Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Parry vs. Spar Reluctant Admiral 4.2

 
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 >> RE: Parry vs. Spar Reluctant Admiral 4.2 Page: <<   < prev  14 15 [16] 17 18   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Parry vs. Spar Reluctant Admiral 4.2 - 7/8/2012 11:30:01 AM   
larryfulkerson


Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline 		Jim did one of his B-17 raids on Salamaua and this time nobody got hurt on either side.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 451
RE: Parry vs. Spar Reluctant Admiral 4.2 - 7/8/2012 11:43:30 AM   
larryfulkerson


Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline 		My Carrier Group is the red TF in the middle of the map segment shown below. The white polygons depict where there was an airstrike and overlaying all that is the verbage that describes the mayhiem that occured. Lots of drama going on. Cool.

EDIT: Jim obviously has splintered the group of ships that were used to make one TF. It has now turned into small groups, some one-ship only..

Jim and I don't have a house rule that says single-ship TF's are prohibited, and besides if it was *MY* TF being attacked like in this
case I'm pretty sure that I'd do exactly the same thing. This kind of move on Jim's part shows how realisticlly he desires to play this
game and I'm all for that.

Keep it up Jimbo. Good move. No complaints from me. I feel like I'm doing pretty well, not to brag or anything. I'm just saying it could be a lot worse for me. I don't remember any of the time line of this war from all the military history I've read so I don't know if I'm on schedule or falling behind or ....???? Just playing it by ear and trying to listen to my intuition and do what "feels" right. That combined with a lot of just experience playing wargames over these last 15 years or so (started playing TOAW first of all ). Not that WWI would lend light to an amphibious war. It's like a game where you are the Air Traffic Controller. Deciding where to move the TF's depending on what you can remember about where everything is at this point in time and what condition it's in. Monumental task. That's why you have to just digest everything you can, understanding it or not as the case may be. And let your subconsciious tell you how to "feel" what the right thing is to do. Your subconscious can understand perhaps more than 100+ what you can remember so it makes sense to rely on your subconscious. Unless you can think of a reasonable, demonstratable, reason not to. Based on the ambient evidence available at this point in time. Just do what you think is right. Don't stew about it....it's just a game.

But it's a magnificant game isn't it? I feel like I've been waiting my whole life to play this one game. I'm obviously going crazy for WITP-AE. Great game so far Jim and thanks for the superior moves return. I mean how quickly your moves hit my email after I email you MY moves. Rob did one in less than an hour one time. Come to think of it......I seem to remember Jim getting his moves back that quickly too. I'm doing WITP-AE about 18 hours a day now. It's pretty cool actually. I'm doing a contest with Rob and Jim at the same time and when I'm not working on one I'm usually working on the other, almost all day, everyday. I'm liking it mighty fine. Hey you guys , I hope you get a chance to retire soon so you can experience a WWII in the Pacific continuously all day. It's a trip.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by larryfulkerson -- 7/8/2012 12:05:52 PM >

(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 452
RE: Parry vs. Spar Reluctant Admiral 4.2 - 7/8/2012 12:39:27 PM   
larryfulkerson


Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline 		Another expensive raid on Singers. I'm not sure these daily raids are worth it. I'm thinking I might ought to try some sweeps first before I try bombing again. On the other hand I've been told that a daily bombing can prevent building up forts. And the less forts that are built the more men I will have who will live longer than they might.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 453
RE: Parry vs. Spar Reluctant Admiral 4.2 - 7/8/2012 12:45:05 PM   
larryfulkerson


Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline 		Not even a couple of Zero's from Namlea could prevent Jim's Catalilna's getting a hit. Maybe I need to move an airfield group into Namlea to persuade more than 2 planes to fly. I'll look into that.

