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  36 37 [38] 39 40   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 1/12/2021 10:08:50 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 20710
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
Jan 23, 1942

Raid on Akyab shipping...






Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 1111
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 1/12/2021 10:09:29 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 20710
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
Another pretty bombardment.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 1112
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 1/12/2021 10:10:39 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 20710
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
Trusty, clean up, aisle one please!




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 1113
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 1/12/2021 10:13:59 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 20710
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
At least they expended a fair bit of ammunition....great gunnery by the IJN here.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 1114
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 1/12/2021 10:16:01 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 20710
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
Flying Tigers get in among the bombers...






Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 1115
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 1/12/2021 10:22:21 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 20710
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
Bad news...our adjusted AV was only 209. Yuck.






Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 1116
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 1/12/2021 10:25:36 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 20710
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
A tough fight...I didn't want. Oh well, caused a lot of disruptions for it.
Ground combat at Hengyang (80,53) Thought I had it stymied until the final odds were shown...

Japanese Shock attack

Attacking force 53759 troops, 410 guns, 60 vehicles, Assault Value = 1440

Defending force 42599 troops, 146 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 1182

Japanese adjusted assault: 865

Allied adjusted defense: 209

Japanese assault odds: 4 to 1 (fort level 1)

Japanese forces CAPTURE Hengyang !!!

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

Japanese ground losses:
3095 casualties reported
Squads: 11 destroyed, 423 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 22 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 17 disabled
Guns lost 14 (1 destroyed, 13 disabled)

Allied ground losses:
20147 casualties reported
Squads: 314 destroyed, 99 disabled
Non Combat: 621 destroyed, 63 disabled
Engineers: 99 destroyed, 7 disabled
Guns lost 38 (33 destroyed, 5 disabled)
Units retreated 7

Defeated Allied Units Retreating!

Assaulting units:
39th Division
19th Ind.Mixed Brigade
115th Infantry Regiment
12th Ind.Mixed Brigade
22nd Division
102nd Infantry Regiment
11th Ind.Mixed Brigade
2nd Ind.Mixed Regiment

Defending units:
46th Chinese/B Corps
10th Chinese Corps
46th Chinese/C Corps
99th Chinese Corps
20th Chinese Corps
4th Chinese/C Corps
3rd War Area


< Message edited by Lowpe -- 1/12/2021 10:26:45 PM >

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 1117
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 1/12/2021 10:28:16 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 20710
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
More minefield goodness, this was a two sub drop of American mines.

TF 158 encounters mine field at Akyab (54,45)

Japanese Ships
DD Isonami
DD Yugure

2 mines cleared


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TF 158 encounters mine field at Akyab (54,45)

Japanese Ships
DD Yugiri
DD Ariake
xAK Kasyu Maru, Mine hits 1, heavy damage
DD Isonami, Mine hits 1, heavy damage

3 mines cleared


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TF 158 encounters mine field at Akyab (54,45)

Japanese Ships
DD Yugiri
DD Isonami, heavy damage
DD Yugure

4 mines cleared

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 1118
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 1/12/2021 10:56:32 PM   
Ambassador

 

Posts: 1674
Joined: 1/11/2008
From: Brussels, Belgium
Status: offline
You had only four corps and one fort level in Hengyang ?

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 1119
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 1/13/2021 2:40:10 AM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 6536
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

I have gone to not always recombining sub units...although my preference to do so is still there. One, to reduce the number of units on the map as I suffer greatly from click fatigue, and two because with some of the ENG units the TOE changes and that might carry over to some of the other units...



These are perfectly valid reasons to support combining divisions. They are however only preferences which other players might not share. Being preferences is the main reason why I haven't waded in to this debate over the years. Much as I don't wade into the interminable arguments over which aircraft Japan should research/produce which ultimately is a debate over preferences and opinions, not over objective game mechanics issues.

I have no doubt that there will be readers who only superficially read the 2015 Symon thread. Those people will miss the basic reason (discerned from other Symon posts in the thread which I did not draw specific attention to) why Symon carried out the testing.

The testing was part of the development of the small scale DaBabes scenarios which were designed around small unit combat. Accordingly those scenarios had broken down divisional structures with divisional artillery separated into its own subunits, not dispersed amongst the infantry. It was therefore important to establish whether in combat the game engine would penalise small units compared to aggregated units. The tests allayed any concerns Symon might have had.

