|
And AR repair ships. Invaluable in getting sys damage fixed a lot faster in a small forward base so a major combatant can survive the trip to a drydock. They take a long time to convert so Grey should identify the ships and start planning the upgrades before he runs the lot of them into a CVBG as xAKs.
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2015 20:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 23:10 |
|
|
   One of our supply ships takes a hit.  The sub then circles around and makes sure of the job.  We continue to bomb Clark Field.   Another kill for our subs.   There are not many allied planes in the air over Malaya at this time.  We meet our first Roadblock on the way to Singapore. These troops are well in advance of the main units, and are mainly here to cause panic.  We hold off their first attack.   Not much to say about today, but then again, we have......  Oh yeah baby, its graph time! And to make things even BETTER than last time, I have imported my data from the previous game, so I can compare myself to that game as well!  Score wise, we're pretty much on track, I have hurt the allies slightly more than the AI hit me, but not much has changed.  Bases controlled puts us very slightly ahead.  Points wise, we're right on track as well!  Thankfully, we do see some difference in air losses, I've hurt the allies a lot more and taken far fewer losses compared to my previous LP.  I've taken a lot heavier losses on the ground however as have the Allies. It seems that the fighting has been fiercer this time around.  Ships sunk is the interesting one, and the most misleading due to the way ships are recorded as you can see, both times I have much higher losses than the AI, but this is because I know all of my own losses, but the enemies are shrouded in the fog of war. None the less, there is a clear split between the wars a lot more ships were sunk on both sides during the first month of the war last time than this time around. This was most likely due to my heavy use of the Royal Navy in an offensive manner last time.  Finally, when converted into Points, we see that I've done a lot more damage to them than the number of ships suggests then again, I have sunk a fleet carrier! My own losses are under the AI's as well.  Well, almost finally, this is the land we control so far, with connecting seas, but many people are wondering where I'm planning on going next. At the moment I'm continuing the Japanese plan to try and cease as much oil producing territory as possible, after that, I'm currently torn between Australia/New Zealand and India while Australasia would be much easier, India has the call of smashing the British in one of their oldest holding although getting there would be tougher! Of course, there is also the Midway/Johnstone Island route, getting me close to Pearl would allow more raids, and Johnstone Island is worth 250 points, but I'm not sure its holdable. I'm not sure whether to take the easy option or go big. Luckily I have several months to decide plus you lot to help me make the wrong choice! So, one year down. Onto the next! Happy New Year everyone!
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2015 20:22
|
|
|
I like the idea of taking minor American islands and trying to fortify them to at least make the allies work a lot harder. Go big in my opinion, but strike a balance. Don't try to be too conservative. Don't bother with India.
Top Hats Monthly fucked around with this message at 20:30 on Jan 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2015 20:28
|
|
|
Top Hats Monthly posted:I like the idea of taking minor American islands and trying to fortify them to at least make the allies work a lot harder. Go big in my opinion, but strike a balance. Don't try to be too conservative. Don't bother with India. Bugger that, onward to India or Australia! Not only are those little central pacific islands hard to hold - they're hard to supply, because you have to ship tons of fuel and supplies out there - even more if you intend to use them as bases for fleet operations. And good luck doing any lasting damage against the Allies snug in Pearl.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2015 20:45
|
|
|
Burn India to the ground. Don't be a chump. Kill everything British.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2015 20:47
|
|
|
Myoclonic Jerk posted:Bugger that, onward to India or Australia! Yeah I believe this too. Go for India.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2015 20:50
|
|
|
Both Australia and India has the problem of the Allies getting a shitload of units spawned in if you pass a certain line, not sure if those can be "beaten" (well they can in theory, but is there enough Japanese stuff available to really do it?). India is helpful to ensure that China doesn't get any supplies for a lot longer, but the Soviet spectre is always around for the continent... Australia and New Zeeland are nice because it cuts the allies in half, but likewise Japan will spread itself pretty thin to hold it. I believe they "fixed" the Soviet-gambit to make it really hard to knock them out, more armies spawning in, and little of worth (maybe some oil-provinces?) up there. Whatever you pick, I demand balls-to-the-wall strategy to try to grab it all 
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2015 20:58
|
|
|
India sounds interesting to me. I always like Ceylon as a submarine base. Also, don't forget to take Socotra (the small island of the African coast) if you are serious about India.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2015 21:00
|
|
|
How feasible is a China-focused strategy in this game? Can they be beaten outright to free up most of your army, or is it inevitably a quagmire?
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2015 21:01
|
|
|
Fray posted:How feasible is a China-focused strategy in this game? Can they be beaten outright to free up most of your army, or is it inevitably a quagmire? China can be stomped pretty easily as Japan in vanilla, cutting off Burma helps. Not sure just how much troops can be freed up, it takes awhile to stomp out the Chinese (and they too get a bunch of free respawning containers - still need supplies though).
