New AAR - but not as good as Snigbert's

[cpt_Venomous]

good work Christie, game does sound realistic, just by reading your AARs should make most of us do less mistakes and perform better from start. Thanks for the tutorial Iain.

[thantis]

Your review is a great testament to UV as it applied to historical limitations and logistical problems. Its almost like reading out of a post-war military summation of the Pacific Campaign.

The Japanese (and even the Americans) can easily spread themselves too thin, then be forced to throw in everything (including the reserves) to keep what they conquered early on.

I can't wait to get my hands the game (which forces the player to deal with logistics). No more conducting operations without fuel and supply considerations. Hopefully this will usher in another golden age of wargame development to even eclipse the SSI/SSG heyday in the 1980's.

[Supervisor]

Comments? questions? queries? complaints?

You found that it's the US medium bombers that are dangerous for shipping and not the heavy bombers (with their level bombing), right? I'm fairly sure this is the case, but thought I'd double check.

[IChristie]

You found that it's the US medium bombers that are dangerous for shipping and not the heavy bombers (with their level bombing), right? I'm fairly sure this is the case, but thought I'd double check.

Early in the game almost all US LBA is pretty ineffective against shipping. Only the naval air groups (SBD's and TBF's) are very effective. As the campaign goes on the LBA gradually becomes more effective. I did not keep careful track of which types of bombers scored hits. I know that B-17's from Noumea did hit ships at L'ville. Bear in mind that typical raids consisted of 40+ bombers so even if their effectivenes is marginal, they're going to eventually sink something.

I'm pretty sure If you want US LBA to be really effective against shipping you have to spend a lot of effort training to get their experience levels up. Mind you, by the of the game the AI was habitually fielding 200+ SBD's for a single raid. If those bombers had been within range of my ships it would have been game over!
Because of the range from Noumea to L'ville the AI was forced to use his dive bombers against airfields (at Koumac and Basse Poya) and his B-17's against shipping - a good deal for me!

[Hartmann]

Originally posted by IChristie


Early in the game almost all US LBA is pretty ineffective against shipping. Only the naval air groups (SBD's and TBF's) are very effective. As the campaign goes on the LBA gradually becomes more effective. I did not keep careful track of which types of bombers scored hits. I know that B-17's from Noumea did hit ships at L'ville. Bear in mind that typical raids consisted of 40+ bombers so even if their effectivenes is marginal, they're going to eventually sink something.

That's exactly how it should be!

Level bombing of ships with the big bombers almost never yielded satisfying results because, typically, the level bombers fligh comparatively high - too high to have a good mark unless the sea is densely plastered with ships. You could try to fly as low as possible, but this in turn should not prove healthy for the big planes unless there is very sparse triple A and/or CAP.

Hartmann

[Crocky]

The medium bombers are the real threat to the Japanese Rick and I are up to October in our AAR and Im regularly getting raids against some of my bases by 60+ B25 and B26s, I think its only going to get worse, Im finding the my fighters are trading one for one with the medium bombers and probably around 2 for 1 against the heavies....you boys will find out in due course

[IChristie]

Yes, whither goest the US medium and heavy bombers - so goest the destruction of Japanese bases.

Interesting trivia note: B-25's can hit Rabaul from Gili Gili, but not from Port Moresby. Another good reason to keep the US from building there.

[Joel Billings]

You will find that B-17's will chew up both enemy airfields and friendly supplies. They take a lot to keep going and are only marginal against ships and only at lower than historical altitudes. The medium bombers can be great against ships, once their experience is up, because they can start skip bombing and strafing. Sure they take the losses against warships, but against transport convoys they do very well. They can also be effective against enemy bases (not as good as the B-17's) while not using up the supplies that the heavies require (although still more than the single engine bombers). American airpower is dominent given you can keep them in supply close to the enemy.

[1089]

Hey just a few more views and this thread goes over 20,000. That should be a record that's hard to beat until Mogami posts his AAR.

kp

[Ron Saueracker]

We are going to be too busy with our very own copy's to drool vicariously through someone elses.

[1089]

Originally posted by Ron Saueracker
We are going to be too busy with our very own copy's to drool vicariously through someone elses.

Unfortunately, some of us are still looking at Order Status--New.


kp

[IChristie]

So I want to know is now that you have all been sacked from the General staff and given commands of your own - who's gonna be the first to be MAN enough to try the "Luganville Gambit" in their own game?

Patiently waiting with beatific smile firmly in place...

[IChristie]

Bump

We cracked 20,000 views. Way to go team!

[1089]

Originally posted by IChristie
Bump

We cracked 20,000 views. Way to go team!

Congrats. and bump.

kp

[IChristie]

Congrats. and bump.

