Matrix Games Forums

Space Program Manager Launch Contest Announced!Battle Academy 2 is out now on iPad!A closer look at rockets in Space Program ManagerDeal of the Week - Pride of NationsA new update for Piercing Fortress EuropaNew screenshots for War in the West!Pike & Shot is now available!Server Maintenance Battle Academy 2 gets updated!Deal of the Week: Advanced Tactics Gold
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: LOST VICTORIES

 
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: LOST VICTORIES Page: <<   < prev  65 66 [67] 68 69   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: LOST VICTORIES - 2/7/2013 4:52:04 AM   
koniu

 

Posts: 2235
Joined: 2/28/2011
From: Konin, Poland, European Union
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

The P-47s are online!!! 50 of them swept Mandalay today for the first time, exchanging blows with my KI-44as and N1K1s... results were mixed...be bagged 15 of them in the air, plus 11 more due to ops losses, losing 34 planes and 9 pilots... i think i can hold my positions for the moment.


Welcome back
1,3:1 kill ratio against P-47 sweep i will call that excellent score.

PS. Those P-47 are not from production. P-47 is entering production on July i think(?).
In May allies get 3 units(pern. restricted) of P-47 in West Coast. Total 72 planes. With PDU ON he just move them to pools and now using them against You
After last turn he have now 46 P-47 left


< Message edited by koniu -- 2/7/2013 5:06:25 AM >


_____________________________

"Only the Dead Have Seen the End of War"

(in reply to GreyJoy)
Post #: 1981
RE: LOST VICTORIES - 2/7/2013 5:22:37 AM   
JeffK


Posts: 5197
Joined: 1/26/2005
From: Back in the Office, Can I get my tin hut back!
Status: offline
Confucius say : He who belives all the combat reports tells him, could get rude awakening!!!

Anyway, GJ lost 34 against 15, my calculator says thats 2.2666-1 against. Your pilots and aircraft are not performing well. Maybe the japanese pilots claimed OPs losses as victories but dont get into the same habit, they may have hit a thunderstorm and its a "one off". And this is assuming the numbers you see are not full of FOW.

An observation is that JFB AAR are full of back slapping and victory fever and very little about substance.

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to koniu)
Post #: 1982
RE: LOST VICTORIES - 2/7/2013 6:01:56 AM   
koniu

 

Posts: 2235
Joined: 2/28/2011
From: Konin, Poland, European Union
Status: offline
Yest JeffK You are right a2a kill ratio is much worst
But I am assuming that some of those 34 Japanese planes are also ops loses.
And still at the end all what counts is destroyed planes/killed pilots.(whatever it was a2a or ops)

And exchanging 9 pilots for 26 P-47 and maybe 10+ allied top pilots is still good score.

Maybe one of best ways to compare battle result in game is "KIA/MIA Japanese pilots" vs "destroyed Allied planes"????

< Message edited by koniu -- 2/7/2013 6:12:35 AM >


_____________________________

"Only the Dead Have Seen the End of War"

(in reply to JeffK)
Post #: 1983
RE: LOST VICTORIES - 2/7/2013 7:20:01 AM   
obvert


Posts: 7223
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Confucius say : He who belives all the combat reports tells him, could get rude awakening!!!

Anyway, GJ lost 34 against 15, my calculator says thats 2.2666-1 against. Your pilots and aircraft are not performing well. Maybe the japanese pilots claimed OPs losses as victories but dont get into the same habit, they may have hit a thunderstorm and its a "one off". And this is assuming the numbers you see are not full of FOW.

An observation is that JFB AAR are full of back slapping and victory fever and very little about substance.



Wow, really? Why the dig? Koniu certainly isn't showing much 'victory fever' in that post, and actually is giving quite a lot of substance in it.

I guess some of the IJ AARs do celebrate when something good happens, but isn't that also true of the Allied ones? It's just odd to perpetuate this JFB vs AFB thing. Does that really help anyone?

About the pilots not performing well, I think you miss the point. Getting 1:2 against the P-47 is performing quite well.

