Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: March 1944

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: obvert, HansBolter
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: March 1944 Page: <<   < prev  90 91 [92] 93 94   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: March 1944 - 12/31/2016 12:02:15 AM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 21219
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
Perhaps he is escorting out shipping so it is free and clear? Maybe...


I consider this the least likely explanation offered. Dan has never shown much hesitation putting his xAKs and xAPs in harm's way. He's certainly not going to detail a major CV force to escort them hundreds of miles from enemy action.

_____________________________


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 2731
RE: March 1944 - 12/31/2016 12:04:38 AM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 21219
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
I got asked a question of supply. The Home Islands is swimming in it presently. Tokyo alone has 1.3 million right now. I've been shipping out about 250,000 a month to Manila and Singapore to create decent stockpiles there and it isn't dropping my numbers appreciably.


Dunno about your mod, as I've never played it at all, let alone years on end. But in a scenario 1 or 2, Tokyo should be at a minimum of 1.0 million into the end war. Any dipping below that is cause for concern, IMO. You aren't swimming in excess if you only have 1.2 million there.

_____________________________


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 2732
RE: March 1944 - 12/31/2016 4:27:41 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 13730
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
March 12, 1944

Your guess is as good as mine. Just very slight movement of the 1x6^10.



In the Celebes, the small Infantry units that replace a Brigade at Kolaka are unloaded. A Brigade begins loading at Kendari. The Kolaka Brigade will unload tomorrow at Pare Pare. A TF of AKL will begin unloading 20K supplies at Madjene. Both bases now have AF-1 and there are nearly 50 Japanese Fighters at each location.


The Bombardment TF should hit Watampone tomorrow. I have it set for 20K Yards to be at the edge of any Allied minefield that might be present. If there are no mines, the next trip will be at point blank range. Currently 100 Fighters present.






Up in the Aleutians, the Japanese succeed in pulling an ID, Brigade, and an Air Flotilla from the Attu area. Since these units had been brought up for a counter-landing that never occurred, it makes no difference to the defense that they are gone. The Convoys also dropped off 50,000 Supply and 6,000 Fuel to keep the bases well supplied.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by John 3rd -- 12/31/2016 4:30:48 PM >


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 2733
RE: March 1944 - 12/31/2016 4:31:45 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 13730
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
I got asked a question of supply. The Home Islands is swimming in it presently. Tokyo alone has 1.3 million right now. I've been shipping out about 250,000 a month to Manila and Singapore to create decent stockpiles there and it isn't dropping my numbers appreciably.


Dunno about your mod, as I've never played it at all, let alone years on end. But in a scenario 1 or 2, Tokyo should be at a minimum of 1.0 million into the end war. Any dipping below that is cause for concern, IMO. You aren't swimming in excess if you only have 1.2 million there.


Just did a serious look thru of the Home Islands and it appears that I have about 2-2.2 million supply there.


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 2734
RE: March 1944 - 12/31/2016 5:03:56 PM   
adarbrauner

 

Posts: 467
Joined: 11/3/2016
Status: offline
Make allowance that the suprising course of the Death Star may be part of a deceptive move - to let you commit more and more in Celebes, than revert course and strike - just a suggestion and suspicion.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 2735
RE: March 1944 - 1/1/2017 1:06:16 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 13730
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
@adar You could be speaking GREAT TRUTH there!

Isn't she pretty? No mines at Watampone. The next bombardment might be spectacular!





Attachment (1)

_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to adarbrauner)
Post #: 2736
RE: March 1944 - 1/1/2017 1:57:35 AM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 21219
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

March 12, 1944
Just very slight movement of the 1x6^10.


1.0x10^6. Remember your significant figures.

_____________________________


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 2737
RE: March 1944 - 1/1/2017 8:22:58 AM   
adarbrauner

 

Posts: 467
Joined: 11/3/2016
Status: offline
Unless you encircle some Allied units in SouthWest Celebes, in my opinion, you're just wasting time even though you achieve the result to drive away his air force from the area momentariy, which seems to be your primary objective now there.


The situation in China is much worrying. In 10 days Burma road shall be full open.

This may have unpredictable and unforseeeble consequences long term.

Time to to study some reaction plans?

