Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Lowpe (Japan) vs Wargamr (Allies)

 
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: Lowpe (Japan) vs Wargamr (Allies) Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Lowpe (Japan) vs Wargamr (Allies) - 8/31/2018 2:08:20 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 16836
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bif1961

I find by setting the fast carrier TF to follow the slower carrier TF and both set to zero reaction distance that they almost always stay together.



For this operation "almost always" isn't good enough.


(in reply to Bif1961)
Post #: 151
RE: Lowpe (Japan) vs Wargamr (Allies) - 8/31/2018 2:26:07 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 16836
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
I think this game might be on a knife's edge right now...

I seem to recall that the Allies really need to preserve this early AP shipping capability...

In addition, with two American fleet carriers out of action for a while, that really spells doom for the 40,000 troops (including the 2nd Marine Division) at Tabby, and my recent invasion of Builder in the Aleutians most likely spells doom for the 20,000 troops there.

Combined with the loss of the 18th British Division, 5 Commonwealth Brigades or Regiments, 4 Australian Brigades, all that wonderful British AA at Ceylon.... and with Clark ready to fall any day, the Allies are worried about where Japan will go next.

The potential loss of shipping hiding in dot bases in the Aleutians... & of course I am unsure how much is trapped north of the Aleutians, low on fuel.

And, China is falling super fast..

Plus I don't think the Allies like the mod with the Aussies being restricted to brigade size.

That the game comes down to this: the Allies will either surge everything they have at the KB, or seek negotiations. Personally I think he will surge his six battleships at me knowing the KB lacks torpedoes. But he might not be in position to do that.

What a strange game, prior to June of 1942 Japan was doing well in China and pulled off Ceylon...but the Allies had preserved every ship larger than a destroyer and I thought Japan would be in a world of hurt starting in early 1943.



< Message edited by Lowpe -- 8/31/2018 2:31:50 PM >

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 152
RE: Lowpe (Japan) vs Wargamr (Allies) - 8/31/2018 2:54:37 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 24104
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

I think this game might be on a knife's edge right now...

I seem to recall that the Allies really need to preserve this early AP shipping capability...
Very much so! The early cadre of USN AP's forms a large core of APA's in '43 (and probably early '44, but I've never counted). They really have to be protected.

In addition, with two American fleet carriers out of action for a while, that really spells doom for the 40,000 troops (including the 2nd Marine Division) at Tabby, and my recent invasion of Builder in the Aleutians most likely spells doom for the 20,000 troops there.

Combined with the loss of the 18th British Division, 5 Commonwealth Brigades or Regiments, 4 Australian Brigades, all that wonderful British AA at Ceylon.... and with Clark ready to fall any day, the Allies are worried about where Japan will go next.

The potential loss of shipping hiding in dot bases in the Aleutians... & of course I am unsure how much is trapped north of the Aleutians, low on fuel.

And, China is falling super fast..

Plus I don't think the Allies like the mod with the Aussies being restricted to brigade size.
I'm playing the new DBB 28-C with BDE organization for the Aussies and, although we haven't yet seen combat where any differences could matter, I am not worried about it. A while back MichaelM made changes to the casualty routines which very nicely (IMO) did away with the old problem of small units taking disproportionate damage all the time. Also, when smaller units are destroyed (by sheer weight of numbers in some battles) you can now buy them back and rebuild them. The only difference there is a few PP.

That the game comes down to this: the Allies will either surge everything they have at the KB, or seek negotiations. Personally I think he will surge his six battleships at me knowing the KB lacks torpedoes. But he might not be in position to do that.

What a strange game, prior to June of 1942 Japan was doing well in China and pulled off Ceylon...but the Allies had preserved every ship larger than a destroyer and I thought Japan would be in a world of hurt starting in early 1943.





_____________________________


(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 153
RE: Lowpe (Japan) vs Wargamr (Allies) - 8/31/2018 3:01:01 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 8674
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bif1961

Is it a good idea to keep 8 Japanese carriers in one TF? Doesn't tat affect their chances at coordinated strikes since he has about 400 AC in one TF?


