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  130 131 [132] 133 134   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 9/22/2018 5:38:48 PM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

Hi guys. The dialogue of the past couple of days has been wonderful. Unfortunately, it's going in a direction I'd rather not visit.

We now know that Kamikaze effectiveness is based primarily on Pilot Quality, Air Speed, Maneuverability and Durability. The first has nothing to do with the airframe so I've looked at the remaining 3 to see what airframes might be the most suitable to be used as Kamikazes.

I did something pretty simple to start. There are 164 different Japanese airframes in scenario 1. I looked at the top 30 for each of the 3 categories to see if anything showed up in all of them.

Here are the upper and lower limits for the top 30 in the categories:

Speed: 559-373
Maneuverability: 49-28
Durability: 48-36

There were no airframes that showed up in the top 30 in all 3 categories and only 4 airframes that showed up in the top 30 in 2 of the categories:

Ki-84r: Speed #10, Man #30
Ki-93-Ib: Speed #16, Dur #21
Ki-93-Ia: Speed #17, Dur #22
Ki-102c: Speed #30, Dur #28

Fighters were most common in the speed (late fighters) and maneuverability (early fighters) categories while the 4E flying boats and 2E bombers/transports were primarily in the durability category. No surprises there.

To me, it seems that if you want to focus on a particular airframe for use as a Kamikaze, you need to focus on one of the three categories and train your pilots.

My initial thoughts are to either focus on maneuverability or durability for Kamikazes because I'm not all that excited in using my late war fighters as Kamikazes.

Note that the Ki-115b and Toka are tied for #18 in the speed category.

What to you all think?

I agree with your analysis, but not the conclusion (sorry).

Fighters do make great kami's. The issue for me is simple: I cannot afford to convert fighter groups to kami as I need all of my fighters on ESCORT to get the kami's through the CAP.
Just that simple. So, IJS: Ki-115 plus whatever else I have laying around. IJN convert some of the 2E bomber groups, but not many. They are too useful as night bomber/patrol groups.
IJN bomber: convert all to Grace and keep as DB/TB, not kami. They end up functioning as 30-50% kami anyway, but some do make it home and the hit% is very good.

All just me, and of course this is against the AI.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to Mike Solli)
Post #: 3931
RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 9/22/2018 5:49:20 PM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

In my game in Jan/45 I'm making only 350 Franks, but I've continued making other planes because I know they can still be effective. Making 3,000 fighters a month means you're probably also losing that many!! I wouldn't want to plan for that.




Agreed.

Two differences which should be kept in mind:
1. I'm playing AI, and the Andy AI has a lot of AC. I gave stock numbers, but in my actual games, the AI has more than double those numbers available. This works out to just about what a player can pull together in Scen 1 if they focus, which most player do.
2. I always plan to take on the Deathstar. That means I am planning to lose +3000 planes at a time, My biggest loss to date was just under 5000. That's one day, not one attack.

And yes, I came out on the wrong side of the rolls on that 5000 plane loss … got some just terrible rolls against the CAP and then a few really nasty ones on the AA. But that is the way is rolls …
I've had other attacks succeed. I've only got to win 2 to cripple the allied Death Star to the point it isn't the Death Star anymore.
That still leaves the overwhelming force of the SOV …



_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 3932
RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 9/22/2018 6:00:50 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 9244
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

I haven't crossed the Rubicon, merely parlayed across it. Plus my proconsulship remains until March.

Only if the Senate willingly grants me the position of Dictator for life might I even contemplate your request.

Alfred


I appreciate this reference. We need more Roman war references (any of them) and fewer Civil War references in these parts


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs


quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

I am therefore very much bound by ethical considerations to not disclose information which the devs did not want to disclose. The following comments regarding kamikaze air operations are provided very much with that constraint in mind. I know there will be players who will demand more information to which the answer is tough, you aren't entitled to even this amount of information.


I have never understood the need for such subterfuge regarding the game mechanics. Those asking for details regarding game mechanics aren't looking to pilfer the source code, we just want to understand the rules the game operates under. It's compounded by the fact that AE doesn't exactly give great feedback regarding the outcomes it generates in the combat reports. It's the devs ball, and they can share it if they want; this is fine with me.

I think that AE is the only game of this genre where so much of the mechanics are simply a grey area known to the devs and their coterie. I don't want to read the source code, I'd just like to have an informed understanding of, say, what causes LCU artillery devices to fire at ships in a bombardment or amphib TF.


The devs commented on the reason: they don't want the game experience diminished by players planning their moves based on gaming the game's formulas.


While I agree in principle, I also think they (in general) erred too far towards secrecy and not enough towards disclosure. This is one instance where they could just say "bombs carried by kamikazes are calculated into damage" or "maximum load of kamikaze planes, which takes into account all the ordnance that could be strapped on and all the fuel that could still be on the plane, affects damage calculations."

That's literally all they'd have to say. They don't need to get into the details. We need a "what" not a "how much."

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 3933
RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 9/22/2018 6:27:28 PM   
Zorch

 

Posts: 8346
Joined: 3/7/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

I haven't crossed the Rubicon, merely parlayed across it. Plus my proconsulship remains until March.

Only if the Senate willingly grants me the position of Dictator for life might I even contemplate your request.

Alfred


I appreciate this reference. We need more Roman war references (any of them) and fewer Civil War references in these parts


I will hurl someone from the Tarpeian Rock if we don't have a turn soon.

