Forlorn Hopes: John III vs. Canoerebel

[Q-Ball]

I agree with heenanc. You should ask for a free sacrifice, he shouldn't be able to keep those ships.

Land-Based Zero Daitai are "Carrier Capable" units. They also have JACKS available in their upgrade path if PDU's are on. Apparently John upgraded some land-based Daitai to JACKS, and loaded them on CV's. A bunch of people pointed out that is WAY gamey, and a big no-no, as the Jack was NEVER CV capable.

The only reason you can't do that with P-38s, for example, is that the P-38 is not an upgrade option for any of your CV Capable units. If they were, it would be available, even if the P-38 was not capable IRL.

PS, to be fair, you should not be putting Corsairs on any CV's until later in '44, if that option is available to you.

[rtrapasso]

John called foul on himself. Said he loaded a bunch of carriers with Jack fighters that don't belong there and asked to re-do the turn so that he could swap for appropriate fighters.

How is it possible to do that?

You can load any 1E plane (at least fighters) onto a CV - this is useful for ferry purposes. Historically accurate (i.e. WASP(i think - i might have been HORNET) ferrying fighters to Malta - they flew off once in range.

In game, the planes can fly off, but can't land on a CV - only at a land base.

So, it is quite possible to load them in port if you thought they are carrier capable (and are not).

BTW - John was also surprised to learn this (on his AAR).

EDIT: It was WASP - see also
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Wasp_(CV-7)

[heenanc]

This is true but it wasn't John's intentions!!

[desicat]

Seems that those ships were lost prior to the "Jacks" even being a factor. I would agree that they should be counted as "sunk".

Good Luck!

[Sheytan]

Well if you let the game be backed up thats a real nice gesture. Personally when I read what was posted on his AAR thread about the "trapping shipping in map corner" my sentiments were, let him take his medicine. Using map limitations to your own advantage is a exploit, and is about as gamey a thing a player can do imo, in REALITY...those assets could have withdrawn. I understand AE will fix this really obivious and frankly silly aspect of the game.

[Canoerebel]

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

John called foul on himself. Said he loaded a bunch of carriers with Jack fighters that don't belong there and asked to re-do the turn so that he could swap for appropriate fighters.

How is it possible to do that?

You can load any 1E plane (at least fighters) onto a CV - this is useful for ferry purposes. Historically accurate (i.e. WASP(i think - i might have been HORNET) ferrying fighters to Malta - they flew off once in range.

In game, the planes can fly off, but can't land on a CV - only at a land base.

So, it is quite possible to load them in port if you thought they are carrier capable (and are not).

BTW - John was also surprised to learn this (on his AAR).

EDIT: It was WASP - see also
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Wasp_(CV-7)

Ah, now I understand. Thank you rtpasso. So I could transfer P-39s to one of my CVs in port, and then ferry them to another base to unload. But those P-39s wouldn't fly CAP (or any other mission). That's the same dilemma John had with his Jacks, right?

So, John loaded a bunch of premium fighters on his carriers and then sent his carriers into harm's way, realize his mistake, and asks for a re-do. I've agreed, though a part of me thinks, "Hey, that's tough. I had Hornet and Wasp sunk when they didn't put up CAP for some reason, and I refused a mulligan."

So we'll replay a few turns and I've asked John to scuttle the two CS and DD or two that sank or would have following the battle that "didn't" occur.

Funny thing is, thanks to John's emails I now know that he plans a massive all-or-nothing carrier engagement. I had no idea something of this magnitude was in the offing, although the presence of the KB at Saipan, and the advance of that CS TF would have been a clue. Now I know they are in all likelihood coming. I've agreed to keep my CVs at Iwo a few days (John was worried I might attack while his carriers were swapping from Jacks back to Zeros). I guess I won't do anything different when normal operations resume - other than to pull all my ships out of Iwo and under cover of the carriers for awhile, plus putting most of the LBA fighters on LRCAP, to guard against a 150 ship combat armada hitting Iwo.

Iwo is a level 4 airfield and won't reach level 5 for at least a week, so I'll have 200 LBA to augment my carriers.

