Rise of the Sheep! JocMeister(A) vs. Obvert(J)

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: witpqs

One or more developers has written in the past that defensive mines in a base hex are presumed to be in the vicinity of the base.

Have you got a cite?

And even if that is true, in a 40 NM-wide hex is there any real tactical difference between 2000 yards off the beach and 8000?

Hah! I get to quote multiple versions of your same post! [:D]

IIRC the range spinner goes up to 30,000 yards, which is 15 miles. 2,000 yards is 1 mile. For a given length (the bombardment run), that 15 times as many square miles of water. Plus whatever variables they throw in for whatever size they consider to be the base's environs, all of which I am not privy to. Seems like a big difference.

[JocMeister]

I just did some quick testing. Only a couple of runs though so nothing certain. But bombarding a base at default distance I did not hit any mines (500) over 10-15 tries.

Just a very quick test though. I´ll see if I can get some proper testing done tomorrow.

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

Also, I've had bombardment TFs hit mines. Not often, but a couple of times. I'm not sure setting the distance higher helps at all.

I would be very surprised if it did. I think this is another one of those "received knowledge" items in forum culture, that the closer the range spinner is set the higher the chance of hitting a mine.

This is my working understanding, because as you say - it's just a hex with mines in it. There may be a "check" if the TF is just passing through vs. approaching the base, as amphibious TFs like to hit mines while sub patrols or ships passing through the hex are relatively safe if they aren't approaching the base for some reason (landing, bombardment, etc.).

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: witpqs

One or more developers has written in the past that defensive mines in a base hex are presumed to be in the vicinity of the base.

Have you got a cite?

And even if that is true, in a 40 NM-wide hex is there any real tactical difference between 2000 yards off the beach and 8000?

Hah! I get to quote multiple versions of your same post! [:D]

IIRC the range spinner goes up to 30,000 yards, which is 15 miles. 2,000 yards is 1 mile. For a given length (the bombardment run), that 15 times as many square miles of water. Plus whatever variables they throw in for whatever size they consider to be the base's environs, all of which I am not privy to. Seems like a big difference.

I did a quick search. Found a LOT of posts on mines from WITP days (surprise!), and not so many for AE. Did find this one by JWE which bears repeating, not because it is strictly on point here, but for general knowledge.

"Yes. And that’s just how it works (kinda, sorta). There’s hundreds of lines to the minefield thing, but it all boils down pretty simply: open ocean/ shallow water, your base/enemy base, the TF type (amphib, surfcom, minewarfare), the TF mission and how long might it linger in the hex (i.e., is it looking for mines, patrolling for something, or just an amphib TF looking to anchor).

And once a minefield is detected, what would the TF do? An amphib/surfcom TF would attempt to avoid and exit the minefield. A minesweep TF would enter the minefield and try to do some bidness.

One detects a minefield in various ways. The most obvious is getting blown up, but that’s not the most desirable method. Another is spotting a mine. Lots of different class types can spot mines. Mine warfare classes (layers and sweepers) and good escort types, in appropriate (mine warfare) TFs have the best shot. But even good escorts in an amphib TF have a “chance” (that’s one way amphib TFs “detect” minefields).

So what does one do when they detect a mine? They get a “chance” to destroy (shoot) it. Depending on the TF type, the combat report message will be a bit different. A lucky tuna boat in an amphib TF might get to “destroy” a mine. The same lucky tuna boat in a minesweeping TF might get to “clear” a mine. It’s all loops within loops with the minesweep TF components looping to the “clear mines” text messages, and others looping to the “destroy mines” text messages, because the mine TFs are wanting to “clear”, while the others are wanting to “avoid/exit”.

So, yes, those escort types in a Sweep TF can detect mines (that’s what the TF is there for), and shoot at the ones they find (called “clearing” if they are successful). But shooting (‘clearing’, ‘destroying’, whatever), a mine doesn’t help much. If the TF must remain in a hex with a 200 minefield, it just means the next ship has 199 chance to get whacked instead of 200 (99.9% instead of 100%, base chance).

