Into to fire: lagen(A) vs vonSchnitter(J)

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Into to fire: lagen(A) vs vonSchnitter(J) - record of Allied history

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 >> Into to fire: lagen(A) vs vonSchnitter(J) - record of Allied history

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Into to fire: lagen(A) vs vonSchnitter(J) - record of A... - 8/5/2006 11:54:45 AM

lagen

Posts: 55
Joined: 10/9/2005
From: Finland
Status: offline

This thread is off-limits for vonSchnitter

This is my first WITP pbem game and my first AAR ever. We took better part of a week to formulate these house rules and I'm glad that we did it before the game starts.

This AAR serves a couple purposes:
1.To keep a record what happened, when and why.
2.Better my command of english language
3.To learn write better texts

First the rules, planning will probaly start a little later

CHS
Patch 1.801
Scenario 155 ver. 2.07

Settings:
Japanese Sub Doctrine - OFF
Allied Sub - OFF

FOW - ON
Adv. Weather - ON
Allied DC - ON
Hist. 1st Turn - OFF
Vary Setup - OFF
Dec. 7 Suprise - ON
Reinforcements - FIXED

Combat Reports - ON
Combat Animation - ON
Auto Sub Ops - OFF
All Facilities NOT set to Expand
Upgrades/Replacements - OFF
1 day turn
PDU - ON

Preferences: All the "delay" options should be set to 1.5

Hist.1st turn OFF AND Surprise ON
In this case the Jap player can make some adjustments while the Allied
is static. The aim should be to break the "last grain of rice"
predictability for the allied side and bringing back some measure of
"surprise". It does make things a little more difficult for the allied
player.
In the "historic" opening move the story goes like this:
Invasions: Kota Bharu, Bataan Isl., Vigan, Aparri, Legaspi, Guam, Wake
Naval Bombardments: Guam
Port Attacks (Air): PH, Naga, Hong Kong.

Restrictions for Jap player:

KB must attack PH in full strenght. Japanese may not make invasions at
other places than in historic. However all landings are optional and
changing the composition of the TFs and troops to participate is
allowed. Troop increases are limited to the assault strenght of one
Brigade (about 240 AS) in all invasions togther limited to 3 LCUs (or
fragments of LCUs) maximum. LCUs allready loaded may unload in other
locations (historic invasion points, Jap bases). Existing TFs are not
allowed to unload at new invasion points. (Like 18th. Div moving to
Balikpapan on day two, while say sending them to Legaspi - if taken by
then - is allowed). That covers the "surprise" issue very well, while
denying a "head start" to the Japanese - and keeps the history part
somewhat in perspective.

Jap player is not allowed to create new TFs for invasions/transports for
other locations than those in "historic" - something like loading troops
on day one - send them out to a position close enough to make an
invasion at say Kuching one day later.

Japanese player has a choice to launch up to two port attacks at any
location - except Singapore and Manila
Jap Player has one bombardment attack at any location - (Singapore and
Manila are no options due to heavy CD defences anyway)

Movement of LCUs and Air units by land is free. Japanese player is not
allowed to expend PPs in move one.

Allied player is allowed to change courses of already exsisting TFs.

No Para drops in enemy bases at Dec. 7th

House Rules:

All HR should be treated as re-negotiable during the game, to keep the
"loosing" side in it and the game interesting for both sides. And what
is more: Both sides adapted their respective strategies and options
along the course of the war.

Both sides agree to limit activites that might cause sync problems.

Air Units

1 - IJF player will not "upgrade" light bomber units beyond Lillys or Lilly upgrades - untill mid 44

2 - Allied player will not "upgrade" single or dual engine units to 4E units, unless these units have the option to upgrade to 4E - like in a PDU-Off situation on that is.

3 - Corsairs are not deployd to USN carrier service till 1.1.44. RN Carriers may use early Corsair models at the allied players discretion.

4 - The AVG is restricted to Burma, India and China (these chaps are pretty much overrated anyway) - optional

5 - Strategic bombing of the Japanese home islands may commence starting third quarter 1944 from Chinese bases. Except for one go earlier to emulate the "Doolittle Raid" . Russian Bases may not be used for this purpose at any time - except by Russian air units. Strategic Bombing from other bases is allowed of course at any time

6 - All allied air units - except US AAF - will require PPs to move into China and conduct other operations than transport

7 - IJF will use historic AC on carriers only - till say mid 45 (in case any CVs are left). Unless allied player allows otherwise.

