Matrix Games Forums

War in the West Manual previewThe fight for Armageddon begins! The Matrix Holiday sales are starting today! Warhammer - Weapons of WarFlashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm gets huge update and a Steam release!Battle Academy 2 opens up a new front!Flashpoint Campaigns Featured on weekly Streaming SessionFrontline: The Longest Day - New Screenshots!Deal of the Week: Hannibal Rome and CarthageFlashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm gets Players Edition!
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent

 
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 Good The Bad & The Indifferent Page: <<   < prev  59 60 [61] 62 63   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 5/15/2013 1:38:38 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 9788
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline
Oof. Those are tough numbers.

....which is why it's so important - vital, critical, essential! - that the Allies open up a second front for the air war.

(in reply to bbbf)
Post #: 1801
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 5/15/2013 1:43:05 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 9788
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline
On a more encouraging note, the Allied advantage in aircraft downed has increased to 2,050. That's up about 500 since we last discussed this roughly one month back. This trend indicates that the Allies are fighting efficiently. That, combined with the likely higher losses to IJ pilots, might mean the Allies are giong in the right direction in terms of overall airforce quality.

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 1802
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 5/15/2013 2:35:41 PM   
GreyJoy


Posts: 6395
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline
If this can help, at that stage of war I was producing 180 Tojos/month

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 1803
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 5/15/2013 3:06:50 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 12284
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

A quick final word. Looking over the Total Air Losses charts for the 9/6/42 and 9/16/42, I obtained the following info:

Total Allied planes downed: 287
Total IJ planes downed: 495

Here are some of the critical numbers:

P40E: 52
P39: 42
P400: 14
P38F: 18
P40K: 8
Hurr IIb: 36
Hurr IIc: 28
B17E: 18

Tojo: 150
Zero: 184
Kate: 69
Val: 53
Betty: 23
Nell: 34



this might be a 1.25:1 in total losses in the end (while he lost far more pilots) because if you purely go with the aircraft loss list you'll be overclaiming kills while your losses are of course correct. Probably something like 400 enemy ac lost I'd say.

< Message edited by castor troy -- 5/15/2013 3:07:45 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 1804
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 5/15/2013 3:14:24 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 9788
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline
Castor, my experience is different, though I may be wrong. So input from the gallery is welcome.

My experience regarding accuracy of enemy air losses is a follows (in order from least to most accurate):

1. Combat reports
2. Air Loss totals on the main information screen
3. Air Loss totals on the sub-aircraft loss screen (the one I used)
4. Keeping track by hand the "kills" will watching the movie (combat replay)

I feel pretty sure the totals I gave are pretty accurate.

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 1805
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 5/15/2013 4:58:26 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 12284
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
combat reports are the most inaccurate, for whatever reason this seems to be what was called FOW. I can have no flak fire over a base at all and still in the combat report there are 25 bombers showing up as damaged (by non existing flak - no, not balloons). Aircraft shot down in the combat report seem to be pretty much always roughly 50% of what I lose/shoot down. The reports seem to have become nothing but fake.

Air loss TOTALS in the loss list so far have always been the most accurate (if you don't get the 100% exact numbers from your opponent). You might have noted that if you sum up the individual losses you will get always more than the total loss per day.

Taking notes during the replay might be the best thing but that's something I've actually never tried nor would I think about to really do this. Toyed around for some time with air engagements I have set up head to head and if you don't have a look at the real enemy losses which you won't have in PBEM it always was total losses in the air loss list that came closest to actual losses when comparing that to real losses in H2H.

With the list of individual losses you have posted I thought that this would be just summing up hence why I said I fully doubt the enemy actually lost 500 aircraft and I am not sure that the 400 I was guessing are even as much as John actually lost. What is accurate are the numbers you gave for your losses , but the claims of enemy aircraft lost is not even close I'd bet. But to prove we would have to ask John or I'd have to look it up in his AAR if he posted his losses but that would be intel I would never even think about giving to anyone playing PBEM.

