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: BANKOK Annihilated

 
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] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> After Action Reports >> RE: BANKOK Annihilated Page: <<   < prev  27 28 [29] 30 31   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: BANKOK Annihilated - 11/24/2005 3:15:53 PM   
Gen.Hoepner


Posts: 3645
Joined: 9/4/2001
From: italy
Status: offline
quote:

No hope of a Bombard mission against Rangoon with a good bunch of big guns?
If you can get close enough without being discovered, He'll not have the time to get the heavies to naval attack....


No way...he has something like 1000 planes between Akyab,Mandalay,Rangoon and Moulmein. He will spot me even before i can spell the word " dog". Plus, my BBs are getting their upgrades in Japan....no, it's too late for this kind of actions.
Also Rangoon has been heavily mined in the last week( i've spotted many MLs coming and going).


_____________________________

[image]http://yfrog.com/2m70331348022314716641664j [/image]

(in reply to Fishbed)
Post #: 841
RE: BANKOK Annihilated - 11/25/2005 8:07:38 AM   
Gen.Hoepner


Posts: 3645
Joined: 9/4/2001
From: italy
Status: offline 		AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 01/24/43

Bankok is being hit hard...now every Japanese plane in the area has been moved far away from those monsters.
Simply there are too many of them out there to hope to have a chance....

look at the planes the allies are using...

And consider that i know for sure he has at least 300 more 4Es both in Burma and in Oz which are just sitting..probably regaining morale or fatigue...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Air attack on Tsuyung , at 37,31


Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 24
Boomerang II x 9
I-153c x 45


No Allied losses

Aircraft Attacking:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Air attack on Tsuyung , at 37,31


Allied aircraft
Kittyhawk I x 30


No Allied losses
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Air attack on Tsuyung , at 37,31


Allied aircraft
P-40B Tomahawk x 21


No Allied losses

Aircraft Attacking:
21 x P-40B Tomahawk bombing at 2000 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Air attack on Thursday Island , at 49,91


Allied aircraft
Kittyhawk I x 22
P-40E Warhawk x 37


No Allied losses

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Exmouth , at 11,86


Allied aircraft
Brewster 339D x 23
P-38G Lightning x 48


No Allied losses

Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 6

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Bangkok , at 29,39


Allied aircraft
Liberator VI x 18
P-38G Lightning x 41
LB-30 Liberator x 34
B-24D Liberator x 108


Allied aircraft losses
Liberator VI: 1 damaged
LB-30 Liberator: 2 damaged
B-24D Liberator: 5 damaged

Japanese ground losses:
66 casualties reported
Guns lost 3

Heavy Industry hits 55
Airbase hits 5
Airbase supply hits 2
Runway hits 64

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on 56th Division, at 35,90


Allied aircraft
Hudson I x 2
B-17E Fortress x 21
B-24D Liberator x 144


Allied aircraft losses
B-17E Fortress: 1 destroyed, 2 damaged
B-24D Liberator: 13 damaged

Japanese ground losses:
165 casualties reported
Guns lost 3

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Kure 6th SNLF, at 83,116


Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 180
SBD Dauntless x 48
TBF Avenger x 12
Hurricane II x 14
Kittyhawk I x 40
T.IVa x 7
P-36A Mohawk x 21
P-400 Airacobra x 63
P-39D Airacobra x 63
P-40B Tomahawk x 21
P-40E Warhawk x 21


No Allied losses

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Kure 6th SNLF, at 83,116


Allied aircraft
SBD Dauntless x 27
Swordfish x 10
Kittyhawk I x 13


No Allied losses



_____________________________

[image]http://yfrog.com/2m70331348022314716641664j [/image]

(in reply to Gen.Hoepner)
Post #: 842
RE: BANKOK Annihilated - 11/25/2005 2:45:26 PM   
jwilkerson


Posts: 10525
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline
quote:

F4F-4 Wildcat x 180
SBD Dauntless x 48
TBF Avenger x 12


Training up the carrier planes in CBI - now that is different ! Wonder how they will get back and forth - to the carriers ?



