RE: Lowpe (Japan) vs Wargamr (Allies)

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: Lowpe (Japan) vs Wargamr (Allies)

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: Lowpe (Japan) vs Wargamr (Allies)

Page: << < prev 8 9 [10] 11 12 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Lowpe (Japan) vs Wargamr (Allies) - 12/1/2018 1:29:18 PM

Lowpe

Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline

A partial list of sunk Allied shipping!

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)

Post #: 271

RE: Lowpe (Japan) vs Wargamr (Allies) - 12/1/2018 1:53:24 PM

witpqs

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

Nice haul!

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Lowpe)

Post #: 272

RE: Lowpe (Japan) vs Wargamr (Allies) - 12/1/2018 3:08:38 PM

GetAssista

Posts: 2732
Joined: 9/19/2009
Status: offline

So many future APAs. Allies should not've used those in the dangerous waters so early.

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 273

RE: Lowpe (Japan) vs Wargamr (Allies) - 12/1/2018 5:15:31 PM

Lokasenna

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

That's not going to buff out for a while.

(in reply to GetAssista)

Post #: 274

RE: Lowpe (Japan) vs Wargamr (Allies) - 12/1/2018 10:36:57 PM

dave sindel

Posts: 488
Joined: 3/13/2006
From: Millersburg, OH
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GetAssista

So many future APAs. Allies should not've used those in the dangerous waters so early.

I had the same reaction when I read this...

(in reply to GetAssista)

Post #: 275

RE: Lowpe (Japan) vs Wargamr (Allies) - 12/2/2018 12:30:34 PM

Lowpe

Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline

I recall this is the third time that I have savaged Allied transports. I will check to see how serious those losses are.

I seem to think those British transports can be converted too, and are quite handy late game.

(in reply to dave sindel)

Post #: 276

RE: Lowpe (Japan) vs Wargamr (Allies) - 12/2/2018 3:21:22 PM

Lokasenna

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

Which British transports? The ones that become LSI(L)? Those are upgrades rather than conversions, and only apply to a few.

Also, I will caution you that use of an AGC with HQm (fully prepped is best, but it doesn't even have to be) will rapidly unload even from xAP and xAK. xAPs will fully unload their cargo in 3 unloading phases with a partially prepped HQm in an AGC. Yes, it still diminishes his amphibious capabilities in a real and substantial way, but unless you sink all the AGC's when they arrive...

(in reply to Lowpe)

Post #: 277

RE: Lowpe (Japan) vs Wargamr (Allies) - 12/2/2018 9:46:26 PM

Lowpe

Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline

September 8, 1941

The Nashville's luck has run out!

Now to survive the daylight...Yanks have 250 fighters and 50 bombers to retaliate with!

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lokasenna)

Post #: 278

RE: Lowpe (Japan) vs Wargamr (Allies) - 12/2/2018 10:11:43 PM

Lowpe

Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

Which British transports? The ones that become LSI(L)? Those are upgrades rather than conversions, and only apply to a few.

Also, I will caution you that use of an AGC with HQm (fully prepped is best, but it doesn't even have to be) will rapidly unload even from xAP and xAK. xAPs will fully unload their cargo in 3 unloading phases with a partially prepped HQm in an AGC. Yes, it still diminishes his amphibious capabilities in a real and substantial way, but unless you sink all the AGC's when they arrive...

That sounds right, the LSI ones. Been so long since I worked with Allied OB...

I have sunk 12 AP (American) and 21 xAP according to tracker. So that might hinder what, 2 Divisions? Hopefully it just slows down the pace of Allied operations in the future.

< Message edited by Lowpe -- 12/2/2018 10:12:32 PM >

(in reply to Lokasenna)

Post #: 279

RE: Lowpe (Japan) vs Wargamr (Allies) - 12/3/2018 10:10:43 AM

obvert

Posts: 14050
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline

So confused at what is going on up there. That is another massive victory. Great aggressive play on your part.

_____________________________

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to Lowpe)

Post #: 280

RE: Lowpe (Japan) vs Wargamr (Allies) - 12/3/2018 11:02:51 PM

Bif1961

Posts: 2014
Joined: 6/26/2008
From: Phenix City, Alabama
Status: offline

Is his plan to run the nation of Japan out of naval shells?

(in reply to obvert)

Post #: 281

RE: Lowpe (Japan) vs Wargamr (Allies) - 12/7/2018 12:21:51 PM

Lowpe

Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline

About mid September 1942

Action in the Aleutians...weather of course almost always bad.

The air war takes a dramatic turn in favor of Japan, and even low altitude night bombing by beasts has been stymied...