8 - "Stacking" of air units at a base is limited to 50 AC per airfield size plus 50 floatplanes if AV support is present. Zero size bases or "dots" can hold up to 50 Floatplanes. Surplus AC are to be set to "training level 0". Both sides have about 7 moves to "resolve" the issue at startup. This rule does not apply to West Coast or Japanese Home Islands Bases.

9 - 4E Bombers may not attack at lower altitudes than 8000ft (land) or 6000ft (naval). 4E Bombers are not allowed to do skip bombing (naval attacks at 100ft or some such). 2E bombers are restricted to 6000 and 4000ft repectively. Allied 2E Bombers may innitiate "skip" bombing from 1.1.43 onwards. 4E and 2E bombers on ASW patrol or recon missions may do so at any altitude.

10. Air units may not attack bases known to be empty - the training thing.

11. Disbanding air units in home bases is banned (named pilot pool thing)

12 - No training by attacking empty bases. No leaving enemy units for training purposes.

13 - Preliminary bombing is allowed of course. Now to differentiate from
training can be difficult sometimes. I don't want to fix some excat time
when it can be begun. Could be left at players discreetion.

Naval Units
1 - ASW "Hunter - Killer" TFs are restricted to 6 or 8 ships of any type.

2 - Units of AG, PT or any sort of landing ship types may not move beyond their defined endurance unless escorted by ships with sufficient fuel for replenishment (plus/minus 2 hexes). If those escorts get sunk, and the escorted units cannot reach a friendly port within their remaining fuel, those units will be scuttled at the next possible move.Refuelling of PTs by Subs is allowed.

3 - IJN Subs will not carry any other AC than Glens.

4 - Any surface war ship starting with DE/DD classes may not be replenished at bases with less than a port size of 3 (three). Unless at least one AE/AO/AD type ship is present (with or without supplies). In case some sort of "automatic" replenishment occurs, those ships affected will stay put for two moves.

5. PT stacking in a port should be limited to 30. PT TFs are limited to 10.

6. Subs are not to "parked" in enemy port hexes from size 3 onwards. Subs are not allowed to enter the "channels" to Aden and Panama.

7. Sub raiding attacks on enemy bases are allowed (single sub), sub invasions (more than one sub per attack) are not. at startup. This rule does not apply to West Coast or Japanese Home Islands Bases.

8 - No more than one single ship TF per hex after 1.1.42 on purpose (unless a ship is damaged) - has something to do with the silly air-attack
routines of the game.

Paratroopers:

No Para drops "on top" - is ruled out

a one boat or one squadron limit of
transport AC of paras in hit and run

Bases:

All bases can be attacked in any which way at any time except Aden. The
sub "raid" restriction will be observed.

Ground Units :

1 - Russia stays neutral till activaded by the game engine. All allied units entering russian territory are interned for the duration of the game and may not participate in any fighting unless attacked.

2 - The Shock attack and persue option is not valid

3 - China and Mandshuria.
Mandshuria units require PPs to move to China and Chinese troops require PPs when moving west of the border. If the latter is agreed, I would request to make the Chinese Communist units static - which is quite historical, since the quite usefull "Mongol" units have changed to the Manshuria command since 2.02 and the Garrison requirements are very much increased/original LCU composition decreased No non-chinese allied LCUs - except those in support of air units - may enter China without paying PPs - including the Chinese units in Burma at start up. If forced to China, the units go neutral (no combat, no replacements, moving behind the front lines if possible) unitl PPs are paid.

4 - No breakdown of LCU's in combat to reduce fatigue and disruption,
should be included.

5 - "Stacking" rule
All bases except Aden, West Coast, Panama, Hawai, New Zealand, Continental Australia, China, USSR, Mandshuria, India, Cylon, Formosa, Japanese Main, and French Indochina (?) plus Luzon (?) after being taken by the Japanese. Burma, Malaya, DEI and Philipines except Luzon will have the rules applied after being taken by Japanese with say a month time after conquest. The restrictions only apply to the defender, not the attacker.

Each Base of any size (dot and upwards) can accomodate groundtroops with an Assault Value of 100. Each port, airfield and fortification point allows to stack another quota of 50 assault points.Bases larger than 4 port / 4 AF get a Bonus of 250 Assault points.

