Matrix Games Forums

War in the West gets its first update!Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm version 2.08 is now available!Command gets huge update!Order of Battle: Pacific Featured on Weekly Streaming SessionA new fight for Battle Academy!Buzz Aldrin's Space Program Manager is out for Mac!The definitive wargame of the Western Front is out now! War in the West gets teaser trailer and Twitch Stream!New Preview AAR for War in the West!War in the West Manual preview
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  95 96 [97] 98 99   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 7/10/2013 2:42:05 PM   
Cap Mandrake

 

Posts: 17148
Joined: 11/15/2002
From: Southern California
Status: offline
..<sorry>

(in reply to Cap Mandrake)
Post #: 2881
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 7/10/2013 2:45:48 PM   
JohnDillworth


Posts: 1948
Joined: 3/19/2009
Status: offline
quote:

who is the winner in the following battle

Can't tell in this context. Did the RN prevent the IJN from doing something or was this just two guys out looking for a fight?

_____________________________

The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it’s still on the list.

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 2882
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 7/10/2013 3:14:07 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 18489
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: Twin Cities, MN
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake

Devonshire and Encounter sunk in exchange for Musashi out of commission for this battle. An operational victory if not a tactical one.

Agree with the conclusion, but it goes beyond that.

The (limited) AAR posted indicated a Jap CL and CA with mine hits under separate cover. They're out of the picture for now. In addition to the aforementioned BB, another two Jap DDs most certainly out. Yamato may also be "Winchester" at this point and may be combat ineffective, depending on how much ammo she shot off.

All this for a sunk Brit CA and DD?

Yeah, it's operational attritional warfare-playing into the Allied hands.

< Message edited by Chickenboy -- 7/10/2013 3:15:09 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Cap Mandrake)
Post #: 2883
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 7/10/2013 3:15:14 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 9796
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline
Musashi, Mikuma and Sendai likely need some yard time (it's possible, in the emergency, that John will keep them fighting). The Allies lose a valuable CA and a DD, but cruisers are the one thing I'm not critically short of. The Allies are going to have to seriously wittle down the Japanese sea power, and this is a good start. These kinds of ratios are acceptable. If it removes those three ships from the force he can bring to Sabang in the three or four weeks, when this issue is likely to be decided, this was a signficiant strategic victory.

(in reply to Cap Mandrake)
Post #: 2884
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 7/10/2013 3:34:24 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 9796
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline
All of us seem to be wrestling with the notion of picket ships, with people falling mainly at both extremes. A few more thoughts on this topic that I think help to clarify the issues:

Some argue that it's okay to use military and quasi military ships but not civilian. I think it's more fair to John that I use civilian ships. The military ships - especially DD - are much harder to track down and sink. The xAK are slow and brittle and easy to sink. So, John should probably be begging me to use the xAK rather than the DD.

At one time I had about eight ships west of Sumatra serving as pickets: four DD and about four to six xAK. The latter were widely dispersed; the former were more forward and tended to "fill in the gaps." John sent out at least one three-DD force that sank at least one of my DD, damaged another, and dispatched two or three xAK. Then a carrier force showed up and sent a handful of Kates to sink another xAK. At that point, the purpose of my pickets had be served. They dispersed, so that the three remaining ships are near map's edge and won't soak off another sortie. The effect is perfectly reasonable: the Allies get the kind of notice you'd expect in these circumstances and John's ability to fight wasn't degraded one bit. What was prevented was the silly aspect of carriers getting to sprint forward for 24 hours with Allied ships taking no evasive action.

Pickets ships, at least how I'm employing them, are 100% reasonable and kosher.

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 2885
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 7/10/2013 3:38:53 PM   
jeffk3510


Posts: 4025
Joined: 12/3/2007
From: Kansas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

All of us seem to be wrestling with the notion of picket ships, with people falling mainly at both extremes. A few more thoughts on this topic that I think help to clarify the issues:

Some argue that it's okay to use military and quasi military ships but not civilian. I think it's more fair to John that I use civilian ships. The military ships - especially DD - are much harder to track down and sink. The xAK are slow and brittle and easy to sink. So, John should probably be begging me to use the xAK rather than the DD.

