Nothing Up My Sleeve: Magical Moose Tricks--Bullwinkle58 vs.1EyedJacks

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
Well, even so, 25 lost (100 engines!) in seven weeks is stiff.

Yes, it is. I reckon that a high importance on naval search plus long-range aerial reconnaisance of strategic targets in and around the Hawaiian islands has put these guys on overtime. Mavis no likee overtime.

Blowing some up in Bombardment might have stressed the survivors. I also wonder if he's still looking for non-existent Oz-bound convoys?

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Commander Cody

Surely we can all agree that the plural of "Mavis" is "Mavi?"

Cheers,
CC

I get the humor, but I always struggle with this as a sometimes word-purist. I render the plural of the Betty model as Bettys and not Betties. In American usage the latter would be the plural for the woman's name. Judy/Judies as well, and probably others. But Bettys offers more clarity to me in war-reporting terms.

Edit: re Mavis/Mavi, it seems to come most directly from a modification of the name of the Irish queen, Mab, who was a popular subject of Elizabethian playwrights. The original Latin etymology is from malo (present, active voice, indicative) (malle, infinitive) which means "to prefer." The derivation coming from Queen Mab gives "Mavis" as "song thrush." The English plural is "Mavises."

Side note: Latin "malo" is the subject of a classic Latin mnemonic, illustrating why the language led to me failing the only course I ever failed in college.

Malo: I would rather be
Malo: In an apple tree
Malo: Than a naughty boy
Malo: In adversity

Now tell me, what other AAR offers this kind of stuff?! (Interrobang there; non-standard punctuation!) [8D]

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: Commander Cody

Surely we can all agree that the plural of "Mavis" is "Mavi?"

Cheers,
CC

I get the humor, but I always struggle with this as a sometimes word-purist. I render the plural of the Betty model as Bettys and not Betties. In American usage the latter would be the plural for the woman's name. Judy/Judies as well, and probably others. But Bettys offers more clarity to me in war-reporting terms.

Edit: re Mavis/Mavi, it seems to come most directly from a modification of the name of the Irish queen, Mab, who was a popular subject of Elizabethian playwrights. The original Latin etymology is from malo (present, active voice, indicative) (malle, infinitive) which means "to prefer." The derivation coming from Queen Mab gives "Mavis" as "song thrush." The English plural is "Mavises."

Side note: Latin "malo" is the subject of a classic Latin mnemonic, illustrating why the language led to me failing the only course I ever failed in college.

Malo: I would rather be
Malo: In an apple tree
Malo: Than a naughty boy
Malo: In adversity

Now tell me, what other AAR offers this kind of stuff?! (Interrobang there; non-standard punctuation!) [8D]

Can we agree on Mavum then? Or why not have the deer / deer plural phenemonon? In which case, the plural of Mavis is Mavis.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: Commander Cody

Surely we can all agree that the plural of "Mavis" is "Mavi?"

Cheers,
CC

I get the humor, but I always struggle with this as a sometimes word-purist. I render the plural of the Betty model as Bettys and not Betties. In American usage the latter would be the plural for the woman's name. Judy/Judies as well, and probably others. But Bettys offers more clarity to me in war-reporting terms.

Edit: re Mavis/Mavi, it seems to come most directly from a modification of the name of the Irish queen, Mab, who was a popular subject of Elizabethian playwrights. The original Latin etymology is from malo (present, active voice, indicative) (malle, infinitive) which means "to prefer." The derivation coming from Queen Mab gives "Mavis" as "song thrush." The English plural is "Mavises."

Side note: Latin "malo" is the subject of a classic Latin mnemonic, illustrating why the language led to me failing the only course I ever failed in college.

Malo: I would rather be
Malo: In an apple tree
Malo: Than a naughty boy
Malo: In adversity

Now tell me, what other AAR offers this kind of stuff?! (Interrobang there; non-standard punctuation!) [8D]

Can we agree on Mavum then? Or why not have the deer / deer plural phenemonon? In which case, the plural of Mavis is Mavis.

Wiki seems to give the noun form as 2nd declension, so I think a Latin plural of "Mavi" would be correct if my 35-YO memory still works. An -um ending would I think indicate 3rd declension. But as a proper noun all bets are off.

If Mrs. Mavis Smith and her friend Mrs. Mavis Jones were having tea one would say that two Mavises were present. Mavis in this context is an English proper noun, not Latin.

