RE: Crash&Burn: Timtom's view of history: Scn.5, toraq VS timtom

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: Crash&Burn: Timtom's view of history: Scn.5, toraq VS timtom

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> After Action Reports >> RE: Crash&Burn: Timtom's view of history: Scn.5, toraq VS timtom

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Crash&Burn: Timtom's view of history: Scn.5, toraq ... - 12/14/2004 3:20:29 AM

timtom

Posts: 2358
Joined: 1/29/2003
From: Aarhus, Denmark
Status: offline

Toraq is busy landing troops at Shortland - two rgt's + support. I've got a SNLF & two NG bn's there, fort level 8. However, Toraq has gone in without the usual hammering from the air, so it'll be interesting to how it will take him to finish me.

The Allied AC TF's have drawn level (west) of Shortland. I've brought the kitchen sink out again. Next turn's weather is thunderstorms, so it's a complete roll of the dice. Should be interesting...how does "The Great Shortland Island Turkey Shoot" grab you?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 07/11/43 Weather: Clear
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allied Naval Attacks:

Sub attack at Kavieng:

Japanese Ships
AG 5087, Shell hits 4, and is sunk
APD 34

Allied Ships:
SS S-43, Shell hits 4, and is sunk *at last! - I can die a happy man*
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allied Air Attacks:

Air attack on Rabaul from Gili Gili (fighter sweep):

Japanese aircraft:
A6M2 Zero x 27
A6M3 Zero x 73
Ki-43-IIa Oscar x 27
Ki-45 KAIb Nick x 5
Ki-61 KAIc Tony x 3

Allied aircraft:
P-38G Lightning x 17

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M3 Zero x 6 destroyed
Ki-43-IIa Oscar x 1 destroyed
Ki-45 KAIb Nick x 1 destroyed, Ki-45 KAIb Nick x 1 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
P-38G Lightning x 7 destroyed, P-38G Lightning x 6 damaged *actual loss 11 P-38's*
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on 102nd Regiment (Lae) from Port Moresby & Dobadura:

Japanese aircraft:
Ki-45 KAIb Nick x 16 *LR-CAP from Madang*

Allied aircraft:
P-40E Kittyhawk x 21
P-39D Airacobra x 82
TBF Avenger x 30
A-20G Havoc x 21

Japanese aircraft losses:
Ki-45 KAIb Nick x 2 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
P-39D Airacobra x 2 destroyed, P-39D Airacobra x 1 damaged
P-40E Kittyhawk x 1 damaged
TBF Avenger x 2 damaged

Japanese ground losses:
Men lost 32
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on 16th Coastal Gun Battalion (Shortland Island) from Lunga:

Allied aircraft:
P-38G Lightning x 17
B-25J Mitchell x 48
B-17E Fortress x 30

no losses

Japanese ground losses:
Men lost 104
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allied Ground Attacks:

Ground combat at Hopei:

Allied Deliberate attack

Attacking force 918 troops, 4 guns, 0 vehicles *correction: 186 RCT, 41st ID*

Defending force 1395 troops, 0 guns, 0 vehicles

Allied assault odds: 0 to 1 (fort level 0)

Japanese ground losses:
Men lost 6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by timtom -- 12/14/2004 7:08:00 AM >

_____________________________

Where's the Any key?

(in reply to timtom)

Post #: 31

RE: Crash&Burn: Timtom's view of history: Scn.5, toraq ... - 12/14/2004 7:48:26 AM

timtom

Posts: 2358
Joined: 1/29/2003
From: Aarhus, Denmark
Status: offline

Well, I got very lucky with the weather, both Lunga and Port Moresby being clouded in. Buka got creamed first thing in the morning by 90-odd B-25's from Gili Gili. Toraq's carriers struck first, at extended range, with multiple small strikes. My CAP did a fairly good job at handling the escorts, but failed miserable against the bombers. He scored two hits both of which are insubstancial. The return strikes rolled off one after the other. Can't say I'm very impressed with the bombers out of Rabaul and Kavieng. Rabaul put but six bombers up out of 70 available to fly, Kavieng 32 out of a 105, of which 15 actually went for the AC TF - 11 Betty's even managed to hit Buna, an impressive feat of mis-navigation. Again Toraq's amazing Marine Corsair pilot carrier operations crash-training program proved its worth (I guess he needs the added advantage

). The Wildcat, on the other hand, showed that it is vulnerable even against Zero's flown by mediocre pilots. The power of the Corsair lies equally with its ability to survive: While the defending Wild- and Hellcats were being worn away, 4 out 27 defending F4U's were lost. Were they really this �ber? I lost about 225 aircraft, including 168 air-to-air. Toraq lost about 125. I might have damaged the CVE's, but I think that's all.

