RE: Blitzkrieg...well...damn!

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: Blitzkrieg...well...damn!

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: Blitzkrieg...well...damn!

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Blitzkrieg...well...damn! - 3/20/2007 12:29:20 AM

Dili

Posts: 4708
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline

So what about fleets i want sea battles!

(in reply to pauk)

Post #: 121

RE: Blitzkrieg...well...damn! - 3/20/2007 1:11:59 AM

Cap Mandrake

Posts: 23184
Joined: 11/15/2002
From: Southern California
Status: offline

Wait...was Msus in Axis control at the start? What was the Indian unit doing so far forward, cut off like that? Is that historical?

Also about the map. Benghazi looks like it is 100 mi inland. Pauk..the best solution for 21st and 15th Pz may be to simply keep attacking with the pursuit option on. They might well retreat NE toward the Gazzala trail with the next attack...then thye will be supplied from Msus

_____________________________

(in reply to pauk)

Post #: 122

RE: Blitzkrieg...well...damn! - 3/20/2007 1:14:02 AM

Speedysteve

Posts: 15998
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline

Hi all,

As Pauk says Malta continues to be battered. 15th and 21st Panzers break-through near Msus......into the desert

The limitation for the Allies to upgrade air units until May 1942 could prove crucial in this campaign but we'll see.

I wonder what Plan C is von Pauk?

As for sea battles in all seriousness since this is a play test i'd be happy to have a battle line action - with no air power. Pauk?

I've noticed a couple of map anomalies on the Allied side in NA. I will post them with specifics next time around.

_____________________________

WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to Dili)

Post #: 123

RE: Blitzkrieg...well...damn! - 3/20/2007 2:50:12 AM

AmiralLaurent

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake

Wait...was Msus in Axis control at the start? What was the Indian unit doing so far forward, cut off like that? Is that historical?

Also about the map. Benghazi looks like it is 100 mi inland. Pauk..the best solution for 21st and 15th Pz may be to simply keep attacking with the pursuit option on. They might well retreat NE toward the Gazzala trail with the next attack...then thye will be supplied from Msus

Actually in the last version of the mod, Msus is in Allied hands.

But historically both Barce and Benghazi were in Allied hands on 1st Jan 42. And the Axis forces had not the power to launch a counter-attack until a convoy came trough the Med bringing supplies.

If anyone had a good source for a complete British OOB, including non-combat troops, I'm interested.

(in reply to Cap Mandrake)

Post #: 124

RE: Blitzkrieg...well...damn! - 3/20/2007 3:50:47 AM

bradfordkay

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline

So what is the Axis supply situation at the start of the scenario? Does it reflect this?

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to AmiralLaurent)

Post #: 125

RE: Blitzkrieg...well...damn! - 3/20/2007 10:23:39 AM

pauk

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

My dear Englander, do you really think i will say publicly what is the plan C? Make your
own guess! As for naval battles without aircrafts on naval attack you are welcome.
Just say place time and number of ships you want to see! Italian Navy has fast and
beatiful ships, Italian sailors are handsome and strong - guided with Japanese
commanders (a military students exchange - Japan sent their finest leaders to
Mediterranean while Italy sent their very best cookies to Tokyo to teach Japanese
how to make good pasta!)

Brad, as i've mentioned only Tripoli have sufficient supply at the start of the
game (more than 20 K). In addition, Axis units dispositions preventing blitzkrieg
from the start of the game. I'm sure that Englander will have enough time to prepare
Tobruk defence. Still, i'm pleased with that - more POWs in my camps!

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 01/06/42

Terrorists attacked Benghazi - Italian fighers are no match for Spitfires.
Bombers came from Egyipt mainland while Spits accompanied them from Gazala.

Day Air attack on Benghazi , at 45,128

Japanese aircraft
MC-200 x 11

Allied aircraft
Spitfire Vc x 8
Wellington III x 69
Liberator II x 24

Japanese aircraft losses
MC-200: 3 destroyed, 3 damaged
SM 79 : 1 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
Wellington III: 3 damaged
Liberator II: 1 damaged

Japanese ground losses:
221 casualties reported
Guns lost 4

Airbase hits 3
Airbase supply hits 4
Runway hits 10

at 7000 and 15000 feet

Enemy tried to protect his armoured units at Derna with fighters. Our losses
are heavy but enemy paid even higher price.

