Lunacy or Shrewdness?
Moderators: wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami
RE: BUGWAR 2006!
AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 03/09/42
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub attack at 116,65
Japanese Ships
SS I-25
Allied Ships
AP Mount McKinley, Torpedo hits 1, on fire
DD Ralph Talbot
Allied ground losses:
42 casualties reported
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub attack near Mannargudi at 16,23
Japanese Ships
AK Kotoku Maru
AP Reiyo Maru
AP Hakozake Maru
AP Ginyo Maru
Allied Ships
SS Skipjack
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Colombo , at 14,24
Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 8
Ki-43-Ib Oscar x 39
Ki-49 Helen x 151
Ki-46-II Dinah x 8
Allied aircraft
no flights
Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-49 Helen: 4 destroyed, 24 damaged
Ki-46-II Dinah: 1 damaged
Allied aircraft losses
Hurricane II: 10 destroyed
Wellington III: 10 destroyed
Blenheim I: 4 destroyed
P-40B Tomahawk: 1 destroyed
Beaufort V-IX: 6 destroyed
Martin 139: 1 destroyed
Vildebeest IV: 2 destroyed
Wirraway: 1 destroyed
Allied ground losses:
55 casualties reported
Guns lost 1
Airbase hits 13
Airbase supply hits 4
Runway hits 121
With this raid the number of airframes at Colombo has been reduced from over 250 to just 7 over the course of 3 days. This signifies its removal as a complicator from my operational/strategic picture and simplifies future plans. It was also removed with a loss ratio conducive to training operations. I have decided that, apparently, so long as my loss rate is kept below 3% it is possible to sustain operations whilst building the experience of the unit indefinitely. This appears to be due to the fact that the model appears to preferentially select inexperienced crews for not only operational and air combat losses but ALSO FlAK losses. This is, of course, historically accurate and can be supported by multiple reports of British and American bombing experience over Germany. I presume the same can be found for the Pacific but, as I've said before, I know almost nothing about this theatre. Hell, the first time I played the game I didn't even realise I'd left a few CVLs in port because I didn't know they even existed
. I had also never heard of any of the carriers Japan made from 1943 onward (except Shinano) . They came as a pleasant surprise.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub attack at 16,10
Japanese Ships
BB Kongo
DD Kasumi
DD Tanikaze
DD Urakaze
DD Shiranuhi
DD Isokaze
Allied Ships
SS KXI
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Hyderabad
Japanese Shock attack
Attacking force 578 troops, 4 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 27
Defending force 1428 troops, 12 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 1
Japanese max assault: 22 - adjusted assault: 16
Allied max defense: 0 - adjusted defense: 7
Japanese assault odds: 2 to 1 (fort level 2)
Japanese Assault reduces fortifications to 0
Japanese ground losses:
28 casualties reported
Allied ground losses:
29 casualties reported
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at 23,47
Japanese Bombardment attack
Attacking force 5352 troops, 183 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 55
Defending force 2810 troops, 0 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 2
Allied ground losses:
57 casualties reported
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Canton Island
Allied Deliberate attack
Attacking force 7122 troops, 145 guns, 6 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 17
Defending force 66 troops, 0 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 3
Allied max assault: 11 - adjusted assault: 7
Japanese max defense: 1 - adjusted defense: 1
Allied assault odds: 7 to 1
Japanese ground losses:
62 casualties reported
This is an interesting case test. It is taking the Allies a long time to grind these units into nothingness. I am interested in this phenomenon and am sacrificing the men to test it as I wish to know how long I have to evacuate cadres from my island garrisons once the Americans invade. It seems that I can figure on these island garrisons lasting for at least a week, more than enough time for a couple of recon Chutai to fly out unit fragments for rebuilding.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub attack at 116,65
Japanese Ships
SS I-25
Allied Ships
AP Mount McKinley, Torpedo hits 1, on fire
DD Ralph Talbot
Allied ground losses:
42 casualties reported
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub attack near Mannargudi at 16,23
Japanese Ships
AK Kotoku Maru
AP Reiyo Maru
AP Hakozake Maru
AP Ginyo Maru
Allied Ships
SS Skipjack
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Colombo , at 14,24
Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 8
Ki-43-Ib Oscar x 39
Ki-49 Helen x 151
Ki-46-II Dinah x 8
Allied aircraft
no flights
Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-49 Helen: 4 destroyed, 24 damaged
Ki-46-II Dinah: 1 damaged
Allied aircraft losses
Hurricane II: 10 destroyed
Wellington III: 10 destroyed
Blenheim I: 4 destroyed
P-40B Tomahawk: 1 destroyed
Beaufort V-IX: 6 destroyed
Martin 139: 1 destroyed
Vildebeest IV: 2 destroyed
Wirraway: 1 destroyed
Allied ground losses:
55 casualties reported
Guns lost 1
Airbase hits 13
Airbase supply hits 4
Runway hits 121
With this raid the number of airframes at Colombo has been reduced from over 250 to just 7 over the course of 3 days. This signifies its removal as a complicator from my operational/strategic picture and simplifies future plans. It was also removed with a loss ratio conducive to training operations. I have decided that, apparently, so long as my loss rate is kept below 3% it is possible to sustain operations whilst building the experience of the unit indefinitely. This appears to be due to the fact that the model appears to preferentially select inexperienced crews for not only operational and air combat losses but ALSO FlAK losses. This is, of course, historically accurate and can be supported by multiple reports of British and American bombing experience over Germany. I presume the same can be found for the Pacific but, as I've said before, I know almost nothing about this theatre. Hell, the first time I played the game I didn't even realise I'd left a few CVLs in port because I didn't know they even existed
. I had also never heard of any of the carriers Japan made from 1943 onward (except Shinano) . They came as a pleasant surprise. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub attack at 16,10
Japanese Ships
BB Kongo
DD Kasumi
DD Tanikaze
DD Urakaze
DD Shiranuhi
DD Isokaze
Allied Ships
SS KXI
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Hyderabad
Japanese Shock attack
Attacking force 578 troops, 4 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 27
Defending force 1428 troops, 12 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 1
Japanese max assault: 22 - adjusted assault: 16
Allied max defense: 0 - adjusted defense: 7
Japanese assault odds: 2 to 1 (fort level 2)
Japanese Assault reduces fortifications to 0
Japanese ground losses:
28 casualties reported
Allied ground losses:
29 casualties reported
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at 23,47
Japanese Bombardment attack
Attacking force 5352 troops, 183 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 55
Defending force 2810 troops, 0 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 2
Allied ground losses:
57 casualties reported
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Canton Island
Allied Deliberate attack
Attacking force 7122 troops, 145 guns, 6 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 17
Defending force 66 troops, 0 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 3
Allied max assault: 11 - adjusted assault: 7
Japanese max defense: 1 - adjusted defense: 1
Allied assault odds: 7 to 1
Japanese ground losses:
62 casualties reported
This is an interesting case test. It is taking the Allies a long time to grind these units into nothingness. I am interested in this phenomenon and am sacrificing the men to test it as I wish to know how long I have to evacuate cadres from my island garrisons once the Americans invade. It seems that I can figure on these island garrisons lasting for at least a week, more than enough time for a couple of recon Chutai to fly out unit fragments for rebuilding.
John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.
Well, that's that settled then.
RE: BUGWAR 2006!
AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 03/11/42
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASW attack near Mannargudi at 16,23
Japanese Ships
DD Asagumo
DD Hatsushima
DD Oyashio
DD Arashi
DD Natsushio
DD Hatsuharu
DD Wakaba
DD Nenohi
DD Oshio
DD Nowaki
DD Hatsukaze
DD Hibiki
DD Inazuma
DD Isonami
DD Shirayuki
DD Hatsuyuki
DD Uranami
DD Ayanami
DD Asagiri
DD Sagiri
Allied Ships
SS KXII, hits 7
It looks like 7 or 8 submarines are gathering around Mannargudi. Well, a super-sub TF deserves a super-ASW TF. My APD-ASW TF is also on the way andonce Colombo has been completely reduced I will use the Helens in an ASW role until Bombay falls. Once it falls they will stage to Bombay and continue operations from there.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub attack near Mannargudi at 16,23
Japanese Ships
AO Erimo, Torpedo hits 3, on fire, heavy damage
Allied Ships
SS Truant
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub attack near Mannargudi at 16,23
Japanese Ships
AK Kotoku Maru, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
AP Victoria Maru
AP Higashiyama Maru
AP Heiyo Maru
AP Arizona Maru
Allied Ships
SS Truant
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Colombo , at 14,24
Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 39
Ki-43-Ib Oscar x 56
Ki-49 Helen x 144
Ki-46-II Dinah x 7
Allied aircraft
Hurricane II x 4
P-40B Tomahawk x 1
P-40E Warhawk x 1
Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-43-Ib Oscar: 2 destroyed
Ki-49 Helen: 1 destroyed, 17 damaged
Ki-46-II Dinah: 1 destroyed
Allied aircraft losses
Hurricane II: 11 destroyed
P-40B Tomahawk: 1 damaged
P-40E Warhawk: 1 destroyed
Wellington III: 11 destroyed
Blenheim I: 1 destroyed
Vildebeest IV: 1 destroyed
Allied ground losses:
11 casualties reported
Airbase hits 28
Airbase supply hits 7
Runway hits 143
It would appear that the reports of only 7 airframes remaining in Colombo were exaggerated. Another 24 airplanes are destroyed on the ground or in the air in today's raids. Perhaps this signals that there are more than 20,000 tons of supply present at the base. At this rate there won't be for much longer.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Singapore , at 23,50
Japanese aircraft
Ki-21 Sally x 308
Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-21 Sally: 13 damaged
Allied ground losses:
139 casualties reported
Guns lost 2
Port hits 32
Port fuel hits 4
Port supply hits 3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Koepang , at 28,77
Allied aircraft
Hudson I x 42
Allied aircraft losses
Hudson I: 7 damaged
Runway hits 1
Very interesting. Hudsons begin attacking Koepang. My garrison here is very small. A BF and some AAA as well as a bit of an NLF. The AAA does a good job though and 4 Hudsons are downed. A 10% loss rate is unsustainable and Trey is already commenting on the effectiveness of my base defences in our game.... What he means by this is that he has found that while there are certain bases he is allowed to bomb ad nauseum there are other bases he can only bomb at excessive cost... Of course excessive cost is a relative term. What is excessive for training flights is not at all so during the softening up before a major invasion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Norfolk Island , at 60,119
Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 34
Allied aircraft losses
B-17E Fortress: 2 damaged
Japanese ground losses:
5 casualties reported
Airbase hits 1
Airbase supply hits 2
Runway hits 11
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on 65th Chinese Corps, at 41,35
Japanese aircraft
Ki-43-Ib Oscar x 27
Ki-48 Lily x 25
Ki-49 Helen x 35
No Japanese losses
Allied ground losses:
71 casualties reported
Guns lost 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on 6th Chinese Cavalry Corps, at 45,35
Japanese aircraft
Ki-27 Nate x 10
Ki-51 Sonia x 24
Ki-15 Babs x 1
No Japanese losses
Allied ground losses:
2 casualties reported
Guns lost 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on 255th Indian Tank Brigade, at 14,24
Japanese aircraft
Ki-49 Helen x 9
Ki-46-II Dinah x 1
Allied aircraft
P-40B Tomahawk x 1
Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-49 Helen: 6 damaged
Ki-46-II Dinah: 1 damaged
Allied ground losses:
75 casualties reported
Vehicles lost 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Trincomalee Base Force, at 14,24
Japanese aircraft
Ki-49 Helen x 4
Allied aircraft
P-40B Tomahawk x 1
Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-49 Helen: 4 damaged
Allied ground losses:
17 casualties reported
These test raids were made to find out just what sort of defences were basing at Colombo. So it looks like I will face no more than 2 Tank brigades and the Colombo Base Force. I'm glad to see two tank brigades in these positions as it means I won't have to face them on the mainland where their mobility would be problematic.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF at 79,128
Japanese aircraft
E7K2 Alf x 5
No Japanese losses
Allied Ships
AK Lancaster, Bomb hits 2, on fire
A blockade-runner pays the cost.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASW attack near Mannargudi at 16,23
Japanese Ships
DD Asagumo
DD Hatsushima
DD Oyashio
DD Arashi
DD Natsushio
DD Hatsuharu
Allied Ships
SS Truant, hits 4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Kweiyang
Japanese Bombardment attack
Attacking force 106113 troops, 1021 guns, 1 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 2166
Defending force 65679 troops, 216 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 1487
Allied ground losses:
104 casualties reported
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at 44,30
Japanese Bombardment attack
Attacking force 54006 troops, 697 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 1039
Defending force 67880 troops, 443 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 1796
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at 45,35
Japanese Bombardment attack
Attacking force 10470 troops, 322 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 671
Defending force 82238 troops, 138 guns, 24 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 2421
Allied ground losses:
625 casualties reported
Guns lost 6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at 23,47
Japanese Bombardment attack
Attacking force 5372 troops, 183 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 55
Defending force 2862 troops, 0 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 4
Allied ground losses:
66 casualties reported
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Canton Island
Allied Deliberate attack
Attacking force 7182 troops, 145 guns, 6 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 19
Defending force 92 troops, 0 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 5
Allied max assault: 14 - adjusted assault: 9
Japanese max defense: 2 - adjusted defense: 1
Allied assault odds: 9 to 1
Japanese ground losses:
55 casualties reported
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASW attack near Mannargudi at 16,23
Japanese Ships
DD Asagumo
DD Hatsushima
DD Oyashio
DD Arashi
DD Natsushio
DD Hatsuharu
DD Wakaba
DD Nenohi
DD Oshio
DD Nowaki
DD Hatsukaze
DD Hibiki
DD Inazuma
DD Isonami
DD Shirayuki
DD Hatsuyuki
DD Uranami
DD Ayanami
DD Asagiri
DD Sagiri
Allied Ships
SS KXII, hits 7
It looks like 7 or 8 submarines are gathering around Mannargudi. Well, a super-sub TF deserves a super-ASW TF. My APD-ASW TF is also on the way andonce Colombo has been completely reduced I will use the Helens in an ASW role until Bombay falls. Once it falls they will stage to Bombay and continue operations from there.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub attack near Mannargudi at 16,23
Japanese Ships
AO Erimo, Torpedo hits 3, on fire, heavy damage
Allied Ships
SS Truant
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub attack near Mannargudi at 16,23
Japanese Ships
AK Kotoku Maru, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
AP Victoria Maru
AP Higashiyama Maru
AP Heiyo Maru
AP Arizona Maru
Allied Ships
SS Truant
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Colombo , at 14,24
Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 39
Ki-43-Ib Oscar x 56
Ki-49 Helen x 144
Ki-46-II Dinah x 7
Allied aircraft
Hurricane II x 4
P-40B Tomahawk x 1
P-40E Warhawk x 1
Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-43-Ib Oscar: 2 destroyed
Ki-49 Helen: 1 destroyed, 17 damaged
Ki-46-II Dinah: 1 destroyed
Allied aircraft losses
Hurricane II: 11 destroyed
P-40B Tomahawk: 1 damaged
P-40E Warhawk: 1 destroyed
Wellington III: 11 destroyed
Blenheim I: 1 destroyed
Vildebeest IV: 1 destroyed
Allied ground losses:
11 casualties reported
Airbase hits 28
Airbase supply hits 7
Runway hits 143
It would appear that the reports of only 7 airframes remaining in Colombo were exaggerated. Another 24 airplanes are destroyed on the ground or in the air in today's raids. Perhaps this signals that there are more than 20,000 tons of supply present at the base. At this rate there won't be for much longer.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Singapore , at 23,50
Japanese aircraft
Ki-21 Sally x 308
Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-21 Sally: 13 damaged
Allied ground losses:
139 casualties reported
Guns lost 2
Port hits 32
Port fuel hits 4
Port supply hits 3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Koepang , at 28,77
Allied aircraft
Hudson I x 42
Allied aircraft losses
Hudson I: 7 damaged
Runway hits 1
Very interesting. Hudsons begin attacking Koepang. My garrison here is very small. A BF and some AAA as well as a bit of an NLF. The AAA does a good job though and 4 Hudsons are downed. A 10% loss rate is unsustainable and Trey is already commenting on the effectiveness of my base defences in our game.... What he means by this is that he has found that while there are certain bases he is allowed to bomb ad nauseum there are other bases he can only bomb at excessive cost... Of course excessive cost is a relative term. What is excessive for training flights is not at all so during the softening up before a major invasion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Norfolk Island , at 60,119
Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 34
Allied aircraft losses
B-17E Fortress: 2 damaged
Japanese ground losses:
5 casualties reported
Airbase hits 1
Airbase supply hits 2
Runway hits 11
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on 65th Chinese Corps, at 41,35
Japanese aircraft
Ki-43-Ib Oscar x 27
Ki-48 Lily x 25
Ki-49 Helen x 35
No Japanese losses
Allied ground losses:
71 casualties reported
