Staving Off Inevitable Defeat - GoTraurig(J) vs. Bandkanon(A)

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Staving Off Inevitable Defeat - GoTraurig(J) vs. Bandkanon(A)

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> Staving Off Inevitable Defeat - GoTraurig(J) vs. Bandkanon(A)

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Staving Off Inevitable Defeat - GoTraurig(J) vs. Bandka... - 8/30/2011 8:23:25 PM

GoTraurig

Posts: 23
Joined: 4/19/2010
Status: offline

Hello everyone, I'm about to start up a Scenario 2 game as the Japanese. We're playing with the latest Beta. Just recently, I have decided to make an AAR to accompany it. My goals for this AAR are to enjoy writing this, help organization, increase my turn punctuality, and, perhaps, hopefully be entertaining to some readers.

The noteworthy settings are: PDU On, extra-variable reinforcements, withdrawals on, and one-day turns.

The house rules are: Force Z and his CVs can move on the the first turn, no strategic bombing in China, no strategic bombing in SRA until 1943, no invasions on non-base hexes, fighters are restricted to their 2nd highest maneuver band as an upper bound, only Glens on subs, and political point expenditure is required for crossing national borders.

I'm currently trying to tackle the Japanese economy and specifically streamlining the airframe and engine production. I have Tracker working, so that should help some.

How many A6M2 Zeroes and Ki-43-Ic Oscars do some of you more experienced players suggest to build? (I'm going to stop Nate production immediately even though that means the pool of engines wont ever be expended) I'm going to attempt heavy attrition through the air so I need to keep that in mind.

Post #: 1

RE: Staving Off Inevitable Defeat - GoTraurig(J) vs. Ba... - 8/30/2011 10:09:44 PM

PaxMondo

Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

Not that I'm experienced, but I'll still offer my opinion. At least 100 of each. You just can't have too many as you have so many groups to upgrade in addition to your losses.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to GoTraurig)

Post #: 2

RE: Staving Off Inevitable Defeat - GoTraurig(J) vs. Ba... - 8/30/2011 11:44:43 PM

GoTraurig

Posts: 23
Joined: 4/19/2010
Status: offline

Ok, thanks for the imput PaxMondo. My current monthly aircraft production will look like:

125 Zeroes
100 Oscars
15 Kates
9 Glen
15 Vals
22 Nells
25 Betties
6 Mavis
82 Sally
29 Jake
15 Dinah
6 Thalia

I'm still in the process of fiddling with them. 82 Sally seems too high and the Navy bombers are probably too low. These numbers were reached pretty much by streamlining the aircraft production and converting all the aircraft factories to the more appropriate plane in their group. For example, I converted the Lily and Sally factories to the IIa Sallys. I have a save before I started messing with this, so I can always go back if there's irreversible damage.

Anyone have any more comments about my airframe production?

(in reply to PaxMondo)

Post #: 3

RE: Staving Off Inevitable Defeat - GoTraurig(J) vs. Ba... - 8/31/2011 12:58:07 AM

SoliInvictus202

Posts: 367
Joined: 8/27/2010
From: Austria
Status: offline

to be honest - I personally think that is way too few Kates and Vals - you will lose more to flak at Pearl Harbor......
have a look at what you really lose during a month... - but I think you'll need more!

(in reply to GoTraurig)

Post #: 4

RE: Staving Off Inevitable Defeat - GoTraurig(J) vs. Ba... - 8/31/2011 5:32:13 AM

PaxMondo

Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SoliInvictus202

to be honest - I personally think that is way too few Kates and Vals - you will lose more to flak at Pearl Harbor......
have a look at what you really lose during a month... - but I think you'll need more!

+1

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to SoliInvictus202)

Post #: 5

RE: Staving Off Inevitable Defeat - GoTraurig(J) vs. Ba... - 8/31/2011 8:08:43 PM

GoTraurig

Posts: 23
Joined: 4/19/2010
Status: offline

Ok, I agree. I bumped both Kate and Val up to 40 per month. I also rounded out most of the numbers on the airframes.