If I, myself, me, moi, the writer here, were speaking of two dastardly Japanese patrol planes out to ruin the Good Guys' war effort I would render it as two Mavises since that is the plural of the woman's name. Similarly, Nell and Nells. Names ending in "y" such as Betty and Judy are the ones which seem odd to me.

In other "war" news [:)] I just ran the movie for today and the siege of Singapore is on. I'm not sure what to make of the attack structure, so I would appreciate any JFB input. FWIW, the city did not fall on the first day.

[Lomri]

ORIGINAL: bigred

1. if a 42 inf unit is at full strength, and upgrade is on, then this unit will upgrade to next(43) at no cost of inf(43) strength points from the pool.

Sorry to hi-jack again. But bigred, what do you mean by full strength in the above? Do you mean 0 disabled squads (or 0 any disabled devices) or full TOE? For instance if the unit is at 53/100 it won't upgrade, but if it is at 86/86 will it?

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
I'm not sure what to make of the attack structure, so I would appreciate any JFB input.

Show us whats you gots.

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58



I get the humor, but I always struggle with this as a sometimes word-purist. I render the plural of the Betty model as Bettys and not Betties. In American usage the latter would be the plural for the woman's name. Judy/Judies as well, and probably others. But Bettys offers more clarity to me in war-reporting terms.

Edit: re Mavis/Mavi, it seems to come most directly from a modification of the name of the Irish queen, Mab, who was a popular subject of Elizabethian playwrights. The original Latin etymology is from malo (present, active voice, indicative) (malle, infinitive) which means "to prefer." The derivation coming from Queen Mab gives "Mavis" as "song thrush." The English plural is "Mavises."

Side note: Latin "malo" is the subject of a classic Latin mnemonic, illustrating why the language led to me failing the only course I ever failed in college.

Malo: I would rather be
Malo: In an apple tree
Malo: Than a naughty boy
Malo: In adversity

Now tell me, what other AAR offers this kind of stuff?! (Interrobang there; non-standard punctuation!) [8D]

Can we agree on Mavum then? Or why not have the deer / deer plural phenemonon? In which case, the plural of Mavis is Mavis.

Wiki seems to give the noun form as 2nd declension, so I think a Latin plural of "Mavi" would be correct if my 35-YO memory still works. An -um ending would I think indicate 3rd declension. But as a proper noun all bets are off.

If Mrs. Mavis Smith and her friend Mrs. Mavis Jones were having tea one would say that two Mavises were present. Mavis in this context is an English proper noun, not Latin.

If I, myself, me, moi, the writer here, were speaking of two dastardly Japanese patrol planes out to ruin the Good Guys' war effort I would render it as two Mavises since that is the plural of the woman's name. Similarly, Nell and Nells. Names ending in "y" such as Betty and Judy are the ones which seem odd to me.

In other "war" news [:)] I just ran the movie for today and the siege of Singapore is on. I'm not sure what to make of the attack structure, so I would appreciate any JFB input. FWIW, the city did not fall on the first day.

Sez the Moose, whose plural is still Moose!

[Bullwinkle58]

February 3, 1942

The Curtain Opens . . .


To me, the two worst days of the war do not include 12/7/41. That one is going to happen, you're fresh to the new game, eager to see what's to be. It's almost never as bad as history and most of the ships will survive to be yardbirds. No, for me the two worst, the two which make that Tracker chart line in the VP section do an 80 degree power shift, are when Singers and Bataan fall. An Allied player riding along at 1.8:1 or so in the core ratio is suddenly drowning, with ten months to go until auto-vic lottery draw day. To add to the misery, unlike Pearl which is over in one bad combat replay session, both Singers and Bataan usually take days, or weeks, of viewing before the inevitable.

Today the twin stadium shows started as the Japanese hordes crossed the causeway and hit Singers like a bull. The base was battened down. One day past a key Forts 4 milestone, it had not had time to build organic supply without engineers holding their hands out. Inventories were at about 12,000 points. Three Fast Transport missions from Palembang had come and gone with 1000 each load, but the Full speed needed to ensure the TF could make the round-trip in one turn had already taken some of the APDs into mid-teens system damage. Singers had no planes present, so there was no warning of the crossing. Only one harbor defense launch was there to see it either. The shipyard was empty. Every LCU was in combat mode, and at least somewhat prepped; a few were at 100%. All COs had been upgraded, some lavishly. And then the assault . . .