Guns lost 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on 6th Chinese Cavalry Corps, at 45,35
Japanese aircraft
Ki-27 Nate x 10
Ki-51 Sonia x 24
Ki-15 Babs x 1
No Japanese losses
Allied ground losses:
2 casualties reported
Guns lost 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on 255th Indian Tank Brigade, at 14,24
Japanese aircraft
Ki-49 Helen x 9
Ki-46-II Dinah x 1
Allied aircraft
P-40B Tomahawk x 1
Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-49 Helen: 6 damaged
Ki-46-II Dinah: 1 damaged
Allied ground losses:
75 casualties reported
Vehicles lost 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Trincomalee Base Force, at 14,24
Japanese aircraft
Ki-49 Helen x 4
Allied aircraft
P-40B Tomahawk x 1
Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-49 Helen: 4 damaged
Allied ground losses:
17 casualties reported
These test raids were made to find out just what sort of defences were basing at Colombo. So it looks like I will face no more than 2 Tank brigades and the Colombo Base Force. I'm glad to see two tank brigades in these positions as it means I won't have to face them on the mainland where their mobility would be problematic.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF at 79,128
Japanese aircraft
E7K2 Alf x 5
No Japanese losses
Allied Ships
AK Lancaster, Bomb hits 2, on fire
A blockade-runner pays the cost.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASW attack near Mannargudi at 16,23
Japanese Ships
DD Asagumo
DD Hatsushima
DD Oyashio
DD Arashi
DD Natsushio
DD Hatsuharu
Allied Ships
SS Truant, hits 4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Kweiyang
Japanese Bombardment attack
Attacking force 106113 troops, 1021 guns, 1 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 2166
Defending force 65679 troops, 216 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 1487
Allied ground losses:
104 casualties reported
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at 44,30
Japanese Bombardment attack
Attacking force 54006 troops, 697 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 1039
Defending force 67880 troops, 443 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 1796
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at 45,35
Japanese Bombardment attack
Attacking force 10470 troops, 322 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 671
Defending force 82238 troops, 138 guns, 24 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 2421
Allied ground losses:
625 casualties reported
Guns lost 6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at 23,47
Japanese Bombardment attack
Attacking force 5372 troops, 183 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 55
Defending force 2862 troops, 0 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 4
Allied ground losses:
66 casualties reported
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Canton Island
Allied Deliberate attack
Attacking force 7182 troops, 145 guns, 6 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 19
Defending force 92 troops, 0 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 5
Allied max assault: 14 - adjusted assault: 9
Japanese max defense: 2 - adjusted defense: 1
Allied assault odds: 9 to 1
Japanese ground losses:
55 casualties reported
John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.
Well, that's that settled then.
RE: BUGWAR 2006!
ORIGINAL: Nemo121
Oh and the icing on the cake is that as a result of the bug ( I actually moved 7 hexes instead of the 10 estimated) my CVs now lie 6 hexes from Dutch Harbour, within range of allied LBA and without any chance of striking back.
I had about 100 Vals set to Airfield attack and about 20 Kates set to naval attack. I had spotted a convoy of about a dozen US APs in Dutch Harbour. The plan was to sprint into a range 3 hexes from Dutch Harbour, launch my Vals to shut the airfield and destroy all those twin-engined bombers based there, launch the Kates to damage the APs and then follow up the next day with a surface TF comprising 1 BB, 2 CAs, 1 CL and 4 DDs. The survivors would be picked off by the 5 subs lying in wait between dutch harbour and the US bases to the south and west.
But of course given that I've ended up 6 hexes from the base that's all out the window now due to a movement bug... I'm just giving this background so no-one decides to pipe up and tell us that this bug is minor and irrelevant ( as seems to be the SOP if you can show it isn't due to your own error).
In another 12 hours we'll enter the 4th day of waiting for a response from Matrix personnel to this issue. Its really weird how they are all over some threads but when someone starts pointing out clear, identifiable bugs and asking for work-arounds, triggers etc they disappear. I even checked to see if Mogami hadn't logged on in case he was sick or something and that might explain his failure to reply but he's posted at least 10 times in the last 12 hours so that isn't it.
I'd say this seemed to point to the fact that if you didn't accept being fobbed off with either:
a) its probably your own fault cause you don't play the game within a set of narrow, pre-defined parameters which the manual and other official documentation ( including the advertising) never hinted at or
b) its a minor bug which doesn't matter much or
c) we'll fix it at a later stage ( but we won't give any info on triggers and work-arounds while you wait)
that you are just ignored. Saying we'll fix it at a later stage is 100% fine. Bugs are a part of gaming BUT what irks me is that Mogami and others in the know simply refuse to post even a "we don't know" or anything with respect to triggers and work-arounds. No-one's asking for miracles but a simple, to the point response is just a matter of basic human courtesy.
All in all it is certainly an interesting take on engaging with customers who raise valid issues. Sadly, at this stage I think my only chance of getting an answer is to make it more of a hassle to ignore me than to engage constructively and informatively. It is sad that it seems to come to this.
Hi, I am playing my own PBEM and tests and do not read your AAR everyday. Also I stayed out for two resaons. I didn't want to cause trouble and I lost your AAR when named changed. (I don't go into clearly provokative threads).
I am not a Matrix programmer or trouble shooter I am the forum moderator. I have no clue what causes your bugs. (I've never experianced them.)
One thing I noticed that puzzles me is your IG divisions is carring 1k+ supply but only requires 13. Something is wrong there that I think if can be tracked down will also help explain the movement problem. (does IG Div have any fragments on map?)
Matrix does not read every thread. I don't read every thread. Niehter ignores a posted problem. There is a sub forum devoted to posting problems. (I'm pretty sure Matrix programmers read that thread although I do not)
I am not the matrix answer man. I try to provide help to questions and any termoil that results from my posting is my own fault for not being tactful enough. (I never really mean to offend anyone)
Where I can't help I will learn to remain quiet and only provide directions to where help can be found.
I don't think your TF movement is a bug. 10 hexes is quite a bit of movement. (It would be max movement for most TF) I would have to see file to see if TF moved in most direct path and if TF used any OP points for other reason. But if 10 hexes was max possible using just a few Op points per movement phase would result in TF not moving more then 8. A TF with max speed allowed in game (36+kts) is limited to 12 hexes (no TF may ever move further then 6 hexes in a single movement phase)
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
RE: BUGWAR 2006!
Mogami,
Well, I did PM you and wasn't replied to there either. Neither has anyone from matrix given even the slightest bit of help in the Support section when I've posted the carrier bug there. So I certainly didn't get this frustrated over things simply because no-one responded to these issues in this thread. No-one "in the know" responded when I posted to the support section either.
As to it being a provocative title. Perhaps, although one could point out that it is also a quite justified title and one which would never had arisen had any official response whatsoever been forthcoming to my report of the bug in the support section. Lack of response leads to increasing frustration at the bug and the game itself. For what it is worth no-one from matrix has contributed to the support thread answering any questions re: triggers for the carrier airgroup bug yet. We are in our fifth day. Even to know that they are aware of it and that it is a bug which can occur whenever a TF docks would be immensely useful as it would point the way to a workaround ( or rule out that specific proposed workaround).
TF movement... Thanks. I think you are correct as regards this. Since it wasn't documented and there is no sticky thread with a list of bugs and "not-bugs-but-features" where players can go to get up to speed on this immense game I was unaware of the ability of air operations to reduce movement range. So, my bad and I've owned up to that. I'm quite willing to accept I'm inexperienced with the game and may label something as a bug when it isn't. If I do this and it is pointed out to me I will happily amend my position. However 5 days after reporting a fairly big bug in the support section with no official response of any kind is more than a tad frustrating. Matrix doesn't want to start getting compared to Talonsoft's forum methodologies.
Well, I did PM you and wasn't replied to there either. Neither has anyone from matrix given even the slightest bit of help in the Support section when I've posted the carrier bug there. So I certainly didn't get this frustrated over things simply because no-one responded to these issues in this thread. No-one "in the know" responded when I posted to the support section either.
As to it being a provocative title. Perhaps, although one could point out that it is also a quite justified title and one which would never had arisen had any official response whatsoever been forthcoming to my report of the bug in the support section. Lack of response leads to increasing frustration at the bug and the game itself. For what it is worth no-one from matrix has contributed to the support thread answering any questions re: triggers for the carrier airgroup bug yet. We are in our fifth day. Even to know that they are aware of it and that it is a bug which can occur whenever a TF docks would be immensely useful as it would point the way to a workaround ( or rule out that specific proposed workaround).
