RE: Fulkerson vs Moore 12Mar42

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: Fulkerson vs Moore 12Mar42

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: Fulkerson vs Moore 12Mar42

Page: << < prev 27 28 [29] 30 31 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Fulkerson vs Moore 12Mar42 - 12/17/2012 12:52:13 AM

larryfulkerson

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

This is Darwin now. It's lost almost half it's Resource Centers so far. There's a fair amount of airfield damage and as soon as I get my
AO into position there may be some more airfield damage as we continue the naval bombardment. I'm traveling all the way from
Koepang to Darwin and can make one trip in about a day and a half, say two days round trip. Makes me want to rethink what I'm doing.
So since the BB can't park at Koepang I need an AO somewhere in it's path to refuel it. Dude's almost in position now. Back in business.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)

Post #: 841

RE: Fulkerson vs Moore 12Mar42 - 12/17/2012 2:51:59 AM

larryfulkerson

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

This is me turning off the repair of the Light Industry and the Resource Centers at Zamboanga. I'm doing this so that the engineers will
tend to repair the port first. I'm aiming on getting those ships free from their imprisonment.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)

Post #: 842

RE: Fulkerson vs Moore 13Mar42 - 12/18/2012 5:51:46 AM

larryfulkerson

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

Jim and I have exchanged moves, I watched the movie and here's some fresh combat results:

This is the losses for the day.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)

Post #: 843

RE: Fulkerson vs Moore 13Mar42 - 12/18/2012 6:00:41 AM

larryfulkerson

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

And there was a collision of TF's at Kwajalein overnight.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)

Post #: 844

RE: Fulkerson vs Moore 13Mar42 - 12/18/2012 6:05:20 AM

larryfulkerson

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

This is the reason Jim invaded Kwajalein. He got a lot of good ships there.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)

Post #: 845

RE: Fulkerson vs Moore 13Mar42 - 12/18/2012 6:09:43 AM

larryfulkerson

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

And this attack happened within minutes of the previous one:

Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)

Post #: 846

RE: Fulkerson vs Moore 13Mar42 - 12/18/2012 6:14:51 AM

larryfulkerson

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

And then this attack happened. I'm running out of DD's still combat worthy. I hope Jim is too.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)

Post #: 847

RE: Fulkerson vs Moore 13Mar42 - 12/18/2012 6:18:04 AM

larryfulkerson

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

And then the Allies attack my troops at Port Moresby:

Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)

Post #: 848

RE: Fulkerson vs Moore 13Mar42 - 12/18/2012 6:21:41 AM

larryfulkerson

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

And then there was a Jap raid on Georgetown and we got some hits:

Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)

Post #: 849

RE: Fulkerson vs Moore 13Mar42 - 12/18/2012 6:23:53 AM

larryfulkerson

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

And then the Japs did a day-time raid on Darwin:

Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)

Post #: 850

RE: Fulkerson vs Moore 13Mar42 - 12/18/2012 6:26:55 AM

larryfulkerson

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

And then the Japs did this raid on Singapore:

Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)

Post #: 851

RE: Fulkerson vs Moore 13Mar42 - 12/18/2012 6:29:35 AM

larryfulkerson

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

And then the Allies attack me at Kluong and did little damage:

Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)

Post #: 852

RE: Fulkerson vs Moore 13Mar42 - 12/18/2012 6:36:04 AM

larryfulkerson

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

And then Brisbane sees a Jap carrier strike on Allied shipping at Brisbane:

Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)

Post #: 853

RE: Fulkerson vs Moore 13Mar42 - 12/18/2012 6:38:40 AM

larryfulkerson

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

And then there's a small carrier air strike near Kwajalein:

Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)

Post #: 854

RE: Fulkerson vs Moore 13Mar42 - 12/18/2012 6:41:23 AM

larryfulkerson

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

And then Allied B-17's attack my CV. Time to move the CV somewhere else.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)

Post #: 855

RE: Fulkerson vs Moore 13Mar42 - 12/18/2012 6:44:57 AM

larryfulkerson

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

Here's how it went on the ground at Manila:

Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)

Post #: 856

RE: Fulkerson vs Moore 13Mar42 - 12/18/2012 6:48:15 AM

larryfulkerson

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

And for those of you who insist on it, here's the combat report:

Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)

Post #: 857

RE: Fulkerson vs Moore 13Mar42 - 12/18/2012 7:30:54 AM

Puhis

Posts: 1737
Joined: 11/30/2008
From: Finland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: larryfulkerson

And then there's a small carrier air strike near Kwajalein:

Air operations of carriers at base/dot hex are significantly reduced, did you know that? This rule applies to CVs and CVLs. Only CVEs can operate planes at base hex without penalty. So it's better to keep carriers out of base hex if you want to use their planes...

(in reply to larryfulkerson)

Post #: 858

RE: Fulkerson vs Moore 13Mar42 - 12/18/2012 10:22:04 AM

larryfulkerson

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Puhis
Air operations of carriers at base/dot hex are significantly reduced, did you know that? This rule applies to CVs and CVLs. Only CVEs can operate planes at base hex without penalty. So it's better to keep carriers out of base hex if you want to use their planes...

I did not know that Puhis dude. Thanks for saying something because I DO indeed have the CV's in a base hex. D'oh. Well, now I know.
I was kinda wondering where the rest of the carriers planes were.

