Guad Mod - AE Scenario 4 - AAR - No Nik

[jwilkerson]

09-10 September 1942

Solomons
Still see a US TF about 6 hexes ENE of Lunga - assume it is the carriers though we see no sign of air activity. Supply on the ground at Tass exceeded 600 today - though still only about 20% in the units. Shortlands is 22% airfield complete.

New Britain
8% complete at Gasmata, all four SNLF are now concentrated at Rabaul planning away for the Milne Bay Op.

Papua
1% complete at Finschhaven

Truk
4000 fuel, 12000 Supply, the second group of AO are full and heading South. At the end of this turn we will have 29K fuel at sea aboard the AO.

Planning
We will load up one TK (11000 capacity) about half way and run it down to Rabaul - this should keep Rabaul going until the end of the Milne Bay operation. The Vals at Truk are just about trained up as the Zeros that started at Lae but went back to Truk early to rebuild. We have 4 carriers, 6 BB, 21 Cruisers and 44 Destroyers at Truk. Impressive force but without much gas there is little opportunity to use them. A brief opportunity will be comming soon.
The 2nd Div engineer unit is at sea and headed for Buka.

Allied B-26s again tested our defenses at Rabaul losing all three of the unescorted attackers.

[jwilkerson]

11-12 September 1942

Solomons
Large Allied cruiser force bombarded Tass but supply on the ground grew a bit - now 700+ though supply in the units still 20%. Shortlands airfield is 28%.

New Britain
The second construction engineer is now at Gasmata. Airfield is now 10%.

Papua
Finschhaven airfield is now 2%.

Planning
We will dispatch a surface to attack Lunga. We now have 29K fuel aboard AO in the Bismarcks. We will dispatch one tanker half full to give Rabaul a bit more fuel - then await the return of the surface force - then sortie the carriers - about another week. By then most of the four SNFLs should be at 50% or higher planning for Milne Bay.

[Q-Ball]

Joe, great work. Please keep the pictures coming, really informative.

I love the fact that supplies are so dear, I think that's closer to reality (though as a JFB, I suppose I will be retracting that statement at some point!!!!)

Quick Question: What is Jap Sigint like in AE? Is it useless like in WITP? ("Radio Transmissions Detected in San Francisco". REALLY?

[jwilkerson]

SigInt isn't actually useless in WITP - but it is subtle - and worse - it is time consuming to get the benefits. My play style has evolved to not use it except in rare cases - so unfortunately I haven't paid much attention in AE either - so I do not actually know if it is much different. The system is the same - but it may have been tweaked.
In WITP the key it to mouse over the indicated hexes - then - you will - sometimes - get very useful information - like seeing some carriers docked there. But to ensure maximum benefit - you have to check each spot each turn - I'm not patient enough to do that.

13-14 September 1942

Solomons
Our land units "sucqued" some supply up off the ground and into themselves - so now we are 100% in the units and 200 on the ground. This as good as we've been in weeks. Shortlands convoy from Ponape unloading - 7000 supply - airfield is 30% done. At Buka the 2nd ID engineer is unloading.

New Britain
Supply convoy from Truk unloading. B-17s attacked today and tussled with our Rufe's (the usual A6M3 cap were resting) - no runs - no hits - no errors - on either side. Gasmata airfield is 10%

Papua
Finschhaven airfield is 3%. Buna supply is down to 1000 - we will have to decide if we can afford to run some supply in there.

Truk
Tanker with 6000 fuel departing for Rabaul. Another four submarines departing with supply for Tass.

Plans
We have bombardment force of 4xFBB+4xDD covered by two surface groups - first one 4xCA+4xDD - second one 6xCL+12xDD attacking Lunga this turn. We do not see any Allied ships in the area.
We will fly some naval support to Buna and some more to Rekata Bay to facilitate forward movement of supply.

Here are B-17s and Rufe's tangling over Rabaul.

[jwilkerson]

13-14 September 1942

For those who are paying attention - here is a mid-month shot of where the Val group are at in terms of their ASW training program.

[Don Bowen]

I am struck by the similarity between Joe's ongoing issues with providing fuel to his ships and bases and the naratives in such books as Black Shoe Carrier Admiral and History of US Naval Operations in World War II.

This makes me happy.