TF movement... Thanks. I think you are correct as regards this. Since it wasn't documented and there is no sticky thread with a list of bugs and "not-bugs-but-features" where players can go to get up to speed on this immense game I was unaware of the ability of air operations to reduce movement range. So, my bad and I've owned up to that. I'm quite willing to accept I'm inexperienced with the game and may label something as a bug when it isn't. If I do this and it is pointed out to me I will happily amend my position. However 5 days after reporting a fairly big bug in the support section with no official response of any kind is more than a tad frustrating. Matrix doesn't want to start getting compared to Talonsoft's forum methodologies.
John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.
Well, that's that settled then.
-
Rob Brennan UK
- Posts: 3685
- Joined: Sat Aug 24, 2002 8:36 pm
- Location: London UK
RE: BUGWAR 2006!
Provocative ??? I think it's funny [:D][:D][:D]. Made my sense of humour button hit chuckle mode [;)]
sorry for the spelling . English is my main language , I just can't type . and i'm too lazy to edit 
-
Monter_Trismegistos
- Posts: 1359
- Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 8:58 pm
- Location: Gdansk
RE: BUGWAR 2006!
Hi, I am not sure if I understood correctly. CVs TF and AOs TF both moved shorter that they were ordered to... Did they start moving from the same hex? If yes, did they had at least one common hex in their paths of movement?
Nec Temere Nec Timide
Bez strachu ale z rozwagą
Bez strachu ale z rozwagą
RE: BUGWAR 2006!
Monter,
This was a completely separate AO TF. The CV issue occured south of Dutch Harbour. The AO issue occured north of Colombo. I do not believe the AO TF shared any movement hexes with any of my other TFs ( and was set to do not retire and do not refuel ) but since this was a few days ago I cannot be sure.
I will, however, be keeping an eye on this in the future and will compare pre-occurence and post-occurence turns should this arise again.
This was a completely separate AO TF. The CV issue occured south of Dutch Harbour. The AO issue occured north of Colombo. I do not believe the AO TF shared any movement hexes with any of my other TFs ( and was set to do not retire and do not refuel ) but since this was a few days ago I cannot be sure.
I will, however, be keeping an eye on this in the future and will compare pre-occurence and post-occurence turns should this arise again.
John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.
Well, that's that settled then.
-
anarchyintheuk
- Posts: 3958
- Joined: Wed May 05, 2004 7:08 pm
- Location: Dallas
RE: BUGWAR 2006!
FYI, when 34 kates attack a heavily damaged ship and obtain no hits, it means that it's already sunk. As in strike launched, target sunk while en route. It's a waste of air power, but at least it confirms a kill.
Don't let the unreported program features get you down.
Don't let the unreported program features get you down.
RE: BUGWAR 2006!
Thanks Sid. That's good to know. I had thought that might be the answer but I wasn't sure.
Ok, I have a question for those who read this AAR. In order to give the background to the question I'll outline my thinking and assumptions:
Assumptions:
1. US Infantry Divisions = 1.5 Japanese divisions. This is mainly based on the fact that their individual infantry squads have a significant advantage in firepower and also that their organic artillery sections can be expected to have a greater throw weight than their Japanese equivalents.
2. US combat power in-theatre should comprise roughly 13 divisions of infantry. Assuming 3 divisions are tied up at Pearl with another division-equivalent tied down in garrisoning the other Hawaiian Island bases this would leave about 9 divisions for offensive operations. The main targets which can be attacked are Xmas and Palmyra Islands, Johnston Island, Midway and Amchitka. I believe that he will definitely hit Xmas and Palmyra Islands in order to open up the supply lines to Canton Island and Fiji and his runs into Dutch Harbour argue that Amchitka will also e hit. The question is whether or not Johnston or Midway will be targeted.
3. Several bombardment TFs will be available for the bombardment of Johnston Island. I cannot see how they could include any BBs but the possibility of their involvement must be accounted for. 5 carriers will greatly overmatch my aerial forces in the region and any attempt to counter this threat symetrically would be a great mistake.
4. In the absence of massive bombardment TFs enemy ground troops landing on my defended bases can be expected to suffer at least 50% disruption and 25% disablement.
Assesment of enemy intentions:
So with only 9 divisions available in the Pacific I foresee a three-divisional assault (+ supports) into Amchitka with a phased operation on the Palmyra/Xmas/Johnston axis. It would make sense for the carriers to cover an assault on Palmyra and Xmas, hope to attrit whatever forces I commit in reaction to this before swinging north to cover the main landings at Johnston. I estimate that I will be facing a minimum of 4 divisions at Johnston ( with the possibility of at least 1 division coming up to help once Palmyra and Xmas island are subdued). These will be fully prepped and supported by massive surface bombardments + MSW TFs and the five American carriers. In order to maximise support I believe the invasion of Palmyra/Xmas will occur 1 to 2 weeks before the invasion of Johnston.
Obviously Noumea, Port Moresby, Koepang and westeran Javan bases are targets in the Australian theatre. If he attacks anywhere here he will hit Koepang. It is the most logical, easily-supplied B-17 base and in that truth lies both its lure and my trap.
Plan:
My plan is, basically, to avoid committing to unfavourable symmetric combat and only accepting engagement when
a) I conduct asymmetric attrition of strategically important enemy forces. (CVs, ground forces, DMS, four-engined bombers)
b) I must accept attrition in order to achieve strategically important and/or operationally decisive goals.
c) I cannot avoid doing so due to errors on my part.
I have also made my dispositions so that the pattern of defeats I expect to suffer will actually help to dislocate American forces in the lead-up to the invasion of Pearl in August/September. I see no reason to turn the expected defeats over the next 2 months to my own advantage in the longer-term. I predict Trey will be extremely surprised when he attacks as nothing in my previous play will have led him to expect the strategem I am employing now.
Now, my question, following from the above assumptions, assessment and plan is as follows:
Given that I expect a maximal enemy invasion of 4 divisions + support ( approximately 2500 AV) what sort of force would be required to defeat that?
At present I am of the opinion, following my experience at Canton Island, that a defensive force on the order of 800 AV, behind Level 6 forts and with a minimum of 2 x CD Bns backed by 12,000+ mines should suffice to break the offensive strength of the attackers. It will not be able to destroy them but with Level 6 forts I should be able to mass an effective AV of about 2000 and with the sort of losses and disruption attackers normally suffer this might suffice to hold off anything short of a total committment. My aim is not to defeat the enemy but simply to prevent him from winning cheaply. The damage done in this attempt should prevent any deeper exploitation of the initial Americn thrust.
So, a reasonable assessment or one which shows my inexperience with amphibious assaults? I would obviously prefer more extensive minefields but since my MLEs are not quite on line yet 12,000 will be about the best I can do at each of my defensive hedgehogs. I would also, obviously wish to add another 50% of infantry before I could feel secure in these bases but one must fight with what one has and not what one wishes one had. I made a couple of strategic misappreciations which cost me the 400 additional AV for each of my bases. Live and learn.
Ok, I have a question for those who read this AAR. In order to give the background to the question I'll outline my thinking and assumptions:
Assumptions:
1. US Infantry Divisions = 1.5 Japanese divisions. This is mainly based on the fact that their individual infantry squads have a significant advantage in firepower and also that their organic artillery sections can be expected to have a greater throw weight than their Japanese equivalents.
2. US combat power in-theatre should comprise roughly 13 divisions of infantry. Assuming 3 divisions are tied up at Pearl with another division-equivalent tied down in garrisoning the other Hawaiian Island bases this would leave about 9 divisions for offensive operations. The main targets which can be attacked are Xmas and Palmyra Islands, Johnston Island, Midway and Amchitka. I believe that he will definitely hit Xmas and Palmyra Islands in order to open up the supply lines to Canton Island and Fiji and his runs into Dutch Harbour argue that Amchitka will also e hit. The question is whether or not Johnston or Midway will be targeted.
3. Several bombardment TFs will be available for the bombardment of Johnston Island. I cannot see how they could include any BBs but the possibility of their involvement must be accounted for. 5 carriers will greatly overmatch my aerial forces in the region and any attempt to counter this threat symetrically would be a great mistake.
4. In the absence of massive bombardment TFs enemy ground troops landing on my defended bases can be expected to suffer at least 50% disruption and 25% disablement.
