Reunited - Game Over Japanese Victory

[Lowpe]

ORIGINAL: Wargmr

Scenario 2, Da Babes version, PDU off

I think the PDU off version needs some tweaking in the editor for Japan with respect to plane upgrades for the late war.

There is no squadrons that flys Norm or Myrt NF, should be at least one of each.

I think Japan needs to be able to spend some PP on converting some fighter groups into night bombers. Not many, 1-2 squadrons.

Dedicated kamikazes are also severely restricted....and in general are not available at all prior to June of 1945. There is one Myojo squadron earlier, and you might be able to field a Kikka or two....but Japan will rely upon converting other models into kamikazes rather than using a purpose built kamikaze.

One thing we haven't really seen in recent AARs is the use of designated kamikaze planes... I for one would like to see what NJP could accomplish with such a program.

[Bif1961]

I attacked PH and had set 3 Kate squadrons for torpedoes but only one carried them, dropping 27 torpedoes. I did a 2nd day attack and had all Kate squadrons carry torpedoes, except from the one from the 1st attack, and none were dropped on the 2nd day. So if you can explain that please do as I sunk ZERO BBs at PH for the first time playing this game in my 9 years. Even though 5 of 6 Kate squadrons were set to carry torpedoes on the 2nd day port attack they all dropped bombs, which were not set for them to carry.

[Bif1961]

He obviously left many of his Zeros on airfield attack as he suffered heavily from AAA. If he lost 10 Zeros and 17 damaged that would mean he is probably down 10% and might not risk losing more on a 2nd strike.

[Lowpe]

ORIGINAL: Bif1961

I attacked PH and had set 3 Kate squadrons for torpedoes but only one carried them, dropping 27 torpedoes. I did a 2nd day attack and had all Kate squadrons carry torpedoes, except from the one from the 1st attack, and none were dropped on the 2nd day. So if you can explain that please do as I sunk ZERO BBs at PH for the first time playing this game in my 9 years. Even though 5 of 6 Kate squadrons were set to carry torpedoes on the 2nd day port attack they all dropped bombs, which were not set for them to carry.

You can toggle torpedoes off, but on a port strike mission set with torpedoes on, there is some kind of hidden leadership roll where the local commanders decide based upon intel, luck, weather, etc, etc, whether or not to load torpedoes or bombs.

[Bif1961]

So we can call that the "Nagumo affect?" Like I stated in the first attack 1 Kate squadron of three set for port attack with torpedoes actually ended up carrying them and none of the 5 Kate squadrons carried them on the 2nd attack, though they were set too.That seems to be a lot of independent action for such a structured and rigged military system. Hey what are all those torpedoes doing here, we are trying to sink ships let's use even more 250Kg bombs now we have expended all our 800KG ones and put these torpedoes away they are messing up my hangar deck.

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

ORIGINAL: Bif1961

I attacked PH and had set 3 Kate squadrons for torpedoes but only one carried them, dropping 27 torpedoes. I did a 2nd day attack and had all Kate squadrons carry torpedoes, except from the one from the 1st attack, and none were dropped on the 2nd day. So if you can explain that please do as I sunk ZERO BBs at PH for the first time playing this game in my 9 years. Even though 5 of 6 Kate squadrons were set to carry torpedoes on the 2nd day port attack they all dropped bombs, which were not set for them to carry.

You can toggle torpedoes off, but on a port strike mission set with torpedoes on, there is some kind of hidden leadership roll where the local commanders decide based upon intel, luck, weather, etc, etc, whether or not to load torpedoes or bombs.

I always figured it was the weather at takeoff - TBs cannot take off with torps in stormy conditions so they switch to bombs. At least that always seemed to happen when I had RN carriers in poor weather conditions and ordered a carrier strike.

EDIT: PS - and the Devastators can't carry torps to even normal range, plus they don't attack at all at range 3 unless the weather is perfect for launch.

[AlessandroD]

ny59giants and Lowpe, interesting points.
Preserving the torpedoes for further actions can keep the KB at sea much longer.
We will see if it will pay off at the end.

[Mike McCreery]

He did state that the computer chose to do it and not him. I give it a 66% percent chance of him telling the truth but couldnt blame him for psyops if that was his goal ;]

Japanese planes managed to kill more allied fighters numerically but due to the large amount of Zero's shot down I am happy with the day. Dababes AA is murderous.

[Zorch]

Weren't there a limited number (about 40?) of fin-equipped torpedoes carried for the Pearl Harbor strike? Regular torps would bottom out.

[Bif1961]

In two days worth of strikes against PH my Kates only carried 27 torpedoes. Though I set a total of 8 of 12 Kate squadrons to carry torpedoes over those 2 days of strikes. If you look at PH strikes in other AARs they show closer to 54 used on the first day strike alone. Just went back and read John III against Canoerebels PH attack. He sent only 4 Kate squadrons, 3 carrying torpedoes he got 31 hits out of 81 dropped. Compare I used all 6 carriers for 2 days and only dropped 27 torpedoes. In Lowpe vs Obvert's game a total of 127 torpedoes were dropped form 5 of 6 Kate squadrons, that's more torpedoes dropped in one strike then I dropped in 2 days worth of strikes.