In my experience, I've suffered a fragmented strike from having ~680 planes in one TF (that's about 8-10 IJN flight decks) only a couple of times in dozens or perhaps hundreds of instances.

It is a better idea than splitting into separate TFs.

(in reply to Bif1961)
Post #: 154
RE: Lowpe (Japan) vs Wargamr (Allies) - 8/31/2018 3:04:43 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 8674
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

I think this game might be on a knife's edge right now...

I seem to recall that the Allies really need to preserve this early AP shipping capability...

In addition, with two American fleet carriers out of action for a while, that really spells doom for the 40,000 troops (including the 2nd Marine Division) at Tabby, and my recent invasion of Builder in the Aleutians most likely spells doom for the 20,000 troops there.

Combined with the loss of the 18th British Division, 5 Commonwealth Brigades or Regiments, 4 Australian Brigades, all that wonderful British AA at Ceylon.... and with Clark ready to fall any day, the Allies are worried about where Japan will go next.

The potential loss of shipping hiding in dot bases in the Aleutians... & of course I am unsure how much is trapped north of the Aleutians, low on fuel.

And, China is falling super fast..

Plus I don't think the Allies like the mod with the Aussies being restricted to brigade size.

That the game comes down to this: the Allies will either surge everything they have at the KB, or seek negotiations. Personally I think he will surge his six battleships at me knowing the KB lacks torpedoes. But he might not be in position to do that.

What a strange game, prior to June of 1942 Japan was doing well in China and pulled off Ceylon...but the Allies had preserved every ship larger than a destroyer and I thought Japan would be in a world of hurt starting in early 1943.




He's fine, or will be fine.

I lost large chunks of my pre-43 APs and AKs. So many come in later that it doesn't matter that much. It delays things somewhat in 1943, but it wasn't really my limiting factor. Sufficient air support was.

Restricted to brigade size in Australia is a bigger blow.

China can fall. It's fine. It just depends on how long, and how much you build it up, and even then... he can retake it.


It's all about avoiding AV in 1943 or January 1944. Obviously that's possible, but it's not that much more possible for you to achieve today than it was in December 1941.

He could lose everything he has in the Aleutians and still fight you hard in 1943.

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 155
RE: Lowpe (Japan) vs Wargamr (Allies) - 8/31/2018 8:35:09 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 16836
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
Wargamr has a strong history of taking a beating and coming back very strong.

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 156
RE: Lowpe (Japan) vs Wargamr (Allies) - 8/31/2018 11:54:12 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 16836
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
So the Allies are punching back...here the bombers selected the tiny engineer unit (aviation eng), they are the poor replacements to the same unit that originally defended Attu and were bombarded out of existence.

Here all the bombers come in at 3000 feet. This is a bad precedent to set, and bodes nothing but ill for Japan long term. Counter B17 and then B29 bombing very low is very difficult. AA, Balloons, Radar and good fighters are needed. Of course none of that is present here yet but at least tiny Unyo is here...she had to make a flank speed run but arrived just in time.

The Unyo carries a decent size fighter sentai on her, 27 planes, and quite frankly only 1/3rd where flying low, the rest was layered looking for fighter sweeps. I have always struggled with what to do with these little slow escort carriers. They really make pitiful ASW platforms in hunter killer groups. They work as support for the KB, but simply providing extra fighter protection of ports is a good job for them...as happened here. They are too slow to raid with.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Lowpe -- 8/31/2018 11:55:30 PM >

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 157
RE: Lowpe (Japan) vs Wargamr (Allies) - 9/1/2018 12:04:58 AM   
Lowpe


Posts: 16836
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
Lots of hijinks here in the north, KB seems safe now except for subs and potential PT boat attacks. Mavis will start flying from Builders providing lots of intel...and she has more than enough fuel to play, but sorties are getting low and there is still some torpedoes, I had to juggle squadrons to unlock them, but the expected Allied battleship raid didn't materialize. Suddenly having torpedoes would surely have greatly surprised the Allies.