_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to Gen.Hoepner)
Post #: 843
RE: BANKOK Annihilated - 11/25/2005 2:55:52 PM   
AmiralLaurent

 

Posts: 3351
Joined: 3/11/2003
From: Near Paris, France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

quote:

F4F-4 Wildcat x 180
SBD Dauntless x 48
TBF Avenger x 12


Training up the carrier planes in CBI - now that is different ! Wonder how they will get back and forth - to the carriers ?



quote:

F4F-4 Wildcat x 180
SBD Dauntless x 48
TBF Avenger x 12


The location is 83, 116... don't know where it is but certainly not in the CBI, probably Solomons or Souther Pacific

(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 844
RE: BANKOK Annihilated - 11/25/2005 3:19:32 PM   
Gen.Hoepner


Posts: 3645
Joined: 9/4/2001
From: italy
Status: offline 		Yes, those planes are at Suva, where he left one of my SNLF alive for training duties

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 01/25/43

Bankokm is now, after the 4th day of bombings, a smoking hole in the Indochina ground

Nothing much newer on other fronts. Soon he'll start bombing Solomons and NG.

Tomorrow we'll attack Ichang where 100,000 chinese are starving since august 42

_____________________________

[image]http://yfrog.com/2m70331348022314716641664j [/image]

(in reply to AmiralLaurent)
Post #: 845
RE: BANKOK Annihilated - 11/26/2005 12:33:48 PM   
Gen.Hoepner


Posts: 3645
Joined: 9/4/2001
From: italy
Status: offline 		AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 01/26/43

While Bankok gets pounded every day by hundreds of 4Es that are transforming my HI into a piece of burnt dust, today the Japanese Armies have conquered another piece of China.
IChang fell at the first attempt. After 1 year since the last great battle of IChang, when my troops had been repulsed by a stiff chinese defence, finally the city has been conquered. We've ordered to behead every single citizen, male,female,childs. None escaped the japanese fury ( and frustration).
It's been bloody. almost 30,000 japanese died during the first assault, but at the end of the day 133,000 yellow rebels were dead.

Next step: Lanchow!



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Ichang

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 553642 troops, 6275 guns, 195 vehicles

Defending force 97411 troops, 0 guns, 0 vehicles

Japanese engineers reduce fortifications to 5

Japanese assault odds: 15 to 1 (fort level 5)

Japanese forces CAPTURE Ichang base !!!


Japanese ground losses:
26758 casualties reported
Guns lost 565
Vehicles lost 8

Allied ground losses:
133949 casualties reported




*in the picture you can see Japanese 1st Army marching through the ruins of Ichang*




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

[image]http://yfrog.com/2m70331348022314716641664j [/image]

(in reply to Gen.Hoepner)
Post #: 846
Another victory of Japanese scientists - 11/27/2005 11:55:50 AM   
Gen.Hoepner


Posts: 3645
Joined: 9/4/2001
From: italy
Status: offline 		AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 01/27/43

Yes, we made it again!
After the achievement of Tony Ki-61c coming in July 42, now we have the Jack advanced of one month!
From 03-43 to 02-43!!!
Few days and we'l start producing these beauties!

I know the course of war won't change, but at least i'll be able to shoot down some more bastards Some more american and british families that won't see their beloved childs coming back from the pacific




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

[image]http://yfrog.com/2m70331348022314716641664j [/image]

(in reply to Gen.Hoepner)
Post #: 847
A new game flaw? - 11/27/2005 4:34:32 PM   
Gen.Hoepner


Posts: 3645
Joined: 9/4/2001
From: italy
Status: offline 		...look at this.

