If you'd have pulled it off, then the best he could have managed would have been a historical perimeter.
He's still lost some valuable ships, and all those oil hits are a massive positive.
Interesting you say that. I'm curious to see if he pushes forward after the DEI. There is one thing that could cause some troubles. All of the Malaya troops made it to Singers, and I've replaced two generals for the major Indian divisions so far. I'm thinking of replacing Percival and a few more. I know it won't last forever, but a healthy Singers would be a difficult thorn at the core of the Empire.
I've prepared OZ and India as much as I can for the next stage. VP harvesting in OZ will hard to stop, but I hope the sub trail shadowing the KB could be disconcerting at least! I'm a few fish away from things equalising a bit. [:)]
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill
I wouldn't replace Percival. Too many PPs. Way too many. Leaders in HQ's don't seem to make much difference for nearly everything.
I think they make a pretty big difference, but Percival costs too much to replace at that point in the game. I suppose that's by design. You need those PP for other things, including commanders who will be in play longer.
It's an interesting question, isn't it? Pay precious PPs to change Percival in hopes that the troops can hold longer under a new leader.
When an experienced player is involved, I think it's a call to make shortly before Singers comes under attack...and more by feel than by certainty. Are the Allies already holding Singers longer and more strongly than expected? Has the Japanese player already stubbed his toe? Are the Japanese units rather beat up and advancing in disarray?
Under very limited circumstance, I might replace Percival. (I did so in an early game.) But as a general rule I agree that the Political Point cost is too high for a return that's modest, at best.
"Rats set fire to Mr. Cooper’s store in Fort Valley. No damage done." Columbus (Ga) Enquirer-Sun, October 2, 1880.
If you'd have pulled it off, then the best he could have managed would have been a historical perimeter.
He's still lost some valuable ships, and all those oil hits are a massive positive.
Interesting you say that. I'm curious to see if he pushes forward after the DEI. There is one thing that could cause some troubles. All of the Malaya troops made it to Singers, and I've replaced two generals for the major Indian divisions so far. I'm thinking of replacing Percival and a few more. I know it won't last forever, but a healthy Singers would be a difficult thorn at the core of the Empire.
I've prepared OZ and India as much as I can for the next stage. VP harvesting in OZ will hard to stop, but I hope the sub trail shadowing the KB could be disconcerting at least! I'm a few fish away from things equalising a bit. [:)]
It is also worth disbanding an Indian Brigade (one with Indian 42 squads) at Delhi. With a the squads you will already have produced you will be able to upgrade your two Indian Divisions at Singers (you will need to break them down into thirds to be able to do so). The added firepower makes a very noticeable difference to the casualties Japan takes each attack. Supplies are an issue (I always ship in to Singers).
I also turn on replacements for the Indian units and Australians. The extra time gained by a more robust defence IMO is worth it. Only worth it if you managed to get everything back to Singers - otherwise it is throwing good troops after bad.
I wouldn't replace Percival. Too many PPs. Way too many. Leaders in HQ's don't seem to make much difference for nearly everything.
Interesting. It feels to me like there isn't much to spend on right now, although I know I'll be short forever. In this game I won't be doing much offensively for a while, and spending PPs to get Singers to hold even a month longer, causing more damage to IJA troops could be very worth it considering the invasion bonus. Once that ends I'll (usually) have some wanting about his prep for targets, and so know if something big s coming.
ORIGINAL: Canoerebel
It's an interesting question, isn't it? Pay precious PPs to change Percival in hopes that the troops can hold longer under a new leader.
When an experienced player is involved, I think it's a call to make shortly before Singers comes under attack...and more by feel than by certainty. Are the Allies already holding Singers longer and more strongly than expected? Has the Japanese player already stubbed his toe? Are the Japanese units rather beat up and advancing in disarray?
Under very limited circumstance, I might replace Percival. (I did so in an early game.) But as a general rule I agree that the Political Point cost is too high for a return that's modest, at best.
I agree it can be worth it, but wouldn't you want those troops to be in good shape, with decent morale, for the river crossing if you're going to spend the points at all? Seems like the most critical moment is the first step over the water for the IJA.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill
That's what I meant: deciding whether to make the change at the point just before the Japanese army crosses to shock attack. That's when you'll get maximum benefit and have the most knowledge as to whether it might be worth it.
