Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

Tennant Creek is the key one.. I was able to make it a level 6 airbase, 3 port... so supply is moving, but not in the quantities required to start offensive operations

Level 3 port at Tennant Creek! You have to point us to the mod that allows you to dig navigable channels all the way to the coast! [;)]

From the sounds of things the supplies are just being used up as quickly as they arrive. If you want more to go north you may have to pause construction at Tennant Creek.
In my game, once most of the Australian units that I allowed to fill out had done so, or at least cleaned out the pools of devices, supply built up steadily along the route and construction continued in every base. But I was not flying any bombing operations against Japanese forces, just training. I am sure the flow will grow eventually, but not as soon or as heavy as we wish!

Well the boys had built a huge pool cabana!! [:D] hehe, no it is fort what is at level 3


I already stopped building.. so I will move out all iddle engineer units; I will also wait for 2nd Army HQ to arrive, It will hopefully improve the situation
if not I will start moving out troops.. you can see I have more than 45K mouths to feed !

Tennant Creek airbase is training its CAP fighters and it is providing supply transport to Daly Waters / Wyndham. But as you can see only 10 airframes available so that can't be consuming significantly

Daly Waters is around 180 supplies, fort 2 and airbase 1.67. I will stop building once it reachs fort 3, air 2
And I will only restart building Daly Waters when Tennant Creek is well supplies

I could never find the magic to move supply up from Alice Springs to Tennant Creek - the supply draw was never enough to build up the base, let alone sustain the numbers of troops required for building and defense.

If you can sustain 45k, I'd love to know your mo-jo!!!

For most of the war Tennant Creek was slowly building with barely any garrison. The arrival of 45K troops is a relatively recent development (a month or so ago). Of course my situation is completely different than yours; other than a small base force destroyed at Broome, I haven't fight at all in Australia: few naval bombardments, no air war, troops barely moving/at rest.

I forgot to mention that I started the conversion of some AG Capella/ AG Regulus class ships to AKE. More will follow soon

I completely forgot about them early on, and I actually was going to refit them to 6/42 standard when I noticed the potential to make them AKE, a more useful ship for the size

Had I let them refit to "AG 6/42", then the capability to become AKE would had been lost.

Thanks for the tip, that sounds like a great idea. [:)]

AGs (general purpose auxiliary) are more useful for Japan than for the Allies

Simply there is a lot less need to rearm/ repair small craft on underdeveloped bases.
Playing as Japan you want the capability to rearm depth charges all across the Singapore to HI ports

Today I lost Loyang.. China keeps crumbling and the question now is "would China be over by end of the year?"

In better news, the carriers are ready for the upcoming operation, which will start in the next 3 or 4 days

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ground combat at Loyang (87,43)

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 81318 troops, 794 guns, 544 vehicles, Assault Value = 2111

Defending force 62850 troops, 200 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 1176

Japanese engineers reduce fortifications to 0

Japanese adjusted assault: 996

Allied adjusted defense: 207

Japanese assault odds: 4 to 1 (fort level 0)

Japanese forces CAPTURE Loyang !!!

Combat modifiers
Defender: preparation(-), experience(-), supply(-)
Attacker:

Japanese ground losses:
3740 casualties reported
Squads: 12 destroyed, 476 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 56 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 35 disabled
Guns lost 29 (1 destroyed, 28 disabled)

Allied ground losses:
11780 casualties reported
Squads: 755 destroyed, 49 disabled
Non Combat: 865 destroyed, 37 disabled
Engineers: 37 destroyed, 1 disabled
Guns lost 45 (36 destroyed, 9 disabled)
Units retreated 18
Units destroyed 2

Defeated Allied Units Retreating!

Assaulting units:
9th Tank Regiment
34th Division
32nd Division
3rd Division
37th Division
36th Division
1st Tank Division
69th Division
59th Division

Defending units:
9th Chinese Corps
93rd Chinese Corps
27th Chinese Corps
96th Chinese Corps
76th Chinese Corps
80th Chinese Corps
38th Chinese Corps
2nd Chinese Cavalry Corps
1st Chinese Corps
36th Group Army
Jingcha War Area
57th Chinese Corps
4th Group Army
Red Chinese Army
14th Group Army
15th Group Army
4th Chinese Base Force
16th Chinese Corps
36th Chinese Corps
15th Chinese Base Force

Better split up that TF. In 1942 there is a good chance of a coordination penalty from having too many aircraft in one TF. From the manual Section 7.2.1.11:

The coordination of air strikes is affected by how many Carrier aircraft are based in
the TF launching a strike. The chance of uncoordination is doubled under the following
circumstances:
»» Allied TF in 1942 and the number of aircraft in the
TF is greater than 100 + rnd (100).
»» Allied TF in 1943 and the number of aircraft in the
TF is greater than 150 + rnd (150).
»» Allied TF in 1944 or later or a Japanese TF at any time and the
number of aircraft in the TF is greater than 200 + rnd (200).[/b]

"rnd" is short for a random chance roll

You can keep them together by having all follow one lead TF. I like Lex and Sara for lead because they have the heaviest armour if an enemy SCTF finds them (assuming the lead TF is likely to be the first encountered).

