|
Congratson the baby jeep kill. Good luck and hopefully tomorrow you can add a coule of cruisers to the list!
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 06:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 02:17 |
|
|
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GK8JlxVOi859fZDFFlTlEN6-0RaTGQey0Au4V270pVo/edit?usp=drivesdk
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 15:18
|
|
|
   One of our subs picks up some fire.   Only flak contests the Liberators now.   We gun down some more ageing bombers,   A normal pattern of things, but at least our air losses are dropping. Time to build up some numbers!
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 15:20
|
|
|
pthighs posted:That makes sense, but it never seems to apply when you as a user tries the same thing. I have a suspicion that is because the AI is constantly doing it all the time, and we just aren't seeing Grey post every single record of "level bombers attack boats, miss."
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 16:01
|
|
|
Dawncloack posted:A normal pattern of things, but at least our air losses are dropping. Time to build up some numbers! was the airframes/engines thing sorted? Are there options to boost flak effectiveness?
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 21:20
|
|
|
DesperateDan posted:was the airframes/engines thing sorted? Are there options to boost flak effectiveness? I would assume radar would help...
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 21:23
|
|
|
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GK8JlxVOi859fZDFFlTlEN6-0RaTGQey0Au4V270pVo/edit?usp=drivesdk
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 20:31
|
|
|
Groundhoug day, ignore Grey's last post!
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 20:33
|
|
|
Why not get the Ki-45 into production to deal with those heavy bombers ? Sure, it costs 2 engines a piece, but it should be way more effective against Liberators than your current planes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 01:55
|
|
|
I for one think reposting would be most in tbe GH spirit
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 04:05
|
|
|
  As much as I would like to contest this, I can't afford to lose the planes.   Its nice to be on the offensive here.  The Chinese throw away a few thousand troops here.  My air-to-air kill was a catalina in the scout phase. So your not missing anything interesting.  Here are the current estimates of how many troops we are bottling up in Chungking.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 08:23
|
|
|
8 June 1943 Japanese battleship Mutsu, sunk in Hiroshima Bay due to internal explosion, likely of sanshikidan 16" incendiary anti-aircraft shells. As with HMS Audacious in WWI, the loss was kept a state secret to avoid damage to morale; as with USS Iowa in 1989, an official inquiry blamed the explosion on a suicidal seaman.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 20:07
|
|
|
OpenlyEvilJello posted:8 June 1943 The report on the Iowa explosion was a bunch of Flag Officer rear end covering bullshit. Anyone who signed his name to it should be retroactively demoted to cadet and drummed out of the Navy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 20:21
|
|
|
Zeroisanumber posted:The report on the Iowa explosion was a bunch of Flag Officer rear end covering bullshit. Anyone who signed his name to it should be retroactively demoted to cadet and drummed out of the Navy. The Mutsu report was essentially the same. The inquiry reached its conclusion without even waiting for diver surveys of the wreck to be completed. Defective design or improper stowage of the shells is the most likely culprit, although fire in a magazine-adjacent compartment has also been suggested. Unlike the USN, however, IJN officialdom blamed an accusation of theft, rather than homosexuality, for the scapegoat's supposed suicidalness. (Seriously, the Iowa report is some bad poo poo.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2017 00:35
|
|
|
  Curses!  We continue to smash the small units.  We lose a plane trying to hold our airspace.  Apparently now we're losing planes here.  Luganville is this games Eniwetok. Just with less cannibalism.  They like throwing away the Kiwi's don't they!  We lose a ship.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2017 04:27
|
|
|
Wait, half a million soldiers in one city? What are they eating, each other?
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2017 17:44
|
|
|
wiegieman posted:Wait, half a million soldiers in one city? What are they eating, each other? let me tell you about a place called kiafeng...
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2017 17:57
|
|
|
  More Kiwis to the slaughter.  One of our subs takes a pounding.  Down goes an old bomber.  Then we lose a plane.  And we're back in the lead!  One of our forces is hit, I need to task a unit to these guys.  Aww, they retreated at Luganville.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2017 18:17
|
|
|
Grey, do you have any plans if the Chinese break out of Chungking?
