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: AAARGGG !!!

 
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: AAARGGG !!! Page: <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: AAARGGG !!! - 8/3/2016 9:22:55 AM   
AlessandroD


Posts: 381
Joined: 12/28/2014
From: Italy
Status: offline 		How many tankers lost so far? 14?
Anyhow I like your self-imposed HR.

Message sent

_____________________________


(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 211
RE: AAARGGG !!! - 8/3/2016 9:26:37 AM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 8262
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline 		Why on earth would you have a HR against shipping fuel in xAKs? You pay a hefty penalty as the capacity is halved if you do. There is no foul play in doing so?

(in reply to AlessandroD)
Post #: 212
RE: AAARGGG !!! - 8/3/2016 10:35:35 AM   
Yaab


Posts: 4552
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poland
Status: offline 		Because xAKs hauled only avgas(supply) in RL.

Actually, when you haul fuel in xAKs you can unload them faster than a dedicated tanker. Just dump naval support in a port and it will help unload the drummed fuel from xAKs. You cannot do the same with TK/YOs, you have to develop the port then.

I wish the devs got rid of this feature altogether.

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 213
RE: AAARGGG !!! - 8/3/2016 11:58:53 AM   
JocMeister

 

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

ORIGINAL: Yaab

Because xAKs hauled only avgas(supply) in RL.

Actually, when you haul fuel in xAKs you can unload them faster than a dedicated tanker. Just dump naval support in a port and it will help unload the drummed fuel from xAKs. You cannot do the same with TK/YOs, you have to develop the port then.

I wish the devs got rid of this feature altogether.



Well, I still don´t think it warrants a HR. TBH this is the first time I ever heard anyone using a HR for it. Losing half the capacity is a big blow. Especially for Japan I would think this way of hauling fuel would be tremendously inefficient and to be avoided unless its absolutely necessary anyway?

(in reply to Yaab)
Post #: 214
RE: AAARGGG !!! - 8/3/2016 12:16:00 PM   
Yaab


Posts: 4552
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poland
Status: offline 		When you use this HR it is like a paradigm shift in strategy. TK/YOs become tremendously important an each of them warrant a strong escort to deflect submarines, but good escorts are really scare at start.

I use this HR in my game against the AI. Now much of my naval planning revolves around TK/YOs. I like historical play and slower tempo of operations this HR introduces.

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 215
RE: AAARGGG !!! - 8/3/2016 2:00:46 PM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yaab

Because xAKs hauled only avgas(supply) in RL.

Actually, when you haul fuel in xAKs you can unload them faster than a dedicated tanker. Just dump naval support in a port and it will help unload the drummed fuel from xAKs. You cannot do the same with TK/YOs, you have to develop the port then.

I wish the devs got rid of this feature altogether.



Well, I still don´t think it warrants a HR. TBH this is the first time I ever heard anyone using a HR for it. Losing half the capacity is a big blow. Especially for Japan I would think this way of hauling fuel would be tremendously inefficient and to be avoided unless its absolutely necessary anyway?

+1

I never haul fuel in xAK's, as you say, the cost to move it via xAK is too much of the fuel load you are moving. IJ's merchant fleet is already so inefficient, 50% penalty ... yikes.

Now if someone wants to play with this HR in their own mod ... hey, whatever floats their boat.

IRL, did the IJ ever ship bunker fuel via xAK? I have no idea and I doubt that records exist any more to answer the question. Could they have? Absolutely. Standard 55 gal drums or temporary tanks could have been used (easily) and the 50% space loss is used to represent this. So, the real issue is to say they couldn't have done it. That's not accurate. The Dev's have this correct and they stated this way back for the support of the rule.

Now, what's not well modeled and WAS done routinely was the fuel tanks on all DEI shipments to IJ were topped up and then drained to minimums at the destination. This isn't that easy to do with the current game mechanics. You can do it, but it takes a fair amount of practice and patience.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 216
RE: AAARGGG !!! - 8/3/2016 3:53:58 PM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 4320
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline 		It was never a firm HR; more like an ideal. in the 1st page of this AAR you can see how it was defined

I don't think it is inefficient to do, assuming of course "return leg" only, in other words, there are plenty of xAKs moving supply to the SRA, I would never left them come back to HI empty. Choices for return cargo are resources (what I used to carry exclusively) or fuel, which I will start taking.

