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: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A)

 
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: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) Page: <<   < prev  124 125 [126] 127 128   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 8/20/2018 6:54:23 PM   
Zorch

 

Posts: 6477
Joined: 3/7/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rustysi

quote:

ORIGINAL: ericv


quote:

ORIGINAL: rustysi
...

Yeah, I checked, but that base is still pretty exposed to a navel strike if he gets wind that you've CV's based at that locale. Makes me nervous and they're not my CV's.

....



Isn't that when you get into a tickle contest with your kids?


Oops. OK, OK. I fixed it.

P. S. The tickle contests are now with the grand-kids.


Which do you contemplate more, your navel or naval?

(in reply to rustysi)
Post #: 3751
RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 8/24/2018 5:13:07 PM   
Mike Solli


Posts: 15568
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rustysi

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli


quote:

ORIGINAL: rustysi

quote:

Zuikaku safely made Ulithi today.


How far is that port from Manus? At level 6 if he's in range and gets eyes on Ulithi and strikes the port kiss those carriers good-bye.


Ulithi is out of range fortunately. No recon there at all.


Yeah, I checked, but that base is still pretty exposed to a naval strike if he gets wind that you've CV's based at that locale. Makes me nervous and they're not my CV's.

Don't know what his intel tells him, but even if he notices AR's and Navel HQ's heading to the place it could be a clue. It could just be me though, losing carriers on the Japanese side makes me cringe.



I just sent back the 1 Nov turn. No interest at all in Ulithi. One day had a 1/1 DL but nothing at all since, including enemy subs.

_____________________________


Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to rustysi)
Post #: 3752
RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 8/24/2018 5:14:39 PM   
Mike Solli


Posts: 15568
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rustysi

quote:

Apparently, Ted wanted to whittle down my fighters defending Truk and sent 2 squadrons of P-38G and 1 squadron of P-38H to sweep. They went in separately. It didn't go quite as expected:

1st attack:
24 P-38G vs. 176 Japanese fighters (George 2, Nick, Tojo, Frank and Tony)

9 Lightnings went home.

2nd attack:
21 P-38H (first time I've seen them) vs. 165 Japanese fighters
10 Lightnings went home.

3rd attack:
25 P-38G vs. 165 Japanese fighters
11 Lightnings went home. One Tojo was shot down and the pilot was WIA.

Overall, 40 of 70 Lightnings were shot down with another 5 op losses. My one Tojo was shot down with 3 more Tojos and a Nick as op losses. I can take these kinds of battles. All this battle did was to give my pilots some nice experience.

I think he may give up on Truk after this fiasco.


Yeah, Truk requires a different approach IMHO. IRL the Allies had Truk in a different position than in your game. More needs to be done to isolate it than an attack from Manus. It seems to me that Manus would just better serve as flank protection for his advance up NG. Once his carriers are fully back in action it seems he would be best served by moving through the Gilbert's and Marshall's once more. Thereby putting more pressure on your resources. But his failed efforts are your gains. I would've thought he realized this when he saw the number of A/C that intercepted his HB's.


More action coming at Truk. I'll get to it in turn....

_____________________________


Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to rustysi)
Post #: 3753
RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 8/24/2018 5:32:36 PM   
Mike Solli


Posts: 15568
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline
28 Oct 43

Sub War

The I-4 put a torpedo into an xAK a few hexes north of Vava'u and sank her later in the day. This area is becoming a hot bed of activity. I keep 3-4 subs here. I may increase that number.

5 Fleet
4 Fleet


Nothing to report.

SE Fleet

Allied paratroopers landed at Wewak taking the base from the partial SNLF company I had flown today. He can't (or won't) risk his ships to invade so he's moving up the coast with paratroopers. That's the only thing I can't counter.

Ted rested most of his 2E bombers today. A couple dozen hit Talasea's airfield, probably for a bit of training.

I think he moved all of his 4E bombers out of this AO to the SRA.

SRA

Nells bombed Merauke's airfield damaging 4 planes (not many left there anymore) and putting a few more holes in the runway.

MKB2 hit some ships at Darwin with a small force of 6 Vals, 6 Judies and 7 Jills (1 lost to flak) escorted by 11 Zeros. Surprisingly, there were no enemy fighters. They sank 2 xAKLs and damaged LSI(L) Empire Star (loaded with troops), DD Fletcher an xAK and another xAKL. Later I heard sinking sounds, probably the xAKL.

I decided to keep the carriers in the area in case something else turned up.

Burma

I swept Akyab shooting down 4 Hurricanes in exchange for a Tojo. He has only a handful of fighters at Akyab, Cox's Bazaar and the next base north (can't think of it right now - fried from a busy week at work).

China

My bombers destroyed a dozen squads.

Other Stuff

Nothing to report.

_____________________________


Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to Mike Solli)
Post #: 3754
RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 8/24/2018 6:19:44 PM   
Mike Solli


Posts: 15568
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline
29 Oct 43

Sub War

It was completely one sided today.

First, the Tomozuru took a torpedo and went down.

And second, the RO-44 was caught by ASW forces off Wewak and hit once. She's limping back to port. There's been a steady stream of subs getting beat up in this area.

5 Fleet
4 Fleet


Nothing to report.

SE Fleet

Talasea was visited by 18x 2E bombers. Other than that, it was pretty quiet here today.

SRA

I sent 4 CA and 2 DD to bombard Merauke to disrupt the 4E bombers stationed there. They caught and sank an xAKL then did a nice job on the airfield:

Coronado - 1 dest, 3 damaged
B24D1 - 0 dest, 17 damaged
5FA - 0/4
Kittyhawk IV - 1/2
B24J - 0/2

The airfield is about 50% damaged. I'm moving a couple BBs to finish the base off. They were supposed to be 7 hexes away so they could go in tomorrow, but the commander is taking his good sweet time getting to the jump off point. They "should" reach that point tomorrow.

About 2 dozen 4E bombers hit Boela's oil fields today (from Darwin). The oil remains at 7(18) and will not be repaired. I'll squeeze whatever oil I can get out of this field as long as possible.

MKB2 was 1 hex too close to Darwin. Yeah, I screwed up. This TF has only 30 Zeros also. Yep, you know what's coming....

A land based attack of 21 Wildcats escorting 25 Dauntlesses found them. My Zeros gave a decent account of themselves shooting down 13 Wildcats and 11 Dauntlesses while losing a single Zero, but it wasn't enough. A single Dauntless put a 1000 lb bomb into Taiyo. I figured the little CVE was finished but was surprised to see her damage at only 19-5-2-2. She could still launch planes! I shipped her Vals over to Chuyo (sitting at Ambon without any planes) and detached Taiyo and 2 DDs to go to Soerabaja for repairs. Chuyo will merge with MKB2 and replace Taiyo. I pulled MKB2 back toward Ambon but still in a position to guard against a potential invasion of the SRA.

I also moved the 2 BB bombardment force to a position 7 hexes NE of Darwin, to possibly bombard that base. There are about 50x 4E bombers showing up there. Definitely getting interesting here.

Burma

Nothing to report.

China

Bombers destroyed 4 squads today.

Another deliberate assault on Chungking. I attacked with 11 divisions. The other 11 divisions are still resting.

Ground combat at Chungking (76,45)

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 140176 troops, 1610 guns, 1455 vehicles, Assault Value = 4953

Defending force 364120 troops, 767 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 12297

Japanese engineers reduce fortifications to 2

Japanese adjusted assault: 1309

Allied adjusted defense: 14033

Japanese assault odds: 1 to 10 (fort level 2)

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

Japanese ground losses:
18215 casualties reported
Squads: 27 destroyed, 995 disabled
Non Combat: 5 destroyed, 126 disabled
Engineers: 4 destroyed, 219 disabled
Guns lost 161 (5 destroyed, 156 disabled)

Allied ground losses:
16093 casualties reported
Squads: 248 destroyed, 800 disabled
Non Combat: 117 destroyed, 636 disabled
Engineers: 3 destroyed, 11 disabled
Guns lost 82 (29 destroyed, 53 disabled)
Units destroyed 6

Nice attack. Forts are down to level 2 so things should (hopefully) start accelerating now. The destroyed units included an infantry brigade, 3 base forces and 2 artillery regiments. The divisions that participated in this attack are moving back to the R&R base (the one 2 hexes to the west of Chungking). 10 of the 11 other divisions are moving into Chungking. One still has too many disabled infantry squads to get a participation ribbon.

Other Stuff

Reinforcement: E Kanju (Etorofu class) - Convoy escort

The D4Y4 Judy R&D advanced to 1/45 (will become operational 2/44).
The B7A2 Grace R&D completed a second factory. The other two are currently at 25(5) and 21(9).

_____________________________


Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to Mike Solli)
Post #: 3755
RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 8/24/2018 6:56:46 PM   
rustysi


Posts: 5952
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline
quote:

I just sent back the 1 Nov turn. No interest at all in Ulithi. One day had a 1/1 DL but nothing at all since, including enemy subs.


Well that's good, but it still makes me nervous. I'll feel better when you get them safely out of the place. Now does that matter, no.

_____________________________

It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume

In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche

Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb

(in reply to Mike Solli)
Post #: 3756
RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 8/24/2018 7:10:49 PM   
rustysi


Posts: 5952
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline
quote:

MKB2 was 1 hex too close to Darwin. Yeah, I screwed up. This TF has only 30 Zeros also. Yep, you know what's coming....


