West Wind, Clear - Rybka (J) vs. Skipjack (A)

[nobunaga]

AFAIK TFs may get a PP bonus if they start from a base where their parent HQ is located and if that HQ is prepping for the base being attacked. Ground troops may also get a readiness bonus (they start with 72 readiness after landing based on some mysterious "MacArthur´s in good mood-soltice-eclipse random routine" lol). If you are afraid that not all TFs will arrive in 1 turn you should set them all on say for example "stand off 6" and "remain on station" and then let them go in on turn 2. Just make sure that all involved HQs are as close to the target as possible and are prepping for that base. There also have been rumors that allied Transport TFs may accumulate extra PPs if they remain docked at their starting base for 1 or 2 extra turns before being loaded with troops and setting sail to their target. APAs seem to give bonuses as well.

IMO Santa Cruz is a bad choice when trying to attack Tarawa. You should start from Canton or Ellice Island, cuz the Japanese may excert Air ZOCs from Nauru and thereby scatter your TFs. Transport TFs will try to avoid Bomber ZOCs while AirCombat TFs tend to ignore those therefore your TFs may choose different sea lanes even if they all start from the same base.

[Skipjack]

ORIGINAL: nobunaga

AFAIK TFs may get a PP bonus if they start from a base where their parent HQ is located and if that HQ is prepping for the base being attacked. Ground troops may also get a readiness bonus (they start with 72 readiness after landing based on some mysterious "MacArthur´s in good mood-soltice-eclipse random routine" lol). If you are afraid that not all TFs will arrive in 1 turn you should set them all on say for example "stand off 6" and "remain on station" and then let them go in on turn 2. Just make sure that all involved HQs are as close to the target as possible and are prepping for that base. There also have been rumors that allied Transport TFs may accumulate extra PPs if they remain docked at their starting base for 1 or 2 extra turns before being loaded with troops and setting sail to their target. APAs seem to give bonuses as well.

Thanks for the comments. Was not aware of the Doug bonus, will have to try and figure out the right time to harness it [;)] I was trying to get there in one turn to gain the surprise effect, apparently ships with speed 12 could not make it - thought they could.

ORIGINAL: nobunaga
IMO Santa Cruz is a bad choice when trying to attack Tarawa. You should start from Canton or Ellice Island, cuz the Japanese may excert Air ZOCs from Nauru and thereby scatter your TFs. Transport TFs will try to avoid Bomber ZOCs while AirCombat TFs tend to ignore those therefore your TFs may choose different sea lanes even if they all start from the same base.

It was not my first choice - but with house rules, I cannot stack more than 1 division on atolls, which led to my previous attacks involving multiple divisions from multiple ports and a disjointed attack. My theory with Santa Cruz (terrain 2) let me concentrate and get all TFs moving at the same time.

[Skipjack]

2/28/43: Cairns is well defended [:(]

[zamli]

Its almost looking as my game against Rybka with one difference - Indian Tank Brigades fighting in Australia?? [X(] [:D]

[Capt. Harlock]

ORIGINAL: Skipjack

2/28/43: Cairns is well defended [:(]

Here is another example of why it's a problem that there are no levels of attack in PacWar. It would be a very good thing to train those 40 and 60 level units up before you go all-out. In the meantime, what have you got for ground-pounding bombers in the area?

[Rybka]

Is there a way to train units over their 40/60 limits?
Of course, Skipjack bombs my units constantly. Unfortunately, he crushed my air forces at the end of 1942 and I had to withdraw.

[Capt. Harlock]

Is there a way to train units over their 40/60 limits?

No. Only combat. The one thing you can do is find a point of contact in high-level terrain (9 is best) to do your fighting in: that will reduce the number of casualties.

[Skipjack]

3/7/43:  The silent service breaks out this turn - along the coast of Japan, U.S. wolfpacks find an excellent hunting ground - 1DD, 2DE, 4TK and 69 MCS sunk [X(]  Looks like the bugs have been worked out of the U.S. Torpedoes.

[Skipjack]

ORIGINAL: zamli

Its almost looking as my game against Rybka with one difference - Indian Tank Brigades fighting in Australia?? [X(] [:D]

Yes, I moved SEAC Headquarters to Australia before the fall of Calcutta, now Indian & South African (and even some Chinese) reinforcements are appearing down under. Hard to explain from a historical standpoint ... Well, actually it makes sense because the British and Indian forces stopped the Japanese advance in India (off map, of course), so forces were sent to Australia (via an Antarctic route, also off map) since that was regarded a higher priority than retaking India, because ... Um, Hmm ... Ok, I need a REALLY creative liar to formulate an explanation for this ... [;)]

[Capt. Harlock]

Well, actually it makes sense because the British and Indian forces stopped the Japanese advance in India (off map, of course), so forces were sent to Australia (via an Antarctic route, also off map) since that was regarded a higher priority than retaking India, because ... Um, Hmm ... Ok, I need are REALLY creative liar to formulate an explanation for this ...

