Matrix Games Forums

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

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: The Trauma of '42: Crackaces (Allies) vs. njp72 (IJ)

 
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 Trauma of '42: Crackaces (Allies) vs. njp72 (IJ) Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: The Trauma of '42: Crackaces (Allies) vs. njp72 (IJ) - 5/14/2013 8:05:00 PM   
Crackaces


Posts: 2621
Joined: 7/9/2011
Status: offline
I was going to update this thread regularly, instead I have decided to update things as the game develops. So far, the IJ strategy in the DEI has been most interesting in using PI forces to capture Hong Kong early as well as invade Mersing ...

_____________________________

Patients and providers of healthcare win with interprofessional practice http://ipep.arizona.edu/blog

(in reply to Crackaces)
Post #: 31
RE: The Trauma of '42: Crackaces (Allies) vs. njp72 (IJ) - 5/14/2013 9:44:26 PM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 3739
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline
An early move on Mersing (and Palembang for that matter too) can be very expensive for Japan if Allied torpedo bombers are deployed. Plus Palembang, unsupported by nearby Japanese airbases, can be hit by the Dutch hefalumps adding to oil field destruction. On naval attack the hefalumps are quite weak; not so when targeting terrestrial facilities.

Also the early enemy move doesn't mean that running to Singapore is the only valid Allied response. Maintaining a port on the Strait of Malacca can be a viable tactic, both for shipment of supply in and eventual evacuation benefiting in both instances from shorter SLOCs than normally are available if everyone has run to Singapore. In the process you leave behind in Singapore a much slimmer garrison whose rations will last a lot longer than normal and thereby provide a tough resistance.

As always there is a counter to every move.

Alfred

(in reply to Crackaces)
Post #: 32
RE: The Trauma of '42: Crackaces (Allies) vs. njp72 (IJ) - 5/15/2013 1:10:06 AM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 8622
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Crackaces

Well the conversation started pretty arrogantly So you know from which I speak from .. I was a systems architect for Lucent Technologies ..solving software problems was a way of life :) I have never flown fighter jets, but I do understand math, systems thinking, and programing algorithums

I think a minor step in the right direction would be very doable and worthwhile .. simply abstract intercept like the ol' Luftwaffe game .. first base crossed initatates detection/ intercept as per the current rules with current leaky CAP/LRCAP rules. That is the first base crossed becomes a "target" for intercept purposes

The ramifications of the current system means concentrating aircraft at potential targets and generating huge furballs ... which also taxes the current system .. . games like Greyjoy vs. Radier stopped because of these furballs ....If I know I at least get a crack with my early CAP .. I use them on defense rather than focus on sweep or whatever to get an offensive operation in ...

Anyway there are lots of constraints that keep this engine from being an historical similation and no amount of home rules is going to get players to get this game to act as a similator ..so .. I gleefully accept this is an excellent game!


I'm not a systems architect but I can see a lot of ways this could be gamed too. If as the attacker I send a 2-plane element to max range I can trigger every CAP package on the way and use up defender op points doing nothing useful. Or, as the defender, I have my carefully rendered CAP to protect my vital whatever base go galivanting off in a tail-chase on faster transiting bombers, leaving the base they're supposed to protect naked.

I also think witpqs brings up an excellent point. Neither side had integrated air defense systems with real time comms to alert downstream bases of approaching strikes. This isn't the ETO or Germany.

You could probably put in ways to constrain each and every air unit on each turn to prevent these sorts of ploys, but pretty soon it becomes Bombing the Empire and not a 3D balanced game of naval/land/air. Not every theater is Burma either. It's a dense case.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Crackaces)
Post #: 33
RE: The Trauma of '42: Crackaces (Allies) vs. njp72 (IJ) - 5/15/2013 3:09:13 PM   
Crackaces


Posts: 2621
Joined: 7/9/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


quote:

ORIGINAL: Crackaces

Well the conversation started pretty arrogantly So you know from which I speak from .. I was a systems architect for Lucent Technologies ..solving software problems was a way of life :) I have never flown fighter jets, but I do understand math, systems thinking, and programing algorithums

I think a minor step in the right direction would be very doable and worthwhile .. simply abstract intercept like the ol' Luftwaffe game .. first base crossed initatates detection/ intercept as per the current rules with current leaky CAP/LRCAP rules. That is the first base crossed becomes a "target" for intercept purposes

The ramifications of the current system means concentrating aircraft at potential targets and generating huge furballs ... which also taxes the current system .. . games like Greyjoy vs. Radier stopped because of these furballs ....If I know I at least get a crack with my early CAP .. I use them on defense rather than focus on sweep or whatever to get an offensive operation in ...