This is rather generous - and we may want to adjust those later.

6 - Only regiments and greater than regiments should be used in the sequential attack pattern. Smaller units can attack alongside with bigger units of course.

7 - No deliberately blocking retreat with zero or near zero assault value units is
fine with me. If in doubt, ask the opponent before "dicussions" begin.

8 - No using unit fragments to block retreats, use of whole unit is required

9 - Divisions and Brigades are not to be split up for "sequential" attacks,
but may be used to "block" enemy lines of attack and retreat.

Post #: 1

RE: Into to fire: lagen(A) vs vonSchnitter(J) - record ... - 8/5/2006 4:39:24 PM

lagen

Posts: 55
Joined: 10/9/2005
From: Finland
Status: offline

Now I have sent my first turn to opponent. Now is quite good time to think about my general strategy.

War aim is to make Japanese Empire surrender. Capturing the capital city and destruction of the defending army would be best way to crush enemy's leaders morale and thus make them surrender. This option is very costly and we should be advised not to use it unless every other option is exhausted. A little easier solution is isolation of the four main islands of Japan. This option requires domination over skies and seas near enemy's main bases. We shall use this option as goal.

We will blockade with submarine forces the main islands before we can control skies and seas near them. First to stop oil and resourses from flowing in and to stop supply and fuel to flow out.

As the starting from defensive position we shall delay the enemy and try to make him overcommit himself. At that point we should begin our counter-offensive. Other goal is to make him use as much supply as possible. This is to prevent use of supplis as he sees fit.

When delaying we will try to disrupt enemy's rhytm and at the same time try to seize the initative. This is to make him hesitant and thus delay his advance. Then we shall melt away and again mess up his rhytm. Now how is this possible? I don't know, I have read a book written by some guy named Sun Tsu, but that was awhile ago.

I will deal with more concrete plans when I get to see what happened on first turn.

BTW, why in chs all subs at sea start computer controlled? It's annoying to change them back to normal.

(in reply to lagen)

Post #: 2

RE: Into to fire: lagen(A) vs vonSchnitter(J) - record ... - 8/5/2006 7:04:04 PM

lagen

Posts: 55
Joined: 10/9/2005
From: Finland
Status: offline

Now I have seen the replay of turn one and I shall only write the highlights as most of turn happenings are known as per our house rules.

Pennsylvania didn't got a torpedo hit. Maryland got threee hits and Nevada two. Rest of the BB bunch got one each. 2 CA's and 5 CL's got some hits. Val's didn't plaster the airfield, for which I am grateful. Atleast fighters can rise for defense insted of blown to bits on ground.
Lot's of merchant fleet that was near china's coast were sunk.

Wake wasn't invaded this turn.

My bomber's hit nothing.

More to come later...

(in reply to lagen)

Post #: 3

RE: Into to fire: lagen(A) vs vonSchnitter(J) - record ... - 8/5/2006 7:39:28 PM

Przemcio231

Posts: 1901
Joined: 10/11/2005
From: Warsaw,Poland,EU:)
Status: offline

Well i played Von Schniter and he surrendered... i used Wild Night Melee's ageainst his ships in the DEI worked good

Use Force Z wisely if you are lucky you will be able to inflict much damage

any way as for Wake... if you do no't play historical 1st turn some TF's may not use the move Bonus 100% or even move only one day movemnt... so maybe stick to Wake with a CV and make a nice Ambush

off course ditch as soon as you will se KB moveing in the Direction

_____________________________

Pinky: Hey Brain what are we goeing to do this evening?
Brain: The Usual Pinky we will try to take over the World;)

(in reply to lagen)

Post #: 4

RE: Into to fire: lagen(A) vs vonSchnitter(J) - record ... - 8/7/2006 11:30:25 AM

lagen

Posts: 55
Joined: 10/9/2005
From: Finland
Status: offline

I am writing this at work so any details are just from my memory.

To Przemico: I am thinking about ambushing Wake invasion, if it is ever going to materialize. If he isn't going to inavade it, I just have risked one CV for nothing. While Allied CV's aren't yet a threat, they are annoying and they have alot potential. Keeping them hidden is critical, I think.

If Vals had attacked airfield, they would have scored at least 100 ac plus other damage. I would have done that as Vals don't contribute much to BB sinking.