For places without oil or with small ports (Pacific), I guess I will need to move the fleet out of Suva.. too risky and keep even stronger convoys anytime the oilers are coming

Losses:
Fast Oilers: 2 Type TL-N (11,500 capacity, 15 knots cruise speed), both to submarines
Slow Oilers: 2 Shiretokos (8,000 capacity, 10 cruise speed), both to raiders attacking Rabaul
Medium Tanker: 1 Manzyu TM (7,950 capacity, 10 cruise speed), raider near Miri
Small Tankes: 12 Type-1 TS (1,250 capacity, 10 cruise speed), 7 to submarines, 3 on Rabaul raid, 1 on Miri's raid, 1 due to mines


Under repair:
AO Tsurumi (Shiretoko class): 16 days to go back online, repairing a torpedo hit
TK Tonan Maru 2 (Tonan M class): 68 days to back online, repairing a torpedo hit

To say I am unhappy of this losses would be an understatement.


< Message edited by Jorge_Stanbury -- 8/3/2016 3:58:57 PM >

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 217
RE: AAARGGG !!! - 8/3/2016 4:45:58 PM   
JocMeister

 

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

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

It was never a firm HR; more like an ideal. in the 1st page of this AAR you can see how it was defined

I don't think it is inefficient to do, assuming of course "return leg" only, in other words, there are plenty of xAKs moving supply to the SRA, I would never left them come back to HI empty. Choices for return cargo are resources (what I used to carry exclusively) or fuel, which I will start taking.

For places without oil or with small ports (Pacific), I guess I will need to move the fleet out of Suva.. too risky and keep even stronger convoys anytime the oilers are coming

Losses:
Fast Oilers: 2 Type TL-N (11,500 capacity, 15 knots cruise speed), both to submarines
Slow Oilers: 2 Shiretokos (8,000 capacity, 10 cruise speed), both to raiders attacking Rabaul
Medium Tanker: 1 Manzyu TM (7,950 capacity, 10 cruise speed), raider near Miri
Small Tankes: 12 Type-1 TS (1,250 capacity, 10 cruise speed), 7 to submarines, 3 on Rabaul raid, 1 on Miri's raid, 1 due to mines


Under repair:
AO Tsurumi (Shiretoko class): 16 days to go back online, repairing a torpedo hit
TK Tonan Maru 2 (Tonan M class): 68 days to back online, repairing a torpedo hit

To say I am unhappy of this losses would be an understatement.



You won´t like 43-45...

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 218
RE: AAARGGG !!! - 8/4/2016 4:28:56 AM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

It was never a firm HR; more like an ideal. in the 1st page of this AAR you can see how it was defined

I don't think it is inefficient to do, assuming of course "return leg" only, in other words, there are plenty of xAKs moving supply to the SRA, I would never left them come back to HI empty. Choices for return cargo are resources (what I used to carry exclusively) or fuel, which I will start taking.

For places without oil or with small ports (Pacific), I guess I will need to move the fleet out of Suva.. too risky and keep even stronger convoys anytime the oilers are coming

Losses:
Fast Oilers: 2 Type TL-N (11,500 capacity, 15 knots cruise speed), both to submarines
Slow Oilers: 2 Shiretokos (8,000 capacity, 10 cruise speed), both to raiders attacking Rabaul
Medium Tanker: 1 Manzyu TM (7,950 capacity, 10 cruise speed), raider near Miri
Small Tankes: 12 Type-1 TS (1,250 capacity, 10 cruise speed), 7 to submarines, 3 on Rabaul raid, 1 on Miri's raid, 1 due to mines


Under repair:
AO Tsurumi (Shiretoko class): 16 days to go back online, repairing a torpedo hit
TK Tonan Maru 2 (Tonan M class): 68 days to back online, repairing a torpedo hit

To say I am unhappy of this losses would be an understatement.


Your game. Just pointing out that the design is correct. Don't want to high jack your game thread.

With your rule, I would suggest that you put AV/CVE in all TK convoys with plenty of E's ... I find that Jakes on NavSearch or ASW really make the difference ...

< Message edited by PaxMondo -- 8/4/2016 4:30:46 AM >

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 219
RE: AAARGGG !!! - 8/4/2016 4:44:48 AM   
Yaab


Posts: 4552
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poland
Status: offline 		Jorge_Stanbury, maybe it is time to redefine the HR? In RL fuel in cargo method was used in emergencies to move very small quantities of fuel. Thus, maybe you could do the same but limit yourself to using your smallest xAKLs?

Here is a discussion on this topic.
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3742111&mpage=1&key=�

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 220
RE: AAARGGG !!! - 8/4/2016 2:22:19 PM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline 		Not arguing anything Symon said, because he is right, but ...

