Page 13 of 27
RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!)
Posted: Wed Dec 23, 2020 8:53 pm
by rader
Wow, can you believe we've played 514 turns! Crazy to think about.
RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!)
Posted: Thu Dec 24, 2020 12:01 am
by PaxMondo
ORIGINAL: GetAssista
ORIGINAL: PaxMondo
ORIGINAL: rader
How many operational land-based fighters should the Allies have in front line units in May 1943?
The answer will depend upon what the losses have been to date. PDU On in this game, correct? Post the losses and I will see if I can calc it out for you.
Maybe you can teach the man to fish instead of giving him a fish? [:)]
Info about monthly production levels is there in the scenario, as well as reinforcement queue of the air groups. I suppose Tracker accumulates all this too. I don't think it is gamey to look into the scenario start to see all this data as the opposite side. A seasoned player would have gone through each side OOB multiple times anyway. Minus the accumulated losses, which are subject to FOW but the deviation from truth is not critical in this case.
ORIGINAL: rader
PUD on. Here's the Allied fighter losses so far, but wouldn't it be easier to calculate from the air groups? We've both been fairly conservative so I doubt he's running low on fighter pools.
It would still come to the numbers of the most modern fighters in the pools. With PDU on you opponent would probably want the best models flying on the frontlines, not sitting in reserves
@GA: all correct. But I think I might have something setup to calculate this if I load the correct scenario into it. Creating my own scenario, I built a lot of analytic tools to validate the files and to summarize various ratios to ensure I did not stray too far from reality. If I can find right file, then this is a pretty trivial exercise for me.
I am a bit occupied at the moment. Standing a new company up before the new year ... got a lot of paperwork to create (articles of incorporation, statuatory agent assignment, bank accounts, etc) and then file with the state. Also, several quotes to get out to lock in the new business for Q1 ... been a few years since I did all this ...
RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!)
Posted: Sat Dec 26, 2020 6:49 pm
by rader
May 6, 1943.
Allied movement in Burma? We've spotted 20 units moving along the tree line in Burma toward Japanese positions along the coast. If this is 20 full divisions, it could be trouble, but of course that's unlikely. Unclear if this is a major offensive, recon in force, or just a blocking operation. We're sending in more recon planes to try to get a better sense of Allied strength.
RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!)
Posted: Sun Dec 27, 2020 8:11 pm
by rader
May 7, 1943.
The Allied 4Es lay waste to Nadzab in New Guinea where Japanese bombers were slotted to launch a night strike against the Allied 4E base in Northern Australia. The night mission didn't fly due to weather and then the 4Es came in and plastered the field.
As some consolation, a Japanese attack on Ledo was moderately successful, torching some Beaufighters and Skytrains on the ground.
RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!)
Posted: Sun Dec 27, 2020 8:23 pm
by rader
And in Burma, Recon estimates the Allied force to have only ~20,000 or so troops without a vast array of vehicles. That probably equates to an Allied AV in the 600-700 range. Not much of a reason for alarm. But how reliable is air recon? It doesn't show a DL for a non-base hex.
RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!)
Posted: Sun Dec 27, 2020 8:39 pm
by RangerJoe
Bomb the ground units and see what you can find out?
Or waste some paratroopers for a more detailed look?
RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!)
Posted: Sun Dec 27, 2020 8:49 pm
by rader
ORIGINAL: RangerJoe
Bomb the ground units and see what you can find out?
Or waste some paratroopers for a more detailed look?
I did bomb them and identified an Indian div and mtn gun rgt.
Using paras like this would be gamey and against our HRs
RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!)
Posted: Sun Dec 27, 2020 10:28 pm
by RangerJoe
So it looks like he wants to capture that island and use it to support operations in Burma.
Any chance of shore bombardment when they reach the coast? Or at least a fake one to have a CAP trap. [:D]
RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!)
Posted: Sun Dec 27, 2020 10:35 pm
by rader
Well, Ramree Island I believe is blocked by that JR hex that I intend to hold.. that's the whole point of blocking that hex.
RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!)
Posted: Sun Dec 27, 2020 10:47 pm
by RangerJoe
ORIGINAL: rader
Well, Ramree Island I believe is blocked by that JR hex that I intend to hold.. that's the whole point of blocking that hex.
Yes it is and it is a good place to impale the Allied forces.
RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!)
Posted: Wed Dec 30, 2020 5:18 pm
by rader
May 11, 1943.
Some B-25s came in to attack a Japanese task force in the Arafura Sea and it turned out that Recon was wrong: there are a fair amount more Allied troops than expected along the coast in Burma. I still don't think they're quite enough to overwhelm our defenders but we're moving in reinforcements to counter nonetheless.
RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!)
Posted: Fri Jan 01, 2021 6:05 pm
by rader
May 14, 1943.
More waves of unstoppable night bombing, this time against Prome in Burma. At least Flak managed to get 4 of the 4E beasts. I'm almost thinking a 15:1 trade of Japanese fighters to Allied 4Es is worth it? Not totally kidding... [8|]
RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!)
Posted: Fri Jan 01, 2021 8:13 pm
by RangerJoe
You should point out the moonlight and the weather. When the weather is nice with lots of moonlight, night bombing is much more effective.
RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!)
Posted: Fri Jan 01, 2021 9:15 pm
by rader
And here's the force composition where we made contact along the Burma coast. Nothing to worry about in JR terrain. Interesting to see the 1st USMC div in Burma. Japanese atoll commanders can breathe a bit easier knowing it's there.
RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!)
Posted: Sat Jan 02, 2021 5:15 pm
by rader
May 16, 1943.
A fairly big Allied fleet spotted near Port Moresby. No invasion shipping spotted, just CVEs and apparently BBs... though the report may not be that reliable. Not sure if this is an invasion of PM, a move into the Gulf of Carpenteria toward Darwin, or something else?
RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!)
Posted: Sat Jan 02, 2021 6:10 pm
by BBfanboy
ORIGINAL: rader
And here's the force composition where we made contact along the Burma coast. Nothing to worry about in JR terrain. Interesting to see the 1st USMC div in Burma. Japanese atoll commanders can breathe a bit easier knowing it's there.
That's the decoy
Unfunny Silly Mime Circus Division. People are known to flee in terror at their approach, and they are masters of silent movement. It's best to blindfold your troops before confronting them ...
RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!)
Posted: Sun Jan 03, 2021 12:57 am
by rader
May 17, 1943.
BBs Idaho and Colorado pay a visit to Port Moresby. Still unclear if this is an invasion or merely a bombardment.
RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!)
Posted: Sun Jan 03, 2021 1:00 am
by rader
In other news, a Japanese AV carrying some Jakes put a few bombs into tankers near Hawaii. No fuel burning messages though, so unlikely to sink. Probably their return trip.
RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!)
Posted: Sun Jan 03, 2021 5:31 pm
by rader
May 18, 1943.
Port Moresby got a working over by Indiana and South Dakota. That's 4 BBs that paid a visit now.
Still unclear if this is an invasion.
RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!)
Posted: Sun Jan 03, 2021 5:36 pm
by rader
And the AV vs. tanker carnage continues. This time, substantial enough bomb hits to likely sink two of them, though none yet listed as sunk.
This is probably a kamikaze run for the AV though. It would be a miracle if it managed to escape so close to Pearl and the West Coast.