But first, the day's other news.

1) ASW air patrol fly-fly boys are the biggest liars in the game. Based on their reports the Allies have already sunk 87 IJN subs. I always pass over their claims that every time they see a sub and drop on it there's a sunk sub there. But today that report was accompanied by the deep-water sunk sub breaking-up noises and a report that I-9 was down. The next turn's opening screen shows no icon north of Pearl where one had been. So, in this case, I believe the lying fool. [:'(] Well done, Army.

2) Dutch sub attacks APD SW of Balikpapan. Don't know if this is ASW barrier patrol or a piece of a landing force going for the Celebes or southern Borneo. Still no sight of the TF attacked and wounded three days ago. Soerbaja raider TF headed home to fuel today.

3) Heavy, sustained attacks on Sabang again. There is a good AA unit there from CT, so the attacks are usually 10,000 ft., and do little. But this is more evidence Japan is thinking fuel and oil and might see Palembang as a tougher nut.

4) Another day of bombing at Praboemoelih. Multiple days got my attention and this turn a Dutch infantry unit leaves Palembang to go sit there. If it meets paras so much the better. Oosthaven has three TFs in port today unloading multiple aircraft groups (Aircobras and B-26) as well as loading fuel to run to Cocos. A landing force there in the next three days would make me unhappy.

5) The last Singers bombing day before the attack does a lot of damage again to IJA planes:

apanese aircraft
Ki-21-IIa Sally x 20
Ki-27b Nate x 9

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-21-IIa Sally: 18 damaged
Ki-21-IIa Sally: 1 destroyed by flak

And then the Main Event . . .

6) First, the raw results:

Ground combat at Singapore (50,84)

Japanese Shock attack

Attacking force 59539 troops, 597 guns, 353 vehicles, Assault Value = 2026

Defending force 46131 troops, 582 guns, 367 vehicles, Assault Value = 1307

Japanese adjusted assault: 541

Allied adjusted defense: 6799

Japanese assault odds: 1 to 12 (fort level 4)

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), forts(+), experience(-)
Attacker: shock(+), disruption(-)

Japanese ground losses:
9362 casualties reported
Squads: 304 destroyed, 1163 disabled
Non Combat: 4 destroyed, 110 disabled
Engineers: 11 destroyed, 218 disabled
Guns lost 76 (26 destroyed, 50 disabled)
Vehicles lost 26 (1 destroyed, 25 disabled)

Allied ground losses:
1997 casualties reported
Squads: 15 destroyed, 190 disabled
Non Combat: 5 destroyed, 40 disabled
Engineers: 1 destroyed, 30 disabled
Guns lost 61 (4 destroyed, 57 disabled)

Assaulting units:
56th Infantry Regiment
113th Infantry Regiment
23rd Ind. Engineer Regiment
56th Recon Regiment
55th Infantry Regiment
15th Ind. Engineer Regiment
2nd Tank Regiment
12th Engineer Regiment
148th Infantry Regiment
21st Infantry Regiment
42nd Infantry Regiment
4th Ind. Engineer Regiment
Imperial Guards Division
11th Infantry Regiment
16th Infantry Regiment
5th Recon Regiment
56th Engineer Regiment
114th Infantry Regiment
24th Infantry Regiment
3rd Ind. Mountain Gun Regiment
1st RF Gun Battalion
25th Army
56th Field Artillery Regiment
20th AA Regiment
18th Medium Field Artillery Regiment
5th Field Artillery Regiment
18th Mountain Gun Regiment
14th Ind.Art.Mortar Battalion
3rd Medium Field Artillery Regiment
34th Field AA Battalion

Defending units:
27th Australian Brigade
22nd Australian Brigade
3rd Cavalry Regiment
1st Malay Battalion
1st Manchester Battalion
SSVF Brigade
2nd Loyal Battalion
2/17 Dogra Battalion
3rd SSVF Battalion
5/14th Punjab Battalion
1st Hyderabad Battalion
1st Mysore Battalion
2nd Malay Battalion
11th Indian Division
9th Indian Division
1st ISF Base Force
FMSV Brigade
1st Indian Heavy AA Regiment
Singapore Base Force
223 Group RAF
110th RAF Base Force
3rd Heavy AA Regiment
1st HK&S Heavy AA Regiment
AHQ Far East
112th RAF Base Force
2nd ISF Base Force
Singapore Fortress
2nd HK&S Heavy AA Regiment
111th RAF Base Force
3rd ISF Base Force
Malaya Army
3rd HK&S Light AA Regiment
III Indian Corps
24th NZ Pioneer Coy
Malayan Air Wing
109th RAF Base Force
22nd Indian Mountain Gun Regiment
109th RN Base Force

On balance these results make me ecstatic.

