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  9 10 [11] 12 13   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!) - 1/16/2021 7:42:15 PM   
RangerJoe


Posts: 13450
Joined: 11/16/2015
From: My Mother, although my Father had some small part.
Status: offline 		What is more important is the amount of AAA plus radar/searchlights available. If they are flying low, then the amount of balloons available is dependent on the fortification level.

_____________________________

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 #: 301
RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!) - 1/16/2021 8:09:02 PM   
rader


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

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

What is more important is the amount of AAA plus radar/searchlights available. If they are flying low, then the amount of balloons available is dependent on the fortification level.


I've got pretty decent AA there - probably the second best defended place on the map after an airfield in Burma.

(in reply to RangerJoe)
Post #: 302
RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!) - 1/17/2021 1:36:33 AM   
rader


Posts: 1238
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline 		June 6, 1943.

Raiding AV strikes again, with Jakes putting some more 60 kg bombs into a tanker near Palmyra.

These are fun, but hardly consequential to the war effort.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to rader)
Post #: 303
RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!) - 1/17/2021 1:38:22 AM   
rader


Posts: 1238
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline 		Lost a lot more fighters to night raids by 4Es again, but flak did a decent job taking some down. Eight more 4Es wiped off the list.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to rader)
Post #: 304
RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!) - 1/17/2021 8:21:53 AM   
PaxMondo


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

ORIGINAL: rader

Lost a lot more fighters to night raids by 4Es again, but flak did a decent job taking some down. Eight more 4Es wiped off the list.



The only good news I can share with you is that the 4E losses are likely under-reported. FOW is likely in your favor here as he will have lost another 1 or 2 on the way back. Figure about 20% more ops losses in addition to the flak losses. Just based upon my experience in AI games ... I know you hate losing the fighters, but you shouldn't be losing too many pilots and you are attritting an asset with limited renewal at this point.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to rader)
Post #: 305
RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!) - 1/17/2021 10:20:23 AM   
RangerJoe


Posts: 13450
Joined: 11/16/2015
From: My Mother, although my Father had some small part.
Status: offline 		Those tankers are scarce for the Allies. There aren't enough of them to move all of the fuel that is needed, at least it appears to me that way. Especially when those fuel thirsty BBs start moving.

_____________________________

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 PaxMondo)
Post #: 306
RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!) - 1/17/2021 7:11:09 PM   
rader


Posts: 1238
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline 		June 7, 943.

Brutal day in the air for Japan. I'd see an invasion force coming to the SE tip of NG and decided to meet them with dive bombers (they landed at Milne Bay). The Allied carriers were unreported, but were providing LRCAP. The mostly unescorted Japanese bombers got slaughtered. At least Vals and Oscars aren't much use anymore, so cleaning out the pool isn't a terrible thing.

The Port Moresby airfield was reported heavily damaged but some planes had moved in so we decided to strike the airfield... unfortunately our George sweeps and Helens encountered Thunderbolts for the first time. The Georges actually did so-so vs the Allied fighters, shooting down 13 Allied fighters while losing 25 (bad ratio considering it was over an Allied airfield, but any Thunderbolts down is a good thing).

For the first time, I was actually happy a strike didn't fly. Most of the bombers that were supposed to hit PM stayed on the runway, so relatively few were lost.





Attachment (1)

(in reply to RangerJoe)
Post #: 307
RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!) - 1/17/2021 7:16:55 PM   
RangerJoe


Posts: 13450
Joined: 11/16/2015
From: My Mother, although my Father had some small part.
Status: offline 		LRCAP PM for more operational losses, even a 10% LRCAP by Oscars should do it.

_____________________________

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 #: 308
RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!) - 1/17/2021 7:47:47 PM   
rader


Posts: 1238
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline 		Does that really work?

