Wrangling Loki - Mind_Messing (J) vs Lokasenna (A)

Post descriptions of your brilliant victories and unfortunate defeats here.

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

mind_messing
Posts: 3394
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 11:59 am

RE: Another Question to the Gallery: R&D

Post by mind_messing »

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

Its your game, but I would not re-size any air group to be larger than what already exist. If there is no size 81 in game, then this cannot be done. I think at this point maybe a group that is 42 planes is the largest IJN fighter group. Even if you divide the 81 into 3 x 27, this still adds lots of airframes to the game, IMO. Adding this many more airframes in mid-42 would tilt the game even more towards Japan.

I suppose it all depends on your attitude towards the game.

Sure, Japan gets "expanded" squadrons, but is still limited by aviation support, need for airframes, pilots and so forth. The biggest Japanese fighter groups are 45 planes strong, does adding 26 planes to the group skew the game so badly?

Then there's the cost. Expanded squadrons need more pilots, airframes and aviation support, and eat up more supply, so it's far from a "free" way to boost Japanese strength.
User avatar
Mike McCreery
Posts: 4362
Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2013 2:58 pm

RE: Another Question to the Gallery: R&D

Post by Mike McCreery »

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

Its your game, but I would not re-size any air group to be larger than what already exist. If there is no size 81 in game, then this cannot be done. I think at this point maybe a group that is 42 planes is the largest IJN fighter group. Even if you divide the 81 into 3 x 27, this still adds lots of airframes to the game, IMO. Adding this many more airframes in mid-42 would tilt the game even more towards Japan.

I suppose it all depends on your attitude towards the game.

Sure, Japan gets "expanded" squadrons, but is still limited by aviation support, need for airframes, pilots and so forth. The biggest Japanese fighter groups are 45 planes strong, does adding 26 planes to the group skew the game so badly?

Then there's the cost. Expanded squadrons need more pilots, airframes and aviation support, and eat up more supply, so it's far from a "free" way to boost Japanese strength.

A squadron of 81 planes should have to take 3 times as long to get into the air and land. The computer algorithm does not account for larger squadrons and therefore gives an advantage to someone who is oversizing squadrons.

It may not appear to be *free* but it certainly is a manipulation of the game engine to get an advantage.

As such, people should be able to make HR's to their hearts content if they feel the need to do so.




Image
mind_messing
Posts: 3394
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 11:59 am

RE: Another Question to the Gallery: R&D

Post by mind_messing »

ORIGINAL: Wargmr

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

Its your game, but I would not re-size any air group to be larger than what already exist. If there is no size 81 in game, then this cannot be done. I think at this point maybe a group that is 42 planes is the largest IJN fighter group. Even if you divide the 81 into 3 x 27, this still adds lots of airframes to the game, IMO. Adding this many more airframes in mid-42 would tilt the game even more towards Japan.

I suppose it all depends on your attitude towards the game.

Sure, Japan gets "expanded" squadrons, but is still limited by aviation support, need for airframes, pilots and so forth. The biggest Japanese fighter groups are 45 planes strong, does adding 26 planes to the group skew the game so badly?

Then there's the cost. Expanded squadrons need more pilots, airframes and aviation support, and eat up more supply, so it's far from a "free" way to boost Japanese strength.

A squadron of 81 planes should have to take 3 times as long to get into the air and land. The computer algorithm does not account for larger squadrons and therefore gives an advantage to someone who is oversizing squadrons.

That's why the game has two seperate stacking limits on airbases: one for air-groups, and one for air planes. It doesn't matter if you've 2 groups of 40 planes or one group of 80 planes, you've still used 80 slots of the airbases capacity.
It may not appear to be *free* but it certainly is a manipulation of the game engine to get an advantage.

As such, people should be able to make HR's to their hearts content if they feel the need to do so.

In combat, I agree, that's why they'll be divided prior to combat and so act as any other air group.

In all other respects, I'm not so sure. There's a part of me that objects to the historical "shoe-horning" (loosely used) in regards to aircraft squadrons and their size.

If Japan had the airframes and pilots sitting doing nothing, I'm sure Yamamoto could have said "Turn them into a big training unit" and it would have been done fairly promptly.
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

RE: Another Question to the Gallery: R&D

Post by Lowpe »

Can you always divide them? I think I have some sized 50 groups that can't be divided...with no splinters that I can find.


User avatar
Mike McCreery
Posts: 4362
Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2013 2:58 pm

RE: Another Question to the Gallery: R&D

Post by Mike McCreery »

Following that logic you should be able to resize squadrons to whatever size you see fit...