< Message edited by castor troy -- 5/15/2013 5:00:30 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 1806
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 5/15/2013 6:00:49 PM   
Paladin1dcs


Posts: 193
Joined: 7/7/2011
From: Charleston, WV
Status: offline
I want to be very, very careful in what and how I say this, as I'm reading both AARs, but I will say this.

Castor Troy's idea about the accuracy, or rather the inaccuracy, of reports seems to be accurate. John has detailed his losses, to a certain degree, and I'm always surprised at the discrepency between the two AARs, to the point that I thought one side or another might be altering the results for whatever reason. I realized though that this probably wasn't the case, so it had to be the FoW function.

And that's all I'll say. I'd love to explore this more, from a technical point of view, to determine the best way to evaluate the results of aerial combat over a given time period and thereby get a clearer view of enemy losses through the FoW, but I'll save that for another thread.

I'll hush now before I say something I regret.

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 1807
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 5/15/2013 6:07:45 PM   
Paladin1dcs


Posts: 193
Joined: 7/7/2011
From: Charleston, WV
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

Taking notes during the replay might be the best thing but that's something I've actually never tried nor would I think about to really do this.


I actually have done this in my game against the AI, although on a fairly small scale, and it seems to be the most accurate method available at this time to pierce FoW. Not foolproof, by any means, but more accurate by far than the Combat Report.

I think it also depends largely on where the mission takes place, which would make sense. If you're counting crashed enemy airframes around your own airfield, you're more than likely going to get a more accurate count than you would if you were trying to count kills over an enemy airbase or "neutral" territory. Aerial battles over the sea are notoriously wrong, to the point that I almost trust the Combat Report more than the actual video. If there's not a confirmed hard kill, as opposed to "x aircraft spins away on fire", then it's damaged and not destroyed.

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 1808
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 5/15/2013 7:33:18 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 18408
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: Twin Cities, MN
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Oof. Those are tough numbers.

....which is why it's so important - vital, critical, essential! - that the Allies open up a second front for the air war.


In 1942-mid 1943, the Allies risk being their own worst enemy in the air war, IMO. Combined Allied fighter production does not and cannot match Japanese production in quantity OR quality, once the Tojos come online. Too aggressive an Allied forward deployment will result in ripping through combined airframes at a prodigious pace. Can you lose 1:1 with a fighter platform that is being replaced at, say, 180 planes / month (see GreyJoy's numbers)? When combined with the A6M line, Oscars and a few other airframe types, make that some 300 fighters / month. Ish.

1. Can you afford 1:1 losses to the tune of 300 fighters / month?

2. Would opening up another air war front in mid-1942 be to your benefit or detriment in terms of fighter airframe exchange?

Once mid-1943 rolls around, the Allies will start to make inroads on qualitative improvements, but this is slow going. Particularly against a Japanese player that pushes the envelope on R&D and fighter production numbers.

_____________________________


(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 1809
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 5/15/2013 7:58:15 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 7349
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Oof. Those are tough numbers.

....which is why it's so important - vital, critical, essential! - that the Allies open up a second front for the air war.


In 1942-mid 1943, the Allies risk being their own worst enemy in the air war, IMO. Combined Allied fighter production does not and cannot match Japanese production in quantity OR quality, once the Tojos come online. Too aggressive an Allied forward deployment will result in ripping through combined airframes at a prodigious pace. Can you lose 1:1 with a fighter platform that is being replaced at, say, 180 planes / month (see GreyJoy's numbers)? When combined with the A6M line, Oscars and a few other airframe types, make that some 300 fighters / month. Ish.

1. Can you afford 1:1 losses to the tune of 300 fighters / month?

2. Would opening up another air war front in mid-1942 be to your benefit or detriment in terms of fighter airframe exchange?

Once mid-1943 rolls around, the Allies will start to make inroads on qualitative improvements, but this is slow going. Particularly against a Japanese player that pushes the envelope on R&D and fighter production numbers.


