RE: Mar 19, 1942

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: Mar 19, 1942

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: Mar 19, 1942

Page: << < prev 12 13 [14] 15 16 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Mar 19, 1942 - 8/28/2018 10:15:15 PM

modrow

Posts: 1100
Joined: 8/27/2006
Status: offline

1) A6M5 in March 42

. That's more than a year acceleration in just 4 months of game time in stock IIRC (not sure about this mod), and quite possibly a waste of assets bearing in mind that George is carrier capable and will likely show up before the end of 42. Can IJ afford that waste in this mod?

2) My try at E-mail interpretation: John says he was caught flat-footed not in position to counter, but thought you would run after the first strike. But he likes that, because he concludes that he can use this sticking around next time against you.

3) Plane losses - you have to break eggs to make an omelet. I think the result is worth the losses.

Just my views

Hartwig

(in reply to Anachro)

Post #: 391

RE: Mar 19, 1942 - 8/28/2018 11:12:40 PM

Bearcat2

Posts: 577
Joined: 2/14/2004
Status: offline

A6M5 is 10/42 in version 5.4 BtS, maybe he made it available even earlier in his latest BtS version

_____________________________

"After eight years as President I have only two regrets: that I have not shot Henry Clay or hanged John C. Calhoun."--1837

(in reply to modrow)

Post #: 392

RE: Mar 19, 1942 - 8/28/2018 11:43:39 PM

Anachro

Posts: 2506
Joined: 11/23/2015
From: The Coastal Elite
Status: offline

Wow, I didn't even notice the A6M5. Nice spotting guys. This mod certainly gives some nice early advantages to the Japanese. I also agree in your assessment, modrow. My carriers will withdraw south hopefully out of range and re-fuel. I don't mind losing the planes; I do like sinking more of his transports plus the AV and slowing down operations. The AG also sank and hopefully the AKE will too.

(in reply to Bearcat2)

Post #: 393

RE: Mar 19, 1942 - 8/28/2018 11:48:17 PM

JohnDillworth

Posts: 3100
Joined: 3/19/2009
Status: offline

quote:

1) A6M5 in March 42 . That's more than a year acceleration in just 4 months of game time in stock IIRC (not sure about this mod), and quite possibly a waste of assets bearing in mind that George is carrier capable and will likely show up before the end of 42. Can IJ afford that waste in this mod?

I'm sure the Allies get some extra stuff in this mod too. I think the Japanese get 1 year acceleration on all aircraft, plus 4 CV's and the Allies get to convert a single xAK to a Seaplane tender or something.

_____________________________

Today I come bearing an olive branch in one hand, and the freedom fighter's gun in the other. Do not let the olive branch fall from my hand. I repeat, do not let the olive branch fall from my hand. - Yasser Arafat Speech to UN General Assembly

(in reply to modrow)

Post #: 394

RE: Mar 19, 1942 - 8/29/2018 1:06:51 PM

Lecivius

Posts: 4845
Joined: 8/5/2007
From: Denver
Status: offline

I whined at John enough that he increased some of the base airframe production, too. Only game play will tell if it's enough (I actually thought his initial change was on the high side, and I'm an AFB

)

_____________________________

If it ain't broke, don't fix it!

(in reply to JohnDillworth)

Post #: 395

RE: Mar 19, 1942 - 8/29/2018 5:27:38 PM

adarbrauner

Posts: 1496
Joined: 11/3/2016
From: Zichron Yaaqov, Israel; Before, Treviso, Italy
Status: offline

Don't understand what does John have to like this action; it's just a minor disaster if compared to the previous for him;

(in reply to Anachro)

Post #: 396

RE: Mar 19, 1942 - 8/29/2018 5:36:20 PM

jwolf

Posts: 2493
Joined: 12/3/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: adarbrauner

Don't understand what does John have to like this action; it's just a minor disaster if compared to the previous for him;

Maybe he just likes to see a lot of action.