I've decided to stick around, and will pay for it, no doubt...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 07/12/43 Weather: Thunderstorms
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Japanese Naval Attacks:

Air attack on TF at Treasury Islands from AC TF NNE of Buka, Rabaul, Kavieng & Buka:
*four strikes, Allied starting CAP 90 aircraft ->50*

Japanese aircraft:
Ki-61 KAIc Tony x 3
Ki-43-IIa Oscar x 25
A6M2-N Rufe x 16
A6M2 Zero x 107
A6M3 Zero x 93
A6M5-B Zeke x 20
Ki-45 KAIb Nick x 19
D3A Val x 118
D4Y Judy x 16
B5N Kate x 53
Ki-21 Sally x 3
Ki-48 Lily x 3
G3M Nell x 4
G4M1 Betty x 11

Allied aircraft:
F4F-3 Wildcat x 44
F4F-4 Wildcat x 72
F4U-1 Corsair x 102
F6F Hellcat x 37

Japanese aircraft losses:
Ki-61 KAIc Tony x 2 destroyed
Ki-43-IIa Oscar x 12 destroyed
A6M2-N Rufe x 9 destroyed
A6M2 Zero x 65 destroyed, A6M2 Zero x 1 damaged
A6M3 Zero x 19 destroyed
A6M5-B Zeke x 15 destroyed, A6M5-B Zeke x 7 damaged *virtually the entire sdq.*
Ki-45 KAIb Nick x 1 destroyed, Ki-45 KAIb Nick x 8 damaged
D3A Val x 42 destroyed, D3A Val x 41 damaged
D4Y Judy x 5 destroyed
B5N Kate x 3 destroyed, B5N Kate x 3 damaged
Ki-21 Sally x 1 destroyed, Ki-21 Sally x 2 damaged
Ki-48 Lily x 2 destroyed, Ki-48 Lily x 1 damaged
G3M Nell x 1 destroyed
G4M1 Betty x 4 destroyed, G4M1 Betty x 6 damaged

Allied aircraft losses:
F4F-3 Wildcat x 4 destroyed, F4F-3 Wildcat x 2 damaged
F4F-4 Wildcat x 24 destroyed, F4F-4 Wildcat x 11 damaged
F4U-1 Corsair x 4 destroyed, F4U-1 Corsair x 1 damaged
F6F Hellcat x 12 destroyed, F6F Hellcat x 4 damaged

Allied Ships:
CA Indianapolis, Shell hits 8, Bomb hits 2, on fire
CA Louisville, Shell hits 4
CVE Altamaha, Bomb hits 1
CVE Copahee, Bomb hits 1, on fire
CVL Cowpens, Bomb hits 1
CV Essex, Bomb hits 2, on fire
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on TF at Buna from Kavieng:

Japanese aircraft:
G4M1 Betty x 11

Allied aircraft:
F4F-4 Wildcat x 6

Japanese aircraft losses:
G4M1 Betty x 3 destroyed, G4M1 Betty x 9 damaged

Allied aircraft losses:
F4F-4 Wildcat x 1 damaged
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on TF at Vella Lavella from Kavieng:

Japanese aircraft: *at least these guys had the grace to hit something*
G3M Nell x 6

Japanese aircraft losses:
G3M Nell x 1 destroyed, G3M Nell x 5 damaged

Allied Ships
AP McCawley, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allied Naval Attacks:

Night Time Surface Combat at Lae:

Japanese Ships:

DD Shimakaze, Shell hits 2, on fire
DD Yugumo, Shell hits 9, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
DD Akigumo, Shell hits 6, on fire
DD Fumizuki, Shell hits 1
DD Yuzuki, Shell hits 4, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
DD Nokaze, Shell hits 5, on fire, heavy damage

Allied Ships:
BB Washington, Shell hits 2, Torpedo hits 1, on fire *gotta love the Long Lance*
BB South Dakota
BB Indiana, Shell hits 1
CA Minneapolis, Shell hits 2
CA Australia, Shell hits 2
DD Helm, Shell hits 4, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
DD Drayton
DD Flusser
DD Dale, Shell hits 1

Japanese ground losses:
Men lost 445
Guns lost 10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Naval bombardment of Lae:

Allied Ships:
CA Minneapolis, Shell hits 2

Japanese ground losses:
Men lost 104
Runway hits 3
Port hits 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on TF at Kavieng from Nadzab:

Japanese aircraft:
A6M2 Zero x 6

Allied aircraft:
Beaufighter VIC x 23

no losses

Allied aircraft losses
Beaufighter VIC x 3 damaged

Japanese Ships
APD 34, Bomb hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on TF NNE Buka from AC TF at Treasury Island:

