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: Battle for Korea

 
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: Battle for Korea Page: <<   < prev  122 123 [124] 125 126   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Battle for Korea - 2/12/2014 3:07:25 PM   
Crackaces


Posts: 3858
Joined: 7/9/2011
Status: offline
quote:

What say you guys. Its a risky move but it certainly has potential. Erik has been slow to adapt to these armored rushes in China where the CMA has run amok for 3 months now. Most of the armor is on the Western coast. I can have them in Gunzan in two days. Question is if the armor alone can secure and hold there until the infantry arrives.
Or am I simply better off staying put and/or try to just engage his superstack in the open?


Depends on your objectives and victory conditions [I am reminded that you all are not playing for points]

I am of the ilk if you feel confident in your ability to assess adjusted AV including firepower and supply to use
just enough force to pin the superstacks in place and then use judicious force to blitzkrieg like you did in China.
A strategy of engaging his forces in the open will expend time and space for lots of IJ blood [i.e. LCU points if you are counting]

I like option #1 from the standpoint of interdicting LOC's and disrupting the supply pulse algorithm, which from my
POV causes deeper strategic supply problems. This takes awhile but once it starts it cascades ....

Option #2 is simple .. like US civil war General Grant operational style . line 'em up and attrite .. a lot less to think about ..

How are the Soviets doing?


_____________________________

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so"

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 3691
RE: Battle for Korea - 2/12/2014 5:55:03 PM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 8262
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline
Cool, just got my first two x5 aces.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by JocMeister -- 2/12/2014 6:56:19 PM >

(in reply to Crackaces)
Post #: 3692
RE: Battle for Korea - 2/12/2014 6:19:20 PM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 8262
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Crackaces

quote:

What say you guys. Its a risky move but it certainly has potential. Erik has been slow to adapt to these armored rushes in China where the CMA has run amok for 3 months now. Most of the armor is on the Western coast. I can have them in Gunzan in two days. Question is if the armor alone can secure and hold there until the infantry arrives.
Or am I simply better off staying put and/or try to just engage his superstack in the open?


Depends on your objectives and victory conditions [I am reminded that you all are not playing for points]

I am of the ilk if you feel confident in your ability to assess adjusted AV including firepower and supply to use
just enough force to pin the superstacks in place and then use judicious force to blitzkrieg like you did in China.
A strategy of engaging his forces in the open will expend time and space for lots of IJ blood [i.e. LCU points if you are counting]

I like option #1 from the standpoint of interdicting LOC's and disrupting the supply pulse algorithm, which from my
POV causes deeper strategic supply problems. This takes awhile but once it starts it cascades ....

Option #2 is simple .. like US civil war General Grant operational style . line 'em up and attrite .. a lot less to think about ..

How are the Soviets doing?



Turns out the situation resolved itself. IJA is in full retreat in Korea. I might do something here anyway!

My main goal (personal goal) is to try and achieve AV before the historical date. Probably impossible now with the added losses giving another 10k VPs to the Japanese. Iīm also hellbent on breaking the back of the Japanese air force and bomb the industry to the stoneage with a daylight bombing campaign!

The SU are all ready to go. Just waiting for the activation...canīt wait!

(in reply to Crackaces)
Post #: 3693
RE: Battle for Korea - 2/12/2014 9:37:46 PM   
Crackaces


Posts: 3858
Joined: 7/9/2011
Status: offline
excellent ... I rather think the IJ have become quite aware of the pickle they are in .. having Billions of AV means
little if not supplies .. sure the engine will calculate firepower and results the first attack and then the effects
of supply take their toll ..

I have found that at least roads and limited roads limit supply to LCU's I am not sure what rail can bring to LCU's in the open ...

Supply to bases is very easy to track in WiTP tracker .. LCU supply takes some work that gets tedious once LCU's are engaged ..
A side effect is bases suddenly losing supply and not achieving the X2 required to sustain losses and resupply attacks ..

Fusan falls and the entire Korean Peninsula gets weird depending on stockpiling settings ..