Good point, but I think the Allies have to open the fronts regardless in anticipation of the coming replacement rate. The tojo breaker is the hellcat, which was my go to fighter for the second half of 1943. Hellcats can beat any Japanese fighter save the Frank. So, I would look to get my foot in the door now. Even if the Japanese hold air superiority for a while it will be worth it. It also gives the Allies a chance to put their rapidly growing DD and CA force to work wearing down the Japanese fleet. I think looking for a chance in early 43 is the best bet but not one that would put undue risk on the carrier force.

I played a cautious game vs Viberpol and now knowing what I know, wish that I was a little more aggressive. Canoe knows his business here. And even if the Allies take a loss. an aggressive (not suicidal) stance helps keep the enemy off balance.


< Message edited by crsutton -- 5/15/2013 8:00:45 PM >


_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 1810
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 5/15/2013 9:15:49 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 18408
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: Twin Cities, MN
Status: online
Hi crsutton,

I'm not implying (at all) that CR doesn't know his business. I'm also restricting my applicable comments to prior to mid-1943 (thought I was clear on that).

My main point was that the Allied player cannot extrapolate or presuppose parity to come in mid-1943 with parity in the air in mid-1942 without incurring some risk. The typical risk is that the Allied airframes are depleted, resulting in decreased ability to resist.

If the Allies are being significantly worn down in one theatre, then there are aerial hazards to opening up another theatre. It is difficult / impractical for the Allies to expect to attrit IJ fighter pools thoroughout 1942, without implosion of their own fighter air forces.

So. For Canoerebel, I expect the problem to become increasingly acute as John gets more and more Tojos online and into theatre. Most experienced IJ players will produce several hundred of these good fighters per month as soon as they can.

Since it's only July 1942, the Allies have a long, long way to go before they get 'spelled' with better fighters-and more of 'em. Burning through the pools in forward offensives will come at a cost.

_____________________________


(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 1811
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 5/15/2013 10:29:51 PM   
Encircled


Posts: 1040
Joined: 12/30/2010
From: Northern England
Status: offline
Its a tough balancing act, isn't it?

If you avoid combat to preserve your fighters, then you are not going to be able to hurt the Japanese

If you only start your counter invasions when the Hellcat comes online, then you are looking at a long war.

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 1812
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 5/15/2013 11:00:50 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5808
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline
So much conventional wisdom and binarity in one place... Is the unchallenged binary really correct?

_____________________________

John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.

(in reply to Encircled)
Post #: 1813
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 5/15/2013 11:11:23 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 9788
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline
I have no idea what Nemo said, but he's probably right.

I don't know about air loss totals. I feel pretty comfortable stating the overall situation to date. I think the Allies have done pretty well, especially in facing such large numbers of Tojos. I do know that the Allies can't "win" the air war in the real-war sense - there's almost no way for the Allies to deplete the Japanese air force - but I do think the Allies keep keep Japanese pilot quality repressed. If the Allies can't wage an effective defensive air war in late 1942 (by the way, Poultry Lad, we're mid September now, not July), then how can the Allies fight?

I also feel confident that opening up a second front now is important. The Tojo is tough, but the Zero and the Oscar get chewed up by experienced Allied pilots. So if John over commits in Burma, the Allies should be able to fight effectively elsewhere. So I will proceed unless the KB shows up somewhere inconvenient.

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 1814
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 5/15/2013 11:13:04 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 9788
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline
I should also add that I have prior experience with an intense air war in mid and late '42 in this theater. In my game with Q-Ball, the Japanese held most of India and the battles were fierce for months. I eventually learned that a good mix of P-38, P-40K and Hurricanes could handle everything in the Japanese arsenal, including the Tojo.

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 1815
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 5/15/2013 11:31:34 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 9788
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline
In this case, the vigorous Allied air defense meshed well with both naval defense and ground combat. As a combined total, the Allies seem to have just won a signal victory in Assam (though the battle might not be over yet). The strong air network permitted the Allies to base combat ships forward. In turn, those combat ships achieved some strong results against a strong enemy combat force. And the drawing of so much attention by the IJ air force has allowed Allied ground troops to fight in the open with very little bombing against them. The whole probably exceeds the sum of the parts, but I'm pleased with each of the parts.

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 1816
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 5/16/2013 1:01:26 AM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 18408
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: Twin Cities, MN
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: Encircled
Its a tough balancing act, isn't it?


