You *can* lure the AI bomber unit into a trap though, place a small naval unit within it's reach, but protect it with Flak and Fighters in nearby hexes. Expecially Flak II-III is a real plane killer.

(in reply to **budd**)

Post #: 32

RE: new AAR - 11/6/2011 7:16:03 PM

**budd**

Posts: 908
Joined: 7/4/2009
From: Tacoma
Status: offline

No not quite ready to post the AAR pictures. I said before this is basically my first game with water and i'm not sure i understand sea supply, in fact i know i don't because my troops are suffering and my landings are for S**t. I did make some major mistakes, no trucks in landing HQ, no cargo ships in mainland HQ. I've corrected these and supplies still not flowing much. I re-read the supply thread and still not sure what i need to do to remedy this. As i understand it with out a port the most i can achieve is 75% supply rate.I control no city on continent i'm invading. I have cargo ships in my supply HQ back on my continent [6 i think] and i have 10 trucks in the landing HQ and the sea supply lane isn't contested. I tried to manually transfer supply, but it says no sea supply points. I click on supply for the landing HQ and it shows green in it's range, but the landing HQ isn't getting enough from the mainland HQ to supply even close to 75%. Can someone explain this to me like i am a 6 year old, My troops lives may be in your hands:-]............thx.
budd

_____________________________

Enjoy when you can, and endure when you must. ~Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

*I'm in the Wargamer middle ground*
I don't buy all the wargames I want, I just buy more than I need.

(in reply to Josh)

Post #: 33

RE: new AAR - 11/6/2011 7:20:53 PM

british exil

Posts: 1254
Joined: 5/4/2006
From: Lower Saxony Germany
Status: offline

Budd get your engineers over there ASAP. Build a port. That way you'll get supplies flowing. Get your navy to control the sea lanes between your mainland abd your bridgehead that way you'll cut down your supply losses.

Mat

_____________________________

"It is not enough to expect a man to pay for the best, you must also give him what he pays for." Alfred Dunhill

WitE,UV,AT,ATG,FoF

(in reply to **budd**)

Post #: 34

RE: new AAR - 11/6/2011 7:30:37 PM

**budd**

Posts: 908
Joined: 7/4/2009
From: Tacoma
Status: offline

didn't think of that...duh.... does a port require supply to build cause i got none over there.Engineer are still in ship offshore.
budd

< Message edited by **budd** -- 11/6/2011 7:31:01 PM >

_____________________________

Enjoy when you can, and endure when you must. ~Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

*I'm in the Wargamer middle ground*
I don't buy all the wargames I want, I just buy more than I need.

(in reply to british exil)

Post #: 35

RE: new AAR - 11/6/2011 7:48:08 PM

Josh

Posts: 1810
Joined: 5/9/2000
From: Leeuwarden, Netherlands
Status: offline

Sorry about the engineers, should have mentioned that because it's easy to oversee. School of hardknocks, you won't forget to send seabees the next time.
If your engineer unit is big enough (40) then it should be able to build a port on the second turn. I think a port needs 80 EP (engineer points) 40 on the first turn and 80 on the second. And no you don't need supply on the continent itself, the unit itself still has some supply with it, enough to be able to build that port. Even when that engineer unit is subordinate to another HQ far far away.
So yes, your engineer unit is *the* most important unit on your map, no engineer is no supply, no supply is your troops are dead. I *always* send an engineer unit with my invading troops, sometimes two engineer units. Build a port in the second turn, build an airfield the turn after that, build roads inland. Oh yeah, to speeden up the recovery of your totally depleted HQ you could manually seatransport supply from your Supreme HQ to that depleted invading HQ *if* both are located on a porthex *and* the SHQ has cargohips in it. You could also use transportplanes for that purpose, but their range is a bit lacking.
Hope you can still save those troops...

(in reply to **budd**)

Post #: 36

RE: new AAR - 11/6/2011 7:57:47 PM

**budd**

Posts: 908
Joined: 7/4/2009
From: Tacoma
Status: offline

thx

Live and learn... yea i sent engineers with all the landing forces except the paras [guess what there status is]....Ha ha ha these landings are so beyond Fubar it's not even funny, i'll see if i can save the landings if not I have to reload and go for a second major landing more focused and better prepared:-] After i play more turns i'll stop and get up some AAR pic's of this disaster. Off to try and save the landings...thx for the input guys.
budd

_____________________________

Enjoy when you can, and endure when you must. ~Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

*I'm in the Wargamer middle ground*
I don't buy all the wargames I want, I just buy more than I need.

(in reply to Josh)

Post #: 37

RE: new AAR - 11/7/2011 1:05:48 AM

**budd**

Posts: 908
Joined: 7/4/2009
From: Tacoma
Status: offline

Feb 1, 1942

While preparing for the invasion, the AI strikes first. Invasion prep continues.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Enjoy when you can, and endure when you must. ~Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

*I'm in the Wargamer middle ground*
I don't buy all the wargames I want, I just buy more than I need.

