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  75 76 [77] 78 79   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 6/25/2021 12:02:33 PM   
traskott


Posts: 1546
Joined: 6/23/2008
From: Valladolid, Spain
Status: offline 		The "must do" upgrade for the Clemsons is APD. Lot of ASW value, and got some fast transport capability which comes handy. If u check reinforcements, DEs will be plenty, APD not, so, the "right" decision is upgrade them to APD.

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 2281
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 6/25/2021 1:56:14 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

Lets talk Clemson Destroyers for a bit...converting some to DE class?


They have a decently long upgrade path...and our useful thru 43.

They are the fastest DE the Americans have...

They lose combat ability, such that it was, for better AA and ASW. The six new 3" guns are good to 15K feet against planes.

Potential uses:

Hunter Killer Sqn...doesn't excite me.

Cripple guardian Sqn...follows fleets and rushes into merge with cripples to provide that extra bit of ASW help plus emergency repair help. I like this idea.

Pair with CVE...I haven't thought about how I am going to use the CVE that much. To replenish Deathstar planes, surely, but after that the role as ASW platforms I don't think so. Perhaps as small recon task force? I got plenty of time to figure it out.

2 knots too slow to be paired with fleet carriers

In bombardment task forces to provide that extra bit of ASW...with the slow BBs, like this idea too.

Generally I don't like to use DDs (and variants) in merchant/tanker fleets but will use them in invasion fleets for the invasion.

Unfortunately, I upgraded most Clemsons to the next DD version, and that rules out other conversions...but I think the remaining Clemsons will go DE to provide some operational flexibility thru 43.

Looks like I can convert 2 Clemsons...would have preferred to do 3...but I will give it a go as a special cripple guardian task force and later on with the slow battleships.

Anybody use the DE?




In some earlier games I did, but now I convert them all to APD.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 2282
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 6/25/2021 1:57:39 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		Aye, Carumba!




Attachment (1)

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 2283
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 6/25/2021 2:10:52 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		Clemson to APD.

Wickes to APD.



Just not a fan, they can carry only troops, no supply. Plus you get 6+ in the reinforcement que which is more than enough.

My Wickes and Clemsons have been on the front lines, slugging it out with the Japanese and have more than earned back their VP in trashing troop convoys and sinking ships.

To take perfectly good destroyers and turn them into slow APDs...that 3 hex, no cargo is a killer.

However, converting say 3 from DD into DE they might provide some utility and prevent the IJN from capturing move victory points.






Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Lowpe -- 6/25/2021 2:24:14 PM >

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 2284
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 6/25/2021 2:22:48 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		More on Clemsons:

Note, that for some reason I thought the DE got 30knots...but at least it is still 4 hex movement.






Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Lowpe -- 6/25/2021 2:23:25 PM >

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 2285
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 6/25/2021 2:28:33 PM   
Lowpe


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

ORIGINAL: traskott

The "must do" upgrade for the Clemsons is APD. Lot of ASW value, and got some fast transport capability which comes handy. If u check reinforcements, DEs will be plenty, APD not, so, the "right" decision is upgrade them to APD.



DEs don't show up until Spring of 43, and they are god awful slow....would never want them in a bombardment taskforce or as a guardian angel SAG---well, rear area anti sub guardian angel task force would be ok...can't see them racing in to save a stricken fleet carrier or cruiser.






Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Lowpe -- 6/25/2021 2:30:08 PM >

(in reply to traskott)
Post #: 2286
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 6/25/2021 2:29:53 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline 		Long term usefulness is what decided it for me. Just don't have enough APD until much later on.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 2287
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 6/25/2021 2:33:26 PM   
Lowpe


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

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth


During raids on Port Moresby they used to send the P-39's out over the ocean to get them out of the way because they could never get to altitude in time to make a difference and if the Betty's were escorted they would just get shot down. They referred to them as the "Port Moresby Fishing Fleet". Your results may just be historically accurate.


Great flavor!

Sigh, I set them training. Probably better off that way anyhow...

(in reply to JohnDillworth)
Post #: 2288
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 6/25/2021 2:43:43 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		Lots of excitement...Japan has movement pips out of Rockhampton now, but they have to --- to secure the road. There are 3 Tank units and one recon at Rockhampton so it could just presage a control movement.






Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 2289
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 6/25/2021 2:45:04 PM   
Lowpe


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

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Long term usefulness is what decided it for me. Just don't have enough APD until much later on.


Nothing wrong with it.

Perhaps I will sing a different song in five months time.

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 2290
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 6/25/2021 2:49:31 PM   
mind_messing

 

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

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

Looking at the Allied OB, trying to find those units that work great on Pacific Atoll defense.

I normally like for Japan:

1 Artillery unit...
1 AA unit as a soak...for Japan I like the 20mm AA guys.
1 Eng unit for engineers, aviation support, minor flak, soak
1-2 combat units of infantry
1 armored car unit (these guys usually survive the bombardments and actually stop the attack)
1 cd unit
Mines


to around 6-9k troops.

