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: THE WAR COLLEGE-Rio Bravo (A) v. El Lobo (J)

 
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: THE WAR COLLEGE-Rio Bravo (A) v. El Lobo (J) Page: <<   < prev  64 65 [66] 67 68   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: THE WAR COLLEGE-Rio Bravo (A) v. El Lobo (J) - 11/22/2017 3:22:21 AM   
Rio Bravo


Posts: 1794
Joined: 7/13/2013
From: Grass Valley, California
Status: offline
Zecke-


Welcome to The War College!

There is a lot of water between Pearl Harbor and Formosa with only the Marianas in between.

Allied ships are going to get tired making troop reinforcement, supply, and fuel runs to Formosa.

*chuckling*

Best Regards,

-Terry

_____________________________

"No one throws me my own guns and tells me to run. No one."

-Bret (James Coburn); The Magnificent Seven

(in reply to Zecke)
Post #: 1951
RE: THE WAR COLLEGE-Rio Bravo (A) v. El Lobo (J) - 11/22/2017 4:15:23 PM   
Rio Bravo


Posts: 1794
Joined: 7/13/2013
From: Grass Valley, California
Status: offline
Interesting Observations

as of October 5, 1943



1.) Japanese Carriers have been spotted 5 hexes due west of Daito Shoto at hex 93,69):


-CV: 12
-CVE: 2
-CVL: 6

-Total Fighters: 271
-Total Bombers: 211


2.) 5 Allied Carrier Groups reacted leaving the Invasion Fleet and are 3 hexes southwest of the Japanese Carriers at hex 92,72.


-CV: 9
CVE: 12
CVL: 4


-Total Fighters: 384
-Total Bombers: 302


3.) The Allied Invasion Fleet is 3 hexes southwest of the Allied Carriers at hex 89,73 (i.e., 7 hexes due east of Aparri); and is 400 miles southeast of Pescadores and 1,112 miles northwest of Guam.


A map of the Philippine Sea showing the location of the Japanese Carriers, the Allied Carriers, and the Allied Invasion Fleet is below.

Best Regards,

-Terry









Attachment (1)

_____________________________

"No one throws me my own guns and tells me to run. No one."

-Bret (James Coburn); The Magnificent Seven

(in reply to Rio Bravo)
Post #: 1952
RE: THE WAR COLLEGE-Rio Bravo (A) v. El Lobo (J) - 11/22/2017 5:34:21 PM   
HansBolter


Posts: 7704
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: United States
Status: offline
I see the enemy aircraft totals you list are taken from the recon info.

They are exceedingly low. That mass of carriers will have way more than 271 fighters.

Then again, even the number of carriers being reported is subject to heavy FOW.

Even your own totals appear low.

You should have 324 fighters on your 9 CVs alone, if at full strength.

Are you using the replenishment carriers in their intended role or did you convert them to attack CVEs?

Given the deep foray, I would have wanted the ability to replenish air frames on my combat carriers and would have brought a TF of replenishment carriers along.

_____________________________

Hans


(in reply to Rio Bravo)
Post #: 1953
RE: THE WAR COLLEGE-Rio Bravo (A) v. El Lobo (J) - 11/22/2017 6:44:42 PM   
Rio Bravo


Posts: 1794
Joined: 7/13/2013
From: Grass Valley, California
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

I see the enemy aircraft totals you list are taken from the recon info.

They are exceedingly low. That mass of carriers will have way more than 271 fighters.

Then again, even the number of carriers being reported is subject to heavy FOW.

Even your own totals appear low.

You should have 324 fighters on your 9 CVs alone, if at full strength.

Are you using the replenishment carriers in their intended role or did you convert them to attack CVEs?

Given the deep foray, I would have wanted the ability to replenish air frames on my combat carriers and would have brought a TF of replenishment carriers along.



Hans-


As you have noticed and so indicated the Japanese aircraft totals and number and type of Japanese carriers are shown as intelligence indicates and of course subject to FOW.

The totals for the Allied carriers are accurate. Prior to the Invasion Fleet leaving the vicinity of Formosa, I flew off approximately 200 fighters and approximately 200 bombers to Pescadores and Takao.

I am using the replenishment carriers as fighting aircraft. As I have mentioned a few times but you may have forgotten, I first loaded as many carrier capable fighters as the 25 carriers could hold. The remaining aircraft space on the carriers was filled with Dauntless and Avenger. I wanted as many fighters as possible to provide CAP and LRCAP for the carriers, Invasion Fleet, and the three objectives of Amoy, Pescadores, and Takao.

Presently, some of the Allied carriers do not have any aircraft on them.

Best Regards,

-Terry



_____________________________

"No one throws me my own guns and tells me to run. No one."

-Bret (James Coburn); The Magnificent Seven

(in reply to HansBolter)
Post #: 1954
RE: THE WAR COLLEGE-Rio Bravo (A) v. El Lobo (J) - 11/23/2017 3:18:27 AM   
Rio Bravo


Posts: 1794
Joined: 7/13/2013
From: Grass Valley, California
Status: offline
After Action Report

October 5, 1943



Highlight for Today

1.) Japanese Carrier Aircraft attack the Allied Invasion Fleet and take a beating.

2.) The grand tally for aircraft and ships losses for today is as follows:

-6 Japanese ships are damaged, including but not limited to, 1 CL on fire, 1 CL lightly damaged, and 1 DD with heavy fires.
-11 Allied ships are sunk and 3 are damaged, including but not limited to, 1 CVE on fire and 2 DDs sunk.

-155 Japanese aircraft destroyed and 9 damaged.
-6 Allied aircraft destroyed


Synopsis of Combat Action for Today


1.) The Marianas Islands

Japanese Losses

5 destroyed (B6N2 Jill).
2 Destroyed (N1K1-J George).

CL Noshiro: 2 shell hits.
CL Oyodo: 2 shell hits; 1 torpedo hit; on fire
DD Kosugiri: 8 shell hits; heavy fires.
E Uji: 2 shell hits.
E Tsuga: 2 shell hits; on fire.
E Kiji: 3 shell hits; on fire.

Allied Losses

5 destroyed (F4U-1 Corsair).

DD Nepal: Sunk.
DD Racehorse: Sunk.
AM Sheldrake: Sunk.
SC PC-781: 1 shell hit.
PC Vigilant: Sunk.
PC Jackson: Sunk.
YMS 244: Sunk.
YMS 287: Sunk.
YMS 288: Sunk.
YMS 290: Sunk.


2.) The Philippine Sea near Daito Shoto.

Japanese Losses

16 destroyed (A6M5 Zero).
59 destroyed (B6N2 Jill).
73 destroyed 9 damaged (D4Y3 Judy).

No Japanese ship losses.

Allied Losses

1 destroyed (F6F-3 Hellcat).

CVE Altamaha: 1 bomb hit; on fire.
SS Bluefish: 2 hits.
CM Gouden Leeuw: Sunk.
xAK William Windom: Sunk.
xAK Steel Worked: Sunk.


3.) Japanese bomb Chungking. Same old story; minimal casualties, manpower hits, and hundreds of thousands of fires.


