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 110 111 [112] 113 114 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 2/13/2022 5:17:00 PM

Q-Ball

Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

I don't really recall ever hitting a disbanded ship with sub torpedoes. Bombardments, yes...

I have never seen a disbanded ship take a sub torp, either in my games or on an AAR. Is that really true that they are vulnerable in less than size-4 port? (Other than midgets of course)

_____________________________

(in reply to Lowpe)

Post #: 3331

RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 2/13/2022 5:21:47 PM

witpqs

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

Big E makes Gardner Island...not much further to Canton or should I stay here and bring the ARs forward?

If it's safe enough there to get rid of temporary damage bring the AR's forward. Although I'm not sure how that works at a dot-base.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Lowpe)

Post #: 3332

RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 2/13/2022 11:57:26 PM

Lowpe

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

I don't really recall ever hitting a disbanded ship with sub torpedoes. Bombardments, yes...

I have never seen a disbanded ship take a sub torp, either in my games or on an AAR. Is that really true that they are vulnerable in less than size-4 port? (Other than midgets of course)

I think you need a size 3 port to avoid being torpedoed by sub while docked, and I have only ever seen ships disbanded hit by midget subs.

(in reply to Q-Ball)

Post #: 3333

RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 2/14/2022 1:06:35 AM

CaptBeefheart

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

If you'd like to mix up the colors pink works as well. EDIT: White with black shadow or vice versa might also work.

Does he have any clue Big E is down there? Are SYS or FLT above 50? If neither are, a run to Canton should be safe enough.

Cheers,
CB

< Message edited by CaptBeefheart -- 2/14/2022 1:08:39 AM >

_____________________________

Beer, because barley makes lousy bread.

(in reply to Lowpe)

Post #: 3334

RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 2/14/2022 2:30:55 AM

witpqs

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

I don't really recall ever hitting a disbanded ship with sub torpedoes. Bombardments, yes...

I have never seen a disbanded ship take a sub torp, either in my games or on an AAR. Is that really true that they are vulnerable in less than size-4 port? (Other than midgets of course)

I think you need a size 3 port to avoid being torpedoed by sub while docked, and I have only ever seen ships disbanded hit by midget subs.

I meant I don't really know if AR's work at dot-bases because they don't have any port facility built yet. Not saying they don't, I just don't happen to know.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Lowpe)

Post #: 3335

RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 2/14/2022 3:29:14 AM

BBfanboy

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

I don't really recall ever hitting a disbanded ship with sub torpedoes. Bombardments, yes...

I have never seen a disbanded ship take a sub torp, either in my games or on an AAR. Is that really true that they are vulnerable in less than size-4 port? (Other than midgets of course)

I think you need a size 3 port to avoid being torpedoed by sub while docked, and I have only ever seen ships disbanded hit by midget subs.

I meant I don't really know if AR's work at dot-bases because they don't have any port facility built yet. Not saying they don't, I just don't happen to know.

ARs have their own repair points. If no ship is allocated they can donate them to the port, but in this case the CV would just be assigned to the AR to repair since the port can contribute nothing. (But even at a dot base a stood-down crew is more able to do damage control too).

_____________________________

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 #: 3336

RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 2/14/2022 10:25:10 AM

Encircled

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

As long as he doesn't know where it is, then yeah, go for it

Also gives you time to ASW the heck out of any potential sub issues on the run into Pearl (I assume you are going to repair her there? It will fit into Sydney)

_____________________________

(in reply to BBfanboy)

Post #: 3337

RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 2/14/2022 11:13:08 AM

Lowpe

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

Sept 18th, 1942

Flooding ticked up a bit on Big E, but she made 4 hexes and now stands one hex away from Canton....and some AR goodness.

Lots of intel picked up at Tulagi...

Penetrating hits here:

ASW attack near Nonouti at 137,132

Japanese Ships
SS I-168, hits 2

Allied Ships
CA Chester
DD Cummings
DD Worden
DD Balch

SS I-168 is sighted by escort

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Q-Ball)

Post #: 3338

RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 2/14/2022 11:17:31 AM

Lowpe

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

Getting dangerous here....Japan likes to fly Nells from level 1 airbases for reliable long range searches....

Probably will get spotted tomorrow...

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)

Post #: 3339

RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 2/14/2022 11:29:34 AM

Lowpe

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

Burma

Attriting the Japanese fighters nicely over the last few days...although our big sweeps for Magwe haven't flown and even recon has been scrubbed there.

Japan tried to counter sweep, but we are relying upon AA and all of Japans bombers being in China for our base defense.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Q-Ball)

Post #: 3340

RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 2/14/2022 11:39:54 AM

Lowpe

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

Getting pushed back in the north a bit...