Anyway there are lots of constraints that keep this engine from being an historical similation and no amount of home rules is going to get players to get this game to act as a similator ..so .. I gleefully accept this is an excellent game!


I'm not a systems architect but I can see a lot of ways this could be gamed too. If as the attacker I send a 2-plane element to max range I can trigger every CAP package on the way and use up defender op points doing nothing useful. Or, as the defender, I have my carefully rendered CAP to protect my vital whatever base go galivanting off in a tail-chase on faster transiting bombers, leaving the base they're supposed to protect naked.

I also think witpqs brings up an excellent point. Neither side had integrated air defense systems with real time comms to alert downstream bases of approaching strikes. This isn't the ETO or Germany.

You could probably put in ways to constrain each and every air unit on each turn to prevent these sorts of ploys, but pretty soon it becomes Bombing the Empire and not a 3D balanced game of naval/land/air. Not every theater is Burma either. It's a dense case.


Hmmm Interesting .... I can buy that detection at the target makes a more interesting game. One premise I might disagree with is the thought of "ETO or Germany". I believe a problem is that we look at Scenario #1 to compare history, and then play scenario #2, which is nothing like history. So for the games that have lasted to 1944, like Rader vs. Greyjoy you get a situation of having to defend targets rather than paths to targets. Thus the cloak and appear at a target becomes a real problem.

My thoughts on a more dynamic interception algorithm are based on my AH Luftwaffe experience, which I enjoyed and thought was a 1/2 way decent Operational portrayal. That game presented the defense with many options including defending forward.

The current model works for CV's because there was rarely detection beyond the target. However, the model breaks down when you have multiple base targets possible and the defense has to cover a wide range giving the offense a real advantage.

Things like 2 plane gamey moves are solvable by algorithms such as probability outcomes based on % of strike package. That is all platforms in the AO are considered for intercept by platforms on LRCAP to that range. Then calculate P((package) / package + rest of platforms in the area)) for each strike package. Move interceptors one hex in that direction. Allow for react into an adjacent hex .. do this until combat done. This would cause multiple intercepts and multiple results. I believe in simulation this produces a series of combats rather than one big furball over a target. In my vision the battle looks like the current surface actions I see with react set .... with some additional constraints such as probability to intercept based on package size ... However, you might be right Moose that using the WitP Ship model and modifying it will not work because of scalability of the numbers of air platforms and the use of small packages. We do stress the ship system with 1 ship TF's ....

Ok .. .good post Moose ...

_____________________________

Patients and providers of healthcare win with interprofessional practice http://ipep.arizona.edu/blog

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 34
RE: The Trauma of '42: Crackaces (Allies) vs. njp72 (IJ) - 5/15/2013 3:15:17 PM   
Crackaces


Posts: 2621
Joined: 7/9/2011
Status: offline
The situation in DEI has become dire as far as 40 AKL's now trying to escape the claws of 2 MKB's and 2 SAG's. I am suspecting a lot of ships to meet Davey Jone's locker ...Also one of the MKB's is about to intercept slower ships leaving Bativia .. it is going to be a mess ...

Alfred's strategy is interesting .. make the IJ pay for an early attack on Palembang but strategic attack .. one problem is there is already 70 fighters at the base .. but a night attack might be worth taking an oil point out ..we shall see ...

My spidy senses are up .. I am thinking a major objective is to seize Colombo/Ceylon .. The next 10 turns are focused on taking precautions .... I think 2000 AV and level 4 forts should be enough to make the move fatal.