The only way to keep your ships from getting blown up is sweep a channel through the minefield. And the only class types that can sweep a channel are the ones listed above somewhere. Somewhere down in the dark nitty gritty there’s this check for Amphib TFs where a minefield is detected:
If Path = Exists, Then Go On.
If Not, Go To Sequential Death Roll
Sweeping a channel is utterly different from spotting and potting at individual mines. "

When I said "mines are linear in the hex" I didn't mean "one mine per mile" or such. I know they're in fields, which is done with fancy probability code I guess. What I meant was the code so far as I know doesn't have internal math for range from other micro-points inside the hex. It has shallow water/deep water bits, reef bits, strait status bits, etc., but no way to say a mine is 5000 yards away from a land pixel, or 25 miles away from that same land pixel. It could easily have probability code that, once a "base hex Y/N?" check is cleared, makes a mine strike more probable, which I suppose could accomplish the same goal, but I still don't see how it could get as granular as 8000 yards versus 20,000 yards off the land pixels. Shoreline would have to be logically defined somehow, and that makes a pwhex file pretty big for a map like AE's.

But I'm spit-balling.

I also suppose Michael could have tied mine probabilities to the spinner in the patch, calling the mine strike probabilities with each 1000-yard wind-down iteration on the firing run. Did he? Don't know. With spaghetti code you might not do that in a patch. And you still need a starting probability for the field's location, that it's within the max number on the spinner in the first 1000-yards at all and not 39-miles off the beach. Wherever in the hex math that is. [:)].

[poodlebrain]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: witpqs

One or more developers has written in the past that defensive mines in a base hex are presumed to be in the vicinity of the base.

Have you got a cite?

And even if that is true, in a 40 NM-wide hex is there any real tactical difference between 2000 yards off the beach and 8000?

Hah! I get to quote multiple versions of your same post! [:D]

IIRC the range spinner goes up to 30,000 yards, which is 15 miles. 2,000 yards is 1 mile. For a given length (the bombardment run), that 15 times as many square miles of water. Plus whatever variables they throw in for whatever size they consider to be the base's environs, all of which I am not privy to. Seems like a big difference.

I think it is up to 225 times as much area. The area of a circle is the square of the radius.

[witpqs]

Good-O, Moose!

A bit of commentary on your commentary.

When I said "mines are linear in the hex" I didn't mean "one mine per mile" or such. I know they're in fields, which is done with fancy probability code I guess. What I meant was the code so far as I know doesn't have internal math for range from other micro-points inside the hex. It has shallow water/deep water bits, reef bits, strait status bits, etc., but no way to say a mine is 5000 yards away from a land pixel, or 25 miles away from that same land pixel. It could easily have probability code that, once a "base hex Y/N?" check is cleared, makes a mine strike more probable, which I suppose could accomplish the same goal, but I still don't see how it could get as granular as 8000 yards versus 20,000 yards off the land pixels. Shoreline would have to be logically defined somehow, and that makes a pwhex file pretty big for a map like AE's.

But I'm spit-balling.

I also suppose Michael could have tied mine probabilities to the spinner in the patch, calling the mine strike probabilities with each 1000-yard wind-down iteration on the firing run. Did he? Don't know. With spaghetti code you might not do that in a patch. And you still need a starting probability for the field's location, that it's within the max number on the spinner in the first 1000-yards at all and not 39-miles off the beach. Wherever in the hex math that is. .

They don't need to worry about pixels at all, land or sea. They can (read: 'could if they so chose') simply have assumptions, and make certain assumptions by chance.