Your opponent might or might not appreciate this behavior .. I suspect if you get an email how borked this game is .. he has encountered this software behavior

_____________________________

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so"

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 3694
RE: Battle for Korea - 2/12/2014 10:31:27 PM   
poodlebrain

 

Posts: 392
Joined: 10/4/2012
From: Comfy Chair in Baton Rouge
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

Moppo
______________________________________________________________________________

Looks like we will hold out for a while now! Quite embarrassingly I missed a ID among the troops. So its 5 US IDs and not 4. Whoops!



I noticed that you are not expanding the airfield at Moppo. I think you have adequate supply to get the job finished.


_____________________________

Never trust a man who's ass is wider than his shoulders.

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 3695
RE: Battle for Korea - 2/13/2014 4:49:14 AM   
JeffroK


Posts: 6391
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline
Dont expect 1st Cav to move too quickly, it basically an Infantry Division with an odd OOB, not a mobile Division.

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 3696
RE: Battle for Korea - 2/13/2014 4:56:55 AM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 8262
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Crackaces

excellent ... I rather think the IJ have become quite aware of the pickle they are in .. having Billions of AV means
little if not supplies .. sure the engine will calculate firepower and results the first attack and then the effects
of supply take their toll ..

I have found that at least roads and limited roads limit supply to LCU's I am not sure what rail can bring to LCU's in the open ...

Supply to bases is very easy to track in WiTP tracker .. LCU supply takes some work that gets tedious once LCU's are engaged ..
A side effect is bases suddenly losing supply and not achieving the X2 required to sustain losses and resupply attacks ..

Fusan falls and the entire Korean Peninsula gets weird depending on stockpiling settings ..

Your opponent might or might not appreciate this behavior .. I suspect if you get an email how borked this game is .. he has encountered this software behavior


Considering supply seems completely out in China I was very surprised to see 500.000 men move into Korea. Just moving around the Manchurian troops must have started a huge supply drain on the system. Iīm not sure how bad the situation is for him but every battle in China for the last month have meant a (-) supply for him.

Might be that he had a supply reserve on the HI that he intended to use in Korea. But either it wasnīt enough to maintain that many troops or possibly it was drawn away into China?

Either way it was a gamble. And if I hadnīt been able to land reinforcements it might have work. Probably not considering all the armor but it might have. It was a bold move so hats off for that. I certainly didnīt expect it and that was a big mistake on my part and I was caught with my pants down. Iīve learned a very good lesson here that I will take with me!

(in reply to Crackaces)
Post #: 3697
RE: Battle for Korea - 2/13/2014 5:00:09 AM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 8262
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: poodlebrain

]I noticed that you are not expanding the airfield at Moppo. I think you have adequate supply to get the job finished.


Absolutely. I turned it off so they would focus on repairing the AF. This is the first turn its completely fixed. Donīt think they expand anything as long as there is damage but I wanted to be certain.

Actually started some forts now instead. I think it will give a little shelter from bombardments?

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK
Dont expect 1st Cav to move too quickly, it basically an Infantry Division with an odd OOB, not a mobile Division.


Oh, they move at the same speed as an ID? That is a disappointment!

(in reply to poodlebrain)
Post #: 3698
RE: Battle for Korea - 2/13/2014 5:39:22 AM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 8262
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline
8th June -45
______________________________________________________________________________

Interesting turn. No IJAAF offensive missions over Korea today.

------------------------
Korea
------------------------

Not one Japanese Sweep flown today! Still 350 Fighters at Fusan. The Japanese Superstack in the clear has pulled back to Gunzan. Iīll move up there and see what I can find. Its a clear hex and it just might be possible to do some damage depending on forts.

I let the Fighters stay for one more day at Moppo to provide LRCAP for a landing on Saishu To. This in one of the lessons learned. When I landed at Moppo I didnīt have room for that ID and was reluctant to try and cover two landings at the same time but in hindsight I should have gone for it anyway. Having two bases instead of one would have made things a lot easier.

Erik has flown in some troops to the island (x2 terrain) but the 4Es paid a visit this turn.

quote:

Afternoon Air attack on 11th Ind.Mixed Regiment, at 99,55 (Saishu To)

Weather in hex: Thunderstorms

Raid spotted at 20 NM, estimated altitude 11,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 6 minutes

Allied aircraft
Liberator B.VI x 17
Liberator GR.VI x 9
B-24J Liberator x 9
Spitfire VIII x 13
B-17E Fortress x 2
B-17F Fortress x 3
B-24J Liberator x 46
F4U-1D Corsair x 13
PB4Y-1 Liberator x 17


No Allied losses

Japanese ground losses:
756 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 41 disabled
Non Combat: 2 destroyed, 64 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 8 disabled
Guns lost 26 (1 destroyed, 25 disabled)


Given the damaged caused despite bad weather I donīt think there is much in way of forts. My ID is split though. This is because 2 of the parts upgraded with the 57mm AT gun. There are guns in the pool now but Iīm not sure it will upgrade at an enemy base despite having a Command HQ one hex away. Anyone knows?

