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: Ooops, I did it again (Lowpe (J) vs ?(A)

 
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: Ooops, I did it again (Lowpe (J) vs ?(A) Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Ooops, I did it again (Lowpe (J) vs ?(A) - 8/26/2020 9:03:57 PM   
mind_messing

 

Posts: 3393
Joined: 10/28/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe


quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:


One of the areas I don't want to skimp on is AA. It all has a place to go from the get go. Especially the searchlight/radar equipped versions. They have to land at Miri asap, really any target for early night bombing.


There's an argument to be made for leaving Miri & Palembang until all the nearby airbases in the DEI are controlled by Japan.

Impossible for the Allies to bomb them if they're still in Allied hands.




Absolutely won't take them till I can protect them with NF of some flavor and flak that will fire at night.



My thinking was basically leave them till last, taking them when there are no viable Allied bases left within range. In practical terms, that means leaving Miri until at least Java and most of the PI are cleared.

Palembang means Java and much of Sumatra.

That will have some wider ramifications so I can understand why you might not be keen on it.

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 91
RE: Ooops, I did it again (Lowpe (J) vs ?(A) - 8/26/2020 9:17:57 PM   
Lowpe


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

ORIGINAL: mind_messing


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

I am going to ask Lok about this....no HR is one thing, exploits are another and the 1000 foot torpedo selection is an exploit. I am not comfortable going there, tbh.



What exactly is the exploit here?

There are plenty of legitimate reasons to fly torpedo bombers at 1000ft.


This is my understanding which might be flawed.

A bomber, that isn't an assault bomber, is penalized in its bomb load if it attacks at 1000 feet without torpedo (using bombs).

However, if you select use torpedoes, and have an HQa within range with torpedoes and proper supply, then the bomber will use its "full load" and not a penalized low altitude load if use torpedoes is toggled.

I have not tested it, but I am sure RangerJoe can correct me.


< Message edited by Lowpe -- 8/26/2020 9:18:46 PM >

(in reply to mind_messing)
Post #: 92
RE: Ooops, I did it again (Lowpe (J) vs ?(A) - 8/26/2020 9:19:24 PM   
Lowpe


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe


quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:


One of the areas I don't want to skimp on is AA. It all has a place to go from the get go. Especially the searchlight/radar equipped versions. They have to land at Miri asap, really any target for early night bombing.


There's an argument to be made for leaving Miri & Palembang until all the nearby airbases in the DEI are controlled by Japan.

Impossible for the Allies to bomb them if they're still in Allied hands.




Absolutely won't take them till I can protect them with NF of some flavor and flak that will fire at night.



My thinking was basically leave them till last, taking them when there are no viable Allied bases left within range. In practical terms, that means leaving Miri until at least Java and most of the PI are cleared.

Palembang means Java and much of Sumatra.

That will have some wider ramifications so I can understand why you might not be keen on it.


Oooh, yeah, not too keen on waiting that long.

(in reply to mind_messing)
Post #: 93
RE: Ooops, I did it again (Lowpe (J) vs ?(A) - 8/26/2020 9:27:23 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
Well, I bounced it off Lok, and he is totally unconcerned and true to his no HR leanings.

In fact he would prefer a Manila KB strike.


(in reply to mind_messing)
Post #: 94
RE: Ooops, I did it again (Lowpe (J) vs ?(A) - 8/26/2020 9:44:31 PM   
mind_messing

 

Posts: 3393
Joined: 10/28/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

I am going to ask Lok about this....no HR is one thing, exploits are another and the 1000 foot torpedo selection is an exploit. I am not comfortable going there, tbh.



What exactly is the exploit here?

There are plenty of legitimate reasons to fly torpedo bombers at 1000ft.


This is my understanding which might be flawed.

A bomber, that isn't an assault bomber, is penalized in its bomb load if it attacks at 1000 feet without torpedo (using bombs).

However, if you select use torpedoes, and have an HQa within range with torpedoes and proper supply, then the bomber will use its "full load" and not a penalized low altitude load if use torpedoes is toggled.

I have not tested it, but I am sure RangerJoe can correct me.



By "full load", do you mean torpedoes?

If so, that does not strike me as an exploit in any way.

Such an attack would use the NavT skill and not LowN, suggesting a pretty clear dinsction between a LowN attack with bombs and a torpedo attack.

Plus there's the tactical considerations where you would want torpedo bombers flying at wavetop height to avoid CAP and radar.

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 95
RE: Ooops, I did it again (Lowpe (J) vs ?(A) - 8/26/2020 9:45:19 PM   
mind_messing

 

Posts: 3393
Joined: 10/28/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

Well, I bounced it off Lok, and he is totally unconcerned and true to his no HR leanings.