- How far from the base is the mine field to be found. This can also be made variable, and stored with the mine field data (in other words not generated on the fly each turn).
- How far away is the 'default' bombardment. Might vary with main gun range (think: 'escorts bombard y/n?', or different type capital ships having different gun ranges). Or use the bombardments set range.
- Use a random variable for from what direction the TF bombards. Does not even need to correspond to a compass - might be 1 to 100, with a presumption that 1 to 100 covers 160 degrees of a circle (just a made up example to illustrate). But if it does correspond to a compass, then the hex from which the TF entered the target hex could play a role (variable, of course!) in determining from which direction the TF bombards.
- At the same time, randomly assign the direction from the base of the (or each) mine field (and, as above, optionally store that data with the mine field so it remains from turn to turn).
- Or, forget about that and just assume that all the mine fields are within a certain distance of the base, but otherwise randomly distributed. If a TF is within that distance is has a certain (pretty small) chance to encounter a mine field. Maybe, if 'at' that range the chance begins to climb above zero and gets greater and greater the closer to the base the TF is set to bombard.
- Or even take the previous point and substitute 'mines' in place of 'mine fields'.

Now, the above is just to illustrate that they can (and they obviously do) easily handle this without worrying at all about tracking the exact position within the hex of any TF, ship, mine field, or mine - or for that matter, even the base. I have NOT inferred that they are doing things as noted in the example, it is strictly a made up example to illustrate the point. It is obvious from the narrative you quoted that they have a much more involved implementation, which is exactly what one would expect given the depth of the rest of the game.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: poodlebrain

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58



Have you got a cite?

And even if that is true, in a 40 NM-wide hex is there any real tactical difference between 2000 yards off the beach and 8000?

Hah! I get to quote multiple versions of your same post! [:D]

IIRC the range spinner goes up to 30,000 yards, which is 15 miles. 2,000 yards is 1 mile. For a given length (the bombardment run), that 15 times as many square miles of water. Plus whatever variables they throw in for whatever size they consider to be the base's environs, all of which I am not privy to. Seems like a big difference.

I think it is up to 225 times as much area. The area of a circle is the square of the radius.

I'm considering the difference in size of the linear run along the shore as one dimension and the distance to shore as the other, basically a rectangle. I assume that the length of the run would be the same, only the distance to shore would vary. Way, way oversimplified, I know!

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: poodlebrain

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58



Have you got a cite?

And even if that is true, in a 40 NM-wide hex is there any real tactical difference between 2000 yards off the beach and 8000?

Hah! I get to quote multiple versions of your same post! [:D]

IIRC the range spinner goes up to 30,000 yards, which is 15 miles. 2,000 yards is 1 mile. For a given length (the bombardment run), that 15 times as many square miles of water. Plus whatever variables they throw in for whatever size they consider to be the base's environs, all of which I am not privy to. Seems like a big difference.

I think it is up to 225 times as much area. The area of a circle is the square of the radius.

If only it were that easy. [:)]

Your point works for atolls, more or less (reefs restrict certain approach vectors), but not river bombardments such as at Rangoon where some of the circle is trees. Further to my point that, except for top-line probability methods, you'd need a pixel-by-pixel definition of the area inside the hex.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: poodlebrain

ORIGINAL: witpqs


Hah! I get to quote multiple versions of your same post! [:D]

IIRC the range spinner goes up to 30,000 yards, which is 15 miles. 2,000 yards is 1 mile. For a given length (the bombardment run), that 15 times as many square miles of water. Plus whatever variables they throw in for whatever size they consider to be the base's environs, all of which I am not privy to. Seems like a big difference.

I think it is up to 225 times as much area. The area of a circle is the square of the radius.

If only it were that easy. [:)]

Your point works for atolls, more or less (reefs restrict certain approach vectors), but not river bombardments such as at Rangoon where some of the circle is trees. Further to my point that, except for top-line probability methods, you'd need a pixel-by-pixel definition of the area inside the hex.

Nah, you don't "need" it. Yes, the more robust the simulation you want the better to have it. But AE abstracts things at that level. Does the bombardment code even treat a construct like Rangoon or Palembang differently than, say, Port Moresby?