< Message edited by obvert -- 2/7/2013 8:09:21 AM >


_____________________________


"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to JeffK)
Post #: 1984
RE: LOST VICTORIES - 2/7/2013 8:49:07 AM   
ny59giants


Posts: 7205
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: online
quote:

About the pilots not performing well, I think you miss the point. Getting 1:2 against the P-47 is performing quite well.


+1

_____________________________


(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 1985
RE: LOST VICTORIES - 2/7/2013 9:20:06 AM   
GreyJoy


Posts: 6292
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline
What matters, imho, is the ability to save pilots and to inflict losses to the enemy. Even if the intel screen is FOW affected (and i know it is), results aren't bad imho. I did watch the combat reply and i know we downed some of those P-47D2s. My Tojos perfomed less good than the Georges, but i think it's mostly due to the fact that Georges are armoured, while my Tojos aren't. Also the Georges were flying at their best mnvr altitude (between 15 and 20k feet), while Tojos were all between 22k and 31k ft, while the P-47s came in at 42,000... so pretty high!

However, the KB is getting back unseen, as it does the other CVs group in the Solomons. We are moving out of his search ranges, so not to give him any free intel about my disposition.

I've lost track of the enemy CVs once again...but i bet they are near Darwin. I need some confirmations, but if it is so, we have to be ready for another attempt anytime soon.

4Es striked Boela for two days in a row...unopposed. We're still regrouping our air units and i don't wanna disperse them in frontline AFs untill their morale and their ranks are up to combat strenght again.

We're delivering reinforcements to SOPAC and to CENTPAC, while Sumatra is getting some precious tanks and artillery.

Jeff, as a IJ player i think it's a normal and healthy thing to rejoy when, in mid 1943, you're still able to obtain decent result. It's good for the morale and a good morale is what a jap player badly needs if he wants to keep on playing till  1945/46

(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 1986
RE: LOST VICTORIES - 2/7/2013 10:01:59 AM   
koniu

 

Posts: 2235
Joined: 2/28/2011
From: Konin, Poland, European Union
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy
Jeff, as a IJ player i think it's a normal and healthy thing to rejoy when, in mid 1943, you're still able to obtain decent result. It's good for the morale and a good morale is what a jap player badly needs if he wants to keep on playing till  1945/46


So true.
Assuming that games will last for late `45, most games not. During that time Allied player have his worst time for 6-12 months. And those bad days for green side are with knowledge that there will be only better.
On Other side Japanese player have wonderful few early months and few month of balanced game, after that we know that there can be only worse. 2-3 years of attempts to survive next turn. And that is not good for morale
So even such small victory like shotting down few P-47 without big own loses can allow to keep morale on good level.

Playing dark side is totally different from playing allies. From turn one we know that there can be only one kind of end. BANZAI!!!!




< Message edited by koniu -- 2/7/2013 10:04:05 AM >


_____________________________

"Only the Dead Have Seen the End of War"

(in reply to GreyJoy)
Post #: 1987
RE: LOST VICTORIES - 2/7/2013 11:21:29 AM   
GreyJoy


Posts: 6292
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline
just to hyjack my own thread...

here's GJ being the bestman at a wedding...the one who's trying to keep me standing is the bridegroom.......i was just a little bit drunk...but only a little bit...




Attachment (1)

(in reply to koniu)
Post #: 1988
RE: LOST VICTORIES - 2/7/2013 11:24:21 AM   
GreyJoy


Posts: 6292
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: koniu

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy
Jeff, as a IJ player i think it's a normal and healthy thing to rejoy when, in mid 1943, you're still able to obtain decent result. It's good for the morale and a good morale is what a jap player badly needs if he wants to keep on playing till  1945/46


So true.
Assuming that games will last for late `45, most games not. During that time Allied player have his worst time for 6-12 months. And those bad days for green side are with knowledge that there will be only better.
On Other side Japanese player have wonderful few early months and few month of balanced game, after that we know that there can be only worse. 2-3 years of attempts to survive next turn. And that is not good for morale
So even such small victory like shotting down few P-47 without big own loses can allow to keep morale on good level.

Playing dark side is totally different from playing allies. From turn one we know that there can be only one kind of end. BANZAI!!!!






