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: Exactly

 
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] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> After Action Reports >> Re: Exactly Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Re: Exactly - 5/13/2002 4:30:59 PM   
vils

 

Posts: 251
Joined: 1/11/2002
From: Stockholm, Sweden
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mogami
[B]Thats correct Preacher. If the players ignore mines and just go into mine fields we will see ahistorical results. If they do their mine sweeping and keep their TF's out of minefields we will see more historical results. [/B][/QUOTE]

Anyway, as mines WERE used around harbours and such, it needs to be there, to prevent enemy of entering it. But you can still control the effectivness of enemy mines, just stay out of porst until they are mine-swept :)

(in reply to siRkid)
Post #: 121
mine laying - 5/13/2002 4:36:34 PM   
vils

 

Posts: 251
Joined: 1/11/2002
From: Stockholm, Sweden
Status: offline
So, if i as playing JPN si doing an concentrated irratic mine laying at a totally no sence place, would cause havok on the us TF if it is passing through there?

(in reply to siRkid)
Post #: 122
- 5/13/2002 6:12:00 PM   
siRkid


Posts: 6650
Joined: 1/29/2002
From: Orland FL
Status: offline
I figured you had it on the burner for some time, I just like to bash the press;) . I spotted one group way to the east and that is why I sent the carriers north. I thought you were going for one of those small islands. By luck this positioned me to move my carriers straight in once I knew your true intentions.

Great move by the way. I did not expect you to go on the offensive. Now the real battle for Guadalcanal has started. See you on the front lines.

Rick

_____________________________

Former War in the Pacific Test Team Manager and Beta Tester for War in the East.


(in reply to siRkid)
Post #: 123
Ron - 5/13/2002 10:25:09 PM   
Von_Frag

 

Posts: 105
Joined: 5/7/2002
From: Dallas, Texas
Status: offline
Postwar, it was found that Strong was sunk by a Long Lance fired from extreme range by a Japanese destroyer transport group and by subsequent shell hits by shore batteries. The torps were fired as an after thought as the IJN DDs successfully avoided combat with the American desron. They were fired from beyond their effective extreme range, hence the mine theory because the torp came from "out of nowhere.


Hi Ron, hmmmmm, that is interesting info. Morrisons book was printed in the early 60's, how soon after the war was it determined Strong was hit by a torp? I'm not saying Morrison is the end all authority on this subject, but he was there and made several trips up the slot with Ainsworth. Is this info something he was not privy to, or he ignored it thinking he knew better because he "was there"?

Frag

(in reply to siRkid)
Post #: 124
Okay you two - 5/14/2002 11:21:23 AM   
Rob Roberson

 

Posts: 387
Joined: 5/1/2002
Status: offline
You orders are to both quit your jobs (or take at least a three day vacation) and do nothing but send turns back and forth. I need to spend my time somehow and reading your excellant AAR with editoral comments to boot is awesome!

Rob

(in reply to siRkid)
Post #: 125
Von Frag - 5/14/2002 11:37:20 AM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
Morrison was there for sure on many occasions, but he was privy to the same info the other allies were. Documents acquired from IJN sources filled in many gaps and the torpedo explanation weighed heavily and was taken as the cause. I'll post my source once I find it again, I was running on memory.

The Allies required a lengthy period of time to accept the performance of the Long Lance and that the "backward" Japanese had them. How many books have been written saying that the Wasp, North Carolina and O'Brien were attacked by two IJN subs and not one? They still could not believe post war that one torp spread from one sub could have wrought such destruction one units in 2 separate TFs operating at some distance from one another.

_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to siRkid)
Post #: 126
- 5/14/2002 12:13:49 PM   
Crocky


Posts: 417
Joined: 12/4/2001
From: Christchurch New Zealand
Status: offline
Rick gets the turn after me so I dont want to post to much infomation straight away just in case he hasnt seen the turn before he looks at the board......but this latest turn the Japanese Navy decided, along with their airborne brethern to mount a major support operatiom to assist their land based brothers at Lunga....Ie: a major surface action including BBs South Dakota & Kirishima

_____________________________

Mike Blair CROCKY

(in reply to siRkid)
Post #: 127
- 5/15/2002 9:41:17 AM   
Crocky


Posts: 417
Joined: 12/4/2001
From: Christchurch New Zealand
Status: offline
AFTER ACTION REPORTS 10/22-23/42