EDIT: Yeah, just as I thought.......there's nothing but INF on Namlea right now. I gotta move some AF dudes into there in order to get
better performance of that squadron. It's not their fault it's mine for lack of proper planning. I should have antisippated the need for the AF group and provided a team of them or something. Mea Culpa. I'm just human. Lemme try to fix that before I do anything else.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by larryfulkerson -- 7/8/2012 12:48:52 PM >

(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 454
RE: Parry vs. Spar Reluctant Admiral 4.2 - 7/8/2012 12:56:00 PM   
larryfulkerson


Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline 		Here we have TF 595 loading some AF dudes to move down to Namlea probably arriving at Namlea in a few days. Maybe four.So I won't have high performing Zero's for probably just short of a week. D'oh. Maybe I should look around some more for a different team already embarked or something.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 455
RE: Parry vs. Spar Reluctant Admiral 4.2 - 7/8/2012 1:24:23 PM   
larryfulkerson


Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline 		I moved a Bab's unit closer to Singers and gave it the recon target: Singapore so as to boost the detection level a little bit. I'm guessing the DL has some effect on combat results and the higher the better for the attacker. I don't remember reading that in the manual but it's the sort of thing that could be programmed into this game. Plus it's more realistic.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 456
RE: Parry vs. Spar Reluctant Admiral 4.2 - 7/8/2012 1:27:28 PM   
larryfulkerson


Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline 		Here's the results of another good carrier strike:




Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 457
RE: Parry vs. Spar Reluctant Admiral 4.2 - 7/8/2012 1:35:40 PM   
larryfulkerson


Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline 		It's looking like this ground bombardment process is going to take a lot longer than the week or so that I predicted above.
Now I'm gessing that it'll take about a month and that month doesn't start counting until Manila is in Jap hands because
of the flow of supply from there. D'oh. It might be 1943 before I have the PI all in Jap hands.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by larryfulkerson -- 7/8/2012 1:36:17 PM >

(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 458
RE: Parry vs. Spar Reluctant Admiral 4.2 - 7/8/2012 1:39:21 PM   
larryfulkerson


Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline 		There was some good news from Iloilo. 23 of his combat squads were disabled. I need to keep up the heat on this.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 459
RE: Parry vs. Spar Reluctant Admiral 4.2 - 7/8/2012 1:43:26 PM   
larryfulkerson


Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline 		That's an awful large discount of my Assault Value so I'm going to rest the troops a bit and try it again later.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 460
RE: Parry vs. Spar Reluctant Admiral 4.2 - 7/8/2012 1:47:59 PM   
larryfulkerson


Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline 		It's looking like Jim may have succeeded in pulling everybody back to Singers already. Except for a couple of places on the east coast. Well, good for him.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 461
RE: Parry vs. Spar Reluctant Admiral 4.2 - 7/8/2012 1:51:51 PM   
larryfulkerson


Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline 		I have turned off the combat attacking at Ambon because of this result from our DA.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 462
RE: Parry vs. Spar Reluctant Admiral 4.2 - 7/8/2012 1:55:24 PM   
larryfulkerson


Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline 		Kendari fell finally:




Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 463
RE: Parry vs. Spar Reluctant Admiral 4.2 - 7/8/2012 1:58:59 PM   
larryfulkerson


Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline 		And the best news so far this turn: Balikpapan fell. Good deal.





Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 464
RE: Parry vs. Spar Reluctant Admiral 4.2 - 7/8/2012 4:24:06 PM   
geofflambert


Posts: 14863
Joined: 12/23/2010
From: St. Louis
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: larryfulkerson
Jim and I don't have a house rule that says single-ship TF's are prohibited, and besides if it was *MY* TF being attacked like in this
case I'm pretty sure that I'd do exactly the same thing. This kind of move on Jim's part shows how realisticlly he desires to play this
game and I'm all for that.


I'm pretty sure most of the house rules in this regard involve screening carrier groups with single ship AK or AKL TFs. I don't think many have a problem with scattering whether under attack by sea or air.

(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 465
RE: Parry vs. Spar Reluctant Admiral 4.2 - 7/8/2012 7:32:51 PM   
moore4807


Posts: 1089
Joined: 6/2/2000
From: Punta Gorda FL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert


quote:

ORIGINAL: larryfulkerson
Jim and I don't have a house rule that says single-ship TF's are prohibited, and besides if it was *MY* TF being attacked like in this
case I'm pretty sure that I'd do exactly the same thing. This kind of move on Jim's part shows how realisticlly he desires to play this
game and I'm all for that.


