RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))

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: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))

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: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))

Page: << < prev 70 71 [72] 73 74 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 6/14/2021 2:36:55 PM

Lowpe

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

NCAC Army Command does not have to be bought out.

It is already an unrestricted unit.

Thanks Hans!

(in reply to HansBolter)

Post #: 2131

RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 6/14/2021 2:37:29 PM

Lowpe

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

BIG brigades! When full, I think that they only have something like 72 40mm Bofors. Maybe more? Plus the 3.7" . . .

Actually, I get the Japanese to bomb from 20K+ wherever I have AA so the 40mm isn't much good. I am using a lot of it as point defense for anti paratroop missions, especially in India.

My game is not open now as I am busy starving but those brigades should get at least 48 3.7" AA guns.

I did notice they had 3.7 inchers...I simply can't have enough AA.

(in reply to RangerJoe)

Post #: 2132

RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 6/14/2021 2:40:33 PM

witpqs

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

I seem to remember that at one point they changed the code so that instead of paras it was anything with a specific icon number, which they used for commandoes. But later in Babes they stopped using that icon for commandoes because they felt the submarine landing thing was overpowered in the game engine. Something like that.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Lowpe)

Post #: 2133

RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 6/14/2021 2:50:12 PM

BBfanboy

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

All three SS to SST conversions are going on right now, and if I recall you can only load designated -p units in, and to load you need to actually move the troops in.

Some night bombing going on, stepping up the supply drop into Burma/China again using a LB30 squadron.

Just moving troops and supplies and ships and training. Lots of upgrades of CVs, cruisers and destroyers. Radar.

IIRC I had problems doing even this in my current game. Not certain. Beware.

Paratroops are the only ones that can be carried in combat mode on the US SSTs. Other troops can be carried in Move mode, IIRC. If that doesn't work try Strat Mode.

_____________________________

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 witpqs)

Post #: 2134

RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 6/14/2021 3:18:09 PM

witpqs

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

All three SS to SST conversions are going on right now, and if I recall you can only load designated -p units in, and to load you need to actually move the troops in.

Some night bombing going on, stepping up the supply drop into Burma/China again using a LB30 squadron.

Just moving troops and supplies and ships and training. Lots of upgrades of CVs, cruisers and destroyers. Radar.

IIRC I had problems doing even this in my current game. Not certain. Beware.

Paratroops are the only ones that can be carried in combat mode on the US SSTs. Other troops can be carried in Move mode, IIRC. If that doesn't work try Strat Mode.

We all had this discussion long ago in my AAR.

Adding: I should clarify I'm talking about combat mode, not strat mode.

< Message edited by witpqs -- 6/14/2021 3:34:33 PM >

_____________________________

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

(in reply to BBfanboy)

Post #: 2135

RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 6/14/2021 6:37:12 PM

Encircled

Posts: 2024
Joined: 12/30/2010
From: Northern England
Status: offline

2 x NZ AA Bdes

72 x 3.7 inch
92 x 40 mm

_____________________________

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 2136

RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 6/14/2021 11:04:48 PM

Lowpe

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Encircled

2 x NZ AA Bdes

72 x 3.7 inch
92 x 40 mm

Thanks.

(in reply to Encircled)

Post #: 2137

RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 6/15/2021 6:32:54 AM

Encircled

Posts: 2024
Joined: 12/30/2010
From: Northern England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

quote:

ORIGINAL: Encircled

2 x NZ AA Bdes

72 x 3.7 inch
92 x 40 mm

Thanks.

They don't come in at full strength though, I think its about 1/2 strength, but still a very effective AA unit

_____________________________

(in reply to Lowpe)

Post #: 2138

RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 6/15/2021 11:22:21 AM

Lowpe

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

April 8th, 1942

PT boats used to drive me nuts, till I figured out how to handle them...and then as Japan I always looked at them as free VP. Go figure.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)

Post #: 2139

RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 6/15/2021 11:25:28 AM

Lowpe

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

Working on these two armored units and the base...