Am I missing something about Nells and Betties though? Nells and Betties always have the same amount of ordinance they drop. The second generation Nell gets radar two years before the Betty does. The Betty gets progressively shorter range in exchange for more gun values, speed, and armor eventually - I figure that those advantages are irrelevant since they'll die in droves if allied CAP gets among them anyway. Is there a reason to prefer Betties over Nells? Is there a substantial difference between CL-mounted and Int-mounted torpedoes in terms of accuracy?

(in reply to PaxMondo)

Post #: 6

RE: Staving Off Inevitable Defeat - GoTraurig(J) vs. Ba... - 8/31/2011 9:07:01 PM

PaxMondo

Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GoTraurig
The second generation Nell gets radar two years before the Betty does.

Better to say that the Nell model which is radar capable comes 2 years ahead of the Betty. However, the radar itself isn't available until 1945. So both aircraft are in production for some time before they actually get radar units installed into the aircraft.

As for which one is better. The Betty has a very slight advantage in bomb accuracy. It also has heavier armament and eventually will get armor. The Nell always enjoys a considerable range advantage.

The biggest difference is that they use different engines (Ha-32/Ha-33). Depending upon your future model mix and build plan, this may create a BIG difference between your engine factory requirements.

Many players build both, others will focus on one or the other. I don't find this to be an issue of the same magnitude of some of the other production decisions.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to GoTraurig)

Post #: 7

RE: Staving Off Inevitable Defeat - GoTraurig(J) vs. Ba... - 8/31/2011 10:20:09 PM

GoTraurig

Posts: 23
Joined: 4/19/2010
Status: offline

Oh, that's quite funny about the radar. That's a subtlety I would have missed for a while - thanks.

I think I'll go with Helens eventually instead of Sallys for IJA level bombers. That means I'll need to ramp up Ha-34 engine production in 4/42. I think 82 Sally production initially is too much in light of this - also I don't think I'll have so many level bomber losses this early in the war. Because of this, I'll decrease Sally production a bit to about 50ish and leave the Betty production off initially and not expanded much to be able to use up those engines once the Helen transition occurs. I like the range of the Nell though, so I'll keep those in production too.

Thanks for the help - this aircraft production stuff is starting to make more sense.

(in reply to PaxMondo)

Post #: 8

RE: Staving Off Inevitable Defeat - GoTraurig(J) vs. Ba... - 9/1/2011 1:50:09 AM

PaxMondo

Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

NP. Be sure to plan out all of your model progressions for the entire war. Pretty important to mitigate all the engine model switching. Of course you won't be perfectly accurate in the numbers, but even a rough plan will help.

EX: Ha-35 is big demand in the early war, but then almost disappears with the new fighter models. Depending upon what you choose as your kami model, it might require you to re-start the Ha-35 later or not. If not, you may decide to convert an Ha-35 factory or two to something else (Ha-45?). But wouldn't it be bad to have converted and then decide you want to use the Tsurugi and have to re-convert other engine factories to Ha-35?

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to GoTraurig)

Post #: 9

RE: Staving Off Inevitable Defeat - GoTraurig(J) vs. Ba... - 9/1/2011 9:08:17 AM

Erkki

Posts: 1461
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: offline

On the Ha-35... As you see, it is used by A6M, B5N, Ki-43, Ki-45 and Ki-56. And you might have all of these building simultaneously at 300+ planes a month. However you will probably pretty much dump the Ki-43 once Ki-44 becomes available and Ki-45 is the only IJAAF fighter with a cannon and as a 2-engine plane will require a lot of engines from 4/42, so I would consider limiting Ki-43 production to 100 or so and once you begin to have Ki-44 in good numbers, reduce the production of Ki-43 to 30/month or so. Also note the Zero M2 does not upgrade to M3(in 6/42) but to Sen Baku: the M3 factories will have to repair from 0! This is tricky as you will probably need lots and lots of M2s early in the war, they dont not only take losses but you will receive new groups, carrier and land based, need to upgrade existing groups and some carrier groups also resize 7/42. And because M3 is not carrier capable, you will have to produce M2 and M3 simultaneously until M3a comes available.

