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  11 12 [13] 14 15   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!) - 3/30/2021 11:45:27 PM   
rader


Posts: 1238
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline 		Well I prefer the damage that I do at 6K and it looks like his main AA unit has heavy guns that I'm probably not going to fly above. Will see how this goes for now.

4 more air attacks this turn (Aug 1):




Attachment (1)

(in reply to RangerJoe)
Post #: 361
RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!) - 3/31/2021 3:41:19 AM   
RangerJoe


Posts: 13450
Joined: 11/16/2015
From: My Mother, although my Father had some small part.
Status: offline 		I guess that you are right to do so since those 2 pdr AAA and/or those 40mm Bofors AAA that are inherent in the Indian infantry divisions do not fire at your bombers. The US Marines may also hae inherent AAA which does not fire either. My mistake . . .

_____________________________

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 #: 362
RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!) - 3/31/2021 5:56:59 AM   
rader


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

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

I guess that you are right to do so since those 2 pdr AAA and/or those 40mm Bofors AAA that are inherent in the Indian infantry divisions do not fire at your bombers. The US Marines may also hae inherent AAA which does not fire either. My mistake . . .


Why would they not fire at my bombers?

(in reply to RangerJoe)
Post #: 363
RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!) - 3/31/2021 1:05:31 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: RangerJoe

I guess that you are right to do so since those 2 pdr AAA and/or those 40mm Bofors AAA that are inherent in the Indian infantry divisions do not fire at your bombers. The US Marines may also hae inherent AAA which does not fire either. My mistake . . .


Why would they not fire at my bombers?


I was being facetious. With the lighter AAA in the other units, that is at least equivilent to a light AAA regiment. Why let those guns shoot at you if you don't have to?

_____________________________

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 #: 364
RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!) - 3/31/2021 5:13:50 PM   
rader


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

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe


quote:

ORIGINAL: rader


quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

I guess that you are right to do so since those 2 pdr AAA and/or those 40mm Bofors AAA that are inherent in the Indian infantry divisions do not fire at your bombers. The US Marines may also hae inherent AAA which does not fire either. My mistake . . .


Why would they not fire at my bombers?


I was being facetious. With the lighter AAA in the other units, that is at least equivilent to a light AAA regiment. Why let those guns shoot at you if you don't have to?


Ah right. Well I'm sure I would definitely take less flak damage at higher altitudes but I would also inflict less damage on his troops. All I'm saying is that in this case I *think* the tradeoff is better to take a bit more flak damage to inflict a bit more losses. But not 100% sure.

(in reply to RangerJoe)
Post #: 365
RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!) - 3/31/2021 9:28:03 PM   
rader


Posts: 1238
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline 		Aug 2, 1943.

Today no apparent flak at all, and decent damage inflicted. Lack of supply for AA rounds?




Attachment (1)

(in reply to rader)
Post #: 366
RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!) - 3/31/2021 11:27:37 PM   
RangerJoe


Posts: 13450
Joined: 11/16/2015
From: My Mother, although my Father had some small part.
Status: offline 		Look at the disruption which the fires and smoke shows.

_____________________________

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 #: 367
RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!) - 4/1/2021 4:25:43 AM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline 		50 damaged seems like a lot of flak to me ....

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to RangerJoe)
Post #: 368
RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!) - 4/1/2021 6:57:42 AM   
rader


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

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

50 damaged seems like a lot of flak to me ....


Hmm yeah I just mean no flak bursts in the combat animation. But seems like the flak did something for sure.

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 369
RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!) - 4/1/2021 11:05:40 AM   
PaxMondo


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

ORIGINAL: rader


quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

50 damaged seems like a lot of flak to me ....


Hmm yeah I just mean no flak bursts in the combat animation. But seems like the flak did something for sure.

ok, now that's weird .... have to think about that. you should have seen flak bursts .... not balloons at that altitude, so ...

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to rader)
Post #: 370
RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!) - 4/1/2021 8:20:55 PM   
rader


Posts: 1238
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline 		Hmm, interesting occurrence. My partner/opponent Richard isn't happy with the ground bombing. He sent me this note with the latest turn:

Note:

Small point

En masse ground bombing with medium bombers at 6000 feet when you can produce as many Helens as you want (1/2 bomb load of an allied HB), and I can't bomb with my limited pool of heavy bombers at below 10000 feet is a little bit exploitive I feel

Here's my reply:

Hmm, that never even occurred to me, but happy to discuss.

In my late war games, ground (and airfield) bombing is the bane of the Japanese and I expect it to shred my forces in 1944+ - which is precisely why I asked for a HR to limit it to 10K feet. I thought it was acceptable here because I expected to be on the receiving end of it later. From my perspective, it's also well within the acceptable but annoying pain of having to live with unstoppable night bombing that just chews up my fighters for negligible bomber loss. I expect that to wreck my cities eventually. Seems like the problem here really is terrain - in clear terrain, ground bombing is uber effective. In bad terrain, it doesn't do much. But I'd be ok with some kind of limit on both side for medium bombers too - altitude? Limit of 10K or 15K for all level bombers on ground bombing? What do you think makes sense?

Question:
Any thoughts on what should be done here? I'm sympathetic to his point but I think the Japanese player also has to put up with a lot of Allied uber-bomber stuff so not sure what the best compromise is.

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 371
RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!) - 4/1/2021 9:49:33 PM   
RangerJoe


Posts: 13450
Joined: 11/16/2015
From: My Mother, although my Father had some small part.
Status: offline 		He gets medium bombers plus attack bombers. Have a rule where the attack bombers have to fly at 6k or higher.

