Bill (IJ) vs Ron (Allies): A logistics model study using CHS 1.06

Post descriptions of your brilliant successes and unfortunate demises.

Moderators: wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami

Post Reply
User avatar
Ron Saueracker
Posts: 10967
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece

Bill (IJ) vs Ron (Allies): A logistics model study using CHS 1.06

Post by Ron Saueracker »

This AAR is starting late as I now have an inspiration to do so. A basic AAR was not interesting to me but recent discussions over the logistical model and the suspected overabundance of supply has changed my mind. Seeing as it is about supply and fuel (specifically the hard coded static ratio between resources and supply or 1.25 : 1), I can't see why using the CHS is any less cogent to the issue than Stock Scenario 15 so our game is being utilized.

So, this AAR, while still covering the combat, will focus primarily on the ramifications of the logistical model on various aspects of the game.

The bustling supply and resource hub of Toboali where 450 tons of war materiel and raw materiel are produced each day...here is the port. Well, not actually sure it is but was on the Toboali site...looking for a real pic now.[;)]

Image
Attachments
Port of Toboali.jpg
Port of Toboali.jpg (35.43 KiB) Viewed 1351 times
Image

Image

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan
User avatar
Ron Saueracker
Posts: 10967
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece

RE: Bill (IJ) vs Ron (Allies): An examination of Supply and Fuel using CHS 1.06

Post by Ron Saueracker »

Bill and I have reached the end of Jan, 42 so the natural start date is Feb 1, 42 for the AAR. I'll just quickly get folks up to speed on what has happenned then get to the meat and potatoes.

We have no real house rules aside from "keep it real, Ok?" The opening turn house rule was that KB had to attack PH, but Manila or any port in the PI was subject to carrier and LBA attack and any other port was vulnerable to LBA attack. Bill had disappointing results for his Pearl Harbor strike (the worst I've ever seen![:D]) managing to merely damage shipping, not one sinking. All eight BBs were damaged, 4 severely (Allied Damage Control is OFF in our game so some flooding was touch and go and the last flood damage was repaired about four weeks into the game!). Utah took one torpedo and almost sank...so much for the bomb magnet most claim Utah to be. Four cruisers (2 New Orleans and 2 Brooklyns) were severely damaged. About one dozen destroyers and other vessels were heavily hit. However, while not getting VPs for any lost ships, the larger volume of heavily damaged ships might pay off in the short term. The typical 70-80% destruction of aircraft based at PH was achieved however. The attack on Manila resulted in 1 Salmon class sub being lost and a few merchants sunk or damaged. At Singapore, he got lucky and managed to cripple POW with torps and 800kg bombs (POW just arrived in the Middle East and is undergoing repairs along with CL Mauritius and 2 destroyers, also crippled).

During the remainder of December, Bill occupied Hong Kong (in 3 days! despite the CHS fortifications); Johnston Island (had me concerned there for awhile but looks mainly to be a seaplane base to keep tabs on PH...although he did vainly attempt to base Nells and A6M2s there until my limited B17-s and LB-30s started their training [;)] out of Hickam); Kuching, Borneo (very expensive as the remainder of the RN at Singapore showed up and Repulse, Exeter and 2 destroyers sank about a dozen APs and a few escorts during a bloody daytime engagement in horrible weather); Amboina (uncontested due to commitments elsewhere); Northern Luzon, Naga/Legaspi , Mindanao (small naval actions involving Asiatic Fleet PTs and DDs and some air strikes vs naval units...CS Chitose succumbs to damage and sinks at Palau); Northern Malaya (trapping a few units at Georgetown due to the draconian ZOC rules for land model which utilizes whopping big 60 mile hexes, coupled with the 59/60 march bug[:@]); and Batan Is north of Luzon.

I waited for the weather to worsen and for his mini KB to retire to replenish before sending out a stream of merchants and auxilliaries headed for Perth through the Makassar Strait. This continued while the bad weather held and appproximately 90% of the shipping initially based in Manila made it through, loaded to the gills with fuel and base forces as PPs allowed. Mini KB showed up twice during this period but the weather was fortunately quite bad and his strikes were not exactly effective, sinking a few merchants here and there. Tarakan and Balikpapan, providing LR CAP for the escaping ships, were treated to a bombardment each, and these were uncontested by naval or aircraft for the most part do to poor weather hindering the sighting of these large TFs. Not surprisingly given the current air asw search model, IJN subs were being sighted despite the weather!