Image
mind_messing
Posts: 3394
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 11:59 am

RE: Another Question to the Gallery: R&D

Post by mind_messing »

ORIGINAL: Wargmr

Following that logic you should be able to resize squadrons to whatever size you see fit...


...and still be faced with the same operational restrictions in terms of aviation support and airbase stacking limits.

The only problem is that the air combat engine falls apart when big groups are deployed. If the air combat didn't turn big air groups into sweepers and escorters with perfect co-ordination, what would be the problem?
ORIGINAL: Lowpe

Can you always divide them? I think I have some sized 50 groups that can't be divided...with no splinters that I can find.


All my re-sized squadrons can be divided.
User avatar
Mike McCreery
Posts: 4362
Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2013 2:58 pm

RE: Another Question to the Gallery: R&D

Post by Mike McCreery »

If the air combat didn't turn big air groups into sweepers and escorters with perfect co-ordination, what would be the problem?

But it does....

THAT!!!! is the problem that people have brought up.
Image
mind_messing
Posts: 3394
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 11:59 am

RE: Another Question to the Gallery: R&D

Post by mind_messing »

May 13th to May 16th, 1942

North Pacific

We get a single torpedo hit on the Honolulu on the 14th as she with the New Mexico and the Idaho along the Aleutians chain.

Attu is now a shell, with everything bar a few support troops and some sound detector sets left sitting on the island.

Forts are building nicely in the Kuriles, with Etorofu and Paramushiro-juma at level 3 and Kunashiri and Onnekotan-jima at level 2 but well on their way to level 3. Shimishuri-jima is nearly at a level 4 airbase, at which point the 150 odd engineers will build forts before being withdrawn to build Hokkaido and Honshu.

Central Pacific

Token garrisons to outlying islands of limited value are being dispatched. I doubt SNLF companies will hold back an full-out American sub invasion, but it will at least force him to do things properly.

We get some JAAF bombers in to Roi-Namur to run ASW patrols. This isn't permanant, as I want IJN floatplanes to do the bulk of work in this theater, but we're hampered by being stuck with Pete's and Alf's.

Troops are en-route to Alinglaplap, and once they arrive, every base in the Marshalls that has a potential airbase size of 5 will be garrisoned.

South-West Pacific

Nothing new here.

I'm still unsure over the value of building up an airbase at Tassarafonga and at the Russell Islands. While this would leave us with a fantastic airbase complex for torpedo strikes, it is a big investment, and one that will be wasted if the Allies take a different axis of advance.

We'll wait and see.

Austrailia

The plan to take Darwin works perfectly. The 1st Tank Regiment takes the city with the help of IJN paratroopers, while paratroopers seize Fenton, which has been abandoned. IJA troopers are unloading in the harbour, and a host of troop transports are en-route to move the bulk of air support to the size 7 airbase - courtesy of ABDA!

With this, we'll be in a position to destroy the Allied forces in Katherine within a week or two. The two trailing IJA divisions are one hex out from the battle, and their arrival will give the IJA the advantage.

Four slow IJN battleships depart this theater for Singapore and the Akyab bombardment run while Fuso is being sent for repairs in Singapore.

Burma

In an effort to force the Allies to play the air war game here, I've contrived a series of deep raids behind the lines. There are several bomber bases undefended by fighters that I plan to hit, as well as Diamond Harbour and Calcutta, both of which have ships in port. I'm waiting for more bombers and some Zero's to arrive in-theater before conducting the really deep raids: we'll only have one turn to inflict maximum damage before everything is moved out of range.

Ledo airbase is bombed with the loss of a couple of Allied aircraft. The Allies react by moving in fighters. We'll sweep those fighters in a few days, while our numerous recon planes keep finding us fresh targets.

China

Quiet. We're building up to another attack at Chungking while hunting down the Chinese stragglers outside it.

Some KMT corps make an appearence in north-east China and kick around a garrison. We'll move some local forces to deal with them.

[center]Image
Guess what arrives in a few days...[/center]
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

RE: Another Question to the Gallery: R&D

Post by Lowpe »

If you use the south west pacific to isolate/slow supply buildup of Oz it can be viable to develop, but still very costly. However, for that to work you need to take Perth...or threaten the supply line to Perth.

If you simply build it up into a festung, it is easily bypassed to the north or extreme north or the India/Burma front.

If you leave it open and concentrate further north, then the Allies steamroll thru there making the backdoor of the DEI vulnerable.

Perhaps the answer lies somewhere between the extremes.

To a degree you can funnel the Allied advance, but they have the initiative to pick and choose. Japan needs to be flexible enough to answer.