Not easy to keep up with every single little detail. Not too bad though, I've seen those little Japanese CVE's go with one 500 lb hit. Sometimes its better to be lucky than good.

_____________________________

It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume

In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche

Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb

(in reply to rustysi)
Post #: 3757
RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 8/24/2018 7:45:05 PM   
Mike Solli


Posts: 15568
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline
30 Oct 43

Sub War

There were some juicy APAs spotted at Kavieng that I'd been watching for a few days. I couldn't resist it any longer and sent the RO-113 in on a suicide mission to torpedo one. I'd done these suicide missions before and they usually went pretty well. What could go wrong? Well, she ran into a mine and went down. I guess they really do call them suicide missions for a reason.

Today, the RO-40 was hit by a depth charge off Wewak and went limping home. This place is really getting rough for my subs. I don't have anything else that can counter the Allies, and the subs are just targets now.

5 Fleet
4 Fleet


Nothing to report.

SE Fleet

The Allied 2E bombers came back in force today. 125 sorties hit Aitape's troops, the next base with Allied cross hairs on it.

SRA

I screwed up here big time. I have some naval search covering the southern SRA toward Merauke and Darwin. I had a Glen sub sitting off Horn Island looking for anything that came in that way. I have a couple of RO subs off Perth that usually do well on the odd occasion they run into something, but I wanted a Glen sub down there. The SRA has only 2 of them, the one off Horn Island and one looking for convoys off India. I need at least 3 of them and decided the next 2 reinforcements will head down there. Perth was heating up so I (stupidly) moved the one off Horn Island to Perth a few days ago. Guess what came through that straight after I did that? A couple US fleet carriers.

I'm pretty sure it was 2 CVs because of the attack force. They caught MKB2 looking the other way (what do you want for second stringers). The attack force was 36 SBD-5s, 31 Helldivers and 36 Avengers (carrying bombs(!), which saved me), all escorted by 36 Hellcats. I suspect there were 36 Hellcats on CAP and a few of the Helldivers were scouting.

Anyway, my 30 Zeros didn't put up much of a fight shooting down 4 Hellcats, 3 Dauntlesses and a couple Avengers. That left almost 100 bombers against my little carriers. Here's the damage:

CVE Unyu - 4 bombs put her under with 27 Judies.
CVE Chuyo - 2 bombs, 42-32(9)-5-2
CVL Chitose - 3 bombs, 40-23(16)-10(3)-4
CVL Chiyoda - 2 bombs, 22-16(7)-3(1)-0
CL Jintsu - 1 bomb, 23-8(1)-5(1)-0

I split up all the carriers into separate groups and set the 2 CVLs to full speed to get out of Dodge. Chuyo was kept at mission speed because her speed was 4/3. I didn't want to risk full speed for 1 hex. It turned out Ted took his victory and fled. I expected him to stick around to finish off the cripples. Unless they run over a sub (unlikely), they'll all make Soerabaja around 2-3 November. (As of 1 Nov, the two CVLs are 1 day out and Chuyo is 2 days out. They're all repairing some damage too.)

Burma

The Tojos shot down 9 Hurricanes for no loss over Akyab. I'm not sure why Ted even keeps his fighters in range of my fighters. Ledo, yeah, I get it, but not along the coast.

China

4 squads lost to bombing. *yawn*

Other Stuff

Reinforcements:

E Mikura, first of the Mikura class. They'll be ASW TFs.
MTB G-151, I like these guys. We start the war with 6 of them. I put 4 at Pt. Blair, where they are getting really, really, really good at doing figure 8s. The other 2 went to Adak. They actually participated in combat against Allied bombardment fleets a couple times. One died quickly, but the other is still at Adak and actually torpedoed a BB! Anyway, I've been looking forward to getting oodles of them. And now I got the first one!

So, my carrier fleet is kind of rough but still can pack a punch. Here's the healthy bunch:

CV Kaga - 81 aircraft
CV Shokaku - 72
CV Unryu - 63
CV Amagi - 63
CV Katsuragi - 63
CV Hiyo - 54
CVL Shoho - 30
CVL Ryuho - 33
CVL Ryujo - 48
CVL Nisshin - 30
CVL Mizuho - 30
CVE Hosho - 18

That's 585 capacity. They're all full with planes except Ryuho, who gets her planes in 2 days. Finally! I actually have spare carrier air units now. I'm going to figure out what to do with MKB2 when they're repaired. 30 Zeros ain't nearly enough, but if there are a lot of fighters, then there aren't any bombers. But, they were never expected to go toe to tow with US CVs and survive.

The damaged ones (as of 1 Nov)
Akagi, 29-7(7)-8-0, 21 days to temp repairs completed, Truk
Soryu, 14-28(28)-0-0, 18 days to temp repairs completed, Ulithi
Zuikaku, 28-51(51)-21(19)-0, 19 days to temp repairs completed, Ulithi
Chuyo, 42-31(9)-5-0
Chitose, 40-23(16)-10(3)-0
Chiyoda, 25-15(7)-5(2)-0
Taiyo, 19-0-2-0

_____________________________


Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to Mike Solli)
Post #: 3758
RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 8/24/2018 7:46:06 PM   
Mike Solli


Posts: 15568
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rustysi

quote:

MKB2 was 1 hex too close to Darwin. Yeah, I screwed up. This TF has only 30 Zeros also. Yep, you know what's coming....


Not easy to keep up with every single little detail. Not too bad though, I've seen those little Japanese CVE's go with one 500 lb hit. Sometimes its better to be lucky than good.


I've had more than my fair share of luck with those little paper carriers. Read the 30 Oct entry.

_____________________________


Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to rustysi)
Post #: 3759
RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 8/24/2018 7:49:43 PM   
Mike Solli


Posts: 15568
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rustysi

quote:

I just sent back the 1 Nov turn. No interest at all in Ulithi. One day had a 1/1 DL but nothing at all since, including enemy subs.


Well that's good, but it still makes me nervous. I'll feel better when you get them safely out of the place. Now does that matter, no.


I'm actually more worried about Akagi, sitting in 4E bomber range at Truk. I really want to get her out of there.

_____________________________


Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to rustysi)
Post #: 3760
RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 8/24/2018 8:43:43 PM   
marc420

 

Posts: 224
Joined: 9/23/2002
From: Terrapin Station
Status: offline
OMG! There's no Next Button.

There are people here of an age to know what commercial I'm riffing off of when I say ....

I Can't Believe I Read the WHOLE Thing!

Let me say Thank you! Its been most enjoyable, and I can't wait to see where the story goes from here. Mike has a nice way of writing an AAR, and the various discussions have been most interesting.

I've been playing these games since the DOS days, but only intermittently. I get into it for awhile, then my attention goes to other places, then I come back. I was coming back to start a GC (Scn 2 finally chosen as Allies), and I thought, hey, now would be a good time to read an AAR to get back into this. Someone on the forums had said good things about Mike, so I saw this one and 126 pages later ...

I Can't Believe I Read the WHOLE Thing!

Thanks again. :)

_____________________________

Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism. ~George Washington

(in reply to Mike Solli)
Post #: 3761
RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 8/24/2018 9:04:10 PM   
marc420

 

Posts: 224
Joined: 9/23/2002
From: Terrapin Station
Status: offline
Since I'm just getting back into this game, I've found the rule of thumb that says to get all but Major damage fixed before heading off to the shipyards. But how important is it to wait for that? In my AI game as Allies, I just checked the Prince of Wales. I got lucky and Force Z had only a bit of damage from Dec. 7th. They headed to Singapore, stayed in readiness for a couple of days, then I got nervous and wanted them save and out of air attack range so they've gone through the Sumatra-Java gap and are now on the way to Columbo. I just checked in Tracker, and she was 12-20(10)-10(1) after the attack, 10-10(10)-10(1) when she left after 2 days in Singapore, and now she's 11-10(10)-10(1) 8 days after leaving. Thus, the Sys damage has gotten one better while under-sail, and no extra float damage or engine damage from sailing with current damage.

OK, I know shes a British BB with British damage control and that is a different thing from a Japanese carrier with Japanese damage control, but I'm wondering how much risk there is in now having the carriers retire before they get repaired to the point of only having Major damage? I feel like somewhere along the way I heard that they can pick up some extra float damage, but if the ship is in halfway decent shape, is there a risk of completely losing her?

< Message edited by marc420 -- 8/24/2018 9:06:25 PM >


_____________________________

Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism. ~George Washington

(in reply to marc420)
Post #: 3762
RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 8/24/2018 9:17:06 PM   
Mike Solli


Posts: 15568
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline
Hi Marc. First of all, thank you for the kind words. I can't believe you read through the entire 126 pages. That's crazy. How long did it take you to read?

If you want to read a truly amazing AAR, read the old WitP Small Ship, Big War - The voyages of the Hibiki here:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1363103

Cuttlefish has an ability few here can come close to.

About the ship damage. I don't trust Japanese damage control at all. It can turn south on you in a heartbeat, usually when you're far from a port. That's why Soryu and Zuikaku are sitting in Ulithi port right now. I'm tempted at times to move Soryu with 14 sys damage, but I refuse to move Zuikaku (my favorite Japanese ship, by the way) with 28 sys damage unless the US carriers are heading north. They're still sitting at Manus. Maybe they got an intel whiff of my 4 healthy CVs around Babeldaop? Not sure, but Ted is known to shy away from my carriers unless he feels he has overwhelming strength. At any rate, I'm hoping those two carriers and Akagi can repair their damage leaving only major damage before moving them, all in about 3 weeks. We'll see.