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)

Post #: 3341

RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 2/14/2022 12:40:26 PM

Lowpe

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

I meant I don't really know if AR's work at dot-bases because they don't have any port facility built yet. Not saying they don't, I just don't happen to know.

(in reply to BBfanboy)

Post #: 3342

RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 2/14/2022 12:41:24 PM

Lowpe

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Encircled

As long as he doesn't know where it is, then yeah, go for it

Also gives you time to ASW the heck out of any potential sub issues on the run into Pearl (I assume you are going to repair her there? It will fit into Sydney)

Took you advice...and made 4 hexes. I would dearly like to get the planes off her, too.

She will go to Pearl...although Sydney would be safer.

(in reply to Encircled)

Post #: 3343

RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 2/14/2022 7:21:04 PM

BBfanboy

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

I meant I don't really know if AR's work at dot-bases because they don't have any port facility built yet. Not saying they don't, I just don't happen to know.

ARs have their own repair points. If no ship is allocated they can donate them to the port, but in this case the CV would just be assigned to the AR to repair since the port can contribute nothing. (But even at a dot base a stood-down crew is more able to do damage control too).

I am 95% sure I have used ARs in the past at dot bases to pump out major flooding with great success.

Crews alone can always pump out minor flood levels. Not sure if an AR does it better. I was thinking more of repair of Engineering damage. For that the AR has to be assigned, or rather the ship assigned to the AR. I know that you know this, but some of the many new players may not, so I posted my comments.

_____________________________

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 #: 3344

RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 2/15/2022 11:22:32 AM

Lowpe

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

Sept 19, 1942

Two of three task forces spotted in the morning...I am trying to stage my fleets so the bombardment task forces soak up the naval search planes, while the invasion fleet coming from a different vector approaches unseen.

Thru the morning phase success...but those longer range afternoon flights might find them.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Q-Ball)

Post #: 3345

RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 2/15/2022 11:30:21 AM

Lowpe

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

Worked in the afternoon phase too...

Our ships move 3 a phase, so we will be 5 hexes away next movement phase, one hex away in 2 days, then invasion, then flee...I wish I could shave one day off that...super risky.

Distractions in the Gilberts are hopefully more pressing to Japan than a naval bombardment of Marcus...hopefully.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)

Post #: 3346

RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 2/15/2022 11:36:04 AM

Lowpe

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

In 1942, Allied Air Command is focused on destroying light and heavy industry...and a nice night attack into China. Other than mistakes in the chain of command, no heavy bombers have been used in ground strikes against troops.

There are three bases here that produce about 100 supplies a day...our strikes have knocked them down to about 50% of that.

China is still struggling for supplies and the poor Chinese are simply getting hammered by around 300 bombers daily.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Lowpe -- 2/15/2022 11:37:19 AM >

(in reply to Lowpe)

Post #: 3347

RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 2/15/2022 11:46:08 AM

Lowpe

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

Burma

Forts back up to level 1 during the construction phase...

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Q-Ball)

Post #: 3348

RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 2/15/2022 12:14:45 PM

Lowpe

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

Gilberts

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)

Post #: 3349

RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 2/15/2022 12:32:08 PM

Lowpe

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy
Not sure if an AR does it better.

My memory tells me they do it much better...they in fact turn a dot base into almost a level 9 port for repairs. And with two ARs present we will be really kicking butt on the system and minor damage.

I never really read Alfred's ship repair opus with respect to Allied damage control on a ship level.
So far: Allied damage control is shockingly superior at the ship level.

Big E did get a second fail message, one yesterday and one today but even here damage was so little...

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Lowpe -- 2/15/2022 12:34:42 PM >

(in reply to BBfanboy)

Post #: 3350

RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 2/15/2022 12:59:58 PM

Encircled

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy
Not sure if an AR does it better.

My memory tells me they do it much better...they in fact turn a dot base into almost a level 9 port for repairs. And with two ARs present we will be really kicking butt on the system and minor damage.

I never really read Alfred's ship repair opus with respect to Allied damage control on a ship level.
So far: Allied damage control is shockingly superior at the ship level.

Big E did get a second fail message, one yesterday and one today but even here damage was so little...

Good job getting her that far, and the systems damage is nice and low

What kind of CAP have you at Canton?

She should be safe enough there to be honest, but you never know with the IJN in '42

_____________________________

(in reply to Lowpe)

Post #: 3351

RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 2/15/2022 1:57:44 PM

Lowpe

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

You can see, our pickets are very scarce....but giving warning signs.

I would definitely stop the invasion if it was an 8 or better DL on Sealion or Drum, or if they spotted Vals or Kates...

A deeper dive into the ops and combat reports are called for. Drum was spotted very early in the turn, during the night...5th item.

