WaW Revised Barthheart vs Explorer – Western Allies

Post descriptions of your brilliant victories and bitter defeats here.

Moderator: Vic

explorer2
Posts: 468
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 10:45 pm

RE: WaW Revised Barthheart vs Explorer – Western Allies

Post by explorer2 »

Here' the detail of the battle:



Image
Attachments
T13bMedN..ailView.jpg
T13bMedN..ailView.jpg (44.06 KiB) Viewed 372 times
explorer2
Posts: 468
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 10:45 pm

RE: WaW Revised Barthheart vs Explorer – Western Allies

Post by explorer2 »

London: All is still quiet. News from Eastern Europe is that Hitler has invaded Yugoslavia. Is this the reason he hasn’t attacked us yet, or is he just biding his time? Our hard working lads and lassies have finally gotten a modern factory on line in Liverpool and we’re looking forward to the protection it will begin brining us soon, though alas, it cannot produce supply or technology.

Ottawa: Naval Minister Sacked!! Mismanagement of resources to blame. Seems like all he’s been doing is moving destroyers around from port to port, sometimes not giving them orders to get supply from the proper port, having our carriers leave home without their aircraft and other such ludicrous feats, and never once engaging the enemy. This has to stop, it’s no way to conduct a war.

Chungking: The People’s Army’s hands are all joined now, though many of them are not much more than children.



Image
Attachments
T13bProdu..Losses.jpg
T13bProdu..Losses.jpg (23.13 KiB) Viewed 372 times
User avatar
82ndtrooper
Posts: 1083
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 10:13 am
Location: tennessee

RE: WaW Revised Barthheart vs Explorer – Western Allies

Post by 82ndtrooper »

ok looks very interesting so far. keep the reports coming
HHC 302nd Engineer Battalion
82nd Airborne Division
Honorably Discharged Jul/80
explorer2
Posts: 468
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 10:45 pm

RE: WaW Revised Barthheart vs Explorer – Western Allies

Post by explorer2 »

Thanks for the response 82nd.  Nice to know somebody's reading it.
explorer2
Posts: 468
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 10:45 pm

RE: WaW Revised Barthheart vs Explorer – Western Allies

Post by explorer2 »

[center]T14b August 30 1940[/center]

London, Alexandria, Ottawa:

Has the reputation of the mighty Royal Navy, plus one bloody Italian nose frightened the mighty Third Reich?

Hitler seems to have chosen to pick on poor defenseless types such as the small nation of Yugoslavia and, at the height of summer, is leaving us alone. We anticipated a full naval assault on our fleet which was a sitting duck off the coast of Tobruk, but not a ship in sight, so they went to Alexandria for some well deserved rest. The Horn of Africa navy seems to have disappeared, as has any action in the North Atlantic. Canadian midshipmen are finally ready, but lacking any targets.

We’re sure Hitler hasn’t converted to being a pacifist, so the question is, what’s he up to? Rumor has it that he keeps his plans nearby. If only ULTRA were functioning we’d better know how to prepare for the inevitable onslaught.

Chungking: Certainly the Japanese are not content with occupying the northern and eastern parts of the Great Republic! Why are they just sitting there? Is Tojo having problems with the Emperor?


User avatar
Jeffrey H.
Posts: 3154
Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2007 6:39 pm
Location: San Diego, Ca.

RE: WaW Revised Barthheart vs Explorer – Western Allies

Post by Jeffrey H. »

Yes, it's being read.
History began July 4th, 1776. Anything before that was a mistake.

Ron Swanson
BK6583
Posts: 411
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2002 2:48 pm

RE: WaW Revised Barthheart vs Explorer – Western Allies

Post by BK6583 »

Ok - Have gained a certain degree of experience playing this game but I'm still learning. What do those numbered dots mean on the sea hexes? In playing the GPW scenario, I noticed those (colored red) dots running between Sevastabol (through the Black Sea hexes) to a mainland port in the very south of the map in Russia. Haven't paid much attention to them until reading this AAR. Seems they mean something important.
jjdenver
Posts: 2480
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 11:07 pm

RE: WaW Revised Barthheart vs Explorer – Western Allies

Post by jjdenver »

ORIGINAL: BK6583

Ok - Have gained a certain degree of experience playing this game but I'm still learning. What do those numbered dots mean on the sea hexes? In playing the GPW scenario, I noticed those (colored red) dots running between Sevastabol (through the Black Sea hexes) to a mainland port in the very south of the map in Russia. Haven't paid much attention to them until reading this AAR. Seems they mean something important.