Also, if China/allied is going to conquest Haiphong-Tonkin Island area and you don't drive them off from there, you may have AT LEAST a major sea communication emergency in southern china sea (just to start with).


(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 2738
RE: March 1944 - 1/1/2017 8:29:56 AM   
adarbrauner

 

Posts: 467
Joined: 11/3/2016
Status: offline
Commander John, what about to appoint some staff officers to study the feasability of a major offensive in the Kunming region, in line with a standing resisting stance in what is remained of Burma (to keep engaged allied assets there only), with the scope to interdict the passage into China for as long as possible ( and as quick as possible)?

Would it be possible to retrieve all forces from northern Australia?


(in reply to adarbrauner)
Post #: 2739
RE: March 1944 - 1/1/2017 12:53:45 PM   
Termite2

 

Posts: 369
Joined: 2/14/2004
Status: offline
Just popped in to say Thanks! for the AAR. I start my mornings everyday to see how it is going.

_____________________________

"After eight years as President I have only two regrets: that I have not shot Henry Clay or hanged John C. Calhoun."--1837

(in reply to adarbrauner)
Post #: 2740
RE: March 1944 - 1/2/2017 2:12:09 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 13730
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
I've already pulled everything but three TK Reg and two Inf Brigade (plus about 6 BF and other units) from Aussieland. He can now have it if he wishes.

Just lifted out to IJA Engineer Regiments and 4 Construction Bn to are heading for Singapore to then move up by rail to Bangkok.

He continues to let me pull troops out of exposed locations. Examples:

1. In the last two weeks we have pulled an ID, a Brigade, an Air Flotilla and two Base Forces from the Aleutians.
2. Central Pacific has seen my pull garrisons from everywhere east of Kusaie Atoll (western Marshalls/Carolines). We're talking at least two dozen units ranging from Base Forces, Engineers, Brigades, an ID, and several HQ. There are still another 12-15 slated to be pulled from Truk and Rabaul. Haven't had the shipping to get them all at once.
3. The Australia withdrawals already mentioned.
4. How about the changes I am currently making in Celebes?

These are troops that could be by-passed and/or destroyed and it hasn't happened.

Thank goodness!


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to Termite2)
Post #: 2741
RE: March 1944 - 1/2/2017 2:13:11 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 13730
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: adarbrauner

Commander John, what about to appoint some staff officers to study the feasability of a major offensive in the Kunming region, in line with a standing resisting stance in what is remained of Burma (to keep engaged allied assets there only), with the scope to interdict the passage into China for as long as possible ( and as quick as possible)?

Would it be possible to retrieve all forces from northern Australia?




Interesting. I'll request a Staff Study from IGHQ.


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to adarbrauner)
Post #: 2742
RE: March 1944 - 1/2/2017 2:13:32 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 13730
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termite2

Just popped in to say Thanks! for the AAR. I start my mornings everyday to see how it is going.


Appreciate it Sir.


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to Termite2)
Post #: 2743
RE: March 1944 - 1/2/2017 2:18:31 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 13730
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
1.0x10^6---Will TRY to get it right Chickenboy.

March 14, 1944

The 1.0x10^6 has moved south and appears to be breaking up. Before rejoicing at this TEMPORARY reprieve I'll give it another day before I order the loading of 2nd TK Div.

Swept Watampone today with nearly 100 Franks and they ran up against 40+ Spitfires and a like number of P-47. My Franks--in a fairly major shock--got their clocks CLEANED. OUCH! Lost 5-1 in the air. Not good. Rather rude infact...

Need to do a Burma screenshot to demonstrate the BRILLIANCE and the STUPIDITY of the AI when it comes to retreating...


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 2744
RE: March 1944 - 1/2/2017 2:33:00 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 13730
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Here is Burma. Two bases fall and troops retreat.

Here comes the GOOD. Meiktila falls and an ID, two TK Reg, and two Base Forces retreat south towards Toungoo. Perfect and makes sense.

Here comes the BAD. Magwe falls and do the troops (an ID, several RF Gun units, and a Base Force) retreat into the same hex to the SE joining the troops from Meiktila (which is the direction they were moving towards? NO! The retreat NORTH away from friendly lines. Makes total sense to me...