Here is the defensive bombardment. I will probably have to let the bombers soften them up some more unless I can combine the ID.

quote:

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

Ground combat at Saishu To (99,55)

Japanese Bombardment attack

Attacking force 4181 troops, 72 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 112

Defending force 10396 troops, 213 guns, 212 vehicles, Assault Value = 368

Japanese ground losses:
103 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 8 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled


Assaulting units:
11th Ind.Mixed Rgt /2
108th Ind.Mixed Brigade
2nd Amphibious Bde /1


Defending units:
40th Infantry/A Div /1
40th Infantry/B Div /1
40th Infantry/C Div /1


I will pull the CAP from Moppo this turn. I canīt defend properly against Bombardments right now and I donīt want to lose any planes on the ground. My Fleet canīt hang around anymore. I lost 70 planes when the CVs tried to hit a CL at Nagasaki and fuel is low in all the TF and the oilers and AEs are dry. I need to head back to Okinawa and replenish.

------------------------
China
------------------------

More good news here. The attack at Changsha went very well!

quote:

Ground combat at Changsha (82,52)

Allied Deliberate attack

Attacking force 60057 troops, 1024 guns, 2050 vehicles, Assault Value = 2783

Defending force 31866 troops, 298 guns, 33 vehicles, Assault Value = 702

Allied engineers reduce fortifications to 4

Allied adjusted assault: 1701

Japanese adjusted defense: 819

Allied assault odds: 2 to 1 (fort level 4)

Allied Assault reduces fortifications to 4

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), forts(+), disruption(-), preparation(-)
experience(-), supply(-)

Attacker:

Japanese ground losses:
1722 casualties reported
Squads: 218 destroyed, 109 disabled
Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 48 disabled
Engineers: 7 destroyed, 21 disabled
Guns lost 38 (11 destroyed, 27 disabled)
Vehicles lost 4 (2 destroyed, 2 disabled)


Allied ground losses:
1412 casualties reported
Squads: 7 destroyed, 83 disabled
Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 38 disabled
Engineers: 2 destroyed, 26 disabled
Vehicles lost 38 (2 destroyed, 36 disabled)


Assaulting units:
17th Motorised Division
18th Cavalry Regiment
50th Tank Brigade
Guides Cavalry Regiment
Gardner's Horse Regiment
19th Motorised Division
Provisionl Tank Brigade
254th Armoured Brigade
6th Australian Division
3rd Cavalry Regiment
255th Indian Tank Brigade
11th PAVO Regiment
9th Australian Division
14th Army
2/9th Field Regiment
2/11th Field Regiment
2/13th Field Regiment


Defending units:
35th Division
65th Brigade
32nd Division
51st Division
58th Infantry Regiment
5th Ind.Mixed Brigade
63rd Division
13th RGC Temp./B Division
56th Const Co
8th Ind. Field Artillery Battalion
54th JAAF AF Bn


I need to rest for a day to let supply flow in and the troops recover some DIS but Iīm confident Changsha will fall within 2 weeks. Good news!

------------------------
Logistics
------------------------

The last of the fuel shipments have arrived from the WC. I wonīt send any more now. I have 800k fuel at Naha and another 500.000 at Manila. I also have another 600.000 aboard oilers and another 650.000 aboard tankers waiting to unload. Production is going well in the DEI and there is about 500.000 at Palembang, Soerabaja, Balikpapan and Tarakan. Local production will be able to maintain me.

Supplies will continue to flow from the WC for the rest of the game. Iīm barely keeping up with demand and I am currently burning about 1-1,5 million per month! Another 4 million more are coming in the next month but I wanted to earmark 2 of those to the SU.