[poodlebrain]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: poodlebrain

ORIGINAL: witpqs



Hah! I get to quote multiple versions of your same post! [:D]

IIRC the range spinner goes up to 30,000 yards, which is 15 miles. 2,000 yards is 1 mile. For a given length (the bombardment run), that 15 times as many square miles of water. Plus whatever variables they throw in for whatever size they consider to be the base's environs, all of which I am not privy to. Seems like a big difference.

I think it is up to 225 times as much area. The area of a circle is the square of the radius.

If only it were that easy. [:)]

Your point works for atolls, more or less (reefs restrict certain approach vectors), but not river bombardments such as at Rangoon where some of the circle is trees. Further to my point that, except for top-line probability methods, you'd need a pixel-by-pixel definition of the area inside the hex.

I realized this. It is why I used the qualifier "up to" in my post. Even atolls would be less than 225 times since there must be some area within the circle that is inaccessible to bombarding ships.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Nah, you don't "need" it. Yes, the more robust the simulation you want the better to have it. But AE abstracts things at that level. Does the bombardment code even treat a construct like Rangoon or Palembang differently than, say, Port Moresby?

Possibly not, but it ought to treat Port Moresby differently than an atoll I'd think. The defense problem at PM is very much easier than Kwajalein.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Good-O, Moose!

A bit of commentary on your commentary.

When I said "mines are linear in the hex" I didn't mean "one mine per mile" or such. I know they're in fields, which is done with fancy probability code I guess. What I meant was the code so far as I know doesn't have internal math for range from other micro-points inside the hex. It has shallow water/deep water bits, reef bits, strait status bits, etc., but no way to say a mine is 5000 yards away from a land pixel, or 25 miles away from that same land pixel. It could easily have probability code that, once a "base hex Y/N?" check is cleared, makes a mine strike more probable, which I suppose could accomplish the same goal, but I still don't see how it could get as granular as 8000 yards versus 20,000 yards off the land pixels. Shoreline would have to be logically defined somehow, and that makes a pwhex file pretty big for a map like AE's.

But I'm spit-balling.

I also suppose Michael could have tied mine probabilities to the spinner in the patch, calling the mine strike probabilities with each 1000-yard wind-down iteration on the firing run. Did he? Don't know. With spaghetti code you might not do that in a patch. And you still need a starting probability for the field's location, that it's within the max number on the spinner in the first 1000-yards at all and not 39-miles off the beach. Wherever in the hex math that is. .

They don't need to worry about pixels at all, land or sea.

They can (read: 'could if they so chose') simply have assumptions, and make certain assumptions by chance.

- How far from the base is the mine field to be found. This can also be made variable, and stored with the mine field data (in other words not generated on the fly each turn).

I agree. Not a big chunk of data to stick in an array given the usual number of mine fields on the map at once. But it gets complicated if you consider not every base is in the center of the hex, is the same size (large islands, etc.), or that field placement ought not in any sort of RL way be random. Nor is closer always best, at least according to the minemen I spent six weeks on Guam living with. They kept telling me as we talked that a key to mine warfare is "I know that you know that I know that you know that I know . . ." You could just simplify this stuff away, but you end up wasting mines. Some in trees or on reefs.

But this also ties this data just to bombardments, right? Other than that one mission does any other TF type consider ranges of less than 1-hex? And bombardment range was only added in the patch, not the core EXE or WITP's. All WITP and the release version had was "Escorts bombard Y/N?"

- How far away is the 'default' bombardment. Might vary with main gun range (think: 'escorts bombard y/n?', or different type capital ships having different gun ranges). Or use the bombardments set range.

You don't need this after the spinner. You know the starting range. That's an easy check against the mine field array above. But it still doesn't get to why folks believe the odds of a strike increase as the firing range closes the shore. IF laying were random you would be as likely to be driving away from the field as into it.

