Page 55 of 238
RE: Once Again into the Breech - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A)
Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2012 7:11 pm
by Mike Solli
Ouchie. I really feel for you. You get what, a thousand of them?! [:D]
RE: Once Again into the Breech - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A)
Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2012 10:19 pm
by Crackaces
ORIGINAL: Mike Solli
Ouchie. I really feel for you. You get what, a thousand of them?! [:D]
Actually this is a way for the IJ to win this war. The Allies are very short on Tankers -- it is the one achilles heel in this game .. at November 42 I have about 100 total including little micro TK's working ..
RE: Once Again into the Breech - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A)
Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2012 10:31 pm
by Zorch
USN operations in '42 were hampered by a shortage of tankers + oilers.
Some of them were sent to the Atlantic to replace U-boat losses.
This was one reason why Nimitz didn't send any of old BBs to Guadalcanal.
RE: Once Again into the Breech - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A)
Posted: Wed Apr 11, 2012 12:06 am
by Mike Solli
A ray of hope for the Japanese player. [;)]
RE: Once Again into the Breech - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A)
Posted: Wed Apr 11, 2012 11:55 am
by BigBadWolf
Yeah, now only if I can find the damn things...
RE: Once Again into the Breech - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A)
Posted: Wed Apr 11, 2012 12:32 pm
by ny59giants
Waypoints are your freind. [:D]
I use them religiously when I send out transports, including TKs as the Allies early in the war. You just don't have enough escorts to go around. The SCs start coming out in numbers in Aug/Sept 42 and then I can breathe easier.
Finding them - I send out wolfpacks of three I-boats with one Glen equipped and place them in parallel patrol zones to find them. Look for ports that have been expanded early in the war. Usually thats a good clue. I build up certain bases and to help those 18 plane Kingfisher go there. Just stay out more than 4 hexes. [:-]
RE: Once Again into the Breech - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A)
Posted: Wed Apr 11, 2012 12:59 pm
by SqzMyLemon
ORIGINAL: Mike Solli
Not a big deal at all. We're all learning here. I'm learning that the Japanese subs are doomed. [:(]
According to Commander Stormwolf we just need to make everything Japanese capable of deploying an Emily to win the war. I don't see much preventing us from being able to equip a submarine with an Emily besides...reality! [8|] [:D]
Seriously, my subs have struggled all game so they are kind of a non-factor in my daily operations. I move them around and stuff, but if they were all sunk tomorrow I wouldn't miss them to be honest. I like submarine Ops, but this round they just didn't have much of an effect.
RE: Once Again into the Breech - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A)
Posted: Wed Apr 11, 2012 1:06 pm
by SqzMyLemon
ORIGINAL: BigBadWolf
Yeah, now only if I can find the damn things...
I think in my game they were hugging the map edge. I think you can discover convoy routes based on the aggression or play style of your opponent. Cautious and risk averse, hunt the map edges as they are patient and in no hurry. Aggressive you can look for a more direct path or at least a less secure route in order to gain time. Just my thoughts, sometimes you do actually play the personality, like in Poker, and I think this game allows that in many ways.
RE: Once Again into the Breech - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A)
Posted: Wed Apr 11, 2012 1:22 pm
by BigBadWolf
ORIGINAL: ny59giants
Waypoints are your freind. [:D]
I use them religiously when I send out transports, including TKs as the Allies early in the war. You just don't have enough escorts to go around. The SCs start coming out in numbers in Aug/Sept 42 and then I can breathe easier.
Finding them - I send out wolfpacks of three I-boats with one Glen equipped and place them in parallel patrol zones to find them. Look for ports that have been expanded early in the war. Usually thats a good clue. I build up certain bases and to help those 18 plane Kingfisher go there. Just stay out more than 4 hexes. [:-]
And where would one find such waypoints?
About wolfpacks, I don't get it. You put three subs in the same TF?
RE: Once Again into the Breech - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A)
Posted: Wed Apr 11, 2012 1:25 pm
by Crackaces
ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon
ORIGINAL: Mike Solli
Not a big deal at all. We're all learning here. I'm learning that the Japanese subs are doomed. [:(]
According to Commander Stormwolf we just need to make everything Japanese capable of deploying an Emily to win the war. I don't see much preventing us from being able to equip a submarine with an Emily besides...reality! [8|] [:D]
Seriously, my subs have struggled all game so they are kind of a non-factor in my daily operations. I move them around and stuff, but if they were all sunk tomorrow I wouldn't miss them to be honest. I like submarine Ops, but this round they just didn't have much of an effect.
As an AFB, the IJN submarines are a force in being that one cannot see. They force every convoy to have escorts of some kind or risk getting sunk. In particular tanker convoys. CV TF's have to have at least 32 ASW and possibly more. So planning has to include ASW forces.
So just because the IJ are not racking up huge tonnage losses -- the mere presence forces thoughts into the decision cycle.
RE: Once Again into the Breech - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A)
Posted: Wed Apr 11, 2012 1:59 pm
by SqzMyLemon
ORIGINAL: Crackaces
As an AFB, the IJN submarines are a force in being that one cannot see. They force every convoy to have escorts of some kind or risk getting sunk. In particular tanker convoys. CV TF's have to have at least 32 ASW and possibly more. So planning has to include ASW forces.
So just because the IJ are not racking up huge tonnage losses -- the mere presence forces thoughts into the decision cycle.
