Matrix Games Forums

Posted: **Wed Jun 08, 2016 3:48 pm**

The A6M8s did great against your four engines... Perhaps the self sealing fuel tanks and higher durability is paying off....

Posted: **Sat Jun 11, 2016 5:07 am**

ORIGINAL: KenchiSulla
The A6M8s did great against your four engines... Perhaps the self sealing fuel tanks and higher durability is paying off....

Yes I'm not fighting them off the way I used to. And many of these B-24 pilots have multiple kills. This vulnerability to even moderate CAP is relatively new. Luckily, I have around 75 B-24Js in reserve so I can replace losses easily.

Posted: **Sat Jun 11, 2016 5:09 am**

Butchers bill on the day. Here's what I lost at sea:

Notice no Fletchers lost! Two heavily damaged but under repair at Rossel island. On the other hand, the Japanese lost a lot more planes than I would have thought:

A lot of my losses were 4E but overall it wasn't a big VP loss for me on the day. And I can replace all those losses.

Posted: **Sat Jun 11, 2016 5:16 am**

Of note the N1K2-J has recently arrived. The first George to be able to fly off carriers. It's comparable to the Hellcat so my edge in fighters could diminish as production ramps up.

Posted: **Sat Jun 11, 2016 2:06 pm**

Is it carrier capable? I don't think so. The A6M line (A6M3 not though) and then the A7M but not the George or Jack...

Posted: **Sat Jun 11, 2016 11:56 pm**

ORIGINAL: KenchiSulla
Is it carrier capable? I don't think so. The A6M line (A6M3 not though) and then the A7M but not the George or Jack...

You would be correct in real life. But this isn't real life....this is RA:

And now the F6F-3 which is the most common USN plane:

Posted: **Sun Jun 12, 2016 3:56 am**

Arggh...learned some rough lessons about conducting amphibious invasions.

A very large mixed amphibious TF composed of a few escorts and APAs, AKAs, LSTs, LCIs, etc, encountered a small TF of 2 MGBs at Ponape. And upon that encounter, decided to retreat. At the same time, another TF of a single AP unloaded by itself on Ponape and scuttled after taking significant damage being the only amphibious ship to unload that day leaving the V Amphibious Corps all alone on the island. Luckily, it is not an atoll. And to add insult to injury, a few LSTs were damaged from collisions. I learned a few lessons about threat tolerance and TF composition today.

Posted: **Sun Jun 12, 2016 10:35 am**

ORIGINAL: Sangeli

Arggh...learned some rough lessons about conducting amphibious invasions.

A very large mixed amphibious TF composed of a few escorts and APAs, AKAs, LSTs, LCIs, etc, encountered a small TF of 2 MGBs at Ponape. And upon that encounter, decided to retreat. At the same time, another TF of a single AP unloaded by itself on Ponape and scuttled after taking significant damage being the only amphibious ship to unload that day leaving the V Amphibious Corps all alone on the island. Luckily, it is not an atoll. And to add insult to injury, a few LSTs were damaged from collisions. I learned a few lessons about threat tolerance and TF composition today.

It is probably not one of the best strategies but I almost always set my fleets to absolute with maximum threat tolerance. Saves me from those turns that make your hair grey!!

Posted: **Sun Jun 12, 2016 10:07 pm**

ORIGINAL: Wargmr

ORIGINAL: Sangeli

Arggh...learned some rough lessons about conducting amphibious invasions.

A very large mixed amphibious TF composed of a few escorts and APAs, AKAs, LSTs, LCIs, etc, encountered a small TF of 2 MGBs at Ponape. And upon that encounter, decided to retreat. At the same time, another TF of a single AP unloaded by itself on Ponape and scuttled after taking significant damage being the only amphibious ship to unload that day leaving the V Amphibious Corps all alone on the island. Luckily, it is not an atoll. And to add insult to injury, a few LSTs were damaged from collisions. I learned a few lessons about threat tolerance and TF composition today.

It is probably not one of the best strategies but I almost always set my fleets to absolute with maximum threat tolerance. Saves me from those turns that make your hair grey!!

I don't think I will do it for every TF but for amphibious TFs I think I will start using absolute all the time just to make sure they land. I'm not going in unless I have overwhelming force anyway so unless my SCTFs can't intercept a real Japanese SCTF before it my its my amphibious troops I should be fine.