Japanese aircraft: *six strikes, CAP never greater than 40 Zero's*
A6M2 Zero x 125
A6M3 Zero x 45

Allied aircraft:
F4F-3 Wildcat x 15
F4F-4 Wildcat x 38
F4U-1 Corsair x 33
SBD Dauntless x 32
TBF Avenger x 24

Japanese aircraft losses:
A6M2 Zero x 16 destroyed
A6M3 Zero x 5 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-3 Wildcat x 2 destroyed, F4F-3 Wildcat x 1 damaged
F4F-4 Wildcat x 13 destroyed, F4F-4 Wildcat x 5 damaged
F4U-1 Corsair x 2 destroyed, F4U-1 Corsair x 1 damaged
SBD Dauntless x 24 destroyed, SBD Dauntless x 15 damaged
TBF Avenger x 6 destroyed, TBF Avenger x 15 damaged

Japanese Ships:
CVL Zuiho, Bomb hits 1
CV Shokaku, Bomb hits 1, on fire
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allied Air Attacks:

Air attack on Buka airfield from Gili Gili:

Japanese aircraft:
A6M3 Zero x 4
A6M5-B Zeke x 2
Ki-61 KAIc Tony x 1

Allied aircraft:
P-38G Lightning x 26
B-25D Mitchell x 9
B-25J Mitchell x 94

Japanese aircraft losses:
A6M3 Zero x 1 destroyed
A6M5-B Zeke x 1 damaged

Allied aircraft losses:
B-25J Mitchell x 3 damaged

Japanese ground losses:
Men lost 29
Guns lost 1
Airbase hits 11
Runway hits 67
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

< Message edited by timtom -- 12/14/2004 7:04:57 AM >

_____________________________

Where's the Any key?

(in reply to timtom)

Post #: 32

RE: Crash&Burn: Timtom's view of history: Scn.5, toraq ... - 12/15/2004 12:05:32 AM

timtom

Posts: 2358
Joined: 1/29/2003
From: Aarhus, Denmark
Status: offline

The weather favoured Toraq this turn, and he wasted no time sending me the message.
He pulled all his shipping back from Shortland, and the carriers are spotted west of Russell Islands...spoilsport, I was up for another round! Because Toraq is teaming his CV's with his CVE's, the TF is slow moving, and my subs might just catch him. Similarly, a BB is reported in the Rossel Island area, which might be the Washington, torpedoed last night...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 07/13/43 Weather: Thunderstorms
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Japanese Naval Attacks:

Air attack on TF at Lae from Rabaul: *this wasn't what I had in mind!*

Japanese aircraft:
A6M2 Zero x 6
A6M3 Zero x 35
Ki-43-IIa Oscar x 21
Ki-21 Sally x 3 *jeez, if ya gotta do it, at least do it right... *

Allied aircraft:
F4F-4 Wildcat x 9
Boomerang x 22
Wirraway x 5
P-40E Kittyhawk x 5
P-38G Lightning x 32
P-47C Thunderbolt x 60

Japanese aircraft losses:
A6M2 Zero x 2 destroyed
A6M3 Zero x 18 destroyed
Ki-43-IIa Oscar x 12 destroyed
Ki-21 Sally x 1 destroyed, Ki-21 Sally x 2 damaged

Allied aircraft losses:
F4F-4 Wildcat x 2 destroyed, F4F-4 Wildcat x 1 damaged
Boomerang x 2 destroyed
Wirraway x 6 destroyed, Wirraway x 2 damaged
P-38G Lightning x 3 destroyed, P-38G Lightning x 3 damaged
P-47C Thunderbolt x 2 destroyed, P-47C Thunderbolt x 2 damaged
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on TF E Gili Gili:

Japanese aircraft:
A6M2 Zero x 4
G4M1 Betty x 6

Japanese aircraft losses:
G4M1 Betty x 7 damaged *two Betty's lost, so it's minus one VP for me

*

Allied Ships:
SC 518, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allied Naval Attacks:

Sub attack at Kavieng:

Japanese Ships:
DD Shimakaze, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage

Allied Ships:
SS S-44
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub attack at NNE Buka:

Allied Ships:
SS Raton, Shell hits 2, and is sunk *I take it all back...*
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Naval bombardment of Lae:

Allied Ships:
CA Pensacola, Shell hits 3
CA Salt Lake City, Shell hits 1
DD Pringle, Shell hits 2
DD Anthony, Shell hits 1
DD Brownson, Shell hits 2
DD Henley, Shell hits 3, on fire
DD Eaton, Shell hits 1
DD Mullany, Shell hits 2
DD Brownson, Shell hits 2