On two occasions Bill got bold with mini KB and slowly inched into the Makassar Strait in search of targets. Seeing this, during a break in the bad weather I twice staged about 40 Dutch Buffaloes and 60 Martins at size 3 Tarakan and stood them down the turn they arrived. The next turn on both occasions, mini KB is well within range and guess what happens? About 30 Buffaloes and 5 Martins launch! WTF? And this happens on both occasions! Ample escort seeing as the strikes launched but what happenned to the bombers? I checked the following turns and aside from a few damaged during the staging, all were servicable and had high morale/readiness. They just watched the five bombers, looked like a portion of one squadron, fly off to their deaths (the ESCORT was cut to ribbons but the bombers made it through only to be nailed by flak or damaged and lost on the return flight...no hits). I'd love someone to explain/rationalize these strikes so I can laugh "in their general direction!". [:D] No military in the world would send off a few bombers while the remainder watched them leave! [8|]

During January, Bill continued his operations on Luzon but the Allies still hold about 50%, including Clark, San Marcelino, Naga, Bataan, Manila. Mindanao has been gradually invested by the Japanese so that by Feb 1 only Cagayan still holds. Bill has advanced in Malaya so that by Feb 1 only Singapore and Victoria Point are still Royal. (Bill was agressive on the east coast and made several landings in an effort to cut off the retreating forces withdrawing down the peninsula to Johore and paid dearly as the RAF sank the CL Isuzu, a few destroyers and lesser escorts and another dozen or so transports. No surface actions were risked given the Japanese LBA at Kuching.) Burma is still Allied but Rangoon is now devoid of fighter cover and untenable as a naval base due to Japanese LBS at Bangkok, Tavoy and Rahaeng. (I pushed my luck one day too long and the two old CLs I was harassing the airfield at Tavoy with got caught in clear weather by massive newly arrived LBA and Ceres was sunk and Columbo damaged in port at Rangoon. In the South Pacific Bill invested the majority of the bases along the North Coast of New Guinea, halting at Madang. Rabaul is under seige and Lunga has a small IJN seaplane base.

That's takes us to Feb 1, the start of this AAR. I'm going to post the combat report for Jan 31/42 mainly because of the weird surface combat which happenned and I want to comment on.

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 01/31/42

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Air attack on Bangkok

Allied aircraft
Blenheim I x 3

Allied aircraft losses
Blenheim I: 3 damaged

Aircraft Attacking:
3 x Blenheim I bombing at 6000 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Air attack on Bangkok

Allied aircraft
Wellington III x 6

Allied aircraft losses
Wellington III: 2 damaged

Aircraft Attacking:
6 x Wellington III bombing at 12000 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat at 110,130

Japanese Ships
PG Hokoku Maru, Shell hits 17, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage

Allied Ships
CL Marblehead
DD Bulmer
DD Whipple

OK, this is what I want to talk about. Bill unfortunately forgot about his two AMCs that started off Tahiti on Dec 7th. About a week ago I saw a report from my newly arrived PBY squadron at Tahiti that a TF was one hex west of the base. Thinking that this could not be the AMCs and must be a sub, I sent the PTs I had sent to Tahiti for a looksee. There were the two Japanese merchant cruisers and the PTs hit one and sink it. Over the next day or so I see the same TF show up in reports and send a small TF on the way to the US escorting some merchants badly needed for the US/OZ run to intercept. As you can see the AMC got blasted during the night action and is a floating wreck.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on 65th Brigade, just NE of Clark Field

Allied aircraft
B-17D Fortress x 7


Allied aircraft losses
B-17D Fortress: 3 damaged

Japanese ground losses:
13 casualties reported

Aircraft Attacking:
B-17D Fortress bombing at 9000 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on 26th PS Cavalry Regiment, at 43,51

Japanese aircraft
G4M1 Betty x 15
Ki-27 Nate x 21
Ki-21-II Sally x 9
Ki-48-I Lily x 9
Ki-49 Helen x 20