At one time I had about eight ships west of Sumatra serving as pickets: four DD and about four to six xAK. The latter were widely dispersed; the former were more forward and tended to "fill in the gaps." John sent out at least one three-DD force that sank at least one of my DD, damaged another, and dispatched two or three xAK. Then a carrier force showed up and sent a handful of Kates to sink another xAK. At that point, the purpose of my pickets had be served. They dispersed, so that the three remaining ships are near map's edge and won't soak off another sortie. The effect is perfectly reasonable: the Allies get the kind of notice you'd expect in these circumstances and John's ability to fight wasn't degraded one bit. What was prevented was the silly aspect of carriers getting to sprint forward for 24 hours with Allied ships taking no evasive action.

Pickets ships, at least how I'm employing them, are 100% reasonable and kosher.


You guys play it however you want. It's your game. This game is non-historical from the time you hit go on the first turn. Hell, you're playing a non-historical mod in addition to that.

_____________________________

Follow our WiTPAE team PBEM game against bilbow and hartwig.modrow http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2965846&mpage=1&key=?

Follow my WITPAE PBEM game against Schanilec. http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3495605

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 2886
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 7/10/2013 3:42:05 PM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 2888
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake

Devonshire and Encounter sunk in exchange for Musashi out of commission for this battle. An operational victory if not a tactical one.

If this frustrated his bombardment plans, this is a clear win for the Allies.
If the torpedoed ships can be further attacked by air or sub, the outcome will be even better!

_____________________________

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 Cap Mandrake)
Post #: 2887
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 7/10/2013 4:54:31 PM   
Paladin1dcs


Posts: 193
Joined: 7/7/2011
From: Charleston, WV
Status: offline
Honestly, I'd say the mine hits on the CA/CL were more damaging than anything your SCTF did. I see a single TT hit on a IJN BB which is known for it's heavy armor and ability to soak hits. Unless you were lucky with that TT shot, I'll be surprised if JIII doesn't keep those ships on the front line.

In my eyes, without knowing anything else about the situation, I'd say you just wasted a perfectly good CA. The situation may have dictated another course of action, but from where I'm sitting, this doesn't look like a good trade on it's face, especially since the damage that will more than likely result in forces being withdrawn came from a minefield and not surface ships.

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 2888
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 7/10/2013 5:24:02 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 9796
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Paladin1dcs
...In my eyes, without knowing anything else about the situation, I'd say you just wasted a perfectly good CA. The situation may have dictated another course of action, but from where I'm sitting, this doesn't look like a good trade on it's face, especially since the damage that will more than likely result in forces being withdrawn came from a minefield and not surface ships....




I cannot fathom this interpretation. The minefield is part and parcel of the overall action. I'm willing to commit CA TFs against much bigger enemy TFs give those mines, the quality of the commanders, the attrition already suffered by the Japanese fleet, and the possibility that damaged Japanese ships may be picked off by subs or strike aircraft. Both sides are in a high-attrition environment, and every which way I look at this it is a pretty important Allied victory.

(in reply to Paladin1dcs)
Post #: 2889
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 7/10/2013 5:25:14 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 9796
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline
The Triage Unit




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 2890
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 7/10/2013 5:29:27 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 9796
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline
One of the untold stories from this campaign:

Back in early November, as the USN carrier TFs were somewhere west of Cocos Island and beginning to approach Sumatra, a collision occurred in which DD Sterrett suffered extreme damage.  She was down to 2 knots.  Detached from the TF, she made her way slowly towards Colombo.  All the trailing amphibiuos TFs caught and passed her.  She was left in the open even as Japanese combat TFs began scouring the ocean north of Cocos and west of Sumatra.  Somehow, she slipped through the line of enemy subs and finally made Colombo.

< Message edited by Canoerebel -- 7/10/2013 5:30:42 PM >

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 2891
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 7/10/2013 5:55:27 PM   
starsis1

 

Posts: 45
Joined: 8/1/2004
Status: offline
Looking at your screenshot of the ships under repair at Columbo, I noticed that you were using more shipyard tonnage then you had capacity (44k vs 40k). At the same time, you had a couple of DDs with only Sys damage being repaired in the shipyard mode. Unless I am mistaken, you could flip them to Pierside and they would continue repairing just fine while freeing up some shipyard capacity to help other ships that actually need to deal with Major damage in Eng/Flt. While it may not help tremendously, every day that you can shave off could mean more guns and torpedoes on the line at Sumatra.