- Use a random variable for from what direction the TF bombards. Does not even need to correspond to a compass - might be 1 to 100, with a presumption that 1 to 100 covers 160 degrees of a crcle (just a made up example to illustrate). But if it does correspond to a compass, then the hex from which the TF entered the target hex could play a role (variable, of course!) in determining from which direction the TF bombards.

I'd be surprised if azimuth played any role in mines. I think you can do the same job with topline probabilities, adjusted for terrain or not. Although in that case some hexes would give one side or the other a big advantage.

- At the same time, randomly assign the direction from the base of the (or each) mine field (and, as above, optionally store that data with the mine field so it remains from turn to turn).

You might be able to do this in the x,y system somehow down to hexside level. I don't know how you go finer than that without eating a lot of RAM.

- Or, forget about that and just assume that all the mine fields are within a certain distance of the base, but otherwise randomly distributed. If a TF is within that distance is has a certain (pretty small) chance to encounter a mine field. Maybe, if 'at' that range the chance begins to climb above zero and gets greater and greater the closer to the base the TF is set to bombard.

As the player has no control lower than 1-hex except in this one case with the bombardment spinner they could do this. If Michael got into the guts when he did the spinner in the patch. Just, say, make an assumption that fields have X percent chance to exist at the max of the spinner (30K?) and increase to X+Y at 1000 yards. This would give the result many say they think they see with more mine hits closer in. But it wouldn't be "real" in any way, as it would toss out real tactical mine usage, as well as azimuth and terrain. But it would, in the abstract nature of the game, penalize the bombarding player's choice to get better chances at damage by going in closer.

- Or even take the previous point and substitute 'mines' in place of 'mine fields'.

Now, the above is just to illustrate that they can (and they obviously do) easily handle this without worrying at all about tracking the exact position within the hex of any TF, ship, mine field, or mine - or for that matter, even the base. I have NOT inferred that they are doing things as noted in the example, it is strictly a made up example to illustrate the point. It is obvious from the narrative you quoted that they have a much more involved implementation, which is exactly what one would expect given the depth of the rest of the game.

I agree. I'd love to know as an exercise how they did what they did. But failing that I'd like a yes/no from a dev that mines hit more close in on bombardment missions. It might be in the archives, but I can't find it.

[JocMeister]

[font="Verdana"]26th-27th May -45[/font]
______________________________________________________________________________

I think things will get quite interesting around Korea in the coming days.

------------------------
Korea
------------------------
Erik manages to actually shut down Moppo after no less then 3 Night bombardments by all the remaining BBs. My Minelayers get into the thick of it again but fares a little worse today. Luckily they didn´t run into any of the big boys.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Time Surface Combat, near Moppo at 100,54, Range 18,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
E Kanawa, Shell hits 10, and is sunk
E Shiga, Shell hits 23, and is sunk
E Amami, Shell hits 24, and is sunk
E Hodaka, Shell hits 23, and is sunk

Allied Ships
DM Gamble, Shell hits 2, on fire
DM Montgomery, Shell hits 1, on fire
DM Ramsay
DM Tracy, Shell hits 2
DM Robert H. Smith
DM Harry F. Bauer, Shell hits 1

None are in danger of sinking and this time they did drop their mines. 780 mines are now in place.

Erik is basically running amok in the area. But now I´m in position so its time to try and do something about that. I´ve "retooled" the navy a bit shedding most of the CAs and CL to create more DD TFs. Against Eriks BBs I´m better off using DDs only. Many on the forum talk about how powerful the modern US CAs are. I have not seen that in this game getting 4 of them blasted (3 sunk) against a single Kongo.