Japanese aircraft losses
G4M1 Betty: 1 damaged

Allied ground losses:
8 casualties reported
Guns lost 1

Aircraft Attacking:
Ki-48-I Lily bombing at 15000 feet
Ki-21-II Sally bombing at 15000 feet
Ki-49 Helen bombing at 15000 feet
G4M1 Betty bombing at 15000 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on 200th US Coast AA Regiment, at 43,51

Japanese aircraft
G4M1 Betty x 3
Ki-27 Nate x 8
Ki-21-II Sally x 9
Ki-48-I Lily x 13
Ki-49 Helen x 3

No Japanese losses

Allied ground losses:
27 casualties reported

Aircraft Attacking:
Ki-21-II Sally bombing at 15000 feet
Ki-48-I Lily bombing at 15000 feet
Ki-49 Helen bombing at 15000 feet
G4M1 Betty bombing at 15000 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Time Surface Combat at 110,130

Japanese Ships
PG Hokoku Maru, Shell hits 10, and is sunk

Allied Ships
CL Marblehead
DD Bulmer
DD Whipple

The earlier battle was funny because Bill left these poor bastards to die ingloriously for the Emperor. This second one is funny because of what the combat report can't show you. The Marblehead and 2 DDs had orders to patrol this hex and not retire (hence this second action) The state of the IJN ship was such that it was a flaming wreck with no weapons to fire. One has to imagine that this battle started in the early morning and continued on into the day as the US ships tried to sink the hulk. Take a guess at what happenned. [8|] When the daylight round started the flaming wreck which was being pounded on continuously somehow managed to "surprise" the US ships there the whole time! I've been dumping on the surface combat model for three years now saying that it completely lacked any cause/effect, rhyme or reason and until now there was not a definitive example to proove me correct. Well folks, this has to be it. For all the formulas and what not supposedly in the model, this model just appears to be a simple series of random die rolls. It could be so much better with some effort like that put into ASW. [8D][8|]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Cagayan

Japanese Bombardment attack

Attacking force 36530 troops, 210 guns, 24 vehicles

Defending force 8311 troops, 54 guns, 0 vehicles



Allied ground losses:
8 casualties reported


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at 50,34

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 9194 troops, 83 guns, 0 vehicles

Defending force 1837 troops, 8 guns, 0 vehicles

Japanese assault odds: 17 to 1


Japanese ground losses:
6 casualties reported
Guns lost 1

Allied ground losses:
23 casualties reported


Defeated Allied Units Retreating!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Wuchow

Japanese Bombardment attack

Attacking force 43385 troops, 404 guns, 41 vehicles

Defending force 46509 troops, 258 guns, 0 vehicles



Allied ground losses:
92 casualties reported
Guns lost 3


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Singapore

Japanese Bombardment attack

Attacking force 4036 troops, 87 guns, 0 vehicles

Defending force 54108 troops, 272 guns, 10 vehicles



Allied ground losses:
41 casualties reported


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Naga

Japanese Bombardment attack

Attacking force 1032 troops, 24 guns, 0 vehicles

Defending force 28579 troops, 155 guns, 0 vehicles



Allied ground losses:
114 casualties reported
Guns lost 1


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Wuchow

Allied Bombardment attack

Attacking force 40475 troops, 255 guns, 0 vehicles

Defending force 48309 troops, 404 guns, 41 vehicles


Japanese ground losses:
230 casualties reported
Guns lost 2


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at 43,40

Allied Bombardment attack

Attacking force 26262 troops, 134 guns, 0 vehicles

Defending force 7733 troops, 47 guns, 0 vehicles


Japanese ground losses:
9 casualties reported

Allied ground losses:
4 casualties reported
Guns lost 1


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Rabaul

Allied Bombardment attack

Attacking force 908 troops, 9 guns, 0 vehicles

Defending force 12254 troops, 49 guns, 0 vehicles


Japanese ground losses:
11 casualties reported
Guns lost 1


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Naga

Allied Bombardment attack

Attacking force 2425 troops, 40 guns, 0 vehicles

Defending force 50712 troops, 147 guns, 79 vehicles



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at 51,34

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 7985 troops, 80 guns, 8 vehicles

Defending force 164 troops, 0 guns, 0 vehicles

Japanese assault odds: 180 to 1



Allied ground losses:
22 casualties reported


Defeated Allied Units Retreating!

