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: Battle for Korea

 
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: Battle for Korea Page: <<   < prev  119 120 [121] 122 123   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Battle for Korea - 2/8/2014 1:20:27 PM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 8262
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline
Just watched the entire replay. Again the Avengers saved the day. I´m starting to wonder if I would have been better off using the radar equipped SDB-5 instead. Does the radar effect target accuracy (dropping bombs) or just the chance to find target TFs?

Not a single Helldiver hit something that wasn´t already slowed by Torpedoes from the Avengers. The British Avengers II was the heroes of the day hitting no less then 6 undamaged enemy ships slowing them down for others.

God bless the queen!

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 3601
RE: Battle for Korea - 2/8/2014 1:43:34 PM   
Miller


Posts: 2226
Joined: 9/14/2004
From: Ashington, England.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: morejeffs

It does seem ridiculous that 200 Sam would perfectly protect a strike defended by 900 modern fighters... A total joke....


The CAP will no doubt have been "worn down" by numerous earlier raids. Of course its still a silly result that they hardly touched the bombers.

(in reply to morejeffs)
Post #: 3602
RE: Battle for Korea - 2/8/2014 1:52:51 PM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 8262
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Miller


quote:

ORIGINAL: morejeffs

It does seem ridiculous that 200 Sam would perfectly protect a strike defended by 900 modern fighters... A total joke....


The CAP will no doubt have been "worn down" by numerous earlier raids. Of course its still a silly result that they hardly touched the bombers.


Actually it was only 2 smaller raids before that one. As indicated in my post this is not the first time something like this has happened. I don´t know what kind of setting Erik uses but its certainly effective!

Same thing cost me dearly a month ago! Then the CAP was something like 1800 Fighters. One strike just sailed right through most of the CAP knocking out 1000 Allied CV plane capacity!

(in reply to Miller)
Post #: 3603
RE: Battle for Korea - 2/8/2014 1:59:34 PM   
Captain Cruft


Posts: 3652
Joined: 3/17/2004
From: England
Status: offline
That Italian guy was right - the "bomber will always get through". It is clear to me that this is a design decision, and one I agree with. The impenetrable CAP of WitP made for a very dull and desperate late-war game for Japan.

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 3604
RE: Battle for Korea - 2/8/2014 2:04:15 PM   
koniu


Posts: 2763
Joined: 2/28/2011
From: Konin, Poland, European Union
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

Same thing cost me dearly a month ago! Then the CAP was something like 1800 Fighters. One strike just sailed right through most of the CAP knocking out 1000 Allied CV plane capacity!


Imagine how this will look if You are still playing latest official patch and not beta.
Coordination bug of LBA will probably create 2 or 3 more planes waves that also will get trough CAP. It will cost You 3k capacity not 1k


< Message edited by koniu -- 2/8/2014 3:05:23 PM >


_____________________________

"Only the Dead Have Seen the End of War"

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 3605
RE: Battle for Korea - 2/8/2014 2:31:52 PM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 8262
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Captain Cruft

That Italian guy was right - the "bomber will always get through". It is clear to me that this is a design decision, and one I agree with. The impenetrable CAP of WitP made for a very dull and desperate late-war game for Japan.


I´m not saying its a bad thing per see but I don´t like how Escorts can completely shield the bombers. If 200 Fighters is enough to completely shield the strike planes that can lead to disproportionate situations when even a very small CV force can totally annihilate a much, much stronger force. Or at least cause crippling losses. Pretty much the same problem as in the GJ/radar game.

I don´t know if Erik has found some "golden setting" but I have never managed to come close to what he does with his alpha strike. They always come through unmolested. I actually had MORE escorts then Erik had but he still shot down a big number of strike planes before the airphase was done. Could also be just a fluke that Erik managed to pass the right rolls the last three CV battles.

Still very happy with todays result!



< Message edited by JocMeister -- 2/8/2014 3:38:32 PM >

(in reply to Captain Cruft)
Post #: 3606
RE: Battle for Korea - 2/8/2014 2:33:00 PM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 8262
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: koniu

quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

Same thing cost me dearly a month ago! Then the CAP was something like 1800 Fighters. One strike just sailed right through most of the CAP knocking out 1000 Allied CV plane capacity!


Imagine how this will look if You are still playing latest official patch and not beta.
Coordination bug of LBA will probably create 2 or 3 more planes waves that also will get trough CAP. It will cost You 3k capacity not 1k



Yeah, the game would be pretty much unplayable without the BETA. Nothing could come close to any level 9 AF without getting wiped out in the official.