4.) Japanese bomb 94th Chinese Corps near Chungking.

Japanese Losses

None.

Allied Losses

93 Chinese casualties.


5.) Japanese bomb 92nd Chinese Corps near Shaoyang.

Japanese Losses

None.

Allied Losses

77 Chinese casualties.


6.) Japanese deliberate attack near Chunking.

Japanese Losses

5,231 Japanese casualties.

Allied Losses

10,142 Allied casualties.
Chinese retreat toward Chickiang.


7.) Allies shock attack Taichu.

Japanese Losses

272 Japanese casualties.

Allied Losses

790 Allied casualties.


Attached below as a link is the entire Combat Report for October 5, 1943.

Best Regards,

-Terry



Attachment (1)

_____________________________

"No one throws me my own guns and tells me to run. No one."

-Bret (James Coburn); The Magnificent Seven

(in reply to Rio Bravo)
Post #: 1955
RE: THE WAR COLLEGE-Rio Bravo (A) v. El Lobo (J) - 11/23/2017 9:41:15 AM   
HansBolter


Posts: 7704
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: United States
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rio Bravo


quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

I see the enemy aircraft totals you list are taken from the recon info.

They are exceedingly low. That mass of carriers will have way more than 271 fighters.

Then again, even the number of carriers being reported is subject to heavy FOW.

Even your own totals appear low.

You should have 324 fighters on your 9 CVs alone, if at full strength.

Are you using the replenishment carriers in their intended role or did you convert them to attack CVEs?

Given the deep foray, I would have wanted the ability to replenish air frames on my combat carriers and would have brought a TF of replenishment carriers along.



Hans-


As you have noticed and so indicated the Japanese aircraft totals and number and type of Japanese carriers are shown as intelligence indicates and of course subject to FOW.

The totals for the Allied carriers are accurate. Prior to the Invasion Fleet leaving the vicinity of Formosa, I flew off approximately 200 fighters and approximately 200 bombers to Pescadores and Takao.

I am using the replenishment carriers as fighting aircraft. As I have mentioned a few times but you may have forgotten, I first loaded as many carrier capable fighters as the 25 carriers could hold. The remaining aircraft space on the carriers was filled with Dauntless and Avenger. I wanted as many fighters as possible to provide CAP and LRCAP for the carriers, Invasion Fleet, and the three objectives of Amoy, Pescadores, and Takao.

Presently, some of the Allied carriers do not have any aircraft on them.

Best Regards,

-Terry




Thanks for the reminder of how you chose to structure things. I presume after having used at least some of your carriers as aircraft shuttles you won't be seeking a carrier engagement.

I would have done things a bit differently.

I would have massed all of my AKVs for aircraft shuttle purposes as they allow squadrons to land in ready to fly condition the way a CV shuttle would (they just have to dock to be able to unload unlike a CV shuttle that allows a fly off).

I also would have maintained some CVEs as replenishments extending the station keeping ability of the combat CVs and ensuring a better match up in a CV on CV fight.

Not a criticism of your approach, just an offer of a different approach that you might consider if choosing to go deep in another game.


_____________________________

Hans


(in reply to Rio Bravo)
Post #: 1956
RE: THE WAR COLLEGE-Rio Bravo (A) v. El Lobo (J) - 11/23/2017 3:46:40 PM   
CaptHaggard

 

Posts: 191
Joined: 3/8/2016
From: Sonoma, CA
Status: offline
Gentlemen,

Speaking of doing things a bit differently—

I am afraid my approach has been singularly misguided in the northern Marianas. Fearing mines, I've tried to imbed DDs with MS craft and clear Pagan of the nasty things.

Clearly, this is not working. 1) when in a firefight, the DDs seem very sluggish against E-boats. They are completely out-gunned, and appear to lack all range and rapid-fire advantages; 2) I imagine in formation with YMS, PC, AM, the DDs are inhibited in combat effectiveness? It certainly appears so; 3) though all these miserable efforts, not one mine has be picked up. Don't get me wrong, this result is totally reasonable under a circumstance in which the MS TF is under fire; it's just that I was under the delusion that if you send 4 MS TFs in, one might be able be able to do it's assignment while other MS TFs fought. Evidently, that is not the case. The Japanese surface TF proceeded to engage each MS TF in turn.

So now what?

It would be nice to bombard those 135 Franks/Georges/Zeros (and recently, Jills) on that airfield with the 3 BBs. From previous turns it is obvious that—like minesweeping operations—bombardment does not happen (at least not here, not previously) until the enemy surface fleet is completely annihilated. That means engaging mines as well as those feisty Nip pipsqueaks.

So I'm feeling stuck.

Actually, I WAS momentarily downcast, until I saw what happened next to the Japanese carrier air strikes. Then I felt badly for El Lobo. It was a fricking nightmare. It was like his 200+ Zero escorts did not exist. They neither protected the Jills or Judys, nor did they manage to shoot down any Hellcats. Weird result, by any measure.

Ah well, back to the festivities...

Hag

(in reply to HansBolter)
Post #: 1957
RE: THE WAR COLLEGE-Rio Bravo (A) v. El Lobo (J) - 11/23/2017 4:06:52 PM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 18046
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline
DDs in a TF with slow ships will only be able to move at the speed of the slowest ship, so they take a hit on their ability to maneuver and become easy targets for faster enemy boats.

If there is a Naval Fortress or CD unit at a hex that I want to clear of mines, I just embed DMS with a BB TF and go in to bombard. Rarely get hit by mines and the BBs do not get sunk by a couple of mine hits anyway. The bombardment will not get as many hits on the AF as you might like because it is suppressing the CD guns, but if you have enough DMS to daisy-chain the bombardment TFs the CD guns run out of ops points and your remaining ammo goes to normal bombardment.

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to CaptHaggard)
Post #: 1958
RE: THE WAR COLLEGE-Rio Bravo (A) v. El Lobo (J) - 11/24/2017 3:45:58 PM   
CaptHaggard

 

Posts: 191
Joined: 3/8/2016
From: Sonoma, CA
Status: offline
BB—

Once again, I truly appreciate your rapid and accurate responses.

OK, I am done hampering the performance of my own ships.

The bad news is I have exactly ONE DMS in the Marianas. I have 5-6 in the Pescadores area—all banged up except for a pair of them. I definitely wanted to get those back to Saipan, with the idea of doing something like what you describe above.

I had them in a MS TF and intended to send these back as part of the vast TFG armada, in the departure hex and set on "Follow the (Lead) TF". But—in a repeat result when I tried to do the very same thing with the MS TFs when we left PH for the Marianas—everyone left but the MS TF.

It was too dangerous to try and catch up, so the two healthy DMS remained at Pescadores.

QUESTION: Why are MS TFs singularly resistant to "Follow" in a Task Force Group, in which all other types of TFs do just fine in that regard? It is simply a matter of changing their designation to "Surface Combat" TF or "Escort" TF or imbedding them in other TFs, thus avoiding "MS" designation?

