Guad Mod - AE Scenario 4 - AAR - No Nik

[jwilkerson]

21-22 September 1942

Solomons
Massive strikes from Lunga and Carriers on Shortlands - 150+ sorties in one day. Am considering cancelling the airfield construction. Even if we finish the base I doubt it will be viable - too far forward to be supplied in the face of all that air power.

Truk
Fuel level at end of turn is zero - still refueling the fleet after the surface sortie.

[Fishbed]

Man, do the Japanese really stand a chance in this scenario? Seeing how you struggle when it comes to feed your ships with some overpriced fuel in constant shortage, were these difficulties anywhere as real back then in Truk as they seem to be in this scenario?

[rhohltjr]

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

Well, it was coded to adjust speeds forward and backward so the whole chain moved as a unit (if possible - if one TF was really, really slow and far out of position it could monkey wrench things).

Appologies to jwilkerson for continuing this "follow" thread, but it is interesting..... to me....

Don, you must be referring to AE above, because in stock Witp when I have my usual Transports
followed by Support TFs, when the transports finish dropping supplies or troops and start back to base
the support TFs drop the support part and flank speed it back to base leaving my transports out hanging
....sort of flapping in the tropical breeze..... this has happened more times than I can count....

@jwilkerson : [&o] I'm still reading your AAR.

[Don Bowen]

I am, of course, speaking of AE. I've not seen stock in years.

As to exactly what happens in complex follow circumstances when destination is reached, only the beta testers would really know.

There is code to keep the chain together and to deliver it to it's destination. There is code to handle TF orders at destination. Once at destination and mission done, the TFs would fall back into the general TF processing routines and the movement processor would have it's way with them.

There is considerable complexity in "follow" when it interacts with other features - like patrol, react, retreat, low-fuel/low-ammo, and damage processing. How it works in any given circumstance???

If I get a chance tonight, I'll go over it.

[jwilkerson]

23-24 September 1942

Solomons
SBDs continuing to hit Shortlands from Lunga. The only good news is that this reduces the pressure on supply at Tass - only the B-17s from Espiritu are hitting the supply at Tass now. Supply at Tass still not building up though - currently at 400 - with about 40% in the units.

Papua
Supply at Finschhaven/Lae/Buna is 1600/1200/1000. We will try and risk a single APD on a fast transport mission to Buna to see if direct supply deliveries will even work. Looks like the Aussie 30 Bde which was in the hex with our Army troops on the Owen Stanley has decided to walk over to Milne Bay so there are currently no Allied units in the hex with us.

Truk
Fuel at Truk still zero at end of turn as we continue to refuel the surface ships after the surface sortie. Zuiho has arrived so now we have five "carriers" for our eventual sortie.

[Q-Ball]

Reading this it makes me think CV's are going to be even more important in AE than they are in WITP.

In WITP, it is alot easier to build and supply forward airbases. In AE, land bases become less useful, because of the time and effort required to build, the limits to building, and the difficulty of keeping them supplied.

The 5 IJN CVs mustering at Truk don't have supply problems, are fully-built airfields, with plenty of AV support, etc. They represent virtually ALL of joe's strike capability, probably a greater percentage than in WITP.

Am I on track?

[jwilkerson]

Hum taking a tactical short term view yes you are somewhat on track.

01 - Many small Island and Atoll bases are far less valuable in AE because they cannot be built up as much and they are impossible to hold against a well prepared attacker. This does make carriers more powerful in areas of the map with no large bases.

02 - Ports however are more critical in AE. Reasons include the loading/unloading limits, the arming limits, fueling limits and the torpedo limits aboard the carriers. One turn of carrier airstrikes will use up all of your torpedos and send you home.

In the Nik's Guadalcanal scenario, the importance of logisitics is greatly enhanced vis-a-vis the campaign game. In our Guad scenario Nik can limit the total amount of fuel and supply available to the player for the entire scenario. In the campaign game - if a player has 100,000 supply on the map - he can move it all to Truk if he wants to. He can optimize one region over the others. As the theater commander in GuadMod - I cannot do that - I only get what my bosses send me - and they are't sending me much!
[:D]
So scenario 04 has a different logistical feel than the campaign game will. But bases - particularly ports are more important in AE than in stock - and I think correctly so.

