Wild Sheep Chase - obvert (J) vs JocMeister (A)

[obvert]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

You asked how others feel or I wouldn't be offering this opinion that I know won't be well received.

Withdrawing or disbanding squadrons to escape the fate of being destroyed in place on an airfield that is decimated is just about as gamey an exploitation as is possible. [:-]

I am interested in other opinions. I especially value those of experienced vets as yourself. I would ask for a bit more of a defense of your statement, as this move in no way has been made to get away with anything or game the system. In fact it's been done to approximate what I believe would be a realistic outcome of something like this raid.

Please explain how this is gamey in respect to actual real world conditions as represented in game. As I say, I'm not interested in saving planes, and only a small number of the total destroyed would be withdrawn with the groups. That includes many added that turn 'magically' by the game as replacements immediately after the raid, when nothing supposedly could fly in or out.

I'm simply interested in being able to use the groups again.

Doesn't it sound plausible to reform a group after it's planes are destroyed, since the pilots are nearly all okay and able to be removed in ways that are very concrete, such as by ships leaving the port?

[Speedysteve]

My view on it would be if by withdrawing/disbanding the groups out of harm's way you'd be circumventing their guaranteed destruction I would not be happy with it.
 
As in if there's planes that are undamaged and can fly, fly them out of harm's way as could have been done IRL. If they're sitting their damaged then IMO it is a 'gamey' thing to do by warping them in a cloaking device to safety.
 
My 2p

[HansBolter]

The game already has a mechanism for restoring destroyed squadrons. One has to buy them back with PPs and wait six months to get them back in an opeartional state.

Withdrawing them allows one to avoid the total destruction, avoid the victory points to one's opponent for destroying them, avoid the PP cost of buying back the sqadron and shorten the six month wait to two months.

That's why I see it as an exploitation. Airfields that become sufficiently damaged to prevent flying out should also prevent withdrawal, but the rules aren't structured that way.

As for getting the pilots out on ships as an explanation for how it might be done I am all for that, not just the pilots but the damaged planes and also the ready planes that can't fly out because the field is too damaged. If you loaded the squadrons on ships and physically transported them out, with all the inherent risks of sinking that entails, then I would be cheering that as a bold and desperate move to get out what you can before it's destroyed. I agree with Speedy's assessment of the withdrawal/disbanding being tantamount to warping out under a cloaking device.

[obvert]

ORIGINAL: Speedy

My view on it would be if by withdrawing/disbanding the groups out of harm's way you'd be circumventing their guaranteed destruction I would not be happy with it.

As in if there's planes that are undamaged and can fly, fly them out of harm's way as could have been done IRL. If they're sitting their damaged then IMO it is a 'gamey' thing to do by warping them in a cloaking device to safety.

My 2p

Most of the planes, or well over half anyway, were healthy planes, but wouldn't fly out due to the 100% field damage. The first time I've encountered that. My method previously was to do as you say, then disband the remainder of the groups, losing the planes. I offered to go back and just let him destroy the damaged ones the next day if that made more sense, but he chose to go on.

Also, about 60-70 planes came IN as replacements to groups during the turn after the raids! So that's a bunch of damaged planes I have no control over arriving, which shouldn't have been able to arrive, and were added to the groups, damaged of course.

For me though, as I say, it's not about the planes. I don't care about the planes for VPs or for their use. It's at tops 150, and I could produce them fairly quickly, or lose that many in the next sweep over a big base. By 44 a Japanese player is almost numb to losing large amounts of airframes. I'll happily turn off the requisite factories for two weeks to make up the amount if that makes sense. Really, I want the groups. I can't wage a war if the groups are abstractly locked in a base from which they can't escape.

Perhaps I should have waited a day and asked Jocke before making the move, but as we all know, human emotion plays a part and frankly I was frustrated after the turn. We had had discussion about this before and I reasoned that the penalty of having to wait two months is severe enough to warrant withdrawing the units.

After his concern over the airframes I offered, and still leave open the offer to go back and leave them for the next raid to destroy before withdrawing the groups. It sincerely just wasn't the main focus for me at the time.

[obvert]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

The game already has a mechanism for restoring destroyed squadrons. One has to buy them back with PPs and wait six months to get them back in an opeartional state.

