Logistics in the Pacific - USSAmerica (A), Mike (J)

[Mike Solli]

Hi guys. Mike and I are starting a new game. This one will be a 1 day per turn game, unlike the last feeble attempt (by me) at a 2 day per turn game. That was awful and I couldn't manage it. Anyway, here are the house rules:

Blackhorse’s house rules to enforce "Original Intent" for PP’s to transfer LCU’s:
Restricted LCUs may transfer to any on-map Corps, Army or Command HQs (only).
HQs may not be reassigned from an unrestricted Command HQ chain-of-command to a restricted Command HQ chain-of-command. (This prevents reassigning the HQ and having all the units assigned to it be automatically unrestricted without paying the PPs. We wouldn't do that anyway.)
Engineer-type units, including base forces, can be assigned to any on-map HQs.
Thai forces can leave Thailand for any purpose to a max 4 hexes from the Thai border. Same for Indian troops within 4 hexes of Indian border.

Basically, you need to use PPs to move a restricted unit to to an unrestricted HQ to allow it to move over a border.

No paradrop or invade with small fragments.

Can't invade non-base hexes.

No bombing under 10k with 4EB's, but USSA promises he'll forget it a few times. LOL

For non-historic first turns, no new Allied TF creation and no orders to air and ground units outside China - pretty standard for the Allies. Issuing orders to any TF's that are already formed at start is allowed.

Realism Options:
FoW On
Advanced Weather On
Allied Damage Control On
PDU On
Historical First Turn - Off
Dec 7 Surprise On
Reliable USN Torps Off
Realistic R&D On
No Unit Withdrawals Off
Reinforcements - both Fixed

Game Options:
Combat Reports On
Auto Sub Ops Off
TF Move Radius On
Plane Move Radius On
Set All Facilities to Expand Off
Auto Upgrade Off
Accept Air and Ground Replacements Off
Turn Cycle 1 Day Turns

Preferences:
Combat Animations On
Combat Summaries On

Let the games begin!

[jdsrae]

Welcome back and good luck.
May your engineers never run out of cold beer (supply)!

[rustysi]

Oh well, I'm too late.[:(]

Anyway, PVT Nut Job reporting, sir.[:D]

[rustysi]

I take it this is Scen1?

[mind_messing]

Excellent to hear that you're back.

I imagine that you'll go in to this in more detail in due course, but any broad views on what you'll be doing differently this time around?

Are you playing with Andy Mac's updated Scenario 1? There are some changes that I am quite keen about (extra dot China and Burma bases) and others I am not so keen on (extra LI) but on the whole it's an improvement.

[RangerJoe]

I learned a lot from your previous AAR and I have referred people to it for help in setting up Japan's situation.

[USSAmerica]

In before the lock! [:D]

Well, before I'm locked out, anyway. I'm really looking forward to the next decade or so of conflict between us. With any luck, we both might be retired by the time we finish. [8D]

Good luck to you, Mike. I hope you're gonna need it. [:'(]

Ok, it's safe to break out the Japanese Secret Sauce and start talking factory expansion and hoarding Heavy Industry points. I'm out of here until sometime in 1945.

[DesertWolf101]

Looking forward to this one Mike, your AAR was the very first one I read when I started to play the game. Glad to see you are getting back into it. Since I just started my new game as Japan, it will also be nice to see how our games progress in the same approximate timeframe.

Good luck!

[Mike Solli]

Yep, Scenario 1.

ORIGINAL: rustysi

I take it this is Scen1?

[Shilka]

Hi guys. Mike and I are starting a new game. This one will be a 1 day per turn game, unlike the last feeble attempt (by me) at a 2 day per turn game. That was awful and I couldn't manage it.

Was the 2 day turn cycle really that bad? I'm currently playing the AI with it, it seems you can lose some reaction time for i.e. invasions. And in some cases bad decisions, or guesses can have multiplied effects, but then again so can good decisions so it might somewhat even out over time (of course AI is exception).