------------------------
Strat Bombing
------------------------

Fires continue to burn as Osaka and another 50 HI and 30 LI are burned down. Only 120 fires left now though. We will fly another mission tomorrow. Not at Osaka though!





Attachment (1)

< Message edited by JocMeister -- 2/13/2014 7:22:49 AM >

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 3699
RE: Battle for Korea - 2/13/2014 6:43:34 AM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 8262
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline
China
______________________________________________________________________________

Here is the current situation. With the isolation of the Canton stack there are no longer any significant Japanese forces in China besides 75.000 troops at Shanghai. As soon as Changsha is secured the CMA will race East. I also have a little surprise planned in the next month.

On a personal level nothing in this game has been so satisfying as wiping out Japanese forces in China. Playing the allies here in 42 was (and is) an never ending exercise in frustration. Once supply runs out there is nothing you can do. At least it turned out the same way with the roles reversed. I didnīt even need the Chinese to clear it out. It shows just how easily anything crumbles once supply runs out.

I understand the difficulties with balancing this but having more balance in this theater could actually make it quite fun for both sides to play.

Here is a map.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 3700
RE: Battle for Korea - 2/13/2014 6:50:26 AM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 8262
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline
DEI
______________________________________________________________________________

Here is a screen. No real combat has been happening here for months. Erik just left a very small rear guard at Palembang and despite the level 9 forts it was quickly overcome.

Singers is the last bastion but I donīt think I have troop to retake it.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 3701
RE: Battle for Korea - 2/13/2014 8:06:30 AM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 8262
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline
Japanese Industry (Updated)
______________________________________________________________________________

Here are the adjusted numbers.

------------------------
Fighters
------------------------

Ki-83r Frank: 178 (-200)
A7M2 Sam: 256
J2M5 Jack 145 (-50)
Ki-83: 22 (-40)
Ki-44 Tojo: 111
N1K2-J George: 72
Ki-100-I Tony: 67
Ki-102c Randy: 73
Ki-43-IV Oscar: 153
J7W1-Shinden: 30 (-60)

Total Fighters per month (found so far): 1030(-350)

------------------------
Things to note
------------------------

A7M2 Sam: Erik has lost a heap of this plane in the last month. Total losses are 1600. The first sighting of this plane was on 1/45 (probably started producing a lot earlier though). But that would give 1500 planes produced from 1/45. So depending on when actual production started he could be getting low.

Ki-83: Showed up in 2/45. 90 plane production would give 540 planes produced. Only 200 destroyed. Good pool of those in other words.

J7W1 Shinden: Not yet seen on map. Due to arrive 6/45. Only 30 production remaining.

Ki-83r: Going only by what Erik told me he has a good pool of those. Still over half the production capacity is gone and we have shot down 1400. That is only 3 months of production though. Little hope that these are running low.


------------------------
Priority Targets
------------------------

I will continue to strike at Eriks fighter production. Right or wrong Iīm now committed to that road.

In order of priority:
Shinden
Ki-83
Frank
Sam


< Message edited by JocMeister -- 2/13/2014 1:07:37 PM >

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 3702
RE: Battle for Korea - 2/13/2014 2:18:58 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
Units must be in a friendly base for their devices to upgrade, and 'upgrade' must be on. No HQ influence needed. There must also be adequate supply, and I am sure that they have to pass various Grigsby checks!

_____________________________


(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 3703
RE: Battle for Korea - 2/13/2014 2:21:53 PM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 8262
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline
I was afraid of that! Thanks witpqs!

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 3704
RE: Battle for Korea - 2/13/2014 7:23:37 PM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 8262
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline
9th June -45
______________________________________________________________________________

Very quiet turn. Especially compared to the last weeks!

------------------------
Korea
------------------------

I expected a bombardment at Moppo during the night and true enough...

quote:

Night Naval bombardment of Moppo at 100,54

Allied aircraft
no flights

Allied aircraft losses
PBY-5 Catalina: 12 damaged
PBY-5 Catalina: 1 destroyed on ground
P-47D25 Thunderbolt: 4 damaged
P-47D25 Thunderbolt: 1 destroyed on ground
PBM-3D Mariner: 3 damaged
PBM-3D Mariner: 1 destroyed on ground


