Iron Storm Playtest - Feurer Krieg vs Alikchi

Post descriptions of your brilliant successes and unfortunate demises.

Moderators: wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami

User avatar
Terminus
Posts: 39781
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 11:53 pm
Location: Denmark

RE: Allied position in the Far East - conclusion

Post by Terminus »

An alternative could be two KB's operating together, going up against your enemies sequentially, i.e. first killing off the Dutch and remaining Brits in the SRA, and only then entering the IO.
We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.
Alikchi2
Posts: 1786
Joined: Thu May 13, 2004 9:29 pm
Contact:

RE: Allied position in the Far East - conclusion

Post by Alikchi2 »

I've always been partial to splitting up the KB early war into 2 CV and 2 CVL divisions.

Each division can control roughly 4 hex "squares" around them completely - and by control, I mean force Allied shipping to avoid the area or be sunk.

You have the strength to form six divisions - meaning that you could control something like a 24-hex stretch of ocean. Saturate the sealanes that the US needs to supply Australia and almost nothing could escape...

Please don't do this to me [;)]
Andy Mac
Posts: 12578
Joined: Wed May 12, 2004 8:08 pm
Location: Alexandria, Scotland

RE: Allied position in the Far East - conclusion

Post by Andy Mac »

The RAF has 6 Sqns of fighters in Malaya with only 2 covering Singapore all 4 Hurricane Sqns are forward deployed.

32 out of 96 fighters forward deployed.

I would probably reverse that and have a pair of Hurricane Sqns at Singers as well or have the FAA Sea Hurricanes dismounted and on CAP over the harbour on day 1 although 60% CAP does feel right

ORIGINAL: veji1

To be honest, the more I think about it, the more I think that The RN would have been aware of the concentration of the battleline and a significant part of the carrier force at Camranh Bay, and would therefore have drafted plans for a possible assault against Singers... I think they would have been more prepared...

I think that an effective attack against Singers would have been possible, but the RN would have been more ready at least... therefore no surprise on turn 1... And a significant amount of fighters in CAP...

Nevertheless I am looking forward for the rest of the play test...
Alikchi2
Posts: 1786
Joined: Thu May 13, 2004 9:29 pm
Contact:

RE: Allied position in the Far East - conclusion

Post by Alikchi2 »

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

The RAF has 6 Sqns of fighters in Malaya with only 2 covering Singapore all 4 Hurricane Sqns are forward deployed.

32 out of 96 fighters forward deployed.

I would probably reverse that and have a pair of Hurricane Sqns at Singers as well or have the FAA Sea Hurricanes dismounted and on CAP over the harbour on day 1 although 60% CAP does feel right


I'll definitely modify the CAP settings for the Spits and Beaus initially I think. A house rule for surprise if Singapore is attacked is still the best solution though IMHO.

I'm going to miss all those Swordfish and Albacores that went down with Hermes, Ark Royal and Formidable [:(] Still, I have the Beauforts.

It's also possible for me to fly in reinforcements from India (Calcutta->Mandalay->Rangoon->Port Blair->Sabang->Kuala Lumpur->Singers). I have several Hurricane and Kittyhawk Squadrons arriving over the next month or so, so I just might start bunny-hopping reinforcements in. Then again, perhaps I should let Malaya wither and focus on defending Rangoon - I bet I could stop the enemy there if I brought in 4th Indian Div.. hmm, many options. [:D]
User avatar
FeurerKrieg
Posts: 3400
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 8:43 pm
Location: Denver, CO

RE: Allied position in the Far East - conclusion

Post by FeurerKrieg »

No surprise kills the movement bonus right? Without that then it is hard to attack a port with KB on turn 1. Can't all the aircraft at Singpore be put on 90% CAP, which with the suprise reductions in CAP levels should work out to a reasonable amount of planes in the air. That and putting more of the Malayan fighters in Sing would help as well.
Leave the Pearl harbor and clark fighters as is, and then those area can still be truly surprised, but Sing will be more like an average CAP.
Image
Upper portion used with permission of www.subart.net, copyright John Meeks
Alikchi2
Posts: 1786
Joined: Thu May 13, 2004 9:29 pm
Contact:

RE: Allied position in the Far East - conclusion

Post by Alikchi2 »

ORIGINAL: Feurer Krieg

No surprise kills the movement bonus right? Without that then it is hard to attack a port with KB on turn 1.

Erk, didn't know about that.

Can't all the aircraft at Singpore be put on 90% CAP, which with the suprise reductions in CAP levels should work out to a reasonable amount of planes in the air. That and putting more of the Malayan fighters in Sing would help as well.
Leave the Pearl harbor and clark fighters as is, and then those area can still be truly surprised, but Sing will be more like an average CAP.