The Japanese landings around Lunga are the major focus of attention this turn. Recon tells me that Rick has a surface TF in Lunga either to interdict supplies or to bombard the newly landed Japanese troops, Intel also informs us that this TF probably bontains a BB. Two bombardment TFs are dispatched to assist ground forces at Lunga TF 1 contains 1xBB 4xCA 1xCL & 6xDD......TF 2 is made up of a 1xBB & 8xDD.
There is an allied carrier floating around off San Cristobel waiting for my transports I suspect so thats not an option it will have to be the Tokyo express to resupply so first thing is to remove his surface ships fron around Lunga..

All aircraft at Rabual and Shortland are set to Naval attack and the TFs steam...Just before nightfall the US surface forces around Lunga are spotted and come under attack from LBA with excellent resultsAir attack on TF, near Lunga at 38,40

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 5
A6M3 Zero x 18
D3A Val x 12
G3M Nell x 9
G4M1 Betty x 18

Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 1

Japanese aircraft losses
D3A Val x 3 destroyed
D3A Val x 4 damaged
G3M Nell x 9 damaged
G4M1 Betty x 2 destroyed
G4M1 Betty x 14 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
F4F-4 Wildcat x 1 destroyed

Allied Ships
BB South Dakota, Torpedo hits 5, on fire, heavy damage :D
CL Helena, Bomb hits 1, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
CL Hobart, Torpedo hits 1
DD Barton
DD O'Bannon

5 torpedo hits on the South Dakota is a most excellent result

The ground assult at Lunga is inconclusive

Ground combat at Lunga
Japanese Deliberate attack
Attacking force 12235 troops, 159 guns, 20 vehicles
Defending force 18078 troops, 77 guns, 87 vehicles
Japanese assault odds: 1 to 1 (fort level 0)
Japanese Assault reduces fortifications to 0

Japanese ground losses:
Men lost 106

Allied ground losses:
Men lost 172

Night falls and my surface TFs arrive to cause more havoc amongst the allied ships

ight Time Surface Combat, near Lunga at 38,40

Japanese Ships
BB Kirishima, Shell hits 2
CA Chikuma, Shell hits 2
CA Mogami, Shell hits 7, on fire, heavy damage
CA Kumano, Shell hits 3, Torpedo hits 1
CA Aoba, Shell hits 1
CL Yubari, Shell hits 1
DD Takanami
DD Onami
DD Shiranui
DD Michishio, Shell hits 2, heavy damage
DD Arare, Shell hits 3, on fire, heavy damage
DD Shigure

Allied Ships
BB South Dakota, Shell hits 11, on fire, heavy damage
CL Hobart, Shell hits 7, on fire
CL Helena, Shell hits 14, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
DD O'Bannon, Shell hits 1, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
DD Lardner
DD Barton
DD Welles

Mogami suffers heavy damage but so do the 2 US light cruisers
The TF continues on disposing of several PT boats on the way unfortunately one of the PT boats manages to slip a torpedo into the Kirishima slowing her considerably.The TF bombards the allied ground forces but on the way out runs into South Dakota and her cohorts again

Night Time Surface Combat, near Lunga at 38,40

Japanese Ships
BB Kirishima, Shell hits 8, on fire, heavy damage
CA Chikuma, Shell hits 3, on fire
CA Mogami, Shell hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
CA Kumano
CA Aoba, Shell hits 3, on fire
CL Yubari, Shell hits 1
DD Takanami
DD Onami, Shell hits 1, on fire
DD Shiranui
DD Michishio, heavy damage
DD Arare, Shell hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
DD Shigure

Allied Ships
BB South Dakota, Shell hits 8, on fire, heavy damage
CL Hobart, Shell hits 5, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
CL Helena, and is sunk
DD O'Bannon, Shell hits 7, and is sunk
DD Lardner
DD Barton, Shell hits 1
DD Welles, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage

Action is hot and heavy Kirishima take several 16inch hits but returns the favor with 14 inch shells on the South Dakota the DD Arare staggers as she takes on board a 16 inch shell. The Helena already badly damaged sinks as well as the DD Welles who sinks CL Hobart is severly damaged and sinking quitely disappearing under the waters the next morning...

While all this is happening TF 2 (1xBB & 8xDD) sneaks in sinking a couple of PT boats bombards US ground forces causing 200 casualties and departs for base.