Withdrawing them allows one to avoid the total destruction, avoid the victory points to one's opponent for destroying them, avoid the PP cost of buying back the sqadron and shorten the six month wait to two months.

That's why I see it as an exploitation. Airfields that become sufficiently damaged to prevent flying out should also prevent withdrawal, but the rules aren't structured that way.

As for getting the pilots out on ships as an explanation for how it might be done I am all for that, not just the pilots but the damaged planes and also the ready planes that can't fly out because the field is too damaged. If you loaded the squadrons on ships and physically transported them out, with all the inherent risks of sinking that entails, then I would be cheering that as a bold and desperate move to get out what you can before it's destroyed. I agree with Speedy's assessment of the withdrawal/disbanding being tantamount to warping out under a cloaking device.

Would leaving the groups to be destroyed, then withdrawing the groups work for you?

As is I will tell Jocke I'll turn off Helen, Frank, N1K1-J, Tojo IIc, Emily, Emily-L and Jake production for one week to make up the difference. Does that sound fair and not too gamey? That's 175+ airframes not made.

Paying PPs is for destroyed squadrons on a ship where the pilots, the commander and all go down. That is not the case here, and I wouldn't ask anything similar of my opponent if indeed I ever could destroy and isolate his air groups on land. If indeed this were the way it 'should' be that should almost have to be discussed beforehand, because any player would likely not be keen to place large numbers of planes on an island base and try to defend it. Being able to withdraw a group and reform after 60 days makes more sense to me and allows an abstract equivalent to how things would be likely done in reality.

You have to consider we have a lot of abstracts in game that when analyzed don't make perfect sense logistically. This would include pilot and plane reinforcements, commander movements, and even the appearance of PTs and mini-subs at bases long isolated.

[HansBolter]

I'm not really sure where I stand on what you offer as a compromise, but then I'm also not really the one who matters.

If by waiting till they are destroyed and then withdrawing them you mean wait till they have zero planes (all planes destroyed and not the squadron) and then withdrawing the squadron, I still feel somewhat the same way, maybe not as strongly though.

If the squadron is unable to fly out, either because the airfield is too damaged or it has no planes to fly, then it should default to the only method of getting them off the island is to transport them out by ship.

In my current Ironman game I have a squadron on Koepang that was reduced to zero planes. I've left it sitting there until I can ship it out. It just seems like the right way to play it.

The point you make about the squadrons being more importanat than the planes is revealing. One way the Allies can overcome the plethora of airframes in the Japanese inventory is to isolate the squadrons themselevs rather than trying to attrite a staggering pool of replacements. What you are doing is circumventing the only real method the Allies have to attrite their enemy in a meaningful way.

[obvert]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

I'm not really sure where I stand on what you offer as a compromise, but then I'm also not really the one who matters.

If by waiting till they are destroyed and then withdrawing them you mean wait till they have zero planes (all planes destroyed and not the squadron) and then withdrawing the squadron, I still feel somewhat the same way, maybe not as strongly though.

If the squadron is unable to fly out, either because the airfield is too damaged or it has no planes to fly, then it should default to the only method of getting them off the island is to transport them out by ship.

In my current Ironman game I have a squadron on Koepang that was reduced to zero planes. I've left it sitting there until I can ship it out. It just seems like the right way to play it.

The point you make about the squadrons being more importanat than the planes is revealing. One way the Allies can overcome the plethora of airframes in the Japanese inventory is to isolate the squadrons themselevs rather than trying to attrite a staggering pool of replacements. What you are doing is circumventing the only real method the Allies have to attrite their enemy in a meaningful way.

We'll have to just disagree on this one. It's too abstract and not at all how something would play out in reality. If that squadron was isolated, the pilots would be snuck out by sub or flying boat and the group reformed elsewhere. Two months is a long estimate I think for how long it would take for a nation under attack, like the Japanese.

At any rate this would have to be HRed as this is a valid feature of the game that exists and works. It's a great discussion and one that needs to be worked out it looks like.

