Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!)

Post descriptions of your brilliant victories and unfortunate defeats here.

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

User avatar
RangerJoe
Posts: 18482
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 2:39 pm
Location: Who knows?

RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!)

Post by RangerJoe »

ORIGINAL: rader

And his mines around Taberfane keep sinking my destroyers. How do we clear them out when they're protected by his PT boats so that we can safely bombard? The PT/mine combination is cheap but deadly effective.

Stand off, do not get too close to the base. Also, put in some DMS with your bombardment TF.

Use Float Jakes on Low Naval at 100 feet on his PT Boats.
Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing! :o

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
:twisted: ; Julia Child
Image
User avatar
PaxMondo
Posts: 10779
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 3:23 pm

RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!)

Post by PaxMondo »

PT's: not too many hits to sink one is my experience ....
I've used Nicks and they are very effective against them ...
Pax
User avatar
rader
Posts: 1241
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2004 6:06 pm

RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!)

Post by rader »

For Jakes at 100 ft, would that be LowN skill or strafe? My George pilots hit a lot with cannons but only a bit with bombs. They generally have good straffing skills but not so much LowN. I assume at 100 ft, strafe would be used for gunfire, while LowN would still be used for bombs... or is LowN only used for 1000-6000 ft and bombs at 100ft are still strafe?
User avatar
rader
Posts: 1241
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2004 6:06 pm

RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!)

Post by rader »

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: rader

And his mines around Taberfane keep sinking my destroyers. How do we clear them out when they're protected by his PT boats so that we can safely bombard? The PT/mine combination is cheap but deadly effective.

Stand off, do not get too close to the base. Also, put in some DMS with your bombardment TF.

Use Float Jakes on Low Naval at 100 feet on his PT Boats.

Wish I had some DMS, but converted them all to Es.
User avatar
RangerJoe
Posts: 18482
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 2:39 pm
Location: Who knows?

RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!)

Post by RangerJoe »

ORIGINAL: rader

For Jakes at 100 ft, would that be LowN skill or strafe? My George pilots hit a lot with cannons but only a bit with bombs. They generally have good straffing skills but not so much LowN. I assume at 100 ft, strafe would be used for gunfire, while LowN would still be used for bombs... or is LowN only used for 1000-6000 ft and bombs at 100ft are still strafe?

The LowN and the LowG altitudes have been changed so they are no longer 1000-6000 feet.
Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing! :o

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
:twisted: ; Julia Child
Image
User avatar
BBfanboy
Posts: 20474
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 5:36 pm
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Contact:

RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!)

Post by BBfanboy »

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: rader

For Jakes at 100 ft, would that be LowN skill or strafe? My George pilots hit a lot with cannons but only a bit with bombs. They generally have good straffing skills but not so much LowN. I assume at 100 ft, strafe would be used for gunfire, while LowN would still be used for bombs... or is LowN only used for 1000-6000 ft and bombs at 100ft are still strafe?

The LowN and the LowG altitudes have been changed so they are no longer 1000-6000 feet.
Below 2000 feet is low attack, except 100 feet is always strafing attack (which can include bombs dropping but only the Strafe Skill is used or trained).
No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth
User avatar
rader
Posts: 1241
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2004 6:06 pm

RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!)

Post by rader »

October 25, 1943.

Rather annoyed - I set some Japanese ships to bombard Taberfane and for some reason Chokai and Harukaze stuck around into daylight (they detached from the fleet, but no indication they were damaged) and in the morning a swarm of Helldivers came in and planted tons of bombs into them. No idea why they detached and stuck around. They ended up staying in the Taberfane hex, which wouldn't really even make sense if they were a bit damaged. Only idea I can think of is Chokai hitting a mine, but there was no indicator she was damaged and no report of a mine hit. Any ideas?

Image
Attachments
image.jpg
image.jpg (112.32 KiB) Viewed 800 times
dhorkoff
Posts: 12
Joined: Mon Feb 29, 2016 9:00 pm

RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!)

Post by dhorkoff »

Collision? Anything listed in the ops report?
User avatar
rader
Posts: 1241
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2004 6:06 pm

RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!)

Post by rader »

ORIGINAL: dhorkoff

Collision? Anything listed in the ops report?

Only thing in the ops report is "CA Chokai sinks at sea" [8|]

She didn't appear to be damaged even after the first dive bomber attack (at least not heavy damage listed even after a few bomb hits) so it didn't seem like a mine or collision.
User avatar
rader
Posts: 1241
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2004 6:06 pm

RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!)

Post by rader »

This seems like an odd combat result:

(I know casualties are based on firepower not assault value, but still seems a bit out of proportion to have no Allied casualties when they're significantly outmatched in swampy terrain?)