Japanese ground losses:
Men lost 32

Runway hits 7
Port hits 6
Port fuel hits 4
Port supply hits 3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on TF SW Kavieng:

Allied aircraft:
SBD Dauntless x 27
Beaufort x 27

no losses

Japanese Ships:
DD Nokaze, Bomb hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allied Air Attacks:

Air attack on Rabaul airfield and port from Lunga:

Japanese aircraft:
A6M2 Zero x 2
A6M3 Zero x 10
Ki-43-IIa Oscar x 6
Ki-45 KAIb Nick x 16

Allied aircraft:
B-17E Fortress x 54
PB4Y Liberator x 29
B-24D Liberator x 31
F-5A Lightning x 1

Japanese aircraft losses:
A6M3 Zero x 1 destroyed, A6M3 Zero x 2 damaged
Ki-45 KAIb Nick x 1 damaged
Ki-61 KAIc Tony x 3 destroyed, Ki-61 KAIc Tony x 2 damaged
Ki-48 Lily x 1 destroyed, Ki-48 Lily x 3 damaged
Ki-21 Sally x 1 destroyed, Ki-21 Sally x 2 damaged

Allied aircraft losses:
B-17E Fortress x 3 damaged
B-24D Liberator x 2 damaged

Japanese Ships:
CA Atago, Bomb hits 2, heavy damage

Japanese ground losses:
Men lost 342
Guns lost 1
Airbase hits 20
Airbase supply hits 2
Runway hits 61
Port hits 14
Port supply hits 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on Buka airfield from Lunga:

Allied aircraft:
B-17E Fortress x 24
B-24D Liberator x 22

Japanese aircraft losses:
A6M3 Zero x 6 destroyed, A6M3 Zero x 7 damaged
Ki-61 KAIc Tony x 1 destroyed, Ki-61 KAIc Tony x 1 damaged
Ki-21 Sally x 1 destroyed
A6M2-N Rufe x 2 destroyed, A6M2-N Rufe x 5 damaged

Allied aircraft losses:
B-17E Fortress x 1 damaged

Japanese ground losses:
Men lost 96
Airbase hits 9
Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 44
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air attack on 102nd Regiment (Lae) from Port Moresby:

Allied aircraft:
P-40E Kittyhawk x 9
A-20G Havoc x 28

Allied aircraft losses:
A-20G Havoc x 3 damaged

Japanese ground losses:
Men lost 41
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Japanese Ground Attacks:

Ground combat at Lae:

Japanese Shock attack *Banzai!!!*

Attacking force 15106 troops, 184 guns, 9 vehicles

Defending force 4550 troops, 52 guns, 2 vehicles

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

Japanese ground losses:
Men lost 399

Allied ground losses:
Men lost 52
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

< Message edited by timtom -- 12/16/2004 10:00:50 PM >

_____________________________

Where's the Any key?

(in reply to timtom)

Post #: 33

RE: Crash&Burn: Timtom's view of history: Scn.5, toraq ... - 12/15/2004 3:03:23 AM

timtom

Posts: 2358
Joined: 1/29/2003
From: Aarhus, Denmark
Status: offline

And with that, gentlemen, I call it quits...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 07/14/43 Weather: Thunderstorms
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allied Naval Attacks:

Naval bombardment of Lae:

Allied Ships:
BB South Dakota, Shell hits 1
BB Indiana, Shell hits 1
CA Australia, Shell hits 3
DD Dale, Shell hits 2

Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 6
Port hits 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allied Air Attacks:

Air attack on Buka airfield from Gili Gili & Lunga:

Allied aircraft:
B-25D Mitchell x 9
B-24D Liberator x 21

Japanese aircraft losses:
Ki-61 KAIc Tony x 2 destroyed
D3A Val x 2 destroyed, D3A Val x 1 damaged
D4Y Judy x 1 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses:
B-25D Mitchell x 1 destroyed, B-25D Mitchell x 1 damaged

Japanese ground losses:
Men lost 32
Airbase hits 1
Runway hits 31
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub attack at SE Port Moresby:

Japanese Ships:
SS I-27, Shell hits 2, and is sunk *wow, I've never seen a SC sink a sub before*

Allied Ships
SC 642, Torpedo hits 2, and is sunk
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Japanese Ground Attacks: *ehh? I didn't ask for this!*

Ground combat at Lae

Japanese Bombardment attack

Attacking force 1142 troops, 48 guns, 0 vehicles

Defending force 20537 troops, 209 guns, 45 vehicles

Allied ground losses:
Men lost 15
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

< Message edited by timtom -- 12/15/2004 2:04:06 AM >

_____________________________

Where's the Any key?