The KB fought off one low level B17 strike, then the next day another targeted an escorting battleship (Ise or Hyuga). Two other battleships are back at Builders, rearmed and refueled, while Nagato is on the slow road to Honshu and the yards.

We have at least 17 ships penned in at Adak, but it will be a tough nut to crack.

In 4 days the 1st and 2nd Tank Divisions arrive, and their elements in play have been prepping for Adak and Attu, along with some divisions, headquarters, artillery etc.

I would like to get Unyo at Attu and shoot down some of the PBYs which I think are being air lifted out, but I worry about mines, and it would mean a flank speed run by Hiryu to provide air cover over Builders.






Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 158
RE: Lowpe (Japan) vs Wargamr (Allies) - 9/1/2018 12:06:17 AM   
Lowpe


Posts: 16836
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
Game date on graphic.

Will be ready to counter invade in 30 days here.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 159
RE: Lowpe (Japan) vs Wargamr (Allies) - 9/1/2018 12:13:53 AM   
Lowpe


Posts: 16836
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
The northern pincer just got all the troops, sans a HQ, to retreat and now the road to Kienko is over burdened with disorganized, beaten troops, there might be 40 corps in only a few hexes there. I figure in a month the Type 1 Medium tanks and IJA troops will be entering Kienko.

The southern pincer might very well be called off...as I was planning on using the 1st and 2nd tank divisions to push up thru there. Or it might simply get troops from Luzon. I want to do it, so I can push on Kunming and Paoshan from two directions.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 160
RE: Lowpe (Japan) vs Wargamr (Allies) - 9/1/2018 12:18:22 AM   
Lowpe


Posts: 16836
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
Need to wrap this up, was hoping Clark would fall today.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 161
RE: Lowpe (Japan) vs Wargamr (Allies) - 9/1/2018 12:24:37 AM   
Lowpe


Posts: 16836
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
Ceylon is almost fully evacuated, it is just too far away to hold.

Troops are 100% prepped for Darwin, Midway, but not Port Moresby. Of the three I really am only tempted to take Midway, but with the recent developments might revisit that.

Short term I want to wipe out American troops in Aleutians and Tabby, but then pull back to a shorter perimeter.


(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 162
RE: Lowpe (Japan) vs Wargamr (Allies) - 9/1/2018 9:44:06 AM   
MrKane


Posts: 743
Joined: 3/9/2013
From: West Poland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

Ceylon is almost fully evacuated, it is just too far away to hold.

Troops are 100% prepped for Darwin, Midway, but not Port Moresby. Of the three I really am only tempted to take Midway, but with the recent developments might revisit that.

Short term I want to wipe out American troops in Aleutians and Tabby, but then pull back to a shorter perimeter.




Ceylon is almost fully evacuated ? This open road to Sumatra invasion ;(. Anyway Mike is going hit you for real in DEI. He does not like islands-south-central pacific way.

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 163
RE: Lowpe (Japan) vs Wargamr (Allies) - 9/1/2018 1:54:08 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 16836
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrKane


Ceylon is almost fully evacuated ? This open road to Sumatra invasion ;(. Anyway Mike is going hit you for real in DEI. He does not like islands-south-central pacific way.


This is a scenario 1 game, and to my thinking, Japan simply isn't strong enough to hold Ceylon, without giving up too much elsewhere.

Thanks, I thought he might be coming SRA somewhere, or New Guinea.

(in reply to MrKane)
Post #: 164
RE: Lowpe (Japan) vs Wargamr (Allies) - 9/1/2018 3:34:41 PM   
MrKane


Posts: 743
Joined: 3/9/2013
From: West Poland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe


quote:

ORIGINAL: MrKane


Ceylon is almost fully evacuated ? This open road to Sumatra invasion ;(. Anyway Mike is going hit you for real in DEI. He does not like islands-south-central pacific way.