[castor troy]

John doesn´t have the dilemma that Jacks won´t fly from the CVs. They fly Cap, they fly escort, they fly nav attack, they fly everything from the carrier that they also fly from a land base. So he will have Jacks instead of Zekes, never have made it that far in BigB mod but if they are nearly as effective as in stock you will lose 4 or 5 times more aircraft to the Jacks than you would lose to the Zekes.

Even if they are carrier capable in the game, it´s totally gamey to use Jacks on carriers.

[rtrapasso]

Ah, now I understand. Thank you rtpasso. So I could transfer P-39s to one of my CVs in port, and then ferry them to another base to unload. But those P-39s wouldn't fly CAP (or any other mission).

You should be able to transfer, and no, they shouldn't fly CAP...

i've done this in prior versions of WITP (1.6xx or 1.7xx) although i don't think i've tried it under 1.8xx, however, i don't think anything has changed in respects to that.

Does NOT work for P-38s, iirc, nor for 2E bombers.[:D]

[Cap Mandrake]

ORIGINAL: castor troy

John doesn´t have the dilemma that Jacks won´t fly from the CVs. They fly Cap, they fly escort, they fly nav attack, they fly everything from the carrier that they also fly from a land base. So he will have Jacks instead of Zekes, never have made it that far in BigB mod but if they are nearly as effective as in stock you will lose 4 or 5 times more aircraft to the Jacks than you would lose to the Zekes.

Even if they are carrier capable in the game, it´s totally gamey to use Jacks on carriers.

To be complete, it was certainly John's expectation that the Jacks would fly in the naval air role from carrier decks and he certainly got a world of criticism from readers about gaminess (because it was unhistorical) in using Jacks from carriers, although at least one knowledgeable individual raised a warning that it might not work. His zeal for correcting the deployment seemed to increase when that issue was raised [:)]

@ Canoerebel:

It was the apparent universal opinion that correcting the deployment was the fairest thing to do. You will be much better off without Jacks flying from Jap carrier decks as castor has said.


I do have sympathy for your point for the redo erasing the loss of his CS's. A fair compromise might be to have John purposely scuttle those ships that were sunk or mortally damaged (along with their air complement). You can verify this has been done when they eventually show up on th sunk ships list (I think it shows on the ocmbat replay too).

[String]

ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake

ORIGINAL: castor troy

John doesn´t have the dilemma that Jacks won´t fly from the CVs. They fly Cap, they fly escort, they fly nav attack, they fly everything from the carrier that they also fly from a land base. So he will have Jacks instead of Zekes, never have made it that far in BigB mod but if they are nearly as effective as in stock you will lose 4 or 5 times more aircraft to the Jacks than you would lose to the Zekes.

Even if they are carrier capable in the game, it´s totally gamey to use Jacks on carriers.

To be complete, it was certainly John's expectation that the Jacks would fly in the naval air role from carrier decks and he certainly got a world of criticism from readers about gaminess (because it was unhistorical) in using Jacks from carriers, although at least one knowledgeable individual raised a warning that it might not work. His zeal for correcting the deployment seemed to increase when that issue was raised [:)]

@ Canoerebel:

It was the apparent universal opinion that correcting the deployment was the fairest thing to do. You will be much better off without Jacks flying from Jap carrier decks as castor has said.


I do have sympathy for your point for the redo erasing the loss of his CS's. A fair compromise might be to have John purposely scuttle those ships that were sunk or mortally damaged (along with their air complement). You can verify this has been done when they eventually show up on th sunk ships list (I think it shows on the ocmbat replay too).

Can't scuttle without heavy damage.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: String

ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake

ORIGINAL: castor troy

John doesn´t have the dilemma that Jacks won´t fly from the CVs. They fly Cap, they fly escort, they fly nav attack, they fly everything from the carrier that they also fly from a land base. So he will have Jacks instead of Zekes, never have made it that far in BigB mod but if they are nearly as effective as in stock you will lose 4 or 5 times more aircraft to the Jacks than you would lose to the Zekes.

