|
Grey has a fleet easily capable of zipping around the pacific at 27 knots, but instead, he's attached a ball and chain to it. IS 18 knots the fastest the Kashima can go? There's no way this game doesn't model cruise speed over battle speed, right?
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 17:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 01:31 |
|
|
Training cruisers like the Kashima don't really have the same kind of speed that a cruiser actually made to go out and fight would.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 17:19
|
|
|
TheFlyingLlama posted:Training cruisers like the Kashima don't really have the same kind of speed that a cruiser actually made to go out and fight would. Can you take the training wheels off to gain speed? Make it so! VVVV Nenonen fucked around with this message at 17:36 on Dec 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 17:29
|
|
|
Maybe, if by training wheels you mean most of the superstructure.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 17:32
|
|
|
I'm honestly curious, Grey, why do you keep doing this? Assembling your primary raiding fleet for a very risky mission is not exactly a routine thing like setting up flight altitudes for CAP squadron #16 would be - Surely a top speed of 18 is hard to go by unnoticed? It's not the first time this exact thing has happened, either. Is there a deeper reason why your fleet compositions often end up looking like this? We usually only get to see your executed turns here, not your entire thought process behind them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 17:41
|
|
|
Gimmick Account posted:I'm honestly curious, Grey, why do you keep doing this? Assembling your primary raiding fleet for a very risky mission is not exactly a routine thing like setting up flight altitudes for CAP squadron #16 would be - Surely a top speed of 18 is hard to go by unnoticed? It's not the first time this exact thing has happened, either. I think it can all be explained by having an infant.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 17:43
|
|
|
Peanut3141 posted:I think it can all be explained by having an infant. I am aware of that, it's where the recent delays come from, and why sometimes orders are forgotten. But would that really affect actual fleet composition? I'm just curious if the setup is deliberate (since we're seeing it for the second time in this playthrough), and if so, why. Does the benefit of having more 'meat shields' in the fleet outweigh the speed penalty?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 17:52
|
|
|
Gimmick Account posted:I am aware of that, it's where the recent delays come from, and why sometimes orders are forgotten. But would that really affect actual fleet composition? Yes, I can totally see it affecting fleet composition. Speaking for myself, it's far more difficult to give 100% of my focus to gaming and other solo activities with a young child in the house. If you listened to his latest rogue trader videos, you'd realize it's hard to get space to completely focus on one things for the hours it takes to do several turns. My XCOM play has gotten far worse, for example. Whereas pre-child, I managed to complete a LW playthrough only losing two soldiers. I can see such divided attention leading to sea anchors like this in your fleet, just as it leads to my soldiers getting hot plasma up their rear end. Peanut3141 fucked around with this message at 18:04 on Dec 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 18:02
|
|
|
9 December 1942 British corvette Marigold, sunk by Italian aircraft off Algiers. British destroyer Porcupine, torpedoed by U-602, almost breaking in half. The hulk was towed to Oran, where it was cut in half and the two halves towed back to Britain to be recommissioned as accommodations hulks under the names Pork (bow section) and Pine (stern section).
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 18:07
|
|
|
Huh, I didn't know Grey even did other Let's Plays aside from this one at the moment! That seems like a tall order.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 18:08
|
|
|
Also, there is a difference between a transit fleet and a combat fleet....