Alfred

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 1120
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 1/13/2021 2:53:03 AM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 6536
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe


...Having them (Lowpe is referring to keeping the divisional sub units separated - Alfred) fight only bothers me on big river crossing and big battles with nasty terrain modifiers...



This is a very valid concern based on how the game engine handles river crossings, which highlights one of the most eggregious errors which the cult of spreadsheet supporters always make.

The devs (and JWE/Symon was usually the dev who most often made this point) alwaysw pointed out that posters who categorically stated that one must play AE in a particular manner, seriously misrepresent the game. There simply is no single way to play AE, irrespective of what flawed spreadsheets suggest. The degree of nuance in the game far exceeds the understanding of most players. It is the stronger players who tend to understand this.

Alfred

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 1121
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 1/13/2021 4:38:03 AM   
T Rav

 

Posts: 351
Joined: 5/29/2004
Status: offline
Lowpe, Hijack for three sentences.

RJ, I watched Winged Hussars for a third time, better each time.

Back to the regularly scheduled programming.

T Rav

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 1122
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 1/13/2021 5:38:38 AM   
Ambassador

 

Posts: 1674
Joined: 1/11/2008
From: Brussels, Belgium
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

I have gone to not always recombining sub units...although my preference to do so is still there. One, to reduce the number of units on the map as I suffer greatly from click fatigue, and two because with some of the ENG units the TOE changes and that might carry over to some of the other units...



These are perfectly valid reasons to support combining divisions. They are however only preferences which other players might not share. Being preferences is the main reason why I haven't waded in to this debate over the years. Much as I don't wade into the interminable arguments over which aircraft Japan should research/produce which ultimately is a debate over preferences and opinions, not over objective game mechanics issues.

I have no doubt that there will be readers who only superficially read the 2015 Symon thread. Those people will miss the basic reason (discerned from other Symon posts in the thread which I did not draw specific attention to) why Symon carried out the testing.

The testing was part of the development of the small scale DaBabes scenarios which were designed around small unit combat. Accordingly those scenarios had broken down divisional structures with divisional artillery separated into its own subunits, not dispersed amongst the infantry. It was therefore important to establish whether in combat the game engine would penalise small units compared to aggregated units. The tests allayed any concerns Symon might have had.

Alfred

Keeping divisions combined also allows to use better leaders on average. Instead of having to assign, say, 36 good leaders on so many regiments/brigades, you can focus on 12 divisions, and so the 12 best leaders.

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 1123
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 1/13/2021 9:57:07 AM   
Encircled


Posts: 1977
Joined: 12/30/2010
From: Northern England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ambassador

You had only four corps and one fort level in Hengyang ?


Got to remember how early this is, and that Hengyang being in the clear is not a valid defensive hex for the Chinese

Soon as the Japanese turn up outside it, then its time to either turn Changsha into a Kessel or withdraw into the x3 terrain to the north.

He took a risk, based on no bombing at all, and it didn't come off.

(I'd have done the same thing btw!)

_____________________________


(in reply to Ambassador)
Post #: 1124
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 1/13/2021 11:34:51 AM   
Ambassador

 

Posts: 1674
Joined: 1/11/2008
From: Brussels, Belgium
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Encircled


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ambassador

You had only four corps and one fort level in Hengyang ?


Got to remember how early this is, and that Hengyang being in the clear is not a valid defensive hex for the Chinese

Soon as the Japanese turn up outside it, then its time to either turn Changsha into a Kessel or withdraw into the x3 terrain to the north.

He took a risk, based on no bombing at all, and it didn't come off.

(I'd have done the same thing btw!)

Lowpe had mentioned earlier a crossing into 1600AV in half-decent terrain, I thought it was this one.

But it IS early, and NJP concentrated a strong force there. Two full divisions plus six regiments/brigades is a lot more than what he’s used in the other theaters of the war, I wonder why he didn’t include any tanks or artillery there.

(in reply to Encircled)
Post #: 1125
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 1/13/2021 12:51:26 PM   
Encircled


Posts: 1977
Joined: 12/30/2010
From: Northern England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ambassador


quote:

ORIGINAL: Encircled


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ambassador

You had only four corps and one fort level in Hengyang ?


