Andy Mac v PZB This time India will Stand !!!!

[pat.casey]

Andy,

I think you could have done thing better, especially in the initial landings.
I also think the CV battle outcome was very unexpected and you were the victim of a series of very bad die rolls.

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: pat.casey
.... and you were the victim of a series of very bad die rolls.

+1

I think you had about 80% of this working out for you as you played it ... 60% would have been an even swap of CV's which you could take and still proceed with your landings. This result, unfortunately, fell into that remainder 20%.

I wouldn't beat yourself up too much here. Everyone can look back on their last 20 turns and ALWAYS see things that they overlooked and could have "tightened up".

I think your result here proves several things:
1. How great a job you guys have done with WitPAE.
2. Why Nimitz moved so carefully, and he had the benefit of a Midway.

I think in general, we as players take far greater risks than a RL commander ever would. Grigsby's designs are always about taking us "players" down a notch due to his randomness in outcomes. We know that historically Nimitz never went into an operation (after Guadacanal which reinforced his opinions of the Midway outcome) with anything less than overwhelming power. He didn't just bring the hammer ... he brought a whole pallet of hammers. I beleive that WitPAE proves the validity of that strategy.

This is a great AAR. I know it isn't the result you were looking for, but I have learned a great deal from reading it and hope to continue to learn more. Hang in there.

[traskott]

Hurry up !!! We are sure you will be find any way to re-open your offensive

[Blackhorse]

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

p.s. if you want a list of my strategic mistakes to go with my gripes above well here it is.

1. To much distance between TF W and TF K and E this was a real killer I should have taken the extra week and went in intact only sprinting with the fast TF when spotted that was the plan and would have left me all TF's hitting at the same point probably a week later
2. Kicked off my diversion to early one of the reasons I rushed 1. was that I though the TF's loading at PH story was starting to get old and PZB would smell a rat.
3. Allowing PZB to get inside my deciison loop when I reinforced Warangai rather than invding Roti witht he 2nd wave
4. Trying to invade omn the run (albeit with 100% prepped troops) I should have taken a few weeks to get North Australia sorted out before I attacked i now have 1000 auircraft how much easier would it have been to close the big AF's When PZB wasnt ready
5. Delay in Indian Ocean attacks - I am ready to hit objectives inIndian Ocean and Sumatra but am waiitng on a few ships

Basically overall I got buck fever and rushed the offensive without needing to and everything flows from that.

If I had hit Warangai in force then two days later captured Endeh and Roti.

7 days after that hit Koepang and Andaman Islands PZB would have probably had to back off.

Instead utimately it was faulty strategic execution thats got me where i am today

+2 to Pat & Pax. This is a "teachable moment" for us all.

[witpqs]

A few thoughts in a different color...

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

My frustrations of the last few turns

1. Helen II's on ASW killing every sub I put to sea
Without commenting on the specific aircraft model, I've strong suspicion that certain air missions get too much benefit from very high pilot skill. In my PBM with cap_and_gown his highly trained ASW pilots kill subs like they have 1980's radar and homing torpedoes. A metaphor but you get the idea.

2. 24/7 round the clock bombardment TF's 5 days in a row that nuke my base
He's doing a good job at that. IIRC a bunch of bombardments achieved nothing against the airbase so that's not all one way.

3. Allied SCTF's that achieve nothing despite being better ships witht he best leaders I have
I hear this a fair amount in AAR's. The one thing that does seem to be amiss is the lack of a way for ships to acquire experience other than in combat.

4. Useless PT Boats
Before the last time they were patched, PT boats were too powerful. Right now they feel pretty close to the mark to me. In other words, they are a danger and an impediment, but don't really achieve too much unless they penetrate an escort screen and get in amongst weaklings like xAK's. They still do get some occasional hits on warships and so are a danger for enemy TF's to deal with.

5. 8 Hex v 7 Hex strike range that a Japanese player can try to manipulate to force a decisisve result.
This was realistic in that it was a factor IRL, yes?

6. Allied CAP that achieves ZERO
I had an October 1943 2-day battle with cap_and_gown near Ponape with the Range-8 factor. My fleet's CAP (Hellcat plus Wildcats on CVE) did quite well, although plenty of raiders got through. I have forgotten the numbers, but they killed at least 750 planes. Or maybe it was 750 attack planes and over 1,000 planes total, I just forget. The point is that the CAP can do well and I don't know why yours did less well. Still, in my case lots of raiders got through and killed a total of 10 CV/CVL/CVE plus some other ships and damage to lots. Highly skilled pilots will often press on through the carnage, which also seems realistic to me.

Flak seemed to perform similar to what you saw, which in my view is significantly too low to be realistic. As I recall that was even the case in the pre-release AAR's that the AE team ran for the community in the months leading up to AE's release. If shipboard flak were appropriate, there would have been somewhat less damage to your ships but I can't say how much and it still would have been a beating, although the cost to the raiding planes would have been higher with more shot down + ops losses. Attackers of an up to date USN fleet at this point should see flak very deadly to them. Later, when proximity fuses become available it should be even worse for them. JWE has recalculated shipboard flak for DBB using the IJN 25mm as a value of "1" and based on the ratios of the physical parameters like shell weight, bursting charge, etc. (I don't recall each of them). I don't know if that will make it into the official scenarios or not.

7. Allied Strikes that achieve nothing
Chances are good that PzB's strike pilots were highly skilled. I'm sure your fleet had some such but they were likely less skilled than his were overall. Plus, he did significant damage without a return strike the first day. So, your strike planes were at a disadvantage after the first day. Very frustrating but I'm not certain if there is an identifiable problem there. In the second day of my battle with cap_and_gown some modestly skilled torpedo planes got through and did some damage to IJN carriers, so it might be that randomness is the difference.

[witpqs]

Andy, after I wrote the above it occurred to me that both you and I had good reason to run the carrier TF's with "Max React = 0", namely escorting troops, etc., but maybe we should re-think that if a "React" would have closed the range and generated a counter-strike.

[aprezto]

With leaky CAP a feature now I'd tend to agree. It appears, especially as allied players, it is far more important to try to get into range to at least get a chance to riposte than be struck at range 8 with no chance to return the favour.

[Nomad]

Also thinking about this react=0 thing, if you have a CV TF or two or three near the troops ships but not in the same hex, the odds are any strikes are going to be against the CV TFs. My leaning has been to have a few CVEs moving with the amphibious TFs and have the AC TFs ranging in front of them and thereby screening them from the worst of the incoming air strikes.

[Andy Mac]

10 lost Hellcats and my fleet gets nuked with 400 fighter on CAP - maybe they all launched with no ammo....

React yes and no PZB has single ships in most ports int he area with massive fighter traps over them no way to stop my CAG's getting crippled if I leave react on.

I am now more convinced that its better to keep Carrier TF's in different mutually supporting hexes i.e. if you have 3 TF's have them in a triangle so that leaky CAP helps each other but keep them seperate to avoid all TF's getting crucified.

Anyway enough is enough I have lost and lost badly but I am not out of the fight totally yet.

Andy

[Andy Mac]

With the loss of so many good ships and so many good men (yet to come) a new plan will be called for.

Being brutally honest I have no way of knowing what that plan will be or how it wil look - its to early for that but I know I will need one and it will be my last throw of the dice......

I also know that I LOVE the Illustrious class - all three carriers were hit hard but are still flying and fighting today - unless they are hit by a torpedo they just keep on going.

Personally (in game) I would really like another 5 Illustrious class they are tough tough ships

[EUBanana]

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac
3. Allied SCTF's that achieve nothing despite being better ships witht he best leaders I have

I've noticed that one myself! Allied warships are crewed by total idiots or something.

Almost every surface combat I have seen begins with "<Allied admiral> crosses the T" which makes me feel hopeful, and I sit back waiting for some destruction.

Then the Allied ships just get blown to pieces. Guns, torpedoes, doesn't matter, it's not just the Long Lances, it's everything. Half the time the Allies barely even fire. Radar seems to make little odds.

The only time I can genuinely think of a 'win' was a series of encounters which left five Allied BBs damaged for 6 months plus apiece but sank two old Fuso BBs. They may have been shot to cr@p but at least they managed to actually sink something, so I take that as a win. And the overall Allied surface fleet strength must have been at least double the Japanese, if not triple.

OTOH in the early war all it takes is one stray CL to sink a whole brace of Japanese Marus. It's in warship to warship combat that the ninja IJN shows its massive superiority.