Great Sitkin got bombarded netting a half dozen more SBDs and doing good damage on the size 3 runways there...but alas, those cruisers
were meant to be there the day before when they would have encountered numerous American shipping including at least one large xAP.

The only Allied success is with mines at Adak which must number close to a thousand.

Night Naval bombardment of Great Sitkin Island at 163,52

Allied aircraft
no flights

Allied aircraft losses
SBD-2 Dauntless: 20 damaged
SBD-2 Dauntless: 2 destroyed on ground
SBD-3 Dauntless: 1 damaged

Japanese Ships
CA Kako
CA Kinugasa
CA Aoba
CA Nachi
CA Chokai
CA Atago
CA Takao
CA Tone
DD Uzuki
DD Ikazuchi
DD Akatsuki
DD Natsugumo
DD Michishio

Allied ground losses:
570 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 9 destroyed, 47 disabled
Engineers: 2 destroyed, 15 disabled
Vehicles lost 5 (2 destroyed, 3 disabled)

Airbase hits 35
Airbase supply hits 15
Runway hits 76
Port hits 44
Port supply hits 9

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Lowpe -- 12/7/2018 12:23:17 PM >

(in reply to Bif1961)

Post #: 282

RE: Lowpe (Japan) vs Wargamr (Allies) - 12/7/2018 12:34:25 PM

Lowpe

Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline

A little more offensive action here, only 4 units and 3K Allied troopers at Port Moresby. Two IJA divisions and support troops going in, with the KB back.

Iboats screen to the south and east, flying boats from Milne Bay, and Lae's runway allowing Nells to search the seas to avoid surprises. American Carriers could be in the area waiting to spring a trap...

This is the first day that the Allies have spotted the first wave, but the Allies have been tricky performing night naval search on Rabaul, getting detections but I am not sure how much real information. No daytime search or recon however.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)

Post #: 283

RE: Lowpe (Japan) vs Wargamr (Allies) - 12/7/2018 12:44:41 PM

Lowpe

Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline

Burma starting to heat up...Imperial Guards Division arrives overnight, prior to a shock attack by the advancing Allied forces.

Supported by two well timed naval bombardments (one at night, the other during daytime), the attack is beat off....all tanks, sheesh.

Ground combat at Cox's Bazar (54,43)

Allied Shock attack

Attacking force 3827 troops, 18 guns, 504 vehicles, Assault Value = 392

Defending force 11442 troops, 133 guns, 48 vehicles, Assault Value = 427

Allied adjusted assault: 207

Japanese adjusted defense: 791

Allied assault odds: 1 to 3 (fort level 0)

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), preparation(-), experience(-)
Attacker: shock(+)

Japanese ground losses:
683 casualties reported
Squads: 1 destroyed, 79 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 3 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 5 disabled

Allied ground losses:
59 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 7 disabled
Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 9 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Vehicles lost 47 (4 destroyed, 43 disabled)

Assaulting units:
44th Cavalry Regiment
43rd Cavalry Regiment
3rd Carabiniers Regiment
254th Armoured Brigade
16th Light Cavalry Regiment
77th Heavy AA Regiment

Defending units:
Imperial Guards Division
1st Sasebo SNLF Coy
5th Naval Construction Battalion
1st RF Gun Bn /1

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Lowpe -- 12/7/2018 12:45:03 PM >

(in reply to Lowpe)

Post #: 284

RE: Lowpe (Japan) vs Wargamr (Allies) - 12/7/2018 12:47:50 PM

Lowpe

Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline

Japanese air force doing well...from east to west.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)

Post #: 285

RE: Lowpe (Japan) vs Wargamr (Allies) - 12/7/2018 12:52:17 PM

Lowpe

Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline

A look at planes losses...usually in most of my games the Japanese air losses are much greater than the Allied.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)

Post #: 286

RE: Lowpe (Japan) vs Wargamr (Allies) - 12/7/2018 12:55:06 PM

Lowpe

Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline

Major ship losses...funny, Tracker still lists two American fleet carriers as sunk too which is wishful thinking.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)

Post #: 287

RE: Lowpe (Japan) vs Wargamr (Allies) - 12/7/2018 1:02:32 PM

Lowpe

Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline

Score...

Funny to have achieved such high victory points after a perfect Sir Robyn everywhere but China. Early aggressiveness by the Allies
have led to some major Allied defeats.

With Chungking surrounded, Port Moresby about to be invaded, Ceylon taken, surely this is the high water mark for the Japanese Empire!

It is mid September, the Japanese Army, Navy and Air Force are strong so the question is...should Japan seek one more aggressive expansion in a bid for auto victory?

This is a scenario one game, reduced cargo capacity, Asian Roads, and Dec 8th start...