Attachment (1)

_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 2745
RE: March 1944 - 1/2/2017 3:24:52 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 13730
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
In an interesting observation, I went around the map and one of the reasons I've had issues with combat firepower on the ground in the DEI was that I had to split up several divisions when Dan's initial thrust occurred. Taking some time--and much more importantly--and getting some breathing room, my TF moving around Celebes and Sulawasi have managed to lift OTHER troops that I have not spoken about. If I can get 4-5 more days, I will have put back together TWO full strength ID in Java. Going back to earlier discussion about the risk of making the moves in around Makassar/Watampone, I shall be STRONGER in Java then I was BEFORE this operation.

Add to that the work around Makassar and we could truly free up a serious amount of Japanese firepower...


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 2746
RE: March 1944 - 1/2/2017 3:44:09 AM   
BillBrown


Posts: 953
Joined: 6/15/2002
Status: offline
And what if he doesn't attack Java? I have no idea where he is headed, but given how he seems to work, I would check my Hokkaido defenses.
He seems to like to attack somewhere and then pull back and attack far away after you have moved assets to deter his first attack.
It could also be a massive attack on the PI also. But somehow, given that he has seemingly retired much of his offensive units,
I think Java is on the bottom of his list.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 2747
RE: March 1944 - 1/2/2017 4:29:25 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 13730
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
The North is in pretty fair shape presently. The Kuriles, Hokkaido, and Sakhalin look reasonable. The Kido Butai is also sitting up there. Would LIKE him to come that way!

Philippines are growing stronger as those Pacific units I pulled out arrive at Manila and then get deployed.

My real concern is some sort of 'wandering' Invasion Force that hits Formosa or the Haiphong area...


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to BillBrown)
Post #: 2748
RE: March 1944 - 1/2/2017 6:09:22 AM   
adarbrauner

 

Posts: 467
Joined: 11/3/2016
Status: offline
I personally can't see much reason in landing a full Tank div in Celebes, instead of infantry mainly, given the shrinked window of opportunity to eventually withdraw it... if not that you've planned and know very well what are you doing, and you are going to finally and QUICKLY dispose of some only of enemy's land units there- because I don't believe you have time enough to clear the island before the arrival of allied cavalry.
Hit and run.

BTW: if we know where the Main american CVs fleet is, why not to send the KB to some raiding missioin in proficous waters?

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 2749
RE: March 1944 - 1/2/2017 2:18:52 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 8947
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

1.0x10^6---Will TRY to get it right Chickenboy.

March 14, 1944

The 1.0x10^6 has moved south and appears to be breaking up. Before rejoicing at this TEMPORARY reprieve I'll give it another day before I order the loading of 2nd TK Div.

Swept Watampone today with nearly 100 Franks and they ran up against 40+ Spitfires and a like number of P-47. My Franks--in a fairly major shock--got their clocks CLEANED. OUCH! Lost 5-1 in the air. Not good. Rather rude infact...

Need to do a Burma screenshot to demonstrate the BRILLIANCE and the STUPIDITY of the AI when it comes to retreating...



Well, the Spit 8 is as good as a Frank and the P47 is superior. Combine that with a series of bad die rolls and it can happen. Although, generally I find that the sweeping aircraft has a little edge it does not always happen.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 2750
RE: March 1944 - 1/2/2017 2:23:38 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 8947
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Here is Burma. Two bases fall and troops retreat.

Here comes the GOOD. Meiktila falls and an ID, two TK Reg, and two Base Forces retreat south towards Toungoo. Perfect and makes sense.

Here comes the BAD. Magwe falls and do the troops (an ID, several RF Gun units, and a Base Force) retreat into the same hex to the SE joining the troops from Meiktila (which is the direction they were moving towards? NO! The retreat NORTH away from friendly lines. Makes total sense to me...






Yes, I wish all units would retreat in the direction that they are headed. I don't think this would be too hard to build into the system. In this case you had two bases two hexes away and the AI made a random choice. But maybe it should be this way. Commanders of defeated units did not always make the right decisions or have proper control over events. It is the randomness of the game that makes it so infuriating but also fun. If every thing we plan happens like we want it to, then the game would quickly get boring.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 2751
RE: March 1944 - 1/2/2017 11:11:32 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 13730
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
March 15, 1944
The Ides of March

Continued spreading out of the Allied TFs.

