Forlorn Hopes: The Japanese Respond

Post descriptions of your brilliant successes and unfortunate demises.

Moderators: wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami

User avatar
John 3rd
Posts: 17790
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 5:03 pm
Location: La Salle, Colorado

RE: Commentary

Post by John 3rd »

Castor--I meant realistic in terms of supplying the ships.  I totally agree with your point about BB Bombardments!  We have both been on the receiving end of 'nuclear' bombardments.  [8D][8D]
Image

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.
User avatar
ny59giants
Posts: 9902
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 12:02 pm

RE: Commentary

Post by ny59giants »

As Economics Minister, I will refrain from comments about the battleplan. However, my concerns would be a secondary landing at Okinawa (or Formosa) in the near future to cut of all Oil from the SRA. [X(][X(]  The fragile economy would collapse in a matter of weeks, not even months as their is not enough surplus in HI, Oil, and Fuel to keep the Japanese fleet running. While John has done a masterful job of expanding the Empire, the logistical situation is stil on the knife's edge even with improvements made over the last 2 months of my "attempts" to get this economy running.
 
As a potential defense for the Americans striking out, I have reduced the size of AK/TK TF trying to keep the economy running. I fear less the sub menace than the American CVs running full speed to the west, launch strikes, and return back to the safety of Iwo Jima (which seems ready to fall asap).
[center]Image[/center]
User avatar
ny59giants
Posts: 9902
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 12:02 pm

RE: Commentary

Post by ny59giants »

I hope this email has the proper effect.
Grand Admiral Cochran,

Now that Iwo Jima has fallen, we need to take some drastic measures.
1) I will take away all escort to the AK/TK being used for movement of supplies/fuel/resources/oil. Why?? Right now those escorts are too short legged to help and there has not been any sub menace to speak of. Those TF will use up Op Points to refuel them and those slow down their movement to and fro.
2) AK/TK TF between Formosa and Japan will travel at full speed (everywhere else at cruise). This will lessen their time available to enemy air attacks.
3) Route all TF to the northern side of Japan and/or to Osaka through the north not south side of the islands.

The War Minister is STRONGLY urged to start moving any and all fighters from everywhere but Rangoon area back to the Home Islands and will form a defensive wall to Formosa/Luzon. Those being used for any counter attack from the Marianas or the Allied LOC back to Midway are excluded.
"IF" Dan is able to take Okinawa/Formosa (and maybe Luzon), our economy will die a swift death. This wall needs to be given priority number 1A (right behind the Home Islands).

The battle plan you devises needs to take into account that our economy is like a glass jaw. If your game is going to get into late '44, protecting our supply lines is critical.

Your next turn needs to be a lot of "what if" thinking as you shift your defense.
"IF" Dan invades here.....(fill in the location), how will it be defended??

Sorry for being so blunt, but the Rise and Collapse of the Japanese Empire could be very sudden!!

Minister Benoit


[center]Image[/center]
User avatar
rtrapasso
Posts: 22655
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2002 4:31 am

RE: Is THIS why?

Post by rtrapasso »

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

I just re-read your note and saw what you said. Dammit. I remember it but it really didn't make a solid connection until Mike's comment.

Does this change things? He still as to move back-and-forth with supply and fuel. He has dozens of damaged ships as well. Need to think on this and not get too riled up.

This is something I would never do. Guess for others it is OK.

Just remembered a bit of history: The USN did EXACTLY this same sort of gamey stunt in the invasion of Okinawa... they seized a nearby group of tiny islands and turned it into a supply base, using it to resupply BBs and such... my wife's (second) cousin was on an LST tasked with ferrying BB ammo to and from this island (btw, half of the LSTs on this mission were blown up in action, iirc.)

"The first Americans ashore were soldiers of the 77th Infantry Division, who landed in the Kerama Islands (Kerama Retto), fifteen miles (24 km) west of Okinawa on March 26, 1945. Subsidiary landings followed, and the Kerama group was secured over the next five days. In these preliminary operations, the 77th Infantry Division suffered 31 dead and 81 wounded, while Japanese dead and captured numbered over 650. The operation provided a protected anchorage for the fleet and eliminated the threat from suicide boats."

As mentioned, it also served as a resupply base.
User avatar
ny59giants
Posts: 9902
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 12:02 pm

RE: Is THIS why?

Post by ny59giants »

Well, there seems to be some light at the end of the tunnel and it isn't a train. Well maybe it is with the Americans parked off shore. [:D]

The economy seems to be functioning better.
The HI reserves have gone up 4000 last turn and 10000 over the last 4 days to be at 45,487. I know this isn't much at this point in the game (7 Sept '43), but considered where it was, its significant progress.
Most of the Merchant Ship Building is off, the last of the Japanese HI which I turned off is being turned back on [8|], the last 180 Repair Shipyard was turned back on (somehow, they were turned off just about everywhere), and 150 out of 300 Armament was turned back on.
The aircraft production looks OK, but we will wait a few turns to see what needs to be done here.