(in reply to adarbrauner)

Post #: 397

Mar 20-21, 1942 - 8/29/2018 6:57:55 PM

Anachro

Posts: 2506
Joined: 11/23/2015
From: The Coastal Elite
Status: offline

Mar 20-21, 1942

Quick update on the game while I await the next turn. John said he'd do 2-3 turns today, but so far I've gotten nothing, so I'll update quickly. Maps to be provided upon receipt of next turn. As for content, my carriers moved south on the 20th and were undetected, then moved east and are now sitting directly south of Umnak about 15-16 hexes away. They were spotted last turn, but I'm hoping the no spot, then spot indication as to my carriers trajectory will make John think the are headed down to Hawaii. They were refueled last turn and will continue east out of range of his patrol craft and hope some more opportunity comes. If not, they will move to Seattle for rearm / potential refit.

In Indian theater, Colombo falls on March 21st. I do believe his main invasion of India will start soon.

quote:

Ground combat at Colombo (29,48)

Japanese Shock attack

Attacking force 52959 troops, 534 guns, 116 vehicles, Assault Value = 1511

Defending force 29649 troops, 377 guns, 379 vehicles, Assault Value = 225

Japanese engineers reduce fortifications to 0

Japanese adjusted assault: 1075

Allied adjusted defense: 338

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

Japanese forces CAPTURE Colombo !!!

Combat modifiers
Defender: experience(-)
Attacker: shock(+)

Japanese ground losses:
3309 casualties reported
Squads: 4 destroyed, 255 disabled
Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 17 disabled
Engineers: 1 destroyed, 32 disabled

Allied ground losses:
24705 casualties reported
Squads: 446 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 1919 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 57 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 414 (414 destroyed, 0 disabled)
Vehicles lost 420 (420 destroyed, 0 disabled)
Units destroyed 12

Assaulting units:
18th Division
55th Division
33rd Division
2nd Division
3rd Medium Field Artillery Regiment
25th Army
3rd Mortar Battalion

Defending units:
Colombo Fortress
17th Australian Brigade
16th Australian Brigade
100th Indian Brigade
222 Group RAF
22nd Light AA Regiment
2nd Ceylon H AA Regiment
23rd AA Bde
Eastern Fleet
1st RM Heavy AA Regiment
Ceylon Command
222 RAF Base Force /1

Oh, and Manila still holds in the Philippines, of course. He isn't attacking it, but seems to content to bomb it out and kill supply.

quote:

Night Naval bombardment of Manila at 79,77

Japanese Ships
BB Tosa
BB Mutsu
BB Nagato
DD Shiokaze
DD Akikaze
DD Okikaze
DD Minekaze
DMS W-19
DMS W-18
DMS W-17

Allied ground losses:
591 casualties reported
Squads: 2 destroyed, 20 disabled
Non Combat: 14 destroyed, 38 disabled
Engineers: 1 destroyed, 1 disabled
Guns lost 8 (3 destroyed, 5 disabled)
Vehicles lost 10 (4 destroyed, 6 disabled)

Heavy Industry hits 1
Repair Shipyard hits 1
Light Industry hits 1
Airbase supply hits 2
Runway hits 8
Port hits 3
Port fuel hits 1
Port supply hits 1

< Message edited by Anachro -- 8/29/2018 6:59:42 PM >

(in reply to jwolf)

Post #: 398

RE: Mar 19, 1942 - 8/29/2018 7:03:23 PM

ny59giants

Posts: 9869
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline

I'm the main person who gives input to John when it comes to Japanese airframe changes. My last game with these mods (BTSL) went to Dec '43 before my opponent quit (Gen Patton/btd64). When it came to what IJN fighters to build and make CV capable, it was his final decision. Now we play a few games with those changes and tweak it from there. Since I'm playing Allies now, will the Hellcat be too outclassed by what Japan will be able to produce in mid-43? Will the 2nd gen Corsair be able to combat the IJN fighters in '44 and beyond?