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 3934
RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 9/22/2018 9:12:19 PM   
Rusty1961

 

Posts: 1222
Joined: 2/4/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred


quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

I am therefore very much bound by ethical considerations to not disclose information which the devs did not want to disclose. The following comments regarding kamikaze air operations are provided very much with that constraint in mind. I know there will be players who will demand more information to which the answer is tough, you aren't entitled to even this amount of information.


I have never understood the need for such subterfuge regarding the game mechanics. Those asking for details regarding game mechanics aren't looking to pilfer the source code, we just want to understand the rules the game operates under. It's compounded by the fact that AE doesn't exactly give great feedback regarding the outcomes it generates in the combat reports. It's the devs ball, and they can share it if they want; this is fine with me.

I think that AE is the only game of this genre where so much of the mechanics are simply a grey area known to the devs and their coterie. I don't want to read the source code, I'd just like to have an informed understanding of, say, what causes LCU artillery devices to fire at ships in a bombardment or amphib TF.





Alfred



Commenting on #5 only...a laughable statement.

Sub commanders NEVER give in their reports the speed and direction of the ships they engage or even see, yet that was standard operating procedure for US sub commanders to report to Pearl.

Standard Operating Procedure.


Then at midnight of each night US subs gave Fox reports on their daily movements and encounters.


Sorry, no sale on #5.


The word abstraction is obviously not found in your dictionary.

1. In AE the Allied player is Nimitz (or his equivalent in each theatre). Everything is then abstracted down from there. It is standard operating procedure for a strategic/operational wargame. You are not the sub commander. Nor the officer the sub commander reports to who is the person, not Nimitz, who gets to read those reports and act upon them.

2. The game engine has its own abstracted intel module. Such information you claim is not provided is in fact provided in abstract form as part of the MDL. It is what allows a sub to "react" in "real time" following an enemy TF.

3. You, as the player (ie Nimitz), can't act on that information anyway so what is the point of you (ie Nimitz) having it. The on the spot sub commander has it and in game terms that information is only relevant to the on the spot sub commander. What you want is more chrome with absolutely zero game utility but exponentially increasing demands on computer hardware and human frustration.

4. So many things abstracted into the game which IRL would generate a report usually only read and acted upon by someone below Nimitz. To name only a few. Shortage of "supply" (a huge abstraction in its own right as it includes such myriad things like water, food, ammo, building materials etc) at base X, please send supply. Aye Cap'n, shes running low on fuel, better request a fuel transfer from the TF flagship else the TF will be dead in the water. You don't get that report either but miraculously the abstraction allows for underway fuel transfer. Here's another one, you don't get a report breaking down the cause of device disablement. How many men are disabled due to (a) malaria, (b) STD, (c) combat injuries, (d) work accidents etc. Nor are you told their estimated convalescence period.

5. So many other exemplars could be provided and none of them relevant in this particular game engine with its built in abstractions. What you do get is more relevant and accurate information which can be acted upon by Nimitz. Combat Reports provide accurate details on enemy LCU losses. Back in the real world unless you are able to capture the ground held by the enemy, you can't determine with any degree of accuracy how many enemy troops were killed in that last attack (and not all enemy killed are found on the captured battleground). Yet in AE the majority of land attacks result in no advance but the CR still lists how many enemy troops were killed, how many artillery guns (often way back behind the front line anyway) were destroyed, and so on. IRL it is never possible to accurate determine enemy non fatal casualties even if the enemy ground is ceased. You can count the number of POWs captured but you can't count how many injured withdrew with the rest of the enemy able bodied. The CR identifies specific enemy air units providing CAP, IRL that information is subject to a much greater degree of uncertainty. Naval CR and combat animation identifies specific enemy ships. Not so easy IRL, particularly enemy subs launching torpedoes whilst submerged.

Alfred



Sorry, no sale. To say Nimitz wouldn't get information on the Japanese Combined Fleet's Location/Speed and Direction due to "abstraction" yet Nimitz would get tons of information how many torpedoes the USS Tang launched at the PB Osaka is so contradictory it defies the most vivid imagination.

Intel Officer: "Sir, we found KB!!!"

Nimitz: "How many torpedoes Mush launch at that AKL?"

Intel Officer: "Don't you want to know where KB is and where they are going?"

Nimitz: "No, I want to know about that AKL and how many fish hit her"

Yes, you're asking us to believe a conversation like that happened or would have.

That is laughable.


The problem is you hide behind "Abstraction" a lot. Too much actually.

But keep spinning, you're the best at it.

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 3935
RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 9/22/2018 11:18:00 PM   
dasboot1960


Posts: 389
Joined: 8/2/2009
From: St Augustine, Florida
Status: offline
MIKE SOLLI - Thank you for your patience with these last several pages. Although almost entirely off topic to your AAR, they are illuminating, and now easily referenceable, since I have you bookmarked. I don't know where I come down as to what should or should not be public, but thank you again for not making a big fuss about them surfacing here. Got a new turn report?

_____________________________

Down like a CLOWN!

(in reply to Rusty1961)
Post #: 3936
RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 9/23/2018 10:29:56 AM   
Mike Solli


Posts: 15731
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorch


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

I haven't crossed the Rubicon, merely parlayed across it. Plus my proconsulship remains until March.

