RE: 28Jan42 Moo v. Fulkerson

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: 28Jan42 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: 28Jan42 Moo v. Fulkerson

Page: << < prev 38 39 [40] 41 42 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: 28Jan42 Moo v. Fulkerson - 9/8/2012 6:42:10 PM

larryfulkerson

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

You may remember from yesterday that Jim had pushed a sub through my mine field into the port at Makasaar and I finally found a DD
who knows how to use his DC's. The Hatsuyuki got some hits on the sub. Now we're making headway.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)

Post #: 1171

RE: 29Jan42 Moo v. Fulkerson - 9/8/2012 6:50:50 PM

larryfulkerson

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

Just west of Singkawang there was another ASW battle and we got some hits on another sub. Maybe it'll go away now.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)

Post #: 1172

RE: 29Jan42 Moo v. Fulkerson - 9/8/2012 6:54:55 PM

larryfulkerson

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

A squadron of Betty's had something to say about the P.M. battle but their contribution didn't seem to have much effect. I'm guessing
that the Allied unit needs some more of the same.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)

Post #: 1173

RE: 29Jan42 Moo v. Fulkerson - 9/8/2012 7:02:00 PM

larryfulkerson

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

I've been saving the pages of this AAR as a file on my hard drive and archiving them so that there will be a record even after Matrix Games deletes it. I have made ready the next installment of this AAR, pages 30 through 39, and you can download it if you'd wish.

Pages 30 through 39 of the stand alone AAR

< Message edited by larryfulkerson -- 9/8/2012 7:03:44 PM >

(in reply to larryfulkerson)

Post #: 1174

RE: 29Jan42 Moo v. Fulkerson - 9/8/2012 7:03:22 PM

larryfulkerson

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

My Sally's are still bothering the 22nd Indian Brigade as it tries to make it's way south from Kuantan to Singers.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)

Post #: 1175

RE: 29Jan42 Moo v. Fulkerson - 9/8/2012 7:08:33 PM

larryfulkerson

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

I could be wrong but I'm thinking that this is the first B-17 raid to have gotten some results. Somebody check me.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)

Post #: 1176

RE: 29Jan42 Moo v. Fulkerson - 9/8/2012 7:11:40 PM

larryfulkerson

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

Jim is still making his bombing raids on Zambo with his P-40's. I may have to do something about that but so far the damage has
been nill.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)

Post #: 1177

RE: 29Jan42 Moo v. Fulkerson - 9/8/2012 7:15:44 PM

larryfulkerson

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

If the Satsuki hadn't gone Winchester he might have gotten more than one hit. Just my luck I guess. I'll have him drop into Bandy to
rearm and get ready to go out again.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by larryfulkerson -- 9/8/2012 7:16:21 PM >

(in reply to larryfulkerson)

Post #: 1178

RE: 29Jan42 Moo v. Fulkerson - 9/8/2012 7:22:51 PM

larryfulkerson

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

Oops. I was expecting Mataram to be empty and it's not. Now I'll have to figure out whether or not to reinforce my dudes or just keep
landing stuff to the west. I'll have to think about it some more.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)

Post #: 1179

RE: 29Jan42 Moo v. Fulkerson - 9/8/2012 7:22:56 PM

geofflambert

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

In my limited experience "and is sunk" without any cause listed before it means the ship was damaged in an earlier attack and just sank in front of the eyes of your B-17 crew when they happened to be flying over making one more futile B-17 vs. ship attack. Was that ship attacked earlier by something else?

(in reply to larryfulkerson)

Post #: 1180

RE: 29Jan42 Moo v. Fulkerson - 9/8/2012 11:16:26 PM

larryfulkerson

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert
In my limited experience "and is sunk" without any cause listed before it means the ship was damaged in an earlier attack and just sank in front of the eyes of your B-17 crew when they happened to be flying over making one more futile B-17 vs. ship attack. Was that ship attacked earlier by something else?

I did a cut and paste of all the combat events dealing with Port Moresby and here they are:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Invasion Support action off Port Moresby (98,130)
Defensive Guns engage approaching landing force

5 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.

Japanese Ships
xAK Nikki Maru
xAK Bordeaux Maru
xAK Yae Maru
xAP Kamo Maru

6" Mk XI/XII Gun Battery engaging xAK Nikki Maru at 6,000 yards
xAK Bordeaux Maru fired at enemy troops
xAK Yae Maru fired at enemy troops
xAP Kamo Maru fired at enemy troops
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pre-Invasion action off Port Moresby (98,130)

72 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.