+ 1 mate

(in reply to koniu)
Post #: 1989
RE: LOST VICTORIES - 2/7/2013 11:54:37 AM   
obvert


Posts: 7223
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

just to hyjack my own thread...

here's GJ being the bestman at a wedding...the one who's trying to keep me standing is the bridegroom.......i was just a little bit drunk...but only a little bit...



Not sure I'd like to see the image of 'very drunk.'

The eyes are a bit low there, my friend. Well dressed as always though!

_____________________________


"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to GreyJoy)
Post #: 1990
RE: LOST VICTORIES - 2/7/2013 3:56:03 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 18244
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: Twin Cities, MN
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK
An observation is that JFB AAR are full of back slapping and victory fever and very little about substance.


Not a surprise to hear this come from your POV, JeffK. All I can say is that you must read different AARs than I do. "Very little of substance?" An observation is that your expressed opinion here is rubbish.

_____________________________


(in reply to JeffK)
Post #: 1991
RE: LOST VICTORIES - 2/7/2013 4:34:28 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 7240
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert


quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs


quote:

ORIGINAL: inqistor

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

Night Naval bombardment of Moa at 74,116

Japanese Ships
BB Haruna
BB Kongo
CA Kumano
CA Takao
CA Chikuma
CA Tone
DD Kiku
DD Tsuga
DD Kuri
DD Hokaze
DD Yakaze
DD Shiokaze
DD Akikaze
DD Hatakaze
DD Hatsushima
DD Nenohi
DD Hatsuharu
DD Yamakaze
DD Murasame

According to manual, maximum size of combat TF should be 15. With this amount of ships, it could be ugly, if they tried to clash with something bigger (lots of collisions, for start).
Also, I am not sure, you should mix Japanese CAs, and BBs. They work different way (Big Guns vs Speed&Torpedoes), so one type is at disadvantage in such situations.

No, as I recall the maximum size of combat TF is 25 ships. 15 ships is the maximum where all can contribute AA to defense against air attack. After that AA is less efficient in that some ships can't fire or fire less or something.

From section 6.2 in the manual:

Most TFs may contain a maximum of 25 ships (although 15 or less is most efficient for a
combat TF)
except for Escort and Transport TFs, which have a maximum of 100 ships. ASW and
some other TFs are restricted to less than 25 ships.


Many experienced users have posted that there do seem to be more collisions and less efficiency in the TF even before you have over 15 ships. I have found that SCTFs with over 10 ships usually do not all engage during a combat. Some of the TF will almost always be out of position to fight. The manual hints at the size limitations and player experience expands a bit on where the game engine starts to apply penalties.


One interesting thing I've been encountering lately is that Japanese DDs are less capable as the game goes on (losing 1/3 of their 12.7cm guns), and Allied ones much more capable. As a result larger TFs may be necessary from mid-43 onward, regardless of penalties. I've recently tried 3BB 7DD and got creamed by two TFs of 7-8 Fletchers each. I came back with only 2 DDs left and a BB needing yard time. Other examples were similar.

It all depends on what you're going to run into. Mixing CAs and BBs should make each other less efficient at their main strengths, but by mid-43 the CAs aren't going to hit much with long lances unless facing old BBs. Everything else the Allies have is too nimble. So I'm thinking this mix allows a lot of flexibility and more medium sized firepower, which is what is really needed against the modern US CLs and DDs. It would work best with the 30 knot BBs obviously.


I never use a SCTF of over 10 ships. Usually 8 to 6 is my preferred. This is the optimum and has been the case since way back in UV days. One of the designers posted and explained this way back then and I have followed the rule with much success ever since. Better to engage with two smaller TF than one large one.

It is also my experience that Allied ships start to gain a distinct advantage in surface combat after 1944. I think this is due to working torpedoes, better ships with better guns, faster rate of fire, better radar, and the jump in crew quality for any ship arriving after 1944. I have said it before but I try to avoid using BBs in surface fights. The old BBs just get creamed by the Japanese and by the time you get the newer ones, you have so many modern smaller ships that you need not risk them. BBs are for supporting invasions and escorting fast carriers.

