Matrix Games Forums

Przemcio is a good guy and a worthy opponent. I have played 2 PBEMs with him and I dont understand the criticism espoused here.

OK from here on out only posts by the owner of the AAR or posts directly concerning the AAR will be allowed. everyone has had his say on the other matters.
when you have a question on a personal level a PM is the more correct choice. (But you still have to remain civil)

The rules governing this PBEM game are between the players.
I think the other issues are language related and not intent. (I think Przemcio was willing to play another game but the rules still had to be discussed)

Lets not get into a fight over how two mature constenting adults play a PBEM game on their own time. I don't think anyone needs to be offendend or to get offensive.

Mogami,

Hi, I don't want moderators to have to enforce any strictures on comment or warn anyone off on my behalf. I have no interest in being, even tangentially, the reason someone gets a written warning or gets banned so I would ask that moderators take no action against anyone for anything they write in this AAR ( unless, of course, it clearly and excessively breaches the rules we all agreed to when signing up).

On the other hand, having thought about it over the weekend and discussing it with Trey I think that it would be wrong to end an AAR of a game unfolding according to the rules the participants have agreed just because a number of people can't seem to countenance those rules. I was thinking about it and realised that stopping the AAR because of the cries of "foul" would simply be avoidance behaviour insofar as I'd be giving up to avoid hassle when I feel I've done nothing wrong. I think that would be an example of moral cowardice on my part so I hope people will accept that others can play under different rules than they do but if they can't I'll do my best just to ignore whatever they post and get on with the AAR. So, hopefully from now on from every side there will be just AAR posts and questions, criticism and advice re: same.

And to start off as we mean to continue... [;)]



AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 01/29/42

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASW attack at 116,62

Japanese Ships
SS RO-66

Allied Ships
DD Gridley
DD Craven
DD Mugford

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASW attack at 69,112

Japanese Ships
PC Showa Maru #5
PC Showa Maru #3
PC Shonon Maru #15
PC Nichi Maru #1
PC Gamitsu Maru #1
PG Saiko Maru
PG Kantori Maru
PG Fukui Maru
MSW Tama Maru #3
MSW Shonan Maru #8
MSW Wa 19

Allied Ships
SS Porpoise, hits 3

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub attack at 24,54

Japanese Ships
AK Nittatsu Maru, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage

Allied Ships
SS S-36

A 3500 ton AK is sunk on its way to Palembang. No resources were lost and an ASW TF is being vectored in to take care of this pest. I was thinking about it today and it is interesting to note that I am probably spending equal amounts of time in ASW warfare, resource and oil transport, China and the rest of the war ( with most of that attention now being focussed on the Palmyra/Johnson/Midway line. It is taking up about 25% of my time but seems to be paying dividends. I am taking losses but slowly the toll taken in return for those losses to submarine attacks is increasing.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASW attack at 116,62

Japanese Ships
SS RO-66

Allied Ships
DD Aylwin

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub attack at 69,112

Japanese Ships
PG Kantori Maru
PC Showa Maru #5
PC Showa Maru #3
PC Shonon Maru #15
PC Nichi Maru #1
PC Gamitsu Maru #1
PG Saiko Maru
PG Fukui Maru
MSW Tama Maru #3
MSW Shonan Maru #8
MSW Wa 19

Allied Ships
SS Porpoise, hits 2, on fire

I've predicted Porpoise's demise too many times to do so again. All I'll say is that it certainly appears to be heavily damaged .