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 01/29/43

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Hanoi , at 36,37

Japanese aircraft
A6M3 Zero x 11
Ki-44-IIb Tojo x 22
Ki-61 KAIc Tony x 104

Allied aircraft
P-38G Lightning x 21
F-5A Lightning x 3

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-44-IIb Tojo: 4 destroyed, 1 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
P-38G Lightning: 1 damaged
F-5A Lightning: 1 damaged

Japanese ground losses:
13 casualties reported

Airbase hits 2
Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 1

Aircraft Attacking:
18 x P-38G Lightning bombing at 2000 feet
3 x P-38G Lightning bombing at 2000 feet


Bombers too high for my sentais...ok...but then they bomb from 2000 fts with GREAT accurancy ( 7 tojos destroyed on the ground) and i cannot even engage them...

Am i really paranoid or this is something that breaks the game!?! How am i suppose to defend my Airfields?!??

_____________________________

[image]http://yfrog.com/2m70331348022314716641664j [/image]

(in reply to Gen.Hoepner)
Post #: 848
RE: A new game flaw? - 11/27/2005 4:47:43 PM   
Cap Mandrake


Posts: 23184
Joined: 11/15/2002
From: Southern California
Status: offline 		Gen. Hoepner;

I believe 2000 ft is the game dive bombing release altitude. I beleieve, though am not sure, that they can be intercepted prior to the attack. Are you saying their ingress altitude is to high for your CAP?

_____________________________


(in reply to Gen.Hoepner)
Post #: 849
RE: A new game flaw? - 11/27/2005 4:54:57 PM   
Gen.Hoepner


Posts: 3645
Joined: 9/4/2001
From: italy
Status: offline
quote:

Gen. Hoepner;

I believe 2000 ft is the game dive bombing release altitude. I beleieve, though am not sure, that they can be intercepted prior to the attack. Are you saying their ingress altitude is to high for your CAP?


Yes.It's like when the 4Es flies at 36600 fts..."bombers too high for xxx sentai"....
From 36000 fts and above do you think those 20 p-38s could have done that damage to my AF? I don't.
It will be something like night bombings i think....few turns like that ( maybe using 100 p-38s) and my AFs will be full of damaged fighters. Then a big wave of 4Es and everything will be done.

Not funny

_____________________________

[image]http://yfrog.com/2m70331348022314716641664j [/image]

(in reply to Cap Mandrake)
Post #: 850
RE: A new game flaw? - 11/27/2005 5:04:21 PM   
Oleg Mastruko


Posts: 4921
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline 		I do not like house rules but among the rare rules I insist on using is limiting altitude for bombing missions (or all missions) to 20, or 25k feet max.

Above this altitude all sorts of wacky things happen, and it wasn't used realistically in WW2 Pacific.

So, what you got here is P-38 flying in at 36k feet or whatever their setting was, then diving to 2000 feet because all dive bombers go to 2k feet when dive bombing, and most fighters and fighter-bombers will use dive bombing when ordered to bomb. Wacky stuff as I said. You should use a house rule of limiting bombing missions to 20k and it would not happen.

O.


_____________________________


(in reply to Gen.Hoepner)
Post #: 851
RE: A new game flaw? - 11/27/2005 8:32:31 PM   
String


Posts: 2661
Joined: 10/7/2003
From: Estonia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Gen.Hoepner

...look at this.

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 01/29/43

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Hanoi , at 36,37

Japanese aircraft
A6M3 Zero x 11
Ki-44-IIb Tojo x 22
Ki-61 KAIc Tony x 104

Allied aircraft
P-38G Lightning x 21
F-5A Lightning x 3

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-44-IIb Tojo: 4 destroyed, 1 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
P-38G Lightning: 1 damaged
F-5A Lightning: 1 damaged

Japanese ground losses:
13 casualties reported

Airbase hits 2
Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 1

Aircraft Attacking:
18 x P-38G Lightning bombing at 2000 feet
3 x P-38G Lightning bombing at 2000 feet


Bombers too high for my sentais...ok...but then they bomb from 2000 fts with GREAT accurancy ( 7 tojos destroyed on the ground) and i cannot even engage them...