When/If the IJ runs outta tankers, I promise you in a war building small tanks to haul bunker fuel would happen. Lousy efficiency, like 50% of the total hold. hold it, that's what they did in game. Would they likley start with xAKL's? Yeah, likely. Why? Easiest to do.

Not sure why this is such a big deal. Even Symon said so. Its minor. Its tiny. Whatever you want to do is fine. But if you ever limit yourself to moving fuel when any kind of AK exists, just know you crossed over to the wrong side of realism. In war, people don't just bend rules, they totally ignore them. Really.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to Yaab)
Post #: 221
RE: AAARGGG !!! - 8/4/2016 2:41:51 PM   
jwolf

 

Posts: 2493
Joined: 12/3/2013
Status: offline 		FWIW IMHO (maybe I can write the whole post in acronyms ) this kind of handicap only makes sense in a game vs. the AI or in a game matching an experienced player against a beginner. In war, people will exploit all resources to their extreme limit.

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 222
RE: AAARGGG !!! - 8/4/2016 6:51:12 PM   
Yaab


Posts: 4552
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

Not arguing anything Symon said, because he is right, but ...

When/If the IJ runs outta tankers, I promise you in a war building small tanks to haul bunker fuel would happen. Lousy efficiency, like 50% of the total hold. hold it, that's what they did in game. Would they likley start with xAKL's? Yeah, likely. Why? Easiest to do.

Not sure why this is such a big deal. Even Symon said so. Its minor. Its tiny. Whatever you want to do is fine. But if you ever limit yourself to moving fuel when any kind of AK exists, just know you crossed over to the wrong side of realism. In war, people don't just bend rules, they totally ignore them. Really.


When I started playing the GC, I was under the impresion that in RL hauling fuel in xAK was commonplace. Otherwise, the devs wouldn't have put the option in the first place. All this time I was thinking why US Navy had experienced tanker or fuel shortage during the war - I was hauling tons of fuel everywhere with no problem. It was only after I stumbled on Symon's post did I change my views.

Did the Japs adapt their xAKs in late-war to haul fuel as cargo?

Sorry to hijack the thread, but Jorge_Stanbury is one of the first to explore the uncharted territory of this HR, and his struggle is interesting to watch.

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 223
RE: AAARGGG !!! - 8/4/2016 8:17:06 PM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 4320
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline 		hey no worries, this is precisely the kind of discussions I want in my AAR; after all this is quite a standard game and we all know more or less how the war starts and ends

I will think a bit more about it; I got "green light" from my opponent, but I will wait to see the impact of June 42 conversions (Standard C tanker becomes available). I am not too worried, yet, as the main losses had been in the very irrelevant/ small type-1 TS

(in reply to Yaab)
Post #: 224
RE: AAARGGG !!! - 8/5/2016 5:37:54 PM   
IdahoNYer


Posts: 2616
Joined: 9/6/2009
From: NYer living in Boise, ID
Status: offline 		Jorge - getting back to what to do with your Pago Pago victors.....

Have you considered expanding your flanks in Australia? It looks like your center of gravity is Darwin of course. To prolong the Allied struggle to remove you from Northern Aus, think about pushing your right flank down to taking Exmouth and Carnavon - both would likely require seaborne assault to push you out - and if held can deny the Allies access to Port Hedland and then Broome. On your left flank, NE AUS should still be relatively undefended - taking Cooktown, Portland Roads and Coen will safeguard Moresby, Horn Island and grant you safe (at least safer) passage through the Torrez Strait well into late '42.

Advantages here also include its a short transit time from Pago, and will deny/delay the Allies potential thrusts into New Guinea/Rabaul and of course the DEI.

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 225
Australia - 8/5/2016 10:05:20 PM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 4320
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline 		I didn't think about it, really. Do you think they will be a significant advantage?

On the NW:
I can easily grab Exmouth and Carnarvon, the former is a dot base and I bet it is empty, the later might be a bit more challenging, thus I will need 100% preparation, but more worrisome is the fact there is a road linking it to Geraldton, which will easily become a source of "relatively infinite" supply for an Australian land offensive not to mention it is a 2(7) airbase. By the time of the offensive it will become 9(7) and only 8 hexes from Carnarvon.. unless I build it significantly, actually even if I build it significantly, it will still be doomed. Wouldn't it be better to focus on places closer to Darwin? like Broome/ Derby?