[beppi]

Allied surface assets are quite weak even in late war. Might be a special "feature". I remember at the release ships with radar where quite strong (i remember a 25k hit at night by POW or Repulse) and the radar got toned town quite a lot with the info that it gets stronger later in the war. But i am not sure if that is working.

[EUBanana]

ORIGINAL: beppi

Allied surface assets are quite weak even in late war. Might be a special "feature". I remember at the release ships with radar where quite strong (i remember a 25k hit at night by POW or Repulse) and the radar got toned town quite a lot with the info that it gets stronger later in the war. But i am not sure if that is working.

I get the impression that late war in general is potentially quite dicey until the thousand eyed playermonster gets to it and starts commenting.

The attack bombers being borked only came out when people noticed them behaving wonkily in game, IIRC. And I woulda thought that fairly obvious after a week of play in 1943.

[dekwik]

Nice to see you bounce back Andy, that had to be a tough weekend. The upper lip seemed to quiver a little, but it's firmly back in place. Best advice is that of Admiral Lord Sprior. "Blame it on the Yanks." Put Cunningham in charge.

At the risk of stating the blindingly obvious, it looks like a Burma and-or NE New Guinea axis holds the best opportunities for you now.

The air combat did look hugely one sided. It seems like that's becoming a theme in several AARs. Perhaps this isn't our old WITP

old witp says sail everything in the same hex. As you point out, maybe it's not so obvious to do that anymore since flak (and flak overlap) is far from what it was.

old witp says allies combine CV's more as time goes on. Maybe not. Maybe more small CV TF's disperses the offensive advantge.

PZB himself (I don't think this is any security breach) wonders whether detection levels have become much more important in CV combat. I think he might be right. In old WITP so long as both sides saw each other to some extent, the hammers fell equally. But does that make sense? If a CV TF is loitering, and the opposing Admiral sprints in for a strike, then changes heading, wouldn't they have a tremendous advantage? This is probably more a liability for Japan with their inferior radar.

As a game, the CV combat model seems to have become a lot more unpredictable. But that may make it a much better game. My (so far only) AE game came to an end when Japan lost all its CV's in Sept '42, while allies lost none. My opponent did nothing wrong that I could see and had an equal chance to come out on top, unless *maybe* I wonder now if I had a big DL advantage. Perhaps that's the missing piece of the puzzle. Even if I'd been on the wrong side of the battle I think I prefer it to WITP. When you send 6 or 8 CV's against allies late in the war *knowing* that you're unlikely to achieve even a scratch on the allies..... I get the impression now that CV fights are like two guys in a pitch black room walking around with Uzzi's. As soon as one side makes a sound it's all over. And perhaps that's a bit *too* random and severe.

In any case, kudos for getting the stiff upper lip back in place. You'll come back. And not to forget that if there was a community vote for "world champion AE player" I think PZB would win it[&o]

[FatR]

I don't see supposed Japanese surface domination in actual battles. All their battleships but 4 are fast, yet weak (old USN battleships have, like, 4000-yards zone, where they can blast shit out of Fusos/Ises while not getting penetrated in return). Their CLs (in stock, at least) range from very mediocre, to oversized DDs. Their CAs and DDs are good, but lose much of their shine once Allies don't need to rely on shoddy early-war British and Dutch ships so much anymore. Unless one side is heavily outclassed, sheer numbers and right mix of forces will be the decisive factors most of the time.

And speaking about the right mix, if faced with regular night combats against numerous IJN forces, I would have brought Brooklin/Helena/Cleveland cruisers, maybe, but not necessarily mixed with torpedo-carrying British/Commonwealth cruisers, in multiple groups of about 3-4 CLs and 4-5 Fletcher/Livermore/Gleaves/Benson DDs. Handpicked TF commanders and ship commanders, of course. These "CLs" can swiftly take out anything short of a battleship. Primarily, they can take out Japanese CAs, which are the main threat to the Allied battle line. DDs are here mostly to draw attention from enemy DDs, so that the latter will waste their torpedoes on them, maybe to finish cripples (in general DDs relatively rarely fire on capital ships if enemy DDs are present, that's why it can be useful to pack some torpedo-carrying cruisers). Wouldn't have risked battleships without solid air cover, though.

