Empire of the Rising Lemon? SqzMyLemon (Japan) v Smeulders (Allies)

[SqzMyLemon]

ORIGINAL: n01487477

Baker and Ellice Is. might be options, as would Palmyra and Christmas Is. but if I were your opponent I'd have all my CV's holed up in Australia or NZ looking to play historically and go up the Solomon Is. chain. He could be in SanFran too, but I doubt it... Actually, seeing as you haven't ventured into the Southern Ocean, his CV's could even be around Fiji. Although, given the lack of action, maybe I was right with my first assessment.

I also think his CV's are based at Sydney. It's been very quiet of late, but with lots of radio activity at Sydney and PH. There has been no further Allied moves around Tabiteuea other than the expansion of the airfield. I'm holding the surrounding islands, but only with fragments of Naval Guard units.

Fuel in theatre is still my main problem. However, a massive tanker TF is finally leaving Balikpapan en route to Truk. This will be enough to sustain immediate operations until I get a better flow of fuel into Truk. I have enough fuel to mount one operation right now.

My immediate concern is getting the islands surrounding Tabiteuea fully garrisoned and supplied. Reinforcements into Tarawa and the Marshall's are also a high priority. I'd like to invade Baker and Canton Island's sooner than later and I have a few infantry regiments and JNAF AF units ready to go. With Tabiteuea now at a level 3 airbase there will be Allied CAP and search capabilities. I'll sortie the Combined Fleet to cover the reinforcing of the islands around Tabiteuea. With AKE's and extra Fleet HQ's now available, I can begin sending bombardment TF's to hit Tabiteuea.

I've gathered enough units together at Truk to begin strengthening this theatre in earnest. With the lack of Allied attention on Tabiteuea other than airbase expansion, I'm going to begin the process of isolating/neutralizing the base before it gets any stronger.

I like your idea of a feint at Ndeni. I think I will combine that with the amphibious operations against Baker and Canton Island's. First, I'm going to start the hurt on Tabiteuea It's actually rather far out for the Allies with no supporting bases for their LBA. If I can shut down the airbase through bombardments and then maintain by air attack, I may force the Allies to commit their carriers here in support. I've ordered every submarine to converge around Tabiteuea and will hopefully get some lucky hits on anything that may show up.

The Combined Fleet is ready to be committed! Let's see how the Allies may respond.

A quick note on China. The river crossing took too high a toll on my forces, I'm only regaining around 50 AV a day and still am 2000 AV short of what I started with. Reinforcements are trickling in which is helping, but I made a mistake not having a large force immediately available to reinforce the bridgehead and start attacking right away. Live and learn. I'm bombarding the defenders every other day and hitting them with air attack to keep disablements occurring while I gather my strength. So far the Chinese have not reinforced the defenders and I'm maneuvering to threaten other fronts to prevent the Chinese from focusing on this one area only.

The plan is still to engage Chinese forces, but I'll focus on the smaller formations that I can overwhelm in time and by doing so move to threaten the larger formations by cutting their supply lines instead of direct confrontation. I'm still torn on Burma. Can I afford to abandon Northern Burma to make a drive on Paoshan and Kunming. I'm very tempted to try, but it will be a risk and may also be way to late.

Can I start over? [:D] I definitely know what I'd like to try in my next game. It's a case of shoulda, coulda, woulda!

[SqzMyLemon]

I think I have to admit failure in my attempted breaching of the Chinese MLR. The river crossing was extremely costly and essentially 40% of my force was made combat ineffective until they recovered (which takes weeks) and that made any follow up attacks impossible. Chinese forces are now arriving, reinforcing an already strong defensive position. I ask myself whether to withdraw completely, leave a strong rearguard or reinforce with the 3rd Tank Division and all the armour I can muster to try and force a breakthrough. Supply is an issue as fcharton warned, the secondary road doesn't provide my troops with enough supply to conduct daily bombardments even.

