RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!)

RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!) (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports

Message

rader -> RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!) (12/23/2020 10:53:43 PM)
Wow, can you believe we've played 514 turns! Crazy to think about.

PaxMondo -> RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!) (12/24/2020 2:01:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GetAssista quote: ORIGINAL: PaxMondo quote: ORIGINAL: rader How many operational land-based fighters should the Allies have in front line units in May 1943? The answer will depend upon what the losses have been to date. PDU On in this game, correct? Post the losses and I will see if I can calc it out for you. Maybe you can teach the man to fish instead of giving him a fish? [:)] Info about monthly production levels is there in the scenario, as well as reinforcement queue of the air groups. I suppose Tracker accumulates all this too. I don't think it is gamey to look into the scenario start to see all this data as the opposite side. A seasoned player would have gone through each side OOB multiple times anyway. Minus the accumulated losses, which are subject to FOW but the deviation from truth is not critical in this case. quote: ORIGINAL: rader PUD on. Here's the Allied fighter losses so far, but wouldn't it be easier to calculate from the air groups? We've both been fairly conservative so I doubt he's running low on fighter pools. It would still come to the numbers of the most modern fighters in the pools. With PDU on you opponent would probably want the best models flying on the frontlines, not sitting in reserves @GA: all correct. But I think I might have something setup to calculate this if I load the correct scenario into it. Creating my own scenario, I built a lot of analytic tools to validate the files and to summarize various ratios to ensure I did not stray too far from reality. If I can find right file, then this is a pretty trivial exercise for me. I am a bit occupied at the moment. Standing a new company up before the new year ... got a lot of paperwork to create (articles of incorporation, statuatory agent assignment, bank accounts, etc) and then file with the state. Also, several quotes to get out to lock in the new business for Q1 ... been a few years since I did all this ...

rader -> RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!) (12/26/2020 8:49:07 PM)
May 6, 1943. Allied movement in Burma? We've spotted 20 units moving along the tree line in Burma toward Japanese positions along the coast. If this is 20 full divisions, it could be trouble, but of course that's unlikely. Unclear if this is a major offensive, recon in force, or just a blocking operation. We're sending in more recon planes to try to get a better sense of Allied strength. [image]local://upfiles/14041/8DD5E16394A14458B3D66FCB1E986F72.jpg[/image]

rader -> RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!) (12/27/2020 10:11:45 PM)
May 7, 1943. The Allied 4Es lay waste to Nadzab in New Guinea where Japanese bombers were slotted to launch a night strike against the Allied 4E base in Northern Australia. The night mission didn't fly due to weather and then the 4Es came in and plastered the field. As some consolation, a Japanese attack on Ledo was moderately successful, torching some Beaufighters and Skytrains on the ground. [image]local://upfiles/14041/15B0D5E6A82749ED9D64BBFE15FD33BB.jpg[/image]

rader -> RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!) (12/27/2020 10:23:57 PM)
And in Burma, Recon estimates the Allied force to have only ~20,000 or so troops without a vast array of vehicles. That probably equates to an Allied AV in the 600-700 range. Not much of a reason for alarm. But how reliable is air recon? It doesn't show a DL for a non-base hex. [image]local://upfiles/14041/976ED60427FB44379832D43D588BC784.jpg[/image]

RangerJoe -> RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!) (12/27/2020 10:39:20 PM)
Bomb the ground units and see what you can find out? Or waste some paratroopers for a more detailed look?

rader -> RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!) (12/27/2020 10:49:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RangerJoe Bomb the ground units and see what you can find out? Or waste some paratroopers for a more detailed look? I did bomb them and identified an Indian div and mtn gun rgt. Using paras like this would be gamey and against our HRs :)

RangerJoe -> RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!) (12/28/2020 12:28:11 AM)
So it looks like he wants to capture that island and use it to support operations in Burma. Any chance of shore bombardment when they reach the coast? Or at least a fake one to have a CAP trap. [:D]

rader -> RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!) (12/28/2020 12:35:29 AM)
Well, Ramree Island I believe is blocked by that JR hex that I intend to hold.. that's the whole point of blocking that hex.