On the NE:
I am even more worried here. Suva and Pago/Pago was a relatively easy grab (only 1 US division and a few brigades there) which by simple process of elimination he has to be strong in NE Australia. Portland Roads and Coen can be easily captured, but what happens after? He is certainly strong on Cairns, Charter Towers and Townsville. I will need to build quite a lot to keep the pace of the air war... won't it be less costly to close the strait by reinforcing places like Merauke, Terapo or Gove?




< Message edited by Jorge_Stanbury -- 8/5/2016 10:07:49 PM >

(in reply to IdahoNYer)
Post #: 226
RE: Australia - 8/6/2016 4:57:21 PM   
IdahoNYer


Posts: 2616
Joined: 9/6/2009
From: NYer living in Boise, ID
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

I didn't think about it, really. Do you think they will be a significant advantage?


On the NW:
I can easily grab Exmouth and Carnarvon, the former is a dot base and I bet it is empty, the later might be a bit more challenging, thus I will need 100% preparation, but more worrisome is the fact there is a road linking it to Geraldton, which will easily become a source of "relatively infinite" supply for an Australian land offensive not to mention it is a 2(7) airbase. By the time of the offensive it will become 9(7) and only 8 hexes from Carnarvon.. unless I build it significantly, actually even if I build it significantly, it will still be doomed. Wouldn't it be better to focus on places closer to Darwin? like Broome/ Derby?

On the NE:
I am even more worried here. Suva and Pago/Pago was a relatively easy grab (only 1 US division and a few brigades there) which by simple process of elimination he has to be strong in NE Australia. Portland Roads and Coen can be easily captured, but what happens after? He is certainly strong on Cairns, Charter Towers and Townsville. I will need to build quite a lot to keep the pace of the air war... won't it be less costly to close the strait by reinforcing places like Merauke, Terapo or Gove?



Pretty much an observation from what I'm experiencing in my game with L_S_T....

From an Allied perspective, I'd love to retain those bases. It will greatly facilitate my ability to strike back in mid '42. In the NW (do you hold Port Hedland already?), Port Hedland is the first real prize, (L_S_T also thought so, and decisively defeated my attempt to hold it early on) - as it has a good potential AF to strike toward Broome. If I lose Port Hedland, I'm going to try and retain Exmouth and build it up - can become a good sub base if nothing else, but also will be a springboard for any operation toward Port Hedland/Broome. From the IJA perspective, I think the goal for Exmouth and even Carnavon would be denial - and pull out before the pressure mounts. But a single SNLF will deny either base from the Allies for a long while.

In the NE, same reasoning. As the Allies, I love to build up Portland Roads if I'm able. Fastest way to put P-38s over New Guinea. Once P-38s are sweeping Moresby, IJN shipping ability south of New Guinea pretty much ceases - or can become very, very costly. Coen manages to draw enough supply from Cooktown overland, and can also be built up to a substantial Allied airbase. So again, denying the Allied build up timeline here would be the goal. Cooktown is weakly defended early on, and unless you've seen a lot of shipping reinforcing it, likely is still held by a weak Militia Bde. Taking Cooktown will force the Allies to commit a heavy ground force, likely in a slow overland campaign - deny and then pull north. Cooktown's development is then starting in late '42 vs. now.

The Allies will probably try to close the shoulders on the IJA's Darwin redoubt - overland from Alice Springs just doesn't get enough supply north. So, delaying the adavance on the shoulders could extend the conflict.

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 227
RE: Australia - 8/6/2016 7:14:19 PM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline 		Strong in OZ is all relative. OZ is not self sufficient in supply. Units just sitting, they are usually losing a bit of supply every day. So,they need supply and/or supply&fuel shipped in to have enough supply for any type of fighting. That's how Oz gets cracked. It isn't about the units on the ground there, its about can they get supply in for them to be effective. Pago Pago is a big block for supply coming from USA. If you get Darwin and Perth, you have the opportunity to effectively blockade OZ, and once that is done you can take it.

Most allied players will react to that.

I've often thought it is one of the best gambits to get the allies to come out to play in '42 when you actually have a good chance to take them down hard. If you go after OZ, I like to take Darwin, Perth and then Tasmania (assuming Fiji and surrounding areas are taken). Oz is then isolated, and I have LBA to back up the KB against the allied CV's. OR I totally take OZ with all of those VP's ...
Of course, there is nothing easy about being able to do this ... needs a lot of ID's ....

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to IdahoNYer)
Post #: 228
RE: Australia - 8/7/2016 5:37:31 PM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 4320
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline 		Thank you very much for the advice, I think it makes a lot of sense but it is way too ambitious for my game without even mentioning we decided to ignore auto victory, we are playing until the end or until one of us concede.