No BB were sunk on the first turn. Possible candidates to sink are Nevada at 99 sys damage and Maryland at 81 float damage. Other battlewagons have from heavy to modarate damage. And the enemy lost 27 navy pilots.

The biggest problem is KB and what it is going to do.

KB has a couple of options:
1)Stick around and attack PH once or twice more
2)Try to hunt for fleeing shipping
3)Fall back and then prey on shipping lanes
4)Fall back and go help invasions at PI/DEI
5)Hunt for carriers
6)Split and hunt for carriers

Option 6 is the most annoying. Option 1 is probable if he wants at least one BB sunk. As he has not attack airfield I think that he won't be sticikng around. It makes sense to attack port with Val's if you try to cause maxium damage to fleet in one shot and then go away.

Depending what KB does I have to try to minimize damages. I don't know why but allmost every ship in PH have expended 1000 op points. This limits my options as when running away they are not going to get far.

In DEI a plan to not leave anything to inavaders if possible, starting from the most plentiful: fuel. There isn't yet enough oil or resources to warrant a transportation. Seojabaja and Batavia will have their fortifications agumented. Aircraft are being repositioned to better intercept troop transports. Depending how much he will be using long range cap I might just as well give to all fighters naval attack order. Those 100 lb bombs do penetrate the soft deck armour of APs and AKs.

China: The plan is to have two offensives going on at anytime. I don't know how long my supply situation is going allow this. The idea is to tie up as much troops as long as possible in China. As fighters and bombers both have experience about 35, they will only train for awhile. Guerilla corps are marching to cut roads and railroads.

Malaysia:Percival is immediatly relived of command and Wavell assumes it. Air forces are scattered. Still "significant" fighter and bomber force will be retained as not to give Japanese total control of skies.

Burma:Land units are ordered to march to nearest rail hex for further movement. Chinese reinforcements start the long journey to Lashio and Myitkina. AVG stays put in Mandalay.

Austarlia:Haven't even tought about australia yet.

India:Same goes for India

West Coast: Nothing moves until I know excatly where KB is going. All aircraft are put in training.

I just a noticed how hard it is to write plans down.

(in reply to Przemcio231)

Post #: 5

RE: Into to fire: lagen(A) vs vonSchnitter(J) - record ... - 8/8/2006 11:15:38 AM

lagen

Posts: 55
Joined: 10/9/2005
From: Finland
Status: offline

After thinking a lot I decided that the enemy will not attack PH for a second time and allmost all of my ships stayed in PH. Only Nevada, Oklahoma and some cruisers were sent out and were ordered to stay in the same hex as a bait if PH would be attacked. Bombers were ASW patrolling area and fighters were capping at 90%. One ASW TF consisting of only 6 MSWs sortied out too and PT boats tried to get lucky and catch KB in night.

2nd turn was executed and I recieved turn replay from my opponent.

I was allmost right KB moved to 4 hexes to east from PH. It attacked both TF's which were out. ASW TF sunk outright and atleast both BB's were sunk too. Total air losses for both sides are about 55 each. That is if I trust combat reports. 16 Zeros vs 38 frontline fighters is near 2 to 1, which is acceptable in this phase of war. Subs surrounding PH have moved away from original postions.

In PI vonSchintter keeps Clark field closed by bombing it. Khota Baru is bombarded by Kongo and Haruna. My bombers fly without hitting anything.

The demise of two battleships
---------------------
Day Air attack on TF, near Pearl Harbor at 114,72

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 52
D3A2 Val x 62
B5N2 Kate x 85

Allied aircraft
F4F-3 Wildcat x 9
P-26A x 5
P-36A Mohawk x 21
P-40B Tomahawk x 43
P-40E Warhawk x 11

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 16 destroyed, 2 damaged <---- if true this part went well
D3A2 Val: 5 destroyed, 7 damaged
B5N2 Kate: 6 destroyed, 25 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-3 Wildcat: 5 destroyed
P-26A: 3 destroyed
P-36A Mohawk: 14 destroyed
P-40B Tomahawk: 28 destroyed
P-40E Warhawk: 5 destroyed

Allied Ships
BB Oklahoma, Bomb hits 12, Torpedo hits 5, on fire, heavy damage
CA New Orleans, Bomb hits 2, heavy damage
CL Detroit
CA San Francisco, Torpedo hits 1
BB Nevada, Bomb hits 14, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
CL Helena, Bomb hits 1
CL Honolulu, Torpedo hits 1, on fire
---------------------------

Contrary what I said earlier I decided to take some risks and Enterprise is on the way to Wake and as it seems, there might be something ambush afterall.