Japanese Ships
xAK Hokuan Maru, Shell hits 7, heavy fires, heavy damage
PB Heijo Maru
xAK Shirogane Maru

Japanese ground losses:
30 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 2 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

6" Mk V/VII Gun Battery engaging xAK Hokuan Maru at 12,000 yards
6" Mk XI/XII Gun Battery engaging xAK Hokuan Maru at 12,000 yards
6" Mk V/VII Gun Battery engaging xAK Hokuan Maru at 12,000 yards
6" Mk XI/XII Gun Battery engaging xAK Hokuan Maru at 12,000 yards
PB Heijo Maru fired at enemy troops
Defensive Guns fire at approaching troops in landing craft at 4,000 yards
Defensive Guns fire at approaching troops in landing craft at 2,000 yards
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amphibious Assault at Port Moresby (98,130)

TF 111 troops unloading over beach at Port Moresby, 98,130

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Invasion Support action off Port Moresby (98,130)
Defensive Guns engage approaching landing force

29 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.

Japanese Ships
xAK Hokuan Maru, Shell hits 22, heavy fires, heavy damage
PB Heijo Maru
xAK Shirogane Maru

6" Mk V/VII Gun Battery engaging xAK Hokuan Maru at 5,000 yards
6" Mk XI/XII Gun Battery engaging xAK Hokuan Maru at 5,000 yards
6" Mk V/VII Gun Battery engaging xAK Hokuan Maru at 5,000 yards
6" Mk XI/XII Gun Battery engaging xAK Hokuan Maru at 5,000 yards
6" Mk V/VII Gun Battery engaging xAK Hokuan Maru at 5,000 yards
6" Mk XI/XII Gun Battery engaging xAK Hokuan Maru at 5,000 yards
PB Heijo Maru fired at enemy troops

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Port Moresby Coastal Gun Battalion, at 98,130 (Port Moresby)

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid detected at 62 NM, estimated altitude 18,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 21 minutes

Japanese aircraft
G4M1 Betty x 14

No Japanese losses

Aircraft Attacking:
14 x G4M1 Betty bombing from 15000 feet
Ground Attack: 2 x 250 kg GP Bomb, 4 x 60 kg GP Bomb

Also attacking Port Moresby Brigade ...
Also attacking Port Moresby Coastal Gun Battalion ...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Port Moresby at 98,130

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid spotted at 5 NM, estimated altitude 18,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 1 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 4

Allied aircraft
B-17D Fortress x 2

No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
B-17D Fortress: 2 damaged

Japanese Ships
xAK Nishimi Maru
xAK Hokuan Maru, and is sunk

Aircraft Attacking:
2 x B-17D Fortress bombing from 15000 feet *
Naval Attack: 4 x 500 lb SAP Bomb
CAP engaged:
Chitose Ku S-1 with A6M2 Zero (4 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
(4 plane(s) diverted to support CAP in hex.)
4 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 20000
Raid is overhead

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ground combat at Port Moresby (98,130)

Allied Bombardment attack

Attacking force 4391 troops, 39 guns, 2 vehicles, Assault Value = 264

Defending force 4329 troops, 43 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 136

Japanese ground losses:
32 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 3 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled

Assaulting units:
Torres Strait Battalion
D Coy/NG Rifles
49th Australian Battalion
39th Australian Battalion
53rd Australian Battalion
Port Moresby Coastal Gun Battalion
Port Moresby Brigade
14th RAAF Base Force
15th RAAF Base Force

Defending units:
144th Infantry Regiment
5th Indpt SNLF Coy

And now you know as much as I ( we ) do.

< Message edited by larryfulkerson -- 9/8/2012 11:18:26 PM >

(in reply to geofflambert)

Post #: 1181

RE: 29Jan42 Moo v. Fulkerson - 9/8/2012 11:21:57 PM

moore4807

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

quote:

geofflambert
Larry, consider Tjilijap for your invasion. Probably not heavily defended and you can cut the rail lines between Batavia and Soerbaja quickly. Are you using a house rule of no invasions at non-base hexes? I'm not a fan of such, the Normandy landings were mostly in non-base hexes (of course they brought their own ports with them) but for division sized groups or less I don't see the justification.

No house rule - as a matter of fact we didn't use many house rules at all I remember three of the top of my head 1) No screening single ship picket TF's 2) no 4E bombers below 10K 3) agree to consult each other if we find anything during our game.

Yeah, Yeah I LIKE that idea, go for Tjilijap...

Surprise, surprise, surprise!!!

