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: 09Jan42 Moo v. Fulkerson

 
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: 09Jan42 Moo v. Fulkerson Page: <<   < prev  22 23 [24] 25 26   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: 09Jan42 Moo v. Fulkerson - 7/22/2012 11:50:25 PM   
larryfulkerson


Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline 		I've got a TF bringing more ground troops to Clark Field even as we speak.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 691
RE: 09Jan42 Moo v. Fulkerson - 7/22/2012 11:53:11 PM   
larryfulkerson


Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline 		I've also got a TF bringing troops to Manila as well. So I'll be able to get better odds in the future. Maybe.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 692
RE: 09Jan42 Moo v. Fulkerson - 7/22/2012 11:59:24 PM   
larryfulkerson


Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline 		The Allies did a bombardment of my forces on the ground at Paley and I'm pretty sure not much resulted in the way of damage.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 693
RE: 09Jan42 Moo v. Fulkerson - 7/23/2012 12:03:08 AM   
larryfulkerson


Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline 		I hope those FIRES at Palembang don't grow out of control and do a lot of damage. I guess I'm through bombarding now.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 694
RE: 09Jan42 Moo v. Fulkerson - 7/23/2012 1:08:18 AM   
larryfulkerson


Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline 		Here's the strategic map of the situation as of 12Jan42:




Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 695
RE: 09Jan42 Moo v. Fulkerson - 7/23/2012 2:28:47 AM   
larryfulkerson


Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline 		The 66th Inf Rgt is now unloading on the PI staging for movement into Clark Field. I expect them to arrive there within the week.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 696
RE: 12Jan42 Moo v. Fulkerson - 7/24/2012 6:02:36 AM   
larryfulkerson


Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline 		Okie dokie........it's now Monday 23Jul2012 22:01 pm and I'm in possession of Jim's moves so I did the combat replay etc. and here's the combat results of 12Jan42:

Here's some Tracker alerts:




Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 697
RE: 12Jan42 Moo v. Fulkerson - 7/24/2012 6:07:22 AM   
larryfulkerson


Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline 		Here's a view of the Home Island's resource history. Oil is at a level almost where it was during the early war period.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 698
RE: 12Jan42 Moo v. Fulkerson - 7/24/2012 7:18:04 AM   
larryfulkerson


Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline 		Back in Dec of '41 I did a survey of my bases and set those to expand that were supposed to expand ( ports or airfields ) and sort of forgot about it. Maybe it's time I did another survey to find out whose expansion to turn off now, etc. Plus, check out the levels of fuel and supplies, if for nothing else to check out who needs supplies still and who needs fuel now and stuff. I guess Tracker would give me that same information but it's good for me to check out my bases periodically.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 699
RE: 12Jan42 Moo v. Fulkerson - 7/24/2012 7:24:15 AM   
larryfulkerson


Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline 		TF 8 is an AKE and escorts headed for Singkawang so I can use that base as a sort-of refit/rearm point in the near future. I plan on having an HQ there as well for the torps reload ability. I've converted a lot of AKL's to PB's and a lot of my TF's have escorts in them of one sort or another. I'm hoping that might make a difference in the number of ships that are getting sunk each turn by the Allied subs. I lost more ships on 12Jan42 than the Allies did and that's just wrong. LOL.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 700
RE: 12Jan42 Moo v. Fulkerson - 7/24/2012 8:16:00 AM   
larryfulkerson


Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline 		Jim has some ships fleeing to the West originating from Broome. Maybe I should chase them down. On the other hand they may just be little boys and not worth going after. What to do?




Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 701
RE: 12Jan42 Moo v. Fulkerson - 7/24/2012 4:12:41 PM   
moore4807


Posts: 1089
Joined: 6/2/2000
From: Punta Gorda FL
Status: offline 		OK, this may be a whiny complaint - and not against Larry either...
How can Larry "see" all three TF's leaving Broome when he clearly doesn't have a ship any closer than 8 hexes away (thus out of float plane range), and more than 13 hexes away from the nearest base? I'm also able to see some things I shouldn't, but chalked it up to coastwatchers - these ships are two hexes out at sea! If I have any complaint about this great game its that we "see" too much of our opponent - there should be more of a "ghost" quality of play where ships are concerned. Or am I just being too nit picky???

PS. Please remember that this is my first game against a live opponent, all my others have been against the A.I. - so Ive never "seen" the other side of things... I'm going to leave this post, but I'm second guessing how it reads now that I wrote it.