Only if the Senate willingly grants me the position of Dictator for life might I even contemplate your request.

Alfred


I appreciate this reference. We need more Roman war references (any of them) and fewer Civil War references in these parts


I will hurl someone from the Tarpeian Rock if we don't have a turn soon.


You and me both, Zorch. Ted has some guests from out of the country and is wining and dining them. They're supposed to leave soon (I hope).

_____________________________


Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to Zorch)
Post #: 3937
RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 9/23/2018 10:32:47 AM   
Mike Solli


Posts: 15731
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: dasboot1960

MIKE SOLLI - Thank you for your patience with these last several pages. Although almost entirely off topic to your AAR, they are illuminating, and now easily referenceable, since I have you bookmarked. I don't know where I come down as to what should or should not be public, but thank you again for not making a big fuss about them surfacing here. Got a new turn report?


Thanks much. I appreciate that. You'll get the report within a day of me getting a turn.

_____________________________


Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to dasboot1960)
Post #: 3938
RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 9/23/2018 10:43:43 AM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 9569
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred


quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

I am therefore very much bound by ethical considerations to not disclose information which the devs did not want to disclose. The following comments regarding kamikaze air operations are provided very much with that constraint in mind. I know there will be players who will demand more information to which the answer is tough, you aren't entitled to even this amount of information.


I have never understood the need for such subterfuge regarding the game mechanics. Those asking for details regarding game mechanics aren't looking to pilfer the source code, we just want to understand the rules the game operates under. It's compounded by the fact that AE doesn't exactly give great feedback regarding the outcomes it generates in the combat reports. It's the devs ball, and they can share it if they want; this is fine with me.

I think that AE is the only game of this genre where so much of the mechanics are simply a grey area known to the devs and their coterie. I don't want to read the source code, I'd just like to have an informed understanding of, say, what causes LCU artillery devices to fire at ships in a bombardment or amphib TF.





Alfred



Commenting on #5 only...a laughable statement.

Sub commanders NEVER give in their reports the speed and direction of the ships they engage or even see, yet that was standard operating procedure for US sub commanders to report to Pearl.

Standard Operating Procedure.


Then at midnight of each night US subs gave Fox reports on their daily movements and encounters.


Sorry, no sale on #5.


The word abstraction is obviously not found in your dictionary.

1. In AE the Allied player is Nimitz (or his equivalent in each theatre). Everything is then abstracted down from there. It is standard operating procedure for a strategic/operational wargame. You are not the sub commander. Nor the officer the sub commander reports to who is the person, not Nimitz, who gets to read those reports and act upon them.

2. The game engine has its own abstracted intel module. Such information you claim is not provided is in fact provided in abstract form as part of the MDL. It is what allows a sub to "react" in "real time" following an enemy TF.

3. You, as the player (ie Nimitz), can't act on that information anyway so what is the point of you (ie Nimitz) having it. The on the spot sub commander has it and in game terms that information is only relevant to the on the spot sub commander. What you want is more chrome with absolutely zero game utility but exponentially increasing demands on computer hardware and human frustration.

4. So many things abstracted into the game which IRL would generate a report usually only read and acted upon by someone below Nimitz. To name only a few. Shortage of "supply" (a huge abstraction in its own right as it includes such myriad things like water, food, ammo, building materials etc) at base X, please send supply. Aye Cap'n, shes running low on fuel, better request a fuel transfer from the TF flagship else the TF will be dead in the water. You don't get that report either but miraculously the abstraction allows for underway fuel transfer. Here's another one, you don't get a report breaking down the cause of device disablement. How many men are disabled due to (a) malaria, (b) STD, (c) combat injuries, (d) work accidents etc. Nor are you told their estimated convalescence period.

5. So many other exemplars could be provided and none of them relevant in this particular game engine with its built in abstractions. What you do get is more relevant and accurate information which can be acted upon by Nimitz. Combat Reports provide accurate details on enemy LCU losses. Back in the real world unless you are able to capture the ground held by the enemy, you can't determine with any degree of accuracy how many enemy troops were killed in that last attack (and not all enemy killed are found on the captured battleground). Yet in AE the majority of land attacks result in no advance but the CR still lists how many enemy troops were killed, how many artillery guns (often way back behind the front line anyway) were destroyed, and so on. IRL it is never possible to accurate determine enemy non fatal casualties even if the enemy ground is ceased. You can count the number of POWs captured but you can't count how many injured withdrew with the rest of the enemy able bodied. The CR identifies specific enemy air units providing CAP, IRL that information is subject to a much greater degree of uncertainty. Naval CR and combat animation identifies specific enemy ships. Not so easy IRL, particularly enemy subs launching torpedoes whilst submerged.

Alfred



Sorry, no sale. To say Nimitz wouldn't get information on the Japanese Combined Fleet's Location/Speed and Direction due to "abstraction" yet Nimitz would get tons of information how many torpedoes the USS Tang launched at the PB Osaka is so contradictory it defies the most vivid imagination.

Intel Officer: "Sir, we found KB!!!"

Nimitz: "How many torpedoes Mush launch at that AKL?"

Intel Officer: "Don't you want to know where KB is and where they are going?"

Nimitz: "No, I want to know about that AKL and how many fish hit her"

Yes, you're asking us to believe a conversation like that happened or would have.

That is laughable.


The problem is you hide behind "Abstraction" a lot. Too much actually.

But keep spinning, you're the best at it.


Just don't play. Seems WitP-AE is not a game for you.

It is Strategic/Operational wargame with some tactical aspects you can change. Apparently not your cup of tea.

Your understanding of WitP-AE as wargame seems to be sorely lacking, so I'd kindly ask you to stop deriding people who actually understand it decently well or better (e.g. Alfred).

If you don't understand difference between Combat report and Operational intelligence...then I am sorry to inform you that you are beyond redemption.


< Message edited by Sardaukar -- 9/23/2018 10:46:29 AM >


_____________________________

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


(in reply to Rusty1961)
Post #: 3939
RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 9/23/2018 5:31:53 PM   
Rusty1961

 

Posts: 1222
Joined: 2/4/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred


quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

I am therefore very much bound by ethical considerations to not disclose information which the devs did not want to disclose. The following comments regarding kamikaze air operations are provided very much with that constraint in mind. I know there will be players who will demand more information to which the answer is tough, you aren't entitled to even this amount of information.


I have never understood the need for such subterfuge regarding the game mechanics. Those asking for details regarding game mechanics aren't looking to pilfer the source code, we just want to understand the rules the game operates under. It's compounded by the fact that AE doesn't exactly give great feedback regarding the outcomes it generates in the combat reports. It's the devs ball, and they can share it if they want; this is fine with me.

I think that AE is the only game of this genre where so much of the mechanics are simply a grey area known to the devs and their coterie. I don't want to read the source code, I'd just like to have an informed understanding of, say, what causes LCU artillery devices to fire at ships in a bombardment or amphib TF.





Alfred



Commenting on #5 only...a laughable statement.

Sub commanders NEVER give in their reports the speed and direction of the ships they engage or even see, yet that was standard operating procedure for US sub commanders to report to Pearl.

Standard Operating Procedure.


Then at midnight of each night US subs gave Fox reports on their daily movements and encounters.


Sorry, no sale on #5.


The word abstraction is obviously not found in your dictionary.

1. In AE the Allied player is Nimitz (or his equivalent in each theatre). Everything is then abstracted down from there. It is standard operating procedure for a strategic/operational wargame. You are not the sub commander. Nor the officer the sub commander reports to who is the person, not Nimitz, who gets to read those reports and act upon them.

2. The game engine has its own abstracted intel module. Such information you claim is not provided is in fact provided in abstract form as part of the MDL. It is what allows a sub to "react" in "real time" following an enemy TF.

3. You, as the player (ie Nimitz), can't act on that information anyway so what is the point of you (ie Nimitz) having it. The on the spot sub commander has it and in game terms that information is only relevant to the on the spot sub commander. What you want is more chrome with absolutely zero game utility but exponentially increasing demands on computer hardware and human frustration.

4. So many things abstracted into the game which IRL would generate a report usually only read and acted upon by someone below Nimitz. To name only a few. Shortage of "supply" (a huge abstraction in its own right as it includes such myriad things like water, food, ammo, building materials etc) at base X, please send supply. Aye Cap'n, shes running low on fuel, better request a fuel transfer from the TF flagship else the TF will be dead in the water. You don't get that report either but miraculously the abstraction allows for underway fuel transfer. Here's another one, you don't get a report breaking down the cause of device disablement. How many men are disabled due to (a) malaria, (b) STD, (c) combat injuries, (d) work accidents etc. Nor are you told their estimated convalescence period.

5. So many other exemplars could be provided and none of them relevant in this particular game engine with its built in abstractions. What you do get is more relevant and accurate information which can be acted upon by Nimitz. Combat Reports provide accurate details on enemy LCU losses. Back in the real world unless you are able to capture the ground held by the enemy, you can't determine with any degree of accuracy how many enemy troops were killed in that last attack (and not all enemy killed are found on the captured battleground). Yet in AE the majority of land attacks result in no advance but the CR still lists how many enemy troops were killed, how many artillery guns (often way back behind the front line anyway) were destroyed, and so on. IRL it is never possible to accurate determine enemy non fatal casualties even if the enemy ground is ceased. You can count the number of POWs captured but you can't count how many injured withdrew with the rest of the enemy able bodied. The CR identifies specific enemy air units providing CAP, IRL that information is subject to a much greater degree of uncertainty. Naval CR and combat animation identifies specific enemy ships. Not so easy IRL, particularly enemy subs launching torpedoes whilst submerged.

Alfred



Sorry, no sale. To say Nimitz wouldn't get information on the Japanese Combined Fleet's Location/Speed and Direction due to "abstraction" yet Nimitz would get tons of information how many torpedoes the USS Tang launched at the PB Osaka is so contradictory it defies the most vivid imagination.

Intel Officer: "Sir, we found KB!!!"

Nimitz: "How many torpedoes Mush launch at that AKL?"

Intel Officer: "Don't you want to know where KB is and where they are going?"

Nimitz: "No, I want to know about that AKL and how many fish hit her"

Yes, you're asking us to believe a conversation like that happened or would have.

That is laughable.


The problem is you hide behind "Abstraction" a lot. Too much actually.

But keep spinning, you're the best at it.


Just don't play. Seems WitP-AE is not a game for you.

It is Strategic/Operational wargame with some tactical aspects you can change. Apparently not your cup of tea.