I thought the "MS" inability to "Follow" was an anomaly the first time, but now I'm pretty convinced something else is up...


Morning after Thanksgiving. A tough one. One couple brought over (an unexpected) 4 bottles of pinot to blind taste, then the 3 bottles we already had airing were naturally next, then the cabs and syrahs during dinner... by then I'm having a helluva time, once again co-owner of earth, when the one dude pulls out a 2001 bottle of French sauterne to have with the pumpkin mousse the Adjutant made. "You have to have this, Hag—this is probably the only 100-rated Robert Parker wine you'll ever have, because you're so cheap."

So the cheapskate indulged. Dessert wines, man—they'll get you every time—those efficient high-sugars say "Danger—will supercharge hangovers".

Anyhow... onward we trudge...

Thanks again for your insights, BB!

Hag

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 1959
RE: THE WAR COLLEGE-Rio Bravo (A) v. El Lobo (J) - 11/24/2017 11:14:15 PM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 18046
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline
Ok - some new advice ... about hangovers!

Sugar, alcohol and salt (most party food and beverage) suck up the water from your body and cause you to expel it. When I am at a party (such as this Sunday's Grey Cup) I do my drinking of alcohol up front and switch to water about half way through.

After returning from the party I drink lots of water before going to bed - might mean a trip to the bathroom during the night but at my age I do that anyway!
Almost never get a hangover or the queasy stomach that comes with dehydration of the mucous lining.

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to CaptHaggard)
Post #: 1960
RE: THE WAR COLLEGE-Rio Bravo (A) v. El Lobo (J) - 11/25/2017 10:20:19 AM   
Rio Bravo


Posts: 1794
Joined: 7/13/2013
From: Grass Valley, California
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rio Bravo


quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

I see the enemy aircraft totals you list are taken from the recon info.

They are exceedingly low. That mass of carriers will have way more than 271 fighters.

Then again, even the number of carriers being reported is subject to heavy FOW.

Even your own totals appear low.

You should have 324 fighters on your 9 CVs alone, if at full strength.

Are you using the replenishment carriers in their intended role or did you convert them to attack CVEs?

Given the deep foray, I would have wanted the ability to replenish air frames on my combat carriers and would have brought a TF of replenishment carriers along.



Hans-


As you have noticed and so indicated the Japanese aircraft totals and number and type of Japanese carriers are shown as intelligence indicates and of course subject to FOW.

The totals for the Allied carriers are accurate. Prior to the Invasion Fleet leaving the vicinity of Formosa, I flew off approximately 200 fighters and approximately 200 bombers to Pescadores and Takao.

I am using the replenishment carriers as fighting aircraft. As I have mentioned a few times but you may have forgotten, I first loaded as many carrier capable fighters as the 25 carriers could hold. The remaining aircraft space on the carriers was filled with Dauntless and Avenger. I wanted as many fighters as possible to provide CAP and LRCAP for the carriers, Invasion Fleet, and the three objectives of Amoy, Pescadores, and Takao.

Presently, some of the Allied carriers do not have any aircraft on them.

Best Regards,

-Terry




Thanks for the reminder of how you chose to structure things. I presume after having used at least some of your carriers as aircraft shuttles you won't be seeking a carrier engagement.

I would have done things a bit differently.

I would have massed all of my AKVs for aircraft shuttle purposes as they allow squadrons to land in ready to fly condition the way a CV shuttle would (they just have to dock to be able to unload unlike a CV shuttle that allows a fly off).

I also would have maintained some CVEs as replenishments extending the station keeping ability of the combat CVs and ensuring a better match up in a CV on CV fight.

Not a criticism of your approach, just an offer of a different approach that you might consider if choosing to go deep in another game.




Hans-


At times, I have been given advice that I have already considered.

However, on numerous occasions I have been given advice that I either wasn't aware of or have been negligent in considering.

Your comments and advice, as well as all of the comments and advice from The War College members is always looked forward to receiving and I am appreciative of the advice provided to me. Without the sage help that has been provided to me by The War College members many of the missions I have engaged would not have turned out as well as they have. Further, without the help of The War College the Allies would surely be in a worse, no doubt much worse position at this stage of the war than the position they presently enjoy.

Thank you, Hans.

Your pal,

-Terry


_____________________________

"No one throws me my own guns and tells me to run. No one."

-Bret (James Coburn); The Magnificent Seven

(in reply to HansBolter)
Post #: 1961
RE: THE WAR COLLEGE-Rio Bravo (A) v. El Lobo (J) - 11/25/2017 10:31:52 AM   
Rio Bravo


Posts: 1794
Joined: 7/13/2013
From: Grass Valley, California
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: CaptHaggard

BB—

Once again, I truly appreciate your rapid and accurate responses.

OK, I am done hampering the performance of my own ships.

The bad news is I have exactly ONE DMS in the Marianas. I have 5-6 in the Pescadores area—all banged up except for a pair of them. I definitely wanted to get those back to Saipan, with the idea of doing something like what you describe above.

I had them in a MS TF and intended to send these back as part of the vast TFG armada, in the departure hex and set on "Follow the (Lead) TF". But—in a repeat result when I tried to do the very same thing with the MS TFs when we left PH for the Marianas—everyone left but the MS TF.

It was too dangerous to try and catch up, so the two healthy DMS remained at Pescadores.

QUESTION: Why are MS TFs singularly resistant to "Follow" in a Task Force Group, in which all other types of TFs do just fine in that regard? It is simply a matter of changing their designation to "Surface Combat" TF or "Escort" TF or imbedding them in other TFs, thus avoiding "MS" designation?

I thought the "MS" inability to "Follow" was an anomaly the first time, but now I'm pretty convinced something else is up...


Morning after Thanksgiving. A tough one. One couple brought over (an unexpected) 4 bottles of pinot to blind taste, then the 3 bottles we already had airing were naturally next, then the cabs and syrahs during dinner... by then I'm having a helluva time, once again co-owner of earth, when the one dude pulls out a 2001 bottle of French sauterne to have with the pumpkin mousse the Adjutant made. "You have to have this, Hag—this is probably the only 100-rated Robert Parker wine you'll ever have, because you're so cheap."

So the cheapskate indulged. Dessert wines, man—they'll get you every time—those efficient high-sugars say "Danger—will supercharge hangovers".

Anyhow... onward we trudge...

Thanks again for your insights, BB!

Hag



Captain Haggard-


Apparently, you had quite a bout with Thanksgiving Day.

However, I take exception with the comment alleging that you are "cheap."

You and the Adjutant are an extremely generous couple and I for one am appreciative for the impeccable hospitality the two of you have always extended to me and for all the good times throughout the years that we have had together

Nice of your friend to bring that bottle of wine. I'm curious, what does a 2001 Bottle of French Sauterne cost?

Your pal,

-Terry




_____________________________

"No one throws me my own guns and tells me to run. No one."

-Bret (James Coburn); The Magnificent Seven

(in reply to CaptHaggard)
Post #: 1962
RE: THE WAR COLLEGE-Rio Bravo (A) v. El Lobo (J) - 11/25/2017 12:48:30 PM   
fcharton

 

Posts: 1112
Joined: 10/4/2010
From: France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Rio Bravo
Nice of your friend to bring that bottle of wine. I'm curious, what does a 2001 Bottle of French Sauterne cost?


