Matrix Games Forums

Deal of the Week - Pride of NationsA new update for Piercing Fortress EuropaNew screenshots for War in the West!Pike & Shot is now available!Server Maintenance Battle Academy 2 gets updated!Deal of the Week: Advanced Tactics Gold Ask Buzz Aldrin!Pike & Shot gets Release Date and Twitch Session!Deal of the Week Espana 1936
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: The battle for Lautem

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: The battle for Lautem Page: <<   < prev  104 105 [106] 107 108   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: The battle for Lautem - 9/23/2013 9:33:48 PM   
obvert


Posts: 7209
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: online
Maybe for other playability and gam balance reasons the ship VPs were kept slightly lower. If CVs are suddenly worth 700 points (and BBs 500+) would any Allied player use them in 42? Should losing a CV battle equal the point totals of losing Chungking?

Later this could have big implications as well. Wouldn't it behoove the Japanese player to not make any new large ships both to avoid losing them (and several 1,000 VPs) and to save HI for then producing the many zillions of planes that could be used to kill Allied ships? An Allied player in the late game could invade several of the Marianas and LOSE points by having some BB, APA, AKA sunk along with a few CVE.

A change like even twice what it is now could throw things off a bit.

< Message edited by obvert -- 9/23/2013 9:35:06 PM >


_____________________________


"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 3151
RE: The battle for Lautem - 9/23/2013 10:08:11 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 3029
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

Maybe for other playability and gam balance reasons the ship VPs were kept slightly lower. If CVs are suddenly worth 700 points (and BBs 500+) would any Allied player use them in 42? Should losing a CV battle equal the point totals of losing Chungking?

Later this could have big implications as well. Wouldn't it behoove the Japanese player to not make any new large ships both to avoid losing them (and several 1,000 VPs) and to save HI for then producing the many zillions of planes that could be used to kill Allied ships? An Allied player in the late game could invade several of the Marianas and LOSE points by having some BB, APA, AKA sunk along with a few CVE.

A change like even twice what it is now could throw things off a bit.


Well, I do think CVs are about right as they are now, at 300ish for the big fleet CVs. That's about on the level of losing Port Moresby, or something. Seems about right for a measure of "who's winning the war?" The others... the only one that really stands out as too low are the CAs at 40ish. DDs and subs all seem fine.

If anything, the VPs for some of the merchants/transports seems too high.


@GreyJoy: keep fighting! No thread hijacking to see here, move along...

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 3152
RE: The battle for Lautem - 9/24/2013 8:25:33 AM   
veji1

 

Posts: 963
Joined: 7/9/2005
Status: offline
I think the main point is that players, both Japanese and allies tend to play in a ruthless "soviet style" no regard for losses if the strategic gain is worth it type of way. As the Allies you lose 3 CVs and several BBs/CAs and 10s of DD in a daring operation that allows you to land on malaysia in mid 43, great for you ! it was strategically worth, while IRL such a bold but extremely risky operation would never have been approved as it risked leading to the deaths of 30/40 000 sailors and soldiers in a day or two !

It is not a criticism,it is how the game is modelled.

_____________________________

Adieu Ô Dieu odieux... signé Adam

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 3153
RE: The battle for Lautem - 9/24/2013 12:26:05 PM   
MrBlizzard


Posts: 204
Joined: 4/16/2012
From: Italia
Status: offline
The difference in ship sunk is really impressive!
You've done far better than Japan in RL, your enemy is still far away from HI and his naval losses are huge.
This last battle is a clear victory for you with all those CVE sunk and his advance stopped again !
You should be really satisfied!
even if, of course, is a Pyrric victory 'cause you can't replace your losses. but all we know that in '44 Japan can only win this kind of victories. Japan could also easily loose badly at this point!!
I believe that if your opponent is pushing towards DEI and Philippines instead than HI is very good for you, you have banked resources enough to to make the industry run and so you can allow to loose territory in that direction.
It would be worse if he would open a new front in Kuriles or Mariannes to menace directly HI but it doesn't seem the case now.
Keep on like this and good luck


_____________________________

Blizzard

(in reply to GreyJoy)
Post #: 3154
RE: The battle for Lautem - 9/24/2013 11:10:18 PM   
Cribtop


Posts: 3774
Joined: 8/10/2008
From: Lone Star Nation
Status: offline
I don't disagree that GJ has done well in terms of losses inflicted. However, I would recommend to GJ that he evaluate after each major clash the deterrent capabilities of his remaining IJN. I'm not a huge fleet in being guy, but once KB and the IJN surface fleet suffer a certain level of depletion the Allies suddenly have a lot more freedom of movement due to the reduction in IJN combat power. In this unique game, the difference in winning or losing (in the run out the clock sense) will probably be very fine. Delaying Q by an extra 60 days may make all the difference, and the longer GJ can stay in "slowly declining" mode, as opposed to "rapidly circling the drain" mode, will help buy those precious days.

