The Gamiest Game in Town - EL (J) vs Rio Bravo (A)

[GetAssista]

ORIGINAL: el lobo

ORIGINAL: Feurer Krieg
Oscar do quite well for quite a long time...

Thanks for the words of encouragement and the tips. I'm liking this plane more and more.

OscarII+ can also bomb (2х250). I tend to train my IJA pilots in GBombing instead of Strafe after they get their 70 in Air, cause they still need their Def at 70 and strafing just does not happen often. And they can be quite nice for additional plastering of airfields or supply syphoning through AA. Slightly worse than dedicated LB, but very respectable. Hold better against occasional cap traps too than unescorted bombers

[el lobo]

Also Thanks. Looks like we have an Oscar fan club here.

[el lobo]

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

ORIGINAL: el lobo

obvert, I agree with no HI or LI expansion in the DEA and will study the areas you suggested. Also agree with infrastructure building and will look closely at that also.

First, let me say that I love obvert's input and advice. I've used it many times. But, I'd like to give a different argument for HI expansion on Java.

If you look at the HI, oil and refineries in Java, you'll see that there is a surplus of oil vs. refineries and HI is low. If you increase the refineries to match the oil output, you'll increase fuel and supply production and simplify movement out of Java. No longer do you have to move oil out, just fuel. Also, if you increase HI and ship resources from all the surrounding small resource producing bases to Java, you can save fuel there too. It's too fuel intensive to move those resources to the Home Islands. Just move them to Java and they'll get used by the HI there. There will still be excess fuel that can be either shipped out or used to support a fleet in the area. There will also be excess supply there that can be used in the area.

Thanks Mike. This sounds very reasonable to me and will do.

[el lobo]

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli
For me, once fatigue is <=5 and morale is at 99, I set training to 100%, range 0 and at 5-6k feet. Just check them 1-2 times a month. I pull them out when experience is >50 and skill(s) are 70+ and replace them with more rookies. Op losses are minimal.

I do something similar with a couple of caveats.

This is probably another “until the cows come home” discussion, but through reading and a couple of statistically meaningless experiments of my own, I believe that units flying their missions gain skill and experience at about the same rate as units strictly training. So I have some of my “training” units flying missions where they may be useful and to better utilize my aviation support, such as a Nate unit flying CAP at Utsonomiya. This varies though so I keep and eye on them and keep comparing. Also have to watch my fatigue levels more carefully.

I also consider all units as training units. I know that most players do this also, it is just semantics, but this causes me to examine my units differently than you do. For example, I examine my air groups daily, not all, but a different area each day.

I start with my training, low risk, units and using the same guide-lines as you do, I move the trained pilots into the Reserve Pool and replace them. Not always from the Replacement Pool. Some times I get low skills in the Reserve Pool so I bring them in first. I then go through my medium risk air units and move the higher skilled, higher experienced pilots into the Reserve Pool and replace them with the pilots previously moved into the Pool from the training groups. My goals it to have all these pilots in the low seventies. Right now I still have some in the high sixties but working on it.

I then go to my high risk, high value units and repeat the process, moving any qualified pilots into TRACOM. If my pools allow it and I have pilots in the low seventies in these units, I will move them out and replace them with higher skilled pilots. The ones I move out will go back down to a medium risk unit to train-up some more. I want all of these units to be in the high seventies.

This process has not allowed me to stock many pilots in the Reserve Pool as yet but I have some good experience, skill levels in most of my units. My TRACOM has about one-hundred pilots so far.

Once the serious fighting begins this will change. Every thing will notch up and TRACOM will become my replacement pool for the high risk units. At least that's the plan.

I also have done something you probably haven't, I have expanded many of my navy units as suggested previously in this AAR, allowing me to train another couple hundred more pilots than usual. Too bad we can't do the same with the army but the navy LBA is going to be able to carry more load later in the game.

[el lobo]

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

Just a word on fighter research for Japan. You need to counter the Allied fighters in some way shape or manner.

Basically, that can be summed up as this:

Lightning sweeps in mid 42-43.

Jugs sweeps in 43 to 44.

In my part of the world this time of year, lighting sweeps through all too often making me want to hit the jug.

That is what you were talking about, right?

ORIGINAL: Lowpe
Sometimes it is worth adding five more r&d factories to get a plane 3 more months early. YMMV.[;)]

Noted

[GetAssista]

ORIGINAL: el lobo
This is probably another “until the cows come home” discussion, but through reading and a couple of statistically meaningless experiments of my own, I believe that units flying their missions gain skill and experience at about the same rate as units strictly training.

I believe that missions build up experience faster than training, and this may be undesirable as xp>50 slows down skill gain. Plus defence skill rarely if ever goes up with missions, you need training for that one. YMMV =)

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: el lobo


This is probably another “until the cows come home” discussion, but through reading and a couple of statistically meaningless experiments of my own, I believe that units flying their missions gain skill and experience at about the same rate as units strictly training. So I have some of my “training” units flying missions where they may be useful and to better utilize my aviation support, such as a Nate unit flying CAP at Utsonomiya. This varies though so I keep and eye on them and keep comparing. Also have to watch my fatigue levels more carefully.