(in reply to koniu)
Post #: 3607
RE: Battle for Korea - 2/8/2014 3:12:37 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
I don't see escort totally shield bombers very much. I think it was just a combination of factors plus chance. I presume those were all his best pilots??

_____________________________


(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 3608
RE: Battle for Korea - 2/8/2014 3:17:30 PM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 8262
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

I don't see escort totally shield bombers very much. I think it was just a combination of factors plus chance. I presume those were all his best pilots??


It might be. But it would be odd to "waste" the best pilots on Escort wouldn´t it? But it could be an deliberate tactics of course which might explain his success in the last couple of CV clashes.

Personally I only use "cannonfodder" (50 EXP/70Air/70 DEF) for escorts which could of course explain that my fighters wern´t so successful in shielding the strike planes.

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 3609
RE: Battle for Korea - 2/8/2014 3:19:56 PM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 8262
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline
Probably won´t get the turn back today. Erik is a bit out of shape after partying hard last night and I´m a bit out of shape after doing some renovating work.

Not hard to guess who is the family father!

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 3610
RE: Battle for Korea - 2/8/2014 3:20:49 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
If the objective is to get the bombers through, the chances of doing that are better with the best fighter pilots. What is the game date? In 1942 it might make sense to save the best pilots for later, but now, what is later?

I only presume they were among the best, based partly on the situation but also on the results.

_____________________________


(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 3611
RE: Battle for Korea - 2/8/2014 3:31:17 PM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 8262
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

If the objective is to get the bombers through, the chances of doing that are better with the best fighter pilots. What is the game date? In 1942 it might make sense to save the best pilots for later, but now, what is later?

I only presume they were among the best, based partly on the situation but also on the results.


Obviously I can´t answer for Erik but I use my best pilots for CAP and never on Escort. Getting a pilot to 70-80 EXP is hard work and I don´t want to waste that on having them drop like flies on Escort. This turn I probably lost 400-500 Hellcats doing Escort meaning probably 300 pilots or so.

While having 70EXP on Escort might give a bit of an extra punch you are as likely to lose them flying against a couple of PBs (or in my case AMc) as against enemy CVs. I wouldn´t dare that gamble.

Considering Erik has burned at least 10-15 full KB strikes (and thousands of pilots) by now I doubt he can put "good" pilots on Escort. But you will have to ask him. Could be a deliberate tactic! If it is its working!

< Message edited by JocMeister -- 2/8/2014 4:33:55 PM >

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 3612
RE: Battle for Korea - 2/8/2014 3:48:30 PM   
koniu


Posts: 2763
Joined: 2/28/2011
From: Konin, Poland, European Union
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

Obviously I can´t answer for Erik but I use my best pilots for CAP and never on Escort.


In my last battle i use for escort my best 80+XP pilots. I lost ~50 of them. But it was totally worth it. During giving orders to strike i spend lot of time thinking what to do. I was so close to use 50XP pilots. I think it could be mistake because when i watch replay i saw that many many time my boys manage to avoid dives from F6F (but not from F4U) Also i think better XP mean that more planes will stick with major strike
They use enough CAP passes to allow ~80% of bombers to get trough

My plan was not to save pilots lives but to crash enemy. From the same reson i chose 4-5 hexes strike insted if magic 8 hex strike



< Message edited by koniu -- 2/8/2014 4:54:48 PM >


_____________________________

"Only the Dead Have Seen the End of War"

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 3613
RE: Battle for Korea - 2/8/2014 4:08:46 PM   
Miller


Posts: 2226
Joined: 9/14/2004
From: Ashington, England.
Status: offline
What altitude do you fly your CAP at? I set all mine to 10k. It has served me well for both sides. Likewise I set all my DB/TB to the same altitude.

(in reply to koniu)
Post #: 3614
RE: Battle for Korea - 2/8/2014 4:20:05 PM   
Grollub


Posts: 6674
Joined: 10/9/2005
From: Lulea, Sweden
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

Thank you!

Updated the initial post with some new text and better formatting!

A little bit of celebratory music.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnAvNdVyJB0

Here is a cooler version for you Grollub!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaP3wKVKkSA


Thank you for that one!