Reconsider Ki-21 vs. Ki-49: Ki-21 uses the Ha-32 engine(now shared with the G4M). Later each of your best patrol flying boats, H8Ks, will use 4 of the Ha-32s a plane and you need those planes through the war. You dont have to expand the Ha-32 factories much if you choose the long range G3M3 to be your IJNAF main bomber, but you can keep Ki-21 and H8K in production and when you have the spare engines, turn G4M production on again for a week or 2 at a time, or build engine reserves. Ki-21 is not as good as Ki-49 as it lacks armor, guns and 1 hex of range but its just as good as an ASW and search plane and as a bomber in China where you are less likely to meet enemy fighters where theres almost no AAA. And when mid 43 arrives the other of the 2 IJNAF second generation fighters, J2M Raiden, as the only fighter plane you can build, uses the Ha-32 in its all models! And its not a bad plane, worth 2+ Zeros each.

Ha-33 on the other hand is needed by E13A(you need to build through the war), H6K(you can choose to do the same although H8K is better), D3A, Ki-46 and the G3M. After early 43 the only planes that "needs" Ha-33 are just G3M and Ki-46. You should check production numbers carefully to not risk overproduction and resource waste, not in just building the engines but also in expanding the factories. Ki-100 and Ki-102 fighters use the Ha-33 but those are both very late 1944 or early 1945 fighters, and in many ways not very good ones.

_____________________________

(in reply to PaxMondo)

Post #: 10

RE: Staving Off Inevitable Defeat - GoTraurig(J) vs. Ba... - 9/1/2011 9:41:08 PM

GoTraurig

Posts: 23
Joined: 4/19/2010
Status: offline

PaxMondo: You're right about that. Thanks for the tip. I'd also completely forgotten to decide and prepare for which kamikaze model I'll use. I like the stats of the Tsurugi - how many kamikazes do you think are necessary? It should be possible to build up an engine pool for it before lowering the Ha-35 production too much.

Erkki: I didn't even know about the A6M2 going to Sen Baku instead of A6M3 - That could have been very troublesome to be surprised with that. I hadn't even considered the J2M Jack (that's what I assume you meant), but the stats look ok. I wasn't even planning on producing any of them before.

That's a good point about keeping Sally production to use the Ha32 engines. My Ha-33 production will only be 160 per month, so I don't anticipate overproduction. If anything, the concern would probably be underproduction of airframes. I was only planing for 287 Ha-35 engines per month and 90 Ha-32.

(in reply to Erkki)

Post #: 11

RE: Staving Off Inevitable Defeat - GoTraurig(J) vs. Ba... - 9/1/2011 10:43:10 PM

PaxMondo

Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GoTraurig

PaxMondo: You're right about that. Thanks for the tip. I'd also completely forgotten to decide and prepare for which kamikaze model I'll use. I like the stats of the Tsurugi - how many kamikazes do you think are necessary? It should be possible to build up an engine pool for it before lowering the Ha-35 production too much.

If you plan to use the Tsurugi, then don't worry about the "lowering" production. You can start and stop production of the engines as you want. The fact you plan to use it means you will likely NOT convert your big Ha-35 factory to anything else. So you should have sufficient capacity.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to GoTraurig)

Post #: 12

RE: Staving Off Inevitable Defeat - GoTraurig(J) vs. Ba... - 9/1/2011 10:47:18 PM

PaxMondo

Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GoTraurig

Erkki: I didn't even know about the A6M2 going to Sen Baku instead of A6M3 - That could have been very troublesome to be surprised with that. I hadn't even considered the J2M Jack (that's what I assume you meant), but the stats look ok. I wasn't even planning on producing any of them before.