_____________________________

Patients and providers of healthcare win with interprofessional practice http://ipep.arizona.edu/blog

(in reply to Crackaces)
Post #: 35
RE: The Trauma of '42: Crackaces (Allies) vs. njp72 (IJ) - 5/15/2013 3:36:48 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 8622
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Crackaces


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


quote:

ORIGINAL: Crackaces

Well the conversation started pretty arrogantly So you know from which I speak from .. I was a systems architect for Lucent Technologies ..solving software problems was a way of life :) I have never flown fighter jets, but I do understand math, systems thinking, and programing algorithums

I think a minor step in the right direction would be very doable and worthwhile .. simply abstract intercept like the ol' Luftwaffe game .. first base crossed initatates detection/ intercept as per the current rules with current leaky CAP/LRCAP rules. That is the first base crossed becomes a "target" for intercept purposes

The ramifications of the current system means concentrating aircraft at potential targets and generating huge furballs ... which also taxes the current system .. . games like Greyjoy vs. Radier stopped because of these furballs ....If I know I at least get a crack with my early CAP .. I use them on defense rather than focus on sweep or whatever to get an offensive operation in ...

Anyway there are lots of constraints that keep this engine from being an historical similation and no amount of home rules is going to get players to get this game to act as a similator ..so .. I gleefully accept this is an excellent game!


I'm not a systems architect but I can see a lot of ways this could be gamed too. If as the attacker I send a 2-plane element to max range I can trigger every CAP package on the way and use up defender op points doing nothing useful. Or, as the defender, I have my carefully rendered CAP to protect my vital whatever base go galivanting off in a tail-chase on faster transiting bombers, leaving the base they're supposed to protect naked.

I also think witpqs brings up an excellent point. Neither side had integrated air defense systems with real time comms to alert downstream bases of approaching strikes. This isn't the ETO or Germany.

You could probably put in ways to constrain each and every air unit on each turn to prevent these sorts of ploys, but pretty soon it becomes Bombing the Empire and not a 3D balanced game of naval/land/air. Not every theater is Burma either. It's a dense case.


Hmmm Interesting .... I can buy that detection at the target makes a more interesting game. One premise I might disagree with is the thought of "ETO or Germany". I believe a problem is that we look at Scenario #1 to compare history, and then play scenario #2, which is nothing like history. So for the games that have lasted to 1944, like Rader vs. Greyjoy you get a situation of having to defend targets rather than paths to targets. Thus the cloak and appear at a target becomes a real problem.

My thoughts on a more dynamic interception algorithm are based on my AH Luftwaffe experience, which I enjoyed and thought was a 1/2 way decent Operational portrayal. That game presented the defense with many options including defending forward.

The current model works for CV's because there was rarely detection beyond the target. However, the model breaks down when you have multiple base targets possible and the defense has to cover a wide range giving the offense a real advantage.

Things like 2 plane gamey moves are solvable by algorithms such as probability outcomes based on % of strike package. That is all platforms in the AO are considered for intercept by platforms on LRCAP to that range. Then calculate P((package) / package + rest of platforms in the area)) for each strike package. Move interceptors one hex in that direction. Allow for react into an adjacent hex .. do this until combat done. This would cause multiple intercepts and multiple results. I believe in simulation this produces a series of combats rather than one big furball over a target. In my vision the battle looks like the current surface actions I see with react set .... with some additional constraints such as probability to intercept based on package size ... However, you might be right Moose that using the WitP Ship model and modifying it will not work because of scalability of the numbers of air platforms and the use of small packages. We do stress the ship system with 1 ship TF's ....

Ok .. .good post Moose ...


A lot of ways into this post. Let me try to group . . .

Scen 1 vs Scen 2. I agree 2 is ahistorical, but nothing in the differences is tactical air combat related. Scen 2 has resource windfalls, more DDs, extra LCUs, and a different pilot replacement model, but A2A is no different between them.

