Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

JFB question: Failure to capture Palembang in '42

 
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 >> JFB question: Failure to capture Palembang in '42 Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
JFB question: Failure to capture Palembang in '42 - 11/6/2011 2:05:27 AM   
Rusty1961

 

Posts: 1045
Joined: 2/4/2010
Status: offline
Okay, I don't think my Japanese opponent can take Palembang from me until early '43.

He has launched two attacks against my "festung" and has about 1100AV to my-get this- 21,000 defensive AV (everyone has Palembang as their target and the x3 defense). His first attack cost him 11,000 KIA to my 1,000 and his next deliberate attack a week or so later cost him 5,000 to my 1,000. Of course, supplies aren't an issue for me.

Thus, given his push into Burma (he still hasn't taken Rangoon), I don't see him taking Palembang till he secures Burma.

My question is this: What impact on his economy and movement of units will he be subjected to given his failure to secure this vital piece of real estate?

He isn't doing any moving in China. We fought, bled, and withdrew to our respective lines. No change really since the beginning of the war.

And how can I take advantage of his postponing of his attack on Palembang with his new push in Burma.

Take care!

Rusty
Post #: 1
RE: JFB question: Failure to capture Palembang in '42 - 11/6/2011 3:03:38 AM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 25264
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

Okay, I don't think my Japanese opponent can take Palembang from me until early '43.

He has launched two attacks against my "festung" and has about 1100AV to my-get this- 21,000 defensive AV (everyone has Palembang as their target and the x3 defense). His first attack cost him 11,000 KIA to my 1,000 and his next deliberate attack a week or so later cost him 5,000 to my 1,000. Of course, supplies aren't an issue for me.

Thus, given his push into Burma (he still hasn't taken Rangoon), I don't see him taking Palembang till he secures Burma.

My question is this: What impact on his economy and movement of units will he be subjected to given his failure to secure this vital piece of real estate?

He isn't doing any moving in China. We fought, bled, and withdrew to our respective lines. No change really since the beginning of the war.

And how can I take advantage of his postponing of his attack on Palembang with his new push in Burma.

Take care!

Rusty

Allies with 21,000 AV in early 1942? Where? I didn't think the Allies had that much AV on the entire board.

_____________________________


(in reply to Rusty1961)
Post #: 2
RE: JFB question: Failure to capture Palembang in '42 - 11/6/2011 3:36:14 AM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 25264
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

Okay, I don't think my Japanese opponent can take Palembang from me until early '43.

He has launched two attacks against my "festung" and has about 1100AV to my-get this- 21,000 defensive AV (everyone has Palembang as their target and the x3 defense). His first attack cost him 11,000 KIA to my 1,000 and his next deliberate attack a week or so later cost him 5,000 to my 1,000. Of course, supplies aren't an issue for me.

Thus, given his push into Burma (he still hasn't taken Rangoon), I don't see him taking Palembang till he secures Burma.

My question is this: What impact on his economy and movement of units will he be subjected to given his failure to secure this vital piece of real estate?

He isn't doing any moving in China. We fought, bled, and withdrew to our respective lines. No change really since the beginning of the war.

And how can I take advantage of his postponing of his attack on Palembang with his new push in Burma.

Take care!

Rusty

Allies with 21,000 AV in early 1942? Where? I didn't think the Allies had that much AV on the entire board.

Sorry. Didn't answer the original question: Without securing Palembang, he's done. He simply must have that oil and fuel before 1943.

The Japanese have-maybe-six months petroleum reserves in the home islands that they can fall back on. Balikpapan, Soerbaja and other production sites on Java (I assume he hasn't taken Java yet?), some other Sumatra ports, Magwe, Miri and Tarakan will help him stave off the inevitable somewhat, but he's got to have Palembang to make it past early 1943.

_____________________________


(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 3
RE: JFB question: Failure to capture Palembang in '42 - 11/6/2011 3:49:36 AM   
DivePac88


Posts: 3123
Joined: 10/9/2008
From: Somewhere in the South Pacific.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

He has launched two attacks against my "festung" and has about 1100AV to my-get this- 21,000 defensive AV (everyone has Palembang as their target and the x3 defense).



So you have 7000AV, with 3 forts defending Palembang right? So the other bases on Sumatra and Java must be bare of troops. I would just Isolate you then roll you with a couple of divisions after Malaya is finished.