As morning dawns the respective task forces are heading for their bases but TF1 comes under attack for LBA from San Cristobal

Air attack on TF at 37,38

Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 6
SBD Dauntless x 24
TBF Avenger x 8

Allied aircraft losses
SBD Dauntless x 3 damaged
TBF Avenger x 2 destroyed
TBF Avenger x 1 damaged

Japanese Ships
DD Arare, on fire, heavy damage
BB Kirishima, Bomb hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
CA Mogami, Bomb hits 4, on fire, heavy damage


The Kirishima aint looking good with 78% sys damage & 65% flooding, the CA Mogami finally gives up the ghost and capsizes just as a force of Kates passes overhead on its way to attack the South Dakota TF which has been spotted near Tulagi

Air attack on TF, near Tulagi at 38,39

Japanese aircraft
B5N Kate x 16

Allied Ships
DD Barton
BB South Dakota, Bomb hits 3, on fire, heavy damage
DD Welles, heavy damage

Three more hits on the South Dakota will this thing ever sink.......

At the end of the day reports come in that the South Dakota founded just south of Tulagi HURRAH!!!! :)

Ground forces assault Lunga again

Ground combat at Lunga
Japanese Deliberate attack
Attacking force 12102 troops, 158 guns, 20 vehicles
Defending force 17685 troops, 76 guns, 87 vehicles
Japanese assault odds: 0 to 1 (fort level 0)

Japanese ground losses:
Men lost 94
Guns lost 1

Allied ground losses:
Men lost 140

Inconclusive results but looking from this turn to the last I would say there will be no quick result in the battle for Lunga.

Overall a turn I am reasonably happy with traded the Kirishima for the South Dakota and the Mogami for 2 Allied CLs

I wont mention Madang in New Guinea which is getting hammered by US medium and heavy bombers

_____________________________

Mike Blair CROCKY

(in reply to siRkid)
Post #: 128
- 5/15/2002 9:55:52 AM   
siRkid


Posts: 6650
Joined: 1/29/2002
From: Orland FL
Status: offline
Very good ARR Crocky. That PT boat Commander is up for the CMH, by the way. Yes my one Combat TF was all but wiped out. This last turn was kind of quite, not much to report. Everone is taking a breather.:)

_____________________________

Former War in the Pacific Test Team Manager and Beta Tester for War in the East.


(in reply to siRkid)
Post #: 129
- 5/15/2002 10:11:22 AM   
MalleusDei

 

Posts: 56
Joined: 4/27/2001
From: Baton Rouge
Status: offline
I should point out here again that no -not one - USN warship was lost to a Japanese mine in the time period and area covered by UV.

When I get my game, the first thing I am going to do is open the editor and take the ahistorical and gratuitous mines out of every scenario.

(in reply to siRkid)
Post #: 130
- 5/15/2002 10:27:35 AM   
Preacher

 

Posts: 59
Joined: 4/26/2002
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by MalleusDei
[B]I should point out here again that no -not one - USN warship was lost to a Japanese mine in the time period and area covered by UV.

When I get my game, the first thing I am going to do is open the editor and take the ahistorical and gratuitous mines out of every scenario. [/B][/QUOTE]

And thus make every scenario you edit in such a manner completely unplayable via PBeM because of the difference in the files.

Preacher

(in reply to siRkid)
Post #: 131
- 5/15/2002 10:29:09 AM   
1089

 

Posts: 210
Joined: 7/4/2001
From: Portland, OR
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by MalleusDei
[B]I should point out here again that no -not one - USN warship was lost to a Japanese mine in the time period and area covered by UV.

When I get my game, the first thing I am going to do is open the editor and take the ahistorical and gratuitous mines out of every scenario. [/B][/QUOTE]

If you modify the scenarios, your PBEM games with the modified scenarios won't be secure. It is better to leave the game the way it is, and see if you are capable of doing as good a job with minesweeping as was done historically. Unless, of course, you're not man enough... :eek: Mines! Help me! Help!

kp
Of course, YMMV;)

(in reply to siRkid)
Post #: 132
hmm - 5/15/2002 10:43:26 AM   
cpt_Venomous

 

Posts: 139
Joined: 5/2/2002
From: PYCb MOCKBA
Status: offline
dozens of bomb and shell hits and half a dozen torpedoes into S. Dakota, and she still floats, quite strange, is it just because of the US superior damage control? Or some other factors apply? Curious what was S. Dakota's damage stats after first 5 torpedoes?