----------------------
Naval bombardment of Wake Island, at 85,72 - Coastal Guns Fire Back!

23 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.
Japanese Ships
CA Kako, Shell hits 4
CA Furutaka, Shell hits 1
CA Kinugasa
CA Aoba, Shell hits 2

Allied ground losses:
194 casualties reported
Guns lost 4
Vehicles lost 1

Runway hits 1
Port supply hits 1
-------------------------------

Next turn will probably won't be done today. Got too much other things to do.

(in reply to lagen)

Post #: 6

RE: Into to fire: lagen(A) vs vonSchnitter(J) - record ... - 8/14/2006 8:26:01 PM

lagen

Posts: 55
Joined: 10/9/2005
From: Finland
Status: offline

12/12/41

Nothing out of "ordinary" has happened. Japanese continue their advance in PI and Malaysia. I'm retreating not to get beaten by superior force. Wake isn't invaded yet. Hong Kong has been bombarded by BB's and has her fort levels taken down. I a couple of days it will fall.

In China Ichang and Nanchang have been chosen as locations of assaults.

In DEI mad grab and dash proceeds as planned. KB has been spotted south of PI so I might need to be little more careful there.

I got my first confirmed kill, brave S-36 sunk a PC part of an ASW TF. Some of the subs around PH have taken hits from air and surface ASW, no confirmations.

(in reply to lagen)

Post #: 7

RE: Into to fire: lagen(A) vs vonSchnitter(J) - record ... - 8/14/2006 8:55:03 PM

lagen

Posts: 55
Joined: 10/9/2005
From: Finland
Status: offline

Here are some screenshots:

Total Air losses:

Attachment (1)

(in reply to lagen)

Post #: 8

RE: Into to fire: lagen(A) vs vonSchnitter(J) - record ... - 8/14/2006 8:55:33 PM

lagen

Posts: 55
Joined: 10/9/2005
From: Finland
Status: offline

Naval losses:

Attachment (1)

(in reply to lagen)

Post #: 9

RE: Into to fire: lagen(A) vs vonSchnitter(J) - record ... - 8/14/2006 8:56:12 PM

lagen

Posts: 55
Joined: 10/9/2005
From: Finland
Status: offline

Phillipines: Notice the Brave S-36!

Attachment (1)

(in reply to lagen)

Post #: 10

RE: Into to fire: lagen(A) vs vonSchnitter(J) - record ... - 8/14/2006 8:57:24 PM

lagen

Posts: 55
Joined: 10/9/2005
From: Finland
Status: offline

And finally Malaysian situation:

Attachment (1)

(in reply to lagen)

Post #: 11

RE: Into to fire: lagen(A) vs vonSchnitter(J) - record ... - 8/14/2006 9:16:44 PM

VSWG

Posts: 3432
Joined: 5/31/2006
From: Germany
Status: offline

Not bombarding PH's airfield is IMO a grave mistake. Now you can rapidly redistribute CentPac planes in the central and south Pacific.

Be sure to use your replacement pools wisely. You don't receive any P40Bs, but if you safe up 24 Lancers or Mohawks, you can "downgrade" some West Coast P40B squadrons and draw those planes in Manila and Singapore. Same goes for the B-17D. Of course, this procedure is quite gamey...

Final note: AVG's anti-Zero bonus does not apply in CHS! Those three squadrons in Mandalya are ordinary fighter squadrons without any special effect. Instead, the 73rd Fighter squadron at PH has inherited this bonus because of changing slots. Maybe you should talk with your opponent about this "issue".

Have fun, and keep us updated!

(in reply to lagen)

Post #: 12

RE: Into to fire: lagen(A) vs vonSchnitter(J) - record ... - 8/15/2006 3:39:12 AM

VSWG

Posts: 3432
Joined: 5/31/2006
From: Germany
Status: offline

Another piece of advice: when converting large AKs to auxilliary ships in SF, don't convert AK Kittyhawk (as I did

); she's a 17 knot 113 AA freighter (333 AA after upgrade)! You might even want to hold on to the Luckenbach class freighters, as their 0 AA now will turn into 124 AA in July 1942. Look out for the Large AK (US) class transports, which have 55 AA now, but only 56 after upgrading (not worth upgrading in other words).