Image
Attachments
JohnOilRes.jpg
JohnOilRes.jpg (89.46 KiB) Viewed 199 times
[center]Image[/center]
User avatar
ny59giants
Posts: 9902
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 12:02 pm

RE: Is THIS why?

Post by ny59giants »

The big picture as of 7 Sept.

Image
Attachments
IndustryOverview.jpg
IndustryOverview.jpg (67.19 KiB) Viewed 199 times
[center]Image[/center]
User avatar
n01487477
Posts: 4764
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 12:00 am

RE: Fair use of PTs

Post by n01487477 »

ORIGINAL: Nemo121
Guys, an airframe costs 18 HI, an engine costs 18 so

Single engined plane = 36 HI
twin-engined plane = 54
four-engined plane = 90 HI

Twin-engined planes are 50% more expensive than single-engined planes. This is highly questionable but there you have it.
Thanks Nemo,
if your figures are correct then, I have it right & it is what I thought... I'll do some testing to check again (I like to verify everything).
Well, there seems to be some light at the end of the tunnel and it isn't a train. Well maybe it is with the Americans parked off shore.

The economy seems to be functioning better.
The HI reserves have gone up 4000 last turn and 10000 over the last 4 days to be at 45,487. I know this isn't much at this point in the game (7 Sept '43), but considered where it was, its significant progress.
Most of the Merchant Ship Building is off, the last of the Japanese HI which I turned off is being turned back on , the last 180 Repair Shipyard was turned back on (somehow, they were turned off just about everywhere), and 150 out of 300 Armament was turned back on.
The aircraft production looks OK, but we will wait a few turns to see what needs to be done here.
Looking much better Minister Benoit, but remember it takes quite a few days to get from the SRA to Japan, and now with a northerly route, a little longer ... maybe send the rest of the oil offloading at Formosa to either Sth China or Japan. And I hope there are TK's on route to Java & enough to load at Sumatra and Borneo ...

Otherwise, I like the assessment about the economy & the plan to make a defensive line, a ring of fire if you will ... Yes the war hinges on the military victories in the next few turns, but as you say, any interdiction to the transportation, will result in ignominious defeat by production.

---Damian---
User avatar
Mike Solli
Posts: 16580
Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2000 8:00 am
Location: the flight deck of the Zuikaku

RE: Fair use of PTs

Post by Mike Solli »

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Guys, an airframe costs 18 HI, an engine costs 18 so

Single engined plane = 36 HI
twin-engined plane = 54
four-engined plane = 90 HI

Twin-engined planes are 50% more expensive than single-engined planes. This is highly questionable but there you have it.

Not sure about this. Here's the quote from the manual:

13.2.2 Industry

For aircraft to be built, there must be Heavy Industry in the pool equal to 18 times the number of engines required to build each plane; when a plane is built, the appropriate number of Heavy Industry is consumed. For example, to produce a 2 engine plane, 36 Heavy Industry will be consumed, while a single engine plane consumes 18 Heavy Industry.

-and later on about engines-

For each engine built, 18 Heavy Industry will be expended.

Therefore, a 2 engine plane will cost 72 HI.
Image
Created by the amazing Dixie
User avatar
John 3rd
Posts: 17790
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 5:03 pm
Location: La Salle, Colorado

Thanks

Post by John 3rd »

Things look far better economically just in time for Japan to potentially lose the war.
 
I am going to come up with a couple of possible battleplans for imput from the reader base.  The only way I can do this is to NOT have two screaming, crying, attention-needing sons at my side.  Once this house goes to sleep, I will go to work.
 
Also plan to do the Combat Report for Sept 5 & 6.
 
Image

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.
User avatar
n01487477
Posts: 4764
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 12:00 am

RE: Fair use of PTs

Post by n01487477 »

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli
ORIGINAL: Nemo121
Guys, an airframe costs 18 HI, an engine costs 18 so
Single engined plane = 36 HI
twin-engined plane = 54
four-engined plane = 90 HI
Twin-engined planes are 50% more expensive than single-engined planes. This is highly questionable but there you have it.
Not sure about this. Here's the quote from the manual:
13.2.2 Industry

For aircraft to be built, there must be Heavy Industry in the pool equal to 18 times the number of engines required to build each plane; when a plane is built, the appropriate number of Heavy Industry is consumed. For example, to produce a 2 engine plane, 36 Heavy Industry will be consumed, while a single engine plane consumes 18 Heavy Industry.
-and later on about engines-

For each engine built, 18 Heavy Industry will be expended.
Therefore, a 2 engine plane will cost 72 HI.