_____________________________

“Not mastering metaphores is like cooking pasta when the train is delayed"

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 3615
RE: Battle for Korea - 2/8/2014 4:27:25 PM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 8262
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: koniu
In my last battle i use for escort my best 80+XP pilots. I lost ~50 of them. But it was totally worth it. During giving orders to strike i spend lot of time thinking what to do. I was so close to use 50XP pilots. I think it could be mistake because when i watch replay i saw that many many time my boys manage to avoid dives from F6F (but not from F4U) Also i think better XP mean that more planes will stick with major strike
They use enough CAP passes to allow ~80% of bombers to get trough

My plan was not to save pilots lives but to crash enemy. From the same reson i chose 4-5 hexes strike insted if magic 8 hex strike


I would absolutely be willing to use great pilots for Escort if it wasn´t for all those unwanted strikes. I´ve probably lost over 1000 pilots going after small craft like PBs, AMc and "Es" Quite often under an enormous CAP. I lost an entire Alpha strikes worth of planes (600-800 planes) in the Marianas going after a couple of AMc. Losing fantastic fighter pilots on something like that would kill me.

But you have a good point. I might consider doing differently in my other game.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Miller

What altitude do you fly your CAP at? I set all mine to 10k. It has served me well for both sides. Likewise I set all my DB/TB to the same altitude.


Everything is at 10k. CAP/Escorts/TB/DBs.

Interestingly enough Erik seems to go in higher!

quote:


Raid detected at 120 NM, estimated altitude 17,000 feet.
Raid detected at 120 NM, estimated altitude 19,000 feet.
Raid detected at 118 NM, estimated altitude 17,000 feet.
Raid detected at 120 NM, estimated altitude 17,000 feet.
Raid detected at 119 NM, estimated altitude 17,000 feet.
Raid detected at 119 NM, estimated altitude 17,000 feet.
Raid detected at 117 NM, estimated altitude 20,000 feet.
Raid detected at 112 NM, estimated altitude 18,000 feet.
Raid detected at 120 NM, estimated altitude 15,000 feet.
Raid detected at 34 NM, estimated altitude 16,000 feet.
Raid detected at 114 NM, estimated altitude 12,000 feet.


Very odd. That last stike at 12k doesn´t contain any Sams. I wonder if he sets his Escorts up high and that makes the engine go bonanas sending all the CAP up to 17k? But then again some of the unescorted strikes are also detected up at at 17k. Perhaps he has them at 14k (max alt for DBs)?

My own strikes are listed between 10-13k in the CR.

(in reply to koniu)
Post #: 3616
RE: Battle for Korea - 2/8/2014 4:27:49 PM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 8262
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Grollub


quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

Thank you!

Updated the initial post with some new text and better formatting!

A little bit of celebratory music.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnAvNdVyJB0

Here is a cooler version for you Grollub!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaP3wKVKkSA


Thank you for that one!



(in reply to Grollub)
Post #: 3617
RE: Battle for Korea - 2/8/2014 4:39:27 PM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 8262
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline
2nd of May - Rest of the world
______________________________________________________________________________

While the CV strike was the main event of the day some interesting things happened in China. Good news too!

quote:

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

Ground combat at Hong Kong (77,61)

Allied Deliberate attack

Attacking force 83851 troops, 1589 guns, 1530 vehicles, Assault Value = 2559

Defending force 11668 troops, 117 guns, 80 vehicles, Assault Value = 42

Allied engineers reduce fortifications to 2

Allied adjusted assault: 1831

Japanese adjusted defense: 313

Allied assault odds: 5 to 1 (fort level 2)

Allied forces CAPTURE Hong Kong !!!

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), forts(+), leaders(+), experience(-), supply(-)
Attacker:

Japanese ground losses:
2140 casualties reported
Squads: 65 destroyed, 1 disabled
Non Combat: 143 destroyed, 31 disabled
Engineers: 61 destroyed, 1 disabled
Guns lost 39 (20 destroyed, 19 disabled)
Vehicles lost 59 (59 destroyed, 0 disabled)


Allied ground losses:
141 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 10 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 4 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 8 disabled
Guns lost 6 (1 destroyed, 5 disabled)


And now for the most insane/silly event of the day! Think this is the bloodiest battle I have seen in this game at least! 11.000 ADJUSTED AV. Boom!

quote:

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

Ground combat at Kweiyang (74,49)

Allied Deliberate attack

Attacking force 508265 troops, 1993 guns, 162 vehicles, Assault Value = 19322

Defending force 50527 troops, 457 guns, 116 vehicles, Assault Value = 1724

Allied engineers reduce fortifications to 4

Allied adjusted assault: 11410

Japanese adjusted defense: 921

Allied assault odds: 12 to 1 (fort level 4)

Allied forces CAPTURE Kweiyang !!!