Use the Kittyhawk to transport planes to Oz instead.

< Message edited by VSWG -- 8/15/2006 3:52:58 AM >

(in reply to VSWG)

Post #: 13

RE: Into to fire: lagen(A) vs vonSchnitter(J) - record ... - 8/15/2006 4:00:15 AM

Rob Brennan UK

Posts: 3685
Joined: 8/24/2002
From: London UK
Status: offline

Good lordy .. CHS is a lt more complicated than i imagined .
VSWG .. i think i may well consider you the CHS expert locally

And Iagen, thank you for sharing your AAR nice screen shots

_____________________________

sorry for the spelling . English is my main language , I just can't type . and i'm too lazy to edit :)

(in reply to VSWG)

Post #: 14

RE: Into to fire: lagen(A) vs vonSchnitter(J) - record ... - 8/15/2006 9:55:38 AM

lagen

Posts: 55
Joined: 10/9/2005
From: Finland
Status: offline

VSWG:Good to know about the Kittyhawk, but I allready converted some of AKs. I need to check it when I get home, if it has over 5000 capacity, it hasn't been converted.

Rob: Thank you, I try to remember to include screenshots now and then as it's not that difficult to take them.

Now that the Real Life(tm) pressure has lessend I might be able to write more in this AAR.

(in reply to Rob Brennan UK)

Post #: 15

RE: Into to fire: lagen(A) vs vonSchnitter(J) - record ... - 8/15/2006 10:21:09 AM

lagen

Posts: 55
Joined: 10/9/2005
From: Finland
Status: offline

13/12/41 (Notice the dd/mm/yy format, I more used to it)

This is only gathered from combat- and operationsreport. I need to get home to take a better look.

Lots of sub and ASW activity for both sides with nothing really happening. Japanese naval bombard(with 2 BB's) Cagayan and destroy some planes that were on the way to safety.

Enemy's air bounds us everywhere, particulary in China. As a pleasant surprise Zeros strafe Clark field and 3 of them die. I think they were forgotten to sweep, last to turns they have been sweepping patrol boats. It has been allowed.

Hong Kong holds, but I think that attack might be a sequential assault, where you attack with one LCU at a time to make isolated troops use supply more faster. According to my esteemed enemy vonSchnitter it is a faster and less expensive than the normal mass-assault style. Lingayen falls, I suspect paratroops.

Now I recieved a piece of intel that 4th Fleet is planning for Wake. Enterprise had to leave because KB moved directly to west and could have been too close to my liking. Enterprise is ordered to PH for refit

. A cripple TF has been ordered to move back San Fransisco. Lexinton is orderd to Tarwa as it has just fallen to enemy, I try to catch some of them before they leave.

Force Z is at Batavia and in Balikpapan there is some DD's, CL Marblehead and CL Boise. Two dutch CLs are picking up fragments from Singapore.

(in reply to lagen)

Post #: 16

RE: Into to fire: lagen(A) vs vonSchnitter(J) - record ... - 8/15/2006 2:21:27 PM

lagen

Posts: 55
Joined: 10/9/2005
From: Finland
Status: offline

Here is some new screen shots:

This is a random AK that caught my eye after hearing about Kittyhawk and Luckenbach.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to lagen)

Post #: 17

RE: Into to fire: lagen(A) vs vonSchnitter(J) - record ... - 8/15/2006 2:22:23 PM

lagen

Posts: 55
Joined: 10/9/2005
From: Finland
Status: offline

And this is quite heavily armed AP

I fear she will sink before reaching safety.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to lagen)

Post #: 18

RE: Into to fire: lagen(A) vs vonSchnitter(J) - record ... - 8/15/2006 2:24:25 PM

lagen

Posts: 55
Joined: 10/9/2005
From: Finland
Status: offline

And here is the Kittyhawk. I think these pictures drive the point home: Check those AKs and APs too! Atleast in CHS.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to lagen)

Post #: 19

RE: Into to fire: lagen(A) vs vonSchnitter(J) - record ... - 8/15/2006 2:26:11 PM

lagen

Posts: 55
Joined: 10/9/2005
From: Finland
Status: offline

And now situation shot. Probable KB and CA Houston running to the east. (I forgot about her)

Attachment (1)

(in reply to lagen)

Post #: 20

RE: Into to fire: lagen(A) vs vonSchnitter(J) - record ... - 8/15/2006 2:35:53 PM

lagen

Posts: 55
Joined: 10/9/2005
From: Finland
Status: offline

Luckily I didn't convert the Kittyhawk or the Luckenbachs. They have a capacity over 5000 and there is enough 5000 AKs ready for conversion.