Anyone who has played the Japanese will be quick to point out the many ways the Allies have to attrit and more, decimate Japanese airframes. Jocke complains of having low pools, but this is all relative isn't it? I make what I need, and not too much because there are consequences to doing that. I make less than what Japan was historically producing, in fact, to save HI, and thus fuel. I usually have just more than 100 fighters in my pools for frontline airframes, and 2E bombers might have less than 100. I currently have 12 Jills and 23 Judys for the current models in my pools! I would bet the Allies usually have a lot more of these respective airframes types. [;)]

The Allies destroyed over 450 airframes in the air and on the field in one attack on March 1! For the loss of around 100-110 of they own. That is surely a way to do more than attrit. If players are having trouble doing this in their games, look at how Jocke is massing elements. Sure there is vulnerability in overstacking, but it works by now when I can't realistically touch his bases and it gives nearly perfect coordination if not using the new beta patch. So, maybe it's matter of tactics.

Historically the Japanese did withdraw certain groups that were depleted, and later brought back those or newly formed groups to replace them. Would any Allied player like to limit the number of groups available to the Japanese side? Just change the OOB? Do you think the Japanese would not have formed new groups with those pilots saved from the Rabaul debacle, (all able to be sent to pools abstractly and immediately in game, which is another strange thing. Luckily I can imagine they got on ships and left port that day), and instead just fought with less? I doubt that would have happened, and I don't think it's an appropriate use of PPs when any other withdrawal doesn't require them.

[PaxMondo]

obvert,

lot'sa things to respond to here.

ORIGINAL: obvert
My feeling is that any level 9 base should hold for at least one day. It is a representation of multiple fields, as I understand it, and flying planes out should at least be possible after a big raid like this.

OK, here I will take the opposite side from you. A level 9 AF could be closed in one day, and the numbers of 2E and 4E that the allies committed here would do it. He had enough flights of enough bombers to close a lot of fields in one day.

Your description and analysis is accurate and there is no real defense, neither in game or in real life. When you see 2 - 4 AF's build up in 4E range, as IJ you have to consider abandoning your position or committing the KB. There are no alternatives. Rabaul was assaulted like that IRL ... so you have to expect the game to allow for the same tactic and outcome. Soon the allies will be able to do this with their Death Star of CV's ... with the same outcome.

ORIGINAL: obvert

As it is, I now have a serious problem. I decided to take a hit and do something that Jocke has since shown concern about, but for me seems the only somewhat 'fair' method of dealing with the situation now.

I withdrew all air units that would withdraw. They will appear back in Tokyo, for the most part, in 60 days. That is taking one on the chin in a real way in 44, in my opinion. But it's the only way I can see to use the groups again without letting them sit and wait until the base is taken, which could be as long at least, and after which I would be forced to buy them back. That seems too far an abstraction. I have the pilots, the planes can be manufactured, and those groups should be able to reform much sooner in my opinion, but this is the only somewhat acceptable option the game allows.

I don't really care about the airframes, for VP or otherwise. After he expressed concerns I offered to go back and keep the groups there for one more day so he could wipe the airframes, then withdraw them. He decided to play on, so here we are. I'd be interested to hear how others deal with this or imagine they would. The only other option would be to disband the groups, but then they would be gone for 120 days, and that is beyond reason and plausibility. Let me now what you all think.

Now Rabaul wil be effectively abandoned, even though there are still many units here and this is the only thing keeping any of the bases nearby functioning. I will likely lose all of these units, but there is no need to lose ships trying to save them either. It's kind of a relief, as now he'll have to move into more difficult waters.

In contrast to others comments, I do NOT see this as gamey at all ... rather it is exactly what both the allies and the IJ did MANY times during the course of the war. All you did was have your pilots get on an air transport to return the HI where they have to be reformed (after home leave) with new equipment.

To my understanding the 60 day withdrawal is in the game for this reason. You used it exactly as intended.

The re-purchase of air groups with PP's is for when the group was actually destroyed, mostly when sunk enroute either in Transport or in action on a CV. Losing an airgroup in this circumstance is different, the group wasn't withdrawn in an orderly fashion pilots/mechanics may actually have been lost.

Just my thoughts...

[SqzMyLemon]

I'll wade in here with this thought. Just how many VP's for destroying the damaged aircraft are we talking about here? If you can convince me the VP's lost to the Allied cause from withdrawing these groups to avoid destruction is worth more than the strategic impact of these air groups being out of the fight for two months, you might make a convert out of me.