Think through all the models. If you choose Jack, what about George? Producing both is expensive and a hassle with upgrades, although some do produce both. They are good planes although neither is carrier capable. This limits groups that can use them. Check tracker carefully to determine which groups can. That will also help determine the build rates on those models.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to GoTraurig)

Post #: 13

It Begins - 10/15/2011 9:16:29 AM

GoTraurig

Posts: 23
Joined: 4/19/2010
Status: offline

Ok, the game is back on track I think. Both my opponent and myself had some real life issues pop up sequentially to seemingly maximize the delay.

We're up to Dec. 10, 1941, but so far the war has gone very, very well.

First, the Pearl Harbor strikes were some of the best I've experienced:

Dec. 7th: (The one Zero destroyed by flak in this attack was my only plane lost the first turn. I've never seen losses so low before.)

Morning Air attack on Pearl Harbor , at 180,107

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 108
B5N2 Kate x 144
D3A1 Val x 135

Allied aircraft
no flights

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 2 damaged
A6M2 Zero: 1 destroyed by flak
B5N2 Kate: 4 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
PBY-5 Catalina: 157 damaged
PBY-5 Catalina: 7 destroyed on ground
B-18A Bolo: 45 damaged
B-18A Bolo: 4 destroyed on ground
B-17D Fortress: 78 damaged
B-17D Fortress: 1 destroyed on ground
P-36A Mohawk: 15 damaged
P-36A Mohawk: 5 destroyed on ground
P-40B Warhawk: 67 damaged
P-40B Warhawk: 8 destroyed on ground
A-20A Havoc: 20 damaged
O-47A: 15 damaged
O-47A: 1 destroyed on ground
R3D-2: 3 damaged
SBD-1 Dauntless: 47 damaged
SBD-1 Dauntless: 5 destroyed on ground
B-17E Fortress: 28 damaged
F4F-3 Wildcat: 15 damaged
F4F-3 Wildcat: 2 destroyed on ground
C-33: 2 damaged
C-33: 1 destroyed on ground
OS2U-3 Kingfisher: 1 destroyed

Allied Ships
BB Maryland, Torpedo hits 6, on fire, heavy damage
BB Pennsylvania, Bomb hits 3, Torpedo hits 4, on fire, heavy damage
CL St. Louis, Torpedo hits 2, heavy damage
BB West Virginia, Torpedo hits 4, on fire, heavy damage
BB Oklahoma, Bomb hits 1, Torpedo hits 4, on fire, heavy damage
DMS Wasmuth, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
BB Tennessee, Bomb hits 2, Torpedo hits 3, heavy fires, heavy damage
BB California, Bomb hits 1, Torpedo hits 4, on fire, heavy damage
DM Breese, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
AVD Thornton, Bomb hits 1, and is sunk
CA New Orleans, Bomb hits 1, Torpedo hits 1
BB Arizona, Bomb hits 1, and is sunk
BB Nevada, Bomb hits 3, Torpedo hits 3, on fire, heavy damage
DD Dale, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
DD Case, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
CL Detroit, Torpedo hits 2, heavy damage
DD Conyngham, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
SS Narwhal, Torpedo hits 1, heavy damage
CL Phoenix, Torpedo hits 1
DD Cummings, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
CL Raleigh, Torpedo hits 1
AM Bobolink, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
xAK Florence D., Torpedo hits 1

Airbase hits 47
Airbase supply hits 5
Runway hits 131
Port hits 10
Port fuel hits 8
Port supply hits 1

Magazine explodes on BB Arizona

Dec. 8th:

Morning Air attack on Pearl Harbor , at 180,107

Weather in hex: Partial cloud

Raid detected at 108 NM, estimated altitude 11,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 40 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 71
B5N2 Kate x 117
D3A1 Val x 135