Japanese Ships
BB Hyuga
BB Ise
BB Fuso
BB Mutsu


Allied ground losses:
762 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 29 destroyed, 47 disabled
Engineers: 60 destroyed, 37 disabled
Guns lost 5 (2 destroyed, 3 disabled)
Vehicles lost 40 (19 destroyed, 21 disabled)


Manpower hits 2
Fires 2792
Airbase hits 12
Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 36
Port hits 1
Port supply hits 1


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Naval bombardment of Moppo at 100,54

Allied aircraft
no flights

Allied aircraft losses
PBY-5 Catalina: 1 damaged
PBY-5 Catalina: 1 destroyed on ground
PBM-3D Mariner: 5 damaged
PBM-3D Mariner: 1 destroyed on ground
P-47D25 Thunderbolt: 1 damaged
P-47N Thunderbolt: 1 damaged
P-47N Thunderbolt: 1 destroyed on ground


Japanese Ships
BB Musashi
BB Yamato


Allied ground losses:
318 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 7 destroyed, 4 disabled
Engineers: 25 destroyed, 3 disabled
Guns lost 5 (4 destroyed, 1 disabled)
Vehicles lost 6 (5 destroyed, 1 disabled)


Manpower hits 1
Fires 5571
Airbase hits 3
Airbase supply hits 2
Runway hits 20
Port hits 2
Port fuel hits 1




I had moved everything out that could fly and only lost 2 planes on the ground. Interestingly enough the level 3 forts seemed offer so protection. Troops disruption is only in the 20s and the airfield is still open with only 23 damage. Good news!

The day cost Erik a little bit too as DD Take is sunk for unknown reasons. Probably a collision.



quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Time Surface Combat, near Moppo at 100,54, Range 16,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
DD Take, and is sunk
DD Nara


Allied Ships
PT-316
PT-317
PT-318
PT-319
PT-320
PT-321
PT-322


Another 4E strike at Saishu-To. With better weather the results are considerably better. I suspect the base will be secured tomorrow.

quote:

Morning Air attack on 11th Ind.Mixed Regiment, at 99,55 (Saishu To)

Weather in hex: Light rain

Raid spotted at 20 NM, estimated altitude 10,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 6 minutes

Allied aircraft
Liberator B.VI x 26
Liberator GR.VI x 16
B-24J Liberator x 3
B-17E Fortress x 5
B-17F Fortress x 5
B-24D Liberator x 3
B-24D1 Liberator x 11
B-24J Liberator x 116
B-25J11 Mitchell x 5
PB4Y-1 Liberator x 9


No Allied losses

Japanese ground losses:
1583 casualties reported
Squads: 25 destroyed, 85 disabled
Non Combat: 6 destroyed, 150 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 12 disabled
Guns lost 22 (8 destroyed, 14 disabled)


The Fleet will reach Naha tomorrow and replenish planes and fuel. I hope to get going again in 3-4 days. We will bring more troops to Moppo as well as BFs and Engineers to Saishu-To.


------------------------
China
------------------------

Scattered attack here. Not much of interest.

------------------------
Strat bombing
------------------------

Strikes rained in.






Attachment (1)

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 3705
RE: Battle for Korea - 2/13/2014 10:12:17 PM   
zuluhour


Posts: 5244
Joined: 1/20/2011
From: Maryland
Status: offline
This part of the game is so foreign to me, for the most part I only gape at your AAR. Your getting close to the "device". Do you plan to use it?

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 3706
RE: Battle for Korea - 2/13/2014 11:11:43 PM   
DOCUP


Posts: 3073
Joined: 7/7/2010
Status: offline
Congrats on getting married.  Keep up the good work.

(in reply to zuluhour)
Post #: 3707
RE: Battle for Korea - 2/14/2014 3:39:00 AM   
Capt. Harlock


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

I had moved everything out that could fly and only lost 2 planes on the ground. Interestingly enough the level 3 forts seemed offer so protection. Troops disruption is only in the 20s and the airfield is still open with only 23 damage. Good news!


Yes, but -- do you smell smoke? (Fires 5571)

_____________________________

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 JocMeister)
Post #: 3708
RE: Battle for Korea - 2/14/2014 6:11:50 AM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 8262
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Capt. Harlock

quote:

I had moved everything out that could fly and only lost 2 planes on the ground. Interestingly enough the level 3 forts seemed offer so protection. Troops disruption is only in the 20s and the airfield is still open with only 23 damage. Good news!