In fact he would prefer a Manila KB strike.





He's a good sport. He weathered my many rants of the effectiveness of night bombing and endured many a brutal attack by supersized Jill squadrons.

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 96
RE: Ooops, I did it again (Lowpe (J) vs ?(A) - 8/26/2020 10:02:07 PM   
Lowpe


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

ORIGINAL: mind_messing


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

I am going to ask Lok about this....no HR is one thing, exploits are another and the 1000 foot torpedo selection is an exploit. I am not comfortable going there, tbh.



What exactly is the exploit here?

There are plenty of legitimate reasons to fly torpedo bombers at 1000ft.


This is my understanding which might be flawed.

A bomber, that isn't an assault bomber, is penalized in its bomb load if it attacks at 1000 feet without torpedo (using bombs).

However, if you select use torpedoes, and have an HQa within range with torpedoes and proper supply, then the bomber will use its "full load" and not a penalized low altitude load if use torpedoes is toggled.

I have not tested it, but I am sure RangerJoe can correct me.



By "full load", do you mean torpedoes?



Port strike. No a full bomb load, not the reduced 1000 foot bomb load. I believe only torpedoes can be used on port strikes at Pearl and on Dec 7th if you pass some checks.

Perhaps I am wrong and it is all works as designed.

(in reply to mind_messing)
Post #: 97
RE: Ooops, I did it again (Lowpe (J) vs ?(A) - 8/26/2020 10:39:35 PM   
RangerJoe


Posts: 13450
Joined: 11/16/2015
From: My Mother, although my Father had some small part.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

I am going to ask Lok about this....no HR is one thing, exploits are another and the 1000 foot torpedo selection is an exploit. I am not comfortable going there, tbh.



What exactly is the exploit here?

There are plenty of legitimate reasons to fly torpedo bombers at 1000ft.


This is my understanding which might be flawed.

A bomber, that isn't an assault bomber, is penalized in its bomb load if it attacks at 1000 feet without torpedo (using bombs).

However, if you select use torpedoes, and have an HQa within range with torpedoes and proper supply, then the bomber will use its "full load" and not a penalized low altitude load if use torpedoes is toggled.

I have not tested it, but I am sure RangerJoe can correct me.



I redid the initial turn on my current game. No previous bombing of Manila. The fighters are escort, although putting them on port attack at 1000 or 100 feet is also an option. This was in the afternoon as they were set to "Naval" and "Port" with the target of "Manila." I sent the Sallies to Wenchow although including them at a lower altitude nut not 1000 feet would also be beneficial.

quote:

Afternoon Air attack on Manila , at 79,77

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid detected at 36 NM, estimated altitude 4,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 12 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 46
G3M2 Nell x 36
G4M1 Betty x 54

Allied aircraft
P-35A x 1
P-40B Warhawk x 3
P-40E Warhawk x 10

Japanese aircraft losses
G3M2 Nell: 1 damaged
G4M1 Betty: 1 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
P-40B Warhawk: 1 destroyed
P-40E Warhawk: 2 destroyed

Allied Ships
SS Pickerel, Bomb hits 2, and is sunk
SS Pike, Bomb hits 2, and is sunk
PT Q-112, Bomb hits 1, and is sunk
AS Canopus, Bomb hits 1, heavy fires
SS Snapper, Bomb hits 2, and is sunk
xAK Si Kiang, Bomb hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
SS Swordfish, Bomb hits 1
AS Holland, Bomb hits 1, on fire
SS S-38, Bomb hits 2, and is sunk
xAKL Anakan, Bomb hits 1, and is sunk
PT-32, Bomb hits 1, and is sunk
SS Stingray, Bomb hits 1
DD John D. Ford, Bomb hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
AM Finch, Bomb hits 1, heavy fires, heavy damage Later sank.
SS Sealion, Bomb hits 1, and is sunk
AVD Childs, Bomb hits 1, on fire
SS Searaven, Bomb hits 2, and is sunk
SS Porpoise, Bomb hits 2, and is sunk
SS Sturgeon, Bomb hits 2, and is sunk
SS Permit, Bomb hits 1, heavy damage
AV Langley, Bomb hits 1, on fire
SS S-41, Bomb hits 1, and is sunk
xAP President Madison, Bomb hits 1, on fire
xAK Yu Sang, Bomb hits 2, and is sunk

Allied ground losses:
6 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 3 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Port hits 3
Port fuel hits 2 (lost 142 fuel)