Yep - the colored dots show stuff being killed in transit at sea - red is supply I think. Other colors might be other things like troops (infantry, etc).

Btw I'm definitely readin this AAR and Barth's mirror AARs - lotsa fun and I'm always looking for strategy ideas.
AARS:
CEAW-BJR Mod 2009:
tm.asp?m=2101447
AT-WW1:
tm.asp?m=1705427
AT-GPW:
tm.asp?m=1649732
Joshuatree
Posts: 507
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2007 9:58 am
Location: Netherlands

RE: WaW Revised Barthheart vs Explorer – Western Allies

Post by Joshuatree »

Yep we're reading it.
 
The red dots do indeed show supply killed, the more the better. If you manage to position your ships/ Subs at a harbor *then* you're really hurting his supply.  A few supplies killed has not much of an effect, but if you have several units positioned at the right spot... you're opponent, or the AI is forced to produce destroyers/planes. Moreover, if he sends reinforcements they get sunk too.
seille
Posts: 2048
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2007 8:25 am
Location: Germany

RE: WaW Revised Barthheart vs Explorer – Western Allies

Post by seille »

ORIGINAL: explorer2

Here' the detail of the battle:



Image


Wow, are the carrier air really that powerful ?
Seems to be a bit unrealistic against such a cruiser fleet. Many AA guns and only a few attackers.
For the standard setup i think the cruisers have too much AA power, but in this case it seems to
be very small. Or was it just bad luck for the ships ?
BK6583
Posts: 411
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2002 2:48 pm

RE: WaW Revised Barthheart vs Explorer – Western Allies

Post by BK6583 »

Ok - got it. Except that I disbanded the Rumanian navy - there are no Axis ships in the Black Sea. Yet the hexes are still being interdicted. The info tab says a hidden enemy navy is causing the interdiction????
User avatar
82ndtrooper
Posts: 1083
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 10:13 am
Location: tennessee

RE: WaW Revised Barthheart vs Explorer – Western Allies

Post by 82ndtrooper »

ORIGINAL: BK6583

Ok - got it. Except that I disbanded the Rumanian navy - there are no Axis ships in the Black Sea. Yet the hexes are still being interdicted. The info tab says a hidden enemy navy is causing the interdiction????


airplanes stationed along the coast can have the same effect within their range and subs can interdict also. it could be either of them or a surface fleet you havent spotted yet.

also if the dots are red its the enemy destroying your supplies if the dots are blue it you destroying the enemies supply.
HHC 302nd Engineer Battalion
82nd Airborne Division
Honorably Discharged Jul/80
User avatar
82ndtrooper
Posts: 1083
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 10:13 am
Location: tennessee

RE: WaW Revised Barthheart vs Explorer – Western Allies

Post by 82ndtrooper »

ORIGINAL: seille

ORIGINAL: explorer2

Here' the detail of the battle:



Image


Wow, are the carrier air really that powerful ?
Seems to be a bit unrealistic against such a cruiser fleet. Many AA guns and only a few attackers.
For the standard setup i think the cruisers have too much AA power, but in this case it seems to
be very small. Or was it just bad luck for the ships ?

ok in this version the tech one ships represent WWI era ships that each country had at the start of WWII. Explorer has gone to great pains to start every navy as historically correct as possible. and all new ships built star at tech 2 which is WWII era. So while that fleet looks very strong in reality it isnt because its mostly WWI era vessals. This version also puts a lot of emphis on carriers for defense against air and ships just like it really was in WWII. if that fleet had a couple carriers with it the results would have been much different. as it was he lost half his carrier airforce which in this version cost the same as fighters so they are not cheap to build like previous versions. Also had those 6 cuisers been tech 2 the results would have been much different.
HHC 302nd Engineer Battalion
82nd Airborne Division
Honorably Discharged Jul/80
User avatar
82ndtrooper
Posts: 1083
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 10:13 am
Location: tennessee