As a compromise, you could replace all the experienced pilots with rookies and leave the unit to it's fate. Jocke gets his VP's, you save your pilots. You could then try the suggested removal of the air unit by sea transport or wait for airframes to get repaired and begin re-basing the unit.

Personally, I don't see an issue. Withdrawing a unit for two months isn't exactly getting a free pass. It's out of the fight. I don't see this as gamey, or an exploit, that's how withdrawal works regardless of the state of the unit, by design. An oversight? Maybe, but not something a player should have to beat himself up over.

I obviously care about what is decided since I'm playing Jocke as well.

[obvert]

Thanks for the comments gents. About the possibility of closure, I guess I've never had it happen that the field was so far closed no planes could be flown out. Live and learn! [;)] I definitely have always seen the possibility of the Allies effectively closing the base for ops, and I know in Rangoon I may have gotten a tad bit lucky to be able to fly after similar raids a few months before. I simply thought I'd be able to do as I have done and fly out portions of groups to reform without the penalty of 60 days, disbanding and losing the other planes left damaged.

I see the withdrawal option as you do Pax, an approximation of the time to get things in order after disorder and then reform with new machinery. The issue as Joseph points out is the planes, and the potential VPs for planes. Just gets a bit tricky as we can take replacements through a closed base (or over great distance immediately at any time in game) so there is just always going to be an abstraction going on with this function, and the more clear each side is about what happens the less one feels cheated if a bunch of planes disappear overnight that they thought were dead meat.

The thing with pilots Joseph is that I could just take pilots out and leave the groups empty as well. No need for rookies even.

Jocke has been very balanced in his response to this, and I think sees this as a place where there is no perfect solution, but several provided by devs. So really he and I are mostly interested in what other players have done and how two players work out the right system for their type of game. I'm sure you two will have a short exchange once more opinions/examples are out there.

It seems only a few are responding to the thread in the main forum that I opened, though. Maybe they're wary of stating their own practice in an open forum? Or just don't see the issue with it? Not sure.

[catwhoorg]

Withdrawing air units from a closed field in face of overwhelming odds ?

I may have done that in the DEI a time or two. Same thing, but smaller scale.

[obvert]

ORIGINAL: catwhoorg

Withdrawing air units from a closed field in face of overwhelming odds ?

I may have done that in the DEI a time or two. Same thing, but smaller scale.

Yes, the scale can be a bit magnified in 44!

I've seen similar in 42 in the DEI, but it is much smaller and therefore with fewer ramifications.

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

All you did was have your pilots get on an air transport to return the HI where they have to be reformed (after home leave) with new equipment.

Maybe you all see this as a minor point, but how does the air transport plane take off from a closed airfield?

Shipping should be the only way off the island once the airfield is closed.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

All you did was have your pilots get on an air transport to return the HI where they have to be reformed (after home leave) with new equipment.

Maybe you all see this as a minor point, but how does the air transport plane take off from a closed airfield?

Shipping should be the only way off the island once the airfield is closed.

How do replacement aircraft come in to a closed airfield? It's part of the design.

[obvert]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

All you did was have your pilots get on an air transport to return the HI where they have to be reformed (after home leave) with new equipment.

Maybe you all see this as a minor point, but how does the air transport plane take off from a closed airfield?

Shipping should be the only way off the island once the airfield is closed.

I would imagine it as a flying boat transport. In my specific case there were also ships in port, but not the kind that could collect the units in game. That doesn't mean at a pinch in a real-life scenario they wouldn't have gotten all of those crews out if that was seen as important.

This is really though about how we deal with the abstracts of the game. Bullwinkle's point is very important, not because it justifies what we've chosen to do but because he highlights the abstraction working in many facets of the game. I'm much more interested in this as an objective discussion. How are those Hellcat or SBD replacements meant to get across the Pacific if not by ship. But what ship? There is no ship taking them in game, just as there is no actual transport picking up pilots going back to pools. It is implied abstractly by the design.