_____________________________


(in reply to MrBlizzard)
Post #: 3155
RE: The battle for Lautem - 9/25/2013 9:03:15 AM   
von Shagmeister


Posts: 1273
Joined: 10/8/2005
From: Dromahane, Ireland
Status: offline

Desperate times call for a Divine Wind.

_____________________________

Per Speculationem Impellor ad Intelligendum


(in reply to Cribtop)
Post #: 3156
RE: The battle for Lautem - 9/25/2013 9:13:35 AM   
veji1

 

Posts: 963
Joined: 7/9/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cribtop

I don't disagree that GJ has done well in terms of losses inflicted. However, I would recommend to GJ that he evaluate after each major clash the deterrent capabilities of his remaining IJN. I'm not a huge fleet in being guy, but once KB and the IJN surface fleet suffer a certain level of depletion the Allies suddenly have a lot more freedom of movement due to the reduction in IJN combat power. In this unique game, the difference in winning or losing (in the run out the clock sense) will probably be very fine. Delaying Q by an extra 60 days may make all the difference, and the longer GJ can stay in "slowly declining" mode, as opposed to "rapidly circling the drain" mode, will help buy those precious days.



Very true. He might need to park his fleet for a while and focus on harassment with his AF using all the dirty tricks in the book (low/high, kamis, ablative escorts, extra small packets that can sneak in, hoping planes on a bypassed supplyless base from which they can only fly once, etc....)

_____________________________

Adieu Ô Dieu odieux... signé Adam

(in reply to Cribtop)
Post #: 3157
RE: The battle for Lautem - 9/25/2013 11:50:28 AM   
MrBlizzard


Posts: 204
Joined: 4/16/2012
From: Italia
Status: offline
Yes guys you're absolutely right! To win the war you need to act as you said!! Probably is the last time GJ can do like this with the few ships left...and maybe he couldn't afford also these losses
But sometimes you need to get some satisfactions, you cannot always hide like a rabbit in the hole. And this kind of great battles gives you very strong emotions, it's pure adrenaline. This is a game, you also have to get some fun. For late Japan players I suppose is difficult to not get depressed
So GJ.. go on like this with this beatiful AAR and save your KB for the last stand!!!
ciao

_____________________________

Blizzard

(in reply to veji1)
Post #: 3158
RE: The battle for Lautem - 9/25/2013 2:20:45 PM   
obvert


Posts: 7209
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: veji1


quote:

ORIGINAL: Cribtop

I don't disagree that GJ has done well in terms of losses inflicted. However, I would recommend to GJ that he evaluate after each major clash the deterrent capabilities of his remaining IJN. I'm not a huge fleet in being guy, but once KB and the IJN surface fleet suffer a certain level of depletion the Allies suddenly have a lot more freedom of movement due to the reduction in IJN combat power. In this unique game, the difference in winning or losing (in the run out the clock sense) will probably be very fine. Delaying Q by an extra 60 days may make all the difference, and the longer GJ can stay in "slowly declining" mode, as opposed to "rapidly circling the drain" mode, will help buy those precious days.



Very true. He might need to park his fleet for a while and focus on harassment with his AF using all the dirty tricks in the book (low/high, kamis, ablative escorts, extra small packets that can sneak in, hoping planes on a bypassed supplyless base from which they can only fly once, etc....)


Hhhmmmmmmmm.

Why are all of these "dirty." When are escorts ablative?

All of these are simply tactics, not that tricky, and this term of ablative escorts is almost obsolete now with the newer betas as you can't count on your 200 escorts flying, especially if they truly are "ablative" (i.e. low quality pilots). As Japan late though you might only have low quality pilots, so are these still ablative if that's all you have? In the newer betas though they will have even less chance to fly with your bombers if they are not of the highest quality.

I get what you're saying but sometimes these terms rankle me as I think they're over-used and kind of make this stuff seem like it's not quite fair, or that these really are "dirty tricks" rather than simply valid tactics. Which all of those you list are, in fact.