Though on that note I have had to be careful to provide more SCTF cover. I have started using Fletcher TFs of varying sizes (5-20) in this role to provide the primary cover for my transports. This allows me to use my cruisers and battleships to bombard more freely and only provide cover for transports when extra protection is needed.

Posted: **Tue Jun 14, 2016 3:04 am**

February 15th 1944

A day after taking Lautem in eastern Timor, the Japanese launched heavy sweeps against my carrier aircraft:

A half dozen IJA and IJN squadrons of George's and Franks would sweep throughout the day. Overall losses were roughly even. But my carrier aircraft struck back against a Japanese transport fleet:

Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Ambon at 75,110

Weather in hex: Light cloud

Raid detected at 18 NM, estimated altitude 13,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 8 minutes

Japanese aircraft
N1K2-J George x 24

Allied aircraft
F6F-3 Hellcat x 75
TBF-1 Avenger x 34
TBM-1C Avenger x 16

Japanese aircraft losses
N1K2-J George: 2 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
F6F-3 Hellcat: 1 destroyed
TBF-1 Avenger: 6 destroyed, 12 damaged
TBM-1C Avenger: 2 destroyed, 2 damaged

Japanese Ships
AK Kosei Maru, Torpedo hits 3, and is sunk
AK Nozima Maru, Torpedo hits 4, and is sunk
E Aoi, Torpedo hits 3, and is sunk
AK Huzikawa Maru, Torpedo hits 6, and is sunk
PG Hai Can 11, Torpedo hits 3, on fire, heavy damage

Pretty good exchange for me. But after that a DB squadron went in unescorted against the BB Kirishima next to Kendari and got obliterated. Overall, here was the butchers bill on the day:

With the Japanese showing up in strength here and having taken moderate air losses, I am pulling back my fleet to rearm an take replacements. With Lautem in my control, I will soon have LBA of my own in Timor and bring Kendari within P-47 range. It's pretty clear that I am setting the tempo here in my favor; the Japanese aren't showing up until its too late so my ships can pull back without really affecting my operations.

Further east, my troops attacked Ponape for the first time:

Ground combat at Ponape (119,113)

Allied Deliberate attack

Attacking force 23013 troops, 427 guns, 405 vehicles, Assault Value = 774

Defending force 16383 troops, 284 guns, 22 vehicles, Assault Value = 346

Allied adjusted assault: 894

Japanese adjusted defense: 747

Allied assault odds: 1 to 1 (fort level 5)

Allied Assault reduces fortifications to 4

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), forts(+), disruption(-), experience(-)
Attacker:

Japanese ground losses:
477 casualties reported
Squads: 16 destroyed, 3 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 21 disabled
Engineers: 6 destroyed, 1 disabled
Guns lost 9 (6 destroyed, 3 disabled)
Vehicles lost 2 (2 destroyed, 0 disabled)

Allied ground losses:
329 casualties reported
Squads: 2 destroyed, 29 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 5 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 8 disabled
Guns lost 17 (1 destroyed, 16 disabled)

Assaulting units:
43rd Infantry Division
40th Infantry Division
I US Amphib Corps

Defending units:
7th Guard ADU Coastal Gun Battalion
2nd Amphibious Brigade
24th Ind.Mixed Brigade
Combined 8th SNLF
4th ADU Coastal Gun Regiment
Ponape Naval Fortress
28th JAAF AF Bn
4th Base Force
8th JAAF AF Coy

Reducing the fort was big for me. Now it's a downhill battle for me as my bombardment will have a greater effect than before. As a result, my CVs are withdrawing to cover (another) landing at Tulagi.

Posted: **Tue Jun 14, 2016 9:52 am**

Do you have your CVs at the Lautem base? Air combat TFs only launch half sized CAP and strikes when in a base hex. (Though CVEs in a CV Escort TF launch at full strength).

Posted: **Tue Jun 14, 2016 3:08 pm**

ORIGINAL: tiemanj
Do you have your CVs at the Lautem base? Air combat TFs only launch half sized CAP and strikes when in a base hex. (Though CVEs in a CV Escort TF launch at full strength).

No, my CVs were one hex off Lautem for that reason. But I'm pretty sure they added to the CAP.