Yes, but -- do you smell smoke? (Fires 5571)


Yes, but the only burn a couple of thousand supply. Its hard to tell how much as some were drawn by the troops. But I think I lost 2-3000 supply by those fires (which are out now). Considering I have half a million supply Iīm not very concerned with them.

Main worry is keeping the airfield open which seem to be working a lot better with the extra equipment and engineers landed. Fields are completely fixed and disruption is down in single digits.




(in reply to Capt. Harlock)
Post #: 3709
RE: Battle for Korea - 2/14/2014 9:08:19 AM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 8262
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline
I just got the last turn back for a while. Erik is off to OZ for 9 days and opted not to bring his computer. Canīt say I blame him... Iīll update the AAR with the last turn today or tomorrow. Then I will just have to try and fill it with nonsense until Erik is back!

Have to rethink how I do the strat bombing campaign. Losses are too high at the moment as I lost another 44(!) 4Es last turn. I have to stop relying on the Sweeps to arrive first. And I canīt bomb multiple targets in the same turn. Most of my escorts attached themselves to the Saishu-To bombings and even a sweep (never seen that before) despite having a target over the HI set.

So back to the drawing board!

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 3710
RE: Battle for Korea - 2/14/2014 10:17:08 AM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 8262
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline
10th June -45
______________________________________________________________________________

Very quiet turn!

------------------------
Korea
------------------------

No action at all in or over Korea today. The bulk of the allied forces are moving towards Gunzan. The defenders at Masan are reinforced by the 2nd USMC division. I now feel confident to hold this position. I will try an bombardment here once we are snug and dug in. I want to try and burn Japanese supply in counter battery fire.

Moppo is completely open again. Not a point of damage. Troops have recovered nicely and disruption is in singel digits. Only 6 damaged planes remain at the base. The level 3 forts seem to have made a big difference. I donīt know if Erik will try any bombardment here again. I donīt think there is much point for him in doing so. At least as long as he doesnīt destroy any planes and Iīm not using the airfield.

No allied planes will be stationed here until the fleet can return and guard against bombardments. The Fleet is one day from Naha.

Saishu-To is easily secured after the 4Es blast 1500 more defenders.

quote:

Ground combat at Saishu To (99,55)

Allied Deliberate attack

Attacking force 10575 troops, 213 guns, 212 vehicles, Assault Value = 388

Defending force 867 troops, 32 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 18

Allied adjusted assault: 272

Japanese adjusted defense: 1

Allied assault odds: 272 to 1 (fort level 0)

Allied forces CAPTURE Saishu To !!!

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), leaders(+), disruption(-), preparation(-)
experience(-), supply(-)

Attacker:

Japanese ground losses:
719 casualties reported
Squads: 63 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 14 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 15 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 34 (34 destroyed, 0 disabled)
Units destroyed 2


Allied ground losses:
9 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled


The fleet will obviously bring BFs and loads of Engineers back with the to get the base operational. Potential level 6 airfield can never be bad thing!

------------------------
China
------------------------

After a second day of attacks in the mountains Tsuyung might actually be on the verge of collapsing. I did not expect that. Good news!

quote:

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

Ground combat at Tsuyung (68,46)

Allied Deliberate attack

Attacking force 42705 troops, 870 guns, 538 vehicles, Assault Value = 836

Defending force 22917 troops, 307 guns, 78 vehicles, Assault Value = 506

Allied engineers reduce fortifications to 0

Allied adjusted assault: 962

Japanese adjusted defense: 607

Allied assault odds: 1 to 1 (fort level 0)

Allied Assault reduces fortifications to 0

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), experience(-), supply(-)
Attacker:

Japanese ground losses:
1402 casualties reported
Squads: 6 destroyed, 68 disabled
Non Combat: 3 destroyed, 21 disabled
Engineers: 3 destroyed, 22 disabled
Guns lost 20 (3 destroyed, 17 disabled)


Allied ground losses:
787 casualties reported
Squads: 23 destroyed, 49 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 32 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 23 disabled


There were some other smaller attacks in China but nothing worth reporting.






Attachment (1)

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 3711
RE: Battle for Korea - 2/14/2014 11:43:13 AM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 8262
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline
Strategic bombing - 10th June
______________________________________________________________________________

This didnīt go exactly as planned...