I am perfectly comfortable engaging the Japanese with Fletcher class DDs when the moonlight is low and modern CLs and CAs when the moonlight is decent. Viberpol and I just had a series of nasty surface engagements around Miri in 1/45. We both had carriers around but LBA kept them out of the picture. He threw everything at me including BBs, while I used mostly DDs and Cls with a smattering of CAs. End result was that he lost about 25 DDs and half a dozen or more CLs and CAs and my losses were about half of his. Nothing brilliant on my behalf, it just seems that my ships are better and won most all of the actions.

The Reichlieu and Duke of York did manage to catch a couple of CAs with their pants down. That was a pretty fight to watch....but basically when the light is low, BBs never shoot and when they do, they never hit. So why use them?


_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 1992
RE: LOST VICTORIES - 2/7/2013 6:46:30 PM   
Encircled


Posts: 1033
Joined: 12/30/2010
From: Northern England
Status: offline
Thats not drunk!

To coin a British expression, thats s**tfaced!

(in reply to GreyJoy)
Post #: 1993
RE: LOST VICTORIES - 2/7/2013 7:41:23 PM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 2668
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert


quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

just to hyjack my own thread...

here's GJ being the bestman at a wedding...the one who's trying to keep me standing is the bridegroom.......i was just a little bit drunk...but only a little bit...



Not sure I'd like to see the image of 'very drunk.'

The eyes are a bit low there, my friend. Well dressed as always though!

Well dressed .... except maybe for the tie, which appears to have dipped in the water when GJ was calling his freinds Ralphhhh and Hueyyyy in the big porcelain bowl.

_____________________________

I have not yet begun to fight! OTOH I have not yet begun to flee. Hmmmmm - choices, choices -always with the choices.

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 1994
RE: LOST VICTORIES - 2/7/2013 9:55:15 PM   
obvert


Posts: 7223
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

It is also my experience that Allied ships start to gain a distinct advantage in surface combat after 1944. I think this is due to working torpedoes, better ships with better guns, faster rate of fire, better radar, and the jump in crew quality for any ship arriving after 1944.

I am perfectly comfortable engaging the Japanese with Fletcher class DDs when the moonlight is low and modern CLs and CAs when the moonlight is decent.


It's true, but should it be? As evidenced by some things that have happened to my IJN ships lately, I'm not really sure what to do or what force composition might be best. Should Flectchers alone be able to stave off and even get the better of IJN CAs and BBs with decent DD escort? Seems odd considering the number of guns and level of armor those ships have. But it is surely what I'm seeing.

In 44 the IJN can't compete on level terms or even with a supposed advantage. All through the game we've had surface battles, and I've never seen stuff like what has been happening lately. Its like a switch flipped in 44 and nothing works suddenly. I must be going through all of the 5 steps of the Kübler-Ross model of grief that the Japanese surely had to face themselves, little by little through the years. I'm not nearly at acceptance, but I've definitely moved past anger and I'm now into the bargaining stage, heading toward depression.

_____________________________


"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 1995
RE: LOST VICTORIES - 2/7/2013 10:13:53 PM   
Cribtop


Posts: 3778
Joined: 8/10/2008
From: Lone Star Nation
Status: offline
Hmm, over here it is generally accepted that folks will imbibe at the reception AFTER the wedding. Going to the well before is an aggressive bid, my friend!

_____________________________


(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 1996
RE: LOST VICTORIES - 2/7/2013 10:26:23 PM   
gmoney

 

Posts: 134
Joined: 11/22/2009
Status: offline
Your not really good and drunk if you can remember what happened. Now when you pass out at the table in the middle of your speech, now that's good and drunk.

(in reply to Cribtop)
Post #: 1997
RE: LOST VICTORIES - 2/7/2013 10:37:55 PM   
obvert


Posts: 7223
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: online
What I wonder is; how did the shirt get undone?

Were you 'charging' again? Was there a dentist among the maids of honor?

_____________________________


"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to gmoney)
Post #: 1998
RE: LOST VICTORIES - 2/8/2013 5:21:15 AM   
crsutton


Posts: 7240
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

It is also my experience that Allied ships start to gain a distinct advantage in surface combat after 1944. I think this is due to working torpedoes, better ships with better guns, faster rate of fire, better radar, and the jump in crew quality for any ship arriving after 1944.