Am i really paranoid or this is something that breaks the game!?! How am i suppose to defend my Airfields?!??


When he keeps doing that, feel free to abuse your A5M6c fighter bombers vs his cv's, as bombers and kamikazes. They carry a decent load (250kg bomb) and have a higher altitude than any allied carrier based AC

(in reply to Gen.Hoepner)
Post #: 852
RE: A new game flaw? - 11/27/2005 8:36:11 PM   
String


Posts: 2661
Joined: 10/7/2003
From: Estonia
Status: offline 		BTW, i think it can be argued that a P-38 swooping down from 36k feet in a dive would be unintercepteable by any current japanese fighter

(in reply to String)
Post #: 853
RE: A new game flaw? - 11/28/2005 1:34:01 AM   
Gen.Hoepner


Posts: 3645
Joined: 9/4/2001
From: italy
Status: offline 		MC agreed that it's not fair.


_____________________________

[image]http://yfrog.com/2m70331348022314716641664j [/image]

(in reply to String)
Post #: 854
RE: A new game flaw? - 11/28/2005 2:01:30 AM   
AmiralLaurent

 

Posts: 3351
Joined: 3/11/2003
From: Near Paris, France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: String

BTW, i think it can be argued that a P-38 swooping down from 36k feet in a dive would be unintercepteable by any current japanese fighter


Well, if a P-38 dives from 36k to 2k feet with bombs there is no need of Japanese interceptor. Most of them will crash at the end because they will be unable to pull up.

GG had never been able to modelize correctly high altitude in his games. WWII Aircraft were able to fly above 30000 feet... in exceptionnal conditions, but certainly not with bombs, or droptanks. And most of them were flying like bricks there, so it was very difficult to keep formation.
The funniest was in BTR when the heavy bombers were set at 33000 feet. No Flak was able to hit them at this alt, and the game saw their alt correctly for Flak fire. But for bombing accuracy, the alt was seen as an integer and limited to 32768 (computer limit) so 33000 = 230 for him and bombs were dropped as if the bombers were on the desk. 0% loss, 100% efficiency.

(in reply to String)
Post #: 855
RE: A new game flaw? - 11/28/2005 8:55:25 PM   
Gen.Hoepner


Posts: 3645
Joined: 9/4/2001
From: italy
Status: offline 		AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 02/01/43

I'm doing my best to provide a stiff defence of the air-space of Hanoi. More than this i cannot efford. 150 fighters, all with VERY high experience are placed there. I'm sure this will be his next target. I'm expecting the usual carpet bombing.

Everywhere else is very calm.
Do not understand what in the world is he waiting

Jacks are in production
Let's see if this brand new fighter can do better than the underpowered A6M....

I'm sorry this AAR became so boring....hope will be some good fightings in the next months...but before the allies will have to waste some time to conquer all my abbandoned bases.





_____________________________

[image]http://yfrog.com/2m70331348022314716641664j [/image]

(in reply to AmiralLaurent)
Post #: 856
RE: A new game flaw? - 11/28/2005 9:00:51 PM   
pauk


Posts: 4162
Joined: 10/21/2001
From: Zagreb,Croatia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: String

When he keeps doing that, feel free to abuse your A5M6c fighter bombers vs his cv's, as bombers and kamikazes. They carry a decent load (250kg bomb) and have a higher altitude than any allied carrier based AC


Funny. That's exactly what i was planing to do in our canceled game when your B-17 started to fly on 36.000 feet.


_____________________________


(in reply to String)
Post #: 857
RE: A new game flaw? - 11/28/2005 9:03:31 PM   
rtrapasso


Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline
quote:

MC agreed that it's not fair.


For some reason, this reminds me of the German commander defending a city that the US Army was attacking. The Americans pulled in some 155 mm guns and proceeded to blow apart the pillboxes and other defenses - 1 pillbox, 1 shot. When finally captured, the German commander was livid, saying the 155 weren't fair, and should be outlawed!! The Americans laughed at him...