But on the other hand, it might theoretically more or less halve the total time for a game, even if not practically that much but still it might be a big deal for most people. It doesn't affect too much on the strategic level but might in the tactical - well just good to know the trade offs. I guess the game is originally meant for 1 day turns but the devs have done what they can to help with longer cycles. Anyway thanks and good luck with the AAR, will be reading too.

[jdsrae]

I wouldn't like two day turns for air or land combat, or CV battles.
For land combat, not being able to cancel the second day in a row of shock attacks would not be good. eg: Singapore assault or any amphibious landing on an atoll would cause back to back days of shock attacks.
For air combat, not being able to cancel a sweep or bombing raid that ran into unexpected opposition would also be difficult to watch.
CV battles which can change the strategic picture would also be even more of a lottery.

[Mike Solli]

Sorry for a lack of posts, but I've been scanning my old AAR to remind myself of all the stupid things I did and how to fix them. I plan on making different stupid mistakes this time around. [:D]

Anyway, I'm starting at the end of the war and working my way to 1941 so I can plan with the end in mind. Air/engine R&D first.

My end game fighters will be:

IJA:
Frank-r
Ki-83

IJN:
Sam
George

Simple and to the point. I plan on building the Ki-115 and Toka.

I want to minimize engine and airframe factory wholesale changes. One thought is to Keep the Ha-34 engine going and build Helen bombers throughout the war to use as Kamikazes as well. Armor, high durability, good range. That way I don't have to change a 360 size factory for a huge cost in supply and I'll still have a nice supply of good IJAAF Kamikazes.

I'll start with that. Let the litany begin. [:D]

Edit: I estimate a pool of 4500-5000 Helens available as Kamikazes.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

Sorry for a lack of posts, but I've been scanning my old AAR to remind myself of all the stupid things I did and how to fix them. I plan on making different stupid mistakes this time around. [:D]

Anyway, I'm starting at the end of the war and working my way to 1941 so I can plan with the end in mind. Air/engine R&D first.

My end game fighters will be:

IJA:
Frank-r
Ki-83

IJN:
Sam
George

Simple and to the point. I plan on building the Ki-115 and Toka.

I want to minimize engine and airframe factory wholesale changes. One thought is to Keep the Ha-34 engine going and build Helen bombers throughout the war to use as Kamikazes as well. Armor, high durability, good range. That way I don't have to change a 360 size factory for a huge cost in supply and I'll still have a nice supply of good IJAAF Kamikazes.

I'll start with that. Let the litany begin. [:D]

Edit: I estimate a pool of 4500-5000 Helens available as Kamikazes.

As long as you don't keep repeating the same mistakes.

A suggestion, especially if you remove a float plane unit from your cruisers that have two, resize the Jakes and train them on Low Naval. Even with trainees early on, they can get decent hits on Low naval. Then use them for ASW to get their experience up and you will have trained naval kamikaze pilots.

[mind_messing]

Well, happy to provide some input to start things off.

IJA:
Frank-r
Ki-83

Both good choices, the '83 is about as late-war a plane as you can get and keep it practical.

IJN:
Sam
George

George is a mid-war fighter to my thinking. Would consider the Shinden as a late-game contender as it will do yeoman-like work on the defensive.

I want to minimize engine and airframe factory wholesale changes. One thought is to Keep the Ha-34 engine going and build Helen bombers throughout the war to use as Kamikazes as well. Armor, high durability, good range. That way I don't have to change a 360 size factory for a huge cost in supply and I'll still have a nice supply of good IJAAF Kamikazes.

Some thoughts on this:

- Helen does not strike me as a good contender for kamikaze. Far too slow.

- If you plan on using the IJAAF for anti-shipping, then the Peggy-T should be your prime contender. Peggy-T will have a number of attack profiles, the Helen will effectively just be a Low-Nav platform.