_____________________________


"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to veji1)
Post #: 3159
RE: The battle for Lautem - 9/25/2013 2:53:54 PM   
veji1

 

Posts: 963
Joined: 7/9/2005
Status: offline
Of course Obvert, I didn't mean dirty as in gamey or anything, rather that Greyjoy in this case would forfeit a global battle plan involving all his assets and function in a severly "degraded" mode where he only uses assets that can only marginally slow down QBall and have as a goal to annoy him more than anything else.

_____________________________

Adieu Ô Dieu odieux... signé Adam

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 3160
RE: The battle for Lautem - 9/25/2013 3:47:57 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 3029
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: veji1

Of course Obvert, I didn't mean dirty as in gamey or anything, rather that Greyjoy in this case would forfeit a global battle plan involving all his assets and function in a severly "degraded" mode where he only uses assets that can only marginally slow down QBall and have as a goal to annoy him more than anything else.


A valid tactic IMO. Desperate times, desperate measures.

(in reply to veji1)
Post #: 3161
RE: The battle for Lautem - 9/25/2013 4:21:31 PM   
veji1

 

Posts: 963
Joined: 7/9/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna


quote:

ORIGINAL: veji1

Of course Obvert, I didn't mean dirty as in gamey or anything, rather that Greyjoy in this case would forfeit a global battle plan involving all his assets and function in a severly "degraded" mode where he only uses assets that can only marginally slow down QBall and have as a goal to annoy him more than anything else.


A valid tactic IMO. Desperate times, desperate measures.


Oh yes very much so. To some extent the japanese player has to manage the shrinking of his navy : still having a massive navy in 1945 when you don't have fuel anymore to use it effectively makes no sense, you end up with your BBs in port waiting to be sunk there, or going on a Musashi style deathrun just for the sake of it.

you also should in a way "expand" your navy along with the fuel curve, so there is an aspect of monitoring the economy and knowing what you can afford to do that comes into place : A fully equipped defensive operations with KB dancing around to avoid SSs, BBs running in an out, flotillas of DDs and CA/CLs etc just costs an arm and a leg in terms of fuel so Greyjoy might not have the capacity to do that anymore anyway.

_____________________________

Adieu Ô Dieu odieux... signé Adam

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 3162
RE: The battle for Lautem - 9/25/2013 6:55:16 PM   
obvert


Posts: 7209
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: veji1

Of course Obvert, I didn't mean dirty as in gamey or anything, rather that Greyjoy in this case would forfeit a global battle plan involving all his assets and function in a severly "degraded" mode where he only uses assets that can only marginally slow down QBall and have as a goal to annoy him more than anything else.


Yes, I completely agree with the idea. I think any late war Japanese player has to become very resourceful and even more deceptive and unpredictable than previously. Just trying to clarify the dirty part!

As the Allies move forward they always bypass something, and often those places that are bypassed can become a thorn or a distraction at the least.

_____________________________


"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to veji1)
Post #: 3163
RE: The battle for Lautem - 9/25/2013 8:55:46 PM   
Jellicoe


Posts: 44
Joined: 9/26/2012
Status: offline
Those allied cruiser squadrons have to be looking pretty bare no matter what reinforcements

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 3164
RE: The battle for Lautem - 9/27/2013 3:37:43 AM   
crsutton


Posts: 7235
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

Maybe for other playability and gam balance reasons the ship VPs were kept slightly lower. If CVs are suddenly worth 700 points (and BBs 500+) would any Allied player use them in 42? Should losing a CV battle equal the point totals of losing Chungking?

Later this could have big implications as well. Wouldn't it behoove the Japanese player to not make any new large ships both to avoid losing them (and several 1,000 VPs) and to save HI for then producing the many zillions of planes that could be used to kill Allied ships? An Allied player in the late game could invade several of the Marianas and LOSE points by having some BB, APA, AKA sunk along with a few CVE.

A change like even twice what it is now could throw things off a bit.


Probably not possible but I have for a long time advocated for a sliding scale. The loss of an Allied carrier in 45 should cost perhaps 3 times the VP points than it would in 42. Likewise the loss of an full Allied division in 45 as the war was closing should cost more. Americans were getting used to the costs of war but a major loss due to error would have cost a lot politically on the home front.

And in return, the loss of a Japanese carrier in 42 should carry a lot more weight than it would in 1945 when losses are practically unavoidable for the Japanese player.