(in reply to **budd**)

Post #: 38

RE: new AAR - 11/7/2011 1:08:05 AM

**budd**

Posts: 908
Joined: 7/4/2009
From: Tacoma
Status: offline

April 1, 1942

para's on the ground, followed by landing force.

(in reply to **budd**)

Post #: 39

RE: new AAR - 11/7/2011 1:10:19 AM

**budd**

Posts: 908
Joined: 7/4/2009
From: Tacoma
Status: offline

April 1, 1942
northern landings

enemy unit spotted

(in reply to **budd**)

Post #: 40

RE: new AAR - 11/7/2011 1:13:03 AM

**budd**

Posts: 908
Joined: 7/4/2009
From: Tacoma
Status: offline

May 1, 1942

We area starting to realize supply might be a problem.

(in reply to **budd**)

Post #: 41

RE: new AAR - 11/7/2011 1:17:44 AM

**budd**

Posts: 908
Joined: 7/4/2009
From: Tacoma
Status: offline

June 1, 1942

Big supply problems.....no trucks in landing HQ, no cargo ships in suppling HQ, element of surprised lost=big trouble

(in reply to **budd**)

Post #: 42

RE: new AAR - 11/7/2011 1:21:27 AM

**budd**

Posts: 908
Joined: 7/4/2009
From: Tacoma
Status: offline

July 1, 1942

Eastern task force hits the shore late....for some reason the cargo ships sitting 1 hex away from capital city with supreme didn't have full AP's had to put them back into the city before departing. the cruisers had full AP.

(in reply to **budd**)

Post #: 43

RE: new AAR - 11/7/2011 1:24:50 AM

**budd**

Posts: 908
Joined: 7/4/2009
From: Tacoma
Status: offline

July 1, 1942
Northern task force:
going to be difficult to expand landing zone without supply.

(in reply to **budd**)

Post #: 44

RE: new AAR - 11/7/2011 1:28:49 AM

**budd**

Posts: 908
Joined: 7/4/2009
From: Tacoma
Status: offline

July 1, 1942

Eastern task force ashore. Trying to deal with supply problems for all landings.

(in reply to **budd**)

Post #: 45

RE: new AAR - 11/7/2011 1:35:03 AM

**budd**

Posts: 908
Joined: 7/4/2009
From: Tacoma
Status: offline

july 1, 1942

wide shot of the eastern and para landings.

(in reply to **budd**)

Post #: 46

RE: new AAR - 11/7/2011 1:44:05 AM

**budd**

Posts: 908
Joined: 7/4/2009
From: Tacoma
Status: offline

Aug 1, 1942

The para's and the landing force on their last legs. The cargo ship[in the screenshot] with additional troops was recalled..then ambushed ..and hammered by AI aircraft, even though it was covered by cruisers. What was left was landed and combined...there wasn't much left. Another thing that happened this turn was i killed a sizable AI landing force with my cruisers, 5 units on some cargo ships.

(in reply to **budd**)

Post #: 47

RE: new AAR - 11/7/2011 1:47:47 AM

**budd**

Posts: 908
Joined: 7/4/2009
From: Tacoma
Status: offline

Aug 1, 1942
trying to push.

(in reply to **budd**)

Post #: 48

RE: new AAR - 11/7/2011 1:51:01 AM

**budd**

Posts: 908
Joined: 7/4/2009
From: Tacoma
Status: offline

Sept. 1, 1942

Overview:

losing troops by the truckload

(in reply to **budd**)

Post #: 49

RE: new AAR - 11/7/2011 1:53:53 AM

**budd**

Posts: 908
Joined: 7/4/2009
From: Tacoma
Status: offline

Nov. 1, 1942

Eastern task force

not much progress.....surprise, surprise supply issues.

(in reply to **budd**)

Post #: 50

RE: new AAR - 11/7/2011 1:56:45 AM

**budd**

Posts: 908
Joined: 7/4/2009
From: Tacoma
Status: offline

Dec. 1, 1942

some wise people told me a port helps with supply...duh...might be too little to late.

(in reply to **budd**)

Post #: 51

RE: new AAR - 11/7/2011 2:01:58 AM

**budd**

Posts: 908
Joined: 7/4/2009
From: Tacoma
Status: offline

March 1, 1943

what a disaster...supply killed us....KIA's high...Para's landings wiped out.....northern task force stuck in place....Eastern task force pushed back to landing beach. Decisions need to be made, continue to pour troops into the meat grinders hoping for a break thru i can support or swallow the bitter pill and pull out.

