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: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!)

 
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: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!) Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!) - 5/1/2020 11:47:28 AM   
rader


Posts: 1238
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline 		July 25, 1942

Very inconclusive night naval battle around Tulagi as Raizo Tanaka doubles back to try to interdict Allied APDs reinforcing the island. The Japanese had just bombarded the night before and were low on ammo so it was risky to go back, but each ship still had some ammo and all had a full complement of torpedoes.

Unfortunately, none found home in the ensuring battle. Each side landed a shell hit or two, but none likely to be fatal. After unleashing torpedoes, Tanaka decided to withdraw. Probably a good decision. It could have been a lot better, or a lot worse.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to rader)
Post #: 121
RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!) - 5/1/2020 11:56:41 AM   
rader


Posts: 1238
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline 		We also decided to contest the daily milk runs on Port Moresby and Buna, resulting in a series of air battles. The P-38s and B-17s did pretty well as usual, and the B-25s came through ok too, but the Hudsons got torn to shreds. Not a single of the 12 outbound planes returned.

Also noted in the ops losses a B-24. They haven't been seen yet in combat, but evidently, they have arrived.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to rader)
Post #: 122
RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!) - 5/1/2020 12:07:12 PM   
RangerJoe


Posts: 13450
Joined: 11/16/2015
From: My Mother, although my Father had some small part.
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: rader

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

Forts provide protection against "incoming".  You still get "incoming" when attacking.

Alfred


Incoming artillery in the bombardment phase or incoming fire from troops when attacking? If just bombardment, probably won't make much difference. If incoming fire when attacking, that's huge!


If you move into a hex with a decent enemy force, don't bombard right away since you will take a lot more casualties. Even if you have more guns, even if you have bigger and better guns.

quote:

Ground combat at Changsha (82,52)

Japanese Bombardment attack

Attacking force 59633 troops, 598 guns, 168 vehicles, Assault Value = 2083

Defending force 68318 troops, 437 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 2288

Japanese ground losses:
223 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 20 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 5 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 5 disabled

Allied ground losses:
32 casualties reported
Squads: 1 destroyed, 5 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled


_____________________________

Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
― Julia Child


(in reply to rader)
Post #: 123
RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!) - 5/2/2020 10:53:06 PM   
rader


Posts: 1238
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline 		July 28, 1942

Another raid, this time in the Indian Ocean off Australia. He's learned to escort his convoys with CLs, which saved this one although the Destroyer made a getaway because the CL decided that its escort job was more important than chasing down the enemy.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to RangerJoe)
Post #: 124
RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!) - 5/3/2020 4:07:46 PM   
rader


Posts: 1238
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline 		July 30, 1942

Another day, another raid. This time Hatsuyuki left some xAKs loaded with fuel burning. At first I was disappointed that Hatsuyuki was lobbing so many shells into City of Manchester, wasting her ammo. But she got in enough hits that some others should go join Manchester at the bottom of the sea.





Attachment (1)

(in reply to rader)
Post #: 125
RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!) - 5/3/2020 4:16:30 PM   
rader


Posts: 1238
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline 		Later that day, tried to intercept an Allied task force after they had bombarded Buna. The search plane had reported only 3 ships with one CL. I assumed it was a CL and 2x DDs which we would catch at night after their bombardment. Turned out to me a much bigger fleet, and Yura got more than she bargained for.

Luckily the Allied fleet was low on ammo and didn't have their heart in the fight or else it could have gone a lot worse.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to rader)
Post #: 126
RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!) - 5/4/2020 7:43:33 AM   
rader


Posts: 1238
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline 		August 1, 1942

A decent number of Flying Fortresses down this turn, mostly due to heavy flak outside Chungking.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to rader)
Post #: 127
RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!) - 5/5/2020 2:54:33 PM   
Bif1961


Posts: 2014
Joined: 6/26/2008
From: Phenix City, Alabama
Status: offline 		How low were those Forts flying? Was it another Polesti raid altitude?