I don't think I can pull it successfully now, it is already April 42 and any good offensive needs to be planned in advance. As you said not easy and need quite a lot of IDs, which I don't have available in the numbers needed (most are now in East Bengal), not to mention the supplies and more important, the fuel needed for the KB to be kept "on patrol" for quite a long time.


(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 229
Naval battle of Pago Pago - 8/7/2016 7:29:56 PM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 4320
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline 		Once again, my opponent proves himself super aggressive:

he raided Pago Pago, which I was actually expecting, to the point that I only started loading troops a turn ago; I was unlucky this was just the turn he arrived:
results were not as bad as you can see:
- 2 Momi (1 DD, 1 APD) and one loaded xAK-T sunk (800 troops lost)
- DD Hughes sunk, DD Mustin heavy fires, heavy damaged... I would say doomed
- BB Mississippi heavy fires, CA Chester on fire... at risk, but I doubt they will sink, unless KB (which is at Suva) catch them
- CAs Mogami and Mikuma in surprising good shape.. still they are damaged and will need to withdraw

This kind of reinforces the need to go on the defensive, the more I expand, the easiest is for him to push on vulnerable spots, and although I had been good at anticipating where he will push, and in almost all raids, he has ended with heavy losses.. mine had been potentially more crippling in the long run. His aim, it seems, is to end 1942 without anything afloat, as long as he hurts the Japanese navy somehow

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat, near Pago Pago at 148,161, Range 3,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
APD Tade, Shell hits 5, and is sunk
xAK Sinno Maru, Shell hits 5, and is sunk

Allied Ships
BB Mississippi
CA Chester
DD Hughes
DD Mustin

Japanese ground losses:
762 casualties reported
Squads: 42 destroyed, 26 disabled
Non Combat: 4 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 24 destroyed, 2 disabled
Guns lost 16 (16 destroyed, 0 disabled)

Allied Ships Reported to be Approaching!
Japanese TF suspends loading operations and begins to get underway
Reduced sighting due to 17% moonlight
Maximum visibility in Partly Cloudy Conditions and 17% moonlight: 3,000 yards
Range closes to 23,000 yards...
Range closes to 20,000 yards...
Range closes to 17,000 yards...
Range closes to 14,000 yards...
Range closes to 11,000 yards...
Range closes to 9,000 yards...
Range closes to 8,000 yards...
Range closes to 7,000 yards...
Range closes to 6,000 yards...
Range closes to 5,000 yards...
Range closes to 4,000 yards...
Range closes to 3,000 yards...
CONTACT: Japanese lookouts spot Allied task force at 3,000 yards
CONTACT: Allied lookouts spot Japanese task force at 3,000 yards
BB Mississippi engages APD Tade at 3,000 yards
xAK Sinno Maru sunk by BB Mississippi at 3,000 yards
Range increases to 7,000 yards
BB Mississippi engages APD Tade at 7,000 yards
DD Hughes engages APD Tade at 7,000 yards
Range increases to 10,000 yards
APD Tade sunk by BB Mississippi at 10,000 yards
APD Tade sunk by BB Mississippi at 10,000 yards
Task forces break off...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat, near Pago Pago at 148,161, Range 7,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
CA Mogami, Shell hits 2, on fire
CA Mikuma, Shell hits 6, on fire
DD Akigumo
DD Hatsukaze
DD Yukikaze
DD Amatsukaze
DD Kasumi
DD Sanae
DD Yomogi, Shell hits 1, and is sunk

Allied Ships
BB Mississippi, Shell hits 34, heavy fires
CA Chester, Shell hits 9, on fire
DD Hughes, Shell hits 15, and is sunk
DD Mustin, Shell hits 7, heavy fires, heavy damage