(in reply to **budd**)

Post #: 52

RE: new AAR - 11/7/2011 2:03:21 AM

**budd**

Posts: 908
Joined: 7/4/2009
From: Tacoma
Status: offline

Still getting pounded

(in reply to **budd**)

Post #: 53

RE: new AAR - 11/7/2011 2:07:14 AM

**budd**

Posts: 908
Joined: 7/4/2009
From: Tacoma
Status: offline

April 1, 1943

A year since the first landing. Decision has been made to pull out of both remaining landings.
Plans being laid for future single landing in force.

(in reply to **budd**)

Post #: 54

RE: new AAR - 11/7/2011 2:11:33 AM

**budd**

Posts: 908
Joined: 7/4/2009
From: Tacoma
Status: offline

June 1, 1943

As many troops pulled out in the east as i could, haven't pulled out in the north yet.

(in reply to **budd**)

Post #: 55

RE: new AAR - 11/7/2011 2:13:56 AM

**budd**

Posts: 908
Joined: 7/4/2009
From: Tacoma
Status: offline

June 1, 1943

pressed in the north, airstrip & port blown up. pulling troops off.

(in reply to **budd**)

Post #: 56

RE: new AAR - 11/7/2011 2:21:42 AM

**budd**

Posts: 908
Joined: 7/4/2009
From: Tacoma
Status: offline

July 1, 1943

Back to the drawing board....Supply killed it...By the time i got supplies going, it was too late. element of surprise was lost and the AI responded in force.Going to combine whats left from the task forces, supplement with produced troops and do a single landing in force. Importantly i will get a port up quick and supply flowing so i can push quickly inland. Plans have been submitted for another para drop... troops would like to get even, para's assembled but plans and drop zone unconfirmed at this time...............To Be Continued..............................................

(in reply to **budd**)

Post #: 57

RE: new AAR - 11/7/2011 8:43:26 AM

Josh

Posts: 1810
Joined: 5/9/2000
From: Leeuwarden, Netherlands
Status: offline

Wow.

Well that sure was a hard lesson. Like you already mentioned, and it's what I do too, try to combine your landings. The way you did it now was making yourself fight a three front war, while the idea is your opponent has to fight a 2-3 front war

I usually scout ahead with some ships, subs or cruisers are perfect for that role. Then judge the enemy strength, then make two invading HQ's and land them simultaneously 10 maybe 15 hexes apart. That way they can help each other and really wreak havoc on supply lines, undefended cities, airfields etc.
Well better luck next time!

(in reply to **budd**)

Post #: 58

RE: new AAR - 11/7/2011 1:50:21 PM

**budd**

Posts: 908
Joined: 7/4/2009
From: Tacoma
Status: offline

You know if supply would of been there I think I would of been Ok. I could of pushed inland quicker, it was a few turns before the ai responded in force, the only reason i moved much at all was i loaded the landing HQ's with extra supply. What you didn't see was 3 other smaller landings in the north and east to try to save the situation, just could never catch up on supply.Lost alot of troops.Flak without supply doesn't shoot down alot of planes. I need to scout more for sure.I have a carrier and some carrier fighters in production so maybe i'll run that along the coast and recon and maybe drop some small para units to scout. My landing force production is just about done, just need to produce some escorts for the carrier. What do you think is better, mixing in armor within a unit[rifles,mortars,mg's ect]I usually keep my armor separate but try to stack with a mixed unit, i do usually put some rifle tank riders for spotting. I did notice alot of heavy arty in AI land, so i'll need to close quickly because the ai had alot of flak 3.Well the production continues and still working on C&C with combining all the weak units left over and shuffling around. I'll post the pic when i have a plan.
budd

_____________________________

Enjoy when you can, and endure when you must. ~Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

*I'm in the Wargamer middle ground*
I don't buy all the wargames I want, I just buy more than I need.

(in reply to Josh)

Post #: 59

RE: new AAR - 11/7/2011 7:44:44 PM

Jeffrey H.

Posts: 2502
Joined: 4/13/2007
From: San Diego, Ca.
Status: offline

If you can't take a coastal city in the first two turns after invasion, you'll need to plan on bringing engineers to make a port as their first task after landing.

As for many vs. singe front assualt, I'm kind of mixed about that. The AI will zerg rush you a few turns after your initial invasion. It will throw everything it has at you. Typically, if you can get it to commit, then hit it with a flanking move, such as the paras you can throw it off balance enough to make some headway.

You always should plan on having an immediate backup force to dump on the beachhead once the city or port is yours. And you should also plan on having a continuous flow of supplies and materiel to the beachhead, to the limit of your national production.

This is especially true if you're facing an opponent with more cities than you.

_____________________________

"Games lubricate the body and the mind" Ben Franklin.

(in reply to **budd**)

Post #: 60