Nothing fancy is planned for the next turn.

Steady retreat to Singapore is continued. Chinese are marching towards their objectives. Ships are sinking and fleeing. Subs try to stay afloat and DDs try to whack some enemy submarines near Pearl Harbour.

Note for Allied players: I started to use those 4 engine bombers as Naval patrol. Their range is quite longer than Catalinas, especially Liberator has range of 16 hexes, Cat only 12. Problem is that they can't be based everywhere. Ofcourse this won't be their main job, but currently I don't have better job for them.

(in reply to lagen)

Post #: 21

RE: Into to fire: lagen(A) vs vonSchnitter(J) - record ... - 8/16/2006 5:55:46 AM

VSWG

Posts: 3432
Joined: 5/31/2006
From: Germany
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: lagen

Note for Allied players: I started to use those 4 engine bombers as Naval patrol. Their range is quite longer than Catalinas, especially Liberator has range of 16 hexes, Cat only 12. Problem is that they can't be based everywhere. Ofcourse this won't be their main job, but currently I don't have better job for them.

Have a look at the A-29s Hudson: 2E, range 15.

Kanimbla is an Armed Merchant Cruiser. Unfortunately, the low crew experience makes them rather useless for combat purposes in WitP. Although I notice that those Japanese attacks have increased the crew experience a lot already.

Now here's an idea to train your crew!

(in reply to lagen)

Post #: 22

RE: Into to fire: lagen(A) vs vonSchnitter(J) - record ... - 8/16/2006 11:20:18 AM

lagen

Posts: 55
Joined: 10/9/2005
From: Finland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: VSWG

quote:

ORIGINAL: lagen

Note for Allied players: I started to use those 4 engine bombers as Naval patrol. Their range is quite longer than Catalinas, especially Liberator has range of 16 hexes, Cat only 12. Problem is that they can't be based everywhere. Ofcourse this won't be their main job, but currently I don't have better job for them.

Have a look at the A-29s Hudson: 2E, range 15.

Kanimbla is an Armed Merchant Cruiser. Unfortunately, the low crew experience makes them rather useless for combat purposes in WitP. Although I notice that those Japanese attacks have increased the crew experience a lot already. Now here's an idea to train your crew!

A-29 looks like a great plane for long range patrolling. Need to keep my eyes opened.

Kanimbla is something like 10 hexes from safety. I hope she survives. Stock game APs and AKs don't have this kind of weaponry.

I think naval crews wouldn't like about this kind of baptism of fire...

< Message edited by lagen -- 8/16/2006 11:31:49 AM >

(in reply to VSWG)

Post #: 23

RE: Into to fire: lagen(A) vs vonSchnitter(J) - record ... - 8/16/2006 11:30:13 AM

lagen

Posts: 55
Joined: 10/9/2005
From: Finland
Status: offline

14/12/41

My ASW starts rattling enemy subs(I-3,I-173,I-20) but nothing serious. SS KXVII scored a torpedo hit on a AP loaded with troops and 2 hits from shelling to boot. I-3, I-7 were attacked from air.

Japanese air units sink a couple ships and bound Chinese some more.

Deliberate attack knocks Hong Kongs last fort level to zero without capturing it. Alor Star received a bombardment attack, luckily my Indian brigade had left allready.

(in reply to lagen)

Post #: 24

RE: Into to fire: lagen(A) vs vonSchnitter(J) - record ... - 8/18/2006 7:20:59 PM

lagen

Posts: 55
Joined: 10/9/2005
From: Finland
Status: offline

I think vonSchnitter has divided KB or is using "baby" KB. One CV group is south of Mindanao and the other one is east of Wake. Invasion seems iminent as there is a surface combat TF too.

