Empire of the Rising Lemon? SqzMyLemon (Japan) v Smeulders (Allies)

[Itdepends]

To answer your original question- I wouldn't ask for a redo. Everything you're dealing with (RE the AI) will affect Bart as well. You'll learn the tricks as you go along and so will he. Losing a CA isn't as bad as messing up and losing a CV due to a sub.

[SqzMyLemon]

This morning I woke up to this lovely sight. Sigh, hopefully winter's last gasp.

[SqzMyLemon]

I'll admit it is pretty, but...

[SqzMyLemon]

ORIGINAL: Itdepends

To answer your original question- I wouldn't ask for a redo. Everything you're dealing with (RE the AI) will affect Bart as well. You'll learn the tricks as you go along and so will he. Losing a CA isn't as bad as messing up and losing a CV due to a sub.

I agree, it's not the end of the world. I just hate losing something for nothing under these circumstances. There'll be an update posted of the last turn, which still stands, and then a new turn sent off tonight. The war continues...

[SqzMyLemon]

Feb. 9/43 Update:

Sub Ops:

SS KXIII is spotted by E Kiji near Rekata Bay. E Kiji scores one direct DC and 9 near miss hits, including damaging of the forward torpedo tubes. E Kiji is one of my better early ASW ships.

SS KXIV spots AO Toho Maru near Donggala, but escorts drive the submarine under before a torpedo attack is launched. No ASW attack.

SS Trout near Rekata Bay is spotted by escorts and attacked. DD Ariake scores one direct DC hit on the enemy. This was a bombardment TF bound for Lunga.

SS O20 is spotted by E Sagi near Rekata Bay adn attacked, no DC hits are recorded.

Burma:

Allied aircraft again sweep and bomb Bhamo. No Japanese ground losses are recorded.

China:

Various Chinese formations are bombed with particular attention paid to troops defending the river crossing north of Kweilin. It turns out only the 2nd Chinese BF remains and suffers 0(4) infantry and 0(12) non-combat squad losses totalling 112 casualties.

Four Japanese Divisions, an Ind. Mixed Brigade, 13th Army HQ and two mortar Bn.'s follow the air bombardment with a shock attack across the river. The 2nd Chinese BF suffers 26(0) infantry and 52(0) non-combat squad losses totalling 948 casualties and retreats to the N.W. Japanese forces have 0(2) infantry and 0(1) engineer squads disabled for 30 casualties.

The Solomons:

Three DD's from the ill fated CA Chikuma TF are ordered to bombard Lunga after attending to the final moments of the heavy cruiser. As her decks become awash, the destroyers open up on Lunga. No damage is recorded in this futile attempt for revenge against the enemy.

Horn Island:

Betty's (13) escorted by A6M2 Zero's (16) spot a small enemy supply TF and attack. F4F-3 Wildcat's (3) on CAP damage a few torpedo bombers and Zero's but can't stop both xAKL Lady Isobel and AM Dubbo being sunk. One Wildcat is shot down, but two Zero's and two Betty's are losses on the day from A2A and Ops.

Miscellanneous:

Japan:

Davao expands fortifications to size 4
Hollandia expands airfield to size 2

E Matsuwa arrives at Tokyo

Allied:

AM Dubbo is reported to have been sunk near Horn Island on Feb 09, 1943
xAKL Lady Isobel is reported to have been sunk near Horn Island on Feb 09, 1943

Thoughts:

Japanese planes are matchsticks. I suffered 8 Ops losses today, not including two float planes destroyed from CA Chikuma sinking. I can't rebase an air unit without suffering a damaged plane or Ops loss regardless of weather, base size or experience. I'm about to surpass 2000 Ops losses so far in the war.

The Solomons are crawling with enemy submarines, but I'm prepared to run this gauntlet in order to capture Lunga. I have some ideas, and will be throwing everything I can at suppressing/destroying the buggers. Today was a good day landing two solid DC hits. I'll be laying submarine deployed mines in the deep water hexes to try and bag a few as well.