(in reply to rader)
Post #: 128
RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!) - 5/5/2020 7:03:10 PM   
rader


Posts: 1238
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bif1961

How low were those Forts flying? Was it another Polesti raid altitude?


We have a HR restricting 4Es to 10K on ground/naval bombing but they can go down to 6K on airfield/port. I think it was ground bombing so 10K?

(in reply to Bif1961)
Post #: 129
RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!) - 5/5/2020 7:08:25 PM   
rader


Posts: 1238
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline 		August 4, 1942

Now it's time for a nuclear bombardment of Chittagong.

I don't often do bombardments but I noticed that the Allies had a massive stack of aircraft sitting at Chittagong for a long time. I wondered if by some miracle I could sneak some fast battleships in range without detection. To my surprise, it worked, and the bombardment fleet was not spotted the day before. The order was given to rush in and bombard at night and then get the heck out.

For some reason, despite being 9 hexes out and having it set to mission speed/retirement allowed, the fleet didn't bombard at night. To my surprise, the fleet was still camped in the Chittagong hex during the daylight phase. Oops. Is there a massive air attack coming to smash my fleet? Whew, no air attack.

Then the fleet decides to bombard in the daylight phase after aircraft flights. I didn't even know this was possible. But to say it was a powerful bombardment would be an understatement:

Naval bombardment of Chittagong at 55,41 - Coastal Guns Fire Back!

Allied aircraft
no flights

Allied aircraft losses
A-20A Havoc: 19 damaged
A-20A Havoc: 3 destroyed on ground
B-17E Fortress: 111 damaged
B-17E Fortress: 15 destroyed on ground
B-17D Fortress: 72 damaged
B-17D Fortress: 7 destroyed on ground
P-40E Warhawk: 209 damaged
P-40E Warhawk: 26 destroyed on ground
Blenheim IV: 91 damaged
Blenheim IV: 10 destroyed on ground
Hurricane IIc Trop: 14 damaged
Hurricane IIc Trop: 4 destroyed on ground
P-38E Lightning: 6 damaged
P-38E Lightning: 5 destroyed on ground
P-39D Airacobra: 33 damaged
P-39D Airacobra: 7 destroyed on ground
Mohawk IV: 6 damaged
Mohawk IV: 4 destroyed on ground
Hurricane IIb Trop: 14 damaged
Hurricane IIb Trop: 4 destroyed on ground
Mitchell PR.II: 1 damaged
Mitchell PR.II: 1 destroyed on ground
F4F-4 Wildcat: 8 damaged
F4F-4 Wildcat: 6 destroyed on ground
DB-7B: 6 damaged
DB-7B: 3 destroyed on ground
A-24 Banshee: 23 damaged
A-24 Banshee: 5 destroyed on ground
Martlet II: 19 damaged
Martlet II: 2 destroyed on ground
B-25C Mitchell: 5 damaged
B-25C Mitchell: 4 destroyed on ground
Beaufort V (PR): 1 damaged
H81-A3: 4 damaged
H81-A3: 4 destroyed on ground

21 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.

Japanese Ships
BB Kirishima
BB Hiei
BB Kongo
CA Chokai, Shell hits 3
CA Atago
CA Takao
DD Nowaki
DD Hamakaze
DD Urakaze
DD Amatsukaze
DD Shiranui
DD Isokaze
DD Maikaze
DD Hayashio

Allied ground losses:
553 casualties reported
Squads: 2 destroyed, 6 disabled
Non Combat: 22 destroyed, 64 disabled
Engineers: 5 destroyed, 3 disabled
Guns lost 29 (4 destroyed, 25 disabled)
Vehicles lost 8 (4 destroyed, 4 disabled)

Airbase hits 54
Airbase supply hits 6
Runway hits 129

(in reply to rader)
Post #: 130
RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!) - 5/5/2020 7:09:39 PM   
rader


Posts: 1238
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline 		Aircraft losses for the day:






Attachment (1)

(in reply to rader)
Post #: 131
RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!) - 5/5/2020 7:58:03 PM   
Lowpe


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

ORIGINAL: rader

August 4, 1942

For some reason, despite being 9 hexes out and having it set to mission speed/retirement allowed, the fleet didn't bombard at night.



there is much better DL at day.