"Rats set fire to Mr. Cooper’s store in Fort Valley. No damage done." Columbus (Ga) Enquirer-Sun, October 2, 1880.
I wouldn't replace Percival. Too many PPs. Way too many. Leaders in HQ's don't seem to make much difference for nearly everything.
Interesting. It feels to me like there isn't much to spend on right now, although I know I'll be short forever. In this game I won't be doing much offensively for a while, and spending PPs to get Singers to hold even a month longer, causing more damage to IJA troops could be very worth it considering the invasion bonus. Once that ends I'll (usually) have some wanting about his prep for targets, and so know if something big s coming.
ORIGINAL: Canoerebel
It's an interesting question, isn't it? Pay precious PPs to change Percival in hopes that the troops can hold longer under a new leader.
When an experienced player is involved, I think it's a call to make shortly before Singers comes under attack...and more by feel than by certainty. Are the Allies already holding Singers longer and more strongly than expected? Has the Japanese player already stubbed his toe? Are the Japanese units rather beat up and advancing in disarray?
Under very limited circumstance, I might replace Percival. (I did so in an early game.) But as a general rule I agree that the Political Point cost is too high for a return that's modest, at best.
I agree it can be worth it, but wouldn't you want those troops to be in good shape, with decent morale, for the river crossing if you're going to spend the points at all? Seems like the most critical moment is the first step over the water for the IJA.
I'd rather replace the commanders in the units. That would have a more direct effect than the HQ commander, who arguably only has a chance (my understanding is not complete because I've written it off as "probably doesn't matter, especially for hundreds of PPs") to affect the outcome of combats whereas individual unit commanders always impact the AV of their respective unit in combat.
[font="Times New Roman"]Jan 6, 1942[/font]
[font="Microsoft Sans Serif"]DEI: [/font]This is the turn where I felt it. The kick to the gut of really having lost something critical and irretrievable that this game provides so accurately at times. The Enterprise, the lucky lady ... usually, but not today.
Jintsu and a few DDs hit the Marblehead and I think all might be well. The rear covering DDs get into the action as well. Then the critical blow. Jintsu and company do make it through. Two shots career into
Enterprise that seemed to push her over the edge to cease flight ops. Later, my bombardments didn't all reach Miri, and the Enterprise was just still in range.
Strike after strike hit DDs, the Achilles, other combat and decoy ships in the area, but finally, in th last strikes, in the afternoon, after storms had cleared, Vals found the Enterprise through a hole in the clearing clouds.
Vals, those slow, ungainly beasts, swooped down like Frigate birds and landed one, two, then three 250kg bombs, and the fires led to a fuel storage explosion. The klaxon sounded. Abandon ship. Cassein and Downes pulled up alongside and dutifully took off survivors, held position as more Kates, then Jakes roared in. Men were saved, but not the old lady this time. The war had taken a dark turn. All of this promise, and now the Allies were on the run.
In other battles around Palembang the Allies mostly got the better of it, but an isolated nettie strike got through the CAP to hit CA Australia with two fish. These CAs are so brittle. She went under quickly.
Palembang itself was pounded by three separate TFs and the 4Es. Tomorrow they will continue on the oil and a few other bombers from Palembang will work on the ports where a reported 85 (!!) [X(] ships are sitting in harbour. More of the IJN is swooping in.
While the loss of not one, but two, fleet CVs cannot be balanced by any of the gains so far here, there are glimmers that the IJ will take some time to recover. Another 4-5 DDs are hit hard or sunk, and about the same number of TBs go down with one CL. Quite a few merchants are hit and burning in port. If we can dent the Palembang oil it would improve the balance just slightly, but there is another thing happening in game that might just be more likely to turn things back to even for the Allies.
[font="Microsoft Sans Serif"]PACIFIC: [/font]Up North the IJN CVs show themselves again, running up near Amchitka. Unseen on the horizon, about 18 hexes away, are not one, but two USN CVs. Yorktown joined Saratoga today, trailing an ASW TF and two fast oilers. Warspite just left Seattle and is on a path to join. The USN will head south and West, just out of Jake range should the IJN move East. I'm wary, but interested. There is an extra Marine fighter group and an extra SBD group on the CVs, but of course pilots are somewhat raw and the Devastators short legged and slow. I need to know which IJN CVs are here. If it's the small ones, this would be an opportunity. Shokaku ad Zuikakau would be a different story.
