RE: Ooops, I did it again (Lowpe (J) vs ?(A) (Full Version)

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



Message


mind_messing -> RE: Ooops, I did it again (Lowpe (J) vs ?(A) (8/26/2020 9:03:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe


quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:


One of the areas I don't want to skimp on is AA. It all has a place to go from the get go. Especially the searchlight/radar equipped versions. They have to land at Miri asap, really any target for early night bombing.


There's an argument to be made for leaving Miri & Palembang until all the nearby airbases in the DEI are controlled by Japan.

Impossible for the Allies to bomb them if they're still in Allied hands.




Absolutely won't take them till I can protect them with NF of some flavor and flak that will fire at night.



My thinking was basically leave them till last, taking them when there are no viable Allied bases left within range. In practical terms, that means leaving Miri until at least Java and most of the PI are cleared.

Palembang means Java and much of Sumatra.

That will have some wider ramifications so I can understand why you might not be keen on it.




Lowpe -> RE: Ooops, I did it again (Lowpe (J) vs ?(A) (8/26/2020 9:17:57 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

I am going to ask Lok about this....no HR is one thing, exploits are another and the 1000 foot torpedo selection is an exploit. I am not comfortable going there, tbh.



What exactly is the exploit here?

There are plenty of legitimate reasons to fly torpedo bombers at 1000ft.


This is my understanding which might be flawed.

A bomber, that isn't an assault bomber, is penalized in its bomb load if it attacks at 1000 feet without torpedo (using bombs).

However, if you select use torpedoes, and have an HQa within range with torpedoes and proper supply, then the bomber will use its "full load" and not a penalized low altitude load if use torpedoes is toggled.

I have not tested it, but I am sure RangerJoe can correct me.




Lowpe -> RE: Ooops, I did it again (Lowpe (J) vs ?(A) (8/26/2020 9:19:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe


quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:


One of the areas I don't want to skimp on is AA. It all has a place to go from the get go. Especially the searchlight/radar equipped versions. They have to land at Miri asap, really any target for early night bombing.


There's an argument to be made for leaving Miri & Palembang until all the nearby airbases in the DEI are controlled by Japan.

Impossible for the Allies to bomb them if they're still in Allied hands.




Absolutely won't take them till I can protect them with NF of some flavor and flak that will fire at night.



My thinking was basically leave them till last, taking them when there are no viable Allied bases left within range. In practical terms, that means leaving Miri until at least Java and most of the PI are cleared.

Palembang means Java and much of Sumatra.

That will have some wider ramifications so I can understand why you might not be keen on it.


Oooh, yeah, not too keen on waiting that long.




Lowpe -> RE: Ooops, I did it again (Lowpe (J) vs ?(A) (8/26/2020 9:27:23 PM)

Well, I bounced it off Lok, and he is totally unconcerned and true to his no HR leanings.

In fact he would prefer a Manila KB strike. [:)]





mind_messing -> RE: Ooops, I did it again (Lowpe (J) vs ?(A) (8/26/2020 9:44:31 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

I am going to ask Lok about this....no HR is one thing, exploits are another and the 1000 foot torpedo selection is an exploit. I am not comfortable going there, tbh.



What exactly is the exploit here?

There are plenty of legitimate reasons to fly torpedo bombers at 1000ft.


This is my understanding which might be flawed.

A bomber, that isn't an assault bomber, is penalized in its bomb load if it attacks at 1000 feet without torpedo (using bombs).

However, if you select use torpedoes, and have an HQa within range with torpedoes and proper supply, then the bomber will use its "full load" and not a penalized low altitude load if use torpedoes is toggled.

I have not tested it, but I am sure RangerJoe can correct me.



By "full load", do you mean torpedoes?

If so, that does not strike me as an exploit in any way.

Such an attack would use the NavT skill and not LowN, suggesting a pretty clear dinsction between a LowN attack with bombs and a torpedo attack.

Plus there's the tactical considerations where you would want torpedo bombers flying at wavetop height to avoid CAP and radar.




mind_messing -> RE: Ooops, I did it again (Lowpe (J) vs ?(A) (8/26/2020 9:45:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

Well, I bounced it off Lok, and he is totally unconcerned and true to his no HR leanings.

In fact he would prefer a Manila KB strike. [:)]





He's a good sport. He weathered my many rants of the effectiveness of night bombing and endured many a brutal attack by supersized Jill squadrons.




Lowpe -> RE: Ooops, I did it again (Lowpe (J) vs ?(A) (8/26/2020 10:02:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

I am going to ask Lok about this....no HR is one thing, exploits are another and the 1000 foot torpedo selection is an exploit. I am not comfortable going there, tbh.