Sauternes is an area (appellation), where you have different vineyards (crus), of different qualities and prices. For a given year, prices can range from a few euros to several hundreds.

Now, if it was a 100 on Parker, what you had is an Yquem 2001. This is the very best (the only 1er cru classé, the highest notch in the classification). It should fetch around 700€ these days. Other years, some older, would be cheaper. 200€ is typical.

Then, there are other crus, notably 1er crus, which are much less expensive, and still well past 95 in the Parker.

Francois

< Message edited by fcharton -- 11/25/2017 1:27:30 PM >

(in reply to Rio Bravo)
Post #: 1963
RE: THE WAR COLLEGE-Rio Bravo (A) v. El Lobo (J) - 11/25/2017 12:49:39 PM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 18046
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rio Bravo

Nice of your friend to bring that bottle of wine. I'm curious, what does a 2001 Bottle of French Sauterne cost?



Per my son, a Product Consultant at one of the local liquor marts:

It isn't the vintage of the wine so much as the age of the vines it is grown on. The most prized wines are from old-growth vines (I think because the roots go down deeper and get more consistent water and minerals). Then there is the type of barrel it is aged in. Virgin (new) French Oak barrels apparently cost thousands of dollars (not much oak timber left in France) so the wine is priced up accordingly. The various regions and even individual vineyards in France have unique characteristics that make each wine a bit different too, so you need a Master's degree to decipher the descriptions on the bottle!

In the end, it only matters what you enjoy. At my age my taste buds are getting lazy so I am hard-pressed to distinguish subtle difference in flavour - but I can distinguish between a CDN$11 bottle and a good CDN$25 bottle. For a nice red wine, my son put me onto "Conundrum", an award-winning US product that could command a higher price but the makers had promised to keep the price at USD$20 before they put it on market and kept their promise after it won the awards!

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to Rio Bravo)
Post #: 1964
RE: THE WAR COLLEGE-Rio Bravo (A) v. El Lobo (J) - 11/26/2017 3:49:52 PM   
CaptHaggard

 

Posts: 191
Joined: 3/8/2016
From: Sonoma, CA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: fcharton

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rio Bravo
Nice of your friend to bring that bottle of wine. I'm curious, what does a 2001 Bottle of French Sauterne cost?


Sauternes is an area (appellation), where you have different vineyards (crus), of different qualities and prices. For a given year, prices can range from a few euros to several hundreds.

Now, if it was a 100 on Parker, what you had is an Yquem 2001. This is the very best (the only 1er cru classé, the highest notch in the classification). It should fetch around 700€ these days. Other years, some older, would be cheaper. 200€ is typical.

Then, there are other crus, notably 1er crus, which are much less expensive, and still well past 95 in the Parker.

Francois



*Ding ding!* Yep, Yquem is the one indeed. Thanks, fcharton! I was about to go rummage about in my recyclable bin for the bottle, which is shameful, but my label memory is worse than my palette memory, and that ain't great.

My friend was telling us how they individually pick the grapes, not just hand-pick clusters (like in his and all vineyards that I know of). He knows the dude that owns the local upscale wine shop, which specializes in carrying high-end non-Sonoma/Napa vintages. Therefore, he might have paid less than list price.

It was magical, and did go well with the mousse. (However, I rather would have had it with simple pan-sauteed foie gras *yum*).

(in reply to fcharton)
Post #: 1965
RE: THE WAR COLLEGE-Rio Bravo (A) v. El Lobo (J) - 11/26/2017 4:01:35 PM   
CaptHaggard

 

Posts: 191
Joined: 3/8/2016
From: Sonoma, CA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

Ok - some new advice ... about hangovers!

Sugar, alcohol and salt (most party food and beverage) suck up the water from your body and cause you to expel it. When I am at a party (such as this Sunday's Grey Cup) I do my drinking of alcohol up front and switch to water about half way through.

After returning from the party I drink lots of water before going to bed - might mean a trip to the bathroom during the night but at my age I do that anyway!
Almost never get a hangover or the queasy stomach that comes with dehydration of the mucous lining.


Ah. I had learned at one time that the reason "hair of the dog" worked, at least to a limited extent (i.e., relief), is that it takes hours for water to circulate through the stricken brain, whereas a morning beer—for example—carries water content quite quickly to the head due to the alcohol. So even if the preceding is some of my ancient witchdoctor advice, the water given time through the night to circulate sounds like a reasonable prescription—

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 1966
RE: THE WAR COLLEGE-Rio Bravo (A) v. El Lobo (J) - 11/26/2017 4:09:32 PM   
CaptHaggard

 

Posts: 191
Joined: 3/8/2016
From: Sonoma, CA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rio Bravo


quote:

ORIGINAL: CaptHaggard

BB—

Once again, I truly appreciate your rapid and accurate responses.

OK, I am done hampering the performance of my own ships.

The bad news is I have exactly ONE DMS in the Marianas. I have 5-6 in the Pescadores area—all banged up except for a pair of them. I definitely wanted to get those back to Saipan, with the idea of doing something like what you describe above.

I had them in a MS TF and intended to send these back as part of the vast TFG armada, in the departure hex and set on "Follow the (Lead) TF". But—in a repeat result when I tried to do the very same thing with the MS TFs when we left PH for the Marianas—everyone left but the MS TF.

It was too dangerous to try and catch up, so the two healthy DMS remained at Pescadores.

QUESTION: Why are MS TFs singularly resistant to "Follow" in a Task Force Group, in which all other types of TFs do just fine in that regard? It is simply a matter of changing their designation to "Surface Combat" TF or "Escort" TF or imbedding them in other TFs, thus avoiding "MS" designation?

I thought the "MS" inability to "Follow" was an anomaly the first time, but now I'm pretty convinced something else is up...


Morning after Thanksgiving. A tough one. One couple brought over (an unexpected) 4 bottles of pinot to blind taste, then the 3 bottles we already had airing were naturally next, then the cabs and syrahs during dinner... by then I'm having a helluva time, once again co-owner of earth, when the one dude pulls out a 2001 bottle of French sauterne to have with the pumpkin mousse the Adjutant made. "You have to have this, Hag—this is probably the only 100-rated Robert Parker wine you'll ever have, because you're so cheap."

So the cheapskate indulged. Dessert wines, man—they'll get you every time—those efficient high-sugars say "Danger—will supercharge hangovers".

Anyhow... onward we trudge...

Thanks again for your insights, BB!

Hag



Captain Haggard-


Apparently, you had quite a bout with Thanksgiving Day.

However, I take exception with the comment alleging that you are "cheap."

You and the Adjutant are an extremely generous couple and I for one am appreciative for the impeccable hospitality the two of you have always extended to me and for all the good times throughout the years that we have had together

Nice of your friend to bring that bottle of wine. I'm curious, what does a 2001 Bottle of French Sauterne cost?