Very wary of striking against an experienced IJN on even terms, but I've shown so far I'm willing to try anything. Do I roll the dice again? [;)][X(]
[font="Microsoft Sans Serif"]CHINA: [/font] A redistribution of Chinese troops from Changsha should allow them to heal disabled in rest mode outside of the occupied city. All else is quiet. The AVG waits.
[font="Microsoft Sans Serif"]BURMA:[/font] Pegu falls. I've evacuated Rangoon without a fight. The Burma division is collecting at Myitkyina. Other troops will head to Lashio to join a Chinese Corps protecting the mountain approaches.
[font="Trebuchet MS"][/font]
[font="Trebuchet MS"]-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Jan 6, 42 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat, near Mersing at 51,82, Range 8,000 Yards
Japanese Ships PB Chosa Maru, Shell hits 26, and is sunk
PB Eiko Maru, Shell hits 23, and is sunk
Allied Ships
CL Honolulu
CL Boise
CL Phoenix
Improved night sighting under 82% moonlight
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat, near Banggi at 69,85, Range 7,000 Yards
Japanese Ships
CL Jintsu, Shell hits 1
DD Uzuki
DD Yuzuki
DD Matsukaze
DD Asanagi DD Nokaze, Shell hits 10, heavy fires, heavy damage
Allied Ships DD Shaw, Shell hits 21, and is sunk
DD John D. Ford
Improved night sighting under 82% moonlight
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat, near Palembang at 48,91, Range 7,000 Yards
Japanese Ships
TB Kasasagi TB Hiyodori, Shell hits 2, heavy fires, heavy damage
TB Hato
Allied Ships
CA Northampton
CA Houston
DD Craven
DD Gridley
DD McCall
Improved night sighting under 82% moonlight
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat, near Jesselton at 68,85, Range 8,000 Yards
Japanese Ships
CL Jintsu
DD Uzuki
DD Yuzuki
DD Matsukaze
DD Asanagi DD Nokaze, Shell hits 1, heavy fires, heavy damage
Allied Ships
DD John D. Ford, Shell hits 1
Improved night sighting under 82% moonlight
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat, near Mersing at 51,82, Range 8,000 Yards
Japanese Ships
DD Shinonome DD Uranami, Shell hits 6, and is sunk
Allied Ships
CL Honolulu
CL Boise
CL Phoenix
Improved night sighting under 75% moonlight
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat, near Palembang at 48,91, Range 7,000 Yards
Japanese Ships CL Kinu, Shell hits 12, Torpedo hits 1, heavy fires, heavy damage
TB Manazuru, Shell hits 5, heavy fires, heavy damage
TB Hatsukari, Shell hits 1 TB Tomozuru, Shell hits 5, and is sunk
TB Kiji
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat, near Palembang at 48,91, Range 8,000 Yards
Japanese Ships TB Kasasagi, Shell hits 5, and is sunk
Allied Ships
CA Northampton
CA Houston
DD Craven
DD Gridley
DD McCall
Improved night sighting under 75% moonlight
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat, near Palembang at 48,91, Range 8,000 Yards
Japanese Ships CL Kinu, Shell hits 12, heavy fires, heavy damage
TB Manazuru, Shell hits 3, and is sunk
TB Hatsukari, Shell hits 3, Torpedo hits 1, heavy fires, heavy damage
TB Kiji
Allied Ships
CA Australia, Shell hits 1, on fire
CL Perth
CL Mauritius, Shell hits 1
DD Jarvis
DD Banckert
Improved night sighting under 75% moonlight
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat, near Palembang at 48,91, Range 8,000 Yards
Japanese Ships
TB Chidori, Shell hits 4, on fire, heavy damage
TB Kamo, Shell hits 1
Allied Ships
CA Northampton, Shell hits 1
CA Houston, Shell hits 1
DD Craven
DD Gridley
DD McCall
Improved night sighting under 75% moonlight
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Naval bombardment of Mersing at 51,82
Japanese aircraft
no flights
Japanese aircraft losses
F1M2 Pete: 7 damaged
F1M2 Pete: 1 destroyed on ground
Ki-27b Nate: 1 damaged
Japanese Ships
xAK Tokiwa Maru, Shell hits 1
Allied Ships
CL Phoenix
CL Boise
CL Honolulu
Japanese ground losses: 256 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 2 destroyed, 20 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Guns lost 5 (1 destroyed, 4 disabled)
It was odd to come back to a comment from mindmessing suggesting I'd stepped too far, that this was the wrong strategy, letting me know how I could have got "clean away" if I'd played this differently. I feel it's important to mention a few things I'd decided about playing the Allies.