Early on I think the chance of Japan launching a counter attack to take an atoll is pretty high depending on circumstances elsewhere...

Do you AFBs have any favorite units for atoll defense? What is your makeup?

I seem to be swimming in CD gun units, but armored car units are scarce...perhaps NZ? Small AA doesn't seem to exist. Smaller infantry seems to be Australia or NZ or Can.


From memory, there's plenty of USA artillery units floating around the West Coast to provide. Same with AA units.

Engineer units are a bit of a bottleneck - worth prioritising the USN base forces for atolls where there's at least a 0(1) port or better to take advantage of the naval support squads.

Army base forces aren't suited for atolls, but you can use the USAAF base forces pretty freely if you don't plan on using the port.

Where you really struggle in my experience is with infantry units. The Allies don't really have LCU's akin to the IJN Naval Guards/SNLF that you can use as almost a modular garrison force.

US Army regiments will eat up a lot of a 6k stacking limit, but would take a lot of effort for the IJ to move off (especially on an atoll).

You don't get many battalion sized formations for the US Army - might want to look at replacing the detachments of the 298th Infantry (starts off on the Hawaii Islands) with bigger formations and use the 3 separate battalions for atoll garrison.

Armoured cars - not many of those on the eastern side of the map IIRC. You could use the US tank units, but maybe the Oz armoured units might be a better fit.

I wouldn't undersell the Allied AA either. The average USA AA regiment is stock full of automatic weapons, plus the 90mm guns may even get some CD fire going too.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

Lets talk Clemson Destroyers for a bit...converting some to DE class?



I go for a mixed approach.

You get a bunch of APD's a couple months into the war, and they will generally suffice for your fast transport needs. I think you need this functionality less with the Allies than you do with Japan as the Allies have more and better air transport options.

What you do need is escorts with semi-decent range. You can gather up enough KV's, SC's and the like to cover immediate needs, but there's a bit of a gap with the longer range stuff until the longer range PC and DE start to arrive. Most of my Clemson's end up as DE's.

I do send a fairly hefty squadron (8 or so) off to the Indian Ocean. They get paired with the old RN BB's that operate in theatre. The RN always feel short of DD's to me, so that keeps some of the better RN destroyers for more active duties.

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 2291
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 6/25/2021 3:12:58 PM   
RangerJoe


Posts: 13450
Joined: 11/16/2015
From: My Mother, although my Father had some small part.
Status: offline 		Loaded with supplies, the APDs can carry 60 units of supply. While that is not alot, they can do the Fast Transport TF. That supply also gets unloaded in one turn for an amphibious invasion. Not a lot but it is there right away. With 6 ASW early, they are your best ASW units. If the ones in the Asiatic Fleet survive, they should have a nice experience gain which is useful for prosecuting enemy submarines.

Those APDs can also be used to strip out the soft devices from your US Tank Battalions which you can then break down for small island garrisons. Those Naval guard units do have a hard time against those Stuarts defending atolls.

The Sampson was the last of its class and was used for convoy escorts between the West Coast and Hawaii.

_____________________________

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 #: 2292
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 6/25/2021 4:49:22 PM   
HansBolter


Posts: 7704
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: United States
Status: offline 		I also prefer converting to APDs as they are just too useful in '42 when that type is in short supply.

I also maintain a few as DDs as that type is also in such short supply in '42.

It's usually the Far East Fleet DDs that I keep as fighting craft, since getting replacement DDs to that theater is a non starter.

Marblehead and its accompanying 4 stackers have the highest crew experience in my entire fleet due to their proximity to the fight and constant use.

_____________________________

Hans


(in reply to RangerJoe)
Post #: 2293
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 6/25/2021 5:11:20 PM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 18046
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline 		I will be surprised if you can save Kennison. How did you get a TF to dock with a ship on fire - the code is supposed to prohibit that!

I would send her out into the enemy fleet as a fire ship ...






Attachment (1)

_____________________________

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 #: 2294
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 6/25/2021 5:38:49 PM   
Lowpe


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

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe
With 6 ASW early, they are your best ASW units.


Wrong, DE Clemsons are better as they have working surface radar.

(in reply to RangerJoe)
Post #: 2295
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 6/25/2021 5:39:52 PM   
Lowpe


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

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

I will be surprised if you can save Kennison. How did you get a TF to dock with a ship on fire - the code is supposed to prohibit that!



You guys are bloodthirsty....turn is away, so we wills see if she can be saved later today.