_____________________________


Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to marc420)
Post #: 3763
RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 8/25/2018 7:51:21 PM   
rustysi


Posts: 5952
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline
quote:

The Tojos shot down 9 Hurricanes for no loss over Akyab. I'm not sure why Ted even keeps his fighters in range of my fighters. Ledo, yeah, I get it, but not along the coast.


I'm guessing to keep you away from Ledo.

_____________________________

It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume

In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche

Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb

(in reply to Mike Solli)
Post #: 3764
RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 8/25/2018 7:55:44 PM   
rustysi


Posts: 5952
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline
quote:

MTB G-151, I like these guys.
quote:

Anyway, I've been looking forward to getting oodles of them. And now I got the first one!


Japan gets oodles of nothing (except maybe headaches from the Allies), and that includes these. You'll get a number of them, but not oodles. Besides they come in a no more than a few a month over many months. Maybe even less than that, I'm not quite sure as I don't have access to the game right now.

_____________________________

It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume

In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche

Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb

(in reply to rustysi)
Post #: 3765
RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 8/27/2018 10:34:53 AM   
Mike Solli


Posts: 15568
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rustysi

quote:

The Tojos shot down 9 Hurricanes for no loss over Akyab. I'm not sure why Ted even keeps his fighters in range of my fighters. Ledo, yeah, I get it, but not along the coast.


I'm guessing to keep you away from Ledo.


Very well could be. I have ~8-9 fighter sentai here so that won't work. What usually keeps me away from Ledo is a lack of supply at the bases in the NE. A chronic problem until the monsoon ends. I just checked my notes and monsoon ended on 15 October. Huh. I have a little over 20k supply at Rangoon and another 22k a couple days out. Hopefully that'll solve the supply problem up there.

_____________________________


Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to rustysi)
Post #: 3766
RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 8/27/2018 10:35:43 AM   
Mike Solli


Posts: 15568
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rustysi

quote:

MTB G-151, I like these guys.
quote:

Anyway, I've been looking forward to getting oodles of them. And now I got the first one!


Japan gets oodles of nothing (except maybe headaches from the Allies), and that includes these. You'll get a number of them, but not oodles. Besides they come in a no more than a few a month over many months. Maybe even less than that, I'm not quite sure as I don't have access to the game right now.


It's all relative. "Oodles" from the Japanese perspective.

_____________________________


Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to rustysi)
Post #: 3767
RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 8/27/2018 10:52:01 AM   
ny59giants_MatrixForum


Posts: 9706
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline
Supply Movement per Michael M.
Each of the four commodities (supply, fuel, oil, resource) are calculated separately.
The sequence is :
For each base, determine the excess amount for each of the four commodities.
Then check all bases to see if the base needs more of the commody and is within supply range of the sending base.
If so, give the base the needed amount (or some of it depending on spoilage and distance from sending base if applicable) and deduct that amount from the sending base's excess.
Repeat until all bases checked or run out of excess commodities.
A final sweep is then made of the bases to see if any excess commodity can be sent to a local higher-value coastal port.

Eastern USA never demands commodities, but will try to push it out to any base that has a need within its supply range.

Note that the general supply range varies from short (<89 3 out of 7 days), medium (<49 2 out of 7 days) and long (10 once every 7 days, 1-5 randomly once every 7 days). The number is the number that shows with the hotkey '5' where sending base starts with 100 supply points and it goes down depending on terrain and rail/road.

Originally the excess push to coastal ports was based on the port having a hard maximum limit. That was changed to a max amount based on the size of the port, taking the original hard max as the value for a port 10, and making each port now a % of that.

With the US supply, it doesn't really matter if the excess sits in SF/LA/Seattle or Eastern. Eastern will always push the excess to the ports before it begins to makes a difference. The change of location of the excess I think comes down to fixing up the commodity flow overall and setting practical limits to how much is moved and stored.

These changes plus the additional temporary requirements when a TF is loading in a port, makes the commodity flow more dynamic than previously, IMHO. (Only lots of playtime will see if I have managed to pull this off.)

This change also tends to stop the flow-on affect where large amount starts in one place and keeps bouncing from base to base dependent on the base's number in the table.

The m4 change keeps tally of how much each base is getting and adds it back at the end of the supply phase, plus each base's excess is only calculated once at the start of each stage so it does not see any large amounts being given to the base until the end of the phase - thus no passing it on like moving 32k supply from Rangoon to eastern China. It could happen but not in one turn like now.


Per witpqs:
Each receiving base that is in range of a base that has excess supplies and needs supplies will get them.

1st. every base that needs 1x requirement gets 1x. So this is one big loop through all bases so as to get maximum coverage and that every base gets at least 1x previously this was 3x only. Sending base will not send any supplies that would dip into its own 3x requirement and if add supply is being used then sending base guards up to 4x.

2nd every base that can get 3x or some portion there of will get it. So this is another big loop to see if we can get bases up to at least 3x requirement. Sending base will not send any supplies that would dip into its own 3x requirement.

3rd. every base that is eligible for excess normally this is big major bases or bases with the highest spoilage limit previously there was no check before sending supplies to small bases. Sending base will not send any supplies that would dip into its own 3x requirement.

4th. One final big loop through all bases to resupply LCUs and whatever base the LCU is at is the only base it can draw supplies from previously there was no restriction. If LCU is in non-base hex or enemy then no restriction. Sending base will guard up to 20 supply points meaning if a unit can be supplied and base has it then unit gets it, previously base had to have above 3x.

In each big loop except for the 4th the amount that can be sent is modified by Prim HQ of base (just like witp) and if present adds an extra 25k to requirement and we check for max draw and we check spoilage limit at base receiving base.

How far a base can receive supplies is determined by tracing a supply cost path starting value used is 100 just like witp. There are three different ranges used throughout each week 89 which is very short range and happens 4 times a week, 49 which is medium range and happens twice a week and 10 which is long range which happens once per week. These values are the minimum required trace value from sending base to receiving base and the trace value must be equal to or greater than this to receive supplies so you may notice that some bases only get supplies 3 times or in some cases once per week.

Using the add supply button means first the base will try and get 1x requirement then during the 3x loop it will try and get 3x whatever is in that field so a base has 1000 normal requirement and I press the add supply to 1000 making new requirement of 2000 thus 1x + 3x = 2000 + 6,000 = 8,000 that the base will try and get.


Short range is trace value of 89 - 100 and is used 4 times per week.
Medium range is trace value 49 - 100 and is used 2 times per week.
Long range is trace value 10 - 100 and is used 1 time per week.


(in reply to Mike Solli)
Post #: 3768
RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 8/27/2018 10:53:17 AM   
ny59giants_MatrixForum


Posts: 9706
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline
Supply in AE

By BigJ62
Hiroshima/Kure is a port 9 and 10 af and is a major base with no spoilage limits. So it only has a requirement of 100 and what units are actually at the base? You say you increased the add supply to 1k and then next turn supply at base went from 100 to 50k, got a save before it shot up?

Each receiving base that is in range of a base that has excess supplies and needs supplies will get them.

1st. every base that needs 1x requirement gets 1x. So this is one big loop through all bases so as to get maximum coverage and that every base gets at least 1x previously this was 3x only. Sending base will not send any supplies that would dip into its own 3x requirement and if add supply is being used then sending base guards up to 4x.

2nd every base that can get 10x or some portion there of will get it. So this is another big loop to see if we can get bases up to at least 10x requirement. Sending base will not send any supplies that would dip into its own 10x requirement.

3rd. every base that is eligible for excess normally this is big major bases or bases with the highest spoilage limit previously there was no check before sending supplies to small bases. Sending base will not send any supplies that would dip into its own 10x requirement.

4th. One final big loop through all bases to resupply LCUs and whatever base the LCU is at is the only base it can draw supplies from previously there was no restriction. If LCU is in non-base hex or enemy then no restriction. Sending base will guard up to 20 supply points meaning if a unit can be supplied and base has it then unit gets it, previously base had to have above 3x.

In each big loop except for the 4th the amount that can be sent is modified by Prim HQ of base (just like witp) and if present adds an extra 25k to requirement and we check for max draw and we check spoilage limit at base receiving base.

How far a base can receive supplies is determined by tracing a supply cost path starting value used is 100 just like witp. There are three different ranges used throughout each week 89 which is very short range and happens 4 times a week, 49 which is medium range and happens twice a week and 10 which is long range which happens once per week. These values are the minimum required trace value from sending base to receiving base and the trace value must be equal to or greater than this to receive supplies so you may notice that some bases only get supplies 3 times or in some cases once per week.

Using the add supply button means first the base will try and get 1x requirement then during the 10x loop it will try and get 10x whatever is in that field so a base has 1000 normal requirement and I press the add supply to 1000 making new requirement of 2000 thus 1x + 10x = 2000 + 20000 = 22,000 that the base will try and get. You should never ever use the add supply on major bases as this will prevent supplies from being sent out if you understand what I mean.

Btw yes it is WAD.