Even if they are carrier capable in the game, it´s totally gamey to use Jacks on carriers.

exactly! You can´t scuttle a ship that isn´t above 90 sys damage IIRC.


To be complete, it was certainly John's expectation that the Jacks would fly in the naval air role from carrier decks and he certainly got a world of criticism from readers about gaminess (because it was unhistorical) in using Jacks from carriers, although at least one knowledgeable individual raised a warning that it might not work. His zeal for correcting the deployment seemed to increase when that issue was raised [:)]

@ Canoerebel:

It was the apparent universal opinion that correcting the deployment was the fairest thing to do. You will be much better off without Jacks flying from Jap carrier decks as castor has said.


I do have sympathy for your point for the redo erasing the loss of his CS's. A fair compromise might be to have John purposely scuttle those ships that were sunk or mortally damaged (along with their air complement). You can verify this has been done when they eventually show up on th sunk ships list (I think it shows on the ocmbat replay too).

Can't scuttle without heavy damage.

[Cap Mandrake]

Didn't know that about the scuttling. Well..that would leave a purposeful suicide charge of the same TF without air cover within range of Iwo or simply parking the involved ships in Korea somewhere and leaving them there for the whole war with their seaplanes grounded (this is actually a just punishment for the ship's captains for doing such a foolish thing in the first place)

[String]

ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake

Didn't know that about the scuttling. Well..that would leave a purposeful suicide charge of the same TF without air cover within range of Iwo or simply parking the involved ships in Korea somewhere and leaving them there for the whole war with their seaplanes grounded (this is actually a just punishment for the ship's captains for doing such a foolish thing in the first place)

Afaik he lost those ships to AI overruling his orders.

[Canoerebel]

9/21/43 to 9/27/43
 
We backed up and re-played several turns so that John could swap out Jacks for whatever on his carriers.  So both of us stood down for several days as his mechanics needed time to get the replacement fighters up and running.  Now things are heating up again.

Iwo: In his emails, John has made it clear he's launching an all-out attack on Iwo - but whether that's disinformation or a bald-faced "here I come" announcement, I don't know.  On the chance that he's coming, I've deployed my forces as best I can:  (1) the CVs are patrolling a hex or two from Iwo, with most of the transports set to follow.  Two of the three Corsair squadrons on Iwo are providing LRCAP; (2) the two combat TFs are posted at Iwo, along with two PT-boat TFs.  It's here that I'm most worried - John can overwhelm me with combat ships and probably destroy mine, but there's nothing else I can do about it at the moment.  I hope he thinks I've mined the port; (3) the airfield is 80% to level 5; if he waits another week or so to attack, I'll be able to handle 50 more aircraft; (4)  the MLE making a sprint for Iwo ran into some Jap CVs NW of Wake Island.  These CVs sank the MLE, two damaged AKs, and an LST (the latter three ships were on the way home from Iwo); (5)  On the off-chance that this is some kind of Mini-KB and that it may run short on sorties, I've sent CV Intrepid and CVL Langely sprinting NW from Midway.  This is risky, but I've decided to take the risk.  Given the numbers of aircraft the Japs put up, I don't think it's the main KB (the strikes included 44 Kates, 47 Vals, and 14 Zeros).  So now we'll see what happens over the next few turns.

Why did John wait to strike?  It took me a long time to take Iwo, and I think John could have defeated my invasion had he reacted quickly.  Why did he wait so long?  I can think of two possibilities:  (1)  He needed time to swap fighters on his carriers.  I think this is the most likely reason; or (2) He thought the invasion was aimed elsewhere, like Australia, and the move on Iwo caught alot of his assets out of postiion.  I think this is unlikely - I believe he knew pretty well where I was heading - Luzon.

Operation Crescent Moon:  John is heavily reinforcing Okinawa, the rascal.  He's a clever opponent.  I have a very large reinforcement convoy gathering at Midway and it will be ready to sail in perhaps a week, assuming that the coast is clear around Iwo.  If the Allies win the Iwo battle, or if there isn't one, I'm pretty sure I've identified my next target.  Not Luzon.  Not Formosa.  Not Okinawa.  Kyushu - the southernmost of the Home Island. Cursor intel reveals all cities on this island very lightly garrisoned at the moment.  Yes, it's risky; and most certainly there's time for John to figure out this move too and increase the defenses; but it would be a surprise move and would give the Allies several big airbases.  Well, I can mull it over for awhile.