So I completely agree something is fishy about planes withdrawing from a closed field, but because this is how many facets of the game work by design, it seems something that needs to be worked out by players, one way or another and in advance so there is no difficulty once it occurs in game. That's all.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: obvert

This is really though about how we deal with the abstracts of the game. Bullwinkle's point is very important, not because it justifies what I've chosen but because he highlights the abstraction working in many facets of the game. I'm much more interested in this as an objective discussion. How are those Hellcat or SBD replacements meant to get across the Pacific if not by ship. But what ship? There is no ship taking them in game, just as there is no actual transport picking up pilots going back to pools. It is implied abstractly by the design.

Long, long ago in one thread or another a dev disclosed that the team tried to work in actual transport of replacement aircraft by ship. (Not sure about pilots.) It would slow op tempo by orders of magnitude. I believe it was dropped due to complexity and because it would massively torque other areas of game balance. Many players now have trouble getting generic "supply" where it's needed. Imagine, in the current UI, having to ship, by model, with weeks of lead time, every plane to be used in front line areas. Insanity ensues.

In the old days I used to rail about the submarine game's abstractions. That crews need no R&R before spinning out on yet another two-month patrol. That a single sub can't take out 2-3 ships in one attack as happened many times in RL. That targets not worth two fish are sometimes assigned four. But I stopped railing when I saw that, on balance, the thing . . . balances.

Same-o same-o here.

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

All you did was have your pilots get on an air transport to return the HI where they have to be reformed (after home leave) with new equipment.

Maybe you all see this as a minor point, but how does the air transport plane take off from a closed airfield?

Shipping should be the only way off the island once the airfield is closed.

How do replacement aircraft come in to a closed airfield? It's part of the design.

Replacements don't fly in even to functioning airfields. They arrive unready, which means they are shipped in by non AKV transports that are abstracted.

I appreciate the position that as long as abstracts balance it's better not to try and look under the carpet where the details have been swept to examine how its supposed to be working.

I just don't believe these abstracts are balancing.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: HansBolter





Maybe you all see this as a minor point, but how does the air transport plane take off from a closed airfield?

Shipping should be the only way off the island once the airfield is closed.

How do replacement aircraft come in to a closed airfield? It's part of the design.

Replacements don't fly in even to functioning airfields. They arrive unready, which means they are shipped in by non AKV transports that are abstracted.

Even at AFs with no port?

I appreciate the position that as long as abstracts balance it's better not to try and look under the carpet where the details have been swept to examine how its supposed to be working.

I just don't believe these abstracts are balancing.

Opinions differ. We agree to disagree here.

[obvert]

[font="Times New Roman"]3 - 4 March 1944[/font]
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

[font="Microsoft Sans Serif"]SUBS: [/font] A sub hits a good 18 knot AK near Hollandia that is bringing infantry here. It could have made it as fires were out after day one, but ...

[font="Microsoft Sans Serif"]SOUTH PACIFIC:[/font] ... Jocke sends in 8 Fletchers to Hollandia and decimates the transports landing troops there. Only one makes it out, but the escorts are relatively undamaged. Also, the good news is 75% of the troops land, and there is plenty of supply here to get replacements. I did have a CA led SAG a few hexes away that was coming in to protect but made it too late, and didn't react in. Such is the story lately. I'm just one step too late.

Since 44 hit not only has Jocke moved with purpose and taken some good risks, I have not played as tightly and meticulously as I'd like. Something about having all of my units splayed out over multiple bases and having to constantly retreat has gotten into my psyche. I have to fix this and soon, taking time to consider counter play and really trying to deceive in my movements more than ever. It all takes time, though. I can't rush turns at this stage.

On a good note, the Jack is turning into my Corsair killer. Well, not really, but it seems to hold it's own better than anything else. I got better than 1:2 against elite F4U-1 and 1A sweeps at Aitape on the 3rd, taking down about 12 Corsairs it seems for a loss of 19 J2M3. I'm moving these back to Hollandia where there is an HQ and 50 Tojos to support.

[font="Microsoft Sans Serif"]NORTH PACIFIC: [/font] I see ships gathering at Kodiak. I'm assuming a move would come up here soon. Looks like there is only something like LSTs and DDs for now, but more could be hiding in the shadows. All bases are ready for a last defense and staunch troops are slowly filling the Kuriles in anticipation of the tightening of the noose.