1) His infantry is not formed into divisions. Is this normal for human JFBs? The AI would have 7-8 full divisions in this effort, and very few non-combined formations.

2) Forts held at 4. I was very afraid I would lose one, or maybe two, levels and I can't afford to rebuild now.

3) The casualty ratios speak for themselves considering I have only three premium infantry units (the two Aussies and the Indian 11th division), no AFVs to speak of, and a lot less arty than I'd like.

4) I watched the attack animation in full, which I almost never do. The Guards Division began at 441 on the number next to its line in the stack, and ended at 332. All of the infantry regiments but one ended at 0. That one was at 6.

5) Ending Allied conditions are good. Still have about 11,800 supply. Disruption accrual was nil, as was fatigue. Here are about half the Allied LCUs sorted by fatigue.







6) Japanese VPs lost due to troop loss 12/7 through today was 80. After today: 122. It was a "black" day overall for Allied VP ratios.

So, any comments?

Question for the ground combat experts out there: is it worth the supply usage to bombard him after this? I expect he already has max experience in his LCUs so that isn't much of a consideration to me, but is the disruption hit worth the supplies and counter-battery risk to me?

[Crackaces]

Wow .. every bit of attrition on these units means a delay and/or reallocation of forces to attack Burma. Since you are in a knife fight with no home rules .. that front is going to be very interesting to watch unfold ... The scenario #2 games I have followed all has HR's forcing the Commonwealth to either buy units or wait for the onslaught in INdia. You have a great opporunity to have that contest along the Kayelmo -- Wazzup line ..maybe in the Irrawaddy Valley which I propose would be absolutely disasterious for the IJ given you can unleash that Indian Armor into the LOC's w/o paying PP's ..

I will supppose since you are up agasint scenario #2 .. it will not be as decisive as my current PBEM game [scenario #1] but 5 straight days of these levels of loses ended up causing total havoc in Burma ... and eventually Thailand and China .. [;)]

[Chickenboy]

Comments re: Singapore:

1. Yes-he should have recombined as many LCUs as possible into Divisions. Regiments are 'fragile' comparatively. This was a mistake.
2. Not nearly enough IJ artillery and support. Why isn't "Southern Army" HQ here?
3. He should have been bombing Singapore's airfield daily to prevent forts from being built. Having Singapore forts=4 is a huge uphill climb for the Japanese.
4. I count ~1600 destroyed / disabled Japanese 'units' capable of producing an assault value unit. This will take extensive rest / refurbishment / reinforcement and remodeling.
5. I wonder if his units were set on "move" instead of "combat". This would yield lopsided unit disruption if it did. Sure, it's a rookie move, but still possible.
6. I wonder about his prep levels. Have these LCUs been prepping accordingly since the outbreak of hostilities?

Upshot: Good show. You've blunted his offensive capabilities here for at least a month. Maybe longer. His preparation and forethought was not what it could have been and it will cost him. Make 'im pay!

Can you get more supplies into Singapore now? Would you consider some fighter cover into the city in order to import supplies? Realistically, you only need the fighter commitment for 3-4 days, just to cover incoming convoys during their most exposed period.

[Bullwinkle58]

I expect his engineers are reeling a bit, so I don't know if there will be a pause. Forts 4 has to have healthy engineers if the defense is in supply.

I looked at the new turn and Mersing reads as having 8 LCUs. They could be some full divisions which can now cross without shocking. I only have a d/l of 1 on Mersing though, so . . .

I looked back at my intel in Tracker and Guards Division was seen prepping for Singers 24 days ago. I don't know if the intel routines report preps on a random basis or if the randoms pick up only on the first day of the prep. A lot of these regiments have been prepping in my intel reads for a month or less too. Doesn't mean they were that low, but it's directional that a lot of these troops were not 100%.