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), forts(+), supply(-)
Attacker:

Japanese ground losses:
19800 casualties reported
Squads: 419 destroyed, 379 disabled
Non Combat: 506 destroyed, 182 disabled
Engineers: 125 destroyed, 4 disabled
Guns lost 201 (189 destroyed, 12 disabled)
Vehicles lost 97 (97 destroyed, 0 disabled)
Units retreated 8


Allied ground losses:
22455 casualties reported
Squads: 254 destroyed, 2082 disabled
Non Combat: 14 destroyed, 222 disabled
Engineers: 3 destroyed, 55 disabled
Guns lost 79 (5 destroyed, 74 disabled)
Units destroyed 1


------------------------
Soviet Union
------------------------

Got all the air squadrons sorted. But AS is a disaster. I havn´t done an exact count but I´m at least 700-1000 AS short. Is this intentional for some reason? Sounds weird if that is the case.

Going to ask Erik if I can send squadrons to Allied bases as long as they don´t fly any missions. At least that way I could jump out some transports and stuff that I don´t really need.


(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 3618
RE: Battle for Korea - 2/8/2014 5:13:19 PM   
Captain Cruft


Posts: 3652
Joined: 3/17/2004
From: England
Status: offline
Why not just rail the un-needed planes to the Soviet Union base off-map?

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 3619
RE: Battle for Korea - 2/8/2014 5:18:04 PM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 8262
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Captain Cruft

Why not just rail the un-needed planes to the Soviet Union base off-map?


Only off map bases I can rail them to are Soviet Union and Alma-Ata for a total of 300 AS. I´m assuming there arn´t no special rules concerning off map bases and AS?

(in reply to Captain Cruft)
Post #: 3620
RE: Battle for Korea - 2/8/2014 5:20:47 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline
15k is the maximum altitude for dive bombing, not 14k.

The escorts will then fly at 17k.

Those detection numbers look like a spread of about what you'd see if they were all set at 15k.

Edit - I am reading both sides of this. I saw no mention of the unescorted strikes that hit your CAP wall!

< Message edited by Lokasenna -- 2/8/2014 6:23:20 PM >

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 3621
RE: Battle for Korea - 2/8/2014 5:22:18 PM   
Captain Cruft


Posts: 3652
Joined: 3/17/2004
From: England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister
quote:

ORIGINAL: Captain Cruft

Why not just rail the un-needed planes to the Soviet Union base off-map?


Only off map bases I can rail them to are Soviet Union and Alma-Ata for a total of 300 AS. I´m assuming there arn´t no special rules concerning off map bases and AS?


If the planes are not doing anything it doesn't matter if they are servicable or not.

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 3622
RE: Battle for Korea - 2/8/2014 5:34:04 PM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 8262
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna
15k is the maximum altitude for dive bombing, not 14k.

The escorts will then fly at 17k.

Those detection numbers look like a spread of about what you'd see if they were all set at 15k.


Ah, I seem to remember they started glide bombing at 15k? What do you mean "the escorts will then fly at 17k"?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna
Edit - I am reading both sides of this. I saw no mention of the unescorted strikes that hit your CAP wall!


Obviously the entire battle didn´t consist of 4 strikes. Doh? I left out the ones that didn´t cause any damage. Both allied and Japanese strikes. There were about 8-10 strikes per side that either didn´t penetrate the CAP or did so but failed to hit anything.

I´ve attached the entire CR for you if you want to have a peek!



Attachment (1)

< Message edited by JocMeister -- 2/8/2014 6:37:27 PM >

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 3623
RE: Battle for Korea - 2/8/2014 5:37:03 PM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 8262
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Captain Cruft

quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister
quote:

ORIGINAL: Captain Cruft

Why not just rail the un-needed planes to the Soviet Union base off-map?


Only off map bases I can rail them to are Soviet Union and Alma-Ata for a total of 300 AS. I´m assuming there arn´t no special rules concerning off map bases and AS?


If the planes are not doing anything it doesn't matter if they are servicable or not.


Point taken. But that means I will have to ground a lot of planes. 808 Engines to be exact. That is the current AS shortage for the SU. I might cream some more out of what available by massing everything at level 8-9 AFs which will doubt AS. Can´t do it now though as I´m not allowed to move any units until the SU activates.

(in reply to Captain Cruft)
Post #: 3624
RE: Battle for Korea - 2/8/2014 8:51:16 PM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 8262
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline
Got an email from Erik earlier tonight. Sadly it was his turn to get hit by a computer virus (I was hit a year back). I hope he manages to sort it without doing a clean Windows install. So no turn until he can get that fixed obviously.