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 2892
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 7/10/2013 6:01:12 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 9796
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline
Those DDs are upgrading and thus I thought "stuck" in yard-mode.  I was wrong.  I checked and found that I can switch them to pierside.  Doing so doesn't even slow down their repair work.  So thanks very much for the suggestion.  It could be vital, because three more DDs and CL Achilles are moving from Sabang to Colombo for repairs.

(in reply to starsis1)
Post #: 2893
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 7/10/2013 6:08:55 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 15188
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Those DDs are upgrading and thus I thought "stuck" in yard-mode.  I was wrong.  I checked and found that I can switch them to pierside.  Doing so doesn't even slow down their repair work.  So thanks very much for the suggestion.  It could be vital, because three more DDs and CL Achilles are moving from Sabang to Colombo for repairs.

I used to think doing so was gamey, but there was a discussion about it some months back that changed my mind. Those knowledgeable about upgrades gave a good explanation of what took place IRL and how the game models that. The upshot is that the size of the yard required is to trigger the upgrade, but as IRL the bulk of the work can be done with lesser facilities (pier side, etc.)

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 2894
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 7/10/2013 6:27:39 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 9796
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline
11/30/42 - D+20, Operation Des Wallace
 
At Sea:  You've already seen the report of the surface clash between Yamato/Musashi and Devonshire.  Huzzah for the RN!  Unless John is able to replenish at Tandjoen, he sent his TF back to Medan for a third straight night, which means they would've been low on ammo.  CL Achilles has moderate damage (40s SYS), so she'll need time at Colombo.  The main KB shows up SW of Sibolga and commits her strike aircraft en masse to hit the Allied troops at Medan, destroying one squad and disabling two).  The CVE KB is west of Sibolga, in the open and probably ten hexes from the KB.  John won't keep 'em separated, I'm sure.

Allied Carriers:  Posted near Colombo.  On the offchance that the CVE KB remains too isolated and/or that the KB uses up to many sorties in ground strikes, the CVs will move to a point of Koggala, a position from which it can: (1) recover fighters from Sabang (or send more); (2) cover the LOC between Sabang and Colombo as some damage ships return to the yards and important supply, fuel and reinforcement TFs prepare to go to Sabang; and (3) hit Port Blair if a variety of unlikely circumstances come together.

On the Ground:  Japanese invasion of Sibolga, consisting of 2nd Division (last seen at Luganville) and a regiment, preceded by major bombardment action (Haruna, Kirishima, Kongo, Hiei) and bombing by LBA.  It appears that the RCT has vanished.  2nd Div. is probably pretty weak, but so are my three RCT, which are at half strength. Given the J/R terrain, this campaign favors the defender, so I'll conserve AV and fight defensively.  10th IJA Div. is marching this way from Tandjoen.  At Medan, the Allied troops are badly disrupted by enemy air strikes, both KB and LBA.  The attack fails, though Japan suffers 100+ squads mostly disabled, but about a dozen destroyed.  A fresh Indian division just arrived and will shock attack tomorrow.  If this fails...well, yikes.  (Thank goodness John didn't send 10th Div. here by rail from Tandjoen.)

In the Air:  No night attacks by Japan.  For reasons given yesterday, I'm not assigning any fighters to night defense until I receive notice going forward that it's a threat.  For the sake of "avoiding even the appearance of impropriety," I'll give John a free shot at Sabang.  I hope he doesn't employ them.  I'm toying with what to do tomorrow.  I'd like to give the troops at Medan some CAP.  Do I shift some of my fighters forward to Langsa?  If so, I can then bring forward to Sabang some of the Burma B-25s to do some ground pounding.  Or do I mainting max CAP at Sabang?  Not sure yet.

Overall Situation:  Some things are going well (the surface combat, IMO) while others have been vexxing (the prolonged campaign to take Sibolga and now the effort to capture Medan).  The two sides are now in proximity and a bloody attritional campaign should continue for weeks or months.  Too early to know who has the upper hand, but with Sabang strong, the Allied carrier fleet intact, the Allied combat ship presence on the increase, and lots of good fighters providing CAP, I feel like the Allies currently have about the strongest defensive position possible.

