I think so, but I never tried it.
Less than helpful, I know.
Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))
Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition
Re: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))
Less than helpful, I know.
Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/view/staffmonkeys/home
Re: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))
Is this a permanent weight loss strategy, or will we only feel smaller when looking at the post?Lowpe wrote: Sat Aug 06, 2022 1:35 pm Friendly reminder, if you have problems with my posts due to size feel free to use Cntrl-mouseweel to zoom in and out.
Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/view/staffmonkeys/home
-
CaptBeefheart
- Posts: 2617
- Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2003 2:42 am
- Location: Seoul, Korea
Re: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))
You're probably doing a lot of this, but some things I do to save time and clicks are:
1. Visit the collection points about once a week (e.g. Cristobal, Aden, East Coast, etc.) and organize TFs, send ground and air units to where they should go, etc.
2. Deal with pilot training about once a month.
3. Automate as many supply convoys as possible.
4. Automate subs with a few exceptions like flooding a zone to pick up downed airmen and setting pickets to detect KB presence (not a good option if you're doing PBEM, of course).
5. Two-day turns.
6. Name non-routine TFs so you know their function.
7. Visit repair shipyards about once a week to make adjustments.
8. Put in a "rest" percentage so you don't need to tweak air units every turn.
These will mean sub-optimal play. The key is to save as much time for as little degradation in performance as possible.
By the way, thanks for making your graphics a bit smaller. It's working great for me.
Cheers,
CB
1. Visit the collection points about once a week (e.g. Cristobal, Aden, East Coast, etc.) and organize TFs, send ground and air units to where they should go, etc.
2. Deal with pilot training about once a month.
3. Automate as many supply convoys as possible.
4. Automate subs with a few exceptions like flooding a zone to pick up downed airmen and setting pickets to detect KB presence (not a good option if you're doing PBEM, of course).
5. Two-day turns.
6. Name non-routine TFs so you know their function.
7. Visit repair shipyards about once a week to make adjustments.
8. Put in a "rest" percentage so you don't need to tweak air units every turn.
These will mean sub-optimal play. The key is to save as much time for as little degradation in performance as possible.
By the way, thanks for making your graphics a bit smaller. It's working great for me.
Cheers,
CB
Beer, because barley makes lousy bread.
Re: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))
Another day...I am being very less aggressive than most AFBs in the air. I have standard milk runs against Tulagi and Nauru and three squadrons doing night bombing and other than that we sweep areas in Burma looking for bleeding CAP or LRCAP but rest every other day or more. Soon we will start this sweeping technique around Rabaul and New Guinea.
Port Moresby has start evacuating, 12 units there...
Here is a combat replay graphic that shows the abysmal Japanese recon....not spotting any of my forward bases.
Port Moresby has start evacuating, 12 units there...
Here is a combat replay graphic that shows the abysmal Japanese recon....not spotting any of my forward bases.
- a.jpg (546.57 KiB) Viewed 1169 times
Re: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))
Tracker plane losses sorted by op losses. I generally have what I feel is pretty high rest level for my planes but still have suffered:
For Allied losses the P40E I think suffered from sweeps with drop tanks on...
My standard C47 orders are 50% rest as short as possible and nothing at max range plus I try to keep planes in reserve. Doesn't really seem to help.
I have been trying to limit Catalina searches to 14 or 12 hexes...usually around a 30-40 percent search. Not really using search arcs.
Blenheims are from dropping supply...1 supply a plane. Probably not worth it.
Airacobras suffer the same as P40Es, plus they have done a fair bit of strafing which drives up op losses.
B17E were flying supply into China/Burma at 50% rest less than max range for the most part. There is a size 5 runway in China now if that makes a difference on the receiving end.
Hurricanes same as the other fighters, sweeps at range...
SBDs are kind of surprising to me...must be a combination of naval search of CVs and the earlier runs against Tulagi....