_____________________________


When you see the Southern Cross, For the first time
You understand now, Why you came this way

(in reply to Rusty1961)
Post #: 4
RE: JFB question: Failure to capture Palembang in '42 - 11/6/2011 5:49:20 AM   
ChezDaJez


Posts: 3436
Joined: 11/12/2004
From: Chehalis, WA
Status: offline
quote:

My question is this: What impact on his economy and movement of units will he be subjected to given his failure to secure this vital piece of real estate?


I am in this situation in my game against Canoerebel. He still holds southern Sumatra including Palembang, Padang, Benkolen and Oosthaven. The denial of the oil will hurt but at the moment Tarakan and Balikpapn coupled with numerous smaller oilfileds are meeting my needs. The part I am worried about is the severe restriction these forces have placed on my movements. I am that I am unable to disband any major surface units for repair in any port within 4e range of Oosthaven. I am severely restricted in what units I can operate near Sumatra. Anything larger than a DD generates unwanted attention. Muchof the SRA is denied to the Japanese player becasue of this.

Unfortunately I will never be able to take it because I simply do not have the land forces to overcome the 40+ land units at Palembang and Oosthave without stripping China, the SRA and Burma to the bone. I estimate that I would need upwards of 6000 AV and probably much more than that to dent the defense. Add to that the 400+ allied fighters and 200+ allied bombers that months of recon indicate are parked at Oosthaven and you end up with a fortress Sumatra that could never have existed in real life.

I have never encountered this tactic before and my hat is off to Canoerebel. It was a totally unexpected move. But it is one that I will develop a house rule for in future games. The house rule may either prohibit its use or simply remove any impediment to the Japanese player blitzing Sumatra before the fall of Singapore. This is not a gamey tactic as I do not consider it an exploit of the game mechanics. I do believe that it is so far removed from any historical possibility as to make it's real life WWII use a fantasy.

Chez

_____________________________

Ret Navy AWCS (1972-1998)
VP-5, Jacksonville, Fl 1973-78
ASW Ops Center, Rota, Spain 1978-81
VP-40, Mt View, Ca 1981-87
Patrol Wing 10, Mt View, CA 1987-90
ASW Ops Center, Adak, Ak 1990-92
NRD Seattle 1992-96
VP-46, Whidbey Isl, Wa 1996-98

(in reply to Rusty1961)
Post #: 5
RE: JFB question: Failure to capture Palembang in '42 - 11/6/2011 6:20:23 AM   
JeffroK


Posts: 6343
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline
New HR

Allied players aren't allowed to.......................................................

You are playing a totally ahistorical scenario aren't you?


_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to ChezDaJez)
Post #: 6
RE: JFB question: Failure to capture Palembang in '42 - 11/6/2011 6:21:20 AM   
Rusty1961

 

Posts: 1045
Joined: 2/4/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

quote:

But it is one that I will develop a house rule for in future games. The house rule may either prohibit its use or simply remove any impediment to the Japanese player blitzing Sumatra before the fall of Singapore. This is not a gamey tactic as I do not consider it an exploit of the game mechanics. I do believe that it is so far removed from any historical possibility as to make it's real life WWII use a fantasy.

Chez


You don't need a HR for this. As the Japanese there are at least to different tactics that can be used to prevent this.



(in reply to ChezDaJez)
Post #: 7
RE: JFB question: Failure to capture Palembang in '42 - 11/6/2011 6:50:05 AM   
Rusty1961

 

Posts: 1045
Joined: 2/4/2010
Status: offline
quote:

Allies with 21,000 AV in early 1942? Where? I didn't think the Allies had that much AV on the entire board.


The 21,000 is after all modifications have been added to the defense. Twice he's attacked and twice I've had an AV of 21,000. He's lost 16,000 men in total, so he's down a division in men.

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 8
RE: JFB question: Failure to capture Palembang in '42 - 11/6/2011 6:59:54 AM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 6247
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

quote:

My question is this: What impact on his economy and movement of units will he be subjected to given his failure to secure this vital piece of real estate?


I am in this situation in my game against Canoerebel. He still holds southern Sumatra including Palembang, Padang, Benkolen and Oosthaven. The denial of the oil will hurt but at the moment Tarakan and Balikpapn coupled with numerous smaller oilfileds are meeting my needs. The part I am worried about is the severe restriction these forces have placed on my movements. I am that I am unable to disband any major surface units for repair in any port within 4e range of Oosthaven. I am severely restricted in what units I can operate near Sumatra. Anything larger than a DD generates unwanted attention. Muchof the SRA is denied to the Japanese player becasue of this.