(in reply to timtom)

Post #: 34

RE: Crash&Burn: Timtom's view of history: Scn.5, toraq ... - 12/15/2004 7:21:31 AM

timtom

Posts: 2358
Joined: 1/29/2003
From: Aarhus, Denmark
Status: offline

The Final Tally:

Toraq/Timtom:

Bases: 3623/3924
Aircraft: 769/500
Army: 91/19 *incl. 2,978 casualties at Rabaul*

Ships - sunk: 384/98
Ships - damaged: 166/248

Total: 5031/4789

Score at start: 3004/4440 = 1.00/1.48
Score after 10 turns: 3294/4716 = 1.00/1.44
Score after 20 turns: 4076/4697 = 1.00/1.15
Score after 30 turns: 5031/4789 = 1.00/0.95

Naval Losses:

Japanese:
Sunk: 3xCA, 1xCL, 8xDD, 1xML, 1xMSW, 8xSS, 7xAP
Damaged: 1xCVL, 2xBB, 3xCA, 3xCL, 9xDD, 1xAPD, 1xML, 4xAP

Allied:
Sunk: 7xDD, 2xSS, 1xAP, 1xAK, 2xLST, 2xSC, 7xPT
Damaged: 1xCV, 2xCVE, 2xBB, 1xCA, 6xDD, 6xAPD, 1xDMS, 1xDM, 2xSS, 10xAP, 8xAK, 1xLST, 2xLCI, 1xPT *most of the damaged transports was the result of CD fire*

The air game in no.'s:

Allied/Japanese:

Sorties Flown: 43,018/11,335 = 3.79:1.00

Air-to-air: 170/387 = 1.00:2.28
Destroyed on field: 0/124 *as always*
Destroyed by flak: 122/74 = 1.65:1.00
Operational losses: 208/182 = 1.14:1.00

Total: 500/769 = 1.00:1.54

Loss pr. sortie 0.0116/0.0678 = 1.0000/5.8448 *so the effective loss rate was six to one. Cute...*

< Message edited by timtom -- 12/16/2004 3:49:49 PM >

_____________________________

Where's the Any key?

(in reply to timtom)

Post #: 35

RE: Crash&Burn: Timtom's view of history: Scn.5, toraq ... - 12/15/2004 6:52:59 PM

timtom

Posts: 2358
Joined: 1/29/2003
From: Aarhus, Denmark
Status: offline

(penned by Admiral Timtom-san, in the capacity of his new career as a gold-fish pond tender, having been sent back to Tokyo in disgrace.)

First of all, I'd like to recommend this scenario (as the Japanese). While not always "fun", it is both challeging and interesting. I wouldn't mind having another go at it some time, after my morale has recovered a bit.

This is not a scenario to be won. If you get a draw you're doing very well.

I don't think there are any solutions proper to the Japanese problems, short of copying the F4U and training some decent pilots. Air superiority is everything. I think we can agree that the ground combat model isn't the strong point of UV. One problem is that no provision for the extremely difficult nature of the terrain in the South Pacific is made. Ground combat seems to be envisioned along some sort Napoleonic lines: Both sides line their forces up and blaze away at each other. It was never possible, of course, to achieve this kind of concentration. Thus when Toraq lands five RCT's at Munda, it's those against my one Rgt., not one RCT at a time. This is compounded by the rather �ber air attacks on ground units. To my knowledge, CAS was never an important factor in the South Pacific, and it's not difficult to see why: How do you strike a target you can't find, let alone see? These factors work to make the strong stronger, and we all know who that is in this scenario. As a point in case, Toraq took Salamaua in 6 days, and cleared it in 11. Munda fell in just 5! days, and was cleared in 6. As you know, historically it took the US over a month to take Munda with forces not dissimilar to those deployed by Toraq.

It doesn't help that you start the scenario off balance. Several bases, incl. Rabaul, are deficient in air support, eng.'s, AAA, some are whole without (Buka, Buin). All the forward bases likely to be invaded are insufficiantly defended, some pityfully so (Finschafen, Shortland). Shipping at start is also insufficient for the task at hand, and generally in the wrong place (AP's in Rabaul, DD's in Truk).

The sub game represents a micro-cosmos of the Japanese dilemma: Fight, and you will suffer negative attrition, and fast. Don't fight, and you've virtually surrendered. I lost eight subs against 1 DD, 1 AK, and 2 LST's sunk, 1 BB, 1 DD, 3 AP damaged. Not a good exchange rate. However, as the knocked-out BB indicated, there are advantages beyond the mere scoring of VP's. Other than at least the potential of scoring it big (strategically), the sub presence at least put restrains on Toraq's freedom of movement, - to a point, granted. He was also forced to divert resources to ASW, which is worthwhile. One pleasant surprise was the relative ineffectiveness of Toraq's subs, in spite of him using them quite aggressively. That part of the game was an odd stand-off, me being unable to much hurt him, and, as fate would have it , visa-versa.