Cat situation: We did contact FOUR local adoption agencies including the SPCA of Camden County, the Animal Welfare Association, Gloucester Twp Animal Control, and Furrever Friends Adoption Agency. We were told all four are NOT accepting any cats due to overcrowding at the facilities. The Animal Control advised they were not trapping unless it was rabid or dangerous (=euthanasia) and the AWA was spaying/neutering free since we are a "targeted community" (ie; LOTSA apts = strays abound). The Animal Control officer says its the worst she's seen it in twenty years. . .
We have talked to the family down the street about the cat population but they seem uninterested in population control. . . So we have been doing what we can over the past three months and the AWA staff even recognizes us when we walk in now. we are getting 1-2 cats there per month, and doing what we can. There is a large (10+ Acres) wooded tract behind our development, and there must be dozens of cats living back there, I'm trying to convince my wife to give up the save the cats movement. just not too successfully.

Australia Air- I'm already doing the restricted flight zones and stacking altitudes for the P-40's. I have to disband the B-17s in Feb anyway so it was simply getting them some experience before losing them. I noticed in my A.I. games that taking on the Japanese with +30 exp fighters - if you had replacements the experience went up dramatically. I have one P-40 group that was on Port Moresby started at 38 exp and when I finally pulled them they were 63 exp in just over 1 month. and I still had 14 P-40's left out of 25. Stiff learning curve but caused the A.I all kinds of headaches since they didn't load up on Zeroes like a real player would. Good Advice though and thanks!

_____________________________

(in reply to geofflambert)

Post #: 1182

RE: 29Jan42 Moo v. Fulkerson - 9/8/2012 11:32:46 PM

larryfulkerson

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

My bombardment attack at Manila didn't quite go as I expected. I would rather not garner casualties from my attack(s). I guess this
situation calls for more airborne attacks. Too bad Bataan has a minefield......I'd really like to do some ship-to-shore bombardment.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)

Post #: 1183

RE: 29Jan42 Moo v. Fulkerson - 9/8/2012 11:43:23 PM

larryfulkerson

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

Here's the Cebu situation. Here's a place where I CAN do some ship-to-shore. Maybe it'll make a difference.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)

Post #: 1184

RE: 29Jan42 Moo v. Fulkerson - 9/8/2012 11:47:10 PM

larryfulkerson

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

I finally re-captured Singkawang. Maybe I'll just case down and destroy the Allied dudes that might try to take it back again. Just
because I can.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)

Post #: 1185

RE: 29Jan42 Moo v. Fulkerson - 9/8/2012 11:50:44 PM

larryfulkerson

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

Wau was empty so capturing it was no big deal. I think Jim has moved the defenders, if there were any, toward the Port Moresby area.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)

Post #: 1186

RE: 29Jan42 Moo v. Fulkerson - 9/9/2012 12:16:19 AM

larryfulkerson

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

I'm keeping a list of when I get moves from somebody and when I send them out since I forget to send them out so much and here it is:

Dude	       Received         Returned
------------------------------------
Jim		Wed pm		Fri am
Rob		Sat am		Sun am
Jim		Sat pm		Mon pm
Rob		Sun pm		Thur am
Jim		Tues am		Thur am
Rob		Tues pm		Wed  am
Rob		Wed pm		Fri am
Rob		Fri am		Sat am
Jim		Sat 01:52    
Rob		Sat 12:16

By the way.........what's the record for the number of ships somebody has had in one TF? Here's one that has 88 ships.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by larryfulkerson -- 9/9/2012 6:04:47 AM >

(in reply to larryfulkerson)

Post #: 1187

RE: 29Jan42 Moo v. Fulkerson - 9/9/2012 4:38:30 PM

moore4807

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

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Jan 28, 42
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Larry has posted most of the action shots, so I'll just provide a little commentary.

Port Moresby - Larry's invasion fleet landed. The CD guns wrecked one AK which only lost 30 troops from the report, we look to be about even in troop strength otherwise.

Pre-Invasion action off Port Moresby (98,130)
72 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.
Japanese Ships
xAK Hokuan Maru, Shell hits 7, heavy fires, heavy damage
PB Heijo Maru
xAK Shirogane Maru

Japanese ground losses:
30 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 2 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Invasion Support action off Port Moresby (98,130)
Defensive Guns engage approaching landing force
29 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.