[FatR]

And I agree, that in the current situation Allies should utilize their assets in a way, that won't result in new major naval battles until mid-1944 at least. Advance through Burma with overwhelming power (not be afraid to strip other theatres bare of major LCUs) while your opponent looks at Waingapoe. Base-hop across New Guinea. Move methodically under heavy LBA cover. Abuse 4Es power the best you can, try to always use them in masses of 100 and more planes, this both gives much better effect and significantly reduces casualties.

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: FatR

I don't see supposed Japanese surface domination in actual battles. All their battleships but 4 are fast, yet weak (old USN battleships have, like, 4000-yards zone, where they can blast shit out of Fusos/Ises while not getting penetrated in return). Their CLs (in stock, at least) range from very mediocre, to oversized DDs. Their CAs and DDs are good, but lose much of their shine once Allies don't need to rely on shoddy early-war British and Dutch ships so much anymore. Unless one side is heavily outclassed, sheer numbers and right mix of forces will be the decisive factors most of the time.

And speaking about the right mix, if faced with regular night combats against numerous IJN forces, I would have brought Brooklin/Helena/Cleveland cruisers, maybe, but not necessarily mixed with torpedo-carrying British/Commonwealth cruisers, in multiple groups of about 3-4 CLs and 4-5 Fletcher/Livermore/Gleaves/Benson DDs. Handpicked TF commanders and ship commanders, of course. These "CLs" can swiftly take out anything short of a battleship. Primarily, they can take out Japanese CAs, which are the main threat to the Allied battle line. DDs are here mostly to draw attention from enemy DDs, so that the latter will waste their torpedoes on them, maybe to finish cripples (in general DDs relatively rarely fire on capital ships if enemy DDs are present, that's why it can be useful to pack some torpedo-carrying cruisers). Wouldn't have risked battleships without solid air cover, though.

I have to agree. My Allied surface ships are doing OK. I just don't use my BBs in surface combat in restricted waters as they tend to get hammered. I prefer the modern Allied CLs over the treaty cruisers but do find that many 6 inch hit do not penetrate Japanese CAs. I thought that historically they were fairly deadly vs this type of ship. I look to use six to eight ship TFs and this seems to work OK. I have had no trouble sinking Japanese CLs in the game, they are indeed weak.

However, the long lance is still very dangerous in game in late 43 and that is a point in the war where it was really not so much of a factor. Considering Ameican ship building technology, fire control, auto loading and radar. I would expect Allied surface ships to come out on top in most all late 1943 battles. Frankly, I would expect modern American CLs to eat the old Japanese treaty CAs for lunch. Don't really see that. Japanese surface forces are very powerful all through the game that I can see. Perhaps 1944 will boost the Allies as I believe the torpedoes in the DDs get better. Now don't get me started about ship based AA which has been a travesty ever since the game was introduced. [:@]

[kfsgo]

ORIGINAL: crsutton

As an aside, it's astonishing how widely the penetration ranges on 6" guns vary, particularly outside the USN - compare:

USN 8in Mk. 9 - 300 (pre-war CAs)
USN 8in Mk. 12 - 282 ('new' CAs)
GBR 8in Mk. VIII: 278 (all 8in CAs)
IJN 20cm 3YT: 291 (all CAs)

USN 6in Mk. 12 - 140 (Omahas)
USN 6in Mk. 16 - 169 (modern CLs)
IJN 15cm 41YT - 86 (Aganos)
IJN 15.5cm 3YT - 222 (Oyodos - not that they're ever likely to do anyone much good, but what a difference that extra .5 makes, eh?)
GBR 6in Mk. XXIII - 121 (Leander, Town etc)
GBR 6in Mk. XII - 108 (Letter CLs)
DUT 15cm No. 6/9/10/11 - 86 (everything)

I can't say I've ever seen a 6in shell that wasn't coming out of a Mk. 16 penetrate a Japanese CA, but that's just in a bunch of faffing around with mini-scenarios so, y'know, anecdote not data. I'd definitely be very leery about taking them on even with more guns' worth of the Brit CLs, which is a shame as there's quite a few of them.

[Andy Mac]

Computer fried by a virus so will be a few days while I rebuild before turns start again

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Computer fried by a virus so will be a few days while I rebuild before turns start again

Fards!! A lingering death to all virus scriptors ....

My wife has issues all the time .. I have to re-build her hard drive 3 - 4 times/years.