Day Air attack on Derna , at 48,127

Japanese aircraft
SM 79 x 6
Bf-109F-4 Trop x 52
Z-1007 Bis x 32
Ju-88A-4 x 17

Allied aircraft
Spitfire Vc x 20
Kittyhawk I x 24
Tomahawk IIb x 6

Japanese aircraft losses
Bf-109F-4 Trop: 8 destroyed, 7 damaged
Z-1007 Bis: 1 destroyed, 2 damaged
Ju-88A-4: 5 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
Spitfire Vc: 5 destroyed, 10 damaged
Kittyhawk I: 8 destroyed, 8 damaged
Tomahawk IIb: 1 destroyed, 2 damaged

Allied ground losses:
8 casualties reported

Airbase hits 5
Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 13

at 8000 and 23000 feet

Our job at Malta is done, i can claim that officialy...

Day Air attack on Malta , at 35,120

Japanese aircraft
SM 79 x 24
CR-25 x 5
MC-200 x 21
Re-2001 x 17
BR 20 M x 37
Ju-88A-4 x 62
Bf-109F-4 R2 Recon x 5

Allied aircraft
no flights

Japanese aircraft losses
BR 20 M: 1 destroyed, 8 damaged
Ju-88A-4: 1 destroyed, 9 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
Baltimore II: 1 destroyed
Hurricane IIc: 2 destroyed

Allied ground losses:
172 casualties reported
Guns lost 4

Airbase hits 5
Runway hits 152

6000 feet

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Day Air attack on Malta , at 35,120

Japanese aircraft
SM 79 T x 12
Bf-109F-4 Trop x 17
Ju-88A-4 x 54
Hs-126 B-2 x 3

Japanese aircraft losses
SM 79 T: 8 damaged
Ju-88A-4: 1 destroyed, 13 damaged
Hs-126 B-2: 1 damaged

Allied ground losses:
70 casualties reported
Guns lost 1

Airbase hits 5
Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 58

at 9000 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Malta , at 35,120

Japanese aircraft
Z-1007 Bis x 8

Japanese aircraft losses
Z-1007 Bis: 1 destroyed, 5 damaged

at 11000 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Malta , at 35,120

Japanese aircraft
Z-1007 Bis x 12

Japanese aircraft losses
Z-1007 Bis: 3 damaged

Runway hits 4

at 15000 feet

Hey that's not fair, Englander - you are attacking our geologists in search
for oil!

Day Air attack on 21th Panzer Tank Division, at 47,130

Allied aircraft
Blenheim IV x 6
Wellington III x 7

No Allied losses

Japanese ground losses:
60 casualties reported
Vehicles lost 4

at 8000 feet

Air attack on enemy armoured unit at Barce - Stukas are really fragile ac!

Day Air attack on 7th Armoured Tank Division, at 45,127

Japanese aircraft
CR-42 x 8
SM 79 x 5
MC-200 x 9
Ju-87 B (Ger) x 14

Japanese aircraft losses
CR-42: 1 destroyed, 2 damaged
SM 79 : 1 damaged
Ju-87 B (Ger): 2 destroyed, 7 damaged

Allied ground losses:
70 casualties reported
Vehicles lost 2

Aircraft Attacking:
7 x CR-42 bombing at 2000 feet
5 x SM 79 bombing at 18000 feet
12 x Ju-87 B (Ger) bombing at 2000 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on 9th Indian Brigade, at 47,130

Japanese aircraft
Ju-87 D (Ger) x 18

No Japanese losses

Allied ground losses:
69 casualties reported
Guns lost 1

Aircraft Attacking:
18 x Ju-87 D (Ger) bombing at 2000 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Malta , at 35,120

Japanese aircraft
P-108B x 10

Japanese aircraft losses
P-108B: 3 damaged

Airbase hits 1
Runway hits 9

at 15000 feet

Indian bde is defeated once again and retreats on position 60 miles east
of Msus....Cap. Mandrake i could commit shock attack but didn't want to
exploit this. Besides that i want to see how fast/slow my panzers are moving
through desert. Both Pz divisions are ordered to move towards Msus...

Ground combat at 47,130

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 6501 troops, 49 guns, 264 vehicles, Assault Value = 528

Defending force 2619 troops, 18 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 65

Japanese max assault: 236 - adjusted assault: 230

Allied max defense: 34 - adjusted defense: 1

Japanese assault odds: 230 to 1

Japanese ground losses:
12 casualties reported
Guns lost 1

Allied ground losses:
90 casualties reported
Guns lost 1

Defeated Allied Units Retreating!

