Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

A common sight in '44

 
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 >> A common sight in '44 Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
A common sight in '44 - 3/28/2019 4:34:09 PM   
Numdydar

 

Posts: 3055
Joined: 2/13/2004
Status: offline
Its been awhile since I posted here. Have moved on to other games.

But was going through some old files and found this from my last PBEM game and thought I would share.

This is typical of what a JFB will see once '44 rolls around. And it does not get any better from here either lol.

This is also a pretty good reason why most PBEM games do not go the distance. It takes a special type of person to see this type of raid repeated over and over again and know there is really not much you can do about it. I actually continued to play simply because I wanted to see how bad it could get. Spoiler: pretty bad lol.

My Allied opponent suggested we stop the game in Mar '45. So I kindly took him up on his generous offer Of course since he 'quit' I immediately claimed victory

Enjoy.






Attachment (1)
Post #: 1
RE: A common sight in '44 - 3/28/2019 4:44:03 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 21098
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline
Welcome back.

...and I should add that a sight like this isn't particularly common against an experienced Japanese player, partly because the Allied player would get spanked for setting up a raid with so few escorts (and even an escorted raid might get chewed up).

(in reply to Numdydar)
Post #: 2
RE: A common sight in '44 - 3/28/2019 5:06:40 PM   
btd64


Posts: 7427
Joined: 1/23/2010
From: Mass. USA. now in OHIO
Status: offline
Good to see you back here Numdydar.

That's some raid....GP

_____________________________

Intel i7 4.3GHz 10th Gen,16GB Ram,Nvidia GeForce MX330

AKA General Patton

WPO,WITP,WITPAE-Mod Designer/Tester
DWU-Beta Tester
TOAW4-Alpha/Beta Tester

I don't like paying for the same real estate twice..Gen. George S. Patton

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 3
RE: A common sight in '44 - 3/28/2019 5:18:35 PM   
Leandros


Posts: 1479
Joined: 3/5/2015
Status: offline

What was the JFB's problem...?

Fred

_____________________________

River Wide, Ocean Deep - a book on Operation Sea Lion - www.fredleander.com
Saving MacArthur - a book series on how The Philippines were saved - in 1942! https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07D34QCWQ/?ie=UTF8&redirect=true&ref=series_rw_dp_labf

(in reply to btd64)
Post #: 4
RE: A common sight in '44 - 3/28/2019 5:36:45 PM   
Numdydar

 

Posts: 3055
Joined: 2/13/2004
Status: offline
Well if you notice the map, I had NO assets around the area.

The CVs I had left, don't recall how many, I kept under LBA cover as I needed the additional AC to remain competitive. The Allied player knew this, so tended to go where I did not have LBA coverage.

I do not know who you all play against in PBEM games, but against any kind of competent Allied player, there is not much any JFB can do in '44 or later to stop the tide. Slow it down, cause losses, etc., yes. But stop, no. But again the key here is competence as the Allies. If the they do risky/dumb moves, then Japan could do better.

I was playing what I consider an expert Allied player and thought I did pretty well. If any JFB wants to try their luck against him, I'll pass your info along

(in reply to Leandros)
Post #: 5
RE: A common sight in '44 - 3/28/2019 5:43:54 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 21098
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline
Numdydar, there are a number of Japanese players that play deep into 1945 and make the Allied player's life darned tough. There's a chance they're playing substandard opponents, but I think the larger factor is their experience and ability. The three that I follow most closely are Lokasenna, Obvert and Lowpe. I think there are a bunch of others. In their hands, Japan in 1944 can be brutally tough, so that the Allied advance is painfully slow and painful.

(in reply to Numdydar)
Post #: 6
RE: A common sight in '44 - 3/28/2019 6:00:51 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 21098
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline
I should add this: I'm not saying that contentiously, disputing your experience; rather, it's become more and more common for experienced IJ players to weather 1944 fine and to fight hard deep into '45. The balance in the game seems to have shifted since you were playing. If that intrigues you, so that you're more inclined to return, we'd love to have you back.

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 7
RE: A common sight in '44 - 3/28/2019 7:19:45 PM   
mind_messing

 

Posts: 2942
Joined: 10/28/2013
From: Glasgow, Scotland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Welcome back.

...and I should add that a sight like this isn't particularly common against an experienced Japanese player, partly because the Allied player would get spanked for setting up a raid with so few escorts (and even an escorted raid might get chewed up).


Or the Allied player could have used his massive naval superiority and bombarded instead of exposing aircraft to losses.

That's definitely a take-home message of my game with Loka.

The Allied naval OOB, when properly deployed, can make any coastal Japanese airbase virtually unusable at a very advantageous exchange rate. That's something few players that I've seen have really exploited.

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 8
RE: A common sight in '44 - 3/28/2019 8:28:03 PM   
HansBolter


Posts: 7339
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: St. Petersburg, Florida, USA
Status: offline
By late '45 it is common to see over 800 dive and torpedo bombers on any given Death Star air base suppression mission.

In keeping with mind_messing's advice I have used that type of base suppression sporadically.

The vast majority of my base suppression missions are implemented via naval bombardment.

The Home Islands are extremely vulnerable to this form of attack once air cover can be provided for the bombardment runs.

_____________________________

Hans


(in reply to mind_messing)
Post #: 9
RE: A common sight in '44 - 3/28/2019 9:27:15 PM   
rustysi


Posts: 6524
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline
quote:

Its been awhile since I posted here. Have moved on to other games.


Heresy, there are no other games.



Good to hear from ya.