[Fishbed]

Yep I understand that, but I just wondered if Nick's choices when it came to how much oil the Japanese player should received weren't a little bit... harsh? [:D]
That was probably made with game balance matters in mind, but well that's really cruel for the Japanese player! I mean, ships are pretty much the only thing you can move around, twice as much fuel wouldn't have killed the game as far as I can see. Right now you're actually maintaining a lower activity than your historical counterpart. I understand Nick doesn't want to see Japanese carriers roaming around with no restrictions, but we're far from it!

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: Fishbed
Right now you're actually maintaining a lower activity than your historical counterpart.

Are you sure?

Well anyway, all of this is scenario design stuff - and one rule we've tried to maintain is that scenario design is the pervue of the scenario designer. Anyone can give feedback - but the final call is up to the scenario designer!

[Fishbed]

Well I am just the average WW2 wargame player, you know, but well back in the days of Task Force and Pacific Air War, and reading stuff about it now that I am a little older, looks to me that the waters around Guadalcanal were a little more disputed back then. If I understand well, you managed to put a whole carrier division at sea for an Eastern-Solomons kind of engagement-that-didn't-happen (but in a smaller scale as your force was not as formidable as what Yamamoto had mustered), a BB bombardment run, but that's all, and you were already out of everything. Although I may understand everything is done to keep the IJN activity at a reasonable level before the tough... "oktoberfest" and the following deadly november, well it doesn't leave you with much, while your historical counterpart was running some Tokyo express stuff every two nights or so as soon as August 17, and put up several larger efforts with troop transports on August 23, 28, 29 & 30 (!!), and this doesn't count everything else happening around northern Solomons, New Britain or New Guinea. At least, I hope that Nick planned on delivering a big bunch of oil in september so you may be expected to emulate history a little more, but well that's quite tough so far! [;)]

[Dili]

Yeah Oil seems too low level.

[SuluSea]

It's hard to judge if fuel is set too low without seeing the whole scenario play out. Just reading the AAR oil level does look on the low side for the IJN thus far keep in mind during the days that preceded the Battle of Santa Cruz the oilers were siphoning fuel from Battleships at Truk to help get enough fuel for the transports, carriers and escorts to operate in the mid october attempt to land reinforcements/supplies on the 'canal.

[Fishbed]

Sure, but still, we're talking about full-fledge operations here - Santa Cruz is about deploying 2 CV, 2 CVL, 4 BB, 8 CA, 3 CL, 40 DD, 4 AO, 12 SS on October 26. Before that, on October 14-15, the reinforcement TF was made of 2 CA, 10 DD and 6 AP, preceded by a bombardment force of 2 BB and 1 CL and 6 DD, with countless Tokyo Express runs the whole time. Add to this the Cape Esperance episode on the 11, with a 3 CA, 2 DD force covering a 2 CS, 6 DD reinforcement convoy... Well I am not sure I have quite a good picture of jwilkerson's fuel reserves right now, but considering his historical counterpart had quite a busy time in August (Eastern Solomons alone, that's a 1 BBH, 5 BB, 2 CV, 2 CVL, 1 CVE, 1 CS, 13 CA, 3 CL, 30 DD, 3 AP, 4 PB, countless subs engagement... ouch! And we're not even counting August 28-September 2 operations or the tokyo express runs) I start to seriousely doubt he's anywhere close to the Kaigun capability at this time, keeping in mind that we're not mentionning the whole NG/New Britain/Shortlands usual trafic that is still under his watch considering the scenario... Sure, the IJN gets to feel some pressure, but well at least give him a chance... or a couple tankers!! [:D] [;)]

[jwilkerson]

My fuel reserves right now:

Truk: 3500
Rabaul: 12000

4xAO at sea: 26000

Needed aboard the DD and larger warships at Truk - about 500.