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 2895
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 7/10/2013 6:48:55 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 9796
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline
Over the past 60 days it seems that the Allies have remarkably few Lightnings to work with.  I don't know the historic numbers, but I just can't believe the Allies had so few to work with by the end of 1942.  Here are the numbers.  What do you think:

1.  The Allies currently have five P-38E squadrons permanently restricted to the West Coast.
2.  There is one P-38F squadron (at Chittagong) with zero aircraft.  The F model went into operation in August and I used all 82 of them.
3.  There is one P-38G squadron (at Sabang) with seven aircraft operational and four in the pool.  It went into operation in October at a rate of 20/month and I've used 34.
4.  The H model will become operational in June 1943 at a rate of 20/month.
5.  Reinforcements in the next seven months are limited to one West Coast (permamently restricted) P-38F squadron at Tocoma.  Then, in late May '43, three P-38G squadrons arrive at Charters Towers.

So, from October '42 through May '43, the Allies get 20 P-38G per month.  That might be enough to reasonably support the one short-handed squadron currently at Sabang.  Does that seem right?  If the numbers are too low, I'll bring it to John's attention.  If it's right, I'll live with it.  But you guys oughta get a look at my fighter and bomber pools.  Just hilarious.  It's like Japan is the United States and the United States and Britain are Japan. 

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 2896
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 7/10/2013 6:56:12 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 18489
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: Twin Cities, MN
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel
In the Air:  No night attacks by Japan.  For reasons given yesterday, I'm not assigning any fighters to night defense until I receive notice going forward that it's a threat.  For the sake of "avoiding even the appearance of impropriety," I'll give John a free shot at Sabang.  I hope he doesn't employ them.  I'm toying with what to do tomorrow.  I'd like to give the troops at Medan some CAP.  Do I shift some of my fighters forward to Langsa?  If so, I can then bring forward to Sabang some of the Burma B-25s to do some ground pounding.  Or do I mainting max CAP at Sabang?  Not sure yet.


Having been on the receiving end of some early war nighttime attacks by Allied bombers, I will say that I've noticed a big difference re: efficacy depending upon field 'load'. Overloaded airfields (beyond support level of AirHQ or field size) suffer much greater damage than ones within their load envelope. It makes sense, but I really noticed a drop in the Allied nightbombing efficacy when I balanced out my field load more.

_____________________________


(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 2897
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 7/10/2013 6:59:36 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 18489
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: Twin Cities, MN
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel
Does that seem right? 


Sounds too high. See if John can mod this further to reduce by about 20 / month.

_____________________________


(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 2898
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 7/10/2013 7:09:01 PM   
HarryM

 

Posts: 64
Joined: 7/13/2004
Status: offline
Supposedly the Japanese called it "two planes, one pilot", so...

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 2899
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 7/10/2013 7:25:28 PM   
JohnDillworth


Posts: 1948
Joined: 3/19/2009
Status: offline
quote:

Over the past 60 days it seems that the Allies have remarkably few Lightnings to work with.  I don't know the historic numbers, but I just can't believe the Allies had so few to work with by the end of 1942.  Here are the numbers.  What do you think:

1.  The Allies currently have five P-38E squadrons permanently restricted to the West Coast.
2.  There is one P-38F squadron (at Chittagong) with zero aircraft.  The F model went into operation in August and I used all 82 of them.
3.  There is one P-38G squadron (at Sabang) with seven aircraft operational and four in the pool.  It went into operation in October at a rate of 20/month and I've used 34.
4.  The H model will become operational in June 1943 at a rate of 20/month.
5.  Reinforcements in the next seven months are limited to one West Coast (permamently restricted) P-38F squadron at Tocoma.  Then, in late May '43, three P-38G squadrons arrive at Charters Towers.

So, from October '42 through May '43, the Allies get 20 P-38G per month.  That might be enough to reasonably support the one short-handed squadron currently at Sabang.  Does that seem right?  If the numbers are too low, I'll bring it to John's attention.  If it's right, I'll live with it.  But you guys oughta get a look at my fighter and bomber pools.  Just hilarious.  It's like Japan is the United States and the United States and Britain are Japan. 