What exactly is the exploit here?

There are plenty of legitimate reasons to fly torpedo bombers at 1000ft.


This is my understanding which might be flawed.

A bomber, that isn't an assault bomber, is penalized in its bomb load if it attacks at 1000 feet without torpedo (using bombs).

However, if you select use torpedoes, and have an HQa within range with torpedoes and proper supply, then the bomber will use its "full load" and not a penalized low altitude load if use torpedoes is toggled.

I have not tested it, but I am sure RangerJoe can correct me.



By "full load", do you mean torpedoes?



Port strike. No a full bomb load, not the reduced 1000 foot bomb load. I believe only torpedoes can be used on port strikes at Pearl and on Dec 7th if you pass some checks.

Perhaps I am wrong and it is all works as designed.




RangerJoe -> RE: Ooops, I did it again (Lowpe (J) vs ?(A) (8/26/2020 10:39:35 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

I am going to ask Lok about this....no HR is one thing, exploits are another and the 1000 foot torpedo selection is an exploit. I am not comfortable going there, tbh.



What exactly is the exploit here?

There are plenty of legitimate reasons to fly torpedo bombers at 1000ft.


This is my understanding which might be flawed.

A bomber, that isn't an assault bomber, is penalized in its bomb load if it attacks at 1000 feet without torpedo (using bombs).

However, if you select use torpedoes, and have an HQa within range with torpedoes and proper supply, then the bomber will use its "full load" and not a penalized low altitude load if use torpedoes is toggled.

I have not tested it, but I am sure RangerJoe can correct me.



I redid the initial turn on my current game. No previous bombing of Manila. The fighters are escort, although putting them on port attack at 1000 or 100 feet is also an option. This was in the afternoon as they were set to "Naval" and "Port" with the target of "Manila." I sent the Sallies to Wenchow although including them at a lower altitude nut not 1000 feet would also be beneficial.

quote:

Afternoon Air attack on Manila , at 79,77

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid detected at 36 NM, estimated altitude 4,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 12 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 46
G3M2 Nell x 36
G4M1 Betty x 54

Allied aircraft
P-35A x 1
P-40B Warhawk x 3
P-40E Warhawk x 10

Japanese aircraft losses
G3M2 Nell: 1 damaged
G4M1 Betty: 1 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
P-40B Warhawk: 1 destroyed
P-40E Warhawk: 2 destroyed

Allied Ships
SS Pickerel, Bomb hits 2, and is sunk
SS Pike, Bomb hits 2, and is sunk
PT Q-112, Bomb hits 1, and is sunk
AS Canopus, Bomb hits 1, heavy fires
SS Snapper, Bomb hits 2, and is sunk
xAK Si Kiang, Bomb hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
SS Swordfish, Bomb hits 1
AS Holland, Bomb hits 1, on fire
SS S-38, Bomb hits 2, and is sunk
xAKL Anakan, Bomb hits 1, and is sunk
PT-32, Bomb hits 1, and is sunk
SS Stingray, Bomb hits 1
DD John D. Ford, Bomb hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
AM Finch, Bomb hits 1, heavy fires, heavy damage Later sank.
SS Sealion, Bomb hits 1, and is sunk
AVD Childs, Bomb hits 1, on fire
SS Searaven, Bomb hits 2, and is sunk
SS Porpoise, Bomb hits 2, and is sunk
SS Sturgeon, Bomb hits 2, and is sunk
SS Permit, Bomb hits 1, heavy damage
AV Langley, Bomb hits 1, on fire
SS S-41, Bomb hits 1, and is sunk
xAP President Madison, Bomb hits 1, on fire
xAK Yu Sang, Bomb hits 2, and is sunk

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

Port hits 3
Port fuel hits 2 (lost 142 fuel)

Aircraft Attacking:
27 x G4M1 Betty bombing from 1000 feet (Takao Ku K-1 / 23rd Air Flotilla)
Port Attack: 1 x 800 kg AP Bomb
27 x G4M1 Betty bombing from 1000 feet (Takao Ku K-1 Det / 23rd Air Flotilla)
Port Attack: 1 x 800 kg AP Bomb
27 x G3M2 Nell bombing from 1000 feet (1st Ku K-1 / 21st Air Flotilla)
Port Attack: 1 x 800 kg AP Bomb
9 x G3M2 Nell bombing from 1000 feet (1st Ku K-1 Det / 21st Air Flotilla)
Port Attack: 1 x 800 kg AP Bomb


I wonder if using the Kates that use bombs at 1000 feet would be a good option. If you notice, some subs took more than one hit which is a waste. Oh well, I let a lot of things go to waist. [8|]




scout1 -> RE: Ooops, I did it again (Lowpe (J) vs ?(A) (8/27/2020 12:23:58 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

Well, I bounced it off Lok, and he is totally unconcerned and true to his no HR leanings.