I could try and force the issue at Tuyun, as I think that base simply doesn't stockpile supply. I notice the large Chinese force protecting that route does not garrison inside the base either. I keep ignoring the fact that terrain trumps everything in this game. Experience, leadership and lack of supply simply doesn't have much affect against the defender when that's compared to the defensive terrain modifiers. At this stage, I simply can't amass enough AV at any single point to counter the massed Chinese forces arrayed against me in rough terrain. I'm sure they are sufering low supply, but combat clearly indicates if doesn't affect their ability to defend themselves. I suffered 15:1 losses in the river crossing when amassing over 5000 AV. That simply killed me.

I think I will have to resort to maneuver once again, try and surround the large Chinese stacks and hope they make the mistake of trying to counterattack. If I can't achieve anything with ten divisions and a raw AV of 5000, I sure as heck know the Chinese can't either.

Allied forces will be assaulting Bhamo in a few days. I don't think I'll be able to hold as there are 50k Commonwealth troops against around 10k of Japanese defenders. There appears to be an enemy armoured formation as the number of AFV's is significant. I blew Burma plain and simple and it's going to be compounded by the fact that our version of the game does not restrict supply flow in Burma. I should have massed when I had the chance and advanced into China. At least then my troops would have accomplished something positive, instead they will slowly be ground down in Burma over the coming months.

A telling comment was made by Smeulders in an e-mail. He recently sunk a small xAKL and a PB at Tarawa with DB's based from Tabiteuea. He commented that risking the air attack wasn't really worth the possible loss of VP's from Ops losses to his aircraft after sinking only 2 VP's worth of Japanese ships. Really? Are VP's that important that he'll limit offensive operations to avoid taking them, the loss of one or possibly two aircraft? How about the fact he succesfully stopped a resupply mission to Tarawa for no loss, or at worst one destroyed DB? This has been an incredibly boring game, and once again I'm reminded of why. I feel I've had the misfortune to have an opponent who is more concerned with playing a perfect game with as few losses as possible in the pursuit of "winning" rather than having fun.

As soon as fuel arrives at Truk, the Combined Fleet sorties for Tabiteuea and area. I will try and play smart, but if it turns out I get defeated at least it will speed up my demise and allow me to start another game where I can apply the lessons learned to starting another, giving myself the chance for a richer game experience than this one has turned out to provide. I don't play for VP's and winning at the expence of fun. [:-]

[khyberbill]

I feel I've had the misfortune to have an opponent who is more concerned with playing a perfect game with as few losses as possible in the pursuit of "winning" rather than having fun.

Allies really dont have many assets to work with until the summer of 43. Plane production is anemic and the planes that are produced are largely pathetic (lets hear a cheer for the P39D) and flown by low exp pilots. Most any large scale operations are doomed for failure because the Allies simply can not confront KB. In my game with Durbik, I have lost most of my CV's and now sit in port and will sulk there until late 43 unless he slips up. Or I could go forth and get slaughtered. If you wish to make things exciting, have KB bombard Pearl Harbor or Karachi[:D]. I will bet the game will get more exciting.

[Crackaces]

ORIGINAL: khyberbill

I feel I've had the misfortune to have an opponent who is more concerned with playing a perfect game with as few losses as possible in the pursuit of "winning" rather than having fun.

Allies really dont have many assets to work with until the summer of 43. Plane production is anemic and the planes that are produced are largely pathetic (lets hear a cheer for the P39D) and flown by low exp pilots. Most any large scale operations are doomed for failure because the Allies simply can not confront KB. In my game with Durbik, I have lost most of my CV's and now sit in port and will sulk there until late 43 unless he slips up. Or I could go forth and get slaughtered. If you wish to make things exciting, have KB bombard Pearl Harbor or Karachi[:D]. I will bet the game will get more exciting.

In a scenario #1 situation I have plucked off 3 CVL's using my CV's in March 1942. In Real life the KB was mopped in mid 1942. Now Scenario #2 I see presents a different story.. CanoeRebel .. took out 3 CV's with 2 USN CV's late 1942 ... Patrol Craft advantages and leveraging Radar is key IMHO.

[SqzMyLemon]

ORIGINAL: khyberbill

Allies really dont have many assets to work with until the summer of 43. Plane production is anemic and the planes that are produced are largely pathetic (lets hear a cheer for the P39D) and flown by low exp pilots. Most any large scale operations are doomed for failure because the Allies simply can not confront KB. In my game with Durbik, I have lost most of my CV's and now sit in port and will sulk there until late 43 unless he slips up. Or I could go forth and get slaughtered. If you wish to make things exciting, have KB bombard Pearl Harbor or Karachi[:D]. I will bet the game will get more exciting.

