Ooops, I did it again (Lowpe (J) vs ?(A)

Post descriptions of your brilliant victories and unfortunate defeats here.

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

User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

RE: Ooops, I did it again (Lowpe (J) vs ?(A)

Post by Lowpe »

I plan to section and eviscerate Malaya. I want Singapore before Jan 1, 1942.

I am not sure what kind of ship surge will leave Singers...junky ships first to deplete ammo, or everything at once.

Recon is pretty decent.

Image
Attachments
animatedarmorimage.jpg
animatedarmorimage.jpg (241.15 KiB) Viewed 335 times
GetAssista
Posts: 2836
Joined: Sat Sep 19, 2009 6:13 am

RE: Ooops, I did it again (Lowpe (J) vs ?(A)

Post by GetAssista »

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe
I don't understand why the Japanese troop carrying task forces had ships with widely disparate speeds. That does not work very well in my opinion. That is one thing that I try to avoid.
You can't avoid it at start duh. Loadouts are already set for many invasion convoys. You can rearrange ships in TFs but you better sail the specific LCU into one destination no matter the ships LCU is dispersed into.
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

RE: Ooops, I did it again (Lowpe (J) vs ?(A)

Post by Lowpe »

Vietnam[;)]

Image
Attachments
animatedarmorimage.jpg
animatedarmorimage.jpg (129.89 KiB) Viewed 335 times
User avatar
RangerJoe
Posts: 19021
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 2:39 pm
Location: Who knows?

RE: Ooops, I did it again (Lowpe (J) vs ?(A)

Post by RangerJoe »

ORIGINAL: GetAssista
ORIGINAL: RangerJoe
I don't understand why the Japanese troop carrying task forces had ships with widely disparate speeds. That does not work very well in my opinion. That is one thing that I try to avoid.
You can't avoid it at start duh. Loadouts are already set for many invasion convoys. You can rearrange ships in TFs but you better sail the specific LCU into one destination no matter the ships LCU is dispersed into.

I know but it is irritating to have relatively fast ships with a few 10 knot ships in a convoy.
Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing! :o

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
:twisted: ; Julia Child
Image
Alfred
Posts: 6683
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 7:56 am

RE: Ooops, I did it again (Lowpe (J) vs ?(A)

Post by Alfred »

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: GetAssista
ORIGINAL: RangerJoe
I don't understand why the Japanese troop carrying task forces had ships with widely disparate speeds. That does not work very well in my opinion. That is one thing that I try to avoid.
You can't avoid it at start duh. Loadouts are already set for many invasion convoys. You can rearrange ships in TFs but you better sail the specific LCU into one destination no matter the ships LCU is dispersed into.

I know but it is irritating to have relatively fast ships with a few 10 knot ships in a convoy.

The question to be asked is what were the actual historical ships used by Japan to transport the initial invasion forces and therefore did the scenario designers replicate the historical record for fear of otherwise being criticized for not being historically correct.

Alfred

Alfred
Alfred
Posts: 6683
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 7:56 am

RE: Ooops, I did it again (Lowpe (J) vs ?(A)

Post by Alfred »

Indochina is the name of the aggregated area comprised of the separate regions of Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia.

Alfred
User avatar
RangerJoe
Posts: 19021
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 2:39 pm
Location: Who knows?

RE: Ooops, I did it again (Lowpe (J) vs ?(A)

Post by RangerJoe »

ORIGINAL: Alfred

Indochina is the name of the aggregated area comprised of the separate regions of Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia.

Alfred

I know that but I am referring to the map in the game. Plus, in the game, Cambodia is part of Siam.
Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing! :o

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
:twisted: ; Julia Child
Image
User avatar
Jorge_Stanbury
Posts: 4345
Joined: Wed Feb 29, 2012 12:57 pm
Location: Montreal

RE: Ooops, I did it again (Lowpe (J) vs ?(A)

Post by Jorge_Stanbury »

More proper names would be: Tonkin (North), Annam (Center), Cochinchine (South), Laos and Cambodia

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

RE: Ooops, I did it again (Lowpe (J) vs ?(A)

Post by mind_messing »

I've put a lot of thought into how to manage the initial pilot pools and training programme for to provide Japan with the best start. You might already be doing some of this, however. So far, my process has been:

1. Dump everyone flying a Nate with decent EXP (60+) into the reserve and use them to feed your frontline Oscar squadrons. Backfill with rookies and make the Nates training squadrons (except where needed for rear area CAP).