In general:

1. training increases skill (up to ~70) faster than exp, and combat increases exp faster than skill (limit=99 on both which I have never seen, but hope to some day)

2. Training consumes less supply than combat missions.

3. Training squadrons can use Leaders that are not acceptable for combat.

The last two are the real reasons for me to form training squadrons, and I specifically do NOT ever train squadrons in combat. In combat areas I want them either resting to maintain morale/fatigue or fighting.
Training groups are always 100% training at 0 range.

The first one people can discuss, but it has been my in game observation and results of my testing; the last two are pretty much accepted.

[el lobo]

The three leaders that had the audacity to engage upon potential combat missions of their own accord have been demoted, and, they have been put on sh*t-burning detail. Their over enthusiasm to fight and die for the Emperor was the only reason they were not shot at sunrise.

I told them to use those silly stat sheets at which they kept pointing, to light the barrels.

Their units have been returned to training and they have been replaced by less aggressive, more inspirational leaders.

[el lobo]

Mar 16– 20, 1942, Turn one-hundred - one-hundred-four

In Java.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clearing mines at Batavia for two days now. The mines are preventing a supply TF from landing. I need the supplies there to rejoin a division. I think I will just strat the pieces to Semarang.

Japanese forces CAPTURE Bandoeng !!!

In the P.I.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did one DA at Iba, forts to one but not enough AV so moving in more.
Starting to move into Bataan after a good rest.

In China.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are still dancing around Sian. It looks like he may be making another stand on the road intersection north-east of Sian. Right now he has me 2.5:1 in the hex but I have lots of artillery there and reinforcements on the way. He is also moving more troops that way which I am bombing heavily.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: el lobo

The three leaders that had the audacity to engage upon potential combat missions of their own accord have been demoted, and, they have been put on sh*t-burning detail. Their over enthusiasm to fight and die for the Emperor was the only reason they were not shot at sunrise.

I told them to use those silly stat sheets at which they kept pointing, to light the barrels.

Their units have been returned to training and they have been replaced by less aggressive, more inspirational leaders.

[:D]

[GetAssista]

Don't shoot them pilots. Shoot the leaders, them are the source of all evil, and them are on a different screen too

[el lobo]

What is the most efficient way to configure resource convoy TFs?

For example:

Right now I am running nineteen resource TFs from Sapporo to Hirosali/Aomori with sixty-two ships. They are at least grouped by ship class but from one to six ships in a TF.

Sapporo is a six, Hirosali/Aomori is size five port (expanding).

Thanks

[el lobo]

Does anybody know how to “trick” these units into going where I want them to go?

I gave orders to move as indicated by the notes but you can see by the movement arrows that the units want to take the scenic route. I know this has to do with a valid supply path but it makes no sense that the units will not go where I want since there are already units in the destination hex with ample supply.

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: el lobo

What is the most efficient way to configure resource convoy TFs?

For example:

Right now I am running nineteen resource TFs from Sapporo to Hirosali/Aomori with sixty-two ships. They are at least grouped by ship class but from one to six ships in a TF.

Sapporo is a six, Hirosali/Aomori is size five port (expanding).

Thanks

Not sure what you mean here.

Let me say for stock scenarios, my opinion is:
I have all the xAK's at start I will ever use. I do not build a single one, and convert a large percentage to support vessels.
I never have enough TK/AO's. I hate to lose even one, but I try to build as few as I can. They are $$$ and I prefer to build warships with my HI.

For resource/supply convoys:

You're using CS, right?

After that, there is a sheet in tracker to help. I use my most fuel inefficient ones on the shortest runs, the most fuel efficient on the longest. The middling gets used to manually transport supply around.
I set up lots of small TF's as opposed to big ones to maximize loading speed and not have to worry about port size, particularly while they are expanding in '42.

Other than that, I try not to over think it. [;)]

For fuel/oil:
Always human control.
Always escorted
Always under ASW umbrella

I tend to lose a lot of xAK's.
I try not to lose a single TK/AO ever.
I don't convert the CS, they are used as NavSearch for KB and ASW for TK/AO convoys. With Jakes they are good, with Norms they help offset the enormous allied intel advantage.

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: el lobo

Does anybody know how to “trick” these units into going where I want them to go?

I gave orders to move as indicated by the notes but you can see by the movement arrows that the units want to take the scenic route. I know this has to do with a valid supply path but it makes no sense that the units will not go where I want since there are already units in the destination hex with ample supply.

OK, pretty sure it isn't a trick, but rather a factor of hex side control.

First, you need to turn on the hexside control (W). Now for me, I have to snip and image and blow it up so I can see it. Even then tough for me do to color blind.
Anyway.

In your situation your are engaged in the hex. That means you do NOT own the hexsides on that hex, except the ones that you have entered upon. You can only exit the hex based upon the hex sides you own.
Make sense? That is why all of you units exit the one side, on their way to the destination you are giving them. They cannot go directly. A 'feature' of the game is that it will still tell you they are going 46 miles, when in fact that are going 92 or 138, 'fooling' you into thinking that they can go directly when they can't. Think of it as the straight line distance, not that actual route to be taken.