[jwilkerson]

15-16 September 1942

Solomons
Well our "big" Bombardment mission went in this turn. Looks like we got 2xAK and 2xAPD unloading - and maybe 3xWildcats on the ground. This is a fairly merger return on the fuel the mission will cost - still to be determined after they return - but it should give us some diversionary value - and buy us a bit more time for the SNLFs to plan.
This turn also saw the first missions flown by the aircraft on Lunga - 9xSBD bombed our troops at Tass - as well as 5xB-17 - all covered by some Wildcats. Our supply on the ground is about 300 - but now the supply in the units has dropped to 60%.
A 2xAPD, 2DM force brought about 400 supply to Rekata Bay - so now there is 900 there.
At shortlands we are still unloading - the airfield is 33%.
At buka we are also still unloading.

New Britain
Gasmata is 15% done on the airfield. A fuel convoy with 6000 fuel is arriving. We have 40,000 supply and 12,000 fuel at the base now.

Papua
The airfield at Finschhaven is 5% done. Buna has 1100 supply.

Truk
One each Betty and Zero units arrived this turn - 36 Betty and 9 Zero. These planes will be useful to support the Milne Bay Op.

Here is a shot of our surfaces forces tangling with a US Submarine during our approach to Lunga.

[jwilkerson]

15-16 September 1942

And here is our bombardment force dealing with the enemy convoy. Note that the 26 destroyers and cruisers we brought along in the other two TFs did not bother to screen the bombardment group!

[jwilkerson]

15-16 September 1942

And here is the actual bombardment trying to damage some enemy planes.

[String]

Joe, am I correct in guessing that the bombardment group had a smaller TF number than the screening groups?

[jwilkerson]

Don't know - but TF engagement priority has been "randomified" a bit - I just not clear on the priorities of which will engage first - of course with randomification - it could be any - but perhaps some should be higher priority than others - for a surface engagement. I did have one group with many more ships - hoping they might have the highest chance to engage in surface battle first. Didn't work out this time.

[Don Bowen]

The issue probably was the result of "walking" through the TFs, one by one. In AE, like WITP, whenever TFs have to be processed they are done in order, TF-1, then TF-2, etc UNLESS THE PLAYER DOES SOMETHING TO CHANGE THAT ORDER. So the lowest numbered TF will enter the hex first.

There is indeed code (a lot of code) to determine who-fights-who when multiple TFs are in the same hex. AE uses hex-by-hex movement, one TF at a time, so "in the same hex" is the key. The first TF that moves into a hex containing enemy TF(s) will drop into the who-fights-who logic. Note that the lowest numbered TF will not automatically be the TF to fight, but only TFs already in the hex are even considered.

If you want TFs to move (i.e. enter a destination hex) in a given sequence, use the Follow option. If, for instance, you want a Surface Combat TF to sweep aside any enemy TFs, then have a bombardment TF move in and rough up the enemy ashore, then an amphib TF to land troops, have them follow in (reverse of) that order.

Bombardment TF follows Surface Combat TF.
Amphib TF follows Bombardment TF (it could also follow the Surface Combat TF, in which case it might or might not arrive after the Bombardment TF).
(follow stack limit is 10)

You could also just take care to form the TFs in the order that you want them to move, but that would leave you open to speed differences between the TFs affecting the arrival order. Follow is your friend for complex operations.

[Mistmatz]

Will a bombardment TF that follows another TF into a hex bombard that hex if it is a base or has hostile LCUs in it?

I doubt it is handled that way in standard WitP.

[jwilkerson]

Ok well that explains it. I had the bombardment force as the lead force - worrying that otherwise they might not bombard. I had the surface forces following hoping they would fight if enemy surface vessels encountered. Next time I will reverse the order!

I did note in campaign game with Nik - that I sent in bombardment force "following" the amphib TF and the bombarding force did bombard - so separate confirmation that works.

[rhohltjr]

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

You could also just take care to form the TFs in the order that you want them to move, but that would leave you open to speed differences between the TFs affecting the arrival order. Follow is your friend for complex operations.

So bombardment TFs will still bombard even if you've ordered them to follow the Surface Warfare TF? Amphib TFs will still Unload on to the beach even if they are following the bombardment group which is following the Surface warfare group which is heading back to Ulithi to refuel and rearm???? Never gave it much thought before[&:].

I've always had the transports arrive first since they are obviously slowest, followed by supporting TFs.[X(]

How about a minesweeper TF followed by a Surface TF followed by the Bombardment and finally the Amphibs???