(in reply to siRkid)
Post #: 133
Re: hmm - 5/15/2002 10:48:14 AM   
Preacher

 

Posts: 59
Joined: 4/26/2002
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by cpt_Venomous
[B]dozens of bomb and shell hits and half a dozen torpedoes into S. Dakota, and she still floats, quite strange, is it just because of the US superior damage control? Or some other factors apply? Curious what was S. Dakota's damage stats after first 5 torpedoes? [/B][/QUOTE]

I believe that is the damage assessment reported by the airmen who flew the mission. If i'm correct, it explains the possible (probable?) hyperbole.

Preacher

(in reply to siRkid)
Post #: 134
- 5/15/2002 10:51:58 AM   
IChristie

 

Posts: 673
Joined: 3/26/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada
Status: offline
Very true. Fog of War does inflate damage claims. Also, fog of war can prevent you from finding out that a ship has, in fact, sunk. It can also report the wrong ship (Hornet instead of Lexington in my case).

_____________________________

Iain Christie
-----------------
"If patience is a virtue then persistence is it's part.
It's better to light a candle than stand and curse the dark"

- James Keelaghan

(in reply to siRkid)
Post #: 135
- 5/15/2002 10:52:24 AM   
cpt_Venomous

 

Posts: 139
Joined: 5/2/2002
From: PYCb MOCKBA
Status: offline
LOL!
Right, almost forgot that feature, maybe Rick could clarify exact hits?

(in reply to siRkid)
Post #: 136
- 5/15/2002 11:29:27 AM   
Crocky


Posts: 417
Joined: 12/4/2001
From: Christchurch New Zealand
Status: offline
FOW is very evident if you find out what your opponent thinks he hit ie: Ricks report several turns ago

[QUOTE]CV Soryu, Torpedo hits 1 [/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]CV Hiyo, Bomb hits 1, Torpedo hits 1 [/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]CVL Zuiho, Bomb hits 1, on fire [/QUOTE]

When all he actually hit was the Hiyo

So take your reports with a grain of salt :)

_____________________________

Mike Blair CROCKY

(in reply to siRkid)
Post #: 137
Kirishima :( - 5/15/2002 6:21:37 PM   
Crocky


Posts: 417
Joined: 12/4/2001
From: Christchurch New Zealand
Status: offline
The Japanese Navy is sad to announce the loss of the battleship Kirishima......battling against heavy odd the Kirishima managed to sink an enemy battleship several cruiser and many destroyers and PT boats...unfortunately the damage sustained by this great vessel was too much and she sank apprx 150 miles from her base at Shortland Island

Long will she be remember and may she be an inspiration to us all

_____________________________

Mike Blair CROCKY

(in reply to siRkid)
Post #: 138
- 5/15/2002 6:54:59 PM   
siRkid


Posts: 6650
Joined: 1/29/2002
From: Orland FL
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by cpt_Venomous
[B]LOL!
Right, almost forgot that feature, maybe Rick could clarify exact hits? [/B][/QUOTE]

Yes the FOW is effective. I only took one torpedo hit during the air attack. Until today I felt really good about hitting all three of Crocky's carriers.....sigh. Also, the sinking of his BB has not shown up on my sunk list yet.

_____________________________

Former War in the Pacific Test Team Manager and Beta Tester for War in the East.


(in reply to siRkid)
Post #: 139
- 5/15/2002 11:49:38 PM   
Sinjen


Posts: 113
Joined: 3/22/2002
From: Florida
Status: offline
The Kirishima died a proud death in the finest japanese naval traditions. I'm sure alot of Japanese Captains are envious of all the honor heaped upon the name and crew of the Kirishima.

The only negative thing for the japanese and positive for the U.S. is that the US can afford to trade ships and the Japanese cannot. However, I do think the Japanese recieve a greater number of Battleships in the campaign???

(in reply to siRkid)
Post #: 140
- 5/16/2002 3:07:46 AM   
Crocky


Posts: 417
Joined: 12/4/2001
From: Christchurch New Zealand
Status: offline
What !!!!!! are you saying that my guys reported 5 hits on the South Dakota and they only achieved 1 ??????