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 18:14
|
|
|
   Bombers continue their runs.   Owch, that hurts!  What the hell, these were causing minimal casualties yesterday, and nothing has changed.   There is another costly attack at Chungking.   The Chinese keep feeding men into the meat grinder, and unlike my own attacks at Hankow, its not wearing my troops down.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 18:14
|
|
|
How the hell do less than ten thousand chinese troops, primarily infantry and with no vehicles, manage to get an pre-adjustment AV of over 5k? More importantly, why are they throwing just 10k troops at you when there are like 150k in the hex? Even more importantly, now that half of those attacking troops are dead and their squads destroyed, does that mean Chungking is actually winnable?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 20:30
|
|
|
Nullkigan posted:How the hell do less than ten thousand chinese troops, primarily infantry and with no vehicles, manage to get an pre-adjustment AV of over 5k? 1. Because there are a shitload of Chinese troops in Chungking. All dead units respawn there. 2. Because not all the units are combat capable, and the AI is probably either: Desperate to break out, or thinks it can win due to AV pre-adjustment 3. Possibly. The more squads the AI loses, the more that will respawn, with less supplies.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 20:35
|
|
|
Isn't the pre-adjusted the value for everyone in the hex, while the post is for only the units actually attacking?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 20:39
|
|
|
goatface posted:Isn't the pre-adjusted the value for everyone in the hex, while the post is for only the units actually attacking? That would explain it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 20:41
|
|
|
goatface posted:Isn't the pre-adjusted the value for everyone in the hex, while the post is for only the units actually attacking? Well, I'd be surprised if the Chinese had 5k AV with less than 1/10th the Japanese force.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 20:42
|
|
|
They lost a really high percentage of the men, but no guns.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 20:45
|
|
|
goatface posted:They lost a really high percentage of the men, but no guns. They still have less than 1/3rd the guns, and no vehicles. Grey Hunter posted:
Grey Hunter posted:
Jobbo_Fett fucked around with this message at 20:50 on Dec 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 20:47
|
|
|
goatface posted:They lost a really high percentage of the men, but no guns. It's like Stalingrad, where the first man had the rifle and the second man had the bullets, only instead the first ten men had nothing and the last guy had a rifle with no bullets.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 20:48
|
|
|
OpenlyEvilJello posted:9 December 1942 That is among the gooniest things I have ever read
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 21:13
|
|
|
So is the force in Chunking directly preventing supplies from flowing to the rest of China?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 23:41
|
|
|
Arbite posted:So is the force in Chunking directly preventing supplies from flowing to the rest of China? It should be, depends on how many directions he's attacking from. Then you've got whatever is produced locally or distributed via Burma/India
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 23:53
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:It should be, depends on how many directions he's attacking from. Then you've got whatever is produced locally or distributed via Burma/India He would need to take or interdict the base north of Chunking to fully cut them off. The city to the west of Chunking, Chengtu, works exactly like Chunking does in terms of supplies and unit regeneration. On that note, each country has a set number of squads they can draw from each year, don't they? I'd imagine that the Chinese have a nearly bottomless amount, but is there a way of knowing just how many they have left? Assuming of course that that is how the squad system in the game works, I do at least know that you need supplies to replenish damaged squads. zetamind2000 fucked around with this message at 00:53 on Dec 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 00:50
|
|
|
 China gets 350 replacement squads a month, iirc (patches have tinkered with this, so it may be different since I've last played). Destroyed Chinese units get 1/3 of their TOE replaced for free when they respawn without drawing anything from this replacement pool. Chungking isn't the only source of supplies in China, although it's among the biggest that China controls at the start of the game. Having units in the city doesn't prevent industry from converting resource points to supply points, but it does prevent that city from creating resource points. If all of the hex sides leading into the city are controlled by Japan, it then wouldn't be able to feed its industry. Of course, this assumes the info in the game manual is accurate, which is sometimes not the case, because why document such a complex system?But yeah, I'd second driving one of those other doomstacks at Chengtu and/or Kunming. Those have pretty big concentrations of industry as well.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 01:20
|
|
|
Slippery42 posted:
Does taking Nanning cut off Kunming from the rest of China? Because if so I'd say that Grey only really has Chengtu left to worry about. On the topic of TOE, let's say that the game continues into 1945, is Grey capable of holding on to Manchuria with the absolutely massive number of troops that conquering China would free up? Or is the Japanese TOE just that bad that even numbers can't make up for it? I'd imagine that their TOE would improve at least a little by then. Are the TOEs of the average infantry division for each nation posted anywhere online? zetamind2000 fucked around with this message at 01:37 on Dec 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 01:31