Unfortunately I will never be able to take it because I simply do not have the land forces to overcome the 40+ land units at Palembang and Oosthave without stripping China, the SRA and Burma to the bone. I estimate that I would need upwards of 6000 AV and probably much more than that to dent the defense. Add to that the 400+ allied fighters and 200+ allied bombers that months of recon indicate are parked at Oosthaven and you end up with a fortress Sumatra that could never have existed in real life.

I have never encountered this tactic before and my hat is off to Canoerebel. It was a totally unexpected move. But it is one that I will develop a house rule for in future games. The house rule may either prohibit its use or simply remove any impediment to the Japanese player blitzing Sumatra before the fall of Singapore. This is not a gamey tactic as I do not consider it an exploit of the game mechanics. I do believe that it is so far removed from any historical possibility as to make it's real life WWII use a fantasy.

Chez


No need for a HR, the situation you face is largely self inflicted.

You were adament that you would not read the relevant AARs. There are AARs which discuss in great detail how to take advantage of an Allied festung Palembang commitment. Even in your own dormant AAR, where you placed strict conditions on the kind of advice you wanted, you were advised in general terms how to avoid the problem from getting out of hand.

Now the situation might be too late too retrieve. Based on your post there remains a basic question which you have not yet addressed. You say to dent the festung Palembang defences you would have to stripping other theatres to the bone. Yet you also lament about the difficulties caused by the festung Palembang. Well the question is really quite simple.

Are these other theatres more important than Sumatra?


If the answer is in the affirmative, then carry on as you currently are. If the answer is in the negative, ie the overall health of the Japanese war effort is more adversely affected by the Allies retaining their current position in Sumatra, then you would be stripping to the bone the other theatres.

Bottom line, none of this requires a HR. As I said, the situation is largely self inflicted. Not a problem if you think there are more important objectives than eliminating the Allied position in Sumatra; not so benign if you believe Palembang is more important than the other objectives but refuse to allocate the resources to deal with Palembang.

Alfred

(in reply to ChezDaJez)
Post #: 9
RE: JFB question: Failure to capture Palembang in '42 - 11/6/2011 7:33:13 AM   
1EyedJacks


Posts: 2244
Joined: 3/12/2006
From: The Eastern Sierras
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

quote:

Allies with 21,000 AV in early 1942? Where? I didn't think the Allies had that much AV on the entire board.


The 21,000 is after all modifications have been added to the defense. Twice he's attacked and twice I've had an AV of 21,000. He's lost 16,000 men in total, so he's down a division in men.


16k of squads destroyed? Plus hvy losses in gunz? Do you have air superiority over Palembang? Just curious...

TTFN,

Mike

_____________________________

TTFN,

Mike

(in reply to Rusty1961)
Post #: 10
RE: JFB question: Failure to capture Palembang in '42 - 11/6/2011 8:41:01 AM   
Puhis


Posts: 1730
Joined: 11/30/2008
From: Finland
Status: offline
I think this shows one of the drawback of the supply system. Palembang can self-support huge number of troops just because there's big refinery.

I guess men there have well oiled digestion...

(in reply to 1EyedJacks)
Post #: 11
RE: JFB question: Failure to capture Palembang in '42 - 11/6/2011 8:20:07 AM   
Rainer79

 

Posts: 603
Joined: 10/31/2008
From: Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Puhis

I think this shows one of the drawback of the supply system. Palembang can self-support huge number of troops just because there's big refinery.

I guess men there have well oiled digestion...



Of course that refinery could be bombed into the ground to leave large numbers of allies starving.

Refinery capacity is not normally a bottle-neck of japanese production.

(in reply to Puhis)
Post #: 12
RE: JFB question: Failure to capture Palembang in '42 - 11/6/2011 8:30:42 AM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline
Fortress Palembang can and has to be avoided early in game. If it is already set up, whether you capture it or not, the troop investement
will hurt you so much that it will cost you months of the Grand Campaign. Its one of the best time buyers for the Allies.

The point where you realize you need massed troop concentration to get rid of Palembang its already too late.