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2015 21:03
|
|
|
Me163 chat - the fuel mixture used in the Me163 is called Hydrazine Hydrate , which in addition to being hilarious toxic, corrosive, and flammable is also a potent rocket fuel, due to it's hypergolic nature. When mixed with the proper oxidizer, Hydrazine can get really incredibly hot in milliseconds, which makes it extremely useful for rocketry. Also, I favorited that list of designations. Thank thread  .
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2015 21:08
|
|
|
A lot of the names you're unfamiliar with are the itty bitty harbour boats and other small ships. whether it's just a speed boat with 2 torpedoes and a machine gun turret strapped on or something designed for short patrols/specific operations. You know how the US navy has recently been all spooked about people with inflatable dinghys with bombs onboard? If those were in WITP they would have their own designation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2015 21:53
|
|
|
I vote for taking Australia and putting up heavy airbase coverage in the Indies to be as unfriendly as possible to Allied naval advances in the region. Maybe make for Ceylon if you somehow find yourself needing an amusing target and have the supplies for it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2015 23:11
|
|
|
Focus on Australia while pushing slowly up Burma. Once China is cut off and annihilated you'll have the forces necessary to completely wipe them out of India. The taking of Ceylon should be undertaken and naval assets should definitely be sent to cut off any supply lines from the west.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2015 23:14
|
|
|
Okay, I'll rescind that. I say we focus on the continent of Asia proper. I can't tell how far that reaches out in the West. Does that go to the edge of Pakistan? Is there a highres map available? I think we should try and force really costly invasions of big areas (China, etc) by the allies. I still like the idea of using a U-Boat seaplane to bomb LA once. edit: Grey Hunter, could you do me a favor and post the high res map with cities labeled? Also what's that white group of hexes on the coast of Alaska, and is that the Galapagos islands I see on the extreme edge of the map? It's the Panama Canal Zone Top Hats Monthly fucked around with this message at 01:23 on Jan 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2015 23:28
|
|
|
-snip, quote not edit-
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 00:21
|
|
|
Noumea and Fiji then cut off China. Focus on interdicting supplies to the forward areas. If you expand too far or too fast you just sacrifice your ability to deal major pain to the US industrial hammer falls.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 00:29
|
|
|
Veloxyll posted:A lot of the names you're unfamiliar with are the itty bitty harbour boats and other small ships. whether it's just a speed boat with 2 torpedoes and a machine gun turret strapped on or something designed for short patrols/specific operations. DaBabes mod is basically all about including poo poo like that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 00:31
|
|
|
Take Burma and stop. Just sit there on the edge of India and annihilate any attempt to open the road so you can bleed China dry. I still vote for Top-knot in reverse. Try and cross the Canadian Rockies.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 01:27
|
|
|
I think if you can bleed China dry without having to take a whole subcontinent that's a good start, and much as I would love you to take the Outback, I think you should be really really careful of over expanding, or trying to go too many places at once. Of course, you can't just wait the war out because you will be out built, and if you don't stop the people around you from growing then you will be crushed. So do what you can to stop their growth getting worse but don't go insane - I don't think free insta-spawn armies is something you need to hand the allies more of right now. Perhaps I'm reading this wrongly but it seems like playing as Japan is like playing without replenishing forces, be they meaningful ships or competent pilots.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 01:34
|
|
|
goatface posted:Try and cross the Canadian Rockies. You don't want to gently caress with the Rocky Mountain Rangers. Take Vancouver, build up the weed economy and shore up defenses.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 01:35
|
|
|
I could get behind a push into mainland India. The ability of the Japanese player to reconcile the IJA and the IJN and "force" the former to release divisions for further conquest is a powerful tool, considering that their historical refusal to do so lead to "victory disease" and what would culminate in the Battle of Midway.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 01:57
|
|
|
Is it feasible to attack the Panama Canal Zone? Would we even gain anything if we did?
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 02:11
|
|
|
Top Hats Monthly posted:Is it feasible to attack the Panama Canal Zone? Would we even gain anything if we did? No, it's off-map and not attackable.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 02:13
|
|
|
pthighs posted:No, it's off-map and not attackable. drat! What's the point of putting it on the map then? (Keep in mind I don't have a zoomable map)
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 02:14
|
|
|
It's "on map" in a little sub-zone so you can micromanage it for some bizarre reason.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 02:18
|
|
|
Top Hats Monthly posted:drat! What's the point of putting it on the map then? (Keep in mind I don't have a zoomable map) The East Coast of the US is represented as a single off-map base that's linked to the Panama Canal zone on one end and to the British Home Islands on the other end. It's so that you can simulate a ship appearing in Norfolk or something and having to sail from there, through Panama, to the West Coast, or so that you can have ships transit from New York, through the Atlantic, through the Mediterranean/Horn of South Africa and appear on the eastern edge of the map near Aden, Yemen, instead of having to go across the South Pacific, then through Australia, then through the Indian Ocean to assist the Commonwealth forces in Ceylon.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 02:21
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:The East Coast of the US is represented as a single off-map base that's linked to the Panama Canal zone on one end and to the British Home Islands on the other end.  Could you hypothetically run a sub operation just outside the PCZ and bounce ships? Also, I'm very interested in getting this game now! Can the war in Europe change things?