This is a scenario 1 game, and to my thinking, Japan simply isn't strong enough to hold Ceylon, without giving up too much elsewhere.

Thanks, I thought he might be coming SRA somewhere, or New Guinea.



In our current game he has pushed by vectors: Darwin-Borneo, Darwin-Java and next Java-Malaya Borneo-Mindano. Marianas and Rabaul are empty and Mike did show up nearby whole game.

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 165
RE: Lowpe (Japan) vs Wargamr (Allies) - 9/3/2018 2:40:52 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 16836
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
The KB, in the Aleutians, where all Japanese bases are size 0 runways, took replacements.

Zuiho-1/C at CV Soryu takes A6M2 Zero replacements
Akagi-3 at CV Akagi takes B5N2 Kate replacements
Kaga-3 at CV Kaga takes B5N2 Kate replacements
Soryu-1 at CV Soryu takes A6M2 Zero replacements
Soryu-3 at CV Soryu takes B5N2 Kate replacements
Hiryu-1 at CVE Hosho takes A6M2 Zero replacements
Shokaku-3 at CV Akagi takes B5N2 Kate replacements
Zuikaku-1 at CVL Zuiho takes A6M2 Zero replacements

Now, they are many hexes from Paramushiro...so I am guessing that is where the planes came from, but Para doesn't have 20,000 supplies and one more but there is an Air HQ there.

Of interest, at the port size 1, where the KB is there are some AKEs. Can AKE's provide the supply source for generating plane replacements?

Now, in reading the manual, I came across why I don't use automatic replacements for land based air (only ship based units). Sometimes this effect of this rule is to have fighters in Burma generating splinter groups of 12 at Tokyo.






Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Lowpe -- 9/3/2018 2:47:25 PM >

(in reply to MrKane)
Post #: 166
RE: Lowpe (Japan) vs Wargamr (Allies) - 9/3/2018 8:18:06 PM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 8647
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline
I can tell you for a fact that I do not fully understand the replacements code. As you note above, you are getting replacements where you might expect not to, and other times where I think I should, I cannot. This is not a 90% problem, this is a 1 or 2% problem, maybe less. Meaning, most of the time everything is fine. Then a turn like yours above will happen and I'm mystified …



_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 167
RE: Lowpe (Japan) vs Wargamr (Allies) - 9/4/2018 12:29:44 AM   
Lowpe


Posts: 16836
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
I think the difficult to determine factor is a combination of HQs both Air HQ and Command HQ.

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 168
RE: Lowpe (Japan) vs Wargamr (Allies) - 9/4/2018 12:41:59 AM   
Lowpe


Posts: 16836
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
This game has been super frustrating at putting the hurt on Allied planes at ports...but Japan finally pulls off a decent bombardment, at an over stacked island.






Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 169
RE: Lowpe (Japan) vs Wargamr (Allies) - 9/4/2018 2:39:59 AM   
Lowpe


Posts: 16836
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
China

June has been a super tough month for the Chinese losing several thousand squads.

One of the justifications of stacking limits is to slow down the conquest of China, but what happens in practice is that it usually accelerates the fall.

Once the initial position is broken, the Chinese retreat back along the road seriously over stacking the next position draining the troops of supply and increasing the effectiveness of Japanese aerial bombing and land bombardment.

And when the fight gets to Chungking, it is so overstacked a successful defense is almost impossible to achieve.

This particular mod has given the Chinese Corp an enhanced anti-tank capability, but generally speaking the overstack penalty once activates simply snowballs and wipes out a defensive line very quickly.

Pictured below the Japanese schwerpunkt pushes thru the mountains, and should be forcing the Kienko river crossing in less than a month (perhaps as soon as 2 weeks) and then onto the central plains.