That said, I think that if you do not read the forums all the time and shuffle through every more or less heated discussion, or read every
AAR in vincinity, chances are quite ok that you do not notice that danger in avance.

A HR is not neccesary if you know what can happen. You simply cut it off early and move in aggressively. Then the same strategy that favours the Allies
in case of success can end up in major CW/ABDA losses. Its a gamble for both sides.

On the other hand the ability to support a whole army by Palembang ressources alone is ahistorical, so if its ok to implement a HR against
low level HB attacks, why not against Fortress Palembang? Matter of tast IMHO...

_____________________________


(in reply to Puhis)
Post #: 13
RE: JFB question: Failure to capture Palembang in '42 - 11/6/2011 8:34:29 AM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline
Good point. Although it still might be something equally irritating to the Japanese player as redeploying huge armies to just conquer that
small rotten base.

_____________________________


(in reply to Rainer79)
Post #: 14
RE: JFB question: Failure to capture Palembang in '42 - 11/6/2011 8:54:25 AM   
Chris21wen

 

Posts: 5876
Joined: 1/17/2002
From: Cottesmore, Rutland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

...... or simply remove any impediment to the Japanese player blitzing Sumatra before the fall of Singapore.


Can I ask why the Japanese cannot do this?

(in reply to ChezDaJez)
Post #: 15
RE: JFB question: Failure to capture Palembang in '42 - 11/6/2011 11:08:22 AM   
Andrew Brown


Posts: 4902
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: Hex 82,170
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Puhis

I think this shows one of the drawback of the supply system. Palembang can self-support huge number of troops just because there's big refinery.

I guess men there have well oiled digestion...



Indeed. And an oversight on my part. With hindsight, I would not have had refineries output any supply points - just fuel, and this is my recommendation for any modders out there.

Andrew

(in reply to Puhis)
Post #: 16
RE: JFB question: Failure to capture Palembang in '42 - 11/6/2011 11:17:39 AM   
Erkki


Posts: 1461
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: offline
In the betas from at least p8 and onwards refineries dont generate supply.

_____________________________


(in reply to Andrew Brown)
Post #: 17
RE: JFB question: Failure to capture Palembang in '42 - 11/6/2011 11:20:49 AM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erkki

In the betas from at least p8 and onwards refineries dont generate supply.


There goes Fortress Palembang.

_____________________________


(in reply to Erkki)
Post #: 18
RE: JFB question: Failure to capture Palembang in '42 - 11/6/2011 11:32:57 AM   
koniu


Posts: 2763
Joined: 2/28/2011
From: Konin, Poland, European Union
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron


quote:

ORIGINAL: Erkki

In the betas from at least p8 and onwards refineries dont generate supply.


There goes Fortress Palembang.

quote:

There goes Fortress Palembang.


I am playing q4 now and they still do. I am not remember in what version i have start my PBEM. There is an passibility that no supplies from refineries applies only for new games.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by koniu -- 11/6/2011 11:35:55 AM >

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 19
RE: JFB question: Failure to capture Palembang in '42 - 11/6/2011 11:34:51 AM   
n01487477


Posts: 4774
Joined: 2/21/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Erkki

In the betas from at least p8 and onwards refineries dont generate supply.

This is wrong - they do unless you are playing an economic mod.
[edit]beaten by koniu
[edit2]I think Erkki is thinking about LI being able to be turned off. This is the change. Michael has no need to change this as it can be manipulated in the editor.

< Message edited by n01487477 -- 11/6/2011 11:39:04 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Erkki)
Post #: 20
RE: JFB question: Failure to capture Palembang in '42 - 11/6/2011 11:38:10 AM   
Erkki


Posts: 1461
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: offline
OK... In my p8 Da Babes they definitely dont...

EDIT: Heres Medan with undamaged oil wells and refineries. No land units so nothing happens with supply until I decided to use the supply pull to move some supply towards the northern end of Sumatra where its needed. Meanwhile, fuel is still generated and 2 TFs picked up full loads:






Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Erkki -- 11/6/2011 11:44:06 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to n01487477)
Post #: 21
RE: JFB question: Failure to capture Palembang in '42 - 11/6/2011 11:46:27 AM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 8003
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline
I think in DaBigBabes, refineries ability to create supply has been turned off.