Image

Image

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan
User avatar
Rob Brennan UK
Posts: 3685
Joined: Sat Aug 24, 2002 8:36 pm
Location: London UK

RE: Bill (IJ) vs Ron (Allies): An examination of Supply and Fuel using CHS 1.06

Post by Rob Brennan UK »

you sure you had enough AV support there Ron ? can make a lot of difference ( i don't know the exact rules but i've had similar results as AV support seems to prioritise fighters ( not unsuprisingly ))..

It will be interesting to compare the supply situation with Niks mod ( which im playing ) .

so you were seduced to the dark side and posted an AAR eh ?

sorry for the spelling . English is my main language , I just can't type . and i'm too lazy to edit :)
User avatar
Ron Saueracker
Posts: 10967
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece

RE: Bill (IJ) vs Ron (Allies): An examination of Supply and Fuel using CHS 1.06

Post by Ron Saueracker »

ORIGINAL: Rob Brennan UK

you sure you had enough AV support there Ron ? can make a lot of difference ( i don't know the exact rules but i've had similar results as AV support seems to prioritise fighters ( not unsuprisingly ))..

It will be interesting to compare the supply situation with Niks mod ( which im playing ) .

so you were seduced to the dark side and posted an AAR eh ?


Yeah, but seeing as this game is ongoing, why not?[:)] Been awhile since I played so maybe I missed something for AV support. I'm still not entirely sure how everything is supposed to work under every condition as the manual is somewhat incomplete and modifications have been made over time.Still, I don't allow planes to stage and attack same turn. All the planes theoretically were gassed up and ready to go, otherwise why have the situation where palnes go into reserve and disrepair? AV support to me is the ability to maintain aircraft effectively over time. Not some sort of strike size limitation...that is a field issue one would think.
Image

Image

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan
User avatar
Rob Brennan UK
Posts: 3685
Joined: Sat Aug 24, 2002 8:36 pm
Location: London UK

RE: Bill (IJ) vs Ron (Allies): An examination of Supply and Fuel using CHS 1.06

Post by Rob Brennan UK »

Well i'm no rules lawyer by any means , i play by 'feeling' rather that the letter of the law.

i'd agree AV as in so many 'support' aspect are very very vague in the manual. but with all the posts and updates most of the manual is either outdated or just plain wrong.

Ill happily admit im of the 'optimist variety" in players. and i really don't like playing the rules rather than playing the game ( i'm the same with board games too) . If i have say 50 planes and 30 AV support i justify low raid numbers by assuming that the fighters get fixed/ loaded first .. even if a base has 1 AV support and 100 bombers ready .. who will load up the ordinance for a given raid ?

well thats just my take on the game and i am a WITP fanboy [;)]
sorry for the spelling . English is my main language , I just can't type . and i'm too lazy to edit :)
User avatar
Rob Brennan UK
Posts: 3685
Joined: Sat Aug 24, 2002 8:36 pm
Location: London UK

RE: Bill (IJ) vs Ron (Allies): An examination of Supply and Fuel using CHS 1.06

Post by Rob Brennan UK »

OK, this is what I want to talk about. Bill unfortunately forgot about his two AMCs that started off Tahiti on Dec 7th. About a week ago I saw a report from my newly arrived PBY squadron at Tahiti that a TF was one hex west of the base. Thinking that this could not be the AMCs and must be a sub, I sent the PTs I had sent to Tahiti for a looksee. There were the two Japanese merchant cruisers and the PTs hit one and sink it. Over the next day or so I see the same TF show up in reports and send a small TF on the way to the US escorting some merchants badly needed for the US/OZ run to intercept. As you can see the AMC got blasted during the night action and is a floating wreck.