(in reply to Gen.Hoepner)
Post #: 858
RE: A new game flaw? - 11/28/2005 9:47:39 PM   
String


Posts: 2661
Joined: 10/7/2003
From: Estonia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: pauk


quote:

ORIGINAL: String

When he keeps doing that, feel free to abuse your A5M6c fighter bombers vs his cv's, as bombers and kamikazes. They carry a decent load (250kg bomb) and have a higher altitude than any allied carrier based AC



Funny. That's exactly what i was planing to do in our canceled game when your B-17 started to fly on 36.000 feet.




hmh, B-17's were used historically at high enough altitude that zeroes couldn't intercept them, so i think that calling that gamey is pushing it.

(in reply to pauk)
Post #: 859
RE: A new game flaw? - 11/29/2005 12:25:58 AM   
pauk


Posts: 4162
Joined: 10/21/2001
From: Zagreb,Croatia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: String

hmh, B-17's were used historically at high enough altitude that zeroes couldn't intercept them, so i think that calling that gamey is pushing it.


no offense, i did not call it gamey. IMO, air combat, as AmiralLaurent stated isn't perfectly modeled and it is a really hard to arrange balanced play trough house rules (i guess that would require at least 50 parahraphs :)

Personally, I have my own personal house rules which i don't announce publicly (same is with ground and naval warfare) - no overstacking air units on AFs (max allowed planes are based on airfield size) and not training my air units attacking empty bases....

The problem is that B17 is overpowered (there are too many of them in the game, bombing results are overrated - even from 36.000 feet, repair rate is too fast...etc) and IMHO i think there is no need for using them in that way. But this is not a place to discuss about that...:).. so arguing with historical arguments in not-historical represented air warfare is not a winner...

Ok, i can live with that and i accept it 100%, but if this happens my opponents should be aware that i will use Zekes for kamikazes at same attitude - above max ceiling of allied planes....

If i thought that was gamey i would ask you to stop this or cancel our game.

It was just bad joke, i think.

_____________________________


(in reply to String)
Post #: 860
RE: A new game flaw? - 11/29/2005 1:24:01 AM   
Gen.Hoepner


Posts: 3645
Joined: 9/4/2001
From: italy
Status: offline 		I agreed with MC that only CVEs will be using "strange" fighters ( Corsairs and Jacks) so not to completely screw history

_____________________________

[image]http://yfrog.com/2m70331348022314716641664j [/image]

(in reply to pauk)
Post #: 861
Port Blair Invaded!!! - 11/29/2005 1:42:09 AM   
Gen.Hoepner


Posts: 3645
Joined: 9/4/2001
From: italy
Status: offline 		AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 02/03/43

So finally i was right....but he invaded the place just 6 months later than expected and with a normal Transport TF and not a FTtf....

My timing for the evacuation was right however...all my units are safe

The base will fall at first attempt


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TF 1048 encounters mine field at Port Blair (23,34)


Allied Ships
MSW Maryborough
MSW Goulburn
MSW Patna
PG Jasmine

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TF 1048 encounters mine field at Port Blair (23,34)

TF 1048 troops unloading over beach at Port Blair, 23,34


Allied Ships
MSW Maryborough
MSW Goulburn
MSW Patna
PG Jasmine, Mine hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
AP Meigs, Mine hits 1


Allied ground losses:
29 casualties reported
Guns lost 1


Allied ground losses:
243 casualties reported









Attachment (1)

_____________________________

[image]http://yfrog.com/2m70331348022314716641664j [/image]

(in reply to Gen.Hoepner)
Post #: 862
RE: Port Blair Invaded!!! - 11/29/2005 3:08:38 PM   
Gen.Hoepner


Posts: 3645
Joined: 9/4/2001
From: italy
Status: offline 		AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 02/04/43

Port Blair fell as predicted with no opposition. 3 allied ships hit mines
Each day 400 heavy bombers are pouning Bankok, which is now nothing but a smoking hole in the Indochina ground.
He started to bomb with 4Es Exmouth. That can mean he will chose the external way to get in into my perimeter...well...if it is so: the better! More time gained!!