Haven't found anything on Sealion yet...might have to watch the replay again.

OPERATIONAL REPORT FOR Sep 18, 42

SS Finback leaving patrol zone to replenish at Sydney
SS S-18 leaving patrol zone to replenish at Christmas Island
SS KXI reports having been sighted by the enemy at 27 , 49
SS Tuna reports having been sighted by the enemy at 117 , 80
SS Drum reports having been sighted by the enemy at 110 , 87

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Q-Ball)

Post #: 3352

RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 2/15/2022 2:01:29 PM

Lowpe

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Encircled

What kind of CAP have you at Canton?

She should be safe enough there to be honest, but you never know with the IJN in '42

I have about 100 fighters present, and some dedicated AA in addition to inherent AA...our flak rating score on the base report is 14 (I know that can be buggy) but seems accurate for what I have here.

(in reply to Encircled)

Post #: 3353

RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 2/15/2022 4:22:17 PM

Q-Ball

Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline

Those sightings could easily be via Jake from Pagan or even Chichi Jima for Sealion; I wouldn't panic yet. As Japan I would have Jakes flying from both pretty early to cover that gap, so that's my guess.

You are right about Val/Kate, if Drum picks up one of those it's time to panic

If USS DRUM was sighted via Night Search, that would also be cause for concern....routine air patrols are not going to be set to NIGHT in that area.

< Message edited by Q-Ball -- 2/15/2022 4:26:11 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Lowpe)

Post #: 3354

RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 2/15/2022 6:09:06 PM

castor troy

Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

quote:

Lowpe: Big E makes Gardner Island...not much further to Canton or should I stay here and bring the ARs forward?

IIRC, subs can attack disbanded ships a port that is less than 4 in development. I would not park Big E in anything less, unless I could mine the beejeezes out of the port.

Not disbanded ships, but docked ships at port 3 or smaller. You can disband ships at dot bases and they are immune to anything.

_____________________________

(in reply to BBfanboy)

Post #: 3355

RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 2/15/2022 8:55:44 PM

BBfanboy

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

quote:

Lowpe: Big E makes Gardner Island...not much further to Canton or should I stay here and bring the ARs forward?

IIRC, subs can attack disbanded ships a port that is less than 4 in development. I would not park Big E in anything less, unless I could mine the beejeezes out of the port.

Not disbanded ships, but docked ships at port 3 or smaller. You can disband ships at dot bases and they are immune to anything.

Doesn't correspond with my experience. When I first started playing the game the AI sent BB Nagato and a couple of DDs to Davao, on Mindanao at the head of a deep bay. My search spotted it going there so I sent subs to stake out every hex in the bay and across the entrance. At first there was no indication it was still there so I thought it might have slipped out, but I had no better prospects for the subs and left them there. After about 10 days they got a shot at Nagato and one torp hit. This was right in the Davao hex which was still Allied and Naval Search had not spotted any TFs, so I figure it was disbanded.

Confident it would not slip out so easily now, I kept the subs probing with patrol zones entering and exiting the hex and always one sub on station at Davao. A week later a sub got another shot at Nagato and scored two hits with Mark 10 torps. Now Nagato was in real trouble and had to leave for repairs. On the way out of the bay a Dutch sub hit her once and then a US sub finished her. Interference from the two DDs with her was minimal.

So my conclusion is that the Nagato TF disbanded, awaiting the arrival of invasion forces and it took a lot of die rolls to find her in some place near the shore. Maybe the subs could be better used, but I was happy with their work there. And when I had to restart the game (it was my first and I made lots of rookie mistakes), Nagato did the same thing and I repeated the trap successfully, but the subs were not used identically so it was not a simple repeat of the previous game.

_____________________________

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 castor troy)

Post #: 3356

RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 2/16/2022 11:06:51 AM

Lowpe

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

Sept 20, 1942

The Japanese SAGs and APDs move south in a big group...while they run into our picket screen destroyer squadron.

Manage to get one torpedo spread against a battleship...but miss. Still a good skirmish.

Is it a push on our big base at Abehama? Warspite along with many heavy cruisers are here, plus more troops loading for the Tabby invasion.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Q-Ball)

Post #: 3357

RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 2/16/2022 11:08:53 AM

Lowpe

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

No more night encounters, and at dawn an Sboat strikes...

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)

Post #: 3358

RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 2/16/2022 11:27:56 AM

Lowpe

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

2-3 days from invading Tabby...multiple size 2 runways present supporting ops.

Interesting bombardment of Tabby this night...

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)

Post #: 3359

RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 2/16/2022 11:31:12 AM

Lowpe

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

Marcus Island Invasion:

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)

Post #: 3360

Page: << < prev 110 111 [112] 113 114 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))