[BillBrown]

A snippet form the manual, section 7.2.1.7

Bombers attacking ports will attack any ships at anchor 50% of the time, however, TF’s docked
in port will not be attacked. These attacks use bombs with only a small percentage of torpedo
bombers using torpedoes (as it is assumed these ships may be in dry dock or protected by
torpedo nets). If there are less than 10 ships at port, the chance of bombers attacking ships
lessens with each number less than 10 (so, bombers would be more likely to attack ships if 9
were in port as opposed to 4).

As far as I can remember, the torpedo setting has no effect on a port attack.

[Lowpe]

ORIGINAL: BillBrown

A snippet form the manual, section 7.2.1.7

Bombers attacking ports will attack any ships at anchor 50% of the time,

This may or may not be true anymore. Normally, when I am bombed in port, ships will be hit 2-1 or even 3-1 with effective hits. These numbers are very consistent over many, many bombing runs. Also, battleships and carriers are absolute bomb magnets and I doubt the having fewer than 10 ships represents any lesser risk to the ship being targeted.

It might be true if ships are exceptionally vulnerable more so than a fortified port say, and any plane that attacks ships in ports will have a much higher percentage to hit the ship than if it simply attacked the port.

[Mike McCreery]

Resource points and LI production

There is 80 LI at Pearl Harbor that needs resource points to produce supplies. As I understand it, each LI needs 15 resource points per day to produce. So, Pearl Harbor needs 36,000 resource points to produce for 30 days and it will generate 2,400 supplies over that period of time.

Given the fact that I could simply drop off 36,000 tons of supplies instead of resource points is there any reason why I would consider trying to keep the LI here operating?

Is my math right?

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: Wargmr

Resource points and LI production

There is 80 LI at Pearl Harbor that needs resource points to produce supplies. As I understand it, each LI needs 15 resource points per day to produce. So, Pearl Harbor needs 36,000 resource points to produce for 30 days and it will generate 2,400 supplies over that period of time.

Given the fact that I could simply drop off 36,000 tons of supplies instead of resource points is there any reason why I would consider trying to keep the LI here operating?

Is my math right?

Your math looks right. The issue is availability and vulnerability of ships hauling from the US plus the lack of escorts at game start. So using a couple of xAKLs to haul resources from Hilo (using coastal routing to keep in shallow water) is a good way to get supply from the LI for a while. But if any LI is damaged I would not bother repairing it.

Other locations on the map have some nearby resources that would help with their supply paucity. I am thinking of Australia, which can get resources from Pt. Hedland or Noumea to the rail lines at Geraldton and Brisbane respectively (if the fuel usage is affordable).

But in most cases you are right - it is better to haul supply rather than resources.

[AlessandroD]

In my game I want to keep the PH production on and I'm trying to send oil to Australia from DEI as well, not really needed but just for chrome [:)]

[CaptBeefheart]

I'm with BBfanboy on this. I usually set up a small resource convoy from Hilo or Kona to Pearl early on, and that's the only place on the map I bother moving resources.

Cheers,
CC

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: Commander Cody

I'm with BBfanboy on this. I usually set up a small resource convoy from Hilo or Kona to Pearl early on, and that's the only place on the map I bother moving resources.

Cheers,
CC

I forgot to mention Tasmania - Sale, although the Japanese subs like to stake out the Bass Strait during the first six months.

[Mike McCreery]

Day 1 is surprisingly quiet. No land attacks on the Phillipines which may follow NJP's habit of ignoring them until the DEI is secured. On day 2 I get a bonus attack. Transports are moving in the pacific and my carrier group that darted west to pick up fighters has accidentally run into them.

[Mike McCreery]

NJP is in an interesting position. The KB is to the upper right of the screen. I am concerned that if he makes a flank move he could catch my carrier fleet to the south. His transports are in danger to the west. Which way will he go?

When we started the game NJP said he wanted to try something new. His first campaign waged into India, the second almost completely conquered Australia. The only 'new' frontier is the West coast and the Hawaiian Islands. I am wondering if he is going to give this a try.

Troop ships heading toward Johnston island give me a clue that it may happen. We shall see.

[Yaab]

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: Wargmr

Resource points and LI production

There is 80 LI at Pearl Harbor that needs resource points to produce supplies. As I understand it, each LI needs 15 resource points per day to produce. So, Pearl Harbor needs 36,000 resource points to produce for 30 days and it will generate 2,400 supplies over that period of time.

Given the fact that I could simply drop off 36,000 tons of supplies instead of resource points is there any reason why I would consider trying to keep the LI here operating?

Is my math right?

Your math looks right. The issue is availability and vulnerability of ships hauling from the US plus the lack of escorts at game start. So using a couple of xAKLs to haul resources from Hilo (using coastal routing to keep in shallow water) is a good way to get supply from the LI for a while. But if any LI is damaged I would not bother repairing it.

Other locations on the map have some nearby resources that would help with their supply paucity. I am thinking of Australia, which can get resources from Pt. Hedland or Noumea to the rail lines at Geraldton and Brisbane respectively (if the fuel usage is affordable).

But in most cases you are right - it is better to haul supply rather than resources.

Pearl H. gets the resources from Hilo and the xAKLs crew up their experience in transit.