In fact he would prefer a Manila KB strike. [:)]




Death to Allied Pigboats ......




mind_messing -> RE: Ooops, I did it again (Lowpe (J) vs ?(A) (8/27/2020 1:45:42 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

I am going to ask Lok about this....no HR is one thing, exploits are another and the 1000 foot torpedo selection is an exploit. I am not comfortable going there, tbh.



What exactly is the exploit here?

There are plenty of legitimate reasons to fly torpedo bombers at 1000ft.


This is my understanding which might be flawed.

A bomber, that isn't an assault bomber, is penalized in its bomb load if it attacks at 1000 feet without torpedo (using bombs).

However, if you select use torpedoes, and have an HQa within range with torpedoes and proper supply, then the bomber will use its "full load" and not a penalized low altitude load if use torpedoes is toggled.

I have not tested it, but I am sure RangerJoe can correct me.



By "full load", do you mean torpedoes?



Port strike. No a full bomb load, not the reduced 1000 foot bomb load. I believe only torpedoes can be used on port strikes at Pearl and on Dec 7th if you pass some checks.

Perhaps I am wrong and it is all works as designed.



Sorry, I worded that poorly.

What is the specific bomb load that you're seeing?

Keep in mind that certain IJN planes have a chance to carry 800kg bombs on port attack pending a EXP check.




RangerJoe -> RE: Ooops, I did it again (Lowpe (J) vs ?(A) (8/27/2020 2:02:08 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

I am going to ask Lok about this....no HR is one thing, exploits are another and the 1000 foot torpedo selection is an exploit. I am not comfortable going there, tbh.



What exactly is the exploit here?

There are plenty of legitimate reasons to fly torpedo bombers at 1000ft.


This is my understanding which might be flawed.

A bomber, that isn't an assault bomber, is penalized in its bomb load if it attacks at 1000 feet without torpedo (using bombs).

However, if you select use torpedoes, and have an HQa within range with torpedoes and proper supply, then the bomber will use its "full load" and not a penalized low altitude load if use torpedoes is toggled.

I have not tested it, but I am sure RangerJoe can correct me.



By "full load", do you mean torpedoes?



Port strike. No a full bomb load, not the reduced 1000 foot bomb load. I believe only torpedoes can be used on port strikes at Pearl and on Dec 7th if you pass some checks.

Perhaps I am wrong and it is all works as designed.



Sorry, I worded that poorly.

What is the specific bomb load that you're seeing?

Keep in mind that certain IJN planes have a chance to carry 800kg bombs on port attack pending a EXP check.


In the battle report that I posted, they were all 800 kg bombs. Other times they would be two 250 kg bombs and four 60 kg bombs which would actually be better against ships at Manila because that is a lot more chances to hit something.




Lowpe -> RE: Ooops, I did it again (Lowpe (J) vs ?(A) (8/28/2020 12:54:17 PM)

Still working my way thru the existing IJN ships. Lots of conversions, lots of troop capacity added always safer to err on the side of converting to troop capacity early on during the critical month of December.

I plan on pincering Singapore on Dec 8th...invading Palembang as soon as I can get decent AA up.

Looking to cut of all avenues of escape for the Thundering Herd.

Hitting Cagayan and Clark AFB to damage those beasts.

Port Blair by paratroop early. Perhaps another paradrop in China at either Ankang, Tienshui or the Changsha rail line.

Naval HQs at Hiroshima off to Cam Ranh Bay.

Pretty strong Zero forces in Marshalls to start in this souped up Andy mod...might give the American carriers a bloody nose should they get adventuresome.

Everywhere I look I see subtle, yet powerful changes Andy made. Rufes, Air production, planes, ships, etc, etc.











Lowpe -> RE: Ooops, I did it again (Lowpe (J) vs ?(A) (8/29/2020 10:35:02 AM)

Lost electricity yesterday due to heavy storms and didn't finish the turn. Rains all day today, but if the electric which came back overnight, stays on, I will finish the turn....yay!





Alfred -> RE: Ooops, I did it again (Lowpe (J) vs ?(A) (8/29/2020 10:41:16 AM)

Are you trying to achieve the longest Japanese AAR without a turn being made?[:D]

Of course your Allied AAR record is quite safe from being overtaken any time soon.