Aye, I think that's what I was striving to get at. Neither a 'binarity' nor an unchallenged wisdom, just the fruit of my experiences and observations from other games in progress.

-balance edited for brevity-

_____________________________


(in reply to Encircled)
Post #: 1817
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 5/16/2013 1:11:50 AM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 18408
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: Twin Cities, MN
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

In this case, the vigorous Allied air defense meshed well with both naval defense and ground combat. As a combined total, the Allies seem to have just won a signal victory in Assam (though the battle might not be over yet). The strong air network permitted the Allies to base combat ships forward. In turn, those combat ships achieved some strong results against a strong enemy combat force. And the drawing of so much attention by the IJ air force has allowed Allied ground troops to fight in the open with very little bombing against them. The whole probably exceeds the sum of the parts, but I'm pleased with each of the parts.


As well you should be pleased with the end results. Those of us following both AARs struggle to identify the 'what ifs' rife in this game. "What if John had engaged in a more concerted air war earlier and more often?" is one of the questions that will not be answerable. His piecemeal approach to several aspects of the game leave us shaking our heads wondering what could have been.

Like so many results, was the end borne of poor play on one side or solid play on the other? Or one from column A and one from column B?

Was the Oakland A's 11-3 victory over the Rangers a function of good A's pitching and hitting, or a poor show from both aspects of the Rangers? Was it really the poor weather (weather toggle=on) predictability or a runner thrown out for stealing a base (intercepted bombardment TF) that cost the game? Or were there other contributing factors?

The conventional wisdom of most Allied players is that the Allies won the air war (eventually), therefore the Japanese should fall in line for their destruction tootsweet. The unconventional wisdom is that, in the hands of a good Japanese player of the game, conventional wisdom goes out the window for a full game year, maybe more. Which is the untested binarity, or conventional wisdom that is being followed in this game?

_____________________________


(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 1818
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 5/16/2013 1:44:45 AM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5808
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline
Sometimes when you have an unpalatable answer which, no matter how you twist it, appears immutable the solution is to ask a different question.

My comments on binarity and conventional wisdom were focused on the questions being asked re: how to handle the Tojos. The answers ranged from them not being counterable to them being counterable using the right mix of fighters. What I said was designed to get people to stop looking at the ANSWERS and instead to look at the QUESTION without just handing the solution to them in their laps since that's not hugely fair to CR's opponent and thinking about it rather than dismissing it might be good for CR. Is the question of whether or not Tojos can be countered by Allied air forces in 1942 the right question? Is it even relevant?

I don't mind people having fun picking a couple of words out and having fun/mocking... but I wouldn't like the meaning of what I said to be misunderstood - hence this clarification. I'll go back into cloak now.


Other examples:
quote:

If you avoid combat to preserve your fighters, then you are not going to be able to hurt the Japanese (air force)


If.... then. Really? Firstly is the above statement true and secondly if it is true is it actually undesirable? And then whether it is desirable or undesirable does it even matter? The answer isn't the problem, the question is.


P.s. I'm tired, I amn't trying to come across criticisey here, just trying to illustrate another approach to looking at these issues.




< Message edited by Nemo121 -- 5/16/2013 1:53:52 AM >


_____________________________

John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 1819
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 5/16/2013 2:02:39 AM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 9788
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline
Nemo, you're way over my head. This isn't a criticism. Some teachers and mentors think/teach at levels suited to those capable of thinking at the highest levels. Others may be better suited to teaching students at the next level down (or two levels down, etc.). I just want to say that I'm playing as well as I can, and I think the Allies are doing quite well.

As for PoultryLad's comments, if he's saying the situation in the game is a complex mix of good play and bad play and good luck and bad luck and missed opportunities and taken opportunities...by both sides, I agree. I suppose every PBEM match fits that description.