Posted: **Tue Jun 14, 2016 3:38 pm**

ORIGINAL: Sangeli

ORIGINAL: KenchiSulla
Is it carrier capable? I don't think so. The A6M line (A6M3 not though) and then the A7M but not the George or Jack...
You would be correct in real life. But this isn't real life....this is RA:

Thanks for providing this AAR of your longstanding game. As you said at the beginning its a little different to a lot of the campaigns out there - so plenty of interesting developments.

And I'm seriously mulling playing RA next time now I know about carrier-capable Georges [:D]

Posted: **Tue Jun 14, 2016 6:44 pm**

ORIGINAL: Walker84
Thanks for providing this AAR of your longstanding game. As you said at the beginning its a little different to a lot of the campaigns out there - so plenty of interesting developments.

And I'm seriously mulling playing RA next time now I know about carrier-capable Georges [:D]

You are very welcome! As long as I get readers in this AAR I am happy to spend the time on it. Though I would be interested in some tips to get more readers. One thing I have decided to do is post more screenshots (like in my last update). I have a feeling that many readers aren't satisfied with the text only combat report snippets that I generally prefer. But if you have any other suggestions I'm all ears.

Ya....if I had known about carrier-capable George's I may not have picked this scenario.

I told John (the maker of RA) about how I thought that it was unfair that the IJN gets a carrier capable George which is hands down better than the F6F-3. He basically brushed off my comment saying that it comes late (8/44). But of course putting more resources into R&D means that you could have it at a much earlier date such that the USN planes never get that superiority they enjoyed IRL (or that superiority only lasts for a brief period). This will definitely be the last time I play RA...I think John is just too biased towards the Japanese when it comes to modding RA.

Posted: **Tue Jun 14, 2016 6:45 pm**

ORIGINAL: Sangeli

ORIGINAL: tiemanj
Do you have your CVs at the Lautem base? Air combat TFs only launch half sized CAP and strikes when in a base hex. (Though CVEs in a CV Escort TF launch at full strength).
No, my CVs were one hex off Lautem for that reason. But I'm pretty sure they added to the CAP.

Cool... I saw the red line in your first picture and [mistakenly] assumed the CVs were there. My bad.
Yes they will add to the CAP so long as you have a mission range for squadrons flying some CAP > 0
They will add even more CAP if you have LRCAP set, though at the cost of CAP over your CVs.

Posted: **Wed Jun 15, 2016 7:00 pm**

February 17th 1944

So I sent a mid-sized Fletcher TF to infiltrate enemy lines and sink shipping. As it happens, they had an excellent opportunity to do so. But then absolutely blew it:

Day Time Surface Combat, near Emirau Island at 107,117, Range 30,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
PB Taiko Maru
PB Nako Maru #2
xAK Omi Maru
xAK Daido Maru
xAK Kaiko Maru
xAK Rakuto Maru
xAK Ryuko Maru
xAK Akagisan Maru
xAK Akasisan Maru
xAK Hiyoshi Maru
xAK Hino Maru #3
xAK Sinsyu Maru
xAK Hankow Maru
xAK Monji Maru
xAK Shanghai Maru
xAK Tasmania Maru
xAK Eihuku Maru
xAK Kosei Maru #2
xAK Koto Maru
xAK Sumanoura Maru
xAK Ikoma Maru
PB Kamitu Maru
PB Kenan Maru

Allied Ships
DD Caperton
DD Claxton
DD Spence
DD Stanly
DD Stembel
DD Doyle
DD Case

Maximum visibility in Partly Cloudy Conditions: 28,000 yards
Range closes to 28,000 yards...
CONTACT: Allies radar detects Japanese task force at 28,000 yards
Range increases to 30,000 yards...
Japanese Cargo TF evades combat

The commander of this TF is going to be sacked after he returns back to base. Fortunately for him this is not the USSR or else I would likely have him executed after that performance [:@]

My attack bombers did a little better. They sunk a pair of AKs off NG:

Morning Air attack on TF, near Woodlark Island at 104,133

Weather in hex: Light cloud

Raid detected at 40 NM, estimated altitude 1,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 11 minutes