I'd rather sink a tanker, rather than know you are scared of one being sunk. [:'(]
RE: Once Again into the Breech - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A)
Posted: Wed Apr 11, 2012 4:18 pm
by ny59giants
About wolfpacks, I don't get it. You put three subs in the same TF?
All four subs in separate TFs. They get set to four Patrol Zones that are right next (parallel tracks) to each other. The "legs" are 10 to 15 hexes long. In eastern Pacific, they tend to go from SW to NE direction. Make sure you add a second pilot for your Glen and train up in NavS to be able to tell the difference between a ship and a whale. [:D]
RE: Once Again into the Breech - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A)
Posted: Wed Apr 11, 2012 5:15 pm
by BigBadWolf
Hmm, interesting. I usually go for triangular patrol zones. I'll try this and see what happens. And we over here in IJN are very proud of our "No whale left behind" policy, thank you very much
RE: Once Again into the Breech - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A)
Posted: Wed Apr 11, 2012 10:57 pm
by Mike Solli
Still no turn. But, here's a little info on Allied TKs and AOs:
On 7 Dec 41, here's what he starts with:
69 TK
21 AO
Between 8 Dec 41 and 31 Dec 42, here are the reinforcements:
33 TK
8 AO
Not a lot. Unfortunately, most are medium to large. If we can kill off some, we definitely can put a hurting on moving fuel to the front though. Interesting....
RE: Once Again into the Breech - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A)
Posted: Thu Apr 12, 2012 9:54 am
by obvert
ORIGINAL: Mike Solli
Still no turn. But, here's a little info on Allied TKs and AOs:
On 7 Dec 41, here's what he starts with:
69 TK
21 AO
Between 8 Dec 41 and 31 Dec 42, here are the reinforcements:
33 TK
8 AO
Not a lot. Unfortunately, most are medium to large. If we can kill off some, we definitely can put a hurting on moving fuel to the front though. Interesting....
Hitting the TKs is nice, but getting a bunch of AOs would do some real damage. Less than 30 for that whole year.
RE: Once Again into the Breech - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A)
Posted: Thu Apr 12, 2012 12:04 pm
by Crackaces
ORIGINAL: Mike Solli
Still no turn. But, here's a little info on Allied TKs and AOs:
On 7 Dec 41, here's what he starts with:
69 TK
21 AO
Between 8 Dec 41 and 31 Dec 42, here are the reinforcements:
33 TK
8 AO
Not a lot. Unfortunately, most are medium to large. If we can kill off some, we definitely can put a hurting on moving fuel to the front though. Interesting....
I truly think the Allies must see periscopes in their sleep the first 6 months of this affair and force them to use longer range DD's to get fuel anywhere of use besides PH. One mistake I made was to let 2 AMC's roam between Bombay and Colombo showing themselves when they sank 4 TK's [:(] Even though I sank the AMC's now I have that and submarines always in the back of my mind and it draws resources away from the front.
Just my .02 ..
RE: Once Again into the Breech - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A)
Posted: Thu Apr 12, 2012 6:01 pm
by Mike Solli
Crackaces, that's my goal. I've been lazy with my subs this game. I finally mapped out a detailed use for them. The goal is to find his TK/AOs and start hammering them. I'm going through the Japanese expansion steps but not much else. I'm beginning to change that with my attempt at Umnak Island and Dutch Harbor.
I spent lunch planning my sub use. Most of the fleet and Glen subs are going to look for his SLOC. I need to make use of my fleet to ambush it soon, before he starts to build up his naval and air strength.
RE: Once Again into the Breech - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A)
Posted: Thu Apr 12, 2012 6:38 pm
by Chickenboy
ORIGINAL: Mike Solli
Crackaces, that's my goal. I've been lazy with my subs this game. I finally mapped out a detailed use for them. The goal is to find his TK/AOs and start hammering them. I'm going through the Japanese expansion steps but not much else. I'm beginning to change that with my attempt at Umnak Island and Dutch Harbor.
I spent lunch planning my sub use. Most of the fleet and Glen subs are going to look for his SLOC. I need to make use of my fleet to ambush it soon, before he starts to build up his naval and air strength.
If he gets lazy in supplying Perth from the Cape, a patrol zone in several of the hexes due West of Perth-maybe 15 hexes out-will find that SLOC and score.
ETA: When I say due West of Perth, I mean follow a straight line from Perth straight west to the edge of the map zone.
RE: Once Again into the Breech - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A)
Posted: Thu Apr 12, 2012 6:42 pm
by Mike Solli
It's funny you mention Perth, Chickenboy. I've been eyeing that base. I dropped a load of sub mines there and didn't see anything. I've got 4 subs I'm going to send there if I ever get the turn back from Ted.
RE: Once Again into the Breech - Mike (J) vs. tc464 (A)
Posted: Thu Apr 12, 2012 10:03 pm
by crsutton
I did not lose but half a dozen tankers in 1942 and still felt a severe fuel crunch in OZ and the South Pacific for the first 3/4th of that year. The Allied player has to be very careful with his tankers. However, due to the fact that there is very little going on for the Allies elsewhere and very little in the way of troops to support, there are more than plenty of xAKs to fill the gaps. I used xAKs carrying fuel all over the map during 1942, so even sinking some Allied tankers won't hurt his ability to move gas around..You really have to murder the Allied merchant fleet to accomplish that.