Main lessons learned (ie, all the things I didn't do):

1) Forget about defending both New Guinea and New Georgia. You only have a prayer at one. New Georgia is obviously easier to supply, so write off Lae - and you can afford to. Even forget about the replacements received for the 51st ID: Good money after bad. Priority no.1 is to reinforce Munda, then Shortland. Supply is also an issue.

2) For the love of God, disperse your aircraft! Withdraw most of your bombers to from Rabaul to Truk, but leave a token force there big enough to attract the heavies. Every pound of explosives dropped on Rabaul is a pound less dropped somewhere else. This also means that enough Eng's will have to be invested in Rabaul to maintain the threat of Rabaul. If you're feeling lucky, station Ki-45, K-61 + a few A6M3 sdq's + AAA at Rabaul and do the attrition thing. If you can knock down six heavies per strike, that's half a sdq.! Expect to pay the penalty, but fighters you can spare. Build more smaller bases - Momote, Green Island, Bonis fx. Shift your bombers down from Truk en masse for a concentrated blow, then get out of Dodge.

3)Think of the IJA air units as lose change, your IJN units as your savings. Use small teams of IJA air to harass targets of opportunity from your smaller forward bases. Experience suggests that this can be done without crippling losses. The aim is to A: Manifest an air presence/threat in forward areas (you cant just surrender) B: Lure the enemy into bombing bases like Wewak, Madang, Gasmata, Momote. Every bomb dropped is one less dropped on somewhere important. Remember, you're playing for time more than anything C: Inflict losses. Don't expect much, but every point counts.

4) YOUR PRIMARY TARGET IS HIS BATTLESHIPS! Surface units is the area where you have the closest thing to parity. If you got BB's, and he ain't, it takes a brave Allied player to park a transport TF at, say, Munda, and of course all those aircraft of his will be worth little. I think this is perhaps the key. If that means swapping your air force and CV's for his BB's and CV's, go for it. You don't have to destroy them, mind, just put them in the dock. By the same token, maintaining a surface fleet in being is important, something I failed miserable at...

< Message edited by timtom -- 12/16/2004 10:21:19 PM >

_____________________________

Where's the Any key?

(in reply to timtom)

Post #: 36

RE: Crash&Burn: Timtom's view of history: Scn.5, toraq ... - 12/15/2004 11:50:04 PM

Fux

Posts: 15
Joined: 10/6/2003
Status: offline

Thank you for this exzellent AAR and interesting read! As nearly everyone moved to WITP it is always good for us Newbies to see some good AARs for UV.

Greetings,
Daniel

(in reply to timtom)

Post #: 37

RE: Crash&Burn: Timtom's view of history: Scn.5, toraq ... - 12/16/2004 12:41:00 AM

timtom

Posts: 2358
Joined: 1/29/2003
From: Aarhus, Denmark
Status: offline

You're welcome. It's my first AAR, and writing it has been as much fun as having my butt kicked by Toraq. Really! I've played UV for a while, but this is only my third ever PBEM. As you all know, it's a WHOLE different ball game, and for me anyway, a point of no return: What's the point of playing the AI? (you should try it, Marky

)

< Message edited by timtom -- 12/15/2004 11:46:11 PM >

_____________________________

Where's the Any key?

(in reply to Fux)

Post #: 38

RE: Crash&Burn: Timtom's view of history: Scn.5, toraq ... - 12/16/2004 3:54:16 AM

timtom

Posts: 2358
Joined: 1/29/2003
From: Aarhus, Denmark
Status: offline

My esteemed opponent and I had a little exchange about house rules and such that I thought might be of wider interest. All the points here have been debated to death in the past, but still...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey Tony...

Just a few things about our upcoming game. I hope you take this the right way, but I didn't appreciate you cramming you CV's full of fighters, much less Marine F4U's, which 1)weren't trained in carrier operations 2) plane had been rejected by the USN for carrier ops.

I like to play a game with a degree of fidelity to historical constrains and OOB - USN SBD's belong on carriers, not on some base on New Guinea, the USMC (exc. 1st Div.) fought in the Solomons, etc. I know this is a tricky area, - fx I don't mind you smacking the hell of Lunga every other night, even though this was positively impossible in reality. Some players like an "everything goes" game, but I'm not one of them, or, rather, I'll accept it in something like scn.19, which is hypothetical anyway, but not in the more historically minded scn's. My definiton of a power-gamer or fanboy or what have you, is someone who will use all the exploits that the game system allows to defeat his opponent. I don't ultimately play to win (within reason), otherwise I would never have offered to play such a grossly lopsided scn. as no.5.