[SqzMyLemon]

By no means are my tests conclusive, but I ran three iterations of the last turn and discovered that waypoints are indeed the issue with the bombardment routine not working. The orginal turn, and the one I just provided an update for, had two waypoints set for my bombardment TF. No bombardment occurred despite actually sailing to Lunga. Another turn was run with one waypoint set, and this again failed to yield a bombardment of Lunga. The third running of the turn had no waypoints set and guess what? Lunga was bombarded.

So, DON'T set waypoints of any kind on bombardment missions. I must not have with my successful bombardments previously, as initially thought. I don't like this one bit, as it forces a player to rely on an AI derived path which takes into no account enemy dispositions and threat levels, or have to waste time establishing a start point to make a clean run to the target at risk of any number of interdictions and also further risk a TF not completing the movement altogether due to distance.

I think this is a huge oversight in not allowing waypoints to be set for this mission type and now have to put my forces at greater risk for absolutely no other reason than faulty design. That being said, I will do it because that is the way the game works. It's that or give up on bombardments altogether, not an option at this stage. I'll do my best to try and come up with the best alternative I can to ensure Lunga is whacked on a regular basis, but don't suffer getting torpedoed and bombed to death either.

So, the war continues and Lemon-san must once again adapt to adversity. [:D]

[khyberbill]

The waypoints were added to AE. To a code that was first written in the 90's with the game Pacific War. I think we are lucky to have them at all. So we are basically playing on a 20+year old game engine with lots of add ons. The Developers have more than once said they would not write the code this way with modern computers. I played Pacwar on an 8086 and then a an 80286 machine with 640k memory and a 40 meg hard drive.

[SqzMyLemon]

ORIGINAL: khyberbill

The waypoints were added to AE. To a code that was first written in the 90's with the game Pacific War. I think we are lucky to have them at all. So we are basically playing on a 20+year old game engine with lots of add ons. The Developers have more than once said they would not write the code this way with modern computers. I played Pacwar on an 8086 and then a an 80286 machine with 640k memory and a 40 meg hard drive.

Ack, that's a good point kyhberbill. I'll try and temper my thoughts with that in mind for the future. I like waypoints, so if they were added for AE that's a good thing. I have to remind myself nothing is perfect and what may seem obvious doesn't necessarily translate into programmable code of an older nature. I appreciate the friendly rebuke. [8D]

[SqzMyLemon]

Ok, the next turn is off.

I'm wrapped pretty tight these days, so my goal over the immediate future is to just chill.

I'll work on establishing a clear run for the bombardment TF's and get more air and naval ASW into the theatre to combat the submarine threat. I've set fighters to LRCAP of some important TF's in case the Allies do not withdraw aircraft from Lunga, or my bombardment fails to hit the airbase. I've looked at getting more eyes in the sky, and have based some long range naval search assets closer to the front. I need to be able to spot any Allied TF's heading anywhere near the Solomons or New Guinea so I can react appropriately.

This is my first attempt to run the submarine gauntlet without waypoints set for the bombardment TF. Here's hoping they accomplish the mission, hit Lunga hard and don't see an enemy torpedo or bomb.

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: obvert

Curious abut one thing you mention above, CR. Why would you not want an aggressive TF commander? Doesn't this make it more likely that if a surface element is in the path that the TF will engage?

An agressive commander if intercepted will stay and fight longer and use up more ammo and OP points. If the enemy is on the ball and throws multiple surface and PT TFs in your way, then you might use up all your ammo and OP points before getting to the target and then find yourself only halfway home the following day with little or no ammo. A careful commander will on many occasions evade or break off surface actions early and stay on mission. It depends on your aims. Sometimes, I am looking for a fight regardless and will use an aggressive commander, but in that case will always make sure I have a good deal of LRCAP over the TF

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: khyberbill

I use patrol and movement waypoints for my SCTF's all the time and have never had an issue.

It appears that if one assigns a patrol zone to an ASW task force with a reaction range of 6 it will only attack subs directly in its path, the path of the patrol zone is paramount. In other words, reaction range does not matter.