Your pal,

-Terry





Thank you, Rio.

Re "cheap"—what he meant was I draw a much tighter purse-string when it comes to high-end wines. He was joking but he is right.

For years I thought a carefully chosen vintage below $25 could equal the high-end stuff, and sometimes it does. But my belief was, in the main, wishful thinking. Now my typical bottle exceeds $25 by a good margin, but I do not want to know about the next rung up, I don't want to fork over hundreds for a bottle of wine. At what price-point the principle begins or ends, I don't know, but I'm happy with my "OK but not great" cellar, and that's that.

So yeah, in this crowd, regarding wine, I am cheap. Proudly.

(in reply to Rio Bravo)
Post #: 1967
RE: THE WAR COLLEGE-Rio Bravo (A) v. El Lobo (J) - 11/26/2017 7:07:51 PM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 18046
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: CaptHaggard


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rio Bravo


quote:

ORIGINAL: CaptHaggard

BB—

Once again, I truly appreciate your rapid and accurate responses.

OK, I am done hampering the performance of my own ships.

The bad news is I have exactly ONE DMS in the Marianas. I have 5-6 in the Pescadores area—all banged up except for a pair of them. I definitely wanted to get those back to Saipan, with the idea of doing something like what you describe above.

I had them in a MS TF and intended to send these back as part of the vast TFG armada, in the departure hex and set on "Follow the (Lead) TF". But—in a repeat result when I tried to do the very same thing with the MS TFs when we left PH for the Marianas—everyone left but the MS TF.

It was too dangerous to try and catch up, so the two healthy DMS remained at Pescadores.

QUESTION: Why are MS TFs singularly resistant to "Follow" in a Task Force Group, in which all other types of TFs do just fine in that regard? It is simply a matter of changing their designation to "Surface Combat" TF or "Escort" TF or imbedding them in other TFs, thus avoiding "MS" designation?

I thought the "MS" inability to "Follow" was an anomaly the first time, but now I'm pretty convinced something else is up...


Morning after Thanksgiving. A tough one. One couple brought over (an unexpected) 4 bottles of pinot to blind taste, then the 3 bottles we already had airing were naturally next, then the cabs and syrahs during dinner... by then I'm having a helluva time, once again co-owner of earth, when the one dude pulls out a 2001 bottle of French sauterne to have with the pumpkin mousse the Adjutant made. "You have to have this, Hag—this is probably the only 100-rated Robert Parker wine you'll ever have, because you're so cheap."

So the cheapskate indulged. Dessert wines, man—they'll get you every time—those efficient high-sugars say "Danger—will supercharge hangovers".

Anyhow... onward we trudge...

Thanks again for your insights, BB!

Hag



Captain Haggard-


Apparently, you had quite a bout with Thanksgiving Day.

However, I take exception with the comment alleging that you are "cheap."

You and the Adjutant are an extremely generous couple and I for one am appreciative for the impeccable hospitality the two of you have always extended to me and for all the good times throughout the years that we have had together

Nice of your friend to bring that bottle of wine. I'm curious, what does a 2001 Bottle of French Sauterne cost?

Your pal,

-Terry





Thank you, Rio.

Re "cheap"—what he meant was I draw a much tighter purse-string when it comes to high-end wines. He was joking but he is right.

For years I thought a carefully chosen vintage below $25 could equal the high-end stuff, and sometimes it does. But my belief was, in the main, wishful thinking. Now my typical bottle exceeds $25 by a good margin, but I do not want to know about the next rung up, I don't want to fork over hundreds for a bottle of wine. At what price-point the principle begins or ends, I don't know, but I'm happy with my "OK but not great" cellar, and that's that.

So yeah, in this crowd, regarding wine, I am cheap. Proudly.

It sounds like you and I are similar in our tastes, and I completely agree that the average guy should not blow hundreds of dollars on a brief dalliance with the taste of the wine. I top out around $60CDN for a nice Amarone Valpolicela or Cheateâu Neuf de Pape.

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to CaptHaggard)
Post #: 1968
RE: THE WAR COLLEGE-Rio Bravo (A) v. El Lobo (J) - 11/26/2017 8:46:31 PM   
fcharton

 

Posts: 1112
Joined: 10/4/2010
From: France
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: CaptHaggard
It was magical, and did go well with the mousse. (However, I rather would have had it with simple pan-sauteed foie gras *yum*).


I never drank Yquem, but I have heard one must try it with roasted chicken (and curries).

With foie gras, and especially sauteed foie, I would go for something less sweet. Too much sugar in the wine will dominate the taste of the food. If you want something sweet, a moelleux (semi dry), Alsace pinot gris or Vouvray. But some dry, southern wines (Condrieu, some spanish whites) would be great. Personally, I like reds, médocs, a bit old so that they are not too tannic.

I agree with you about price tags. Whereas is it often worth going the extra dollar to get premium vintages (premier crus, better producers or makes), some big names and years have just become collectibles. I seldom put more than 30€ for a bottle I will keep, and more than 60 in a liquor store, for something to be drunk right now.

Francois

(in reply to CaptHaggard)
Post #: 1969
RE: THE WAR COLLEGE-Rio Bravo (A) v. El Lobo (J) - 11/26/2017 9:42:07 PM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 18046
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: fcharton


quote:

ORIGINAL: CaptHaggard
It was magical, and did go well with the mousse. (However, I rather would have had it with simple pan-sauteed foie gras *yum*).


I never drank Yquem, but I have heard one must try it with roasted chicken (and curries).

With foie gras, and especially sauteed foie, I would go for something less sweet. Too much sugar in the wine will dominate the taste of the food. If you want something sweet, a moelleux (semi dry), Alsace pinot gris or Vouvray. But some dry, southern wines (Condrieu, some spanish whites) would be great. Personally, I like reds, médocs, a bit old so that they are not too tannic.

I agree with you about price tags. Whereas is it often worth going the extra dollar to get premium vintages (premier crus, better producers or makes), some big names and years have just become collectibles. I seldom put more than 30€ for a bottle I will keep, and more than 60 in a liquor store, for something to be drunk right now.

Francois


When my daughter and her husband and my son visited Paris, they were amazed at how good the wines were for very little money compared to over here in Canada! You must be getting very good wines indeed for 60 Euros!

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to fcharton)
Post #: 1970
RE: THE WAR COLLEGE-Rio Bravo (A) v. El Lobo (J) - 11/28/2017 7:56:06 AM   
obvert


Posts: 14050
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rio Bravo

After Action Report

October 5, 1943



Highlight for Today

1.) Japanese Carrier Aircraft attack the Allied Invasion Fleet and take a beating.

2.) The grand tally for aircraft and ships losses for today is as follows:

-6 Japanese ships are damaged, including but not limited to, 1 CL on fire, 1 CL lightly damaged, and 1 DD with heavy fires.
-11 Allied ships are sunk and 3 are damaged, including but not limited to, 1 CVE on fire and 2 DDs sunk.

