The Power of Inexperience / GreyJoy(A)-Rader(J)

[USSAmerica]

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

Yup guys...after a good sleep and a cup of coffea everything is fine again

See u later with some updates

That's the ticket! [8D]

[Vetamur]

I wonder if you can use this tragedy to set up an ambush.. make it look like you havent learned your lesson.. set some bait..but put your own carriers in a position to strike when he moves up the KB..

just thinking here..

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

I am glad to summarize the rule to clear up the abundant and near-perpetual uncertainty that attaches to this rule.

The depth of the water has nothing to do with carrier operations.

The presence of land has nothing to do with carrier operations.

It is only the presence of a base that affects carrier operations. In a base hex, fleet carrier (CV and CVL) air operations are halved. CVE air operations are unaffected.

So, a fleet carrier operating in a hex that is part land and part water is not affecte. But a fleet carrier operating in a base hex is affected.

What he said!

[Canoerebel]

I need to state something publicly - an apology that's necessary here because the conduct I am apologizing for occurred in this thread.

Much more than a year ago game-time, I criticized rader pretty harshly for two things: (1) abusing a newb with a no-holds-barred assault on China and India, and (2) marching a huge army across the Owen-Stanley mountains.

At the time, I didn't know rader at all. I had never read any of his AARs, nor had I had any contact with him in the forums. I wasn't aware that he was a regular and well-regarded member of the community. To me, he was simply an experienced player harshly abusing a newb.

In reading his companion thread to this game, I've come to realize that rader is quite a gent - even-tempered, cordial, and a good sport. And there's plenty other evidence to boot; for instance, the high regard with which GJ holds rader.

So, I do hereby apologize to rader (should he ever read this far into GJ's AAR) for being pretty harsh in my comments. Rader and GJ are good guys who are producing wonderfully entertaining mirror AARs.

[GreyJoy]

Sorry guys, i'm a bit late today with the updates...having some hard days at work...lot of things to do before xmas....
 
But i'll be back on track tonight after work...
 
...just one note and then i have to leave...
 
My CVEs were supposed to operate at their full potentials in Uruppu jima because they are CVEs and not CVs...so i was counting on that....i knew i was in a danger area...and right because of that i kept all my CVEs togheder in 7 different TFs covering my invasion fleet (APA, AKAs, LSTs etc etc). don't know why the CAP performed so badly...radar didn't work as good as it should have been and it seemed that all my fighters were caught out of position during the first 2 or 3 decisive raids...think it was a bad dice and roll this time
 
However live and learn...[:D] I will invade Honshu...even if it was the last thing to do in this game[8D]
 
NO FEAR!!!!
 
later friends...

[Karsten]

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

Yup guys...after a good sleep and a cup of coffea everything is fine again

See u later with some updates

Thats the right spirit!

[GreyJoy]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

I need to state something publicly - an apology that's necessary here because the conduct I am apologizing for occurred in this thread.

Much more than a year ago game-time, I criticized rader pretty harshly for two things: (1) abusing a newb with a no-holds-barred assault on China and India, and (2) marching a huge army across the Owen-Stanley mountains.

At the time, I didn't know rader at all. I had never read any of his AARs, nor had I had any contact with him in the forums. I wasn't aware that he was a regular and well-regarded member of the community. To me, he was simply an experienced player harshly abusing a newb.

In reading his companion thread to this game, I've come to realize that rader is quite a gent - even-tempered, cordial, and a good sport. And there's plenty other evidence to boot; for instance, the high regard with which GJ holds rader.

So, I do hereby apologize to rader (should he ever read this far into GJ's AAR) for being pretty harsh in my comments. Rader and GJ are good guys who are producing wonderfully entertaining mirror AARs.

+1


Rader is a gentleman. Sporty and clever and, above all, i know consider him a good friend.
We've known each other during this year and i can tell you for sure that he's the game-partner everyone would want to have

As always, CR, your politeness and education are and example for us all. Thx for being as you are!

[jeffk3510]

ORIGINAL: Crackaces

ORIGINAL: jeffk3510

ORIGINAL: Miller




I would never suggest going head to head with them within range of his LBA. However you seriously attrited his KB airgroups during the Tulagi/New Guinea campaign in 43, a perfect time for your CVs to strike.........but they were sitting in PH at the time "Upgrading". BTW (as you will have probably realised after the last bad turn) ship AA upgrades are pretty much pointless as Flak in the game is about a tenth as effective compared to the real war.

I would agree with that 100%

Hmmmm what version are we refering to? or are we saying the latest Beta version is borked too?