(in reply to jwolf)

Post #: 399

RE: Mar 19, 1942 - 8/29/2018 7:09:48 PM

Lowpe

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

My recollection is that the CV capable George is outclassed by the improved Zeroes.

(in reply to ny59giants)

Post #: 400

RE: Mar 19, 1942 - 8/29/2018 7:31:36 PM

AcePylut

Posts: 1494
Joined: 3/19/2004
Status: offline

Look at all that Japanese AA that isn't there in Colombo.

_____________________________

(in reply to Lowpe)

Post #: 401

RE: Mar 19, 1942 - 8/29/2018 9:23:19 PM

GetAssista

Posts: 2732
Joined: 9/19/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AcePylut
Look at all that Japanese AA that isn't there in Colombo.

Look at all that Allied AA that was trapped in Colombo

(in reply to AcePylut)

Post #: 402

RE: Mar 19, 1942 - 8/29/2018 9:25:16 PM

Anachro

Posts: 2506
Joined: 11/23/2015
From: The Coastal Elite
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GetAssista
Look at all that Allied AA that was trapped in Colombo

Yeah, it all appeared there, at least the unrestricted parts, within days of his landings. I've managed to fly parts out of the RM Heavy AA Unit to rebuild in mainland India. The rest will be bought out to rebuild. I also managed to fly ~70 AV of the Australian brigades to India.

< Message edited by Anachro -- 8/29/2018 9:30:57 PM >

(in reply to GetAssista)

Post #: 403

Mar 22, 1942 - 8/30/2018 1:50:24 AM

Anachro

Posts: 2506
Joined: 11/23/2015
From: The Coastal Elite
Status: offline

Mar 22, 1942

John once again spots my carriers despite them moving farther away and I really wish he hadn't. This is the second day in a row in which he spots them, despite getting no detection on my various other task forces in the vicinity. My battleship bombardment force isn't spotted. The only other area he has a DL on is the DMs and transports at Umnak Island. I'll probably need to withdraw these this turn, as he appears to have cruisers (or maybe carriers) of some sort at Adak Island nearby. I'd bet he might try and run in to hit my transports. The good news is my DM's put down ~150 mines on Umnak Island's hex. So if he does, hopefully his ships hit a mine. My carriers will move southeast.

Once interesting note on Umnak is I have 2 Bolo's minimally bomb the invasion force and get decent results. Is he low supply? I look forward to my bombard TFs coming Umnak's way. This includes the BB force shown as well as a few cruiser task forces.

quote:

Morning Air attack on 7th Division, at 169,51 (Umnak Island)

Weather in hex: Partial cloud

Raid spotted at 15 NM, estimated altitude 12,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 6 minutes

Allied aircraft
B-18A Bolo x 2

No Allied losses

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

Aircraft Attacking:
2 x B-18A Bolo bombing from 10000 feet *
Ground Attack: 2 x 500 lb GP Bomb

Elsewhere, John attacks Manila and fails to bring the forts down.

quote:

Ground combat at Manila (79,77)

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 41265 troops, 438 guns, 180 vehicles, Assault Value = 1507

Defending force 63548 troops, 542 guns, 169 vehicles, Assault Value = 1590

Japanese adjusted assault: 1501

Allied adjusted defense: 2299

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

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

Japanese ground losses:
5982 casualties reported
Squads: 10 destroyed, 378 disabled
Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 34 disabled
Engineers: 2 destroyed, 39 disabled
Vehicles lost 6 (1 destroyed, 5 disabled)

Allied ground losses:
1407 casualties reported
Squads: 4 destroyed, 88 disabled
Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 45 disabled
Engineers: 2 destroyed, 12 disabled
Guns lost 24 (1 destroyed, 23 disabled)
Vehicles lost 12 (3 destroyed, 9 disabled)