I'm pretty sure most of the house rules in this regard involve screening carrier groups with single ship AK or AKL TFs. I don't think many have a problem with scattering whether under attack by sea or air.



Yeah I thought I was being slick - sending a four ship TF ahead of the 8 ship TF, I figured one of two would make it to Pago Pago.
Little did I expect to find his KB sitting in the SWOPAC/CENPAC area - I figured he would be supporting Port Moresby or Australia ops...

K.I.S.S.!!! 50K of supply is cost of lesson learned!

_____________________________


(in reply to geofflambert)
Post #: 466
RE: Parry vs. Spar Reluctant Admiral 4.2 - 7/9/2012 12:08:26 AM   
larryfulkerson


Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline 		Here's a list of my subs. Almost all of them have some kind of damage or other. Four or five of them are heading for repair yards and the rest are going to eventually have to do the same I figure.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to moore4807)
Post #: 467
RE: Parry vs. Spar Reluctant Admiral 4.2 - 7/9/2012 12:34:31 AM   
larryfulkerson


Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline 		Jim has turned Cagayan into a fortress. I'm going to have to gather up all the troops I have left over at this point in time in the PI southern islands just to try to reduce this one place. That's going to slow down the invading on the islands of Java and put me severely behind schedule. Maybe I should do a siege here as well as in the more northern places ( Manila ) and just put enough people to hold it for now and do some ship bombardments, sweeps (ugh, please no ), and some ....hummmmmm....... maybe I should just let this place run outta supply and grab it on the cheap a year from now or something. Decisions, decisions......

EDIT: How do you cut off the supply to a port city like Cagayan? And more important, how does one decrease the supply level of an enemy port city? Sispect it has something to do with bombardment via ship and air. Too much enemy air power present to safely do an air bombardment. That leaves bombardment via ship. I'll have to start planning something clever to do this "Operation Cebu Reduction".






Attachment (1)

< Message edited by larryfulkerson -- 7/9/2012 12:40:24 AM >

(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 468
RE: Parry vs. Spar Reluctant Admiral 4.2 - 7/9/2012 1:11:12 AM   
larryfulkerson


Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline 		Jim has a couple of ships headed NW from north Aus. I'm moving a sub to the area where he's headed just to try to counter his move. I don't remember right off the top of my head where my CA's and CL's are right now, not to mention the CVL, CVE, and CV's that might be available nearby......I don't have everything memorized yet. Plus Rob's game is very very similar to this game so it's hard to keep the two games separated in my head. I'm kinda using data from both of them at the same time in the way I play. I mean that's possible......I'm not doing it consciously of course. I'm saying I'm having to allow for the possibility that that's what's happening: that I'm playing both games at the same time each time I do my moves, either for Jim or Rob. It's possible, probably probable. So I'm going to double check everything and keep my memory dynamic. I'll have to.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 469
RE: Parry vs. Spar Reluctant Admiral 4.2 - 7/9/2012 1:56:51 AM   
larryfulkerson


Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline 		I've got a small group of damaged ships that were based at Wake and I decided to round them up and send them to get fixed at the home islands. I emptied the AO at Wake before they departed and I don't anticipate any problems with them arriving in the HI's. They used to be the surface combat force based at Wake and so now there's not much at Wake to repel an Allied invasion. I hope Jim hasn't got any adventurous plans with his carriers or anything. Hint, hint.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by larryfulkerson -- 7/9/2012 1:57:16 AM >

(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 470
RE: Parry vs. Spar Reluctant Admiral 4.2 - 7/9/2012 2:03:24 AM   
larryfulkerson


Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline 		I snuck into a port near Soerabaja and got the intell that there's about 10 PT boats there at Soerabaja and not much else. Having gotten that piece of information I think I'll try to sneak my sub out of there.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 471
RE: Parry vs. Spar Reluctant Admiral 4.2 - 7/9/2012 2:11:30 AM   
larryfulkerson


Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline 		Some more information about Soerabaja:

EDIT: Plus there's a repair yard there, which is invaluable for the Japs.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by larryfulkerson -- 7/9/2012 2:12:39 AM >

(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 472
RE: Parry vs. Spar Reluctant Admiral 4.2 - 7/9/2012 2:21:40 AM   
larryfulkerson


Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline 		I've got a BB and 3 DD's headed to Wake but it'll be close to a week before they get close to the port there.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 473
RE: Parry vs. Spar Reluctant Admiral 4.2 - 7/9/2012 2:32:54 AM   
larryfulkerson


Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline 		I've located what may or may not be an Allied CVE in or near Brisbane and if it IS a CVE then it's worth pursuing with one or more of my carriers. I'll pull the Shokaku or one of the other CV's off line and make the trip over here to check it out. I'll even run one or more of my nearby subs into the port there to take a look.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 474
RE: Parry vs. Spar Reluctant Admiral 4.2 - 7/9/2012 2:40:39 AM   
larryfulkerson


Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline 		Totally off topic and besides the point of this AAR......I just now went to the web site depicted in the very bottom line of this AAR page and found out that for less than $40 a person can purchase some forum software to run a site like this one. I'd do it but I don't have a static IP address.....you'd need one of those for the DNS name to point to the same place all the time. Century Link is my ISP and they assign me a new IP address every day. I've looked into it with Century Link and for a small fee I can purchase a static IP address ( for like $5 or something each month ) and then be able to set up a forum or a web site of somekind with a forum but then I'd end up acting as the default web admin dude and the forum monitor etc. and that can add up to hours out of the day and I'd rather play WITP.

Just a thought.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 475
RE: Parry vs. Spar Reluctant Admiral 4.2 - 7/9/2012 2:52:05 AM   
larryfulkerson


Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline 		I lack a couple of AK's having enough ships to load up the INF unit and move it to Ambon. Ambon is having a tough time of it and can use some extra hands to go around. I'll look around and see if there's not an AK or two not doing anything important that I can use.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 476
RE: Parry vs. Spar Reluctant Admiral 4.2 - 7/9/2012 2:57:58 AM   
larryfulkerson


Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline 		I've got 2 CV's and 3 CVL's headed for the Singkawang area to help support the Palembang effort. I need to grab Palembang as early as I can before he (Jim ) turns it into a fortress that I can't take. It's probably already too late. Better late than never.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 477
RE: Parry vs. Spar Reluctant Admiral 4.2 - 7/9/2012 3:20:10 AM   
larryfulkerson


Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline 		I've finally gotten the 8th Tank Rgt loaded on ships, I think I'll send them to Ambon to try to break the logjam. The Ambon dudes are outnumbered so this tank regiment might make a difference one way or another.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 478
RE: Parry vs. Spar Reluctant Admiral 4.2 - 7/9/2012 3:27:21 AM   
larryfulkerson


Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline 		I've even got some ships pulling resources and oil out of Hong Kong for the home islands. I gotta be careful and not let Hong Kong run outta that kind of thing though. The light industry there ( 220(0) so far ) will need some of those resources.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 479
RE: Parry vs. Spar Reluctant Admiral 4.2 - 7/9/2012 3:37:27 AM   
larryfulkerson


Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline 		I'm mostly concentrating on getting my home island resources from Shikuka and oil from Port Arthur. But that's going to change when the refineries at Miri and Brunei and whereever else there are refineries are starting to output some oil. Plus there's a lot at Hong Kong that can be moved yet. I'm hoping Palembang doesn't get roughed up by Jim's Allied air power. Some B-17's or other kind of bomber could wreck the oil refineries there and put me out of business oil-wise.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 480
Page:   <<   < prev  14 15 [16] 17 18   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: Parry vs. Spar Reluctant Admiral 4.2 Page: <<   < prev  14 15 [16] 17 18   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.813