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: Clash of the Battleships

 
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: Clash of the Battleships Page: <<   < prev  15 16 [17] 18 19   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Clash of the Battleships - 11/12/2015 9:51:07 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		Turn is away, Jocke will wake up and probably be happy. He landed a bombardment, suffered no losses.

He spotted the Kongo and company at Akyab. I think they are going to stick around here under a heavy CAP and see what happens. I boosted the escort on the Nells to 140 planes so perhaps we will get lucky.

I think this kind of move by Jocke augurs well for me for the rest of 1942. I am relieved to find his carriers, and even more to have good shots at them.


(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 481
RE: Clash of the Battleships - 11/13/2015 12:45:16 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		June 1942

Zeroes sweep by the large cities on the West Coast and shoot down 13 Airacobras for no losses.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 482
RE: Clash of the Battleships - 11/13/2015 12:47:00 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		Meanwhile the Kates and Vals go sub hunting. Lots of targets, lots of sightings, lots of hits, reportedly.



Time to leave.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Lowpe -- 11/13/2015 1:47:25 PM >

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 483
RE: Clash of the Battleships - 11/13/2015 12:49:30 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		Allied fleets disappear, some sub skirmish but nothing notable.

Lots of ground movement...




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 484
Hinjinx in India - 11/13/2015 3:41:03 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		I think I caught him...the 16th Division, a Rgt and a few support troops. He is trying to escape across a secondary road with one day of movement which should be 15 miles of movement.

He will have to switch into combat mode now, and that should reduce his movement rate even further...I may have two days of attacks here.

His relief column is now heading south somewhere...




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 485
RE: Bakersfield - 11/13/2015 4:04:03 PM   
Olorin


Posts: 1019
Joined: 4/22/2008
From: Greece
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

... My biggest worry is figuring out how to counter SigInt that Allies get. Both on ship destinations, and infantry prep for the landing sites...



1. You can use waypoints to disguise your task force destinations.

For example a task force could start from Pearl Harbor with destination of Pago Pago but waypoint #1 is set to be a few hexes short of the actual landing site on the West Coast. To avoid the TF resuming it's course towards Pago after reaching the waypoint, set a loitering delay for waypoint #1. Also take into account the range and location of Allied air search assets as it would be rather inconvenient for the TF to be discovered en route to it's waypoint. Notwithstanding the increased risk, travelling silent ie no active search planes or defensive CAP from the accompanying CVs and BBs/cruisers would also have to be employed.

2. You should also employ decoy invasion TFs.

The destination of the decoys should be well away from the real landing site. Include some heavy LCUs with the decoy destination as their objective even though they are intended to be second wave follow up forces for the real invasion. You can subsequently reset their objective whilst at sea. Make certain the decoys are spotted. Ideally the enemy takes the bait and moves reserves to cover a landing in Canada/Oregon which will give you a few days breathing space at the real landing site in California. You can race the decoys to the real landing site probably quicker than the enemy can recall the troops sent up north.

3. As part of the invasion maskirovka for a few days before "landing", switch your aircraft to port attack missions to hit coastal guns first and defending LCUs second at the decoy invasion site. Surrounding airfields would be targeted with airfield attack.

4. There is nothing you can do about hiding the LCU objective except for one very dangerous gamble. Very highly experienced LCUs can now retain a part of their previous objective level when switched to a new objective. Not recommended as far too risky for the sort of operation you have in mind but an option. Obviously best employed with any decoy LCUs.

5. In deciding what will be the decoy invasion site, pay close attention to the transportation network.

Remember USMC and USN LCUs cannot employ strategic road movement but can employ strategic railway movement. Also take into account the static coastal gun locations. Choosing a poorly defended static coastal gun position for the decoy site lends greater credibility to the maskirovka. Especially if some LCUs have an adjacent non base hex as their objective; the "intention" being to cut off enemy reinforcing LCUs from employing strategic movement into the decoy site.

Alfred


Regarding 1:
Waypoints will indeed fool allied SigInt. I did that early in this game with the PH transports having Rabaul as a final destination (and as Jocke later confirmed, his SigInt reported Rabaul as a destination for two IJ divisions). There is however a downside. The journey is too long and that messes up fuel calculations. TFs refuel at sea every day losing operational points, even if there are orders for no refueling. I found that for the PH trip, transports that could normally make 4 hexes per phase, only made 3 hexes.