I can't take the credit. Though I and a certain "forward firing cruiser" make up about 50% of the posts I did a quick count and there are 52 different posters listed. Now that's team work!

[ADavidB]

In retrospect, was your "Luganville Gambit" doomed from the beginning by a lack of fighting troops? I seem to remember reading in the past that it typically took a 3 - 4 to 1 advantage in assulting troops to take a position by attack. Certainly in Pacwar one usually needed at least a 3 - 4 to 1 advantage, and often a 10:1 advantage in later versions agains the Japanese.

Was it simply a case of not having enough combat troops around that made you decide to attack with what you did? ( It reminds me of the Japanese counter attacks on Guadelcanal which were always done at poor odds, and then thrown back with serious losses. )

Thanks -

Dave Baranyi

[IChristie]

I think you are probably correct.

You will probably see from the posts at the time that I was quite concerned about the number of allied troops in Luganville.

The original plan had called for a raid on Koumac to try and draw US ground troops away from Luganville. In fact, I jumped the gun and did not leave enough time for any reaction to take place, but it probably would not have mattered because the AI never did try to retake the small bases anyway (which is exactly why GG and JB wanted to see what would happen if such a strategy was tried).

If I was going to try it again I would do it differently. Mainly, I would hold off the ground invasion until I had successfully isolated L'ville by sea and air for at least a month. Then I would try the invasion again with fresh troops.

[ADavidB]

Thanks for the comments.

Another thought that came to mind while reading your AAR, as well as the others over the past number of weeks - why can't the Allied player take a conservative approach for much of 1942 and ignore the Solomons and Japanese activities in NG, then do a "reverse strategy" in late 1942 of bring in overwhelming forces forward to avoid a Japanese automatic win?

The AI seemed to fritter away a lot of resources early in your AAR in a vain attempt to interdict you in the Solomons. But if the Allied player instead built up all those small bases in the South Pacific at the same time that the Japanese player was building up the Solomons, then by the time the Japanese player was ready to try to move, the Allied player would have overwhelming air power and still have sea and land forces available.

I also noticed in Mogami's AAR that he has been "stung" by using historically-sized TFs and is now going to larger TFs. That used to be the "rule" in Pacwar too - the side with the most ships in a TF had the best chance to come out a "winner" in any given battle, just because the way the ships fired at each other. So a strategy that held back Allied ships under air cover until late '42 would allow the Allied player to put to sea with overwhelming TFs. BTW - is there a limit on ships in a TF as there was in Pacwar?

( Sorry for all the questions, but I'm waiting until the company in Markam gets UV in stock before I buy it. )

Thanks again -

Dave Baranyi

[IChristie]

Another thought that came to mind while reading your AAR, as well as the others over the past number of weeks - why can't the Allied player take a conservative approach for much of 1942 and ignore the Solomons and Japanese activities in NG, then do a "reverse strategy" in late 1942 of bring in overwhelming forces forward to avoid a Japanese automatic win?

An interesting question. Here's my $.02 (CDN). Firstly, the autovictory can only be achieved by taking bases very far south so even conceding the Solomons to the Japanese will not ensure their victory.

However, IMHO the allies want to contest PM and Lunga for the simple reason that if they lose them they have no fwd bomber bases. As I said in an earlier post, by late '42 allied LBA is the dominant tactical weapon in the area. BUT, the allied bombers have pretty restricted ranges and they require BIG airbases (size 4 or larger) to fly from. If you let Lunga and PM go, you will have no fwd bases for the bombers. Without them you will be depending on carriers to gain and hold air superiority which is a high risk strategy. Also, naval air does not do a very good job of CAS (IMHO) whereas the US medium and heavy bombers kick major gound troop butt.

But if the Allied player instead built up all those small bases in the South Pacific at the same time that the Japanese player was building up the Solomons, then by the time the Japanese player was ready to try to move, the Allied player would have overwhelming air power and still have sea and land forces available.

By all means, if Lunga cannot be held, new bases should be built immediately so that they can get up to size in time to be ready for the influx of air groups in the fall of '42. However, building these bases is no simple matter because they have to be supplied and teh supply chain will be within air interdiction range of Japanese bombers at Lunga which can reach all the way to Luganville from Lunga.

For my money, Lunga and PM should be contested vigorously by the allies. Their eventual recapture will be much more expensive than their defense, almost every time.

[Joel Billings]

25 ship limit, but the diseconomies of scale come into play when a TF is over 15 ships. For combat TF's 15 ships is the optimum size in the game as all of the ships will perform at full effectiveness in combat. Over 15, and you start losing performance. Of course for transport TF's that don't expect to fight, 25 is ok.