True .. it is dice based imo .. but name me any wargame that isnt ?
sorry for the spelling . English is my main language , I just can't type . and i'm too lazy to edit :)
User avatar
Ron Saueracker
Posts: 10967
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece

RE: Bill (IJ) vs Ron (Allies): An examination of Supply and Fuel using CHS 1.06

Post by Ron Saueracker »

ORIGINAL: Rob Brennan UK

OK, this is what I want to talk about. Bill unfortunately forgot about his two AMCs that started off Tahiti on Dec 7th. About a week ago I saw a report from my newly arrived PBY squadron at Tahiti that a TF was one hex west of the base. Thinking that this could not be the AMCs and must be a sub, I sent the PTs I had sent to Tahiti for a looksee. There were the two Japanese merchant cruisers and the PTs hit one and sink it. Over the next day or so I see the same TF show up in reports and send a small TF on the way to the US escorting some merchants badly needed for the US/OZ run to intercept. As you can see the AMC got blasted during the night action and is a floating wreck.

True .. it is dice based imo .. but name me any wargame that isnt ?

So after all these years with wargames on PCs with their ever growing computing ability we still are maintaining prehistoric standards? Their are two schools of thought (or two trenches[;)]) surrounding this game, one is that it is a "strategic/operational level game" and that tactical issues are necessarily abstract and the other is that it is also a "strategic/operational level game" that should/could have some element of the tactical within it. We see these two views clashing all the time, usually myself and the dev team with me looking for more tactical flavour (ie the ASW model). The problem is the game dabbles with both, and many times the attempt at tactical was poorly thought out and does not mesh or is based on a falsehood.

Take the annoying habit of ships within a task force (within a few hundred yards of each other...or should be assumed to be) arbitrarily being unable to fire or be fired at during a combat phase because it was "off doing something else" as is the official explanation. To me this was a mistake because even a two ship TF suffers from this, or a TF centred on a BB as it's flagship has it's flagship "off doing something else". Goes against the grain on too many occasions to be a feature. Yet, a single TF can intercept every enemy TF in a hex that same turn despite the fact that the TFs can be 60 miles apart (something that is hard to imagine happening), but as soon as the combat starts, a bunch of ships are "off doing something else"! If anything, they got this FOW attempt backwards.

One should either take all the tactical out and leave it to the number crunching (remove such things as the ship availability issue described above, strike coordination, reacting to enemy CVs, engineers destroying fortifications, surprise in surface combat etc) OR implement the tactical with a little more effort and a less hodge podge approach to it.
Image

Image

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan
User avatar
Ron Saueracker
Posts: 10967
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece

RE: Bill (IJ) vs Ron (Allies): An examination of Supply and Fuel using CHS 1.06

Post by Ron Saueracker »

OK, rant mode OFF, now to try and get my screen capture thingy working,,,being a bitch right at the moment for some reason.[&:][:)] Go figure.[8D]
Image

Image

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan
User avatar
Ron Saueracker
Posts: 10967
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece

RE: Bill (IJ) vs Ron (Allies): An examination of Supply and Fuel using CHS 1.06

Post by Ron Saueracker »

So, first I guess I should post the Resource output of the various Allied bases I still have. Perhaps Bill can do the same for his Japanese Resource Bases.

Image
Attachments
ResourcesFeb1A.jpg
ResourcesFeb1A.jpg (42.85 KiB) Viewed 1351 times
Image

Image

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan
User avatar
Ron Saueracker
Posts: 10967
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece

RE: Bill (IJ) vs Ron (Allies): An examination of Supply and Fuel using CHS 1.06

Post by Ron Saueracker »

Part 2...

Image
Attachments
ResourcesFeb1B.jpg
ResourcesFeb1B.jpg (40 KiB) Viewed 1351 times
Image

Image

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan
User avatar
Ron Saueracker
Posts: 10967
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece

RE: Bill (IJ) vs Ron (Allies): An examination of Supply and Fuel using CHS 1.06

Post by Ron Saueracker »

Part 3...

Image
Attachments
ResourcesFeb1C.jpg
ResourcesFeb1C.jpg (40.64 KiB) Viewed 1351 times
Image

Image

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan
User avatar
Ron Saueracker
Posts: 10967
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece

RE: Bill (IJ) vs Ron (Allies): An examination of Supply and Fuel using CHS 1.06

Post by Ron Saueracker »

Part 4...