ETO vs. PTO. You simply can't adopt German air defense norms to the PTO. Germany had a continental defense problem. They had connected, land-line comms, not Morse-code tactical nets vulnerable to Pacific weather or as slow as Morse is. They had radar. They had dense flak zones over heavy urban environments. The AE designers had to devise air algorithms that work not only for Burma and CV vs. CV, the extremes of the distribution, but also for island chains such as the Marianas or the gaggle near Timor. You can't hand-wave fighter-direction infrastructure into place for Japan. They didn't have it. Handing off repsonsibility for a transitting Allied strike wasn't possible in the way it was for Germany, or even GB in the Battle of Britain. The geography, hardware, and C&C didn't exist in the Pacific. Every CO at every island with some CAP had to decide what to do on his own. Some of them were near help, as in dense Burma. Some of them were out on a limb alone, as at Marcus I. All of them had to assess the size and composition of the passing raid with very imperfect information.

Game phases. To really do what you propose you need to give the game, and the planning player, visibility and control intra-phase to time slice the strike phasing. So each package passes by each possible interception base in sequence, with interception decisions made in hourly sequence and the results of those (fuel, ammo, damage, pilot fatigue) carried forward in data structures to be used in later phase slices. The game isn't built that way. The 12-hour phases are deeply embedded in multiple algorithms. Sweeps and strikes get sequenced based on randoms and interactions behind the scenes based on multiple stats, but that's it. A 12-hour phase is the operating "chunk", not hours or fractions of hours as you would need in some geographies such as the HI in air-defense terms. The flight times between some HI bases is minutes, not hours.

Player workload. You could devise an interface to get very granular in player orders to do all this, and some games which are purely strategic bombing games have such interfaces. But as above, they are designed fundamentally to play the air game, not a five-year integrated air/land/sea operational-level macro game. If players had to not only worry about point-defense of bases as now, but also insert sensitivty inputs to allow degrees of freedom for mid-transit intercepts by their CAP, the per-turn planning would become immense, especially in the late war. And there would still be randoms, leading to even more frustration by the ADHD player crowd when their fighters "didn't do what I told them to do!"

Interesting topic, but I think the devs considered point defense versus alternatives and went that way for good reasons. Our system isn't perfect, but I think with LRCAP and range spinners it gives players about all the flex most can handle on a per-turn basis. Make a day turn take 4-5 hours to input and people stop playing the thing.

< Message edited by Bullwinkle58 -- 5/15/2013 3:42:31 PM >


_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Crackaces)
Post #: 36
RE: The Trauma of '42: Crackaces (Allies) vs. njp72 (IJ) - 5/15/2013 3:41:57 PM   
MAurelius


Posts: 198
Joined: 6/28/2012
Status: offline
I know I am a bit late with that post, but he did the same thing to me in our game... no invasion of PI at all - and it got me stunned as I pulled everything out too early....

he will however throw the kitchen sink at you in time and no forts will make a difference there - of course this game was DBB A - so no stackin limits which might change everything!


_____________________________

formerly known as SoliInvictus202

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 37
RE: The Trauma of '42: Crackaces (Allies) vs. njp72 (IJ) - 5/15/2013 7:04:35 PM   
Crackaces


Posts: 2621
Joined: 7/9/2011
Status: offline
quote:

Interesting topic, but I think the devs considered point defense versus alternatives and went that way for good reasons. Our system isn't perfect, but I think with LRCAP and range spinners it gives players about all the flex most can handle on a per-turn basis. Make a day turn take 4-5 hours to input and people stop playing the thing.



People are happy with the system .. so I understand .. it just hurts the person who intuitively thinks "hey I need to use my fighters to intercept at 1 hex away when in reality the target is 7 hexes away and no aircraft get involved .. "nothing to see here ..."

As far as phases .. the ships move in phases and intercept quite nicely .. the same algorithms might extend .. except for the need to model a radio traffic network that cannot relay the fact that a whole bunch of airplanes have just flown overhead

I am not going to post much here but I will try and keep the AAR up to date with meaningful info that corresponds with some aspect that might be new ....