Got to remember how early this is, and that Hengyang being in the clear is not a valid defensive hex for the Chinese

Soon as the Japanese turn up outside it, then its time to either turn Changsha into a Kessel or withdraw into the x3 terrain to the north.

He took a risk, based on no bombing at all, and it didn't come off.

(I'd have done the same thing btw!)

Lowpe had mentioned earlier a crossing into 1600AV in half-decent terrain, I thought it was this one.

But it IS early, and NJP concentrated a strong force there. Two full divisions plus six regiments/brigades is a lot more than what he’s used in the other theaters of the war, I wonder why he didn’t include any tanks or artillery there.


Its not his main thrust?

He's doing lots of attacks all over the map so maybe he's seeing how far he can go before he hits a brick wall?

He must have minimal troops covering Singapore and the Phillipines






< Message edited by Encircled -- 1/13/2021 12:52:17 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Ambassador)
Post #: 1126
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 1/13/2021 3:28:19 PM   
Ambassador

 

Posts: 1674
Joined: 1/11/2008
From: Brussels, Belgium
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Encircled

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ambassador


quote:

ORIGINAL: Encircled


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ambassador

You had only four corps and one fort level in Hengyang ?


Got to remember how early this is, and that Hengyang being in the clear is not a valid defensive hex for the Chinese

Soon as the Japanese turn up outside it, then its time to either turn Changsha into a Kessel or withdraw into the x3 terrain to the north.

He took a risk, based on no bombing at all, and it didn't come off.

(I'd have done the same thing btw!)

Lowpe had mentioned earlier a crossing into 1600AV in half-decent terrain, I thought it was this one.

But it IS early, and NJP concentrated a strong force there. Two full divisions plus six regiments/brigades is a lot more than what he’s used in the other theaters of the war, I wonder why he didn’t include any tanks or artillery there.


Its not his main thrust?

He's doing lots of attacks all over the map so maybe he's seeing how far he can go before he hits a brick wall?

He must have minimal troops covering Singapore and the Phillipines


Given the number of divisions there, I would have thought that this is his main thrust, but if so, why no artillery or tanks ?

And yes, the attacks all around have proved to be a bit light at least twice now. He has apparently been clear with Lowpe that he aims for an auto-victory in ‘43, I’m not sure his way is the best way to do it. Hitting the brick wall that way hurts, looks better to shatter the wall with overwhelming force.

Once the Allies are repelled to Bataan and Singapore, you don’t need many troops to keep them locked in. I don’t remember if Singers fell (I don’t think so anyway), but if it hasn’t yet, it means any capital ship damaged in the Indian Ocean has to go much further back to reach some decently sized repair yard, maybe Hong Kong. And if he’s been treating his navy like he has cared for his Air Force, given the number of ops losses, he must have system damage starting to accumulate due to high speed runs.

(in reply to Encircled)
Post #: 1127
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 1/13/2021 9:23:12 PM   
RangerJoe


Posts: 10881
Joined: 11/16/2015
From: My Mother, although my Father had some small part.
Status: offline
I think that Lowpe has B-17s at Singapore. I don't think that the Japanese air support people are working on them.

_____________________________

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 Ambassador)
Post #: 1128
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 1/14/2021 3:46:47 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 20710
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
Caledon is pretty heavily damaged...but alive for now. The Sims class destroyer Russell is up to a whopping 59 night crew experience.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Lowpe -- 1/14/2021 3:48:42 PM >

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 1129
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 1/14/2021 3:54:38 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 20710
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
Two IJA units catch the retreat from Tuang Gyi...but at least one of them is really small paratroop unit. 1/3rd of the Burma 1st Division is 44 miles on its retreat...nothing else can get out this turn.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Lowpe -- 1/14/2021 3:55:30 PM >

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 1130
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 1/14/2021 4:03:22 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 20710
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
From a raw 112 AV to 144 AV...in one day.






Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 1131
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 1/14/2021 4:04:28 PM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 16586
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

Caledon is pretty heavily damaged...but alive for now. The Sims class destroyer Russell is up to a whopping 59 night crew experience.




No targets for Enterprise and Hobart? What are those red TF icons at Chittagong then? Riff raff?

_____________________________

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 #: 1132
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 1/14/2021 4:23:00 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 20710
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
Wasn't the end of the world in China...did some solid disruption to the IJA. The real attack is north above Changsha. I am sure he is emboldened now. Terrain is woods, only x2, but forts are 3.