#2
The add supply button is adding to the supply requirement, during resupply these values are multiplied by 1 x supplyrequirement then in the second round by 10 x supply requirement, in witp it was 3x period - was that on the screen. If you have too many bases with add supply then they are all competing for whatever excess supply is in range so some may get all what it wanted some may get half and some may get none so you are going to have to be more selective in which bases you choose to over supply and keeping in mind the frequencies of range, it might be that only some bases get resupplied once per week.

Logistics: Alfred
Recently I was contacted by a four year forumite veteran seeking clarification on how to determine how long a supply stockpile at a particular base might last. Apparently his requests from other players for similar information had not been as helpful as he had hoped.

It seems to me that other long term players, and of course in particular new players, might benefit from having all the relevant issues presented in a consolidated location. Before continuing two points need to be immediately identified. Firstly, what follows applies only to the official game scenarios. Some of the mods have altered important details. Secondly, readers who wish to see the impact of logistics on operations are well advised to read Andy Mac’s AAR. Probably more than any other AAR writer, Andy Mac regularly explains how his operations are shaped by logistical considerations. As he is a dev, his observations should not be overlooked by anyone who wishes to master this topic.

(A) Overview

The determination of how large a supply stockpile should be, or how long it might last, is not an exact science. There are too many variables outside of a player’s control for 100% predictive accuracy. What can be identified are the factors which impact upon supply stockpiles at a particular base. These factors can be broadly classified as falling within the following areas:

• Supply creation
• Supply movement
• Supply destruction
• Supply consumption

These areas are looked at in detail in the following sections. When the discussion touches on naval matters, fuel is included in the discussion. By necessity, this discussion is essentially a summary, for complete details of all the game scenario data and relationships, readers are directed back to the manual.

One very important point for players to be aware of is that the aggregated supply of all your supply stockpiles from all your bases is of no real value. To accomplish anything you need to have supply (and fuel) locally where it will be consumed. Ten million supply points located in San Francisco, Los Angeles and San Diego will not feed your forces fighting on Guadalcanal. Those forces will be fed solely out of what is stored locally on Guadalcanal.

(B) Mummy, where does supply come from?

There are three basic supply sources:

• National Automatic
• Imports
• Industrial Enterprises

The Burma Road is a unique supply source. Each turn that the Allied player can trace an uninterrupted supply path along the transportation network linking Rangoon and Tsuyung, 500 supply points are delivered to Tsuyung.

(B.1) National Automatic

Scenario designers can assign a daily amount of supply (and or fuel) which will automatically arrive each day at a base. This automatic delivery will cease immediately upon the capture of the base by the enemy. The deliveries will immediately resume when the base is liberated from the enemy.

The amount delivered daily is the figure to the right of the slash in the supplies on hand data found on the base screen (see manual page 205). There is nothing the player can do to increase or reduce this amount in game, other than of course to lose/capture the base.

(B.2) Imports

Some importation of supply to a base occurs automatically without any player action required. Players can manually attempt to import supply (and fuel). The opposing player can block the automatic importation, or attempt to interdict the imported supply.
Most automatic importation of supply (and fuel) occurs overland but under certain restricted circumstances, it can also occur over water (see s.9.3.3.3 of the manual). There is no aerial automatic importation of supply. Players can manually import, by ships both supply and fuel, but airplanes cannot transport fuel they can only transport supply. Players cannot manually directly import supply (and fuel) overland, however by manipulation of the supply required spinner or stockpile option, a player can manually exert some influence on the direction and amount of supply moved overland by the program automatically.

Supply will not move automatically overland through a hexside owned by the enemy nor through a contested hex.
How often supply will automatically move overland depends on the quality of the overland transportation links. The table in s.8.3.1 of the manual details the cost of moving supply through the different terrain types and transportation infrastructure.

Each overland transportation route has a value which is determined by subtracting from 100 the cost of movement associated with each hex along which the supply must travel. The value of the overland route then determines how often a delivery is made:

• Four times per week if the overland transportation route amounts to 89 - 100
• Two times per week if the route amounts to 49 – 88
• Once per week if the route amounts to 10 – 48

Bases will only export supply which is viewed as surplus. Supply in excess of 3x the amount required by the base is considered surplus. This surplus supply may go to another base or be consumed by LCUs in the field.

The amount of supply which can be delivered by a Transport plane or Level Bomber is (Maximum Load)/2000. Fractions are rounded down but each plane can always deliver a minimum of 1 supply point.

(B.3) Industrial Enterprises

Most supply is generated by industrial enterprises. For the official scenarios supply is generated by:

• Heavy Industry, inputs needed are resources and fuel
• Light Industry, input needed is only resources
• Refinery, input needed is only oil

Players must distinguish between raw material production facilities and manufacturing facilities.

Raw material production facilities are resource and oil centres. These facilities immediately cease to produce raw materials as soon as any enemy LCU enters the hex.

Provided they retain access to the necessary raw materials, either by importation or accessing a local stockpile, manufacturing facilities will continue to produce supply even if an enemy LCU is present in the hex.

Production at all industrial enterprises can be damaged by several means:

• City attack air mission (see pages 151-152 of the manual)
• Naval bombardment task force
• Upon base capture by the enemy, the amount of damage suffered by these facilities is influenced by the quantity of defending surviving engineers present at the changeover

(C) Honey, I seem to have shrunk the supply stockpile!

Sometimes players will look at the supply stockpiled at a base and see it is inexplicably disappearing. Excluding the detailed factors which are looked at in section (D) below, the usual reasons for an unexplained shrinking supply stockpile are:

• Supply (and fuel) spoilage
• Repair of industrial enterprises
• Airfield/port supply hits

(C.1) Spoilage

Bases whose combined airfield and port levels amount to less than 9 can suffer spoilage of their supply (and fuel) stockpile.

Spoilage will occur if the following base thresholds are exceeded:

• Size 8 – above 197k supply (129k fuel)
• Size 7 – above 152k supply (99k fuel)
• Size 6 – above 113k supply (73k fuel)
• Size 5 – above 80k supply (51k fuel)
• Size 4 – above 53k supply (33k fuel)
• Size 3 – above 32k supply (19k fuel)
• Size 2 – above 17k supply (9k fuel)
• Size 1 – above 8k supply (3k fuel)

Note that the check for spoilage is made for each stockpile. A Size 8 base with 154k supply plus 83k fuel will not suffer spoilage. It will suffer supply spoilage if it has 204k supply plus 22k fuel.

Dot bases can store up to 5k supplies and 1k fuel before suffering spoilage.

(C.2) Industrial Repairs

It costs supply to repair damaged industrial facilities. This is a particularly important point for Japanese players to remember for they have many more industrial facilities which might need to be repaired than the list of those dealt with in section (B.3) above.

The cost to repair a single damaged industrial centre is 1k supply. The repair will only commence if the player has also “lodged“ a 10k supply “bond” with the “tradesmen”. The supply must be present onsite.

(C.3) Airfield/Port Supply Hits

Attacks against airfields and ports can result in supply hits which destroy some supply. The actual amount so destroyed is very difficult to quantify for several reasons.

• The combat report is subject to FOW so there is always some uncertainty as to how many hits actually ensued
• Fort levels and terrain affect the supply hits
• The amount of supply destroyed is a random amount based on the device’s effect and anti-soft rating – essentially the bigger the bomb the more damage inflicted

(D) Professor, they’ll never find a use for supply, there just isn’t any demand for it!

Congratulations, if you have read this far, now comes the pay off. Supply present locally is the game currency needed to undertake the following activities not mentioned previously.

• Feed LCUs – starving LCUs have reduced firepower, reduced capacity to reduce fatigue, a lower adjusted Assault Value
• Air missions
• Rearm ships after combat
• Pay for receiving replacements for both land and air units
• Construction of base facilities

(D.1) LCU supply cost

Most players emphasise the Assault Value (AV) of a LCU instead of the combat firepower of the unit which is a much more useful measure. The merits of the two measures is however a discussion best left to another day. What players do generally tend to pay little attention is the cost of maintaining a unit out in the field.

The average size of a fully built up Allied division is about 450 AV. A fully equipped Chinese LCU could be double this but they tend to lack access to the necessary supply. A division of about 450 AV, which is not engaged in combat will consume approximately 1500 supply points monthly, or 50 daily. A brigade of approximately 150 AV not engaged in combat will consume approximately 500 supply points monthly.

(D.2) Cost of air missions

Each sortie flown consumes supply. Lack the requisite supply, the air mission is not flown. The actual supply cost depends on the type of mission flown and the type of plane as follows:

• Offensive Mission flown by a Level Bomber, the cost is (Maximum Load/1000) per plane
• Offensive Mission flown by a Dive Bomb or Torpedo, the cost is 1 supply point per plane
• Other missions such as Search and CAP expend only 1/3 of a supply point per plane

Hence a 12 plane Liberator squadron sent to bomb an airfield will consume 96 supply points. A USMC torpedo squadron of 18 Avengers will consume 18 supply points.

(D.3) Ship Rearming

The rearming of a ship after combat consumes supply. The supply cost is:

• [(Weapon Effect Rating * 2) * (Number of Guns) * (Ammo per gun)] / 2000

(D.4) Cost of replacements

The basic supply cost for a LCU replacement device is the load cost.