I should clarify that my gripe wasn't that it was an unsound strategic move - it isn't. It's how the Allies should be played in my view.
My feeling was that the tactical execution was what let you down - the Makassar straits were the key factor - you didn't have the sea room to dance around the IJN surface task forces. If you had your heart set on fighting in the DEI, doing it in a region where you've the room to do high speed runs in several directions would have been a much better choice.
The overarching thought I've had reading has been "Why the DEI?".
If the KB ties itself down at PH for 10 days, the Home Islands are ripe for plundering VP's, and there's oodles of searoom out there. Bombs falling on industrial centres in 1941 is likely to have a much greater strategic impact on Lowpe's planning than picking off amphib TF's in CENTPAC.
I wouldn't replace Percival. Too many PPs. Way too many. Leaders in HQ's don't seem to make much difference for nearly everything.
Interesting. It feels to me like there isn't much to spend on right now, although I know I'll be short forever. In this game I won't be doing much offensively for a while, and spending PPs to get Singers to hold even a month longer, causing more damage to IJA troops could be very worth it considering the invasion bonus. Once that ends I'll (usually) have some wanting about his prep for targets, and so know if something big s coming.
ORIGINAL: Canoerebel
It's an interesting question, isn't it? Pay precious PPs to change Percival in hopes that the troops can hold longer under a new leader.
When an experienced player is involved, I think it's a call to make shortly before Singers comes under attack...and more by feel than by certainty. Are the Allies already holding Singers longer and more strongly than expected? Has the Japanese player already stubbed his toe? Are the Japanese units rather beat up and advancing in disarray?
Under very limited circumstance, I might replace Percival. (I did so in an early game.) But as a general rule I agree that the Political Point cost is too high for a return that's modest, at best.
I agree it can be worth it, but wouldn't you want those troops to be in good shape, with decent morale, for the river crossing if you're going to spend the points at all? Seems like the most critical moment is the first step over the water for the IJA.
I'd rather replace the commanders in the units. That would have a more direct effect than the HQ commander, who arguably only has a chance (my understanding is not complete because I've written it off as "probably doesn't matter, especially for hundreds of PPs") to affect the outcome of combats whereas individual unit commanders always impact the AV of their respective unit in combat.
Got it. Yeah, I've already gotten the two Indian IDs replaced, and looking to do the same to the Aussie brigades. Then I'll see how I feel about the others. Everyone is bad in these units. Not one even decent commander, which is kind of amazing.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill
It was odd to come back to a comment from mindmessing suggesting I'd stepped too far, that this was the wrong strategy, letting me know how I could have got "clean away" if I'd played this differently. I feel it's important to mention a few things I'd decided about playing the Allies.
I should clarify that my gripe wasn't that it was an unsound strategic move - it isn't. It's how the Allies should be played in my view.
My feeling was that the tactical execution was what let you down - the Makassar straits were the key factor - you didn't have the sea room to dance around the IJN surface task forces. If you had your heart set on fighting in the DEI, doing it in a region where you've the room to do high speed runs in several directions would have been a much better choice.
The overarching thought I've had reading has been "Why the DEI?".
If the KB ties itself down at PH for 10 days, the Home Islands are ripe for plundering VP's, and there's oodles of searoom out there. Bombs falling on industrial centres in 1941 is likely to have a much greater strategic impact on Lowpe's planning than picking off amphib TF's in CENTPAC.
I hear you, but those targets are out of range. The oilers, (funny it's the oilers, as that's kind of the idea in this game for me, that it's the logistics, both sides, that I'd like to highlight), but the oilers are too slow and vulnerable to get into range to help at that point. I had one out there, but did the math, and it couldn't have gotten to a place that would have let Lexington, and especially not Lex and Enterprise, make it to the HI and back. The KB could have simply turned North after the strike, even if we did have fuel in place, and block the retreat.