Assaulting units:
16th Division
48th Division
60th Division
74th Division
1st Medium Field Artillery Regiment
9th Ind.Hvy.Art. Battalion
14th Army
15th Ind.Art.Mortar Battalion
8th Medium Field Artillery Regiment
2nd Ind.Art.Mortar Battalion

Defending units:
57th PS Infantry Regiment
51st PA Infantry Division
11th PA Infantry Division
192nd Tank Battalion
31st Infantry Regiment
803rd Aviation Engineer Battalion
I/43rd PS Inf Battalion
45th PS Infantry Regiment
26th PS Cavalry Regiment
27th Avn Sup
91st PA Infantry Division
21st PA Infantry Division
1st Constabulary Regiment
41st PA Infantry Division
1st PA Infantry Division
35th Avn Sup
194th Tank Battalion
4th Marine Regiment
71st PA Infantry Division
2nd Constabulary Regiment
4th PAAC Avn Sup
11th PAAC Avn Sup
I Corps
!/23rd PS FA Battalion
Cavite USN Base Force
24th PS FA Regiment
Clark Field AAF Base Force
86th PS Field Artillery Battalion
Asiatic Fleet
Far East USAAF
II/Prov'nl SPM Grp
II Corps
200th & 515th Coast AA Regiment
US Forces Far East
I/Prov'nl SPM Grp
88th PS Field Artillery Regiment
1st USMC AA Battalion
Nichols Field AAF Base Force
III/Prov'nl SPM Grp
301st PA Field Artillery Regiment

< Message edited by Anachro -- 8/30/2018 1:51:00 AM >

(in reply to Anachro)

Post #: 404

RE: Mar 22, 1942 - 8/30/2018 1:56:33 AM

Anachro

Posts: 2506
Joined: 11/23/2015
From: The Coastal Elite
Status: offline

Aircraft is low on my carriers (~150 a/c) as planes seem to be in a state of service maintenance after several days of high ops. Another reason I will continue east to Seattle for re-fit. They are at least 5-7 days from being back up to full ops.

(in reply to Anachro)

Post #: 405

RE: Mar 22, 1942 - 8/30/2018 1:57:47 AM

DOCUP

Posts: 3073
Joined: 7/7/2010
Status: offline

Your doing a great job. Keep up the good work. I always look forwards to your updates.

(in reply to Anachro)

Post #: 406

RE: Mar 19, 1942 - 8/30/2018 2:12:10 AM

modrow

Posts: 1100
Joined: 8/27/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anachro

quote:

ORIGINAL: GetAssista
Look at all that Allied AA that was trapped in Colombo

Yeah, it all appeared there, at least the unrestricted parts, within days of his landings. I've managed to fly parts out of the RM Heavy AA Unit to rebuild in mainland India. The rest will be bought out to rebuild. I also managed to fly ~70 AV of the Australian brigades to India.

Are AAA device replacement rates for the British/Indian/Australian so much better in this mod that this is feasible?

In stock games, I often struggle to get the regular TOEs filled, so buying units back can be a waste of PP because you get the unit shells but never get enough AAA guns to fill them. IIRC it's 12/month production for each of the 3.7" and the non-US 40mm Bofors, plus what the convoys bring in (list commonwealth reinforcements for survey)

I'd do the numbers in this mod first before jumping at buying out. This is may be a severe blow with lasting impact to your AAA capabilities in that theatre.

Just my 2 cts

Hartwig

(in reply to Anachro)

Post #: 407

RE: Mar 19, 1942 - 8/30/2018 2:21:45 AM

modrow

Posts: 1100
Joined: 8/27/2006
Status: offline

You are probably aware of it, but I say it anyway just to be sure. With respect to the rebuilding of the Australians, be very careful with use of AIF42 squadrons. You want to keep enough to do the upgrade from CMF/AIF inf to that device, and to be able to do so quickly, you need the magic number needed to upgrade 1/3 division or a Bde.