_____________________________

"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von Bülov, 1870-


(in reply to Erkki)
Post #: 22
RE: JFB question: Failure to capture Palembang in '42 - 11/6/2011 12:33:03 PM   
obvert


Posts: 14046
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline
If you have Palembang and a few of the ports nearby it's not that hard to bring in masses of supplies. The troops got there somehow afterall. Java is usually the last area captured by the Japanese, so that leaves lots of sealanes open unless teh KB camps outside of Oosthaven for a month. Yes Palembang makes some supply, but probably not enough for the kind of fortress that could withstand an attack with massed air attacks.

Refineries should make supplies in game terms if planes are flown based on supply. Where alse would aviation fuel come from?

It seems that if the Allies in the war had thought it important enought to bring in a few divisions to secure Palembang, they might have also been able to bring in a few ship loads of canned goods and bullets.

(in reply to Sardaukar)
Post #: 23
RE: JFB question: Failure to capture Palembang in '42 - 11/6/2011 1:17:11 PM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 8003
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

If you have Palembang and a few of the ports nearby it's not that hard to bring in masses of supplies. The troops got there somehow afterall. Java is usually the last area captured by the Japanese, so that leaves lots of sealanes open unless teh KB camps outside of Oosthaven for a month. Yes Palembang makes some supply, but probably not enough for the kind of fortress that could withstand an attack with massed air attacks.

Refineries should make supplies in game terms if planes are flown based on supply. Where alse would aviation fuel come from?

It seems that if the Allies in the war had thought it important enought to bring in a few divisions to secure Palembang, they might have also been able to bring in a few ship loads of canned goods and bullets.


That's why Japanese player might consider using part of his CV forces in DEI to prevent both massive reinforcement and redeployment/evacuation. Could for example split of 2 CVs from Kido Butai and put them together with CVLs. That sort of "mini-KB" is usually enough to interdict sea lanes without actually even being there all the time. Mere threat of having divisions worth of troops sunk by it is usually enough to prevent Fortress strategies. And it'd still leave 4 CVs available to counter US carriers in Pacific.


_____________________________

"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von Bülov, 1870-


(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 24
RE: JFB question: Failure to capture Palembang in '42 - 11/6/2011 1:47:19 PM   
KenchiSulla


Posts: 2854
Joined: 10/22/2008
From: the Netherlands
Status: offline
If I remember correctly (has been 18 months ago since I captured Sumatra) I developed betty bases as quickly as possible as far forward as possible to block the DEI. You can also use BB and CA TFs to enforce a blockade. Allied are not capable of effective ship attack by LBA air througout the most of 1942...

_____________________________

AKA Cannonfodder

"It happened, therefore it can happen again: this is the core of what we have to say. It can happen, and it can happen everywhere.”
¯ Primo Levi, writer, holocaust survivor

(in reply to Sardaukar)
Post #: 25
RE: JFB question: Failure to capture Palembang in '42 - 11/6/2011 2:00:22 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 25264
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

quote:

My question is this: What impact on his economy and movement of units will he be subjected to given his failure to secure this vital piece of real estate?


I am in this situation in my game against Canoerebel. He still holds southern Sumatra including Palembang, Padang, Benkolen and Oosthaven. The denial of the oil will hurt but at the moment Tarakan and Balikpapn coupled with numerous smaller oilfileds are meeting my needs. The part I am worried about is the severe restriction these forces have placed on my movements. I am that I am unable to disband any major surface units for repair in any port within 4e range of Oosthaven. I am severely restricted in what units I can operate near Sumatra. Anything larger than a DD generates unwanted attention. Muchof the SRA is denied to the Japanese player becasue of this.

Unfortunately I will never be able to take it because I simply do not have the land forces to overcome the 40+ land units at Palembang and Oosthave without stripping China, the SRA and Burma to the bone. I estimate that I would need upwards of 6000 AV and probably much more than that to dent the defense. Add to that the 400+ allied fighters and 200+ allied bombers that months of recon indicate are parked at Oosthaven and you end up with a fortress Sumatra that could never have existed in real life.

I have never encountered this tactic before and my hat is off to Canoerebel. It was a totally unexpected move. But it is one that I will develop a house rule for in future games. The house rule may either prohibit its use or simply remove any impediment to the Japanese player blitzing Sumatra before the fall of Singapore. This is not a gamey tactic as I do not consider it an exploit of the game mechanics. I do believe that it is so far removed from any historical possibility as to make it's real life WWII use a fantasy.