RangerJoe -> RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!) (12/28/2020 12:47:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rader Well, Ramree Island I believe is blocked by that JR hex that I intend to hold.. that's the whole point of blocking that hex. Yes it is and it is a good place to impale the Allied forces.

rader -> RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!) (12/30/2020 7:18:28 PM)
May 11, 1943. Some B-25s came in to attack a Japanese task force in the Arafura Sea and it turned out that Recon was wrong: there are a fair amount more Allied troops than expected along the coast in Burma. I still don't think they're quite enough to overwhelm our defenders but we're moving in reinforcements to counter nonetheless. [image]local://upfiles/14041/C7A4DAF0C99D4BC99246FEEF5E806E23.jpg[/image]

rader -> RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!) (1/1/2021 8:05:02 PM)
May 14, 1943. More waves of unstoppable night bombing, this time against Prome in Burma. At least Flak managed to get 4 of the 4E beasts. I'm almost thinking a 15:1 trade of Japanese fighters to Allied 4Es is worth it? Not totally kidding... [8\|] [image]local://upfiles/14041/6F019BBACC6542D0A72740B5CF985E99.jpg[/image]

RangerJoe -> RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!) (1/1/2021 10:13:04 PM)
You should point out the moonlight and the weather. When the weather is nice with lots of moonlight, night bombing is much more effective.

rader -> RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!) (1/1/2021 11:15:39 PM)
And here's the force composition where we made contact along the Burma coast. Nothing to worry about in JR terrain. Interesting to see the 1st USMC div in Burma. Japanese atoll commanders can breathe a bit easier knowing it's there. [image]local://upfiles/14041/A41A99FBC2884C4480E34E30CE5906C5.jpg[/image]

rader -> RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!) (1/2/2021 7:15:38 PM)
May 16, 1943. A fairly big Allied fleet spotted near Port Moresby. No invasion shipping spotted, just CVEs and apparently BBs... though the report may not be that reliable. Not sure if this is an invasion of PM, a move into the Gulf of Carpenteria toward Darwin, or something else? [image]local://upfiles/14041/069D46643C47430AB00472A35052C3B4.jpg[/image]

BBfanboy -> RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!) (1/2/2021 8:10:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rader And here's the force composition where we made contact along the Burma coast. Nothing to worry about in JR terrain. Interesting to see the 1st USMC div in Burma. Japanese atoll commanders can breathe a bit easier knowing it's there. [image]local://upfiles/14041/A41A99FBC2884C4480E34E30CE5906C5.jpg[/image] That's the decoy Unfunny Silly Mime Circus Division. People are known to flee in terror at their approach, and they are masters of silent movement. It's best to blindfold your troops before confronting them ... [image]local://upfiles/35791/BE8B44AFA7324FCEA33452F5F30DBE57.gif[/image]

rader -> RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!) (1/3/2021 2:57:37 AM)
May 17, 1943. BBs Idaho and Colorado pay a visit to Port Moresby. Still unclear if this is an invasion or merely a bombardment. [image]local://upfiles/14041/6EECDFD89046424682CC1DED844BAAFC.jpg[/image]

rader -> RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!) (1/3/2021 3:00:30 AM)
In other news, a Japanese AV carrying some Jakes put a few bombs into tankers near Hawaii. No fuel burning messages though, so unlikely to sink. Probably their return trip. [image]local://upfiles/14041/A7FD49D89D2B4D93BCD535B07BC3D191.jpg[/image]

rader -> RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!) (1/3/2021 7:31:18 PM)
May 18, 1943. Port Moresby got a working over by Indiana and South Dakota. That's 4 BBs that paid a visit now. Still unclear if this is an invasion. [image]local://upfiles/14041/478B488529DD4DBE88EB700B8903316B.jpg[/image]

rader -> RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!) (1/3/2021 7:36:09 PM)
And the AV vs. tanker carnage continues. This time, substantial enough bomb hits to likely sink two of them, though none yet listed as sunk. This is probably a kamikaze run for the AV though. It would be a miracle if it managed to escape so close to Pearl and the West Coast. [image]local://upfiles/14041/12F0EEC5249B4C9D9FA22D75EF32B5DB.jpg[/image]

rader -> RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!) (1/4/2021 5:26:06 PM)
May 19, 1943 Port Moresby invaded! This is the largest Allied offensive action of the war so far. After a third softening up by Allied battleships, the Americal division and 23rd Marine Rgt land at Port Moresby along with some other friends. I didn't see any APs or AKs -- is it possible all this came from a few LCIs and LSTs... we must be missing something. I guess he could have a lot more that wasn't spotted? He's ashore in good order with probably just enough to defeat the Japanese defenders so we'll lose Port Moresby. It's hard to defend so far forward on the wrong side of New Guinea anyway, but this does help secure his LOC through the Torres Strait. [image]local://upfiles/14041/8FBE9C7D93864F419980FBBF300D2DC3.jpg[/image]

rader -> RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!) (1/5/2021 4:56:01 PM)
Hmm just launched an Emily night attack from a lvl 4 airfield had an air HQ equipped with torpedoes. Group is set to use torpedoes but attacked using bombs. Only around 8 hexes out, so short range for Emilys. Any ideas why?