Assesment of enemy intentions:
So with only 9 divisions available in the Pacific I foresee a three-divisional assault (+ supports) into Amchitka with a phased operation on the Palmyra/Xmas/Johnston axis. It would make sense for the carriers to cover an assault on Palmyra and Xmas, hope to attrit whatever forces I commit in reaction to this before swinging north to cover the main landings at Johnston. I estimate that I will be facing a minimum of 4 divisions at Johnston ( with the possibility of at least 1 division coming up to help once Palmyra and Xmas island are subdued). These will be fully prepped and supported by massive surface bombardments + MSW TFs and the five American carriers. In order to maximise support I believe the invasion of Palmyra/Xmas will occur 1 to 2 weeks before the invasion of Johnston.
Obviously Noumea, Port Moresby, Koepang and westeran Javan bases are targets in the Australian theatre. If he attacks anywhere here he will hit Koepang. It is the most logical, easily-supplied B-17 base and in that truth lies both its lure and my trap.
Plan:
My plan is, basically, to avoid committing to unfavourable symmetric combat and only accepting engagement when
a) I conduct asymmetric attrition of strategically important enemy forces. (CVs, ground forces, DMS, four-engined bombers)
b) I must accept attrition in order to achieve strategically important and/or operationally decisive goals.
c) I cannot avoid doing so due to errors on my part.
I have also made my dispositions so that the pattern of defeats I expect to suffer will actually help to dislocate American forces in the lead-up to the invasion of Pearl in August/September. I see no reason to turn the expected defeats over the next 2 months to my own advantage in the longer-term. I predict Trey will be extremely surprised when he attacks as nothing in my previous play will have led him to expect the strategem I am employing now.
Now, my question, following from the above assumptions, assessment and plan is as follows:
Given that I expect a maximal enemy invasion of 4 divisions + support ( approximately 2500 AV) what sort of force would be required to defeat that?
At present I am of the opinion, following my experience at Canton Island, that a defensive force on the order of 800 AV, behind Level 6 forts and with a minimum of 2 x CD Bns backed by 12,000+ mines should suffice to break the offensive strength of the attackers. It will not be able to destroy them but with Level 6 forts I should be able to mass an effective AV of about 2000 and with the sort of losses and disruption attackers normally suffer this might suffice to hold off anything short of a total committment. My aim is not to defeat the enemy but simply to prevent him from winning cheaply. The damage done in this attempt should prevent any deeper exploitation of the initial Americn thrust.
So, a reasonable assessment or one which shows my inexperience with amphibious assaults? I would obviously prefer more extensive minefields but since my MLEs are not quite on line yet 12,000 will be about the best I can do at each of my defensive hedgehogs. I would also, obviously wish to add another 50% of infantry before I could feel secure in these bases but one must fight with what one has and not what one wishes one had. I made a couple of strategic misappreciations which cost me the 400 additional AV for each of my bases. Live and learn.
John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.
Well, that's that settled then.
-
Rob Brennan UK
- Posts: 3685
- Joined: Sat Aug 24, 2002 8:36 pm
- Location: London UK
RE: BUGWAR 2006!
12000 mines is HUGE belts. It's almost going to be immateriel how many MSW's he sends, the troops ships will get hammered before he even unloads and will produce massive disruption as well as maybe kill some heavy equipment. also you may be suprised as to how many MSW/DMS he sends, some players 'forget' [;)]. he'd be better served to send in night MSW groups to clear them 1st BUT your LBA can clobber them ( not DMS as thay are fast enough to escape all but nell/betty groups). I have seen just the IMP guard div with numersous CD/AA/ART hold off 7 divs at wake is. ( AAR speedy vs fabertong). not sure on the AV number though.
I believe the allies have to prepare a target for invasion ( ie bomb it for weeks) before having a good chance of landing. as ALL your guns from AA ( if dual purpose) intrinsic inf artillery ART and CD will fine on unloading ships/men .. can cause massive casualties if not supressed beforehand .. and 1-2 BB runs wont do nearly enough. Also have a LOT of supply on hand as this allows the maximim artillery fire ( don't know numbers , just have maye 4x needed iirc). While a Big Bombardment will hurt support personell, your infantry will be largely untouched. only ground attack a/c will disrupt them.
Full japanese DIV will bounce off 3 allied ones imo, unless very well prepared. one other option would be really hurt him ,, and try and ensure he cant withdraw or if he takes the island, cant withdraw to PH for replacements( so PH will have less men for your assault). this will need KB though.
I'm not a 'counting' player .. and just judge by experience or bravado .. so feel free to work the numbers.
I believe the allies have to prepare a target for invasion ( ie bomb it for weeks) before having a good chance of landing. as ALL your guns from AA ( if dual purpose) intrinsic inf artillery ART and CD will fine on unloading ships/men .. can cause massive casualties if not supressed beforehand .. and 1-2 BB runs wont do nearly enough. Also have a LOT of supply on hand as this allows the maximim artillery fire ( don't know numbers , just have maye 4x needed iirc). While a Big Bombardment will hurt support personell, your infantry will be largely untouched. only ground attack a/c will disrupt them.
Full japanese DIV will bounce off 3 allied ones imo, unless very well prepared. one other option would be really hurt him ,, and try and ensure he cant withdraw or if he takes the island, cant withdraw to PH for replacements( so PH will have less men for your assault). this will need KB though.
I'm not a 'counting' player .. and just judge by experience or bravado .. so feel free to work the numbers.
sorry for the spelling . English is my main language , I just can't type . and i'm too lazy to edit
RE: BUGWAR 2006!
Rob,
Thanks for the input. Imperial Guard has an AV of about 450 but is obviously very highly experienced. My defending units won't have this level of experience. I'm hoping quantity has a quality all of its own.
As to his DMS... Well I think he could have a maximum of 8 of them at this stage of the game and I have confirmed the sinking of 7 of them. I passed up the opportunity to hit his CVs in early December in order to concentrate on his DMS when they tried to flee Pearl. This decision is now paying off.
I think you might be right about night MSW sweeps though. He recently sent MSW Oriole in on a night sweep. It showed up, got 3 messages that it was sweeping mines and clearing a lane and then succumbed to something like 30 direct hits from CD/AA and artillery units.
Oh and FWIW in terms of the CV airgroup bug...
I've docked one element of KB at a Southern Area Army base and about half of the planes have switched their HQs to Southern Area Army. So, it looks like the workaround is simply to dock them in non-restricted bases and wait a couple of days for all of the units to switch their HQs. I'm sure it will take some time for all units to switch their HQs but at least it should help save the PP.
The 5 divisions in Kwantung and China I've been keeping an eye on are now 26 days out and I have over 1000 PP. I figure I need about 2700 PP to free them all and should have saved up about 2300 by then so that's not too bad... I had to spend the other 500 PP on AAA Regiments to bolster the DEI.
Thanks for the input. Imperial Guard has an AV of about 450 but is obviously very highly experienced. My defending units won't have this level of experience. I'm hoping quantity has a quality all of its own.
As to his DMS... Well I think he could have a maximum of 8 of them at this stage of the game and I have confirmed the sinking of 7 of them. I passed up the opportunity to hit his CVs in early December in order to concentrate on his DMS when they tried to flee Pearl. This decision is now paying off.
I think you might be right about night MSW sweeps though. He recently sent MSW Oriole in on a night sweep. It showed up, got 3 messages that it was sweeping mines and clearing a lane and then succumbed to something like 30 direct hits from CD/AA and artillery units
.Oh and FWIW in terms of the CV airgroup bug...
I've docked one element of KB at a Southern Area Army base and about half of the planes have switched their HQs to Southern Area Army. So, it looks like the workaround is simply to dock them in non-restricted bases and wait a couple of days for all of the units to switch their HQs. I'm sure it will take some time for all units to switch their HQs but at least it should help save the PP.
The 5 divisions in Kwantung and China I've been keeping an eye on are now 26 days out and I have over 1000 PP. I figure I need about 2700 PP to free them all and should have saved up about 2300 by then so that's not too bad... I had to spend the other 500 PP on AAA Regiments to bolster the DEI.
John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.
Well, that's that settled then.
RE: BUGWAR 2006!
Hi, WITP to me is all about the problem of the Japanese defense barrier. From both sides. Building it as Japan consumes most of my efforts when I play that side and breaking it as Allies decides the direction and pace of the war.
Before the Allies get their LST and Amph HQ I try to refrain from assualting atolls and look for softer targets (NG where I can land troops at one of my bases and march overland to enemy)
Allied amph assaults in 1942 are rather clumsy and should not be confused with what will appear off shore of Japanese bases in 1944/45
Troops load/unload slower onto AK then AP. They load/unload slower on AP compared to LST. Troops 100 percent prepared and landing via LST with Amph HQ in TF will not suffer much disruption (apart from enemy fire) Troops loaded onto AK often have 50 percent disruption before they even begin to disembark. (AK are not good ships to conduct opposed landings from)
Now the nature of Japanese defensive operations has consumed so much of my thought and time in WITP. My entire concept of defense as Japan is simple "Don't let them land"
The garrison of outer bases is meant to force the enemy into commiting large forces to overcome it and prevent them from mulitple operations at once or in rapid succession.