_____________________________

Patients and providers of healthcare win with interprofessional practice http://ipep.arizona.edu/blog

(in reply to MAurelius)
Post #: 38
RE: The Trauma of '42: Crackaces (Allies) vs. njp72 (IJ) - 7/9/2013 10:16:38 PM   
Crackaces


Posts: 2621
Joined: 7/9/2011
Status: offline
Below demonstrates an India invasion as of Feb '42. The IJ have forces pinned at Colombo and this turn IJ forces at Bombay get roughed up a bit. The extended map offers an additional problem for the Allies in that forces can be intercepted going from Aden to Abadan/Karachi .. on the other hand it will take a commitment from the IJ to continue this embargo ..







Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Patients and providers of healthcare win with interprofessional practice http://ipep.arizona.edu/blog

(in reply to Crackaces)
Post #: 39
RE: The Trauma of '42: Crackaces (Allies) vs. njp72 (IJ) - 7/9/2013 10:19:14 PM   
Crackaces


Posts: 2621
Joined: 7/9/2011
Status: offline
The only problem I see with ignoring PI and Singapore and invading India is that it takes awhile to build the forces to challenge the IJ. Thus in my opinion it might make a more boring game. I would suspect CanoeRebel taking more risks than I and making the IJ's life hell .. but the best risk management dictates keeping losses to a minimum and then attacking with overwhelming forces when the time is right ..



_____________________________

Patients and providers of healthcare win with interprofessional practice http://ipep.arizona.edu/blog

(in reply to Crackaces)
Post #: 40
RE: The Trauma of '42: Crackaces (Allies) vs. njp72 (IJ) - 7/9/2013 11:38:17 PM   
GreyJoy


Posts: 6278
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline
Seems just like my game, even if MY india was invaded after the fall of Singa and Manila, in april 1942

Yes, with extended map there's an additional problem for the Allies, but a Japanese Embargo, as you've stated, becomes even more demanding with all those extrabases to garrison and invade

(in reply to Crackaces)
Post #: 41
RE: The Trauma of '42: Crackaces (Allies) vs. njp72 (IJ) - 7/10/2013 3:58:41 PM   
Crackaces


Posts: 2621
Joined: 7/9/2011
Status: offline
Well Greyjoy .. the IJ went after two main theaters at the cost of other theaters. I was quite surprised as I thought of a Colombo invasion but not all of India before PI and Singapore were secure...I was just about to off load the aussies in INdia when the KB showed up and I had to skedaddle quickly , so Bombay is not very well defended ..

Now at fort level one we are in trouble ...

Ground combat at Bombay (36,24)

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 39674 troops, 349 guns, 114 vehicles, Assault Value = 1102

Defending force 22952 troops, 214 guns, 172 vehicles, Assault Value = 484

Japanese adjusted assault: 1428

Allied adjusted defense: 941

Japanese assault odds: 1 to 1 (fort level 2)

Japanese Assault reduces fortifications to 1

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), leaders(+), preparation(-), experience(-)
Attacker:

Japanese ground losses:
2056 casualties reported
Squads: 5 destroyed, 213 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 17 disabled
Engineers: 1 destroyed, 8 disabled
Guns lost 24 (1 destroyed, 23 disabled)

Allied ground losses:
350 casualties reported
Squads: 1 destroyed, 16 disabled
Non Combat: 9 destroyed, 33 disabled
Engineers: 1 destroyed, 2 disabled
Guns lost 9 (1 destroyed, 8 disabled)
Vehicles lost 17 (3 destroyed, 14 disabled)

Assaulting units:
21st Division
4th Division
47th Infantry Regiment
Imperial Guards Division
9th Ind.Hvy.Art. Battalion
8th Medium Field Artillery Regiment
25th Army
15th Ind.Art.Mortar Battalion

Defending units:
150th RAC Regiment
7th Indian Division
Bombay Fortress
Waziristan Division
Southern Command
1/3 West Coast Base Force
77th Heavy AA Regiment
1st Indian Coastal Artillery Regiment
6th Medium Regiment
1st Bombay Construction Battalion





_____________________________

Patients and providers of healthcare win with interprofessional practice http://ipep.arizona.edu/blog

(in reply to GreyJoy)
Post #: 42
RE: The Trauma of '42: Crackaces (Allies) vs. njp72 (IJ) - 7/12/2013 2:06:59 PM   
Crackaces


Posts: 2621
Joined: 7/9/2011
Status: offline
I am mainly posting for Greyjoy who is in a similar situation. I have made a bunch of huge mistakes which has more than enabled the IJ to consume India. But .. as my opponent as astutely stated .. India is like a python trying to eat a whole cow .. eventually it chokes.