Talk about exagerated :)

_____________________________

Mike Blair CROCKY

(in reply to siRkid)
Post #: 141
IJN Ship Captains - 5/16/2002 3:14:26 AM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline
Hi, I've discovered a sure fire way for knowing when a Japanese ship goes down. Capt Blankshro Insertanameohere has been killed......The next message is always IJN ship Fulloftorpedoholesnowandonfireami sinks. The really bad thing is they don't go into the pool to replace others killed in action. I've tried to explain to them to wait for the war to end and then we can have a mass captainswholostthereships seppeku party (and save on pensions)

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to siRkid)
Post #: 142
Lunga Falls - 5/16/2002 8:40:03 AM   
Crocky


Posts: 417
Joined: 12/4/2001
From: Christchurch New Zealand
Status: offline
and the tenants left it in a helluva state

70% runway damage
45% everything else they could have at least tidied up before I moved in :)

_____________________________

Mike Blair CROCKY

(in reply to siRkid)
Post #: 143
Demolition Man - 5/16/2002 9:56:17 AM   
gus

 

Posts: 237
Joined: 3/16/2002
From: Corvallis, OR
Status: offline
Crocky,

This actually raises an intersting point for me. If you are in possession of a base that is in danger of being overrun or you need to evacuate, is it possible to destroy or damage the base facilities on purpose so it is unusable or less useful to the enemy?

If so, can any unit be assigned this task or is it only support/service/engineering units that provide this function?

-g

(in reply to siRkid)
Post #: 144
Re: Demolition Man - 5/16/2002 10:00:57 AM   
siRkid


Posts: 6650
Joined: 1/29/2002
From: Orland FL
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by gus
[B]Crocky,

This actually raises an intersting point for me. If you are in possession of a base that is in danger of being overrun or you need to evacuate, is it possible to destroy or damage the base facilities on purpose so it is unusable or less useful to the enemy?

If so, can any unit be assigned this task or is it only support/service/engineering units that provide this function?

-g [/B][/QUOTE]

No you can not. One thing that would make it hard is judging when to do it, but you can always ask for it in the patch or WITP.

Rick

_____________________________

Former War in the Pacific Test Team Manager and Beta Tester for War in the East.


(in reply to siRkid)
Post #: 145
Re: Re: Demolition Man - 5/16/2002 10:06:49 AM   
gus

 

Posts: 237
Joined: 3/16/2002
From: Corvallis, OR
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kid
[B]

No you can not. One thing that would make it hard is judging when to do it, but you can always ask for it in the patch or WITP.

Rick [/B][/QUOTE]

Thanks Kid!

Before I ask for this in UV or WitP I'll wait until I have the game and see if this is even an issue when I play.

BTW enjoyed you AAR's quite a bit.

-g

(in reply to siRkid)
Post #: 146
Base destruction - 5/16/2002 11:44:08 AM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline
Greetings sounds like a combat option for WiTP esp for Raiders and such (capture base destroy everything and skeedadle. )
Engineers could be required to select destroy facilities order and a certain number of turns later it occurs (based on size and exp of eng unit I have not found occasion for it yet in UV but I am certain I would want to preform destruction prior to evac.

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to siRkid)
Post #: 147
- 5/17/2002 4:01:18 AM   
Crocky


Posts: 417
Joined: 12/4/2001
From: Christchurch New Zealand
Status: offline
Period of consolidation now that Lunga is taken

_____________________________

Mike Blair CROCKY

(in reply to siRkid)
Post #: 148
- 5/18/2002 9:24:24 AM   
siRkid


Posts: 6650
Joined: 1/29/2002
From: Orland FL
Status: offline
The action has shifted to the air over New Guinea again.

Question, now that everyone has their own game should we keep this ARR up?

_____________________________

Former War in the Pacific Test Team Manager and Beta Tester for War in the East.


(in reply to siRkid)
Post #: 149
- 5/18/2002 9:37:55 AM   
IChristie

 

Posts: 673
Joined: 3/26/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada
Status: offline
Y -- E --- S

_____________________________

Iain Christie
-----------------
"If patience is a virtue then persistence is it's part.
It's better to light a candle than stand and curse the dark"

- James Keelaghan

(in reply to siRkid)
Post #: 150
Page:   <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> After Action Reports >> Re: Exactly Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

3.926