As you may see Ariete armoured division arrives at Barce. This base is now
safe - will wait for two Italian motorised division and then attack those
rats!

Ground combat at Barce

Allied Bombardment attack

Attacking force 4631 troops, 69 guns, 208 vehicles, Assault Value = 416

Defending force 29405 troops, 435 guns, 191 vehicles, Assault Value = 517

< Message edited by pauk -- 3/20/2007 10:25:56 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to bradfordkay)

Post #: 126

RE: Blitzkrieg...well...damn! - 3/20/2007 3:02:02 PM

qgaliana

Posts: 311
Joined: 4/27/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Speedy
The limitation for the Allies to upgrade air units until May 1942 could prove crucial in this campaign but we'll see.

I wonder - if the British air groups and pilots had their nationality changed to Commonwealth would they be able to upgrade freely?

(in reply to Speedysteve)

Post #: 127

RE: Blitzkrieg...well...damn! - 3/20/2007 4:32:21 PM

kokubokan25

Posts: 1252
Joined: 7/19/2004
From: Iliaca, Spain
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: qgaliana

quote:

ORIGINAL: Speedy
The limitation for the Allies to upgrade air units until May 1942 could prove crucial in this campaign but we'll see.

I wonder - if the British air groups and pilots had their nationality changed to Commonwealth would they be able to upgrade freely?

YES. The question is: everybody want see all the british airgroups like Aussies?

_____________________________

(in reply to qgaliana)

Post #: 128

RE: Blitzkrieg...well...damn! - 3/20/2007 6:48:29 PM

Cap Mandrake

Posts: 23184
Joined: 11/15/2002
From: Southern California
Status: offline

21th Panzer Tank Division

Ouch...that is really discordant. Anyway to fix that?

BTW, does the code put the "th" after a "1" or is that just an Italian to English thingy?

Given the power of 15th and 21st Pz..perhaps the the Axis player would have more flexibility for envelopment in the desert with them broken into regiments (I realize he can do the A/B/C thing but that is not very satisfying from a historical standpoint). Just an idea. It may be from a play balance standpoint it is better not to do this.

< Message edited by Cap Mandrake -- 3/20/2007 6:52:35 PM >

(in reply to Dili)

Post #: 129

RE: Blitzkrieg...well...damn! - 3/20/2007 7:00:55 PM

Terminus

Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

Yes, there's a very easy way to fix that one. The extension "tank division" is simply a text field and has no effect on the unit type, which is set under another field. Simply call it "division"; it'll still be an armoured unit.

I've fixed the 7th Armoured Brigade in my own mod. No more "7th Armoured Tank Brigade"...

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Cap Mandrake)

Post #: 130

RE: Blitzkrieg...well...damn! - 3/21/2007 12:14:24 AM

Speedysteve

Posts: 15998
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline

Hi all,

von Dumbass - I have an idea what Plan C is. With the limited scope of the map and your already disclosed plans it narros it down a little

I'm serious on the naval battle thing. It being a playtest what do you seriously think?

My gut feeling of thigns so far is that the stock air model will sway the region too much.

Since it's a playtest I can tell you now I have VERY few frontline fighters left (Hurricanes are NO good) and with the inability to upgrade these units to Spits/P40's i'm toast in the air. All I have to do something with is a few Wellies and Libs.

I personally predict a masive slaughter up until Egypt.

fremen - it may be worth making the British units non-British units to allow the ability to upgrade them.

I've also noticed LCU's taking a different route to the map terrain - for example near Marsah Mutruh (sp) thje road follows the coast but marching units move 60 miles inland (on a 'hidden' road) beforfe returning to the coast again.

_____________________________

WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 131

RE: Blitzkrieg...well...damn! - 3/21/2007 12:23:17 AM

AmiralLaurent

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake

21th Panzer Tank Division

Ouch...that is really discordant. Anyway to fix that?

BTW, does the code put the "th" after a "1" or is that just an Italian to English thingy?

Given the power of 15th and 21st Pz..perhaps the the Axis player would have more flexibility for envelopment in the desert with them broken into regiments (I realize he can do the A/B/C thing but that is not very satisfying from a historical standpoint). Just an idea. It may be from a play balance standpoint it is better not to do this.