It looks like we the opposition consists of the following ships:

BB TF1:
Yamato
Musashi
+3 DDs

BB TF 2:
Ise
Fuso
Hyuga
Yamashiro
+4 DDs

CA TF:
Mikuna, Nachi, Maya
+ unknown amount of DDs

CL TF 1:
CL Sakawa
CL Kiso
+2 DDs

By the looks of it Erik is badly lacking DDs. I´m not happy with the situation right now. Moppo is closed as mentioned and while I was certain the sheer number of Engineers would keep the field open I did not take into account the disruption caused to those troops. Its now up in the 80s so I very much doubt they will repair anything for a couple of days. Same goes for the AS that is so disrupted now they stopped repairing the damaged planes. I´m so temped to use Eriks "disbanding trick" right now.

I guess I got a day of peace and quiet for now while Erik reloads the BBs. The air force didn´t show up today either. He probably have them all on Naval attack for now. Recon has found 2500 bombers in the area. They have withdrawn a bit farther east though.

------------------------
China
------------------------
At least things go as planned here. The main army has arrived in position so the CMA will race North to block the 3 IDs coming from Changsha.

We also clear the roadblock to the North.

Ground combat at Tuyun (74,51)

Allied Deliberate attack

Attacking force 65311 troops, 788 guns, 162 vehicles, Assault Value = 2586

Defending force 5477 troops, 74 guns, 13 vehicles, Assault Value = 89

Allied engineers reduce fortifications to 3

Allied adjusted assault: 1712

Japanese adjusted defense: 154

Allied assault odds: 11 to 1 (fort level 3)

Allied forces CAPTURE Tuyun !!!

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), preparation(-), supply(-)
Attacker:

Japanese ground losses:
2491 casualties reported
Squads: 61 destroyed, 24 disabled
Non Combat: 195 destroyed, 17 disabled
Engineers: 18 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 63 (60 destroyed, 3 disabled)
Vehicles lost 17 (17 destroyed, 0 disabled)
Units retreated 4

Allied ground losses:
264 casualties reported
Squads: 3 destroyed, 19 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled

First attack at Hong Kong. Forts will take a couple of days to wear down.

Ground combat at Hong Kong (77,61)

Allied Deliberate attack

Attacking force 84265 troops, 1588 guns, 1530 vehicles, Assault Value = 2634

Defending force 15516 troops, 144 guns, 80 vehicles, Assault Value = 352

Allied engineers reduce fortifications to 5

Allied adjusted assault: 1580

Japanese adjusted defense: 1581

Allied assault odds: 1 to 2 (fort level 5)

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), forts(+), leaders(+), preparation(-)
experience(-)
Attacker:

Japanese ground losses:
1743 casualties reported
Squads: 7 destroyed, 113 disabled
Non Combat: 17 destroyed, 52 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 24 disabled
Guns lost 30 (8 destroyed, 22 disabled)

Allied ground losses:
1009 casualties reported
Squads: 2 destroyed, 89 disabled
Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 16 disabled
Engineers: 5 destroyed, 47 disabled
Guns lost 7 (1 destroyed, 6 disabled)
Vehicles lost 6 (1 destroyed, 5 disabled)

------------------------
Stratbombing
------------------------
The losses from the 4E strike are brutal. I lose 50 B29s and 25 B24. Ouch. Going in low meant flak was deadly and at Tsu I hit the balloons as well. But all the factories are blown up! [&o][&o][&o]

Stupidly though I forgot to turn off a bunch of bombers that got blasted the following day costing me further 20 losses.

[CaptBeefheart]

Wow, this is some interesting stuff going on. The Koreans will be happy that you decided to liberate their country before invading Japan proper [;)]. I don't really know what to tell you, other than layering several DD and PT TFs at Moppo and hoping his BBs slow down enough for your CV aircraft to hit them hard during daylight. Of course, you probably figured that out.

Bullwinkle: Any chance we'll see your fine AAR soon? That was a monument to concision and clarity.

Cheers,
CC

[JocMeister]

CC,

That is the plan! [:)]

[CaptBeefheart]

Also, you might consider using those big piles of FM-2s and F6F-3s flown by mediocre pilots as escort fodder for your SBDs and TBFs.