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Rangoon , at 29,34

Japanese aircraft
Ki-43-Ib Oscar x 28
Ki-48 Lily x 23
Ki-49 Helen x 110

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-48 Lily: 2 damaged
Ki-49 Helen: 10 damaged


Allied ground losses:
53 casualties reported
Vehicles lost 1

Port hits 22
Port fuel hits 1
Port supply hits 9

18th Division has landed today. With a few more days of softening up and some time for the 18th to recover fatigue and disruption it may prove time to launch deliberate attacks.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Singapore , at 23,50

Japanese aircraft
Ki-43-Ib Oscar x 34
Ki-21 Sally x 308
Ki-46-II Dinah x 6

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-21 Sally: 6 damaged


Allied ground losses:
44 casualties reported

Port hits 6
Port fuel hits 1
Port supply hits 2

This raid was at 21,000 feet. Altitude will be dropped to 16,000 tomorrow. I expect either 16000 or 11000 to be the best choice for hitting Singapore.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Bulla , at 40,75


Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 10


No Allied losses

Resources hits 2

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Koepang , at 28,77


Allied aircraft
B-17C Fortress x 8


Allied aircraft losses
B-17C Fortress: 2 damaged

Airbase hits 2

Again the difference in performance when facing AAA is marked.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on 1st Tank Regiment, at 37,26


Allied aircraft
Wellington III x 9


No Allied losses

Japanese ground losses:
14 casualties reported
Vehicles lost 1

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on 168th Chinese Division, at 45,37

Japanese aircraft
Ki-27 Nate x 52
Ki-30 Ann x 18
Ki-51 Sonia x 7
Ki-15 Babs x 2

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-27 Nate: 1 damaged
Ki-15 Babs: 2 damaged


Allied ground losses:
34 casualties reported
Guns lost 1

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Hengchow

Japanese Shock attack

Attacking force 85156 troops, 920 guns, 5 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 1484

Defending force 65864 troops, 267 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 1240

Japanese max assault: 2926 - adjusted assault: 981

Allied max defense: 1211 - adjusted defense: 1084

Japanese assault odds: 0 to 1 (fort level 4)


Japanese ground losses:
4134 casualties reported
Guns lost 73
Vehicles lost 3

Allied ground losses:
1608 casualties reported
Guns lost 35

Ooh, almost. Ok, this will take more time to prepare but the ability of the main Chinese army to intercede has been completely taken from them.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at 45,35

Japanese Bombardment attack

Attacking force 51353 troops, 558 guns, 3 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 883

Defending force 87714 troops, 282 guns, 56 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 2197


Allied ground losses:
251 casualties reported
Guns lost 3


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at 45,31

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 19675 troops, 239 guns, 6 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 424

Defending force 14287 troops, 38 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 433

Japanese max assault: 413 - adjusted assault: 184

Allied max defense: 354 - adjusted defense: 20

Japanese assault odds: 9 to 1


Japanese ground losses:
81 casualties reported
Guns lost 1

Allied ground losses:
84 casualties reported
Guns lost 2

hmm, yup definitely a hosed ground combat model when facing cut off units. I've even tried moving my units so these forces will no longer be cut off but that oesn't seem to work out too well as some movements which the manual claims should be allowed ( from a contested hex into an unoccupied but friendly hex) simply don't.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at 48,30

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 100880 troops, 1084 guns, 9 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 1881

Defending force 26118 troops, 135 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 628

Japanese max assault: 1731 - adjusted assault: 1327

Allied max defense: 617 - adjusted defense: 71

Japanese assault odds: 18 to 1


Japanese ground losses:
922 casualties reported
Guns lost 26

Allied ground losses:
476 casualties reported
Guns lost 8

Ah yes, never cut off a Chinaman. They then fight a dozen times better than they ever did before . Unfortunately since in real life cutting off ones opponents was a good idea much of my plan involved cutting off units and then reducing them quickly. This has faltered on the hidden reefs of the game model. It is proving expensive in China but when it comes time to invade the Soviet Union it should bear fruit. I have already massively changed my concept of operations in that theatre to rely less on cutting off and anihilating enemy units and more on herding them into isolated bases and only then bringing annihilatory forces to bear.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Rangoon

Japanese Bombardment attack

Attacking force 47699 troops, 269 guns, 10 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 1192

Defending force 28884 troops, 241 guns, 271 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 640



Allied ground losses:
46 casualties reported
Guns lost 1


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at 23,47

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 10436 troops, 183 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 55