Bases are defended by the IJN and airforces. The garrison is just to make the enemy require a major effort to make the attempt and the IJN and airforces defeat this effort before it is able to actually conduct a landing. Any Japanese base that can be isolated enough for unmolested transports (of any type) to unload will fall. And then the more Japan has placed there in defense the more costly the defeat will be.
Mines are good at disrupting landings and bombardments but they degrade and need to be maintained but they won't stop a landing. Disrupted troops will recover even on atoll if they have the leadership and supply. Remember troops recover best when they are located in the hex they have assigned as objective and are at 100 percent preperation. Dump enough supply ontop of them and they recover from disruption quite well.
So the Japanese defense has to kill disrupted troops before they recover or the IJN/airforces must prevent the supply from unloading. (out of supply the Japanese can wait before attacking to eliminate)
Since no force can prevent the capture of a base if Allies are permited to unload there it must be the Japanese airforce that decides the issue. Either by providing cover for IJN surface TF that break up the landing or by direct attack with bombers before the enemy starts to unload.
The Allied attack will come at a base where they feel they control the air. If they do control the air around their target then the IJN attempts to intervene in a landing will only make the toll on Japan higher.
WITP in the end is all about air power. Watch for bad weather over extended periods. Bad weather can set the conditions for a "Sea Control" battle rather then an "Air Control" battle.
Since WITP is an Air War examine the "rock scissor, papaer" interaction and decide the best means of disposing your force on defense.
Early in war Allies have few fighters with range over 4. They have few bombers with normal range of 6 or more.
A TF moving full speed can move at most 6 hexes in 1 phase. So any TF composed of ships that can move 6 hexes is immune from most Allied strikes. (And any strikes that can reach will be unescorted resulting in the "CAP over TF" aborting it or defeating it.
The Japanese have an advantage early in war because they have the Betty/Nell/A6M2 that can reach out 11 hexes with escorted strikes. The Allies cannot bombard a Japanese base with this combination defending it (except in bad weather) while the Japanese can pound most isolated Allied bases with impunity.
Around mid 1943 this changes. The Allies get longer range land based fighters and they will have built up the number of CV/CVL they have to where their naval based air will over power any single Japanese base.
It serves the Japanese to encourage the Allies into attempting landings before mid 1943 and while defeating these attempts destroy the material that allows the 1943 success. (Must sink quite a few CV to push it back to 1944)
The Allies on the other hand should follow the slow path of finding bases not more then 4 hexes apart and marching overland while gaining control of the local air.
OK one of the points here is something I think many Japanese players overlook.
There is no reason to defend every base to the last man. When you commit a force to defense at that time perpare an "exit" plan. So when it becomes clear the Allies have chosen a target and will succeed have the plan and the means ready to evacuate your major forces to a new more secure position. The last major effort of Japanese air power over a base should be covering the withdrawel of as much as can be saved. The garrison was only intended to force a delay onto allies by causing them to prepare a force large enough to win. If they have done this and will control the air/sea around/the base then any loss you inflict by fighting to end will not justify the cost. If they can land they will win. Save as much as you can to commit to battles where you hope to prevent the landing.
Before the Allies get their LST and Amph HQ I try to refrain from assualting atolls and look for softer targets (NG where I can land troops at one of my bases and march overland to enemy)
Allied amph assaults in 1942 are rather clumsy and should not be confused with what will appear off shore of Japanese bases in 1944/45
Troops load/unload slower onto AK then AP. They load/unload slower on AP compared to LST. Troops 100 percent prepared and landing via LST with Amph HQ in TF will not suffer much disruption (apart from enemy fire) Troops loaded onto AK often have 50 percent disruption before they even begin to disembark. (AK are not good ships to conduct opposed landings from)
Now the nature of Japanese defensive operations has consumed so much of my thought and time in WITP. My entire concept of defense as Japan is simple "Don't let them land"
The garrison of outer bases is meant to force the enemy into commiting large forces to overcome it and prevent them from mulitple operations at once or in rapid succession.
Bases are defended by the IJN and airforces. The garrison is just to make the enemy require a major effort to make the attempt and the IJN and airforces defeat this effort before it is able to actually conduct a landing. Any Japanese base that can be isolated enough for unmolested transports (of any type) to unload will fall. And then the more Japan has placed there in defense the more costly the defeat will be.
Mines are good at disrupting landings and bombardments but they degrade and need to be maintained but they won't stop a landing. Disrupted troops will recover even on atoll if they have the leadership and supply. Remember troops recover best when they are located in the hex they have assigned as objective and are at 100 percent preperation. Dump enough supply ontop of them and they recover from disruption quite well.
So the Japanese defense has to kill disrupted troops before they recover or the IJN/airforces must prevent the supply from unloading. (out of supply the Japanese can wait before attacking to eliminate)
Since no force can prevent the capture of a base if Allies are permited to unload there it must be the Japanese airforce that decides the issue. Either by providing cover for IJN surface TF that break up the landing or by direct attack with bombers before the enemy starts to unload.
The Allied attack will come at a base where they feel they control the air. If they do control the air around their target then the IJN attempts to intervene in a landing will only make the toll on Japan higher.
WITP in the end is all about air power. Watch for bad weather over extended periods. Bad weather can set the conditions for a "Sea Control" battle rather then an "Air Control" battle.
Since WITP is an Air War examine the "rock scissor, papaer" interaction and decide the best means of disposing your force on defense.
Early in war Allies have few fighters with range over 4. They have few bombers with normal range of 6 or more.
A TF moving full speed can move at most 6 hexes in 1 phase. So any TF composed of ships that can move 6 hexes is immune from most Allied strikes. (And any strikes that can reach will be unescorted resulting in the "CAP over TF" aborting it or defeating it.
The Japanese have an advantage early in war because they have the Betty/Nell/A6M2 that can reach out 11 hexes with escorted strikes. The Allies cannot bombard a Japanese base with this combination defending it (except in bad weather) while the Japanese can pound most isolated Allied bases with impunity.
Around mid 1943 this changes. The Allies get longer range land based fighters and they will have built up the number of CV/CVL they have to where their naval based air will over power any single Japanese base.
It serves the Japanese to encourage the Allies into attempting landings before mid 1943 and while defeating these attempts destroy the material that allows the 1943 success. (Must sink quite a few CV to push it back to 1944)
The Allies on the other hand should follow the slow path of finding bases not more then 4 hexes apart and marching overland while gaining control of the local air.
OK one of the points here is something I think many Japanese players overlook.
There is no reason to defend every base to the last man. When you commit a force to defense at that time perpare an "exit" plan. So when it becomes clear the Allies have chosen a target and will succeed have the plan and the means ready to evacuate your major forces to a new more secure position. The last major effort of Japanese air power over a base should be covering the withdrawel of as much as can be saved. The garrison was only intended to force a delay onto allies by causing them to prepare a force large enough to win. If they have done this and will control the air/sea around/the base then any loss you inflict by fighting to end will not justify the cost. If they can land they will win. Save as much as you can to commit to battles where you hope to prevent the landing.
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
-
Rob Brennan UK
- Posts: 3685
- Joined: Sat Aug 24, 2002 8:36 pm
- Location: London UK
RE: BUGWAR 2006!
Glad to hear about the CV group thing, did they take on new a/c ? and the ones that didnt change havnt ? ( just a thought to maybe narrow down why some change and some don't)
7 DMS .. he will miss those , they are almost as vital to the allies as the APD's are to japan ( for differant reasons of course )
Exp will have a big impact too, only the US marines have good exp this early, some others are awful National guard units ( good for defence ).
7 DMS .. he will miss those , they are almost as vital to the allies as the APD's are to japan ( for differant reasons of course )
Exp will have a big impact too, only the US marines have good exp this early, some others are awful National guard units ( good for defence ).
sorry for the spelling . English is my main language , I just can't type . and i'm too lazy to edit
RE: BUGWAR 2006!
Hi, any Allied player that lands on a Japanese atoll that is in supply is a nut. So what Japan deploys is wasted. either it will be out of supply and killed or it will be bypassed and rot. Truk/Rabaul are often nothing more then giant POW camps set up and guarded by the Japanese themselves.
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
RE: BUGWAR 2006!