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 02:32
|
|
|
We need to conquer Alaska.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 02:32
|
|
|
Top Hats Monthly posted:
The problem with putting subs at the mouth of the canal is the long transit between that patrol station and any base where they can resupply. They'll spend so much fuel going back and forth from base to patrol station that they'll hardly spend any time on patrol. It's a waste of subs. The war in Europe proceeds historically no matter what happens in the Pacific, so ships that historically were pulled from the Pacific to support Atlantic operations will be requested for withdrawal from the Allied player at the historical date, and any ships that came to the Pacific from Atlantic duty will arrive at the historical date. Some British ships go back and forth several times throughout the war. You can not let a ship withdraw, but it costs tons of political points so you lose your ability to reassign units and commanders in the command structure.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 02:36
|
|
|
gohuskies posted:The problem with putting subs at the mouth of the canal is the long transit between that patrol station and any base where they can resupply. They'll spend so much fuel going back and forth from base to patrol station that they'll hardly spend any time on patrol. It's a waste of subs. I promise I'll stop posting but in that case, burn everything down, hail Satan. I just like the idea of bringing the war close to home E: I wish there was a better map I could zoom in on Top Hats Monthly fucked around with this message at 02:57 on Jan 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 02:38
|
|
|
Top Hats Monthly posted:I promise I'll stop posting but in that case, burn everything down, hail Satan. I just like the idea of bringing the war close to home They should try allying themselves with Mexico
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 02:48
|
|
|
Some newbie questions - what is the benefit of invading Australia/New Zealand? Is the idea to try and force a win on points early, or to take them out of the war and deny their troops and resources to the enemy? Do you need to devote a lot of troops and equipment into takings holding them? If you took out aus/nz does that really hamper the American offensive by denying them places to base troops and ships? Other than pearl, they wouldn'the have much on this side of the Pacific.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 03:08
|
|
|
-snip-
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 03:19
|
|
|
It's likely to bite you in the arse when the Commonwealth army suddenly arrives in force and fresh from fighting a war in desert conditions your troops have little experience in, but it's a hindrance. There's a LOT of islands in the pacific, but few have sizable ports and airfields, and even fewer places are both sizable and producers of supplies/fuel.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 03:22
|
|
|
Grumio posted:Some newbie questions - what is the benefit of invading Australia/New Zealand? Is the idea to try and force a win on points early, or to take them out of the war and deny their troops and resources to the enemy? Do you need to devote a lot of troops and equipment into takings holding them? If you took out aus/nz does that really hamper the American offensive by denying them places to base troops and ships? Other than pearl, they wouldn'the have much on this side of the Pacific. A lot of islands have limitations on what can be built on them or how big their eventual size can be. Not only that, but you have to devote supplies/transports to those locations in order to upgrade them. Australia should be plenty equipped with airfields and ports that are efficient and can serve as repair docks. Also, it's a long way from Pearl to Japan and taking out Aus/NZ + islands means that the US will have fewer options to piggyback to the next location. As I see it, taking over Aus/NZ means you eliminate a big front and necessitates taking over the DEI which ends up putting the Brits and US very far apart from eachother. As for how many troops are required, I don't think "rebels" are modeled in WITP:AE although I may very well be wrong on that so once you wipe out anything already in Australia + the bonus spawning troops you shouldn't need too many to stay behind apart from guarding major ports/airfields.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 03:38
|
|
|
We know how great a threat Chiang Kai Shek is from the last game. We should cut off Burma and take Ceylon at the same time, then finish China.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 04:54
|
|
|
Here's the thing - Advance in the East can really only serve to stave off the US for a little while. Advance in China will be slow and tedious. But advances in the Southern Pacific are almost lightning speed by comparison. Destroying Australia/New Zealand is paramount to any long term success you're going to have, while finishing the war in China will also be vital to beating the British back in India.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 05:01
|
|
|
Nullkigan posted:Can you mod in additional boondoggles and ultra-prototypes? What about ground units? Yes, yes and yes. I'm working on a "Italy is knocked out of the war early" scenario right now that features lots more Commonwealth troops, planes and ships to defend Malaya. Here's some mod art: http://alternatewars.com/Games/WITP_AE/WITP_AE.htm
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 07:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 23:10 |
|
|
Top Hats Monthly posted:edit: Grey Hunter, could you do me a favor and post the high res map with cities labeled? Also what's that white group of hexes on the coast of Alaska, and is that the Galapagos islands I see on the extreme edge of the map? http://www.urban-netz.com/AE/PlanningMapA_PortAFBasename_Scen1.png Literally a 9703 x 7767 ~31 MB .png
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 10:51
|
|