[Chickenboy]

He can't / shouldn't attack again for a bit.

Can you get some supply in there? If you can, you can potentially hold out for many months against a thoroughly spent opponent. 11,000 supply may hold you for a few weeks or a month. If you could get another 20,000 in there, that will really make him sweat.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Comments re: Singapore:

1. Yes-he should have recombined as many LCUs as possible into Divisions. Regiments are 'fragile' comparatively. This was a mistake.
2. Not nearly enough IJ artillery and support. Why isn't "Southern Army" HQ here?
3. He should have been bombing Singapore's airfield daily to prevent forts from being built. Having Singapore forts=4 is a huge uphill climb for the Japanese.
4. I count ~1600 destroyed / disabled Japanese 'units' capable of producing an assault value unit. This will take extensive rest / refurbishment / reinforcement and remodeling.
5. I wonder if his units were set on "move" instead of "combat". This would yield lopsided unit disruption if it did. Sure, it's a rookie move, but still possible.
6. I wonder about his prep levels. Have these LCUs been prepping accordingly since the outbreak of hostilities?

Upshot: Good show. You've blunted his offensive capabilities here for at least a month. Maybe longer. His preparation and forethought was not what it could have been and it will cost him. Make 'im pay!

Can you get more supplies into Singapore now? Would you consider some fighter cover into the city in order to import supplies? Realistically, you only need the fighter commitment for 3-4 days, just to cover incoming convoys during their most exposed period.

Good comments. Thanks.

1) On the combining: it's possible he wanted to remain atomized in regiments to allow faster spead into Sumatra/Java. A division can re-spit to A/B/C but my impression has always been those are not as "tight" in combat results terms as a pure regiment OOB. All I can say is the AI combines en masse.

2) We crossed in the mail. Mersing has 8 LCUs from what I can see. One or more could be uber-HQs. I agree about the arty. I have seen little elsewhere either. He uses tanks a great deal, odd for a guy who was a gun bunny in real life. [:)]

3) He bombed Singers a lot. I mean a whole lot. I can't fault him here at all. I just had reams of engineers there from the very first days. Some days AF damage was in the mid-20s and sometimes runways were over 50, but forts never really were slowed much. I had hoped to be to Forts 5 with the number of engineers I threw in there.

4) Thanks for the AV read. That's the sort of math I suck at.

5) They came fast and all at once. I didn't see any dots on any LCUs at Mersing, but again, I have no recon there. My patrol planes at Palembang are all moving troops out of Singers to save supply and upgrade RAF/aviation support at Palembang as I bring in USA air units from CT.

6) Prep levels were in the other mail. I doubt many were 100%. I'd guess from what intel I have and forming rough curves from that most were 50%ish.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

He can't / shouldn't attack again for a bit.

Can you get some supply in there? If you can, you can potentially hold out for many months against a thoroughly spent opponent. 11,000 supply may hold you for a few weeks or a month. If you could get another 20,000 in there, that will really make him sweat.

Singers is ~7000 below x2 levels, so I won't replace anything, even if that were going to happen. Singers' substantial LI and HI supply generation end today with him being in the hex. I have no merchant ships inside Oosthaven as he has been magical at seeing and sinking even 1-ship TFs. And that was before he had Singkawang. I have some xAKLs at and near Cocos, but they're slow as mud. Palembang has almost 70,000 supply so it's nearby. I don't have fighters to LRCAP to SIngers now. Hurricane pools at 1-2. The Aircobras I'm bringing in are terrible LRCAP and have bad range. There are no P-40s to be bought or borrowed.

The Fast Transport TF can run in 1000/turn until he sees them or brings in a MKB or similar. Palembang and Batavia both have torpedo inventories now and my LBA TB force is pretty intact. If he brings CAs or BBs in close again he might be hurt, even though Singkawang has boo coo Zeros.

This might be a fun week. Strategically though, Singers is a big tall speed bump on the way to Burma. Every day the Chinese there eat well.

[Crackaces]

It does look like your investment in leadership has produced a different kind of result than the typical leave Percival in charge methodology ...