I know we've played this tune before khyberbill [:D]. I'm just voicing my opinion on my opponents style, nothing about playing recklessly.

Considering I've never seen a P-39D in harms way in this game, I'll have to take your word for it that they suck. Ever hear of the Oscar and Nate? They make up the majority of my air force, so lets talk pathetic shall we? As far as I know the Allies have been training non-stop for a year, they've taken more losses from Ops than air combat so I don't think the inferior aircraft and low pilot experience card can be played here.

I know I open myself up to these kinds of comments from players like yourself and that's ok. I have a right to say how I feel about how this game has turned out. It's my AAR after all, no? My opponent is a good guy, I just don't like this style of play. It's that simple. There's no right or wrong here. I was looking for a different kind of game experience for my first game and AAR. It's like my WitPAE cherry was lost, but I'll always regret the experience...you know?

So yes, it will take a move on my part to make this game more exciting, cause it ain't going to happen against an Allied player that worries about possible VP's lost from an aircraft Ops loss after sinking two Japanese ships. The sooner I do as you suggest and act recklessly, the sooner my forces will be destroyed and I can find another game. Meanwhile, all the AFB's of the Sir Robin can pat one another on the back and exclaim, what was he thinking doing that? Oh wait, he was trying to enjoy the game and make it more exciting. How dumb is that? [8|]

Let's agree to disgree. I've admitted my faults in this game more than once, funny thing is I'm not playing the AI so it's not all on me. It takes two to play, let's not forget that.

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon

ORIGINAL: khyberbill

Allies really dont have many assets to work with until the summer of 43. Plane production is anemic and the planes that are produced are largely pathetic (lets hear a cheer for the P39D) and flown by low exp pilots. Most any large scale operations are doomed for failure because the Allies simply can not confront KB. In my game with Durbik, I have lost most of my CV's and now sit in port and will sulk there until late 43 unless he slips up. Or I could go forth and get slaughtered. If you wish to make things exciting, have KB bombard Pearl Harbor or Karachi[:D]. I will bet the game will get more exciting.

I know we've played this tune before khyberbill [:D]. I'm just voicing my opinion on my opponents style, nothing about playing recklessly.

Considering I've never seen a P-39D in harms way in this game, I'll have to take your word for it that they suck. Ever hear of the Oscar and Nate? They make up the majority of my air force, so lets talk pathetic shall we? As far as I know the Allies have been training non-stop for a year, they've taken more losses from Ops than air combat so I don't think the inferior aircraft and low pilot experience card can be played here.

I know I open myself up to these kinds of comments from players like yourself and that's ok. I have a right to say how I feel about how this game has turned out. It's my AAR after all, no? My opponent is a good guy, I just don't like this style of play. It's that simple. There's no right or wrong here. I was looking for a different kind of game experience for my first game and AAR. It's like my WitPAE cherry was lost, but I'll always regret the experience...you know?

So yes, it will take a move on my part to make this game more exciting, cause it ain't going to happen against an Allied player that worries about possible VP's lost from an aircraft Ops loss after sinking two Japanese ships. The sooner I do as you suggest and act recklessly, the sooner my forces will be destroyed and I can find another game. Meanwhile, all the AFB's of the Sir Robin can pat one another on the back and exclaim, what was he thinking doing that? Oh wait, he was trying to enjoy the game and make it more exciting. How dumb is that? [8|]

Let's agree to disgree. I've admitted my faults in this game more than once, funny thing is I'm not playing the AI so it's not all on me. It takes two to play, let's not forget that.

My only campaigns as the Allies are scen #2 so I may not be the best to comment. However, in that scen if the Japanese player knows his mustard, then the Allied player has to be careful. And a very cautious use of carriers is called for. My number one point was the preservation of my carriers. Anything else I considered expendable. However, I don't think the Allied player can pull a total Sir Robin if the Japanese player won't allow it. If either Scen #1 or 2, in 1942 and early 43, the Japanese player should hold a great edge in fleet and air power. You have to pick a spot that he must defend and just go for it. And if he chooses not to defend then you will get a critical point for your later game.