_____________________________

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 #: 372
RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!) - 4/4/2021 11:59:11 PM   
rader


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

More bombing in Burma and this time Allied fighter sweeps next to Japanese bases that resulted in approximately equal losses in Allied and Japanese fighters.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to RangerJoe)
Post #: 373
RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!) - 4/5/2021 12:26:30 AM   
rader


Posts: 1238
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline 		I haven't been able to get these Bettys to fly a mission to mine Darwin's port. It's been over 10 turns and nothing. Tried both day and night. Plenty of type 3 mines in the pool. Any ideas?




Attachment (1)

(in reply to rader)
Post #: 374
RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!) - 4/5/2021 6:31:10 AM   
Dili

 

Posts: 4708
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline 		You need at least size 6 airbase.

(in reply to rader)
Post #: 375
RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!) - 4/5/2021 8:35:21 AM   
DesertWolf101

 

Posts: 1445
Joined: 11/26/2016
Status: offline 		Good idea to double check the mines are not stockpiled too.

(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 376
RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!) - 4/5/2021 4:19:28 PM   
rader


Posts: 1238
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline 		Level 9 undamaged airfield, mines not being stockpiled. The only thing I can think of is this group had low skill/experience because it was a test to see if it would work and I didn't want to risk very good pilots. Maybe there's a skill/experience check that they kept failing?

(in reply to DesertWolf101)
Post #: 377
RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!) - 4/5/2021 4:50:28 PM   
Dili

 

Posts: 4708
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline 		What about supply, maybe a threshold there?

(in reply to rader)
Post #: 378
RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!) - 4/5/2021 4:54:50 PM   
rader


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

ORIGINAL: Dili

What about supply, maybe a threshold there?


Tons of supply.

(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 379
RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!) - 4/5/2021 5:02:34 PM   
Dili

 

Posts: 4708
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline 		Ok, i am out of ideas...

(in reply to rader)
Post #: 380
RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!) - 4/5/2021 5:05:14 PM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 18046
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline 		Is Dili (the base, not the forumite) within the normal range threshold from Darwin for the Bettys?

_____________________________

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 #: 381
RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!) - 4/5/2021 5:13:23 PM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline 		Toggle off the torpedo.

Alfred

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 382
RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!) - 4/5/2021 5:32:21 PM   
rader


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

ORIGINAL: Alfred

Toggle off the torpedo.

Alfred


Great, will try that! Do I need to worry about Flak & fighters at Darwin? Can/should I fly at night? Does altitude matter?

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 383
RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!) - 4/6/2021 1:48:36 AM   
rader


Posts: 1238
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline 		August 8, 1943.

Alert Alert!

Enemy task forces spotted heading toward Japanese bases in the Arafura sea. Definitely accompanied by heavy enemy carrier cover, but by the APA spotted, likely an invasion of somewhere. Japanese forces reacting to intervene.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to rader)
Post #: 384
RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!) - 4/6/2021 6:02:59 AM   
BBfanboy


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

ORIGINAL: rader


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

Toggle off the torpedo.

Alfred


Great, will try that! Do I need to worry about Flak & fighters at Darwin? Can/should I fly at night? Does altitude matter?

Last I heard, mine missions have a "drop to altitude to launch" profile, just like a torpedo mission. I think they drop to 3000 feet. Set whatever approach altitude you like.

_____________________________

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 #: 385
RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!) - 4/6/2021 7:14:46 PM   
rader


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

Well he's ashore in good order with 14 units at Taberfane. Hard to say his exact strength but with 45K troops and 845 AFVs, likely well enough to secure the place against the two Japanese brigades and base forces.

Heavy battles in the air in Burma, Solomons and over the only Japanese surface TF in the area around Kai-eilanden. Lots of air losses on both sides. Higher for the Japanese, but probably better aircraft for the Allies so the disparity isn't as bad as it looks.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by rader -- 4/6/2021 7:20:30 PM >

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 386
RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!) - 4/6/2021 7:22:52 PM   
rader


Posts: 1238
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline 		Can you sweep a friendly base if it contains enemy troops? I assume not...

(in reply to rader)
Post #: 387
RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!) - 4/6/2021 7:25:20 PM   
rader


Posts: 1238
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline 		In Burma, he used to old sacrificial unit trick to block the movement of my forces that were going to expel his offending units. I guess that makes up for my "gamey bombing"




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by rader -- 4/7/2021 1:38:34 AM >

(in reply to rader)
Post #: 388
RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!) - 4/7/2021 8:04:45 PM   
rader


Posts: 1238
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline 		August 10, 1943.

Well Gardner's Horse Regiment was fed into the slaughterhouse today. Looks like he's moving another sacrificial unit blocker to protect his main force. Let's see who's next on the dinner plate.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to rader)
Post #: 389
RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!) - 4/7/2021 8:09:00 PM   
rader


Posts: 1238
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline 		And he easily secured Taberfane. Japanese adjusted defense was 67!? That's kind of strange given Jungle terrain and level 3 forts (before engineers). They must have been ridiculously disrupted but the shore bombardment didn't look all that bad.

I'm guessing he will move on to take Dobo overland next. It always seems that Allied players like to press through the Arafura sea. Much more effective than the historical Solomons option it seems.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to rader)
Post #: 390
Page:   <<   < prev  11 12 [13] 14 15   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  11 12 [13] 14 15   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

0.875