Page 3 of 3

RE: Situation 08/16/45

Posted: Sun May 30, 2010 3:43 pm
by BLurking
Engine production, on the other hand, was falling off a cliff:



Image

RE: Situation 08/16/45

Posted: Sun May 30, 2010 6:37 pm
by topeverest
Good lessons here. Thanks for posting...even if they may be painful for some.

RE: Situation 08/16/45

Posted: Sun May 30, 2010 8:54 pm
by sfbaytf
Good lesson for sure. Painful? l not really for me. I'm very satisfied with my results regardless of the last bloodbath. Sure its never pleasant to see your carriers get torched. On the other hand I managed to get closer to Japan than historically was the case and decided to try to invade the HI. May not have worked out the way I expected and there are things I could have and should have done, but that's the way it goes. You learn from you mistakes and you move on.

Don't spend time dwelling on it.

I'm sure my opponent is satisfied he made it past the historical surrender date. I'm glad I did better this time around then my first PBEM campaign game. Next time I know to target the engine factories.

A game this complex means you're going to make mistakes. Playing 2 day turns magnifies that. Had we been playing 1 day turns I would have easily escaped much of the carnage. That's another thing everyone has to keep in mind-the time frame.

Playing 2 day turns means you're really rolling the dice...



RE: Situation 08/16/45

Posted: Mon May 31, 2010 9:41 am
by Jim D Burns
ORIGINAL: Chickenboy
Not interested in your recitation of facts from the Second World War, Jim. The ships in this game turn could have been low on AAA ammo (it's been known to happen), been poorly experienced, etc., etc., etc.

The totals I listed were from his screenshot above, not the actual war...


Jim

RE: Situation 08/16/45

Posted: Mon May 31, 2010 10:05 am
by JuanG
Wow, wonderful clash there. Way to go.

Satisfying to see the surface combatants throwing their weight around here too, particularly Musashi and Alaska, both of whom seem to have done exceptionally well. That was also a close call for the USN CVTF the first time when it was missed at 7,000yards by the IJN SCTF.

RE: Situation 08/16/45

Posted: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:54 am
by Tophat1815

 Notes to self:  Bomb engine factories..........................check

RE: Situation 08/16/45

Posted: Thu Jun 03, 2010 1:09 am
by jomni
RE flak:
I thought we were complaining that flak is powerful a few months ago (pre-CAP flak).

RE: Situation 08/16/45

Posted: Thu Jun 03, 2010 5:30 pm
by Chickenboy
ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy
Not interested in your recitation of facts from the Second World War, Jim. The ships in this game turn could have been low on AAA ammo (it's been known to happen), been poorly experienced, etc., etc., etc.

The totals I listed were from his screenshot above, not the actual war...


Jim
Yes, and your 'seems low' conclusion (re: numbers of AA casualties) from the turn is without foundation. Seems low versus IRL? Seems low versus your experiences in the game in an Olympic-sized attack on Kyushu, circa 1945?

I would imagine that, even if AA ammo bunkers on the in game TFs were full at the beginning of the turn, they certainly were running 'winchester' towards the end. This combat replay was SO long with each TF engaged and then re-engaged over a two day turn period, before AA stores could be replaced.

I think there are more mundane explanations of WHY AA was limited in Day 2 other than 'the AA model in the game is borked' compared to IRL. That was my point.

RE: Situation 08/16/45

Posted: Thu Jun 03, 2010 9:41 pm
by BLurking
ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

I would imagine that, even if AA ammo bunkers on the in game TFs were full at the beginning of the turn, they certainly were running 'winchester' towards the end. This combat replay was SO long with each TF engaged and then re-engaged over a two day turn period, before AA stores could be replaced.

I think there are more mundane explanations of WHY AA was limited in Day 2 other than 'the AA model in the game is borked' compared to IRL. That was my point.

Now that's an interesting point I hadn't thought of - I do know that when playing 2 day turns that fleets set to auto-disband don't do so even if hitting port on the first day. So, are AA bunkers getting replenished automatically on the second day if AEs are present? In '45 I believe that should be the case. My attacking surface groups and carrier reaction may have caused the Allied fleet to get so disorganized that replenishment wasn't possible.

Something to think about...

RE: Situation 08/16/45

Posted: Fri Jun 04, 2010 1:13 pm
by morganbj
ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

My goodness! [X(] What a bloodbath. It took me 10 minutes to quickly scroll through that turn-it must have taken an hour and a half for resolution!
That's why you nuke 'em and call it over.