In hindsight heading directly to the DEI would have been even better. I would have had a chance to slow to approach to a few targets. Getting the USN CAs and CLs over there though took a while, and I didn't want to go in without those. The goals were to hit the oil, hit the invasions if possible, and slow the process until the KB arrived. I also realised later that surface battles, even ones where we didn't come out completely on top, could set the IJN back for later second tier invasions in OZ or India.
My difficulty was letting Force Z really be expendable. I thought I felt they were, but when it came time to actually save them I tried to do too much. One turn of getting back on Jan 2nd or 3rd I believe would have gotten the CVs to a safe area near the Celebes and Macassar shielded by four ammo rich SCTFs and out of range of the BBs. I screwed the pooch on that turn, mostly because I didn't have a clear view of everything that was coming and trusted my air search too fully. I gambled, and lost big.
If I play that turn again, I sink Ryujo most likely (as happened anyway that day anyway), maybe a few more CAs or CVL/CVE, and kept surface forces mostly intact, but likely I would have lost PoW. Now I'd happily return to that choice and make the right one. Hindsight is a bitch. [:)][:(]
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill
It was odd to come back to a comment from mindmessing suggesting I'd stepped too far, that this was the wrong strategy, letting me know how I could have got "clean away" if I'd played this differently. I feel it's important to mention a few things I'd decided about playing the Allies.
I should clarify that my gripe wasn't that it was an unsound strategic move - it isn't. It's how the Allies should be played in my view.
My feeling was that the tactical execution was what let you down - the Makassar straits were the key factor - you didn't have the sea room to dance around the IJN surface task forces. If you had your heart set on fighting in the DEI, doing it in a region where you've the room to do high speed runs in several directions would have been a much better choice.
The overarching thought I've had reading has been "Why the DEI?".
If the KB ties itself down at PH for 10 days, the Home Islands are ripe for plundering VP's, and there's oodles of searoom out there. Bombs falling on industrial centres in 1941 is likely to have a much greater strategic impact on Lowpe's planning than picking off amphib TF's in CENTPAC.
I hear you, but those targets are out of range. The oilers, (funny it's the oilers, as that's kind of the idea in this game for me, that it's the logistics, both sides, that I'd like to highlight), but the oilers are two slow and vulnerable to get into range to help at that point. I had one out there, but did the math, and it couldn't have gotten to a place that would have let Lexington, and especially not Lex and Enterprise, make it to the HI and back. The KB could have simply turned North after the strike, even if we did have fuel in place, and block the retreat.
In hindsight heading directly to the DEI would have been even better. I would have had a chance to slow to approach to a few targets. Getting the USN CAs and CLs over there though took a while, and I didn't want to go in without those.
My difficulty was letting Force Z really be expendable. I thought I felt they were, but when it came time to actually save them I tried to do too much. One turn of getting back on Jan 2nd or 3rd I believe would have gotten the CVs to a safe area near the Celebes and Macassar shielded by four ammo rich SCTFs and out of range of the BBs. I screwed the pooch on that turn, mostly because I didn't have a clear view of everything that was coming and trusted my air search too fully. I gambled, and lost big.
If I play that turn again, I sink Ryujo most likely (as happened anyway that day anyway), maybe a few more CAs or CVL/CVE, and kept surface forces mostly intact, but likely I would have lost PoW. Now I'd happily return to that choice and make the right one. Hindsight is a bitch. [:)][:(]
We'll agree to disagree regarding the HI being out of range - even if there's no dedicated AO ships, there's plenty of time for fuel-laden xAK's from the West Coast to position themselves.
The fear of the KB turning north from PH and barring the door is rational, but the KB is as fuel-limited as you are, and there's a lot of open ocean for the KB to search just when the demand for it is highest.
I suppose I can't really fault you for discounting it. It is a high risk move, but the merits of it for me lies in the fact that it's a move that demands an immediate Japanese response.