Alfred




Lowpe -> RE: Ooops, I did it again (Lowpe (J) vs ?(A) (8/29/2020 11:54:59 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

Are you trying to achieve the longest Japanese AAR without a turn being made?[:D]

Of course your Allied AAR record is quite safe from being overtaken any time soon.

Alfred


Today![sm=00000280.gif]




Lowpe -> RE: Ooops, I did it again (Lowpe (J) vs ?(A) (8/29/2020 5:10:55 PM)

1st turn finally away...run a sample turn, did a few tweaks, and sent it off....may the rng gods smile upon us!





Jorge_Stanbury -> RE: Ooops, I did it again (Lowpe (J) vs ?(A) (8/29/2020 5:18:43 PM)

Vista, suerte y al toro!

good luck!!


[image]local://upfiles/41287/3956B1891DB54335A314E7846BB0FBCD.jpg[/image]




RangerJoe -> RE: Ooops, I did it again (Lowpe (J) vs ?(A) (8/29/2020 7:23:33 PM)

[sm=00000436.gif][sm=happy0005.gif]




Lowpe -> RE: Ooops, I did it again (Lowpe (J) vs ?(A) (8/29/2020 9:18:38 PM)

Dec 7th, 1941

Pennsylvania takes a midget torpedo at Pearl...and we are off.

Two Dutch subs, one off Malaya, the other north of Jolo miss on IJN Destroyers...

KB assumes a strong position, but will search fail her? Or weather, or leaders, or something?

[image]local://upfiles/44178/4522DD0E5C1E4941B4CA97B26D3EEBE5.jpg[/image]




Lowpe -> RE: Ooops, I did it again (Lowpe (J) vs ?(A) (8/29/2020 9:20:07 PM)

F4F's get neutered...



[image]local://upfiles/44178/E0022696F53940378347B83FD8FDFB81.jpg[/image]




Lowpe -> RE: Ooops, I did it again (Lowpe (J) vs ?(A) (8/29/2020 9:22:46 PM)

Not as much damage as I would like...but losses will be light with no CAP.



[image]local://upfiles/44178/FA00DB9077A74F8FBD45975F40F4FB02.jpg[/image]




Lowpe -> RE: Ooops, I did it again (Lowpe (J) vs ?(A) (8/29/2020 9:24:41 PM)

Again, relatively light damage...



[image]local://upfiles/44178/9140059590F1401090C4F98BADEABFFA.jpg[/image]




Lowpe -> RE: Ooops, I did it again (Lowpe (J) vs ?(A) (8/29/2020 9:27:27 PM)

Par

[image]local://upfiles/44178/4D12F4AEA5FE4DFEB00F8C9006FB935C.jpg[/image]




Lowpe -> RE: Ooops, I did it again (Lowpe (J) vs ?(A) (8/29/2020 9:28:38 PM)

Degrading British air power is going well...



[image]local://upfiles/44178/F71B656D7019422BB937C483D427D1FF.jpg[/image]




RangerJoe -> RE: Ooops, I did it again (Lowpe (J) vs ?(A) (8/29/2020 9:30:08 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

Again, relatively light damage...



[image]local://upfiles/44178/9140059590F1401090C4F98BADEABFFA.jpg[/image]


What was the altitude and what was attacking?




Lowpe -> RE: Ooops, I did it again (Lowpe (J) vs ?(A) (8/29/2020 9:30:25 PM)

Flying Tigers...



[image]local://upfiles/44178/37E69A17D7B54285B911ED4EF2B254F2.jpg[/image]




Lowpe -> RE: Ooops, I did it again (Lowpe (J) vs ?(A) (8/29/2020 9:31:53 PM)

Nobody home...Flying Tigers have flown.

[image]local://upfiles/44178/B3F5F68025034C9E97A1F2A34AA7D8A3.jpg[/image]




Lowpe -> RE: Ooops, I did it again (Lowpe (J) vs ?(A) (8/29/2020 9:34:21 PM)

Found them...

[image]local://upfiles/44178/F0F2EA2623E54BA1871893F03F4EB137.jpg[/image]




Lowpe -> RE: Ooops, I did it again (Lowpe (J) vs ?(A) (8/29/2020 9:38:02 PM)

Only 18 Kates and 77 Vals…where are the rest going to?



[image]local://upfiles/44178/6853DBF0158D4BB6AFE4CDABFCFE502C.jpg[/image]




Lowpe -> RE: Ooops, I did it again (Lowpe (J) vs ?(A) (8/29/2020 9:40:20 PM)

A fair chunk went here.



[image]local://upfiles/44178/E0EA9C2ED2B74A858496184A3BC23567.jpg[/image]




Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.71875