Aircraft Attacking:
27 x G4M1 Betty bombing from 1000 feet (Takao Ku K-1 / 23rd Air Flotilla)
Port Attack: 1 x 800 kg AP Bomb
27 x G4M1 Betty bombing from 1000 feet (Takao Ku K-1 Det / 23rd Air Flotilla)
Port Attack: 1 x 800 kg AP Bomb
27 x G3M2 Nell bombing from 1000 feet (1st Ku K-1 / 21st Air Flotilla)
Port Attack: 1 x 800 kg AP Bomb
9 x G3M2 Nell bombing from 1000 feet (1st Ku K-1 Det / 21st Air Flotilla)
Port Attack: 1 x 800 kg AP Bomb


I wonder if using the Kates that use bombs at 1000 feet would be a good option. If you notice, some subs took more than one hit which is a waste. Oh well, I let a lot of things go to waist.

_____________________________

Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
― Julia Child


(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 98
RE: Ooops, I did it again (Lowpe (J) vs ?(A) - 8/27/2020 12:23:58 AM   
scout1


Posts: 2899
Joined: 8/24/2004
From: South Bend, In
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

Well, I bounced it off Lok, and he is totally unconcerned and true to his no HR leanings.

In fact he would prefer a Manila KB strike.




Death to Allied Pigboats ......

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 99
RE: Ooops, I did it again (Lowpe (J) vs ?(A) - 8/27/2020 1:45:42 AM   
mind_messing

 

Posts: 3393
Joined: 10/28/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

I am going to ask Lok about this....no HR is one thing, exploits are another and the 1000 foot torpedo selection is an exploit. I am not comfortable going there, tbh.



What exactly is the exploit here?

There are plenty of legitimate reasons to fly torpedo bombers at 1000ft.


This is my understanding which might be flawed.

A bomber, that isn't an assault bomber, is penalized in its bomb load if it attacks at 1000 feet without torpedo (using bombs).

However, if you select use torpedoes, and have an HQa within range with torpedoes and proper supply, then the bomber will use its "full load" and not a penalized low altitude load if use torpedoes is toggled.

I have not tested it, but I am sure RangerJoe can correct me.



By "full load", do you mean torpedoes?



Port strike. No a full bomb load, not the reduced 1000 foot bomb load. I believe only torpedoes can be used on port strikes at Pearl and on Dec 7th if you pass some checks.

Perhaps I am wrong and it is all works as designed.



Sorry, I worded that poorly.

What is the specific bomb load that you're seeing?

Keep in mind that certain IJN planes have a chance to carry 800kg bombs on port attack pending a EXP check.

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 100
RE: Ooops, I did it again (Lowpe (J) vs ?(A) - 8/27/2020 2:02:08 AM   
RangerJoe


Posts: 13450
Joined: 11/16/2015
From: My Mother, although my Father had some small part.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

I am going to ask Lok about this....no HR is one thing, exploits are another and the 1000 foot torpedo selection is an exploit. I am not comfortable going there, tbh.



What exactly is the exploit here?

There are plenty of legitimate reasons to fly torpedo bombers at 1000ft.


This is my understanding which might be flawed.

A bomber, that isn't an assault bomber, is penalized in its bomb load if it attacks at 1000 feet without torpedo (using bombs).

However, if you select use torpedoes, and have an HQa within range with torpedoes and proper supply, then the bomber will use its "full load" and not a penalized low altitude load if use torpedoes is toggled.

I have not tested it, but I am sure RangerJoe can correct me.



By "full load", do you mean torpedoes?



Port strike. No a full bomb load, not the reduced 1000 foot bomb load. I believe only torpedoes can be used on port strikes at Pearl and on Dec 7th if you pass some checks.

Perhaps I am wrong and it is all works as designed.



Sorry, I worded that poorly.

What is the specific bomb load that you're seeing?

Keep in mind that certain IJN planes have a chance to carry 800kg bombs on port attack pending a EXP check.


In the battle report that I posted, they were all 800 kg bombs. Other times they would be two 250 kg bombs and four 60 kg bombs which would actually be better against ships at Manila because that is a lot more chances to hit something.

_____________________________

Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
― Julia Child


(in reply to mind_messing)
Post #: 101
RE: Ooops, I did it again (Lowpe (J) vs ?(A) - 8/28/2020 12:54:17 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
Still working my way thru the existing IJN ships. Lots of conversions, lots of troop capacity added always safer to err on the side of converting to troop capacity early on during the critical month of December.

I plan on pincering Singapore on Dec 8th...invading Palembang as soon as I can get decent AA up.

Looking to cut of all avenues of escape for the Thundering Herd.

Hitting Cagayan and Clark AFB to damage those beasts.

Port Blair by paratroop early. Perhaps another paradrop in China at either Ankang, Tienshui or the Changsha rail line.