BTW Fremen is Spanish not Italian.

As you said dividing divisions is allowing you to have 3 units of regiment size, while when they are together you can unite them and so give only orders once. So less clicks required by the player for the same results (and yes I know the 'all march', 'all attack' and 'follow' orders, but when you have ten units in a hex and want 6 to go out you have to give orders to at least 5 of them...).

As Rgt can't be divided, the play balance is not modified and the modelization is simple with division units (but I agree it is less satisfying on an historical POV).

(in reply to Cap Mandrake)

Post #: 132

RE: Blitzkrieg...well...damn! - 3/21/2007 11:49:07 AM

Dili

Posts: 4708
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline

You could do a supply run to axis units and allies try to intercept it. I suppose you have to run supplies to North Africa like Italians did (British historically were unable to stop it only degraded it )

Btw Panzer=Tank so it's redundant.

(in reply to AmiralLaurent)

Post #: 133

RE: Blitzkrieg...well...damn! - 3/21/2007 3:33:10 PM

kokubokan25

Posts: 1252
Joined: 7/19/2004
From: Iliaca, Spain
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake

21th Panzer Tank Division

Ouch...that is really discordant. Anyway to fix that?

BTW, does the code put the "th" after a "1" or is that just an Italian to English thingy?

Yes, is just an "Spanish" thingy...

Sorry that, those errors will be corrected in the new patch.

quote:

fremen - it may be worth making the British units non-British units to allow the ability to upgrade them.

Working now in the new A2A combat engine, acording that are two possibilities:
-Change all the british air groups to Commonwealth to allow upgrade (only fighters) or
-Change some groups of Hurries to Spits Vb BEFORE historicaly.

_____________________________

(in reply to Cap Mandrake)

Post #: 134

day 8 - 3/21/2007 9:05:00 PM

pauk

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

I admit .... i'm a liar (not that i don't have a great teachers here on boards

)

My troops at Barce were never supposed to wait for German help and they attacked two enemy armoured divisions at Barce:

everything goes smoothly for DAK now.....

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

(in reply to kokubokan25)

Post #: 135

Rain? - 3/21/2007 9:26:57 PM

Cap Mandrake

Posts: 23184
Joined: 11/15/2002
From: Southern California
Status: offline

Ok...why is it raining in the desert?

Fremen...is the weather "model" hard coded too?

Also, does anyone think it is unrealistic for Ariete and 3 Eyetey Inf Div to rout 2 British Armoured Divisions in superb defensive ground?

That sounds like "Bologna" to me

(in reply to Dili)

Post #: 136

RE: Rain? - 3/21/2007 9:58:57 PM

pauk

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

but Cap, it is not unrealistic at all. Von Dumbass (me, the genius) is playing aginst crappy player (Englander)....

Serioulsy, i do not know what orders Speedy gave to his armoured units - my units are prepared for Barce - perhaps he changed PP to Darna or even Tobruk (i assume that he done exactly that)...then, i replace stock leaders with finest ones and don't forget that leaders are still Japanese (with good stats)... and the last, but not the least i've bombed this units last few days - they should be somewhat fatigued/disrupted...

what is wrong here: leaders - Italians shouldn't have good leaders and this will probably change in next patches....

As for the weather - weather is hard coded (map is based on Australian teritory in WITP, i think) but i don't see as a real problem - it is only eye disturbing problem...

Fremen, do not rush with massive changes in A2A combat model. Italian fighers performs too good when they outnumber enemy and mixed with the Germans, but they are totally inefective against bombers (see all Ita fighers against enemy bombers AARs posted in this AAR)... i dont think that we want "bombers rules" strategy.....

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 01/07/42

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Benghazi , at 45,128

Japanese aircraft
MC-200 x 10

Allied aircraft
Wellington III x 69
Liberator II x 24

Japanese aircraft losses
MC-200: 2 destroyed, 6 damaged
Hs-126 B-2: 1 destroyed
SM 79 : 1 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
Wellington III: 9 damaged
Liberator II: 1 damaged