Mike,
you are right, I tip my hat to you! I've done the appropriate testing and my results confirm:-
(Damn THE GOOD BOOK was right!)
Each engine will cost 18 HI
1 Engine airframe = 18
2 Engine airframe = 36
4 Engine airframe = 72

So a:-
1 engine plane = 18 + 18 = 36 HI
2 engine plane = 36 + 36 = 72 HI
4 engine plane = 72 + 72 = 144 HI

Sorry John, for hijacking your forum again, but you seem to like it ... so I'll keep doing it, for now.
Good Luck with the "Real" War.
---Damian---
User avatar
Mike Solli
Posts: 16580
Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2000 8:00 am
Location: the flight deck of the Zuikaku

RE: Fair use of PTs

Post by Mike Solli »

ORIGINAL: n01487477
ORIGINAL: Mike Solli
ORIGINAL: Nemo121
Guys, an airframe costs 18 HI, an engine costs 18 so
Single engined plane = 36 HI
twin-engined plane = 54
four-engined plane = 90 HI
Twin-engined planes are 50% more expensive than single-engined planes. This is highly questionable but there you have it.
Not sure about this. Here's the quote from the manual:
13.2.2 Industry

For aircraft to be built, there must be Heavy Industry in the pool equal to 18 times the number of engines required to build each plane; when a plane is built, the appropriate number of Heavy Industry is consumed. For example, to produce a 2 engine plane, 36 Heavy Industry will be consumed, while a single engine plane consumes 18 Heavy Industry.
-and later on about engines-

For each engine built, 18 Heavy Industry will be expended.
Therefore, a 2 engine plane will cost 72 HI.

Mike,
you are right, I tip my hat to you! I've done the appropriate testing and my results confirm:-
(Damn THE GOOD BOOK was right!)
Each engine will cost 18 HI
1 Engine airframe = 18
2 Engine airframe = 36
4 Engine airframe = 72

So a:-
1 engine plane = 18 + 18 = 36 HI
2 engine plane = 36 + 36 = 72 HI
4 engine plane = 72 + 72 = 144 HI

Sorry John, for hijacking your forum again, but you seem to like it ... so I'll keep doing it, for now.
Good Luck with the "Real" War.
---Damian---

Damian, thanks for testing that. I've never really had the time and we all know how accurate the manual is at times. [;)]
Image
Created by the amazing Dixie
User avatar
John 3rd
Posts: 17790
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 5:03 pm
Location: La Salle, Colorado

The Manual

Post by John 3rd »

There IS a manual for this game?  Wow...
 
I've always felt it to be filled with more like 'guidelines.'  [:D][:D][:D]
 
Mike and No148... keep up the discussion.  If we can actually get things verified that this works, this does not, and we have no clue regarding that, then this is useful and good progress for Japanese players.  There is nothing wrong in seeing IF what is claimed matches reality.
 
Image

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.
User avatar
Nemo121
Posts: 5838
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2004 11:15 am
Contact:

RE: The Manual

Post by Nemo121 »

1 engine plane = 18 + 18 = 36 HI
2 engine plane = 36 + 36 = 72 HI
4 engine plane = 72 + 72 = 144 HI
 
Are you SURE about this... A single airframe only costs 18 HI thus where are you getting the 2nd 36 and 2nd 72 in the twin and our-engined planes respectively???
John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.
User avatar
Mike Solli
Posts: 16580
Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2000 8:00 am
Location: the flight deck of the Zuikaku

RE: The Manual

Post by Mike Solli »

For a single engine plane it's 18 HI for the airframe and 18 HI for the engine for 36 total.
Image
Created by the amazing Dixie
User avatar
Nemo121
Posts: 5838
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2004 11:15 am
Contact:

RE: The Manual

Post by Nemo121 »

yes but I thought it was 18 HI for ANY airframe no matter how many engines get attached.

So, 4 engined plane = 18 HI ( for airframe ) + 72 HI ( for engines ) = 90 HI for the total plane
John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.
User avatar
ny59giants
Posts: 9902
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 12:02 pm

RE: The Manual

Post by ny59giants »

yes but I thought it was 18 HI for ANY airframe no matter how many engines get attached.

So, 4 engined plane = 18 HI ( for airframe ) + 72 HI ( for engines ) = 90 HI for the total plane


I'm glad someone else saw this. I was beginning to wonder if I was the only one thinking along these lines.
[center]Image[/center]
User avatar
Mike Solli
Posts: 16580
Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2000 8:00 am
Location: the flight deck of the Zuikaku

RE: The Manual

Post by Mike Solli »

ORIGINAL: ny59giants
yes but I thought it was 18 HI for ANY airframe no matter how many engines get attached.