Attachment (1)

_____________________________

The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it’s still on the list.

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 2900
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 7/10/2013 7:26:38 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 9796
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline
Andre, I agree about the overloaded field.

That reminds me.  I was chided yesterday for having "10,000 aircraft" at Sabang.  It seemed that the writer was offended at what I have done at Sabang, thus concluding that extreme measures by John are warranted to overcome Sabang's defenses.  He'd send a nuclear night attack, he said, "because that's exactly what I would do if I wanted to shut down a base that's got 10000 fighters flying CAP and all the other goodies."

Does what I have at Sabang really offend readers of John's AAR? 

Sabang is currently a level 6.29 airfield with 434 air support (plus 24 for an AV), 139 engineering squads, and 28 vehicles.  The staff includes Seventh Air HQ and VII Bomber HQ (plus SWPac, which doesn't offer air support, but does show the level of importance the Allies attach to the base).  There are 405 fighters here plus 5 reconnaissance.  That's the most aircraft that have been stationed at Sabang.  Due to the Air HQ, the field is not overstacked.  The only other unsual defensive measure at Sabang is mines, with 500+ tended by two ACM.

Do Japanese fans think the Allies have crossed some line by pursuing a Fortress Sabang?  Come on.




(in reply to HarryM)
Post #: 2901
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 7/10/2013 7:27:31 PM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 2888
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline
Can you not swap out the P-38s in restricted sqns for lesser stuff and send the former aircraft to the pools for reinforcing the front line? It may cost some PP but it may save the campaign too.

_____________________________

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 #: 2902
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 7/10/2013 7:34:13 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 9796
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline
That's a handy idea!  So I tried to swap the West Coast fighter squadrons from P-38E to various other models, but none showed "upgrade now" capacity.  Perhaps it will take a few days until the computer "authorizes" the swap.

But I had seven P-38E in the pool, so I retrograded the P-38F (no planes) squadron at Chittagong to the E model and now at least I have those seven fighters on the map.

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 2903
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 7/10/2013 7:34:58 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 9796
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline
[oops, duplicate post*]

*This was not an effort to unfairly boost my post count to further may hard-charging campaign to catch, pass and obliterate GreyJoy.

< Message edited by Canoerebel -- 7/10/2013 7:36:40 PM >

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 2904
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 7/10/2013 7:39:01 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 15188
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: online
Dan, not a fan of either Allies or Japanese, but I'll offer my opinion.

The airfield is overloaded. If it is hit, you will suffer the consequences. That's built in to the programming. Period.

A looong time ago I was part of a larger discussion with TheElf about number of squadrons and planes at airfields versus the number 'supported'. Basically, the consequences of going beyond the numbers that are shown as supported are built in to the game as a way of inflicting on the player more of the problems encountered during the war IRL. many posters expressed angst over the battle to keep airfields from being over loaded in one way or another (aviation support, number of squadrons, number of planes, et al). Elf made it clear that they want you to be stuck with the consequences of over loading as part of a damper on the pace of operations.

In this case, with many planes, if the base gets hit you will suffer the consequences. But you knew that when you bought your ticket, right?

_____________________________

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

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 2905
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 7/10/2013 7:39:41 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 15188
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

[oops, duplicate post*]

*This was not an effort to unfairly boost my post count to further may hard-charging campaign to catch, pass and obliterate GreyJoy.

In that case I won't make the mistake of replying to it. Poof!

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 2906
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 7/10/2013 7:53:24 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 9796
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs
In this case, with many planes, if the base gets hit you will suffer the consequences. But you knew that when you bought your ticket, right?


Basically, yes. I know a size six field can accomodate 300 engines. I know the base force personnel are sufficient to handle the overflow at present. What I don't know is how big a deal it is to have 110 extra aircraft at the field. It's going to be very hard for John to get a bombardment TF in (he might not even try anytime soon, given the Allied navy and mines). But if he whittles down my CAP and manages to get a big daylight air strike in, I am willing to suffer the consequences.

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 2907
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 7/10/2013 7:53:38 PM   
obvert


Posts: 7516
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Andre, I agree about the overloaded field.