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)

Post #: 2140

RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 6/15/2021 11:29:45 AM

Lowpe

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

Worried a bit about the approaching IJA forces, we do recon by Hudson...a few other squadrons fly in doing some damage too.

Relieved to see it is only a recon unit.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Lowpe -- 6/15/2021 11:30:29 AM >

(in reply to Lowpe)

Post #: 2141

RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 6/15/2021 11:35:16 AM

Lowpe

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

Sad day, but we still keep shooting down valuable planes.

Morning Air attack on Singapore , at 50,84

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid detected at 38 NM, estimated altitude 17,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 16 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 2
B5N1 Kate x 10
B5N2 Kate x 12

Japanese aircraft losses
B5N1 Kate: 4 damaged
B5N2 Kate: 1 destroyed by flak

Allied Ships
BC Repulse, Bomb hits 2, heavy damage

Aircraft Attacking:
6 x B5N1 Kate bombing from 15000 feet
Port Attack: 1 x 800 kg AP Bomb
4 x B5N1 Kate bombing from 15000 feet
Port Attack: 1 x 800 kg AP Bomb
10 x B5N2 Kate bombing from 15000 feet
Port Attack: 1 x 800 kg AP Bomb

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)

Post #: 2142

RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 6/15/2021 11:40:37 AM

Lowpe

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

B26 goodness. Every IJ base needs to be pulverized. First economically, 2nd supply and fuel stores and that bombing will stop expansions.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)

Post #: 2143

RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 6/15/2021 11:44:54 AM

Lowpe

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

Not sure I see the point in having this bad guy on the front lines in a nonbase hex.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)

Post #: 2144

RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 6/15/2021 11:48:25 AM

Lowpe

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

First bombardment at Rockhampton...no attacks for the immediate future other than bombardments.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)

Post #: 2145

RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 6/15/2021 11:55:15 AM

Lowpe

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

Rockhampton and Bundaberg...50K trapped IJA troopers.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)

Post #: 2146

RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 6/15/2021 12:03:15 PM

Lowpe

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

Butchers bill for the day...

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)

Post #: 2147

RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 6/15/2021 12:03:18 PM

BBfanboy

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

First bombardment at Rockhampton...no attacks for the immediate future other than bombardments.

Apparently all his heavy arty is in China! The Aussie 25 pounder and the US 105 (about 36 pounder) are good guns but not really heavy arty. He must have only Mountain Guns or the old 3" field pieces.

Loved to see those Philippine PTs get 4 torp hits from three boats! Hope they can reload somewhere.

RIP Repulse.

But he might not know that she slipped under during the night and he will send more bombers to your flak.

Loaded for bear and finding only cucarachas!

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

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 Lowpe)

Post #: 2148

RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 6/15/2021 12:10:00 PM

Lowpe

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

Loved to see those Philippine PTs get 4 torp hits from three boats! Hope they can reload somewhere.

Returned to the pool...no joy on rearming them any other way.

(in reply to BBfanboy)

Post #: 2149

RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 6/15/2021 6:18:30 PM

Lowpe

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

April 9th, 1942

Still hitting the tanks...gave up on the strafing without bombs. Neither strafing cannon seemed to get any hits.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)

Post #: 2150

RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 6/15/2021 6:22:43 PM

Lowpe

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

Will attempt a long range dive bomber attack with Vindicators in two days...to hit the train of shore bombardments coming in. Tonights wasn't bad.

Surprised to see the number of vehicles hit. Need to check on exactly what was hit. Allies have a 2-1 advantage in AV, will attack with tanks only in two days at Rockhampton.

Bundaberg looks good, no AA present. With troops in both bases, no SR available...