< Message edited by Olorin -- 11/13/2015 5:04:52 PM >

_____________________________

"Drang nach Osten"
--A TOAWIII AAR--

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 486
RE: Hinjinx in India - 11/13/2015 4:16:41 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		Hoping this is my last attack on Kodiak, so I can turn my full attention to the Pacific Northwest.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 487
RE: Bakersfield - 11/13/2015 4:59:05 PM   
Lowpe


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

ORIGINAL: Olorin

Regarding 1:
Waypoints will indeed fool allied SigInt. I did that early in this game with the PH transports having Rabaul as a final destination (and as Jocke later confirmed, his SigInt reported Rabaul as a destination for two IJ divisions). There is however a downside. The journey is too long and that messes up fuel calculations. TFs refuel at sea every day losing operational points, even if there are orders for no refueling. I found that for the PH trip, transports that could normally make 4 hexes per phase, only made 3 hexes.


Nice point, and good to see you posting.

KB is back on their way to Pearl safely away from the horde of Allied submarines. I was thinking one more punch on the west coast for them, but the carrier upgrades are starting to roll in.

Surface raiders are heading to isolate Oz, they are fairly deep (especially western Oz) and not spotted.

Plane research keeps cranking along...more and more factories shifting to the Oscar IIb which should start production next month. The first splinter of a Tojo IIa squadron is 1 plane away from being deployed for high CAP over Coal Harbor. The Tojo IIa here will allow all the Zeroes to fly lower at bomb intercepting distance.



(in reply to Olorin)
Post #: 488
RE: Bakersfield - 11/13/2015 6:34:30 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		June 13, 1942

Caught the Allies plucky little Blenheims.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 489
RE: Bakersfield - 11/13/2015 6:37:30 PM   
Lowpe


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




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 490
RE: Bakersfield - 11/13/2015 6:39:31 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		Pretty pickings at Kodiak.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 491
RE: Bakersfield - 11/13/2015 6:51:03 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		I knew the Allies were strong here, and 30 Blenheims got thru down way low disrupting my attack. Still, not complaining.

Ground combat at 52,30 (near Ranchi)

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 28507 troops, 434 guns, 187 vehicles, Assault Value = 817

Defending force 21138 troops, 250 guns, 299 vehicles, Assault Value = 810

Japanese adjusted assault: 479

Allied adjusted defense: 309

Japanese assault odds: 1 to 1

Combat modifiers
Defender: experience(-)
Attacker:

Japanese ground losses:
1403 casualties reported
Squads: 7 destroyed, 139 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 7 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 13 disabled

Allied ground losses:
1082 casualties reported
Squads: 19 destroyed, 99 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 8 disabled
Engineers: 4 destroyed, 11 disabled
Guns lost 33 (1 destroyed, 32 disabled)

Assaulting units:
38th Division
4th Guards Division
3rd Medium Field Artillery Regiment
3rd Ind.Hvy.Art. Battalion
20th Ind. Mtn Gun Battalion
1st Hvy.Artillery Regiment
2nd Ind.Hvy.Art. Battalion
3rd Mortar Battalion
3rd Ind. Mountain Gun Regiment
10th Ind. Mountain Gun Regiment
14th Ind.Art.Mortar Bn /5
2nd Mortar Battalion
1st RF Gun Bn /1

Defending units:
9th Indian Division
19th Indian Division
26th Indian Brigade
2/1 AIF Pioneer Battalion
85th British AT Gun Regiment

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 492
RE: Clash of the Battleships - 11/14/2015 12:22:34 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		Mid June 1942

Clearing mines and damaging Dutch subs...the AMc hard at work. Here two of them do great work.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 493
RE: Clash of the Battleships - 11/14/2015 12:23:17 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		First tangle with P38E in India. A good day....




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 494
RE: Clash of the Battleships - 11/14/2015 12:26:51 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		Another attack today, and one of the Allied divisions is combat ineffective. Allies suffering from poor experience and disruption...unfortunately I think he will move out of the hex today.