Defending force 4102 troops, 0 guns, 0 vehicles, Beginning Assault Value = 4

Japanese max assault: 46 - adjusted assault: 21

Allied max defense: 2 - adjusted defense: 19

Japanese assault odds: 1 to 1


Allied ground losses:
32 casualties reported


Below you can see the situation at Johnson Island. I have an Army HQ on the way to make good the deficit in support points and am slowly but surely reducing the damage ( all three factors were in the 90s during Allied bombing raids). Another 600 mines are due today and I've just converted my H6K2 transport group ( which was down to just 2 planes) to a full-sized Tina Chutai which will help tremendously with the flying in of supplies and two additional CD units. I am going to send 2 more naval guard units at Midway in by ship. By the end of all of this I should muster a bit over 400 AV, 3 x CD units, 3 FlAK units, the Base Force two construction Bns and, in another 3 weeks, another 2,000 mines at Johnson. Backed by my land-based naval air arm operating out of Midway and Palmyra ( and my CVs if he moves over the next few days) I think this should consume a couple of his divisions. Of course knowing my luck he'll hang back and hit Wake or something equally weird . I've never been on the receiving end of an invasion in WiTP so I'm eager to see how it goes. Either way I'll learnt a lot.

Good on you Nemo .. I'll be a happy reader now you've decided to carry on ..

Yup out of base combat is a complete mess imo .. herding into cities then kill is a preferred method. Can;t suggest a work around as i don't believe one has been found, others may well give better advice however.

good luck

I'm working on my force deployments for Phase II and am almost ready to begin reinforcing my carriers to replace losses. I have all the Zeroes, Kates and Vals on-hand an my carriers docked in the appropriate ports.

What is the best way to disband the Kates, Vals, Zeroes etc I've flown over from Japan into the CV airgroups? Do I need to offload the CV airgroups and then disband the land-based groups into them while both are onland? I'm asking because I've heard a few people running into trouble with CV-based groups which move onto land bases wherein they take on extra planes but no pilots and end up completely hosed forever after.

I'd like to avoid destroying the viability of my CV aigroups through inexperience so any advice would be most welcome....


I'm planning something which, even for me, is ueber-aggressive and sneaky but I need to be able to maximise KB's striking power in order to cover the Indian invasion force sufficiently for an extended period of time if I'm going to pull it off.

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

What is the best way to disband the Kates, Vals, Zeroes etc I've flown over from Japan into the CV airgroups? Do I need to offload the CV airgroups and then disband the land-based groups into them while both are onland? I'm asking because I've heard a few people running into trouble with CV-based groups which move onto land bases wherein they take on extra planes but no pilots and end up completely hosed forever after.

Yes, move the daitai off the carrier onto a base. Disband the land-based chutai into the daitai. Then immediately move the daitai back onto the carrier. Do this all in the same turn and you won't have any problems.

In order to move an air unit onto a carrier, the carrier must be in a TF. Otherwise, it won't show up as being available when you try to move the air unit onto the carrier.

Edit: The best way to do all this is to have the carrier TF in the same hex as the base where the disband occurs. This way the planes are moved by crane and not flown so there's no chance of an op loss.

Aha so, CVs in a CV TF in the same hex as the base. Move all my fighters etc etc onto the base, do all the combining and disbanding I need to do and then transfer the units back onto ship all within the 1 turn, correct?

Yup.[:D]

Is it possible to unload and load CV group in one turn?

Yes, you can unload, disband a unit into the carrier air unit and then load it back onto the carrier in one turn. Make sure the carrier is in a TF in the same hex as the base you unload to. To add to this, the unit you intend to disband can fly to a base and disband in the same turn.

Hi, just a thought about your ground reinforcements...

You are going to get three or four divisions in China. It seems that China going well for you so you can reassign those divisions to SAA or other unrestricted HQ.