Churchill has announced that the counter-invasion of India is on hold until an accommodation can be reached with Ghandi. Mr. Ghandi has been urging Indians not to join the military and fight, but instead resist the Japanese passively. This has caused large numbers of Indians to disappear. Many other Indians have decided it is safer to emigrate to Australia and fight alongside the Aussies, who can be relied on not to run away.

[Skipjack]

ORIGINAL: Capt. Harlock
Many other Indians have decided it is safer to emigrate to Australia and fight alongside the Aussies, who can be relied on not to run away.

LOL, that is excellent. Nice work incorporating Gandhi into the storyline [:D]

[Skipjack]

Update - or lack thereof - no bases have changed hands in the last couple of months, U.S. / Australian assaults on Cairns have once again failed, most recently 2 weeks of bombardment by BBs followed by ground assaults again came up short ... U.S. awaiting CV reinforcements and repair, U.S. wolf packs continue to enjoy the only recent allied successes of 1943.

[Skipjack]

5/9/43:  General Kitano overlooks Milne Bay from 18th Infantry Division Headquarters at Gili Gili.  The Japanese Fleet has a strong presence here, but camouflage & torpedo netting has kept this secret from prying allied eyes.  While Combined Fleet's battleship strength has been reduced, a large heavy cruiser fleet remains to challenge U.S. incursions. Most are stationed here, ready for action off the barrier reef.

Overhead, light clouds fly by - little else has been seen here; allied air power rarely visits except for the occasional reconnaissance mission, they have focused heavily on Japanese installations in Australia instead.

Today is different.  Above the army installations, over 100 American 4-engine bombers appear and are unchallenged - but they focus on the installations and depots, apparently oblivious to the army and navy presence.   General Kitano realizes the importance of this - he orders his staff to alert local commands that action in the area may be in the works.

But few local commanders take any great heed of his warnings.  This has been a quiet area for months, and with Cairns secure few think events will change drastically in the near future.

They are wrong.   Little known to the Japanese, allied commanders have been contemplating an attack on New Guinea for some time.  But Cairns had been the first priority - neutralizing the airfield there has been the target, indeed the airfield in allied hands was deemed vital before proceeding north.

But that thought process has changed as the U.S. and Australians have tried unsuccessfully to take Cairns - despite air attacks, naval bombardment and massed armour, nothing the allies have done has been able to dislodge the Japs from their northern OZ base.

So the decision is made to bypass Cairns, with constant air raids the airfield (hopefully) can remain neutralized, meanwhile the fleet will attempt to seize air fields and begin leapfrogging forward.  Over the next week, the quiet Pacific theatre will be heating up.

[Skipjack]

Repaired U.S. CVs - Hornet, Saratoga and Lexington escort 4 transport and 2 bombardment TFs into Milne Bay - the lead Divisions secure the beachheads, allowing Gen. Robertson to take his 1st Armoured Bde inland and secure the airfield - the operation proceeds smoothly dispite fierce resistance from the crack japanese defenders.

As the lead units consolidate their gains, smoke is seen in the bay - IJN ships are seen getting up steam to attempt an escape - the ships were not prepared for the assault, so as the bombardment shells rain over their heads their commanders realize they have precious little time to escape to safer waters.  An artillery officer realizes what is happening and shouts "Don't stand their gawping!  Get the batteries up here!"  Prime movers roar as 155 millimeter batteries move into position and unlimber - such targets will rarely present themselves again.

A BB escapes with a handful of CAs and CLs in company - Carrier-based Dauntlesses and Avengers roar after them.  Several IJN ships are not so fortunate as shelling sink them in the bay.

[Skipjack]

5/16/43:  BB North Carolina along with several U.S. and Australian CAs provides surface cover for a supply TF while U.S. CVs stand off.  Japanese TF is encountered and pummeled; IJN loses 3 Katori CL, 3xDD and an AP, U.S. lost the CVE Chenango to Jap LBA.  8 sunk CAs confirmed in Milne Bay port - shocking result [X(] I have seen TFs form from ships in port after being air raided, would have thought bombardment would have created TFs also. But then again not every ship sorties in those situations, have not found documentation on what formula applies to the emergency escape TFs.

