|
vyelkin posted:Hey let's be fair, we all remember that time in real life when the Japanese just straight up invaded Singapore from the sea. Dang. When was that? (Irony?) RA Rx fucked around with this message at 19:08 on Dec 13, 2016 |
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 18:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 17:40 |
|
|
   We drop depth charges on this sub. We don't hit, but its nice to see my destroyers doing something for a change.   Our ships are hounded out of Darwin.   We're reaching a turning point here, casualties are evening out.   We lost several ships in Australia today.  Thankfully they were mostly small ones.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 05:43
|
|
|
RA Rx posted:Dang. When was that? Irony for sure. Singapore was supposed to be invincible from the sea, so the Japanese dispensed with the bad idea of a direct naval invasion entirely and instead came in through the Malay Peninsula. Lieutenant-General Arthur Percival saw this coming all the way back in 1937. However, he was unsuccessful in defending Singapore and capitulated to a theoretically smaller force. This infuriated Churchill and made Percival persona non grata in British circles, but to be honest I'm not sure whether he really had a shot at defending against the Japanese. David Corbett fucked around with this message at 06:02 on Dec 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 05:59
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure Percival had weeks to build a defence, and when his head engineer asked why the hell he hadn't, he said it "might have lowered civilian morale".
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 13:27
|
|
|
No he personally surveyed the terrain and correctly identified landing beaches north of the city but was hamstrung by the British leadership
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 13:53
|
|
|
Comstar posted:I'm pretty sure Percival had weeks to build a defence, and when his head engineer asked why the hell he hadn't, he said it "might have lowered civilian morale". Specifically the morale of the civilian leadership. I adore Churchill, but he just didn't treat the man right (though there's always ways to deal with recalcitrant civvies during wartime...). 
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 15:55
|
|
|
"Casualties are evening out" Tell that to all the grieving widows 
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 16:07
|
|
|
HannibalBarca posted:"Casualties are evening out" Grieving? They have brought honour to their families! These are the battles that will go down in Imperial history!
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 16:35
|
|
|
   The Allies come in with fighter support, and.... it makes things worse for them.  Our wounded ships continue to be harassed.  We take a lot of squad losses today.  Thankfully, the Chinese balance things up with their own attack.  Another brutal day in china, and my understrength attack on Darwin has cost me many ships. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 18:15
|
|
|
how many Japanese soldiers all told have died at Hankow 
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 22:09
|
|
|
Even after years of following these LP's the game still makes very little sense to me. Allied AV: 5482 Adjusted Allied AV: 1 And I suspect it's 1 because of a hard limit and it would have been -2910 or something without that limit.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 08:41
|
|
|
CeeJee posted:Even after years of following these LP's the game still makes very little sense to me. They got ready to go and then they all decided it was a bad idea and stayed home instead. Except for Benny, 'cause nobody thought to tell him. Poor, poor Benny.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 09:38
|
|
|
CeeJee posted:Even after years of following these LP's the game still makes very little sense to me. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 16:03
|
|
|
CeeJee posted:Even after years of following these LP's the game still makes very little sense to me. We've seen it at 0 before. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 18:58
|
|
|
I like the implication that there's still a 1% possibility of victory for the attackers. I'd love to see Grey's face if it happened.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 19:21
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Do the troops that China loses at Chungking endlessly respawn there? So is this basically a nice way to tie up supply while farming points for killing these dumb attacks?
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 19:26
|
|
|
I don't remember the number but don't most of the Chinese squads reform there at something like 1/4 or 1/3 strength for free? Eventually wouldn't it get to a point where (it's a bit gamey for the AI) they could constantly just throw new units at Grey in the hopes of trying to eventually disrupt his troops? Then hit him with some that have some semblance of supplies to try and dislodge him?
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 22:02
|
|
|
shalafi4 posted:I don't remember the number but don't most of the Chinese squads reform there at something like 1/4 or 1/3 strength for free? I was mainly wondering what happens to the squads he kills that respawned there. If they already respawned at 1/4th strength, are destroyed again, and respawn, are they still at 1/4th strength or does it compound?
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 22:07
|
|
|
There is a 30 day delay before they respawn (units respawn at 1/3rd the unit's TO&E strength), so he will be able to take the city eventually.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 22:28
|
|
|
pthighs posted:There is a 30 day delay before they respawn (units respawn at 1/3rd the unit's TO&E strength), so he will be able to take the city eventually. Assuming he can destroy or push back every Chinese formation in Chungking over the course of a month. It's a hell of an if.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 00:21
|
|
|
I take it trying to actually capture the city would be like what's going on at Hankow but worse.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 00:23
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:I like the implication that there's still a 1% possibility of victory for the attackers. I'd love to see Grey's face if it happened. You misunderstand In the totally broken, braindead model of WITP land combat, it is impossible to win if your odds are below 2:1 or a terrain adjusted equivalent.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 01:35
|
|
|
Seriously?
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 03:48
|
|
|
why are they called odds, then
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 04:41
|
|
|
Doesn't it seem odd to you?
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 04:43
|
|
|
heyoooo
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 04:51
|
|
|
   Yeah! Take that!  Bombers being bombers.   I set up a long range CAP. We damage some planes, but they kill a lot of ground troops.  Crap, forgot to stop these guys again. I've stopped the attack!  The Lexington is dead!
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 06:15
|
|
|
Hot drat, sub on sub action.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 06:17
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 06:17
|
|
|
Grey Hunter posted:
Only 10 days!
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 06:22
|
|
|
Curoius why Lexington was reported before Enterprise.. The Ent seems a lot likelier to have sunk first given how much of a mauling she took. But nice! And you took out a sub too! if it was a Dutch one it would've been even better! But nice - so what's the next strategic plan after the fleets are repaired then Grey?
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 06:37
|
|
|
"Near Rockhampton on Dec 5" She lasted a full week after Milne Bay and managed to make it halfway to Sidney, but in the end the damage proved too much. RIP Lexington. I think she probably was reported before Big E because she sunk closer to the coast and there would have been witnesses and/or newspapers talking about this, whereas the Enterprise sunk in bumfuck nowhere with no one around to see. Does the game model this?
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 08:16
|
|
|
Mikl posted:"Near Rockhampton on Dec 5" The game semi-randomly reports losses. Reported losses can also be retracted at a later date, afaik.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 13:03
|
|
|
This may have been talked about earlier, but can sunk ships be refloated/salvaged?
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 16:35
|
|
|
Donkringel posted:This may have been talked about earlier, but can sunk ships be refloated/salvaged? Nope. Sunk is a "one and done" type affair, but I'll double-check next time I can take a peek at the manual.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 16:38
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:Nope. Even in shallow water like what happened at Pearl Harbor?
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 17:30
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:Even in shallow water like what happened at Pearl Harbor? The game seems to represent that by nothing ever sinking in Pearl Harbour.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 18:02
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:Even in shallow water like what happened at Pearl Harbor? Friend Commuter posted:The game seems to represent that by nothing ever sinking in Pearl Harbour. Even capturing a port (almost) always ends with any ships stationed there being scuttled. I want to say there's a very small percent chance that you can actually capture ships, but I don't recall seeing it in a game or in the manual. Another thing I'll have to double-check.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 18:05
|
|
|
  Deck guns at dawn.  This is the price we pay for Milne Bay raids – the occasional Port Moresby slaughter.  Not to say they are not painful to take.  So many lost planes and pilots.  They keep on coming!  74 losses! Where were my fighters?  Just for your information.....
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 06:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 17:40 |
|
|
How can 350,000 men and a thousand guns have an AFV of 0?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 07:07
|
|