User avatar
Mike McCreery
Posts: 4362
Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2013 2:58 pm

RE: Another Question to the Gallery: R&D

Post by Mike McCreery »

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

If you use the south west pacific to isolate/slow supply buildup of Oz it can be viable to develop, but still very costly. However, for that to work you need to take Perth...or threaten the supply line to Perth.

If you simply build it up into a festung, it is easily bypassed to the north or extreme north or the India/Burma front.

If you leave it open and concentrate further north, then the Allies steamroll thru there making the backdoor of the DEI vulnerable.

Perhaps the answer lies somewhere between the extremes.

To a degree you can funnel the Allied advance, but they have the initiative to pick and choose. Japan needs to be flexible enough to answer.



Even if you take Perth you have to maintain search and interdict forces off of Australia. My opponent took Perth and I simply sent the convoys to Melbourne. It takes longer but the supplies still flow.
Image
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

RE: Another Question to the Gallery: R&D

Post by Lowpe »

ORIGINAL: Wargmr

Even if you take Perth you have to maintain search and interdict forces off of Australia. My opponent took Perth and I simply sent the convoys to Melbourne. It takes longer but the supplies still flow.

Quite right. There is a lot to learn about the temporary nature of an aggressive Japanese player's conquests from your game.
mind_messing
Posts: 3394
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 11:59 am

RE: Another Question to the Gallery: R&D

Post by mind_messing »

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

If you use the south west pacific to isolate/slow supply buildup of Oz it can be viable to develop, but still very costly. However, for that to work you need to take Perth...or threaten the supply line to Perth.

My chances in the South-West Pacific died with the 4th Division being slaughtered on their transports. Combined with the messy affair at Noumea, I've been left too short on proper combat troops to mount any sort of offensive action. With both Noumea and Luganville developed into formidable bases, I don't have the numbers to bypass and isolate the South-West Pacific, nor the strength to take these bastions and destroy the troops.

At this point in time, I expect Lokasenna would be overjoyed for me to conduct an offensive in an area where my naval assets are exposed to his land-based airpower.

Cutting off Perth is still on the cards for a late 1942 offensive, seeing as the small bases between Broome and Perth haven't been heavily developed. We'll get some recon up and start planning.
If you simply build it up into a festung, it is easily bypassed to the north or extreme north or the India/Burma front.

If you leave it open and concentrate further north, then the Allies steamroll thru there making the backdoor of the DEI vulnerable.

Perhaps the answer lies somewhere between the extremes.

I've tried my best to remember why I invaded Northern Austrailia. It was to destroy the stack of ABDA troops in Darwin. I'm still working towards that goal.

Northern Austrailia is going to be nothing more than a holding action: once the ABDA stack in Katherine is defeated I'll leave two or three Naval Guards or a IJA regiment behind forts in Darwin to make the Allies fight for it.

If the Allies steamroller wants to push up through Northern Austrailia into the DEI, it's in a very difficult position. From my own limited experience in the region and AAR's that I've read, Darwin needs supplied from the sea. My ownership of Broome and Port Moresby/Horn Island prevents this, and while Broome could be taken from the land, any supply convoys would need to run past torpedo bases on Timor.

I may even build Bathurst Island into a size 2 airbase to base Val's to keep the Allies out for good.

On the whole, I'd welcome an Allied move through Australia to the DEI. It would be logistically difficult without free access to Darwin, while I'd have the advantage of Palambang, Singapore and Java providing a logisticall base within a few days sail of the frontlines.
To a degree you can funnel the Allied advance, but they have the initiative to pick and choose. Japan needs to be flexible enough to answer.

That's only too true. I'm trying to lay the groundwork for an Allied push from just about any direction by building up rear-area bases: when the Allies do make a move, I want to be able to get big convoys moving units in as quick as possible.
ORIGINAL: Wargmr

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

If you use the south west pacific to isolate/slow supply buildup of Oz it can be viable to develop, but still very costly. However, for that to work you need to take Perth...or threaten the supply line to Perth.

If you simply build it up into a festung, it is easily bypassed to the north or extreme north or the India/Burma front.

If you leave it open and concentrate further north, then the Allies steamroll thru there making the backdoor of the DEI vulnerable.

Perhaps the answer lies somewhere between the extremes.

To a degree you can funnel the Allied advance, but they have the initiative to pick and choose. Japan needs to be flexible enough to answer.



Even if you take Perth you have to maintain search and interdict forces off of Australia. My opponent took Perth and I simply sent the convoys to Melbourne. It takes longer but the supplies still flow.