I am perfectly comfortable engaging the Japanese with Fletcher class DDs when the moonlight is low and modern CLs and CAs when the moonlight is decent.


It's true, but should it be? As evidenced by some things that have happened to my IJN ships lately, I'm not really sure what to do or what force composition might be best. Should Flectchers alone be able to stave off and even get the better of IJN CAs and BBs with decent DD escort? Seems odd considering the number of guns and level of armor those ships have. But it is surely what I'm seeing.

In 44 the IJN can't compete on level terms or even with a supposed advantage. All through the game we've had surface battles, and I've never seen stuff like what has been happening lately. Its like a switch flipped in 44 and nothing works suddenly. I must be going through all of the 5 steps of the Kübler-Ross model of grief that the Japanese surely had to face themselves, little by little through the years. I'm not nearly at acceptance, but I've definitely moved past anger and I'm now into the bargaining stage, heading toward depression.



No, I really think it is as it should be and not out of historical proportion. Japanese ships were so totally outclassed by the newer Allied ships in 1944. I don't recall them pulling off many successful surface actions after 1943. Two things really changed for the Allies over this period. Much more effective radar and fire control systems. This changed the nature of night actions totally.

At the battle of Surigao the West Virginia started tracking the Yamashiro at close to 35,000 yards, fired her first salvo using modern gunnery radar, at 20,000 yards in pitch black conditions and hit her with the very first salvo. This sort of shooting would have been unheard in 1942 by either side and it was still not possible by any Japanese ship in 1944. We are talking almost "11.5 miles." Perfect daytime visability from the deck of a BB was rarely more than 14 miles..


< Message edited by crsutton -- 2/8/2013 5:24:53 AM >


_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 1999
RE: LOST VICTORIES - 2/8/2013 7:16:27 AM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 5209
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline
And here I was thinking you had long curly black hair!

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 2000
RE: LOST VICTORIES - 2/8/2013 11:05:51 AM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 2668
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

It is also my experience that Allied ships start to gain a distinct advantage in surface combat after 1944. I think this is due to working torpedoes, better ships with better guns, faster rate of fire, better radar, and the jump in crew quality for any ship arriving after 1944.

I am perfectly comfortable engaging the Japanese with Fletcher class DDs when the moonlight is low and modern CLs and CAs when the moonlight is decent.


It's true, but should it be? As evidenced by some things that have happened to my IJN ships lately, I'm not really sure what to do or what force composition might be best. Should Flectchers alone be able to stave off and even get the better of IJN CAs and BBs with decent DD escort? Seems odd considering the number of guns and level of armor those ships have. But it is surely what I'm seeing.

In 44 the IJN can't compete on level terms or even with a supposed advantage. All through the game we've had surface battles, and I've never seen stuff like what has been happening lately. Its like a switch flipped in 44 and nothing works suddenly. I must be going through all of the 5 steps of the Kübler-Ross model of grief that the Japanese surely had to face themselves, little by little through the years. I'm not nearly at acceptance, but I've definitely moved past anger and I'm now into the bargaining stage, heading toward depression.



No, I really think it is as it should be and not out of historical proportion. Japanese ships were so totally outclassed by the newer Allied ships in 1944. I don't recall them pulling off many successful surface actions after 1943. Two things really changed for the Allies over this period. Much more effective radar and fire control systems. This changed the nature of night actions totally.

At the battle of Surigao the West Virginia started tracking the Yamashiro at close to 35,000 yards, fired her first salvo using modern gunnery radar, at 20,000 yards in pitch black conditions and hit her with the very first salvo. This sort of shooting would have been unheard in 1942 by either side and it was still not possible by any Japanese ship in 1944. We are talking almost "11.5 miles." Perfect daytime visability from the deck of a BB was rarely more than 14 miles..


+1 crsutton!
Not only did they get that radar and fire control that could use it, they were trained to use it to advantage in night actions. This was not the case in 1942 when Admirals wasted their radar advantage by not making the radar equipped ships their flagship, not puttting those ships near the front of their column and not opening fire until they had visual ID of the enemy. See the battles of Cape Esperance [CL Helena had to open fire without orders to show where the enemy was] and Guadalcanal I [ Adm. Scott did not give orders to fire when reports started coming in because he didn't trust the radar, or wasn't sure where all the allied ships were. He also placed brand-new DD Fletcher at the rear of the line].

