Page 1 of 1
This plan sure backfired
Posted: Fri Aug 14, 2015 12:10 pm
by dave sindel
Good morning all,
I’m playing my first PBEM game, as the Japanese in the stock Guadalcanal scenario. My plan was to try and recreate Mikawa’s success at the Battle of Savo Island. On turn 1, I created a SCTF with the four CA’s that begin the game in Kavieng. (Aoba, Kinugasa, Furutaka and Kako) and sent them to the base at Shortlands to await the landings at Lunga. I didn’t add any of the ships that start at Rabaul. ( Mikawa did) After the landings started, I changed their destination hex to Lunga. My anticipation was that they were within range to get to Lunga that night. According to the manual – section 6.2.5 regarding Mission Types and Impact on Movement –
“Certain Task Force missions will stand off until nightfall, run in at full speed under cover of darkness, and then run out again as soon as their mission is completed. These are:
»»Surface Combat, Bombardment, or Minelaying Task Forces moving to enemy held bases. “
The TF didn’t arrive at night, they arrived during the following day and ran right into an Allied SCTF. This eliminated the Japanese night-fighting advantage. Two of them were sunk in the surface combat and two by air attack after the surface action was completed. The Allies lost the Canberra and had some damage to other ships. A complete reversal of the results of the historical battle.
So, what did I do wrong ? I didn’t set them to not refuel at Shortlands ( didn’t think about that ahead of time). Did that cause an operations point penalty such that they couldn’t make the whole trip to Lunga ? Since Lunga wasn’t an “enemy held base” at this time, did that change the equation? Was it something else altogether.
Dave
RE: This plan sure backfired
Posted: Fri Aug 14, 2015 12:19 pm
by geofflambert
Did you go back a turn and check to make sure that it was set to surface combat at mission speed? There's no guarantee that they'd find an enemy TF at night, so it's a die roll. If you waited for the capture and ordered them to bombard Lunga, something would've happened that night. I'm nearly certain they arrived at night and didn't manage to bump into anything before daylight. Did you have a react range set?
RE: This plan sure backfired
Posted: Fri Aug 14, 2015 12:24 pm
by geofflambert
Also, I haven't played the scenario but if there were DDs available you should have merged them. They would've gotten between your cruisers and the enemy and drawn fire away. The additional long lances wouldn't have hurt.
RE: This plan sure backfired
Posted: Fri Aug 14, 2015 12:44 pm
by dave sindel
I think there is only 1 DD that starts the scenario in Rabaul. Pretty sure that the react range was "1". Good point about waiting for the base to actually fall and send in a bombardment mission to ensure night time activity.
RE: This plan sure backfired
Posted: Fri Aug 14, 2015 2:33 pm
by HansBolter
If the destination base was under your control when you gave the orders to the TF it would NOT switch from mission speed to full speed for its run in.
If you are targeting a base you control you have to force the full speed run by setting speed to full instead of mission.
Only when the target is an enemy base will a bombardment or surface combat TF automatically set up a full speed run from a mission speed setting.
RE: This plan sure backfired
Posted: Fri Aug 14, 2015 4:26 pm
by Numdydar
That's ok. I feel your pain [:)]
I had a Surf TF which had the Yamato in it that was set to react to any fleets trying to retake Port Mosby. The reaction worked great. Unfortunately for me PM's hex had fog [:@] as the weather condition so the range started out at 3,000 yards. Needless to say this combat did not end well for Japan since the all the rapid fire guns in the Allied TF could fire about twice for every one of mine.
Of course the weather for the hexes where my ships were limping back home were light clouds. Just did not have enough planes to cover everyone. So just more salt in the wound [:(]
RE: This plan sure backfired
Posted: Fri Aug 14, 2015 4:51 pm
by dave sindel
@Hans - Thanks for the explanation. That makes perfect sense.