Thanks, I will try it

EDIT: How bad is the penalty? I read somewhere it is not too harsh and/ or uncoordinated strikes sometimes achieve better results

EDIT #2: Another worry.. what if one TF reacts to an enemy carrier TF and the other don't ???

All the manual says is the chance of uncoordination is doubled. Most times this will likely be not too critical, but if your fighters don't escort your strike ...

I don't know if the uncoordination happens on one die roll for the entire strike, or per CV. By definition, when the strikes start to be uncoordinated they are different strikes, so there must be some cut-off for how the penalty is applied or it will cascade to infinity.

Don't know how the AI handles react to enemy CVs when TFs are set to follow. The most aggressive TF commander is the one most likely to react, so I would make that TF the lead and set the others to follow it, 0 distance. They should follow the reacting TF, if the AI follows that logic.

The 5 carrier USN TF is not getting any action; "Operation Vuvuzela" is over!

For those that don't play soccer, in the South African soccer world cup of 2010 there was this annoying noise maker called vuvuzela,
the idea is the same here, and although I am sure Prester John is not reading this, I wanted "USN carriers ready to strike" on the subject line of this AAR for a few days before the 1st major Allied invasion.

I decided to sent the carriers back to Pearl because the invasion fleet is already spotted. I was hoping to gain one more day but it didn't happen. A carrier battle in the next 2 turns is now almost guaranteed
Detailed map will be posted in a few hours, for the time being, check this:

Only a couple TFs of 13 heading to Ceylon had been spotted, and 2/2 and 3/3 don't say a lot... just that there are cargo and transport ships too close to Ceylon... but this will be enough to pique his curiosity and send something to investigate

First of many maps:

Nav search: I expect to fight mini-KB somewhere east of Trincomalee

I have 35 Naval patrols (32 Cats, 3 Dorniers) looking at the bay of bengal

Operation "Sinews of War¨
Objective:
1) Liberation of Ceylon
2) Trap and destroy Japanese garrison at Ceylon. ~20K troops: 1 ID, 3 or 4 supporting LCUs

Allied Forces committed - Naval
1) Task Force Ceylon: RADM Spruance
CV Illustrious, CV Wasp, BB Prince of Wales, BB North Carolina, CL Birmingham, CLAA San Juan, Benham Class 4/42 DDs: Lang, Wilson, Sterett. Stack. Bristol Class 6/42 DDs: Aaron Ward, Buchanan. N Class DD Nizam (Australian).

2) Cover Force: VADM Somerville
CA Exeter, DDs: Nestor, Napier, Isis, Griffin, Encounter, Isaac Sweers, Norman, Hotspur. DEs: Stewart, Talbot. DM Thracian

3) Fast Transport fleet :
12 APDs: Fox, Paul Jones, Parrot, Stringham, Dent, Crosby, Brooks, Humphreys, Sands, King, Kane, Bulmer

4) Amphibious Fleets:
65 xAPs/ xAKs, 2 AMCs, 3 KVs, 3 PGs, divided into the following TFs:

Fast Speed TF --> 17 knots full, 14 cruise
Average Speed TF --> 15 knots full, 12 cruise
Slow Speed TF --> 14 knots full, 12 cruise
Supply freighters --> 12 knots full, 10 cruise

5) CA Quincy, DDs Van Galen, Landsdowne and Lardner to arrive on map (near Addu) in 3 days
BB Valiant and CL Caradoc are 8 days away to Mombasa, too far away

Watching this anxiously -- good luck! [:)]

It may be too late now, but I would give the CA Exeter TF the CL Birmingham that is with the CVs. One cruiser just doesn't seem enough to cover the landing forces.

I don't expect a battle tomorrow, so it is not too late; both TFs are moving in the same direction, so it is possible to add Birmingham.

But I am actually thinking about detaching both N. Carolina and Prince of Wales, this once the TFs reach the protective CAP cover of Madras and Tanjore.

And of course I would had preferred to bring more cruisers and DDs... but you can see I am scrapping the barrel... too many under the sea [8|]

EDIT: and the enemy is at either Port Blair or most likely Calcutta... which means it is too far away, even at full speed. There is a good chance my naval search will tell me what I would face

BTW is there a possibility of mines at Colombo, Koggala, or any other place you will land?

In the map above, you can see a submarine at Jaffna right now, it was in Trincomalee a turn ago... normally if there was a mine field, it would have popped by now

Colombo possible, but I am not planning to visit it.
Koggala: I sent submarines some turns ago, and it didn't find anything, I hope this is still the case. but it is a risk I am willing to take.

I am more worried about MTBs; he can simply generate them using supply and disrupt the landings, that is why I have 12 APDs covering