For Allied losses the P40E I think suffered from sweeps with drop tanks on...
My standard C47 orders are 50% rest as short as possible and nothing at max range plus I try to keep planes in reserve. Doesn't really seem to help.
I have been trying to limit Catalina searches to 14 or 12 hexes...usually around a 30-40 percent search. Not really using search arcs.
Blenheims are from dropping supply...1 supply a plane. Probably not worth it.
Airacobras suffer the same as P40Es, plus they have done a fair bit of strafing which drives up op losses.
B17E were flying supply into China/Burma at 50% rest less than max range for the most part. There is a size 5 runway in China now if that makes a difference on the receiving end.
Hurricanes same as the other fighters, sweeps at range...
SBDs are kind of surprising to me...must be a combination of naval search of CVs and the earlier runs against Tulagi....
- a.jpg (221.29 KiB) Viewed 1162 times
Re: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))
CaptBeefheart wrote: Tue Aug 09, 2022 2:50 am You're probably doing a lot of this, but some things I do to save time and clicks are:
1. Visit the collection points about once a week (e.g. Cristobal, Aden, East Coast, etc.) and organize TFs, send ground and air units to where they should go, etc.
2. Deal with pilot training about once a month.
3. Automate as many supply convoys as possible.
4. Automate subs with a few exceptions like flooding a zone to pick up downed airmen and setting pickets to detect KB presence (not a good option if you're doing PBEM, of course).
5. Two-day turns.
6. Name non-routine TFs so you know their function.
7. Visit repair shipyards about once a week to make adjustments.
8. Put in a "rest" percentage so you don't need to tweak air units every turn.
These will mean sub-optimal play. The key is to save as much time for as little degradation in performance as possible.
By the way, thanks for making your graphics a bit smaller. It's working great for me.
Cheers,
CB
automate subs? Never, ever did this...
Re: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))
Not sure I agree with your suspicions - wouldn't the fighters drop the tanks as soon as they saw the enemy? Or are you saying it is then a long trip back with little reserve fuel?Lowpe: For Allied losses the P40E I think suffered from sweeps with drop tanks on...
Certainly getting damaged far from home base is a driver of ops losses, so to the extent that DTs take the fighter further from home, that makes sense.
No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth
Re: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))
Who knows if your suppositions are used in the formula for the game....but it seems to me that sweeping with drop tanks on past normal range really drives up op losses. I believe Mr. Kane would only sweep when plane fatigue was around 10...All of my sweeps occur with average pilot fatigue below 10.
I vaguely remember recommending setting aerial naval search to around 12 for two reasons (search effectiveness and increased op losses beyond that point).
I also remember something about your either operating in normal range or extended.
YMMV
I vaguely remember recommending setting aerial naval search to around 12 for two reasons (search effectiveness and increased op losses beyond that point).
I also remember something about your either operating in normal range or extended.
YMMV
-
CaptBeefheart
- Posts: 2617
- Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2003 2:42 am
- Location: Seoul, Korea
Re: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))
Well, I expect most PBEMers don't automate subs. It works for a while but eventually they all end up in ports.
We think about the same regarding patrol aircraft like PBYs. I also read somewhere 12 was a good limit. I might go as high as the non-extended limit but will rarely go into extended range. Also, in my anecdotal experience, I don't think search arcs improve anything, so I save time by not setting them.
Sardauker has some ways to minimize transport aircraft ops losses, which you probably saw (scroll down): https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... s#p5011505
Cheers,
CB
We think about the same regarding patrol aircraft like PBYs. I also read somewhere 12 was a good limit. I might go as high as the non-extended limit but will rarely go into extended range. Also, in my anecdotal experience, I don't think search arcs improve anything, so I save time by not setting them.
Sardauker has some ways to minimize transport aircraft ops losses, which you probably saw (scroll down): https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... s#p5011505
Cheers,
CB
Beer, because barley makes lousy bread.