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 17102 troops, 229 guns, 591 vehicles, Assault Value = 575

Defending force 40241 troops, 343 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 771

Japanese adjusted assault: 252

Allied adjusted defense: 109

Japanese assault odds: 2 to 1

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), disruption(-), experience(-), supply(-)
Attacker:

Japanese ground losses:
163 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 18 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 17 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled

Allied ground losses:
14914 casualties reported
Squads: 374 destroyed, 60 disabled
Non Combat: 472 destroyed, 33 disabled
Engineers: 10 destroyed, 1 disabled
Guns lost 121 (120 destroyed, 1 disabled)
Units retreated 11

Defeated Allied Units Retreating!

Assaulting units:
9th Tank Regiment
3rd Tank Regiment
12th Tank Regiment
23rd Tank Regiment
13th Tank Regiment
40th Division
15th Tank Regiment
11th Tank Regiment
7th Ind.Hvy.Art. Battalion
52nd Ind.Mtn.Gun Battalion
2nd Ind. Mountain Gun Regiment
1st Mortar Battalion
8th Ind.Hvy.Art. Battalion
1st Army
6th Medium Field Artillery Regiment
5th Ind.Hvy.Art Battalion

Defending units:
80th Chinese Corps
76th Chinese Corps
13th Chinese Corps
90th Chinese Corps
4th Heavy Mortar Regiment
Jingcha War Area
3rd Heavy Mortar Regiment
41st AA Regiment
57th AT Gun Regiment
22nd Group Army
56th AT Gun Regiment




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Lowpe -- 9/4/2018 2:41:28 AM >

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 170
RE: Lowpe (Japan) vs Wargamr (Allies) - 9/4/2018 12:48:09 PM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 8647
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe


One of the justifications of stacking limits is to slow down the conquest of China, but what happens in practice is that it usually accelerates the fall.

Once the initial position is broken, the Chinese retreat back along the road seriously over stacking the next position draining the troops of supply and increasing the effectiveness of Japanese aerial bombing and land bombardment.

And when the fight gets to Chungking, it is so overstacked a successful defense is almost impossible to achieve.


+1

My assessment as well.

My question |(to myself) is: Is this accurate? Is the issue that a player does not fight to control 2 or 3 hexes around CK? I am still debating this …
I'm doing comparisons against historical encirclements of the era (necessarily on the Eastern Front). Slow process as my time is limited ...

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 171
RE: Lowpe (Japan) vs Wargamr (Allies) - 9/4/2018 1:45:03 PM   
obvert


Posts: 12487
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

China

June has been a super tough month for the Chinese losing several thousand squads.

One of the justifications of stacking limits is to slow down the conquest of China, but what happens in practice is that it usually accelerates the fall.

Once the initial position is broken, the Chinese retreat back along the road seriously over stacking the next position draining the troops of supply and increasing the effectiveness of Japanese aerial bombing and land bombardment.

And when the fight gets to Chungking, it is so overstacked a successful defense is almost impossible to achieve.

This particular mod has given the Chinese Corp an enhanced anti-tank capability, but generally speaking the overstack penalty once activates simply snowballs and wipes out a defensive line very quickly.



I find SL make defending in good territory much more effective for the Chinese. If they do have to retreat, ideally there would be dug in troops behind, and as the retreated troops move back, the hex would again be under SL and the dug in troops able to stand.

Unless the Allied player is caught out, and didn't prepare multiple lines behind the front, SL alone should not make China harder to defend.

Against Greyjoy my Chinese managed to push back and crush a shock into Sian, and that was successful mainly because he didn't want to overstock his troops shocking over. Without SL he might have used double the troops and gotten a decent result and pushed everything back in a few days. The offensive player can always add more than the defender in a chosen hex without SL, and that makes defending really tough. You just can't move troops onto the front or behind to cover the next hexes before the attacker has broken through and moved into the rear reserve.

I found there that when frontline troops were tired, I could fairly easily trade them out since they would have had their SL reduced and the new unit would only overstack for a day or so, thus not losing supply.