- IIRC you need to pay a PP cost to change most of the late-war kami squadrons to use 2E bombers. Not a massive consideration, but one nonetheless.

- For all that effort into the Helen, I'd consider looking into the Ki-74 Patsy as an alternative. Fast, massive range, exceptional altitude. Much more potential that the old, slow Helen.

[Lowpe]

Good luck...

Helens are horrible Kamikazes, been there and done that, they just can't hit. Peggy T would be much, much better. Grace might be the best non-kamikaze kamikaze if you get my meaning.[;)]

[Mike Solli]

Ok, 0 for 2 on the Helen as a Kamikaze. Was just thinking to save 360k supply on that Ha-34 factory. Guess that ain't happening. Now when do I change it and what do I change it to? Gotta figure that out...

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

Ok, 0 for 2 on the Helen as a Kamikaze. Was just thinking to save 360k supply on that Ha-34 factory. Guess that ain't happening. Now when do I change it and what do I change it to? Gotta figure that out...

Ki-74 Patsy all the way. Range of a B-29, respectable speed. Armour. Good durability.

It's the massive range that will really let this airframe shine and give you both some real defence in depth and long reach.

With 29 hexes normal range, you can be staging out of bases in Manchuria and flying against beach-heads in Hokkaido or Kyushu. Alternatively, draw a 29 hex circle around Truk. All those are potential targets.

Don't get me wrong, it's a bit hit or miss to get consistent attacks over those long ranges, but it's a real step change while the Helen is a comparatively minor incremental improvement.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

Ok, 0 for 2 on the Helen as a Kamikaze. Was just thinking to save 360k supply on that Ha-34 factory. Guess that ain't happening. Now when do I change it and what do I change it to? Gotta figure that out...

Ki-74 Patsy all the way. Range of a B-29, respectable speed. Armour. Good durability.

It's the massive range that will really let this airframe shine and give you both some real defence in depth and long reach.

With 29 hexes normal range, you can be staging out of bases in Manchuria and flying against beach-heads in Hokkaido or Kyushu. Alternatively, draw a 29 hex circle around Truk. All those are potential targets.

Don't get me wrong, it's a bit hit or miss to get consistent attacks over those long ranges, but it's a real step change while the Helen is a comparatively minor incremental improvement.

If the Allied are not careful, they could also be used against the Allied 4E bases which may really disturb the enemy.[X(]

[Mike Solli]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

Well, happy to provide some input to start things off.

IJA:
Frank-r
Ki-83

Both good choices, the '83 is about as late-war a plane as you can get and keep it practical.

IJN:
Sam
George

George is a mid-war fighter to my thinking. Would consider the Shinden as a late-game contender as it will do yeoman-like work on the defensive.

I want to minimize engine and airframe factory wholesale changes. One thought is to Keep the Ha-34 engine going and build Helen bombers throughout the war to use as Kamikazes as well. Armor, high durability, good range. That way I don't have to change a 360 size factory for a huge cost in supply and I'll still have a nice supply of good IJAAF Kamikazes.

Some thoughts on this:

- Helen does not strike me as a good contender for kamikaze. Far too slow.

- If you plan on using the IJAAF for anti-shipping, then the Peggy-T should be your prime contender. Peggy-T will have a number of attack profiles, the Helen will effectively just be a Low-Nav platform.

- IIRC you need to pay a PP cost to change most of the late-war kami squadrons to use 2E bombers. Not a massive consideration, but one nonetheless.

- For all that effort into the Helen, I'd consider looking into the Ki-74 Patsy as an alternative. Fast, massive range, exceptional altitude. Much more potential that the old, slow Helen.

I have planned my R&D factories but let me see what I can do to incorporate the Shinden.

[Mike Solli]

Ok, the Shinden and Patsy both use the Ha-43. I guess I can have 2-3 moderate sized Ha-34 factories so when the inevitable change occurs, it won't take forever to repair them. Let me work on this.