RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))

RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) (Full Version)

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

Message

Lowpe -> RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) (2/17/2021 12:53:10 PM)
The AP Wharton takes a torpedo off San Diego, returns to port...minor fires, 3, will dock and then disband next turn. We return the favor torpedoing a small tanker of Sakhalin, sinking her. Brisbane theater...looking strong, over 300 AV at Toowoomba plus 10 Matildas and 10 Stuarts...Maryborough strong and the road south from Maryborough seems secure. Yesterday bombarded the IJA troops at Maryborough with a cruiser and some destroyers. 34th Regiment at Sydney, recovering from their valiant stand, has recovered 50% of their disablements. [image]local://upfiles/44178/1299CA3CB33F48078B99AE8E4838F4AA.jpg[/image]

Lowpe -> RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) (2/17/2021 12:54:59 PM)
As expected the IJA tank spearhead shows up... which route will they take? Guessing the main road/railroad line... [image]local://upfiles/44178/9ED33C632CBA4189A664858EEB95717A.jpg[/image]

Ambassador -> RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) (2/17/2021 2:05:35 PM)
An AP damaged in exchange of sinking a TK, this is not a bad rate of exchange.

Capt. Harlock -> RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) (2/19/2021 3:41:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ambassador An AP damaged in exchange of sinking a TK, this is not a bad rate of exchange. well, yes -- but a small TK. [sm=innocent0009.gif]

Lowpe -> RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) (2/19/2021 12:20:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Capt. Harlock quote: ORIGINAL: Ambassador An AP damaged in exchange of sinking a TK, this is not a bad rate of exchange. well, yes -- but a small TK. [sm=innocent0009.gif] Yep, Capt, you could make the argument that more damage would be done by excess fuel consumption by letting the tanker live and continue its run for the duration of the war...might have been a decoy/warning system. another 12 inches or so of snow, followed by sleet and freezing rain...

T Rav -> RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) (2/19/2021 1:34:47 PM)
Can't stand freezing rain. 7 years in Omaha, and they would just send us home before it started and tell us not to come back to work until it melted. Hope it ends for you soon. T Rav

Ambassador -> RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) (2/19/2021 1:53:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lowpe quote: ORIGINAL: Capt. Harlock quote: ORIGINAL: Ambassador An AP damaged in exchange of sinking a TK, this is not a bad rate of exchange. well, yes -- but a small TK. [sm=innocent0009.gif] Yep, Capt, you could make the argument that more damage would be done by excess fuel consumption by letting the tanker live and continue its run for the duration of the war...might have been a decoy/warning system. another 12 inches or so of snow, followed by sleet and freezing rain... Well, a Type-1 sure is not a Tonan Whaler, but still they can be useful for smaller ports (like Miri or Balikpapan, or Shikuka). Also, isn’t DaIronBabes a mod with reduced load capacity ? I have never played this one, but reduced capacity may change the experience, and usefulness of various classes.[&:]

GetAssista -> RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) (2/19/2021 2:14:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Capt. Harlock well, yes -- but a small TK. [sm=innocent0009.gif] Don't underestimate the small TK, it is indispensable conversation starter! [:D]

RangerJoe -> RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) (2/19/2021 2:35:09 PM)
At least you get the snow first, then the sleet and freezing rain on top of that. Wolves actually like that combination, it makes hunting deer easier. Sinking any tanker is useful, more useful if they are loaded . . .

Lowpe -> RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) (2/20/2021 2:23:09 PM)
Finished the turn, and didn't do a single offensive action...a sure sign of snow fatigue.[;)]

BBfanboy -> RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) (2/20/2021 2:41:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lowpe Finished the turn, and didn't do a single offensive action...a sure sign of snow fatigue.[;)] Hard to fight from a Cold Zone base in winter months ... [image]local://upfiles/35791/C47C994408D142A4AA6D49272D6AEA5A.jpg[/image]

Lowpe -> RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) (2/21/2021 12:51:00 PM)
Feb 13, 1942 The Dutch hold out one more time! If Japan holds true to course, they will shock again tomorrow...but we managed to get forts up to one overnight. Perhaps we will be able to hold again? [image]local://upfiles/44178/E07DCA8F360B455A9E1521971985A83E.jpg[/image]

Lowpe -> RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) (2/21/2021 12:52:59 PM)
Chinese forces hold here, but will be forced to retreat tomorrow no doubt. Ground combat at 76,53 (near Kweilin) Japanese Deliberate attack Attacking force 35767 troops, 233 guns, 717 vehicles, Assault Value = 1594 Defending force 26247 troops, 165 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 717 Japanese adjusted assault: 915 Allied adjusted defense: 1432 Japanese assault odds: 1 to 2 Combat modifiers Defender: terrain(+), experience(-) Attacker: Japanese ground losses: 631 casualties reported Squads: 28 destroyed, 107 disabled Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 18 disabled Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled Vehicles lost 31 (1 destroyed, 30 disabled) Allied ground losses: 3062 casualties reported Squads: 16 destroyed, 239 disabled Non Combat: 2 destroyed, 18 disabled Engineers: 0 destroyed, 16 disabled Guns lost 19 (1 destroyed, 18 disabled) [image]local://upfiles/44178/FBC0E34FD17B4585B20906D161885F69.jpg[/image]