Reduced sighting due to 17% moonlight
Maximum visibility in Partly Cloudy Conditions and 17% moonlight: 7,000 yards
Range closes to 16,000 yards...
Range closes to 10,000 yards...
CONTACT: Allies radar detects Japanese task force at 10,000 yards
Range closes to 7,000 yards...
CONTACT: Allies radar detects Japanese task force at 7,000 yards
Allies open fire on surprised Japanese ships at 7,000 yards
BB Mississippi fires at CA Mogami at 7,000 yards
Magazine explodes on DD Yomogi
DD Yomogi sunk by BB Mississippi at 7,000 yards
BB Mississippi fires at DD Yukikaze at 7,000 yards
Range closes to 3,000 yards
BB Mississippi engages CA Mikuma at 3,000 yards
CA Chester engages CA Mogami at 3,000 yards
DD Yukikaze engages DD Mustin at 3,000 yards
Range increases to 4,000 yards
BB Mississippi engages CA Mikuma at 4,000 yards
CA Mikuma engages CA Chester at 4,000 yards
DD Sanae engages DD Mustin at 4,000 yards
DD Hughes engages DD Yukikaze at 4,000 yards
DD Yukikaze engages DD Mustin at 4,000 yards
DD Mustin engages DD Akigumo at 4,000 yards
Range increases to 5,000 yards
BB Mississippi engages CA Mikuma at 5,000 yards
CA Mikuma engages CA Chester at 5,000 yards
DD Sanae engages DD Mustin at 5,000 yards
DD Sanae engages DD Hughes at 5,000 yards
DD Amatsukaze engages DD Hughes at 5,000 yards
DD Yukikaze engages DD Hughes at 5,000 yards
DD Akigumo engages DD Hughes at 5,000 yards
Range increases to 7,000 yards
CA Mikuma engages BB Mississippi at 7,000 yards
CA Mikuma engages CA Chester at 7,000 yards
DD Hughes engages DD Sanae at 7,000 yards
DD Kasumi engages DD Hughes at 7,000 yards
DD Amatsukaze engages DD Hughes at 7,000 yards
DD Yukikaze engages DD Mustin at 7,000 yards
CA Mikuma engages BB Mississippi at 7,000 yards
CA Mogami engages BB Mississippi at 7,000 yards
DD Hughes engages DD Sanae at 7,000 yards
DD Kasumi engages DD Hughes at 7,000 yards
DD Akigumo engages DD Hughes at 7,000 yards
Range increases to 9,000 yards
CA Mikuma engages BB Mississippi at 9,000 yards
CA Mogami engages BB Mississippi at 9,000 yards
DD Mustin engages DD Yukikaze at 9,000 yards
DD Kasumi engages DD Mustin at 9,000 yards
DD Amatsukaze engages DD Hughes at 9,000 yards
DD Yukikaze engages DD Hughes at 9,000 yards
DD Hughes engages DD Hatsukaze at 9,000 yards
DD Akigumo engages DD Hughes at 9,000 yards
Range increases to 11,000 yards
CA Mikuma engages BB Mississippi at 11,000 yards
CA Mikuma engages CA Chester at 11,000 yards
DD Hughes engages DD Sanae at 11,000 yards
DD Sanae engages DD Hughes at 11,000 yards
DD Amatsukaze engages DD Mustin at 11,000 yards
DD Yukikaze engages DD Hughes at 11,000 yards
CA Mikuma engages BB Mississippi at 11,000 yards
CA Mogami engages BB Mississippi at 11,000 yards
DD Sanae engages DD Mustin at 11,000 yards
DD Hughes engages DD Kasumi at 11,000 yards
DD Hughes engages DD Amatsukaze at 11,000 yards
DD Yukikaze engages DD Mustin at 11,000 yards
DD Hatsukaze engages DD Hughes at 11,000 yards
Bode, H. orders Allied TF to disengage
CA Mikuma engages BB Mississippi at 11,000 yards
CA Chester engages CA Mikuma at 11,000 yards
DD Sanae engages DD Mustin at 11,000 yards
DD Kasumi engages DD Hughes at 11,000 yards
DD Amatsukaze engages DD Hughes at 11,000 yards
DD Yukikaze engages DD Hughes at 11,000 yards
Range closes to 9,000 yards
CA Mikuma engages BB Mississippi at 9,000 yards
CA Mogami engages BB Mississippi at 9,000 yards
DD Mustin engages DD Amatsukaze at 9,000 yards
Range closes to 8,000 yards
BB Mississippi engages CA Mikuma at 8,000 yards
CA Mogami engages CA Chester at 8,000 yards
DD Hughes engages DD Sanae at 8,000 yards
DD Hughes engages DD Amatsukaze at 8,000 yards
Range closes to 5,000 yards
BB Mississippi engages CA Mikuma at 5,000 yards
CA Mogami engages BB Mississippi at 5,000 yards
DD Sanae engages DD Mustin at 5,000 yards
DD Kasumi engages DD Hughes at 5,000 yards
DD Yukikaze engages DD Mustin at 5,000 yards
DD Akigumo engages DD Hughes at 5,000 yards
Range closes to 2,000 yards
CA Mikuma engages CA Chester at 2,000 yards
CA Chester engages CA Mikuma at 2,000 yards
DD Hughes engages DD Sanae at 2,000 yards
DD Sanae engages DD Hughes at 2,000 yards
DD Mustin engages DD Yukikaze at 2,000 yards
BB Mississippi engages CA Mikuma at 2,000 yards
CA Mogami engages CA Chester at 2,000 yards
CA Mikuma engages BB Mississippi at 2,000 yards
CA Mogami engages BB Mississippi at 2,000 yards
DD Kasumi engages DD Mustin at 2,000 yards
DD Hughes engages DD Kasumi at 2,000 yards
DD Hughes engages DD Hatsukaze at 2,000 yards
Range increases to 6,000 yards
CA Mikuma engages BB Mississippi at 6,000 yards
CA Chester engages CA Mikuma at 6,000 yards
DD Sanae engages DD Mustin at 6,000 yards
DD Mustin engages DD Kasumi at 6,000 yards
Range increases to 11,000 yards
CA Mikuma engages BB Mississippi at 11,000 yards
CA Chester engages CA Mikuma at 11,000 yards
DD Kasumi engages DD Mustin at 11,000 yards
DD Hughes sunk by DD Kasumi at 11,000 yards
DD Mustin engages DD Amatsukaze at 11,000 yards
Task forces break off...