Hartwig

< Message edited by modrow -- 8/30/2018 2:22:25 AM >

(in reply to modrow)

Post #: 408

RE: Mar 19, 1942 - 8/30/2018 9:48:37 AM

HansBolter

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

Why was your Marine defense battalion aboard a single transport where the entire unit would be lost?

Always use minimum of two transports for every LCU no matter if they are small enough to fit on one.

_____________________________

Hans

(in reply to Anachro)

Post #: 409

Mar 23, 1942 - 8/30/2018 2:17:52 PM

Anachro

Posts: 2506
Joined: 11/23/2015
From: The Coastal Elite
Status: offline

@HansBolter I normally stick to that guideline, but in the heat of the moment I tried to get it speedily to Umnak and forgot or maybe chose not to do more. Can't remember.

Mar 23, 1942

I am right and John tries once again to hit my transports at Umnak in the middle of the night with a CL/DD force. Luckily, I pull them back and they suffer no harm. I might need to use strong escorts to ensure he can't do nightly raids. I have a few bombardment forces coming in as can been seen in the picture below. I might wait to reinforce until my carrier is back in action and can provide air cover while a surface escort escorts my transports. In other news, John somehow gets 3/6 DL on my carriers...are there subs nearby? He has subs once again hanging around Pearl Harbor, so perhaps he suspects they will head back that way.

I suspect that John will return with his carriers (they might be hiding out of range) and will try to catch my transports / surface vessels as revenge unless they are properly escorted. Until I can bring more surface vessels and my carriers to cover, I might start running fast transport runs with my troops from nearby islands instead using the various APDs I've converted older DDs to.

Oh, and my mines do seem to do some work!

Another batch coming soon, as well as an ACM. Both Oi and Mikazuki are listed on sunk, but CL OI is undoubtedly still alive; I have hopes for Mikazuki, however.

quote:

TF 22 encounters mine field at Umnak Island (169,51)

Japanese Ships
CL Oi, Mine hits 1
DD Mikazuki, Mine hits 1, on fire, heavy damage

< Message edited by Anachro -- 8/30/2018 2:20:27 PM >

(in reply to HansBolter)

Post #: 410

RE: Mar 23, 1942 - 8/30/2018 2:52:12 PM

Anachro

Posts: 2506
Joined: 11/23/2015
From: The Coastal Elite
Status: offline

Is it me or is the F4F-4 not that attractive of an upgrade from the F4F-3. Yes, a greater gun value but...lower speed, lower range, less maneuverability.

I only ask because these are appearing now in 3/42 and I have to consider upgrading to them. Historically, their value was in their folding wings that increased the amount of planes that could be carried on the carriers, but carriers already start with ~90 a/c in capacity whereas historically they carried less around this time frame.

< Message edited by Anachro -- 8/30/2018 3:05:52 PM >

(in reply to Anachro)

Post #: 411

RE: Mar 23, 1942 - 8/30/2018 3:17:37 PM

Lecivius

Posts: 4845
Joined: 8/5/2007
From: Denver
Status: offline

Better protection, and 6 over 4 .50's.

_____________________________

If it ain't broke, don't fix it!

(in reply to Anachro)

Post #: 412

RE: Mar 23, 1942 - 8/30/2018 3:38:59 PM

Anachro

Posts: 2506
Joined: 11/23/2015
From: The Coastal Elite
Status: offline

Is the protection better? The durability and armor values appear to be the same.

(in reply to Lecivius)

Post #: 413

RE: Mar 23, 1942 - 8/30/2018 7:00:39 PM

Lecivius

Posts: 4845
Joined: 8/5/2007
From: Denver
Status: offline

I have not looked in game, but in real life they added some armor protection for the pilot, and upgraded engine power, and wing surface. I'm certain someone will come in with the diameter of the bolts & rivets soon

_____________________________

If it ain't broke, don't fix it!