Lowpe -> RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) (2/21/2021 12:55:13 PM)
Japan continues to bomb Cloncurry at altitude and a few major bombing raids in China. Those Bleheims were lost flying supplies to China...will need to look at the fatigue, etc. Worst day of op losses flying to China so far. [image]local://upfiles/44178/90291895EFDF4681BAB3F1A4F40B85CE.jpg[/image]

Lowpe -> RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) (2/21/2021 12:58:35 PM)
Perth [image]local://upfiles/44178/E363F290AB9141F7B8BF5C3F197726A4.jpg[/image]

Lowpe -> RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) (2/21/2021 1:08:38 PM)
Japan working on isolating Australia...will they invade New Zealand? [image]local://upfiles/44178/CB111AFD332B41EAAFA0A9CD6B047906.jpg[/image]

ny59giants -> RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) (2/21/2021 2:01:52 PM)
Raoul Island would be nice for a size 2 AF with Betty/Nells and Air HQ to make the trip to NZ more hazardous. The can almost reach the southern edge of the map.

Encircled -> RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) (2/21/2021 2:14:05 PM)
Don't think he'll go for NZ Raoul and the Cook Islands achieves his aims of cutting off without risking emergency reinforcements Course, he might reckon that you've put all your troops into Oz, rather than NZ............

CaptBeefheart -> RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) (2/22/2021 7:32:56 AM)
Lemme guess: You have a CA TF ready to pounce at Eua? [;)] Cheers, CB

Lowpe -> RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) (2/22/2021 10:51:35 AM)
Feb 14, 1942 Still being a pest around Soerabaja. Good intel... [image]local://upfiles/44178/AFC27233B0054BDDAB0FD5A129B1E6A3.jpg[/image]

Lowpe -> RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) (2/22/2021 10:55:17 AM)
Repulse, sitting at 70+ damage, continues to soak up hits costing Japan planes. These came from a carrier though, normally it has been Sally/Betty. [image]local://upfiles/44178/E412B12FB1974723ADAA6E31168826E9.jpg[/image]

Lowpe -> RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) (2/22/2021 11:01:11 AM)
Brisbane: The Impact of a HQa at Tamworth coordinating the strikes is easily seen as the squadrons fly together. [image]local://upfiles/44178/577D30110D914B5A811FB22B15D49800.jpg[/image]

Lowpe -> RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) (2/22/2021 11:04:35 AM)
Another invasion as expected...our transport and an AMc fled full speed prior to the invasion fleet showing up... [image]local://upfiles/44178/19A753F6E5864BA89F276600AD6BC0F5.jpg[/image]

Lowpe -> RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) (2/22/2021 11:07:52 AM)
The Dutch hold one last time... [image]local://upfiles/44178/CABBC566B83845B2999E1E5E468BFF49.jpg[/image]

Lowpe -> RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) (2/22/2021 11:10:42 AM)
The Chinese hold again at 1-1, and more importantly looks like they disable quite a few vehicles...but the big fight versus the IJ tanks is yet to come, but any reduction in their fighting force is needed. [image]local://upfiles/44178/728E0EF64E7E484B81BCCF3461D7CD3F.jpg[/image]

Lowpe -> RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) (2/22/2021 11:15:32 AM)
The Maryborough Line... equal assault value, but we have better tubes. Forts are 3+ and building. The great fear is a flank invasion. [image]local://upfiles/44178/2D49AC53B65D4CCEA3579EEAAE72291C.jpg[/image]

RangerJoe -> RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) (2/22/2021 11:19:09 AM)
The 4th division could be in Reserve mode. But probably not as your opponent seems to want as much firepower shooting as is possible.

Lowpe -> RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) (2/22/2021 11:28:29 AM)
How about that.[:)] [image]local://upfiles/44178/4B65FFBBD28A48E3AAD7290E9E6CC8F1.jpg[/image]

Lowpe -> RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) (2/22/2021 11:46:18 AM)
Japanese OP losses continue quite high. [image]local://upfiles/44178/E3CA855D1476434DA1EA8E2CD496A5C8.jpg[/image]

Lowpe -> RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) (2/22/2021 12:02:13 PM)
China Japan has a lot of forces just north of Kweilin...16 units, very tank heavy. We are massing our best units for a big climatic tank battle in terrain of our choosing. Using our interior lines, and transports to meet him with our best. 43rd Cavalry with Stuarts One Chinese Artillery unit with 105mms 2 Indian Mountain Gun units (3.7 inch) 1 British 2 pounder AT unit 1 Chinese 37mm AT unit 4 US TOE Chinese Corps with healthy AT pools, plus AA and 75mm guns prioritized to them. 1 Base force for AA Regular Chinese Corps to fill out the stacking limit... [image]local://upfiles/44178/99F747ABD578460FA6CA0838CF255311.jpg[/image]

Page: << < prev 52 53 [54] 55 56 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.40625