Allied aircraft
P-36A Mohawk x 16
P-40B Warhawk x 17
F4F-3 Wildcat x 1

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 2 destroyed
B5N2 Kate: 1 destroyed, 3 damaged
D3A1 Val: 1 destroyed, 10 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
P-36A Mohawk: 8 destroyed
P-40B Warhawk: 3 destroyed

Allied Ships
BB Nevada, Bomb hits 5, on fire, heavy damage
BB Pennsylvania, Bomb hits 5, on fire, heavy damage
CA San Francisco, Bomb hits 3, heavy fires
DD Dewey, Bomb hits 1, on fire
BB California, Bomb hits 7, on fire, heavy damage
CA New Orleans, Bomb hits 4, on fire, heavy damage
BB West Virginia, Bomb hits 7, on fire, heavy damage
BB Tennessee, Bomb hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
CL Honolulu, Bomb hits 1
CL Detroit, Bomb hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
CM Oglala, Bomb hits 1, heavy fires
PT-30, Bomb hits 1, and is sunk
AVP Swan, Bomb hits 1, and is sunk
DD Farragut, Bomb hits 1, heavy fires, heavy damage
CA Minneapolis, Bomb hits 5, and is sunk
CL Raleigh, Bomb hits 3, heavy fires
DD Downes, Bomb hits 1, on fire
AE Pyro, Bomb hits 1, heavy fires, heavy damage
BB Oklahoma, Bomb hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
DMS Zane, Bomb hits 1, on fire
AMc Redbird, Bomb hits 1, and is sunk
DD Schley, Bomb hits 1, heavy fires, heavy damage
DD Chew, Bomb hits 1, heavy fires
CL Phoenix, Bomb hits 1, on fire
CL Helena, Bomb hits 2, on fire
AVP Avocet, Bomb hits 1, on fire
DD Mugford, Bomb hits 1, on fire
BB Maryland, Bomb hits 2, heavy damage
SS Narwhal, Bomb hits 1, and is sunk
AE Mauna Loa, Bomb hits 1, on fire
AV Wright, Bomb hits 1, on fire
AR Medusa, Bomb hits 1

Repair Shipyard hits 1
Port hits 11
Port fuel hits 1

Magazine explodes on CA Minneapolis

Second Fragmented Strike:

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 27
B5N2 Kate x 27

Allied aircraft
P-36A Mohawk x 4
P-40B Warhawk x 5

No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
P-36A Mohawk: 1 destroyed
P-40B Warhawk: 1 destroyed

Allied Ships
BB Tennessee, Bomb hits 2, heavy damage
BB Oklahoma, Bomb hits 1, on fire, heavy damage

So, that leaves 7 very damaged BBs at Pearl, which is a quite acceptable result - especially considering the CA that was sunk. Additionally, my air losses were only about 10 airframes after two days of action over Pearl. His CAP was low because of my earlier sweeps not included in this post.

(in reply to PaxMondo)

Post #: 14

RE: It Begins - 10/15/2011 9:42:32 AM

GoTraurig

Posts: 23
Joined: 4/19/2010
Status: offline

Ok, for the other noteworthy events:

Malaya:

Kota Bharu and Singkawang fall on the 8th. Zeroes start providing CAP over Singkawang on the 9th. The invasion of Singkawang so early (with the units destined to go to Batan) has me lose about a third of the engineer company who were on the two xAKLs Swordfish from Singapore destroyed after deciding to stop bouncing bombs off of Kongo.

Philippines:

Paratroopers seize Laoang and Aparri to keep him guessing how much I'm bringing to the theater. The invasions were somehow delayed by a day, I think, but should land on the 10th.

MiniKB engages cruisers Boise and Houston with airstrikes. Houston probably escapes unharmed, but Boise eats 6 torpedoes and is confirmed sunk.

