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: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (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: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) Page: <<   < prev  71 72 [73] 74 75   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 6/16/2021 12:07:41 PM   
Lowpe


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

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

I added several more SSTs to my current game, planning to be able to lift an entire battalion.
I discovered that troop loading on SSTs is heavily restricted.
At Pearl's level 8 port I could only load SST TFs with 3 boats.
Increasing to 4 boats greyed out the Load Troops function.
I had to load the paras into 3 boat TFs consecutively and then combine the TFs once loaded to achieve my goal of lifting the entire battalion.

Just something to be aware of.


I did read your post where you got some of them to load...but you are playing a different mod.

(in reply to HansBolter)
Post #: 2161
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 6/16/2021 12:08:20 PM   
Lowpe


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

ORIGINAL: CaptBeefheart

I gave up on coastwatcher reports years ago. They've all got stills in operation or are growing wacky tobacco.

Has anyone gotten any utility out of the coasties?

Cheers,
CB


I think when they report a port is empty it is correct as of the report time.

(in reply to CaptBeefheart)
Post #: 2162
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 6/16/2021 12:14:50 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		Japan once again relocating their tanks to a different sector...






Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 2163
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 6/16/2021 12:17:09 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		No beasts lost...






Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 2164
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 6/16/2021 12:28:14 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		Big map fleet movement




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 2165
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 6/16/2021 8:16:08 PM   
anarchyintheuk

 

Posts: 3921
Joined: 5/5/2004
From: Dallas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

No beasts lost...







KB's ordinance guy seems a bit aggressive.





Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 2166
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 6/16/2021 8:21:20 PM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 18046
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe


quote:

ORIGINAL: CaptBeefheart

I gave up on coastwatcher reports years ago. They've all got stills in operation or are growing wacky tobacco.

Has anyone gotten any utility out of the coasties?

Cheers,
CB


I think when they report a port is empty it is correct as of the report time.


I wondered about this so I checked the Japanese Ops Report which showed only two of my ports empty. But ...

- One Port had 6 ships repairing and a tanker unloading, the TK was there from the start of the turn.
- The Other Port had four ships repairing, 2 in Readiness, a TF of 4 ships loading resources and a large TF finishing unloading and still docked at turn end. All those ships were there for the whole turn.

Coastwatcher reports are occasionally accurate, but that seems very random.


_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 2167
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 6/16/2021 8:28:51 PM   
RangerJoe


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

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe


quote:

ORIGINAL: CaptBeefheart

I gave up on coastwatcher reports years ago. They've all got stills in operation or are growing wacky tobacco.

Has anyone gotten any utility out of the coasties?

Cheers,
CB


I think when they report a port is empty it is correct as of the report time.


I wondered about this so I checked the Japanese Ops Report which showed only two of my ports empty. But ...

- One Port had 6 ships repairing and a tanker unloading, the TK was there from the start of the turn.
- The Other Port had four ships repairing, 2 in Readiness, a TF of 4 ships loading resources and a large TF finishing unloading and still docked at turn end. All those ships were there for the whole turn.

Coastwatcher reports are occasionally accurate, but that seems very random.


Don't you know that palm sap naturally ferments to about 4% alcohol but after a day it starts to turn to vinegar? However, that is probably safer than the water to drink.

_____________________________

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 BBfanboy)
Post #: 2168
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 6/17/2021 12:21:39 AM   
Lowpe


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

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe


quote:

ORIGINAL: CaptBeefheart

I gave up on coastwatcher reports years ago. They've all got stills in operation or are growing wacky tobacco.

Has anyone gotten any utility out of the coasties?

Cheers,
CB


I think when they report a port is empty it is correct as of the report time.


I wondered about this so I checked the Japanese Ops Report which showed only two of my ports empty. But ...

- One Port had 6 ships repairing and a tanker unloading, the TK was there from the start of the turn.
- The Other Port had four ships repairing, 2 in Readiness, a TF of 4 ships loading resources and a large TF finishing unloading and still docked at turn end. All those ships were there for the whole turn.