Japanese ground losses:
201 casualties reported
Guns lost 2

Airbase hits 4
Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 27

Aircraft Attacking:
6 x Wellington III bombing at 8000 feet
3 x Wellington III bombing at 8000 feet
4 x Wellington III bombing at 8000 feet
6 x Wellington III bombing at 8000 feet
6 x Wellington III bombing at 8000 feet
6 x Liberator II bombing at 15000 feet
9 x Liberator II bombing at 15000 feet
3 x Wellington III bombing at 8000 feet
3 x Wellington III bombing at 8000 feet
4 x Wellington III bombing at 8000 feet
5 x Wellington III bombing at 8000 feet
3 x Wellington III bombing at 8000 feet
3 x Wellington III bombing at 8000 feet
4 x Liberator II bombing at 15000 feet
3 x Liberator II bombing at 15000 feet
5 x Wellington III bombing at 8000 feet
2 x Wellington III bombing at 8000 feet
4 x Wellington III bombing at 8000 feet
2 x Wellington III bombing at 8000 feet
2 x Liberator II bombing at 15000 feet
2 x Wellington III bombing at 8000 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Malta , at 35,120

Japanese aircraft
SM 79 x 26
CR-25 x 5
MC-200 x 21
Re-2001 x 15
BR 20 M x 31
Ju-88A-4 x 52
Bf-109F-4 R2 Recon x 5

Allied aircraft
no flights

Japanese aircraft losses
CR-25: 1 damaged
BR 20 M: 1 destroyed, 6 damaged
Ju-88A-4: 16 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
Hurricane IIc: 2 destroyed
Wellington III: 1 destroyed

Allied ground losses:
33 casualties reported
Guns lost 1

Airbase hits 12
Runway hits 95

Aircraft Attacking:
21 x Ju-88A-4 bombing at 6000 feet
11 x Ju-88A-4 bombing at 6000 feet
8 x BR 20 M bombing at 6000 feet
7 x BR 20 M bombing at 6000 feet
8 x Ju-88A-4 bombing at 6000 feet
3 x Ju-88A-4 bombing at 6000 feet
9 x BR 20 M bombing at 6000 feet
3 x BR 20 M bombing at 6000 feet
5 x SM 79 bombing at 20000 feet
8 x SM 79 bombing at 20000 feet
3 x SM 79 bombing at 20000 feet
3 x SM 79 bombing at 20000 feet
3 x BR 20 M bombing at 6000 feet
3 x Ju-88A-4 bombing at 6000 feet
3 x Ju-88A-4 bombing at 6000 feet
3 x Ju-88A-4 bombing at 6000 feet
4 x SM 79 bombing at 20000 feet
3 x SM 79 bombing at 20000 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Malta , at 35,120

Japanese aircraft
SM 79 T x 7
Ju-88A-4 x 46
Hs-126 B-2 x 4

Japanese aircraft losses
Ju-88A-4: 9 damaged

Allied ground losses:
5 casualties reported

Airbase hits 5
Runway hits 77

Aircraft Attacking:
3 x Ju-88A-4 bombing at 9000 feet
19 x Ju-88A-4 bombing at 9000 feet
9 x Ju-88A-4 bombing at 9000 feet
4 x SM 79 T bombing at 9000 feet
3 x Ju-88A-4 bombing at 9000 feet
3 x Ju-88A-4 bombing at 9000 feet
3 x Ju-88A-4 bombing at 9000 feet
3 x SM 79 T bombing at 9000 feet
3 x Ju-88A-4 bombing at 9000 feet
3 x Ju-88A-4 bombing at 9000 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Malta , at 35,120

Japanese aircraft
CR-42 x 33
SM 84 x 12

Japanese aircraft losses
CR-42: 1 destroyed, 5 damaged
SM 84: 2 destroyed, 5 damaged

Allied ground losses:
8 casualties reported

Airbase hits 1
Runway hits 37

Aircraft Attacking:
12 x CR-42 bombing at 2000 feet
10 x CR-42 bombing at 2000 feet
8 x CR-42 bombing at 2000 feet
5 x SM 84 bombing at 6000 feet
2 x CR-42 bombing at 2000 feet
4 x SM 84 bombing at 6000 feet
1 x SM 84 bombing at 6000 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on Malta , at 35,120

Japanese aircraft
Ca-311 x 1
SM 79 x 18
Z-1007 Bis x 61
BR 20 M x 33

Japanese aircraft losses
SM 79 : 1 destroyed, 6 damaged
Z-1007 Bis: 4 damaged
BR 20 M: 5 damaged