This would encourage the Allied player to be more aggressive with his carriers in 42 and give the Japanese player somewhat of a bonus for saving as least some carriers to the end.


_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 3165
RE: The battle for Lautem - 9/27/2013 8:33:50 AM   
obvert


Posts: 7209
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton


quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

Maybe for other playability and gam balance reasons the ship VPs were kept slightly lower. If CVs are suddenly worth 700 points (and BBs 500+) would any Allied player use them in 42? Should losing a CV battle equal the point totals of losing Chungking?

Later this could have big implications as well. Wouldn't it behoove the Japanese player to not make any new large ships both to avoid losing them (and several 1,000 VPs) and to save HI for then producing the many zillions of planes that could be used to kill Allied ships? An Allied player in the late game could invade several of the Marianas and LOSE points by having some BB, APA, AKA sunk along with a few CVE.

A change like even twice what it is now could throw things off a bit.


Probably not possible but I have for a long time advocated for a sliding scale. The loss of an Allied carrier in 45 should cost perhaps 3 times the VP points than it would in 42. Likewise the loss of an full Allied division in 45 as the war was closing should cost more. Americans were getting used to the costs of war but a major loss due to error would have cost a lot politically on the home front.

And in return, the loss of a Japanese carrier in 42 should carry a lot more weight than it would in 1945 when losses are practically unavoidable for the Japanese player.

This would encourage the Allied player to be more aggressive with his carriers in 42 and give the Japanese player somewhat of a bonus for saving as least some carriers to the end.



+1

Great thoughts. Really makes sense from a game pal perspective. Couldn't the upgrade paths change the VPs for each ship? So there is incentive to make it better for the Allies and incur the possible cost, but then also there is incentive for the Japanese player to lower the VPs and get those later upgrades.

_____________________________


"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 3166
RE: The battle for Lautem - 10/4/2013 4:31:10 PM   
leehunt27@bloomberg.net


Posts: 456
Joined: 9/6/2004
Status: offline
CRSutton those are great ideas on shifting point values for US & Japanese assets between 1942-1945. It probably won't happen at this point in the product cycle unfortunately, but its something that could be understood between players, or applauded in AAR's on the forums.

As for playing dirty, the Japanese player, as the ultimate "losing" side has to do whatever it takes (as long as its not gamey of course). When a nation (or movement) resorts to suicide attacks, its not winning obviously. But the Japanese are just trying to get to the negotiating table and not the atomic bomb. Harassing attacks, tactics that frustrate the heck out of the Allied player, well that's kind of your job towards the end. The US navy's experience at Okinawa, under relentless Kamikaze attack, was absolutely terrifying and enough to make the Admirals not want to embark on Operation Olympic, the final invasion of Japan itself. And arguably that kamikaze offensive was poorly managed.

Fortunately there's a lot of room for improvement by Japanese players! Check out these stats below:

According to John Costello's The Pacific War 1941-1945, and I guess this excludes Pearl Harbor, major warship losses in the Pacific theater were:

US Navy: 2 BB's 5 CV's, 6 CVE's, 10 cruisers
Royal Navy: 1 BB, 1 BC, 1 CV, 6 cruisers
Japanese navy: 10 BB's, 15 CV's, 5 CVE's, 36 cruisers

_____________________________

John 21:25

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 3167
RE: The battle for Lautem - 10/4/2013 5:55:06 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 3029
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: leehunt27@bloomberg.net

CRSutton those are great ideas on shifting point values for US & Japanese assets between 1942-1945. It probably won't happen at this point in the product cycle unfortunately, but its something that could be understood between players, or applauded in AAR's on the forums.

As for playing dirty, the Japanese player, as the ultimate "losing" side has to do whatever it takes (as long as its not gamey of course). When a nation (or movement) resorts to suicide attacks, its not winning obviously. But the Japanese are just trying to get to the negotiating table and not the atomic bomb. Harassing attacks, tactics that frustrate the heck out of the Allied player, well that's kind of your job towards the end. The US navy's experience at Okinawa, under relentless Kamikaze attack, was absolutely terrifying and enough to make the Admirals not want to embark on Operation Olympic, the final invasion of Japan itself. And arguably that kamikaze offensive was poorly managed.