Another example is setting up decoy TF's to deliberately draw off air strikes. To my mind, this is very gamey, exploiting one of the more silly features of the game, in that you've got no direct control over anti-shipping air strikes. Of course there should be a (big) element of randomness to this, but within reason...those Betty's were 450 miles off target, for heaven's sake. I don't like the 90% carrier CAP ploy much either, and would like to see a max. of say 70%. Land-based IJN & USMC (but not USN) sdq.'s belong on the ground. I'll accept one-off deployments of carrier based aircraft to airfields, as fx a VF was deployed to Henderson field for a while, or the IJN moved its carrier sdq's down from Truk for Op.Ichi-Go or whatever in spring of '43.

I'm not complaining really, just setting the record straight. I enjoyed the game, and think that you're a more than worthy opponent, if a bit rash! I would never disband shipping with in range of enemy LBA's unless absolutely necessary or expose my carriers the way you did when going after the Kongo. Had I been stronger, you would have been severely punished. Then again maybe you wouldn't have done it, but your play style in your other game suggest an aggresive play style regardless. What would you have done if the Saratoga got crippled (it only takes one hit) and I sent my carriers cruising the Coral Sea? Not that I didn't make mistakes, mind...

As you probably now know, carrier CAP's in shallow or port hexes are reduced 50%

The I-177 was not sunk, but almost...LOL: It almost sounds like you thought that it
was somehow unfair that not every IJN sub hit was sunk

Looking forward to our next game, Tom
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I�ll try to answer some of your questions, same as you, I hope you take my words the right way. :-)

but I didn't appreciate you cramming you CV's full of fighters, much less Marine F4U's. which 1)weren't trained in carrier operations 2) plane had been rejected by the USN for carrier ops. USN SBD's belong on carriers, not on some base on New Guinea.

Agree. Of course I did because there was no rule against it. Our game was free of home rules.

I like to play a game with a degree of fidelity to historical constraits and OOB - USN SBD's belong on carriers, not on some base on New Guinea

Disagree partially. Sometimes naval bombers and figthers were deployed (temporally) in foward bases. Fx. Wildcat squadron in Wake and Midway island, or Jap. carrier based planes would have been tranferred to Lunga if Henderson filed had been taken.

Another example is setting up decoy TF's to delibrately draw off air strikes. To my mind, this is very gamey, exploiting one of the more silly features of the game

Disagree in some way. Using decoys doesn�t mean that they will be attacked always. This happend when

1) recon planes spot a ship (ie LST) but they believe they have seen a CA, BB or CV. Thus an air strike is ordered. This happened in the Coral Sea battle. The entire force of Vals and Kates were sent to strike the USN CV that turned out to be the Neosho and the destroyer Sims

2) there is no other valuable objective. Sometimes recon planes don�t spot the CV but the decoy ships so the strike is launched

This is part of the game (I think) and it happens not only with the decoy ships but with other types also. Fx I didn�t want my B-25 to strike your DD because they were costly missions and without success but it happened again and again. This is another kind of "decoy" mission.

those Betty's were 450 miles off target, for heaven's sake

Don�t know what you are talking about. I guess it was one strike your planes launched against some DD in Buna (CAP present). They were not a decoy however. They were a FT TF.

I don't like the 90% carrier CAP ploy much either, and would like to see a max. of say 70%

Don�t know what to think about this....

and think that you're a more than worthy opponent, if a bit rash!

Rash= aggressive. Maybe. I only try to exploit my opponents mistakes (or what I think it�s a mistake). Fx: disband CV in Rabaul�s port.

What would you have done if the Saratoga got crippled (it only takes one hit) and I sent my carriers cruising the Coral Sea? Not that I didn't make mistakes, mind...

We can discuss more things about the battle. I like to but I don�t know if this is your desire. Just to say something, land based bombers only attack when they are very heavily escorted. So I had many chances of hitting without being attacked. And of course I had the F4U, a powerful plane which I was aware of.

Anyway I�m open minded so if you want to set some home rules, just tell me. In scenario 8, you still want to play as Allies?

Regards

Toraq
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We played the game by the rules agreed - Im not complaining

By 90% CAP ploy I mean: Some players seem to hold back a maximum of their TOTAL available fighters for defence. You didn't do that, granted. But just in case, I think this is gamey. "Sorry boys, we've decided to send you off with minimum escorts. Have fun!"