Your fleet didn't arrive in the first movement pulse. Too far away.

(in reply to rader)
Post #: 132
RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!) - 5/5/2020 7:59:44 PM   
Andav

 

Posts: 474
Joined: 5/8/2007
Status: offline 		That is pretty amazing!

Wa

(in reply to rader)
Post #: 133
RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!) - 5/5/2020 8:01:05 PM   
rader


Posts: 1238
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe


quote:

ORIGINAL: rader

August 4, 1942

For some reason, despite being 9 hexes out and having it set to mission speed/retirement allowed, the fleet didn't bombard at night.



there is much better DL at day.

Your fleet didn't arrive in the first movement pulse. Too far away.


But it was 9 hexes out and it can move 9 per pulse. Isn't that ideal to arrive at night?

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 134
RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!) - 5/5/2020 8:39:22 PM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 18046
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: rader


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe


quote:

ORIGINAL: rader

August 4, 1942

For some reason, despite being 9 hexes out and having it set to mission speed/retirement allowed, the fleet didn't bombard at night.



there is much better DL at day.

Your fleet didn't arrive in the first movement pulse. Too far away.


But it was 9 hexes out and it can move 9 per pulse. Isn't that ideal to arrive at night?

If you use all your ops points moving the full 9 hex distance, I am not sure you have any left for bombardment.

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to rader)
Post #: 135
RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!) - 5/5/2020 9:10:31 PM   
Lowpe


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

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: rader


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe


quote:

ORIGINAL: rader

August 4, 1942

For some reason, despite being 9 hexes out and having it set to mission speed/retirement allowed, the fleet didn't bombard at night.



there is much better DL at day.

Your fleet didn't arrive in the first movement pulse. Too far away.


But it was 9 hexes out and it can move 9 per pulse. Isn't that ideal to arrive at night?

If you use all your ops points moving the full 9 hex distance, I am not sure you have any left for bombardment.


Plus potential refueling or course changes. Even sub attacks can throw you off.

A lot of the times a BB SAG set to bombardment will advance only 1-2 hexes and standoff at that range. 6 hexes they are pretty certain to go in, after that it starts getting iffy. I don't think I have ever pulled off a 9 hex bombardment with a battleship (Japanese) at night.

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 136
RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!) - 5/6/2020 4:02:45 PM   
Bif1961


Posts: 2014
Joined: 6/26/2008
From: Phenix City, Alabama
Status: offline 		That will teach him to over stack a coastal airfield. The bonus is the moral affect on those bombarded air units, not only the loses in air frames and personnel.

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 137
RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!) - 5/7/2020 2:32:34 AM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: rader

August 4, 1942

Now it's time for a nuclear bombardment of Chittagong.

I don't often do bombardments but I noticed that the Allies had a massive stack of aircraft sitting at Chittagong for a long time. I wondered if by some miracle I could sneak some fast battleships in range without detection. To my surprise, it worked, and the bombardment fleet was not spotted the day before. The order was given to rush in and bombard at night and then get the heck out.

For some reason, despite being 9 hexes out and having it set to mission speed/retirement allowed, the fleet didn't bombard at night. To my surprise, the fleet was still camped in the Chittagong hex during the daylight phase. Oops. Is there a massive air attack coming to smash my fleet? Whew, no air attack.

Then the fleet decides to bombard in the daylight phase after aircraft flights. I didn't even know this was possible. But to say it was a powerful bombardment would be an understatement:

Naval bombardment of Chittagong at 55,41 - Coastal Guns Fire Back!