-
CaptBeefheart
- Posts: 2617
- Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2003 2:42 am
- Location: Seoul, Korea
Re: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))
I like how Forrest Sherman is the captain of that APc tub.
Cheers,
CB
Beer, because barley makes lousy bread.
Re: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))
Speaking of OPs losses, I do believe that they increase for any air operation above the range of "2" so that may be something to consider.
I used to read your AAR but I got away from it and I just saw this. So I really don't know what is going on in your game anymore. But fight a good fight and both of you have fun.
I used to read your AAR but I got away from it and I just saw this. So I really don't know what is going on in your game anymore. But fight a good fight and both of you have fun.
Seek peace but keep your gun handy.
I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!
“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
; Julia Child
I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!
“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
; Julia ChildRe: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))
Feb 14, 1943
One day prior to the invasion at Nauru....made a blunder and left 1/2 of the invasion force at Ocean. Going in anyhow... 
As usual the Iboats come out to play...and there really isn't enough dedicated ASW present!
One day prior to the invasion at Nauru....made a blunder and left 1/2 of the invasion force at Ocean. Going in anyhow...
As usual the Iboats come out to play...and there really isn't enough dedicated ASW present!
- a.jpg (196.85 KiB) Viewed 1011 times
Last edited by Lowpe on Thu Aug 11, 2022 3:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))
Feb 15th, 1943
Invasion day...and the Iboats strike, but also are paying a price at Nauru.
Sub attack near Nauru Island at 127,129
Japanese Ships
SS I-170, hits 2
Allied Ships
CA Salt Lake City
DD Lardner
SS I-170 launches 4 torpedoes at CA Salt Lake City
Sub attack near Nauru Island at 128,129
Japanese Ships
SS I-180
Allied Ships
BB Idaho, Torpedo hits 1
DE Lawrence
DMS Perry
DD Gilmer
DD Worden
DD Drayton
SS I-180 launches 6 torpedoes at BB Idaho
Invasion day...and the Iboats strike, but also are paying a price at Nauru.
Sub attack near Nauru Island at 127,129
Japanese Ships
SS I-170, hits 2
Allied Ships
CA Salt Lake City
DD Lardner
SS I-170 launches 4 torpedoes at CA Salt Lake City
Sub attack near Nauru Island at 128,129
Japanese Ships
SS I-180
Allied Ships
BB Idaho, Torpedo hits 1
DE Lawrence
DMS Perry
DD Gilmer
DD Worden
DD Drayton
SS I-180 launches 6 torpedoes at BB Idaho
Re: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))
Just some Marines and Tanks are landing...but I fear for the smaller raiding regiments that are landing and really should have been in the 2nd wave...while the dogfaces (Army) finishes loading at Ocean. Oh well, screwups are part of war!
Pre-Invasion action off Nauru Island (127,128)
8 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.
Allied Ships
BB North Carolina
CL Phoenix
CL Helena
CL St. Louis
CL Adelaide
DD Ellet
SC-708
AMC Hector
DD Humphreys
Japanese ground losses:
213 casualties reported
Squads: 1 destroyed, 7 disabled
Non Combat: 10 destroyed, 3 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 1 (1 destroyed, 0 disabled)
BB North Carolina firing at Maizuru 3rd SNLF
CL Phoenix firing at Maizuru 3rd SNLF
CL Helena firing at Maizuru 3rd SNLF
CL St. Louis firing at Maizuru 3rd SNLF
CL Adelaide firing at Maizuru 3rd SNLF
DD Ellet firing at Maizuru 3rd SNLF
SC-708 fired at enemy troops
Defensive Guns fire at approaching troops in landing craft at 5,000 yards
Defensive Guns fire at approaching troops in landing craft at 1,000 yards
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amphibious Assault at Nauru Island (127,128)
TF 35 troops unloading over beach at Nauru Island, 127,128
Allied ground losses:
55 casualties reported
Squads: 1 destroyed, 4 disabled
Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 1 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 5 (0 destroyed, 5 disabled)
Vehicles lost 1 (0 destroyed, 1 disabled)
13 troops of a USMC 42 Rifle Squad lost overboard during unload of 3rd Marine Div /3
15 Support troops lost overboard during unload of 3rd Marine Div /7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Invasion Support action off Nauru Island (127,128)
3 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.