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 3625
RE: Battle for Korea - 2/8/2014 11:47:11 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna
15k is the maximum altitude for dive bombing, not 14k.

The escorts will then fly at 17k.

Those detection numbers look like a spread of about what you'd see if they were all set at 15k.


Ah, I seem to remember they started glide bombing at 15k? What do you mean "the escorts will then fly at 17k"?



They definitely dive bomb up to 15k and if you look really hard you can find evidence in post history here. The 14k that comes up so often originates, I think, from a typo in Skyros's reference sheet (or even farther back). Set some DBs to 15k and try it.

I thought that escorts fly 2k higher than the strike they were escorting. I don't have a source for this, just hearsay. Perhaps someone can confirm or disabuse me of this notion.

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 3626
RE: Battle for Korea - 2/8/2014 11:54:10 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna


quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna
15k is the maximum altitude for dive bombing, not 14k.

The escorts will then fly at 17k.

Those detection numbers look like a spread of about what you'd see if they were all set at 15k.


Ah, I seem to remember they started glide bombing at 15k? What do you mean "the escorts will then fly at 17k"?



They definitely dive bomb up to 15k and if you look really hard you can find evidence in post history here. The 14k that comes up so often originates, I think, from a typo in Skyros's reference sheet (or even farther back). Set some DBs to 15k and try it.

I thought that escorts fly 2k higher than the strike they were escorting. I don't have a source for this, just hearsay. Perhaps someone can confirm or disabuse me of this notion.


It's been 2k since WITP so far as I know. However, you should set the escorts in the spinner to the strike altitude. The engine puts them up the 2k by itself. If you do it you'll bone coordination.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 3627
RE: Battle for Korea - 2/9/2014 4:55:14 AM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna


quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna
15k is the maximum altitude for dive bombing, not 14k.

The escorts will then fly at 17k.

Those detection numbers look like a spread of about what you'd see if they were all set at 15k.


Ah, I seem to remember they started glide bombing at 15k? What do you mean "the escorts will then fly at 17k"?



They definitely dive bomb up to 15k and if you look really hard you can find evidence in post history here. The 14k that comes up so often originates, I think, from a typo in Skyros's reference sheet (or even farther back). Set some DBs to 15k and try it.

I thought that escorts fly 2k higher than the strike they were escorting. I don't have a source for this, just hearsay. Perhaps someone can confirm or disabuse me of this notion.


It's been 2k since WITP so far as I know. However, you should set the escorts in the spinner to the strike altitude. The engine puts them up the 2k by itself. If you do it you'll bone coordination.


Yeah, I meant that it occurred automatically based on strike altitude.

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 3628
RE: Battle for Korea - 2/9/2014 6:31:37 AM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 8262
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline
That is one of the things I love about the game. You learn something new every week even after playing for 6 years. I had 14k for DBs in my notes as well. Don´t know where I got it from though. My CAP was at 10k. Didn´t know the Escorts went in at 2k higher. Wonder if going in higher then my CAP somehow "sheltered" the strike planes. As I said Erik has had some remarkable success getting his strike planes in the alpha strike cleanly though.

Anyone know anything about this?

quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister
Just watched the entire replay. Again the Avengers saved the day. I´m starting to wonder if I would have been better off using the radar equipped SDB-5 instead. Does the radar effect target accuracy (dropping bombs) or just the chance to find target TFs? My Helldivers have done quite poorly on many occasions.








(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 3629
RE: Battle for Korea - 2/9/2014 6:49:10 AM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 8262
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline
2nd of May - Aftermath
______________________________________________________________________________

Got the turn back from Erik sometime during the night. Things are better then expected. 14 CVEs are sunk with another likely to sink. The rest will make it. CV Randolph and CVL Princton just took glancing blows and can continue combat operations.

Air losses are about half what I would expect. While I certainly lost a good amount of planes I still have almost 400 TB/DBs left. Escorts are still available in decent numbers.

Our priority right now is to reunite the fleet under the CV CAP which is mostly intact. I lost only about 70 Corsairs which means CAP will still be very strong (700-800 planes). I will also try and guide the damaged CVEs to safety. I won´t do any offensive moves towards Moppo this turn. I want to see what Erik does. He still have 2500-3000 LBA bombers that will likely take off tomorrow. I want everything tucked in under a CV CAP tomorrow morning.







Attachment (1)

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 3630
Page:   <<   < prev  119 120 [121] 122 123   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: Battle for Korea Page: <<   < prev  119 120 [121] 122 123   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

0.734