The map below shows the situation late Feb 1942. The IJ have committed units to seize Bombay and the Allies have moved units through the same hexes as the IJ forces. They are now isolated and using supplies for their little invasion. No supply (-) yet .. but this will cause the IJ to start moving units away from the invasion and securing the hexes into Bombay .. that will take time .. In the meantime the Allies upgrade forces and bide time ..






Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Patients and providers of healthcare win with interprofessional practice http://ipep.arizona.edu/blog

(in reply to Crackaces)
Post #: 43
RE: The Trauma of '42: Crackaces (Allies) vs. njp72 (IJ) - 7/12/2013 11:38:05 PM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 3739
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline
Crackaces,

No mention of whether the LYB (tm) have crossed the LOD.

You should dig up Q-Ball's AAR v Canoerebel where there was much discussion about the mechanics of an Indian invasion. It might give you some ideas of the difficulties faced by the LYB (tm) in such an endeavour.

Alfred

(in reply to Crackaces)
Post #: 44
RE: The Trauma of '42: Crackaces (Allies) vs. njp72 (IJ) - 7/13/2013 12:25:53 AM   
Crackaces


Posts: 2621
Joined: 7/9/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

Crackaces,

No mention of whether the LYB (tm) have crossed the LOD.

You should dig up Q-Ball's AAR v Canoerebel where there was much discussion about the mechanics of an Indian invasion. It might give you some ideas of the difficulties faced by the LYB (tm) in such an endeavour.

Alfred


Thanks Alfred! I am not sure of the exact hex row except the Wiki says "one hex south of Delhi" The LYB's(tm) :) are most certainly true north of this line without activation. I will read the AAR. Right now I have three LYB stacks "trapped" -- i.e. I have moved forces from which they came and own the hexsides .. I am assuming no supplies into the hexes until the IJ fix this situation.

My main goal is to resist, but tempt the IJ to extend the MLR as far as they want to grow .. and then punish them in 1944 ..:)So far I cannot imagine an auto-victory for the IJ thus it should be easy to hold out ..

So far the KB has intercepted my one and only attempt to reinforce Karachi .. sinking 2AP's and an xAK .. its a long war ..

_____________________________

Patients and providers of healthcare win with interprofessional practice http://ipep.arizona.edu/blog

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 45
RE: The Trauma of '42: Crackaces (Allies) vs. njp72 (IJ) - 7/13/2013 1:32:17 AM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 2658
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

Crackaces,

No mention of whether the LYB (tm) have crossed the LOD.

You should dig up Q-Ball's AAR v Canoerebel where there was much discussion about the mechanics of an Indian invasion. It might give you some ideas of the difficulties faced by the LYB (tm) in such an endeavour.

Alfred

I believe the Waziristan Division, which took part in the last combat reported, is part of the LOD reinforcements [at least I got it in my game when the Japanese crossed the LOD]. The LOD runs one hex south of Delhi, unless this scenario changed that.
I think the invasion of Socotra [AKA Scoodra] would have triggered the reinforcements.
About 2/3 of the LCU reinforcements appear at Aden, most of the rest at Cape Town. There are a lot of air units too, but I can't recall where they all appeared. There may have been some in Oz and USA.

_____________________________

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 Alfred)
Post #: 46
RE: The Trauma of '42: Crackaces (Allies) vs. njp72 (IJ) - 7/13/2013 7:26:46 AM   
MAurelius


Posts: 198
Joined: 6/28/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

Crackaces,

No mention of whether the LYB (tm) have crossed the LOD.

You should dig up Q-Ball's AAR v Canoerebel where there was much discussion about the mechanics of an Indian invasion. It might give you some ideas of the difficulties faced by the LYB (tm) in such an endeavour.