Your understanding of WitP-AE as wargame seems to be sorely lacking, so I'd kindly ask you to stop deriding people who actually understand it decently well or better (e.g. Alfred).

If you don't understand difference between Combat report and Operational intelligence...then I am sorry to inform you that you are beyond redemption.




Yeah, like I'm the first one who wanted something included that wasn't there.

My bad.

(in reply to Sardaukar)
Post #: 3940
RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 9/24/2018 2:36:33 PM   
Mike Solli


Posts: 15731
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline
Finally got a turn and ran it. Working it now but have a question. Ryuho's air groups were supposed to have arrived but stubbornly remain 2 days out. I figured (incorrectly) that they would just show up on Ryuho. She was sitting at Ambon. Obviously, that's not the case. Where does Ryuho have to go in order to "pick up" her planes?

_____________________________


Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to Rusty1961)
Post #: 3941
RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 9/24/2018 3:28:06 PM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 17618
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

Finally got a turn and ran it. Working it now but have a question. Ryuho's air groups were supposed to have arrived but stubbornly remain 2 days out. I figured (incorrectly) that they would just show up on Ryuho. She was sitting at Ambon. Obviously, that's not the case. Where does Ryuho have to go in order to "pick up" her planes?

In the Intel Report, the "Group Reinforcement Schedule" shows the base of arrival. The fact that it is stuck on two days before arrival might indicate lack of HI or Aircraft/Engine points to finish creating the squadron(s). Check pools for availability of the required aircraft types.

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to Mike Solli)
Post #: 3942
RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 9/24/2018 3:46:49 PM   
Mike Solli


Posts: 15731
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

Finally got a turn and ran it. Working it now but have a question. Ryuho's air groups were supposed to have arrived but stubbornly remain 2 days out. I figured (incorrectly) that they would just show up on Ryuho. She was sitting at Ambon. Obviously, that's not the case. Where does Ryuho have to go in order to "pick up" her planes?

In the Intel Report, the "Group Reinforcement Schedule" shows the base of arrival. The fact that it is stuck on two days before arrival might indicate lack of HI or Aircraft/Engine points to finish creating the squadron(s). Check pools for availability of the required aircraft types.


That's not the case. I have >1.9 million HI in the pool. The fighter unit says 18 A6M2 (68 in the pool) and the TB unit says 9 B5N2 (57 in the pool). This is the carrier whose air group is scheduled to arrive long after the carrier herself. I'm stumped. She'll hit Soerabaja tomorrow, then off to Singapore and finally to Tokyo if the air units don't arrive.

_____________________________


Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 3943
RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 9/24/2018 4:36:16 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 9244
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline
Squads from reserve are supposed to "poof" into existence. Pool status shouldn't matter a whit.

(in reply to Mike Solli)
Post #: 3944
RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 9/24/2018 4:40:52 PM   
MakeeLearn


Posts: 4296
Joined: 9/11/2016
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

Finally got a turn and ran it. Working it now but have a question. Ryuho's air groups were supposed to have arrived but stubbornly remain 2 days out. I figured (incorrectly) that they would just show up on Ryuho. She was sitting at Ambon. Obviously, that's not the case. Where does Ryuho have to go in order to "pick up" her planes?



http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3634036&mpage=1&key=Ryuho�

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3367020&mpage=1&key=Ryuho�

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3481527&mpage=1&key=Ryuho�

quote:

In the real war the Ryuho was torpedoed by a sub before getting an air group and after repairs operated Hiyo's air group for much of 1943.


< Message edited by MakeeLearn -- 9/24/2018 4:43:25 PM >

(in reply to Mike Solli)
Post #: 3945
RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 9/24/2018 5:10:46 PM   
Mike Solli


Posts: 15731
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

Squads from reserve are supposed to "poof" into existence. Pool status shouldn't matter a whit.


Yep. I have this sneaky suspicion that Ryuho may have to be in Tokyo to receive the air groups. I'll let you guys know when (if) she ever gets her air groups.

_____________________________


Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 3946
RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 9/24/2018 8:21:26 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 9244
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

Squads from reserve are supposed to "poof" into existence. Pool status shouldn't matter a whit.


Yep. I have this sneaky suspicion that Ryuho may have to be in Tokyo to receive the air groups. I'll let you guys know when (if) she ever gets her air groups.


I forget how mine arrived. I think they just arrived automagically.

(in reply to Mike Solli)
Post #: 3947
RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 9/26/2018 2:33:20 AM   
Mike Solli


Posts: 15731
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline
7 Nov 43

Sub War

Nothing to report.

5 Fleet

Japanese sweep of Umnak met no resistance. A sentai of Sallies bombed Umnak causing minor damage to the airfield.

I have a surface fleet of 4 BB escorted by some DDs headed up there to smack around the Allied bases. Not sure whether to hit Umnak (airfield) or Dutch Harbor (port). They’re still a way out so I’ll ponder it some more.

4 Fleet

The US carrier TF is still hanging around. They launched an attack against Roi-Namur’s airfield with 62 Helldivers, 46 Dauntlesses and 31 Avengers escorted by 25 Hellcats. A total of 34 A6M4cs and 36 Franks rose to meet them shooting down 38 aircraft (6 Hellcats, 10 Helldivers, 10 Dauntlesses and 12 Avengers) for no loss. There was a bit of minor airfield damage. Banzai! Shooting down enemy carrier planes over my base is a great thing!