RE: WaW Revised Barthheart vs Explorer – Western Allies

Post by 82ndtrooper »

Explorer plz send me a email i dont have your address on this laptop. I need to talk to you about a couple things when playing against the ai.
HHC 302nd Engineer Battalion
82nd Airborne Division
Honorably Discharged Jul/80
explorer2
Posts: 468
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 10:45 pm

RE: WaW Revised Barthheart vs Explorer – Western Allies

Post by explorer2 »

Wow, are the carrier air really that powerful ?
Seems to be a bit unrealistic against such a cruiser fleet. Many AA guns and only a few attackers.
For the standard setup i think the cruisers have too much AA power, but in this case it seems to
be very small. Or was it just bad luck for the ships ?

Seille-

Question: How can 4 Carrier Air level 2 and 2 Carrier Air level 1 kill 2 BB level 2, 1 Cruiser level 1 and 1 DD level 1 when there were 6 Cruisers level one present?
Answer: a) Level 1 cruisers are WWI era light cruisers which had not yet been fitted with AA.
b) IT fleet had 28XP, 12 Morale, British fleet had 50XP, 50 Morale

I ran a simulation of the same exact battle in combat sim mode, with 200 tests for results, with ONLY difference being instead of CA I’s they were CAII’s (XP & Morale unchanged)

Results: 1.1 Cruiser killed 100% of time, 1BB killed 7.5% of the time, 1 BB2 killed 20% of the time and 1 DD killed 52% of the time.

When running tests of 1 Carrier Air 1 vs 1 CA 1, attack is only successful 18% of the time, with 40 losses of the CarA vs 9 losses of the CA in 100 times when the attack IS successful, and of course it is only successful at all 18% of the time.

When running tests of 1 Carrier Air 2 vs. 1 CA 1, attacks successful 60% of the time, with 13 losses of the Carrier Air 2 and 38 losses of the CA in 100 times when the attack IS successful.

Had he upgraded his cruisers to level 2, all my air would have been shot down and he probably would have suffered 0 losses

That seems reasonable to me. With these new stats in mind, does it seem reasonable to you?
jjdenver
Posts: 2480
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 11:07 pm

RE: WaW Revised Barthheart vs Explorer – Western Allies

Post by jjdenver »

You didn't ask me - but I think it seems reasonable. Just to be clear the CA1's can't be upgraded so new CA2's have to be built.

You've done a lot of nice things w/ the scenario - I really like it.
AARS:
CEAW-BJR Mod 2009:
tm.asp?m=2101447
AT-WW1:
tm.asp?m=1705427
AT-GPW:
tm.asp?m=1649732
seille
Posts: 2048
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2007 8:25 am
Location: Germany

RE: WaW Revised Barthheart vs Explorer – Western Allies

Post by seille »

ORIGINAL: explorer2

Wow, are the carrier air really that powerful ?
Seems to be a bit unrealistic against such a cruiser fleet. Many AA guns and only a few attackers.
For the standard setup i think the cruisers have too much AA power, but in this case it seems to
be very small. Or was it just bad luck for the ships ?

Seille-

Question: How can 4 Carrier Air level 2 and 2 Carrier Air level 1 kill 2 BB level 2, 1 Cruiser level 1 and 1 DD level 1 when there were 6 Cruisers level one present?
Answer: a) Level 1 cruisers are WWI era light cruisers which had not yet been fitted with AA.
b) IT fleet had 28XP, 12 Morale, British fleet had 50XP, 50 Morale

I ran a simulation of the same exact battle in combat sim mode, with 200 tests for results, with ONLY difference being instead of CA I’s they were CAII’s (XP & Morale unchanged)

Results: 1.1 Cruiser killed 100% of time, 1BB killed 7.5% of the time, 1 BB2 killed 20% of the time and 1 DD killed 52% of the time.

When running tests of 1 Carrier Air 1 vs 1 CA 1, attack is only successful 18% of the time, with 40 losses of the CarA vs 9 losses of the CA in 100 times when the attack IS successful, and of course it is only successful at all 18% of the time.