2. Dump all the decent IJA bomber pilots in China, Manchuria and Japan into the reserve. They'll feed the IJA bomber formations on the frontline, and act as a cadre for ASW training. The squadrons in Manchuria start the training programme, the China squadrons get rookies for on-the-job learning. The squadrons in Japan get the good EXP pilots to start building ASW skill.

3. Take one Betty/Nell squadron off the frontline to start IJN 2E training regime, and use the pilots as a reserve. This hurts operationally, but I think it's worthwhile to have the reserve and jump start the training process.

4. IJN land-based floatplane units need stripped of pilots to serve the ship-based squadrons and the patrol squadrons. Replace the lot with rookies and start a crash course ASW/NavS training regime. This hurts a bit, but there's not enough Jakes to go around before 6/42 and I don't rate the capability of the other IJN floatplanes. By the time you get Jakes enough for the land-based squadrons, your pilots should be in reasonable condition.

5. Move all recon squadrons in China, Manchuria and Japan off the frontline, bar one squadron in China for operational purposes. Let them train the existing pilots with NavS, then rotate to training a fresh batch. As the IJA recon pilot pool builds, you can rotate the squadrons back into operational duties (timed so they'll be shifting over to the Dinah rather than the Babs at this point).

6. Pull all the IJN recon squadrons off the frontline, train existing pilots with NavS for a bit, then start a fresh Recon/NavS regime with rookies. By the time the Judy-C rolls off the lines, you should have a nice pool of weathered pilots, backed up by a solid cadre of trained ones, and enough floatplane squadrons to shift Recon training to them.

7. Any IJN fighter pilots in Claudes get pulled off the frontline, replaced with rookies and set to train. IJN fighter pilots are like gold-dust until the squadrons get resized and training ramps up.

Essentially, the theme is to draw down some of Japan's Dec 7th advantages in terms of pilot quality to provide some depth to the pilot pools, stalling for better airframes and using the reduced frontline capacity to jumpstart the training programme on day one.

This plan does have the impact of drawing down Japan's frontline capacity by a good margin, but Allied starting assets in the DEI are so weak that it shouldn't be serious.
User avatar
Jorge_Stanbury
Posts: 4345
Joined: Wed Feb 29, 2012 12:57 pm
Location: Montreal

RE: Ooops, I did it again (Lowpe (J) vs ?(A)

Post by Jorge_Stanbury »

I would keep the navy recon and instead use a small land-based FP squadron to train recon pilots
I like to recon as much as I can, specially since experienced Allied players like to ambush

I avoid using IJA for naval search or ASW, but that is more for role playing reasons

otherwise, I agree. I definitively want experienced pilots out of Nates and Claudes
mind_messing
Posts: 3394
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 11:59 am

RE: Ooops, I did it again (Lowpe (J) vs ?(A)

Post by mind_messing »

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

I would keep the navy recon and instead use a small land-based FP squadron to train recon pilots
I like to recon as much as I can, specially since experienced Allied players like to ambush

I avoid using IJA for naval search or ASW, but that is more for role playing reasons

otherwise, I agree. I definitively want experienced pilots out of Nates and Claudes

The problem with the floatplanes is they're already going to be working off a large pilot deficit from Dec 7th. The shipboard squadrons will eat the initial pool of experienced pilots, and then you're hard pressed to get enough trained pilots for resized squadrons into to Jakes and onto the frontlines.

The initial IJN recon force is very small, and uses the same airframe as the IJA until the Judy-C comes along. The IJA has the excess recon squadrons to carry water in the meantime, and a much bigger reserve of pilots to support it.