Naval assets will be minimal up here. I did a count recently and I have 84 DDs available now. I've lost 49, the Allies have lost 66 according to my reports. I have 10 CAs, having lost 8, and the Allies have lost 12 by my reports. I have no idea how many they would have now. I have all of the BBs still, which is somewhat comforting. None of any of this in is the North. I'll have to get a dedicated SAG ready to patrol at Paramushiro.

[font="Microsoft Sans Serif"]WEST OZ: [/font] Darwin is still getting support troops in it looks like. I saw a small TF go in, which shows a TK. Interesting. Could be a tanker getting the place ready for PTs?

[font="Microsoft Sans Serif"]BURMA: [/font] More interesting things. Jocke attacked near Lashio, getting a 1:2 but dishing out relatively equal casualties, which helps him. He did bring anti-tank guns. Smart man. My new unit will not be in time if this continues. I am transferring the Thai division that had built nice level two forts next door over into this contested hex. If it doesn't get crushed while moving that should help things hold for a few weeks until more IJA troops can arrive. I don't want the backdoor to collapse now, especially not being able to control which direction we retreat.

Also the 120k troops between Bassein and Prome are on the move. One part shows movement into Prome, where I have 750AV and level 6 forts. The other is pointed toward the hex across the river down the rail, where I have 1200 AV with arty and level 2 forts in +2 terrain. I have 3 divisions reserve and I'm committing the tanks but may hold the rest in Rangoon in case this is a feint and he turns around for Bassein, level 5.8+ with 450 AV, which would be my next move if I were the Allies.

Prome would be good for him too, taking away easy road access to my frontline, and forcing me to protect the jungle hex next to Prome. I might decide to pull back a layer with the big stack should this occur. We'll see. Level 6 forts are nothing to sneeze at, and I could get a lot into Prome by the time he goes over the river. I bombed these troops with 80+ Helens doing some damage on the 4th with no resistance.

[font="Microsoft Sans Serif"]CENTRAL PACFIC:[/font] Still loading up tanks. Takes forever. One more day hopefully for the last two TFs to make a move and brave sub-infested waters toward Truk.

[font="Trebuchet MS"]--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR March 3, 44
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sub attack near Hollandia at 93,115

Japanese Ships
AK Sakito Maru, Torpedo hits 1, heavy damage
AMC Kongo Maru
AK Azuma Maru
AK Anyo Maru
AK Melbourne Maru
AK Sagami Maru
xAP Terukuni Maru
xAP Hie Maru
xAK Myoko Maru
E Kiji

Allied Ships
SS Skipjack

Japanese ground losses:
15 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 1 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

SS Skipjack launches 2 torpedoes at AK Sakito Maru
E Kiji fails to find sub, continues to search...
E Kiji attacking submerged sub ....
Escort abandons search for sub

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Aitape , at 95,118

Weather in hex: Thunderstorms

Raid detected at 23 NM, estimated altitude 31,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 8 minutes

Japanese aircraft
J2M3 Jack x 36

Allied aircraft
F4U-1 Corsair x 17

Japanese aircraft losses
J2M3 Jack: 3 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
F4U-1 Corsair: 1 destroyed

CAP engaged:
252 Ku S-1 with J2M3 Jack (0 airborne, 12 on standby, 19 scrambling)
5 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters between 15000 and 36000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 35 minutes

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Aitape , at 95,118

Weather in hex: Thunderstorms

Raid detected at 14 NM, estimated altitude 34,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 5 minutes

Japanese aircraft
J2M3 Jack x 19

Allied aircraft
F4U-1A Corsair x 16

Japanese aircraft losses
J2M3 Jack: 1 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
F4U-1A Corsair: 1 destroyed

Aircraft Attacking:
5 x F4U-1A Corsair sweeping at 31000 feet

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Aitape , at 95,118

Weather in hex: Thunderstorms

Raid detected at 73 NM, estimated altitude 35,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 27 minutes

Japanese aircraft
J2M3 Jack x 12

Allied aircraft
F4U-1 Corsair x 18

Japanese aircraft losses
J2M3 Jack: 3 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
F4U-1 Corsair: 1 destroyed

Aircraft Attacking:
13 x F4U-1 Corsair sweeping at 31000 feet

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on 6th Chinese Corps, at 54,51 , near Prome