My experience is that there are just some points that I had to fight for as the Allies. Poke him until you find one...[;)]

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon
I have a right to say how I feel about how this game has turned out. It's my AAR after all, no?

Of course it is. You've a perfect right to voice your disappointment in your AAR, dude. That's what its there for.

I feel for you in terms of your partner's approach to the game. I would feel somewhat miffed if my opponents had adopted an approach that was even more tame than the historical. I've just been fortunate that none of my partners have adopted this boring tact.

It's like a marriage. Sure, you can stick with the letter of the law after irreconcilable differences have been discovered and stay with a (sham) marriage. For the kids' sake. All the while being miserable. Or you could call it a day, free yourself and move on, accepting the impending slings and arrows for what they are and what they will be.

Counseling may be a reasonable first step. Talk with your partner and let him know that he's really not meeting your expectations for a game. Tell him what you need and what you'll tolerate.

Perhaps start another game? You can flip the turns of the other game as a duty, but get the action you crave on the outside of your 'marriage'?

In the meantime, vent away! That's what we-the peanut gallery-are here for, mate! [:)]

[ny59giants]

I'm in mid-July as Allies with scenario 2 and as Japan in mid-Jan 43. Both have different tempo. My game as Japan is they farthest I have every been as Japan, so everything is a learning experience. My Allied opponent has used his air force very sparingly. Looking at it from my perspective as an Allied player in my other game, I have plenty of American Army fighter pilots, but not enough airframes to go toe-to-toe for more than a few turns in a row. I have some highly experienced pilots as I have had plenty of time to train. When I get few fighter airframes than Japan can produce in just Zeros per month (about 120 per month in other game). Why fight unless I have to??

I am like you and somewhat frustrated as Japan, but I will be more aggressive next time and like crsutton stated, I will force an Allied opponent to defend somewhere important. Go out and poke the bee hive and see what kind of trouble you can get into. Look at this game from this time forward as a learning experience. Plan something bold and a little reckless. [;)]

[SqzMyLemon]

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

I am like you and somewhat frustrated as Japan, but I will be more aggressive next time and like crsutton stated, I will force an Allied opponent to defend somewhere important. Go out and poke the bee hive and see what kind of trouble you can get into. Look at this game from this time forward as a learning experience. Plan something bold and a little reckless. [;)]

It's all good everyone. I'm not about to jump off the WitPAE bridge anytime soon. I plan on doing just what is suggested above and what I've said myself on occasion. I'll look forward to another game and trying out a more aggressive strategy then, but as to the rest of this game it's a learning experience. I'm not concerned about winning or losing, I just want to make the rest of the game as enjoyable as possible.

My plan is still to take a stab at cutting the Allied LOC to Australia. First to isolate the latest Allied penetration at Tabiteuea. That will give me a chance to try isolating an enemy base, bypassing it to secure another objective that will contribute to further isolating it and so on. I think a strike as far as Pago Pago would be a surprise and also could bring out the Allied Fleet.

As mentioned, I'm just waiting on fuel to arrive at Truk and then I begin my operations. If the Allies fight...great, if not then it's as crsutton has suggested. I get some real estate on the cheap that I can exploit against the Allies.

Now I just have to figure out what the heck to do in Burma. [:D]

Again, I have no ill will against Smeulders, we just have different styles that haven't contributed to a more enjoyable experience. At least for me.

[PaxMondo]

Echoing all the thoughts and concerns here, it seems that the IJ player needs to extend either to OZ or India, after having secured china first; particularly in scenario 2.  Going for Karachi or Sydney has a high probability to force the allied player into action.  If not, the HI and resource gains in India make it a very good take.  Taking OZ makes the allied re-conquest that much longer as he hasn't a solid staging point for the DEI.  This mean holding DEI longer and extracting that much more fuel.  Either way, if the allied player allows either to ocurr, the IJ has a good chance to be still standing in '46 with the allied player just too far away to be able to close.
 
Backing up, means that the conquest tempo needs to be SO fast and steady all they way through '42.  Implying a fairly detailed plan of units to commit, timing, PP buyouts, etc.  My point being: I'm not yet that good to do that!  [:D]  But, I do see the need ....
 