Elsewhere:  Australia and Burma are quiet at the moment.

China:  John is moving along the northern-most road.  He's welcome to take the one little isolated city within his reach. 

[pat.casey]

Are you sure splitting up your carrier forces at this point is prudent? I'm sure John would like nothing more than to defeat you in detail.

[Canoerebel]

I'm not splitting them.  Every carrier I had at the time sailed with the Iwo invasion force and all of them remain on station at Iwo and vicinity.  Since that force sailed, CV Intredid and CVL Langley arrived at Panama City and sailed to Midway along with a replenishment CVE.  Now, CVE Corregidor is nearing Pearl from Panama City.  The plan was for these carriers to escort my reinforcements part of the way to Iwo and rendezvous with the main carrier fleet.  But I've sortied Intrepid and Langley early in hopes of meeting up with a fairly week Mini-KB.  Yes, it's risky since that "fairly weak Mini-KB" could be stronger than I think.  The hope is it's a chance to meet some Jap carriers on even terms and bleed them a little.  Let's see what happens (I doubt anything will because I doubt John's carriers will move toward Midway; but just in case....)

[Kereguelen]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

(4) the MLE making a sprint for Iwo ran into some Jap CVs NW of Wake Island. These CVs sank the MLE, two damaged AKs, and an LST (the latter three ships were on the way home from Iwo); (5) On the off-chance that this is some kind of Mini-KB and that it may run short on sorties, I've sent CV Intrepid and CVL Langely sprinting NW from Midway. This is risky, but I've decided to take the risk. Given the numbers of aircraft the Japs put up, I don't think it's the main KB (the strikes included 44 Kates, 47 Vals, and 14 Zeros). So now we'll see what happens over the next few turns.

Hi,

I think that this clearly shows the problem coming with your occupation of Iwo: Your supply lane is quite open to Japanese raids.

If you don't close the gap (by taking Wake) you'll always have to guard your reinforcement convoys with carriers. The possession of Wake would give you a somewhat safe harbor and a base for Catalinas and Liberators to give you early warning. It is time to consolidate now, IMHO. At some time you'll have to face KB. And you'll want to have as many of your own carriers present as possible, not far away from the action guarding your supply path. And don't forget: Once you'll start to bomb the Japanese industry with B-29's (in one year) you'll need an awful lot of supplies (and even Liberators consume lots).

K

[Canoerebel]

Kereguelen, thanks for the advice.  I hope you don't think I'm brassy for saying I'm not taking it.  There are a gazillion factors going into my decision.  The most important is that I don't want to devote the ships and infantry needed to take Wake or Marcus.  That would mean another endless round of mine hits and another Iwo-like ground battle (and I was lucky John didn't intervene at Iwo; I probably won't be lucky twice).  I don't mind the supply line situation, at least for the foreseeable future, and there's a good chance that John's carriers will attack in the meantime resolving the carrier sitaution one way or the other anyhow.  No, rather than using precious time, men and resources to work backwards, I'm going forward.  The Allies are looking ahead, not behind.

[USSAmerica]

I admire your conviction, Dan, as well as how hard and well you are fighting after being pounded so severely early on in this game!  [8D]

[Canoerebel]

Update:  We've played another turn and John hasn't unleashed his threatened major assault yet, but....
 
The Jap Mini-KB (at least I hope it's many) remains northeast of Iwo.  It's attacked three days in a row, so perhaps the pilots are a bit fatigued and mission sorties a little low.  If  that Mini-KB wants to keep picking off cripples, it can head SW toward Iwo or east toward Midway.  If it chooses the latter, it should run into Intrepid and Langley tomorrow.
 
Note:  I'm off on a family vacation tomorrow, so at most will get in one more turn.  So if nothing big happens on that turn, I probably won't post again until I return from vacation in a week.