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: 7Feb42 combat results:

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: 7Feb42 combat results: Page: <<   < prev  49 50 [51] 52 53   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: 7Feb42 combat results: - 10/8/2012 1:50:02 AM   
larryfulkerson


Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline
quote:

....fail to invade malaya/burma or use cap to cover ships or surface warships to cover transports does not make for an interesting game.

I just read this in the forum and I realilzed it fit me. I'll try to do all those things from now on to make this a more interesting game you guys. Sorry, I'm sure my inexperience is showing.

(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 1501
RE: 7Feb42 combat results: - 10/8/2012 2:24:40 AM   
moore4807


Posts: 1089
Joined: 6/2/2000
From: Punta Gorda FL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: larryfulkerson

...fail to invade malaya/burma or use cap to cover ships or surface warships to cover transports does not make for an interesting game


Could you enlighten me a little as to who/what the context of this post was about? You would be silly to not use whatever defensive assets at your disposal to protect your TF's... Besides that statement would be completely unhistorical for the USN doctrine of WWII...


quote:

I just read this in the forum and I realilzed it fit me. I'll try to do all those things from now on to make this a more interesting game you guys. Sorry, I'm sure my inexperience is showing.


Fact checks - Larry has invested 90% of Burma in first 90 days of war - CHECK.

CAP over TF's or Warships covering transports - yeah within reason, but DD's protecting TK' are not uncommon due to tankers relative superior speed to PB/SC's I agree capital warships do not usually cover convoy TF's and haven't seen you do that this game.

I do not use CAP or LRCAP on convoy TF's, BUT will I use the convoy as bait and have a CVTF trail it by 3 hexes so it does get some bleedover CAP that way. CHECK.

So I really don't see what your agreeing that your wrong with?

_____________________________


(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 1502
RE: 7Feb42 combat results: - 10/8/2012 3:42:09 AM   
larryfulkerson


Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline
quote:


Could you enlighten me a little as to who/what the context of this post was about?

Um......somebody, I don't remember who just now, was complaining about the number of opponents he's had who quit early and / or
didn't go the distance with their games with him and how it was getting hard to find quality opponents who will stick with it even though
they loose their CV's etc. Come to think of it I think it was This Thread:
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3187862

Anyway I posted something about the two games I have going and contributed my $0.02 to the conversation.

I don't remember ever having any capital ships in any of my invading TF's. Although the great majority of my invasions have been onto
empty bases so far. Well, even when I invaded Port Moresby I didn't include any capital ships and should have. Looking back on it now
I'm thinking I could have prevented the damage to the AK's that occured if only I had included some big guns.

(in reply to moore4807)
Post #: 1503
RE: 7Feb42 combat results: - 10/8/2012 4:59:40 AM   
moore4807


Posts: 1089
Joined: 6/2/2000
From: Punta Gorda FL
Status: offline
Larry,
I read your post above then went to the thread... I can only repeat my solution to your keeping the games seperate in your head... YOU need to get a three part notebook and dedicate one section to each game... It is the ONLY way I'm keeping any organization between the games.

I'm wary of putting capital ships in invasion TF's. I look at it the same as fighters flying escort duty, itakes away thier strength and plays to the defender. It still is something that has to be done under the right conditions though...

Put a bombardment TF trailing an invasion TF (by zero hexes) and there are many more hits on target by bombardment than hodge-podge as part of the invasion...
You are actually just drawing fire to your big guns, which may not be a bad idea if your desperate to avoid damage to your AP's, but dock time for the BB/CA can be a lengthy payback.

as you said "just my $.02"

Friends
Jim

_____________________________


(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 1504
8Feb42 combat results: - 10/8/2012 10:20:48 AM   
larryfulkerson


Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline 		Okie dokie.......it's Monday 8Oct2012 @ 02:18 and I've just gotten done w/ Rob's moves and now I'm jumping on Jim's moves. This is
the latest combat results:

The damage done to my sub in this attack was serious enough to give it 11 sys and 11 flt and I'm sending it back to the docks to get
repaired. That will effectively leave Johnston island "open" of Jap influence and I won't know what's there until one of my other subs
arrives. Jim could ship in a whole division and I won't know it. D'oh.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to moore4807)
Post #: 1505
RE: 8Feb42 combat results: - 10/8/2012 10:24:38 AM   
larryfulkerson


Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline 		I got lucky and caught a couple of Allied ships near Canton. Next stop: Palmyra to see what's happening there.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 1506
RE: 8Feb42 combat results: - 10/8/2012 10:30:54 AM   
larryfulkerson


Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline 		The only subs left at Kwajalen are damaged and probably going to have to go to Yokahama for further repairs in a repair yard
because they have major damage that can't be fixed at location code named Circle K.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 1507
RE: 8Feb42 combat results: - 10/8/2012 10:35:34 AM   
larryfulkerson


Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline 		I guess Jim thought he'd get his AVG group to sweep Canton and they knocked down one of my Oscars. I may have to send a
second Oscar group to Canton just to get back to a level playing field.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 1508
RE: 8Feb42 combat results: - 10/8/2012 10:41:55 AM   
larryfulkerson


Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline 		Operation BEAT DOWN continues........Jim's P-40's are getting fewer and fewer and my Betty's got through the CAP okie dokie and
got some hits on the Allied ground forces there. Operation BEAT DOWN is going to require a lot more of this type of raid though.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 1509
RE: 8Feb42 combat results: - 10/8/2012 10:48:38 AM   
larryfulkerson


Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline 		I got some bombers damaged for no good reason I guess. Very little damage to show for the effort. And Loemadjang probably didn't
need the attention at all. Maybe I should go for the airfield @ Malang instead.






Attachment (1)

< Message edited by larryfulkerson -- 10/8/2012 10:50:04 AM >

(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 1510
RE: 8Feb42 combat results: - 10/8/2012 10:52:45 AM   
larryfulkerson


Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline 		The Allied 22nd Indian Bde is still getting some attention from my Sally's. It should be low hanging fruit by now I'm guessing. Maybe a
Deliberate Attack might be in order on the ground.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 1511
RE: 8Feb42 combat results: - 10/8/2012 10:55:46 AM   
larryfulkerson


Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline 		Evidently, Clark Field has an AA unit present. But only 1 loss out of 25 Lilly's is acceptable ( 4%) and I'm planning on these raids to
continue and see what happens.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 1512
RE: 8Feb42 combat results: - 10/8/2012 10:58:21 AM   
larryfulkerson


Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline 		And then there was another air strike on Manila. I'm thinking this kind of raid might have to continue for a long while yet.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 1513
RE: 8Feb42 combat results: - 10/8/2012 11:04:49 AM   
larryfulkerson


Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline 		There was an Allied air strike on the shipping at Palembang and the 3 Dutch planes didn't hit anything but I still moved a full
squadron of Zero's to Palley so that they don't hit anything in the future. I should have done that several days ago but.....




Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 1514
RE: 8Feb42 combat results: - 10/8/2012 11:09:05 AM   
larryfulkerson


Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline 		There was a low-grade furball at location code named Banjo and nobody got hurt so it was good practice for the real thing later.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 1515
RE: 8Feb42 combat results: - 10/8/2012 11:12:45 AM   
larryfulkerson


Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline 		My Betty's are still trying to make a difference at Port Moresby. I can't tell if these raids are doing anything. I'm hoping we're scoring
at least some disruption among the Allied units there.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 1516
RE: 8Feb42 combat results: - 10/8/2012 11:15:27 AM   
larryfulkerson


Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline 		Please excuse the crazy cropping of this next image.....I'm attempting some OPSEC for locations further south.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 1517
RE: 8Feb42 combat results: - 10/8/2012 11:19:11 AM   
larryfulkerson


Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline 		And then there was the obligatory B-17 raid on Port Moresby. I've learned to count on one B-17 raid per day at least.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 1518
RE: 8Feb42 combat results: - 10/8/2012 11:22:11 AM   
larryfulkerson


Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline 		Now that the cat's out of the bag about there being a sub at Christmas Island IO there's no need for the OPSEC above. Oh well, live
and learn. Who knew?




Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 1519
RE: 8Feb42 combat results: - 10/8/2012 11:24:32 AM   
larryfulkerson


Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline 		And the next thing that happened is this Jap bombardment attack at Manila.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 1520
RE: 8Feb42 combat results: - 10/8/2012 11:27:33 AM   
larryfulkerson


Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline 		And the next thing I want to talk about is this Jap bombardment attack at Cebu:




Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 1521
RE: 8Feb42 combat results: - 10/8/2012 11:30:20 AM   
larryfulkerson


Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline 		The odds are so good, as revealed by this recon by bombardment, that I've already ordered a DA for next morning.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 1522
RE: 8Feb42 combat results: - 10/8/2012 11:36:56 AM   
larryfulkerson


Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline 		And then the Allies launched some bombardment @ Port Moresby and I lost some more troops




Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 1523
RE: 8Feb42 combat results: - 10/8/2012 11:40:23 AM   
larryfulkerson


Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline 		I haven't been reporting a lot of attacks in China because the pictures don't look so nice.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 1524
RE: 8Feb42 combat results: - 10/8/2012 2:45:19 PM   
larryfulkerson


Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline 		I wonder if I've discovered a bug in the Reluctant Admiral scenario 70? There's a map label saying Kushu and then there's the
cursor popup that says something different and I'm wondering if it's a database error or something. Who is the arthur of this scenario
anyway......maybe we should give him(them) a head's up about this. Or maybe Jim and I are playing with an old version and it's
already been fixed. Enquiring minds want to know. Anybody else have RA 4.2 scenario 70? Does your map say the same thing?

EDIT: I've looked at the map again and I think maybe that label next to the city is in larger type and therefore stands for the, like,
province and the map popup is correct with the city name. And there is no bug at all. Well, the label IS close to the city. Too much
Black Label for so early in the am. Although, I don't feel too bad.......mankind has been numbing it's pain with something like Black
Label for at least since there were two people. The muslums invented alcohol via the distillation process in something like 700 AD. So
there's been a market for altered states of consciousness for a long time. For a reason. Pain hurts. I think maybe everybody can
understand that because, I'm guessing, most people have been hurt in one way or another, physically or mentally, or maybe they are
hurting now. Just a thought.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by larryfulkerson -- 10/8/2012 2:52:55 PM >

(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 1525
RE: 8Feb42 combat results: - 10/8/2012 2:58:42 PM   
larryfulkerson


Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline 		I believe I've found an AA unit in Japan that doesn't seem to have any of it's equipment.....the guns and vehicles etc. I wonder if I've
misjudged something somehow and left myself without any armament and vehicles at all in the pool.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 1526
RE: 8Feb42 combat results: - 10/8/2012 3:06:50 PM   
larryfulkerson


Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline 		I counted 12 Allied subs in this one image. Jim seems to be serious about his sub warfare. That must be like 1/3 of his fleet, maybe
more. I hadn't really thought to stop and consider where I would put the Allied subs if I were Jim. I'm guessing (1) around the home
islands, (2) around Palembang, (3) near important ports: Saigon, Hong Kong, Balikpapan, Miri etc. At least I'm thinking that's where I
would put them......at least to start.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 1527
RE: 8Feb42 combat results: - 10/8/2012 3:13:17 PM   
larryfulkerson


Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline 		I meant to post this earlier and forgot......This is the industry button panel and it shows that Armaments in the Pool is looking pretty
good I think at 30K+. But there's only 4 vehicles in the pool. I've probably left some unit that didn't need any replacements yet with it
"receives replacements" button turned on still. D'oh. So I'm thinking that I need to bump up production of vehicles a bit. Maybe a lot,
but I want to bump it up slowly and watch what happens and not overshoot in production because that stuff is expensive in HI.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 1528
RE: 8Feb42 combat results: - 10/8/2012 3:18:34 PM   
larryfulkerson


Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline 		Here's me bumping up Yokahoma from 35 to 50....making total production 215 instead of just 200. That's not a huge leap and maybe
won't make a dent in the numbers at the pool but I don't want to wreck my economy ( run out of HI too soon ).




Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 1529
RE: 8Feb42 combat results: - 10/8/2012 3:27:51 PM   
larryfulkerson


Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline 		I found a division in Japan that I'm not using yet. But I can't use it yet because it's in a restricted command and I can't change it
because of a lack of PP's.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 1530
Page:   <<   < prev  49 50 [51] 52 53   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: 7Feb42 combat results: Page: <<   < prev  49 50 [51] 52 53   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

1.250