Fortunately there's a lot of room for improvement by Japanese players! Check out these stats below:

According to John Costello's The Pacific War 1941-1945, and I guess this excludes Pearl Harbor, major warship losses in the Pacific theater were:

US Navy: 2 BB's 5 CV's, 6 CVE's, 10 cruisers
Royal Navy: 1 BB, 1 BC, 1 CV, 6 cruisers
Japanese navy: 10 BB's, 15 CV's, 5 CVE's, 36 cruisers


The US didn't lose any BBs in the Pacific after Pearl Harbor. Unless I live in some kind of alternate universe. Also not sure the IJN count is accurate (maybe it's not counting Mutsu?).

(in reply to leehunt27@bloomberg.net)
Post #: 3168
RE: The battle for Lautem - 10/4/2013 6:01:43 PM   
leehunt27@bloomberg.net


Posts: 456
Joined: 9/6/2004
Status: offline
maybe it does count Pearl Harbor. Regardless, the US navy basically smashed the Japanese overall the rest of the war.

_____________________________

John 21:25

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 3169
RE: The battle for Lautem - 10/4/2013 6:36:10 PM   
NCSUforest


Posts: 722
Joined: 3/8/2007
From: Blacksburg, Va
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna


quote:

ORIGINAL: leehunt27@bloomberg.net

CRSutton those are great ideas on shifting point values for US & Japanese assets between 1942-1945. It probably won't happen at this point in the product cycle unfortunately, but its something that could be understood between players, or applauded in AAR's on the forums.

As for playing dirty, the Japanese player, as the ultimate "losing" side has to do whatever it takes (as long as its not gamey of course). When a nation (or movement) resorts to suicide attacks, its not winning obviously. But the Japanese are just trying to get to the negotiating table and not the atomic bomb. Harassing attacks, tactics that frustrate the heck out of the Allied player, well that's kind of your job towards the end. The US navy's experience at Okinawa, under relentless Kamikaze attack, was absolutely terrifying and enough to make the Admirals not want to embark on Operation Olympic, the final invasion of Japan itself. And arguably that kamikaze offensive was poorly managed.

Fortunately there's a lot of room for improvement by Japanese players! Check out these stats below:

According to John Costello's The Pacific War 1941-1945, and I guess this excludes Pearl Harbor, major warship losses in the Pacific theater were:

US Navy: 2 BB's 5 CV's, 6 CVE's, 10 cruisers
Royal Navy: 1 BB, 1 BC, 1 CV, 6 cruisers
Japanese navy: 10 BB's, 15 CV's, 5 CVE's, 36 cruisers


The US didn't lose any BBs in the Pacific after Pearl Harbor. Unless I live in some kind of alternate universe. Also not sure the IJN count is accurate (maybe it's not counting Mutsu?).

They probably did not count the BBs that were raised and repaired after Pearl

_____________________________




(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 3170
RE: The battle for Lautem - 10/5/2013 12:54:37 AM   
princep01

 

Posts: 938
Joined: 8/7/2006
From: Texas
Status: offline
I believe the loss count is correct if one lumps CVLs in w/ the CVs.  The US did lose only 2 BBs (Arizona in Pearl) and Oklahoma when it had been raised and was being towed to the US for a major face lift....I guess the "temporary flotation failing" got her.  All the other "sunk" BBs at Pearl were raised and to the best of my knowledge, all saw action later in the war.  Some of them were with Adm. Oldendorff (sp?) when they nailed the Fuso and Yamashiro in part of the Leyte naval battles.  I don't know this, but I'd bet there were some of the Pearl Harbor crew on those old US BBs that got them.  Can you imagine the sense of revenge those men felt? 

The Brit Cv was a CVL (Hermes) lost in the KB's Indian Ocean incursion.

(in reply to NCSUforest)
Post #: 3171
RE: The battle for Lautem - 10/5/2013 1:11:16 AM   
leehunt27@bloomberg.net


Posts: 456
Joined: 9/6/2004
Status: offline
Greyjoy could we a see the Intel screen and VP's?

_____________________________

John 21:25

(in reply to princep01)
Post #: 3172
RE: The battle for Lautem - 10/5/2013 3:32:53 PM   
Bif1961


Posts: 36
Joined: 6/26/2008
From: Phenix City, Alabama
Status: offline
The Utah was lost at Pearl Harbor and is still there, though it was a decommissoned Battleship turned into a target veesel. It's memorial is on the ooposite side of Ford Island from the Azirona's.