Japanese Ships
xAK Hokuan Maru, Shell hits 22, heavy fires, heavy damage
PB Heijo Maru
xAK Shirogane Maru

Morning Air attack on Port Moresby Coastal Gun Battalion, at 98,130 (Port Moresby)
Weather in hex: Clear sky
Raid detected at 62 NM, estimated altitude 18,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 21 minutes

Japanese aircraft
G4M1 Betty x 14

No Japanese losses

Aircraft Attacking:
14 x G4M1 Betty bombing from 15000 feet
Ground Attack: 2 x 250 kg GP Bomb, 4 x 60 kg GP Bomb
Also attacking Port Moresby Brigade ...
Also attacking Port Moresby Coastal Gun Battalion ...

A wave from the missed bomb pushed over the gunwales to sink her. . .

Morning Air attack on TF, near Port Moresby at 98,130
Weather in hex: Clear sky
Raid spotted at 5 NM, estimated altitude 18,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 1 minutes
Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 4

Allied aircraft
B-17D Fortress x 2

No Japanese losses
Allied aircraft losses
B-17D Fortress: 2 damaged

Japanese Ships
xAK Nishimi Maru
xAK Hokuan Maru, and is sunk

Ground combat at Port Moresby (98,130)
Allied Bombardment attack
Attacking force 4391 troops, 39 guns, 2 vehicles, Assault Value = 264
Defending force 4329 troops, 43 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 136
Japanese ground losses:
32 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 3 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled

Assaulting units:
Torres Strait Battalion
D Coy/NG Rifles
49th Australian Battalion
39th Australian Battalion
53rd Australian Battalion
Port Moresby Coastal Gun Battalion
Port Moresby Brigade
14th RAAF Base Force
15th RAAF Base Force

Defending units:
144th Infantry Regiment
5th Indpt SNLF Coy

Sinkawing - Punjabi stay to fight! Punjabi warriors die heroically. . . symbolic gesture appreciated, the troops surviving to fight again would be even more appreciated!

Ground combat at Singkawang (56,88)
Japanese Deliberate attack
Attacking force 3495 troops, 23 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 119
Defending force 886 troops, 8 guns, 7 vehicles, Assault Value = 37
Japanese adjusted assault: 97
Allied adjusted defense: 3

Japanese assault odds: 32 to 1 (fort level 0)

Japanese forces CAPTURE Singkawang !!!

Larry's e-mail says his subs can't shoot straight, mine are suddenly vulnerable to D/C's. . .

ASW attack near Makassar at 65,106
Japanese Ships
DD Hatsuyuki
Allied Ships
SS KX, hits 6, heavy damage

ASW attack near Lingga at 52,88
Japanese Ships
PB Heiyo Maru
Allied Ships
SS KXVI, hits 3

ASW attack near Semarang at 55,98
Japanese Ships
DD Satsuki
Allied Ships
SS KXV, hits 1

This begs for an Allied shock attack, dont you think? it will get it over once and for all either way.
Ground combat at Cebu (80,86)
Japanese Bombardment attack
Attacking force 5719 troops, 72 guns, 24 vehicles, Assault Value = 223
Defending force 6569 troops, 74 guns, 102 vehicles, Assault Value = 141

Japanese ground losses:
10 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Allied ground losses:
49 casualties reported
Squads: 1 destroyed, 7 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Assaulting units:
I./33rd Inf Regt
I./4th Infantry Battalion
9th Infantry Regiment
III./4th Infantry Battalion
17th Medium Field Artillery Regiment

Defending units:
81st PA Infantry Division
Cebu USN Base Force

Ground combat at Cebu (80,86)
Allied Bombardment attack
Attacking force 3242 troops, 60 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 135
Defending force 6891 troops, 79 guns, 24 vehicles, Assault Value = 222

Assaulting units:
81st PA Infantry Division
Cebu USN Base Force

Defending units:
9th Infantry Regiment
I./33rd Inf Regt
I./4th Infantry Battalion
III./4th Infantry Battalion
17th Medium Field Artillery Regiment

Orphan Annie's radio program will be wordy tonight before she sings her song. . .
Japanese forces CAPTURE Singkawang !!!
Japanese forces CAPTURE Wau !!!
Japanese forces CAPTURE Palopo !!!
Japanese forces CAPTURE Endeh !!!

_____________________________

(in reply to larryfulkerson)

Post #: 1188

RE: 29Jan42 Moo v. Fulkerson - 9/11/2012 12:59:19 PM

larryfulkerson

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

Tuesday 9/11 04:42 a quick update on my thoughts of the game.