_____________________________


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

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 172
RE: Lowpe (Japan) vs Wargamr (Allies) - 9/4/2018 2:16:26 PM   
MrKane


Posts: 743
Joined: 3/9/2013
From: West Poland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

China

June has been a super tough month for the Chinese losing several thousand squads.

One of the justifications of stacking limits is to slow down the conquest of China, but what happens in practice is that it usually accelerates the fall.

Once the initial position is broken, the Chinese retreat back along the road seriously over stacking the next position draining the troops of supply and increasing the effectiveness of Japanese aerial bombing and land bombardment.

And when the fight gets to Chungking, it is so overstacked a successful defense is almost impossible to achieve.

This particular mod has given the Chinese Corp an enhanced anti-tank capability, but generally speaking the overstack penalty once activates simply snowballs and wipes out a defensive line very quickly.



I find SL make defending in good territory much more effective for the Chinese. If they do have to retreat, ideally there would be dug in troops behind, and as the retreated troops move back, the hex would again be under SL and the dug in troops able to stand.

Unless the Allied player is caught out, and didn't prepare multiple lines behind the front, SL alone should not make China harder to defend.

Against Greyjoy my Chinese managed to push back and crush a shock into Sian, and that was successful mainly because he didn't want to overstock his troops shocking over. Without SL he might have used double the troops and gotten a decent result and pushed everything back in a few days. The offensive player can always add more than the defender in a chosen hex without SL, and that makes defending really tough. You just can't move troops onto the front or behind to cover the next hexes before the attacker has broken through and moved into the rear reserve.

I found there that when frontline troops were tired, I could fairly easily trade them out since they would have had their SL reduced and the new unit would only overstack for a day or so, thus not losing supply.


I do not like it anymore ;). SL is working always for stronger side in my opinion. It using men number as limitation and does not take in count real value(fire power value) of squad. Basically on beginning it allows bring more fire power in hex for Japanese side and later on it allows to do the same trick for allied player.

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 173
RE: Lowpe (Japan) vs Wargamr (Allies) - 9/4/2018 3:01:59 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 16836
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrKane



I do not like it anymore ;). SL is working always for stronger side in my opinion. It using men number as limitation and does not take in count real value(fire power value) of squad. Basically on beginning it allows bring more fire power in hex for Japanese side and later on it allows to do the same trick for allied player.


Certainly it benefits the side that can stuff in non-manpower based firepower like art and arm.

But I am not sure super stacks and no stacking limits are better. They both require different approaches. I don't think there is a "right" answer in selecting one over the other.


(in reply to MrKane)
Post #: 174
RE: Lowpe (Japan) vs Wargamr (Allies) - 9/4/2018 3:06:39 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 16836
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert


I find SL make defending in good territory much more effective for the Chinese. If they do have to retreat, ideally there would be dug in troops behind, and as the retreated troops move back, the hex would again be under SL and the dug in troops able to stand.

Unless the Allied player is caught out, and didn't prepare multiple lines behind the front, SL alone should not make China harder to defend.

Against Greyjoy my Chinese managed to push back and crush a shock into Sian, and that was successful mainly because he didn't want to overstock his troops shocking over. Without SL he might have used double the troops and gotten a decent result and pushed everything back in a few days. The offensive player can always add more than the defender in a chosen hex without SL, and that makes defending really tough. You just can't move troops onto the front or behind to cover the next hexes before the attacker has broken through and moved into the rear reserve.

I found there that when frontline troops were tired, I could fairly easily trade them out since they would have had their SL reduced and the new unit would only overstack for a day or so, thus not losing supply.



Well, you hit upon player skill here I think. In this particular game, I think Wargamr wrote off China after the fall of Sian and pays scant attention here. And SL games require that you pay close attention and plan several steps ahead.

I don't think anyone has pulled off a snowball attack against you in China, I certainly didn't.

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 175
RE: Lowpe (Japan) vs Wargamr (Allies) - 9/4/2018 3:17:27 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 16836
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo


+1

My assessment as well.