A side effect of the Allies massive fleet raid on Chitt, is the care I need to take resupplying my Indian offensive. I have several fleets massing at Ramree for the run to Chitt. Unfortunate to be low on supplies right now.








Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 495
RE: Clash of the Battleships - 11/14/2015 12:33:55 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		The IJA will be shocking across the river into the mountains today against 1 Corp and 1 HQ. The Chinese have been bombed heavily for five days, and we will continue again tomorrow.

Japanese forces are 3 divisions, 1 tank, several artillery....

I don't think he is heavily dug in as the troops haven't been there long. What a difference it would make if the Chinese would have put a corp or two here once my attack on the Ankang road was very evident. 3 Months of digging in by a Chinese Corp would be forts 4 most likely and added with the mountain terrain and river could be a very daunting river crossing.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 496
RE: Clash of the Battleships - 11/14/2015 12:40:11 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		Surface raiders...steaming south. Follow on refuel ships are lagging, but the CS is a huge fuel reserve for the destroyers.

Nothing spotted so far, and I have had subs off Perth for the game with nothing spotted, so further south we shall go.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 497
RE: Clash of the Battleships - 11/14/2015 2:43:03 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		Mid June 1942

The brave IJA troopers cross the river, up into the mountains and route the disrupted, out of supply, & inexperienced Chinese troopers.

Forward!




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 498
RE: Clash of the Battleships - 11/14/2015 2:44:51 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		Phase one of my Chinese strategy is almost complete, a scant 45 miles from the destination.

All the Chinese troops to the east will be left to wither on the vine; while we start phase two which has actually been going on, just on the backburner, for quite a while.






Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 499
RE: Clash of the Battleships - 11/14/2015 2:52:49 PM   
Lowpe


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

Jocke correctly pushing forward with his super stack.

I simply don't have enough troops here in India...but I did maul two divisions and a regiment. If I can get one more attack they will be forced to retreat with heavy losses.

The 9th Indian is down to 9 AV; while the 19 is under 200 and a regiment is at 60.

I am probably going to fall back now, and work on destroying Ledo, which now of all sudden has 4 fighter planes...need to wipe out those 12 units.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 500
RE: Clash of the Battleships - 11/14/2015 2:56:55 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		Jocke drops British and Dutch mines at Akyab, and as always sub laid mines are horribly effective against the Japanese.

A cruiser takes 3 hits, a destroyer takes one hit. Destroyers present clear about 20; while Chitt is now clear of mines, and another AMc is one hex away from Akyab.

At least none of the supply or troop ships that made Chitt today got hit. There was two ships with a tank regiment on it.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 501
RE: Clash of the Battleships - 11/14/2015 3:53:37 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline 		It's not just against Japanese ships. Also, in my experience I don't think it's specifically sub-laid mines: I think it's mines laid in the last turn or so, because they're going to be a complete surprise. Also, sub mines are the biggest of the bunch for both sides until the Allies can drop the aerial mines.

You're lucky that Matsukaze isn't sunk from just the 1 hit. Those mines are big.

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 502
RE: Clash of the Battleships - 11/14/2015 4:03:03 PM   
ny59giants


Posts: 9869
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline 		As players we tend to focus so much on warships, transports, and our logistical needs that having adequate minesweeping ships where needed is often overlooked. I've lost count of finding those needed ships too many days away from the base they need to be at.

_____________________________


(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 503
RE: Clash of the Battleships - 11/15/2015 1:38:38 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		It is about time for Jocke to rush in with surface ships again in India....

Fighter research starting to really take off:

Tojo IIb: 6 pts a day
Oscar IIa: 4 pts from starting production
Oscar IIb: 12 pts per day soon to be 14.
A6M5: 6 pts per day
A6M3a: 6 pts per day
Ki61-Ia: 1 pts per day (don't have the engine yet)

I bought out a mess of AA to guard the oil/refineries in the SRA today. In addition bought out more aviation bases for India.

KB approaching Pearl Harbor and full refuel and re-supply.

Allies are starting to put their fighters at distant bases in Canada.