Allied Ships
SC-708
AMC Hector
DD Ellet
DD Humphreys
SC-708 fired at enemy troops
Defensive Guns fire at approaching troops in landing craft at 1,000 yards
Pre-Invasion action off Nauru Island (127,128)
8 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.
Allied Ships
BB North Carolina
CL Phoenix
CL Helena
CL St. Louis
CL Adelaide
DD Ellet
SC-708
AMC Hector
DD Humphreys
Japanese ground losses:
213 casualties reported
Squads: 1 destroyed, 7 disabled
Non Combat: 10 destroyed, 3 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 1 (1 destroyed, 0 disabled)
BB North Carolina firing at Maizuru 3rd SNLF
CL Phoenix firing at Maizuru 3rd SNLF
CL Helena firing at Maizuru 3rd SNLF
CL St. Louis firing at Maizuru 3rd SNLF
CL Adelaide firing at Maizuru 3rd SNLF
DD Ellet firing at Maizuru 3rd SNLF
SC-708 fired at enemy troops
Defensive Guns fire at approaching troops in landing craft at 5,000 yards
Defensive Guns fire at approaching troops in landing craft at 1,000 yards
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amphibious Assault at Nauru Island (127,128)
TF 35 troops unloading over beach at Nauru Island, 127,128
Allied ground losses:
55 casualties reported
Squads: 1 destroyed, 4 disabled
Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 1 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 5 (0 destroyed, 5 disabled)
Vehicles lost 1 (0 destroyed, 1 disabled)
13 troops of a USMC 42 Rifle Squad lost overboard during unload of 3rd Marine Div /3
15 Support troops lost overboard during unload of 3rd Marine Div /7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Invasion Support action off Nauru Island (127,128)
3 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.
Allied Ships
SC-708
AMC Hector
DD Ellet
DD Humphreys
SC-708 fired at enemy troops
Defensive Guns fire at approaching troops in landing craft at 1,000 yards
Re: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))
The invasion lands...and fights there way forward aided by incredible shore bombardments...victory.
Ground combat at Nauru Island (127,128)
Allied Shock attack
Attacking force 1794 troops, 23 guns, 78 vehicles, Assault Value = 81
Defending force 1675 troops, 20 guns, 2 vehicles, Assault Value = 11
Allied adjusted assault: 28
Japanese adjusted defense: 1
Allied assault odds: 28 to 1 (fort level 3)
Allied forces CAPTURE Nauru Island !!!
Japanese aircraft
no flights
Japanese aircraft losses
G4M1 Betty: 1 destroyed
G3M2 Nell: 1 destroyed
Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), forts(+), disruption(-), experience(-)
supply(-)
Attacker: shock(+), disruption(-)
Japanese ground losses:
480 casualties reported
Squads: 62 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 5 destroyed, 1 disabled
Engineers: 9 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 9 (9 destroyed, 0 disabled)
Vehicles lost 2 (2 destroyed, 0 disabled)
Allied ground losses:
37 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 4 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Ground combat at Nauru Island (127,128)
Allied Shock attack
Attacking force 1794 troops, 23 guns, 78 vehicles, Assault Value = 81
Defending force 1675 troops, 20 guns, 2 vehicles, Assault Value = 11
Allied adjusted assault: 28
Japanese adjusted defense: 1
Allied assault odds: 28 to 1 (fort level 3)
Allied forces CAPTURE Nauru Island !!!