My question |(to myself) is: Is this accurate? Is the issue that a player does not fight to control 2 or 3 hexes around CK? I am still debating this …
I'm doing comparisons against historical encirclements of the era (necessarily on the Eastern Front). Slow process as my time is limited ...


Really, there are only two hexes around Chungking that are defensible, the two w-r hexes to the south. And I agree they are key to defending Chungking or at least prolonging the defense.

I think a lot of the problem, whether SL or not, is that simply the Allied players personal morale breaks in China and the quality of their play there deteriorates. I absolutely love Mr.Kanes tactic of a huge air re-supply of China and really would wish that more Allied players did this.

I think China could last much longer if Japan only used artillery 15cm and smaller there, and limited the number of tanks regiments sent. If the Manchuko Garrison required a set number of artillery and armor units there, in addition to raw AV that would do something...most likely free up PP to be spent on Manchuko bombers sooner (the law of unintended consequences at work).

It is a devious circle of workarounds.




(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 176
RE: Lowpe (Japan) vs Wargamr (Allies) - 9/4/2018 4:14:27 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 24104
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe
Really, there are only two hexes around Chungking that are defensible, the two w-r hexes to the south. And I agree they are key to defending Chungking or at least prolonging the defense.
Except for a breakthrough from the east near Sian.

I think a lot of the problem, whether SL or not, is that simply the Allied players personal morale breaks in China and the quality of their play there deteriorates. I absolutely love Mr.Kanes tactic of a huge air re-supply of China and really would wish that more Allied players did this.
Definitely interesting. It requires trade-offs as everything does.

I think China could last much longer if Japan only used artillery 15cm and smaller there, and limited the number of tanks regiments sent. If the Manchuko Garrison required a set number of artillery and armor units there, in addition to raw AV that would do something...most likely free up PP to be spent on Manchuko bombers sooner (the law of unintended consequences at work).
I would not favor any HR's on this, but I agree it would be nice if the Manchukuo Garrison required certain weight of artillery and armour.

It is a devious circle of workarounds.
Yup!



_____________________________


(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 177
RE: Lowpe (Japan) vs Wargamr (Allies) - 9/4/2018 6:04:49 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 8674
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe


quote:

ORIGINAL: MrKane



I do not like it anymore ;). SL is working always for stronger side in my opinion. It using men number as limitation and does not take in count real value(fire power value) of squad. Basically on beginning it allows bring more fire power in hex for Japanese side and later on it allows to do the same trick for allied player.


Certainly it benefits the side that can stuff in non-manpower based firepower like art and arm.

But I am not sure super stacks and no stacking limits are better. They both require different approaches. I don't think there is a "right" answer in selecting one over the other.




"Super stacks" can be outmaneuvered. I encourage everyone to get better at their hex and hexside management.

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 178
RE: Lowpe (Japan) vs Wargamr (Allies) - 9/4/2018 6:39:49 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 16836
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs


Really, there are only two hexes around Chungking that are defensible, the two w-r hexes to the south. And I agree they are key to defending Chungking or at least prolonging the defense.
Except for a breakthrough from the east near Sian.




Especially important against a Sian based schwerpunkt.

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 179
RE: Lowpe (Japan) vs Wargamr (Allies) - 9/4/2018 7:03:04 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 16836
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
Nagato, stricken by two destroyer torpedoes, makes port and will be tied up in repairs for a long time.

The Tabby counter invasion is close, perhaps 1-2 weeks away. I have never attempted such a large counter landing before, but they defenders are being pummeled by warships daily. Still it is an atoll landing and they can be quite devastating.

In the Aleutians, forces are still arriving and I suspect we are a month away from landings on Adak, but perhaps only two weeks till we land on Attu.

First attacks on Bataan in a day or two, and once it falls the troops will be released for Darwin and Port Moresby or elsewhere. Perth looks attractive. Or perhaps nowhere.


(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 180
Page:   <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: Lowpe (Japan) vs Wargamr (Allies) Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   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

0.170