Allied aircraft
no flights

Allied aircraft losses
A-20A Havoc: 19 damaged
A-20A Havoc: 3 destroyed on ground
B-17E Fortress: 111 damaged
B-17E Fortress: 15 destroyed on ground
B-17D Fortress: 72 damaged
B-17D Fortress: 7 destroyed on ground
P-40E Warhawk: 209 damaged
P-40E Warhawk: 26 destroyed on ground
Blenheim IV: 91 damaged
Blenheim IV: 10 destroyed on ground
Hurricane IIc Trop: 14 damaged
Hurricane IIc Trop: 4 destroyed on ground
P-38E Lightning: 6 damaged
P-38E Lightning: 5 destroyed on ground
P-39D Airacobra: 33 damaged
P-39D Airacobra: 7 destroyed on ground
Mohawk IV: 6 damaged
Mohawk IV: 4 destroyed on ground
Hurricane IIb Trop: 14 damaged
Hurricane IIb Trop: 4 destroyed on ground
Mitchell PR.II: 1 damaged
Mitchell PR.II: 1 destroyed on ground
F4F-4 Wildcat: 8 damaged
F4F-4 Wildcat: 6 destroyed on ground
DB-7B: 6 damaged
DB-7B: 3 destroyed on ground
A-24 Banshee: 23 damaged
A-24 Banshee: 5 destroyed on ground
Martlet II: 19 damaged
Martlet II: 2 destroyed on ground
B-25C Mitchell: 5 damaged
B-25C Mitchell: 4 destroyed on ground
Beaufort V (PR): 1 damaged
H81-A3: 4 damaged
H81-A3: 4 destroyed on ground

21 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.

Japanese Ships
BB Kirishima
BB Hiei
BB Kongo
CA Chokai, Shell hits 3
CA Atago
CA Takao
DD Nowaki
DD Hamakaze
DD Urakaze
DD Amatsukaze
DD Shiranui
DD Isokaze
DD Maikaze
DD Hayashio

Allied ground losses:
553 casualties reported
Squads: 2 destroyed, 6 disabled
Non Combat: 22 destroyed, 64 disabled
Engineers: 5 destroyed, 3 disabled
Guns lost 29 (4 destroyed, 25 disabled)
Vehicles lost 8 (4 destroyed, 4 disabled)

Airbase hits 54
Airbase supply hits 6
Runway hits 129


Great plan and well executed.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to rader)
Post #: 138
RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!) - 5/8/2020 4:54:23 PM   
rader


Posts: 1238
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline 		August 9, 1942

All fronts are pretty quiet and we're preparing for our second assault on Chungking.

One thing I'm wondering about is that we haven't taken two hexes to the south and southwest of the city, but all other nearby bases have been taken. Are these hexes eligible retreat paths? I don't think so because they can't trace a supply path anywhere but not 100% sure. I would hate for the whole Chinese army to retreat out of the city, avoiding surrender.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by rader -- 5/8/2020 5:44:45 PM >

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 139
RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!) - 5/8/2020 5:11:21 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		They are not eligible, because you have troops there.

(in reply to rader)
Post #: 140
RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!) - 5/8/2020 6:54:16 PM   
Andav

 

Posts: 474
Joined: 5/8/2007
Status: offline
What about the hex to the northwest? It only has a Chinese unit. It looks like it is red on the Chungking side but my eyes could be poor.

Wa

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 141
RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!) - 5/8/2020 7:09:28 PM   
GetAssista

 

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

ORIGINAL: Andav
What about the hex to the northwest? It only has a Chinese unit. It looks like it is red on the Chungking side but my eyes could be poor.

It is red, yes. unless Chinese come to CK from the outside or Rader abandones one of the southern hexes there is no valid retreat paths left. Oh, and opens a path to some Chinese base together with abandonment. Given that there is no Chninese bases left in sight except Chihkiang and that one is encircled too, he needs to abandon Chihkiang hex too.

Besides, with regards to bombardment run in, I've just witnessed a 8 hex run in for a 7/4 BB TF and a night phase bombardment. So it's not all set in stone. But riskwise I still prefer 6- hex distance.