Image
Attachments
ResourcesFeb1D.jpg
ResourcesFeb1D.jpg (40.3 KiB) Viewed 1351 times
Image

Image

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan
User avatar
Ron Saueracker
Posts: 10967
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece

RE: Bill (IJ) vs Ron (Allies): An examination of Supply and Fuel using CHS 1.06

Post by Ron Saueracker »

Part 5...

Image
Attachments
ResourcesFeb1E.jpg
ResourcesFeb1E.jpg (41.25 KiB) Viewed 1351 times
Image

Image

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan
User avatar
Ron Saueracker
Posts: 10967
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece

RE: Bill (IJ) vs Ron (Allies): An examination of Supply and Fuel using CHS 1.06

Post by Ron Saueracker »

Part 6...

Image
Attachments
ResourcesFeb1F.jpg
ResourcesFeb1F.jpg (25.26 KiB) Viewed 1351 times
Image

Image

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan
User avatar
Ron Saueracker
Posts: 10967
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece

RE: Bill (IJ) vs Ron (Allies): An examination of Supply and Fuel using CHS 1.06

Post by Ron Saueracker »

The top Allied fuel centres as of Feb 1/42

Notice San Diego is a little shy of supplies...this is temporary as this is a major pick up hub for Panama CS convoys. Panama is ideal as a hub for supplying the South Pacific and Australia/New Zealand, although it is rather a long stretch.

Image
Attachments
TopSupply..esFeb1.jpg
TopSupply..esFeb1.jpg (64.34 KiB) Viewed 1351 times
Image

Image

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan
User avatar
Ron Saueracker
Posts: 10967
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece

RE: Bill (IJ) vs Ron (Allies): An examination of Supply and Fuel using CHS 1.06

Post by Ron Saueracker »

Top Allied supply centres Feb 1/42

Image
Attachments
TopSupply..esFeb1.jpg
TopSupply..esFeb1.jpg (62.45 KiB) Viewed 1351 times
Image

Image

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan
User avatar
Ron Saueracker
Posts: 10967
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece

RE: Bill (IJ) vs Ron (Allies): An examination of Supply and Fuel using CHS 1.06

Post by Ron Saueracker »

Top Allied Resource centres Feb 1/42

Image
Attachments
TopResour..esFeb1.jpg
TopResour..esFeb1.jpg (60.76 KiB) Viewed 1351 times
Image

Image

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan
User avatar
Ron Saueracker
Posts: 10967
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece

RE: Bill (IJ) vs Ron (Allies): An examination of Supply and Fuel using CHS 1.06

Post by Ron Saueracker »

Top Allied Oil Centres Feb 1/42.

Image
Attachments
TopOilCe..esFeb1.jpg
TopOilCe..esFeb1.jpg (61.32 KiB) Viewed 1351 times
Image

Image

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan
User avatar
Ron Saueracker
Posts: 10967
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece

RE: Bill (IJ) vs Ron (Allies): An examination of Supply and Fuel using CHS 1.06

Post by Ron Saueracker »

Now, how best to make my point that there is too much supply and that supply should be uncoupled from resources (at a 1:1.25 ratio) at this juncture as the Allied player? I think I will just keep it simple and deal with the Dutch East Indies as it is still nearly 100% under Allied control and the fact that the DEI is made up of islands so shipping is an issue (whereas mainland bases can ship supply/resources etc overland given a weel enough developed infrastructure). It will work exactly the same way for Japan once conquered for the resources/supply/oil/fuel so it is the ideal region to examine. Further, within the DEI I will focus the attention primarily on Java, Timor and the lesser island bases between them as these are the primary strong points of the final defence of the DEI.

As one can see on the map, after only 7 weeks game time elapsing the primary (Palembang, Toboali, Brunei, Miri, Tarakan, Balikpapan, Kendari) resource/oil centres' stocks are substantial, if not brimming over with supplies, oil, fuel and resources...this despite roughly 50 tankers (capacities from 2250 - 13000) and 120 AKs (capacities from 400- 5250) frantically moving the stock (supplies/fuel to Java/Timor/and Lesser Islands in the chain) and resources oil to OZ. Major point to be made clear here is that Java and Timor have only received supply from resource centres which have no manufacturing...this is all bonus supply courtesy of the 1:1.25 resource:supply ratio! In another months time I bet Java is going to have in excess of 120,000 supply, can only be agrarian given the origins of the supply, yet this will be convertable into any TOE device, aircraft, munition etc I so desire. And don't forget that the supply/resources Java produces inherently (coffee?) can become munitions as well. Again, no supply has been brought in from OZ or any other manufacturing centre, only from third world mining centres etc.