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 230
RE: Naval battle of Pago Pago - 8/7/2016 7:35:18 PM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 4320
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline 		Losses also heavy on the air;

this was mostly over Calcutta; I decided to do multiple sweeps, and I am happy with the end result:
lots of hard to replace British airplanes lost, at the cost of abundant Oscars




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 231
RE: Naval battle of Pago Pago - 8/9/2016 12:15:05 PM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 4320
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline 		Time for a little oiler revenge:

my float planes saw this TF south east of Noumea, so I just needed to set a course to intercept.

all gone




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 232
RE: Naval battle of Pago Pago - 8/9/2016 12:32:48 PM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 4320
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline 		Royal Sovereign is confirmed:





Attachment (1)

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 233
RE: Naval battle of Pago Pago - 8/9/2016 12:41:14 PM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 4320
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline 		And the most interesting development of the turn,

he decided to invade Sydney island; a small 0(0) atoll near the more developed Canton

which leaves me puzzled... what can you do with so small bases?

should I try to recapture it? or maybe just use Canton's LBAs to deny supply and or bomb him




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amphibious Assault at Sydney Island (153,145)

TF 160 troops unloading over beach at Sydney Island, 153,145

Allied ground losses:
210 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 25 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 72 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 11 (0 destroyed, 11 disabled)
Vehicles lost 20 (0 destroyed, 20 disabled)

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

Ground combat at Sydney Island (153,145)

Allied Shock attack

Attacking force 1278 troops, 16 guns, 12 vehicles, Assault Value = 32

Defending force 0 troops, 0 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 0

Allied adjusted assault: 30

Japanese adjusted defense: 1

Allied assault odds: 30 to 1 (fort level 0)

Allied forces CAPTURE Sydney Island !!!

Combat modifiers
Attacker: shock(+), fatigue(-)

Assaulting units:
1st/102nd Infantry Battalion
134th Cmbt Engineer Battalion
7th Base Group /1

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 234
RE: Naval battle of Pago Pago - 8/9/2016 2:10:59 PM   
jwolf

 

Posts: 2493
Joined: 12/3/2013
Status: offline 		You can probably wipe him out of Sydney island by bombing -- unless, that is, he's coming in with a lot more.

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 235
RE: Naval battle of Pago Pago - 8/9/2016 5:23:58 PM   
IdahoNYer


Posts: 2616
Joined: 9/6/2009
From: NYer living in Boise, ID
Status: offline 		I don't get his purpose - wasting some very valuable troops at this point in the war IMO.
Base Group and combat engineers could be better used elsewhere.

Destroying these units wouldn't be a bad idea - but it would involve a lot of supporting cover - using fuel - is it worth it?

Also don't understand putting old BB and a CA together as a raiding force - too slow and the BB too valuable for bombardment later to risk now.....

(in reply to jwolf)
Post #: 236
RE: Naval battle of Pago Pago - 8/11/2016 4:46:32 PM   
Bif1961


Posts: 2014
Joined: 6/26/2008
From: Phenix City, Alabama
Status: offline 		I say wipe them out now so he has to spend time and effort rebuilding and he may not have them when he needs them in 1943-44. You get VPs for destroying them and not isolating them.

(in reply to IdahoNYer)
Post #: 237
RE: Naval battle of Pago Pago - 8/11/2016 9:39:46 PM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 4320
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline 		Base group and engineers are only scarce early war, by mid 42, the US will churn them at an amazing rate; literally a flood of engineers.