Coastwatcher reports are occasionally accurate, but that seems very random.



My theory crushed!

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 2169
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 6/17/2021 12:26:26 AM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		Ceylon...continuing the air lift of the 99th and 100th Brigades back to India.






Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 2170
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 6/17/2021 1:04:11 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		April 11, 1942

Continue hitting the tanks...I don't know why they are still there.






Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 2171
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 6/17/2021 1:21:39 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		It is a little sloppy down here...

11 units at Rockhampton yesterday with 19704 troops, 165 guns, and 57 vehicles from combat report, today there are: 11 units, 25320 troops, 174 guns, and 60 vehicles.

So it seems nothing really unloaded...bringing in supply or evacuating.

Not really sure what I am going to do here...put movement pips all over the place to sow confusion with Japan and enable a few quick retreat options for the Allies.

7-9 days for the American fleet to finish their April upgrades in this area.






Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 2172
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 6/17/2021 1:28:04 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		Kind of uncomfortable getting spotted here...






Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 2173
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 6/17/2021 8:07:16 PM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 18046
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline 		Not sure if a 3/3 level detection would reveal all ship types. He may just get DDs and a TK instead of the CV.

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 2174
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 6/17/2021 9:20:41 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		April 12, 1942

This AVD was sent out to see if it could do any damage with two 4" guns at a large convoy...but nope. Only fired two salvoes that missed.






Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 2175
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 6/17/2021 9:21:26 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		Bound to happen...one hit.






Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 2176
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 6/17/2021 9:26:02 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		Tanks heading north to cut the Lanchow road?






Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 2177
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 6/17/2021 9:28:41 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		1-1 attack...






Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 2178
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 6/17/2021 9:30:21 PM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 18046
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

Bound to happen...one hit.






I avoid that direct line to PH like the plague ...

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 2179
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 6/17/2021 9:35:04 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		Pretty pleased with this result...Japan might bombard and shock attack again,but this time all the armor will be in combat mode.



Ground combat at Rockhampton (95,152)

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 17235 troops, 114 guns, 42 vehicles, Assault Value = 587

Defending force 24630 troops, 447 guns, 681 vehicles, Assault Value = 760

Japanese adjusted assault: 278

Allied adjusted defense: 211

Japanese assault odds: 1 to 1

Combat modifiers
Defender: preparation(-), experience(-)
Attacker:

Japanese ground losses:
2552 casualties reported
Squads: 69 destroyed, 65 disabled
Non Combat: 37 destroyed, 8 disabled
Engineers: 1 destroyed, 4 disabled
Guns lost 12 (4 destroyed, 8 disabled)
Units destroyed 1

Allied ground losses:
26 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 5 disabled
Non Combat: 2 destroyed, 27 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Guns lost 14 (3 destroyed, 11 disabled)
Vehicles lost 40 (18 destroyed, 22 disabled)

Assaulting units:
II./4th Infantry Battalion
65th Brigade
148th Infantry Regiment
8th Tank Regiment
144th Infantry Regiment
4th Div /1
47th Field AA Battalion
45th Field AA Battalion
48th Field AA Battalion
35th JNAF AF Unit
22nd Air Flotilla
97th JAAF AF Bn

Defending units:
2/10th Armoured Regiment
2/5th Armoured Regiment
182nd Infantry Regiment
193rd Tank Battalion
41st Infantry Division
2/11th Armoured Car Regiment
2/4th Armoured Regiment
2/8th Armoured Regiment
754th Tank Battalion
13th Australian Brigade
I Australian Corps
2nd Medium Regiment
108th Anti Tank Regiment
97th Coast AA Regiment
21/22 Field Regiment





Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 2180
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 6/17/2021 9:37:49 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		I can live with this...






Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 2181
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 6/17/2021 9:52:38 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		Those tanks are heading south again? Thoroughly confused I am.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 2182
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 6/17/2021 9:53:47 PM   
Lowpe


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

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy


I avoid that direct line to PH like the plague ...