Night Naval bombardment of Rockhampton at 95,152

Japanese Ships
CA Mikuma
CA Mogami
DD Yomogi
DD Hagikaze
DD Arashi
DD Maikaze
DD Kagero

Allied ground losses:
40 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 4 disabled
Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 29 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 38 (3 destroyed, 35 disabled)
Vehicles lost 25 (1 destroyed, 24 disabled)

E8N2 Dave acting as spotter for CA Mikuma
CA Mikuma firing at 2nd Medium Regiment
E8N2 Dave acting as spotter for CA Mogami
CA Mogami firing at 41st Infantry/A Division
DD Yomogi firing at 41st Infantry/C Division
DD Hagikaze firing at 182nd Infantry Regiment
DD Arashi firing at 21/22 Field Regiment
DD Maikaze firing at 41st Infantry/B Division
DD Kagero firing at 41st Infantry/B Division

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Lowpe -- 6/15/2021 6:30:09 PM >

(in reply to Lowpe)

Post #: 2151

RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 6/15/2021 6:27:59 PM

Lowpe

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

Coastwatcher Report: harbor at Koggala is reported empty
Coastwatcher Report: xAK Shinetsu Maru reported in port at Tulagi
Coastwatcher Report: 1 ship in port at Nadi
Coastwatcher Report: harbor at Suva is reported empty
Coastwatcher Report: 5 ships in port at Chittagong
Coastwatcher Report: harbor at Perth is reported empty
Coastwatcher Report: xAK Shinetsu Maru reported in port at Madang
Coastwatcher Report: harbor at Rabaul is reported empty
Coastwatcher Report: 1 ship in port at Manus
Coastwatcher Report: xAK Shinetsu Maru reported in port at Horn Island
Coastwatcher Report: xAKL P-61 reported in port at Koumac
Coastwatcher Report: xAK Shinetsu Maru reported in port at Noumea
Coastwatcher Report: 4 ships in port at Esperance
Coastwatcher sighting: 2 Japanese ships at 92,144 near Townsville , Speed unknown
Coastwatcher sighting: 7 Japanese ships at 95,152 near Rockhampton , Speed 13 , Moving Southwest
Coastwatcher sighting: 5 Japanese ships at 92,144 near Townsville , Speed unknown
Coastwatcher sighting: 1 Japanese ship at 106,125 near Rabaul , Speed unknown
Coastwatcher sighting: 2 Japanese ships at 106,125 near Rabaul , Speed unknown
Coastwatcher sighting: 2 Japanese ships at 113,156 near Koumac , Speed unknown

Shinestsu Maru really gets around!

(in reply to Lowpe)

Post #: 2152

RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 6/15/2021 6:32:33 PM

Lowpe

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

Japan still has plenty of punch left in them...but this?

3/4th Brigade is planning for an attack on Anchorage.

Something I might do!

(in reply to Lowpe)

Post #: 2153

RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 6/15/2021 11:21:57 PM

Lowpe

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

What a great unit...need to be very careful with these planes as I gather the pools will be dry till 1943.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)

Post #: 2154

RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 6/16/2021 7:11:31 AM

CaptBeefheart

Posts: 2301
Joined: 7/4/2003
From: Seoul, Korea
Status: offline

I gave up on coastwatcher reports years ago. They've all got stills in operation or are growing wacky tobacco.

Has anyone gotten any utility out of the coasties?

Cheers,
CB

_____________________________

Beer, because barley makes lousy bread.

(in reply to Lowpe)

Post #: 2155

RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 6/16/2021 11:10:47 AM

HansBolter

Posts: 7704
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: United States
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

All three SS to SST conversions are going on right now, and if I recall you can only load designated -p units in, and to load you need to actually move the troops in.

Some night bombing going on, stepping up the supply drop into Burma/China again using a LB30 squadron.

Just moving troops and supplies and ships and training. Lots of upgrades of CVs, cruisers and destroyers. Radar.

IIRC I had problems doing even this in my current game. Not certain. Beware.

I added several more SSTs to my current game, planning to be able to lift an entire battalion.
I discovered that troop loading on SSTs is heavily restricted.
At Pearl's level 8 port I could only load SST TFs with 3 boats.
Increasing to 4 boats greyed out the Load Troops function.
I had to load the paras into 3 boat TFs consecutively and then combine the TFs once loaded to achieve my goal of lifting the entire battalion.