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)

Post #: 288

RE: Lowpe (Japan) vs Wargamr (Allies) - 12/7/2018 1:31:13 PM

witpqs

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

That's a great VP margin!

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Lowpe)

Post #: 289

RE: Lowpe (Japan) vs Wargamr (Allies) - 12/7/2018 1:36:28 PM

Canoerebel

Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline

Usually September 1942 is Japan's high water mark. You'll have a much better feel for things than we readers do. Do you think you can add materially to your ratio through the end of the year? If it's possible without taking ridiculous risks, why not go for it?

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 290

RE: Lowpe (Japan) vs Wargamr (Allies) - 12/7/2018 2:46:59 PM

Lowpe

Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Usually September 1942 is Japan's high water mark. You'll have a much better feel for things than we readers do. Do you think you can add materially to your ratio through the end of the year? If it's possible without taking ridiculous risks, why not go for it?

You are quite correct.

I am not sure how I feel about Japanese Auto Victory, having never really been all that close before (without doing amazingly stupid stunts like Invasion Hollywood

).

Prior to this game, I would have said I believe in Allied Auto Victory but not Japanese AV...mainly because I dislike the tactic of playing for AV at the sacrifice of the late game. But that hasn't happened here.

I can see a roadmap for AV now, that pretty much is just a natural extension of the game's directions so far. It feels natural and good, but is it victory disease?

(in reply to Canoerebel)

Post #: 291

RE: Lowpe (Japan) vs Wargamr (Allies) - 12/7/2018 2:49:39 PM

Canoerebel

Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline

If I was a Japanese player and had a chance to shoot for auto victory, I'd pursue it just for the challenge. But I'd definitely give my opponent the option of simply continuing on. There's no need in the game ending because you achieve it. But I will say that AV has been a remarkably rare occurrence, so there's no shame in shooting for it, achieving it, and standing by it.

(in reply to Lowpe)

Post #: 292

RE: Lowpe (Japan) vs Wargamr (Allies) - 12/7/2018 2:56:32 PM

Lowpe

Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

If I was a Japanese player and had a chance to shoot for auto victory, I'd pursue it just for the challenge. But I'd definitely give my opponent the option of simply continuing on. There's no need in the game ending because you achieve it. But I will say that AV has been a remarkably rare occurrence, so there's no shame in shooting for it, achieving it, and standing by it.

Serious food for thought. Given that this is a scenario one style game, I would most likely end the game if AV was achieved--- Scenario 2 and I wouldn't even consider it. Plus, and perhaps most importantly, Wargamr is a veteran of many finished games so I don't think I would be stealing the endgame experience from him.

(in reply to Canoerebel)

Post #: 293

RE: Lowpe (Japan) vs Wargamr (Allies) - 12/7/2018 3:43:34 PM

Alfred

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

Score...

Funny to have achieved such high victory points after a perfect Sir Robyn everywhere but China. Early aggressiveness by the Allies
have led to some major Allied defeats.

With Chungking surrounded, Port Moresby about to be invaded, Ceylon taken, surely this is the high water mark for the Japanese Empire!

It is mid September, the Japanese Army, Navy and Air Force are strong so the question is...should Japan seek one more aggressive expansion in a bid for auto victory?

This is a scenario one game, reduced cargo capacity, Asian Roads, and Dec 8th start...

There is no need to seek "one more aggressive expansion in a bid for auto victory". You are well on track to achieve an auto victory. Absent a catastrophic Japanese defeat you should get an auto victory on 1 Jan 1943 just on current trends.

There is absolutely no need to apologise for Japan achieving an auto victory. How it arises is irrelevant.

Alfred

(in reply to Lowpe)

Post #: 294

RE: Lowpe (Japan) vs Wargamr (Allies) - 12/7/2018 10:57:07 PM

Lokasenna

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

OK, yeah. He needs points and fast.

(in reply to Alfred)

Post #: 295

RE: Lowpe (Japan) vs Wargamr (Allies) - 12/9/2018 12:52:10 AM

Bif1961

Posts: 2014
Joined: 6/26/2008
From: Phenix City, Alabama
Status: offline

Sounds like a case of Japanese victory fever kicking in.

(in reply to Lokasenna)

Post #: 296

RE: Lowpe (Japan) vs Wargamr (Allies) - 12/9/2018 1:13:00 PM

Lowpe

Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline

September 13, 1942

First bombardment shows the strength of Japanese Heavy Artillery. This bombardment is only 4 heavy units, that far out range the Chinese artillery. It has taken quite a while to setup the artillery (i.e. get a level of forts), but the artillery performs very well.

Normally, I would use every artillery unit present, but I wanted to test a few ideas...

I can only hope the Chinese attempt an attack once they see the low AV of the Japanese troops.