400 Transport ships are ready at Darwin for the evacuation of Northern Oz....it will be damned risky!
I'll try to hold there as long as i can but if he invades Exmouth i'll have to speed it up the runaway....

The first 9 Jacks arrived today at Hanoi

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TF 1048 encounters mine field at Port Blair (23,34)

TF 1048 troops unloading over beach at Port Blair, 23,34


Allied Ships
MSW Maryborough
MSW Goulburn
MSW Patna


Allied ground losses:
202 casualties reported

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Port Blair

Allied Deliberate attack

Attacking force 6320 troops, 63 guns, 0 vehicles

Defending force 1142 troops, 0 guns, 0 vehicles

Allied assault odds: 18 to 1 (fort level 0)

Allied forces CAPTURE Port Blair base !!!


Japanese ground losses:
47 casualties reported



_____________________________

[image]http://yfrog.com/2m70331348022314716641664j [/image]

(in reply to Gen.Hoepner)
Post #: 863
RE: A new game flaw? - 11/29/2005 3:08:39 PM   
String


Posts: 2661
Joined: 10/7/2003
From: Estonia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: pauk


quote:

ORIGINAL: String

hmh, B-17's were used historically at high enough altitude that zeroes couldn't intercept them, so i think that calling that gamey is pushing it.


no offense, i did not call it gamey. IMO, air combat, as AmiralLaurent stated isn't perfectly modeled and it is a really hard to arrange balanced play trough house rules (i guess that would require at least 50 parahraphs :)

Personally, I have my own personal house rules which i don't announce publicly (same is with ground and naval warfare) - no overstacking air units on AFs (max allowed planes are based on airfield size) and not training my air units attacking empty bases....

The problem is that B17 is overpowered (there are too many of them in the game, bombing results are overrated - even from 36.000 feet, repair rate is too fast...etc) and IMHO i think there is no need for using them in that way. But this is not a place to discuss about that...:).. so arguing with historical arguments in not-historical represented air warfare is not a winner...

Ok, i can live with that and i accept it 100%, but if this happens my opponents should be aware that i will use Zekes for kamikazes at same attitude - above max ceiling of allied planes....

If i thought that was gamey i would ask you to stop this or cancel our game.

It was just bad joke, i think.


The difference is that a divebombing zeke used from max altitude IS gamey, as it could and would have been intercepted by fighters.That or it would have disintegrated in mid air from too high speeds. And I don't remember doing any real damage with b-17s by flying at 36k feet, the worst being 1-2 airplanes destroyed, more usually, nothing

(in reply to pauk)
Post #: 864
RE: A new game flaw? - 11/29/2005 3:55:07 PM   
AmiralLaurent

 

Posts: 3351
Joined: 3/11/2003
From: Near Paris, France
Status: offline 		Agree with String, level bombers or recon flying at high alt are ok with me as they will do all their flight from this alt (and they historically did that), but setting the altitude of dive bombers, torpedo bomber or fighter-bombers at 30 000+ is gamey because they are so immune to most CAP and AA fire, then teleport at 2000 or 200 feet and drop their ordnance. The problem is the teleportation.

As for being fair, well, strategy consists in using everything possible advantage to win an unfair advantage over the enemy. Using BB to sink AP, or Zeroes to chase Wirraways isn't fair either. The problem here is that is not a war, but a game, and if the simulation is faulty, players may (should?) agree to use home rules to keep the game as a reasonable simulation. There is no cheating in a real war, but there may be in a game.