Allied ground losses:
39 casualties reported
Guns lost 2

Airbase hits 8
Runway hits 71

Aircraft Attacking:
9 x BR 20 M bombing at 10000 feet
11 x BR 20 M bombing at 10000 feet
15 x Z-1007 Bis bombing at 10000 feet
11 x SM 79 bombing at 10000 feet
12 x Z-1007 Bis bombing at 10000 feet
9 x Z-1007 Bis bombing at 10000 feet
4 x BR 20 M bombing at 10000 feet
3 x BR 20 M bombing at 10000 feet
3 x Z-1007 Bis bombing at 10000 feet
3 x SM 79 bombing at 10000 feet
4 x Z-1007 Bis bombing at 10000 feet
5 x Z-1007 Bis bombing at 10000 feet
2 x Z-1007 Bis bombing at 10000 feet
3 x BR 20 M bombing at 10000 feet
3 x BR 20 M bombing at 10000 feet
3 x SM 79 bombing at 10000 feet
3 x Z-1007 Bis bombing at 10000 feet
4 x Z-1007 Bis bombing at 10000 feet
2 x Z-1007 Bis bombing at 10000 feet
2 x Z-1007 Bis bombing at 10000 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on 17th Pavia Division, at 45,127

Allied aircraft
Blenheim IV x 3
Wellington III x 3

Allied aircraft losses
Blenheim IV: 3 damaged
Wellington III: 2 damaged

Japanese ground losses:
64 casualties reported
Guns lost 1

Aircraft Attacking:
3 x Blenheim IV bombing at 8000 feet
3 x Wellington III bombing at 8000 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on 25th Bologna Division, at 45,127

Allied aircraft
Blenheim IV x 3
Wellington III x 3

Allied aircraft losses
Blenheim IV: 3 damaged
Wellington III: 3 damaged

Japanese ground losses:
10 casualties reported

Aircraft Attacking:
3 x Blenheim IV bombing at 8000 feet
3 x Wellington III bombing at 8000 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on 1st Armoured Tank Division, at 45,127

Japanese aircraft
CR-42 x 9
SM 79 x 4
MC-200 x 9
Ju-87 B (Ger) x 12

Japanese aircraft losses
CR-42: 1 damaged
Ju-87 B (Ger): 2 destroyed, 5 damaged

Allied ground losses:
22 casualties reported

Aircraft Attacking:
9 x CR-42 bombing at 2000 feet
4 x SM 79 bombing at 18000 feet
10 x Ju-87 B (Ger) bombing at 2000 feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Air attack on TF, near Malta at 35,120

Japanese aircraft
Bf-109F-4 x 36

No Japanese losses

Allied Ships
PT MTB-63, Shell hits 8
PT MTB-65, Shell hits 4, Bomb hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
PT MTB-66
PT MTB-61, Shell hits 4

Aircraft Attacking:
4 x Bf-109F-4 attacking at 100 feet
4 x Bf-109F-4 attacking at 100 feet
4 x Bf-109F-4 attacking at 100 feet
4 x Bf-109F-4 attacking at 100 feet
4 x Bf-109F-4 attacking at 100 feet
4 x Bf-109F-4 attacking at 100 feet
4 x Bf-109F-4 attacking at 100 feet
4 x Bf-109F-4 attacking at 100 feet
4 x Bf-109F-4 attacking at 100 feet

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Barce

Japanese Shock attack

Attacking force 29604 troops, 437 guns, 191 vehicles, Assault Value = 522

Defending force 10763 troops, 193 guns, 456 vehicles, Assault Value = 417

Japanese max assault: 1024 - adjusted assault: 619

Allied max defense: 283 - adjusted defense: 167

Japanese assault odds: 3 to 1

Japanese ground losses:
280 casualties reported
Guns lost 21

Allied ground losses:
101 casualties reported
Guns lost 5
Vehicles lost 2

Defeated Allied Units Retreating!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at 46,127

Allied Bombardment attack

Attacking force 3608 troops, 60 guns, 160 vehicles, Assault Value = 315

Defending force 5545 troops, 53 guns, 191 vehicles, Assault Value = 165

< Message edited by pauk -- 3/21/2007 10:04:49 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Cap Mandrake)

Post #: 137

RE: Rain? - 3/21/2007 10:32:40 PM

qgaliana

Posts: 311
Joined: 4/27/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake

Ok...why is it raining in the desert?

Sandstorms?

(in reply to Cap Mandrake)

Post #: 138

RE: Rain? - 3/21/2007 10:35:22 PM

Capt. Harlock

Posts: 5358
Joined: 9/15/2001
From: Los Angeles
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake

Ok...why is it raining in the desert?