Once you're into 1943 and flush with floatplane pilots then switching to recon floatplane training is the best course, but until then I'm convinced in using the existing IJN recon for training until you get a plane worth flying in the Judy-C.

Every one of those 70 EXP IJN recon pilots that dies in a Babs is one that never gets to do crazy 20 hex recon missions...
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

RE: Ooops, I did it again (Lowpe (J) vs ?(A)

Post by Lowpe »

I will be sending PB ASW Task Forces into the Soc Trang circle of Dutch death...and avoiding it with everything else.

It is always interesting to see how the local Captains plot their courses...here the large CA force at Kota Bharu comes up with a convoluted path to the destination hex, and then hopefully a run straight north into Saigon for re-arming.

3rd Air Division, with 4 hex range, will head to Kota Bharu to give torpedoes to a lot of bases, Patani (for TB) Kuantan and Kota Bharu for Betties and Nells. This should seal off the Strait of Malacca if I can avoid Cap Traps...will be sweeping a lot this day.

You can see I left Singora and Patani empty. Will be occupying them with RTA fractional divisions, while most other troops are heading for prize of Singapore by ship.



Image
Attachments
animatedarmorimage.jpg
animatedarmorimage.jpg (220.48 KiB) Viewed 335 times
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

RE: Ooops, I did it again (Lowpe (J) vs ?(A)

Post by Lowpe »

Marshalls...here is a nasty surprise should Lady Lex and Big E come calling very early...often the ships in port are a tempting target early on. There is a small chance he can get here on Dec 8th for a strike. Of course nothing spotted yet...and with Wake taken, the KB at Singers, this has to be a really tempting strike...but it most likely would be in a few more days so that the American CVs can meet up and provide mutual support.

He probably won't come...but rather look to stop invasions around Baker Island and west.

I need to tinker with the squadron settings, here and create lots of task forces running away, plus figure out how to take Makin & Tarawa without losing ships.



Image

Note the 24th is in command and will greatly at coordinating naval strikes.
Attachments
animatedarmorimage.jpg
animatedarmorimage.jpg (290.99 KiB) Viewed 335 times
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

RE: Ooops, I did it again (Lowpe (J) vs ?(A)

Post by Lowpe »

Was able to fully form up the 13th KuK-1 at Roi now has 41 planes (max is 36)…

Was able to upgrade some floatplanes at Truk...so I should be able to upgrade the Claudes to Zeroes too I think, depending upon command chain.

User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

RE: Ooops, I did it again (Lowpe (J) vs ?(A)

Post by Lowpe »

By playing the upgrade game, I will shortly have 3 squadrons of 27 Zeroes here in the Marshalls a chutai of 8 Rufe and a chutai of 9 Claudes at Truk.

I can't increase the Rufe squadron, as it is set to expand in 43 nor the Chutai of Claudes at Truk. I stripped the pilots from the Claude chutai and set them to training. I don't see any reason to upgrade the Claudes to Zeroes at this point, although I certainly could.

I was also able to upgrade the Betty detachment to Nells and have it rejoin the parent at Roi (they have such great range).

So that is a very significant increase in air power in the Marshalls.

I flew the Claudes from Roi to Ponape, and one is disabled. I could upgrade now to Zeroes and then load them unto the Taiyo or await the 1 plane repairing and fly them to Truk for their upgrade...currently the Taiyo is west of Truk.





Image
Attachments
animatedarmorimage.jpg
animatedarmorimage.jpg (181.43 KiB) Viewed 335 times
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

RE: Ooops, I did it again (Lowpe (J) vs ?(A)

Post by Lowpe »

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

I've put a lot of thought into how to manage the initial pilot pools and training programme for to provide Japan with the best start. You might already be doing some of this, however. So far, my process has been:

1. Dump everyone flying a Nate with decent EXP (60+) into the reserve and use them to feed your frontline Oscar squadrons. Backfill with rookies and make the Nates training squadrons (except where needed for rear area CAP).