[Connfire]

Very, very interesting re loss of 8 CAs to bombardment. The question I have is were they lost during the bombardment, when the base was captured, or a combination of the two?:
 
Bombardment: I've yet to encounter a bombardment TF vs. major warships in port without any surface combat TFs also in the hex. Historically, BBs Hiei and Kirishima were a bit handicapped during the Naval Battle of Guadalcanal because they were originally on a bombardment mission against Henderson Field on November 12-13, 1942, and were carrying fragmentation shells. But even taking that into account, if a bombardment TF were to encounter ships in port, your results would make sense - once a ship finds a firing solution on an anchored, stationary target, its just a matter of pumping enough shells into it to send it to the bottom. Of course, you also wrote a "BB escapes with a handful of CAs and CLs in company", so it appears some ships escaped. I don't know if this would actually happen, but was there any indication that you had achieved surprise on the anchored ships when you began your bombardment? Did anything fire back?
 
Base Capture: Page 36 of the Manual says all ships in port are sunk when a base is captured. This was later ammended, on Page 4 of the 1.1 update, to read "When a base is captured all of the supply is lost but half of the fuel is captured.  Many of the ships in the port will escape into a Task Force (TF) and head for the nearest friendly base.  The remaining ships will be destroyed in port". Maybe that figured into it.

[Skipjack]

ORIGINAL: Connfire

Very, very interesting re loss of 8 CAs to bombardment. The question I have is were they lost during the bombardment, when the base was captured, or a combination of the two? Bombardment: I've yet to encounter a bombardment TF vs. major warships in port without any surface combat TFs also in the hex.

I think they were lost when the port was captured - there was no surface combat. My AAR includes some embellishments on my part to try and flesh out a story around the turn's events. [;)]

ORIGINAL: Connfire

Historically, BBs Hiei and Kirishima were a bit handicapped during the Naval Battle of Guadalcanal because they were originally on a bombardment mission against Henderson Field on November 12-13, 1942, and were carrying fragmentation shells. But even taking that into account, if a bombardment TF were to encounter ships in port, your results would make sense - once a ship finds a firing solution on an anchored, stationary target, its just a matter of pumping enough shells into it to send it to the bottom.

Thanks for this discussion - it is an interesting scenario - ships in port vs. bombardment TFs. The way the VCR replayed it, the bombardment ignored the port (hitting depots, air & ground units) - would have been more interesting if some of the ships in port could have been hit.

ORIGINAL: Connfire

Of course, you also wrote a "BB escapes with a handful of CAs and CLs in company", so it appears some ships escaped. I don't know if this would actually happen, but was there any indication that you had achieved surprise on the anchored ships when you began your bombardment? Did anything fire back?

Nothing fired back - the TF formed when the base fell - it was hit by air strikes from U.S. CVs - a CL was sunk and the BB damaged.

ORIGINAL: Connfire

Base Capture: Page 36 of the Manual says all ships in port are sunk when a base is captured. This was later ammended, on Page 4 of the 1.1 update, to read "When a base is captured all of the supply is lost but half of the fuel is captured.  Many of the ships in the port will escape into a Task Force (TF) and head for the nearest friendly base.  The remaining ships will be destroyed in port". Maybe that figured into it.

Thanks for that update - it makes sense based on what happened. A portion of the ships in port formed a TF and headed for Lae, there must be some built-in probability (I'd guess between 25%-50%) of escaping.

[nobunaga]

Only aircraft can attack ships disbanded into port. TF's can't. Bombardment only hits grounded aircraft, ground troops and the depot.

Note that submarines always have a 100% chance of escaping.

[Capt. Harlock]

Only aircraft can attack ships disbanded into port. TF's can't.

Unless, of course, they're CV TF's. There is one other important point to remember about attacking ships in port: since they are stationary targets, aircraft can attack them at 1.5 X standard range. This means that G4M Betties can do Port Attacks at up to 13 hexes away. (Happily, A6M2's can only escort out to 9 hexes.) Also, fighter-bombers, dive-bombers, and torpedo bombers can do Port Attacks when they please, but almost all tac-bombers and heavy bombers have to be set to Naval Interdiction. The four exceptions to the last are the Nell, the Betty, the Beaufort, and the Beaufighter, which can attack when set to basic Day Combat.

[nobunaga]

I thought airgroups set to Naval Interdiction will attack TFs only and nothing else? ^^

To make AC conduct a port attack you to have to set a mission target in their home base or CV TF, navy(?) aircraft tho seem to be capable of port attacks by default.