From what I know of North African weather patterns -- and I admit it's not much -- rain in January is not unrealistic.

_____________________________

Civil war? What does that mean? Is there any foreign war? Isn't every war fought between men, between brothers?

--Victor Hugo

(in reply to Cap Mandrake)

Post #: 139

RE: Rain? - 3/21/2007 10:45:51 PM

kokubokan25

Posts: 1252
Joined: 7/19/2004
From: Iliaca, Spain
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake

Ok...why is it raining in the desert?

Fremen...is the weather "model" hard coded too?

Also, does anyone think it is unrealistic for Ariete and 3 Eyetey Inf Div to rout 2 British Armoured Divisions in superb defensive ground?

That sounds like "Bologna" to me

I see Mandrake you are a very "possitive" man. I hope enjoy the mod.

OF COURSE the Wheather is HARD CODED. Can a single man manage the winds and clouds..?
The two armoured division in Barce are 50% force, low moral and low supplies.

_____________________________

(in reply to Cap Mandrake)

Post #: 140

RE: Rain? - 3/21/2007 11:01:54 PM

pauk

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

thanks Fremen! As you may know i didn't look at the Allied side so i don't know actual enemy strength....

_____________________________

(in reply to kokubokan25)

Post #: 141

RE: Rain? - 3/21/2007 11:45:43 PM

Cap Mandrake

Posts: 23184
Joined: 11/15/2002
From: Southern California
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: fremen

I see Mandrake you are a very "possitive" man. I hope enjoy the mod.
OF COURSE the Wheather is HARD CODED. Can a single man manage the winds and clouds..?
The two armoured division in Barce are 50% force, low moral and low supplies.

Yes, perhaps I was a bit harsh

Lo siento.

Sorry about the Spanish/Italian mix-up as well. I guess the Italian fighters were doing so well I presumed you were Italian

Fantastic effort on your part I would say.

(in reply to kokubokan25)

Post #: 142

RE: Rain? - 3/21/2007 11:51:04 PM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

how about playing with advanced weather turned off?

_____________________________

(in reply to Cap Mandrake)

Post #: 143

RE: Rain? - 3/21/2007 11:55:06 PM

kokubokan25

Posts: 1252
Joined: 7/19/2004
From: Iliaca, Spain
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pauk

thanks Fremen! As you may know i didn't look at the Allied side so i don't know actual enemy strength....

Sorry Pauk. Was a "lapsus". Axis prevail anyway the first months..

_____________________________

(in reply to pauk)

Post #: 144

RE: Rain? - 3/22/2007 1:10:12 AM

Wolfie1

Posts: 360
Joined: 12/22/2004
From: Blackpool, England
Status: offline

Sandstorms seem reasonable if the weather is hard coded.

_____________________________

Teamwork is essential - it gives the enemy someone else to shoot at.....

(in reply to kokubokan25)

Post #: 145

RE: Rain? - 3/22/2007 7:16:10 PM

Speedysteve

Posts: 15998
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline

Hi all,

Haven't run the turn yet but I can tell you this. The 2 x ARM units were well supplied = met their needs and didn't have low morale. Disruption was in 60's due to bombing. I'm�surprised by the result and with SigInt telling me of the arrival of more German/Italian units from Benghazi the Allies are in trouble on the land in NA

_____________________________

WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to Wolfie1)

Post #: 146

Land Combat - 3/22/2007 8:30:29 PM

spence

Posts: 5400
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline

One thing that troubles me about this Mod is the land combat model. You guys are not far enough along yet but in the Western Desert the introduction of a new tank model tended to have major ramifications on the battlefield.

I used the Manchurian Scenario some time back to see/test how well the game modelled armored units and armored warfare and concluded that all the various stats etc for the different tanks must be pure fluff. In my test, repeated several times, the tinfoil Japanese tanks armed with squirt guns, did very very credibly against T-34/85s and other late war Russian models. Given the results, it seems that had the Germans had had a 37mm AT gun like the ones on Japanese armor, Fall Barbarossa would have succeeded easily.

BTW I manipulated all the variables possible in the editor (except armor and gun values) to be equal so that the test would only be affected by those differences.