------------------------
Night bombing
------------------------

On a whim just to try and see if numbers alone could get some hit in I sent in the entire B29 force of around 500 bombers to hit the last working Shinden factory at Tsu. Very good result!

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Air attack on Tsu , at 110,60

Weather in hex: Heavy cloud

Raid detected at 78 NM, estimated altitude 11,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 24 minutes

Japanese aircraft
J1N1-S Irving x 12
J1N1-Sa Irving x 11
Ki-46-III KAI Dinah x 43


Allied aircraft
B-29-1 Superfort x 3
B-29-25 Superfort x 54
B-29B Superfort x 16


Japanese aircraft losses
J1N1-S Irving: 1 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
B-29-25 Superfort: 1 damaged
B-29B Superfort: 1 damaged


J7W1 Shinden factory hits 8

This was followed by about 20 fragments until...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Air attack on Tsu , at 110,60

Weather in hex: Heavy cloud

Raid detected at 30 NM, estimated altitude 12,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 9 minutes

Japanese aircraft
J1N1-Sa Irving x 3
Ki-46-III KAI Dinah x 6


Allied aircraft
B-29B Superfort x 5

No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
B-29B Superfort: 2 damaged

J7W1 Shinden factory hits 3



That is the end of the Shinden factory!

------------------------
Day bombings
------------------------

This turned out to a complete debacle. I had two separate strikes ordered. On smaller strike to hit the LI at Kummato and a big strike to hit the Sam factories at Okayama.

At first things went as planned...except the weather which ruined all chances of a good result.

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Okayama , at 108,58

Weather in hex: Thunderstorms

Raid spotted at 49 NM, estimated altitude 37,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 14 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M5 Zero x 15
A6M5b Zero x 27
A7M2 Sam x 7
J2M3 Jack x 22
N1K1 Rex x 6
Ki-43-IV Oscar x 20
Ki-100-I Tony x 53
Ki-102b Randy x 14


Allied aircraft
P-47N Thunderbolt x 24

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M5 Zero: 2 destroyed
A6M5b Zero: 2 destroyed
J2M3 Jack: 2 destroyed
Ki-43-IV Oscar: 2 destroyed
Ki-100-I Tony: 2 destroyed
Ki-102b Randy: 2 destroyed


Allied aircraft losses
P-47N Thunderbolt: 3 destroyed

But after that things turn sour! The privateers decide to go in all alone. Their escort of P38s flying from the same base decided to tag along the bombers to Saishu-To (flying from a completely different base) despite having Okayama as a specific target...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Okayama , at 108,58

Weather in hex: Thunderstorms

Raid spotted at 23 NM, estimated altitude 16,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 9 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M5 Zero x 10
A6M5b Zero x 19
A7M2 Sam x 6
J2M3 Jack x 14
N1K1 Rex x 3
Ki-43-IV Oscar x 17
Ki-100-I Tony x 44
Ki-102b Randy x 8


Allied aircraft
PB4Y-2 Privateer x 24

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-43-IV Oscar: 1 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
PB4Y-2 Privateer: 4 destroyed, 12 damaged
PB4Y-2 Privateer: 1 destroyed by flak


Without their escort and only one of the 6 sweep arriving before the bombers they suffer a heavy price and 25 Privateers are shot down. They do manage to score some hit despite everything so the attack wasnīt completely in vain!

A7M2 Sam factory hits 2
A7M2 Sam factory hits 2
A7M2 Sam factory hits 1




The raid for Kumamato is a complete disaster. The bombers arrive before the sweeps and the P38 escort actually attaches itself to the sweeps?! WTH?

We exchange 13 LI point for no less then 23 Liberators shot down. Yuck.

Here is a list of today's work.

------------------------
Fighters
------------------------
Ki-83r Frank: 178
A7M2 Sam: 239 (-17)
J2M5 Jack 145
Ki-83: 22
Ki-44 Tojo: 111
N1K2-J George: 72
Ki-100-I Tony: 67
Ki-102c Randy: 73
Ki-43-IV Oscar: 153
J7W1-Shinden: 3 (-27)

Total Fighters per month: 986(-44)






Attachment (1)

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 3712
RE: Battle for Korea - 2/14/2014 5:21:56 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline
What are the strategic VPs up to now?