When running tests of 1 Carrier Air 2 vs. 1 CA 1, attacks successful 60% of the time, with 13 losses of the Carrier Air 2 and 38 losses of the CA in 100 times when the attack IS successful.

Had he upgraded his cruisers to level 2, all my air would have been shot down and he probably would have suffered 0 losses

That seems reasonable to me. With these new stats in mind, does it seem reasonable to you?


Yes, that explains a lot. I´m used to the VERY strong cruisers of the standard masterfile. Here you can use as many planes as you want
6 cruiser (I or II) will mostly win. There the cruisers are the pure flak base.
I was just a bit shocked to see that 60 powerpoints destroying 260 that easy.
explorer2
Posts: 468
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 10:45 pm

RE: WaW Revised Barthheart vs Explorer – Western Allies

Post by explorer2 »

[center]Sept 27 1940: One U-Boat Raid Too Many[/center]

This just in from MI-6:
Yugoslavia has fallen! Foolishly or not, the regular army tried resisting Hitler’s minions, but were quickly annihilated. Not admitting defeat, 5 different bands of partisan sprung up from nowhere & tried to wreak havoc on lines of supply, but all were easily killed. Germans are everywhere. They seem to be heading to the border with Greece. No living witnesses to these events, just heard about in the new “history” books the Third Reich imposed in the curriculum.

Gibraltar Raid Wreaks Havoc!

A band of Uboats conducted a seemingly futile raid on Gibraltar. Earlier on in the war, as you’ll remember, the decision was made to combine the Gibraltar, Alexandria, and Indian fleets in order to provide some hope of surviving against the more modern Italians. Our commanders apparently never imagined that a group of submarines could slip into the harbor and easily decimate our cargoships, and thus all supply to the Big Rock. So once again, the Fuehrer capitalizes on our tacticians not staying true to our strategic principles of taking a conservative stance. The result is Gibraltar has no way of getting supplies except moving a slow boat through enemy sub infested waters. And due to the small Italian navy harassing the Horn of Africa, we’re not getting supplies from India to the Med Fleet, which is itself VERY low on supplies. This is very bad. If Gibraltar falls, and the Italian fleet and GE Uboats can travel freely, what will become of the supply route to England? We fear if we continue to just wait and endure until the USA finally joins us, that we won’t be able to hold out that long. The time for action is NOW!




Image
Attachments
T15bGibraltarRaid.jpg
T15bGibraltarRaid.jpg (91.47 KiB) Viewed 376 times
explorer2
Posts: 468
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 10:45 pm

RE: WaW Revised Barthheart vs Explorer – Western Allies

Post by explorer2 »

Sept 27 1940: One U-Boat Raid Too Many

Ottawa:
U-Boats have surfaced and this time come right up into the Gulf of St. Lawrence. This time, our DD are fueled and in position, and the subs have come close enough to our ports that it’s time to go hunting. All hands were called to deck, all planes were ordered in the air, and the largest hunt in human history ensued. As we went further and further into the Atlantic, beginning to get low on fuel, we found them, with enough fuel left for a full engagement. Our new carrier with its full complement of 7 modern CarrierAir (level 2) was sent out, and in one fell swoop sunk most of the subs. Our new destroyers (level 2) designed just for this purpose, then came in to finish the rest of them off! The crew of 12 U-Boats have joined Davey Jones in his locker now, without a single Canadian joining hands with them.
We’re hoping the only remaining Wolfpack is the one that raided Gibraltar, but since subs can travel farther than DD, we’ll have to begin that hunt at another time.

Here's how we knew he was close!

Image
Attachments
T15bSubSupplyLoss.jpg
T15bSubSupplyLoss.jpg (136.64 KiB) Viewed 376 times
explorer2
Posts: 468
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 10:45 pm

RE: WaW Revised Barthheart vs Explorer – Western Allies

Post by explorer2 »

Sept 27 1940: One U-Boat Raid Too Many

Here's how we "swooped in" for the kill!



Image
Attachments
T15bCarri..SubsII.jpg
T15bCarri..SubsII.jpg (32.31 KiB) Viewed 376 times
Post Reply

Return to “After Action Reports”