The catch is that you don't have enough PP for them but you can stop your armament production and you won't have enough ArmPoints for bringing them with full strengh on map. Therefore they will arrive at 25% and would cost only 1/4 PP you would needed for divisions at full strengh (copyright by Sneer).

This looks like good idea if Japan are in favourable situation (and you are in such position). It will took 3-6 month till those division reach full strengh but right in a time - just before Alllied start offensive...

I regreat that i didn't done myself....

it takes longer than 3-6 months
2 ex-chinase inf divisions which i got at 25% strenght are now at 80-85% and it is Dec 42
but they are excellent rear area cover where you have plenty of supplies - Java ( Batavia/Soerabaja)
my both ARM div are close to 50% but they were in combat before full strenght was gained

BTW i did not halted armament points - these units camoe too fast
but yes i decided to halt vehicles points - i wanted to buy ARM units cheap [;)]

in Dec 42 i have 3 inf div + 2 arm div bought out from restricted HQs as well as many other units of total value of another 2 inf div -( tank / combat eng/ construction / small inf )
you need a lot of troops on perimeter so every one counts - single line can't hold allies in early 43 - you need to have enough troops for them to force them into guadalcanal battle - so you need at least 25% overall strenght based in 2nd line as fast reinforcement- this should guarantee that you can double troop amount in critical place fast / compared with forts lvl9 + abundant supply should be enough as long as you can neutralize enemy fleet

keep full inf div at every atoll - my new motto

i'll give you a tip - invest in kwantung construction units fast and move them to pacific islands

Hi, I think this is an example of getting too tricky. In 6 months the japanese get over 9000 PP so there is no reason to try to be slick. I always transfer the Tank Divisions and a host of formations from Kwantung/CEA I just make sure I stay above the required levels.
I do split divisions and transfer them 1 part at a time. But unless your moving the A/B/C parts to different locations it costs twice as many PP in the end because the reformed units reverts to Kwantung/CEA control. (When I split a division it is because I am going to use the "Brigades" to defend 3 locations)

Pauk,

Thanks for the input. I can confirm that I'd read posts about what happened to new divisions when armaments pools were low and can confirm that, yes, I have had my eye on these 3 divisions since the beginning of the game and have, intentionally, run my armaments pool down/delayed its major expansion. One of my main reasons for hitting China this hard this early was to be in a position to move these units to different theatres as they came online. Basically my view was that by running down my armaments to rebuild divisions currently in the Chinese theatre I could run down my armaments such that I could buy out all future divisions in the Korean and Chinese theatres for 25%.

This was one of the rationales for my taking of the DEI and Phillipines early on... I want these areas to be available for growing these skeleton divisions to full strength as quickly as possible ( I have no experience of this but I figured that at a rate of 2 squads per day a division could reach full strength within 6 months. it would appear that the divisions I have there are putting on between 7 to 3 squads per day ( more in the weaker units, less in the stronger )... This would put these divisions right on track for operations planned to occur in August to September 1942.

My plan is to "show my hand" by committing the 12 SRA divisions to the front lines, convincing Trey that I have nil in reserve, then moving into Australia with my Brigades and Regiments. If Trey "counts Japanese divisions and Regiments" as so many people seem to suggest then with his count of my units complete the landing of 3 complete Japanese divisions behind the australian army's counter-attack on the Bde and Regimental landing areas should come as a complete operational and strategic surprise and allow me to take Australia more quickly than anticipated.


I hadn't intended to outline this aspect of the plan until later but seeing as it came up independently I thought I might as well outline this aspect of the plan. There are similar "twists" to the Soviet and Pearl campaigns but, again, I won't go into them unless people raise them themselves. Suffice it to say I have decision point plans made for the Indian, Australian, Soviet and Pearl attacks already. It helps to keep strategic focus. I'll release them as the critical point of each invasion is reached as I'm a little uncomfortable unveiling the exact details of each of these plans this early as people might, unintentionally, give things away with the questions they ask or comments they make etc in Trey's thread.