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 3713
RE: Battle for Korea - 2/14/2014 6:37:40 PM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 8262
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline
Almost 14k. Oddly enough the first 10k was from the Marianas bombing campaign. The big manpower targets (Tokyo/Osaka) burned like crazy back then. But once some of the Manpower got burned down returns started to diminish quickly.

The last bombing of Osaka which reached almost twice the number of fires I managed before only burned down about 150 LI and HI. When I started from the Marianas I could burn down down 200-300 per night with half the fires. Damage is most certainly tied into the number of Manpower at the base. Osaka/Tokyo is really the only the two targets where its worth hitting Manpower at all. And once enough Manpower is knocked out it will be more effective to hit the HI/LI directly.

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 3714
RE: Battle for Korea - 2/14/2014 7:08:35 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

Almost 14k. Oddly enough the first 10k was from the Marianas bombing campaign. The big manpower targets (Tokyo/Osaka) burned like crazy back then. But once some of the Manpower got burned down returns started to diminish quickly.

The last bombing of Osaka which reached almost twice the number of fires I managed before only burned down about 150 LI and HI. When I started from the Marianas I could burn down down 200-300 per night with half the fires. Damage is most certainly tied into the number of Manpower at the base. Osaka/Tokyo is really the only the two targets where its worth hitting Manpower at all. And once enough Manpower is knocked out it will be more effective to hit the HI/LI directly.


I think it's also tied to the size of the base. 10,000 fires is going to do more damage at Palembang, for example, with its 2000 "Industry Points" than at Singapore with its several hundred. At least that's my experience. The bigger the factory, the more likely it is to get damaged by fires.

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 3715
RE: Battle for Korea - 2/14/2014 7:21:20 PM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 8262
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline
Could be a combination of both or one of the two If you hit a place like Takao (8 MAN, 41 LI) you wonīt burn down a single point of LI despite getting a good amount of fires going. But hit the LI directly and it will be gone in a night. I donīt know if that is related to the low number of LI or the low number of MAN.

Since Erik is gone for a week or so Iīll do a sandbox next week and see what I come up with. Should be fairly easy to test.

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 3716
RE: Battle for Korea - 2/14/2014 7:24:47 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

Could be a combination of both or one of the two If you hit a place like Takao (8 MAN, 41 LI) you wonīt burn down a single point of LI despite getting a good amount of fires going. But hit the LI directly and it will be gone in a night. I donīt know if that is related to the low number of LI or the low number of MAN.

Since Erik is gone for a week or so Iīll do a sandbox next week and see what I come up with. Should be fairly easy to test.


Yeah, who knows. There's clearly some kind of relation, whether it's size of manpower, size of industry, or both. It could be a proportional or inverse relationship, too. Who knows?!

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 3717
RE: Battle for Korea - 2/16/2014 4:00:49 PM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 8262
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline
Japanese Fighter pool - Updated
______________________________________________________________________________


A7M2 Sam: Erik has lost a heap of this plane in the last month. Total losses are 1600. The first sighting of this plane was on 1/45 (probably started producing a lot earlier though). But that would give 1500 planes produced from 1/45. So depending on when actual production started he could be getting low.

Ki-83: Showed up in 2/45. 90 plane production would give 540 planes produced. Only 200 destroyed. Good pool of those in other words.

J7W1 Shinden: Not yet seen on map. Due to arrive 6/45. Only 4 production remaining.

Ki-83r: First sighting of the Frank "R" was in 11/44. With a 378 per month production starting 10/44 means about 3500 produced. With only 1100 of these shot down Erik still has a very healthy pool of theses.


(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 3718
RE: Battle for Korea - 2/17/2014 4:03:02 PM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 8262
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline
I was supposed to do some testing with strat bombing today but ended up playing CIV5 instead! Ooops!

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 3719
RE: Battle for Korea - 2/17/2014 4:43:48 PM   
EHansen


Posts: 360
Joined: 12/6/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

I was supposed to do some testing with strat bombing today but ended up playing CIV5 instead! Ooops!


How is Civ5?

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 3720
Page:   <<   < prev  122 123 [124] 125 126   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: Battle for Korea Page: <<   < prev  122 123 [124] 125 126   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

0.781