_____________________________

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 HansBolter)
Post #: 10
RE: A common sight in '44 - 3/28/2019 11:06:24 PM   
Numdydar

 

Posts: 3055
Joined: 2/13/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Numdydar, there are a number of Japanese players that play deep into 1945 and make the Allied player's life darned tough. There's a chance they're playing substandard opponents, but I think the larger factor is their experience and ability. The three that I follow most closely are Lokasenna, Obvert and Lowpe. I think there are a bunch of others. In their hands, Japan in 1944 can be brutally tough, so that the Allied advance is painfully slow and painful.


I know that JFBs have fought the Allies to a standstill. And I did the same until about mid-'43. But my opponent did not do anything rash or stupid and opposed me here and there until his strength was built up in CVs and AC.

We had exactly three CV versus CV battles in the entire game. One in mid '42 where he lost 1-2 CV's and mine were pretty beat up. The second was in like July '43 where I lost 3 CVs and he lost 1-2. The last one was in late '44 around the Home islands where I lost the bulk of my CVs and he barely got scratched. Damned armored decks lol.

The reason we only had three was he never exposed his CVs recklessly. The one in '42 was because of a reaction move on my part protecting another fleet. Don't recall what. The second was also a reaction on my part, but I knew he was close by with his CVs and wanted to do damage while I still had parity.

But yes, bombardment was his preferred method of killing off AFs, ports, etc. But if his Bombard fleet took too much damage. he would send in raids like this, then start the bombardment all over again.

The major issues with AFBs that I have seen in AARs is they try and do things ahistorical and loose too many assets in the beginning, AC, ships, etc. My guy did none of those things. He basically let me do whatever I wanted until late '42 when he began to test my defenses.

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 11
RE: A common sight in '44 - 3/28/2019 11:21:16 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 21098
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline
I hope you'll give the game another try!

< Message edited by Canoerebel -- 3/29/2019 12:31:38 AM >

(in reply to Numdydar)
Post #: 12
RE: A common sight in '44 - 3/29/2019 1:02:39 AM   
Elessar2


Posts: 389
Joined: 11/30/2016
Status: offline
Should the massive CV fleets be broken up somehow (yes grasp that nobody is patching the game anymore)? As in the costs outweigh the benefits? I thought I read about a coordination penalty if too many CVs were in the same task force (correct me if I am wrong). Reading the AARs I am also struck by how seldom we get an old-fashioned carrier vs. carrier slugfest.

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 13
RE: A common sight in '44 - 3/29/2019 2:36:49 AM   
spence

 

Posts: 5307
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline
quote:

We had exactly three CV versus CV battles in the entire game. One in mid '42 where he lost 1-2 CV's and mine were pretty beat up. The second was in like July '43 where I lost 3 CVs and he lost 1-2. The last one was in late '44 around the Home islands where I lost the bulk of my CVs and he barely got scratched. Damned armored decks lol.


If one counts The Battle of Leyte Gulf wherein the Japanese used their "toothless" CVs as bait to draw the 3rd Fleet out of position then there were exactly 6 CV vs CV battles in all of history: 4 in 1942 and 2 in 1944. The year of decision was 1942. The Japanese managed (IRL) to win tactical victories in 2 of the battles that year but suffered strategic losses in all 4 of them. By 1944 even the first of the two battles was all but hopeless with the US fielding almost twice as many carrier borne aircraft as the the Japanese (which is the why for using the IJN carriers as bait in the 2nd battle of 1944).


(in reply to Numdydar)
Post #: 14
RE: A common sight in '44 - 3/29/2019 7:28:32 AM   
Yaab


Posts: 4156
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poland
Status: offline
So 550 dive-bombers, each carrying one or two bombs in a dive attack. Still prefferable to 200 4Es with eight bombs each.

(in reply to spence)
Post #: 15
RE: A common sight in '44 - 3/31/2019 5:55:02 PM   
rustysi


Posts: 6524
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline
quote:

I read about a coordination penalty if too many CVs were in the same task force


While this is true, it appears that these penalties are not that great. I would probably only worry about it as an Allied player in the early going.

_____________________________

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 Yaab)
Post #: 16
RE: A common sight in '44 - 3/31/2019 7:32:57 PM   
geofflambert


Posts: 14510
Joined: 12/23/2010
From: St. Louis
Status: offline
The main penalty for too many CVs in one TF is that when the enemy scouts find one CV, they find them all. Breaking up your CVs into as many small groups as possible is my advice. Even when multiple CV TFs are in the same hex it is not unusual for the enemy to only find one and only attack that one. When I played Allied I aimed for the following:
CV x 2
CVL x 1
CA x 2 or 3
CL x 1
DD x 6 or more

Add as many CLAAs as you can.

< Message edited by geofflambert -- 3/31/2019 7:43:49 PM >

(in reply to rustysi)
Post #: 17
RE: A common sight in '44 - 4/1/2019 3:25:38 PM   
Rusty1961

 

Posts: 1076
Joined: 2/4/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

By late '45 it is common to see over 800 dive and torpedo bombers on any given Death Star air base suppression mission.

In keeping with mind_messing's advice I have used that type of base suppression sporadically.

The vast majority of my base suppression missions are implemented via naval bombardment.

The Home Islands are extremely vulnerable to this form of attack once air cover can be provided for the bombardment runs.



Naval bombardments are way over-powered in frequency.

(in reply to HansBolter)
Post #: 18
RE: A common sight in '44 - 4/1/2019 3:27:43 PM   
Rusty1961

 

Posts: 1076
Joined: 2/4/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yaab

So 550 dive-bombers, each carrying one or two bombs in a dive attack. Still prefferable to 200 4Es with eight bombs each.


550,000 pounds of HE vs. 400,000 of HE.

If you throw in the SB2C the weight goes up.

(in reply to Yaab)
Post #: 19
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> A common sight in '44 Page: [1]
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

0.156