Ground combat at Chungking (76,45)

Japanese Bombardment attack

Attacking force 2133 troops, 140 guns, 90 vehicles, Assault Value = 1922

Defending force 286145 troops, 803 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 8129

Allied ground losses:
621 casualties reported
Squads: 48 destroyed, 10 disabled
Non Combat: 2 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 1 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 4 (2 destroyed, 2 disabled)

< Message edited by Lowpe -- 12/9/2018 1:14:26 PM >

(in reply to Bif1961)

Post #: 297

RE: Lowpe (Japan) vs Wargamr (Allies) - 12/9/2018 4:33:05 PM

Lowpe

Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline

Sept 14, 1942

Aleutians...having been stymied at low level night bombing (which had been very successful for the Americans till recently), suffered extreme losses in fighter sweeps, now the Allies try massed high altitude, high escort bombing by 4E beasties...the next wave is escorted by over 100 fighters.

Four radar sets are present (2 Army, 2 Navy), and they are giving me a few extra minutes warning.

There is only 20mm AA present, and the planes are flying way too high for them to play any role.

Morning Air attack on Amchitka Island , at 158,52

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid detected at 40 NM, estimated altitude 28,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 12 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M3 Zero x 30
Ki-44-IIa Tojo x 37

Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 62
B-24D Liberator x 3
P-39D Airacobra x 16

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M3 Zero: 1 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
B-17E Fortress: 1 destroyed, 22 damaged
B-24D Liberator: 1 destroyed, 1 damaged
P-39D Airacobra: 2 destroyed

Airbase supply hits 2
Runway hits 2

Aircraft Attacking:
9 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 25000 feet
Airfield Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb
12 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 25000 feet
Airfield Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb
8 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 25000 feet
Airfield Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb
12 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 25000 feet
Airfield Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb
9 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 25000 feet
Airfield Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb
3 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 25000 feet
Airfield Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb
2 x B-24D Liberator bombing from 25000 feet
Airfield Attack: 10 x 500 lb GP Bomb
6 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 25000 feet
Airfield Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb

CAP engaged:
Tainan Ku S-1 with A6M3 Zero (4 airborne, 8 on standby, 18 scrambling)
4 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 32000 , scrambling fighters between 20000 and 31000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 36 minutes
26 planes vectored on to bombers
68th Sentai with Ki-44-IIa Tojo (2 airborne, 6 on standby, 12 scrambling)
2 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 32000 , scrambling fighters between 26000 and 32000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 34 minutes
7 planes vectored on to bombers
85th Sentai with Ki-44-IIa Tojo (2 airborne, 5 on standby, 10 scrambling)
2 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 32000 , scrambling fighters between 19000 and 32000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 29 minutes
9 planes vectored on to bombers

Morning Air attack on Amchitka Island , at 158,52

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid detected at 33 NM, estimated altitude 30,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 9 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M3 Zero x 25
Ki-44-IIa Tojo x 21

Allied aircraft
B-17E Fortress x 26
P-39D Airacobra x 57
P-400 Airacobra x 17
P-40E Warhawk x 61
P-40K Warhawk x 2

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M3 Zero: 2 destroyed
Ki-44-IIa Tojo: 2 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
B-17E Fortress: 3 damaged

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

Runway hits 3

Aircraft Attacking:
12 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 25000 feet
Airfield Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb
3 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 25000 feet
Airfield Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb
11 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 25000 feet
Airfield Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb

CAP engaged:
Tainan Ku S-1 with A6M3 Zero (4 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
4 plane(s) intercepting now.
21 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 32000 , scrambling fighters between 25000 and 29000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 42 minutes
68th Sentai with Ki-44-IIa Tojo (1 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
1 plane(s) intercepting now.
11 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 32000 , scrambling fighters between 25000 and 29440.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 19 minutes
85th Sentai with Ki-44-IIa Tojo (6 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
6 plane(s) intercepting now.
3 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 32000 , scrambling fighters to 25000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 18 minutes

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Lowpe -- 12/9/2018 4:35:41 PM >

(in reply to Lowpe)

Post #: 298

RE: Lowpe (Japan) vs Wargamr (Allies) - 12/9/2018 4:36:55 PM

Lowpe

Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline

Out west, the Allies are attempting to support their tank spearhead with aerial bombing...but they cant decide whether the target is to close the runway or bomb the defending troops.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)

Post #: 299

RE: Lowpe (Japan) vs Wargamr (Allies) - 12/9/2018 4:39:00 PM

Lowpe

Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline

A Tojo sweep out of Ceylon rounds up the important air action for the day...

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)

Post #: 300

Page: << < prev 8 9 [10] 11 12 next > >>

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: Lowpe (Japan) vs Wargamr (Allies)