Enemy seems intent to only advance under air cover. It slows him down somewhat but my air froces get less free shots at them. I prefer time over more casaulties to enemy as at this time those casualties would be too small anyway.

(in reply to lagen)

Post #: 25

RE: Into to fire: lagen(A) vs vonSchnitter(J) - record ... - 8/19/2006 10:15:18 AM

lagen

Posts: 55
Joined: 10/9/2005
From: Finland
Status: offline

15/12/41

A lot of little things went my way:
Lexington found the Tarwa invasion fleet and sunk CL Katori. She will loiter at the vicinity to see if more ships can be sunk.

The Heroic SS KXVII continues to score, this time AP Yubari Maru got a torpedo and 6 shell hits. Yubari was carrying ground troops.

And Hong Kong didn't fall this turn either.

Japanese continue their advance and capture empty Alor Star.

I am puzzled by this combat report:

TF 18 encounters mine field at Wenchow (50,41)

Japanese Ships
MSW Shanan Maru #16
MSW Kaiyo Maru #1
MSW Hinode Maru #18
MSW Hinode Maru #17

Japanese ground losses:
26 casualties reported

(in reply to lagen)

Post #: 26

RE: Into to fire: lagen(A) vs vonSchnitter(J) - record ... - 8/19/2006 2:18:57 PM

lagen

Posts: 55
Joined: 10/9/2005
From: Finland
Status: offline

16/12/41

Wake is bombarded again from sea and air. Cagyan only from sea but is hit two times.

My 8 B-17 bombers from Singapore try to harm Alor Stars airfield but CAP of 23 Oscars stop them. Two oscars are shot down but bombers didn't damage the field.

Manila is hit from air and suffers some moderate casaulties

Brunei is probable place for next turn invasion. It looks like there is a bombardment coming in and some troop ships. I hope my dutch subs will get some shots at them, I have high hopes for them. Whem Brunei has been caputerd, should I try to hit its airfield or oilfields?

Number of subs near Pearl has declined over time. My ASW forces haven't been able to try to attack each turn.

In my opinion Japanese player should try to shutdown traffic DEI as fast as possible. Otherwise much of the fuel/oil/supply/resources can be transported away. At the start of the game there is huge amounts of fuel just laying around. I haven't estimated how much, but I could guess about 100k fuel is just around.

(in reply to lagen)

Post #: 27

RE: Into to fire: lagen(A) vs vonSchnitter(J) - record ... - 8/19/2006 4:53:12 PM

lagen

Posts: 55
Joined: 10/9/2005
From: Finland
Status: offline

17/12/41

Wake was invaded, enemy didn't capture it on the first assault. I don't know if it will hold next turn.

Hong Kong fell, which wasn't a suprise.

Battle for Nanchang has begun. This offensives only point is to make Japanese answer with more power and thus deny this power from elsewhere.

At Tarwa there was no one to be sunk.

Cebu was bombarded with BBs and DDS. Those DD got some fire back from coastal defences, no one was heavily damaged.

(in reply to lagen)

Post #: 28

RE: Into to fire: lagen(A) vs vonSchnitter(J) - record ... - 8/19/2006 8:43:51 PM

lagen

Posts: 55
Joined: 10/9/2005
From: Finland
Status: offline

18/12/41

I regret to have to inform that AMC Kanimbla sunk just as she reached safety of port.

This turn SS KXV managed to put a fish on AK Yamagata Maru with heavy damage and ground losses. SS Triton too put a torpedo on AK Hirokawa Maru, but it was a dud.

Wake didn't fall yet as I suspect that those troops are too fatiqued/disrupted and haven't prepped enough.

Miri, Clark Field, Georgo Town and Kuantan fell to enemy onslaught.

(in reply to lagen)

Post #: 29

RE: Into to fire: lagen(A) vs vonSchnitter(J) - record ... - 8/21/2006 7:21:26 PM

lagen

Posts: 55
Joined: 10/9/2005
From: Finland
Status: offline

19/12/41

SS I-124 torpedoes TK Gertrude Kellog with two hits, but she survives.

Wake is bombarded from sea but it holds the assualt.

My ASW force consisting of 4 MSWs near Balikpapan was slaughtered by carrier air.

Battle of Nangchang isn't going well. Japanese have more troops than we have. Well, it's just a diversion.

Japanese capture Mersing.

(in reply to lagen)

Post #: 30