For air units, the supply cost for each replacement airframe depends on the type of airframe:

• 12 supply points for fighter, fighter bomber
• 15 supply points for dive bomber, torpedo bomber, float plane, float fighter
• 18 supply points for night fighter, recon
• 30 supply points for heavy bomber, medium bomber, light bomber, attack bomber, transport, patrol

Thus the previously mentioned 12 plane Liberator squadron (see D.2 above) consumed 96 supply points to fly the mission. If the squadron had 4 planes shot down, it would need an additional 120 supply points to replace it’s losses.

(D.5) Base facilities

The repair of base facilities (airfield and port) does not cost supply. However the construction of base facilities (airfield, port and forts) does consume supply. The supply is not actually consumed by the facility but by the engineers engaged in the construction work.

Engineers must be in combat mode to build base facilities. Whilst working, each engineer (an engineer vehicle = 5 engineers) consumes 1 supply point each 12 hours. Hence if a player has 100 engineers building, they will consume 200 supply points daily, an amount which is equivalent to approximately 4 infantry divisions.

Alfred

(in reply to ny59giants_MatrixForum)
Post #: 3769
RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 8/27/2018 10:57:41 AM   
ny59giants_MatrixForum


Posts: 9706
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline
AE Notes

Engineers: JWE

The “name” of a device does not matter, only the device data matters. Any Eng unit can always build, but if it has Anti-Armor <1, it cannot reduce forts. If it has Anti-Soft <9, it cannot AV. If it is “named” Construction or Labor Eng, but is a Type = 23 (squad), it will not build. If it also has a-a <1, and a-s <9, it won’t do anything but eat (i.e., nothing but ‘bodies’). So there is a matrix of different Eng squads that represent a mix of abilities; build stuff, reduce forts, able to AV, some of the above, none of the above. DaBigBabes uses this matrix (according to our appreciation as to how it falls out) to help limit in-game tempo, by limiting in-game infrastructure.

Shore Party:
Shore Party is a sub-set of Nav Sup. Shore Party devices assist in loading/unloading but do not assist in repairing or rearming. Repair/rearm bases were very far and few between, for both sides, and thus with BigBabes, but both sides recognized an imperative for stevedoring and non-integral lift capability. Thus Shore Partys and a skoosh of code that lets them give an unload bonus to TFs. A Shore Party switch may be set for a Vehicle, such as an LVT-2 Amph Trac; It may be set for a Type = 24 Eng squad, like USA Port Srvc Sq, in which case it may also help build; It may be set for a Type = 23 Squad, like USA Amph Sup Sq.

Check the editor often, and become familiar with all the different kinds of units available. For example:
USMC Pioneer Sq – Squad type – No Build, Yes AV, Yes Shore Party, No Reduce Forts
USN Constr Eng Sq – Eng type – Yes Build, Yes AV, No Shore Party, No Reduce Forts
USN Spec Eng Sq – Eng type – Yes Build, No AV, Yes Shore Party, No Reduce Forts
USN Base Eng Sq – Eng type – Yes Build, No AV, Yes Shore Party, No Reduce Forts
USA Port Svc Sq – Eng type – Yes Build, No AV, Yes Shore Party, No Reduce Forts
USA Amph Sup Sq – Squad type – No Build, Yes AV, Yes Shore Party, No Reduce Forts

Naval Bombardments: Don Bowen
All bombardment TFs stand off from the bombardment target until night - then make a full speed run in to bombard. The standoff point is normally calculated based on the full speed of the TF. However, if waypoints are used and the last waypoint is closer to the target then the calculated stand off point, the game will use the last waypoint as the standoff point.

This allows players to control the standoff in a number of ways.
1. If you want the standoff closer to the target (for any reason) you can use a waypoint close to the target.
2. If you want the bombardment TF to be fully fueled and have all its op points, you can set a waypoint just beyond full speed stand off point and let the TF refuel (either itself or from a replenishment TF).
3. If you want the bombardment TF to delay bombardment for a day or so, use a waypoint with linger option.

There are interactions between the routing options, retirement allowed, reaction settings, and "normal" TF movement. Mostly they are very logical - one just needs to get used to them.

Amphib Unloading: Don Bowen
Don,

This one I did not know. So if you have say some xAPs in your invasion TF then once the APAs have unloaded the xAPs will unload faster? Could you elaborate a bit? How much help do they give?

OK, took a look at the code and I have to admit that I seem to have lied. Not only amphib ships can help in unload, but small beaching craft as well. So my answer a few posts up is incorrect. Empty LB, LCVP, LCM can help in unload. Not by any direct transfer of troops between ships, but by contributing to the new load unload rate for the TF. This is a calculated ability of the TF to unload "over the beach". Empty Amphib ships are great, naval transports (AP/AK) are good, merchant ships (xAP, etc) suck. I'm no longer a member of the development team and I do not feel that I can give exact formula, but the unload bonus can be substantial.

Screensize
Taken from the release doc

-SingleCpuStart : Starts the game in single CPU mode. Switches to multi CPU mode if available later. We’ve found this to be useful on some multi-core systems, especially AMD processors.
-SingleCpuOrders : Starts the game in single CPU mode and stays in single CPU for the orders phase, switches to multi CPU mode for running the turn, then switches back to single mode for the next orders phase. We’ve found this to be useful on some multi-core systems, especially AMD processors. Use this or –SingleCpuStart, not both.
If either of the above are used with one of the -cpu# switches noted below, it will use the specified CPU, otherwise both of these switches default to the first CPU. If a -cpu# switch and one of these -Single switches are used, the turns will always be processed in multi processor mode.
-cpu# : (cpu1, cpu2, cpu3, cpu4) Switches set the cpu affinity for multi cpu systems. It will do nothing for single cores and will default to using all cores if a core is designated which is not there (for example using -cpu3 on a dual core system). We’ve found this to be very useful on some multi-core systems, especially Intel processors.
If used alone, the -cpu# switches will keep the game running on the CPU specified all the time. If used with the -SingleCpuStart switch, it will only use that core when starting the game. If used with the -SingleCpuOrders switch, it will stay in single CPU mode for starting and the orders phase, but will run in multicore. If one of the SingleCpu switches is used without a -cpu# switch, it will default to cpu 1 when it is in single core.
-multiaudio : Invokes a fix that changes audio timing for multicore machines.
-dd_sw : Handles DirectDraw via Software. We’ve found this can make a huge difference on many systems as far as reducing interface lag and making button clicking in-game more responsive. On a few newer systems this can cause some visual glitches and slow combat animations though, so give it a try and remove it if it’s not ideal on your system.

Examples:
-f -px1920 –py1200 for a 1920x1200 monitor in full screen mode
-w –px1680 –py1050 for windowed mode, so that the window is within desktop

Other Switches
-colorBlind : Support for color blindness
-deepColor : Enables 32 bit color, intended for Full Screen mode
-altFont : Enables alternate in-game font (Lucida Sans Unicode)
-w : Windowed mode
-wd : Windowed mode, daily autosaves
-ww : Windowed mode, weekly autosaves
-fd : Full screen, daily autosaves
-fw : Full screen, weekly autosaves
-r : Show Roads
-autosave : Daily autosave
-archive : Put data reports in archive directory
-skipVideo : Skip the intro video when starting the game
-fixedArt : Will not use rotating images

Air Transport
Just to clarify air transport.

It's done very simplistically if you compare it to the naval transport model.

Firstly, a device with a load cost higher than 9 cannot be airlifted (i.e. friendly base to friendly base). Secondly, a device with a load cost higher than 7 cannot be air-dropped (i.e. paratroop assault).

The capacity of transport aircraft is almost moot if it is below 7500. All transport aircraft with capacities below 7500 are able to airlift/airdrop either 2 Aviation Support devices or 1 Squad/Engineer/Device. If an aircraft has a capacity of 7500 or higher, then it can airlift/airdrop either 4 Aviation Support devices or 2 Squads/Engineers/Devices.

So, whether a transport aircraft has a capacity of 2000 or 6000, both aircraft will only be able to transport only one squad.

There are very few aircraft with a capacity of 7500 or higher, and then almost exclusively Allied (I believe the Emily transport is the only Japanese one).

CS to CVL Conversion
After having muddled through the mystery that surrounds the scout cruiser conversions I thought I would lay out what I have learned for the benefit of others. If you are reading this you may have decided the convert some or all of your scout cruisers to CVL's. If you are unsure there are several threads laying out the pro's and con's.

This information applies to Scenario 1, with the latest official patch, V1.0.4.11o6i
You start the scenario with 3 scout cruisers, Mizuho, Chitose, and Chiyoda, a fourth cruiser, Nisshin will arrive about 3 months into the game.
If you decide to do the conversions I strongly recommend that you do it as soon as they become available. It takes 300 days to complete.

The Chitose and Chiyoda are treated as "Upgrades". This means that if you have the default set to "Yes" on the main ship display, when all the conditions are met, they will automatically begin to upgrade to CVL's when disbanded into the proper port. Here's the rub, on these two ships not all the conditions for upgrade are apparent. You may upgrade these ships as of Nov. 1, 1942. They require a "repair" yard of 50. These two ships can only be upgraded in TOKYO. In scenario 1 the Tokyo repair yard starts at 10, you will need to build it up to 50 before Nov. 1, 1942. Leave the two float plane squadrons on the ships, they will upgrade to a fighter squadron (21 planes) and a torpedo squadron (9 planes). The CVL now has 27 torpedoes and the capacity has gone from 24 to 30 planes. If you pull the float plane squadrons off before conversion they will not upgrade and will remain as float planes.