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: rhohltjr
So bombardment TFs will still bombard even if you've ordered them to follow the Surface Warfare TF? Amphib TFs will still Unload on to the beach even if they are following the bombardment group which is following the Surface warfare group which is heading back to Ulithi to refuel and rearm???? Never gave it much thought before[&:].

"At Destination" picks up for the follow chain. However, it would be a good idea to set the surface combat TFs to Remain on Station, lest the transports get a little lonely out there.

I've always had the transports arrive first since they are obviously slowest, followed by supporting TFs.[X(]

AE (and WITP) adjust speeds to try and keep the follow chain together.

How about a minesweeper TF followed by a Surface TF followed by the Bombardment and finally the Amphibs???

Up to ten deep (or maybe nine, memory fails).

[steveh11Matrix]

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen
AE (and WITP) adjust speeds to try and keep the follow chain together.

It fails, very often, then. I normally do the same as rhohltjr, in respect of having the faster force follow the slower one, regardless of mission simply to keep the forces together.

At least, in stock [;)] Maybe soon I'll get to try it in AE!

Steve.

[RevRick]

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

ORIGINAL: rhohltjr
So bombardment TFs will still bombard even if you've ordered them to follow the Surface Warfare TF? Amphib TFs will still Unload on to the beach even if they are following the bombardment group which is following the Surface warfare group which is heading back to Ulithi to refuel and rearm???? Never gave it much thought before[&:].

"At Destination" picks up for the follow chain. However, it would be a good idea to set the surface combat TFs to Remain on Station, lest the transports get a little lonely out there.

YUP!!

I've always had the transports arrive first since they are obviously slowest, followed by supporting TFs.[X(]

AE (and WITP) adjust speeds to try and keep the follow chain together.

Since I have always done this as rhohltjr worded it, does this mean that the faster TFs adjust their speed for the slower TFs no matter who follows who in the follow TF command. That has been a bit spotty, if I recall.

How about a minesweeper TF followed by a Surface TF followed by the Bombardment and finally the Amphibs???

Up to ten deep (or maybe nine, memory fails).

Brings up a question. I, perhaps mistakenly, understood that DMs and DMSs attached to an Amphibious TF would sweep the invasion area prior to the commencement of festivities. Would, therefore, DMSs in a Surface Warfare TF sweep a channel for the others, or would the only add their combat factors to the aggregate of the TF? Or am I just sucking smoke from the tailpipe?

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: RevRick

I've always had the transports arrive first since they are obviously slowest, followed by supporting TFs.[X(]

AE (and WITP) adjust speeds to try and keep the follow chain together.

Since I have always done this as rhohltjr worded it, does this mean that the faster TFs adjust their speed for the slower TFs no matter who follows who in the follow TF command. That has been a bit spotty, if I recall.

Well, it was coded to adjust speeds forward and backward so the whole chain moved as a unit (if possible - if one TF was really, really slow and far out of position it could monkey wrench things).

We originally allowed speed to go all the way to zero but that was removed. Beta testers have set a TF a San Francisco to follow a TF at Pearl, with zero hex follow distance. The TF at Pearl stopped and refused to move until the San Francisco TF caught up. The problem report included impolite language! Now it will move (slowly) and the San Francisco TF will slowly close.

P.S. Don't do this!

Brings up a question. I, perhaps mistakenly, understood that DMs and DMSs attached to an Amphibious TF would sweep the invasion area prior to the commencement of festivities. Would, therefore, DMSs in a Surface Warfare TF sweep a channel for the others, or would the only add their combat factors to the aggregate of the TF? Or am I just sucking smoke from the tailpipe?

Minesweepers attached to non-minesweeping TFs can sweep. Better if in a pure minesweeping TF, lest they get pulled off to other duties.

[jwilkerson]

17-18-19-20 September 1942

Solomons
Quiet until the second turn. Apparently SBDs can bomb Shortlands from Lunga. We lost 1xEscort and one light cargo vessel. We will hence forth put Shortlands on the "emergency" supply base list so fast transports, submarines, air transports etc. No more merchant ships to this base.
In the mean time Shortlands is 38% towards the level-1 airfield and has 8500 supply.
Tass has 500 supply with the units at that base having about 50% of internal stocks.

New Britain
Gasmata is 20% towards having the airfield complete.