To Chickenboy .. it is not that he cannot attack again .. it is as simple as clicking the "Shock" radio button [:'(]... but given the "disruption (-)" noted in the compbat result before things got messy ... and your very astute calculations of how many squads are disabled and destroyed .. I have got to assume most of the forces here are at least disrupted for 3 days and much of this force is disabled ... another attack will turn those disabled forces into destroyed forces ..The fact that he could do this again is a grave error the moose wpuld love for him to make [8D]

Time is not with those IJ forces either .. I do beleive that these forces do not occupy a base per se and are exposed to Malaria .. thus regular sqauds roll for disruption, disrupted -> disabled; disabled -> destroyed ...... That is a die roll of P(x) per unit per day not in a base hex .. The IJ have some real decisions to make besides Singers being a bump on the road I beleive .. maybe bringing in more forces planned to go elsewhere ...

[CaptBeefheart]

Well done, Sir.

Would a deliberate attack be worth it here? I guess with 1/1 detection across the causeway that would be too risky. A couple of fresh divisions could be coming over.

Cheers,
CC

P.S. I'll accept your etymology. I still like the Flying Elvi better than the Flying Elvises, though.[;)]

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Commander Cody

Well done, Sir.

Would a deliberate attack be worth it here? I guess with 1/1 detection across the causeway that would be too risky. A couple of fresh divisions could be coming over.

Any sort of attack which gives up Forts and turns the terrain bonus 180 degrees is fatal for me. My troops stay in their fighting holes, sip tea, and try to forget how hungry they are.

Just ran the movie for the next day and he did not attack again. Bombed Singers as usual wiht usual results.

[Bullwinkle58]

From today's movie. Why I think sub patrols in the Sea of Japan are a good idea. This is from one boat; there are no airborne recon or search assets at all.

[Bullwinkle58]

February 4, 1942

First Intermission

A day of resting and considering, by both sides I imagine.

1) Never seen this message in aoperationsreport.txt

"100th RN Base Force DISPERSES!"

I'd have to check, but I think this is one in the bush post-attack somewhere. I assume VPs are awarded for the scraps?

2) Mines continue their work. Sub-sunk sound heard after the hit sound:

TF 66 encounters mine field at Lahaina (182,108)

Japanese Ships
SS RO-63, Mine hits 1, on fire, heavy damage

The sub carnage so far is way beyond any I've seen playing the AI. I have gone into my Pearl ASW units and hand-selected ASW pilots. I have many in the 50s and some in the 60s by now, almost all flying at 1000 feet. TFs are coming and going from Pearl with some regularity. My task would be much complicated by spreading the subs out toward California.

3) Routine bombing at Palembang, Singers, and Bataan. At P. the Aircobra makes its first appearance (1 plane) which is promptly shot down. Terrible dogfighters, even low where this one was. But they have a good replacement rate and the combo of the Cobra and two Hurricanes get through the CAP and harrass the bombers into a medium-bad attack. At Singers the AA does its normal 1 destroyed, 16 damaged routine in exchange for some airfield hits. I am not building Forts any longer, so runway damage can accumulate. The supply hits hurt though. Another FT supply load gets through.

4) Steady air focus on Sabang. Two Allied planes hit and a lot of damage. I am unloading the Aussie 6th Division at Pt. Blair, as I see that base as pivitol to the northern IO strategy, but if I get anything freed up LCU-wise Sabang is the next base for some stiffening. Not becaue I can hold it, but because I can waste some time and deny some fuel. Same with Cocos. It has a pretty good Aussie cavalry unit now which has some armor, in addition to an ex-Borneo base force building an air base. If he comes out for it Force Z is still around, but if he brings carriers he can have it, for a price.

5) Forts hit Johnson by daylight at 10,000. Kill a Zero, lose a Fort, see the Fuso still in port with DDs. Have not seen the KB for a couple of weeks now. S-23 goes into Johnson harbor and confirms Fuso, but does not attack.

6) First day I think with no land attacks anywhere. Fine by me.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
Bombed Singers as usual wiht usual results.

So-just to be clear-he's bombing airfields only? No ground attack or port attack? Furthermore, he's been historically bombing airfields / port only and no ground attack?

I just have difficulty grasping how you could continue to build forts if your airfields were bombed every day. My understanding is that, if the damages were incapable of being fully repaired ever day, that no such fort building could commence / occur-that was a secondary subroutine for the engineers.

If he varied his daily blasting of your airfields, that was a mistake.