< Message edited by GetAssista -- 5/8/2020 7:22:17 PM >

(in reply to Andav)
Post #: 142
RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!) - 5/9/2020 10:35:50 AM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: GetAssista

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andav
What about the hex to the northwest? It only has a Chinese unit. It looks like it is red on the Chungking side but my eyes could be poor.

It is red, yes. unless Chinese come to CK from the outside or Rader abandones one of the southern hexes there is no valid retreat paths left. Oh, and opens a path to some Chinese base together with abandonment. Given that there is no Chninese bases left in sight except Chihkiang and that one is encircled too, he needs to abandon Chihkiang hex too.

Besides, with regards to bombardment run in, I've just witnessed a 8 hex run in for a 7/4 BB TF and a night phase bombardment. So it's not all set in stone. But riskwise I still prefer 6- hex distance.

Yes, anything can upset the bombardment run, any encounter (air or sea). Night AirSearch is effective way to upset things ...

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to GetAssista)
Post #: 143
RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!) - 5/12/2020 6:17:26 PM   
rader


Posts: 1238
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline 		August 15, 1942

This turn was something of a disaster.

I expected the second assault on Chungking to be ugly, but not dropping the forts despite having tons of engineers was pretty awful:

Ground combat at Chungking (76,45)

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 595872 troops, 6523 guns, 5543 vehicles, Assault Value = 20647

Defending force 388402 troops, 1819 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 12607

Japanese adjusted assault: 5428

Allied adjusted defense: 7805

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

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

Japanese ground losses:
154481 casualties reported
Squads: 638 destroyed, 4778 disabled
Non Combat: 54 destroyed, 762 disabled
Engineers: 185 destroyed, 1328 disabled
Guns lost 788 (54 destroyed, 734 disabled)
Vehicles lost 1186 (111 destroyed, 1075 disabled)
Units destroyed 1

Allied ground losses:
7645 casualties reported
Squads: 75 destroyed, 1075 disabled
Non Combat: 48 destroyed, 465 disabled
Engineers: 5 destroyed, 48 disabled
Guns lost 57 (14 destroyed, 43 disabled)
Units destroyed 2

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 144
RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!) - 5/13/2020 3:56:58 PM   
Andav

 

Posts: 474
Joined: 5/8/2007
Status: offline
That is absolutely horrible luck at CK.

Wa

(in reply to rader)
Post #: 145
RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!) - 5/14/2020 1:27:05 PM   
paullus99


Posts: 1985
Joined: 1/23/2002
Status: offline 		Holy moley - that's a really bad RNG roll right there.

_____________________________

Never Underestimate the Power of a Small Tactical Nuclear Weapon...

(in reply to rader)
Post #: 146
RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!) - 5/14/2020 2:22:11 PM   
traskott


Posts: 1546
Joined: 6/23/2008
From: Valladolid, Spain
Status: offline 		. How many VP has lost this turn ?

(in reply to paullus99)
Post #: 147
RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!) - 5/15/2020 7:05:52 AM   
rader


Posts: 1238
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: traskott

. How many VP has lost this turn ?


Oh about 120 lost that turn. Actually not as bad as the first assault on Chungking where it was 260.

(in reply to traskott)
Post #: 148
RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!) - 5/15/2020 6:20:05 PM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline 		Ouch. That hurts.

Don't be having my luck. One time I assaulted CK, got from 9 to 5 and then 4 assaults in a row did NOT reduce forts. After the first couple of failures it was taking a lot of porter to get me by …
Eventually I did take CK. I figure things later evened out as I took Calcutta and Bombay later in that game with no industry losses. But still, it was really hurtful those 4 failures in a row.

On the flip side, I know I was able to replace squads and the CHI could not … still hurts.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to rader)
Post #: 149
RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!) - 5/17/2020 9:39:21 PM   
Bif1961


Posts: 2014
Joined: 6/26/2008
From: Phenix City, Alabama
Status: offline 		Talk about bloody Somme.

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 150
Page:   <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!) Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   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

0.750