As Japan expands, it is going to be increasingly more difficult for me to extricate this cornacopia of goodies so the totals at these resource centres are going to balloon drastically. And again, all the supplies at the resource centres and all these supplies in Java, originating in the same backwater third world resouce centres with no manufacturing, are going to be captured by the Japanese who will then magically turn it into Japanese aircraft, guns, munitions etc, without having brought in a single shipment of supply from a Japanese manufacturing centre aside from what was shipped on the invasion fleets and used to defeat the Dutch.

So, does anyone see the problem here yet with tying supply equally to resources? Without the need to transport supplies anywhere except locally (no need to run to and from OZ as Allies or to and from Japan or Japanese mainland empire), the logistic model, despite it's inherent elegance, fails and there is less likelihood of recreating the submarine campaigns so large a part of maritime warfare in WW2. Considering that the supply in WITP is primarily military in utility, especially given the lack of any civilian model, the hard coded ratio between supply and resources should be uncoupled optimally but even a reduction of supply to resources to a more reasonable level 1: 100, or even 1:10 would allow the model to work more as the devs most likely intended. Unless of course my suspcion that this equal ratio was added to prop the AI given the fact that even the Auto Convoy feature fails to perform (primarily due to routing problems causing wholesale destruction of merchants as they steam blindly through enemy territory).


Image
Attachments
DEI Logist..ap Feb 1.jpg
DEI Logist..ap Feb 1.jpg (121.73 KiB) Viewed 1351 times
Image

Image

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan
User avatar
Ron Saueracker
Posts: 10967
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece

RE: Bill (IJ) vs Ron (Allies): An examination of Supply and Fuel using CHS 1.06

Post by Ron Saueracker »

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 02/01/42

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Air attack on Bangkok

Allied aircraft
Blenheim I x 10
Allied aircraft losses
Blenheim I: 1 damaged
Aircraft Attacking:
Blenheim I bombing at 7000 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Air attack on Bangkok

Allied aircraft
Wellington III x 3
No Allied losses
Aircraft Attacking:
Wellington III bombing at 12000 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub attack at 148,58 300 miles South of San Diego

Japanese Ships
SS I-24

Allied Ships
DD Cassin
DD Selfridge
DD Downes
DD Tucker

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Naval bombardment of Cagayan, at 43,59

Japanese Ships
DD Wakatake
DD Amagiri
DD Yugiri
DD Ayanami
DD Hatsuyuki
DD Shirakumo
DD Usugumo
DD Shinonome
DD Hagikaze
DD Arashi
CL Kitakami
CL Kinu
CA Kumano
CA Suzuya
CA Mikuma
CA Mogami
CA Chokai
BB Yamashiro
BB Fuso
BB Hyuga
BB Ise


Allied ground losses:
239 casualties reported
Guns lost 9

Airbase hits 8
Airbase supply hits 2
Runway hits 47
Port hits 2
Port fuel hits 8
Port supply hits 8

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on 27th Brigade AIF , at 22,51

Japanese aircraft
A5M4 Claude x 3
G3M Nell x 22
Japanese aircraft losses
G3M Nell: 1 destroyed, 13 damaged
Allied ground losses:
35 casualties reported
Guns lost 2
Aircraft Attacking:
G3M Nell bombing at 10000 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on 27th Brigade AIF , at 22,51

Japanese aircraft
Ki-21-II Sally x 21
Ki-48-I Lily x 12
Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-21-II Sally: 10 damaged
Ki-48-I Lily: 1 destroyed, 5 damaged
Allied ground losses:
29 casualties reported
Aircraft Attacking:
Ki-48-I Lily bombing at 15000 feet
Ki-21-II Sally bombing at 15000 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Singapore Fortress, at 22,51