(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 2296
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 6/25/2021 5:50:50 PM   
Encircled


Posts: 2024
Joined: 12/30/2010
From: Northern England
Status: offline 		More votes for APDs here

They are so useful as fast transports



_____________________________


(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 2297
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 6/25/2021 7:27:40 PM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 18046
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline 		The aforementioned Humber. Might be a Humber IV rather than the Humber I




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

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 #: 2298
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 6/25/2021 8:55:29 PM   
Lowpe


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






Attachment (1)

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 2299
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 6/25/2021 10:40:10 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		April 20th, 1942

Our longest layered CAP ever, stretching form 2k to 35k. Goodness. Sometime soon I will be hit with Tojos...

The dogfights over Brisbane are decidedly one way. We are waiting for an HQa to arrive at Maryborough before we go on the heavy offensive.

Kennison founders at Brisbane despite our best efforts. Pity.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Lowpe -- 6/25/2021 10:53:02 PM >

(in reply to traskott)
Post #: 2300
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 6/25/2021 10:52:15 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		So much opportunity!




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 2301
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 6/25/2021 10:56:38 PM   
Lowpe


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




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 2302
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 6/26/2021 11:43:43 AM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		April 21, 1942

Allies have so many interesting devices and toys. Here we try out some of the new ASW weapons, with kind of poor results to be honest, as the Iboat managed many attacks.

I will check and see what it did to the night crew experience...hopefully a tick up. Benham picked up 3 points, Ward 1 point.








Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Lowpe -- 6/26/2021 12:08:10 PM >

(in reply to traskott)
Post #: 2303
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 6/26/2021 12:07:49 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		Quiet here last night...PT boats swept Bundaberg Harbor, nobody home.

IJN building up ships at Rockhampton, but have they all rearmed...my guess is yes.

Continue pesky night naval bombing, but no hits....especially for 10K. Still it is very good intel as I await a better runway and HQa at Marysborough.

I have lots of CAs and CLs and DDs finishing their radar upgrades at Melbourne plus more DDs at Sydney. I could make a real naval fight of this...and with Brisbane to fall back upon, I won't have to send any fleet carriers.

Although, this is a half decent time to look for a CV clash, as long as the Allies have fully radar equipped ships their CVs can pack quite a punch, AA is weak on IJN.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 2304
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 6/26/2021 12:13:21 PM   
Lowpe


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






Attachment (1)

(in reply to traskott)
Post #: 2305
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 6/26/2021 12:14:46 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		Taking Ceduna back...with very little force.






Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 2306
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 6/26/2021 3:21:36 PM   
RangerJoe


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

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

Quiet here last night...PT boats swept Bundaberg Harbor, nobody home.

IJN building up ships at Rockhampton, but have they all rearmed...my guess is yes.

Continue pesky night naval bombing, but no hits....especially for 10K. Still it is very good intel as I await a better runway and HQa at Marysborough.

I have lots of CAs and CLs and DDs finishing their radar upgrades at Melbourne plus more DDs at Sydney. I could make a real naval fight of this...and with Brisbane to fall back upon, I won't have to send any fleet carriers.

Although, this is a half decent time to look for a CV clash, as long as the Allies have fully radar equipped ships their CVs can pack quite a punch, AA is weak on IJN.





It looks like that CV TF is vulnerable without a lot of fighters compared to bombers. Maybe even 4Es on Naval can reduce the fighter numbers some more.

Do you have any Cats available for night torpedo attacks? Or even with bombs?

< Message edited by RangerJoe -- 6/26/2021 4:28:51 PM >

_____________________________

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 #: 2307
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 6/26/2021 3:44:53 PM   
ny59giants


Posts: 9869
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline 		American TBs - Others may disagree with me, but I think you need to seriously consider taking off the TBs (Avengers) from the CVs and add extra fighters and SBD units. Their experience levels are often too low to get enough TT hits on the Jap CV/CVLs at this point in the game. While most player train them up in NavT and NavB, they typically need either a third skill like GndB and/or actually lots of missions to get their experience levels up. I would use the TBs on ground attacks to do so.

(in reply to RangerJoe)
Post #: 2308
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 6/26/2021 3:59:07 PM   
Lowpe


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

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

American TBs - Others may disagree with me, but I think you need to seriously consider taking off the TBs (Avengers) from the CVs and add extra fighters and SBD units. Their experience levels are often too low to get enough TT hits on the Jap CV/CVLs at this point in the game. While most player train them up in NavT and NavB, they typically need either a third skill like GndB and/or actually lots of missions to get their experience levels up. I would use the TBs on ground attacks to do so.


I took them off and trained them in ASW already, plus there is one squadron performing night torpedo attacks against Bundaberg.

(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 2309
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 6/26/2021 4:00:22 PM   
Lowpe


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

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

It looks like that CV TF is vulnerable without a lot of fighters compared to bombers. Maybe even 4Es on Naval can reduce the fighter numbers some more.

Do you have any Cats availible for night torpedo attacks? Or even with bombs?


Don't have strong enough night naval search to get a decent night DL on KB.

(in reply to RangerJoe)
Post #: 2310
Page:   <<   < prev  75 76 [77] 78 79   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  75 76 [77] 78 79   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

1.849