I was thinking the same thing last turn, that I should divert north for a bit and swing around....just didn't act on it.

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 2183
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 6/17/2021 9:58:28 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		The Jaffna rescue:

12 x DC-2 transporting 100th Indian Brigade from Jaffna
7 x PBY-5 Catalina transporting 100th Indian Brigade from Jaffna
9 x L-18 Lodestar transporting 100th Indian Brigade from Jaffna
2 x Catalina I transporting Lark Battalion from 105,127
5 x DC-2 transporting 100th Indian Brigade from Jaffna
6 x Catalina I transporting 100th Indian Brigade from Jaffna
3 x Catalina I transporting 100th Indian Brigade from Jaffna
9 x C-47 Skytrain transporting 100th Indian Brigade from Jaffna

Just recently got two more C47 squadrons, one just left Aden, the other is unloaded at Karachi.

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 2184
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 6/17/2021 10:42:06 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		Holding strong hopefully at Rockhampton, moonlight 11%, 9 PT boats are going to prowl the harbor, while at Bundaberg (now totally surrounded), 4CL and 3 DD will bombard hoping to catch enemy fighters on the ground while F4Fs will sweep in the morning.

Should be exciting.

Doubled up the recon at Rockhampton to help the ground troops.

50+ Grant/Lees in the pools, can be sent to Australian tank forces in May.

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 2185
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 6/17/2021 10:55:13 PM   
RangerJoe


Posts: 13450
Joined: 11/16/2015
From: My Mother, although my Father had some small part.
Status: offline 		It looks like a lot of those armoured units at Rockhampton need some help but they could do some attacking - especially if the enemy is surrounded.

_____________________________

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 #: 2186
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 6/18/2021 1:58:53 AM   
Lowpe


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

Combined actions on Bundaberg, PT boat ruins the aim of the crusier bombardment task force at Rockhampton, but we lose two. At least a few torpedoes were launched.

F4F sweeps go in a bit disjointed, probably equal losses.

P40s defend over Manila, probably favored Japan but not by much I think.

Four tank regiments show up at Wenchow:

Ground combat at Wenchow (89,58)

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 17459 troops, 130 guns, 288 vehicles, Assault Value = 581

Defending force 17270 troops, 81 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 342

Japanese adjusted assault: 253

Allied adjusted defense: 421

Japanese assault odds: 1 to 2 (fort level 0)

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

Japanese ground losses:
389 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 40 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 4 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Vehicles lost 4 (1 destroyed, 3 disabled)

Allied ground losses:
1325 casualties reported
Squads: 2 destroyed, 94 disabled
Non Combat: 36 destroyed, 46 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 7 disabled
Guns lost 7 (1 destroyed, 6 disabled)

Assaulting units:
138th Infantry Regiment
13th Division
23rd Tank Regiment
9th Tank Regiment
5th Tank Regiment
11th Tank Regiment
1st Army

Defending units:
88th Chinese Corps
100th Chinese Corps
25th Group Army
10th Group Army
23rd Group Army
14th Chinese Base Force






Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Lowpe -- 6/18/2021 2:08:00 AM >

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 2187
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 6/18/2021 11:49:51 AM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		The Indian Front...






Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 2188
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 6/18/2021 11:52:34 AM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		Air losses for the day...reasonable since I am using up the fighters in Luzon and they don't trade that well. A little disappointed with the Wildcat op losses.






Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 2189
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 6/18/2021 12:23:10 PM   
ny59giants


Posts: 9869
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline 		China - He is probably going to shift his line of advance by moving his armor to someplace where you do not have AT weapons. Against me, he got to the plains above Chungking first.

Eastern Australia - which one of you will mine the ports first?

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 2190
Page:   <<   < prev  71 72 [73] 74 75   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) Page: <<   < prev  71 72 [73] 74 75   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

0.750