The Mizuho and Nisshin are treated as "Conversions". This means you must disband them into a proper port and click through the conversion buttons. You may convert these two scout cruisers on Dec. 1, 1942. They require a "Repair" yard of 25. Any repair yard will do. You may remove the float plane squadrons before conversion or not. These squadrons do not upgrade and will be place on the airfield at the port if they are left on board. These CVL's have no torpedo capacity but the plane capacity has improved to 30. The Mizhho will gain 2 knots of speed, from 22 to 24. (Racing heart doesn’t fail me now!)

Effects on CAP with large formation/Numbers by GreyJoy
However, I'm far from having understood how CAP really works, however i learnt something from these tests.

Let's try to summarize what i think to have learnt:

1. "fighters being recalled" (so to say "fighters out of position and not able to engage"): What effects this variable is the range of fighters on CAP. 0 range means all the fighters will loiter (sp!?) in the given hex. The more you increase this value (range) the more fighters will get caught while CAPing another hex inside the range-arc set.

2. "scrambling fighters": tests didn't give me a decisive answer but it seems that there's a dice and roll about the chance that those fighters not devoted directly to CAP can scramble. my tests show a % % of 20 out of 100...not that much, so don't rely too much in scrambling fighters. There also seems to be another hard code inner limit concerning the numbers of fighters that can be scrambled...above a certain limit of fighters devoted on CAP it seems that they never scramble (but this may also be connected with the consistency of the incoming strike).

3. "Firing passes limit": we already knew that this limit existed. These tests have only showed me that it is absolutely useless to have more than 300 fighters at 100% CAP on a given hex...above that number the other fighters simply don't engage.

4. "Escort vs. CAP": again we've seen that CAP can be easily overwhelmed. You basically need 4 times the number of engaging fighters to overcome the escort. So, given the 200 (300) firing passes limit, probably any strike with more than 50 escort will enable the bombers to get through without much of a problem.

5. "CAP altitude and efficiency": obviously the closer to the bomber altitude, the better. But there's something more: a GAP in altitude of 9,000 feet between the CAP and the incoming bombers is treated by the code as a HUGE altitude...often enough to let the bombers easily slip below the CAP.

6. "Radar": basically CV/CVLs have radars that gives (at best) you some 35-40 minutes of warning, while surface ships and CVEs give you an avg of 25/28 minutes... often the time needed to get a group to dive from 15k feet to 8k feet (escort altitude) is between 22 and 30 minutes... so be aware that time is not on your side when LRCAPPING amphib TFs....

Per Obvert…
The KB Kate pilots are about 50-60 ASW now, and improving. I put them on 2,000 ft to take advantage of their high naval bombing skill. When the KB is not in action they are at 40% ASW 40% training 20% rest. When it moves I bump that to 50% ASW 10% search as they leave port, with Vals on naval attack 50% search 2k ft. Just for the area around the Solomons where the subs are concentrated.

Engineers and Base building
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2885601&mpage=1&key=base%2Cbuilding�

Kamikaze Activation per MichaelM:
Base must have an AF 1+. This would exclude the 'dot' bases unless they are built up.
There is no limitation such that the base has to have been occupied by the Japanese and re-captured.

If the base is in range (21 sea hexes) of TOKYO (base #252), TAKAO (base #330) or SAIGON (base #435), is not located in China/Tibet and controlled by Allied player and 1944+, then the kamikazes (converting groups to kamikaze mode,as distinct from the occasional plane turning into a kamikaze prior to 1944 due to damage) are activated.

Per Don Bowen:
Uses:
Build local minesweeping TFs with AMc at your major ports and leave them there.
Use small patrol types (YP, ML, HDML, even SC and MGB) for local ASW patrol
Escort small convoys, barge traffic, and landing craft Task Forces with the same ships
BARGES:
Barges that carry fuel can refuel other barges (in the same TF) at sea. If you order a barge TF to load supplies and set the destination before loading takes place, and the barges do not have enough range to make it to that destination, 1/4th of the barges will load fuel instead of supply for refueling in route.

For a troop TF you must create a separate barge TF, load it with fuel, and merge it with the barge TF carrying troops.
React Range:
"Remain on Station" means stay where I put you.

"React" means move to attack any detected enemy nearby.

The two orders are contradictory and the game will ignore "Remain on Station" if "React" is ordered. Reacting will clear the "Remain on Station" order so the TF will return to home port after reacting.

witpqs is right. If you want a TF to be in an area and to react if enemy are detected nearby, use a combination of "Patrol" and "React". You can use a single Patrol Hex to emulate "Remain on Station".
There are a few other items involved in the determination to react. One of your TFs might pass, others might not.

Relative strength of the TF and the possible react-to TF.
Relative speed of the two
(for both, as well as is known about the enemy TF, including fog of war)
Ammo and fuel state of your TF
TF Commander's aggression rating (only if reaction is into dangerous waters (shallow, under enemy air cover).
WEATHER: by Labaron
Actually, higly abstracted, the advanced weather model does exactly that. It simulates a big system, and from this baseline calculates the chances for local weather.

The WitP map is split into 9 squares. Those squares represent the big weather systems. The big weather system is a modifier for the chances of local weather phenomena to occur. So, if the square predicts "clear", there is a very high chance that local weather also shows "clear" as an average, but this does not mean it rules out 2-3 hexes where "severe storms" will occur. The obvious opposite happens when a square predicts "thunderstorms". There is a chance for "clear" to occur, but the baseline is set for much worse weather.

So, you have two indicators you can base your forecast on:
1) the weather square, as an indicator for the probabilities of specific weather to occur in a large area
2) the local "mouse over" prediction as an indicator for that single hex.

Both informations are important. If, for example, I see the mouseover prediction for "clear", but the hex is located in a square which predicts "thunderstorms", I lower the reliability of the local prediction.

With advanced weather on, and by combining area and local weather data, you can get weather information pretty similar to the WWII capabilities, with the possible exception of very late war. Usually, for a certain area, I can guess the weather up to 2 days in advance with a 60-70% reliability.


Now: The only thing that switching off advanced weather does, is it reset all squares to "party cloudy", which is one of the least reliable weather systems according to my experience. It reduces the chance for very bad weather to occur, but practically eliminates the ability to predict weather at all. Something I personally dislike.

IMHO advanced weather is the way to go, more so as it reduces the too high mission fruequency in WitP, which is a good thing, but YMMV.


As a sidenote: There IS a slight realism problem resulting from weather in general. TFs, even more CV TFs, moved with the weather and often used weather to their advantage. To launch planes they moved into clear areas, to hide they moved into rainsqualls. Those are tactical details pretty impossible to replicate ingame, and this can lead to more difficulties with weather ingame as it was the case in reality.


As a sidenote II: I have never noted the reported "advanced weather ON means thunderstorms all the time" situations that are reported by some except as the usual exaggerated comments after somebody witnessed a week of bad weather in a specific area. On average "advanced weather" ON results in worse weather than the simplified model, true, but with the benefit of better predictability.

Sweeps & LRCAP by Obvert
Still, if your game allows it, (we've outlawed offensive LR CAP), use less good models on the LR CAP mission, like the Hellcats. The Corsairs are sweepers, only. They are your best in my opinion and nothing Japanese works at better than 1:3 against them in the best of conditions.

Alternate days for sweeping groups. Keep them fresh. Make sure you sweep with 4-6 groups a day though, and the later ones should be more effective. Take on the edges first if he sets them to cover an area bigger than 0 hex. The effects on moral and fatigue accumulate over time, and his pilot quality will still go down while you're getting 2:1 if you don't make mistakes by sending in bombers and giving 50 kills for free with the escorts.

If you use 4Es, make it a hammer. No half way. 250-300 at a time. They usually don't need escorts if the sweeps go in first and if you're not taking on the THE base. Make sure they're far enough back that they come in last (from a level 9 base with good support), not too far that they fragment extremely. But if your game still allows offensive LR CAP with bombing this is not such a problem. Also the strafing B-25D-1s are your best sweepers with a 58 defensive gun rating. Throw 100 of those at him after some sweeps and they're better than than 4Es at punching through. Shouldn't be since they actually have only one defensive turret, but use it while it's there.

Vary everything all of the time. No patterns. No milkruns. Nothing he can adapt to. Don't even use the P-40s. Rear area CAP only. Only use your best fighters on sweeps and LR CAP.

Really though, as mentioned above, don't go for the knockout until you've danced and jabbed for a few rounds. If he can put up a 400-500 plane CAP here, then some other place is not covered. Hit that. Make him LR CAP something. Get the CAP tired, spread out and the service 3 planes damaged. Then hit hard.


Air by 1275psi
I want to step out of the story here, and comment on the game.
I rarely, very rarely have any co ordination issues, or bombers arrive before fighters, or unescorted strikes.

This is how I do it.

1/ I spend vast amounts of PP on making sure that squadrons are assigned to air HQ's in range
2/ I try to never, ever overstack a field
3/ for a big day like todays effort:
I first stand down every group in the game
Then, in the order I want planes to fly, I issue the orders, ie Ogowas' eagles to sweep, then the bombers , I select a bomber group, select its fighter group, always from the same field. I always start closest to the target, working out in range.

If groups are over 10 fatigue, they are not selected!

If groups are under 80 moral, they are not selected!


This, I confidently say, after 4 years of war, works.

CV Reacting by Alfred
Where to begin?