< Message edited by rader -- 1/17/2021 7:50:15 PM >

(in reply to RangerJoe)
Post #: 309
RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!) - 1/17/2021 8:11:26 PM   
RangerJoe


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

ORIGINAL: rader

Does that really work?


Yes.

_____________________________

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 #: 310
RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!) - 1/18/2021 11:08:57 PM   
rader


Posts: 1238
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline 		June 9, 1943.

Another victim of the AV raider, but I get the sense that this LST might have been bait and he's using it to hone in and chase the AV.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to RangerJoe)
Post #: 311
RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!) - 1/20/2021 1:14:31 AM   
rader


Posts: 1238
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline 		June 11, 1943.

An Allied attack in Burma along the coast where shells have rained down on Japanese positions for weeks.

The terrain is really rough, and despite a ton of Allied armor, Japanese forces are able to hold their ground.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to rader)
Post #: 312
RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!) - 1/20/2021 1:19:09 AM   
rader


Posts: 1238
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline 		The Allied fleet seems to be mostly congregated around Port Moresby. A Japanese mine layer was torn apart by over 30 SBDs, but a few Georges on CAP extracted a small measure of vengeance against the escorting Wildcats and Martlets (Wildcats by another name). CM Itsukushima has a really bad day.

Hard to tell if these are the Allied fleet carriers, or just a British/CVE/CVL diversionary force. Seems there are at least a few of the large American flattops but I wouldn't discount him having others around somewhere.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to rader)
Post #: 313
RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!) - 1/22/2021 3:46:35 AM   
rader


Posts: 1238
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline 		June 14, 1943.

Oof, a terrible naval battle result, albeit fairly small-scale. I sent 5x Shimakaze class destroyers vs 5 US destroyers. I expected the fight to be easy. These are the state of the art of Japanese destroyers with good commanders fighting at night with long lance torpedoes. Aren't we supposed to be good at this?

Nope, 4 Japanese destroyers sunk or crippled for not a single US destroyer significantly damaged. Losing destroyers, especially Shimakaze class destroyers, really hurts.

The only consolation is that in the morning, US B-25s attempted low-level bombing runs on the surviving Japanese destroyers and got badly chopped up by some Georges. But planes are a lot easier to replace than Japanese destroyers.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by rader -- 1/22/2021 5:52:46 PM >

(in reply to rader)
Post #: 314
RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!) - 1/22/2021 11:18:34 AM   
RangerJoe


Posts: 13450
Joined: 11/16/2015
From: My Mother, although my Father had some small part.
Status: offline 		By that time, those US DDs have radar so no surprise. Their training and operations have given the crews more experience as well. If you get close, all that AA on the DDs fire as well as the big guns. Since the 40mm out ranges the 25mm, the Allies have the advantage there.

_____________________________

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 #: 315
RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!) - 1/22/2021 5:33:18 PM   
rader


Posts: 1238
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline 		June 15, 1943.

This time we tried it again with 5 new destroyers from Rabaul. I figured the American DDs would be low on ammo and not really looking for a fight.

The Japanese destroyers arrived to find that the Americans had vacated the area. But the Japanese DD commander decided to wait around into daylight (this was not my intention; I had set them to retire but they did not).

However, it turned out to be a good thing as at least 10 waves of American carrier aircraft (plus some B-25s) bore down on the Japanese DDs. Luckily, the DDs had heavy air cover and Georges tore into the Allied aircraft with zeal. With the loss of a single George, the Georges managed to down more than a hundred Allied aircraft, mainly Avengers and SDBs. Three SBDs managed to get through to plant bombs on the Japanese destroyers, but none of the hits were fatal. A great day in the air, likely making up for the loss of DDs the day before.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by rader -- 1/22/2021 5:52:28 PM >

(in reply to RangerJoe)
Post #: 316
RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!) - 1/22/2021 8:10:40 PM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline 		Those are a lot of pilots lost to the allies. Wow~~




_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to rader)
Post #: 317
RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!) - 1/22/2021 10:40:13 PM   
rader


Posts: 1238
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline 		Apparently we got a sync bug so Richard didn't see the same result. In his version "not much happened". That's only the second time we've gotten a sync bug this game. Sure is annoying.