I figure I've captured about 80% of everything I'm going to capture during the game unless and until I go after Australia and I
haven't decided whether and to what extent to do that and the character of the game has changed for me. I'm already setting up
some shipping routes to convey the oil / resources to the home islands and I've decided that using the PB's as escorts has rendered
the speed of the various AK's irrevelant in that PB's are kinda slow anyway. So I find that I'm mixing and matching the various species
of AK's based on capacity instead of speed. I still haven't sorted out the needs of the bases w/ AF dudes and engineers generally but
I'm working on it. Palembang still needs both, Miri still needs engineers, etc. Mostly to fix the damage incurred during capture. Lots of
refineries and oil centers to fix at both places. Also, I'm going to look around for shipping engineers and move them to the ports with
the most traffic for higher efficiency and I still need to move some land based planes to better places based on mission need. All in all
things are going swimmingly.

I'm eyeing Darwin and thinking that I might have to start my invasion there if and when I get the pieces ready for it.....maybe in a
couple of months. I thought maybe of doing it in a couple of weeks but I don't think it's possible to get all the pieces together by then
( troops, ships, engineers, etc ). This is that something special I was talking about in my email to you Jim.

In the central Pacific area I haven't decided whether or not to grab bases further south of Tulagi. I was thinking that if and when I do
go that route that I'd almost have to grab everything down to Fiji to make it worth doing and I'm not sure I have enough troops to
spread out on all the bases inbetween Tulagi and Fiji unless and until Manila and Singapore fall.

I'm definately going to have to get something moving in China and start some moves toward Burma. I've been largely neglecting those
areas so far. All that need for garrisons and the lack of blue water in China is defining that area as a purely land war and I'm more of
a ships and planes blue water guy. So I'm going to start spending some time getting better organized in China. Other than that, when I
do my moves from now on it's mostly logistics I'm thinking of.

< Message edited by larryfulkerson -- 9/11/2012 1:05:57 PM >

(in reply to moore4807)

Post #: 1189

RE: 29Jan42 Moo v. Fulkerson - 9/11/2012 1:13:45 PM

larryfulkerson

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

I've started a collection of DMS ships at Bandy for operations in the Java area as the need for those ships might prove handy in the
invasions I'm thinking of doing. I'm guessing Jim has laid some surprises here and there around the Java island and I'm going to
probably need to use them to clear a path.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)

Post #: 1190

RE: 29Jan42 Moo v. Fulkerson - 9/11/2012 9:52:40 PM

larryfulkerson

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

I've begun experimenting with the search patterns of my ASW assets. Rather than just letting them sit in one hex and waiting for a sub
to happen by I've begun to give them a triangular search pattern. Anybody know if this is a good idea or not? Or if it's more efficient
or anything? Anybody have some experience with this way of doing things and want to speak out?

Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)

Post #: 1191

RE: 30Jan42 Moo v. Fulkerson - 9/13/2012 12:21:47 AM

larryfulkerson

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

Okie dokie.....it's 16:19 on Sep12 and I've just now received Jim's moves and did the combat replay etc. I've noticed that Tracker is
taking longer and longer to get itself started and I sort of expected that but the related Database file ( the .data file ) always seems to
be the same size. I'm wondering how many turns I can load into Tracker before it starts to hickup. Anybody know. I'm tempted to
delete the database files and start over so that the startup time isn't so long.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)

Post #: 1192

RE: 30Jan42 Moo v. Fulkerson - 9/13/2012 12:31:55 AM

larryfulkerson

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

It looks like Jim's tanks got to Clark Field before my boys could get there so I expect to lose that base tomorrow. I'm not sure what kind
of problem it will be to re-claim it from him but I'm pretty sure I can do that somehow.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)

Post #: 1193

RE: 30Jan42 Moo v. Fulkerson - 9/13/2012 12:39:54 AM

larryfulkerson

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

53rd/A finally arrived at Manila so I'm going to do some bombardment tomorrow......see what happens.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)

Post #: 1194

RE: 30Jan42 Moo v. Fulkerson - 9/13/2012 12:43:23 AM

larryfulkerson

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

Here's the latest losses:

Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)

Post #: 1195

RE: 30Jan42 Moo v. Fulkerson - 9/13/2012 12:46:07 AM

larryfulkerson

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

Here's the latest Japanese Tracker economic chart:

Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)

Post #: 1196

RE: 30Jan42 Moo v. Fulkerson - 9/13/2012 12:51:03 AM

larryfulkerson

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

It looks like Oil, supply, and resources are stabilized somewhat but the fuel level is still dropping. I may have to bump up fuel production
in the home islands again. I'm hoping the fuel from Palembang / Balilkpapan / Tarakan / Miri / Brunei will make up some of the fuel gap.
Other than that things are seemingly humming right along.