Allied aircraft
B-25D1 Mitchell x 16

Allied aircraft losses
B-25D1 Mitchell: 5 damaged

Japanese Ships
TB Hiyodori, Bomb hits 1
TB Kasasagi
AK Hakkai Maru, Bomb hits 6, heavy fires, heavy damage
AK Arima Maru, Bomb hits 5, heavy fires, heavy damage

Aircraft Attacking:
16 x B-25D1 Mitchell bombing and strafing from low level
Naval Attack: 6 x 500 lb SAP Bomb

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Woodlark Island at 104,133

Weather in hex: Heavy rain

Raid detected at 39 NM, estimated altitude 1,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 11 minutes

Allied aircraft
B-25G Mitchell x 10

Allied aircraft losses
B-25G Mitchell: 4 damaged

Japanese Ships
AK Arima Maru, Shell hits 2, Bomb hits 11, and is sunk
TB Hiyodori

That's a nice way to get around 30 VPs with no losses of my own.

Posted: **Wed Jun 15, 2016 10:13 pm**

Nice work with those assault bombers. I like seeing genuine Japanese naval AKs go down!

Posted: **Thu Jun 16, 2016 11:01 am**

Arrgh, very frustrating to work so hard to set up a good opportunity and then the incompetent commander won't cash it in. Those Japanese sailors are the luckiest (virtual) SOBs on the planet.

Posted: **Thu Jun 16, 2016 3:26 pm**

February 18th 1944

Japanese counter attack!

Since landing and taking Lautem in eastern Timor, the Japanese have decided to use their forces to bombard my positions with planes and now ships. Lautem comes under naval bombardment today. Which is actually significant because since sinking half the IJN BBs in the Marshalls, bombardments have been very rare in the Pacific:

Night Naval bombardment of Lautem at 72,115

Japanese Ships
CA Kumano
CA Mikuma
DD Yugiri
DD Arashio
DD Yugumo

Allied ground losses:
75 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 10 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 5
Port hits 1

CA Kumano firing at 32nd Infantry Division
CA Mikuma firing at Lautem
DD Yugiri firing at 32nd Infantry Division
DD Arashio firing at 1st Australian Division
DD Yugumo firing at 32nd Infantry Division

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Naval bombardment of Lautem at 72,115

Japanese Ships
BB Kirishima
BB Kongo
DD Uranami
DD Isonami
DD Usugumo
DD Akatsuki

Allied ground losses:
49 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 5 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Runway hits 3
Port hits 3
Port supply hits 1

BB Kirishima firing at 32nd Infantry Division
BB Kongo firing at 32nd Infantry Division
DD Uranami firing at 1st Australian Division
DD Isonami firing at 32nd Infantry Division
DD Usugumo firing at Lautem
DD Akatsuki firing at Lautem

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Naval bombardment of Lautem at 72,115

Japanese Ships
CL Tama
DD Suzunami

Allied ground losses:
7 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

CL Tama firing at 1st Australian Division
DD Suzunami firing at 32nd Infantry Division

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Naval bombardment of Lautem at 72,115

Japanese Ships
CA Atago
DD Umikaze
DD Samidare
DD Takanami

Airbase supply hits 1
Runway hits 1
Port hits 2

CA Atago firing at 1st Australian Division
DD Umikaze firing at 1st Australian Division
DD Samidare firing at Lautem
DD Takanami firing at 1st Australian Division

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Naval bombardment of Lautem at 72,115

Japanese Ships
CA Ashigara
CA Myoko
CL Sakawa
DD Kawakaze
DD Shigure
DD Kasumi

Allied ground losses:
60 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 3 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 4 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled

Runway hits 1

CA Ashigara firing at 1st Australian Division
CA Myoko firing at 1st Australian Division
CL Sakawa firing at 1st Australian Division
DD Kawakaze firing at Lautem
DD Shigure firing at 32nd Infantry Division
DD Kasumi firing at 32nd Infantry Division

Not super effective but it will slow me down from taking Dili where my troops are marching. Unfortunately the air base at Laeutem was already toast so I couldn't fly in engineers with air transports and today only made it worse. That being said, I am still going to try to take Dili even under Japanese bombardment. The Japanese also seem to be trying to bring reinforcements into Timor:

Sub attack near Dili at 71,114

Japanese Ships
AK Nagara Maru, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
AK Tamon Maru
xAP Tenzan Maru
E Saga

Allied Ships
SS Sealion

Japanese ground losses:
21 casualties reported
Squads: 1 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

This would explain why the KB is right off the northern coast. The plan is to use P-38s, F4Us, and P-47s to clear the air of Japanese fighters to cover more landings in Timor. But today it seems the weather was bad and none of my fighters flew.