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 318
RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!) - 1/23/2021 2:37:20 AM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline 		Yeah, quite ...

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to rader)
Post #: 319
RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!) - 1/23/2021 2:47:31 AM   
RangerJoe


Posts: 13450
Joined: 11/16/2015
From: My Mother, although my Father had some small part.
Status: offline 		What does the combat state? I do believe that is correct for both sides.

_____________________________

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 PaxMondo)
Post #: 320
RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!) - 1/23/2021 2:50:46 AM   
RangerJoe


Posts: 13450
Joined: 11/16/2015
From: My Mother, although my Father had some small part.
Status: offline 		What does the combat state? I do believe that is correct for both sides.

_____________________________

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 PaxMondo)
Post #: 321
RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!) - 1/23/2021 8:04:19 PM   
rader


Posts: 1238
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline 		The combat report matched the Japanese version. I think that's considered the "correct" version, and the other is a spuriously generated one.

(in reply to RangerJoe)
Post #: 322
RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!) - 1/24/2021 12:51:36 AM   
rader


Posts: 1238
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline 		Didn't realize this was an actual ship. Ought to use it as bait for the USS Enterprise :)




Attachment (1)

(in reply to rader)
Post #: 323
RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!) - 1/24/2021 1:18:31 AM   
RangerJoe


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

ORIGINAL: rader

Didn't realize this was an actual ship. Ought to use it as bait for the USS Enterprise :)





Oh yes, they did put it in the game!

_____________________________

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 #: 324
RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!) - 1/24/2021 8:06:13 PM   
rader


Posts: 1238
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline 		June 16, 1943.

Minor naval skirmish off the coast of Western Australia. The Allies lost 2 DDs to Japan's 1 DD and 1 AV. It should have gone a lot better for Japan - a Japanese TF of 1 CA, 4 DD found 4 Allied DDs in daylight but the CA (Atago) didn't engage and the Allied DDs got away with sinking a Japanese DD and then making a break for it (but not before two of them ate long lance torpedoes and promptly went to the bottom).






Attachment (1)

(in reply to RangerJoe)
Post #: 325
RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!) - 1/25/2021 4:30:09 PM   
rader


Posts: 1238
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline 		June 17, 1943.

Minor 3 DD vs 3 DD skirmish off the coast of Western Australia, trying to run down the remaining destroyers from the day before. One British destroyer ate a long lance and went down.

Also, near Milne Bay, a Dutch sub torpedoed I-22 and she sank fast.





Attachment (1)

(in reply to rader)
Post #: 326
RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!) - 1/25/2021 4:32:57 PM   
rader


Posts: 1238
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline 		Also some night bombing and managed to bring down 3x B-24s at a cost of 23 sacrificial bait fighters




Attachment (1)

(in reply to rader)
Post #: 327
RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!) - 1/27/2021 4:45:16 PM   
rader


Posts: 1238
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline 		Ugh... game on hold for 3 weeks as my esteemed opponent replaces his broken computer

(in reply to rader)
Post #: 328
RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!) - 1/29/2021 3:01:06 AM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline 		ouch!




_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to rader)
Post #: 329
RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!) - 2/23/2021 6:10:04 AM   
rader


Posts: 1238
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline 		We're back at it after the 2.5 week computer outage hiatus.

Quite a lot of air losses today over India as I tried to bomb some of his 4E bases and some Flak losses over Darwin as I tried to delay the return of the Allies in force.

He's got quite a lot of units and Flak at Darwin... not sure I'll be able to stop the buildup this time. He could be back in Darwin to stay.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 330
Page:   <<   < prev  9 10 [11] 12 13   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  9 10 [11] 12 13   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

0.660