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2017 19:30
|
|
|
Pray
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2017 19:36
|
|
|
Dreamsicle posted:Grey, do you have any plans if the Chinese break out of Chungking? Considering that all of their attacks against the 80K strong Japanese megastack outside the city results in slaughter, I don't think that's gonna happen any time soon.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2017 19:37
|
|
|
I think the plan is that their supply is incapable of keeping up with their numbers and renders their units even shittier than normal, so they don't ever have the AV to break out.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2017 19:39
|
|
|
Dreamsicle posted:Grey, do you have any plans if the Chinese break out of Chungking? Meeeeeeh the Soviets would be in Korea by then anyway
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2017 23:17
|
|
|
goatface posted:I think the plan is that their supply is incapable of keeping up with their numbers and renders their units even shittier than normal, so they don't ever have the AV to break out. The Allied adjusted AV is 0. They have 400k+ troops and no bullets. As long as the IJA has bullets (and they have a road open bringing supplies, and possibly another road opening up) they will hold the siege. I have a question: If a Chinese Army HQ is defeated and surrenders, does that HQ unit respawn in Chungking? Could there be multiple HQ units hanging out waiting for rescue from the siege?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 03:13
|
|
|
I prefer to post after Grey, but given the forums issues of late... 11 June 1943 Australian minesweeper Wallaroo, sunk
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 00:54
|
|
|
Interestingly, although called a minesweeper, the Wallaroo was actually a corvette primarily intended for anti-submarine duties. The minesweeper moniker was an attempt to conceal the true capabilities of the vessel.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 01:52
|
|
|
  So I realised I had a few ships at Luganville....  The snipers strike again!  These poor sods stray into range of Rabual. The results are to be expected.  An afternoon visit takes out a few more – the LS's are useful kills.  Why send ships that close to Rabaul?  I'll take it though. Saves me the fuel.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 04:09
|
|
|
  This tactic seems to be working – until the allies bring up some fighter bombers.   Dammit, that's one of the big ones I really can't afford to lose!  I take a noticeable hit to my ability to move fuel and oil. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 04:09
|
|
|
So how many tankers can Grey afford to lose until Japan is doomed (despite points)?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 05:00
|
|
|
RA Rx posted:So how many tankers can Grey afford to lose until Japan is doomed (despite points)? Technically speaking, none. Japan REALLY need every tanker/oiler to supply it's industry, especially when the game enter the 1943 - mid 1943 period. Soon the Allies will send HORDES of CVs, CVLs, CVEs and even more submarines and at that time the surviving tankers will be even more vulnerable. Especially with the new planes the Allies will be putting in the air, and the working US sub torpedoes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 05:23
|
|
|
Isn't there a way for the tankers to make a much safer run to a railhead in China, then ship the oil over land and either use it in Chinese/Korean industry or make another short, safe hop to Japan? It's way safer than sailing across sub infested waters for a few thousand km, at least.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 13:30
|
|
|
Crazycryodude posted:Isn't there a way for the tankers to make a much safer run to a railhead in China, then ship the oil over land and either use it in Chinese/Korean industry or make another short, safe hop to Japan? Yes, but that also relies on the obtuse and opaque overland supply mechanic sending the oil to the right spot and not stockpiling it somewhere crazy for reasons completely unknown.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 14:52
|
|
|
If you need them so badly why does it only have one destroyer escorting it? Inefficient to send more?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 14:59
|
|
|
Not enough of those either. Japan is short a hell of a lot of ships to really fight the war at the scale it ends up.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 15:03
|
|
|
Japan was pretty much short of everything during WW2, with the possible exception of élan.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 15:23
|
|
|
Saint Celestine posted:Japan was pretty much short of everything during WW2, with the possible exception of élan. what about katanas
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 15:57
|
|
|
HannibalBarca posted:what about katanas They were still making them, but shortcuts were taken due to shortages of metal. Switching to cheaper versions and making scabbards out of wood.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 16:33
|
|
|
  We welcome our friend back!  This captain believes in following his orders to the letter.  It looks like they have more bombers at Tarawa, it's rapidly becoming a fortress.  A better day, the kill is on our side!  You fool, but thanks!
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 17:54
|
|
|
13 June 1943 US Coast Guard cutter Escanaba, sunk in the mid-Atlantic by unknown explosion, possibly a drifting mine.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 20:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 02:17 |
|
|
OpenlyEvilJello posted:13 June 1943 ....torpedo? From say... a submarine? From say... a country the US is at war with? Seems a lot more likely than a mine in the middle of the atlantic.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 22:15
|
|