PS: glad to see you back.  Keep the updates coming.  And trust me.  in another 100 turns or so, the action will start to heat up.  [;)]

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

Echoing all the thoughts and concerns here, it seems that the IJ player needs to extend either to OZ or India, after having secured china first; particularly in scenario 2.  Going for Karachi or Sydney has a high probability to force the allied player into action.  If not, the HI and resource gains in India make it a very good take.  Taking OZ makes the allied re-conquest that much longer as he hasn't a solid staging point for the DEI.  This mean holding DEI longer and extracting that much more fuel.  Either way, if the allied player allows either to ocurr, the IJ has a good chance to be still standing in '46 with the allied player just too far away to be able to close.

Backing up, means that the conquest tempo needs to be SO fast and steady all they way through '42.  Implying a fairly detailed plan of units to commit, timing, PP buyouts, etc.  My point being: I'm not yet that good to do that!  [:D]  But, I do see the need ....

PS: glad to see you back.  Keep the updates coming.  And trust me.  in another 100 turns or so, the action will start to heat up.  [;)]

You are right. Having experienced scen #2 first hand vs a good opponent. I would say that emasculating China is a must and can't really be prevented. Once secure, the Japanese player just gets so many extra cards to play. However, it has to go hand in hand with an aggressive and relentless expansion. The Japanese should never stop pushing until the Allies can push back, (and in scen #2 that should not happen until mid 1943) but most of the significant gains should be in hand by August 1942.

And the Japanese player should not be overly concerned about losses in ships and aircraft. Caution just kills the Japanese.

Likewise, considering the flood of Japanese aircraft and the power of KB, I think the best Allied play in scen #2 is to preserve and hide your carriers. An intact and lurking Allied carrier force eventually limits the Japanese player to one major offensive at a time-making it easier to manage.

[SqzMyLemon]

ORIGINAL: crsutton

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

Echoing all the thoughts and concerns here, it seems that the IJ player needs to extend either to OZ or India, after having secured china first; particularly in scenario 2.  Going for Karachi or Sydney has a high probability to force the allied player into action.  If not, the HI and resource gains in India make it a very good take.  Taking OZ makes the allied re-conquest that much longer as he hasn't a solid staging point for the DEI.  This mean holding DEI longer and extracting that much more fuel.  Either way, if the allied player allows either to ocurr, the IJ has a good chance to be still standing in '46 with the allied player just too far away to be able to close.

Backing up, means that the conquest tempo needs to be SO fast and steady all they way through '42.  Implying a fairly detailed plan of units to commit, timing, PP buyouts, etc.  My point being: I'm not yet that good to do that!  [:D]  But, I do see the need ....

PS: glad to see you back.  Keep the updates coming.  And trust me.  in another 100 turns or so, the action will start to heat up.  [;)]

You are right. Having experienced scen #2 first hand vs a good opponent. I would say that emasculating China is a must and can't really be prevented. Once secure, the Japanese player just gets so many extra cards to play. However, it has to go hand in hand with an aggressive and relentless expansion. The Japanese should never stop pushing until the Allies can push back, (and in scen #2 that should not happen until mid 1943) but most of the significant gains should be in hand by August 1942.

And the Japanese player should not be overly concerned about losses in ships and aircraft. Caution just kills the Japanese.

Likewise, considering the flood of Japanese aircraft and the power of KB, I think the best Allied play in scen #2 is to preserve and hide your carriers. An intact and lurking Allied carrier force eventually limits the Japanese player to one major offensive at a time-making it easier to manage.

I completely agree with the fact that the onus is on Japan to force the issue IF the Allied player doesn't contest. Don't forget this is scenario 1 with PDU off though. That really limits the flexibility of a Japanese deeper thrust in my opinion. It can still be done, but you simply don't have the manpower or aircraft to defend the rest of your gains adequately, leaving you vulnerable to an early Allied counter from an experienced player. In this case neither of us was experienced so that argument is moot in any case.

As Pax said, I know that it will take just such an operation against Australia, Hawaii or India if faced with similar Allied tactics again to force the issue in the next game. Unfortunately, that takes planning right from day one and I wasn't experienced enough to recognize that in this matchup, nor how to really take advantage of it anyway.