@Numdydar - And I feel yours as well ! I knew when I set this up that it was an aggressive play with a lot of risk to those 4 CA's. I expected some damage, but not to lose them all. [&:]
RE: This plan sure backfired
Posted: Fri Aug 14, 2015 5:06 pm
by tanksone
ORIGINAL: dave sindel
Good morning all,
I’m playing my first PBEM game, as the Japanese in the stock Guadalcanal scenario. My plan was to try and recreate Mikawa’s success at the Battle of Savo Island. On turn 1, I created a SCTF with the four CA’s that begin the game in Kavieng. (Aoba, Kinugasa, Furutaka and Kako) and sent them to the base at Shortlands to await the landings at Lunga. I didn’t add any of the ships that start at Rabaul. ( Mikawa did) After the landings started, I changed their destination hex to Lunga. My anticipation was that they were within range to get to Lunga that night. According to the manual – section 6.2.5 regarding Mission Types and Impact on Movement –
“Certain Task Force missions will stand off until nightfall, run in at full speed under cover of darkness, and then run out again as soon as their mission is completed. These are:
»»Surface Combat, Bombardment, or Minelaying Task Forces moving to enemy held bases. “
The TF didn’t arrive at night, they arrived during the following day and ran right into an Allied SCTF. This eliminated the Japanese night-fighting advantage. Two of them were sunk in the surface combat and two by air attack after the surface action was completed. The Allies lost the Canberra and had some damage to other ships. A complete reversal of the results of the historical battle.
So, what did I do wrong ? I didn’t set them to not refuel at Shortlands ( didn’t think about that ahead of time). Did that cause an operations point penalty such that they couldn’t make the whole trip to Lunga ? Since Lunga wasn’t an “enemy held base” at this time, did that change the equation? Was it something else altogether.
Dave
Hi, you said you created a SCTF... I hope you meant bombardment TF. Next I myself would have set it max speed on direct with max react and no refueling. I also would have had all my FPs on 100% naval search. Next my return base would be something like Munda so my DD wouldn't run out of fuel on the return... not sure of the legs on IJN DDs. Just my 2 cents...
RE: This plan sure backfired
Posted: Fri Aug 14, 2015 7:24 pm
by spence
Wouldn't a bombardment TF that gets into a surface gunfight suffer some penalty in at least the first round of combat?
RE: This plan sure backfired
Posted: Fri Aug 14, 2015 7:36 pm
by geofflambert
ORIGINAL: spence
Wouldn't a bombardment TF that gets into a surface gunfight suffer some penalty in at least the first round of combat?
The idea is to put a penalty on any intercepting force, and long lances aren't used for bombardments. The hope would be that the attacking bombardment force would encounter the protection TF first, but failing that it should definitely run into the Allied TF following the bombardment, which at night with poor visibility in a pre decent radar environment would give the Japanese an advantage, even after blowing off their HE rounds.
RE: This plan sure backfired
Posted: Fri Aug 14, 2015 7:53 pm
by spence
The idea is to put a penalty on any intercepting force,
Just like real...I'm sure you're referring to Cape Esperance ("Bakayaro"...oops not that one)...no rather The First Naval Battle of Guadalcanal (11/13/42)(maybe not)...for sure The Second Naval Battle of Guadalcanal(11/15/42)(well the decadent democrats did lose 3 destroyers). Lots of historical precedents I'm sure.[8|]
RE: This plan sure backfired
Posted: Fri Aug 14, 2015 8:15 pm
by geofflambert
I'm not sure I understand your point, but that could be because I'm just a gorn. Anyways, I wasn't referring to what was in the minds of the Japanese historically, but rather what was in Mr. Sindel's mind or any other player trying such a stratagem. The best possible outcome might be that (at night with low visibility otherwise) the J TF spots the A TF early enough to lay a spread of long lances then prepare to open fire before the A TF realizes anything is happening. The next best is if the J TF sights the A TF first at relatively short range but is (perhaps) able to enter rapid fire before the A TF knows what's up. I believe both of those scenarios occurred historically.
RE: This plan sure backfired
Posted: Fri Aug 14, 2015 8:26 pm
by spence
The IJN TF was a looking for a "gunfight" at Savo Island and they did exactly that.
The bombardment TFs didn't do that well by a long shot.
It seems you are saying that some sort of penalty is applied to the guys who are looking for a fight other than the other guy who is planning for a bombardment of something he can't see and has all his attention focused on carrying out that task. That makes no sense.
The IJN might have had something of an advantage in night combat in 1942 but their performance IRL during those Guadalacanal battles hardly justifies a penalty against snybody who tries to stop them.
RE: This plan sure backfired
Posted: Fri Aug 14, 2015 10:24 pm
by geofflambert
You were the first one to use the word penalty, so I'm still lost, but again, I'm just a gorn.
RE: This plan sure backfired
Posted: Sat Aug 15, 2015 10:30 am
by dave sindel
@tanksome - yes it was a SCTF, not a bombardment TF. I was indeed looking for a "gunfight" to use spence's term. I got what I was looking for, just not on the terms I was hoping for. My whole goal was to show up at night and hopefully hit the transports and disrupt the landing and maybe sink a few AP's.