SE Fleet

There were Allied bombing runs against Aitape (the next target) and Hollandia. The targets were troops and the airfield, respectively. I can see the US carriers to the south of Manus, but they’re content to hang out there. KB2 (Shokaku and the 3 Unryus) are moving around out of range north of the northern tip of PNG ready to pounce should the carriers and/or invasion fleet start moving NW.

SRA

A couple dozen each of Dauntlesses and Beauforts are flying out of Darwin to hit the airfield at Saumlaki. I’m not sure if that’s the target of a future invasion or just a target of opportunity within range of the bombers. I have a garrison unit there that’s going to go away in 7 days. That’s just perfect timing. I’m moving the 65 Bde there as the new garrison. I think I’m going to move some fighters there to get some target practice.

Burma

Sweeps of Akyab and Chittagong found no enemy fighters. Bombing of Cox’s Bazaar caused damage to the airfield there. Akyab’s airfield is currently out of commission.

China

Bombing destroyed 20 squads at Chungking. I anticipate a deliberate assault in 3-4 days. The forts are down to level 2, which is causing a slight increase in damage by my bombers. I’d love to reduce Chungking by the end of the year. We’ll see.

Other Stuff

Reinforcements:
SC Ch-51, ASW
MTB G-153, a target?

In a week I get my first significant ground forces, and not a moment too soon. They include a base force, 10 infantry brigades/regiments, 5 mortar units and an amphibious tank battalion. Three of the mortar units and the tanks combine with units already on map to form independent mixed brigades (IMB) and an amphibious brigade. Some of the IMBs will form with future reinforcements to create new divisions later on.

All are allocated. The base force is going to Taihoku, replacing one that shifted forward recently.

Three infantry units will guard the coast of Burma, where there currently is nothing other than the odd AS unit, if anything.

Four IMBs are going to the Philippines. They will eventually become divisions (100, 102, 103 & 105) and for a decent chunk of the defenses there. (My intent is to defend only Manila, Clark Field and Bataan.

Three mortar units combine with garrison units to become IMBs. Two are in Java and the third is at Singapore. I’m thinking of moving the Singapore IMB to Cocos Island as the garrison there.

The amphibious tank battalion will combine with an infantry unit at Etorofu to make an amphibious brigade. Two other amphibious brigades will go to Christmas Island (IO) and Wakkani.

An IMB will go to Sumatra, probably Sabang.

Finally, there are two independent medium mortar battalions (150mm) that are going to Saumlaki and Koepang, to give the garrisons there a little more punch.

I’m curious to see what kind of hit my armament and vehicle point pools take when these reinforcements arrive.

I shut off some merchant yards along with the remaining xAKs (9x Std-C) and a bunch of TKs. I’ll fine tune it in a couple of days.

I’m still stumped about Ryuho’s air unit’s non-arrival. I hope the carrier doesn’t have to go back to Tokyo for them to arrive.

The Tojo production is over forever. I currently have 7 1/3 sentai of them totaling 274 planes with an additional 207 in the pool. One chutai is in China, 1 in the Southern SRA, with another 2 chutai in the Aleutians. A couple sentai are at Truk with the remainder in Burma. Those in Burma are doing very well, but they usually oppose Hurricanes and P-40Ks. Fortunately, the few more modern fighters in that theater, the P-51A and P-40N5, are at Ledo, which is visited by Franks.

I have 4x30 Ki-44-IIc factories which are currently off. I’ll convert them to something else as needed. The 1x360 Ha-34 factory is on, and I’m still building 3x30 Ki-49-IIb bombers and 1x60 Ki-49-II KAI transports (my only IJAAF transport in production). There are 660 engines in the pool. I need to figure out my final build out of the bombers and transports then make sure there are sufficient engines in the pool. I may just keep the engine factory on through the end of November 1943 then change it to something else (Ha-45?). That would give me an additional 264 engines. That’s the equivalent of an extra 460 Helen transports/bombers. That may be enough. The Peggy becomes operational in 2/44. I need to see how many more transport sentai I get to figure out how many transports I’ll need. I need to do more math before rambling on any more.


_____________________________


Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 3948
RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 9/26/2018 3:25:23 AM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 9244
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline
Remind me to check on my Ryuho group arrivals in my Tracker...

(in reply to Mike Solli)
Post #: 3949
RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 9/26/2018 12:10:24 PM   
specie1

 

Posts: 63
Joined: 4/4/2012
Status: offline
I'm in my first WITPAE PBEM game as japan. It's late may '42 and i just got CVL Ryuho. It has been accelerated since turn number 2. The only problem is it arrived With NO Airgroups! When i check my airgroup reinforcements the Ryuho groups are scheduled to arrive in 8/43! I'll have to find a solution for the next 14 months!

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 3950
RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 9/26/2018 12:15:51 PM   
Mike Solli


Posts: 15731
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline
Yep, that's the dilemma of every Japanese player. The Ryuho's air groups aren't linked with the carrier. They arrive separately. My issue is that they won't actually arrive. They remain 2 days out. I figured they'd just appear on the carrier, but they refuse. Ryuho was at Ambon. So, I'm sending her to Soerabaja (will arrive tomorrow). In no joy, then to Singapore, and finally to the Home Islands. I really hope it doesn't go that far.