Naval HQs at Hiroshima off to Cam Ranh Bay.

Pretty strong Zero forces in Marshalls to start in this souped up Andy mod...might give the American carriers a bloody nose should they get adventuresome.

Everywhere I look I see subtle, yet powerful changes Andy made. Rufes, Air production, planes, ships, etc, etc.








(in reply to RangerJoe)
Post #: 102
RE: Ooops, I did it again (Lowpe (J) vs ?(A) - 8/29/2020 10:35:02 AM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
Lost electricity yesterday due to heavy storms and didn't finish the turn. Rains all day today, but if the electric which came back overnight, stays on, I will finish the turn....yay!


(in reply to mind_messing)
Post #: 103
RE: Ooops, I did it again (Lowpe (J) vs ?(A) - 8/29/2020 10:41:16 AM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline
Are you trying to achieve the longest Japanese AAR without a turn being made?

Of course your Allied AAR record is quite safe from being overtaken any time soon.

Alfred

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 104
RE: Ooops, I did it again (Lowpe (J) vs ?(A) - 8/29/2020 11:54:59 AM   
Lowpe


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

Are you trying to achieve the longest Japanese AAR without a turn being made?

Of course your Allied AAR record is quite safe from being overtaken any time soon.

Alfred


Today!

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 105
RE: Ooops, I did it again (Lowpe (J) vs ?(A) - 8/29/2020 5:10:55 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
1st turn finally away...run a sample turn, did a few tweaks, and sent it off....may the rng gods smile upon us!


(in reply to mind_messing)
Post #: 106
RE: Ooops, I did it again (Lowpe (J) vs ?(A) - 8/29/2020 5:18:43 PM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 4320
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline
Vista, suerte y al toro!

good luck!!





Attachment (1)

_____________________________


(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 107
RE: Ooops, I did it again (Lowpe (J) vs ?(A) - 8/29/2020 7:23:33 PM   
RangerJoe


Posts: 13450
Joined: 11/16/2015
From: My Mother, although my Father had some small part.
Status: offline


_____________________________

Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
― Julia Child


(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 108
RE: Ooops, I did it again (Lowpe (J) vs ?(A) - 8/29/2020 9:18:38 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
Dec 7th, 1941

Pennsylvania takes a midget torpedo at Pearl...and we are off.

Two Dutch subs, one off Malaya, the other north of Jolo miss on IJN Destroyers...

KB assumes a strong position, but will search fail her? Or weather, or leaders, or something?




Attachment (1)

(in reply to mind_messing)
Post #: 109
RE: Ooops, I did it again (Lowpe (J) vs ?(A) - 8/29/2020 9:20:07 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
F4F's get neutered...






Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 110
RE: Ooops, I did it again (Lowpe (J) vs ?(A) - 8/29/2020 9:22:46 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
Not as much damage as I would like...but losses will be light with no CAP.






Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Lowpe -- 8/29/2020 9:23:06 PM >

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 111
RE: Ooops, I did it again (Lowpe (J) vs ?(A) - 8/29/2020 9:24:41 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
Again, relatively light damage...






Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 112
RE: Ooops, I did it again (Lowpe (J) vs ?(A) - 8/29/2020 9:27:27 PM   
Lowpe


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




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 113
RE: Ooops, I did it again (Lowpe (J) vs ?(A) - 8/29/2020 9:28:38 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
Degrading British air power is going well...






Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 114
RE: Ooops, I did it again (Lowpe (J) vs ?(A) - 8/29/2020 9:30:08 PM   
RangerJoe


Posts: 13450
Joined: 11/16/2015
From: My Mother, although my Father had some small part.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

Again, relatively light damage...







What was the altitude and what was attacking?

_____________________________

Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
― Julia Child


(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 115
RE: Ooops, I did it again (Lowpe (J) vs ?(A) - 8/29/2020 9:30:25 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
Flying Tigers...






Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 116
RE: Ooops, I did it again (Lowpe (J) vs ?(A) - 8/29/2020 9:31:53 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
Nobody home...Flying Tigers have flown.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to mind_messing)
Post #: 117
RE: Ooops, I did it again (Lowpe (J) vs ?(A) - 8/29/2020 9:34:21 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
Found them...




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 118
RE: Ooops, I did it again (Lowpe (J) vs ?(A) - 8/29/2020 9:38:02 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
Only 18 Kates and 77 Vals…where are the rest going to?






Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 119
RE: Ooops, I did it again (Lowpe (J) vs ?(A) - 8/29/2020 9:40:20 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
A fair chunk went here.






Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 120
Page:   <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: Ooops, I did it again (Lowpe (J) vs ?(A) Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   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