Hi Mogami,
Glad to see you posting. I hope we can put the bug clusterf**ks behind us. And now onto your post which is, as always, extremely interesting.
Agreed. It is FAR easier to drown 1000 men huddling in a transport than it is to shoot 1000 men hiding in cover or fortified positions. However, sometimes it is impossible to prevent landings and a suitable SOP must be found... In addition, as part of my long-term plan ( next 6 months) it is actually extremely welcome to see American troops landing on Japanese bases as it will serve to dislocate enemy defences when my operations elsewhere come to a conclusion. Of course I understand that it will prove very difficult to retake these bases when the time is right but I think I have a workable plan for that. I may, of course, be wrong but at the very least it will prove interesting to see a different approach than the usual "defend everything with as much as possible cause once it falls it is gone" approach.
I'm not entirely sure I agree with this. Admittedly the force requirement to hold off 8 or 9 US divisions will be very high but with sufficient fortifications, supply and AV it can, theoretically, be done. I think that one of the keys to this will be the ramping up of Japanese transport aircraft capacity such that reaction forces can be flown into contested atolls from nodal bases. This has been one of the keystones of my defensive preparations.
I think your last paragraph is very germaine to the discussion. Always prepare to evacuate at least some survivors and know that if the Allied player waits long enough he can take whatever he wants. I think the key is that if he waits long enough he will probably be in 1943 and will be facing a situation in which everything in the Pacific except, perhaps, the Hawaiian Islands are in Japanese hands. The temptation to strike back and create a, superficially, improved strategic situation would be overwhelming to most players.
Glad to see you posting. I hope we can put the bug clusterf**ks behind us. And now onto your post which is, as always, extremely interesting.
My entire concept of defense as Japan is simple "Don't let them land"
Agreed. It is FAR easier to drown 1000 men huddling in a transport than it is to shoot 1000 men hiding in cover or fortified positions. However, sometimes it is impossible to prevent landings and a suitable SOP must be found... In addition, as part of my long-term plan ( next 6 months) it is actually extremely welcome to see American troops landing on Japanese bases as it will serve to dislocate enemy defences when my operations elsewhere come to a conclusion. Of course I understand that it will prove very difficult to retake these bases when the time is right but I think I have a workable plan for that. I may, of course, be wrong but at the very least it will prove interesting to see a different approach than the usual "defend everything with as much as possible cause once it falls it is gone" approach.
Since no force can prevent the capture of a base if Allies are permited to unload there it
I'm not entirely sure I agree with this. Admittedly the force requirement to hold off 8 or 9 US divisions will be very high but with sufficient fortifications, supply and AV it can, theoretically, be done. I think that one of the keys to this will be the ramping up of Japanese transport aircraft capacity such that reaction forces can be flown into contested atolls from nodal bases. This has been one of the keystones of my defensive preparations.
I think your last paragraph is very germaine to the discussion. Always prepare to evacuate at least some survivors and know that if the Allied player waits long enough he can take whatever he wants. I think the key is that if he waits long enough he will probably be in 1943 and will be facing a situation in which everything in the Pacific except, perhaps, the Hawaiian Islands are in Japanese hands. The temptation to strike back and create a, superficially, improved strategic situation would be overwhelming to most players.
John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.
Well, that's that settled then.
RE: BUGWAR 2006!
Hi, There are a great many bases in the Pacific and the Allies player can adopt a bypass strategy that yeilds great results.
Take defending Palmyra and Christmas Islands for example.
Palmyra can be a size 4 airfield and Christmas a size 5 when fully built. 450 Japanese aircraft plus floatplanes can base between them.
The allies would require 5 CV to have even numbers but range would greatly favor Japan.
However there are 3 other undeveloped islands in range of Palmyra and or Christmas Island that when built can hold 450 aircraft (3 size 3 airfields) So Japan has to worry over them because the Allied player has a great many DD and can FT construction units and have fighters in a matter of days. Japanese air may or may not inflict loss on these attempts but as Allied player I would accept some loss to get one or more of these islands functioning as an airfield. If all 3 were up Palmyra and Christmas would experiance some discomfort in resupply. On each airfield place 16 DB and 16 Torpedo planes and 108 fighters with some patrol/recon and my 5 CV now become a force that results in Allies having 2 to 1 in numbers. (range still favors Japan) But I would use my air to secure my supply and provide garrisions to islands. In effect I need never actually land on Palmyra or Christmas because they are now POW camps and once they run out off supply a landing is really just a mop up operation. Japan must worry about all those size 0 bases that are in range or on the path to Japanese occupied bases.
So you must at least "step on" every base in range to allow your SC TF to react when enemy enters those hexes. (TF only react when enemy TF enters one of your base hexes)
The Gilberts have these type bases in plenty and they are in the Southern SRA. any empty base in range of allied transport is a danger. If enemy controled they fly in construction and aviation support. If under your control but not garrisioned they do the same after they drop a few paratroops or FT a raider unit. If even a size 1 airfield exists they have 50 fighters in a day or two. Once airfield is a size 2 it can fly naval strikes. (or any offensive mission)
So since you can't guard every base and enemy can avoid many bases where you commit a larger force it is left to IJN reaction TF and air to provide the real defense.
Do not under estimate the amount of loss the Allies can inflict in 1943 and beyond. I have seen (inflicted and absorbed) Japan losing 7000 aircraft in less then 90 days.
(In May you feel everything is defended and in Sept your scouring your bases to provide a defense for just a single point)
Without air control the IJN surface units must retire. Once this happens your garrisions are isolated.
Step one for the allied player must always be gaining control of the air and those little size 0 0 islands are the keys to doing this. (not the size 9 airfields)
Take defending Palmyra and Christmas Islands for example.
Palmyra can be a size 4 airfield and Christmas a size 5 when fully built. 450 Japanese aircraft plus floatplanes can base between them.
The allies would require 5 CV to have even numbers but range would greatly favor Japan.
However there are 3 other undeveloped islands in range of Palmyra and or Christmas Island that when built can hold 450 aircraft (3 size 3 airfields) So Japan has to worry over them because the Allied player has a great many DD and can FT construction units and have fighters in a matter of days. Japanese air may or may not inflict loss on these attempts but as Allied player I would accept some loss to get one or more of these islands functioning as an airfield. If all 3 were up Palmyra and Christmas would experiance some discomfort in resupply. On each airfield place 16 DB and 16 Torpedo planes and 108 fighters with some patrol/recon and my 5 CV now become a force that results in Allies having 2 to 1 in numbers. (range still favors Japan) But I would use my air to secure my supply and provide garrisions to islands. In effect I need never actually land on Palmyra or Christmas because they are now POW camps and once they run out off supply a landing is really just a mop up operation. Japan must worry about all those size 0 bases that are in range or on the path to Japanese occupied bases.
So you must at least "step on" every base in range to allow your SC TF to react when enemy enters those hexes. (TF only react when enemy TF enters one of your base hexes)
The Gilberts have these type bases in plenty and they are in the Southern SRA. any empty base in range of allied transport is a danger. If enemy controled they fly in construction and aviation support. If under your control but not garrisioned they do the same after they drop a few paratroops or FT a raider unit. If even a size 1 airfield exists they have 50 fighters in a day or two. Once airfield is a size 2 it can fly naval strikes. (or any offensive mission)
So since you can't guard every base and enemy can avoid many bases where you commit a larger force it is left to IJN reaction TF and air to provide the real defense.
Do not under estimate the amount of loss the Allies can inflict in 1943 and beyond. I have seen (inflicted and absorbed) Japan losing 7000 aircraft in less then 90 days.
(In May you feel everything is defended and in Sept your scouring your bases to provide a defense for just a single point)
Without air control the IJN surface units must retire. Once this happens your garrisions are isolated.
Step one for the allied player must always be gaining control of the air and those little size 0 0 islands are the keys to doing this. (not the size 9 airfields)
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
RE: BUGWAR 2006!
Surface TF reactions. Just to clarify this... Are you saying that I must not only own the hex the Allied ships are in but must have a unit based there for the surface TF to react? Just wondering as I have some surface TFs within range of undefended hexes which I'm sure Trey would like to use for fighter bases and had thought that simply "owning" them would guarantee a reaction.
Aye or, as always, the best way to negate an enemy's operational capability is to prevent it or render it immaterial by dint of strategic developments.
Still, your viewpoint with respect to multiple level 3 airbases being utilised to negate the power of a single size 6-9 base is interesting. It is something I am intending to do with respect to Pearl myself so turn-around is most definitely "fair game" and I must guard against it.