2. Dump all the decent IJA bomber pilots in China, Manchuria and Japan into the reserve. They'll feed the IJA bomber formations on the frontline, and act as a cadre for ASW training. The squadrons in Manchuria start the training programme, the China squadrons get rookies for on-the-job learning. The squadrons in Japan get the good EXP pilots to start building ASW skill.

3. Take one Betty/Nell squadron off the frontline to start IJN 2E training regime, and use the pilots as a reserve. This hurts operationally, but I think it's worthwhile to have the reserve and jump start the training process.

4. IJN land-based floatplane units need stripped of pilots to serve the ship-based squadrons and the patrol squadrons. Replace the lot with rookies and start a crash course ASW/NavS training regime. This hurts a bit, but there's not enough Jakes to go around before 6/42 and I don't rate the capability of the other IJN floatplanes. By the time you get Jakes enough for the land-based squadrons, your pilots should be in reasonable condition.

5. Move all recon squadrons in China, Manchuria and Japan off the frontline, bar one squadron in China for operational purposes. Let them train the existing pilots with NavS, then rotate to training a fresh batch. As the IJA recon pilot pool builds, you can rotate the squadrons back into operational duties (timed so they'll be shifting over to the Dinah rather than the Babs at this point).

6. Pull all the IJN recon squadrons off the frontline, train existing pilots with NavS for a bit, then start a fresh Recon/NavS regime with rookies. By the time the Judy-C rolls off the lines, you should have a nice pool of weathered pilots, backed up by a solid cadre of trained ones, and enough floatplane squadrons to shift Recon training to them.

7. Any IJN fighter pilots in Claudes get pulled off the frontline, replaced with rookies and set to train. IJN fighter pilots are like gold-dust until the squadrons get resized and training ramps up.

Essentially, the theme is to draw down some of Japan's Dec 7th advantages in terms of pilot quality to provide some depth to the pilot pools, stalling for better airframes and using the reduced frontline capacity to jumpstart the training programme on day one.

This plan does have the impact of drawing down Japan's frontline capacity by a good margin, but Allied starting assets in the DEI are so weak that it shouldn't be serious.

As always thanks for the insights.[:)]

I do do a fair bit of this...but I just can't see myself taking off a Betty or Nell squadron this early. I generally will use only torpedo bombers to train pilots for them, and then graduate them into the Nell squadrons I use for search to gain experience and then into attack squadrons.

I usually end up transferring some of the Betties/Nells out of the SRA to cover other areas early...I fully expect Lok to come calling somewhere unexpected early on. Perhaps Guam, Perhaps Makin, Marshalls, Rabaul etc., etc. Need to cover my bases...

I do not want to end up using 3000 Jakes over the course of the game as a vp gift to the Allies from naval search, and would much rather use Dinah II and III in the naval search role. Jakes can do recon at 28K, but I fear they will need really strong skills to do so with any degree of accuracy. Gonna give it a try.[;)]


User avatar
RangerJoe
Posts: 19021
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 2:39 pm
Location: Who knows?

RE: Ooops, I did it again (Lowpe (J) vs ?(A)

Post by RangerJoe »

The IJA Babs ad the IJN Babs should use different engines so they should be different air frames and pools.
Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing! :o

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
:twisted: ; Julia Child
Image
mind_messing
Posts: 3394
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 11:59 am

RE: Ooops, I did it again (Lowpe (J) vs ?(A)

Post by mind_messing »

ORIGINAL: Lowpe
ORIGINAL: mind_messing

I've put a lot of thought into how to manage the initial pilot pools and training programme for to provide Japan with the best start. You might already be doing some of this, however. So far, my process has been:

1. Dump everyone flying a Nate with decent EXP (60+) into the reserve and use them to feed your frontline Oscar squadrons. Backfill with rookies and make the Nates training squadrons (except where needed for rear area CAP).

2. Dump all the decent IJA bomber pilots in China, Manchuria and Japan into the reserve. They'll feed the IJA bomber formations on the frontline, and act as a cadre for ASW training. The squadrons in Manchuria start the training programme, the China squadrons get rookies for on-the-job learning. The squadrons in Japan get the good EXP pilots to start building ASW skill.