You obviously have thought more about this than me. [8D] Makes sense. I could probably move one of the Hurricane Squads from Alor Star south..
User avatar
Sneer
Posts: 2434
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2003 6:24 pm

RE: Allied position in the Far East - conclusion

Post by Sneer »

very nice game- totally diffrent opening and probably also later game
there is probably a loading bug - some of my transport Tfs have inactive loading options
i'm tempted to start PBEM with this mod
veji1
Posts: 1019
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 5:28 pm

RE: Allied position in the Far East - conclusion

Post by veji1 »

Could you explain a bit more Sneer, since this is a play test I guess Alikichi wouldn't mind, so that you can give us your point of view...
Adieu Ô Dieu odieux... signé Adam
User avatar
Sneer
Posts: 2434
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2003 6:24 pm

RE: Allied position in the Far East - conclusion

Post by Sneer »

palau has 56th brigade ready to be sent elswhere and there are also enough APs to do so
I build transport TF consisting of AP only and have and can only load supplies - rest options are greyed out and inactive - same with Amami - looks like there are locations where loading up is impossible
it is 1st turn and 2nd turn so ops are not a point

User avatar
FeurerKrieg
Posts: 3400
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 8:43 pm
Location: Denver, CO

RE: Allied position in the Far East - conclusion

Post by FeurerKrieg »

If you are talking about turn 1, I had not problems loading the 56th, and same with Amami, no problems there either. It is set to run in 1.795, are you running on that patch?
Image
Upper portion used with permission of www.subart.net, copyright John Meeks
User avatar
Sneer
Posts: 2434
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2003 6:24 pm

RE: Allied position in the Far East - conclusion

Post by Sneer »

1,72 as 1,795 deletes japan leader table very fast
i strongly doubt if it is patch problem
Alikchi2
Posts: 1786
Joined: Thu May 13, 2004 9:29 pm
Contact:

RE: Allied position in the Far East - conclusion

Post by Alikchi2 »

It shouldn't make a difference.. although I did create it under 1.795 [&:]

Hopefully 1.8 will come out before the leader table thing has a chance to affect this game much.

Not sure where your problems are coming from Sneer... are you using Andrew's extended map 5.1?
User avatar
Sneer
Posts: 2434
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2003 6:24 pm

RE: Allied position in the Far East - conclusion

Post by Sneer »

it shouldn't be a map problem - yes i have 5.1 installed
leader table is cut off by half in 1 turn - Achtung ! for japan player
1.8 - i wait for it as my PBEM is frozen - I wait for changes in land combat - hopefully i'll not forget how to play WITP while waiting
User avatar
Sneer
Posts: 2434
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2003 6:24 pm

RE: Allied position in the Far East - conclusion

Post by Sneer »

BTW
link to plan and technical data to duth never-wares BCs
http://www.netherlandsnavy.nl/Battlecruisers.htm
User avatar
Terminus
Posts: 39781
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 11:53 pm
Location: Denmark

RE: Allied position in the Far East - conclusion

Post by Terminus »

Just for poops and giggles, here's my version of the battlecruiser that Sneer's link refers to:


Image
Attachments
pic_711.jpg
pic_711.jpg (51.39 KiB) Viewed 191 times
We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.
Alikchi2
Posts: 1786
Joined: Thu May 13, 2004 9:29 pm
Contact:

RE: Allied position in the Far East - conclusion

Post by Alikchi2 »

Pretty impressive looking [8D] Those are the same 11" guns used on Scharnhost, no?

Iron Storm's Dutch BCs are of a different design generation though, built by the Germans in 1914-1915. The website blurb for them is >>>here<<< but here's an ingame pic:

Image

She can make 27 knots normally but 1 point of sys damage brings her down a knot. [8|] This is from a game I'm playing versus the AI.
User avatar
Terminus
Posts: 39781
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 11:53 pm
Location: Denmark

RE: Allied position in the Far East - conclusion

Post by Terminus »

ORIGINAL: Alikchi

Pretty impressive looking [8D] Those are the same 11" guns used on Scharnhost, no?

Ayup. Only difference is that the mounts have slightly greater elevation. How's the Jap AI holding up, BTW?
We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.
Alikchi2
Posts: 1786
Joined: Thu May 13, 2004 9:29 pm
Contact:

RE: Allied position in the Far East - conclusion

Post by Alikchi2 »

Rather well, actually. Japan is still aggressive as of 12/26/41 - conquered northern Luzon and is grinding away at Malaya (still hasn't penetrated my Alor Star defences yet). Invaded Kavieng this turn, as well..

Screenies (this game is on Andrew's old map):

Image

Image

Thanks to NikMod, the Oscar and Hurricane are pretty much equal. The fighting has been very intense over Georgetown and Singora as both sides try to go for each other's shipping.
Alikchi2
Posts: 1786
Joined: Thu May 13, 2004 9:29 pm
Contact:

RE: Allied position in the Far East - conclusion

Post by Alikchi2 »

Sad news: I can confirm that HMS Rodney has sunk. [:(]

Prince of Wales, however, could make 8 knots once all the water's been pumped out of her.

Major RN reinforcements are expected within 25 days.

User avatar
Sneer
Posts: 2434
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2003 6:24 pm

RE: Allied position in the Far East - conclusion

Post by Sneer »

here is my problem
*
Image

*another problem - bangkok can't be a target base for transport TF - can sb verify ?
*question - why there is no Jack interceptor?- it was one of the finest planes Japan had
Attachments
loadingbug.jpg
loadingbug.jpg (137.74 KiB) Viewed 191 times
Post Reply

Return to “After Action Reports”