Just something to be aware of.

_____________________________

Hans

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 2156

RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 6/16/2021 11:34:19 AM

Lowpe

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

April 10th, 1942

Beasts, at night in thunderstorms with low moonlight! For the most part my night bombing has been producing what most AFBs would respond with as very unsatisfactory results...mostly misses -- but persistence and low losses pay off.

The pilots are just now starting to approach a decent skill level, but experience is still low in the 50s. I don't think I have swapped out air commanders either.

But I am working on the DL.

Those 6 hits yielded some 20+ oil losses. Probably see a few more points over the next day or two.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to HansBolter)

Post #: 2157

RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 6/16/2021 11:43:33 AM

Lowpe

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

Attack on Wenchow...

China is using reserve no pursuit mode, HQs...while Japan is aerial bombing and naval bombarding with Mutsu daily but has no HQ!

Ground combat at Wenchow (89,58)

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 21136 troops, 166 guns, 4 vehicles, Assault Value = 488

Defending force 18059 troops, 81 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 393

Japanese adjusted assault: 349

Allied adjusted defense: 493

Japanese assault odds: 1 to 2 (fort level 0)

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

Japanese ground losses:
1811 casualties reported
Squads: 67 destroyed, 35 disabled
Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 6 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 7 disabled
Guns lost 12 (1 destroyed, 11 disabled)

Allied ground losses:
376 casualties reported
Squads: 3 destroyed, 45 disabled
Non Combat: 2 destroyed, 26 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 6 disabled

Assaulting units:
61st Infantry Brigade
13th Division
138th Infantry Regiment
1st Army

Defending units:
88th Chinese Corps
100th Chinese Corps
25th Group Army
10th Group Army
23rd Group Army
14th Chinese Base Force

PS: The 88th just passed the National Training level of 45, and now is prepping for Wenchow. Every drop counts!

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Lowpe -- 6/16/2021 11:50:26 AM >

(in reply to Lowpe)

Post #: 2158

RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 6/16/2021 11:52:53 AM

Lowpe

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

The triangle besieged on two fronts:

Ground combat at Manila (79,77)

Japanese Bombardment attack

Attacking force 2475 troops, 174 guns, 172 vehicles, Assault Value = 418

Defending force 29597 troops, 318 guns, 17 vehicles, Assault Value = 701

Japanese ground losses:
Guns lost 3 (1 destroyed, 2 disabled)

Allied ground losses:
32 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 1 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 3 (1 destroyed, 2 disabled)

Assaulting units:
14th Guards Regiment
11th Infantry Regiment
1st Tank Regiment
16th Guards Regiment
15th Ind.Art.Mortar Battalion
20th Ind. Mtn Gun Battalion
10th Ind. Mountain Gun Regiment
14th Army
9th Ind.Hvy.Art. Battalion
2nd Ind.Hvy.Art. Battalion
1st Hvy.Artillery Regiment
8th Medium Field Artillery Regiment
3rd Ind.Hvy.Art. Battalion
2nd Mortar Battalion
2nd Ind.Art.Mortar Battalion

Defending units:
41st PA Infantry Division
91st PA Infantry Division
71st PA Infantry Division
51st PA Infantry Division
1st PA Infantry Division
200th & 515th Coast AA Regiment
II Philippine Corps
Nichols Field AAF Base Force
PAF Aviation
1st USMC AA Battalion
Asiatic Fleet
USAFFE
Cavite USN Base Force

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)

Post #: 2159

RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 6/16/2021 12:04:27 PM

Lowpe

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

Excitement in the land down under...my recon is not what I want it to be. Played it cautious with just a tank attack, will probably keep it cautious as our TOE and Experience isn't great. At least we have a HQ advantage again.

Forts 2 at Rockhampton.

Bundaberg just completed level 3 runways...so Japan is still building there.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Lowpe -- 6/16/2021 12:20:56 PM >

(in reply to Lowpe)

Post #: 2160

Page: << < prev 70 71 [72] 73 74 next > >>

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))