The situation presented by Lokasenna is quite complex with many relevant actors of which very little hard evidence has been provided. Eg exactly which TF followed which, what were the specific orders and reactions, all the enemy DLs, fuel/ammo status for each (all surface and CV TFs) TF, the air power status and so on to mention just a few. There is a lot of data which is germane and I daresay most players would not be fully aware that it comes into play when dealing with naval reactions.

So rather than directly trying to explain precisely what happened here, I shall go through the relevant considerations that apply to reacting task forces. This should be of value because the manual does not do a good job in explaining the naval reaction concept. Having access to all the data, Lokasenna can then see if some anomaly has arisen.

1. Naval reaction is only available to combat TFs. Non combat TFs such as Transport, Cargo etc have neither the option to set a reaction range nor will react towards an enemy TF. Non combat TFs however may, under certain circumstances, retreat away from the enemy.

2. Due to technical coding issues, there is no reaction towards a sub TF. An ASW TF will not react towards a detected sub TF. The ASW TF may engage in combat with a detected sub TF if it comes across it in a hex traversed during the ASW TF normal or patrol movement path but it will not deviate from it's normal or patrol movement path towards the sub TF.

3. There are 2 distinct types of naval reaction. Type (A) is based on seahex range and applies to all types of combat TF, be they surface, carrier, sub et al task forces, whilst type (B) is based on hex range and applies only to a carrier TF. It is type (B) which is meant to be explained by s.6.3.4 of the manual. Much of the confusion expressed by players over carrier TF reacting is due to the fact that both types of reaction are in play and not just s.6.3.4 of the manual.

4. The max react button on the TF screen is misunderstood. Its primary function is to toggle on/off whether a naval reaction might occur. Set the reaction button to a 0 range setting tells the code to not check for a type (A) reaction BUT remember that a CV TF also answers to a type (B) reaction where the 0 range setting can be overridden.

5. A reaction range setting >0 brings into play a type (A) reaction. It does very little otherwise per se. On 14 July 2010 JWE (aka Symon) stated:

"React just means that a TF is orientated to do something, somewhere. So 'react' means 'what to do -if' and the number is how close."

Players who find JWE's statement to be somewhat underwhelming do so because they erroneously ascribe too much value to the reaction button. Probably Don Bowen's comment of 25 March 2013 conveys the concept better

"'React' means move to attack any detected enemy nearby".

The entire subject of naval reaction was much discussed by the devs during AE development. To give a feel for the sort of issues they had to grapple with consider what does a TF with a 6 hex naval reaction range setting really mean. Does it mean reacting


• only 6 hexes from the initial start position, or
• 6 hexes from each hex along the path, or
• 6 hexes from the current position of the TF (including any prior reaction)

The final decision was that it could mean any of the above. For example, what should be the outcome when a TF with a naval reaction of 6 moves detects an enemy TF 6 hexes distant, moves 6 hexes towards the enemy which in turn during the same timeframe has moved 2 hexes further away. Would a highly aggressive pursuing TF commander simply say "Fair cop guv, you got me, we'll stop the pursuit now". Accordingly, it was coded so that the more aggressive the TF commander is the more likely he is to order continued reaction. Conversely, the less aggressive is the commander or the less favourable conditions present for a reaction, the sooner a reaction move is called off or not even commenced.

What all this means is that a reaction range setting of 6 does not mean that a reacting TF is restricted to a 6 hex reaction move towards the detected enemy TF. Nor does it mean that the enemy TF will never be reacted towards if it is located at 7 or more hexes distance. It is all governed by the suite of factors taken into account in determining when naval reaction occurs, and this is without taking into account the ever present random factor in the game. Range is therefore not set in concrete.

6. Unlike classical WITP, naval movement in AE is on a hex by hex basis. The naval reaction algorithm is checked every single hex travelled through. Furthermore, excluding the factors which terminate or prevent in the first place a naval reaction which are listed in point 8 below, there is no limit to the number of enemy TFs that a reacting TF can move towards or engage. Also a reacting TF can switch targets in the middle of a reaction move if a closer or better target is detected.

7. Naval reaction is not dependent on the TF's movement orders. A TF with "remain on station" orders but also given a reaction range, will react and override the remain on station order and return home after the reaction (which is why one should never give a reaction range to a remain on station TF) whereas other movement orders (eg patrol, follow, waypoints) would see the TF react and subsequently return to its previous movement orders. In all instances a naval reaction move is possible only against a detected enemy TF, the higher the DL, the more likely reaction will result.

8. The naval reaction algorithm has the following checks:


• detection levels
• relative strength of both reactor and reactee TF
• relative speed of both reactor and reactee TF
• where reaction entails moving into dangerous waters (eg shallow water, under enemy air cover), the aggressiveness rating of the TF commander
• ammo and fuel levels
• hex characteristics (deep water being preferred)
• damage and ops points levels of ships in the TF
• range to enemy TF
• in the case of a CV TF, the number of operational aircraft on board
• in the case of a CV TF, the number of remaining aircraft sorties
• known enemy minefields
• in the case of a sub TF, a naval reaction will not occur into a medium or large sized port
• and the ever present Grigsby random

Each combat TF with a range reaction >0 set is checked against these criteria on every hex it travels. In the case of a CV TF, it is checked for both type (A) and type (B) naval reactions.

9. The point of type (B) and s.6.3.4 of the manual is to cover the unique combat situation which only applies to carriers. For all other types of task forces, naval combat only occurs when both friendly and enemy TF (or enemy base) are co-located on the same hex. This is not the case with carriers, whose aircraft can strike at an enemy TF or base located in a different hex. Thus type (A) naval reaction is all about bringing the two opposing masses into direct contact whereas the type (B) naval reaction is about facilitating the activation of aircraft.


10. To round off, I'll provide a pertinent example because I strongly suspect the principle it demonstrates exists in Lokasenna's situation.

TF #1 is an amphibious TF.
TF #2 is a surface combat TF. It has been given movement orders to follow TF #1 and has also been given a naval reaction range of 6.

If an enemy surface TF is detected and all the relevant boxes are ticked, TF #2 will react towards the enemy because the follow order tells it to protect TF #1 and its own reaction range tells it to move towards the enemy anyway. Remember a reaction move overrides existing movement orders (see point 7 above).

If, however, TF #2 does not have a follow TF #1 order, then it will not react towards the enemy in order to protect TF #1 but will only react on the basis of the threat/opportunity to itself alone. Most players will not notice this situation because they usually set following TFs at a range of zero and hence any enemy TF is simultaneously a threat to both friendly TFs which are in the same hex.

Alfred


Air Production by Lowpe
Obvert wrote the book on late war night fighter defense, and I was an avid pupil at the time.

In my game against Tiemanj, I was able to put together a strategy that really minimized night bombing, to the point that for the most part the Allies pursued a daytime strategy.

Obvert proposed no 4E ground bombing as a HR. I think this speaks volumes for his planned usage of 4Es. I am expecting early and often night bombing especially of places like Magwe.

To counter I have a strong r&d program and a holistically zen approach:

Irving-s (size 30 x2): It is the first and critical night fighter to get. Many bad mouth it, but in 1943 it does well, especially against 2E night bombers. The Sa version is a marked step up, has an extra gun which lets the Irving fight longer, and has radar as of 6/44 I believe. Both factories will probably research the -sa version, depending upon game events.

France-s (size 30 x2): The best NF in the game. Hands down imho. Perhaps an argument can be made for the Myrt being that it is single engine (but the lack of armor is a telling disadvantage I think)?

Zero NF: (size 30 x1): Carrier capable, and allows for some modest resizing of a few NF squadrons.

Nick D: (size 30 x1): This should insure it arrives roughly in time with the early B29 squadrons. You need Nicks for their sheer volume.

Dinah NF: (size 30 x1): Important to get so that some recon squadrons can be opened up to the NF tree.

Peggy 109-I (size 30 x2): Armored, durable, fast enough if just barely. If I make it this far will become the primary Army NF.

Myrt NF (size 30 x1): Because Pax likes them, also because they seemed to do better than their stats would suggest. I hope I live long enough to find out.

Denko: trash. SR way too high, radar activates late.
RandY: trash. Radar activates way too late, arrives too late.
Judy: cheap single engine and fairly fast, but barely armed and you don't need it to unlock any NF squadrons. Not CV capable.

The best NF are armored, 360mph+, with good and accurate cannons and radar, low SR. Doesn't exist, so we will make do with the above choices turning all 21 or 22 possible NF squadrons to achieve mass.

AA is key. Searchlights are nice and those AA units with them will be prioritized to likely night bombing bases, but radar is very important. The biggest deterrent early is to have something flying that will distract the bombers in addition to the AA-- my preferred choices will be Petes in port, and the Dinah Fighter when she comes along. M-M has reported good results with Randy F and Nicks.


(in reply to ny59giants_MatrixForum)
Post #: 3770
RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 8/27/2018 11:08:07 AM   
Mike Solli


Posts: 15568
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline
31 Oct 43

Sub War

Good day for the Japanese underwater service. The I-26 put a torpedo into an empty xAK ~20 hexes SW of San Francisco. In the afternoon, she found her again and put another torpedo into her putting her down for good.

The I-4 put a torpedo into an xAK off Vava'u.

RO-33 caught an xAK on the surface west of Perth and sank her.

5 Fleet
4 Fleet


Nothing to report.