It's important to note that many Allied moves since March have been taken with this Assam situation in mind. Even the invasions in the Gilberts were designed to take the heat off the Allied move into Ramree (or vice versa if the circumstances warranted). For six months the Allies have worked land, sea, air and logistics to allow just such a battle as has taken place this week. Back when John focused on the Gilberts, as I figured he would, there were a few pretty hot assertions that I had made a mistake in letting him re-take them. I disagreed then and this was why - I was convinced that the Allies could fight effectively and efficiently in Assam but not in CenPac. Assam was the jewel above all others.

Still much to be done, of course. The campaign is up in the air. So by no means am I declaring victory in Assam yet. But the Allies have a bit of a lead in the 3rd inning of the game. Some of John's fielders made some errors that contributed, but I think I've made some good calls and gotten several base hits. Now I've got to build the lead and hold it through the ninth inning.

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 1820
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 5/16/2013 2:08:22 AM   
witpqs


Posts: 15108
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
While certainly their losses come against other plane types too, my opponents' Tojos mostly face off against P-40K when the P-40K are sweeping, and against escorts made up of P-39D, P-40E, Hurricane IIc.

The Tojos are a tough and plentiful foe, but the circumstances matter a great deal.




PS: I am not at all implying that all the losses of P-40K, P-40E, P-39D, and Hurricane IIc are from Tojos. We're doing pretty well against the Tojo.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by witpqs -- 5/16/2013 2:10:13 AM >


_____________________________

Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/site/staffmonkeys/

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 1821
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 5/16/2013 2:12:51 AM   
JeffK


Posts: 5217
Joined: 1/26/2005
From: Back in the Office, Can I get my tin hut back!
Status: offline
Baseball is a perfect sport to use for analogies.

The batters go out and take wild swings in the hope that they will win the game.

Very few approach Home Plate to build an innings bit by bit and build a winning position.

What counts more HR, RBI, OBP or Batting Avg???

I think in AE many players aim for Home Runs, the single strike that "Will win the war"
Not enough take their time and slowly build up a position where, maybe that HR becomes a Grand Slam.

I dont think JIII's fielders made the errors, the Manager put the wrong pitcher on the mound.
(PS And JIII made the rules for this mod, his team has a few extra outfielders and another short stop)

And I didnt even get into the skill of players fielding "bare handed"!


_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 1822
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 5/16/2013 2:13:36 AM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 9788
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline
9/17/42

Bay of Bengal: The enemy carriers retire nearly back to Port Blair. No significant enemy sweeps or bombing missions, so Akyab airfield repairs all runway damage and will now fix the operations damage. Normal sea activity to resume - DMs will lay more mines at Akyab, fast transports will carry part of a Punjab unit (recently arrived at Calcutta from Diego) to Ramree; some of the damaged shipping will move towards Ceylon; and the reinforcing BB Valiant/CA Quincy TF will make the run around Ceylon to report to Assam.

Burma: Several actions going on. Most significantly, John turns alot of bombers against 41st USA Div. and 5th UK Bde., causing some disruption, but the Allies get a 6:1 vs. IJA 4th Div., destroying 69 squads and disabling another 50 or so. 4th Div. is in a bad way now.

Pacific: The two USN carriers are 3/2 days from being ready at Pearl. Line of transports continues to move towards Oz or NZ without incident. There are plenty of enemy subs scouring the South Seas looking for evidence, but thus far they haven't found it. SigInt shows enemy activity - 6th Div. moving from Kusaie to Ponape; another Div. inbound to Koepang. Nothing in my targeted region yet. And I just want to say - the level of SigInt about the western Aluetians a month ago was absolutely amazing. The reports came fast and furious. Nothing like that's happened since then. I certainly hope it doesn't begin anew.

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 1823
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 5/16/2013 2:26:55 AM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5808
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline
CR,

Well it could be explained but what good is it being handed to you on a platter? Give someone a solution and they solve 1 problem in 1 game. Show them how to think of the solution and they improve their strategic thinking for the rest of their life.... That assumes of course that my point isn't just hogwash ;-).

Since hinting at it hasn't gotten anywhere here's my point explained....