No, this is not correct. I use a reaction range of 3 for all my ASW TFs, and always use a three point patrol zone setting. They react all the time and sometimes too much. It is dependent on TF leader skill and agression rating and detection level of the sub. So lots of air patrols over a highly aggressive ASW TF commander will result in multiple reactions and some good kills. However, I never set the reaction range to 6. It is overkill and can cause more problems than it is worth. 2 or 3 seems to be the best.

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: crsutton


... I use a reaction range of 3 for all my ASW TFs, and always use a three point patrol zone setting. They react all the time and sometimes too much. It is dependent on TF leader skill and agression rating and detection level of the sub. So lots of air patrols over a highly aggressive ASW TF commander will result in multiple reactions and some good kills. ... 2 or 3 seems to be the best.

+1

Consistent with my experience and use as well.

[obvert]

Works for my ASW too. Reacting a lot, but still hard to hit anything in June 42 in deep water.

Great points above about the aggression of commanders, crsutton. Hadn't considered all of those points.

OT - Been doing a fair bit of work on some IJN ships lately. Got the Tamiya auxiliary ship set. Cool to see relative sizes of DMS, CM and sub chasers next to a DD. Much smaller. Also got a sub set with the I-15 and I-46. Amazing how massive those subs were. Almost twice the size of a Type 7 U-Boat and nearly as long as my DD Shiranui!

[SqzMyLemon]

Feb. 10/43 Update:

Sub Ops:

SS KXIV is spotted near Donggala by SC CH 27. No DC attack, but the submarine is driven off.
SS KXIV is spotted again near Donggala by escort PB Yokae Maru and driven off again. No transports were targetted.

SS Grayling duds on E Susuki near Russell Islands. The escort counters with an ASW attack, but no DC hits are recorded.

SS Grayback is spotted by DD Yuzuki near Russell Islands. One DC near miss hit is recorded.
SS Grayback then misses DD Shimakaze with four torpedoes near Russel Islands. DD Satsuki scores a near miss DC hit causing a fuel leak. This is my bombardment TF returning to Munda.

SS Grayling misses DD Yuzuki with four torpedoes near Russel Islands. No ASW attack is launched.

Burma:

The Allies sweep and bomb Lashio today. No Japanese CAP and the bombers damage the airbase with 8 AB, 3 ABS and 24 Runway hits. A Ki-46-II Dinah is destroyed on the ground and 10 casualties are sustained.

Japanese fighters sweep Shwebo, but no enemy CAP is set. I guess they were all sweeping Lashio.

Horn Island:

Japanese forces sweep Horn Island hoping to find more enemy fighters, but the sky is empty.

China:

Japanese bombers focus on Chinese ground troops at Kweiyang and cause 1(46) infantry, 3(32) non-combat and 0(3) engineer squad losses totalling 632 casualties.

The Solomons:

The big news is Lunga was bombarded today, finally! However, the bombardment routine once again let me down. The bombardment did not target the facilities, but rather the ground troops. Allied forces suffered 0(8) infantry, 0(14) non-combat, 0(2) engineer squads losses including 2(3) vehicles destroyed totalling 121 casualties. Only one floatplane, out of four, spotted for my ships. I know the routine was adjusted to target ground troops more often in a patch, due to player complaints, and I think that was a mistake. The routine is a complete crap shoot whether the facilities are targeted at all now.

Another issue noted was the range at which the ships bombarded. I left the range defaulted to 0 as the TF screen indicated. However, the BB's bombarded at a range of 15,000 and never closed the distance. This probably explains the poor results. Another day wasted hoping this routine works properly.

This routine is killing me and I fear I may call off the counterinvasion if Lunga remains open for much longer. Allied fort construction was allowed to go ahead today, as no facilities remain damaged. I may have to start sending in air attacks, and risk them getting shot out of the sky by enemy CAP since I can't damage the airbase anymore. I have no choice anymore, I have to throw everything at closing Lunga's airbase.