Japanese aircraft
no flights
Japanese aircraft losses
G4M1 Betty: 1 destroyed
G3M2 Nell: 1 destroyed
Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), forts(+), disruption(-), experience(-)
supply(-)
Attacker: shock(+), disruption(-)
Japanese ground losses:
480 casualties reported
Squads: 62 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 5 destroyed, 1 disabled
Engineers: 9 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 9 (9 destroyed, 0 disabled)
Vehicles lost 2 (2 destroyed, 0 disabled)
Allied ground losses:
37 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 4 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
- a.jpg (369.01 KiB) Viewed 1001 times
Re: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))
Washington had a bad day...
In the late morning...
Sub attack near Nauru Island at 127,129
Japanese Ships
SS I-171
Allied Ships
BB Washington, Torpedo hits 3, on fire, heavy damage
BB Indiana
CA Astoria
CA Northampton
DD King
DD Van Ghent
SS I-171 launches 4 torpedoes at BB Washington
I-171 diving deep ....
DD King fails to find sub and abandons search
DD Van Ghent fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Van Ghent fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Van Ghent attacking submerged sub ....
SS I-171 eludes DD Van Ghent by diving deep
SS I-171 eludes DD Van Ghent by diving deep
DD Van Ghent fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Van Ghent fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Van Ghent fails to find sub, continues to search...
Escort abandons search for sub
In the late morning...
Sub attack near Nauru Island at 127,129
Japanese Ships
SS I-171
Allied Ships
BB Washington, Torpedo hits 3, on fire, heavy damage
BB Indiana
CA Astoria
CA Northampton
DD King
DD Van Ghent
SS I-171 launches 4 torpedoes at BB Washington
I-171 diving deep ....
DD King fails to find sub and abandons search
DD Van Ghent fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Van Ghent fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Van Ghent attacking submerged sub ....
SS I-171 eludes DD Van Ghent by diving deep
SS I-171 eludes DD Van Ghent by diving deep
DD Van Ghent fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Van Ghent fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Van Ghent fails to find sub, continues to search...
Escort abandons search for sub
Re: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))
Minutes later...
ASW attack near Nauru Island at 127,129
Japanese Ships
SS I-22
Allied Ships
BB Washington, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
CA Astoria
DD King
DD Van Ghent
SS I-22 launches 6 torpedoes at BB Washington
I-22 diving deep ....
ASW attack near Nauru Island at 127,129
Japanese Ships
SS I-22
Allied Ships
BB Washington, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
CA Astoria
DD King
DD Van Ghent
SS I-22 launches 6 torpedoes at BB Washington
I-22 diving deep ....
Re: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))
Crew suffers during the repeated torpedo strikes...I notice the Captain is one of my low aggression test cases (35 aggression, Navskill somewhere in the low 50s). Or maybe I never changed him....
- a.jpg (332.7 KiB) Viewed 997 times
Re: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))
so, I am flying my transports from Ledo, size 9 to Paoshan size 2, plentiful air support at Ledo and also at Paoshan should that somehow matter. It seems to me plane losses there are acceptable...running at 50%. almost all transport squadrons are full with planes in reserve except maybe British or Chinese squadrons where planes are limited.CaptBeefheart wrote: Wed Aug 10, 2022 1:26 am Well, I expect most PBEMers don't automate subs. It works for a while but eventually they all end up in ports.
We think about the same regarding patrol aircraft like PBYs. I also read somewhere 12 was a good limit. I might go as high as the non-extended limit but will rarely go into extended range. Also, in my anecdotal experience, I don't think search arcs improve anything, so I save time by not setting them.
Sardauker has some ways to minimize transport aircraft ops losses, which you probably saw (scroll down): https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... s#p5011505
Cheers,
CB
heavy bombers are flying from Ledo to Tsuyung (af=5). My guess is that the heavy bomber losses were higher when the runways were smaller than 5...but I have occasionally used the planes for bombing, recon, etc, etc.