David-

By no means was I saying it is borked at all....just an observation.. Love this game and everything about it.

By far and away the best war game, in my mind.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: jeffk3510

ORIGINAL: Crackaces

ORIGINAL: jeffk3510




I would agree with that 100%

Hmmmm what version are we refering to? or are we saying the latest Beta version is borked too?

David-

By no means was I saying it is borked at all....just an observation.. Love this game and everything about it.

By far and away the best war game, in my mind.

Various peoples' observations about ship-borne flak were taken and prompted a recalculation of flak values for DaBabes. I forget if ground-based flak was done also, or if perhaps it had already been done for stock scenarios. The same was done for surface guns, and was very recently done for aerial bombs. Those of us playing Babes scenarios will have to see how it works out over the long term, but at the very least the effort normalized all of the values so they are correct in relation to each other.

As Rader and GreyJoy are playing Sceanrio 2 they certainly don't have the benefit of those efforts.

[Crackaces]

ORIGINAL: jeffk3510

ORIGINAL: Crackaces

ORIGINAL: jeffk3510





I would agree with that 100%

Hmmmm what version are we refering to? or are we saying the latest Beta version is borked too?

David-

By no means was I saying it is borked at all....just an observation.. Love this game and everything about it.

By far and away the best war game, in my mind.

Fast Reply

The number of large anti-aircraft guns used to defend German cites against Allied bombers is quoted as 18,000. One commentator states that the Germans probably lost the Battle of Stalingrad by defending German skies against Allied bombers


Even against the combination of German fighters (some days 600 were available) and numerous anti-aircraft guns , usually 95 percent of the bombers dropped their bombs on or near their assigned targets and returned in re-usable condition to England. (Very few Allied raids had bomber losses higher than 20 percent. "Terrible losses" as viewed by bomber air crews, and "not nearly enough losses" as viewed by the Germans.)


Comments from Jerry L Brewer who did U.S. 90 mm AAA in Japan during the Korean police action. One final thought on AA guns against modern aircraft. It was taking your faithful old shotgun out to shoot birds flying by at 100 MPH. German author Werner Muller in his book "The Heavy Flak Guns" said,"Based on average monthly ammunition consumption in 1944, it took 16,000 rounds of 88mm gunfire to bring down one four engine bomber."
Mr. Mullers book contains details on German AA guns and fire control systems. It is published by Schiffer Publishing Ltd. of Westchester Pa.ISBN: 0-8870-263-1

Available by e-mail through Barnes & Noble

So 10% overall flak effectiveness is about right doing cursory research ...

Ok back to GreyJoy and the war ..

[Nemo121]

Sometimes you just wish people would actually be open and state things publicly instead of snivelling behind the scenes....

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: bigred

ORIGINAL: ADB123

how is it possible that my fighters on the CVEs performed so badly?! they didn't even engage the raids...look at the first raid....10 fighters lost on each side and that's all.... the CVEs don't suffer the "sitting in base" penalty right?

Unless something has changed in the Betas, any CV, CVEs included, fly fewer planes if they are in a shore/base hex. Only the AI is immune.

As an aside - all of the "ammo explosion" messages are a good lesson for everyone who wants to use their CVEs as Combat Carriers...

Good luck -

I read somewhere that CVEs in shallow water fly at 100%operations. CV/CVLs are cut to 50% operational launch ability.
Another question GJ. What was the size of the CVE TF?
Should we try to keep the CVE TFs under ship size of 14? I recall something about a CV TF "effected by more than 14 ships".
What was the commanders naval/air rating?
And what is the name of the commander.
Please excuse me for being obsessive analytical.

guys, they changed this a long, long time ago. CVs of all types are reduced to 50% air operations ONLY in port hexes now, not in all coastal hexes like the old days.

[Crackaces]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

ORIGINAL: bigred

ORIGINAL: ADB123



Unless something has changed in the Betas, any CV, CVEs included, fly fewer planes if they are in a shore/base hex. Only the AI is immune.

As an aside - all of the "ammo explosion" messages are a good lesson for everyone who wants to use their CVEs as Combat Carriers...

Good luck -

I read somewhere that CVEs in shallow water fly at 100%operations. CV/CVLs are cut to 50% operational launch ability.
Another question GJ. What was the size of the CVE TF?
Should we try to keep the CVE TFs under ship size of 14? I recall something about a CV TF "effected by more than 14 ships".
What was the commanders naval/air rating?
And what is the name of the commander.
Please excuse me for being obsessive analytical.

guys, they changed this a long, long time ago. CVs of all types are reduced to 50% air operations ONLY in port hexes now, not in all coastal hexes like the old days.