Chez

Chez,

I wanted to follow your AAR vs. Canoerebel. Indeed, I restricted myself from reading his AAR in an effort to provide your Imperial command with any needed advice. Still haven't read it past the first page or so. I won't allow myself to do so now, either.

How did this happen-fortress Palembang?

My initial response would be that this would be an ideal opportunity to sink a multitude of laden Allied transports, destroy whole armies and cut off this attempt. Through your submarines, forward positioned netties and surface forces, were you not able to detect this build up? What was KB doing if not liquidating enemy surface forces around Sumatra? Doesn't scenario 2 allow you greater access to infantry, support vessels and earlier airframe development?

If he's got 400 fighters and 200 bombers there, the cupboard must surely be bare elsewhere, no? Has his (over)commitment here impacted your capture and development of bases further afield?

Why do you think that there needs to be a HR restricting Sumatra's invasion until the end of the Singapore campaign? If / when Singapore is cut off and unable to project a threat to the region, then the sky is the limit for Japanese activity in the area. IMO, this is regardless if the paperwork has been signed for the surrender or not.

_____________________________


(in reply to ChezDaJez)
Post #: 26
RE: JFB question: Failure to capture Palembang in '42 - 11/6/2011 2:05:07 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 25264
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown


quote:

ORIGINAL: Puhis

I think this shows one of the drawback of the supply system. Palembang can self-support huge number of troops just because there's big refinery.

I guess men there have well oiled digestion...



Indeed. And an oversight on my part. With hindsight, I would not have had refineries output any supply points - just fuel, and this is my recommendation for any modders out there.

Andrew

Would there be a recommended change to the fuel/supply numbers produced by oil refining in that case? In other words, do you also suggest that the fuel number goes up by one (10:0 fuel:supply produced) or that it stays at current value of 9 (thereby making a 9:0 ratio)?

_____________________________


(in reply to Andrew Brown)
Post #: 27
RE: JFB question: Failure to capture Palembang in '42 - 11/6/2011 2:19:35 PM   
Erkki


Posts: 1461
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: offline
I simply used Kuching invasion force strengthened by some additional LCUs and AAA and aviation support units from Saigon and Hainan, supported by MKB. MKB missed all USN warships escaping PI but Palembang was Japanese and protected by fighters and a good number of heavy AAA guns by December 18th(IIRC). I could have invaded it 2 or 3 days earlier but I did some mistakes with the TF orders so I had to load one of the troop TFs twice, plus one TF started to retire from the staging base back towards Hainan.

edit: looks like it was December 22nd, close enough.

< Message edited by Erkki -- 11/6/2011 2:21:16 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 28
RE: JFB question: Failure to capture Palembang in '42 - 11/6/2011 2:21:37 PM   
KenchiSulla


Posts: 2854
Joined: 10/22/2008
From: the Netherlands
Status: offline
Singkawang is what I used (Size 6 airfield), and it is great for that purpose. You don't even need to capture Singapore before you can snatch it. Just count the hexes. (escorted) Torpedo range for Betties is 14.. No way allies are going to be able to reinforce Palembang very heavily...

And this is in scenario 1, would be even easier in scenario 2..




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Cannonfodder -- 11/6/2011 2:24:27 PM >


_____________________________

AKA Cannonfodder

"It happened, therefore it can happen again: this is the core of what we have to say. It can happen, and it can happen everywhere.”
¯ Primo Levi, writer, holocaust survivor

(in reply to Rusty1961)
Post #: 29
RE: JFB question: Failure to capture Palembang in '42 - 11/6/2011 2:35:25 PM   
KenchiSulla


Posts: 2854
Joined: 10/22/2008
From: the Netherlands
Status: offline
Back on topic.. Without Palembang it will be very hard to fuel your industry and your fleet. There will be absolutely 0 room to build a reserve ( I try to maintain about 6 months worth of reserve, guestimated by having enough fuel to run my slowed down industry for a year)..

This is my reserve in july 1943




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Cannonfodder -- 11/6/2011 2:38:32 PM >


_____________________________

AKA Cannonfodder

"It happened, therefore it can happen again: this is the core of what we have to say. It can happen, and it can happen everywhere.”
¯ Primo Levi, writer, holocaust survivor

(in reply to KenchiSulla)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> JFB question: Failure to capture Palembang in '42 Page: [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

0.266