(in reply to leehunt27@bloomberg.net)
Post #: 3173
RE: The battle for Lautem - 10/21/2013 9:27:05 AM   
GreyJoy


Posts: 6282
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline
Here am I guys...finally.
It's been a very tough period at work. A part from the usual stuff (banckrupcy trials and agreements), I had to participate to a 3 days-conference where I was called to be one of the speakers... it was my first time as a speaker and, despite I had studied a LOT to be ready for that moment... well... you really need to get used to it! As soon as I walked up the desk and saw those 500 or so doctors and professors staring at me...my legs got weak and my voice was unsure... it was really a hard challenge.
Despite I could have done a bit better, I cannot complain. I'd give myself a B- .... sufficient...not much more... but I got a sort of name-visibility and that's already enough.

BTW, now I should be back on track!

The game proceed slowly in the last weeks. We reached Feb 19, 1944... and the allies have consolidated their presence in the island-chain north of Ambon-Boela line. We sunk several cargos with engineers aboard...but nothing important (xAPc, xAKs, LSTs etc...) nothing to write home about.
Timor hasn't been invaded. Since the last battles at Koepang, the Allied invasion force has retired back to the Northern Coast of Oz, along with their carrier fleet. They managed to conquer Watar tough (north of Dili) and now they have a potential level 8 AF north of Timor... couldn't avoid it...sorry :-(

Losses have been high... too many DDs and some 1400 planes in the last month... but we've slowed them down...

The KB is still lingering at Kendari but its moves are now very limited. To the east there are the allies that are building all those little islands in the Mollucces... and to the south the reign of the bukas...the allied subs... along with the enemy CVs.

Ambon, Boela, Namlea, Lautem, Dili, Pantar, Koepang and Roti are all closed for any operation. Bombed daily by the 4Es fleet from northern Oz and from Molu-Kai-Enlanden.

Over Biak and Sorong the P-47s are obtaining a 3-1 with their sweeps but we're holding our own in a way or another.

Sarmi keeps on holding and just repulsed another attack by overwhelming forces...amazing!

At Ramree he landed an army of 1500 AVs... we'll soon fall but we managed to place a reinforced division just outside the river crossing and some artillery is arriving too. We should lose Ramree but hold the perimeter (I hope so at least).

I hope i'll be able to update regularly now and reply to some of your inquiries


(in reply to Bif1961)
Post #: 3174
RE: The battle for Lautem - 10/21/2013 9:43:02 AM   
GreyJoy


Posts: 6282
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cribtop

I don't disagree that GJ has done well in terms of losses inflicted. However, I would recommend to GJ that he evaluate after each major clash the deterrent capabilities of his remaining IJN. I'm not a huge fleet in being guy, but once KB and the IJN surface fleet suffer a certain level of depletion the Allies suddenly have a lot more freedom of movement due to the reduction in IJN combat power. In this unique game, the difference in winning or losing (in the run out the clock sense) will probably be very fine. Delaying Q by an extra 60 days may make all the difference, and the longer GJ can stay in "slowly declining" mode, as opposed to "rapidly circling the drain" mode, will help buy those precious days.



I perfectly understand that Crib. I decided to "give battle" at Lautem and Koepang cause I thought I had the right chance (maybe the last one) to really inflict a decisive loss to the allies, so to smash their invasion force or to sink some CVs. It was the only place where I had the chance to use the KB and the LBA in combo... but in war fortunes may vary a lot and we ended up with a draw...which probably means, strategically, a Japanese defeat at this point of the game.
However i'm trying to use my fleet in being as much as I can... now my KB is still untouched (in terms of CVs) but the surface fleet is no longer what it used to be... i'm left with 4 operative BBs and a very few CAs... not to talk about modern DDs...I barely have the minimum needed escort for my CVs... can't go on like that. Now I must use my fleet in the smartest possible way...which won't be easy in mid 1944 as you all know.

But i'll keep on fighting with the aim of delaying him as much as I can. Now he's approaching my second defensive line ( Menado) but his penetration vector remains thin...with Biak-Sorong and Timor-Kendari creating a dangerous bottleneck in his penetration.
It also seems that he won't advance in the pacific anytime soon, so this will give me the chance to reposition a lot of my forces and keep my defensive as strong as possible. Let's see.