_____________________________


Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to specie1)
Post #: 3951
RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 9/26/2018 12:17:13 PM   
MakeeLearn


Posts: 4296
Joined: 9/11/2016
Status: offline
quote:

Mike Solli
I’m still stumped about Ryuho’s air unit’s non-arrival. I hope the carrier doesn’t have to go back to Tokyo for them to arrive.



quote:

crsutton

The game allows your changes in production but most OOB arrival schedules are based on the actual historical timetable.


quote:

wdolson
In the real war the Ryuho was torpedoed by a sub before getting an air group and after repairs operated Hiyo's air group for much of 1943.

(in reply to specie1)
Post #: 3952
RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 9/26/2018 12:25:04 PM   
Mike Solli


Posts: 15731
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline
MakeeLearn, that's all true, but with any of the other carriers (with the exception of Ryuho and some CVE TB units that arrive later), if you accelerate the carrier, that carrier's air groups also accelerate with the carrier and arrive at the same time. I also have 4 CVE TB chutai that are arriving soon. I'm curious to see what happens to them.

_____________________________


Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to MakeeLearn)
Post #: 3953
RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 9/26/2018 12:47:15 PM   
MakeeLearn


Posts: 4296
Joined: 9/11/2016
Status: offline


Looking in the editor, Ryuho's air groups have a "Delay"= 431101. Whereas most carrier air groups have no Delay. May be different in depending on the scenario.

< Message edited by MakeeLearn -- 9/26/2018 12:48:54 PM >

(in reply to Mike Solli)
Post #: 3954
RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 9/26/2018 12:51:51 PM   
Mike Solli


Posts: 15731
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MakeeLearn



Looking in the editor, Ryuho's air groups have a "Delay"= 431101. Whereas most carrier air groups have no Delay. May be different in depending on the scenario.


Correct, in Scenario 1 it's been that from day 1. It's now 7 Nov 43 and Ryuho's air groups are still showing as 2 days out. They aren't advancing for some reason. I'm trying to figure that out.

_____________________________


Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to MakeeLearn)
Post #: 3955
RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 9/26/2018 5:06:22 PM   
Mike Solli


Posts: 15731
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline
Ok, I did some math concerning the Ha-34 engine and the Helen bomber and transport. Here we go:

Some background numbers:

Bomber/sentai/Planes/Pool/notes

Ki-21-IIa Sally/3/78/0/In China, will be there for awhile until it is entirely cleaned up of Chinese troops (Chungking & 2 other armies surrounded).
Ki-21-IIb Sally/3.33/93/23/In China, ditto above.
Ki-48-Ia Lily/1/27/7/In China, ditto above.
Ki-49-IIa Helen/6.33/264/4/Front line service & ASW/Will be replaced by the IIb as numbers dwindle.
Ki-49-IIb Helen/2/58/62/Front line service.

That's what I have to work with. The only IJAAF bomber reinforcements I receive are 4x27 sentai (all restricted) and 15x10 training units (read Kamikaze). Also, I'll have a total of 109 slots withdrawing throughout the remainder of the war. So, other than the 15x10 training units, it's a wash.

It's simpler for the transports. For training I have 2x27 and 7x9 for a total of 117 planes. Not all of them are full, which makes no real difference and they use all the obsolete aircraft. The operational units are 2x27 and 12x9 for a total of 162 aircraft. Right now I'm short 32 and have 24 Helen transports in the pool, so a net -8. I have all the transport units I'll have for the rest of the war. I hope to move the 2 training sentai to the operational side eventually to be able to move stuff around more quickly as my perimeter shrinks and the threats increase.

Here's the plan:

The Ha-34 factory, size 360, will remain on for the remainder of November. There are 660 engines in the pool and the factory will produce 138 more for a grand total of 798 engines. They will be used for the Helen bomber and transport so that's a total of 399 planes for the remainder of the war.

I have a total capacity of 520 operational bombers and 162 (hopefully 216 at some point) transports with a surplus of 96 bombers and a shortage of 8 transports. The 399 extra planes will have to last the rest of the war.

I have 3x30 Helen bomber and 1x60 Helen transport factories. I'm keeping them all on right now. I'll probably turn them off when the supply of engines gets down to ~2-300. At that time I'll reassess to determine how to split up the last engines.

The IJA bombers will be withdrawn from frontline service at some point in 1944 when it becomes too dangerous to use them effectively. Then they'll be used as ASW platforms and eventually, Kamikazes.

< Message edited by Mike Solli -- 9/26/2018 5:08:01 PM >


_____________________________


Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to Mike Solli)
Post #: 3956
RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 9/26/2018 5:25:57 PM   
Mike Solli


Posts: 15731
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline
As I said earlier, the Ki-44-IIc Tojo production is over. There currently are 7.33 sentai operational for a total of 274 aircraft with a pool of 207. With those numbers, it will be in frontline service (mainly Burma) for a while. Should it's reign decline, I'll pull it out of frontline service for training and eventually, Kamikazes.

The 3x30 factories will remain off and eventually be changed to something else.

_____________________________


Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to Mike Solli)
Post #: 3957
RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 9/26/2018 10:34:20 PM   
mind_messing

 

Posts: 3323
Joined: 10/28/2013
Status: offline
quote:

Four IMBs are going to the Philippines. They will eventually become divisions (100, 102, 103 & 105) and for a decent chunk of the defenses there. (My intent is to defend only Manila, Clark Field and Bataan.