Alfred

I believe the Waziristan Division, which took part in the last combat reported, is part of the LOD reinforcements [at least I got it in my game when the Japanese crossed the LOD]. The LOD runs one hex south of Delhi, unless this scenario changed that.



not in the DBB Mod

_____________________________

formerly known as SoliInvictus202

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 47
RE: The Trauma of '42: Crackaces (Allies) vs. njp72 (IJ) - 7/13/2013 2:27:57 PM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 2658
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline
Thanks for the correction MAurelius.
The mods are changing a lot more than OOB and I just can't keep up with all the details!

_____________________________

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 MAurelius)
Post #: 48
RE: The Trauma of '42: Crackaces (Allies) vs. njp72 (IJ) - 7/13/2013 2:52:59 PM   
Crackaces


Posts: 2621
Joined: 7/9/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

Thanks for the correction MAurelius.
The mods are changing a lot more than OOB and I just can't keep up with all the details!


Exactly It looks like the Waziristan Division comes with the Mod .. so I am not sure of any emergency reinforcements that come with the DBB mod?

_____________________________

Patients and providers of healthcare win with interprofessional practice http://ipep.arizona.edu/blog

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 49
RE: The Trauma of '42: Crackaces (Allies) vs. njp72 (IJ) - 7/13/2013 2:56:04 PM   
MAurelius


Posts: 198
Joined: 6/28/2012
Status: offline
I am sure they do - as Nathan (in our current game) just activated them in Australia ;) - I got the whole lot :)

_____________________________

formerly known as SoliInvictus202

(in reply to Crackaces)
Post #: 50
RE: The Trauma of '42: Crackaces (Allies) vs. njp72 (IJ) - 7/13/2013 4:34:09 PM   
Crackaces


Posts: 2621
Joined: 7/9/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MAurelius

I am sure they do - as Nathan (in our current game) just activated them in Australia ;) - I got the whole lot :)


Ok ... I am still not sure what "one hex south of Delhi" means .. that is true south? or one horizontal row one hex down? (which is not true south due to map distortion) .. Right now units are above that row moving on Delhi without activation.

BTW) Nathan is an excellent excellent IJ opponent with a tremendous propensity to think of out the box. Worthy of a contest from CanoeRebel if CR is looking for an opponent seeking a IJ auto-victory ..

I think he had an excellent plan in mind when his India invasion started, and then changed his plans to trying to swallow the whole elephant at once rather than a bite at a time .. this has left opportunities to isolate units and put a damper on things ...

I will update this AAR from time to time as things get more interesting ...

_____________________________

Patients and providers of healthcare win with interprofessional practice http://ipep.arizona.edu/blog

(in reply to MAurelius)
Post #: 51
RE: The Trauma of '42: Crackaces (Allies) vs. njp72 (IJ) - 7/13/2013 5:20:24 PM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 2658
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline
Horizontal row one hex down, right across India and, I think, the ocean to map edge [not for ship passage, but invasion of any land masses above the line]. That is in stock scenarios. I have no idea if it was abolished in this mod or moved higher? Greyjoy is fighting in Northern India in his latest AAR, perhaps he could say whether there was any reinforcement triggered there.

_____________________________

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 Crackaces)
Post #: 52
RE: The Trauma of '42: Crackaces (Allies) vs. njp72 (IJ) - 7/13/2013 5:34:05 PM   
Crackaces


Posts: 2621
Joined: 7/9/2011
Status: offline
OK ...

Well Nathan has not yet crossed the LOD by that definition .. a picture below .. in the meantime we smack armor units in the open with B-17's






Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Patients and providers of healthcare win with interprofessional practice http://ipep.arizona.edu/blog

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 53
RE: The Trauma of '42: Crackaces (Allies) vs. njp72 (IJ) - 7/13/2013 5:46:06 PM   
MAurelius


Posts: 198
Joined: 6/28/2012
Status: offline
in my game he went for Australia a bit too early - we are only in the end of February... but he hasn't taken Singapore nor Badoeng yet.... and that hurts him now.... as I was am able to become VERY active in Burma... and that in combination with a strong China will be a bit of an issue for him....

but we'll see how it turns out

all the best for your game however! ;)

_____________________________

formerly known as SoliInvictus202

(in reply to Crackaces)
Post #: 54
RE: The Trauma of '42: Crackaces (Allies) vs. njp72 (IJ) - 7/14/2013 12:09:06 AM   
Rio Bravo

 

Posts: 39
Joined: 7/13/2013
Status: offline
Bullwinkle58-

I have only played war board games with hexes. I am new to Matrix Games.