|
|
|
RZApublican posted:Does taking Nanning cut off Kunming from the rest of China? Because if so I'd say that Grey only really has Chengtu left to worry about. Probably not. First, there are at least two road connections from Kunming to Chengtu. Secondly, supplies don't necessarily need to move across roads/rails to reach units that need them, though roads/rails increase the throughput and reduce how much supply is wasted along the way. Furthermore, there's only a limited concept of zones of control in this game, so supply can sneak its way around the doomstacks into places you probably wouldn't expect it to be able to. In my experience, the only reliable way to completely cut off supply movement is to control all six sides leading into the hex you want to isolate.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 04:34
|
|
|
Japanese tea ceremony near Magwe interrupted by Barbarian Gaijin. 5 Casualties currently recovering in hospital. Emperor vows revenge. ... I love how your troops stuck together, waiting it out for that second bombing raid. Seriously, 500+ next to a river in Burma? How does that even happen? RA Rx fucked around with this message at 08:55 on Dec 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 08:52
|
|
|
   We hit a troopship leaving Pearl.  The captain then comes back to finish her off, but takes a couple of hits in the process.  We then hit a ship coming into Pearl. This one also has troops loaded.   One of our small cargo ships is hit on the surface.  The liberators are back in far fewer numbers – flak is taking its toll.   The Darwin invasion force comes under air attack.  We should have an invasion tomorrow!  Its odd how the subs suddenly became active again.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 05:49
|
|
|
So, uh, how feasible is this invasion?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 06:00
|
|
|
BANZAI
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 06:10
|
|
|
Seems difficult without carrier support.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 06:26
|
|
|
GhostofJohnMuir posted:So, uh, how feasible is this invasion?  Lets take a look!The Japanese navy proposed the invasion of Australia on the ground of "America will use the place as an unsinkable aircraft carrier!" and at the time in 1942, pre-Midway the Japanese were riding pretty high (Coral Sea notwithstanding). However, Yamamoto and Hideki Tojo opposed the plan on the grounds of "We don't have the men, resources or lines of communication to sustain such an effort." The Navy estimated to secure the North Eastern portion of Australia, They'd need 45,000 and 60,000 men, while the army estimated they'd need more like 250,000 soldiers. The Army believed though that to make Australia secure, they'd need to invade the whole island and since they were already having trouble taking over China, they firmly said the plan wouldn't work. Eventually the Japanese decided to try and just isolate Australia from America and the other allies. The plans to take New Caledonia and the last of the pacific islands were actually the main thrust of that plan, by taking the island, the could base sea bombers and torpedo planes and disrupt shipping. Combine with the seizure of Midway Australia and New Zealand would be isolated and any American attempt to come forth would face island airfields and thousands of miles of sea. With the isolation, the Japanese hoped the could force Australia to the table. Funny enough though, the Australians may or may not have been prepared to cede the northern portion of the island to temporarily stall the Japanese So in real life, this was't feesible, the Australians had fortified the north and were prepared to do a scorched earth retreat. In the Greyverse, who knows!?! 
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 06:29
|
|
|
Was the Atsu Maru seriously brought down by two bullet holes from a submarine's deck-mounted .50 BMG? 
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 06:36
|
|
|
Pittsburgh Lambic posted:Was the Atsu Maru seriously brought down by two bullet holes from a submarine's deck-mounted .50 BMG? USS Sturgeon is equipped with a 76mm Deck Gun
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 06:50
|
|
|
The Atsu Maru's cause of death wasn't shown as a 76mm deck gun, though. The 0.5in BMG can be seen in use in the attack as well:Grey Hunter posted:
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 06:52
|
|
|
Pittsburgh Lambic posted:The Atsu Maru's cause of death wasn't shown as a 76mm deck gun, though. The 0.5in BMG can be seen in use in the attack as well: Yeah, so you can shoot with a 76mm Deck Gun and shoot with the 0.5in BMG. WitP only tracks the last thing to hit/deal damage.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 06:57
|
|
|
The first round ricocheted until it hit a stray barrel of fuel oil, causing a spill in the hold. The second round struck a sailor holding an oil-burning lamp, who then fell through the cargo bay door and into a pool of fuel oil. The rest is clearly obvious.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 09:28
|
|
|
Perth would probably have been the easier target, but more remote and of less overall value to the Allies than Darwin. That being said I'm pretty sure Steinkrokkan's Australian invasion in his previous LP landed first at Wyndham and then hopped its way over to Darwin. Maybe? It's been so long that I forgot, and I don't have a link to the thread anymore.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 09:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 01:31 |
|
|
Someone did land on the wrong island first. All probably part of yet another overly complicated IJN battle plan as devised by Rear Admiral Brain, with Commodore's Pinky's support.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 10:09
|
|