Image
Attachments
battle.jpg
battle.jpg (114.38 KiB) Viewed 800 times
DesertWolf101
Posts: 1722
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2016 1:06 pm

RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!)

Post by DesertWolf101 »

I believe your opponent attacked with only the the tanks of the USMC Tank Battalion, hence the lack of casualties given your dearth of suitable anti-tank weapons.
User avatar
RangerJoe
Posts: 18482
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 2:39 pm
Location: Who knows?

RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!)

Post by RangerJoe »

ORIGINAL: DesertWolf101

I believe your opponent attacked with only the the tanks of the USMC Tank Battalion, hence the lack of casualties given your dearth of suitable anti-tank weapons.

+1
Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing! :o

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
:twisted: ; Julia Child
Image
User avatar
rader
Posts: 1241
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2004 6:06 pm

RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!)

Post by rader »

November 3, 1943.

The war goes on after a long summer hiatus.

Still trying to isolate Taberfane but I'm getting concerned that he may be bringing in supplies by sea even though I have the place blockaded. Not sure how this is possible, but intel shows me that he has 6 task forces at Taberfane, despite the fact that I have 3x surface combat TFs in the same hex? They are unknown and unlikely to be PT boats. Is this just screwy intel, or is it possible that he could actually have many task forces in the same hex that I do for several turns in a row without combat?

Image
Attachments
TF.jpg
TF.jpg (80.35 KiB) Viewed 802 times
User avatar
rader
Posts: 1241
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2004 6:06 pm

RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!)

Post by rader »

November 4, 1943.

Another Allied attack at Timoeka with only Japanese casualties, no Allied. And this time we did have anti-tank weapons, including both AT guns and combat engineers which have a good anti-hard value. Not sure what is going on or how to handle it?

Image
Attachments
TF.jpg
TF.jpg (59.71 KiB) Viewed 802 times
DesertWolf101
Posts: 1722
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2016 1:06 pm

RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!)

Post by DesertWolf101 »

ORIGINAL: rader

November 3, 1943.

The war goes on after a long summer hiatus.

Still trying to isolate Taberfane but I'm getting concerned that he may be bringing in supplies by sea even though I have the place blockaded. Not sure how this is possible, but intel shows me that he has 6 task forces at Taberfane, despite the fact that I have 3x surface combat TFs in the same hex? They are unknown and unlikely to be PT boats. Is this just screwy intel, or is it possible that he could actually have many task forces in the same hex that I do for several turns in a row without combat?

Image

IMO likely to be submarine resupply opps.
DesertWolf101
Posts: 1722
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2016 1:06 pm

RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!)

Post by DesertWolf101 »

ORIGINAL: rader

November 4, 1943.

Another Allied attack at Timoeka with only Japanese casualties, no Allied. And this time we did have anti-tank weapons, including both AT guns and combat engineers which have a good anti-hard value. Not sure what is going on or how to handle it?

Image

Perhaps you will need some more heavy artillery and combat engineers as regular Japanese at guns struggle to regularly disable medium/heavy allied armor.
User avatar
rader
Posts: 1241
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2004 6:06 pm

RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!)

Post by rader »

Nov 11, 1943

I moved in a bunch of fighters to Dobo. He launched a huge series of night bombing runs on the airfield. I had anticipated the attacks and had 3 units on night CAP, including my best night fighter unit. His bombers brushed them aside with no losses and plastered the air field, destroying well over a hundred airframes on the ground. That is about how night bombing seems to go in this game...

Image
Attachments
battle.jpg
battle.jpg (98.19 KiB) Viewed 803 times
User avatar
rader
Posts: 1241
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2004 6:06 pm

RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!)

Post by rader »

Actually, the night fighters I had (Irvings) didn't even fly and I have no idea why... they were set to 70% night CAP at 12K feet. Any ideas? (Now they are all destroyed on the ground, but there were 14 of them available to fly before the airfield bombing.)

Image
Attachments
battle.jpg
battle.jpg (107.72 KiB) Viewed 803 times
User avatar
BBfanboy
Posts: 20474
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 5:36 pm
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Contact:

RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!)

Post by BBfanboy »

Two possibilities (guesses):

- the weather was too bad in the base hex for the aircraft to take off- but the bombing accuracy suggests that was not the case
- with a CAP set at 70%, there could be gaps in the coverage when too many aircraft have to come down for servicing at the same time.
No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth
User avatar
Nomad
Posts: 7273
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2001 8:00 am
Location: West Yellowstone, Montana

RE: Pacific War 3.0 (No Encircled please!)

Post by Nomad »

Having a good air leader would not have hurt. The one you have assigned is terrible.
Post Reply

Return to “After Action Reports”