That reminds me.  I was chided yesterday for having "10,000 aircraft" at Sabang.  It seemed that the writer was offended at what I have done at Sabang, thus concluding that extreme measures by John are warranted to overcome Sabang's defenses.  He'd send a nuclear night attack, he said, "because that's exactly what I would do if I wanted to shut down a base that's got 10000 fighters flying CAP and all the other goodies."

Does what I have at Sabang really offend readers of John's AAR? 

Sabang is currently a level 6.29 airfield with 434 air support (plus 24 for an AV), 139 engineering squads, and 28 vehicles.  The staff includes Seventh Air HQ and VII Bomber HQ (plus SWPac, which doesn't offer air support, but does show the level of importance the Allies attach to the base).  There are 405 fighters here plus 5 reconnaissance.  That's the most aircraft that have been stationed at Sabang.  Due to the Air HQ, the field is not overstacked.  The only other unsual defensive measure at Sabang is mines, with 500+ tended by two ACM.

Do Japanese fans think the Allies have crossed some line by pursuing a Fortress Sabang?  Come on.



All very normal when you only have a foothold. I'm sure the Allies would have done the same if they needed to do so.

As above the consequences must be 'taken' by the opponent, so you're inviting a bombardment of some kind, or massed sweeps for days followed by bombing to hit all of the damaged planes left on the ground. If you're over-stacking, he has to prove it.

Since none of that has happened you'e really exposing John's lack of preparation in this most crucial area of the board. Anyone playing the Japanese side should be most upset by how little he has done here so far to challenge you, and thus give you the opportunity to create a fortress there. Most Japanese players would have had 2-3 air HQ hubs in the area and a plethora of supporting bases ready and waiting for your invasion as early as day 1.

Well played so far.

_____________________________


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

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 2908
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 7/10/2013 7:54:39 PM   
Paladin1dcs


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

quote:

ORIGINAL: Paladin1dcs
...In my eyes, without knowing anything else about the situation, I'd say you just wasted a perfectly good CA. The situation may have dictated another course of action, but from where I'm sitting, this doesn't look like a good trade on it's face, especially since the damage that will more than likely result in forces being withdrawn came from a minefield and not surface ships....




I cannot fathom this interpretation. The minefield is part and parcel of the overall action. I'm willing to commit CA TFs against much bigger enemy TFs give those mines, the quality of the commanders, the attrition already suffered by the Japanese fleet, and the possibility that damaged Japanese ships may be picked off by subs or strike aircraft. Both sides are in a high-attrition environment, and every which way I look at this it is a pretty important Allied victory.


My view was based upon the fact that, in all likelihood, the SCTF did less damage than the minefield did. I don't have a problem sending SCTFs out against a stronger enemy, usually, but I do have an issue with sending them against a force which they don't really have a reliable way of damaging.

I mean, let's face it. The TT strike was a lucky break and was probably the only real damage that was done by that SCTF. The 8" shells are going to be hard pressed to penetrate the armor of the two Yamatos and the 6" shells of the CLs are going to bounce right off most of the ships in that TF. Sure, those 8" shells are dangerous to CAs and below on a fairly regular basis, but because of the targeting algorithms involved, most of the fire probably went towards the two IJN BBs.

Given that, I don't see that having a CA-led TF face down that particular IJN SCTF was necessary. Granted, I understand that you're in a war of attrition now, but even attrition wars need to be based on acceptable losses of material which are outweighed by the gains. In this case, I feel that the minefield was a solid idea, but the loss of the Devonshire seems to be outweighed by the damage that was inflicted on those IJN Capital Ships by your units.

Again, just my .02 worth. I may feel differently if I was in the Japanese seat, but I'm not and I have to weigh my expectations against that lack of knowledge about the IJN and it's supply of men and materiel.


(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 2909
RE: The Good The Bad & The Indifferent - 7/10/2013 7:56:57 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 9796
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline
Yeah, when you compare what's happened here to GreyJoy's preparations in the DEI...well, there's no comparison.  Beyond not having patrols or Air HQ present, John didn't even build up the airfields.  It's still going to be a long, tough battle, but I can't imagine what things would've been like had John even had minimal safeguards up.

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 2910
Page:   <<   < prev  95 96 [97] 98 99   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  95 96 [97] 98 99   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

0.172