-155 Japanese aircraft destroyed and 9 damaged.
-6 Allied aircraft destroyed


Synopsis of Combat Action for Today


1.) The Marianas Islands

Japanese Losses

5 destroyed (B6N2 Jill).
2 Destroyed (N1K1-J George).

CL Noshiro: 2 shell hits.
CL Oyodo: 2 shell hits; 1 torpedo hit; on fire
DD Kosugiri: 8 shell hits; heavy fires.
E Uji: 2 shell hits.
E Tsuga: 2 shell hits; on fire.
E Kiji: 3 shell hits; on fire.

Allied Losses

5 destroyed (F4U-1 Corsair).

DD Nepal: Sunk.
DD Racehorse: Sunk.
AM Sheldrake: Sunk.
SC PC-781: 1 shell hit.
PC Vigilant: Sunk.
PC Jackson: Sunk.
YMS 244: Sunk.
YMS 287: Sunk.
YMS 288: Sunk.
YMS 290: Sunk.


2.) The Philippine Sea near Daito Shoto.

Japanese Losses

16 destroyed (A6M5 Zero).
59 destroyed (B6N2 Jill).
73 destroyed 9 damaged (D4Y3 Judy).

No Japanese ship losses.

Allied Losses

1 destroyed (F6F-3 Hellcat).

CVE Altamaha: 1 bomb hit; on fire.
SS Bluefish: 2 hits.
CM Gouden Leeuw: Sunk.
xAK William Windom: Sunk.
xAK Steel Worked: Sunk.


3.) Japanese bomb Chungking. Same old story; minimal casualties, manpower hits, and hundreds of thousands of fires.


4.) Japanese bomb 94th Chinese Corps near Chungking.

Japanese Losses

None.

Allied Losses

93 Chinese casualties.


5.) Japanese bomb 92nd Chinese Corps near Shaoyang.

Japanese Losses

None.

Allied Losses

77 Chinese casualties.


6.) Japanese deliberate attack near Chunking.

Japanese Losses

5,231 Japanese casualties.

Allied Losses

10,142 Allied casualties.
Chinese retreat toward Chickiang.


7.) Allies shock attack Taichu.

Japanese Losses

272 Japanese casualties.

Allied Losses

790 Allied casualties.


Attached below as a link is the entire Combat Report for October 5, 1943.

Best Regards,

-Terry




So it sounds like you had a sync bug. Your opponent has been posting and asking about the two different versions of the past turn.

It can be frustrating as an Allied player to watch a replay and then have a different result than what you see. I always request the combatreport from the Japanese player as theirs is the "correct" information.

This is something we all face using a slightly antiquated game engine, but isn't a game breaker and can be reduced by making sure your installations and upgrades are the same.

_____________________________

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to Rio Bravo)
Post #: 1971
RE: THE WAR COLLEGE-Rio Bravo (A) v. El Lobo (J) - 11/28/2017 12:01:22 PM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline
Also by having the IJ player always send his Combat Report as it is always accurate. That way you know the results irrespective of what your replay shows. If your replay does not agree, then you simply disregard the replay.

Someone else pointed out that in +650 turns it likely had happened to you several times but, but escaped notice as the turn wasn't so important.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 1972
RE: THE WAR COLLEGE-Rio Bravo (A) v. El Lobo (J) - 11/28/2017 2:18:13 PM   
Rio Bravo


Posts: 1794
Joined: 7/13/2013
From: Grass Valley, California
Status: offline
Obvert & PaxMondo-


Welcome to The War College, Pax.

Welcome back to the War College, Obvert.

El Lobo advised me in an email that you JFBs knew the issue and the implications at your fingertips. He advised me to take a look at the last two posts in his AAR.

Initially, I did not know the reason why Captain Haggard and myself received a Turn 668 (October 5, 1943) Combat Video and the Combat Report text that it generated that was substantially different from the Combat Video and Combat Text Report that El Lobo saw, and the Combat Report Text generated by Turn 669 (again that Combat Text Report is for the date of October 5, 1943).

Considering I neither knew the reason why we had two different Combat Report Texts for the same date of the war nor did I know which, if either, were genuine and accurate, I suspected and advised El Lobo that a game glitch must have occurred. Furthermore, since EL Lobo and I could not determine which Combat Text Report was genuine and considering I thought it possible for such a glitch to occur in the future, and because El Lobo asked me what I wanted to do, I advised El Lobo that I thought it best to leave the game as at that time, based on the information we had, it didn't seem to make much sense to me to spend so many hours on the game when a glitch could compromise the game.

However, considering the "bug" only provided false reports to the Allies (and not to El Lobo) and the "bug" did not effect genuine Combat Action Results, I have advised EL Lobo that I don't now see any reason why we should not proceed with the war. He hasn't responded back yet.

In the event that El Lobo agrees that we should continue to prosecute the war, I will post in my AAR that my October 5, 1943 Combat Action Report is bogus and I will post a new October 5, 1943 Combat Action Report to reflect the genuine state of affairs.

It is good that you JFBs have so much knowledge and replied so promptly to El Lobo to set the record straight for us. Furthermore, it is good that the "bug" did not and does not actually effect the game play and only generates false reports. Captain Haggard and I will just need to keep in mind for Carrier Battles not to give credence to wpae001.wps generated Combat Video and Combat Report text, but rather, just wait for the Game Turn Combat Text Report.

Thank you both for your help with this issue; it is appreciated.

Best Regards,

-Terry



_____________________________

"No one throws me my own guns and tells me to run. No one."

-Bret (James Coburn); The Magnificent Seven

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 1973
RE: THE WAR COLLEGE-Rio Bravo (A) v. El Lobo (J) - 11/28/2017 2:26:18 PM   
Rio Bravo


Posts: 1794
Joined: 7/13/2013
From: Grass Valley, California
Status: offline
fcharton, BBfanboy, and Captain Haggard-


The only thing I know about wine is that in high school I preferred a bottle of Espanada over beer. The taste sucked but the wine did it's job getting me screwed up as was my goal when with my pals getting hammered and chasing skirts or going off on road trips for one adventure or another.

Accordingly, after this post, I intend to stay out of this wine conversation.

*laughing*

Enjoy your discussion, bunch of Winos.

Best Regards,

-Terry



_____________________________

"No one throws me my own guns and tells me to run. No one."

-Bret (James Coburn); The Magnificent Seven

(in reply to Rio Bravo)
Post #: 1974
RE: THE WAR COLLEGE-Rio Bravo (A) v. El Lobo (J) - 11/28/2017 3:17:33 PM   
obvert


Posts: 14050
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rio Bravo

Obvert & PaxMondo-


Welcome to The War College, Pax.

Welcome back to the War College, Obvert.

El Lobo advised me in an email that you JFBs knew the issue and the implications at your fingertips. He advised me to take a look at the last two posts in his AAR.

Initially, I did not know the reason why Captain Haggard and myself received a Turn 668 (October 5, 1943) Combat Video and the Combat Report text that it generated that was substantially different from the Combat Video and Combat Text Report that El Lobo saw, and the Combat Report Text generated by Turn 669 (again that Combat Text Report is for the date of October 5, 1943).