I have been reading your thread for days. I'm up to page 22.

I just wanted to thank you for all your posts regarding your war with that pesky 1eyedjack!

You write very well and it is fun reading the progression of the war.

I will try to get current with your war report as soon as possible.

-Rio Bravo

< Message edited by Rio Bravo -- 7/14/2013 1:03:46 AM >


_____________________________

"No one throws me my own guns and tells me to run. No one."

-Bret (James Coburn); The Magnificent Seven

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 55
RE: The Trauma of '42: Crackaces (Allies) vs. njp72 (IJ) - 7/22/2013 4:21:14 PM   
Crackaces


Posts: 2621
Joined: 7/9/2011
Status: offline
Well an update. It is India Turn #90. Bombay is under siege but the IJ cannot supply her forces here and I am focused on forcing the IJ to fight for LOC's. I think I can keep njp72 busy for another month or so ...On other fronts our submarines have been less than effective in this game -- 5 contacts 3 are dutch subs ..no torps on target yet ..

The map below:




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Patients and providers of healthcare win with interprofessional practice http://ipep.arizona.edu/blog

(in reply to Rio Bravo)
Post #: 56
RE: The Trauma of '42: Crackaces (Allies) vs. njp72 (IJ) - 7/22/2013 4:26:30 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 14911
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
All the way to March? He's doing some effective sub evading!

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Crackaces)
Post #: 57
RE: The Trauma of '42: Crackaces (Allies) vs. njp72 (IJ) - 7/22/2013 4:27:08 PM   
Crackaces


Posts: 2621
Joined: 7/9/2011
Status: offline
In other news .. I have trained about 100 fighter pilots in LowNav to sit in P39's .. The P39 can carry a single 500 pound bomb and enough of them getting on target can leave an impression. My eventual plan is to use P39's as well as other platforms to interdict IJ sea lanes ..

Right now .. I am traning mediocre pilots to at least be able to survive . I want to build a big pool and then focused on building an elite force to engage the IJ when the time comes ...

_____________________________

Patients and providers of healthcare win with interprofessional practice http://ipep.arizona.edu/blog

(in reply to Crackaces)
Post #: 58
RE: The Trauma of '42: Crackaces (Allies) vs. njp72 (IJ) - 7/22/2013 4:29:32 PM   
Crackaces


Posts: 2621
Joined: 7/9/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

All the way to March? He's doing some effective sub evading!


Yes .. use the coastal route and cover the crossings with ASW/patrol craft and my submarines just do not find anything .. I think there is a detection level where the submarine does not find prey ..

Right now I am using my weaker submarine CPTs to act as pickets for sudden IJ naval movements while I stage supplies and base forces forward ...

_____________________________

Patients and providers of healthcare win with interprofessional practice http://ipep.arizona.edu/blog

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 59
RE: The Trauma of '42: Crackaces (Allies) vs. njp72 (IJ) - 7/23/2013 6:37:21 AM   
GreyJoy


Posts: 6278
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Crackaces

Well an update. It is India Turn #90. Bombay is under siege but the IJ cannot supply her forces here and I am focused on forcing the IJ to fight for LOC's. I think I can keep njp72 busy for another month or so ...On other fronts our submarines have been less than effective in this game -- 5 contacts 3 are dutch subs ..no torps on target yet ..

The map below:






If the KB is closing the sealanes to India, and if all those divisions are involved in India, what about sending a massive reinforcement convoy to something like...Timor? You should be able to get there in time...

(in reply to Crackaces)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: The Trauma of '42: Crackaces (Allies) vs. njp72 (IJ) Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   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

0.180