3. Take one Betty/Nell squadron off the frontline to start IJN 2E training regime, and use the pilots as a reserve. This hurts operationally, but I think it's worthwhile to have the reserve and jump start the training process.

4. IJN land-based floatplane units need stripped of pilots to serve the ship-based squadrons and the patrol squadrons. Replace the lot with rookies and start a crash course ASW/NavS training regime. This hurts a bit, but there's not enough Jakes to go around before 6/42 and I don't rate the capability of the other IJN floatplanes. By the time you get Jakes enough for the land-based squadrons, your pilots should be in reasonable condition.

5. Move all recon squadrons in China, Manchuria and Japan off the frontline, bar one squadron in China for operational purposes. Let them train the existing pilots with NavS, then rotate to training a fresh batch. As the IJA recon pilot pool builds, you can rotate the squadrons back into operational duties (timed so they'll be shifting over to the Dinah rather than the Babs at this point).

6. Pull all the IJN recon squadrons off the frontline, train existing pilots with NavS for a bit, then start a fresh Recon/NavS regime with rookies. By the time the Judy-C rolls off the lines, you should have a nice pool of weathered pilots, backed up by a solid cadre of trained ones, and enough floatplane squadrons to shift Recon training to them.

7. Any IJN fighter pilots in Claudes get pulled off the frontline, replaced with rookies and set to train. IJN fighter pilots are like gold-dust until the squadrons get resized and training ramps up.

Essentially, the theme is to draw down some of Japan's Dec 7th advantages in terms of pilot quality to provide some depth to the pilot pools, stalling for better airframes and using the reduced frontline capacity to jumpstart the training programme on day one.

This plan does have the impact of drawing down Japan's frontline capacity by a good margin, but Allied starting assets in the DEI are so weak that it shouldn't be serious.

As always thanks for the insights.[:)]

I do do a fair bit of this...but I just can't see myself taking off a Betty or Nell squadron this early. I generally will use only torpedo bombers to train pilots for them, and then graduate them into the Nell squadrons I use for search to gain experience and then into attack squadrons.

Losing the Betty/Nell squadron is manageable if you're disciplined in how you use them - the IJN never does a mission that can't be done by IJA bombers. The loss is definitely felt in Dec 42, but once the first phase has settled down I think it becomes less noticeable.
I usually end up transferring some of the Betties/Nells out of the SRA to cover other areas early...I fully expect Lok to come calling somewhere unexpected early on. Perhaps Guam, Perhaps Makin, Marshalls, Rabaul etc., etc. Need to cover my bases...

He likes his NorPac raids, and he snuck some subs into the Sea of Japan to flip empty bases on the northern shore of Honshu. That was sneaky.
I do not want to end up using 3000 Jakes over the course of the game as a vp gift to the Allies from naval search, and would much rather use Dinah II and III in the naval search role. Jakes can do recon at 28K, but I fear they will need really strong skills to do so with any degree of accuracy. Gonna give it a try.

I think the Jakes are just the price you pay for good DL as Japan. Given the comparatively few patrol squadrons to cover a lot of ocean and lack of radars to drive DL up, I think the Jakes are worth the price. It's the inshore work, and particularly at night that I think they really do work for Japan.

Dinah's only take you so far, in my experience, and the Jake/AV combo is just super flexible.
scondon87
Posts: 89
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2015 9:15 pm

RE: Ooops, I did it again (Lowpe (J) vs ?(A)

Post by scondon87 »

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

The IJA Babs ad the IJN Babs should use different engines so they should be different air frames and pools.
Correct, they are different airframes in game.
mind_messing
Posts: 3394
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 11:59 am

RE: Ooops, I did it again (Lowpe (J) vs ?(A)

Post by mind_messing »

ORIGINAL: scondon87

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

The IJA Babs ad the IJN Babs should use different engines so they should be different air frames and pools.
Correct, they are different airframes in game.

Operationally, they're effectively identical. Same range and almost identical characteristics.
Post Reply

Return to “After Action Reports”