Since mid-August I had two major sorties of combat ships - the first included 3 carriers, 5 BB, 24 cruisers and 29 DDs - this first sortie lasted about 2 weeks - the second sortee included 4xBB, 10 cruisers and 20 DD and lasted about 1 week. These two sortees burned all the gas that existed except a wee bit at Rabul.

I have been continuously operating all the submarines, most of the APD, E, some PC, and some AK and TK. These guys are actually eating over a quarter of the fuel that is arriving - they eat close to 500 per day (of the 2000 we get).

[jwilkerson]

25-26 September 1942

Solomons
One US cruiser bombarded Shortlands - we got one 4.7" hit on the ship - but our hit was on "tower" armor - so no penetration. One of our support squads was disabled.

New Britain
We now are back up to a respectable anti-naval force at Rabaul - 99 Betty and 40 A6M2. We still have 15xA6M3 protecting the airbase.

Planning
We will probably start loading up the troops in 1-2 turns.

[vettim89]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

25-26 September 1942

Solomons
One US cruiser bombarded Shortlands - we got one 4.7" hit on the ship - but our hit was on "tower" armor - so no penetration. One of our support squads was disabled.

New Britain
We now are back up to a respectable anti-naval force at Rabaul - 99 Betty and 40 A6M2. We still have 15xA6M3 protecting the airbase.

Planning
We will probably start loading up the troops in 1-2 turns.

What is your air torpedo status? Is this a number that needs to be plugged in by scenario designers?

BTW, I love the feel of this scenario. I really feel it portrays the RL difficulties both sides experienced in the battle for Guadalcanal. I played the stock GC scenario once against m,y brother. He just parked all his IJN CV's off GC and left them there for like a month. No fuel shortage there.

[jwilkerson]

Torpedo Status:

Submarines: For submarines I can rearm at Truk - and there is an unlimited supply - no different from stock really - except the details of the rearming limits.

Surface Ships: Same - I can rearm at Truk - unlimited supply - no different from stock - except for details of rearming limits.

Aerial Torpedos - Land based: Here I have an HQ at Rabaul which is torpedo capable - there is a limit of 100 - but I case temporarily increase this by spending supply.

Aerial Torpedos - ship based: Each carrier has a torpedo capacity - usually enough for between 1 to about 2.5 sorties - these can be replenished at Truk - there is an unlimited supply.

[vettim89]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

Torpedo Status:

Submarines: For submarines I can rearm at Truk - and there is an unlimited supply - no different from stock really - except the details of the rearming limits.

Surface Ships: Same - I can rearm at Truk - unlimited supply - no different from stock - except for details of rearming limits.

Aerial Torpedos - Land based: Here I have an HQ at Rabaul which is torpedo capable - there is a limit of 100 - but I case temporarily increase this by spending supply.

Aerial Torpedos - ship based: Each carrier has a torpedo capacity - usually enough for between 1 to about 2.5 sorties - these can be replenished at Truk - there is an unlimited supply.

Just out of curiosity, what would you need to do to have DD's rearm at Rabaul? Would an AD suffice or do you need a Naval BF too?

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: vettim89
Just out of curiosity, what would you need to do to have DD's rearm at Rabaul? Would an AD suffice or do you need a Naval BF too?

I'd either either RTFM or try it and see if it works! Various combinations of naval support and tenders will enhance a port's ability to rearm for various ordnance. I'm not basing DD and above out of Rabaul because they eat a lot of gas - and I'm trying to use Rabaul as a supply distribution point. The main warship groups will operate out of Truk because there isn't enough fuel to use them much and they might as well stay out of harms way and near the fuel source.

27-28 September 1942

Solomons
B-17s and Wildcats attack Tass - supply is holding at 400. Shortlands is 47% complete.

New Britain
The single APD delivery to Buna worked out. APDs are also delilvering supply to Finschhaven and Gasmata

For those who are watching - here is the Val unit that has been training up on ASW since the start of the scenario - they have just about reached the training limit - we will use them in the upcomming activities.

[Dili]

The main warship groups will operate out of Truk because there isn't enough fuel to use them much and they might as well stay out of harms way and near the fuel source.

At risk of damage operating from nearer front you will get more miles from your fuel.