Weather in hex: Thunderstorms

Raid spotted at 38 NM, estimated altitude 16,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 11 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-43-IIIa Oscar x 49
Ki-49-IIa Helen x 54
Ki-49-IIb Helen x 27

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-49-IIa Helen: 1 destroyed by flak
Ki-49-IIb Helen: 2 damaged

Allied ground losses:
117 casualties reported
Squads: 3 destroyed, 9 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 4 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Aircraft Attacking:
27 x Ki-49-IIa Helen bombing from 10000 feet
Ground Attack: 4 x 250 kg GP Bomb

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on 70th Infantry Brigade, at 89,124 (Merauke)

Weather in hex: Moderate rain

Raid spotted at 20 NM, estimated altitude 9,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 6 minutes


Allied aircraft
Mitchell II x 18
B-17E Fortress x 21
B-24D Liberator x 9
B-24D1 Liberator x 61
B-24J Liberator x 55
B-25C Mitchell x 45
B-25D1 Mitchell x 94
B-25G Mitchell x 25
B-25H Mitchell x 3
PB4Y-1 Liberator x 10


Allied aircraft losses
B-17E Fortress: 1 damaged
B-24D1 Liberator: 4 damaged
B-25C Mitchell: 1 damaged
B-25D1 Mitchell: 1 damaged
B-25G Mitchell: 1 damaged

Japanese ground losses:
87 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 4 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 11 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled

Aircraft Attacking:
10 x PB4Y-1 Liberator bombing from 6000 feet
Ground Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on 2nd RTA Division, at 61,46 , near Lashio

Weather in hex: Overcast

Raid spotted at 20 NM, estimated altitude 12,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 7 minutes


Allied aircraft
Liberator II x 9
Liberator GR.III x 6
B-17F Fortress x 7
B-24D Liberator x 12
B-24D1 Liberator x 26
B-24J Liberator x 63

No Allied losses

Japanese ground losses:
67 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 8 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 7 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Aircraft Attacking:
9 x Liberator II bombing from 8000 feet
Ground Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ground combat at Merauke (89,124)

Allied Bombardment attack

Attacking force 11894 troops, 142 guns, 204 vehicles, Assault Value = 537

Defending force 7765 troops, 44 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 267

Assaulting units:
138th(Sep) Infantry Regiment
1st Cavalry (Spec) Cavalry Division

Defending units:
57th Infantry Regiment
70th Infantry Brigade
1st Engineer Co
5th Indpt SNLF Coy
52nd Construction Battalion
4th JAAF AF Coy

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR March 4, 44
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Night Time Surface Combat, near Hollandia at 93,116, Range 10,000 Yards

Japanese aircraft
no flights

Japanese aircraft losses
E13A1 Jake: 2 destroyed

Japanese Ships
E Yugao, Shell hits 3
E Tomozuru, Shell hits 1
E Kiji, Shell hits 2
AK Sagami Maru, Shell hits 51, and is sunk
AK Sakito Maru, Shell hits 2, and is sunk
AK Brisbane Maru, Shell hits 3, Torpedo hits 3, and is sunk
AK Melbourne Maru, Shell hits 6, on fire
AK Arizona Maru, Shell hits 27, heavy fires, heavy damage
AK Anyo Maru, Shell hits 7, Torpedo hits 3, and is sunk
AK Azuma Maru, Shell hits 52, heavy fires, heavy damage
AMC Kongo Maru, Shell hits 4, Torpedo hits 4, and is sunk
xAK Myoko Maru, Shell hits 6, Torpedo hits 3, and is sunk
xAP Hie Maru, Shell hits 17, heavy fires, heavy damage
xAP Terukuni Maru, Shell hits 9, Torpedo hits 3, and is sunk

Allied Ships
DD Charles Ausburne
DD Beale
DD Bell
DD Bennett
DD Jenkins
DD Nicholas
DD O'Bannon, Shell hits 2
DD Selfridge

Japanese ground losses:
683 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 77 destroyed, 50 disabled
Engineers: 2 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 51 (28 destroyed, 23 disabled)
Vehicles lost 25 (25 destroyed, 0 disabled)

Improved night sighting under 75% moonlight
Maximum visibility in Partly Cloudy Conditions and 75% moonlight: 11,000 yards
Range closes to 25,000 yards...