Contrast that with Empress Augusta Bay in 1943 wherein the four Cleveland CLs opened fire on radar ranges and bearings and got a first salvo hit on a CL [Sendai?] Or Cape St. George where US DDs made a torpedo attack by radar before the Japanese even knew they were there. Or the sinking of CA Haguro when the six British DDs set up a torpedo attack from six points of the compass using radar to track Haguro and their own units.

_____________________________

I have not yet begun to fight! OTOH I have not yet begun to flee. Hmmmmm - choices, choices -always with the choices.

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 2001
RE: LOST VICTORIES - 2/9/2013 10:10:17 AM   
GreyJoy


Posts: 6292
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline
May 12-16 1943

Sorry guys, work is killing me in these days. Barely have time to do a turn per day

In the last 4 days many things happen and few of them were good for the Empire.

On the 14th 70 enemy 4Es arrived over Dili, but we managed to ambush them and at least 20/25th of them were shot down. Not bad!
This didn't stop their following missions (they bombed an undefended Alor on the 15th and 16th) but it feels good to finally manage to get some of them!

Then on the 15th, a strong CV TF (probably 5 carriers) popped up out of the blue east of Bouganville...my search arcs didn't work as planned and the allied carriers, unseen, sent their air assets against my transports that were unloading 2 regiments at Bouganville... lost 3 AKs, 6 PBs, 1 E and some 15 xAK/xAKLs....
Obviously my Betties and Judys didn't launch (low DL maybe!?) and the enemy CVs moved back to Karaikira without problems....
Thousands Ships Bay is now at Level 1 AF... time to abbandon the lower solomons....

Then, on the 16th, not less than 4 HUGE SCTFs appeared south of Selroe... i had all my anti-naval assets in place... more than 150 Netties/Frances... weather was good...the DL more than decent... only 9 Frances did launch and we scored a single torpedo hit on the Ramilles (and another dud one)... the whole rest of the Netties simply didn't launch... i don't understand what i'm doing wrong here
These bad guys now will wreck havoc among all my bases (Lautem, Dili, Saumlaki, Babar...) and, when the day will arrive, they'll be back at Darwin... damn

Heavy allied recon over dot bases in western Sumatra and Wau (near Salamua in PGN)... i'm waiting for some para-actions here... will take care of it asap

In Burma he's trying to force the passage south of the river north of Katha... seems like he's sending a tank Bde and probably a couple of divisions....we'll see if the 55th Division will be able to hold



So now i know that the allied CVs are in SOPAC, while those i spotted at Darwin must be CVEs and CVLs so... DIVIDE ET IMPERA...right Brad?

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 2002
RE: LOST VICTORIES - 2/9/2013 5:59:22 PM   
Cribtop


Posts: 3778
Joined: 8/10/2008
From: Lone Star Nation
Status: offline
You are having fantastically bad luck with launches. Not sure what is up with that.

_____________________________


(in reply to GreyJoy)
Post #: 2003
RE: LOST VICTORIES - 2/9/2013 6:09:09 PM   
JohnDillworth


Posts: 1938
Joined: 3/19/2009
Status: offline
quote:

You are having fantastically bad luck with launches. Not sure what is up with that.

I'm wondering if it's because there are not enough escorts

_____________________________

The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it’s still on the list.

(in reply to Cribtop)
Post #: 2004
RE: LOST VICTORIES - 2/9/2013 6:14:29 PM   
GreyJoy


Posts: 6292
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cribtop

You are having fantastically bad luck with launches. Not sure what is up with that.


So true collegue . Let's just hope the wind will change soon!