So since you can't guard every base and enemy can avoid many bases where you commit a larger force it is left to IJN reaction TF and air to provide the real defense.
Aye or, as always, the best way to negate an enemy's operational capability is to prevent it or render it immaterial by dint of strategic developments.
Still, your viewpoint with respect to multiple level 3 airbases being utilised to negate the power of a single size 6-9 base is interesting. It is something I am intending to do with respect to Pearl myself so turn-around is most definitely "fair game" and I must guard against it.
John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.
Well, that's that settled then.
-
Capt. Harlock
- Posts: 5379
- Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2001 8:00 am
- Location: Los Angeles
- Contact:
RE: BUGWAR 2006!
Jeez, Nemo, it's just a bit of crack...I'm mess'n widya
Here, have one on me
"Messing" with someone in the process of trying to resolve bugs is in poor taste, somewhat like making jokes about stinging insects to someone in the middle of a hornet cloud. But you do have the glimmerings of the right course. Levity about bugs should wait until the passage of at least two weeks of time or the consumption of at least two tall glasses of beer or alcoholic equivalent.
Civil war? What does that mean? Is there any foreign war? Isn't every war fought between men, between brothers?
--Victor Hugo
--Victor Hugo
RE: BUGWAR 2006!
AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 03/12/42
A very quiet few days follows. The march up the western spine of India continues while defensive preparations on the perimeter begin to fall into place. Several traps are also being prepared.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TF 23 encounters mine field at Madras (18,21)
Japanese Ships
PG Uji
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASW attack at 69,114
Allied Ships
SS Greenling
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TF 73 encounters mine field at Madras (18,21)
Japanese Ships
MSW W.11
MSW W.9
MSW W.5
AP Saipan Maru, Mine hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
Japanese ground losses:
19 casualties reported
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Colombo , at 14,24
Japanese aircraft
Ki-43-Ib Oscar x 25
Ki-49 Helen x 129
Ki-46-II Dinah x 6
Allied aircraft
no flights
Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-49 Helen: 3 destroyed, 24 damaged
Ki-46-II Dinah: 1 destroyed
Allied aircraft losses
P-40B Tomahawk: 1 destroyed
Hurricane II: 4 destroyed
Beaufort V-IX: 1 destroyed
Blenheim I: 1 destroyed
Allied ground losses:
61 casualties reported
Guns lost 2
Airbase hits 18
Airbase supply hits 4
Runway hits 68
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Singapore , at 23,50
Japanese aircraft
Ki-21 Sally x 306
Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-21 Sally: 7 damaged
Allied ground losses:
60 casualties reported
Guns lost 2
Port hits 21
Port fuel hits 2
Port supply hits 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Koepang , at 28,77
Allied aircraft
Hudson I x 40
Allied aircraft losses
Hudson I: 9 damaged
Japanese ground losses:
10 casualties reported
Airbase hits 1
Runway hits 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Norfolk Island , at 60,119
Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 17
Allied aircraft losses
B-17E Fortress: 2 damaged
Airbase hits 2
Runway hits 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on 65th Chinese Corps, at 41,35
Japanese aircraft
Ki-43-Ib Oscar x 23
Ki-48 Lily x 35
Ki-49 Helen x 36
Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-49 Helen: 1 damaged
Allied ground losses:
11 casualties reported
Guns lost 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on 46th Chinese Corps, at 45,35
Japanese aircraft
Ki-27 Nate x 10
Ki-51 Sonia x 24
Ki-15 Babs x 1
No Japanese losses
Allied ground losses:
13 casualties reported
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Kweiyang
Japanese Bombardment attack
Attacking force 107239 troops, 1052 guns, 2 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 2672
Defending force 65933 troops, 222 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 1515
Allied ground losses:
371 casualties reported
Guns lost 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at 44,30
Japanese Bombardment attack
Attacking force 54128 troops, 702 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 1042
Defending force 68102 troops, 442 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 1806
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at 45,35
Japanese Bombardment attack
Attacking force 10453 troops, 321 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 670
Defending force 81689 troops, 129 guns, 22 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 2384
Allied ground losses:
453 casualties reported
Guns lost 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at 23,47
Japanese Bombardment attack
Attacking force 5372 troops, 183 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 55
Defending force 2780 troops, 0 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 2
Allied ground losses:
10 casualties reported
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Canton Island
Allied Deliberate attack
Attacking force 7182 troops, 145 guns, 6 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 19
Defending force 20 troops, 0 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 1
Allied max assault: 14 - adjusted assault: 9
Japanese max defense: 0 - adjusted defense: 1
Allied assault odds: 9 to 1
Japanese ground losses:
10 casualties reported
I'm looking at about 1,000 Chinese troops killed or disabled every day due to bombardment attacks. I am assuming that many of these troops are being disabled and not killed but if even 200 are being killed per day ( representing about 20 squads) I will be keeping pace with the arrival of fresh Chinese squads ( Trey gets 600 per month) such that the effective Chinese combat force remains at a stable level.
A very quiet few days follows. The march up the western spine of India continues while defensive preparations on the perimeter begin to fall into place. Several traps are also being prepared.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TF 23 encounters mine field at Madras (18,21)
Japanese Ships
PG Uji
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASW attack at 69,114
Allied Ships
SS Greenling
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TF 73 encounters mine field at Madras (18,21)
Japanese Ships
MSW W.11
MSW W.9
MSW W.5
AP Saipan Maru, Mine hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
Japanese ground losses:
19 casualties reported
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Colombo , at 14,24
Japanese aircraft
Ki-43-Ib Oscar x 25
Ki-49 Helen x 129
Ki-46-II Dinah x 6
Allied aircraft
no flights
Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-49 Helen: 3 destroyed, 24 damaged
Ki-46-II Dinah: 1 destroyed
Allied aircraft losses
P-40B Tomahawk: 1 destroyed
Hurricane II: 4 destroyed
Beaufort V-IX: 1 destroyed
Blenheim I: 1 destroyed
Allied ground losses:
61 casualties reported
Guns lost 2
Airbase hits 18
Airbase supply hits 4
Runway hits 68
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Singapore , at 23,50
Japanese aircraft
Ki-21 Sally x 306
Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-21 Sally: 7 damaged
Allied ground losses:
60 casualties reported
Guns lost 2
Port hits 21
Port fuel hits 2
Port supply hits 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Koepang , at 28,77
Allied aircraft
Hudson I x 40
Allied aircraft losses
Hudson I: 9 damaged
Japanese ground losses:
10 casualties reported
Airbase hits 1
Runway hits 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Norfolk Island , at 60,119
Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 17
Allied aircraft losses
B-17E Fortress: 2 damaged
Airbase hits 2
Runway hits 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on 65th Chinese Corps, at 41,35
Japanese aircraft
Ki-43-Ib Oscar x 23
Ki-48 Lily x 35
Ki-49 Helen x 36
Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-49 Helen: 1 damaged
Allied ground losses:
11 casualties reported
Guns lost 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on 46th Chinese Corps, at 45,35
Japanese aircraft
Ki-27 Nate x 10
Ki-51 Sonia x 24
Ki-15 Babs x 1
No Japanese losses
Allied ground losses:
13 casualties reported
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Kweiyang
Japanese Bombardment attack
Attacking force 107239 troops, 1052 guns, 2 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 2672
Defending force 65933 troops, 222 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 1515
Allied ground losses:
371 casualties reported
Guns lost 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at 44,30
Japanese Bombardment attack
Attacking force 54128 troops, 702 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 1042
Defending force 68102 troops, 442 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 1806
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at 45,35
Japanese Bombardment attack
Attacking force 10453 troops, 321 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 670
Defending force 81689 troops, 129 guns, 22 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 2384
Allied ground losses:
453 casualties reported
Guns lost 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at 23,47
Japanese Bombardment attack
Attacking force 5372 troops, 183 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 55
Defending force 2780 troops, 0 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 2
Allied ground losses:
10 casualties reported
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Canton Island
Allied Deliberate attack
Attacking force 7182 troops, 145 guns, 6 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 19
Defending force 20 troops, 0 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 1
Allied max assault: 14 - adjusted assault: 9
Japanese max defense: 0 - adjusted defense: 1
Allied assault odds: 9 to 1
Japanese ground losses:
10 casualties reported
I'm looking at about 1,000 Chinese troops killed or disabled every day due to bombardment attacks. I am assuming that many of these troops are being disabled and not killed but if even 200 are being killed per day ( representing about 20 squads) I will be keeping pace with the arrival of fresh Chinese squads ( Trey gets 600 per month) such that the effective Chinese combat force remains at a stable level.
John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.
Well, that's that settled then.