Hi, Unless you are able to destroy Allied LCU in Oz you will need something on the order of 40 Japanese divisions to "take Australia "
Australia out numbers SAA. And the longer you take the stronger it gets. Australia is equal to SAA on dec 7 1941 and it grows. (not counting any USA units that are moved there)

Dec 7 1941
NZ Command
7xBde
Australia Command
8xBde
5xDiv
2xTank Rgt

2 Div 1 Bde in first 90 days
1 div in first 5 months

total 6 months into war
16xBde
8XDiv

Plus any USA units moved there.

SAA will need to cut off and destroy a large portion of enemy in order to mass the required ratois in the larger fortified cities. It would be a disaster to have Japanese LCU located in Allied base hex and not have the required ratios.

Well, other aspects of the plan would obviously seek to maximise efficiency of force utilisation and attempt to destroy such Australian forces as possible ( in order to aid the efficiency at the operational/strategic levels). The isolation of Australia from American reinforcements and the taking of New Zealand ( with the destruction of those Australian units committed to its defence) would also play a part.


My initial estimate is that given my plan I will require no more than 20 division-equivalents by January 1943. I believe that my operational/strategic/economic concept can furnish this whilst maintaining the strength of the Pacific cordon... all of this depends on Pearl in September 42 though.

I would leave you with a paraphrase of the old saying that the more a commander contributes in subtlety the less his troops must contribute by way of sacrifice. This is key to Australia.

Hi, I am keenly awaiting Operations after aug 1942. I think Allied air power will prohibit any Japanese operations from occuring in range of Allied airfield in supply and larger then a size 3.

As soon as Allied 4E bombers have fighter escort (10 or 11 hexes) Japanese airfields within that range will cease to be viable. This is a fact of life for the Japanese.
Any Japanese ground force deployed to any area that is in range of Allied air power will be cut off. You will not be able to extract such a force once the enemy controls the air.

As soon as Allied 4E bombers have fighter escort (10 or 11 hexes) Japanese airfields within that range will cease to be viable.

It may surprise you to know I largely agree with you. The caveats are that if ground operations in a mainly ground theatre are phased appropriately much can be accomplished without air supremacy such that the viability or not of airfields is no longer the central question.

Still, I agree with the majority of your point and that's why all large-scale offensives into the teeth of allied LBA are phased to end at around August/September ( a time when I still hope to be able to achieve local, temporary aerial superiority or, at least, parity) excepting operations against Australia where I don't think airpower will be in any way as influential as everyone seems to think.

Sorry but I believe that an analysis of the situation ( given my current understanding of the game) reveals it to be possible. The one concern is that my analysis may be fatally flawed due to inexperience with the game model but I plan to use the Indian campaign to validate/test to failure most of the important tenets.

Once that is concluded I should be able to make a definitive decision as to Australia.

i believe that only good place for Jap invasion in late 1942 is Australia. But you have to meet following requirements:

1. Allied must be spanked (i think you done it)
2. You have to build up Lautem and Koepang and keep it operational.
3. You must neutralise Allied CV force (or be sure that they are far away from northern OZ)
4. You have to commit enough units (that's why you have to spank Allies early in the game and take more land/atolls then was in RL - you can allow loosing Baker, Canton during invasion of OZ but holding historical defensive perimeter is a must)
5. Allied player must not be evil (i mean nothing wrong with that!) - if he commit majority of his troops for defence of northern OZ than you screwed (he can pull out divisions from southern Australia which would be lightly defended but you can't go for south OZ late in 1942 - American and British fleet can ruin Japanese Navy)

I think that best route for northern OZ is Koepang-Derby-Wyndham-Darwin. Once when you have Derby (or Wyndham) Allies must attack it; from Darwin or Wyndham (Derby). The good thing with that is al those bases are coastal - which means yours BBs have job to do[:D]

Hi Nemo

I think your being a bit over optimistic there but it'll be a greatt AAR to watch and see if its possible. I've got to subscribed now .. dont want to miss a thing .. so very glad you decided to carry on