May 17, 1943

As we guessed, the enemy bombardment TFs brought distruption over my front line bases, both in the Solomons and in the DEI.
Dili was hit by 5 Cruisers and 7 DDs, Saumlaki by 2 BBs+2 CAs+5 DDs, Kai-enlanded by 4 more cruisers, while Tulagi was put out of action by not less than 4 CAs+8 Fletchers... all the enemy ships were back out of my range when the day arrived...
my mines never work, both against ships and against subs...(this is another thing that i don't understand...there is a sub stationing at Ambon hex who keeps on torpedoing my cargos there...and i have 150 mines placed there and 2 ASW TFs... nothing)

However, now that the enemy torps are working better we're starting to really hurt about the nerfed DBB ASW capabilities...

BTW, we're re-organizing our defences in the Solomons area and i'm also starting to deploy a deep defensive line in eastern PGN... but it will take time...and the allies now are marching really fast.
Enemy CVs linger near Ndeni...clearly waiting for anther frog leap...we're keeping our CVs hidden for the moment and we did change our search assets...don't wanna have anymore surprises.
But i can already foresee the usual pattern in the DEI...he's closing down again the AFs at Alor, Dili, Lautem, Boela, Dobo, Taberfane...you know what it means, right... he's coming again! Darwin is being monitored closely...if he starts loading his troops i'll know it!

The first little unit is being unloading at Iwo Jiima...the first of a long series of garrisons for the Bonins.


(in reply to Cribtop)
Post #: 2005
RE: LOST VICTORIES - 2/9/2013 7:31:03 PM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 2668
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline
From what I have seen, minefields only work when the enemy does not know they are there. As soon as one of his units discovers them, they seem to "map" the field's location and avoid that part of the 40nm hex. Laying a fresh field will get more victims.

_____________________________

I have not yet begun to fight! OTOH I have not yet begun to flee. Hmmmmm - choices, choices -always with the choices.

(in reply to GreyJoy)
Post #: 2006
RE: LOST VICTORIES - 2/9/2013 9:10:45 PM   
Cribtop


Posts: 3778
Joined: 8/10/2008
From: Lone Star Nation
Status: offline
Also, as JohnD said, it may well be you don't have enough escorts. Can you comment on that?

< Message edited by Cribtop -- 2/9/2013 10:31:34 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 2007
RE: LOST VICTORIES - 2/10/2013 11:49:04 AM   
GreyJoy


Posts: 6292
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

quote:

You are having fantastically bad luck with launches. Not sure what is up with that.

I'm wondering if it's because there are not enough escorts



Not the case John. At Ambon i had 36 Oscars and 18 Zeros to escort my Netties and at Koepang i had 50 zekes... Same at Rabaul where i had 36 Oscars and some 15 zeros to escort...

Bad luck i'd say

(in reply to JohnDillworth)
Post #: 2008
RE: LOST VICTORIES - 2/10/2013 11:56:29 AM   
GreyJoy


Posts: 6292
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline
May 18-19, 1943

Enemy cruisers (3 CAs + 2 CLs + 6 DDs) bombed Saumlaki once again, while more BB TFs are on their way to Lautem and Babar...Taberfane will be hit again tomorrow.

Several minesweepers are now based at Tulagi, while the recon missions over PGN are raisining in numbers...

Magwe (Burma) has getting lots of attentions in the last days, while air bombings keep on harrassing my troops in northern Burma.

In The Solomons we managed to replace an Air Division HQ from Munda to Torokina using fast transports.

BBFanboy: probably you're right, but as far as i know he never detected the minefields at Ambon...and those pesky subs keep on stationing there, despite my TOP ASW Helens, an ASW TF and all those type 93 mines....

(in reply to GreyJoy)
Post #: 2009
RE: LOST VICTORIES - 2/10/2013 3:05:37 PM   
princep01

 

Posts: 939
Joined: 8/7/2006
From: Texas
Status: offline
From what I have seen, minefields only work when the enemy does not know they are there. As soon as one of his units discovers them, they seem to "map" the field's location and avoid that part of the 40nm hex. Laying a fresh field will get more victims.

+1.  This has been my experience as well.  I am not certain what constitutes "seeing the mine field", but once the field has claimed a victim, then I don't think you will get anymore after that turn unless you reinforce the minefield with new mines.


(in reply to GreyJoy)
Post #: 2010
Page:   <<   < prev  65 66 [67] 68 69   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: LOST VICTORIES Page: <<   < prev  65 66 [67] 68 69   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

0.141