Surface forces manage to catch two large xAPs and two AOs leaving Manila. Naval search indicated most of the shipping was going West so my surface forces are a bit out of position because he juked the vast majority of them south east towards Cebu. I have a lot of assets in the area (including a low on torps miniKB) but if he scatters them he'll probably get quite a few out of my failed net.

150ish AV has landed at Davao and I anticipate the base to this turn.

Hong Kong:

A silly mistake by me caused me to miss my first day of trying to get his shipping. All the Betties and Nells flew without torpedoes on the 8th because I didn't understand you had to actually increase the torpedo ordinance manually in the aviation support HQ units. For some reason I thought that was handled automatically.

Ok, a question:

I had a small surface combat tf consisting of three destroyers meet two allied xAKLs. Both tfs avoided combat and my destroyers decided to withdraw to Pescadores even though they were well off on fuel (80% or so) and full ammo. Did my tf commander just fail an aggression or skill check? How do I avoid silly results like this in the future? The tf commander had 66 aggression and 59 naval skill. It's frustrating because these three destroyers were in the center of the pack of fleeing shipping.

(in reply to GoTraurig)

Post #: 15

RE: It Begins - 10/15/2011 10:00:07 AM

Alfred

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline

Many factors could apply for the non combat.

1. You say they had full ammo but it only takes a single ship in a TF to be short on ammo for the entire TF to avoid combat.

2. Read sections 6.2.5 and 6.2.9 of the manual for possible reasons. The threat of enemy forces includes enemy air and naval forces. In one of the early patches, threat tolerance was introduced. Quite detailed documentation was provided at the time.

Alfred

(in reply to GoTraurig)

Post #: 16

RE: It Begins - 10/15/2011 10:05:06 AM

GoTraurig

Posts: 23
Joined: 4/19/2010
Status: offline

Now for the best news: Carrier Battle!

After the second day of striking Pearl Harbor I had KB moving to cover a Wake landing. During the replay today I was shocked to see the message: TF1 reacting to enemy carriers at Johnston Island(even though react was set to 0 - no complaints this time, but I can foresee that being a nightmare later). He must have been considering a 2v6 fight if I kept bombing Pearl which I actually almost chose since my losses were so low and only 2 capital ships confirmed sunk.

First Allied Strike:

Morning Air attack on TF, near Johnston Island at 167,106

Weather in hex: Overcast

Raid detected at 39 NM, estimated altitude 13,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 15 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 39

Allied aircraft
F2A-3 Buffalo x 11
F4F-3A Wildcat x 11
SBD-2 Dauntless x 34
SBD-3 Dauntless x 7

No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
F2A-3 Buffalo: 2 destroyed
F4F-3A Wildcat: 3 destroyed
SBD-2 Dauntless: 2 destroyed, 15 damaged
SBD-2 Dauntless: 1 destroyed by flak
SBD-3 Dauntless: 1 destroyed, 2 damaged

Japanese Ships
CV Shokaku, Bomb hits 1 (only 2 sys damage)
BB Kirishima
CV Kaga
CV Akagi
DD Urakaze

Second Allied Strike:

Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Johnston Island at 166,107

Weather in hex: Heavy rain

Raid detected at 39 NM, estimated altitude 10,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 15 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 37

Allied aircraft
F2A-3 Buffalo x 5
F4F-3A Wildcat x 5
SBD-2 Dauntless x 6
SBD-3 Dauntless x 5
TBD-1 Devastator x 4

No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
F2A-3 Buffalo: 1 destroyed
SBD-2 Dauntless: 1 destroyed, 2 damaged
SBD-2 Dauntless: 1 destroyed by flak
SBD-3 Dauntless: 1 destroyed, 2 damaged

Japanese Ships
CA Chikuma
CV Hiryu
BB Hiei
CV Soryu

Only Japanese Strike:

Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Johnston Island at 164,112

Weather in hex: Thunderstorms

Raid detected at 69 NM, estimated altitude 16,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 25 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 59
B5N2 Kate x 134
D3A1 Val x 124

Allied aircraft
F2A-3 Buffalo x 7
F4F-3A Wildcat x 7

Japanese aircraft losses
B5N2 Kate: 4 damaged
B5N2 Kate: 1 destroyed by flak
D3A1 Val: 2 damaged
D3A1 Val: 1 destroyed by flak

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-3A Wildcat: 1 destroyed

Allied Ships
CV Enterprise, Bomb hits 8, heavy fires
CA Chester, Bomb hits 2, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
DD Ellet, Bomb hits 1, on fire
CV Lexington, Bomb hits 2, Torpedo hits 1, heavy fires
CA Astoria, Bomb hits 2, Torpedo hits 2, heavy fires, heavy damage
CA Chicago, Bomb hits 2, on fire
CA Salt Lake City, Bomb hits 1, on fire
CA Northampton, Bomb hits 2, on fire
DD Porter, Bomb hits 1, heavy fires
CA Portland, Bomb hits 2, on fire
DD Flusser
DD Dunlap
DD Lamson, Bomb hits 2, heavy fires
DD Fanning
DD Balch
DD Drayton
DD Craven
DD McCall

Heavy smoke from fires obscuring CV Lexington
Fuel storage explosion on CV Enterprise
Heavy smoke from fires obscuring CV Enterprise
Heavy smoke from fires obscuring DD Lamson
Heavy smoke from fires obscuring CA Astoria
Heavy smoke from fires obscuring CA Northampton
Heavy smoke from fires obscuring CA Chester

Results: Intelligence report is claiming I sank Saratoga and Lexington for some reason. I suspect Enterprise sank and Lexington either sank or is crippled. I know usually you can look at the intel screen to see ops and ground loses to determine how many actually sank, but it might not be accurate since the engagement happened so close to Johnston.

From the intel screen: 11 ground losses and four operational losses for Dauntlesses, 4 ground and 19 operational losses for Devastators, 2 ground and 3 operational losses for Wildcats, and only one operational loss for those carrier buffaloes.

What do you all make of this?

Considering KB is pretty much between Pearl and Johnston, I should probably be able to ensure that none of the capital ships make it out anyway. I'm considering temporarily splitting KB into two air combat tfs consisting of three CVs to try to cover more escape routes since at most there's one operational CV to fight in the area.

(in reply to GoTraurig)

Post #: 17

RE: It Begins - 10/15/2011 10:10:26 AM

GoTraurig

Posts: 23
Joined: 4/19/2010
Status: offline

Thanks Alfred, I'll look into that. All three destroyers were fresh and full ammo, but the engagement did occur fairly close to Manila. Plus, after examining its routing back to Pescadores, it is really going out of its way to avoid the Luzon airbases so I think that's the issue. I think I should have had the threat tolerance at a higher setting for these first few turns at least.

(in reply to Alfred)

Post #: 18

RE: It Begins - 10/15/2011 10:16:18 AM

Alfred

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline

Both Allied carriers were sunk.

Check the range of the two different Dauntless models. IIRC one has greater range and that unit diverted to Wake. The battle was fought too far away for the other Dauntless model and the Devastators to reach Wake. The fighters probably had enough range to reach Wake. So whilst there might be some offensive punch at Wake, the airfield is probably badly overstacked.

Alfred

(in reply to GoTraurig)

Post #: 19

RE: It Begins - 10/15/2011 11:34:32 AM

obvert

Posts: 14050
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline

Wow. Quite fortunate to get to the carriers that early.

This should allow you to split the KB for a month or so early if you want to use those CVs both in the DEI and the pacific.

(in reply to Alfred)

Post #: 20

Page: [1]

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> Staving Off Inevitable Defeat - GoTraurig(J) vs. Bandkanon(A)

Page: [1]