That is why I don't make much effort towards interdicting supply convoys. Unless it's an all-out effort, the Allies will simply go around. Adding a week or two onto Allied shipping times isn't worth the risk you put IJN assets at.
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

RE: Another Question to the Gallery: R&D

Post by Lowpe »

ORIGINAL: mind_messing
I've tried my best to remember why I invaded Northern Austrailia. It was to destroy the stack of ABDA troops in Darwin. I'm still working towards that goal.

Sometimes, it is easy to lose sight of the original goal.[:)]

My earlier post was not specific advice for your game, just kind of my views on the southwest pacific. And, perhaps it is more of a scenario 1 type outlook.






User avatar
Bullwinkle58
Posts: 11297
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:47 pm

RE: Another Question to the Gallery: R&D

Post by Bullwinkle58 »

I don't have any advice for you, but your current moves are making me think a lot about the pros and cons of taking actions that won't last for the effects of making the Allies work to reverse them.

We're at a similar point in our game, with Loka doing things to throw tables and chairs in my path, but which I can reverse after awhile. The VPs will swing back to me, but what is the time worth?
The Moose
mind_messing
Posts: 3394
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 11:59 am

RE: Another Question to the Gallery: R&D

Post by mind_messing »

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

I don't have any advice for you, but your current moves are making me think a lot about the pros and cons of taking actions that won't last for the effects of making the Allies work to reverse them.

Regarding Northern Austrailia, it's the only sensible move to make. I'm a big fan of spoiling attacks, and the Austrailian invasion is a prime example of it:

- Lokasenna had turned Darwin into a festung with ABDA refugees and some British and Austrailian divisions. It was probably equal parts a speedbump and a investment for a campaign into the DEI.
- I isolate the base, bring superior force to bear, and will hopefully destroy all the troops shortly.
- Once that's done, I'll withdraw out of Darwin and leave some Naval Guards to keep the Rising Sun flying.

I'll collect a nice bunch of VP's, while Lokasenna will be out of a great many units, the prime stepping off point for a DEI campaign and the time he has to spend reclaiming Darwin.

Noumea would probably have been another good example of it, had the superior force (the 4th Division) not been destroyed.

All too often I find that Japanese players think that any blow against the Allies needs to be massive on scale. Taking big bites out of the Allies is apt to give the Empire a fatal case of indigestion: small mouthfulls are digested quciker, leaving room for seconds. Sure, I've not crushed the Allies will to fight, nor captured all of Austrailia, but I'll have destroyed some pretty valuable British and Austrailian units and gave the DEI a nice big buffer zone.
We're at a similar point in our game, with Loka doing things to throw tables and chairs in my path, but which I can reverse after awhile. The VPs will swing back to me, but what is the time worth?

Time is paramount to Japan, in nearly every way.

While the Allies outgrow the Japanese in every respect, the Japanese really need to get to '44 for the massive number of unrestricted IJA reinforcements. The Japanese don't get much in the way of ground combat LCU's, other than small IJN units and what's bought out with PP's, but if they can enter '44 with the Allies behind the historical timeline, they'll have plenty of unrestricted divisions and brigades to defend the "must-have" areas in the inner permimiter.
User avatar
Bullwinkle58
Posts: 11297
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:47 pm

RE: Another Question to the Gallery: R&D

Post by Bullwinkle58 »

I essentially "gave" him Darwin and somewhat regretted it. But not sure now. He also got Noumea, Suva, Luganville, etc. and it's a boat of VPs to swim upstream against. My macro plan was to let him, once I saw how aggressive he was (didn't know him as a player at all), and hope he'd go broke trying to supply it all. I think supply is thin, but he has a lot of real estate. More than I've ever worked against in PBEM or AI games.

I'm spending the middle of 1942 working north and west in Northern Oz. He didn't bring nearly what you have, but it's been enough to hurt given how little supply flows north.
The Moose
mind_messing
Posts: 3394
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 11:59 am

RE: Another Question to the Gallery: R&D

Post by mind_messing »

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

I essentially "gave" him Darwin and somewhat regretted it. But not sure now. He also got Noumea, Suva, Luganville, etc. and it's a boat of VPs to swim upstream against. My macro plan was to let him, once I saw how aggressive he was (didn't know him as a player at all), and hope he'd go broke trying to supply it all. I think supply is thin, but he has a lot of real estate. More than I've ever worked against in PBEM or AI games.

I'm spending the middle of 1942 working north and west in Northern Oz. He didn't bring nearly what you have, but it's been enough to hurt given how little supply flows north.