Considering I neither knew the reason why we had two different Combat Report Texts for the same date of the war nor did I know which, if either, were genuine and accurate, I suspected and advised El Lobo that a game glitch must have occurred. Furthermore, since EL Lobo and I could not determine which Combat Text Report was genuine and considering I thought it possible for such a glitch to occur in the future, and because El Lobo asked me what I wanted to do, I advised El Lobo that I thought it best to leave the game as at that time, based on the information we had, it didn't seem to make much sense to me to spend so many hours on the game when a glitch could compromise the game.

However, considering the "bug" only provided false reports to the Allies (and not to El Lobo) and the "bug" did not effect genuine Combat Action Results, I have advised EL Lobo that I don't now see any reason why we should not proceed with the war. He hasn't responded back yet.

In the event that El Lobo agrees that we should continue to prosecute the war, I will post in my AAR that my October 5, 1943 Combat Action Report is bogus and I will post a new October 5, 1943 Combat Action Report to reflect the genuine state of affairs.

It is good that you JFBs have so much knowledge and replied so promptly to El Lobo to set the record straight for us. Furthermore, it is good that the "bug" did not and does not actually effect the game play and only generates false reports. Captain Haggard and I will just need to keep in mind for Carrier Battles not to give credence to wpae001.wps generated Combat Video and Combat Report text, but rather, just wait for the Game Turn Combat Text Report.

Thank you both for your help with this issue; it is appreciated.

Best Regards,

-Terry




It is tough that so much rides on so few turns sometimes. A CV clash can change the game for years, literally. I've had to talk a few opponents off the ledge after that (even without a sync bug) and in the end we had some great gaming moments we wouldn't have had if it had ended in 43. The late game is fun, and especially for the Allies. It kinda sucks to go through the planning stages for two years only to have the game end.

So I hope this continues!

_____________________________

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to Rio Bravo)
Post #: 1975
RE: THE WAR COLLEGE-Rio Bravo (A) v. El Lobo (J) - 11/28/2017 3:32:16 PM   
Rio Bravo


Posts: 1794
Joined: 7/13/2013
From: Grass Valley, California
Status: offline
Erroneous Combat Results & AAR Combat After Action Report

Post 1954

for October 5, 1943



Members of The War College-

Turn 668 (i.e., the October 5, 1943 turn) generated a Combat Video and corresponding Combat Report Text that was substantially different than the Combat Text Report generated by Turn 669 for the same date of the war. In other words, to simplify the issue, 2 different Combat Text Reports were generated for the same date, that date being October 5, 1943.

Most helpful and astute JFBs immediately recognized the issue and immediately knew not only why two different Combat Text Reports were generated for October 5, 1943, but they also knew the implications on the war of said two reports.

Apparently, in particular with Carrier Battles, a "bug" within the gaming system can sometimes generate a false Combat Result, Combat Video, and false Combat Text Report to the Allies only. However, this "bug" does not have any effect on the actual game play.

Accordingly, my Post Number 1954 in this AAR is a bogus report of the Combat Action for the date of October 5, 1943.

Hopefully, by the end of the day, I will post a "Revised After Action Report" for October 5, 1943 Combat Action that reflects the genuine Combat Action for the day.

Thank you to the JFBs, including but not limited to Obvert and PaxMondo, for setting the record straight for El Lobo, Captain Haggard, and me.

Best Regards,

-Terry

_____________________________

"No one throws me my own guns and tells me to run. No one."

-Bret (James Coburn); The Magnificent Seven

(in reply to Rio Bravo)
Post #: 1976
RE: THE WAR COLLEGE-Rio Bravo (A) v. El Lobo (J) - 11/28/2017 4:01:43 PM   
Rio Bravo


Posts: 1794
Joined: 7/13/2013
From: Grass Valley, California
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rio Bravo

Obvert & PaxMondo-


Welcome to The War College, Pax.

Welcome back to the War College, Obvert.

El Lobo advised me in an email that you JFBs knew the issue and the implications at your fingertips. He advised me to take a look at the last two posts in his AAR.

Initially, I did not know the reason why Captain Haggard and myself received a Turn 668 (October 5, 1943) Combat Video and the Combat Report text that it generated that was substantially different from the Combat Video and Combat Text Report that El Lobo saw, and the Combat Report Text generated by Turn 669 (again that Combat Text Report is for the date of October 5, 1943).

Considering I neither knew the reason why we had two different Combat Report Texts for the same date of the war nor did I know which, if either, were genuine and accurate, I suspected and advised El Lobo that a game glitch must have occurred. Furthermore, since EL Lobo and I could not determine which Combat Text Report was genuine and considering I thought it possible for such a glitch to occur in the future, and because El Lobo asked me what I wanted to do, I advised El Lobo that I thought it best to leave the game as at that time, based on the information we had, it didn't seem to make much sense to me to spend so many hours on the game when a glitch could compromise the game.

However, considering the "bug" only provided false reports to the Allies (and not to El Lobo) and the "bug" did not effect genuine Combat Action Results, I have advised EL Lobo that I don't now see any reason why we should not proceed with the war. He hasn't responded back yet.

In the event that El Lobo agrees that we should continue to prosecute the war, I will post in my AAR that my October 5, 1943 Combat Action Report is bogus and I will post a new October 5, 1943 Combat Action Report to reflect the genuine state of affairs.

It is good that you JFBs have so much knowledge and replied so promptly to El Lobo to set the record straight for us. Furthermore, it is good that the "bug" did not and does not actually effect the game play and only generates false reports. Captain Haggard and I will just need to keep in mind for Carrier Battles not to give credence to wpae001.wps generated Combat Video and Combat Report text, but rather, just wait for the Game Turn Combat Text Report.

Thank you both for your help with this issue; it is appreciated.

Best Regards,

-Terry




It is tough that so much rides on so few turns sometimes. A CV clash can change the game for years, literally. I've had to talk a few opponents off the ledge after that (even without a sync bug) and in the end we had some great gaming moments we wouldn't have had if it had ended in 43. The late game is fun, and especially for the Allies. It kinda sucks to go through the planning stages for two years only to have the game end.

So I hope this continues!



Obvert-


Prior to leaving Guam to invade Amoy, Pescadores, and Takao, I knew and expected some rather heavy losses but decided the benefits to the Allies were worth the risk and I advised Captain Haggard of the same. I also advised Captain Haggard that there was a good chance that El Lobo would hit the Invasion fleet with his carriers when the Allied Invasion Fleet returned to Guam. I suspect that having one's carriers sunk and damaged is never a welcome treat. *laughing* However, it is the cost of doing business.

I suspect that El Lobo will want to continue the war, the Allies will adjust as appropriate and prudent, and hopefully the war will continue to fruition.

Thank you for taking the time and being kind enough in an effort to alleviate the sorrow of a few of my carriers being sunk and damaged. I expect to lose more.

Best Regards,

-Terry


_____________________________

"No one throws me my own guns and tells me to run. No one."