< Message edited by moore4807 -- 7/24/2012 4:32:28 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 702
RE: 12Jan42 Moo v. Fulkerson - 7/24/2012 4:26:46 PM   
moore4807


Posts: 1089
Joined: 6/2/2000
From: Punta Gorda FL
Status: offline 		AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Jan 11, 42
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Larry's subs continue to sink valuable ships right at my front door...

Submarine attack near San Francisco at 217,72
Japanese Ships
SS I-26

Allied Ships
TK Mobilfuel, Torpedo hits 1, heavy fires

TK Mobilfuel is sighted by SS I-26
SS I-26 launches 2 torpedoes

Larry included in his email turn that I outnumbered him at Palembang...obviously looking at me to try an attack... He actually outnumbers me by around 1K.
I still may attack but it will be foolhardy. Larry also has at least 2CV in his TF nearby. So I will be taking casualties from the air too.

Ground combat at Palembang (48,91)
Allied Bombardment attack
Attacking force 976 troops, 6 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 58
Defending force 4282 troops, 37 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 146

Assaulting units:
So.Sumatra Garrison Battalion
Djambi Base Force
Palembang Base Force

Defending units:
4th/A Div /1


Japanese forces CAPTURE Ambon !!!
Japanese forces CAPTURE Kolaka !!!
Japanese forces CAPTURE Babar !!!

_____________________________


(in reply to moore4807)
Post #: 703
RE: 12Jan42 Moo v. Fulkerson - 7/24/2012 4:49:34 PM   
House Stark

 

Posts: 184
Joined: 4/30/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: moore4807

OK, this may be a whiny complaint - and not against Larry either...
How can Larry "see" all three TF's leaving Broome when he clearly doesn't have a ship any closer than 8 hexes away (thus out of float plane range), and more than 13 hexes away from the nearest base? I'm also able to see some things I shouldn't, but chalked it up to coastwatchers - these ships are two hexes out at sea! If I have any complaint about this great game its that we "see" too much of our opponent - there should be more of a "ghost" quality of play where ships are concerned. Or am I just being too nit picky???

PS. Please remember that this is my first game against a live opponent, all my others have been against the A.I. - so Ive never "seen" the other side of things... I'm going to leave this post, but I'm second guessing how it reads now that I wrote it.

I'm pretty sure Jakes have a range of 10/8, so if Larry's using them at extended range they might have spotted those ships. Also, the Japanese occasionally get notified of ships via SigInt, even though it happens far less than for the Allies.

(in reply to moore4807)
Post #: 704
RE: 12Jan42 Moo v. Fulkerson - 7/24/2012 5:36:58 PM   
larryfulkerson


Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline 		House Stark is absolutely correct. I parked a CS with 24 floatplanes north of Broome and my Jakes indeed can see that far. So I'm scooping out Broome from the air. All is well with the game, no bugs or anomolies.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by larryfulkerson -- 7/24/2012 5:37:58 PM >

(in reply to House Stark)
Post #: 705
RE: 12Jan42 Moo v. Fulkerson - 7/24/2012 8:05:09 PM   
moore4807


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

Thank you House Stark... D'oh... I was looking at Petes with the 4/3 range... My Bad!
Nice Job Larry - I never even thought you could pack 24 recon aircraft on a CS ship. I learn something new every day!

_____________________________


(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 706
RE: 12Jan42 Moo v. Fulkerson - 7/26/2012 7:47:24 AM   
larryfulkerson


Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline 		Okie dokie.....it's Wed. 25July2012 23:46 and I'm in possession of Jim's moves and this is the latest combat results ( 13Jan42 )

Here's some Tracker alerts:




Attachment (1)

(in reply to moore4807)
Post #: 707
RE: 12Jan42 Moo v. Fulkerson - 7/26/2012 7:50:19 AM   
larryfulkerson


Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline 		And here's the Tracker economic chart :




Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 708
RE: 12Jan42 Moo v. Fulkerson - 7/26/2012 7:59:25 AM   
larryfulkerson


Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline 		Here's the resource history for the Japanese Home Islands. It's doing pretty well overall I'm guessing.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 709
RE: 12Jan42 Moo v. Fulkerson - 7/26/2012 8:07:31 AM   
larryfulkerson


Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline 		I'm producing only about 100 Zero's per month and I would have thought I might need something like 300. Anybody have a really good
idea how many Zero's I should be pumping out? Also, I've got a lot of factories in repair mode still. So um......do I have to have 10K
supplies in each of the repairing cities to get them to repair? Maybe that's why there's so many cities in repair mode.......I'll have to look
into that. It's time for a monthly city-by-city review any way.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by larryfulkerson -- 7/26/2012 8:08:10 AM >

(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 710
RE: 12Jan42 Moo v. Fulkerson - 7/26/2012 8:20:13 AM   
larryfulkerson


Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline 		Jim's got some transports, I guess, headed SW near Tarawa......maybe I should try to chase them down and sink 'em.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 711
RE: 13Jan42 Moo v. Fulkerson - 7/26/2012 8:25:39 AM   
larryfulkerson


Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline 		The Palembang Invasion TF's' landed there while there were still at least 36 mines in the Allied minefield. That's interesting that only 1 ship ( a DD ) hit a mine. I wonder how many more mines there are.......the minefield dot is still showing on the map.

EDIT: I estimate that I've cleared about 50 mines already including previous turns and this episode. And 1 sunk DD.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by larryfulkerson -- 7/26/2012 8:27:20 AM >

(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 712
RE: 13Jan42 Moo v. Fulkerson - 7/26/2012 8:30:41 AM   
larryfulkerson


Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline 		Here's the first of several surface contacts that occured last night and today so far.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 713
RE: 13Jan42 Moo v. Fulkerson - 7/26/2012 8:34:14 AM   
larryfulkerson


Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline 		SS Plumbers helper is still making a nusiance of himself. I just can't seem to make him go away. My ASW assets need a bunch more training or something I guess.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 714
RE: 13Jan42 Moo v. Fulkerson - 7/26/2012 8:39:55 AM   
larryfulkerson


Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline 		Dutch sub SS KX is being bothersome. He's missed one ship and hit another and I'm pretty sure the adventure and drama isn't over yet. I'm going to have to fly some ASW down there pretty quick to add to the DD's and PB's I already have available nearby.






Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 715
RE: 13Jan42 Moo v. Fulkerson - 7/26/2012 8:46:17 AM   
larryfulkerson


Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline 		So it turns out that Saigon and Cam Rahn Bay are popular tourist attractions for the Allied sailors, at least the silent corps. I count at
least 3 and possibly as many as 6 subs around this AO and I'm going to have to fly some more ASW in there to help out the SC's and
PB's I have patrolling around there already. If I can't sail any damaged ships into Saigon then I'll have to send them all the way to Hong
Kong to get repaired. D'oh. Maybe Palembang has a repair yard. Lemme get back to you on that.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 716
RE: 13Jan42 Moo v. Fulkerson - 7/26/2012 8:49:52 AM   
larryfulkerson


Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline 		No repair yard at Palembang.....drat. It's a pain to have to send a ship 1/2 way around the world just to get it repaired. The Allies have a
lot of convient repair yards and his damaged ships don't have to go very far to get to them. That's one reason the Japs lost the war I
bet.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 717
RE: 13Jan42 Moo v. Fulkerson - 7/26/2012 8:53:12 AM   
larryfulkerson


Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline 		Here's the third of the several surface contacts....here I've bungled into a gaggle of Allied PT boats. Not much of a contest really.





Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 718
RE: 13Jan42 Moo v. Fulkerson - 7/26/2012 8:58:08 AM   
larryfulkerson


Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline 		I've got a squadron of Betty's at Rabaul that insists on going on unescorted raids into Port Moresby. I've stood them down to prevent that
happening anymore. Unless and until my CAP and escort(s) are in place I can't see making any more expensive raids to PM.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 719
RE: 13Jan42 Moo v. Fulkerson - 7/26/2012 9:13:25 AM   
larryfulkerson


Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline 		Operation Beat-Down at Clark Field is officially not working. This loss rate will have Allies on PI for the rest of the war. I've got troops
moving into Clark Field and Manila and I'm going to start doing deliberate attacks and or bombardments just as soon as the fatigue level
is lower than it is now.

EDIT: And by the way, and appropo of nothing at all, what's the record number of posts by a single person on this forum anyway?




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by larryfulkerson -- 7/26/2012 9:15:26 AM >

(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 720
Page:   <<   < prev  22 23 [24] 25 26   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: 09Jan42 Moo v. Fulkerson Page: <<   < prev  22 23 [24] 25 26   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

1.173