Now - and as I believe I stated in my last mail - I complety agree that there should a big element of randomness in the execution of strikes on TF's , and, indeed in any simulation of combat operations. I have no beef, fx, with the Nells that went for those transports off Vila, but the ones off for Buna I find difficult to explain away. There's a difference between limiting control and surrendering control. As it stands, you're essentially limited to ordering your sqd's to "go find something that floats" and hope for the best (not so in WITP!) It's not that I'm sore, but I think it's a weakness in the game, and one that will effect you rather more than me in our upcoming game. Indeed, it's a problem mainly with the Nells & Betty's what with their long range and all. Unfortunately, Nells & Bettys are an central part of the Japanese striking power.

In your AAR (very interesting read!) you state that, and I quote, "I had many ships around as decoys to avoid major strikes against CV". To me this signifies (and forgive me if I'm wrong) that you deliberately formed TF's with the specific purpose of drawing off airstrikes. This I think is an exploit, and one that I'd rather be without.

ATB Tom
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We played the game by the rules agreed - I'm not complaining

Of course, of course. :-)

your AAR (very interesting read!)

Thanks but if I have to be honest your AAR is much more interesting than mine!

you state that, and I quote, "I had many ships around as decoys to avoid major strikes against CV". To me this signifies (and forgive me if I'm wrong) that you delibritely formed TF's with the specific purpose of drawing off airstrikes. This I think is an exploit, and one that I'd rather be without.

Yes, you�re right. But for me decoys ships are part of the game as I told you. They become targets only if your recon planes believe they are valuable ships or if there is no other ship to attack

Regards

Toraq
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So I guess these are the house rules

1) No more than 70% of CAP over CV TF

2) No decoy TF (but I think this is difficult to set because fx, my DD were NOT a decoy TF but you may think so)

I believe you! It's doing it on purpose that I object to, ie TF's that are there only for that reason.

3) Marines and Land based datais are not allowed to lauch strikes from CV TF (but they can be transported into CV to fly somewhere else later)

Sure.

Night-bombing thing still stand? Or do you want to be visited in Rabaul by 60 B-17's flying at 1,000 ft? Said to be very effective!

Wanna do another AAR?

ATB Tom

< Message edited by timtom -- 12/16/2004 4:10:16 PM >

_____________________________

Where's the Any key?

(in reply to timtom)

Post #: 39

RE: Crash&Burn: Timtom's view of history: Scn.5, toraq ... - 12/16/2004 10:58:30 PM

timtom

Posts: 2358
Joined: 1/29/2003
From: Aarhus, Denmark
Status: offline

Antonio and I are about to start another game, and we'll do a duel AAR as well. Perhaps I could ask you, gentle reader, to provided me with some criticism of this AAR. What worked, what didn't, what would you like to see more of (screenies, statistics etc), what was irrelevant? Does anyone actually read the combat results? Should they be done away with, heavily condensed, or posted in full? Do you get an feel of the overall situation, or is greater detail necesary? Would you like OOB & deployment information? Thx! Tom

_____________________________

Where's the Any key?

(in reply to timtom)

Post #: 40

RE: Crash&Burn: Timtom's view of history: Scn.5, toraq ... - 12/17/2004 12:25:12 AM

anarchyintheuk

Posts: 3921
Joined: 5/5/2004
From: Dallas
Status: offline

Scattershooting:

I always wished that there was some sort of free deployment for this scenario absent using the editor.

Just my personal preferences, but I have (a):

no problem w/ >70% CAP.
no problem w/ transferring carrier air to land bases.
problem w/ Corsairs on carriers.
problem w/ massed night bombing.

Forgot to add that the combat results are a pain to read but they do give you a good idea of the correlation of forces in particular areas.

problem w/ decoy task forces, altho I blame the lack of a truly discerning targeting system more.

Excellent AARs, great job of explaining your plans. It's always more interesting to read the whys than the whats. I look forward to the next one.

< Message edited by anarchyintheuk -- 12/16/2004 10:27:14 PM >

(in reply to timtom)

Post #: 41

RE: Crash&Burn: Timtom's view of history: Scn.5, toraq ... - 12/17/2004 2:06:09 AM

timtom

Posts: 2358
Joined: 1/29/2003
From: Aarhus, Denmark
Status: offline

When I myself read AAR's, I must admit that I skip through 90%-odd of the combat reports. I don't think they make for a great read, but as you say, hold important information about what's actually going on. Maybe because I've had a bit of extra time on my hands lately, I have been able to to some editing of the combat report. I've tried a compromise, by cutting out no-casualty incidents and amalgamating as many entrys as possible. This obviously somewhat misrepresent whats going on, but makes the remaining entries easier to take in. Would it be better to dispense with the report altogether, making my own report of important events - such-and-such a ship sunk or damaged here or there and how and why etc?

_____________________________

Where's the Any key?

(in reply to anarchyintheuk)

Post #: 42