BBfanboy -> RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!) (1/5/2021 5:12:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rader Hmm just launched an Emily night attack from a lvl 4 airfield had an air HQ equipped with torpedoes. Group is set to use torpedoes but attacked using bombs. Only around 8 hexes out, so short range for Emilys. Any ideas why? I think you need around 70 skill for pilots to do a night naval attack.

rader -> RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!) (1/5/2021 5:50:42 PM)
Well, they did attack but with bombs. And they're definitely over 70 skill for torpedoes. The "using torpedoes" button was also yellow, not red. [image]local://upfiles/14041/32C6C33921AB4F38A434ABA63B67E332.jpg[/image]

RangerJoe -> RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!) (1/5/2021 5:58:43 PM)
They also need experience above 50 for night work, the higher the better.

rader -> RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!) (1/5/2021 6:13:02 PM)
Is that for every pilot, just the ones who would use torps, or the group average?

RangerJoe -> RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!) (1/5/2021 7:17:14 PM)
The pilots who fly. The higher, the better.

PaxMondo -> RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!) (1/5/2021 8:00:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rader Well, they did attack but with bombs. And they're definitely over 70 skill for torpedoes. The "using torpedoes" button was also yellow, not red. So, assuming that torps were available at the base (yellow does not guarantee that, only that if they are there, they can be used), then the important roll is what load out will be used by the group. Even though you prefer torps, the DL of the potential targets (not necessarily your preferred target) will influence the load out. In this case it appears that the torp alternative was chosen. You can improve the odds of your choices happening by using high Leadership leaders and getting/maintaining high DL on your preferred target. For me to get night torp attacks I need leader skill ~80, and pilot exp >75, and pilot skill > 75. With these and high target DL (day/night NavSearch on target) the units will launch 80% of the time. Moonlight does factor in here as well. Higher pilot exp/skill will get them to launch in lower moonlight.

castor troy -> RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!) (1/6/2021 9:37:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rader May 14, 1943. More waves of unstoppable night bombing, this time against Prome in Burma. At least Flak managed to get 4 of the 4E beasts. I'm almost thinking a 15:1 trade of Japanese fighters to Allied 4Es is worth it? Not totally kidding... [8\|] [image]local://upfiles/14041/6F019BBACC6542D0A72740B5CF985E99.jpg[/image] What is your opponent thinking about tactical night bombing? Does he think the results are ok? If so, discussion about it might be mood but not having a house rule about night bombing can make the game unplayable and I wonder if that is fun for your opponent in the end. It's only the beginning of 43 and if you don't restrict TACTICAL night bombing then you will end up facing hundreds of 4Es each turn plastering every airfield in range at will at the end of 43 without any chance for you to do anything against it. It's like playing the AI and not giving up Singapore and breaking the routines, there are people who enjoy this.

rader -> RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!) (1/6/2021 5:04:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: castor troy What is your opponent thinking about tactical night bombing? Does he think the results are ok? If so, discussion about it might be mood but not having a house rule about night bombing can make the game unplayable and I wonder if that is fun for your opponent in the end. It's only the beginning of 43 and if you don't restrict TACTICAL night bombing then you will end up facing hundreds of 4Es each turn plastering every airfield in range at will at the end of 43 without any chance for you to do anything against it. It's like playing the AI and not giving up Singapore and breaking the routines, there are people who enjoy this. Well we have a few Japan-friendly HRs (like no strat bombing until July 1943, which is coming up) so I think he's of the opinion that what's good for the goose is good for the gander. So far it's fairly bad but if I station even crappy interceptors it does seem to disrupt the bomber if at a high but tolerable cost to the interceptors and no cost to the bombers. I can imagine it will get worse, but so far I can take it. And I am also hoping the Japanese night fighters when I eventually get them are able to do at least something.

Page: << < prev 7 8 [9] 10 11 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.7324219