So, 4 engined plane = 18 HI ( for airframe ) + 72 HI ( for engines ) = 90 HI for the total plane


I'm glad someone else saw this. I was beginning to wonder if I was the only one thinking along these lines.

The only reason I question this is because the manual is very specific concerning this:

"For aircraft to be built, there must be Heavy Industry in the pool equal to 18 times the number of engines required to build each plane; when a plane is built, the appropriate number of Heavy Industry is consumed."

I don't see how you read this as 18 HI per airframe for any size airframe.
Image
Created by the amazing Dixie
User avatar
John 3rd
Posts: 17790
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 5:03 pm
Location: La Salle, Colorado

Combat Report: Sept 5-8, 1943

Post by John 3rd »

Combat Report
September 5-8, 1943
 
Things continue to perculate in the western Pacific right now.  Let me focus there and will then hit other areas:
 
The Bonins
Iwo Jima
The small Japanese garrision finally loses control of the island on September 6th.  This is not before Dan must make another combat landing through my mines and gets another 14 ships damaged.  Had his units been prepped they should have taken this base on the first day but since they weren't it took a bit of time.  The survivors are clinging to Mount Surabachi but will soon be driven off pretty quick.
 
Tokyo Raids
The Japanese continue to launch strikes that have nibbled away at the edge of the Allies Armada:
 
Sept 5th--24 Z and 57 B blast past 6 F6F and sink 2 DM as well as damage 3 more vessels SE of Tori Shima.  The Japanese lose 1 Zero for 4 F6F.
 
Sept 7th--A group of Japanese planes commit suicide when they decide to attack the American CVs.  A total of 12 Zero and 25 Helen go up against 177 F6F and lose everything but 6 Helen.  They do shot down 3 Hellcats.
 
SS Action
I order my SS to enter the combat arena on the 7th and they arrive of the 8th.  There is definite good and bad here!
 
1.  Good News:  My SS hit a DD, an AO, and sink an AK.
2.  Bad News:  Lose Ro-60 and have 3 SS hit by DC or LBA
 
KB Concentrates
All of Japan's heavies are now together at Truk:  9 CV and 2 CVL have gathered and following Nemo's advice I am changing out 3 Daitai of DB for 3 of Fighters. 
 
The CVLs/CVEs are moving down from the south for a rendezvous at Marcus.  These 6 CVE and 3 CVL can also be used.  They are already Fighter heavy being roughly 2/3 Zero and 1/3 Strike planes.
 
I will fuel at Saipan and then attack.
 
 
Any thoughts on how to HIT the Americans?  Dan has a group of about 20 TF clumped together of which only 4 or 5 have CVs in them.  Odds are any strike I send in will be wiped out and the survivors will attack a TF of AOs knowing my luck...
 
Should I follow Nemo's advice and shift even more fighters out and place them all on CAP to cream (hopefully) the American Strikes and THEN attack? 
 
It will take 4-5 days to launch this assault so let me know.
 
 
Will write on the other theatres in just a minute!
   
Image

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.
User avatar
Nemo121
Posts: 5838
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2004 11:15 am
Contact:

RE: Combat Report: Sept 5-8, 1943

Post by Nemo121 »

"For aircraft to be built, there must be Heavy Industry in the pool equal to 18 times the number of engines required to build each plane; when a plane is built, the appropriate number of Heavy Industry is consumed."
 
I don't see this mentioning ANYTHING about the AIRFRAME costing 18 times the number of engines at all. It talks about 18 times the number of engines but NOTHING about the number of airframes required.
 
It seem logical to me that if it takes into account number of engines then it would also account for the fact that it only requires ONE airframe per plane. So ( Number of Engines + 1 x Airframe ) x 18 = total cost.
 
I've been using this to calculate my HI usage and it turns out really close to reality, a lot closer to what it would be if it cost 72 HI per twin-engined bomber.
John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.
User avatar
n01487477
Posts: 4764
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 12:00 am

RE: Combat Report: Sept 5-8, 1943

Post by n01487477 »

Nemo,
I tested in a closed economy ... nothing else producing. I believed your point of view until I tested ...

As you know engines and Airframes(a/c) are different.
Test1.
I built four engines = 4*18 = 72 stopped production.
and then
1 H6K4 Mavis = 72 extra HI used
So total = 144 HI used
Test2.
Built 2 engines = 36
and
2 engine plane = 36
Total =72 HI Used
Then tested again with engines in pool, same result
etc...

The tests show this, if there is something wrong with my methodology, please let me know

---Damian---
edit: Apollo's chart as extra evidence (disregard the figures) but the highlight paints a picture :)
edit2:
Pic1 No production
pic2 4 engines built
pic3 engines off/ 4 engine airframe on (1 plane built)

Image
Attachments
Capture.gif
Capture.gif (177.85 KiB) Viewed 199 times
Post Reply

Return to “After Action Reports”