Think the question is base hex not port per se .. thus launching from a hex with an atoll will effect operations .. I observed this with r6 ..

Air operations by aircraft carriers are limited if the aircraft carrier is in a base hex. Aircraft launching search, CAP or strike Missions from a carrier in a base hex will only launch 50% of the normal amount they would have launched. P. 167

[HansBolter]

wouldn't that be only if the atoll actually has a base?

[Canoerebel]

Well, I'll re-state the actual rule for the second time in two days, since posts subsequent to my original have misstated the rule:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

I am glad to summarize the rule to clear up the abundant and near-perpetual uncertainty that attaches to this rule.

The depth of the water has nothing to do with carrier operations.

The presence of land has nothing to do with carrier operations.

It is only the presence of a base that affects carrier operations. In a base hex, fleet carrier (CV and CVL) air operations are halved. CVE air operations are unaffected.

So, a fleet carrier operating in a hex that is part land and part water is not affecte. But a fleet carrier operating in a base hex is affected.

[Crackaces]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

wouldn't that be only if the atoll actually has a base?

Exactly ..but at least in my experience last turn in my game -- that atoll can be an empty base .. as long as it is a base hex ...

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Crackaces

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

wouldn't that be only if the atoll actually has a base?

Exactly ..but at least in my experience last turn in my game -- that atoll can be an empty base .. as long as it is a base hex ...

CVEs are not affected at all. Bases only affect CVs and CVL.

[GreyJoy]

Nemo i don't get what you mean...
 
Anyway guys, here we are with another turn
 
10, 11 July 1944
 
we heavily bombed Ominato hoping to find some damaged planes....not a single plane torched despite 2 days with more than 280 bombers involved[X(]
 
Anyway....KB retired southwest and passed again over my subs....guess what? not a single contact[:@]
 
We managed to get some badly damaged CVEs back to Shikuka and some more are trying to be saved at Uruppu.
I cannot change my disposition right now...it's mistaken as it is...i know...too exposed...it's a mistake to use Uruppu as an HUB...but i cannot move everything out in 1 turn...so i've tried to organize Uruppu defences in a better way...more spitsVIII transfered there and less crappy Hellcats....
Shikuka has been given 300 fighters now in order to protect it from any attempt to catch my damaged CVEs...
 
Tomorrow we'll hit Gifu, targetting the last operative KI-83 factory, along with Tojo and Tony production. Heavy escort ordered (more than 250 planes on escort and more 200 on sweep to defend 330 4Es)...
I'm really running out of 4Es....cannot go on a lot more with these loss ratio...
 
Northern Honshu has become a fortress....my BBs keep on bombing the bases there but every day the results are worse....CD guns everywhere and i presume forts up to 9 everywhere.... guys...we all know it will be bloody as hell to land there....we'll land in the face of 500k japanese....my recon has spotted more than 6000 vehicles...[X(][X(][X(][X(][X(][X(]
 
But we also know it will be fun...[:D]
 
less than 2 months to go before the invasion.... my CVs are re-grouping and re-organizing at PH....they will be equipped with the new Hellcats5 very soon and in 2 weeks 3 new british CVs will join the party.
 
As stated i won't use my CVs to cover the landings...i'll use them to protect my flanks against his KB... i'll devote more than 2000 fighters for LRCAP the landing sites...i'll lose tons of ships...i know...but i'm well ready to suffer...i think i got used to take beatings[:D]
 
Unfortunately from today we'll slow down a lot...1 turn per day if we're lucky...Rader will be pretty busy these holidays[:(]
 
Ok...in 3/4 hiurs we'll see how our mission against Gifu has gone.... see you later[:'(]

[GreyJoy]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

GJ can speak to his own case, naturally, but I suspect he would keep his carriers back. The only thing that can keep him from victory is to lose the ability to supply his army and airforce on Hokkaido. If he lost his carriers, but rader still had his, the situation would become dicey.

you know me[8D]

[Crackaces]

Anyway....KB retired southwest and passed again over my subs....guess what? not a single contact

Somebody with experience chime in .. but I do not think the code checks for passing over the top of a submarine but rather it seems to check if a TF ends a phase in the same hex as a submarines. Thus sub's do not act as pickets in WitP AE but more as "land mines" [you have to step on them or land on them so to speak ] Thus, those 8 hexes away launch points are pretty critical to station submarines .. as well as places that teh KB would get away to at full and mission speeds ..

Just a thought but somebody who really knows what's going on inside the game might comment .. these are just my observations of 210 plus turns of play ..