(in reply to String)
Post #: 865
RE: A new game flaw? - 11/29/2005 7:51:43 PM   
pauk


Posts: 4162
Joined: 10/21/2001
From: Zagreb,Croatia
Status: offline 		grrrr... i knew it i will be involved into debate.

Ok, it may be a valid point about zeke's - did not know that they are immune for AA fire too...I must admit that this change my attidude.

(as i would like to hear from community the same for other "solutions": it took me some time that i realise that if you put DD in PT TF this will turn PTs in "magnet" for LB bombers and they will attack this small, speedy crafts (with torps!) instead "normal" warships...)

The bottom line is that i'm very, very nervous when we are talking about B17, especially when players evacuating cadres of the base forces from DEI and PI (yes, they need them for hordes of B-17s). I know that Allied community agree that this is not a gamey, so i would not say a word on that issue....

However this is not a place to discuss (again) about that and lets continue to enjoy this game.

_____________________________


(in reply to String)
Post #: 866
RE: A new game flaw? - 11/29/2005 9:05:42 PM   
String


Posts: 2661
Joined: 10/7/2003
From: Estonia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: pauk

grrrr... i knew it i will be involved into debate.

Ok, it may be a valid point about zeke's - did not know that they are immune for AA fire too...I must admit that this change my attidude.

(as i would like to hear from community the same for other "solutions": it took me some time that i realise that if you put DD in PT TF this will turn PTs in "magnet" for LB bombers and they will attack this small, speedy crafts (with torps!) instead "normal" warships...)

The bottom line is that i'm very, very nervous when we are talking about B17, especially when players evacuating cadres of the base forces from DEI and PI (yes, they need them for hordes of B-17s). I know that Allied community agree that this is not a gamey, so i would not say a word on that issue....

However this is not a place to discuss (again) about that and lets continue to enjoy this game.


I don't evac cadres of base forces, though i did for a few land units from malaya.
I did take out all the av support guys from the philippine aviation unit, but that can hardly be called pulling out a cadre now can it?

(in reply to pauk)
Post #: 867
RE: A new game flaw? - 11/30/2005 12:40:24 AM   
Gen.Hoepner


Posts: 3645
Joined: 9/4/2001
From: italy
Status: offline 		AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 02/08/43

After Port Blair, Tavoy has fallen in enemy's hands. Soon Malaya will be attacked and Indochina too.

At PM started the b-17 carpet bombing.
Actually there are some 800 4Es used in daily actions . Targets are Bankok, Daily Waters,Exmouth and now Port Moresby.

In one month we should be able to launch the first attack at Lanchow

_____________________________

[image]http://yfrog.com/2m70331348022314716641664j [/image]

(in reply to String)
Post #: 868
Invaded - 11/30/2005 8:17:26 AM   
Gen.Hoepner


Posts: 3645
Joined: 9/4/2001
From: italy
Status: offline 		AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 02/09/43

So I wasn't that far from reality of facts. I just misunderstood the PM bombings, but the intense activity of the last days over Daily and Exmouth had almost revealed his plans: HE's GOING FOR AUSTRALIA!

Today he's landed at Broome and Exmouth, covered by a strong Surface TF and by a Carrier force. There's a base force at Broome and a SNLF at Exmouth. Tomorrow they'll fall.
So now everything will be decided: Will the Japanese manage to make another Dunkerke? Will USAFF will be as lazy as Luftwaffe? Will MC be better than Uncle Hermann?
My units at Daily are already running towards Darwin. Soon Broome and Daily will be full of enemy bombers and fighters...i can foresee the disaster.
Fighters and bombers have been transfered to Darwin and Ambonia. Let's see if he becomes too overconfident but knowing him i don't think so.