Giving up Darwin is probably the best move. A Japanese landing at Wydham, as I've done, gives the defenders of Darwin a choice: run south or be cut off. Loka went for the latter, probably to tie my troops up, but it's a trade. He's tied five divisions down for a few months, but he'll lose irreplacable units (the British and Oz Divisions).

In truth, Northern Oz is a crappy place for the Allies to fight. You can't supply the place, your logistical train is exposed for the entire trip from Perth to Darwin and theterrain is open, which means whatever side has air superiority will have a massive advantage, and considering the lack of supply, it will be the Japanese.

The Japanese, on the other hand, have Java, Palembang and Singapore all close at hand, as well as the ready-built bases on Timor to cover their logistics, and they can isolate the SLOC to Darwin by the capture of Port Moresby/Horn Island and Broome, all exposed positions.

I'd say to Allied players: don't defend Darwin. Build up the Western coast of Oz and make Darwin an untenable position for the Japanese.

I wouldn't be worried about real-estate: I'm sitting at roughly the historical perimiter (bar China and NorPac), and I'm hard-pressed to garrison it all, let alone supply it.

Building up Western Oz is a good move. It's a requirement to have airbases from Perth to Darwin in order to get supply into Darwin, and once the Allies are closer to Darwin than Broome, Northern Austrailia becomes a very exposed position for Japan.

User avatar
Bullwinkle58
Posts: 11297
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:47 pm

RE: Another Question to the Gallery: R&D

Post by Bullwinkle58 »

He has about 25,000 men in Darwin. I only know the ID of one base force unit. Some air, mostly Sallys. I've been using a lot of my B-17s from Alice to do what I can. I'm about to re-take Broome. All I've been able to operate with up north is armor, and Oz has more of that than most Allied areas early. Fortunately the IJA has terrible anti-armor capability. Also re-took Wyndham.

I'm trying to get a Level 2 AF at Katherine (I took up to Felton and stopped) to snipe Darwin. I have three subs trying to cut off Darwin, but of course he gets 2-3 supply ships in at will. Aircraft are already in Oz once I get in range, but that's pretty hard given the roads. The Aussie national command is at Daly Waters trying to pull some of that legendary 25,000 supply to itself, but so far nothing. (Sydney has 550,000 supply, Melbourne, over 200,000 and Alice about 85,000, so it's available.) If I can get Katherine operational the equation changes and I foresee him pulling out of Darwin fro Timor.

I hate DEI campaigns and never wanted to use Darwin for that anyway. But northern Oz is a lot of VPs. He forced this campaign on me. I need the VPs, so we fight. Similar to the Aleutians. I will have them, he's fought hard there, losing most of the MKB over them, but if he'd left them alone I wouldn't have come close to the Kuriles for years.
The Moose
mind_messing
Posts: 3394
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 11:59 am

RE: Another Question to the Gallery: R&D

Post by mind_messing »

I hate DEI campaigns and never wanted to use Darwin for that anyway. But northern Oz is a lot of VPs. He forced this campaign on me. I need the VPs, so we fight. Similar to the Aleutians. I will have them, he's fought hard there, losing most of the MKB over them, but if he'd left them alone I wouldn't have come close to the Kuriles for years.

Darwin has a value all of its own as a threat to the DEI. Darwin built up to it's maximum and some 4E's based from it would make me concerned. Even better, I'm sure that the Eastern DEI oil centers can be smashed by B-17s from Darwin.
User avatar
Bullwinkle58
Posts: 11297
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:47 pm

RE: Another Question to the Gallery: R&D

Post by Bullwinkle58 »

ORIGINAL: mind_messing
I hate DEI campaigns and never wanted to use Darwin for that anyway. But northern Oz is a lot of VPs. He forced this campaign on me. I need the VPs, so we fight. Similar to the Aleutians. I will have them, he's fought hard there, losing most of the MKB over them, but if he'd left them alone I wouldn't have come close to the Kuriles for years.

Darwin has a value all of its own as a threat to the DEI. Darwin built up to it's maximum and some 4E's based from it would make me concerned. Even better, I'm sure that the Eastern DEI oil centers can be smashed by B-17s from Darwin.

I'd have to count to Soerbaja. Not sure. B-17s lose range with about every model upgrade. The longest legs are the pre-war Ds I think. The Fs are only 18 hexes I believe. There are a couple of dog & cat oil sources (Baola sp?), but nothing big unless Soerbaja is in range. And Soerbaja is going to be crawling with fighters.
The Moose
Post Reply

Return to “After Action Reports”