(in reply to Puhis)

Post #: 859

RE: Fulkerson vs Moore 13Mar42 - 12/18/2012 3:22:11 PM

larryfulkerson

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

I got a radio intercept from Sydney and all of a sudden these 5 Allied ships pop up on the radar screen. I may have to direct the CV down
to Sydney to pay these guys a visit.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)

Post #: 860

RE: Fulkerson vs Moore 13Mar42 - 12/19/2012 12:19:22 AM

larryfulkerson

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

SC CH-4# is in the same hex as an Allied sub unescorted and she's got no ASW and I'm leaving it in the hex because I'm hoping that the
sub expends torps on the SC rather than a more expensive ship, of which there are many in the hex. I'm using the SC as bait so that she
can use her outstanding manuevering ability to make a torp miss her and even though the surface fight might not be equal CH-4 could
easily damage a sub and a damaged sub is good news right now. So I'll leave her there for now.

(in reply to larryfulkerson)

Post #: 861

RE: Fulkerson vs Moore 13Mar42 - 12/19/2012 12:20:57 AM

larryfulkerson

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

Tokyo is getting low on fuel. And there's an awful lot of traffic that is going to continue to pass through there for the next 30 days and I'll
need fuel for all that........I'm going to put a temporary moratorium on the export of fuel from Tokyo. I'll still send supplies out of course
and the goal is to have about 500K of fuel in Tokyo again as the "working level" for this hub in the pipeline. I'm guessing that Tokyo will
have 500K of fuel in about 2.5 weeks or so. There's a huge refinery in Tokyo: 265(45) so far w/ repair turned on so maybe we'll see
more yet out of Tokyo......anyway, there's fuel coming into Tokyo fast enough to gimme that 500K figure again soon.

(in reply to larryfulkerson)

Post #: 862

RE: Fulkerson vs Moore 13Mar42 - 12/19/2012 12:22:40 AM

larryfulkerson

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

I probably shouldn't be doing this but I stripped off the BB from the Air Combat TF and some of the carriers escorts and made an ad hoc
Surface TF to charge back into the Kwajalein hex and see if I can't cause some carnage. Manufacture some mayheim.

< Message edited by larryfulkerson -- 12/19/2012 12:23:20 AM >

(in reply to larryfulkerson)

Post #: 863

RE: Fulkerson vs Moore 13Mar42 - 12/19/2012 9:31:43 AM

larryfulkerson

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

This is a list of all the TK's I own. Last time I took a picture like this the overwhelming majority of the ships were empty and this time I'm
seeing a lot more TK's carrying fuel and oil. And there's not a lot of damage that needs to be fixed either. Both are good signs. And to
top it off, all the TK's are in a task force and moving somewhere not parked at a port somewhere.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)

Post #: 864

RE: Fulkerson vs Moore 13Mar42 - 12/19/2012 2:37:05 PM

larryfulkerson

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

I'm working on finding some more Allied ships on the East Coast of Oz and I'm working my way south and it looks like it's time to move the
CV group south a little more and doing that is probably going to run the CV's low on gas so I'm going to run this AO closer in to the action
and more into a position to support the CV's. It looks like this little operation is going to take a lot more gas until it's finished, I'd best run
some fuel down here from Truk or bubble drop or somewhere because it's going to get thursty around here.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)

Post #: 865

RE: Fulkerson vs Moore 13Mar42 - 12/19/2012 3:38:26 PM

larryfulkerson

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

I've got a CV group working on the Allied ships at Brisbane and I just now noticed that there are some Allied ships at Sydney as well. So
I'm sending an AO south to help support. The CV may not have enough sorties left to take care of all these ships and I may have to
make trips trusting Jim not to move his ships in the meantime. Not a good working hypothesis. Maybe I could strip off a CV from another
group somewhere and send it here to take care of the ships left over. Yeah, that could work. I'll look around.......see what's available.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)

Post #: 866

RE: Fulkerson vs Moore 13Mar42 - 12/19/2012 4:52:27 PM

witpqs

Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: larryfulkerson

quote:

ORIGINAL: Puhis
Air operations of carriers at base/dot hex are significantly reduced, did you know that? This rule applies to CVs and CVLs. Only CVEs can operate planes at base hex without penalty. So it's better to keep carriers out of base hex if you want to use their planes...

I did not know that Puhis dude. Thanks for saying something because I DO indeed have the CV's in a base hex. D'oh. Well, now I know.
I was kinda wondering where the rest of the carriers planes were.

IIRC I raised that issue once - and was corrected in that it used to be that way in WITP but no longer in AE. My memory on the matter might be imperfect so it's best to put the query out there in the main AE forum.

_____________________________

Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/view/staffmonkeys/home

(in reply to larryfulkerson)

Post #: 867

RE: Fulkerson vs Moore 13Mar42 - 12/19/2012 5:44:32 PM

larryfulkerson

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: larryfulkerson

quote:

ORIGINAL: Puhis
Air operations of carriers at base/dot hex are significantly reduced, did you know that? This rule applies to CVs and CVLs. Only CVEs can operate planes at base hex without penalty. So it's better to keep carriers out of base hex if you want to use their planes...

I did not know that Puhis dude. Thanks for saying something because I DO indeed have the CV's in a base hex. D'oh. Well, now I know.
I was kinda wondering where the rest of the carriers planes were.

IIRC I raised that issue once - and was corrected in that it used to be that way in WITP but no longer in AE. My memory on the matter might be imperfect so it's best to put the query out there in the main AE forum.

No need for a query really. I will believe just about anything you tell me. So if air ops are reduced at dot/base hexes according to you
then I believe it. It is correlated with the significantly lower number of planes in the last carrier raid(s) I did near Kwajalien lately.

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 868

RE: Fulkerson vs Moore 13Mar42 - 12/19/2012 10:30:21 PM

larryfulkerson

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

So Jim and I exchanged moves and here's some fresh combat results: First of all there was this night-time surface conflict that got
everything started: