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: Gnashing of Teeth: Cries of Fury

 
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: Gnashing of Teeth: Cries of Fury Page: <<   < prev  98 99 [100] 101 102   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Gnashing of Teeth: Cries of Fury - 5/1/2017 7:49:18 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline 		Real Intel from NavSearch is always tough. I can't remember how many times the IJN was bearing down on me with like 35 carriers.

_____________________________

Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/view/staffmonkeys/home

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 2971
RE: Gnashing of Teeth: Cries of Fury - 5/1/2017 9:51:18 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		Oh, I think it is a serious operation, but I also think he hopes I move the KB there to give him free action in the Bismarck Archipelago areas.

I am putting the finishing touches on Midway, it is getting serious CD guns and more artillery. Wake is also getting finished off.

I hope he doesn't come thru Hokkaido...been there done that. I like the small scale fighting in the Solomons, and fighting thru the SRA/Mindanao/Luzon would be interesting.

Only one more re-spawned division to buy out and I will be able to use my PP for other things. 12 days about.




(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 2972
RE: Gnashing of Teeth: Cries of Fury - 5/1/2017 11:11:43 PM   
Lokasenna


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

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

I hope he doesn't come thru Hokkaido...been there done that. I like the small scale fighting in the Solomons, and fighting thru the SRA/Mindanao/Luzon would be interesting.



I can think of no other reason why he would go for the Aleutians at this date when the Allies still have moderately scarce resources. It's either just busy work, in which case - why even do it now? There are more important things he could be doing with those ships, really... or it's part of a longer term Northern Strategy.

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 2973
RE: Gnashing of Teeth: Cries of Fury - 5/2/2017 12:26:17 AM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

I hope he doesn't come thru Hokkaido...been there done that. I like the small scale fighting in the Solomons, and fighting thru the SRA/Mindanao/Luzon would be interesting.



I can think of no other reason why he would go for the Aleutians at this date when the Allies still have moderately scarce resources. It's either just busy work, in which case - why even do it now? There are more important things he could be doing with those ships, really... or it's part of a longer term Northern Strategy.


Insightful, as always. Thanks, Lok.

In looking at the turn, counting hexes, and thinking about the Allies hesitance to expose assets, I feel he is going for Kodiak. Least risk, good return. It will be bombarded tonight, as he is 7 hexes away, the invasion will start the following day. I don't think Jocke would go for the Aleutians without having Kodiak to protect his supply line.

It might be part of a larger strategy...but winter is on its way, forts are high in the Aleutians and the garrisons aren't weak.

If he goes for Kodiak, then Midway I think the Aleutians would follow then.

In this scenario 2 game the Hokkaido approach features all those lovely aircraft engines in Hokkaido that are absent in a scenario 1 game.

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 2974
RE: Gnashing of Teeth: Cries of Fury - 5/2/2017 1:41:10 AM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		Here are the fighter squadrons providing CAP over the invasion fleets.

Interesting that he split a unit into thirds, I guess to give him more altitude bands?




Attachment (1)

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 2975
RE: Gnashing of Teeth: Cries of Fury - 5/2/2017 2:34:34 AM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

... Interesting that he split a unit into thirds, I guess to give him more altitude bands? ...



That isn't the reason. All those units are flying at an altitude of 10k.

Possible reasons for splitting VMF-214 include:

1. Bypass the normal weekly airframe replacement limit.
2. Have more reserve airframes on board.
3. Get lucky and obtain better leaders without expending any PPs.
4. Try to speed up pilot recovery.
5. Use up all space within 5 unit per CV limit.

Of greater interest to you should be that he is employing a VRF unit.

Alfred

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 2976
RE: Gnashing of Teeth: Cries of Fury - 5/2/2017 2:46:34 AM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline 		VC(F)? What are those?

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 2977
RE: Gnashing of Teeth: Cries of Fury - 5/2/2017 2:51:14 AM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

... Interesting that he split a unit into thirds, I guess to give him more altitude bands? ...



That isn't the reason. All those units are flying at an altitude of 10k.

Possible reasons for splitting VMF-214 include:

1. Bypass the normal weekly airframe replacement limit.
2. Have more reserve airframes on board.
3. Get lucky and obtain better leaders without expending any PPs.
4. Try to speed up pilot recovery.
5. Use up all space within 5 unit per CV limit.

Of greater interest to you should be that he is employing a VRF unit.

Alfred


The three splinters were scrambled to different altitude bands even though their patrol was the same. I thought Jocke might be onto something there?

I thought VRF squadrons only used their replenishment feature on a replenishment TF? And if on a replenishment task force they could train but not fly active attack/defense missions?

Which led me to think it is not on a replenishment task force but an air combat task force perhaps because it has Hellcats (pdu off game).



(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 2978
RE: Gnashing of Teeth: Cries of Fury - 5/2/2017 3:01:39 AM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

VC(F)? What are those?


No clue.

Michael? Alfred? AFB?

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 2979
RE: Gnashing of Teeth: Cries of Fury - 5/2/2017 3:29:12 AM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline 		CAP scrambles to meet incoming assessed strike altitude.  The incoming altitude detection is not always 100% accurate so that even if the incoming strike is all at the same altitude, the CAP may assess some of the separate incoming raids to be at different altitudes.

The point about the VRF unit is as per your comment.  It is not stationed aboard a CVE operating within a Replenishment TF.  This leads to the following speculation.

1.  He has beefed up his fighter strength to the max with Marine and Replenishment units.

2.  The likelihood is very high that the CV TF/s are light on bombers.

3.  NB that no CAP was actually airborne, it was all scrambled.  This often suggests that the Allied player has a low CAP percentage set, often done by players who wish to maximise their escort numbers (take note of recent thread on maximising units with "all in" parameters).

4.  Overall my assessment is that he is operating the CVs as a CAP trap/primary focus on defending the beachhead.  He has not optimised his fleet for an airborne strike against your navy.  You should adjust your response accordingly.

(a) IJN surface fleets can be sortied without the major concern being enemy carrier aircraft
(b) NB the time to interception.  If you must launch aircraft against the mobile CAP trap consider flying just above the waves.  The higher the incoming altitude the earlier the warning provided by radar.  Come in at 1k and his warning time might blow out even further
(c) with no Replenishment TF, if you can rotate air units in/out, you may be able to attrite his air power

5.  VRF units do not have to be inside a Replenishment TF in order to provide replacement airframes.  They can do so from a base within range.

6.  I don't have the game opened now but IIRC the VC(F) unit is a standard Navy unit which operates off a carrier.

Alfred

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 2980
RE: Gnashing of Teeth: Cries of Fury - 5/2/2017 6:31:33 AM   
paradigmblue

 

Posts: 784
Joined: 9/16/2014
From: Fairbanks, Alaska
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

... Interesting that he split a unit into thirds, I guess to give him more altitude bands? ...



That isn't the reason. All those units are flying at an altitude of 10k.

Possible reasons for splitting VMF-214 include:

1. Bypass the normal weekly airframe replacement limit.
2. Have more reserve airframes on board.
3. Get lucky and obtain better leaders without expending any PPs.
4. Try to speed up pilot recovery.
5. Use up all space within 5 unit per CV limit.

Of greater interest to you should be that he is employing a VRF unit.

Alfred

quote:

(a) IJN surface fleets can be sortied without the major concern being enemy carrier aircraft
(b) NB the time to interception.  If you must launch aircraft against the mobile CAP trap consider flying just above the waves.  The higher the incoming altitude the earlier the warning provided by radar.  Come in at 1k and his warning time might blow out even further
(c) with no Replenishment TF, if you can rotate air units in/out, you may be able to attrite his air power


In addition, split air units fly earlier when sweeping, which is useful if you want your sweeps to go in before your bombers. Not sure how useful that would be on a carrier, however.

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 2981
RE: Gnashing of Teeth: Cries of Fury - 5/2/2017 11:51:44 AM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		September 16, 1943

Very disappointed. A Glen patrol from the Iboat spots this convoy, and about 90 Lillys' fail to find the target or link up with 7 Betties which did attack and miss in the heavy rain.

The DL wasn't high enough with just the one Glen pilot spotting the task force.

Lots of strange movements on the ground in Burma. Allies sweep and bomb Katha again.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Lowpe -- 5/2/2017 11:52:03 AM >

(in reply to paradigmblue)
Post #: 2982
RE: Gnashing of Teeth: Cries of Fury - 5/2/2017 12:01:20 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		Kodiak it is...

250 AV behind level 3 forts...but lacking heavy guns. Most units have had a splinter flown out for rebuilding.

Supposition might be too strong a word for Alfred's theory as he did have one indicator.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 2983
RE: Gnashing of Teeth: Cries of Fury - 5/2/2017 8:49:07 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		At Kodiak I structured the search to avoid Kodiak proper, and set one Betty squadron up with a 2000 foot torpedo strike, but I shorted the potential escorts by 1 squadron. In hindsight, I wish I would have added it.

I am curious to see if the base reports the ships at Kodiak, and my planes fly straight into them.

Prepared to get nailed to find out, and also to show Jocke I am not afraid of flying into cap.


(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 2984
RE: Gnashing of Teeth: Cries of Fury - 5/3/2017 5:51:00 AM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline 		Welp, Kodiak then. Even though it's not really necessary for the Aleutians. There's lots of blue south of there. If he were to take those, you wouldn't be able to resupply Kodiak and it would just wither - he could take it at leisure later. Moot now, though.


VC(F) units are the non-VRF units that arrive on CVEs. Actually intended for combat operations historically rather than replacement squadrons.

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 2985
RE: Gnashing of Teeth: Cries of Fury - 5/3/2017 2:18:21 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		I absolutely wasn't thinking here. Another amazing allied bombardment...80% destroyed runway. Amazingly effective.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 2986
RE: Gnashing of Teeth: Cries of Fury - 5/3/2017 3:39:38 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		Fun game within a game...sub frolics.

Petes are a sad substitute for Jakes or Norms, but in a pdu off game you have to use a lot of them!




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 2987
RE: Gnashing of Teeth: Cries of Fury - 5/3/2017 4:10:26 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		My first Sam factory is at 29 repaired, 1 damaged. It will probably take months for it to finish and start work. That is my luck! By comparison the size 60 facility is at 40 repaired 20 damaged. Both I believe where started at the get go by Olorin.


(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 2988
RE: Gnashing of Teeth: Cries of Fury - 5/3/2017 7:26:40 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		Sept 18, 1943




Attachment (1)

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 2989
RE: Gnashing of Teeth: Cries of Fury - 5/3/2017 7:28:26 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		Another bombardment from heck!




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 2990
RE: Gnashing of Teeth: Cries of Fury - 5/3/2017 11:17:17 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		Two big focused aerial focused naval attacks this day, and the targets are spotted...so we will see if they run into lrCAP.

All Allied task forces retreat back to Canada from Kodiak. Dropped only 250 AV. He will need more.


(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 2991
RE: Gnashing of Teeth: Cries of Fury - 5/4/2017 5:02:47 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		Sept 19, 1943

Kodiak holds. Good day for Yank subs...an ak sunk, tanker damaged. I boat pummeled.






Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 2992
RE: Gnashing of Teeth: Cries of Fury - 5/4/2017 5:52:28 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		Sept 20, 1943

Well, Jocke knows how to put a surface bombardment group together. I don't think I have ever seen such effective ones.

Rabaul bombarded, and he picks the night I chose to sent 10 destroyers on a fast transport mission.

A midget sub launches, and misses. A cruiser and destroyer are hit with mines...and then the bombardment comes in.

Just one bombardment group. No bombers following up or anything.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 2993
RE: Gnashing of Teeth: Cries of Fury - 5/4/2017 5:54:22 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		Kaboom. During the day my returning destroyers run into one of his SAGs...




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 2994
RE: Gnashing of Teeth: Cries of Fury - 5/4/2017 5:55:31 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		Allied bombardment group...




Attachment (1)

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 2995
RE: Gnashing of Teeth: Cries of Fury - 5/4/2017 6:19:13 PM   
jwolf

 

Posts: 2493
Joined: 12/3/2013
Status: offline 		That's pretty amazing for ONE bombardment!! Are you going to try to use some of your big ships to discourage this sort of thing? Or rely on DDs and subs? Or ... all of the above?

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 2996
RE: Gnashing of Teeth: Cries of Fury - 5/4/2017 6:51:13 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		Probably not. Just fall back. That would be a fight heavily in Allies favor...no surprise, just slugging it out.

DP and CD guns didn't fire, or were ineffective. At least the mines got something. If the Allies are good Rabaul will never be functional again.


(in reply to jwolf)
Post #: 2997
RE: Gnashing of Teeth: Cries of Fury - 5/4/2017 6:51:51 PM   
Lokasenna


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

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

Sept 20, 1943

Well, Jocke knows how to put a surface bombardment group together. I don't think I have ever seen such effective ones.

Rabaul bombarded, and he picks the night I chose to sent 10 destroyers on a fast transport mission.

A midget sub launches, and misses. A cruiser and destroyer are hit with mines...and then the bombardment comes in.

Just one bombardment group. No bombers following up or anything.





...stacking? Too many eggs in one basket? ;)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 2998
RE: Gnashing of Teeth: Cries of Fury - 5/4/2017 9:41:47 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		Level 9 runway...


(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 2999
RE: Gnashing of Teeth: Cries of Fury - 5/4/2017 9:43:07 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		Sept 21, 1943

Rabaul bombed. I elected not to put LRCAP and CAP (from Rufes) expecting some Lightning sweeps. But just bombers.

Defenders in good shape, runways absolutely trashed.






Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 3000
Page:   <<   < prev  98 99 [100] 101 102   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: Gnashing of Teeth: Cries of Fury Page: <<   < prev  98 99 [100] 101 102   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

0.891