I made the same call once, and in retrospect it was a mistake. Don't neglect Mindanao. The geography works out very nicely for Japan in '44 and '45. With a little development it can become a pretty solid bastion for Japan, and bypassing it to move on bases further north is difficult.

What's even better for Japan is that if the Allies invade to take the island, the Japanese defenders can mount an extended campaign, with a real chance of moving in reinforcements and supply rather than the usual "base falls, defenders wiped out" that happens on single hex islands.

Based on my experiences, the best course of defence for the PI would be to have three interlinked hubs of developed airbases - one on Luzon, one on Mindanao and one in-between the two. I'd use the Manila-Clark-Lingayen-San Fernando railway line to provide the spine of Luzon's airbase network. Cagayan on Mindanao is the big base there as it's the best sited. For the intermediate bases, I'd suggest the two hexes on Leyte as well as Cebu, but there's a serious argument to be made for developing the three rail linked bases on Panay to be the middle link in the PI's airbase network. Panay is perfectly sited - 7 hexes from Davao, 7 hexes from Manila. If it wasn't for them being clear terrain I'd suggest them as the best position to site airbases, but even being clear terrain I'm thinking that they might be the best place to fight for the PI. Anyone care to share their thoughts on that?

Don't forget smaller islands as well, especially the ones off Bataan. Lubang and Calapan can make nice secondary airbases for Luzon, and can be easily supplied from Manila. The two bases on Palawan make a nice backstop for Panay or Cebu, and have nice SLOC's back to Singapore. Mindanao is a little more difficult, but there's Jolo (already built up nicely on Dec 7th) and the other islands in that chain to pester the Allies from.

Basically, I did what you did, and in retropsect it was a mistake. Japan can turn the PI into a serious meatgrinder before the Allies even reach Luzon.

(in reply to Mike Solli)
Post #: 3958
RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 9/27/2018 1:48:46 AM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline
I'll play devil's advocate here.

Mindinao, with no RR, and all bases are coastal. Very susceptible to naval bombardment.
Panay has RR, but all 3 are coastal. Susceptible to naval bombardment.
Luzon has both Cabanatuan and Manila. Cabanatuan is inland and on the RR, Manila is protected by Bataan.

My concern is that with recon and naval bombardment, the allies could neutralize IJ airpower in both Panay and Mindinao and keep it that way. Not suggesting that there are no counters for this, there are. But with limited resources, do you use those counters here or in Hokkaido? I tend to use them in Hokkaido …




_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to mind_messing)
Post #: 3959
RE: Once Again into the Breach - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A) - 9/27/2018 11:28:06 AM   
mind_messing

 

Posts: 3323
Joined: 10/28/2013
Status: offline
quote:

Mindinao, with no RR, and all bases are coastal. Very susceptible to naval bombardment.


Not exactly true, there is that one base in the centre of the island that's pretty ideal as a CAP hub.

quote:

Panay has RR, but all 3 are coastal. Susceptible to naval bombardment.


I actually checked and Panay only has RR between two of the hexes, which changes my value of it downward some.

quote:

Luzon has both Cabanatuan and Manila. Cabanatuan is inland and on the RR, Manila is protected by Bataan.


Clark, Bayombong and Tuguegarao are also inland and protected from bombardment.

quote:

My concern is that with recon and naval bombardment, the allies could neutralize IJ airpower in both Panay and Mindinao and keep it that way. Not suggesting that there are no counters for this, there are. But with limited resources, do you use those counters here or in Hokkaido? I tend to use them in Hokkaido …


The Allies can and will take Panay and Mindanao if they want it, but Japan can make it a slow, painful affair. Deciding to abandon Mindanao gives them the perfectly platform to take on Luzon, even with it's inland bases.

I think that opposing the Allied advance onto Mindanao is easier for Japan (due to the geography) than opposing the Allied advance on to Luzon (even if the bases are better suited to defending on Luzon).

It's also better for the IJN than nearly anywhere else on the map. You've a close repair shipyard for critical repairs and a big port for the BB's (Manila), and back end repair yards in close sailing (Singapore, Hong Kong). You're next to the fuel from Miri and Balikipapan, so logistics is a breeze. It's easy for supplies and reinforcements to get landed on Luzon and shipped by barge/xAKL or flown southward. There's plenty of ingress points for combatants; from the south-west (based from Balikipapan), the west (based from Miri, though I'd personally turn Puerto Princessa into a advanced base with some AO, AD and AKE for forward operations) and the North (from Manila). Given the narrowness of the waters in the PI, you're likely to get night fights, which the IJN will love, and ships on full speed runs can easily hit a target and get back under CAP before daylight. You can flood the area with floatplanes from AV's hidden in the dozens of unimportant islands that dot the region. It's not that you can't do any of this from Hokkaido, but you need to pick a place to sell the IJN for as many VP's as possible, and the Allies get more ships with every passing month.

Basically, given tc464's line of advance, I think he will move on Mindanao at some point. Optimally, the best position to defend against a push from SWPAC up New Guinea is around Sorong, where the Japanese have nearly 270 degrees within which to launch naval and air attacks, but Allied persistence will win eventually, and at that point it's on to talking about the next step, which is Mindanao.


(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 3960
Page:   <<   < prev  130 131 [132] 133 134   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  130 131 [132] 133 134   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

0.434