Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition
My BBs bombarded (we managed to sweep all his mines in the last 2 months)
ORIGINAL: GreyJoy
ORIGINAL: obvert
I see. Well, your game will help me to understand what happens when the Allies have control of the IO and West Oz bases to use in late 42 then! [:D]
Yes, you should be fine in Manila. It's just frustrating when you get a positive result but your casualties are greater.
Oh, i'm pretty sure that the west will be a main playing ground in this game. Java, Sumatra and Timor will need a lot of attention. I will need to study a good defensive plan for this whole area...cause we all know that if he puts a foot here and so gets close enough to the SRA oilfields...game over for Japan well before 1945!!!!
So i think i'll have to defend a little bit less in the pacific and concentrate more in the SRA... but it will be fun, no matter what![:)]
ORIGINAL: princep01
Ser Greyjoy, as much as I respect Joc, I totally disagree with him about Cocos Is. Why all the focus on and fuss about it? It is just not worth the risk of losses or the resources expended to take a place of such minimal value.
Answer this. If the Allies do hold it, what do they do from there that they could not do by grabbing an island off Sumatra or coming in on a cloud of CVs. That is, what is the risk to you of the Allies retaining it? It is easy for the Allies to retake if you grab it. Good practice at low risk for them. Worse, it is just another exposed outpost you have to defend (and you can't really defend it successfully). Why bother? The cost-benefit is just not there.
But, what taking it really is is another good example of Japanese overextension. Overextension seldom leads to anything good and frequently enough leads to having your Little Yellow Bastard head handed to you. I would avoid the place like the plague at this point as it is certain to be well defended.
Spend those resources on completing your STRATEGIC conquests, developing new toys and building your defensive lines (yes, lines, as in defensive lines in depth). Cocos is a diversion of the worst sort. Don't go there.
ORIGINAL: Capt. Harlock
My BBs bombarded (we managed to sweep all his mines in the last 2 months)
On the one hand, this was a good move -- I'm a BB bombardment fanboy.
On the other hand, this is a significant game weakness: there should have been major CD fire from Corregidor.
ORIGINAL: GreyJoy
We'll see what Brad will do with it in his hands... however i don't think that holding Cocos or Exmouth as a sub base can make much of a difference...
ORIGINAL: JocMeister
ORIGINAL: GreyJoy
We'll see what Brad will do with it in his hands... however i don't think that holding Cocos or Exmouth as a sub base can make much of a difference...
Well, counting very unscientifically and using lots of speculation it can make a big difference.
In 43 he will have something like 60-80 subs. If each one of those get 1 week (counting low) less transit time that means two more weeks per sub "in action". Counting each sub get about one shot per week off. Thats 2 more shots per sub. That would be 120 more tries per patrol batch. If you count each sub can do about 3 patrols per year that could mean 360 more potentially sunk IJN ships. About 1 more per day.
Not saying this is whats going to happen and I just drew most number out of thin air. But don´t discount the impact it could mean! [:)]
ORIGINAL: obvert
Are you using the follow option for your troops in China that were reset? It seems there are a lot of problems with that command.
ORIGINAL: GreyJoy
ORIGINAL: obvert
Are you using the follow option for your troops in China that were reset? It seems there are a lot of problems with that command.
Yes..i know...but couldn't do differently... if u take a look at the DBB map with stacking limits, i was "invading" an hex with 60,000 st.limit, using two different starting hexes of 30,000 and 40,000... using two different type of roads (a trail and a secondary road) and with two army corps composed of different paced units (tanks and infantry)... i had to do that way if i wanted to coordinate.
And also IRL, the US logistics base Port Chicago [close to one of the WC ports] was demolished when one of the ships being loaded blew up, causing a chain reaction among other ships and ammo on shore waiting for loading. Seems the officers were driving the black enlisted men hard to exceed the already high targets for tonnage loaded and ignored their fatigue and failure to follow safety procedures. [:-]ORIGINAL: princep01
Ser, as you may know, the IJN actually lost a major fleet unit (BB Mutsu) in port when unstable cordite in the magazines went BLEWIE! Some numbnut sailor probably just had to have a smoke at the wrong time and place. It probably did the port no good either. I really like the game's ability to replicate such events as "at sea collisions", "lost, cause unknown" and "operational accidents" of the nature you just experienced. A rich detail.
ORIGINAL: princep01
Oh yes, and the Manila victory sacks 73K POWs....treat them nicely, Ser. One does not want to see the Penquin sitting before a War Crimes Tribunal. Even when represented by that great barrister, Canoerebel, I don't think that would end well.
A thought on thwarting Allied subs. Have you ever tried creating a 4 ship ASW TF (good leader assigned) and having an important (or otherwise) merchant TF follow it to the destination port? I have been doing this in (IJN sub) infested waters and it seems to work unusually well. I have a more or less permanent ASW TF stationed at Noumea. The merchants travel with a very small or no escort toward Noumea. As they approach the port, I rendevous the two TFs about 6 hexes from the target port and then set the merchant's to follow the ASW TF into the port thru a cordon of Japanese subs. I have sent no less than 8 merchant TFs in this way. The IJN subs have engaged and been engaged by the ASW TF, but not once have the merchants or its close in escorts been engaged. I make sure the ASW TF react is set on zero so it does not wander off to engage one of the IJN subs while making that last run into the port. While in port unloading, the ASW TF remains in place (separate) but with a patrol zone of the port only and no react. Seems to work.
ORIGINAL: JocMeister
I think ASW has been tweaked to be less deadly for both sides in Babes?