Give the order to load the TK Div. I am keeping enough AKs in Balikpapan to do an emergency extraction if needed. Am extremely heavy ASW presence will be in this TF. The ASW strength is rated at 60. I want to kill anything that gets close.

We're going to call this a calculated risk...

The Japanese BB/BC Bombardment TF lines up to hit Watampone again. Got to watch out for Allied SS.

A TF leaves Tarakan heading to Manado. This unit's job is to lift two Infantry units from the base and redeposit them elsewhere. The TF has 3 DD embedded and will have 5 more DDs provided as escort. He has been frisky with TF of 3-4 DDs...




_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 2752
RE: March 1944 - 1/2/2017 11:12:50 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 13730
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Dan and I have been exchanging emails today clarifying and making sure our perspectives on the HR for 4EB is correct. This is from the very beginning of the AAR in 2012:

Dan,

Bradford Kay made an interesting comment within my AAR that I think holds some merit. This is what he wrote:

I've always believed that the USN PB4Y Liberators should be allowed to attack at lower elevations because the Navy training was for such. I also think that 4E bombers should be allowed to attack troops in bases (not troops that are in non-base hexes). It wasn't done regularly, but it was done and there is a period of the war where the allies will have nothing else that can reach the enemy.

I’d be comfortable if we added to the 4EB Lines:
3. USN PB4Y Liberators are excluded from the 10,000Ft Naval Attack Restriction.
4. Any 4EB may bomb troops if they are located in a base hex.

What do you think?
John



_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 2753
RE: March 1944 - 1/3/2017 12:36:22 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 13730
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

March 15, 1944
The Ides of March

Continued spreading out of the Allied TFs.

Give the order to load the TK Div. I am keeping enough AKs in Balikpapan to do an emergency extraction if needed. An extremely heavy ASW presence will be in this TF. The ASW strength is rated at 60. I want to kill anything that gets close.

We're going to call this a calculated risk...

The Japanese BB/BC Bombardment TF lines up to hit Watampone again. Got to watch out for Allied SS.

A TF leaves Tarakan heading to Manado. This unit's job is to lift two Infantry units from the base and redeposit them elsewhere. The TF has 3 DD embedded and will have 5 more DDs provided as escort. He has been frisky with TF of 3-4 DDs...





Ignore this. I hit the wrong button...


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 2754
RE: March 1944 - 1/3/2017 3:25:01 AM   
crsutton


Posts: 8947
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Dan and I have been exchanging emails today clarifying and making sure our perspectives on the HR for 4EB is correct. This is from the very beginning of the AAR in 2012:

Dan,

Bradford Kay made an interesting comment within my AAR that I think holds some merit. This is what he wrote:

I've always believed that the USN PB4Y Liberators should be allowed to attack at lower elevations because the Navy training was for such. I also think that 4E bombers should be allowed to attack troops in bases (not troops that are in non-base hexes). It wasn't done regularly, but it was done and there is a period of the war where the allies will have nothing else that can reach the enemy.

I’d be comfortable if we added to the 4EB Lines:
3. USN PB4Y Liberators are excluded from the 10,000Ft Naval Attack Restriction.
4. Any 4EB may bomb troops if they are located in a base hex.

What do you think?
John




John, speaking as an Allied player, I think it needs better balance. The Japanese player especially through 1943 can mass two engine bombers in unrealistic numbers to attack land units and knock them silly in preparation for assault. The reality is that Japanese ground support was never that capable. So if you are to restrict Allied 4Es then you should have serious restrictions on Japanese bombers as well. In our game we have agreed that American 4E won't be used vs troops in open terrain (bases excepted) and I think we restricted Japanese land based bombers to two or three groups per attack until 1/43. After 1/43 we turned the Japanese bombers loose simply because Allied fighters and AA were plenty good at fending off bombing attacks after that date. Seems to work fairly well. However, there were some issues in that the Allies just do not have many medium bombers until well into 1943 but I was able to live with it.


_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 2755
RE: March 1944 - 1/3/2017 8:53:33 AM   
adarbrauner

 

Posts: 467
Joined: 11/3/2016
Status: offline
My problem is that, out of frustration , I give a look also to the reports of Canoe (I know I should not, but it is difficult to resist), therefore even though I have good thoughts and consideraions by myself reregarding his operatons and worries regardless, I cannot express them here when I see then them confirmed even in part in Canoe's report.