(in reply to Anachro)

Post #: 414

RE: Mar 23, 1942 - 8/30/2018 7:06:00 PM

Anachro

Posts: 2506
Joined: 11/23/2015
From: The Coastal Elite
Status: offline

Gun value seems to be only improvement, worse across the board otherwise. Meanwhile, the Japanese get A6M5.

(in reply to Lecivius)

Post #: 415

RE: Mar 23, 1942 - 8/30/2018 7:36:23 PM

Lecivius

Posts: 4845
Joined: 8/5/2007
From: Denver
Status: offline

Yeah, I knew the range bled off due to the added weight. I know The Elf put time into this, and I won't second guess him. Curious, though.

_____________________________

If it ain't broke, don't fix it!

(in reply to Anachro)

Post #: 416

RE: Mar 23, 1942 - 8/30/2018 8:58:41 PM

modrow

Posts: 1100
Joined: 8/27/2006
Status: offline

F4F-4 stats are better than in stock in one aspect (lowest mvr band increased by one). Of course, if you play with the popular 2nd best mvr band rule, this "bonus" deprives Allied of an important early Allied high sweep plane that is even available in reasonable numbers.

If you are not using that rule, note that both max altitudes have been decreased relative to stock (37500/34000 for F4F-3 and F4F-4, respectively) in such a way that it is now lower than the stock A6M2 value, but I do not know if this has been modified as well in the mod.

Just my 2cts.

Hartwig

(in reply to Lecivius)

Post #: 417

RE: Mar 23, 1942 - 8/30/2018 9:24:36 PM

HansBolter

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

The issue isn't the stats comparison.

The issue is the production/replacement rates of each and the fact that production/replacement of the F4F3 will terminate.

You can hang onto the F4F3s only until you run out of airframes.

_____________________________

Hans

(in reply to modrow)

Post #: 418

RE: Mar 23, 1942 - 8/30/2018 10:06:16 PM

ny59giants

Posts: 9869
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline

These mods are based on DBB data. That includes air stats. Don�t forget that these mods include JuanG air purchase system so more air frames can be bought for around 200 PPs more or less.
I might have tweaked some CW devices, but don�t remember which ones I did and by how much.

(in reply to HansBolter)

Post #: 419

Mar 24, 1942 - 8/30/2018 11:09:36 PM

Anachro

Posts: 2506
Joined: 11/23/2015
From: The Coastal Elite
Status: offline

@Hans Yes, I know. I think the question is do I do the conversion sooner rather than later. For now, I like the greater range of the F4F-3. I can spend PPs to get more, but I won't because I believe the PPs can be better spent on land reinforcements.

Mar 24, 1942

Not much action this turn, but John elects to keep a steady stream of cruisers and destroyers nearby to deny my transports from landing supply and troops at Umnak Island, so I elect to move my bombardments and transports back and bring my carriers back towards Umnak. They will provide cover while my transport and bombardment task forces move in to reinforce Umnak. Have ~8 or subs currently working the area that his ships would move, 7 more are on the way. I want my carriers to be spotted in the hopes that if he has his carriers loitering in the area, they will be deterred from trying to be aggressive.

quote:

Ground combat at Umnak Island (169,51)

Allied Bombardment attack

Attacking force 9263 troops, 112 guns, 19 vehicles, Assault Value = 404

Defending force 16544 troops, 128 guns, 24 vehicles, Assault Value = 447

Japanese ground losses:
77 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 12 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Assaulting units:
1/153rd Infantry Battalion
3rd Marine Raider Battalion
2nd/298th Infantry Battalion
37th (Sep) Infantry Regiment
201st(Sep) Infantry Regiment
2nd Marine Raider Battalion
1st/298th Infantry Bn /1
Wake (Det.) Defense Battalion
141st USN Stn Base Force
1st Marine Air Wing
47th Construction Regiment
116th Base Group

Defending units:
Guards Mixed Brigade
7th Division