[FeurerKrieg]

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

ORIGINAL: el lobo

What is the most efficient way to configure resource convoy TFs?

For example:

Right now I am running nineteen resource TFs from Sapporo to Hirosali/Aomori with sixty-two ships. They are at least grouped by ship class but from one to six ships in a TF.

Sapporo is a six, Hirosali/Aomori is size five port (expanding).

Thanks

Not sure what you mean here.

Let me say for stock scenarios, my opinion is:
I have all the xAK's at start I will ever use. I do not build a single one, and convert a large percentage to support vessels.
I never have enough TK/AO's. I hate to lose even one, but I try to build as few as I can. They are $$$ and I prefer to build warships with my HI.

For resource/supply convoys:

You're using CS, right?

After that, there is a sheet in tracker to help. I use my most fuel inefficient ones on the shortest runs, the most fuel efficient on the longest. The middling gets used to manually transport supply around.
I set up lots of small TF's as opposed to big ones to maximize loading speed and not have to worry about port size, particularly while they are expanding in '42.

Other than that, I try not to over think it. [;)]

For fuel/oil:
Always human control.
Always escorted
Always under ASW umbrella

I tend to lose a lot of xAK's.
I try not to lose a single TK/AO ever.
I don't convert the CS, they are used as NavSearch for KB and ASW for TK/AO convoys. With Jakes they are good, with Norms they help offset the enormous allied intel advantage.

Opinions vary here. I focus more on speed than fuel efficiency, although the two do correlate a bit. So I put the slowest, lowest endurance AK/AKLs on the shortest CS routes, and the slowest, highest endurance AK on the long routes. My logic is I want the fastest ships available for manual operations since that is often combat related. Such as sending troops, planes or supplies somewhere.

Nothing against Pax's method - it is more fuel efficient, but just throwing my thoughts out there as an alternative approach.

[el lobo]

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

Not sure what you mean here.

Let me say for stock scenarios, my opinion is:
I have all the xAK's at start I will ever use. I do not build a single one, and convert a large percentage to support vessels.
I never have enough TK/AO's. I hate to lose even one, but I try to build as few as I can. They are $$$ and I prefer to build warships with my HI.

Agree, doing similar.

For resource/supply convoys:

You're using CS, right?

Yes.

I set up lots of small TF's as opposed to big ones to maximize loading speed and not have to worry about port size, particularly while they are expanding in '42.

This is the area for which I am seeking an opinion. I'm hearing you say small TFs. Has anyone decided the optimum? Would it be better to run sixty, single ship TFs, or thirty, two ship TFs … etc.? Or does it matter?

I'm not thinking so much as for port size but loading, unloading efficiency and speed.
[/quote]

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: el lobo

This is the area for which I am seeking an opinion. I'm hearing you say small TFs. Has anyone decided the optimum? Would it be better to run sixty, single ship TFs, or thirty, two ship TFs … etc.? Or does it matter?

I'm not thinking so much as for port size but loading, unloading efficiency and speed.

[/quote]
OK, number of ships in TF doesn't impact loading efficiency per se. However, for each size port there is a maximum load limit both in total per day and total per ship. Then, this can be influenced by both factory types present in the base and support personnel depending upon exactly what is being loaded.
The manual has tables from which equations can be built and it is all tedious. Tracker has most, if not all, of this built into its tab. So, yes, you can really get this pretty good by choosing not only TF size and speed, but also ship size and number of NavSupport at both locations.

Inspection of the tables and manual text will tell you that the 'magic' port sizes are any odd number. Something special and/or important happens with each odd value. So, if you decide you will build up a port, you will almost always shoot for the largest odd value that the port can get to.

However, my approach above will get you ~90% of the efficiency particularly when the port sizes are changing (being built up) and/or you are losing ships due to allied SS intervention.
Mike and I love the logistics in the game and we are always trying to hit our "plan". We both keep separate external tracking on tons of stuff to trend all the data. Not like the average player. [;)]

[el lobo]

ORIGINAL: Feurer Krieg

Opinions vary here. I focus more on speed than fuel efficiency, although the two do correlate a bit. So I put the slowest, lowest endurance AK/AKLs on the shortest CS routes, and the slowest, highest endurance AK on the long routes. My logic is I want the fastest ships available for manual operations since that is often combat related. Such as sending troops, planes or supplies somewhere.

Nothing against Pax's method - it is more fuel efficient, but just throwing my thoughts out there as an alternative approach.

Thanks Feurer Krieg

Right now, and hopefully for the rest of the game, I only have shorter CS routes. Pbang to Singers is my longest and I have the Tonan Whalers and the Yusens on that route. For my high volume routes such as the one discussed above, I am trying to use Limas and the like.

I am setting-up an oil, resource run from the lower PI to the HI and am using eighteen Kt (max but will run cruse, fourteen Kt) ships for this. Will only do this once in a while and will be manual as you state.

[el lobo]

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo
Not like the average player. [;)]

That is for certain. [:D]

But it sure is fun to read.

Thanks again.