What everyone here seems to be doing is asking questions about HOW you can fight the Tojos. When you read those questions properly they actually mean "attrit" rather than fight and that's important since that's rather a different thing. The answers tend to 2 extremes. On one side there are those that say that in 1942 until greater rates of airframes replacements become available that you cannot defeat the Tojos attritionally and on the other hand there are those who believe that with a judicious mix of forces to maximise the depth of Allied pilot and replacement airframe pools that you can attrit the Tojos.

What I haven't seen, however, is anyone asking the question: SHOULD you try to attrit the Tojos? Maybe seeking attrition with them isn't in your interests at all and/or necessary for you to achieve your strategic goals.

If an enemy had 300 Tojos in a theatre one solution might be to bring in 400 Allied fighters and engage in attritional combat seeking favourable attrition of airframes and pilots. Others might seek to mount non-attritional operations designed to inflict short pulses of high casualty rates which would result in periods of lessened enemy aerial superiority in which ground and naval forces could conduct operations - that would be a tad more manoeuvrist. Still others might look at 300 Tojos and state that they are only a threat to your air force if your air force operates against them. Perhaps that threat could best be negated through not operating against them at all? Tojos cannot shoot down Allied fighters and bombers which are not there.

Some might argue that a careful blending of distributed ground-based FlAK with refusals to engage in aerial conflict except for extremely short pulses of activity synchronised with ( in terms of just preceding and continuing through ) rapid naval and ground operations would be another way of dealing with Tojos which does not rely on attrition at all.

If you follow this thinking to its extreme it leads to situations where you might fight in a theatre without utilising any airpower whatsoever - this is certainly possible - or where you might choose to conduct an amphibious campaign without carriers or land-based air cover.


The key point I was hoping would arise if people examined the situation was that by only trying to answer that question everyone is accepting the conscious and subconscious parameters of that question which, by their very nature, constrain the breadth of answers possible. WHen you don't like the answers sometimes the best step is to see if you could be asking a different question whose answers might be more palatable.

A lot of work has been done in hermeneutics over the past few decades to show how language constrains thought and the options people consider when superficially similar questions are put to them. Neurolinguistic programming has twisted this to make a quick buck but at its core it is true that thought is constrained by how questions are posited and phrased and that to be open to the full range of possible solutions one needs to maintain an awareness that you can reframe the question in order to open up new vistas for solutions to emerge.


Or to put it another way... When Kirk didn't like the Kobayashi Maru scenario he didn't try to find "better" ways to fail less. He decided to change the question asked and reframe the scenario not as a battlefield simulation but as a computer hacking test. When he did this he was able to find a MUCH more palatable solution through reprogramming the scenario.

< Message edited by Nemo121 -- 5/16/2013 2:28:45 AM >


_____________________________

John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 1824
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 5/16/2013 2:45:57 AM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 9788
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline
In most ways those thoughts and decisions are part of my thinking - I'm just unfamiliar with the terminology you're using.

For now, the Allies are waging an effective and important air war - one that dovetails well with the sea and ground campaigns. There are so many, many side effects - for instance, each time John commits his air force one way (such as focusing on my aircraft), it frees up something else (my ground troops), or vice versa. So I like the current configuration.

I felt it was necessary to commit maximum possible force in Assam in order to draw John's full attention, which has been a major goal from the outset. And it worked. One benefit (I hope) is that roughly 13 enemy carriers (small ones, but carriers carryinng 200+ aircraft) are now in the Bay of Bengal. That's a good place for them to be!

As for fighting without any air cover - yes, that's what I'm doing in China. And invading without carrier support? Check, that's what I did in the Gilberts.

So things are going according to what was intended now. As circumstance change, I'll modify.


< Message edited by Canoerebel -- 5/16/2013 3:40:35 AM >

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 1825
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 5/16/2013 8:29:12 AM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 2803
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline
Right on, Canoerebel! You have had definite ideas about how your decision to engage or deny air battles fits with your overall objectives. Enemy aircraft attrition was never an end in itself, it was an enabler to advance some of your other moves.
His withdrawal of the KB after the recent battles echoes what happened off Oz when you stung his port attack with a strong defence. He is now very reluctant to challenge you with his naval air and that will enable you to move more freely. Well done!