Japanese aircraft
A5M4 Claude x 23
G3M Nell x 34
Japanese aircraft losses
G3M Nell: 1 destroyed, 21 damaged
Allied ground losses:
111 casualties reported
Guns lost 2
Aircraft Attacking:
G3M Nell bombing at 10000 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on 26th PS Cavalry Regiment, at 43,51

Japanese aircraft
G4M1 Betty x 15
Ki-27 Nate x 32
Ki-21-II Sally x 19
Ki-48-I Lily x 18
Ki-49 Helen x 20
No Japanese losses
Allied ground losses:
59 casualties reported
Guns lost 2
Vehicles lost 1
Aircraft Attacking:
Ki-48-I Lily bombing at 15000 feet
Ki-21-II Sally bombing at 15000 feet
Ki-49 Helen bombing at 15000 feet
G4M1 Betty bombing at 15000 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on 48th Division, at 44,50 North of Clark Field

Allied aircraft
B-17D Fortress x 6
Allied aircraft losses
B-17D Fortress: 1 damaged
Japanese ground losses:
10 casualties reported
Aircraft Attacking:
B-17D Fortress bombing at 9000 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASW attack at 148,58

Japanese Ships
SS I-24, hits 1

Allied Ships
DD Selfridge
DD Downes
DD Cassin
DD Tucker
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Cagayan

Japanese Deliberate attack
Attacking force 37311 troops, 211 guns, 24 vehicles
Defending force 7881 troops, 38 guns, 0 vehicles
Japanese assault odds: 1 to 1 (fort level 1)
Japanese Assault reduces fortifications to 0
Japanese ground losses:
288 casualties reported
Guns lost 8
Allied ground losses:
70 casualties reported
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Rabaul

Japanese Deliberate attack
Attacking force 12421 troops, 50 guns, 0 vehicles
Defending force 3468 troops, 29 guns, 1 vehicles
Japanese assault odds: 1 to 1 (fort level 3)
Japanese Assault reduces fortifications to 2
Japanese ground losses:
268 casualties reported
Guns lost 12
Allied ground losses:
158 casualties reported
Guns lost 2


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Singapore

Japanese Bombardment attack
Attacking force 80208 troops, 626 guns, 14 vehicles
Defending force 54909 troops, 279 guns, 11 vehicles
Allied ground losses:
74 casualties reported


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Singkawang

Japanese Deliberate attack
Attacking force 2020 troops, 12 guns, 0 vehicles
Defending force 1938 troops, 13 guns, 5 vehicles
Japanese assault odds: 6 to 1 (fort level 2)
Japanese forces CAPTURE Singkawang base !!!
Japanese ground losses:
37 casualties reported
Guns lost 1
Allied ground losses:
12 casualties reported
Defeated Allied Units Retreating!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Naga

Japanese Bombardment attack
Attacking force 1032 troops, 24 guns, 0 vehicles
Defending force 28571 troops, 159 guns, 0 vehicles
Allied ground losses:
72 casualties reported
Guns lost 3


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Wuchow

Allied Bombardment attack
Attacking force 40650 troops, 258 guns, 0 vehicles
Defending force 48185 troops, 398 guns, 41 vehicles
Japanese ground losses:
240 casualties reported
Guns lost 7


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at 43,40

Allied Bombardment attack
Attacking force 26131 troops, 130 guns, 0 vehicles
Defending force 7745 troops, 48 guns, 0 vehicles
Japanese ground losses:
10 casualties reported


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Rabaul

Allied Bombardment attack
Attacking force 831 troops, 9 guns, 0 vehicles
Defending force 11979 troops, 35 guns, 0 vehicles

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Naga

Allied Bombardment attack
Attacking force 2438 troops, 39 guns, 0 vehicles
Defending force 51145 troops, 152 guns, 79 vehicles
Japanese ground losses:
34 casualties reported
Guns lost 2




Intel Report as of Feb 1 42

Image
Attachments
Intel Scre..Feb 1 42.jpg
Intel Scre..Feb 1 42.jpg (60.58 KiB) Viewed 1351 times
Image

Image

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan
Post Reply

Return to “After Action Reports”