-Bret (James Coburn); The Magnificent Seven

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 1977
RE: THE WAR COLLEGE-Rio Bravo (A) v. El Lobo (J) - 11/28/2017 7:39:24 PM   
Rio Bravo


Posts: 1794
Joined: 7/13/2013
From: Grass Valley, California
Status: offline
Revised

After Action Report

October 5, 1943




Highlights for Today

1.) Japanese Carrier Aircraft attack the Allied Invasion Fleet.

2.) The grand tally for aircraft and ships losses for today is as follows:

-9 Japanese ships are damaged, including but not limited to, 2 CLs and 4 DDs damaged.
-13 Allied ships are sunk and 8 are damaged, including but not limited to, 3 CVs damaged, 2 CVEs sunk and 4 damaged, 1 BB damaged, and 2 DDs sunk.

-162 Japanese aircraft destroyed and 52 damaged.
-17 Allied aircraft destroyed and 14 damaged.

-5,129 Japanese ground casualties.
-9,826 Allied ground casualties

Synopsis of Combat Action for Today

1.) ASW Attack near Cantanduanes(hex 86,79).

Japanese Losses

None

Allied Losses

SS Corvine: 1 hit.

2.) The Marianas Islands.

Japanese Losses

5 destroyed (B6N2 Jill).

CL Noshiro: 2 shell hits.
CL Oyodo: 2 shell hits; 1 torpedo hit; on fire.
DD Kosugiri: 8 shell hits; heavy fires.
E Uji: 4 shell hits; on fire.
E Tsuga: 2 shell hits; on fire.
E Kiji: 4 shell hits; on fire.

Allied Losses

3 destroyed (F4U-1 Corsair).

DD Nepal: Sunk.
DD Racehorse: Sunk.
AM Sheldrake: 7 shell hits; heavy fires; heavy damage.
SC PC-781: 1 shell hit.
PC Vigilant: Sunk.
PC Jackson: Sunk.
YMS 244: Sunk.
YMS 287: Sunk.
YMS 288: Sunk.
YMS 290: Sunk.

3.) Taihoku.

Japanese Losses

1 destroyed (N1K1 George).
1 destroyed (J2M2 Jack).

DD Suzkaze: 1 bomb hit; on fire.
DD Akatsuki: 2 bomb hits; heavy fires; heavy damage.
DD Tadeshiwa: 2 bomb hits; heavy fires; heavy damage.

Allied Losses

13 destroyed (F6F-3 Hellcat).
4 destroyed and 9 damaged (SB2C-1C Helldiver).
5 damaged (B-24D1 Liberator).

No Allied ship losses.

4.) The Philippine Sea near Daito Shoto.

Japanese Losses

38 destroyed (A6M5 Zero).
59 destroyed and 21 damaged (B6N2 Jill).
58 destroyed and 31 damaged (D4Y3 Judy).

No Japanese ship losses.

Allied Losses

1 destroyed (F4F-4 Wildcat).
3 destroyed (F6F-3 Hellcat).

CV Enterprise: 2 bomb hits; 1 torpedo hit; heavy fires.
CV Saratoga: 1 bomb hit; 1 torpedo hit.
CV Lexington: 1 torpedo hit.
CVE Altamaha: Sunk.
CVE Santee: Sunk.
CVE Long Island: 2 torpedo hits; heavy fires; heavy damage.
CVE Copahee: 2 torpedo hits; heavy fires; heavy damage.
CVE Nassau: 2 bomb hits; 1 torpedo hit; heavy fires; heavy damage.
CVE Suwannee: 1 bomb hit; heavy fires.
BB Mississippi: 1 torpedo hit.
SS Bluefish: 2 hits.
CM Gouden Leeuw: Sunk.

5.) Japanese bomb Chungking. Same old story; minimal casualties, manpower hits, and hundreds of thousands of fires.

6.) Japanese bomb 10th Chinese Corps near Chungking (hex 77,46).

Japanese Losses

None.

Allied Losses

112 Chinese casualties.

7.) Japanese bomb 94th Chinese Corps near Chungking (hex 77,47).

Japanese Losses

None.

Allied Losses

63 Chinese casualties.

8.) Japanese bomb 90th Chinese Corps at Shaoyang.

Japanese Losses

None.

Allied Losses

88 Chinese casualties.

9.) Japanese deliberate attack near Chungking (hex 77,46).

Japanese Losses

5,026 Japanese casualties.

Allied Losses

8,946 Chinese casualties.

10.) Allied shock attack at Taichu.

Japanese Losses

133 Japanese casualties.

Allied Losses

612 Allied casualties.


Attached below as a link is the entire genuine Combat Report for October 5, 1943.

Best Regards,

-Terry



Attachment (1)

_____________________________

"No one throws me my own guns and tells me to run. No one."

-Bret (James Coburn); The Magnificent Seven

(in reply to Rio Bravo)
Post #: 1978
RE: THE WAR COLLEGE-Rio Bravo (A) v. El Lobo (J) - 11/29/2017 2:56:47 AM   
pontiouspilot


Posts: 1127
Joined: 7/27/2012
Status: offline
Those losses are not significant. Have you conceded as your opponent suggests or is this more of your Yankee fake news?

(in reply to Rio Bravo)
Post #: 1979
RE: THE WAR COLLEGE-Rio Bravo (A) v. El Lobo (J) - 11/29/2017 5:05:29 AM   
Rio Bravo


Posts: 1794
Joined: 7/13/2013
From: Grass Valley, California
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pontiouspilot

Those losses are not significant. Have you conceded as your opponent suggests or is this more of your Yankee fake news?



pontiouspilot-


No, I have never conceded.

The close of Turn 668 generated a Combat Video and Combat Text Report that substantially differed from Turn 669's Combat Text Report.

I suspected and so advised El Lobo that I thought there was a glitch in the gaming system.

El Lobo and I could not figure out why we had two different Combat Reports for the same date; that date being October 5, 1943. We didn't know which Combat Report was accurate (if either). We went back and forth with emails for days trying to figure it out without any success.

El Lobo asked me what I wanted to do.

Considering we did not know why we had two different Combat Reports and we didn't know which one was genuine (if either), I told El Lobo it didn't seem to make much sense to spend so much time, energy and effort playing a game which could be compromised.

After that, the JFB's advised that it was a "Sync Bug" that generated false reports only to the Allies and that the "Sync Bug" did not have any effect on the genuine Combat Results. Furthermore, the JFBs advised us that the genuine Combat Report was the Combat Report found within Turn 669.

Accordingly, I emailed El Lobo telling him that since we now knew what had occurred, why it had occurred, which Combat Report was genuine, and that the "Sync Bug" had no effect on Combat Results, I did not see any reason for us not to continue the war.

I suspect El Lobo will agree with me. I haven't heard back from him yet.

Best Regards,

-Terry


_____________________________

"No one throws me my own guns and tells me to run. No one."

-Bret (James Coburn); The Magnificent Seven

(in reply to pontiouspilot)
Post #: 1980
Page:   <<   < prev  64 65 [66] 67 68   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: THE WAR COLLEGE-Rio Bravo (A) v. El Lobo (J) Page: <<   < prev  64 65 [66] 67 68   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

2.078