(in reply to Cribtop)
Post #: 3175
RE: The battle for Lautem - 10/21/2013 9:49:28 AM   
GreyJoy


Posts: 6282
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrBlizzard

The difference in ship sunk is really impressive!
You've done far better than Japan in RL, your enemy is still far away from HI and his naval losses are huge.
This last battle is a clear victory for you with all those CVE sunk and his advance stopped again !
You should be really satisfied!
even if, of course, is a Pyrric victory 'cause you can't replace your losses. but all we know that in '44 Japan can only win this kind of victories. Japan could also easily loose badly at this point!!
I believe that if your opponent is pushing towards DEI and Philippines instead than HI is very good for you, you have banked resources enough to to make the industry run and so you can allow to loose territory in that direction.
It would be worse if he would open a new front in Kuriles or Mariannes to menace directly HI but it doesn't seem the case now.
Keep on like this and good luck




well, yes and now...
Once he estabilished steadly in the Mollucces, the sealines to bring back oil and fuel will be severly ruined. My empire will be so divided in two, with the inability to send convoys directly from Japan to Kendari and back... everything that will need to go to Timor/Kendari will be redirected from Singapore... not a fuel-wise route

Now also Timor is more or less isolated. Without an operative airfield I won't be able to protect any TF reaching there and, even if I accumulated quite a lot supplies there, with the daily bombings, it will be just a matter of weeks before my garrisons will start starving....

(in reply to MrBlizzard)
Post #: 3176
RE: The battle for Lautem - 10/21/2013 11:35:07 AM   
GreyJoy


Posts: 6282
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline
here's a screenshot of the allied penetration and the bottleneck rapresented by Sorong-Biak and Boela-Ambon areas




Attachment (1)

(in reply to GreyJoy)
Post #: 3177
RE: The battle for Lautem - 10/21/2013 4:42:37 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 7235
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline
My experience was that for the Allied drives to be sustained they have to take good ports. Sorong is the obvious choice here. Manado helps. As the Allied force grows they just must have plenty of large ports to sustain the volume of shipping traffic. Eventually, even a size seven port like Manus is just too small to sustain operations.

Late game the Allies must take at least one major port with a shipyard. So Manilia, Singapore, Hong Kong all become key and need to be heavily defended by the Japanese player. Without a good shipyard close to the fighting, the Allies are severely handicapped. For this reason alone I shy away from a Central Pacific or Northern Pacific plan alone. In fact, I now realize that a Southern DEI move from Darwin is much less attractive than a Northern drive that threatens Singapore. The Allies must have a good DEI or PI plan in mind because they sooner or later "have" to take a shipyard.

If the Allies size a major shipyard, I think it is worth the Japanese player's losses to mount a massive bombing attack right away. You got to keep these assets away from the Allies as long as possible.


_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to GreyJoy)
Post #: 3178
RE: The battle for Lautem - 10/21/2013 5:13:13 PM   
obvert


Posts: 7209
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: online
Sorong, Waigeo and Morotai would extend his interests well here. The bottleneck won't likely hurt much if he has Fletchers everywhere and good CAP up on the bases, as there is little you can do with those areas when they are the front. It's when he's passed them by and moved forward that you can again hit and 'close' that area to easy traffic with kamis and pinpoint strikes every so often.

If your next line is built and ready the next job would now be the one after that. Mindanao, Borneo, the PI. Pick your spots to defend and your moments to strike. Make him think you've been exhausted by this maybe for a bit and some openings might arise as he struggles to get through your ground forces, likely needing all of those 4Es to do it.

He still has a long way to go.

One thing to look into now is NF. He'll want to start strat bombing at some point and he won't want to do it during the day, even though you guys have avoided night bombing so far. Look carefully as there are a lot of 'hidden' NF groups that fly recon and FB early and then can upgrade to either the Nick Id or the Dinah III KAI, but not both, interestingly. Make sure to get a good amount of the Irving NF producing as well. The J1N1-Sa has radar and is much more effective.


< Message edited by obvert -- 10/21/2013 5:17:27 PM >


_____________________________


"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 3179
RE: The battle for Lautem - 10/21/2013 5:23:23 PM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 5209
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline
I don´t think a big harbour is that important. He can unload at Darwin/Manus (6/7) and then just shuttle it forward using LST. I´m currently sustaining half the allied advance from a level 4 port. Naval support is of course a big factor but its no problem.

What he really needs is a level 9 AF to base the 4Es at. There arn´t many in the area. Manado and Timor are the only one I think?

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 3180
Page:   <<   < prev  104 105 [106] 107 108   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: The battle for Lautem Page: <<   < prev  104 105 [106] 107 108   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

0.164