OUCH![:(]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub attack near Hollandia at 93,115

Japanese Ships
xAP Hie Maru, Torpedo hits 2, heavy fires, heavy damage
E Kiji

Allied Ships
SS Skipjack

SS Skipjack launches 4 torpedoes at xAP Hie Maru
Skipjack diving deep ....
E Kiji fails to find sub, continues to search...
Escort abandons search for sub

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub attack near Madang at 99,122

Japanese Ships
SS I-4, hits 13, and is sunk

Allied Ships
DD Nicholas
DD Bennett
DD Bell
DD Beale
DD Charles Ausburne
DD Selfridge
DD O'Bannon
DD Jenkins

SS I-4 launches 2 torpedoes at DD Nicholas
I-4 diving deep ....
DD Selfridge fails to find sub, continues to search...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on 2nd RTA Division, at 61,46 , near Lashio

Weather in hex: Overcast

Raid spotted at 19 NM, estimated altitude 11,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 6 minutes


Allied aircraft
Liberator II x 12
Liberator B.III x 12
Liberator GR.III x 19
B-17F Fortress x 9
B-24D Liberator x 19
B-24D1 Liberator x 25
B-24J Liberator x 99

Allied aircraft losses
Liberator GR.III: 1 damaged

Japanese ground losses:
39 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 4 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 5 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Aircraft Attacking:
12 x Liberator II bombing from 8000 feet
Ground Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ground combat at 60,47 (near Mandalay)

Allied Deliberate attack

Attacking force 22617 troops, 248 guns, 41 vehicles, Assault Value = 976

Defending force 10745 troops, 80 guns, 264 vehicles, Assault Value = 325

Allied adjusted assault: 451

Japanese adjusted defense: 904

Allied assault odds: 1 to 2

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+)
Attacker: leaders(+), supply(-) Could be key

Japanese ground losses:
916 casualties reported
Squads: 6 destroyed, 93 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 22 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 10 disabled
Vehicles lost 24 (2 destroyed, 22 disabled)

Allied ground losses:
727 casualties reported
Squads: 5 destroyed, 90 disabled
Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 12 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 3 disabled
Guns lost 49 (21 destroyed, 28 disabled) I wonder if these were anti-tank guns?
Vehicles lost 14 (4 destroyed, 10 disabled)

Assaulting units:
641st Towed Tank Destroyer Battalion
50th Indian Para Brigade
3rd New Chinese Corps

Defending units:
8th Tank Regiment
4th Ind.Mixed Regiment
39th/A Division
2nd Army
1st Hvy.Artillery Regiment

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/font]

Reinforcements:
[font="Trebuchet MS"]MGB G-222 arrives at Osaka/Kyoto
S-306 Hikotai arrives at Chiba
46th Ind.Mixed Brigade arrives at Taihoku[/font]

Losses:

[font="Trebuchet MS"]Loss of SS I-4 on Mar 04, 1944 is admitted
Loss of AK Sagami Maru on Mar 04, 1944 is admitted
Loss of AK Sakito Maru on Mar 04, 1944 is admitted
Loss of AK Brisbane Maru on Mar 04, 1944 is admitted
Loss of AK Anyo Maru on Mar 04, 1944 is admitted
Loss of AMC Kongo Maru on Mar 04, 1944 is admitted
Loss of xAK Myoko Maru on Mar 04, 1944 is admitted
Loss of xAP Hie Maru on Mar 04, 1944 is admitted
Loss of xAP Terukuni Maru on Mar 04, 1944 is admitted[/font]

Ships Sunk: None.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

[font="Trebuchet MS"]Here is the current situation in Burma. Still tense. He holds the cards about where the action will fall.[/font]
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

[obvert]

[font="Times New Roman"]A7M[/font]
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I almost forgot to mention an important development. The Sam is now officially in R n D!!! [:)][&o][&o]

One factory of 30 is repaired and 3% toward one month advance has been achieved. Four more are getting close, the nearest with 4 more points to go. Not sure if I'll have any CVs to put these on in 9-10 months when they arrive, but it's worth a shot!

The Ki-83 has one factory with only 3 points left to fix as well, which is also exciting.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________