I don't think he has enough force to exploit the first river crossing, but if he does win this next river crossing it won't be great.

At Paoshan you can see the British tanks racing east.

IJA Armor is somewhere around Nanyang or south of it. It might be resting, since they suffered quite a lot of disablements, but I doubt that. My guess is they are headed for Changteh.

The Ankang road has forts three in their blocking position, and it seems more IJA artillery is pulling out.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Lowpe -- 1/14/2021 4:28:34 PM >

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 1133
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 1/14/2021 4:34:11 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 20710
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
Forts 3 79% at Singers, 45K supplies.

Marblehead and 3 destroyers still looking to do damage...Marblehead was spotted yesterday if Japan is paying attention.






Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 1134
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 1/14/2021 5:24:30 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 20710
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
Please remind me:

Matilda goes to Australia only.?

Stuart I can go to Australia/British/Indian? I believe I will start stockpiling the Stuarts to get them hopefully to China...Australia is touch and go, but at least they will get Matildas.

I have got 10 Matilda's in Aus now, and have to wait for the next convoy before I get more.

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 1135
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 1/14/2021 5:43:42 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 20710
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
Butcher's bill in the air today over China.






Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 1136
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 1/14/2021 5:55:27 PM   
Ambassador

 

Posts: 1674
Joined: 1/11/2008
From: Brussels, Belgium
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

Butcher's bill in the air today over China.






Over four-to-one, congrats !

I see he has limited his ops losses, now, compared to what they used to be.

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 1137
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 1/14/2021 8:58:39 PM   
RangerJoe


Posts: 10881
Joined: 11/16/2015
From: My Mother, although my Father had some small part.
Status: offline
Stockpile the Grant/Lee. That is what the Matildas upgrade to and I don't know if you really get enough of them. I know that the Australians were still using the Matilda at the end of the war.

_____________________________

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 Ambassador)
Post #: 1138
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 1/14/2021 10:17:03 PM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 16586
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

Please remind me:

Matilda goes to Australia only.?

Stuart I can go to Australia/British/Indian? I believe I will start stockpiling the Stuarts to get them hopefully to China...Australia is touch and go, but at least they will get Matildas.

I have got 10 Matilda's in Aus now, and have to wait for the next convoy before I get more.


I opened a Scenario 1 game and looked at the AFV arrivals in 1942 in Industry/Troops report by country for the three + NZ:

British, NZ, India: Stuart 1s, Valentine IIIs, Humber I, General Lee.
In addition the British can get M4 Sherman, M5 Stuart (same tank, thicker frontal armour). These are available starting 12/42, but usually go to the US units first. You would have to stockpile and forbid US upgrades to get them to the Brits.

Australia: Stuart I, Matilda II, Humber I, Marmon Harrington Armoured Car, M3A1 AC, M3 Grant/Lee.

_____________________________

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 #: 1139
RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A)) - 1/14/2021 10:33:16 PM   
Ambassador

 

Posts: 1674
Joined: 1/11/2008
From: Brussels, Belgium
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

Please remind me:

Matilda goes to Australia only.?

Stuart I can go to Australia/British/Indian? I believe I will start stockpiling the Stuarts to get them hopefully to China...Australia is touch and go, but at least they will get Matildas.

I have got 10 Matilda's in Aus now, and have to wait for the next convoy before I get more.


I opened a Scenario 1 game and looked at the AFV arrivals in 1942 in Industry/Troops report by country for the three + NZ:

British, NZ, India: Stuart 1s, Valentine IIIs, Humber I, General Lee.
In addition the British can get M4 Sherman, M5 Stuart (same tank, thicker frontal armour). These are available starting 12/42, but usually go to the US units first. You would have to stockpile and forbid US upgrades to get them to the Brits.

Australia: Stuart I, Matilda II, Humber I, Marmon Harrington Armoured Car, M3A1 AC, M3 Grant/Lee.

Lowpe plays DaIronBabes, I don’t know if it’s the same. In stock, managing the Commonwealth’s tanks may be tricky, and really requires to do it step by step and to monitor the replacements and upgrades of all units to avoid being stuck.

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 1140
Page:   <<   < prev  36 37 [38] 39 40   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  36 37 [38] 39 40   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

0.230