_____________________________

I have not yet begun to fight! OTOH I have not yet begun to flee. Hmmmmm - choices, choices -always with the choices.

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 1826
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 5/16/2013 2:09:44 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 18408
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: Twin Cities, MN
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK
I dont think JIII's fielders made the errors, the Manager put the wrong pitcher on the mound.
(PS And JIII made the rules for this mod, his team has a few extra outfielders and another short stop)


Aye.

_____________________________


(in reply to JeffK)
Post #: 1827
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 5/16/2013 3:50:39 PM   
Paladin1dcs


Posts: 193
Joined: 7/7/2011
From: Charleston, WV
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

Right on, Canoerebel! You have had definite ideas about how your decision to engage or deny air battles fits with your overall objectives. Enemy aircraft attrition was never an end in itself, it was an enabler to advance some of your other moves.
His withdrawal of the KB after the recent battles echoes what happened off Oz when you stung his port attack with a strong defence. He is now very reluctant to challenge you with his naval air and that will enable you to move more freely. Well done!


While I agree with the basics of your thought BB, I think you're making an assumption here which needs to be addressed.

You're assuming that John withdrew his CVs due to a reluctance to challenge CR's air superiority and you're using the battle off Australia as support. The problem that I see here is that John never truly committed his CVs fully in the first place, but rather used them in a supporting role here to cover his Bombardment TF. With that TF withdrawing, there's no reason for the CVs to stick around and become a target if he's not intending to follow up that bombardment strike with something else.

I think John fell back with his CVs not because of a fear of CRs forces, but because he accomplished what he'd set out to do by crippling Ramree's airfield, and is no longer needing to endanger his CVs for dimishing returns.

Even though John favors the naval side of things and doesn't really enjoy the land combat side of the game, I still don't think this blinds him enough to risk his primary naval striking force unless it's worth a major clash near Burma and all those LBA. Given that he doesn't seem to understand or know just how bad of a situation he's in right now in Burma, I don't see him being willing to use those CVs in the Bay unless he absolutely has too.

That could change, naturally enough, but at this point I think he retired because he completed his mission, nothing more or less.

< Message edited by Paladin1dcs -- 5/16/2013 3:52:18 PM >

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 1828
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 5/16/2013 4:22:22 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 9788
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline
John didn't close Ramree with carrier aircraft. He had previously closed it using LBA. He did so (if I'm reading things right) so that he could get his covering carriers close enough to Akyab to hit it with bombardment ships and carrier- and land-based air.

IMO, he pretty much had to retire his carriers because the mission as a whole had failed (he hadn't shut done Akyab after five or six days of tough fighting) and his carriers sorties had dropped. Had he succeeded in shutting down Akyab's airfield and taking control of the area, I think his carriers would still be in place.

(in reply to Paladin1dcs)
Post #: 1829
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 5/16/2013 4:50:37 PM   
Paladin1dcs


Posts: 193
Joined: 7/7/2011
From: Charleston, WV
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

John didn't close Ramree with carrier aircraft. He had previously closed it using LBA. He did so (if I'm reading things right) so that he could get his covering carriers close enough to Akyab to hit it with bombardment ships and carrier- and land-based air.

IMO, he pretty much had to retire his carriers because the mission as a whole had failed (he hadn't shut done Akyab after five or six days of tough fighting) and his carriers sorties had dropped. Had he succeeded in shutting down Akyab's airfield and taking control of the area, I think his carriers would still be in place.

I didn't mean to imply that John closed Ramree with carrier strikes, I meant to imply that he closed Ramree via bombardment and LBA. I think he sent the CVs in to cover the bombardment TF's approach and withdrawl.

Edited to point out that he TRIED to close Ramree. Failed, but tried all the same.

That presses me to ask though, is John the type to come back again if he failed at this attempt or will he fall back and lick his wounds while looking for another way to accomplish his goal?

< Message edited by Paladin1dcs -- 5/16/2013 4:53:15 PM >

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 1830
Page:   <<   < prev  59 60 [61] 62 63   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent Page: <<   < prev  59 60 [61] 62 63   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

2.586