Really my issue is this. If an Allied player decides to simply not engage, they can do so...all game if they so choose. I just have a problem with expecting a Japanese player to have to throw everything into an operation that's sole purpose is to try and entice the Allied player to fight, possibly to the detriment of an overall sustainable strategy. Let me put it this way, if the onus is on Japan to bring the Allies to battle, the Allies should have the onus to defend to the best of their ability as well, not simply run away until mid 1943. Anyway, this has been brought up before and discussed earlier in this AAR, moving on.

Everybody has their own game experiences that shape their opinion. Mine has been shaped in accordance with my opponents lack of martial spirit and aversion to putting any of his forces at risk. I applaud his ability to stick to his strategy, but it's obvious (at least to me) that it's not a very enjoyable one to play against. That being said, it's almost January 43 and the Allies are actually moving forward now. There's an opportunity here for action and I'm going to take full advantage of it. I'm not overly concerned about losing ships at this stage, but I'm not going to recklessly dash in either, as some would suggest, just for action's sake.

I stick to the plan. The Allies have finally stuck their head out from under their shell, it's up to me to do something about it. I recognize that and am currently about to try and chop it off.

Thanks for the feedback. It wasn't my intention to rehash all of this. I just thought it was interesting discovering how my opponent is looking at the game and how I felt it is contributing to my overall disatisfaction with the experience to date. As I said, I'm no longer interested in winning or losing, but how can I improve and apply the great advice and suggestions from more experienced players to this particular PBEM.

[SqzMyLemon]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Perhaps start another game? You can flip the turns of the other game as a duty, but get the action you crave on the outside of your 'marriage'?

Doing just that. I have a scenario two game going as Japan with another opponent. I'm getting schooled on just how capable the Allies are under the command of an experienced player, but it's teaching me valuable lessons and above all it's enjoyable to actually sink something now and then. I'm trying to be far more aggressive and apply what I've learned. I'm already feeling a sense of improvement and gaining confidence.

[SqzMyLemon]

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

PS: glad to see you back.  Keep the updates coming.  And trust me.  in another 100 turns or so, the action will start to heat up.  [;)]

Never left [;)]. Just been busy with RL and haven't had the time to do proper updates or get many turns out of late. There isn't much to report other than gathering supplies and troops for the coming offensive. I'm concerned about Burma, but not sure how best to respond. I'm leaning towards abandoning Northern Burma, shifting to hit China hard and hopefully recover fast enough to form a line north of Moulmein.

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon

As Pax said, I know that it will take just such an operation against Australia, Hawaii or India if faced with similar Allied tactics again to force the issue in the next game. Unfortunately, that takes planning right from day one and I wasn't experienced enough to recognize that in this matchup, nor how to really take advantage of it anyway.

Yeah, well don't feel bad. I haven't worked that out yet myself.

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon
Really my issue is this. If an Allied player decides to simply not engage, they can do so...all game if they so choose. I just have a problem with expecting a Japanese player to have to throw everything into an operation that's sole purpose is to try and entice the Allied player to fight, possibly to the detriment of an overall sustainable strategy. Let me put it this way, if the onus is on Japan to bring the Allies to battle, the Allies should have the onus to defend to the best of their ability as well, not simply run away until mid 1943.

I see what you're saying, but look at it this way. beginning in mid-43 you're going to be on the other side. You're going to have to choose where and when you will react to the allied offensive. Remember, you only get one defeat. So you have to choose your defensive battle carefully. Look at PzB's AAR. He's been a master at predicting where Andy will come and then where to set his carriers to defend. Really brilliant work time and again.

My point is, pretty soon the allied player will start to think the same of the IJ player ... "where is he?" [;)] And if you ever lose that ... well game over, right?

[ny59giants]

My Allied opponent has been using his 4e bombers at 100' straffing/bombing runs on my AFs in Burma and prior in SE India. I have had to divide my CAP to keep some Tojo at 31k to destroy his fighters and many below 10k to get a chance to hit the bombers. I have gone days to weeks without seeing them and then suddenly, they come and close an AF in one raid. I have yet to come up with a decent countermeasure to them. I have large amount of small caliber AA units at some bases, but it doesn't seem enough.