At the same time the ESSEX CV, along with other unidentified 50 ships is heading towards Lunga. Here the evacuation has already been completed. No need to hurry


Soon the allies will start bombing resources centers in DEI-SRA...i thank god i've decided to retire...if not now i'd have to engage with my wounded KB...which simply won't be able to stop the allied Steamroller

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TF 1042 encounters mine field at Broome (22,85)

Allied Ships
MSW Abraham Crijnssen
MSW Pieter de Bitter
MSW Igonish
MSW Horsham
MSW Bunbury
PC Tiger
PG Swan
AK John C. Calhoun, Mine hits 1


Allied ground losses:
18 casualties reported

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TF 1067 encounters mine field at Broome (22,85)

Allied Ships
MSW Heed
MSW Starling
MSW Gympie
MSW Cowra
DMS Boggs
PG Isabel
PG Yarra

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Naval bombardment of Broome, at 22,85

Allied Ships
CL Phoenix
CL Newcastle
CL Glasgow
CL Danae
CA Cornwall
CA Vincennes
CA Quincy
CA San Francisco
CA Chester
BB Washington
BB Oklahoma

Japanese ground losses:
19 casualties reported
Guns lost 1

Airbase hits 7
Airbase supply hits 6
Runway hits 22
Port hits 7
Port supply hits 15

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TF 1042 encounters mine field at Broome (22,85)

TF 1042 troops unloading over beach at Broome, 22,85


Allied Ships
MSW Abraham Crijnssen
MSW Pieter de Bitter
MSW Igonish
MSW Horsham
MSW Bunbury
PC Tiger
PG Swan
APD Waters
AK Dukat, Mine hits 1


Allied ground losses:
12 casualties reported
Vehicles lost 1


Allied ground losses:
237 casualties reported

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TF 1072 encounters mine field at Exmouth (11,86)

TF 1072 troops unloading over beach at Exmouth, 11,86


Allied Ships
MSW Eland Dubois
MSW Jan van Amstel
MSW Robin
MSW Lismore
MSW Katoomba
MSW Gladstone
MSW Cessnock


Allied ground losses:
225 casualties reported

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TF 1042 troops unloading over beach at Broome, 22,85



Allied ground losses:
294 casualties reported

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TF 1063 troops unloading over beach at Broome, 22,85



Allied ground losses:
52 casualties reported

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TF 1067 troops unloading over beach at Broome, 22,85



Allied ground losses:
244 casualties reported

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TF 1072 encounters mine field at Exmouth (11,86)

TF 1072 troops unloading over beach at Exmouth, 11,86


Allied Ships
MSW Eland Dubois
MSW Jan van Amstel
MSW Robin
MSW Lismore
MSW Katoomba
MSW Gladstone
MSW Cessnock


Allied ground losses:
234 casualties reported

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Naval bombardment of Broome, at 22,85

Allied Ships
CL Phoenix
CL Newcastle
CL Glasgow
CL Danae
CA Cornwall
CA Vincennes
CA Quincy
CA San Francisco
CA Chester
BB Washington
BB Oklahoma

Japanese ground losses:
8 casualties reported

Airbase hits 4
Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 13
Port hits 1
Port supply hits 11


-

_____________________________

[image]http://yfrog.com/2m70331348022314716641664j [/image]

(in reply to Gen.Hoepner)
Post #: 869
RE: Invaded - 11/30/2005 10:11:34 PM   
Gen.Hoepner


Posts: 3645
Joined: 9/4/2001
From: italy
Status: offline 		AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 02/10/43

He landed in Broome with 3 divisions, tons of Engeneers, Aviation units, seabees...tanks....Useless to say that my base force there was pushed out easily.

Same for Exmouth.

He landed also at Lunga. 22,000 enemies already ashore.

The long run for Darwin has started. I'm quite sure i'm gonne lose my divisions there...

_____________________________

[image]http://yfrog.com/2m70331348022314716641664j [/image]

(in reply to Gen.Hoepner)
Post #: 870
Page:   <<   < prev  27 28 [29] 30 31   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> After Action Reports >> RE: BANKOK Annihilated Page: <<   < prev  27 28 [29] 30 31   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

2.250