But I think I will still go after them, not in a hurry, I will simply prep a couple regiments (one for Sydney, another for Enderbury), then see what happens. There is already a LBA squadron at Canton and the KB will arrive in 2 or 3 days. Other than submarines, it will be a challenge to supply these poor castaways

(in reply to Bif1961)
Post #: 238
Enemy cruiser sunk - 8/13/2016 3:16:19 AM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 4320
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline 		Today the enemy lost 4 Kingfisher FPs to ground... which means a cruiser went down.




Could this be CA Chester? recently engaged; I am kind of struggling with it because it was only hit 9 times, and as you can see, damage was only "on fire"; could it be some catastrophic event afterwards?

Allied Ships
BB Mississippi, Shell hits 34, heavy fires
CA Chester, Shell hits 9, on fire
DD Hughes, Shell hits 15, and is sunk
DD Mustin, Shell hits 7, heavy fires, heavy damage

Mississippi would be a much better candidate for sinking, but it can only fit 2 planes + 1 reserve. Maybe some other cruiser damaged long ago, in transit to port? in any case, whoever sank is good news for the empire


Other naval news:
- another Allied convoy found, 3 AGs, 2 xAKs sunk

- interesting naval search results on the AM phase, but there were no strikes, with the exception of a lack luster attack against Sydney island invasion fleet. This yielded only one small 60kg bomb hit on AK Hugh Scott.
I will definitively split KB to expand the search and pocket Mississippi

AIR OPERATIONS PHASE : AM
G4M1 Betty sighting report: 8 Allied ships at 153,145 near Sydney Island , Speed unknown
B5N2 Kate has spotted an Allied CA at 154,163
D3A1 Val sighting report: 2 Allied ships at 129,113 near Ebadon , Speed 14 , Moving Northwest
E13A1 Jake sighting report: 3 Allied ships at 145,180 near Eua , Speed 11 , Moving East
E13A1 Jake sighting report: Allied BB at 143,174 near Niue , Speed 13 , Moving Southwest

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat, near Raoul Island at 138,185, Range 6,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
CA Chikuma
CA Aoba
CA Furutaka
DD Uranami
DD Shikinami
DD Ayanami
DD Yugiri
DD Amagiri

Allied Ships
AG Bridge, Shell hits 32, and is sunk
xAK Chios, Shell hits 37, and is sunk
xAK Evi Livanos, Shell hits 18, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
AG Missourian, Shell hits 12, and is sunk
AG Challenger, Shell hits 18, and is sunk

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on TF, near Sydney Island at 153,145

Weather in hex: Partial cloud

Raid spotted at 15 NM, estimated altitude 6,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 5 minutes

Japanese aircraft
G4M1 Betty x 20

Japanese aircraft losses
G4M1 Betty: 1 damaged

Allied Ships
DD Preston
DD Clark
AP Hugh L. Scott, Bomb hits 1
AP President Jackson

Aircraft Attacking:
20 x G4M1 Betty bombing from 3000 feet
Naval Attack: 2 x 250 kg SAP Bomb, 4 x 60 kg GP Bomb

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Jorge_Stanbury -- 8/13/2016 3:17:09 AM >

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 239
Paratroops in Australia - 8/13/2016 3:58:51 AM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 4320
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline 		In Australia, I had paratroops ready for the first hint of Allied withdrawal from Darwin.. which came last turn

results were really good; I got a base force on rail!

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

Ground combat at Fenton (76,126)

Japanese Shock attack

Attacking force 314 troops, 4 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 23

Defending force 1814 troops, 16 guns, 15 vehicles, Assault Value = 7

Japanese adjusted assault: 18

Allied adjusted defense: 6

Japanese assault odds: 3 to 1 (fort level 0)

Japanese forces CAPTURE Fenton !!!

Combat modifiers
Defender: op mode(-), leaders(+), disruption(-), preparation(-)
experience(-)
Attacker: shock(+), leaders(+), leaders(-)

Allied ground losses:
541 casualties reported
Squads: 1 destroyed, 2 disabled
Non Combat: 28 destroyed, 11 disabled
Engineers: 15 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 7 (7 destroyed, 0 disabled)
Vehicles lost 13 (13 destroyed, 0 disabled)
Units retreated 1

Defeated Allied Units Retreating!

Assaulting units:
Yokosuka 3rd SNLF /1

Defending units:
Darwin RAN Base Force




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Jorge_Stanbury -- 8/13/2016 3:59:57 AM >

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 240
Page:   <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: AAARGGG !!! Page: <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.578