Cheers,
CC

[JocMeister]

ORIGINAL: Commander Cody

Also, you might consider using those big piles of FM-2s and F6F-3s flown by mediocre pilots as escort fodder for your SBDs and TBFs.

Cheers,
CC

I would if I had any rooms for more squadrons somewhere. Thats the biggest reason I wanted Moppo. I need a level 9 AF somewhere. The Okinawas is packed to the rafters!

[JocMeister]

[font="Verdana"]Trap is set[/font]
______________________________________________________________________________

So the trap is set for tomorrow. It will be a low risk operation using low value assets. I brought some toys with my fleet. Namely 48 new PT boats all fueled an ready. The should arrive during the night.

As Eriks BBs will have to reload I´ll use the opportunity to hunt some of the gazillion "Es" and PBs in the area. This is just a small test to get a "feel" for how things are. I´m using small 4 ship DE TFs. I´ve mixed them up a bit so each TF has at least on DE with a 5 inch guns. We will see how they do against the "Es". The DMs 4 inch guns was enough to blast them so I hope this will work.

To hedge the bet I also sent in 2 Fletcher TFs under Moosebrugger and Burke. For now I´ll keep the rest of the navy back. While I don´t fear Eriks BBs I do fear getting stuck somewhere outside my CV umbrella. With 2500 bombers in the area that would mean certain doom. I will commit eventually. But I´m waiting for that right moment.

------------------------
Air war
------------------------
Tomorrow I´ll move in a brand new unused Air Fleet that has been sitting on Luzon. These are good bunch. 360 Corsairs and 225 P47-25s. All over 70 EXP. I´ve now banned use of any fighter pilot below 70EXP on the front line.

From now on there will be sweeps over the HI and Kyushu every day. No letting up from now on. I´m going to box Erik in over his major bases leaving all the smaller bases empty for the bombers. He is relying almost exclusively on "bleeding CAP" to protect smaller bases. These can be swept with very good results. He can´t cover everything well. I´ll just punch where he is weak.

It will be a couple of days before the bombers can go in again. I´m still clearing space on the Okinawa. A more offensive stance means I can lower CAP numbers and give me a bigger punch. Tomorrow around 200 Fighters will Sweep targets on Kyushu.

Have to say I havn´t enjoyed this game this much since I was fighting in New Guinea. [:)] Glad Erik found some fighting spirit again! While I´m not convinced what he is doing in Korea is the right call it is working for him right now. Will be interesting to see how long it holds. I´ll try to make it short lived! [:D]

[JocMeister]

[font="Verdana"]Naval battles 28th of May[/font]
______________________________________________________________________________

Went almost as expected. My TFs clear out a big amount of smaller shipping but run into the Yamatos! Sadly me Fletcher has expended most of their TTs on lesser targets. Havn´t gotten the turn file back so these are estimates:

Allied losses
7 DDs confirmed. Two after retreating EAST([:@]) into naval air.
2 DEs possible (heavy damage)

All these losses suffered against the Yamato TF involving both allied DD TFs.

Japanese losses: (I count anything with heavy fire/ heavy damage as sunk)
4 DDs
14 "Es"
13 PB
4 SCs

Not a great haul but I need to clear out this gazillion Japanese TFs. The yet again idiotic retreat due EAST that has cost me so much already rears its ugly head again. I bet this is because of the myriad of TFs all around messing up the retreat routine. I won´t risk losing more ships to it.

Oddly enough the Yamatos didn´t bombard. Perhaps they ran out of ammo before reaching Moppo Erik forgot to switch them from SCTF to Bombardment. God knows I have done that a million times.

[JocMeister]

So now Erik knows I´m in place and I´m going to fight back. The question is: When do I show my hand? When do I send in the big guns? Admittedly I have very little experience in Surface combat.

My main worry being to get "stranded" within naval air outside my CV CAP.