Grrrr. (I must keep my mouth shout, even though "I knew he was plannig this or that!")

Boy is very difficult.


(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 2756
RE: March 1944 - 1/3/2017 5:17:02 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 13730
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
March 16, 1944

Do you wanna know where the 1.0x10^6 is? HERE!





Attachment (1)

_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to adarbrauner)
Post #: 2757
RE: March 1944 - 1/3/2017 5:30:57 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 13730
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
My bombardment run goes in without issues and this time we crush some planes as well as troops and the base.

Totals: 27 Planes, Cas 1,401, Guns 14, V 13, Runway Base 18, Airbase Supply 20, Runway 78. Port smacked as well.

We'll finish expending ammo with hitting it tomorrow and return for replenishment. The TF will then meet up with BB Mutsu and we'll divide this force into two Bombardment TFs. One will stay on Watampone and the other will begin hitting Makassar.






Attachment (1)

_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 2758
RE: March 1944 - 1/3/2017 5:32:23 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 13730
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton


quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Dan and I have been exchanging emails today clarifying and making sure our perspectives on the HR for 4EB is correct. This is from the very beginning of the AAR in 2012:

Dan,

Bradford Kay made an interesting comment within my AAR that I think holds some merit. This is what he wrote:

I've always believed that the USN PB4Y Liberators should be allowed to attack at lower elevations because the Navy training was for such. I also think that 4E bombers should be allowed to attack troops in bases (not troops that are in non-base hexes). It wasn't done regularly, but it was done and there is a period of the war where the allies will have nothing else that can reach the enemy.

I’d be comfortable if we added to the 4EB Lines:
3. USN PB4Y Liberators are excluded from the 10,000Ft Naval Attack Restriction.
4. Any 4EB may bomb troops if they are located in a base hex.

What do you think?
John




John, speaking as an Allied player, I think it needs better balance. The Japanese player especially through 1943 can mass two engine bombers in unrealistic numbers to attack land units and knock them silly in preparation for assault. The reality is that Japanese ground support was never that capable. So if you are to restrict Allied 4Es then you should have serious restrictions on Japanese bombers as well. In our game we have agreed that American 4E won't be used vs troops in open terrain (bases excepted) and I think we restricted Japanese land based bombers to two or three groups per attack until 1/43. After 1/43 we turned the Japanese bombers loose simply because Allied fighters and AA were plenty good at fending off bombing attacks after that date. Seems to work fairly well. However, there were some issues in that the Allies just do not have many medium bombers until well into 1943 but I was able to live with it.



Hey Sir. Got to say that Dan just gave you a high complement in one of our emails.

We have agreed to loosen things up a little and shall see how that goes.


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 2759
RE: March 1944 - 1/3/2017 5:37:04 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 13730
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: adarbrauner

My problem is that, out of frustration , I give a look also to the reports of Canoe (I know I should not, but it is difficult to resist), therefore even though I have good thoughts and consideraions by myself reregarding his operatons and worries regardless, I cannot express them here when I see then them confirmed even in part in Canoe's report.

Grrrr. (I must keep my mouth shout, even though "I knew he was plannig this or that!")

Boy is very difficult.




Wherever he goes, I cannot stop him. AS said by many we can only SLOW him. I continue gradually building up the Central Pacific Inner Defense line as well as making sure everything has bunches of supply. Have decided to begin augmenting what is in Formosa as well as begin to trickle in men to Hainan Isle.

Those lost 6-8 months of 1943 continue to haunt me. I was juggling THREE games and not playing any one of them well. Had I been able to keep my focus I believe this match would be far different. Losing that CV Battle was the key. My focus was so divided (my own fault) that I made mistakes and cost Japan horrifically. After that he has been able to do whatever whenever.

Have to admit I truly am looking FORWARD to when this ends and I can take the lessons learned and apply them somewhere else.




_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to adarbrauner)
Post #: 2760
Page:   <<   < prev  90 91 [92] 93 94   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: March 1944 Page: <<   < prev  90 91 [92] 93 94   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

0.162