(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 504
RE: Clash of the Battleships - 11/15/2015 3:00:28 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		First attack at Clark AFB:


Ground combat at Clark Field (79,76)

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 33762 troops, 396 guns, 284 vehicles, Assault Value = 1004

Defending force 26897 troops, 277 guns, 240 vehicles, Assault Value = 753

Japanese adjusted assault: 1061

Allied adjusted defense: 313

Japanese assault odds: 3 to 1 (fort level 2)

Japanese Assault reduces fortifications to 1

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

Japanese ground losses:
1076 casualties reported
Squads: 4 destroyed, 122 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 11 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 6 disabled
Guns lost 28 (2 destroyed, 26 disabled)
Vehicles lost 33 (1 destroyed, 32 disabled)

Allied ground losses:
565 casualties reported
Squads: 22 destroyed, 17 disabled
Non Combat: 5 destroyed, 11 disabled
Engineers: 7 destroyed, 1 disabled
Guns lost 5 (1 destroyed, 4 disabled)
Vehicles lost 25 (20 destroyed, 5 disabled)
Units destroyed 1

Assaulting units:
14th Division
6th Guards Division
16th Guards Regiment
3rd Hvy.Artillery Regiment
Botanko Hvy Gun Rgt /2
7th Ind.Hvy.Art. Battalion
2nd RF Gun Battalion
2nd Hvy.Artillery Regiment
23rd Medium Field Artillery Regiment
1st Ind.Hvy.Art. Battalion
4th Ind. Mountain Gun Regiment
6th Ind.Hvy.Art. Battalion
Tonei Hvy Gun Rgt /2

Defending units:
26th PS Cavalry Regiment
192nd Tank Battalion
31st PA Infantry Division
51st PA Infantry Division
21st PA Infantry Division
4th Marine Regiment
57th PS Infantry Regimental Combat Team
31st Infantry Regiment
102nd PA Infantry Division
88th PS Field Artillery Regiment
I Philippine Corps
194th Tank Battalion
1st USMC AA Battalion
Provisional GMC Grp

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 505
RE: Clash of the Battleships - 11/15/2015 4:45:30 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		Mid June 1942

Clark AF falls after 2 attacks. Not shabby.






Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 506
RE: Clash of the Battleships - 11/15/2015 5:18:24 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline 		Pretty darn good.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 507
RE: Clash of the Battleships - 11/15/2015 6:45:14 PM   
Olorin


Posts: 1019
Joined: 4/22/2008
From: Greece
Status: offline 		So... it seems that the supposed opportunity cost of sending the 14th Army to PH and not to Luzon is pretty much zero. From now on this will be a standard phase 1 gambit for me.

_____________________________

"Drang nach Osten"
--A TOAWIII AAR--

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 508
RE: Clash of the Battleships - 11/15/2015 7:10:48 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		I lost less than 10 troop devices taking Clark.

I did expend political points early buying out the artillery and two weeks ago buying out a crack IJA Division from Manchuko, and I have had 4-6 bomber units hitting Luzon daily at 20 to 30 percent rest. I think two are Sonias and one is a Lilly group which can be dangerous flying against good AA or very susceptible to CAP traps.

The IJA artillery shaved off a solid 20% of Allied AV, and knocked the Stuart tanks there down to 0. With no supply, and heavy disruption they were easy pickings.

Certainly dropping off 5 divisions to conquer the PI sure seems like a total loss of momentum. PI is much easier to take with no supply and against disrupted troops & using a lot less force.

Jocke seems to have made no attempt at resupplying Luzon. In this game, I am not sure where the supply would come from. Perhaps Jocke used Luzon to scout for his submarines...but not much of an impact in bypassing Luzon.

And look at the results: Pearl gone; Alaska gone.



< Message edited by Lowpe -- 11/15/2015 8:15:00 PM >

(in reply to Olorin)
Post #: 509
RE: Clash of the Battleships - 11/15/2015 7:32:27 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		Mid June, 1942

Japanese raiders deep in enemy shipping...




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 510
Page:   <<   < prev  15 16 [17] 18 19   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: Clash of the Battleships Page: <<   < prev  15 16 [17] 18 19   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

0.766