SE Fleet

Aitape is definitely the next target. She absorbed 130x 2E sorties, all against troops.

SRA

MKB2 is limping away and the US carriers withdrew. Nothing to see here folks.

Burma

19 Franks few against Ledo today. They met 29 P-40N5s and 3 P-51a Mustangs, losing 5 Franks to 10 Warhawks and a Mustang. I'm really surprised at how poorly the Mustangs are doing. I guess it's the later models that are the killers.

China

Bombers killed 20 squads. Creeping up!

Other Stuff

Reinforcements:

263 Ku S-2, 27 Claudes, 13 Air Flotilla, training
265 Ku S-2, 27 A6M2 (for now), 1 Air Fleet, not restricted, they drew 50+ exp, 70+ air pilots with defense <70. They're going to train defense for now but when it seems they'll be needed, I'll give them an appropriate model for the situation and move em out.
CHa-69, ASW

_____________________________


Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to Mike Solli)
Post #: 3771
RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 8/27/2018 11:15:47 AM   
Mike Solli


Posts: 15568
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline
Wow! Thanks Michael! Just saved it. Man is that a lot to digest!

_____________________________


Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to Mike Solli)
Post #: 3772
RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 8/27/2018 11:26:22 AM   
ny59giants_MatrixForum


Posts: 9706
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline
My OCD-ness is 'slightly' different than yours.

(in reply to Mike Solli)
Post #: 3773
RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 8/27/2018 11:43:20 AM   
Mike Solli


Posts: 15568
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants_MatrixForum

My OCD-ness is 'slightly' different than yours.


lol, ain't that the truth!

Leaving for vacation later this week. Gonna print it off for some easy reading.

Thanks, again.

_____________________________


Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to ny59giants_MatrixForum)
Post #: 3774
RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 8/27/2018 11:59:18 AM   
ITAKLinus

 

Posts: 231
Joined: 2/22/2018
From: Italy
Status: offline
Really really thank you for the information

Some of them are already integrated in my word document in Dropbox: I need good thing to read while travelling


Big questions:

1) I don't get the story of the two CS in Tokio: only Tokio can do the trick? And only by expanding the yard?

2) NF: some of them get the schrage-musik system. Now, should I set a CAP that is BELOW the supposed altitude of enemy bombers? I tend to pack my CAP at the same altitude (1/3 of the guys) and above (2/3 of the guys) but with guns mounted 'UP' I have some serious doubts

3) Max CAP of 300 planes. Fine. But supposing subsequent engagements, isn't better to have larger amounts of guys in the CAP? I mean, if I put a 500 planes CAP I should be able to present some form of defence against the bombers after enemy sweeps, shouldn't I?



Thank you very much in advance! I am learning a lot from you guys and this AAR is wonderful

And... Excuse my poor, non-native English




_____________________________

Francesco

(in reply to Mike Solli)
Post #: 3775
RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 8/27/2018 12:04:37 PM   
Mike Solli


Posts: 15568
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline
1 Nov 43 (Damn!, November already!)

Sub War

The I-26 caught another xAK SW of San Francisco, but no report of her sinking.

The I-4 caught another xAK off Vava'u, but no report of her sinking either.

The I-33 was pulled from her duty watching the Horn Island straights (where the US carriers entered to trash MKB2) a few days back to look out for convoys and ASW TFs near Perth. She finally got down there today and ran into an ASW TF and was sunk.

5 Fleet
4 Fleet


Nothing to report.

SE Fleet

130x 2E sorties hit the troops at Aitape today. Waiting game here...

SRA

Things have settled back down. The carriers of MKB2 will begin arriving at Soerabaja tomorrow. Some will stay and others will move to Singapore for repairs. I'll make that determination later. Soerabaja's ship repair facility is only 20.

Burma

The Tojo sweep of Cox's Bazaar netted 3 Allied fighters shot down (of 5 total) for no loss.

China

Only 5 squads were killed by bombers today. Looks like another deliberate assault in 2 days.

Other Stuff

Reinforcement: DD Kishinami (Yugumo class), KB

The Ki-84r R&D advanced to 11/44 (will become operational 2/44).

Pilot acceleration was the best so far in the war:

IJA 46, month 10
IJA 575, month 8
IJN 134, month 10
IJN 365, month 8

That saved 5600 HI!

I forgot to mention the Ki-51b Sonia became operational this month. If anyone is wondering, no, I'm not building any.

_____________________________


Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to Mike Solli)
Post #: 3776
RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 8/27/2018 12:17:15 PM   
Mike Solli


Posts: 15568
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ITAKLinus

Really really thank you for the information

Some of them are already integrated in my word document in Dropbox: I need good thing to read while travelling


Big questions:

1) I don't get the story of the two CS in Tokio: only Tokio can do the trick? And only by expanding the yard?

quote:

Yes, that is the case. Plan on increasing Tokyo's yard if you want to do the conversions.


2) NF: some of them get the schrage-musik system. Now, should I set a CAP that is BELOW the supposed altitude of enemy bombers? I tend to pack my CAP at the same altitude (1/3 of the guys) and above (2/3 of the guys) but with guns mounted 'UP' I have some serious doubts

quote:

Not sure about that. I haven't had any interaction between night fighters and bombers (or anything for that matter) this game.


3) Max CAP of 300 planes. Fine. But supposing subsequent engagements, isn't better to have larger amounts of guys in the CAP? I mean, if I put a 500 planes CAP I should be able to present some form of defence against the bombers after enemy sweeps, shouldn't I?

quote:

Not sure about this either. I also wonder if that's per hex, so will a nearby base's CAP provide more CAP?


Thank you very much in advance! I am learning a lot from you guys and this AAR is wonderful

And... Excuse my poor, non-native English





_____________________________


Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to ITAKLinus)
Post #: 3777
RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 8/27/2018 12:24:39 PM   
ny59giants_MatrixForum


Posts: 9706
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline
ASW TFs and damaged CVs - I would set up a few ASW TF and run from Truk to say Saipan or the path you plan will have them follow to see if you will run over any of his subs. Make sure the CV captains have high Nav skill. Much more important than Air skill at this point in time.

(in reply to Mike Solli)
Post #: 3778
RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 8/27/2018 12:29:50 PM   
ITAKLinus

 

Posts: 231
Joined: 2/22/2018
From: Italy
Status: offline
Thank you very much Mike!

I was totally unaware of the Tokio stuff: are there around other limitations/specific places to upgrade ships like this one?


NF: I've never experienced the 'UP' cannon against LBs but I feel that our sweet pilots need to attack from below if we want to achieve the maximum effect. Or maybe even if they are above enemy LBs, they dive below them and then engage during the fight.

I hope somebody with experience in the field comes to clarify this because it would be quite stupid to use the NFs in the wrong way ahahah


Max CAP: I feel that what it's important is the number of planes involved in the engagement and nothing more.

What I mean is that you can even have 1,000 Fighter in a base but you are limited to 300 in each air fight over said base. It implies that if there are 10 strikes and you have 300 Fighters, after the first one you are running a less-than-max CAP because of losses/damages.

I interpret that in this way, but I might be terribly wrong. I'm quite ignorant of large fights mechanisms.




I can say that over 300F as CAP on an AirTF seem to be useless but naval battles tend to have one strike per side only, so I don't know whether multiple engagements would change the situation.

And bombers will always get through in any case, so I have a fatalistic view over aeronaval battles.



It's important to know the 300 planes stuff because sometimes I run 300F on a base and I have both leaking CAP and/or LRCAP from other bases and I don't want to waste assets (even if currently battles in the skies are relatively small in my game)

_____________________________

Francesco

(in reply to Mike Solli)
Post #: 3779
RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 8/27/2018 12:49:04 PM   
Mike Solli


Posts: 15568
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline
2 Nov 43

Sub War

The I-26 is hitting the jackpot. For the third day in a row, she torpedoed an xAK headed back to San Francisco.

5 Fleet
4 Fleet


Nothing to report.

SE Fleet

No bombers hit Aitape, but an Allied bombardment fleet hit the base. The TF was composed of 5 BB, 2 CA, 3 CL and 1 CLAA plus a number of DDs I suspect. They trashed the port and did a little damage to the troops there. They stayed there throughout the day so I sent KB2 down to intercept. KB2 (Soryu, Katsuragi, Amagi, Unryu) has been tooling around north of Babeldaob, out of prying eyes, waiting for just such an opportunity. They're sailing down the coast to a point 10 hexes from Aitape. In addition to 144 Zeros, the TF has 18 Judies and 54 Jills. The Judies are providing ASW protection, but I hope the Jills put in an appearance tomorrow. They're loaded for bear with torpedoes. Regardless of what happens, KB2 will head north tomorrow to disappear into the mist once again. Keeping fingers crossed on this one.

SRA

Nothing to report.

Burma

Tojos shot down 5 of 7 Hurricanes for no loss.

China

Nice day of bombing today. My bombers destroyed 32 squads. Tomorrow another deliberate attack goes in at Chungking.

Other Stuff

Reinforcement: I-42, headed to the area around Merauke to watch the Horn Island straights.

The G4M2a R&D advanced to 3/44 (will become operational 12/43).

Next turn is in. Running it soon.

_____________________________


Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to Mike Solli)
Post #: 3780
Page:   <<   < prev  124 125 [126] 127 128   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) Page: <<   < prev  124 125 [126] 127 128   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

0.314