The bombardment routine is almost a game breaker for me. This is the first time I've needed to rely on it, and planned on using it a lot, but the limitations are becoming clear to me. I can no longer route my ships as desired, the range was pooched despite indicating otherwise, my floatplanes are not spotting consistently and the facilities weren't even touched. This is now FIVE days of no damage to the airbase and the risk of the Allies deploying more aircraft to Lunga is increasing daily. I need Lunga closed and the most powerful forces at my disposal to do so, have been completely neutered.

As I stated earlier, random is good, but not when is causes things to not work properly and takes control away from the player too often. I feel I have no control anymore, and my tactical play is being completely undermined by the AI and game mechanics. My opponent hasn't had to do a thing, because the AI is defending Lunga for him. The whole situation sucks.

Miscellaneous:

Japan:

Shasukotan expands fortifications to size 2

7th Sentai converting to Ki-21-IIb Sally

Allied:

Previous report of sinking of SS Gar incorrect. Intelligence reports ship is still in service
SS S-46 is reported to have been sunk near Makassar on Nov 17, 1942

Thoughts:

I'm so discouraged right now and the game is quickly losing it's lustre after too many setbacks for my liking. I invest a lot of time into this and to have my efforts consistently undermined in this way isn't helping. Tomorrow may be a watershed moment, if nothing goes right it may be more model time and less aggravation.

[crsutton]

What was the detection level of the base before you bombarded it?

[SqzMyLemon]

ORIGINAL: crsutton

What was the detection level of the base before you bombarded it?

DL at Lunga has consistently been 9/10 lately. It gets daily recon and with all the attempted bombardments the DL has remained high.

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon

The big news is Lunga was bombarded today, finally! However, the bombardment routine once again let me down. The bombardment did not target the facilities, but rather the ground troops. Allied forces suffered 0(8) infantry, 0(14) non-combat, 0(2) engineer squads losses including 2(3) vehicles destroyed totalling 121 casualties. Only one floatplane, out of four, spotted for my ships.

Pretty sure that it will only show one FP no matter how many are used. So that is WAD.

I see land troops targetted exclusively about 1 in 3 bombardments. It might also suggest that he has really low Air/Port yet. He might be focused on forts first. I believe that the targetting routine looks at those levels in developing the odds of what to attack. This is strictly anecdotal evidence from my playing.

The good news is that your bombardment worked today. It should work again tomorrow, barring interference from Bart or weather.

The low troop losses would suggest to me that he has gotten fort levels built up already. Prolly level 3. It looks as though he has a fair number of engineers there based upon the ratios lost. Take this with a grain of salt though, it could have just been a mediocre result as well. You need a few more days results to have a better idea of what you are facing there.

Don't despair! This operation is a long shot. I've already stated I know I can't do this one, and wouldn't even be trying. You're doing better than I thought was possible, so this is a great learning thread for me. Thanks.

[khyberbill]

As I stated earlier, random is good, but not when is causes things to not work properly and takes control away from the player too often. I feel I have no control anymore, and my tactical play is being completely undermined by the AI and game mechanics. My opponent hasn't had to do a thing, because the AI is defending Lunga for him. The whole situation sucks.

In my game against JohnIII where he took Hilo early and built up the AF's I had great luck destroying his planes at the bases and knocking them out, but I did not start bombarding until he had built them up to Lvl 5. If Bart is still at 1 then you are probably just digging fox holes for him.

[ny59giants]

Shorten the bombardment range to between 6k and 10k. I would have your Escorts bombard.

I feel that Japan is at a disadvantage in this mission due to lack of surface radar. I'm waiting for most of my warships to get it in 43 before trying this mission again. I don't known if code looks for radar on warships, but the Allied bombardments can reach 'nuke' level at times.

[khyberbill]

but the Allied bombardments can reach 'nuke' level at times.

I did quite well against JohnIII's AF's when he had lots of planes at the them. In fact, I suspect (I never did read his AAR) my success with the bombardment missions was what broke his blockade of the islands and eventual retreat. I do not know if the BB's had radar-probably did if they upgraded during their yard work. I usually bombarded from 15k because he had lots of nasty mines there. Most TF's had two old BB's, three or four CA's etc and rarely more than 13 ships overall. I would send a DD TF in front to clear occupy subs.