NoPac and weather - Your other opponent will have a major influence on what goes on up here. I had 2 CV and CVL NOT get hit by KB vs John 3rd with them only 4 hexes away. [:D] I would suggest that you take time each turn up north just clicking on hexes to determine if there are major weather fronts moving through. It happens a lot and Mr Blizzard has been a friend of mine.
I should clarify that my gripe wasn't that it was an unsound strategic move - it isn't. It's how the Allies should be played in my view.
My feeling was that the tactical execution was what let you down - the Makassar straits were the key factor - you didn't have the sea room to dance around the IJN surface task forces. If you had your heart set on fighting in the DEI, doing it in a region where you've the room to do high speed runs in several directions would have been a much better choice.
The overarching thought I've had reading has been "Why the DEI?".
If the KB ties itself down at PH for 10 days, the Home Islands are ripe for plundering VP's, and there's oodles of searoom out there. Bombs falling on industrial centres in 1941 is likely to have a much greater strategic impact on Lowpe's planning than picking off amphib TF's in CENTPAC.
I hear you, but those targets are out of range. The oilers, (funny it's the oilers, as that's kind of the idea in this game for me, that it's the logistics, both sides, that I'd like to highlight), but the oilers are two slow and vulnerable to get into range to help at that point. I had one out there, but did the math, and it couldn't have gotten to a place that would have let Lexington, and especially not Lex and Enterprise, make it to the HI and back. The KB could have simply turned North after the strike, even if we did have fuel in place, and block the retreat.
In hindsight heading directly to the DEI would have been even better. I would have had a chance to slow to approach to a few targets. Getting the USN CAs and CLs over there though took a while, and I didn't want to go in without those.
My difficulty was letting Force Z really be expendable. I thought I felt they were, but when it came time to actually save them I tried to do too much. One turn of getting back on Jan 2nd or 3rd I believe would have gotten the CVs to a safe area near the Celebes and Macassar shielded by four ammo rich SCTFs and out of range of the BBs. I screwed the pooch on that turn, mostly because I didn't have a clear view of everything that was coming and trusted my air search too fully. I gambled, and lost big.
If I play that turn again, I sink Ryujo most likely (as happened anyway that day anyway), maybe a few more CAs or CVL/CVE, and kept surface forces mostly intact, but likely I would have lost PoW. Now I'd happily return to that choice and make the right one. Hindsight is a bitch. [:)][:(]
We'll agree to disagree regarding the HI being out of range - even if there's no dedicated AO ships, there's plenty of time for fuel-laden xAK's from the West Coast to position themselves.
The fear of the KB turning north from PH and barring the door is rational, but the KB is as fuel-limited as you are, and there's a lot of open ocean for the KB to search just when the demand for it is highest.
I suppose I can't really fault you for discounting it. It is a high risk move, but the merits of it for me lies in the fact that it's a move that demands an immediate Japanese response.
The KB has oilers aplenty though, and he kept his close enough to count.
This was very early stuff. As I say, I did send a slow AO, the Sepulga, but it was NE of Midway still by Dec 14.
The KB set off from PH and headed home the 14th, was near Midway by the 17th.
The Lex and Enterprise had joined up by the 14th but had low fuel and had to head South. Sepulga wasn't in range, and the KB was coming from that direction. In fact if the CVs had headed North they would't have been fueled until around the 20th.
By that time the KB would be around Wake.
If we went immediately we would have hit some shipping up there by at least the time the KB got to Truk. So the mission would be scraped and the KB in great position to support So Pac and DEI. The USN would retreat to protect No Pac and wait.
So you're right in a sense. This would have been MUCH better considering what did happen. But I'm glad to be playing this game and not that one! [;)]
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill
The USN has much larger fuel bunkers on their ships. The CVs alone have Endurance values north of 10K. I didn't need oilers for my trip to Japan in April '42, not like Japan needs oilers if they want to hang around Hawaii at all.
The USN has much larger fuel bunkers on their ships. The CVs alone have Endurance values north of 10K. I didn't need oilers for my trip to Japan in April '42, not like Japan needs oilers if they want to hang around Hawaii at all.
Sure. When did you do that though? Mind messing is saying that I should have gone to the HI instead of to the DEI. Although I'd have loved to hit some industry in the Home Islands, it just wasn't feasible at this point in game with the fuel the CVs begin with and the available mobile replenishment options in the first two weeks of the war.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill
[/center]