On Ponape I am reducing the forts down consistently but surprisingly I got worse odds:

Ground combat at Ponape (119,113)

Allied Deliberate attack

Attacking force 22682 troops, 425 guns, 404 vehicles, Assault Value = 728

Defending force 15504 troops, 278 guns, 20 vehicles, Assault Value = 296

Allied engineers reduce fortifications to 2

Allied adjusted assault: 789

Japanese adjusted defense: 845

Allied assault odds: 1 to 2 (fort level 2)

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), forts(+), disruption(-), experience(-)
Attacker: fatigue(-)

Japanese ground losses:
451 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 37 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 8 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 11 disabled
Guns lost 17 (1 destroyed, 16 disabled)
Vehicles lost 4 (1 destroyed, 3 disabled)

Allied ground losses:
1065 casualties reported
Squads: 6 destroyed, 122 disabled
Non Combat: 2 destroyed, 10 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 13 disabled
Vehicles lost 13 (3 destroyed, 10 disabled)

Assaulting units:
43rd Infantry Division
40th Infantry Division
I US Amphib Corps

Defending units:
2nd Amphibious Brigade
7th Guard ADU Coastal Gun Battalion
Combined 8th SNLF
24th Ind.Mixed Brigade
4th ADU Coastal Gun Regiment
Ponape Naval Fortress
28th JAAF AF Bn
4th Base Force
8th JAAF AF Coy

I will probably give them a day to rest before launching another attack.

One piece of good news is that recon confirms only a single unit on Wake; the Wake naval fortress with its big guns. But even with those big guns I have reason to believe that based off previous bombardments where none of my ships were hit that the Japanese are likely low on supply here. Today my invasion force of around 8,000 soldiers at Pearl Harbor started loading up to take the island. It's definitely going to be overkill but it won't hurt to get those units further west.

Meanwhile in the SoPac I finally prepare to take Tulagi with a large invasion force loading up at Nauru covered by the CentPac fleet which will move to the SoPac. Tulagi will be a key base for me since I have zero ports of size 7 or more between Brisbane and Pearl Harbor.

Posted: **Thu Jun 16, 2016 4:38 pm**

If you have some Cats in range you could use them to fly in the engineers. Seaplane runways repair themselves! [:)]

Matrix Games Forums

Straight Into the Teeth: A Story of Logistics, Patience, and Firepower

RE: Straight Into the Teeth: A Story of Blood, Patience, and Firepower

RE: Straight Into the Teeth: A Story of Blood, Patience, and Firepower

RE: Straight Into the Teeth: A Story of Blood, Patience, and Firepower

RE: Straight Into the Teeth: A Story of Blood, Patience, and Firepower

RE: Straight Into the Teeth: A Story of Blood, Patience, and Firepower

RE: Straight Into the Teeth: A Story of Blood, Patience, and Firepower

RE: Straight Into the Teeth: A Story of Blood, Patience, and Firepower

RE: Straight Into the Teeth: A Story of Blood, Patience, and Firepower

RE: Straight Into the Teeth: A Story of Blood, Patience, and Firepower

RE: Straight Into the Teeth: A Story of Blood, Patience, and Firepower

RE: Straight Into the Teeth: A Story of Blood, Patience, and Firepower

RE: Straight Into the Teeth: A Story of Blood, Patience, and Firepower

RE: Straight Into the Teeth: A Story of Blood, Patience, and Firepower

RE: Straight Into the Teeth: A Story of Blood, Patience, and Firepower

RE: Straight Into the Teeth: A Story of Blood, Patience, and Firepower

RE: Straight Into the Teeth: A Story of Blood, Patience, and Firepower

RE: Straight Into the Teeth: A Story of Blood, Patience, and Firepower

RE: Straight Into the Teeth: A Story of Blood, Patience, and Firepower

RE: Straight Into the Teeth: A Story of Blood, Patience, and Firepower

RE: Straight Into the Teeth: A Story of Blood, Patience, and Firepower