< Message edited by spence -- 3/22/2007 8:33:16 PM >

(in reply to Speedysteve)

Post #: 147

RE: Land Combat - 3/22/2007 9:06:17 PM

AmiralLaurent

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

One thing that troubles me about this Mod is the land combat model. You guys are not far enough along yet but in the Western Desert the introduction of a new tank model tended to have major ramifications on the battlefield.

I used the Manchurian Scenario some time back to see/test how well the game modelled armored units and armored warfare and concluded that all the various stats etc for the different tanks must be pure fluff. In my test, repeated several times, the tinfoil Japanese tanks armed with squirt guns, did very very credibly against T-34/85s and other late war Russian models. Given the results, it seems that had the Germans had had a 37mm AT gun like the ones on Japanese armor, Fall Barbarossa would have succeeded easily.

BTW I manipulated all the variables possible in the editor (except armor and gun values) to be equal so that the test would only be affected by those differences.

I agree with you. My understanding of the ground battle algorithm is that in a first phase both sides will exchange fire and so disable squads, tanks and so on from the opposing side, and then the able squads of each side will be counted and with several adjustements (supplies, support, terrain, fatigue, morale, etc...) will have a global ASS value calculated.

I think that in the first phase, the rating of weapons and armor is taken into account, but that it is not in the second where a light tank = a heavy tank = an infantry squad = 1 ASS point. And what we see in ground battle animation is that the first phase will only affect some % of one side or another.

So basically if you have 12 000 infantry men (1000 squads) with no antitank guns or weapons facing 400 heavy tanks, the tanks will suffer no loss in the first phase and may disrupt 40-80 enemy squads, but in the assault phase the infantry will have more than 900 ASS points and the tanks only 400 and they will be routed. And a retreating unit will lose 16% of its OOB as destroyed (not disrupted), all supplies and so on...

So in WITP ground battles, quantity is better than quality...

(in reply to spence)

Post #: 148

RE: Land Combat - 3/22/2007 11:22:44 PM

qgaliana

Posts: 311
Joined: 4/27/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AmiralLaurent

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

One thing that troubles me about this Mod is the land combat model. You guys are not far enough along yet but in the Western Desert the introduction of a new tank model tended to have major ramifications on the battlefield.

I used the Manchurian Scenario some time back to see/test how well the game modelled armored units and armored warfare and concluded that all the various stats etc for the different tanks must be pure fluff. In my test, repeated several times, the tinfoil Japanese tanks armed with squirt guns, did very very credibly against T-34/85s and other late war Russian models. Given the results, it seems that had the Germans had had a 37mm AT gun like the ones on Japanese armor, Fall Barbarossa would have succeeded easily.

BTW I manipulated all the variables possible in the editor (except armor and gun values) to be equal so that the test would only be affected by those differences.

I agree with you. My understanding of the ground battle algorithm is that in a first phase both sides will exchange fire and so disable squads, tanks and so on from the opposing side, and then the able squads of each side will be counted and with several adjustements (supplies, support, terrain, fatigue, morale, etc...) will have a global ASS value calculated.

I think that in the first phase, the rating of weapons and armor is taken into account, but that it is not in the second where a light tank = a heavy tank = an infantry squad = 1 ASS point. And what we see in ground battle animation is that the first phase will only affect some % of one side or another.

So basically if you have 12 000 infantry men (1000 squads) with no antitank guns or weapons facing 400 heavy tanks, the tanks will suffer no loss in the first phase and may disrupt 40-80 enemy squads, but in the assault phase the infantry will have more than 900 ASS points and the tanks only 400 and they will be routed. And a retreating unit will lose 16% of its OOB as destroyed (not disrupted), all supplies and so on...

So in WITP ground battles, quantity is better than quality...

Not quite fluff - I think the device ratings matter a whole lot for the casualty calculation. But unfortunately you're both right as far as taking ground goes, they don't seem to weigh in the calculation.

Did you try your experiment in one of those no retreat no surrender situations Spence? You can usually get a lot of mileage out of tanks when there are no useful guns on the other side.

(in reply to AmiralLaurent)

Post #: 149

RE: Rain? - 3/23/2007 12:52:20 AM

Halsey

Posts: 5069
Joined: 2/7/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wolfie1

Sandstorms seem reasonable if the weather is hard coded.

Change the thunderstorm bitmap to a giant dust cloud.

_____________________________

(in reply to Wolfie1)

Post #: 150

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> After Action Reports >> RE: Blitzkrieg...well...damn!