Have you learned an effective way to deal with his 4e menace or is he still keeping them in hiding?? In Feb 43, the second generation B-24s come out and both of us will have to deal with vastly increased numbers.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

My Allied opponent has been using his 4e bombers at 100' straffing/bombing runs on my AFs in Burma and prior in SE India. I have had to divide my CAP to keep some Tojo at 31k to destroy his fighters and many below 10k to get a chance to hit the bombers. I have gone days to weeks without seeing them and then suddenly, they come and close an AF in one raid. I have yet to come up with a decent countermeasure to them. I have large amount of small caliber AA units at some bases, but it doesn't seem enough.

Have you learned an effective way to deal with his 4e menace or is he still keeping them in hiding?? In Feb 43, the second generation B-24s come out and both of us will have to deal with vastly increased numbers.

Are the units equipped with the 75mm AAA not up to the task? There are some home-grown units on the mainland with the 100mm AAA that has a higher altitude limit. I can't say that I've had a problem with my AAA against low altitude operators. [&:]

[PaxMondo]

My experience is simply that the IJ AA units are kinda small ... not that many guns really or at least compared to what the allies get.  So you have to get a lot of units together to be effective.   If you do (get enough units together) you can create a real flak trap that works as they allies get a bit over confident in the lack of AA.  PzB has done it in his AAR several times.

[SqzMyLemon]

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

My Allied opponent has been using his 4e bombers at 100' straffing/bombing runs on my AFs in Burma and prior in SE India. I have had to divide my CAP to keep some Tojo at 31k to destroy his fighters and many below 10k to get a chance to hit the bombers. I have gone days to weeks without seeing them and then suddenly, they come and close an AF in one raid. I have yet to come up with a decent countermeasure to them. I have large amount of small caliber AA units at some bases, but it doesn't seem enough.

Have you learned an effective way to deal with his 4e menace or is he still keeping them in hiding?? In Feb 43, the second generation B-24s come out and both of us will have to deal with vastly increased numbers.

The 4E's are used vary sparingly. As long as one raid doesn't get beat up too badly they will be committed until their objective is achieved. So far that has amounted to the destruction of the oil production facilities and the airbase at Magwe in Burma, and the closing of the airbase at Lunga on Guadalcanal. They are used in mass, but not generally escorted as I don't fly CAP regularly to avoid getting wiped out by sweeping P-38's. Altitude range is 8-15k IIRC.

I've been successful ambushing a couple of raids with Nick's on LRCAP. In one such attack I downed five B-17's. They didn't show up again for awhile [:D]. However, FLAK hasn't proved a deterrent at all. I had 4 AA units at Magwe at one point but rarely if ever saw a bomber downed to FLAK. I'll look at the intel screen and post Allied air losses.

Once a target has been neutralized no enemy bombers will fly until the airfield damage is down to 30% or so. Then it's one massive raid again to close the airfield. I'm trying to time ambushes for when I expect these bombers to show up around this %. They are always unescorted.

I'm glad they are not commited regularly to other bases or hitting my moving ground troops, this has allowed me to expand forts and move around completely unmolested. Well, not true. Bombers tried to shut down Mandalay's airbase, but even unopposed the damage was often repaired by the next day so that effort was stopped. I have almost 200 engineers in the base. So an Allied bomber offensive was actually stopped, but with the shovel rather than Japan's airforce or FLAK units. [8|][:D]

I don't think Smeulders realizes the weapon he has at his disposal. He's singular in their use and only flies them to achieve one specific objective at a time. At least so far, and I am thankful every turn they don't fly.

I like the Nick's though, if they can get at bombers unmolested they have been successful. Many take damage from the defensive fire, but being armoured they seem to press on regardless. With good pilots I find them effective when given the opportunity.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

My experience is simply that the IJ AA units are kinda small ... not that many guns really or at least compared to what the allies get. 

True, more units together get you better results. If he's flying at 100ft. though, there will be some opportunity to inflict some flak OPS losses on them with existing AAA capabilities.

The AAA units are cheap to buy, incidentally. I'd recommend considering buying some for these sorts of reasons.